colorado law

Supreme Court will hear case of baker who refused service to gay couples on religious grounds

  • The United States Supreme Court announced on Monday that it will take on the case of whether a Colorado baker can legally refuse to serve same-sex couples on religious grounds, the Associated Press reported.
  • The court will not hear the case until after its next term begins, in October. The case will likely serve as a landmark decision regarding the rights of private businesses to refuse to provide services for same-sex weddings, Politico reported on Monday.
  • The case involves the owner of Colorado bakery Masterpiece Cakeshop, Jack Phillips, who says his free-speech rights and freedom of religion were violated when he was found to have broken a Colorado anti-discrimination law by refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple in 2012. Read more (6/26/17)
Amid Charges By Former Law Student On Gender Equality, Former Clerks Defend Gorsuch
A student who took an ethics course under Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch at the University of Colorado Law School said he expressed controversial views on questions of gender discrimination.

A former law student of Judge Neil Gorsuch, President Trump’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, alleges that in a course she took from Gorsuch at the University of Colorado Law School last year, the judge told his class that employers, specifically law firms, should ask women seeking jobs about their plans for having children and implied that women manipulate companies starting in the interview stage to extract maternity benefits.
Under siege by liberals: the town where everyone owns a gun
Nucla, Colorado, was founded by socialists before becoming a mining town. Now, as wealthy liberals with different values encroach, the town is fighting for its economic survival
By Lois Beckett

At a Blues in the Park night in Naturita, a stranger visiting the town, red-faced and somewhat inebriated, cornered me and began ranting about freeloading immigrants and American values.

“This country wasn’t built by socialists!” he told me.

“Actually,” I said politely, “this area, right here, this was built by socialists.”

In 1893, a financial crisis devastated thousands of companies and caused the unemployment rate to spike above 10% for several years. Workers lost their homes and families went hungry. According to one history of the town, a group of Denver families who had become homeless and who were “united in their wish to escape tyrannical landlords” provided the impetus. In 1894, a group of 10 idealists in Denver formed the Colorado Co-Operative Company, with the goal of moving into the wilderness to create a new community – a place “where equality and service rather than greed and competition should be the basis”.

The utopians spent nearly10 years digging an 18-mile irrigation canal through the arid landscape to bring water from the San Miguel river to the dry hill where they planned to build their colony. Money was tight, food scarce and the workers labored for shares in the eventual water rights in the canal they were digging by hand. To outsiders, the whole plan seemed like madness: how could anyone build a major irrigation canal without any capital?

To expand their group of workers and supporters, the cooperative society established a newspaper, the Altrurian, to share news about their progress nationwide. It covered the day-to-day debates, including updates on the type of cabbages and lettuces that had been planted to feed the workers, as well as features on vegetarianism, marriage and violent labor strikes in other states.

The paper advertised in-person cooperative club meetings across the country, including in Brooklyn, and was not too proud to beg for subscription pennies. “If you have received one cent’s worth of information from this week’s Altrurian, and are not already a subscriber, can you not afford to be a subscriber?” it prompted.

When the ditch was finished, the utopians named their town Nucla after the word nucleus, a strange premonition of the town’s nuclear future. Socialism broke down only a few years later. In 1914, Nucla voted down its “single tax” system, in which the cooperative company owned all the land in town and paid one tax on it to the government, in favor of private ownership.

also the pictures in this article confirm easy pete exists irl

Taylor Swift Must Face Jury Trial Over DJ's Contract Interference Claim

The pop star will be in Colorado in August to face off against former KYGO radio host David Mueller.

Taylor Swift has a date with a jury in August.

The pop star accuses former KYGO radio host David Mueller of groping her at a backstage meet-and-greet. “It was completely intentional, and I have never been so sure of anything in my life,” testified Swift at a deposition.

In turn, Mueller denies the assault and battery claim and contends that Swift and her team got him fired for no good reason.

Both versions will be heard by a jury at a nine-day trial beginning on August 7 as a Colorado federal judge on Wednesday partially rejected Swift’s summary judgment bid to defeat Mueller’s claims. Mueller won’t move ahead on slander, but he’s being given the opportunity to make a case for tortious interference.

“Having reviewed these evidentiary materials, the Court finds that the central and genuine dispute remains,” writes U.S. District Court judge William Martinez in the opinion (read here). “Certain witnesses’ testimony tends to corroborate Swift’s version of events, and Mueller points to other evidence that he argues shows inconsistencies in Swift’s story. None of this changes the reality that if a jury accepts Mueller’s version of the facts, then it must substantially reject Swift’s version, and vice versa. In ruling on summary judgment, it is not the Court’s role to resolve this dispute.”

However, the judge did have to weigh whether Mueller presented enough evidence to meet the elements of a proper claim of intention interference with contractual relations.

Martinez writes that given the Swift team’s familiarity with KYGO, a jury could conclude that she and other defendants — her mother, Andrea, and Swift’s radio promotions director, Frank Bell — reasonably should have known that Mueller had some form of employment contract.

The judge then examines communications between Swift’s camp and KYGO and finds a jury could come to the conclusion they acted with an intent to cause his termination. As for whether there was any improper interference via economic pressure, the judge nods to deposition testimony that KYGO may have feared action by Swift and says a jury should decide this question.

“Second, treating Mueller’s testimony as true, a jury that found he was wrongly accused might, as a consequence, also conclude that Defendants acted with reckless disregard for the veracity of their accusations, or based on a grossly inadequate investigation,” writes the judge.

Martinez adds, “To be clear, the Court views this as a close question. There would appear to be nothing improper about Swift—or any other person—making an honest report to an entity with which she does business that one of its employees assaulted or harassed her. Indeed, in the undersigned’s view, the policy of the law should encourage the reporting of actual assaults, not attach liability to it… Nevertheless, in considering the present record, the law requires the Court to treat Mueller’s version of the facts as true at this stage of litigation, and therefore to view the entire record from a standpoint that views Mueller as having been wrongly accused.”

The judge also rejects the argument at this stage that Swift can’t be held liable for Mueller’s termination because she was not the cause of it. Swift argued that it was KYGO’s independent investigation that triggered the firing, but Martinez says when viewing the evidence most favorably to Mueller, “the record does not reflect a truly independent investigation,” and that under Colorado law, proximate cause needn’t be a prerequisite to liability for intentional interference with contract.

Swift does get one victory (or two, if one wants to be generous to her).

The judge decides to throw out Mueller’s separate claims for slander per se and slander per quod.

The radio DJ put forward in an amended complaint that Swift’s statements about his conduct were false and how those statements caused harm to his reputation, profession and standing in the community. The problem for him is that there was a one-year statute of limitations on slander claims. Mueller argued that after Swift filed her own claims, it gave him another shot.

“Put another way, Mueller asks the Court to treat his slander claims as ‘counter-counterclaims,’ responsive to Swift’s assault and battery claims,” writes the judge, who thinks that’s a bad idea because it will allow clever lawyers to beat time limits. “[T]he Court rejects Mueller’s interpretation because it would invite undue litigation gamesmanship, allowing parties to file successive rounds of ‘revived’ counter- claims, counter-counterclaims, counter-counter-counterclaims, etc., even they were asserted further and further outside the applicable limitations period. That perverse result would be contrary to the recognized purposes of enforcing limitations periods.”

The judge is also requiring all parties — including Swift — to be present during the entirety of the jury trial. Expect Swift in Colorado this August.

Colorado Cops Switch Message To Safe Marijuana Use

Breaking from decades of “Just Say No”-type messaging about marijuana use, Colorado law enforcement officials are starting a new campaign designed to promote safe marijuana use.The revised campaign starts this weekend, when tens of thousands are expected at public rallies and concerts in observation of the 4/20 marijuana holiday. A few things to know about the new effort, along with some backstory:


The Colorado Department of Transportation is taking its campaign to the demographic most likely to use pot and then drive, according to surveys. That’s men aged 21 to 34.The agency will be at cannabis festivals, concerts and celebrations this weekend. But instead of handing out warnings, they’re handing out snacks branded with reminders to munch, not drive, after smoking pot.The state Department of Transportation also installed free arcade games at dispensaries loaded with messages not to drive after smoking.


It’s far from certain whether legalizing marijuana leads to more stoned drivers on the road. The data is so limited that both opponents and supporters of legalization are forced to make generalizations.Colorado didn’t track marijuana-related impaired driving arrests before the drug was made legal in 2012.

Twelve percent of DUIs issued statewide last year were for marijuana impairment, not alcohol or other drugs, according to the Colorado State Patrol. And of the 440 automobile fatalities in Colorado, 54 drivers tested positive for marijuana. (A positive result meant the driver had used marijuana recently, but not necessarily that they were driving while impaired. Pot can be detected by drug tests for weeks, whereas water-soluble alcohol dissipates in the blood within hours.)

Nationally, more drivers appear to be using marijuana and other drugs. In the nationwide 2013-14 Roadside Survey for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 8.6 percent of weekend nighttime drivers tested positive for marijuana’s psychoactive ingredient, THC. That was a 48 percent increase from 2007. State-by-state data was not available.


Colorado safety campaigns launched last year to coincide with the beginning of recreational marijuana sales offended some marijuana users as condescending scare tactics. Especially irritating to them was a public-health campaign aimed at minors. Using the tag line “Don’t Be a Lab Rat,” the campaign consisted of giant cages stationed outside schools and libraries. At least one school district refused to allow the installation, joining critics who said the campaign was reminiscent of Drug War-era “Just Say No” messages.

Colorado authorities have since scrapped the “lab rat” campaign and started a series of education ads thought to be the first pot-related government messages not to discourage using the drug. Instead, those ads tell marijuana users not to use the drug in public or take it out of state.


October 18, 2016

Ask yourself this most important question!

Why were GMOs very quietly but deliberately unleashed onto America’s grocery shelves in the mid 1990’s without OUR knowledge and consent?

I have yet to find a legitimate answer to this question, no matter how much I get trolled by Monsanto’s minions on social media.

It is no coincidence that big biotech, major food corporations, and government agencies like the FDA, USDA and EPA are no longer trusted by a majority of Americans. Would you rely on people that have intentionally poisoned you for decades? Why would anyone blindly put their trust in corporations and governments who have proven beyond all reasonable doubt that they are paid liars like the media that sells those lies to you every second of every day?

Where are the most basic questions about GMO health and environmental safety that any rational individual can ask? I can tell you that the answers are NOT found in any 90 day, short-term rat health study that big biotech like Monsanto passes off to the FDA for rubberstamp approval! Why were these GMOs so quickly approved by a government agency that is supposed to protect us?

What about our Congress? The DARK Act was passed by both the senate and house. Then, the backstabbing of consumers (that’s all of us) was given a final jab at the hearts of all Americans when our Traitor-in-Chief signed the DARK Act that our elected leaders passed, despite the fact that about 90% of Americans wanted and still want transparent GMO labeling. You will hear the same old, tired excuses from food companies that it costs too much to change a label, but they do it whenever they ship their GMO, poison-laden food products overseas. They have to; otherwise, their GMO junk will never make it further than a Boston tea party.

Why don’t the corporations that ship food and beverages to foreign countries every day at least label these genetically modified products that are made in the U.S.A.? Doesn’t it seem a bit suspicious to you that these same major corporations, like Coca Cola and Kraft, funneled millions of dollars to the Grocery Manufacturers Association, or GMA, to defeat GMO labeling laws in Colorado, Washington State, Oregon and California (twice)? In the meantime, biotech brat Monsanto stole Vermont’s GMO labeling law, and turned it into a weak federal labeling law (the DARK Act) that has the same eight, glaring loopholes in it that Vermont’s state GMO labeling bill had before our elected leaders and president deserted us, again, by signing this sinister act of American betrayal.

I am sure you are wondering at this point how much of what I stated is true. Where are the facts? They have been in front of you the entire time. I repeatedly point them out in my articles and social media posts. Other basic human rights activists have been doing the same for years. For big biotech, big Ag and big food, this is all just a money game. The losers in the end are the confused consumers who willingly keep shoving “glyphotoxic” (glyphosate and genotoxic) crap down their throats and also into the mouths of their children and grandchildren.

So, ask yourself all of the questions that I asked again, starting with the first one. Can you come up with any simple answers?

Or, maybe you already have that bitter taste of betrayal that consumes America’s barely beating heart.

John Loeffler
-Calling Out Corruption


Federal Complaints:

  • Penn State University
  • Dartmouth College
  • Harvard Law School
  • Princeton University
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  • Amherst College 
  • Vanderbilt University
  • University of California, Berkeley
  • University of Southern California
  • Occidental College
  • University of Colorado Boulder
  • Swarthmore College
  • Hanover College
  • University of Connecticut
  • Cedarville University
  • Emerson College
  • University of Virginia
  • Carnegie Mellon University

Completed Investigations:

  • University of Montana
  • Yale University

Controversy over handling complaints:

  • University of Notre Dame
  • University of Missouri
  • Oklahoma State University
  • University of Indianapolis
  • Florida State University
  • Columbia University




i’m gonna be honest with u, i never thought i’d live to see the day that bud would be recreationally legalized anywhere in the U.S.

they don’t call Denver the mile high city for no reason.

External image

Excerpted from 'A Mother's Reckoning: Living in the Aftermath of Tragedy' by Sue Klebold, published by Crown.


“There’s Been a Shooting at Columbine High School”

APRIL 20, 1999, 12:05 P.M.

I was in my office in downtown Denver, getting ready to leave for a meeting about college scholarships for students with disabilities, when I noticed the red message light on my desk phone flashing.

I checked, on the off chance my meeting had been canceled, but the message was from my husband, Tom, his voice tight, ragged, urgent.

“Susan—­this is an emergency! Call me back immediately!”

Read at your own risk and be spoiled under the cut.  :)

Keep reading
This Elderly Woman's Heartbreaking Story Proves America's Marijuana Laws Are Broken

Weed may be legal in the state of Colorado, but federal laws are as strict as ever. Lea Olivier, an 87-year-old Dolores resident, found that out the hard way when she was evicted from her rent-subsidized apartment after a compliance officer claimed neighbors had smelled weed, citing United States Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD) regulations against illicit drug use.