A solution for the homosexual hating florists

The argument I have read in some jurisdictions is that the service the business is fundamentally providing is precisely the same so the 'ceremony' is irrelevant. You are allowed to refuse to serve weddings, but you may not decide to refuse to serve only same sex weddings because that is discriminatory based on sexual orientation. You may disagree, and so may some appellate courts, but I understand that is the position that a couple of civil rights commissions have taken. I don't know if that is 'systematic discrimination' whatever that is. Maybe you mean systemic discrimination? you'll have to show that 'systematic discrimination' is contrary to some law when a civil rights commission engages in it. Are systems a protected class of some sort?

 

Then you don't know crap.

I'm pushing 60, and I remember the first time I met a gay man. My dad and I found him barb-wired to a tree on the back-side of some property we were leasing.
Luckily, he was still alive. But that's when I realized just how petty and vindictive humans can be. So when some dude on the internet tries to tell me I'm exaggerating, all I have to do is remember the look at that guy's face to know that you, Jon Snow - know nothing.

 

You mean like when CEO's of left-leaning companies sent emails to all staff after the US election, asking for Trump voters to resign? That sort of thing?

 

You seem to be implying that if only you can prove that left-wingers do it also - then whatever happens is OK.
Bull S**t. It's possible for BOTH sides to be wrong on an issue - so stop with the petty, 5th grade rhetoric - "they did it too," is not a grown up response.

 

So if I want to celebrate Adolf Hitler's birthday, it's the same as celebrating any other birthday and a jewish bakery should be forced to make a cake and a Jewish florist should be forced to provide flower arrangements?

But is that right? Before you go on about what the law is, I already know. This isn't a discussion about what the law is, it's about whether it's right or not.

So what?

You don't know what systematic discrimination is? It's clear you know what discrimination means, do you really not know what systematic means?

No, I don't mean systemic that's why I didn't type that word.

No, it already was back in 1964, that's why we have the civil rights act.

What?

 

Only if you ignore history - which seems to be your mantra.
You cannot even be honest enough to truthfully answer a simple question.

Do you believe you are fooling anyone that doesn't already agree with you, no, the answer is no.


Since you believe so sincerely in the free market, should I be able to deny housing or employment to a Christian if they display religious symbols? That is what you are advocating.

Should public agencies be able to do that services, or agencies that receive text payer assistance? Where is the line, is there a line?

 

LOL, I do not believe you.

 

Don't care.

 

Advice for homosexual-hating florists: YOU'RE IN THE WRONG INDUSTRY!

Jeezuz, what did you expect ?

 

As I have answered many, many times in response to being asked many, many times those exact same questions -

If there are private property rights (and private property is not just your material items such as a house, business, car, but also your time, skills, energy, labor, and body) then you have the right to do with them as you will with respect to other peoples property rights.

If you want to deny the use of your time and labor to Christians, then that is your right. A business can certainly refuse to serve or employ Christians, or muslims, or gays, or "progressives", etc.

A private business can also decide to only serve only Christians, or muslims, or gays, or "progressives", etc.

That does not mean that all businesses will suddenly refuse to serve all gays, or blacks, or Christians. People believing that extreme simply shows a persons deep irrational mistrust of people.

The government is another matter - it is funded by the people, its power is on loan from the people, and it must not discriminate against people. The government must operate as if it has on a blindfold, it must operate strictly within its enumerated powers.

A private entity that receives govt funding to perform a govt task is an extension of the govt in that task, and must operate free of all discrimination within the strict boundaries of that govt funded task. But the real question with private organizations funded by the govt is whether they are actually constitutional.

 

I think they cook it in a pressure cooker now...

 

See above

 

That you still don't know what systematic means? Why?

 

Pressure cooker with boiling oil

 

Wow you really can't admit that you have been using the wrong phrase and got caught by someone who happened to know the right one. Its a detail requiring a miniscule adjustment in how you spell it, Polydectes. You are too stubborn just to be stubborn. This is going to be an utterly unredeeming discussion. .

 

Well have yourself a cookie

You're piddling with semantics to avoid the point.

 

I actually googled this new phrase 'systematic discrimination' to be sure I wasn't missing something..

if you want to get back on the broader topic this works better than copping an arrogant attitude because you are about to be proven wrong, "Oops, I guess you're right, it is systemic discrimination, now why do you think it ought to be right as opposed to just legal..."

You make a guy who is right, want to rub it in....and in... with extensive links and and a smarmy tone . Next time before you pretend someone else is stupid, make sure you know what your are talking about. I am done here for now.

 

That argument goes way beyond anti-discrimination laws though. To keep to your principle, you’d need to completely eliminate advertising laws, health and safety laws, import/export laws, employee rights. Basically anything that involves use of the businesses resources, the business alone would have the unconditional say on how things happen.

It isn’t at the moment and hasn’t been for a long time. Good luck finding any kind of support in the US for scrapping all the laws protecting Christians from discrimination. That isn’t what the people actually arguing these cases involving homosexuals want.

No suddenly but you’d be most certainly creating an environment where certain people are effectively pushed out of whole areas of society. That’s what happens where this kind of discrimination is widespread, including in America’s own past. If there wasn’t deep irrational mistrust of people, we wouldn’t have the discrimination in the first place.

Why is it so bad for government to discriminate that you wouldn’t even consider extending your freedom principles to them yet so acceptable for private business that you won’t accept any kind of restrictions at all for them? I don’t see how the principles you’re promoting could object to democratically agreed government discrimination.

 

Sometimes the best answers are the simple ones.

 

Then I agree with you, I believe public accommodation laws have always been a blatant attack on the rights of the proprietor as they are being forced to do work for another. Even if they are fairly compensated this is still involuntary servitude - something directly prohibited in the constitution.

Most people that are pushing for public accommodation exceptions want to do so only in reguards to homosexuals while keeping them for themselves, excluding only one specific party, in my opinion, is also unconstitutional. They also are of the mind set that it's perfectly OK to deny governmental services (again, only to gay people).

As long as all groups are treated equally then I support everything you posted

 

Is it your property or not? If the government can tell you what to do with your property, and then take it from you if you don't obey, then it really is not your property. And just as has happened over the past 60 years, once the government has the power to tell you what to do in one area, it will expand that power to all areas.

Advertising is not affected.

Health and safety is still an issue - you cannot use your property to harm another persons property - and property includes your body.

Import & export laws would be abolished unless there are true national security issues.

Employee rights would largely go away, such as the anti-discrimination rules.

<>

Why do we need laws protecting Christians? Because of the over-reach of other laws and the excessive power of the govt. The obvious example is the demand that LGBT's be a protected class, which is in direct conflict with the freedom of religion, as a result of LGBT's "rights" laws the govt then needed to create additional laws to clarify religious rights.

<>

It is so bad for the government to discriminate because the government wields exceptional power, it can become the all powerful ultimate dictatorial authority just as it has become today. How many times have you heard politicians and others claim the govt needs to engage in social engineering, that tax laws are intended to manipulate people to achieve some social goal, that the education curriculum needs to reflect certain social and political ideas in order to push the social structure in some direction (such as pro-LGBT)?

When a particular group gains political power, do you want them to use the govt to impose a minority social structure on all Americans? Do you want Southern Baptists requiring all businesses to close on Sunday and all people must attend church, or muslims imposing sharia, or LGBT's making Christianity illegal?

 

Everything would have to contain a disclaimer as to not violate advertising laws. I could see it now - McDonals next exit, open 24/7 *except to blacks, we don't serve them

What a wonderful country this would be

These types of changes will never occur - that's why it is only a matter before or of these cases reach SCOTUS and is struck down, just like with the Lovings Hotel case with the black patron. As long as I am not forced to provide services who is able to deny service to me then the law would be fair. I'm not saying it is morally correct but that's another discussion all together.

Boycotts are very powerful things, I say let them be bigots openly - I'd like to know who no longer gets mine or my family's money.

The person being discriminated against pays for those governmental services, while I agree promoting discrimination in the private sphere will do nothing but divide us more as a nation, there is a contrasting difference,

 

Sure it is, false advertising is illegal

Employee rights are protected on every level of government, both federally and state. They would not go away nor should they.

Most public accommodation laws in the workplace are brought by religious persons. Want to display your cross at work - fired. Want to invite people to your church - fired. Christians would not be excluded from this wave of injustice you think would be so wonderful. People are beginning to have a bit of animosity towards Christians, they may not be as exempt as you believe they are.

Blue laws already exist in many southern areas like Tennessee. They prevent the sale of certain goods for religious purposes.

 

That’s just semantics. I’m talking about practical reality. In any structured society there will be rules and those rules need to be enforced.

It is if it’s on my property. If I buy stock from China and write “Made in America” on it, by your principle the government couldn’t and shouldn’t care.

I’m not talking about actively causing harm, just not being required to use my property to protect other people. Presumably they should have to use their own property to do that.

And import/export taxes? And immigration laws?

So you want to go back to the employment environment that existed prior to any worker’s rights being established?

No, largely to protect them from other Christians. These laws are about conflicts between private individuals, not with government (there are separate structures prohibiting government from discriminating).

Pretty much all rights and responsibilities come in to conflict with each other or raise contradictions. That’s my whole point here. You’re proposing an unquestionable right to do what you want with your own property but are largely ignoring the conflicts with other rights that brings with it and the practical implications of implementing your principle to the extent you (think you) want. If it were as straight forwards as you’d like to imagine, this wouldn’t be a long running topic of discussion in the first place.

Of course not. I don’t want groups with socio-political power to develop the ability to effectively exclude certain groups of people from mainstream society either. That’s why I’m presenting a rational middle ground rather than any of the extremes you’re talking about.

 

You got me on semantics, I guess that means you can't argue the subject.