Discussion in 'United States' started by Le Chef, Jun 6, 2019.
First you beg for my opinion - now you claim you don't care. Make up your mind !
Now you are being obtuse, but allow me to educate those reading your bigoted statements:
The Masterpiece baker didn't refuse to sell off the shelf items to gay people. Neither did the florist. Neither did I. So the argument Rahl falsely attributes to me, to the florist, and to the baker (that merchants are free to illegally discriminate in the provision of off the shelf items), is a strawman. Because it wasn't made. Savvy?
To Rahl, it might benefit you to actually read the Masterpiece case, all the way through to the end, including the concurrences. You clearly either have not read it or you cannot understand it. (Spoiler alert: the baker won.)
Now this is an actual strawman. I never made any of the arguments you’ve attributed to me.
I’m very familiar with the case. I pointed out why he won. I also pointed out that it’s a narrow ruling, and only applies to artistic expression. Not goods or services normally sold.
Who begged for your opinion? Where? Tell me.
You didn't misspell anything. You misused a word. Own your mistakes. It won't kill you to do so.
The poster I was responding to. Why do you care ?
You are "familiar" with it like a burned dog is "familiar" with fire. Understanding it is a different proposition. You don't understand it. Reading it would be a good start. (Not the highlights. The whole thing.)
Also, you have descended into rank mendacity. Claiming that you are "educating" anyone in stating that merchants cannot legally discriminate in selling off the shelf items to homosexuals in Colorado and Washington assumes that someone claims the contrary. Whoever you imagine it to be, it is not I, nor the baker, nor the florist.
Because I suspect you are lying. I enjoy catching liars.
I’ve read it. I understand it. It’s why I keep correcting you.
Nor did I claim you did. I’m just pointing out the facts. I know you don’t like those.
I am going to agree overall, but not on the basis of First Amendment rights. Freedom of Association and Private Property Rights are the basis by which a private business should be allowed to decide whom they will and will not do business with.
States cannot override Federal law, not violate the US Constitution. They can further limits. Such as set maximums and minimums higher and lower respectively. Now before you start citing all the new weed laws decriminalizing or making it legal, the only thing that does is make it so that the state is not going to be involved in any enforcement. Weed is still illegal across the US per federal law. You still take a chance, slim though it may be, of being arrested on a federal charge.
My end goal is that anyone (who owns a business, not employees) can deny anyone else service or product based on any reason. Don't want to serve Christians, or whites, or males, or people with red hair? That actually is your right, despite the law. But this is not the first time we have had laws that violate rights.
Right now the answer is yes. What you can't currently do is refuse due to those factors. Just because they are handicapped or black doesn't prevent them from being refused service.
That’s what was meant by that, I am not making that gay people should be unable to be refused service for alternative reasons.
Can businesses deny services to those people only because of their inclusion of the particular group?
In that case the law would be fair. Saying that you can deny services to gay people but not Christians is what I disagree with as it is unjust and unequal. While I don’t agree that open discrimination will strengthen America the law should be equal.
I believe that there are three distinct bakery case with rulings and the sum up more or less as follows.
One case did indeed get overturn based on how the local judiciary treated the business owner and no comment on the legitimacy of his or the plaintiff's claims. This is the case you are describing.
Another was ruled in favor of the baker because the plaintiff wanted a very specific gay themed cake. The Court ruled that the baker was allowed to refuse on artistic and religious basis, because of the specific alterations. This, I believe, is the case Le Chef is referencing, thinking it the same case as yours.
The third, which I believe is actually chronologically the first to go to SCOTUS, ruled for the plaintiff, because they were buying an off the self product with no alterations by the baker.
Your post could easily have been interpreted as such which why I responded as I did. Honestly, I was pretty sure you knew what I wrote, but that doesn't mean others would or interpret your post correctly.
And why yes they can. Me whether they are allowed to by law or not is another matter.
Has it ever been said that one can't deny business to Christian, at least in a context of saying other discrimination should be allowed? I do know of a case that had a business owner kick Christians out based upon those customers' religious beliefs.
Don't blame me for your paranoia - if you are going to make claims - back them up.
No, actually, it is for you to show that anyone begged you for anything. If it is there, show me and you will have done your duty to your Chef.
~ Le Chef
Disagree all you want, get the 1st amendment changed if you don't like it..........good luck!
No need to change it, it doesn’t give people that claim to worship Zeus the right to override laws — and the first applies to congress only, it’s literally the first word.
All laws must treat all Americans equally as per the 14th
Thank you for that, but I was actually referring to the first case you mention.
Masterpiece's owner Jack Phillips, who is a Christian, declined their cake request, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for marriages of gay couples owing to his Christian religious beliefs, although the couple could but other baked goods in the store.
I have enough of a problem telling a merchant he must create anything that he doesn't want to create, "creation" suggesting use of his labor, knowledge and skills to fabricate something original, i.e., special, that he doesn't want to fabricate. I won't take seriously any claim that this is the same thing as selling an off the shelf item made for whomever and whatever.
But, authoritarian as their naked decision already was, the thug commissioners decided to deride Phillip's personal religious belief in the process.
They compared the baker's beliefs to defense of slavery and the holocaust. Nice.
Think they were finished? Not on your life.
The cake shop was ordered not only to provide cakes to same-sex marriages, but to "change its company policies, provide 'comprehensive staff training' regarding public accommodations discrimination, and provide quarterly reports for the next two years regarding steps it has taken to come into compliance and whether it has turned away any prospective customers."
Anyone here think this was an appropriate remedy, even those of you who think he violated the law? If you do, you are un-American in my opinion.
Down with unelected bureaucrats who create nothing, ever, yet presume to tell real creators what to do and how to do it. "And don't forget to send us your quarterly reports. We'll be watching you."
Don't tell me you still haven't familiarized yourself with the incorporation doctrine, even though you ironically cite the 14th amendment above. I even gave you a link.
I appreciate the spirit of your posts and sympathy for liberty interests. But when we invoke the right to Freedom of Association in the USA, we are invoking the First Amendment, though possibly without realizing it:
"While the United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama that freedom of association is an essential part of freedom of speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others."
Even with incorporation, religious beliefs do not overrule law to make other citizens unequal which would be unconstitutional as per the 14th. Religious freedom does not meet the ability to impose those beliefs unto others. This is why religious exemptions to immunizations are being struck down across the country and why Muslims flying planes into buildings is not a protected freedom of religious belief.
Irregardless what SCOTUS has ruled — which means a new ruling would upend the original — the first 150 years of our country saw a distinction between the federal government and state governments. The only ironic thing here is the same people that are “states rights” want the federal government to overrule state laws.
Separate names with a comma.