Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And it is your thinking which is clearly on the wrong side of history.That's the most contradictory post I've seen here so far. A business owner may not want to promote homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle and turn down the work based on his or her values. I've turned down work for Planned Parenthood for principles, something your thinking clearly lacks.I do believe that businesses should be allowed to conduct business with anyone they want to but I also believe that a business which refuses service to anyone simply because they are gay are incredibly stupid and they should re-examine the reason why they are in business to begin with. Money is money and if a business is going to turn down a dollar simply because it is pink then it deserves all the boycott, ridicule and derision the gay community and it's supporters can muster, a practice also guaranteed by law.
Not everyone, business people included, considers money the most important thing on Earth. If the gay crusaders want to boycott with their friends that's a good thing, it spares everyone grief. They can ridicule and deride in private all they want but if it's taken into the public arena they open themselves up to slander and defamation lawsuits. Also a right. The sword cuts both ways, most of us learn this by the time we are 13 years old.
A wedding cake is food, for a wedding reception. If you can discriminate against gays having a wedding reception, you can discriminate against gays coming into your restaurant for supper, or coming to your bar for drinks,
or renting your apartment, or shopping at your store, or, for that matter, you can refuse to hire a person you know is gay, just because he or she is gay.
That is not the way the law and the Constitution are going to work in this country.
You lose. Move if you can't tolerate it.
Then you agree that a Jewish deli should be force by law to serve ham to celebrate Hitler's birthday at a Nazi rally, right?
Nah, baking a cake is all we ask. That's his job right, how he makes his living?And that is the crux of the matter. The left believes that "their" ideology is good. everyone els's is bad. So yes, they WOULD have a Jew bake a Nazi a birthday cake AND fix his shower head.
You're dealing with pure evil here.
The left would not only force a Jew to bake a Nazi celebration cake but attend the Nazi celebration too.
Huh? We are discussing the relationship. Relationships aren't people. There is no Constitutional requirement for anyone to honor gay relationships, that's why the laws are created in various liberal locales.Are homosexuals not people? Are they not capable of US citizenship?
A wedding cake is food, for a wedding reception. If you can discriminate against gays having a wedding reception, you can discriminate against gays coming into your restaurant for supper, or coming to your bar for drinks,
or renting your apartment, or shopping at your store, or, for that matter, you can refuse to hire a person you know is gay, just because he or she is gay.
That is not the way the law and the Constitution are going to work in this country.
You lose. Move if you can't tolerate it.
A little clarification here, yes any business can refuse service to any person. If they don't offer the product, they have a scheduling conflict, if the customer is rude and disruptive, etc...
However in Arizona it's the legislature - not the court - under it's 10th Amendment powers to regulate business within the State that says a business of Public Accommodation CANNOT refuse business based on Race, Color, National Origin/Ancestry, Sex, Religion/Creed, or Physical/Mental disability.
If a black man walks into a kosher deli and orders a ham sandwich - the black man can be refused because the deli does not serve ham.
On the other hand if the deli does service ham (they are non-kosher) and refuses to serve the black person because they are black - that violates the State law.
Get it?
(BTW - Public Accommodation laws have been upheld by the court, multple states and at the Federal level going back to Heartland of Atlanta Motel v. United States.
>>>>
Putting all of the legality aside for a moment, let me ask you an honest question:
Should a man give up his religious beliefs to a) run a business and b) adhere to public accommodation laws?
Public accommodation should not be infringed on by anyone's religious belief. The former is public, the latter is private.
Agenda, and it is forced acceptance.Nah, baking a cake is all we ask. That's his job right, how he makes his living?The left would not only force a Jew to bake a Nazi celebration cake but attend the Nazi celebration too.
What would stop the Nazi from baking the terrible awful?
This is why smart people will go to a different baker if they find one that "hates" them. Only idiots would force a baker that hates them to bake them a wedding cake. Either you think gays are congenitally stupid, or there is a fucking agenda involved here.
Putting all of the legality aside for a moment, let me ask you an honest question:
Should a man give up his religious beliefs to a) run a business and b) adhere to public accommodation laws?
It's up to him. Segregation of the races was defended on religious grounds in the past. Should religion have won that argument?
Carbine, I want people to be able to practice their faith in public, not just in private. Whomever made the religious argument to commit racism also bastardized the faith to carry out their inner xenophobia. The KKK and the Knights Templar did things like this to proselytize others. This on the other hand is completely different. White and Black are equal (sort of) but when it comes to the religious and the secular, the battle lines are being drawn.
Easy answer. How you live your faith is mostly a private matter. How you run your business is mostly a public one, when you serve the public that is. You don't have to give up anything more than you have to to work for someone else. If the boss says stop preaching, it's stop and compromise or hit the road. We can only allow for so much faith when the goal is business.A little clarification here, yes any business can refuse service to any person. If they don't offer the product, they have a scheduling conflict, if the customer is rude and disruptive, etc...
However in Arizona it's the legislature - not the court - under it's 10th Amendment powers to regulate business within the State that says a business of Public Accommodation CANNOT refuse business based on Race, Color, National Origin/Ancestry, Sex, Religion/Creed, or Physical/Mental disability.
If a black man walks into a kosher deli and orders a ham sandwich - the black man can be refused because the deli does not serve ham.
On the other hand if the deli does service ham (they are non-kosher) and refuses to serve the black person because they are black - that violates the State law.
Get it?
(BTW - Public Accommodation laws have been upheld by the court, multple states and at the Federal level going back to Heartland of Atlanta Motel v. United States.
>>>>
Putting all of the legality aside for a moment, let me ask you an honest question:
Should a man give up his religious beliefs to a) run a business and b) adhere to public accommodation laws?
If you work in my Agnostic Bookstore and I tell you to take the cross off, you can do it or you can vote with your feet. I'm not a church, I'm a business.
Our current secular state is what provides you with those rights. You are advocating a theocratic state that would deprive people of their rights.
@Derideo_Te
I never said a word about supporting a "theocratic state."
You dont need to.
The actions and positions you and others on the social right advocate are unquestionably predicated on subjective, errant religious dogma in violation of the Constitution.
There is no rational basis for your opposition to equal protection rights for gay Americans, for example; you seek to deny them their civil liberties based solely on the belief that being who they are violates your religious tenets, absent any objective, documented evidence in support, and pursuant to no proper legislative end.
In fact, public accommodations policy is in no way forcing pious businesspeople to act against their faith, the notion is ignorant nonsense, particularly with regard to Christianity, where there is no consensus that homosexuality is a sin, where the vast majority of gay Americans are Christian, and where scores of Christian denominations and churches welcome gay adherents.
And it is your thinking which is clearly on the wrong side of history.That's the most contradictory post I've seen here so far. A business owner may not want to promote homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle and turn down the work based on his or her values. I've turned down work for Planned Parenthood for principles, something your thinking clearly lacks.I do believe that businesses should be allowed to conduct business with anyone they want to but I also believe that a business which refuses service to anyone simply because they are gay are incredibly stupid and they should re-examine the reason why they are in business to begin with. Money is money and if a business is going to turn down a dollar simply because it is pink then it deserves all the boycott, ridicule and derision the gay community and it's supporters can muster, a practice also guaranteed by law.
Not everyone, business people included, considers money the most important thing on Earth. If the gay crusaders want to boycott with their friends that's a good thing, it spares everyone grief. They can ridicule and deride in private all they want but if it's taken into the public arena they open themselves up to slander and defamation lawsuits. Also a right. The sword cuts both ways, most of us learn this by the time we are 13 years old.
Two flaws in your post here: A) Planned Parenthood and homosexuality are two separate issues B) it isn't slander or defamation if the statements made in public are true.
We are talking about homosexuals here. A business which won't sell a hamburger or a pack of gum to a man because he's gay is a very stupid business indeed.
Why? So a Court can tell a private business HOW it must conduct itself? A private business can REFUSE SERVICE to anyone. Get it?
A little clarification here, yes any business can refuse service to any person. If they don't offer the product, they have a scheduling conflict, if the customer is rude and disruptive, etc...
However in Arizona it's the legislature - not the court - under it's 10th Amendment powers to regulate business within the State that says a business of Public Accommodation CANNOT refuse business based on Race, Color, National Origin/Ancestry, Sex, Religion/Creed, or Physical/Mental disability.
If a black man walks into a kosher deli and orders a ham sandwich - the black man can be refused because the deli does not serve ham.
On the other hand if the deli does service ham (they are non-kosher) and refuses to serve the black person because they are black - that violates the State law.
Get it?
(BTW - Public Accommodation laws have been upheld by the court, multple states and at the Federal level going back to Heartland of Atlanta Motel v. United States.
>>>>
Putting all of the legality aside for a moment, let me ask you an honest question:
Should a man give up his religious beliefs to a) run a business and b) adhere to public accommodation laws?
It's up to him. Segregation of the races was defended on religious grounds in the past. Should religion have won that argument?
Carbine, I want people to be able to practice their faith in public, not just in private. Whomever made the religious argument to commit racism also bastardized the faith to carry out their inner xenophobia. The KKK and the Knights Templar did things like this to proselytize others. This on the other hand is completely different. White and Black are equal (sort of) but when it comes to the religious and the secular, the battle lines are being drawn.
Part of religious freedom, one would assume, is the freedom from having others tell you whether or not you have 'bastardized' some particular faith.
I have to bring it up again, then. I hear from alot of people around here that we need to prevent Muslim-Americans from in any way bringing Sharia law into this country. Well, that is their RELIGION.
On what grounds would you prevent a Muslim community from establishing Sharia as the local law of that community, without denying them the religious freedom, private and public, that you keep on about?
Don't CARE. Since when did GAY=Black?Why? So a Court can tell a private business HOW it must conduct itself? A private business can REFUSE SERVICE to anyone. Get it?
A little clarification here, yes any business can refuse service to any person. If they don't offer the product, they have a scheduling conflict, if the customer is rude and disruptive, etc...
However in Arizona it's the legislature - not the court - under it's 10th Amendment powers to regulate business within the State that says a business of Public Accommodation CANNOT refuse business based on Race, Color, National Origin/Ancestry, Sex, Religion/Creed, or Physical/Mental disability.
If a black man walks into a kosher deli and orders a ham sandwich - the black man can be refused because the deli does not serve ham.
On the other hand if the deli does service ham (they are non-kosher) and refuses to serve the black person because they are black - that violates the State law.
Get it?
(BTW - Public Accommodation laws have been upheld by the court, multple states and at the Federal level going back to Heartland of Atlanta Motel v. United States.
>>>>
A little clarification here, yes any business can refuse service to any person. If they don't offer the product, they have a scheduling conflict, if the customer is rude and disruptive, etc...
However in Arizona it's the legislature - not the court - under it's 10th Amendment powers to regulate business within the State that says a business of Public Accommodation CANNOT refuse business based on Race, Color, National Origin/Ancestry, Sex, Religion/Creed, or Physical/Mental disability.
If a black man walks into a kosher deli and orders a ham sandwich - the black man can be refused because the deli does not serve ham.
On the other hand if the deli does service ham (they are non-kosher) and refuses to serve the black person because they are black - that violates the State law.
Get it?
(BTW - Public Accommodation laws have been upheld by the court, multple states and at the Federal level going back to Heartland of Atlanta Motel v. United States.
>>>>
Putting all of the legality aside for a moment, let me ask you an honest question:
Should a man give up his religious beliefs to a) run a business and b) adhere to public accommodation laws?
Honest answer, Public Accommodation laws should be repealed in general because they usurp the rights of free association and property of the business owner. Whether the views of the business owner are based on secular reasons or religious reasons is irrelevant under equal treatment. Public Accommodation laws should apply only to government entities and on the vary narrow area of emergency/life threatening medical treatment where failure to act will result in death.
A. If the business owner is making the decision and chooses for his business to discriminate, that's the end of it.
B. If an employee of the business owner fails to conduct business and complete their assigned duties in the prescribed manner - then it is an issue between the owner and the employee.
C. Government entities, and employees acting as a representative of the government, would be subject to Public Accommodation laws, as such they can make employee accommodation only so long as the tax paying, US Citizen isn't burdened.
D. As part of Public Accommodation laws applicable to government entities, those spending taxpayer dollars, would be restrictions on the ability to make purchases or enter into contracts with private companies that exhibit discriminatory behavior.
There would be no need for special exemptions for religious views.
Does that help?
>>>>
How can it be not correct if locales feel the need to pass further legislation?Iceweasle posted "There is no Constitutional requirement for anyone to honor gay relationships, that's why the laws are created in various liberal locales."
That is not correct.
Why? So a Court can tell a private business HOW it must conduct itself? A private business can REFUSE SERVICE to anyone. Get it?
A little clarification here, yes any business can refuse service to any person. If they don't offer the product, they have a scheduling conflict, if the customer is rude and disruptive, etc...
However in Arizona it's the legislature - not the court - under it's 10th Amendment powers to regulate business within the State that says a business of Public Accommodation CANNOT refuse business based on Race, Color, National Origin/Ancestry, Sex, Religion/Creed, or Physical/Mental disability.
If a black man walks into a kosher deli and orders a ham sandwich - the black man can be refused because the deli does not serve ham.
On the other hand if the deli does service ham (they are non-kosher) and refuses to serve the black person because they are black - that violates the State law.
Get it?
(BTW - Public Accommodation laws have been upheld by the court, multple states and at the Federal level going back to Heartland of Atlanta Motel v. United States.
>>>>
Putting all of the legality aside for a moment, let me ask you an honest question:
Should a man give up his religious beliefs to a) run a business and b) adhere to public accommodation laws?
A little clarification here, yes any business can refuse service to any person. If they don't offer the product, they have a scheduling conflict, if the customer is rude and disruptive, etc...
However in Arizona it's the legislature - not the court - under it's 10th Amendment powers to regulate business within the State that says a business of Public Accommodation CANNOT refuse business based on Race, Color, National Origin/Ancestry, Sex, Religion/Creed, or Physical/Mental disability.
If a black man walks into a kosher deli and orders a ham sandwich - the black man can be refused because the deli does not serve ham.
On the other hand if the deli does service ham (they are non-kosher) and refuses to serve the black person because they are black - that violates the State law.
Get it?
(BTW - Public Accommodation laws have been upheld by the court, multple states and at the Federal level going back to Heartland of Atlanta Motel v. United States.
>>>>
Putting all of the legality aside for a moment, let me ask you an honest question:
Should a man give up his religious beliefs to a) run a business and b) adhere to public accommodation laws?
Honest answer, Public Accommodation laws should be repealed in general because they usurp the rights of free association and property of the business owner. Whether the views of the business owner are based on secular reasons or religious reasons is irrelevant under equal treatment. Public Accommodation laws should apply only to government entities and on the vary narrow area of emergency/life threatening medical treatment where failure to act will result in death.
A. If the business owner is making the decision and chooses for his business to discriminate, that's the end of it.
B. If an employee of the business owner fails to conduct business and complete their assigned duties in the prescribed manner - then it is an issue between the owner and the employee.
C. Government entities, and employees acting as a representative of the government, would be subject to Public Accommodation laws, as such they can make employee accommodation only so long as the tax paying, US Citizen isn't burdened.
D. As part of Public Accommodation laws applicable to government entities, those spending taxpayer dollars, would be restrictions on the ability to make purchases or enter into contracts with private companies that exhibit discriminatory behavior.
There would be no need for special exemptions for religious views.
Does that help?
>>>>
Congress power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic class of activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established. See, e.g., Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 151. If Congress decides that the total incidence of a practice poses a threat to a national market, it may regulate the entire class.
GONZALES V. RAICH
A little clarification here, yes any business can refuse service to any person. If they don't offer the product, they have a scheduling conflict, if the customer is rude and disruptive, etc...
However in Arizona it's the legislature - not the court - under it's 10th Amendment powers to regulate business within the State that says a business of Public Accommodation CANNOT refuse business based on Race, Color, National Origin/Ancestry, Sex, Religion/Creed, or Physical/Mental disability.
If a black man walks into a kosher deli and orders a ham sandwich - the black man can be refused because the deli does not serve ham.
On the other hand if the deli does service ham (they are non-kosher) and refuses to serve the black person because they are black - that violates the State law.
Get it?
(BTW - Public Accommodation laws have been upheld by the court, multple states and at the Federal level going back to Heartland of Atlanta Motel v. United States.
>>>>
Putting all of the legality aside for a moment, let me ask you an honest question:
Should a man give up his religious beliefs to a) run a business and b) adhere to public accommodation laws?
Accommodating gay Americans whether compelled to do so by law or not does not constitute one to give up his religious belief, its a manifestation of ignorance and hate, not religious doctrine or dogma.
A little clarification here, yes any business can refuse service to any person. If they don't offer the product, they have a scheduling conflict, if the customer is rude and disruptive, etc...
However in Arizona it's the legislature - not the court - under it's 10th Amendment powers to regulate business within the State that says a business of Public Accommodation CANNOT refuse business based on Race, Color, National Origin/Ancestry, Sex, Religion/Creed, or Physical/Mental disability.
If a black man walks into a kosher deli and orders a ham sandwich - the black man can be refused because the deli does not serve ham.
On the other hand if the deli does service ham (they are non-kosher) and refuses to serve the black person because they are black - that violates the State law.
Get it?
(BTW - Public Accommodation laws have been upheld by the court, multple states and at the Federal level going back to Heartland of Atlanta Motel v. United States.
>>>>
Putting all of the legality aside for a moment, let me ask you an honest question:
Should a man give up his religious beliefs to a) run a business and b) adhere to public accommodation laws?
Accommodating gay Americans whether compelled to do so by law or not does not constitute one to give up his religious belief, its a manifestation of ignorance and hate, not religious doctrine or dogma.
Putting all of the legality aside for a moment, let me ask you an honest question:
Should a man give up his religious beliefs to a) run a business and b) adhere to public accommodation laws?
Honest answer, Public Accommodation laws should be repealed in general because they usurp the rights of free association and property of the business owner. Whether the views of the business owner are based on secular reasons or religious reasons is irrelevant under equal treatment. Public Accommodation laws should apply only to government entities and on the vary narrow area of emergency/life threatening medical treatment where failure to act will result in death.
A. If the business owner is making the decision and chooses for his business to discriminate, that's the end of it.
B. If an employee of the business owner fails to conduct business and complete their assigned duties in the prescribed manner - then it is an issue between the owner and the employee.
C. Government entities, and employees acting as a representative of the government, would be subject to Public Accommodation laws, as such they can make employee accommodation only so long as the tax paying, US Citizen isn't burdened.
D. As part of Public Accommodation laws applicable to government entities, those spending taxpayer dollars, would be restrictions on the ability to make purchases or enter into contracts with private companies that exhibit discriminatory behavior.
There would be no need for special exemptions for religious views.
Does that help?
>>>>
Public accommodations laws are predicated on Commerce Clause jurisprudence, not First Amendment free association or Fifth Amendment Takings Clause doctrine, consequently no rights are usurped or violated.
Business owners are subject to all manner of appropriate and Constitutional regulatory policies, including public accommodations laws, where to allow businesses to discriminate based solely on race, gender, or sexual orientation would clearly be disruptive to both the local market and markets nationwide, and where Congress is clearly authorized to protect markets from such disruptions:
Congress power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic class of activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established. See, e.g., Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 151. If Congress decides that the total incidence of a practice poses a threat to a national market, it may regulate the entire class.
GONZALES V. RAICH
Consequently to advocate for the repeal of public accommodations laws is both unwarranted and unwise.
