Baker must make gay cakes

[ogibillm]

I'm not in Denver or Seattle, here you can't force a baker to make a Bob and Joe wedding cake with two males on it, do you get it? That would be a gay cake, not that the cake itself engages in homosexual unions. Gays are not the only people who's opinions matter and pretending that there's a national law that says so is wrong. You are free to be as wrong as you want for as long as you want.

Your profile says "Washington State", the State Public Accommodation law is not just limited to Seattle. If you sell goods and services in the state you cannot refuse based on the customer being Alack or Asian, Christian or Jew, Mexican or Irish, male or female, gay or straight, etc.


RCW 49.60.215
Unfair practices of places of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, amusement — Trained dog guides and service animals.

(1) It shall be an unfair practice for any person or the person's agent or employee to commit an act which directly or indirectly results in any distinction, restriction, or discrimination, or the requiring of any person to pay a larger sum than the uniform rates charged other persons, or the refusing or withholding from any person the admission, patronage, custom, presence, frequenting, dwelling, staying, or lodging in any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement, except for conditions and limitations established by law and applicable to all persons, regardless of race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, status as a mother breastfeeding her child, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability: PROVIDED, That this section shall not be construed to require structural changes, modifications, or additions to make any place accessible to a person with a disability except as otherwise required by law: PROVIDED, That behavior or actions constituting a risk to property or other persons can be grounds for refusal and shall not constitute an unfair practice.

RCW 49.60.215: Unfair practices of places of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, amusement ? Trained dog guides and service animals.​

>>>>

Which is why Christians should leave such states and migrate to states that allow people to peacefully follow their conscience.

i'm a christian. not only is my conscience fine with the law, but my conscience would not allow me to discriminate based on any of those criteria.

don't speak so broadly or as if you have the authority to speak for all christians.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I'm not in Denver or Seattle, here you can't force a baker to make a Bob and Joe wedding cake with two males on it, do you get it? That would be a gay cake, not that the cake itself engages in homosexual unions. Gays are not the only people who's opinions matter and pretending that there's a national law that says so is wrong. You are free to be as wrong as you want for as long as you want.

Your profile says "Washington State", the State Public Accommodation law is not just limited to Seattle. If you sell goods and services in the state you cannot refuse based on the customer being Alack or Asian, Christian or Jew, Mexican or Irish, male or female, gay or straight, etc.


RCW 49.60.215
Unfair practices of places of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, amusement — Trained dog guides and service animals.

(1) It shall be an unfair practice for any person or the person's agent or employee to commit an act which directly or indirectly results in any distinction, restriction, or discrimination, or the requiring of any person to pay a larger sum than the uniform rates charged other persons, or the refusing or withholding from any person the admission, patronage, custom, presence, frequenting, dwelling, staying, or lodging in any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement, except for conditions and limitations established by law and applicable to all persons, regardless of race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, status as a mother breastfeeding her child, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability: PROVIDED, That this section shall not be construed to require structural changes, modifications, or additions to make any place accessible to a person with a disability except as otherwise required by law: PROVIDED, That behavior or actions constituting a risk to property or other persons can be grounds for refusal and shall not constitute an unfair practice.

RCW 49.60.215: Unfair practices of places of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, amusement ? Trained dog guides and service animals.​

>>>>

Which is why Christians should leave such states and migrate to states that allow people to peacefully follow their conscience.

The only State that I know of with no Public Accommodation law is Texas. Every other state that I know of has Public Accommodation laws that require businesses to provide equal services to selected groups. Specific groups at the state level may vary - for example above Washington includes veterans, so if your conscience says not to serve people that may have participated in a war then you will need to move.


If your "conscience" is to not serve blacks, or Muslims, or Mexicans - well you will have to move to a different country as there is a Federal Public Accommodation law that is applicable on all US territory.



>>>>

 

[Iceweasel]

Your profile says "Washington State", the State Public Accommodation law is not just limited to Seattle. If you sell goods and services in the state you cannot refuse based on the customer being Alack or Asian, Christian or Jew, Mexican or Irish, male or female, gay or straight, etc.

You can't read. I said Seattle has additional accommodation laws. If you are going to respond to someone slow the fuck down and read what they said.

RCW 49.60.215
Unfair practices of places of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, amusement — Trained dog guides and service animals.

(1) It shall be an unfair practice for any person or the person's agent or employee to commit an act which directly or indirectly results in any distinction, restriction, or discrimination, or the requiring of any person to pay a larger sum than the uniform rates charged other persons, or the refusing or withholding from any person the admission, patronage, custom, presence, frequenting, dwelling, staying, or lodging in any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement, except for conditions and limitations established by law and applicable to all persons, regardless of race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, status as a mother breastfeeding her child, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability: PROVIDED, That this section shall not be construed to require structural changes, modifications, or additions to make any place accessible to a person with a disability except as otherwise required by law: PROVIDED, That behavior or actions constituting a risk to property or other persons can be grounds for refusal and shall not constitute an unfair practice.

RCW 49.60.215: Unfair practices of places of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, amusement ? Trained dog guides and service animals.​

Yep, you can't kick out a gay man for being gay, like I said before. You don't have to print his gay wedding cards, unless you are in Seattle.

 

[Iceweasel]

The only State that I know of with no Public Accommodation law is Texas. Every other state that I know of has Public Accommodation laws that require businesses to provide equal services to selected groups.

If you "conscience" is to not serve blacks, or Muslims, or Mexicans - well you will have to move to a different country as there is a Federal Public Accommodation law that is applicable on all US territory.

Equal protection doesn't mean what you think it means. What's your evidence that Texas is the only state with no special state accommodation law?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Your profile says "Washington State", the State Public Accommodation law is not just limited to Seattle. If you sell goods and services in the state you cannot refuse based on the customer being Alack or Asian, Christian or Jew, Mexican or Irish, male or female, gay or straight, etc.

You can't read. I said Seattle has additional accommodation laws. If you are going to respond to someone slow the fuck down and read what they said.

RCW 49.60.215
Unfair practices of places of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, amusement — Trained dog guides and service animals.

(1) It shall be an unfair practice for any person or the person's agent or employee to commit an act which directly or indirectly results in any distinction, restriction, or discrimination, or the requiring of any person to pay a larger sum than the uniform rates charged other persons, or the refusing or withholding from any person the admission, patronage, custom, presence, frequenting, dwelling, staying, or lodging in any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement, except for conditions and limitations established by law and applicable to all persons, regardless of race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, status as a mother breastfeeding her child, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability: PROVIDED, That this section shall not be construed to require structural changes, modifications, or additions to make any place accessible to a person with a disability except as otherwise required by law: PROVIDED, That behavior or actions constituting a risk to property or other persons can be grounds for refusal and shall not constitute an unfair practice.

RCW 49.60.215: Unfair practices of places of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, amusement ? Trained dog guides and service animals.​

Yep, you can't kick out a gay man for being gay, like I said before. You don't have to print his gay wedding cards, unless you are in Seattle.

If you live in Washington State outside Seattle and own a printing business and routinely accept commissions to do wedding invitations you can't refuse to print wedding invitations based on the customers race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, status as a mother breastfeeding her child, etc.


What part of the State level law are you not comprehending?


>>>>

 

[JimBowie1958]

Just like restaurants were "forced" to serve blacks and interracial couples, despite the fact that it violated their conscience.

When you partner with a locality to own a business, you agree that you will abide by the laws of the locality. Many localities have public accommodation laws and some even include "the gheys".

There are even Federal Protections that say you must serve people and can't deny them based on certain things like race, country of origin, gender, etc. You've read the Civil Rights Act, yes?

By party
The original House version:

Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[20]

Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version:[19]

Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[19]

Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

Actually, if you actually go look at history, you will see that Jim Crow laws forced restaurants not to serve blacks. But thanks for proving this is about something other than right and wrong with you, it is all about you winning.

Riiiiggghhhttt...people really did want to serve the N words...the mean gubmit wouldn't let them. Puhleesse.

Actually most business people did want to serve blacks, and most whites found Jim Crow to be an inconvenience. My Dad had business associates that were black and some of his employees too, in air condition repair back then and such people were hard to find not already employed.

I remember one time he took me with him and a few of his employees to a job he bid on (I was about 5 years old at the time), and we stopped at a diner to get lunch, but they couldn't serve the black guy with us. After standing in line we had to leave when we got up to the counter. No one liked it, no one applauded, and the diner lost business so I'm sure they didn't like it either.

Jim Crow laws were the political pay off to the eugenics progressives who used the Reconstruction era hype to fan the flames of racial division, and despite being a minority, managed to get their racist laws tossed to them as a pay off for being loyal democrats.

Nothing has changed with the Racist Democrats other than which race they target for their hatred.

 

[ogibillm]

Actually, if you actually go look at history, you will see that Jim Crow laws forced restaurants not to serve blacks. But thanks for proving this is about something other than right and wrong with you, it is all about you winning.

Riiiiggghhhttt...people really did want to serve the N words...the mean gubmit wouldn't let them. Puhleesse.

Actually most business people did want to serve blacks, and most whites found Jim Crow to be an inconvenience. My Dad had business associates that were black and some of his employees too, in air condition repair back and then such people were hard to find not already employed.

I remember one time he took me with him and a few of his employees to a job he bid on (I was about 5 years old at the time), and we stopped at a diner to get lunch, but they couldn't serve the black guy with us. After standing in line we had to leave when we got up to the counter. No one liked it, no one applauded, and the diner lost business so I'm sure they didn't like it either.

Jim Crow laws were the political pay off to the eugenics progressives who used the Reconstruction era hype to fan the flames of racial division, and despite being a minority, managed to get their racist laws tossed to them as a pay off for being loyal democrats.

Nothing has changed with the Racist Democrats other than which race they target for their hatred.

it's amazing that you can link jim crow laws and progressives together. your mind is a wonderful mystery.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Your profile says "Washington State", the State Public Accommodation law is not just limited to Seattle. If you sell goods and services in the state you cannot refuse based on the customer being Alack or Asian, Christian or Jew, Mexican or Irish, male or female, gay or straight, etc.


RCW 49.60.215
Unfair practices of places of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, amusement — Trained dog guides and service animals.

(1) It shall be an unfair practice for any person or the person's agent or employee to commit an act which directly or indirectly results in any distinction, restriction, or discrimination, or the requiring of any person to pay a larger sum than the uniform rates charged other persons, or the refusing or withholding from any person the admission, patronage, custom, presence, frequenting, dwelling, staying, or lodging in any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement, except for conditions and limitations established by law and applicable to all persons, regardless of race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, status as a mother breastfeeding her child, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability: PROVIDED, That this section shall not be construed to require structural changes, modifications, or additions to make any place accessible to a person with a disability except as otherwise required by law: PROVIDED, That behavior or actions constituting a risk to property or other persons can be grounds for refusal and shall not constitute an unfair practice.

RCW 49.60.215: Unfair practices of places of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, amusement ? Trained dog guides and service animals.​

>>>>

Which is why Christians should leave such states and migrate to states that allow people to peacefully follow their conscience.

i'm a christian. not only is my conscience fine with the law, but my conscience would not allow me to discriminate based on any of those criteria.

don't speak so broadly or as if you have the authority to speak for all christians.

I don't speak for anyone, ignoramus. I am telling you what real Bible-based Christianity that is 85%+ and growing of Christians on this planet believe and on good authority.

I realize that there are faux Christians around in every age who try to blend enough Christianity into their popular culture values to pass as Christian, like the old fascists and todays leftists do.

But Truth is Truth, and St Paul defined it in the first Chapter of Romans FOR EVER.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The only State that I know of with no Public Accommodation law is Texas. Every other state that I know of has Public Accommodation laws that require businesses to provide equal services to selected groups.

If you "conscience" is to not serve blacks, or Muslims, or Mexicans - well you will have to move to a different country as there is a Federal Public Accommodation law that is applicable on all US territory.

Equal protection doesn't mean what you think it means. What's your evidence that Texas is the only state with no special state accommodation law?

Please re-read, I said it's the only State that "I know of" which is different than a declarative statement that "Texas is the only state..."


What is it based on? Over a decade of message board discussions and as discrimination issues come up I've checked a pretty large number of State Statutes.


If you have another state in mind I'd be happy to check for you.



>>>>

 

[ogibillm]

Which is why Christians should leave such states and migrate to states that allow people to peacefully follow their conscience.

i'm a christian. not only is my conscience fine with the law, but my conscience would not allow me to discriminate based on any of those criteria.

don't speak so broadly or as if you have the authority to speak for all christians.

I don't speak for anyone, ignoramus. I am telling you what real Bible-based Christianity that is 85%+ and growing of Christians on this planet believe and on good authority.

I realize that there are faux Christians around in every age who try to blend enough Christianity into their popular culture values to pass as Christian, like the old fascists and todays leftists do.

But Truth is Truth, and St Paul defined it in the first Chapter of Romans FOR EVER.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

so just so we're clear, you've taken it upon yourself to decide what real christians believe, and what 'faux christians' believe. you are the arbiter of who is and who isn't a christian.

that about right?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Riiiiggghhhttt...people really did want to serve the N words...the mean gubmit wouldn't let them. Puhleesse.

Actually most business people did want to serve blacks, and most whites found Jim Crow to be an inconvenience. My Dad had business associates that were black and some of his employees too, in air condition repair back and then such people were hard to find not already employed.

I remember one time he took me with him and a few of his employees to a job he bid on (I was about 5 years old at the time), and we stopped at a diner to get lunch, but they couldn't serve the black guy with us. After standing in line we had to leave when we got up to the counter. No one liked it, no one applauded, and the diner lost business so I'm sure they didn't like it either.

Jim Crow laws were the political pay off to the eugenics progressives who used the Reconstruction era hype to fan the flames of racial division, and despite being a minority, managed to get their racist laws tossed to them as a pay off for being loyal democrats.

Nothing has changed with the Racist Democrats other than which race they target for their hatred.

it's amazing that you can link jim crow laws and progressives together. your mind is a wonderful mystery.

Yours isn't a mystery at all; it is just ignorant ad bigoted against Truth.

Jim Crow and the Progressives | The Beacon

But perhaps the apologist historians also have trouble seeing clearly.

Writing in the summer issue of The Independent Review, Frostburg State University economists William L. Anderson and David Kiriazis argue that the Progressive “reforms” often enabled statutes aimed at restricting economic opportunities for African Americans. Progressivism, in other words, helped give birth to Jim Crow.

“These two sets of laws complemented each other as the regulatory regimes created economic rents that whites could exploit, and Jim Crow laws helped ensure that whites would not have as much competition for those rents,” Anderson and Kiriazis write.

One especially pernicious example, the economists explain, involved medical licensing. In 1910, seven medical schools were geared toward training African Americans. But after Progressive reformers pushed for standards favored by the (whites-only) American Medical Association only two remained. The school closures led to fewer black physicians available to serve their communities. And by restricting competition for medical services, the closures also boosted the incomes of white doctors.

Similar patterns and outcomes afflicted other professions. “From attempts to block out migration of labor to laws favoring labor unions, and from professional licensing to the Davis-Bacon Act and minimum-wage laws, Progressives enacted rules and legislation that paralleled Jim Crow laws in their effects,” Anderson and Kiriazis conclude.

http://www.american.com/archive/2010/may/progressives-jim-crow-and-selective-amnesia

The Times editorial and other media pronouncements have perpetuated a drastic misreading of history and of government’s role in ending racial discrimination in this nation. This history is far more nuanced than is widely assumed. At the center of the Jim Crow system lay the “Jim Crow laws.” They were indeed laws, i.e., requirements that persons and businesses and government agencies must practice racial discrimination or face civil or criminal penalties. In other words, government had bolstered discrimination instead of suppressing it. For example, the famous 1896 Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, which endorsed “separate but equal” treatment in railroad travel and eventually in other spheres such as public education, was about whether an 1890 state law in Louisiana requiring segregation was constitutional. The court said it was.

The Jim Crow system did not start in the South. It first arose in the North (although the term dates only from the early 20th century) as a way to deal with free blacks, including ex-slaves. After the Civil War ended slavery in the South, some politicians rallied poor whites and newly freed blacks in support of economic populism, while others sought different forms of accommodation that stopped well short of systematic, state-enforced racial separation. It was only in the last two decades or so of the 19th century—especially in the 1890s—that the Southern states enacted laws to force a level of segregation that had not arisen spontaneously, creating the rigid legal apparatus that some people still remember from the first half of the 20th century. Far from forming the vanguard of segregation, businesses tended to lag, with the railroads particularly notable for their persistence in maintaining a substantial degree of integration until forced by law to halt their practices.

Thus by the 20th century, the Jim Crow system was vastly diminished in the North but had become thoroughly embedded in the South—through government action—despite the incentives of many business owners to reap the economies of scale and consequent profit from treating all customers alike. The central elements of this story plus much more were described in The Strange Career of Jim Crow, published in 1955 by the celebrated historian C. Vann Woodward. Later described by Martin Luther King as “the historical bible of the Civil Rights movement,” The Strange Career of Jim Crow had an extraordinary intellectual impact on the history profession (as I discovered as a graduate student in American history in the late 1960s). It should give pause to anyone who is ready to assume that government power is bound to do good when it reins in business for social purposes, but I fear that Vann Woodward’s masterpiece has exercised too little influence in recent years. ...

 

[JimBowie1958]

Eugenics, American Progressivism, and the ?German Idea of the State? | Online Library of Law and Liberty

Eugenics, American Progressivism, and the ‘German Idea of the State’

The extensive scholarly exchange and admiration between leading American eugenicists, e.g. Madison Grant and Harry Laughlin, and the men who became the leading advocates, architects and administrators of the Nazis’ “racial hygiene” program, has been very well-documented, even if it is not particularly well known.[5] What is even less well known is that the American eugenics movement not only flourished during the Progressive Era, but was especially influential “under reformist state administrations,” including in the state of Wisconsin, the very beacon of progressive reform.[6] “t is evident,” as historian Rudolph J. Vecoli concludes in a study of the origins of Wisconsin’s sterilization law,


that sterilization was a Progressive measure. . . . it was taken up and agitated by reform groups and organizations, it was advocated by Progressive leaders and publications; and it was enacted by a Progressive legislature and administration.[7]

This fact frequently provokes scholarly incredulity: how could the very same reformers who fought for “the people,” who struggled to help the children and working men, ever have supported such laws? What can explain this “paradox”?[8]

 

[JimBowie1958]

Eugenics and the Progressive Movement - Discover the Networks

Many early progresssives advocated eugenics, or human engineering, to purge society's gene pool of undesirable traits. In Looking Backward, socialist author Edward Bellamy mused about “race purification,” a fantasy shared by many utopian novelists. Indiana's state government in 1907 became the first in the modern world to codify eugenic principles, and more than two dozen additional American states soon followed suit. These states did not dictate the coupling of ideal mates, which could be called “positive eugenics.” Rather, they advocated “negative eugenics” – i.e., the sterilization of those harboring undesirable genetic makeups, precisely as Bellamy had advocated.

Eugenics was wholly compatible with the progressive era's faith in science, the future, the regulatory potential of the state, and human perfectibility. The Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Institution helped bankroll organizations that sought to advance eugenics. Among the more notable progressives to embrace the practice were the anarco-communist Emma Goldman, NAACP founder W.E.B. Dubois, author H.G. Wells, political scientist Harold Laski, socialist reformers Sidney and Beatrice Webb, biology instructor/atheist Edward Aveling, economist John Maynard Keynes, playwright George Bernard Shaw, World Wildlife Fund founder Julian Huxley, sex theorist Havelock Ellis, and Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. Sanger, taking issue with the Church's view that eugenics was immoral because the souls of all people were equally valuable in the eyes of God, said:

“My own position is that the Catholic doctrine is illogical, not in accord with science, and definitely against the social welfare and race improvement. Assuming that God does want an increasing number of worshipers of the Catholic faith, does he also wantan increasing number of feeble-minded, insane, criminal, and diseased worshipers?”

In 1913, Brown University's progressive sociologist Lester Ward endorsed eugenics as a means of fighting “that modern scientific fatalism known as laissez-faire,” and of facilitating “the betterment of the human race.” “The end and the aim of the eugenicists cannot be reproached,” he expanded. “The race is far from perfect. Its condition is deplorable. Its improvement is entirely feasible, and in the highest degree desirable.”

 

[ogibillm]

Actually most business people did want to serve blacks, and most whites found Jim Crow to be an inconvenience. My Dad had business associates that were black and some of his employees too, in air condition repair back and then such people were hard to find not already employed.

I remember one time he took me with him and a few of his employees to a job he bid on (I was about 5 years old at the time), and we stopped at a diner to get lunch, but they couldn't serve the black guy with us. After standing in line we had to leave when we got up to the counter. No one liked it, no one applauded, and the diner lost business so I'm sure they didn't like it either.

Jim Crow laws were the political pay off to the eugenics progressives who used the Reconstruction era hype to fan the flames of racial division, and despite being a minority, managed to get their racist laws tossed to them as a pay off for being loyal democrats.

Nothing has changed with the Racist Democrats other than which race they target for their hatred.

it's amazing that you can link jim crow laws and progressives together. your mind is a wonderful mystery.

Yours isn't a mystery at all; it is just ignorant ad bigoted against Truth.

Jim Crow and the Progressives | The Beacon

But perhaps the apologist historians also have trouble seeing clearly.

Writing in the summer issue of The Independent Review, Frostburg State University economists William L. Anderson and David Kiriazis argue that the Progressive “reforms” often enabled statutes aimed at restricting economic opportunities for African Americans. Progressivism, in other words, helped give birth to Jim Crow.

“These two sets of laws complemented each other as the regulatory regimes created economic rents that whites could exploit, and Jim Crow laws helped ensure that whites would not have as much competition for those rents,” Anderson and Kiriazis write.

One especially pernicious example, the economists explain, involved medical licensing. In 1910, seven medical schools were geared toward training African Americans. But after Progressive reformers pushed for standards favored by the (whites-only) American Medical Association only two remained. The school closures led to fewer black physicians available to serve their communities. And by restricting competition for medical services, the closures also boosted the incomes of white doctors.

Similar patterns and outcomes afflicted other professions. “From attempts to block out migration of labor to laws favoring labor unions, and from professional licensing to the Davis-Bacon Act and minimum-wage laws, Progressives enacted rules and legislation that paralleled Jim Crow laws in their effects,” Anderson and Kiriazis conclude.

Progressives, Jim Crow, and Selective Amnesia ? The American Magazine

The Times editorial and other media pronouncements have perpetuated a drastic misreading of history and of government’s role in ending racial discrimination in this nation. This history is far more nuanced than is widely assumed. At the center of the Jim Crow system lay the “Jim Crow laws.” They were indeed laws, i.e., requirements that persons and businesses and government agencies must practice racial discrimination or face civil or criminal penalties. In other words, government had bolstered discrimination instead of suppressing it. For example, the famous 1896 Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, which endorsed “separate but equal” treatment in railroad travel and eventually in other spheres such as public education, was about whether an 1890 state law in Louisiana requiring segregation was constitutional. The court said it was.

The Jim Crow system did not start in the South. It first arose in the North (although the term dates only from the early 20th century) as a way to deal with free blacks, including ex-slaves. After the Civil War ended slavery in the South, some politicians rallied poor whites and newly freed blacks in support of economic populism, while others sought different forms of accommodation that stopped well short of systematic, state-enforced racial separation. It was only in the last two decades or so of the 19th century—especially in the 1890s—that the Southern states enacted laws to force a level of segregation that had not arisen spontaneously, creating the rigid legal apparatus that some people still remember from the first half of the 20th century. Far from forming the vanguard of segregation, businesses tended to lag, with the railroads particularly notable for their persistence in maintaining a substantial degree of integration until forced by law to halt their practices.

Thus by the 20th century, the Jim Crow system was vastly diminished in the North but had become thoroughly embedded in the South—through government action—despite the incentives of many business owners to reap the economies of scale and consequent profit from treating all customers alike. The central elements of this story plus much more were described in The Strange Career of Jim Crow, published in 1955 by the celebrated historian C. Vann Woodward. Later described by Martin Luther King as “the historical bible of the Civil Rights movement,” The Strange Career of Jim Crow had an extraordinary intellectual impact on the history profession (as I discovered as a graduate student in American history in the late 1960s). It should give pause to anyone who is ready to assume that government power is bound to do good when it reins in business for social purposes, but I fear that Vann Woodward’s masterpiece has exercised too little influence in recent years. ...

your article is the opinion of two economists posted on a clearly biased web site. further, the examples they cite are not jim crow laws, but laws that were used to further racism. for example, if the minimum wage was truly a jim crow law there would be different wages for different races.

the fact is segregation was by its nature a conservative ideal. it was a continuation of the way things were. equal treatment was a progressive idea, a change from the status quo.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Eugenics Mostly Progressive, Not Conservative | National Review Online

Indeed, a reader of the article would never guess that eugenics was primarily supported by political progressives who rejected human exceptionalism. From, “Hitler’s Favorite American:”


What’s indisputable about the eugenics movement in this country is that it was driven by racial and class prejudice.

At the dawn of the twentieth century, white Protestant Americans feared being overrun by immigrants from southern and eastern Europe, people who traditionally had large families.

Groups such as the Race Betterment Foundation and the American Eugenics Society stoked those fears by suggesting that the superior traits of industrious Anglo-Saxons were being undermined by the lazy, degenerate masses showing up on their shores.

Meaning Catholics. And there’s no question that the era featured pronounced anti-Catholic bigotry, now, I’m afraid, in resurgence around other social issues.

There’s some truth to what Martin writes, but he is more than implying that there is a nexus between supporters of eugenics 100 years ago and the liberal stereotype today that religious and other conservatives are prejudiced and racist.

 

[JimBowie1958]

it's amazing that you can link jim crow laws and progressives together. your mind is a wonderful mystery.

Yours isn't a mystery at all; it is just ignorant ad bigoted against Truth.

Jim Crow and the Progressives | The Beacon

But perhaps the apologist historians also have trouble seeing clearly.

Writing in the summer issue of The Independent Review, Frostburg State University economists William L. Anderson and David Kiriazis argue that the Progressive “reforms” often enabled statutes aimed at restricting economic opportunities for African Americans. Progressivism, in other words, helped give birth to Jim Crow.

“These two sets of laws complemented each other as the regulatory regimes created economic rents that whites could exploit, and Jim Crow laws helped ensure that whites would not have as much competition for those rents,” Anderson and Kiriazis write.

One especially pernicious example, the economists explain, involved medical licensing. In 1910, seven medical schools were geared toward training African Americans. But after Progressive reformers pushed for standards favored by the (whites-only) American Medical Association only two remained. The school closures led to fewer black physicians available to serve their communities. And by restricting competition for medical services, the closures also boosted the incomes of white doctors.

Similar patterns and outcomes afflicted other professions. “From attempts to block out migration of labor to laws favoring labor unions, and from professional licensing to the Davis-Bacon Act and minimum-wage laws, Progressives enacted rules and legislation that paralleled Jim Crow laws in their effects,” Anderson and Kiriazis conclude.

Progressives, Jim Crow, and Selective Amnesia ? The American Magazine

The Times editorial and other media pronouncements have perpetuated a drastic misreading of history and of government’s role in ending racial discrimination in this nation. This history is far more nuanced than is widely assumed. At the center of the Jim Crow system lay the “Jim Crow laws.” They were indeed laws, i.e., requirements that persons and businesses and government agencies must practice racial discrimination or face civil or criminal penalties. In other words, government had bolstered discrimination instead of suppressing it. For example, the famous 1896 Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, which endorsed “separate but equal” treatment in railroad travel and eventually in other spheres such as public education, was about whether an 1890 state law in Louisiana requiring segregation was constitutional. The court said it was.

The Jim Crow system did not start in the South. It first arose in the North (although the term dates only from the early 20th century) as a way to deal with free blacks, including ex-slaves. After the Civil War ended slavery in the South, some politicians rallied poor whites and newly freed blacks in support of economic populism, while others sought different forms of accommodation that stopped well short of systematic, state-enforced racial separation. It was only in the last two decades or so of the 19th century—especially in the 1890s—that the Southern states enacted laws to force a level of segregation that had not arisen spontaneously, creating the rigid legal apparatus that some people still remember from the first half of the 20th century. Far from forming the vanguard of segregation, businesses tended to lag, with the railroads particularly notable for their persistence in maintaining a substantial degree of integration until forced by law to halt their practices.

Thus by the 20th century, the Jim Crow system was vastly diminished in the North but had become thoroughly embedded in the South—through government action—despite the incentives of many business owners to reap the economies of scale and consequent profit from treating all customers alike. The central elements of this story plus much more were described in The Strange Career of Jim Crow, published in 1955 by the celebrated historian C. Vann Woodward. Later described by Martin Luther King as “the historical bible of the Civil Rights movement,” The Strange Career of Jim Crow had an extraordinary intellectual impact on the history profession (as I discovered as a graduate student in American history in the late 1960s). It should give pause to anyone who is ready to assume that government power is bound to do good when it reins in business for social purposes, but I fear that Vann Woodward’s masterpiece has exercised too little influence in recent years. ...

your article is the opinion of two economists posted on a clearly biased web site. further, the examples they cite are not jim crow laws, but laws that were used to further racism. for example, if the minimum wage was truly a jim crow law there would be different wages for different races.

the fact is segregation was by its nature a conservative ideal. it was a continuation of the way things were. equal treatment was a progressive idea, a change from the status quo.

Lol, these laws enabled Jim Crow and the progressives were only happy to do so.

Read the other three articles I posted links to see the commitment progressives made to eugenics and other racists programs so 'advanced' that even the Nazis emulated them, roflmao.

Stop being an idiot.

 

[Silhouette]

Wow...sort of veered off topic

But I wonder...will they make a devout muslim bake a gay wedding cake? How about a devout catholic? These inquisition panels like to pick on protestant christians but what about the real McCoy? Will they tell the Pope for instance what members of His flock must do, in grave violation of key edicts of their faith? [See Jude 1 & Romans 1]

 

[Katzndogz]

The gays in Colorado are just delusional! There is no other way to put it. They actually think that Jack Phillips is going to bake wedding cakes for same sex couples! The couple who brought the complaint actually think that they are benefiting future same sex couples!

Bakery Will Stop Making Wedding Cakes After Losing Discrimination Case « CBS Denver

For the couple, they said they always believed they were in the right and it was important to pursue the case for future customers.

“We’ve already been discriminated there,” Mullins said. “We’ve already been treated badly.

“The next time a gay couple wanders in there asking for a wedding cake, they won’t have the experience we had.

“They will have a responsible experience and leave feeling respected.”

They will respectfully be told that Masterpiece Bakery doesn't make wedding cakes. I hope that the gays in Colorado appreciate all the respect they will get.

are you so simple that you believe that this case doesn't have implications for other businesses?

It has implications for many other businesses. The photographer who no longer admits to wedding photography. The Florist who will provide flowers but no wedding arrangements. The caterer who will come for the birthday party but no weddings.

The advertisement of services is what's impacted. Not the services themselves. The services will still be available, but you just will have to know the right people and get a personal recommendation.

 

[Iceweasel]

If you live in Washington State outside Seattle and own a printing business and routinely accept commissions to do wedding invitations you can't refuse to print wedding invitations based on the customers race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, status as a mother breastfeeding her child, etc.


What part of the State level law are you not comprehending?

The part you made up. The gal that refused to print homosexual wedding invitations moved her business out of the Seattle area. Repeating your error won't make it true.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The gays in Colorado are just delusional! There is no other way to put it. They actually think that Jack Phillips is going to bake wedding cakes for same sex couples! The couple who brought the complaint actually think that they are benefiting future same sex couples!

Bakery Will Stop Making Wedding Cakes After Losing Discrimination Case « CBS Denver



They will respectfully be told that Masterpiece Bakery doesn't make wedding cakes. I hope that the gays in Colorado appreciate all the respect they will get.

are you so simple that you believe that this case doesn't have implications for other businesses?

It has implications for many other businesses. The photographer who no longer admits to wedding photography. The Florist who will provide flowers but no wedding arrangements. The caterer who will come for the birthday party but no weddings.

The advertisement of services is what's impacted. Not the services themselves. The services will still be available, but you just will have to know the right people and get a personal recommendation.

And Biblical Christians will grow their own underground economy that will specify filters such as they only serve members of their church or club.

This is merely dividing America against itself and insuring the demographic collapse of the main stream protestant denominations that once made this nation great.