Cake or No Cake – Arizona’s Religious Freedom Bill

[dblack]

If public accommodation laws are unconstitutional...why not challenge them in court instead of wasting tax-payers' time and money with ANOTHER law?

Sadly, because the Court has already decided. But, despite the fact that I want to see the public accommodations nonsense reversed, I agree that these initiatives aren't going to win legislative victories. All their good for is stirring up debate. Which does have some value, I suppose.

That silly court. Trying to make it so everyone can get on with the business of living even if you are black, or Muslim, or gay, or all three at the same time. Don't they knwo it would be some much better if when you went to get gas you had to make sure that they allowed your kind there? They hate freedom I guess.

You're not into discussing actual ideas, are you?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Listening was making the distinction between that laws that ban certain actions, and those that compel actions - 'orders' essentially. It's the difference between 'thou shalt not' and 'thou shalt' - between government that tells us what we can't do, and government that tells us what we must do.

Fine. So 911 tells me that I can't kill the neighbor for his loud music, and the IRS info line says I have to pay my federal taxes. Which one of those proves his point because they both seem to be required of me even if I don't like either answer? In both cases, I'm not doing what I'd like to do actually.

???

I guess you just don't get it. Seriously, do you not see a difference between laws that prohibit certain actions and those that order us to do things? Do you not see why the former offers more freedom, and why the latter is more authoritarian?

In reality that is the difference between an apple and a banana.

The laws say both do and do not. Both are well established and both are required. You want the government to say only Don't hit your brother, and not Be Nice to your Brother, because it means you then have the freedom to do anything that isn't hitting him, like kicking him for instance. In the real world if you hit or you kick mom should have put you across her knee.

It's the real world that I care about, where the laws both limit and proscribe behavior. That's why we write both kinds, to keep the peace. Mom taught us to do so.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Sadly, because the Court has already decided. But, despite the fact that I want to see the public accommodations nonsense reversed, I agree that these initiatives aren't going to win legislative victories. All their good for is stirring up debate. Which does have some value, I suppose.

That silly court. Trying to make it so everyone can get on with the business of living even if you are black, or Muslim, or gay, or all three at the same time. Don't they knwo it would be some much better if when you went to get gas you had to make sure that they allowed your kind there? They hate freedom I guess.

You're not into discussing actual ideas, are you?

Oh but I am. The idea that you own a gas station so you can post a sign that says No ******* is an idea, it just happens to be a very poor one. You seem to think that if you do not actually hurt someone you should be able to do whatever you like, which happens not to be true. Correct me if I'm wrong but I very much doubt that I am.

 

[jon_berzerk]

If public accommodation laws are unconstitutional...why not challenge them in court instead of wasting tax-payers' time and money with ANOTHER law?

Sadly, because the Court has already decided. But, despite the fact that I want to see the public accommodations nonsense reversed, I agree that these initiatives aren't going to win legislative victories. All their good for is stirring up debate. Which does have some value, I suppose.

That silly court. Trying to make it so everyone can get on with the business of living even if you are black, or Muslim, or gay, or all three at the same time. Don't they know it would be some much better if when you went to get gas you had to make sure that they allowed your kind there? They just hate freedom I guess.

have we come full circle

now a black cake maker can be forced into Involuntary servitude

to make a cake for a gay couple

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Sadly, because the Court has already decided. But, despite the fact that I want to see the public accommodations nonsense reversed, I agree that these initiatives aren't going to win legislative victories. All their good for is stirring up debate. Which does have some value, I suppose.

That silly court. Trying to make it so everyone can get on with the business of living even if you are black, or Muslim, or gay, or all three at the same time. Don't they know it would be some much better if when you went to get gas you had to make sure that they allowed your kind there? They just hate freedom I guess.

have we come full circle

now a black cake maker can be forced into Involuntary servitude

to make a cake for a gay couple

The definition of Servitude is not people pay me for what I bake, or hire me and then I bake it. We call that a job.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Involuntary Servitude

Summary: Section 1584 of Title 18 makes it unlawful to hold a person in a condition of slavery, that is, a condition of compulsory service or labor against his/her will. A Section 1584 conviction requires that the victim be held against his/her will by actual force, threats of force, or threats of legal coercion. Section 1584 also prohibits compelling a person to work against his/her will by creating a "climate of fear" through the use of force, the threat of force, or the threat of legal coercion [i.e., If you don't work, I'll call the immigration officials.] which is sufficient to compel service against a person's will

Civil Rights Division Home Page

 

[dblack]

That silly court. Trying to make it so everyone can get on with the business of living even if you are black, or Muslim, or gay, or all three at the same time. Don't they know it would be some much better if when you went to get gas you had to make sure that they allowed your kind there? They just hate freedom I guess.

have we come full circle

now a black cake maker can be forced into Involuntary servitude

to make a cake for a gay couple

The definition of Servitude is not people pay me for what I bake, or hire me and then I bake it. We call that a job.

Wrong word. "Involuntary" is the issue.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

have we come full circle

now a black cake maker can be forced into Involuntary servitude

to make a cake for a gay couple

The definition of Servitude is not people pay me for what I bake, or hire me and then I bake it. We call that a job.

Wrong word. "Involuntary" is the issue.

There's nothing "involuntary" about "serving" the customers and getting paid for it. For a lot of people we call that a job. Should you have such a thing, STHU and do it.

 

[dblack]

The definition of Servitude is not people pay me for what I bake, or hire me and then I bake it. We call that a job.

Wrong word. "Involuntary" is the issue.

There's nothing "involuntary" about "serving" the customers and getting paid for it. For a lot of people we call that a job. Should you have such a thing, STHU and do it.

Really? So, if someone holds a gun to your head and forces you to do something, and the slips you a fiver afterwards, you'd call that a 'voluntary' transaction? A 'job'?

 

[jon_berzerk]

The definition of Servitude is not people pay me for what I bake, or hire me and then I bake it. We call that a job.

Wrong word. "Involuntary" is the issue.

There's nothing "involuntary" about "serving" the customers and getting paid for it. For a lot of people we call that a job. Should you have such a thing, STHU and do it.

Involuntary servitude is not dependent upon payment in any amount

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Wrong word. "Involuntary" is the issue.

There's nothing "involuntary" about "serving" the customers and getting paid for it. For a lot of people we call that a job. Should you have such a thing, STHU and do it.

Really? So, if someone holds a gun to your head and forces you to do something, and the slips you a fiver afterwards, you'd call that a 'voluntary' transaction? A 'job'?

Ah no. Would you call it involuntary if I gave you $20 for a $18.50 cake?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Wrong word. "Involuntary" is the issue.

There's nothing "involuntary" about "serving" the customers and getting paid for it. For a lot of people we call that a job. Should you have such a thing, STHU and do it.

Really? So, if someone holds a gun to your head and forces you to do something, and the slips you a fiver afterwards, you'd call that a 'voluntary' transaction? A 'job'?

by the justice departments own words

it is a violation of the 13th amendment

 

[jon_berzerk]

There's nothing "involuntary" about "serving" the customers and getting paid for it. For a lot of people we call that a job. Should you have such a thing, STHU and do it.

Really? So, if someone holds a gun to your head and forces you to do something, and the slips you a fiver afterwards, you'd call that a 'voluntary' transaction? A 'job'?

Ah no. Would you call it involuntary if I gave you $20 for a $18.50 cake?

yes

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Really? So, if someone holds a gun to your head and forces you to do something, and the slips you a fiver afterwards, you'd call that a 'voluntary' transaction? A 'job'?

Ah no. Would you call it involuntary if I gave you $20 for a $18.50 cake?

yes

Ah, well now I see the problem but really I must congratulate you, not many dogs can type...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

There's nothing "involuntary" about "serving" the customers and getting paid for it. For a lot of people we call that a job. Should you have such a thing, STHU and do it.

Really? So, if someone holds a gun to your head and forces you to do something, and the slips you a fiver afterwards, you'd call that a 'voluntary' transaction? A 'job'?

by the justice departments own words

it is a violation of the 13th amendment

Yes, the gun part does change things rather quickly.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Really? So, if someone holds a gun to your head and forces you to do something, and the slips you a fiver afterwards, you'd call that a 'voluntary' transaction? A 'job'?

by the justice departments own words

it is a violation of the 13th amendment

Yes, the gun part does change things rather quickly.

not according to the justice department

 

[PaintMyHouse]

by the justice departments own words

it is a violation of the 13th amendment

Yes, the gun part does change things rather quickly.

not according to the justice department

Really? I'd be interested to see that. Do tell.

 

[hazlnut]

She says something about "critical thinking" then spews shit from her mouth.

Don't make sense.

 

[dblack]

There's nothing "involuntary" about "serving" the customers and getting paid for it. For a lot of people we call that a job. Should you have such a thing, STHU and do it.

Really? So, if someone holds a gun to your head and forces you to do something, and the slips you a fiver afterwards, you'd call that a 'voluntary' transaction? A 'job'?

Ah no. Would you call it involuntary if I gave you $20 for a $18.50 cake?

If there's force involved, it's involuntary. Does it make it 'ok', in your view, if the victim is paid?

 

[Plasmaball]

I can keep this up all night PMH. I have been a practicing Christian for almost 20 years.

That's because you don't have a job.