bendog
Diamond Member
Oh, well, supposedly free speech does not extend to inciting violence, and there are limits on libel and slander. But, I meant political speech.
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.
Sooooo, Lester Maddux had a constitutional right to not serve blacks fried chicken in his restaurant? Frankly, I though so, but courts found otherwise.
I certainly don't agree with threats of violence, or violence, but I'm just trying to figure out where the fault lines are. And,
Former Southern Baptist Leader Calls for Boycott of Pat Robertson on EthicsDaily.com
So, I'm left wondering why anyone criticizes GLBT organizations from boycotting the bakery, and getting a list of the bakery's customers who cater and telling them to either quit doing biz with the bakery or face similar boycot. People have a right to free speech and to urge others to take some action.
Well then, to what degree of speech are businesses allowed to exercise, if I may ask?
According to the Supreme Court, it is unlimited. I would say that the amount of money that can be expended in an election can be limited on per capita, or company or union basis. But the SC has held otherwise ... for now.
And my personal view is Lester Maddox should have able to deny service, as should the Christian bakers. But apparently, courts disagree. But, all have a right to boycott.
Not if it has a public license to serve customers, TemplarKormac. unless the can file and win over religious beliefs.
I think the SCOTUS conservative margin would not approve that. I could be wrong.
Not if it has a public license to serve customers, TemplarKormac. unless the can file and win over religious beliefs.
I think the SCOTUS conservative margin would not approve that. I could be wrong.
Not if it has a public license to serve customers, TemplarKormac. unless the can file and win over religious beliefs.
I think the SCOTUS conservative margin would not approve that. I could be wrong.
anti-discrimination laws against people are not a matter of consitutional rights, but a matter of local and federal law. The recontruction amendments only ban the federal and state/local GOVERNMENTS from discriminating.
The question then becomes is the government ALLOWED to force you to go into business with someone you do not want to go into business with?
Not if it has a public license to serve customers, TemplarKormac. unless the can file and win over religious beliefs.
I think the SCOTUS conservative margin would not approve that. I could be wrong.
anti-discrimination laws against people are not a matter of consitutional rights, but a matter of local and federal law. The recontruction amendments only ban the federal and state/local GOVERNMENTS from discriminating.
The question then becomes is the government ALLOWED to force you to go into business with someone you do not want to go into business with?
Yours is a common and mistaken reading of the law.
Sooooo, Lester Maddux had a constitutional right to not serve blacks fried chicken in his restaurant? Frankly, I though so, but courts found otherwise.
I certainly don't agree with threats of violence, or violence, but I'm just trying to figure out where the fault lines are. And,
Former Southern Baptist Leader Calls for Boycott of Pat Robertson on EthicsDaily.com
So, I'm left wondering why anyone criticizes GLBT organizations from boycotting the bakery, and getting a list of the bakery's customers who cater and telling them to either quit doing biz with the bakery or face similar boycot. People have a right to free speech and to urge others to take some action.
Well then, to what degree of speech are businesses allowed to exercise, if I may ask?
anti-discrimination laws against people are not a matter of consitutional rights, but a matter of local and federal law. The recontruction amendments only ban the federal and state/local GOVERNMENTS from discriminating.
The question then becomes is the government ALLOWED to force you to go into business with someone you do not want to go into business with?
Yours is a common and mistaken reading of the law.
Where in the consitution is it written that a buisiness can be forced to serve anyone?
Sooooo, Lester Maddux had a constitutional right to not serve blacks fried chicken in his restaurant? Frankly, I though so, but courts found otherwise.
I certainly don't agree with threats of violence, or violence, but I'm just trying to figure out where the fault lines are. And,
Former Southern Baptist Leader Calls for Boycott of Pat Robertson on EthicsDaily.com
So, I'm left wondering why anyone criticizes GLBT organizations from boycotting the bakery, and getting a list of the bakery's customers who cater and telling them to either quit doing biz with the bakery or face similar boycot. People have a right to free speech and to urge others to take some action.
Well then, to what degree of speech are businesses allowed to exercise, if I may ask?
Apparently not to serve gays, huh Chick-a-fil ?
Yours is a common and mistaken reading of the law.
Where in the consitution is it written that a buisiness can be forced to serve anyone?
Well, as memory serves, the congress got there via the commerce clause, and the supreme court said, OK. (which is why I suspect Roberts did not find Obamacare valid under the commerce clause) You may not like it, and I may disagree with it, but it's the law, and we live with it. And, it's not so onerous. Even those of us who disagreed, pointed out that eventually KFC with an non discriminatory policy would bury Maddux economically, regardless of who had better chicken.
Well then, to what degree of speech are businesses allowed to exercise, if I may ask?
Apparently not to serve gays, huh Chick-a-fil ?
chick fil a didn't threaten to refuse service to GLBT folks, just to give money to those opposing inclusion. That led to the boycott, and chick fil a backed down.
Where in the consitution is it written that a buisiness can be forced to serve anyone?
Well, as memory serves, the congress got there via the commerce clause, and the supreme court said, OK. (which is why I suspect Roberts did not find Obamacare valid under the commerce clause) You may not like it, and I may disagree with it, but it's the law, and we live with it. And, it's not so onerous. Even those of us who disagreed, pointed out that eventually KFC with an non discriminatory policy would bury Maddux economically, regardless of who had better chicken.
These complaints are filed under State law not Federal law so the commerce clause doesn't need to be the basis. States can regulate intrastate businesses under the powers of the 10th. The justification for Congress under the Commerce Clause applies to Federal Public Accommodation laws, which the SCOTUS has upheld, but Federal law does not mention sexual orientation as one of the protected classes.
>>>>
Not if it has a public license to serve customers, TemplarKormac. unless the can file and win over religious beliefs.
I think the SCOTUS conservative margin would not approve that. I could be wrong.
anti-discrimination laws against people are not a matter of consitutional rights, but a matter of local and federal law. The recontruction amendments only ban the federal and state/local GOVERNMENTS from discriminating.
The question then becomes is the government ALLOWED to force you to go into business with someone you do not want to go into business with?
Yours is a common and mistaken reading of the law.
TODD'S AMERICAN DISPATCH: Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests | Fox News
threats are something else.
anti-discrimination laws against people are not a matter of consitutional rights, but a matter of local and federal law. The recontruction amendments only ban the federal and state/local GOVERNMENTS from discriminating.
The question then becomes is the government ALLOWED to force you to go into business with someone you do not want to go into business with?
Yours is a common and mistaken reading of the law.
If you could be so kind, can you post for us the relevant laws pertaining to this discussion?
Then they'll have to settle for making a lot less money.
Sorry but two people working out of a home without commercial equipment won't be able to produce much.
Just like your shade tree mechanic bigot will make a lot less than he would if he employed a dozen mechanics in a well run business.
And I'm sure he doesn't pay taxes on what he earns now and that's nothing to be praising.
J Paul Getty once said; ""I'd rather have 1% of the effort of 100 men than 100% of my own effort."
That is the essence of owning a business.
They don't have to stay in their home. They can move to a place where they do the baking and still don't have to open to the public. There are many things they can do to avoid this imposition. All of them ending up making more money than they did with a single retail outlet.
Maybe but that's not the gist I got from the link. They took a huge financial hit so they had to close down the shop. There was no mention of any other plan so I doubt they have one.
But it was their own fault so I don't have much sympathy for them
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. If they are operating a business (even if it is out of their home), have a business license, and advertise for public sale of goods or services - they still fall under public accommodation laws.
>>>>
You are relying too heavily on the web site. It has not been changed, yet. Did you notice that it still has a shot of the store. They will have to make some changes in their advertising. They will probably move out of their home quite quickly and into space where they do the baking but that doesn't mean they have to open their doors to the public.
If it were me, I just would stop baking wedding cakes except by private arrangement. I'd put up a sign that says "State and federal law prohibit the advertisement of wedding cakes".
#1 The already made cakes by "private arrangement", people came in, they ordered a cake, they discussed the design with the owner, the owner sold the cake. I'm not sure why, while operating legally under an Oregon Business license as a public business you think "private arrangments" weren't already made. They would need to close shop, relinquish their license, and re-incorporate under a private club concept - then they could restrict sales to bonefide members.
#2 Why would a Christian couple lie about advertising? No State of Federal law prohibits them from advertising about wedding cakes.
>>>>