Christians who don't bake cakes for gays deserve to be put out of business

[bodecea]

People should be able to make their own decisions on THEIR PROPERTY. Period
Self proclaimed "liberals" are always screeching about individuality but then run to big brother everytime someone expresses it when they don't agree.
Take your conformity and shove it up your ass. Pussy

No, they shouldn't, they should be required to serve people based on the rule of law, and the civility of their rights.

They shouldn't be allowed to racially discriminate or otherwise. Otherwise racists can institute a defacto SEGREGATION.

Or Bigots can destroy the lives of entire gay communities where the majority are BIGOTS.

gays are not a race you brain-dead dumbfuck.
Those laws are completely unconstitutional. Just like affirmative action. Only bigots appreciate laws that trample on individuality.

Those public accommodation laws are perfectly legal. They've gone through our courts and were ruled constitutional.

The commerce clause of our constitution makes it legal It clearly says congress can regulate business.

You should know that those laws don't just protect homosexuals. No one can discriminate against someone because of their religion.

So if you wanted some goods or services and someone denied you on the basis of your religion they've broken the law and can face the fullest extent of the law.

Just saying they're unconstitutional doesn't make it true.

If you're going to go in business to serve the public, then you have to serve all of the public.

Don't like it? Leave America.

Just like I have told countless other sheeple.. Just because the courts say it's constitutional, doesn't make it so. And to be honest, the commerce clause itself is unconstitutional.
Please tell me where the constitution gives the power o the states to regulate free speech and private property.
Tell me where the constitution gives the federal government the power to be biased against certain races and biological gender?
The courts also said Japanese Internment and forced sterilization is a granted power.
It's fuckin bullshit. And if we have had a goddamn congress that actually followed their oaths, we wouldn't have this shit.
If you don't like the constitution an Americas principles why don't you leave?

Welcome to the United States where that is, INDEED, the case.

 

[TNHarley]

People should be able to make their own decisions on THEIR PROPERTY. Period
Self proclaimed "liberals" are always screeching about individuality but then run to big brother everytime someone expresses it when they don't agree.
Take your conformity and shove it up your ass. Pussy

No, they shouldn't, they should be required to serve people based on the rule of law, and the civility of their rights.

They shouldn't be allowed to racially discriminate or otherwise. Otherwise racists can institute a defacto SEGREGATION.

Or Bigots can destroy the lives of entire gay communities where the majority are BIGOTS.

gays are not a race you brain-dead dumbfuck.
Those laws are completely unconstitutional. Just like affirmative action. Only bigots appreciate laws that trample on individuality.

Civil Rights should only be based on race?

What?

 

[TNHarley]

People should be able to make their own decisions on THEIR PROPERTY. Period
Self proclaimed "liberals" are always screeching about individuality but then run to big brother everytime someone expresses it when they don't agree.
Take your conformity and shove it up your ass. Pussy

No, they shouldn't, they should be required to serve people based on the rule of law, and the civility of their rights.

They shouldn't be allowed to racially discriminate or otherwise. Otherwise racists can institute a defacto SEGREGATION.

Or Bigots can destroy the lives of entire gay communities where the majority are BIGOTS.

gays are not a race you brain-dead dumbfuck.
Those laws are completely unconstitutional. Just like affirmative action. Only bigots appreciate laws that trample on individuality.

Those public accommodation laws are perfectly legal. They've gone through our courts and were ruled constitutional.

The commerce clause of our constitution makes it legal It clearly says congress can regulate business.

You should know that those laws don't just protect homosexuals. No one can discriminate against someone because of their religion.

So if you wanted some goods or services and someone denied you on the basis of your religion they've broken the law and can face the fullest extent of the law.

Just saying they're unconstitutional doesn't make it true.

If you're going to go in business to serve the public, then you have to serve all of the public.

Don't like it? Leave America.

Just like I have told countless other sheeple.. Just because the courts say it's constitutional, doesn't make it so. And to be honest, the commerce clause itself is unconstitutional.
Please tell me where the constitution gives the power o the states to regulate free speech and private property.
Tell me where the constitution gives the federal government the power to be biased against certain races and biological gender?
The courts also said Japanese Internment and forced sterilization is a granted power.
It's fuckin bullshit. And if we have had a goddamn congress that actually followed their oaths, we wouldn't have this shit.
If you don't like the constitution an Americas principles why don't you leave?

Welcome to the United States where that is, INDEED, the case.

So if they said that it was constitutional that we force sterilization of black people because of arts in crime and intelligence, you would support that? Simply because they say so?

 

[Jackson]

I just think that anyone in business is open to all. The OP is right that Jesus was not just there for believers but for all. These bakers would not get away with refusing to bake a wedding cake for a divorced person or a black. If they are in business, they are open to all who need their service.

 

[SwimExpert]

I'm not saying I want to, I'm saying I think they are wrong a lot. I don't agree with how they are selected. That leads to partisanship.

So, your position is that the system is flawed. Okay, well enough. So what would you change?

I think the mistake you are making is that the constitution was never intended to be perfect, or to create a perfect system. Quite the opposite. The governance of a people will always be subject to the failings of people. The constitution's intentions were to create a system of government with checks and balances.

Can a single judge step out of line with his interpretation of the constitution? Sure. That's why we have appellate courts. Can that handful of judges back his play? Sure. That's why we have the Supreme Court. Of course, they can still do the same thing. But, the system in total minimizes the chances of that such a thing would happen. And the limited power of the courts over the lives of the people further minimizes the chances of the courts becoming overbearing over the people.

Judges are appointed specifically to insulate the judiciary from too much partisan/public influence. How else would you propose that judges be selected? I guess we could draw them by lottery, but that eliminates the ability to provide some degree of quality control. Electing them would only increase the partisanship influence of the judiciary. Elected members of the government are held accountable to the people to select quality judges, but the judges themselves are not subjected to pressure to constantly fashion their proceedings as necessary to maintain the kind of partisan support that leads Presidents and Congress to constantly sway back and forth, often in contradiction to principles and to constitutional concerns.

My argument is that the constitution doesn't leave much room for debate. Especially with the limits of the federal government.

I strongly disagree. There is a great deal of debate. Even among the framers there was a great deal of debate, and often those debates were left unsettled in their time. The better part of the many amendments to the constitution have been the result of those debates yielding results that were undesirable.