First amendment hating Governor tells Christians to deal with homosexual hatred

[kaz]

People have the right to free excercise of religion (at least until we start an active campaign to stamp out bronze age superstitions, which can't start soon enough). Businesses do not. If your business interests conflict with your backward ass superstitions, then you should get out of that business.

Who gets to decide that rule? The 1st amendment protects people, and people own businesses.

Also, go to hell you fascist bigoted twat.

So a business owner can discriminate against anyone they want if they have some so-called religious "belief" that they claim to have.

As long as they are not causing any actual harm, why not?

Citizens should be free to discriminate against each other for any reason. Only government should be restricted from discriminating against it's citizens

I would accept PA laws for point of sale items, or things like hotels and gas stations. Contracted services, on the other hand should not be covered by PA laws.

Preposterous, access to the private property of others is not right of any citizen. Free markets also protect citizens a whole hell of a lot better than government does

 

[martybegan]

Why would you possibly think that would happen?

It does not matter. The PA prevents that possibility. As far as Marty being a cog, he wants to live his life in society without being accountable to We the People's laws for society: tough, Marty.

"Being Accountable" is not the same as ruining people over someone else's hurt feelings.

The whole concept of government forcing citizens to do business with other citizens is an abomination to liberty

I would add the caveat "if the government cannot find a compelling interest due to an actual harm".

Give me an example. Keep in mind I said government should not discriminate. And that would include all government controlled industries, like post office, power and water companies, that sort of thing. If government removes competition, it should be equally open to all

Things involving transportation and lodging are good examples. You don't want a hotel to be able to deny service on a whim for a room for a night (although the same hotel should be able to deny hosting an event it doesn't want to host).

 

[martybegan]

Who gets to decide that rule? The 1st amendment protects people, and people own businesses.

Also, go to hell you fascist bigoted twat.

So a business owner can discriminate against anyone they want if they have some so-called religious "belief" that they claim to have.

As long as they are not causing any actual harm, why not?

Citizens should be free to discriminate against each other for any reason. Only government should be restricted from discriminating against it's citizens

I would accept PA laws for point of sale items, or things like hotels and gas stations. Contracted services, on the other hand should not be covered by PA laws.

Preposterous, access to the private property of others is not right of any citizen. Free markets also protect citizens a whole hell of a lot better than government does

I understand your absolutist view on this, but I don't agree with it. Point of sale items, and things like movie theaters, hotels, and shopping centers/restaurants are to me Public Accommodations, and thus can be regulated as such. Its when people think PA's are "every business, every transaction," that I have the issue.

 

[kaz]

It does not matter. The PA prevents that possibility. As far as Marty being a cog, he wants to live his life in society without being accountable to We the People's laws for society: tough, Marty.

"Being Accountable" is not the same as ruining people over someone else's hurt feelings.

The whole concept of government forcing citizens to do business with other citizens is an abomination to liberty

I would add the caveat "if the government cannot find a compelling interest due to an actual harm".

Give me an example. Keep in mind I said government should not discriminate. And that would include all government controlled industries, like post office, power and water companies, that sort of thing. If government removes competition, it should be equally open to all

Things involving transportation and lodging are good examples. You don't want a hotel to be able to deny service on a whim for a room for a night (although the same hotel should be able to deny hosting an event it doesn't want to host).

So where are you looking in the Constitution that when you do business, your property becomes under control of the government?

You know what almost never happens? A business turns you down for things like your sex or skin color

You know what happens all the time? Government abuses any and all power.

You're nailing a tack with a sledge hammer

 

[kaz]

It does not matter. The PA prevents that possibility. As far as Marty being a cog, he wants to live his life in society without being accountable to We the People's laws for society: tough, Marty.

"Being Accountable" is not the same as ruining people over someone else's hurt feelings.

The whole concept of government forcing citizens to do business with other citizens is an abomination to liberty

I would add the caveat "if the government cannot find a compelling interest due to an actual harm".

Give me an example. Keep in mind I said government should not discriminate. And that would include all government controlled industries, like post office, power and water companies, that sort of thing. If government removes competition, it should be equally open to all

Things involving transportation and lodging are good examples. You don't want a hotel to be able to deny service on a whim for a room for a night (although the same hotel should be able to deny hosting an event it doesn't want to host).

And I'm not sure what you mean by "transportation." Things like roads and public transportation would be under government and should legitimately be barred from discrimination

 

[kaz]

It's not about a single baker you dumbshit, its about setting a precedent so that EVERY "baker" can't rally around discriminatory policies.

Why would you possibly think that would happen?

It does not matter. The PA prevents that possibility. As far as Marty being a cog, he wants to live his life in society without being accountable to We the People's laws for society: tough, Marty.

"Being Accountable" is not the same as ruining people over someone else's hurt feelings.

The whole concept of government forcing citizens to do business with other citizens is an abomination to liberty

I would add the caveat "if the government cannot find a compelling interest due to an actual harm".

Again, where is that in the Constitution? I can't find the part where government can take over your private property because you went into business

 

[kaz]

So a business owner can discriminate against anyone they want if they have some so-called religious "belief" that they claim to have.

As long as they are not causing any actual harm, why not?

Citizens should be free to discriminate against each other for any reason. Only government should be restricted from discriminating against it's citizens

I would accept PA laws for point of sale items, or things like hotels and gas stations. Contracted services, on the other hand should not be covered by PA laws.

Preposterous, access to the private property of others is not right of any citizen. Free markets also protect citizens a whole hell of a lot better than government does

I understand your absolutist view on this, but I don't agree with it. Point of sale items, and things like movie theaters, hotels, and shopping centers/restaurants are to me Public Accommodations, and thus can be regulated as such. Its when people think PA's are "every business, every transaction," that I have the issue.

Simple question, where is it in the Constitution that when you go into business, your property goes under control of the Government?

And seriously, you think businesses are going to turn down paying customers and we can trust politicians to fix that. You should read that last part out loud to yourself, you'll probably figure out what's wrong with your argument

 

[Timmy]

As long as they are not causing any actual harm, why not?

Citizens should be free to discriminate against each other for any reason. Only government should be restricted from discriminating against it's citizens

I would accept PA laws for point of sale items, or things like hotels and gas stations. Contracted services, on the other hand should not be covered by PA laws.

Preposterous, access to the private property of others is not right of any citizen. Free markets also protect citizens a whole hell of a lot better than government does

I understand your absolutist view on this, but I don't agree with it. Point of sale items, and things like movie theaters, hotels, and shopping centers/restaurants are to me Public Accommodations, and thus can be regulated as such. Its when people think PA's are "every business, every transaction," that I have the issue.

Simple question, where is it in the Constitution that when you go into business, your property goes under control of the Government?

And seriously, you think businesses are going to turn down paying customers and we can trust politicians to fix that. You should read that last part out loud to yourself, you'll probably figure out what's wrong with your argument

Commerce clause .

 

[kaz]

Citizens should be free to discriminate against each other for any reason. Only government should be restricted from discriminating against it's citizens

I would accept PA laws for point of sale items, or things like hotels and gas stations. Contracted services, on the other hand should not be covered by PA laws.

Preposterous, access to the private property of others is not right of any citizen. Free markets also protect citizens a whole hell of a lot better than government does

I understand your absolutist view on this, but I don't agree with it. Point of sale items, and things like movie theaters, hotels, and shopping centers/restaurants are to me Public Accommodations, and thus can be regulated as such. Its when people think PA's are "every business, every transaction," that I have the issue.

Simple question, where is it in the Constitution that when you go into business, your property goes under control of the Government?

And seriously, you think businesses are going to turn down paying customers and we can trust politicians to fix that. You should read that last part out loud to yourself, you'll probably figure out what's wrong with your argument

Commerce clause .

What does interstate trade have to do with it?

 

[martybegan]

"Being Accountable" is not the same as ruining people over someone else's hurt feelings.

The whole concept of government forcing citizens to do business with other citizens is an abomination to liberty

I would add the caveat "if the government cannot find a compelling interest due to an actual harm".

Give me an example. Keep in mind I said government should not discriminate. And that would include all government controlled industries, like post office, power and water companies, that sort of thing. If government removes competition, it should be equally open to all

Things involving transportation and lodging are good examples. You don't want a hotel to be able to deny service on a whim for a room for a night (although the same hotel should be able to deny hosting an event it doesn't want to host).

So where are you looking in the Constitution that when you do business, your property becomes under control of the government?

You know what almost never happens? A business turns you down for things like your sex or skin color

You know what happens all the time? Government abuses any and all power.

You're nailing a tack with a sledge hammer

I'm a realist.

 

[martybegan]

Why would you possibly think that would happen?

It does not matter. The PA prevents that possibility. As far as Marty being a cog, he wants to live his life in society without being accountable to We the People's laws for society: tough, Marty.

"Being Accountable" is not the same as ruining people over someone else's hurt feelings.

The whole concept of government forcing citizens to do business with other citizens is an abomination to liberty

I would add the caveat "if the government cannot find a compelling interest due to an actual harm".

Again, where is that in the Constitution? I can't find the part where government can take over your private property because you went into business

If they can compel you to follow building codes, they can compel you to sell certain items to anyone with the $$ for it. Its the expansion of PA laws into things that are not PA's that I have an issue with.

 

[martybegan]

As long as they are not causing any actual harm, why not?

Citizens should be free to discriminate against each other for any reason. Only government should be restricted from discriminating against it's citizens

I would accept PA laws for point of sale items, or things like hotels and gas stations. Contracted services, on the other hand should not be covered by PA laws.

Preposterous, access to the private property of others is not right of any citizen. Free markets also protect citizens a whole hell of a lot better than government does

I understand your absolutist view on this, but I don't agree with it. Point of sale items, and things like movie theaters, hotels, and shopping centers/restaurants are to me Public Accommodations, and thus can be regulated as such. Its when people think PA's are "every business, every transaction," that I have the issue.

Simple question, where is it in the Constitution that when you go into business, your property goes under control of the Government?

And seriously, you think businesses are going to turn down paying customers and we can trust politicians to fix that. You should read that last part out loud to yourself, you'll probably figure out what's wrong with your argument

The whole argument is brought about by certain business refusing transactions with paying customers.

Saying "your property goes under the control of the government" is argumentum ad abusrdum, and doesn't address the issue in question at all.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The freeks have free speech. They just don't understand that in the public forum that free speech does not mean Freedom of Expression that disrupts the orderly nature of the public.

So every person is merely a cog that has to spin as our betters want it to spin, "or else".

A single baker not wanting to bake a cake does not disrupt the orderly nature of the public.

It's not about a single baker you dumbshit, its about setting a precedent so that EVERY "baker" can't rally around discriminatory policies.

Why would you possibly think that would happen?

It does not matter. The PA prevents that possibility. As far as Marty being a cog, he wants to live his life in society without being accountable to We the People's laws for society: tough, Marty.

"Being Accountable" is not the same as ruining people over someone else's hurt feelings.

At least you’re consistent at being ignorant and wrong.

Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause – having nothing to do with ‘hurt feelings.’

In fact, business owners are subject to all manner of necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policies likewise authorized by the Commerce Clause, concerning wage and hiring practices, employee safety and consumer protection, and measures regarding the environment and waste management.

And should a business owner willfully violate any of the above regulatory policies – be it endangering the safety of employees or refusing to accommodate gay patrons – the business owner is alone responsible for any punitive measures he might sustain, where should he be ‘ruined,’ the business owner has only himself to blame.

 

[kaz]

The whole concept of government forcing citizens to do business with other citizens is an abomination to liberty

I would add the caveat "if the government cannot find a compelling interest due to an actual harm".

Give me an example. Keep in mind I said government should not discriminate. And that would include all government controlled industries, like post office, power and water companies, that sort of thing. If government removes competition, it should be equally open to all

Things involving transportation and lodging are good examples. You don't want a hotel to be able to deny service on a whim for a room for a night (although the same hotel should be able to deny hosting an event it doesn't want to host).

So where are you looking in the Constitution that when you do business, your property becomes under control of the government?

You know what almost never happens? A business turns you down for things like your sex or skin color

You know what happens all the time? Government abuses any and all power.

You're nailing a tack with a sledge hammer

I'm a realist.

No, you're not. A realist realizes that businesses barely ever discriminate. We like one color, money. Even in the South under Jim Crow, note they had to pass laws because businesses didn't want to discriminate. The Montgomery Bus company was totally against the laws telling their best customers to sit in the back and stand if they ran out of seats.

And you're definitely not a realist to think you can hand government power and it won't abuse it. Look at our out of control tort system you're handing another huge category of lawsuits to stifle business.

And one more thing, where are you looking in the Constitution that when you do business, your property becomes under control of the government? Are you being a "realist" that the 10th only applies when it's convenient, and of course no one's going to abuse ignoring the 10th, right?

 

[kaz]

Citizens should be free to discriminate against each other for any reason. Only government should be restricted from discriminating against it's citizens

I would accept PA laws for point of sale items, or things like hotels and gas stations. Contracted services, on the other hand should not be covered by PA laws.

Preposterous, access to the private property of others is not right of any citizen. Free markets also protect citizens a whole hell of a lot better than government does

I understand your absolutist view on this, but I don't agree with it. Point of sale items, and things like movie theaters, hotels, and shopping centers/restaurants are to me Public Accommodations, and thus can be regulated as such. Its when people think PA's are "every business, every transaction," that I have the issue.

Simple question, where is it in the Constitution that when you go into business, your property goes under control of the Government?

And seriously, you think businesses are going to turn down paying customers and we can trust politicians to fix that. You should read that last part out loud to yourself, you'll probably figure out what's wrong with your argument

The whole argument is brought about by certain business refusing transactions with paying customers.

Saying "your property goes under the control of the government" is argumentum ad abusrdum, and doesn't address the issue in question at all.

It only addresses the issue if you think the 10th amendment is important enough to enforce.

And the cases that have come up have been hard to find, they've really had to stretch to come up with them. And seriously, a baker won't bake a cake? How is that harming anyone, the world is full of bakeries

 

[kaz]

It does not matter. The PA prevents that possibility. As far as Marty being a cog, he wants to live his life in society without being accountable to We the People's laws for society: tough, Marty.

"Being Accountable" is not the same as ruining people over someone else's hurt feelings.

The whole concept of government forcing citizens to do business with other citizens is an abomination to liberty

I would add the caveat "if the government cannot find a compelling interest due to an actual harm".

Again, where is that in the Constitution? I can't find the part where government can take over your private property because you went into business

If they can compel you to follow building codes, they can compel you to sell certain items to anyone with the $$ for it. Its the expansion of PA laws into things that are not PA's that I have an issue with.

Building codes are local, it's a very different thing. Also, if you want to connect to electric and water systems and the like, there's a pretty good justification. I would say though a building code on private property not posing a threat to neighbors or public services would be pretty hard to justify

 

[kaz]

Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause – having nothing to do with ‘hurt feelings

What does buying a cake from your local bakery have to do with interstate commerce?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"First amendment hating Governor tells Christians to deal with homosexual hatred"

It’s remarkable the ignorance, hate, and stupidity packed into the above quoted lie.

Fact: Public accommodations laws in no way ‘violate’ the First Amendment; Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence has never recognized religion as an ‘excuse’ for not obeying the law.

Fact: Gay Americans availing themselves of necessary, proper, and Constitutional public accommodations laws do not manifest as ‘hate’ on the part of homosexuals; indeed, the hate manifests with those who seek to disadvantage gay Americans through force of law for no other reason than being gay, or to discriminate against them in public accommodations for the same baseless reason.

Fact: Public accommodations laws in no way ‘disadvantage’ Christians; all business owners are subject to their state or local jurisdiction’s public accommodation law regardless the owner’s religion, including business owners free from faith, and all are expected to follow the law.

 

[kaz]

"First amendment hating Governor tells Christians to deal with homosexual hatred"

It’s remarkable the ignorance, hate, and stupidity packed into the above quoted lie.

Fact: Public accommodations laws in no way ‘violate’ the First Amendment; Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence has never recognized religion as an ‘excuse’ for not obeying the law.

Fact: Gay Americans availing themselves of necessary, proper, and Constitutional public accommodations laws do not manifest as ‘hate’ on the part of homosexuals; indeed, the hate manifests with those who seek to disadvantage gay Americans through force of law for no other reason than being gay, or to discriminate against them in public accommodations for the same baseless reason.

Fact: Public accommodations laws in no way ‘disadvantage’ Christians; all business owners are subject to their state or local jurisdiction’s public accommodation law regardless the owner’s religion, including business owners free from faith, and all are expected to follow the law.

Government forcing citizens to do business with each other is an abomination of liberty justified nowhere in the Constitution

 

[JoeB131]

I'm a small "l" libertarian, dipshit.

you're a small dick libertarian...

100% projecting. How about you stick to facts, mouth breather.

I am. The facts clearly showed that he violated the PA Laws in Oregon, and they paid a big old honking fine that their fellow bible-thumping mouth breathers bailed them out on. Their homophobic bakery is closed, and all is right in the world.