Florist Sued for Refusing Service to Gay Couple Pens Defiant Letter Rejecting Gov’t Settlement Offer

[dblack]

State and local public accommodations laws are not 'unjust,' which is why they've been consistently upheld as Constitutional by the courts.

Let's not pretend nothing has changed. Now states are passing public accommodation laws that are forcing people to violate their conscience. That's not going to be upheld as Constitutional.

Public accommodation laws, have always forced people to violate their conscience. That's their purpose. The only thing changing is that they are being extended to protect more people.

 

[PratchettFan]

The last 4 times gay marriage was voted on, by the public or the state legislators it passed and your side lost.

I really don't have a "side". I think gay marriage is damaging to society, but I am fully willing to abide by the will of a majority of the people. I just want the people to decide, not one or two judges.

You free to believe gay marriage damages society but the public and courts are not buying it. The will of the people is entirely irrelevant if that will is violating the U.S. Constitution. Besides, you cannot even demonstrate how gay marriage damages society.

total horseshit! the constitution was established by the will of the people, every law on our books was established by the will of the people. This is a representative democratic republic. The people and their elected representatives decide what is legal and what is not.

as to damaging society. males and females have different genetic roles in human behavior. Deviating from those genetic roles damages the fabric of socielty. and, I don't care a flip whether you agree with me or not.

Then the law fining the florist was established by the will of the people. What is your problem then?

My problem with it is, as I've stated, that it violates fundamental liberty. Does the will of the people make that "OK" in your view? I'm mean, I assume you don't think it is such a violation, but are you suggesting that those of us who do should simply accept it because there was vote?

I was responding to Redfish, who was using the will of the people as a basis for an argument. You can't have it both ways.

You put forth an excellent point and I would say my answer is no. If one thinks a law is wrong, they should fight it. In fact, that is what has been happening for some time now. A segment of our population has been seeing laws as wrong and they have been fighting it. And they have been winning. I think the reason they are winning is because their fight, when seen without prejudice, makes complete sense.

There is no such thing as "fundamental liberty". Society can only exist as a compromise because there are far too many conflicting ideas of what is "right". For group a to have complete liberty, group b has to lose liberty. For there to be maximum freedom for everyone, there cannot be total freedom for anyone.

 

[PratchettFan]

Measures denying same-sex couples access to marriage laws are repugnant to the Constitution, and have been invalidated accordingly.

The Founders of the US and the Framers of the USC, hung homosexuals... And not just faceless homosexuals from far away burgs... they hung their neighbors, people they had grown up with, did business with, went to church with... saw every single day. People they knew PERSONALLY to be otherwise good citizens, but who through their behavior demonstrated a perversion in their reasoning which demonstrated that they were unworthy of trust.

So, enough of that bullshit. There is no "RIGHT" to demand that the entire culture's institutional nucleus must be redefined to accommodate those suffering mental disorder. The assertion is absurd on its face.

Ah..another of those "you should be thankful we don't hang you like they used to" posts.

To the lying Leftist:

When were homosexuals hung in this country?

That claim was made by Where_r_my_Keys. So if a lie was being told.....

 

[PratchettFan]

State and local public accommodations laws are not 'unjust,' ...

There is no potential for justice where law stands in diametric opposition of the God-given right and the correlating responsibilities to freely exercise one's religion.

Such laws are not only unjust, any person who obeys such laws is a coward, and unworthy of the rights endowed to them by their creator, thus through their failure to exercise those rights, are certain to lose the means to exercise them.

This is the basic argument made against same sex marriage. Which is why it is losing.

 

[PratchettFan]

State and local public accommodations laws are not 'unjust,' which is why they've been consistently upheld as Constitutional by the courts.

Let's not pretend nothing has changed. Now states are passing public accommodation laws that are forcing people to violate their conscience. That's not going to be upheld as Constitutional.

Public accommodation laws, have always forced people to violate their conscience. That's their purpose. The only thing changing is that they are being extended to protect more people.

Yes. Frankly, I fail to see the problem with that. Protecting people is a valid function of government.

 

[dblack]

There is no such thing as "fundamental liberty". Society can only exist as a compromise because there are far too many conflicting ideas of what is "right". For group a to have complete liberty, group b has to lose liberty. For there to be maximum freedom for everyone, there cannot be total freedom for anyone.

Fundamental liberty isn't the same as "complete liberty". I'm referring to the much maligned, and misunderstood, concept of inalienable rights. The key aspect of such rights is that they don't require 'group b' to lose liberty. The right to not do something always falls under this category.

 

[dblack]

State and local public accommodations laws are not 'unjust,' which is why they've been consistently upheld as Constitutional by the courts.

Let's not pretend nothing has changed. Now states are passing public accommodation laws that are forcing people to violate their conscience. That's not going to be upheld as Constitutional.

Public accommodation laws, have always forced people to violate their conscience. That's their purpose. The only thing changing is that they are being extended to protect more people.

Yes. Frankly, I fail to see the problem with that. Protecting people is a valid function of government.

I meant to quote "protect" in my comment.

In any case, the contradictions inherent in these kinds of laws will become more obvious the more they are extended. It remains to be seen whether this will wake people up, and we'll reverse the trend. Or whether we'll embrace a full-blown descent into corporatism.

 

[PratchettFan]

There is no such thing as "fundamental liberty". Society can only exist as a compromise because there are far too many conflicting ideas of what is "right". For group a to have complete liberty, group b has to lose liberty. For there to be maximum freedom for everyone, there cannot be total freedom for anyone.

Fundamental liberty isn't the same as "complete liberty". I'm referring to the much maligned, and misunderstood, concept of inalienable rights. The key aspect of such rights is that they don't require 'group b' to lose liberty. The right to not do something always falls under this category.

There is also no such thing as an inalienable right. It is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. Inalienable means it cannot be taken away from you or given up, and there is not a single right which cannot be legally taken from you or given up. You do not have a right to not do something if you are required to do it under the law.

 

[PratchettFan]

State and local public accommodations laws are not 'unjust,' which is why they've been consistently upheld as Constitutional by the courts.

Let's not pretend nothing has changed. Now states are passing public accommodation laws that are forcing people to violate their conscience. That's not going to be upheld as Constitutional.

Public accommodation laws, have always forced people to violate their conscience. That's their purpose. The only thing changing is that they are being extended to protect more people.

Yes. Frankly, I fail to see the problem with that. Protecting people is a valid function of government.

I meant to quote "protect" in my comment.

In any case, the contradictions inherent in these kinds of laws will become more obvious the more they are extended. It remains to be seen whether this will wake people up, and we'll reverse the trend. Or whether we'll embrace a full-blown descent into corporatism.

I don't see the contradictions. The person who doesn't want to serve one group is equally protected when walking into a store which doesn't want to serve them. It is equal protection - which does not mean universal protection. The law applies to everyone the same way.

As to corporatism, I don't see the connection. How does a law which prevents a corporation from discriminating against an individual a move to corporatism?

 

[dblack]

State and local public accommodations laws are not 'unjust,' which is why they've been consistently upheld as Constitutional by the courts.

Let's not pretend nothing has changed. Now states are passing public accommodation laws that are forcing people to violate their conscience. That's not going to be upheld as Constitutional.

Public accommodation laws, have always forced people to violate their conscience. That's their purpose. The only thing changing is that they are being extended to protect more people.

Yes. Frankly, I fail to see the problem with that. Protecting people is a valid function of government.

I meant to quote "protect" in my comment.

In any case, the contradictions inherent in these kinds of laws will become more obvious the more they are extended. It remains to be seen whether this will wake people up, and we'll reverse the trend. Or whether we'll embrace a full-blown descent into corporatism.

I don't see the contradictions.

I don't see how you could without a conception of fundamental rights.

As to corporatism, I don't see the connection. How does a law which prevents a corporation from discriminating against an individual a move to corporatism?

You're probably thinking of a different notion of corporatism. I'm talking about the political concept (Corporatism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia) that replaces universal, individual rights with interest group privilege.

 

[NYcarbineer]

She penned a 'defiant' letter? lol, that's a perfect symbol for the fact that conservatives will be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

State and local public accommodations laws are not 'unjust,' which is why they've been consistently upheld as Constitutional by the courts.

Let's not pretend nothing has changed. Now states are passing public accommodation laws that are forcing people to violate their conscience. That's not going to be upheld as Constitutional.

Public accommodation laws, have always forced people to violate their conscience. That's their purpose. The only thing changing is that they are being extended to protect more people.

At the expense of others who are NOT being protected. Eventually the courts will have to weigh Leftist "civil rights" against actual Constitutional rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution will trump the made up rights of the Left.

 

[PratchettFan]

Let's not pretend nothing has changed. Now states are passing public accommodation laws that are forcing people to violate their conscience. That's not going to be upheld as Constitutional.

Public accommodation laws, have always forced people to violate their conscience. That's their purpose. The only thing changing is that they are being extended to protect more people.

Yes. Frankly, I fail to see the problem with that. Protecting people is a valid function of government.

I meant to quote "protect" in my comment.

In any case, the contradictions inherent in these kinds of laws will become more obvious the more they are extended. It remains to be seen whether this will wake people up, and we'll reverse the trend. Or whether we'll embrace a full-blown descent into corporatism.

I don't see the contradictions.

I don't see how you could without a conception of fundamental rights.

As to corporatism, I don't see the connection. How does a law which prevents a corporation from discriminating against an individual a move to corporatism?

You're probably thinking of a different notion of corporatism. I'm talking about the political concept (Corporatism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia) that replaces universal, individual rights with interest group privilege.

I have the conception of fundamental rights, it just doesn't exist. It's a phrase which means whatever you want it to mean and so means nothing. I say I have the fundamental right to walk into a store and make a purchase without regard to who I am. You say you have a fundamental right to refuse to sell me something because you don't like people with green eyes. Whose right is the more fundamental? Is my fundamental right negated because it conflicts with your fundamental right or is yours negated because it conflicts with mine?

I understood what you meant by corporatism. Would you prefer I substitute agricultural interests for corporation? The point remains. How is the defense of an individual's rights moving toward corporatism?

I assume here that you mean a more extreme form of corporatism, rather than what all societies have. You couldn't buy a loaf of bread without it.

 

[PratchettFan]

State and local public accommodations laws are not 'unjust,' which is why they've been consistently upheld as Constitutional by the courts.

Let's not pretend nothing has changed. Now states are passing public accommodation laws that are forcing people to violate their conscience. That's not going to be upheld as Constitutional.

Public accommodation laws, have always forced people to violate their conscience. That's their purpose. The only thing changing is that they are being extended to protect more people.

At the expense of others who are NOT being protected. Eventually the courts will have to weigh Leftist "civil rights" against actual Constitutional rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution will trump the made up rights of the Left.

That is what has been happening. Except with the opposite results. It really is hard to stand in front of a court and argue that removing your ability to discriminate is discrimination.

 

[1751_Texan]

State and local public accommodations laws are not 'unjust,' which is why they've been consistently upheld as Constitutional by the courts.

Let's not pretend nothing has changed. Now states are passing public accommodation laws that are forcing people to violate their conscience. That's not going to be upheld as Constitutional.

Public accommodation laws, have always forced people to violate their conscience. That's their purpose. The only thing changing is that they are being extended to protect more people.

At the expense of others who are NOT being protected. Eventually the courts will have to weigh Leftist "civil rights" against actual Constitutional rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution will trump the made up rights of the Left.

ONLY if the Constitutional right does not infringe on the civil right. Civil rights are protections...Constitutional rights are judicial reasoning for the protection of Civil rights.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

State and local public accommodations laws are not 'unjust,' which is why they've been consistently upheld as Constitutional by the courts.

Let's not pretend nothing has changed. Now states are passing public accommodation laws that are forcing people to violate their conscience. That's not going to be upheld as Constitutional.

Public accommodation laws, have always forced people to violate their conscience. That's their purpose. The only thing changing is that they are being extended to protect more people.

At the expense of others who are NOT being protected. Eventually the courts will have to weigh Leftist "civil rights" against actual Constitutional rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution will trump the made up rights of the Left.

ONLY if the Constitutional right does not infringe on the civil right. Civil rights are protections...Constitutional rights are judicial reasoning for the protection of Civil rights.

Being a homo is not a Constitutional right, practicing one's religion is. Eventually the former will give way to the latter in the courts.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

State and local public accommodations laws are not 'unjust,' which is why they've been consistently upheld as Constitutional by the courts.

Let's not pretend nothing has changed. Now states are passing public accommodation laws that are forcing people to violate their conscience. That's not going to be upheld as Constitutional.

Public accommodation laws, have always forced people to violate their conscience. That's their purpose. The only thing changing is that they are being extended to protect more people.

At the expense of others who are NOT being protected. Eventually the courts will have to weigh Leftist "civil rights" against actual Constitutional rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution will trump the made up rights of the Left.

That is what has been happening. Except with the opposite results. It really is hard to stand in front of a court and argue that removing your ability to discriminate is discrimination.

That's not what's being argued.

 

[PratchettFan]

State and local public accommodations laws are not 'unjust,' which is why they've been consistently upheld as Constitutional by the courts.

Let's not pretend nothing has changed. Now states are passing public accommodation laws that are forcing people to violate their conscience. That's not going to be upheld as Constitutional.

Public accommodation laws, have always forced people to violate their conscience. That's their purpose. The only thing changing is that they are being extended to protect more people.

At the expense of others who are NOT being protected. Eventually the courts will have to weigh Leftist "civil rights" against actual Constitutional rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution will trump the made up rights of the Left.

ONLY if the Constitutional right does not infringe on the civil right. Civil rights are protections...Constitutional rights are judicial reasoning for the protection of Civil rights.

Being a homo is not a Constitutional right, practicing one's religion is. Eventually the former will give way to the latter in the courts.

That would appear not to be the case. We shall find out in May.

 

[PratchettFan]

State and local public accommodations laws are not 'unjust,' which is why they've been consistently upheld as Constitutional by the courts.

Let's not pretend nothing has changed. Now states are passing public accommodation laws that are forcing people to violate their conscience. That's not going to be upheld as Constitutional.

Public accommodation laws, have always forced people to violate their conscience. That's their purpose. The only thing changing is that they are being extended to protect more people.

At the expense of others who are NOT being protected. Eventually the courts will have to weigh Leftist "civil rights" against actual Constitutional rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution will trump the made up rights of the Left.

That is what has been happening. Except with the opposite results. It really is hard to stand in front of a court and argue that removing your ability to discriminate is discrimination.

That's not what's being argued.

That is exactly what is being argued. That is why it keeps failing. The argument is that an entire group of people should be seen as second class citizens, without the rights and privileges afforded to other citizens. Just because you don't like them. What honestly amazes me is that rather than just admit it is based upon bigotry people instead claim it is because of their belief in a man who taught "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

 

[JohnAdams]

The majority of homosexuals are either alcoholics or junkies and that is a fact. No danger there huh? I truly believe, that being gay is literally a crime.