For all the Bigoted Bakers, Fanatical Florists and Pharisee Photographers

[teapartysamurai]

It takes a special kind of retard to think this "No cake for you, faggot" thing is about religion.

It isn't.

Those were Democrats, dumb dumb.

Here was their Grand Wizard.

 

[saveliberty]

Economics and the owner's vision should drive businesses, not laws.

 

[PratchettFan]

I didn't ask for the basis. I asked who gets to decide.

that's what courts are supposed to do, but the line is clear and pretty easy to see.

Well, they did decide. The state court decided on a state law. What is the problem?

Law is wrong, court is wrong.

So.... the court gets to decide unless you disagree with the decision?

The court gets to decide regardless, but their decision has no impact on what I think is right or wrong.

Ok. I can certainly respect that.

 

[saveliberty]

Nope, I would have a rule that I don't print hate speech, regardless of the belief of the customer. That would equally apply to everyone. No discrimination.

So free speech in the Constitution is just a fad?

 

[g5000]

It takes a special kind of retard to think this "No cake for you, faggot" thing is about religion.

It isn't.

Those were Democrats, dumb dumb.

Were. Past tense.

Today's right wing bigots tend to be Republicans, dum-dum.

The bigots still try to hide behind Jesus.

Same bullshit, different decade.

 

[paddymurphy]

And conservatives argue by claiming that the Supreme Court has been getting it wrong since 1803.

So you agree with:

Plessy vs. Fergusen (Separate but Equal) Plessy v. Ferguson - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Dred Scott vs. Sanford: (Blacks are not Citizens) Dred Scott v. Sandford - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Korematsu v. U.S. 1944 (Right to Intern the Japanese) Korematsu v. United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Or how about Bush v. Gore, that gets you libs's panties in such a bunch?

Aren't those decisions gone?

I thought you said the Supreme Court was the last word?

Um, no YOU guys said it was the last word.

I'm saying these are examples of why that's wrong.

Dred Scott was overturned by the Post Civil War Amendments. Plessy was overruled by a subsequent Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education. Korematsu has not been addressed again.

And they were all BAD DECISIONS by a court YOU CLAIM has the last word on the law.

So, that sort of torpedoes your argument.

No, it actually supports my argument. When there is a decision by the Supreme Court on a constitutional issue, the states have the ability to amend the Constitution. They did in response to Dred Scott. When a decision decided one way is deemed by a later Court to have been wrongly decided or if circumstances have changed such that that case law is not longer moral, then the Court overrules the previous case. Separate but equal WAS constitutional when Plessy was decided. Society had advanced to the point where that was not longer true when Brown was decided.

 

[ChrisL]

Nope, I would have a rule that I don't print hate speech, regardless of the belief of the customer. That would equally apply to everyone. No discrimination.

So free speech in the Constitution is just a fad?

Discrimination is not free speech. When you open up a business, you must abide by your respective state's laws. You cannot refuse to serve a person because he or she is gay. That's all there is to it. If you feel this is an injustice to you, then the problem is you.

 

[paddymurphy]

I didn't ask for the basis. I asked who gets to decide.

that's what courts are supposed to do, but the line is clear and pretty easy to see.

Well, they did decide. The state court decided on a state law. What is the problem?

Law is wrong, court is wrong.

So.... the court gets to decide unless you disagree with the decision?

The court gets to decide regardless, but their decision has no impact on what I think is right or wrong.

No one said it should. It does, however, require that you follow that law.

 

[ChrisL]

that's what courts are supposed to do, but the line is clear and pretty easy to see.

Well, they did decide. The state court decided on a state law. What is the problem?

Law is wrong, court is wrong.

So.... the court gets to decide unless you disagree with the decision?

The court gets to decide regardless, but their decision has no impact on what I think is right or wrong.

Ok. I can certainly respect that.

Exactly. He is still entitled to hate other people. He just cannot discriminate between customers when it comes to providing a service that he agreed to provide when opening the business, regardless of race, sexual orientation, gender, etc.

 

[PratchettFan]

If I opened a printing business, I would expect to have all kinds of customers. If I had a rule, it would apply to all people equally. That is not discriminating.

So then you believe and would support as a matter of law, language in any Court Ruling on this topic when it makes it to SCOTUS in the next year or two, that gay graphic artists would have to be forced to print "homosexuality is an abomination and a mortal sin, forbidden by the teachings of Jesus Christ in the New Testament" for a busy highway billboard, or they could be fined or gagged, or sued into the poorhouse by Christians?

OK, anyone else agree with Chris?

Nope, I would have a rule that I don't print hate speech, regardless of the belief of the customer. That would equally apply to everyone. No discrimination.

What if I had a rule that I didn't put two men or two women on a wedding cake and applied that equally to everyone? Would that be discrimination?

 

[paddymurphy]

Once again, the test is not that the government has to have a compelling interest in banning discrimination; the test is whether the law applies to everyone equally or targets religious practice.

Wrong, when one right goes against another, there has to be a good reason to force once side to go against its rights, such as actual harm to the other side.

According to YOU, not according to the Constitution or the body the Constitution gives the authority decide when a law violates a constitutional right. You seem to think that a constitutional right is something any person gets to decide for themselves.

Actually making crap up in the constitution is what YOUR side does. I merely read it as is, and a person has a right to free exercise of religion. That sets the bar to the point where the government has to prove it has a compelling interest in suspending, even partially, that right.

Where in the constitution does it state that the government can restrict your freedom of religion when it has a compelling interest to do so? Does that word, compelling, appear in the First Amendment?

It's precedent, and basic law that ones rights can be limited if actual harm is done to another party, or a person has been given due process. It's why you can't murder someone in the name of Allah, you can't own a firearm if you are a felon, and you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded location.

"It's precedent" So, you mean it is something the Supreme Court decided? It is not, however, precedent because the Supreme Court did not decide that. You did.

 

[ChrisL]

If I opened a printing business, I would expect to have all kinds of customers. If I had a rule, it would apply to all people equally. That is not discriminating.

So then you believe and would support as a matter of law, language in any Court Ruling on this topic when it makes it to SCOTUS in the next year or two, that gay graphic artists would have to be forced to print "homosexuality is an abomination and a mortal sin, forbidden by the teachings of Jesus Christ in the New Testament" for a busy highway billboard, or they could be fined or gagged, or sued into the poorhouse by Christians?

OK, anyone else agree with Chris?

Nope, I would have a rule that I don't print hate speech, regardless of the belief of the customer. That would equally apply to everyone. No discrimination.

What if I had a rule that I didn't put two men or two women on a wedding cake and applied that equally to everyone? Would that be discrimination?

No, that is discriminating against gay people. You could have a rule that you make the cake but you don't decorate them. Or, you can have generic cakes that the public can choose and not deviate from those samples.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Economics and the owner's vision should drive businesses, not laws.

Who told you that? A pimp with a stable of teenage prostitutes?

 

[saveliberty]

Nope, I would have a rule that I don't print hate speech, regardless of the belief of the customer. That would equally apply to everyone. No discrimination.

So free speech in the Constitution is just a fad?

Discrimination is not free speech. When you open up a business, you must abide by your respective state's laws. You cannot refuse to serve a person because he or she is gay. That's all there is to it. If you feel this is an injustice to you, then the problem is you.

You discriminated by a subjective "hate speech" term.

 

[paddymurphy]

By that logic we should repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Anything involving government should stay. Anything involving actual public accommodations should stay, but the law has to be tempered with respects to the rights of the people to associate with who they want to, and only when government has a clear compelling case to force them to do what it wants should government act.

The government has a compelling interest in protecting the citizenry from discrimination.

Not if by doing so it has to force someone to go against their morals, when their action causes not actual harm.

More made up constitutional theory by the constitutional illiterate.

Thank you for admitting your are losing the argument. I have been consistent throughout and you have not yet once found any holes in my position, short of "I don't like it"

Actually, I have provided you with Supreme Court cases that prove you wrong. You are simply too fucking stupid to understand that.

 

[ChrisL]

^^^

In other words, I don't do special orders.

 

[ChrisL]

Nope, I would have a rule that I don't print hate speech, regardless of the belief of the customer. That would equally apply to everyone. No discrimination.

So free speech in the Constitution is just a fad?

Discrimination is not free speech. When you open up a business, you must abide by your respective state's laws. You cannot refuse to serve a person because he or she is gay. That's all there is to it. If you feel this is an injustice to you, then the problem is you.

You discriminated by a subjective "hate speech" term.

How so? Explain how I have discriminated against anyone. Have I refused to provide a service to a person because of his or her sexual orientation, race, gender or what not?

 

[PratchettFan]

Well, they did decide. The state court decided on a state law. What is the problem?

Law is wrong, court is wrong.

So.... the court gets to decide unless you disagree with the decision?

The court gets to decide regardless, but their decision has no impact on what I think is right or wrong.

Ok. I can certainly respect that.

Exactly. He is still entitled to hate other people. He just cannot discriminate between customers when it comes to providing a service that he agreed to provide when opening the business, regardless of race, sexual orientation, gender, etc.

I think you are completely missing what Marty is saying or the basis of his position.

 

[ChrisL]

Law is wrong, court is wrong.

So.... the court gets to decide unless you disagree with the decision?

The court gets to decide regardless, but their decision has no impact on what I think is right or wrong.

Ok. I can certainly respect that.

Exactly. He is still entitled to hate other people. He just cannot discriminate between customers when it comes to providing a service that he agreed to provide when opening the business, regardless of race, sexual orientation, gender, etc.

I think you are completely missing what Marty is saying or the basis of his position.

Okay, explain then. From what I see, he and others are stomping their feet because they can't treat their fellow Americans as second class citizens because of their bigoted views. He is certainly entitled to FEEL anyway he wants, he just cannot apply that to business dealings, as a regular business is treated as any other business and has to abide by secular law as they are not religious institutions.

 

[teapartysamurai]

It takes a special kind of retard to think this "No cake for you, faggot" thing is about religion.

It isn't.

Those were Democrats, dumb dumb.

Were. Past tense.

Today's right wing bigots tend to be Republicans, dum-dum.

The bigots still try to hide behind Jesus.

Same bullshit, different decade.

Nice try but you bring up one man.

All of those who were for segregation never changed parties. from Wallace to Byrd.

But you keep bringing up David Duke and Strom Thurmond. Only ones you can bring up.



Meanwhile Clinton says things like this: