Freedom of Religion? Christian Artists Face Jail Time For Not Making Same-Sex Wedding Invitations

[kaz]

States don't have a right to force someone to bake a cake, design a card or photograph a gay wedding either. It's a violation of due process, which applies to the States as well. Being in business doesn't relegate our liberty or property to government control

States can commerce within their borders, and I find PA laws, when properly applied are valid and even needed.

it's when they are extended to any transaction that I have an issue.

Government cannot restrict my right to life, liberty or property without due process of law. You know Constitutional rights were extended to the States, right?

Explain how forcing me to design a card is not both a violation of my liberty and property

I agree on the card thing. My issue is that I do believe that if a store opens itself up to the public, it cannot discriminate on point of sale items, it cannot designate certain areas "group A, group B" etc, and it cannot selectively let people enter.

At least you're part way there, but where does the Constitution say you give up the right to property when you sell POS items? It does say your right to property cannot be removed without due process of law.

Clearly you can tell someone to get off your yard. Where in the Constitution does it say that property right is forfeited when you are conducting commerce on your property?

When you create a business that relies on public traffic, and you willfully allow that public traffic, then the rules change. If anyone can walk into your store, they should be able to purchase non-custom point of sale items. They should be able to sit anywhere in your restaurant if you let people sit where they want, and they should be able to get a hotel room if you offer hotel rooms to the public.

And the hotel example is interesting to me, because most hotels rent out their spaces for events. To me the hotel should be allowed to determine what hosted events it wants to handle, so if it doesn't want to book SSM's, it shouldn't have to. But it should NOT deny a hotel room for someone staying over based on any discriminatory reasons.

So you don't have to host that SSM wedding, but you do have to rent a room to that gay couple attending a OSM wedding.

Cool, now answer the question: "Clearly you can tell someone to get off your yard. Where in the Constitution does it say that property right is forfeited when you are conducting commerce on your property?"

You're throwing out standards without any basis for them. Your business is your property. Your business's property is your property. Where does the Constitution say that due process AND commerce can restrict your property rights? I only see the due process part

 

[Syriusly]

If LGBT wants to play these stupid games,

Once again.

Not a single LGBT person is involved in this case.

This is the case of two Arizona business women who are suing Phoenix because they don't want to have to comply with the law that requires them to serve all customers without discriminating because of color, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

 

[kaz]

PA laws should only apply to actual PA's. So no, you can't make black people or gay people sit in a separate section of your movie theater, No, you cannot deny a hotel room to a travelling jewish couple, No, your deli can't deny service of a sandwich to a muslim

It's so rare that any business wants to do that anyway. Jim Crow laws were a demonstration of that. The businesses didn't want to turn away customers, including black ones. The Montgomery bus system was even quasi government and they didn't want to force their best customers to stand or to the back. So the racists ran to government to force them, it was the only way. We're total racists in business, we only want to serve green.

Government is on the other hand overwhelmingly power hungry and corrupt. They can and do abuse any power given to them.

So you're solving a virtual non-problem with the greatest threat to our liberty, government.

Doesn't that bother you at all?

PA laws, when properly limited are justified use of government regulation of commerce. Asking to be able to deny a black guy or a lesbian a sandwich is such a dick move, and such a detriment to commerce, that I can see the validity of regulating it.

It's the extension of PA laws to non-essential, non-timely, non-point of sale, non-public, easily replaced goods and services that is the issue.

Government does not have the power to regulate "commerce." Now you're arguing like a liberal. It has the right to regulate trade between the States. And nowhere does it say that power includes violating other Constitutional rights. In fact the writing of the founders clearly indicates the power was meant to expand free trade, not control or restrict it. They didn't want States putting up tariffs between each other.

And again you didn't address my question. My question was doesn't solving such a virtually non existent problem by giving our abusive power hungry government more power bother you? You didn't address that at all.

 

[martybegan]

States can commerce within their borders, and I find PA laws, when properly applied are valid and even needed.

it's when they are extended to any transaction that I have an issue.

Government cannot restrict my right to life, liberty or property without due process of law. You know Constitutional rights were extended to the States, right?

Explain how forcing me to design a card is not both a violation of my liberty and property

I agree on the card thing. My issue is that I do believe that if a store opens itself up to the public, it cannot discriminate on point of sale items, it cannot designate certain areas "group A, group B" etc, and it cannot selectively let people enter.

At least you're part way there, but where does the Constitution say you give up the right to property when you sell POS items? It does say your right to property cannot be removed without due process of law.

Clearly you can tell someone to get off your yard. Where in the Constitution does it say that property right is forfeited when you are conducting commerce on your property?

When you create a business that relies on public traffic, and you willfully allow that public traffic, then the rules change. If anyone can walk into your store, they should be able to purchase non-custom point of sale items. They should be able to sit anywhere in your restaurant if you let people sit where they want, and they should be able to get a hotel room if you offer hotel rooms to the public.

And the hotel example is interesting to me, because most hotels rent out their spaces for events. To me the hotel should be allowed to determine what hosted events it wants to handle, so if it doesn't want to book SSM's, it shouldn't have to. But it should NOT deny a hotel room for someone staying over based on any discriminatory reasons.

So you don't have to host that SSM wedding, but you do have to rent a room to that gay couple attending a OSM wedding.

Cool, now answer the question: "Clearly you can tell someone to get off your yard. Where in the Constitution does it say that property right is forfeited when you are conducting commerce on your property?"

You're throwing out standards without any basis for them. Your business is your property. Your business's property is your property. Where does the Constitution say that due process AND commerce can restrict your property rights? I only see the due process part

When you open a store that is on your property, and are selling items, you are inviting them onto said property to conduct the transaction. If you are asking people to come in to buy stuff, and then yell at some of them to leave because or "reason X", it creates an impediment to commerce. The issue is how does "reason X" impact your proposed transaction, and is your right to your property greater than the right of a person to get the same deal as the person next to them, and thus the right of the State to govern commerce.

 

[martybegan]

PA laws should only apply to actual PA's. So no, you can't make black people or gay people sit in a separate section of your movie theater, No, you cannot deny a hotel room to a travelling jewish couple, No, your deli can't deny service of a sandwich to a muslim

It's so rare that any business wants to do that anyway. Jim Crow laws were a demonstration of that. The businesses didn't want to turn away customers, including black ones. The Montgomery bus system was even quasi government and they didn't want to force their best customers to stand or to the back. So the racists ran to government to force them, it was the only way. We're total racists in business, we only want to serve green.

Government is on the other hand overwhelmingly power hungry and corrupt. They can and do abuse any power given to them.

So you're solving a virtual non-problem with the greatest threat to our liberty, government.

Doesn't that bother you at all?

PA laws, when properly limited are justified use of government regulation of commerce. Asking to be able to deny a black guy or a lesbian a sandwich is such a dick move, and such a detriment to commerce, that I can see the validity of regulating it.

It's the extension of PA laws to non-essential, non-timely, non-point of sale, non-public, easily replaced goods and services that is the issue.

Government does not have the power to regulate "commerce." Now you're arguing like a liberal. It has the right to regulate trade between the States. And nowhere does it say that power includes violating other Constitutional rights.

And again you didn't address my question. My question was doesn't such a virtually non existent problem by giving our abusive power hungry government more power bother you? You didn't address that at all.

State governments can regulate commerce in the States, based on their laws and constitution, and most of these laws/cases are State issues.

And I am not looking to give them more power, I am looking to reign in existing power to a certain, acceptable (to me) level.

 

[OKTexas]

And where did they say wedding invitations between anyone and anything?

There are reasons we have judges to interpret the law. One big one is so people like you can't.

Wrong, judges are there to apply law not decide what it means, legislatures say what they mean and how they should be applied. If a law is questionable the courts should set it aside and ask the legislature that wrote it to fix it. Courts have no legislative authority.

Well then according to your interpretation, these women are screwed.

Because they have gone to court to challenge the law. Which is very clear and was passed by the 'legislative body' of Phoenix.

Wrong, I'm saying your constitutional right to be you does not negate my right to be free from you. Basically what public accommodation laws do is force association and involuntary servitude. Here's a thought, allow a businesses to serve anyone they want and let the market, not government, decide if that model is sustainable, that's called freedom.

Then your argument is you want to change all of the public accommodation laws- and that has nothing to do with 'tiny minorities'.

Change the laws then- but until they are changed- the law protects these 'Christians' from discrimination, in exactly the way it protects blacks, Jews, Mexicans and gays.

No I want to abolish all public accommodation laws, let a business do business the way they want and let the market decide if they will survive. When it comes to business, voting with your dollars is the most democratic way of determining winners and losers.

 

[Preacher]

Ah. It will be a wonderful breathe of fresh air when this shit comes to an automatic SCREECHING HALT when President Trump appoints his supreme court justice....Hopefully Breyer,Kennedy and Ginsburg retire or die and we will then have FOUR new CONSERVATIVE Justices...what's that make it a 7-2 advantage? 6-3? Something like that.

 

[kaz]

Government cannot restrict my right to life, liberty or property without due process of law. You know Constitutional rights were extended to the States, right?

Explain how forcing me to design a card is not both a violation of my liberty and property

I agree on the card thing. My issue is that I do believe that if a store opens itself up to the public, it cannot discriminate on point of sale items, it cannot designate certain areas "group A, group B" etc, and it cannot selectively let people enter.

At least you're part way there, but where does the Constitution say you give up the right to property when you sell POS items? It does say your right to property cannot be removed without due process of law.

Clearly you can tell someone to get off your yard. Where in the Constitution does it say that property right is forfeited when you are conducting commerce on your property?

When you create a business that relies on public traffic, and you willfully allow that public traffic, then the rules change. If anyone can walk into your store, they should be able to purchase non-custom point of sale items. They should be able to sit anywhere in your restaurant if you let people sit where they want, and they should be able to get a hotel room if you offer hotel rooms to the public.

And the hotel example is interesting to me, because most hotels rent out their spaces for events. To me the hotel should be allowed to determine what hosted events it wants to handle, so if it doesn't want to book SSM's, it shouldn't have to. But it should NOT deny a hotel room for someone staying over based on any discriminatory reasons.

So you don't have to host that SSM wedding, but you do have to rent a room to that gay couple attending a OSM wedding.

Cool, now answer the question: "Clearly you can tell someone to get off your yard. Where in the Constitution does it say that property right is forfeited when you are conducting commerce on your property?"

You're throwing out standards without any basis for them. Your business is your property. Your business's property is your property. Where does the Constitution say that due process AND commerce can restrict your property rights? I only see the due process part

When you open a store that is on your property, and are selling items, you are inviting them onto said property to conduct the transaction. If you are asking people to come in to buy stuff, and then yell at some of them to leave because or "reason X", it creates an impediment to commerce. The issue is how does "reason X" impact your proposed transaction, and is your right to your property greater than the right of a person to get the same deal as the person next to them, and thus the right of the State to govern commerce.

Bull shit. So if I have a backyard BBQ, does that mean anyone can come against my will because I invited people to a BBQ? When I open a business, I'm inviting customers. That determination is up to me. Why can't a hobo sleep on my floor and say he's a customer?

And again ... where ... is ... that ... in ... the ... Constitution? You keep saying engaging in commerce forfeits my Constitutional rights. Where does it say that?

 

[koshergrl]

Nazis also fined and imprisoned (and executed) religious people who refused to swear allegiance to the state before God.

 

[kaz]

PA laws should only apply to actual PA's. So no, you can't make black people or gay people sit in a separate section of your movie theater, No, you cannot deny a hotel room to a travelling jewish couple, No, your deli can't deny service of a sandwich to a muslim

It's so rare that any business wants to do that anyway. Jim Crow laws were a demonstration of that. The businesses didn't want to turn away customers, including black ones. The Montgomery bus system was even quasi government and they didn't want to force their best customers to stand or to the back. So the racists ran to government to force them, it was the only way. We're total racists in business, we only want to serve green.

Government is on the other hand overwhelmingly power hungry and corrupt. They can and do abuse any power given to them.

So you're solving a virtual non-problem with the greatest threat to our liberty, government.

Doesn't that bother you at all?

PA laws, when properly limited are justified use of government regulation of commerce. Asking to be able to deny a black guy or a lesbian a sandwich is such a dick move, and such a detriment to commerce, that I can see the validity of regulating it.

It's the extension of PA laws to non-essential, non-timely, non-point of sale, non-public, easily replaced goods and services that is the issue.

Government does not have the power to regulate "commerce." Now you're arguing like a liberal. It has the right to regulate trade between the States. And nowhere does it say that power includes violating other Constitutional rights.

And again you didn't address my question. My question was doesn't such a virtually non existent problem by giving our abusive power hungry government more power bother you? You didn't address that at all.

State governments can regulate commerce in the States, based on their laws and constitution, and most of these laws/cases are State issues.

And I am not looking to give them more power, I am looking to reign in existing power to a certain, acceptable (to me) level.

Yes, but they can't violate the Bill of Rights when they do it. Seriously, where do you get this thing that commerce forfeits Constitutional rights?

States cannot restrict my right to life, liberty or property without due process. PA laws clearly violate both my liberty and property, State regulation of commerce can't do that

 

[martybegan]

I agree on the card thing. My issue is that I do believe that if a store opens itself up to the public, it cannot discriminate on point of sale items, it cannot designate certain areas "group A, group B" etc, and it cannot selectively let people enter.

At least you're part way there, but where does the Constitution say you give up the right to property when you sell POS items? It does say your right to property cannot be removed without due process of law.

Clearly you can tell someone to get off your yard. Where in the Constitution does it say that property right is forfeited when you are conducting commerce on your property?

When you create a business that relies on public traffic, and you willfully allow that public traffic, then the rules change. If anyone can walk into your store, they should be able to purchase non-custom point of sale items. They should be able to sit anywhere in your restaurant if you let people sit where they want, and they should be able to get a hotel room if you offer hotel rooms to the public.

And the hotel example is interesting to me, because most hotels rent out their spaces for events. To me the hotel should be allowed to determine what hosted events it wants to handle, so if it doesn't want to book SSM's, it shouldn't have to. But it should NOT deny a hotel room for someone staying over based on any discriminatory reasons.

So you don't have to host that SSM wedding, but you do have to rent a room to that gay couple attending a OSM wedding.

Cool, now answer the question: "Clearly you can tell someone to get off your yard. Where in the Constitution does it say that property right is forfeited when you are conducting commerce on your property?"

You're throwing out standards without any basis for them. Your business is your property. Your business's property is your property. Where does the Constitution say that due process AND commerce can restrict your property rights? I only see the due process part

When you open a store that is on your property, and are selling items, you are inviting them onto said property to conduct the transaction. If you are asking people to come in to buy stuff, and then yell at some of them to leave because or "reason X", it creates an impediment to commerce. The issue is how does "reason X" impact your proposed transaction, and is your right to your property greater than the right of a person to get the same deal as the person next to them, and thus the right of the State to govern commerce.

Bull shit. So if I have a backyard BBQ, does that mean anyone can come against my will because I invited people to a BBQ? When I open a business, I'm inviting customers. That determination is up to me. Why can't a hobo sleep on my floor and say he's a customer?

And again ... where ... is ... that ... in ... the ... Constitution? You keep saying engaging in commerce forfeits my Constitutional rights. Where does it say that?

No, because you INVITED them. When you own a shop that says "Open for business" and allow the public in, you allow the public in. If you want your grocery store to be a private club, you have to set it up that way.

A Hobo sleeping on your floor, if you do not let anyone else sleep on your floor, can be removed as a trespasser. Different concept.

 

[martybegan]

PA laws should only apply to actual PA's. So no, you can't make black people or gay people sit in a separate section of your movie theater, No, you cannot deny a hotel room to a travelling jewish couple, No, your deli can't deny service of a sandwich to a muslim

It's so rare that any business wants to do that anyway. Jim Crow laws were a demonstration of that. The businesses didn't want to turn away customers, including black ones. The Montgomery bus system was even quasi government and they didn't want to force their best customers to stand or to the back. So the racists ran to government to force them, it was the only way. We're total racists in business, we only want to serve green.

Government is on the other hand overwhelmingly power hungry and corrupt. They can and do abuse any power given to them.

So you're solving a virtual non-problem with the greatest threat to our liberty, government.

Doesn't that bother you at all?

PA laws, when properly limited are justified use of government regulation of commerce. Asking to be able to deny a black guy or a lesbian a sandwich is such a dick move, and such a detriment to commerce, that I can see the validity of regulating it.

It's the extension of PA laws to non-essential, non-timely, non-point of sale, non-public, easily replaced goods and services that is the issue.

Government does not have the power to regulate "commerce." Now you're arguing like a liberal. It has the right to regulate trade between the States. And nowhere does it say that power includes violating other Constitutional rights.

And again you didn't address my question. My question was doesn't such a virtually non existent problem by giving our abusive power hungry government more power bother you? You didn't address that at all.

State governments can regulate commerce in the States, based on their laws and constitution, and most of these laws/cases are State issues.

And I am not looking to give them more power, I am looking to reign in existing power to a certain, acceptable (to me) level.

Yes, but they can't violate the Bill of Rights when they do it. Seriously, where do you get this thing that commerce forfeits Constitutional rights?

States cannot restrict my right to life, liberty or property without due process. PA laws clearly violate both my liberty and property, State regulation of commerce can't do that

it doesn't forfeit them, but a person's right to commerce has to be weighed against the other rights of other people, even sellers of goods.

Sorry, but you lose me with the absolutist nature of your concept of property rights. It's never going to win.

 

[Syriusly]

PA laws should only apply to actual PA's. So no, you can't make black people or gay people sit in a separate section of your movie theater, No, you cannot deny a hotel room to a travelling jewish couple, No, your deli can't deny service of a sandwich to a muslim

It's so rare that any business wants to do that anyway. Jim Crow laws were a demonstration of that. The businesses didn't want to turn away customers, including black ones. The Montgomery bus system was even quasi government and they didn't want to force their best customers to stand or to the back. So the racists ran to government to force them, it was the only way. We're total racists in business, we only want to serve green.

Government is on the other hand overwhelmingly power hungry and corrupt. They can and do abuse any power given to them.

So you're solving a virtual non-problem with the greatest threat to our liberty, government.

Doesn't that bother you at all?

PA laws, when properly limited are justified use of government regulation of commerce. Asking to be able to deny a black guy or a lesbian a sandwich is such a dick move, and such a detriment to commerce, that I can see the validity of regulating it.

It's the extension of PA laws to non-essential, non-timely, non-point of sale, non-public, easily replaced goods and services that is the issue.

Government does not have the power to regulate "commerce." .

Who says that the City of Phoenix and the State of Arizona do not have the power to regulate commerce?

That will come as a shock to the permit office in Phoenix.

 

[OKTexas]

Wrong, judges are there to apply law not decide what it means, legislatures say what they mean and how they should be applied. If a law is questionable the courts should set it aside and ask the legislature that wrote it to fix it. Courts have no legislative authority.

Well then according to your interpretation, these women are screwed.

Because they have gone to court to challenge the law. Which is very clear and was passed by the 'legislative body' of Phoenix.

Wrong, I'm saying your constitutional right to be you does not negate my right to be free from you. Basically what public accommodation laws do is force association and involuntary servitude. Here's a thought, allow a businesses to serve anyone they want and let the market, not government, decide if that model is sustainable, that's called freedom.

or at least keep PA laws to actual public accommodations, hotels, movie theaters, restaurants, point of sale stores of commodity items.

I disagree, any business should have the freedom to decide their own model, let the market decide if it's a sustainable model or not. If they piss off too many they won't be in business long.

What I do think businesses should be required to do is post their discrimination policy so customers, employees and vendors can all decide if we want to deal with them on an informed basis. Government like privacy policies should only hold them accountable for their stated policy

So you like selective government cohesion, just not all of it. Okkkkkkkkkkkkkyyyyyyyyyy

 

[OKTexas]

Wrong, judges are there to apply law not decide what it means, legislatures say what they mean and how they should be applied. If a law is questionable the courts should set it aside and ask the legislature that wrote it to fix it. Courts have no legislative authority.

Well then according to your interpretation, these women are screwed.

Because they have gone to court to challenge the law. Which is very clear and was passed by the 'legislative body' of Phoenix.

Wrong, I'm saying your constitutional right to be you does not negate my right to be free from you. Basically what public accommodation laws do is force association and involuntary servitude. Here's a thought, allow a businesses to serve anyone they want and let the market, not government, decide if that model is sustainable, that's called freedom.

or at least keep PA laws to actual public accommodations, hotels, movie theaters, restaurants, point of sale stores of commodity items.

I disagree, any business should have the freedom to decide their own model, let the market decide if it's a sustainable model or not. If they piss off too many they won't be in business long.

You don't want a patchwork of bodgeas, each catering to a different group, with rules on who goes in, who sits where, who gets served, etc. THAT is economic harm, and not something worth fighting for.

There are actual Public Accommodations, and those should be regulated in the interest of preventing confrontations that are a detriment to commerce.

I would prefer the competition. Like I said, a business that cuts it's own throat won't stay in business and the next guy will pick up the slack.

 

[kaz]

At least you're part way there, but where does the Constitution say you give up the right to property when you sell POS items? It does say your right to property cannot be removed without due process of law.

Clearly you can tell someone to get off your yard. Where in the Constitution does it say that property right is forfeited when you are conducting commerce on your property?

When you create a business that relies on public traffic, and you willfully allow that public traffic, then the rules change. If anyone can walk into your store, they should be able to purchase non-custom point of sale items. They should be able to sit anywhere in your restaurant if you let people sit where they want, and they should be able to get a hotel room if you offer hotel rooms to the public.

And the hotel example is interesting to me, because most hotels rent out their spaces for events. To me the hotel should be allowed to determine what hosted events it wants to handle, so if it doesn't want to book SSM's, it shouldn't have to. But it should NOT deny a hotel room for someone staying over based on any discriminatory reasons.

So you don't have to host that SSM wedding, but you do have to rent a room to that gay couple attending a OSM wedding.

Cool, now answer the question: "Clearly you can tell someone to get off your yard. Where in the Constitution does it say that property right is forfeited when you are conducting commerce on your property?"

You're throwing out standards without any basis for them. Your business is your property. Your business's property is your property. Where does the Constitution say that due process AND commerce can restrict your property rights? I only see the due process part

When you open a store that is on your property, and are selling items, you are inviting them onto said property to conduct the transaction. If you are asking people to come in to buy stuff, and then yell at some of them to leave because or "reason X", it creates an impediment to commerce. The issue is how does "reason X" impact your proposed transaction, and is your right to your property greater than the right of a person to get the same deal as the person next to them, and thus the right of the State to govern commerce.

Bull shit. So if I have a backyard BBQ, does that mean anyone can come against my will because I invited people to a BBQ? When I open a business, I'm inviting customers. That determination is up to me. Why can't a hobo sleep on my floor and say he's a customer?

And again ... where ... is ... that ... in ... the ... Constitution? You keep saying engaging in commerce forfeits my Constitutional rights. Where does it say that?

No, because you INVITED them. When you own a shop that says "Open for business" and allow the public in, you allow the public in. If you want your grocery store to be a private club, you have to set it up that way.

A Hobo sleeping on your floor, if you do not let anyone else sleep on your floor, can be removed as a trespasser. Different concept.

I did not invite "the public" in, I invited customers. You keep pulling these standards out of your ass. I invited anyone in, but not the hobo, but I did invite in people I don't want to do anything with.

The Constitution says clearly my life, liberty and property cannot be restricted without due process of law. Yet you're advocating limiting both my right to liberty and property without my having been convicted of a crime. Nowhere does the Constitution say that opening a business suspends my Constitutional rights. You're just making up that I invited "the public" in when I didn't and creating that as a standard to limit my right to liberty and property when that is not listed in the fifth amendment, only due process is listed

 

[kaz]

It's so rare that any business wants to do that anyway. Jim Crow laws were a demonstration of that. The businesses didn't want to turn away customers, including black ones. The Montgomery bus system was even quasi government and they didn't want to force their best customers to stand or to the back. So the racists ran to government to force them, it was the only way. We're total racists in business, we only want to serve green.

Government is on the other hand overwhelmingly power hungry and corrupt. They can and do abuse any power given to them.

So you're solving a virtual non-problem with the greatest threat to our liberty, government.

Doesn't that bother you at all?

PA laws, when properly limited are justified use of government regulation of commerce. Asking to be able to deny a black guy or a lesbian a sandwich is such a dick move, and such a detriment to commerce, that I can see the validity of regulating it.

It's the extension of PA laws to non-essential, non-timely, non-point of sale, non-public, easily replaced goods and services that is the issue.

Government does not have the power to regulate "commerce." Now you're arguing like a liberal. It has the right to regulate trade between the States. And nowhere does it say that power includes violating other Constitutional rights.

And again you didn't address my question. My question was doesn't such a virtually non existent problem by giving our abusive power hungry government more power bother you? You didn't address that at all.

State governments can regulate commerce in the States, based on their laws and constitution, and most of these laws/cases are State issues.

And I am not looking to give them more power, I am looking to reign in existing power to a certain, acceptable (to me) level.

Yes, but they can't violate the Bill of Rights when they do it. Seriously, where do you get this thing that commerce forfeits Constitutional rights?

States cannot restrict my right to life, liberty or property without due process. PA laws clearly violate both my liberty and property, State regulation of commerce can't do that

it doesn't forfeit them, but a person's right to commerce has to be weighed against the other rights of other people, even sellers of goods.

Sorry, but you lose me with the absolutist nature of your concept of property rights. It's never going to win.

So to you, due process is government weighing my right to commerce against the rights of other people. And the rights of other people includes forcing me to do commerce against my will.

And I never said I have an "absolutist" right to property. You just have to provide me due process. You're just flapping your jaws now

 

[kaz]

Well then according to your interpretation, these women are screwed.

Because they have gone to court to challenge the law. Which is very clear and was passed by the 'legislative body' of Phoenix.

Wrong, I'm saying your constitutional right to be you does not negate my right to be free from you. Basically what public accommodation laws do is force association and involuntary servitude. Here's a thought, allow a businesses to serve anyone they want and let the market, not government, decide if that model is sustainable, that's called freedom.

or at least keep PA laws to actual public accommodations, hotels, movie theaters, restaurants, point of sale stores of commodity items.

I disagree, any business should have the freedom to decide their own model, let the market decide if it's a sustainable model or not. If they piss off too many they won't be in business long.

What I do think businesses should be required to do is post their discrimination policy so customers, employees and vendors can all decide if we want to deal with them on an informed basis. Government like privacy policies should only hold them accountable for their stated policy

So you like selective government cohesion, just not all of it. Okkkkkkkkkkkkkyyyyyyyyyy

Exactly. Apparently our right to life, liberty and property were just suggestions that government consider them against the rights of others who want to take them from us. Who am I to have a right to not want to sell shoes when someone wants shoes?

And he's ignored completely my point that he's advocating using a sledge hammer in the hands of the greatest threat to our liberty in order to "cure" a virtually non-existent problem. Even in the deep south in the 50s government had to pass laws to stop businesses from dealing with blacks. Else the laws wouldn't have been needed

 

[OldLady]

Christism is a personal preference and conduct.

Why do Christofascists think that they should be excluded from obeying the law?

Can a law be a law if it contradicts the supreme law of the land? Where does the Constitutions say if you want to provide for your family you have to give up the freedom to exercise your religion as you see fit, or the right to chose who you associate with?

Well that is an interesting question isn't it?

Over 50 years ago, when the first such laws were passed, good Christian business owners felt it was their right not to serve blacks or Jews.

They lost that fight.

Because here is the thing- a business still has to follow the law. A business can't for example ignore city sanitation rules by claiming that his religion doesn't allow him to sanitize his business.

What you're missing is all discrimination laws, except for faghadist, are based on genetics and not personal preferences or conduct. There is nothing in the Constitution as amended that protects personal preferences or conduct form discrimination. Just because a bunch of fags and feel good regressives think it's a good idea to invent some kind of protection doesn't make it constitutional or right. BTW there are protections in the Constitution about involuntary servitude.

Homosexuality is no more of a choice than heterosexuality. What turns you on is pretty much born in you. So yes, you can insist people not have sex, but really, do you think that has or ever would work, anywhere? It may as well be genetic. I've never understood why it is such skin off anyone's nose. You take it to a whole nother level with your hatred.

What about wanting to boink someone of the same sex gives you a legitimate right to force other citizens to serve you?

You'll have to ask the founders of this country who said all men are created equal. Who I'm boinking is not anyone else's business! So it isn't yours, either, and gives you no right to refuse to serve them because you don't care for their lifestyle.

 

[OldLady]

Christism is a personal preference and conduct.

Why do Christofascists think that they should be excluded from obeying the law?

Can a law be a law if it contradicts the supreme law of the land? Where does the Constitutions say if you want to provide for your family you have to give up the freedom to exercise your religion as you see fit, or the right to chose who you associate with?

Well that is an interesting question isn't it?

Over 50 years ago, when the first such laws were passed, good Christian business owners felt it was their right not to serve blacks or Jews.

They lost that fight.

Because here is the thing- a business still has to follow the law. A business can't for example ignore city sanitation rules by claiming that his religion doesn't allow him to sanitize his business.

What you're missing is all discrimination laws, except for faghadist, are based on genetics and not personal preferences or conduct. There is nothing in the Constitution as amended that protects personal preferences or conduct form discrimination. Just because a bunch of fags and feel good regressives think it's a good idea to invent some kind of protection doesn't make it constitutional or right. BTW there are protections in the Constitution about involuntary servitude.

Homosexuality is no more of a choice than heterosexuality. What turns you on is pretty much born in you. So yes, you can insist people not have sex, but really, do you think that has or ever would work, anywhere? It may as well be genetic. I've never understood why it is such skin off anyone's nose. You take it to a whole nother level with your hatred.

I don't hate anyone, I just like freedom, you on the other hand have no problem threatening someone's livelihood to force association and involuntary servitude. That child ain't freedom, in fact I think we have an amendment outlawing forced servitude, don't we?

Not discriminating based sexual orientation is NOT forced servitude. You're being terribly dramatic.