Gay statists strike again...you will submit!!!!

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What if a health inspector decides all donuts are bad for you? does he get to close the bakery down if they sell donuts?


This is truly ridiculous.


Health inspectors don't 'decide' anything.


They administer necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policies authorized by laws and measures predicated on, and justified by, facts and evidence, not capricious whims or subjective beliefs.


And the laws enacted authorizing regulatory policies are done so at the behest of the people in accordance with representative democracy and the Constitution of this Republic, where should the people believe a given regulatory policy is beyond the scope of government authority, they are at liberty to seek relief through either the political process or in the Federal courts.

 

[JoeB131]

Not even a nice try. The government at that time only represented the bigotries of the populace of the time, which is why civil rights laws had to apply to businesses as well as governments.

there wasn't a "Well, Mississippi, you have to end segregation, but Bob's Dinner can still refuse to serve Negroes!"

If you want to go that route, then when NY legalized gay marriages, it obligated business owners to serve gays, just as when Jim Crow laws were overturned, it obligated businesses to serve blacks.

Prove it, oh he who always says stupid things.

WorldWatcher already did... so i'm not going to repeat it.

I've told you my policy towards you. YOu don't get links until you start taking your meds.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ah then...share with us what you are actively doing to challenge the constitutionality of such laws. Others who wish to join you might find that useful.

Feel free to look it up, the same way people who actually care do.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So...Mormons have the free exercise of polygamy? So...religions have the free exercise of human sacrifice?

Can you say anything more stupid than you just did?

Can you think of a rational reason government should discriminate against polygamists?

Didn't think so.

 

[bodecea]

Ah then...share with us what you are actively doing to challenge the constitutionality of such laws. Others who wish to join you might find that useful.

Feel free to look it up, the same way people who actually care do.

In other words....I was right....you aren't doing anything but whining here.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Free Markets don't cure anything but the insatiable greed of the rich.

And, no, those bakers and photographers can only have businesses because we have the government infrastructure to support them. Otherwise, they'd get robbed every day.

Explain why every country that has a free market is thriving, and every country that doesn't isn't.

 

[bodecea]

So...Mormons have the free exercise of polygamy? So...religions have the free exercise of human sacrifice?

Can you say anything more stupid than you just did?

Can you think of a rational reason government should discriminate against polygamists?

Didn't think so.

And we have QW arguing for polygamists now.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They can and do, they just can't get a government marriage license. Human sacrifice involves a homicide, which is a crime in and of itself, even if a person does it willingly because of laws against suicide.

Try harder with your arguments next time.

Give her a break, she tried as hard as she could. That alone deserves a trophy.

 

[bodecea]

Free Markets don't cure anything but the insatiable greed of the rich.

And, no, those bakers and photographers can only have businesses because we have the government infrastructure to support them. Otherwise, they'd get robbed every day.

Explain why every country that has a free market is thriving, and every country that doesn't isn't.

Free market doesn't mean businesses get to do whatever they want with no regulations.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, we know for a fact that Native American's can't "freely exercise" their religious beliefs by ingesting peyote.

Employment Division v. Smith | LII / Legal Information Institute

Damn, I love it when ignoramuses say stupid things.

42 U.S. Code § 1996a - Traditional Indian religious use of peyote | LII / Legal Information Institute

Want to say something else that demonstrates your ignorance, or do you prefer to hide under the bed?

 

[bodecea]

Freedom of religion is a right that supersedes any state law...but why quibble over inalienable rights when the ability to force people to do what we want because they don't like us is popular right now....

You have freedom of religion. Your business doesn't. businesses don't have religion.

What part of "free exercise thereof" don't you get?

So...Mormons have the free exercise of polygamy? So...religions have the free exercise of human sacrifice?

They can and do, they just can't get a government marriage license. Human sacrifice involves a homicide, which is a crime in and of itself, even if a person does it willingly because of laws against suicide.

Try harder with your arguments next time.

Exactly...they cannot get the government marriage license....and you put your finger on why we do not get complete freedom of religion............when it hurts others. Thanks for helping my point along.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So...a minority doesn't have to follow a law passed by the majority? ( With the caveat that the law is constitutional....if one feels the law is NOT constitutional, any ONE person can file a brief to have the constitutionality of the law reviewed.....if need be all the way to the Supreme Court)

Really?

Tell me something, oh she who knows squat about the law. why do courts routinely reject challenges to laws because the person does not have standing if anyone can challenge a law?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's not. Why do you keep insisting that it is?

Why do you keep posting things that are demonstrably false?

The difference between us is I admit when I am wrong. The information I got was wrong, and I based my posts on it. Feel free to admit you were wrong at least once in this thread. or pretend you won because you never make mistakes.


Your choice.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, "the article" doesn't state that at all. Perhaps you should re-read it.

The article states that the owners of the farm refused to host the ceremony entirely. The "house" was only mentioned by the owner as an excuse for why they said no.

It doesn't?

Here is where it says exactly that in the link provided by the OP.

This is outrageous. Just because there's an occasional weddiing ceremony performed in their house doesn't make it "public." This blurring of public/private lines by the judge is an insidious attack on privacy and personal liberty.

Did you read a different article?

 

[bodecea]

So...a minority doesn't have to follow a law passed by the majority? ( With the caveat that the law is constitutional....if one feels the law is NOT constitutional, any ONE person can file a brief to have the constitutionality of the law reviewed.....if need be all the way to the Supreme Court)

Really?

Tell ,me something, oh she who knows squat about the law. why do courts routinely reject challenges to laws because the person does not have standing if anyone can challenge a law?

Well...you DO have to have standing with the law....duh. I, as a resident of CA with no business in NY can not randomly sue because it doesn't affect me. But if I open a business in NY it could affect me and I can go for a constitutional challenge. Duh....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

From the


No, there really isn't. Not from where I'm sitting.

You know the arguments in support of Jim Crow laws sounded a whole lot like what you're saying here, right?

You know you are 100% wrong about that, don't you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Correct me if I'm wrong....but isn't that exactly what has happened in NY? Didn't the Wedding Business lose in court?

Consider yourself corrected.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

You depraved moron. Ideological discrimination is the essence of liberty, and in this instance the only persons being unconstitutionally singled out in violation of their inalienable rights of free-association and private property are the Christians owners of this business.

You are a homofascist thug.

So hurry up and challenge the constitutionality of PA laws. Whatcha waiting for? Too lazy? Armed revolt just plain more to your liking rather than demanding your representative work?

Shut the hell up, punk. I won't be lectured by fascist thugs like you. I slap the piss out of cowardly punks like you . . . verbally speaking, you understand. Hmm. Unless of course you in get in my face, you know, invade my space, then I'm liable to kick your ass to the curb, literally.

A number of cases are already being adjudicated, on their way toward to the Supreme Court out of Colorado, New Mexico, California and other states. The Court had better get this right. I've personally been sued by a homofascist whore like you as I don't play the dodge game. I'm past that song and dance. That depraved sissy lost and was ordered to reimburse me for my legal expenses. But I haven't gotten a dime of that back and probably never will. I've put my assets on the line to defend liberty and have donated thousands to the various legal funds fighting this crap. Years ago I put my life on the line to defend liberty.

All punks like you have ever done all your lives is tear the Republic down and attack the inalienable rights of the people.

I'm in Arizona. I donated time, money and energy to pass The Arizona "Religious Rights" bill (Senate Bill 1062), vetoed by that cowardly bitch Brewer. That bill's coming back up when that statist bootlick is gone, and we will get it passed.

I will engage in civil disobedience if necessary, and I will take up arms if necessary.

Oh, and once again, shut the hell up, you mindless, bootlicking statist.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You know that it already did play out in court, and the farm lost?

That's the whole point of this thread.

You know that the decision can be appealed to a real court, don't you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The courts didn't create Public Accommodation laws. Congress and the legislature did.

The link to the ruling was previously provided, it cites the New York State Statute.



>>>>

Excuse me, the legislature of New York did not create that law, the executive did. The simplest proof of that is the fact that the court decision you posted calls it an executive law at the bottom of page 6. I already told you this, yet you keep pretending that you know what you are talking about.

Want to try again, or are you simply going to keep posting lies?