Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It is just as wrong for a state to do it as for the Fed Govt.
The question wasn't whether it was "right" or "wrong".
The question was under what Constitutional authority do such laws exist. Federal laws exist as empowered by the Commerce Clause as it pertains to interstate commerce. State level Public Accommodation laws exist under the States power to regulate intrastate commerce.
That isn't a "right or "wrong", that is the source of the authority.
>>>>
I guess the real question is why some self proclaimed and self righteous Christian feels a need to pass on such "Fake News" in order to attack Muslims? The video is such an obvious edited hit job- where no one ever refuses to bake a wedding cake- the article below by someone who knows the bakeries shows what a con job the gullible contard bigots fall for.
Rush Limbaugh, Dearborn and the Muslim Baker Bigotry Myth | HuffPost
In the video, some conservative Faux News wannabe called Steven Crowder acts out a bunch of flaming-gay stereotypes while asking for offensive and silly titles to be put on a wedding cake. This included asking for “Same Sex 4ever” to be emblazoned on his cake because, you know, someone would actually pay for that.
Amazingly, none of his requests are refused. Heck, I would’ve turned him away just for being such an idiot. What he’s asking for is also fair game for refusal because, uh, the word “sex.” These guys know what kind of game they’re playing.
In one scene, a woman wearing a hijab is handling his order. She asks him, “Wedding?” Crowder replies, “Yeah.”
She asks, “Who’s the wedding for?”
Crowder jumps back in shock from the counter and practically shouts, “It’s for, uh, two people getting married.”
She’s just trying to be conversational, bro. Wallah. You want a gay wedding cake made by Muslims? Dearborn’s gonna bake it for you. Hamdullah.
In another scene, the guy goes to a bread bakery where they’re churning out fresh pita in a brick oven. It’s obvious there are no cakes or sweets in the bakery. The place just makes bread. Despite not being able to take an order for a wedding cake, the men behind the counter still refer him to a place where he can get wedding photographs across the street, inshallah.
The only person who answers negatively to Crowder is a fellow who works at Hallab bakery on Warren road. I’ve gotten Nammoura there before — it’s pretty damn good. Unfortunately, there’s one minor issue: Hallab doesn’t bake wedding cakes. At all. Hallab does cater for weddings if you want a nice assortment of Lebanese sweets — but they don’t bake wedding cakes. You can even look on their website.
The Commerce clause grants the federal government the right to 'regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes' - Irrelevant cat in the hat.
The Constitutional Commerce Clause is about regulating interstate commerce.
However, under the 10th Amendment States can regulate intrastate commerce.
The bakers ran afoul of a State Public Accommodation Law (not a Federal one) regarding the States regulation of intrastate commerce.
Simply put it was a Colorado Statute, not a Federal one.
>>>>
Neither the Commerce Clause nor intrastate commerce laws give the government the constitutional right to tell a private business whom they must serve and what they must serve.
I understand why the courts ruled the way they did, it was not about the constitution but about forcing a change. None of that makes it even remotely constitutional.
The Constitution is supposed to limit the power of the government, not the freedoms of the citizens.
Neither the Commerce Clause nor intrastate commerce laws give the government the constitutional right to tell a private business whom they must serve and what they must serve.
I understand why the courts ruled the way they did, it was not about the constitution but about forcing a change. None of that makes it even remotely constitutional.
The Constitution is supposed to limit the power of the government, not the freedoms of the citizens.
Just because you don't agree with them, doesn't make them unconstitutional. There is actually a process to determine their constitutionality. The Congress (or State Legislature) passes a law. The law can then be challenged on constitutional grounds up through the SCOTUS. That action has already occurred and they have been found constitutional.
The case was Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US.
>>>>
The case law is complex, by operating a public business, one engages in interstate commerce if any goods arrive from other states, customers come in, etc.
And it wouldn't matter.
Muslims should also make the fucking cake.
Religion no matter the god is just bs reason to discriminate.
Anyone should be allowed to choose who they serve and what they serve. Anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional as they give one group more protection than another
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
And it wouldn't matter.
Muslims should also make the fucking cake.
Religion no matter the god is just bs reason to discriminate.
Anyone should be allowed to choose who they serve and what they serve. Anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional as they give one group more protection than another
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
If you don’t want to serve certain classes of people, don’t go into business. If you open a business offering service to the public, you don’t get to discriminate against those you don’t like.
And need I remind you that Jesus absolutely told his followers to obeys the secular laws under which they are governed.
Neither the Commerce Clause nor intrastate commerce laws give the government the constitutional right to tell a private business whom they must serve and what they must serve.
I understand why the courts ruled the way they did, it was not about the constitution but about forcing a change. None of that makes it even remotely constitutional.
The Constitution is supposed to limit the power of the government, not the freedoms of the citizens.
Just because you don't agree with them, doesn't make them unconstitutional. There is actually a process to determine their constitutionality. The Congress (or State Legislature) passes a law. The law can then be challenged on constitutional grounds up through the SCOTUS. That action has already occurred and they have been found constitutional.
The case was Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US.
>>>>
Yes, I know the process. It was the same process that said killing the baby in the womb was a matter of privacy and protected by the constitution. The SCOTUS rules often on what they see as for the "good" of the nation vice what is actually constitutional.
The Commerce clause grants the federal government the right to 'regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes' - Irrelevant cat in the hat.
The Constitutional Commerce Clause is about regulating interstate commerce.
However, under the 10th Amendment States can regulate intrastate commerce.
The bakers ran afoul of a State Public Accommodation Law (not a Federal one) regarding the States regulation of intrastate commerce.
Simply put it was a Colorado Statute, not a Federal one.
>>>>
It is just as wrong for a state to do it as for the Fed Govt.
And it wouldn't matter.
Muslims should also make the fucking cake.
Religion no matter the god is just bs reason to discriminate.
Anyone should be allowed to choose who they serve and what they serve. Anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional as they give one group more protection than another
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
If you don’t want to serve certain classes of people, don’t go into business. If you open a business offering service to the public, you don’t get to discriminate against those you don’t like.
And need I remind you that Jesus absolutely told his followers to obeys the secular laws under which they are governed.
As long as secular law doesn't contradict God's laws and commands.
You forgot that part.
If they are sexual deviants and perverts (a.k.a. homosexuals), then, absolutely, you should refuse.Maybe I should refuse religious assholes
Ever wonder what would happen if someone asked a Muslim bakery to make a gay wedding cake? Wonder no more.
Who are they killing? I guess a religion that does kill gets special treatment. The other crap, go to another bakery.Jesus said, "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."
Gee, I have never heard of a Christian baker turning away someone getting married for the second, third, fourth, fifth, or sixth time.
Ever.
The "Christian" bakers are endorsing adultery. Every day.
These hypocrites are fake Christians.
And it wouldn't matter.
Muslims should also make the fucking cake.
Religion no matter the god is just bs reason to discriminate.
Anyone should be allowed to choose who they serve and what they serve. Anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional as they give one group more protection than another
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
If you don’t want to serve certain classes of people, don’t go into business. If you open a business offering service to the public, you don’t get to discriminate against those you don’t like.
And need I remind you that Jesus absolutely told his followers to obeys the secular laws under which they are governed.
As long as secular law doesn't contradict God's laws and commands.
You forgot that part.
Romans 13 left that out
Only distortions of the faith are negative.
Romans 13New International Version (NIV)
Submission to Governing Authorities
13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
Why are those bakers choosing to rebel against god?
Neither the Commerce Clause nor intrastate commerce laws give the government the constitutional right to tell a private business whom they must serve and what they must serve.
I understand why the courts ruled the way they did, it was not about the constitution but about forcing a change. None of that makes it even remotely constitutional.
The Constitution is supposed to limit the power of the government, not the freedoms of the citizens.
Just because you don't agree with them, doesn't make them unconstitutional. There is actually a process to determine their constitutionality. The Congress (or State Legislature) passes a law. The law can then be challenged on constitutional grounds up through the SCOTUS. That action has already occurred and they have been found constitutional.
The case was Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US.
>>>>
Yes, I know the process. It was the same process that said killing the baby in the womb was a matter of privacy and protected by the constitution. The SCOTUS rules often on what they see as for the "good" of the nation vice what is actually constitutional.
Actually the Supreme Court always rules on the constitutionality- just some like yourself disagree with them.
The Commerce clause grants the federal government the right to 'regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes' - Irrelevant cat in the hat.
The Constitutional Commerce Clause is about regulating interstate commerce.
However, under the 10th Amendment States can regulate intrastate commerce.
The bakers ran afoul of a State Public Accommodation Law (not a Federal one) regarding the States regulation of intrastate commerce.
Simply put it was a Colorado Statute, not a Federal one.
>>>>
It is just as wrong for a state to do it as for the Fed Govt.
The interesting thing about this is the reality that every civil rights law including the civil rights act would be unconstitutional. This means jim crow laws would be constitutional and that business owners could hang white only signs.
Do you agree?
