I find it very disturbing

[PratchettFan]

There is no such thing as an inalienable right and it is not even mentioned in the Constitution.

I'm not going to derail the thread by getting into that. But I am a student and teacher and writer of history. I can assure you that the entirety of the Constitution was written to facilitate a government that recognized, respected, and protected unalienable rights.

Any any law that would force something to participate in an event for which he/she had strong religious or moral convictions against violates every principle written into the Constitution.

And I can tell you that there is no such thing. There is no right which cannot be taken from you. If it can be taken from you, it isn't inalienable. But I understand your point and won't press the issue.

Which principle in the Constitution is violated?

The right to be who and what we are, hold the religious convictions that we hold, to think what we think, to believe what we believe, to say what we want to say without interferencve from a central government authority. The right to be free of an authoritarian government who dictates to us what our rights will be. The right to look to our own interests and not be forced into subserviance to any other.

Hmmm..... I don't want to derail the thread either and I can certainly see this going in all kinds of directions. Can we be more specific? Let's deal with one principle and how you think it applies and relate it back to the Constitution itself. I'm just trying to explore this. We can take that first one or any other you like.

Why don't you set up a separate thread for it Prachett? I would recommend the new Structured Debate Zone or the CDZ. I think it could be a really interesting topic to discuss.

Not a bad idea. Perhaps tomorrow. Again, enjoy your movie.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

FOXFYRE SAID:

“Any any law that would force something to participate in an event for which he/she had strong religious or moral convictions against violates every principle written into the Constitution.”

Nonsense.

No one is being 'forced' to do anything.

Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional as authorized by the Commerce Clause. Public accommodations laws are appropriate regulatory policy; indeed, business owners are subject to all manner of Constitutional regulatory policies – paying a minimum wage, affording employees safe working conditions, and ensuring environmental protection.

 

[Foxfyre]

My point is that there should absolutely be no law of any kind that forces anybody to participate in ANY event that they cannot morally condone. There is a world of difference between serving standard products across the counter to a customer who comes in--yes, any business should do that within reason. But to be forced by law to participate in an event, especially on the premises, that the person has strong religious or moral convictions against? That should not stand anywhere.

Anybody who loves the Constitution and liberty would understand why nobody should be able to pass a law requring it.

It's tricky. Where do you think the line is? Clearly not on premises. How about just selling the flowers which will be picked up from the store?

The florist in qustion had been selling flowers across the counter to the gay couple for years. Ditto the baker in question who had been selling baked goods to the gay couple for years. And almost certainly would have continued to do that. But flowers for a wedding generally require delivery and set up. That is a different thing. A photographer has to be there. Wedding cakes are almost always assembled on the customer's premises and the final decorations applied on the customer's premises.

Serve everybody who comes into the store so long as they meet minimum requirements for decency and conduct, yes. Every business owner should have to do that. But nobody should have to go to, be seen at, be a part of an event that they cannot morally or ethically condone.

The florist did not deliver and set up flowers for my wedding. If I understand you, you think it is ok for the state to require the florist to sell the flowers even though they know how those flowers are going to be used. They just should not be required to deliver and set them up at the site. Have I got that right?

Yep. You've got that right.

To be honest, I don't really disagree too much with this. But let me take it a step further. If the florist does deliver and set up the flowers at the site, but is gone before the actual event begins - is that significantly different than just providing the flowers?

I don't think so. I wouldn't want to be seen anywhere on the premises of a Westboro Baptist function even if the building was closed and everybody had gone home. Such is my repugnance and abhorrence for what they stand for; what they do. And I would think it criminal if a gay person was required by law to be there, be seen there, to participate in an event there, before it starts, during it, or taking everything down afterward.

 

[Foxfyre]

LOL. You got me peeking back in. I really am going to go watch that movie now. Ciao.

 

[dblack]

I'm not going to derail the thread by getting into that. But I am a student and teacher and writer of history. I can assure you that the entirety of the Constitution was written to facilitate a government that recognized, respected, and protected unalienable rights.

Any any law that would force something to participate in an event for which he/she had strong religious or moral convictions against violates every principle written into the Constitution.

And I can tell you that there is no such thing. There is no right which cannot be taken from you. If it can be taken from you, it isn't inalienable. But I understand your point and won't press the issue.

Which principle in the Constitution is violated?

The right to be who and what we are, hold the religious convictions that we hold, to think what we think, to believe what we believe, to say what we want to say without interferencve from a central government authority. The right to be free of an authoritarian government who dictates to us what our rights will be. The right to look to our own interests and not be forced into subserviance to any other.

Hmmm..... I don't want to derail the thread either and I can certainly see this going in all kinds of directions. Can we be more specific? Let's deal with one principle and how you think it applies and relate it back to the Constitution itself. I'm just trying to explore this. We can take that first one or any other you like.

Why don't you set up a separate thread for it Prachett? I would recommend the new Structured Debate Zone or the CDZ. I think it could be a really interesting topic to discuss.

Not a bad idea. Perhaps tomorrow. Again, enjoy your movie.

It's tricky. Where do you think the line is? Clearly not on premises. How about just selling the flowers which will be picked up from the store?

The florist in qustion had been selling flowers across the counter to the gay couple for years. Ditto the baker in question who had been selling baked goods to the gay couple for years. And almost certainly would have continued to do that. But flowers for a wedding generally require delivery and set up. That is a different thing. A photographer has to be there. Wedding cakes are almost always assembled on the customer's premises and the final decorations applied on the customer's premises.

Serve everybody who comes into the store so long as they meet minimum requirements for decency and conduct, yes. Every business owner should have to do that. But nobody should have to go to, be seen at, be a part of an event that they cannot morally or ethically condone.

The florist did not deliver and set up flowers for my wedding. If I understand you, you think it is ok for the state to require the florist to sell the flowers even though they know how those flowers are going to be used. They just should not be required to deliver and set them up at the site. Have I got that right?

Yep. You've got that right.

To be honest, I don't really disagree too much with this. But let me take it a step further. If the florist does deliver and set up the flowers at the site, but is gone before the actual event begins - is that significantly different than just providing the flowers?

I don't think so. I wouldn't want to be seen anywhere on the premises of a Westboro Baptist function even if the building was closed and everybody had gone home. Such is my repugnance and abhorrence for what they stand for; what they do. And I would think it criminal if a gay person was required by law to be there, be seen there, to participate in an event there, before it starts, during it, or taking everything down afterward.

But that's exactly the kind of things public accommodations laws imply. They all hinge on the conceit that the act of conducting public commerce somehow forfeits protection of our basic rights.

 

[dblack]

FOXFYRE SAID:

“I see absolutely no reason that gays should not have the same rights as everybody else.”

The issue isn't whether gay Americans should have the same rights as everyone else, as in fact they do; rather, the issue is acknowledging and respecting those rights comprehensively, up to and including allowing gay Americans access to marriage law, where measures seeking to deny them that right are being appropriately invalidated by the courts.

What about polygamist-Americans or incest-Americans? Oh, wait, that's right...we're talking about (just some) lifestyles, not a race of people...

False premise = false conclusions.

This is unsurprisingly ignorant.

Marriage law isn't written to accommodate three or more persons, or siblings marrying – one can't be 'discriminated against' with regard to a law that doesn't exist.

Same-sex couples, however, are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, marriage law does accommodate two adult consenting partners who aren't related – same- or opposite-sex.

To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in is discrimination, and in fact un-Constitutional.

IMO, it is not the place of the government to tell any competent adults what contracts they may or may not enter into.

That's the same reason I'm opposed to the public accommodations and protected classes stipulations of civil rights law.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No, it isn't. Look up the word inalienable and then tell me one right you have under the Constitution which meets that definition.

The Constitution is the charter of law... dumbass.

The Charter of American PRINCIPLES; that which the charter of law is designed to SUSTAIN... declared our inalienable rights as SELF-EVIDENT...

In truth, the Founders likely had no means to imagine a world, where intellectual depravity would be so profound as to preclude the average Euro-peon from being unable to distinguish LAW from PRINCIPLE.

But it is so sweet of you to demonstrate the nature of Foreign Ideas, Hostile to American Principle.

Tell me, in what part of Britain do you live, or are you from if you're an imported Euro-peon.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

IMO, it is not the place of the government to tell any competent adults what contracts they may or may not enter into.

Competence, implies the means to discern Truth from Deceit...

Deviant reasoning which rationalizes that cravings for sexual gratification through sexual interaction with people of the same gender, presents mental disorder, demonstrating the inability of the individual to discern illusion from reality.

Thus such individuals can be said to be a lot of things... 'competent' is not one of them.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

FOXFYRE SAID:

“Any any law that would force something to participate in an event for which he/she had strong religious or moral convictions against violates every principle written into the Constitution.”

Nonsense.

No one is being 'forced' to do anything. ...

NONSENSE!

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a LIE, which we are being FORCED TO ACCEPT AS TRUTH.

Now, how do we know that we're being forced to accept such as truth?

We KNOW that we are being forced to accept a LIE as TRUTH, wherein we are being told that we must accept that two men or two women are MARRIED... where MARRIAGE is defined by no less an authority that the FORCE WHICH CREATED THE HUMAN SPECIES, AS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I support the concept that anybody coming into your place of business for a loaf of bread should be able to buy a loaf of bread no matter who he or she is. But if I have to go to your place for dinner, slice the bread, and set it up to display on the buffet line, that is a very different thing.

Same as......we don't serve n*ggers here

Is that what you read into that? What if the black baker had to set up the buffet at the KKK meeting? And he just morally could not bring himself to do that. Is that the same as....we don't serve n'ggers here?

A black baker has to sell to a KKK'er.

He doesn't if we believe in unalienable rights and defend them as the Constitution intended they be defended.

There is no such thing as an inalienable right and it is not even mentioned in the Constitution.

Our rights are in fact inalienable, but not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government (see, e.g., DC v Heller (2008)).

Constitutional case law determines at what point government has exceeded its authority to place restrictions on our rights, safeguarding the protected liberties all Americans enjoy.

Our rights may be limited, but not taken away.

Last, the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law. “But that's not in the Constitution" fails as an argument.

 

[rightwinger]

I support the concept that anybody coming into your place of business for a loaf of bread should be able to buy a loaf of bread no matter who he or she is. But if I have to go to your place for dinner, slice the bread, and set it up to display on the buffet line, that is a very different thing.

Same as......we don't serve n*ggers here

Is that what you read into that? What if the black baker had to set up the buffet at the KKK meeting? And he just morally could not bring himself to do that. Is that the same as....we don't serve n'ggers here?

The way that particular law is written... yes it is.

That was a kind of unthinking answer, so let me expand upon it a tad.

I think the florists have a pretty good case to beat this. The law says they cannot discriminate based upon sexual orientation. But the facts are they provided flowers to these two gentlemen for 9 years - so clearly they have no problem in serving them. I don't think there is anything in the law which says they cannot discriminate against a particular event though. The fact that the event involves homosexuals really isn't germane.

So if the state says that the florists must provide for an event just because it involves homosexuals, then a florist must provide for a KKK meeting because it involves whites. The law applies to all equally or it should apply to none.

My point is that there should absolutely be no law of any kind that forces anybody to participate in ANY event that they cannot morally condone. There is a world of difference between serving standard products across the counter to a customer who comes in--yes, any business should do that within reason. But to be forced by law to participate in an event, especially on the premises, that the person has strong religious or moral convictions against? That should not stand anywhere.

Anybody who loves the Constitution and liberty would understand why nobody should be able to pass a law requring it.

Sorry....we don't serve n*ggers here

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Our rights are in fact inalienable, but not absolute.

Nope... our rights are inalienable and absolute.

What you and the cult are too daft to understand, is that absolute right allows you to exercise that right, whatever it is... absolutely to the point where exercising such infringes upon the means of another to exercise their own rights.

Contrary to Prog belief... Inalienable, ABSOLUTE RIGHTS, come with inalienable, ABSOLUTE RESPONSIBILITIES, which must be born to sustain one's means to exercise one's rights.

And this without regard to what some jurist sitting on some bench... may have shared at some point in time.

 

[rightwinger]

I refuse to serve you because I find your sexuality offensive

Same thing

Yes, the sexuality which presents falsity as truth, is going to be offensive to people who recognize the distinction and the importance of recognizing such.

Ya see scamp, the failure to discern between falsity and truth is OKA: Delusion... or an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

(FYI: THAT'S BAD!)

Falsity and truth?

What the hell you babbling about?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Same as......we don't serve n*ggers here

Is that what you read into that? What if the black baker had to set up the buffet at the KKK meeting? And he just morally could not bring himself to do that. Is that the same as....we don't serve n'ggers here?

The way that particular law is written... yes it is.

That was a kind of unthinking answer, so let me expand upon it a tad.

I think the florists have a pretty good case to beat this. The law says they cannot discriminate based upon sexual orientation. But the facts are they provided flowers to these two gentlemen for 9 years - so clearly they have no problem in serving them. I don't think there is anything in the law which says they cannot discriminate against a particular event though. The fact that the event involves homosexuals really isn't germane.

So if the state says that the florists must provide for an event just because it involves homosexuals, then a florist must provide for a KKK meeting because it involves whites. The law applies to all equally or it should apply to none.

My point is that there should absolutely be no law of any kind that forces anybody to participate in ANY event that they cannot morally condone. There is a world of difference between serving standard products across the counter to a customer who comes in--yes, any business should do that within reason. But to be forced by law to participate in an event, especially on the premises, that the person has strong religious or moral convictions against? That should not stand anywhere.

Anybody who loves the Constitution and liberty would understand why nobody should be able to pass a law requring it.

Sorry....we don't serve n*ggers here

You long ago conceded that this reasoning was invalid. But it is SO sweet of you to demonstrate the foolishness of it, once more.

Your reconcession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I refuse to serve you because I find your sexuality offensive

Same thing

Yes, the sexuality which presents falsity as truth, is going to be offensive to people who recognize the distinction and the importance of recognizing such.

Ya see scamp, the failure to discern between falsity and truth is OKA: Delusion... or an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

(FYI: THAT'S BAD!)

Falsity and truth?

What the hell you babbling about?

Yes! That's the problem right there. The inability to know the difference between Truth and falsity... (That which is false, thus NOT TRUE.)


Thank you...

(The Reader should know that the above cited contributor is a professed communist. A cult with a long tradition of having NO MEANS to discern a distinction between truth and falsity.

 

[rightwinger]

Is that what you read into that? What if the black baker had to set up the buffet at the KKK meeting? And he just morally could not bring himself to do that. Is that the same as....we don't serve n'ggers here?

The way that particular law is written... yes it is.

That was a kind of unthinking answer, so let me expand upon it a tad.

I think the florists have a pretty good case to beat this. The law says they cannot discriminate based upon sexual orientation. But the facts are they provided flowers to these two gentlemen for 9 years - so clearly they have no problem in serving them. I don't think there is anything in the law which says they cannot discriminate against a particular event though. The fact that the event involves homosexuals really isn't germane.

So if the state says that the florists must provide for an event just because it involves homosexuals, then a florist must provide for a KKK meeting because it involves whites. The law applies to all equally or it should apply to none.

My point is that there should absolutely be no law of any kind that forces anybody to participate in ANY event that they cannot morally condone. There is a world of difference between serving standard products across the counter to a customer who comes in--yes, any business should do that within reason. But to be forced by law to participate in an event, especially on the premises, that the person has strong religious or moral convictions against? That should not stand anywhere.

Anybody who loves the Constitution and liberty would understand why nobody should be able to pass a law requring it.

Sorry....we don't serve n*ggers here

You long ago conceded that this reasoning was invalid. But it is SO sweet of you to demonstrate the foolishness of it, once more.

Your reconcession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Didn't I warn you about those self proclaimed victories?

 

[rightwinger]

I refuse to serve you because I find your sexuality offensive

Same thing

Yes, the sexuality which presents falsity as truth, is going to be offensive to people who recognize the distinction and the importance of recognizing such.

Ya see scamp, the failure to discern between falsity and truth is OKA: Delusion... or an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

(FYI: THAT'S BAD!)

Falsity and truth?

What the hell you babbling about?

Yes! That's the problem right there. The inability to know the difference between Truth and falsity... (That which is false, thus NOT TRUE.)


Thank you...

(The Reader should know that the above cited contributor is a professed communist. A cult with a long tradition of having NO MEANS to discern a distinction between truth and falsity.

Good god

Do you even know what you are babbling about?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I refuse to serve you because I find your sexuality offensive

Same thing

Yes, the sexuality which presents falsity as truth, is going to be offensive to people who recognize the distinction and the importance of recognizing such.

Ya see scamp, the failure to discern between falsity and truth is OKA: Delusion... or an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

(FYI: THAT'S BAD!)

Falsity and truth?

What the hell you babbling about?

Yes! That's the problem right there. The inability to know the difference between Truth and falsity... (That which is false, thus NOT TRUE.)


Thank you...

(The Reader should know that the above cited contributor is a professed communist. A cult with a long tradition of having NO MEANS to discern a distinction between truth and falsity.

Good god

Do you even know what you are babbling about?

Your most recent concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

(Reader, do ya see how tragic delusion can be? It doesn't even understand the difference from that which is real, thus true and that which is not, therefore it is false. ... .)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And reader, THAT is how THAT ... is done.

 

[rightwinger]

And reader, THAT is how THAT ... is done.

Self proclaimed victories are so shallow

Don't you agree?