No Cake for You

[Seawytch]

Vendors didn't promise us anything and no, they do not have to produce anything for us. We have to reach an agreement with them. Again you are begging the question, you just keep repeating your baseless assertion that a promise was made. All I said when I put up a sign is what I do. Customers are who those I want to deal with and reach an agreement with. I am a free man, I don't have to bake anyone a cake. That I decide to start selling cakes and put up a sign to say that doesn't change that. You are saying it does, yet you have provided no basis for that magical transformation that I just became a slave of government when I put up a sign that says I bake cakes.

The law says you have to. You can't refuse the blacks and you can't refuse the gays.

Again, once you offered that service, you became a public accommedation. The law is really fucking clear on this and has been for 50 years.

You are perfectly "Free" to pay that $100,000 fine for not obeying the law. Suck it, bitches.

Begging the question. I asked for the basis for the Constitutionality of that law. There is none, it is an abomination of freedom.

The Supreme Court provided it in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States and Katzenbach v. McClung.

Saying who agrees with you isn't an argument. The Constitution is an enumerated document. Where is the right to control citizens behaviors in the Constitution?

This is why you are authoritarian leftists and I'm the liberal

I didn't say who agreed with me, I stated what the standing ruling from the SCOTUS is. This is fact. I already told you what two options you have for doing something about it.

You'll notice that screaming "tyranny" impotently on a message board was not included among the choices for accomplishing what you want.

 

[kaz]

Vendors didn't promise us anything and no, they do not have to produce anything for us. We have to reach an agreement with them. Again you are begging the question, you just keep repeating your baseless assertion that a promise was made. All I said when I put up a sign is what I do. Customers are who those I want to deal with and reach an agreement with. I am a free man, I don't have to bake anyone a cake. That I decide to start selling cakes and put up a sign to say that doesn't change that. You are saying it does, yet you have provided no basis for that magical transformation that I just became a slave of government when I put up a sign that says I bake cakes.

The law says you have to. You can't refuse the blacks and you can't refuse the gays.

Again, once you offered that service, you became a public accommedation. The law is really fucking clear on this and has been for 50 years.

You are perfectly "Free" to pay that $100,000 fine for not obeying the law. Suck it, bitches.

Begging the question. I asked for the basis for the Constitutionality of that law. There is none, it is an abomination of freedom.

The Supreme Court provided it in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States and Katzenbach v. McClung.

Those have to do with Federal Public Accommodation laws.

The basis for State Public Accommodation laws is the 10th Amendment and the States ability to regulate intrastate commerce.

Both bakers cases and the photographer are cases under State Public Accommodation laws, not federal.


>>>>

Joe mentioned race. That is Federal. Either way, PA laws are Constitutional until proven otherwise.

Exactly, you can't find them in the Constitution either.

The Constitution states what powers the Federal government has, it doesn't give the Federal government power over our personal lives.

 

[kaz]

Saying who agrees with you isn't an argument. The Constitution is an enumerated document. Where is the right to control citizens behaviors in the Constitution?

This is why you are authoritarian leftists and I'm the liberal

I didn't say who agreed with me, I stated what the standing ruling from the SCOTUS is.

Literacy is not easy for you, is it?

 

[Seawytch]

Saying who agrees with you isn't an argument. The Constitution is an enumerated document. Where is the right to control citizens behaviors in the Constitution?

This is why you are authoritarian leftists and I'm the liberal

I didn't say who agreed with me, I stated what the standing ruling from the SCOTUS is.

Literacy is not easy for you, is it?

Obviously it isn't for you if you didn't understand it. When I cited the SCOTUS rulings, I was not "Saying who agrees with [me]", I was simply citing the rulings where PA laws were found constitutional. Unless another ruling takes its place, that IS the final say.

 

[JoeB131]

Begging the question. I asked for the basis for the Constitutionality of that law. There is none, it is an abomination of freedom.

Guy, the Constitution was not written on Stone Tablets dispensed by God. Point was, people decided that PA laws were reasonable and fair. They've been the law for 50 years.

 

[JoeB131]

The business did not stop this couple from marrying. They did not stop this couple from a ceremony, they didn't even stop them from having cake at the ceremony.

Fine the business 10 times the retail value of the cake, make future business decisions one with impact. But 150k?

Good lord

Next, death penalty for parking tickets?

Will the next person who thinks, "My Magic Sky Fairy thinks the ghey is icky" will think twice about acting on it with a fine like that. So, no, no inappropriate at all.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Vendors didn't promise us anything and no, they do not have to produce anything for us. We have to reach an agreement with them. Again you are begging the question, you just keep repeating your baseless assertion that a promise was made. All I said when I put up a sign is what I do. Customers are who those I want to deal with and reach an agreement with. I am a free man, I don't have to bake anyone a cake. That I decide to start selling cakes and put up a sign to say that doesn't change that. You are saying it does, yet you have provided no basis for that magical transformation that I just became a slave of government when I put up a sign that says I bake cakes.

The law says you have to. You can't refuse the blacks and you can't refuse the gays.

Again, once you offered that service, you became a public accommedation. The law is really fucking clear on this and has been for 50 years.

You are perfectly "Free" to pay that $100,000 fine for not obeying the law. Suck it, bitches.

Begging the question. I asked for the basis for the Constitutionality of that law. There is none, it is an abomination of freedom.

The Supreme Court provided it in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States and Katzenbach v. McClung.

Saying who agrees with you isn't an argument. The Constitution is an enumerated document. Where is the right to control citizens behaviors in the Constitution?

This is why you are authoritarian leftists and I'm the liberal

This is one of many examples as to why it's impossible to address Constitutional issues with you and most other 'libertarians': your refusal to acknowledge accepted and settled Constitutional jurisprudence, and your ignorance of that jurisprudence.

For example: the Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied, “but that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.' The Commerce Clause authorizes Federal, state, and local governments to enact public accommodations laws to regulate local markets, and all other interrelated markets, where allowing business owners to discriminate based on race, religion, or sexual orientation will be disruptive to those markets. Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures, as determined by the Supreme Court.

An example of your ignorance would be the ridiculous and unfounded notion that public accommodations laws seek to 'control behavior,' when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Business owners are subject to all manner of Constitutional regulatory measures enacted to ensure the safety of workers, consumers, and the environment. Prohibiting business owners from discriminating based on race, religion, or sexual orientation is no different than prohibiting business owners from paying a wage less than the minimum required by law, exposing employees to unsafe working conditions, or seeking to pollute the environment in an effort to maximize profit.

We live in the 21st Century, not the 18th, 'liberty to contract' is an anachronism never to return, the relationship between employer and employee, seller and consumer, is forever changed, where the Constitution as a fact of law authorizes government to enact regulatory measures as a countermeasure to the propensity of many employers and sellers to seek to abuse their employees and customers, including business owners who seek to discriminate based on race, religion, or sexual orientation.

The issue has nothing to do with 'authoritarianism,' it has to do with government acting in accordance with the Constitution, and in accordance with the rule of law.

 

[koshergrl]

Good lord. Please don't apply ebonics to the constitution.

 

[kaz]

Saying who agrees with you isn't an argument. The Constitution is an enumerated document. Where is the right to control citizens behaviors in the Constitution?

This is why you are authoritarian leftists and I'm the liberal

I didn't say who agreed with me, I stated what the standing ruling from the SCOTUS is.

Literacy is not easy for you, is it?

Obviously it isn't for you if you didn't understand it. When I cited the SCOTUS rulings, I was not "Saying who agrees with [me]", I was simply citing the rulings where PA laws were found constitutional. Unless another ruling takes its place, that IS the final say.

The SCOTUS is good at finding what they want to be there. Problem is the Constitution doesn't work that way. It actually has to be there, it's a document of enumerated powers. So where is it? It has to actually be there. It obviously isn't.

 

[Seawytch]

Saying who agrees with you isn't an argument. The Constitution is an enumerated document. Where is the right to control citizens behaviors in the Constitution?

This is why you are authoritarian leftists and I'm the liberal

I didn't say who agreed with me, I stated what the standing ruling from the SCOTUS is.

Literacy is not easy for you, is it?

Obviously it isn't for you if you didn't understand it. When I cited the SCOTUS rulings, I was not "Saying who agrees with [me]", I was simply citing the rulings where PA laws were found constitutional. Unless another ruling takes its place, that IS the final say.

The SCOTUS is good at finding what they want to be there. Problem is the Constitution doesn't work that way. It actually has to be there, it's a document of enumerated powers. So where is it? It has to actually be there. It obviously isn't.

What, the rulings were too hard for you to understand?

 

[kaz]

This is one of many examples as to why it's impossible to address Constitutional issues with you and most other 'libertarians': your refusal to acknowledge accepted and settled Constitutional jurisprudence, and your ignorance of that jurisprudence.

For example: the Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied, “but that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

- You don't know what "enumerated" means

The Commerce Clause authorizes Federal, state, and local governments to enact public accommodations laws to regulate local markets, and all other interrelated markets, where allowing business owners to discriminate based on race, religion, or sexual orientation will be disruptive to those markets. Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures, as determined by the Supreme Court.

- Begging the question

An example of your ignorance would be the ridiculous and unfounded notion that public accommodations laws seek to 'control behavior,' when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Business owners are subject to all manner of Constitutional regulatory measures enacted to ensure the safety of workers, consumers, and the environment. Prohibiting business owners from discriminating based on race, religion, or sexual orientation is no different than prohibiting business owners from paying a wage less than the minimum required by law, exposing employees to unsafe working conditions, or seeking to pollute the environment in an effort to maximize profit.

- The 10th amendment leaves that to the States, there is no such Federal power

We live in the 21st Century, not the 18th, 'liberty to contract' is an anachronism never to return, the relationship between employer and employee, seller and consumer, is forever changed, where the Constitution as a fact of law authorizes government to enact regulatory measures as a countermeasure to the propensity of many employers and sellers to seek to abuse their employees and customers, including business owners who seek to discriminate based on race, religion, or sexual orientation. [/quote]

- State government

The issue has nothing to do with 'authoritarianism,' it has to do with government acting in accordance with the Constitution, and in accordance with the rule of law.

- Begging the question

 

[kaz]

Saying who agrees with you isn't an argument. The Constitution is an enumerated document. Where is the right to control citizens behaviors in the Constitution?

This is why you are authoritarian leftists and I'm the liberal

I didn't say who agreed with me, I stated what the standing ruling from the SCOTUS is.

Literacy is not easy for you, is it?

Obviously it isn't for you if you didn't understand it. When I cited the SCOTUS rulings, I was not "Saying who agrees with [me]", I was simply citing the rulings where PA laws were found constitutional. Unless another ruling takes its place, that IS the final say.

The SCOTUS is good at finding what they want to be there. Problem is the Constitution doesn't work that way. It actually has to be there, it's a document of enumerated powers. So where is it? It has to actually be there. It obviously isn't.

What, the rulings were too hard for you to understand?

Non-sequitur

 

[Pop23]

The business did not stop this couple from marrying. They did not stop this couple from a ceremony, they didn't even stop them from having cake at the ceremony.

Fine the business 10 times the retail value of the cake, make future business decisions one with impact. But 150k?

Good lord

Next, death penalty for parking tickets?

Will the next person who thinks, "My Magic Sky Fairy thinks the ghey is icky" will think twice about acting on it with a fine like that. So, no, no inappropriate at all.

Read what I wrote in a response to a later post.

Like most other violations the first is x, the second as a multiple of x and so on

I seriously think Joe actually would like the death penalty for parking tickets.

Ravi and I, who never agree on anything, agreed that 150K for this, a first offense, made no sense.

 

[Seawytch]

I didn't say who agreed with me, I stated what the standing ruling from the SCOTUS is.

Literacy is not easy for you, is it?

Obviously it isn't for you if you didn't understand it. When I cited the SCOTUS rulings, I was not "Saying who agrees with [me]", I was simply citing the rulings where PA laws were found constitutional. Unless another ruling takes its place, that IS the final say.

The SCOTUS is good at finding what they want to be there. Problem is the Constitution doesn't work that way. It actually has to be there, it's a document of enumerated powers. So where is it? It has to actually be there. It obviously isn't.

What, the rulings were too hard for you to understand?

Non-sequitur

Lame cop out deflection. Did you or did you not understand the SCOTUS rulings in Heart of Atlanta and Ollie's BBQ?

 

[kaz]

Literacy is not easy for you, is it?

Obviously it isn't for you if you didn't understand it. When I cited the SCOTUS rulings, I was not "Saying who agrees with [me]", I was simply citing the rulings where PA laws were found constitutional. Unless another ruling takes its place, that IS the final say.

The SCOTUS is good at finding what they want to be there. Problem is the Constitution doesn't work that way. It actually has to be there, it's a document of enumerated powers. So where is it? It has to actually be there. It obviously isn't.

What, the rulings were too hard for you to understand?

Non-sequitur

Lame cop out deflection. Did you or did you not understand the SCOTUS rulings in Heart of Atlanta and Ollie's BBQ?

Non sequitur

 

[Ravi]

The business did not stop this couple from marrying. They did not stop this couple from a ceremony, they didn't even stop them from having cake at the ceremony.

Fine the business 10 times the retail value of the cake, make future business decisions one with impact. But 150k?

Good lord

Next, death penalty for parking tickets?

Will the next person who thinks, "My Magic Sky Fairy thinks the ghey is icky" will think twice about acting on it with a fine like that. So, no, no inappropriate at all.

Read what I wrote in a response to a later post.

Like most other violations the first is x, the second as a multiple of x and so on

I seriously think Joe actually would like the death penalty for parking tickets.

Ravi and I, who never agree on anything, agreed that 150K for this, a first offense, made no sense.

They won't end up being charged that much. The hearing to decide on the fine is march 10.

 

[JoeB131]

Read what I wrote in a response to a later post.

Like most other violations the first is x, the second as a multiple of x and so on

I seriously think Joe actually would like the death penalty for parking tickets.

Ravi and I, who never agree on anything, agreed that 150K for this, a first offense, made no sense.

Nobody gets a parking ticket for being a hater.

again, the idea here is deterence. It's not just to put Melissa's Cakes out of business, which is a good thing, but to let all the other Christian Assholes know that they can't do this, not even once.

Again, I've known gays who've been fired from their jobs for being gay, I've known gays who've been beaten up.

Having to bake a cake you'll receive money for baking after you promised to bake cakes for money - this is not an infringement.

 

[Seawytch]

Obviously it isn't for you if you didn't understand it. When I cited the SCOTUS rulings, I was not "Saying who agrees with [me]", I was simply citing the rulings where PA laws were found constitutional. Unless another ruling takes its place, that IS the final say.

The SCOTUS is good at finding what they want to be there. Problem is the Constitution doesn't work that way. It actually has to be there, it's a document of enumerated powers. So where is it? It has to actually be there. It obviously isn't.

What, the rulings were too hard for you to understand?

Non-sequitur

Lame cop out deflection. Did you or did you not understand the SCOTUS rulings in Heart of Atlanta and Ollie's BBQ?

Non sequitur

How is it a non sequitur to ask you if you understand the rulings you are inquiring about.? You asked where the SCOTUS found the authority to rule PA laws Constitutional. I provided it. Do you or do you not understand the ruling. They ruled 9-0 by the way.

 

[kaz]

The SCOTUS is good at finding what they want to be there. Problem is the Constitution doesn't work that way. It actually has to be there, it's a document of enumerated powers. So where is it? It has to actually be there. It obviously isn't.

What, the rulings were too hard for you to understand?

Non-sequitur

Lame cop out deflection. Did you or did you not understand the SCOTUS rulings in Heart of Atlanta and Ollie's BBQ?

Non sequitur

How is it a non sequitur to ask you if you understand the rulings you are inquiring about.? You asked where the SCOTUS found the authority to rule PA laws Constitutional. I provided it. Do you or do you not understand the ruling. They ruled 9-0 by the way.

It's a non-sequitur because it has nothing to do with what I argued. It's a rat hole you want me to follow you down. Pass.

 

[JoeB131]

It's a non-sequitur because it has nothing to do with what I argued. It's a rat hole you want me to follow you down. Pass.

I think I'd take the ruling of 9 SCOTUS Justices over what Libertarian nut reading his Ayn Rand has to say on the subject.