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.
Oh ok. Now we are talking about laws lol..That's correct. If you don't know the difference between private property laws vs business regulations then I don't have the time to educate you. Do some homework and get up to speedIt's pretty self explainatory. What do you not understand?Businesses arent private property? Lol well... Better get to explaining that oneWe aren't talking about private property we are talking about public businesses. Try and keep up. So should a business be able to discriminate, yes or no?People should be able to do whatever they want with their private property. People are so fucking entitled..
You say businesses arent private property but IM the one that doesnt understand
We've been talking about the law the whole time. We have anti discrimination laws for our businesses. The question is are you against those?. Should businesses be allowed to discriminate?Oh ok. Now we are talking about laws lol..That's correct. If you don't know the difference between private property laws vs business regulations then I don't have the time to educate you. Do some homework and get up to speedIt's pretty self explainatory. What do you not understand?Businesses arent private property? Lol well... Better get to explaining that oneWe aren't talking about private property we are talking about public businesses. Try and keep up. So should a business be able to discriminate, yes or no?
You say businesses arent private property but IM the one that doesnt understand
That wasnt my point.
I was arguing against PA laws. I think they are bullshit and infringe on our individual liberty and private property.
People are so entitled.
I know slade smh....We have anti discrimination laws for our businesses. The question is are you against those?. Should businesses be allowed to discriminate?
That's the problem the way I see it. If a bakery can be sued for not making a wedding cake for a gay marriage, where is the line afterwards?
I don't think anybody should be forced to take a job they don't want to do. For instance on several occasions, I called out professionals to do various work for me. They came out, took measurements or whatever and gave me an estimate, but when I called them back to have them do the job, they never returned my call.
I don't think I should have the right to sue them because they didn't like the job. They wasted my time or the time of others who were here to give them access to look things over. If you don't want to do the job, screw you, there are plenty of people that want my money. I'll never call you again or refer you to anybody else I know.
While you don't have the ability to sue those people because they didn't take the job, if you have clear proof that they discriminated against you, you do.
Nobody in my opinion is forcing those bakers to be bakers. They can choose any job they want, just follow the legal laws to perform the task. Just like nobody would ever force a Christian who doesn't believe in premarital sex to be a porn star. If your belief is that under no circumstance would you ever take a life, nobody is forcing you to become a police officer.
So if the KKK came to town and told a black baker he has to make a cake for their rally, he should by law be forced to make the cake?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
As long as it is a cake they would normally make. You can't compel speech.
Someone from the KKK ordering a cake from a black baker and telling them it is for a KKK rally, would be unwise, but yes, the baker should bake the cake...with a "no money back" policy.
And if he refuses, he should be sued out of business?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
yea, and im sure if they ruled on something you didnt like, it would be different. You are a textbook hack"they have determined" a bunch of bullshit that CLEARLY doesnt existAgain, both are laws, which is why I brought up at what point is it ok to break a US law in abiding by your religious laws? Like you say Murder violates the US Constitution. Which is the same legal document that protects the law that was made that you can't refuse services based on sexual orientation of the customer. That Colorado law is protected by the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. So what parts of the Constitution do we throw out and which ones do we keep?
If your religion says you can take 10 bucks from the rich, is that ok? Sure, nothing big there. But what about a million bucks?
Me personally I think the US should defend all US law first. I don't think we should start building two buckets to decide which laws to enforce and which ones to not enforce if someone claims religious freedom. Oops, this guys a cop he has to help everyone if his religion says so. This guys an eye doctor, they can drive 50 miles to the next one, he doesn't have to follow the law.
That's why we have a supreme court; to decide what violates the constitution and what does not.
And they have already determined that Public Accommodation laws do not.
Thank you for your opinion...theirs holds the weight of law.
What's evil about it?Okay, so how is that different than making a gay wedding cake? Do you think wedding cakes have no indication on them what the cake is for?
They are wedding cakes. You cannot tell the difference between a wedding cake for a gay wedding or a straight wedding. A cake is a cake.
No baker is required to carry Bride and Bride or Groom and Groom wedding toppers and refusing to provide one would not be discriminatory. Not baking the same cake for couple A that you would bake for couple B is discriminatory. Get it now?
No, I don't, because I can't find in the Constitution where religious rights are excluded when you operate a business.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
The Supreme Court found it when racists tried to use religion when we desegregated.
I don't know if any religion where segregation was part of their beliefs. However it's very clear that most all religions are against gay lifestyles and activity because most religions recognize it as evil.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
The baker shouldn't have to make a KKK cake, you just injected that into the conversation. I don't think the baker should have to make a cake that says KKK on it. If they guy just wanted to buy a cake then the baker should sell him a cake. If they guy asks for something insulting or inappropriate to be put on the cake then the baker has a right to refuse.
Okay, so how is that different than making a gay wedding cake? Do you think wedding cakes have no indication on them what the cake is for?
They are wedding cakes. You cannot tell the difference between a wedding cake for a gay wedding or a straight wedding. A cake is a cake.
No baker is required to carry Bride and Bride or Groom and Groom wedding toppers and refusing to provide one would not be discriminatory. Not baking the same cake for couple A that you would bake for couple B is discriminatory. Get it now?
No, I don't, because I can't find in the Constitution where religious rights are excluded when you operate a business.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
The Supreme Court found it when racists tried to use religion when we desegregated.
I don't know if any religion where segregation was part of their beliefs. However it's very clear that most all religions are against gay lifestyles and activity because most religions recognize it as evil.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
I agree, that stuff happens all the time. But we do have anti-discrimination laws that protect various classes. If you had a contractor bid a job and then that contractor found out you were Jewish and called you back to tell you that he can't do the job because he doesn't service Jews... then I think you would have a caseAll very valid questions. I used to work as an event photographer and videographer and I couldn't imagine being mandated to take jobs by the government. I enjoyed the freedom of picking and choosing the jobs I took. I'd think that freedom to choose the jobs you take is still in tact for freelancers like that. Even though a gay wedding would probably be a blast for a band to play, I personally couldn't play for a kkk party.I would think the proper response would be to make them a cake but tell them they can't design art to celebrate the union of a gay couple. Just like they can make a cake for the KKK but they shouldn't be required to design it like an upside down cross or mark it with KKK. What the people use the cake for is none of the bakers concern. Just like a tux shop shouldn't be able to refuse the sale of a tux to a man if he is going to use it in a gay wedding. That just doesn't make sense and it screams discrimination.The stories that I read is that the baker served the gay person before knowing they were gay. They just refused to make a cake for a gay wedding. Baking a wedding cake for a gay occasion is a ritual. A person who's religion is against gay sex is participation in the occasion of the gay wedding by making such a cake.
I can't imagine that the baker refused to make just a plain wedding cake by request. I'm sure they wanted the cake to be an actual wedding cake with inscriptions or perhaps a plastic guy and guy on top of it. I never paid attention to cakes at the few weddings I've attended, but the ones I remember had the names of the couple on the cake.
Okay, I can understand that, but what about a photographer? What about a caterer who has to participate with the guests? What about a florist who has to make arrangements according to the (brides?) approval?
So then do we make an exception for just the baker, or for all involved in a gay wedding? As a musician, I think I would take umbrage to playing for a bunch of gay folks dancing with each other.
The point I'm making is that there is a difference between providing a product for a gay wedding and actually being involved with a gay wedding.
That's the problem the way I see it. If a bakery can be sued for not making a wedding cake for a gay marriage, where is the line afterwards?
I don't think anybody should be forced to take a job they don't want to do. For instance on several occasions, I called out professionals to do various work for me. They came out, took measurements or whatever and gave me an estimate, but when I called them back to have them do the job, they never returned my call.
I don't think I should have the right to sue them because they didn't like the job. They wasted my time or the time of others who were here to give them access to look things over. If you don't want to do the job, screw you, there are plenty of people that want my money. I'll never call you again or refer you to anybody else I know.
So, to be clear, you'd be fine with a "Whites Only" restaurant?I know slade smh....We have anti discrimination laws for our businesses. The question is are you against those?. Should businesses be allowed to discriminate?
Obviously, i think a person should be able to do whatever with their labor and their private property that they want.
PA laws are statism and forced conformity.
whites onlySo, to be clear, you'd be fine with a "Whites Only" restaurant?I know slade smh....We have anti discrimination laws for our businesses. The question is are you against those?. Should businesses be allowed to discriminate?
Obviously, i think a person should be able to do whatever with their labor and their private property that they want.
PA laws are statism and forced conformity.
Is it more or less of an abomination as pre marital sex? Using the lords name in vain? Getting a tattoo?What's evil about it?They are wedding cakes. You cannot tell the difference between a wedding cake for a gay wedding or a straight wedding. A cake is a cake.
No baker is required to carry Bride and Bride or Groom and Groom wedding toppers and refusing to provide one would not be discriminatory. Not baking the same cake for couple A that you would bake for couple B is discriminatory. Get it now?
No, I don't, because I can't find in the Constitution where religious rights are excluded when you operate a business.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
The Supreme Court found it when racists tried to use religion when we desegregated.
I don't know if any religion where segregation was part of their beliefs. However it's very clear that most all religions are against gay lifestyles and activity because most religions recognize it as evil.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
From a religious point of view, Homosexuality is an abomination to God.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Ok, i'll make an apples to apples comparison that is basically the same thing....I agree, that stuff happens all the time. But we do have anti-discrimination laws that protect various classes. If you had a contractor bid a job and then that contractor found out you were Jewish and called you back to tell you that he can't do the job because he doesn't service Jews... then I think you would have a caseAll very valid questions. I used to work as an event photographer and videographer and I couldn't imagine being mandated to take jobs by the government. I enjoyed the freedom of picking and choosing the jobs I took. I'd think that freedom to choose the jobs you take is still in tact for freelancers like that. Even though a gay wedding would probably be a blast for a band to play, I personally couldn't play for a kkk party.I would think the proper response would be to make them a cake but tell them they can't design art to celebrate the union of a gay couple. Just like they can make a cake for the KKK but they shouldn't be required to design it like an upside down cross or mark it with KKK. What the people use the cake for is none of the bakers concern. Just like a tux shop shouldn't be able to refuse the sale of a tux to a man if he is going to use it in a gay wedding. That just doesn't make sense and it screams discrimination.
Okay, I can understand that, but what about a photographer? What about a caterer who has to participate with the guests? What about a florist who has to make arrangements according to the (brides?) approval?
So then do we make an exception for just the baker, or for all involved in a gay wedding? As a musician, I think I would take umbrage to playing for a bunch of gay folks dancing with each other.
The point I'm making is that there is a difference between providing a product for a gay wedding and actually being involved with a gay wedding.
That's the problem the way I see it. If a bakery can be sued for not making a wedding cake for a gay marriage, where is the line afterwards?
I don't think anybody should be forced to take a job they don't want to do. For instance on several occasions, I called out professionals to do various work for me. They came out, took measurements or whatever and gave me an estimate, but when I called them back to have them do the job, they never returned my call.
I don't think I should have the right to sue them because they didn't like the job. They wasted my time or the time of others who were here to give them access to look things over. If you don't want to do the job, screw you, there are plenty of people that want my money. I'll never call you again or refer you to anybody else I know.
That's apples and oranges. The cases we were discussing are about religious freedom. If you had a contractor bid a job and then that contractor found out you were gay and called you back to tell you that he can't do the job because he doesn't service gays... then I think you would have a case
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
People can be racist and discriminatory in the privacy of their home, you can even be a whites only merchant on craigslist when you sell your nazi flags and you won't be breaking any laws. But if you decide to be a business owner and partake in legitimate commerce within this country we have laws that reject that philosophy. We had Jim Crow and America used to operate like you suggest it should, but it was an ugly time and blacks were grossly mistreated, our citizens stood up against that and passed the civil rights act. I'm sorry that you don't agree, and I'm sorry that America won't be going back to Jim Crow, but people with your point of view are fizzing out so it hopefully won't be much of a problem after another generation or two.whites onlySo, to be clear, you'd be fine with a "Whites Only" restaurant?I know slade smh....We have anti discrimination laws for our businesses. The question is are you against those?. Should businesses be allowed to discriminate?
Obviously, i think a person should be able to do whatever with their labor and their private property that they want.
PA laws are statism and forced conformity.
blacks only
latinos only
jews only
no jews
no muslims
muslims only
whatever you can think of. People should be able to do what they want their private property.
I think its stupid but people should be free to be stupid without the state coming in there and fining them or some other statist bullshit.
I understand we have the laws, i am saying i dont support them. Individual liberty and private property are the main tenant to happiness.They can do that in the privacy of their home. If they decide to be a business owner and partake in commerce within this country we have laws that reject that philosophy. We had Jim Crow and America used to operate like you suggest it should, but it was an ugly time and blacks were grossly mistreated, our citizens stood up against that and passed the civil rights act. I'm sorry that you don't agree, and I'm sorry that America won't be going back to Jim Crow, but people with your point of view are fizzing out so it hopefully won't be much of a problem after another generation or two.whites onlySo, to be clear, you'd be fine with a "Whites Only" restaurant?I know slade smh....We have anti discrimination laws for our businesses. The question is are you against those?. Should businesses be allowed to discriminate?
Obviously, i think a person should be able to do whatever with their labor and their private property that they want.
PA laws are statism and forced conformity.
blacks only
latinos only
jews only
no jews
no muslims
muslims only
whatever you can think of. People should be able to do what they want their private property.
I think its stupid but people should be free to be stupid without the state coming in there and fining them or some other statist bullshit.
I wasn't lumping you into that pool, i thought we were having a fine debate. I didn't mean to imply that you were racist, i was just using examples to better understand what you supported and to make my points. Apologies if I came off insulting, it wasn't my intent.I understand we have the laws, i am saying i dont support them. Individual liberty and private property are the main tenant to happiness.They can do that in the privacy of their home. If they decide to be a business owner and partake in commerce within this country we have laws that reject that philosophy. We had Jim Crow and America used to operate like you suggest it should, but it was an ugly time and blacks were grossly mistreated, our citizens stood up against that and passed the civil rights act. I'm sorry that you don't agree, and I'm sorry that America won't be going back to Jim Crow, but people with your point of view are fizzing out so it hopefully won't be much of a problem after another generation or two.whites onlySo, to be clear, you'd be fine with a "Whites Only" restaurant?I know slade smh....We have anti discrimination laws for our businesses. The question is are you against those?. Should businesses be allowed to discriminate?
Obviously, i think a person should be able to do whatever with their labor and their private property that they want.
PA laws are statism and forced conformity.
blacks only
latinos only
jews only
no jews
no muslims
muslims only
whatever you can think of. People should be able to do what they want their private property.
I think its stupid but people should be free to be stupid without the state coming in there and fining them or some other statist bullshit.
I dont support jim crow. I do NOT support institutional discrimination of ANY kind.
Jim Crow was an ugly time, i am sure. Institutional discrimination is ugly in itself.
Yes, i am aware that people who dont support statism and forced conformity are dying out. Big government abusing their powers with force is becoming trendy.
BTW, thanks for chunking me in the racist pool, asshole. My opinion has nothing to do with racism or jim crow or whatever. It is about each individual doing what they want with their private property as long as it doesnt infringe on others rights.
acceptedI wasn't lumping you into that pool, i thought we were having a fine debate. I didn't mean to imply that you were racist, i was just using examples to better understand what you supported and to make my points. Apologies if I came off insulting.I understand we have the laws, i am saying i dont support them. Individual liberty and private property are the main tenant to happiness.They can do that in the privacy of their home. If they decide to be a business owner and partake in commerce within this country we have laws that reject that philosophy. We had Jim Crow and America used to operate like you suggest it should, but it was an ugly time and blacks were grossly mistreated, our citizens stood up against that and passed the civil rights act. I'm sorry that you don't agree, and I'm sorry that America won't be going back to Jim Crow, but people with your point of view are fizzing out so it hopefully won't be much of a problem after another generation or two.whites onlySo, to be clear, you'd be fine with a "Whites Only" restaurant?I know slade smh....
Obviously, i think a person should be able to do whatever with their labor and their private property that they want.
PA laws are statism and forced conformity.
blacks only
latinos only
jews only
no jews
no muslims
muslims only
whatever you can think of. People should be able to do what they want their private property.
I think its stupid but people should be free to be stupid without the state coming in there and fining them or some other statist bullshit.
I dont support jim crow. I do NOT support institutional discrimination of ANY kind.
Jim Crow was an ugly time, i am sure. Institutional discrimination is ugly in itself.
Yes, i am aware that people who dont support statism and forced conformity are dying out. Big government abusing their powers with force is becoming trendy.
BTW, thanks for chunking me in the racist pool, asshole. My opinion has nothing to do with racism or jim crow or whatever. It is about each individual doing what they want with their private property as long as it doesnt infringe on others rights.
I am a small government guy, I am all for cutting needless regulations and supporting small business and individual freedoms where ever possible. When it comes to discrimination against minorities groups or women, I don't have any problem with our anti-discrimination laws. In my view our society is better when it can act civilly, respectfully and with equal treatment for all who live here. Those rules should not be hard for anybody to abide by and if they are then i'm sorry, they are probably going to live a pretty frustrated life in this country unless they can find a way to get passed it.I understand we have the laws, i am saying i dont support them. Individual liberty and private property are the main tenant to happiness.They can do that in the privacy of their home. If they decide to be a business owner and partake in commerce within this country we have laws that reject that philosophy. We had Jim Crow and America used to operate like you suggest it should, but it was an ugly time and blacks were grossly mistreated, our citizens stood up against that and passed the civil rights act. I'm sorry that you don't agree, and I'm sorry that America won't be going back to Jim Crow, but people with your point of view are fizzing out so it hopefully won't be much of a problem after another generation or two.whites onlySo, to be clear, you'd be fine with a "Whites Only" restaurant?I know slade smh....We have anti discrimination laws for our businesses. The question is are you against those?. Should businesses be allowed to discriminate?
Obviously, i think a person should be able to do whatever with their labor and their private property that they want.
PA laws are statism and forced conformity.
blacks only
latinos only
jews only
no jews
no muslims
muslims only
whatever you can think of. People should be able to do what they want their private property.
I think its stupid but people should be free to be stupid without the state coming in there and fining them or some other statist bullshit.
I dont support jim crow. I do NOT support institutional discrimination of ANY kind.
Jim Crow was an ugly time, i am sure. Institutional discrimination is ugly in itself.
Yes, i am aware that people who dont support statism and forced conformity are dying out. Big government abusing their powers with force is becoming trendy.
BTW, thanks for chunking me in the racist pool, asshole. My opinion has nothing to do with racism or jim crow or whatever. It is about each individual doing what they want with their private property as long as it doesnt infringe on others rights.
PA laws dont cover everyone. There is an inconsistency for you.I am a small government guy, I am all for cutting needless regulations and supporting small business and individual freedoms where ever possible. When it comes to discrimination against minorities groups or women, I don't have any problem with our anti-discrimination laws. In my view our society is better when it can act civilly, respectfully and with equal treatment for all who live here. Those rules should not be hard for anybody to abide by and if they are then i'm sorry, they are probably going to live a pretty frustrated life in this country unless they can find a way to get passed it.I understand we have the laws, i am saying i dont support them. Individual liberty and private property are the main tenant to happiness.They can do that in the privacy of their home. If they decide to be a business owner and partake in commerce within this country we have laws that reject that philosophy. We had Jim Crow and America used to operate like you suggest it should, but it was an ugly time and blacks were grossly mistreated, our citizens stood up against that and passed the civil rights act. I'm sorry that you don't agree, and I'm sorry that America won't be going back to Jim Crow, but people with your point of view are fizzing out so it hopefully won't be much of a problem after another generation or two.whites onlySo, to be clear, you'd be fine with a "Whites Only" restaurant?I know slade smh....
Obviously, i think a person should be able to do whatever with their labor and their private property that they want.
PA laws are statism and forced conformity.
blacks only
latinos only
jews only
no jews
no muslims
muslims only
whatever you can think of. People should be able to do what they want their private property.
I think its stupid but people should be free to be stupid without the state coming in there and fining them or some other statist bullshit.
I dont support jim crow. I do NOT support institutional discrimination of ANY kind.
Jim Crow was an ugly time, i am sure. Institutional discrimination is ugly in itself.
Yes, i am aware that people who dont support statism and forced conformity are dying out. Big government abusing their powers with force is becoming trendy.
BTW, thanks for chunking me in the racist pool, asshole. My opinion has nothing to do with racism or jim crow or whatever. It is about each individual doing what they want with their private property as long as it doesnt infringe on others rights.
I understand we have the laws, i am saying i dont support them. Individual liberty and private property are the main tenant to happiness.
I dont support jim crow. I do NOT support institutional discrimination of ANY kind.
Jim Crow was an ugly time, i am sure. Institutional discrimination is ugly in itself.
Yes, i am aware that people who dont support statism and forced conformity are dying out. Big government abusing their powers with force is becoming trendy.
BTW, thanks for chunking me in the racist pool, asshole. My opinion has nothing to do with racism or jim crow or whatever. It is about each individual doing what they want with their private property as long as it doesnt infringe on others rights.
Those examples dont change my mind. Freedom isnt free.I understand we have the laws, i am saying i dont support them. Individual liberty and private property are the main tenant to happiness.
I dont support jim crow. I do NOT support institutional discrimination of ANY kind.
Jim Crow was an ugly time, i am sure. Institutional discrimination is ugly in itself.
Yes, i am aware that people who dont support statism and forced conformity are dying out. Big government abusing their powers with force is becoming trendy.
BTW, thanks for chunking me in the racist pool, asshole. My opinion has nothing to do with racism or jim crow or whatever. It is about each individual doing what they want with their private property as long as it doesnt infringe on others rights.
And that's fine that you disagree. I am actually with you in many respects on that. But I see a big issue...
Someone claiming their freedom to not give medical assistance to someone in the ER because they are black or gay? Calling a cab and being late for an important meeting because he wouldn't give you a ride based on your race? What if the cook at your kids school won't make or serve your child a lunch over religious beliefs? Or their basketball coach saying "nope, you aren't Christian, get off my team"? What if your wife couldn't get dinner made because the only grocery store in town wouldn't let her shop?
You've got to protect all or none. And there's the issue. I really would say "protect all the Christian religous freedom, except in all of these categories where they have to provide life saving assistance"... But that's not legal for obvious reasons. It's got to be either all or none. Either we protect the rights of a police officer who won't enter your house to stop a rape because of his religious beliefs against you, or we don't protect those rights.
