Rules For Traditionals: How People In Wedding Trades Can Defend Themselves

[danielpalos]

They need to get a business license

Eh?

and therefore, have no excuse to appeal to ignorance of laws regarding Commerce.

The only ignorance here is your own, kid. You don't known what you're talking about, and you're spewing absurdities and falsehoods. Come back after you've finished middle school. Spend the next four years trying to learn a thing or two about the world.

how incompetent of the Right; Within U.S. law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public.

Cool story bro.

thanks; it is just a public service announcement.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

If you abolish PA laws, a business should have to list who they won't serve right on their front fucking door.

That's just another violation of its property rights.

Practicing Commerce for the public may be a privilege similar to driving.

Wrong.

you need more than a non sequitur to convince me.

Learn the meaning of "non sequitur" before you embarrass yourself by trying to use it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Public accommodations laws are necessary

No they aren't.

proper

Not really, at least not most of the time.

and Constitutional regulatory measures as authorized by the Commerce Clause

Cool story bro.

regulatory policy whose sole intent is to safeguard the integrity of the local market and all other interrelated markets.

If that's what you believe, then you need to grow up. The intent of most public accommodation laws is to stamp out discrimination. Period.

It is perfectly appropriate for states and local jurisdictions to require business open to the general public to accommodate all members of the community, thus facilitating commerce beneficial to the community as a whole.

Wrong. That you are a sniveling lifelong fry maker is what makes you incapable of even comprehending how wrong you are.

There is no law anywhere that requires all people to accommodate everybody. Not accommodating people is a standard part of every business. I don't accommodate people who can't or don't want to pay the price I am asking them to pay. I don't accommodate people when we don't have the capacity to add yet another person on a busy day. I don't accommodate people who are asking for what I feel are unreasonable requests, or requests that I simply don't feel like accommodating. I also refuse to accommodate people who behave poorly, who create a scene, who are hostile and abusive to my staff, who threaten to sue the business or who attempt to use threats of online reviews to get what they want. Just to name a few standard reasons I don't accommodate people.

Public accommodation laws do not require a business to accommodate everyone. They merely create special classifications that prohibit non-accommodation due to special reasons. That being said, they are largely failures. Discrimination still occurs every single day, it's merely dressed up in other forms of pretext.

Now, the most important thing to say in response is this, so pay attention:

Nothing you said has any relevance, nothing you said actually addresses the subject. Your entire post is a fallacy of irrelevance because all you have done is launch off on a tangent while ignoring the question of whether it is good public policy to create new laws that give special protections to gay people, forcing other people to do business in a way they may not want to do or which may object with their personal beliefs. Nowhere do you address the actual issue of the thread. Your entire post is a tap dancing around the entire subject by waxing poetic about public accommodation laws, generally, in hopes that it will slide down a slippery slope and stick. As such, I will not further debate the merits or lack thereof of public accommodation laws generally.

You're ridiculous and wrong.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Because public accommodations laws are Constitutional, no one is being denied his freedom nor are any civil rights being violated.

Spoken like a true moron who doesn't have the first conception of law or of freedom.

Just because a law is constitutional does not mean that the law does not infringe upon someone's freedom. Slavery was constitutional, but that was a major infringement on peoples' freedom. Sobriety check-points are constitutional, but they are are an infringement on freedom.

I don't believe you would find a piece of case law anywhere that ever would claim that a challenged law did not infringe upon peoples' freedom. Instead, the courts recognize that laws are inherently an infringement upon freedom, and they seek to weigh the reasonableness of that infringement based on specialized criteria.

This is just as ridiculous and wrong

 

[SwimExpert]

This is just as ridiculous and wrong

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. That you are ignorant and uneducated does not justify your attempts to create your own facts.

 

[bripat9643]

Public accommodations laws are necessary

No they aren't.

proper

Not really, at least not most of the time.

and Constitutional regulatory measures as authorized by the Commerce Clause

Cool story bro.

regulatory policy whose sole intent is to safeguard the integrity of the local market and all other interrelated markets.

If that's what you believe, then you need to grow up. The intent of most public accommodation laws is to stamp out discrimination. Period.

It is perfectly appropriate for states and local jurisdictions to require business open to the general public to accommodate all members of the community, thus facilitating commerce beneficial to the community as a whole.

Wrong. That you are a sniveling lifelong fry maker is what makes you incapable of even comprehending how wrong you are.

There is no law anywhere that requires all people to accommodate everybody. Not accommodating people is a standard part of every business. I don't accommodate people who can't or don't want to pay the price I am asking them to pay. I don't accommodate people when we don't have the capacity to add yet another person on a busy day. I don't accommodate people who are asking for what I feel are unreasonable requests, or requests that I simply don't feel like accommodating. I also refuse to accommodate people who behave poorly, who create a scene, who are hostile and abusive to my staff, who threaten to sue the business or who attempt to use threats of online reviews to get what they want. Just to name a few standard reasons I don't accommodate people.

Public accommodation laws do not require a business to accommodate everyone. They merely create special classifications that prohibit non-accommodation due to special reasons. That being said, they are largely failures. Discrimination still occurs every single day, it's merely dressed up in other forms of pretext.

Now, the most important thing to say in response is this, so pay attention:

Nothing you said has any relevance, nothing you said actually addresses the subject. Your entire post is a fallacy of irrelevance because all you have done is launch off on a tangent while ignoring the question of whether it is good public policy to create new laws that give special protections to gay people, forcing other people to do business in a way they may not want to do or which may object with their personal beliefs. Nowhere do you address the actual issue of the thread. Your entire post is a tap dancing around the entire subject by waxing poetic about public accommodation laws, generally, in hopes that it will slide down a slippery slope and stick. As such, I will not further debate the merits or lack thereof of public accommodation laws generally.

You're ridiculous and wrong.

As always, you're the one who is wrong. You do nothing buy spew your prejudices into this forum. You never provide actual facts.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Because public accommodations laws are Constitutional, no one is being denied his freedom nor are any civil rights being violated.

Spoken like a true moron who doesn't have the first conception of law or of freedom.

Just because a law is constitutional does not mean that the law does not infringe upon someone's freedom. Slavery was constitutional, but that was a major infringement on peoples' freedom. Sobriety check-points are constitutional, but they are are an infringement on freedom.

I don't believe you would find a piece of case law anywhere that ever would claim that a challenged law did not infringe upon peoples' freedom. Instead, the courts recognize that laws are inherently an infringement upon freedom, and they seek to weigh the reasonableness of that infringement based on specialized criteria.

Below is the case law that holds public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional, and that such laws in no way 'violate' religious liberty:

Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States (1964)

Employment Division v. Smith (1990)

City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)

 

[bripat9643]

Because public accommodations laws are Constitutional, no one is being denied his freedom nor are any civil rights being violated.

Spoken like a true moron who doesn't have the first conception of law or of freedom.

Just because a law is constitutional does not mean that the law does not infringe upon someone's freedom. Slavery was constitutional, but that was a major infringement on peoples' freedom. Sobriety check-points are constitutional, but they are are an infringement on freedom.

I don't believe you would find a piece of case law anywhere that ever would claim that a challenged law did not infringe upon peoples' freedom. Instead, the courts recognize that laws are inherently an infringement upon freedom, and they seek to weigh the reasonableness of that infringement based on specialized criteria.

This is just as ridiculous and wrong

What's wrong about it? You mean slavery didn't infringe on anyone's rights?

 

[bripat9643]

Because public accommodations laws are Constitutional, no one is being denied his freedom nor are any civil rights being violated.

Spoken like a true moron who doesn't have the first conception of law or of freedom.

Just because a law is constitutional does not mean that the law does not infringe upon someone's freedom. Slavery was constitutional, but that was a major infringement on peoples' freedom. Sobriety check-points are constitutional, but they are are an infringement on freedom.

I don't believe you would find a piece of case law anywhere that ever would claim that a challenged law did not infringe upon peoples' freedom. Instead, the courts recognize that laws are inherently an infringement upon freedom, and they seek to weigh the reasonableness of that infringement based on specialized criteria.

Below is the case law that holds public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional, and that such laws in no way 'violate' religious liberty:

Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States (1964)

Employment Division v. Smith (1990)

City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)

Don't bother me with case law. I couldn't give a damn what a gang of paid-off hacks have to say about the Constitution.

 

[JoeB131]

This is clearly a conceit. By that reasoning, all a business needs to do is put up sign saying "We don't server xxx" and they're covered, right? If not, then this is NOT simply a matter of making a business do what it promises.

other than violating the law, yeah. Public Accomadation. You offer a product or service, anyone who has the money to pay for it should be able to get it.

 

[JoeB131]

The government pointed guns at the owners of the bakeshop who declined to bake a cake for two queers.

Do you actually understand how laws are enforced? "Penalties" are enforced with guns. If they weren't, no one would pay them. Business owners do have religions. The owners are the ones paying the fines.

I'd laugh at what a paranoid world you live, but you take this shit seirously.

 

[JoeB131]

That's just total left-wing horseshit. If a business doesn't want to serve you, then you need to take a hike. Hanging a sign in your window is a promise of nothing. There is not contractual arrangement created by a sign that says "Joe's wedding cakes."

actually, 50 years of PA laws says that there is.

 

[JoeB131]

That being said, the real question that needs to be asked is whether requiring a business to bake a cake for a gay couple actually accomplishes anything worth while. And the answer is that no, it does not. It doesn't do anything to reduce bigotry or homophobia. It doesn't do anything to eliminate discrimination. All it will do is force all that to go underground and remain hidden from sight, while being played out on other pretexts.

actually, it sort of does, and we have the historical example of eliminating Jim Crow. Did we make the bigots stop being bigots by making them serve black folks? Nope. But at a certain point, they realized their behavior wasn't acceptable anymore.

 

[JoeB131]

You do have to wonder exactly why a gay couple would go out of their way to find a business owner who doesn't like them and try to force that business owner to do business with them. I mean, I thought a wedding was supposed to be a joyful event that focused on the two getting married, not some political point. That would seem to doom the marriage in my mind.

why can't it be both? When the Lovings challenged Virginia miscegenation laws, were they making a political statement, or did they really love each other?

 

[bripat9643]

"Paranoid?" Since when is citing the simple facts "paranoid?"

I realize you don't want to acknowledge the ugly truth of your agenda.

 

[bripat9643]

That's just total left-wing horseshit. If a business doesn't want to serve you, then you need to take a hike. Hanging a sign in your window is a promise of nothing. There is not contractual arrangement created by a sign that says "Joe's wedding cakes."

actually, 50 years of PA laws says that there is.

It does nothing of the sort. All it says is that government can force you to do what it wants.

 

[SwimExpert]

actually, it sort of does, and we have the historical example of eliminating Jim Crow. Did we make the bigots stop being bigots by making them serve black folks? Nope. But at a certain point, they realized their behavior wasn't acceptable anymore.

Tell that to the rioters in Ferguson and Baltimore. Tell that to Trayvon Martin. Tell that to the thousands of black people who face discrimination and bigotry.

But I'm glad to see you supporting the abolition of affirmative action. Clearly, it's not needed anymore.

 

[JoeB131]

"Paranoid?" Since when is citing the simple facts "paranoid?"

I realize you don't want to acknowledge the ugly truth of your agenda.

The ugly truth is we have laws and the Cake Bigots were breaking them. I got pulled over once for not wearing a seat belt. And the mean old cop had a gun, but he never felt a need to point it at me. I paid the fine and that was it.

Does your doctor know you are off your medications?

Tell that to the rioters in Ferguson and Baltimore. Tell that to Trayvon Martin. Tell that to the thousands of black people who face discrimination and bigotry.

Did Zimmerman say, "Yeah, I shot that N****r because he was looking at a White Woman?" Nope. He had to hide his bigotry in a whole lot of shit.

Crushing the cake bigots won't make them less of bigots, but it will make anyone else think twice. which is good enough for me.

 

[bripat9643]

"Paranoid?" Since when is citing the simple facts "paranoid?"

I realize you don't want to acknowledge the ugly truth of your agenda.

The ugly truth is we have laws and the Cake Bigots were breaking them. I got pulled over once for not wearing a seat belt. And the mean old cop had a gun, but he never felt a need to point it at me. I paid the fine and that was it.

Does your doctor know you are off your medications?

You're a fucking moron, Joe, and a poltroon. Anyone who says that laws aren't ultimately enforced with guns is either stupid or lying. We all know that if you fail to comply with a police officer's orders, than violence against you will continue to escalate until eventually they get out their guns. Your post is a pile of horsecrap.

BTW, moron, we also have laws on the books in this country that say marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Why aren't you attacking the people violating those laws?

 

[SwimExpert]

Did Zimmerman say, "Yeah, I shot that N****r because he was looking at a White Woman?" Nope. He had to hide his bigotry in a whole lot of shit.

And yet his bigotry still killed someone!

A person is dead because of bigotry and racism, and you think it's a victory because at least the bigotry was dressed up?!?!

Jesus fucking Christ, you are seriously deranged.