should a black business owner...

[PratchettFan]

Should a black business owner, who has a catering business, be forced to cater a KKK rally?

That would depend upon how the law was worded. Based upon the law as worded in Washington and the approach the state court has taken to it, I would say yes.

 

[kaz]

Why of course not

The KKK is a racist and terrorist organization

No wonder they are Democrats

exactly

Provide a link that shows todays KKK members and leaders are Democrats. Not a link that talks about decades before they quit the democrats and changed over to Republicans. Today. Show us evidence that the KKK is a Democrat led or controlled organization.

The claim originally came from the left in this discussion they are Republicans. The burden is on you.

As for me though, I know the racists are still overwhelmingly Democrats because I lived a lot of my life in the South in both Georgia and now North Carolina. The biggest racist I know who regularly uses "the n word" has an Obama sticker on his truck by his gun rack. Can't make that shit up

 

[Camp]

Yes, and PA laws are "government actions." Seriously you don't grasp that PA ... LAWS ... are not government? How are you not clicking that PA ... LAWS ... are not government? They are LAWS. Do you know what that means? The word LAWS?

Laws are an application of Contitutional powers. The Constitution does not have direct laws targeted at citizens

So then again, explain how the Christian baker had to bake the fag cake, government was not involved

Why don't you just look up the cases and read why the courts ruled the way they did?

 

[kaz]

Yes, and PA laws are "government actions." Seriously you don't grasp that PA ... LAWS ... are not government? How are you not clicking that PA ... LAWS ... are not government? They are LAWS. Do you know what that means? The word LAWS?

Laws are an application of Contitutional powers. The Constitution does not have direct laws targeted at citizens

So then again, explain how the Christian baker had to bake the fag cake, government was not involved

Why don't you just look up the cases and read why the courts ruled the way they did?

Why don't you explain how those same rulings do not apply to members of the KKK going to a black baker?

 

[PratchettFan]

Should a black business owner, who has a catering business, be forced to cater a KKK rally?

Of course not. The very nature of the KKK would provide for a hostile and potentially dangerous environment. There is more than enough evidence in KKK history to indicate the black owner and his black employees or would be in danger of physical danger.
The Christshiria law proponents get more desperate for excuses to enforce their anti American garbage everyday.

So prove them guilty of a crime or you have just violated the Constitution since PA laws are government. Let me introduce you to the Fifth Amendment: "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

The black baker has to bake the KKK cake just like the Christian baker has to bake the queer cake

Nope, the KKK approaching a black baker to make a racist cake wold be a deliberately provocative and hostile act.

If a gay couple were to approach a baker they knew was opposed to SSM for their cake, would that not also be a deliberately provocative and hostile act?

 

[Camp]

Why of course not

The KKK is a racist and terrorist organization

No wonder they are Democrats

exactly

Provide a link that shows todays KKK members and leaders are Democrats. Not a link that talks about decades before they quit the democrats and changed over to Republicans. Today. Show us evidence that the KKK is a Democrat led or controlled organization.

The claim originally came from the left in this discussion they are Republicans. The burden is on you.

As for me though, I know the racists are still overwhelmingly Democrats because I lived a lot of my life in the South in both Georgia and now North Carolina. The biggest racist I know who regularly uses "the n word" has an Obama sticker on his truck by his gun rack. Can't make that shit up

You are deflecting, a method you seem to like and use a lot. You are now correlating racism to the KKK as if they are the same. A racist does not have to belong to a violent terrorist group like the KKK. You continue to take desperate measures to support the stupid concept behind the OP.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

No. No one, of any color, should be forced to serve a domestic terrorist organization. Same with white aryans, militia groups, white supremacists or other anti-America domestic terrorists.

 

[Camp]

Yes, and PA laws are "government actions." Seriously you don't grasp that PA ... LAWS ... are not government? How are you not clicking that PA ... LAWS ... are not government? They are LAWS. Do you know what that means? The word LAWS?

Laws are an application of Contitutional powers. The Constitution does not have direct laws targeted at citizens

So then again, explain how the Christian baker had to bake the fag cake, government was not involved

Why don't you just look up the cases and read why the courts ruled the way they did?

Why don't you explain how those same rulings do not apply to members of the KKK going to a black baker?

Because your sample case does not exist. The incident is a fake and never happened. Hence, there is no court case to compare it with. It does not compare with the recently ruled on cases. That is what the OP is attempting to do. The OP is attempting to compare a made up taylored case with a real one but the made up one does not compare to the real one. I have said it before, it is a lame attempt made in desperation to give some kind of validity to the pro discrimination Christsharia side of the debate.

 

[PratchettFan]

Why of course not

The KKK is a racist and terrorist organization

So is the NAACP

NAACP is a patriotic organization that fought for liberty and freedom

The question remains. This is why I mock you when you endlessly whine and demand answers and links from others. I have repeatedly demanded an answer to how according to you the Constitutional rights of KKK members can be removed without due process of law when the Constitution says you cannot remove rights without due process of law, yet you ignore the question.

I am just pointing out yet again what a whiny, hypocritical bitch you are

The Constitution applies to government actions not private citizens

Yes, and under the 14th amendment we are all entitled to equal protection under the law. Everyone, not just the people we approve of. If you can refuse to serve an organization on the basis that you disapprove of their position on race, then you can refuse to serve a gay wedding on the basis that your disapprove of their position on SSM.

 

[jknowgood]

It is not discrimination to refuse to do business with a hate group, especially if you happen to be the target of the hate group.

Queers are proving to be a group of hateful people and Christians are the target.

 

[PratchettFan]

No. No one, of any color, should be forced to serve a domestic terrorist organization. Same with white aryans, militia groups, white supremacists or other anti-America domestic terrorists.

Who makes that determination?

 

[paperview]

This matter came up in the Elane photography case.

The NM Supreme Court said no, because the KKK - nor any other political / ideological group is a protected class.

 

[PratchettFan]

The question remains. This is why I mock you when you endlessly whine and demand answers and links from others. I have repeatedly demanded an answer to how according to you the Constitutional rights of KKK members can be removed without due process of law when the Constitution says you cannot remove rights without due process of law, yet you ignore the question.

I am just pointing out yet again what a whiny, hypocritical bitch you are

The Constitution applies to government actions not private citizens

So then the Christian baker doesn't need to sell to a gay private citizen since government isn't involved?

You somehow don't understand the relationship of the Constitution and laws

Nothing I can do about that

I see, so when they said your rights cannot be removed without due process of law, I'm an idiot because I don't realize when we are talking about something liberals support it means what it says and when it's about something you oppose it doesn't mean what it says. It's complicated, I wouldn't understand. Got it. Actually I do understand, you are a liar and a hypocrite.

I completely don't think the black baker should have to bake the cake, but I don't think the Christian baker should have to either. So I don't have to weasel my way out of my hypocrisy like you since I have none. But then you are just the weasel to do it

Your struggles for equivalency fail at every turn

Gay= KKK does not correlate

I believe what the actual issue is that discrimination = discrimination. To take the position that it is ok to discriminate against this group but not that group is just more discrimination. Either we are all treated equally or we are not. If you hold that we are not, the right to equal treatment becomes merely a matter of who is popular at the moment.

 

[paperview]

Here was the ruling in that matter:

Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock

It had to do with KKK photographing a wedding.

"{55} Elane Photography also suggests that enforcing the NMHRA against it would mean that an African-American photographer could not legally refuse to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally.

This hypothetical suffers from the reality that political views and political group membership, including membership in the Klan, are not protected categories under the NMHRA. See § 28-1-7(F) (prohibiting public accommodation discrimination based on “race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap”).

Therefore, an African-American could decline to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally. However, the point is well-taken when the roles in the hypothetical are reversed—a Ku Klux Klan member who operates a photography business as a public accommodation would be compelled to photograph an African- American under the NMHRA.

This result is required by the NMHRA, which seeks to promote equal rights and access to public accommodations by prohibiting discrimination based on certain specified protected classifications.

However, adoption of Elane Photography’s argument would allow a photographer who was a Klan member to refuse to photograph an African-American customer’s wedding, graduation, newborn child, or other event if the photographer felt that the photographs would cast African-Americans in a positive light or be interpreted as the photographer’s endorsement of African-Americans.

A holding that the First Amendment mandates an exception to public accommodations laws for commercial photographers would license commercial photographers to freely discriminate against any protected class on the basis that the photographer was only exercising his or her right not to express a viewpoint with which he or she disagrees.

Such a holding would undermine all of the protections provided by antidiscrimination laws"

 

[kaz]

You are deflecting, a method you seem to like and use a lot.

I am?

You are now correlating racism to the KKK as if they are the same. A racist does not have to belong to a violent terrorist group like the KKK. You continue to take desperate measures to support the stupid concept behind the OP.

None of this has anything to do with anything I said. I never equated racism and the KKK, I never said racists have to belong to a terrorist group. What are you smoking?

 

[kaz]

No. No one, of any color, should be forced to serve a domestic terrorist organization. Same with white aryans, militia groups, white supremacists or other anti-America domestic terrorists.

True. And you have a solution. Get a warrant to get evidence. Get a grand jury to indict, and with the due process of law convict them of a crime and you can remove their Constitutional rights.

In the mean time, the black baker has to bake the cake, there are no exceptions to that rights cannot be removed without "due process of law."

And wow, the hypocrisy over Muslim terrorists like Padilla. You people have no pride and no shame

 

[kaz]

This matter came up in the Elane photography case.

The NM Supreme Court said no, because the KKK - nor any other political / ideological group is a protected class.

A "class" isn't ordering food, it's a person. One who doesn't have Constitutional rights everyone else does apparently just 'cause

 

[kaz]

Here was the ruling in that matter:

Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock

It had to do with KKK photographing a wedding.

"{55} Elane Photography also suggests that enforcing the NMHRA against it would mean that an African-American photographer could not legally refuse to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally.

This hypothetical suffers from the reality that political views and political group membership, including membership in the Klan, are not protected categories under the NMHRA. See § 28-1-7(F) (prohibiting public accommodation discrimination based on “race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap”).

Therefore, an African-American could decline to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally. However, the point is well-taken when the roles in the hypothetical are reversed—a Ku Klux Klan member who operates a photography business as a public accommodation would be compelled to photograph an African- American under the NMHRA.

This result is required by the NMHRA, which seeks to promote equal rights and access to public accommodations by prohibiting discrimination based on certain specified protected classifications.

However, adoption of Elane Photography’s argument would allow a photographer who was a Klan member to refuse to photograph an African-American customer’s wedding, graduation, newborn child, or other event if the photographer felt that the photographs would cast African-Americans in a positive light or be interpreted as the photographer’s endorsement of African-Americans.

A holding that the First Amendment mandates an exception to public accommodations laws for commercial photographers would license commercial photographers to freely discriminate against any protected class on the basis that the photographer was only exercising his or her right not to express a viewpoint with which he or she disagrees.

Such a holding would undermine all of the protections provided by antidiscrimination laws"

This so well documents the overt hate and hypocrisy of the left. One has to be drowning in kool-aid to buy this endless double standard crap

 

[PratchettFan]

Here was the ruling in that matter:

Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock

It had to do with KKK photographing a wedding.

"{55} Elane Photography also suggests that enforcing the NMHRA against it would mean that an African-American photographer could not legally refuse to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally.

This hypothetical suffers from the reality that political views and political group membership, including membership in the Klan, are not protected categories under the NMHRA. See § 28-1-7(F) (prohibiting public accommodation discrimination based on “race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap”).

Therefore, an African-American could decline to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally. However, the point is well-taken when the roles in the hypothetical are reversed—a Ku Klux Klan member who operates a photography business as a public accommodation would be compelled to photograph an African- American under the NMHRA.

This result is required by the NMHRA, which seeks to promote equal rights and access to public accommodations by prohibiting discrimination based on certain specified protected classifications.

However, adoption of Elane Photography’s argument would allow a photographer who was a Klan member to refuse to photograph an African-American customer’s wedding, graduation, newborn child, or other event if the photographer felt that the photographs would cast African-Americans in a positive light or be interpreted as the photographer’s endorsement of African-Americans.

A holding that the First Amendment mandates an exception to public accommodations laws for commercial photographers would license commercial photographers to freely discriminate against any protected class on the basis that the photographer was only exercising his or her right not to express a viewpoint with which he or she disagrees.

Such a holding would undermine all of the protections provided by antidiscrimination laws"

A state court decision and I would be interested in how a federal court would approach it. However, let's take what the court said. Suppose rather than a political rally, it is a wedding of KKK members who are dressed out in all of their best sheets. Can the photographer say no now?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

It is not discrimination to refuse to do business with a hate group, especially if you happen to be the target of the hate group.

Queers are proving to be a group of hateful people and Christians are the target.

jknowgood

Fundie nutters are proving to be a group of hateful people and gays are the target.

There. Fixed it for you.