Should a Jewish Bakery Have the Right to Deny...

[PaintMyHouse]

So if a black man walks into a tire shop in need of a tire to fix his car, and the owner is a white supremacist who believes the Aryan race is God's chosen people and says "Get out of here, I don't fix ni**er cars" you right wingers would support this "right"?

Sure they would, because they think a black guy will then open up a No Whities tire shop and the problem goes away. The one slight problem, only one black guy or only one tire shop, but they ignore such things since that doesn't fit their ideology.

 

[Katzndogz]

So if a black man walks into a tire shop in need of a tire to fix his car, and the owner is a white supremacist who believes the Aryan race is God's chosen people and says "Get out of here, I don't fix ni**er cars" you right wingers would support this "right"?

Ohhhh do you know my mechanic?

He used to have an auto mechanic shop. After having endless problems with black customers who screamed racist as if that's what paid the bill, he sold his shop. He still fixed as many cars as ever, but has more latitude as to who he took on as a customer. He fixes the cars at the same shop he used to own, except he now pays hourly for the use of the space.

The answer to your question is, someone who isn't in the tire fixing business can tell blacks to go fuck themselves if that's what he wants to do. Then go and fix all the tires he wants.

 

[dblack]

So if a black man walks into a tire shop in need of a tire to fix his car, and the owner is a white supremacist who believes the Aryan race is God's chosen people and says "Get out of here, I don't fix ni**er cars" you right wingers would support this "right"?

Sure they would, because they think a black guy will then open up a No Whities tire shop and the problem goes away. The one slight problem, only one black guy or only one tire shop, but they ignore such things since that doesn't fit their ideology.

I remember when liberals used to say things like ...

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

 

[bendog]

It's a valid question that can the State compel you to give up a profession to maintain your religious beliefs. Making it more interesting is that when one has a state certificate of some kind, like an CPA or doctor, one has a property right that the state may not take without due process, which requires an impartial hearing and the state to assert some interest that may only be protected by taking one's property.

The State setting the rules does not compel anything, that's up to you. It's not like they are requiring that you have a Jesus doormat. If your faith can't deal with the requirements of a job, get another job. It's a job not faith.

Not so fast. Suppose I am a cpa. A gay couple wants me to do their taxes. I tell them I cannot in conscience do so because, while I do not deny they have a legal right to their marriage, to assist them in furthering their individual rights, my individual rights will be compromised.

Then, suppose the state seeks to take away my license. My license is predicated upon me showing some minimum level of accounting proficiency. Now the State imposes a new predicate upon my license WHICH BY LAW IS A PROPERTY INTEREST THAT CANNOT BE TAKEN WITHOUT A HEARING AND STATE JUSTIFICATION AIMED AT A RATIONAL REASON.

Presuming the gay couple can find someone else to do their taxes, the State is taking my property NOT BECAUSE I TOOK PROPERTY but because I was uncivil and perhaps emotionally offended someone.

I'm all for inclusion, but seriously that would be a FUN legal case.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So if a black man walks into a tire shop in need of a tire to fix his car, and the owner is a white supremacist who believes the Aryan race is God's chosen people and says "Get out of here, I don't fix ni**er cars" you right wingers would support this "right"?

Sure they would, because they think a black guy will then open up a No Whities tire shop and the problem goes away. The one slight problem, only one black guy or only one tire shop, but they ignore such things since that doesn't fit their ideology.

I remember when liberals used to say things like ...

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Say anything you like, within reason. Free Speech has limitations as well.

 

[dblack]

Sure they would, because they think a black guy will then open up a No Whities tire shop and the problem goes away. The one slight problem, only one black guy or only one tire shop, but they ignore such things since that doesn't fit their ideology.

I remember when liberals used to say things like ...

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Say anything you like, within reason. Free Speech has limitations as well.

Yeah.. that's the "new and improved" version.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It's a valid question that can the State compel you to give up a profession to maintain your religious beliefs. Making it more interesting is that when one has a state certificate of some kind, like an CPA or doctor, one has a property right that the state may not take without due process, which requires an impartial hearing and the state to assert some interest that may only be protected by taking one's property.

The State setting the rules does not compel anything, that's up to you. It's not like they are requiring that you have a Jesus doormat. If your faith can't deal with the requirements of a job, get another job. It's a job not faith.

Not so fast. Suppose I am a cpa. A gay couple wants me to do their taxes. I tell them I cannot in conscience do so because, while I do not deny they have a legal right to their marriage, to assist them in furthering their individual rights, my individual rights will be compromised.

Then, suppose the state seeks to take away my license. My license is predicated upon me showing some minimum level of accounting proficiency. Now the State imposes a new predicate upon my license WHICH BY LAW IS A PROPERTY INTEREST THAT CANNOT BE TAKEN WITHOUT A HEARING AND STATE JUSTIFICATION AIMED AT A RATIONAL REASON.

Presuming the gay couple can find someone else to do their taxes, the State is taking my property NOT BECAUSE I TOOK PROPERTY but because I was uncivil and perhaps emotionally offended someone.

I'm all for inclusion, but seriously that would be a FUN legal case.

Losing because you illegally discriminated is "fun" for you? Well, enjoy.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I remember when liberals used to say things like ...

Say anything you like, within reason. Free Speech has limitations as well.

Yeah.. that's the "new and improved" version.

That version has been on the books for ages.

 

[dblack]

Say anything you like, within reason. Free Speech has limitations as well.

Yeah.. that's the "new and improved" version.

That version has been on the books for ages.

Of course. It's just funny how worms turn.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Emily,

Yes. To all your questions. I've read the proposed bill, for example.

It does absolutely nothing new. Homosexuals can invoke it to stave off frivolous lawsuits or stand on it as an immediate defense, just like anyone else, should they object to providing a service or product that would compel them to participate in any activity or express any thing that is morally/religiously abhorrent to them. The bill protects the First Amendment rights of everyone, and it's predicated on established natural, constitutional and case law. There's nothing new here! However, it's being asserted in the face of the left's relentless legal attacks on individual liberty and free association relative to the prerogatives of private property and parental authority.

Let me put a finer point on the matter. Jones is making up law as he goes along. The principle of public accommodation does not trump the imperatives of the First Amendment. That cannot be repeated too often.

The laws that Christians are fighting in certain states right now are nothing more than the ongoing attempt of leftist politicians to bully, harass or financially destroy their political opponents and bombard the federal courts with challenges in which they hope to overturn established case law.

Jones’ blather is nonsense. It's the propaganda of a relentless campaign against individual liberty and free association by collectivists.

The link below features just one of the many examples in case law, cited by OriginalShroom, governing the limits of the principle of public accommodation relative to the paramount concerns of the First Amendment, wherein the Court has always broadly come down on the side of the latter.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...les-human-rights-complaint-3.html#post8694928


Jones’s drivel is the tyranny of mob-rule collectivism verses individual liberty. His tripe is the stuff of Plato, Rousseau and Marx verses the classical liberalism of the Anglo-American tradition of our founding, the imperatives of natural law, the greatest proponents of which are Augustine, Calvin, Locke, Montesquieu and the Founding Fathers. This is the fascism of communism/Nazism verses the sociopolitical philosophy of the Declaration of Independence.

America is now rife with pc, multicultural nitwits who don’t grasp the ramifications of the agenda they‘ve been spoon fed in the public schools and by popular culture, which does not empower them at all, but empowers the government to systematically strip away rights and oppress. The elites get it, and regard these useful idiots as stampeding cattle trampling those of us who resist them.

Make no mistake about it, Christians and orthodox Jews are the number one target.

Why?

Because we unrelentingly stand on the imperatives of natural law, the indispensable structure of which entails the biological family and parental authority, and the sanctify of human life, the very first principles of private property, which in turn constitutes the indispensable foundation of liberty, backed by an armed citizenry, the ultimate check against government usurpation.

The Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism is extrapolated from the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity’s ethical system of thought. This is the sense in which American is a Christian nation, properly understood for decades by Americans, today, muddled by virtually everyone. This notion has nothing to do with theocracy. It merely goes to Judeo-Christianity’s assertion of universal individual liberty and free association predicated on the construct of universal free will. Hence, God, not the state, is the Source and Guarantor of human rights and dignities; they are, therefore, inalienable and absolute, granted to all unreservedly whether one be a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Hindu, an agnostic, an atheist and so on. . . .

One cannot extrapolate that universal principle from any other ideology under the sun but Judeo-Christianity! All other religions deny the actuality of human free will and are collectivistic in nature.

The leftist sheep of today have been conditioned to believe the revisionist claptrap that biblical Christianity plunged the West into the Dark Ages. Hogwash! It was the statist and corrupt Roman Catholic Church that suppressed biblical Christianity! The Reformation was the second breakout of biblical Christianity that made the Enlightenment and the democratization of the West possible.

Jefferson’s “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is a paraphrase of Locke’s triadic construct of life, liberty and private property. “The pursuit of happiness” is a term of art denoting the totality of one‘s private property, including one’s own being, the members of one's immediate family for whom he is responsible and the entirety of his assets or the fruits of his labor.

Locke is not merely the father of classical liberalism, but the preeminent political philosopher relative to America’s founding ethos. It is he who in his Two Treatises of Civil Government perfected the construct of natural law, firstly extrapolated from scripture by Augustine and further developed by Calvin in terms of a formal system of sociopolitical thought. Locke’s exposition of natural law is predicated on the teachings of the Bible, his formal epistemological justification, backed one scriptural citation after another. That’s right. The man who perhaps more persuasively than any other of the Enlightenment argued against the evils of monarchy and theocracy, and the right of men to violently overthrow usurpative government based his apology for liberty on the Bible’s moral imperatives.

But this only surprises the historically illiterate, as statism is the stuff of idolatry and tyranny. God is the only legitimate ruler of the people relative to the principle of universal free will.

It’s no accident that today’s leftists, particularly in Europe, but increasing here in America as well, starting with the radical leftist professors in our universities and colleges, are generally anti-Semitic and hostile to the nation of Israel. It’s no accident that today’s leftists generally despise Christians as they slobber all over the backsides of Muslims, whose religious ideology is no less collectivist and statist.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Tomorrow I'll address the specifics of your post. Let this be the foundational context. As for case law, make no mistake about, I'm light years ahead of Jones. Though the following works are only indirectly related to the issues before us here, they will give you some idea about the nature of my credentials and the value of my observations: Prufrock's Lair: Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles

Prufrock's Lair: A Critique of the Chin Argument

 

[paperview]

I don't know why, but I cannot access the last page of this thread.

It keeps throwing me back o the middle whenever I click last page.

Weird happenings here today.

 

[emilynghiem]

It's a valid question that can the State compel you to give up a profession to maintain your religious beliefs. Making it more interesting is that when one has a state certificate of some kind, like an CPA or doctor, one has a property right that the state may not take without due process, which requires an impartial hearing and the state to assert some interest that may only be protected by taking one's property.

The State setting the rules does not compel anything, that's up to you. It's not like they are requiring that you have a Jesus doormat. If your faith can't deal with the requirements of a job, get another job. It's a job not faith.

Not so fast. Suppose I am a cpa. A gay couple wants me to do their taxes. I tell them I cannot in conscience do so because, while I do not deny they have a legal right to their marriage, to assist them in furthering their individual rights, my individual rights will be compromised.

Then, suppose the state seeks to take away my license. My license is predicated upon me showing some minimum level of accounting proficiency. Now the State imposes a new predicate upon my license WHICH BY LAW IS A PROPERTY INTEREST THAT CANNOT BE TAKEN WITHOUT A HEARING AND STATE JUSTIFICATION AIMED AT A RATIONAL REASON.

Presuming the gay couple can find someone else to do their taxes, the State is taking my property NOT BECAUSE I TOOK PROPERTY but because I was uncivil and perhaps emotionally offended someone.

I'm all for inclusion, but seriously that would be a FUN legal case.

In general, if people abuse or threaten to abuse laws or the legal system to HARASS or intimidate someone as revenge, that is where I draw the line.

I had to send someone a form to sign, agreeing to mediation and consensus to resolve conflicts without legal actions or expenses, before communicating further with me because i do NOT believe in lawsuits but in conflict resolution to protect all interests equally.

That is my Constitutional belief in equal protection of the laws. Lawsuits that lead to ruling one side over the other do NOT protect both sides equally, which violates my constitutional standards and beliefs.

I do NOT believe in abusing any part of the law 'out of context' to subvert due process, and use it as a weapon of harassment. So I wrote this out, and sent it to this one friend who kept threatening to sue me or my landlord, trying to extort money or control. I explained that mediation and amicable solutions should be sought first, or else it does not show "good faith" but ill intent.

If we taught conflict resolution as a requirement for citizenship, maybe people could be required to go through mediation and quit abusing litigation and legislation this way!

this is ridiculous. and it costs public resources to waste time fighting over things that could be resolved better privately by mediation.

I have another friend who believes this culture of litigation and adversity is pushed by lawyers, judges and their professional bars to profit from this directly or indirectly.

As long as they have a monopoly on the system, what motivation do they have to write laws that nip conflicts in the bud? Instead there is more profit to be gained from writing out huge complex bills like ACA that incite more lawsuits and actions and control by courts and Congress and government to fight over. more money spent on political campaigns. more money on media and lawsuits. And who benefits?

is this not the biggest waste of freedom and resources, if not fraud against the American people?

When mediation conducted FREELY (to respect "free speech and press, and right to petition" without monetary conditions, unlike the legal system that restricts these with unequal access)
works BETTER to resolve issues to PREVENT costs of conflicts from escalating beyond the point of reconciling?

So THAT is the issue that I believe needs to be addressed at the root. Conflict resolution to reach CONSENSUS that MEETS Constitutional standards of equal protection of interests for all people not just one side over another, and quits empowering political bureaucrats to exploit these issues for points or profits. we need to get off these carnival rides that are dead end choices anyway.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Be sure to bake those suckers for free, or at cost then.

That version has been on the books for ages.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

The most rational post from you I've seen in years...

 

[bripat9643]

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

The most rational post from you I've seen in years...

Years? You've supposedly only been a member since this month. You just admitted that you're a sock.

 

[bripat9643]

Sure they would, because they think a black guy will then open up a No Whities tire shop and the problem goes away. The one slight problem, only one black guy or only one tire shop, but they ignore such things since that doesn't fit their ideology.

I remember when liberals used to say things like ...

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Say anything you like, within reason.

Who determines what "within reason" means?

Free Speech has limitations as well.

No it doesn't.

Should I be allowed to publish a book that says blacks are an inferior species who should not be allowed to rub elbows with or procreate with white people?

 

[bripat9643]

It's a valid question that can the State compel you to give up a profession to maintain your religious beliefs. Making it more interesting is that when one has a state certificate of some kind, like an CPA or doctor, one has a property right that the state may not take without due process, which requires an impartial hearing and the state to assert some interest that may only be protected by taking one's property.

The State setting the rules does not compel anything, that's up to you. .

That has to be one of your dumber claims, and that's a low bar to get under. That state uses compulsion to accomplish everything it does.

It's not like they are requiring that you have a Jesus doormat. If your faith can't deal with the requirements of a job, get another job. It's a job not faith.

Why should anyone have to get another job because some homos want to force them to make a gay wedding cake?

 

[bripat9643]

No they didn't. They could have closed down. They could have said, our religious beliefs cannot accommodate us being in a business that by law requires us to serve homosexuals,

therefore we are getting out of this business.

They could have committed suicide too to avoid it. But I dont think anyone thinks those are reasonable expectations.

Well I'm okay with that one actually. The fix was, stop baking wedding cakes. Problem solved.

That's not a "fix." What was the "fix" for blacks when it came to segregation, don't use from white-only drinking fountains?

 

[bripat9643]

You realize some people are offended by gay marriage, right?

Yep. Don't care, not a bit. Some people still want segregated schools. Not concerned in the slightest.

We don't care that you have a hissy fit about a bakery that doesn't want to attend a gay wedding.

 

[bripat9643]

Yep. Don't care, not a bit. Some people still want segregated schools. Not concerned in the slightest.

The people who want segregated schools want SOCIETY to do something (i.e., segregate the schools). The people who are offended by gay marriage, in this argument, simply want the right to NOT do something (serve people they don't want to). The latter group isn't trying to force anyone else to do ANYTHING. The first group -does- want to force people to do something (choose their schools based on race).

See the difference? Wanting others to abide by your morals, and wanting to abide by your own morals even when they offend others, are ENTIRELY different concepts.

The morals they need to abide by are Our Collective ones. Don't like it, find another Collective, the Vatican for instance.

"Collective morals" are no morals at all. We're talking about the government here, not some social club. Apparently you believe whatever the rules government chooses to enforce are totally arbitrary. If that's the case, then why should you object to a law making it legal for businesses to discriminate against gays if those are "the collective morals" of the community?