Whatever ever happened to the little sign ‘We have a right to refuse service’?

[Mac1958]

.

So the "public accommodation law" meme is still playing, huh?

I'll take that tactic a little more seriously when I see those same folks vociferously backing gun laws and demanding that illegal aliens are arrested with the same passion. Otherwise, this is just cherry-picking.

This isn't about "public accommodation" laws, it's about conformity and control.

.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

A private citizen on private property has the right to refuse anything for any reason. Period.

Where exactly did you learn this lie? It is a lie BTW. You've been lied to.

 

[Bfgrn]

Rottweiler, the ultimate Godwin's Law dude, is whining again.

One, it is constitutional to force public accommodation by business.

Two, it is not constitutional to deny civil rights.

All Rott is doing is stamping his feet.

This argument is over and has been since Sotomayor decided to form a consensus to end the marriage equality question forever.

It is in the best interests of The Opposition that you-and-yours continue to believe that it is over.

I don't think that we're going to have an actual answer to that until a couple of years have passed, after the ascension of the next truly conservative Administration.

Admittedly, that's pure speculation, but so is any attempt to predict the future.

The next truly conservative Administration? Predicting the future?

Republicans have a major demographic problem. And it's only going to get worse.

In 2012, roughly nine in every ten people who voted for Mitt Romney were white -- even as the white vote continued its steady decline as a percentage of the overall electorate. He got crushed among Hispanics and African American voters.

Hey Einstein...HERE is a candidate for your 'next truly conservative Administration'

Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.
Barry Goldwater

 

[kaz]

Second, the court doesn't decide our laws.

The Court decides whether or not a law is Constitutional. And in this case it was, which means, wait for it........................ that you lost this argument, 50 years ago.

So do you say Gore defeated Bush? That handgun bans are unconstitutional? That Dred Scott is property and should be returned to his owner?

Or is the Supreme Court just set and match when you agree with them?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

.

So the "public accommodation law" meme is still playing, huh?

I'll take that tactic a little more seriously when I see those same folks vociferously backing gun laws and demanding that illegal aliens are arrested with the same passion. Otherwise, this is just cherry-picking.

This isn't about "public accommodation" laws, it's about conformity and control.

.

So, enforce them. But a few baking cakes versus paying to deport millions of people have slightly different price tags. At that point the bakers are going to need all the gay weddings they can get, since the illegals will no longer be buying cakes.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Second, the court doesn't decide our laws.

The Court decides whether or not a law is Constitutional. And in this case it was, which means, wait for it........................ that you lost this argument, 50 years ago.

So do you say Gore defeated Bush? That handgun bans are unconstitutional? That Dred Scott is property and should be returned to his owner?

Or is the Supreme Court just set and match when you agree with them?

The law of the land is what the SC signs off on. That's all.

 

[Kondor3]

...The next truly conservative Administration? Predicting the future? ... Hey Einstein...HERE is a candidate for your 'next truly conservative Administration'...

What?

Huh?

Did somebody say something worthwhile?

Ummm... thought not.

Back to sleep.

 

[kaz]

Yes, making life fair. That's in the Constitution, isn't it? It's the whole purpose of government.

Life being Fair isn't but Equality is. It wasn't true at first but we're gettin' there now.

Using the force of government guns to compel people to make cakes is getting to "equality."

As I said in my sig, you are not liberals, you are authoritarian leftists. You're also lazy as shit and whine to high heaven when government doesn't do things for you.

The marketplace is a far better enforcer of non-discrimination. That is if you weren't too butt lazy to take care of your own problems.

 

[Kondor3]

The law of the land is what the SC signs off on. That's all.

According to the way in which they interpret it.

Interpretations oftentimes change, over time, and, sometimes, with the times.

 

[P@triot]

Yes, making life fair. That's in the Constitution, isn't it? It's the whole purpose of government.

Life being Fair isn't but Equality is. It wasn't true at first but we're gettin' there now.

Where does forcing a private citizen to conduct private business transactions equate to "equality".

The type of "equality" that you are trying to paint this as applies to the public sector junior. A court must provide the same fair trial to all citizens regardless of race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, etc. (and they should have to do that as all legal citizens should operate under the exact same laws). A public park must provide the same fair access to all citizens regardless of race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, etc. (and they should have to do that as all legal citizens should operate under the exact same laws).

Basically, you can't defend your irrational position so you want to make the case that laws which define how our public institutions operate should apply to private institutions. That's utterly asinine beyond words and logic and would be just as absurd as if I stated that a bakery should be given ALL of the nuclear launch codes to our ENTIRE nuclear arsenal (after all, if there is no distinction between our public sector and our private sector, then you can't deny our private institutions nuclear launch codes and other national security secrets).

Now come on liberals, flail around wildly on the ground and try dispute your own lack of logic here that public and private institutions are exactly the same and are subject to the same guidelines....except when you arbitrarily don't want them to be

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The law of the land is what the SC signs off on. That's all.

According to the way in which they interpret it.

Interpretations oftentimes change, over time, and, sometimes, with the times.

Yep.

 

[Seawytch]

.

So the "public accommodation law" meme is still playing, huh?

I'll take that tactic a little more seriously when I see those same folks vociferously backing gun laws and demanding that illegal aliens are arrested with the same passion. Otherwise, this is just cherry-picking.

This isn't about "public accommodation" laws, it's about conformity and control.

.

Yes, you keep saying that...I do back common sense gun laws and I support changing our immigration policy. I support strengthening our border at the same time as creating a better path to citizenship, especially for those people who are integrated into our communities. I don't think we should deport kids who are Americans (went to US schools, speak English) but just didn't happen to be born here, brought here as kids ya know?

I do not support sanctuary cities, do you?

 

[kaz]

The Court decides whether or not a law is Constitutional. And in this case it was, which means, wait for it........................ that you lost this argument, 50 years ago.

So do you say Gore defeated Bush? That handgun bans are unconstitutional? That Dred Scott is property and should be returned to his owner?

Or is the Supreme Court just set and match when you agree with them?

The law of the land is what the SC signs off on. That's all.

When you agree with them, you are saying end of discussion. The Constitution says what the government says it says. The Constitution being a document designed to specify and limit Federal powers. That's seriously twisted. And that's the problem, why would government limit itself? They almost never do.

 

[P@triot]

The Court decides whether or not a law is Constitutional. And in this case it was, which means, wait for it........................ that you lost this argument, 50 years ago.

So do you say Gore defeated Bush? That handgun bans are unconstitutional? That Dred Scott is property and should be returned to his owner?

Or is the Supreme Court just set and match when you agree with them?

The law of the land is what the SC signs off on. That's all.

You wish junior. The Supreme Court is the judicial branch. Laws are made by the judicial branch. Thanks for illustrating your complete lack of knowledge about your own government and how it operates.

Folks - you can officially place PMH on ignore as he has illustrated he has ZERO credibility in even the most basic capacity.

 

[P@triot]

.

So the "public accommodation law" meme is still playing, huh?

I'll take that tactic a little more seriously when I see those same folks vociferously backing gun laws and demanding that illegal aliens are arrested with the same passion. Otherwise, this is just cherry-picking.

This isn't about "public accommodation" laws, it's about conformity and control.

.

Yes, you keep saying that...I do back common sense gun laws and I support changing our immigration policy. I support strengthening our border at the same time as creating a better path to citizenship, especially for those people who are integrated into our communities. I don't think we should deport kids who are Americans (went to US schools, speak English) but just didn't happen to be born here, brought here as kids ya know?

I do not support sanctuary cities, do you?

Translation - "I support the law except when I do not support the law"

For instance, there are no "common sense gun laws". The 2nd Amendment guarantees my right to keep and bear arms (notice that it does not say muskets or handguns). There is no limitation on my right, but that doesn't stop you from trying to create one.

Furthermore, your position that you support our immigration laws while at the same time saying that kids who are illegal aliens should get to stay here is equally insane.

Basically, you just admitted you don't support any of our laws. Like all liberals, you support your view of America and you think that entitles you to violate our existing laws while creating your own.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Yes, making life fair. That's in the Constitution, isn't it? It's the whole purpose of government.

Life being Fair isn't but Equality is. It wasn't true at first but we're gettin' there now.

Where does forcing a private citizen to conduct private business transactions equate to "equality".

You have a problem understanding something very basic. There is Private, like a club, there is Private open to the Public, like a restaurant, and there is Public, as well as a few other things Government and restricted, like a military base, weapons compound, the White House, etc.

The rules vary depending upon how the property is used and who uses it. While Denny's Club for Crackers can post its No ******* sign, Denny's cannot. They are both Privately owned but they serve different purposes and therefore follow different rules.

And BTW, Denny's Club for Crackers better not rent its facilities to the Public. As soon as it does, in come the *******. See how that works?

 

[Seawytch]

Even before gays have been added to some state or local public accommodation laws, you never fully had the right to refuse service for any reason. The Right to Refuse Service

If you want to discriminate against the gays, learn the laws of your locality.

Maps of State Laws & Policies

This one may be especially helpful:

Public Accommodation Laws

Public accommodations refers to both governmental entities and private businesses that provide services to the general public such as restaurants, movie theaters, libraries and shops. It does not encompasses private clubs that have a membership or dues process.


States that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity (17 states and D.C.):California (2005, 2011), Colorado (2008), Connecticut (1991, 2011), Delaware (2009, 2013), District of Columbia (1977, 2006), Hawaii (2006), Illinois (2006), Iowa (2007), Maine (2005), Maryland (2009, 2014) Minnesota (1993), Nevada (2009, 2011), New Jersey (1992, 2006), New Mexico (2004), Oregon (2007), Rhode Island (1995),
Vermont (1992, 2007) and Washington (2006).

States that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation only (4 states): Massachusetts (1989), New Hampshire (1998), New York (2002) and Wisconsin (2009).

A private citizen on private property has the right to refuse anything for any reason. Period. It cannot be debated (though that doesn't stop the unhinged from trying).

Furthermore, even those unconstitutional absurd liberal laws cited above, passed by unhinged liberal politicians do not apply as these people did not attempt to walk in and purchase things available to other people (such as the pies in the display case, the cupcakes on the counter, etc.). They asked for a special item made specifically for them. They asked for a custom item that was not available to anyone else. Therefore, the baker had even further grounds to deny service.

Game. Set. Match.

You're just blathering. Don't like the law, change it, but you can't close your eyes, plug your ears and go "nah, nah, nah", I don't see you.

They did not ask for a special item you moron, they ordered a wedding cake. The baker made wedding cakes, they ordered a wedding cake. It was not a special order item, it was a fucking cake, likely from a catalog.

COUPLE: We'd like a wedding cake
BAKER: Here's what we have
COUPLE: We'll take #4
BAKER: $500
COUPLE: We will pick it up Friday
BAKER: Thank you, have a nice day
COUPLE: You too

 

[kaz]

Yes, making life fair. That's in the Constitution, isn't it? It's the whole purpose of government.

Life being Fair isn't but Equality is. It wasn't true at first but we're gettin' there now.

Where does forcing a private citizen to conduct private business transactions equate to "equality".

The type of "equality" that you are trying to paint this as applies to the public sector junior. A court must provide the same fair trial to all citizens regardless of race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, etc. (and they should have to do that as all legal citizens should operate under the exact same laws). A public park must provide the same fair access to all citizens regardless of race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, etc. (and they should have to do that as all legal citizens should operate under the exact same laws).

Basically, you can't defend your irrational position so you want to make the case that laws which define how our public institutions operate should apply to private institutions. That's utterly asinine beyond words and logic and would be just as absurd as if I stated that a bakery should be given ALL of the nuclear launch codes to our ENTIRE nuclear arsenal (after all, if there is no distinction between our public sector and our private sector, then you can't deny our private institutions nuclear launch codes and other national security secrets).

Now come on liberals, flail around wildly on the ground and try dispute your own lack of logic here that public and private institutions are exactly the same and are subject to the same guidelines....except when you arbitrarily don't want them to be

We have the right to life, liberty and property. When government compels us what we must do with our own property by forcing us to provide goods and services to someone we do not want to do business with, then that's clearly a violation of both our right to liberty and property. It's an abomination.

I have no problem doing business with gays. My head of sales is gay. That does not mean I believe government should force anyone to do business with gays or anyone else, I don't. The only limits I place on my business are I won't do illegal or obscene materials and I won't do business with people who are abusive to my staff or jerk us around with paying us once we've delivered the goods.

I find it amusing that liberals always assume that to support the right of businesses to not discriminate against gays means I want to discriminate against gays. The assumption in that shows their philosophy that all should be forced to do what they think, they can't even conceive of the idea that I would not want to force m will on others. Again, they are not liberals who are tolerant of others, they are authoritarian leftists who are intolerant of others.

 

[The T]

.

So the "public accommodation law" meme is still playing, huh?

I'll take that tactic a little more seriously when I see those same folks vociferously backing gun laws and demanding that illegal aliens are arrested with the same passion. Otherwise, this is just cherry-picking.

This isn't about "public accommodation" laws, it's about conformity and control.

.

Yes, you keep saying that...I do back common sense gun laws and I support changing our immigration policy. I support strengthening our border at the same time as creating a better path to citizenship, especially for those people who are integrated into our communities. I don't think we should deport kids who are Americans (went to US schools, speak English) but just didn't happen to be born here, brought here as kids ya know?

I do not support sanctuary cities, do you?

Translation - "I support the law except when I do not support the law"

For instance, there are no "common sense gun laws". The 2nd Amendment guarantees my right to keep and bear arms (notice that it does not say muskets or handguns). There is no limitation on my right, but that doesn't stop you from trying to create one.

Furthermore, your position that you support our immigration laws while at the same time saying that kids who are illegal aliens should get to stay here is equally insane.

Basically, you just admitted you don't support any of our laws. Like all liberals, you support your view of America and you think that entitles you to violate our existing laws while creating your own.

...And all the while violating the rights of others to boot...while claiming to be a victim...victim of what, still has yet to be determined.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

[The Supreme Court is the judicial branch. Laws are made by the judicial branch.

I'm betting the word you were searching for was Legislative eh?