Christian Bakers Forced to Pay Nearly $137,000 for Refusing to Make Gay Wedding Cake Up the Ante in

Has this come up?

Public business = serve the public?

 

slavery means no choice, choosing to return the money is a CHOICE

hence no slavery

 

The criterion for involuntary servitude is much laxer than chattel slavery.

 

if you choose to give back the money, its not involuntary.

 

Freely choosing to run a public business = involuntary servitude.

YJCMTSU

 

This entire argument is so preposterous. The rights of gay people to not be discriminated against cannot be infringed by some evangelical nutjob looking to drum up support on infowars.com.

Give it a rest, rightists. Its these sorts of "freedom" arguments that get you labeled the party of hate.

Religion is a choice. Being gay isn't. You can now choose to stop believing a backwards version of rights, courtesy of me.

 

Good points, except for some, being LGBTQ is a choice.

And being religious may not be.

 

so being forced by the govt. to not discriminate against blacks= involuntary servitude??????????

 

Unfortunately, religion is rarely a choice. Children get religion beaten into their brains.Its sad when gay kids grow up in religious households where they can never be honest about how they feel.

 

We've already been though this.

This is the third time now you've been told...you think if you just keep repeating it - it will make it true?

The Landmark SCOTUS case Heart of Atlanta Hotel v. US (1964) heard that specious argument many, many decades ago.

It was shot down. Bigly.

"We find no merit in the remainder of appellant's contentions, including that of "involuntary servitude." As we have seen, States prohibit racial discrimination in public accommodations."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/379/241/case.html

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ante-in-battle.445757/page-81#post-1068499506

 

The "line"?

You're just talking about how the Kleins discriminate. That isn't a "line" - it's just their choice of when discrimination kicks in.

It's like saying that Woolworth's was fine when the "Woolworth 4" bought clothes at the store ...

... but, when they sat down at that lunch counter, they CROSSED A LINE.

 

and I've shown why this isn't involuntary servitude.

 

We had one, but SCOTUS said otherwise.

 

The discrimination is against them which is what you continue to miss.

Still waiting for you to actually address my argument.

Are you incapable of addressing my argument or just don't know how to counter it?

And race has nothing in common with a psychological condition. You insult their history pretending the 2 have anything in common. I've never seen a white man hold a press conference announce he's black and anyone would be stupid enough to believe him.

But someone could announce a new press conference right now declare they are gay and the loony left would believe it unequivocally. Have you ever thought about how stupid that sounds to you try to equate the two?

 

I fully addressed your "line" argument.

Put more generally:
Simply finding an instance where a defendant didn't discriminate is not an argument in favor of letting the defendant discriminate in some other instance.

 

OK, maybe we should just address this directly.

The Kleins are not being treated any differently than any other public accommodation in the state.

Suggesting they suffered discrimination doesn't make any sense.

If you want to claim this is a case of religious freedom, then you have to address the fact that large numbers of our laws could be seen as denial of religious freedom - as I and others pointed out earlier in this thread.

This argument was hashed out in Arizona where their legislature passed a bill that would allow citizens to ignore laws that they believed infringed on their freedom of religion. Obviously, that would basically gut law on real estate, land use, zoning, public accommodation, employment, etc., etc. It was pointed out that the courts have no way to judge what is a legitimately held religious belief.

So, the question then becomes one of where to draw the line. Do we allow individuals to claim religious exemptions from our laws?

Or, what?

But, what we have today can not be called discrimination. The Kleins discriminated. No other entity discriminated.

 

Public business?

Serve the public.

It's just crazy simple.

 

Yes. What else can it be?

 

Incredible.

Magnificently, impeccably incredible.

 

You addressed nothing. You ran away from the reality that this couple had served these lesbians in the past.

It was their event they had a religious objection to and you have run away from that reality each and every time.

 

Public business?

Can't discriminate.

So simple!

 

And they have. Your inability to understand the argument is so telling.

Had they served this lesbian couple in the past? Yes.

Did they object to this particular event based on religious beliefs? Yes.


Educate yourself on the argument next time.

 

Quote the Constitution where it says that.

So simple!

 

They are being forced to involuntarily serve another. How is that not involuntary servitude?

 

You can't discriminate on Wednesday because you didn't on Monday.

You can't discriminate, period.

If they can't bake certain items for the ENTIRE public, they need to privatize, or not offer that product to anyone.

As explained literally HUNDREDS of times here.