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

You based your argument on discrimination being about an immutable visual difference. But, racial discrimination doesn't actually even depend on visual difference. Remember that the US even had terminology such as "octoroon" to label individuals based on just how much of their ancestry was of a particular race. US citizens could be "outed" for "passing" as white.

AND, religion is also not a visual difference, yet it can result in someone being a member of a protected class.

In all of these cases, a person could announce something about themselves that would cause certain people to want to discriminate against them.

What sounds stupid to me is your attempts to formalize discrimination. On top of that, you pick a version of discrimination that is against a class that the SC has already treated as a protected class!

So, back to the drawing board for you!

 

Holy cow cake.

Read the thread.

And the Constitution.

Slooooooooowly.

 

Magnificent; simply superb.

I weep.

 

Speed limits, land use laws, employment laws, OSHA, laws against polluting rivers and air, patent/copyright law, all taxation, etc., etc. - your claim would make ALL such laws "involuntary servitude".

I think the entire substance of your argument boils down to trying to find a label or slogan that makes the fact that we have laws sound like a bad idea - as long as one doesn't actually bother to think.

Would you agree?

 

I answered that VERY directly.

Look at 1840.

And, that's really just a clarification of 1836.

 

because they can choose to not bake any cakes. If they choose to bake cakes, they can't refuse to bake cakes for this couple.

Not involuntary servitude, so please stop claiming it is.

 

Not at all. How do speed limits force me to serve another against my will?

 

I think it is and will continue to claim it as I see fit.

 

^ Arguing against himself.

 

You go, bro - fight the power!

 

There isn't a one to one correspondence between our laws and the constitution.

I suggest you read:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-111_f314.pdf

That's the SC in oral argument concerning a different case of a baker refusing to sell a cake to customers who are getting married.

This oral argument took place in the middle or so of last month, so it's current.

If you choose not to read it, I'd have to rate you as uninterested in how the SC views the constitution on this subject.

 

I don't see that one item as being central to the general argument that we have laws that require you to conform to ways others want you to do things.

But, the fact that small communities set highway speed limits for you to conform to or that you have to keep your crazy Pennsylvania horse and buggy off of the nice straight roads our tax dollars built are still cases of the local population requiring you to take action that you wouldn't ordinarily take.

 

No one is forced to serve anyone against their will.
If one decides to get a business license, they agree to follow the laws of the business agreement that lets them get a license to operate.
Just like not following speed limit laws can get one in trouble, so does not following the laws required to keep said business license.
If you can't follow the speed laws, don't drive. If you can't follow the business laws, don't get a business license and open up a business. No one is forced to operate a business.

 

but it demonstrably is not. You can continue claiming it, but it will continue to be refuted.

 

Now who can argue with that? I think we're all in debt to Gabby Johnson for stating what needed to be said. I am particulary glad that these lovely children are here today to hear that speech. Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish, it expressed the courage little seen in this day and age.

 

Never demonstrated, never refuted. Just denied.

How do you demonstrate that forcing one person to serve another against his will is not involuntary servitude?

"No state can make the quitting of work a crime, or establish criminal sanctions that hold unwilling persons to a particular labor."
http://lawbrain.com/wiki/Involuntary_Servitude

 

I've cited the Landmark SCOTUS ruling Heart of Atlanta v US FOUR times to you now.

You completely ignore it.

Why?

 

go ahead and sue the Federal govt, that you are being put under Involuntary Servitude by being forced to sell water to black people.

LOL!!!

 

Because the ruling does not explain how forcing people to labor to benefit another is not involuntary servitude. I want to find out the reasoning that it "has no merit."

 

No you haven't and you are still running from the reality these lesbians were served by these Christians before this cake.

Do you understand this at all? Answer the question directly for a change.

 

The Heart of Atlanta Motel was a large, 216-room motel in Atlanta, Georgia. In direct violation of the terms of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—an act which banned racial discriminationin public places, largely based on Congress' control of interstate commerce—the motel refused to rent rooms to black patrons. The owner, Moreton Rolleston, filed suit in federal court, arguing that the requirements of the act exceeded the authority granted to Congress over interstate commerce. In addition, Rolleston maintained that the act violated his Fifth Amendment rights to choose customers and operate his business as he wished and resulted in unjust deprivation of his property without due processof law and just compensation. Finally, he contended that Congress had placed him in a position of involuntary servitude by forcing him to rent available rooms to blacks, thereby violating his Thirteenth Amendment rights.



It found no merit in the arguments pursuant to the Thirteenth Amendment, finding it difficult to conceive that such an amendment might be applicable in restraining civil rights legislation. Having observed that 75% of the Heart of Atlanta Motel's clientele came from out-of-state, and that it was strategically located near Interstates 75 and 85 as well as two major Georgia highways, the Court found that the business clearly affected interstate commerce. Accordingly, it upheld the permanent injunction issued by the district court and required the Heart of Atlanta Motel to receive business from clientele of all ethnicities.

 

Thanks for proving you can't find public accommodation anywhere in the Constitution as I said.


So simple!

 

Laws discriminate against behavior every single day. Are you really this oblivious to the world around you?

And you still run as you always do when you are challenged to prove public accommodation is anywhere in the Constitution proving my point.

 

Thanks for admitting it doesn't exist in the Constitution unlike freedom of religion

Finally you admit it.

Now if you could actually admit these bakers had served these lesbians in the past we would really make some progress but I doubt you ever will admit it.

 

so u think you should be able to not sell water to thirsty black children on a hot day?

if not, your a "slave"?