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

Precedents can be overturned.

Amendments can be passed.

 

wont happen.

if u want do discriminate in education, business or housing, you'll have to leave the USA

 

You should start a nationwide movement to repeal the Civil Rights Act.

I can then tell the media about your comments here accusing black people of being intellectually inferior and less evolved than white people.

Im sure that will go over well.

 

Once again, the person/event thing is pointless. Every business owner can have their own ideas about what "event" means as well as what their religion likes. This is NOT about a cake. It is about the right of the owner to discriminate in any way they see fit. You have provided NO limitations of ANY kind.

Remember that public accommodation business owners have wanted a religious exemption so they wouldn't have to serve African Americans due to the "Mark of Cain".

YOU are arguing that those segregationists should have that religious right.


If you disagree with this, then YOU need to state what the law restricting discrimination by public accommodations SHOULD be.

So far, you're just arguing for totally unfettered, full on discrimination like the other poster arguing for that on this board.

And, that is how the SC justices saw it in the other cake case that was in oral arguments in mid December.

 

And once again your oipinion means nothing. Federal law does.

No its about the event.

Because public accommodation is NOT in the Constitution. Scream and cry all you like you wont find it in there. What you will find is freedom of religion.

You don't want to pass law you want to use activist judges to ignore federal law so you don't have to worry about getting the people behind you while you discriminate against these Christians.

Link to this. I'd like to see it.

Actually YOU are arguing for the anti christian bigots to force religion out of public life which is unconstitutional.

Passed in an amendment. It was good enough to free the slaves and give women the right to vote. If its that important to you then go for it.

And you have argued for unfettered religious bigotry against people you don't like based on their religious beliefs. The difference is what I say is protected is actually in the Constitution.

I see you ran away from my question as to why these Christians have served these lesbians in the past. What's the matter Will? Afraid you can't defend your argument if you address it?

 

I see that you have abandoned that discussion.

Smart move as I have a lot of ammunition.

 

Third time posting this:

Once upon a time, oh, not so long ago...There was this racist guy who didn't serve blacks in his restaurant - he thought he could legally discriminate - claimed his religion told him black and whites needed to be segregated.

What happened?

"In its 8-0 decision in Piggie Park, the Supreme Court upheld the Fourth Circuit Court’s ruling against the restaurant chain and found that it was not exempt from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 simply because its owner had religious objections to the law. "

 

I see again you ignore the numerous SCOTUS citations I provided, and, as suspected, ignored this last one which thoroughly crushes your earlier assertion, where you asked:

Pycckia said: ↑
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."

You asked for reasoning, and when provided information, you ignore. You're not interested in learning, or the reasoning -- what you're interested in is only pushing a white nationalist viewpoint, and for any and all laws against any form of discrimination to be stricken. It won't ever happen in your lifetime, most assuredly, but you will be left with a mark of disdain as a champion of bigotry -- and history will not be kind to you and your ilk.
===================
For those who missed it earlier:

It has been explained at length by numerous rulings, explored by Congress before and while they crafted Title II of the CRA, upheld by laws subsequent, and the usage of the Amendment abolishing slavery argument in regards to anti-discrimination in PA's has been pretty well blown to bits.

Here is a well presented piece which does explain the reasoning. It's a bit lengthy, and I doubt you'll read it, or even skim it, but for those who would like to delve into it a bit more, into it's history, legacy, and even as it relates to current same sex anti-discrimination laws, I present the following, with a short snip of the Conclusion below:

INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE, PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS LAWS,AND THE LEGACY OF HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL,INC.V.UNITED STATES
University of Maryland Law Review 83 (2011)
Boston University School of Law Working Paper No. 12-54 (2012)

<snip> Conclusion
<snip>
What is the legacy of Heart of Atlanta Motel and of the enactment of Title II for newer generations of antidiscrimination laws and challenges to them? Part of the value of retrieving the complex role of the Thirteenth Amendment in this context is to appreciate the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as an effort by Congress to complete the unfinished business of Reconstruction. Nonetheless, I have also suggested that several themes in the majority and concurring opinions in that case have resonance for more recent public accommodations laws that bar discrimination on such bases as sex and sexual orientation.

These include the following ideas:
(1) persons suffer dignitary harm when they are denied goods and services;
(2) discrimination in public accommodations imposes economic and human costs;
(3) antidiscrimination laws address moral evils;
(4) conceptions of commerce and what affects it must take into account the changing nature of the economy; and
(5) antidiscrimination law properly resolves the clash of rights in a way that furthers the equal basic liberties and freedom of all citizens.

 

I did skim it. But I didn't see any part where it was "blown to bits." I did see a lot of self-congratulatory rhetoric where they prided themselves on how moral they werel (i.e. your #3).

 

please explain to us why a store in the middle of the desert should have the right to not sell water to thirsty black kids in 105 degree heat, simply because they are black.

they have money, they are behaving well, all they want is to buy water so they don't die of dehydration.

why should you have the right to refuse to sell them water, due to no behavior but simply their skin color?

 

As someone who understands that freedom of association is an unalienable right, I'd say you speak more truly than you know.

Why do you exhort others to do what you obviously haven't done yourself?

 

Federal public accommodation law has the same issue as is before the courts here.

It states that public accommodation businesses can't discriminate against certain classes that it enumerates. It does not give a free pass to those claiming religious affiliation.

As one example that doesn't involve cake and doesn't involve state law, Christians have felt that their religion supports discrimination against African Americans (a protected class in the federal law), due to the "Mark of Cain" (google "wiki mark of cain").

The thing is, it's NOT just about a cake and it is NOT just about a wedding. It is about discrimination against those judged to be protected classes that are enumerated in the law. And, in all cases public accommodation owners don't get a free pass based on their religion.

This isn't new. It's been around for decades.

So far, your proposals ALL give the public accommodation owner the right to discriminate against pretty much whomever that owner wants to. All they have to do is tie their preferred discrimination to some religion somewhere and they can discriminate - according to your direction so far.

If you have some clever way to limit that, go for it.

Otherwise, don't tell me it is about a cake or a wedding.

No federal or state law is going to mention cakes or weddings.

 

Freedom of Association does not give you the right to arbitrarily discriminate against people in business, simply due to their skin color or religion.

sorry.

my tax dollars pay for the roads, and the police, and the fire department, and the sewers, all things that you benefit from.

if Im gonna share in the cost of the maintanence of things you benefit from, you CANNOT arbitrarily refuse service to me just cause I am a Jew.

sorry.

if you want to ban Jews from my your home, car, house, land, go ahead. Be my guest.

but not your business, your school, your housing development.

this is the 21st century. We are not Nazi Germany. We wont allow that **** here.

 

Because it is the store owners water and he can do with it as he sees fit.

 

^ Big fan of Jim Crow.

 

not in my country, he can't.

 

The store owner couldn't defend that on religious grounds.

Not Christian religion grounds anyway.

 

On the contrary, it allows for discrimination for any reason whatsoever, privately or commercially. Clearly it would have no meaning otherwise.

And you bloody well should be, as whatever passes for your understanding of America's founding principles is a bloody disgrace.

Nothing in the Constitution countenances such a double standard, however rhetorically convenient it may be for commie-libs.

 

It's a mystery to be sure...

 

Have you read the thread?

It doesn't seem like you have...

 

Spectacular.

 

Wow.

 

No. It won't be overturned; sorry.

 

Have you read the thread...?

 

Magnificent.