U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-04-2013, 11:08 AM
 
Location: Montreal, Quebec
15,087 posts, read 11,976,322 times
Reputation: 9708

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThereCanBeOnly1 View Post
Do you understand the being open to the public isn't how you qualify whether a business is private or public.

A private business is one that is owned by private individuals (non-government). Do you know the difference? Of course you don't.
A restaurant which is privately owned but open to the public isn't subject to governmental health and safety inspections?

 
Old 06-04-2013, 11:10 AM
 
14,920 posts, read 11,136,051 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
Yes I do. Apparently you do not know the difference between a state statute and one's Constitutional Rights. This is an interesting case that may go to the US Supreme Court. The outcome of this case, in contrast to what liberals think (which is an oxymoron), is not definite, one way or another.
I very much doubt it will go to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dealt with anti-discrimination laws many years ago and upheld them as constitutional (in a 9-0 vote).
 
Old 06-04-2013, 11:10 AM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,908 posts, read 19,083,409 times
Reputation: 9120
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
Yes I do. Apparently you do not know the difference between a state statute and one's Constitutional Rights. This is an interesting case that may go to the US Supreme Court. The outcome of this case, in contrast to what liberals think (which is an oxymoron), is not definite, one way or another.
Ok, then let's discuss this one, Hawkeye.

Let's assume that this case advances to the SCOTUS (unlikely), they grant Centiorari (even more unlikely). On what grounds would you see the SCOTUS invalidating this state statute?
 
Old 06-04-2013, 12:45 PM
 
166 posts, read 157,344 times
Reputation: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer View Post
Well, it is you that does not know the difference. A business open to the public has to obey laws concerning discrimination. A business that is not open to the public can discern who they want to do business with. Do you understand that, or is it too complicated for you? Example: I am a private business, run a garden service from my home, I can turn down anyone that I want, the nursery in town that also offers garden service cannot turn down a client for being black, a jew, a christian or for being gay, they are open to the public, I am not. Get it?

You are wrong as usual. If it can be proven you denied service to someone in your 'private garden service business' based on the discrimination laws you will be pursued like the biggest company would be.

Any company can turn down anyone they want as long as it is not under the discrimination qualifiers, you being a 'private business' (hilarious) doesn't give you some special license to discriminate as much as your foolish beliefs

Obviously you don't know law, definitions or/have common-sense. What else can you expect from a fruit picker.
 
Old 06-04-2013, 02:01 PM
Status: ""a mind that understands science"" (set 10 days ago)
 
18,827 posts, read 12,134,015 times
Reputation: 10258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
Ok, then let's discuss this one, Hawkeye.

Let's assume that this case advances to the SCOTUS (unlikely), they grant Centiorari (even more unlikely). On what grounds would you see the SCOTUS invalidating this state statute?
It will probably not go to the Supreme Court, as the Oregon Constitution guarantees the man's first amendment rights and right to religious freedom. If the court supports the gay couple, citizens in Oregon could sue Muslim vendors for not selling them pork. Or why not sue a Hindu vendor for not providing beef to a wedding reception!

You see, liberalism is the idiocy that is the slippery slope. One must simply ask- Do the rights of gays and lesbians trump those of other citizens?

One must further consider that when the gays asked for a "wedding cake", gay marriage was not even legal in Oregon. Therefore the request for a "wedding cake" was asking for an activity that was not even legal in Oregon. What if the baker refused to provide a cake to celebrate a pedophile orgy?


Wake up. Liberalism is the irrational defense of the ridiculous.
 
Old 06-04-2013, 02:07 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
20,327 posts, read 10,402,765 times
Reputation: 7958
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
It will probably not go to the Supreme Court, as the Oregon Constitution guarantees the man's first amendment rights and right to religious freedom. If the court supports the gay couple, citizens in Oregon could sue Muslim vendors for not selling them pork. Or why not sue a Hindu vendor for not providing beef to a wedding reception!

You see, liberalism is the idiocy that is the slippery slope.

One must further consider that when the gays asked for a "wedding cake", gay marriage was not even legal in Oregon. Therefore the request for a "wedding cake" was asking for an activity that was not even legal in Oregon. What if the baker refused to provide a cake to celebrate a pedophile orgy?


Wake up. Liberalism is the irrational defense of the ridiculous.
Seriously?
You think that a muslim baker will be required to carry a product that they don't normally sell, because someone wants it?

The baker sells cakes. The baker sells wedding cakes. The baker can not decide to sell wedding cakes to person A, but not person B based on the sexual orientation of the person. No one is asking the baker to carry an item that he doesn't already sell.

The butcher sells lamb. The butcher does not sell pork. The butcher does not sell pork to muslims, or christians, or pagans, or heterosexuals, or homosexuals. The butcher is not discriminating by not carrying an item.
 
Old 06-04-2013, 02:12 PM
 
14,920 posts, read 11,136,051 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
It will probably not go to the Supreme Court, as the Oregon Constitution guarantees the man's first amendment rights and right to religious freedom. If the court supports the gay couple, citizens in Oregon could sue Muslim vendors for not selling them pork. Or why not sue a Hindu vendor for not providing beef to a wedding reception!

You see, liberalism is the idiocy that is the slippery slope.
No, I don't see. I see an completely incongruent analogy. In what way do anti-discrimination laws mean that Muslim vendors must sell pork or Hindu vendors must sell beef?

Quote:
One must further consider that when the gays asked for a "wedding cake", gay marriage was not even legal in Oregon. Therefore the request for a "wedding cake" was asking for an activity that was not even legal in Oregon. What if the baker refused to provide a cake to celebrate a pedophile orgy?


Wake up. Liberalism is the irrational defense of the ridiculous.
2 gay people having a wedding is perfectly legal anywhere in the nation, including Oregon. Private wedding associations are not regulated by government.
 
Old 06-04-2013, 02:17 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,908 posts, read 19,083,409 times
Reputation: 9120
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
It will probably not go to the Supreme Court
You said it could. So let's assume it does.

Now, answer my questions, less you look like the bumbling coward you are.

Quote:
as the Oregon Constitution guarantees the man's first amendment rights and right to religious freedom.
What does that have to do with the issue at hand?

Quote:
If the court supports the gay couple, citizens in Oregon could sue Muslim vendors for not selling them pork. Or why not sue a Hindu vendor for not providing beef to a wedding reception!
And here is where you go off the rails, again.

Sorry, Hawkeye, this is not correct. There is nothing in either that state legislation, any federal law, or the doctrine of common law which mandates that a customer can demand that a business supply a specific product to accommodate them. It merely mandates that businesses not discriminate in who they serve.

Try again.

Quote:
You see, liberalism is the idiocy that is the slippery slope.
How ironic. You realize a slippery slope is exactly what you are using here and it's a huge logical fallacy?

Quote:
One must further consider that when the gays asked for a "wedding cake", gay marriage was not even legal in Oregon. Therefore the request for a "wedding cake" was asking for an activity that was not even legal in Oregon. What if the baker refused to provide a cake to celebrate a pedophile orgy?
Apparently you fail to grasp the concept of the differences between civil contract law and criminal law. This gigantic leap in logic is even more laughable when read before your comment immediately below.

Quote:
Wake up. Liberalism is the irrational defense of the ridiculous.
So, with your arguments annihilated and dispatched, how about you sack up and accept my challenge?
 
Old 06-04-2013, 04:32 PM
 
Location: Bay Area, CA
29,041 posts, read 44,920,109 times
Reputation: 20413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seeker5in1 View Post
We will all be judged by God. Complain to Him.
I talked to G-d just now... she said to leave her gay children alone, and stop bothering her with such trivial matters.
 
Old 06-04-2013, 04:37 PM
 
Location: Montreal, Quebec
15,087 posts, read 11,976,322 times
Reputation: 9708
Quote:

It will probably not go to the Supreme Court, as the Oregon Constitution
guarantees the man's first amendment rights and right to religious freedom. If
the court supports the gay couple, citizens in Oregon could sue Muslim vendors
for not selling them pork. Or why not sue a Hindu vendor for not providing beef
to a wedding reception
You're comparing apples to hedgehogs. If a Muslim sells pork to some customers, but not to others, it's discrimination. If a Hindu vendor sells beef to some customers, but not to others, ditto.
Muslim vendors don't CARRY pork, so you can't demand pork.
The bakery is in business of selling wedding cakes. If someone comes in and asks for a bushel of potatoes or an air-conditioner, then you can make the comparison to the Muslim and Hindu vendors.
"Sorry. We don't sell potatoes or air-conditioners."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:42 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top