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.
The baker CHOSE to open a business and CHOSE what items they will sell in their shop. They wanted the legal protections of being a business, but none of the legal regulations.
The first amendment does not protect you from others speaking their minds about what you say. So far not one case has been about what anyone said.
Look, you keep imagining that they have "chosen" to do this or "chosen" to do that. And thus, in your imagination, the baker has given his consent willingly.
The problem is, consent can only be legally obtained, in the absence of coercion. If consent is only obtained through coercion, then it is called "extortion".
If the government says to a man, "You must do this, or be homeless and starve". Then can it really be said that his consent was obtained fairly and without coercion? Isn't it actually true that the man was forced to consent, or be punished?
What good is consent which only comes from threats of violence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
So all anti-discrimination laws are in violation of the 1st amendment?
Yes, all anti-discrimination laws are in violation of "freedom of association". And in the case of commerce, it is related to property rights. You have NO RIGHT TO MY PROPERTY.
Actually, the government says: "You're granted this license as a baker serving the public on the condition that you serve the public."
Picking and choosing your clientele isn't the same thing.
Look, if your argument is that to be a baker, that you must be "granted a license" by the government. Then you are saying that in order to be a baker, you must first get "permission" from the government.
If you applied such logic consistently, you are actually saying that in order for a man to do anything to make any money at all, thus allowing himself to feed himself, he must first get permission from the government, and must then comply with every rule the government demands.
Thus, if the government denies him this "license" for whatever reason, then he has no choice but to starve. Thus, a man neither owns his labor, nor does he even own his own life.
The baker CHOSE to open a business and CHOSE what items they will sell in their shop. They wanted the legal protections of being a business, but none of the legal regulations.
The first amendment does not protect you from others speaking their minds about what you say. So far not one case has been about what anyone said.
That is exactly the point.
I find it interesting that in the 11 years since Massachusetts legalized same sex marriage and then followed by 36 other states and DC as well and the ensuing hundreds of thousands of gays and lesbians who have since married, opponents of marriage equality are still harping on the Sweet Cakes by Melissa case in Oregon. Melissa refused the gay couple a cake and they sued. The court ruled in favor of the couple because in Oregon 'sexual orientation' is a protected class. Melissa appealed the ruling and lost again. A hundred thousand dollars was raised for Melissa on Go Fund Me.
I mentioned in an earlier post that as a landlord I am legally required to rent space to anyone that can afford it and abides by my policies and conditions ... including gay and lesbian folks. No one challenged me on that. If I as a landlord must observe these laws, why should Melissa get a free pass?
Look, you keep imagining that they have "chosen" to do this or "chosen" to do that. And thus, in your imagination, the baker has given his consent willingly.
The problem is, consent can only be legally obtained, in the absence of coercion. If consent is only obtained through coercion, then it is called "extortion".
If the government says to a man, "You must do this, or be homeless and starve". Then can it really be said that his consent was obtained fairly and without coercion? Isn't it actually true that the man was forced to consent, or be punished?
What good is consent which only comes from threats of violence?
Yes, all anti-discrimination laws are in violation of "freedom of association". And in the case of commerce, it is related to property rights. You have NO RIGHT TO MY PROPERTY.
The baker DID consent willingly. No one forced him to open a bakery. No one forced him to offer wedding cakes for sale. By opening a business he agreed to follow the laws of operating a business.
The government did not tell him to open a bakery or that he had to offer wedding cakes for sale. The government doesn't care if he opens a bakery, or a pet grooming shop, or a deli, or even if he works for a fortune 500 company. The government only cares that he follows the laws of operating a business.
I find it interesting that in the 11 years since Massachusetts legalized same sex marriage and then followed by 36 other states and DC as well and the ensuing hundreds of thousands of gays and lesbians who have since married, opponents of marriage equality are still harping on the Sweet Cakes by Melissa case in Oregon. Melissa refused the gay couple a cake and they sued. The court ruled in favor of the couple because in Oregon 'sexual orientation' is a protected class. Melissa appealed the ruling and lost again. A hundred thousand dollars was raised for Melissa on Go Fund Me.
I mentioned in an earlier post that as a landlord I am legally required to rent space to anyone that can afford it and abides by my policies and conditions ... including gay and lesbian folks. No one challenged me on that. If I as a landlord must observe these laws, why should Melissa get a free pass?
If that's your comparison then you really don't get it. Providing housing to someone in need doesn't involve a moral conflict. Forcing a business owner to engage on some level in a celebration of an unholy union does. We harp on it because it is one of the first examples of the government breaching the trust to preserve religious freedom. Basically the new America is hey you are free to have religious beliefs, that is until the government makes up a new law and says you have to obey it.
The baker DID consent willingly. No one forced him to open a bakery. No one forced him to offer wedding cakes for sale. By opening a business he agreed to follow the laws of operating a business.
The government did not tell him to open a bakery or that he had to offer wedding cakes for sale. The government doesn't care if he opens a bakery, or a pet grooming shop, or a deli, or even if he works for a fortune 500 company. The government only cares that he follows the laws of operating a business.
No the baker owned the bakery BEFORE the government decided to classify sexual orientation as something that should be protected from discrimination. Then it had to decide exactly how far do you take discrimination laws. Meet my demands or go out of business is apparently the way your side wants it.
If that's your comparison then you really don't get it. Providing housing to someone in need doesn't involve a moral conflict. Forcing a business owner to engage on some level in a celebration of an unholy union does. We harp on it because it is one of the first examples of the government breaching the trust to preserve religious freedom. Basically the new America is hey you are free to have religious beliefs, that is until the government makes up a new law and says you have to obey it.
Baking a cake (a product) is not requiring any type of celebration on the part of the baker. In fact the baker isn't even invited to the wedding.
TI mentioned in an earlier post that as a landlord I am legally required to rent space to anyone that can afford it and abides by my policies and conditions ... including gay and lesbian folks. No one challenged me on that. If I as a landlord must observe these laws, why should Melissa get a free pass?
In all honesty, I challenged you on it. And Bentbow has been making the same argument throughout this thread. Anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional, period. Anyone who is a "strict constitutionalist" knows it.
Ron Paul was against anti-discrimination laws. It is a libertarian position.
OK.... 2 States, then.
[indent]State lawmakers are considering throwing out marriage in Oklahoma.
The idea stems from a bill filed by Rep. Mike Turner (R-Edmond). Turner says it’s an attempt to keep same-sex marriage illegal in Oklahoma while satisfying the U.S. Constitution.
You know, I don't get the reasoning here.
How can OK "get out of the marriage business" *and* "keep SSM illegal"??? If the state wants to not regulate marriage, how can they at the same time continue to regulate marriage?
Look, if your argument is that to be a baker, that you must be "granted a license" by the government. Then you are saying that in order to be a baker, you must first get "permission" from the government.
If you applied such logic consistently, you are actually saying that in order for a man to do anything to make any money at all, thus allowing himself to feed himself, he must first get permission from the government, and must then comply with every rule the government demands.
Thus, if the government denies him this "license" for whatever reason, then he has no choice but to starve. Thus, a man neither owns his labor, nor does he even own his own life.
Stop being a DRAMA QUEEN.
Melissa, the owner of Sweet Cakes is not starving.
There was an equally controversial case over in England years ago when I was working over there. The Christian owners of a "Bed & Breakfast Guest House" were cited for refusing to allow a gay couple overnight accommodations in their Inn. Because it was their first offense they got a tiny fine - like 50 pounds - but were warned that in Hampshire County (or wherever it was) they could not turn away gays or lesbians if they were operating as a lodging open to all. The inn owner's lawyer reincorporated the establishment as a "Christian Retreat & Lodge" ... and they are now entitled to turn anyone who is not Christian or practices 'unchristian behavior' (including unmarried straight couples!) away. Problem solved.
My point: there are always loop-holes in the laws. Melissa could have just stated her policy that she doesn't bake wedding cakes to anyone. Interestingly later she was caught on video agreeing to bake a wedding cake for two dogs! Then she agreed to bake a Divorce Cake! Sheesh! Instead she chose to make herself a martyr and a victim being tortured and persecuted by those evil gays and lesbians.
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.
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.
Instead she chose to make herself a martyr and a victim being tortured and persecuted by those evil gays and lesbians.
