Should a liberal bakery be forced to make a Christian and pro-Israel cake? (Congress, politician)
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.
Forced? Liberals would just make the stupid cake. It's a CAKE!
It is ridiculous that people won't bake a cake (when it is what they do!).
The irony is that this bakery claims it is because of religion, but they are in no way shape or form acting like christians, if that is what they claim to be.
Forced? Liberals would just make the stupid cake. It's a CAKE!
It is ridiculous that people won't bake a cake (when it is what they do!).
The irony is that this bakery claims it is because of religion, but they are in no way shape or form acting like christians, if that is what they claim to be.
Would they make the stupid cake?
You'd bake a Nazi themed celebration cake? Or a KKK themed celebration cake?
The fact is I plain don't believe you. There are myriad of cake (or any) themes that you would not for one moment consider producing from your business (if you're a business owner). In fact I'll tell you why you would not, because of the risk that it's an intentional or incidental set up. What would it do to your business if its discovered you provided a KKK celebratory cake to the Grand Kleagal? Or a Nazi themed cake to the local Neo-Nazis? Now what's going to happen if that's published on Twitter, or Facebook? How will it be interpreted and what effect will that have on your business? I mean presuming your business isn't razed in a firebombing.
The quibble is just about what is acceptable to reject and what is not.
So your claims show that the cake is indeed a lie.
While I do agree that even publicly accessible property ( like a shopping mall) is still private property just like a persons residential home, I think in the case of Civil Rights Act of 1964, they include the following words: "relief against discrimination in public accommodations"
The underlined has a legal definition of the following:
"Public accommodations, in US law, are generally defined as facilities, both public and private, used by the public. "
So in the context of Civil Rights, a private address (home) isn't treated the same as a private address of public accommodations (including a business that serves the public).
So in summary, property rights are not absolute when it comes to a publicly accessible business.
Again though....
There is a difference between discrimination of who you serve versus the good and services that a business chooses to sell. Not serving a customer based on race, color, religion or sex is discrimination. However, a business choosing not to sell a good/service (a political themed cake for example) is NOT discrimination.
Well there is reality and then there is your fantasy version.
Calling something is "publicly accessible" is a ploy by politicians to impose relationships on those who wouldn't otherwise have them of their own free will. Sorta like when your mother would shove you out the door and insist you go play with the neighbor kid Billy who picks his nose and eats it.
Forced? Liberals would just make the stupid cake. It's a CAKE!
It is ridiculous that people won't bake a cake (when it is what they do!).
The irony is that this bakery claims it is because of religion, but they are in no way shape or form acting like christians, if that is what they claim to be.
Would liberals ever refuse to buy a chicken sandwich from an owner who disapproves of gay marriage? It's just a CHICKEN SANDWICH!
Well there is reality and then there is your fantasy version.
Calling something is "publicly accessible" is a ploy by politicians to impose relationships on those who wouldn't otherwise have them of their own free will. Sorta like when your mother would shove you out the door and insist you go play with the neighbor kid Billy who picks his nose and eats it.
Look up the actual Civil Rights Act of 1964 written words accepted into law and the terms "public accommodation" in a legal dictionary.
Then ask yourself? Who is living in a fantasy? You don't get to pick and choose legal words or redefine them to suit your views. I know it may be difficult, so I have started the research on your behalf. I suggest you do more research before speaking further.
To enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.
Privately-owned businesses and facilities that offer certain goods or services to the public - including food, lodging, gasoline, and entertainment -are considered public accommodations for purposes of federal and state anti-discrimination laws. For purposes of disability discrimination, the definition of a "public accommodation" is even more broad, encompassing most businesses that are open to the public (regardless of type).
I dont confuse the scribblings of politicians with reality anymore than I would a hollywood script.
Ignorance is bliss ain't it?
Those laws and definitions have been on the books a long time and not a recent scribbling of some fictitious politician you choose to blame. If we are to have a fruitful discussion regarding rights according to legal US law, then you need to understand that the topic is legal US law... it is the foundation of the discussion here.
If you choose to ignore that and make up your own fictitious laws, then you really aren't on topic here and simply rambling.
While I do agree that even publicly accessible property ( like a shopping mall) is still private property just like a persons residential home, I think in the case of Civil Rights Act of 1964, they include the following words: "relief against discrimination in public accommodations"
The underlined has a legal definition of the following:
"Public accommodations, in US law, are generally defined as facilities, both public and private, used by the public. "
So in the context of Civil Rights, a private address (home) isn't treated the same as a private address of public accommodations (including a business that serves the public).
So in summary, property rights are not absolute when it comes to a publicly accessible business.
Again though....
There is a difference between discrimination of who you serve versus the good and services that a business chooses to sell. Not serving a customer based on race, color, religion or sex is discrimination. However, a business choosing not to sell a good/service (a political themed cake for example) is NOT discrimination.
I think I understand what you're saying here however I don't think you should assume that some of the folks here agree with the provisions of the various Civil Rights Acts. Some folks, usually self-identified libertarians, do not agree with Civil Rights Act of 1964. They also tend to believe race-based slavery would've just 'magically gone away' without any government actions on behalf of the American People. They are simply delusional.
Quote:
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 EXPLAINED
Origins of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
...
Major Features of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: This provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 barred unequal application of voter registration requirements. Although this provision required that all voting rules and procedures be uniform regardless of race, it did not eliminate literacy tests, which was the predominant method used to exclude African American voters.
Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: This particular provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination in motels, hotels, theatres, restaurants and all other public accommodations which were engaged in interstate commerce.
Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Outlawed state and municipal governments from barring access to public facilities based off an individual’s religion, gender, race, or ethnicity.
Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Provision that discouraged the desegregation of public schools and enabled the United States Attorney General to initiate suits to enforce said act.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Prevented discrimination by government agencies who received federal funds. If an agency violates this particular provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 will lose its federal funding.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: This fundamental provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination by employers on the basis of color, race, sex, national origin, or religion.
What is the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ended racial segregation and outlawed most forms of discrimination in the workplace, schools, public facilities and separate requirements based on racialized distinctions, such as discriminatory voter registration requirements. The Civil Rights Act also clarified some of the rights of women.
Where does the authority lie in the federal enforcement of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
The federal government derives the power to enforce the provisions of the Civil Rights Act through:
- Article One, Section 8 - The interstate commerce clause as means of enforcing laws and regulations between two states.
- Fourteenth Amendment - federal duty to guarantee all citizens equal protection under the law.
- Fifteenth Amendment - federal duty to protect voting rights.
What are the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
The provisions of the Civil Rights Act include:
- Public accommodations may not discriminate against or segregate individuals based on race, ethnicity of gender.
o Public accommodations being any establishments that lease, rent or sell goods and provide services. Additionally if the establishment is public gathering place, educational institution, park or lodging enterprises.
- School systems may no longer segregate students
o Could face federal lawsuit for non-compliance
- A ban on racial discrimination in employment
- Protections for minority voters
These provisions are applied in the following order in the text of the Civil Rights Act
Title I - Rules and procedures regarding voting must be uniform for all races.
o This did not explicitly ban forms of traditional voter suppression, such as literacy tests
Title II - Public accommodations such as lodging, restaurants and theatres may not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin
Title III - Explicitly prohibits state and local governments from discrimination based on race, religion color or national origin in public facilities
Title IV - Provides for the federal enforcement of desegregating public schools
Title V - Empowers the Civil Rights Commission to further investigate and act on allegations of discrimination
Title VI - Prohibits discrimination by federal agencies when providing services or administration. Violating agencies can lose funding and face judicial review
Title VII - Bans discrimination by employers on the basis of race, religion, color, sex or national origin. It also added for protections for individuals associated with other races, such as an interracial marriage.
o Protection did not apply to Communist organizations or persons with Communist affiliations
o Allows for limited discrimination on the part of the employer if they can conclusively prove that the employees’ gender would impair him or her from conducting the job properly.
Title VIII - Created a record of voter registration and date for use by the Commission on Civil Rights
Title IX - Moved civil rights trials with all white juries or segregationist judges to federal courts for a fair trial.
Title X - Establish Community Relations Services to investigate discrimination in community disputes
Title XI - Established harsher penalties for violating the Civil Rights Act.
...
Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that Congress acted within its power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in forbidding racial discrimination in restaurants as this was a burden to interstate commerce.
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964),[1] was a landmark United States Supreme Court case holding that the Commerce Clause gave the U.S. Congress power to force private businesses to abide by Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in public accommodations.
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.
