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.
Do you doubt that in this magical place called "civilization," the rights of people will often conflict, and that sometimes, the rights of one person being restricted is far more justified (or burdensome) than the rights of another class of people being discriminated.
In this case, business owner rights do not trump the right of the individual to be discriminated based on innate characteristics.
Maybe you should actually go read some of the opinions and case law on "public accommodation" and discrimination cases to learn how these issues were/are worked out by the justices.
Oh, and as far as "Congress throwing out Supreme Court rulings...." good luck:
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States[1] that outlawed major forms of discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities, and women.[2] It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations").
So they'd actually have to overturn what they already decided.... 50 years ago.... was a good thing due to the pervasive discrimination at the time.
The gay person had no rights violated. None at all. The baker decided he did not want to do business with him. Why should anyone restrict that right?
No one can give me one good reason why this baker harmed anyone or violated any rights.
And what part of the Constitution talks about private property being modified for businesses? They had businesses in 1788. Nowhere in there does it make any type of distinction in types of private property.
It never says one person gives up any right when they open a business. Whether that business is generally open to the public or not.
Just because a bunch of lawyers and judges got together and decided to redefine a bunch of natural rights you all think it's okay. Well, only when you don't agree with something. If the state decided they were gonna violate your right to discrminate or do as you see fit on your property you'd be the first one crying.
At least you admit you are okay with "restricting" rights if a person does not do as you please. If your gonna be a totalitariona may as well admit it.
The gay person had no rights violated. None at all. The baker decided he did not want to do business with him. Why should anyone restrict that right?
No one can give me one good reason why this baker harmed anyone or violated any rights.
And what part of the Constitution talks about private property being modified for businesses? They had businesses in 1788. Nowhere in there does it make any type of distinction in types of private property.
It never says one person gives up any right when they open a business. Whether that business is generally open to the public or not.
Just because a bunch of lawyers and judges got together and decided to redefine a bunch of natural rights you all think it's okay. Well, only when you don't agree with something. If the state decided they were gonna violate your right to discrminate or do as you see fit on your property you'd be the first one crying.
At least you admit you are okay with "restricting" rights if a person does not do as you please. If your gonna be a totalitariona may as well admit it.
Why must a restaurant kitchen pass health inspection codes and be subject to inspection, but the government doesn't go into that same restaurant owner's private home to inspect his kitchen?
Think critically. Take all the time you need. No need to rush.
Sorry, though the answer is quite simple, I don't respond to condescending posters. It's my right to discriminate against jack ass*s.
All I want to know is why a customer can leagally discriminate against a business but a business cannot leagally discriminate against a customer?
What clause in the Constitiution does it say rights are modified when someone owns property?
And can someone answer that without all the talk about the courts. All you are doing is saying that you are okay with violating rights because the court is okay with it.
The law violated the natural right of the baker to do business with whomever he chooses.
It's a bad law and should be thrown out, unless you agree with violating rights of people because the happen to own property??
Well, go ahead and tell the Supreme Court to throw out the law. While we're holding our breath waiting for that to happen, it's illegal to discriminate if you own a business.
Sorry, though the answer is quite simple, I don't respond to condescending posters. It's my right to discriminate against jack ass*s.
You are a condescending poster "Lols".... and I know you're trying REALLY hard to make your point, but I assure you, it's a lot better in your head than it is expressed as an outward idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioRules
All I want to know is why a customer can leagally discriminate against a business but a business cannot leagally discriminate against a customer?
Because the government can regulate commerce. Says so right in the Constitution of the United States of America.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioRules
What clause in the Constitiution does it say rights are modified when someone owns property?
That's not the test.
In fact, the business owner likely DOESN'T own the property upon which his business sits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioRules
And can someone answer that without all the talk about the courts. All you are doing is saying that you are okay with violating rights because the court is okay with it.
You're confusing way too many concepts at once.
You may have a vision of how you wish the government or constitution or jurisprudence worked, but it doesn't match reality.
And yes, as discussed above, where the rights of people conflict, someone is going to lose out. You happen to believe Mr. Sweet Cakes is being discriminated against by being told if he wants to do business in his state he has to follow certain rules.
I believe the lesbians are being discriminated against by this business, and that this wrong is far worse than him having to treat customers equally.
The lesbian tax payer money funds the roads upon which the public uses to get to this Cake Douche's store. The tax payer money funds the monetary system that he and his customers use. Their money helps support the court system he'll run to if his vendors breach a contract.
If he doesn't like it he can start a Christian cake club and sell only to private members of his cake club. I'm sure he'll make just as much money, right?
That's a fine line to walk. If he gets out of it, it's going to be because a sympathetic investigatory committee buys such a line of reasoning.
Would a Muslim baker refusing to make a Baptism cake mean someone is discriminating against Christians? Even if they would sell a Happy Birthday cake to a Christian?
This is really the heart of the issue that everyone seems to sidestep on both sides. Truth has no relevance, only agendas are important. That goes for both sides of this issue as seen from the posts in this thread.
If a bakery refuses to make a gay pride cake but will still sell other cakes to gay people, that isn't discrimination. If a bakery or restaurant asks a gay couple to leave, that is discrimination.
The law violated the natural right of the baker to do business with whomever he chooses.
It's a bad law and should be thrown out, unless you agree with violating rights of people because the happen to own property??
You're not getting it. And the thing is the one plausible argument that you COULD have you are completely ignoring.
He's not being discriminated against at all for the mere fact that he owns property. He could keep all his property to himself and restrict others from accessing it if he wanted to. He could bake a thousand cakes and eat them all himself and the government won't stop him. But he's not doing that. He is engaging in commerce, and the government has the express Constitutional authority to regulate commerce. (The Commerce Clause). So you're saying that the Constitution is bad law... I guess you could go that route, good luck with that
As far as I'm concerned, the only thing about this that is at issue is whether sexual orientation can be grouped with race (i.e. immutability) when it comes to the legality of a business owner to discriminate based on a characteristic of a customer. I happen to very much think so... but really that's the only facet of this where there is room for argument IMO.
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.
