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.
So, you'd be ok with them saying you either allow your phone calls to be monitored or you don't get a phone?
I am ok with honoring a contract that I choose to sign. IF such rules were in place I could choose to get a phone and follow the rules, or not get a phone. OR I could choose to not get a phone while working to change the rules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
The baker should be able to choose with whom he/she associates.
Once again, what is the exact need for which the government must force an association?
The baker as a private individual can associate with whoever they choose, but the baker as a business has to follow the laws that they agreed to follow when they chose to open a business.
You do realize we're talking about a state law here, right?
Yes, but we are talking about the general idea of the powers of government. Additionally, it wasn't me who brought the issue of the Commerce Clause and the Constitution into this debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
And if you're such an expert on the federal Commerce Clause and Commerce Clause jurisprudence, please explain to me the meaning of the phrase "instrumentalities and channels of interstate commerce."
Do you not know the difference between interstate and intrastate? I'm guessing, based on your question, no.
So, are you okay with signs saying " no blacks allowed " or " no jews allowed " or in a jewish bakery " no christians allowed " ? why just gays?
I am okay with any such signs on a private business. No men, no brunettes, no Sephardic jews, no shoe sizes over 10, no gays, no straights, whatever. It's your right to turn away paying customers as you see fit.
I am ok with honoring a contract that I choose to sign. IF such rules were in place I could choose to get a phone and follow the rules, or not get a phone. OR I could choose to not get a phone while working to change the rules.
So, you'd have no opinion as to whether the law should be in place?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
The baker as a private individual can associate with whoever they choose, but the baker as a business has to follow the laws that they agreed to follow when they chose to open a business.
Once again, my argument is that those laws should NOT be in place.
Because YOU asked about the "general idea of the powers of government" in regulating commerce. I simly answered YOUR question - and in doing so I explained there were differences between federal regulation and state regulation. I was answering YOUR question.
I'll suggest this in return. Saying a gay couple has a 1st Amendment right to buy a cake is like you have nothing but air inside your skull, whether thick or thin.
Who claimed that buying a cake was a 1st amendment right?
The bakery broke a STATE anti-discrimination law, and got in trouble. The only ones fussing that their 1st amendment rights trump state laws are the bakers.
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.
