All I know is last time I went somewhere wearing just a shirt and shoes I was denied service [Sarcasm2]Quote:
Originally Posted by Otterbatcat
Printable View
All I know is last time I went somewhere wearing just a shirt and shoes I was denied service [Sarcasm2]Quote:
Originally Posted by Otterbatcat
Just the shirt and the shoes?
lol....I hope you were applying for a porno job.
I have...it said no firearms allowed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Otterbatcat
Perfect.
Bastards.
I still think a 13th Amendment defense would be interesting.
What would that mean to the tax code? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by RblDiver
Yup.Quote:
Originally Posted by WETWRKS
If I even own a storefront, I want a sign like this...
https://thumb1.shutterstock.com/disp...-383321134.jpg
With the text
COMMIE SHIT GUNS PROHIBITED
AMERICA!!!
Or...
https://us.123rf.com/450wm/yellomell...cons.jpg?ver=6
ANTIQUATED WHEEL GUNS PROHIBITED
PLEASE CARRY A MODERN FIREARM
[ROFL1]Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip
It boils down to this: Public Accommodation. The SCOTUS will have to base their decision on which is more constitutionally applicable- Private business owners reserving the right to conduct business how they see fit within religious freedoms, or if a business, open to the public MUST serve anyone without discrimination based on "protected class." This is more muddled as it's catering to special events, unlike a car dealership where they can't base their service on religious views (Can you really refuse to sell a car to a gay person because you disagree with their lifestlye?)
This will be interesting to see the result, which they anticipate the decision will be coming down in March.
The First Amendment argument is more complex than just freedom of religion. Since the cakemaker is selling his artistic talents as part of the product, and the subject matter goes against his long held personal beliefs, the issue at stake is whether the .gov can control his "art" via regulation, or does his right of artistic expression trump the right of the protected class to not be discriminated against. I believe is does, and I'm guessing that the court, with its current makeup will as well. Otherwise, we might see suits against kosher delicatessens for not having a ham sandwich on the menu. I believe the basic right of the businessman to do business with whomsoever he or she chooses is not one that should be subject to government regulation. I'm sure we all know people who have refused to sell a gun to someone that was legally permitted to do so, just because the situation didn't "feel right". Removing that discretion is a grave mistake, in ANY business.
Great post!Quote:
Originally Posted by TFOGGER
Amen! Well said. I agree completely, and we can only hope the SCOTUS agrees with this notion.Quote:
Originally Posted by TFOGGER
+1. I actually believe there is a decent chance the SCOTUS decision goes against the !A and religious freedom. Kennedy is likely the swing vote and tends to side with the left on social issues. If the decision goes that way, the lefties won't like it either as Muslim photographers won't want to cover a gay wedding, etc. Unintended consequences are a bitch!Quote:
Originally Posted by TFOGGER
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by TFOGGER
Nah. Muslims are always exempt from the bleeding hearts' dumb logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Singlestack
For whatever reason, liberals seem have social justice priorities that go in this order:
Muslims>LGBT>minorities>women
I'm really hoping the cake maker ends up defeating this horse shit.
This.........ACTUALLY IS THE PUSSIFICATION OF AMERICA.
.....and it pisses me off.
x2. I hope the Baker wins, but America hates religion, unless it is the “religion of peace.”Quote:
Originally Posted by Singlestack
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-1...do-free-speech
Quote:
...
The legal controversy vexing all these great legal minds is a classic example of what happens when the courts compromise (i.e., abandon) the principles of freedom. When that happens, it produces situations where lawyers are “vexed” and end up doing their best to pound square legal pegs into round legal holes.
The fact is that the wedding cake controversy has nothing to do with free speech. Instead, the issue is all about private property and the right to discriminate.
Let’s start with a simple example: the owner of a home.
I think everyone would agree that he has the right to decide who comes into his home.
He’s the owner, after all.
That’s part of what private ownership is all about — the right to exclude others from coming onto his property.
Suppose the homeowner throws a party in which he excludes blacks, Jews, immigrants, and poor people.
All of his 100 invited guests are rich white Americans.
Are there any First Amendment issues here? Would those lawyers in the wedding- cake controversy be vexed over whether the homeowner has the right to discriminate? Would they say that the issue turns on how “creative” the party is?
Of course not. Free speech and the First Amendment wouldn’t even enter the picture. Under principles of private property and liberty, the homeowner has the right to discriminate. If the state were to force him to invite blacks, Jews, immigrants, and poor people to his party, there is no way that he could be considered to be a free person. Freedom necessarily entails the right of the homeowner to discriminate on any grounds he wants when it comes to who enters onto his property.
The same principle applies to a person’s business. It’s his business. It’s his private property. He has just as much right to discriminate here as he does with his home.
Thus, by applying that principle, the wedding-cake controversy disintegrates. Bakers have the right to bake a cake for whomever they want and for whatever reason they want. It might well be that they hate blacks, Jews, immigrants, and poor people. Motive doesn’t matter. What matters is that under principles of liberty and private property, private business owners have as much right to discriminate as private homeowners.
By the same token, consumers have the right to boycott the business that is discriminating against others and to advocate that other people boycott it as well. That’s how the free market deals with businesses that people perceive are wrongfully discriminating against others. It nudges them to change their position through loss of sales revenues rather than force them to do so with the power of a government gun.
The problem, however, is that long ago the U.S. Supreme Court held that when people open their businesses to the public, everything changes. The Court held that when business owners do that, they subject themselves to governmental control, including state anti-discrimination laws.
But that’s ridiculous. Why should the fact that a person is selling privately owned things to others cause the principles of liberty and private property to be compromised or abandoned? Why shouldn’t the business owner still be free to discriminate in determining who enters his privately owned business and to whom he sells his private property?
By abandoning those principles of liberty and private property, it has naturally left lawyers vexed on how to resolve the wedding-cake dispute. It has left them relying on the First Amendment to come up with entirely subjective and arbitrary conclusions that have no consistent underlying legal principle undergirding them.
I think the writer is confusing the application of FEDERAL civil rights laws (which only apply to those businesses that have some sort of nexus with interstate commerce as in the "Heart of Atlanta Motel" case) with STATE anti-discrimination laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by davsel
State anti-discrimination laws apply because unlike the Federal Government, which is a government of limited and specified powers, the states have a "general police power." Under the general police power the State can regulate anything and everything unless regulating that would be prohibited by the State Constitution or by the US Constitution.
For example, the State cannot establish a state religion and force you go to church because that would violate the US Constitution's establishment clause.
But the state could require every person to buy health insurance, and that would not violate the constitution (some states, notably Massachussetts, have done exactly this.)
The reason (IMO) that the Obamacare mandate is unconstitutional is that while the STATE can legally require you to buy health insurance, the Federal Government does not have a general police power and cannot do so.
Because businesses are licensed and regulated by the state and are required to operate under state law. They are required to obey state laws including laws against discrimination. Don't like it? Change the law. That is exactly how our Constitutional system is supposed to work.Quote:
But that’s ridiculous. Why should the fact that a person is selling privately owned things to others cause the principles of liberty and private property to be compromised or abandoned? Why shouldn’t the business owner still be free to discriminate in determining who enters his privately owned business and to whom he sells his private property?
Leaving this here....
http://thefederalist.com/2017/12/07/...rtner-gay-sex/
Looks like the left eating their own...?Quote:
Originally Posted by 00tec
It is a shame though, she's quite attractive. I saw this story posted on a Veteran's page on FB, and the comments were hilarious: "Is it necrophilia that I'm gonna go watch some of her videos tonight?"
Looks like we'll find out if religious liberty still exists or not in June.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...itigation.html
Anyone heard anything about this claim, I saw it posted on FB by a very libertarian friend:
"Why did this gay couple drive over 40 miles out of their way, passed several secular bakeries, to go into this particular Christian baker for their wedding cake?" It appears that this couple lived on the clear opposite side of the Metro Area. If nothing, I think this baker was specifically targeted because they knew he wouldn't do it.
These faggots are hate filled bigots that were more interested in suing Christians than they were in getting a cake.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
I wonder how many bakeries they went to and weren't turned down before the found one they could sue.
It's not unusual for lawyers or plaintiffs to seek out a specific defendant in order to get a case in court for a definitive ruling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
In fact, sometimes a plaintiff and a defendant will agree to engage in a legal dispute in order to get a court ruling. The Scopes "Monkey trial" comes to mind here.
You know, not every stupid thought that makes it's way onto the internet is worth investigating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
At the risk of playing devil's advocate, perhaps their event venue was closer to that shop, and they figured they'd go with a shop local to their "wedding".
Or perhaps before they decimated his business, he was someone with a stellar reputation for quality vs price.
However, it does seem fishy. It's not like they were driving in eastern CO. It's Denver Metro, which sucks to go 5 miles, much less 40.
An activist gay couple "shopping" an establishment?
No, that would never happen.
Let's look at a fact-they were "married" in Massachusetts well in advance to darkening the doors of Masterpiece bakery.
They decided to hold their "reception" at a later date in Colorado.
Now maybe it's just me but whodafuk holds their wedding reception at a later date? I could understand in the case of a couple that got married out of the country or something but gimme a break.
The real heart of this case?
Mental health deficiency vs a private business.
This was discussed on Colorado Inside Out on Channel 12 last night.
A point was made that I did not know.
The whole thing happened before Colorado "legalized gay marriage".
Wonder if the US Supreme Court takes that into account.
Seems... pertinent.Quote:
Originally Posted by BladesNBarrels
I think I read somewhere the case could be decided by June
The fact that the case is even a case or is in question is prima facie evidence of Sotomayor's, Kagan's, and Ginsberg's unfitness for the court and that Kennedy should have retired 12 or 14 years ago.
In the meantime, yet another case showing the "reasonableness" of the LGBTQXYZMIA community ...
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/...with-them.html
I'm going to commission a Muslim painter to paint a portrait of Mohammad. When it refuses to paint the portrait, I will sue based on him discriminating against me because I am not a Muslim.
I should win, since you can't refuse to do work based on religious grounds.
But I would likely get shamed for trying to exercise my white male dominant priveledge.
But then again, how is this different from a cake artist refusing to create something he objects to?
FIFYQuote:
Originally Posted by Eric P
I had a customer one when living in AZ. His was married to Jenna Jameson at the time. Getting some work done on his bike by Jim Nasi. Wanted an image painted on his bike of his wife performing oral on him. I told him no....I don't paint dicks. Should I be waiting for a lawsuit?
People are just weird.Quote:
Originally Posted by palepainter
This is just absolutely ridiculous. We need to ban computers!Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
Someone said 70 percent of their clientele is LGBT? Really? That much?
I'm hoping that Ginsberg can be replaced before the next presidential race, but it' not looking promising.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
No doughnuts for you.
That's not how this works. "Justice" depends on your position on the "progressive stack"* ... a Muslim is going to outrank you so their rights are to be preserved, not yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric P
Simple truth is, if the baker in Denver was a black woman, the fags would have lost their case at the local level.
*"Progressive Stack" explained by Sargon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCP-pH3JtWA
The Pulse Nightclub shooting showed us who is at the top of the stack.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge
Muzzies are #1, because their totalitarian and religious government system is critical to the technological and spiritual advancement of mankind.
[hahhah-no]