Page 31 of 173 FirstFirst ... 2129303132334181131 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 310 of 1723

Thread: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647]

  1. #301
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

    Quote Originally Posted by shrubnose View Post
    The case that I cited was decided 49 years ago.

    Since then most people in the USA accept the 1964 Civil Rights Act as settled law.

    But a few people still try to swim upstream.

    Not my problem.
    That should be fun to prove considering the provisions in question have never had majority support.

  2. #302
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    It is basically throwing the entire concept of rights in the trash and only valuing slavery.
    Who is the slave here and whose rights are being threatened?

  3. #303
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Who is the slave here and whose rights are being threatened?
    The business owner is the slave and their rights are violated.

  4. #304
    Sage
    Higgins86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,264

    Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

    for godsake just let them eat cake...
    ‘This is not peace, it is an armistice for 20 years.’ (Ferdinand Foch. After the Treaty of Versailles, 1919).

  5. #305
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

    Quote Originally Posted by Higgins86 View Post
    for godsake just let them eat cake...
    They can get their cake from willing participates.

  6. #306
    Sage
    Higgins86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,264

    Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    They can get their cake from willing participates.
    tough crowd tonight....
    ‘This is not peace, it is an armistice for 20 years.’ (Ferdinand Foch. After the Treaty of Versailles, 1919).

  7. #307
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    They can get their cake from willing participates.
    That would seem to be fair enough. It's not the case that Gays are being denied the right to buy cakes in Colorado.

  8. #308
    Sage
    shrubnose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Europe
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 03:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,851
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    That should be fun to prove considering the provisions in question have never had majority support
    .



    Wrong.

    The 1964 Civil Rights Act is supported by the majority of the citizens of the USA

    Here's a poll: http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot....ights-act.html
    Last edited by shrubnose; 12-07-13 at 04:27 PM.

  9. #309
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

    Quote Originally Posted by shrubnose View Post
    If you would go to the link that I provided and do a little reading you would learn that the U.S. Supreme Court required the Heart of Atlanta Motel to receive business from clientele of all races.

    IOW the court threw the Libertarians property rights ideas in the trash can.
    From the opinion:

    FindLaw | Cases and Codes

    "Does the owner of private property devoted to use as a public establishment enjoy a property right to refuse to deal with any member of the public because of that member's race, religion, or national origin? As noted previously, the English common law answered this question in the negative. It reasoned that one who employed his private property for purposes of commercial gain by offering goods or services to the public must stick to his bargain. It is to be remembered that the right of the private [379 U.S. 241, 285] property owner to serve or sell to whom he pleased was never claimed when laws were enacted prohibiting the private property owner from dealing with persons of a particular race. Nor were such laws ever struck down as an infringement upon this supposed right of the property owner.

    "But there are stronger and more persuasive reasons for not allowing concepts of private property to defeat public accommodations legislation. The institution of private property exists for the purpose of enhancing the individual freedom and liberty of human beings. This institution assures that the individual need not be at the mercy of others, including government, in order to earn a livelihood and prosper from his individual efforts. Private property provides the individual with something of value that will serve him well in obtaining what he desires or requires in his daily life.

    "Is this time honored means to freedom and liberty now to be twisted so as to defeat individual freedom and liberty? Certainly denial of a right to discriminate or segregate by race or religion would not weaken the attributes of private property that make it an effective means of obtaining individual freedom. In fact, in order to assure that the institution of private property serves the end of individual freedom and liberty it has been restricted in many instances. The most striking example of this is the abolition of slavery. Slaves were treated as items of private property, yet surely no man dedicated to the cause of individual freedom could contend that individual freedom and liberty suffered by emancipation of the slaves.

    "There is not any question that ordinary zoning laws place far greater restrictions upon the rights of private property owners than would public accommodations [379 U.S. 241, 286] legislation. Zoning laws tell the owner of private property to what type of business his property may be devoted, what structures he may erect upon that property, and even whether he may devote his private property to any business purpose whatsoever. Such laws and regulations restricting private property are necessary so that human beings may develop their communities in a reasonable and peaceful manner. Surely the presence of such restrictions does not detract from the role of private property in securing individual liberty and freedom.

    "Nor can it be reasonably argued that racial or religious discrimination is a vital factor in the ability of private property to constitute an effective vehicle for assuring personal freedom. The pledge of this Nation is to secure freedom for every individual; that pledge will be furthered by elimination of such practices." Id., pp. 22-23.

    Thus while I agree with the Court that Congress in fashioning the present Act used the Commerce Clause to regulate racial segregation, it also used (and properly so) some of its power under 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    I repeat what I said earlier, that our decision should be based on the Fourteenth Amendment, thereby putting an end to all obstructionist strategies and allowing every person - whatever his race, creed, or color - to patronize all places of public accommodation without discrimination whether he travels interstate or intrastate.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  10. #310
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

    Quote Originally Posted by shrubnose View Post
    Wrong.

    The 1964 Civil Rights Act is supported by the majority of the citizens of the USA
    You do realize I brought up a totally different question, right? Since the question pertains to only certain provisions of the law the polling question should reflect that and not ask them on approval of the entire law.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •