Page 49 of 173 FirstFirst ... 3947484950515999149 ... LastLast
Results 481 to 490 of 1723

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

  1. #481
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,045

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    If you do not protect individual relations then you can not very well protect relations of a group of individuals.
    Still trying to claim something which isn't true? Here Henrin:

    In general, freedom of association includes the right to be free from compelled association. In Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 97 S. Ct. 1428, 51 L. Ed. 2d 752 (1977), and Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209, 97 S. Ct. 1782, 52 L. Ed. 2d 261 (1977), the Court held that freedom of association is unconstitutionally burdened where the state requires an individual to support or espouse ideals or beliefs with which he or she disagrees. Similarly, in Keller v. State Bar, 496 U.S. 1, 110 S. Ct. 2228, 110 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1990), the Court held that mandatory state bar membership dues could not be used to further ideological causes with which some members might disagree, unless the state could show that the expenditures were incurred for the purpose of regulating the legal profession or improving the quality of legal service.
    Again, even in a case where an individual's right of association is burdened, it is necessary that the individual MUST be forced to join a group that espouses a belief he/she disagrees with. Why is it 1 time transactions don't fall under these protections then? Because the parties are not forming partnerships/groups/friendships of any sort. Again, you're both ignorant of what the law entails.

    I'm sorry that you are too dense to see it. The amendment must protect both or neither at all.
    A false claim supported by a weak misunderstanding of the right. What a surprise

    Yes, the government came up with the concept out of thin air to control private property. In reality there is no such thing as private property that is open to the public.
    Ah, so the government making a real law is not reality? Get serious.

    What do you think the business is going to use to provide you lunch or any other service? They must use the resources on stock to provide you any service.
    If it's a right, why can't it be exercised without paying first?
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  2. #482
    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 Hatuey View Post
    Still trying to claim something which isn't true? Here Henrin:

    Again, even in a case where an individual's right of association is burdened, it is necessary that the individual MUST be forced to join a group that espouses a belief he/she disagrees with. Why is it 1 time transactions don't fall under these protections then? Because the parties are not forming partnerships/groups/friendships of any sort. Again, you're both ignorant of what the law entails.

    A false claim supported by a weak misunderstanding of the right. What a surprise
    So as long as you keep the association between people to a one time affair your argument is that the amendment doesn't protect people from that kind of force. Hmmm...

    Ah, so the government making a real law is not reality? Get serious.
    The law is reality, yes, but the concept behind it is baseless and made up by legislators. As I said, there is no such thing as private property that is open to the public.

    If it's a right, why can't it be exercised without paying first?
    Beats me. Ask the government.
    Last edited by Henrin; 12-08-13 at 01:04 PM.

  3. #483
    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 Manc Skipper View Post
    You don't seem to care for the law much at all if it limits bigotry and discrimination.
    I endorse freedom, not slavery. I have no reason to support these type of laws.

  4. #484
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,045

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    So as long as you keep the association between people to a one time affair your argument is that the amendment doesn't protect people from that kind of force.
    I've asked you what kind of partnership/group/belief a person is forced to adopt in a one time transaction. You can't show which? Good.

    The law is reality, yes, but the concept behind it is baseless and made up by legislators.
    According to you. - I'd say social welfare and harmony is a pretty good concept to base such laws upon.

    As I said, there is no such thing as private property that is open to the public.
    The law begs to differ.

    Beats me. Ask the government.
    Lol, you're being purposely obtuse. You yourself claimed this:

    The right to use resources that are not your own.
    Again, how do you have a right to use them if you must pay for them? Even the government would argue you can't use a resource like say a bedroom at a hotel without first paying for it. So how is it you have a right to use the resource when the concept of rights is in part dependent upon there being no fee to exercise them? Lol. You're way out of your league again.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  5. #485
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    So what you're saying is that a massive denial of services is acceptable as long as it's not all the services?
    Public services? No way. If it's a private business, the private business should be able to allow whomever they want on their property. Simple as that. Like I said, if here in America we're seeing a particular group shunned by every business in the entire friggin country then a gov't agency needs to act. I love this strawman you're building by the way. It's a very intelligent argument that has a real chance of actually happening.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Fair enough. Is it okay to sit certain groups at the back of the bus, because that still gives them seats somewhere on the bus?
    No, buses are public service in most places or at least receive some public funding.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    If yes. Would you have no objection to this treatment being given to Christians?
    If it's a private bus company, sure. It's their bus.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Would you have no objection to a quota of whites (say 10%) at school as long as they are given a place within that school?
    What do you mean "a quota of whites at a school"? Do you mean each school be required to have 10% of their attendance be a certain race?
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  6. #486
    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 Hatuey View Post
    I've asked you what kind of partnership/group/belief a person is forced to adopt in a one time transaction. You can't show which? Good.
    No, you didn't. Tell me though, how are groups of people formed? Do people interact with each other and do they choose on their own free will who those people will be? How can such a freedom not be protected by the first amendment?

    According to you. - I'd say social welfare and harmony is a pretty good concept to base such laws upon.
    You mean slavery. Thanks for correcting yourself.

    The law begs to differ.
    So? That doesn't alter the desires of the business owner to serve the entire public. If they don't desire to serve a certain group of people before the law then you can be assured they won't desire to serve them after the law.


    Lol, you're being purposely obtuse. You yourself claimed this:

    Again, how do you have a right to use them if you must pay for them? Even the government would argue you can't use a resource like say a bedroom at a hotel without first paying for it. So how is it you have a right to use the resource when the concept of rights is in part dependent upon there being no fee to exercise them? Lol. You're way out of your league again.
    Yes, perhaps you are right that I need to revise my statement. The law creates a right to someone else's resources and services as long as you pay. There happy?
    Last edited by Henrin; 12-08-13 at 01:22 PM.

  7. #487
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,045

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    Public services? No way. If it's a private business, the private business should be able to allow whomever they want on their property. Simple as that. Like I said, if here in America we're seeing a particular group shunned by every business in the entire friggin country then a gov't agency needs to act. I love this strawman you're building by the way. It's a very intelligent argument that has a real chance of actually happening.
    Alright for final clarification: If all white businesses in a town of 5000 (with blacks making up the national average of 13% of the population) denied service to blacks in the town, you'd be alright with this just as long as there were some black businesses? What if there are none? Should the government step in?

    No, buses are public service in most places or at least receive some public funding.
    So businesses who don't benefit from facilities paid for by the taxes of others are fine? Yes? Like say businesses who don't use highways to ship their products or businesses who don't make use of state programs for businesses? Yes?

    If it's a private bus company, sure. It's their bus.

    What do you mean "a quota of whites at a school"? Do you mean each school be required to have 10% of their attendance be a certain race?
    Yep. You'd have no objection to this? Yes? Just as long as they're not using tax money for such policies. Yes?
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  8. #488
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,045

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    No, you didn't.
    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1062638181

    I asked you a few posts again and you refused to answer then and still do now. Is the answer: None?

    You mean slavery. Thanks for correcting yourself.
    Ah, you've entered into the hyperbole argument again. Who is forcing you to run a business? Who is taking ownership of the profits of your labor? No one? Good. It isn't slavery.

    So? That doesn't alter the desires of the business owner to serve the entire public.
    I think I'm starting to get how debating you works. You get one argument destroyed and then you come up with a red herring to avoid the fact you just got destroyed. Okay, the owner's desires are irrelevant the moment he willingly agrees to open a business which fits under the model of public accommodations. The law supports this. Constitutional cases support this. You don't agree with it. That's your problems.

    Yes, perhaps you are right that I need to revise my statement. The law creates a right to someone else's resources and services as long as you pay. There happy?
    Find the contradiction. Rights aren't dependent on payment. If they are, they are no longer rights. Is there a right to vote dependent on payment? Or a right to demonstrate as long as you pay? No. Because it would come into direct conflict with no test portion of the first amendment. Again, it is understood that a right can be moderated as long as the moderation is sensible (fire in crowded places, child pornography) or not a test.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  9. #489
    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 Hatuey View Post
    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1062638181

    I asked you a few posts again and you refused to answer then and still do now. Is the answer: None?
    I did answer it actually.

    Ah, you've entered into the hyperbole argument again. Who is forcing you to run a business? Who is taking ownership of the profits of your labor? No one? Good. It isn't slavery.
    No one is forced to open a business, but if you do then you're made a servant to anyone that the government decides. Sorry, but that makes you a slave.

    I think I'm starting to get how debating you works. You get one argument destroyed and then you come up with a red herring to avoid the fact you just got destroyed. Okay, the owner's desires are irrelevant the moment he willingly agrees to open a business which fits under the model of public accommodations. The law supports this. Constitutional cases support this. You don't agree with it. That's your problems.
    Nothing has changed. Ownership of property details control and sole say of access and use of property to the owner. The law here is based on the idea that the government gets to make the rules of access and control even if they are not the owner of the property. It was like I said, a concept to undermine the rights of property owners and has no basis in anything but itself. You can't even bother to use anything except the law to support it since you are all to aware of this.

    Find the contradiction. Rights aren't dependent on payment. If they are, they are no longer rights. Is there a right to vote dependent on payment? Or a right to demonstrate as long as you pay? No. Because it would come into direct conflict with no test portion of the first amendment. Again, it is understood that a right can be moderated as long as the moderation is sensible (fire in crowded places, child pornography) or not a test.
    Oh so as long as the government violates rights and decides they are sensible it's ok to violate them. How wonderful. There is no rights in question here besides those of the business owner and so you seem to be using nothing but your desires on what is sensible.

    As for the right declared, its a government created right, not a natural one, and as such, they can put any sort of limitations they desire on it. Also, voting is not a right that has been declared by the government or exists otherwise.
    Last edited by Henrin; 12-08-13 at 01:50 PM.

  10. #490
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,045

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    I did answer it actually.

    No one is forced to open a business, but if you do then you're made a servant to anyone that the government decides. Sorry, but that makes you a slave.
    This is according to your highly subjective definition of what it is to be a slave in the first place. As the government doesn't take ownership of what you produce (which is what slavery entails) but provides guidelines/laws you're never made a slave. Compliant with regulation? Sure. Slave? Nope.

    Nothing has changed.
    Of course it has. The owner is at no point forced to run a public accommodations business catering to the public which pays for the taxes that allow his business to get water, supplies delivered, electricity. So that said, the owner's desires are irrelevant. Again, you choose to run a public accommodations business and agree to the laws which regulate it from the get go. I've already explained this to you many a time.

    Oh so as long as the government violates rights and decides they are sensible it's ok to violate them.
    You have no right to engage in activities that harm others directly/indirectly.

    How wonderful. The case in question there is no rights in question besides those of the business owner you seem to be using nothing but your desires on what is sensible.

    As for the right declared, its a government created right, not a natural one, and as such, they can put any sort of limitations they desire on it. Also, voting is not a right that has been declared by the government or exists otherwise.
    Lol, all rights are government created except for the right to self defense. Property, voting, right to benefits are created. Not natural. Welcome to the real world. Still, doesn't change the fact that a right's exercise/existence can't be dependent upon payment.
    Last edited by Hatuey; 12-08-13 at 02:02 PM.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

Posting Permissions

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