• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

Congress did not make that non discrimination law, that was a state law. The First Amendment protects free speech from being violated by the Federal Government.

That is not true. The US congress has made non-discrimination law, quite a lot of it in fact. AND the First protects speech from being violated by ALL government, federal, state and local.
 
Your freedom of association only goes so far, and that wouldn't even really apply here since the guy is willing to associate with homosexuals (according to his claim), but unwilling to treat them equally to other customers when it comes to buying certain products/a certain product.

Nope, in fact if you read the decision that engineered freedom of association into the constitution you see it deals with associations with groups and causes as well. .
 
The first amendment has applied to states for almost a century now.

True, but through court precedent.

Damn those activist judges! Using the 14th amendment to protect individual liberties! How dare they!
 
That is not true. The US congress has made non-discrimination law, quite a lot of it in fact. AND the First protects speech from being violated by ALL government, federal, state and local.

True, but once again by court precedent.

Gitlow v. New York - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I just don't like it when people quote the Constitution as if that were how it were originally written.
 
Nope, in fact if you read the decision that engineered freedom of association into the constitution you see it deals with associations with groups and causes as well. .

Still only goes so far, otherwise no anti-discrimination laws would hold up ever under Constitutional scrutiny.

And freedom of association really deals mainly with a person's right to join groups or be associated with other people, not in whether or not they have some sort of freedom not to ever do some sort of business with certain types of people.
 
Last edited:
There is no right to discriminate.

Find me a human right that doesn't call for it.

I am being libertarian. I can choose to live and do business in a state that does not have a discrimination law in effect, as could they. Liberty does not mean violating any state law you do not like in the name of religious freedom.

Liberty is the right to own your life. That you can use your time, energy and talents to go after whatever it is that you want as long as it doesn't violate the rights of another.

If you want a state business license so you can conduct services for the general public, then there are certain people you are obligated to provide services for even if you don't like them. There is no right to deny services. The 13th applied to slavery and involuntary servitude, not paid services, so it is irrelevant to this discussion and a hyperbole at best.

No one is obligated to serve another as everyone ownership of their body and it's facilities, as such have ownership of their own labor and service and with that right the own property. Furthermore, involuntary servitude is slavery and it does not call for payment.

Once payment has been rendered for property, it is no longer your property. The customers paid for the cake, therefore the baker was obligated to provide the cake.

Nonsense. The condition in which the cake was to be made was unknown, and thus, the terms of the contract was yet to made.
 
True, but through court precedent.

Damn those activist judges! Using the 14th amendment to protect individual liberties! How dare they!

I consider that a strawman. For one thing, the fourteenth amendment applies to state laws, not individual people, and for another, your argument does not in any way face the reality that the first amendment applies to states.
 
No they aren't.

Do you really think you can argue this point? What is free speech? Is that a property right? Who has ownership of the speech in question?
 
Find me a human right that doesn't call for it.

I thought we were talking about the Constitution.

Liberty is the right to own your life. That you can use your time, energy and talents to go after whatever it is that you want as long as it doesn't violate the rights of another.

That is your definition. There are plenty of others.

No one is obligated to serve another as everyone ownership of their body and it's facilities, as such have ownership of their own labor and service and with that right the own property. Furthermore, involuntary servitude is slavery and it does not call for payment.

That is not how the 13th amendment is written even by a stretch of the imagination.

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Nonsense. The condition in which the cake was to be made was unknown, and thus, the terms of the contract was yet to made.

It is known. The baker had already accepted the contract. That is why it is in contention. The baker could have refused the contract for just about any reason prior to taking it, even for artistic license.
 
I consider that a strawman. For one thing, the fourteenth amendment applies to state laws, not individual people, and for another, your argument does not in any way face the reality that the first amendment applies to states.

Sigh...you don't even know the history you are citing. That is sad. What court case led to the extension of the 1st amendment to states? What amendment did they cite?

I made my statement for the irony.
 
I thought we were talking about the Constitution.

I'm talking about both, as it makes no difference to my point.

That is your definition. There are plenty of others.

Provide one to humor me.

That is not how the 13th amendment is written even by a stretch of the imagination.

Are you arguing that forcing someone into service for you is not making them your slave? How will you go about arguing this point I wonder. Since you claim to be a libertarian do you know why subpoenas violates the thirteenth amendment? For an easier question perhaps, do you know why the draft violates the thirteenth amendment? If you can't answer these question than your lean is even more in question than it is now.

It is known. The baker had already accepted the contract. That is why it is in contention. The baker could have refused the contract for just about any reason prior to taking it, even for artistic license.

No, it was not known. The cakes purpose was entirely an unknown and when it was discovered the service was refused.
 
Do you really think you can argue this point? What is free speech? Is that a property right? Who has ownership of the speech in question?

Free speech. It has nothing to do with property without some serious stretching. I can say plenty of stuff that others have said. No one really owns speech.
 
Free speech. It has nothing to do with property without some serious stretching. I can say plenty of stuff that others have said. No one really owns speech.

You own your person and thus you have the right to speech. There is no other way to look at speech besides a property right.
 
I'm talking about both, as it makes no difference to my point.

The Constitution has nothing to do with "human rights".

Provide one to humor me.

I am not here to humor you. Go find a dictionary. Probably not one so influenced by classically liberal philosophers.

Are you arguing that forcing someone into service for you is not making them your slave?

How am I forcing them into service? They chose to do business in a state with a non discrimination law. They can go elsewhere. A slave can't leave. Your hyperbole is astonishing.

How will you go about arguing this point I wonder. Since you claim to be a libertarian do you know why subpoenas violates the thirteenth amendment? For an easier question perhaps, do you know why the draft violates the thirteenth amendment? If you can't answer these question than your lean is even more in question than it is now.

I find it odd that your idea of being a libertarian is that everyone has to agree with your ideas of what makes someone a libertarian.

No, it was not known. The cakes purpose was entirely an unknown and when it was discovered the service was refused.

It was a contract for a wedding cake. I am pretty sure that its purpose was known. It just was not known it would be used at a same sex ceremony.
 
Not if he does this in a way everyone is aware of and can prove.

Can prove? He has the Bible to support his point of view. What more proof does he need?

That is the thing about violating laws, if you are going to do it, you need to ensure you do it in a way where you don't get caught. In this case, he openly said he would not sell a cake to any same sex couples because it violates his religious beliefs, yet I'm willing to bet as are others that he does not enforce those same religious beliefs when it comes to selling others wedding cakes, which shows plain bias against same sex couples, and not actual religious convictions in the first place.

So you prefer that people just lie, and that would probably be against his beliefs as well. This is what bad laws do, It makes otherwise honest people dishonest, and we should not encourage that.

Although it really doesn't matter because he agreed to the antidiscrimination laws all businesses of the state/area are subject to when he started his business. He doesn't get to violate those laws simply because he doesn't like certain people.

It has nothing to do with 'like'. And you don't see that he is the one being discriminated against?
 
The Constitution has nothing to do with "human rights".

Oh? How very interesting. What do you think the first amendment protects? What about the second?

I am not here to humor you. Go find a dictionary. Probably not one so influenced by classically liberal philosophers.

Is there something wrong with my definition? You have yet to tell me where it is in fact wrong.

How am I forcing them into service? They chose to do business in a state with a non discrimination law. They can go elsewhere. A slave can't leave. Your hyperbole is astonishing.

Again, if someone was to sue these individuals for failure to serve them are you arguing that they are not asserting in the court of law that they have a right to an involuntary servant?

I find it odd that your idea of being a libertarian is that everyone has to agree with your ideas of what makes someone a libertarian.

You don't seem to support the central axiom of libertarianism; in that, that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. Your support of anti-discrimination laws is in clear violation of that principle, and your denial to answer very obvious violations of that principle is very telling that you do not in fact agree with it.

It was a contract for a wedding cake. I am pretty sure that its purpose was known. It just was not known it would be used at a same sex ceremony.

Exactly. It was not known what the cake was to be used for. That is exactly my point.
 
Oh? How very interesting. What do you think the first amendment protects? What about the second?

Civil liberties.

Is there something wrong with my definition? You have yet to tell me where it is in fact wrong.

Nothing wrong. It is an opinion. There are others.

Again, if someone was to sue these individuals for failure to service them are you arguing that they are not asserting to the fact in the court of law that they have a right to an involuntary servant?

I am not asserting that anyone has a right to an involuntary servant. That is your silly hyperbole.

You don't seem to support the central axiom of libertarianism; in that, that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. Your support of anti-discrimination laws is in clear violation of that principle, and your denial to answer very obvious violations of that principle is very telling that you do not in fact agree with it.

I did not say I supported anti discrimination laws. I said that I don't have to live where they have anti discrimination laws.

Exactly. It was not known what the cake was to be used for. That is exactly my point.

It was a wedding cake. As such, the contract was accepted on those terms. There was nothing in the contract that said that it could not be used for same sex ceremonies.
 
Civil liberties.

So what do you think a civil right is?


Nothing wrong. It is an opinion. There are others.

Then offer one.

I am not asserting that anyone has a right to an involuntary servant. That is your silly hyperbole.

How are you not?

I did not say I supported anti discrimination laws. I said that I don't have to live where they have anti discrimination laws.

Then where would you live?

It was a wedding cake. As such, the contract was accepted on those terms. There was nothing in the contract that said that it could not be used for same sex ceremonies.

Nope. The terms of the contract must involve what it is for.
 
So what do you think a civil right is?

Individual freedoms that are protected from infringement by the government.

Then offer one.

The ability to act on your own free will and to take responsibility for your own actions and not to diminish or harm others in the process.

How are you not?

Because your argument is ridiculous and inane. It relies on the notion that a baker who chose to set up shop in a state with a nondiscrimination law and who was penalized when he declined to fulfill the terms of the contract because his patrons were gay is the equivalent of a slave who is held against his will and forced into unpaid labor.

Then where would you live?

I already live in a state without discrimination protections for gays and lesbians.

Nope. The terms of the contract must involve what it is for.

I think the courts determined that the contract adequately defined what the cake was for because it was a wedding cake. Wedding cakes are for weddings. It is literally in the name.
 
Individual freedoms that are protected from infringement by the government.

And individual freedom are?

The ability to act on your own free will and to take responsibility for your own actions and not to diminish or harm others in the process.

The first part of the sentence contradicts with the second part of the sentence pretty badly.

Because your argument is ridiculous an inane. It relies on the notion that a baker who chose to set up shop in a state with a nondiscrimination law and who was penalized when he declined to fulfill the terms of the contract because his patrons were gay is the equivalent of a slave who is held against his will and forced into unpaid labor.

I already told you that involuntary servitude is not dependent on payment, and furthermore, I have already told you that people have the right to their own service. The very fact that the law ignored that human right does not change the fact that the baker did not desire to provide their service to the consumer and that the state punished the baker when the customers took them to court. That is in fact punishing the baker for practicing their rights.


I already live in a state without discrimination protections for gays and lesbians.

And that won't last either. That however was not what you said. You said, living in a state without anti-discrimination laws. We both know that is not possible.

I think the courts determined that the contract adequately defined what the cake was for because it was a wedding cake. Wedding cakes are for weddings. It is literally in the name.

What kind of wedding it is just so happens to be not in the name, and that is exactly where the problem came up.
 
There is no Constitutional right to freedom of association.

On the contrary - NAACP v Alabama. Freedom of Association is inherent in freedom of speech.

Exactly how does a non discrimination law that requires people to provide services to gays and lesbians lead to violation of their religious beliefs?

If you use the power of the State to seek to force people to participate in activities that violate their religious precepts (for example, forcing a Muslim grocer to make you a pork sandwich, or forcing a Catholic church to allow you to hold a gay wedding in its chapel, or forcing a Southern Baptist to attend and photograph a gay wedding), then you are asking them to violate the tenets of their faith.

I also find it amusing that conservatives call their disobedience to laws, "annulment" based on their particular interpretation of the Constitutionality of laws.

:shrug: I find it interesting that someone who claims to be a libertarian is so quick to reach for the sword of the state to wield against those who disagree with him on sexuality. "Keep government out of our bedrooms and our bakeries", perhaps, might be more consistent.
 
Still only goes so far, otherwise no anti-discrimination laws would hold up ever under Constitutional scrutiny.

And freedom of association really deals mainly with a person's right to join groups or be associated with other people, not in whether or not they have some sort of freedom not to ever do some sort of business with certain types of people.

Sure they would, just not the ones dealing with sexual orientation.

Freedom of association goes both ways, you get to choose whom you wish to associate with and whom you do not.
 
Sure they would, just not the ones dealing with sexual orientation.

Freedom of association goes both ways, you get to choose whom you wish to associate with and whom you do not.

Wrong. If one set of anti-discrimination laws held up, they all would.

No you do not have complete freedom of association. You cannot choose for example who your kid's teacher is unless there is an issue with them. (For instance, you cannot say that your child must have a male or female teacher, a black or white teacher, a Christian teacher, a married teacher, or even a gay/straight teacher etc. in a public school.) You don't get to decide who serves you at the DMV or other government offices. And when you go into business, you agree to abide by antidiscrimination laws.

Freedom of association has been held to apply to associations, not businesses, particularly not businesses that are completely open to the public. If you disagree, then show where the SCOTUS has said otherwise. The SCOTUS has even upheld antidiscrimination laws against homosexuals. Romer v Evans.
 
Freedom of association has been held to apply to associations, not businesses, particularly not businesses that are completely open to the public. If you disagree, then show where the SCOTUS has said otherwise. The SCOTUS has even upheld antidiscrimination laws against homosexuals. Romer v Evans.

A business is the property of individuals. Just sayin'..
 
Back
Top Bottom