Anti-Democracy advocate, Mixed government is the only good government
THE second point to be examined is, whether the [constitutional ]convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.
If in fact the Westboro Church wanted a plain cake for their Church social lunch...and were denied service for who they are...Isn't that a closer analogy to the SS couple?
In the case of the SS couple, it was not that the cake's content that was offensive to the shop owner, it was the symbol of the cake. SSM.
Last edited by 1750Texan; 03-01-14 at 06:50 AM.
So at the time the constitution was being written, 18th century - "business" was used to anxious and to a wider extent "being busy". It wasn't used to define commercial enterprises. The word "commerce" on the other hand:Old English bisignis (see busy, -ness). The sense in Old English was ‘anxiety’; the sense ‘the state of being busy’ was used from Middle English down to the 18th cent., but is now differentiated as busyness . The sense ‘an appointed task’ dates from late Middle English, and from it all the other current senses have developed.
Online Etymology Dictionary
Defined what we today know was business. Your attempt to play knowledgeable at this is failing fast. Commerce was used in the way we today use "business".
commerce (n.) Look up commerce at Dictionary.com
1530s, from Middle French commerce (14c.), from Latin commercium "trade, trafficking," from com- "together" (see com-) + merx (genitive mercis) "merchandise" (see market (n.)).
the practice of making one's living by engaging in commerce.Sorry, considering you don't understand the basic concepts of rights beyond ideological masturbating to romanticized versions of what they mean, I can't drop it.Hardly matters though. If they aren't in violation of anyones rights, and they aren't, than the state has no justification to act.
If you don't understand the intent of that question yet, you never will. I have explained that question many times over and if you ever feel like it you can click on the quote of that question in Sanghas(however you spell it) sig and find that at no point did I endorse or condone anything nor did I offer my opinion on the matter. It was a question, that's it. Drop it.
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
There is no religious text in the world which states "Thou shalt not serve pancakes to gay people". Thus, this load of bull**** that refusing to serve LGBT people is a religious freedom issue is, simply put, mind-numbingly retarded.
These assholes who claim that their religion calls for them to discriminate against homosexuals should be ashamed of themselves for giving their alleged religions a bad name. If they don't have the balls to admit that they are simply bigots instead of trying to hide behind a fake religion they are making up as they go along, then they are worthless pieces of ****. That being said, even though I think that these human equivalents of pig feces are detrimental to a healthy and intelligent society, they shouldn't be discriminated against for being worthless drains on society.
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
It's been a while since I read the original story about the cake maker who claimed it was against his christian faith to do business with homosexuals, but I don't recall there being any issue about what they wanted on the cake itself. Did they want a cake shaped like a giant dick, or have Gay Pride written in rainbow colors on it? From my recollection, his objections were all about having homosexuals in his store, and doing business with them. And as has been noted many times already, if religion is trotted out as the excuse for discrimination against homosexuals, what's to stop someone claiming religious dogma for discrimination based on race, ethnicity, other religions etc.?What if the Westboro baptists went into a bakery owned by a gay gentlemen and wanted a cake that said "God HATES Fags" on it?
Why should our nastiness be the baggage of an apish past and our kindness uniquely human? Why should we not seek continuity with other animals for our "noble" traits as well?
Stephen J. Gould