Page 172 of 214 FirstFirst ... 72122162170171172173174182 ... LastLast
Results 1,711 to 1,720 of 2133

Thread: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed[W:1581]

  1. #1711
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,059

    Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

    Quote Originally Posted by humbolt View Post
    The law was changed because gays demanded protected status. The law was also changed because a "reporter" took it on herself to find some Christian somewhere offering a service who spoke honestly and confirmed that the business would not cater a gay wedding. There are prohibitions in the Bible which specifically prohibit homosexual unions. The law as it once stood simply stated that such religious beliefs could be a consideration. The rest is pure hyperbole.



    And the bolded was my point. Just because this group or that claims protected status under the law does not bestow them the title of "Thought Police". I don't necessarily condone what that girl said, and she is a younger woman. However, the First Amendment still stands, and I do recognize her right to say it. If you want to penalize people for exercising that right, you'd better check the ground on which you stand. It will be challenged.
    The government did not ever seek to penalize her for saying it. This is the problem. People seem to believe that the First Amendment protects people from private citizens. It doesn't, not really. It protects people from government action based on the words said. However, it also does not protect them from the government getting involved if those words become actions, as in denying actual service to gays, even if only certain services or products.

    Now, as for the words of other private citizens, it depends on what was being said and how credible a threat the person is/presents. They can be held responsible by the government for their words dependent on the threat they present. They could also be open to a lawsuit by the business owners.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  2. #1712
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,343

    Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Ahhh, so now there are good reasons to require a business to provide a service to everyone!!!
    Most, if not all metropolitan bus services are government services...Private businesses are not.

    BTW, I've never seen a bus line that has only one bus on it. They always have buses running at regular intervals, and it's not all the same bus with the same driver.
    Yep, still government services.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  3. #1713
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    18,267

    Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    The government did not ever seek to penalize her for saying it. This is the problem. People seem to believe that the First Amendment protects people from private citizens. It doesn't, not really. It protects people from government action based on the words said. However, it also does not protect them from the government getting involved if those words become actions, as in denying actual service to gays, even if only certain services or products.
    You're correct. Gay militants sought to penalize her for saying it in order to precipitate government action, which was their desire from the start - it was blatantly supported by a willing media absolutely precipitated by the law's passage. It's true that the girl could be sued for even speaking, if one was frivolous enough to do it. Seems it's more practical to do it through the media and willing political accomplices. All of this presumes that some action was taken. Nothing other than speech was offered. That's protected, too.

    Now, as for the words of other private citizens, it depends on what was being said and how credible a threat the person is/presents. They can be held responsible by the government for their words dependent on the threat they present. They could also be open to a lawsuit by the business owners.
    Correct again, but I certainly hope that no civil action is contemplated by the business owners. I doubt they would consider it, although I'm relatively certain some attorneys have mentioned it to them.

  4. #1714
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    Yeah, that's the private/difference. A private club or individual has a lot more leeway. Businesses which operate in the public space don't that freedom.
    For constitutional purposes, people and the businesses they run are both private persons. Almost nothing in the Constitution applies to private persons--including discrimination by those persons. The Thirteenth Amendment was relied on in one case, Jones v. Alfred Mayer (upholding law against race discrimination in sale of housing as exercise of Congress's power to prohibit private persons from imposing "badges and incidents" of slavery); the Fifteen Amendment has been used in several cases where private persons interfered with voting; and the Commerce Clause was used as Congress's authority for prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    You're right that private clubs have more freedom not to serve people. But often the reason has not been that they were not serving the general public, but rather that no government discrimination was involved. A good example is Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis. The lodge in Irvis, citing its membership rules, had refused to serve the black guest of a white member at either its bar or its restaurant. He sued, but he lost. The Supreme Court held the fact the state had issued the lodge a liquor license and the fact it used public utilities were not enough to convert its race discrimination into the state action required for the Fourteenth Amendment to apply.

    Discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation is not prohibited by federal law. Where states have made sexual orientation a prohibited basis for discrimination in public accommodations, they have relied on their inherent authority to make laws and policies concerning public health, safety, and welfare. It's generally true that the more commercial the character of a thing the state law defines as a public accommodation, the more likely that a state can prohibit discrimination without running afoul of the freedom of association. See Roberts v. Jaycees for a good discussion of this.

    The hotel that rents rooms to the guests at a same-sex wedding, the limousine service that transports them, and the caterer who supplies the food probably would not have very strong First Amendment arguments for refusing to do these things, assuming they met the definition of public accommodations under the state's law and that law prohibited them from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. And yet the fact a public accommodation is mainly engaged in commerce does not automatically mean a state law can prohibit it from discriminating against homosexuals.

    If an artist had a gallery where he sold his portraits and other paintings, he would be engaged in commerce, and his gallery would be a business. In some states that would make it a public accommodation. But if the artist opposed same-sex marriage, I doubt very much the state law could require him to paint a picture commemorating a homosexual couple's wedding. He would have a very strong argument that the law compelled him to propound a point of view he disagreed with, and therefore, as applied to him, unconstitutionally abridged his freedom of speech.
    Last edited by matchlight; 04-06-15 at 07:15 PM.

  5. #1715
    User
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    2

    Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    What? Do you think that gay's don't like pizza or something? Yeah, you are definitely not an expert. So why say something so lacking in knowledge?

    Personally I'm all for gays having a pizza party on their wedding day. To any business that wants to cater it. But I don't believe in forcing anyone to serve anyone else either. This is not the 1200's. We don't live a serf life.
    I see. So no one should be forced to serve anyone else, eh? So, if they don't want to serve African Americans, Mexican-Americans, Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Irish or Italian customers, that is fine with you, right?

  6. #1716
    User
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    2

    Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

    Quote Originally Posted by nota bene View Post
    Maybe those calling for tolerance should be more tolerant themselves of others' viewpoints.
    So the people calling for tolerance should be tolerant of the intolerance of others? Being tolerant of the intolerance of others is not much different from being intolerant yourself.

  7. #1717
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:49 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    17,642

    Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    For constitutional purposes, people and the businesses they run are both private persons. Almost nothing in the Constitution applies to private persons--including discrimination by those persons. The Thirteenth Amendment was relied on in one case, Jones v. Alfred Mayer (upholding law against race discrimination in sale of housing as exercise of Congress's power to prohibit private persons from imposing "badges and incidents" of slavery); the Fifteen Amendment has been used in several cases where private persons interfered with voting; and the Commerce Clause was used as Congress's authority for prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    You're right that private clubs have more freedom not to serve people. But often the reason has not been that they were not serving the general public, but rather that no government discrimination was involved. A good example is Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis. The lodge in Irvis, citing its membership rules, had refused to serve the black guest of a white member at either its bar or its restaurant. He sued, but he lost. The Supreme Court held the fact the state had issued the lodge a liquor license and the fact it used public utilities were not enough to convert its race discrimination into the state action required for the Fourteenth Amendment to apply.

    Discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation is not prohibited by federal law. Where states have made sexual orientation a prohibited basis for discrimination in public accommodations, they have relied on their inherent authority to make laws and policies concerning public health, safety, and welfare. It's generally true that the more commercial the character of a thing the state law defines as a public accommodation, the more likely that a state can prohibit discrimination without running afoul of the freedom of association. See Roberts v. Jaycees for a good discussion of this.

    The hotel that rents rooms to the guests at a same-sex wedding, the limousine service that transports them, and the caterer who supplies the food probably would not have very strong First Amendment arguments for refusing to do these things, assuming they met the definition of public accommodations under the state's law and that law prohibited them from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. And yet the fact a public accommodation is mainly engaged in commerce does not automatically mean a state law can prohibit it from discriminating against homosexuals.

    If an artist had a gallery where he sold his portraits and other paintings, he would be engaged in commerce, and his gallery would be a business. In some states that would make it a public accommodation. But if the artist opposed same-sex marriage, I doubt very much the state law could require him to paint a picture commemorating a homosexual couple's wedding. He would have a very strong argument that the law compelled him to propound a point of view he disagreed with, and therefore, as applied to him, unconstitutionally abridged his freedom of speech.
    Actually if his business was selling portraits of weddings.. there would be an argument that he was involved in discrimination by not providing a public accommodation to same sex marriage and thus acting against a state accommodation law. Now,,, if his business involved all sorts of other paintings? then no. but if his business was that of providing wedding paintings? then yes.

    The same as if he stated that he would not do an interracial couple because such was against his views.

    No offense but the accommodation laws do not have to do with government discrimination. Last I knew, the government ran few hotels, hospitals and motels.

    Private social clubs may indulge in discrimination because they are not "public" but are inherently exclusionary and are based on the freedom of association.

  8. #1718
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,343

    Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

    Quote Originally Posted by sloumeau View Post
    I see. So no one should be forced to serve anyone else, eh? So, if they don't want to serve African Americans, Mexican-Americans, Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Irish or Italian customers, that is fine with you, right?
    The free market would get rid of these places pretty quickly....Why is it that the first answer of a liberal is to need bigger, more forceful government.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  9. #1719
    Left the building
    Fearandloathing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,507

    Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    The fact that the law was changed in order to ensure that gays are not discriminated against should be enough. The law itself specifically singled out the one group of people who use their religion to discriminate and basically told them "We won't get involved!". Continuing to ignore that fact doesn't change the reality of the matter.



    Laws don't prevent murder. Should murder no longer be criminalized?


    Opps.

    There are more than one group of people who have served notice they will not do business with gays and lesbians for religious reasons, Islam where they behead homosexuals comes to mind, Sikhs, Hindus and B'Hai.....

    The government has singled out one of the groups which has led to this angry mob response and death threats
    ""You know, when we sell to other countries, even if they're allies -- you never know about an ally. An ally can turn."
    Donald Trump, 11/23/17

  10. #1720
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,091

    Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

    Quote Originally Posted by humbolt View Post
    The law was changed because gays demanded protected status.
    The same protected status afforded to choices like what religion you'll be a member of and traits you can't do anything about like race. That's not too much to ask.

    The law was also changed because a "reporter" took it on herself to find some Christian somewhere offering a service who spoke honestly and confirmed that the business would not cater a gay wedding.
    Lol, we talking about the pizza thing? Saying the law was changed because of that is absolutely ridiculous. This law was going to be changed whether a pizza parlor spoke on it or not. Or did the mass demonstrations suggest something else?

    There are prohibitions in the Bible which specifically prohibit homosexual unions. The law as it once stood simply stated that such religious beliefs could be a consideration. The rest is pure hyperbole.
    That's great, don't get in a homosexual union then.

    And the bolded was my point. Just because this group or that claims protected status under the law does not bestow them the title of "Thought Police". I don't necessarily condone what that girl said, and she is a younger woman. However, the First Amendment still stands, and I do recognize her right to say it. If you want to penalize people for exercising that right, you'd better check the ground on which you stand. It will be challenged.
    Nobody is giving anybody the title of thought police. What is being established is that a business doesn't get the benefits afforded to it through federal laws, and taxes and then discriminate against the populace that makes that possible.
    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
  •