View Poll Results: Judge Enforces Law: Did this judge rule right according to law and facts?

Voters
39. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    24 61.54%
  • No

    9 23.08%
  • I love Mashed Potatoes!

    12 30.77%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 15 of 17 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 166

Thread: Judge Enforces Law: Did this judge rule right according to law and facts?

  1. #141
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Judge Enforces Law: Did this judge rule right according to law and facts?

    Quote Originally Posted by shrubnose View Post
    Why is it that some groups and some governments in the USA have decided that everything that tastes really good is bad for you?

    I'm not saying that everyone should eat rib-eyes and buttery mashed potatoes with gravy every day but I don't believe that a good, tasty meal once in a while has put very many people in the ground.




    "Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves."
    ~ Ronald Reagan

    because people when they get into seats of power, they think they know what is best for everybody else.........this is a flaw in man, and why checks and balances of government are created.

    but politicians removed them or go around them.

  2. #142
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Judge Enforces Law: Did this judge rule right according to law and facts?

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    Public Accommodation laws don't involve involuntary servitude becaues the voluntarily open a business and voluntarily choose which goods and services that business will offer. They are free at any time to not offer such goods and remove it from their options. Public Accommodation laws do require that if goods and services are voluntarily offered they must be offered without discrimination based on criteria defined in the law.


    >>>>
    involuntary servitude is someone forced to preform an action under that force or coercion....and that is what is happening to a man ,who has not violated the rights of another person, or violated health and safety laws.

    discrimination is an emotional response of a person towards another person, government has no authority to dictate anyones social behavior, because they just don't like it.

    if government had social powers, it can dictate eating, drinking, and anything else about people on a personal level,

  3. #143
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    11-25-17 @ 10:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: Judge Enforces Law: Did this judge rule right according to law and facts?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    involuntary servitude is someone forced to preform an action under that force or coercion....and that is what is happening to a man ,who has not violated the rights of another person, or violated health and safety laws.

    discrimination is an emotional response of a person towards another person, government has no authority to dictate anyones social behavior, because they just don't like it.

    if government had social powers, it can dictate eating, drinking, and anything else about people on a personal level,

    In Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States they tried the "indentured servitude" claim, it didn't flush.


    "The appellant contends that Congress, in passing this Act, exceeded its power to regulate commerce under Art. I, [p244] § 8, cl. 3, of the Constitution of the United States; that the Act violates the Fifth Amendment because appellant is deprived of the right to choose its customers and operate its business as it wishes, resulting in a taking of its liberty and property without due process of law and a taking of its property without just compensation; and, finally, that, by requiring appellant to rent available rooms to Negroes against its will, Congress is subjecting it to involuntary servitude in contravention of the Thirteenth Amendment."

    <<SNIP>>

    "We find no merit in the remainder of appellant's contentions, including that of "involuntary servitude." As we have seen, 32 States prohibit racial discrimination in public accommodations. These laws but codify the common law innkeeper rule, which long predated the Thirteenth Amendment. It is difficult to believe that the Amendment was intended to abrogate this principle. Indeed, the opinion of the Court in the Civil Rights Cases is to the contrary as we have seen, it having noted with approval the laws of "all the States" prohibiting discrimination. We could not say that the requirements of the Act in this regard are in any way "akin to African slavery." Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328, 332 (1916)."

    As I've tried to tell you, equating voluntarily entering into a business and voluntarily choosing to offer goods and services is no where near the same as "Slavery" and "Indentured Servitude" as addressed in the 13th Amendment.



    >>>>

  4. #144
    Sage

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    10-10-16 @ 10:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,073

    Re: Judge Enforces Law: Did this judge rule right according to law and facts?

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    Judge Enforces Law: Did this judge rule right according to law and facts?

    Yes
    No
    I love mashed potatoes
    Attachment 67158094

    Now let me be clear what Im asking. The fact is we have national equal protection laws and anti-discrimination laws. Then on top of that states, counties, cities, towns, corporations and many orgs have minimum these same laws/rules/ordinances and policies but also expand them in different ways.

    Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws in employment, housing and public accommodations prohibits such discrimination based on race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, creed, religion, disability (mental and physical), marital status (housing and public accommodations only), marriage to a co-worker (employment only), and age (employment only).

    With these laws and protections of rights factually in place for all the other categories and factually in place in Colorado did the judge rule properly?

    If you think all equal protection laws and anti-discrimination laws shouldn’t exist, this ain’t the thread for you because that isn’t the topic.
    I want to know if people think the judge made the right ruling based on facts and law.

    We can discuss if you think orientation should be grouped with the others though.

    Here’s some quotes from his ruling.:
    I haven’t found the whole ruling yet, id really like to read it if anybody has it please post it and or let me know.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    “The undisputed facts show that Respondents (Phillips) discriminated against Complainants because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage,” Judge Spencer wrote."

    The order says the cake-maker mustcease and desist from discriminatingagainst gay couples. Although the judge did not impose fines in this case, the business will face penalties if it continues to turn away gay couples who want to buy cakes.Judge Spencer shot down the constitutional arguments, noting that the Supreme Court has "repeatedly found" that those engaged in commercial activity are subject to state discrimination laws, regardless of their religious beliefs. "Conceptually, refusal to serve a same-sex couple due to religious objection to same-sex weddings is no different from refusing to serve a biracial couple because of religious objection to biracial marriage," wrote Judge Spencer.

    "At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses," Spence wrote. "This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are."
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Now for me this is pretty easy,this is about illegal discrimination and violating rights and nothing else.

    Its factual a matter of civil/legal/equal rights as supported by law, rights, court cases, court precedence, constitutions and even the ruling above vs illegal discrimination.

    In the public realm we all have laws and rules we must follow, we all have rights, and they are the same for ALL OF US. Nobody gets special treatment nobody gets to break the law and infringe on the rights of others.

    The owner CHOSE to get a business license and agree to its terms and follow the rules and laws that come with that.
    The owner CHOSE to commit a crime and break law and he had to face the consequences of that.

    In reality he actually got off light, he broke the law and violated the rights of others and was simply given a cease and desist order to not longer break the law and illegal discriminate.

    Now he was asked if he would be willing to go to jail over this and he said “You know if that’s what it takes, I guess I would be,” well, happy trails Jack because that’s is where criminals tend to end up when they get caught breaking the law.

    Sorry he is entitled to his opinion but as a Christian myself I see zero logic in breaking the law and zero wrong with selling cake to gays, theres nothing sinful about that. This is simply very stupid and poor foresight and Jack has nobody to blame but himself.

    It actually blows my mind that SOME of the same people that don’t accept religion as a reason to break the law, illegally discriminate and violate equal rights some how magically think its ok when it comes to "queers faggots and dykes” treat them as a lesser and give them the same rights we all have or at least protect them. How absurd, and severely transparent those particular people are.

    Links:
    Judge orders baker to serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs | Fox News
    Judge orders Colo. cake-maker to serve gay couples - The Washington Post
    Judge orders Colo. cake-maker to serve gay couples - The Washington Post
    Judge orders Colorado baker to serve gay couples - U.S. News
    Court Rules Bakery Illegally Discriminated Against Gay Couple | ACLU - Colorado
    Judge Orders Colorado Bakery to Cater for Same-Sex Weddings - ABC News
    Judge Rules Colorado Bakery Discriminated Against Gay Couple - WSJ.com
    Cake Shop Owner Tells Fox News He
    It Was Never About the Cake | Deborah Munn
    Colorado Judge: Bakery That Refused Wedding Cake To Same-Sex Couple Broke The Law | ThinkProgress
    The ruling was consistent w/the law, but that's irrelevant. It was unjust because it entailed an unwarranted intrusion into the rights of a private business that

    1) Does not receive federal, state, or municipal aid, including subsidies

    2) Does not comprise a monopoly, or is part of an oligopoly

  5. #145
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Judge Enforces Law: Did this judge rule right according to law and facts?

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    In Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States they tried the "indentured servitude" claim, it didn't flush.


    "The appellant contends that Congress, in passing this Act, exceeded its power to regulate commerce under Art. I, [p244] § 8, cl. 3, of the Constitution of the United States; that the Act violates the Fifth Amendment because appellant is deprived of the right to choose its customers and operate its business as it wishes, resulting in a taking of its liberty and property without due process of law and a taking of its property without just compensation; and, finally, that, by requiring appellant to rent available rooms to Negroes against its will, Congress is subjecting it to involuntary servitude in contravention of the Thirteenth Amendment."

    <<SNIP>>

    "We find no merit in the remainder of appellant's contentions, including that of "involuntary servitude." As we have seen, 32 States prohibit racial discrimination in public accommodations. These laws but codify the common law innkeeper rule, which long predated the Thirteenth Amendment. It is difficult to believe that the Amendment was intended to abrogate this principle. Indeed, the opinion of the Court in the Civil Rights Cases is to the contrary as we have seen, it having noted with approval the laws of "all the States" prohibiting discrimination. We could not say that the requirements of the Act in this regard are in any way "akin to African slavery." Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328, 332 (1916)."

    As I've tried to tell you, equating voluntarily entering into a business and voluntarily choosing to offer goods and services is no where near the same as "Slavery" and "Indentured Servitude" as addressed in the 13th Amendment.



    >>>>


    well you can tell me this all of this, but I already know by the current case, government is violating the rights of citizens.

    and you can think I an crazy, under the constitution government has no authority over the people, the constitution is specific on what Americans it has any power over.

    as another poster stated by your contention, a business owner has no rights, only what the government allows him to have.

    property rights, are the same as right to free speech, they are no different.

    rights cant only be curtailed because of a crime.

    so your claims of the court you can make, but as for constitutional law, and ...and page 1 of u.s. code its unlawful.
    Last edited by Master PO; 12-14-13 at 07:06 PM.

  6. #146
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Judge Enforces Law: Did this judge rule right according to law and facts?

    James Madison father of the u.s. constitution

    James Madison, Property
    29 Mar. 1792Papers 14:266--68
    This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

    In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

    In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

    In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

    He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

    He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

    He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

    In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

    Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

    Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.

    Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.

    According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.

    More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man's religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.

    That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.

    That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the oeconomical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!

    A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.

    If there be a government then which prides itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence [inference?] will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.

    If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments.


    Property: James Madison, Property

  7. #147
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    11-25-17 @ 10:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: Judge Enforces Law: Did this judge rule right according to law and facts?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    James Madison father of the u.s. constitution

    James Madison, Property
    29 Mar. 1792Papers 14:266--68
    This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

    In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

    In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

    In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

    He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

    He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

    He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

    In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

    Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

    Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.

    Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.

    According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.

    More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man's religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.

    That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.

    That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the oeconomical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!

    A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.

    If there be a government then which prides itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence [inference?] will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.

    If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments.


    Property: James Madison, Property

    I agree. I've said it numerous times. I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws because at their core the usurp the owners right to do with their own property as they wish. That is my opinion.

    The laws and the court cases are reality, not opinion.


    >>>>

  8. #148
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Judge Enforces Law: Did this judge rule right according to law and facts?

    I argue against the emotional appeal of people, who believe law should be ruled by how they feel how the subject at hand, instead of based on rights the individual.

  9. #149
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    11-25-17 @ 10:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: Judge Enforces Law: Did this judge rule right according to law and facts?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    I argue against the emotional appeal of people, who believe law should be ruled by how they feel how the subject at hand, instead of based on rights the individual.
    You argue against an emotional appeal of people and then try to invoke "involuntary servitude". You are using the shades of one of the worst episodes in our history as a nation to try to evoke an emotional response with the whole 13th Amendment "involuntary servitude" line.

    You do exactly what the liberals are doing.


    >>>>

  10. #150
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Judge Enforces Law: Did this judge rule right according to law and facts?

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    You argue against an emotional appeal of people and then try to invoke "involuntary servitude". You are using the shades of one of the worst episodes in our history as a nation to try to evoke an emotional response with the whole 13th Amendment "involuntary servitude" line.

    You do exactly what the liberals are doing.


    >>>>
    no.. my argument is "force" cannot be used on a citizen, when that citizen has not violated the rights of another or has not caused a heath or safety issue, and has not violated tax law.

    the federal government [congress] has no authority in the life's liberties property of the American people.--federalist 45

Page 15 of 17 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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