• 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]

The government has said this for quite some time. It is actually a good portion of anti-discrimination laws. You must do business with people you may wish otherwise not to when you own a business open to the public. I see a bigger issue with someone putting their bias against others for something that shouldn't matter over their agreement to do business with others.

The owner was willing to do business with them, he just didn't want to bake a cake that went against his religious beliefs. Forcing someone to bake a cake they don't want to bake, or decorate, or labor at, is not a good precedent for any free society.
 
I am unaware that the bakery in question ever attempted to use force or coercion or the threat of either to control or punish the actions of the couple in question. Perhaps you can link to that.

Force or coercion? No, they were simply exercising their rights to free speech and association, and their economic freedom. And they were exercising their right to file lawsuits when someone breaks the law.

You are imputing motivation that you literally have no chance of realistically knowing. All he did was not want to take the job.

So are you.
 
Force or coercion? No, they were simply exercising their rights to free speech and association, and their economic freedom.

On the contrary, they were seeking to forbid others the right to free association.

And they were exercising their right to file lawsuits when someone breaks the law.

The highest form of Law in the United States is the Constitution of the United States of America, which enshrines in its' first Amendment the fact that individual religious liberty and conscience are protected. Federal or State Statutes are annulled to the extent that they violate the Constitution.

So are you.

On the contrary - we know what the couple in question wanted to do because they then went and did it.
 
He "had" to sell a cake to them? He didn't want to sell them the cake celebrating marriage between members of the same sex, though they could have bought anything else from the shop.

The government is now telling people that they must sell goods they don't wish to sell, that they must buy goods they don't wish to buy, and make illegal foods that are commonplace among the American people. Don't see anything wrong with this?

:shrug: my bet would be that they really don't. There is a real belief among many on the left that having government make your decisions for you is better because government will make wiser decisions, and that individual liberties do not outweigh political correctness.






17569576.jpg


It's funny, because for many people, it's true.
 
:shrug: my bet would be that they really don't. There is a real belief among many on the left that having government make your decisions for you is better because government will make wiser decisions, and that individual liberties do not outweigh political correctness.






17569576.jpg


It's funny, because for many people, it's true.

Does your individual liberty cover evading health codes?
 
My bet is that he tried to, and they insisted he provide them with a reason.


That would be false. If you investigate two of the most recognized cases (Elane Photography NM and Sweetcakes by Melissa OR) there was no disagreement (in other words BOTH parties agreed to the basic series of events). In the Elane Photography case the inquiry and exchange were made by email and the email were part of the investigation, in the Sweetcakes case they both acknowledged the exchange.

In neither case was the job declined and then a reason "insisted" upon. In both cases the business owner "volunteered" that they refused to provide the services after simply discovering that the event's were for lesbian couples.



>>>>
 
:shrug: unless we happen to have a transcript of the conversation itself, we don't know whether or not he volunteered or they asked. Either way is irrelevant, as what is at stake is whether or not he should be forced to violate his religious principles.


In the Elane Photography case there was a transcript - it was email.


>>>>
 
That would be false. If you investigate two of the most recognized cases (Elane Photography NM and Sweetcakes by Melissa OR) there was no disagreement (in other words BOTH parties agreed to the basic series of events). In the Elane Photography case the inquiry and exchange were made by email and the email were part of the investigation, in the Sweetcakes case they both acknowledged the exchange.

In neither case was the job declined and then a reason "insisted" upon. In both cases the business owner "volunteered" that they refused to provide the services after simply discovering that the event's were for lesbian couples.



>>>>

correct

and ive said so many times, not that i condone these actions but if the bigoted dummies would have simply said, we are booked that day or something else they would have probably been ok but since they volunteered the info about wanting to illegally discriminate against "the gays" and thier wedding they admitted to BREAKING THE LAW and VIOLATING RIGHTS in thier state, county or municipality


i have no idea how they ever convinced themselves that breaking the law was going to be on in this instance
 
Does your individual liberty cover evading health codes?

Not really driven by political correctness or emotional response, so sort of immaterial.

I will say that the application of health codes to childrens' lemonade stands is systemically insane.
 
That would be false. If you investigate two of the most recognized cases (Elane Photography NM and Sweetcakes by Melissa OR) there was no disagreement (in other words BOTH parties agreed to the basic series of events). In the Elane Photography case the inquiry and exchange were made by email and the email were part of the investigation, in the Sweetcakes case they both acknowledged the exchange.

In neither case was the job declined and then a reason "insisted" upon. In both cases the business owner "volunteered" that they refused to provide the services after simply discovering that the event's were for lesbian couples.

:shrug: then (as pointed out before) that's interesting, but immaterial, unless you wish to argue that deception is a preferred policy.
 
:shrug: then (as pointed out before) that's interesting, but immaterial, unless you wish to argue that deception is a preferred policy.

I frankly don't understand what the issue is. Those businesses chose to obtain a business license in a state where that license would limit their freedom of association due to non discrimination laws that were in effect.
 
I frankly don't understand what the issue is. Those businesses chose to obtain a business license in a state where that license would limit their freedom of association due to non discrimination laws that were in effect.

Then you have no problem with Arizona businesses and all those businesses licensed in states that do not require sexual orientation to be a protected class to refuse to serve homosexual events?

Also, our freedom of association comes from the US Constitution, state licensing should not be able to restrict that.
 
Then you have no problem with Arizona businesses and all those businesses licensed in states that do not require sexual orientation to be a protected class to refuse to serve homosexual events?

I used to but not anymore. I can choose to leave my state. They can as well.

Also, our freedom of association comes from the US Constitution, state licensing should not be able to restrict that.

There is absolutely no right to freedom of association anywhere in the US Constitution. That is a common misconception.
 
I frankly don't understand what the issue is. Those businesses chose to obtain a business license in a state where that license would limit their freedom of association due to non discrimination laws that were in effect.

Non-Discrimination laws that force people to violate their religious beliefs are in contradiction to the Constitution of the United States of America and thus annulled. It doesn't surprise me at all that people assume they would retain their Constitutional Rights simply because they opened a business, though given the heavy anti-business-owner attitude of the left, it does not surprise me that they found themselves to be mistaken.

The issue is that you do not have the right to force someone to violate their religious precepts. Even if you disagree with them. That's sort of what you call "important".
 
Non-Discrimination laws that force people to violate their religious beliefs are in contradiction to the Constitution of the United States of America and thus annulled. It doesn't surprise me at all that people assume they would retain their Constitutional Rights simply because they opened a business, though given the heavy anti-business-owner attitude of the left, it does not surprise me that they found themselves to be mistaken.

The issue is that you do not have the right to force someone to violate their religious precepts. Even if you disagree with them. That's sort of what you call "important".

There is no Constitutional right to freedom of association.

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 could actually articulate what specific religious belief is violated, that would be helpful.

I also find it amusing that conservatives call their disobedience to laws, "annulment" based on their particular interpretation of the Constitutionality of laws.
 
Last edited:
Non-Discrimination laws that force people to violate their religious beliefs are in contradiction to the Constitution of the United States of America and thus annulled. It doesn't surprise me at all that people assume they would retain their Constitutional Rights simply because they opened a business, though given the heavy anti-business-owner attitude of the left, it does not surprise me that they found themselves to be mistaken.

The issue is that you do not have the right to force someone to violate their religious precepts. Even if you disagree with them. That's sort of what you call "important".

good thing none of that is factually happening :shrug:
 
There is no Constitutional right to freedom of association.

United States Constitution[edit]
While the United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others.[

Freedom of association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
:shrug: then (as pointed out before) that's interesting, but immaterial, unless you wish to argue that deception is a preferred policy.


Nope, I was responding to this "unless we happen to have a transcript of the conversation itself, we don't know whether or not he volunteered or they asked."

In one case there is a transcript (email) of the exchange. The couple didn't ask, it was the Photographer that put forward their position without being asked. In the other cases the affidavits submitted by the owner and couple match and the court noted that they agreed. As soon the the baker was informed that the wedding cake was for a lesbian commitment ceremony they ended the ordering process and informed them they wouldn't be serviced and the reason.



>>>>
 
hmmmm im gonna bookmark this for a different discussion

i find this interesting
now i agree there is a freedom of association i got no problem with that

but there are a hand full of dishonest biased posters who use the completely failed and retarded arguments like if its not directly in the constitution its not a right and the other one is marriage is not a right even though SCOTUS said it is 14 times that doesnt count LOL

now this has nothing to do with the poster i quoted only those that use those failed arguments and then frequently and dishonestly refer to freedom of association even though thats not impacted
 
Hilarious. You deny a constitution based freedom of association but argue public accomodation laws are based upon the constitution when neither is ennumerated.

States, by the 10th amendment, are granted all the powers not enumerated by the Constitution to the federal government. As such, they can pass non discrimination laws and grant business licenses that are subject to those laws.

Freedom of association, is considered part of freedom of speech and assembly by court precedent, not its own enumerated right. The problem with your example was a court precedent of an organization (the NAACP) that existed as the official opinion stated "dedicated to the advancement of beliefs and ideas", which made it at an expressive organization, whereas a business that just bakes cakes or takes photographs is not. Had those companies been under the banner of a united organization for the advancement of traditional marriage before they had denied services, then they would undoubtedly had a strong case on the merits of free speech, but they were not, and as such, your example does not really apply.

They did not care about expressing their views until the moment they denied services to those people, and as such, they were not expressing their free speech. Had they made it clear beforehand that they were a part of an organization or group that would deny services in the interest of advancing traditional marriage, then they would have been expressing free speech.
 
Back
Top Bottom