I didn't say "force" I said compel. Try again.there are none, just like there are no laws forcing a baker to make cakes for gays, nor is that the discussion and thats exactly my point, thank you lol
I didn't say "force" I said compel. Try again.there are none, just like there are no laws forcing a baker to make cakes for gays, nor is that the discussion and thats exactly my point, thank you lol
I agree and those rights already exist and are protected, this has nothing to do with them.
better yes, serve anyone you wish to serve, but don't take public funds doing it.
this isn't a religious issue at all. We have freedom to have really bad ideas, and to live by those really bad ideas.
Simpleχity;1064464417 said:It is a religious issue. The original intent was to protect Native American religious practices (i.e. sacred burial grounds, smoking peyote, etc)
Open a private club and accept dues, discriminate away.
no, it isn't. the bill protects people with a lack of a religious beliefs as well.
If I rob a bank, is the government discriminating against me by arresting me? As a contributing member of society, you agree to live by the laws of that society or suffer the consequences of non-compliance. The municipal government grants you a business license with the understanding that you've read and understand the rules for operating a business in that jurisdiction. If you fail to comply with those rules of operation, you put yourself in a position where your license may be suspended or voided. The government didn't discriminate and put different rules in place for you that are not in place for anyone else. It is you, the owner of the business, who is deciding some rules don't apply to you, for whatever reason. If you take that position, you actively bring on the potential of regulated punishment, just like if you robbed a bank. Don't want to suffer the consequences, don't do the crime. And if you're incapable of controlling your actions, maybe stay away from banks and/or owning a business that sells to the public.
See how easy that is?
I agree 100% thats why people claiming this is about religious freedom are full of **** and its just a clock to hide thier bigotry
its not protecting anybody, its infringing on others rights and why when push comes to shove it will completely fail and help solidify equal rights, its awesome actually
I didn't say "force" I said compel. Try again.
it is a horrible business decision to discriminate against people that wish to pay you for the product or service you went into business to offer.
Open a private club and accept dues, discriminate away.
Thank you- at work and hard to keep up with the discussion.
It will be found to be illegal.
1.) correct until it breaks the law or infringes on the rights of others1.)practicing bigotry is a form of freedom.
2.)we don't need government to protect the freedoms that everyone agrees with, we need them to protect the ones that the majority would take from us. this is one of those.
3.)it really is that simple. We aren't solving a problem where services are being withheld at such a level that gay people can't get cakes, or dr visits.
4.)if the problem was actually at that level, I would have to reconsider if we need to take a step back from a freedom solution, but no such dilemma exists here.
you don't have a right to my service.
open a business and discriminate away...if your business can survive, then it can survive
1.)its not under attack in any fashion at all, claims that those will never bee taken seriously by educated, honest and objective people1.)that right is under attack and is not protected.
2.) bakeries have been forced to go out of business, so have day care centers.
1.) correct until it breaks the law or infringes on the rights of others
2.) your welcome to that meaningless opinion and many feel this is protecting us from one people would try to take away
3.) your subjective opinion of the problem is meaningless to rights
4.) see 3
wasted enough time with you.
"rights" change. to own a slave was once a right.
some time in the future, the do-gooders like you will probably make it illegal to discriminate in who you date.
The commerce clause deals with trade between states, not trade between businesses and consumers across state lines.
Also, considering that anti-discrimination laws affect trade within states that entire excuse of yours doesn't work even if you were right on the powers granted by the commerce clause.
If you ever took the time to notice all the members listed in the commerce clause are governments and that wasn't by mistake.
Neither are hajibs or wedding rings, but boot a person out for wearing either and you're in hot water. Same. Exact. Thing.
Well no, I'm not, if I can be removed for doing nothing harmful or illegal to anyone at all.
Which amendment covers horses?
1.)wasted enough time with you.
2.)"rights" change. to own a slave was once a right.
3.) some time in the future, the do-gooders like you will probably make it illegal to discriminate in who you date.
Oh how nice. I see you drug out an old picture of Democrats in action. How nice. Thanks for that.
This is completely absurd. States do not engage in trade. The commerce clause is about regulating trade that takes place across multiple states because it would be inappropriate for any state to make laws governing trade over one another, and to avoid having to constantly decide which state's laws held sway. You have no idea how American law works, do you?
As I said, even a small business that only sells its products and services to a small down uses and benefits from interstate commerce. Commerce simply doesn't occur on the same small scale that it could in 1789.
The commerce clause does not list members. As above, I don't think you have any idea how our laws or our governments actually work.
The only difference between the two is a license with terms set by the government. The government could easily apply the same terms to home ownership.