• 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!

Court: Civil Rights Law Prohibits Discrimination of LGBT

Henrin said:
The all powerful commerce clause! Wait...that isn't in the bill of rights.

It also comes before the bill of rights, so to use it to trump the bill of rights is laughable. It's even more laughable when you understand that the very idea of trumping parts of a contract with other parts is absurd. You read a contact as a whole, but people fail to do the same with the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the commerce clause doesn't mean what people use it for. It was merely meant to keep things like tariffs and embargoes between states from happening. To use it how it is being used flies in the face of enumerated powers and how that relates to the 10th Amendment.
 
matchlight said:
Your claim is not true in certain states. In those states, the private owners and operators of public accommodations are entirely free to refuse service to persons on the basis of their sexual preference.

Your comments about this subject in general and about Dale in particular suggests you don't understand this area of law very well. Under New Jersey's law, the Monmouth council of the Boy Scouts of which Dale was a member was a public accommodation.
Click to expand...

You really have this all backwards. The BSA are not and have never been a public accommodation and that's why they were successful in Dale. Secondly, there are no public businesses that are not private groups that are legally discriminating against LGBT's, in any state. Not to say that there are none that are illegally discriminating, just that none exist that are legally discriminating because of some law that allows them to that is not also illegal Or rather, unconstitutional.
 
Fishking said:
Not to mention the commerce clause doesn't mean what people use it for. It was merely meant to keep things like tariffs and embargoes between states from happening. To use it how it is being used flies in the face of enumerated powers and how that relates to the 10th Amendment.
Click to expand...

I realize that. It was orginally only meant to apply to the actions of states, but the all knowing court decided that business also fell under the clause. I have no ****ing clue what lists are even for when someone dip****s can just add invisible groups to it. Why even have a Constitution when the rules of English don't apply to it?

This applies to Jim and James, but **** that list because now Jane will have to obey by that too! It's crap like the commerce clause abuse that I feel the court system should be disbanded and replaced.
 
Last edited:
Beaudreaux said:
Deflection.
Click to expand...

There is no deflection there. Just a cold, hard, observation and a question left unanswered.

No one is restricting your property rights, or freedom of association, or freedom of speech. We are talking about commerce within the public sphere. Just as there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the public, there is no reasonable expectation of freedom of association in the public in that you do not have the power or right to prevent others from participating in public actions in a public environment. You can't prevent red haired people from walking down the sidewalk with you or brown eyed people from driving on the public road you live on, or for a gay man to tap into the water main that also feeds your home, or for a married lesbian couple to buy a Pepsi from your convenience store that you own, unless that store is a private club.
Click to expand...

I see you are confusing and conflating public and private. If we're talking about public, that which is owned by the state, you're correct. If we are talking about private, that which is owned by private citizens, you are not correct.

However, if you want a public business that does business in the public and with the public, then you have to abide by the rules the public have made through our representatives in federal, state, and local governments.
Click to expand...

Yes, if you want to run a public business, meaning a business owned by the state, then you have to abide by more restrictive rules.

Tell me, what does enumerated powers mean to you?
 
matchlight said:
I am not following you. You have been claiming here that laws may punish private persons who own or operate businesses which serve the public for discriminating against certain persons.
Click to expand...

Nope. Never said that. Private persons can do whatever they want. A business that conducts commerce in the public sphere is not a private person, regardless of who owns he business. Some businesses are private groupings, and they can discriminate, just like a private person can.
 
Liberals are making such significant strides in Gay rights and all other LGBTQ areas, I think they need to expand their horizons. So, I call on all you gentle, kind-hearted, long suffering snowflakes out there to get behind(no pun intended) your calf and say it loud, "Beastiality is the Thang for Me!"---or, "Stump Broke, and that ain't no Joke."

Secretly, somewhere there's a twinky little lib just dying to get it on with a pig. Come out of the Closet. The Truth Will Set You Free!
 
Beaudreaux said:
No one is forcing you to do anything. If you want to start a business, you have two choices, either a private organization that has private membership (like a trading guild - lots of them exist), or a public commercial venture in the public sphere.

Under the former you can do as you wish with very little restriction. Under the latter you have to agree to comply with public rules to enter the public sector.

It's really that simple. You obviously aren't going to change your position, and that's fine with me. I simply ask that you review the FBI webpage I gave you a few days ago about Sovereign Citizens so you don't end up getting yourself or others in trouble.

Other than that, I'm going to withdraw from trying to discuss this topic with you further since all that can be said, has been said, and we are both repeating ourselves.
Click to expand...

No, it really is NOT that simple. The fact a private person opens a business open to the public, by itself, does not automatically oblige him to enter into contracts for goods and services with every member of that public. You are misunderstanding the law on this subject if you think everything turns on the distinction between private clubs and businesses open to the public.
 
Henrin said:
I realize that. It was orginally only meant to apply to the actions of states, but the all knowing court decided that business also fell under the clause. I have no ****ing clue what lists are even for when someone dip****s can just add invisible groups to it. Why even have a Constitution when the rules of English don't apply to it?
Click to expand...

Why have the Constitution at all, indeed, if we can say Commerce Clause and Health and Welfare Clause as a justification to empower the government to do whatever they feel at the time? That doesn't sound like the rule of law to me but a tyranny of the majority and a disregard for the concepts of liberty.
 
Beaudreaux said:
You really have this all backwards. The BSA are not and have never been a public accommodation and that's why they were successful in Dale. Secondly, there are no public businesses that are not private groups that are legally discriminating against LGBT's, in any state. Not to say that there are none that are illegally discriminating, just that none exist that are legally discriminating because of some law that allows them to that is not also illegal Or rather, unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

A public business? You realize, that the term public business implies that it is owned by the public, right?

Also, where in the Constitution is the actions of business restricted? Don't try the commerce clause since businesses are not states and don't try the fourteenth amendment as again businesses are not states.
 
I've explained this up-teen different ways, and some folks just don't want to understand.

Do what you want. It doesn't bother me. The law will take care of anything any of do that is in violation of what we as a society have chosen to recognize as rules governing public interaction.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Nope. Never said that. Private persons can do whatever they want. A business that conducts commerce in the public sphere is not a private person, regardless of who owns he business. Some businesses are private groupings, and they can discriminate, just like a private person can.
Click to expand...

U.S. businesses have been ruled U.S. persons, rightly so, multiple times.
 
Beaudreaux said:
I've explained this up-teen different ways, and some folks just don't want to understand.

Do what you want. It doesn't bother me. The law will take care of anything any of do that is in violation of what we as a society have chosen to recognize as rules governing public interaction.
Click to expand...

I don't understand how you can have an avatar of the Constitution and ignore the principles of enumerated powers and the 10th Amendment and advocate for the violation of private property rights for the purposes of social engineering.
 
Beaudreaux said:
I've explained this up-teen different ways, and some folks just don't want to understand.

Do what you want. It doesn't bother me. The law will take care of anything any of do that is in violation of what we as a society have chosen to recognize as rules governing public interaction.
Click to expand...

Interactions that take place on private property are not public interactions. lol

Maybe if you started making sense you would reach people here.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Nope. Never said that. Private persons can do whatever they want. A business that conducts commerce in the public sphere is not a private person, regardless of who owns he business. Some businesses are private groupings, and they can discriminate, just like a private person can.
Click to expand...

A business is the property of a private person or persons. When you step on the rights of the property of someone you are stepping on that persons rights.

And all businesses are private groupings. Jesus. Getting this or that license doesn't somehow change the nature of the grouping.
 
Last edited:
Beaudreaux said:
You really have this all backwards. The BSA are not and have never been a public accommodation and that's why they were successful in Dale.
Click to expand...

That is not accurate. In Dale, the Supreme Court held that New Jersey's public accommodations law violated the First Amendment freedom of association. That law defined the Monmouth council of the Boy Scouts of which Dale was a member as a public accommodation.

Secondly, there are no public businesses that are not private groups that are legally discriminating against LGBT's
Click to expand...

That, too, is not accurate. Quite a few states have public accommodation laws which do not prohibit private owners or operators of public accommodations from discriminating on the basis of sexual preference. That explains, for example, the news story from a year or so ago about a Michigan garage owner who openly stated he would not work on cars for homosexuals.
 
Henrin said:
A business is the property of a private person or persons. When you step on the rights of the property of someone you are stepping on that persons rights.

And all businesses are private groupings. Jesus. Getting this or that license doesn't somehow change the nature of the grouping.
Click to expand...

You always over complicate things to blur the truth. When a business is open to the public it is a public business and must abide by the rules society sets for a public business. That includes health and safety codes as well as laws against discrimination. The only way around this is to close your business to the public and make it a private club.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom