• 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!

"Supreme Court says we get a free ticket to discriminate "

This is 2019.

Discrimination by businesses is simply no longer tolerated.

If a business refuses to serve someone because of his/her gender, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, weight, etc., that business should close up shop.

In theory, yes, a business should have "the right to refuse service to anyone," as the sign in so many places say.

In practice, it does not have that "right" any longer.
 
Nap said:
I personally would have thought Freedom of association would have given that right. Why should one be forced to do business with someone they do not wish to be associated with? I never understood why someone would want to do business with someone that would discriminate against them in the first place.
Click to expand...

That's so ****ing stupid.

When white people have 99% of the power, them discriminating against minorities ****ing matters. What kind of a horrible moron thinks to themselves, "I'll just go somewhere else" like a typical clueless whitey.

This is real simple.

We decided, a long time ago, that white people were not gonna be allowed to wage economic war against black people. Black people were reduced to 0% of the power through slavery and then oppressed horribly for generations. They have, against this oppression, risen to perhaps 3% of the power today.

And you want to further marginalize them. You want economic race war. Despicable.
 
weaver2 said:
They may have, but the baker refused to bake any wedding cake for a gay wedding.
Click to expand...

Essentially, you don't really know the answer and can only imply something.
 
weaver2 said:
The Preamble, dismissed by most as a few grand sounding opening words, is actually the most powerful statement of the Constitution. It states the duties of our government. The rest of the Constitution is a description of how the government will carry out its duties. The Constitution clearly gives the government the power to prevent discrimination in the public sphere. It's right there in the enumerated powers.

PREAMBLE
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

ARTICLE I
SECTION 1
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

SECTION 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Congress shall have the power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Congress shall have the power to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Congress is clearly acting in an area it was properly given the power in which to operate.
Click to expand...

The preamble is ignored because it is merely a summation of the proceeding document. A preamble does not enlarge nor confers powers, so it is essentially ignored.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the US Constitution gives Congress the power to tax. It doesn't not, however, grant them the power to do whatever they please under the guise of the General Welfare according to United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936). Congress may tax for the PURPOSE of the general welfare, but there is no such thing as a "General Welfare Clause" because no such power was ever granted Congress.

If the novel view of the General Welfare Clause now advanced in support of the tax were accepted, that clause would not only enable Congress to supplant the States in the regulation of agriculture and of all other industries as well, but would furnish the means whereby all of the other provisions of the Constitution, sedulously framed to define and limit the power of the United States and preserve the powers of the States, could be broken down, the independence of the individual States obliterated, and the United States converted into a central government exercising uncontrolled police power throughout the Union superseding all local control over local concerns.
Click to expand...

Furthermore, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate international and interstate commerce. It does not, however, grant Congress the power to regulated wholly intrastate commerce. As the Supreme Court held in both Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824)
State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress.
Click to expand...

and in United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995).
[T]he Court took great pains to make clear that Congress could not regulate commerce "which is completely internal, which is carried on between man and man in a State, or between different parts of the same State, and which does not extend to or affect other States." Id., at 194. Moreover, while suggesting that the Constitution might not permit States to regulate interstate or foreign commerce, the Court observed that "nspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description, as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State" were but a small part "of that immense mass of legislation ... not surrendered to a general government." Id., at 203.
Click to expand...


Congress was clearly acting in an area it was not properly given the power in which to operate, so sayeth the Supreme Court.
 
Nap said:
Why should one be forced to do business with someone they do not wish to be associated with?
Click to expand...
A bunch of reasons, but mainly that Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce and businesses are not people.

Nap said:
I never understood why someone would want to do business with someone that would discriminate against them in the first place.
Click to expand...

What if you're an atheist living in a small town and the only two grocery stores within 30 miles are owened by Christians who hate you? What if you're gay and having a medical emergency? If the nearest hospital is owned by Christians or the Ambulance Drive is a Trump supporter what then?

More importantly, how am I supposed to know which businesses discriminate against those people before I buy their products?

Imagine you're an atheist living in relatively rural Alabama in a town with only two grocery stores. The first Grocery Store decides to put up a sign that says we don't serve atheists. Now all of a sudden the other grocery store in town quickly becomes the pro-atheist Grocery store. Now all of a sudden the anti-atheists grocery store will have a competitive advantage because all the right wing Christians in town don't want to be seen going in to the pro-atheists grocery store. So even if the second store has no problem with Atheists they may have no choice, but to ban atheists as well just to stay open.
 
Glitch said:
Actually, it has been struck down with a 7-2 decision. More than a year ago.
Click to expand...

You need to re-read the SC decision. What they said was the court in Colorado had not been neutral in making the decision and they (the SC) were tossing out the Colorado decision saying Colorado couldn't take a hostile position in a case and because they were hostile their decision was voided. The Supreme Court case had nothing to do with whether the baker had a right to discriminate against gays. The issue was the neutrality of the Colorado court decision.

The courts, state or Supreme, still have not ruled on discrimination based on sexual orientation.
 
gdgyva said:
my interpretatation of their ruling

businesses cannot discriminate as the law has been EXCEPT when the act or service is out of the regular daily business, and is considered a "special order"

ie....the baker can turn down making a special cake, but they can buy any cake in the display
ie....a florist can turn down a gay wedding, but must sell all flowers in shop

that is the way i read it, but i could well be wrong....

your take?
Click to expand...

Yes, I think that is correct and much more to the point than mine - thank you:)
I'm not sure if the SCOTUS ruled this way because the lower court had showed "religious bias" and therefore the SCOTUS basically couldn't take the case further or if SCOTUS was in fact making the ruling based on the above (compelling the baker to bake a special cake). I admit to not having read the whole ruling.

I find it sad that the baker wouldn't bake the cake but I do think the SCOTUS had no choice but to rule this way because the state of CO mishandled the whole thing.
 
Nap said:
I personally would have thought Freedom of association would have given that right. Why should one be forced to do business with someone they do not wish to be associated with? I never understood why someone would want to do business with someone that would discriminate against them in the first place.
Click to expand...

The Constitution doesn't give rights, it prohibits the govt from interfering with them.
 
MrWonka said:
A bunch of reasons, but mainly that Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce and businesses are not people.



What if you're an atheist living in a small town and the only two grocery stores within 30 miles are owened by Christians who hate you? What if you're gay and having a medical emergency? If the nearest hospital is owned by Christians or the Ambulance Drive is a Trump supporter what then?

More importantly, how am I supposed to know which businesses discriminate against those people before I buy their products?

Imagine you're an atheist living in relatively rural Alabama in a town with only two grocery stores. The first Grocery Store decides to put up a sign that says we don't serve atheists. Now all of a sudden the other grocery store in town quickly becomes the pro-atheist Grocery store. Now all of a sudden the anti-atheists grocery store will have a competitive advantage because all the right wing Christians in town don't want to be seen going in to the pro-atheists grocery store. So even if the second store has no problem with Atheists they may have no choice, but to ban atheists as well just to stay open.
Click to expand...

none of those things are happening, or will happen in reality

because none of those prevent someone from practicing their religion or following doctrine

participating in a gay wedding for SOME PEOPLE is a major issue...

forcing someone to do sois wrog is what SCOTUS is saying
 
gdgyva said:
none of those things are happening, or will happen in reality
Click to expand...
Yes, they will. It is because things exactly like this were in fact happening that lead to the passage of the Civil Rights Act in the first place.

gdgyva said:
because none of those prevent someone from practicing their religion or following doctrine
Click to expand...
How much drano did you drink this morning? You seriously think Christians will stop here? I can promise you that this ruling will open the flood gates for all sorts of discrimination in ways not seen since before the Civil Rights Act. If you don't understand that then you know nothing about how legal precedent works or how depraved the Religious Right actually is.

gdgyva said:
participating in a gay wedding for SOME PEOPLE is a major issue...
Click to expand...
No, it isn't. It's a bull**** excuse to treat certain people like second class citizen's. If you think this is justified then what's to stop people from rejecting interracial weddings, Muslim weddings, atheist weddings...

Why should a Christian Grocery store be forced to sell bread to Muslim or an Atheist? All you gotta do is claim your religious beliefs prevent you from feeding them, and boom.
 
Individual said:
The Supreme Court ruling (7-2) was decided appropriately.
IMO, "While another bakery provided a cake to the couple" and "although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store.", it was a frivolous complaint to begin with. They were simply denied a custom created cake, based on the religious beliefs of the owner. And although I'm an atheist, I do support individuals Rights to practice their beliefs.
Click to expand...

BINGO!

To me this case would have been no different than someone going to Muslim owned bakery and then demanding the baker make a cake depicting an insulting image of Mohammad, and then being upset when they were told no--- the Muslim baker would not do that.

Easy solution is to go find a baker who will happily make you what you want and get paid to do it.
 
weaver2 said:
You need to re-read the SC decision. What they said was the court in Colorado had not been neutral in making the decision and they (the SC) were tossing out the Colorado decision saying Colorado couldn't take a hostile position in a case and because they were hostile their decision was voided. The Supreme Court case had nothing to do with whether the baker had a right to discriminate against gays. The issue was the neutrality of the Colorado court decision.

The courts, state or Supreme, still have not ruled on discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

The issue was religious persecution. The Supreme Court found Colorado guilty of violating Mr. Phillips Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by being deliberately hostile and attacking his religious beliefs. And they made that decision well over a year ago. So it would appear you are the one who needs to read the decision since you erronesouly think the matter hasn't yet been decided.
 
ecofarm said:
That's so ****ing stupid.

When white people have 99% of the power, them discriminating against minorities ****ing matters. What kind of a horrible moron thinks to themselves, "I'll just go somewhere else" like a typical clueless whitey.

This is real simple.

We decided, a long time ago, that white people were not gonna be allowed to wage economic war against black people. Black people were reduced to 0% of the power through slavery and then oppressed horribly for generations. They have, against this oppression, risen to perhaps 3% of the power today.

And you want to further marginalize them. You want economic race war. Despicable.
Click to expand...

When was the last time you made a post that wasn't filled with strawmen and ad hominem?
 
Nap said:
When was the last time you made a post that wasn't filled with strawmen and ad hominem?
Click to expand...

Why do you hate irony meters?
 
MrWonka said:
Yes, they will. It is because things exactly like this were in fact happening that lead to the passage of the Civil Rights Act in the first place.


How much drano did you drink this morning? You seriously think Christians will stop here? I can promise you that this ruling will open the flood gates for all sorts of discrimination in ways not seen since before the Civil Rights Act. If you don't understand that then you know nothing about how legal precedent works or how depraved the Religious Right actually is.


No, it isn't. It's a bull**** excuse to treat certain people like second class citizen's. If you think this is justified then what's to stop people from rejecting interracial weddings, Muslim weddings, atheist weddings...

Why should a Christian Grocery store be forced to sell bread to Muslim or an Atheist? All you gotta do is claim your religious beliefs prevent you from feeding them, and boom.
Click to expand...

call me when that happens

k
 
Glitch said:
The issue was religious persecution. The Supreme Court found Colorado guilty of violating Mr. Phillips Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by being deliberately hostile and attacking his religious beliefs. And they made that decision well over a year ago. So it would appear you are the one who needs to read the decision since you erronesouly think the matter hasn't yet been decided.
Click to expand...

"The Supreme Court found Colorado guilty of violating Mr. Phillips Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by being deliberately hostile and attacking his religious beliefs." Correct

"The issue was religious persecution." Incorrect. The issue was as you stated above: Colorado court was guilty of not maintaining neutrality in making the decision. In fact the court was deliberately hostile and attacked Phillips religious beliefs. The issue was the lack of fairness and neutrality, not religious persecution nor was it whether Phillips had a right to refuse service to gays.


The issue has been decided: depends on how you are defining the issue. If you believe the ruling gave merchants the right to refuse services or products to gays then you are wrong. That issue was not decided by the Supreme Court. They ducked that issue and stated that it would have to be decided by a later decision. If you believe the issue was about religious persecution then you are again wrong. The issue was as you stated above the attitude of the Colorado court. And it was that bad attitude (non-neutral) that got the Colorado decision reversed.

The question of whether merchants have a right to deny service or product to homosexuals based on the merchants religious beliefs has yet to be decided. In fact the Colorado law that states it is illegal to refuse service to homosexuals on religious grounds still stands and Phillips has stopped making wedding cakes all to gather and is challenging the law in court. Perhaps this case will eventually get to the SC and they will have to stop ducking it and finally deal with and settle it once and for all.
 
This is the text of the SC decision with most of the syllabi left out in order to highlight the court findings:


cer·ti·o·ra·ri: a writ or order by which a higher court reviews a decision of a lower court."an order of certiorari"
syllabus: a short note preceding the text of a reported case that briefly summarizes the rulings of the court on the points decided in the case. The syllabus appears before the text of the opinion.
held: decided or ruled, as "the court held that the contract was valid.”
reversal: the decision of a court of appeal ruling that the judgment of a lower court was incorrect and is therefore reversed. The result is that the lower court which tried the case is instructed to dismiss the original action, retry the case or change its judgment. (from law.com)


SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD., ET AL. v. COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO



The Colorado Administrative Law Judge (ALJ )rejected Phillips’ First Amendment claims: that requiring him to create a cake for a same-sex wedding would violate his right to free speech by compelling him to exercise his artistic talents to express a message with which he disagreed and would violate his right to the free exercise of religion.

Held: The Commission’s actions in this case violated the Free Exercise Clause. (because the Colorado court was not impartial, not because the Colorado law was unconstitutional .. this is my insertion into the SC text)

……..Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion.
……..Phillips was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case.
That consideration was compromised, however, by the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case, which showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection
………. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case.


Appeals’ brief discussion of this disparity of treatment does not answer Phillips’ concern that the State’s practice was to disfavor the religious basis of his objection.

For these reasons, the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint.

The government,……… cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices.

Factors relevant to the assessment of governmental neutrality include “the historical background of the decision under challenge, the specific series of events leading to the enactment or official policy in question, and the legislative or administrative history, including contemporaneous statements made by members of the decisionmaking body.”

In view of these factors, the record here demonstrates that the Commission’s consideration of Phillips’ case was neither tolerant nor respectful of his religious beliefs. The Commission gave “every appearance,” of adjudicating his religious objection based on a negative normative “evaluation of the particular justification” for his objection and the religious grounds for it, but government has no role in expressing or even suggesting whether the religious ground for Phillips’ conscience-based objection is legitimate or illegitimate. The inference here is thus that Phillips’ religious objection was not considered with the neutrality required by the Free Exercise Clause. The State’s interest could have been weighed against Phillips’ sincere religious objections in a way consistent with the requisite religious neutrality that must be strictly observed. But the official expressions of hostility to religion in some of the commissioners’ comments were inconsistent with that requirement…….

reversed.
 
MrWonka said:
Why should a Christian Grocery store be forced to sell bread to Muslim or an Atheist? All you gotta do is claim your religious beliefs prevent you from feeding them, and boom.
Click to expand...

Yea, "boom" they go somewhere else. BFD
 
Court Jester said:
BINGO!

To me this case would have been no different than someone going to Muslim owned bakery and then demanding the baker make a cake depicting an insulting image of Mohammad, and then being upset when they were told no--- the Muslim baker would not do that.

Easy solution is to go find a baker who will happily make you what you want and get paid to do it.
Click to expand...

No merchant is required by law to create or make something that is lewd, violent or insulting. A request for a wedding cake is neither lewd, violent or insulting. A request for icing on a cake that is insulting can be legally refused.
 
Glitch said:
The preamble is ignored because it is merely a summation of the proceeding document. A preamble does not enlarge nor confers powers, so it is essentially ignored.
Click to expand...

the legal meaning of preamble: the introductory part of a statute or deed, stating its purpose, aims, and justification.

When something tells you its why it exists, what it is going to do and why it can do those things you would not be smart to ignore it, what ever "it " is.

The Preamble is the part of the Constitution that tells you what this government is going to do, how its going to do it and why. You'd better pay attention to the Preamble. It is not a summation to be ignored.
 
weaver2 said:
So you agree the Constitution and the Supreme Court have given businesses the right to discriminate?
Click to expand...

Damn skippy they do.
 
My parents were avid segregationists even in the 1970s. If you're slick enough, you can discriminate without getting caught. I have successfully used the same tactic to get out of associating with American women.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom