Supreme Court hands narrow win to baker over gay couple dispute

[roguenuke]

I believe you need to rethink why you support such legislation because the reasoning you have offered is either very weak and/or implausible.

First, we actually have a mostly "(inter)dependent society" which has been a part of civilized life at least since the founding of Caytl Hauk nearly 10,000 years ago. Since then, there have only been two different kinds of interdependency - by choice (merchants and customers) or by force (government, warlords, or criminals).

Second, no one needs to "force" business to do business. Trade of value for value is how people have made money and acquired wealth, and since the oldest merchants of antiquity it has been self-actualized human drive. Those who have chosen not to participate do so knowing others will fill their place. (For example, Christians considered it a sin to earn interest off loans in medieval Europe, so Jews became the bankers that provided loans, spawned growth and profited from that market).

Third, what do terms like "fairly functioning" and "balances power" mean? It could not mean 'fairly functioning" is balancing power, because if that were so then what "balance" is there between a baker whose livelihood is threatened and faces ruin if he does not obey the dictates of a customer, or a customer whose total "cost" is to simply use one of many to 'fill' the void?

Fairness and equality of power must mean the free and equal choice of sellers and buyers to trade. You might think how someone uses his freedoms is foolish or is repulsive but, like free speech, people are free to not participate in any activity they don't wish to. And if people do not wish to associate with one another (discriminate) who are we to dictate otherwise?

We all have an equal "power" (equal rights) to act on behalf of one's own pursuit of happiness, but not to force others to cease their pursuit.

No other civilization has had the same or even similar levels of interdependency that we have right now, due a lot to our population and the lack of "free" land still available. Even the oceans (up to 3 nautical miles out) are owned by the countries to a certain degree, which means you need permission or to be able to purchase said land to become no longer dependent. It can be done, for a few people, but not nearly as many people who we have, not to live at the same levels of convenience and/or technological advancement as we now live. Few can actually do it on their own, unlike the past when many, many did.

 

[maxparrish]

No other civilization has had the same or even similar levels of interdependency that we have right now, due a lot to our population and the lack of "free" land still available. Even the oceans (up to 3 nautical miles out) are owned by the countries to a certain degree, which means you need permission or to be able to purchase said land to become no longer dependent. It can be done, for a few people, but not nearly as many people who we have, not to live at the same levels of convenience and/or technological advancement as we now live. Few can actually do it on their own, unlike the past when many, many did.

Your fear of interdependency is actually an imprecise rationalization for the value of "dependency" on some land, and the ludicrous proposition that without land one must then force others transact with you because you can't buy a cake. Let's try again:

"Interdependency" in social, cultural, and economic terms has existed since at least the transition from hunter-gather to settled life. Man is not made to be a solitary animal on an island, and his survival has always depended on family, tribe, mutual exchange, association, and cooperation. And it is "interdependency", the fact that it has increased velocity and scope of the market (since the dark ages) has always grown through trade and technology which translates into INCREASED choices in suppliers, products, services, and consumption - NOT LESS. Moreover, it has also DECREASED dependency on family, community, and fraternal associations.

This is no longer 1900 small town America, where a majority lived in far more technological and economic isolation. Today no one is dependent on their mail order Sears catalog, or the limited access to a dry goods store a 1/2 day's buggy ride away. Nor must folk make a homemade wedding cake (or get the church group do it), because their tiny community didn't have a cake bakery.

Take the bakery example for today; not only can a couple choose from many other bakeries for custom services, the speed of transportation has opened up far more markets once too far to buy from. In the Denver metroplex alone, there are more than 76 bakeries that were nominated as the "best" bakery - no telling how many existed that were not even selected (hundreds?) .

And yes, you don't have to be dependent on a bakery, you can still make your own cake, just like the prairie wife did hardscrabble Texas.

Bottom Line: You can't justify oppression because of problems that don't exist.

 

[maquiscat]

It's funny how you told me rights are restricted by the legislative branch in such a rude manner, and now every time you get cornered on the issue into admitting that the judicial branch actually does because a legislative law has no meaning until it's interpreted, you go back to talking about this specific case.

At what point have I admitted that the judicial is the one who restricts the rights? I have pointed out repetedly that there are many other laws which restrict rights and have been enforced without ever going before a court for judicial review. They have meaning and are enforced. The judicial branch determines if the law is legitimate or not based upon the applicable constitution and other laws. Unless the law is challanged, the restriction gets enforced even without judicial review or intervention.

And of course I keep going back to.this specific case. It is the topic at hand after all.

Oh yeah, and in Civics 101, you're taught that people are found "guilty" or "not guilty". Innocent isn't an option.

Failed English 101 as well I see. There is this thing called colloquial word use.

If you are so sure that you are correct, please step me through the process by which a law is created and passed and show me where the judicial branch comes into the process.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[FreeWits]

At what point have I admitted that the judicial is the one who restricts the rights? I have pointed out repetedly that there are many other laws which restrict rights and have been enforced without ever going before a court for judicial review. They have meaning and are enforced. The judicial branch determines if the law is legitimate or not based upon the applicable constitution and other laws. Unless the law is challanged, the restriction gets enforced even without judicial review or intervention.

And of course I keep going back to.this specific case. It is the topic at hand after all.



Failed English 101 as well I see. There is this thing called colloquial word use.

If you are so sure that you are correct, please step me through the process by which a law is created and passed and show me where the judicial branch comes into the process.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

When you admitted that people are taken to court after being arrested. It's also not colloquial word use to say innocent, it's just wrong. If you are going to come at me telling me I don't understand basic Civics then you better have your own house in order, and clearly you don't understand the difference between not guilty and innocent.

 

[Maccabee]

Yes. I don't care what the person's reasoning is. No one should be allowed to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a group of people, type of person/couple that they would not do for other people, type of person/couple.

Hehe, I will leave my answer, but just realized what you were doing. Thank you.

I, on the other hand, believes a business should have the right to refuse anyone for any reason. Let the free market decide which Ideals and beliefs is best for the public.

 

[ecofarm]

I, on the other hand, believes a business should have the right to refuse anyone for any reason. Let the free market decide which Ideals and beliefs is best for the public.

That works great for you as an unconcerned member of the majority. You got nothing to worry about.

 

[Hawkeye10]

I, on the other hand, believes a business should have the right to refuse anyone for any reason. Let the free market decide which Ideals and beliefs is best for the public.

I said that a couple of months ago, but I am still queasy about it.

I believe that we should be all equal, these special rules for "special" people which Victim Culture demands dont work for me, but I dont want wholesale bullying of the population by the holders of capital (which includes businesses) either.

 

[Grim17]

I said that a couple of months ago, but I am still queasy about it.

I believe that we should be all equal, these special rules for "special" people which Victim Culture demands dont work for me, but I dont want wholesale bullying of the population by the holders of capital (which includes businesses) either.

I share your sentiments. In theory, businesses in the US should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason. That's the liberty and freedom the country is based upon. But in all honesty, the thought of a even just a few business owners refusing service to people who aren't the same race as they are, scares the hell out of me.

Unfortunately, I think anti-discrimination laws are still necessary, but they need to be dialed back a bit so what happened to that baker never happens to anyone again.

.

 

[AGENT J]

I, on the other hand, believes a business should have the right to refuse anyone for any reason. Let the free market decide which Ideals and beliefs is best for the public.

History have proved time and time and time again along with current events the free market is not capable of protecting our rights and is not what is best for the public in regards to rights. No thanks id rather have things work exactly how they are designed. In regards to PA/AD laws if people or that state are violating them the fed fixes the issue.

 

[roguenuke]

I, on the other hand, believes a business should have the right to refuse anyone for any reason. Let the free market decide which Ideals and beliefs is best for the public.

The free market does not work in many cases and sucks, quite honestly, unless it is controlled to at least an extent. Here's a really good reason why:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mormon-towns-on-arizona-utah-border-on-trial-for-denying-rights-to-non-sect-families-a6835296.html

Controversies - Towns Run by Mormon Sect Deny Running Water to Non-Mormons - AllGov - News

This is the very real reason why we need to ensure that everyone, regardless of race, religion, sex, and yes, even sexuality, are not discriminated against by open-to-the-public businesses, better known as public accommodations.

 

[Maccabee]

That works great for you as an unconcerned member of the majority. You got nothing to worry about.

Actually I do. I'm black.

 

[Maccabee]

History have proved time and time and time again along with current events the free market is not capable of protecting our rights and is not what is best for the public in regards to rights. No thanks id rather have things work exactly how they are designed. In regards to PA/AD laws if people or that state are violating them the fed fixes the issue.

Evidence?

 

[AGENT J]

Evidence?

Evidence of what? LOL

 

[Maccabee]

Evidence of what? LOL

Evidence that the free market is not capable of protecting our rights?

 

[AGENT J]

Evidence that the free market is not capable of protecting our rights?

Easy, people are still discriminating today and the law is needed to correct it because free market doesn't LMAO

 

[Maccabee]

Easy, people are still discriminating today and the law is needed to correct it because free market doesn't LMAO

They are of the small minority. I'd say the free market has done a good job of keeping discrimination to a minimal.

 

[AGENT J]

1) They are of the small minority.
2.) I'd say the free market has done a good job of keeping discrimination to a minimal.

1.) Doesn't matter what you claim about the size the fact it happens prove its incapable of doing it
2.) again what you say and reality are to different things

Ill stick with the government doing its job and protecting my rights just like it does with theft, rape, murder, assault, vandals etc etc etc

 

[Maccabee]

1.) Doesn't matter what you claim about the size the fact it happens prove its incapable of doing it
2.) again what you say and reality are to different things

Ill stick with the government doing its job and protecting my rights just like it does with theft, rape, murder, assault, vandals etc etc etc

Where in the constitution does it says you have the right to someone's else's labor or service?

 

[AGENT J]

Where in the constitution does it says you have the right to someone's else's labor or service?

Where did I say anybody did? oh thats right i didnt LMAO
Do you have any other failed strawmen to present?

Like I said Ill stick with the government doing its job and protecting my rights just like it does with theft, rape, murder, assault, vandals etc etc etc

 

[Maccabee]

Where did I say anybody did? oh thats right i didnt LMAO
Do you have any other failed strawmen to present?

Like I said Ill stick with the government doing its job and protecting my rights just like it does with theft, rape, murder, assault, vandals etc etc etc

A store provides you services and labor. You stated that you want to trust government to protect your rights. So the logical conclusion is that you think that you're entitled to the store's goods and services. If you don't think so then please explain what rights are you talking about?

 

[AGENT J]

1.) A store provides you services and labor.
2.) You stated that you want to trust government to protect your rights.
3.) So the logical conclusion is that you think that you're entitled to the store's goods and services.
4.) If you don't think so then please explain what rights are you talking about?

1.) yes they do
2.) never said trust i stick with them doing what they are supposed to do
3.) thats not logical at all on any level of rational reason LMAO
4.) has nothign to do with what i think it has to do with facts, thats factually not accurate at all. I dont even understand how you could make such an absurd conclusion.
this case was about DISCRIMINATION, we all have the right not to be treated as lessees based on certain criteria and not have our equal rights violated. There is no right to services and labor. Can you show in the court papers where anybody claimed a right to labor/services?

If you are up for promotion to be a boss and you find out you were not hired based on your gender race religion etc do you go to court and claim you had a right to be a boss? Thats the dumbest thing i ever heard.

 

[Maccabee]

1.) yes they do
2.) never said trust i stick with them doing what they are supposed to do

Ok.

3.) thats not logical at all on any level of rational reason LMAO

And why not?

4.) has nothign to do with what i think it has to do with facts, thats factually not accurate at all. I dont even understand how you could make such an absurd conclusion.
this case was about DISCRIMINATION, we all have the right not to be treated as lessees based on certain criteria and not have our equal rights violated.

And I agree. However it's not business owners who are violating your rights. Unless you are being physically harmed by someone, the only people who would violate your rights by discrimination is government. I can discriminate who comes in to my home. Why can't a private business be able to discriminate who gets to use their services and labor, hypothetically speaking?

There is no right to services and labor. Can you show in the court papers where anybody claimed a right to labor/services?

If you are up for promotion to be a boss and you find out you were not hired based on your gender race religion etc do you go to court and claim you had a right to be a boss? Thats the dumbest thing i ever heard.

And yet, in a round about way, that's how discrimination laws work.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)And why not?
2.)And I agree. However it's not business owners who are violating your rights. Unless you are being physically harmed by someone, the only people who would violate your rights by discrimination is government.
3.) I can discriminate who comes in to my home.
4.) Why can't a private business be able to discriminate who gets to use their services and labor, hypothetically speaking?
5.)And yet, in a round about way, that's how discrimination laws work.

1.) because its makes as much logical sense as saying rape laws are the government forcing people to be virgins . . its one of the most illogical and dishonest claims for this topic. Nobody is saying they have a right to goods and service. does it say that anywhere in the court papers? nope. Its a made up, illogical and failed strawman tht never works.
2.) actually they are, illegal discrimination is a violation of rights by law
3.) home =/= private access business which has laws and contracts and licensing that regulates it. this is just basic common sense
4.) they can as long as they dont break the law and violate peoples rights/freedoms. there are so many choices a person who is so fragile that they cant conduct themselves with civility and not break the law or violate peoples rights/freedoms can make before hand.

as a christian myself i would have to be a complete moron to CHOOSE a profession that i SUBJECTIVELY felt could effect my faith, then CHOOSE to open a public access business where I know the laws and rules i agreed to could subjectively effect my faith, then CHOOSE to sell a product that if i dont sell properly based on the business i chose and agreed to could subjectively effect my faith, then choose to break the law and agreement of my particular business, not follow the rules and violate somebody's rights/freedoms. its pure stupidity or pure bigoted ignorance. I dont get special treatment based on my faith i have to play by the same rules as everybody else. If i got special treatment then the rules and rights are meaningless and somebody could use the same BS against me as man, christian etc etc

lastly when these claims like the baker has, are purely subjective, where does it end? theres no standards. Millions of Christian operate thier business just fine.

theres a reason why all these dishonesty arguments failed against womens rights and minority rights and interracial marriage and gay marriage . .they have no legit intellectual and honest merit based on legality and rights.
5.) so the answer is NO you cant show where the court papers say that and no its not how it works lol, got it

 

[Maccabee]

1.) because its makes as much logical sense as saying rape laws are the government forcing people to be virgins . . its one of the most illogical and dishonest claims for this topic. Nobody is saying they have a right to goods and service. does it say that anywhere in the court papers? nope. Its a made up, illogical and failed strawman tht never works.

How is your analogy comparible to what I said?

2.) actually they are, illegal discrimination is a violation of rights by law

I'm not talking about law. We both agree that businesses are under anti discrimination laws. What we don't agree on is whether or not those laws are constitutional and ethical.

3.) home =/= private access business which has laws and contracts and licensing that regulates it. this is just basic common sense

Again. We're not talking about current law. I distinctly said that this was hypothetical.

4.) they can as long as they dont break the law and violate peoples rights/freedoms.

What rights and freedoms are businesses violating by discriminating who get to use their goods and labor?

there are so many choices a person who is so fragile that they cant conduct themselves with civility and not break the law or violate peoples rights/freedoms can make before hand.

as a christian myself i would have to be a complete moron to CHOOSE a profession that i SUBJECTIVELY felt could effect my faith, then CHOOSE to open a public access business where I know the laws and rules i agreed to could subjectively effect my faith, then CHOOSE to sell a product that if i dont sell properly based on the business i chose and agreed to could subjectively effect my faith, then choose to break the law and agreement of my particular business, not follow the rules and violate somebody's rights/freedoms. its pure stupidity or pure bigoted ignorance.

Well, that's your decision to make. If you want to run your business like that then have at it. But why make another business that you have no control over run the way you think they should as long as they don't present a physical threat to your well being?

I dont get special treatment based on my faith i have to play by the same rules as everybody else. If i got special treatment then the rules and rights are meaningless and somebody could use the same BS against me as man, christian etc etc

Nobody is arguing for special treatment. Only for freedom for a business to operate as it pleases.

lastly when these claims like the baker has, are purely subjective, where does it end? theres no standards. Millions of Christian operate thier business just fine.

theres a reason why all these dishonesty arguments failed against womens rights and minority rights and interracial marriage and gay marriage . .they have no legit intellectual and honest merit based on legality and rights.
5.) so the answer is NO you cant show where the court papers say that and no its not how it works lol, got it

I never stayed that it was in the court papers. I stated that the enforcement of the law has, for all intents and purposes, created a right to goods and services if you're of a certain protected class and being discriminated because you are of a certain minority.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)How is your analogy comparible to what I said?
2.)I'm not talking about law. We both agree that businesses are under anti discrimination laws. What we don't agree on is whether or not those laws are constitutional and ethical.
3.)Again. We're not talking about current law. I distinctly said that this was hypothetical.
4.) What rights and freedoms are businesses violating by discriminating who get to use their goods and labor?
5.) Well, that's your decision to make. If you want to run your business like that then have at it.
6.) But why make another business that you have no control over run the way you think they should as long as they don't present a physical threat to your well being?
7.) Nobody is arguing for special treatment. Only for freedom for a business to operate as it pleases.
8.)I never stayed that it was in the court papers. I stated that the enforcement of the law has, for all intents and purposes, created a right to goods and services if you're of a certain protected class and being discriminated because you are of a certain minority.

1.) easy they both make no sense and are totally illogical. neither have anything to do with the actual law, rights or law suite.
2.) theres nothing to disagree about they are constitutional . . ethics are subjective and dont play a role here compared to rights and laws and treating people as lessers.
3.) doesnt matter what it is they are not equal, so hypothetically they are not equal or the same lol
4.) good lord people have the right and freedom not to be illegally discriminated against . . thier goods and labor have nothign to do with it. No matter how much you try bringing them up doesnt matter one bit
5.) i would never be that stupid or bigoted so no worries here
6.) nobody is making them, like you just said its CHOICE as i already proved
7.) 100% false many of these people who tried and lost now and through out history did in fact want special treatment. They wanted thier feelings to be above the law. many want religion to be above the law. They want to treat others has lessers. heck there are people that are ok with AD/PA laws but they just dont want sexual orientation added to it. thats HUGELY hypocritical.
8.) and you were proven wrong because it factually does not in anyway what so ever, its one of the most dishonest and retarded straw men about a hand full of people try. You also just proved you dont even know how any of this works "minority" has nothign to do with it. Protected classes are not minorities. They are all of us, i dont even know you are in at least THREE protected classes LMAO

Holy cow now im starting to understand why you are so very confused and can have such factually wrong beliefs on this subject.