Supreme Court hands narrow win to baker over gay couple dispute

[Maccabee]

1.) easy they both make no sense and are totally illogical. neither have anything to do with the actual law, rights or law suite.

We're not getting anywhere with this and it's mostly minute anyway so I'm skipping this.

2.) theres nothing to disagree about they are constitutional . .

What evidence do you have that the law is constitutional?

ethics are subjective and dont play a role here compared to rights and laws and treating people as lessers.

Again, what rights are being violated?

3.) doesnt matter what it is they are not equal, so hypothetically they are not equal or the same lol

How are they not equal?

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

There are a lot of things that are illegal that both sides say should be legal. Generally the left wants marijuana legal and the right generally wants certain gun laws repealed and thus make certain processes of obtaining a firearm (or types of firearms) legal. In the end, when discussing whether something should be legal, the legality of a certain action or item is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not said action or item is in line with the constitution and/or ethical and/or practical. What if tomorrow we get rid of anti discrimination laws. What would be your basis as to why businesseses should be forced to not discriminate who gets their goods and labor if they are of a minority group?

5.) i would never be that stupid or bigoted so no worries here

Well good for you.

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.

I'm talking about the modern argument of allowing businesses to serve as they see fit and letting the free market uphold who's business best serve the public.

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

Well, I'm a mixture of black and American indian. So I fall into at least two classes.

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

If you think so.

 

[AGENT J]

1.) We're not getting anywhere with this and it's mostly minute anyway so I'm skipping this.
2.)What evidence do you have that the law is constitutional?
3.)Again, what rights are being violated?
4.)How are they not equal?
5.)There are a lot of things that are illegal that both sides say should be legal. Generally the left wants marijuana legal and the right generally wants certain gun laws repealed and thus make certain processes of obtaining a firearm (or types of firearms) legal. In the end, when discussing whether something should be legal, the legality of a certain action or item is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not said action or item is in line with the constitution and/or ethical and/or practical. What if tomorrow we get rid of anti discrimination laws. What would be your basis as to why businesseses should be forced to not discriminate who gets their goods and labor if they are of a minority group?
6.)Well good for you.
7.)I'm talking about the modern argument of allowing businesses to serve as they see fit and letting the free market uphold who's business best serve the public.
8.)Well, I'm a mixture of black and American indian. So I fall into at least two classes.
9.)If you think so.

1.) good move cause nothign was going to change your claim was factually wrong and makes no sense.
2.) the many court cases that have been fought of AD/PA laws and civil rights etc etc . . and no I will not be rehashing them all LMAO
3.) Again previous post and answer
4.) easy lol what you are allowed to legally do in/at your house is not equal to what you are allowed to do in/at a public access business open to the public
5.) once again this retarded straw man fails its a nice try and a deflection but it wont work. goods and services have nothign to do with this, "minority" groups have nothing to do with this. Are you from america?
6.) I know right, i think so do!
7.) You can talk about that meaningless opnion all you want, it holds no barring here and im not interested in your feelings and letting business treat people as leasers and or violate their rights. Free market doesnt protect us that fact is proven.
8.) WOW you just further proved you have no idea about this topic. what you listed is only ONE protected class . . . ONE. Its becoming very obvious why you are so severely confused and factually wrong though. First you falsely think this has to do with minorities in anyway then you claim black and american Indian makes you two protected classes? Wow . . maybe study up on this topic more before you discuss it further.
9.) I know so and you just factually proved it by bring up minorities again and saying you have two classes that are just one.

 

[maquiscat]

When you admitted that people are taken to court after being arrested.

The courts is not the one who restricts a right. When a person is taken to court, the court, by judge or by jury, determines whether there is sufficient evidence to prove a violation of law. Without the law there is nothing to take a person to court over. The law is the source of restriction. A court cannot impose any restriction of rights except that which is detailed by the law. That comes from the Legislature, not the Judicial. Furthermore a court can only determine if a right is wrongfully restricted if the applicable law is challenged, which can only happen if a person has that law applied to them. If the law is not applied, then the only way to remove the law is through legislation. The law itself was not challenged in this case, which is why the courts could not rule on the law as to whether the restriction of a business's right to discriminate is legitimate or not.

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.

The sayings are "Innocent until proven guilty" and "Assumption of innocence". So yes, it is quite proper and common. Sure by all technicality, lacking any evidence of guilt, we don't necessarily prove innocence. Maybe it's more idiom, but I'm pretty sure colloquial is appropriate.

 

[maquiscat]

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.

This is why we have to use social pressure and not laws to change this behavior. Refusal to do business with an owner who discriminates does nothing to violate their rights and freedoms. It is this social pressure that is supposed to be the foundation of society's overall behavior, not the force of law.

 

[maquiscat]

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.

This is an improper comparison. Government is supposed to be for all citizen. Business are supposed to be for the owner. The argument that a private business has a right to do something by no means equates to an argument that a government agency has such a right. It is similar to the difference between the business owner and an employee. The right to choose what a business does or does not do belongs to the owner not the employee. This is also a separate issue as to whether or not a private business is a public accommodation or not. A private business is not equivalent to a government entity in any way shape or form.

 

[maquiscat]

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

Improper question. The question implies that the right is regardless of any circumstance. The anti discrimination laws only apply to certain conditions. Right now I have the full legal right to deny red haired people into my business based upon hair color. Hair color is not a protected class. Skin color however is. The proper question, or questions actually, are from where comes the right to not be discriminated against, what is the basis of this right overridding private property and freedom of association rights, and why are we only applying this supposed right selectively?

 

[AGENT J]

This is why we have to use social pressure and not laws to change this behavior. Refusal to do business with an owner who discriminates does nothing to violate their rights and freedoms. It is this social pressure that is supposed to be the foundation of society's overall behavior, not the force of law.

Social pressure is not a protector of rights or laws. The day that magically works, maybe id be open to it but since it doesnt it no thanks. It be AWESOME if it did but it doesnt. So just like i wouldnt want social pressure to be used to prevent rape, murder, theft, vandalism, embezzlement, assault ect I dont want it for this either.

 

[maquiscat]

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.

So why are some criteria worthy of saying "you cannot discriminate based upon this", but others we can discriminate upon? What makes the difference?

 

[AGENT J]

So why are some criteria worthy of saying "you cannot discriminate based upon this", but others we can discriminate upon? What makes the difference?

Are you asking my opinion or how what history/legality has determined. Legally same as any other right/law...... history, people, experience have chosen it.

As for my opinion theres probably MORE id be willing to protect nationally than currently is and id be open to protecting anything that became an issue in the future. Its what helps a just, civil, equal rights society.

 

[maquiscat]

Are you asking my opinion or how what history/legality has determined. Legally same as any other right/law...... history, people, experience have chosen it.

As for my opinion theres probably MORE id be willing to protect nationally than currently is and id be open to protecting anything that became an issue in the future. Its what helps a just, civil, equal rights society.

Why am i legally allowed to refuse a person business based on their hair color, but not say their orientation? if it is wrong to discriminate based upon the criteria of things we can't choose, then why do we include religion as protected but not political affiliation/philosophy?

 

[AGENT J]

Why am i legally allowed to refuse a person business based on their hair color, but not say their orientation? if it is wrong to discriminate based upon the criteria of things we can't choose, then why do we include religion as protected but not political affiliation/philosophy?

Never said it was all wrong i answered your question and gave insight into the general history of what history, people, experience have chosen the criteria to be. I cant answer for all that. Im also glad it is i cant imagine how far we'd be behind with out these protections.

also in some place you can discrimination against orientation and in some places political affiliation is most certainly protected.

 

[Maccabee]

1.) good move cause nothign was going to change your claim was factually wrong and makes no sense.
2.) the many court cases that have been fought of AD/PA laws and civil rights etc etc . . and no I will not be rehashing them all LMAO
3.) Again previous post and answer
4.) easy lol what you are allowed to legally do in/at your house is not equal to what you are allowed to do in/at a public access business open to the public
5.) once again this retarded straw man fails its a nice try and a deflection but it wont work. goods and services have nothign to do with this, "minority" groups have nothing to do with this. Are you from america?
6.) I know right, i think so do!
7.) You can talk about that meaningless opnion all you want, it holds no barring here and im not interested in your feelings and letting business treat people as leasers and or violate their rights. Free market doesnt protect us that fact is proven.
8.) WOW you just further proved you have no idea about this topic. what you listed is only ONE protected class . . . ONE. Its becoming very obvious why you are so severely confused and factually wrong though. First you falsely think this has to do with minorities in anyway then you claim black and american Indian makes you two protected classes? Wow . . maybe study up on this topic more before you discuss it further.
9.) I know so and you just factually proved it by bring up minorities again and saying you have two classes that are just one.

Can you name at least one of the court cases?

 

[AGENT J]

Can you name at least one of the court cases?

sure :shrug:

one of the first was Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States or somethign like that . . .maybe hotel also try Katzenbach v McClung that was about a restaurant.
Glad I can help educated you on this issue. Would you like further information explaining how you being american Indian and black does not make you TWO different protected classes or are you good with that now too? DO you also understand this has nothing to do with minorities too? they are not a protected group. Let me know and you're welcome!

 

[Maccabee]

sure :shrug:

one of the first was Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States or somethign like that . . .maybe hotel also try Katzenbach v McClung that was about a restaurant.
Glad I can help educated you on this issue. Would you like further information explaining how you being american Indian and black does not make you TWO different protected classes or are you good with that now too? DO you also understand this has nothing to do with minorities too? they are not a protected group. Let me know and you're welcome!

I'm good as far as whether or not the courts ruled on this. And I understand that being of two races doesn't qualify as being in two separate classes.

 

[AGENT J]

I'm good as far as whether or not the courts ruled on this. And I understand that being of two races doesn't qualify as being in two separate classes.

Good Job, you're learning and you're welcome!:thumbs:

 

[poweRob]

That still leaves you trying to figure out what qualifies as truly impartial. The law, as designed, is hostile to Christians serious about their religion, so the law itself is what is at fault. Even had the Commission made no disparaging comments, this case would have still had the same merits.

Law and Order party my ass.

 

[veritas1]

Law and Order party my ass.

When your party stops supporting open borders and sanctuary cities, you can start criticizing others about law and order.

 

[poweRob]

When your party stops supporting open borders and sanctuary cities, you can start criticizing others about law and order.

When you stop supporting a treasonist prez you might have a smidgen of validity in your opinion.