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

[weaver2]

I don't support discrimination against gays. Try again, that rant was pretty inaccurate

Insert your own hate du jour.

 

[TurtleDude]

Insert your own hate du jour.

you seem to think that if we don't support an ever expansive federal government engaging in every activity you think is "GOOD", we must hate. Fraudulent view

 

[weaver2]

you seem to think that if we don't support an ever expansive federal government engaging in every activity you think is "GOOD", we must hate. Fraudulent view

You seem to think the only thing the federal government should engage in is protecting your 2nd amendment rights and the sanctity of your income.

Great society era saw massive increases in rates of black illegitimate births

Probably they got tired of being overtaxed by the people pandering to the dependency classes. I moved out of the City of Cincinnati because of their taxes and their stupid gun laws.

I'd say that many of the pernicious pathologies that exist in black society today have been encouraged or enable by Democrat policies.

the leftwing mantra that if you aren't a Trump hater, you aren't smart

seems like the left is a repository of the culture of greed.

Sounds like you do have some "hates" to insert in your hate du jour.

 

[ludin]

So you agree the Constitution and the Supreme Court have given businesses the right to discriminate?

Businesses already have the right to discriminate.

They have a right not to support a message that goes against what they believe.
they have a right to not do events or other things that they might find offensive.

this has always been the right of a business.

 

[weaver2]

Businesses already have the right to discriminate.

They have a right not to support a message that goes against what they believe.
they have a right to not do events or other things that they might find offensive.

this has always been the right of a business.

20 states +the District of Columbia have laws that explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Colorado is one of them. The baker did not have a legal right to refuse service to gays.

2 states interpret existing prohibition against sexual discrimination to cover sexual orientation and gender identity.

1 state prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation only

That's 24 states that prohibit discrimination of LGBTQ

26 states have no explicit prohibition

Interestingly there are 26 states in Federal Circuits some of which have no laws prohibiting discrimination but have rulings that explicitly interpret existing federal prohibitions on sexual discrimination to include discrimination based on sexual orientation, meaning that these states can't discriminate when the project or enterprise is federal.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

The Profit motive for your bottom line. Lucre above All else is the motto of true capitalists on a for-Profit basis.

Not for the profit of Lucre is the way to go, if you really really prefer morals to your Profitable, bottom line.

 

[aociswundumho]

The Profit motive for your bottom line. Lucre above All else is the motto of true capitalists on a for-Profit basis.

Yes, that's why discrimination isn't a problem.

If businesses discriminate then they drastically reduce the pool of prospective buyers, thus reducing sales and profits.

 

[Nap]

The Profit motive for your bottom line. Lucre above All else is the motto of true capitalists on a for-Profit basis.

Not for the profit of Lucre is the way to go, if you really really prefer morals to your Profitable, bottom line.

The motto for true capitalists is merely the wish for freedom, hence the term Economic Liberalism.

It would be nice if we could all live in your utopian fantasy world.

 

[Obscurity]

The bill of rights says the state cannot enforce discriminatory laws.

That does not mean employers are not free to discriminate. They are. And, in a free society, you should not want to work for, and earn for, a discriminatory ****bag.

It makes no sense to force someone to serve someone else. Why would you want to give your money to some business owner who is a blatant racist?

 

[Obscurity]

Yes, that's why discrimination isn't a problem.

If businesses discriminate then they drastically reduce the pool of prospective buyers, thus reducing sales and profits.

And, I'll also add, typically these sort of businesses suffer drastic consequences. I understand the desire to "protect" via the law, but the more apt "protection" is performed by a community telling ****ty, racist business owners, to go **** off.

 

[Obscurity]

Businesses already have the right to discriminate.

They have a right not to support a message that goes against what they believe.
they have a right to not do events or other things that they might find offensive.

this has always been the right of a business.

And, it should remain this way. Additionally, I'll add, it's counter productive to force a business owner to serve all, and then have to create a gigantic rube goldberg machine of protectionist laws that ensure the consumer won't be harmed by malfeasance on behalf of forced business owners to serve people they dislike; and vice versa.

Why would you want to give your money to, and thus proliferate, someone who's beliefs are so odious?

This is why I refuse to give that chicken joint my money. I won't proliferate their ideas with my money. Others are free to do so.

I can make a better "crispy" (health speak for deep fried) chicken sandwich in my air fryer, or buy one from the local sandwich shop down the street.

See Ludin, we do agree on some things.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, that's why discrimination isn't a problem.

If businesses discriminate then they drastically reduce the pool of prospective buyers, thus reducing sales and profits.

It is why it is usually not a problem. However, operating on a for-profit basis in Public Accommodation means an implied trust or covenant of Good Faith and fair dealing.

 

[danielpalos]

The motto for true capitalists is merely the wish for freedom, hence the term Economic Liberalism.

It would be nice if we could all live in your utopian fantasy world.

one step at a time. let's solve simple poverty, first and let "markets be more utopian, from there".

 

[Nap]

one step at a time. let's solve simple poverty, first and let "markets be more utopian, from there".

You can't solve for poverty without an authoritarian state, there will always be a subset of people who make stupid choices in a free society.

 

[danielpalos]

You can't solve for poverty without an authoritarian state, there will always be a subset of people who make stupid choices in a free society.

not at all. we subscribe to Capitalism and our welfare clause is General not limited by right wing bigotry. And, we have a Commerce Clause in particular.

We can solve simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

It could have happened, Yesterday, but for the social horror for the Right Wing, that the Poor may receive some benefit.

 

[weaver2]

You can't solve for poverty without an authoritarian state, there will always be a subset of people who make stupid choices in a free society.

Yes some people will always make bad decisions that keep them poor. However it is the responsibility of the people and their government to make sure those decisions are freely made not coerced by discrimination, or laws that take advantage of the poor. Unfortunately we have not been able to stop outright discrimination or institutions that legally scam the poor. We have created laws that take away their power to negotiate with employers. And we have burdened the poor with taxation rates that are actually a higher percentage than billionaires if you compare their taxes to their incomes.

 

[Lisa]

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.

Newman v. Piggie Park makes is very clear that a person's religious views cannot be used as the basis of discrimination in a business that is open to the public. They can be as racist and bigoted as they want in their town time but when you operate a business that serves the public you must serve all people equally regardless of your bigotry because of the public accommodation protections of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. When you choose to own and operate a business that serves the public you must serve all of the public equally because your religious beliefs do not create exemptions for your bigotry.

The argument of free association was legally discarded as insufficient for discrimination when the issue was "whites only" businesses in the 1960s.

Our religious rights are limited to the right to believe or not to believe and the right to worship and we see fit. They do not and never have included the right to discriminate and harass others of different views because that would be a violation of their equal secular and religious rights.

Jesus was very clear on this issue but religious conservatives have never paid much heed to the teachings of the person who they occasionally claim to be their savior and son of God. Luke 6:31 and Matthew 7:12.

 

[Nap]

Newman v. Piggie Park makes is very clear that a person's religious views cannot be used as the basis of discrimination in a business that is open to the public. They can be as racist and bigoted as they want in their town time but when you operate a business that serves the public you must serve all people equally regardless of your bigotry because of the public accommodation protections of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. When you choose to own and operate a business that serves the public you must serve all of the public equally because your religious beliefs do not create exemptions for your bigotry.

The argument of free association was legally discarded as insufficient for discrimination when the issue was "whites only" businesses in the 1960s.

Our religious rights are limited to the right to believe or not to believe and the right to worship and we see fit. They do not and never have included the right to discriminate and harass others of different views because that would be a violation of their equal secular and religious rights.

Jesus was very clear on this issue but religious conservatives have never paid much heed to the teachings of the person who they occasionally claim to be their savior and son of God. Luke 6:31 and Matthew 7:12.

There was no freedom of association in the 60s, Jim Crow was actual laws on the books forcing discrimination. They went from forcing discrimination to completely outlawing it when the answer was to simply allow people their freedom and property rights.

If the Newman v PP case is as you described then I disagree with the ruling.

 

[Lisa]

There was no freedom of association in the 60s, Jim Crow was actual laws on the books forcing discrimination. They went from forcing discrimination to completely outlawing it when the answer was to simply allow people their freedom and property rights.

If the Newman v PP case is as you described then I disagree with the ruling.

Freedom of association is part of the First Amendment.

Jim Crow laws were state and local attempts to preserve racism after the Civil war. They were not federal law. The constitution's supremacy clause automatically makes federal law superior to state laws because if it wasn't then the US Constitution could not be enforced if a state disagreed.

Newman v. Piggie Park was a challenge to the public accommodation protections of the 1964 Civil Rights act and it was a unanimous decision by the SCOTUS. They didn't find his argument of religious bigotry to be valid.

 

[Nap]

Freedom of association is part of the First Amendment.

Jim Crow laws were state and local attempts to preserve racism after the Civil war. They were not federal law. The constitution's supremacy clause automatically makes federal law superior to state laws because if it wasn't then the US Constitution could not be enforced if a state disagreed.

Newman v. Piggie Park was a challenge to the public accommodation protections of the 1964 Civil Rights act and it was a unanimous decision by the SCOTUS. They didn't find his argument of religious bigotry to be valid.

It was a unanimous decision then, but remember if a judge can take away our rights then another judge is able to reinstate them. My hope is one day that we can get a string of Libertarian Presidents to install judges to start countering BS decisions that infringe on our rights. Not likely to ever happen but one can dream and who knows what will happen with both of the current parties having absolutely lost their minds.

 

[Lisa]

It was a unanimous decision then, but remember if a judge can take away our rights then another judge is able to reinstate them. My hope is one day that we can get a string of Libertarian Presidents to install judges to start countering BS decisions that infringe on our rights. Not likely to ever happen but one can dream and who knows what will happen with both of the current parties have absolutely lost their minds.

What constitutional rights do you believe were taken away by the Piggie Park' decision? Don't open a business that serves the public if you don't like the public accommodation clause.


Libertarians don't understand that they are part of an interdependent society and must act as such. If that was true then we wouldn't need a constitution to define how the government works and how society would be organized. The most effective way to discredit a libertarian is to give them a microphone and 2 hours of air time and ask them public policy questions.

 

[Nap]

What constitutional rights do you believe were taken away by the Piggie Park' decision? Don't open a business that serves the public if you don't like the public accommodation clause.


Libertarians don't understand that they are part of an interdependent society and must act as such. If that was true then we wouldn't need a constitution to define how the government works and how society would be organized. The most effective way to discredit a libertarian is to give them a microphone and 2 hours of air time and ask them public policy questions.

The constitution supposedly garauntees the right to private property and the freedom of association, tell me how it can be said you have the right to either if you can't sell your property to whom you desire? It is the equivalent of saying you have free speech as long as you say what I want to hear.

 

[Robertinfremont]

So you agree the Constitution and the Supreme Court have given businesses the right to discriminate?

They have done that for many years.

 

[Lisa]

The constitution supposedly garauntees the right to private property and the freedom of association, tell me how it can be said you have the right to either if you can't sell your property to whom you desire? It is the equivalent of saying you have free speech as long as you say what I want to hear.

Selling property is different than operating a business. You can sell that business, your car, your house or land to anyone you want. What you can't do is to discriminate against the customers of the business.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Someone posted this on another forum: ""the Constitution and Supreme Court means we get a free ticket to discriminate against people we don't like (see: Masterpiece Cake shop case).

Do conservative Christians really believe that the phrase "nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof " in the First Amendment of the Constitution and the Supreme Court's decision in the Masterpiece Cake case both mean they have the right to discriminate against gays and other "people we don't like"?

Well, if they do have that right, we have the right to drag the business owners around by the heels in social media.