• 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!

An Important Case

Flanders

Member
Joined
May 1, 2018
Messages
173
Reaction score
17
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I began posting messages on this topic with the Elane Photography case:

Supreme Court rejects appeal from New Mexico photographer who wouldn't shoot same-sex ceremony
By JERI CLAUSING
April 7, 201412:52 PM ET

Access Denied

http://admin.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2018-05/206109_5_.png

The Nifty Nine are deliberating:

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission​

In every case lawyers for defendants fought the cases on First Amendment religious liberty and/or artistic grounds. It would take me a thousand messages to post everything I said about those cases; so I will cut to the crux of my arguments. Every one of those lawyers should have argued against involuntary servitude based on these two amendments:

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Amendment XIII, Section 1

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.​

I know that Socialists/Communists can only govern by telling everyone how to live their lives. Legislating love and dictating behavior are the foundations of Socialism/Communism. The question of where and when did judges get the authority to order law-abiding Americans to work at anything? The answer is essential in the fight for individual liberties and limited government.

Parenthetically, involuntary servitude is inevitably followed by involuntary association. That is the major difference between slavery by the whip and court-ordered labor. If you separate the two groups you will see that the Howard Roarks, the bakers, the photographers, and so on, do not force themselves on anyone, while the slave mentality in free societies insist the world is one big lonely hearts club in need of a group hug. Unlike the jury verdict of “not guilty” in the movie real live judges rule for the slaves, and against the Howard Roarks.


 
lol...so, if I get you properly, you're saying because the guy was forced to provide service from his business, he was essentially a slave?

Your argument destroyed: He was not a slave, because unlike slaves, he was free to shutter his business and move it to wherever his hate was permitted by law. He is not required to serve anyone if he doesn't wish to operate a business in an area where businesses cannot refuse service for something as discriminatory as homophobia.

Cheers! :)
 
the matter in this case case comes down to one essential thing in my mind

is a photographer an artist?

and can you force an artist to perform when they dont want to work for you?

i think those are the questions for the court....

instead of a photographer, think of it as a painter....someone that has painted wedding scenes

can someone force a commission of said painter to paint their wedding scene?

is this a valid comparison? why? why not?

imo, the photographer is an ARTIST and should be allowed to take or not take commissions for jobs
 
the matter in this case case comes down to one essential thing in my mind

is a photographer an artist?

and can you force an artist to perform when they dont want to work for you?

i think those are the questions for the court....

instead of a photographer, think of it as a painter....someone that has painted wedding scenes

can someone force a commission of said painter to paint their wedding scene?

is this a valid comparison? why? why not?

imo, the photographer is an ARTIST and should be allowed to take or not take commissions for jobs

I think that it comes down to what goods/services are (or are not) covered under public accommodation laws.
 
Every one of those lawyers should have argued against involuntary servitude based on these two amendments...
Neither of those amendments apply.

Making a cake for a same-sex couple is not a "cruel or unusual punishment." Neither is levying a fine for violation of a civil rights law.

A bakery that makes a cake for someone is not slavery, and it is downright insane to make that claim. The bakers made a deliberate choice to operate as a public accommodation, and that means that they do not get to decide who is and is not a member of the public.

While I don't agree with Masterpiece, I'm reasonably confident that their lawyers know what they're doing, and will not include your arguments.

I.e. Don't give up the day job.


I know that Socialists/Communists can only govern by telling everyone how to live their lives.
:roll:

Spare us such biased nonsense. Social conservatives and many evangelical activists are more than happy to use the power of the state to command people how to live. At various points in time this includes support for slavery (the real kind) and segregation; licensing of discrimination on the basis of race, gender, and sexual orientation; attempts to impose their religious beliefs and rituals on others, and so on.

We should also note that civil rights laws apply to everyone, regardless of political orientation. E.g. An atheist baker cannot kick out a devout Christian who wants a religious message on a cake.


The question of where and when did judges get the authority to order law-abiding Americans to work at anything?
They get it from public accommodation laws, which predate the ratification of the Constitution; and more recently, from civil rights legislation -- which survived numerous court challenges in the 1960s.


Parenthetically, involuntary servitude is inevitably followed by involuntary association.
News flash! The right of association does not apply to public accommodations. If you want to discriminate against groups on the basis of the right of association, you need to operate as a true private club. This was litigated decades ago. Try to keep up.
 
the matter in this case case comes down to one essential thing in my mind

is a photographer an artist?

and can you force an artist to perform when they dont want to work for you?
There is no specific protection for artists in the Constitution. I'd also say that can backfire, as bakers are generally not classified as "artists" in the same way as photographers or painters.

So, the question is whether the service can be constituted as an expression by the service provider. To me, the answer is obviously "no."

Think of it this way.

• I walk into Masterpiece Cakeshop, and ask them to make a cake that reads "Bernie, You're The Best!" Does anyone think that the baker is the one who says Bernie is the best? The baker has no idea who Bernie is.

• I'm Hindu, and I hire a catering company for my wedding. Is it reasonable to believe that the catering company is endorsing the marriage, or are themselves Hindu?

• John Oliver produced an ad which (satirically) tried to convince Trump to continue the Iran deal, and purchased airtime to show it during the Hannity show in the DC market. Does that mean that Fox News wants Trump to continue the deal?

In refusing to hear Elane Photography, the court agrees with the idea that providing the service is not in and of itself an expressive act. The SCOTUS will apparently give a more thorough answer (either way) with a ruling on Masterpiece.


can someone force a commission of said painter to paint their wedding scene?
This is no different than any other public accommodation. If the painter is offering services to the public, then the painter does not get to decide who is, and is not, a member of the public. Again, there is no exception in current law for artists; and if bakers are artists, then anyone can claim that they are an artist for the purposes of civil rights laws, and that opens a loophole in those protections.

The painter can legitimately refuse jobs for all sorts of reasons. Maybe they don't like the client; they don't think the client will pay; they don't like the offered pay rate; the job is too far away, and so on.

However, if the painter refuses to take the job specifically and provably because they are discriminating against the customer, on the basis of a protected class (which varies by state), then the painter is violating the law.
 
you're saying because the guy was forced to provide service from his business, he was essentially a slave?

To OlNate: You got that one right. Put some work in on involuntary servitude.

he was free to shutter his business and move it to wherever his hate was permitted by law.

To OlNate: David Mullins and Charlie Craig were free to find another bakery.

And you might do some research before you invoke the Left’s hate garbage:


They wanted a cake from Masterpiece Cakeshop, where Phillips decorates cakes for weddings, graduations and other celebrations. He refuses to design custom cakes for Halloween, divorce celebrations, bachelor parties or other events that conflict with his religious views.

"Sorry guys, I don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings," Phillips told Mullins and Craig when they explained their need. He suggested they pick another baked good or a premade cake, according to the law group representing him, Alliance Defending Freedom. The conversation lasted about 20 seconds, the ensuing discrimination lawsuit has lasted much longer as it has made its way to the Supreme Court.​

Who Is Jack Phillips? Meet the Christian Baker in the Masterpiece Cakeshop Supreme Court Case
By Linley Sanders On 12/5/17 at 9:04 AM

Who Is Jack Phillips? Meet the Christian Baker in the Masterpiece Cakeshop Supreme Court Case

the matter in this case case comes down to one essential thing in my mind

is a photographer an artist?

and can you force an artist to perform when they dont want to work for you?

i think those are the questions for the court....

instead of a photographer, think of it as a painter....someone that has painted wedding scenes

can someone force a commission of said painter to paint their wedding scene?

is this a valid comparison? why? why not?

imo, the photographer is an ARTIST and should be allowed to take or not take commissions for jobs

To gdgyva: Exactly so.

A Nazi officer once noticed a photo of Picasso’s mural Guernica in the painter’s Paris apartment; so he asked him “Did you do that?”

Picasso replied "No, you did."

Put the issue in perspective with one question: Did the government (Nazis) have the Right to order Picasso to paint their worldview rather than paint


https://www.pablopicasso.org/images/paintings/guernica.jpg

I think that it comes down to what goods/services are (or are not) covered under public accommodation laws.

To ttwtt78640: Such laws are called UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Laws do not invalidate the Constitution. —— at least they are not supposed to.

NOTE: Should the Court rule for the Colorado Civil Rights Commission they will say that every petty bureaucrat can invalidate the Constitution.


Making a cake for a same-sex couple is not a "cruel or unusual punishment."

To Visbek: Nice misdirection. There would be no case if it was about cruel an unusual punishment; the death penalty. The case is about “. . . nor excessive fines imposed . . .”. Involuntary servitude is certainly an excessive fine.

We should also note that civil rights laws apply to everyone, regardless of political orientation.

To Visbek: You should also note that Civil Rights Laws call privileges a Right for select groups.
 
To OlNate: You got that one right. Put some work in on involuntary servitude.

Ok, well, thanks...I was trying to figure out if you were worth taking seriously, this gives me the out I figured was there. The false equivalency you're trying to create would be laughable, if it wasn't so gross. I'm not sure I'm the one who needs to put in the work.
 
To Visbek: Nice misdirection. There would be no case if it was about cruel an unusual punishment; the death penalty. The case is about “. . . nor excessive fines imposed . . .”. Involuntary servitude is certainly an excessive fine.
1) Learn to quote.

2) You have clearly lost the plot. Paying a fine is neither cruel nor unusual. They're spending far more than $135k on lawyers, so crying "excessive fines" or "poverty" is unconvincing. Nor are they turned into slaves because they have to put icing on a cake -- i.e. do the job they chose to do. The very suggestion shows that your ideology is distorted to the point of irrationality, and is an insult to the suffering of actual slaves throughout history.


You should also note that Civil Rights Laws call privileges a Right for select groups.
You should also note that civil rights are rights, not privileges.

Good luck landing a spot on the defense.
 
I just have to make this line of thought clear:

Let's say I am a bartender, and an employee of the bar. I decide one day that according to my religious beliefs, women should not drink vodka. My boss, on the other hand, is quite firm in her belief that women should be served vodka. According to Flanders, my boss forcing me to serve vodka to women is involuntary servitude (if not outright slavery), and I should not be required to do as she commands -- even though it is 100% within the scope of my job, and I am free to quit bartending for her at any time.
 
You should also note that civil rights are rights, not privileges.

To Visbek: Thanks. I did not know that someone is putting set-asides, preferences, jobs, and admission to a college, for me?

I just have to make this line of thought clear:

To Visbek: You should have stuck with muddled.


Let's say I am a bartender, and an employee of the bar. I decide one day that according to my religious beliefs, women should not drink vodka. My boss, on the other hand, is quite firm in her belief that women should be served vodka. According to Flanders, my boss forcing me to serve vodka to women is involuntary servitude (if not outright slavery), and I should not be required to do as she commands -- even though it is 100% within the scope of my job, and I am free to quit bartending for her at any time.

To Visbek: Allow me to clear up your thought. Jack Phillips was not an employee of David Mullins and Charlie Craig. You were a VOLUNTARILY employee of the bar owner. You are paid to do the safe and lawful work the owner requires. Neither the owner, nor the law, “commands” you to do anything.

You might want to look up employee and employ in your little pocket dictionary.
 
For Reference


TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION

OOOSEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
OOO(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
OOO)(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
OOO)(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
OO)O(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
OOO)(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.
OOO(c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.
OOO(d) Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this title if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.
OOO(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).


I'm not sure as to the specific state laws in this case. As for the photography case, I don't see a section for that service under federal accommodation laws per Title 2. As for any cake related case, the law protects against discrimination relating to food consumed at a location or presumably immediately upon leaving in the case of gas stations and the like. Per Title 2, as long as a shop will sell any food item produced for consumption to any customer without bias, they meet the definitions of Title 2 for non-discrimination. Being required to make food to be consumed off-premises on a contract basis is questionable per Title 2 and will probably be defined by the case.
 
Christ almighty, yet another stupid right wing steaming pile of ****. WHat, does the OP want a country where it is legal for people to discriminate based on age, sex, race, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, etc? Chalk this up to yet another pathetic white christian persecution complex. The race that has oppressed the most people throughout humanity are scared that they are loosing their ability to push everybody else around, so they pretend to be persecuted. God, its so ridiculous

Anyway, see Visbek's response above. I'm tired of arguing with those being intentionally stupid
 
What if Verizon decided one day that they were no longer going to provide you with cellphone service, internet or TV because they didn't agree with your "Very Conservative" political leanings?

I noticed one tiny and possibly overlooked detail in all of this.
In both the Elane Photography and Masterpiece Cakeshop cases, the businesses were refusing to provide service "in the same way as if it had refused to provide service between people of different races."

Back in the 1980's when videocassette duplication was all the rage, I owned a small duping facility and my clientele was all over the map. In the beginning I had everyone from churchie types to adult film producers and everyone in between.
I even had conservative con men and liberal con men who were both selling the same kind of phony gold coin investment scheme
on similar looking ten minute shows. The only difference was the 1-800 numbers you called to place an order!

When newly arrived Somali immigrants came to Minneapolis and started working as cabbies, they were refusing blind passengers who had seeing eye dogs and refusing to pick up fares from stores that sold any kind of beer, wine or liquor, claiming that these things were "haram" and conflicted with their religious beliefs. The city told the cabbies to stop discriminating or find a new line of work.
 
Thanks. I did not know that someone is putting set-asides, preferences, jobs, and admission to a college, for me?
1) Learn to quote. It's not that hard. "Reply with quote" button, right at the bottom of the post.

2) We're not talking about quotas or affirmative action. We're talking about protections from discrimination.


Allow me to clear up your thought. Jack Phillips was not an employee of David Mullins and Charlie Craig. You were a VOLUNTARILY employee of the bar owner. You are paid to do the safe and lawful work the owner requires. Neither the owner, nor the law, “commands” you to do anything.
Yes, and the owner of the Masterpiece Bakery VOLUNTARILY decided to operate a public accommodation, and to offer the service of making wedding cakes to the public. No one forces them to make wedding cakes -- but if they do choose to offer that service, then they cannot refuse to bake a cake for a customer based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.
 
I'm not sure as to the specific state laws in this case. As for the photography case, I don't see a section for that service under federal accommodation laws per Title 2. As for any cake related case, the law protects against discrimination relating to food consumed at a location or presumably immediately upon leaving in the case of gas stations and the like. Per Title 2, as long as a shop will sell any food item produced for consumption to any customer without bias, they meet the definitions of Title 2 for non-discrimination. Being required to make food to be consumed off-premises on a contract basis is questionable per Title 2 and will probably be defined by the case.

To TTB: You can site laws until the cows come home.

Laws do not invalidate the Constitution.
 
The city told the cabbies to stop discriminating or find a new line of work.

To Checkerboard Strangler: Discrimination is a cruel joke played on the parasite class.

Lets say that I invite a dozen or so neighbors to a cookout. I specifically do not invite a homosexual couple who live down the street. They sue me for discrimination. I lose the case and money. The court orders me to associate with all of my neighbors. Socialists/Communists call that protecting the individual while teaching me that I am part of the collective in all things.

Collective garbage gained traction when metaphysical poet John Donne (1572 - 1631) unintentionally dumped it on today’s world with a little help from Ernest Hemingway (1899 - 1961). Irrespective of how Donne’s words have been interpreted by twentieth century organized religion’s bottom feeders, the most profound observation Donne made was that “Everybody dies.” That frivolous allegation was harmless enough when it was expressed in Donne’s own time; so it is no wonder he remained obscure until Ernest Hemingway dug him up in 1940. It is just too bad that we will never know what put Donne onto his penetrating insight.


No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the main. Any man’s death diminishes me because I am involved in Mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. John Donne.​

Hemingway’s motive for resurrecting Donne is suspect because he played fast and loose with Donne’s assertion in order to buttress his own politics. Common sense insists that John Donne could not possibly have had the butchery of modern totalitarian governments in mind when he wrote his dubious small masterpiece some 400 years ago.

In the past eighty years propagandists promoting big government have elaborated on the catchphrase “No man is an island” so as to make individuals think they are selfish if they do not get involved in every cause and embrace every criminal freak spewing filth out of television’s blowhole.

On a more mundane level, “No man is an island” translates into supporting unrestricted taxation for the good of all. I will leave it to you to determine who is most guilty of gluttony at the public feed tub for the good of all.

“Every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the main” has come to mean involuntary obedience to the tax collector’s definition of decent behavior. Even without help from Donne and Hemingway, subservience to sycophants was inevitable when private sector Americans allowed the tax collector to define the nation’s morality. Anyone thinking otherwise is either naive, or is a recipient of the tax collector’s ill-gotten revenues.

“Any man’s death diminishes me because I am involved in Mankind” has to be the touchy-feely congregation’s anthem. Actually, that creed is more suited to an anthill:

“Any ant’s death diminishes me because I am just like every other ant.”

If you do not agree with my view of ants in general, put the monotonous little pests aside and just consider the number of people who die each day. If you are honest you will have to conclude that the “I care” mob would have dwindled away to nothing by now if every death truly did diminish them. Speaking straight from the shoulder, I go to bed every night without giving recently departed strangers a passing thought. I sleep very well, too; so I must be one selfish dude.

“Never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee” is the real grabber. What sort of morbid geek wants to know who just croaked whenever they hear a bell toll? I seldom read newspapers, and I only read obituaries when my wife calls my attention to one; so I sure as hell will not dash on over to the nearest marble orchard to find out for whom the bell tolled. Besides, I would know it if the dearly departed had been a loved one or an acquaintance of mine. If I did not know a stiff personally before he checked out his death would be none of my business no matter how many bells were ringing.

Of all the words ever strung together to express an opinion none are more cultivated by parasites than Donne’s words, nor more misunderstood by the manipulated. Not even spreading the golden rule rivals the transmission of Donne’s communal masterpiece among the American Left.

Donne’s words are the words of a cleric written in a time when organized religion was deeply entwined with the monarchy; i.e. the government. Donne’s words are a call for involuntary servitude to religious and civil authorities; written almost two centuries before this country’s Founders blew such servitude out of the water.
 
To Checkerboard Strangler: Discrimination is a cruel joke played on the parasite class.

Lets say that I invite a dozen or so neighbors to a cookout. I specifically do not invite a homosexual couple who live down the street. They sue me for discrimination. I lose the case and money. The court orders me to associate with all of my neighbors. Socialists/Communists call that protecting the individual while teaching me that I am part of the collective in all things.

Collective garbage gained traction when metaphysical poet John Donne (1572 - 1631) unintentionally dumped it on today’s world with a little help from Ernest Hemingway (1899 - 1961). Irrespective of how Donne’s words have been interpreted by twentieth century organized religion’s bottom feeders, the most profound observation Donne made was that “Everybody dies.” That frivolous allegation was harmless enough when it was expressed in Donne’s own time; so it is no wonder he remained obscure until Ernest Hemingway dug him up in 1940. It is just too bad that we will never know what put Donne onto his penetrating insight.


No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the main. Any man’s death diminishes me because I am involved in Mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. John Donne.​

Hemingway’s motive for resurrecting Donne is suspect because he played fast and loose with Donne’s assertion in order to buttress his own politics. Common sense insists that John Donne could not possibly have had the butchery of modern totalitarian governments in mind when he wrote his dubious small masterpiece some 400 years ago.

In the past eighty years propagandists promoting big government have elaborated on the catchphrase “No man is an island” so as to make individuals think they are selfish if they do not get involved in every cause and embrace every criminal freak spewing filth out of television’s blowhole.

On a more mundane level, “No man is an island” translates into supporting unrestricted taxation for the good of all. I will leave it to you to determine who is most guilty of gluttony at the public feed tub for the good of all.

“Every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the main” has come to mean involuntary obedience to the tax collector’s definition of decent behavior. Even without help from Donne and Hemingway, subservience to sycophants was inevitable when private sector Americans allowed the tax collector to define the nation’s morality. Anyone thinking otherwise is either naive, or is a recipient of the tax collector’s ill-gotten revenues.

“Any man’s death diminishes me because I am involved in Mankind” has to be the touchy-feely congregation’s anthem. Actually, that creed is more suited to an anthill:

“Any ant’s death diminishes me because I am just like every other ant.”

If you do not agree with my view of ants in general, put the monotonous little pests aside and just consider the number of people who die each day. If you are honest you will have to conclude that the “I care” mob would have dwindled away to nothing by now if every death truly did diminish them. Speaking straight from the shoulder, I go to bed every night without giving recently departed strangers a passing thought. I sleep very well, too; so I must be one selfish dude.

“Never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee” is the real grabber. What sort of morbid geek wants to know who just croaked whenever they hear a bell toll? I seldom read newspapers, and I only read obituaries when my wife calls my attention to one; so I sure as hell will not dash on over to the nearest marble orchard to find out for whom the bell tolled. Besides, I would know it if the dearly departed had been a loved one or an acquaintance of mine. If I did not know a stiff personally before he checked out his death would be none of my business no matter how many bells were ringing.

Of all the words ever strung together to express an opinion none are more cultivated by parasites than Donne’s words, nor more misunderstood by the manipulated. Not even spreading the golden rule rivals the transmission of Donne’s communal masterpiece among the American Left.

Donne’s words are the words of a cleric written in a time when organized religion was deeply entwined with the monarchy; i.e. the government. Donne’s words are a call for involuntary servitude to religious and civil authorities; written almost two centuries before this country’s Founders blew such servitude out of the water.

How odd. Not a single thing you said is either true or accurate.
 
Lets say that I invite a dozen or so neighbors to a cookout. I specifically do not invite a homosexual couple who live down the street. They sue me for discrimination.
Since you are not operating as a public accommodation, they have absolutely no right whatsoever to sue you. None, nada, zip. They will lose. They won't even get started, as no state civil rights board has any jurisdiction over a private cookout in your backyard.

This alone ought to show how little you understand the relevant laws. But do go on.


Collective garbage gained traction when metaphysical poet John Donne (1572 - 1631)....
Yeah, I'm pretty sure no one consulted him when writing the Civil Rights Act of 1965.

In his private life and letters, Hemingway was a racist, an anti-semite and a homophobe. He had no connection to the Civil Rights Movement.


In the past eighty years propagandists promoting big government have elaborated on the catchphrase “No man is an island” so as to make individuals think they are selfish if they do not get involved in every cause and embrace every criminal freak spewing filth out of television’s blowhole.
Nope, that concept has very little to do with civil rights.

The key concepts of civil rights are that every citizen should be treated equal under the law, regardless of features like skin color or gender or religion; and that discrimination is a form of harm that should be prevented.

The people opposed to the civil rights movement, for the most part, regarded minorities (and women, LGBT, Jews etc) as subhuman. Stating "no man is an island" to someone who doesn't see you as human in the first place? Yeah, that doesn't work.


On a more mundane level, “No man is an island” translates into supporting unrestricted taxation for the good of all.
Yet more nonsense. Not even Socialism or Communism operates on that basis -- those systems assume that the inherent inequalities generated by capitalism are unjust, that exploitation of workers is morally wrong, that collective ownership of the means of production provides better outcomes, and that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." It has nothing to do with the rather basic observation that human beings are social beings that do not, and cannot, operate in total isolation from one another. Even capitalism recognizes that basic fact.
 
lol...so, if I get you properly, you're saying because the guy was forced to provide service from his business, he was essentially a slave?

Your argument destroyed: He was not a slave, because unlike slaves, he was free to shutter his business and move it to wherever his hate was permitted by law. He is not required to serve anyone if he doesn't wish to operate a business in an area where businesses cannot refuse service for something as discriminatory as homophobia.

Cheers! :)
Intellectual dishonesty at its finest kids. Drink it in.
 
Hell, what is it with people being so intellectually dishonest these day.
 
I began posting messages on this topic with the Elane Photography case:

Supreme Court rejects appeal from New Mexico photographer who wouldn't shoot same-sex ceremony
By JERI CLAUSING
April 7, 201412:52 PM ET

Access Denied

http://admin.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2018-05/206109_5_.png

The Nifty Nine are deliberating:

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission​

In every case lawyers for defendants fought the cases on First Amendment religious liberty and/or artistic grounds. It would take me a thousand messages to post everything I said about those cases; so I will cut to the crux of my arguments. Every one of those lawyers should have argued against involuntary servitude based on these two amendments:

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Amendment XIII, Section 1

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.​

I know that Socialists/Communists can only govern by telling everyone how to live their lives. Legislating love and dictating behavior are the foundations of Socialism/Communism. The question of where and when did judges get the authority to order law-abiding Americans to work at anything? The answer is essential in the fight for individual liberties and limited government.

Parenthetically, involuntary servitude is inevitably followed by involuntary association. That is the major difference between slavery by the whip and court-ordered labor. If you separate the two groups you will see that the Howard Roarks, the bakers, the photographers, and so on, do not force themselves on anyone, while the slave mentality in free societies insist the world is one big lonely hearts club in need of a group hug. Unlike the jury verdict of “not guilty” in the movie real live judges rule for the slaves, and against the Howard Roarks.




As per public accommodation laws. I can say that if the business in question were a privately owned one. They should have the right to choose whomever they do business with and still be subject to the fallout from the open market such a choice would entail. Where they a government entity however, such a choice would be impossible for them personally.

They should not be forced into a service that they do not want to do. Just like the customer isn't being forced into using the business's services.

This is just another instance of the government putting their hands into something and screwing things up several magnitudes over once again. You'd think people would remember how Jim Crow laws started and why they were forcing businesses to abide by them in the first place.

Liberals are pretty much piggy backing onto a long tarnished issue and getting the free ride they usually get. Because if they can keep screaming discrimination about this issue. Yet hold their own "no white person day" at a college campus with no fallout to themselves.
 
Intellectual dishonesty at its finest kids. Drink it in.

lol....you want to attempt to actually debate, or are you good to take little chicken **** cheap shots from the sidelines, Ob...? Thought we were friendlier than that. ;)

How am I wrong? Or "intellectually dishonest", for that matter. I'd suggest I'm very honest. But I'll accuse you of "intellectual dishonesty" if you go down the rabbit hole as well, and suggest that being forced to comply with the local laws regarding who businesses must and need not serve is akin to ****ing slavery, when folks are free to travel anywhere within the United States to find a place to set up shop that will accept their hatred, pettiness, and small-mindedness. Is that what you are actually saying?? I sure hope not, Ob...despite not agreeing with you all the time, I had you pegged a bit higher than that.
 
Back
Top Bottom