- Joined
- Jan 31, 2010
- Messages
- 31,645
- Reaction score
- 7,598
- Location
- Canada, Costa Rica
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The government has said this for quite some time. It is actually a good portion of anti-discrimination laws. You must do business with people you may wish otherwise not to when you own a business open to the public. I see a bigger issue with someone putting their bias against others for something that shouldn't matter over their agreement to do business with others.
I am unaware that the bakery in question ever attempted to use force or coercion or the threat of either to control or punish the actions of the couple in question. Perhaps you can link to that.
You are imputing motivation that you literally have no chance of realistically knowing. All he did was not want to take the job.
Yes CNN AND all the lib media misrepresented the bill. Your point is?
Force or coercion? No, they were simply exercising their rights to free speech and association, and their economic freedom.
And they were exercising their right to file lawsuits when someone breaks the law.
So are you.
He "had" to sell a cake to them? He didn't want to sell them the cake celebrating marriage between members of the same sex, though they could have bought anything else from the shop.
The government is now telling people that they must sell goods they don't wish to sell, that they must buy goods they don't wish to buy, and make illegal foods that are commonplace among the American people. Don't see anything wrong with this?
:shrug: my bet would be that they really don't. There is a real belief among many on the left that having government make your decisions for you is better because government will make wiser decisions, and that individual liberties do not outweigh political correctness.
It's funny, because for many people, it's true.
My bet is that he tried to, and they insisted he provide them with a reason.
:shrug: unless we happen to have a transcript of the conversation itself, we don't know whether or not he volunteered or they asked. Either way is irrelevant, as what is at stake is whether or not he should be forced to violate his religious principles.
That would be false. If you investigate two of the most recognized cases (Elane Photography NM and Sweetcakes by Melissa OR) there was no disagreement (in other words BOTH parties agreed to the basic series of events). In the Elane Photography case the inquiry and exchange were made by email and the email were part of the investigation, in the Sweetcakes case they both acknowledged the exchange.
In neither case was the job declined and then a reason "insisted" upon. In both cases the business owner "volunteered" that they refused to provide the services after simply discovering that the event's were for lesbian couples.
>>>>
Does your individual liberty cover evading health codes?
That would be false. If you investigate two of the most recognized cases (Elane Photography NM and Sweetcakes by Melissa OR) there was no disagreement (in other words BOTH parties agreed to the basic series of events). In the Elane Photography case the inquiry and exchange were made by email and the email were part of the investigation, in the Sweetcakes case they both acknowledged the exchange.
In neither case was the job declined and then a reason "insisted" upon. In both cases the business owner "volunteered" that they refused to provide the services after simply discovering that the event's were for lesbian couples.
:shrug: then (as pointed out before) that's interesting, but immaterial, unless you wish to argue that deception is a preferred policy.
I frankly don't understand what the issue is. Those businesses chose to obtain a business license in a state where that license would limit their freedom of association due to non discrimination laws that were in effect.
Then you have no problem with Arizona businesses and all those businesses licensed in states that do not require sexual orientation to be a protected class to refuse to serve homosexual events?
Also, our freedom of association comes from the US Constitution, state licensing should not be able to restrict that.
I frankly don't understand what the issue is. Those businesses chose to obtain a business license in a state where that license would limit their freedom of association due to non discrimination laws that were in effect.
Non-Discrimination laws that force people to violate their religious beliefs are in contradiction to the Constitution of the United States of America and thus annulled. It doesn't surprise me at all that people assume they would retain their Constitutional Rights simply because they opened a business, though given the heavy anti-business-owner attitude of the left, it does not surprise me that they found themselves to be mistaken.
The issue is that you do not have the right to force someone to violate their religious precepts. Even if you disagree with them. That's sort of what you call "important".
Non-Discrimination laws that force people to violate their religious beliefs are in contradiction to the Constitution of the United States of America and thus annulled. It doesn't surprise me at all that people assume they would retain their Constitutional Rights simply because they opened a business, though given the heavy anti-business-owner attitude of the left, it does not surprise me that they found themselves to be mistaken.
The issue is that you do not have the right to force someone to violate their religious precepts. Even if you disagree with them. That's sort of what you call "important".
There is no Constitutional right to freedom of association.
United States Constitution[edit]
While the United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others.[
:shrug: then (as pointed out before) that's interesting, but immaterial, unless you wish to argue that deception is a preferred policy.
Using Wikipedia is a poor choice. The reference cited for that statement is this opinion piece.
CITIZENS UNITED AND THE PARADOX OF “CORPORATE SPEECH”: FROM FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION TO FREEDOM OF THE ASSOCIATION | N.Y.U. Review of Law & Social Change
hmmmm im gonna bookmark this for a different discussion
Hilarious. You deny a constitution based freedom of association but argue public accomodation laws are based upon the constitution when neither is ennumerated.
Does your individual liberty cover evading health codes?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?