• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

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

weaver2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2019
Messages
5,872
Reaction score
3,553
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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"?
 

Nap

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
Messages
8,362
Reaction score
3,181
Location
Jackson, MS
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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.
 

weaver2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2019
Messages
5,872
Reaction score
3,553
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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.
So you agree the Constitution and the Supreme Court have given businesses the right to discriminate?
 

Jason Warfield

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2019
Messages
1,133
Reaction score
621
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
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.
Sometimes you don't know if they do or not. I get what you mean; I don't give business to places that I feel discriminate.

But I also don't go out of my way to cause scenes in businesses knowing they are opposed to me in some way, shape or form like when I would have jerks come into my store with MAGA caps on and try make outrageous claims and statements to my employees to get a rise out them so they go online and claim they were victims for wearing MAGA caps (too bad for them: my employees were well-versed in proper customer service). Backstory: I didn't realize until a few months after the fact, but the store I worked in was considered friendly to the LGBTQ community which prompted local conservatives to come to my store in efforts to cause problems. It didn't work; my employees were above it.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
240,664
Reaction score
72,439
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
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"?
anyone who actually understands the bill of rights, understands it is a limitation on the federal government (and then later on, the state governments). Not individuals
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
240,664
Reaction score
72,439
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
So you agree the Constitution and the Supreme Court have given businesses the right to discriminate?
uh wrong question. The constitution is silent on such an issue. The federal government was never given the power to stop that. The bill of rights was a limit on federal power. The post-civil war amendments were designed to prevent state governments from depriving citizens of certain privileges and rights
 

Nap

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
Messages
8,362
Reaction score
3,181
Location
Jackson, MS
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
So you agree the Constitution and the Supreme Court have given businesses the right to discriminate?
I don't know about the Supreme Court and how they "interpret" it but it would seem to me that if the constitution says we are to have the freedom of association and the right to private property then the government shouldn't be able to legislate who we must do business with.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
240,664
Reaction score
72,439
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I don't know about the Supreme Court and how they "interpret" it but it would seem to me that if the constitution says we are to have the freedom of association and the right to private property then the government shouldn't be able to legislate who we must do business with.
exactly
 

AProudLefty

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2019
Messages
12,153
Reaction score
3,335
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
anyone who actually understands the bill of rights, understands it is a limitation on the federal government (and then later on, the state governments). Not individuals
And yet women and black people's rights were limited.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
240,664
Reaction score
72,439
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
And yet women and black people's rights were limited.
by many entities. the constitutional amendments were designed to prevent state governments from doing that.
 

weaver2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2019
Messages
5,872
Reaction score
3,553
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't know about the Supreme Court and how they "interpret" it but it would seem to me that if the constitution says we are to have the freedom of association and the right to private property then the government shouldn't be able to legislate who we must do business with.
The Constitution says you have the right to freedom of association. But it doesn't say you have the right to exclude people based on their religion. It also gives you the right to own private property. But it doesn't say that if you go into business you have a right to decide who you will and will not sell to.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
240,664
Reaction score
72,439
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The Constitution says you have the right to freedom of association. But it doesn't say you have the right to exclude people based on their religion. It also gives you the right to own private property. But it doesn't say that if you go into business you have a right to decide who you will and will not sell to.

you clearly don't understand the concept of rights and the constitution.
 

weaver2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2019
Messages
5,872
Reaction score
3,553
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
you clearly don't understand the concept of rights and the constitution.
Three sources give the government the power to prohibit private discrimination. The 13th Amendment, the power of the purse, and the Interstate Commerce Act.

The 13th Amendment was used to claim that private discrimination in public places was a continuation of the harms of slavery and was not permitted.

The power of the purse gave the federal government leverage by withholding funding if discrimination existed in the state.

The Interstate Commerce Act considered that public places restaurants, trains, bathrooms and individually owned shops, all had interstate connections and thus the state could sanction the enterprise's discrimination.

The federal government does have the power to limit or eradicate private discrimination. Currently discrimination based on racial, religious, sexual and national origin are banned. Discrimination based on sexual orientation will eventually be banned.
 

weaver2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2019
Messages
5,872
Reaction score
3,553
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Three sources give the government the power to prohibit private discrimination. The 13th Amendment, the power of the purse, and the Interstate Commerce Act.

The 13th Amendment was used to claim that private discrimination in public places was a continuation of the harms of slavery and was not permitted.

The power of the purse gave the federal government leverage by withholding funding if discrimination existed in the state.

The Interstate Commerce Act considered that public places restaurants, trains, bathrooms and individually owned shops, all had interstate connections and thus the state could sanction the enterprise's discrimination.

The federal government does have the power to limit or eradicate private discrimination. Currently discrimination based on racial, religious, sexual and national origin are banned. Discrimination based on sexual orientation will eventually be banned.
Neither the Supreme Courts nor the Constitution bestow upon anyone the right to discriminate. There is no such freedom.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
240,664
Reaction score
72,439
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Three sources give the government the power to prohibit private discrimination. The 13th Amendment, the power of the purse, and the Interstate Commerce Act.

The 13th Amendment was used to claim that private discrimination in public places was a continuation of the harms of slavery and was not permitted.

The power of the purse gave the federal government leverage by withholding funding if discrimination existed in the state.

The Interstate Commerce Act considered that public places restaurants, trains, bathrooms and individually owned shops, all had interstate connections and thus the state could sanction the enterprise's discrimination.

The federal government does have the power to limit or eradicate private discrimination. Currently discrimination based on racial, religious, sexual and national origin are banned. Discrimination based on sexual orientation will eventually be banned.
the commerce clause expansion is usually cited but we both know that expansion was not based on the intent of the founders, nor the words of the document.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
240,664
Reaction score
72,439
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Neither the Supreme Courts nor the Constitution bestow upon anyone the right to discriminate. There is no such freedom.
you don't understand the concept. You have the freedom to do anything you want, unless a valid law prevents it. its not the other way around
 

weaver2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2019
Messages
5,872
Reaction score
3,553
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
the commerce clause expansion is usually cited but we both know that expansion was not based on the intent of the founders, nor the words of the document.
The founders intent doesn't matter. What matters is that the Interstate Commerce Act was used and made the anti-discrimination laws stick and we are not going back to Jim Crow laws, persecuting gays, denying Jews club membership, and keeping women out of jobs they have the skills and education to handle.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
240,664
Reaction score
72,439
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The founders intent doesn't matter. What matters is that the Interstate Commerce Act was used and made the anti-discrimination laws stick and we are not going back to Jim Crow laws, persecuting gays, denying Jews club membership, and keeping women out of jobs they have the skills and education to handle.
you might be right because conservative justices tend to respect bad precedent. The expansion to cover gays is not a sure bet though
 

weaver2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2019
Messages
5,872
Reaction score
3,553
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
you don't understand the concept. You have the freedom to do anything you want, unless a valid law prevents it. its not the other way around

I understand the concept completely. Yes you can do anything you want. However there are legal consequences if what you do is illegal and discriminatory. And there are laws to back up the consequences. The hypocritical baker is free to refuse gays, but the consequences are that he no longer bakes wedding cakes because the Colorado law still says he can't discriminate against gays.If you had read the decision with any comprehension you would understand.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
240,664
Reaction score
72,439
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I understand the concept completely. Yes you can do anything you want. However there are legal consequences if what you do is illegal and discriminatory. And there are laws to back up the consequences. The hypocritical baker is free to refuse gays, but the consequences are that he no longer bakes wedding cakes because the Colorado law still says he can't discriminate against gays.
and hopefully that sort of nonsense will be struck down as being beyond legitimate government powers
 

weaver2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2019
Messages
5,872
Reaction score
3,553
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
and hopefully that sort of nonsense will be struck down as being beyond legitimate government powers
So far it hasn't been struck down and the prognosis is not good for the future return of discrimination by sanctimonious. But you still have the freedom to hope that someday you can reinstall bigotry in the marketplace.
 

weaver2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2019
Messages
5,872
Reaction score
3,553
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
you might be right because conservative justices tend to respect bad precedent. The expansion to cover gays is not a sure bet though

Bad precedent? Ending Jim Crow laws is bad precedent? Equal opportunity for women to work, Jews to belong, and gays to be free of persecutions and prosecutions is bad precedent? Equality, fairness, justice, opportunity are bad precedence? How do you figure that?
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
240,664
Reaction score
72,439
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
So far it hasn't been struck down and the prognosis is not good for the future return of discrimination by sanctimonious. But you still have the freedom to hope that someday you can reinstall bigotry in the marketplace.
I don't support bigotry but I oppose unconstitutional actions by the government even if that accomplishes something most people think is good. I think you should have the right to sell to whom you want. If you turn down good business transactions, you only hurt yourself.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
240,664
Reaction score
72,439
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Bad precedent? Ending Jim Crow laws is bad precedent? Equal opportunity for women to work, Jews to belong, and gays to be free of persecutions and prosecutions is bad precedent? How do you figure that?
forcing private businesses to deal with whom they do not want to deal with is too much government power in my view. If you assault or menace or abuse someone, there are already laws that punish such behavior. If a Hasidic Jewish business doesn't want to trade with someone who is a Nazi sympathizer, so be it
 

Bullseye

Every job is essential
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
26,052
Reaction score
8,909
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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"?
Do guys have the right to force Christians to perform acts their religious beliefs proscribe? Works both ways.
 
Top Bottom