• 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!

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

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

AND

Do guys have the right to force Christians to perform acts their religious beliefs proscribe? Works both ways.

OK let's go over some basics about religion and commerce. Just because you are religious doesn't give you some sort of moral high ground that makes you exempt from adhering to the rules contained in a license to operate a business which almost every town requires of merchants selling in the public domain and one of those rules is that you sell to the public irrespective of their color, size, sex, religion, femininity or masculinity. Getting that license says you sell to the public ........ all of the public. You don't get to pick and choose. The city provides merchants with certain benefits, assurances and protections in exchange you behave like a merchant and serve everyone If you don't want to serve some minority, you go private, sell from your home and put a sign out letting people know that you don't serve certain people.

No guys don't have the right to force anyone to perform acts against their religious beliefs. Selling merchandise or a service isn't performing a act against any religion proven by the fact that you are selling in the first place. Whom you serve has nothing to do with religion any more than it has to do with color, sex, national origin, religion, age , profession et al. Baking cakes, making cards, arranging flowers, taking pictures, running a motel, wiring a house, teaching, doctoring are not acts against any religion.

As for Hasidic Jews, most of them are diamond sellers or cutters and shrewd business people. Trust me, they'd sell a diamond to anyone, even Hitler.
 
Last edited:
AND



OK let's go over some basics about religion and commerce. Just because you are religious doesn't give you some sort of moral high ground that makes you exempt from adhering to the rules contained in a license to operate a business which almost every town requires of merchants selling in the public domain and one of those rules is that you sell to the public irrespective of their color, size, sex, religion, femininity or masculinity. Getting that license says you sell to the public ........ all of the public. You don't get to pick and choose. The city provides merchants with certain benefits, assurances and protections in exchange you behave like a merchant and serve everyone If you don't want to serve some minority, you go private, sell from your home and put a sign out letting people know that you don't serve certain people.

No guys don't have the right to force anyone to perform acts against their religious beliefs. Selling merchandise or a service isn't performing a act against any religion proven by the fact that you are selling in the first place. Whom you serve has nothing to do with homosexuality any more than it has to do with color, sex, national origin, religion, age , profession et al. Baking cakes, making cards, arranging flowers, taking pictures, running a motel, wiring a house, teaching, doctoring are not acts against any religion.

As for Hasidic Jews, most of them are diamond sellers or cutters and shrewd business people. Trust me, they'd sell a diamond to anyone, even Hitler.
With all due respect this argument has been floated several times. What it misses is that constitution rights supersede local regulations. And there's a lot more depth to this subject. Selling a loaf of bread to a gay shouldn't comprise a violation of religious freedom; however providing services in support of a gay marriage could be. A blanket refusal to serve gays does, IMHO, meet the religious freedom test. A book store could, again IMHO, make a case to refuse to sell LGBT+ merchandise on religious grounds.

And the bottom line is businesses refusing LGBT commerce effects their bottom line and public image.
 
Why should one be forced to do business with someone they do not wish to be associated with?

On top of that, a business transaction is a contract. It is a fundamental maxim of law that if you are forced into a contract, the deal is null and void.

I never understood why someone would want to do business with someone that would discriminate against them in the first place.

Me neither.
 
But you still have the freedom to hope that someday you can reinstall bigotry in the marketplace.

Capitalists are in business to make money, period. The market punishes businesses which discriminate based on superficial characteristics, that's why Democrats had to pass Jim Crow laws in order to force businesses discriminate based on race.
 
The Supreme Court ruling (7-2) was decided appropriately.
IMO, "While another bakery provided a cake to the couple" and "although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store.", it was a frivolous complaint to begin with. They were simply denied a custom created cake, based on the religious beliefs of the owner. And although I'm an atheist, I do support individuals Rights to practice their beliefs.
 
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 I don’t see what else it can mean. Why does this bother you?
 
Well I don’t see what else it can mean. Why does this bother you?



First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
by Pastor Martin Miemoller
 
With all due respect this argument has been floated several times. What it misses is that constitution rights supersede local regulations. And there's a lot more depth to this subject. Selling a loaf of bread to a gay shouldn't comprise a violation of religious freedom; however providing services in support of a gay marriage could be. A blanket refusal to serve gays does, IMHO, meet the religious freedom test. A book store could, again IMHO, make a case to refuse to sell LGBT+ merchandise on religious grounds.

And the bottom line is businesses refusing LGBT commerce effects their bottom line and public image.

What Constitutional right allows discrimination in the market place? How is providing a service different from selling a product?

The Bookstore analogy doesn't work. The book store refuses to sell one product to all customers alike, it doesn't discriminate. Bookstores are free to specialize, as Christian book stores do, but there is no bigotry. They sell the same thing to everyone. A Kosher deli doesn't discriminate by not selling ham. They don't sell ham to anyone. But ..... when you sell a service ...... let's say making lunch at a lunch counter and you don't sell lunch to everyone and there is a sign "Whites Only" you are discriminating. Refusing to sell a cake of any kind to a gay couple is discrimination. No where in anyone's Bible is there a prohibition against selling anything to gays.
 
What Constitutional right allows discrimination in the market place?

What Constitutional right allows free speech?

None, because the constitution doesn't grant rights, as the concept of a granted right is incoherent.

Anyway, the idea that free people don't have the inherent right to do business with whom they choose is absurd, and is covered by the 9th Amendment.
 
and hopefully that sort of nonsense will be struck down as being beyond legitimate government powers
So it should be fine for a business owner to refuse to serve any woman not accompanied by a man? To refuse to serve white people?

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
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
How would they know they are a Nazi sympathizer? And where is such a thing prevented? Most of the things that are on the list when it comes to businesses not allowed to refuse service have to do with race, religion, marriage status, etc.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Do guys have the right to force Christians to perform acts their religious beliefs proscribe? Works both ways.
There are Christians who believe mixed marriages violate decrees in the bible. There are several religions that believe interfaith marriages, relationships violate their religious beliefs. Do they have a right to refuse such people business?

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
On top of that, a business transaction is a contract. It is a fundamental maxim of law that if you are forced into a contract, the deal is null and void.



Me neither.
Selling someone something is not a contract, it is a transaction.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Capitalists are in business to make money, period. The market punishes businesses which discriminate based on superficial characteristics, that's why Democrats had to pass Jim Crow laws in order to force businesses discriminate based on race.
Conservatives passed Jim Crow laws. Southern Democrats are not the same as liberals of today.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
The Supreme Court ruling (7-2) was decided appropriately.
IMO, "While another bakery provided a cake to the couple" and "although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store.", it was a frivolous complaint to begin with. They were simply denied a custom created cake, based on the religious beliefs of the owner. And although I'm an atheist, I do support individuals Rights to practice their beliefs.
They only lost because of they lower courts treatment of the Bakery, not for being refused a cake.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
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 they think that everybody else has a right to discriminate against Christians?
 
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.

Are you a Christian, because I would like to know if you would respect the rights of others discriminating against Christians
 
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.

That’s not surprising. I have heard other stories in the news about the alt right trying to film things on camera to start a victim hood narrative. I find it interesting that they are pro discrimination for other groups but not themselves.

I agree with how your employees responded
 
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

Freedom of speech is a right for individual people. America recognizes the rights of people living within its boarders. That was unique when the bill of rights and constitution were written.
 
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"?

When the Supreme Court opened its October term last year, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission—the “gay wedding cake” case—loomed as a blockbuster, a major step toward resolving conflicts between religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws protecting LGBT people in general and same-sex married couples in particular.

But someone left the cakeshop in the rain.

On Monday, the Supreme Court produced the melted remnant. By a contentious majority of 7–2, the Court held for the religious baker, Jack Phillips, who had refused to sell a cake to a same-sex couple, Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins, for a post-hoc celebration of their out-of-state wedding. It used a rationale applicable only to this case, which sheds no light on the larger civil-rights issues.

The Masterpiece Cakeshop Ruling, Explained - The Atlantic
 

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.

I can’t take this. There are way too many posters in this thread making claims like the ones above. In reality nobody or business has the right to discriminate for any reason. Try to turn away black customers from your business and you will end up in court.

It’s ridiculous seeing so many people in this thread making these arguments like you have some sort of constitutional protection to discriminate against anybody for any reason, and you don’t.

People making such arguments need to actually frame their arguments within reality. I can’t take this. This is absurd
 
by many entities. the constitutional amendments were designed to prevent state governments from doing that.

This does not make any sense. When the Constitution was written women didn’t have the right to vote and black people were slaves. There is nothing factual or logical about arguing that the constitution prevented the states from allowing such things to happen.
 
What Constitutional right allows free speech? None, because the constitution doesn't grant rights, as the concept of a granted right is incoherent.

Can you explain how these words, "Congress shall make no law ....abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of people to peaceably to assemble , and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." don't grant rights.

Anyway, the idea that free people don't have the inherent right to do business with whom they choose is absurd, and is covered by the 9th Amendment.

Bigotry is not a 9th Amendment right retained by the people. There is no inherent right to discriminate anywhere in the Constitution. The license to do business every shop owner has to have specifically states that the licensee will not discriminate. The 14th Amendment enforces that non-discrimination requirement. "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

If you think you have an inherent right to paste a "whites only " sign on the doors of your store's restroom or above your store's drinking fountain try it and see what happens. If you think you have an inherent right to refuse service to a gay couple by putting up a "heterosexuals only" sign feel free and suffer the consequences like the Masterpiece wedding cake baker found out.
 
There are Christians who believe mixed marriages violate decrees in the bible. There are several religions that believe interfaith marriages, relationships violate their religious beliefs. Do they have a right to refuse such people business?

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Refuse them in what circumstance? To sell them a book, or groceries? Then no, they don't. To provide goods or services for weddings, receptions, etc. Yes, absolutely.

Let's make it clear: rights are not infinite, the carry certain restricts - foremost that they cannot hinder or deny the rights of others. The numerous conditions on free speech are good examples: libel, slander, advocating the violent overthrow of the government, inciting violence, etc.
 
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 don't understand why segregation was made illegal? Do you also not understand what a public business is?

segregation2.jpg


hqdefault.jpg


DrinkingFntn.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom