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

[Nap]

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

Yes and Yes

 

[Nap]

So you don't understand why segregation was made illegal? Do you also not understand what a public business is?

So you don't understand why segregation was enforced by law?

 

[iguanaman]

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.

You got that right. When you insist on discriminating against any minority you are put out of business. That's the law

 

[iguanaman]

So you don't understand why segregation was enforced by law?

And ended by law. Don't forget that.

 

[Aberration]

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"?

If by free ticket to discriminate you mean not make a same sex wedding cake, then yes.

What is this “free ticket to discriminate” suppose to mean?

 

[aociswundumho]

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.

The words speak for themselves - it's a prohibition on congress, there's nothing about granting a "right to free speech" in the text. Again, the entire point of a right is that you don't need the government's permission to act. Governments grant privileges, not rights.

Bigotry is not a 9th Amendment right retained by the people. There is no inherent right to discriminate anywhere in the Constitution.

There's no right anywhere in the constitution to have sex with your wife, or cook breakfast, or pet your dog, or a bazillion other different actions that people have the inherent right to do. If a person doesn't have the right to be a bigot, then he doesn't have the right to form his own opinions.

The problem is that leftists like yourself believe morality comes from the state.

The license to do business every shop owner has to have specifically states that the licensee will not discriminate.

The argument is over what the law should be, not what it is. Forcing a person into a contract with someone else against their will is indefensible. It is a clear violation of freedom of association.

 

[Aberration]

And ended by law. Don't forget that.

Hurray! The government came and solved another problem it created. Cheer for it as it pats it’s self it’s back. [emoji849]

 

[cpwill]

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"?

1. You are not accurately representing the Masterpiece Cake case. That baker in particular was not attempting to discriminate against the couple in question (and, in fact, had happily sold to them before, and attempted to find alternatives with them during the process). They were arguing that the state should not compel them to take part in gay weddings - that speech could not be compelled.

2. The First Amendment (and the others) are not designed to restrict individuals, they function to restrict the government.

 

[weaver2]

The words speak for themselves - it's a prohibition on congress, there's nothing about granting a "right to free speech" in the text. Again, the entire point of a right is that you don't need the government's permission to act. Governments grant privileges, not rights.

OK. It's not a right. It's a prohibition against a right you already have. However, I'm pretty sure if you got sued for libel you would say the Constitution gave you the "right" to speak freely and most people regard the 1st Amendment as giving them the right to practice religion, the right to assembly and the right to a free press and free speech . But OK we won't call it a right or a freedom.

There's no right anywhere in the constitution to have sex with your wife, or cook breakfast, or pet your dog, or a bazillion other different actions that people have the inherent right to do. If a person doesn't have the right to be a bigot, then he doesn't have the right to form his own opinions. The problem is that leftists like yourself believe morality comes from the state.

All of the above are acts, including being a bigot, that happen in people's private lives and are protected by Amendments 4 and 5. Selling in the public domaine is not a private matter and there are laws telling business what they can and can't do. Selling to the public means the shop keeper doesn't get to discriminate against one separate cohort of the public. One hunderd percent of all states have laws prohibiting general discrimination in the public market place. Sixty-eight states have laws specifically prohibiting public discrimination against homosexuals. You can be as bigoted as you want in your private life. You cannot carry that bigotry over into your business. That's the law whether you agree with it or not. Try putting up a sign in your business that states "We don't sell to gays" and see what happens.

The argument is over what the law should be, not what it is. Forcing a person into a contract with someone else against their will is indefensible. It is a clear violation of freedom of association.

The discussion is not about what the law should be. The laws are already in place. The discussion is about explaining to bigots why they can't be bigoted in the market place and watching incredulously as they claim they have a Constitutional right (even if they say there are no such thing as rights)to discriminate if they want to?

 

[weaver2]

1. You are not accurately representing the Masterpiece Cake case. That baker in particular was not attempting to discriminate against the couple in question (and, in fact, had happily sold to them before, and attempted to find alternatives with them during the process). They were arguing that the state should not compel them to take part in gay weddings - that speech could not be compelled.

2. The First Amendment (and the others) are not designed to restrict individuals, they function to restrict the government.

I was quoting what someone else said about the Masterpiece Cake case. They were the ones misrepresenting how the case was decided. And from the posts here it shockingly appears that most people think the case did give them a "ticket to discriminate against people we dislike" I've read the case. I'm aware of how the baker presented his case and the court's decision.

 

[weaver2]

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.

Astounding isn't it. They really believe they have a right to publicly discriminate against certain groups of people and that it is one of the freedoms they say "liberals" are taking away from them.

They've apparently slept through history and civics classes and now misunderstand the reason for the separation from England and the purpose of the Constitution.

 

[weaver2]

If by free ticket to discriminate you mean not make a same sex wedding cake, then yes.

What is this “free ticket to discriminate” suppose to mean?

I'm assuming by "free ticket" they meant that the SC had given them the right to discriminate.

 

[TurtleDude]

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

what you fail to understand is that there is a good argument that the government doesn't have the proper power to prevent such actions by PRIVATE CITIZENS.

 

[TurtleDude]

Astounding isn't it. They really believe they have a right to publicly discriminate against certain groups of people and that it is one of the freedoms they say "liberals" are taking away from them.

They've apparently slept through history and civics classes and now misunderstand the reason for the separation from England and the purpose of the Constitution.

you don't seem to understand that the constitutional right of freedom of association allows a freedom not to associate. This is not a case of the government discriminating.

 

[TurtleDude]

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.

that has nothing to do with rebutting my post-does it. The freedom is such that the GOVERNMENT cannot infringe on that freedom.

 

[TurtleDude]

You got that right. When you insist on discriminating against any minority you are put out of business. That's the law

it shouldn't be the law. the federal government is acting in an area it was never properly given the power to operate

 

[SheWolf]

what you fail to understand is that there is a good argument that the government doesn't have the proper power to prevent such actions by PRIVATE CITIZENS.

Want to dare the government? Try to discriminate against somebody, because of their race and see what happens. People like you are literally arguing the opposite of reality

 

[bomberfox]

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.

If you open your business to the public you gotta serve the public. This isnt just their playground.

 

[TurtleDude]

Want to dare the government? Try to discriminate against somebody, because of their race and see what happens. People like you are literally arguing the opposite of reality

are you unable to understand what people are arguing? we understand that the government has grabbed power it doesn't properly have. We are arguing that the current state of affairs should be ruled unconstitutional. You seem to be of the mindset that no one can criticize the government

 

[TurtleDude]

If you open your business to the public you gotta serve the public. This isnt just their playground.

and I believe that is not a power the federal government should have

 

[bomberfox]

This isnt just about freedom of association, it is about preventing the dominant power structures based on race, sex, etc. from shutting everyone else out in order to maintain an underclass and enable every citizen to be able to participate in society. Without such protections, the dominant people in society will stick together to prevent others from participating. Just like i tell the white nationalist dickheads, this isnt just your playground now get over it.

 

[bomberfox]

and I believe that is not a power the federal government should have

That is fine. Im just trying to put across that this isnt about simple association.

 

[SheWolf]

are you unable to understand what people are arguing? we understand that the government has grabbed power it doesn't properly have. We are arguing that the current state of affairs should be ruled unconstitutional. You seem to be of the mindset that no one can criticize the government

You’re wording it like the opposite is reality. The current law should be obeyed. You don’t have a right to violate the law.

 

[TurtleDude]

That is fine. Im just trying to put across that this isnt about simple association.

and I have a very strong understanding of the concept of a government limited to its enumerated powers. Contrary to some people, I do understand that the government has lots of powers that were never properly granted it. And those powers do have legal standing. However, that does not mean we cannot argue against the extra or unconstitutional powers the federal government granted itself during the FDR administration

 

[TurtleDude]

You’re wording it like the opposite is reality. The current law should be obeyed. You don’t have a right to violate the law.

and you seem unable to comprehend I am arguing that the law is wrong, not that I have a right to violate it