TODD'S AMERICAN DISPATCH: Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests[W:699]

[TiredOfLife]

Re: TODD'S AMERICAN DISPATCH: Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests[W:

It matters perfectly since the conditions were altered.

Not really. Adding another law that is just like the other ones you follow doesn't change things. If I know that I have to recycle my used oil at my gas station, the government passing a law that now says I must do the same with the antifreeze is no big deal. I was already doing what I'd rather not but that's just part of running a business.

 

[Henrin]

Re: TODD'S AMERICAN DISPATCH: Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests[W:

Not really. Adding another law that is just like the other ones you follow doesn't change things. If I know that I have to recycle my used oil at my gas station, the government passing a law that now says I must do the same with the antifreeze is no big deal. I was already doing what I'd rather not but that's just part of running a business.

No exactly. If the idea is that when I start a business I consent to all existing laws at the time then that would mean I consent to how they are written at that moment, but if a law is changed at a later date you can no longer use the argument that I agreed to the law since the law that is in place now is not the law I consented to. The terms of the arrangement have been altered and with it any consent that was given prior is null and void.

 

[TiredOfLife]

Re: TODD'S AMERICAN DISPATCH: Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests[W:

No exactly. If the idea is that when I start a business I consent to all existing laws at the time then that would mean I consent to how they are written at that moment, but if a law is changed at a later date you can no longer use the argument that I agreed to the law since the law that is in place now is not the law I consented to. The terms of arrangement have been altered and with it any consent that was given prior is null and void.

That's what you get for being approved by the state. They make the rules and they get to change them. It's not like a private contract where the terms stay fixed. It would be a nightmare if it was. You roll the dice when you open a business.

By chance, can you cite two rather famous Supreme Court cases that fit your arguments perfectly?

 

[douglas]

Re: TODD'S AMERICAN DISPATCH: Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests[W:

If the first amendment is infringed then the law is unconstitutional. It's pretty straight forward.

And the first amendment rights aren't being infringed here. There's nothing about the freedom of the press or expression of religion that is prohibited by anti-discrimination laws. They can be as religious as they want and post whatever they want, which is all the 1A deals with.

Actually what was agreed to by the framers is that the commerce clause only deals with trade disputes between the listed members. It wouldn't deal with business or consumer relations since they are not in the scope of the clause.

Business laws are constitutional under the commerce clause; if it's not interstate commerce or predominantly dealing with interstate customers or merchandise, it falls under state law. The state in question has anti-discrimination laws, which isn't unconstitutional. It's completely constitutional for a state to enforce state laws on commerce, whatever they may be.

Actually, just because you start a business wouldn't mean that the amendment wouldn't apply. Remember the amendment was meant to ban all involuntary servitude in the United states except for those duly convicted.

No, you can still be involuntary servant and receive payment. The only condition that needs to take place is that you are coerced into providing labor or service against your will. Forcing someone into labor and then throwing money their way doesn't change what just happened.

Hardly. If you are forced to provide service to people against your will due to law that is involuntary servitude, and yes, that is exactly the purpose of the amendment.

I don't think we'll ever see eye-to-eye on our interpretation of "involuntary servitude". I simply don't see anti-discrimination laws as forcing you to do anything, since you always have the option to close down. It's not a nice option, but a perfectly valid one in the eyes of law, and not a "force" as required for "involuntary servitude".

With "involuntary servitude" it's: serve everyone or you're going to jail (or getting beaten, fined, etc. Some force).
With "anti-discrimination laws" it's: serve everyone or close down. The getting sued, fined, or jailed part is only if you choose to still do business without following the law.
The threat of closing down is simply not a "force", or you could say that all free market competition creates "involuntary servitude"; you have to sell what people want at good prices, or close down, does that mean you're involuntarily serving customers at a good price?

 

[Henrin]

Re: TODD'S AMERICAN DISPATCH: Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests[W:

That's what you get for being approved by the state. They make the rules and they get to change them. It's not like a private contract where the terms stay fixed. It would be a nightmare if it was. You roll the dice when you open a business.

By chance, can you cite two rather famous Supreme Court cases that fit your arguments perfectly?

I was dealing with Agents argument that treats all law as some sort of contract that is agreed to when a business is started. Dealing with my argument against him as anything more than it is I have no reason to humor.

 

[TiredOfLife]

Re: TODD'S AMERICAN DISPATCH: Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests[W:

I was dealing with Agents argument that treats law as some sort of contract that is agreed to when business is started. Dealing with my argument against him as anything more than it is I have no reason to humor.

His view I suspect is roughly the same as mine, you knew there were laws and limitations when you started the business. And what of this question: By chance, can you cite two rather famous Supreme Court cases that fit your arguments perfectly?

 

[Henrin]

Re: TODD'S AMERICAN DISPATCH: Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests[W:

And the first amendment rights aren't being infringed here. There's nothing about the freedom of the press or expression of religion that is prohibited by anti-discrimination laws. They can be as religious as they want and post whatever they want, which is all the 1A deals with.

The right to association.

Business laws are constitutional under the commerce clause; if it's not interstate commerce or predominantly dealing with interstate customers or merchandise, it falls under state law. The state in question has anti-discrimination laws, which isn't unconstitutional. It's completely constitutional for a state to enforce state laws on commerce, whatever they may be.

Are businesses one of the listed members? If not, how can you make the claim the federal government can act on the business? Furthermore, the clause is dealing with trade disputes between the listed members, not with consumers or merchandise.

I don't think we'll ever see eye-to-eye on our interpretation of "involuntary servitude". I simply don't see anti-discrimination laws as forcing you to do anything, since you always have the option to close down. It's not a nice option, but a perfectly valid one in the eyes of law, and not a "force" as required for "involuntary servitude".

That is like saying you can either kill yourself or do my will. Using your logic involuntary servitude can never exist.

With "involuntary servitude" it's: serve everyone or you're going to jail (or getting beaten, fined, etc. Some force).
With "anti-discrimination laws" it's: serve everyone or close down. The getting sued, fined, or jailed part is only if you choose to still do business without following the law.
The threat of closing down is simply not a "force", or you could say that all free market competition creates "involuntary servitude"; you have to sell what people want at good prices, or close down, does that mean you're involuntarily serving customers at a good price?

Those other businesses are not forcing you to serve people nor do they have the ability to punish you if you don't.

 

[douglas]

Re: TODD'S AMERICAN DISPATCH: Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests[W:

The right to association.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Where, in that rather short amount of text, is the "right to association"? I'm not disagreeing with your right to associate, but it's nowhere in the 1A. In either case, association isn't a defense against any law.

Are businesses one of the listed members? If not, how can you make the claim the federal government can act on the business? Furthermore, the clause is dealing with trade disputes between the listed members, not with consumers or merchandise.

It's a state law, the feds have nothing to do with it. Did you read the story? This is not an issue of the federal anti-discrimination laws, they broke local law. Also, they went out of business solely due to the boycott, before the anti-discrimination lawsuit came about.

That is like saying you can either kill yourself or do my will. Using your logic involuntary servitude can never exist.

It may be a fine balance, but it definitely passes the common sense test that is normally used to judge these issues; if an average, randomly picked person from the population would agree with the anti-discrimination laws as not being involuntary servitude, then it's not. I can guarantee that it would, since anti-discrimination laws have a pretty big support base.

Those other businesses are not forcing you to serve people nor do they have the ability to punish you if you don't.

But they do, I'm punished with a lack of profit. Again, I'm saying what kind of punishment or force that I wouldn't accept as a legitimate cause of involuntary servitude. If my choices are, follow the law and receive business as normal or break the law and go out of business, it's no different than if the law was replaced with "serving $100 egg sandwiches"; a voluntary choice to put yourself out of business.

 

[Peter King]

Re: TODD'S AMERICAN DISPATCH: Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests[W:

Thanks for reporting on the property rights violation.

he has not committed a property rights violation, they should be prosecuted for discrimination because that is what they did. And no pious religious sanctimonious excuses are a justification for that.

 

[MarineTpartier]

Re: TODD'S AMERICAN DISPATCH: Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests[W:

Wrong? I'm not the one pissing in the wind. My side is winning, remember? And newbie? I got a laugh from that. Your "harm" theory is DOA but I will give you the same question that made the last Ayn Rand lamb run away. Ready:

Okay, but there isn't an HOA contract yet the guy next door claims he can't sell his house or get a loan for its true value because of me? (I painted my house to look like Rainbow Bright) Doesn't he have the right to the full value of his property? Now what?

Ayn Rand lamb lol. If I'm an Ayn Rand lamb I supposed you would be the Marxist lion right? lol
It's called a free market and we all take a chance by participating in it. This guy took the chance when he bought the house and didn't have a HOA in place. He is paying the piper for it. That is the nature of a free market and free society. No one should feel sorry for him. He weighed the risk of not paying the extra $20 bucks or whatever a HOA would have charged against getting to keep that money in pocket for whatever he wanted to use it for. Now, he has the $20 but is stuck with a house that depreciated in value. Simple as that.

 

[MarineTpartier]

Re: TODD'S AMERICAN DISPATCH: Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests[W:

Know better? Yes. Bred? Right here. Pass legislation? Yes, it's what they do.

Im sorry you have so little faith in yourself or whatever god you worship that you feel there are citizens that are elite compared to you. That is sad. And I don't mean that in a condescending manner by any stretch. People such as yourself are the reason this country is subjected to more and more infringement upon their personal lives. Laws like DOMA existed because of people like you.

Your relationship, your social contract with the government, is a two-way street. They provide protection and you agree to give up some of your Liberty and follow the rules. For true freedom, you need to buy an uninhabited island, and stay there.

Yes, it's a two way street. They give me protection (a court system, a military, a police force, etc) but they DO NOT get to take my personal beliefs and trample on them for the greater good. Period. The freedom you speak of is anarchy. That is not what I'm advocating for, as you well know.

 

[TiredOfLife]

Re: TODD'S AMERICAN DISPATCH: Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests[W:

Ayn Rand lamb lol. If I'm an Ayn Rand lamb I supposed you would be the Marxist lion right? lol
It's called a free market and we all take a chance by participating in it. This guy took the chance when he bought the house and didn't have a HOA in place. He is paying the piper for it. That is the nature of a free market and free society. No one should feel sorry for him. He weighed the risk of not paying the extra $20 bucks or whatever a HOA would have charged against getting to keep that money in pocket for whatever he wanted to use it for. Now, he has the $20 but is stuck with a house that depreciated in value. Simple as that.

Okay, he's screwed then.

 

[TiredOfLife]

Re: TODD'S AMERICAN DISPATCH: Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests[W:

Im sorry you have so little faith in yourself or whatever god you worship that you feel there are citizens that are elite compared to you. That is sad. And I don't mean that in a condescending manner by any stretch. People such as yourself are the reason this country is subjected to more and more infringement upon their personal lives. Laws like DOMA existed because of people like you.

Yes, it's a two way street. They give me protection (a court system, a military, a police force, etc) but they DO NOT get to take my personal beliefs and trample on them for the greater good. Period. The freedom you speak of is anarchy. That is not what I'm advocating for, as you well know.

Actually I don't know what you are seeking? As for the Elites running my life, I am one so let's mush on.

 

[Henrin]

Re: TODD'S AMERICAN DISPATCH: Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests[W:

he has not committed a property rights violation, they should be prosecuted for discrimination because that is what they did. And no pious religious sanctimonious excuses are a justification for that.

Again, the property owner has the right to control access and use of their property. When the law says otherwise that is violating the property owners rights.

 

[TiredOfLife]

Re: TODD'S AMERICAN DISPATCH: Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests[W:

Again, the property owner has the right to control access and use of their property. When the law says otherwise that is violating the property owners rights.

Well I wanted to stop serving Jews and Christians but the mean old government said there's a law against that. They are denying my rights and I should sue, like this guy: Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course he lost and went out of business but I should do it anyway.

Nice pool, and no niggers allowed. Ah, those were the days eh Henrin?

 

[Peter King]

Re: TODD'S AMERICAN DISPATCH: Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests[W:

Again, the property owner has the right to control access and use of their property. When the law says otherwise that is violating the property owners rights.

Except when the property is a public accommodation (and as a business, he agrees to certain "uses" of his property that a civilian person will not have to content with) then he has partial control of access and when he uses his property as a public accommodation he is forbidden by law to discriminate, especially if he is in the food industry.

 

[Bodi]

Re: TODD'S AMERICAN DISPATCH: Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests[W:

The term involuntary servitude meant the same thing back then that it does today and there is no evidence that the authors of the amendment meant it to only apply to situations comparable to black slavery. They purposely banned all involuntary servitude in the United States except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. Sorry, but that is what they did.

Not with regards to the public...

 

[Henrin]

Re: TODD'S AMERICAN DISPATCH: Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests[W:

Not with regards to the public...

What do mean by regards to the public?

 

[Bodi]

Re: TODD'S AMERICAN DISPATCH: Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests[W:

What do mean by regards to the public?

They are a public business... once you open the doors to the public you can't discriminate against some. I hear what you are saying though. There should be a simple law that states that a business can state whom they will or won't serve upfront. Against anyone for any reason. The public will decide if they stay in business or not with their wallets. IF a business does not state it then they are open to anti-discrimination laws.

 

[Henrin]

Re: TODD'S AMERICAN DISPATCH: Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests[W:

They are a public business... once you open the doors to the public you can't discriminate against some. I hear what you are saying though. There should be a simple law that states that a business can state whom they will or won't serve upfront. Against anyone for any reason. The public will decide if they stay in business or not with their wallets. IF a business does not state it then they are open to anti-discrimination laws.

I thought we were talking about the thirteenth amendment and what involuntary servitude means. :/

 

[Bodi]

Re: TODD'S AMERICAN DISPATCH: Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests[W:

I thought we were talking about the thirteenth amendment and what involuntary servitude means. :/

We are. It wouldn't be involuntary servitude if they could post their discriminated preferences at the door ahead of time. Since that is not current though, if they are a public business it is not involuntary servitude to serve whom you don't like since it is actually a violation of anti-discrimination laws.

 

[Henrin]

Re: TODD'S AMERICAN DISPATCH: Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests[W:

We are. It wouldn't be involuntary servitude if they could post their discriminated preferences at the door ahead of time. Since that is not current though, if they are a public business it is not involuntary servitude to serve whom you don't like since it is actually a violation of anti-discrimination laws.

If the law forces them to serve people that is involuntary servitude though. :/

 

[TiredOfLife]

Re: TODD'S AMERICAN DISPATCH: Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests[W:

If the law forces them to serve people that is involuntary servitude though. :/

Business owners aren't slaves, but they do serve.

 

[Bodi]

Re: TODD'S AMERICAN DISPATCH: Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests[W:

If the law forces them to serve people that is involuntary servitude though. :/

No it isn't since they opened the business knowing that IT IS ILLEGAL to discriminate. If they don't want to serve the public as a whole then don't open a business.

 

[Henrin]

Re: TODD'S AMERICAN DISPATCH: Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests[W:

No it isn't since they opened the business knowing that IT IS ILLEGAL to discriminate. If they don't want to serve the public as a whole then don't open a business.

Then do they have the right to pursue their happiness or not? If they do not consent to serve someone the fact is they do not consent to serve someone. Forcing them to do it anyway is making them an involuntary servant.