ACLU sues baker for discrimination

homeagain wrote: S-o-o-, from my POV....the scenario COULD have been played out this way......I'm a baker,two
individuals entered into my business requesting a wedding cake to celebrate their commitment/
love.....I see these two individuals just happen to be of the same sex.....a METAPHYSICAL
MINDSET would have been.....OH, I see two SOULS have found each other again....how TRULY
MIRACULOUS is that....my talent can make this occasion special for them....I am happy you came
to my business, THANK YOU......(instead, religion creates an ugly scenario,the event becomes
a "cause" and the ultimate ending creates upheaval.....for the business owner,for the two souls
for the general community....) kinda sad, really......JMO

AGAIN, the issue is one of RELIGION and how that aspect tends to override the more evolved
POV......discrimination is insidious in today's society, it has NOT gone away or been eradicated
it has gone "under ground".....(on the low down).....because after all, it is NOT fashionable
to be OPENLY bigoted.....

Unless, of course, you are expressing bigotry towards one of faith. That happens to be very fashionable at the moment because it serves the purpose of replacing allegience to God with allegience to the state.

You are not going to get rid of what you refer to as bigotry home. It is not possible to eradicate that anymore than it is possible to eradicate poverty. Some people are always going to have different values than you do. To label them as bigots because they do think differently than you do, and to punish them because they think differently than you do, is perhaps a greater transgression than what you perceive theirs to be.

I have been waiting for the intellectually honest argument that yes, society is attempting to use the force of government to compel Phillips to labor involuntarily because the will of the collective takes precedence, is more important, than his right to decide for whom he will labor and who he will not. That it is permissible, despite what the Constitution says, to force one to labor involuntarily in the United States and anywhere within their jurisdiction when the greater good is served by subjecting them to involuntary servitude. That Phillips is being made to labor involuntarily is not at all a point which can be disputed. He said he would not bake a wedding cake for a same sex "wedding". What society is saying is that he doesn't have the right to decide for whom he will labor, he must labor, even against his will, because society says he must. It views his actions as more objectionable than using the force of the government to compel him to labor against his will, against his conscience. That is the simple truth of the matter, isn't it?

PrintSmith wrote: What society is saying is that he doesn't have the right to decide for whom he will labor, he must labor, even against his will, because society says he must. It views his actions as more objectionable than using the force of the government to compel him to labor against his will, against his conscience. That is the simple truth of the matter, isn't it?

No idiot. Law code has decided that in a place of public accommodation, who he can't deny labor to, based on disability, race, religion, creed, color, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, ancestry or national origin. And you have YET to give me ANY case law that decided otherwise.

And all your knight jumps through rhetorical hoops can't change what is legal and binding.

That is the simple FACTS of the matter, isn't it?

PrintSmith wrote: Unless, of course, you are expressing bigotry towards one of faith. That happens to be very fashionable at the moment because it serves the purpose of replacing allegience to God with allegience to the state.

You are not going to get rid of what you refer to as bigotry home. It is not possible to eradicate that anymore than it is possible to eradicate poverty. Some people are always going to have different values than you do. To label them as bigots because they do think differently than you do, and to punish them because they think differently than you do, is perhaps a greater transgression than what you perceive theirs to be.

I have been waiting for the intellectually honest argument that yes, society is attempting to use the force of government to compel Phillips to labor involuntarily because the will of the collective takes precedence, is more important, than his right to decide for whom he will labor and who he will not. That it is permissible, despite what the Constitution says, to force one to labor involuntarily in the United States and anywhere within their jurisdiction when the greater good is served by subjecting them to involuntary servitude. That Phillips is being made to labor involuntarily is not at all a point which can be disputed. He said he would not bake a wedding cake for a same sex "wedding". What society is saying is that he doesn't have the right to decide for whom he will labor, he must labor, even against his will, because society says he must. It views his actions as more objectionable than using the force of the government to compel him to labor against his will, against his conscience. That is the simple truth of the matter, isn't it?

My ALLIANCE is to a "higher" energy/essence/being.......THAT alliance goes by MANY monikers
but it is ALL THE SAME......(there in lies the difference between you and I PS......the view is
ALL encompassing, and benevolent......AGAIN, I will refer to the Gandhi quote....."your
Christians are so UNlike your Christ."......so simple....succinct.......sums it up....JMO

Walter L Newton wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: What society is saying is that he doesn't have the right to decide for whom he will labor, he must labor, even against his will, because society says he must.

No idiot. Law code has decided that in a place of public accommodation, who he can't deny labor to, based on disability, race, religion, creed, color, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, ancestry or national origin. And you have YET to give me ANY case law that decided otherwise.

And all your knight jumps through rhetorical hoops can't change what is legal and binding.

That is the simple FACTS of the matter, isn't it?

If the geek were right, the gay dude would have been able to make the baker go shovel his driveway or clean his kitchen.

Brandon wrote:

Walter L Newton wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: What society is saying is that he doesn't have the right to decide for whom he will labor, he must labor, even against his will, because society says he must.

No idiot. Law code has decided that in a place of public accommodation, who he can't deny labor to, based on disability, race, religion, creed, color, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, ancestry or national origin. And you have YET to give me ANY case law that decided otherwise.

And all your knight jumps through rhetorical hoops can't change what is legal and binding.

That is the simple FACTS of the matter, isn't it?

If the geek were right, the gay dude would have been able to make the baker go shovel his driveway or clean his kitchen.

PrintSmith and homeagain: your stupid and you can't undo stupid!
You just ignore the fact that in our society we have laws decided by a democratic society and majority rules. We have to have some laws to protect society from unjust treatment esp in the area of race, religion, sex, gender, disability, national origin etc..
If there were no civil rights law, we would still be unenlightened and hanging people of color from branches.

So Printsmith, you have refused to address my post re the Heart Of Atlanta Supreme Court decision where the Supreme Court specifically ruled on the very peg on which you are attempting to hang your hat. In that 1964 case, Lester Maddox and a host of other southern racists sued the US Goverment over Title II claiming that forcing a motel owner to serve "Negroes" was "Involuntary Servitude" banned in the 13th Amendment and interfering with his private business. The Supreme Court threw out that argument as ridiculous and that the government could require public accommodations to serve "Negroes" to prevent a moral wrong from occurring.

Further, the government can require "involuntary servitude" to serve a public good according to the Supremes, whether that being a military draft in time of war, or requiring landowners to work on nearby public roads.

Even going back centuries, under English common law, the rule was "It reasoned that one who employed his private property for purposes of commercial gain by offering goods or services to the public must stick to his bargain".

It has long been held that our rights under the US Constitution are upheld to the point where those rights impinge upon the rights of others, whether that be speech, religion, right to bear arms, and so forth. Just so for property rights, where the property rights may be subject to limitations if they impinge on the rights of others, such as the right to be free from discrimination in access to the goods and services offered by businesses.

Your attempt to make a distinction of contract law on products premade vs products yet to be made is ludicrious. Both of these require contracts, whether it is the contract to purchase a product on the shelf vs. the contract of services to make a new product. Contracts are subject to all manner of limitations and regulations. There is simply no basis in contract law to claim that it prevents public accommodation laws.

The unanimous decision in The Heart of Atlanta case found that the interpretation that requiring involuntary service in public accommodations runs afoul of involuntary servitude prohibition of the 13th Amendment was strained and of no consequence. This decision has been followed by numerous other decisions and more recently in the Jaycees case. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the government may require public accommodations to serve all members of the public in a consistent manner and not discriminate against members of the public solely on their race, religion, sex, etc. even if it interferes with the proprietor private rights of commerce, if the government decides to do so is necessary to correct a "moral evil". Further it has been a tenet of our great nation that it is the role of government to secure the rights of all men to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Personal dignity is certainly a key component of such rights, which necessitates anti-discrimination laws in public accommodations. You can be a hater all that you desire in your private life, but once you open up a public accommodation for commercial enterprise, your part of the bargain is to serve the public.

In balance, while the proprietor of a public accommodation may have property rights, those property rights may be exercised only to the point where those property rights do not impinge upon the rights of others seeking to purchase goods or services.

This argument was tried by racists back in 1964 in order to maintain the Jim Crow laws denying access to goods and services to blacks, it was put down then and that remains the law of the land in this nation.

Correct me if I'm wrong Dog, but the Supreme Court also upheld separate but equal for a while, as well as laws which made sodomy illegal. As I recall, there have been numerous instances where the court, at a later date, has said earlier rulings were wrong at the time and are wrong now. To rely on what a court has said in the past doesn't buttress the argument that Phillips is not being made to labor against his will by the law, for clearly that is the case. It would also appear on its face that relying on a ruling for a motel that was located right next to two interstate highways and a couple of major State highways, which was where the court got the excuse to invoke the power granted to keep regular interstate commerce, and a bakery which is located off the street, that has to be looked for to be found, are not the same thing.

None of which even begins to address a point I feel is quite often overlooked. That a law may be consistent with one part of the Constitution doesn't, by extension, mean that it is consistent with the entire document. That Congress was delegated the authority to adopt uniform regulations for interstate commerce doesn't, by extension, mean that they are allowed to subject a person to involuntary servitude to exercise that delegated power. To say that they are allowed to impose involuntary servitude upon an individual in the pursuit of regulating interstate commerce is, IMNTBHO, absurd on its face. A law must be consistent with the entire document, not only the portions of it selectively chosen because they happen to be advantageous in the latest adventure undertaken by Congress.

Clearly Phillips didn't wish to be party to the contract to create the wedding cake. To tell him that he must create it anyway can be construed as nothing other than involuntary servitude, for clearly that it exactly what it is. And yes, I also believe that the draft is involuntary servitude and not allowed after the passage of Amendment 13 either because there was no exception inserted into the amendment to permit it as there was for involuntary servitude being imposed upon duly convicted criminals. That amendment restricted the ability of Congress to raise a defensive force by use of a draft IMNTBHO. That is precisely what the Constitution does - it restricts the power of the federal government. To allow a court to go back and effectively legislate another exemption on their own, or to allow Congress to do the same thing is to effectively render the Constitution a blank piece of paper by construction.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist in the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction. The amendment doesn't say that neither shall exist except for when Congress decides otherwise, it says that neither shall exist with but a single exception; except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. The plain text of the amendment doesn't give Congress, or any other legislative body for that matter, the ability to create additional exemptions whenever they damned well feel like creating them, it limits the exceptions to precisely and exactly one. The drafters of the amendment could have included an exemption for Congress is raising an defensive force, but they did not, which means no such exemption exists, or was ever intended to exist by those who wrote the amendment or those who voted to make it a part of the Constitution. To fabricate such an exemption out of whole cloth for political expediency renders the Constitution unable to perform its primary function, to define what the limits of federal authority are within the Union. When Congress and federal courts are allowed to effectively say, "Well, we know what it says, but that really isn't what it means", then for all intents and purposes there is not a Constitution at all.

Hey PrintSmith - PM me the name of your print shop. I have something I need printed.