Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

PrintSmith wrote: There is no difference between mowing a lawn and baking a cake - both are services provided by one person for another person. And that, Dog, is the fact of the matter. One can pass laws which violate constitutional protections, it has been done before and it will be done again. One can uphold laws which violate constitutional protections, that too has been done before and will be done again.

That laws have been passed and upheld which violate constitutional protections is not a convincing argument. What I have presented is logical conclusions based on logical arguments. That social engineering laws based on emotion are used instead does nothing to alter the soundness of the logic that I have presented here.

That the courts choose to violate rights in pursuit of their vision of what society should be is a sad commentary on the condition of our courts, not a flaw in the logic contained in my argument.

Obviously you do not understand the doctrine of public accommodations which date back to 16th century. Public accommodations do not cover every single service. As defined by law in Colorado,

(1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor. "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.

Unless you plan on bringing your lawn into the offices of the lawn mowing service, the lawn mowing service does not fall within the definition of public accommodation. The act of mowing lawns typically does not occur within the lawn mowing service place of business, nor does the offering of lawn mowing service typically occur within a place of business. If the lawn mowing service does offer their services to the general public within the definition of public accommodation, then it would be governed by the public accommodation law, and any services that it would offer to the general public cannot be denied to individuals solely based on their skin color or sexual orientation.

Once again, the argument about "involuntary servitude" as it applies to public accommodation has been attempted in the past by bigots to deny public accommodation services to based solely on their skin color, creed and other factors deemed to be protected status. That argument has been entirely shot down by the Supreme Court, who despite your erroneous attempt to claim it only applies to motels, found that the Civil Rights Act was constitutional.

So it comes down to even though the United States Supreme Court has decided that the Civil Rights Act, and in particular the section of that Act that forbids discrimination in public accommodations solely based on factors such as skin color, creed, ethnicity, etc. is entirely constitutional and specifically that it does not violate the 13th amendment, that they and every other court since then is wrong and only you are correct in your interpretation of Constitution.

No one is forced into slavery by the public accommodations law. If one desires not to offer products or services to the public at large (meaning even to those of other skin colors, ethnicity, creed, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, etc.) then structure your business so not to be a public accommodation. Make it clear that your business is not open to the public at large, but only to a select clientele that does not personally offend you.

I would further point out that clearly the 13th Amendment, just as all other rights in the Constitution, has limits. The government clearly has ability to compel military service on citizens, compel jury duty, even the attendance of school age children to attend school. Congress has the power to compel individuals to bear witness at committee hearings. Judges have the ability to compel individuals and other entities to appear in court, to be deposed, to provide evidence. Courts further have the ability to compel individuals to serve time in jails and prisons, to attend anger management classes, alcohol education classes, to serve time in mental health institutions.

At least that is how the judges, who are also part of the government, have "interpreted" the 13th to the benefit of the government despite the clear meaning of the text of the amendment. As I said, laws have been passed, and upheld, which violate constitutional protections in the past, and it is no surprise to me that it continues to happen in the present, nor that it will happen in the future.

All one need do is point out that "separate but equal" was passed as law and repeatedly upheld until it was finally overturned with the comment that the previous rulings were just as wrong at the time they were issued as they are today. That is not a compelling argument given the history of the courts and the legislatures.

Bigotry hasn't been doing very well in the past several decades, so don't hold your breath while waiting.

I would agree that compelling a man to labor against his wishes and in violation of his religious beliefs for those chosen by the government for special consideration is an act of bigotry Brandon, but I somehow get the feeling that this isn't what you were referring to . . .

That's the first time you've been right in this thread. You're on the wrong side of history, plain and simple.

You are right Brandon, there is very little in the recorded history of mankind where individual liberty was the highest value held by the society. That doesn't mean that having that view is in any way the wrong side of history. If you want to talk about being on the wrong side of history, let's talk about how successful powerful central governments deciding how your life is to be lived has worked out over the course of human history, shall we? Can you think of one that has survived more than a century or two?

You most certainly are on the wrong side of history. To lament the end of the Jim Crow era in an increasingly racially and culturally diverse society is unbelievably misguided.

You think lying about what others believe somehow bestows you with credibility Brandon? Separate but equal is impossible to achieve and it is wrong for the government to teat those who are equally citizens in dissimilar manners. That, by the way, is across the board. So-called positive discrimination, otherwise known as "Affirmative Action" is just as abhorrent to individual liberty as separate drinking fountains and lunch counters were.

And you have missed, or deliberately overlooked, every statement I have made confirming that public accommodation laws are both necessary and proper. I certainly agree that a room which is maintained to be rented to the next person who walks through the door should be, in all instances, rented to the next person who walks through the door. I agree that a restaurant that exists solely to provide a meal to the next person who walks through the door should serve, in all instances, the next person who walks through the door.

But that isn't what we have here, is it. No, here we have an instance where a person walks through the door looking to hire a person to labor specifically for them to produce an item specifically for them. We are not talking about a fixed menu, we are talking about a one-off creation for a unique individual. It would be essentially walking into the restaurant and saying that you wanted something not on the menu cooked for you. Does the proprietor of the restaurant have to indulge you in such an instance? Of course not, because they are asking for something that isn't prepared for the public at large, something specific solely for them. That is precisely what a wedding cake is Brandon. It is something prepared for one specific customer, to their exact specifications, ready on the date and at the time they specify in the contract that is entered into with the person who creates the cake.

You have no public accommodation right to that which doesn't yet exist in the real world Brandon. How can you have a right to something that doesn't exist? The hotel room exists when the next person enters the hotel. It has been prepared to be rented to the next person who enters the hotel seeking a room. That isn't the situation with a wedding cake. There wasn't a wedding cake sitting in the display case awaiting a purchaser. If there had been, I would agree that the baker violated public accommodation laws if they refused to sell it to them. But there wasn't a cake in the display case awaiting a customer. The next person through the door wanted something made specifically, and solely, for them, ready on the date and time they specified. That's not public accommodation, that's a contract between two parties, one with skill the other with money, to bring into existence that which doesn't yet exist in the real world.

Does a contractor have to build every house that someone wants them to build? Of course not, they are free to enter into a contract to build a home or not, for any reason or no reason at all. You tell me why a cake is different than a house Brandon. Why does a baker have to bake the cake and the contractor doesn't have to build the home. Why is building a custom home a matter of contract and the baking of a custom cake not?

In your repellent dream world, a bakery owner would be able to refuse service on the basis of race.