Colorado is after this guy.

[Cecilie1200]

Unless your religion is into human sacrifice, I have trouble coming up with any "compelling government interest" that overrides the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion. Maybe that's just me.

If you run a store where you just sell point of sale items, and you let people on the premises, I can see they can tell you you have to serve or sell to people and can't refuse based on race, sex, orientation, etc. Selling a pack of gum or a pre-made cupcake does not imply endorsement as a custom made item does.

Same goes with hotels, if you offer rooms to people off the Street, you offer rooms to anyone off the street who has the $$.

I think you SHOULD do business with everyone on an equal basis in point-of-sale. I don't necessarily think that equates to "the government should force you to". I think people also have the right to be ignorant, short-sighted assholes if that's what they want to do (I'd be obliged if people would stop feeling the necessity of exercising this right quite so much). Personally, I don't want to give my money to someone who hates me, just because the government is forcing them to lie about it. I'd rather they be honest, I know who they are, and then I take my money to someone who's doing business with me because he WANTS to do so.

I also wouldn't deny service on the basis they want to. My concern is where to draw the line. I don't see contracted services that are non-timely, easily replaceable and non nessasary as Public Accommodations.

I can see the government's interest in compelling equal treatment at the countertop and the hotel room, but that's about it.

For some people, it's not about the transaction, it's about forcing acceptance, not tolerance.

I define public accommodation as "things that are funded by public money (taxes)". If the government is not actually funding it and running it, I have very hard limits to how much business I think the government has telling those who DO fund and run it how to do so.

I see no compelling government interest whatsoever at the countertop or in the hotel room, and I'd be curious to have you tell me what you think that is.

That is a public authority, commons, agency, or space. A public accomodation is a business that opens itself to the public for commerce.

For a hotel room, if a person is travelling, them being denied can be seen as a harm. it can be a time sensitive, not easily replaceable service (only hotel for 20 miles)

For a countertop transaction to me it's that the burden on the person selling the item's religious freedom isn't there compared to say a SSM wedding and having to make a custom cake. When you invite the public on your property to do commerce, the government can regulate that commerce, to a point.

I understand the government defines it that way. I disagree with them. And either way, I still disagree that the government has a compelling interest to force businesses to serve everyone.

I can marginally see an area of concern for the government in your scenario with the hotel, assuming that there is, in fact, a hotel situated like that which would refuse to serve certain segments of the population for whatever reason. I still don't necessarily agree that the solution is for the government, which hasn't contributed a damned thing to the whole "Hey, let's open a hotel out in the middle of nowhere" concept, to barge in and start issuing orders and directives.

The government can regulate commerce up to a point, but we disagree where that point is. I think, for example, that the local government has every right to inspect your business on a regular basis to make sure your restaurant isn't giving people food poisoning or your stock room doesn't have black mold growing in it, or the building isn't a fire hazard, for example. I simply don't extend it as far as "We're going to tell you who to do business with."

 

[dblack]

I can see the government's interest in compelling equal treatment at the countertop and the hotel room, but that's about it.

But these laws don't do that. They don't compel equal treatment. They simply ban certain biases. And even then, only if the biases are claimed as the reason for the discrimination. Only if they are expressed.

The point of these laws is not individual justice, nor equal treatment. The purpose is to suppress biases that the government has decided are bad for society (racism, sexism, etc...).

 

[JoeB131]

No, you have the government to do it for you. How convenient.

Show me a bunch of Christians going out of their way to ruin people.

Well, there were the Christian Assholes I worked with who got the gay lady fired because she brought her partner to the holiday party.

if the laws impact free exercise, they shouldn't be applied unless there is a compelling government interest.

Okay. Stomping out homophobic hatred is a compelling interest. Done.

See how easy that was?

The law isn't absolute. private clubs can still discriminate, churches can still discriminate.

Well, we need to fix that, too. Again, I'm all for revoking the charters of clubs or churches that practice homophobia, like we've already revoked the ones that have practiced racism.

Done.

Amazing that "Americans" think like this.

As we see, totalitarians ALWAYS come out of the left.

Again, your party to force women to have their rapist's baby. That's some crazy shit right there.

I just don't think you should give a Church a tax exemption for preaching hate, and there's ALREADY a legal precedence for it, when Bob Jones University lost it's tax exemption for it's racist policies. This is why the Mormons suddenly discovered that Black Skin wasn't a curse from God in 1978. AMAZING what God suddenly tells church leaders when there's a loss of money involved.

Unless your religion is into human sacrifice, I have trouble coming up with any "compelling government interest" that overrides the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion. Maybe that's just me.

Okay. The Mormons can't exclude black folks anymore and can't have plural marriage. These are things they changed in their policies because the government forced them to. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Why not allow a religious exemption for human sacrifice? If the victim signs a waiver and says, "I want to be killed to appease C'Thulhu", why not?

 

[martybegan]

If you run a store where you just sell point of sale items, and you let people on the premises, I can see they can tell you you have to serve or sell to people and can't refuse based on race, sex, orientation, etc. Selling a pack of gum or a pre-made cupcake does not imply endorsement as a custom made item does.

Same goes with hotels, if you offer rooms to people off the Street, you offer rooms to anyone off the street who has the $$.

I think you SHOULD do business with everyone on an equal basis in point-of-sale. I don't necessarily think that equates to "the government should force you to". I think people also have the right to be ignorant, short-sighted assholes if that's what they want to do (I'd be obliged if people would stop feeling the necessity of exercising this right quite so much). Personally, I don't want to give my money to someone who hates me, just because the government is forcing them to lie about it. I'd rather they be honest, I know who they are, and then I take my money to someone who's doing business with me because he WANTS to do so.

I also wouldn't deny service on the basis they want to. My concern is where to draw the line. I don't see contracted services that are non-timely, easily replaceable and non nessasary as Public Accommodations.

I can see the government's interest in compelling equal treatment at the countertop and the hotel room, but that's about it.

For some people, it's not about the transaction, it's about forcing acceptance, not tolerance.

I define public accommodation as "things that are funded by public money (taxes)". If the government is not actually funding it and running it, I have very hard limits to how much business I think the government has telling those who DO fund and run it how to do so.

I see no compelling government interest whatsoever at the countertop or in the hotel room, and I'd be curious to have you tell me what you think that is.

That is a public authority, commons, agency, or space. A public accomodation is a business that opens itself to the public for commerce.

For a hotel room, if a person is travelling, them being denied can be seen as a harm. it can be a time sensitive, not easily replaceable service (only hotel for 20 miles)

For a countertop transaction to me it's that the burden on the person selling the item's religious freedom isn't there compared to say a SSM wedding and having to make a custom cake. When you invite the public on your property to do commerce, the government can regulate that commerce, to a point.

I understand the government defines it that way. I disagree with them. And either way, I still disagree that the government has a compelling interest to force businesses to serve everyone.

I can marginally see an area of concern for the government in your scenario with the hotel, assuming that there is, in fact, a hotel situated like that which would refuse to serve certain segments of the population for whatever reason. I still don't necessarily agree that the solution is for the government, which hasn't contributed a damned thing to the whole "Hey, let's open a hotel out in the middle of nowhere" concept, to barge in and start issuing orders and directives.

The government can regulate commerce up to a point, but we disagree where that point is. I think, for example, that the local government has every right to inspect your business on a regular basis to make sure your restaurant isn't giving people food poisoning or your stock room doesn't have black mold growing in it, or the building isn't a fire hazard, for example. I simply don't extend it as far as "We're going to tell you who to do business with."

An actual public accomodation is just that, public. You are voluntarily opening up your property (or a space you rent) to the public for the purposes of commerce. In that situation the government has an interest in that commerce.

Again, this all came about due to LAWS that made businesses deny service or segregate service. Even when the laws were declared unconstitutional there was the issue of de facto collusion to create the same effect as the jim crow laws. PA laws were a counter to that.

 

[martybegan]

I can see the government's interest in compelling equal treatment at the countertop and the hotel room, but that's about it.

But these laws don't do that. They don't compel equal treatment. They simply ban certain biases. And even then, only if the biases are claimed as the reason for the discrimination. Only if they are expressed.

The point of these laws is not individual justice, nor equal treatment. The purpose is to suppress biases that the government has decided are bad for society (racism, sexism, etc...).

The original point of the laws was to stop de facto Jim crow from remaining in effect after the de jure laws were declared unconstitutional.

 

[martybegan]

No, you have the government to do it for you. How convenient.

Show me a bunch of Christians going out of their way to ruin people.

Well, there were the Christian Assholes I worked with who got the gay lady fired because she brought her partner to the holiday party.

if the laws impact free exercise, they shouldn't be applied unless there is a compelling government interest.

Okay. Stomping out homophobic hatred is a compelling interest. Done.

See how easy that was?

The law isn't absolute. private clubs can still discriminate, churches can still discriminate.

Well, we need to fix that, too. Again, I'm all for revoking the charters of clubs or churches that practice homophobia, like we've already revoked the ones that have practiced racism.

Done.

Amazing that "Americans" think like this.

As we see, totalitarians ALWAYS come out of the left.

Again, your party to force women to have their rapist's baby. That's some crazy shit right there.

I just don't think you should give a Church a tax exemption for preaching hate, and there's ALREADY a legal precedence for it, when Bob Jones University lost it's tax exemption for it's racist policies. This is why the Mormons suddenly discovered that Black Skin wasn't a curse from God in 1978. AMAZING what God suddenly tells church leaders when there's a loss of money involved.

Unless your religion is into human sacrifice, I have trouble coming up with any "compelling government interest" that overrides the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion. Maybe that's just me.

Okay. The Mormons can't exclude black folks anymore and can't have plural marriage. These are things they changed in their policies because the government forced them to. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Why not allow a religious exemption for human sacrifice? If the victim signs a waiver and says, "I want to be killed to appease C'Thulhu", why not?

Just more justification for punishing ThoughtCrime.

You just can't deal with people who believe differently than you. What a cocksucker you are.

 

[dblack]

I can see the government's interest in compelling equal treatment at the countertop and the hotel room, but that's about it.

But these laws don't do that. They don't compel equal treatment. They simply ban certain biases. And even then, only if the biases are claimed as the reason for the discrimination. Only if they are expressed.

The point of these laws is not individual justice, nor equal treatment. The purpose is to suppress biases that the government has decided are bad for society (racism, sexism, etc...).

The original point of the laws was to stop de facto Jim crow from remaining in effect after the de jure laws were declared unconstitutional.

Right. They weren't content with equal protection - the elimination of Jim Crow laws - and felt the need to go after the social bias that spawned them in the first place. That's what's going on here. Not content with finally recognizing the equal right of gays to marry, we're now trying to stop the 'de-facto' ban on gay marriages by forcing people to accommodate them.

 

[martybegan]

I can see the government's interest in compelling equal treatment at the countertop and the hotel room, but that's about it.

But these laws don't do that. They don't compel equal treatment. They simply ban certain biases. And even then, only if the biases are claimed as the reason for the discrimination. Only if they are expressed.

The point of these laws is not individual justice, nor equal treatment. The purpose is to suppress biases that the government has decided are bad for society (racism, sexism, etc...).

The original point of the laws was to stop de facto Jim crow from remaining in effect after the de jure laws were declared unconstitutional.

Right. They weren't content with equal protection - the actual elimination of Jim Crow laws - and felt the need to suppress the actual bias behind them.

If the idea behind the law was still in place due to collusion even when the laws were struck down, how is the government supposed to fix that?

 

[dblack]

If the idea behind the law was still in place due to collusion even when the laws were struck down, how is the government supposed to fix that?

They're not. Government isn't there to squelch ideas we don't like. It's a really bad precedent, and if we don't recognize that and reverse the trend, we're going to end up with insane policies like government forcing Facebook to publish Alex Jones' nonsense in the name of equal rights.

 

[martybegan]

I can see the government's interest in compelling equal treatment at the countertop and the hotel room, but that's about it.

But these laws don't do that. They don't compel equal treatment. They simply ban certain biases. And even then, only if the biases are claimed as the reason for the discrimination. Only if they are expressed.

The point of these laws is not individual justice, nor equal treatment. The purpose is to suppress biases that the government has decided are bad for society (racism, sexism, etc...).

The original point of the laws was to stop de facto Jim crow from remaining in effect after the de jure laws were declared unconstitutional.

Right. They weren't content with equal protection - the actual elimination of Jim Crow laws - and felt the need to suppress the actual bias behind them.

If the idea behind the law was still in place due to collusion even when the laws were struck down, how is the government supposed to fix that?

They're not. Government isn't there to squelch ideas we don't like. It's a really bad precedent, and if we don't recognize that and reverse the trend, that we're going to end up with insane policies like government forcing Facebook to publish Alex Jones' nonsense in the name of equal rights.

When you impose Jim crow laws de facto you have past ideas and into action.

Facebook claims they don't "publish" anything to avoid liability over what is posted on their sites.

 

[dblack]

When you impose Jim crow laws de facto you have past ideas and into action.

No, you really haven't. Jim Crow laws were backed by the force of law. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a "de facto" law, but the baker, for example, wasn't coercing others into joining him on his campaign against gay marriage. He was just refusing to accommodate one.

 

[martybegan]

When you impose Jim crow laws de facto you have past ideas and into action.

No, you really haven't. Jim Crow laws were backed by the force of law. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a "de facto" law, but the baker, for example, wasn't coercing others into joining him on his campaign against gay marriage. He was just refusing to accommodate one.

What i am saying is PA laws prevent a group of people from creating a situation where even without a law in place, the same actions occur as if there was a law.

Actions, not thoughts.

 

[dblack]

When you impose Jim crow laws de facto you have past ideas and into action.

No, you really haven't. Jim Crow laws were backed by the force of law. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a "de facto" law, but the baker, for example, wasn't coercing others into joining him on his campaign against gay marriage. He was just refusing to accommodate one.

What i am saying is PA laws prevent a group of people from creating a situation where even without a law in place, the same actions occur as if there was a law.

Actions, not thoughts.

Jim Crow laws were laws. People were punished for violating them. I don't see the baker, nor his friends, suggesting that other bakeries be punished for not joining their campaign. They're just promoting their bad ideas. People should be free to do that.

 

[martybegan]

When you impose Jim crow laws de facto you have past ideas and into action.

No, you really haven't. Jim Crow laws were backed by the force of law. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a "de facto" law, but the baker, for example, wasn't coercing others into joining him on his campaign against gay marriage. He was just refusing to accommodate one.

What i am saying is PA laws prevent a group of people from creating a situation where even without a law in place, the same actions occur as if there was a law.

Actions, not thoughts.

Jim Crow laws were laws. People were punished for violating them. I don't see the baker, nor his friends, suggesting that other bakeries be punished for not joining their campaign. They're just promoting their bad ideas. People should be free to do that.

Bad actions, not bad ideas. Again, I see PA laws as valid only when applied to actual PA's. When you allow the public on your property for commerce, you open yourself up to regulation.

 

[Cecilie1200]

When you impose Jim crow laws de facto you have past ideas and into action.

No, you really haven't. Jim Crow laws were backed by the force of law. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a "de facto" law, but the baker, for example, wasn't coercing others into joining him on his campaign against gay marriage. He was just refusing to accommodate one.

What i am saying is PA laws prevent a group of people from creating a situation where even without a law in place, the same actions occur as if there was a law.

Actions, not thoughts.

Jim Crow laws were laws. People were punished for violating them. I don't see the baker, nor his friends, suggesting that other bakeries be punished for not joining their campaign. They're just promoting their bad ideas. People should be free to do that.

Bad actions, not bad ideas. Again, I see PA laws as valid only when applied to actual PA's. When you allow the public on your property for commerce, you open yourself up to regulation.

First of all, just living in this country with it's nosy, over-controlling government opens you to regulation. Second, there still remains a difference between "open to regulation" and "therefore, the government can just make all the decisions". At some point, we have got to apply some common sense and actually ask ourselves, "SHOULD the government regulate this?" not just "Is it possible for the government to regulate this?"

 

[martybegan]

When you impose Jim crow laws de facto you have past ideas and into action.

No, you really haven't. Jim Crow laws were backed by the force of law. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a "de facto" law, but the baker, for example, wasn't coercing others into joining him on his campaign against gay marriage. He was just refusing to accommodate one.

What i am saying is PA laws prevent a group of people from creating a situation where even without a law in place, the same actions occur as if there was a law.

Actions, not thoughts.

Jim Crow laws were laws. People were punished for violating them. I don't see the baker, nor his friends, suggesting that other bakeries be punished for not joining their campaign. They're just promoting their bad ideas. People should be free to do that.

Bad actions, not bad ideas. Again, I see PA laws as valid only when applied to actual PA's. When you allow the public on your property for commerce, you open yourself up to regulation.

First of all, just living in this country with it's nosy, over-controlling government opens you to regulation. Second, there still remains a difference between "open to regulation" and "therefore, the government can just make all the decisions". At some point, we have got to apply some common sense and actually ask ourselves, "SHOULD the government regulate this?" not just "Is it possible for the government to regulate this?"

I agree with you 100%. to me the line is set when you invite the public onto your property to engage in commerce, ONLY when it comes to point of sale transactions of goods displayed or offered in the public space.

So you have to sell a cupcake to the gay man, but you don't have to cater his wedding.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, you really haven't. Jim Crow laws were backed by the force of law. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a "de facto" law, but the baker, for example, wasn't coercing others into joining him on his campaign against gay marriage. He was just refusing to accommodate one.

What i am saying is PA laws prevent a group of people from creating a situation where even without a law in place, the same actions occur as if there was a law.

Actions, not thoughts.

Jim Crow laws were laws. People were punished for violating them. I don't see the baker, nor his friends, suggesting that other bakeries be punished for not joining their campaign. They're just promoting their bad ideas. People should be free to do that.

Bad actions, not bad ideas. Again, I see PA laws as valid only when applied to actual PA's. When you allow the public on your property for commerce, you open yourself up to regulation.

First of all, just living in this country with it's nosy, over-controlling government opens you to regulation. Second, there still remains a difference between "open to regulation" and "therefore, the government can just make all the decisions". At some point, we have got to apply some common sense and actually ask ourselves, "SHOULD the government regulate this?" not just "Is it possible for the government to regulate this?"

I agree with you 100%. to me the line is set when you invite the public onto your property to engage in commerce, ONLY when it comes to point of sale transactions of goods displayed or offered in the public space.

So you have to sell a cupcake to the gay man, but you don't have to cater his wedding.

To me, the line is, "Does the government NEED to regulate this behavior?" I don't consider this to be something the government needs to involve itself in. It does not even come close to rising to the level of community need that, for example, public health regulations do.

 

[dblack]

When you impose Jim crow laws de facto you have past ideas and into action.

No, you really haven't. Jim Crow laws were backed by the force of law. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a "de facto" law, but the baker, for example, wasn't coercing others into joining him on his campaign against gay marriage. He was just refusing to accommodate one.

What i am saying is PA laws prevent a group of people from creating a situation where even without a law in place, the same actions occur as if there was a law.

Actions, not thoughts.

Jim Crow laws were laws. People were punished for violating them. I don't see the baker, nor his friends, suggesting that other bakeries be punished for not joining their campaign. They're just promoting their bad ideas. People should be free to do that.

Bad actions, not bad ideas.

Not true. Take away the bad ideas and the actions are perfectly legal.

 

[martybegan]

What i am saying is PA laws prevent a group of people from creating a situation where even without a law in place, the same actions occur as if there was a law.

Actions, not thoughts.

Jim Crow laws were laws. People were punished for violating them. I don't see the baker, nor his friends, suggesting that other bakeries be punished for not joining their campaign. They're just promoting their bad ideas. People should be free to do that.

Bad actions, not bad ideas. Again, I see PA laws as valid only when applied to actual PA's. When you allow the public on your property for commerce, you open yourself up to regulation.

First of all, just living in this country with it's nosy, over-controlling government opens you to regulation. Second, there still remains a difference between "open to regulation" and "therefore, the government can just make all the decisions". At some point, we have got to apply some common sense and actually ask ourselves, "SHOULD the government regulate this?" not just "Is it possible for the government to regulate this?"

I agree with you 100%. to me the line is set when you invite the public onto your property to engage in commerce, ONLY when it comes to point of sale transactions of goods displayed or offered in the public space.

So you have to sell a cupcake to the gay man, but you don't have to cater his wedding.

To me, the line is, "Does the government NEED to regulate this behavior?" I don't consider this to be something the government needs to involve itself in. It does not even come close to rising to the level of community need that, for example, public health regulations do.

It was needed back in the day, and to me it does prevent more issues than it creates. do you really want someone selling packaged cupcakes picking and choosing who they will sell to?

 

[martybegan]

When you impose Jim crow laws de facto you have past ideas and into action.

No, you really haven't. Jim Crow laws were backed by the force of law. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a "de facto" law, but the baker, for example, wasn't coercing others into joining him on his campaign against gay marriage. He was just refusing to accommodate one.

What i am saying is PA laws prevent a group of people from creating a situation where even without a law in place, the same actions occur as if there was a law.

Actions, not thoughts.

Jim Crow laws were laws. People were punished for violating them. I don't see the baker, nor his friends, suggesting that other bakeries be punished for not joining their campaign. They're just promoting their bad ideas. People should be free to do that.

Bad actions, not bad ideas.

Not true. Take away the bad ideas and the actions are perfectly legal.

Only for specific ideas, and yes i agree that is an issue.