Florist Sued for Refusing Service to Gay Couple Pens Defiant Letter Rejecting Gov’t Settlement Offer

[Skylar]

Then you acknowledge that a business isn't a church. Killing your 'foot in the door of churches' bullshit when businesses are held to public accommodation laws. .

Not when engaged in commerce they don't. A business is a business first. And the fines for violating PA laws are levied against the business. If your religious beliefs are incompatible with your job, find a different job.

Your religious beliefs don't make you immune to any law you don't like.

Where is the law that says that only churches are allowed to abstain from participating in what they consider sacrilege?

When they declared businesses to be public property. Which is what this shit is really all about.

Yeah, well, businesses aren't public property..and neither are business owners.

But they are subject to public laws. The idea that there can be no regulation without ownership is Sovereign Citizen bullshit. The States have uncontested authority to regulate interstate commerce. And have since the constitution was written.

All without the imaginary 'you gotta own it to regulate it' nonsense.

That's a mistake.

I disagree. I think its completely reasonable for a State to require a minimum standard of conduct for those who are engaging in commerce in their State. And such a code of conduct mandating that customers be treated fairly and equally is also reasonable.

Its also fully within the State's authority. And without the 'collective ownership' nonsense that Sovereign Citizen movements push as the only justification for regulation.

 

[koshergrl]

They are treated fairly. The only person not being treated fairly are the Christians who are being told they must renounce the tenets of their faith, or be fined and possibly imprisoned.

 

[dblack]

Where is the law that says that only churches are allowed to abstain from participating in what they consider sacrilege?

When they declared businesses to be public property. Which is what this shit is really all about.

Yeah, well, businesses aren't public property..and neither are business owners.

But they are subject to public laws. The idea that there can be no regulation without ownership is Sovereign Citizen bullshit. The States have uncontested authority to regulate interstate commerce. And have since the constitution was written.

All without the imaginary 'you gotta own it to regulate it' nonsense.

That's a mistake.

I disagree. I think its completely reasonable for a State to require a minimum standard of conduct for those who are engaging in commerce in their State. And such a code of conduct mandating that customers be treated fairly and equally is also reasonable.

Its also fully within the State's authority. And without the 'collective ownership' nonsense that Sovereign Citizen movements push as the only justification for regulation.

No. People aren't the property of the state. Even if they have the gall to engage in commerce. Sorry.

 

[Skylar]

They are treated fairly. The only person not being treated fairly are the Christians who are being told they must renounce the tenets of their faith, or be fined and possibly imprisoned.

Being denied the same services offered to straight couples because they're gay isn't being 'treated fairly'.

Its flagrantly discriminatory. And quite illegal.

 

[Skylar]

When they declared businesses to be public property. Which is what this shit is really all about.

Yeah, well, businesses aren't public property..and neither are business owners.

But they are subject to public laws. The idea that there can be no regulation without ownership is Sovereign Citizen bullshit. The States have uncontested authority to regulate interstate commerce. And have since the constitution was written.

All without the imaginary 'you gotta own it to regulate it' nonsense.

That's a mistake.

I disagree. I think its completely reasonable for a State to require a minimum standard of conduct for those who are engaging in commerce in their State. And such a code of conduct mandating that customers be treated fairly and equally is also reasonable.

Its also fully within the State's authority. And without the 'collective ownership' nonsense that Sovereign Citizen movements push as the only justification for regulation.

No. People aren't the property of the state. Even if they have the gall to engage in commerce. Sorry.

Who said you have to be property of the state to be regulated? Your entire premise is a strawman.

 

[dblack]

They are treated fairly. The only person not being treated fairly are the Christians who are being told they must renounce the tenets of their faith, or be fined and possibly imprisoned.

Yeah, well, businesses aren't public property..and neither are business owners.

But they are subject to public laws. The idea that there can be no regulation without ownership is Sovereign Citizen bullshit. The States have uncontested authority to regulate interstate commerce. And have since the constitution was written.

All without the imaginary 'you gotta own it to regulate it' nonsense.

That's a mistake.

I disagree. I think its completely reasonable for a State to require a minimum standard of conduct for those who are engaging in commerce in their State. And such a code of conduct mandating that customers be treated fairly and equally is also reasonable.

Its also fully within the State's authority. And without the 'collective ownership' nonsense that Sovereign Citizen movements push as the only justification for regulation.

No. People aren't the property of the state. Even if they have the gall to engage in commerce. Sorry.

Who said you have to be property of the state to be regulated? Your entire premise is a strawman.

No it's not. It's the premise of those who want to grant government control of economic power. Power over people.

 

[Skylar]

They are treated fairly. The only person not being treated fairly are the Christians who are being told they must renounce the tenets of their faith, or be fined and possibly imprisoned.

But they are subject to public laws. The idea that there can be no regulation without ownership is Sovereign Citizen bullshit. The States have uncontested authority to regulate interstate commerce. And have since the constitution was written.

All without the imaginary 'you gotta own it to regulate it' nonsense.

That's a mistake.

I disagree. I think its completely reasonable for a State to require a minimum standard of conduct for those who are engaging in commerce in their State. And such a code of conduct mandating that customers be treated fairly and equally is also reasonable.

Its also fully within the State's authority. And without the 'collective ownership' nonsense that Sovereign Citizen movements push as the only justification for regulation.

No. People aren't the property of the state. Even if they have the gall to engage in commerce. Sorry.

Who said you have to be property of the state to be regulated? Your entire premise is a strawman.

No it's not. It's the premise of those who want to grant government control of economic power. Power over people.

Save that the authority to regulate exists when the people aren't the property of the state. Eliminating your premise as both a prerequisite for regulation or a source of causation.

Ownership is not necessary for regulation. Nor ever has been in our country.

 

[dblack]

They are treated fairly. The only person not being treated fairly are the Christians who are being told they must renounce the tenets of their faith, or be fined and possibly imprisoned.

Being denied the same services offered to straight couples because they're gay isn't being 'treated fairly'.

Its flagrantly discriminatory. And quite illegal.

It's also flagrantly selective and hypocritical. These laws don't ensure people are "treated fairly". They ensure certain types of unpopular biases are suppressed. That's all.

 

[PratchettFan]

They are treated fairly. The only person not being treated fairly are the Christians who are being told they must renounce the tenets of their faith, or be fined and possibly imprisoned.

But they are subject to public laws. The idea that there can be no regulation without ownership is Sovereign Citizen bullshit. The States have uncontested authority to regulate interstate commerce. And have since the constitution was written.

All without the imaginary 'you gotta own it to regulate it' nonsense.

That's a mistake.

I disagree. I think its completely reasonable for a State to require a minimum standard of conduct for those who are engaging in commerce in their State. And such a code of conduct mandating that customers be treated fairly and equally is also reasonable.

Its also fully within the State's authority. And without the 'collective ownership' nonsense that Sovereign Citizen movements push as the only justification for regulation.

No. People aren't the property of the state. Even if they have the gall to engage in commerce. Sorry.

Who said you have to be property of the state to be regulated? Your entire premise is a strawman.

No it's not. It's the premise of those who want to grant government control of economic power. Power over people.

To what extent do you think the government should have power over people?

 

[Skylar]

They are treated fairly. The only person not being treated fairly are the Christians who are being told they must renounce the tenets of their faith, or be fined and possibly imprisoned.

Being denied the same services offered to straight couples because they're gay isn't being 'treated fairly'.

Its flagrantly discriminatory. And quite illegal.

It's also flagrantly selective and hypocritical. These laws don't ensure people are "treated fairly". They ensure certain types of unpopular biases are suppressed. That's all.

That assumes that the term 'fair' has nothing to do with public perception, common consent, culture, or society. And that's obviously nonsense. Fairness is defined through these filters.

In our society, denying service because 'we don't serve n1ggers' isn't the same as denying service because you don't have money. We recognize a distinct difference between the two. You don't.

So what? We're not bound to your personal conception of 'fair'. You're bound to ours, at least under the law.

 

[dblack]

They are treated fairly. The only person not being treated fairly are the Christians who are being told they must renounce the tenets of their faith, or be fined and possibly imprisoned.

That's a mistake.

I disagree. I think its completely reasonable for a State to require a minimum standard of conduct for those who are engaging in commerce in their State. And such a code of conduct mandating that customers be treated fairly and equally is also reasonable.

Its also fully within the State's authority. And without the 'collective ownership' nonsense that Sovereign Citizen movements push as the only justification for regulation.

No. People aren't the property of the state. Even if they have the gall to engage in commerce. Sorry.

Who said you have to be property of the state to be regulated? Your entire premise is a strawman.

No it's not. It's the premise of those who want to grant government control of economic power. Power over people.

Save that the authority to regulate exists when the people aren't the property of the state. Eliminating your premise as both a prerequisite for regulation or a source of causation.

Ownership is not necessary for regulation. Nor ever has been in our country.

Ownership is the power to control. They are synonymous.

They are treated fairly. The only person not being treated fairly are the Christians who are being told they must renounce the tenets of their faith, or be fined and possibly imprisoned.

That's a mistake.

I disagree. I think its completely reasonable for a State to require a minimum standard of conduct for those who are engaging in commerce in their State. And such a code of conduct mandating that customers be treated fairly and equally is also reasonable.

Its also fully within the State's authority. And without the 'collective ownership' nonsense that Sovereign Citizen movements push as the only justification for regulation.

No. People aren't the property of the state. Even if they have the gall to engage in commerce. Sorry.

Who said you have to be property of the state to be regulated? Your entire premise is a strawman.

No it's not. It's the premise of those who want to grant government control of economic power. Power over people.

To what extent do you think the government should have power over people?

It should have the power to respond to those who would coerce others. It should have no power to initiate such coercion.

 

[PratchettFan]

They are treated fairly. The only person not being treated fairly are the Christians who are being told they must renounce the tenets of their faith, or be fined and possibly imprisoned.

I disagree. I think its completely reasonable for a State to require a minimum standard of conduct for those who are engaging in commerce in their State. And such a code of conduct mandating that customers be treated fairly and equally is also reasonable.

Its also fully within the State's authority. And without the 'collective ownership' nonsense that Sovereign Citizen movements push as the only justification for regulation.

No. People aren't the property of the state. Even if they have the gall to engage in commerce. Sorry.

Who said you have to be property of the state to be regulated? Your entire premise is a strawman.

No it's not. It's the premise of those who want to grant government control of economic power. Power over people.

Save that the authority to regulate exists when the people aren't the property of the state. Eliminating your premise as both a prerequisite for regulation or a source of causation.

Ownership is not necessary for regulation. Nor ever has been in our country.

Ownership is the power to control. They are synonymous.

They are treated fairly. The only person not being treated fairly are the Christians who are being told they must renounce the tenets of their faith, or be fined and possibly imprisoned.

I disagree. I think its completely reasonable for a State to require a minimum standard of conduct for those who are engaging in commerce in their State. And such a code of conduct mandating that customers be treated fairly and equally is also reasonable.

Its also fully within the State's authority. And without the 'collective ownership' nonsense that Sovereign Citizen movements push as the only justification for regulation.

No. People aren't the property of the state. Even if they have the gall to engage in commerce. Sorry.

Who said you have to be property of the state to be regulated? Your entire premise is a strawman.

No it's not. It's the premise of those who want to grant government control of economic power. Power over people.

To what extent do you think the government should have power over people?

It should have the power to respond to those who would coerce others. It should have no power to initiate such coercion.

I'm not sure what that means. If a business is dumping poisonous chemicals into the local water supply, is that coercion?

 

[dblack]

They are treated fairly. The only person not being treated fairly are the Christians who are being told they must renounce the tenets of their faith, or be fined and possibly imprisoned.

No. People aren't the property of the state. Even if they have the gall to engage in commerce. Sorry.

Who said you have to be property of the state to be regulated? Your entire premise is a strawman.

No it's not. It's the premise of those who want to grant government control of economic power. Power over people.

Save that the authority to regulate exists when the people aren't the property of the state. Eliminating your premise as both a prerequisite for regulation or a source of causation.

Ownership is not necessary for regulation. Nor ever has been in our country.

Ownership is the power to control. They are synonymous.

They are treated fairly. The only person not being treated fairly are the Christians who are being told they must renounce the tenets of their faith, or be fined and possibly imprisoned.

No. People aren't the property of the state. Even if they have the gall to engage in commerce. Sorry.

Who said you have to be property of the state to be regulated? Your entire premise is a strawman.

No it's not. It's the premise of those who want to grant government control of economic power. Power over people.

To what extent do you think the government should have power over people?

It should have the power to respond to those who would coerce others. It should have no power to initiate such coercion.

I'm not sure what that means. If a business is dumping poisonous chemicals into the local water supply, is that coercion?

Yes.

 

[PratchettFan]

They are treated fairly. The only person not being treated fairly are the Christians who are being told they must renounce the tenets of their faith, or be fined and possibly imprisoned.

Who said you have to be property of the state to be regulated? Your entire premise is a strawman.

No it's not. It's the premise of those who want to grant government control of economic power. Power over people.

Save that the authority to regulate exists when the people aren't the property of the state. Eliminating your premise as both a prerequisite for regulation or a source of causation.

Ownership is not necessary for regulation. Nor ever has been in our country.

Ownership is the power to control. They are synonymous.

They are treated fairly. The only person not being treated fairly are the Christians who are being told they must renounce the tenets of their faith, or be fined and possibly imprisoned.

Who said you have to be property of the state to be regulated? Your entire premise is a strawman.

No it's not. It's the premise of those who want to grant government control of economic power. Power over people.

To what extent do you think the government should have power over people?

It should have the power to respond to those who would coerce others. It should have no power to initiate such coercion.

I'm not sure what that means. If a business is dumping poisonous chemicals into the local water supply, is that coercion?

Yes.

How is that coercion?

 

[dblack]

forcibly polluting the commons? How's it not coercive?

 

[PratchettFan]

forcibly polluting the commons? How's it not coercive?

What is it forcing you to do?

 

[Skylar]

Ownership is the power to control. They are synonymous.

Your logic is flawed. You're arguing that because you can regulate something if you own it, any regulation must mean ownership.

Like saying that because you can order chinese on your cell phone, any order of chinese food MUST be on your cell phone. Its an assumption of exclusivity that just doesn't make sense. Nor is logically supportable

It should have the power to respond to those who would coerce others. It should have no power to initiate such coercion.

Ah fuck. Am I wasting my time with another closet anarchist? You guys need to start your own threads

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Why do you people always bring up this false argument? Walk into a hardware store and ask for a bushel of apples. It's not discrimination because a hardware store doesn't sell fucking apples.

And that Baker doesn't bake cakes for deviants

The baker bakes cakes. The laws in these states mean that you can't sell a cake to a straight couple and refuse to sell the same cake to a gay couple. No one has asked for a product or service not provided by the business.

So the law in those states literally promote sexual deviancy?

You're saying that THE LAW... promotes deceit, as truth; that sexual deviancy is NORMAL?

Then the law is illegitimate.

 

[jon_berzerk]

that is progressives for ya

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

They are treated fairly. The only person not being treated fairly are the Christians who are being told they must renounce the tenets of their faith, or be fined and possibly imprisoned.

Being denied the same services offered to straight couples because they're gay isn't being 'treated fairly'.

Its flagrantly discriminatory. And quite illegal.

It actually is the definition of fairness.

What you're trying to say is that "It's not just or appropriate in the circumstances when you treat one viable human being differently from deviants."

In truth, it literally is fair to discourage deviancy by openly discriminating against those who openly promote such.