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

[Skylar]

But government is authorized to regulate commerce, markets, and businesses, including requiring those who sell goods and services to the general public to accommodate all participants in the local market, where to seek to deny services to patrons based on race, religion, or sexual orientation is disruptive to the local market – and all other interrelated markets – and is prohibited accordingly and appropriately.

There is no POTENTIAL legitimate purpose of government, which forces an innocent person to promote perversion... .

Selling cake promotes nothing but cake. Selling flowers promotes nothing but flowers. If your religious beliefs prevent you from doing your job, find another job.

What's more, any government which does so, renders itself through that act: Illegitimate?

Is this where you start with your Civil War fantasy again? Or the one where you wage war against gays?

Or are they one in the same? Your fantasies have so little grounding in reality, they tend to run together.

 

[bodecea]

Totally irrelevant. Nobody said a business was a church.

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. .

Artists and business owners are first individuals, and as such have the right to their religious beliefs...and they have the right to endorse only those ceremonies they want to endorse.

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?

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

You can't refuse to hire blacks by claiming it would offend Jesus, you can't refuse to hire Jews by claiming that Jews killed Jesus....you can't refuse to sell pants to women because you believe the Bible says women can't wear pants.

And you can't refuse to sell a cake to a homosexual, that you would sell to anyone else.

Race religion and lifestyle choice neatly subsumed together. Two of them are in the US Constitution and federal law. Can you guess which one is not?

Race is in the Constitution in what way? In regard to what?

Thought I'd bump this question in case St Michael missed it.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“Race religion and lifestyle choice neatly subsumed together. Two of them are in the US Constitution and federal law. Can you guess which one is not?”

This doesn't make any sense.

This issue concerns regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause, where public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional.

Managed to slip that one in too, huh? The Commerce Clause has become very ubiquitous to you statists. There's simply nothing it can't justify.

The regulation of commerce is immediately relevant a code of conduct for those who engage in commerce. And a state requiring that those who engage in business with the public treat their customers fairly and equally is both reasonable and well within the power of the State.

Wrong. The Commerce Clause prevented states from negotiating private transactions with foreign companies and gave the federal government the power to set uniform standards of trade. It did NOT empower government to regulate every financial transaction between private individuals. That's ridiculous.

 

[Skylar]

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“Race religion and lifestyle choice neatly subsumed together. Two of them are in the US Constitution and federal law. Can you guess which one is not?”

This doesn't make any sense.

This issue concerns regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause, where public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional.

Managed to slip that one in too, huh? The Commerce Clause has become very ubiquitous to you statists. There's simply nothing it can't justify.

The regulation of commerce is immediately relevant a code of conduct for those who engage in commerce. And a state requiring that those who engage in business with the public treat their customers fairly and equally is both reasonable and well within the power of the State.

Wrong. The Commerce Clause prevented states from negotiating private transactions with foreign companies and gave the federal government the power to set uniform standards of trade. It did NOT empower government to regulate every financial transaction between private individuals. That's ridiculous.

Every PA law being applied to discrimination against gays is a State law. And the States have uncontested authority over intrastate commerce. Its completely reasonable for the States to require that those engaged in commerce in their state abide minimum standards of equality and fairness with their customers.

And completely within the regulatory authority of each State.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“Race religion and lifestyle choice neatly subsumed together. Two of them are in the US Constitution and federal law. Can you guess which one is not?”

This doesn't make any sense.

This issue concerns regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause, where public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional.

Managed to slip that one in too, huh? The Commerce Clause has become very ubiquitous to you statists. There's simply nothing it can't justify.

The regulation of commerce is immediately relevant a code of conduct for those who engage in commerce. And a state requiring that those who engage in business with the public treat their customers fairly and equally is both reasonable and well within the power of the State.

Wrong. The Commerce Clause prevented states from negotiating private transactions with foreign companies and gave the federal government the power to set uniform standards of trade. It did NOT empower government to regulate every financial transaction between private individuals. That's ridiculous.

Every PA law being applied to discrimination against gays is a State law. And the States have uncontested authority over intrastate commerce. Its completely reasonable for the States to require that those engaged in commerce in their state abide minimum standards of equality and fairness with their customers.

And completely within the regulatory authority of each State.

Now we're on the same page.

 

[Skylar]

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“Race religion and lifestyle choice neatly subsumed together. Two of them are in the US Constitution and federal law. Can you guess which one is not?”

This doesn't make any sense.

This issue concerns regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause, where public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional.

Managed to slip that one in too, huh? The Commerce Clause has become very ubiquitous to you statists. There's simply nothing it can't justify.

The regulation of commerce is immediately relevant a code of conduct for those who engage in commerce. And a state requiring that those who engage in business with the public treat their customers fairly and equally is both reasonable and well within the power of the State.

Wrong. The Commerce Clause prevented states from negotiating private transactions with foreign companies and gave the federal government the power to set uniform standards of trade. It did NOT empower government to regulate every financial transaction between private individuals. That's ridiculous.

Every PA law being applied to discrimination against gays is a State law. And the States have uncontested authority over intrastate commerce. Its completely reasonable for the States to require that those engaged in commerce in their state abide minimum standards of equality and fairness with their customers.

And completely within the regulatory authority of each State.

Now we're on the same page.

You're not going to see disagreement from me on the overreach of federal government using the Commerce Clause. Interstate commerce is not intrastate commerce.

However, the State's authority over intrastate commerce is uncontested. And every PA ruling in question is State law.

 

[Syriusly]

@koshergirl , would you agree that protected classes and PA laws should be repealed across the board? In other words, would you be OK with legalizing discrimination against Christians?

Lifestyles cannot be a protected class. Which lifestyles? Which not? If being repugnant to the majority is disqualified as a determinig factor, then surely you can see the problem of which lifestyles are protected and which aren't. It would all be arbitrary and whimsical.

Religion is a lifestyle and the Founders made it a protected class.

Actually the Constitution doesn't make anyone a protected class from actions of individuals or business's- only that the government cannot act against speech, religion, etc.

If a law that prohibits discrimination based upon religion, race, national origin and gender is constitutional- then a law that prohibits discrimination based upon sexual preference would be just as constitutional.

Either they all are- or they all aren't- constitutional.

 

[dblack]

@koshergirl , would you agree that protected classes and PA laws should be repealed across the board? In other words, would you be OK with legalizing discrimination against Christians?

Lifestyles cannot be a protected class. Which lifestyles? Which not? If being repugnant to the majority is disqualified as a determinig factor, then surely you can see the problem of which lifestyles are protected and which aren't. It would all be arbitrary and whimsical.

Religion is a lifestyle and the Founders made it a protected class.

No. They didn't. The First amendment doesn't prohibit people from discriminating based on religion..

 

[dblack]

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“Race religion and lifestyle choice neatly subsumed together. Two of them are in the US Constitution and federal law. Can you guess which one is not?”

This doesn't make any sense.

This issue concerns regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause, where public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional.

Managed to slip that one in too, huh? The Commerce Clause has become very ubiquitous to you statists. There's simply nothing it can't justify.

Indeed. And it's such a transparent loophole. These kinds of laws aren't concerned one iota with protecting free trade - they are simply social engineering projects to suppress unpopular biases.

 

[dblack]

The reality is that gays and lesbians have rights. They are subject to historic discrimination. And the court has and will protect those rights against such discrimination.

As they should. The concept of equal protection demands that the government refrain from discrimination. But it doesn't dictate the biases and actions of individuals (or businesses).

This is where a lack of understanding regarding rights leads us. No one has a right to be treated fairly by businesses. Granting such a "right" in the guise of protected classes amounts to a special privilege, not a universal right.

And remember, gay marriage is supported by the majority. So your 'repugnant to the majority' claims just don't hold water.

Good point. Which comes around to what I was referring to. Groups who truly are "repugnant to the majority" will never be covered by protected class law. The nature of democracy ensures that these laws will only be used to prosecute minority opinions that the majority has targeted for extinction (religious bigotry, homophobia, sexism, etc...). More popular biases will get a pass.

Such as? By all means, be specific of the minorities you're referring to.

I listed some examples earlier:

Most unpopular minorities are not protected protected from discrimination. Under current civil rights law people can legally be discriminated against because of their looks, their socio-economic status, their credit history, their health, their education, their intelligence, their social network, their political views, etc, etc, etc... Which only underlines my point. Protected classes are about targeting specific social biases for "modification", and not about equal rights.

 

[dblack]

I'm still interested in whether the folks here seeing this as a freedom of religion issue are willing to level the playing field. If businesses should be free to discriminate against gays, shouldn't they also be free to discriminate against Christians?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I'm still interested in whether the folks here seeing this as a freedom of religion issue are willing to level the playing field. If businesses should be free to discriminate against gays, should they also be free to discriminate against Christians?

It's unfortunate that the crafters of the "civil rights" act were too short sighted to see the torrent of unforeseen consequences. The only sure remedy is a repeal of the public accommodation portion of the law and a full return to the concept of freedom of association.

 

[PratchettFan]

I'm still interested in whether the folks here seeing this as a freedom of religion issue are willing to level the playing field. If businesses should be free to discriminate against gays, should they also be free to discriminate against Christians?

It's unfortunate that the crafters of the "civil rights" act were too short sighted to see the torrent of unforeseen consequences. The only sure remedy is a repeal of the public accommodation portion of the law and a full return to the concept of freedom of association.

Which worked so well before.

 

[Seawytch]

I'm still interested in whether the folks here seeing this as a freedom of religion issue are willing to level the playing field. If businesses should be free to discriminate against gays, should they also be free to discriminate against Christians?

It's unfortunate that the crafters of the "civil rights" act were too short sighted to see the torrent of unforeseen consequences. The only sure remedy is a repeal of the public accommodation portion of the law and a full return to the concept of freedom of association.

Call your Congresscritter. That takes care of Federal law. Good luck with the states.

 

[Seawytch]

I'm still interested in whether the folks here seeing this as a freedom of religion issue are willing to level the playing field. If businesses should be free to discriminate against gays, should they also be free to discriminate against Christians?

It's unfortunate that the crafters of the "civil rights" act were too short sighted to see the torrent of unforeseen consequences. The only sure remedy is a repeal of the public accommodation portion of the law and a full return to the concept of freedom of association.

Which worked so well before.

Yeah...but that was then...only Muslims (and those perceived to be Muslim) will really suffer today. (And probably gays in the South).

 

[dblack]

I'm still interested in whether the folks here seeing this as a freedom of religion issue are willing to level the playing field. If businesses should be free to discriminate against gays, should they also be free to discriminate against Christians?

It's unfortunate that the crafters of the "civil rights" act were too short sighted to see the torrent of unforeseen consequences. The only sure remedy is a repeal of the public accommodation portion of the law and a full return to the concept of freedom of association.

Call your Congresscritter. That takes care of Federal law. Good luck with the states.

Thanks! We're working on it. But I don't think we'll build enough consensus to change the law for many years, if ever. Corporatism is trending up right now and not even liberals are interested in protecting individual rights.

 

[Silhouette]

It's unfortunate that the crafters of the "civil rights" act were too short sighted to see the torrent of unforeseen consequences. The only sure remedy is a repeal of the public accommodation portion of the law and a full return to the concept of freedom of association.

Which worked so well before.

Laws are in place already protecting against racial discrimination. Since this isn't about race, but is instead about lifestlyes repugnant to the majority, we aren't even talking about the same considerations.

 

[dblack]

It's unfortunate that the crafters of the "civil rights" act were too short sighted to see the torrent of unforeseen consequences. The only sure remedy is a repeal of the public accommodation portion of the law and a full return to the concept of freedom of association.

Which worked so well before.

Laws are in place already protecting against racial discrimination. Since this isn't about race, but is instead about lifestlyes repugnant to the majority, we aren't even talking about the same considerations.

When you say "lifestyles repugnant to the majority", are you referring to homophobic bigots?

 

[Syriusly]

It's unfortunate that the crafters of the "civil rights" act were too short sighted to see the torrent of unforeseen consequences. The only sure remedy is a repeal of the public accommodation portion of the law and a full return to the concept of freedom of association.

Which worked so well before.

Laws are in place already protecting against racial discrimination. Since this isn't about race, but is instead about lifestlyes repugnant to the majority, we aren't even talking about the same considerations.

When you say "lifestyles repugnant to the majority", are you referring to homophobic bigots?

Maybe she is referring to Judaism? Or the Church of Latter Day Saints? Or Catholicism.

Each was at one time a 'lifestyle repugnant to the majority'.......

 

[PratchettFan]

It's unfortunate that the crafters of the "civil rights" act were too short sighted to see the torrent of unforeseen consequences. The only sure remedy is a repeal of the public accommodation portion of the law and a full return to the concept of freedom of association.

Which worked so well before.

Laws are in place already protecting against racial discrimination. Since this isn't about race, but is instead about lifestlyes repugnant to the majority, we aren't even talking about the same considerations.

First, what is being suggested is all protections removed. Second, it is not repugnant to the majority. Just to a shrinking minority.