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

Discussion in 'Politics' started by SassyIrishLass, Feb 23, 2015.

  1. Skylar
    Offline

    Skylar Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    27,763
    Thanks Received:
    3,959
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +10,455
    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.

    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.
     
  2. bodecea
    Online

    bodecea Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    104,731
    Thanks Received:
    12,272
    Trophy Points:
    2,180
    Location:
    #HasNoClothes
    Ratings:
    +32,381
    Thought I'd bump this question in case St Michael missed it.
     
  3. saintmichaeldefendthem
    Offline

    saintmichaeldefendthem Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2014
    Messages:
    16,594
    Thanks Received:
    2,301
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Idaho
    Ratings:
    +8,619
    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Skylar
    Offline

    Skylar Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    27,763
    Thanks Received:
    3,959
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +10,455
    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.
     
  5. saintmichaeldefendthem
    Offline

    saintmichaeldefendthem Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2014
    Messages:
    16,594
    Thanks Received:
    2,301
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Idaho
    Ratings:
    +8,619
    Now we're on the same page.
     
  6. Skylar
    Offline

    Skylar Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    27,763
    Thanks Received:
    3,959
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +10,455
    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.
     
  7. Syriusly
    Offline

    Syriusly Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    42,736
    Thanks Received:
    5,612
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Ratings:
    +16,213
    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.
     
  8. dblack
    Offline

    dblack Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    22,669
    Thanks Received:
    2,180
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +4,746
    No. They didn't. The First amendment doesn't prohibit people from discriminating based on religion..
     
  9. dblack
    Offline

    dblack Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    22,669
    Thanks Received:
    2,180
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +4,746
    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. dblack
    Offline

    dblack Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    22,669
    Thanks Received:
    2,180
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +4,746
    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.

    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.

    I listed some examples earlier:
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2015

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

christians sued for not supporting gay marriage

,

gay florists muslim pork

,

muslim pork gay florist

,

people who were sued for not servcing gay couples