Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Public accommodations laws are not motivated by governments desire to protect citizens from discrimination, this is Commerce Clause jurisprudence, concerning Congress regulatory authority only, having nothing to do with discrimination.
Businesses refusing to accommodate patrons based solely on their race or religion would clearly be disruptive to their respective markets, where Congress has both the authority and responsibility to ensure the efficient operation of commerce, as all markets, regardless of size, are interrelated, and ultimately effect interstate commerce.
Hey, asswipe, aka [MENTION=29614]C_Clayton_Jones[/MENTION], you can only use the commerce clause to justify federal laws, not state laws. Until you understand that fundamental aspect of the discussion I suggest you shut the fuck up.
What ever happened to the old - "I have to wash my hair that day". I guess people are tired of having to lie which is also against their religion.
But which is the greater sin?
Don't you think GOD would understand?
There is nothing subjective about a law that requires anyone to attend a wedding they object to.
There is no law that requires anyone to attend a wedding he objects to.
This entire thread is about a law that requires people to attend weddings they object to, get a clue.
Where were you when non-religious people were allowed to marry?Maybe it's time to test Mark Levin's point on the Amendment process to the Constitution.
Amendment................
We the People of the United States do hereby define Marriage as a Union between a Man and a Women. No other forms of Marriage are recognized by Federal Law from the day of passage of this Amendment.
If Prop 8 could be passed in California, a Very Liberal Minded State, then such an Amendment could be passed by 38 States.
Want to here the Libs Squeal? That would do it.
It would be poetic Justice.
LOL
What is it about you and other conservatives that manifest such contempt and disregard for the civil liberties of other Americans?
The Defense of Marriage and stopping the Moral Degrading of our society as a whole. You would of course probably applaud when these same fruit cakes attack the church.
I've got news for you. It wasn't just conservatives in California that passed prop 8.
I personall feel a businessperson should be allowed to pick n choose their clients.For every one that refuses a client, someone else will accept them. And the market will decide who flourishes and who is killed off. And people turning business away for principles not found in business will die as they should.
I personall feel a businessperson should be allowed to pick n choose their clients.For every one that refuses a client, someone else will accept them. And the market will decide who flourishes and who is killed off. And people turning business away for principles not found in business will die as they should.
And youre entitled to your personal opinion, provided you understand its factually wrong.
Public accommodations laws not only address the issue of discrimination, they also maintain the integrity of the markets and safeguard them from disruption, as authorized by the Commerce Clause (Wickard v. Filburn (1942), Gonzales v. Raich (2005)).
Its both naïve and foolish to assume that the markets would somehow end discriminatory practices by business owners.
You're one of a few users here I feel can discuss things dispassionately and reasonably. I'm open to such convincing.
We are losing our rights, liberties, and freedoms at an alarming pace. I pity the young.
I personall feel a businessperson should be allowed to pick n choose their clients.For every one that refuses a client, someone else will accept them. And the market will decide who flourishes and who is killed off. And people turning business away for principles not found in business will die as they should.
And youre entitled to your personal opinion, provided you understand its factually wrong.
Public accommodations laws not only address the issue of discrimination, they also maintain the integrity of the markets and safeguard them from disruption, as authorized by the Commerce Clause (Wickard v. Filburn (1942), Gonzales v. Raich (2005)).
Its both naïve and foolish to assume that the markets would somehow end discriminatory practices by business owners.
I personall feel a businessperson should be allowed to pick n choose their clients.For every one that refuses a client, someone else will accept them. And the market will decide who flourishes and who is killed off. And people turning business away for principles not found in business will die as they should.
And youre entitled to your personal opinion, provided you understand its factually wrong.
Public accommodations laws not only address the issue of discrimination, they also maintain the integrity of the markets and safeguard them from disruption, as authorized by the Commerce Clause (Wickard v. Filburn (1942), Gonzales v. Raich (2005)).
Its both naïve and foolish to assume that the markets would somehow end discriminatory practices by business owners.
So convince me. I'm diplomatic.
If good businesses thrive and bad ones go out of business, why not trust a free market to handle itself? Is there statistical support suggesting or proving that when markets could discriminate such businesses did as well, or even better than those that didn't?
The answer is to remove your services from public accommodation and conduct it by private arrangement.
-Geaux
New Mexico Court: Christian Photographer Cannot Refuse Gay-Marriage Ceremony
Today the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that Christian photographers cannot decline to participate in gay-marriage commitment ceremonies, even though that state does not have gay marriage and the court acknowledged that providing services for the ceremony violated the Christian’s sincerely-held, traditional religious beliefs. This becomes one of the first major cases where religious liberty collides with gay rights, and could now go to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Welp. SCOTUS has spoken on this.
The NM Ruling stands.
Welp. SCOTUS has spoken on this.
The NM Ruling stands.
Denying certiorari is not speaking.
