Bull Ring OldLady: Can laws distinguish discrimination against PEOPLE unequally vs. Select SERVICES refused

Discussion in 'The Bull Ring' started by emilynghiem, Jun 6, 2019.

  1. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    21,859
    Thanks Received:
    3,031
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +8,440
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    21,859
    Thanks Received:
    3,031
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +8,440
    Here OldLady here's the case where the owner talked to both the mother and the daughter to have the "humiliating" effect of "discriminating" against them PERSONALLY:

    The "Sweetcakes By Melissa" Dispute | Kaempf Law Firm

    Given that the owners argued they had freedom of speech and religion rights to defend and express their beliefs, that same argument explains why protestors got them run out of business and shut down.

    That seems like justice based on those principles. Both sides got their free speech, and both suffered severely from disapproval by the other.

    When it comes to suing, I don't agree with the courts that only "church-related activities" have the right to choices and decisions based on their religious beliefs.

    This is like saying only ESTABLISHED GROUPS have religious rights, not individuals.

    How would LGBT advocates respond if individual community members didn't have rights to freedom of beliefs and expression UNLESS THEY WERE DECLARED A RELIGIOUS ENTITY?

    Makes no sense. Govt should not be regulating religious beliefs, and this shows why!

    U.S. Supreme Court tosses ruling against wedding cake bakers who rebuffed lesbians
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2019
  3. task0778
    Online

    task0778 Gold Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,692
    Thanks Received:
    1,160
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Texas hill country
    Ratings:
    +4,966
    About half of the 50 states have public accommodation (PA) laws regarding sexual orientation, all of the blue states plus a few red ones. These states have essentially subjugated an individual's freedom of religion and speech below that of LGBT anti-discrimination rights. I think it's a political attack against Christianity, anybody know if any of these lawsuits are against Muslims? Doubt it. The Left is in a full-blown war against Christianity, mostly because most Christians support the right. So, it may not be entirely a question of LGBT rights, but also another Left v Right battle.

    As I said in Post #10, I don't know how the SCOTUS can rule in favor of one right over another, maybe it should be a state by state issue. Maybe all the SCOTUS can do is require the states to treat both rights impartially, although I think that's probably not likely. If a state wanted to, they could probably offer some kind of compromise where a Christian business could get a waiver based on religious grounds, and post that waiver prominently so customers know the establishment isn't a full-service PA. But, I don't think that's what they really want.

    Sucks to be a Christian in those states. You create a business, build it up, and then some political hack forces you to make a decision: your business or your religious beliefs. It ain't like these liberal fuckwads can't get their cake or flowers or whatever from somebody else. These cases are deliberate confrontations, and they don't care who gets hurt. And if it's a Christian, then it's win-win.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2019
  4. Tijn Von Ingersleben
    Offline

    Tijn Von Ingersleben Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    5,669
    Thanks Received:
    678
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Ratings:
    +4,614
    The biggest problem with civil rights legislation is that it removes the freedom of association.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. task0778
    Online

    task0778 Gold Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,692
    Thanks Received:
    1,160
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Texas hill country
    Ratings:
    +4,966
    The biggest problem with civil rights legislation is that it removes the freedom of association.

    No, it doesn't. It does put restrictions on who you can decide not to associate with in your place of business, but you can still decide who you want to otherwise associate with. Every right we have in this country is subject to limitations. We do this for the common good, in other words in the best interests of our society. If we really want to work toward as much equality of opportunity then it makes no sense to deny someone the ability to buy and sell in the marketplace. On either end of the transaction, we should not deny anyone their choices based on the discriminators listed in the 1964 Civil Rights Law, and subsequent legislation. For by doing so, by expanding our own choices but we are limiting their choices and that is NOT equal opportunity.

    The freedom of association is no different from the other freedoms, they all have limitations. We still have the ability to deny association for any reason other than those listed under existing laws. If you would deny association to those of a different color, religion, ethnicity, etc., then you are really no better than a white supremacist, an anti-semitist, or anyone who hates white people, black people, Christians, and so on. Should we make that kind of discrimination legal again?

    Question: if you want the right to deny service to someone based on the existing list of discriminators, then you won't mind being the object of discrimination if the shoe is on the other foot, right? Suppose your suppliers tell you they won't do business with you any more do to your stance against one of the listed groups, or protesters parade back and forth in front of your business decrying your bigotry. That's what it is, right? Preferential treatment for some at the expense of others? Most of us would say no, we shouldn't go down that road. That's not the direction we want our society to evolve in.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    21,859
    Thanks Received:
    3,031
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +8,440
    Dear task0778

    Nothing wrong with business LOCATIONS that are open to the PUBLIC
    serving everyone without discrimination.

    The issue was with DICTATING THE SERVICES offered.

    Examples:
    1. Not allowing wedding videographers to CHOOSE which clients they want to go videotape.
    That's different from offering services to all who enter a place of business to receive services ON SITE.

    Such cases became freedom of speech/first amendment issues
    where govt is not supposed to be abused to FORCE someone to perform or record certain materials or activities against
    their consent or beliefs.

    2. Forcing wedding services providers to attend a ceremony or event OUTSIDE THEIR PUBLIC PLACE OF BUSINESS.

    Again, that's different from providing services ON SITE to customers who enter.

    Do you get the difference here?

    Between equal treatment and accommodation AT A PLACE OF BUSINESS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
    vs.
    Forcing service providers to videotape, photograph or otherwise record activities against their beliefs
    or forcing them to attend or participate in activities against their beliefs off site or at a private venue outside their
    normal business location.
     
  7. task0778
    Online

    task0778 Gold Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,692
    Thanks Received:
    1,160
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Texas hill country
    Ratings:
    +4,966
    You're basically saying the cake baker in Denver has to bake the cake for a Gay wedding but he doesn't have to deliver it to the event. I'm okay with that, but I don't know that others are. Interesting to see how the SCOTUS rules on this. A florist has to create the flower bouguet but not deliver it, right? A photographer should not be forced to attend a gay wedding, right? I wonder if they'll leave it up to the states to decide that.
     
  8. Damaged Eagle
    Offline

    Damaged Eagle Ring out Solstice Bells Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2015
    Messages:
    11,915
    Thanks Received:
    16,357
    Trophy Points:
    2,445
    Location:
    By the holy oak
    Ratings:
    +23,640
    [​IMG]

    ^^^Alright^^^

    Don't mind me I have to go order my Confederate flag cake from that black run bakery, also my Third Reich flag cake from a Jewish bakery, in addition to the swine shaped cake that says Pork Lovers from that Muslim bakery, and the Straight Pride cake from the gay bakery.

    I might to sue if any of them can't fill my order...

    *****CHUCKLE*****



    :)
     

Share This Page