Should a Jewish Bakery Have the Right to Deny...

[bendog]

So, we're back to majority rules on matters of personal conscience. Did you intend to make a circular argument?

The majority and the minority always have rights in conflict. Did they not teach you that? And just because I feel that speed limits are unfair doesn't mean I can ignore them and get away with it. Your morality is yours, our morality is ours. When you are in the marketplace, ours, society's, wins. In church yours will likely, but not always, prevail. Got it?

I guess really the conceit of the position, the idea we forfeit individual rights when in 'the marketplace'.

Well, it does illustrate the tension in rights. Another's decision to speed in their car, or pollute into a stream that abuts my land, or even to not purchase healthcare insurance and potentially enter an emergency room to suck off other's health insurance .... all have safety of economic detriments to others.

While I don't like fundy christolamists, I don't see how their intolerance has any safety or economic dangers to those whom they act uncivilly.

It does become a bit different if the NFL chooses to pull a superbowl or Apple decides to expand in another state, though

 

[whitehall]

The hypocrisy on the left is stunning. A single agnostic became offended by a forty year old Korean War monument that had a 40 ft. Cross and he sued the city of San Diego to have it removed. A federal judge ordered the city to be fined several thousand dollars per day unless the monument was bulldozed to the ground. Saner heads prevailed and it seems the case is still under litigation. Kids can't wear T shirts to school with the NRA logo even though several presidents including JFK were life members of the NRA because some sissy might be offended. Meanwhile deeply religious persons stand to lose their livelyhood unless they cater to sodomites.

 

[dblack]

The Constitution protects minorities, in various ways, against various majorities.

Right, and one way it does that is by protecting freedom of association - which this whole body of legal reasoning violates.

You are arguing that virtually all prohibitions of segregation, race discrimination, sex discrimination, and the like have been wrongly upheld by the Supreme Court.

Not all of them. Equal protection in government is crucial. But most of the rest, yeah. They were wrong.

I don't think there's much agreement with that position.

Not in the recent past. But as this principle is expanded, and encroaches even further of our basic freedoms, I suspect people will come around. Maybe not. Maybe they'll get line.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, they haven't, but their Reps have. And it wouldn't matter anyway if the courts found issues with Equal Protection. Just because Mississippi wants its slaves back doesn't mean it's gonna happen, even if the majority vote for it.

Oh OK. So it's "Us" meaning people who agree with your views. Got it.

It is in this case. The law is on my side because we decide decades ago that this nonsense was just that. I don't agree with lots of laws. It's still the law, and I follow it. They should do the same and bake the damn cake.

So we must follow orders? Segregation was the law in AL. I guess Rosa Parks should just have followed the law.
Yeah, the fascist is strong in this one.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So, we're back to majority rules on matters of personal conscience. Did you intend to make a circular argument?

The majority and the minority always have rights in conflict. Did they not teach you that? And just because I feel that speed limits are unfair doesn't mean I can ignore them and get away with it. Your morality is yours, our morality is ours. When you are in the marketplace, ours, society's, wins. In church yours will likely, but not always, prevail. Got it?

I guess really the conceit of the position, the idea we forfeit individual rights when in 'the marketplace'.

Should a public school district be able to restrict attendance in its schools to whites only, on the grounds that a majority of the people in that distict who would use the schools decided that they didn't want their children 'associating' with non-whites?

 

[bendog]

The majority and the minority always have rights in conflict. Did they not teach you that? And just because I feel that speed limits are unfair doesn't mean I can ignore them and get away with it. Your morality is yours, our morality is ours. When you are in the marketplace, ours, society's, wins. In church yours will likely, but not always, prevail. Got it?

I guess really the conceit of the position, the idea we forfeit individual rights when in 'the marketplace'.

Should a public school district be able to restrict attendance in its schools to whites only, on the grounds that a majority of the people in that distict who would use the schools decided that they didn't want their children 'associating' with non-whites?

Ah, but a school dist decision is a state action, while a private bakers decision does not involve any state action beyond the state treating all bakers equally.

 

[The Rabbi]

The majority and the minority always have rights in conflict. Did they not teach you that? And just because I feel that speed limits are unfair doesn't mean I can ignore them and get away with it. Your morality is yours, our morality is ours. When you are in the marketplace, ours, society's, wins. In church yours will likely, but not always, prevail. Got it?

I guess really the conceit of the position, the idea we forfeit individual rights when in 'the marketplace'.

Should a public school district be able to restrict attendance in its schools to whites only, on the grounds that a majority of the people in that distict who would use the schools decided that they didn't want their children 'associating' with non-whites?

A school isn't private property.
/Fail.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Right, and one way it does that is by protecting freedom of association - which this whole body of legal reasoning violates.

You are arguing that virtually all prohibitions of segregation, race discrimination, sex discrimination, and the like have been wrongly upheld by the Supreme Court.

Not all of them. Equal protection in government is crucial. But most of the rest, yeah. They were wrong.

I don't think there's much agreement with that position.

Not in the recent past. But as this principle is expanded, and encroaches even further of our basic freedoms, I suspect people will come around. Maybe not. Maybe they'll get line.

You would put the South back to pre-1964, or even pre- Brown vs. the Board of Education?

lol, that's not happening.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So, we're back to majority rules on matters of personal conscience. Did you intend to make a circular argument?

The majority and the minority always have rights in conflict. Did they not teach you that? And just because I feel that speed limits are unfair doesn't mean I can ignore them and get away with it. Your morality is yours, our morality is ours. When you are in the marketplace, ours, society's, wins. In church yours will likely, but not always, prevail. Got it?

I guess really the conceit of the position, the idea we forfeit individual rights when in 'the marketplace'.

You "compromise" them all over the place. It's the only way we can all get a along. Your faith may have you handling snakes, but don't bring them shopping or to work. There the rules of others are in force, not yours.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I guess really the conceit of the position, the idea we forfeit individual rights when in 'the marketplace'.

Should a public school district be able to restrict attendance in its schools to whites only, on the grounds that a majority of the people in that distict who would use the schools decided that they didn't want their children 'associating' with non-whites?

A school isn't private property.
/Fail.

A school district is run by private citizens forming a local government. The principles don't change.

How can the act be both just and unjust? How can refusing blacks admission to a school be unjust,

but refusing them admission to a restaurant be just?

 

[The Rabbi]

Should a public school district be able to restrict attendance in its schools to whites only, on the grounds that a majority of the people in that distict who would use the schools decided that they didn't want their children 'associating' with non-whites?

A school isn't private property.
/Fail.

A school district is run by private citizens forming a local government. The principles don't change.

How can the act be both just and unjust? How can refusing blacks admission to a school be unjust,

but refusing them admission to a restaurant be just?

A school is not private property. A restaurant is.
See the difference?

 

[bendog]

The majority and the minority always have rights in conflict. Did they not teach you that? And just because I feel that speed limits are unfair doesn't mean I can ignore them and get away with it. Your morality is yours, our morality is ours. When you are in the marketplace, ours, society's, wins. In church yours will likely, but not always, prevail. Got it?

I guess really the conceit of the position, the idea we forfeit individual rights when in 'the marketplace'.

You "compromise" them all over the place. It's the only way we can all get a along. Your faith may have you handling snakes, but don't bring them shopping or to work. There the rules of others are in force, not yours.

Exactly. A person DOES forfeit rights in a marketplace .. or in commerce. A person may not exercise his rights in a way that makes my property less valuable or increases my costs without my consent.

The question is how does a homophobic, fundy xtian not baking a cake take money or property from a gay couple who don't get a cake?

 

[dblack]

The majority and the minority always have rights in conflict. Did they not teach you that? And just because I feel that speed limits are unfair doesn't mean I can ignore them and get away with it. Your morality is yours, our morality is ours. When you are in the marketplace, ours, society's, wins. In church yours will likely, but not always, prevail. Got it?

I guess really the conceit of the position, the idea we forfeit individual rights when in 'the marketplace'.

You "compromise" them all over the place. It's the only way we can all get a along. Your faith may have you handling snakes, but don't bring them shopping or to work. There the rules of others are in force, not yours.

I guess you just don't understand the idea of protected rights. The whole idea of this concept is that we, Constitutionally, prevent the 'rules of others' from infringing on them. Obviously, there will be conflicts, where one person's right conflicts with another's. That's why we have a laws and legal system. But we don't allow the convenience or general desires of the government, whether it represents the will of the people or not, to supersede these rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So, we're back to majority rules on matters of personal conscience. Did you intend to make a circular argument?

The majority and the minority always have rights in conflict. Did they not teach you that? And just because I feel that speed limits are unfair doesn't mean I can ignore them and get away with it. Your morality is yours, our morality is ours. When you are in the marketplace, ours, society's, wins. In church yours will likely, but not always, prevail. Got it?

I guess really the conceit of the position, the idea we forfeit individual rights when in 'the marketplace'.

The idea that all businesses open to the public should be effectively converted into private clubs is an absurdity. Do you realize the amount of constitutional case law, not to mention original provisions in the Constitution that would have to overturned/repealed in order to accomplish that?

You are living in a fantasy world.

 

[dblack]

I guess really the conceit of the position, the idea we forfeit individual rights when in 'the marketplace'.

You "compromise" them all over the place. It's the only way we can all get a along. Your faith may have you handling snakes, but don't bring them shopping or to work. There the rules of others are in force, not yours.

Exactly. A person DOES forfeit rights in a marketplace .. or in commerce. A person may not exercise his rights in a way that makes my property less valuable or increases my costs without my consent.

That's utter nonsense. You have no right to dictate to others like that, majority vote or not.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I guess really the conceit of the position, the idea we forfeit individual rights when in 'the marketplace'.

You "compromise" them all over the place. It's the only way we can all get a along. Your faith may have you handling snakes, but don't bring them shopping or to work. There the rules of others are in force, not yours.

Exactly. A person DOES forfeit rights in a marketplace .. or in commerce. A person may not exercise his rights in a way that makes my property less valuable or increases my costs without my consent.

The question is how does a homophobic, fundy xtian not baking a cake take money or property from a gay couple who don't get a cake?

It's not about property. It's about equal access to the marketplace, just as it's about equality before the law for a marriage license. Not everybody is going to like, not everybody has to. At some point we just have to say Deal With It and get on with living, happy together or not.

 

[The Rabbi]

The majority and the minority always have rights in conflict. Did they not teach you that? And just because I feel that speed limits are unfair doesn't mean I can ignore them and get away with it. Your morality is yours, our morality is ours. When you are in the marketplace, ours, society's, wins. In church yours will likely, but not always, prevail. Got it?

I guess really the conceit of the position, the idea we forfeit individual rights when in 'the marketplace'.

The idea that all businesses open to the public should be effectively converted into private clubs is an absurdity. Do you realize the amount of constitutional case law, not to mention original provisions in the Constitution that would have to overturned/repealed in order to accomplish that?

You are living in a fantasy world.

It was the law until the Heart of Atlanta case in the 1960s.
/Fail.

 

[The Rabbi]

You "compromise" them all over the place. It's the only way we can all get a along. Your faith may have you handling snakes, but don't bring them shopping or to work. There the rules of others are in force, not yours.

Exactly. A person DOES forfeit rights in a marketplace .. or in commerce. A person may not exercise his rights in a way that makes my property less valuable or increases my costs without my consent.

The question is how does a homophobic, fundy xtian not baking a cake take money or property from a gay couple who don't get a cake?

It's not about property. It's about equal access to the marketplace, just as it's about equality before the law for a marriage license. Not everybody is going to like, not everybody has to. At some point we just have to say Deal With It and get on with living, happy together or not.

What part of the Constitution guarantees equal access to a marketplace?
More made up crap.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You "compromise" them all over the place. It's the only way we can all get a along. Your faith may have you handling snakes, but don't bring them shopping or to work. There the rules of others are in force, not yours.

Exactly. A person DOES forfeit rights in a marketplace .. or in commerce. A person may not exercise his rights in a way that makes my property less valuable or increases my costs without my consent.

That's utter nonsense. You have no right to dictate to others like that, majority vote or not.

Actually we do. You may think you should have 10,000 votes? By law, you have one.

 

[dblack]

The majority and the minority always have rights in conflict. Did they not teach you that? And just because I feel that speed limits are unfair doesn't mean I can ignore them and get away with it. Your morality is yours, our morality is ours. When you are in the marketplace, ours, society's, wins. In church yours will likely, but not always, prevail. Got it?

I guess really the conceit of the position, the idea we forfeit individual rights when in 'the marketplace'.

The idea that all businesses open to the public should be effectively converted into private clubs is an absurdity. Do you realize the amount of constitutional case law, not to mention original provisions in the Constitution that would have to overturned/repealed in order to accomplish that?

You are living in a fantasy world.

It's more of a living nightmare actually. Watching yet another iteration of fascism building momentum. Will we ever be rid of it?