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.
My issue is what is, or is not a public accommodation. Public accommodations are places you invite the public into to perform a transaction. So a baker where there is a point of sale transaction, a gas station, a supermarket, a movie theater things like that. A person has to be accommodated in a space open to the public.
A contracted service or good is not that. Renting out your own property for events is not that. You are not inviting the public into an area for a transaction, you are performing a transaction between two parties only.
My issue is what is, or is not a public accommodation. Public accommodations are places you invite the public into to perform a transaction. So a baker where there is a point of sale transaction, a gas station, a supermarket, a movie theater things like that. A person has to be accommodated in a space open to the public.
A contracted service or good is not that. Renting out your own property for events is not that. You are not inviting the public into an area for a transaction, you are performing a transaction between two parties only.
Again, this has been litigated, and public accommodation laws apply to contracted services. Attempts to change the laws failed when the true masters of the right wing, Big Business, told them they couldn't do that stuff. (Just to let the Christians know how they rate: $$$$>Jesus.)
Plenty of men were part of the temperance movement as well.
That had more to do with the desire of some people to control other people, like any attempt to control vices.
Plenty of men were part of the temperance movement as well.
That had more to do with the desire of some people to control other people, like any attempt to control vices.
Well, obviously that isn't a bad thing, since so many can't or won't control themselves without somebody else doing it for them. Violent drunks need kicking around; better the state than vigilantes. Attempts to control vices aren't a bad thing in general.
Just because something has been litigated doesn't make it right or constitutional. Dred Scott was litigated, Plessey was litigated, Kelo was litigated, Citizens United was litigated.
Appealing to authority is a nice escape, but it doesn't win you arguments.
The thing is there is a difference between trying to control a vice, and controlling behavior that can result from it.
Most people can handle their booze, banning it because some cannot punishes those who can without reason.
Same with guns, saying I can't own one because some other moron uses one illegally is just as dumb.
Just because something has been litigated doesn't make it right or constitutional. Dred Scott was litigated, Plessey was litigated, Kelo was litigated, Citizens United was litigated.
Appealing to authority is a nice escape, but it doesn't win you arguments.
sure it does. No one is making an argument to change the laws like they did in those other cases.
The religious bigots made an appeal, and big business said, "No, you don't!"
Done.
The thing is there is a difference between trying to control a vice, and controlling behavior that can result from it.
Most people can handle their booze, banning it because some cannot punishes those who can without reason.
Same with guns, saying I can't own one because some other moron uses one illegally is just as dumb.
The thing is, the Drunk isn't usually hurting anyone but himself... and given your previous comments on gun suicides, you wouldn't have a problem with that.
But I'm perfectly willing to regulate guns like we do alcohol.
The fact that Nikolas Cruz could buy a machine gun and not a bottle of Mad Dog 20/20 is the problem here.
Lets see how the recent cases goes at the SC.
Drunk drivers can kill people, but we don't punish them for being drunk, we punish them for either the killing people, or driving WHILE drunk.
He didn't use a machine gun. why do you have to use the wrong term?
Lets see how the recent cases goes at the SC.
Kennedy isn't going to undo all his progress towards gay rights. Him and 4 liberals, the bigots can suck it.
Drunk drivers can kill people, but we don't punish them for being drunk, we punish them for either the killing people, or driving WHILE drunk.
Okay, but here's the thing. We spend a lot of money to keep the drunks off hte road, and we revoke their licenses to drive when we catch them doing it. We also require bars to cut people off when they get too drunk.
I wish we treated gun nuts with as much scrutiny.
He didn't use a machine gun. why do you have to use the wrong term?
It can throw 45 rounds a minute down range. It's a machine gun.
What rights are impacted when a single baker doesn't want to do a single type of transaction? What about their right to free exercise?
And how many times do we see a guy with his license revoked like 10 times plowing into some other car? And the only impact on the bars is the 1 in 10,000 time someone sues the bar over a drunk guy, and then they usually have a hell of a time proving it.
No, a machine gun is a very specific thing. Again, how can anyone actually take you seriously if you refuse to use the actual words that apply to the item or situation?
What rights are impacted when a single baker doesn't want to do a single type of transaction? What about their right to free exercise?
Nobody is stopping them from going to their homophobic church. Although I bet if we revoked all the tax exemptions from churches that preach homophobia, they'd all soon be flying rainbow flags off the steeples.
But your business is a contractual agreement to provide the services you promised. When Mrs. Klein said "sure, come to my store and get a cake!" she made a promise. She didn't say, "Come to my store and my bible thumping husband will scream a bunch of slurs at your mother because he gets off on abusing women!"
And how many times do we see a guy with his license revoked like 10 times plowing into some other car? And the only impact on the bars is the 1 in 10,000 time someone sues the bar over a drunk guy, and then they usually have a hell of a time proving it.
The reason why those lawsuits rarely work is because they bartenders all go through BASSET certifications (that's what they call it in IL) to make sure they know when someone has had too much.
No, a machine gun is a very specific thing. Again, how can anyone actually take you seriously if you refuse to use the actual words that apply to the item or situation?
45 Rounds a minute down range. It's a machine gun. I'm not arguing semantics with you gun nuts, because any term we use to describe these things you put out on the street might offend you if they accurately describe how dangerous they are.
Going to Church is not the limit of free exercise. And again, you are extrapolating the details of the situation using your own countless biases.
It is not a machine gun. Someone can send 45 rounds a minute with a revolver if they have enough speed loaders and are good enough at it.
Once again you replace reality with your own definition of things, and you don't get to do that and keep any semblance of honesty or integrity.
Don't you love those posters who toss around words like "Homophobic" like straw into the wind?
Going to Church is not the limit of free exercise. And again, you are extrapolating the details of the situation using your own countless biases.
That and what was documented by the review of the case. My own opinion is we should treat homophobic churches like we treat racist churches... no tax exemptions, put them on a hate group watch list, and throw them in the klink when they screw up.
It is not a machine gun. Someone can send 45 rounds a minute with a revolver if they have enough speed loaders and are good enough at it.
Once again you replace reality with your own definition of things, and you don't get to do that and keep any semblance of honesty or integrity.
uh, guy when you shoot up 17 kids, it's a machine gun. Sorry.
All the pearl clutching about terminology isn't going to help anything.
Another killed by getting in between :
Police: Maryland officer shot, killed while intervening in domestic dispute @ Police: Maryland officer shot, killed while intervening in domestic dispute
All you have to do is conduct an internet search like the one @ police officers killed involved in domestic disputes - Bing to see page after page of reports about police officers being shot and killed while responding to domestic dispute calls.
Most officers will tell you they are the calls they hate the most. So, why do we keep sending them out for them?
Tell me what YOU think. No flaming please.
So, with that off my chest, I guess my feelings are that what goes on between a husband and wife should stay between the husband and wife. If the partners had come from stable families, the abused one would have family to turn to for protection - the way things were meant to be.
If a partner accepts being abused, why should government step in?
Perhaps there should be two cars going to each domestic call.
If a partner accepts being abused, why should government step in?
