Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[JimBowie1958]

Do you kiss your mother with that mouth, junior?

My Mom is dead, thank you for bringing that up.























just kidding, she is alive, and I kiss my wife and kids with my mouth. How do you do it?

 

[Grumblenuts]

My apologies for mentioning family. I reported myself.

 

[JimBowie1958]

My apologies for mentioning family. I reported myself.

Lol, dude, it's all good, no worries.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I still can't tell if you keep saying this with tongue firmly in cheek or you're being serious. If serious, what's your core argument? Like John Stossel, do you just feel "the market" will soon put all those who discriminate out of business? Do you think there's no longer any money to be made in spreading hatred and division?

Here are my thoughts...

Three generations ago there were...

1. Areas of the country where black people couldn't rent a room for the night when traveling.
2. Areas of the country where black people traveling couldn't buy gas from white station owners.
3. Areas of the country where blacks couldn't eat unless they could find a black's only food establishment.
4. And we had systematic discrimination against minorities in terms of how government functioned, such as segregated mass transit (buses, trains, etc.), schools, law enforcement, etc.
5. Even segregation in the military.​

In those days such things were commonplace, but society has changed in the last 60 years and changed a lot. There has been a "corporatisation" where you can't spit without finding a company gas station, movie theater, restaurateur, motel/hotel, etc. Just because we repeal Public Accommodation laws, doesn't mean that things are going to go back to the way they were 3-generations ago. And there are a number of factors that impact this:

1. We are much more mobile society. People routinely travel in a manner unprecedented then both temporary and "permanent" relocation's out of the area they grew up in.

2. We are more informed society and information is much more available today about how a business conducts itself in terms of taking care of customers we have Criag's list, Angie's list, Yelp, and a plethora of hotel, restaurant, and review sites for any type of business and it's not just the discriminated against who would choose not to associate with such a business. In addition I fully support the ability of a community having access to information about businesses and their discriminatory practices. News media (TV, Radio, Newspapers) and social media (email, texting, Facebook, etc.), and complaints filed with business licensing entities. People should all be free to report and have customers report on discriminatory business practices so that the public can make an informed choice.

3. The "corporatisation" of businesses in America watches the bottom line and having your "brand name" associated with and appearing to condone discrimination has a negative impact on the bottom line. With corporate owned "shops" and franchises who still fall under policies of the home office means that these businesses will not allow or condone what was going on prior to the 60's.​

**************************************************


So the question becomes the balance of the rights of the private business owner to manage their private property according to their desires as compared to the desires of others to have access to that private business. With the widespread discrimination 3-generations ago there may have been justification to say the rights of the property owner needed to be usurped - on a temporary basis - but those times are pretty much gone. The balance was greatly tilted toward discrimination. I find my position aligned with what were called Goldwater Conservatives quite a bit because Goldwater had the testicular fortitude to stand up against Federal Public Accommodation laws, not because he was a bigot or a racist - but because he believed in limited government.

But in general the widespread issues from 60 years ago have been resolved by fundamental shifts in society. Sure there will be isolated instances, that's the price of liberty and dealing with your own issues. A burger joint says - I won't serve a black? OK, walk across the street to Applebee's. A photographer doesn't want to shoot a same-sex wedding? OK, Google or Angie's List another photographer in the area.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all FOR keeping Public Accommodation laws in force in terms of the functioning of government and who the government can do business with, but that is because citizens have an inherent right to equal treatment by the government. There is no such right to equal treatment by other private individuals.



>>>>

Still chewin' on this, WW...

 

[Silhouette]

My apologies for mentioning family. I reported myself.

Good. You can report mdk next. He does that shit all the time.

 

[Silhouette]

I still say no law can compel you to condone or support a group in any way who has a proud endemic and advertised habit of supporting/doing deviant sex acts in public where they invite kids to watch & even March along with them.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It is possible to have a private business operated as a private club...

Yes but just calling yourself a "private club" does not mean you are exempt from Public Accommodation laws. Is there any doubt that COSTCO, BJ's Warehouse, or Sam's Club - which function based on private membership for shopping - is not a for profit business?

So factors:

"The "public" versus "distinctly private" accommodation distinction makes critical an understanding of what factors courts will consider to determine if a club is public or private for purposes of the PHRA. Courts interpreting similar statutes have considered the following factors in making that determination:

1. the genuine selectivity of the group in the admission of its members;
2. the membership's control over the operations of the establishment;
3. the history of the organization;
4. the use of the facilities by nonmembers;
5. the purpose of the club's existence;
6. whether the club advertises for members;
7. whether the club is profit or nonprofit; and
8. the formalities observed by the club (e.g. bylaws, meetings, membership cards, etc.)."

Anti-Discrimination Laws Applicable to Private Clubs or Not? - FindLaw


.>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Nothing to do with the unsourced inaccuracies asserted by JimBowie there. But agree, he clearly shouldn’t run a bakery (subject to PA laws) if he bakes wedding cakes but refuses to sell them to gays.

Look fuckface, the baker was selling baked goods to fagots, but he only refused to bake a fagot wedding cake.

Thats the truth and until you can provide some proof otherwise fuck you.

Doesn't mean he still wasn't in violation of the law. The law clearly says "full and equal" access to goods and services, not that some goods and services can be denied.


.>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Doesn't mean he still wasn't in violation of the law. The law clearly says "full and equal" access to goods and services, not that some goods and services can be denied.


.>>>>

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. You are still arguing as if the USSC didn't just indicate that it considers "LGBT" as a lifestyle and not innate. And, nobody can be compelled to support or promote a lifestyle that for one thing, adheres itself in unanimity around "pride" in public graphic acts of deviant sex in front of kids it hopes will be watching.

Instead of arguing civil code, you should be arguing penal code. Abetting such a group is against the law in all 50 states.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Still chewin' on this, WW...

No problem, not all disagreements with Public Accommodation laws are based on hatred and bigotry.

Then there are those that agree with government overreach as long as it doesn't apply to the gays.

I think mine is a more reasoned opinion and strives for equal treatment under the law for all business owners not special rights to discriminate for those that would use religion as a shield from generally applicable laws. There is something fundamentally wrong (opinion) about a law that functions the way some want it to function. Religious shop owners should be able to discriminate against gays, but gay shop owners can discriminate a religious person for their beliefs. That is unequal treatment under the law.


.>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

I think mine is a more reasoned opinion and strives for equal treatment under the law for all business owners not special rights to discriminate for those that would use religion as a shield from generally applicable laws.


.>>>>

What do you think about a group that uses its "newly-favored/protected" lifestyle as a shield against being arrested in public for doing lewd deviant sex acts on a float down main street where the group hopes for and invites children to be watching? Do the generally-applicable laws of sex crimes involving children apply? Or do they get a special pass? (The lack of arrests already tells us the answer to that question).

For instance, try those same acts in front of a schoolyard at recess on any other day and see how long that shield will protect you.

 

[WorldWatcher]

...

Just for future reference I've pretty much concluded over the years that you are a wack-job and have mental issues. Mostly I just skip over any of your posts. It's less stressful then reading your drivel and flat out lying about the law.

Have a nice day.


.>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Just for future reference I've pretty much concluded over the years that you are a wack-job and have mental issues. Mostly I just skip over any of your posts. It's less stressful then reading your drivel and flat out lying about the law.

So forced to support or condone a group that has regularly done graphic sex acts in public in parades since the 1960s hoping kids will be watching? Yes or No. That was a unique dodge.

You think there are or aren't laws on the books in all 50 states requiring that adults not participate in any behavior that condones or supports sex acts where kids are invited to watch in public?

Who has mental issues: 1. a person trying to stop those parades from happening? or 2. A person who supports them by chilling conversations against them using ad hominem?

 

[mdk]

My apologies for mentioning family. I reported myself.

Good. You can report mdk next. He does that shit all the time.

It must really stink having to live by the same standards that you demand of others. I will continue to point out your rank hypocrisy whenever I wish. Don’t like it? Tough shit.

 

[Silhouette]

My apologies for mentioning family. I reported myself.

Good. You can report mdk next. He does that shit all the time.

It must really stink having to live by the same standards that you demand of others. I will continue to point out your rank hypocrisy whenever I wish. Don’t like it? Tough shit.

Sound a little testy today. Is it this USSC decision that has you all out of sorts? Are you grieving the finding that LGBTs are behaviors instead of innate?

 

[mdk]

My apologies for mentioning family. I reported myself.

Good. You can report mdk next. He does that shit all the time.

It must really stink having to live by the same standards that you demand of others. I will continue to point out your rank hypocrisy whenever I wish. Don’t like it? Tough shit.

Sound a little testy today. Is it this USSC decision that has you all out of sorts? Are you grieving the finding that LGBTs are behaviors instead of innate?

Hardly. Nobody is bound by whatever made up version of a Supreme Court ruling you’re peddling today.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Doesn't mean he still wasn't in violation of the law. The law clearly says "full and equal" access to goods and services, not that some goods and services can be denied.

1. It has been estimated that all of us violate three federal laws daily on average. So this baker being in violation of the law does really not mean alot. Illegal aliens are in violation of the law and the feds help them to violate it.

2. The law is over-reaching when it attempts to compel people to violate their own conscience. These laws that try to force people to engage in activities that they believe to be immoral are tyrannical, foolish and will be eventually removed from due process or revolution.

3. When the law is ambiguous the assumption should favor innoscense and freedom.

4. Bad and immoral laws SHOULD be disobeyed as they are a tool of an evil vanguard.

5. Laws often times paint with a broad brush then rely on case law from court decisions to provide more granularity as appears to be the case here.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I think mine is a more reasoned opinion ...

 

[WorldWatcher]

1. It has been estimated that all of us violate three federal laws daily on average. So this baker being in violation of the law does really not mean alot. Illegal aliens are in violation of the law and the feds help them to violate it.

:shrug:

OK

2. The law is over-reaching when it attempts to compel people to violate their own conscience. These laws that try to force people to engage in activities that they believe to be immoral are tyrannical, foolish and will be eventually removed from due process or revolution.

So any law that violates conscience is wrong.

Tell that to the owners of Piggie Park (Newman v. Piggie Park), the petitioner in Employment Division v. Smith, Bob Jones University, and the Muslim taxi drivers in Minnesota that lost when they wouldn't take fairs for people smelling of alcohol, were carrying alcohol, or

3. When the law is ambiguous the assumption should favor innoscense and freedom.

The is no ambiguity in the law. It clearly spells out what characteristics cannot be discriminated against and the requirement is full and equal access to goods and services.

4. Bad and immoral laws SHOULD be disobeyed as they are a tool of an evil vanguard.

That's fine.

5. Laws often times paint with a broad brush then rely on case law from court decisions to provide more granularity as appears to be the case here.

Not really the case here is the SCOTUS did not rule on the fundamental question, do religious beliefs exempt one from generally applicable Public Accommodation laws. In this case they reversed the lower court ruling not on that fundamental question but on the open hostility to religion by members of the reviewing Commission. The specifically punted on the religious issue.

What is interesting is they denied the Elane Photography appeal of the New Mexico Supreme Court on the freedom of speech question and let the state ruling remain. There is another case (Arlene's Flowers) from Washington state that has an appeal before the court and they have taken no action at conference to either accept or reject the case - probably pending the release of Mastepiece Cakeshop. If they accept the case, they will have an opportunity to address religion as an excuse to violate generally applicable Public Accommodation laws. If they reject the case and let the lower court ruling stand that sends a very clear message and it will be a couple of years before a new case makes it though on appeal.


.>>>>

 

[Flopper]

I still say no law can compel you to condone or support a group in any way who has a proud endemic and advertised habit of supporting/doing deviant sex acts in public where they invite kids to watch & even March along with them.

There are so many things wrong with that statement I don't even know where to begin so I won't.