Bob Blaylock
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #101
So demanding adherence to the law is denying someone's rights? Really?
It's funny, in a rather disturbing way, how those of you on the far
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.
So demanding adherence to the law is denying someone's rights? Really?
Freedom of religion, and freedom of expression, both explicitly affirmed in the First Amendment. Freedom of conscience and freedom of association, both very strongly implied by the First Amendment.
You just demonstrated you don't understand the Constitution, its case law, or the history of America.Still don't know what rights you think were taken away by the gay couple. They only demanded that the law be followed. You might have a point if you claim the law took away the baker's rights. Laws limit people's rights on a regular basis, but public accommodation laws were in effect long before this incident. What rights do you think the gay couple withheld from the bakers?
Freedom of religion, and freedom of expression, both explicitly affirmed in the First Amendment. Freedom of conscience and freedom of association, both very strongly implied by the First Amendment.
These rights, on the part of the Kleins, were willfully, deliberately, and knowingly violated. There is no basis on which those responsible for this violation can claim that they did not know, or should not have been expected to know, what they were doing. There is no valid excuse for violating these rights. Those responsible for doing so ought to be held fully accountable for their illegal acts.
SNIPIt's funny, in a rather disturbing way, how those of you on the farlefttry to
You just demonstrated you don't understand the Constitution, its case law, or the history of America.
Absolutely true. And the state of Oregon can in no way shape or form play ignorant on the protections of religious freedoms. Even the cry of "we were so swept up in this LGBT cult propaganda, we forgot to look at the US Constitution!!" will not save them. They knew better. And now it's time for Oregon to pay the Kleins.
Freedom of religion, and freedom of expression, both explicitly affirmed in the First Amendment. Freedom of conscience and freedom of association, both very strongly implied by the First Amendment.
These rights, on the part of the Kleins, were willfully, deliberately, and knowingly violated. There is no basis on which those responsible for this violation can claim that they did not know, or should not have been expected to know, what they were doing. There is no valid excuse for violating these rights. Those responsible for doing so ought to be held fully accountable for their illegal acts.
It's funny, in a rather disturbing way, how those of you on the farlefttry to pay lip service to the rule of law, while making excuses for blatantly violating the law and for perverting and abusing the legal system that is in place to protect our rights, in order to use that system to violate our rights.
Once again...
The Kleins have a right to follow their religion.
Their store does not. their store has to comply with all the duly enacted laws regulating commerce, including Public Accommodation Laws.
You just demonstrated you don't understand the Constitution, its case law, or the history of America.
I can read what the Constitution very clearly, explicitly says. When judicial acts, and “case law” are used to “interpret” the Constitution into meanings that directly contradict the written text thereof, then I can recognize that such rulings are acts of corruption and malfeasance. No court has the authority to change the Constitution. That can only be done through the Amendment process.
Once again...
The Kleins have a right to follow their religion.
Their store does not. their store has to comply with all the duly enacted laws regulating commerce, including Public Accommodation Laws.
Their store is their property. Surely, the abuse of government force to compel the use of private property in a
If the Klein's feel really and truly that they can't provide promised services to gay people, then they have the option of getting out of that line of work.
Still don't know what rights you think were taken away by the gay couple. They only demanded that the law be followed. You might have a point if you claim the law took away the baker's rights. Laws limit people's rights on a regular basis, but public accommodation laws were in effect long before this incident. What rights do you think the gay couple withheld from the bakers?
Freedom of religion, and freedom of expression, both explicitly affirmed in the First Amendment. Freedom of conscience and freedom of association, both very strongly implied by the First Amendment.
These rights, on the part of the Kleins, were willfully, deliberately, and knowingly violated. There is no basis on which those responsible for this violation can claim that they did not know, or should not have been expected to know, what they were doing. There is no valid excuse for violating these rights. Those responsible for doing so ought to be held fully accountable for their illegal acts.
So demanding adherence to the law is denying someone's rights? Really?
It's funny, in a rather disturbing way, how those of you on the farlefttry to pay lip service to the rule of law, while making excuses for blatantly violating the law and for perverting and abusing the legal system that is in place to protect our rights, in order to use that system to violate our rights.
Private property being used to conduct business with the general public…
They can practice their religion all they want, but if they are in business, they have to provide all services to all people. Lots of people thought denying blacks service at Woolworth's lunch counter was Gods plan that the races shouldn't mix. How did that work out for them?
Once again...
The Kleins have a right to follow their religion.
Their store does not. their store has to comply with all the duly enacted laws regulating commerce, including Public Accommodation Laws.
Their store is their property. Surely, the abuse of government force to compel the use of private property in a manner contrary to the will of its owner is no different than the abuse of government force to directly compel the behavior of an individual.
They can practice their religion all they want, but if they are in business, they have to provide all services to all people. Lots of people thought denying blacks service at Woolworth's lunch counter was Gods plan that the races shouldn't mix. How did that work out for them?
They can practice their religion all they want, but if they are in business, they have to provide all services to all people. Lots of people thought denying blacks service at Woolworth's lunch counter was Gods plan that the races shouldn't mix. How did that work out for them?
And yet, nobody has yet been able to show me where, in the Constitution, there is any language to be found that suggests that government should have the authority to compel anyone to waive any of their essential Constitutional rights as a condition of being allowed to make an honest living.