Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Does it apply to the baker who doesn't want associated with a certain "people?"
Freedom of Assembly. It applies in that this owner doesn't want his business associated with these people.
Now you know why I, put up with women in modern times; the heterosexuality of it.Christian activists booted from Seattle coffee shop: ‘I’m gay. You have to leave’
Gay coffee shop owner boots out pro-life Christians, refusing them service.
Well, it's time to put these motherfuckers out of business!!!
What do you call handing out fliers is?
I didn't see in the article that they were handing out flyers in the coffee shop. Did the article state such?
Perhaps. I am always loathed to bring government into any situation and we as a nation rely on government far too much.They need to sue just to make the point as this chit of private ownership needs to be addressed and finalized. We are either a free country with rights to what we own, our own thoughts, right of self determination and beliefs or we are a communist country where the state and whomever is in charge at the moment gets to decide what you can and cannot do with your own privately own property/businesses, etc..No, it is not. I get real tired of people trying to change the issue to suit their own intellectual dishonesty.I'm not sure what the problem is. If you stand up and say that gays cannot force a baker to serve a gay couple, how is it you have a problem with a gay not serving a straight person?Christian activists booted from Seattle coffee shop: ‘I’m gay. You have to leave’
Gay coffee shop owner boots out pro-life Christians, refusing them service.
Well, it's time to put these motherfuckers out of business!!!
I support the right of business owners to refuse to do business with people, for any reason the choose.
The issue isn't serving a gay couple. The issue is when you ask a baker to be a part of something that they consider sinful, such as same-sex marriage. After all, I've never heard of a baker refusing to make a birthday cake for a gay person.
You can't eat your cake and have it too.
Either a business owner has the right to refuse service to whomever they wish, for whatever reason they wish, or they do not.
You cannot say they can when it suits My personal philosophy and they can't when its something I don't like.
Pick one and stop trying to justify everything.
Again I asked, where is this right stated? Bill of rights?Where is this "right of association" and how do you think it applies?What does pro-life have to do with doing the bone dance with Mr. Sphincter?I support the business owners.
Nothing. Either we have a right to association or not.
Freedom of Assembly. It applies in that this owner doesn't want his business associated with these people.
Does it apply to the baker who doesn't want associated with a certain "people?"
Christian activists booted from Seattle coffee shop: ‘I’m gay. You have to leave’
Gay coffee shop owner boots out pro-life Christians, refusing them service.
Well, it's time to put these motherfuckers out of business!!!
Freedom of Assembly. It applies in that this owner doesn't want his business associated with these people.
Would you feel the same if it was a BLM group that was thrown out? Or would you be screaming "RACISM!"?
I presume the Christian baker would have no issue making a birthday cake for a gay person. Their objection arises when they're asked to make a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage because it is their religious belief that same-sex marriage is immoral.
That would be true but the fact is it is already before the courts and it has all been pretty one sided thus far against private property rights for small businesses. If this country is not willing to take a stand for personal property rights then it will be given over further to corporate thugs who have all but wiped out most privately owned small business enterprises.Perhaps. I am always loathed to bring government into any situation and we as a nation rely on government far too much.They need to sue just to make the point as this chit of private ownership needs to be addressed and finalized. We are either a free country with rights to what we own, our own thoughts, right of self determination and beliefs or we are a communist country where the state and whomever is in charge at the moment gets to decide what you can and cannot do with your own privately own property/businesses, etc..No, it is not. I get real tired of people trying to change the issue to suit their own intellectual dishonesty.I'm not sure what the problem is. If you stand up and say that gays cannot force a baker to serve a gay couple, how is it you have a problem with a gay not serving a straight person?Christian activists booted from Seattle coffee shop: ‘I’m gay. You have to leave’
Gay coffee shop owner boots out pro-life Christians, refusing them service.
Well, it's time to put these motherfuckers out of business!!!
I support the right of business owners to refuse to do business with people, for any reason the choose.
The issue isn't serving a gay couple. The issue is when you ask a baker to be a part of something that they consider sinful, such as same-sex marriage. After all, I've never heard of a baker refusing to make a birthday cake for a gay person.
You can't eat your cake and have it too.
Either a business owner has the right to refuse service to whomever they wish, for whatever reason they wish, or they do not.
You cannot say they can when it suits My personal philosophy and they can't when its something I don't like.
Pick one and stop trying to justify everything.
Far better to teach people that if the owner of a business doesn't like you or what you stand for, you can reciprocate by using word of mouth and your own inner circle of acquaintances to spread the word not to do business with this person. If the circle expands far enough, the shop owner will feel the repercussions of their actions.
This is an interesting article on just that, though it doesn't focus on business owners. Also listed are two SCOTUS ruling pertaining to the right of free associations.Again I asked, where is this right stated? Bill of rights?Where is this "right of association" and how do you think it applies?What does pro-life have to do with doing the bone dance with Mr. Sphincter?I support the business owners.
Nothing. Either we have a right to association or not.
Freedom of Assembly. It applies in that this owner doesn't want his business associated with these people.
Does it apply to the baker who doesn't want associated with a certain "people?"
The Bill of Rights — of which the capstone is the First Amendment — was added to the Constitution in 1791 at the insistence of the Anti-Federalists. Contrary to what most Americans probably think, the Bill of Rights does not grant anyone rights. What the government grants, the government can take away. Since no power was granted to the federal government in the body of the Constitution to infringe what are commonly referred to as Americans’ “First Amendment freedoms,” the government has absolutely no authority to do so. That is why James Madison, who did not initially support adding a bill of rights to the Constitution, said that no “great and important power” could be exercised by Congress unless it was “evidently and necessarily involved in an express power.” The First Amendment merely reinforces the idea that the federal government lacks the authority under the Constitution to abridge Americans’ existing freedoms. The individual rights to freely exercise one’s religion, speak freely, publish freely, peaceably assemble, and petition the government are natural rights independent of the Constitution — just like the right to freedom of association.
The freedom of association simply means that a person has the right to associate, not with whomever he chooses, but with whoever is willing to associate with him. Inherent in the right to associate is the right not to associate. Any person has the right not to associate with whomever he chooses.
In a free society, any person or group of persons has the right to associate with any other person or group of persons willing to associate with him or it on the basis of any standard and for any reason. And likewise, any person or group of persons has the right not to associate with any other person or group of persons on the basis of any standard and for any reason.
It doesn’t matter whether a government bureaucrat or a person who was refused association believes that the actions of the refusing person or group are illogical, unreasonable, irrational, hateful, discriminatory, bigoted, or racist. What matters is freedom.
I agree, which is why I am siding with the gay coffee shop owner.That would be true but the fact is it is already before the courts and it has all been pretty one sided thus far against private property rights for small businesses. If this country is not willing to take a stand for personal property rights then it will be given over further to corporate thugs who have all but wiped out most privately owned small business enterprises.Perhaps. I am always loathed to bring government into any situation and we as a nation rely on government far too much.They need to sue just to make the point as this chit of private ownership needs to be addressed and finalized. We are either a free country with rights to what we own, our own thoughts, right of self determination and beliefs or we are a communist country where the state and whomever is in charge at the moment gets to decide what you can and cannot do with your own privately own property/businesses, etc..No, it is not. I get real tired of people trying to change the issue to suit their own intellectual dishonesty.I'm not sure what the problem is. If you stand up and say that gays cannot force a baker to serve a gay couple, how is it you have a problem with a gay not serving a straight person?
I support the right of business owners to refuse to do business with people, for any reason the choose.
The issue isn't serving a gay couple. The issue is when you ask a baker to be a part of something that they consider sinful, such as same-sex marriage. After all, I've never heard of a baker refusing to make a birthday cake for a gay person.
You can't eat your cake and have it too.
Either a business owner has the right to refuse service to whomever they wish, for whatever reason they wish, or they do not.
You cannot say they can when it suits My personal philosophy and they can't when its something I don't like.
Pick one and stop trying to justify everything.
Far better to teach people that if the owner of a business doesn't like you or what you stand for, you can reciprocate by using word of mouth and your own inner circle of acquaintances to spread the word not to do business with this person. If the circle expands far enough, the shop owner will feel the repercussions of their actions.
Which is why I chose to be intellectually consistent in My stances. I'm not sure how the coffee shop owner knows the patron is Christian, it's not like being a Christian is a distinguishable trait.
Regardless of that, I think you should rethink that stance. The First Amendment keeps the government from infringing on your religious rights, not business owners. No person, Christian or otherwise, has a right to someone's services.
Now, if there wasn't another coffee shop within 25 miles, there may be a case for public accommodations, but other than that......
I agree also he has the right to tell whomever to get out or off of his property/business.I agree, which is why I am siding with the gay coffee shop owner.That would be true but the fact is it is already before the courts and it has all been pretty one sided thus far against private property rights for small businesses. If this country is not willing to take a stand for personal property rights then it will be given over further to corporate thugs who have all but wiped out most privately owned small business enterprises.Perhaps. I am always loathed to bring government into any situation and we as a nation rely on government far too much.They need to sue just to make the point as this chit of private ownership needs to be addressed and finalized. We are either a free country with rights to what we own, our own thoughts, right of self determination and beliefs or we are a communist country where the state and whomever is in charge at the moment gets to decide what you can and cannot do with your own privately own property/businesses, etc..No, it is not. I get real tired of people trying to change the issue to suit their own intellectual dishonesty.The issue isn't serving a gay couple. The issue is when you ask a baker to be a part of something that they consider sinful, such as same-sex marriage. After all, I've never heard of a baker refusing to make a birthday cake for a gay person.
You can't eat your cake and have it too.
Either a business owner has the right to refuse service to whomever they wish, for whatever reason they wish, or they do not.
You cannot say they can when it suits My personal philosophy and they can't when its something I don't like.
Pick one and stop trying to justify everything.
Far better to teach people that if the owner of a business doesn't like you or what you stand for, you can reciprocate by using word of mouth and your own inner circle of acquaintances to spread the word not to do business with this person. If the circle expands far enough, the shop owner will feel the repercussions of their actions.
Oh I see that Christian GOP who is staunchly pro life ( for political reasons) is stepping down due to him wanting his mistress to have an abortion.
Is he the poster boy for all Christians everywhere?
By forcing the owner to serve them coffee, the owner has indeed become a part of their pro-life protest.
Is not analogous.
So if I read on Facebook that you support something I oppose and you walk into my restaurant with a group of friends, you would be fine if I kicked you out, right?
I understand that. I am taking the stance that Title II is wrong in this regard and that it is unreasonable to force associations of people when clear alternatives exist.Which is why I chose to be intellectually consistent in My stances. I'm not sure how the coffee shop owner knows the patron is Christian, it's not like being a Christian is a distinguishable trait.
Regardless of that, I think you should rethink that stance. The First Amendment keeps the government from infringing on your religious rights, not business owners. No person, Christian or otherwise, has a right to someone's services.
Now, if there wasn't another coffee shop within 25 miles, there may be a case for public accommodations, but other than that......
My stance remains the same - a business should be able to refuse service...and I agree, no one has the right to someone else's service.
However, the clear language in Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not have the caveat 'only if there isn't another coffee shop within 25 miles'. Even if there were 15 open-to-the-public coffee shops within a 2 block area - all 15 must abide by the public accommodation laws.
I'm not advocating for anyone to sue a business, merely stating that they may have a case. Public accommodation laws for the most part, in my opinion, go against the spirit of the Constitution...so, where is our disagreement?
