Civil Rights Commission Against Religious Freedom

[2aguy]

I agree. Smart businessmen never turn down cash.

However, they should be free to choose.

I quite agree. If their bigotry is greater than their business sense, they should be free to sell their businesses and find something to do for a living that doesn't offend their Imaginary Friend in the Sky.

Once they open a business, though, they are a public accommodation.

Sorry.....slavery at any level is wrong.....and forcing a business to do business is just as evil...

 

[2aguy]

See #86

See two hundred + years of Jurisprudence in America, esp. since Marbury v. Madison (1803) & most recently Heller. Understand the first issue discussed in ConLaw are First A. Issues.

Neither case law nor precedent changes the Constitution. Marbury v. Madison was the first mistake that damaged the model set by the Founders.

Nonsense.

Nonsense nothing. The model required three equal branches of government. Marbury v. Madison granted the SCOTUS in 1803 the extra-equal power of judicial review and final disposition, something it did not have under the Constitution signed 1797, nor the Articles of Confederation ratified 1781.

How arrogant you are to believe that our governance and way of life should subject to the life times and of 1789. Such is not to be expected, and what happened after seemed inevitable.

It isn't expected...that is why we have the Amendment process.....and why they didn't give the Supreme Court the final say in Constitutional matters.....

 

[JakeStarkey]

I agree. Smart businessmen never turn down cash.

However, they should be free to choose.

I quite agree. If their bigotry is greater than their business sense, they should be free to sell their businesses and find something to do for a living that doesn't offend their Imaginary Friend in the Sky.

Once they open a business, though, they are a public accommodation.

Sorry.....slavery at any level is wrong.....and forcing a business to do business is just as evil...

You just insinuated a fallacy of false equivalence. Businesses are not people. Sensible business regulations are not evil.

 

[2aguy]

I agree. Smart businessmen never turn down cash.

However, they should be free to choose.

I quite agree. If their bigotry is greater than their business sense, they should be free to sell their businesses and find something to do for a living that doesn't offend their Imaginary Friend in the Sky.

Once they open a business, though, they are a public accommodation.

Sorry.....slavery at any level is wrong.....and forcing a business to do business is just as evil...

You just insinuated a fallacy of false equivalence. Businesses are not people. Sensible business regulations are not evil.

Sorry....they are owned by people....and forcing them to work when they do not want to is called slavery. They are free people, they own the business....ordering them to work for people they don't want to work for is slavery....

 

[2aguy]

I agree. Smart businessmen never turn down cash.

However, they should be free to choose.

I quite agree. If their bigotry is greater than their business sense, they should be free to sell their businesses and find something to do for a living that doesn't offend their Imaginary Friend in the Sky.

Once they open a business, though, they are a public accommodation.

Sorry.....slavery at any level is wrong.....and forcing a business to do business is just as evil...

You just insinuated a fallacy of false equivalence. Businesses are not people. Sensible business regulations are not evil.

What is it with you democrats/leftists, and forced labor........first with blacks and now with everyone else...just leave people alone...

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

See #86

See two hundred + years of Jurisprudence in America, esp. since Marbury v. Madison (1803) & most recently Heller. Understand the first issue discussed in ConLaw are First A. Issues.

Neither case law nor precedent changes the Constitution. Marbury v. Madison was the first mistake that damaged the model set by the Founders.

Nonsense.

Nonsense nothing. The model required three equal branches of government. Marbury v. Madison granted the SCOTUS in 1803 the extra-equal power of judicial review and final disposition, something it did not have under the Constitution signed 1797, nor the Articles of Confederation ratified 1781.

How arrogant you are to believe that our governance and way of life should subject to the life times and of 1789. Such is not to be expected, and what happened after seemed inevitable.

You are subject to the national agreement. Unless amended via the mandated process, it remains the law of the land despite what some politically motivated individuals have said or may say to the contrary.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I agree. Smart businessmen never turn down cash.

However, they should be free to choose.

I quite agree. If their bigotry is greater than their business sense, they should be free to sell their businesses and find something to do for a living that doesn't offend their Imaginary Friend in the Sky.

Once they open a business, though, they are a public accommodation.

Sorry.....slavery at any level is wrong.....and forcing a business to do business is just as evil...

You just insinuated a fallacy of false equivalence. Businesses are not people. Sensible business regulations are not evil.

Sorry....they are owned by people....and forcing them to work when they do not want to is called slavery. They are free people, they own the business....ordering them to work for people they don't want to work for is slavery....

Only in a silly mind like yours.

 

[JakeStarkey]

See two hundred + years of Jurisprudence in America, esp. since Marbury v. Madison (1803) & most recently Heller. Understand the first issue discussed in ConLaw are First A. Issues.

Neither case law nor precedent changes the Constitution. Marbury v. Madison was the first mistake that damaged the model set by the Founders.

Nonsense.

Nonsense nothing. The model required three equal branches of government. Marbury v. Madison granted the SCOTUS in 1803 the extra-equal power of judicial review and final disposition, something it did not have under the Constitution signed 1797, nor the Articles of Confederation ratified 1781.

How arrogant you are to believe that our governance and way of life should subject to the life times and of 1789. Such is not to be expected, and what happened after seemed inevitable.

You are subject to the national agreement. Unless amended via the mandated process, it remains the law of the land despite what some politically motivated individuals have said or may say to the contrary.

Notify SCOTUS immediately. Get to it, sparky!

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Neither case law nor precedent changes the Constitution. Marbury v. Madison was the first mistake that damaged the model set by the Founders.

Nonsense.

Nonsense nothing. The model required three equal branches of government. Marbury v. Madison granted the SCOTUS in 1803 the extra-equal power of judicial review and final disposition, something it did not have under the Constitution signed 1797, nor the Articles of Confederation ratified 1781.

How arrogant you are to believe that our governance and way of life should subject to the life times and of 1789. Such is not to be expected, and what happened after seemed inevitable.

You are subject to the national agreement. Unless amended via the mandated process, it remains the law of the land despite what some politically motivated individuals have said or may say to the contrary.

Notify SCOTUS immediately. Get to it, sparky!

You are not smarter than a fifth grader.

 

[2aguy]

I agree. Smart businessmen never turn down cash.

However, they should be free to choose.

I quite agree. If their bigotry is greater than their business sense, they should be free to sell their businesses and find something to do for a living that doesn't offend their Imaginary Friend in the Sky.

Once they open a business, though, they are a public accommodation.

Sorry.....slavery at any level is wrong.....and forcing a business to do business is just as evil...

You just insinuated a fallacy of false equivalence. Businesses are not people. Sensible business regulations are not evil.

Sorry....they are owned by people....and forcing them to work when they do not want to is called slavery. They are free people, they own the business....ordering them to work for people they don't want to work for is slavery....

Only in a silly mind like yours.

Nope...if you own something...and someone else forces you to do something with it...you don't own it.....if you are forced to perform labor....making a cake....when you do not want to...you are a slave......forced labor is slavery.......

 

[JakeStarkey]

I quite agree. If their bigotry is greater than their business sense, they should be free to sell their businesses and find something to do for a living that doesn't offend their Imaginary Friend in the Sky.

Once they open a business, though, they are a public accommodation.

Sorry.....slavery at any level is wrong.....and forcing a business to do business is just as evil...

You just insinuated a fallacy of false equivalence. Businesses are not people. Sensible business regulations are not evil.

Sorry....they are owned by people....and forcing them to work when they do not want to is called slavery. They are free people, they own the business....ordering them to work for people they don't want to work for is slavery....

Only in a silly mind like yours.

Nope...if you own something...and someone else forces you to do something with it...you don't own it.....if you are forced to perform labor....making a cake....when you do not want to...you are a slave......forced labor is slavery.......

In your mind, perhaps, but not in those of rational minds.

 

[Wry Catcher]

NOt really. Neither amendment has ever been an absolute.

It's why you can't own that machine gun you've had your eye on

Who says you can't own a machine gun?

The right to own a "machine gun" is (correctly) infringed by licensing, fees/taxation and background checks. Thus Scalia/Heller was and is correct, the 2nd A. is not an absolute prohibition of gun control; infringements exist!

See #86

See two hundred + years of Jurisprudence in America, esp. since Marbury v. Madison (1803) & most recently Heller. Understand the first issue discussed in ConLaw are First A. Issues.

Neither case law nor precedent changes the Constitution. Marbury v. Madison was the first mistake that damaged the model set by the Founders.

To repeal M v. M would create chaos, does that not concern you?

Notwithstanding the meme that COTUS is engraved in granite, the law evolves. Arms of war in the 17th century are not the arms of war in the 21st!.

 

[JoeB131]

Do you want another?

The things you advocate for are spot on with the beliefs of Mao and Trotsky.

Are you keeping up with history, or is this just a part of history you want to repeat itself?

Okay, guy, when you talk about Mao or Trotsky, you kind of lose crediblity...

Fact of the matter is, the Homophobe is on the wrong side of history as much as the racist...

Future generations are going to look back at you people and cringe.

 

[JoeB131]

By assigning the responsibility of population control to the state, you create a two fold problem. Not only is someones liberty taken away in favor for someone else, but the state also becomes more authoritarian and controlling in the process.

Instead, if you influence societal culture rather than instigating population control, the evil state no longer expands in power, and civil liberties are maintained for both parties equally.

You know, I think that if you Libertarians started selling whatever it is you are smoking, you might make some money

Racial Discrimination ended when the government snapped down hard on that shit, not because the Market Forces corrected the problem.

 

[JoeB131]

In a 'related' story....

Pope Francis: The Devil Wages a ‘Dirty War’ to Destroy the Church
(Pope Francis: The Devil Wages a ‘Dirty War’ to Destroy the Church)

Right. The Devil totally made the Church molest those Altar boys...

 

[JoeB131]

Sorry.....slavery at any level is wrong.....and forcing a business to do business is just as evil...

Again... it would be slavery if they forced you to be in the baking business if you wanted to be or not.

If you have a business and you don't want to do business with group X... Then you should be in another line of business.

Once you put out a sign that says "We bake wedding cakes", guess what, you made a promise to bake wedding cakes.

 

[easyt65]

In a 'related' story....

Pope Francis: The Devil Wages a ‘Dirty War’ to Destroy the Church
(Pope Francis: The Devil Wages a ‘Dirty War’ to Destroy the Church)

Right. The Devil totally made the Church molest those Altar boys...

Joe, I completely agree with you there. One of the things I have perceived about the catholic Church for years is that their focus was more on their church than on God...as proven by hiding this scandal. When you see you have a cancer, cut it out. Don't hide it. They hid it.

 

[easyt65]

Again... it would be slavery if they forced you to be in the baking business if you wanted to be or not.

If you are the ONLY baker in town then I can see the govt stepping in and saying you MUST do this. When there are a LOT of bakeries and several who would be happy to do the job, not so much.

 

[JoeB131]

Sorry....they are owned by people....and forcing them to work when they do not want to is called slavery. They are free people, they own the business....ordering them to work for people they don't want to work for is slavery....

They are owned by people who agreed to abide by commerce laws when they opened a business. We in fact have volumes of contract law.

I mean, by your "logic", having the bakery comply with sanitation and safety laws is "Slavery", right.

They should be able to run any kind of shop they want, and if they sell cakes filled with rat turds and roaches, then the benevolence of the market should drive them out of business. But those mean old govenrment types, inspecting their shop to make sure they aren't mixing rat turds into the flour... THAT'S SLAVERY in 2TinyGuy's world.

 

[JoeB131]

If you are the ONLY baker in town then I can see the govt stepping in and saying you MUST do this. When there are a LOT of bakeries and several who would be happy to do the job, not so much.

Why should I have to go to a second bakery to find one that will treat me with human dignity?

What if a bunch of the bakeries are run by homophobic bigots... Am I going to have to go several before I find one?

Sorry, these laws are in place for a good reason.