Does the first amendment mean we can discriminate?

[2aguy]

Does the first amendment mean that anti discrimination laws are unconstitutional.?

Since they have already been found to be constitutional, decades ago, they are not unconstitutional. All rights have limitations and must be balanced against the needs of society.

Yeah..and at one time the 9 geniuses on the Supreme Court decided separate but equal was Constitutional as well...until they didn't.......

 

[TheOldSchool]

yes

the US government cannot and will not force the naacp to give a scholarship to a non black or hispanic

Would you like to form the NAAWP? Because then congratulations, as a private organization, you would be able to give away money to whoever the hell you want. Want to give only to white people? Congrats get on it.

Is a privately owned bakery a "private organization"? By your logic, shouldn't that privately owned business be allowed to refuse to participate in something they consider abhorrent?

Well, you see, the libturds invented this fiction called a "public business" which allowed them to narrow the definition of "private" to the point where it's practically meaningless. A "public business" is private property, so the have to go through these mental gymnastics to claim that it isn't really private property because it sells to "the public," mean everyone, even if the owner choose not to sell to everyone.

Understand?

Yup. It's all because of the libturds. If only the British had won 200 and however many years ago!

Diversion is the classic indication of a moron who is unable to dispute the point.

Your "point" did not make any sense. Maybe you can reword it in a way that is coherent.

 

[bripat9643]

Would you like to form the NAAWP? Because then congratulations, as a private organization, you would be able to give away money to whoever the hell you want. Want to give only to white people? Congrats get on it.

Is a privately owned bakery a "private organization"? By your logic, shouldn't that privately owned business be allowed to refuse to participate in something they consider abhorrent?

Well, you see, the libturds invented this fiction called a "public business" which allowed them to narrow the definition of "private" to the point where it's practically meaningless. A "public business" is private property, so the have to go through these mental gymnastics to claim that it isn't really private property because it sells to "the public," mean everyone, even if the owner choose not to sell to everyone.

Understand?

Yup. It's all because of the libturds. If only the British had won 200 and however many years ago!

Diversion is the classic indication of a moron who is unable to dispute the point.

Your "point" did not make any sense. Maybe you can reword it in a way that is coherent.

When did liberalism ever make sense?

 

[dblack]

"Does the first amendment mean we can discriminate?"

It means government can't discriminate, government can't favor one religion over another, government can't seek to preempt religious expression, and government can't seek to codify religious dogma in secular law.

Private citizens are at liberty to discriminate, provided one understands there are consequences for doing so in the context of private society, and in a free and democratic society.

Private businesses open to the general public aren't allowed to discriminate in jurisdictions with public accommodations laws that provide protections to certain classes of persons.

Laws prohibiting discrimination are Constitutional because their intent is regulatory, not to disadvantage religious expression or free speech – one may not claim a 'religious exemption' as an 'excuse' to violate an otherwise just and proper law, such as public accommodations laws.

Private citizens can't 'violate' the First Amendment rights of other private citizens; for private citizens to call for a boycott, for example, of a private individual or corporation that engages in discrimination doesn't 'violate' the right to free speech of either the individual or corporation. Only government has the authority engage in prior restraint or preempt free speech, where First Amendment jurisprudence determines whether such government action complies with the Constitution, and measures repugnant to the Constitution are invalidated by the courts.

Given the posts by conservatives in this thread, ignorance of the law, what is or isn't discrimination, and whether government has engaged in discrimination or not is as much a problem as discrimination itself.

Except for the gratuitous slam on conservatives (liberals are just as confused on the topic), this is an excellent post.

 

[LoneLaugher]

yes

the US government cannot and will not force the naacp to give a scholarship to a non black or hispanic

Would you like to form the NAAWP? Because then congratulations, as a private organization, you would be able to give away money to whoever the hell you want. Want to give only to white people? Congrats get on it.

Is a privately owned bakery a "private organization"? By your logic, shouldn't that privately owned business be allowed to refuse to participate in something they consider abhorrent?

Brilliant! Ernie is fucking brilliant!

 

[LoneLaugher]

"Does the first amendment mean we can discriminate?"

It means government can't discriminate, government can't favor one religion over another, government can't seek to preempt religious expression, and government can't seek to codify religious dogma in secular law.

Private citizens are at liberty to discriminate, provided one understands there are consequences for doing so in the context of private society, and in a free and democratic society.

Private businesses open to the general public aren't allowed to discriminate in jurisdictions with public accommodations laws that provide protections to certain classes of persons.

Laws prohibiting discrimination are Constitutional because their intent is regulatory, not to disadvantage religious expression or free speech – one may not claim a 'religious exemption' as an 'excuse' to violate an otherwise just and proper law, such as public accommodations laws.

Private citizens can't 'violate' the First Amendment rights of other private citizens; for private citizens to call for a boycott, for example, of a private individual or corporation that engages in discrimination doesn't 'violate' the right to free speech of either the individual or corporation. Only government has the authority engage in prior restraint or preempt free speech, where First Amendment jurisprudence determines whether such government action complies with the Constitution, and measures repugnant to the Constitution are invalidated by the courts.

Given the posts by conservatives in this thread, ignorance of the law, what is or isn't discrimination, and whether government has engaged in discrimination or not is as much a problem as discrimination itself.

Except for the gratuitous slam on conservatives (liberals are just as confused on the topic), this is an excellent post.

Look at you!

 

[zeke]

There is no Constitutional prohibition of discrimination. Right or wrong, according to the Constitution, I (personally) can discriminate against you because of your skin color, religion or sexual orientation.

I try to live my life according to Christian principles.

You've got one fucked up sense of what "Christianity" IS if you think YOU practice Christian principles. LMAO.
You? A Christian? Fucking to funny.

 

[dblack]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof period; end of discussion.

Anti-discrimination laws prohibit freedom of choice on a much deeper level than one's choice of religion.

yes

the US government cannot and will not force the naacp to give a scholarship to a non black or hispanic

Would you like to form the NAAWP? Because then congratulations, as a private organization, you would be able to give away money to whoever the hell you want. Want to give only to white people? Congrats get on it.

Is a privately owned bakery a "private organization"? By your logic, shouldn't that privately owned business be allowed to refuse to participate in something they consider abhorrent?

The core conceit these laws is the idea of "public accommodations", wherein society lays claim to the property rights of business owners.

 

[zeke]

Is a privately owned bakery a "private organization"? By your logic, shouldn't that privately owned business be allowed to refuse to participate in something they consider abhorrent?

Hey ERNIE, Is that private business trying to conduct their business in a private, controlled community? Or is that private business trying to do business in the open marketplace?

A "Christian" such as you, needs to think twice about opening a business when you know you are looking to discriminate against someone at some time.

In the case of the pizza shop, they actually ASKED for all the grief they got, Then they shut the business down and will see more money from you assholes giving them money than they have earned in the entire time they have been selling pizza.

Maybe that' what shitty run Christian business's should do all the time. Cry about how they had to do business with gays, put up a go fund me page and retire on your money. LMAO.

 

[zeke]

Last night I prayed that ALL the non Christian business's of the country will tell any and all "Christians" they will not be doing business with the likes of them.

That would be so appropriate. And funny. Can you imagine the whine that would come from the Christians.

 

[dblack]

Last night I prayed that ALL the non Christian business's of the country will tell any and all "Christians" they will not be doing business with the likes of them.

That would be so appropriate. And funny. Can you imagine the whine that would come from the Christians.

It would. And just. But under strict application of the principles of anti-discrimination, it would be illegal.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Last night I prayed that ALL the non Christian business's of the country will tell any and all "Christians" they will not be doing business with the likes of them.

That would be so appropriate. And funny. Can you imagine the whine that would come from the Christians.

It would. And just. But under strict application of the principles of anti-discrimination, it would be illegal.

Actually, it is legal in most states. It's legal in Indiana and in Arkansas. This recent media hype hasn't changed that fact. Just like its legal to not hire or to fire someone for being gay in most states.

Why don't you know that?

 

[zeke]

Last night I prayed that ALL the non Christian business's of the country will tell any and all "Christians" they will not be doing business with the likes of them.

That would be so appropriate. And funny. Can you imagine the whine that would come from the Christians.

It would. And just. But under strict application of the principles of anti-discrimination, it would be illegal.

I run a business. I rent nice houses. Should I (in your opinion) be able to inquire about the religious beliefs of a potential tenant, and if they are Christian, refuse to rent them a house they want to live in?

I am curious where this idea has an end. If EVERY person conducting ANY type of business in the open market place, if we all decide to discriminate based on religion or non religion, what do you think will happen to the market place over a period of time?

Will it become harder to find business who want to deal with the type of person you are? Or will it cause more people to open a business because they know they won't have to deal with people they don't want to do business with?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I was giving this a lot of thought and I wonder if taking away the freedom to discriminate against people of different races actually takes away our ability to make moral choices for ourselves. I know it is wrong to discriminate on this basis but taking away that choice from others might take away the right to make moral choices for themselves. The freedom of religion implies that we have the right to pursue what we think is right since two different religions might have opposite moral codes example: satanism vs Christianity. Clearly we can choose either religion (or none at all) which means we can decide what we think is right based on our freedom to associate with our church. What if someone really doesn't think there is nothing wrong with discriminating based on race? Does the first amendment mean that anti discrimination laws are unconstitutional.?

What's the point of having laws if you're going to let people make up their own personal sets of laws based on their personal religious views?

 

[zeke]

How about selling houses? Should we go back to the "red lining" day where sellers of homes wouldn't sell to Jews or blacks and now we can include gays.And even Christians.

If the seller of a home has a religious belief that gays are evil, can they discriminate against them be refusing to sell them the house?

 

[LoneLaugher]

You are asking idiots to think ahead, Zeke. Not their strong suit.

 

[TooTall]

Is a privately owned bakery a "private organization"? By your logic, shouldn't that privately owned business be allowed to refuse to participate in something they consider abhorrent?

Hey ERNIE, Is that private business trying to conduct their business in a private, controlled community? Or is that private business trying to do business in the open marketplace?

A "Christian" such as you, needs to think twice about opening a business when you know you are looking to discriminate against someone at some time.

In the case of the pizza shop, they actually ASKED for all the grief they got, Then they shut the business down and will see more money from you assholes giving them money than they have earned in the entire time they have been selling pizza.

Maybe that' what shitty run Christian business's should do all the time. Cry about how they had to do business with gays, put up a go fund me page and retire on your money. LMAO.

Since "they" didn't put up a fund me page, your entire rant is BS.

 

[NYcarbineer]

As Conservatives continue to lose their decades long battle to legally conserve bigotry (get it? lol, conserve-atives)

their latest battle front is the religious angle. They thought they won a far reaching victory with Hobby Lobby,

but the Indiana debacle has made them, well, think again.

It will only get worse for them because, especially, the younger generation will have none of the 'old time religion' bullshit.

 

[zeke]

You are asking idiots to think ahead, Zeke. Not their strong suit.

I understand. Sometimes on here I feel like asking some of the more thoughtful left wing posters (yourself for instance) to try and argue the positions of the right wingers.

At least you or some one like you would be able to make a better case for some of their weirdness.
And it would make the site more fun and entertaining.

Then sometimes I just want to ask are there any other message boards that you know of that has smarter, more thoughtful right wingers participating?

Hey baseball season starts tomorrow. Life is getting better. I tried to buy tickets to the Allstar Game in CInci this year. Good lord those ticket prices. Instead I got 4 tickets to the Sunday Old Timers game and the up and coming stars game. Should be fun. Even if it's not the All Star game.

Have a good Easter.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I was giving this a lot of thought and I wonder if taking away the freedom to discriminate against people of different races actually takes away our ability to make moral choices for ourselves. I know it is wrong to discriminate on this basis but taking away that choice from others might take away the right to make moral choices for themselves. The freedom of religion implies that we have the right to pursue what we think is right since two different religions might have opposite moral codes example: satanism vs Christianity. Clearly we can choose either religion (or none at all) which means we can decide what we think is right based on our freedom to associate with our church. What if someone really doesn't think there is nothing wrong with discriminating based on race? Does the first amendment mean that anti discrimination laws are unconstitutional.?

There are so many false assumptions and erroneous comparisons in your arguments that it's hard to know where to start.

There is nothing inherently wrong with being this or that race. So on that point alone your comparisons fall apart. But, according to God, our creator, there is something inherently wrong with engaging in homosexual conduct.

Being black or white does not violate any credible, mainstream religious belief. Engaging in homosexual conduct and "marrying" your homosexual lover violates the basic, long-standing teachings of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, and is identified as sinful and unnatural in the Bible and the Koran. As many scholars have noted, we know of no example in the animal kingdom of two animals of the same gender staying together in a romantic relationship--it is simply unheard of in nature.

Let me ask a counter question based on the wording of one of your questions: What if someone thinks there is nothing wrong with suing a restaurant owned by two religious people because the owners politely declined to host their gay wedding and even offered to bake the wedding cake (i.e., the Mennonite-owned bistro in Iowa)? The gay couple would not have attacked the owners if the owners had been old-style hippies who viewed marriage as a barbaric, oppressive institution and who therefore never hosted or serviced any weddings whatsoever.

But the gay couple went after the religious owners because they reject God, the Bible, and traditional morality. So they discriminated against the religious owners on the basis of their religion--they treated them differently than they would have treated a couple of old-style hippie owners who never did any weddings because they viewed marriage as an oppressive, archaic institution.

If you are a gay couple and a religious vendor politely declines to host or service your gay wedding, you have not been "discriminated" against. You have encountered someone who has different moral values and beliefs than you do. You have not been denied a single basic or essential right. You can still get married. You can quickly and easily just go use a different vendor. You are not being forced to do anything that you find morally offensive, so you should not seek to coerce the religious vendor into doing something that he finds morally offensive. Live and let live. Show some tolerance and respect for different values and beliefs.