Florist Sued for Refusing Service to Gay Couple Pens Defiant Letter Rejecting Gov’t Settlement Offer

[dblack]

How is providing discrimination protection to some and not others equal protection?

It's not.

So you don't think the 14th amendment is a universal right? Who do you think we should deny equal protection to?

What are you talking about?

To clarify, I DO think the 14th amendment is a universal right - one that PA laws and 'protected classes' fundamentally violate.

It's likely I just am misunderstanding you, so bare with me. If the laws are applied to everyone, how is it not equal?

If a law doesn't provide equal protection, it doesn't matter if it's "applied" to everyone.

 

[PratchettFan]

It's not.

So you don't think the 14th amendment is a universal right? Who do you think we should deny equal protection to?

What are you talking about?

To clarify, I DO think the 14th amendment is a universal right - one that PA laws and 'protected classes' fundamentally violate.

It's likely I just am misunderstanding you, so bare with me. If the laws are applied to everyone, how is it not equal?

If a law doesn't provide equal protection, it doesn't matter if it's "applied" to everyone.

Protection from what?

 

[dblack]

PratchettFan - to clarify, anti-discrimination laws target unpopular minorities (bigots) for discrimination. That's not equal protection.

 

[PratchettFan]

PratchettFan - to clarify, anti-discrimination laws target unpopular minorities (bigots) for discrimination. That's not equal protection.

I'm sorry. Still not following. How are bigots being discriminated against?

 

[dblack]

PratchettFan - to clarify, anti-discrimination laws target unpopular minorities (bigots) for discrimination. That's not equal protection.

I'm sorry. Still not following. How are bigots being discriminated against?

Anti discrimination laws persecute unpopular minorities. They target unpopular bigots and declare their biases illegal. More popular biases are accepted and endorsed.

 

[PratchettFan]

PratchettFan - to clarify, anti-discrimination laws target unpopular minorities (bigots) for discrimination. That's not equal protection.

I'm sorry. Still not following. How are bigots being discriminated against?

Anti discrimination laws persecute unpopular minorities. They target unpopular bigots and declare their biases illegal. More popular biases are accepted and endorsed.

Nope. I'm just not getting it. If I don't like paying taxes, am I being discriminated against because I have to pay whether I like it or not? If the law is applied to everyone, how is it not equal?

 

[PratchettFan]

PratchettFan - to clarify, anti-discrimination laws target unpopular minorities (bigots) for discrimination. That's not equal protection.

I'm sorry. Still not following. How are bigots being discriminated against?

Anti discrimination laws persecute unpopular minorities. They target unpopular bigots and declare their biases illegal. More popular biases are accepted and endorsed.

Let me put it another way. Most people don't want to break into other people's houses and rob them. Does that make laws against burglary discriminatory against burglars?

 

[dblack]

PratchettFan - to clarify, anti-discrimination laws target unpopular minorities (bigots) for discrimination. That's not equal protection.

I'm sorry. Still not following. How are bigots being discriminated against?

PratchettFan - to clarify, anti-discrimination laws target unpopular minorities (bigots) for discrimination. That's not equal protection.

I'm sorry. Still not following. How are bigots being discriminated against?

Anti discrimination laws persecute unpopular minorities. They target unpopular bigots and declare their biases illegal. More popular biases are accepted and endorsed.

Nope. I'm just not getting it. If I don't like paying taxes, am I being discriminated against because I have to pay whether I like it or not? If the law is applied to everyone, how is it not equal?

I didn't say taxes were a violation of equal protection. But PA laws are. They target people with biases regarding protected classes and punish them for acting on their biases. People with more popular biases get a free pass. That's not equal protection. If we're going to say it's illegal for a business to discriminate based on age, sex, religion, race, etc... then, if we're to honor the principle of equal protection, we must make it illegal to discriminate against them for any reason at all. Which is, of course, insane.

Laws against non-governmental discrimination are idiotic. The "right" to not be discriminated against makes as much sense as the "right to be liked" or the "right to get laid".

 

[Seawytch]

PratchettFan - to clarify, anti-discrimination laws target unpopular minorities (bigots) for discrimination. That's not equal protection.

I'm sorry. Still not following. How are bigots being discriminated against?

PratchettFan - to clarify, anti-discrimination laws target unpopular minorities (bigots) for discrimination. That's not equal protection.

I'm sorry. Still not following. How are bigots being discriminated against?

Anti discrimination laws persecute unpopular minorities. They target unpopular bigots and declare their biases illegal. More popular biases are accepted and endorsed.

Nope. I'm just not getting it. If I don't like paying taxes, am I being discriminated against because I have to pay whether I like it or not? If the law is applied to everyone, how is it not equal?

I didn't say taxes were a violation of equal protection. But PA laws are. They target people with biases regarding protected classes and punish them for acting on their biases. People with more popular biases get a free pass. That's not equal protection. If we're going to say it's illegal for a business to discriminate based on age, sex, religion, race, etc... then, if we're to honor the principle of equal protection, we must make it illegal to discriminate against them for any reason at all. Which is, of course, insane.

Laws against non-governmental discrimination are idiotic. The "right" to not be discriminated against makes as much sense as the "right to be liked" or the "right to get laid".

PA laws protect minorities that are regularly targeted for discrimination. They vary from state to state. Some states protect things like weight, height, pregnancy, etc.

Federal PA laws have already been found to be Constitutional.

 

[bodecea]

PratchettFan - to clarify, anti-discrimination laws target unpopular minorities (bigots) for discrimination. That's not equal protection.

I'm sorry. Still not following. How are bigots being discriminated against?

PratchettFan - to clarify, anti-discrimination laws target unpopular minorities (bigots) for discrimination. That's not equal protection.

I'm sorry. Still not following. How are bigots being discriminated against?

Anti discrimination laws persecute unpopular minorities. They target unpopular bigots and declare their biases illegal. More popular biases are accepted and endorsed.

Nope. I'm just not getting it. If I don't like paying taxes, am I being discriminated against because I have to pay whether I like it or not? If the law is applied to everyone, how is it not equal?

I didn't say taxes were a violation of equal protection. But PA laws are. They target people with biases regarding protected classes and punish them for acting on their biases. People with more popular biases get a free pass. That's not equal protection. If we're going to say it's illegal for a business to discriminate based on age, sex, religion, race, etc... then, if we're to honor the principle of equal protection, we must make it illegal to discriminate against them for any reason at all. Which is, of course, insane.

Laws against non-governmental discrimination are idiotic. The "right" to not be discriminated against makes as much sense as the "right to be liked" or the "right to get laid".

So...PA laws are biased because they pick on people with biases, who act on those biases.....?

 

[dblack]

So...PA laws are biased because they pick on people with biases, who act on those biases.....?

Yes! And it's crucial we understand why that matters. It's far more important that laws aren't biased because they are coercive in nature. You can end up dead or in jail if you defy them. Personal bigots aren't empowered to kill you or put you in jail. All they can do is refuse to bake you a cake.

 

[Skylar]

So...PA laws are biased because they pick on people with biases, who act on those biases.....?

Yes! And it's crucial we understand why that matters. It's far more important that laws aren't biased because they are coercive in nature. You can end up dead or in jail if you defy them. Personal bigots aren't empowered to kill you or put you in jail. All they can do is refuse to bake you a cake.

I think its perfectly reasonable for the State with its uncontested authority over intrastate commerce to require those engaged in commerce in their State to meet minimum standards of fairness in business. Specifically, that they treat their customers fairly and equally.

 

[dblack]

bodecea and PratchettFan - let me come at this from another angle. Would you both agree that laws that discriminate against minorities are worse than individuals or businesses doing it? ie it would be worse for a state to have laws requiring blacks to go to separate schools, churches, restaurants, etc... than for private groups (churches, businesses, individuals, etc ...) to harbor such biases?

 

[Skylar]

bodecea and PratchettFan - let me come at this from another angle. Would you both agree that laws that discriminate against minorities are worse than individuals or businesses doing it? ie it would be worse for a state to have laws requiring blacks to go to separate schools, churches, restaurants, etc... than for private groups (churches, businesses, individuals, etc ...) to harbor such biases?

I think there are significant differences between churches and business. Religion is, by its very nature, exclusive. Its almost always inherently discriminatory by its very nature.

There's no such mandate for business. You can run a business and treat your customers the same, charge the same for the same service, provide the same service to each of them. There's nothing inherently discriminatory about business save monetarily. You can't get goods or services without paying for them.

And since commerce is clearly within the authority of the State to regulate, we're not talking about a legislative overstep in terms of them applying laws they don't have authority to apply.

 

[dblack]

So...PA laws are biased because they pick on people with biases, who act on those biases.....?

Yes! And it's crucial we understand why that matters. It's far more important that laws aren't biased because they are coercive in nature. You can end up dead or in jail if you defy them. Personal bigots aren't empowered to kill you or put you in jail. All they can do is refuse to bake you a cake.

I think its perfectly reasonable for the State with its uncontested authority over intrastate commerce to require those engaged in commerce in their State to meet minimum standards of fairness in business. Specifically, that they treat their customers fairly and equally.

Well, you have a far different sense of 'reasonable' than I do. And the idea that the Commerce Clause can be used to override Freedom of Association is far from "uncontested".

 

[dblack]

The irony here is that we've gone from Jim Crow laws - laws that targeted unpopular minorities for persecution, to protected classes - laws that target unpopular minorities for persecution. And yes, it's only the unpopular minorities that are persecuted. All other bigotry is given a pass, or even supported, by hypocritical legislation.

 

[PratchettFan]

PratchettFan - to clarify, anti-discrimination laws target unpopular minorities (bigots) for discrimination. That's not equal protection.

I'm sorry. Still not following. How are bigots being discriminated against?

PratchettFan - to clarify, anti-discrimination laws target unpopular minorities (bigots) for discrimination. That's not equal protection.

I'm sorry. Still not following. How are bigots being discriminated against?

Anti discrimination laws persecute unpopular minorities. They target unpopular bigots and declare their biases illegal. More popular biases are accepted and endorsed.

Nope. I'm just not getting it. If I don't like paying taxes, am I being discriminated against because I have to pay whether I like it or not? If the law is applied to everyone, how is it not equal?

I didn't say taxes were a violation of equal protection. But PA laws are. They target people with biases regarding protected classes and punish them for acting on their biases. People with more popular biases get a free pass. That's not equal protection. If we're going to say it's illegal for a business to discriminate based on age, sex, religion, race, etc... then, if we're to honor the principle of equal protection, we must make it illegal to discriminate against them for any reason at all. Which is, of course, insane.

Laws against non-governmental discrimination are idiotic. The "right" to not be discriminated against makes as much sense as the "right to be liked" or the "right to get laid".

So, if I understand you, while the laws apply to everyone equally they are discriminatory against those who want to break them. Because only the law breakers have any consequences for breaking the law.

 

[PratchettFan]

The irony here is that we've gone from Jim Crow laws - laws that targeted unpopular minorities for persecution, to protected classes - laws that target unpopular minorities for persecution. And yes, it's only the unpopular minorities that are persecuted. All other bigotry is given a pass, or even supported, by hypocritical legislation.

Again, I fail to see the persecution. Are you arguing they are being persecuted because they are prevented from persecuting?

 

[Skylar]

So...PA laws are biased because they pick on people with biases, who act on those biases.....?

Yes! And it's crucial we understand why that matters. It's far more important that laws aren't biased because they are coercive in nature. You can end up dead or in jail if you defy them. Personal bigots aren't empowered to kill you or put you in jail. All they can do is refuse to bake you a cake.

I think its perfectly reasonable for the State with its uncontested authority over intrastate commerce to require those engaged in commerce in their State to meet minimum standards of fairness in business. Specifically, that they treat their customers fairly and equally.

Well, you have a far different sense of 'reasonable' than I do. And the idea that the Commerce Clause can be used to override Freedom of Association is far from "uncontested".

We're talking about explicit acts of commerce. Not merely a 'meeting'. And the States definitely have authority to regulate intrastate commerce. Just as the federal government has the authority to regulate inter state commerce.

Setting minimum standards of conduct for those who wish to engage in commerce in their state is completely within the state's power. And requirements that those engaged in commerce treat their customers fairly and equally is completely reasonable.

 

[PratchettFan]

So...PA laws are biased because they pick on people with biases, who act on those biases.....?

Yes! And it's crucial we understand why that matters. It's far more important that laws aren't biased because they are coercive in nature. You can end up dead or in jail if you defy them. Personal bigots aren't empowered to kill you or put you in jail. All they can do is refuse to bake you a cake.

Or sell you food, or rent you lodging, or employment. While this particular case deals with a luxury item, it is based upon a law which prevents discrimination on necessities. What you are actually arguing is the state has no place in the protection of its citizens from discrimination by other citizens, regardless of how destructive that might be to the welfare of the community as a whole. I certainly can't agree with you on that.