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

[Skylar]

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.

So you're literally equating segregation, whites only lunch counters and flagrant racial discrimination in hiring, housing, commerce and education....

......with requiring that businesses treat all customers fairly and equally?

Really? The context you're requiring I ignore for your argument to be plausible is pretty astonishing.

 

[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".

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.

No. You don't understand me. Perhaps you're just strawmanning, but on the outside chance that you really don't understand what I'm saying, I'll elaborate.

Discrimination laws don't apply to everyone equally. They don't outlaw all irrational biases - only those that aren't currently in vogue. They designate select groups for special treatment. 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?

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.

No. You don't understand me. Perhaps you're just strawmanning, but on the outside chance that you really don't understand what I'm saying, I'll elaborate.

Discrimination laws don't apply to everyone equally. They don't outlaw all irrational biases - only those that aren't currently in vogue. They designate select groups for special treatment. That's not equal protection.

I might see the problem. The 14th amendment says there must be equal protection under the laws. It does not say the laws must make everyone equal. The laws must be applied to everyone equally. A white business owner can't deny service to a black customer and a black business owner can't deny service to a white customer. Equal application of the law. So long as they are applied equally, there is nothing in PA laws which create discrimination. There is no obligation the law must cover every possible group, only that the law is applied equally to everyone.

 

[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.

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.

No. You don't understand me. Perhaps you're just strawmanning, but on the outside chance that you really don't understand what I'm saying, I'll elaborate.

Discrimination laws don't apply to everyone equally. They don't outlaw all irrational biases - only those that aren't currently in vogue. They designate select groups for special treatment. That's not equal protection.

I might see the problem. The 14th amendment says there must be equal protection under the laws. It does not say the laws must make everyone equal. The laws must be applied to everyone equally. A white business owner can't deny service to a black customer and a black business owner can't deny service to a white customer. Equal application of the law. So long as they are applied equally, there is nothing in PA laws which create discrimination. There is no obligation the law must cover every possible group, only that the law is applied equally to everyone.

The way I see it, if we're going to protect religious groups and racial minorities from discrimination, we should protect gays too, and fat people and ugly people and stupid people, people with annoying voices, short people, smart people, poor people, rich people, etc, etc. ...

Anything less is just playing favorites and amounts to government parsing out privilege.

 

[dblack]

So you're literally equating segregation, whites only lunch counters and flagrant racial discrimination in hiring, housing, commerce and education....

......with requiring that businesses treat all customers fairly and equally?

No, I'm calling bullshit on the conceit that these laws do that. They merely ban certain kinds of discrimination that are currently unpopular.

 

[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.

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.

And apparently you can't see the profound difference between being refused a service you want, and being arrested by the police.

 

[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".

We're talking about explicit acts of commerce. Not merely a 'meeting'.

I don't see any moral difference between them. Arguably, acts of personal prejudice have a deeper and more harmful impact that commercial discrimination.

 

[Silhouette]

The way I see it, if we're going to protect religious groups and racial minorities from discrimination, we should protect gays too, and fat people and ugly people and stupid people, people with annoying voices, short people, smart people, poor people, rich people, etc, etc. ...

Anything less is just playing favorites and amounts to government parsing out privilege.

Don't forget polygamy, incest and underaged people...

...shouldn't we also be protecting child-people and their rights to a mother and father in marriage?

 

[Skylar]

So you're literally equating segregation, whites only lunch counters and flagrant racial discrimination in hiring, housing, commerce and education....

......with requiring that businesses treat all customers fairly and equally?

No, I'm calling bullshit on the conceit that these laws do that. They merely ban certain kinds of discrimination that are currently unpopular.

That's exactly what these laws do. PA laws require that a business treat their customers the same. That they NOT deny services. That they NOT segregate. That they DON'T discriminate.

Exactly the opposite of jim crow laws.

 

[Silhouette]

That's exactly what these laws do. PA laws require that a business treat their customers the same. That they NOT deny services. That they NOT segregate. That they DON'T discriminate.

Exactly the opposite of jim crow laws.

What on EARTH does race have to do with this conversation about alternative lifestyles wanting to experiment with kids formative environment (marriage)?

 

[Skylar]

That's exactly what these laws do. PA laws require that a business treat their customers the same. That they NOT deny services. That they NOT segregate. That they DON'T discriminate.

Exactly the opposite of jim crow laws.

What on EARTH does race have to do with this conversation about alternative lifestyles wanting to experiment with kids formative environment (marriage)?

And yet between Romer v. Evans and Windsor v. US, the court cited 4 different race based cases involving discrimination when describing why the rights of gays couldn't be violated. You insist that no mention of race based cases is relevant to gay rights issues. The courts contradict you.

4 times.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

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.

No. You don't understand me. Perhaps you're just strawmanning, but on the outside chance that you really don't understand what I'm saying, I'll elaborate.

Discrimination laws don't apply to everyone equally. They don't outlaw all irrational biases - only those that aren't currently in vogue. They designate select groups for special treatment. That's not equal protection.

I might see the problem. The 14th amendment says there must be equal protection under the laws. It does not say the laws must make everyone equal. The laws must be applied to everyone equally. A white business owner can't deny service to a black customer and a black business owner can't deny service to a white customer. Equal application of the law. So long as they are applied equally, there is nothing in PA laws which create discrimination. There is no obligation the law must cover every possible group, only that the law is applied equally to everyone.

The way I see it, if we're going to protect religious groups and racial minorities from discrimination, we should protect gays too, and fat people and ugly people and stupid people, people with annoying voices, short people, smart people, poor people, rich people, etc, etc. ...

Anything less is just playing favorites and amounts to government parsing out privilege.

Nonsense.

What exactly constitutes a 'fat person,' ten pounds overweight, 20?

What criteria might be used to define 'ugly'? Or an 'annoying voice'?

Your 'argument' against public accommodations laws is a ridiculous red herring.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Yeah, yeah, yeah....you're boring.

Sorry I bore you. I have a tendency to bore children too as they lack the intellect to keep up with complicated discussions.

And I'm right. What's more, you know I'm right.

You say something motormouth? Nothing pisses a homo progtard off more than to be ignored.

Ignore is for cowards....and those who know they can't keep up.

no, the ignore function is there so that sane people do not have to be continually bombarded with left wing bullshit from liars and frauds. You are my next candidate for my list. I do not choose to waste my time with fools and morons.

Ignore is for cowards and for those who cannot keep up. Thanks for the affirmation.

I can think of some other reasons.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

They don't see the difference.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The way I see it, if we're going to protect religious groups and racial minorities from discrimination, we should protect gays too, and fat people and ugly people and stupid people, people with annoying voices, short people, smart people, poor people, rich people, etc, etc. ...

Anything less is just playing favorites and amounts to government parsing out privilege.

Don't forget polygamy, incest and underaged people...

...shouldn't we also be protecting child-people and their rights to a mother and father in marriage?

This sort of stupidity deserves to be discriminated against.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That's exactly what these laws do. PA laws require that a business treat their customers the same. That they NOT deny services. That they NOT segregate. That they DON'T discriminate.

Exactly the opposite of jim crow laws.

What on EARTH does race have to do with this conversation about alternative lifestyles wanting to experiment with kids formative environment (marriage)?

It has to do with the protected liberty of choice afforded to all persons wishing to enter into a marriage contract, whether that choice is two persons of different races or two persons of the same sex, it makes no difference – the right to make that choice is protected by the Constitution and immune from attack by the states.

 

[Syriusly]

The way I see it, if we're going to protect religious groups and racial minorities from discrimination, we should protect gays too, and fat people and ugly people and stupid people, people with annoying voices, short people, smart people, poor people, rich people, etc, etc. ...

Anything less is just playing favorites and amounts to government parsing out privilege.

...shouldn't we also be protecting child-people and their rights to a mother and father in marriage?

How are you going to force the parents of 'child-people' to be their mother and father in marriage?

If children have that right- then the state has an obligation to enforce that right for the children- how exactly will the state ensure that all children have a married father and mother?

 

[Syriusly]

That's exactly what these laws do. PA laws require that a business treat their customers the same. That they NOT deny services. That they NOT segregate. That they DON'T discriminate.

Exactly the opposite of jim crow laws.

What on EARTH does race have to do with this conversation about alternative lifestyles wanting to experiment with kids formative environment (marriage)?

This thread has nothing to do with your usual fantasy.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

That's exactly what these laws do. PA laws require that a business treat their customers the same. That they NOT deny services. That they NOT segregate. That they DON'T discriminate.

Exactly the opposite of jim crow laws.

What on EARTH does race have to do with this conversation about alternative lifestyles wanting to experiment with kids formative environment (marriage)?

It has to do with the protected liberty of choice ...

LOL!

So "race" is a choice?

Do tell... .

Reader, do you see how perverse reasoning has no means to deal with reality.

Of course, this is the same species of reasoning which routinely advises you, expecting you to believe that "THE SEAS ARE RISING!", despite the fact (reality) that the seas are NOT rising... .

 

[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.

They don't see the difference.

More accurately, I do see the difference between Jim Crow laws, segregation, white only lunch counters, rampant discrimination in housing, employment, and the law....

.....and requiring businesses treat their customers fairly and equally.