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

[mdk]

The majority of homosexuals are either alcoholics or junkies and that is a fact. No danger there huh? I truly believe, that being gay is literally a crime.

In a thread literally riddled with silliness you may have just taken the cake. For your sake, I hope it isn't a gay cake. We wouldn't want you to turn into a booze hound or a junkie like a majority of gays. lol.

 

[PratchettFan]

The majority of homosexuals are either alcoholics or junkies and that is a fact. No danger there huh? I truly believe, that being gay is literally a crime.

I'm sure you do.

 

[dblack]

State and local public accommodations laws are not 'unjust,' which is why they've been consistently upheld as Constitutional by the courts.

Let's not pretend nothing has changed. Now states are passing public accommodation laws that are forcing people to violate their conscience. That's not going to be upheld as Constitutional.

Public accommodation laws, have always forced people to violate their conscience. That's their purpose. The only thing changing is that they are being extended to protect more people.

At the expense of others who are NOT being protected. Eventually the courts will have to weigh Leftist "civil rights" against actual Constitutional rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution will trump the made up rights of the Left.

Exactly. Corporatist privileges are incompatible with universal rights.

 

[Nosmo King]

The majority of homosexuals are either alcoholics or junkies and that is a fact. No danger there huh? I truly believe, that being gay is literally a crime.

Would you care to prove that as "fact", or should we take the responsible course and see your post as personal anecdote and ignorance?

 

[dblack]

Public accommodation laws, have always forced people to violate their conscience. That's their purpose. The only thing changing is that they are being extended to protect more people.

Yes. Frankly, I fail to see the problem with that. Protecting people is a valid function of government.

I meant to quote "protect" in my comment.

In any case, the contradictions inherent in these kinds of laws will become more obvious the more they are extended. It remains to be seen whether this will wake people up, and we'll reverse the trend. Or whether we'll embrace a full-blown descent into corporatism.

I don't see the contradictions.

I don't see how you could without a conception of fundamental rights.

As to corporatism, I don't see the connection. How does a law which prevents a corporation from discriminating against an individual a move to corporatism?

You're probably thinking of a different notion of corporatism. I'm talking about the political concept (Corporatism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia) that replaces universal, individual rights with interest group privilege.

I have the conception of fundamental rights, it just doesn't exist. It's a phrase which means whatever you want it to mean and so means nothing.

It means something very specific when I use the term, and I'm happy to be more explicit about it. But based on previous conversations here, I doubt it's anything you'd accept. And given that my view of PA laws (as compatible with basic freedom) is based on this concept, it's understandable you'd not agree. That's not an insult, it's just that a mutual understanding of the concept of fundamental liberty is integral to my argument. If you reject that, the rest of it won't make sense to you.

I understood what you meant by corporatism. Would you prefer I substitute agricultural interests for corporation? The point remains. How is the defense of an individual's rights moving toward corporatism?

PA laws aren't defending anyone's rights.

Again, this hinges on our conception of rights. In my view, a "right to not be discriminated against" is incoherent. It's not a right, it's the power to force other people to cater to you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The majority of homosexuals are either alcoholics or junkies and that is a fact. No danger there huh? I truly believe, that being gay is literally a crime.

In a thread literally riddled with silliness you may have just taken the cake. For your sake, I hope it isn't a gay cake. We wouldn't want tou to turn into a booze hound or a junkie like a majority of gays. lol.

The premise of the thread is idiocy, it was silly from the first post.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yes. Frankly, I fail to see the problem with that. Protecting people is a valid function of government.

I meant to quote "protect" in my comment.

In any case, the contradictions inherent in these kinds of laws will become more obvious the more they are extended. It remains to be seen whether this will wake people up, and we'll reverse the trend. Or whether we'll embrace a full-blown descent into corporatism.

I don't see the contradictions.

I don't see how you could without a conception of fundamental rights.

As to corporatism, I don't see the connection. How does a law which prevents a corporation from discriminating against an individual a move to corporatism?

You're probably thinking of a different notion of corporatism. I'm talking about the political concept (Corporatism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia) that replaces universal, individual rights with interest group privilege.

I have the conception of fundamental rights, it just doesn't exist. It's a phrase which means whatever you want it to mean and so means nothing.

It means something very specific when I use the term, and I'm happy to be more explicit about it. But based on previous conversations here, I doubt it's anything you'd accept. And given that my view of PA laws (as compatible with basic freedom) is based on this concept, it's understandable you'd not agree. That's not an insult, it's just that a mutual understanding of the concept of fundamental liberty is integral to my argument. If you reject that, the rest of it won't make sense to you.

I understood what you meant by corporatism. Would you prefer I substitute agricultural interests for corporation? The point remains. How is the defense of an individual's rights moving toward corporatism?

PA laws aren't defending anyone's rights.

Again, this hinges on our conception of rights. In my view, a "right to not be discriminated against" is incoherent. It's not a right, it's the power to force other people to cater to you.

Your views of public accommodations laws are predicated on errant, failed libertarian and utopian dogma, where such laws in no way mitigate 'basic freedom,' just as laws requiring the payment of a minimum wage or maintaining safe working conditions for employees in no way mitigate 'basic freedom.'

The Constitution authorizes government to regulate markets, and that's what public accommodations laws do, they regulate local markets to ensure their integrity – absent violating 'basic freedom.'

 

[dblack]

I meant to quote "protect" in my comment.

In any case, the contradictions inherent in these kinds of laws will become more obvious the more they are extended. It remains to be seen whether this will wake people up, and we'll reverse the trend. Or whether we'll embrace a full-blown descent into corporatism.

I don't see the contradictions.

I don't see how you could without a conception of fundamental rights.

As to corporatism, I don't see the connection. How does a law which prevents a corporation from discriminating against an individual a move to corporatism?

You're probably thinking of a different notion of corporatism. I'm talking about the political concept (Corporatism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia) that replaces universal, individual rights with interest group privilege.

I have the conception of fundamental rights, it just doesn't exist. It's a phrase which means whatever you want it to mean and so means nothing.

It means something very specific when I use the term, and I'm happy to be more explicit about it. But based on previous conversations here, I doubt it's anything you'd accept. And given that my view of PA laws (as compatible with basic freedom) is based on this concept, it's understandable you'd not agree. That's not an insult, it's just that a mutual understanding of the concept of fundamental liberty is integral to my argument. If you reject that, the rest of it won't make sense to you.

I understood what you meant by corporatism. Would you prefer I substitute agricultural interests for corporation? The point remains. How is the defense of an individual's rights moving toward corporatism?

PA laws aren't defending anyone's rights.

Again, this hinges on our conception of rights. In my view, a "right to not be discriminated against" is incoherent. It's not a right, it's the power to force other people to cater to you.

Your views of public accommodations laws are predicated on errant, failed libertarian and utopian dogma, where such laws in no way mitigate 'basic freedom,' just as laws requiring the payment of a minimum wage or maintaining safe working conditions for employees in no way mitigate 'basic freedom.'

The Constitution authorizes government to regulate markets, and that's what public accommodations laws do, they regulate local markets to ensure their integrity – absent violating 'basic freedom.'

That's a conceit and an abuse of the Commerce clause. The intent and effect of PA laws and protected classes isn't to protect rights or regulate commerce. It's to target unpopular opinions for suppression.

 

[PratchettFan]

Yes. Frankly, I fail to see the problem with that. Protecting people is a valid function of government.

I meant to quote "protect" in my comment.

In any case, the contradictions inherent in these kinds of laws will become more obvious the more they are extended. It remains to be seen whether this will wake people up, and we'll reverse the trend. Or whether we'll embrace a full-blown descent into corporatism.

I don't see the contradictions.

I don't see how you could without a conception of fundamental rights.

As to corporatism, I don't see the connection. How does a law which prevents a corporation from discriminating against an individual a move to corporatism?

You're probably thinking of a different notion of corporatism. I'm talking about the political concept (Corporatism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia) that replaces universal, individual rights with interest group privilege.

I have the conception of fundamental rights, it just doesn't exist. It's a phrase which means whatever you want it to mean and so means nothing.

It means something very specific when I use the term, and I'm happy to be more explicit about it. But based on previous conversations here, I doubt it's anything you'd accept. And given that my view of PA laws (as compatible with basic freedom) is based on this concept, it's understandable you'd not agree. That's not an insult, it's just that a mutual understanding of the concept of fundamental liberty is integral to my argument. If you reject that, the rest of it won't make sense to you.

I understood what you meant by corporatism. Would you prefer I substitute agricultural interests for corporation? The point remains. How is the defense of an individual's rights moving toward corporatism?

PA laws aren't defending anyone's rights.

Again, this hinges on our conception of rights. In my view, a "right to not be discriminated against" is incoherent. It's not a right, it's the power to force other people to cater to you.

I am not bothered by differences of opinion. I consider it very healthy that people see things differently and express that. I consider your positions to be cogent, reasonable and well considered. My disagreement does not change that in the least. So never worry that you might insult me just by seeing things differently and I hope you react to my disagreement in the same manner. I have nothing but respect for you.

First let me address your statement on rights vs force. I expect we see rights differently. Rights do not come from God, they come from your neighbors. They are not inalienable or due to us just because we were born in the right place. Rights are forcing others to treat you in a particular manner, whether those others are the government, a company or another citizen. They exist only so long as the force exists. Take away that force and your right to your own home goes away the first time someone with more fire power than you decides to take it. You have rights only so long as the society says you have rights and only so long as that society is willing to enforce it. A prime example of this is the simple fact that the person who wrote so eloquently about the inalienable and god given right to liberty owned human beings.

PA laws defend the right of someone to walk into a store and buy a loaf of bread. I see that as a valid function of government. Those laws do not require anyone to like anyone else, or to give them any special privileges. They only require that if you open a business to the public, that you open to all of the public. Not just that portion of it you approve. The reason we have those laws is because without them there was wholesale discrimination which created massive unrest. Such discrimination is destructive to the society and those businesses are dependent upon society.

 

[Ravi]

I don't see the contradictions.

I don't see how you could without a conception of fundamental rights.

As to corporatism, I don't see the connection. How does a law which prevents a corporation from discriminating against an individual a move to corporatism?

You're probably thinking of a different notion of corporatism. I'm talking about the political concept (Corporatism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia) that replaces universal, individual rights with interest group privilege.

I have the conception of fundamental rights, it just doesn't exist. It's a phrase which means whatever you want it to mean and so means nothing.

It means something very specific when I use the term, and I'm happy to be more explicit about it. But based on previous conversations here, I doubt it's anything you'd accept. And given that my view of PA laws (as compatible with basic freedom) is based on this concept, it's understandable you'd not agree. That's not an insult, it's just that a mutual understanding of the concept of fundamental liberty is integral to my argument. If you reject that, the rest of it won't make sense to you.

I understood what you meant by corporatism. Would you prefer I substitute agricultural interests for corporation? The point remains. How is the defense of an individual's rights moving toward corporatism?

PA laws aren't defending anyone's rights.

Again, this hinges on our conception of rights. In my view, a "right to not be discriminated against" is incoherent. It's not a right, it's the power to force other people to cater to you.

Your views of public accommodations laws are predicated on errant, failed libertarian and utopian dogma, where such laws in no way mitigate 'basic freedom,' just as laws requiring the payment of a minimum wage or maintaining safe working conditions for employees in no way mitigate 'basic freedom.'

The Constitution authorizes government to regulate markets, and that's what public accommodations laws do, they regulate local markets to ensure their integrity – absent violating 'basic freedom.'

That's a conceit and an abuse of the Commerce clause. The intent and effect of PA laws and protected classes isn't to protect rights or regulate commerce. It's to target unpopular opinions for suppression.

And yet you can spend all day railing against gays or Christians. You can put a sign in your window I HATE_______s.

Where is the suppression?

 

[dblack]

I don't see how you could without a conception of fundamental rights.

You're probably thinking of a different notion of corporatism. I'm talking about the political concept (Corporatism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia) that replaces universal, individual rights with interest group privilege.

I have the conception of fundamental rights, it just doesn't exist. It's a phrase which means whatever you want it to mean and so means nothing.

It means something very specific when I use the term, and I'm happy to be more explicit about it. But based on previous conversations here, I doubt it's anything you'd accept. And given that my view of PA laws (as compatible with basic freedom) is based on this concept, it's understandable you'd not agree. That's not an insult, it's just that a mutual understanding of the concept of fundamental liberty is integral to my argument. If you reject that, the rest of it won't make sense to you.

I understood what you meant by corporatism. Would you prefer I substitute agricultural interests for corporation? The point remains. How is the defense of an individual's rights moving toward corporatism?

PA laws aren't defending anyone's rights.

Again, this hinges on our conception of rights. In my view, a "right to not be discriminated against" is incoherent. It's not a right, it's the power to force other people to cater to you.

Your views of public accommodations laws are predicated on errant, failed libertarian and utopian dogma, where such laws in no way mitigate 'basic freedom,' just as laws requiring the payment of a minimum wage or maintaining safe working conditions for employees in no way mitigate 'basic freedom.'

The Constitution authorizes government to regulate markets, and that's what public accommodations laws do, they regulate local markets to ensure their integrity – absent violating 'basic freedom.'

That's a conceit and an abuse of the Commerce clause. The intent and effect of PA laws and protected classes isn't to protect rights or regulate commerce. It's to target unpopular opinions for suppression.

And yet you can spend all day railing against gays or Christians. You can put a sign in your window I HATE_______s.

Where is the suppression?

Are you denying that the point of these laws is to suppress bigotry?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I have the conception of fundamental rights, it just doesn't exist. It's a phrase which means whatever you want it to mean and so means nothing.

It means something very specific when I use the term, and I'm happy to be more explicit about it. But based on previous conversations here, I doubt it's anything you'd accept. And given that my view of PA laws (as compatible with basic freedom) is based on this concept, it's understandable you'd not agree. That's not an insult, it's just that a mutual understanding of the concept of fundamental liberty is integral to my argument. If you reject that, the rest of it won't make sense to you.

I understood what you meant by corporatism. Would you prefer I substitute agricultural interests for corporation? The point remains. How is the defense of an individual's rights moving toward corporatism?

PA laws aren't defending anyone's rights.

Again, this hinges on our conception of rights. In my view, a "right to not be discriminated against" is incoherent. It's not a right, it's the power to force other people to cater to you.

Your views of public accommodations laws are predicated on errant, failed libertarian and utopian dogma, where such laws in no way mitigate 'basic freedom,' just as laws requiring the payment of a minimum wage or maintaining safe working conditions for employees in no way mitigate 'basic freedom.'

The Constitution authorizes government to regulate markets, and that's what public accommodations laws do, they regulate local markets to ensure their integrity – absent violating 'basic freedom.'

That's a conceit and an abuse of the Commerce clause. The intent and effect of PA laws and protected classes isn't to protect rights or regulate commerce. It's to target unpopular opinions for suppression.

And yet you can spend all day railing against gays or Christians. You can put a sign in your window I HATE_______s.

Where is the suppression?

Are you denying that the point of these laws is to suppress bigotry?

Actually these laws are about providing equal access to products and services, meaning everyone can get on with their lives without having to worry about whether a business serves their kind. Fixing that kind of bigotry over time is a byproduct.

 

[dblack]

It means something very specific when I use the term, and I'm happy to be more explicit about it. But based on previous conversations here, I doubt it's anything you'd accept. And given that my view of PA laws (as compatible with basic freedom) is based on this concept, it's understandable you'd not agree. That's not an insult, it's just that a mutual understanding of the concept of fundamental liberty is integral to my argument. If you reject that, the rest of it won't make sense to you.

PA laws aren't defending anyone's rights.

Again, this hinges on our conception of rights. In my view, a "right to not be discriminated against" is incoherent. It's not a right, it's the power to force other people to cater to you.

Your views of public accommodations laws are predicated on errant, failed libertarian and utopian dogma, where such laws in no way mitigate 'basic freedom,' just as laws requiring the payment of a minimum wage or maintaining safe working conditions for employees in no way mitigate 'basic freedom.'

The Constitution authorizes government to regulate markets, and that's what public accommodations laws do, they regulate local markets to ensure their integrity – absent violating 'basic freedom.'

That's a conceit and an abuse of the Commerce clause. The intent and effect of PA laws and protected classes isn't to protect rights or regulate commerce. It's to target unpopular opinions for suppression.

And yet you can spend all day railing against gays or Christians. You can put a sign in your window I HATE_______s.

Where is the suppression?

Are you denying that the point of these laws is to suppress bigotry?

Actually these laws are about providing equal access to products and services, meaning everyone can get on with their lives without having to worry about whether a business serves their kind. Fixing that kind of bigotry over time is a byproduct.

Nonsense. If that were the case, all discrimination would be illegal, not just protected classes.

 

[Ravi]

I have the conception of fundamental rights, it just doesn't exist. It's a phrase which means whatever you want it to mean and so means nothing.

It means something very specific when I use the term, and I'm happy to be more explicit about it. But based on previous conversations here, I doubt it's anything you'd accept. And given that my view of PA laws (as compatible with basic freedom) is based on this concept, it's understandable you'd not agree. That's not an insult, it's just that a mutual understanding of the concept of fundamental liberty is integral to my argument. If you reject that, the rest of it won't make sense to you.

I understood what you meant by corporatism. Would you prefer I substitute agricultural interests for corporation? The point remains. How is the defense of an individual's rights moving toward corporatism?

PA laws aren't defending anyone's rights.

Again, this hinges on our conception of rights. In my view, a "right to not be discriminated against" is incoherent. It's not a right, it's the power to force other people to cater to you.

Your views of public accommodations laws are predicated on errant, failed libertarian and utopian dogma, where such laws in no way mitigate 'basic freedom,' just as laws requiring the payment of a minimum wage or maintaining safe working conditions for employees in no way mitigate 'basic freedom.'

The Constitution authorizes government to regulate markets, and that's what public accommodations laws do, they regulate local markets to ensure their integrity – absent violating 'basic freedom.'

That's a conceit and an abuse of the Commerce clause. The intent and effect of PA laws and protected classes isn't to protect rights or regulate commerce. It's to target unpopular opinions for suppression.

And yet you can spend all day railing against gays or Christians. You can put a sign in your window I HATE_______s.

Where is the suppression?

Are you denying that the point of these laws is to suppress bigotry?

How it suppressed when it can be expressed? And, no, the law is not to suppress bigotry.

 

[dblack]

It means something very specific when I use the term, and I'm happy to be more explicit about it. But based on previous conversations here, I doubt it's anything you'd accept. And given that my view of PA laws (as compatible with basic freedom) is based on this concept, it's understandable you'd not agree. That's not an insult, it's just that a mutual understanding of the concept of fundamental liberty is integral to my argument. If you reject that, the rest of it won't make sense to you.

PA laws aren't defending anyone's rights.

Again, this hinges on our conception of rights. In my view, a "right to not be discriminated against" is incoherent. It's not a right, it's the power to force other people to cater to you.

Your views of public accommodations laws are predicated on errant, failed libertarian and utopian dogma, where such laws in no way mitigate 'basic freedom,' just as laws requiring the payment of a minimum wage or maintaining safe working conditions for employees in no way mitigate 'basic freedom.'

The Constitution authorizes government to regulate markets, and that's what public accommodations laws do, they regulate local markets to ensure their integrity – absent violating 'basic freedom.'

That's a conceit and an abuse of the Commerce clause. The intent and effect of PA laws and protected classes isn't to protect rights or regulate commerce. It's to target unpopular opinions for suppression.

And yet you can spend all day railing against gays or Christians. You can put a sign in your window I HATE_______s.

Where is the suppression?

Are you denying that the point of these laws is to suppress bigotry?

How it suppressed when it can be expressed? And, no, the law is not to suppress bigotry.

It limits how it can be expressed. You really don't get that?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Your views of public accommodations laws are predicated on errant, failed libertarian and utopian dogma, where such laws in no way mitigate 'basic freedom,' just as laws requiring the payment of a minimum wage or maintaining safe working conditions for employees in no way mitigate 'basic freedom.'

The Constitution authorizes government to regulate markets, and that's what public accommodations laws do, they regulate local markets to ensure their integrity – absent violating 'basic freedom.'

That's a conceit and an abuse of the Commerce clause. The intent and effect of PA laws and protected classes isn't to protect rights or regulate commerce. It's to target unpopular opinions for suppression.

And yet you can spend all day railing against gays or Christians. You can put a sign in your window I HATE_______s.

Where is the suppression?

Are you denying that the point of these laws is to suppress bigotry?

Actually these laws are about providing equal access to products and services, meaning everyone can get on with their lives without having to worry about whether a business serves their kind. Fixing that kind of bigotry over time is a byproduct.

Nonsense. If that were the case, all discrimination would be illegal, not just protected classes.

The majority doesn't need protection, just the minorities.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Your views of public accommodations laws are predicated on errant, failed libertarian and utopian dogma, where such laws in no way mitigate 'basic freedom,' just as laws requiring the payment of a minimum wage or maintaining safe working conditions for employees in no way mitigate 'basic freedom.'

The Constitution authorizes government to regulate markets, and that's what public accommodations laws do, they regulate local markets to ensure their integrity – absent violating 'basic freedom.'

That's a conceit and an abuse of the Commerce clause. The intent and effect of PA laws and protected classes isn't to protect rights or regulate commerce. It's to target unpopular opinions for suppression.

And yet you can spend all day railing against gays or Christians. You can put a sign in your window I HATE_______s.

Where is the suppression?

Are you denying that the point of these laws is to suppress bigotry?

How it suppressed when it can be expressed? And, no, the law is not to suppress bigotry.

It limits how it can be expressed. You really don't get that?

Rights have limitations, did you miss that part? And requiring a business to act like a business, and not a church, is hardly a stretch. We regulate capitalism here, now you know.

 

[dblack]

That's a conceit and an abuse of the Commerce clause. The intent and effect of PA laws and protected classes isn't to protect rights or regulate commerce. It's to target unpopular opinions for suppression.

And yet you can spend all day railing against gays or Christians. You can put a sign in your window I HATE_______s.

Where is the suppression?

Are you denying that the point of these laws is to suppress bigotry?

How it suppressed when it can be expressed? And, no, the law is not to suppress bigotry.

It limits how it can be expressed. You really don't get that?

Rights have limitations, did you miss that part? And requiring a business to act like a business, and not a church, is hardly a stretch. We regulate capitalism here, now you know.

What's that got to do with the point of the law? (to suppress bigotry)

Or is this just more of your trolling games?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And yet you can spend all day railing against gays or Christians. You can put a sign in your window I HATE_______s.

Where is the suppression?

Are you denying that the point of these laws is to suppress bigotry?

How it suppressed when it can be expressed? And, no, the law is not to suppress bigotry.

It limits how it can be expressed. You really don't get that?

Rights have limitations, did you miss that part? And requiring a business to act like a business, and not a church, is hardly a stretch. We regulate capitalism here, now you know.

What's that got to do with the point of the law? (to suppress bigotry)

Or is this just more of your trolling games?

No, the point of the law is to provide for equal access to products and services for minorities. We can't outlaw bigotry but we can outlaw how it is expressed in business, which we regulate.

 

[dblack]

No, the point of the law is to provide for equal access to products and services for minorities.

Then it's an abject failure. It only grants this privilege to select, popular groups..