I find it very disturbing

[dblack]

Nobody is born a White Supremacist. It is not a protected class.

No one is born married. The florist had no problem serving gays, she just didn't want to be involved in a gay marriage - which was against her religious beliefs. Race is a protected class and white supremacists are all about race.

This really is something which needs to be considered. Equal protection means just that. It has to be equal. If you can deny services to someone because you don't like "those people" then they can as well.

Exactly. Those who think Christian bakers should be able to discriminate regarding gay weddings need to accept that gay bakers should be able to return the favor for Christian customers.

 

[Foxfyre]

Nobody is born a White Supremacist. It is not a protected class.

IMO if we truly believe in equal protection under the law there should be no protected classes.

 

[dblack]

Nobody is born a White Supremacist. It is not a protected class.

IMO if we truly believe in equal protection under the law there should be no protected classes.

It's worth noting that, technically, protected classes designate classes of traits that cannot be used as a basis for discrimination - not classes of people who can't be discriminated against. That's a bit of a ruse, however, as most protected classes are designed to target unpopular biases.

 

[Seawytch]

But let me turn it around to explore this further. For those who think the florist is wrong. If the florist was black and the event was a local chapter of the White Supremacists of America chapter, would she be in violation of that law for refusing service?

White supremacy is unlikely to be included in any federal, state or local PA law. They could try the religion angle I suppose.

You cannot discriminate on the basis of race. If white supremacy isn't about race, then gay marriage isn't about sexual orientation.

But the business is not discriminating on the bases of race. No other whites are turned away from the business, only one that identifies as a white supremacist group. White supremacy is not covered in a PA protections I know of.

Gay marriage isn't protected either. Sexual orientation is, but no gays were turned away from the florists shop. She just didn't want to do the event. I can only repeat, if white supremacy isn't about race, then gay marriage isn't about sexual orientation.

Do we know for a fact she knew they were gay before they asked her to do the wedding? The circumstances are immaterial in regards to the law. The SCOTUS has been very clear in ruling that religion cannot be used as an excuse to discriminate and have reiterated that in recent rulings (Hobby Lobby).

Nobody gets special carve outs for their religous beliefs. The segregationists and anti miscegenationists didn't. Why must there be different standards when it comes to gays?

Over half the states prohibit discrimination based on marital status. The law would not treat the baker any differently in one of these states had they refused to bake a cake for a divorced and remarrying couple based on their religious beliefs.

I'd also have a lot more respect for the baker in such a case.

 

[rightwinger]

Nobody is born a White Supremacist. It is not a protected class.

IMO if we truly believe in equal protection under the law there should be no protected classes.

There shouldn't have to be

But we are not wired that way

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This 'white supremacists/KKK' nonsense is nothing more than a red herring fallacy.

The notion of allowing businesses that serve the general public to refuse service because of a patron's race, religion, or sexual orientation is ridiculous, reactionary, and naïve.

 

[Seawytch]

Nobody is born a White Supremacist. It is not a protected class.

IMO if we truly believe in equal protection under the law there should be no protected classes.

Then do it. Call your representatives and tell them you want Title II of the Civil Rights Act repealed immediately. That's the ONLY way you can make your dream come true. PA laws are constitutional, period. Congress MUST act. Tell us how the call goes, okay?

 

[dblack]

Nobody is born a White Supremacist. It is not a protected class.

IMO if we truly believe in equal protection under the law there should be no protected classes.

Then do it. Call your representatives and tell them you want Title II of the Civil Rights Act repealed immediately. That's the ONLY way you can make your dream come true. PA laws are constitutional, period. Congress MUST act. Tell us how the call goes, okay?

There's no consensus for that - yet. That's what discussions like this are about. If you don't like us talking about, leave the thread. Or complain to a mod and get it deleted. Tell us how that goes, okay?

 

[Seawytch]

Nobody is born a White Supremacist. It is not a protected class.

IMO if we truly believe in equal protection under the law there should be no protected classes.

Then do it. Call your representatives and tell them you want Title II of the Civil Rights Act repealed immediately. That's the ONLY way you can make your dream come true. PA laws are constitutional, period. Congress MUST act. Tell us how the call goes, okay?

There's no consensus for that - yet. That's what discussions like this are about. If you don't like us talking about, leave the thread. Or complain to a mod and get it deleted. Tell us how that goes, okay?

No, there isn't and there isn't likely to be anytime soon.

When gays wanted civil marriage, there was no 'consensus' for it, but we fought for it anyway. We called our congressmen, we protested civil clerks offices, we marched, we lobbied and we sued...AND we discussed on message boards. I guess two out of six is a start. (we kept winning our cases though)

Happy tilting.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

FOXFYRE SAID:

“IMO if we truly believe in equal protection under the law there should be no protected classes.”

Your problem isn't with public accommodations laws or 14th Amendment jurisprudence, your problem is with human nature; you don't need to change the Constitution or change any laws, you need to change that human nature.

Among the more fundamental aspects of human nature is fear, ignorance, and hate – this is what's behind measures seeking to deny gay Americans access to marriage law in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, and business owners who refuse to accommodate gay Americans.

And until such time as you can eradicate fear, ignorance, and hate from the human condition, there will always remain the need for the Constitution to recognize suspect and protected classes of persons.

 

[dblack]

Nobody is born a White Supremacist. It is not a protected class.

IMO if we truly believe in equal protection under the law there should be no protected classes.

Then do it. Call your representatives and tell them you want Title II of the Civil Rights Act repealed immediately. That's the ONLY way you can make your dream come true. PA laws are constitutional, period. Congress MUST act. Tell us how the call goes, okay?

There's no consensus for that - yet. That's what discussions like this are about. If you don't like us talking about, leave the thread. Or complain to a mod and get it deleted. Tell us how that goes, okay?

No, there isn't and there isn't likely to be anytime soon.

When gays wanted civil marriage, there was no 'consensus' for it, but we fought for it anyway. We called our congressmen, we protested civil clerks offices, we marched, we lobbied and we sued...AND we discussed on message boards. I guess one out of six is a start.

Happy tilting.

Why is it 'tilting' for us, but not for those who wanted civil marriage? People are starting to understand the insidious nature of protected classes, and how it actually undermines equal protection. As the list of protected classes is expanded, it will become even more apparent, and the way these laws limit important freedoms will come to the fore.

I'm never quite sure what to make of this sort of response to an argument. The whole "well, it ain't gonna change and your deluded for even trying" is essentially a reactionary conservative posture, but these days it most often comes from liberals. It just seems like a handy fallback for someone losing an argument.

 

[PratchettFan]

To be honest, I don't really disagree too much with this. But let me take it a step further. If the florist does deliver and set up the flowers at the site, but is gone before the actual event begins - is that significantly different than just providing the flowers?

I don't think so. I wouldn't want to be seen anywhere on the premises of a Westboro Baptist function even if the building was closed and everybody had gone home. Such is my repugnance and abhorrence for what they stand for; what they do. And I would think it criminal if a gay person was required by law to be there, be seen there, to participate in an event there, before it starts, during it, or taking everything down afterward.

I assume you don't include government employees in that, let me know if I'm wrong.

That is a side which does need to be seen. If a gay marriage is a protected event, then so is a Westboro event. An African-American caterer cannot refuse to cater a KKK rally. This is about equal protection, not special protection. At the same time, we have the issue of state rights. If it is a valid right of the state to make discrimination illegal, where is the end of that right? For DBlack, that is simple. He thinks the state does not have the right at all. But for those of us who think it does, how far does it go? Personally, I think there is no limit - at least in terms of things open to the public. I see nothing in the Constitution which creates a limit.

But let me turn it around to explore this further. For those who think the florist is wrong. If the florist was black and the event was a local chapter of the White Supremacists of America chapter, would she be in violation of that law for refusing service?

Government employees are not running private businesses. They should do whatever the rules specify for their government job. Or quit.

I don't want to get into a lot of 'what ifs' here, but I don't care WHO it is. Nobody, black or white or polka dot should be forced to participate in a White Supremacist event or any other event that he/she does not wish to participate in. And THAT would be equal protection as much as non discriminatory rules are equal protection. Sell them the bouquet or the dozen doughnuts or whatever if they come into your place of business, yes. But have to go to their premises and be part of an activity that is abhorrent or wrong or immoral to you? Nope.

That should never be the law. And I don't care how any law is written or what any judge's opinion is on that. That should never be the law.

What if your business only involves going to a place. Can a plumber say no?

It's still strikes me as kind of nuts that he can't.

I don't know that it is. A backed up toilet is a health hazard. Public health is a valid interest of the state.

 

[Seawytch]

Nobody is born a White Supremacist. It is not a protected class.

IMO if we truly believe in equal protection under the law there should be no protected classes.

Then do it. Call your representatives and tell them you want Title II of the Civil Rights Act repealed immediately. That's the ONLY way you can make your dream come true. PA laws are constitutional, period. Congress MUST act. Tell us how the call goes, okay?

There's no consensus for that - yet. That's what discussions like this are about. If you don't like us talking about, leave the thread. Or complain to a mod and get it deleted. Tell us how that goes, okay?

No, there isn't and there isn't likely to be anytime soon.

When gays wanted civil marriage, there was no 'consensus' for it, but we fought for it anyway. We called our congressmen, we protested civil clerks offices, we marched, we lobbied and we sued...AND we discussed on message boards. I guess one out of six is a start.

Happy tilting.

Why is it 'tilting' for us, but not for those who wanted civil marriage? People are starting to understand the insidious nature of protected classes, and how it actually undermines equal protection. As the list of protected classes is expanded, it will become even more apparent, and the way these laws limit important freedoms will come to the fore.

I'm never quite sure what to make of this sort of response to an argument. The whole "well, it ain't gonna change and your deluded for even trying" is essentially a reactionary conservative posture, but these days it most often comes from liberals. It just seems like a handy fallback for someone losing an argument.

Because ALL you're doing is suing and messaging...that's it. And the suing is so singularly targeted against gays, it's as transparent as glass (and just MORE indication of why PA laws are needed).

It isn't going to change by just talking about it on a message board, you've got to get the American people and Congress on board. The one guy that even brought it up on the National stage now denies ever having said it because of the backlash he suffered. Anti gay bigots using religion as an excuse to discriminate is certainly not going to be a way of getting rid of these laws, it just demonstrates how they are still needed.

It's really easy to say "let freedom reign" when you're not the one who can't get groceries in their small town.

 

[PratchettFan]

To be honest, I don't really disagree too much with this. But let me take it a step further. If the florist does deliver and set up the flowers at the site, but is gone before the actual event begins - is that significantly different than just providing the flowers?

I don't think so. I wouldn't want to be seen anywhere on the premises of a Westboro Baptist function even if the building was closed and everybody had gone home. Such is my repugnance and abhorrence for what they stand for; what they do. And I would think it criminal if a gay person was required by law to be there, be seen there, to participate in an event there, before it starts, during it, or taking everything down afterward.

I assume you don't include government employees in that, let me know if I'm wrong.

That is a side which does need to be seen. If a gay marriage is a protected event, then so is a Westboro event. An African-American caterer cannot refuse to cater a KKK rally. This is about equal protection, not special protection. At the same time, we have the issue of state rights. If it is a valid right of the state to make discrimination illegal, where is the end of that right? For DBlack, that is simple. He thinks the state does not have the right at all. But for those of us who think it does, how far does it go? Personally, I think there is no limit - at least in terms of things open to the public. I see nothing in the Constitution which creates a limit.

But let me turn it around to explore this further. For those who think the florist is wrong. If the florist was black and the event was a local chapter of the White Supremacists of America chapter, would she be in violation of that law for refusing service?

Government employees are not running private businesses. They should do whatever the rules specify for their government job. Or quit.

I don't want to get into a lot of 'what ifs' here, but I don't care WHO it is. Nobody, black or white or polka dot should be forced to participate in a White Supremacist event or any other event that he/she does not wish to participate in. And THAT would be equal protection as much as non discriminatory rules are equal protection. Sell them the bouquet or the dozen doughnuts or whatever if they come into your place of business, yes. But have to go to their premises and be part of an activity that is abhorrent or wrong or immoral to you? Nope.

That should never be the law. And I don't care how any law is written or what any judge's opinion is on that. That should never be the law.

What if your business only involves going to a place. Can a plumber say no?

In my opinion, if there is truly equal protection, a plumber doesn't have to attend an event or activity he objects to any more than anybody else does.

But the plumber isn't attending an event. He is fixing plumbing in a building where an event is held. If a plumber comes to my house, I am paying him to fix my plumbing - not watch the game with me. Should he be able to deny my service because I'm rooting for the Broncos? I'm trying to understand the difference between the shop and the site.

 

[Seawytch]

I don't think so. I wouldn't want to be seen anywhere on the premises of a Westboro Baptist function even if the building was closed and everybody had gone home. Such is my repugnance and abhorrence for what they stand for; what they do. And I would think it criminal if a gay person was required by law to be there, be seen there, to participate in an event there, before it starts, during it, or taking everything down afterward.

I assume you don't include government employees in that, let me know if I'm wrong.

That is a side which does need to be seen. If a gay marriage is a protected event, then so is a Westboro event. An African-American caterer cannot refuse to cater a KKK rally. This is about equal protection, not special protection. At the same time, we have the issue of state rights. If it is a valid right of the state to make discrimination illegal, where is the end of that right? For DBlack, that is simple. He thinks the state does not have the right at all. But for those of us who think it does, how far does it go? Personally, I think there is no limit - at least in terms of things open to the public. I see nothing in the Constitution which creates a limit.

But let me turn it around to explore this further. For those who think the florist is wrong. If the florist was black and the event was a local chapter of the White Supremacists of America chapter, would she be in violation of that law for refusing service?

Government employees are not running private businesses. They should do whatever the rules specify for their government job. Or quit.

I don't want to get into a lot of 'what ifs' here, but I don't care WHO it is. Nobody, black or white or polka dot should be forced to participate in a White Supremacist event or any other event that he/she does not wish to participate in. And THAT would be equal protection as much as non discriminatory rules are equal protection. Sell them the bouquet or the dozen doughnuts or whatever if they come into your place of business, yes. But have to go to their premises and be part of an activity that is abhorrent or wrong or immoral to you? Nope.

That should never be the law. And I don't care how any law is written or what any judge's opinion is on that. That should never be the law.

What if your business only involves going to a place. Can a plumber say no?

It's still strikes me as kind of nuts that he can't.

I don't know that it is. A backed up toilet is a health hazard. Public health is a valid interest of the state.

See, now we're getting in more special carve outs. Only some people in some businesses get to discriminate?

 

[PratchettFan]

Nobody is born a White Supremacist. It is not a protected class.

No one is born married. The florist had no problem serving gays, she just didn't want to be involved in a gay marriage - which was against her religious beliefs. Race is a protected class and white supremacists are all about race.

This really is something which needs to be considered. Equal protection means just that. It has to be equal. If you can deny services to someone because you don't like "those people" then they can as well.

Exactly. Those who think Christian bakers should be able to discriminate regarding gay weddings need to accept that gay bakers should be able to return the favor for Christian customers.

Absolutely. Though I doubt gay bakers have a problem with Christian customers.

 

[dblack]

What if your business only involves going to a place. Can a plumber say no?

It's still strikes me as kind of nuts that he can't.

I don't know that it is. A backed up toilet is a health hazard. Public health is a valid interest of the state.

Yeah. That get's to the core question. Should people be subject to the 'valid interests' of the state, or should it be the other way around.

 

[Redfish]

I assume you don't include government employees in that, let me know if I'm wrong.

That is a side which does need to be seen. If a gay marriage is a protected event, then so is a Westboro event. An African-American caterer cannot refuse to cater a KKK rally. This is about equal protection, not special protection. At the same time, we have the issue of state rights. If it is a valid right of the state to make discrimination illegal, where is the end of that right? For DBlack, that is simple. He thinks the state does not have the right at all. But for those of us who think it does, how far does it go? Personally, I think there is no limit - at least in terms of things open to the public. I see nothing in the Constitution which creates a limit.

But let me turn it around to explore this further. For those who think the florist is wrong. If the florist was black and the event was a local chapter of the White Supremacists of America chapter, would she be in violation of that law for refusing service?

Government employees are not running private businesses. They should do whatever the rules specify for their government job. Or quit.

I don't want to get into a lot of 'what ifs' here, but I don't care WHO it is. Nobody, black or white or polka dot should be forced to participate in a White Supremacist event or any other event that he/she does not wish to participate in. And THAT would be equal protection as much as non discriminatory rules are equal protection. Sell them the bouquet or the dozen doughnuts or whatever if they come into your place of business, yes. But have to go to their premises and be part of an activity that is abhorrent or wrong or immoral to you? Nope.

That should never be the law. And I don't care how any law is written or what any judge's opinion is on that. That should never be the law.

What if your business only involves going to a place. Can a plumber say no?

It's still strikes me as kind of nuts that he can't.

I don't know that it is. A backed up toilet is a health hazard. Public health is a valid interest of the state.

See, now we're getting in more special carve outs. Only some people in some businesses get to discriminate?

I have no interest in doing busines with someone who does not like me or approve of how I live. Why do you?

 

[Seawytch]

Nobody is born a White Supremacist. It is not a protected class.

No one is born married. The florist had no problem serving gays, she just didn't want to be involved in a gay marriage - which was against her religious beliefs. Race is a protected class and white supremacists are all about race.

This really is something which needs to be considered. Equal protection means just that. It has to be equal. If you can deny services to someone because you don't like "those people" then they can as well.

Exactly. Those who think Christian bakers should be able to discriminate regarding gay weddings need to accept that gay bakers should be able to return the favor for Christian customers.

Absolutely. Though I doubt gay bakers have a problem with Christian customers.

And they absolutely can't. Why? Federal law. Not state and local laws like the ones that protect gays, but Federal law that requires me to serve a Christian...even if it violates my "deeply held religious beliefs".

 

[PratchettFan]

I assume you don't include government employees in that, let me know if I'm wrong.

That is a side which does need to be seen. If a gay marriage is a protected event, then so is a Westboro event. An African-American caterer cannot refuse to cater a KKK rally. This is about equal protection, not special protection. At the same time, we have the issue of state rights. If it is a valid right of the state to make discrimination illegal, where is the end of that right? For DBlack, that is simple. He thinks the state does not have the right at all. But for those of us who think it does, how far does it go? Personally, I think there is no limit - at least in terms of things open to the public. I see nothing in the Constitution which creates a limit.

But let me turn it around to explore this further. For those who think the florist is wrong. If the florist was black and the event was a local chapter of the White Supremacists of America chapter, would she be in violation of that law for refusing service?

Government employees are not running private businesses. They should do whatever the rules specify for their government job. Or quit.

I don't want to get into a lot of 'what ifs' here, but I don't care WHO it is. Nobody, black or white or polka dot should be forced to participate in a White Supremacist event or any other event that he/she does not wish to participate in. And THAT would be equal protection as much as non discriminatory rules are equal protection. Sell them the bouquet or the dozen doughnuts or whatever if they come into your place of business, yes. But have to go to their premises and be part of an activity that is abhorrent or wrong or immoral to you? Nope.

That should never be the law. And I don't care how any law is written or what any judge's opinion is on that. That should never be the law.

What if your business only involves going to a place. Can a plumber say no?

It's still strikes me as kind of nuts that he can't.

I don't know that it is. A backed up toilet is a health hazard. Public health is a valid interest of the state.

See, now we're getting in more special carve outs. Only some people in some businesses get to discriminate?

Yes. Where is the line? Let's say I am a doctor. I walk along the street and there is a man dressed in one of those spiffy sheets with the eye holes. The man clutches his chest suddenly and falls to the ground. Can I just step over him because I don't like his fashion sense?