Jan Brewer expected to veto AZ gay hate bill

[JakeStarkey]

No one has any right to my property or service. Whether it's because I do not like their pants, the color of their skin or the things they do in their bedroom.

Only in your ignorant mind.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I look forward to the day what you opponents of freedom of association and private proeprty will say when an African American is charged with making a "We Hate N***ers" celebratory cake for the KKK. I mean, the baker should not have the right to refuse the business.

Of course they can refuse, just as anyone can refuse to bake an obscene cake, no matter whether a gay or straight person asks for the obscene cake.

You can always refuse to do objectionable things. You just have to be consistent. If you'll sell a service to a straight person or white person, you have to sell the same service to a black person or gay person. Being offended at blackness or gayness is not an excuse.

Yup, if one is commercially offering services or goods.

 

[Bern80]

I look forward to the day what you opponents of freedom of association and private proeprty will say when an African American is charged with making a "We Hate N***ers" celebratory cake for the KKK. I mean, the baker should not have the right to refuse the business.

Of course they can refuse, just as anyone can refuse to bake an obscene cake, no matter whether a gay or straight person asks for the obscene cake.

You can always refuse to do objectionable things. You just have to be consistent. If you'll sell a service to a straight person or white person, you have to sell the same service to a black person or gay person. Being offended at blackness or gayness is not an excuse.

No you don't. There can be no consistency when people don't agree what constitutes objectionable. Some people find simply being gay, objectionable. You and I may not.

This is the problem with legislating morality and how it conflicts with individual liberty. Just because you think something is immoral doesn't mean you go and petition government to make people change their immoral behavior. That is not the purpose of government. Believing there shouldn't be laws against discrimination doesn't mean someone is for discrimination.

 

[Bern80]

Nope, fact.

The first ammendment provides for freedom of assembly. That is the right to associate with whomever you choose (or choose not to). Obviously a law that makes you associate with someone you would rather not, violates that right.

(1) to freedom of assembly means politically

(2) commercially that is covered by public accommodation laws

(3) no one is saying you cannot privately associate with anyone you want, even if it includes the devil or a tea party member

1) the people who actually wrote it unfortunately disagree with you.

Again just because something is a law doesn't make it moral. You can't have it both ways in saying people have the right to associate with whomever they choose yet tell them they are required to associate with someone. There is no evidence to support your position that freedom of association was not meant to apply to a business.

 

[Bern80]

No one has any right to my property or service. Whether it's because I do not like their pants, the color of their skin or the things they do in their bedroom.

Only in your ignorant mind.

Maybe so. But it is not the role of government to outlaw ignorance. You liberals still don't get that main reason the framers put so much emphasis on individual liberty was not to defend what was popular, but so that even that which a majority found unpopular could not be silenced through government force.

From a purely practical stand point there simply is no logical need for anti-discrimination laws. It's a problem that is self regulating. Personally I don't get why a person would choose to give their money to someone they know doesn't want there business. Even of by law they have to. On the other hand if they can legally discriminate, the end result is they don't get your money. Their loss. And if enough people have a problem with that, they won't get their money either. It's illogical for a business who's purpose is to make money, to refuse money and it is also illogical to do business with someone you know doesn't want to do business with you. There is really no reason for the government to be involved.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The first ammendment provides for freedom of assembly. That is the right to associate with whomever you choose (or choose not to). Obviously a law that makes you associate with someone you would rather not, violates that right.

(1) to freedom of assembly means politically

(2) commercially that is covered by public accommodation laws

(3) no one is saying you cannot privately associate with anyone you want, even if it includes the devil or a tea party member

1) the people who actually wrote it unfortunately disagree with you.

Again just because something is a law doesn't make it moral. You can't have it both ways in saying people have the right to associate with whomever they choose yet tell them they are required to associate with someone. There is no evidence to support your position that freedom of association was not meant to apply to a business.

Only in your mind. You are not going to be allowed to go back to pre 1964 days, friend.

No one is telling you who to associate with privately.

In commerce, tuff beans, podjo, for you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one has any right to my property or service. Whether it's because I do not like their pants, the color of their skin or the things they do in their bedroom.

Only in your ignorant mind.

Maybe so. But it is not the role of government to outlaw ignorance. You liberals still don't get that main reason the framers put so much emphasis on individual liberty was not to defend what was popular, but so that even that which a majority found unpopular could not be silenced through government force.

From a purely practical stand point there simply is no logical need for anti-discrimination laws. It's a problem that is self regulating. Personally I don't get why a person would choose to give their money to someone they know doesn't want there business. Even of by law they have to. On the other hand if they can legally discriminate, the end result is they don't get your money. Their loss. And if enough people have a problem with that, they won't get their money either. It's illogical for a business who's purpose is to make money, to refuse money and it is also illogical to do business with someone you know doesn't want to do business with you. There is really no reason for the government to be involved.

I am not a liberal anymore than you are a conservative, Bern80.

Your common sense is not the basis for our law.

The Constitution, case law, and statues are basis.

You may associate privately, but if you are in business with a service or good for the public, you can't discriminate because sex, orientation, ethnicity, religion, race, and so forth.

This the law, and this is good law.

 

[Bern80]

Only in your ignorant mind.

Maybe so. But it is not the role of government to outlaw ignorance. You liberals still don't get that main reason the framers put so much emphasis on individual liberty was not to defend what was popular, but so that even that which a majority found unpopular could not be silenced through government force.

From a purely practical stand point there simply is no logical need for anti-discrimination laws. It's a problem that is self regulating. Personally I don't get why a person would choose to give their money to someone they know doesn't want there business. Even of by law they have to. On the other hand if they can legally discriminate, the end result is they don't get your money. Their loss. And if enough people have a problem with that, they won't get their money either. It's illogical for a business who's purpose is to make money, to refuse money and it is also illogical to do business with someone you know doesn't want to do business with you. There is really no reason for the government to be involved.

I am not a liberal anymore than you are a conservative, Bern80.

Your common sense is not the basis for our law.

The Constitution, case law, and statues are basis.

You may associate privately, but if you are in business with a service or good for the public, you can't discriminate because sex, orientation, ethnicity, religion, race, and so forth.

This the law, and this is good law.

what do we call a business not run by the government in this country? Oh yeah! We call it a PRIVATE business. Secondly, you don't get to just make up definitions of terms. Public good has a definition. A definition not met by anything a private business sells. Public goods have characteristics such as a) consumption by one does not reduce supply for another, b) non-exlcudable, that is they are hard to keep non-payers from consuming, c) consumption is mandatory. A road, for example, is a public good.

Again freedom of association means the right of people to engage in whatever transaction they agree on. That is no different for a business. It just appears that way to you because that gets lost sight of when you have a lot of consumers going to a business to purchase an item. At the end of the day the transaction is exactly the same. A consumer and a seller come together and agree on terms of exchange. That is EXACTLY what freedom of association was meant to to apply to and you simply fail to see that if you don't have the right to not associate with someone, regardless of the reason, regardless of whether it's your business, you realy have no individual freedom.

Conversely your opinin of what freedom of association means makes no sense. You say it only applies to individuals and what they do in their personal life. Under that premise, what would a lack of freedom of association look like? Pretty ridiculous. If it was only meant to apply to people in their personal life and there was no freedom of association the government could by law require you to entertain a conversation with someone you didn't want to? Again, ridiculous, which is why it more likely that framers actually meant for that freedom to apply primarily to private business.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Maybe so. But it is not the role of government to outlaw ignorance. You liberals still don't get that main reason the framers put so much emphasis on individual liberty was not to defend what was popular, but so that even that which a majority found unpopular could not be silenced through government force.

From a purely practical stand point there simply is no logical need for anti-discrimination laws. It's a problem that is self regulating. Personally I don't get why a person would choose to give their money to someone they know doesn't want there business. Even of by law they have to. On the other hand if they can legally discriminate, the end result is they don't get your money. Their loss. And if enough people have a problem with that, they won't get their money either. It's illogical for a business who's purpose is to make money, to refuse money and it is also illogical to do business with someone you know doesn't want to do business with you. There is really no reason for the government to be involved.

I am not a liberal anymore than you are a conservative, Bern80.

Your common sense is not the basis for our law.

The Constitution, case law, and statues are basis.

You may associate privately, but if you are in business with a service or good for the public, you can't discriminate because sex, orientation, ethnicity, religion, race, and so forth.

This the law, and this is good law.

what do we call a business not run by the government in this country? Oh yeah! We call it a PRIVATE business. Secondly, you don't get to just make up definitions of terms. Public good has a definition. A definition not met by anything a private business sells. Public goods have characteristics such as a) consumption by one does not reduce supply for another, b) non-exlcudable, that is they are hard to keep non-payers from consuming, c) consumption is mandatory. A road, for example, is a public good.

Again freedom of association means the right of people to engage in whatever transaction they agree on. That is no different for a business. It just appears that way to you because that gets lost sight of when you have a lot of consumers going to a business to purchase an item. At the end of the day the transaction is exactly the same. A consumer and a seller come together and agree on terms of exchange. That is EXACTLY what freedom of association was meant to to apply to and you simply fail to see that if you don't have the right to not associate with someone, regardless of the reason, regardless of whether it's your business, you realy have no individual freedom.

Conversely your opinin of what freedom of association means makes no sense. You say it only applies to individuals and what they do in their personal life. Under that premise, what would a lack of freedom of association look like? Pretty ridiculous. If it was only meant to apply to people in their personal life and there was no freedom of association the government could by law require you to entertain a conversation with someone you didn't want to? Again, ridiculous, which is why it more likely that framers actually meant for that freedom to apply primarily to private business.

Dude, you are banging your head into a brick wall.

Jake the fake Starkey is a lying PoS and will not honestly discuss anything. f he thinks telling a huge lie will payoff he will do it then accuse you of lying about his lie, lol.

He is best on ignore.

 

[Bern80]

I am not a liberal anymore than you are a conservative, Bern80.

Your common sense is not the basis for our law.

The Constitution, case law, and statues are basis.

You may associate privately, but if you are in business with a service or good for the public, you can't discriminate because sex, orientation, ethnicity, religion, race, and so forth.

This the law, and this is good law.

what do we call a business not run by the government in this country? Oh yeah! We call it a PRIVATE business. Secondly, you don't get to just make up definitions of terms. Public good has a definition. A definition not met by anything a private business sells. Public goods have characteristics such as a) consumption by one does not reduce supply for another, b) non-exlcudable, that is they are hard to keep non-payers from consuming, c) consumption is mandatory. A road, for example, is a public good.

Again freedom of association means the right of people to engage in whatever transaction they agree on. That is no different for a business. It just appears that way to you because that gets lost sight of when you have a lot of consumers going to a business to purchase an item. At the end of the day the transaction is exactly the same. A consumer and a seller come together and agree on terms of exchange. That is EXACTLY what freedom of association was meant to to apply to and you simply fail to see that if you don't have the right to not associate with someone, regardless of the reason, regardless of whether it's your business, you realy have no individual freedom.

Conversely your opinin of what freedom of association means makes no sense. You say it only applies to individuals and what they do in their personal life. Under that premise, what would a lack of freedom of association look like? Pretty ridiculous. If it was only meant to apply to people in their personal life and there was no freedom of association the government could by law require you to entertain a conversation with someone you didn't want to? Again, ridiculous, which is why it more likely that framers actually meant for that freedom to apply primarily to private business.

Dude, you are banging your head into a brick wall.

Jake the fake Starkey is a lying PoS and will not honestly discuss anything. f he thinks telling a huge lie will payoff he will do it then accuse you of lying about his lie, lol.

He is best on ignore.

Oh Jake and I have gone at it plenty of times and I'm well aware he is person of zero integrity. He never actually takes a position on anything. Most of the time he argues about nothing just to be argumentative. It gets to a point where it just becomes amusing to watch him so willingly display what a moronic little weasel he really is and know how totally oblivious he is to that fact.