SCOTUS Refuses To Hear Appeal - Gays Win Again!

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yes they have. And how has the worked out?



I'm not fooled. I've studied economic history. I know the damage central planner meddling in markets have brought onto the people.



Well said comrade...



Wow. You're quite the sheeple there.

It's worked out beautifully for me and lots of other people I know. They create a game. Make up rules. If you play by those rules you get wealthy. Matter of fact it works every single time.




You have to be or otherwise you would not have said this. You dont understand the rules of economics then. Sounds like you studied the wrong thing.



Let me know when you can find one that someone (like the government) cant take away from you.

Wow. You're quite the sheeple there.

No just a law abiding citizen.

We're born with rights that the government can only take away with due process. You miss the entire point of the American experiment. Get thee to a library.

Government may neither bestow nor ‘take away’ rights, as they are inalienable.

Government is, however, authorized by the Constitution to place limits on our rights if such restrictions are rationally based, are supported by objective, documented evidence, and pursue a proper legislative end. This is why measures seeking to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights have been invalidated by the courts, because those measures failed to meet any of the above criteria.

Public accommodations laws, on the other hand, are Constitutional and valid because they’re rationally based, are justified by objective, documented evidence, and pursue a proper legislative end: to prevent discrimination based solely on who someone is and to safeguard the local markets and all other interrelated markets. Ensuring its citizens have unfettered access to the markets and maintaining the integrity of commerce to the benefit of society as a whole is a necessary and proper act of government.

 

[bianco]

It's amazing to me that anyone would force themselves on a business who doesn't want their business.

In this case the lesbian couple had zero respect for the photographers religious beliefs, and instead of simply going elsewhere they chose to force themselves on the photographer.
******* pricks.

Is the problem that the photographer didn't offer to substitute something else?

For example, if someone came to me to ask me to tailor a MAN'S suit, I would say no, I am not qualified. But I can sew you a woman's vest and skirt, because I am experienced in that.
So I am not refusing someone based on GENDER, but cannot deliver the service they ask which is different between a man and a woman's clothes.

To someone who doesn't see there is a difference, that sewing is sewing,
is that why they took it to be about them personally?

Could this be corrected by offering services that the person can provide professionally?

What if a photographer says no I cannot go and shoot your wedding because I would not do a good job with that. I would feel uncomfortable and out of place, and make your guests feel uneasy, which is the opposite of what a good photographer is supposed to do.

However, I could take photos in the studio of individual or couple portraits, or with your pet. I could take photos of your family if they come in for a group photo.

So the photographer is still offering to serve the person, but may not be able to serve the purpose they were looking for.

Is that where this case and others went wrong?

Why aren't people making a distinction between not providing *THAT service,* vs. refusing the PERSON because of orientation.

If you asked me to tutor you on a paper about your beliefs in Japanese Buddhism as opposed to American Buddhism or Christianity, I might refuse the topic if I am not qualified or "don't feel comfortable" with that subject. That doesn't mean I am discriminating against you by religion or denomination, it is based on what I can do or cannot do with equal professional standards.

What went wrong in these cases to make it where the discrimination was against the person for orientation, and wasn't about declining one service where something else could be offered instead?

Can't this be corrected without suing, fining or harassing each other?

Obviously not.
They same sex couple went to court...game over.
Maybe the photographer will take blurred/poor lighting photos, accidentally of course.

 

[Asclepias]

The laws just keep mounting to running a business, but thanks for making my point about eroding freedoms and big government.
A person's personal choice???????
You're not a conservative so you wouldn't understand my concern.

Well what do you intend to do about it? You have 2 choices. Vote for laws that allow you to discriminate or cease owning a business. I dont think your concern has anything to do with you being a conservative. It has more to do with you being backwards in your thinking.

See it is a conservative thing that you just wouldn't understand. Don't try, you just wouldn't be able to grasp it.

I disagree. Its a backwards thing that...yes I wouldn't understand because I'm not backwards. You go into business to make a profit. More people buying from you creates the potential for more profit. Its not that hard if you back up and look at it focused, with a business mindset.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

At some point your surveyor skills should kick in and make you realize that you are the only people sliding backwards as your personal freedoms are being eroded.

You left out a few words.

You seem to live a life of fear and scarcity. What personal freedoms are being eroded?

When the government tells a person who owns their own business how to run it....that's erosion of freedom. Just because it furthers your cause doesn't negate the outcome.
It isn't fear it's being concerned, it's just living long enough to see the changes.
It isn't about agreeing with this particular business or not....it's his business bottom line.

Want another example? About obummercare? It could have been resolved without the intrusion of every American in this country......but our government didn't want that.
Obviously, your a big government sort of person. Lots of countries with big government and less freedoms.

Nonsense.

Businesses are subject to all manner of regulatory measures determined appropriate and Constitutional by Commerce Clause jurisprudence – from employees’ wages to working conditions to environmental protection to consumer safety – and public accommodations laws are no different and just as appropriate and Constitutional.

Clearly the social right’s opposition to public accommodations laws that afford protections to gay customers is predicated solely on their animus toward gay Americans, not some inane, errant perception of an “erosion of freedom.”

 

[emilynghiem]

Well what do you intend to do about it? You have 2 choices. Vote for laws that allow you to discriminate or cease owning a business. I dont think your concern has anything to do with you being a conservative. It has more to do with you being backwards in your thinking.

???

Free choice does not necessarily mean enabling or promoting discrimination.
These are not equivalents, you are making some leap in associations due to bias.

You remind me of the abortion arguments
equating
free choice with "promoting abortion"

Now it's more like
free choice of health care amounts to "denying access to others"
or "letting people die without insurance"

I think the gap is where people
* do or do not have faith that health care can be covered by free choice, not force of law
[similar to having faith that abortion can be prevented while keeping it a
free choice, and not relying on force of law to ban or regulate it]

* do or do not have faith that people can freely
learn not to discriminate against each other

In fact, I believe these debates are good for discussing that very point.

By the time people recognize and respect each other's perspectives and beliefs
equally as their own
then MAYBE we can learn how to stop discriminating against each other on this basis.

MAYBE that is why we are having these debates and discussions
is to realize we exclude and discount each other all the time.
So why not fix that, and maybe we'll figure out how to do the
same with business and public policy to be accommodating of all people.

If we cannot even get past our own biases in dealing with each other,
what business do we have proposing laws we think are going to solve this problem?
If we cannot even figure it out and fix it when
it is right in front of our faces.

Shouldn't we resolve our own issues first, and figure out the process,
BEFORE trying to propose or pass laws to prevent unlawful discrimination?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Is the problem that the photographer didn't offer to substitute something else?

No.

The problem is the unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans by many on the social right.

 

[emilynghiem]

You seem to live a life of fear and scarcity. What personal freedoms are being eroded?

When the government tells a person who owns their own business how to run it....that's erosion of freedom. Just because it furthers your cause doesn't negate the outcome.
It isn't fear it's being concerned, it's just living long enough to see the changes.
It isn't about agreeing with this particular business or not....it's his business bottom line.

Want another example? About obummercare? It could have been resolved without the intrusion of every American in this country......but our government didn't want that.
Obviously, your a big government sort of person. Lots of countries with big government and less freedoms.

Nonsense.

Businesses are subject to all manner of regulatory measures determined appropriate and Constitutional by Commerce Clause jurisprudence – from employees’ wages to working conditions to environmental protection to consumer safety – and public accommodations laws are no different and just as appropriate and Constitutional.

Clearly the social right’s opposition to public accommodations laws that afford protections to gay customers is predicated solely on their animus toward gay Americans, not some inane, errant perception of an “erosion of freedom.”

Where did you get the assertion in bold?

You remind me of people who discount prochoice arguments as
* wanting to promote irresponsibility
* attacks on the life of unborn children

CCJones if you were EQUALLY as harsh on Democrats
for "claiming to be about freedom and choice in abortion" but then
negating that completely when it comes to health care in general,

you might have an argument.
You would equally be pointing out how the prochoice Democrats
have an "agenda" and are not arguing for the sake of freedom, or else they would make the same arguments defending freedom to choose health care too.

So CCJones if you are only focused on pointing out the
"fake defenses of freedom" for the *side you are against*,
aren't you equally as "fake" in your defense
as the people you criticize for doing the same, to back THEIR agenda only,
and as the prochoice Democrats you leave out but who do the same things?

Are you open enough to admit that people
on ALL sides argue for their side or interest first?

Do you agree you are doing the same here
by focusing only on one side because it meets YOUR agenda
and because of who YOU have contempt for?

Doesn't everyone do that?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Not if it violates public accommodation laws. Owning a house is not the same as owning a business.

How to get around it? Don't advertise publicly, do business by private appointments. I know several property managers who do exactly that.

You paid for both with your own money did you not? Should you not have free control over it? For most businesses, not advertising is a surefire way to lose business, Jake. Most of these people don't have a choice. We live in an advertising culture now.

And all customers should be treated equally. That's the law. If libertarians were socially liberated and conservative on government taxation, I would consider voting for such candidates.

Being a libertarian, I advocate the rights of the business owner, not the government to dictate them. Moreover, I'm taking the stance that a business owner should have the right to discriminate. Government should not be involved in business decisions one makes in regard to whom they serve.

 

[Meister]

Well what do you intend to do about it? You have 2 choices. Vote for laws that allow you to discriminate or cease owning a business. I dont think your concern has anything to do with you being a conservative. It has more to do with you being backwards in your thinking.

See it is a conservative thing that you just wouldn't understand. Don't try, you just wouldn't be able to grasp it.

I disagree. Its a backwards thing that...yes I wouldn't understand because I'm not backwards. You go into business to make a profit. More people buying from you creates the potential for more profit. Its not that hard if you back up and look at it focused, with a business mindset.

Of course it's a backwards thing WITH you, not so much with conservatives. Hobby Lobby made a stand on PRINCIPAL, which I think you lack.
Just because you disagree doesn't mean it's backward.....it just means that conservatives aren't progressives.
I have noticed that you haven't denied that your in favor of big government. Very telling on your behalf.

 

[emilynghiem]

Is the problem that the photographer didn't offer to substitute something else?

No.

The problem is the unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans by many on the social right.

Much like your "fear and hatred" of these people you oppose
SO MUCH
that you cannot approach the issue "any other way" except this?

How is that not discriminating by projecting
a stereotype on a whole "class of people"
based on associations or grudges you have with that group?

 

[Asclepias]

Well what do you intend to do about it? You have 2 choices. Vote for laws that allow you to discriminate or cease owning a business. I dont think your concern has anything to do with you being a conservative. It has more to do with you being backwards in your thinking.

???

Free choice does not necessarily mean enabling or promoting discrimination.
These are not equivalents, you are making some leap in associations due to bias.

You remind me of the abortion arguments
equating
free choice with "promoting abortion"

Now it's more like
free choice of health care amounts to "denying access to others"
or "letting people die without insurance"

I think the gap is where people
* do or do not have faith that health care can be covered by free choice, not force of law
[similar to having faith that abortion can be prevented while keeping it a
free choice, and not relying on force of law to ban or regulate it]

* do or do not have faith that people can freely
learn not to discriminate against each other

In fact, I believe these debates are good for discussing that very point.

By the time people recognize and respect each other's perspectives and beliefs
equally as their own
then MAYBE we can learn how to stop discriminating against each other on this basis.

MAYBE that is why we are having these debates and discussions
is to realize we exclude and discount each other all the time.
So why not fix that, and maybe we'll figure out how to do the
same with business and public policy to be accommodating of all people.

If we cannot even get past our own biases in dealing with each other,
what business do we have proposing laws we think are going to solve this problem?
If we cannot even figure it out and fix it when
it is right in front of our faces.

Shouldn't we resolve our own issues first, and figure out the process,
BEFORE trying to propose or pass laws to prevent unlawful discrimination?

It think you miss the point that the only free choice you have is to live by the rules of society/government or be penalized. Since the OP is about discriminating against a couple because of what your religion dictates then "free choice" would cover the ability to discriminate.


In regard to your last paragraph....the point of progress is to move forward even when at times it may seem you need to stand still and figure it all out perfectly before implementation. I can tell you that it rarely works that way. People get brain lock and freeze trying to come to a 100% consensus. Nothing would ever get done. You take the best course of action, evaluate the results, tweak the solution and continue to do this in a never ending cycle. This is a process not the completed package.

 

[Meister]

Is the problem that the photographer didn't offer to substitute something else?

No.

The problem is the unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans by many on the social right.

It doesn't have to be FEAR or Hatred of gay Americans, FOR MOST it has to do with the Bible.
just sayin'......

 

[Meister]

One final post and I have to leave...sorry real life is calling.

What is backwards in this day and age is the killing of unborn children.....that is backwards.

 

[emilynghiem]

RE: Can't this be corrected without suing, fining or harassing each other?


Obviously not.
They same sex couple went to court...game over.
Maybe the photographer will take blurred/poor lighting photos, accidentally of course.

1. equal human rights are not a "game" to be played or gambled or courts and congress

2. no, it is not over just because it ended in courts this way
Slavery was never successfully sued against in court; the courts kept ruling in favor of property owners and laws.

I did not hear about any reparations settlements until recently; at least one financial institution with company history in slave mortgages offered a restitution plan toward educational grants.

it can take years, generations, to resolve issues, especially personal conflicts over what constitutes a religious bias, which do not belong in court to begin with.

if people want "equal rights" we need to resolve our own conflicts
and not gamble on any other person, group or institution to decide that for us.

3. as for this photographer, why not delegate the job to someone else to do.
anyone can subcontract labor to someone else and still be considered their business
handling the contract. Wouldn't other photographers be happy to get paid for this work?
Who really want to do a nice job and would like the couple and their wedding ceremony?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Is the problem that the photographer didn't offer to substitute something else?

No.

The problem is the unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans by many on the social right.

It doesn't have to be FEAR or Hatred of gay Americans, FOR MOST it has to do with the Bible.
just sayin'......

What a load of shit.

Do you really think that anyone buys that?

 

[Asclepias]

See it is a conservative thing that you just wouldn't understand. Don't try, you just wouldn't be able to grasp it.

I disagree. Its a backwards thing that...yes I wouldn't understand because I'm not backwards. You go into business to make a profit. More people buying from you creates the potential for more profit. Its not that hard if you back up and look at it focused, with a business mindset.

Of course it's a backwards thing WITH you, not so much with conservatives. Hobby Lobby made a stand on PRINCIPAL, which I think you lack.
Just because you disagree doesn't mean it's backward.....it just means that conservatives aren't progressives.
I have noticed that you haven't denied that your in favor of big government. Very telling on your behalf.

You keep using conservative. I know conservatives that dont think like you. Its a backwards thing. Hobby Lobby made a stand for a backwards principle. I do have principles but they are nothing like Hobby Lobbys. My principles say that you treat everyone the same regardless of your religion. I'm not a all or nothing type of guy. I am pro big government where its needed. In the case of discrimination it is most definitely needed or people are not treated equally.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'll just leave this here. Let the casualties fall where they may:

 

[Steven_R]

Is the problem that the photographer didn't offer to substitute something else?

No.

The problem is the unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans by many on the social right.

That's not the point. It shouldn't matter if the guy who walks in my door is gay, black, Muslim, a daywalking ginger, or is wearing a Winger t-shirt. As a business owner I should have the same right to not do business with someone as that guy's right to go to my competitor.

Does the flip side hold true, that government can tell our hypothetical buyer who he must do business with? Am I going to be funneled to gay owned businesses or black owned businesses or Muslim owned businesses just because some bureaucrat or society demands it? It's bad enough that we have to ask permission via licencing just to open a business, but where does that government intervention in the marketplace in the name of fairness end?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I wonder if a little reflection would lead you to an understanding of how off base you are with that comment?

What do you think?

Simple cause and effect. Now, a neo Nazi can sue a Jewish baker for not making him a Nazi themed cake. A Klansman can sue a black seamstress for not making him his white robe and hat. A Christian can sue a Muslim because he refused to serve him pork chops, and vice versa. The possibilities are endless, LL.

Just remember, equality works both ways, not just for gay people.

You seem to be catching on to how this all works. You cant discriminate against people because you dislike them. Its illegal.

Well then, I suppose you can tell that to the IRS then.

 

[Iceweasel]

Nonsense.

Businesses are subject to all manner of regulatory measures determined appropriate and Constitutional by Commerce Clause jurisprudence – from employees’ wages to working conditions to environmental protection to consumer safety – and public accommodations laws are no different and just as appropriate and Constitutional.

Clearly the social right’s opposition to public accommodations laws that afford protections to gay customers is predicated solely on their animus toward gay Americans, not some inane, errant perception of an “erosion of freedom.”

Nonsense? You just blew your wad. If it was a Constitutional issue, there would be no need for an "Accommodation law". There is no federal law that states you must serve anyone if you serve anybody. I can say "I don't do business with women". You can sue but you'd loose, unless there was a local law businesses were forced to operate under.