Should a Jewish Bakery Have the Right to Deny...

[PaintMyHouse]

Meaningless twaddle. The bottom line is that if you don't control it, you don't own it.



More meaningless twaddle. Your "interest" in my property is irrelevant. The issue is whether you have a right to interfere in the use of my property. If it doesn't violate your property rights, then the answer is an emphatic "no."



Take your rules and Stick them where the sun don't shine, asshole. You have no authority to impose your rules on anyone.

You're a good little boot-licking fascist toady. I fear for humanity when I observe so many loathsome worms like you in the world.

I see time has not made you any smarter, or wiser? So be it...

How ironic!

As I said. How's mom BTW?

 

[bripat9643]

We do that here, at times, but that's no freedom eh? True freedom is Anarchy. I'm a fan of that either. Tell us, why are there limits on Free Speech? Doesn't that go against the Constitution?

Freedom is the right to make your own choices, it is not the right to make other people's choices for them

Equal rights trump freedom in a civilized democratic society.

No they don't. Furthermore, in a free society, everyone has equal rights. You confusion lies in your belief that you have a right to be served by a business.

 

[bripat9643]

Guns? Those are almost never needed. No, we have City Hall, Zoning Boards, and a whole alphabet soup of State and Federal agencies to guide them towards a better future. Kicking and screaming if necessary.

Everything those agencies do is backup up with guns.

Even if true, that matters not a damn. I've been audited by the IRS. Go with the guns, it's less traumatic.

The fact that they don't brandish their guns when they audit you doesn't mean they won't use them if you refuse to be audited or refuse to pay up afterwards.

Guido doesn't whip out his gun when he shows up at your business and threatens you if you don't pay his protection money.

 

[bripat9643]

We do that here, at times, but that's no freedom eh? True freedom is Anarchy. I'm a fan of that either. Tell us, why are there limits on Free Speech? Doesn't that go against the Constitution?

Freedom is the right to make your own choices, it is not the right to make other people's choices for them

And there are appropriate and Constitutional limits to one’s right to make his own choices – if one chooses to yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater he’ll be arrested, and cannot make a First Amendment right to free expression claim as part of his defense.

Typical argument to justify fascism. Your right to free speech doesn't absolve you of all consequences of your speech. If you yell fire in a movie theater, you could cause a panic and people could be injured or killed. You are culpable for any such problems you caused with your speech.

The same is true of public accommodations laws, limiting the right one has to choose to jeopardize his local market and all interrelated markets throughout the Nation.

Utter horseshit. Public accommodation laws are justified by citing the commerce clause, which is utterly bogus, of course. It has nothing to do with "jeopardizing the market," whatever the hell that means.

Public accommodations laws are no different than any other regulatory measure, where such measures limit the business owner’s right to choose to abuse his employees, to pollute the local waterways, or to sell defective and dangerous products to his customers.

Wrong again. It would take to much real estate in this forum to explain how stupid and wrong what you posted it, so I'll leave it that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's the rub. If someone walks into my business and acts in a manner I don't like, I will refuse service and there is not a thing anyone can do about it.
I do not have to give a reason.

Wrong. If that person filed a suit against you for discrimination, you would have to answer it, and in doing so you would have to give a reason for refusing service.

 

[Iceweasel]

Again, your premise fails because it is a fallacy, comparing two dissimilar things.

A Jewish baker does not make ‘Adolf Hitler’ birthday cakes as part of his standard business practice, whereas a Christian who makes wedding cakes indeed makes wedding cakes as part of his standard business practice.

Yep. For heterosexuals couples. But how is it that the Jewish baker that makes cakes doesn't bake birthday cakes? No, he doesn't do Hilter cakes but most Christian bakers don't do homosexual cakes. Get it? Your side makes no sense.

 

[The Rabbi]

Again, your premise fails because it is a fallacy, comparing two dissimilar things.

A Jewish baker does not make ‘Adolf Hitler’ birthday cakes as part of his standard business practice, whereas a Christian who makes wedding cakes indeed makes wedding cakes as part of his standard business practice.

Yep. For heterosexuals couples. But how is it that the Jewish baker that makes cakes doesn't bake birthday cakes? No, he doesn't do Hilter cakes but most Christian bakers don't do homosexual cakes. Get it? Your side makes no sense.

They're not dissimilar. In both cases the baker is asked to do something he finds so repugnant it would compromise his values. The religion argument is not really valid but necessary today, as another poster wisely pointed out.

 

[Howey]

Again, your premise fails because it is a fallacy, comparing two dissimilar things.

A Jewish baker does not make ‘Adolf Hitler’ birthday cakes as part of his standard business practice, whereas a Christian who makes wedding cakes indeed makes wedding cakes as part of his standard business practice.

Yep. For heterosexuals couples. But how is it that the Jewish baker that makes cakes doesn't bake birthday cakes? No, he doesn't do Hilter cakes but most Christian bakers don't do homosexual cakes. Get it? Your side makes no sense.

I'll assume you can't back up that claim with some numbers, right?

 

[The Rabbi]

Again, your premise fails because it is a fallacy, comparing two dissimilar things.

A Jewish baker does not make ‘Adolf Hitler’ birthday cakes as part of his standard business practice, whereas a Christian who makes wedding cakes indeed makes wedding cakes as part of his standard business practice.

Yep. For heterosexuals couples. But how is it that the Jewish baker that makes cakes doesn't bake birthday cakes? No, he doesn't do Hilter cakes but most Christian bakers don't do homosexual cakes. Get it? Your side makes no sense.

I'll assume you can't back up that claim with some numbers, right?

Good assumption. Irrelevant, but good assumption anyway.

 

[kaz]

We do that here, at times, but that's no freedom eh? True freedom is Anarchy. I'm a fan of that either. Tell us, why are there limits on Free Speech? Doesn't that go against the Constitution?

Freedom is the right to make your own choices, it is not the right to make other people's choices for them

And there are appropriate and Constitutional limits to one’s right to make his own choices – if one chooses to yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater he’ll be arrested, and cannot make a First Amendment right to free expression claim as part of his defense.

The same is true of public accommodations laws, limiting the right one has to choose to jeopardize his local market and all interrelated markets throughout the Nation. Public accommodations laws are no different than any other regulatory measure, where such measures limit the business owner’s right to choose to abuse his employees, to pollute the local waterways, or to sell defective and dangerous products to his customers.

Your examples doesn't support your premise. I said you don't have the right to make other people's choices for them. When you yell "fire" you are clearly affecting other people's choices. Government forcing you to do business with people you don't want to do business with doesn't. Neither you nor the "customer" have a legitimate right to force the business owner to do anything. The business owner isn't harming anyone or making their choices for them. You and the "customer" are the transgressors of their liberty.

 

[NYcarbineer]

.

The PC Police are very concerned with "the law" when it suits them.

Funny, I don't see them standing up for "the law" when it comes to illegal immigration.

.

Interesting generalization. Governor Brewer just vetoed the bill.

What's her position on illegal immigration? Remind us, genius.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Freedom is the right to make your own choices, it is not the right to make other people's choices for them

And there are appropriate and Constitutional limits to one’s right to make his own choices – if one chooses to yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater he’ll be arrested, and cannot make a First Amendment right to free expression claim as part of his defense.

The same is true of public accommodations laws, limiting the right one has to choose to jeopardize his local market and all interrelated markets throughout the Nation. Public accommodations laws are no different than any other regulatory measure, where such measures limit the business owner’s right to choose to abuse his employees, to pollute the local waterways, or to sell defective and dangerous products to his customers.

Your examples doesn't support your premise. I said you don't have the right to make other people's choices for them. When you yell "fire" you are clearly affecting other people's choices. Government forcing you to do business with people you don't want to do business with doesn't. Neither you nor the "customer" have a legitimate right to force the business owner to do anything. The business owner isn't harming anyone or making their choices for them. You and the "customer" are the transgressors of their liberty.

Notice how much opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act has been flushed out around this topic?

I miss the good old days when conservatives tried to label the Democratic Party as RACIST because of southern Democratic opposition to that bill.

Now we find out that in reality, most conservatives around here opposed it all along.

 

[Iceweasel]

Again, your premise fails because it is a fallacy, comparing two dissimilar things.

A Jewish baker does not make ‘Adolf Hitler’ birthday cakes as part of his standard business practice, whereas a Christian who makes wedding cakes indeed makes wedding cakes as part of his standard business practice.

Yep. For heterosexuals couples. But how is it that the Jewish baker that makes cakes doesn't bake birthday cakes? No, he doesn't do Hilter cakes but most Christian bakers don't do homosexual cakes. Get it? Your side makes no sense.

I'll assume you can't back up that claim with some numbers, right?

Numbers? I'll assume you can't argue the point.

 

[bripat9643]

Here's the rub. If someone walks into my business and acts in a manner I don't like, I will refuse service and there is not a thing anyone can do about it.
I do not have to give a reason.

Wrong. If that person filed a suit against you for discrimination, you would have to answer it, and in doing so you would have to give a reason for refusing service.

That's current law. The whole point of this thread is that current law is wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

And there are appropriate and Constitutional limits to one’s right to make his own choices – if one chooses to yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater he’ll be arrested, and cannot make a First Amendment right to free expression claim as part of his defense.

The same is true of public accommodations laws, limiting the right one has to choose to jeopardize his local market and all interrelated markets throughout the Nation. Public accommodations laws are no different than any other regulatory measure, where such measures limit the business owner’s right to choose to abuse his employees, to pollute the local waterways, or to sell defective and dangerous products to his customers.

Your examples doesn't support your premise. I said you don't have the right to make other people's choices for them. When you yell "fire" you are clearly affecting other people's choices. Government forcing you to do business with people you don't want to do business with doesn't. Neither you nor the "customer" have a legitimate right to force the business owner to do anything. The business owner isn't harming anyone or making their choices for them. You and the "customer" are the transgressors of their liberty.

Notice how much opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act has been flushed out around this topic?

I miss the good old days when conservatives tried to label the Democratic Party as RACIST because of southern Democratic opposition to that bill.

Now we find out that in reality, most conservatives around here opposed it all along.

The only part people are objecting to is forcing private businesses to serve people the owners don't want to server. The Constitution grants no authority to the federal government to do that. Furthermore, it's just plane wrong. A business is private property, and people have the right to prevent whoever they want from using their property. If someone objected to a law that prevented you from publishing racist literature on First Amendment grounds, you would also call them a racist. In fact, that very thing goes on every day on college campuses where freedom of speech is a joke.

 

[bripat9643]

Again, your premise fails because it is a fallacy, comparing two dissimilar things.

A Jewish baker does not make ‘Adolf Hitler’ birthday cakes as part of his standard business practice, whereas a Christian who makes wedding cakes indeed makes wedding cakes as part of his standard business practice.

Yep. For heterosexuals couples. But how is it that the Jewish baker that makes cakes doesn't bake birthday cakes? No, he doesn't do Hilter cakes but most Christian bakers don't do homosexual cakes. Get it? Your side makes no sense.

Trying to get C_Clayton_Jones to see the errors in his "logic" is like trying to explain the color red to someone who has been blind from birth.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's the rub. If someone walks into my business and acts in a manner I don't like, I will refuse service and there is not a thing anyone can do about it.
I do not have to give a reason.

Wrong. If that person filed a suit against you for discrimination, you would have to answer it, and in doing so you would have to give a reason for refusing service.

That's current law. The whole point of this thread is that current law is wrong.

Yes we get it. You've joined the KKK in still opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your examples doesn't support your premise. I said you don't have the right to make other people's choices for them. When you yell "fire" you are clearly affecting other people's choices. Government forcing you to do business with people you don't want to do business with doesn't. Neither you nor the "customer" have a legitimate right to force the business owner to do anything. The business owner isn't harming anyone or making their choices for them. You and the "customer" are the transgressors of their liberty.

Notice how much opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act has been flushed out around this topic?

I miss the good old days when conservatives tried to label the Democratic Party as RACIST because of southern Democratic opposition to that bill.

Now we find out that in reality, most conservatives around here opposed it all along.

The only part people are objecting to is forcing private businesses to serve people the owners don't want to server. The Constitution grants no authority to the federal government to do that. Furthermore, it's just plane wrong. A business is private property, and people have the right to prevent whoever they want from using their property. If someone objected to a law that prevented you from publishing racist literature on First Amendment grounds, you would also call them a racist. In fact, that very thing goes on every day on college campuses where freedom of speech is a joke.

The 'only part'? You mean the part that says a business that is open to the public cannot refuse service to black people?

That is the part you and about 90% of the conservatives around here are objecting to.

That makes you racists. That is what racism is.

 

[paperview]

Quote: Originally Posted by bripat9643
The only part people are objecting to is forcing private businesses to serve people the owners don't want to server. ...

Just like the old days, eh?

 

[The Rabbi]

Quote: Originally Posted by bripat9643
The only part people are objecting to is forcing private businesses to serve people the owners don't want to server. ...

Just like the old days, eh?

Wow, wish I could neg rep you yet again for that one.
The people getting pummeled are violating the law. Get it? Isn't the Left always telling us the law is the law and you need to obey it?
In any case, it is absurd to think we will magically transform back to 1965, as if the last 50 years never happened. Then again, the left trades in absurdity.