Bull Ring Under Accommodations law can Govt regulate and force website content on businesses (danielpalos)

[emilynghiem]

danielpalos
Seems to defend govt policy requiring businesses to post LGBT same sex images if they post traditional marriage images of heterosexual couples, and banning the religious expression or explanation of the owner beliefs about marriage.

Lawsuit pending argues this violates freedom of speech, religious free expression or exercise, or both by fining or shutting down businesses.

danielpalos
Argument is the Accommodations law supercedes and does not allow this kind of "free speech" that is interpreted as "advertising discrimination against LGBT customers"

I argue that Haleel, Kosher, Vegan or Vegetarian businesses are free to advertise they only serve products they believe in and do not serve products that violate their beliefs. They are not discriminating against Customers, because Customers of any faith identity or affiliation can receive the same goods or services that the business provides/advertises. And NO CUSTOMERS of any creed, class or kind can get services they do NOT provide. The businesses discriminate by ***WHICH KIND of services they offer, and advertise,**** independent of the Customers.

danielpalos
Keeps arguing this is only an Accommodations issue, but since WEBSITE CONTENT is involved, I argue this becomes Govt regulating free speech and forcing content or banning it under penalty of law, which is unconstitutional.

Finally I asked danielpalos
If your prochoice/LGBT website was required by govt to post prolife/conservative content, wouldn't you
argue that violates freedom of speech and belief?

danielpalos Changed the angle as a segregation issue, but my question is what if YOU were the one being forced by govt to post the opposite views (like prolife or conservative) on your company website. Wouldn't you argue govt has no right to regulate, require or punish free speech?

Last I checked, when prolife advocates tried to force prochoice programs to "include" information against abortion, this was also protested.

I challenge danielpalos
To answer the question, wouldn't you argue to defend your free speech from website regulations forcing you to post content from opposing views or beliefs?

Instead of taking the Fifth....

 

[danielpalos]

danielpalos
Seems to defend govt policy requiring businesses to post LGBT same sex images if they post traditional marriage images of heterosexual couples, and banning the religious expression or explanation of the owner beliefs about marriage.

Lawsuit pending argues this violates freedom of speech, religious free expression or exercise, or both by fining or shutting down businesses.

danielpalos
Argument is the Accommodations law supercedes and does not allow this kind of "free speech" that is interpreted as "advertising discrimination against LGBT customers"

I argue that Haleel, Kosher, Vegan or Vegetarian businesses are free to advertise they only serve products they believe in and do not serve products that violate their beliefs. They are not discriminating against Customers, because Customers of any faith identity or affiliation can receive the same goods or services that the business provides/advertises. And NO CUSTOMERS of any creed, class or kind can get services they do NOT provide. The businesses discriminate by ***WHICH KIND of services they offer, and advertise,**** independent of the Customers.

danielpalos
Keeps arguing this is only an Accommodations issue, but since WEBSITE CONTENT is involved, I argue this becomes Govt regulating free speech and forcing content or banning it under penalty of law, which is unconstitutional.

Finally I asked danielpalos
If your prochoice/LGBT website was required by govt to post prolife/conservative content, wouldn't you
argue that violates freedom of speech and belief?

danielpalos Changed the angle as a segregation issue, but my question is what if YOU were the one being forced by govt to post the opposite views (like prolife or conservative) on your company website. Wouldn't you argue govt has no right to regulate, require or punish free speech?

Last I checked, when prolife advocates tried to force prochoice programs to "include" information against abortion, this was also protested.

I challenge danielpalos
To answer the question, wouldn't you argue to defend your free speech from website regulations forcing you to post content from opposing views or beliefs?

Instead of taking the Fifth....

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

That is the law and must be faithfully upheld by that branch of Government that is delegated the judicial power of the United States.

 

[emilynghiem]

danielpalos
Seems to defend govt policy requiring businesses to post LGBT same sex images if they post traditional marriage images of heterosexual couples, and banning the religious expression or explanation of the owner beliefs about marriage.

Lawsuit pending argues this violates freedom of speech, religious free expression or exercise, or both by fining or shutting down businesses.

danielpalos
Argument is the Accommodations law supercedes and does not allow this kind of "free speech" that is interpreted as "advertising discrimination against LGBT customers"

I argue that Haleel, Kosher, Vegan or Vegetarian businesses are free to advertise they only serve products they believe in and do not serve products that violate their beliefs. They are not discriminating against Customers, because Customers of any faith identity or affiliation can receive the same goods or services that the business provides/advertises. And NO CUSTOMERS of any creed, class or kind can get services they do NOT provide. The businesses discriminate by ***WHICH KIND of services they offer, and advertise,**** independent of the Customers.

danielpalos
Keeps arguing this is only an Accommodations issue, but since WEBSITE CONTENT is involved, I argue this becomes Govt regulating free speech and forcing content or banning it under penalty of law, which is unconstitutional.

Finally I asked danielpalos
If your prochoice/LGBT website was required by govt to post prolife/conservative content, wouldn't you
argue that violates freedom of speech and belief?

danielpalos Changed the angle as a segregation issue, but my question is what if YOU were the one being forced by govt to post the opposite views (like prolife or conservative) on your company website. Wouldn't you argue govt has no right to regulate, require or punish free speech?

Last I checked, when prolife advocates tried to force prochoice programs to "include" information against abortion, this was also protested.

I challenge danielpalos
To answer the question, wouldn't you argue to defend your free speech from website regulations forcing you to post content from opposing views or beliefs?

Instead of taking the Fifth....

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

That is the law and must be faithfully upheld by that branch of Government that is delegated the judicial power of the United States.

Given the above that you posted twice now danielpalos
1. Would you accept this equal privileges concept to the Govt forcing YOU to equally advertise Conservative Prolife content on your Liberal Prochoice business like if you had a prochoice clinic advertising birth control. Would you be okay with your own argument above, with a law arguing this means Govt can force you to post prolife images and content because your business is posting "only prochoice" content.

2. Or would you argue this does not give Govt the authority to force your prochoice business to post prolife messages on your company website. Because you still have free speech and free choice to be prochoice only, and govt CANNOT force your business to post Prolife content "by claiming equal privileges and accommodations for Prolife customers".

Which argument would you accept 1 or 2?
If you were the prochoice clinic business and the law in question would fine you or shut you down unless you added equal prolife content in order "not to discriminate against Christian prolife customers"

 

[danielpalos]

Would you accept this equal privileges concept to the Govt forcing YOU to equally advertise

No one is forced to start a business in public accommodation. And, if capitalists allege their Faith is an issue, they should operate on a not-for-profit basis in public accommodation and advertise their faith regarding their product.

Personally, I would rather go to Augustinian, Benedictine, or Carmelite sellers for moral products in public accommodation.

 

[danielpalos]

danielpalos
Seems to defend govt policy requiring businesses to post LGBT same sex images if they post traditional marriage images of heterosexual couples, and banning the religious expression or explanation of the owner beliefs about marriage.

Lawsuit pending argues this violates freedom of speech, religious free expression or exercise, or both by fining or shutting down businesses.

danielpalos
Argument is the Accommodations law supercedes and does not allow this kind of "free speech" that is interpreted as "advertising discrimination against LGBT customers"

I argue that Haleel, Kosher, Vegan or Vegetarian businesses are free to advertise they only serve products they believe in and do not serve products that violate their beliefs. They are not discriminating against Customers, because Customers of any faith identity or affiliation can receive the same goods or services that the business provides/advertises. And NO CUSTOMERS of any creed, class or kind can get services they do NOT provide. The businesses discriminate by ***WHICH KIND of services they offer, and advertise,**** independent of the Customers.

danielpalos
Keeps arguing this is only an Accommodations issue, but since WEBSITE CONTENT is involved, I argue this becomes Govt regulating free speech and forcing content or banning it under penalty of law, which is unconstitutional.

Finally I asked danielpalos
If your prochoice/LGBT website was required by govt to post prolife/conservative content, wouldn't you
argue that violates freedom of speech and belief?

danielpalos Changed the angle as a segregation issue, but my question is what if YOU were the one being forced by govt to post the opposite views (like prolife or conservative) on your company website. Wouldn't you argue govt has no right to regulate, require or punish free speech?

Last I checked, when prolife advocates tried to force prochoice programs to "include" information against abortion, this was also protested.

I challenge danielpalos
To answer the question, wouldn't you argue to defend your free speech from website regulations forcing you to post content from opposing views or beliefs?

Instead of taking the Fifth....

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

That is the law and must be faithfully upheld by that branch of Government that is delegated the judicial power of the United States.

"No shirt. No shoes. No service."

By your thinking McDonald's could be forced to advertise Chik-fil-A online, and vice versa.

That has to do with health and safety not morals. We have a First Amendment regarding any moral issues.

 

[danielpalos]

danielpalos
Seems to defend govt policy requiring businesses to post LGBT same sex images if they post traditional marriage images of heterosexual couples, and banning the religious expression or explanation of the owner beliefs about marriage.

Lawsuit pending argues this violates freedom of speech, religious free expression or exercise, or both by fining or shutting down businesses.

danielpalos
Argument is the Accommodations law supercedes and does not allow this kind of "free speech" that is interpreted as "advertising discrimination against LGBT customers"

I argue that Haleel, Kosher, Vegan or Vegetarian businesses are free to advertise they only serve products they believe in and do not serve products that violate their beliefs. They are not discriminating against Customers, because Customers of any faith identity or affiliation can receive the same goods or services that the business provides/advertises. And NO CUSTOMERS of any creed, class or kind can get services they do NOT provide. The businesses discriminate by ***WHICH KIND of services they offer, and advertise,**** independent of the Customers.

danielpalos
Keeps arguing this is only an Accommodations issue, but since WEBSITE CONTENT is involved, I argue this becomes Govt regulating free speech and forcing content or banning it under penalty of law, which is unconstitutional.

Finally I asked danielpalos
If your prochoice/LGBT website was required by govt to post prolife/conservative content, wouldn't you
argue that violates freedom of speech and belief?

danielpalos Changed the angle as a segregation issue, but my question is what if YOU were the one being forced by govt to post the opposite views (like prolife or conservative) on your company website. Wouldn't you argue govt has no right to regulate, require or punish free speech?

Last I checked, when prolife advocates tried to force prochoice programs to "include" information against abortion, this was also protested.

I challenge danielpalos
To answer the question, wouldn't you argue to defend your free speech from website regulations forcing you to post content from opposing views or beliefs?

Instead of taking the Fifth....

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

That is the law and must be faithfully upheld by that branch of Government that is delegated the judicial power of the United States.

"No shirt. No shoes. No service."

By your thinking McDonald's could be forced to advertise Chik-fil-A online, and vice versa.

That has to do with health and safety not morals. We have a First Amendment regarding any moral issues.

The point of the 1A is that morality cannot be legislated.

Especially not by laity and secular sellers.

 

[emilynghiem]

danielpalos
Seems to defend govt policy requiring businesses to post LGBT same sex images if they post traditional marriage images of heterosexual couples, and banning the religious expression or explanation of the owner beliefs about marriage.

Lawsuit pending argues this violates freedom of speech, religious free expression or exercise, or both by fining or shutting down businesses.

danielpalos
Argument is the Accommodations law supercedes and does not allow this kind of "free speech" that is interpreted as "advertising discrimination against LGBT customers"

I argue that Haleel, Kosher, Vegan or Vegetarian businesses are free to advertise they only serve products they believe in and do not serve products that violate their beliefs. They are not discriminating against Customers, because Customers of any faith identity or affiliation can receive the same goods or services that the business provides/advertises. And NO CUSTOMERS of any creed, class or kind can get services they do NOT provide. The businesses discriminate by ***WHICH KIND of services they offer, and advertise,**** independent of the Customers.

danielpalos
Keeps arguing this is only an Accommodations issue, but since WEBSITE CONTENT is involved, I argue this becomes Govt regulating free speech and forcing content or banning it under penalty of law, which is unconstitutional.

Finally I asked danielpalos
If your prochoice/LGBT website was required by govt to post prolife/conservative content, wouldn't you
argue that violates freedom of speech and belief?

danielpalos Changed the angle as a segregation issue, but my question is what if YOU were the one being forced by govt to post the opposite views (like prolife or conservative) on your company website. Wouldn't you argue govt has no right to regulate, require or punish free speech?

Last I checked, when prolife advocates tried to force prochoice programs to "include" information against abortion, this was also protested.

I challenge danielpalos
To answer the question, wouldn't you argue to defend your free speech from website regulations forcing you to post content from opposing views or beliefs?

Instead of taking the Fifth....

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

That is the law and must be faithfully upheld by that branch of Government that is delegated the judicial power of the United States.

"No shirt. No shoes. No service."

By your thinking McDonald's could be forced to advertise Chik-fil-A online, and vice versa.

That has to do with health and safety not morals. We have a First Amendment regarding any moral issues.

All the above, my dear.
Just because a law has to do with "gun rights" or "voting rights"
does not mean that law can "ignore"
Other Constitutional laws on DUE PROCESS. Or on Religious Freedom. You don't get a free pass to violate other laws "as an exception" just because you are trying to defend "other rights."

Laws have to meet and respect ALL standards, not just the one you are addressing as the key issue while compromising others. See Amendment 9 against the Enumeration of rights not taking precedence over others, it is a SIMILAR concept where ALL standards and rights must be included and upheld equally.

I gave 2-3 examples of laws
struck down because they violated "other laws" not otherwise related to the content and purpose of those laws:
1. Roe V Wade addressed a law "banning abortion" which was struck down for violating a DIFFERENT law regarding "due process"
2. The AZ Immigration law got struck down for violating "other principles" (such as states vs Federal jurisdiction)
3. 2-3 areas of Obama's ACA health care reform were found unconstitutional for "other reasons" (including religious freedom violations, and Obama expending funds without going through Congress)

danielpalos
You have a political bias in belief on this.

You only see one side having beliefs but not the other.

So you consider the LGBT beliefs to be a "secular matter of fact" and do not treat beliefs/biases toward LGBT the same under law as beliefs/biases toward the other views. You do not see these as equally faith based.

Thus you argue it is okay for govt to establish laws favoring LGBT biases which you treat as fact, not as faith based beliefs, choices or preferences.

Is this a fair explanation of why you and others disagree?

 

[danielpalos]

You only see one side having beliefs but not the other.

Dear emilynghiem,

Not at all. I am saying if Congress cannot legislate morality why should we accept it from a laity and secular seller in public accommodation?

 

[emilynghiem]

You only see one side having beliefs but not the other.

Dear emilynghiem,

Not at all. I am saying if Congress cannot legislate morality why should we accept it from a laity and secular seller in public accommodation?

First danielpalos
A. When people/laity preach their religious beliefs or morality it is only for them. It is just their free speech, Voluntary to follow, not required for others.
But when GOVT establishes a policy of faith based morals, it is MANDATORY public policy endorsed on behalf of the public.


B. Individual religious freedom is NOT for govt to regulate nor ANY "laity."
It is only about INDIVIDUALS having their own personal beliefs and expression.
The whole point is NOT having any govt policy or mandates "established" that regulate beliefs because this imposes on everyone.

Private/Personal "laity/morals" only apply to those people who agree to those beliefs. All people have freedom to EXERCISE / express beliefs for themselves, but not abuse authority to force this on others.


Govt can regulate ACTIONS that violate rights of others, but not conflicting beliefs that remain individual choice of options.

What you also seem to miss is the whole LGBT approach
is faith based where people on either side should not abuse govt to take sides and favor one over the beliefs of the other.

 

[danielpalos]

A. When people/laity preach their religious beliefs or morality it is only for them. It is just their free speech, Voluntary to follow, not required for others.

Thank you. That must include buyers.

 

[emilynghiem]

A. When people/laity preach their religious beliefs or morality it is only for them. It is just their free speech, Voluntary to follow, not required for others.

Thank you. That must include buyers.

Yes, when you "buy or buy into" something by "free market" or "free choice"
THIS is what Conservatives mean by individual, private or power reserved to people who retain our "freedom of choice" or "individual Civil Liberty"

When GOVT makes a law, mandates or endorses something by law or "public policy" then that is mandatory collectively for everyone "uniformly" -- so if for example we do NOT all agree on a policy (such as prochoice or prolife) then passing a law favoring or establishing "one belief over the other" is imposing on and violating the rights of the other belief "not equally treated or protected as the endorsed creed."

Only if all people CONSENT to let majority rule on a policy, then this would not be contested. But for religious beliefs or political beliefs such as prochoice, prolife, gun rights, voting rights, marriage beliefs, etc. the people will not agree to "compromise their beliefs" even by majority, judicial or executive rule.

This is why the First Amendment says not to make laws "establishing or prohibiting" religion/beliefs.

Any law that ends up infringing on people's BELIEFS, even a tiny fraction of less than 1% with Transgender beliefs, and that law gets contested and overturned or reformed if it doesn't include and respect consent of ALL persons. That person has the right to their beliefs, so that law oppressing their beliefs can still get challenged "unless people consent" (as with marriage laws before they were legally and formally challenged, where people consented and tolerated them in the past but not today).

danielpalos
Since you do not make a distinction between "discriminating against Customers vs not providing a SERVICE" then maybe we can just find the "equivalent" of this on the Conservative side that you can see but they cannot. For example, many Conservatives cannot see that Facebook/Social Media are PRIVATE companies. Not Govt mandated.

So PRIVATE groups can edit or ban content they don't want to publish or have on their services.
A few Conservatives like Mark Levin will argue against Conservative whining by reminding them "you are not required to use social media or rely on them for your news information" - if they are biased, or if they block you that is their right.

This is an example of something close to your inability to distiguish private business choice of "terms of service" vs discriminating against a customer by class or label.

Most Conservatives argue that Facebook and Twitter were caught "censoring CONSERVATIVE material" by using algorithms to find and block key words or user groups "based on being conservative affiliated."

They say that is discrimination, while again "hard core Constitutionalists" will say NO there is a distinction and GOVT CANNOT REGULATE FREE SPEECH and FORCE a private business to post speech against their choice.

Do you agree that Conservatives who cannot distinguish the free speech and free choice of "private websites or services" from "Discrimination against Customers" is similar to what you are arguing here?

Note: in the case of FB, customers ARE getting completely BANNED from using services AT ALL. So they seem to have a stronger case regarding "public accommodations."

Mark Levin says to not use the services that would ban you. Go use or create services that don't ban you!

danielpalos
If you agree with that advice to Conservatives, that is why people argue "then don't try to get LGBT wedding services from a company that doesn't provide those"
As Levin advises in the equivalent case:
GO TAKE YOUR BUSINESS SOMEPLACE ELSE

 

[danielpalos]

A. When people/laity preach their religious beliefs or morality it is only for them. It is just their free speech, Voluntary to follow, not required for others.

Thank you. That must include buyers.

Yes, when you "buy or buy into" something by "free market" or "free choice"
THIS is what Conservatives mean by individual, private or power reserved to people who retain our "freedom of choice" or "individual Civil Liberty"

When GOVT makes a law, mandates or endorses something by law or "public policy" then that is mandatory collectively for everyone "uniformly" -- so if for example we do NOT all agree on a policy (such as prochoice or prolife) then passing a law favoring or establishing "one belief over the other" is imposing on and violating the rights of the other belief "not equally treated or protected as the endorsed creed."

Only if all people CONSENT to let majority rule on a policy, then this would not be contested. But for religious beliefs or political beliefs such as prochoice, prolife, gun rights, voting rights, marriage beliefs, etc. the people will not agree to "compromise their beliefs" even by majority, judicial or executive rule.

This is why the First Amendment says not to make laws "establishing or prohibiting" religion/beliefs.

Any law that ends up infringing on people's BELIEFS, even a tiny fraction of less than 1% with Transgender beliefs, and that law gets contested and overturned or reformed if it doesn't include and respect consent of ALL persons. That person has the right to their beliefs, so that law oppressing their beliefs can still get challenged "unless people consent" (as with marriage laws before they were legally and formally challenged, where people consented and tolerated them in the past but not today).

danielpalos
Since you do not make a distinction between "discriminating against Customers vs not providing a SERVICE" then maybe we can just find the "equivalent" of this on the Conservative side that you can see but they cannot. For example, many Conservatives cannot see that Facebook/Social Media are PRIVATE companies. Not Govt mandated.

So PRIVATE groups can edit or ban content they don't want to publish or have on their services.
A few Conservatives like Mark Levin will argue against Conservative whining by reminding them "you are not required to use social media or rely on them for your news information" - if they are biased, or if they block you that is their right.

This is an example of something close to your inability to distiguish private business choice of "terms of service" vs discriminating against a customer by class or label.

Most Conservatives argue that Facebook and Twitter were caught "censoring CONSERVATIVE material" by using algorithms to find and block key words or user groups "based on being conservative affiliated."

They say that is discrimination, while again "hard core Constitutionalists" will say NO there is a distinction and GOVT CANNOT REGULATE FREE SPEECH and FORCE a private business to post speech against their choice.

Do you agree that Conservatives who cannot distinguish the free speech and free choice of "private websites or services" from "Discrimination against Customers" is similar to what you are arguing here?

Note: in the case of FB, customers ARE getting completely BANNED from using services AT ALL. So they seem to have a stronger case regarding "public accommodations."

Mark Levin says to not use the services that would ban you. Go use or create services that don't ban you!

danielpalos
If you agree with that advice to Conservatives, that is why people argue "then don't try to get LGBT wedding services from a company that doesn't provide those"
As Levin advises in the equivalent case:
GO TAKE YOUR BUSINESS SOMEPLACE ELSE

This is the point: "A. When people/laity preach their religious beliefs or morality it is only for them. It is just their free speech, Voluntary to follow, not required for others."

The seller's alleged morals are not a condition for selling to the buyer in public accommodation.

 

[emilynghiem]

A. When people/laity preach their religious beliefs or morality it is only for them. It is just their free speech, Voluntary to follow, not required for others.

Thank you. That must include buyers.

Yes, when you "buy or buy into" something by "free market" or "free choice"
THIS is what Conservatives mean by individual, private or power reserved to people who retain our "freedom of choice" or "individual Civil Liberty"

When GOVT makes a law, mandates or endorses something by law or "public policy" then that is mandatory collectively for everyone "uniformly" -- so if for example we do NOT all agree on a policy (such as prochoice or prolife) then passing a law favoring or establishing "one belief over the other" is imposing on and violating the rights of the other belief "not equally treated or protected as the endorsed creed."

Only if all people CONSENT to let majority rule on a policy, then this would not be contested. But for religious beliefs or political beliefs such as prochoice, prolife, gun rights, voting rights, marriage beliefs, etc. the people will not agree to "compromise their beliefs" even by majority, judicial or executive rule.

This is why the First Amendment says not to make laws "establishing or prohibiting" religion/beliefs.

Any law that ends up infringing on people's BELIEFS, even a tiny fraction of less than 1% with Transgender beliefs, and that law gets contested and overturned or reformed if it doesn't include and respect consent of ALL persons. That person has the right to their beliefs, so that law oppressing their beliefs can still get challenged "unless people consent" (as with marriage laws before they were legally and formally challenged, where people consented and tolerated them in the past but not today).

danielpalos
Since you do not make a distinction between "discriminating against Customers vs not providing a SERVICE" then maybe we can just find the "equivalent" of this on the Conservative side that you can see but they cannot. For example, many Conservatives cannot see that Facebook/Social Media are PRIVATE companies. Not Govt mandated.

So PRIVATE groups can edit or ban content they don't want to publish or have on their services.
A few Conservatives like Mark Levin will argue against Conservative whining by reminding them "you are not required to use social media or rely on them for your news information" - if they are biased, or if they block you that is their right.

This is an example of something close to your inability to distiguish private business choice of "terms of service" vs discriminating against a customer by class or label.

Most Conservatives argue that Facebook and Twitter were caught "censoring CONSERVATIVE material" by using algorithms to find and block key words or user groups "based on being conservative affiliated."

They say that is discrimination, while again "hard core Constitutionalists" will say NO there is a distinction and GOVT CANNOT REGULATE FREE SPEECH and FORCE a private business to post speech against their choice.

Do you agree that Conservatives who cannot distinguish the free speech and free choice of "private websites or services" from "Discrimination against Customers" is similar to what you are arguing here?

Note: in the case of FB, customers ARE getting completely BANNED from using services AT ALL. So they seem to have a stronger case regarding "public accommodations."

Mark Levin says to not use the services that would ban you. Go use or create services that don't ban you!

danielpalos
If you agree with that advice to Conservatives, that is why people argue "then don't try to get LGBT wedding services from a company that doesn't provide those"
As Levin advises in the equivalent case:
GO TAKE YOUR BUSINESS SOMEPLACE ELSE

This is the point: "A. When people/laity preach their religious beliefs or morality it is only for them. It is just their free speech, Voluntary to follow, not required for others."

The seller's alleged morals are not a condition for selling to the buyer in public accommodation.

True, not for the BUYERS of different beliefs that are not the issue here.

The issue is the ***TYPE of services*** and in THIS lawsuit the ***CONTENT of speech*** (either forced or banned) on a website.

The Customers "of all beliefs and types" can still buy services provided and offered to anyone.

What we disagree on is what constitutes a TYPE of business service.

You are saying "all wedding services are the same" and the difference is in the Customer.

No.

The owners do not believe these are all the same. They can provide traditional marriage services for "natural born" male/female but other types of "marriage" are more like "partnerships" and some like the same sex marriages "are against their beliefs."

This is like Hindus and Muslims saying pork/beef (which violate their beliefs) is different from chicken that doesn't violate their beliefs.

What if a Customer ONLY eats Beef, and cannot get service at a Hindu business?

The problem is the TYPE of food served is agsinst the company beliefs. They are willing to sell chicken or pork to that Customer, so they aren't refusing that Customer but refusing a TYPE of goods or services.

You are grouping the TYPE of service and Type of Customer together, so denying the TYPE of service is equated with denying all such Customers "who only want that type."

 

[danielpalos]

True, not for the BUYERS of different beliefs that are not the issue here.

This is the point: "A. When people/laity preach their religious beliefs or morality it is only for them. It is just their free speech, Voluntary to follow, not required for others."

 

[emilynghiem]

Re: "again danielpalos
You have a bias for LGBT beliefs and against Christian as "moral beliefs" and are not treating both sets of beliefs the same or equal under law. You see one side as the victim and the other side as the oppressor instead of seeing both as equally "faith based beliefs" discriminating against the other. "

You also only see Christian/traditional marriage beliefs as "preaching morals" while not seeing LGBT inclusion as moral or faith based.

That is YOUR right to have your biases and beliefs, but NOT to impose this through GOVT that is supposed to remain neutral and not favor one side's beliefs or bias over another in public policy.

Again:

"If the opposite situation were affected by this law, if LGBT counseling businesses advertised they don't believe in exgay therapy, don't provide that service, and only showed examples of people they served who are LGBT not any exgay.

What if the law required LGBT counselors NOT to explain their beliefs that "LGBT orientation cannot change" and it is "immoral or damaging to counsel people otherwise", and forced them to include equal examples of exgay people who received spiritual therapy to change their orientation?"

Can you see that LAW would be protested?

"I'm saying the same objections apply to both sides' beliefs, which Govt cannot regulate, penalize or force without violating 1st and 14th Amendment rights and protections."

If it wouldn't be constitutional for Govt to force an LGBT counseling service to include and advertising "reparative counseling for exgays" if they do not believe in or provide "that TYPE of LGBT counseling service" then it isn't right for Govt to force anyone to provide services they don't believe in.

The LGBT are equally criticized for discriminating against exgays. Are you okay with Govt forcing them to change their beliefs and include exgays in their services?

 

[danielpalos]

You have a bias for LGBT beliefs and against Christian as "moral beliefs" and are not treating both sets of beliefs the same or equal under law. You see one side as the victim and the other side as the oppressor instead of seeing both as equally "faith based beliefs" discriminating against the other. "

You are the one with the bias, believing you can deny or disparage others First Amendment rights to not believe what the seller alleges to believe. The buyers are merely there to purchase the product the seller is selling, not the sellers' morals or morality.

 

[danielpalos]

We have "In God We Trust" on our lucre for the sake of for-profit merchants in public accommodation.

 

[justinacolmena]

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Including THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

 

[danielpalos]

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Including THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

Well regulated militia of the whole People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws meant for Individuals of the People.

 

[justinacolmena]

Well regulated militia of the whole People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws meant for Individuals of the People.

Sober up in court, Mister.

Gun rights are for individuals. Only one person on the trigger at a time. That's right. That's me, the citizen, the individual, whose rights you are violating to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars of damages, not including pain and suffering.