Winning! Supreme Court Tosses Ruling Against Christian Bakers Who Refused Cake For Gay Couple

[bodecea]

So you support people making up "deeply held religious beliefs" to get around the business laws they were supposed to follow by getting a business license.

It’s called “the Supremacy Clause” sweetie. The U.S. Constitution trumps the “business license”. Deal with it.

Interesting...perhaps a Supreme Court case can be made for that.....oops, there already has been. And the Supreme Court upheld PA laws.

Yep. The Court was wrong.

Based on what Constitutional point?

 

[dblack]

Well, you're saying we have to choose between businesses being run by politicians and PA laws. Third option: neither. Why is that so hard to imagine?

Mostly because you've never even hinted at how you would come up with this third option and what it would mean.
You are spouting theoretical bullshit, in other words. Not even worth my time to discuss this what if nonsense.

I guess I just don't understand what you mean by "businesses run by politicians".

Either we follow public accommodation law or sink back into Jim Crow America. It's not really a choice as far as I'm concerned.

That's utterly ridiculous. Society doesn't change at the whim of government mandate. We'll be exactly as bigoted and racist after the law is repealed as we were before. People aren't going to run out and join the KKK because PA laws are repealed. The Supreme Court isn't going to strike down the 14th amendment. State and City governments would still be prohibited from discriminating in any way. There would be no Jim Crow.

What we would have is a few businesses owners making utter jackasses of themselves. And we'd have a much better picture of the state of racism in the country. As it is we just suppress it. Our approach seems to be based on the idea that it's ok to be a racist, as along as you never admit it or talk about it. I think that's backwards. I think it's very much not ok for someone to be a racist, or homophobe, or any other kind of bigot. But if they are, they should talk about it. We should all talk about it.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I guess I just don't understand what you mean by "businesses run by politicians".

Well, that's your phrase so that tells you something about your own argument. I don't believe pa laws amount to
"businesses being run by politicians".

That's utterly ridiculous. Society doesn't change at the whim of government mandate. We'll be exactly as bigoted and racist after the law is repealed as we were before. People aren't going to run out and join the KKK because PA laws are repealed. The Supreme Court isn't going to strike down the 14th amendment. State and City governments would still be prohibited from discriminating in any way. There would be no Jim Crow.

I already said it isn't 1960 anymore so you are a little late to the party. But if you remove substantial penalties for apartment owners, for instance, who refuse to rent to blacks, Mexicans, etc. then you will get exactly what you tacitly encourage.
If that's what you like then by all means get rid of all pa laws in your perfect libertarian hypothetical world.
I'm guessing you are a white gentleman living in a largely white area.

Your argument is fallacious. I don't know exactly which one but the one that uses hyperbole and gross exaggeration
to make a point. Call your brave new world Jim Crow-lite then. Because that's what it would be.

What we would have is a few businesses owners making utter jackasses of themselves. And we'd have a much better picture of the state of racism in the country. As it is we just suppress it. Our approach seems to be based on the idea that it's ok to be a racist, as along as you never admit it or talk about it. I think that's backwards. I think it's very much not ok for someone to be a racist, or homophobe, or any other kind of bigot. But if they are, they should talk about it. We should all talk about it.

Look, I'm all in favor of a businessman being able to say **** off! I don't want to make your wedding cake.
Try the bakery at Safeway....in principle.

But I just believe in the law of unintended consequences. And once you saw it's perfectly fine for airlines to toss people
out for looking like a Muslim, or a fat troublemaker, then you have let the discrimination genie out of the bottle.
And you will have lots of trouble getting him back in.
And anyway public accommodation laws aren't going anywhere.

 

[bodecea]

And? So? What's the problem? This is America. A private citizen on private land has a right to decide for themselves who they enter into business with and who they don't.

So you can choose to rent your apartment to black people but not whites....is that okay with you?
Or to leftists but not patriots. I thought we left the Jim Crow era behind.

You realize PA laws say you cannot discriminate based on race....white is a race, is it not?

 

[dblack]

I guess I just don't understand what you mean by "businesses run by politicians".

Well, that's your phrase so that tells you something about your own argument.

Actually, it's not. Which tells me something I should have realized from the start: you're either trolling, or you lack the capacity for coherent conversation.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Actually, it's not. Which tells me something I should have realized from the start: you're either trolling, or you lack the capacity for coherent conversation.

Actually....it is!
It's phrase you have frequently used. Not me! So either you are trolling or you lack the honesty for a rational exchange.
That you can't even be honest or coherent about a phrase I heard for the first time ever from you tells me you aren't worth dealing with.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You realize PA laws say you cannot discriminate based on race....white is a race, is it not?

Back to sleep with you.

 

[P@triot]

The constitution explicitly limits the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. "Battling discrimination" is not one of those powers, snowflake.

Hope you're able to laugh at yourself, because that's the only way you're getting a good laugh now

I asked you to show where the Constitution forbids the government from dissuading discrimination You couldn't do it. Too bad you are better at tossing out little insults than legitimizing your own claims.

OMG...I just did. The U.S. Constitution explicitly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers and “battling discrimination” is not one of them. What part of that do you not understand?

 

[P@triot]

Christianity isn't the only faith in the world, dumb shit.

I don't need the Bible to "prove" anything. My faith is whatever I say it is, and the federal government must respect that per the U.S. Constitution.

God damn you are dumb. You literally think Christianity is the only faith. There is judaism, islam, buddhism, scientology, satanism, and a shit-ton more son.

You're an ad hom spewing shit bag. Make this worth my while.

I already have. I have educated your dumb ass on the constitution and religion. You’ve learned more in 3 of my posts than your dumb ass has learned in your entire life.

 

[dblack]

So you support people making up "deeply held religious beliefs" to get around the business laws they were supposed to follow by getting a business license.

It’s called “the Supremacy Clause” sweetie. The U.S. Constitution trumps the “business license”. Deal with it.

Interesting...perhaps a Supreme Court case can be made for that.....oops, there already has been. And the Supreme Court upheld PA laws.

Yep. The Court was wrong.

Based on what Constitutional point?

Their broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause. From what I've read, I don't believe the clause was meant to grant Congress the power to regulate anything and everything remotely related to money. Its purpose was to promote trade and prevent tariff disputes between the states. It was never conceived as a general purpose tool manipulate society. If it had been, many of the founders would have rejected it outright, and the Constitution would have never been ratified.

 

[dblack]

Actually, it's not. Which tells me something I should have realized from the start: you're either trolling, or you lack the capacity for coherent conversation.

Actually....it is!
It's phrase you have frequently used. Not me! So either you are trolling or you lack the honesty for a rational exchange.

Quote it. Or STFU.

That you can't even be honest or coherent about a phrase I heard for the first time ever from you tells me you aren't worth dealing with.

I merely asked what you meant by the phrase, and you spun it into all this bullshit - just so you wouldn't have to answer. Pure chickenshit.

Piss off, troll.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I don't understand. Why would you presume we must choose between those two options? As far as I see it, PA laws are "businesses being run by politicians".

Here you are first using this term that you, for some bizarre reason, are trying to associate with me, in post #533. Care to explain?

One of us is a liar and now we both know it's you though unless you have had a brain injury recently you must have known this all along.
Or you are baffled by your own bullshit? **** off yourself, you piss poor liar.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

To me, the LGBT discrimination side is trying to use the law as a weapon to promote their cause, as righteous as it might be. And that ain't right in my book.

Be prepared to be assaulted as a homophobe now.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

OMG...I just did. The U.S. Constitution explicitly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers and “battling discrimination” is not one of them. What part of that do you not understand?

OMG.... I asked you to show me where the government is forbidden from trying to curb discrimination among it's citizens.
This has nothing to do with "enumerated powers". It has to do with how government chooses to use those powers.

You are apparently too stupid or dishonest to answer the question.
Which is it?

 

[dblack]

I don't understand. Why would you presume we must choose between those two options? As far as I see it, PA laws are "businesses being run by politicians".

Here you are first using this term that you, for some bizarre reason, are trying to associate with me, in post #533. Care to explain?

You're getting warmer. Now read the post (your post) that I was responding to.

EDIT: Because you won't go read it, and won't admit your mistake if you do, I'll post it here:

I'm saying that of the two evils, businesses being run by politicians and public accommodation laws, I would come down reluctantly in favor of PA laws.

That's why I quoted it in the first place, dipshit. Because it was something YOU posted and I was curious what you meant. But you clearly don't wish to clarify. I wonder why.

 

[P@triot]

This has nothing to do with "enumerated powers". It has to do with how government chooses to use those powers.

Um...dumb ass? Absolutely everything has to do with their enumerated powers. They have 18 enumerated powers and “battling discrimination” is not one of them. If they aren’t explicitly granted the power to do something, they cannot do it. Jesus, read the ******* U.S. Constitution sometime. You are so stupid it’s frightening.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

That's why I quoted it in the first place, dipshit. Because it was something YOU posted and I was curious what you meant. But you clearly don't wish to clarify. I wonder why.

No reason why you should wonder, libertarian who rails against public accommodation laws.
Politicians force businesses to serve everyone whether they want to or not. Is that not self explanatory (dipshit)?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Um...dumb ass? Absolutely everything has to do with their enumerated powers. They have 18 enumerated powers and “battling discrimination” is not one of them. If they aren’t explicitly granted the power to do something, they cannot do it. Jesus, read the ******* U.S. Constitution sometime. You are so stupid it’s frightening.

Still not answering the question, dick. Where is government forbidden to insure everyone gets service whether the business owner wants to or not? Last chance to answer.
Hint.....enumerated powers have nothing to do with the answer.