Discussion:
Refusing service
(too old to reply)
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-27 15:42:40 UTC
Permalink
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition to the
incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same sex
couple because you have a moral opposition to same sex marriage?
Lots. Performing at an inauguration is not part of being a business
open to the public. It's a dedicated, one-off service not available to
the public.

You're so stupid.
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-27 20:36:10 UTC
Permalink
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition to the
incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same sex
couple because you have a moral opposition to same sex marriage?
Hm.
US law. Morals don't apply to the law. Never have, never will.
That's wrong, of course. Laws reflect accepted notions of morality.
That's why they become laws: people feel what they prescribe is morally
right.

<chuckle>

You're stupid, little HIV+ "kiddo" - stupid, and an easy victim.
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-27 20:51:01 UTC
Permalink
[followups vandalism by HIV+ "kiddo" repaired]
Post by Rudy Canoza
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition to the
incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same sex
couple because you have a moral opposition to same sex marriage?
Hm.
That's wrong, of course. Laws reflect accepted notions of morality.
That's why they become laws: people feel what they prescribe is morally
right.
<chuckle>
You're stupid, little HIV+ "kiddo" - stupid, and an easy victim.
<BAWL>
I need to go back to first grade.
Yes.

<chuckle>
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-27 20:55:12 UTC
Permalink
[followups vandalism by HIV+ "kiddo" repaired]
Post by Rudy Canoza
[followups vandalism by HIV+ "kiddo" repaired]
Post by Rudy Canoza
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition to the
incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same sex
couple because you have a moral opposition to same sex marriage?
Hm.
That's wrong, of course. Laws reflect accepted notions of morality.
That's why they become laws: people feel what they prescribe is morally
right.
<chuckle>
You're stupid, little HIV+ "kiddo" - stupid, and an easy victim.
<BAWL>
I need to go back to first grade.
Yes.
<chuckle>
AWw, lookie,
See? You already *have* gone back to first grade, "kiddo."

<chuckle>
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-28 17:00:30 UTC
Permalink
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition to
the
incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same
sex
couple because you have a moral opposition to same sex marriage?
In addition to what Rudy said (the former is not a business open to
the
public), the former is based on what the person believes, the
latter is
based on who they are.
You have covered the legal issue, I asked about the moral context.
From where I sit, if it is immoral for a Christian cake artist to
refuse
to design and produce a wedding cake for a same sex wedding, it is
immoral for an entertainer to refuse to perform for a politician
because
he does not like that person's politics.
The difference I presented above is a moral difference. It is far
different to refuse service because of who someone is (immutable
trait)
than for what they believe (mutable).
You didn't show that that's a moral difference. In fact, it isn't.
Of course, in a truly moral and just society, you would be free to
refuse service for whatever reason you wished, or for no reason at all
apart from mere caprice. Anti-discrimination laws violate
*fundamental*
human rights: the rights of freedom of association and freedom of
contract. Even worse is the fiction of neutrality or impartiality. It
is not in doubt that a white claiming to be the victim of racial
discrimination at the hands of a black owned business would not get the
time of day from a federal civil rights office. Even beyond the
violation of fundamental human rights that anti-discrimination laws
impose, there is the even uglier dimension of unequal enforcement of
the
law based on - indeed! - racial discrimination.
On this we agree.
That's fine, but we don't agree on what is fundamentally objectionable
about anti-discrimination laws. You think what's wrong with them is
that they violate people's "free exercise" rights, but that's purely a
*political* right that is not in any way based on fundamental human
rights. I maintain that anti-discrimination laws violate *fundamental*
human rights, but you scoff at those and focus your ignorant attention
on a purely political right. The simple fact is, your political right
to "free exercise" is not based in any way on fundamental human rights.
Fundamental human rights have no connection to religion in any way.
Your ignorant view of the burden of anti-discrimination laws is that if
a person *doesn't* have a religious objection to obeying the laws, then
he has no recourse. Your position is that if a person has a religious
objection to following the law, then he should be granted an exemption
to the law; but if his objection isn't based in religious belief, then
he's fucked and has to obey the law. That is intolerable. It is
fundamentally wrong. Your religious beliefs *OUGHT* to have no
consideration under the law. Legally, beliefs are bullshit and deserve
no protection whatever. Only *rights* deserve protection.
Exactly what is the source of these rights?
You can think of the source as whatever you wish. Thomas Jefferson said
it was our "Creator" who endowed us with them. Being a rational person
with the capacity for critical thinking, I don't believe in
superstitious nonsense like that. However, I do believe we are endowed
with those rights at birth, the same as Jefferson believed. Now, being
endowed with them doesn't mean every person lives in a society and under
a regime in which the rights are respected. When we look at a society
like North Korea or south Sudan, however, we don't shrug and say, "well,
those people just don't have fundamental human rights." No, what we say
is that their rights are being *violated* by their regimes.

My own thought on the actual origin of rights is that are an artifact of
human thought, which is, of course, a product of evolution, as is the
human tendency to live in cooperative societies. Human intelligence
endows the vast majority of persons with the innate sense of being
autonomous individual moral entities, that is, moral actors, and we see
that, individually and collectively, our interests are best served in
societies that acknowledge and respect that autonomy. That
acknowledgement and respect are the basic elements of the rights
themselves. *I* have fundamental human rights even though I know your
silly infantile nonsense about a "creator" is wrong, so my rights are
not based in any "free exercise" of religion.
MarkA
2016-12-29 01:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition to
the incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding cake for
a same sex couple because you have a moral opposition to same
sex marriage?
In addition to what Rudy said (the former is not a business open
to the public), the former is based on what the person believes,
the latter is based on who they are.
You have covered the legal issue, I asked about the moral context.
From where I sit, if it is immoral for a Christian cake artist to
refuse to design and produce a wedding cake for a same sex
wedding, it is immoral for an entertainer to refuse to perform for
a politician because he does not like that person's politics.
The difference I presented above is a moral difference. It is far
different to refuse service because of who someone is (immutable
trait)
than for what they believe (mutable).
You didn't show that that's a moral difference. In fact, it isn't.
Of course, in a truly moral and just society, you would be free to
refuse service for whatever reason you wished, or for no reason at
all apart from mere caprice. Anti-discrimination laws violate
*fundamental*
human rights: the rights of freedom of association and freedom of
contract. Even worse is the fiction of neutrality or impartiality.
It is not in doubt that a white claiming to be the victim of racial
discrimination at the hands of a black owned business would not get
the time of day from a federal civil rights office. Even beyond the
violation of fundamental human rights that anti-discrimination laws
impose, there is the even uglier dimension of unequal enforcement of
the law based on - indeed! - racial discrimination.
On this we agree.
That's fine, but we don't agree on what is fundamentally objectionable
about anti-discrimination laws. You think what's wrong with them is
that they violate people's "free exercise" rights, but that's purely a
*political* right that is not in any way based on fundamental human
rights. I maintain that anti-discrimination laws violate
*fundamental*
human rights, but you scoff at those and focus your ignorant attention
on a purely political right. The simple fact is, your political right
to "free exercise" is not based in any way on fundamental human rights.
Fundamental human rights have no connection to religion in any way.
Your ignorant view of the burden of anti-discrimination laws is that
if a person *doesn't* have a religious objection to obeying the laws,
then he has no recourse. Your position is that if a person has a
religious objection to following the law, then he should be granted an
exemption to the law; but if his objection isn't based in religious
belief, then he's fucked and has to obey the law. That is
intolerable. It is fundamentally wrong. Your religious beliefs
*OUGHT* to have no consideration under the law. Legally, beliefs are
bullshit and deserve no protection whatever. Only *rights* deserve
protection.
Exactly what is the source of these rights?
You can think of the source as whatever you wish. Thomas Jefferson said
it was our "Creator" who endowed us with them. Being a rational person
with the capacity for critical thinking, I don't believe in
superstitious nonsense like that. However, I do believe we are endowed
with those rights at birth, the same as Jefferson believed. Now, being
endowed with them doesn't mean every person lives in a society and under
a regime in which the rights are respected. When we look at a society
like North Korea or south Sudan, however, we don't shrug and say, "well,
those people just don't have fundamental human rights." No, what we say
is that their rights are being *violated* by their regimes.
My own thought on the actual origin of rights is that are an artifact of
human thought, which is, of course, a product of evolution, as is the
human tendency to live in cooperative societies. Human intelligence
endows the vast majority of persons with the innate sense of being
autonomous individual moral entities, that is, moral actors, and we see
that, individually and collectively, our interests are best served in
societies that acknowledge and respect that autonomy. That
acknowledgement and respect are the basic elements of the rights
themselves. *I* have fundamental human rights even though I know your
silly infantile nonsense about a "creator" is wrong, so my rights are
not based in any "free exercise" of religion.
well said. "Rights" are what people, collectively, agree on. That is
why people of different cultural backgrounds may disagree on what is a
"fundamental human right". As societies mature and evolve, they seem to
become more egalitarian. But that could just be my cultural bias.
--
MarkA

You can safely assume that you have created God in your own image when it
turns out that God hates all the same people you do. -- Anne Lamott
Kevrob
2016-12-30 19:41:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by MarkA
Post by Rudy Canoza
*I* have fundamental human rights even though I know your
silly infantile nonsense about a "creator" is wrong, so my rights are
not based in any "free exercise" of religion.
well said. "Rights" are what people, collectively, agree on. That is
why people of different cultural backgrounds may disagree on what is a
"fundamental human right". As societies mature and evolve, they seem to
become more egalitarian. But that could just be my cultural bias.
Re: Jefferson and "the Creator."

He was the main writer of a committee of 5, and even if he had not
included a phrase like "Nature's God," popular among Deists, in
addition to mentioning a Creator, the rest of the committee, with
the possible exception of Franklin, would have insisted on it, if
only to appease the rest of the Congress, several of whom were
ministers.

Turn the question of "where do rights come from" on its head.
Where do people get the assumed right to interfere in other people's
lives? I'd say that would only happen for one person when another person
aggresses against him.

For too many theists throughout history, and for atheists who were
followers of pernicious ideologies such as Marxism, "ghod" or "the
inevitable forceds of history" authorized them to trample on others'
rights, going back to the "divine right of kings," or the earlier
ideas of the priest-king or ghod-king.

Is "live and let live" that hard to comprehend?

Kevin R
Cloud Hobbit
2016-12-30 21:30:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by MarkA
Post by Rudy Canoza
*I* have fundamental human rights even though I know your
silly infantile nonsense about a "creator" is wrong, so my rights are
not based in any "free exercise" of religion.
well said. "Rights" are what people, collectively, agree on. That is
why people of different cultural backgrounds may disagree on what is a
"fundamental human right". As societies mature and evolve, they seem to
become more egalitarian. But that could just be my cultural bias.
Re: Jefferson and "the Creator."
He was the main writer of a committee of 5, and even if he had not
included a phrase like "Nature's God," popular among Deists, in
addition to mentioning a Creator, the rest of the committee, with
the possible exception of Franklin, would have insisted on it, if
only to appease the rest of the Congress, several of whom were
ministers.
Turn the question of "where do rights come from" on its head.
Where do people get the assumed right to interfere in other people's
lives? I'd say that would only happen for one person when another person
aggresses against him.
For too many theists throughout history, and for atheists who were
followers of pernicious ideologies such as Marxism, "ghod" or "the
inevitable forceds of history" authorized them to trample on others'
rights, going back to the "divine right of kings," or the earlier
ideas of the priest-king or ghod-king.
Is "live and let live" that hard to comprehend?
Kevin R
It is if part of your political ideology is that government is supposed to "FIX" everything. They think that equality of access is supposed to equal equality of outcome. They always seem to be able to think up a reason why they don't have to give yo ALL your rights or why they need to chip just a little bit away for the children or the poor, or the underprivileged. It's always something. Emily Latella.

I fear that without a rebirth of awareness of the philosophy that helped create our Constitution, we will be in a downward spiral. Looking at the things they do on college campuses (or is that campi) is frightening. They are actually talking about free speech as if it is a bad thing and try and keep anybody who has ideas different than theirs from speaking. Political correctness is the death of freedom.
Kevrob
2016-12-30 23:03:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Kevrob
Turn the question of "where do rights come from" on its head.
Where do people get the assumed right to interfere in other people's
lives? I'd say that would only happen for one person when another person
aggresses against him.
For too many theists throughout history, and for atheists who were
followers of pernicious ideologies such as Marxism, "ghod" or "the
inevitable forceds of history" authorized them to trample on others'
rights, going back to the "divine right of kings," or the earlier
ideas of the priest-king or ghod-king.
Is "live and let live" that hard to comprehend?
Kevin R
It is if part of your political ideology is that government is supposed to "FIX" everything. They think that equality of access is supposed to equal equality of outcome. They always seem to be able to think up a reason why they don't have to give yo ALL your rights or why they need to chip just a little bit away for the children or the poor, or the underprivileged. It's always something. Emily Latella.
I fear that without a rebirth of awareness of the philosophy that helped create our Constitution, we will be in a downward spiral. Looking at the things they do on college campuses (or is that campi)....
In Latin, 2nd declension, masculine.

[quote]

Singular Plural
Nominative Campus Campi
Genitive Campi Camporum
Dative Campo Campis
Accusative Campum Campos
Ablative Campo Campis
Vocative Campe Campi

[/quote]- http://latindictionary.wikidot.com/noun:campus

In English, campuses. Not all loan words retain their Latin plurals.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
is frightening. They are actually talking about free speech as if
it is a bad thing and try and keep anybody who has ideas different
than theirs from speaking. Political correctness is the death of freedom.
I agree with this last. A private university could choose to set
itself up as a "safe space" and persecute any and all dissenters.
It would be within the rights of the owners of the place, regardless
of how extraordinarily hostile it would be to the spirit of free inquiry
required for the establishment of a genuine place of scholarship.
It would be monumentally stupid behavior, which, unfortunately, means
that it has its supporters.

Kevin R
Cloud Hobbit
2016-12-30 21:13:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by MarkA
Post by Rudy Canoza
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition to
the incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding cake for
a same sex couple because you have a moral opposition to same
sex marriage?
In addition to what Rudy said (the former is not a business open
to the public), the former is based on what the person believes,
the latter is based on who they are.
You have covered the legal issue, I asked about the moral context.
From where I sit, if it is immoral for a Christian cake artist to
refuse to design and produce a wedding cake for a same sex
wedding, it is immoral for an entertainer to refuse to perform for
a politician because he does not like that person's politics.
The difference I presented above is a moral difference. It is far
different to refuse service because of who someone is (immutable
trait)
than for what they believe (mutable).
You didn't show that that's a moral difference. In fact, it isn't.
Of course, in a truly moral and just society, you would be free to
refuse service for whatever reason you wished, or for no reason at
all apart from mere caprice. Anti-discrimination laws violate
*fundamental*
human rights: the rights of freedom of association and freedom of
contract. Even worse is the fiction of neutrality or impartiality.
It is not in doubt that a white claiming to be the victim of racial
discrimination at the hands of a black owned business would not get
the time of day from a federal civil rights office. Even beyond the
violation of fundamental human rights that anti-discrimination laws
impose, there is the even uglier dimension of unequal enforcement of
the law based on - indeed! - racial discrimination.
On this we agree.
That's fine, but we don't agree on what is fundamentally objectionable
about anti-discrimination laws. You think what's wrong with them is
that they violate people's "free exercise" rights, but that's purely a
*political* right that is not in any way based on fundamental human
rights. I maintain that anti-discrimination laws violate
*fundamental*
human rights, but you scoff at those and focus your ignorant attention
on a purely political right. The simple fact is, your political right
to "free exercise" is not based in any way on fundamental human rights.
Fundamental human rights have no connection to religion in any way.
Your ignorant view of the burden of anti-discrimination laws is that
if a person *doesn't* have a religious objection to obeying the laws,
then he has no recourse. Your position is that if a person has a
religious objection to following the law, then he should be granted an
exemption to the law; but if his objection isn't based in religious
belief, then he's fucked and has to obey the law. That is
intolerable. It is fundamentally wrong. Your religious beliefs
*OUGHT* to have no consideration under the law. Legally, beliefs are
bullshit and deserve no protection whatever. Only *rights* deserve
protection.
Exactly what is the source of these rights?
You can think of the source as whatever you wish. Thomas Jefferson said
it was our "Creator" who endowed us with them. Being a rational person
with the capacity for critical thinking, I don't believe in
superstitious nonsense like that. However, I do believe we are endowed
with those rights at birth, the same as Jefferson believed. Now, being
endowed with them doesn't mean every person lives in a society and under
a regime in which the rights are respected. When we look at a society
like North Korea or south Sudan, however, we don't shrug and say, "well,
those people just don't have fundamental human rights." No, what we say
is that their rights are being *violated* by their regimes.
My own thought on the actual origin of rights is that are an artifact of
human thought, which is, of course, a product of evolution, as is the
human tendency to live in cooperative societies. Human intelligence
endows the vast majority of persons with the innate sense of being
autonomous individual moral entities, that is, moral actors, and we see
that, individually and collectively, our interests are best served in
societies that acknowledge and respect that autonomy. That
acknowledgement and respect are the basic elements of the rights
themselves. *I* have fundamental human rights even though I know your
silly infantile nonsense about a "creator" is wrong, so my rights are
not based in any "free exercise" of religion.
well said. "Rights" are what people, collectively, agree on. That is
why people of different cultural backgrounds may disagree on what is a
"fundamental human right". As societies mature and evolve, they seem to
become more egalitarian. But that could just be my cultural bias.
--
MarkA
You can safely assume that you have created God in your own image when it
turns out that God hates all the same people you do. -- Anne Lamott
It seems that governments need to feel like they are doing something, so when the big problems are essentially solved and have had all the things done that can be done, hey start in on things that they think should be, not what is right.

That's how we get laws like hate crime legislation that seems like it does something, but doesn't change a thing.

The right to life is the source of all rights — and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life.

Ayn Rand
Cloud Hobbit
2016-12-30 21:03:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition to
the
incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same
sex
couple because you have a moral opposition to same sex marriage?
In addition to what Rudy said (the former is not a business open to
the
public), the former is based on what the person believes, the
latter is
based on who they are.
You have covered the legal issue, I asked about the moral context.
From where I sit, if it is immoral for a Christian cake artist to
refuse
to design and produce a wedding cake for a same sex wedding, it is
immoral for an entertainer to refuse to perform for a politician
because
he does not like that person's politics.
The difference I presented above is a moral difference. It is far
different to refuse service because of who someone is (immutable
trait)
than for what they believe (mutable).
You didn't show that that's a moral difference. In fact, it isn't.
Of course, in a truly moral and just society, you would be free to
refuse service for whatever reason you wished, or for no reason at all
apart from mere caprice. Anti-discrimination laws violate
*fundamental*
human rights: the rights of freedom of association and freedom of
contract. Even worse is the fiction of neutrality or impartiality. It
is not in doubt that a white claiming to be the victim of racial
discrimination at the hands of a black owned business would not get the
time of day from a federal civil rights office. Even beyond the
violation of fundamental human rights that anti-discrimination laws
impose, there is the even uglier dimension of unequal enforcement of
the
law based on - indeed! - racial discrimination.
On this we agree.
That's fine, but we don't agree on what is fundamentally objectionable
about anti-discrimination laws. You think what's wrong with them is
that they violate people's "free exercise" rights, but that's purely a
*political* right that is not in any way based on fundamental human
rights.
I disagree. The Constitution and common sense should tell you that we have unalienable rights, rights that we possess because we exist and they are necessary in order to exist, not just to keep order. If we are not allowed to freely exercise our rights it is both a political and a human rights issue.
To be born human is to be possessed of unalienable rights, rights that you have because you are human and because without them it is impossible to be considered free.

I maintain that anti-discrimination laws violate *fundamental*
Post by Rudy Canoza
human rights, but you scoff at those and focus your ignorant attention
on a purely political right. The simple fact is, your political right
to "free exercise" is not based in any way on fundamental human rights.
Fundamental human rights have no connection to religion in any way.
Wrong.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Your ignorant view of the burden of anti-discrimination laws is that if
a person *doesn't* have a religious objection to obeying the laws, then
he has no recourse. Your position is that if a person has a religious
objection to following the law, then he should be granted an exemption
to the law; but if his objection isn't based in religious belief, then
he's fucked and has to obey the law. That is intolerable. It is
fundamentally wrong. Your religious beliefs *OUGHT* to have no
consideration under the law. Legally, beliefs are bullshit and deserve
no protection whatever. Only *rights* deserve protection.
Exactly what is the source of these rights?
See above.
Post by Rudy Canoza
You can think of the source as whatever you wish. Thomas Jefferson said
it was our "Creator" who endowed us with them. Being a rational person
with the capacity for critical thinking, I don't believe in
superstitious nonsense like that. However, I do believe we are endowed
with those rights at birth, the same as Jefferson believed. Now, being
endowed with them doesn't mean every person lives in a society and under
a regime in which the rights are respected. When we look at a society
like North Korea or south Sudan, however, we don't shrug and say, "well,
those people just don't have fundamental human rights." No, what we say
is that their rights are being *violated* by their regimes.
My own thought on the actual origin of rights is that are an artifact of
human thought, which is, of course, a product of evolution, as is the
human tendency to live in cooperative societies. Human intelligence
endows the vast majority of persons with the innate sense of being
autonomous individual moral entities, that is, moral actors, and we see
that, individually and collectively, our interests are best served in
societies that acknowledge and respect that autonomy. That
acknowledgement and respect are the basic elements of the rights
themselves. *I* have fundamental human rights even though I know your
silly infantile nonsense about a "creator" is wrong, so my rights are
not based in any "free exercise" of religion.
I think out basic human rights the rights that are unalienable are the rights that any human being needs in order to live. Foremost being property as all other rights are related to property. The fact that the government has chosen to redefine public place to include place open to the public is just another one of those intrusive and unwarranted laws produced by government that create more harm they solve.

A business is not a public place it is a private property open to the public and
the owner,(not the government) is the only one that has any say in who he chooses to allow to purchase his goods or services. Why should government tell you what you can do or who you HAVE to serve on your property? Why does being open to the public mean your right should be abridged? If someone can't get served at whatever business they just go where they can be served. There is no business that is so important that the right to property is nullified.


The most profoundly revolutionary achievement of the United States of America was the subordination of society to moral law. The principle of man’s individual rights represented the extension of morality into the social system — as a limitation on the power of the state, as man’s protection against the brute force of the collective, as the subordination of might to right. The United States was the first moral society in history. All previous systems had regarded man as a sacrificial means to the ends of others, and society as an end in itself. The United States regarded man as an end in himself, and society as a means to the peaceful, orderly, voluntary co-existence of individuals. All previous systems had held that man’s life belongs to society, that society can dispose of him in any way it pleases, and that any freedom he enjoys is his only by favor, by the permission of society, which may be revoked at any time. The United States held that man’s life is his by right (which means: by moral principle and by his nature), that a right is the property of an individual, that society as such has no rights, and that the only moral purpose of a government is the protection of individual rights.
“Man’s Rights” Ayn Rand

The Virtue of Selfishness
America’s inner contradiction was the altruist-collectivist ethics. Altruism is incompatible with freedom, with capitalism and with individual rights. One cannot combine the pursuit of happiness with the moral status of a sacrificial animal. Ayn Rand
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-29 16:47:41 UTC
Permalink
wrote: >>
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:31:24 -0600, David Hartung
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition
to >> >> > the incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding
cake for a >> >> > same sex couple because you have a moral
opposition to same sex >> >> > marriage?
Perhaps a court should fine Springsteen for not performing.
And assess the same fine against Garth Brooks
and Trish Yearwood and the rest of the Nashville
crowd that is similarly not performing for Trump?
If the libs are to be consistant (and the NEVER) are, one should
not >> be able to refuse to provide a service based on their belief
system. >> They have no problems with Christians driving people out
of business >> for exactly that.
No performers are breaking any law by not performing
for Trump. These "Christian" merchants WERE breaking the
law.
It's the same premise. You just choose to ignore the parallel because
it doesn't fit your bigotry.
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants
*tenets*, you buffoon
of theirfaith as a condition of being in business,
They are not being required to do that. Nothing in their faith says
"don't bake cakes for queers getting married."
NoBody
2016-12-30 15:04:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
wrote: >>
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:31:24 -0600, David Hartung
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition
to >> >> > the incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding
cake for a >> >> > same sex couple because you have a moral
opposition to same sex >> >> > marriage?
Perhaps a court should fine Springsteen for not performing.
And assess the same fine against Garth Brooks
and Trish Yearwood and the rest of the Nashville
crowd that is similarly not performing for Trump?
If the libs are to be consistant (and the NEVER) are, one should
not >> be able to refuse to provide a service based on their belief
system. >> They have no problems with Christians driving people out
of business >> for exactly that.
No performers are breaking any law by not performing
for Trump. These "Christian" merchants WERE breaking the
law.
It's the same premise. You just choose to ignore the parallel because
it doesn't fit your bigotry.
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants
*tenets*, you buffoon
of theirfaith as a condition of being in business,
They are not being required to do that. Nothing in their faith says
"don't bake cakes for queers getting married."
Have you researched their belief system and found what you claim?
Please cite it for us.
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-30 17:41:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
wrote: >>
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:31:24 -0600, David Hartung
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition
to >> >> > the incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding
cake for a >> >> > same sex couple because you have a moral
opposition to same sex >> >> > marriage?
Perhaps a court should fine Springsteen for not performing.
And assess the same fine against Garth Brooks
and Trish Yearwood and the rest of the Nashville
crowd that is similarly not performing for Trump?
If the libs are to be consistant (and the NEVER) are, one should
not >> be able to refuse to provide a service based on their belief
system. >> They have no problems with Christians driving people out
of business >> for exactly that.
No performers are breaking any law by not performing
for Trump. These "Christian" merchants WERE breaking the
law.
It's the same premise. You just choose to ignore the parallel because
it doesn't fit your bigotry.
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants
*tenets*, you buffoon
of theirfaith as a condition of being in business,
They are not being required to do that. Nothing in their faith says
"don't bake cakes for queers getting married."
Have you researched their belief system and found what you claim?
Yes.
Post by NoBody
Please cite it for us.
Fuck off. Only fruit rabbits and pantywaists shrilly squeak "Cite!
Cite!" in every post.
radar range
2016-12-30 17:46:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Fuck off.
You give NO MORE ORDERS HERE...or ANYWHERE - Jonathan "little man" Ball!

_______________________________________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
______________________________________________________________________________
radar range
2016-12-30 17:46:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Fuck off.
You give NO MORE ORDERS HERE...or ANYWHERE - Jonathan "little man" Ball!

_______________________________________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
______________________________________________________________________________
radar range
2016-12-30 18:27:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
rabbits and pantywaists
You give NO MORE ORDERS HERE...or ANYWHERE - Jonathan "little man" Ball!

_______________________________________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
______________________________________________________________________________
Cloud Hobbit
2016-12-30 21:18:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
wrote: >>
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:31:24 -0600, David Hartung
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition
to >> >> > the incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding
cake for a >> >> > same sex couple because you have a moral
opposition to same sex >> >> > marriage?
Perhaps a court should fine Springsteen for not performing.
And assess the same fine against Garth Brooks
and Trish Yearwood and the rest of the Nashville
crowd that is similarly not performing for Trump?
If the libs are to be consistant (and the NEVER) are, one should
not >> be able to refuse to provide a service based on their belief
system. >> They have no problems with Christians driving people out
of business >> for exactly that.
No performers are breaking any law by not performing
for Trump. These "Christian" merchants WERE breaking the
law.
It's the same premise. You just choose to ignore the parallel because
it doesn't fit your bigotry.
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants
*tenets*, you buffoon
of theirfaith as a condition of being in business,
They are not being required to do that. Nothing in their faith says
"don't bake cakes for queers getting married."
And nothing in the law should require anybody to do business with another person that they don't like or don't agree with or if they part their hair wrong. Any damn reason they want. It is the business owner's property, not the state's or any government. Your property is YOURs, nobody else's and nobody else has the right to say who you must do business with.
You have the right to go somewhere else, not the right to force someone to do business with you.
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-29 16:48:45 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 08:24:19 -0800 (PST), Salty Stan
wrote: >>
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:31:24 -0600, David Hartung
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition
to >> >> > the incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding
cake for a >> >> > same sex couple because you have a moral
opposition to same sex >> >> > marriage?
Perhaps a court should fine Springsteen for not performing.
And assess the same fine against Garth Brooks
and Trish Yearwood and the rest of the Nashville
crowd that is similarly not performing for Trump?
If the libs are to be consistant (and the NEVER) are, one should
not >> be able to refuse to provide a service based on their belief
system. >> They have no problems with Christians driving people out
of business >> for exactly that.
No performers are breaking any law by not performing
for Trump. These "Christian" merchants WERE breaking the
law.
It's the same premise. You just choose to ignore the parallel because
it doesn't fit your bigotry.
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of their
faith as a condition of being in business, while allowing liberal
performers to refuse to entertain t at functions which advance positions
counter to theirs.
Well, there's a difference here, in one case it's liberals refusing service, in the other it's not.
One rule for them, a different rule for us.
One is not supposed to be able to discriminate based on race, sex or
creed.
That's the law. It's a bad law, as it violates fundamental human
rights. It does *not* violate "free exercise" of religion. It's that
simple.
Kevrob
2016-12-30 19:50:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 08:24:19 -0800 (PST), Salty Stan
wrote: >>
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:31:24 -0600, David Hartung
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition
to >> >> > the incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding
cake for a >> >> > same sex couple because you have a moral
opposition to same sex >> >> > marriage?
Perhaps a court should fine Springsteen for not performing.
And assess the same fine against Garth Brooks
and Trish Yearwood and the rest of the Nashville
crowd that is similarly not performing for Trump?
If the libs are to be consistant (and the NEVER) are, one should
not >> be able to refuse to provide a service based on their belief
system. >> They have no problems with Christians driving people out
of business >> for exactly that.
No performers are breaking any law by not performing
for Trump. These "Christian" merchants WERE breaking the
law.
It's the same premise. You just choose to ignore the parallel because
it doesn't fit your bigotry.
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of their
faith as a condition of being in business, while allowing liberal
performers to refuse to entertain t at functions which advance positions
counter to theirs.
Well, there's a difference here, in one case it's liberals refusing service, in the other it's not.
One rule for them, a different rule for us.
One is not supposed to be able to discriminate based on race, sex or
creed.
That's the law. It's a bad law, as it violates fundamental human
rights. It does *not* violate "free exercise" of religion. It's that
simple.
Arguably, civil rights legislation in the US in the 1960s should
have taken the form of banning GOVERNMENTS, and those who contracted
with governments and accepted this rule as a condition of the contract,
from discriminating among its citizenry on the basis of irrelevant
criteria such as race. The idea of the "common carrier" and the "public
accommodation" extended non-discrimination law in such a way that it
inevitably caused a conflict with the property rights (5th Amendment)
of the owners of businesses who wanted to discriminate. Now, those
people may be the scum of the earth, but they have rights, too.

Government granting monopolies or special privileges to businesses
so one particular firm had the market for a good or service (electric
power, railroads, etc) locked up meant that demanding those firms not
discriminate had some logic to it. It was just a short step to making
all businesses conform. I would have preferred that they would have
died a death by refusing to compete for the larger public's business,
but this is a 50 year old fight authentic liberals hsve lost, and their
is not much point in trying to roll it back.

There were times, in the US, that certain religious sects supported
segregation or even slavery, so that a "first amendment" exemption
to allow discrimination on racial grounds would not have been beyond
consideration. Given the civil war amendments, insisting on that would
not have played.

Kevin R
Cloud Hobbit
2016-12-30 21:44:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Rudy Canoza
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 08:24:19 -0800 (PST), Salty Stan
wrote: >>
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:31:24 -0600, David Hartung
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition
to >> >> > the incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding
cake for a >> >> > same sex couple because you have a moral
opposition to same sex >> >> > marriage?
Perhaps a court should fine Springsteen for not performing.
And assess the same fine against Garth Brooks
and Trish Yearwood and the rest of the Nashville
crowd that is similarly not performing for Trump?
If the libs are to be consistant (and the NEVER) are, one should
not >> be able to refuse to provide a service based on their belief
system. >> They have no problems with Christians driving people out
of business >> for exactly that.
No performers are breaking any law by not performing
for Trump. These "Christian" merchants WERE breaking the
law.
It's the same premise. You just choose to ignore the parallel because
it doesn't fit your bigotry.
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of their
faith as a condition of being in business, while allowing liberal
performers to refuse to entertain t at functions which advance positions
counter to theirs.
Well, there's a difference here, in one case it's liberals refusing service, in the other it's not.
One rule for them, a different rule for us.
One is not supposed to be able to discriminate based on race, sex or
creed.
That's the law. It's a bad law, as it violates fundamental human
rights. It does *not* violate "free exercise" of religion. It's that
simple.
Arguably, civil rights legislation in the US in the 1960s should
have taken the form of banning GOVERNMENTS, and those who contracted
with governments and accepted this rule as a condition of the contract,
from discriminating among its citizenry on the basis of irrelevant
criteria such as race. The idea of the "common carrier" and the "public
accommodation" extended non-discrimination law in such a way that it
inevitably caused a conflict with the property rights (5th Amendment)
of the owners of businesses who wanted to discriminate. Now, those
people may be the scum of the earth, but they have rights, too.
Civil rights legislation should have stopped when it made everybody equal under the law. Nothing else. By giving special advantages to anyone deemed a minority and I have no idea why women were included in this since there are more women than men in his country, they created a situation where the government helped institutionalize racism. It made every non-minority person wonder when they saw a "minority" what special advantages they got.

No laws that are diffrent for one group of people over another group of people. The should apply to everyone EQUALLY. Affirmitive action is not an example of equality.
Post by Kevrob
Government granting monopolies or special privileges to businesses
so one particular firm had the market for a good or service (electric
power, railroads, etc) locked up meant that demanding those firms not
discriminate had some logic to it. It was just a short step to making
all businesses conform. I would have preferred that they would have
died a death by refusing to compete for the larger public's business,
but this is a 50 year old fight authentic liberals have lost, and their
is not much point in trying to roll it back.
When exactly is the point that determines that we stop fighting for equality for everyone?
Post by Kevrob
There were times, in the US, that certain religious sects supported
segregation or even slavery, so that a "first amendment" exemption
to allow discrimination on racial grounds would not have been beyond
consideration. Given the civil war amendments, insisting on that would
not have played.
Kevin R
Now we have college students who will attack you for cultural appropriation.
Kevrob
2016-12-30 23:33:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Kevrob
Post by Rudy Canoza
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 08:24:19 -0800 (PST), Salty Stan
wrote: >>
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:31:24 -0600, David Hartung
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition
to >> >> > the incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding
cake for a >> >> > same sex couple because you have a moral
opposition to same sex >> >> > marriage?
Perhaps a court should fine Springsteen for not performing.
And assess the same fine against Garth Brooks
and Trish Yearwood and the rest of the Nashville
crowd that is similarly not performing for Trump?
If the libs are to be consistant (and the NEVER) are, one should
not >> be able to refuse to provide a service based on their belief
system. >> They have no problems with Christians driving people out
of business >> for exactly that.
No performers are breaking any law by not performing
for Trump. These "Christian" merchants WERE breaking the
law.
It's the same premise. You just choose to ignore the parallel because
it doesn't fit your bigotry.
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of their
faith as a condition of being in business, while allowing liberal
performers to refuse to entertain t at functions which advance positions
counter to theirs.
Well, there's a difference here, in one case it's liberals refusing service, in the other it's not.
One rule for them, a different rule for us.
One is not supposed to be able to discriminate based on race, sex or
creed.
That's the law. It's a bad law, as it violates fundamental human
rights. It does *not* violate "free exercise" of religion. It's that
simple.
Arguably, civil rights legislation in the US in the 1960s should
have taken the form of banning GOVERNMENTS, and those who contracted
with governments and accepted this rule as a condition of the contract,
from discriminating among its citizenry on the basis of irrelevant
criteria such as race. The idea of the "common carrier" and the "public
accommodation" extended non-discrimination law in such a way that it
inevitably caused a conflict with the property rights (5th Amendment)
of the owners of businesses who wanted to discriminate. Now, those
people may be the scum of the earth, but they have rights, too.
Civil rights legislation should have stopped when it made everybody equal under the law. Nothing else. By giving special advantages to anyone deemed a minority and I have no idea why women were included in this since there are more women than men in his country, they created a situation where the government helped institutionalize racism. It made every non-minority person wonder when they saw a "minority" what special advantages they got.
You are using the strictly numeric view of majority v minority. The
specialized meaning of it for sociologists, who had great influence over
things such as the SCOTUS decision BROWN v BOARD OF EDUCATION, is that
a minority has less power then the majority. In this view, white
South Africans were the majority, and black South Africans and the
mixed-race "coloreds" were minorities. Often the numeric majority has
the majority of power, but not always. It is jargon, which often is
not surprisingly greeted with derision when the general public hears it,
and it seems to violate common sense.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
No laws that are diffrent for one group of people over another group of people. The should apply to everyone EQUALLY. Affirmitive action is not an example of equality.
Affirmative action changed its meaning over teh years. It started out as
"let's make an honest effort to invite minorities to apply for jobs
here. They, after centuries of discrimination and even absolute oppression,
probably don't believe they'll be given a fair shot unless we recruit
them and let them know they have a fair shot at being hired."

It degenerated into quotas. When quotas were ruled (sometimes) to be
discriminatory, "disparate impact" was dreamed up. There. what is supposed
to be a race- or sex-neutral hiring practice is called into question and
even assumed to be tainted by racism or sexism because it doesn't yield the
number of hires of the favored groups. Never mind if what is being tested
for, or the experience requested, really has something to do with the
qualifications of a new hire. The practice is presumptively suspect.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Kevrob
Government granting monopolies or special privileges to businesses
so one particular firm had the market for a good or service (electric
power, railroads, etc) locked up meant that demanding those firms not
discriminate had some logic to it. It was just a short step to making
all businesses conform. I would have preferred that they would have
died a death by refusing to compete for the larger public's business,
but this is a 50 year old fight authentic liberals have lost, and their
is not much point in trying to roll it back.
When exactly is the point that determines that we stop fighting for equality for everyone?
When something is so ingrained in the culture that kicking against it
makes it impossible to be listened to on other subjects.

Consider the history of the "libertarian macho flash."

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=17467.0

For example, Rand Paul got flack, and lost all traction when he
tried to run for President by alternately refusing to say he'd have
voted for the 1965 Civil Rights Act _as finally voted on_ while
trying to say he supported great swaths of it. See:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/rand-pauls-rewriting-of-his-own-remarks-on-the-civil-rights-act/2013/04/10/5b8d91c4-a235-11e2-82bc-511538ae90a4_blog.html?utm_term=.ebc4ecc2fe6a

His objections aren't measurably different from my own, but I am
not a sitting Senator, nor am I likely ever to be one, nor a potential
major party candidate for Prez.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Kevrob
There were times, in the US, that certain religious sects supported
segregation or even slavery, so that a "first amendment" exemption
to allow discrimination on racial grounds would not have been beyond
consideration. Given the civil war amendments, insisting on that would
not have played.
Kevin R
Now we have college students who will attack you for cultural appropriation.
I think those institutions being forced to toe the line on Title IX
because they take Federal money should be made to get behind the free
speech provisions of Amendment 1. I may have to wait a good, long time
for that.

Kevin R
Beam Me Up Scotty
2016-12-30 17:07:13 UTC
Permalink
{snip}
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the
hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of their
faith as a condition of being in business, while allowing liberal
performers to refuse to entertain t at functions which advance
positions
counter to theirs.
There is no hypocrisy because Christians aren't being targeted (the
proscription applies whether it is based in religious and secular
beliefs) and conservative performers are likewise permitted to refuse.
That violates the 14th amendment, The Liberal entertainers can't refuse
a gay wedding or a Christian wedding.... if they do then they are
doing
the same thing the baker did when s/he refused to bake a gay wedding
cake.
If they offer their services to the general public, that is correct.
However typically, an entertainer does not serve the general public.
SO now wedding singers are going to conform and even if the religion is
burning gays at the stake, the singer has to sing for them and
likewise... no matter how evil they are or how evil and militant the
gays are they have to sing for them.
I suspect most wedding singers offer their services to the general
public. In that case, they must serve gay weddings, Christian weddings
and Satanic weddings.
exactly.... and telling trump no because they disagree with his
religious beliefs is violating Liberals own interpretation of the
constitution.
The entertainers who turned down Trump don't serve the general public,
and thus are not subject to the law.
We all buy their songs so they are subject to it.

It's the same as refusing to play because the crowd is too black. They
are refusing because the crowd is the wrong religion or race.

That makes those Liberals racists and bigots.
--
That's Karma
Tom McDonald
2016-12-30 19:44:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
{snip}
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the
hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of their
faith as a condition of being in business, while allowing liberal
performers to refuse to entertain t at functions which advance
positions
counter to theirs.
There is no hypocrisy because Christians aren't being targeted (the
proscription applies whether it is based in religious and secular
beliefs) and conservative performers are likewise permitted to refuse.
That violates the 14th amendment, The Liberal entertainers can't refuse
a gay wedding or a Christian wedding.... if they do then they are
doing
the same thing the baker did when s/he refused to bake a gay wedding
cake.
If they offer their services to the general public, that is correct.
However typically, an entertainer does not serve the general public.
SO now wedding singers are going to conform and even if the religion is
burning gays at the stake, the singer has to sing for them and
likewise... no matter how evil they are or how evil and militant the
gays are they have to sing for them.
I suspect most wedding singers offer their services to the general
public. In that case, they must serve gay weddings, Christian weddings
and Satanic weddings.
exactly.... and telling trump no because they disagree with his
religious beliefs is violating Liberals own interpretation of the
constitution.
The entertainers who turned down Trump don't serve the general public,
and thus are not subject to the law.
We all buy their songs so they are subject to it.
It's the same as refusing to play because the crowd is too black. They
are refusing because the crowd is the wrong religion or race.
That makes those Liberals racists and bigots.
So now you are in favor of slavery? Of forcing people who are not
willing to provide a service to provide that service against their will?
And here I thought you were against forcing people to do things they
were not willing to do. Next you'll tell me that taxation isn't theft.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2016-12-30 20:08:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
{snip}
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the
hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of their
faith as a condition of being in business, while allowing liberal
performers to refuse to entertain t at functions which advance
positions
counter to theirs.
There is no hypocrisy because Christians aren't being targeted (the
proscription applies whether it is based in religious and secular
beliefs) and conservative performers are likewise permitted to refuse.
That violates the 14th amendment, The Liberal entertainers can't refuse
a gay wedding or a Christian wedding.... if they do then they are
doing
the same thing the baker did when s/he refused to bake a gay wedding
cake.
If they offer their services to the general public, that is correct.
However typically, an entertainer does not serve the general public.
SO now wedding singers are going to conform and even if the religion is
burning gays at the stake, the singer has to sing for them and
likewise... no matter how evil they are or how evil and militant the
gays are they have to sing for them.
I suspect most wedding singers offer their services to the general
public. In that case, they must serve gay weddings, Christian weddings
and Satanic weddings.
exactly.... and telling trump no because they disagree with his
religious beliefs is violating Liberals own interpretation of the
constitution.
The entertainers who turned down Trump don't serve the general public,
and thus are not subject to the law.
We all buy their songs so they are subject to it.
It's the same as refusing to play because the crowd is too black. They
are refusing because the crowd is the wrong religion or race.
That makes those Liberals racists and bigots.
So now you are in favor of slavery? Of forcing people who are not
willing to provide a service to provide that service against their will?
And here I thought you were against forcing people to do things they
were not willing to do. Next you'll tell me that taxation isn't theft.
NO, I'm in favor of being consistent....

If you are going to enforce the law then do it equally, or NOT at all.
--
That's Karma
Tom McDonald
2016-12-30 20:20:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
{snip}
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the
hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of their
faith as a condition of being in business, while allowing liberal
performers to refuse to entertain t at functions which advance
positions
counter to theirs.
There is no hypocrisy because Christians aren't being targeted (the
proscription applies whether it is based in religious and secular
beliefs) and conservative performers are likewise permitted to refuse.
That violates the 14th amendment, The Liberal entertainers can't refuse
a gay wedding or a Christian wedding.... if they do then they are
doing
the same thing the baker did when s/he refused to bake a gay wedding
cake.
If they offer their services to the general public, that is correct.
However typically, an entertainer does not serve the general public.
SO now wedding singers are going to conform and even if the religion is
burning gays at the stake, the singer has to sing for them and
likewise... no matter how evil they are or how evil and militant the
gays are they have to sing for them.
I suspect most wedding singers offer their services to the general
public. In that case, they must serve gay weddings, Christian weddings
and Satanic weddings.
exactly.... and telling trump no because they disagree with his
religious beliefs is violating Liberals own interpretation of the
constitution.
The entertainers who turned down Trump don't serve the general public,
and thus are not subject to the law.
We all buy their songs so they are subject to it.
It's the same as refusing to play because the crowd is too black. They
are refusing because the crowd is the wrong religion or race.
That makes those Liberals racists and bigots.
So now you are in favor of slavery? Of forcing people who are not
willing to provide a service to provide that service against their will?
And here I thought you were against forcing people to do things they
were not willing to do. Next you'll tell me that taxation isn't theft.
NO, I'm in favor of being consistent....
If you are going to enforce the law then do it equally, or NOT at all.
What law forces performers to perform, i.e. sign a contract to provide
their services, against their will? There is no overt or implied
contract for any private citizen to perform for any government official.
So what is the law that needs to be equally applied?
Beam Me Up Scotty
2016-12-30 20:52:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
{snip}
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the
hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of their
faith as a condition of being in business, while allowing liberal
performers to refuse to entertain t at functions which advance
positions
counter to theirs.
There is no hypocrisy because Christians aren't being targeted (the
proscription applies whether it is based in religious and secular
beliefs) and conservative performers are likewise permitted to refuse.
That violates the 14th amendment, The Liberal entertainers can't refuse
a gay wedding or a Christian wedding.... if they do then they are
doing
the same thing the baker did when s/he refused to bake a gay wedding
cake.
If they offer their services to the general public, that is correct.
However typically, an entertainer does not serve the general public.
SO now wedding singers are going to conform and even if the religion is
burning gays at the stake, the singer has to sing for them and
likewise... no matter how evil they are or how evil and militant the
gays are they have to sing for them.
I suspect most wedding singers offer their services to the general
public. In that case, they must serve gay weddings, Christian weddings
and Satanic weddings.
exactly.... and telling trump no because they disagree with his
religious beliefs is violating Liberals own interpretation of the
constitution.
The entertainers who turned down Trump don't serve the general public,
and thus are not subject to the law.
We all buy their songs so they are subject to it.
It's the same as refusing to play because the crowd is too black. They
are refusing because the crowd is the wrong religion or race.
That makes those Liberals racists and bigots.
So now you are in favor of slavery? Of forcing people who are not
willing to provide a service to provide that service against their will?
And here I thought you were against forcing people to do things they
were not willing to do. Next you'll tell me that taxation isn't theft.
NO, I'm in favor of being consistent....
If you are going to enforce the law then do it equally, or NOT at all.
What law forces performers to perform,
The same laws that force a baker to create wedding cake.
--
That's Karma
Tom McDonald
2016-12-30 20:54:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
{snip}
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the
hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of their
faith as a condition of being in business, while allowing liberal
performers to refuse to entertain t at functions which advance
positions
counter to theirs.
There is no hypocrisy because Christians aren't being targeted (the
proscription applies whether it is based in religious and secular
beliefs) and conservative performers are likewise permitted to refuse.
That violates the 14th amendment, The Liberal entertainers can't refuse
a gay wedding or a Christian wedding.... if they do then they are
doing
the same thing the baker did when s/he refused to bake a gay wedding
cake.
If they offer their services to the general public, that is correct.
However typically, an entertainer does not serve the general public.
SO now wedding singers are going to conform and even if the religion is
burning gays at the stake, the singer has to sing for them and
likewise... no matter how evil they are or how evil and militant the
gays are they have to sing for them.
I suspect most wedding singers offer their services to the general
public. In that case, they must serve gay weddings, Christian weddings
and Satanic weddings.
exactly.... and telling trump no because they disagree with his
religious beliefs is violating Liberals own interpretation of the
constitution.
The entertainers who turned down Trump don't serve the general public,
and thus are not subject to the law.
We all buy their songs so they are subject to it.
It's the same as refusing to play because the crowd is too black. They
are refusing because the crowd is the wrong religion or race.
That makes those Liberals racists and bigots.
So now you are in favor of slavery? Of forcing people who are not
willing to provide a service to provide that service against their will?
And here I thought you were against forcing people to do things they
were not willing to do. Next you'll tell me that taxation isn't theft.
NO, I'm in favor of being consistent....
If you are going to enforce the law then do it equally, or NOT at all.
What law forces performers to perform,
The same laws that force a baker to create wedding cake.
Prove it.
First-Post
2016-12-30 20:27:44 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 15:08:17 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
{snip}
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the
hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of their
faith as a condition of being in business, while allowing liberal
performers to refuse to entertain t at functions which advance
positions
counter to theirs.
There is no hypocrisy because Christians aren't being targeted (the
proscription applies whether it is based in religious and secular
beliefs) and conservative performers are likewise permitted to refuse.
That violates the 14th amendment, The Liberal entertainers can't refuse
a gay wedding or a Christian wedding.... if they do then they are
doing
the same thing the baker did when s/he refused to bake a gay wedding
cake.
If they offer their services to the general public, that is correct.
However typically, an entertainer does not serve the general public.
SO now wedding singers are going to conform and even if the religion is
burning gays at the stake, the singer has to sing for them and
likewise... no matter how evil they are or how evil and militant the
gays are they have to sing for them.
I suspect most wedding singers offer their services to the general
public. In that case, they must serve gay weddings, Christian weddings
and Satanic weddings.
exactly.... and telling trump no because they disagree with his
religious beliefs is violating Liberals own interpretation of the
constitution.
The entertainers who turned down Trump don't serve the general public,
and thus are not subject to the law.
We all buy their songs so they are subject to it.
It's the same as refusing to play because the crowd is too black. They
are refusing because the crowd is the wrong religion or race.
That makes those Liberals racists and bigots.
So now you are in favor of slavery? Of forcing people who are not
willing to provide a service to provide that service against their will?
And here I thought you were against forcing people to do things they
were not willing to do. Next you'll tell me that taxation isn't theft.
NO, I'm in favor of being consistent....
If you are going to enforce the law then do it equally, or NOT at all.
The hypocrisy of the left is demonstrated perfectly at Café 8 ½ in
Honolulu.
http://www.eater.com/2016/12/28/14099564/hawaii-restaurant-bans-trump-voters

The left believes that the restaurant is completely within it's rights
since it is trying to prohibit those they hate for their political
beliefs from being served there as is evidenced in some of the reader
comments.
Just more of the same bigoted liberal arrogance of them believing that
they and they alone know who is worthy of being allowed to have
rights.

Imagine what the libs would be saying if any business had a sign on
the door that said "“If you voted for Hillary you cannot eat here! No
Socialists.”

Lastly, notice that no conservatives are trying to make it into a
court issue. The backlash the restaurant is facing is strictly in the
form of citizens boycotting it with no mention of any attempt to go
after it legally in order to force it out of business.
That is the free market way as opposed to the liberal strong arm
method.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2016-12-30 20:46:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by First-Post
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 15:08:17 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
{snip}
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the
hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of their
faith as a condition of being in business, while allowing liberal
performers to refuse to entertain t at functions which advance
positions
counter to theirs.
There is no hypocrisy because Christians aren't being targeted (the
proscription applies whether it is based in religious and secular
beliefs) and conservative performers are likewise permitted to refuse.
That violates the 14th amendment, The Liberal entertainers can't refuse
a gay wedding or a Christian wedding.... if they do then they are
doing
the same thing the baker did when s/he refused to bake a gay wedding
cake.
If they offer their services to the general public, that is correct.
However typically, an entertainer does not serve the general public.
SO now wedding singers are going to conform and even if the religion is
burning gays at the stake, the singer has to sing for them and
likewise... no matter how evil they are or how evil and militant the
gays are they have to sing for them.
I suspect most wedding singers offer their services to the general
public. In that case, they must serve gay weddings, Christian weddings
and Satanic weddings.
exactly.... and telling trump no because they disagree with his
religious beliefs is violating Liberals own interpretation of the
constitution.
The entertainers who turned down Trump don't serve the general public,
and thus are not subject to the law.
We all buy their songs so they are subject to it.
It's the same as refusing to play because the crowd is too black. They
are refusing because the crowd is the wrong religion or race.
That makes those Liberals racists and bigots.
So now you are in favor of slavery? Of forcing people who are not
willing to provide a service to provide that service against their will?
And here I thought you were against forcing people to do things they
were not willing to do. Next you'll tell me that taxation isn't theft.
NO, I'm in favor of being consistent....
If you are going to enforce the law then do it equally, or NOT at all.
The hypocrisy of the left is demonstrated perfectly at Café 8 ½ in
Honolulu.
http://www.eater.com/2016/12/28/14099564/hawaii-restaurant-bans-trump-voters
The left believes that the restaurant is completely within it's rights
since it is trying to prohibit those they hate for their political
beliefs from being served there as is evidenced in some of the reader
comments.
Just more of the same bigoted liberal arrogance of them believing that
they and they alone know who is worthy of being allowed to have
rights.
Imagine what the libs would be saying if any business had a sign on
the door that said "“If you voted for Hillary you cannot eat here! No
Socialists.”
If I was made of money I might go there and start a coffee shop across
the street and put that sign up “If you voted for Hillary you cannot eat
here! No Socialists” or maybe no sign at all.

And see if I could run that other asshole out of business.
--
That's Karma
Josh Rosenbluth
2016-12-31 01:24:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by First-Post
The hypocrisy of the left is demonstrated perfectly at Café 8 ½ in
Honolulu.
http://www.eater.com/2016/12/28/14099564/hawaii-restaurant-bans-trump-voters
The left believes that the restaurant is completely within it's rights
since it is trying to prohibit those they hate for their political
beliefs from being served there as is evidenced in some of the reader
comments.
For the umpteenth time, there is no hypocrisy because the law permits
businesses that serve the general public to discriminate on the basis of
political beliefs (conservative or liberal), but not on the basis of
race, religion etc. (applying to religious, secular, liberal and
conservative owners alike).
Post by First-Post
Just more of the same bigoted liberal arrogance of them believing that
they and they alone know who is worthy of being allowed to have
rights.
Imagine what the libs would be saying if any business had a sign on
the door that said "“If you voted for Hillary you cannot eat here! No
Socialists.”
That would be perfectly legal.
Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
2016-12-31 01:29:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The hypocrisy of the left is demonstrated perfectly at Café 8 œ in
Honolulu.
http://www.eater.com/2016/12/28/14099564/hawaii-restaurant-bans-trump-vo
ters
The left believes that the restaurant is completely within it's rights
since it is trying to prohibit those they hate for their political
beliefs from being served there as is evidenced in some of the reader
comments.
For the umpteenth time, there is no hypocrisy because the law permits
businesses that serve the general public to discriminate on the basis of
political beliefs (conservative or liberal), but not on the basis of
race, religion etc. (applying to religious, secular, liberal and
conservative owners alike).
Just more of the same bigoted liberal arrogance of them believing that
they and they alone know who is worthy of being allowed to have
rights.
Imagine what the libs would be saying if any business had a sign on
the door that said "“If you voted for Hillary you cannot eat here! No
Socialists.”
That would be perfectly legal.
So a person has to violate thier conscience to conform with the law? You
just can't wait for the shooting to start, can you?
--
"...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to
the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a
century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time,
with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."--
Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787
Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
2016-12-30 20:15:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
{snip}
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are
legally bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is
the hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of
their faith as a condition of being in business, while allowing
liberal performers to refuse to entertain t at functions which
advance positions
counter to theirs.
There is no hypocrisy because Christians aren't being targeted
(the proscription applies whether it is based in religious and
secular beliefs) and conservative performers are likewise
permitted to refuse.
That violates the 14th amendment, The Liberal entertainers can't
refuse a gay wedding or a Christian wedding.... if they do then
they are doing
the same thing the baker did when s/he refused to bake a gay
wedding cake.
If they offer their services to the general public, that is correct.
However typically, an entertainer does not serve the general public.
SO now wedding singers are going to conform and even if the
religion is burning gays at the stake, the singer has to sing for
them and likewise... no matter how evil they are or how evil and
militant the gays are they have to sing for them.
I suspect most wedding singers offer their services to the general
public. In that case, they must serve gay weddings, Christian
weddings and Satanic weddings.
exactly.... and telling trump no because they disagree with his
religious beliefs is violating Liberals own interpretation of the
constitution.
The entertainers who turned down Trump don't serve the general public,
and thus are not subject to the law.
We all buy their songs so they are subject to it.
It's the same as refusing to play because the crowd is too black. They
are refusing because the crowd is the wrong religion or race.
That makes those Liberals racists and bigots.
So now you are in favor of slavery? Of forcing people who are not
willing to provide a service to provide that service against their will?
And here I thought you were against forcing people to do things they
were not willing to do. Next you'll tell me that taxation isn't theft.
Ahem. You mean like Obamacare where I have to contribute to plans that are
not in my best interest to satisfy a government deman. Or doctors being
told who they may serve and how much they may charge?

Liberal hypocrisy at it's best.
--
"...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to
the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a
century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time,
with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."--
Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787
Beam Me Up Scotty
2016-12-30 20:35:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
{snip}
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the
hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of their
faith as a condition of being in business, while allowing liberal
performers to refuse to entertain t at functions which advance
positions
counter to theirs.
There is no hypocrisy because Christians aren't being targeted (the
proscription applies whether it is based in religious and secular
beliefs) and conservative performers are likewise permitted to refuse.
That violates the 14th amendment, The Liberal entertainers can't refuse
a gay wedding or a Christian wedding.... if they do then they are
doing
the same thing the baker did when s/he refused to bake a gay wedding
cake.
If they offer their services to the general public, that is correct.
However typically, an entertainer does not serve the general public.
SO now wedding singers are going to conform and even if the religion is
burning gays at the stake, the singer has to sing for them and
likewise... no matter how evil they are or how evil and militant the
gays are they have to sing for them.
I suspect most wedding singers offer their services to the general
public. In that case, they must serve gay weddings, Christian weddings
and Satanic weddings.
exactly.... and telling trump no because they disagree with his
religious beliefs is violating Liberals own interpretation of the
constitution.
The entertainers who turned down Trump don't serve the general public,
and thus are not subject to the law.
We all buy their songs so they are subject to it.
It's the same as refusing to play because the crowd is too black. They
are refusing because the crowd is the wrong religion or race.
That makes those Liberals racists and bigots.
So now you are in favor of slavery? Of forcing people who are not
willing to provide a service to provide that service against their will?
And here I thought you were against forcing people to do things they
were not willing to do. Next you'll tell me that taxation isn't theft.
NO, I'm in favor of being consistent....

If you are going to enforce the law then do it equally, or NOT at all.


This also goes for Ed Asner who wants the actors to NOT be subjected
equally to a $15/hr minimum wage. He thinks it will cause the small
theater houses to close down. Well that's exactly what I said it would
do to small businesses in rural and low population density areas.

A McBurger place that is in a small rural town doesn't have the foot
traffic to support minimum wages of $15/hr. And a new start up business
may not be able to open with that burden.

That creates zombie shops on main street where they are only open a few
hours a day or they go out of business.

[""""""The suit, whose lead plaintiff was former SAG President Ed Asner,
argued that forcing small companies to pay minimum wage will put many of
them out of business, thus reducing opportunities for local actors.
Actors currently make as little as $7 a day at some small venues.
Beginning January 1, the minimum wage in California will be $10.50 an
hour."""""""]
http://deadline.com/2016/12/los-angeles-theater-minimum-wage-lawsuit-dismissed-ed-asner-actors-equity-1201867216/


Liberals just don't get that they aren't the center of the universe and
that others are going to be hurt by their legislation like their hate
crimes and gay wedding cakes and minimum wage but they only see that
when it's applied EQUALLY. Meaning that it is also applied to
themselves. The Singers and actors are some of the most narcissistic
people there are and they have no idea how anything effects the rest of
us but when it's applied to themselves they whine like little children.
--
That's Karma
Kevrob
2016-12-30 19:53:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
It's the same as refusing to play because the crowd is too black. They
are refusing because the crowd is the wrong religion or race.
That makes those Liberals racists and bigots.
Do the people who play at an Inaugural get paid anything other than
expenses? I would think that, normally, they do it gratis, for the
publicity. If so, non-discrimination law would not apply.

Standard disclaimer: IANAL.

Kevin R
Beam Me Up Scotty
2016-12-30 18:13:21 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 09:48:16 -0600, "Lee"
wrote: >>
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:31:24 -0600, David Hartung
What is the moral difference between refusing to
perform at a presidential inauguration because you
have a moral opposition
to >> >> > the incoming president, and refusing to bake a
wedding >>cake for a >> >> > same sex couple because you have a
moral >>opposition to same sex >> >> > marriage?
Perhaps a court should fine Springsteen for not
performing.
And assess the same fine against Garth Brooks
and Trish Yearwood and the rest of the Nashville
crowd that is similarly not performing for Trump?
If the libs are to be consistant (and the NEVER) are, one
should
not >> be able to refuse to provide a service based on their
belief >>system. >> They have no problems with Christians
driving people out >>of business >> for exactly that.
No performers are breaking any law by not performing
for Trump. These "Christian" merchants WERE breaking the
law.
It's the same premise. You just choose to ignore the parallel
because it doesn't fit your bigotry.
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are
legally bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is
the hypocrisy of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the
tenants of their faith as a condition of being in business, while
allowing liberal performers to refuse to entertain t at functions
which advance positions counter to theirs.
No one is "requiring" Christians to
violate their tenets. They can obey their
tenets or obey the law. No one is forcing
them to operate a store.
Is it your position that "religious
merchants" don't have to obey the law?
Did Rosa Parks obey the law?
Did Rosa Parks claim any "religious
right" to violate the law?
Just those inalienable RIGHTS given to her by her creator and recognized
and protected by the constitution.

SO you could say she was claiming her God given rights as a human life
were being violated.... I don't remember exactly how "she" phrased it
when they took her to jail.

The State was requiring her to violate the constitution by requiring her
to accept a place as a second class citizen, just as a person that
decides to own a store is told by state laws again that they are a
second class citizen. The State is saying that the State has the power
to tell the store owner where to sit or what cakes they must bake.

Again the RIGHTS of people are violated by the State, and someone is
being forced to become a second class citizen. If the city government
bus line can't issue a bus ticket to tell people they're second class
citizens then how can they issue a business/commerce license that crates
a second class citizen?
--
That's Karma
Kevrob
2016-12-30 20:11:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Again the RIGHTS of people are violated by the State, and someone is
being forced to become a second class citizen. If the city government
bus line can't issue a bus ticket to tell people they're second class
citizens then how can they issue a business/commerce license that crates
a second class citizen?
The Montgomery bus line was privately owned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_bus_boycott

It was forced to segregate by state and local law.
If they had been operating interstate, they wuld have been
subject to this case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keys_v._Carolina_Coach_Co.

IOW, it was ILLEGAL, prior to the changes in court decisions that
were overturning PLESS v FERGUSON, for merchants in Jim Crow states
to try to run businesses that did NO discriminate, even if they
had wanted to.

Of course, that's not to say many of those owners didn't support Jim Crow.
It's easier to say, "my hands are tied, that's the law," than have to
make a moral choice and risk alienating bigots with money.

Kevin R
Kevrob
2016-12-30 20:15:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
were overturning PLESS v FERGUSON, for merchants in Jim Crow states
Plessy. Didn't hit the "y" hard enough.

Kevin R
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-30 21:42:57 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 16:12:26 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
The freedom of religion protected in the Constitution does not include
disobeying a generally-applicable law.
Laws that interfere with religious exercise are NOT generally applicable
laws they are unconstitutional laws.
So according to Rosenbluth the mayors and city officials of all of
those sanctuary cities should be arrested and charged with the
violation of U.S. Code › Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter II › Part
VIII › § 1324 which states that it is a violation of law for any
person to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection
No, idiot, because no so-called "sanctuary" city is doing that.
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-30 22:49:50 UTC
Permalink
The freedom of religion protected in the Constitution does not
include
disobeying a generally-applicable law.
Laws that interfere with religious exercise are NOT generally
applicable
laws they are unconstitutional laws.
Josh has issues with that concept.
The idiot fuckwit Beamer's statement is *false*. They are *not*
unconstitutional laws. They're bad laws, because they violate
legitimate natural rights, but they are constitutional.
I am sorry you have such a problem with religion, but the simple fact is
that Religious exercise is protected by the Constitution, and you do not
get to define what that is.
I'm sorry, but I *do* get to define what it is, and it is *not* getting
to exempt yourself from generally applicable laws.

As I have said before, there is no commandment in anyone's religion
forbidding him from baking a cake for people who are going to use it to
celebrate something of which the baker disapproves. "Free exercise"
simply cannot be stretched that far.
Loading...