• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

NFL may pull the plug on AZ Super Bowl if anti-gay bill passes

Started by bateman, February 25, 2014, 03:05:24 PM

gbneely

Quote from: NowhereInTime on February 26, 2014, 09:54:53 AM
Freedom of association is a personal choice made individual to individual.  When you operate a business in the public domain, you have created an open market for all individuals.
What is so sacrosanct about business that it should be permitted to trample over human and civil rights?  I find no passage in the Constituion respecting the rights of discrimination based on whether or not you operate a business.
In fact, I find that pesky 15th amendment specifically outlawing discrimination based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude.  Really a stretch to extend that to lgbt?

I will gladly agree the provision found in the 15th Amendment should cover every LGBT person in America, so long as they're an American citizen. In fact,  it already does.

I do agree a social compact is agreed to whenever an individual opens a business to the general public. However, I don't believe the business owner should be forced abandon sincerely held, Constitutionally protected beliefs. The owner in this case simply didn't want to actively participate in what he viewed as sin based upon the widely agreed upon teachings of his faith. This owner didn't deny service to people solely because they were gay, he denied service because he didn't want to participate in what he viewed as sin. It really doesn't matter at this point. The court has ruled against the bakery owner, but what has society gained in compelling someone to act against their faith? I think society is far better served when individuals are left to make their own economic decisions based upon the actions of those they interact with.

gbneely

Quote from: wr250 on February 26, 2014, 11:11:41 AM
classic bateman. posts a controversial subject, then amuses himself with the debacle that occurs .
im on to your twisted fetish bateman ;)

Well played, bateman. Well played.

When you get right down to it, all this law would do is offer and added layer of protection for a business owner against frivolous lawsuits.

A person's religious convictions do not stop when they leave their home domicile. They carry those beliefs with them to their place of business. And, if they choose to exercise some discretion over whom they serve -- based on those beliefs -- that should be there right to do so without fear of being sued into oblivion.



aldousburbank

Quote from: NowhereInTime on February 26, 2014, 09:54:53 AM
In fact, I find that pesky 15th amendment specifically outlawing discrimination based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude.  Really a stretch to extend that to lgbt?
Yes this would cover governmental authorities regarding unequal-protection in policies, legislation, and services but not on private businesses and their policies.

gbneely

Here's the 15th Amendment:

AMENDMENT XV

SECTION 1.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

SECTION 2.

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxv

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: FightTheFuture on February 26, 2014, 12:12:09 PM
When you get right down to it, all this law would do is offer and added layer of protection for a business owner against frivolous lawsuits.

A person's religious convictions do not stop when they leave their home domicile. They carry those beliefs with them to their place of business. And, if they choose to exercise some discretion over whom they serve -- based on those beliefs -- that should be there right to do so without fear of being sued into oblivion.

That's all fine and dandy if there are no sanctimonious hypocrites in the flock. Religious zealots have a propensity of cherry picking the parts of their fairy tale that suits them at any one time, but disregard the bits that don't.

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on February 26, 2014, 12:28:05 PM
That's all fine and dandy if there are no sanctimonious hypocrites in the flock. Religious zealots have a propensity of cherry picking the parts of their fairy tale that suits them at any one time, but disregard the bits that don't.

I realize you are an atheist, but your constant attempts at being edgy by using highly inflamatory terms in reference to religion, particularly Christianity, are really  juvenile, if not boorish. You should really consider that next  time you feel the urge to lecture people about their intolerance.

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: FightTheFuture on February 26, 2014, 12:45:13 PM
I realize you are an atheist, but your constant attempts at being edgy by using highly inflamatory terms in reference to religion, particularly Christianity, are really  juvenile, if not boorish. You should really consider that next  time you feel the urge to lecture people about their intolerance.

I'll stop being 'edgy' and inflammatory when modern religions and their oppressors in chief treat everyone equally, and cease subjugation, oppression, cruel and vile acts and spend as much time looking at their own shortcomings as they do in pointing out the 'sins' of others.

In short I don't give a shit who I upset if they're defending religion, because I can be sure their religious zealots have caused more harm, wars, and poverty than anything I could do or say.

bateman

Quote from: wr250 on February 26, 2014, 11:11:41 AM
classic bateman. posts a controversial subject, then amuses himself with the debacle that occurs .
im on to your twisted fetish bateman ;)


Quote from: Yorkshire pud on February 26, 2014, 12:51:43 PM
I'll stop being 'edgy' and inflammatory when modern religions and their oppressors in chief treat everyone equally, and cease subjugation, oppression, cruel and vile acts and spend as much time looking at their own shortcomings as they do in pointing out the 'sins' of others.

In short I don't give a shit who I upset if they're defending religion, because I can be sure their religious zealots have caused more harm, wars, and poverty than anything I could do or say.


That's pretty much what I thought you would say. You're like  an impish 10 year old child that's just learned a new dirty word and can't wait  to see what kind of reaction they'll get by using it at every turn.

gbneely

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on February 26, 2014, 12:51:43 PM
I'll stop being 'edgy' and inflammatory when modern religions and their oppressors in chief treat everyone equally, and cease subjugation, oppression, cruel and vile acts and spend as much time looking at their own shortcomings as they do in pointing out the 'sins' of others.

In short I don't give a shit who I upset if they're defending religion, because I can be sure their religious zealots have caused more harm, wars, and poverty than anything I could do or say.

Any belief system, be it religious or political, produces zealots. I never see you rant against socialism/communism and the death, wars, and poverty caused by their zealots. And there must be a truly special hatred in your heart for all the evil that monarchies have wrought upon humanity.

I have several problems with Christianity, but I can recognize the right of people to profess, practice and live their faith without fear of government persecution. It's the main reason there is a United States of America. Despite the belief of some, I don't attend church and am not currently a practicing Christian, but by and large, the people I know who profess to be Christian are decent, charitable, and nonjudgmental. They don't run around pointing out the sin in others, because they know we're all guilty of sin. Is Christianity perfect? Absolutely not, but in today's world I see it doing far more good than bad.


Yorkshire pud

Quote from: gbneely on February 26, 2014, 01:10:21 PM
Any belief system, be it religious or political, produces zealots. I never see you rant against socialism/communism and the death, wars, and poverty caused by their zealots. And there must be a truly special hatred in your heart for all the evil that monarchies have wrought upon humanity.

Funny how you  point out the 'socialists/Communists' to be the cause of deaths/wars etc, but overlook those caused by those you would consider non socialists. .. But it's irrelevant who causes wars/poverty etc, because it doesn't make it right. It's irrelevant because the innocent civilians being wiped out really don't care who picked them out to be the target practice.
So thanks for projecting what you think my emotions are to me, but I don't hate anyone.

Quote
I have several problems with Christianity, but I can recognize the right of people to profess, practice and live their faith without fear of government persecution. It's the main reason there is a United States of America. Despite the belief of some, I don't attend church and am not currently a practicing Christian, but by and large, the people I know who profess to be Christian are decent, charitable, and nonjudgmental. They don't run around pointing out the sin in others, because they know we're all guilty of sin. Is Christianity perfect? Absolutely not, but in today's world I see it doing far more good than bad.

I agree, I also think the vast amount of followers of religions are decent people, and in spite of what some on here think, that includes Muslims. I specifically pointed out the zealots and those that indoctrinate for a reason..

It's been brought up by someone else..Try being openly atheist and getting into the Whitehouse. Then who would be persecuted/ marginalised?

gbneely

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on February 26, 2014, 01:35:22 PM
Funny how you  point out the 'socialists/Communists' to be the cause of deaths/wars etc, but overlook those caused by those you would consider non socialists. .. But it's irrelevant who causes wars/poverty etc, because it doesn't make it right. It's irrelevant because the innocent civilians being wiped out really don't care who picked them out to be the target practice.
So thanks for projecting what you think my emotions are to me, but I don't hate anyone.

I agree, I also think the vast amount of followers of religions are decent people, and in spite of what some on here think, that includes Muslims. I specifically pointed out the zealots and those that indoctrinate for a reason..

It's been brought up by someone else..Try being openly atheist and getting into the Whitehouse. Then who would be persecuted/ marginalised?

Fair enough, you don't hate anyone. And I agree with you about those practicing Islam. I also think the terrorism problem will be solved when those good and decent Muslims have had enough of the minority of zealots who are causing so much pain and misery.

NowhereInTime

Quote from: aldousburbank on February 26, 2014, 12:17:58 PM
Yes this would cover governmental authorities regarding unequal-protection in policies, legislation, and services but not on private businesses and their policies.
On the technical message, maybe, but this really sets the pneumbra of social contract that later allowed for such things as the Civil Rights Act.  And I disagree that the specific exclusion of "business" from the language permits people in the public domain to actively discriminate against people.
Furthermore this discussion of "faith" as a precondition to excluding people should no more be respected than "race".  There is no infringement on the observance of religious belief to the individual, merely to the business.  Whether or not the business is an extension of a church or an individual of faith does not premit them to discriminate in open society, only in their personal interactions.

NowhereInTime

Quote from: FightTheFuture on February 26, 2014, 12:12:09 PM
When you get right down to it, all this law would do is offer and added layer of protection for a business owner against frivolous lawsuits.

A person's religious convictions do not stop when they leave their home domicile. They carry those beliefs with them to their place of business. And, if they choose to exercise some discretion over whom they serve -- based on those beliefs -- that should be there right to do so without fear of being sued into oblivion.
But a person's right to their religion really doesn't allow them to impose or infringe on others in the observance of that religion.  In effect, it really does end at their front door or the door of their place of worship.  Again, a business is not the natural extension of an individual, even if its a sole proprietorship.  It is a public entity dealing with interested members of the public and its private property nature doesn't permit it to violate someone else's rights.
The same idea is true if a gay bar demanded you leave.  They may make the most wicked appletini in town, so you want to go there.  But if you walk in with your wife and the Bartender says get out, sue his ass off!!!!

I am going with Wheaton's Law on this:  Don't be a dick.

That's pretty simple, really.  Don't be a dick to other people.

onan

Here is what the judge had to say:

QuoteThis Case Has Nothing To Do With Whether Same-Sex Marriage Is Legal

Conservatives often argue that cases like these that allegedly impose on “religious liberty” are the consequence of marriage equality passing, but Colorado doesn’t have marriage equality. The judge notes that this actually proves that the discrimination is based on the couple’s identity:

    Nor is the ALJ (Administrative Law Judge) persuaded by Respondents’ argument that they should be compelled to recognize same-sex marriages because Colorado does not do so. Although Respondents are correct that Colorado does not recognize same-sex marriage, that fact does not excuse discrimination based upon sexual orientation. At oral argument, Respondents candidly acknowledged that they would also refuse to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for a commitment ceremony or a civil union, neither of which is forbidden by Colorado law. Because Respondents’ objection goes beyond just the act of “marriage,” and extends to any union of a same-sex couple, it is apparent that Respondents’ real objection is to the couple’s sexual orientation and not simply their marriage.

Cakes Do Not Constitute “Speech”

Though the judge was sympathetic that cakes require artistry, he dismissed the idea that they constituted speech. In this case, the bakery refused to provide the cake before the couple could even specify what would or would not be on the cake, thus there is not even any speech to consider:

    The ALJ, however, rejects Respondents’ argument that preparing a wedding cake is necessarily a medium of expression amounting to protected “speech,” or that compelling Respondents to treat same-sex and heterosexual couples equally is the equivalent of forcing Respondents to adhere to “an ideological point of view.” There is no doubt that decorating a wedding cake involves considerable skill and artistry. However, the finished product does not necessarily qualify as “speech,” as would saluting a flag, marching in a parade, or displaying a motto.

    The undisputed evidence is that Phillips categorically refused to prepare a cake for Complainants’ same-sex wedding before there was any discussion about what the cake would look like. Phillips was not asked to apply any message or symbol to the cake, or to construct the cake in any fashion that could be reasonably understood as advocating same-sex marriage. After being refused, Complainants immediately left the shop. For all Phillips knew at the time, Complainants might have wanted a nondescript cake that would have been suitable for consumption at any wedding. Therefore, Respondents’ claim that they refused to provide a cake because it would convey a message supporting same-sex marriage is specious. The act of preparing a cake is simply not “speech” warranting First Amendment protection.

In a footnote, the judge notes that the couple did eventually obtain a cake that had “a filling with rainbow colors,” but expressed doubt that it would have justified Phillips’ “categorical refusal” to bake a cake for them.
The Act Of Selling Cakes Also Does Not Constitute “Speech”

Regardless of what the cake itself might communicate or not, the act of selling cakes is also not a form of speech; thus, forcing a bakery to sell to a same-sex couple is not compelled speech:

    Compelling a bakery that sells wedding cakes to heterosexual couples to also sell wedding cakes to same-sex couples is incidental to the state’s right to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and is not the same as forcing a person to pledge allegiance to the government or to display a motto with which they disagree. To say otherwise trivializes the right to free speech.

Spencer went on to dismiss other offensive hypothetical situations, noting that they don’t apply since a cake was refused based on identity, not on content:

    Respondents argue that if they are compelled to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, then a black baker could not refuse to make a cake bearing a white-supremacist message for a member of the Aryan Nation; and an Islamic baker could not refuse to make a cake denigrating the Koran for the Westboro Baptist Church. However, neither of these fanciful hypothetical situations proves Respondents’ point. In both cases, it is the explicit, unmistakable, offensive message that the bakers are asked to put on the cake that gives rise to the bakers’ free speech right to refuse. That, however, is not the case here, where Respodnents refused to bake any cake for Complainants regardless of what was written on it or what it looked like. Respondents have no free speech right to refuse because they were only asked to bake a cake, not make a speech.

Baking Cakes Is Not Religious Conduct

Though Phillips objected to providing the cake on religious grounds, the ALJ pointed out that baking a cake is not actually conduct that is part of his religion. Thus, it does not qualify for exemption from regulation:

    Respondents’ refusal to provide a cake for Complainants’ same-sex wedding is distinctly the type of conduct that the Supreme Court has repeatedly found subject to legitimate regulation. Such discrimination is against the law; it adversely affects the rights of Complainants to be free from discrimination in the marketplace; and the impact upon Respondents is incidental to the state’s legitimate regulation of commercial activity. Respondents therefore have no valid claim that barring them from discriminating against same-sex customers violates their right to free exercise of religion. Conceptually, Respondents’ refusal to serve a same-sex couple due to religious objection to same-sex weddings is no different from refusing to serve a biracial couple because of religious objection to biracial marriage. However, that argument was struck down long ago in Bob Jones Univ. v. United States.

This case could have implications for similar cases playing out in other states, such as another bakery in Oregon, a florist in Washington, and a photographer in New Mexico, whose case has now been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/12/06/3035121/colorado-bakery-broke-law/

The General

I knew that shit like this was gonna come down when gay marriage started being foisted upon us.  Conservatives said, "Hold on, people are going to be forced to participate in things that are against their religion."  Liberals promised that this was not the case.  Well, here we are. Fuck.  It gets worse from here on out.  Polygamy, unisex public bathrooms, bans on male only sports teams or women only gyms... it's coming.  The obliteration of gender from our society.  That was the plan all along.  The communists told us that it was coming.  They told us what the plan was.  They told us that they'd pull the keystone out of the arch of our society.  They knew the family was the building block of our society and had to be destroyed.  Doing it under the guise of 'civil rights' was a stroke of evil genius. on their part, I'll grant them that.

The delineation of male/female roles in our society is one of the key basics of its foundation.
Male/female marriage is unfair to gays, I grant that.  But what about the consequences? 
Take gender out of marriage, and therefore society, and you've take the axle off the wheel.


Yorkshire pud

Quote from: The General on February 26, 2014, 03:22:53 PM
I knew that shit like this was gonna come down when gay marriage started being foisted upon us.  Conservatives said, "Hold on, people are going to be forced to participate in things that are against their religion."  Liberals promised that this was not the case.  Well, here we are. Fuck.  It gets worse from here on out.  Polygamy, unisex public bathrooms, bans on male only sports teams or women only gyms... it's coming.  The obliteration of gender from our society.  That was the plan all along.  The communists told us that it was coming.  They told us what the plan was.  They told us that they'd pull the keystone out of the arch of our society.  They knew the family was the building block of our society and had to be destroyed.  Doing it under the guise of 'civil rights' was a stroke of evil genius. on their part, I'll grant them that.

The delineation of male/female roles in our society is one of the key basics of its foundation.
Male/female marriage is unfair to gays, I grant that.  But what about the consequences? 
Take gender out of marriage, and therefore society, and you've take the axle off the wheel.

Funny that; Cos I've never been forced into a gay marriage. I'm reasonably confident I never will be. I'm also reasonably confident that in the unlikely event I remarry, my marriage will have zero effect on anyone else, gay or not...Amazing. Similarly gay weddings don't effect me or you if you're not involved directly.

The way society is seen as being all righteous pre same sex marriage legislation is preposterous. It's a pure fantasy to suggest that 'family values' (that well know grocer), has been eroded by same sex relationships. Most murders (yep, to wives and families too) are perpetrated by heterosexual men. That kills family values a hell of a lot more than two guys or women who want to have their marriage blessed by their respective church.
I think it funny how 'Communist' is thrown in the mix too: Anyone see and hear about the 'gay rights' in Sochi, in that well known former 'Communist' country? When gay men and women were threatened and beaten up by police? The commies are so turned on by gay rights they pass laws to ostracise them. Maybe AZ and Russia can team up and compare notes?

Quote from: NowhereInTime on February 26, 2014, 02:24:15 PM
But a person's right to their religion really doesn't allow them to impose or infringe on others in the observance of that religion.  In effect, it really does end at their front door or the door of their place of worship...


It's true freedom of religion doesn't allow people to impose it or infringe on others.  If by impose or infringe you mean talking about it, putting up signs, hanging things on bulletin boards, celebrating in public, etc, the Free Exercise of Religion Clause in the First Amendment doesn't specifically give us the right to do that either - but the Freedom of Speech Clause does.  Which is also in the First Amendment, right after the Exercise Clause.

The placement of the Sections and Articles in the Constitution, and Amendments and their Clauses in the Bill of Rights is instructive.  The ones considered most important were listed first.


Here is the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


Note that the free exercise of religion is the second thing mentioned after the Establishment Clause.  AFTER that is free speech and a free media and the rest.  That is the importance the Founders placed on the freedom to worship.  It says nothing about ending at anyone's front door or anywhere else. 

It doesn't matter that people don't like it.  It doesn't matter that people don't agree with it.  It only matters that judges impose their own views.  Those judges should be removed.  We have an entire political party resolved to destroy our Constitution, and they have been quite successful over the past 30-40 years.  Nude dancing is covered under the First Amendment, but religion is to be kept inside a church.  They've done much the same with much of the rest of the Constitution, certainly nearly all of the Bill of Rights has been eroded and corrupted - they keep what they like, and twist or ignore the rest as it suits them.  We now have a President who has open contempt for the limits to the powers of his office, and doesn't even try to hide it.


By the way, the correct further argument is not under the Fifteenth Amendment, it's under the First.  Freedom of Association was determined to be part of the Assembly Clause (the right to peaceably assemble - the Court found freedom of association had to be a right otherwise how could people freely assemble.  The 9th and 10th Amendments state there are other rights not listed - Free Association would surely be one of them).  That also means the right to NOT associate with whoever one wishes not to.  Which would include doing business with them as the owner of your own small company.

The reason we have these rights is to protect minority views.  We wouldn't need these rights to protect us or laws in general if everyone behaved in a way we all approved of.  This is what the Constitution has to say, I personally would not discriminate against anyone.  In real life I try to treat everyone well, until they tell me with their comments or actions not to.  I probably wouldn't make a cake with a gross theme using icing for anyone, gay or not. 

The fact is this has already been decided when the Court said a religious person could not refuse to rent to a gay couple on religious grounds. 

I think there is a difference between a small shop and a chain store business, renting out the other half of a duplex and owning an apartment building, a small privately owned business and a publicly traded corporation.  The little guy should be free to make decisions about his business, including who his customers are.  For a big business, not so much.  At some point the small business becomes les about he owner and more of a Public Accommodation. 


NowhereInTime

Quote from: The General on February 26, 2014, 03:22:53 PM
I knew that shit like this was gonna come down when gay marriage started being foisted upon us.  Conservatives said, "Hold on, people are going to be forced to participate in things that are against their religion."  Liberals promised that this was not the case.  Well, here we are. Fuck.  It gets worse from here on out.  Polygamy, unisex public bathrooms, bans on male only sports teams or women only gyms... it's coming.  The obliteration of gender from our society.  That was the plan all along.  The communists told us that it was coming.  They told us what the plan was.  They told us that they'd pull the keystone out of the arch of our society.  They knew the family was the building block of our society and had to be destroyed.  Doing it under the guise of 'civil rights' was a stroke of evil genius. on their part, I'll grant them that.

The delineation of male/female roles in our society is one of the key basics of its foundation.
Male/female marriage is unfair to gays, I grant that.  But what about the consequences? 
Take gender out of marriage, and therefore society, and you've take the axle off the wheel.
I'm sorry.  I agree with your assessment as mostly true.  I don't know about unisex bathrooms or bans on certain sports teams, but the strong delination in gender favored by conservatives had to come to an end.  A person born female for the longest couldn't own property or vote, not could they be employed in many fields. 
This was never right but conservatives have always fought against change.  To you, gender identification and role sets an important framework (that subordinates woman to man).  To me, I am sick and tired of how hard conservatives fight to preserve a world order that actively discriminates against woman, blacks, asians, whomever.
White male hegemony is coming to an end; you have two choices - withdraw (take your ball and go home) or join in (be an important part of your community.  I hope you join in.

NowhereInTime

Quote from: Paper*Boy on February 26, 2014, 04:28:47 PM

It's true freedom of religion doesn't allow people to impose it or infringe on others.  If by impose or infringe you mean talking about it, putting up signs, hanging things on bulletin boards, celebrating in public, etc, the Free Exercise of Religion Clause in the First Amendment doesn't specifically give us the right to do that either - but the Freedom of Speech Clause does.  Which is also in the First Amendment, right after the Exercise Clause.

The placement of the Sections and Articles in the Constitution, and Amendments and their Clauses in the Bill of Rights is instructive.  The ones considered most important were listed first.


Here is the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


Note that the free exercise of religion is the second thing mentioned after the Establishment Clause.  AFTER that is free speech and a free media and the rest.  That is the importance the Founders placed on the freedom to worship.  It says nothing about ending at anyone's front door or anywhere else. 

It doesn't matter that people don't like it.  It doesn't matter that people don't agree with it.  It only matters that judges impose their own views.  Those judges should be removed.  We have an entire political party resolved to destroy our Constitution, and they have been quite successful over the past 30-40 years.  Nude dancing is covered under the First Amendment, but religion is to be kept inside a church.  They've done much the same with much of the rest of the Constitution, certainly nearly all of the Bill of Rights has been eroded and corrupted - they keep what they like, and twist or ignore the rest as it suits them.  We now have a President who has open contempt for the limits to the powers of his office, and doesn't even try to hide it.


By the way, the correct further argument is not under the Fifteenth Amendment, it's under the First.  Freedom of Association was determined to be part of the Assembly Clause (the right to peaceably assemble - the Court found freedom of association had to be a right otherwise how could people freely assemble.  The 9th and 10th Amendments state there are other rights not listed - Free Association would surely be one of them).  That also means the right to NOT associate with whoever one wishes not to.  Which would include doing business with them as the owner of your own small company.

The reason we have these rights is to protect minority views.  We wouldn't need these rights or laws in general if everyone behaved in a way we all approved of.  This is what the Constitution has to say, I personally would not discriminate against anyone.  In real life I try to treat everyone well, until they tell me with their comments or actions not to.  I probably wouldn't make a cake with a gross theme using icing for anyone, gay or not. 

The fact is this has already been decided when the Court said a religious person could not refuse to rent to a gay couple on religious grounds. 

I think there is a difference between a small shop and a chain store business, renting out the other half of a duplex and owning an apartment building, a small privately owned business and a publicly traded corporation.  The little guy should be free to make decisions about his business, including who his customers are.  For a big business, not so much.  At some point the small business becomes les about he owner and more of a Public Accommodation.
So what's the fight, then?  Not for nothing but I made the argument I wanted to make and I made it well.  Obviously, since it has drawn another professorial lecture from you.

As usual, your premise is flawed by your fear of change and your idea of the way things ought to be.  Change is happening; people who comprise our nation are no longer White Anglo Saxon Protestants. As I said to the General earlier, life is giving you two choices: jump in or jump off.  As I said to him, and I mean this to you, I hope you jump in.  Please don't keep crapping all over it because the good ol' days of white men calling all the shots is fading into the sunset.

Our President has a contempt for the same old Good Ol' Boys club that rules America through economic power and he likes to stick his thumb in their eye whenever he can.  The fundamental flaw with conservatives is you believe your wealth gives some sort of primacy in societal decision making or some keen insight into the true nature of human relations. (Hint: this is why you lose Presidential elections.)

Truth is, judges disagree with your narrow, protectionist view of America.  They see what's happening all around and realize that people wanted to be treated like people, not subordinated into subclasses as conservatives would have them do. In the end, isn't that really the most important American principle, equal treatment under the law?


WhiteCrow

And to think we live in the best of times, that affords us the luxury to chat about being offended by another's beliefs. Rule of law has replaced the club to the head.

Bart Ell

Quote from: WhiteCrow on February 26, 2014, 05:59:19 PM
Rule of law has replaced the club to the head.

Nope, page one of this thread taught me that a big gay dick has replaced the club to the head.

The General

Quote from: Bart Ell on February 26, 2014, 06:04:19 PM
Nope, page one of this thread taught me that a big gay dick has replaced the club to the head.
Aww, you do listen!


albrecht

Quote from: gbneely on February 26, 2014, 12:22:53 PM
Here's the 15th Amendment:

AMENDMENT XV

SECTION 1.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

SECTION 2.

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxv

1) was this Amendment, and a couple of others, actually legally ratified per the Constitutional procedures set forth?
2) would the writers of the Constitution have supported this amendment and, if so, why didn't they explicitly put it in the original document or the original amendments?
Just saying....

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod