PDA

View Full Version : tPF Piggy Pork and Gay Wedding Cakes



Agent Zero
12-05-2017, 01:01 PM
Given the similarities between the two cases, this should provide a SCOTUS ruling in favor of the gay couple.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newman_v._Piggie_Park_Enterprises,_Inc.

Piggie Park Enterprises was, in 1964, a drive-in BBQ (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbecue) chain with four restaurants, created and operated by Maurice Bessinger (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Bessinger), the Baptist head of the National Association for the Preservation of White People.[2] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newman_v._Piggie_Park_Enterprises,_Inc.#cite_note-2)[3] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newman_v._Piggie_Park_Enterprises,_Inc.#cite_note-Walsh2013-3) Bessinger's restaurants did not allow African-Americans to eat in the restaurant.[4] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newman_v._Piggie_Park_Enterprises,_Inc.#cite_note-4) Following Bessinger's refusal to allow Anne Newman,[5] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newman_v._Piggie_Park_Enterprises,_Inc.#cite_note-Felder2012-5) an African-American minister's wife into his restaurant, then-lawyer Matthew J. Perry (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_J._Perry) filed a class action (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_action) lawsuit against the chain...

More here...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/echoes-68-court-case-wedding-cake-dispute-51545533

Federal judges had little trouble dismissing Bessinger's claim.
"Undoubtedly defendant Bessinger has a constitutional right to espouse the religious beliefs of his own choosing, however, he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens," U.S. District Judge Charles Earl Simons Jr. wrote in 1966.
By the time the Supreme Court heard the case in 1968, the issue was the award of fees to the lawyers representing the black South Carolinians who sued Bessinger's restaurants. But in a footnote to its unsigned 8-0 opinion, the court called the religious freedom argument and Bessinger's other defenses "patently frivolous."...


Fifty years later, civil rights lawyers are pointing the Supreme Court to Bessinger's case in support of Charlie Craig and David Mullins, the gay couple who were turned away by Colorado (http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/colorado.htm) baker Jack Phillips, giving rise to the high court case that will be argued Tuesday.
"The logic of Piggie Park and other precedents overwhelmingly rejecting religious justifications for racial discrimination apply squarely to the context of LGBTQ discrimination," the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund said in a Supreme Court brief. The fund also represented the people who sued Piggie Park.
Both cases involve laws intended to prevent discrimination by private businesses that open their doors to the public. In the case of Piggie Park, the law was the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The bake shop case involves the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits businesses from refusing to sell their goods to people on the basis of sexual orientation among other things.
As the case has come to the justices, the focus is on Phillips' speech rights, not his religious beliefs. As a cake artist, he claims a right not to say something with which he disagrees.

Peter1469
12-05-2017, 07:12 PM
Given the similarities between the two cases, this should provide a SCOTUS ruling in favor of the gay couple.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newman_v._Piggie_Park_Enterprises,_Inc.

Piggie Park Enterprises was, in 1964, a drive-in BBQ (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbecue) chain with four restaurants, created and operated by Maurice Bessinger (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Bessinger), the Baptist head of the National Association for the Preservation of White People.[2] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newman_v._Piggie_Park_Enterprises,_Inc.#cite_note-2)[3] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newman_v._Piggie_Park_Enterprises,_Inc.#cite_note-Walsh2013-3) Bessinger's restaurants did not allow African-Americans to eat in the restaurant.[4] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newman_v._Piggie_Park_Enterprises,_Inc.#cite_note-4) Following Bessinger's refusal to allow Anne Newman,[5] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newman_v._Piggie_Park_Enterprises,_Inc.#cite_note-Felder2012-5) an African-American minister's wife into his restaurant, then-lawyer Matthew J. Perry (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_J._Perry) filed a class action (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_action) lawsuit against the chain...

More here...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/echoes-68-court-case-wedding-cake-dispute-51545533

Federal judges had little trouble dismissing Bessinger's claim.
"Undoubtedly defendant Bessinger has a constitutional right to espouse the religious beliefs of his own choosing, however, he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens," U.S. District Judge Charles Earl Simons Jr. wrote in 1966.
By the time the Supreme Court heard the case in 1968, the issue was the award of fees to the lawyers representing the black South Carolinians who sued Bessinger's restaurants. But in a footnote to its unsigned 8-0 opinion, the court called the religious freedom argument and Bessinger's other defenses "patently frivolous."...


Fifty years later, civil rights lawyers are pointing the Supreme Court to Bessinger's case in support of Charlie Craig and David Mullins, the gay couple who were turned away by Colorado (http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/colorado.htm) baker Jack Phillips, giving rise to the high court case that will be argued Tuesday.
"The logic of Piggie Park and other precedents overwhelmingly rejecting religious justifications for racial discrimination apply squarely to the context of LGBTQ discrimination," the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund said in a Supreme Court brief. The fund also represented the people who sued Piggie Park.
Both cases involve laws intended to prevent discrimination by private businesses that open their doors to the public. In the case of Piggie Park, the law was the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The bake shop case involves the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits businesses from refusing to sell their goods to people on the basis of sexual orientation among other things.
As the case has come to the justices, the focus is on Phillips' speech rights, not his religious beliefs. As a cake artist, he claims a right not to say something with which he disagrees.

Incorrect. In Piggy, the plaintiff was part of a "suspect classification" (race) that merits strict scrutiny (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny) under SCOTUS case law.


The Court has consistently found that classifications based on race, national origin, and alienage require strict scrutiny review. The Supreme Court held that all race-based classifications must be subjected to strict scrutiny in Adarand Constructors v. Peña (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adarand_Constructors_v._Pe%C3%B1a), 515 U.S. 200 (1995), overruling Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Broadcasting,_Inc._v._FCC) (89-453), 497 U.S. 547 (1990), which had briefly allowed the use of intermediate scrutiny to analyze the Equal Protection implications of race-based classifications in the narrow category of affirmative-action programs established by the federal government in the broadcasting field.

Cake does not involve a suspect classification. It would be analysed under intermediate scrutiny (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_scrutiny).


In order to overcome the intermediate scrutiny test, it must be shown that the law or policy being challenged furthers an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_scrutiny#cite_note-1)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_scrutiny#cite_note-2) That should be contrasted with strict scrutiny, the higher standard of review that requires narrowly tailored and least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest.

Chris
12-05-2017, 07:14 PM
What constitutional rights does anyone have to be served by any business?

Peter1469
12-05-2017, 07:28 PM
What constitutional rights does anyone have to be served by any business?
Many of these SCOTUS holdings come out of the period following the Civil War through the civil rights era. The Southern States pretty much forced SCOTUS's hands.

Agent Zero
12-05-2017, 07:42 PM
Incorrect. In Piggy, the plaintiff was part of a "suspect classification" (race) that merits strict scrutiny (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny) under SCOTUS case law.



Cake does not involve a suspect classification. It would be analysed under intermediate scrutiny (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_scrutiny).

Hasn't the cake shop owner already been punished under the laws of Colorado?


"Undoubtedly defendant Bessinger has a constitutional right to espouse the religious beliefs of his own choosing, however, he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens,"

In Colorado, aren't the couple being deprived of their (Colorado) constitutional rights?

I guess we'll find out in a few months...

Peter1469
12-05-2017, 07:45 PM
Hasn't the cake shop owner already been punished under the laws of Colorado?



In Colorado, aren't the couple being deprived of their (Colorado) constitutional rights?

I guess we'll find out in a few months...

Trial court ruled on a state law, not the Constitution.

SCOTUS is tasked with testing that ruling against free speech and religious liberty (the defendant should have added freedom of association).

So far as the gay couple goes- yes.

In this case one party or the other will be denied rights. There is no way around that.

Chris
12-05-2017, 08:13 PM
Hasn't the cake shop owner already been punished under the laws of Colorado?



In Colorado, aren't the couple being deprived of their (Colorado) constitutional rights?

I guess we'll find out in a few months...

Again, I ask what constitutional rights. Please, explain.

Safety
12-05-2017, 08:33 PM
Given the similarities between the two cases, this should provide a SCOTUS ruling in favor of the gay couple.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newman_v._Piggie_Park_Enterprises,_Inc.

Piggie Park Enterprises was, in 1964, a drive-in BBQ (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbecue) chain with four restaurants, created and operated by Maurice Bessinger (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Bessinger), the Baptist head of the National Association for the Preservation of White People.[2] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newman_v._Piggie_Park_Enterprises,_Inc.#cite_note-2)[3] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newman_v._Piggie_Park_Enterprises,_Inc.#cite_note-Walsh2013-3) Bessinger's restaurants did not allow African-Americans to eat in the restaurant.[4] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newman_v._Piggie_Park_Enterprises,_Inc.#cite_note-4) Following Bessinger's refusal to allow Anne Newman,[5] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newman_v._Piggie_Park_Enterprises,_Inc.#cite_note-Felder2012-5) an African-American minister's wife into his restaurant, then-lawyer Matthew J. Perry (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_J._Perry) filed a class action (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_action) lawsuit against the chain...

More here...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/echoes-68-court-case-wedding-cake-dispute-51545533

Federal judges had little trouble dismissing Bessinger's claim.
"Undoubtedly defendant Bessinger has a constitutional right to espouse the religious beliefs of his own choosing, however, he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens," U.S. District Judge Charles Earl Simons Jr. wrote in 1966.
By the time the Supreme Court heard the case in 1968, the issue was the award of fees to the lawyers representing the black South Carolinians who sued Bessinger's restaurants. But in a footnote to its unsigned 8-0 opinion, the court called the religious freedom argument and Bessinger's other defenses "patently frivolous."...


Fifty years later, civil rights lawyers are pointing the Supreme Court to Bessinger's case in support of Charlie Craig and David Mullins, the gay couple who were turned away by Colorado (http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/colorado.htm) baker Jack Phillips, giving rise to the high court case that will be argued Tuesday.
"The logic of Piggie Park and other precedents overwhelmingly rejecting religious justifications for racial discrimination apply squarely to the context of LGBTQ discrimination," the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund said in a Supreme Court brief. The fund also represented the people who sued Piggie Park.
Both cases involve laws intended to prevent discrimination by private businesses that open their doors to the public. In the case of Piggie Park, the law was the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The bake shop case involves the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits businesses from refusing to sell their goods to people on the basis of sexual orientation among other things.
As the case has come to the justices, the focus is on Phillips' speech rights, not his religious beliefs. As a cake artist, he claims a right not to say something with which he disagrees.

Great find, yes this should be pretty cut and dry for the plaintiffs. There have been too many times that people use religion as a shield to hide behind their bigotry. Just like people would find no trouble in denouncing a religion that would allow necrophilia, to attempt to use religion to refuse service to a gay person should be heralded the same. If a business owner doesn't want to serve all citizens equally in regards to inherent characteristics, then they are free to start a member's only private club and lose the opportunity to earn monies from the general public, or find another line of work. There is no "right" to own a business, just like no one has the "right" to be an astronaut.

For the natural law detractors, this is a nation of laws, either deal with it or garner enough support to change them.

Agent Zero
12-05-2017, 08:42 PM
Again, I ask what constitutional rights. Please, explain.

Over the past few years, SCOTUS has acknowledged through rulings, predominantly gay marriage, that gays are a protected (for lack of a better term) group, recognizing discrimination against them in all facets of society.

This decision will either grant full legal protection to gays or remove protections for not just gays but all groups, be they gay, black, female et al.

I don’t think Justice Kennedy will allow that to happen.

Peter1469
12-05-2017, 08:44 PM
Over the past few years, SCOTUS has acknowledged through rulings, predominantly gay marriage, that gays are a protected (for lack of a better term) group, recognizing discrimination against them in all facets of society.

This decision will either grant full legal protection to gays or remove protections for not just gays but all groups, be they gay, black, female et al.

I don’t think Justice Kennedy will allow that to happen.


Yes, that is the intermediate level I described above.

Agent Zero
12-05-2017, 08:49 PM
DGUtley? What’s your take?

Chris
12-05-2017, 09:01 PM
Over the past few years, SCOTUS has acknowledged through rulings, predominantly gay marriage, that gays are a protected (for lack of a better term) group, recognizing discrimination against them in all facets of society.

This decision will either grant full legal protection to gays or remove protections for not just gays but all groups, be they gay, black, female et al.

I don’t think Justice Kennedy will allow that to happen.


So far largely protections from government, as in the case of marriage--which, btw, I'm fine with, the government shouldn't discriminate.

But within society itself? People discriminate in all things for all sorts of reasons, that cannot be stopped by law or judicial opinions. Nor should they.

Kacper
12-05-2017, 09:05 PM
Great find, yes this should be pretty cut and dry for the plaintiffs. There have been too many times that people use religion as a shield to hide behind their bigotry. Just like people would find no trouble in denouncing a religion that would allow necrophilia, to attempt to use religion to refuse service to a gay person should be heralded the same. If a business owner doesn't want to serve all citizens equally in regards to inherent characteristics, then they are free to start a member's only private club and lose the opportunity to earn monies from the general public, or find another line of work. There is no "right" to own a business, just like no one has the "right" to be an astronaut.

For the natural law detractors, this is a nation of laws, either deal with it or garner enough support to change them.
They are not plaintiffs, and has been discussed to death, he just wouldn't do a custom wedding cake for them.

Dr. Who
12-05-2017, 09:32 PM
They are not plaintiffs, and has been discussed to death, he just wouldn't do a custom wedding cake for them.
As far as I can see, Phillips is basing his case on freedom of speech and religion:

In the past, the Supreme Court has set limits on freedom of speech and religion. The court has repeatedly ruled that constitutional rights do not nullify neutral laws on everything from racial equality to taxes. An Amish farmer, for example, refused to pay Social Security taxes for workers based on his religious belief that the community and not the government should care for the elderly and needy. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 1982 that by becoming an employer, the farmer freely entered into commercial activity (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1981/80-767) and accepted certain limits on the exercise of his beliefs.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/12/04/supreme-court-baker-case-not-first-amendment-editorials-debates/911452001/

Kacper
12-05-2017, 09:41 PM
As far as I can see, Phillips is basing his case on freedom of speech and religion:

In the past, the Supreme Court has set limits on freedom of speech and religion. The court has repeatedly ruled that constitutional rights do not nullify neutral laws on everything from racial equality to taxes. An Amish farmer, for example, refused to pay Social Security taxes for workers based on his religious belief that the community and not the government should care for the elderly and needy. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 1982 that by becoming an employer, the farmer freely entered into commercial activity (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1981/80-767) and accepted certain limits on the exercise of his beliefs.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/12/04/supreme-court-baker-case-not-first-amendment-editorials-debates/911452001/

As the Supreme Court ruled in Yoder that Amish children were exempt from compulsory education laws past the 8th grade as the Amish parents' right to oversee their children's religious education trumped the state's interest in educating them. It didn't strike down the education law. It just carved out an exception, giving rise to the modern lucrative Christian homeschooling craze of the day.

Common
12-06-2017, 06:38 AM
Great find, yes this should be pretty cut and dry for the plaintiffs. There have been too many times that people use religion as a shield to hide behind their bigotry. Just like people would find no trouble in denouncing a religion that would allow necrophilia, to attempt to use religion to refuse service to a gay person should be heralded the same. If a business owner doesn't want to serve all citizens equally in regards to inherent characteristics, then they are free to start a member's only private club and lose the opportunity to earn monies from the general public, or find another line of work. There is no "right" to own a business, just like no one has the "right" to be an astronaut.

For the natural law detractors, this is a nation of laws, either deal with it or garner enough support to change them.

Fantastic argument against sanctuary cities and a host of other liberal clusterf**cks

DGUtley
12-06-2017, 08:09 AM
@DGUtley (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=2019)? What’s your take?
I'm not a civil rights lawyer.

I believe that homosexuality is not a protected class. Race, sex, religion and age are what I believe have been held to be protected classes. The SC would have to find that homosexuality is a protected class to afford them the same rights as race, age, sex and religion -- and it may do so. It has not yet. That's the legal distinction here to me btw the case in the OP and this one. Again, I'm not a civil rights lawyer, this takes me back to law school and I'm really just thinking off the cuff here. How do you legally trump a non-protected class over a constitutionally defined right?

Putting aside my personal beliefs, let me ask a serious question that I hope will provoke thoughtful, not hateful, replies: if the Bible states that certain types of conduct constitute "sin", and that concept includes --according to the Bible-- homosexual sex as well as other things such as greed, sloth, drunkenness, witchcraft, adultery, prostitution, and a bunch of other things, AND if we freely acknowledge that all of us humans are sinners in countless ways, how do we respond to those Christians who embrace this Biblical view of homosexuality as sin? Do we write them all off as vile bigots? Do we "educate" them i.e., persuade them that certain parts of the Bible --the divine word of God for them-- are just wrong and should be ignored?

I'm just curious about how we reconcile tolerance for one oppressed group (homosexuals) with tolerance for another group (Christians), without turning that second group into an equally oppressed, vilified community. I don't think this controversy speaks to free speech as much as it begs a discussion of what freedom of religion truly means in our country in the 21st century. When we start marginalizing biblical-based views as ignorant bigotry and people who espouse those views as dimwits, aren't we treading on dangerous ground? There's a difference between showing love for all people --sinners included-- and force deeply religious people to condone (through their conduct) certain conduct as "okay". How can we force Christians who believe in the Biblical definitions of sin to say that what the Bible identifies as sin really isn't?

I think it's a difficult issue that requires patience and genuine attempts at honest discussion and understanding on all sides. I expect the SCOTUS to find a narrow ruling. I don't know how they'll hold.

Safety
12-06-2017, 08:18 AM
I'm not a civil rights lawyer.

I believe that homosexuality is not a protected class. Race, sex, religion and age are what I believe have been held to be protected classes. The SC would have to find that homosexuality is a protected class to afford them the same rights as race, age, sex and religion -- and it may do so. It has not yet. That's the legal distinction here to me btw the case in the OP and this one. Again, I'm not a civil rights lawyer, this takes me back to law school and I'm really just thinking off the cuff here. How do you legally trump a non-protected class over a constitutionally defined right?

Putting aside my personal beliefs, let me ask a serious question that I hope will provoke thoughtful, not hateful, replies: if the Bible states that certain types of conduct constitute "sin", and that concept includes --according to the Bible-- homosexual sex as well as other things such as greed, sloth, drunkenness, witchcraft, adultery, prostitution, and a bunch of other things, AND if we freely acknowledge that all of us humans are sinners in countless ways, how do we respond to those Christians who embrace this Biblical view of homosexuality as sin? Do we write them all off as vile bigots? Do we "educate" them i.e., persuade them that certain parts of the Bible --the divine word of God for them-- are just wrong and should be ignored?

I'm just curious about how we reconcile tolerance for one oppressed group (homosexuals) with tolerance for another group (Christians), without turning that second group into an equally oppressed, vilified community. I don't think this controversy speaks to free speech as much as it begs a discussion of what freedom of religion truly means in our country in the 21st century. When we start marginalizing biblical-based views as ignorant bigotry and people who espouse those views as dimwits, aren't we treading on dangerous ground? There's a difference between showing love for all people --sinners included-- and force deeply religious people to condone (through their conduct) certain conduct as "okay". How can we force Christians who believe in the Biblical definitions of sin to say that what the Bible identifies as sin really isn't?

I think it's a difficult issue that requires patience and genuine attempts at honest discussion and understanding on all sides. I expect the SCOTUS to find a narrow ruling. I don't know how they'll hold.

How did we overcome the use of the bible to support slavery or using the bible to support the idea that the normal status of the negro is to be a servant race to white people?

DGUtley
12-06-2017, 08:44 AM
How did we overcome the use of the bible to support slavery or using the bible to support the idea that the normal status of the negro is to be a servant race to white people?

I'm sorry, Safety, I thought I explained that in my first paragraph -- Race is a protected class.

Safety
12-06-2017, 09:12 AM
I'm sorry, Safety, I thought I explained that in my first paragraph -- Race is a protected class.

Ok, race is a protected class, but based upon the DOI where "all men are created equal", we still needed a "law" to ensure race is protected.


Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case dealing with sexual orientation and state laws. It was the first Supreme Court case to address gay rights since Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), when the Court had held that laws criminalizing sodomy were constitutional.[1]

The Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that a state constitutional amendment in Colorado preventing protected status based upon homosexuality or bisexuality did not satisfy the Equal Protection Clause.[2] The majority opinion in Romer stated that the amendment lacked "a rational relationship to legitimate state interests", and the dissent stated that the majority "evidently agrees that 'rational basis'—the normal test for compliance with the Equal Protection Clause—is the governing standard".[2][3] The state constitutional amendment failed rational basis review.[4][5][6][7]

The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws".

So based upon that, people still used the bible as a source to say negro bondage was good (took an emancipation to reverse that), then used the bible to support segregation (took the CRA to reverse it), but you think a law would not help homosexuality and equal protection?

DGUtley
12-06-2017, 09:17 AM
Ok, race is a protected class, but based upon the DOI where "all men are created equal", we still needed a "law" to ensure race is protected.
The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws".
So based upon that, people still used the bible as a source to say negro bondage was good (took an emancipation to reverse that), then used the bible to support segregation (took the CRA to reverse it), but you think a law would not help homosexuality and equal protection?
Yes, and they were wrong. I can't even begin to discuss 250 years of discrimination. I'm too busy, I'd want to discuss from fully informed and I don't have the time to read into the past.

If it's not a protected class, then it's not entitled to that special equal protection treatment. I'm sorry, that's my recollection of the law. I fully acknowledge that I may be wrong. I think I already said that.

Chris
12-06-2017, 10:01 AM
I'm not a civil rights lawyer.

I believe that homosexuality is not a protected class. Race, sex, religion and age are what I believe have been held to be protected classes. The SC would have to find that homosexuality is a protected class to afford them the same rights as race, age, sex and religion -- and it may do so. It has not yet. That's the legal distinction here to me btw the case in the OP and this one. Again, I'm not a civil rights lawyer, this takes me back to law school and I'm really just thinking off the cuff here. How do you legally trump a non-protected class over a constitutionally defined right?

Putting aside my personal beliefs, let me ask a serious question that I hope will provoke thoughtful, not hateful, replies: if the Bible states that certain types of conduct constitute "sin", and that concept includes --according to the Bible-- homosexual sex as well as other things such as greed, sloth, drunkenness, witchcraft, adultery, prostitution, and a bunch of other things, AND if we freely acknowledge that all of us humans are sinners in countless ways, how do we respond to those Christians who embrace this Biblical view of homosexuality as sin? Do we write them all off as vile bigots? Do we "educate" them i.e., persuade them that certain parts of the Bible --the divine word of God for them-- are just wrong and should be ignored?

I'm just curious about how we reconcile tolerance for one oppressed group (homosexuals) with tolerance for another group (Christians), without turning that second group into an equally oppressed, vilified community. I don't think this controversy speaks to free speech as much as it begs a discussion of what freedom of religion truly means in our country in the 21st century. When we start marginalizing biblical-based views as ignorant bigotry and people who espouse those views as dimwits, aren't we treading on dangerous ground? There's a difference between showing love for all people --sinners included-- and force deeply religious people to condone (through their conduct) certain conduct as "okay". How can we force Christians who believe in the Biblical definitions of sin to say that what the Bible identifies as sin really isn't?

I think it's a difficult issue that requires patience and genuine attempts at honest discussion and understanding on all sides. I expect the SCOTUS to find a narrow ruling. I don't know how they'll hold.


All of which is circumvented by law, and positive law arguments for the law, ruling protections of some against government discrimination extend into the private sphere.

Chris
12-06-2017, 10:07 AM
Ok, race is a protected class, but based upon the DOI where "all men are created equal", we still needed a "law" to ensure race is protected.



The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws".

So based upon that, people still used the bible as a source to say negro bondage was good (took an emancipation to reverse that), then used the bible to support segregation (took the CRA to reverse it), but you think a law would not help homosexuality and equal protection?


The DOI's "all men are created equal" refers to equality before the law. It's derived from the Christian belief we're all held equal before God's judgment. In short, the government may not discriminate.

It does not mean you and I are the same or the we must treat each other the same. We are all obviously different.


The Equal Protection Clause is the same, it restricts the government, it may not discriminate.


These restrictions on the government should never have been stretched to private lives. The government was granted no such power.

Safety
12-06-2017, 10:17 AM
The DOI's "all men are created equal" refers to equality before the law. It's derived from the Christian belief we're all held equal before God's judgment. In short, the government may not discriminate.

It does not mean you and I are the same or the we must treat each other the same. We are all obviously different.


The Equal Protection Clause is the same, it restricts the government, it may not discriminate.


These restrictions on the government should never have been stretched to private lives. The government was granted no such power.

Be that as it may, when a business owner signs a contract to conduct business in a jurisdiction, they are bound by that contract. Furthermore, you can consider them government actors based upon previous discussions pertaining to businesses and schools. Private lives have no bearing to this discussion.

Safety
12-06-2017, 10:18 AM
Yes, and they were wrong. I can't even begin to discuss 250 years of discrimination. I'm too busy, I'd want to discuss from fully informed and I don't have the time to read into the past.

If it's not a protected class, then it's not entitled to that special equal protection treatment. I'm sorry, that's my recollection of the law. I fully acknowledge that I may be wrong. I think I already said that.

Thank you for your candor and explanation.

Chris
12-06-2017, 10:30 AM
Be that as it may, when a business owner signs a contract to conduct business in a jurisdiction, they are bound by that contract. Furthermore, you can consider them government actors based upon previous discussions pertaining to businesses and schools. Private lives have no bearing to this discussion.

Again, you argue because it's law it's right, with no consideration whether it is.

No law should force you to assciate with or contract with another. Such a law deprives you of your liberty.

The idea that a person who runs a business is the government is pure nonsense.

It is about private lives.

Safety
12-06-2017, 01:39 PM
Again, you argue because it's law it's right, with no consideration whether it is.

No law should force you to assciate with or contract with another. Such a law deprives you of your liberty.

The idea that a person who runs a business is the government is pure nonsense.

It is about private lives.

Your private life stops where your business life begins. As a private citizen, nobody is forcing you to do anything, as a business owner that does business within a jurisdiction, you are bound by the laws set forth by that jurisdiction. Either you move, find another line of work, or fight to change the law.

resister
12-06-2017, 01:47 PM
Your private life stops where your business life begins. As a private citizen, nobody is forcing you to do anything, as a business owner that does business within a jurisdiction, you are bound by the laws set forth by that jurisdiction. Either you move, find another line of work, or fight to change the law.I have not seen one in a while but I can remember business's posting signs to the effect "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason."

A for instance, if someone is making an ass of themselves, they can be asked to leave.

Chris
12-06-2017, 01:55 PM
Your private life stops where your business life begins. As a private citizen, nobody is forcing you to do anything, as a business owner that does business within a jurisdiction, you are bound by the laws set forth by that jurisdiction. Either you move, find another line of work, or fight to change the law.

You're conflating doing business and acting as a government as both public. The distinction is between private citizen and government employee. The government has no right to interfere in the baker's choices who to make a cake for the way it has the right to make a court clerk issue marriage licenses.

And you argue the old circular law is the law argument when the question begged is, is the law just?

Chris
12-06-2017, 01:57 PM
I have not seen one in a while but I can remember business's posting signs to the effect "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason."

A for instance, if someone is making an ass of themselves, they can be asked to leave.

It's your business, you should get to choose whom you serve and whom you refuse.

You are not a public servant.

As is, if law compels you, you are being treated like a slave.

resister
12-06-2017, 01:59 PM
It's your business, you should get to choose whom you serve and whom you refuse.

You are not a public servant.

As is, if law compels you, you are being treated like a slave.
This is true. The government does not own it.

Safety
12-06-2017, 02:44 PM
I have not seen one in a while but I can remember business's posting signs to the effect "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason."

A for instance, if someone is making an ass of themselves, they can be asked to leave.There's a difference in refusing to serve someone because of their actions once inside your establishment, and refusing service to someone based upon a characteristic of birth prior to judging them by their actions.

Safety
12-06-2017, 02:48 PM
You're conflating doing business and acting as a government as both public. The distinction is between private citizen and government employee. The government has no right to interfere in the baker's choices who to make a cake for the way it has the right to make a court clerk issue marriage licenses.

And you argue the old circular law is the law argument when the question begged is, is the law just? I'm not conflating anything, please stop ascribing words you want to associate to me, as me saying it. The government is responsible for making sure citizens are treated equally in the eyes of the law, and if a business is breaking a contract based upon a cop out, the government has the right to straighten it out.

Chris
12-06-2017, 02:50 PM
There's a difference in refusing to serve someone because of their actions once inside your establishment, and refusing service to someone based upon a characteristic of birth prior to judging them by their actions.

Yes, there's a difference, but it has no bearing here. People should be free to associate and contract with whomever they please. It's a basic right.

And not serving someone, whatever the reason, does them no harm, deprives them of no rights or liberty.

resister
12-06-2017, 02:52 PM
There's a difference in refusing to serve someone because of their actions once inside your establishment, and refusing service to someone based upon a characteristic of birth prior to judging them by their actions.
In this case, the owner is objecting on religious grounds, so it could be argued that he is not discriminating but following his religion. Can government compel a person to act against their religion?

Chris
12-06-2017, 02:52 PM
I'm not conflating anything, please stop ascribing words you want to associate to me, as me saying it. The government is responsible for making sure citizens are treated equally in the eyes of the law, and if a business is breaking a contract based upon a cop out, the government has the right to straighten it out.

In the eyes of the law? Where'd you find that? Eye? Remember, justice is supposed to be blind. The meaning of the DoI about equality has to do with equality before the law.

Did the baker break any contract with the gays who wanted him to make their cake? No.

If you're referring to public accommodation laws, then you beg the question in not justifying them.

Safety
12-06-2017, 03:25 PM
Yes, there's a difference, but it has no bearing here. People should be free to associate and contract with whomever they please. It's a basic right.

And not serving someone, whatever the reason, does them no harm, deprives them of no rights or liberty.

The basic right is for a private citizen, operating a business is not private, for in that case why advertise to the general public?

Chris
12-06-2017, 03:30 PM
The basic right is for a private citizen, operating a business is not private, for in that case why advertise to the general public?


I understand your repeated conclusion.

You offer no rational argument on how you arrive there.

Safety
12-06-2017, 03:53 PM
I understand your repeated conclusion.

You offer no rational argument on how you arrive there.There is no need for me to argue what is already the law. That burden is on the person that takes offense to the current law.

Safety
12-06-2017, 04:08 PM
In the eyes of the law? Where'd you find that? Eye? Remember, justice is supposed to be blind. The meaning of the DoI about equality has to do with equality before the law.

Did the baker break any contract with the gays who wanted him to make their cake? No.

If you're referring to public accommodation laws, then you beg the question in not justifying them.

The baker broke the contract with the jurisdiction that they agreed to follow.

Chris
12-06-2017, 04:10 PM
The baker broke the contract with the jurisdiction that they agreed to follow.

I understand your repeated conclusion. Why don't you justify it? Why is the law just? We know from history that the law is the law justifiication don't cut it, after all, slavery was unjust, wasn't it? Yet it was law.

Safety
12-06-2017, 04:17 PM
I understand your repeated conclusion. Why don't you justify it? Why is the law just? We know from history that the law is the law justifiication don't cut it, after all, slavery was unjust, wasn't it? Yet it was law.

Maybe you misunderstood my last response to you that explained that I didn't have to justify it, nor explain why it's just. It's the law, deal with it.

You keep falling back on the slavery meme, but you ignore the fact that the country went to war over it, the south got their ass kicked, and every roadblock afterwards that conservatives tried to enact upon black people have eventually been shot to hell. Now the fight is for gay people, and they have my full support because I know what my parents went through because of racist assholes, so now I can return the favor.

Chris
12-06-2017, 04:27 PM
Maybe you misunderstood my last response to you that explained that I didn't have to justify it, nor explain why it's just. It's the law, deal with it.

You keep falling back on the slavery meme, but you ignore the fact that the country went to war over it, the south got their ass kicked, and every roadblock afterwards that conservatives tried to enact upon black people have eventually been shot to hell. Now the fight is for gay people, and they have my full support because I know what my parents went through because of racist assholes, so now I can return the favor.


No, you don't have to justify or explain anything.

The slavery example was an example of an unjust law to show the need to justify law, that it doesn't justify itself.

I'm all for protecting the rights of everyone. But what rights are violated when a baker refuses to bake a cake for someone?

Safety
12-06-2017, 04:34 PM
No, you don't have to justify or explain anything.

The slavery example was an example of an unjust law to show the need to justify law, that it doesn't justify itself.

I'm all for protecting the rights of everyone. But what rights are violated when a baker refuses to bake a cake for someone?

The same rights that were violated when blacks had to go to the kitchen to get their food, or ride in the back of the bus.

Chris
12-06-2017, 04:44 PM
The same rights that were violated when blacks had to go to the kitchen to get their food, or ride in the back of the bus.

The same rights? The baker didn't make the gay couple do anything. But the law forces the baker to bake a cake for them. I think you got the rights wrong.

Safety
12-06-2017, 05:06 PM
The same rights? The baker didn't make the gay couple do anything. But the law forces the baker to bake a cake for them. I think you got the rights wrong.No, I think you have reality wrong. The baker refused to bake a cake for the gay couple, because they were gay. Blacks were refused service because they were black, some were allowed to still get food if they went around to the kitchen to get it. Same scenario, same hate, different target.

The law is not forcing the baker to do anything different than he already does for his straight customers. It's not forcing him to sleep with gays, turn gay, or even treat them with respect, it simply says to offer his business to all citizens equally. Because if it is alright to get their tax dollars to help with small business loans, fix the area in front of the store so people can access the establishment, provide adequate repairs to the road so customers can drive safely to his store, but then to turn around and not sell them a fucking cake, is douchebaggery to the gold chocobo level.

Chris
12-06-2017, 05:23 PM
No, I think you have reality wrong. The baker refused to bake a cake for the gay couple, because they were gay. Blacks were refused service because they were black, some were allowed to still get food if they went around to the kitchen to get it. Same scenario, same hate, different target.

The law is not forcing the baker to do anything different than he already does for his straight customers. It's not forcing him to sleep with gays, turn gay, or even treat them with respect, it simply says to offer his business to all citizens equally. Because if it is alright to get their tax dollars to help with small business loans, fix the area in front of the store so people can access the establishment, provide adequate repairs to the road so customers can drive safely to his store, but then to turn around and not sell them a fucking cake, is douchebaggery to the gold chocobo level.


Problem is, while you argue it is wrong to force one to serve another, you then contradict yourself and argue the opposite, that it's right to force one to serve another.

What if the baker wants nothing the government forces on him? Note that your argument has nothing to do with the law itself. --Note too that now you are trying to justify the law.

"douchebaggery to the gold chocobo level" is funny but not an argument.

Safety
12-06-2017, 05:36 PM
Problem is, while you argue it is wrong to force one to serve another, you then contradict yourself and argue the opposite, that it's right to force one to serve another.

What if the baker wants nothing the government forces on him? Note that your argument has nothing to do with the law itself. --Note too that now you are trying to justify the law.

"douchebaggery to the gold chocobo level" is funny but not an argument.

Where did I argue that it was wrong to force someone to serve another. I think I was pretty clear in saying that if a business doesn't want to serve a subset of society based upon personal bigotry, which violates the contact they entered when opening said business, needs to find another line of work.

resister
12-06-2017, 05:37 PM
Where did I argue that it was wrong to force someone to serve another. I think I was pretty clear in saying that if a business doesn't want to serve a subset of society based upon personal bigotry, which violates the contact they entered when opening said business, needs to find another line of work.
Can you post this contract so we can see it?

Safety
12-06-2017, 05:45 PM
Can you post this contract so we can see it?

https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/2016/title-24/principal-departments/article-34/part-6/section-24-34-601

Chris
12-06-2017, 05:47 PM
https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/2016/title-24/principal-departments/article-34/part-6/section-24-34-601

That's the law. Resister asked for the contract.

Chris
12-06-2017, 05:51 PM
Where did I argue that it was wrong to force someone to serve another. I think I was pretty clear in saying that if a business doesn't want to serve a subset of society based upon personal bigotry, which violates the contact they entered when opening said business, needs to find another line of work.


Where did I argue that it was wrong to force someone to serve another.

Post 42. Is slavery ok to you now?


I think I was pretty clear in saying that if a business doesn't want to serve a subset of society based upon personal bigotry, which violates the contact they entered when opening said business, needs to find another line of work.

I understand your opinion just not why you justify the government forcing one to serve another.

Safety
12-06-2017, 06:08 PM
That's the law. Resister asked for the contract.

https://library.municode.com/co/denver/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TITIIREMUCO_CH28HURI_ART IVPRDIEMHOCOSPPUACEDINHEWESE_S28-96DIPRPLPUAC

That's the ordinance,

https://www.denvergov.org/content/denvergov/en/denver-business-licensing-center/business-licenses/food-retail.html

That shows the fees required along with the code of ordinances for the municipality. You pay the fee, you accept that you will operate your business in accordance to the ordinance.

Any further questions?

Safety
12-06-2017, 06:16 PM
Post 42. Is slavery ok to you now?

Strawman dismissed. Didnt you just whine about logical fallacies in another thread?


I understand your opinion just not why you justify the government forcing one to serve another.

I justify the ability of those marginalized over their inherent characteristics to fight the bigotry some use as a crutch to hide behind. Selling a cake to a gay person does no more harm to a religious zealot, than it would if he sold it to an adulterer or someone that eats shellfish.

Chris
12-06-2017, 06:34 PM
Strawman dismissed. Didnt you just whine about logical fallacies in another thread?



I justify the ability of those marginalized over their inherent characteristics to fight the bigotry some use as a crutch to hide behind. Selling a cake to a gay person does no more harm to a religious zealot, than it would if he sold it to an adulterer or someone that eats shellfish.

What strawman?

Next sentence is unitelligible.


Selling a cake to a gay person does no more harm to a religious zealot, than it would if he sold it to an adulterer or someone that eats shellfish.

I agree on those grounds. But I haven't argued the law unjust for that reason but for violation of the fundamental freedom to associate with and contract whom we please.

Also, it does nom harm not to sell someone a cake. There's no such right to buy a cake or generally be served by another. That violates the basic DoI principle we're all created equal even in your (mis)understanding.

Safety
12-06-2017, 06:43 PM
What strawman?

Next sentence is unitelligible.



I agree on those grounds. But I haven't argued the law unjust for that reason but for violation of the fundamental freedom to associate with and contract whom we please.

Also, it does nom harm not to sell someone a cake. There's no such right to buy a cake or generally be served by another. That violates the basic DoI principle we're all created equal even in your (mis)understanding.

The strawman you erected asking if I thought slavery was ok. That was such a textbook minimization of an argument for you to attack, that wiki should use it as an example.

You have the freedom to associate/not associate with anyone you wish as a private citizen, but if you are operating a business open to the public, you are open to the public. No matter how many times you keep mentioning private citizen, it has no bearing in this case.

Chris
12-06-2017, 06:56 PM
Sounds to me there eight to be mutual agreement in a contract. ..

con·tract
noun
ˈkäntrakt/Submit
1.
a written or spoken agreement, especially one concerning employment, sales, or tenancy, that is intended to be enforceable by law.
"both parties must sign employment contracts"
synonyms: agreement, commitment, arrangement, settlement, understanding, compact, covenant, bond;

Agent Zero
12-06-2017, 06:57 PM
Problem is, while you argue it is wrong to force one to serve another, you then contradict yourself and argue the opposite, that it's right to force one to serve another.

What if the baker wants nothing the government forces on him? Note that your argument has nothing to do with the law itself. --Note too that now you are trying to justify the law.

"douchebaggery to the gold chocobo level" is funny but not an argument.

I actually agree 100% with Safety's words. But I question this:


What if the baker wants nothing the government forces on him?

There is not a single business in the country that does not have to comply with some sort of regulation or not (and yes, I'm aware you're anti-regulation). And there's nothing that says he is "forced" to do anything.

If he is unhappy with the situation, he can always bake cakes in his back yard and sell them sans the restrictions of government, unless local city codes require a business license - then I guess he can move the country and bake his cakes. Of course I don't know how many of his customers will want to go through all that trouble to drive miles and miles to his cabin waaay up on a mountaintop to pick up a wedding cake that may not make it to the church in one piece.

Then there's the problem of enjoying the rewards of his business, particularly money. Where will he keep his money? In a bank? Nope. Regulated. I guess he can stuff the money in a mattress in that cabin waaay up on a mountaintop.

I guess that what I'm getting at, Chris, is that we all do things we don't agree with. Politically, economically, socially, religiously, and so on.

Chris
12-06-2017, 07:27 PM
I actually agree 100% with Safety's words. But I question this:



There is not a single business in the country that does not have to comply with some sort of regulation or not (and yes, I'm aware you're anti-regulation). And there's nothing that says he is "forced" to do anything.

If he is unhappy with the situation, he can always bake cakes in his back yard and sell them sans the restrictions of government, unless local city codes require a business license - then I guess he can move the country and bake his cakes. Of course I don't know how many of his customers will want to go through all that trouble to drive miles and miles to his cabin waaay up on a mountaintop to pick up a wedding cake that may not make it to the church in one piece.

Then there's the problem of enjoying the rewards of his business, particularly money. Where will he keep his money? In a bank? Nope. Regulated. I guess he can stuff the money in a mattress in that cabin waaay up on a mountaintop.

I guess that what I'm getting at, Chris, is that we all do things we don't agree with. Politically, economically, socially, religiously, and so on.


Right, but few of us are forced to serve someone else. That's my point here, and nothing safety has said justifies the government doing that. And that's my point, nothing to do with having to do things we dislike, of course we do, but we choose to do that because doing it has some subjective value to us over not doing it.


Again, I ask you Zero, what rights are violated in refusing to serve someone? What harm is done?

Dr. Who
12-06-2017, 07:29 PM
Again, you argue because it's law it's right, with no consideration whether it is.

No law should force you to assciate with or contract with another. Such a law deprives you of your liberty.

The idea that a person who runs a business is the government is pure nonsense.

It is about private lives.
No law requires a municipality to grant a license to trade within its legal jurisdiction. The license is granted based on the municipality's perception of net benefit to the community, not the net benefit to the proposed proprietor. Municipalities operate under a charter which is the basic document that defines the organization, powers, functions and essential procedures of the city government. It is legally subordinated to the authority of the state government constitution.

If a person wants to operate within a legal construct like a municipality, they must contract to do so and thus accept the terms and conditions of that arrangement. That municipality could not care less about an individual's preferences regarding rights of association. It is not legally material to the terms of the contract, which is to offer a beneficial service to the community at large without violating the municipality's legal undertakings with the state.

Chris
12-06-2017, 07:30 PM
The strawman you erected asking if I thought slavery was ok. That was such a textbook minimization of an argument for you to attack, that wiki should use it as an example.

You have the freedom to associate/not associate with anyone you wish as a private citizen, but if you are operating a business open to the public, you are open to the public. No matter how many times you keep mentioning private citizen, it has no bearing in this case.


Look up strawman. Learn something.

I say you are against slavery because you are. When you reject that I have to ask in shock if your aren't. But we all know you are. So to return, you are against forcing one to serve another yet here, contradictorily, you are for forcing one to serve another.

You are confusing public business with public service in government. No matter how many times you appeal to ambiguity, the meanins are distinct.

Chris
12-06-2017, 07:33 PM
No law requires a municipality to grant a license to trade within its legal jurisdiction. The license is granted based on the municipality's perception of net benefit to the community, not the net benefit to the proposed proprietor. Municipalities operate under a charter which is the basic document that defines the organization, powers, functions and essential procedures of the city government. It is legally subordinated to the authority of the state government constitution.

If a person wants to operate within a legal construct like a municipality, they must contract to do so and thus accept the terms and conditions of that arrangement. That municipality could not care less about an individual's preferences regarding rights of association. It is not legally material to the terms of the contract, which is to offer a beneficial service to the community at large without violating the municipality's legal undertakings with the state.


You tell me things everyone knows.

What justifies such laws is the question, not whether they exist, of course they do, but laws do not justify themselves.

Let's not confuse contract with law. Contract implies agreement. Laws force.

Safety
12-06-2017, 08:09 PM
Look up strawman. Learn something.

I say you are against slavery because you are. When you reject that I have to ask in shock if your aren't. But we all know you are. So to return, you are against forcing one to serve another yet here, contradictorily, you are for forcing one to serve another.

You are confusing public business with public service in government. No matter how many times you appeal to ambiguity, the meanins are distinct.You couldn't be further from the truth, especially when using a weak ass comparison in attempt to help your sinking argument. Owning a business is nothing like slavery because owning a business is a fucking decision. The problem with society is the ignorant using nonsensical analogies to try and save a failed argument.

One last time Chris, a person has the same right to own a business as a person has the right to be a cardiologist.

Dr. Who
12-06-2017, 08:15 PM
You tell me things everyone knows.

What justifies such laws is the question, not whether they exist, of course they do, but laws do not justify themselves.

Let's not confuse contract with law. Contract implies agreement. Laws force.

Let me know when any individual is forced to live in any given city and dragged to a licensing office and forced to obtain a permit to trade.

A municipality doesn't grant licenses willy-nilly. They don't license 15 bakeries on one street and none at the other end of town. If an area has no bakery, community members will let the municipal government know that they want a bakery. They don't want a bakery that selectively chooses its clientele. Such an enterprise doesn't respond to the request for a bricks and mortar bakery to serve the community in which people pay taxes. Why should X not be served in his or her own community and have to drive miles away because a certain business is injecting their religious or other exclusionary values into the enterprise? That business is thus not fulfilling the community desire for a bakery and should lose its license to operate. That doesn't mean that any customer can dictate to the proprietor the product that they must provide, but they cannot refuse service on the basis of who may be consuming that product and/or a religious objection to a legal event.

It's all rather specious at any rate since if the couple getting married had opted for cupcakes instead of a cake and simply ordered 50 cupcakes without detailing the reason, they would have received them because the baker was not specifically interviewing customers to ensure that his product was not being used in a way that violated his religious convictions. I'm sure some of his product has been served at stags where hookers and strippers were present or otherwise used in some morally depraved fashion.

Chris
12-06-2017, 08:18 PM
You couldn't be further from the truth, especially when using a weak ass comparison in attempt to help your sinking argument. Owning a business is nothing like slavery because owning a business is a fucking decision. The problem with society is the ignorant using nonsensical analogies to try and save a failed argument.

One last time Chris, a person has the same right to own a business as a person has the right to be a cardiologist.


If "Owning a business is nothing like slavery because owning a business is a fucking decision" is "couldn't be further from the truth, especially when using a weak ass comparison in attempt to help your sinking argument" that is because it's your misunderstanding of my argument. So knock your misunderstanding down.



My argument is the government has no right to force one to serve another.

Safety
12-06-2017, 08:19 PM
You tell me things everyone knows.

What justifies such laws is the question, not whether they exist, of course they do, but laws do not justify themselves.

Let's not confuse contract with law. Contract implies agreement. Laws force.Contract as defined by Black's Law....contract, n. (14c) 1. An agreement between two or more parties creating obligations that are enforceable or otherwise recognizable at law <a binding contract>. … 2. The writing that sets forth such an agreement <a contract is valid if valid under the law of the residence of the party wishing to enforce the contract>

Then there's this....
“Contract” means any contract, subcontract, agreement, commitment, note, bond, mortgage, indenture, lease, license, sublicense, permit, franchise or other instrument, obligation or binding arrangement or understanding of any kind or character, whether oral or in writing.

Did you happen to see license and permit in that definition, cause I sure do. So please try another angle.

Mister D
12-06-2017, 08:20 PM
It's odd how progressives always struggle to justify their positions.

Safety
12-06-2017, 08:25 PM
If "Owning a business is nothing like slavery because owning a business is a fucking decision" is "couldn't be further from the truth, especially when using a weak ass comparison in attempt to help your sinking argument" that is because it's your misunderstanding of my argument. So knock your misunderstanding down.



My argument is the government has no right to force one to serve another.

Then you are doing a poor job at presenting your argument. The government has every right to enforce the law and ensure citizens are not discriminated against by businesses that break the law.

Safety
12-06-2017, 08:26 PM
It's odd how progressives always struggle to justify their positions. Since when is Chris a progressive?

Chris
12-06-2017, 08:27 PM
Let me know when any individual is forced to live in any given city and dragged to a licensing office and forced to obtain a permit to trade.

A municipality doesn't grant licenses willy-nilly. They don't license 15 bakeries on one street and none at the other end of town. If an area has no bakery, community members will let the municipal government know that they want a bakery. They don't want a bakery that selectively chooses its clientele. Such an enterprise doesn't respond to the request for a bricks and mortar bakery to serve the community in which people pay taxes. Why should X not be served in his or her own community and have to drive miles away because a certain business is injecting their religious or other exclusionary values into the enterprise? That business is thus not fulfilling the community desire for a bakery and should lose its license to operate. That doesn't mean that any customer can dictate to the proprietor the product that they must provide, but they cannot refuse service on the basis of who may be consuming that product and/or a religious objection to a legal event.

It's all rather specious at any rate since if the couple getting married had opted for cupcakes instead of a cake and simply ordered 50 cupcakes without detailing the reason, they would have received them because the baker was not specifically interviewing customers to ensure that his product was not being used in a way that violated his religious convictions. I'm sure some of his product has been served at stags where hookers and strippers were present or otherwise used in some morally depraved fashion.


Let me know when the individual is free from being forced to serve someone.

Good lord, I tell you your argument is what everyone knows and doesn't justify forcing one to serve other and you just carry on as if nothing was said. Why do you quote me if you're not going to respnd to what I post?


So let me be more direct. Your argument is wrong in two ways. One, you assume that government are formed to serve society and it's interests over individual interests. There is no basis for that argument, none in history, none in theory, none in practice. Two, more importantly, if we assume you are correct, then you run into the same problems Safety does in his arguments because if a society decides it wants to enslave some to serve others then the laws will reflect that in your vision of why the government exists, but while legal we all know slavery is illegal. You vision runs into a contradiction.

Now you can argue till the cows come home that you think you know what's best for society and that that's not to be left to the people themselves to decide but up to some elitist central planners behond closed door to decide for them, but I guarantee your society will rebel against you.

Chris
12-06-2017, 08:29 PM
It's odd how progressives always struggle to justify their positions.

The odd thing is it really doesn't matter how they justify their opinions, just that they do. Of course, they don't have to.

Chris
12-06-2017, 08:31 PM
Then you are doing a poor job at presenting your argument. The government has every right to enforce the law and ensure citizens are not discriminated against by businesses that break the law.

Probably. I don't claim perfection.


The government has every right to enforce the law and ensure citizens are not discriminated against by businesses that break the law.

Why?

Note the you're arguing in circles assuming what you need to demonstrate, that the law justifies itself.

Mister D
12-06-2017, 08:35 PM
The odd thing is it really doesn't matter how they justify their opinions, just that they do. Of course, they don't have to.
It does make for quite a spectacle.

Chris
12-06-2017, 08:45 PM
Thinking now, in what case would a government truly represent, no, be the will of the people. I can see where a people of a place, and time, evolved naturally, organically, traditionally, normally, even institutionally as a unified collective whole, and sorted themselves into a hierarchy when some few resolved differences and enforced the social order. Small feudal monarchies might work this way and work well because the monarchy had stake in the game of his monarch prospering. But the US is not like that, it's a liberal democracy, where the individual should be free to decide his own fate and property and whom he associates with and contracts with, and the government was created to serve and protect that, not serve some against others. Of course there's also socialism, where the people aren't trusted to decide for themselves and a few elites claim to know better and self-contradiction is never a problem--but we know every instance of this form of government has failed miserably.

Dr. Who
12-06-2017, 09:09 PM
Let me know when the individual is free from being forced to serve someone.

Good lord, I tell you your argument is what everyone knows and doesn't justify forcing one to serve other and you just carry on as if nothing was said. Why do you quote me if you're not going to respnd to what I post?


So let me be more direct. Your argument is wrong in two ways. One, you assume that government are formed to serve society and it's interests over individual interests. There is no basis for that argument, none in history, none in theory, none in practice. Two, more importantly, if we assume you are correct, then you run into the same problems Safety does in his arguments because if a society decides it wants to enslave some to serve others then the laws will reflect that in your vision of why the government exists, but while legal we all know slavery is illegal. You vision runs into a contradiction.

Now you can argue till the cows come home that you think you know what's best for society and that that's not to be left to the people themselves to decide but up to some elitist central planners behond closed door to decide for them, but I guarantee your society will rebel against you.

First of all, I disagree with you, thus my argument reflects my disagreement. Laws are justified by public acceptance.
Since America is a nation of laws, I suspect that contextually, my argument, which is founded in reality rather than in purist ideology that lacks any contemporary application other than in minuscule populations in the last thousand years, and where it did exist, has long since been replaced with variations on the current theme, is actually more valid. Corruption of laws by corrupt people does not invalidate the need for laws or taint all laws by association. Just as inasmuch as some people are bad drivers, we don't abolish cars and driving. Corrupt laws are eventually identified by the people and vacated accordingly.

The state has repeatedly been chosen by humankind because it removes the bumps from the road. People do not prefer anarchy. They like predictability and laws, so that they can make plans. Just as where businesses that merge, consolidate administration for greater efficiency, states consolidate the administration of territories, so that people don't have to spend inordinate amounts of time, money and effort performing tasks that they can sub out to government. (in a nutshell). The notion of government is not wrong. The notion of the state is not wrong. The only thing that is wrong is the behavior of individuals and regardless of whether there is a state or anarchy, corrupt individuals will connive to usurp fairness.

Dr. Who
12-06-2017, 09:22 PM
If "Owning a business is nothing like slavery because owning a business is a fucking decision" is "couldn't be further from the truth, especially when using a weak ass comparison in attempt to help your sinking argument" that is because it's your misunderstanding of my argument. So knock your misunderstanding down.



My argument is the government has no right to force one to serve another.
It doesn't. If I hire you to cater my party, you sure as heck will not get paid if you refuse to serve my ethnic minority, gay, transgendered, communist, non-Christian friends, or anyone else that doesn't fit your right of association particulars. Furthermore, I will report you to whoever gave you a license to operate. Obtaining a license to trade is no different.

Agent Zero
12-06-2017, 09:26 PM
Right, but few of us are forced to serve someone else. That's my point here, and nothing safety has said justifies the government doing that. And that's my point, nothing to do with having to do things we dislike, of course we do, but we choose to do that because doing it has some subjective value to us over not doing it.


Again, I ask you Zero, what rights are violated in refusing to serve someone? What harm is done?

I beg to differ. All of us, in every endeavor and every aspect of our lives, are forced to serve someone else.

While in church every Sunday, I serve my Lord. Sitting at my desk in the bowels of the State Dept I serve the Constitution. At home, I serve my wife and children.

in the case of the bakery owner, he may be serving his Lord in church, but in his bakery he’s serving his customers under the anti discrimination laws of the state of Colorado.

As far as your final question, that’s not my determination to make. It’s the determination of the state of Colorado, and ultimately the SCOTUS.

Chris
12-06-2017, 09:31 PM
First of all, I disagree with you, thus my argument reflects my disagreement. Laws are justified by public acceptance.
Since America is a nation of laws, I suspect that contextually, my argument, which is founded in reality rather than in purist ideology that lacks any contemporary application other than in minuscule populations in the last thousand years, and where it did exist, has long since been replaced with variations on the current theme, is actually more valid. Corruption of laws by corrupt people does not invalidate the need for laws or taint all laws by association. Just as inasmuch as some people are bad drivers, we don't abolish cars and driving. Corrupt laws are eventually identified by the people and vacated accordingly.

The state has repeatedly been chosen by humankind because it removes the bumps from the road. People do not prefer anarchy. They like predictability and laws, so that they can make plans. Just as where businesses that merge, consolidate administration for greater efficiency, states consolidate the administration of territories, so that people don't have to spend inordinate amounts of time, money and effort performing tasks that they can sub out to government. (in a nutshell). The notion of government is not wrong. The notion of the state is not wrong. The only thing that is wrong is the behavior of individuals and regardless of whether there is a state or anarchy, corrupt individuals will connive to usurp fairness.

Of course you disagree, just that when you quote someone you ought to address what they said. If you're just going to express your views on the matter, don't quote.


Laws are justified by public acceptance.

Slavery was publicly accepted.

There has to be something more.


Since America is a nation of laws....

Yes, read them, they are supposed to serve and protect the people and their rights, not violate them to serve only some.


my argument, which is founded in reality....

Then ground it in that reality, cite examples of governments that work the way you prefer them to. Don't just claim it.


The state has repeatedly been chosen by humankind...

For perhaps only 1-2% of man's 300000 year existence. So that claim doesn't stand.


People do not prefer anarchy.

For perhaps only 1-2% of man's 300000 year existence. So that claim doesn't stand.


You keep claiming your view is grounded in reality.



They like predictability and laws, so that they can make plans.

And they like risks and going around the law.

Reality?


The notion of government is not wrong. The notion of the state is not wrong. The only thing that is wrong is the behavior of individuals and regardless of whether there is a state or anarchy, corrupt individuals will connive to usurp fairness.

Slavery.

Those thoughts are very Rousseauian and Hegelian whose ideas led to totalitarian states. (Comment on your post, not you.)

Chris
12-06-2017, 09:34 PM
It doesn't. If I hire you to cater my party, you sure as heck will not get paid if you refuse to serve my ethnic minority, gay, transgendered, communist, non-Christian friends, or anyone else that doesn't fit your right of association particulars. Furthermore, I will report you to whoever gave you a license to operate. Obtaining a license to trade is no different.

Indeed, if you and I mutually voluntarily agree--a contract--then we ought to abide by that agreement and the law ought to enforce it. No argument there.

The baker never agreed to make the cake, he said no. No contract.


Obtaining a license is different for it is forced upon you. You have no choice.

Chris
12-06-2017, 09:39 PM
I beg to differ. All of us, in every endeavor and every aspect of our lives, are forced to serve someone else.

While in church every Sunday, I serve my Lord. Sitting at my desk in the bowels of the State Dept I serve the Constitution. At home, I serve my wife and children.

in the case of the bakery owner, he may be serving his Lord in church, but in his bakery he’s serving his customers under the anti discrimination laws of the state of Colorado.

As far as your final question, that’s not my determination to make. It’s the determination of the state of Colorado, and ultimately the SCOTUS.


You are forced to serve your Lord? Who forces you?

Who forced to serve your family? Who forces you?

You are not forced. You choose to do so.

Same with the bakers, he serves those he chooses to. But the government wants to force him to serve other.


A government founded on the principle all are equal before the law is different and must treat all equally.


My final question was what rights do you see violated in not serving someone? What harm? That's not up to the government.

Chris
12-06-2017, 09:40 PM
It does make for quite a spectacle.


You see a lot of lofty abstractions.

Dr. Who
12-06-2017, 10:12 PM
Of course you disagree, just that when you quote someone you ought to address what they said. If you're just going to express your views on the matter, don't quote.



Slavery was publicly accepted.

There has to be something more.



Yes, read them, they are supposed to serve and protect the people and their rights, not violate them to serve only some.



Then ground it in that reality, cite examples of governments that work the way you prefer them to. Don't just claim it.



For perhaps only 1-2% of man's 300000 year existence. So that claim doesn't stand.



For perhaps only 1-2% of man's 300000 year existence. So that claim doesn't stand.


You keep claiming your view is grounded in reality.




And they like risks and going around the law.

Reality?



Slavery.

Those thoughts are very Rousseauian and Hegelian whose ideas led to totalitarian states. (Comment on your post, not you.)
Hmmm. Don't see a lot of links/proof in your response either. The preponderance of the human population has grown in the last thousand years, so your percentages are not particularly meaningful.

Dr. Who
12-06-2017, 10:18 PM
Indeed, if you and I mutually voluntarily agree--a contract--then we ought to abide by that agreement and the law ought to enforce it. No argument there.

The baker never agreed to make the cake, he said no. No contract.


Obtaining a license is different for it is forced upon you. You have no choice.

Of course you have a choice. You don't have to be retail trade establishment. You can operate a bakery that is not open to the public and just supplies other establishments. Thousands do. They even make wedding cakes. The choice was his because he considers himself a cake artist. He can't have his cake and eat it.

Chris
12-06-2017, 10:37 PM
Of course you have a choice. You don't have to be retail trade establishment. You can operate a bakery that is not open to the public and just supplies other establishments. Thousands do. They even make wedding cakes. The choice was his because he considers himself a cake artist. He can't have his cake and eat it.

That's not a free choice. One ought to be free to pursue happiness as one sees fit--another DoI founding principle, a right that the government denies people.

Safety
12-06-2017, 10:39 PM
Indeed, if you and I mutually voluntarily agree--a contract--then we ought to abide by that agreement and the law ought to enforce it. No argument there.

The baker never agreed to make the cake, he said no. No contract.


Obtaining a license is different for it is forced upon you. You have no choice. It you do have a choice, either take it or leave it. Nobody is saying you can have your cake and eat it too.

Safety
12-06-2017, 10:43 PM
That's not a free choice. One ought to be free to pursue happiness as one sees fit--another DoI founding principle, a right that the government denies people.It is the freest of all choices, the choice to pursue another way of life. I find it mildly amusing the amount of effort to argue this point about not being free to choose who to serve, when the underlying premise is that someone is forcing you to have a business. That is incorrect, owning a business is a privilege not a right, just like owning a farm is a choice. Let me know when the government forces you to milk cows.

Chris
12-06-2017, 10:50 PM
Hmmm. Don't see a lot of links/proof in your response either. The preponderance of the human population has grown in the last thousand years, so your percentages are not particularly meaningful.

IOW, you have no challenges to my challenges to you. From quoting me and posting about something else to quoting me and saying nothing. That's not discussion, Who. Forums are all about discussion.


The preponderance of the human population has grown in the last thousand years, so your percentages are not particularly meaningful.

Except for that odd but unfounded claim. The rapid rise in population, that is, the escape from the Multusian Trap, came about largely because of the Enlightenment, based on individualism, free markets, science, technology and industry. All of which you want to regulate with your Rousseauian and Hegelian state.

https://i.snag.gy/NIRHwF.jpg

What I post can be backed up with data.

1-2% of man's existence stateless:


Until shortly before the common era, the very last I percent of human history,
the social landscape consisted of elementary, self-governing, kinship
units that might, occasionally, cooperate in hunting, feasting, skirmishing,
trading, and peacemaking. It did not contain anything one could call a state.

James C Scott, The Art of Not Being Governed.

And the sources for you just-so stories and wishful thinking?

Chris
12-06-2017, 10:52 PM
It you do have a choice, either take it or leave it. Nobody is saying you can have your cake and eat it too.

Was the baker given a choice? No, the law is imposed upon him and he is forced to serve others he chooses not to serve.

Did slaves have a free choice? No, the law imposed slavery on them.

Chris
12-06-2017, 10:56 PM
It is the freest of all choices, the choice to pursue another way of life. I find it mildly amusing the amount of effort to argue this point about not being free to choose who to serve, when the underlying premise is that someone is forcing you to have a business. That is incorrect, owning a business is a privilege not a right, just like owning a farm is a choice. Let me know when the government forces you to milk cows.

But not the freedom to choose the career you prefer.

No one has argued you're forced to have a business, I think you're amused at your own musings.

My argument is you should be free to pursue happiness as you so choose, to contract and associate with whom you choose, etc etc etc all without interference from a government so long as you do no harm. And no one here has explained the harm in a baker choosing not to bake a cake for someone.

Safety
12-06-2017, 11:00 PM
IOW, you have no challenges to my challenges to you. From quoting me and posting about something else to quoting me and saying nothing. That's not discussion, Who. Forums are all about discussion.



Except for that odd but unfounded claim. The rapid rise in population, that is, the escape from the Multusian Trap, came about largely because of the Enlightenment, based on individualism, free markets, science, technology and industry. All of which you want to regulate with your Rousseauian and Hegelian state.

https://i.snag.gy/NIRHwF.jpg

What I post can be backed up with data.

1-2% of man's existence stateless:



James C Scott, The Art of Not Being Governed.

And the sources for you just-so stories and wishful thinking?

https://www.sabhlokcity.com/wp-content/uploads/india-lags-since1750.jpg

Well, if you rather live in Uganda or Bolivia to enjoy the type of society that is free from government like you advocate for, go right ahead.

Safety
12-06-2017, 11:04 PM
Was the baker given a choice? No, the law is imposed upon him and he is forced to serve others he chooses not to serve.

Did slaves have a free choice? No, the law imposed slavery on them.

The law was not "imposed" on him, he was aware of the law when he applied for the business license. He just figured that he could pull a Kim Davis type of stunt to appeal to the right to support him. Some fell for it.

Sorry, as you continue to invoke the slave meme, it just doesn't have the effect you hope it will. You're not going to be able to play to my emotion, because while a great many men died to end slavery, it gives me satisfaction to see the ideology that supported the institution of slavery attempt to use it as a crutch to support their new target of hatred.

Chris
12-06-2017, 11:06 PM
https://www.sabhlokcity.com/wp-content/uploads/india-lags-since1750.jpg

Well, if you rather live in Uganda or Bolivia to enjoy the type of society that is free from government like you advocate for, go right ahead.

If you compare the two charts you will see they say the same thing. Those whose economies declined failed to follow Enlightenment ideals especially free markets. You all's advocating regulating the market will lead us down the same trail. Great ideas!!

Safety
12-06-2017, 11:07 PM
But not the freedom to choose the career you prefer.

No one has argued you're forced to have a business, I think you're amused at your own musings.

My argument is you should be free to pursue happiness as you so choose, to contract and associate with whom you choose, etc etc etc all without interference from a government so long as you do no harm. And no one here has explained the harm in a baker choosing not to bake a cake for someone.

Your freedom to choose a career /=/ slavery, tyranny, or fascism. If you want to bake cakes all your life and that gives you joy, then open a bakery and sell all the fucking cakes you can make to your heart's content, but if hating on gays trumps your enjoyment of baking cakes, then attempt to make a living on hating gays.

Chris
12-06-2017, 11:08 PM
The law was not "imposed" on him, he was aware of the law when he applied for the business license. He just figured that he could pull a Kim Davis type of stunt to appeal to the right to support him. Some fell for it.

Sorry, as you continue to invoke the slave meme, it just doesn't have the effect you hope it will. You're not going to be able to play to my emotion, because while a great many men died to end slavery, it gives me satisfaction to see the ideology that supported the institution of slavery attempt to use it as a crutch to support their new target of hatred.

Is he free to choose to serve whom he pleases or not? No, he is not.

It is imposed.

Kim Davis worked for the government, like Agent Zero. The government should stick to equality before the law and not discriminate.


The slave mem is intended to appeal to your intellect, not your emotions. And, yes, I see, it's failing.

Safety
12-06-2017, 11:10 PM
If you compare the two charts you will see they say the same thing. Those whose economies declined failed to follow Enlightenment ideals especially free markets. You all's advocating regulating the market will lead us down the same trail. Great ideas!!

Yes, they say the same thing, if you want to live in abject poverty or in shanties, follow the societal model you propose, but if you like your iphone and enjoy the internet to have arguments with strangers about hating on gays more than baking cakes, then follow the model that has government. When are you emigrating to Uganda?

Safety
12-06-2017, 11:14 PM
Is he free to choose to serve whom he pleases or not? No, he is not.

It is imposed.

Kim Davis worked for the government, like Agent Zero. The government should stick to equality before the law and not discriminate.


The slave mem is intended to appeal to your intellect, not your emotions. And, yes, I see, it's failing.

Then he is in a pickle of his own choosing. If his reluctance to bake a cake for a gay person, trumps his desire to turn a profit, then he is free to close up shop and tour the country like Westboro Church. Bottom line, he has a choice. Nobody is taking him outback and beating him with a whip or attempting to lynch him, nor cutting off his foot for not baking a cake.

Chris
12-06-2017, 11:20 PM
Then he is in a pickle of his own choosing. If his reluctance to bake a cake for a gay person, trumps his desire to turn a profit, then he is free to close up shop and tour the country like Westboro Church. Bottom line, he has a choice. Nobody is taking him outback and beating him with a whip or attempting to lynch him, nor cutting off his foot for not baking a cake.

He's in a pickle because the government takes away his rights. And there is no conflict cof rights where anyone's rights are violated by his choosing not to serve them.

No one is arguing anything you're arguing against.

Safety
12-06-2017, 11:32 PM
He's in a pickle because the government takes away his rights. And there is no conflict cof rights where anyone's rights are violated by his choosing not to serve them.

No one is arguing anything you're arguing against.

The government did not take any rights from him. Stop abusing the word.

Chris
12-06-2017, 11:34 PM
The government did not take any rights from him. Stop abusing the word.

His freedom to pursue happiness as he saw fit, his freedom to associate with whom he pleases, his freedom to to contract with whom he pleases.

Your denial is not an argument.

Safety
12-06-2017, 11:40 PM
His freedom to pursue happiness as he saw fit, his freedom to associate with whom he pleases, his freedom to to contract with whom he pleases.

Your denial is not an argument.

He is able to do all those things as a private citizen, as a business owner he is required to abide by the laws he agreed to when obtaining his business license. Driving may give you happiness and the ability to associate with those you want and the freedom to let ride in your vehicle whom you want, but if you speed, you will lose that privilege. It's not that hard to understand, sheesh.

Chris
12-06-2017, 11:48 PM
It's interesting, having read Who's and Safety's views are repeats of the collectivist left in Europe, the leading socialists, who followed Rousseau and Hegel, Marx and others. I'm sitting here reading about those well-known people and how they claimed the moral highground of altruism where morality is selfless, where the individual is expected to sacrifice for the greater good of the collective and how socialist leaders know better than the people what they want, and how true freedom is to be found in complete submission to the law. Of course that was dealt two blows. The second the bloody suppression of revolt in Hungary by Societ tanks and troops, all to send the message thosee two keep repreating that you eith er like it or leave. The first blow was the slightly earlier admission by Khrushchev of Stalin's mass murders of Soviet citizens. History says such thinking fails. Yet here we see it again.

There is a difference. Back then it was all about oppression of workers and class struggle, nowadays it's about the oppression of identity groups and identity politics.

Dr. Who
12-06-2017, 11:48 PM
IOW, you have no challenges to my challenges to you. From quoting me and posting about something else to quoting me and saying nothing. That's not discussion, Who. Forums are all about discussion.



Except for that odd but unfounded claim. The rapid rise in population, that is, the escape from the Multusian Trap, came about largely because of the Enlightenment, based on individualism, free markets, science, technology and industry. All of which you want to regulate with your Rousseauian and Hegelian state.

https://i.snag.gy/NIRHwF.jpg

What I post can be backed up with data.

1-2% of man's existence stateless:



James C Scott, The Art of Not Being Governed.

And the sources for you just-so stories and wishful thinking?

So your graph about economic success has to do with what? Certainly not anarchistic states. Show me graphs about economically successful anarchistic nations if you can find any that have populations greater than a million people or a government at all. The population was increasing not just because of the enlightenment. It increased because of basic birth rate and multiplication i.e. X has 10 children who have 100 children who have 1000 children etc, allowing for disease, war and early death.

Chris
12-06-2017, 11:48 PM
He is able to do all those things as a private citizen, as a business owner he is required to abide by the laws he agreed to when obtaining his business license. Driving may give you happiness and the ability to associate with those you want and the freedom to let ride in your vehicle whom you want, but if you speed, you will lose that privilege. It's not that hard to understand, sheesh.

Yes, as I just posted, he is able to find freedom in submitting to the government.

Chris
12-06-2017, 11:51 PM
So your graph about economic success has to do with what? Certainly not anarchistic states. Show me graphs about economically successful anarchistic nations if you can find any that have populations greater than a million people or a government at all. The population was increasing not just because of the enlightenment. It increased because of basic birth rate and multiplication i.e. X has 10 children who have 100 children who have 1000 children etc, allowing for disease, war and early death.

I explained what the graph had to do with. Go back and read. Look for Malthus.

And please don't quote me unless you have something to say about what I post.

Like I've said to Safety several times, no one is arguing for what you're arguing against--here, no one but you has mentioned anarchy, but it's not part of the argument about the baker. --Do you see how I comment on your post? Try it. It's really easy.

Safety
12-06-2017, 11:56 PM
It's interesting, having read Who's and Safety's views are repeats of the collectivist left in Europe, the leading socialists, who followed Rousseau and Hegel, Marx and others. I'm sitting here reading about those well-known people and how they claimed the moral highground of altruism where morality is selfless, where the individual is expected to sacrifice for the greater good of the collective and how socialist leaders know better than the people what they want, and how true freedom is to be found in complete submission to the law. Of course that was dealt two blows. The second the bloody suppression of revolt in Hungary by Societ tanks and troops, all to send the message thosee two keep repreating that you eith er like it or leave. The first blow was the slightly earlier admission by Khrushchev of Stalin's mass murders of Soviet citizens. History says such thinking fails. Yet here we see it again.

There is a difference. Back then it was all about oppression of workers and class struggle, nowadays it's about the oppression of identity groups and identity politics.

What interests me is Chris's appeal to authority, when I'm simply showing how a douchebag who didn't want to sell a cake to a couple of gay guys has him all wound up like the Gestapo raided his business and had his way with his wife. Your appeal to history also doesn't apply here.

Dr. Who
12-07-2017, 12:22 AM
I explained what the graph had to do with. Go back and read. Look for Malthus.

And please don't quote me unless you have something to say about what I post.

Like I've said to Safety several times, no one is arguing for what you're arguing against--here, no one but you has mentioned anarchy, but it's not part of the argument about the baker. --Do you see how I comment on your post? Try it. It's really easy.

You know what Chris, you don't actually argue about what I post either. Anarchy is the source of your posts. I can't help but mention it because you don't believe in the state at all, so without mentioning anarchy your posts don't even make any reasonable sense. It's like arguing with someone from another planet. You just say the law is wrong or shouldn't exist and start name dropping economists and theory. That ignores the reality of states and the reality of economics. Perhaps I should fall back on my perfect utopia - the world of Star Trek, where people don't need money at all and capitalism or even the free market is a distant amusing memory.

Dr. Who
12-07-2017, 12:46 AM
It's interesting, having read Who's and Safety's views are repeats of the collectivist left in Europe, the leading socialists, who followed Rousseau and Hegel, Marx and others. I'm sitting here reading about those well-known people and how they claimed the moral highground of altruism where morality is selfless, where the individual is expected to sacrifice for the greater good of the collective and how socialist leaders know better than the people what they want, and how true freedom is to be found in complete submission to the law. Of course that was dealt two blows. The second the bloody suppression of revolt in Hungary by Societ tanks and troops, all to send the message thosee two keep repreating that you eith er like it or leave. The first blow was the slightly earlier admission by Khrushchev of Stalin's mass murders of Soviet citizens. History says such thinking fails. Yet here we see it again.

There is a difference. Back then it was all about oppression of workers and class struggle, nowadays it's about the oppression of identity groups and identity politics.

Why does every argument about the state result in comments about collectivism, socialism and ultimately communism with you? You have somehow equated human rights protections with violent political regimes. Should I follow your way of thinking, I should suggest that your views are repeats of Southern Dixiecrats like Strom Thurmond, Russell Long, Harry Byrd and George Wallace.

Dr. Who
12-07-2017, 12:58 AM
His freedom to pursue happiness as he saw fit, his freedom to associate with whom he pleases, his freedom to to contract with whom he pleases.

Your denial is not an argument.
Just like no one in the south really took away black rights when they didn't allow them in restaurants, hotels (except as workers), on buses except in the back or allowed them to drink from the same water fountains, swim in the same swimming pools or attend the same schools as whites. Rights of association truly reigned supreme in the south. Such a tribute to freedom, unless of course you were black.

NapRover
12-07-2017, 06:31 AM
The “using religion to hide bigotry” argument is bogus. You shouldn’t be able to demand someone else caves to your way of thinking-and if they don’t, label them a bigot.

Safety
12-07-2017, 07:16 AM
Just like no one in the south really took away black rights when they didn't allow them in restaurants, hotels (except as workers), on buses except in the back or allowed them to drink from the same water fountains, swim in the same swimming pools or attend the same schools as whites. Rights of association truly reigned supreme in the south. Such a tribute to freedom, unless of course you were black. But that was different, it wasn't about civil rights, it was about victim groups and identity politics.... :rollseyes:

Blacks didn't need to have their rights protected, especially not at the expense of denying whites the right to hate them...I swear sometimes I think George Wallace is posting here from the grave.

Safety
12-07-2017, 07:23 AM
The “using religion to hide bigotry” argument is bogus. You shouldn’t be able to demand someone else caves to your way of thinking-and if they don’t, label them a bigot.Nah, it isn't bogus, when an establishment who wants to cite religion as the reason for them to not serve gays, shows me their reluctance to not serve adulterers, shellfish consumers, people who work on Sunday, etc., then I will buy the whole "it goes against my religion" meme.

Chris
12-07-2017, 08:10 AM
What interests me is Chris's appeal to authority, when I'm simply showing how a douchebag who didn't want to sell a cake to a couple of gay guys has him all wound up like the Gestapo raided his business and had his way with his wife. Your appeal to history also doesn't apply here.

I'm pointing out you two's appeal to authority and how it parallels the thinking of socialists. Indeed, I'm appealing to history. You appeal to name calling.

Chris
12-07-2017, 08:14 AM
You know what Chris, you don't actually argue about what I post either. Anarchy is the source of your posts. I can't help but mention it because you don't believe in the state at all, so without mentioning anarchy your posts don't even make any reasonable sense. It's like arguing with someone from another planet. You just say the law is wrong or shouldn't exist and start name dropping economists and theory. That ignores the reality of states and the reality of economics. Perhaps I should fall back on my perfect utopia - the world of Star Trek, where people don't need money at all and capitalism or even the free market is a distant amusing memory.

Oh, but I do, Who, I address what you post.

If anarchy is the source of my posts why do I argue the purpose of the government is to protect rights and property and contract? I've argued that repeatedly.

This reminds me of my thread asking is atheism rational and all the aethists attacked theism as if that rationally made their case for atheism. --Attacking anarchy doesn't justify your socialist approach here. Dream on.

Chris
12-07-2017, 08:17 AM
Why does every argument about the state result in comments about collectivism, socialism and ultimately communism with you? You have somehow equated human rights protections with violent political regimes. Should I follow your way of thinking, I should suggest that your views are repeats of Southern Dixiecrats like Strom Thurmond, Russell Long, Harry Byrd and George Wallace.

Because that is the framework within which you argue. The following post of yours demonstrates that:


First of all, I disagree with you, thus my argument reflects my disagreement. Laws are justified by public acceptance.
Since America is a nation of laws, I suspect that contextually, my argument, which is founded in reality rather than in purist ideology that lacks any contemporary application other than in minuscule populations in the last thousand years, and where it did exist, has long since been replaced with variations on the current theme, is actually more valid. Corruption of laws by corrupt people does not invalidate the need for laws or taint all laws by association. Just as inasmuch as some people are bad drivers, we don't abolish cars and driving. Corrupt laws are eventually identified by the people and vacated accordingly.

The state has repeatedly been chosen by humankind because it removes the bumps from the road. People do not prefer anarchy. They like predictability and laws, so that they can make plans. Just as where businesses that merge, consolidate administration for greater efficiency, states consolidate the administration of territories, so that people don't have to spend inordinate amounts of time, money and effort performing tasks that they can sub out to government. (in a nutshell). The notion of government is not wrong. The notion of the state is not wrong. The only thing that is wrong is the behavior of individuals and regardless of whether there is a state or anarchy, corrupt individuals will connive to usurp fairness.

That is what Rousseau and Hegel argued, hell, it goes back to Plato.



Should I follow your way of thinking, I should suggest that your views are repeats of Southern Dixiecrats like Strom Thurmond, Russell Long, Harry Byrd and George Wallace.\

That's a nice claim. What do you offer to substantiate it? ...Nothing. It's just a vacuous accusation. Basically it shows your angry so you lash out.

Safety
12-07-2017, 08:19 AM
I'm pointing out you two's appeal to authority and how it parallels the thinking of socialists. Indeed, I'm appealing to history. You appeal to name calling.

I can name call as I please, as long as it isn't directed towards any member. What's the problem now?

Chris
12-07-2017, 08:22 AM
Just like no one in the south really took away black rights when they didn't allow them in restaurants, hotels (except as workers), on buses except in the back or allowed them to drink from the same water fountains, swim in the same swimming pools or attend the same schools as whites. Rights of association truly reigned supreme in the south. Such a tribute to freedom, unless of course you were black.


I keep asking, what rights? The right to force one to serve another?

The right of association doesn't mean you get to unilaterally choose whom you associate with, it has to be mutual.


What's interesting is the violations of rights of black of slavery and segregation you mention were commited by the government and its laws, the government you say is morally right in doing that, it's the law after all..

Chris
12-07-2017, 08:23 AM
I can name call as I please, as long as it isn't directed towards any member. What's the problem now?

Yes, you can. It's your reputation.

Safety
12-07-2017, 08:27 AM
Yes, you can. It's your reputation.

LoL, on that schtick again?

Dr. Who
12-07-2017, 06:30 PM
That's a nice claim. What do you offer to substantiate it? ...Nothing. It's just a vacuous accusation. Basically it shows your angry so you lash out.
I'm not angry. I'm just suggesting that if I were to follow your lead I would attribute your views to the gentlemen I listed who sought to justify their beliefs in rights of association (presumably along with those of their constituents). That this resulted in bad law only reinforces the problem with such attitudes. The laws were passed to avoid the open conflicts that resulted from people objecting to being treated as unequal citizens through denial of services and accommodations. The law didn't come first. It was reactive but in favor of the majority. It was also totally unconstitutional and self-serving. It spared the Courts from having to rule against white people in favor of blacks based on the existing impartial laws.