No cake for gays at Muslim bakery

[resister]

This comes as no surprise, evidently if you are Muslim, you can refuse service to gays. Your thoughts and opinions?


https://youtu.be/RgWIhYAtan4

[Chris]

Anyone should be able to refuse anyone for any reason.

[resister]

Anyone should be able to refuse anyone for any reason.
I agree. A miscarriage of justice. Pretty sure DGUtley concurs?

[Crepitus]

They should bake them a cake, or they shouldn't be baking anyone cakes for pay.

[Chris]

They should bake them a cake, or they shouldn't be baking anyone cakes for pay.

Why? Explain. This involves two people coming together to agree voluntarily on a contract to bake a cake. The customer is certainly free to turn down the baker, for any reason, so equally, the baker should be free to turn down the customer, for any reason.

[Croft]

I've a feeling it won't be a big issue or CNN or any other "mainstream" media. Now if they were Christians...

[resister]

I've a feeling it won't be a big issue or CNN or any other "mainstream" media. Now if they were Christians...
You know it!

[Safety]

If the "muslim" bakery violated the local ordinance regarding public accommodation, then they should be fined and/or have their business license revoked.

[Chris]

If the "muslim" bakery violated the local ordinance regarding public accommodation, then they should be fined and/or have their business license revoked.

The question isn't what is the law but whether the law is right. To argue the law is what the law is is circular.

[Safety]

The question isn't what is the law but whether the law is right. To argue the law is what the law is is circular.

The question is based entirely on the law. We are a nation of laws, remember?


The law is the authority here. If we're not a nation of laws then what are we?

So, now that we have established a precedent on you agreeing that we are a nation of laws, and that the local municipality has established a law regulating business transactions that is within its jurisdiction, there is really nothing else you can say on the matter. Thanks for participating.

[Chris]

The question is based entirely on the law. We are a nation of laws, remember?



So, now that we have established a precedent on you agreeing that we are a nation of laws, and that the local municipality has established a law regulating business transactions that is within its jurisdiction, there is really nothing else you can say on the matter. Thanks for participating.

Not what a nation of laws means. In fact, this sort of thing is the opposite, a nation of men arbitrarily deciding who is treated specially at other's expense.

(Stop twisiting things and putting words in my mouth.)

[texan]

This comes as no surprise, evidently if you are Muslim, you can refuse service to gays. Your thoughts and opinions?


https://youtu.be/RgWIhYAtan4

The bakery will likely win an award from the Obama administration. Unless the bakery doesn't let trans people pee in either restroom.

[Safety]

Not what a nation of laws means. In fact, this sort of thing is the opposite, a nation of men arbitrarily deciding who is treated specially at other's expense.

(Stop twisiting things and putting words in my mouth.)

No twisting is present, so I would appreciate if you would stop attempting to distract and derail. This is a nation of laws, not men. The laws established at the local level were done by individuals voted into office for exactly that purpose.

This is a municipality, the people select who will represent them on local issues and zoning laws. The business owners can relocate to a jurisdiction more accommodating to their biased views, or they can find another line of work.

This sort of thing is not the opposite, it is just not to your liking, therefore you must find a fault with it.

[Mister D]

The bakery will likely win an award from the Obama administration. Unless the bakery doesn't let trans people pee in either restroom.
I don't know. She looks a little too white for her own good. If she's Albanian or Bosnian we might have a conflict here.

[Chris]

No twisting is present, so I would appreciate if you would stop attempting to distract and derail. This is a nation of laws, not men. The laws established at the local level were done by individuals voted into office for exactly that purpose.

This is a municipality, the people select who will represent them on local issues and zoning laws. The business owners can relocate to a jurisdiction more accommodating to their biased views, or they can find another line of work.

This sort of thing is not the opposite, it is just not to your liking, therefore you must find a fault with it.


What is just is not determined by popular vote nor by elites elected to represent us. Nation of laws means rule of law means everyone follows th same law, not special laws for special people.

[Safety]

What is just is not determined by popular vote nor by elites elected to represent us. Nation of laws means rule of law means everyone follows th same law, not special laws for special people.

Every business owner in that jurisdiction is expected to follow the same law. There is no special law, nor argument that can be made about it.

[The Xl]

They should have the right to refuse. Doubt anything comes of this either way though.

[Trumpster]

This comes as no surprise, evidently if you are Muslim, you can refuse service to gays. Your thoughts and opinions?


https://youtu.be/RgWIhYAtan4

I think the only time a gay person would go into a Muslim bakery asking for a wedding cake, is when there's a hidden camera and he's trying to prove a point. Otherwise, the two parties naturally dislike each other and would never think of doing business together. This fact more or less rules out the need for debate. But, in general, I think it highlights the point that the owner should be able to refuse service. What's the point of being a member of a super strict religion if you don't follow its teachings? Perhaps she believes she will go to hell if she does business with him.

[The Xl]

I doubt gays would genuinely go to a Muslim bakery anyway, at least not at a significant quantity. They only seem to have a bone to pick with Christians, despite Christianity and Christians generally being a lot more tolerant and less violent towards gays than Muslims are.

[Chris]

Every business owner in that jurisdiction is expected to follow the same law. There is no special law, nor argument that can be made about it.

That's rule BY law, not rule OF law. Rule OF law would uphold the reciprocal nature of a contract where both parties are equally free to approve or negate a deal. Rule BY law grants the customer the right while it revokes the right of the businessman.

[Chris]

They should have the right to refuse. Doubt anything comes of this either way though.

Agree, they should. Should is a moral question, a question of what's just.

[Tahuyaman]

They should bake them a cake, or they shouldn't be baking anyone cakes for pay.


They should be able to refuse service if conducting that service violates their religious faith. It shouldn't make any difference if that religious faith is Christian, Islamic or any faith.

[The Xl]

We're not a nation of laws anyway, the law is enforced or ignored depending or the person or the situation.

[Chris]

We're not a nation of laws anyway, the law is enforced or ignored depending or the person or the situation.

In 1780, according to John Adams we were "a government of laws and not of men." But that changed long ago.

[Bob the Slob]

This comes as no surprise, evidently if you are Muslim, you can refuse service to gays. Your thoughts and opinions?



More fake news from the right.

[Bob the Slob]

They should have the right to refuse. Doubt anything comes of this either way though.

No, not if they want to do business in this secular nation getting secular tax deductions. Now, if they want to join the Trumpers in Russia, they can sure do that.

[Dr. Who]

This comes as no surprise, evidently if you are Muslim, you can refuse service to gays. Your thoughts and opinions?


https://youtu.be/RgWIhYAtan4
My reaction is the same as it was with the Christian baker. If you have a license to sell to the public, you cannot refuse service on the basis of race,ethinicity, gender, religion or sexual orientation.

[Bob the Slob]

In 1780, according to John Adams we were "a government of laws and not of men." But that changed long ago.

How so? Show us your evidence.

[Chris]

How so? Show us your evidence.

That we were once a nation of laws? Read the Constitution.

[Mister D]

I doubt gays would genuinely go to a Muslim bakery anyway, at least not at a significant quantity. They only seem to have a bone to pick with Christians, despite Christianity and Christians generally being a lot more tolerant and less violent towards gays than Muslims are.

They wouldn't go to a Christian bakery either. You don't seriously believe these homo activists just happen to walk into Christian bakeries, do you?

[resister]

How so? Show us your evidence.


More fake news from the right.
Refer to your above post, you love making unsupported statements, then you ask others for proof.:rollseyes:

[Chris]

They wouldn't go to a Christian bakery either. You don't seriously believe these homo activists just happen to walk into Christian bakeries, do you?

Sounds like the opening to a bar joke.

[Chris]

My reaction is the same as it was with the Christian baker. If you have a license to sell to the public, you cannot refuse service on the basis of race,ethinicity, gender, religion or sexual orientation.

Right, it's the law, but how do you justify it?

[Crepitus]

Why? Explain. This involves two people coming together to agree voluntarily on a contract to bake a cake. The customer is certainly free to turn down the baker, for any reason, so equally, the baker should be free to turn down the customer, for any reason.

If you're gonna run a public business you gotta do business with the public.

[Mister D]

If you're gonna run a public business you gotta do business with the public.

How do you justify it? @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) you just repeat yourself.

[Crepitus]

How do you justify it? @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) you just repeat yourself.

I think that statement is pretty easy to understand.

[Mister D]

I think that statement is pretty easy to understand.

Yes, but not as justification.

[Chris]

I think that statement is pretty easy to understand.

But why?

[resister]

Socialist love the idea of Government dictating private business. Furthermore, they would rather Gov just take it over, right Maxine?22027

[Mister D]

But why?
Because it's the law, Chris.

And around and around we go!

[Mister D]

Don't worry. We'll stop from time to time to accuse you of racism, sympathy for slavery or something like that.

[Dr. Who]

Right, it's the law, but how do you justify it?

Government gives permit conditional on abiding by government rules. No different than a drivers license. You can't drive on the wrong side of the road or exceed the speed limit. Similarly, if you have a license to trade, you have to abide by the public accommodation laws that are the law of the land and the state. Resistance is futile.

[Mister D]

Government gives permit conditional on abiding by government rules. No different than a drivers license. You can't drive on the wrong side of the road or exceed the speed limit. Similarly, if you have a license to trade, you have to abide by the public accommodation laws that are the law of the land and the state. Resistance is futile.

And around and around we go!

[Chris]

Don't get me wrong, as some are wont to do. When I ask why I ask why is the law just? How do you justify it. Especially in a context of rule of law, a nation of laws, where everyone is treated equally before the law. Here you have an exchange, a contract, between two people who will exchange as long as each values more what he's getting that what he's giving up. The valuation is purely subjective--you can't decide for anyone else what they value at the moment. If one can reject the deal then eqaully so too should the other be able to do so. Both must be free to choose...as long as no one does harm we should add. So given this market situation, why is it just to enact a law that favors one over the other? In a contract situation you would expect the law to protect both sides, not just one. And, no, the question isn't about how people ought to treat others, we probably agree on that. The question is how is a law than favors the gay and forces the baker to labor for the gay when he has decided he does not value it, how is that fair and just and equal?

[Chris]

Government gives permit conditional on abiding by government rules. No different than a drivers license. You can't drive on the wrong side of the road or exceed the speed limit. Similarly, if you have a license to trade, you have to abide by the public accommodation laws that are the law of the land and the state. Resistance is futile.

You're merely repeating yourself, the law is the law, we all know what the law is. My question is how is this law just?

[Mister D]

Don't get me wrong, as some are wont to do. When I ask why I ask why is the law just? How do you justify it. Especially in a context of rule of law, a nation of laws, where everyone is treated equally before the law. Here you have an exchange, a contract, between two people who will exchange as long as each values more what he's getting that what he's giving up. The valuation is purely subjective--you can't decide for anyone else what they value at the moment. If one can reject the deal then eqaully so too should the other be able to do so. Both must be free to choose...as long as no one does harm we should add. So given this market situation, why is it just to enact a law that favors one over the other? In a contract situation you would expect the law to protect both sides, not just one. And, no, the question isn't about how people ought to treat others, we probably agree on that. The question is how is a law than favors the gay and forces the baker to labor for the gay when he has decided he does not value it, how is that fair and just and equal?
The people who get you wrong do so because such questions are deeply offensive to their value system. They will impose their values and you will like it.

[Mister D]

BTW, this is an excellent example of progressives not being able to hold their own.

[Bob the Slob]

That we were once a nation of laws? Read the Constitution.
No, that we no longer are, dodger.


In 1780, according to John Adams we were "a government of laws and not of men." But that changed long ago.

[Bob the Slob]

BTW, this is an excellent example of progressives not being able to hold their own.

Really? Are you saying that laws ONLY exist when all people sign them and the our representative government is not real?


Don't get me wrong, as some are wont to do. When I ask why I ask why is the law just? How do you justify it. Especially in a context of rule of law, a nation of laws, where everyone is treated equally before the law. Here you have an exchange, a contract, between two people who will exchange as long as each values more what he's getting that what he's giving up. The valuation is purely subjective--you can't decide for anyone else what they value at the moment. If one can reject the deal then eqaully so too should the other be able to do so. Both must be free to choose...as long as no one does harm we should add. So given this market situation, why is it just to enact a law that favors one over the other? In a contract situation you would expect the law to protect both sides, not just one. And, no, the question isn't about how people ought to treat others, we probably agree on that. The question is how is a law than favors the gay and forces the baker to labor for the gay when he has decided he does not value it, how is that fair and just and equal?

[Dr. Who]

You're merely repeating yourself, the law is the law, we all know what the law is. My question is how is this law just?
It's just because both parties agreed to the terms of the license. A license to trade is not a right, the same as driving is not a right. Don't like the terms - don't do retail. Sell to other businesses who do retail.

[Mister D]

It's just because both parties agreed to the terms of the license. A license to trade is not a right, the same as driving is not a right. Don't like the terms - don't do retail. Sell to other businesses who do retail.
And around and around we go!

[Bob the Slob]

And around and around we go!

Well, the right maybe. You dodge the request to prove your point and come up with the inane Trumper unmeanings in English.

[Dr. Who]

And around and around we go!

Same question, different day, same answer. Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

[Kacper]

Same question, different day, same answer. Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Nobody needs a wedding cake. They just want one.

[Ann Fann]

Same question, different day, same answer. Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

I saw that movie, too.

[Ann Fann]

Government gives permit conditional on abiding by government rules. No different than a drivers license. You can't drive on the wrong side of the road or exceed the speed limit. Similarly, if you have a license to trade, you have to abide by the public accommodation laws that are the law of the land and the state. Resistance is futile.

Wrong, the government changed the rules in the middle of the game. What is this, the Darth Vader "I am altering the deal, pray that I don't alter it further"?

[midcan5]

As a member of society you agree to its law you should serve all or be refused a permit to operate your business. If you want to move to a deserted island with no civil society or law you can serve whomever you like. Good luck. I don't understand why this is even an issue in America?

[resister]

As a member of society you agree to its law you should serve all or be refused a permit to operate your business. If you want to move to a deserted island with no civil society or law you can serve whomever you like. Good luck. I don't understand why this is even an issue in America?
22028

[Dr. Who]

Wrong, the government changed the rules in the middle of the game. What is this, the Darth Vader "I am altering the deal, pray that I don't alter it further"?

The rules were altered because too many were paying taxes and being refused service in their own communities. Segregation of business is inconvenient for patrons and leads to both resentment and social unrest as well as raising legitimate questions about the logic of allocating of licenses to people whose personal issues prevent them from accommodating all of the public at large. Licenses are allocated to accommodate the public, not the licensee.

[Chris]

It's just because both parties agreed to the terms of the license. A license to trade is not a right, the same as driving is not a right. Don't like the terms - don't do retail. Sell to other businesses who do retail.

This is just a repeat of social contract theory. It leads to a contradiction. It begins as a free choice, "both parties agreed," and ends forced, "Don't like the terms - don't do retail." What is just and right and true cannot be contradictory.

You also continue to beg the question. The contract isn't btween the individual and the government, but between individuals. What justifies the government intefering in their free, subjective choices?

[Chris]

Same question, different day, same answer. Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

No, it does not. I already pointed out that arguing from popularity is logically fallacious. And I've already pointed out the government in incapable of even knowing the ever-changing subjective valuations of the people.

Bob the Slob, here, with Who's post, is your second proof. In 1780, according to John Adams we were "a government of laws and not of men." But that changed long ago. We are, now, according to Who here a government of majoritarian dictatorship. --Of course Who doesn't really mean that, she believes that the people are too stupid to freely choose and require a government of elites dictating their choises for them, iow, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few as those few anointed ones deem fit.

[Chris]

Nobody needs a wedding cake. They just want one.

Indeed, liberals tend to use the word need for want.

[Chris]

As a member of society you agree to its law you should serve all or be refused a permit to operate your business. If you want to move to a deserted island with no civil society or law you can serve whomever you like. Good luck. I don't understand why this is even an issue in America?


Rousseauian echo chamber on social contract theory. We all freely choose to be subjugated--think not, you'll be forcefully removed.

[Dr. Who]

This is just a repeat of social contract theory. It leads to a contradiction. It begins as a free choice, "both parties agreed," and ends forced, "Don't like the terms - don't do retail." What is just and right and true cannot be contradictory.

You also continue to beg the question. The contract isn't btween the individual and the government, but between individuals. What justifies the government intefering in their free, subjective choices?
http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/93069-No-cake-for-gays-at-Muslim-bakery?p=2253864&viewfull=1#post2253864

[Chris]

The rules were altered because too many were paying taxes and being refused service in their own communities. Segregation of business is inconvenient for patrons and leads to both resentment and social unrest as well as raising legitimate questions about the logic of allocating of licenses to people whose personal issues prevent them from accommodating all of the public at large. Licenses are allocated to accommodate the public, not the licensee.

Good grief. You pay taxes to the government for government services like defense, police and fire protect, ...and tax collection. You do not pay taxes so the government can force others to serve you.

Licensing is used to protect people from harm. But there is no harm done in refusing to serve someone. And so we're right back at the question how do you justify such a law?

[Chris]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/93069-No-cake-for-gays-at-Muslim-bakery?p=2253864&viewfull=1#post2253864

Already answered. You continue the beg the question of justifying the law. And before you throw up you hands and blame me, I will just assume you cannot justify the law. You like it, you favor it, but you cannot justify it.

[Chris]

Here's a simple thought experiment. Suppose a world in which the law said that gays cannot be served by bakers. Absurd, yes, but many of you who argue the law justifies itself would suddenly reverse yourselves and condemn the law. Now if you can imagine yourself condemning such a law then you are beginning to realize what it means to justify the law that's the topic here...or perhaps condemn that law for the same reason.

[Chris]

One further point here is that the majoritarian argument of Who and others, that is the notion of the will of the people, the public good, that they think argues against segregation, is the very argument that leads to segregation. For in any community, you will have a majority of this or that who can justify, by the majoritarian rule, the will of the people, the public good the segregating of minorities from the majority, with seating in the back of the bus, special drinking fountains, entrance through rear of the store, disenfrachisement and more. But it is justified as being for the majority, for the will of the people, for the public good by officials elected to serve them.

Oh, wait, you mean the public good as you imagine it should be.

[Dr. Who]

No, it does not. I already pointed out that arguing from popularity is logically fallacious. And I've already pointed out the government in incapable of even knowing the ever-changing subjective valuations of the people.

@Bob the Slob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1780), here, with Who's post, is your second proof. In 1780, according to John Adams we were "a government of laws and not of men." But that changed long ago. We are, now, according to Who here a government of majoritarian dictatorship. --Of course Who doesn't really mean that, she believes that the people are too stupid to freely choose and require a government of elites dictating their choises for them, iow, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few as those few anointed ones deem fit.

Your argument supporting the needs of biased licensees over the needs of the general public is illogical. The point of licensing business is to choose licensees that will benefit the entire community, not the licensee. The mandate of the licensing body is to act on behalf of and provide services to the taxpayers in general, not to allow a licensee to exclude members of the community over personal prejudices. You cannot discuss a government controlled forum for business and reject the government's mandate as well as the law.

[Boris The Animal]

If you're gonna run a public business you gotta do business with the public.Not always. Businesses have every right to pick and choose their clientele.

[Dr. Who]

Good grief. You pay taxes to the government for government services like defense, police and fire protect, ...and tax collection. You do not pay taxes so the government can force others to serve you.

Licensing is used to protect people from harm. But there is no harm done in refusing to serve someone. And so we're right back at the question how do you justify such a law?
There certainly is harm in refusing service. Go back to Jim Crow and see the harm. Go back even more recently and see the number of LGBT people refused jobs, accommodations and services. Your supposed freedom comes at a price - not to you, but to minority groups in general. Petty, mentally deranged stupidity should not be encouraged. You don't want your labor to be forced, fine, find another way to make a living. Do I give a rat's behind if a baker has to make a cake for someone he doesn't approve of - no. Thousands of people work in slaughterhouses, sewage treatment plants, collect garbage, clean toilets, work in sewers or clean crud out of pipes for a living. Do you think they are 100% happy about their jobs? Soldiers get shot at for a living. Please spare me the bleeding heart sympathy for those whose sensibilities are offended by having to serve a minority that they don't like. What a load of self-centered, self-serving crapola. If you obtain a license to serve the public, the public you shall serve, not just the public of your choice. Licensees can get with the program or get out of business.

[Dr. Who]

Good grief. You pay taxes to the government for government services like defense, police and fire protect, ...and tax collection. You do not pay taxes so the government can force others to serve you.

Licensing is used to protect people from harm. But there is no harm done in refusing to serve someone. And so we're right back at the question how do you justify such a law?
Do you think that licenses are handed out by lottery? No, they are chosen based on community needs.

[Ethereal]

If the "muslim" bakery violated the local ordinance regarding public accommodation, then they should be fined and/or have their business license revoked.

If it were left up to the local government, then you might have a point. But liberals have told us that the US government must enforce "civil rights" regardless of what the local democracy wants.

[Crepitus]

Not always. Businesses have every right to pick and choose their clientele.

Why?

[Ethereal]

Why?
Freedom of association; private property rights; individual liberty.

[resister]

Why?
Because in America (at least the one we used to know) The government cant force private business into servitude. Where the baker fucked up was stating they would not serve because it goes against the Bible.

Would of been better off just saying, "I want you to leave" the reason? Just because. *no reason needed* or "I pay the rent and you don't"

[Chris]

Your argument supporting the needs of biased licensees over the needs of the general public is illogical. The point of licensing business is to choose licensees that will benefit the entire community, not the licensee. The mandate of the licensing body is to act on behalf of and provide services to the taxpayers in general, not to allow a licensee to exclude members of the community over personal prejudices. You cannot discuss a government controlled forum for business and reject the government's mandate as well as the law.

I did not argue for the need for biased licenses. Why are you making up that strawman?

I argued the purpose of licensing is not to control who you enter into agreements, contracts and exchanges with, but to protect those one both parties agree.


The point of licensing business is to choose licensees that will benefit the entire community, not the licensee.

That's circular. The point of licensing is licensing?

But let's ignore that. How do you benefit the entire community when you make laws that benefit some to the detriment of others? Where's the equality in that? Where's the justice?

Ditto your repeating "act on behalf of and provide services to the taxpayers in general". You speak of serving all but that's not what happens.


You cannot discuss a government controlled forum for business and reject the government's mandate as well as the law.

But I can ask you how the law you favor is justified--and you have failed to even attempt to address that.

[Chris]

There certainly is harm in refusing service. Go back to Jim Crow and see the harm. Go back even more recently and see the number of LGBT people refused jobs, accommodations and services. Your supposed freedom comes at a price - not to you, but to minority groups in general. Petty, mentally deranged stupidity should not be encouraged. You don't want your labor to be forced, fine, find another way to make a living. Do I give a rat's behind if a baker has to make a cake for someone he doesn't approve of - no. Thousands of people work in slaughterhouses, sewage treatment plants, collect garbage, clean toilets, work in sewers or clean crud out of pipes for a living. Do you think they are 100% happy about their jobs? Soldiers get shot at for a living. Please spare me the bleeding heart sympathy for those whose sensibilities are offended by having to serve a minority that they don't like. What a load of self-centered, self-serving crapola. If you obtain a license to serve the public, the public you shall serve, not just the public of your choice. Licensees can get with the program or get out of business.


There certainly is harm in refusing service.

We have had dozens of threads on this topic and I have asked what is the harm and no one has answered that. You aren't explaining the harm now.


Go back to Jim Crow and see the harm. Go back even more recently and see the number of LGBT people refused jobs, accommodations and services. Your supposed freedom comes at a price - not to you, but to minority groups in general. Petty, mentally deranged stupidity should not be encouraged. You don't want your labor to be forced, fine, find another way to make a living. Do I give a rat's behind if a baker has to make a cake for someone he doesn't approve of - no. Thousands of people work in slaughterhouses, sewage treatment plants, collect garbage, clean toilets, work in sewers or clean crud out of pipes for a living. Do you think they are 100% happy about their jobs? Soldiers get shot at for a living. Please spare me the bleeding heart sympathy for those whose sensibilities are offended by having to serve a minority that they don't like. What a load of self-centered, self-serving crapola. If you obtain a license to serve the public, the public you shall serve, not just the public of your choice. Licensees can get with the program or get out of business.

Well that's all over the emotional map trying to find an answer to what's the harm don if a baker refuses to bake a cake for someone.

What your response exposes is you have your own personal ideal for society and want it forced on others. What it reveals is you do not trust people to work these things out oin their own.


What's odd here in your argument is generally liberals are willing to sacrifice liberty for equality but your argument forces ineqaulity.

[Chris]

Do you think that licenses are handed out by lottery? No, they are chosen based on community needs.

How are these community needs determined, WHo? By lottery, to use your sarcastic excuse for an argument? The law serves the needs of a few, not the many.

[Chris]

Why?

Pathetic, you can't answer why but then you play games asking why. Try to contribute to the discussion.

[Ravens Fan]

Do you think that licenses are handed out by lottery? No, they are chosen based on community needs.

Actually, around here, they are given out based on you being able to pay the required amount to get one. That is all it takes unless it is a specialty license such as a liquor license.

[Ravens Fan]

I have a quick point, as I have already made my thoughts on this subject well known in the many other threads we have had on the same basic thing. What if the baker used the excuse that they just don't offer "gay wedding" cakes? It is not about who orders it, but that they simply do not offer that style of cake. I am sure there are bakeries that do not offer certain things, not all donut shops offer blueberry donuts, we deal with it and move on.

Then they get around being accused of violating anybodies rights, or refusing to serve anyone based on sexual orientation, and it doesn't matter that they do not offer those style cakes due to religious beliefs. I mean, it just seems like the perfect solution for the shop owners, as in all of the cases I have heard of, the owners have no problem making any other cake in the world for the gay customers.

[Chris]

I have a quick point, as I have already made my thoughts on this subject well known in the many other threads we have had on the same basic thing. What if the baker used the excuse that they just don't offer "gay wedding" cakes? It is not about who orders it, but that they simply do not offer that style of cake. I am sure there are bakeries that do not offer certain things, not all donut shops offer blueberry donuts, we deal with it and move on.

Then they get around being accused of violating anybodies rights, or refusing to serve anyone based on sexual orientation, and it doesn't matter that they do not offer those style cakes due to religious beliefs. I mean, it just seems like the perfect solution for the shop owners, as in all of the cases I have heard of, the owners have no problem making any other cake in the world for the gay customers.

That might work and no doubt many work around the issue that way. I mean, unless you state explicitly some bias, you can't be sued.

But, just as I think some gays are trying to make this an issue, some people, like the baker here, and other bakers and other business people, are standing up and making an issue in response.

I believe SCOTUS will start hearing these cases.

[Chris]

On another note you just have to love the liberal love it or leave it dictum. Abide by the license or get out of business. And if businesses take up the idea and close their doors, what will that have solved? Other then the seeming delight liberals take in punishing people who don't conform to their ideology and ideals?

[Ravens Fan]

On another note you just have to love the liberal love it or leave it dictum. Abide by the license or get out of business. And if businesses take up the idea and close their doors, what will that have solved? Other then the seeming delight liberals take in punishing people who don't conform to their ideology and ideals?
Honestly, that is the only point I see in this whole debate. Grow up and move on to the next bakery/grocery store or wherever, don't give them any more of your money and spread the word. Don't bring the courts into something they don't belong in.

[Chris]

Honestly, that is the only point I see in this whole debate. Grow up and move on to the next bakery/grocery store or wherever, don't give them any more of your money and spread the word. Don't bring the courts into something they don't belong in.

They could make a big deal out of it, spread the news this or that baker refuses service, tell the local newspaper, spread it by word of mouth, boycott the bakery, have a sit in, etc.

Let the market determine what the people want, define the people's will, the public good. All it take is trusting the people to decide. People will, I believe, make moral desicsions. Bringing in the government to decide obviates all that, takes away the freedom of the people to choose.

[Mister D]

They could make a big deal out of it, spread the news this or that baker refuses service, tell the local newspaper, spread it by word of mouth, boycott the bakery, have a sit in, etc.

Let the market determine what the people want, define the people's will, the public good. All it take is trusting the people to decide. People will, I believe, make moral desicsions. Bringing in the government to decide obviates all that, takes away the freedom of the people to choose.
The truth is they don't care what people want and they don't trust the people to judge the situation "correctly".

[Ethereal]

Honestly, that is the only point I see in this whole debate. Grow up and move on to the next bakery/grocery store or wherever, don't give them any more of your money and spread the word. Don't bring the courts into something they don't belong in.
Moving on is not in the liberal repertoire. They have a compulsion to control everything.

[Ravens Fan]

Moving on is not in the liberal repertoire. They have a compulsion to control everything.
The same argument could be made for both sides, just on different subjects. I wish both would stop trying to legislate morals.

[The Xl]

They wouldn't go to a Christian bakery either. You don't seriously believe these homo activists just happen to walk into Christian bakeries, do you?

I think it's a lot more likely that gay activists try and screw with Christians as opposed to Muslims.

[The Xl]

The law is the law argument sucks. Slavery was legal once. Was it okay?

[Chris]

The truth is they don't care what people want and they don't trust the people to judge the situation "correctly".

Tear down the social traditions, norms, institutions of that past, free you from all constraints, so the state can design new constriants and re-engineer society.

[Chris]

The law is the law argument sucks. Slavery was legal once. Was it okay?

Yet it was law because the majority wanted it so, it was the will of the people, and all agreed to it by social contract.

[barb012]

Didn't we just have a case recently with a Christian Baker who did not want to make a cake for a gay couple? I seem to remember everyone having a problem with this case but now are fully supportive for a Muslim baker who also does not want to bake a cake for a gay couple.

This is yet another case where liberals will fight for foreign immigrants culture over ours in the US.

[Chris]

Didn't we just have a case recently with a Christian Baker who did not want to make a cake for a gay couple? I seem to remember everyone having a problem with this case but now are fully supportive for a Muslim baker who also does not want to bake a cake for a gay couple.

This is yet another case where liberals will fight for foreign immigrants culture over ours in the US.

The Christian baker case is headed to SCOTUS. That should be interesting. I'm expecting pushback on public accommodation laws, narrow, limited, but pushback.


But, no, the liberals are surprisingly on the gay side in this case involving a Muslim. Must be killing them. :D

[Dr. Who]

How are these community needs determined, WHo? By lottery, to use your sarcastic excuse for an argument? The law serves the needs of a few, not the many.
Often by members of the community contacting their representatives to suggest that the area needs, say a bakery rather than another convenience store.

[Chris]

Often by members of the community contacting their representatives to suggest that the area needs, say a bakery rather than another convenience store.

That explains how one individual at one point in time gets his voice heard. You were arguing about meeting everyone's changing needs. Something that is plainly implausible

[Mister D]

Yet it was law because the majority wanted it so, it was the will of the people, and all agreed to it by social contract.

Oddly enough, that was also true of official segregation.

[Chris]

Oddly enough, that was also true of official segregation.

Exactly.

I don't think liberal really see the contradictions in what they say. Or they don't think it matters.

[Mister D]

Exactly.

I don't think liberal really see the contradictions in what they say. Or they don't think it matters.
Nor do they see the contradictions in their positions on morality and its place in politics. There is a profound irony in their scorn for the faithful.

[Captdon]

Freedom of association; private property rights; individual liberty.

Any right given to one person must be given to all people.- US Constitution.

[Chris]

Nor do they see the contradictions in their positions on morality and its place in politics. There is a profound irony in their scorn for the faithful.

In so many aspects of life, true, true, true.

[Cthulhu]

If the "muslim" bakery violated the local ordinance regarding public accommodation, then they should be fined and/or have their business license revoked.While I disagree based on inherent rights of free association - my thoughts.

[Conservativism]
There should be demonstrations and marches and enormous public outrage to match. Otherwise the pack of it simply means lefties actually hate Christians and let Muslims slide by.[/conservatism]

^^this is what is wrong with our society. People trying to claim prime victimhood like it is a sort of currency or a badge of honor. I know why it happens, but it is extremely foolish for all parties.

This is one of the reasons humans continually disappoint me in large numbers.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

[Cthulhu]

Nor do they see the contradictions in their positions on morality and its place in politics. There is a profound irony in their scorn for the faithful.This is pretty close to true, with scant few exceptions.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

[Cthulhu]

Yet it was law because the majority wanted it so, it was the will of the people, and all agreed to it by social contract.I never did find my signature on the social contract...

Sent from my evil cell phone.

[Chris]

I never did find my signature on the social contract...

Sent from my evil cell phone.


Sarcasm aside, believe me, neither have I, nor would I sign it if anyone ever finds the contract.


Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

Lysander Spooner, No Treason

[Cthulhu]

Sarcasm aside, believe me, neither have I, nor would I sign it if anyone ever finds the contract.


Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

Lysander Spooner, No TreasonWhile I can appreciate the prose of No Treason displayed, I must also recognize the genius and effectiveness of the US Constitution when followed with the intent of its founders.

It isn't perfect - but it was a marvelous creation. And it has changed the world for the better.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

[Safety]

While I disagree based on inherent rights of free association - my thoughts.

[Conservativism]
There should be demonstrations and marches and enormous public outrage to match. Otherwise the pack of it simply means lefties actually hate Christians and let Muslims slide by.[/conservatism]

^^this is what is wrong with our society. People trying to claim prime victimhood like it is a sort of currency or a badge of honor. I know why it happens, but it is extremely foolish for all parties.

This is one of the reasons humans continually disappoint me in large numbers.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

As much as we want it to be different, it really isn’t any different than a person joining a HOA, then later complaining that they didn’t want to cut their grass every week, as required in the bylaws, because it violated their religion. Sorry, you knew the stipulations before signing, so either suck it up and cut your grass, or move.

[Shady Slim]

Why? Explain. This involves two people coming together to agree voluntarily on a contract to bake a cake. The customer is certainly free to turn down the baker, for any reason, so equally, the baker should be free to turn down the customer, for any reason.



. . . and I agree with this.

However, what about a mooslum that walks into an American owned bakery and demands him to bake a "jihadist going away cake"?

Can I refuse or would the left raise enough stink to cause the New York Times to plaster it on page one above the fold?






(and no repercussions about 'mooslums' please. If a member here can say 'president trump' to show illegitimacy, so can I)

[Chris]

While I can appreciate the prose of No Treason displayed, I must also recognize the genius and effectiveness of the US Constitution when followed with the intent of its founders.

It isn't perfect - but it was a marvelous creation. And it has changed the world for the better.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

The Constitution was counter-revolutionary all the same. It opened the door to ever bigger government, as history has shown.

[Chris]

As much as we want it to be different, it really isn’t any different than a person joining a HOA, then later complaining that they didn’t want to cut their grass every week, as required in the bylaws, because it violated their religion. Sorry, you knew the stipulations before signing, so either suck it up and cut your grass, or move.

Provided the rules weren't added later.

None of you all arguing this really provide any evidence when or how public accommodation laws were implemented in these towns.

And none of you justify the laws.

If the law were by public referendum removed, but your legal positivist reasoning, you'd be stuck with liking it.

[Chris]

. . . and I agree with this.

However, what about a mooslum that walks into an American owned bakery and demands him to bake a "jihadist going away cake"?

Can I refuse or would the left raise enough stink to cause the New York Times to plaster it on page one above the fold?






(and no repercussions about 'mooslums' please. If a member here can say 'president trump' to show illegitimacy, so can I)

The left would raise a stink of course.

I would say the choice, based on free association, property rights, etc, should be left to the baken in any case. His choice will have consequences in the market where he makes, or not, his profit.

[Safety]

Provided the rules weren't added later.

None of you all arguing this really provide any evidence when or how public accommodation laws were implemented in these towns.

And none of you justify the laws.

If the law were by public referendum removed, but your legal positivist reasoning, you'd be stuck with liking it.

...and you're arguing from an unknown, which I thought you frowned upon others doing. What we know is this, the law stipulates that a business engaged in commerce in this jurisdiction will not discriminate against citizens. If/when that law is overturned, then the business owner can openly discriminate as they choose to.

[Orion Rules]

Are you sure that some of us, the least, are allowed to even have one thought, without the same kinds of disparagement received from some 'real' opinions?

The Bill of Rights were constructed before any law about who must serve who just because the freedom to associate is a right not to associate with opinions.



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

L/\W 1 Thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, mind, and soul.


Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner; nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

L/\W 3 Thou shalt not attempt to steal or place anything in one's way to stumble or fall.


Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

L/\W 4 Thou shalt not covet what belongs to thy neighbor.



from: "The Bill of Rights and the Laws of Life"
http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/92889-The-Bill-of-Rights-and-the-Laws-of-Life

[Chris]

...and you're arguing from an unknown, which I thought you frowned upon others doing. What we know is this, the law stipulates that a business engaged in commerce in this jurisdiction will not discriminate against citizens. If/when that law is overturned, then the business owner can openly discriminate as they choose to.

Actually I was pointing out that you all on the left are arguing from unknowns. You all assume these laws were in place at the tidme of licensing. But if you recall there was a recent case where that was not true. A farmer who let out his farm for wedding receptions posted online he wouldn't do so for gay weddings. The town nearby then excluded him from participation in the local farmer's market. You all argued public accomodation law hen in fact there was no such law on the books there and the farmer was allowed back in.

As with all this though you all argue circularly that the law is the law and refuse to address dozens of counter arguments.

If this is turning into a conservative/libertarian board it's only because the left's arguments are so weak, repetitive and illogical.

[Safety]

Actually I was pointing out that you all on the left are arguing from unknowns. You all assume these laws were in place at the tidme of licensing. But if you recall there was a recent case where that was not true. A farmer who let out his farm for wedding receptions posted online he wouldn't do so for gay weddings. The town nearby then excluded him from participation in the local farmer's market. You all argued public accomodation law hen in fact there was no such law on the books there and the farmer was allowed back in.

As with all this though you all argue circularly that the law is the law and refuse to address dozens of counter arguments.

If this is turning into a conservative/libertarian board it's only because the left's arguments are so weak, repetitive and illogical.

If you're going to use alternative facts as the basis of your argument, just say so from the onset and save everyone's time.

[Chris]

If you're going to use alternative facts as the basis of your argument, just say so from the onset and save everyone's time.

When I do I'll let you know.

[Dangermouse]

When I do I'll let you know.

You did.. The law is indeed the law. Public accommodation is federal law. Some individual states go even further in some areas, but the law remains the law.

[Bob the Slob]

No, it does not. I already pointed out that arguing from popularity is logically fallacious. And I've already pointed out the government in incapable of even knowing the ever-changing subjective valuations of the people.

@Bob the Slob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1780), here, with Who's post, is your second proof. In 1780, according to John Adams we were "a government of laws and not of men." But that changed long ago. We are, now, according to Who here a government of majoritarian dictatorship. --Of course Who doesn't really mean that, she believes that the people are too stupid to freely choose and require a government of elites dictating their choises for them, iow, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few as those few anointed ones deem fit.

So, you quote and hold onto everything Who tells you. Nice to know. I guess I will ask Who from now on when you post somethingyou can't back. HIS word will be the "proof".

You lack credibility in everything you say. You have no knowledge

[Bob the Slob]

...and you're arguing from an unknown, which I thought you frowned upon others doing. What we know is this, the law stipulates that a business engaged in commerce in this jurisdiction will not discriminate against citizens. If/when that law is overturned, then the business owner can openly discriminate as they choose to.


Chris wants to use Dr. Who as his valid source. Ask Who is Chris agrees with what you said. ;)

[Bob the Slob]

Provided the rules weren't added later.

None of you all arguing this really provide any evidence when or how public accommodation laws were implemented in these towns.

And none of you justify the laws.

If the law were by public referendum removed, but your legal positivist reasoning, you'd be stuck with liking it.
What "accomodation" laws? You take federal tax dollars, you follow federal laws. You go into commerce, you serve the entire secular nation. You can't discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual identity. Pick a law...any law...but to pretend the "accomodate" people is just plain ignorant...

[Chris]

What "accomodation" laws? You take federal tax dollars, you follow federal laws. You go into commerce, you serve the entire secular nation. You can't discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual identity. Pick a law...any law...but to pretend the "accomodate" people is just plain ignorant...

Let's see...nothing new. We've heard those arguments 100s of times. Let's see if you can answer what no one seems capable: How do you justify such laws? How are they just and fair and equal and moral?

[Chris]

You did.. The law is indeed the law. Public accommodation is federal law. Some individual states go even further in some areas, but the law remains the law.

The law is the law is a circular argument.

[Chris]

So, you quote and hold onto everything Who tells you. Nice to know. I guess I will ask Who from now on when you post somethingyou can't back. HIS word will be the "proof".

You lack credibility in everything you say. You have no knowledge

Wow, nice ad hom. Wake me up when you have an argument.

[Chris]

Chris wants to use Dr. Who as his valid source. Ask Who is Chris agrees with what you said. ;)

Not true. Incoherent.

[Dr. Who]

Provided the rules weren't added later.

None of you all arguing this really provide any evidence when or how public accommodation laws were implemented in these towns.

And none of you justify the laws.

If the law were by public referendum removed, but your legal positivist reasoning, you'd be stuck with liking it.
They weren't implemented in towns and cities, they became part of state constitutions which are binding on their municipalities.

[Mister D]

The law is not just the law, Chris. It's binding. That's what you're missing. lol

[Dr. Who]

Chris wants to use Dr. Who as his valid source. Ask Who is Chris agrees with what you said. ;)
He's taking my name in vain again, usually to illustrate what he doesn't agree with.

[Chris]

They weren't implemented in towns and cities, they became part of state constitutions which are binding on their municipalities.

Funny how the claim shifts when challenged. So now it's not municipal law, but state law. And now we go from a municipality trying to know what its people value to state trying to know what millions of people value. Only way that is done is for a few elite central planner to decide for the people what they want. And all with no justifucation but emotions.

But you end up not with a moral society but an amoral one. No longer free to choose, no longer responsible for the consequences of their choosen actions in society, deprived of the very means then of becoming moral, of attaining any dignity in life, mere automatons subservient to the state,

[Chris]

He's taking my name in vain again, usually to illustrate what he doesn't agree with.

No one took your name in vain, Who, why are you joining in the dissembling?

Doesn't agree with? You have provided no justification for the law with which to disagree.

[Chris]

The law is not just the law, Chris. It's binding. That's what you're missing. lol


Just another work for social contract which doesn't exist.

[Mister D]

Just another work for social contract which doesn't exist.
At least you libertarians are consistent. Progressives conceive a tightly circumscribed arena in which the state has no business.

[HawkTheSlayer]

At least you libertarians are consistent. Progressives conceive a tightly circumscribed arena in which the state has no business.

When it comes to progressive conceptions , im afraid the mental arena has been circumcised.

[Chris]

At least you libertarians are consistent. Progressives conceive a tightly circumscribed arena in which the state has no business.

To liberals that tightly circumscribed arena in which the state has no business seems to be the state itself. We have gone from a Constitution written to constrain the government to a government written in laws to constrain society. They know not what they do.

[Dr. Who]

Funny how the claim shifts when challenged. So now it's not municipal law, but state law. And now we go from a municipality trying to know what its people value to state trying to know what millions of people value. Only way that is done is for a few elite central planner to decide for the people what they want. And all with no justifucation but emotions.

But you end up not with a moral society but an amoral one. No longer free to choose, no longer responsible for the consequences of their choosen actions in society, deprived of the very means then of becoming moral, of attaining any dignity in life, mere automatons subservient to the state,
I know I mentioned state constitutions being binding on municipal governments in at least one of the baker threads in the past, so this isn't new information. Public accommodation laws were added to state constitutions shortly after the passage of the CRA, so they've been in place for at least 50 years in most states.

[Dr. Who]

No one took your name in vain, Who, why are you joining in the dissembling?

Doesn't agree with? You have provided no justification for the law with which to disagree.
Here's a justification for the law - fear of mass riots, property damage and the deaths of citizens. Here's another, the US Constitution does not endorse state anarchy - see the Supremacy Clause (https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/supremacy+clause).

[Chris]

Here's a justification for the law - fear of mass riots, property damage and the deaths of citizens. Here's another, the US Constitution does not endorse state anarchy - see the Supremacy Clause (https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/supremacy+clause).

Those are justifications for forcing a baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding? That's plain nuts.

And no one is arguing anarchy.

[Chris]

I know I mentioned state constitutions being binding on municipal governments in at least one of the baker threads in the past, so this isn't new information. Public accommodation laws were added to state constitutions shortly after the passage of the CRA, so they've been in place for at least 50 years in most states.



Again, asked for justification for the law, we get this is the law, the law is the law.

Do you, being a long dependent on the state to make your moral choices of actions towards others in society, no longer know what justification or condemnation means?

[Dr. Who]

Those are justifications for forcing a baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding? That's plain nuts.

And no one is arguing anarchy.
The law is justified, because if you give an inch, people will take a mile. It's either no discrimination or a free for all. There is no in-between position that won't tie up the Courts indefinitely with "what about this" cases. It's like the forum rules - broad enough so that everyone can't jump all over and past the line, suggesting there wasn't an explicit rule left out of a list of 200 explicit rules.

[Chris]

The law is justified, because if you give an inch, people will take a mile. It's either no discrimination or a free for all. There is no in-between position that won't tie up the Courts indefinitely with "what about this" cases. It's like the forum rules - broad enough so that everyone can't jump all over and past the line, suggesting there wasn't an explicit rule left out of a list of 200 explicit rules.

Is that a joke, you justify the law base on "if you give an inch, people will take a mile"? Seriously? A mile cof hwat? You have not established any harm. Or do you justify it on grounds "There is no in-between position"? Seriously? You need to justify it going to court. And saying "It's like the forum rules" is once agian just saying the rules are the rules, which is circular.

Fail.

[Chris]

You all positive law enthusiasts do realize the location of the Muslim bakery is in Dearborn, MI, don't you? You do realize there is no public accommodation law locally or state-wide there barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, don't you? Hurry, look it up, positive law enthusiasts!! Scramble!!!

Mkay, the law is the law. Like you I don't need to justify it, it is what it is.

[Dr. Who]

You all positive law enthusiasts do realize the location of the Muslim bakery is in Dearborn, MI, don't you? You do realize there is no public accommodation law locally or state-wide there barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, don't you? Hurry, look it up, positive law enthusiasts!! Scramble!!!

Mkay, the law is the law. Like you I don't need to justify it, it is what it is.

IV. THE ROLE OF A REVIVED COMMON LAW DUTY TO SERVE
A revival of the principles underlying the common law duty to serve can help those who suffer sexual orientation discrimination in states whosepublic accommodations statutes do not explicitly provide protection. First, under the canon of statutory construction requiring conformity with the common law, courts can read state public accommodations statutes to provide more expansive protection in light of the common law duty to serve’s foundational principles. Second, and more ambitiously, in those states that either lack public accommodations laws altogether or whose courts refuse to construe those laws more broadly, the common law can provide an independent cause of action sounding in tort.

A. Common Law Conformity
A fundamental premise of the American legal system is that legislatures have the ability to override the common law. But courts retain the ability to constrain the legislature; even where a statutory codification exists, courts are obligated to apply the common law unless and until the legislature explicitly abrogates it. Justice Breyer recently discussed this canon of statutory construction in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., a case that involved the first-sale doctrine of copyright law. In holding that the relevant sections of the Copyright Act should be read to conform with preexisting common law principles, Justice Breyer noted that “‘[w]hen a statute covers an issue previously governed by the common law,’ [courts] must presume that ‘Congress intended to retain the substance of the common law.’” Indeed, this canon has long dictated that “[s]tatutes which invade the common law . . . are to be read with a presumption favoring the retention of long-established and familiar principles, except when a statutory purpose to the contrary is evident.” Guided by this interpretive canon, Justice Breyer read the relevant statutory provisions in light of the “impeccable historic pedigree” of the common law doctrine of first sale, which he traced back to the fifteenth century. Judges should interpret state public accommodations statutes in the same manner. Unless a statute manifests the legislature’s explicit intent to abrogate the common law duty to serve, judges should read these statutes in light of the duty’s historical and foundational principles, as outlined above in Part I of this Comment, and provide citizens protection against all arbitrary discrimination in public accommodations.

http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9483&context=penn_law_review

[Chris]

...http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9483&context=penn_law_review


There is no public accommodation law locally or state-wide there barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

You have gone from local law, to state law to some abstraction you pull out of a legal scholarship paper.

There is no public accommodation law locally or state-wide there barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Therefore, by your and other's legal positivistic argument, discrimination by sexual orientation is justified there.


You and others should also come out and admit you made it up out of whole cloth that this case involves public accommodation laws. That was pure bullcrap. Do you even believe yourselves?

[Dr. Who]

There is no public accommodation law locally or state-wide there barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

You have gone from local law, to state law to some abstraction you pull out of a legal scholorship paper.

There is no public accommodation law locally or state-wide there barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Therefore, by your and other's legal positivistic argument, discrimination by sexual orientation is justified there.


You and other should also come out and admit you made it up out of whole cloth that this case invloved public accommodation laws. That was pure bullcrap. Do you even believe yourselves?

You do realize that there is existing legal precedent based in common law to support non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation? That really was the point of posting that paper. Furthermore, since the intent of the CRA is to prevent discrimination on the basis of something as intrinsic to a person's identity as their religion, then sexual orientation, being no less intrinsic to identity, the intent of the CRA will be interpreted broadly by the Courts. As the Supremacy Clause basically imposes the CRA on all states, even if they have not adopted similar protections under their own Constitutions, a decision based on the CRA will have legal force in any state.

Perhaps you see the law as an abstraction, however, it's an abstraction that is permitted by the Constitution.

[Ann Fann]

The rules were altered because too many were paying taxes and being refused service in their own communities. Segregation of business is inconvenient for patrons and leads to both resentment and social unrest as well as raising legitimate questions about the logic of allocating of licenses to people whose personal issues prevent them from accommodating all of the public at large. Licenses are allocated to accommodate the public, not the licensee.
I don't believe that for a second. If you want to buy a cake anybody will sell you one, custom orders are another thing altogether, they are refused routinely for any number of reasons. If one vendor can't or won't do it, the next one will.

[Chris]

You do realize that there is existing legal precedent based in common law to support non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation? That really was the point of posting that paper. Furthermore, since the intent of the CRA is to prevent discrimination on the basis of something as intrinsic to a person's identity as their religion, then sexual orientation, being no less intrinsic to identity, the intent of the CRA will be interpreted broadly by the Courts. As the Supremacy Clause basically imposes the CRA on all states, even if they have not adopted similar protections under their own Constitutions, a decision based on the CRA will have legal force in any state.

Perhaps you see the law as an abstraction, however, it's an abstraction that is permitted by the Constitution.

You do realize no such law exists in Dearbord, MI.

You do realize you flit from one argument to another, and all about the law, without so much as once trying to justfy it.

You do realize by your positive law arguments, discriminating by sexual orientation is justified.

[Boris The Animal]

Here's the real agenda of the Left. They want to destroy every tradition and norm that made America great in the first place. Especially religious freedom and freedom of conscience.

[Chris]

Here's a justification for the law - fear of mass riots, property damage and the deaths of citizens. Here's another, the US Constitution does not endorse state anarchy - see the Supremacy Clause (https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/supremacy+clause).

So where are the mass riots, property damage and the deaths of citizens in Dearborn, MI, which lacks a public accommodation law preventing discrimination by sexual orientation?

[Chris]

Wanted to present the facts for Dearborn, MI.

First off, http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/state-public-accommodation-laws.aspx presents state data.

https://i.snag.gy/EtMh1d.jpg

Now that's dated 7/13/2016, so we know up to that date Dearborn, MI, had no public accommodation law concerning sexual orientation.

But what about later than that?

Sept. 16, 2017 it was reported that Michigan Board May Declare LGBT Discrimination Unlawful (https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/michigan/articles/2017-09-16/michigan-board-may-declare-lgbt-discrimination-unlawful). Basically there was a push by liberals to circumvent the legislative process.

Sept. 18, 2017 it was reported Michigan Civil Rights Commission declines to reinterpret civil rights law to include LGBT (https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2017/09/18/michigan-civil-rights-commission-declines-reinterpret-civil-rights-law-include-lgbt/677172001/).

24 states, in fact, have no public accommodation law concerning sexual orientation.

[Shady Slim]

We're not a nation of laws anyway, the law is enforced or ignored depending or the person or the situation.

Yes, tremendous reply!

Thank you for bringing this up. No one else has.

[Dr. Who]

So where are the mass riots, property damage and the deaths of citizens in Dearborn, MI, which lacks a public accommodation law preventing discrimination by sexual orientation?
The mass riots, PD and deaths relate to the creation of the CRA to begin with, not just discrimination over sexual orientation. However, the intent of the CRA was to prevent discrimination and the violation intrinsic civil rights.

[Dr. Who]

I don't believe that for a second. If you want to buy a cake anybody will sell you one, custom orders are another thing altogether, they are refused routinely for any number of reasons. If one vendor can't or won't do it, the next one will.

Look, if you are stupid enough to be obviously discriminatory then litigation is in your future. Discretion is the better part of valor. However, even then, if every time someone who is LGBT asks for a wedding cake, you have an excuse, it will eventually become known and then the accusations will start. The point is that if you operate to serve the public, you can't just make wedding cakes for weddings that you approve and decline those that you don't because you have an issue with same-sex marriage. You're being asked to bake a cake, not attend the consummation. The legal extension of this is that if the baker doesn't have to bake the cake, because he or she disagrees with SS marriage then the apartment building owner doesn't have to rent an apartment because he or she disagrees with what people may be doing in the privacy of their bedrooms. The business owner can then reject LGBT people for employment because they disapprove of being gay for any number of reasons and we are back at square one, with LGBT people often having to become prostitutes to earn a living. You drive homosexuality back underground and into the closet with all of the negative sociological repercussions.

[Chris]

The mass riots, PD and deaths relate to the creation of the CRA to begin with, not just discrimination over sexual orientation. However, the intent of the CRA was to prevent discrimination and the violation intrinsic civil rights.

No, it didn't, Who. People peacefully demonstrated and boycotted government busing and private business. Read up on Martin Luther King.

[Chris]

Look, if you are stupid enough to be obviously discriminatory then litigation is in your future. Discretion is the better part of valor. However, even then, if every time someone who is LGBT asks for a wedding cake, you have an excuse, it will eventually become known and then the accusations will start. The point is that if you operate to serve the public, you can't just make wedding cakes for weddings that you approve and decline those that you don't because you have an issue with same-sex marriage. You're being asked to bake a cake, not attend the consummation. The legal extension of this is that if the baker doesn't have to bake the cake, because he or she disagrees with SS marriage then the apartment building owner doesn't have to rent an apartment because he or she disagrees with what people may be doing in the privacy of their bedrooms. The business owner can then reject LGBT people for employment because they disapprove of being gay for any number of reasons and we are back at square one, with LGBT people often having to become prostitutes to earn a living. You drive homosexuality back underground and into the closet with all of the negative sociological repercussions.

Dystopian BS.

[Dr. Who]

No, it didn't, Who. People peacefully demonstrated and boycotted government busing and private business. Read up on Martin Luther King.
MLK was not the only aspect of the Civil Rights Movement. There were riots in a number of cities over a number of years beginning with the outset of Jim Crow. MLK was a calming influence, but if the CRA hadn't happened, MLK would have been unable to keep the genie in the bottle for much longer. In 1963 riots took place in Chicago, Philadelphia, Lexington (NC) and Cambridge, MD.


On June 11, 1963, George Wallace, Governor of Alabama, tried to block the integration of the University of Alabama. President John F. Kennedy sent a mili" tary force to make Governor Wallace step aside, allowing the enrollment of Vivian Malone Jones and James Hood. That evening, President Kennedy addressed the nation on TV and radio with his historic civil rights speech, where he lamented "a rising tide of discontent that threatens the public safety. He called on Congress to pass new civil rights legislation, and urged the country to embrace civil rights as "a moral issue...in our daily lives." In the early hours of June 12, Medgar Evers, field secretary of the Mississippi NAACP, was assassinated by a member of the Klan. The next week, as promised, on June 19, 1963, President Kennedy submitted his Civil Rights bill to Congress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_civil_rights_movement_(1954%E2%80%931968)

[Dr. Who]

Dystopian BS.

OK.

[Chris]

MLK was not the only aspect of the Civil Rights Movement. There were riots in a number of cities over a number of years beginning with the outset of Jim Crow. MLK was a calming influence, but if the CRA hadn't happened, MLK would have been unable to keep the genie in the bottle for much longer. In 1963 riots took place in Chicago, Philadelphia, Lexington (NC) and Cambridge, MD.


On June 11, 1963, George Wallace, Governor of Alabama, tried to block the integration of the University of Alabama. President John F. Kennedy sent a mili" tary force to make Governor Wallace step aside, allowing the enrollment of Vivian Malone Jones and James Hood. That evening, President Kennedy addressed the nation on TV and radio with his historic civil rights speech, where he lamented "a rising tide of discontent that threatens the public safety. He called on Congress to pass new civil rights legislation, and urged the country to embrace civil rights as "a moral issue...in our daily lives." In the early hours of June 12, Medgar Evers, field secretary of the Mississippi NAACP, was assassinated by a member of the Klan. The next week, as promised, on June 19, 1963, President Kennedy submitted his Civil Rights bill to Congress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_civil_rights_movement_(1954%E2%80%931968)


The point, the one you perhaps deliberately miss, is that civil rights were won despite the government enforcing segregation.

[Chris]

OK.

OK.

Here's the problem, Who. It's already been demonstrated that you make stuff up out of whole cloth. You went on and on about local public accommodation laws protecting sexual orientation in this case and, when challenged, shifted to state laws. On and on about these laws...that do not exist.

Now here you are bullshitting again disastroushe disasterous effects of not having public accommodation laws protecting sexual orientation. None of what you say is logical, nor is it factual. For here were have a case where there are no such laws and yet not of the things you say are true if such laws do not exist, from apartment rental, to gays forced to prostitute, to riots and more...but here we are in this case there are no such laws and none of that has happened.

It's the phoniest argument I've ever come across.

[Dr. Who]

OK.

Here's the problem, Who. It's already been demonstrated that you make stuff up out of whole cloth. You went on and on about local public accommodation laws protecting sexual orientation in this case and, when challenged, shifted to state laws. On and on about these laws...that do not exist.

Now here you are bullshitting again disastroushe disasterous effects of not having public accommodation laws protecting sexual orientation. None of what you say is logical, nor is it factual. For here were have a case where there are no such laws and yet not of the things you say are true if such laws do not exist, from apartment rental, to gays forced to prostitute, to riots and more...but here we are in this case there are no such laws and none of that has happened.

It's the phoniest argument I've ever come across.
What you don't seem to understand is that courts can, have and will interpret federal law broadly. You can decry my comments as is your right, but you do seem to have a fundamental blind spot when it comes to legal interpretation. The state doesn't have to have specific legislation applying to sexual orientation. It's easier if it does, but not having it is not a free pass to discriminate against LGBT people.

[Chris]

What you don't seem to understand is that courts can, have and will interpret federal law broadly. You can decry my comments as is your right, but you do seem to have a fundamental blind spot when it comes to legal interpretation. The state doesn't have to have specific legislation applying to sexual orientation. It's easier if it does, but not having it is not a free pass to discriminate against LGBT people.

Interpret what law, Who. Dearbon, MI, has no public accommodation law regarding discrimination of sexual orientation. Period. To keep harping, as you do, that it does and it's just interpretation, is diningenuous.



free pass to discriminate against LGBT people

Please do not so blatantly misrepresent my argument. It is your argument that where there are no such laws gays will be prevented from apartment rental, forced to prostitute, that there will be riots and more. But there is no law there and that isn't happening.

It is my argument that that none of your appeals to emotion and fear will happen.

[Dr. Who]

Interpret what law, Who. Dearbon, MI, has no public accommodation law regarding discrimination of sexual orientation. Period. To keep harping, as you do, that it does and it's just interpretation, is diningenuous.




Please do not so blatantly misrepresent my argument. It is your argument that where there are no such laws gays will be prevented from apartment rental, forced to prostitute, that there will be riots and more. But there is no law there and that isn't happening.

It is my argument that that none of your appeals to emotion and fear will happen.
Most people tend to believe that such discrimination is illegal, which is fortunate. That doesn't mean that if it became widely known that there is no specific state law preventing such discrimination that some won't try discriminating. When people believed that they could legally discriminate, they did.

[Chris]

Most people tend to believe that such discrimination is illegal, which is fortunate. That doesn't mean that if it became widely known that there is no specific state law preventing such discrimination that some won't try discriminating. When people believed that they could legally discriminate, they did.

It is known that, iirc, 24 of 50 states do not have public accommodations laws preventing discrimination for sexual orientation. By you all liberal's reckoning about representation then nearly half the states' people disagree with you. Therefore, once again, you're stating fanciful information as if it's fact. It's not. (It's quite fun to use your arguments against you!)

To be honest you really should add some I thinks and I believes and I wishes to your prose. Stop representing your personal views and that of the public at large.

[Chris]

I have to point out how amazing it is that you, Who, have gone from adamantly stating there are local public accommodation laws preventing discrimination for sexual orientation, to adamantly stating there are state laws, to adamantly stating there is legal scholarship about it, to now adamantly stating most people believe there are. Each time you are completely sure of what you're saying and each time you're show wrong. Blind faith much?

And all this time you have not once attempted to address any counter-arguments nor answer questions about whether and how such laws would be just.

[Mister D]

It is known that, iirc, 24 of 50 states do not have public accommodations laws preventing discrimination for sexual orientation. By you all liberal's reckoning about representation then nearly half the states' people disagree with you. Therefore, once again, you're stating fanciful information as if it's fact. It's not. (It's quite fun to use your arguments against you!)

To be honest you really should add some I thinks and I believes and I wishes to your prose. Stop representing your personal views and that of the public at large.
If so many people would discriminate if given the chance that should tell us something about what people actually desire. Once again, the people telling us that religion belongs in church have no compunctions about forcing their values on everyone else. Oh, they try to rationalize it of course. They try to make their views appear normative but from time to time they drop their rhetorical guard and admit they're not.