Judge rejects couple's argument for refusing gay customers

[Chris]

There is similarly nothing in the enumerated powers about hunting licenses or driver's licenses, MV. Should a state or municipality, then, be able - without challenge or appeal - to say that only White males can obtain a hunting license, or that only Protestants over the age of 50 can legally drive? Protecting a U.S. citizen from being discriminated against for no good reason is the purview of the federal courts regardless of subject matter.

Indeed, protecting the rights of all against the intrusions and discriminations of the government is really what the BoR is about.

And by the 10th amendment, states are not prohibited from making other laws--so long as they do not violate the rights of the people, to, say, own a business, choose whom to do business with, and so on.

[Dr. Who]

And, pray tell, what harm does refusing to bake a cake or videotape for a wedding do? Protection? LOL.

What harm would there be if Walmart refused to serve people of color or McDonalds refused to serve the obese or Safeway only catered to WASPs? Every individual case can create a legal precedent. If that precedent happened then Chick-Fil-A could refuse to serve gay people as could all manner of other establishments and by extension, any minority could be refused service. It would then not be a huge leap to discriminate in employment or housing. Then the legal recognition of rights, so hard won, would be forfeit.

[rcfieldz]

Christian porn is safe sex right?

[Peter1469]

What harm would there be if Walmart refused to serve people of color or McDonalds refused to serve the obese or Safeway only catered to WASPs? Every individual case can create a legal precedent. If that precedent happened then Chick-Fil-A could refuse to serve gay people as could all manner of other establishments and by extension, any minority could be refused service. It would then not be a huge leap to discriminate in employment or housing. Then the legal recognition of rights, so hard won, would be forfeit.

If Walmart refused to sell to blacks- what would happen if some blacks opened their own store which would sell to blacks?

These what if questions do not reflect reality.

Walmart isn't going to cut off dark people.

[Cletus]

What harm would there be if Walmart refused to serve people of color or McDonalds refused to serve the obese or Safeway only catered to WASPs? Every individual case can create a legal precedent. If that precedent happened then Chick-Fil-A could refuse to serve gay people as could all manner of other establishments and by extension, any minority could be refused service. It would then not be a huge leap to discriminate in employment or housing. Then the legal recognition of rights, so hard won, would be forfeit.

You would strip citizens of their right to associate with people of their own choosing. You would strip them of their right to not be forced to labor for another against their will. What you want is just a new form of involuntary servitude.

Involuntary Servitude

Slavery; the condition of an individual who works for another individual against his or her will as a result of force, coercion, or imprisonment, regardless of whether the individual is paid for the labor.


Think about that definition.It is EXACTLY what you are promoting. The 13th Amendment to the US Constitution made that illegal, not that the Constitution actually matters to the Left.

[Standing Wolf]

Christian porn is safe sex right?

"Sex may be safe...love never is." - Harvey Fierstein

[Standing Wolf]

I suppose a state could make such a law. If the federal government had said any male may marry any unrelated female as long as both are adults they would have remained within the Constitution, the law, and history. But they didn't.

Can the five men and women in black dresses decide I can marry any number of others of any sex or age including relatives and children? If not, why not?

You're looking at the situation backwards - which in this instance is no doubt the reason for your confusion. The high court did not "make it legal" for same-sex couples to marry; it struck down laws that made it illegal for a state to discriminate against same-sex couples. There is an important difference. The court, in effect, told state governments that, without a demonstrable and compelling public interest in doing so, a citizen cannot be excluded from participating in a public institution like marriage. Should a state decide that it was going to cease issuing all marriage licenses and stop registering marriages, unless there was some provision in that state's constitution requiring it to do so, I don't believe they would be running afoul of any law.

To address your (fully expected and decidedly unoriginal) question about polygamous, incestuous or child marriage directly - if a citizen or citizens felt strongly enough about the matter to challenge a state's exclusion of them from the civil marriage institution on one or more of those bases, we might see that play out in the courts, but I personally would not give much for their chances. If, however, you wish to advocate for the removal of any or all of those restrictions, I'm willing to listen to your arguments.

[MisterVeritis]

f the federal government had said any male may marry any unrelated female as long as both are adults they would have remained within the Constitution, the law, and history. But they didn't.

Can the five men and women in black dresses decide I can marry any number of others of any sex or age including relatives and children? If not, why not?

You're looking at the situation backwards - which in this instance is no doubt the reason for your confusion. The high court did not "make it legal" for same-sex couples to marry; it struck down laws that made it illegal for a state to discriminate against same-sex couples. There is an important difference.

It is a difference without a distinction. The Federal government has no authority to define marriage.

Would it be legal and acceptable to you if a federal court made it illegal for a state to prevent any number of people from marrying one another as a group? Could I marry three or four or five other men and women in my neighborhood? Could the court make it illegal to discriminate against the man who wishes to marry the cute seven-year-old boy or girl next door? Could the court make it illegal for the state to make laws prohibiting someone from marrying their parent or child?

Self-governance is a fundamental human right. You so readily trash it.

[MisterVeritis]

To address your (fully expected and decidedly unoriginal) question about polygamous, incestuous or child marriage directly - if a citizen or citizens felt strongly enough about the matter to challenge a state's exclusion of them from the civil marriage institution on one or more of those bases, we might see that play out in the courts, but I personally would not give much for their chances. If, however, you wish to advocate for the removal of any or all of those restrictions, I'm willing to listen to your arguments.

Once you decide any and all questions must be resolved by five men and women in black dresses there are no limits to their tyranny.

I am disappointed in you.

[Chris]

What harm would there be if Walmart refused to serve people of color or McDonalds refused to serve the obese or Safeway only catered to WASPs? Every individual case can create a legal precedent. If that precedent happened then Chick-Fil-A could refuse to serve gay people as could all manner of other establishments and by extension, any minority could be refused service. It would then not be a huge leap to discriminate in employment or housing. Then the legal recognition of rights, so hard won, would be forfeit.

So tell us, Who, what harm would there be? Kind of interesting the way you dance around the question.

Answer, there's no harm involved, none whatsoever.

No, don't get me wrong, I don't advocate discrimination. I wouldn't shop at any store that did. And theirin lie the solution. Remember how you always condemn business for seeking profit? No major business like Walmart would exclude customers like that, and lose others like me. No, they would compete to serve them. It's just simple economics and business sense.

So what we're left is small mom and pop bakeries and photo/video shop who are really quite insiginificant in the bigger picture.

But SJWs need something to cry about.