Citizen Kane-473667

When One Right Conflicts With Another

  
By:  Citizen Kane-473667  •  Politics  •  4 weeks ago  •  115 comments

When One Right Conflicts With Another
It is quite obvious that if you have the Right to Assemble, you also have the Right to NOT Assemble.

We have a problem. The problem being when the Supreme Court legislates from the bench via its rulings. The Constitution is quite clear on the division of powers within the government, and yet the SCOTUS continually overstep their authority through their rulings. I'm going to tackle one of the MOST hot topic buttons there is:

Discrimination versus Freedom of Association

The Constitution encompasses the Freedom of Assembly in the First Amendment:

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

It is quite obvious that if you have the Right to Assemble, you also have the Right to NOT Assemble. This has been upheld by the SCOTUS through various rulings but the most famous of these would be the ban on being forced to join a Labor Union in order to work if you don't want to. even though the SCOTUS  has also done the reverse by ruling you cannot discriminate based on Race, Creed, Religion, Sex, or Sexual orientation. In other words, you have the Right to NOT associate with a group, but you are being FORCED to associate with another!  The bottom line is this is a legal conflict of opposing rulings. The question becomes which Rights are predominate over another?

Where exactly are the lines being drawn? As we all know, it really depends on the makeup of the SCOTUS itself as to which way the Rulings will lean. This Court is supposed to be two main things; Impartial, and ruling on the Constitutionality of the Laws in question before it. It is indeed a very rare occasion when you will find the SCOTUS itself in complete agreement which illustrates the conundrum I am bringing before you. With the appoint for Life to the bench, a Supreme Court Judge may actually be holding views which have become outdated, or too progressive for the majority of Voters, and yet they will still be imposing their outdated or progressive views upon the Nation at large simply because of their longevity. This is hardly fair to the Public because it is their opinions that are coloring their Rulings, not the letter of the Law and the Constitution. The ONLY question they should be ruling on is does the case before them violate either the Letter of the Law, or the Rights guaranteed by the Constitution as written. If it does not, then it is up to the Legislators to decide whether the Law itself needs to be changed. The Legislators are elected by the People and better reflect the views of the Voters (and of course the special interests who fund their campaigns--a whole different topic).

How do we solve it?

So how should we address this issue? Is it time to do away with these Lifetime appointments? Maybe a better idea would be to expand the size of the Court itself? Maybe a combination of the two ideas? There is no designated number of Judges for the Supreme Court in the Constitution. The number is set by Statue which Congress can increase it at will. Considering the length of time between the bringing of a case to The Supreme Court and the length of time to receive a Ruling, this may be a good idea so that Cases can be broken up between panels and therefore speeding the process. A special rule could be employed whereas a Bill would have to pass BOTH House of Congress by a 2/3's majority and must also be signed by the President, ordering the new, full, expanded Court to review a Ruling issued by one of the panels. Maybe, just maybe, by expanding the Court we can finally get a Ruling on exactly which Rights are greater than the others and their ranking?????

Tags

jrBlog - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Citizen Kane-473667
1  author  Citizen Kane-473667    4 weeks ago

Trump is NOT the topic of this discussion.

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
1.1  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @1    3 weeks ago

[REMOVED]

 
 
 
Ender
2  Ender    4 weeks ago

Just gotta say, I don't see how people are forced to be with people they don't like.

As far as lifetime appointments, I would say it is definitely better than letting them be voted on by the public.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.1  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Ender @2    4 weeks ago

Like when a baker is forced to bake a cake for a gay couple in violation of not only their Freedom of Religion and the free exercise thereof, but also when a girls sports team is forced to admit a transgender to compete in an athletic event. I get it; most of us don't really have a pony in this race because as far as we are concerned, all of the people who it is legal to still discriminate against are ones we probably don't want around us in the first place. We allow our acceptance to be forced upon others who are not so willing and justify it because we have no bias against that group because we have never personally had a bad experience with them. On the other hand, if you were one of those girl athletes that lost the State Title to a boy who identifies as a girl when he clearly isn't biologically, your "acceptance" may be a little more challenged.

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.1  Ender  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.1    4 weeks ago

Different animal in the public sphere. Don't want to deal with the public, have a private business.

 
 
 
charger 383
2.1.2  charger 383  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.1    4 weeks ago
when a girls sports team is forced to admit a transgender to compete in an athletic event.

This is a unintended consequence that is going to piss people off when it comes into play 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.1.3  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  charger 383 @2.1.2    4 weeks ago
This is a unintended consequence that is going to piss people off when it comes into play 

It already has...

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.1.4  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Ender @2.1.1    4 weeks ago
have a private business.

All businesses are already Private, they are just open to the Public.

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.5  Ender  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.1.4    4 weeks ago

And if they want to be open to the public, they have to be open to all the public. There is no right to choose who will or will not be served.

As I said, if they don't want to serve all the public, make it private.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.1.6  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Ender @2.1.5    4 weeks ago
they have to be open to all the public.

No shoes, no shirt, no service sound familiar? How about Jacket and Tie Required? How about a taxi cab that refuses to pick you up because you are too drunk and puking? Do you sit quietly in a Courtroom with your cellphone turned off? Are you forced to pull up your pants in that courtroom? What happens if you don't?

As I said in the article, legal discrimination is okay with most of us because we agree with the views that allow it to go unchecked.

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.7  Ender  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.1.6    4 weeks ago

That is not discrimination, it is requirements.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.1.8  Gordy327  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.1    4 weeks ago
Like when a baker is forced to bake a cake for a gay couple in violation of not only their Freedom of Religion and the free exercise thereof,

Baking cake is a business, not a religious practice. And owning a business is not a right either. If one wants to own/operate a business, then they agree to abide by business and city/state laws governing a business operation, including non-discrimination laws.

All businesses are already Private, they are just open to the Public.

Clearly you don't know the difference. Private businesses are usually reserved for members, not the general public.

No shoes, no shirt, no service sound familiar? 

That has to do with health ordinances and is applied to ALL patrons of said business.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.1.9  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.8    4 weeks ago
Private businesses are usually reserved for members

No, that would be Private Clubs which may or may not operate at a profit. Even your publicly traded businesses on the stock market are still private businesses. Enough with the semantics though. You're getting off-topic.

And owning a business is not a right either.

I would love to see where you can back that statement up!  You may be limited on the types of business you can open due to statutes, but I can't imagine anyone being told they have no Right to own a business!

they agree to abide by business and city/state laws governing a business operation, including non-discrimination laws.

And this is what brings about the article I posted above; when Rights conflict!

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.1.10  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Ender @2.1.7    4 weeks ago
That is not discrimination, it is requirements.

And by imposing those requirements you are discriminating against those who do not conform to them are you not?

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.11  Ender  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.1.10    4 weeks ago

No, that is a choice a patron would make on whether or not to visit the establishment. Follow the rules set forth.

Being gay, male or female or the colour of ones skin is not a choice.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.1.12  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Ender @2.1.11    4 weeks ago
Being gay, male or female or the colour of ones skin is not a choice.

While I agree on sex and color not being a choice, I have to ask if being gay is not a choice, then why do we criminalize other sexual choices?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.13  sandy-2021492  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.1.12    4 weeks ago

Consent, or lack thereof.  Two consenting gay adults having sex violates nobody.  Other "sexual choices", such as pedophilia, do.

If being gay is a choice, I challenge you to choose to be gay for an hour or so.

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.14  Ender  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.1.12    4 weeks ago

I have heard several times over the years people say they actually wouldn't have chosen it. Why would they want to choose to be different from everyone else? Choose ridicule and discrimination, harassment. Try to be hetero and fit a mold only not be able to make it work.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.15  TᵢG  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.1.6    4 weeks ago

Every rule you mentioned applies to everyone regardless of sex, race, orientation, etc.

Each business necessarily must establish rules.   It necessarily must determine what products and services it offers.   And it certainly has the right to nor provide a particular product or service.   But the denial must be to every customer equally.   So if a baker, for example, does not wish to make a product that advertises a particular message they have the right to not offer the product.   They cannot deny service to a customer based on the customer's personal attributes but they can deny to provide a particular product or service to every customer.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.16  TᵢG  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.1.12    4 weeks ago
I have to ask if being gay is not a choice, then why do we criminalize other sexual choices?

Before I make further comments I would like to confirm that you think homosexuality is a choice.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.1.17  Gordy327  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.1.12    4 weeks ago
I have to ask if being gay is not a choice,

Are you suggesting being gay (sexual orientation) is a choice?

then why do we criminalize other sexual choices?

What "choices" are you referring to?

And by imposing those requirements you are discriminating against those who do not conform to them are you not?

No, you are not. A person can freely choose to not patronize an establishment with those requirements in place. That's like saying if someone doesn't conform to the law and is subsequently arrested, they are being discriminated against.

No, that would be Private Clubs which may or may not operate at a profit. Even your publicly traded businesses on the stock market are still private businesses. Enough with the semantics though. You're getting off-topic.

Many business require a membership before allowing an individual to patronize that business. Warehouse stores like Costco is a basic example. One cannot simply walk in and purchase something without first having a paid membership card. Unlike regular grocery stores which anyone can patronize without needing membership.

I would love to see where you can back that statement up! 

Specify in the law books where it says owning a business is a right? It's a privilege which one can capitalize on and an owner must first have a state issued business license. But they must adhere to business laws as applicable in local and state laws.

And this is what brings about the article I posted above; when Rights conflict!

When one opens and operates a business, they agree to abide by established law covering business practices and operations. They choose to do so. They are not being forced to open a business. So there's no conflict.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.18  Dulay  replied to  charger 383 @2.1.2    4 weeks ago

So you're talking about a professional 'girls sports team'. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.19  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.1.3    4 weeks ago

High school sports teams are not covered by Title VII, they're covered by Title IX of the Higher Education Act. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.20  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.1.6    4 weeks ago
As I said in the article, legal discrimination is okay with most of us because we agree with the views that allow it to go unchecked.

It isn't discrimination if EVERYONE is required to wear a shirt and shoes. That's how that shit works. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.21  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.1.10    4 weeks ago

No, you're not. 

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.22  Ender  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.13    4 weeks ago

Only an hour? I am so disappointed.  jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.1.23  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.13    4 weeks ago
If being gay is a choice, I challenge you to choose to be gay for an hour or so.

So you are saying that all that prison sex going on isn't because of a decision, but because all those prisoners engaging in it were always gay to begin with??? I find that difficult to believe.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.1.24  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @2.1.20    4 weeks ago
It isn't discrimination if EVERYONE is required to wear a shirt and shoes.

And yet it IS discrimination if you require that everyone in your employment must be a heterosexual???

You can't have it both ways. If you place requirements on providing something to someone and refuse to provide the same thing to someone who refuse to meet those requirements, you are engaging in discrimination. It doesn't matter if the requirement has to do with the manner of their dress, or the color of their skin, or their sexual preferences, it is still being discriminatory.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.25  sandy-2021492  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.1.23    4 weeks ago

Nope.  I'm saying that having sex with someone of the same sex, especially under extraordinary circumstances, doesn't make one gay.  That is not where their attractions would normally take them.  Sometimes, it's not really about sex at all, but domination.

On leaving prison, with whom do they have relationships?  With members of the sex to whom they were attracted before entering prison.  If they were gay before, then yeah, they'll still be gay.  If they weren't, they don't continue to have sex with members of their sex.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.1.26  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.17    4 weeks ago
It's a privilege which one can capitalize on and an owner must first have a state issued business license.

I believe that the very  definition of "Privilege" in law counters your argument.

Privilege

A particular benefit, advantage, or Immunity enjoyed by a person or class of people that is not shared with others . A power of exemption against or beyond the law. It is not a right but, rather, exempts one from the performance of a duty, obligation, or liability. (Emphasis added for clarity-CK)

Now the SCOTUS has ruled that even though we have Right's that are recognized by the Constitution, those Rights can be subjected to regulation by government. This is why you may have the Right to bear arms, but not necessarily to carry them with you into a courtroom. Since ANYONE can own a business if they so choose, this shows it is a Right, not a Privilege as defined in Law.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.1.27  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.16    4 weeks ago
you think homosexuality is a choice.

In some cases, YES! Science has determined that our sexual preferences are influenced on many, many levels starting as early as the womb. After the genetics and the hormones have had their influences, then it becomes environmental factors that guide our sexual appetites. So is it a choice? As much as any sexual preference is a choice I suppose. Just because I prefer redheads doesn't mean I can't choose to have sex with a blonde. Just because I prefer women doesn't prevent me from having sex with a man. So in that regards, it is indeed a choice!

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.1.28  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.15    4 weeks ago
But the denial must be to every customer equally. 

Not really.

 
 
 
Thomas
2.1.29  Thomas  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.1.24    4 weeks ago
And yet it IS discrimination if you require that everyone in your employment must be a heterosexual???

Of course it is, because you are excluding a portion of the population from the possibility of being employed. 

 
 
 
Thomas
2.1.30  Thomas  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.1.26    4 weeks ago

You have to have the money to start, the acumen to operate a business successfully. That business, as a legal fiction created by the government of the controlling authority, must abide by the codes and laws of the same. 

So, no. It is not a right to have a company.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.31  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.1.24    4 weeks ago
And yet it IS discrimination if you require that everyone in your employment must be a heterosexual???

I see that you're still having an issue understanding discrimination on the basis of sex. Maybe if you read Gorsuch's opinion it would help you get it. 

I wonder if you would support an employer requiring that everyone in their employ must be male, or white, or baptized.

You can't have it both ways.

You're seeing 'both' when there is only ONE way. 

If you place requirements on providing something to someone and refuse to provide the same thing to someone who refuse to meet those requirements, you are engaging in discrimination.

Nope. It isn't discrimination to require a person to be 21 to buy alcohol and tobacco, or 16 to get a drivers license, or 62 to receive Social Security or 65 to receive Medicare. Those are REGULATIONS applicable to EVERYONE. 

Drivers are required to wear a seat belt. 

Food service employers are required to test employees and are NOT allowed to employ people with hepatitis whether they want to or not. 

States refuse licensing of un-certified plumbers or electricians or doctors or pharmacists or, or, or...

Those aren't discriminatory practices, they're regulations instituted to set a standard of service. 

It doesn't matter if the requirement has to do with the manner of their dress, or the color of their skin, or their sexual preferences, it is still being discriminatory.

Yes it DOES matter what 'manner' of requirement is put in place. THAT is what the Civil rights Act of 1964 and other laws like the ADA are all about. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.32  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.1.23    4 weeks ago

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, NOT a sexual ACT. 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.1.33  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Thomas @2.1.30    4 weeks ago
So, no. It is not a right to have a company.

Who is saying that having a company is a Right. I'm saying owning and operating a business is.

1 a : a usually commercial or mercantile activity engaged in as a means of livelihood : trade , line
...
c : dealings or transactions especially of an economic nature : patronage took their business elsewhere
I've got news for you, just by charging for your labor you are conducting business . It doesn't matter if you are working for yourself doing babysitting, or working for an employer. IT IS BUSINESS! You have a Right to engage in Business for your economic benefit!  Better be, or the government would die of starvation for taxes! In this case the Business you own is YOUR body and YOUR labor. This is YOUR livelihood.
 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.1.34  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Thomas @2.1.29    4 weeks ago
Of course it is, because you are excluding a portion of the population from the possibility of being employed.

And we do the same when we require drug tests. We discriminate against those who use drugs. But once again, we are fine with that because we endorse that type of discrimination in general.

I'm really beginning to believe that too many people are getting hung up on semantics when they actually are not as familiar with what the words they use actually encompass.

If I choose banana cream pie (which I like) over okra (which I don't) , I have discriminated against okra. Why I dislike okra does not affect the fact that I have discriminated against it. In the process, I have also discriminated in favor of banana cream pie. I suggest everyone who is arguing that they first read the definition of the root word Discriminate and the derivatives of it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.35  TᵢG  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.1.27    4 weeks ago
So is it a choice? As much as any sexual preference is a choice I suppose. Just because I prefer redheads doesn't mean I can't choose to have sex with a blonde. Just because I prefer women doesn't prevent me from having sex with a man. So in that regards, it is indeed a choice!

Think of it this way.   You are heterosexual.   Do you think that you chose to be attracted to women instead of men?   Could you have chosen to be attracted to men instead of women?   If so, make the choice (temporarily) to genuinely be attracted to men instead of women.   Tell me how you accomplished that.

To me this clears it up nicely.   Speaking for myself, there is no way I could choose to be attracted to men.   Flat out impossible.   My sexual orientation is determined by my biology, not my consciousness.   All I can do is choose how I act on my orientation.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.36  TᵢG  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.1.28    4 weeks ago

From your source:

Generally, customers of public accommodations such as restaurants, movie theaters, and gas stations are protected by federal law from discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin or other protected status. Federal law also provides that all citizens have equal rights to make and enforce contracts. These rights are guaranteed by Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Retail stores are a gray area, however, because federal courts have held that retail shopping is not a “public accommodation” and browsing in a store doesn't normally invoke the right-to-contract provision. 

Your argument here is one of exception.   The norm is that public businesses (vs. private clubs) cannot discriminate.   Those who can due to loopholes in the law are exceptions and I predict those loopholes will continue to close.

In principle, public businesses have the right to choose the products and services they offer, but they cannot discriminate against their customers based on race, ethnicity, religion, etc.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.1.37  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.35    4 weeks ago
Tell me how you accomplished that.

The normal way that is accomplished is by denying someone their preference. while leaving their base animal instincts intact for prolonged periods of time.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.38  TᵢG  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.1.37    4 weeks ago

I did not ask about behavior.  I asked about orientation.   How would you choose to genuinely be attracted to men rather than to women?

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.1.39  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.38    4 weeks ago
How would you choose to genuinely be attracted to men rather than to women?

As explained, by having the other option removed from the table and still wishing to engage in sexual activity with another person.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.40  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.1.39    4 weeks ago

CK,

If I may interject, it has been proven scientifically, that homosexuality is real. Homosexuality even exists in the animal world. Do you think they are making a choice or that they are biologically wired that way?

 
 
 
evilgenius
2.1.41  evilgenius  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.1.39    4 weeks ago

You are still conflating behavior with sexual orientation (attraction).

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.1.42  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.40    4 weeks ago
If I may interject,

Of course you may!

it has been proven scientifically, that homosexuality is real.

Already covered that in this previous comment .

Do you think they are making a choice or that they are biologically wired that way?

I can't tell for sure because I do not have first hand knowledge of the animals in question, but as noted in the linked previous comment, science has determined that while there may be genetic influences, environment also plays a large and important part in it.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.1.43  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.1.37    4 weeks ago
The normal way that is accomplished is by denying someone their preference. while leaving their base animal instincts intact for prolonged periods of time.

You know supposed "gay reparative therapy" is a crock of shit right? What you suggest is simply forcing someone to pretend to be straight just so you don't have to see a gay couple on the streets. You do know that most men who rape in prison aren't gay, they're just being forced into what you suggest. To intentionally do that to those who have expressed their personal sexual orientation but wasn't what religious bigots want to hear so they deny them access to the gender they are in love with is no different than putting that person in prison. So essentially you are suggesting making homosexuality illegal again all to appease your own personal preference.

We all do have a choice, whether to be a stupid piece of shit bigot who tries to force our personal beliefs and opinions on others, or to accept people as they present themselves and take them at face value. Gay persons are not making a choice about their sexual orientation, but every one of us can make a choice to either hate and malign that person, to discriminate and shame that person, to try and bully others into compliance with some worthless fantasy religious code, or we can choose to be compassionate humans who show love to others regardless of their sexual orientation. I think those who are so vehemently against being a compassionate human are simply repressed gay persons so indoctrinated and told to hate themselves that they have to project their own bitterness and anger for having to struggle for decades against something others are now telling them is normal. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks".

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.1.44  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  evilgenius @2.1.41    4 weeks ago
You are still conflating behavior with sexual orientation (attraction).

In a short term scenario, this might be true. Over the long term though, constant exposure would probably change orientation. Maybe you've heard of the behavior modification programs they have experimented with?

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.1.45  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1.43    4 weeks ago
You know supposed "gay reparative therapy" is a crock of shit right?

They way it is done in those places? Yes! Morally speaking, it shouldn't even be attempted. A person has the Right to be attracted to whomever they like.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.46  TᵢG  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.1.39    4 weeks ago

Nevermind CK, your responses show you understand that orientation is not a choice.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.1.47  Gordy327  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.1.26    4 weeks ago
I believe that the very  definition of "Privilege" in law counters your argument.

No, it doesn't. The law regulates what business practices are acceptable or not.

 Since ANYONE can own a business if they so choose, this shows it is a Right, not a Privilege as defined in Law.

Wrong! People can own a business if they want to. But they must still go through all legal motions and licensure to operate a business. And their permission to operate can be revoked if they fail to abide by established guidelines or conditions. To be able to operate a business, one must agree to abide by such legal regulations or risk losing permission to operate.

 So is it a choice? 

No, it's not. One does not choose whom they're attracted to. The choice is how one acts upon it.

Just because I prefer women doesn't prevent me from having sex with a man. So in that regards, it is indeed a choice!

See previous statement.

As explained, by having the other option removed from the table and still wishing to engage in sexual activity with another person. 

Again, you confuse behavior with orientation.

 Over the long term though, constant exposure would probably change orientation.

That idea has been debunked. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.48  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.1.42    4 weeks ago

Ck

 MRIs have shown that the brains of homosexual people are radically different and those of straight people the same findings have been found in animals too. I can give you the long list of animals that engage in homosexual behavior. it can’t be environmental because they’re not seeing it in their family units.

 
 
 
evilgenius
2.1.49  evilgenius  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.1.44    4 weeks ago
In a short term scenario, this might be true. Over the long term though, constant exposure would probably change orientation.

There is so much data out there that shows this does NOT work and has also shown to cause actual harm in people undergoing conversion therapy, that I'm surprised you pulled this out. The original author of conversion therapy has admitted in court (CA Prop 8 case) his data was based in faulty research.

 
 
 
Suz
2.1.50  Suz  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.1    4 weeks ago

Girl athletes won their suit and are no longer competing against men who became women.  Thank goodness.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.51  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.1.27    4 weeks ago
So is it a choice? As much as any sexual preference is a choice I suppose. 

You suppose wrong. 

Just because I prefer redheads doesn't mean I can't choose to have sex with a blonde.

You are conflating sexual attraction with sexual orientation. 

Just because I prefer women doesn't prevent me from having sex with a man.

Again, homosexuality is a sexual orientation, NOT a sexual act. You having sex with a man would not make you a homosexual. 

So in that regards, it is indeed a choice!

Yes, sexual attraction is a choice. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.52  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.1.37    4 weeks ago
The normal way that is accomplished is by denying someone their preference. while leaving their base animal instincts intact for prolonged periods of time.

Perhaps you missed the predicate. It required 'genuinely be attracted', not mere expediency. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
3  Snuffy    4 weeks ago

I think you need to expand a little more on exactly where you see the issue. I'm not in favor of changing the size or makeup of SCOTUS. I do want a SCOTUS that follows the rule of law and the constitution and does not legislate from the bench althought Congress has failed so many times over the years and seems to be more interested in partisan politics than working for the people...   But IMO if the people want change they need to get Congress to pass laws to make those changes. The people's opinions should never color the decisions of SCOTUS.

But please expand a little more,  I went out to dinner tonight (first time since this virus fun all begain,  oh dining out how I've missed you) and my brain is a little befuddled...

 
 
 
Ender
3.1  Ender  replied to  Snuffy @3    4 weeks ago

I actually wouldn't want to change the makeup of the court either. Keep it at the nine.

I think the problem is congress trying to put in ideologues.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
3.2  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Snuffy @3    4 weeks ago
But please expand a little more,  I went out to dinner tonight (first time since this virus fun all begain,  oh dining out how I've missed you) and my brain is a little befuddled...

Enjoy yourself! I did today when I took my son to a sitdown breakfast. I tipped well too!

I think you need to expand a little more on exactly where you see the issue.

When a SCOTUS ruling expands a law rather than just ruling on its merits as to whether it is Constitutional or not. A good example would be the current ruling on whether or not an employer can discriminate based upon sexual orientation.  While I agree with the premise behind the ruling that it should not be a deciding factor in the hiring or firing process, I'm not running a religious college that teaches homosexuality is a sin. If I were, and I firmly believed that it was, then this ruling has undercut one of the tenets of my religion and forced me to accept what I would not encourage,

 
 
 
Ender
3.2.1  Ender  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @3.2    4 weeks ago

I may be wrong but I think a college is a private institution.

No one is forced to hire someone, one just cannot indiscriminately fire someone if they decide they don't want that orientation around.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
3.2.2  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Ender @3.2.1    4 weeks ago
No one is forced to hire someone

Under this new ruling you can be if your only reason for not hiring them is sexual identity or preference (unless their sexual preference is animals, dead people, relatives, or children; then it is perfectly okay to discriminate against them).

 
 
 
Ender
3.2.3  Ender  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @3.2.2    4 weeks ago

Who is going to know that? The only thing I could see is someone hiring someone then finding out they are gay then firing them.

An owner still has a right to decide who will work for them. That has not changed.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.4  Gordy327  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @3.2    4 weeks ago
When a SCOTUS ruling expands a law rather than just ruling on its merits as to whether it is Constitutional or not.

The purpose of the court is to determine the constitutionality of a law and interpret its intent.

 I'm not running a religious college that teaches homosexuality is a sin. If I were, and I firmly believed that it was, then this ruling has undercut one of the tenets of my religion and forced me to accept what I would not encourage,

Religious colleges tend to be private institutions and therefore are free to discriminate.

Under this new ruling you can be if your only reason for not hiring them is sexual identity or preference 

If one refuses to hire someone or fires them based solely on sexual orientation, then that is discrimination and therefore illegal. I can't imagine why someone would actually defend discriminatory practices in a business.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
3.2.5  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.4    4 weeks ago
why someone would actually defend discriminatory practices in a business.

So you agree that sexual orientation should not be grounds for discrimination? Is this because a person has no control over what excites them sexually?

 
 
 
Snuffy
3.2.6  Snuffy  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @3.2    4 weeks ago

Thanks.  Yes, enjoyed it very much.  Always nice having a filet so tender  you can almost cut it with your fork.  And yes,  tipped very well also but then I always try to tip well for good service and it does seem like I almost always get good service.  just lucky I guess.  ;)

I was not totally in favor of the recent ruling myself. I felt that should be with Congress to expand the law rather than how SCOTUS ruled. I also agree with the premise behind the ruling I feel that once again Congress let us down and basically forced this to SCOTUS.

 
 
 
Ender
3.2.7  Ender  replied to  Snuffy @3.2.6    4 weeks ago

I have been out and had the best, most tender steak. Then another time was no where near as good. I am thinking it is who is in the kitchen at the time.

As far as the ruling, it is sad to me that these things even have to be spelled out.  A general rule should apply to all without having to delve into subsets.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.8  Gordy327  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @3.2.5    4 weeks ago
So you agree that sexual orientation should not be grounds for discrimination?

Yes. I thought I was clear about that.

Is this because a person has no control over what excites them sexually?

Whatever sexually excites a person is irrelevant.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.9  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @3.2    4 weeks ago

Religious institutions are exempt from Title VII laws so NO conflict. 

Thanks for playing. 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
3.2.10  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.8    4 weeks ago
Whatever sexually excites a person is irrelevant.

And yet certain "proclivities" are still labeled aberrant behavior in need of at the very least psychological counseling and behavior modification.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
3.2.11  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @3.2.9    4 weeks ago
Religious institutions are exempt from Title VII laws so NO conflict.

Only if granted that status. Since when are you "granted" Rights? You either have them, or you don't.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
3.2.12  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Snuffy @3.2.6    4 weeks ago
I felt that should be with Congress to expand the law rather than how SCOTUS ruled.

I agree that this was the pervue of the Legislative branch. What sucks is that we even need such laws in the first place, but once again, it bumps up against the Rights of others to distance themselves from people they don't want to associate with for whatever reason.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.13  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @3.2.11    4 weeks ago
Only if granted that status.

Are you claiming that religious institutions shouldn't have to qualify for the plethora of 'special protections' that they are afforded in our society? That would exempt anyone and everyone who proclaims them self a religious institution from civil rights laws and taxation. That line would be endless. 

Since when are you "granted" Rights? You either have them, or you don't.

Well then your 'argument' about conflicting rights is moot isn't it CK? 

All the whining about the SCOTUS is irrelevant if rights are really inalienable right? 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
3.2.14  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @3.2.13    4 weeks ago
All the whining about the SCOTUS is irrelevant if rights are really inalienable right?

And here we have come full circle in the discussion--Finally! If these Rights are inalienable, then how can they be infringed upon by the SCOTUS decisions?  YOU, and only YOU can decide who you want to be around. Forcing you to be around people you don't want to be is infringing upon an Inalienable Right:

adjective

not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied; not alienable : inalienable rights, freedoms, and liberties; an inalienable territory; inalienable principles and values.
 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.15  Gordy327  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @3.2.10    4 weeks ago
And yet certain "proclivities" are still labeled aberrant behavior in need of at the very least psychological counseling and behavior modification.

You confuse behavior with orientation. And sexual behavior in a workplace from anyone, gay, straight, ect., is usually frowned upon by an employer and can result in sexual harassment claims and termination. 

If these Rights are inalienable, then how can they be infringed upon by the SCOTUS decisions? 

Even rights have limits.

YOU, and only YOU can decide who you want to be around. Forcing you to be around people you don't want to be is infringing upon an Inalienable Right:

If you don't want to be around certain people, then don't put yourself in a situation where that might be a possibility.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.16  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @3.2.14    4 weeks ago
And here we have come full circle in the discussion--Finally! If these Rights are inalienable, then how can they be infringed upon by the SCOTUS decisions? 

HOW does the SCOTUS decision infringe on anyone's rights and WHAT right is being infringed? 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
3.2.17  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @3.2.16    4 weeks ago

Re-read. It'll save us from going around in circles.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
4  Buzz of the Orient    4 weeks ago

I have difficulty in considering a right to also be a requirement, or vice versa.  A person could choose somewhere else to work if he is "required" to join a union that he refuses to join.  He has the right to choose.  If he is required to work at such a place, or is required to join a union he wishes not to join, then is that not a form of slavery?

 
 
 
Ender
4.1  Ender  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4    4 weeks ago

The thing with unions is they work and negotiate for all the employees. The ones not in the union benefit from union activities while not having to take part.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
4.1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Ender @4.1    4 weeks ago

There was a time, the era of the sweatshops, that unions were a necessity.  These days there should be enough labour legislation to secure workers's rights without unions.  

 
 
 
Ender
4.1.2  Ender  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4.1.1    4 weeks ago

I use to think that yet then I was looking at data, there is a clear line showing a correlation between stagnant, lower wages versus the decline of unions.

Though I have to add that most places of work are really not made for unions, if that makes any sense. They have their use/place in factories and the like yet when most people work in the service industry, not likely to see one.

I understand your point though with federal and state laws. Though laws mostly deal with discrimination and the like where a union could work for better pay, benefits.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
4.2  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4    4 weeks ago
is that not a form of slavery

Forcing someone to do something that they do not wish to do is indeed slavery.

 
 
 
JBB
4.2.1  JBB  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @4.2    4 weeks ago

Are soldiers slaves then? 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
4.2.3  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  JBB @4.2.1    4 weeks ago
Are soldiers slaves then?

As close to it as the law allows!

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.2.4  TᵢG  replied to  JBB @4.2.1    4 weeks ago

A very good question when a draft is in place.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.5  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @4.2    4 weeks ago

Right CK, OH the daily slavery of the 55 MPH speed limit. 

Pffft.

 
 
 
Ender
4.2.6  Ender  replied to  Dulay @4.2.5    4 weeks ago

Let's just say, in our 70 MPH zones people go 85.

 
 
 
Ender
4.2.7  Ender  replied to  Ender @4.2.6    4 weeks ago

Well, except that one ass that is going 60 and almost causing wrecks and backups.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
4.2.8  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @4.2.5    4 weeks ago

And yet the Autobahn has a safer track records than our speed limited Interstate Highways...

Let's be honest here, speeding tickets are simply a source of un-apportioned taxation revenue. If cops really didn't want you speeding they would have the highway departments install speed bumps on roads and rolling roadblocks on highways.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
4.2.9  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Ender @4.2.6    4 weeks ago
Let's just say, in our 70 MPH zones people go 85.

You live in the Atlanta area? :D

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.10  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @4.2.8    4 weeks ago
And yet the Autobahn has a safer track records than our speed limited Interstate Highways...

Since the Autobaun has a speed limit, HOW is that relevant? 

Let's be honest here, speeding tickets are simply a source of un-apportioned taxation revenue. If cops really didn't want you speeding they would have the highway departments install speed bumps on roads and rolling roadblocks on highways.

Yet speed bumps and rolling road blocks are STILL merely avenues to force you to do something you don't want to do, aren't they? 

 
 
 
charger 383
4.2.11  charger 383  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @4.2.8    4 weeks ago

Removal of for profit tickets should be first part of police reform

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
4.2.12  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @4.2.10    4 weeks ago
Since the Autobaun has a speed limit, HOW is that relevant? 

From Wikipedia . Surprised you didn't know this...

The Autobahn ( IPA: [ˈʔaʊtoˌba:n] ( 11px-Loudspeaker.svg.png listen ) ; German plural Autobahnen ) is the federal controlled-access highway system in Germany . The official German term is Bundesautobahn (plural Bundesautobahnen , abbreviated BAB ), which translates as "federal motorway". The literal meaning of the word Bundesautobahn is "Federal Auto(mobile) Track".

German Autobahnen are widely known for having no federally mandated speed limit for some classes of vehicles. [1] However, limits are posted (and enforced) in areas that are urbanised, substandard, accident-prone, or under construction. On speed-unrestricted stretches, an advisory speed limit ( Richtgeschwindigkeit ) of 130 kilometres per hour (81 mph) applies. While driving faster is not illegal as such in the absence of a speed limit, it can cause an increased liability in the case of a collision (which mandatory auto insurance has to cover); courts have ruled that an "ideal driver" who is exempt from absolute liability for "inevitable" tort under the law would not exceed Richtgeschwindigkeit .

Yet speed bumps and rolling road blocks are STILL merely avenues to force you to do something you don't want to do, aren't they?

Yes they are,

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.2.13  Gordy327  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @4.2.8    4 weeks ago
And yet the Autobahn has a safer track records than our speed limited Interstate Highways...

That's because people are lousy drivers who don't know what they're doing half the time and our highways are generally curvier in design as opposed  to the Autobahn. But even the Autobahn has speed limits put in effect when approaching populated areas.

If cops really didn't want you speeding they would have the highway departments install speed bumps on roads and rolling roadblocks on highways.

Ever hit a speed bump going 55? Not good for the car.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.14  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @4.2.12    4 weeks ago

So it does have a speed limit. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
5  Kathleen    4 weeks ago

If I owned a bakery and we were asked to make a particular cake that we felt was offensive I would refuse, but offer another suggestion. Lets say that I was very religious or it was against my principles, I would refuse and again offer another suggestion. I would not refuse to serve them in general, but I may not make what they request.  

Another point...this is a business and you want to make money, so you want to try to make the customers happy if you can.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
5.1  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Kathleen @5    4 weeks ago
If I owned a bakery and we were asked to make a particular cake that we felt was offensive I would refuse, but offer another suggestion.

That already cost a baker his business. Granted the part that made it offensive to him were his religious beliefs, but that is still the same principle in play here.

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.1  Kathleen  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @5.1    4 weeks ago

I thought it was very unfair for him to lose his whole business over not making a cake that was against his religion.  If you want your rights, then you have to understand and respect the rights of others as well. That does not happen, its my way only or the highway. Yes.. it's the same principle, but only being recognized on one side.  I am sure there were other bakers that would have made their cake, but no, lets put this guy out of business.  

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.1.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @5.1    4 weeks ago
That already cost a baker his business.

Bullshit.

In every case the bakery refused to either make a wedding cake or a commitment cake for the gay couple. They were not asked to design it a "particular way" that would be offensive, they had been baking identical cakes and selling them to straight couples for years.

Even the case when it was a transgender who wanted two different colors in the cake to represent her transition, it wasn't as if the bakers hadn't done different color cakes identical to the ones requested for boys or girls birthdays a thousand times before. It was because of the person who was buying it and the purpose they would be using it for that was the issue.

Any baker has the right to refuse to make a cake a certain way as long as they refuse to make it that certain way for anyone. If you as a bakery refuse to sell cakes or donuts with bacon crumbles on them but refuse to sell the bacon donuts to a Jewish customer, then you're discriminating based on their race/religion. If you sell wedding cake but refuse to sell them to a gay couple, then you're discriminating based on sexual orientation.

" A bakery that drew protests for refusing to prepare a  cake for a gay couple  has closed its doors."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2015/02/27/anti-gay-marriage-bakery-gone/24133651/

" The Oregon Court of Appeals on Thursday upheld a $135,000 fine against two Christian bakers who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple ."

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/court-rules-against-oregon-bakers-who-refused-make-gay-wedding-n833321

Even in the Colorado case that went to the supreme court, he won because the Colorado court of appeals didn't follow proper procedure, not because they felt refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple should be allowed.

" “The first amendment prohibits governments from discriminating against citizens on the basis of religious beliefs. The supreme court rightly concluded that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission failed to show tolerance and respect for Mr Phillips’ religious beliefs.”

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jun/04/gay-cake-ruling-supreme-court-same-sex-wedding-colorado-baker-decision-latest

The rules are simple, if you are a business open to the general public you have to abide by certain laws. One of those laws is that if you serve something to one customer then you have to sell it to all customers regardless of their race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, faith or lack thereof. It's a pretty simple concept which, for some reason, is nearly impossible for some to understand or accept.

No one can ever force you to make a cake that you felt was offensive. But if you're a bakery open to the public you can't refuse to sell a cake to someone simply because you felt their sexual orientation was offensive. It all comes down to what you're objecting to, the cake or the customer.

"Hi, I'd like a birthday cake made and on top I want it to say 'Hiel Hitler'..."

"Um, no, I feel that cake would be offensive".

Totally legal.

"Hi, I'd like a birthday cake that says 'Happy Birthday'."

"Okay, no problem, when do you need it by?"

"Well, it's for my friends '1st Birthday' as a woman which will be this Friday".

"Um, sorry, we don't bake transgender birthday cakes"

Totally illegal.

How is this so hard for some to understand?

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.3  Kathleen  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.2    4 weeks ago

What if it's against his religion?

 
 
 
Gordy327
5.1.4  Gordy327  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.3    4 weeks ago

Then either find a new religion or get out of a business that might require him to serve everyone equally.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.1.5  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.3    4 weeks ago
What if it's against his religion?

Which part is against his religion? To bake a "Happy Birthday" cake? Or to sell a "Happy Birthday" cake to a transgender person because you object to her use of it?

If it's the former then it's fine because the baker doesn't do birthday cakes, they don't offer them to anyone, thus no discrimination.

If it's the latter then they shouldn't be operating a business open to the public which has to abide by Federal, State and local accommodation laws. If they open a business with no intent of following the law, then they should be shut down just like any other business that openly and intentionally flaunts the law. If a bar opened across from a school (or anywhere for that matter) and put up a sign that said "We serve minors" how long do you think they'll stay open? Even if the bar owner claimed he was a member of a religion who believed it was okay and righteous to serve minors alcohol, he'd still get shut down. There simply is no difference between that and a bakery putting up a sign that says "We don't Serve Gays" or "We Make Wedding Cakes, But Won't Sell Them To Gays".

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.6  Kathleen  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.4    4 weeks ago

  I am for serving everyone, but if its a particular request that goes against their principles and being forced to do it, would that be the same? Or, would it be better to have a list of things they will not do in their advertising before hand? 

I am trying to see what would be accepted in a situation like this. This is not about refusing to serve them as a person, it is about making a certain item.

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.7  Kathleen  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.5    4 weeks ago

Not as a person, they should serve all people, but a certain request. Did he refuse to serve him any cake? Or just what was on that particular cake....

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.8  Kathleen  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.5    4 weeks ago

Here is another question:  If it's explicitly sexual and the baker did not want to do it, would you agree with the baker?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.1.9  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.8    4 weeks ago
If it's explicitly sexual and the baker did not want to do it, would you agree with the baker?

Definitely. I've said this many times before, you can refuse to decorate a cake a certain way as long as you refuse everyone. No baker should be forced to decorate a cake in an overtly sexual way, no baker would be forced to paint little dicks on a cake or write some racist, sexual, religious or any other message the baker objects to on a cake as long as they refuse that message to everyone. You just can't offer to write "Happy Birthday!" or "We're Married!" on one cake but then refuse to do the exact same cake for a transgender or gay person just because you know it would be for their transgender birthday or gay wedding.

 
 
 
Gordy327
5.1.10  Gordy327  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.6    4 weeks ago
but if its a particular request that goes against their principles and being forced to do it, would that be the same?

The difference is, a certain segment of the population is requesting the same service that is provided to everyone else, but is being denied.

Or, would it be better to have a list of things they will not do in their advertising before hand? 

That might be helpful. But that has to apply to everyone evenly accross the board.

I am trying to see what would be accepted in a situation like this. This is not about refusing to serve them as a person, it is about making a certain item.

But some people have been refused service outright. And the business is being asked to provide an item they normally provide anyway.

 If it's explicitly sexual and the baker did not want to do it, would you agree with the baker?

Yes, because then it becomes an issue of a message, and not the product itself.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.11  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.6    4 weeks ago
Or, would it be better to have a list of things they will not do in their advertising before hand? 

When the GOP lead legislature in Indiana tried to pass a RFRA allowing discrimination against LGBT people the Democrats tried to Amend the law requiring that those who would deny LGBT people service to include that statement in their advertising and at their storefront. The GOP voted the Amendment down after much pearl clutching. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6  Nerm_L    4 weeks ago

Well, at least the author recognizes that the Supreme Court is concerned with rights rather than laws.  But the author seems to ignore the system of appellate courts and state courts that are supposed to be concerned with rights, as well.

 At the heart of the matter is the Constitution.  And it seems the question that needs to be asked is whether or not the Constitution is a document enumerating rights or a document enumerating laws.

In the United States the judicial branch is concerned with rights and the legislative branch is concerned with freedoms.  Congress can't grant or revoke rights.  Laws can grant, revoke, or modify freedoms but laws cannot grant the freedom to infringe upon the rights of others.  That's where SCOTUS steps in and declares such a law unconstitutional.  In the United States the only way to grant or revoke rights is to amend the Constitution.

Packing the Supreme Court so that granted freedoms are allowed to infringe upon rights undermines the purpose of the Constitution.  That's why the United States is not, and cannot become, a democracy.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
6.1  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Nerm_L @6    4 weeks ago
At the heart of the matter is the Constitution.

Indeed it is!

but laws cannot grant the freedom to infringe upon the rights of others

Apparently they can as the recent anti-discrimination on sexual orientation in employment ruling has proven. You DO have the Right to decide your sexual inclinations. You do NOT have a Right to be hired by someone who disagrees with your lifestyle choices--until now. This is infringing upon the Freedom of Association Right of the business owner. Just like Hate Speech laws infringe upon your Right to Free Speech also do. 

Now don't get me wrong, I actually support the premise behind all of these Laws, but they are indeed infringing upon the Rights of others when we enforce these laws, which is why I wrote this blog. Where do we draw the line on infringing on others Rights simply to avoid someone else getting their feelings hurt? Hate Speech that does not encourage violence is not infringing on anyone's Rights. There is NO Right to NOT be offended by something.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @6.1    4 weeks ago
Apparently they can as the recent anti-discrimination on sexual orientation in employment ruling has proven. You DO have the Right to decide your sexual inclinations. You do NOT have a Right to be hired by someone who disagrees with your lifestyle choices--until now. This is infringing upon the Freedom of Association Right of the business owner. Just like Hate Speech laws infringe upon your Right to Free Speech also do. 

A business is not a person and has no rights.  A business is property and property doesn't have rights; otherwise a business could not be owned as property.  In the United States it is unconstitutional to own a person.  A business can only be granted freedoms.  A business does not have the freedom to infringe upon the rights of people.

Now don't get me wrong, I actually support the premise behind all of these Laws, but they are indeed infringing upon the Rights of others when we enforce these laws, which is why I wrote this blog. Where do we draw the line on infringing on others Rights simply to avoid someone else getting their feelings hurt? Hate Speech that does not encourage violence is not infringing on anyone's Rights. There is NO Right to NOT be offended by something.

Laws can only grant, revoke, or modify freedoms.  The Constitutional question is whether or not those laws infringe upon rights.

You are pointing out the unavoidable conflict between the judicial and legislative branches of government.  People have a right to speak.  But do people have the freedom to say anything they want to say?

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
6.1.2  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Nerm_L @6.1.1    4 weeks ago
But do people have the freedom to say anything they want to say?

According to the 1st Amendment? YES!  According to the Supreme Court? NO! You would think that in order to limit Free Speech, the first step would be for the Legislators to modify the First Amendment.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6.1.3  Nerm_L  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @6.1.2    4 weeks ago
According to the 1st Amendment? YES! 

Really?  Does the 1st amendment grant the freedom to give false testimony, incite violence or insurrection, cause panic or terror, slander a person or group of people, and commit fraud or extortion?

The 1st amendment enumerates rights.  But laws citing the 1st amendment can only grant freedoms.  And freedoms can be granted, revoked, or modified.

 
 
 
Tessylo
8  Tessylo    4 weeks ago

'I thought it was very unfair for him to lose his whole business over not making a cake that was against his religion.  If you want your rights, then you have to understand and respect the rights of others as well. That does not happen, its my way only or the highway. Yes.. it's the same principle, but only being recognized on one side.  I am sure there were other bakers that would have made their cake, but no, lets put this guy out of business.'

He didn't lose his business over not making a cake.  He lost his business (if he actually did) for discriminating.  This bigot baker doesn't respect the rights of others.  

HINT, HINT, dear, there's a law against that now, FINALLY.  

 
 
 
It Is ME
9  It Is ME    4 weeks ago

"Rights" are nothing more than a "Game of Ping Pong" in Politics anymore.

One will always be right, until it's made wrong, until it's made right again, and so on" !

It's nothing more than the best "Flavor of the Day" anymore (Polls) !

 
 
 
Tessylo
10  Tessylo    4 weeks ago

It's not against his religion dear to bake a cake.