Originally posted by Terraceth
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
SCOTUS & gay wedding cakes
Collapse
X
-
Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
-
Originally posted by seer View PostThat is the point, businesses should not have been included, it strips personal property rights, forces men by law to serve other men, undermines freedom of association, and as we have seen is now undermining the free exercise of religion. Applying the idea of public accommodation to private buisnesses is undermining Constitutional freedoms on any number of levels.Last edited by Terraceth; 07-09-2018, 08:55 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostI never said it would be right or wrong, I would not discriminate against a mixed race couple (there is NO BIBLICAL justification for that). And, again the gay couple's personal freedom has nothing to do with forcing me to bake a cake for them.
That is just silly. They have the freedom to find another baker, or like my son did, make their own wedding cake. Remember which side is forcing which side here.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostAnti-miscegenation laws were claimed to be bible-based...The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostNo. There is no biblical justification for that. Next?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostAnti-miscegenation laws were claimed to be bible-based and were part of American law since before the US was established. And they remained so until ruled unconstitutional in 1967 by the U.S. Supreme Court. So by your argument, a cake-maker holding those views is constitutionally entitled to refuse making a wedding cake for a mix-raced couple...or for any other crack-pot religion-based theory.
Why should they have to?Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostThere are many passages that have been used to justify anti-miscegenation laws, just as there are that were used to justify slavery. The bible has historically said whatever people want it to say.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Terraceth View PostExcept you're shifting things. You keep talking about how they "magically" turned private businesses into public accommodations, but public accommodations was really just a term of convenience for describing a particular type of business.
It's entirely irrelevant to the question of whether any regulations placed on them are constitutional. Ultimately, it's a simple case of "businesses that fulfill X criteria are required to do Y" which is fairly standard for laws; the things that are put into X and Y can make something constitutional or unconstitutional, but simply saying that there's something in X turns private businesses into something else makes no sense. You're continually appealing to something that's thoroughly irrelevant rather than making your more substantive (although, in my view, still wrong) argument that the federal government lacked the constitutional power to enact Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States was therefore decided in error.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostThat is fine, but this portion of the CRA runs rough shod over any number of explicit Constitutional rights.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Terraceth View PostWhile one can perhaps make that argument of some subsequent legislation, I don't see that as the case in that portion of the Civil Rights Act. Similar laws had been in place for a long time on the state level without anyone ever finding them unconstitutional; the only question was whether the federal government could enact such rules, which was justified under the Commerce Clause.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostThere are many passages that have been used to justify anti-miscegenation laws,The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Terraceth View PostExcept you're shifting things. You keep talking about how they "magically" turned private businesses into public accommodations, but public accommodations was really just a term of convenience for describing a particular type of business. It's entirely irrelevant to the question of whether any regulations placed on them are constitutional. Ultimately, it's a simple case of "businesses that fulfill X criteria are required to do Y" which is fairly standard for laws; the things that are put into X and Y can make something constitutional or unconstitutional, but simply saying that there's something in X turns private businesses into something else makes no sense. You're continually appealing to something that's thoroughly irrelevant rather than making your more substantive (although, in my view, still wrong) argument that the federal government lacked the constitutional power to enact Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States was therefore decided in error.
Consider a statute that defines every sexually promiscuous person as a "public accommodation", and declares that every such person must submit to sex with anyone who asks. It may be the case that the term is applied as a mere term of convenience, and that only the "are required to do Y" part is objectionable. But it seems like there would be something objectionable in the term itself. It has a connotation, saying something about the person that isn't true. E.g. the term seems to (falsely) imply that the person, rather than having consented to a (perhaps large) number of particulars on a case-by-case basis, has consented to sex with everyone in general.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostHow is forcing one man to serve another man Constitutional?
"Innkeepers and public carriers, by the laws of all the States, so far as we are aware, are bound, to the extent of their facilities, to furnish proper accommodation to all unobjectionable persons who in good faith apply for them."
This is stated approvingly, therefore giving implicit affirmation that such state laws are not in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment or any part of the constitution (though as this occurs in a discussion regarding the Thirteenth Amendment, there is especially no reason to not call out such laws as a violation if they were regarded as such). Even if we simply take the statement on its face, divorced from context, the fact that "all the States" were believed to have such laws indicates that they were not thought to be in contradiction to the Thirteenth Amendment, or any part of the constitution. Granted, said laws often didn't specify that one couldn't discriminate on the basis of race, which was not infrequently done, but the general requirement of serving qualified customers is there.
Perhaps there is some court decision indicating otherwise, in either the Supreme Court or some notable lower court, but if so I haven't run across it.
Or forcing a man to violate his deeply held religions beliefs?
Or ripping away the ideal of free association, just because a man hangs his shingle out?
Where in our history were these things considered acceptable?
Where is the previous case law?
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostI know that homosexuality is clearly defined as sin in scripture as we recently discussed, where exactly is the law of God against interracial marriage?Because it violates the Baker's free exercise of religion. You know, the Constitution thing.Last edited by Tassman; 07-11-2018, 12:44 AM.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, Today, 07:59 AM
|
7 responses
33 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Diogenes
Today, 12:33 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 11:05 AM
|
13 responses
96 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 08:03 AM
|
||
Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 05:24 AM
|
37 responses
186 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 03:27 PM
|
||
Started by seer, 05-18-2024, 11:06 AM
|
49 responses
307 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 04:14 PM
|
||
Started by carpedm9587, 05-18-2024, 07:03 AM
|
19 responses
147 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Yesterday, 09:58 AM
|
Comment