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 Tassman View PostNo it actually does not - you just refuse to see it because it doesn't support your nutty narrative.
So there.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostYes, it actually does - you're just profoundly ignorant on the whole wedding cake thing. It's just downright goofy screwball ignorant to claim a wedding cake is something "standard". Goofy, nutty, nonsense.
So there.Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostI appreciate your valiant attempt to confuse Tassman with the facts, but it clearly isn't working.
You ask ANY bride about her wedding cake, and it's a BIG STINKIN' DEAL!!!!! Just TRY "we can save a lot of money by going with just a 'standard wedding cake'"
The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostAnd I hope my purposeful childish response was duly noted, as well.
You ask ANY bride about her wedding cake, and it's a BIG STINKIN' DEAL!!!!! Just TRY "we can save a lot of money by going with just a 'standard wedding cake'"
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostThat's when the man gets told, after getting one of those exacerbated "you're-a-freaking-moron" looks, to just go watch the game and leave this to me.
(Of course, a lot of these sites want you to buy their wedding cakes or their wedding planning)The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostThat's when the man gets told, after getting one of those exacerbated "you're-a-freaking-moron" looks, to just go watch the game and leave this to me.
"Nope, it's just a cake - just run down to Krogers and get one for $17.48 -- I've got COUPONS!!!!"
(I remember how very hard I tried to appear 'interested' as my soon-to-be wife showed me pictures and pictures and pictures of wedding cakes*, and asked for my opinion..... I thought - I guess kinda like Tassman... "For cryin' out loud, it's just a CAKE!!!!" Fortunately, wisdom prevailed, and I never said that out loud!)
*and this was before Al Gore invented the internetzweb, so these were from Bridal Magazines!
ETA: I was much more interested in bridle catalogues, or, as we say here in Texas - "Tack"Last edited by Cow Poke; 07-15-2018, 06:56 PM.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostYa know, it just occurred to me... Tassman is trying SO hard to minimize the importance of the wedding cake to the bride - almost to the degree he tried to minimize the association of NAMBLA with ILGA.
"Nope, it's just a cake - just run down to Krogers and get one for $17.48 -- I've got COUPONS!!!!"
(I remember how very hard I tried to appear 'interested' as my soon-to-be wife showed me pictures and pictures and pictures of wedding cakes*, and asked for my opinion..... I thought - I guess kinda like Tassman... "For cryin' out loud, it's just a CAKE!!!!" Fortunately, wisdom prevailed, and I never said that out loud!)
*and this was before Al Gore invented the internetzweb, so these were from Bridal Magazines!
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
ETA: I was much more interested in bridle catalogues, or, as we say here in Texas - "Tack"
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostI'm beginning to sense the source of the problem
She didn't.
So my first date with my wife was actually with her sister.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostNo the point is, how the CC was used. The fact is it was never used in the past to address racial discrimination, in reality, forcing by law, one man to serve, or associate, with another man. It is a novel application in federal law.
If, in and of itself, a "novel application" of the Commerce Clause (or any other clause of the Constitution) rendered it ineligible, nothing could have ever been enacted under the Commerce Clause. After all, the very first law ever enacted under it was certainly a "novel application" due to there being no preceding application. Perhaps the argument is that this supposed "novel application" of the Commerce Clause in the Civil Rights Act should be judged more harshly as the Commerce Clause had been around for quite a while, but this fails also. Simply put, "novel applications" can emerge because previously, there was not sufficient reason to make such a law. "Novel applications" are inherently involved, for example, with new technology because said technology previously did not exist. Another reason a law may not have previously been enacted under any given enumerated power could be that there was simply not demand for it prior to that point. For example, the Commerce Clause could be used to enact a law forbidding any state from engaging in any commerce with one another. It would have a "novel application" on the basis that no previous law had done so, likely because it's a terrible idea and no one wants it, but is thoroughly allowed by the Commerce Clause.
So even if it was a "novel application" (despite the clear precedent), that by itself means nothing. It must be shown to be inconsistent in some way with prior precedent or laws. Which, I hope I have demonstrated, is not the case.
There is no fundamental Constitutional right not to be discriminated against. And the fact that it could not be applied to those who did not accept out of state travelers or goods. So this is not a Constitutional right, or it would be applied across the board.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not enacted under some idea there was a "fundamental Constitutional right not to be discriminated against" (technically there is, but it generally applies only to government action rather than that of private citizens). If it was, then you might have a point here. But again, that's not the case. The authority of enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the simple basis that congress has authority to regulate commerce interstate commerce and therefore it was, well, regulating interstate commerce by putting anti-discriminatory rules on it.
But perhaps your argument is that because it was not a "fundamental Constitutional right," congress could not require it at all. But that's completely nonsensical. The federal government can, as long as doing so in a way that is within its enumerated powers and not in violation of any other part of the Constitution, grant any number of rights that are not "fundamental Constitutional rights."
Dressing it up in the Commerce Clause does not change these facts.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostYes, it actually does - you're just profoundly ignorant on the whole wedding cake thing. It's just downright goofy screwball ignorant to claim a wedding cake is something "standard".
Comment
-
Originally posted by Terraceth View PostSo even if it was a "novel application" (despite the clear precedent), that by itself means nothing. It must be shown to be inconsistent in some way with prior precedent or laws. Which, I hope I have demonstrated, is not the case.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not enacted under some idea there was a "fundamental Constitutional right not to be discriminated against" (technically there is, but it generally applies only to government action rather than that of private citizens). If it was, then you might have a point here. But again, that's not the case. The authority of enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the simple basis that congress has authority to regulate commerce interstate commerce and therefore it was, well, regulating interstate commerce by putting anti-discriminatory rules on it.
But perhaps your argument is that because it was not a "fundamental Constitutional right," congress could not require it at all. But that's completely nonsensical. The federal government can, as long as doing so in a way that is within its enumerated powers and not in violation of any other part of the Constitution, grant any number of rights that are not "fundamental Constitutional rights."
It may not change those facts, but those facts, as I've shown, are either irrelevant or incorrect.
So let me ask, what would prevent the Congress from mandating all restaurants to offer a vegan menu for vegan travelers? Or a full range of diet drinks and low calorie meals for overweight travelers? When you use the CC to address moral and social issue where does it end?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 PostThat's not the argument dummy.
The argument I was rejecting was that a baker can discriminate against a gay couple wanting a wedding cake on the grounds that it was a work of art...
and that a true artist cannot be forced to create an inspired artwork against his will.
In fact a wedding cake is not a work of art per se,
it is the combination of the professional skills of an artisan in consultation with his customer, who has the final say.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostAnd I hope my purposeful childish response was duly noted, as well.
You ask ANY bride about her wedding cake, and it's a BIG STINKIN' DEAL!!!!! Just TRY "we can save a lot of money by going with just a 'standard wedding cake'"
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 01:19 PM
|
9 responses
68 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 11:58 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Yesterday, 12:23 PM
|
34 responses
125 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 08:12 AM | ||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 11:46 AM
|
16 responses
120 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Stoic
Yesterday, 04:44 PM
|
||
Started by seer, Yesterday, 04:37 AM
|
23 responses
109 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 02:49 PM
|
||
Started by seanD, 05-02-2024, 04:10 AM
|
27 responses
157 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 01:37 PM
|
Comment