Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!

[phank]

The fines are for breaking a law that demands you to do work you don't want to do.

When you advertise a product for sale and someone wishes to buy it, you can't just say you don't FEEL like selling it. You advertise it, you sell it. This isn't that hard to grasp.

That's what the specific law is, slavery veiled in progressive BS.

What, telling the truth is slavery? Well, you will never be a slave in that case!

[Psychic Missile]

You're missing the point. If the law forces you to do something against your will then it is effectively slavery.

Sending people to prison is effectively slavery?

[Darth Executor]

When you advertise a product for sale and someone wishes to buy it, you can't just say you don't FEEL like selling it. You advertise it, you sell it. This isn't that hard to grasp.

They never advertised gay wedding cakes. Nor does this have anything to do with the fact that forcing someone to make you a cake is slavery and banned by the constitution.

What, telling the truth is slavery? Well, you will never be a slave in that case!

Forcing someone to do work they don't want to do and never agreed to do is slavery. It's incredible that you scumbags constantly drone on about racism and jim crow and slavery when the democrat slaveowner spirit still burns brightly in you.

[Darth Executor]

Sending people to prison is effectively slavery?

Slavery amendment does not prohibit forced labour as punishment for lawbreaking. It does prohibit making a law forcing people to work, which is what happens here.

[Meta Knight]

When you advertise a product for sale and someone wishes to buy it, you can't just say you don't FEEL like selling it.

Why, in every thread where this comes up, do I have to keep saying this?

Yes. You can. It's called "Freedom of Association."

[Psychic Missile]

Slavery amendment does not prohibit forced labour as punishment for lawbreaking. It does prohibit making a law forcing people to work, which is what happens here.

Sending people to prison is the law forcing people to do something against their will, aka slavery, according to Mountain Man. Prison labor has nothing to do with it.

If people want to call this ruling the legalization of slavery, they are using a definition outside of the Constitution, so it is important to understand what definition they are using and what falls under that definition.

[pancreasman]

Why, in every thread where this comes up, do I have to keep saying this?

Yes. You can. It's called "Freedom of Association."

Let's assume for a moment it's that simple. How does the state effectively mandate for non-discrimination for even non-contentious issues like race? (Ignoring DE and Epo). Let's say a cafe owner refuses to serve to blacks. What powers does the state legitimately have to address this wrong? Is it a wrong?

[phank]

They never advertised gay wedding cakes.

If you think wedding cakes have sexual orientations, you need to provide your research.

Nor does this have anything to do with the fact that forcing someone to make you a cake is slavery and banned by the constitution.

LOLWUT! LOL! So businessmen selling their products to their customers is banned by the Constitution? Seriously? Are you feeling OK?

Forcing someone to do work they don't want to do and never agreed to do is slavery.

NOW you are claiming that bakers don't want to bake. Wow!

The sheer heights of idiocy bigots must climb is impressive.

[phank]

Why, in every thread where this comes up, do I have to keep saying this?

Yes. You can. It's called "Freedom of Association."

No, you can't. It's called "against the law". Why do you THINK all these people are being found guilty and fined? It's because they broke the law.

[Darth Executor]

Sending people to prison is the law forcing people to do something against their will, aka slavery, according to Mountain Man. Prison labor has nothing to do with it.

If people want to call this ruling the legalization of slavery, they are using a definition outside of the Constitution, so it is important to understand what definition they are using and what falls under that definition.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

If you support the ruling in the OP you support slavery, there's no way around it.

[phank]

Slavery amendment does not prohibit forced labour as punishment for lawbreaking. It does prohibit making a law forcing people to work, which is what happens here.

No, that's not what's happening here. What's happening here is that there is a LAW requring businessmen to sell their products to their customers, specifying that they can't decide not to sell to certain customers. Misrepresenting the law doesn't change the law. These people are being found guilty and fined because they broke the law. Even the veriest dunce can see this.

[Darth Executor]

No, you can't. It's called "against the law". Why do you THINK all these people are being found guilty and fined? It's because they broke the law.

Not all laws are valid. This particular law is unconstitutional. The people who passed it had no legal right to do so, slaver.

[Raphael]

Let's assume for a moment it's that simple. How does the state effectively mandate for non-discrimination for even non-contentious issues like race? (Ignoring DE and Epo). Let's say a cafe owner refuses to serve to blacks. What powers does the state legitimately have to address this wrong? Is it a wrong?

it should never be illegal to be a racist, or a bigot or whatever, and that should extend to their business dealings.

there is a local cafe in our small town where the do not like kids. they don't have any signs up saying no kids and no policies about not serving kids.....they just really don't like them in the store, as a result, I refuse to give them my custom regardless of whether or not I have my kids with me.

I think it should be the same with private business. They shouldn't be required to sell to me, and I should not be required to buy from them.

Let the private business owner be an ass. If it known and people disagree with it, they will stop giving them their business. On the otherhand if the general populous supports the business owners prejudices, then legislation is not going to change hearts and minds, instead it is going to foster anger and resentment.

[phank]

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

If you support the ruling in the OP you support slavery, there's no way around it.

Oh, shut up. Not even the defendent in these cases mentions slavery, which is completely irrelevant. Businessmen producing the products they sell are hardly being forced into involuntary servitude, they are DOING BUSINESS. Selling products as advertised to customers. You will notice that there are tens of thousands of bakers, and only the bigots who violate the law have any problem. None of them are slaves, but some of them, like you, are flat whacko.

[Darth Executor]

No, that's not what's happening here. What's happening here is that there is a LAW requring businessmen to sell their products to their customers, specifying that they can't decide not to sell to certain customers.

The products don't come out of thin air idiot, they have to make them, and wedding cakes are custom made. The law requires them to make a cake for someone. Since they don't want to do that, the law forces them to make a cake for someone. That's forced labor.

Misrepresenting the law doesn't change the law. These people are being found guilty and fined because they broke the law. Even the veriest dunce can see this.

Nobody is claiming they didn't break the law you illiterate cretin. We are claiming the law is unconstitutional because the state does not have the legal right to pass a law forcing people to work. You keep shouting "dey broke da law" like that's the issue when it isn't.