Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!

[Darth Executor]

Common decency. Treating others as you would wish to be treated. Equality under the law. Compassion, tolerance and understanding. I realize that all of these concepts lie outside your range of comprehension.

Nice backpedal slaverboy.

[Joel]

You are required by law to fill in your tax return. Is that slavery...?

Yes, that violates the 4th, 5th, and 13th Amendments.

Isn't there a social contract...?

Nope.

If you are not permitted by law to murder when you'd much rather kill your neighbour, isn't this by your own argument a form of slavery?

There is a difference between being prohibited from doing something and being forced to do work.

I think the civil rights movement would never had succeeded had it not been for the force of law slowly turning in their direction.

On the contrary, I think in this case, like in most cases, the law was a trailing indicator of public opinion.

OK, people are forced to obey the law. Golly, stop the presses!

Nobody in this thread is complaining about people being forced to obey the law in general. The complaint is against laws that force involuntary servitude, in particular. So please stop this straw man.

Actually (as far as I know) that is perfectly legal.

No, it is not.

!!!
Please show me the statute that makes it illegal.

Not exactly. If a business refuses to sell a product to a customer, the onus is on the business to demonstrate to the satisfaction of a court that their refusal was justified. "I didn't FEEL like it" is not a valid justification.

I'm pretty sure you don't have to prove that your action is "justified". The law only bans discrimination (based on certain categories), so the only question is whether you discriminated (based on one of those categories).
And the accused in the U.S. are presumed innocent. The burden of proof is on the accuser.
Or are you saying the courts are also corrupt in that regard?

Nope, dead wrong. Any court would toss this out in an instant (and possibly fine you for contempt). You advertise it, you MUST sell it, unless you have some powerfully compelling reason why not.

Please show me the statute.

These laws, by the way, are well tested because businesses pull all kinds of stunts. One of the most common is to advertise a product they don't actually have, to draw in customers to sell them something else (bait and switch). Not legal.

Show me the statute.

[Jedidiah]

This is great news. Just as the KKK needed to be actively rooted out after slavery was abolished, there are still those today who need to be stopped from persecuting gay people despite the fact that we now have supposed 'equality'. I hope case serves as a well-publicized example that inspires people not to discriminate against gay people

Interesting contrast. When Christians are discriminated against liberals say that it is okay, but let someone decline to decorate a pro gay cake and they go crazy. This should be overturned.

[Psychic Missile]

Funny how that never applies to gay marriage.

I'm just considering your options for this issue. That's a whole 'nother can of worms.

A draft would probably be unconstitutional too.

Under the same amendment? You would have to be a living document sort to come to that conclusion.

Protected class laws cannot override the constitution (which only has a handful of protected classes and only for the purpose of government legislation; the constitution doesn't mandate any protected classes for anything a private citizen does).

The point of my post was that no matter which way you look at it, this ruling does not violate the 13th Amendment. If you are a strict, conservative constitutionalist, it wasn't what the writers had in mind as an applicable situation. If you believe in the living document, it doesn't apply to other similar areas.

[Jedidiah]

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 not?

[pancreasman]

Interesting contrast. When Christians are discriminated against liberals say that it is okay, but let someone decline to decorate a pro gay cake and they go crazy. This should be overturned.

In a participatory democracy such as ours, it is legitimate for people to be happy with some laws while agitating for the change of others. Hopefully we get the best mix.

[Jedidiah]

Common decency. Treating others as you would wish to be treated. Equality under the law. Compassion, tolerance and understanding. I realize that all of these concepts lie outside your range of comprehension.

How about gays and other liberals treat Christians as they would wish to be treated. Equality under the law. Compassion, tolerance and understanding. I realize that all of these concepts applying to those who disagree with you lies outside your range of comprehension.

[Darth Executor]

Under the same amendment? You would have to be a living document sort to come to that conclusion.

It would come down to whether combat is work.

The point of my post was that no matter which way you look at it, this ruling does not violate the 13th Amendment. If you are a strict, conservative constitutionalist, it wasn't what the writers had in mind as an applicable situation. If you believe in the living document, it doesn't apply to other similar areas.

I'm a literalist. What it says is what it does. Since making a cake for someone is work, and the law forces you to do said work against your will, the law makes you an involuntary servant (indentured servants, btw, were not involuntary, the worker agreed to do work for a certain amount of time in exchange for payment, and while the contract may have been a raw deal used to snag desperate people it was a form of contract work, so it's unlikely that it was intended to apply to them). And I don't think this type of forced labour is different from any other forms of slavery in any meaningful sense. Someone who fines people for not doing work for someone else is no different in my eyes from any other slave owner. If anything he's worse, because at least the slave owner did it for money. Today's slavers actually get off on causing misery even when there's no personal profit for them.

[pancreasman]

How about gays and other liberals treat Christians as they would wish to be treated. Equality under the law. Compassion, tolerance and understanding. I realize that all of these concepts applying to those who disagree with you lies outside your range of comprehension.

Equality under the law, tolerance and understanding do not include allowing Christians to do what they like, particularly if it is against the law.

[Darth Executor]

Equality under the law, tolerance and understanding do not include allowing Christians to do what they like, particularly if it is against the law.

What if the law required atheists to pay a poll tax before being allowed to vote?

[Psychic Missile]

It would come down to whether combat is work.

There are also other issues along the same lines like taxes and alimony.

I'm a literalist. What it says is what it does. Since making a cake for someone is work, and the law forces you to do said work against your will, the law makes you an involuntary servant (indentured servants, btw, were not involuntary, the worker agreed to do work for a certain amount of time in exchange for payment, and while the contract may have been a raw deal used to snag desperate people it was a form of contract work, so it's unlikely that it was intended to apply to them). And I don't think this type of forced labour is different from any other forms of slavery in any meaningful sense. Someone who fines people for not doing work for someone else is no different in my eyes from any other slave owner. If anything he's worse, because at least the slave owner did it for money. Today's slavers actually get off on causing misery even when there's no personal profit for them.

So it doesn't matter to you what the authors had in mind when they wrote the amendment, just what the amendment says? That's fine. The burden then is on you showing how your derived definitions are superior to anyone else's derived definitions. How is you definition, which includes momentary labor, superior to definitions which only consider prolonged labor or definitions which allow exceptions for legal compliance?

[Darth Executor]

So it doesn't matter to you what the authors had in mind when they wrote the amendment, just what the amendment says? That's fine. The burden then is on you showing how your derived definitions are superior to anyone else's derived definitions. How is you definition, which includes momentary labor, superior to definitions which only consider prolonged labor or definitions which allow exceptions for legal compliance?

What "derived definitions?" Where does the constitution distinguish between prolonged labor and momentary labor? It says you cannot force servitude. It doesn't say you cannot force servitude that lasts more than whatever time it takes to bake a cake.

[Raphael]

Spoken like someone who has never been turned away by a bigot.

Complete and utter twaddle. You don't know anything of what I might have experienced.

But they can't break the law.

I am saying there shouldn't be a law if there is one. (and from what I understand of Yankee law there is a case to be made that this law could violate other laws and constitutional rights.....that a separate debate you can have with other Americans, I have no interest in the details of that debate)

You are not required to buy from anyone. They ARE required to sell what they advertise.

Nonsense. I am not required to sell you something just because I advertised it. If I am a private business owner, and you come into my shop and you're being an ass, I can tell you to get out and refuse to sell you anything even if you want to buy it.
If I'm the ass and I don't want to sell it to you because I don't like your shirt/face/haircut, then I should be able to refuse to sell it to you.
What if a skinhead comes in and wants me to make a cake for his Nazi-themed wedding? I should be allowed to refuse that (and I would). What if a KKK member comes in and wants me to cater for his KKK-themed wedding? I should be allowed to refuse that (and I would). What if a brony comes in and wants me to cater for his MLP-FIM-themed wedding? I should be allowed to refuse that (and I would).
I know businesses here in NZ that won't do business with anyone wearing a gang-patch.

Businesses choose who they want to do business with the whole time (most business want to do business with most people because they like money).

Fine. But if he breaks the law, he is guilty of breaking the law.

You can say exactly the same thing about the Civil Right's movement folk. Their cause was right, but guess what, they were breaking the law. The law was stupid and needed changing.

On the contrary, as all these cases illustrate, if he is breaking the law people will sue -- and win.

The law is stupid and needs changing.

Actually, and surprisingly, you raise an interesting point. We can produce a Constitution and associated writings exalting all kinds of wonderful things, but in practice we can violate most of these things with impunity because the deeper implications of what we promise are only visible to people who don't count yet.

Hearts and minds matter. For everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under the sun. Legislators aren't even going to THINK about violations of our principles that everyone takes for granted -- until enough people stop taking them for granted to constitute a political issue. Gay rights are a recent political development, because they are a recent social movement. Gays, for centuries, have understood that they'd better hide it or suffer serious consequences and there wasn't a damn thing they could do to change it.

Today, courts across the country are "discovering" that gays are people, they are US citizens, and they deserve the same basic rights as other citizens. But 20 years ago, no court COULD have made such a discovery. 20 years ago, anti-gay bigotry was normal, accepted, and routine. Today, it's recognized for what it is.

those changes have not come across because laws were changed. The Law changed (rightly or wrongly it doesn't matter) in the face of changing public sentiment. If public sentiment had not changed, the Law would have remained what it was.

[Raphael]

I think the civil rights movement would never had succeeded had it not been for the force of law slowly turning in their direction. People should be allowed to think what they want but if they take action against the law as a matter of conscience they should be prepared to pay the price.

The law changed because the Civil Rights movement changed public sentiment. Public sentiment didn't change because the law changed.

[Psychic Missile]

What "derived definitions?" Where does the constitution distinguish between prolonged labor and momentary labor? It says you cannot force servitude. It doesn't say you cannot force servitude that lasts more than whatever time it takes to bake a cake.

Any definition that is not based on the intent of the author is derived. I'm just listing other ways involuntary servitude has been defined and asking how you came to the conclusion that your definition is superior.