Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!

[Darth Executor]

Oh, shut up. Not even the defendent in these cases mentions slavery, which is completely irrelevant.

A lot of Christians are idiots. So are their lawyers.

Businessmen producing the products they sell are hardly being forced into involuntary servitude, they are DOING BUSINESS.

Yes, "they are doing business" with the government gun at their head. You slavery loving moron.

[Joel]

If you go to a baker and buy a cake, are you "forcing" the baker to work for you?

Yes, if the law says it's a crime for the baker to refuse. Obviously.

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.

Actually (as far as I know) that is perfectly legal. It's legal unless the reason you don't feel like it is because of the person's race, gender, or other categories listed in the law. You can legally refuse for any other of an infinite number of possible other reasons both reasonable and unreasonable. If you like you could flip a fair coin for each potential customer to decide whether to sell to them. (A fair coin does not know the person's race, gender, etc.)

[phank]

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

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

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.

But they can't break the law.

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.

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

Let the private business owner be an ass.

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

If it known and people disagree with it, they will stop giving them their business.

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

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.

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.

[phank]

A lot of Christians are idiots. So are their lawyers.

Yes, I see that clearly.

Yes, "they are doing business" with the government gun at their head. You slavery loving moron.

Gee, businesses can't discriminate, they can't cheat, they can't commit fraud. And it's "slavery lovers" who create and enforce these laws. Bless them.

[pancreasman]

You are required by law to fill in your tax return. Is that slavery, or is it part of the social contract? A soldier is required by military law to do tasks he would rather not do. Is that slavery? A cafe owner is required by law and regulation to meet certain health requirements. Is that slavery?

Isn't there a social contract, often enshrined in law, that to enjoy the benefits and resources of civil society one must comply with certain expectations. 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?

[pancreasman]

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.

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.

[phank]

Yes, if the law says it's a crime for the baker to refuse. Obviously.

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

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

No, it is not.

It's legal unless the reason you don't feel like it is because of the person's race, gender, or other categories listed in the law.

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.

You can legally refuse for any other of an infinite number of possible other reasons both reasonable and unreasonable.

No, you can not. You must satisfy a court that your reason is valid.

If you like you could flip a fair coin for each potential customer to decide whether to sell to them. (A fair coin does not know the person's race, gender, etc.)

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.

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. And still, many businesses skirt the edges of the law. I've seen displays of "up to 80% off anything in this case", and it turns out that only one single item is 80% off, the price it's 80% less than is outrageous, and everything else in the case is overpriced.

But this is legal because the same prices are offered to ALL customers, not just some of them.

[Darth Executor]

Gee, businesses can't discriminate

Yes, actually, they can, legally, since the constitution protects them.

[phank]

You are required by law to fill in your tax return. Is that slavery, or is it part of the social contract? A soldier is required by military law to do tasks he would rather not do. Is that slavery? A cafe owner is required by law and regulation to meet certain health requirements. Is that slavery?

Isn't there a social contract, often enshrined in law, that to enjoy the benefits and resources of civil society one must comply with certain expectations. 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?

Depends on your religion. If none of these offend your religion, than the accusation of slavery is nonsense. Otherwise, it's obviously slavery.

[phank]

Yes, actually, they can, legally, since the constitution protects them.

No, they can't. Why do you think all these businesses that discriminate are being found guilty and fined? Did it ever occur to you to wonder?

[Darth Executor]

You are required by law to fill in your tax return. Is that slavery, or is it part of the social contract? A soldier is required by military law to do tasks he would rather not do. Is that slavery? A cafe owner is required by law and regulation to meet certain health requirements. Is that slavery?

None of these involve forced labor (except if by soldier you are referring to an involuntary army).

Isn't there a social contract, often enshrined in law, that to enjoy the benefits and resources of civil society one must comply with certain expectations. 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?

Your post just went from kinda dumb to rock bottom stupid.

[Darth Executor]

No, they can't. Why do you think all these businesses that discriminate are being found guilty and fined? Did it ever occur to you to wonder?

Because of unconstitutional laws passed by progressive slavery enthusiasts. Duh. What do you think we've been discussing up until now?

[Psychic Missile]

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.

Your argument should be rephrased as "If you support the ruling in the OP you support involuntary servitude, there's no way around it." However, it would still be wrong. A conservative interpretation of the Constitution would need to examine what involuntary servitude meant to the authors, which would fall more in line with indentured servitude. There's also the rulings concerning an exception when that work is done for owed duties, like the draft. Compliance with protected class laws would be included under such rulings.

[phank]

Because of unconstitutional laws passed by progressive slavery enthusiasts. Duh. What do you think we've been discussing up until now?

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.

[Darth Executor]

Your argument should be rephrased as "If you support the ruling in the OP you support involuntary servitude, there's no way around it." However, it would still be wrong. A conservative interpretation of the Constitution would need to examine what involuntary servitude meant to the authors, which would fall more in line with indentured servitude.

Funny how that never applies to gay marriage.

There's also the rulings concerning an exception when that work is done for owed duties, like the draft.

A draft would probably be unconstitutional too.

Compliance with protected class laws would be included under such rulings.

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).