The More We Evolve, the Less We Need God

[carpedm9587]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 enacted July 2, 1964, is a landmark civil rights and US labor law in the United States that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It prohibits unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation in schools, employment, and public accommodations.

Congress asserted its authority to legislate under several different parts of the United States Constitution, principally its power to regulate interstate commerce under Article One (section 8), its duty to guarantee all citizens equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment and its duty to protect voting rights under the Fifteenth Amendment.

https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=97

See above.

You guys may be talking past each other. The government has laws that prevent it (i.e., the government) from discriminating. There are no laws, that I know of, that prevent an individual from discriminating. Businesses sit in a gray area. Many of us believe the laws do not permit businesses to discriminate unjustly. Obviously, a lot of people disagree with that.

[seer]

You're partly right. The preamble to the constitution states: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"Pursuit of happiness" is in the DoI, so I short-circuited on that one. I thought I remembered it being the Constitution as well and I was wrong. However, the constitution does state that it's purpose is to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and promote general welfare - and discrimination is counter to all of those things. The constitution does not give the government the right to tell someone what to think, but it does give the government the right to limit expression of those thoughts in action under certain circumstances.

By the way, congrats on the sig. It's so joyful and uplifting...

Except Carp, a Christian baker (which me and Tass were discussing) may find it unjust and a violation of his liberty to be forced to serve a gay wedding. Laws supporting gay marriage or abortion may disturb domestic tranquility rather than promote it. So like Tass, I suspect that you would have no problem undermining domestic tranquility and the liberty of others for a cause you would agree with.

[carpedm9587]

Except Carp, a Christian baker (which me and Tass were discussing) may find it unjust and a violation of his liberty to be forced to serve a gay wedding. Laws supporting gay marriage or abortion may disturb domestic tranquility rather than promote it. So like Tass, I suspect that you would have no problem undermining domestic tranquility and the liberty of others for a cause you would agree with.

My views on this have been made several times. Repeating them is not going to gain anyone anything.

[lilpixieofterror]

Hard to memorize something you've never used before. Once I use them, I know them.

Would also be helpful if, when you moused over, it displayed the code instead of a description. Like this one: and this one:

I only need to see them a few times to remember the codes. Than again, I do have a pretty close to eidetic memory, so that does help in memorizing useless information.

[Tassman]

You guys may be talking past each other. The government has laws that prevent it (i.e., the government) from discriminating. There are no laws, that I know of, that prevent an individual from discriminating. Businesses sit in a gray area. Many of us believe the laws do not permit businesses to discriminate unjustly. Obviously, a lot of people disagree with that.

and public accommodations

[Tassman]

Except Carp, a Christian baker (which me and Tass were discussing) may find it unjust and a violation of his liberty to be forced to serve a gay wedding. Laws supporting gay marriage or abortion may disturb domestic tranquility rather than promote it. So like Tass, I suspect that you would have no problem undermining domestic tranquility and the liberty of others for a cause you would agree with.

It is no more a violation of the liberty of an Evangelical baker than it is a "violation of the liberty" of a gay couple to be denied service by a cake shop for a wedding that is recognised by law.

[Tassman]

Tass I already proved that the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to private business, the Supreme Court long ago shot that idea down.

https://www.americanbar.org/publicat...lutionary.html

[seer]

It is no more a violation of the liberty of an Evangelical baker than it is a "violation of the liberty" of a gay couple to be denied service by a cake shop for a wedding that is recognised by law.

Nonsense Tass, no one is forcing the gay couple to do anything. And whether this will stand up to legal principles is an open question at this point.

[seer]

Nonsense! https://www.americanbar.org/publicat...lutionary.html

You can't read? From the link:

The Court held that Congress exceed*ed its enforcement authority under the Fourteenth Amendment because racial discrimination in places of public accommodation amounted to private discrimination, not state-sponsored dis*crimination.

Your own quote shows that they could and did shield themselves with the state-actor requirement in the Fourteenth Amendment. But using the Commerce clause they got around the state-actor requirement of Fourteenth Amendment. So Tass either you are completely dishonest or you can't comprehend basic English because the Fourteenth Amendment did not and does not apply to private business.

Again let me quote the Amendment:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[seer]

My views on this have been made several times. Repeating them is not going to gain anyone anything.

Like I said you have no problem undermining domestic tranquility or the liberty of others for a cause you would agree with.

[carpedm9587]

Like I said you have no problem undermining domestic tranquility or the liberty of others for a cause you would agree with.

No

[seer]

No

[carpedm9587]

You're right. That was ambiguous. "You're wrong" would have been clearer.

[seer]

You're right. That was ambiguous. "You're wrong" would have been clearer.

Well I'm glade you would not undermining domestic tranquility by supporting thinks like gay marriage or abortion, or undermine the religious liberty of a Christian baker.

[carpedm9587]

Well I'm glade you would not undermining domestic tranquility by supporting thinks like gay marriage or abortion, or undermine the religious liberty of a Christian baker.

Just because something "upsets domestic tranquility" does not mean it is bad. Indeed, usually it just means that some group of people who are used to "X" being the norm have to adjust to "Y" being the norm. The civil rights era "upset domestic tranquility" for some. On the other hand, "domestic tranquility" for many others had been nonexistent for centuries and was overdue to be examined and corrected. Sometimes, you have to get through a period of "upset" to get to a system that is more equitable for all. I doubt too many people would take the position, "the civil rights era was bad because it upset domestic tranquility."

As fr "religious liberty," all liberty has limits. No one in this country or any other is "absolutely free." Our country is about balancing freedoms. Even those of religions. People simply disagree on which limits are appropriate and which are not, and how to strike that balance.


And you should get out of that glade. You're going to sunburn.