The More We Evolve, the Less We Need God

[seer]

The baker's free exercise of religion is not infringed by baking a cake.

See above re the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Again the baker is forced by law to violate his religious belief and free exercise is an enumerated right, and again there is no Constitutional right to his service. You do not have a right to my labor. No matter what the CRA says because that provision concerning private business is not based in or on an enumerated right. And we know this because the provision concerning private business only applies to businesses who take out of state travelers/goods. If they don't they are free to discriminate.

[Doug Shaver]

The majority of Scripture is quite plain. As is the Constitution. I'm sure you have read it, no big mystery.

I have read both. I have also read a substantial body of writings about both in which the authors argue at length over what the documents mean, all the while insisting "It means what it says."

Ok, so what are you taking about with Smith and Jones? What does Smith have a Constitutional right too?

The question is: Given that Smith and Jones disagree about what Smith has a right to, who should resolve their dispute? I am not saying that you or I must agree with that decision. But the decision has to be made. By whom?

[Tassman]

Again the baker is forced by law to violate his religious belief and free exercise is an enumerated right,

The baker is not having his religious beliefs violated by baking a cake. .

and again there is no Constitutional right to his service.

Again, you are ignoring the existence of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlaws discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin in Public Accommodations...including cake shops that are open to the general public.

[seer]

The question is: Given that Smith and Jones disagree about what Smith has a right to, who should resolve their dispute? I am not saying that you or I must agree with that decision. But the decision has to be made. By whom?

Well the Court. But if the Court is in violation of the Constitution, like if they denied the right of petition for instance, then what?

I have read both. I have also read a substantial body of writings about both in which the authors argue at length over what the documents mean, all the while insisting "It means what it says."

Yet you said that the first amendment was unambiguous? Which is it Doug?

[seer]

Again, you are ignoring the existence of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlaws discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin in Public Accommodations...including cake shops that are open to the general public.

Nope, if the Baker did not accept out of state customers or goods then the Commerce clause would not apply to him. That is because it is not an enumerated right.

The Court ruled in Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. U.S. (1964) that Congress had plenty of authority under the Commerce Clause to ban racial discrimination at the hotel because the hotel catered to interstate travel*ers and it therefore affected interstate commerce.https://www.americanbar.org/publicat...lutionary.html

[Doug Shaver]

But if the Court is in violation of the Constitution . . . .

That cannot mean anything except that you disagree with the court's ruling.

I have also read a substantial body of writings about both in which the authors argue at length over what the documents mean, all the while insisting "It means what it says."

Yet you said that the first amendment was unambiguous?

I said one clause in it was unambiguous. There has never been, to my knowledge, any dispute about what it means. If everyone agrees about what something means, then by definition it is unambiguous. You only have ambiguity when some people say "This means X" and other people say "No, it does not mean X."

And I did not say that biblical scholars disagree about the meaning of every single statement in the Bible, either. But those who say "It means just what it says" do disagree about the meaning of many things that it does say.

[seer]

That cannot mean anything except that you disagree with the court's ruling.

Are you saying that the Court can not violate the Constitution?

I said one clause in it was unambiguous. There has never been, to my knowledge, any dispute about what it means. If everyone agrees about what something means, then by definition it is unambiguous. You only have ambiguity when some people say "This means X" and other people say "No, it does not mean X."

Well that is a start, at least you see certain parts as unambiguous. So what if the Court disagreed about the right to petition? Would the court be right or the text?

And I did not say that biblical scholars disagree about the meaning of every single statement in the Bible, either. But those who say "It means just what it says" do disagree about the meaning of many things that it does say.

I think it was Mark Twain who said it wasn't the parts of the bible that he didn't understand that bothered him, but the parts that he did understand. There is plenty in Scripture that is straight forward and plain.

[Tassman]

Nope, if the Baker did not accept out of state customers or goods then the Commerce clause would not apply to him. That is because it is not an enumerated right.

Not so.

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is federal civil rights legislation that prohibits discrimination in numerous settings including: employment, education, voting, and public accommodations. See FindLaw's codes section for the entire Civil Rights Act of 1964. Specifically, Title II prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin in places of public accommodations and provides injunctive relief for such violations."

https://civilrights.findlaw.com/enfo...ve-relief.html

[seer]

Not so.

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is federal civil rights legislation that prohibits discrimination in numerous settings including: employment, education, voting, and public accommodations. See FindLaw's codes section for the entire Civil Rights Act of 1964. Specifically, Title II prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin in places of public accommodations and provides injunctive relief for such violations."

https://civilrights.findlaw.com/enfo...ve-relief.html

Tass, you own link proves what I said:

any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residenc

(c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.

If a business does not accept interstate travelers or goods you can not apply the Commerce Clause. There is no enumerated Constitution right to another man's labor, or a right not to be discriminated against.

[Tassman]

Tass, you own link proves what I said:



If a business does not accept interstate travelers or goods you can not apply the Commerce Clause. There is no enumerated Constitution right to another man's labor, or a right not to be discriminated against.

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is federal civil rights legislation that prohibits discrimination in numerous settings including: employment, education, voting, and public accommodations. Specifically, Title II prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin in places of public accommodations and provides injunctive relief for such violations."

[seer]

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is federal civil rights legislation that prohibits discrimination in numerous settings including: employment, education, voting, and public accommodations. Specifically, Title II prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin in places of public accommodations and provides injunctive relief for such violations."

Tass, you are not dealing with the point. Businesses can discriminate if they do not accept interstate travelers or goods, because the Commerce Clause only applies to businesses that do accept interstate travelers or tgoods. You own link proved my point. Never mind the fact that the CRA does nor protect discrimination based on sexual orientation. Get over it.

[Sparko]

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is federal civil rights legislation that prohibits discrimination in numerous settings including: employment, education, voting, and public accommodations. Specifically, Title II prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin in places of public accommodations and provides injunctive relief for such violations."

Typical Tassman response, just repeat himself...

[Tassman]

Typical Tassman response, just repeat himself...

All that's being repeated here is seer's idiosyncratic interpretation of the Civil Rights Act. He apparently wants to revert to the good ole' Jim Crow days and Rosa Parks et al, which led directly to the Civil Rights Movement. This culminated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which he so reviles as being unconstitutional. And, all because a homophobic baker wants to legally berate homosexual customers for being "sinful", or the much married Kim Davis wants to refuse wedding certificates to gay couples who wish to legally marry.

[seer]

All that's being repeated here is seer's idiosyncratic interpretation of the Civil Rights Act. He apparently wants to revert to the good ole' Jim Crow days and Rosa Parks et al, which led directly to the Civil Rights Movement. This culminated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which he so reviles as being unconstitutional. And, all because a homophobic baker wants to legally berate homosexual customers for being "sinful", or the much married Kim Davis wants to refuse wedding certificates to gay couples who wish to legally marry.

Stop lying about me Tass, and it is not a idiosyncratic interpretation it is what the law says as your OWN link demonstrated.

[Sparko]

All that's being repeated here is seer's idiosyncratic interpretation of the Civil Rights Act. He apparently wants to revert to the good ole' Jim Crow days and Rosa Parks et al, which led directly to the Civil Rights Movement. This culminated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which he so reviles as being unconstitutional. And, all because a homophobic baker wants to legally berate homosexual customers for being "sinful", or the much married Kim Davis wants to refuse wedding certificates to gay couples who wish to legally marry.

That doesn't even make sense Tassman. He merely corrected your misunderstanding about the Civil Rights Act, which others have done previously, and each and every time your response was just just repeat your previous error word for word. Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalala I can't hear you" doesn't change the fact that you are WRONG. Repeating your wrongness doesn't make it right. It just makes you look ignorant and a waste of time to even debate with.