[Zionist Nationalist]

all those who defend this bitch are for sure would condemn her if the same would happen with their favorite president obamba

[Godstud]

People generally think of attending a wedding, in any capacity, involves the celebration of that event, and the act of preparing things for it has meaning. Baking a cake or making flower arrangements for something explicitly against your religion should not be asked of anyone.

Don't go into the business if it's all about how you feel.

The most important point of all is that nobody should be forced to do something against their will with their business.

Your business is not allowed to discriminate against people based on religion. Freedom of religion also means freedom from the constraints of your religion. Feel all you want, but you can't refuse service based on your "feelings". You are not permitted to discriminate against people on the basis of your religion.

This isn't even libertarianism. This isn't a radical position.

It's a very right-wing libertarian position. Freedom of the person trumps that of society, and what is best for society.

People have rights over their own property and their own businesses.

Yes, and freedom of/from religion, is one of them, is a right in most modern societies. You are free to say, "I don't approve of gay marriage, because I am a fundamentalist Christian.", but you are not permitted to deny them service based on that religious belief.

[Potemkin]

Your business is not allowed to discriminate against people based on religion. Freedom of religion also means freedom from the constraints of your religion. Feel all you want, but you can't refuse service based on your "feelings". You are not permitted to discriminate against people on the basis of your religion.

[...]

Yes, and freedom of/from religion, is one of them, is a right in most modern societies. You are free to say, "I don't approve of gay marriage, because I am a fundamentalist Christian.", but you are not permitted to deny them service based on that religious belief.

In other words: you are free to believe what you like, but you are not free to act in accordance with those beliefs. Is that your position, Godstud?

[Godstud]

When it comes to freedom of religion, you cannot discriminate against others, based on that.

You are free to act in accordance with your religion, unless those circumstances are present.

[Potemkin]

When it comes to freedom of religion, you cannot discriminate against others, based on that.

You are free to act in accordance with your religion, unless those circumstances are present.

That's not freedom of religion, Godstud, that's freedom from religion.

[Godstud]

Freedom of religion is also freedom from it. My freedom to no be discriminated against, because of your religion, is also a religious freedom.

[Potemkin]

Freedom of religion is also freedom from it. My freedom to no be discriminated against, because of your religion, is also a religious freedom.

No Godstud, they are not the same thing at all. Freedom from religion means curtailing believers' freedom to act according to the teachings of their religion, since this would necessarily infringe the freedom of non-believers to ignore those teachings. The American Constitutions guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Atheism horrified even free-thinkers like Jefferson or Paine.

[blackjack21]

So you agree with segregation of blacks and white? You're OK with that kind of discrimination?

Desegregation was favored by the left, because they though segregation was cruel. Today, it is no longer looked down upon. Instead, minorities express a desire to maintain their culture rather than adopt the larger culture. Today's left calls this "multiculturalism." There are television channels like Univision which caters to Hispanics or Black Entertainment Network (BET) which caters to blacks. Soon there will be television channels that cater to whites as they become a mere plurality. "Safe spaces" is all about segregation. That's why it is said that the Sundays are the most segregated day in America.

I cannot deny you service at my restaurant simply because you come in wearing a cross on a chain, even though I don't think Christians are generally good people.

It may depend on the size of the business, its ownership structure, etc.

Do I also have a right to deny people service, who have beards?

That isn't something precluded by any law. So yes.

You're essentially saying that discrimination/prejudice is OK, as long as the government isn't doing it. Have you even thought this through?

Discrimination isn't limited to racial, sexual or religious discrimination. People with sophisticated palettes are said to have "discriminating tastes." You seem to think the work "discrimination" automatically implies something bad.

I don't think you have a clue what the Founding Fathers envisioned.

Thomas Jefferson wrote a statue punishing sodomy by 20 years in prison. He was a radical liberal in his time, and he thought hanging people for sodomy was a touch too much. So he reduced the punishment to 20 years. He held his own children as slaves, only freeing them upon his death. He was the founder of the modern Democratic party.

It would be interesting to see what side of the Civil War the Founders would have taken. I'm guessing Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Hancock, and Henry wouldn't be remembered so fondly today had they been alive for that conflict as they had all owned slaves at one point, and may have taken a side that Godstud doesn't agree with.

Was anyone actually hurt by this? Aside from feelings, I mean...

Try saying the n-word and see if our moderators don't punish you for this. You see, it might hurt someone's feelings.

So what do you think the Founding Fathers envisioned? Endless latino immigration and transgender people collecting welfare while marrying each other?

This is why the political left has to abandon any linkage to the founding of the United States, because it is absurd to think the founders shared anything in common with today's left.

As I see it - The Constitution provides a vital and cohesive foundation for all state law.

You are speaking more to its role than its relevance. Kennedy and the leftists on the court treated with less respect than a dishrag with their DOMA decision, and even one of the more right leaning members of the court upheld Obamcare in spite of no severability clause while the left who voted with him wrote a dissenting opinion on their own votes. It scarcely means what it says anymore. The court has essentially eviscerated the constitution.

It provides open and transparent means for alteration of it's own content by the will of the people it governs. A methodology that has proven itself through several modifications.

More than 20. Yet, it's 14th modification has been used in ways never intended by the writers of that amendment--rendering the US constitution unfit to carry out its intended purpose in many respects.

I imagine most of us disagree with parts of what it has become, but, democratic society is based on disagreement.

Political factions sing the courts to modify the constitution outside the parameters of the constitution itself is not democratic society--not that the US was intended as a democracy anyway, and a further illustration of why the constitution doesn't fulfill that role anymore.

The US constitution imposes a minimum of that and that is what "The People" have chosen. Love it or leave it.

The People in 1789. The people today didn't choose it. They also don't have to leave it. They can come up with their own cabal, insert them onto the Surpreme Court and further their own agenda with the superfluous writ of the Supreme Court behind them.

Are we going back to the days of blacklisting and the government enforced conformity of the McCarthy era? (Wouldn't Trump love that!)

We already had 8 years of that under Obama. For many people, it's nice that they aren't facing IRS audits just because they donated to the RNC. I find it comical that Zuckerburg is getting chewed out because his data got into Trump's hands. They had no problem with all of Obama's gross abuses of power. You apparently don't either. You don't even consider the IRS's actions blacklisting. Sorry many of us are not going to join you on what you think is some sort of moral high ground.

Personal beliefs are fine, until they affect the lives of others. That's where your "freedoms" end in a progressive and modern society.

We don't want to live under your definition of a progressive and modern society (noting again that you live under a military government with a monarch as a denizen of Canada by choice). Publicly traded firms should have to serve the general public. Private firms should be able to serve whomever they choose to. Private firms that want to obtain government contracts or benefits may be required to serve the general public too as part of a government contract.

I am sure they didn't envision slavery ending, space travel, high literacy rates, and computers.

Jefferson was strong on education--he was the founder of public schooling in the US.

Remember that Statue of Liberty? Tons of conservatives , like you, forget it pretty quickly, when the immigration issue arises.

It has nothing to do with the United States. It's a French statue that was gifted to the United States. It represents US independence from Great Britain. It was dedicated in 1886 during Grover Cleaveland's presidency. The Statue of Libery has nothing whatsoever to do with immigration. It was just visible from Ellis Island where the US had its East Coast immigration station (noting that it was government-controlled and lawful process, not a bunch of illegal immigrants).

Also, your "feelings" are what makes you think that "the finger" is obscene, so don't talk to me about your feelings not being involved. I don't find the finger obscene. Offensive? Maybe. It's very subjective and a symbol of disdain is not the same as being "obscene".

What if it is used by a white nationalist against a minority? What if it is used by a straight person against homosexuals and other sexual deviants? The whole case for political correctness rests on the feelings of minorities.

You cannot inflict those beliefs on others, and that means refusing service to people because they don't belong to your fucking religion, or stupid ideology.

It's probably a stupid waste of time to ask you a serious question, but here it goes: What makes you think a business owner has more obligations than a business customer? Why is it okay for people to boycott particular businesses (discriminate against them), but it is not okay for a businesses to discriminate against particular customers? Are they not equal under the law?

You simply don't like that people do not have the freedom to discriminate against others because they don't believe the things that you do.

But as boycotters, they do. The government of San Francisco won't allow travel to Raleigh, NC because of bans on transgender bathrooms. So you think boycotting is okay, but providing service must be provided universally? Why the legal difference? The Obama administration tried to do the opposite--create a legal obligation to purchase health insurance.

You seem to have some imaginary idea that people are as uneducated, ignorant, and racist, as they were 240 years ago.

The founding fathers weren't uneducated and ignorant. Racism isn't predicated on stupidity.

Science isn't exactly on the everyone is naturally born as total equals line. Indeed, I cannot think of a more unscientific claim than the presupposition that all peoples are born equal.

This is why I find people arguing against Judeo-Christian ethics a bit bizarre. They do this typically in furtherance of communism. The more natural outcome of a non-Judeo-Christian society is Nazism, not communism.

:roll: Why shouldn't she? She's not the one getting married. She's merely providing catering, and they aren't asking for lower rates because they are homosexual. Your reasoning is preposterous.

Because compelling someone to provide a service that is in conflict with their religious beliefs violates freedom to act in accordance with their religion or personal beliefs. My father was a medical doctor. He would not perform elective abortions if there was not medical reason to do so. If you were part of a Nazi society and didn't agree with your government, would have a right to not provide service to a concentration camp? Or would you feel a-okay if you performed the service but felt a little queasy about what was happening with your compelled assistance? What if the military government under which you live requires you to provide service to help them do something you disgree with?

Don't go into the business if it's all about how you feel.

Going into business is a requirement for making a living. Saying that commercial law trumps freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of religion is to say that the latter are not rights at all, which is what communists would like to see materialize.

You are not permitted to discriminate against people on the basis of your religion.

We are permitted to vote for politicians who will pass legislation and appoint SCOTUS judges who will allow us to freely associate.

[Patrickov]

Desegregation was favored by the left, because they though segregation was cruel. Today, it is no longer looked down upon. Instead, minorities express a desire to maintain their culture rather than adopt the larger culture. Today's left calls this "multiculturalism." There are television channels like Univision which caters to Hispanics or Black Entertainment Network (BET) which caters to blacks. Soon there will be television channels that cater to whites as they become a mere plurality. "Safe spaces" is all about segregation. That's why it is said that the Sundays are the most segregated day in America.

Maybe we got it all wrong from the beginning. They might have just been against coerced segregation. No one gives a crap on voluntary segregation except Chinese Communists (who once called those people 自絕於人民, i.e. "alienating themselves from the People")

[Zamuel]

rendering the US constitution unfit to carry out its intended purpose in many respects.

Majority rule disagrees with you ... (thankfully)

It has nothing to do with the United States. It's a French statue that was gifted to the United States. It represents US independence from Great Britain..

Initially perhaps, it has since acquired a great deal of meaning as an American Icon. But hey, Columbia is a pagan goddess, we should probably melt it down and make beer mugs from it.

Zam

[One Degree]

Maybe we got it all wrong from the beginning. They might have just been against coerced segregation. No one gives a crap on voluntary segregation except Chinese Communists (who once called those people 自絕於人民, i.e. "alienating themselves from the People")

Yes, I have been saying this for quite awhile. They got it wrong when they decided forced integration was the permanent solution to forced segregation. It was only a temporary necessity. Equality is being free to choose which you want. Denying either does not benefit the individual.

[blackjack21]

Maybe we got it all wrong from the beginning. They might have just been against coerced segregation. No one gives a crap on voluntary segregation except Chinese Communists (who once called those people 自絕於人民, i.e. "alienating themselves from the People")

Well, I think that's applicable these days only if you are not white. For example, College hosts no-whites-allowed pool party. <--I have no problem with this. I just have a problem with a "whites only" party being characterized as racist, but a "no whites" party not being characterized the same way. If we can have "no blacks" parties, then we're back to equality with other groups again and the rules apply equally. If some are allowed to discriminate and others are not, we have no equality before the law.

Majority rule disagrees with you ... (thankfully)

If the majority ruled, Trump wouldn't be president.

Initially perhaps, it has since acquired a great deal of meaning as an American Icon.

Uncle Sam has acquired a great deal of meaning too. So what?

But hey, Columbia is a pagan goddess, we should probably melt it down and make beer mugs from it.

I'm sure Christopher Columbus wouldn't approve. So I second the motion.

Yes, I have been saying this for quite awhile. They got it wrong when they decided forced integration was the permanent solution to forced segregation. It was only a temporary necessity. Equality is being free to choose which you want. Denying either does not benefit the individual.

Right, and blacks seem to be more comfortable around their own kind.

Anyway, the woman got herself fired. I'm nonplussed.

[Libertarian353]

all those who defend this bitch are for sure would condemn her if the same would happen with their favorite president obamba

Like how you and your side defended an unruly congressman when Obama gave his speech: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/11/us/p ... -hall.html

Or how you defended a republican body slamming a reporter: http://www.businessinsider.com/greg-gia ... nce-2017-6

Or how you were silent when an Black female reporter April Ryan receive death threats for asking question no white person dare to ask: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 509476002/

How about you shut the fuck up, and don't ditch out what you can't take.

[Verv]

Don't go into the business if it's all about how you feel.

Your business is not allowed to discriminate against people based on religion. Freedom of religion also means freedom from the constraints of your religion. Feel all you want, but you can't refuse service based on your "feelings". You are not permitted to discriminate against people on the basis of your religion.

It's a very right-wing libertarian position. Freedom of the person trumps that of society, and what is best for society.

Yes, and freedom of/from religion, is one of them, is a right in most modern societies. You are free to say, "I don't approve of gay marriage, because I am a fundamentalist Christian.", but you are not permitted to deny them service based on that religious belief.

I feel like I am repeating myself, but let me try to say it in a slightly different way, then:

(a) I do not think people are terribly evil. I think that allowing businesses to operate exactly how they want would not result in great evil. It is an exaggeration to suggest that if we let businesses operate how they want there would be a total social breakdown because it'd become a made-for-TV movie about the Deep South, where everyone who isn't a white super-conservative church goer that doesn't speak with a Southern drawl can't buy groceries or get medical treatment because we don't like yo' kind 'round 'ere.

It'd rather be the opposite: a pizzeria that said "no gays" would face massive boycotts, just like Chick-fil-a, a restaurant that is based exclusively in the South.

I even mentioned that you could say that enforced desegregation may have been necessary in the 1960s and 1970s. But it certainly isn't in 2018.

(b) I do not believe that I have the right to force anyone to do anything with their own property they do not wish to do. They are obligated to pay taxes, and if they are going ot receive government funding and contracts we could make sure that they only receive them if they agree to not discriminate, but I cannot seriously say that a guy who runs a Muslim bakery should be forced to do anything he doesn't want to do.

Likewise, how could I say that a gay bar should be forced to let myself & 20 colleagues come in every night, sit at all the tables, and order cheap coffees once every two hours just to disrupt the atmosphere and proselytize, doesn't have a righ tto bar us from coming...

(c) So if I were to demand that a Jewish baker put a big, fat swastika on a cake for me, and he sensibly tells me to fuck off and he doesn't approve, he doesn't have the right, because it is discriminatory, correct?

He is allowed to believe what he wants about Nazis, but to not discriminate against them, right?

it's not a silly example either because you know bands like Taake and organizations like American Renaissance are denied the right to rent out hotels or play at venues due to threats from the Left. This is a form of discrimination, right, and they should be forced to host them or else they infringe on the rights of the far right fellahs, right?

Or are you going to go all Karl Popper on me?

[Godstud]

Likewise, how could I say that a gay bar should be forced to let myself & 20 colleagues come in every night, sit at all the tables, and order cheap coffees once every two hours just to disrupt the atmosphere and proselytize, doesn't have a righ tto bar us from coming...

They wouldn't be kicking you out for being anything other than shit customers, if they did so.

So if I were to demand that a Jewish baker put a big, fat swastika on a cake for me, and he sensibly tells me to fuck off and he doesn't approve, he doesn't have the right, because it is discriminatory, correct?

That's not a religious reason, is it? It's got nothing to do with religion.

He is allowed to believe what he wants about Nazis, but to not discriminate against them, right

No, because this has nothing to do with religion. Nazis practice an offensive ideology that promote hatred against Jews, and minorities. His discrimination would have basis in nazi hate speech, and in reason, not simply "feelings" or "belief".

it's not a silly example either because you know bands like Taake and organizations like American Renaissance are denied the right to rent out hotels or play at venues due to threats from the Left. This is a form of discrimination, right, and they should be forced to host them or else they infringe on the rights of the far right fellahs, right?

To repeat this... it's not based on religious FEELINGS. The reasons are legitimate, and realistic.

[One Degree]

Listing who you can not discriminate against is discrimination. It also confuses the issue.
The real issue is can a baker choose who he wants for customers and what level of government should make this decision?
As soon as you start listing who he can and can not refuse, you end up on a path of passing laws for every decision that baker may choose to make. You end up with an incomprehensible mishmash that only lawyers love.
Virtually all our decisions can be made without mentioning race, yet it is the focal point of every discussion.

[Godstud]

Confusion only if you can't differentiate hate speech from religious belief. There is nothing confusing about it.

A person's appearance isn't something you should be discriminating against, particularly if it's how they were born. You talk about decisions being made without race, and yet you mention race when these decisions are being made.

[One Degree]

Confusion only if you can't differentiate hate speech from religious belief. There is nothing confusing about it.

I wasn't mentioned race, so your argument is BS. That said, a person's appearance isn't something you should be discriminating against, particularly if it's how they were born.

Can’t you see YOU are making these decisions? Do you honestly think groups are going to stop jumping on this bandwagon? I fully expect law enforcement to be one of the next. Refusing them service can be argued as endangering public safety, and I think our Supreme Court would readily agree. Your own identity politics can be used against you simply by the change in the court. This is why people need to look beyond today.

[Godstud]

Refusing them service can be argued as endangering public safety, and I think our Supreme Court would readily agree.

WTF are you babbling about? refusing service to someone who avidly uses hate speech against you endangers public safety? What rubbish.

Your own identity politics can be used against you simply by the change in the court.

That is how society operates. Right-wingers just cry more when it's used against them.

This is why people need to look beyond today.

Right, and yet people like you look to the past and try to take us BACKWARDS.

[One Degree]

WTF are you babbling about? refusing service to someone who avidly uses hate speech against you endangers public safety? What rubbish.

That is how society operates. Right-wingers just cry more when it's used against them.

Right, and yet people like you look to the past and try to take us BACKWARDS.

Do you think groups are going to quit insisting they be added to the elite list?
Do you see any reason why EVERY group will not eventually try?
What is the future you are pursuing?