It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: peskyhumans
IMO it would just be simpler to let sole proprietors decide who they chose to do business with
CONGRESS shall pass no law. Not “The States.” Congress.
So why does it now apply to the states? The 14th amendment.
...
This law was passed during reconstruction, when many states were passing laws prohibiting the former slaves from applying their natural and civil rights, such as the right to speak as they wished or associate with others they wanted to.
...
The 14th Amendment, particularly the above so called “privileges and immunities” clause, is what gives the Federal Courts the powers to enforce most of the bill of rights upon the states, such as the very important right to a fair trial by a jury, right against unreasonable search and seizure, and, recently, a right to keep and bear arms.
originally posted by: Ahabstar
I can honestly say that I would provide no goods nor service to WBC wedding if asked to do so.
I would deny KKK for the same reason.
originally posted by: Ahabstar
Prejudice is part of the human condition. Doesn't make it right no matter what excuse is made. But legislating morality never ever works.
originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: peskyhumans
Why do you keep talking about sole proprietorships vs corporations ?
Do you think that corporations are automatically publicly traded companies or something ?
A corporation can also be a sole proprietorship (one owner) with the only difference being the sole owner is now no longer personally at risk for the liabilities of the incorporated company. Most sole proprietors end up incorporating their business at some point, usually when their annual revenues start getting into the $200,000+ range... at that point the personal risk becomes too high to continue operating as a non-incorporated sole proprietorship.
originally posted by: peskyhumans
How can you claim in one breath that stores need to serve everyone because it's discrimination otherwise,
but in another breath say that you wouldn't wed someone from the KKK?
So it's okay to discriminate against groups of people you don't like, but not against groups of people you do like?
I think allowing small businesses (sole proprietors) to pick and choose their customers, and requiring all corporations to serve everyone, would be a clear-cut law that would at least be tolerable for everyone.
If the little old christian lady running a local bake shop won't bake your wedding cake, that's okay. You can go to a big-name bakery and get it there.
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
That's a tough one. But no, I don't think it should jeopardize your license. I think you and I would both deny them, not because of their religion (supposedly Christianity), but because of the fact that they're a hate group. I would deny KKK for the same reason.
originally posted by: jaffo
So...if a KKK member went to a Jewish bakery and demanded that the baker make him a cake in the shape of an Auschwitz oven for his next rally, evidently in America the baker would just have to make it for him or he would be in the wrong.
especially since Clinton passed a federal version of this law which is still on the books and since TWENTY States already have a similar law in effect.
originally posted by: peskyhumans
You did claim that. Right there.
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
originally posted by: jaffo
So...if a KKK member went to a Jewish bakery and demanded that the baker make him a cake in the shape of an Auschwitz oven for his next rally, evidently in America the baker would just have to make it for him or he would be in the wrong.
This question gets asked and answered over and over.
1. The baker wouldn't be forced to make a PRODUCT that he doesn't already make for other customers. Does he make Auschwitz oven cakes for others?
2. The KKK is not a protected group, because they don't have a HISTORY of being discriminated against.
3. Discrimination (legal) is based on the PERSON, not the PRODUCT. A baker cannot be forced to put two grooms on a wedding cake if he doesn't already do that for others. He can't be forced to decorate the cake with ANYTHING that he doesn't already do for other customers. If he doesn't want to make a cake that he deems offensive, he doesn't have to. But if, as in the Colorado baker's case, he is asked by two gay guys to make a wedding cake for them JUST LIKE other cake's he's made, then he is legally required to do it, even though he doesn't approve of gay marriage.
Straight wedding cake:
Gay wedding cake:
Got that? A baker cannot be forced to make a PRODUCT he doesn't already make. But he can be forced to serve a PERSON the exact same cake.
especially since Clinton passed a federal version of this law which is still on the books and since TWENTY States already have a similar law in effect.
The federal law is VERY different from the RFRAs in the states. It's been discussed many times, so I'm not going to go through it all.
originally posted by: jaffo
FORCING a private business to do ANYTHING is ridiculous.
As the consumer, people should speak with their dollars instead of demanding with their tears.
originally posted by: peskyhumans
originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: peskyhumans
Why do you keep talking about sole proprietorships vs corporations ?
Do you think that corporations are automatically publicly traded companies or something ?
A corporation can also be a sole proprietorship (one owner) with the only difference being the sole owner is now no longer personally at risk for the liabilities of the incorporated company. Most sole proprietors end up incorporating their business at some point, usually when their annual revenues start getting into the $200,000+ range... at that point the personal risk becomes too high to continue operating as a non-incorporated sole proprietorship.
Yes that's exactly what I'm talking about. When some people get a certain amount of rich they incorporate and play by different rules than everyone else. Small business owners should be able to pick and choose their customers. However this should not be the case for corporations.
originally posted by: jaffo
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
originally posted by: jaffo
So...if a KKK member went to a Jewish bakery and demanded that the baker make him a cake in the shape of an Auschwitz oven for his next rally, evidently in America the baker would just have to make it for him or he would be in the wrong.
This question gets asked and answered over and over.
1. The baker wouldn't be forced to make a PRODUCT that he doesn't already make for other customers. Does he make Auschwitz oven cakes for others?
2. The KKK is not a protected group, because they don't have a HISTORY of being discriminated against.
3. Discrimination (legal) is based on the PERSON, not the PRODUCT. A baker cannot be forced to put two grooms on a wedding cake if he doesn't already do that for others. He can't be forced to decorate the cake with ANYTHING that he doesn't already do for other customers. If he doesn't want to make a cake that he deems offensive, he doesn't have to. But if, as in the Colorado baker's case, he is asked by two gay guys to make a wedding cake for them JUST LIKE other cake's he's made, then he is legally required to do it, even though he doesn't approve of gay marriage.
Straight wedding cake:
Gay wedding cake:
Got that? A baker cannot be forced to make a PRODUCT he doesn't already make. But he can be forced to serve a PERSON the exact same cake.
especially since Clinton passed a federal version of this law which is still on the books and since TWENTY States already have a similar law in effect.
The federal law is VERY different from the RFRAs in the states. It's been discussed many times, so I'm not going to go through it all.
FORCING a private business to do ANYTHING is ridiculous. As the consumer, people should speak with their dollars instead of demanding with their tears.