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.

 

Colorado's Masterpiece Cakeshop Must Serve Gay Couples Despite Owner's Religious Beliefs, Judge Ru

page: 19
22
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


I back the decision BASED on the law. I support states' rights in most cases, so it's really up to the people of Colorado whether or not they support this law. Not me.




posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

So, if a state outlaws same sex marriage you are okay with this? As it is States’ rights, after all. As marriage is not a federally protected right.



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 



macman
So, if a state outlaws same sex marriage you are okay with this?


No. Because that DOES violate the Constitution (14th Amendment). I do not support a majority making laws to oppress a minority.

This isn't about rights. It's about equal treatment under the law.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Benevolent Heretic


No. Because that DOES violate the Constitution (14th Amendment). I do not support a majority making laws to oppress a minority.

So another person set forth on the pathway of selective laws and enforcement.
Either there are States rights, or there isn't.
Either the states get to create laws for say, firearms enforcement, which is clearly against the 2nd Amendment, or they don't.
Either the States get to create a law outlawing gay marriage or they don't.
It is an all or nothing.


Benevolent Heretic
This isn't about rights. It's about equal treatment under the law.


Good f%$^ing grief. Another social justice ideal bastardizing US laws.
No, you are completely wrong.
It is all about Laws, period.
You and others want and push for this selective Law enforcement to suit the topic of the month. This one is Gay rights.
You want rights for the Gay couple, but not for the business owner simply because it goes against your personal viewpoints on it.

It is either freedom and rights for all, or none.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 



macman
So another person set forth on the pathway of selective laws and enforcement.


There are many things you say that I simply don't understand in the context of our discussion. I am not advocating selective laws and enforcement. Just the opposite, in fact. The same laws for EVERYONE. Equal treatment under the law.



Either there are States rights, or there isn't.


That's just not true. Some laws are passed by the federal government, some by the state governments. States' Rights are

... the powers and rights not granted by the U.S. Constitution to the federal government and not forbidden to the states by the Constitution


Making a law that treats people unequally is expressly FORBIDDEN by the Constitution.



Either the states get to create laws for say, firearms enforcement, which is clearly against the 2nd Amendment, or they don't.


I'm not going to discuss firearms laws here.



Either the States get to create a law outlawing gay marriage or they don't.
It is an all or nothing.


The Constitution itself disagrees with you. Read the 10th Amendment. Some powers go to the US government, some to the states. However, the 14th Amendment CLEARLY states that making a laws which treat citizens unequally violates the Constitution.



Good f%$^ing grief. Another social justice ideal bastardizing US laws.


Another comment I fail to comprehend...



No, you are completely wrong.
It is all about Laws, period.


Um,... that's what I said. It's not about rights, it's about equal treatment under the law.



You and others want and push for this selective Law enforcement to suit the topic of the month.


That's not what I want at all... You're making things up now.



This one is Gay rights.


There is no such thing as "gay rights". There are rights.



You want rights for the Gay couple, but not for the business owner simply because it goes against your personal viewpoints on it.


The gay couple has a legal right to participate in buying a cake from a cake business.
The business owner does NOT have a legal right to discriminate. You are WRONG in thinking that discrimination in business is a right or a religious practice. That's the single point of contention in our discussion. You think the baker has a "right" to discriminate and he doesn't.


It is either freedom and rights for all, or none.


Agreed.

And for the sake of understanding, if the business owner was an atheist and a Christian couple wanted a cake for a religious celebration, I would support the couple, according to the law. One could hardly say that religion would be my "topic of the month"...



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Benevolent Heretic


There are many things you say that I simply don't understand in the context of our discussion. I am not advocating selective laws and enforcement. Just the opposite, in fact. The same laws for EVERYONE. Equal treatment under the law.

Equal treatment except for the business.
A person gets to decide who they interact with, yet a privately owned business by that same person does not.
It is not equal then.


Benevolent Heretic

That's just not true. Some laws are passed by the federal government, some by the state governments. States' Rights are

... the powers and rights not granted by the U.S. Constitution to the federal government and not forbidden to the states by the Constitution


Making a law that treats people unequally is expressly FORBIDDEN by the Constitution.

Hence forcing a business to operate in the opposite manner of the owner.



Benevolent Heretic

I'm not going to discuss firearms laws here.

It is an analogy. But, fair enough.



Benevolent Heretic

The Constitution itself disagrees with you. Read the 10th Amendment. Some powers go to the US government, some to the states. However, the 14th Amendment CLEARLY states that making a laws which treat citizens unequally violates the Constitution.

And again, the business owner is forced to interact with people he does not want to do business with.



Benevolent Heretic

Um,... that's what I said. It's not about rights, it's about equal treatment under the law.

It isn't equal treatment is one is forced to interact with someone else.



Benevolent Heretic

That's not what I want at all... You're making things up now.

It is selective.
The right to not do business with someone has been removed.


Benevolent Heretic

There is no such thing as "gay rights". There are rights.

Great. So, being Gay doesn't matter then. I am all for that.
Remove the hate crime laws, that are crap anyways. Remove the Gay Marriage issue, and replace with civil union.



Benevolent Heretic

The gay couple has a legal right to participate in buying a cake from a cake business.

What legal right is that?


Benevolent Heretic
The business owner does NOT have a legal right to discriminate. You are WRONG in thinking that discrimination in business is a right or a religious practice. That's the single point of contention in our discussion. You think the baker has a "right" to discriminate and he doesn't.

Yes he does. He personally can discriminate and not associate with whomever he wishes.
The business is owned by him, personal property of a US citizen.


Benevolent Heretic

Agreed.

And for the sake of understanding, if the business owner was an atheist and a Christian couple wanted a cake for a religious celebration, I would support the couple, according to the law. One could hardly say that religion would be my "topic of the month"...

I wouldn't. It is the right of the business not to provide a service if they so chose.
I don't have a right to force them in selling me something.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 



macman
Equal treatment except for the business.


Not just equal treatment. Equal treatment UNDER THE LAW... Show me a law that protects the choice of businesses to discriminate and you'll prove me wrong.



A person gets to decide who they interact with, yet a privately owned business by that same person does not.
It is not equal then.
...
Hence forcing a business to operate in the opposite manner of the owner.
...
And again, the business owner is forced to interact with people he does not want to do business with.


Businesses are not people or citizens. There are MANY laws that apply to businesses and not to individuals. And vice versa. The business owner was not FORCED. He freely agreed to operate in a particular manner. He FREELY AGREED not to discriminate. There is no force here, except forcing people to obey the laws. When he became a business owner, he AGREED to the rules and laws applicable to businesses in Colorado. He was not forced.

Now, your sticking point seems to be that businesses are no different than US citizens. I can't help you with that. You are simply wrong.



The right to not do business with someone has been removed.


That's not exactly true.
1. There are federal AND state laws that prohibit businesses from discriminating, based on race, religion, blah, blah, blah.
2. The business owner has a right to not do business with individualswho do not conform to the rules of his business. For example, No shoes, no shirt, no service. He can still refuse people, just not groups.



What legal right is that?


The right to public accommodations. It started with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

www.transgenderlaw.org...



Expanded Civil Rights Protections
Effective May 29, 2008, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act was expanded to include sexual orientation, inclusive of transgender status, to the list of protected classes for public accommodations. Colorado now prohibits discrimination
against individuals because they are straight, lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender in establishments like restaurants, hotels, retail stores, and hospitals.




It is the right of the business not to provide a service if they so chose.


I showed you my right... Now show me yours.
Show me SOMETHING that states that a business person has a right to refuse service for any reason.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Okay, I know the issue here. You believe that there has to a specific law, from the Govt, that states "this is my right/freedom".

Yeah, not the way the US was designed.

It was designed that all freedoms are given first and the laws in place were for restricting the Govt.

My rights don't come from a law, they are granted by my creator.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 11:12 AM
link   

macman
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Okay, I know the issue here. You believe that there has to a specific law, from the Govt, that states "this is my right/freedom".

Yeah, not the way the US was designed.

It was designed that all freedoms are given first and the laws in place were for restricting the Govt.

My rights don't come from a law, they are granted by my creator.



Human rights and civil rights aren't the same thing. Civil rights DO come from laws. Voting, for example, is not a human right - it IS a civil right. Women and blacks were not allowed to vote until the laws allowed them to. How businesses operate is a civil matter.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 11:39 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


Ooooh, nice counter argument. You really got me there. (where's that damn eye roll emoticon?)



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 



macman
Okay, I know the issue here. You believe that there has to a specific law, from the Govt, that states "this is my right/freedom".


Nope. You're wrong again. Seems every time you try to tell me what I think, you're wrong.



My rights don't come from a law, they are granted by my creator.


Kaylaluv explained the difference between human rights and civil rights. Business rights don't come from your creator. They come from law. Now, can you show me the business law that gives you the right to turn away people? Or not?



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Name calling gets us nowhere, those are all key words people toss around to gain support from others. and thus the problem with the world, people attempt to purposely read people to filth just to hurt their feelings.

i'll not claim to be all knowing on "laws" but people complain that businesses are corrupt and don't follow laws and shouldn't be allowed to because they are not "People" yet in the same argument say this business deserves the freedom of a person.

the owner of the business has the right to discriminate correct, but the business does not. he is operating under the business which has laws to protect against discrimination of any kind, the separation between church and state comes into play as well, or it should. just because his religion tells him not to believe in Gay marriage doesn't mean he can use that as "law" or a way to discriminate.

i believe you are looking at the business as a person



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


en.wikipedia.org...

Seems there is a push stating that in fact, businesses are people.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Darth_Prime


the owner of the business has the right to discriminate correct, but the business does not.


Then there are no private property rights.
The business is basically owned by the Govt/Public.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 03:43 AM
link   

macman
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


My rights don't come from a law, they are granted by my creator.



Oh great, now all you have to do is show where your "creator" said that you're supposed to deny services to people based on their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc..

Perhaps you could provide some examples of Jesus refusing to wash peoples' feet based on these grounds?

And then, after that, all you have to do is prove that your "creator" actually exists.


Then you can get what you want out of the law. Until then, though, your stance is completely worthless in secular society where people make laws based on facts and valid argument.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 03:48 AM
link   

macman

Darth_Prime


the owner of the business has the right to discriminate correct, but the business does not.


Then there are no private property rights.
The business is basically owned by the Govt/Public.



There are plenty of private property rights.

And the government does not own all businesses, it has simply created laws to stop them from discriminating against minority groups in the general public in ways that have historically been known to create civil unrest or social apartheid.

2 sentences; 2 false statements.

Oh, I almsot forgot to end the post in the juvenile manner which you prefer them to be ended in:

"Oh well, would you like to try again?"
edit on 4-1-2014 by TheRegal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRegal
 


And at every turn, I have stated the action of discrimination based on race or what have you is morally wrong.

What else you got?? Or are you going to stay tone deaf and just beat your Progressive drum??



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 08:40 AM
link   

TheRegal

macman

Darth_Prime


the owner of the business has the right to discriminate correct, but the business does not.


Then there are no private property rights.
The business is basically owned by the Govt/Public.



There are plenty of private property rights.

And the government does not own all businesses, it has simply created laws to stop them from discriminating against minority groups in the general public in ways that have historically been known to create civil unrest or social apartheid.

2 sentences; 2 false statements.

Oh, I almsot forgot to end the post in the juvenile manner which you prefer them to be ended in:

"Oh well, would you like to try again?"
edit on 4-1-2014 by TheRegal because: (no reason given)


SO again, there are limited rights in this arena? All to be "fair".



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 



macman
SO again, there are limited rights in this arena? All to be "fair".


Yes. You could say it that way. In your home, you have the "right" to walk around naked. But you don't have the "right" to do that in public.

You have the personal right to speak freely, but when others are involved, your rights are limited.

A person has a right to hate gay people, but if he owns a business, he doesn't have the right to discriminate against them in business practices.

I have the right to own a firearm, but I don't have the right to own a tank or WMD.

You have the right to practice your religion, but you don't have the right to discriminate against others in business, based on their religion.

Most of our rights are limited in some aspects.

Hope that clears up your questions.




top topics



 
22
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join