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.

 

Congrats, Bigots... Kansas Has Your Back!

page: 21
49
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Were they borne with guns in their hands?




posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 09:10 PM
link   

NavyDoc

intelligenthoodlum33
reply to post by TheConspiracyPages
 


Brother, the only hate I see is that coming from those God fearing Christians.



I'm curious. If a caterer did not want to cater an NRA fundraising gala because he was morally opposed to supporting the gun lobby, should the state force him to cater the NRA fundraising gala?



This is the part you guys don't get. The caterer would not be supporting the NRA. The NRA would be supporting him...by paying him money to perform a service.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


It's funny when people call Anarchists, statists... anyway. The Constitution is very ambiguous in it's granting authority to Congress over commerce, perhaps you should go back in time and slap someone if you disagree with it so strongly. Ironically Congress began it's endeavor of Public Accommodations because different denominations of Christians were refusing to do business with other denominations and post civil war because Yankees were refusing to do business with former Confederates and slowing down the process of rebuilding after the war. Jim Crow laws were invented to be exemptions from Public Accommodations laws as the laws were written to include all of the public, so black people had to be declared 2nd class citizens so that businesses could refuse them services. The Civil Rights movement changed all that of course and in the process Congress made illegal for businesses to refuse goods and services based on nationality and race.

Allowing businesses to discriminate is the very definition of mob rule. Allowing it even in one State lays the groundwork for other States. Now you can cry all you want about how gays should just take their business elsewhere or create their own businesses but what happens (just like the post civil war) when building material suppliers, construction workers etc... refuse to service gay people. Such examples allow for the creation of second class citizen status, by virtue of being totally disallowed to even open a business in which to serve other gays. You can't dance around that no matter how hard you try.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 09:22 PM
link   

beezzer

Gryphon66

beezzer
reply to post by phishfriar47
 


My wife did some baking/cooking for some Muslim friends of ours this past Christmas.

She had to go to several stores before she found Halal acceptable food for our friends.

I guess it's okay for some shops to discriminate because they did not cater to a specific group.


Did these shops refuse to sell your wife Halal food because she's not Muslim?

No?

Then it's not the same.


They did not cater to the Muslim community.

It is a passive discrimination. But I guess that is okay.

They just didn't want to provide a service to a segment of the community.


Halal food products meant there should be no pork by products in it and the slaughter of an animal had to be done in a certain fashion ,which I can imagine must be a pain in % @SS to provide,however in Minnesota Muslim Somalians and others were demanding the right not to touch pork produce at checkout at supermarkets or refuse passengers in their cabs carrying pork , well then I say they should find employment else where that's your job!.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Spider879
 


In such cases the customer still must be served, the employee or cab driver must find another clerk or another cab for the customer.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 09:26 PM
link   

intelligenthoodlum33

slunteri
reply to post by intelligenthoodlum33
 


I wont cry foul bc I don't cry, I make things better. Try it out. I will never support someone that hates me and I will never fight to be able to go somewhere that doesn't want me. Damn, just stop whining. It's unbearable.



Don't get so emotional, sport. This is an internet discussion not the end of the world.

I get it though. If someone mistreated you, you would just walk away....which could be interpreted as either turning the other cheek or just being a coward.

Only you know the answer.


So you finally admit it then. You feel angry, insulted when you're not accepted as a gay. It's your egos rather than accepting the fact that not every one has to agree with your lifestyle...your egos get the best of you and you'd rather destroy people for it. Does that about sum it up?



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 09:28 PM
link   

intelligenthoodlum33

NavyDoc

intelligenthoodlum33
reply to post by TheConspiracyPages
 


Brother, the only hate I see is that coming from those God fearing Christians.



I'm curious. If a caterer did not want to cater an NRA fundraising gala because he was morally opposed to supporting the gun lobby, should the state force him to cater the NRA fundraising gala?



This is the part you guys don't get. The caterer would not be supporting the NRA. The NRA would be supporting him...by paying him money to perform a service.


You difn't answer the question. Should a caterer be forced to cater an NRA gala even if he believed it was a horrible organization with a horrible cause?



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


It's funny when people call Anarchists, statists... anyway. The Constitution is very ambiguous in it's granting authority to Congress over commerce, perhaps you should go back in time and slap someone if you disagree with it so strongly. Ironically Congress began it's endeavor of Public Accommodations because different denominations of Christians were refusing to do business with other denominations and post civil war because Yankees were refusing to do business with former Confederates and slowing down the process of rebuilding after the war. Jim Crow laws were invented to be exemptions from Public Accommodations laws as the laws were written to include all of the public, so black people had to be declared 2nd class citizens so that businesses could refuse them services. The Civil Rights movement changed all that of course and in the process Congress made illegal for businesses to refuse goods and services based on nationality and race.

Allowing businesses to discriminate is the very definition of mob rule. Allowing it even in one State lays the groundwork for other States. Now you can cry all you want about how gays should just take their business elsewhere or create their own businesses but what happens (just like the post civil war) when building material suppliers, construction workers etc... refuse to service gay people. Such examples allow for the creation of second class citizen status, by virtue of being totally disallowed to even open a business in which to serve other gays. You can't dance around that no matter how hard you try.


However, is not the state forcing a citizen to do commerce against his will also making him a second class citizen? Coercive association fits that exactly.

Are you against all discrimination? Are you against affirmative action that discriminates based on race?



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


It's funny when people call Anarchists, statists... anyway. The Constitution is very ambiguous in it's granting authority to Congress over commerce, perhaps you should go back in time and slap someone if you disagree with it so strongly. Ironically Congress began it's endeavor of Public Accommodations because different denominations of Christians were refusing to do business with other denominations and post civil war because Yankees were refusing to do business with former Confederates and slowing down the process of rebuilding after the war. Jim Crow laws were invented to be exemptions from Public Accommodations laws as the laws were written to include all of the public, so black people had to be declared 2nd class citizens so that businesses could refuse them services. The Civil Rights movement changed all that of course and in the process Congress made illegal for businesses to refuse goods and services based on nationality and race.

Allowing businesses to discriminate is the very definition of mob rule. Allowing it even in one State lays the groundwork for other States. Now you can cry all you want about how gays should just take their business elsewhere or create their own businesses but what happens (just like the post civil war) when building material suppliers, construction workers etc... refuse to service gay people. Such examples allow for the creation of second class citizen status, by virtue of being totally disallowed to even open a business in which to serve other gays. You can't dance around that no matter how hard you try.


Oh, and the Constiution was not ambiguous at all on what was covered by the commerce clause. Standard weights and measures and maintenance if the post roads so that commerce flowed smoothly between the states was included by that document. Twisting the commerce clause to control and micromanage every aspect of a private business is a modern invention.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 





However, is not the state forcing a citizen to do commerce against his will also making him a second class citizen? Coercive association fits that exactly.

Are you against all discrimination? Are you against affirmative action that discriminates based on race?


If people are ignorant of US Law before opening a business that's on their own head. The law is simple and very practical, you offer goods and services to the public... the public must include everyone. Such strongly held convictions, so as to refuse goods and services to a person based on whatever difference, are best suited to independent contractors.

Affirmative Action doesn't discriminate against anyone. It does not require a certain amount of x employees and y employees, what it does is offer financial incentives for hiring non white males.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by Spider879
 


In such cases the customer still must be served, the employee or cab driver must find another clerk or another cab for the customer.


I agree and from a business pov it can be costly,this is a little anecdotal,in one of by business I had a guy from Senegal,a Muslim well spoken friendly,polite in need of a job, came to find out he couldn't make drinks even after being taught by my top barman his concoctions were horrible..why?? because he couldn't taste alcohol which is required sometimes if even to give the customer a description of the taste but I didn't give up,I put him as a dish washer but there he had issues too,as sometimes there is pork on the plates..finally I had to let him go as pleasant as he is I couldn't afford to have him standing around or cleaning the same spot over and over again. one can only go so far to indulge folks religions or politics.
edit on 18-2-2014 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ExquisitExamplE
 


That was a good one lol. And I wished I knew how to respond to two threads at once like that. Still a boot here.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Doc you're ruling this thread. Are you a corpsman? If so thanks and semper fi



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by slednecktx
 


Rock on Doc. I don't get what the fuss is about. the funny thing is that it's KANSAS! ? WHO CARES ! Good to know that there are swarms of egotistical gay hammerheads in kansas. don't hae a problem with them being gay. do have a problem with them being hammerheads! then again, some people will NEVER get it. I believed they're called "special"



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 




Twisting the commerce clause to control and micromanage every aspect of a private business is a modern invention.


Nope. Sorry.

The Constitution has been being manipulated for good and ill since it was signed as the Law of the Land.
edit on 2/18/2014 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by lovebeck
 

You're very welcome. I don't understand it either.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Rezlooper
 


I'm not gay, first of all. People should be able to see right from wrong, whether or not it directly pertains to them.

Hilarious.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 10:50 PM
link   

NavyDoc

However, is not the state forcing a citizen to do commerce against his will also making him a second class citizen? Coercive association fits that exactly.

Are you against all discrimination? Are you against affirmative action that discriminates based on race?


No, they aren't forcing him to do business against his will. He opened the business and it's open to the public. The state is simply forcing him to treat any customers in the same basic way. He can still refuse service, but that decision must be reasonable. If someone is a hazard or causing problems fine, but just because someone is Fat, or Ugly, or Short or Black, or even Gay, that alone isn't a reason that justifies not serving them.

I'd even say that if they were "floating around the room gay", making out at the table or causing a scene, you could ask them to leave. But simply using you're own personal bias as a reason to not serve the public, when that IS your business, is not justification.

Personally, yes I am against affirmative action. It is just another form of discrimination. I understand the reasoning for it in some cases but to legislate discrimination isn't going to fix things. The problem is that in the case of Af-Action it's trying to help minorities because there was and still are many "Rich White Men"(Generalizing) who don't like non-whites involved in their lives even though they may be qualified. That's a major topic and I'm not going to get too deep into that, but I think that answers the question.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 11:19 PM
link   

NavyDoc

The Constitution says nothing about the federal government (or any government for that matter) dictating who you choose to do commerce with but it does have quite a bit to say about private property.



Why don't we quote the "quite a bit" that the Constitution has to say about property then?



Article IV.
Section. 3.

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.


Okay, cool. So if the United States owns land it can make Rules and Regulations about its use. What's next?

Nothing. That's it. That's the only reference to property in the US Constitution.

What about the Amendments?



Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


So, the government can deprive someone of property through due process of law, and it can take private property for public use by paying a just compensation?

That's right. Next?



AMENDMENT XIV

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.


So, that's the depriving by due process of law, again. Why did they have to repeat it?

Because people apparently didn't listen the first time.

So, four total references to property, one in the US Constitution and two in Amendments, two repeated.

1. The United States can make rules and regulations about property it owns. (Article IV Section III)
2. The United States can deprive citizens of property by due process of law. (Amendment V)
3. The United States can take private property for public use so long as just compensation is made to the owner. (Ibid.)
4. The United States can deprive citizens of property by due process of law. (Amendment XIV)

Nowhere does the Constitution state that private property is sacrosanct or untouchable or ungovernable by the Government.

Nowhere does the Constitution state that a business can trade with "whomever it wants to."

However, it is very clear that the government (Federal State and local) has considerable discretionary rights in regard to property and can seize property as it deems fit for the public good.

Navydoc, since you are "like, ruling this thread, dude" why don't you show us where all those property rights are bestowed in the Constitution that you keep claiming?
edit on 23Tue, 18 Feb 2014 23:38:20 -060014p112014266 by Gryphon66 because: Formatting



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 11:23 PM
link   

TheConspiracyPages
reply to post by Gryphon66
 





The Kansas bill was a half-headed attempt to create a group of second-class citizens in this country. Thankfully the Kansas Senate has a bit intellect left.


Just to be clear here, it's not that you object to creating a group of second-class citizens, it's just that you think it should be religious people? If my memory is correct, you've expressed your hatred towards "religion" or "religious people," I can't recall exactly which, in a past thread so please pardon me for asking for clarification.



I do object to creating any group of second-class citizens.

All American citizens have the rights confirmed under the US Constitution, State Constitutions, subsequent legislation, Acts, etc.

I don't have any hatred toward anyone. Why don't you use the search function to aid your memory rather than making baseless accusations?

If your argument is going to be about the wedding-cake baker, they aren't being made second class citizens or having their religion suppressed.

1. No one's making them stop worshiping Jesus Christ or God.
2. No one's preventing them from participating in the Sacraments.
3. No one's preventing them from praying, praising, proselytizing or prophesying.
4. No one's forcing them to attend the wedding.
5. No one's forcing them to take part in the wedding.

The business was open to the public and made cakes. A member of the public came in and wanted to buy a cake. The owner refused on discriminatory grounds. The owner was corrected by the judiciary.




edit on 23Tue, 18 Feb 2014 23:30:12 -060014p112014266 by Gryphon66 because: posting madness.




top topics



 
49
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join