Ben Carson: It was OK for me to do research on aborted fetuses

[Belsnickel]

(08-22-2015, 10:50 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Show me exactly in that Constitution where it says that government has the power to force a private business to serve everyone equally. 

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment doesn't trump the 1st amendment. 

Of course it doesn't. Mostly because anti-discrimination laws do not keep anyone from practicing their religion. There has not been a single case where anyone has challenged this in court and has been able to satisfy the court that it has created an undue burden to their freedom of religion.

FWIW, I disagree with federal statutes in regards to anti-discrimination, especially for companies not necessarily engaged in interstate commerce.

[*bfine32*]

(08-22-2015, 11:09 PM)GMDino Wrote: Then you would have to convince the court that 2-8 cells deserves the same rights as a baby already born.

And you may be right some day.  What that has to do with businesses discriminating is anyone's guess.  But I certainly don't expect that to stop you from going off in a completely different tangent now to once again argue abortion.

Wasn't me that went off on the "different tangent" it was S & B. I just further illustrated the point.

Government should not tell people what to do unless they should tell people what to do.

They should tell a baker that he must bake a cake that goes against his morals, but they shouldn't tell a mother that she cannot kill her unborn child.

The mind of a liberal is a twisted thing.

[Belsnickel]

(08-22-2015, 11:13 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Shouldn't be that hard for you to highlight that portion of the Constitution that gives the government the power to tell a private business who they have to serve.  

According to Congress with their passing of the CRA of 1964, the authority to regulate interstate commerce. Though this is my problem with it, because not every business crosses state borders.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-22-2015, 11:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Of course it doesn't. Mostly because anti-discrimination laws do not keep anyone from practicing their religion. There has not been a single case where anyone has challenged this in court and has been able to satisfy the court that it has created an undue burden to their freedom of religion.

FWIW, I disagree with federal statutes in regards to anti-discrimination, especially for companies not necessarily engaged in interstate commerce.

I think people get caught up on the "gay" part of the equation and don't look at the "marriage" part in these types of cases, the SCOTUS included.

Now if a Christian baker refused to serve someone solely because they are gay, OKAY, although I still stand by my belief that a private business should have the right to refuse service to anyone. 

But back to my point, refusing to serve someone because they are gay is different than refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding. 

This would be like a black guy going to a t-shirt maker and wanting him to make a t-shirt that read "kill all white people", and then suing the t-shirt maker for not serving him because he's black.  

[*bfine32*]

Quick question in an attempt to tie it in:

Should a Doctor that is against abortion be required to perform one if asked?

[Belsnickel]

(08-22-2015, 11:28 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I think people get caught up on the "gay" part of the equation and don't look at the "marriage" part in these types of cases, the SCOTUS included.

Now if a Christian baker refused to serve someone solely because they are gay, OKAY, although I still stand by my belief that a private business should have the right to refuse service to anyone. 

But back to my point, refusing to serve someone because they are gay is different than refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding. 

This would be like a black guy going to a t-shirt maker and wanting him to make a t-shirt that read "kill all white people", and then suing the t-shirt maker for not serving him because he's black.  

And the shirt maker would win that because it was hate speech and they can deny service because of that. What reason would a baker have to deny service for a same sex wedding other than those getting married are gay?

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-22-2015, 11:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: And the shirt maker would win that because it was hate speech and they can deny service because of that. What reason would a baker have to deny service for a same sex wedding other than those getting married are gay?

When did the 1st amendment stop protecting hate speech?

[Belsnickel]

(08-22-2015, 11:38 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: When did the 1st amendment stop protecting hate speech?

Allowing someone to deny service does not violate the First. Just because you can't be imprisoned for it does not mean you have to be given a platform for it.

[Benton]

(08-22-2015, 11:38 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: When did the 1st amendment stop protecting hate speech?

In general, it doesn't. As long as it's not promoting or inciting violence or harm. Which is still not the same as a business denying a service because it is or could be seen as hateful, volatile, dishonest, etc. 

Libel is a different matter. 

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-22-2015, 11:57 PM)Benton Wrote: In general, it doesn't. As long as it's not promoting or inciting violence or harm. Which is still not the same as a business denying a service because it is or could be seen as hateful, volatile, dishonest, etc. 

Libel is a different matter. 

I suppose I just can't understand any argument for government telling a private business who they have to serve. 

I'd prefer the free market sort it out, and I believe that's the way the founders would have wanted it as well. 

Now don't get me wrong, I think it's stupid for a business to refuse a sale in these situations, but I still think they should have the right to do it. 

[Belsnickel]

(08-23-2015, 12:04 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I suppose I just can't understand any argument for government telling a private business who they have to serve. 

I'd prefer the free market sort it out, and I believe that's the way the founders would have wanted it as well. 

Now don't get me wrong, I think it's stupid for a business to refuse a sale in these situations, but I still think they should have the right to do it. 

The number of things our government justifies that the founding fathers would be baffled by is staggering.

[Benton]

(08-23-2015, 12:04 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I suppose I just can't understand any argument for government telling a private business who they have to serve. 

I'd prefer the free market sort it out, and I believe that's the way the founders would have wanted it as well. 

Now don't get me wrong, I think it's stupid for a business to refuse a sale in these situations, but I still think they should have the right to do it. 

I agree. I don't think the Founding Fathers would have spent a lot of time worrying about who sold what to whom.

On the other hand, at the time there was almost no interstate commerce, global economy, financial investments, etc. Hell, many people didn't really have a taxable income as they were just providing for themselves.

So I don't think the 'Founding Fathers wouldn't have...' really applies as a gay cake maker wasn't really much of an occurrence three centuries ago. We're in a different time so we've got to sort a few things out for ourselves. Which is exactly what the FF's did. 

[BmorePat87]

(08-22-2015, 11:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Quick question in an attempt to tie it in:

Should a Doctor that is against abortion be required to perform one if asked?

No. If a doctor does not provide a service, you cannot compel him to. I can't compel my podiatrist to give me a root canal. 

[GMDino]

(08-22-2015, 11:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Wasn't me that went off on the "different tangent" it was S & B. I just further illustrated the point.

Government should not tell people what to do unless they should tell people what to do.

They should tell a baker that he must bake a cake that goes against his morals, but they shouldn't tell a mother that she cannot kill her unborn child.

The mind of a liberal is a twisted thing.

Business vs person.

You're still wrong.

You don't know why...and even when its explained to you you ignore it...but you are still wrong.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-23-2015, 12:30 AM)Benton Wrote: So I don't think the 'Founding Fathers wouldn't have...' really applies as a gay cake maker wasn't really much of an occurrence three centuries ago. We're in a different time so we've got to sort a few things out for ourselves. Which is exactly what the FF's did. 

While I'll agree with the general premise that we do have to do deal with certain things that the FF didn't foresee by ourselves, I still believe that there's a large difference between refusing to serve someone because they are gay and refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. 

[BmorePat87]

[GMDino]

(08-23-2015, 09:53 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: While I'll agree with the general premise that we do have to do deal with certain things that the FF didn't foresee by ourselves, I still believe that there's a large difference between refusing to serve someone because they are gay and refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. 

So this is a "hare the sin, love the sinner" scenario you are playing out?

You'd gladly serve the gays people...but not if its for a wedding which somehow is worse because of your religion?

[Belsnickel]

(08-23-2015, 09:53 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: While I'll agree with the general premise that we do have to do deal with certain things that the FF didn't foresee by ourselves, I still believe that there's a large difference between refusing to serve someone because they are gay and refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. 

Refusing service because someone is gay is different than refusing service because someone is gay. That's the logic you're going with? The only difference is your latter example is more specific.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-23-2015, 09:56 AM)GMDino Wrote: So this is a "hare the sin, love the sinner" scenario you are playing out?

You'd gladly serve the gays people...but not if its for a wedding which somehow is worse because of your religion?

I don't have any scenario, nor do I have a religion, nor do I give a shit who is gay or not. 

I don't fall into the stupidity of the left vs right paradigm and need group-think to tell me what to believe in or not. 

I'm a believer in individual liberty.  I believe that person A has just as much freedom to be gay and marry whomever they choose just as much as I believe person B as a business owner has just as freedom to serve whomever they choose. 

I'm sorry that you can't see past your own hypocrisy enough to get that, and I'm even further sorry that you can't dismiss my arguments based on calling me some right-wing religious whacko. 

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-23-2015, 09:59 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Refusing service because someone is gay is different than refusing service because someone is gay. That's the logic you're going with? The only difference is your latter example is more specific.

No. 

Refusing to make a gay wedding cake is based off of an objection to the wedding, not the person. 

Now if a gay person went to a baker and asked them to make a birthday cake and were refused, you'd have a point.