Couple fined for declining same-sex wedding on their farm

[TLK Valentine]

The court frowns on frivolous cases when no enforcement actions are being pursued.

If your Constitutional rights are being violated, no case to defend them is frivolous.

 

[FreeSpirit74]

Really, the only person it's going to hurt is the store owner in the long run.

If a guy opens a hat store and sticks a sign up in the window that says "whites only", then a guy across the street opens up his own store and says "all are welcome", the guy who welcomes everyone is going to do better business and eventually run the racist out of business, correct?

I don't know about you, but if I were shopping for hats, I certainly wouldn't be walking into a store with the hate speech in the window, I'd be going to the other store across the street.

People are so quick to run to government to try to solve the ills of society...in this case, here in 2014, the free market can take care of these problems for us without government intervention.

That reminds me of the stories my father tells me about the general store my great-grandparents started back in the 1930's. There was a competing store up the road, and it was a very small town, so those stores were basically the only places to shop. The other store owner's attitude was that "the customers exist to benefit me and my store's profits." My great-grandparents' attitude was "we exist and work for the CUSTOMER'S benefit."

Needless to say, they came very close to putting the other store out of business. Best part about that is that my gg-parents were Jewish, and the other store owner was a Nazi sympathizer. Even when the Catskills eventually lost their cache as a major vacation mecca, people still came up to the store (which featured a full soda fountain) to catch up with my family.

 

[AztecSDSU]

Correct.

Now, all you have to do, is provide that detailed legal argument, that the state law is unconstitutional.

Still waiting.

For the same reason Hobby Lobby doesn't have to fund birth control.

 

[bhsmte]

For the same reason Hobby Lobby doesn't have to fund birth control.

Give the legal argument, why Hobby Lobby would impact the whether laws protecting a certain class in a public accommodating business, relate to the Hobby Lobby case.

 

[DaisyDay]

For the same reason Hobby Lobby doesn't have to fund birth control.

Hobby Lobby does fund birth control, but it picks and chooses which kinds.

 

[DaisyDay]

Give the legal argument, why Hobby Lobby would impact the whether laws protecting a certain class in a public accommodating business, relate to the Hobby Lobby case.

I don't know - employees and customers aren't really the same thing.

There might be some parallel though because some of the methods of birth control HL refuses to pay for are not abortifacients in reality, but are in the minds of the HL owners - and the SCOTUS accepted that argument.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I don't know - employees and customers aren't really the same thing.

There might be some parallel though because some of the methods of birth control HL refuses to pay for are not abortifacients in reality, but are in the minds of the HL owners - and the SCOTUS accepted that argument.

Basically, SCOTUS accepted their right to be delusional.

 

[Hoankan]

Mod Hat On:

A reminder to not flame other members of this forum. This thread is a hot topic issue and it is easy to take offense or perceived offense to what others have said.
​

 

[GarfieldJL]

Basically, SCOTUS accepted their right to be delusional.

No, the Supreme Court ruled that people don't surrender their First Amendment rights when they open a business, even if they hold viewpoints that you don't consider "politically correct."

Just because someone holds a viewpoint that you don't agree with, doesn't make them stupid or delusional, it is rather alarming that you can't seem to tolerate others when their opinions differ from your own.

 

[MachZer0]

No, the Supreme Court ruled that people don't surrender their First Amendment rights when they open a business, even if they hold viewpoints that you don't consider "politically correct."

Just because someone holds a viewpoint that you don't agree with, doesn't make them stupid or delusional, it is rather alarming that you can't seem to tolerate others when their opinions differ from your own.

From the perspective of some liberals in positions of power, fining people who hold different values and act on them is the new tolerance

 

[TLK Valentine]

No, the Supreme Court ruled that people don't surrender their First Amendment rights when they open a business, even if they hold viewpoints that you don't consider "politically correct."

Or "factually correct."

Just because someone holds a viewpoint that you don't agree with, doesn't make them stupid or delusional, it is rather alarming that you can't seem to tolerate others when their opinions differ from your own.

We're not talking about viewpoints, we're talking about facts -- some of the medications in question were not abortifacients, but HL believed they were.

Make no mistake; I fully support HL's right to be wrong -- why are you trying to suppress my right to call them out on it?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Is it your position then, that state laws that include protecting a class in regards to public accommodating businesses are unconstitutional?

In essence, yes.

People keep throwing around this term "public accommodating businesses" with the goal of trying to make someone's private business part of the public sector in order to give control to the government. However, that's simply not the case.

If the government or the public didn't put up any money to start that business, then it's still private property.

I feel the same way about this as I do about those silly laws that allow your neighbors to dictate what you can and can't have in your yard (with government force). In many localities, if your neighbors think that you have something in your yard that makes it look trashy, they can petition the city and the city can make you get it out of your yard, even though the neighbors aren't making the mortgage payment...

 

[bhsmte]

In essence, yes.

People keep throwing around this term "public accommodating businesses" with the goal of trying to make someone's private business part of the public sector in order to give control to the government. However, that's simply not the case.

If the government or the public didn't put up any money to start that business, then it's still private property.

I feel the same way about this as I do about those silly laws that allow your neighbors to dictate what you can and can't have in your yard (with government force). In many localities, if your neighbors think that you have something in your yard that makes it look trashy, they can petition the city and the city can make you get it out of your yard, even though the neighbors aren't making the mortgage payment...

In essence then, would it be accurate to assume you believe the civil rights act in also unconstitutional?

Private property really has nothing to do with this, virtually all businesses are private property, which the property owners chooses to open up to the public at large. They can have a private business, if they choose to affiliate with a church to get customers or became a private club and did not cater to the public. Obviously, they don't want to do that, since they want the advantage of capitalizing on the numbers in the public, but still be allowed to refuse service to some.

As I have stated many times, I would have no problem with businesses being able to refuse service to whomever they chose to, as long as they declare publically who the people are they are going to refuse service to, since they are open to the public. Not so sure many would want to do that though.

In regards to what you can or can't do with your private residential property, if you live in a subdivision with a home owners associate, the courts have held you can be restricted what you do with your property if three tests are met:

-It is a safety issue that impacts others in the neighborhood
-It impacts protected land - wet lands, tree preservation areas etc..
-It negatively impacts others property values; un kept land, home in disrepair, junks in the driveway, etc etc.

 

[DaisyDay]

Basically, SCOTUS accepted their right to be delusional.

I find that an odd ruling.

 

[variant]

I find that an odd ruling.

It brings up the odd decision that will have to be made at just how wrong you have to be before you can't claim a religious protection for your views.

 

[MachZer0]

It brings up the odd decision that will have to be made at just how wrong you have to be before you can't claim a religious protection for your views.

Right or wrong wouldn't seem to be at issue. Whether or not the state has a compelling interest to force people to act in conflict with their religious beliefs would be the issue

 

[variant]

Right or wrong wouldn't seem to be at issue. Whether or not the state has a compelling interest to force people to act in conflict with their religious beliefs would be the issue

Well in the case they were deciding they were simply wrong that the birth control they didn't want to provide caused an abortion.

If we don't allow discrimination against objectively wrong beliefs, then the religious person can claim any beliefs to circumvent any law.

So logically a line will need to be drawn about how objectively wrong someone needs to be.

Otherwise I can claim that I can take heroin because I have a religious belief that I am a walrus, and drug enforcement laws are based upon humans.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Right or wrong wouldn't seem to be at issue. Whether or not the state has a compelling interest to force people to act in conflict with their religious beliefs would be the issue

Even if it's a belief that people who don't hold it -- people such as you and I, for example -- would find utterly absurd or ridiculous, correct?

 

[MachZer0]

Well in the case they were deciding they were simply wrong that the birth control they didn't want to provide caused an abortion.

If we don't allow discrimination against objectively wrong beliefs, then the religious person can claim any beliefs to circumvent any law.

So logically a line will need to be drawn about how objectively wrong someone needs to be.

Otherwise I can claim that I can take heroin because I have a religious belief that I am a walrus, and drug enforcement laws are based upon humans.

Megyn Kelly soundly debunked the misinformation regarding the four methods of birth control to which Hobby Lobby objected

 

[ThatRobGuy]

In essence then, would it be accurate to assume you believe the civil rights act in also unconstitutional?

Well, the civil rights act was 2 parts constitutional, 1 part unconstitutional in my opinion.

It ended unequal voter registration requirements and segregation in schools...those are in the clear.

However, the bit about "public accommodations" seemed to be an overreach on the government's part. Is discrimination morally horrible?, you bet...however, how much control do you want government to have in that realm? How long before they take away something you want to do on the grounds that it's immoral. The same government that's powerful enough to say "you can't refuse service to someone" is the same government that is powerful enough to say "here's who you can and can't marry".

It's much simpler if you just keep government confined to their original purpose which is protecting our constitutional rights. The moment you start entrusting them with tasks like "define for us what's moral or immoral and legislate accordingly", you open up a can of worms.