This is unconstitutional

2seaoat wrote:As you well know, the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with discrimination.

What a Rube.  Are you providing humor tonight, or are you utterly ignorant of the equal protection clause and its role and application in dealing with discrimination in American constitutional law.   I think Rube.

Tell that to the current president as he attempts to force Catholics and other Christian health care workers to preform abortions.

Oh wait! He's backing down from that issue isn't he. Does this mean he doesn't have the gonads to enforce the law?

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=def3ob2h-1s

  

Oh by the way... I don't own a restaurant or bakery business. If someone pisses in my cornflakes in my place of business I'll ask them to leave.

Tell that to the current president as he attempts to force Catholics and other Christian health care workers to preform abortions.


Your stellar logic could give you the front seat on the little bus. So a state that mandates minimum policy limits on liability suddenly a person purchasing that policy is going to be forced to have an accident. Golly Gee......you usually are hitting on all cylinders.......did you eat some tainted fish, or does your talon have a hangnail? Sometimes it is not much fun if you are not going to think. Take a couple Eagle tums......get a good night's sleep, and stay away from road kill for one week.....then come back and discuss higher level constitutional law questions because Mr. Markle has given me a headache with his absolute ignorance of Constitutional law.....you simply had a bad fish.

2seaoat wrote:Tell that to the current president as he attempts to force Catholics and other Christian health care workers to preform abortions.


Your stellar logic could give you the front seat on the little bus.  So a state that mandates minimum policy limits on liability suddenly a person purchasing that policy is going to be forced to have an accident.   Golly Gee......you usually are hitting on all cylinders.......did you eat some tainted fish, or does your talon have a hangnail?   Sometimes it is not much fun if you are not going to think.  Take a couple Eagle tums......get a good night's sleep, and stay away from road kill for one week.....then come back and discuss higher level constitutional law questions because Mr. Markle has given me a headache with his absolute ignorance of Constitutional law.....you simply had a bad fish.

Oh no!!!!! I'm having way to much fun!

I could use one of Markle's favorite quotes here but you'll already realize what that is by the end of this sentence.

What's the matter?

Are you seeing things be flushed down the tubes as the government enacts laws that affect private businesses then has to back down on their progressiveness because it violates the rights of the business and it's employees?

That really is to bad.

Oh by the way... Did the water quit sliding off the duck?

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ljy6PTbX9I

 

2seaoat wrote:Tell that to the current president as he attempts to force Catholics and other Christian health care workers to preform abortions.


Your stellar logic could give you the front seat on the little bus.  So a state that mandates minimum policy limits on liability suddenly a person purchasing that policy is going to be forced to have an accident.   Golly Gee......you usually are hitting on all cylinders.......did you eat some tainted fish, or does your talon have a hangnail?   Sometimes it is not much fun if you are not going to think.  Take a couple Eagle tums......get a good night's sleep, and stay away from road kill for one week.....then come back and discuss higher level constitutional law questions because Mr. Markle has given me a headache with his absolute ignorance of Constitutional law.....you simply had a bad fish.

You seem to have missed this somehow....  I am shocked...SHOCKED I SAY!

As you well know, the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with discrimination.  But, as usual cute try.  IF it did, it would apply to BOTH SIDES EQUALLY.

PLEASE, PLEASE cite for us the Supreme Court decision which made law from the bench and included sexual orientation as a protected class to the current seven Federal protected classes.  My guess is you can't even name them without trying to find them someplace on Bing or Google.

IF, IF what you say is true, why was the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 1964 and 1968, along with the addendums in 1972 and 1988 necessary?

by Dreamsglore Yesterday at 6:56 pm
PACEDOG#1 wrote:
“
The baker does have the right to follow religious edicts even in the workplace.
”
Wrong dumbass. Didn't you learn anything w/ the school prayer issue? How dense can you be?
by 2seaoat Yesterday at 7:21 pm
-------

The school prayer issue was because students are cpnsidered a captive audience. This gay couple was not. They could have taken their business elsewhere. This wasnt the only baker in town. That's the difference and that public schools are considered government institutions. Private bakeries are not in the same category .... Gumby

2seaoat wrote:Tell that to the current president as he attempts to force Catholics and other Christian health care workers to preform abortions.


Your stellar logic could give you the front seat on the little bus.  So a state that mandates minimum policy limits on liability suddenly a person purchasing that policy is going to be forced to have an accident.   Golly Gee......you usually are hitting on all cylinders.......did you eat some tainted fish, or does your talon have a hangnail?   Sometimes it is not much fun if you are not going to think.  Take a couple Eagle tums......get a good night's sleep, and stay away from road kill for one week.....then come back and discuss higher level constitutional law questions because Mr. Markle has given me a headache with his absolute ignorance of Constitutional law.....you simply had a bad fish.

Once again....



“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
― Socrates

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
― Socrates

When somebody posts that the 14th amendment does not deal with discrimination...........how can you tell the truth and not point out that the author is brain dead. I thought an absolute defense to slander is the truth. Please Mr. Markle tell me how the 14th amendment and the equal protection clause does not deal with discrimination.........redeem yourself.

If this baker advertised to the general public, then he should serve the general public...however, if the item in question violates the baker's standards, he should not have to produce the object. Who understands what I'm saying?

The interstate commerce clause being applied to food producers, restaurants, and bars is well established. Once the public is an invitee the clause attaches to the 14th amendment analysis under the equal protection clause. If a business denies a customer a product because it is not on their menu, like a person going to chinese restaurant and asks for a wedding cake, the rational basis standard of the equal protection test will be applied and the owner will not be in violation. However, if the the customer is within a protected class and the customer orders something on the menu, the denial of service will be a constitutional violation.

by Floridatexan Yesterday at 9:42 pm

If this baker advertised to the general public, then he should serve the general public...however, if the item in question violates the baker's standards, he should not have to produce the object. Who understands what I'm saying?
-----
He has the right to turn down something that is an against his religion to support . Keep arguing with
Thst stop sign .

He has the right to turn down something that is an against his religion to support . Keep arguing with
Thst stop sign .

So the manager of the Kresge lunch counter could refuse to serve a black person or a gay person because it would violate their religion to do the same.......you really do not get it. Your religious rights end in a public place where you attempt to discriminate where the proper nexus is present......again equal protection and commerce clause.

The person who holds those religious beliefs could start a member only bakery which discriminated and did not allow gay people to join, and the nexus would not be present. People have the right to associate and be around people they choose which includes private clubs which refuse admission to a person who is not a member, or religious groups, but when the doors of that business are open to the public.......the nexus has been established and the discriminatory practices face sanctions.

2seaoat wrote:He has the right to turn down something that is an against his religion to support . Keep arguing with
Thst stop sign .

So the manager of the Kresge lunch counter could refuse to serve a black person or a gay person because it would violate their religion to do the same.......you really do not get it. Your religious rights end in a public place where you attempt to discriminate where the proper nexus is present......again equal protection and commerce clause.

The person who holds those religious beliefs could start a member only bakery which discriminated and did not allow gay people to join, and the nexus would not be present. People have the right to associate and be around people they choose which includes private clubs which refuse admission to a person who is not a member, or religious groups, but when the doors of that business are open to the public.......the nexus has been established and the discriminatory practices face sanctions.

====
Show me a religion that discriminates on color silly arse.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

2seaoat wrote:He has the right to turn down something that is an against his religion to support . Keep arguing with
Thst stop sign .

So the manager of the Kresge lunch counter could refuse to serve a black person or a gay person because it would violate their religion to do the same.......you really do not get it.   Your religious rights end in a public place where you attempt to discriminate where the proper nexus is present......again equal protection and commerce clause.

The person who holds those religious beliefs could start a member only bakery which discriminated and did not allow gay people to join, and the nexus would not be present.  People have the right to associate and be around people they choose which includes private clubs which refuse admission to a person who is not a member, or religious groups, but when the doors of that business are open to the public.......the nexus has been established and the discriminatory practices face sanctions.

====
Show me a religion that discriminates on color silly arse.

You're an idiot,PD.Truly. You do not have the right to discriminate against someone because you do not agree w/ their lifestyle even if you have a private business. What don't you get about that? Now how pharmacists get away w/ what they do is beyond me? I imagine they haven't been sued.

Now how pharmacists get away w/ what they do is beyond me

No, they are not getting away with anything. Remember how I explained that if a business had in its inventory a product and refused to sell that product because of a religious belief as it related to the customer's status as a protected class, they could be found liable.

However, any business who Chooses to not carry an item in their inventory, and is consistent with this business decision and does not discriminate against the end customer, most certainly is protected under the constitution. If a Pharmacist decides that they will not carry or provide flu shots because they believe they harm their customers, or refuse to carry the morning after pill, they have not violated anybody's right.

The baker sold cakes. The customer who was gay and wanted to get married ordered a cake. They refused to give him a product they sold because of the customers status. They broke the law.

These concepts are fairly consistent and had the baker not sold wedding cakes, their certainly would be no cause of action.

Show me a religion that discriminates on color silly arse.


The Church of the later day saints until about 1980, and the Southern Baptist Convention found its inception in discrimination, but both have made strides to improve their historical discrimination. The seeds of the same are clearly a large part of political strategy as that discriminatory history is not entirely removed from the living churches, and the fear and exclusion for so many years has been manipulated by political parties and independent parties.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:Just another attack on Christians

LOL

The judge that made this decision needs to be impeached.

The judge that made this decision needs to be impeached.

Following the law of the land as interpreted by the Supreme Court does not get one impeached. However, if you are using the same logic which you found the affordable care act unconstitutional.........then I can say what you lack in legal logic you make up with consistency.

2seaoat wrote:The judge that made this decision needs to be impeached.

Following the law of the land as interpreted by the Supreme Court does not get one impeached. However, if you are using the same logic which you found the affordable care act unconstitutional.........then I can say what you lack in legal logic you make up with consistency.

Because the obamacare penalty was deemed a tax... how does it satisfy the requirement of the three types of valid constitutional taxes... income, excise or direct? And under which enumeration is that requirement fulfilled? By what precedent?

Don't forget... I predicted the scotus decision as well... though with different rational.

Because the obamacare penalty was deemed a tax... how does it satisfy the requirement of the three types of valid constitutional taxes... income, excise or direct? And under which enumeration is that requirement fulfilled? By what precedent?

Don't forget... I predicted the scotus decision as well... though with different rational.




Congress when establishing the individual retirement accounts created a penalty for early disbursement prior to the age of 591/2 of 10% tax on the disbursement, in addition to the principal being taxed as ordinary income. That penalty does not fit under your arbitrary decision to decide what is VALID constitutional taxes......your understanding does not comport with the case law, nor is even logical or practical. All through our tax code are penalties which are nothing more than taxes. This was obvious to anybody who had read prior Supreme Court decisions.

Sadly, my head had been rang one time to many, because I have no recollection of one person on this forum or for that matter much of anywhere identifying Roberts and his historical writings putting much weight on the power of Congress to tax and predicting the decision correctly three days prior to the decision. If you say you did, my memory does not recall, so who am I to argue. I do remember being called a dumb asz by at least 6 people on this forum on this very specific ruling. Coincidentally, they still call me a dumb asz.

2seaoat wrote:Because the obamacare penalty was deemed a tax... how does it satisfy the requirement of the three types of valid constitutional taxes... income, excise or direct? And under which enumeration is that requirement fulfilled? By what precedent?

Don't forget... I predicted the scotus decision as well... though with different rational.




Congress when establishing the individual retirement accounts created a penalty for early disbursement prior to the age of 591/2 of 10% tax on the disbursement, in addition to the principal being taxed as ordinary income. That penalty does not fit under your arbitrary decision to decide what is VALID constitutional taxes......your understanding does not comport with the case law, nor is even logical or practical. All through our tax code are penalties which are nothing more than taxes. This was obvious to anybody who had read prior Supreme Court decisions.

Sadly, my head had been rang one time to many, because I have no recollection of one person on this forum or for that matter much of anywhere identifying Roberts and his historical writings putting much weight on the power of Congress to tax and predicting the decision correctly three days prior to the decision. If you say you did, my memory does not recall, so who am I to argue. I do remember being called a dumb asz by at least 6 people on this forum on this very specific ruling. Coincidentally, they still call me a dumb asz.

What is the tax penalty for non-disbursement? Afterall... the penalty is for inactivity... correct? I can't help ur memory.

2seaoat wrote:Now how pharmacists get away w/ what they do is beyond me

No, they are not getting away with anything.  Remember how I explained that if a business had in its inventory a product and refused to sell that product because of a religious belief as it related to the customer's status as a protected class, they could be found liable.

However, any business who Chooses to not carry an item in their inventory, and is consistent with this business decision and does not discriminate against the end customer, most certainly is protected under the constitution.  If a Pharmacist decides that they will not carry or provide flu shots because they believe they harm their customers, or refuse to carry the morning after pill, they have not violated anybody's right.

The baker sold cakes.   The customer who was gay and wanted to get married ordered a cake.   They refused to give him a product they sold because of the customers status.   They broke the law.  

These concepts are fairly consistent and had the baker not sold wedding cakes, their certainly would be no cause of action.

If the baker refused to purchase and place a figurine of a same sex couple on the cake... then the bakery would appear to meet the same standards as the pharmacist who refuses to carry the morning after pill or the caterer who doesn't do pulled pork because it isn't on the menu.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diOuUYcenW0

  

If the baker refused to purchase and place a figurine of a same sex couple on the cake.

That would make a good legal argument, however the baker failed to make the availability of the inventory his argument. Also, the couple could have secured the statute independent of the baker and provided the same to him. The morning after pill or a flu shot are controlled and regulated products which the public cannot substitute.

You're ignoring important questions here... if you're able to be objective.

You're ignoring important questions here... if you're able to be objective.

I never ignore important questions, and simply point to what the supremes have ruled.......whether that is objective is in the eye of the beholder.