Re: Good news

[Steve]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 12:01:44 -0500, David Hartung
<d_ha...@h0tmail.com> wrote:

>On 03/14/2016 11:07 AM, wy wrote:
>> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 12:01:04 PM UTC-4, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>> On 03/14/2016 11:15 AM, Lee wrote:
>>>> David Hartung wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 03/13/2016 08:47 PM, Lee wrote:
>>>>>> David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 03/13/2016 05:52 PM, Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>> David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2016/03/virginia-legislatur
>>>>>>>>> e-pa sses -bill-to.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why do you oppose the freedom of all consumers
>>>>>>>> to be treated equally in the marketplace?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where is this right found?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 14th Amendment + The Civil Rights Act.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
>>>>>> prohibits discrimination based on religion
>>>>>> in public accommodations, such as restaurants,
>>>>>> theaters, and hotels.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.justice.gov/crt/combating-religious-discrimination-and-p
>>>>>> rote cting-religious-freedom-10
>>>>>
>>>>> So the customer may not demand the merchant violate his religious
>>>>> beliefs. Got it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So the merchant can refuse to serve people
>>>> not of his faith. So much for equality.....
>>>
>>> You have no personal equality, there is equality when dealing with the
>>> government NOT on a personal level of interaction such as commerce and
>>> religion and sexual relations or when entering a place that is personal
>>> property...
>>>
>>> You can enter any government property equally and get equal service at
>>> any government office. But the constitution says NOTHING about WE THE
>>> PEOPLE being forced to guarantee people equal protection in personal
>>> relationships. The 14th Amendment is specific in saying the State must
>>> give equal protection of the law and Store Owner s don't enforce the law
>>> and are NOT part of law enforcement. SO stores are NOT held to that
>>> 14th Amendment by the constitution, only by Liberals that can't
>>> understand the constitution.
>>
>> The 14th Amendment protects everyone equally under laws that store owners have to follow, stupid. There is no such thing as a store owner exempt from laws, stupid.
>
>Laws which require the merchant to violate his religious beliefs as a
>condition of being in business, are unconstitutional.


....and the 14th Amendment does not address anything that
non-government entities may or may not do. Lefties are too stupid to
understand that... even after reading it...



--
Lord, please help me to be even more politically incorrect.

[David Hartung]

A very good point.

[Steve]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 16:41:05 -0500, David Hartung
<d_ha...@h0tmail.com> wrote:

>On 03/14/2016 03:57 PM, wy wrote:

>> 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.
>>
>> *nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*
>
>Which has nothing to do with the business relationship between two
>private citizens.


Like I said above, Lefties are too stupid to understand the 14th
Amendment... even after reading it... Then wy pops up and validates
what I said..

The fact is that no part of the US Constitution except for the 13th
Amendment interferes with the action of a private person unless some
degree of state action is involved.

[Steve]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 00:32:31 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 3/14/2016 5:07 PM, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>> On 03/14/2016 06:05 PM, Tom Sr. wrote:
>>> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 5:35:34 PM UTC-4, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> On 03/14/2016 12:54 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>> On 3/14/2016 10:44 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>> See the difference?
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> I disagree in that both the individuals who were denied services were
>>>>> harmed and gays as a class were marginalized.
>>>> --
>>>> What harm? Please be specific.
>>>
>>>
>>> Rosenbluth was specific, Hartung:
>>>
>>> "...gays as a class were marginalized."
>>>
>>
>> gays as a group have no rights, they only have rights as individual
>> persons the same as heterosexuals....
>
>Right. The baker can't refuse to serve a straight wedding either.


Of course he can... It just has to be for a reason other than because
he's in a protected class..

[Steve]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 00:26:44 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 3/14/2016 2:35 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 03/14/2016 12:54 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>> On 3/14/2016 10:44 AM, David Hartung wrote:

>>>> On 03/14/2016 12:21 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>> On 3/14/2016 10:16 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/14/2016 12:10 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

>>>>>>> On 3/14/2016 10:01 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Laws which require the merchant to violate his religious beliefs
>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>> condition of being in business, are unconstitutional.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> As explained previously, the Constitution does not permit people to
>>>>>>> disobey generally-applicable, religiously-neutral laws.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the law requires one to violate his religious beliefs as a
>>>>>> condition
>>>>>> of being in business, the law is not religiously neutral.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not the criterion for a religiously-neutral law. Instead, the
>>>>> criteria is whether the law applies equally to religious and secular
>>>>> beliefs.
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, we have laws which proscribe murder. Such a law would
>>>>> violate the religious belief of someone who practices human sacrifices.
>>>>> Yet, would you say the law is not religiously neutral? Given that
>>>>> the
>>>>> law applies equally to people who murder for secular and religious
>>>>> reasons, I would hope not.
>>>>
>>>> It never fails, someone always tries to conflate right to human
>>>> sacrifice with the right to choose to not accept certain business.
>>>
>>> The two are analogous when it comes to whether the law is
>>> religiously-neutral.
>>>
>>>> When the Kleins chose to not accept the commission to create a cake
>>>> celebrating a same sex union, no one was harmed.
>>>>
>>>> When Baronelle Stutzman chose to not accept a commission to create
>>>> floral arrangement celebrating a same sex marriage, no one was harmed.
>>>>
>>>> When a religion engages in human sacrifice, someone is harmed.
>>>>
>>>> See the difference?

>>>
>>> I disagree in that both the individuals who were denied services were
>>> harmed and gays as a class were marginalized.
>>

>> What harm? Please be specific.
>

>The individuals can't get service from the best baker in town. As a
>class, gays are marginalized because there relationships are considered
>second class.

It's not so much considered second class as it is considered
abnormal.. which, of course it is...

[Steve]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 00:29:09 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 3/14/2016 2:53 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 03/14/2016 04:26 PM, Tom Sr. wrote:

>>> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 1:01:45 PM UTC-4, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> Laws which require the merchant to violate his religious beliefs as a
>>>> condition of being in business, are unconstitutional.
>>>

>>> According to WHAT *court rulings* EXACTLY, Pastor Hartung???
>>
>> Is that not what is being tested now, with the Sweet Cakes and Stutzman
>> cases?
>
>Not really. They will easily lose the Free Exercise argument. They may
>win the Freedom of Speech argument.


There have been several court rulings that disallow employers from
making an employee do something that violates his religious beliefs.
One I remember had to do with making someone deliver liquor.

So imagine a situation where the only employee of a bakery that can
decorate a cake see's decorating a wedding cake with a gay message
violates his religion...

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 3/15/2016 5:02 AM, Steve wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 00:29:09 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/14/2016 2:53 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 03/14/2016 04:26 PM, Tom Sr. wrote:
>>>> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 1:01:45 PM UTC-4, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>> Laws which require the merchant to violate his religious beliefs as a
>>>>> condition of being in business, are unconstitutional.
>>>>
>>>> According to WHAT *court rulings* EXACTLY, Pastor Hartung???
>>>
>>> Is that not what is being tested now, with the Sweet Cakes and Stutzman
>>> cases?
>>
>> Not really. They will easily lose the Free Exercise argument. They may
>> win the Freedom of Speech argument.
>
> There have been several court rulings that disallow employers from
> making an employee do something that violates his religious beliefs.
> One I remember had to do with making someone deliver liquor.

Yes - that is because of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII) as amended in
1972 - not because of the Constitution.

> So imagine a situation where the only employee of a bakery that can
> decorate a cake see's decorating a wedding cake with a gay message
> violates his religion...

I believe the employer can win the case if he can show accommodating the
employee would burden the business. Since no one else can decorate that
cake, it does seem there is a burden on the business.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Did you get that David? Here is an honest person who knows when gays
are harmed.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Yes. Thanks for the clarification. I should have said, the baker can't
refuse to serve a straight wedding because he has a religious (or
secular) objection to straight weddings.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

On 03/15/2016 11:17 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On 3/15/2016 5:02 AM, Steve wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 00:29:09 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/14/2016 2:53 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> On 03/14/2016 04:26 PM, Tom Sr. wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 1:01:45 PM UTC-4, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>> Laws which require the merchant to violate his religious beliefs as a
>>>>>> condition of being in business, are unconstitutional.
>>>>>
>>>>> According to WHAT *court rulings* EXACTLY, Pastor Hartung???
>>>>
>>>> Is that not what is being tested now, with the Sweet Cakes and Stutzman
>>>> cases?
>>>
>>> Not really. They will easily lose the Free Exercise argument. They may
>>> win the Freedom of Speech argument.
>>
>> There have been several court rulings that disallow employers from
>> making an employee do something that violates his religious beliefs.
>> One I remember had to do with making someone deliver liquor.
>
> Yes - that is because of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII) as amended in
> 1972 - not because of the Constitution.
>
>> So imagine a situation where the only employee of a bakery that can
>> decorate a cake see's decorating a wedding cake with a gay message
>> violates his religion...
>

That opens the question of quality, anyone can do it... but you have
lower quality when you allow your "apprentice" to do the work.

> I believe the employer can win the case if he can show accommodating the
> employee would burden the business. Since no one else can decorate that
> cake, it does seem there is a burden on the business.

They can hire a bum off the street to do a one time cake design for the
gays.

The guy that pissed on the Kellogg food line is probably looking for a job.



--
That's Karma

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

On 03/15/2016 11:17 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

When in reality the Baker can refuse either one (hetero or gay) or both
since neither has any 14th amendment protection.

They're equal to a centaur..... so maybe you Liberals have to serve
centaurs that walk into your Bakery.

Did you hear the one about the hetero the gay and the centaur that
walked into a bakey?

--
That's Karma

[Steve]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 08:17:56 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Unless, of course, the bride has blue hair and he refuses to serve all
customers with blue hair....

[Steve]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 08:17:47 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Nobody is harmed just because they are abnormal... Look at
socialists, for instance. they are extremely abnormal.

[Steve]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 08:17:35 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 3/15/2016 3:39 AM, David Hartung wrote:

>> On 03/15/2016 02:26 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>> On 3/14/2016 2:35 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When a religion engages in human sacrifice, someone is harmed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See the difference?
>>>>>
>>>>> I disagree in that both the individuals who were denied services were
>>>>> harmed and gays as a class were marginalized.
>>>>
>>>> What harm? Please be specific.
>>>
>>> The individuals can't get service from the best baker in town.
>>

>> Does not constitute harm.
>>
>>> As a
>>> class, gays are marginalized because their relationships are considered
>>> second class.
>>
>> Which still does not constitute harm.
>
>I guess you think there isn't harm if a baker refuses to serve Christian
>weddings?

That's what I believe anyway...

[Steve]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 08:17:23 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 3/15/2016 5:02 AM, Steve wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 00:29:09 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/14/2016 2:53 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> On 03/14/2016 04:26 PM, Tom Sr. wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 1:01:45 PM UTC-4, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>> Laws which require the merchant to violate his religious beliefs as a
>>>>>> condition of being in business, are unconstitutional.
>>>>>
>>>>> According to WHAT *court rulings* EXACTLY, Pastor Hartung???
>>>>
>>>> Is that not what is being tested now, with the Sweet Cakes and Stutzman
>>>> cases?
>>>
>>> Not really. They will easily lose the Free Exercise argument. They may
>>> win the Freedom of Speech argument.
>>
>> There have been several court rulings that disallow employers from
>> making an employee do something that violates his religious beliefs.
>> One I remember had to do with making someone deliver liquor.
>
>Yes - that is because of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII) as amended in
>1972 - not because of the Constitution.

I didn't say it was Constitutional...

>> So imagine a situation where the only employee of a bakery that can
>> decorate a cake see's decorating a wedding cake with a gay message
>> violates his religion...
>
>I believe the employer can win the case if he can show accommodating the
>employee would burden the business. Since no one else can decorate that
>cake, it does seem there is a burden on the business.

That's what I would think, too.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Yes, but that isn't an objection to straight weddings.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Abnormal has the connotation of being wrong and deserving of
second-class treatment. That is intentional harm that you think is
justified.

[Steve]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 22:10:48 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Harm is in the eye of the person receiving the treatment and is, in
many cases justified. If I reject a person who wants to be my friend,
that person my feel harmed, but I may be justified.

[Steve]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 22:08:33 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Exactly! and it's pretty difficult to prove otherwise if the baker
has never served anyone with blue hair...

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Yes. I am just looking for honesty from people who support the baker.
They should recognize there is harm and argue that the harm is either
justified or a lesser evil than the harm done to the baker.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Yes, the baker in this case could have lied and said he refused to serve
the lesbian couple because of something else. But, that is besides the
point I made above. Namely, Scotty argued that gays are being treated
differently than straights. They are not.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Hetero, never had rights to buy cakes.... How is it that gays have them?

--
That's Karma

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

There is NO harm in NOT selling, but forcing someone to sell something
does do harm, it's a positive and it violates the constitution. To begin
with the government needs to use eminent domain to force someone to sell
their property.

A business license doesn't negate emanate domain.

"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* ."

Taking the business and making it *PUBLIC USE* without just compensation
is unconstitutional.

It is PRIVATE PROPERTY and the constitution dictates that equal
protection of the laws be carried out by the State.... NOT on private
property or by the owners.

It's NOT equal protection to target business properties. They are
persons and protected, that means equal protection from Jim Crow law
that force them to sell to whites only or to whites and gays only or to
whites blacks and gays only or to NOT sell to blacks or to sell to
anyone government decides a private business should sell to. The
government has no power to decide who you can or can't sell to.


--
That's Karma

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 3/16/2016 9:09 AM, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>
>> Yes, the baker in this case could have lied and said he refused to serve
>> the lesbian couple because of something else. But, that is besides the
>> point I made above. Namely, Scotty argued that gays are being treated
>> differently than straights. They are not.
>
>
> Hetero, never had rights to buy cakes.... How is it that gays have them?

Both equally have the right per the anti-discrimination statute.

[Steve]

On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 08:56:01 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

I certainly treat gays different than straights. Most everybody does,
even gays...

[Steve]

On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 08:53:20 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

In my opinion, there was no harm in that situation.

[Bud Frawley]

In article <ncbvgi$vpa$2...@dont-email.me>, no...@nowhere.com says...

OMFG you guy's are ignorent!when someone hate's so much he wo'nt even
bake a cake for love he's not gonna lye and say something nice so they
wo'nt feel bad! he's gonna show his true color's to cause the most pain
possible! he want's to make his point loud and clear! I went to a baker
last week to see if they would make a gay cake! he said no! when I said
I was calling the cop's he started shaking in his boot's! he finally
made it I never picked it up! I guess he learned a valuable lesson about
hate! LLLLLLOOOOOOOLLLLLL!!!!!!!

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Scotty is arguing the anti-discrimination law treats gays better. I
hope you agree that is ridiculous.

[Steve]

On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 21:04:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Actually, any person that falls into one of the so called "protected
class" is favored by those laws.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

That Liberals are blessed with a double dose of it? They create hate for
no reason... The rest of society at least has some convoluted reasoning
for it.

--
That's Karma

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

On 03/16/2016 09:04 PM, Bud Frawley wrote:

Irony is that now the Baker has a valid reason to make gay wedding cakes
have more rules like gun owners rules who can't carry a gun into the
business and are discriminated against, the gays order gay wedding cakes
and then never pick them up, so they all have to be paid in full 180
days in advance.

Now the Baker won't be getting any requests for gay wedding cakes.


Post the sign next to the NO guns allowed in store sign.
--
That's Karma

[Bud Frawley]

In article <YTzGy.168621$Ia.7...@fx08.iad>, All-Liberal-Policies-Are-
Proven-...@blackhole.nebulax.com says...

I bet the only reason he made me a cake is when I told him I was'nt gay!
he's such a hippocrit!

[Bud Frawley]

In article <_OzGy.51083$zA4....@fx19.iad>, All-Liberal-Policies-Are-
Proven-...@blackhole.nebulax.com says...

I guess you forgot which one was creatig hate! it was'nt me I can tell
you that much!

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

My sign solves all the problems, gay or NOT you still pay in advance in
full and it has to be paid 180 days before the pick up of any gay
wedding cake.



--
That's Karma

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 3/17/2016 2:24 AM, Steve wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 21:04:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>

>> Scotty is arguing the anti-discrimination law treats gays better. I
>> hope you agree that is ridiculous.
>
> Actually, any person that falls into one of the so called "protected
> class" is favored by those laws.

We all do. Each of us either gay, straight or bi. So, none of us is
favored by those laws, and Scotty's claim is ridiculous.

[Steve]

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 09:43:03 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 3/17/2016 2:24 AM, Steve wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 21:04:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>
>>> Scotty is arguing the anti-discrimination law treats gays better. I
>>> hope you agree that is ridiculous.
>>
>> Actually, any person that falls into one of the so called "protected
>> class" is favored by those laws.
>
>We all do.

Nonsense....

>Each of us either gay, straight or bi. So, none of us is
>favored by those laws, and Scotty's claim is ridiculous.

However, I have no religion so I am not covered by the religion
part...

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 3/17/2016 4:39 PM, Steve wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 09:43:03 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/17/2016 2:24 AM, Steve wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 21:04:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>
>>>> Scotty is arguing the anti-discrimination law treats gays better. I
>>>> hope you agree that is ridiculous.
>>>
>>> Actually, any person that falls into one of the so called "protected
>>> class" is favored by those laws.
>>
>> We all do.
>
> Nonsense....

Care to give an example of a person who doesn't fall into a protected class?

>> Each of us either gay, straight or bi. So, none of us is
>> favored by those laws, and Scotty's claim is ridiculous.
>
> However, I have no religion so I am not covered by the religion
> part...

Yes, you are. It applies to discrimination against atheists too.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

On 03/17/2016 09:57 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On 3/17/2016 4:39 PM, Steve wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 09:43:03 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/17/2016 2:24 AM, Steve wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 21:04:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>
>>>>> Scotty is arguing the anti-discrimination law treats gays better. I
>>>>> hope you agree that is ridiculous.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, any person that falls into one of the so called "protected
>>>> class" is favored by those laws.
>>>
>>> We all do.
>>
>> Nonsense....
>
> Care to give an example of a person who doesn't fall into a protected
> class?
>

A human life inside a uterus....

>>> Each of us either gay, straight or bi. So, none of us is
>>> favored by those laws, and Scotty's claim is ridiculous.
>>
>> However, I have no religion so I am not covered by the religion
>> part...
>
> Yes, you are. It applies to discrimination against atheists too.

But it doesn't Protect the Atheists hate..... they hate people that
have souls which is no different than hate for someone that believes
they are gay.

Atheists are guilty of hate crimes against people with souls and the
Atheists need to be prosecuted.



--
That's Karma

[Steve]

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 18:57:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 3/17/2016 4:39 PM, Steve wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 09:43:03 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/17/2016 2:24 AM, Steve wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 21:04:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>
>>>>> Scotty is arguing the anti-discrimination law treats gays better. I
>>>>> hope you agree that is ridiculous.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, any person that falls into one of the so called "protected
>>>> class" is favored by those laws.
>>>
>>> We all do.
>>
>> Nonsense....
>
>Care to give an example of a person who doesn't fall into a protected class?

I did, below...

>>> Each of us either gay, straight or bi. So, none of us is
>>> favored by those laws, and Scotty's claim is ridiculous.
>>
>> However, I have no religion so I am not covered by the religion
>> part...
>
>Yes, you are. It applies to discrimination against atheists too.

Sorry, I'm not an atheist..

[Josh Rosenbluth]

It applies to people who have no religion as well. You can't be denied
service because you have no religion.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 09:43:03 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/17/2016 2:24 AM, Steve wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 21:04:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Scotty is arguing the anti-discrimination law treats gays better. I
>>>>>>> hope you agree that is ridiculous.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, any person that falls into one of the so called "protected
>>>>>> class" is favored by those laws.
>>>>>
>>>>> We all do.

Then a gay has no more rights than does a store owner. And what if the
person wanting to buy the cake is gay and the person that refused to
make the gay wedding cake is also gay?

Can the person buying the cake that can't get it, still sue for $130,000?


--
That's Karma

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 3/18/2016 7:52 AM, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>
>>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 09:43:03 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/17/2016 2:24 AM, Steve wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 21:04:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Scotty is arguing the anti-discrimination law treats gays better. I
>>>>>>>> hope you agree that is ridiculous.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually, any person that falls into one of the so called "protected
>>>>>>> class" is favored by those laws.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We all do.
>
> Then a gay has no more rights than does a store owner.

No. But, a customer has more rights than a store owner. Which is OK
because status as an owner/customer is not a protected class.

> And what if the
> person wanting to buy the cake is gay and the person that refused to
> make the gay wedding cake is also gay?
>
> Can the person buying the cake that can't get it, still sue for $130,000?

If the owner refused to make it because the prospective customer was
gay, yes.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Then you say gay rights are lost when you step into the store..... And
the gays become "just" store owners/customers and the owner can't remove
anyone or NOT sell to anyone. Because gay is irrelevant according to you
when it comes to owner/customer since A GAY OWNER HAS NO GAY RIGHTS AND
BECOMES A LESSER PERSON THAN A PERSON THAT'S A CUSTOMER GAY OR NOT?


That seems very unequal for the 14th amendment to be a party of.

--
That's Karma

[Steve]

On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 07:35:22 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

I think not....

[Josh Rosenbluth]

The owner can remove anyone for just about any reason excluding the
customer's race, religion, sex, (and in some places) sexual orientation.

> Because gay is irrelevant according to you

No, per above (sexual orientation of the customer).

> when it comes to owner/customer since A GAY OWNER HAS NO GAY RIGHTS AND
> BECOMES A LESSER PERSON THAN A PERSON THAT'S A CUSTOMER GAY OR NOT?

All owners are treated the same by the law. All customers are treated
the same by the law. Owners are treated differently than customers, and
that's OK with the 14th.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

The federal law:

All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations
of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section,
without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color,
religion, or national origin.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000a

If that law were construed to not cover being denied service because you
have no religion, it would likely violate the Equal Protection Clause.

I know of no on-topic court cases, but is both reasonable and proper
(under the doctrine that Courts construe laws to avoid Constitutional
conflicts) to interpret it as I do.

[Steve]

On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 15:01:17 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 3/18/2016 2:36 PM, Steve wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 07:35:22 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It applies to people who have no religion as well. You can't be denied
>>> service because you have no religion.
>>
>> I think not....
>
>The federal law:
>
>All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the
>goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations
>of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section,
>without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color,
>religion, or national origin.
>
>https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000a
>
>If that law were construed to not cover being denied service because you
>have no religion, it would likely violate the Equal Protection Clause.

So you say..

>I know of no on-topic court cases, but is both reasonable and proper
>(under the doctrine that Courts construe laws to avoid Constitutional
>conflicts) to interpret it as I do.

So you say...

[David Hartung]

For consideration:
http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/public-accommodation/

Public Accommodation Law & Legal Definition

A place of "public accommodation" is defined as “an establishment either
affecting interstate commerce or supported by state action, and falling
into one of the following categories: (1) a lodging for transient guests
located within a building with more than five rooms for rent; (2) a
facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the
premises, including such facilities located within retail establishments
and gasoline stations; (3) any place of exhibition or entertainment; (4)
any establishment located within an establishment falling into one of
the first three categories, and which holds itself out as serving
patrons of that establishment; or (5) any establishment that contains a
covered establishment, and which holds itself out as serving patrons of
that covered establishment. Bishop v. Henry Modell & Co., 2009 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 104830, 39-40 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2009)

[Josh Rosenbluth]

So what?

[Steve]

On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 20:18:51 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 3/18/2016 7:04 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 03/18/2016 05:01 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>> On 3/18/2016 2:36 PM, Steve wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 07:35:22 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It applies to people who have no religion as well. You can't be denied
>>>>> service because you have no religion.
>>>>
>>>> I think not....
>>>
>>> The federal law:
>>>
>>> All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the
>>> goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations
>>> of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section,
>>> without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color,
>>> religion, or national origin.
>>>
>>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000a
>>>
>>> If that law were construed to not cover being denied service because you
>>> have no religion, it would likely violate the Equal Protection Clause.
>>>
>>> I know of no on-topic court cases, but is both reasonable and proper
>>> (under the doctrine that Courts construe laws to avoid Constitutional
>>> conflicts) to interpret it as I do.

One might look at Grutter v. Bollinger... Singling out minority races
for special treatment seems to be legally acceptable...Equal
protection class can be ignored...

>> For consideration:
>> http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/public-accommodation/
>>
>> Public Accommodation Law & Legal Definition
>>
>> A place of "public accommodation" is defined as “an establishment either
>> affecting interstate commerce or supported by state action, and falling
>> into one of the following categories: (1) a lodging for transient guests
>> located within a building with more than five rooms for rent; (2) a
>> facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the
>> premises, including such facilities located within retail establishments
>> and gasoline stations; (3) any place of exhibition or entertainment; (4)
>> any establishment located within an establishment falling into one of
>> the first three categories, and which holds itself out as serving
>> patrons of that establishment; or (5) any establishment that contains a
>> covered establishment, and which holds itself out as serving patrons of
>> that covered establishment. Bishop v. Henry Modell & Co., 2009 U.S.
>> Dist. LEXIS 104830, 39-40 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2009)
>
>So what?