Thursday, April 11, 2013

"The Attorney General is seeking a permanent injunction forcing the flower shop to comply with the law – as well as $2,000 in fines for every violation."

From Todd Starnes at Town Hall:

State Sues Florist Who Refused to Decorate Gay Wedding
The State of Washington is suing a small flower shop after the owner declined to provide flowers for a homosexual wedding – based on her religious beliefs.

Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Wash., is facing thousands of dollars in fines and penalties for allegedly violating the state’s Consumer Protection Act.

“If a business provides a product or service to opposite-sex couples for their weddings, then it must provide same-sex couples the same product or service,” Attorney General Bob Ferguson said in a statement.

On March 1, a longtime customer asked Stutzman to provide flowers for his upcoming same-sex wedding. According to court documents, she told him that she would not be able to do so “because of her relationship with Jesus Christ.”

The Attorney General’s office sent a letter to the florist on March 28 giving her a chance to reconsider her position and sign an agreement indicating her intention to comply with the law. But Stutzman refused.

“Under the Consumer Protection Act, it is unlawful to discriminate against customers on the basis of sexual orientation,” the attorney general said.

In their letter to Stutzman, they told her the only way to avoid a lawsuit was to agree to provide services for homosexual weddings.

“This means that as a seller of goods or services, you will not refuse to sell floral arrangements for same-sex weddings if you sell floral arrangements for opposite-sex weddings,” the attorney general’s office wrote.

This is what gay marriage is about. Nothing else. It has nothing to do with actual marriage, obviously. It is a drive to provide a legal imprimatur for sandblasting practicing Christians from the public square.

It stands to be remarkably effective. We Christians don't realize yet what we're facing.

93 comments:

  1. Death to Christian BigotsApril 11, 2013 at 6:38 AM

    It doesn't go far enough. Christians should be executed for refusing to provide services to homosexuals.

    ReplyDelete
  2. remember this next time they tell you 'this doesn't affect you.' it most certainly does.

    naidoo

    ReplyDelete
  3. Women, Jews, blacks, and now homosexuals, when will the madness end? Soon there will be no one left for Christian bigots to discriminate against.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bigots like you can still discriminate.

      Here's the thing. All economic transactions have two ends and I think both should be voluntary. When you say that you come down firmly on the side of liberty, that tells me that you should agree with me, unless you're a big hypocrite. Are you?

      JQ

      Delete
    2. Yes, he is a big hypocrite.

      TRISH

      Delete
  4. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyApril 11, 2013 at 7:58 AM

    If I were the florist, I would have gone ahead and made up an arrangement. I think this one is nice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good one Admiral, I’m sure that the Westboro Baptist Church would approve.

      -KW

      Delete
    2. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyApril 11, 2013 at 9:32 AM

      I'll take your word for it, since you probably roomed with those guys during your stay on the Bates Motel Tittering Ward.

      Delete
  5. If I were a cynic, and being an Australian I probably am, I'd wonder if this was a very clever ploy on the part of the florist to increase her business. Refuse to provide floral arrangements for a same sex marriage, and hope to be sued, guaranteeing her all the business from Christians opposed to same sex marriages.

    And then accede and provide the floral arrangements with apparent ill grace, guaranteeing her all the business from same sex couples, enjoying her discomfiture. While she banks all her increased profits.

    No, I couldn't be that cynical...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyApril 11, 2013 at 9:34 AM

      Sounds like you left Cynical behind and stepped of the train at Paranoid.

      Delete
    2. No, I don't think that she's doing this to increase business, though a bakery in Colorado that refused to do a cake for a gay wedding saw its business double afterwards. People wanted to show their support for the bakery in its stand against tyrannical, unconstitutional laws.

      http://global.christianpost.com/news/colo-bakery-refusing-gay-couples-wedding-cake-sees-business-double-79306/

      Which I think is very, very cool. If I lived in Colorado, I'd be there too.

      This is just another example of leftists legislating their morality. They consider it wrong not to provide flowers or a cake for a homosexual wedding because that hurts the two guys' or two gals' feelings. Boo hoo. Therefore, they must enforce their morality with all the considerable might of the law, forcing others to do things their way. They think something is wrong, therefore no one can do it.

      Please stop shoving your morality down my throat.

      JQ

      Delete
    3. Please stop shoving your morality down my throat.

      I see you are an apologist for "whites only" lunch counters.

      Delete
    4. Nop. Now can you please admit that you want to shove your morality down other people's throats?

      JQ

      Delete
    5. Anonymous, when you own a flower shop, you can do floral arrangements for homosexuals, but don't force others to do the same. This woman's shop is hers, not yours. Get it?

      Ben

      Delete
    6. JQ and Ben: I'm a little disturbed by your comments here. I have no qualms at all about forcing racist restaurant owners to serve black people. I don't see the similarity to not wanting to do flowers at a homosexual wedding. They are very, very different things. For starters, black people can't change the fact that they're black. Homosexuals can stop sleeping with people of the same sex. I know some who have. One is an identity, the other is a behavior. Still, you're kind of creeping me out.

      I would agree, however, that such laws impose one person's values on another. I don't have a problem with that. I think there are some people who comment here regulalry (ahem, KW, ahem) who think that they don't do that, but in fact they do. Well, I'm with them on this one. Racist restaurant owners need to have some morality imposed on them, but let's be honest enough to admit that morality is being imposed.

      TRISH

      Delete
    7. when you own a flower shop, you can do floral arrangements for homosexuals, but don't force others to do the same.

      So, you and JQ are all in favor of white's only lunch counters. Good to see the racist face of Christianity exposed. Trish is a bigot, but at least she knows she's one.

      This woman's shop is hers, not yours. Get it?

      This woman's shop is expected to follow the law. Including nondiscrimination laws. Racists who couch their racism in religious terms still have to follow nondiscrimination laws, and so do homophobes. Get it?

      Delete
  6. It is a drive to provide a legal imprimatur for sandblasting practicing Christians from the public square.

    No. That was interracial marriage. After all, no good Christian could possibly sanction a union between a black man and a white woman.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon:

      The civil rights movement was essentially a Christian movement, run out of churches. Reverend MLK, Reverend Ralph Albernathy, Southern Christian Leadership Conference, etc.

      Atheists were big on eugenics, which proscribes race mixing.

      Delete
    2. The civil rights movement was essentially a Christian movement

      You mean the KKK was essentially a Christian movement.

      Google Michael Schwerner and An­drew Goodman. Good Christian boys, right?

      Delete
    3. @troy:

      The KKK was the enforcement wing of the Democrat party, and much loved by progressives. The KKK was intensely anti-Catholic, and required affirmation of "separation of church and state" as a part of its initiation oath.

      Let's see-- race baiters, anti-Catholic, demand separation of church and state... sound familiar, troy?

      Delete
    4. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyApril 11, 2013 at 11:15 AM

      Nathan Bedford Forrest, first Grand Wizard of the KKK, was accused of war crimes (Fort Pillow massacre of black soldiers), served as a Democratic alderman in Memphis TN, and was a TN delegate to the Democratic National Convention.

      Delete
    5. @troy:

      Cheney, Goodman and Schwerner were in Philadelphia Mississippi to investigate the burning by the KKK of a Methodist church that hosted a voter registration drive.

      The KKK hated and murdered Catholics, killed priests and ministers, burned churches, and demanded a complete separation of church and state.

      How is it again that the KKK was a "Christian" movement?

      Delete
    6. @troy:

      Bull Connor of Birmingham Freedom Riders fame was a Democratic National Committeeman at the Democratic National Convention in 1960. He was a nationally active and highly respected Democrat.

      Delete
    7. The KKK was the enforcement wing of the Democrat party, and much loved by progressives. The KKK was intensely anti-Catholic, and required affirmation of "separation of church and state" as a part of its initiation oath.

      Hahaha. Catholics aren't considered Christians by the KKK protestants. It's a 100% Republican fundy movement. Too bad you worship the Anti-Christ in Rome or you would fit right in.

      Anyway, my point was that many Jews were prominent in the CR movement - putting the lie to your claim it was essentially a Christian movement.

      Delete
    8. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyApril 11, 2013 at 11:25 AM

      Troi just a bigoted little dhimmi. Here's some actual history from the Quad-City Times, 4/16/2011:

      Although Davenport [IA] and the rest of the Midwest didn't have overt segregation, it did exist, Jones said. Hickey's Cigar Store didn't allow blacks to eat at its lunch counter. African-Americans could swim only one day a week at the city-owned pool at the base of Main Street. Blacks were last hired and first fired from the factory jobs that brought so many to the Midwest seeking work.

      That's why Jones will be on hand Monday when Mayor Bill Gluba unveils a marker in the parking lot of St. Anthony's Church, the step-off point of that 1963 march...

      The Rev. Marvin Mottet, now monsignor of Sacred Heart Cathedral in Davenport, was one of those young firebrand priests at the time.

      Delete
    9. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyApril 11, 2013 at 11:31 AM

      "Hahaha. Catholics aren't considered Christians by the KKK protestants."

      So what?

      "It's a 100% Republican fundy movement."

      On your authority? have you been attending their meetings? Hahaha.

      Delete
    10. The civil rights movement was essentially a Christian movement,

      The KKK was fundamentally a protestant religious organization.

      Delete
    11. Try reading something other than your Republican talking points. You could start with this: Gospel According to the Klan: The KKK's Appeal to Protestant America, 1915-1930

      Delete
    12. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyApril 11, 2013 at 11:49 AM

      The Gospel According to the Klan:

      "This engrossing exposé looks closely at the Klan’s definition of Protestantism..."

      So you more-or-less agree with the Klan's "definition of Protestantism"?

      Strange bedfellows, indeed.

      Delete
    13. Adm. Chicken Hawk of the Armchair Navy, do you agree with Egnor's claim that the civil-rights was an essentially Christian movement?

      Delete
    14. So you more-or-less agree with the Klan's "definition of Protestantism"

      No. But pretending it wasn't a Protestant organization is ludicrous. They identified as Protestant, and they identified their racist motivations as being driven by their religious beliefs.

      And the Klan isn't the only racist organization going. Try the Christian Identity movement, exemplified by the Aryan Nation. Explicitly racist, and explicitly Christian.

      Too bad that the Loving decision "sandblasted" them from the public sphere. I'm sure they had a lot to contribute.

      Delete
    15. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyApril 11, 2013 at 12:00 PM

      The Gospel According to the Klan looks like a real winner. Why, it's broken the #657,078 in Books threshold on Amazon. Flyin' off the shelves, as they say.

      And the author, Kelly J Baker, is working on what's destined to be another blockbuster: Between the Living and the Living Dead: A Cultural History of Zombies in America. I'm gonna pre-order that one. :)

      And for the icing on the cake, here's a little excerpt from Kelly's blog, kellyjbaker.com:

      How do we show the expectations of a gendered being? How do we interrogate embodiment and the expectations beset on bodies? How do we understand our bodies as archives of the cultural and the personal? What do we learn when we turn to our archives? What do we have the ability to discern?

      Now that is one powerhouse intellect. Augustine, move over, there's a new sheriff in town.


      Delete
    16. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyApril 11, 2013 at 12:14 PM

      Troi, what's to agree or disagree with. Historical fact: MLK was Christian; MLK was backed by RCC and Mainline Protestant Churches; MLK was backed by black Christian churches.

      If you like the Klan's definition of Christianity better, that's OK by me. It says more about you than it does about Christianity.

      By the way, dhimmi, what's the status on piggy banks these days? Still serving pork in schools over there?

      Delete
    17. Historical fact, Adm. draft dodger: the opposition to MLK was almost 100% Christian.

      I guess you prefer humble pie over pork.

      Delete
    18. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyApril 11, 2013 at 12:29 PM

      Historical fact, dhimmi, MLK was Christian.

      Delete
    19. Adm. draft dodger, your lack of courage to take a stand on Egnor's claim that the civil rights movement was an essentially Christian movement is duly noted.

      BTW, have you noticed that in this country of dhimmies, we treat children a lot better than in Marlboro Country? link

      Delete
    20. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyApril 11, 2013 at 12:56 PM

      There's no "stand" to take. The facts speak for themselves. Historically, MLK was Christian; MLK was backed by RCC and Mainline Protestant Churches; MLK was backed by black Christian churches. End of story.

      Delete
    21. Not end of story, coward. The racists that opposed MLK were Christians, and the people that supported MLK were more than just Christians. Many Jews and atheists were prominent supporters of MLK as well. Were they also among MLK's opponents?

      Enjoy your humble pie, coward.

      Delete
    22. There are plenty of good liberal Christians, like my sister, and MLK. The problem is conservative Christians, and while there used to be plenty of them in the Democratic Party, they’re all Republicans now.

      -KW

      Delete
    23. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyApril 11, 2013 at 2:23 PM

      Historically, MLK was Christian; MLK was backed by RCC and Mainline Protestant Churches; MLK was backed by black Christian churches. Not enough Jews or atheists to matter. No dutch dhimmis or ninja love gods at all. End of story.

      Delete
    24. The Gospel According to the Klan looks like a real winner.

      Have you written any books recently?

      I notice you are completely silent on the Christian Identity movement, since that doesn't fit your narrative. Are you secretly a member of the Aryan Nation and just keeping that quiet?

      Delete
    25. MLK was just another one of those Christians who believed that he was above the law. He thought that obeying God was more important than obeying civil laws. He was a lot like the owner of this shop.

      >>The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all." Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.<<

      This is an unjust law, and it violates the law of God. She is under no obligation to follow it.

      JQ

      Delete
    26. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyApril 11, 2013 at 4:51 PM

      Are you saying that people who don't write books can't review them? Have you informed the New York Times Review of Books of this?

      The Christian identity "movement" (ooooh, they have a WEBSITE!!!) isn't even in "my narrative". You're the one who brought them up. I'm "completely silent" on the New Black Panthers, too. And the Rotary Club. But I'm not "secretly a member and just keeping it quiet".

      So piss off. I'm busy, trying to interrogate embodiment to discover the expectations of gendered beings in a Westernized hegemonic heteronormal narrativized patriarchial metaspace.

      Delete
    27. The Christian identity "movement" (ooooh, they have a WEBSITE!!!) isn't even in "my narrative".

      Yes it is, because it is the racist face of Christianity. And you probably are a member. How does being part of the Aryan Nation feel?

      Delete
  7. This is *obviously* a made-up store -- after all, simply everyone knows that redefining 'marriage' to encompass calling two dudes or chicks "bumping uglies" a "marriage" can't affect *your* marriage

    ReplyDelete
  8. I never understood why homosexuals want to make other people unwilling participants in their weddings. I don't know why anyone would want to make anyone an unwilling participant in anyone's wedding.

    I say this as a small business owner. In a truly free country, I should be allowed to refuse service to anyone, and anyone should be allowed to refuse service to me. The reason isn't the important part. Whatever reason I have is my own.

    This will keep happening.

    JQ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I never understood why homosexuals want to make other people unwilling participants in their weddings.

      They didn't They just wanted to buy flowers without being discriminated against. But I guess given your stance, you'd be okay with "whites only" lunch counters again.

      Delete
    2. I didn't say I'd be okay with whites only lunch counters. I said I think both sides of an economic transaction should be voluntary. I knew someone would make a lazy racial comparison. I don't want to validate that comparison by assuming it, but I can explain better what I mean if you don't understand.

      They most certainly did want to make this woman an unwilling participant in their wedding. Someone else's labor is not their right, it should be sold freely, without coercion. This woman didn't want to sell her labor to these people, therefor she was unwilling, therefor they want to make her an unwilling participant in their wedding. What part of unwilling participant don't you understand? This woman is not willing and the law is attempting to make her participate.

      The fact that we force racist restaurant owners to serve black customers foes not mean that this is not a form of coercing people to be unwilling participants in economic transactions. It simply means that we already force people to be unwilling participants in economic transactions, and you think that's okay. That's the part I'm opposed to.

      JQ

      Delete
    3. I see JQ"s point. Yes, we force racist restaurant owners to serve blacks. We have for years. So that means that we aren't forcing our morality on the restaurant owner? We are. That means that the law isn't forcing racist restaurant owners to be unwilling participants? It is.

      So you can't have it both ways. Anti-discrimination laws force others to do things they don't want to do under penalty of law, because someone else thinks it's wrong. It amounts is coercion, and it is legislating morality.

      As a white male, I can tell you that no antidiscrimination law has ever protected me.

      Ben

      Delete
    4. I didn't say I'd be okay with whites only lunch counters.

      So you say, and then you go on to make an argument that consists of "whites only lunch counters are okay with me". Your hypocrisy is immense.

      I knew someone would make a lazy racial comparison. I don't want to validate that comparison by assuming it, but I can explain better what I mean if you don't understand.

      What you really mean is that you're afraid you can't defend your position without looking like a card carrying member of the Aryan Nation. And you're right. Your bigotry is showing.

      I said I think both sides of an economic transaction should be voluntary.

      Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. States have the power to regulate commerce as they see fit. That means that private individuals don't always get to decide how they conduct business. Welcome to the real world.

      This woman didn't want to sell her labor to these people, therefor she was unwilling, therefor they want to make her an unwilling participant in their wedding.

      Selling flowers is not "participating in their wedding". Your analogy is idiotic.

      Delete
  9. Anyone who thinks that they should be allowed to refuse service to the Westboro Baptist Church or the Church of the Creator believes that they should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion.

    I would be right there with you, discriminating against those creeps. No one should have to serve them who doesn't want to.

    JQ

    ReplyDelete
  10. I was refused service once at a small restaurant in Tokyo. It was kind of jarring, when I walked in the door, the woman shreiked "Japanese only!" I tried some of my Japanese skills to persuade her that I was a good, civilized Gaijin, but she wouldn't budge. That's completely legal in Japan.

    I didn't like it but I don't think she should be forced to provide me a bowl of miso if she doesn't want to. I went to the next restaurant and they were glad to have my business. I think those two homosexuals should find a flower shop that actually wants their business and patronize them, rather than forcing this woman to sell them something she doesn't want to.

    One more thing.Why are we accepting the premise that these two were discriminated against because of their "sexual orientation?"

    Bullocks. They were discriminated against because of their sexual behavior. I see no evidence that this woman doesn't want to serve them because they are same-sex attracted, but because they are sodomozing each other and they want to have a party to celebrate it. If I've learned anything from the gay rights movement, it's that "being gay" is not a choice. Butt sex is, however, and so is a wedding. Orientation is not sex.

    Ben

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As if she's discriminating against them because they like men. No, she's discriminating against them because they open their anuses to men. Not the same thing. Washington's law doesn't even apply here.

      The Torch

      Delete
    2. No, she's discriminating against them because they open their anuses to men.

      How do you know that? You are obsessed with males' anuses. Almost every comment of yours here screams 'I'm a faggot and I need it up the ass but I'm too much of a coward to admit it'.

      Delete
    3. Actually, I regard the attorney-general's action as being similar to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The couple should have gone elsewhere, and the florist should have lost the business.

      She was a long term purveyor of the sexual organs of plants to one of the couple, apparently. Upsetting one of your loyal customers is not a good idea in a business sense.

      Of course a business person should have the right to refuse a customer, if the customer's behavior is objectionable and likely to damage the business. Hotels, for example, generally have dress standards. Unless it's an absolute 'dive', other patrons don't want to drink alongside someone who is in dirty smelly work clothing, honorably though it might have been acquired.

      Perhaps if the couple were wearing 'gay pride' t-shirts, that might justify rejection of custom? What if the person was wearing a Darwin t-shirt, and the florist was a Darwin-denier, would that be justification?

      She's a florist. In the business of supplying flowers. If she decides to upset her customers for personal, not business, reasons, then she's the Basil Fawlty of florists.

      Delete
    4. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyApril 11, 2013 at 6:49 PM

      backfield,

      DON'T MENTION THE WAR!

      Delete
    5. George,

      It's 'bachfiend', remember? My favourite episode, besides the Siberian hamster one, was the unexpected death in the hotel. I don't know what your comment has to do with the thread, though.

      Delete
    6. Troy, are you honestly trying to tell me that these guys don't open their anuses to each other? Get a clue--they do.

      The point I think Torch is making is that they aren't being discriminated against because of any type of "orientation," but rather behavior, which are two different things. The law in her state bans protects people who happen to feel certain attractions, nothing more.

      A wedding is a celebration. This relationship is sinful, in her opinion and in mine. She doesn't want to be part of the celebration. Why is that any of your business?

      TRISH

      Delete
  11. I just saw a headline on the Christian Post concerning a jailed pastor in Iran. "Pastor Saeed Abadini given ultimatum: Deny Christ or Face Longer Prison Time."

    I couldn't help but see the parallels between that headline and this flower shop. That's exactly what they're making her do--deny Christ or face legal punishment.

    We're living in a godless Iran. It's every bit as intolerant, it just discriminates against religion generally, rather than all religions except Islam. From the point of a view of a Christian, there's scant difference.

    Feguson is the Mullah.

    The Torch

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Torch,

      So you think Christians in America are discriminated against, because they're not allowed to discriminate against others?

      America is a secular country. You're free to go to church on Sundays, and whenever you want to and can. Church attendance is no longer mandatory though, even just as a social norm.

      Delete
    2. Bachfiend, the Constitution guarantees free exercise of religion. It doesn't say "everyone has the right to go to church." Free exercise is much, much broader than that. Your narrow conception of religious freedom is offensive and ignorant.

      This is one of the ruses of the antitheist Left. They define "establishment of religion" so broadly that it means anything, and "free exercise of religion" so narrowly that it means nothing. Nothing, I suppose, more than that the state must allow church attendance.

      I suppose that if the state wanted to make Jews work after sundown on the Sabbath, it could. And it could prohibit evangelizing. It could outlaw Christian summer camps. It could force Muslim restaurant owners to serve pork, Mormon bookstore owners to carry pornography.Anything is permitted, so long as people are still allowed to go to church on Sunday.

      Christians in America are discriminated against in many, many ways.

      TRISH

      Delete
    3. Trish,

      Care to list the ways Christians are discriminated against in America?

      I agree that the couple should have just gone elsewhere to get their floral arrangements. The attorney-general using the law against a florist displaying poor business sense is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

      Which part of 'So you think Christians in America are discriminated against, because they're not allowed to discriminate against others?' do you not understand?

      Delete
  12. If the First Amendment doesn't protect this woman in this situation, it is meaningless. They can force us to do anything. Don't ever believe some lying leftist who tells us not to worry about homosexuals forcing churches to perform marriages "because they can't" due to the First Amendment.

    What part of "prohibiting free exercise of the religion" don't you bullies understand?

    TRISH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trish: "If the First Amendment doesn't protect this woman in this situation, it is meaningless. They can force us to do anything. Don't ever believe some lying leftist who tells us not to worry about homosexuals forcing churches to perform marriages "because they can't" due to the First Amendment.

      What part of "prohibiting free exercise of the religion" don't you bullies understand?
      "

      First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      Apparently, doing or not doing something is only "free speech" when it's something leftists wish to have done or not done.

      Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

      Our rights are innumerable -- they far exceed the explicit limitations placed on the federal government by the Constitution.

      Amongst one's innumerable rights is the right *not* to engage in commerce with whomever one does not wish to engage.

      We do not have to justify, in any way, to any one, the exercise of our rights.

      Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

      The Constitution is mainly about limiting the scope of action which is legal for the federal government to do or command us to do (or to not do).

      Delete
  13. Trish: "JQ and Ben: I'm a little disturbed by your comments here. I have no qualms at all about forcing racist restaurant owners to serve black people."

    You have no qualms about violating others' rights of association because you're actually a "liberal"; you just don't want to admit it to yourself.

    Just as "liberals" are really leftists who just don't yet want to go everywhere demanded by the logic of the leftist presuppositions they already accept, many "conservatives" are really just "liberals" who just don't yet want to go everywhere demanded by the logic of the leftist presuppositions they already accept. The difference between the two sets consists in how far into leftism they're currently willing to go.

    Trish: "JQ and Ben: I'm a little disturbed by your comments here. I have no qualms at all about forcing racist restaurant owners to serve black people. I don't see the similarity to not wanting to do flowers at a homosexual wedding. They are very, very different things."

    There is no difference between compelling a shopkeeper to accept the custom of blacks and compelling a shopkeeper to accept the custom of "gays". Both violate the shopkeeper's inherent rights of association -- which are his to exercise as he wishes without having to justify them to anyone.

    You have a corresponding right to not associate with the racist shopkeeper, or with the "homophobic" shopkeeper (if using that tendentious terms floats your boat). What you do not have the right to do is to compel either of them to abide by *your* idea of how they should associate.

    Not everything that is immoral ought to be made illegal.

    The moral and Constitutional problem with the Jim Crow laws was not that they *allowed* racists to discriminate against black citizens, but rather that they compelled everyone to discriminate against black citizens. The Jim Crow laws violated *everyone's* inherent rights of association, black and white.

    The "liberal" fix to the Jim Crow laws -- which, by the way, were enacted by Democrats and "progressives" -- wasn't simply to repeal them and thus honor the civil and human rights of all citizens, but rather to turn them inside out and so continue to violate *everyone's* inherent rights of association, black and white.

    Trish: "They are very, very different things. For starters, black people can't change the fact that they're black. Homosexuals can stop sleeping with people of the same sex. I know some who have. One is an identity, the other is a behavior."

    The issue isn't behavior and it isn't identity. The issue is violating someone's right to associate, or not associate, as they see fit.

    Trish: "JQ and Ben: I'm a little disturbed by your comments here. ... Still, you're kind of creeping me out."

    Perhaps you'd feel more comfortable discussing such things with other persons who "reason" via their emotions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lion, you would make an excellent Muslim, you're like 90% there.

      -KW

      Delete
    2. Ditto what Ilion said.

      Yo, TRISH: I understand that you are morally repulsed by racist restaurant owners who refuse to serve black people. I am too. Much like homosexuality, however, I think it should be legal. I think it bears repeating--every economic transaction has two ends and both should be voluntary. No one should be forced to buy or sell from or to anyone against their will.

      I mean that. If a business refused to serve me on the grounds that I am white, or Catholic, or because they don't like my ethnic stock, I would be offended. I might do something to publicly embarrass that business owner, and I would certainly spread the word that the person is a jerk. What I wouldn't do is run to the government and force that person to serve me.

      Doing so would be unconstitutional. In some cases there may be a first amendment case, but in all cases there is a thirteenth amendment case. The thirteenth amendment bans involuntary servitude. Forcing one sovereign individual to serve another is involuntary servitude.

      JQ

      Delete
    3. I agree with JQ et al. Private racial discrimination is abhorrent, but the law should not intervene. If a local business refused to serve blacks, I would boycott the business. But the law has no business enforcing non-discrimination in the private sphere.

      Delete
    4. Michael,

      What exactly is 'private' about a publicly accessible business blatantly refusing to extend service to a segment of the population based solely on skin colour, when it's perfectly happy to extend service to other groups?

      Delete
    5. Stupid question, bach.

      "Private" in this context means private property, even if used to do business with the public.

      Racial discrimination should be illegal for the government. Private citizens have the right to be assholes. It's their property, not yours, not the customers', not the government's.

      Try to resist the totalitarian itch, bach.

      Delete
    6. Private capital used by a private citizen to engage in private enterprise is private.

      I am a business owner, and I resent being told that I supposedly serve the public. The public didn't give me any money to start my business. The public isn't there every morning, lending a hand with the labor. The public didn't build my business from the ground up. I serve those segments of the public I choose to serve, just as those people choose to patronize my business...or not. We are sovereign individuals making choices.

      Let's say that you and your family are on the road. You are hungry and you want to stop somewhere to eat. You have the freedom to choose from whom you will buy. You do not need to justify your reasoning to the government. You can choose not to dine at one restaurant because you don't like their food, because they donate money to causes you don't like, or because the owner is Flemish-Australian, and you just don't like those people. Similarly, others should have the same freedom to choose to whom they will sell. They should not have to justify their decision to the government either.

      You simply don't understand private property, do you? I don't think you even understand the private sphere.

      >>All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.<< Benito Mussolini said that, though it could have just as easily have been Bachfiend.

      JQ

      Delete
    7. Michael,

      You and I have different opinions as to what constitutes 'public' and 'private'. 'Private' I take to be in my home, in my mind. 'Public' is everything else. I could be absolutely bigoted against theists, other nationalities and individuals of different political persuasion (I'm not) privately, but provided I don't carry it over to the public sphere, then that's my right.

      A public business on the other hand is in the market of offering services and products to the general population, in exchange for legal currency. If a customer is willing to pay the stated price, then the business owner doesn't have the right to refuse any prospective customer on the basis of skin colour.

      You reckon that rights are endowed by your Creator. Where is it stated that this right exists?

      Of course, business owners have the right to refuse a prospective customer, provided it's not discriminatory. For example, a bar owner could refuse a customer who's not meeting the dress standards required (and the customer could correct the deficit by dressing appropriately the next time) or is intoxicated (again correctable, by sobering up). Or a shopkeeper could refuse a customer if unreasonable demands are made, such as insisting on a discount or wanting a multi-pack divided to buy one singly.

      You really haven't thought it through. What happens if businesses are free to refuse to serve persons of a certain skin colour (I refuse to use the term 'race' because genetically there's no human 'races' - we're all one species, with no subspecies)?

      You might boycott a business which is publicly bigoted. But a lot of people who are bigoted will not, and continue to patronise the business concerned. Rapidly you'd get a situation similar to apartheid with bigoted and non-bigoted business. And the public impression that discrimination is OK, because some groups are inferior.

      Sometimes public interest trumps private freedom. You don't have the freedom to play your tuba all night every night if you live in an apartment building if it disturbs your neighbours.

      Delete
    8. actually, you have every right to carry bigoted beliefs about christians into the public sphere.

      "Sometimes public interest trumps private freedom."

      are you sure you aren't a member of the chinese communist party? you'd fit right in.

      naidoo

      Delete
    9. The public didn't give me any money to start my business.

      As usual, you're wrong. The road leading to your business, did you build that? The education of your employee, did you pay for that? The water lines that bring water to you, and the sewer lines that take your waste water away, did you build that? And so on and so forth. You live in an interconnected society and your business is dependent upon the public for its very existence.

      Delete
  14. The Christians here who are arguing for the legalization of discrimination should have absolutely no problem with Muslim merchants in Egypt refusing to do business with Coptic Christians, because after all, they’re just expressing their religious opinion.

    If every market and restraint in a small city refuses to serve gays, screwem they can move. I’m sure if Christian communities really put their mind to it they could drive away everybody that they even suspect of being gay. Onward Christian soldiers.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >>The Christians here who are arguing for the legalization of discrimination should have absolutely no problem with Muslim merchants in Egypt refusing to do business with Coptic Christians, because after all, they’re just expressing their religious opinion.<<

      I didn't say I wouldn't have a problem with it. I said it should be legal. It's the same way I feel about two men having sex with each other. I disapprove, but the state should not intervene, provided they are both consenting adults.

      JQ

      Delete
    2. There many things that are morally wrong-- racial and religious discrimination in the private sphere, for example-- that should not be prohibited under law. The impulse to eliminate discrimination is laudable, but the use of government force to eliminate it in people's private businesses and private lives is going too far.

      There are also serious constitutional issues. The Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 applied federal law to intra-- not inter-- state commerce, which is not authorized in the Constitution.

      Again, the impulse to eradicate discrimination everywhere is very good, and I support it passionately, but it should not, in the private sphere, be mandated by law.

      In the public sphere, non-discrimination should be legally mandated. For example, affirmative action should be illegal if done by government, but not illegal if privately pursued.

      Delete
    3. The Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 applied federal law to intra-- not inter-- state commerce, which is not authorized in the Constitution.

      Wrong, but then again, you're pretty much always wrong when you opine about the law.

      Delete
  15. "I didn't say I wouldn't have a problem with it. I said it should be legal. It's the same way I feel about two men having sex with each other. I disapprove, but the state should not intervene, provided they are both consenting adults."

    ... and are keeping it in "their bedroom".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, they have a hard time keeping it in their bedroom, don't they? They've stretched that whole bedroom concept to absurdity. Two guys sodomizing each other in private hasn't been illegal anywhere in the US since 2003, and even before that it was very rarely enforced. If all they cared about was the freedom to sodomize each other in the bedrooms, then they completely and totally vanquished their foes.

      But that's not what they want. They want to be affirmed and to punish all those who refuse to.

      JQ

      Delete
  16. "Try to resist the totalitarian itch, bach."

    Christians do believe in miracles, don't we?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ilion,

      Yeah, right. I am totalitarian. I believe that everyone has the right to extend exactly the same respect and consideration to everyone else, regardless of skin colour, religion or political persuasion.

      If the person is behaving as an absolute arsehole, as Egnor often does, or is engaging in illegal activities, then that's another matter.

      I object to being characterised as totalitarian, when I'm actually liberal, tending towards libertarian. Not progressive.

      You conservatives are more totalitarian, insisting that your social norms should be applied to the entire population.

      Delete
    2. you bet you're totalitarian. you enforce that respect and consideration with brute force. if you had a libertarian bone in your body you'd be against these coercive laws.

      naidoo

      Delete
    3. naidoo,

      Going back to the subject of this thread, a $2,000 fine isn't 'brute force'. If someone is running a business which provides goods or services to the general public, and then behaves as an absolute arsehole by discriminating against individuals on the basis of skin colour, religion or political inclination and refuses to accept legal currency for the said goods or services, then that said someone has the option of either reforming or paying the fine.

      No brute force involved.

      Delete
    4. not paying the fine results in brute force. all laws are enforced with brute force. some laws or necessary and proper. this one is not.

      behaving like an arsehole is not a crime. if it were, you'd be in maximum security.

      naidoo

      Delete
  17. "all laws are enforced with brute force."

    Ultimately, all laws are enforced by "brute force" unto death ... ultimately, all laws include the enforcement provision, "do this (or don't do that), or we will kill you, and if necessary, your family."

    "some laws or necessary and proper. this one is not."

    Due to the nature of laws, only a bare minimum of "necessary and proper" laws should be enacted.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Bachfiend: ".... No brute force involved."

    Never mind "What is it like to be a bat?", what is it like to be so dishonest that one can say things like that and expect to be taken as a serious and honest person?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ilion,

      Do you have any cases where a person being killed solely for refusing to pay a financial fine for breaking a law in America? Besides a 'sovereign' taking up a weapon and attempting to kill representatives of the law, which itself a felony.

      Delete
  19. KW: "Lion [sic], you would make an excellent Muslim, you're like 90% there."

    And yet, KW, being an atheist and a leftist -- and a moral coward -- is the one who will actually have no problem sticking his ass in the air and chanting "Wallah Wallah bing bang."

    Besides which, he appears to be semi-illiterate ... so he'll really fit into the mindset.

    ReplyDelete
  20. bachfiend: "Do you have any cases where a person being killed solely for refusing to pay a financial fine for breaking a law in America? Besides a 'sovereign' taking up a weapon and attempting to kill representatives of the law, which itself a felony."

    This guy is so dishonest -- well, of course he is, he's a leftist (and they lie like other men breathe) .

    What he's insinuating is that I have claimed that all governments immediately resort to killing those persons who do not comply, in the approved manner and with the approved immediacy, with orders. You know, the way leftist governments do.

    But, in truth, what I actually said is that all governments ultimately will resort to kiliingl those persons who do not comply with their orders.

    Were he an honest man who wished to refute what I'd said about the nature of laws, he'd look about to find a law (an actual law, one that commands "Do this" or "Don't do that") that isn't at least implicitly backed up by the threat of violent death. He'll never find such a law (*); but if he could, he'd at minimum knock the universality out of what I'd said.

    (*) Examples of bureaucrats refusing to enforce a law, as for example, when the Democrats refuse to go after their own partisans who dodge taxes -- so long as that partisan has enough rank -- isn't a valid example.

    There is currently in America a German family who fled Germany because the German bureaucrats do not approve them educating their own children -- apparently, in Germany, one's own children fully belong to the bureaucrats to "educate" as they wish. The leftists who currently run America are trying to forcably extradite that family back to Germany (*) -- where the bureaucrats who run German will, under threat of violent death, compel that to surrender their children to the bureaucracy to be "educated".

    (*) Apparently, they haven't yet settled on the Clintonian Elián Gonzalez solution -- NOTICE: When the Clinton administration invaded that home, in the middle of the night, guns drawn, they weren't even enforcing a law, they were, in fact, jumping the law. Do note: just as at Ruby Ridge, just as at Waco, the US bureaucrats would have begun killing that family, including the child they were there to "rescue", if their orders -- which weren't even lawful -- were not followed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Were he an honest man who wished to refute what I'd said ...

      But, as he's a dishonest man who wishes to deny what I said, he misrepresents it, and counts upon the reader to not notice.

      ===
      Forthermore, were he really a libertarian (rather than a leftist), as he recently claimed, he'd not be denying what I said. Rather, he'd be more likely to take it too far in the other direction, falsely insisting that threat of violent death behind all laws invalidates all government and all laws.

      Delete
    2. After the Katrina hurricane, some government officials, I think state rather than federal, went door-to-door, and at gunpoint:
      1) sometimes ordered people (who were not flooded) to leave their homes. I suspose due to the looters in the area;
      2) sometimes confiscated the legal guns of people who were intent upon protecting their homes from looters.

      Then, there is this -- The controversial moment SWAT teams ordered innocent neighbors out of their houses at GUNPOINT during door-to-door searches for the Boston bomber

      The "requests" of government flunkies, whether or not we're talking about actual duly enacted laws, are *always* ultimately backed up the threat of violent death.

      Delete