Religious Liberty Vs Civil Rights?

[thesometimesaint]

You misunderstand what happened with the civil rights movement. There was actual harm and repression in this country when it came to the civil rights of blacks, and efforts to eradicate those were well placed.

 

Unfortunately, the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction - which is typical once the government gets involved. Lawsuits based on perceived or actual discrimination where there is no physical harm, intimidation, or repression should best be worked out in the marketplace, rather than in the courts. The latter have shown a willingness to trample basic rights, such as association and religious expression in the name of suppressing any form of "discrimination" as they see it.

 

Two homosexuals marrying certainly doesn't physically harm, intimidate, or repress me in any way. I may not agree with it, as is my right. Who's the victim here:

http://franklycurious.com/?itemid=7423

[Storm Rider]

Two homosexuals marrying certainly doesn't physically harm, intimidate, or repress me in any way. I may not agree with it, as is my right. Who's the victim here:

http://franklycurious.com/?itemid=7423

 

Franklycurious is supposed to be serious?  Really?  Sanctimonious, self-righteous, whack-job of a comparison, yes, but serious discussion? No.

 

The definition of Civil Rights is, "The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination."  Discrimination is what is becoming a bit of a catch; it is only applied to the target du jour. 

 

Everyone discriminates on a daily basis towards a whole host of individuals and things. Hair color, fat, thin, tall, short, ugly/beautiful, clothing, posture - the range of qualifiers is endless. The utter stupidity that we have employed as a society to choose those subgroups that gain special privileges is a bit silly. The child that, by his own volition and choice, decides he/she no longer wants to use the boys potty is someone placed above the rights of every little girl in the school. Why?  Because this child, without any influence from his parents, has chosen to use the girls bathroom.  This sheer madness and stupidity.

 

Who deserves special rights?  Only those who by decree from the Left are deserving. If anyone dares to speak against these special groups they are drummed out of business, cause an uproar, have their livelihood endangered and for what?  Having the temerity for saying the King is wearing no clothes or having an original thought and is not become a mindless automaton of the Left.  No thinking allowed, no contrary opinions, and God forbid if you actually should think there is such a thing as common sense or moral standards.  

 

The inmates are running the prison and heaven help anyone that sees through the constant barrage of propaganda out of Hollywood and the mass media or the creation of new law by activists judges that have taken over the legislative branch of government. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

You talk about rotten potato salad? If you want worse than rotten potato salad, just start having the cops and the courts make people in any field serve those they truly hate.

 

3DOP

Not to mention you think that courts and cops and lawyers are going to make that baker make a good cake? Or a good looking cake? Opps too much salt. Oh well. Poo in the pie? Nothing new.

[thesometimesaint]

Franklycurious is supposed to be serious?  Really?  Sanctimonious, self-righteous, whack-job of a comparison, yes, but serious discussion? No.

 

The definition of Civil Rights is, "The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination."  Discrimination is what is becoming a bit of a catch; it is only applied to the target du jour. 

 

Everyone discriminates on a daily basis towards a whole host of individuals and things. Hair color, fat, thin, tall, short, ugly/beautiful, clothing, posture - the range of qualifiers is endless. The utter stupidity that we have employed as a society to choose those subgroups that gain special privileges is a bit silly. The child that, by his own volition and choice, decides he/she no longer wants to use the boys potty is someone placed above the rights of every little girl in the school. Why?  Because this child, without any influence from his parents, has chosen to use the girls bathroom.  This sheer madness and stupidity.

 

Who deserves special rights?  Only those who by decree from the Left are deserving. If anyone dares to speak against these special groups they are drummed out of business, cause an uproar, have their livelihood endangered and for what?  Having the temerity for saying the King is wearing no clothes or having an original thought and is not become a mindless automaton of the Left.  No thinking allowed, no contrary opinions, and God forbid if you actually should think there is such a thing as common sense or moral standards.  

 

The inmates are running the prison and heaven help anyone that sees through the constant barrage of propaganda out of Hollywood and the mass media or the creation of new law by activists judges that have taken over the legislative branch of government.

 

I  repeat Who is the victim? The dead person or the person using his freedom of religion to disparage them?

 

Of course we all discriminate, any time we choose one thing over another we are discriminating. The law doesn't give a flying rats behind about hair color, fat, thin, tall, short, ugly/beautiful, clothing, posture. Those types of discrimination is perfectly legal. Even if some are not particularly good for us.

 

What new special rights are those?

 

The right to worship as they please?

The right to live wherever they can afford to live?

The right to be free from arbitrary discrimination in employment?

The right to privacy in their own home?

The right to marry whom ever agrees to be legally married to them?

The right to eat at an open to the public lunch counter?

 

Ever hear of the  concept of "your legal right to swing your arm ends at my nose"?  If you operate a business you agree to follow the rules of whatever jurisdiction you operate that business in. You have the right to operate your business according to the law.. You neither have the right to my patronage nor the right to discriminate on the basis race, creed, color, sex, religion, national origin, and increasing sexual orientation in the operation of that business.

 

You have the right to your own opinions, and I'll defend to my death your right to have and express them. That doesn't mean I have agree with them. IOW You have the absolute right to believe any silly thing you want, as long as you allow me the right to believe any silly thing I want. If that makes me a Leftist, Tough Twinkies.

 

Common sense isn't very common and my moral standards are every bit as high as yours. I just don't want to use the force of law to make you follow my moral standards.

[thesometimesaint]

Not to mention you think that courts and cops and lawyers are going to make that baker make a good cake? Or a good looking cake? Opps too much salt. Oh well. Poo in the pie? Nothing new.

 

Putting poo in the pie will land you in jail.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Putting poo in the pie will land you in jail.

Not if you don't know you are eating it.

 

 

Anyway something occured to me while thinking about this whole debate and what I heard on the radio yesterday

I think that people generally can fall into 2 camps.

There are those that think everything is illegal until the government or courts make it or tell you it is legal.

There are those that think everything is legal until the government or courts make it or tell you it is illegal. This comment might pertain to other SSM marriage threads more. But there are several people under the idea that gay marraige was illegal before any one sought a court decision or tried to mandate gay marraige through a vote. The turth is that gay marriage was not illegal as far as I can tell. It just was never promoted by the state. I think this might speak more to comments that Wade made on another thread.

 

Ask your self, what kind of person are you. Do you view everything as legal until government acts to make it illegal or do you view everything as illegal until government tells you otherwise? I think understanding this mind set might help all of us understand were we are comming from when we talk about such things.

[thesometimesaint]

Not if you don't know you are eating it.

 

 

Anyway something occured to me while thinking about this whole debate and what I heard on the radio yesterday

I think that people generally can fall into 2 camps.

There are those that think everything is illegal until the government or courts make it or tell you it is legal.

There are those that think everything is legal until the government or courts make it or tell you it is illegal. This comment might pertain to other SSM marriage threads more. But there are several people under the idea that gay marraige was illegal before any one sought a court decision or tried to mandate gay marraige through a vote. The turth is that gay marriage was not illegal as far as I can tell. It just was never promoted by the state. I think this might speak more to comments that Wade made on another thread.

 

Ask your self, what kind of person are you. Do you view everything as legal until government acts to make it illegal or do you view everything as illegal until government tells you otherwise? I think understanding this mind set might help all of us understand were we are comming from when we talk about such things.

 

I'm not an absolutists on that. But lean heavily towards it is legal until governments say it is illegal. There are plenty of laws I believe are silly, or have far outlived their usefulness, but are still on the books. As long as they are not enforced I really don't care much about them.

[jwhitlock]

I am realizing that you have a difficult time focusing, so maybe it is better for me to just focus on your most egregious accusations.

Ok so you have made an accusation here.  Now can you back it up?  Just whose basic rights have I denied anyone?

 

I don't think you realize anything of the sort, so it doesn't really matter.

 

With a judiciary that is now rubber stamping any injunction that comes with "gay rights" attached to it, the right of the people to self-determination and to direct government via referendum has been effectively gutted. First in California, and now in Utah. The judiciary has basically said that if "they" determine that "discrimination" is involved, according to their own agendas and biases, then they can override the voice of the people in any matter they choose.

 

Of course, you'll cheer on such things because your agenda is being rubber stamped. That's incredibly short-sighted, but I usually find that activists are unwilling to look at the long term repercussions of their agendas when they demand special privileges under the guise of "rights" and "anti-discrimination". The real end result is the erosion of liberty and the right of self-determination by a judiciary that is only too willing to take more power from the people.

[california boy]

I don't think you realize anything of the sort, so it doesn't really matter.

 

With a judiciary that is now rubber stamping any injunction that comes with "gay rights" attached to it, the right of the people to self-determination and to direct government via referendum has been effectively gutted. First in California, and now in Utah. The judiciary has basically said that if "they" determine that "discrimination" is involved, according to their own agendas and biases, then they can override the voice of the people in any matter they choose.

 

Of course, you'll cheer on such things because your agenda is being rubber stamped. That's incredibly short-sighted, but I usually find that activists are unwilling to look at the long term repercussions of their agendas when they demand special privileges under the guise of "rights" and "anti-discrimination". The real end result is the erosion of liberty and the right of self-determination by a judiciary that is only too willing to take more power from the people.

 

Short sighted would be the idea that the general populist can take away anyone's civli rights simply by a vote of the majority.  Think for a moment what kind of country you would be living in if the United States dropped the concept of guaranteed civil rights and instead adopted your idea of passing laws based on the popular vote.  Would blacks still be riding on the back of the bus drinking out of separate water fountains, and denied service at many restaurants in the south?  Would the evangelic south vote to not allow Mormons to live in their states?  Could a governor issue an extermination order if he had the popular vote?  Thank goodness the founding fathers thought about tyranny of the majority over the minority.  And thank goodness the courts are "rubber stamping"  the guaranteed civil rights of its citizens.

[Buzzard]

Calfornia Boy wrote:  " And thank goodness the courts are "rubber stamping"  the guaranteed civil rights of its citizens" 

I think back to a scene from an old Star Trek movie, where the Klingon ambassador demands "justice" for the crimes of Captain Kirk. Spock's father chimes in "Klingon justice is a unique point of view". For some reason, this thread reminds me of that. 

I guess it might help if you (and I know you can't) could explain the end game. What is it you and your friends are after? What does "civil rights" mean to you? Because based on what I have heard, "civil rights", as defined by gay activists, is a unique point of view. 

When I was growing up, gay sex was illegal in almost every state in the union, even if those statutes were usually only invoked as additional charges in rape and molestation cases. Gays were saying that all they wanted was to live their lives in peace, not get beat up at random just for being gay. No reasonable person could disagree. We don't want to be mean, we wanted, imperfectly, to be Christlike and loving. Having said that, when a close family member would self-identify as gay, it was not a happy event. Most people understood where their religion stood on gay relationships and the morality thereof. Naturally, this led to heartache and conflict. How could it not?

Then out of the blue, a little more than ten years ago, suddenly "Marriage equality" shows up. At first in only a state or two, then imposed by judicial fiat in a few more year by year. And suddenly the bar was moved. It wasn't tolerance that was demanded, it was acceptance of behavior. If you did not accede to the gay definition of "civil rights", you were a bigot, as despicable as any member of the KKK. For people who just don't feel bigoted or hateful, but still cling to the notion of sexual sin, that's a pretty hard slap.

What do I see and hear now? If you are not happy that your gay son or daughter has "come out", you are guilty of hate speech. If you do not agree that gay marriage is a basic human right, you should have that view exposed and you are not worthy to live and make a living in a civil society. Real people have lost real jobs for defending traditional marriage. How is that any better than not hiring-and firing-gays from jobs where their gayness had no relevance, which did happen a few decades back. 

A few of the things that I have heard espoused by gay activists-admittedly, the cutting edge, but fifteen years ago, only the most radical of gay activists were agitating to get legally married-have included:

-Outlawing of hate speech towards homosexuality. Hate speech to this person, meant calling gay sex and relationships a sin, since "science has proved it is innate, natural, and not wrong". Making said hate speech a crime, since it leads to, according to this person, teen gay suicides, and saving young gay lives trumps free speech concerns. 

-Revoking the tax-exempt status of any institution that considers homosexuality to be morally inferior to heterosexual marriage. This has been well discussed on another thread currently up and running.

-Making membership in any organization that does not fully embrace "the full range of human sexuality" an act for which that person needs to be publicly shamed and educated until they see the error of their ways. Since religion not only has oppressed gays, but women and people of color, and the poor, the inevitable demise of these organizations will be a bonus benefit to society. 

 

And that is just where we are today. What will be the demands in another five years? At what point are the civil rights of those who disagree with you going to come into play? Because what I see-and maybe you will call me paranoid-is a desire for revenge for past slights, real and imagined, a drive for a world with no sexual morals, where disagreement with secularist amorality is squashed by any means necessary. 

I acknowledge that you, personally, may not be that far out, but some of your activists are. Do you see, and do you acknowledge, why people who take obedience of the commandments of God seriously are nervous? Or are you chortling to yourself that we are only getting our just desserts.

BTW, there is no guarantee that we will go down this road I describe. Pendulums swing. Backlashes happen. But what I hear from your coreligionists (and make no mistake, secular amorality is a religion) makes me as nervous as a Rabbi in 19th century Poland, minus the threat of death. 

[Danzo]

I think the concept here is insuring that businesses operate within the law.  When the business received their license to operate, they made certain agreements with the state in order to operate.  If they are not in compliance with what they agreed to, then sometimes the authorities are asked to enforce the laws that they originally agreed to abide by as condition of their business license.  If the gay couple could have simply told the bakery that they were in violation of the law and then the bakery apologized and agreed to bake the cake, then no legal action would have been required. But as you know, that is not what happened.

 

You see a business license as a contract?

 

That is a novel legal approach.   

 

If the state changes the law after issuing a business license, is it a breach of contract?

[thesometimesaint]

You see a business license as a contract?

 

That is a novel legal approach.   

 

If the state changes the law after issuing a business license, is it a breach of contract?

Yes a business license is a contract.

SEE http://www.inc.com/encyclopedia/licensing-agreements.html

 

Nothing novel about it. They are some 1500 years old.

 

No. The law always supersedes any contract. Can a state be sued for nonpayment of debts? That is a novel legal approach. Not sure if such a suit would succeed.

[Danzo]

Yes a business license is a contract.

SEE http://www.inc.com/encyclopedia/licensing-agreements.html

 

Nothing novel about it. They are some 1500 years old.

 

No. The law always supersedes any contract. Can a state be sued for nonpayment of debts? That is a novel legal approach. Not sure if such a suit would succeed.

 

You might want to read the article you linked to.  It does not say what you think it says (not the same type of license)

[Danzo]

No. The law always supersedes any contract. Can a state be sued for nonpayment of debts? That is a novel legal approach. Not sure if such a suit would succeed.

 

You might want to check the US constitution on that one.  Hint: You will find it in article 1 section 10

[jwhitlock]

Short sighted would be the idea that the general populist can take away anyone's civli rights simply by a vote of the majority.  Think for a moment what kind of country you would be living in if the United States dropped the concept of guaranteed civil rights and instead adopted your idea of passing laws based on the popular vote.  Would blacks still be riding on the back of the bus drinking out of separate water fountains, and denied service at many restaurants in the south?  Would the evangelic south vote to not allow Mormons to live in their states?  Could a governor issue an extermination order if he had the popular vote?  Thank goodness the founding fathers thought about tyranny of the majority over the minority.  And thank goodness the courts are "rubber stamping"  the guaranteed civil rights of its citizens.

 

You use the same old tired arguments to justify judicial fiat in granting special privileges. Overriding the will of the people should be done after careful consideration and should rarely happen. The judiciary does it at will nowadays, demonstrating that they think they have the final say in everything - not the people. The whole process of cramming SSM down the throat of the state of Utah is a clear example of the excesses of the judiciary, mandating according to their agenda, and not respecting the sovereignty of the people. It shows clearly that the will of the people in such matters is of no importance to judges, unless it happens to coincide with the judge's opinion of how things should be.

[jwhitlock]

 

You failed to reply to my point that the law does not require anyone to open his business on Sunday.  Now you have backtracked and used the word “pressure,” which justifies my position on the law.  Of course social pressures exist in this country and always have, but your initial statement was blatantly false.  You also sidestepped your false statement that it is legal to use food stamps to buy booze.  Deliberately spreading this and other types of false information does not help anyone understand the true nature of society.

 

 

Your error here, Robert, is that you turned your very black and white reading of what I said into a straw man that you were then only too willing to shoot down. Since you concentrated on these two items, I'll assume that you agreed with the others that I gave.

 

In direct response to these two items, you're correct - the law does not directly require anyone to open on Sunday. However, that's not what I said. Legal pressure - which you misrepresented as social pressure - can indeed be brought to bear on businesses to remain open. In one local case here, a business that was grandfathered in a mall that was not open on Sunday was required - by the mall owners - to open on Sunday or to close, when the mall hours of operation changed. The mall had no real legal or contractual basis for requiring the business to open on Sunday, but legal pressure was brought to bear anyway and the courts let that legal pressure proceed. There were a variety of accusations brought against the business, including discrimination, in order to force it to comply with the mall's new rules, and it became evident that the court was going to side with the mall and in effect, rewrite the contract to suit the mall owners. The business closed rather than submit. The mall owners portrayed it as a "public interest" issue in trying to force the business to conform. So in this case, while the law doesn't "force" businesses to open on Sunday, the law was used for the same effect.

 

The second Sunday case I have is a bit more indirect, and involves the abuse of eminent domain. This is an interesting article about the Kelo case that went to the Supreme Court, where the abuse of eminent domain for private gain was upheld, as a developer wanted those homes to build a shopping mall, among other things. Since the courts and the government were behind the abusive taking of land for private gain, it is safe to say that the developer was also able to dictate the hours of operation for businesses in that mall, and would have the indirect approval of the courts and the local government in this case in doing so. In effect, government doesn't have to have laws that specifically force business to open on Sunday; the courts can make rulings as desired to force the same thing to happen, either directly or indirectly. Indeed, it is clear that the government can force control over any business transaction it wants, for any reason at all. The abuse of eminent domain proves that, so my examples in this case are valid.

 

Finally, you say that it is not legal to use food stamps to buy booze. Technically, you are correct. However, experience with EBT cards and the skirting of the rules that can occur with them (if you go into a store that sells food and liquor, there is nothing stopping you from buying both with the card) indicates that the system is easy to sidestep. The government has, in effect, set up a system that is easy to abuse and those who try to reform the system are slowed down legally at every turn through accusations of "discrimination". Here is an article on that subject that may be of interest to you, and L.A. is at the center of it. Note the tactic of claiming discrimination to block reform, and of the store clerk who was fired in New Hampshire for refusing to sell alcohol to an EBT card user.

 

My original overall point that the courts and the government intrude inappropriately into business transactions of all types stands.

 

As to your similarly false statement on my “academic view,” I have obviously spent far more time on the front lines and in the real world dealing with these issues than you have.  Indeed, perhaps we could get together in L.A. sometime this year and I could show you around some of harsher parts of the city, introduce you to people who used to exchange foodstamps at 50 cents on the dollar so that they could buy drugs, show you how the drug diversion system is working in the County courts (we could talk to some judges I know), get us a tour of the jail downtown, talk to some law enforcement officers about what sort of drug arrests they have been making, talk to some homeless people, and even stop by the Union Rescue Mission and talk to the people who run it.  A little reality therapy, if you will.

 

 

I'll tell you what, Robert. I'll retract my observation on your "academic view", which was in response to you telling me I was lying about real world experiences of government intrusion into business transactions - something that I would only expect from one who didn't get out much from an academic bubble.  Indeed, your initial response to me was to infer that I didn't know what I was talking about, and you confirm it here when you tell me I'm out of touch with reality. That's really quite presumptuous of you, to tell someone you know nothing about, what experiences they have and haven't had. Do you really think that inner city Baltimore or other East coast cities where I live don't have the same types of environments that you describe? Are you absolutely sure that I haven't dealt with cops and courts and food kitchens and homeless people and burned out neighborhoods?

 

Evidently the only purpose of this particular rant on your part was to bolster yourself as some kind of "expert" in telling me I was lying, using your own narrow interpretation of two examples I gave, while ignoring my overall point and the validity of the other things I said. I don't see anything in what you posted above that serves as some kind of justification for your response to me.

 

As for your slur on the sacred compact of our Constitution, some of us believe that it was inspired by God, and you will never hear constitutional law experts like Elder Oaks condemn it, or the courts.  I too have problems with the way the courts are managed, and the way prosecutions and plea bargaining are handled, but I am sure (based on what you have said) that you have no workable solutions to offer.  You simply don’t understand the system.

 

 

This is a blatant misrepresentation of what I said. I did not "slur" the Constitution; my clear complaint was with the courts themselves. They are two separate things, which is something you don't seem to understand. As for Elder Oaks, you don't know what you're talking about. He has expressed concern about the direction the courts are headed and about shortcomings in the legal system. That's why the church is so concerned about attacks (legal!) on religious freedom, and that's the very thing that I would expect of a constitutional law expert. Again, it is presumptuous of you to claim that I don't understand the system at all, as if you understand it very well. You mention prosecutions and plea bargains, but you don't seem to have much depth outside of the criminal arena. Most of what we're talking about concerns non-criminal litigation.

 

Robert, it is pretty clear that you view me with contempt. That has been the nature of previous responses you have made to my posts elsewhere, and it is evident in your responses to me in this thread. As such, I really don't think it serves much purpose in carrying this any further with you.

 

Stop the personal attacks please.

[Bob Crockett]

However, that's not what I said. Legal pressure - which you misrepresented as social pressure - can indeed be brought to bear on businesses to remain open. In one local case here, a business that was grandfathered in a mall that was not open on Sunday was required - by the mall owners - to open on Sunday or to close, when the mall hours of operation changed. The mall had no real legal or contractual basis for requiring the business to open on Sunday, but legal pressure was brought to bear anyway and the courts let that legal pressure proceed. There were a variety of accusations brought against the business, including discrimination, in order to force it to comply with the mall's new rules, and it became evident that the court was going to side with the mall and in effect, rewrite the contract to suit the mall owners. The business closed rather than submit. The mall owners portrayed it as a "public interest" issue in trying to force the business to conform. So in this case, while the law doesn't "force" businesses to open on Sunday, the law was used for the same effect.

I don't believe this story, at least as it is told. Mall owners don't want shuttered shops; it drives away business. People don't like shopping in a mall and seeing closed shops. Mall leases almost always dictated the hours of operations. It may be indeed the case that the story you cite involves a tenant with a early lease that might not contain that obligation, whereupon there is no "legal" pressure that can be brought to bear.

Regarding the Kelo case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a public agency could use eminent domain to condemn a blighted piece of property to sell it and turn it over to a developer. The right of eminent domain predates the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant the power eminent domain but limits it. The power must be granted for a public purpose. Removing blighted property (this was being used as a dump) is a public purpose. That has been constitutional law for 48 years or so. The case has nothing to do with Sunday operation.

 

That's why the church is so concerned about attacks (legal!) on religious freedom, and that's the very thing that I would expect of a constitutional law expert. Again, it is presumptuous of you to claim that I don't understand the system at all, as if you understand it very well. You mention prosecutions and plea bargains, but you don't seem to have much depth outside of the criminal arena. Most of what we're talking about concerns non-criminal litigation.

 

It is quite common to see that the positions of religious people collide with the civil rights of others.  Religous people tend to support laws prohibiting prostitution.  Libertarians (I am both religious and a libertarian) argue that prostitution, if legalized, would be practically a victimless crime and an act between consenting adults, and an unwarranted  limit upon one's civil liberties to have relations with the person of his choosing.  Gays argue that relations between gay couples is a victimless act and as such should not be criminalized; religious people supported anti-sodomy laws and now seek to prohibit gay marriage.   Gays denounce the rights of religious people to have a say in the public arena and denounce their restriction upon civil rights; religious people argue that marriage between gays is not a civil right and God forbids it. 

 

Right wing kooks denounce the Godless leftist judges for stripping the rights of voters; left wing kooks denounce the redneck religious bigots in the voting booth who seek to take away the civil rights of gays.  The problem is often that one side cannot see the other's position.  I believe that gays ought to be left alone and that government ought not to discriminate between gays and straight in marriage, but my religion teaches me otherwise, so my money and my vote goes the way my religion tells me.  If I were a devout Catholic, I would probably vote against abortion and the death penalty.

 

I think you might have a hard time seeing the other's position.   I can understand maybe one or two judges going off the reservation with weird rulings.  There was an LDS judge in Orange County who ruled that a pregnant woman was actually two people and thus entitled to use the diamond traffic lane; this sparked a huge protest from the abortion crowd.  But no other judge has ever ruled that way.   In the case of gay rights, the judges seem overwhelmingly these days (as well as some legislatures and some voting bodies) to support it, so the will of the people seems to be tilting in that direction.   I don't think it right, but I honestly think that abortion is a greater evil and religious people ought to be speaking about that rather than wasting their efforts with gay marriage.

 

Robert, it is pretty clear that you view me with contempt. That has been the nature of previous responses you have made to my posts elsewhere, and it is evident in your responses to me in this thread. As such, I really don't think it serves much purpose in carrying this any further with you.

 

Your Robert friend is an equal-opportunity contempt dealer-outer.  I just turn the other cheek and move on with my friend Robert.  He means well.

[Robert F. Smith]

..................................................................   

Your Robert friend is an equal-opportunity contempt dealer-outer.  I just turn the other cheek and move on with my friend Robert.  He means well.

Thanks, I guess, Bob.

 

Hey, if Whitlock ever works up the courage to come to L.A., maybe we could make it a threesome, and have a real-world conversation while taking the grand tour.  We might find that we have more in common than we imagine.

[Robert F. Smith]

Your error here, Robert, is that you turned your very black and white reading of what I said into a straw man that you were then only too willing to shoot down. Since you concentrated on these two items, I'll assume that you agreed with the others that I gave.

..........................................................  

The abuse of eminent domain proves that, so my examples in this case are valid.

........................................................  

Finally, you say that it is not legal to use food stamps to buy booze. Technically, you are correct.

......................................................   

My original overall point that the courts and the government intrude inappropriately into business transactions of all types stands.

...................................................  

................................... in response to you telling me I was lying about real world experiences of government intrusion into business transactions 

...................................................  

Evidently the only purpose of this particular rant on your part was to bolster yourself as some kind of "expert" in telling me I was lying, using your own narrow interpretation of two examples I gave, while ignoring my overall point and the validity of the other things I said. I don't see anything in what you posted above that serves as some kind of justification for your response to me.

 

 

This is a blatant misrepresentation of what I said. I did not "slur" the Constitution; my clear complaint was with the courts themselves. They are two separate things, which is something you don't seem to understand. As for Elder Oaks, you don't know what you're talking about. He has expressed concern about the direction the courts are headed and about shortcomings in the legal system. That's why the church is so concerned about attacks (legal!) on religious freedom, and that's the very thing that I would expect of a constitutional law expert. Again, it is presumptuous of you to claim that I don't understand the system at all, as if you understand it very well. You mention prosecutions and plea bargains, but you don't seem to have much depth outside of the criminal arena. Most of what we're talking about concerns non-criminal litigation.

 

Robert, it is pretty clear that you view me with contempt. That has been the nature of previous responses you have made to my posts elsewhere, and it is evident in your responses to me in this thread. As such, I really don't think it serves much purpose in carrying this any further with you.

--"lying" is your word, not mine.  I do not view you with contempt, but your views are contemptible because they misperceive and misrepresent the true nature of real problems.  We do live in a very litigious society, but without a correct understanding of the law and actual circumstances, it is not possible to make a correct diagnosis.  In each case, as pointed out to you by Bob Crockett, you tend to exaggerate the actual legal status of the problems we face.  You also misrepresent the attitude and concerns of Elder Oaks.

 

Your obvious anger is misdirected, but if correctly directed might help make needed changes in some improper practices.  After all, you elect legislators to office, and they make the laws.  You elect executives, and they carry out and enforce those laws.  It is your government at the local, state, and federal level.  If you don't like abuses of eminent domain (and you are clearly not alone), then do something about it.  Otherwise you may find yourself sharing the negative emotions of those described in Professor Michael Kimmel's book, Angry White Men (2013) -- men who not only don't understand the nature of the problems they face, but then support precisely those policies which will only make things worse.

[thesometimesaint]

You might want to read the article you linked to.  It does not say what you think it says (not the same type of license)

 

Sorry

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/question-do-independent-contractors-need-business-28411.html

[thesometimesaint]

You might want to check the US constitution on that one.  Hint: You will find it in article 1 section 10

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_8:_Powers_of_Congress

 

Congress has the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States. In 1871, when deciding Knox v. Lee, the Court ruled that this clause permitted Congress to emit bills and make them legal tender in satisfaction of debts. Whenever Congress borrows money, it is obligated to repay the sum as stipulated in the original agreement. However, such agreements are only "binding on the conscience of the sovereign", as the doctrine of sovereign immunity prevents a creditor from suing in court if the government reneges its commitment.^[61]

[california boy]

You use the same old tired arguments to justify judicial fiat in granting special privileges. Overriding the will of the people should be done after careful consideration and should rarely happen. The judiciary does it at will nowadays, demonstrating that they think they have the final say in everything - not the people. The whole process of cramming SSM down the throat of the state of Utah is a clear example of the excesses of the judiciary, mandating according to their agenda, and not respecting the sovereignty of the people. It shows clearly that the will of the people in such matters is of no importance to judges, unless it happens to coincide with the judge's opinion of how things should be.

 

Of course it is a tired old argument.  It is one that was carefully thought about since the foundation of our constitution.  In fact, a great deal of the structure of our government was designed to prevent this tired old argument.   x

 

From Wikipedia

The phrase "tyranny of the majority" (or "tyranny of the masses"), used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, envisions a scenario in which decisions made by a majority place its interests so far above those of an individual or minority group as to constitute active oppression, comparable to that of tyrants anddespots.^[1] In many cases a disliked ethnic, religious or racial group is deliberately penalized by the majority element acting through the democratic process.

 

 

This tired old argument is probably one you have heard since grammar school.  It is just one one of the principles of our government that you have taken to heart.  I guess some need to experience the tyranny of the majority to fully appreciate why protecting citizens from that was of such importance to our founding fathers.

 

Now I would like to ask you another question.  How is "cramming SSM down the throat" different than "cramming opposite sex marriage down the throat of gays different?"  It seems like letting people choose what kind of marriage they would like for themselves would be the preferred position.  Maybe you could explain why it is important to you to "cram opposite sex marriage down the throat" of the gay population such a more noble idea.

[Bob Crockett]

Yes a business license is a contract.

SEE http://www.inc.com/encyclopedia/licensing-agreements.html

 

Nothing novel about it. They are some 1500 years old.

 

No. The law always supersedes any contract. Can a state be sued for nonpayment of debts? That is a novel legal approach. Not sure if such a suit would succeed.

 

 

States and the U.S. are sued all the time for breach of contract, and if that theory fails, the Impairment of Contract clause requires the governments to pay up.  

[Sleeper Cell]

 

Ever hear of the  concept of "your legal right to swing your arm ends at my nose"?  If you operate a business you agree to follow the rules of whatever jurisdiction you operate that business in. You have the right to operate your business according to the law.. You neither have the right to my patronage nor the right to discriminate on the basis race, creed, color, sex, religion, national origin, and increasing sexual orientation in the operation of that business.

 

You have the right to your own opinions, and I'll defend to my death your right to have and express them. That doesn't mean I have agree with them. IOW You have the absolute right to believe any silly thing you want, as long as you allow me the right to believe any silly thing I want. If that makes me a Leftist, Tough Twinkies.

 

Common sense isn't very common and my moral standards are every bit as high as yours. I just don't want to use the force of law to make you follow my moral standards.

 

Isn’t that essentially what anti-discrimination laws do (at least those directed at individual business owners) --  force some people to follow the moral standards of other people?  

 

Shouldn‘t “your legal right to swing your arm ends at my nose”  apply equally to the business owner and to the patron?  And shouldn’t the aggrieved party have to demonstrate that he has been or will be actually harmed,  by the arm swinging (i..e., that the other guys fist has actually reached his nose)?   

 

In the case cited by the OP,  how has the patron actually been harmed, other than possibly some hurt feelings and trivial inconvenience?  Even that is questionable, if the patron knew ahead of time the business owner would refuse. As far as I can see, nobody even claims that the patron could not have easily obtained a comparable (or even better) cake from a nearby competitor.  

 

On the other hand, forcing someone to act against his moral conscience is doing harm.   

 

Suppose the patron has deliberately targeted the business owner because he know he had strong moral views against gay marriage and wanted to force him to act against  his moral conscience by threatening to destroy his livelihood -- shouldn’t his legal right to swing his arm end at the business owner’s nose?

 

BTW, suppose this business owner’s regular attorney believed that not accepting   “marriage equality” was immoral; therefore representing his long time client in this particular case would violate his own moral conscience?   Should he be forced to represent him anyway?

[thesometimesaint]

States and the U.S. are sued all the time for breach of contract, and if that theory fails, the Impairment of Contract clause requires the governments to pay up.  

 

Yes they are, by permission of the government. Sovereign Immunity dictates that you can't sue the government without the government's permission.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States