It has been two-hundred and thirty-nine years since our nation’s Declaration of Independence, and it seems as though we are still trying to understand and define exactly what Liberty is, and how best to protect it. Of course we know from our Founding Fathers, that Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are among our God-given, unalienable Rights. But what does that actually mean, and how do we go about securing those for all citizens, and in doing so, assuring that we do not infringe on the rights of others?
Not an easy task. Of course we all know, the celebration of the Fourth of July has become more about fireworks and hot dogs, than it is about honoring the sacrifices of those people who risked all, in making the declaration, which made them traitors to the Crown. We have not only lost sight of that sacrifice, but I feel we have also lost sight of what Liberty truly is.
Freedom, real freedom, is an ugly business. True Liberty comes with personal responsibilities, which many are unwilling to take. The Liberty promised within the Declaration of Independence is not about simply being able to do what “YOU” want to do, it is about understanding that others have rights as well.
Liberty is not about the beautiful and popular only, it is about the ugly and unpopular as well. Right now our nation is divided over the Confederate Flag. Some feel it is only a symbol of hate, racism and slavery. Others feel it represents history, heritage, and rights.
Some of the same people who will defend the rights of people to display this flag in the name of Liberty, 
would demand a law to prosecute a person who would do this. 
But isn’t this the same freedom of expression? Doesn’t a citizen have every right to express their discontent with their nation by burning the U.S. Flag, as they do by displaying the Confederate Flag?
Many people talk of Liberty, it is very easy to place memes on Facebook that say things like “We The People”, “We Own It”, “God Bless America”, and all of the other bumper sticker rhetoric that passes for patriotism today. But is that all there is to being a patriot, or is there more to being a person who truly understands Liberty?
We best protect our own personal Liberty, by defending that of those we disagree with. If I want to have the right to speak out against my Government on the issues that are important to me, then I must protect your right to speak out on the issues that are important to you, even if I disagree with you. There used to be a saying, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it”. I think we as Americans have lost that attitude. More and more we see Americans attempting to silence those they disagree with, rather than holding open and honest debate with their opposition.
We see it everyday now. If someone is “OFFENDED”, then the offending party must be silenced, and all symbols of the offence must be eradicated. Sometimes this means things like the Confederate flag, other times it is simply words and ideas. This is not what our Founding Fathers fought and died for. It is not the ideals birthed within the Declaration of Independence, or codified within the U.S. Constitution.
Far too many people today are concerned only with their own rights. Do they have the right to have a cake baked, by the baker they choose? But what of the baker’s rights? Does the baker not have rights? Does the baker lose their rights simply because the customer is of a new protected class? And we also see that the rights bestowed upon the new protected class are often not reciprocal. For while a gay couple can claim rights to force a Christian baker to bake a cake against their Christian’s beliefs, would the same rights be afforded someone who wanted a gay baker to bake a cake that was for an anti-gay rally, and maybe wanted the words, “Down With Fags” written on it.
You see, Liberty can be ugly, 
of course these images offend most people. We of course know what this represents, we know that the people using this symbol either want to hurt others, or they have no real understanding of what they are doing. But if we as Americans begin to ban, or prohibit simply because we are offended by a flag or a word, then we have set a course upon which we ourselves can, and most likely will, find ourselves on the wrong end of that dangerous precedent.
Today we ban Confederate Flags, tomorrow we prohibit a word, and somewhere down the road others will want to take down the U.S. Flag, or to ban other words, like Jesus. This is not the nation I would want to live in. I would rather live in a nation that allows free expression, of even mean or hateful ideals. This does not mean that I support actual acts of violence, we have laws to govern that. But I am vehemently opposed to the restriction of ideas and view points.
I have often found myself attacked for my view points and my ideals. There have been attempts to silence me. I have been voted out of organizations, organizations that are made up of people who like to self identify as “PATRIOTS”, people who are the same people who fill Facebook with those patriotic, Liberty loving memes, they have called the police and lied, in attempts to silence me. I have been called names, my integrity has been attacked, along with my intelligence.
And have these attacks happened on their own blog sites? Or on their own Facebook pages? No! They have posted these attacks on my Facebook page, and right here on Delaware Right where I have the power and authority to edit and remove the attacks and lies. But instead we here at Delaware Right choose to allow that free and open debate, even if it is not always honest from all parties involved. We have allowed those who oppose us to actually submit guest post, just so they can further attack us. Again, Liberty is not always pretty, and it is never easy or cheap.
So we here at Delaware Right say, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
I was with you until you got to the gay baker part. Logical fallacy heaven. And the touch of self-martyrdom to end the article left a bitter taste in my mouth. Anyway, good article up until ninth paragraph on.
Agree when we can, disagree when we must. Personally I would rather have my cake without the potential of spit. If they don’t want to bake it, there are far too many bakers in the world, unless the whole thing was nothing but a political agenda put up job.
But if we truly believe in Liberty on a governmental level, then having the government step in and infringe upon a business owner’s rights goes against my view of Liberty.
You are seeking to solve the problems of the individual kind through government intervention. That is like using an axe to carve your wedding cake, it may work at some level, but it is messy and waste so much of the cake.
We no longer have institutional racism or bigotry, to continue to minimize the individual racism and bigotry we must work on the individual level amongst ourselves and stop relying on government.
True freedom is the freedom to be an idiot, I have proven this many times. To think that government’s role is to protect us from being offended is a misconception.
Actually, we do have the instutionalized racism to varying degrees. In fact, that is what you are encouraging others to engage in by citing the baker’s “religious freedom” not to bake a wedding cake.
You seem to confuse the enforcement of our Constitutional principles with unnecessary government intervention and protection. I have no problem with the Christian baker who won’t bake a wedding cake for gay people if, and only if, the baker applies his religious test to every customer. Otherwise, I’ll call the baker’s actions what they are – willful discrimination in violation of our Constitutional principles.
Since we are a country founded on basic principles and governed by a system of laws, I expect those principles and laws to be applied equally to everyone. Forcing a Church to perform a same sex marriage ceremony is a violation of those principles and laws. Forcing a baker to bake a cake is not. If the baker doesn’t like the fact that some of his customers may be gay, he needs to get out of the wedding cake business and stick to baking donuts and birthday cakes – unless he somehow thinks feeding gay people is endorsing their “lifestyle”, in which case he needs to get out the baking industry altogether.
Sometimes, Frank, things really are that simple.
FDR, you are making the same mistake that many make. You are confusing laws for rights, and rights for laws. The Bill of Rights are not laws, they are rights. Government can make and nullify laws, government cannot create, or remove a right. At best government is intended to protect our rights, though too often that is confused as well.
Our RIGHT to freedom of Religion is just that, it is not up to me or you, and certainly not government to tell anyone how to worship, or to define what is or is not their religious belief.
The baker has the same right to make the determination of whether or not supplying a cake to a gay wedding violates their beliefs or not. If they choose to be a hypocrite and supply a cake to the birthday party of a man who is living with his girlfriend, that is between them and their God, it is not for government to judge the practice of their faith.
You say, “If the baker doesn’t like the fact that some of his customers may be gay, he needs to get out of the wedding cake business and stick to baking donuts and birthday cakes”, so now you get to determine what business he is in based on his religious beliefs?
Government gets to dictate what product he will sell if he is a Christian? So government will say that only non-Christians will sell wedding cakes? Is that not government choosing sides in the arena of religion? Would that not be considered be a “PROHIBITIVE” act? And is government not instructed to neither create, nor “prohibit the free exercise there of”? To tell a person that the exercising of their freedom of religion will restrict their right to free enterprise goes against their “unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
No, Frank. You don’t have a right to practice your religion if that practice infringes on another’s rights. Think about what you’re saying before saying it. Would you uphold the right of the Creativity Alliance to refuse service to anyone not White simply because their religion states that the races should be separate as God intended? How about a Jehovah Witness refusing to give you a blood transfusion? Or here’s the good one – Christian Science members refusing medical treatment for their child?
You are making the same mistake many make. The Constitution is our most basic system of laws – not a list of rights – that state what the government can and cannot do. The first amendment “…prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion…” is stating exactly what the government cannot do. So the question you are trying to answer is “Can one discriminate against others as a group if their religion says it’s ok?” You are saying, “Yes, discrimination is legal if one’s religion says it’s ok and the government doesn’t have the authority to pass anti-discrimination laws because of the first amendment.”
Let’s entertain the idea that, based on the “free exercise of religion” clause of the first amendment, that the government rescinds all anti-discrimination laws because they are unconstitutional, how do you propose the government carry out its obligations under the fourteenth amendment? By the very definition of discrimination, you are saying it is ok to deny groups of people equal protection under the law for no other reason than who they are because your religious freedom rights trumps their equal protection rights.
I beg to differ. Your religious freedom rights trumps the equal protection rights of others if, and only if, you can demonstrate that you will suffer undue hardship – that is selling a cake to a gay couple irreparably alters the “free exercise” of your religion. Most people can see how forcing your Church leaders to hold same sex marriage ceremonies within its walls is a serious infringement on one’s right to freely exercise their religion. What most people can’t see is how baking a cake for a same sex couple infringes on one’s free exercise of religion, but they can see how the refusal infringes on the gay couple’s rights to equal protection under the law – that is if a business opens its doors to the public, anti-discrimination laws dictate that all customers will be treated equally. If the owner decides he doesn’t want to bake a wedding cake for couples he deems “sinners”, then he needs to apply that religious test equally to all customers, not just the gay ones.
In simple terms: “no shoes, no shirt, no service” applies equally to everyone who walks through the door. “No gays” does not.
First of all FDR, please don’t rewrite the Constitution, it does not say as you wrote, “impeding the free exercise of religion”, it says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Impeding and prohibiting are two different things.
Let me again state for the record, I feel that any business owner has a right to ruin his business anyway they see fit. Any Asian business owner is free to refuse service to any woman they want to, for whatever reason. You need not give a list of the usual trigger examples to try and get me to renounce this view. James Madison said, “Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.” In my view property rights are the line at which your rights end, if I own my business, then I own the right to run it as I see fit.
You are wrong in my opinion, the Constitution is not a collection of laws, it is a governing document, that instructs the government of how it shall operate, or as you say, what it can and cannot do, mostly what it cannot do.
You ask, ““Can one discriminate against others as a group if their religion says it’s ok?” See above, but I say their religion has nothing to do with it, you cannot legislate away racism, or hatred.
You surmise, “Let’s entertain the idea that, based on the “free exercise of religion” clause of the first amendment, that the government rescinds all anti-discrimination laws because they are unconstitutional, how do you propose the government carry out its obligations under the fourteenth amendment? ”
I did not say all discrimination laws are unconstitutional, just those that mandate that private business owners do not have the right to ruin their business as they see fit.
You see, again you are off track of what the Constitution is intended to do. The Constitution is not there to protect us from each other, it is there to protect us from government. According to the Constitution the government may not discriminate, and must give equal protection under the law.
That means that if it is illegal for the federal government to take the home of a white family, it is also illegal for the federal government to take the home of a black family as well under the exact same circumstances.
The laws become unconstitutional when the law impinges on a person’s rights. My property is my right. However, I have no God given right to buy a wedding cake, from a particular baker. To pass such law impinges upon a person’s property rights.
Notice I have not mentioned the religious freedom of the business owner, because in the case of a business owner, their reason fro refusing service is irrelevant in my opinion.
Would you also take a way a person’s right to refuse entry to their homes of who they choose? Is a person not discriminating when they choose to let one person in their home but not another? Does a person give up property rights when they start a business in your view?
The problem you are having understanding my view is, I give no special preference to anyone based on religion, race, class, or any other qualifier. I truly believe that we will only be truly equal in this nation once we stop setting one person above another. No matter how you sell it, once you define someone based on race or religion, or class, even with good intentions, you have separated them. That in my view is not equality.
Too often we allow emotion to rule. Of course we want the gay couple to be able to buy their cake, we want black people to eat at the lunch counter in the Woolworths, why? Because it is the right thing to do. But to pass laws that impinge and infringe upon those of others in an attempt to set the evils of the world right will never work.
This is what I meant when I said true Liberty is ugly.
The Constitution is there to insure that government does not infringe upon our rights. As for individuals? Well we have come a long way in changing the hearts and minds of our children, I say we keep working at it.
Frank,
How does buying a cake infringe on anybody’s property rights ? Does the baker lose his bakery or any of his inventory, equipment, raw materials as a consequence of such this transaction. No s/he does not.
Frank, sorry for the misquote. That’s what I get for not going to the original source.
Yes, you have property and you decide to use that property to conduct public business. If your state has anti-discrimination laws in place, then no, you don’t get to decide who you will do business with and who you won’t. The government is within its scope to ensure the rights and freedoms of every citizen are protected, not just the ones you deem worthy of doing business with. There is a set of protected classes at the federal level (which gays are not included) and many states have added others to the federal list. If you don’t want to bake a cake for a gay person, get the state discrimination laws to drop them from the protected class status. If you don’t want to do that, then either all customers are given a “religious test” for cake worthiness or you face the civil suits that come with being a practicing bigot. Doesn’t matter to me until one pushes for our laws to legalize discrimination, which is what you are promoting under the guise of “property rights” and “religious freedoms”.
Ah Delacrat shows up again to act as if they don’t get it. The baker loses their rights the minute they are forced at the barrel of a gun to do that which they wish not to.
FDR, I am not looking for any law to legalize discrimination. On the contrary, I am saying that the laws that separate us by race or religion are actually laws that discriminate.
You say “Yes, you have property and you decide to use that property to conduct public business.”
Ah, but I am not conducting public business in a bakery, I am conducting PRIVATE business with the public. Only government conducts PUBLIC business with private citizens, and as such government is held to a different standard and cannot, should not discriminate between its citizens, as it does in such cases as the bakery.
Leave out the reason why the baker doesn’t want to bake a cake. Should they be forced to bake a cake on Tuesday if they don’t want to?
“The baker loses their rights the minute they are forced at the barrel of a gun to do that which they wish not to.” – Frank
Uh, Frank, FYI …..businesses are “forced” every day to comply with laws, minimum wage, contract and the Civil Right Act of 1964 to cite just a few examples…. (without any loss of their rights).
You’re playing a semantics game, Frank – private vs public, government vs citizen.. Sorry, I won’t play.
Remember this, though. Our government is for the people, by the people, and of the people. Are you really trying to convince me that citizens of this country shouldn’t be held accountable to the principles outlined in the Constitution and our founding documents? If so, then by God I think we hit the nail on the head with what’s wrong with this country.
Delacrat, did you intend to make my point?
FDR, you say I am playing a semantics game. No, words mean things. You keep confusing government with private citizens. You say,”Our government is for the people, by the people, and of the people.” True, and this is why I said government cannot and should not discriminate.
However, the Constitution is a governing document meant to guide government. It is not laws intended to govern the individual. Show me a single article or amendment that states what an individual CAN’T do.
The Constitution spells out a lot more than a set of rules for the government to follow. You are trying to convince me that the Constitution is only a set of rules for the government to follow. I am saying that since we defined the government as “the people”, we, as citizens, are bound to the principles it contains. In fact, that’s why our men and women fight and die for the Constitution – and why I served. The Constitution is more than just a set of rules for the government. It is a document of guiding principles for every citizen to strive for. Sorry you don’t see it that way and I’m not sure what I can say to get you to see that.
We need to leave polluters and economic terrorists alone and make sure we regulate every aspect of individual sexual activity
“Delacrat, did you intend to make my point?” – Frank, July 6, 2015 at 8:31 am
Frank,
Do offer argument with supporting facts about how I made your point.
Otherwise, I will have to conclude you have neither and that Five Drunk Rednecks’ description of that void between your ears as “logical fallacy heaven” is quite apt.
Delacrat, in my opinion the things you listed when applied to privately owned businesses is beyond government’s authority.
FDR, you say that the Constitution is more than a guide for government yet you fail to show an example where the documents restricts individual behavior. But I’ll wait while you read it again.
Frank, Frank, Frank. You do realize there are more to laws than restrictions, right? And you do realize there’s more to the Constitution than government restrictions, right? I tried to hint at some of it to see if you’d come around on your own, you know, that part about civic duty and social responsibilities? Now I see property rights are more important to you than the principles this country was founded on.
You are saying that a business owner has the right to discriminate and if that business practice ruins his business, so be it. This is where social responsibility comes in. You see, nothing in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and if your a fan of history, any of the letters exchanged by our Founding Fathers as they forged a new nation indicates that we, as an individual, have a right to discriminate.
With that said, do I think we should criminalize discriminatory behavior, either by a government employee or a private baker? Of course not. Do I think a victim of discrimination has a right to redress the grievance through civil court? Yes. That right is in the Constitution.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent addendums and acts, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, has made it illegal to discriminate against protected classes, currently being race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, pregnancy, citizenship, familial status, disabilities, veteran, and genetic information. Time and time again, courts have upheld the authority of the federal government to enact the Civil Rights Act primarily through the interstate commerce clause and the fourteenth amendment. Now, I’m no legal expert nor Constitutional law expert so I accept the Civil Rights Act as a sound law deriving its authority from the Constitution and not in conflict with the basic founding principle that all men are created equal and have a right to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.
If you wish to debate the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act, go right on ahead and debate yourself as I would find the endeavor fruitless simply because I doubt you are any sort of legal expert, much less a Constitutional law expert.
Notice in the federal Civil Rights Act, sexual orientation is not a protected class of people. That means gay people have no federal recourse in a court of law to address a discrimination claim. So what happened to the bakers who refused to bake a cake for gay couples? Their cases came about through state laws. All states are governed by the Civil Rights Act, but many states added protected classes to the federal list, most notably sexual orientation. In those states that have added protections for gay people, we would need to look at the state constitutions to determine if the state government had any authority to define protected classes and enforce anti-discrimination laws. To add another monkey wrench, some states that haven’t added gay people as a protected class have cities on the municipal level that have added gays as a protected class.
Of interest to you would be where DE stands. De has defined sexual orientation as a protected class since 2009 and just a couple of years ago, DE added gender identity to the list of protected classes. So tell us, do you think it should be legal for DE businesses to openly discriminate against gay people in the name of whatever a business owner wants to claim? How about transgendered people? Since both classes are protected now, where did DE break the state constitution to get the law passed if, in your opinion, it is none of government’s business to enact anti-discrimination laws?
FDR, if we look at the U.S. Constitution, beyond the parts that form how government will be structured, we see that it is nothing but restrictive, but it is restrictive of government only, nowhere is there any example of it being restrictive of the individual, that is unless you will point to it, which you have failed to do as of yet.
The reason I have been focused on property rights is because you chose to single out of my original post the issue of the bakery, now you attempt to deflect with empty accusations.
You say, “You are saying that a business owner has the right to discriminate and if that business practice ruins his business, so be it. This is where social responsibility comes in.”
You confuse social responsibility of an individual with laws made by government. The individual social responsibility in the case of a business owner who discriminates, would be to not support that business.
Of course there is nothing in the documents you named that claims a right of an individual to discriminate, nor is there anything that states anything about an individual being prohibited from discriminating. Unless you can lead me to it. And remember we are talking about the Constitution.
I will agree with you that a citizen that is discriminated by the government has a right to redress, but not against another individual citizen, that is not in the Constitution, unless you can lead me to it.
You say, “The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent addendums and acts, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, has made it illegal to discriminate against protected classes, currently being race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, pregnancy, citizenship, familial status, disabilities, veteran, and genetic information”.
The fact that anyone is classified as a protected class sets them apart from the rest of society, it infers special treatment, that is not the equality that the Founders intended.
If the 14th Amendment were used properly in calling into question the treatment of all citizens, (BY GOVERNMENT), there is no need for these so called civil rights laws. In fact these very laws are counter to the 14th Amendment since they actually infer special consideration by the law for the so called protected classes.
As to your argument about the states having the authority to punish the baker for not baking a cake because sexual orientation is not in the CRA 64, well that friend is when we come back to religious freedom and property rights which are governed by the U.S. Constitution, and any law that a state passes in conflict would be deemed unconstitutional.
The question held within the last paragraph is redundant, I said earlier there is no need to make a list of the trigger issues, I have stated clearly that a business owner has the right to do business as they see fit.
You are unable to disengage your emotional response from the issue to enable yourself to at the least understand the point I am making. You seek only to paint the tried an true image of racist, homophobe, bigot.
As I said, in a perfect world there would be no discrimination, ours is not a perfect world, and no amount of legislation will create one.
I do not believe in affording anyone special consideration or treatment based on anything but their character. If a person is a racist, I would prefer that they be an open racist so that I can withhold my support of their business. All that the multitude of laws has done is to give cover to the racist, and again I ask, how many racist, homophobes, and bigots have you supported because they are forced to hide who they truly are.
You imagine that if anti-discrimination laws were repealed, (not likely) that the white race would rise up and again enslave the minorities, or at the very least refuse them service of any kind. That attitude completely ignores the progress of the individual, along with that of our government.
Frank, I pointed you to the Civil Rights Act at the federal level and how the Act derived its power from the Constitution that has been upheld by the courts. No, there is no sentence in the Constitution stating governments can make and enforce anti-discrimination laws. Now, if you can show me where the crafters of the Civil Rights Act or the courts answering challenges to the Act have erred in their interpretation of mostly the interstate commerce clauses and the fourteenth amendment, please, feel free to show their errors. Please don’t throw out separating people for special treatment, property rights, and Lord knows what else you’ve been farting out as a smoke screen. Show me why the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional. What in the Constitution does it violate and how?
I ended my explanation with pointed questions about your state’s adoption of anti-discrimination laws against gays and transgenders. What in your state’s constitution did your legislators violate or ignore to pass the laws protecting gays and transgenders from discrimination?
And please, no more farting smoke screens. Ensuring the equal treatment of everyone in the public square is not affording one group special treatment over another. I’m not talking affirmative action programs here. That’s a different debate than the one centering on the constitutionality of anti-discrimination laws.
FDR, I am sorry that it has become difficult for you to continue this conversation in a rational manner. I will not however apologize for the fact that my views may be too esoteric for you to comprehend. You may be having difficulty because the tactic of throwing around the usual trigger issues has failed to cause me to quiver in fear and recant my opinions.
The fact that I have addressed your “pointed questions “, yet you ignore the answers, shows you are not interested in an intellectual conversation, but seek only to fulfill a need to paint others as you expect them to be.
I would suggest you re read my last comment in the clarity of the morning light, and possibly without the influence of outside substances, and you will see I responded to your questions and points. To do so again would be redundant and serve only to allow you one more comment of deflection.
Since I feel you have failed to address my question of showing what in the U S Cinstituion justifies the need or the right of anti- discrimination laws that affect the individual private citizen, I will give you another shot at it.
Here is a link to help you out. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
No, you have not answered any of my questions, but have liberally engaged in subtle ad hominen attacks to obfuscate any cohesive answer. I asked you to show how the Civil Rights Act or your Delaware anti-discrimination laws were unconstitutional and all you could muster is gibberish about property rights and more gibberish about defining classes of people for protection as giving them “special rights”. You do realize, don’t you, that White, Christian, heterosexual males like yourself are explicitly covered by these anti-discrimination laws? Do you feel like you’ve been singled out for special treatment?
Here, for your benefit: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_rights
As I stated before, I am no legal expert nor Constitutional law expert and I won’t pretend to be. I can do all sorts of reading, connect the dots, and conclude that yes, anti-discrimination laws were born out of historic necessity, are in alignment with the principles this country was founded on, derive their power from the Constitution, and pass constitutional muster. The onus is on you to show that the framers of the anti-discrimination laws and judges who ruled on various challenges to the law were – and still are – wrong. Start with Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States. That’s a landmark Supreme Court decision that showed there was constitutional authority to ban discrimination in public accommodations (http://www.crf-usa.org/black-history-month/the-civil-rights-act-of-1964) What in that ruling did the Supreme Court get wrong that violates the Constitution?
And your claim that you have answered my questions is a lie. I have consistently stated that the legality of anti-discrimination laws derived their power primarily through the commerce clause of the Constitution and the fourteenth amendment. You can post the text of the Constitution all you want, but you make the error so many others do: if something is not explicitly written in the Constitution, then it is unconstitutional. Surely you’re smart enough to see the error in that line of thinking.
Here is the answer from two comments back,”As to your argument about the states having the authority to punish the baker for not baking a cake because sexual orientation is not in the CRA 64, well that friend is when we come back to religious freedom and property rights which are governed by the U.S. Constitution, and any law that a state passes in conflict would be deemed unconstitutional.”
The point is, the 14th Amendment covers everyone, so why did we need the CRA 64? As I also said two comments back, “If the 14th Amendment were used properly in calling into question the treatment of all citizens, (BY GOVERNMENT), there is no need for these so called civil rights laws. In fact these very laws are counter to the 14th Amendment since they actually infer special consideration by the law for the so called protected classes.”
And yes, I understand that the CRA is intended to cover myself, but unlike some I am not looking at this issue solely on how it would benefit myself.
So you can continue to act as if I am not answering you simply because you don’t like the answer, but it causes you intellectual vacancy light to flicker.
As for so called attacks? You might want to go back and see where this first turned adversarial, rather than a simple discussion about issues. Your emotional responses demonstrate you lack of ability to discuss an issue honestly.
Not to get too bogged down on wedding cakes (since that isn’t the point of these “pious” displays), but if your business is to bake and sell cakes then you must serve all the public. There’s a difference between refusing to serve a (rude, belligerent) customer and refusing to serve an entire demographic of customers. Not to mention that baking a cake is not part of a religious ceremony. You want to operate a public business, then you must serve all of the public.
And this… “The fact that anyone is classified as a protected class sets them apart from the rest of society, it infers special treatment, that is not the equality that the Founders intended.”… is just silly. What special treatment are you inferring? The ability to buy the same wedding cake that everyone else buys? The ability to buy a house anywhere you can afford? The ability to book a room at any hotel?
But, like I said, this isn’t really about wedding cakes – they are just the stepping stone to bigger things, and we’ve already seen this behavior when it comes to pharmacists who refuse to do the job they’re being paid to do. (What is it with christianists and their refusal to do the job their flippin’ paid to do, be it baking wedding cakes, performing gay marriages or a pharmacist filling an actual doctor’s prescription? That, my friend, is what Sharia Law looks like.)
The problem really arises when you take these situations and place them in isolated areas. If a baker, pharmacist, doctor, banker, etc. in a highly populated area refuses service it’s still wrong and illegal, but the client, customer, patient should still be able to access the needed/desired service. But what if you live in a small town and the only doctor, pharmacist, grocer, etc. refuses to serve you? What then? Would you have to move? Because if you’re okay with businesses denying services to certain demographics then certain demographics will have to relocate to access goods and services. You okay with it playing out that way? We could go back to the good old days of red lining.
I really don’t understand why some people are okay with letting bigots, racists, homophobes pimp out their god in the name of discrimination. Why would anyone ever accept this hateful behavior (in the name of religion) as a justifiable excuse to discriminate? Stop wrapping this illegal, ugly behavior in the name of Jesus. Sheesh, I’m not even religious and that crap offends me.
I’ll leave you with this quote:
To me, this quote demonstrates the prevailing theme of our Constitution – a document our founding fathers created to be amended, to be alive and to grow and change with the times. That’s what makes it so great. That’s why women and minorities can vote. Why blacks are no longer 3/5s of a person. Why gay people can marry and access the exact same rights as heterosexual couples – not more rights, the exact same rights straight people already receive by simply obtaining a marriage license.
Pandora, if you have read the entire thread of comments, then you should understand that my position is more about a private citizen to choose how to run their business, and not just about religion.
All of your points about what is held within the Constitution is as I have stated in reference to government not the individual.
As for your question about remote areas. As I also stated to FDR, societal issues will only be solved by society. I happen to believe that we have solved many of them, and unlike some I do not believe that laws will ever cure those ills.
If you lived in a small town, and the grocer would not sell to whatever protected class, would you ignore that and support this grocer anyway? Or would you organize a boycott. Or maybe open a store that would serve all?
There are many options other than government.
“As for your question about remote areas. As I also stated to FDR, societal issues will only be solved by society. I happen to believe that we have solved any of them, and unlike some I do not believe that laws will ever cure those ills.”
Spoken by a man who has never been impacted by these societal issues. Guess you have all the time in the world to wait for society to come around. Must be nice. And the idea that systemic racism, sexism, and treatment of gays, Muslims, the poor, etc. has been mostly solved demonstrates a stunning disconnect.
And if you really think that a small town in the middle of nowhere can support multiple businesses of the same type, or that there’s even the will of the townspeople to boycott a racist, homophobic, etc. business then you need to get out more.
You want to run a business that serves the public? Then you must serve the public. End of story.
And I have read the entire thread, Frank. Your position is quite narrow.
My point exactly, a small town cannot support multiple stores, put the racist out of business. And as I have said, if the 14th Amendment were applied correctly there is no need for the so called anti-discrimination laws.
You miss the larger point of my position because you can’t get past an emotional response to it.
Right… FDR and I am emotional. You are reasonable and pragmatic. Whatever.
Here’s what your position comes down to: Discrimination is wrong and once we get Cletus and Jim-Bob to agree then it will go away. Meanwhile, all you people being denied rights and goods/services will just have to wait to be treated like full citizens.
And the idea that small towns across the nation would put racists, etc. out of business is simply not true. Sure, there will be some towns that do this, but not all. Address the towns that don’t put the racists, etc. out of business – that actually support them. Then what?
Now Pandora is making things up. No where have I said anyone should be denied rights. Please show me where I am guaranteed a right to buy anything from a specific business.
I have clearly stated that government can not and should not discriminate.
It is in my view blind to believe that we are living in the same world that we were sixty years ago.
But if we are going to talk about changin attitudes, maybe we should begin with yours. Your statement.”once we get Cletus and Jim-Bob to agree then it will go away. “, is meant to infer that only white males from the south are racist. That is a very modern and enlightened view point.
Why yes, that is exactly what you’re saying. You are saying that people should be denied rights until society changes its mind. You are saying that businesses should be allowed to discriminate – to deny certain members of the public rights to access a public business.
And yep, I have no tolerance for bigoted, racist, sexist people – who are overwhelmingly older white males – who do not hide their prejudices or temper their sermons when it comes to everyone but themselves. They insist on being treated like individuals while happily lumping everyone else into groups. That said, I do understand their hysteria. They are like dinosaurs, facing their own extinction. Time has passed them by. It’s sad, but the rest of us are under no requirement to wait for them to get on board with our rights.
And you still haven’t answered FDR’s question about how the Civil Rights Act or Delaware’s anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional. Please explain, since you obviously know more than those who created and ruled on these laws.
Okay, everybody get ready, here it comes, don’t miss it, it may be a while before you see it again.
On the issue of the CRA 64, I have made the point that it is redundant in light of the 14th Amendment. If the 14th Amendment is properly applied then there is no need for CRA. I believe that the 14th Amendment is the civil rights part of the Constitution, so why do we need anything else?
Now, as to the anti-discrimination laws that states have passed, and the question of their constitutionality. Here it is!
I AM WRITING IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS SO THAT NO ONE MISSES THIS. THEY ARE CONSTITUTIONAL. I ALLOWED MY ARROGANCE TO GET THE BETTER OF ME AND DID NOT GO BACK AND CHECK WHAT I THOUGHT I KNEW. I WAS BASING MY OPINION ON THE 14TH AMENDMENT SEC. 1 WHICH I REMEMBERED IT SAYING MIDWAY, ” No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property”, YOU SEE THE PART ABOUT PROPERTY, THAT WAS WHERE I WAS HANGING MY HAT. UNFORTUNATELY I FORGOT THAT WHAT IT REALLY SAYS IS. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”.
“Without due process of the law”. And since a state legislature properly passing legislation would be considered “due process of the law”, then the states are within their powers to pass said laws.
I WAS WRONG.
Now, (and you knew this was coming right?) that does not change my opinion of those laws, I still think they serve only to separate us as citizens and create protected classes. And I still believe they rob business owners of their property rights. I am sure there are laws that while being constitutional, you find to be mistakes, that is the case for me here. I apologize for not going back and checking sooner.
Frank, while your clarification makes things a bit clearer, I think you’re still off base.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not redundant because of the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment says states will make no laws abridging the privileges of its citizen. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 extended those protections to places of public accommodations, a fancy terms for places of business. I should point out that the Civil Rights Act does not apply to Christian organizations (including Churches) nor to most nonprofits.
Please explain how anti-discrimination laws rob business owners of their property rights. Do you feel that way about labor laws? Wage laws? Building and fire safety laws? Tax laws? Health laws? Food safety laws? Drug laws? I mean, if a business owner wishes to grow pot on his premises, shouldn’t he be allowed to? How does telling a business owner he must treat all customers equally regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, etc. rob a business owner of his property rights and why wouldn’t any of these other laws be doing the same thing?
You say the anti-discrimination laws divide and separate us. Actually, by the law defining what groups of people are protected from discrimination, the business owner is protected from frivolous lawsuits claiming discrimination because someone has a big nose or their hair is too long or they wear saggy pants or….
Could you imagine a nudist walking into a Wal Mart naked and suing because Wal Mart had him arrested and hauled off to jail? I could hear his argument now: God brought me into this world naked so it’s my God given right to walk around naked. If God didn’t want us naked, he’d have the boys born in powder blue suits with a matching tie and girls in pink, formal gowns with a matching hair ribbon.
The Civil Rights Act and similar state anti-discrimination laws make it clear who has legal recourse if they feel they are a victim of discrimination – and that definition includes White Christian males and, on the state level in some states (including MD and DE), White Christian heterosexual males. How is the definition of who is protected from discrimination dividing and separating us?
Pandora wrote – “And yep, I have no tolerance for bigoted, racist, sexist people – who are overwhelmingly older white males – who do not hide their prejudices or temper their sermons when it comes to everyone but themselves. They insist on being treated like individuals while happily lumping everyone else into groups. That said, I do understand their hysteria. They are like dinosaurs, facing their own extinction. Time has passed them by. It’s sad, but the rest of us are under no requirement to wait for them to get on board with our rights.”
So, Pandora, if you have no tolerance for bigoted, racist, sexist people then why are you being bigoted, racist and sexist against white heterosexual males? You are generalizing and demonizing a group of people based on their color, gender and sexual orientation. You just proved you are a hypocrite. If you are truly against discrimination then practice that for every human being. Not just the ones you pick and choose.
There is a difference between saying a group is overwhelmingly comprised of a certain demographic and saying all old white men are racist, sexist bigots.
But maybe I’m wrong. Who are the leaders, supporters and prominent voices when it comes to opposing gay marriage? Pro-gun rights? Anti-Abortion? The confederate flag? Business owners being allowed to discriminate? Anti birth control? Banning Sharia Law? etc.. Would you say that most of these issues supporters overwhelming belong to a certain demographic?
FDR, to have a discussion is one thing, but to have one person intentionally acting as if they don’t understand the other person’s position is a waste of time.
All you are doing now is throwing out examples hoping to find one that will cause me to change my views.
I understand you don’t agree with my views, but to act as if you don’t understand what I am saying seems nonproductive.
First it’s cake and the gays won’t be satisfied until they have cupcakes too
Frank, your property rights argument as it pertains to anti-discrimination
laws makes no sense and I used examples to show why it makes
no sense. Obviously you can’t explain why property rights
should factor into the constitutionality of anti-discrimination laws,
but not in the many other laws that dictate how a business owner is
to conduct his business.
And you’re right. It is a waste of time debating an issue with someone
who consistently launches into ad hominem attacks simply because
they can’t defend their own positions.
FDR, you continue to say I have explained my views on this issue, I think I have. We do not agree that when government of any level tells ma business owner who they can sell to or have to sell to, it infringes on their rights of ownership. Okay, you don’t like that point of view.
Just because laws are passed, and upheld does not mean I have to agree with them, I only have to abide by them.
Are you telling me that you AGREE with every law passed, and upheld, are there no laws you feel are overreach on the part of government?
Sorry it has taken me so long to respond, life happens.