The Wow I Can't Believe That News Story Thread

[[MERIT]]

Originally Posted by Frownland

Originally Posted by 14th amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

A citizen and their privately owned business is DIFFERENT than a state, Mr. Wordsmith, and they have different rights.

[[MERIT]]

Originally Posted by rubber soul

Merit, You realize that with your logic, somebody has the right to run you over with a lawn mower because they feel like it, right?

That is physical harm. That violates the non-aggression principle. So no, they DON'T have that right by my logic. Refusing to bake someone a cake is not physical harm.

[rubber soul]

Originally Posted by [MERIT]

That is physical harm. That violates the non-aggression principle. So no, they DON'T have that right by my logic. Refusing to bake someone a cake is not physical harm.

Well I'm not baking you a cake then

[[MERIT]]

Originally Posted by rubber soul

Well I'm not baking you a cake then

If you didn't want to, then I would just go somewhere else. Or bake one myself. Not sue you into bankruptcy. Pretty simple.

And WTF is wrong with this gay couple? Don't you know that you don't fuck with the people who prepare your food? They could shit in it and you would be none the wiser. Everyone knows that.

I'm gonna piss you off, then ingest something that you cooked whilst mad at me. Not a smart move.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by [MERIT]

A citizen and their privately owned business is DIFFERENT than a state, Mr. Wordsmith, and they have different rights.

Trust me, I didn't make up these words but yes, the state is different from a private business.

States dictate what private businesses can and can't do. In this instance, the state was asked "are you going to allow businesses to deny rights to customers on the basis of sexual orientation?" Once it reached the courts, the state then had to make a firm stance in the form of law. They said "lemme check the current laws aight" and found that allowing for rights to be denied is the same as directly denying them based on longstanding precedent. They're not allowed to do that, so disallowing discrimination was the obvious choice.

[[MERIT]]

Originally Posted by Frownland

the state was asked "are you going to allow businesses to deny rights to customers on the basis of sexual orientation?" Once it reached the courts, the state then had to make a firm stance in the form of law. They said "lemme check the current laws aight" and found that allowing for rights to be denied is the same as directly denying them based on longstanding precedent. They're not allowed to do that, so disallowing discrimination was the obvious choice.

Well, then that court and those laws are wrong. Just gonna have to agree to disagree.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by [MERIT]

Just gonna have to agree to disagree.

Sure, just know that denying privileges is in fact the same as infringing on rights, so maybe save that point for when you're deep in the echo chamber having beers.

[[MERIT]]

If this were a gay bakery refusing to bake a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church, everyone would be on the side of the bakery. It's a crock of shit.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by [MERIT]

If this were a gay bakery refusing to bake a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church, everyone would be on the side of the bakery.

Nah given that WBC members were holding a wedding and acted like any other reasonable customer would, of course. I tend to avoid motivated reasoning like that when it comes to law.

[[MERIT]]

It's all about SJW's cramming their agenda onto the masses, framed as the sob story of rights infringement. Simple as that.