Christians booted from Seattle shop "I'm gay, you have to leave"

[kwikphilly]

Quote

So, how do anti-Discrimination laws deprive business owners of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?                            Shiloh

They don't  & won't ,unless of course you are prejudice .....lol

[Guest Butero]

6 hours ago, kwikphilly said:

Agreed......I owned a full service salon for many years(hair,nails,skin care etc...)...I believe it was somewhere in the early 90's when the gov't decided to ban smoking in salons,I did not comply ,as a matter of fact I even put up a sign that said "Smoking permitted".........I'm not sure why I never got a fine but I didn't and I even had a couple of clients that were not happy about my decision ....

The majority of my clientele were smokers  but even if they were not I could not wrap my head around the fact that I was the owner,it was my private business and private property ...the gov't got their portion in taxes -double because I not only paid City Tax but County as well !!!!!  I was not going to let anyone tell me what I can or cannot do on my property the same way I would not expect anyone to tell me what I can or cannot do in my own home   Many other salon owners besides myself felt the same way ,we protested,signed petitions & did all we could to prevent the proposed law & it went through anyway......

   That is how it starts,imo.....then it was restaurants & bars and so on & so on......now they are going to tell private business who they MUST serve,its ridiculous because ultimately it can  lead right back to the gov't telling people who they CANNOT serve! Do you think it will come to that-"Christians MUST NOT be served" ?                                                                                             God Bless,Kwik

I like not having to be around smokers, but I still oppose the government requiring this of private businesses.  They shouldn't have that much power.  Let each business owner make up their own mind.  

[kwikphilly]

RG,if I were the owner of a pharmacy or a private medical practice ,should I have the right to refuse someone medicine or medical attention solely because I don't like the color of their skin? There are ignorant people that would indeed deprive a person of such things because of their own hatred & bigotry....

Don't you agree that anti -discrimination laws are a very necessary & reasonable thing in this case?

[Guest Butero]

1 hour ago, Kris said:

I have a question to a problem that is on the horizon. In Australia, the votes for "yes" or "no" to same sex marriage are in, 10 millions votes in total were cast. The result is pending but early polls show a yes vote to be the likely winner. I have 4 young girls at home who I've taught that marriage is only between one male and one female, I've taught them much from scripture, and reiterated that the Bible is God's word and is the whole truth, anything that is in direct conflict with the God's word is wrong. This is how I have raised my children, with truth and love.

When the yes vote succeeds and legislation is written and eventually becomes law, when schools begin to educate my children that marriage between same sex couples is normal, when two male children act out school plays on stage as a couple, when my children begin to question me regarding the issue and I tell them their teachers are wrong, will I be liable and potentially charged for discrimination, bigotry etc?

My girls are strong willed, they know what is right and what is wrong, they will without doubt raise their hand in class and politely inform the teacher that same sex relationships are wrong. I'm anticipating a future call from the school, and a direct confrontation with the department of education when the time comes. 

 

 

I don't know what will happen in your country.  The laws are different from ours.  We have the freedom in America to speak out against things like gay marriage, even though it was forced upon us by judges misusing their position.  I wouldn't go along with it regardless.  I hope the polls are wrong.  In my state, we had a vote on gay marriage, and polls showing it would be close, and we voted it down 60 to 40.  Often times, polls are used as propaganda tools to make you think opposition is futile.  

[kwikphilly]

Quote

I like not having to be around smokers, but I still oppose the government requiring this of private businesses.  They shouldn't have that much power.  Let each business owner make up their own mind.                                                     Butero

I think we all agree with this,I do not think this applies to discrimination.....its probably just a  means for the gov't to increase revenue,.fines ,fines & more fines

[Guest Butero]

29 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

That doesn't answer the question.  The question is, again, which part of the Constitution is violated by anti-discrimination laws.

There are two ways people look at the Constitution.  One is the idea that the government can do anything it wants unless the Constitution says it cannot.  The other is that the government can not do anything it is not specifically given the authority to do.  Those who believe these laws are unconstitutional are believers in the second position.  The federal government isn't granted the power to impose national anti-discrimination laws on the states.  All powers not granted to the federal government is left to the states, so this is something only a state government should be able to mandate.  

I oppose anti-discrimination laws on principle.  If it is my business, it should be my choice who I serve, who I hire or fire, anything.  If I pay the salaries, I should decide.  If I rent a house, I should decide if I want to rent to unmarried couples, homosexuals, Muslims, anyone.  

To R.G.'s point, if there was a restaurant that wanted to go back to denying service to customers because they are black, I can come along and open up a competing restaurant to welcome everyone.  Why would I want to turn away paying customers?  The free market would decide who succeeds and who fails.  

[Guest shiloh357]

20 minutes ago, Running Gator said:

The 10th Amendment for one.  The powers not delegated by the Constitution are reserved for the people.

Actually it is to the people or to the states. 

And there is no credible argument to be made that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 violates the 10th amendment.

The SCOTUS upheld the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act.   The Federal Government has the power to intervene in the private sector.

Quote

Why do not answer my question, what part of the Constitution gives them the right to enforce anti-discrimination laws on private citizens.

No need to.   You can't really make a case.  Your position collapses under its own weight.   I don't need to refute a self-defeating argument.

[Running Gator]

30 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Actually it is to the people or to the states. 

Either way my position is good, it is not something the government should be doing

Quote

And there is no credible argument to be made that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 violates the 10th amendment.

The Constitution does not give the government the right to do such things, thus it violates the constitution.

Quote

The SCOTUS upheld the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act.   The Federal Government has the power to intervene in the private sector.

SCOTUS has upheld the constitutionality of killing your baby and taking private property from one private citizen and giving it to another private citizen so that a city can make more in taxes on that land.    So, I am not swayed at all by the "well SCOTUS said so" argument and I am pretty sure you would reject it if used to defend abortion. 

Quote

No need to.   You can't really make a case.  Your position collapses under its own weight.   I don't need to refute a self-defeating argument.

My case is rock solid, there is nothing in the constitution that gives the government the right to enforce anti-discrimination laws on private entities.   And until such time as you can show that it does, it is by default unconstitutional. 

[Guest shiloh357]

45 minutes ago, Running Gator said:

Either way my position is good, it is not something the government should be doing

Your position would us back 70 years. 

 

Quote

SCOTUS has upheld the constitutionality of killing your baby and taking private property from one private citizen and giving it to another private citizen so that a city can make more in taxes on that land.    So, I am not swayed at all by the "well SCOTUS said so" argument and I am pretty sure you would reject it if used to defend abortion. 

No, the difference is that when the SCOTUS declared abortion "legal"  or imminent domain, they were not ruling on an existing law signed into law by a president.

The Civil Rights Act was signed into law.   The job of the SCOTUS is to rule on the constitutionality of laws, and they ruled it is constitutional. 

[Running Gator]

12 minutes ago, Sojourner414 said:

I think Shiloh's reply states the matter clearly:

When God calls something an "abomination", that is not a light word. Both Scripturally as well as in usage nowadays, it depicts something that is so disgusting, it causes nausea. And when someone continues to do something that the Lord has deemed an abomination, even though it is clear in Scripture, preached in sermons, and supported by facts uncovered in research both medically as well as socially and civilly that such practices are unwise and unhealthy mentally and physically, then it speaks as to the type of person who performs those actions.

Like eating seafood...an abomination