Posted on 12/02/2017 2:52:44 AM PST by Oshkalaboomboom
I am truly not surprised to find you opposing natural law rights such as those articulated in our bill of rights. Forced association is a denial of "freedom of association."
Barry Goldwater was correct in his opposition and his reasoning.
“The state of Colorado and their anti-discrimination laws say otherwise.”
So what? At one time the laws of Mississippi said one human being could own another one. Did that make it right?
L
Prior to 1973, homosexuality was defined as a mental illness. This is how it has been regarded legally for most of the nation's existence. This is the normal way homosexuality was perceived by the law.
What we have had is activist courts changing the law, changing the meaning of long understood terms and precedents, and now incorporating this very sick and deadly ideology into our culture, and demanding everyone accept this "new" order whether they like it or not.
For most of this nation's existence, the Court's would not have batted an eye on a Christian telling a homosexual that they would not condone their behavior.
What we have now is sick. It is abnormal, and it should be defied.
I would expect you would normally be in favor of the 14th amendment shoving the bill of rights down states throats. Not in this case huh?
Utter bullsh*t. No one has a right to compel someone else's labor. I thought we had resolved this issue of forced labor with the consequences of the Civil War?
Sick perverted faggots have no right to compel anyone to do anything, and the state has no right to compel anyone to "serve" anyone they don't want to serve.
And I'm not surprised that you miss the entirely. I'm not speaking in favor of the law, merely acknowledging its existence and the conundrum it produces. Actually I have spoken in favor of freedom association on other threads. I have said before that businesses should be free to associate with whomever they wish, as long as they make that preference known publicly. A business doesn't want to cater to Muslims? Just say so. Don't want to cater to homosexuals? Just say so. Consumers can make their own decision on where to go and business owners have their rights protected.
I'm not saying the law is right or wrong, just that it exists.
Should a Muslim cabbie be able to refuse a woman a ride? A Muslim health care worker be able to refuse to use hand sanitizer? A Muslim shop owner refuse to allow legitimate service dogs entry to his premises?
A bit of a difference in slavery and engaging in commerce, isn't there? Or no, I guess you wouldn't see that.
This particular case involved The Diocese of South Carolina withdrawing from The Episcopal Church and taking all of its $500 million in assets with it. The Episcopal Church sued to block the disassociation.
The Court found that “the Constitution and Canons of TEC have no provisions which state that a member diocese cannot voluntarily withdraw its membership.” The ruling found that had there been such a provision, it would have violated the Diocese’s “constitutionally-protected right” to freedom of association. “With the freedom to associate goes its corollary, the freedom to disassociate,” Judge Goodstein said.
The challenge now is how to incorporate this South Carolina Circuit Court ruling with other state court rulings going the other way, so that the Supreme Court of the United States affirms that there is a "corollary freedom to disassociate" such that small businesses can choose to not associate in business contracts they find unacceptable.
Coerced or forced association is slavery.
-PJ
Okay, here we agree on something. It was bound to happen eventually. :)
There is little difference between slavery and forced commerce, there is only a question of degree. In both cases, someone is compelling someone else to do their bidding.
Would you also agree with me that the businesses in question should be required to prominently display their preferences so that customers know ahead of time?
Now this I don't know about. It would be appropriate for them to do so, but to make it a requirement enforced by the Government would seem to go a little too far.
People have a right to be @$$holes, even though we wish they wouldn't. Trying to use the government to stop people from being @$$holes seems like a bad idea.
The government requires them to serve people they would rather not serve right now. I would think that the freedom to cater to whomever you want to would more than offset a requirement that you clearly identify those people ahead of time. Looking at it another way, it allows the market to decide who to patronize and who not to.
People have a right to be @$$holes, even though we wish they wouldn't. Trying to use the government to stop people from being @$$holes seems like a bad idea.
I don't see it as the government trying to stop people. I view it as a encouraging freedom of choice and promoting open markets where everyone has the same information. What you seem to want is to allow people to be @$$holes in secret and not bring it out until the consumer has already wasted their time coming to the shop in the first place.
That people aren't informed by signs doesn't make it a "secret." For most of this country's existence, the idea of refusing service to homosexuals would have been regarded as "normal." It was the default condition of every business.
I can see where a sign would simply invite harassment from homosexual groups, and the history of their movement has shown that they will get dangerously violent if necessary to push their agenda.
The only reason homosexuality has been removed from the list of psychiatric disorders was because of a campaign of threats and intimidation from homosexuals against the doctors making up the American Psychiatric Association for years leading up to their 1973 decision.
Doctors were threatened if they didn't vote to remove homosexuality from the list of disorders.
I do not believe homosexuals are entitled to know that their patronage would be rejected by the business owner, because this would make such businesses the targets of intimidation campaigns. (Ala Kim Davis in Kentucky)
Homosexuals should either be cured or go back in the closet. They absolutely should not be indulged.
For most of this country's existence the idea of refusing service to people based on race or religion was regarded as "normal". This would also allow a return to that.
I can see where a sign would simply invite harassment from homosexual groups, and the history of their movement has shown that they will get dangerously violent if necessary to push their agenda.
That can work both ways. Sure posting a sign that says you don't cater to homosexuals - or blacks or Muslims or fill-in-the-blank - might cause some people not to patronize your place of business. But it might also attract customers with similar beliefs who didn't patronize you before. And it won't impact people who don't care one way or the other. And freedom of association is guaranteed.
Homosexuals should either be cured or go back in the closet. They absolutely should not be indulged.
I don't see where my idea is indulging them in any way.
It might allow a return to that, but I very much doubt if the culture or the market would permit it.
That can work both ways. Sure posting a sign that says you don't cater to homosexuals - or blacks or Muslims or fill-in-the-blank - might cause some people not to patronize your place of business. But it might also attract customers with similar beliefs who didn't patronize you before. And it won't impact people who don't care one way or the other. And freedom of association is guaranteed.
None of that addresses the potential for harassment or violence that might occur as a result of such signs.
I have studied homosexuality since the 1990s, and while many homosexuals are able to function in our society without serious repercussions, there are a lot of them that are down right dangerous sociopaths. They don't have normal boundaries on the limits of their behavior, and they will act out, violently if necessary.
When they are "triggered" they often respond with acts far in excess of what a reasonable person would accept. I can recall any number of examples where they went hyper violent over very little in the way of provocation.
If you will study examples of when homosexuals are involved in murder, they are not simply content to kill someone. They must kill them with excessive brutality and violence. They won't stab someone once or twice, they will stab them 50 times. They won't bludgeon someone two or three times, they will beat their head into a paste.
Psychiatry rightly considered these people mentally ill, because their mental illness displays itself in ways beyond just engaging in sexual activities with other same gender people. (such as a propensity for suicide.)
You don't think establishments wouldn't put up "We do not cater to Muslims" signs? Some have already tried. Why shouldn't they be allowed to? Same with people who don't want to cater to other groups?
None of that addresses the potential for harassment or violence that might occur as a result of such signs.
OK so now establishments decides they don't want to cater to a particular group, they get taken to court, they get fined under current anti-discrimination laws. Where is that better than potential aggravation, which would be temporary and die out as this became the new norm? Long term it's the better solution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.