Welcome to Thunderdome

Malcolm wrote:

What I am saying is that someone else's beliefs and choices shouldn't be ignored to appease the first person.

This says

Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".

There's no way you'll convince me that religion, a thing that is your personal choice, deserves more protection than sexual orientation, which isn't something you choose. The fact that race and national origin are in there as well supports that theory. Later on, "gender" was added to that list, also something you're stuck with. I fail to see how the knowledge/belief in your own sexuality is any less important than your knowledge/belief in your preferred supernatural being(s).

This title declares it to be the policy of the United States that discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin shall not occur in connection with programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance and authorizes and directs the appropriate Federal departments and agencies to take action to carry out this policy.

I suppose as long as the owner receives absolutely zero federal assistance of any kind and does biz only in his state, then fine.

However, it looks like any public accommodation is subject.

There were white business owners who claimed that Congress did not have the constitutional authority to ban segregation in public accommodations. For example, Moreton Rolleston, the owner of a motel in Atlanta, Georgia, believed he should not be forced to serve black travelers, saying, “the fundamental question…is whether or not Congress has the power to take away the liberty of an individual to run his business as he sees fit in the selection and choice of his customers”. Rolleston used legal means in an attempt to prevent full equality for African Americans, claiming that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a breach of the Fourteenth Amendment. Also, Rolleston argued that the Fifth and Thirteenth Amendments were in violation as the bill deprived him of "liberty and property without due process”. In Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, Congress claimed that it drew its authority from the Constitution’s commerce clause, disagreeing with Rolleston’s claims.

Supreme Court says interstate commerce trumps your personal beliefs about your customers, be they religious or otherwise. Other than Moreton not wanting to deal with blacks as opposed to gays, I see little difference as far as legal merit goes.

Most businesses are public spaces. They involve things like sales tax, health codes, regulations, etc. They are not houses of faith. If someone files a tax return and lists themselves as biz owner, certain legal shit kicks in. Occasionally, I'll grant that some transactions shouldn't be covered by this. If the dude that teaches piano on your street doesn't want to give you private lessons because you're gay, that's his thing. If the dude that runs your local coffee shop doesn't serve you for the same reason, I consider it a whole different world.

Vince wrote:Sometimes I find myself praying for the EMP or solar flare that can send us back to the 19th century.

Malcolm wrote:

Vince wrote:Sometimes I find myself praying for the EMP or solar flare that can send us back to the 19th century.

Seriously? I do not recall fondly the era when blasphemy was still a crime. Just a short step backwards from there to burning at the stake. I wouldn't even want to go back to the 1980s or 1990s.

GORDON wrote:Ugh. I read a book like that a couple years ago. The first 18 months didn't sound like fun.

I would argue that the trend of being ostracized publicly for having your own opinion that varies from the opinion du jour is doing more damage to the first amendment than some baker not wanting to make a gay couple of cake (or whatever).

The last person killed for blasphemy in England was in the 1600's.

That seems unlikely. I'm sure there have been some blasphemy-motivated murders in recent years by people like these (in London):

Although, it is sort of humorous to see a damn the man and not religious fellow such as yourself cite something written by men as "the last word". Not saying it's wrong, I just find a bit of humor in that.

Um... I think you're going a ways further back than the 19th century. And it was never done here in the States. The practice was abandoned before we were a nation. The last person killed for blasphemy in England was in the 1600's.

Malcolm wrote:

Um... I think you're going a ways further back than the 19th century. And it was never done here in the States. The practice was abandoned before we were a nation. The last person killed for blasphemy in England was in the 1600's.

I didn't say "killed for it." I said it was a crime. 1600s to 1800s seems a pretty short step until the Industrial Revolution really kicked shit into gear.

TPRJones wrote:

GORDON wrote:Ugh. I read a book like that a couple years ago. The first 18 months didn't sound like fun.

I guess that would depend on if you like hanging black people or not.

Vince wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

Um... I think you're going a ways further back than the 19th century. And it was never done here in the States. The practice was abandoned before we were a nation. The last person killed for blasphemy in England was in the 1600's.

I didn't say "killed for it." I said it was a crime. 1600s to 1800s seems a pretty short step until the Industrial Revolution really kicked shit into gear.

It was never a crime here. In England it was a crime on the books until 2008, actually. Or within the last 10 or so years.

Weird, huh?

That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the Story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.

It additionally outlined that an offending teacher would be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined between $200 and $500 for each offense.

Malcolm wrote:

Vince wrote:

Malcolm wrote: I didn't say "killed for it." I said it was a crime. 1600s to 1800s seems a pretty short step until the Industrial Revolution really kicked shit into gear.

It was never a crime here. In England it was a crime on the books until 2008, actually. Or within the last 10 or so years.

Weird, huh?

Bull the fuck shit until 1925 in at least one state.

That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the Story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.

It additionally outlined that an offending teacher would be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined between $200 and $500 for each offense.

Blasphemous heretic convicted under law. Last blasphemous heretic imprisoned under law in 1838. Last time the US Supreme Court had to strike down a blasphemy law -- 195-fucking-4. Sodomy laws on the books until 2003, I'm sure for purely hygienic reasons.

Malcolm wrote:Is he objecting to the wedding? The fucking? Both? Would he bake a cake for a civil joining or does the gay fucking still exclude that possibility? How about a birthday cake?

TheCatt wrote:For Vince?