So a business has to bake cakes but can discriminate against a hat?

[pmclaine]

Courts rule that someone with a religous conviction must do something against their core beliefs, despite Constitutional Amendments that memorialize their natural right to do so but if a business wants to deny service to someone with a MAGA hat that is okay.

I guess a MAGA hat and first amendment free political speech doesnt apply to conservatives.

Im shocked, shocked I tell you....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5658483/Trump-supporter-lawsuit-against-NYC-bar-tossed.html

 

[Fig]

The principals at work in this court is why ultimately it will come down to a fight.

 

[pmclaine]

The principals at work in this court is why ultimately it will come down to a fight.

You have to be mentally deranged to not see the hypocrisy of their argument.

Free speech is exactly meant to regard political expression, in fact exactly so to keep us a free society. How they can say that freedom of speech in regards to politics is not protected is crazy.

If so Trump should outlaw any liberal speech today and see how they howl.

 

[W54/XM-388]

It's all about who is a "Protected Class"...
Which specifically excludes anyone who happens to be conservative, white, christian or normal male.

 

[MtnCreek]

You have to be mentally deranged to not see the hypocrisy of their argument.

Free speech is exactly meant to regard political expression, in fact exactly so to keep us a free society. How they can say that freedom of speech in regards to politics is not protected is crazy.

If so Trump should outlaw any liberal speech today and see how they howl.

I could be wrong, but it sounded like his suit was based on State and/or local discrimination laws, not Amendment 1 protections of free speech.

Either way, with what little I know about this, I believe the correct decision was made here. The have to bake a cake ruling is wrong.

 

[Frankly]

I don't like that the guy couldn't buy a drink because he wore a MAGA hat either BUT understand that this means that I don't have to do business with an AntifFa member either. If the ruling went the other way then you would be compelled to do business even with people you strongly disagree with politically.

It's pretty simple, Civil Rights extend to people based on their religion, gender, sex preference... you can still discriminate against people you don't like because of their appearance, politics, hygiene, whether they love dogs, etc. Our army of lawyers abuse this and we get a lot of absurd and stupid cases but I gotta agree with the courts this time around.

Of course I think the entire Civil Rights amendment should be repealed and we should return to having our natural right of free association. I have no idea why someone would want to eat or drink at an establishment that didn't welcome their business and the entire impetus for the Civil Rights movement was based on this fallacy.

But I don't expect this to change given our demographics and politics.

 

[pmclaine]

I could be wrong, but it sounded like his suit was based on State and/or local discrimination laws, not Amendment 1 protections of free speech.

Either way, with what little I know about this, I believe the correct decision was made here. The have to bake a cake ruling is wrong.

New York is one of the original 13 colonies. If you read the state Charters of the original 13 in most cases they are more protective than the COTUS, which makes the fact that most also tend to shit over people's Freedoms all the more disturbing.

Local law if in violation of COTUS is not a law.

Can some former slave holding state reinstitute slavery?

 

[MtnCreek]

Are you saying his Amendment I rights were violated by the bar?

"Local law if in violation of COTUS is not a law."
Agreed. The courts are not going to help though.

 

[pmclaine]

I don't like that the guy couldn't buy a drink because he wore a MAGA hat either BUT understand that this means that I don't have to do business with an AntifFa member either. If the ruling went the other way then you would be compelled to do business even with people you strongly disagree with politically.

It's pretty simple, Civil Rights extend to people based on their religion, gender, sex preference... you can still discriminate against people you don't like because of their appearance, politics, hygiene, whether they love dogs, etc. Our army of lawyers abuse this and we get a lot of absurd and stupid cases but I gotta agree with the courts this time around.

Of course I think the entire Civil Rights amendment should be repealed and we should return to having our natural right of free association. I have no idea why someone would want to eat or drink at an establishment that didn't welcome their business and the entire impetus for the Civil Rights movement was based on this fallacy.

But I don't expect this to change given our demographics and politics.

I support the right of any business to determine who it will or won't serve.

They should be able to tell any constituency to shit in their hat and than suffer the full weight of the negative or positive actions of that decision.

As a business though it makes no sense to me to alienate any population. All greenbacks look the same regardless of who hands them over as long as what you are doing is legal and not treasonous.

It's only in light of courts forcing conservative businesses to do things that violate their convictions that I even bring this up.

 

[pmclaine]

Are you saying his Amendment I rights were violated by the bar?

"Local law if in violation of COTUS is not a law."
Agreed. The courts are not going to help though.

Was his hat a form of speech?

Was his hat in any way obscene or otherwise offensive and would be a harm to the conduct of business.

I think a MAGA hat is speech. Would an "Obama 08" patron be refused service?

The business defined it as speech by their refusal to serve. Seems like the customer considered it a hat only.

And the courts not helping could b fixed by holding the judge in contempt or charg d with a civil rights violation.

If a cop makes an unlawful arrest their is no shielding from 4th amendment violation charges. Why does a judge get shielded in order to violate the COTUS?

Same needs to be considered with all these AG frivolous law suits that take advantage of the fact they get to use tax payer money to tilt at windmills while the "defendant" must rely on their own money to fight them.

If the AG loses a shitty case that AG should pay the bill personally.

 

[oneshot86]

whats Moses interpretation on this in accordance with the civil rights act of 64...

i like the right to refuse...

i think this fella knows he is not protected because he is using the religous card...

i think buttercup waisted some of his money

 

[MtnCreek]

Was the bar's refusal to serve him speech? Did they violate his right to speech by saying they wouldn't serve him?

"Would an "Obama 08" patron be refused service?"
If it were my bar, maybe. I'd sure as hell have the right to serve or tell them to GTFO.

 

[pmclaine]

whats Moses interpretation on this in accordance with the civil rights act of 64...

i like the right to refuse...

i think this fella knows he is not protected because he is using the religous card...

i think buttercup waisted some of his money

I like the right to refuse also but why isn't it also provided to a conservative?

Of course I know the reason why, it's just not appropriate in a Republic founded on law.

 

[pmclaine]

Was the bar's refusal to serve him speech? Did they violate his right to speech by saying they wouldn't serve him?

"Would an "Obama 08" patron be refused service?"
If it were my bar, maybe. I'd sure as hell have the right to serve or tell them to GTFO.

And in your private business I would agree you have that right.

In the same vein Yeti has the right to tell the NRA to fuck off.

So did the cake baker have the right to deny service except the courts said he could not.

Let the market decide.

A bar that refuses service to Trump voters will lose 50 percent of its possible customer base potentially. Probably won't be near that high in NYC but let businesses succeed or fail based on their policies.

Our nation only promotes equality of opportunity not equality of outcome.

The leftists are quickly changing that to "ensured outcome" for their constituents and "denial of opportunity" for conservatives.

 

[Rthur]

And in your private business I would agree you have that right.

In the same vein Yeti has the right to tell the NRA to fuck off.

So did the cake baker have the right to deny service except the courts said he could not.

Let the market decide.

A bar that refuses service to Trump voters will look se 50 percent of its possible customer base potentially. Probably won't be near that high in NYC but le businesses succeed or fail based on their policies.

Our nation only promotes equality of opportunity not equality of outcome.

The leftists are quickly changing that to "ensured outcome" for their constituents and "denial of opportunity" for conservatives.

Spot on P.
Anyone that has been awake for the last few years has seen the bias applied.
Using the "courts" to do so reveals their intent.

R

 

[Bender]

no hypocrisy at all

Gianteyeroll.gif

 

[Frankly]

The guy was arguing that his religious rights were being violated: "Piatek's attorney, said his client's hat was a 'spiritual tribute' to September 11 victims and that he should be protected under an anti-discrimination statute." I'm all for MAGA hats and triggering libtards but this was a bogus argument. MAGA hats are not religious and stretching definitions out so that they are is ridiculous. Not that it doesn't happen and no doubt he and the lawyer were looking for publicity or a quick buck.

It's this kind of petty convoluted stuff that is usually the domain of whiney liberals but just because a conservative used it doesn't make it right.

Breitbart and conservative media resort to clickbait too, the headline of the article is designed to get you worked up and click. Thousands of people did and they made a few bucks from the impressions. It's junk news like this that made me delete my Brietbart and Fox bookmarks, they're lousy journalists going for clicks, not fair facts. I get better quality news from RT for goodness sake. (Tucker Carlson aside)

As for the gays forcing the baker to make a cake, that was evil and spiteful but again, they gave gays civil rights protection and this is the consequence. You can't be a constitutionalist and then disobey the constitution. Of course somebody needs to challenge a Muslim bakery to bake a gay wedding cake yet, perhaps someone here should?

 

[Bender]

The guy was arguing that his religious rights were being violated: "Piatek's attorney, said his client's hat was a 'spiritual tribute' to September 11 victims and that he should be protected under an anti-discrimination statute." I'm all for MAGA hats and triggering libtards but this was a bogus argument. MAGA hats are not religious and stretching definitions out so that they are is ridiculous. Not that it doesn't happen and no doubt he and the lawyer were looking for publicity or a quick buck.

It's this kind of petty convoluted stuff that is usually the domain of whiney liberals but just because a conservative used it doesn't make it right.

Breitbart and conservative media resort to clickbait too, the headline of the article is designed to get you worked up and click. Thousands of people did and they made a few bucks from the impressions. It's junk news like this that made me delete my Brietbart and Fox bookmarks, they're lousy journalists going for clicks, not fair facts. I get better quality news from RT for goodness sake.

As for the gays forcing the baker to make a cake, that was evil and spiteful but again, they gave gays civil rights protection and this is the consequence. You can't be a constitutionalist and then disobey the constitution. Of course somebody needs to challenge a Muslim bakery to bake a gay wedding cake yet, perhaps someone here should?

Yes. I agree, My contention is having a protected class to begin with. Proof we are not equal.

 

[oneshot86]

Spot on P.
Anyone that has been awake for the last few years has seen the bias applied.
Using the "courts" to do so reveals their intent.


good job with the P.

dont call him phil, he gets mad...
R

 

[MtnCreek]

Now all I need is a muslim baker and a shyster lawyer.

 

[W54/XM-388]

Now I wonder if the guy goes back to the same place with a hat that says

LGBT+ united for Trump MAGA

Now see them start to freak out.

 

[Veer_G]

Hmm. Once upon a time, I was refused access to a gunshop's range because I refused to remove my "hat." Very significantly, our advocacy groups didn't want to touch it with a ten-foot pole. It seems that they're only willing to lend support if it promotes a squeaky-clean, highly innocuous vision of us.

 

[sirhrmechanic]

Activist judges....

On the bright side, Trump is going to get to replace a huge chunk of 9th Circuit... the uber lefty court out West. It will become conservative... for decades.

His judicial appointments are going to resonate until after I'm buried!

Cheers,

Sirhr

 

[Bender]

Activist judges....

On the bright side, Trump is going to get to replace a huge chunk of 9th Circuit... the uber lefty court out West. It will become conservative... for decades.

His judicial appointments are going to resonate until after I'm buried!

Cheers,

Sirhr

I’m not a mega fan of the Don, but I loooove that the (unt lost and that Trump is choosing excellent judges. This was THE most important aspect of him winning. I agree 1000%.

 

[oneshot86]

Hmm. Once upon a time, I was refused access to a gunshop's range because I refused to remove my "hat." Very significantly, our advocacy groups didn't want to touch it with a ten-foot pole. It seems that they're only willing to lend support if it promotes a squeaky-clean, highly innocuous vision of us.

we, humans, obviously, are our own worse enemys, i hate hearing about incidences like that veer...
i hope we can evolve before we destroy our selves

 

[Veer_G]

we, humans, obviously, are our own worse enemys, i hate hearing about incidences like that veer...
i hope we can evolve before we destroy our selves

You and me both.