|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
144 registered members (JCL, BCLC, Turkey, TexasHuntress, cullbuck, Herdbull, PYhunter, Cuz-Pat, Offshore, brianr, Whild_Bill, Bustinbeards, M48scout, Ron A., AU338MAG, Spec, BobK, 3006bullet, jtillery, Skullworks, CNC, klay, Scdoghunter667, Peanut Man, gbee, 007, curt99rsv, Gobble4me757, woodduck, BamaFan64, Joe4majors, dsmc, BuckRidge17, Dubie, akbejeepin, AJones, jhardy, Longtine, Standbanger, Pwyse, Turberville, Hunting15, BUCK EYES, oakachoy, bambam32, Moose24, 2walnuts, Frankie, clayk, JohnG, Turkey_neck, PossumPecker, Cactus_buck, Shane99, dquick1, Drew93, jwalker77, MarksOutdoors, Morris, LostinTX, Pipedream, Fedex 1, BC, outdoorguy88, OutdoorsAL, bholmes, MAG, Hotrod20, rrice0725, abolt300, TwoRs, fur_n_feathers, biglmbass, Ten37, mathews prostaff, Bamajoz, kaintuck, kyles, Floorman1, canine933, Daniel4191, deerman24, Chiller, Bruno, headshot, jlbuc10, AHolcomb, XVIII, BearBranch, janiemae, Paxamus, DoeNut, need2hunt, 3bailey3, Engine5, Tree Hanger, Ridge Life, deadeye48, Ryano, sawdust, BigA47, catdoctor, rickyh_2, KnightRyder, goodman_hunter, jake5050, Butchman205, Wes7777, Ar-Humter, JSOG47, Kemosabe, canichols424, phinfan, lectrode, SEWoodsWhitetail, wk2hnt, GUT_SHOT, !shiloh!, ts1979flh, gmterry, Red Fox, imadeerhntr, DuckDown11, Flyliner, GomerPyle, Narrow Gap, BradB, AU7MM08, canvasback, Sus scrofa Reduction Specialist, 3Gs, Ben Downs, 12 invisible),
423
guests, and 0
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: supreme court's ruling
[Re: judge sharpe]
#2321984
12/07/17 08:48 AM
12/07/17 08:48 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,363
Montgomery
WmHunter
14 point
|
14 point
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,363
Montgomery
|
The Supreme Court has said, in a case out of Birmingham, Alabama that you can not discriminate against African- Americans in public accommodations. Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964). Ollie's Barbecue refused to serve Blacks because of race. This was discrimination based on race and was based in part on the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, and interstate travel and commerce.
That is NOT an accurate statement of the law or that famous court case. The Katzenback case did not deal with the Commerce Clause/U.S. Constitution standing alone as some kind of independent legal right or claim against Ollie's BBQ. That case had to do with the application of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, its scope and power and how it could be applied to "public accommodations." In other words, at issue was the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 itself, and the constitutionality of its application to Ollies restaurant. Every legal scholar knew then and knows now that it was an EXTREMELY stretched version of the Commerce Clause that was used as the alleged basis of power for Congress to even pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Even AG Bobby Kennedy thought it was a bs stretch and argued for Congress to dream up a different basis of alleged Congressional power to pass that law. Of course, the "progressive" used the bs "affectation doctrine" and the bs "cumulative affects" doctrine to uphold the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its application to the Bham restaurant. >>> There is no "affectation" doctrine or "cumulative affects" doctrine in the Commerce Clause. That comes from what is called "progressive" and "evolving" constitutional theory that says federal judges SHOULD by judicial fiat and bias amend the Constitution via judicial decision making. We saw that in Roe vs. Wade and the Obergfell sodomite cases. >>>Now here is the next point: that 1964 Act has never been amended to add "sexual orientation" or anything of the sort. So the Civil Rights Act CANNOT be legitimately applied in the baker case. The ENTIRE basis of the queer cake case is based on the 666 Colorado statute (this is why such laws should be rejected by the states) and the bs 666 Obergfell decision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katzenbach_v._McClung
"The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson
" Chuck Sykes is a dictator control freak like Vladimir Putin " WmHunter
|
|
|
Re: supreme court's ruling
[Re: judge sharpe]
#2321995
12/07/17 08:57 AM
12/07/17 08:57 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 25,206
Guntersville, AL
IDOT
I am Cornholio
|
I am Cornholio
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 25,206
Guntersville, AL
|
I don't know what the answer is. Do You.
I think Fred hit on the head...IMO I think as a private individual or private owned business you ought to be able to deny service to anyone you damn well please. You don't like it take yer business somewhere else.
If you’re a common sense person, you probably don’t feel you have a home in this world right now. If you’re a Christian, you know you were never meant to.
|
|
|
Re: supreme court's ruling
[Re: WmHunter]
#2322021
12/07/17 09:21 AM
12/07/17 09:21 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 34,872
Boxes Cove
2Dogs
Freak of Nature
|
Freak of Nature
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 34,872
Boxes Cove
|
>>>Now here is the next point: that 1964 Act has never been amended to add "sexual orientation" or anything of the sort. So the Civil Rights Act CANNOT be legitimately applied in the baker case.
Alan Dershowitz , Constitutional Law professor , cited this fact the other night.
"Why do you ask"?
Always vote the slowest path to socialism.
|
|
|
Re: supreme court's ruling
[Re: 2Dogs]
#2322047
12/07/17 09:37 AM
12/07/17 09:37 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,363
Montgomery
WmHunter
14 point
|
14 point
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,363
Montgomery
|
>>>Now here is the next point: that 1964 Act has never been amended to add "sexual orientation" or anything of the sort. So the Civil Rights Act CANNOT be legitimately applied in the baker case.
Alan Dershowitz , Constitutional Law professor , cited this fact the other night. Yes he did. The precise legal issue (question) in the baker case is this: Whether the Colorado "anti-discrimination" statute overrides the baker's First Amendment religious rights, and First Amendment creativity rights, (and don't know if this was raised but I would also say a violation of the 13th Amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude) under the facts of the case: refusing to customize a cake for sodomites. If the SCOTUS says yes, then the First Amendment protection of freedom of religion is DEAD WRIT. Libertarian oriented Kennedy will be the swing vote in this case. And the true freedoms at issue in this case ARE EXPRESSLY STATED IN THE CONSTITUTION - and ALL those rights belong to the baker.
"The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson
" Chuck Sykes is a dictator control freak like Vladimir Putin " WmHunter
|
|
|
Re: supreme court's ruling
[Re: judge sharpe]
#2322116
12/07/17 10:11 AM
12/07/17 10:11 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 33,437
Your mom’s house
doekiller
Freak of Nature
|
Freak of Nature
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 33,437
Your mom’s house
|
The Supreme Court has said, in a case out of Birmingham, Alabama that you can not discriminate against African- Americans in public accommodations. Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964). Ollie's Barbecue refused to serve Blacks because of race. This was discrimination based on race and was based in part on the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, and interstate travel and commerce.
That has been the law of the land for generations.
The case was not about religious beliefs, but only could a person refuse service to another based on the race of the other person. But suppose that Ollie McClung said he refused to serve persons of color because he believed they had the mark of Ham on them and his religious beliefs caused him to believe that serving them was a sin.
HE WOULD HAVE LOST.
Fast forward from 1964 to present day.
You have many of the same elements. Public accommodations (open to and doing business with the public), Interstate Commerce ( ingredients used in the cake traveled in interstate commerce, members of the public who avail them selves of the service and products offered, and a business man who refused service to those members of the public. He is claiming that his religious beliefs forbid him from providing service to a segment of the population he disagrees with, i.e. homosexuls who want to be married.
Where is the difference in refusing service and products to Blacks and homosexual persons?
REmember that in the early days there were ministers who could find justification to discriminate against African-Americans in the Bible.
I think in a split decision, the Bakery owner will lose.
I do not disagree with owner's decision to refuse to make the cake, but discrimination based on a claim of religious freedom is awfully speculative. Suppose he had refused to make a special cake for a male and a female deer hunter, with camo on it and antlers and representations of firearms. Because the way he reads his Bible, hunting and guns are sinful, and he refused to provide the service based on his strongly held religious beliefs? Who on here would say, " He has a right to refuse to serve the deer hunters due to his religious beliefs."?
I don't know what the answer is. Do You. I disagree. Homosexuality is not a federally protected class. Never has been. It is a huge jump. Deer hunter aren't protected either.
|
|
|
|
