(cache) silky_flubber_lipsがThe intolerant ...について記入したコメント

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And then I'll point you to the dictionary act, 1 USC 1:

the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;

Applying the definition of person to the constitution, under the law, businesses have equal protection to their freedoms of speech and religious expression.

[–]ratatatar 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 2 時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]dudenamedben 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 2 時間前 (1子コメント)

このスレッドの続きを見る

[–]bllasaeLibertarian Conservative 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 1 時間前 (0子コメント)

[+]HuevoSplash スコアが基準値未満のコメント-7 ポイント-6 ポイント-5 ポイント 3 時間前 (10子コメント)

They are absolutely free to disagree with them and not serve them. In the huge majority (all but 3, I think?) of states private businesses are permitted to discriminate against gay couples.

That they are then nailed in the theater of public opinion has nothing to do with their freedoms as granted in the constitution.

Goldwater was right. The conservative wing is being lost to religious issues irrelevant to conservative governance of this nation.

Laws line Indianas, "reinforcing" a preexisting right, are a good way to turn centrists away and simultaneously accelerate the timeline until gays are granted federal civil rights protections. So the religious right is shooting themselves in the foot, too.

But the right seems to be unable to behave politically intelligent and play this wisely.

[–]AKSasquatchLibertarian Atheist -2 ポイント-1 ポイント0 ポイント 3 時間前 (9子コメント)

[–]HuevoSplash 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 2 時間前 (7子コメント)

[–]AKSasquatchLibertarian Atheist 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 2 時間前 (6子コメント)

[–]HuevoSplash 2 ポイント3 ポイント4 ポイント 2 時間前* (3子コメント)

[–]AKSasquatchLibertarian Atheist 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 2 時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]parkoworkLibertarian Conservative 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 1 時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]ultimisConstitutionalist 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 50 分前 (0子コメント)

Race is a protected class because it is visible and there was a concerted effort in certain states and communities to make them feel inferior.

LGBT status can't be determined as easily as race, and nearly all businesses do business with such people. Refusing to provide a service to a gay wedding is not refusing business to gay people. They object to the concept of a "gay marriage" and do not wish to participate. Considering in most states the only reason the definition of "gay marriage" isn't an oxymoron is because of court mandate.

So to give a similar output. If the NRA went a caterer who was anti-gun/pacifists they would be within their rights to refuse the NRA service for a pro-gun event. The NRA wouldn't sue them and force them to cater their event. Now if the caterer refused to do business with someone because they're an NRA member, that would be unethical.

In both cases the business loses money. That is their choice to make. If they are colluding with multiple business to harass specific demographics then there is a problem (which is why Civil Rights legislation was so important).

[–]Trolling_Rolling 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 2 時間前 (1子コメント)

Under what law? This is the 5 year old break down of your logic. I, person A, owns a business. I, person A, have a certain set of beliefs. Person B walks into the shop and wants my service. I, person A, don't feel that according to my beliefs and rights as a business owner that I should serve Person B. If person B is offended by my lack of service he has the right, as a consumer, to not spend his hard earned dollars there, thus hurting me, person A with his decision. When person B can sue me over my beliefs and rights then what you're trying to tell me is that legally Persons B's right are worth more than Person A's. Why is this so hard for people to understand!? You have the right to go shopping. I have the right to say no to you. You have the right to say no to my service. You do NOT have the right to be un-offended by a business. Deal with it.

[–]GravityBound 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 24 分前 (0子コメント)

[–]commonsensehero -1 ポイント0 ポイント1 ポイント 2 時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Popular-Uprising-Libertarian Conservative 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 1 時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Keep-reefer-illegal -4 ポイント-3 ポイント-2 ポイント 3 時間前 (0子コメント)

π Rendered by PID 25898 on app-21 at 2015-04-08 19:44:36.896704+00:00 running dfdfdbf country code: JP.

Conservative

Subreddit of interest: /r/neoconservatism

Mission

Rules

On the Right

Noteworthy

Enduring Values

Related

People

Regional

Non-U.S.

調停者