ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, May 13, 2017

The war for free association

Is eventually going to have to go to either a) Congress or b) the Supreme Court, given the wide range of contradictory court decisions.
A Kentucky appellate court on Friday ruled that the Christian owner of a printing shop in Lexington had the right to refuse to make T-shirts promoting a local gay pride festival. The dispute represents the latest court fight testing the limits of antidiscrimination protections for gays and lesbians following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 landmark ruling legalizing gay marriage nationwide. The cases have led to a number of state court rulings against Christian-owned businesses that refused to bake cakes, design floral arrangements or take portrait photographs for same-sex weddings.
This would be an easy win for the God-Emperor. An executive order protecting free association for business owners would be extremely popular with every Christian who doesn't want to bake a gay cake, every Jew who doesn't want to print a Nazi t-shirt, and every black who doesn't want to arrange flowers for the KK.

The fact is that everyone has the intrinsic human right to refuse to provide their services to anyone for any reason whatsoever. The only question is whether governments and laws respect that right or illegitimately infringe upon it.

Discrimination is both a logical necessity and an intrinsic human right.

Labels: ,

97 Comments:

Blogger dc.sunsets May 13, 2017 2:36 PM  

B-b-b-but in a perfect world no one would feel the need to say no to others, and perfection is our goal.

Cue the prescribed two-minute's hate.

Blogger Doom May 13, 2017 2:38 PM  

And it's fun for the whole family!

Blogger SteelPalm May 13, 2017 2:47 PM  

I have always wondered why anyone would want to force someone that dislikes them to make a cake or pizza for them.

At best, they will do a lousy, uninspired job. At worst, they could poison it.

Anonymous DirkH May 13, 2017 2:51 PM  

If a gay has the right to force a baker to make him a wedding cake for his gay wedding, then a Muslim or Jew has the right to force a butcher to provide him with kosher/halal meat.

Blogger TheMaleRei May 13, 2017 2:53 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger DonReynolds May 13, 2017 2:54 PM  

Even a hooker has the right to refuse a customer request.
Small business owners are not rent-a-slave. They...and they alone.....know what resources they are willing to devote, the terms of the sale, their ability to deliver the good or service, and the REPUTATION of their business. For many small business owners, the reputation of the firm is their own reputation. The creditworthiness of the firm is their own personal creditworthiness, whether incorporated or unincorporated, they alone can obligate the firm with their own signature.

Of course, every small business refuses business offers every day....whether to buy or to sell. If any twisted legal interpretation claims they cannot refuse to sell then the same argument would be made that they could not refuse to buy as well. After all, the party attempting to sell a good or service to the small business may be Negro, or Hispanic, or a Woman, or a Homosexual, or a Tranny....and to refuse to BUY from them would be at least as "hateful" as refusing to SELL. Would that same twisted interpretation apply to panhandlers, solicitors for non-profit groups, fundraisers for various political, ethnic, and social groups? Can everyone claim my money simply because I employ myself?

Anonymous LES May 13, 2017 2:54 PM  

I just began reading Marx's essay on The Jewish Question. He discusses political and human emancipation. I found the following site to be helpful in understanding the Cultural Marxism of today.
Emancipation per Marx

Blogger TheMaleRei May 13, 2017 2:54 PM  

@3

I think it's just spite, plain and simple. Especially when they think they have the infinite power of murder and rape at their back (in the form of the State) to support their spiteful 'morality' - or whatever they think they have in their brains / heart.

Blogger Nate May 13, 2017 3:02 PM  

Only a retard doesn't discriminate. We discriminate every second of every day. and if we don't... we're barbarians.

Blogger Ransom Smith May 13, 2017 3:10 PM  

Only a retard doesn't discriminate. We discriminate every second of every day. and if we don't... we're barbarians.

I do this every day ignoring people I don't like.

Anonymous Bob May 13, 2017 3:25 PM  

Discrimination is already legal ... just not by white Christian heterosexual males. Why pretend Jews or negroes would ever have to do anything they don't want?

Blogger tublecane May 13, 2017 3:25 PM  

@6-"Even a hooker has a right to refuse a customer request"

That brings forth an interesting question. If you've ever looked at "escort" advertising, you realize rather quickly a lot of them, maybe a majority, deny service to a particular racial group. You know, the type to have a high propensity for violence, STDs, running trains, and bad manners in general. (Plus, probably bad hygiene and little money, but they're not the only group of which that's true.) Even--especially?--black hookers are likely to specify: "No AA men."

Imagine prostitution were legal (which is the fact in some jurisdictions). Would the state feel compelled to outlaw discrimination on the basis of race for whom girls allow into their special places? Race usually trumps sex in the PC hierarchy. So get into bed with Shitavious, ladies.

Beyond that, what about discrimination on the basis of "orientation?" Would straight girls be forced into bisexuality? These are the sort of deep questions produced by our civilization in this Current Year.

Anonymous Bob May 13, 2017 3:27 PM  

Involuntary servitude depends on enforcement by the state.

Anonymous Deplorable Winning May 13, 2017 3:28 PM  

DonReynolds wrote:If any twisted legal interpretation claims they cannot refuse to sell then the same argument would be made that they could not refuse to buy as well.

Two perfect examples of corporatism/fascism. You cannot refuse to buy automobile* insurance or (Obamacare) health insurance.

The "traffic" (synonym: "commerce") laws became the gateway regs for much of the abuse of the Interstate Commerce Clause, beginning in the 1920's, famously in the 1930's. Maybe the Christian-baker case was the opposite of your proposal- the bakers were forced to sell because of the success they have had with forcing to buy.

*Notice it's "automobile insurance" that is then converted to apply to an alleged "motor vehicle". That's how the scam works, sleight-of-words.

Blogger Artisanal Toad May 13, 2017 3:32 PM  

The problem is one of status. A sole proprietorship has the absolute right to discriminate absent some specific agreement not to discriminate because they do business in their personal capacity.

A corporation is a far different story. Hale v Henkel is the controlling authority: "the corporation is the creature of the state..." and if the state code concerning corporations forbids discrimination, they are in violation. Nobody held a gun to their head and required that they incorporate, they did it in order to obtain certain franchises and benefits. For which there is always a price to be paid.

Anonymous Bz May 13, 2017 3:35 PM  

AirBnB is another example. Unsurprising, it's a SV company.

"In an interview, Chris Lehane, the head of global policy for Airbnb, said the company was being proactive in dealing with discrimination claims. Airbnb recently removed two of its hosts, including one for writing racist epithets to a black user and another for refusing a transgender woman as a guest. Mr. Lehane said the company suspended, or in some cases permanently banned, those who violated its anti-discrimination policy. ..."

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/20/technology/airbnb-vows-to-fight-racism-but-its-users-cant-sue-to-prompt-fairness.html?_r=0

"Airbnb hosts may not
Decline a guest based on race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status. ..."

https://www.airbnb.ca/terms/nondiscrimination_policy

Blogger tublecane May 13, 2017 3:38 PM  

@6-To answer your question about buying, I don't see why you wouldn't be forced at some point to buy from protected classes willy-nilly, if you're not now. Why not? There's nothing stopping this wild anti-discriminatory ride, short of civilizational collapse or (fingers crossed) successful political reaction.

Anti-discrimination is like egalitarianism, in that both movements have impossible goals. We'll never not discriminate, just as we'll never be equal. There will always, always be things between which to discriminate. For that very reason, both are ironically powerful. The quest to eradicate discrimination will never end because discrimination will never end, you see.

In the meantime, they can be arbitrary about it and not care, because at least they're making Progress. (Leftward drift = progress.)

Anonymous frank1961 May 13, 2017 3:38 PM  

I may have even said this here before in response to something else(if so, I apologize for being repetitive).

To me this is common sense: ANYONE should be free to discriminate, either FOR or AGAINST, anyone else for any reason, or for no reason. Just so long as one does not commit violence, theft, fraud or slander(things which are already illegal of themselves). This is freedom of association. If that hurts someone's itty-bitty feelings then-- they should GROW UP.

My father lived in a world where this was so; the world I grew up in was still much like it.

Blogger StatesRights May 13, 2017 3:40 PM  

The freedom to associate is in its very implication the freedom to discriminate.

Blogger Valtandor Nought May 13, 2017 3:48 PM  

Artisanal Toad, I understand that in many places around the US, a business (including a sole trader or unlimited partnership) can be denied a business licence - that is, the privilege of carrying on the business from anywhere other than a private residence - if that person or those people do not comply with anti-discrimination ordinances.

Blogger Benjamin Kraft May 13, 2017 3:54 PM  

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Anti-Discrimination literally means Anti-Decision, and it should only be allowed in cases such as Abortion, where the choice in question clearly infringes more on the life and liberties of the person not making the choice (by murdering them, in that case) than it does on the person attempting to make the choice.

Blogger Valtandor Nought May 13, 2017 3:54 PM  

Further to which, I'm also told that city officials can put padlocks and other such things on "unlicensed" business premises, and suspect that doing so doesn't relieve the businessman of his obligation to pay rent, property taxes, and the like in respect of the premises. And that's before you get to the fines and damages that are assessed (and may accrue daily until compliance is achieved).

In short, it's not simply a matter of the type of legal entity that is involved.

Blogger Artisanal Toad May 13, 2017 3:55 PM  

@20

Which is why I stated "absent some specific agreement not to discriminate". When you step into commerce you step onto their playground and they make the rules.

Keep in mind that a license is a permission from a competent authority to do something that would otherwise be illegal, a tort or a trespass.

Blogger Benjamin Kraft May 13, 2017 3:57 PM  

Oh, yes, the anti-discrimination law that was used in the case of the Christian bakers is totally in violation of US Forced Labor Law, namely 18 U.S. Code 1589.

Blogger Duke Norfolk May 13, 2017 3:57 PM  

Of course all these wonderful rational and dialectic arguments are completely irrelevant.

It's all about power.

The power to make their enemies do what they want them to do. And hopefully crush them with the power of the state.

I really don't know why folks like the bakery don't just make the damned cake and make a crappy product. Not so bad that it's too obvious, because I'm sure that some judge will find a way to make that illegal. Just bad enough to make the customer dissatisfied. Fighting the govt on this in court is economic suicide.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( don't trifle with me, son. i'm a professional, certified 4th degree black belt in the ancient Hebrew martial art of Kibitz Maga ) May 13, 2017 4:00 PM  

15. Artisanal Toad May 13, 2017 3:32 PM
A sole proprietorship has the absolute right to discriminate absent some specific agreement not to discriminate because they do business in their personal capacity.



i'm no lawyer, but i'm pretty sure you're going to get a nasty surprise if that's the route you decide to play for defense.

as i understand it, most of this crap arises from two legal principles:
a - the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment
b - the Interstate Commerce clause of Article 1


you can debate the Constitutionality of EP all you want, it has clearly been expanded FAR beyond any conceptualization of those who wrote it in 1870. it's to the point now where there is overt competition amongst different groups to get themselves listed as a protected minority group specifically in order to advantage themselves of the minority preferences now enacted in Law.

because legal advantages for minorities are 'Equal Protection' in the funhouse mirror of modern American jurisprudence.

so far as Interstate Commerce goes, that's what got the bakery. unless you can PROVE that EVERY ingredient, substance and supply that you purchase was NOT sourced across state lines ... you're engaged in 'Interstate Commerce'.

thus the Federal Government has the 'right' and 'authority' to limit and constrain a private citizen engaged in purely local commerce.

these two reasons are all the "legal basis" that was needed to force privately owned drug stores to serve Blacks.

and make no mistake: that's how far back we're going to have to go to over turn this perversion of the Rights of We The People.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( don't trifle with me, son. i'm a professional, certified 4th degree black belt in the ancient Hebrew martial art of Kibitz Maga ) May 13, 2017 4:07 PM  

23. Artisanal Toad May 13, 2017 3:55 PM
When you step into commerce you step onto their playground and they make the rules.



you asserted that Sole Proprieterships could evade this regulation by the state.

i don't think that's going to work.

Blogger Valtandor Nought May 13, 2017 4:08 PM  

Artisanal Toad,

For what it's worth, I find the whole concept of having to ask for permission to carry on a business or undertaking in the general case to be absurd.

(Yes, there are exceptions, such as planning and zoning rules, food safety measures, and specifically regulated professions like medicine and law. I'm not talking about these. And they aren't really relevant to the issue of non-discrimination anyway.)

If I live somewhere, unless I'm born into money or subsisting on a mix of welfare and charity, I'm going to be selling my labour in or near the place where I live. A legislative requirement from on high that I must sell my labour in a non-discriminatory way (whether directly on me as a business owner, or on my employer if I'm a hired man) hardly constitutes my "specific agreement". And just because a specific set of acts of commerce is public (involving more than my immediate family living under my roof) does not give the government the moral right to regulate every jot and tittle of it, or to say that since I have in the past sold A to Alice, I must now sell B to Bob on comparable terms.

Blogger Ingot9455 May 13, 2017 4:09 PM  

@26 "I really don't know why folks like the bakery don't just make the damned cake and make a crappy product."

Because the people trolling for a court case don't go for that. Much like the people cheating the stock market currently, they 'ping' everyone in the jurisdiction with a letter asking, "We want to hire you to cater our wedding, and by the way, let me make this clear, we are totally gay." Anyone who sends them an acceptance, they ignore. Anyone who says 'no', they sue.

That lying trolling 'ping' is the part of it that personally annoys me.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 13, 2017 4:10 PM  

((( bob kek mando ))) - ( don't trifle with me, son. i'm a professional, certified 4th degree black belt in the ancient Hebrew martial art of Kibitz Maga ) wrote:so far as Interstate Commerce goes, that's what got the bakery. unless you can PROVE that EVERY ingredient, substance and supply that you purchase was NOT sourced across state lines ... you're engaged in 'Interstate Commerce'.
Under Wickard, that's not true. Anything that might affect interstate commerce is subject to that authority, including, in Wickard's case, growing your own grain to feed your own pigs for consumption by your own family.
Under Wickard, only assertions of regulatory power that affect constitutional rights are subject to judicial review.
As the SC has interpreted the Commerce Clause, literally anything you do, including planting a garden, cutting your hair, teaching your children, or, yes, baking a cake, entirely from ingredients sourced from within a single state, is subject to the Commerce clause, and hence, Federal Regulation.

Blogger Valtandor Nought May 13, 2017 4:14 PM  

What's the rule? Any activity that produces or consumes something valuable (thanks, Wickard v. Filburn!) or decision not to so produce or consume (thanks, Affordable Care Act!), affects interstate commerce in some way, and is therefore a legitimate subject of federal regulation?

Blogger tublecane May 13, 2017 4:22 PM  

@33-I think the Obamacare decision stopped short of saying non-action is regulatable as commerce. Instead, they ignored the part where the law ordered you to buy insurance and played up the penalty for not buying insurance as a tax.

Still, any activity whatsoever may constitute interstate commerce, and I imagine they'll get around to deeming non-action as commerce, too, if they ever feel like it.

Blogger Duke Norfolk May 13, 2017 4:23 PM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:As the SC has interpreted the Commerce Clause, literally anything you do, including planting a garden, cutting your hair, teaching your children, or, yes, baking a cake, entirely from ingredients sourced from within a single state, is subject to the Commerce clause, and hence, Federal Regulation.

Indeed. The Commerce clause absurdity is possibly the best example of how our constitution is a dead letter. There are no limits any more. Let's stop pretending that it's meaningful. It's all about raw political power. Playing the game any other way is foolish and suicidal.

Blogger Artisanal Toad May 13, 2017 4:24 PM  

@27

Bob, I was making a point about status and the impact it has (which most are clueless about), but even assuming private character there can be other issues. However, there is never any need to get more involved if there is a status issue, which most are unaware of.

I'll agree (generally) with what you've said. And under rational basis you are correct, they win. However, shift this rascal over to an issue of violations of religious free exercise combined with violations of (another Constitutionally protected right) and the entire issue is now shifted over into strict scrutiny.

Lo and Behold! The government can no longer win with rational basis, they have to argue why they are forced to violate your rights and why there are no other means by which their goals can be accomplished other than by violating your rights. With a good case it's difficult to lose once you get it over into strict scrutiny.

Justice Scalia was most helpful in explaining that, so you might want to take a look at Employment Div, Dep’t of Human Resources v Smith, 494 US 872, 881; 110 S Ct 1595; 108 L Ed 2d 876 (1990). Notice what Justice Scalia said in the Smith case and see if you see something interesting:

*881 The only decisions in which we have held that the First Amendment bars application of a neutral, generally applicable law to religiously motivated action have involved not the Free Exercise Clause alone, but the Free Exercise Clause in conjunction with other constitutional protections, such as freedom of speech and of the press, see Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S., at 304-307 (invalidating a licensing system for religious and charitable solicitations under which the administrator had discretion to deny a license to any cause he deemed nonreligious);
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U. S. 105 (1943) (invalidating a flat tax on solicitation as applied to the dissemination of religious ideas);
Follett v. McCormick, 321 U. S. 573 (1944) (same), or the right of parents, acknowledged in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 (1925), to direct the education of their children, see Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205 (1972) (invalidating compulsory school-attendance laws as applied to Amish parents who refused on religious grounds to send their children to school).

882*882 Some of our cases prohibiting compelled expression, decided exclusively upon free speech grounds, have also involved freedom of religion, cf. Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U. S. 705 (1977) (invalidating compelled display of a license plate slogan that offended individual religious beliefs);

West Virginia Bd. of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624 (1943) (invalidating compulsory flag salute statute challenged by religious objectors).

And it is easy to envision a case in which a challenge on freedom of association grounds would likewise be reinforced by Free Exercise Clause concerns. Cf. Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U. S. 609, 622 (1984) (“An individual’s freedom to speak, to worship, and to petition the government for the redress of grievances could not be vigorously protected from interference by the State [if] a correlative freedom to engage in group effort toward those ends were not also guaranteed”).

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 13, 2017 4:26 PM  

Valtandor Nought wrote:What's the rule?
Essentially, the court ruled that it was not up to the courts to decide whether an assertion of authority under the commerce clause was legitimate. In other words, the court completely abandoned any oversight whatsoever of federal regulation, and rendered the phrase "interstate commerce" void of meaning. The only exception carved out was the Lopez decision, which, 60 years later, held that the Commerce Clause was subordinate to enumerated civil rights, in this case the 2nd amendment.

Blogger Robert What? May 13, 2017 4:29 PM  

Sorry all, but except for the rare case Vox cited, freedom of association is reserved only for those who are not White, Christian males. It's the law.

Blogger Valtandor Nought May 13, 2017 4:31 PM  

I see, Snidely. I have to say, I'm glad that where I live we came by Parliamentary sovereignty honestly.

Blogger Tatooine Sharpshooters' Club May 13, 2017 4:34 PM  

@31 - So this is just like the ADA lawyers who drop into a town, launch a flurry of letters about "violations", and sue anybody who doesn't pay up? It's worse than just SJWs, it's thievin' low-bottom lawyers too!

@4 - A tangent based on your comment: It probably wouldn't do any long-term good, but it would be fun to witness the conniptions caused by inundating all the proggie carnophobes with images, videos and audio clips of just what kind of barbarity goes into making meat the kosher and halal ways their Semitic friends like so bad.

Blogger Artisanal Toad May 13, 2017 4:39 PM  

@33. Valtandor Nought

"what's the rule?"

With regard to fiat money created by debt within the closed system of commerce, the rule is:

You can't win, you can't break even and you can't leave the game.

Welcome to 'Murica.

Blogger Valtandor Nought May 13, 2017 4:39 PM  

If it's about raw political power, what's the going rate on rights TPTB don't want to recognise, in terms of "people willing to die and kill for the cause"?

Blogger Erynne May 13, 2017 4:54 PM  

Obligatory taxation is theft comment.

Blogger Nick S May 13, 2017 4:55 PM  

It's almost like, somewhere along the line, people got the notion that not only are they entitled to pursue happiness, but they're entitled to oblige everyone else to proactively endeavor to ensure their happiness and minorities and/or the historically inconsequent are more entitled than anyone else. It's completely insane. I don't care if they're unhappy.

Blogger Sagramore May 13, 2017 5:05 PM  

@27 Oddly enough when Kansas was upset with Colorado over DUDE WEED they were shot down on this basis, but
supremes actually went the other way earlier. Raich built on Wickard v. Filburn.

Blogger Sagramore May 13, 2017 5:08 PM  

@32 @34 Fake boats. In a system with equity, unlike the US federal boat court, you would never see this.

Drain the swamp and get rid of the fake boats (maritime jurisdiction / admiralty law).

Blogger OGRE May 13, 2017 5:20 PM  

Stepping stones. Its all little stepping stones to the big prize...forcing churches to perform homosexual weddings. Thats been the ultimate goal, to use the power of the state to force churches to perform the heretical perversion of marrying same sex couples. The gay lobby is just a tool, a tool made of useful idiots, in order to achieve this goal, simply to make a mockery of Christ and His Church.

re Commerce Clause. As was pointed out, even growing your own food on your own land for your own personal consumption can be considered "interstate commerce" under current Supreme Court holdings. The Commerce Clause has been the primary means by which federal power has been expanded into areas that were expressly prohibited to it, such as criminal law particularly that involving controlled substances. Under the original Constitution and Bill of Rights, the fed gov had no police power except for those crimes expressly stated in the Constitution and for conduct occurring on federal lands; but it had no general police power to enact or enforce criminal laws. But it was the Commerce Clause that opened the door to criminalizing almost any conduct that Congress desires, so long as there is some theoretical relation to interstate commerce. But given the butterfly hurricane reasoning of the Supreme Court, this extends to virtually any and all conduct and non-conduct; anything can be said to affect interstate commerce if you try hard enough. They had a real chance to reign this in back in 05 with the Raich case, but Scalia and Kennedy couldn't stomach the possibility of marijuana possibly being legal somewhere.

Anonymous Brick Hardslab May 13, 2017 5:27 PM  

If you can't grow your own wheat for your own consumption on your own land because that's 'interstate commerce' then anything is under the Fed's control.

Baking cakes and making t shirts with pictures of guys committing sodomy is just about rubbing your face in it. When it is a crime in Coeur d'Alene not to bake the cake. Meaning it's not a day in court and a citation if you resist but a bullet, they're telling you the state can make you do anything. Any perversion or action is possible and you will stand and clap until you are told you can stop you'll be required to smile while you do it too.

Why will the government ever give up that control?

Blogger Lovekraft May 13, 2017 5:38 PM  

That, or make it universal so that EVERYONE has to do another's bidding. The chaos would be short-lived but hilarious.

Why we still have to keep pushing back against marxist intrusions to even have this debate is symptomatic of our cultural ill health.

Somehow along the way the undeserving kept pace and eventually usurped the needy and productive.

Blogger Lovekraft May 13, 2017 5:42 PM  

@31: "Because the people trolling for a court case don't go for that. Much like the people cheating the stock market currently, they 'ping' everyone in the jurisdiction with a letter asking, "We want to hire you to cater our wedding, and by the way, let me make this clear, we are totally gay." Anyone who sends them an acceptance, they ignore. Anyone who says 'no', they sue."

Nice take on that. Will use.

Blogger JaimeInTexas May 13, 2017 5:53 PM  

Yep. Anything that may affect interstate commerce in the aggregate was found to be possible subject to fed regulation.

Blogger tublecane May 13, 2017 6:11 PM  

@51-"in the aggregate"

Does that phrase mean what I think it means in my stupid, non-lawyer mind? Because I always assumed it meant, like, if everyone did it. Or if lots and lots of people did it, past some theoretical tipping point. That is to say, if everyone were to stop buying food and only eat what they grow on their own land, then obviously that would affect interstate commerce. It would in fact eliminate interstate commerce in food.

However, I also always assumed there had to be more to it, because treating something as itself interstate commerce simply because interstate commerce would be appreciably affected if everyone or lots and lots of people did it, is fairly silly. It'd be like calling bumping into someone murder because if everyone on earth bumped into him at the same time he'd be pressed to death.

That can't really be the way our high court--which even now maintains status as intellectually serious--thinks, can it?

Blogger My Dead Gramps May 13, 2017 6:16 PM  

Only a retard doesn't discriminate.

It doesn't take much for a few of the more astute ones to establish a correlation between skin colour and likelihood that they'll be hit up for booze money. Funnily enough, as a tard-wrangler myself, their (and the family by proxy) right to discriminate isn't infringed upon when it comes to who works with them.

Blogger Emmett Fitz-Hume May 13, 2017 6:20 PM  

@3 SteelPalm,

Of course somewhere in the middle of that spectrum is a giant piece of green Sinusitis "Lung Butter" hocked right into the cake mix...

Blogger Billy Ray May 13, 2017 6:42 PM  

then a Muslim or Jew has the right to force a butcher to provide him with kosher/halal meat. - or better yet, I require the kosher jew/halal muslim to cater my pulled pork BBQ - oh right, the court would never mandate that, they have their religious rights while Christians have none

Blogger Billy Ray May 13, 2017 6:47 PM  

would a muslim halal restaurant have to cater a gay wedding? of course not because the left would never approach them or sue them in the first place, fellow travelers in the quest to destroy christian western civilization

Blogger OGRE May 13, 2017 6:49 PM  

@52 broadly speaking the test a court uses for determining whether a congressional act affects interstate commerce is "whether a rational basis exists for concluding that a regulated activity sufficiently affected interstate commerce."

Theres a lot more to it than that, but thats a pretty succinct description. The courts use a rational basis standard of review (as opposed to strict scrutiny), so right from the start its very difficult to argue that a congressional act related to commerce is not "rationally related to a legitimate government interest." Factors that a court will look at are whether the activity being regulated is commercial or non-commercial, whether its related to the 'instrumentalities' or 'channels' of interstate commerce, whether its activity typically subject to state regulation, and whether congress had a factual basis for concluding that the activity in the aggregate has a substantial impact on the national economy.

Given the rational basis standard of review, and the various factors the court looks at, its easy to see how congress can essentially claim that any activity falls under interstate commerce and the courts will accept it.

The most significant case posing any limits on the Commerce clause was Lopez, in which Lopez was convicted of violating a federal law that sought to make possession of a firearm in a school zone a federal criminal offense. The Supreme Court concluded that the carrying of a handgun even in the aggregate did not constitute economic activity and thus could not be regulated under the Commerce Clause.

Blogger Tom K. May 13, 2017 6:54 PM  

My argument against cake decorators and photographers being forced to provide their service to those of whom they disapprove has always been the distinction that providing a service as a public accommodation is NOT the same thing as providing a specialty service requiring personal talent and investment.

If I were a either a photographer or cake decorator I would make it clear to my clients that my "gift" is affected by my personal appraisal of the subject. Therefore, I cannot guarantee they will LIKE the pictures I will feel motivated to take or the way I will be "inspired" to decorate their cake. I would make them sign a Release stating those facts.

Then they would have no recourse, when they came to pick up their cake or came to view their wedding photos, and the saw I was "inspired" to use black frosting and two plastic dogs for their cake; and that I had my camera out of focus for every shot because that was how I was "moved" by my muse.

A chef, retained to provide a gourmet meal in your home, would have the same right to creativity. In fact, that "individual creativity" is precisely why you hire him in the first place.

Delivering pizza to a gay wedding? Not so much.

Blogger Ingot9455 May 13, 2017 6:57 PM  

@58 And since you answered 'Yes' they wouldn't go any further in trying to hire you. After all, the guys involved in the Ohio test case had zillions of other options who could have helped them. But no, they had to have the one person who turned them down. (And the case hinged on Ohio's laws on public accommodation. I think that at the end of it, the caterers closed up their storefront shop so they were no longer a place of public accomodation and just did private catering.)

Anonymous I wrote the Magna Carta May 13, 2017 7:05 PM  

Isn't that why Barry Goldwater didn't vote for the civil rights act?

Blogger Valtandor Nought May 13, 2017 7:11 PM  

Tom K.,

The problem is that if they pay money for your services, you have obligations to provide goods that are fit for sale, fit for the purpose intended, and so on. You can't contract out of your obligation to do a decent job.

Moreover, if the customers are in a protected class and your craftsmanship is considerably below your usual standard and below the standard usual for that craft or trade, I would expect an argument to be made that your failure to perform the contract was more likely than not to be wilful and malicious, and worthy of punitive damages. Whether that argument would fly I don't know, but it would certainly be a risk. Especially if your failure "ruined the plaintiffs' wedding" or something to that effect.

Anonymous Avalanche May 13, 2017 7:42 PM  

@6 "If any twisted legal interpretation claims they cannot refuse to sell then the same argument would be made that they could not refuse to buy as well."

Hello, obamacare?!

Anonymous Luke May 13, 2017 7:50 PM  

I have never understood why pervert-targeted Christian bakeries, etc., simply don't pack up and move out of town, no forwarding address, the minute they're hit with ANY of this kind of nonsense.

Blogger John S May 13, 2017 8:08 PM  

The printer should throw an asterisk on whatever is forced to be on the front, with the explanation of how the totalitarian united states Supreme Court has forced him to comply with these sexual deviants' whims.

Anonymous Athor Pel May 13, 2017 8:16 PM  

Being forced to sell your goods or services to a customer you would otherwise refuse is slavery.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey May 13, 2017 8:32 PM  

@StatesRights
"The freedom to associate is in its very implication the freedom to discriminate."

In this context one might even ponder the original meaning of "discriminate," as in "discriminating taste"-- accurately making fine distinctions.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey May 13, 2017 8:41 PM  

@Duke Norfolk

"Of course all these wonderful rational and dialectic arguments are completely irrelevant.

It's all about power.

The power to make their enemies do what they want them to do. And hopefully crush them with the power of the state.

I really don't know why folks like the bakery don't just make the damned cake and make a crappy product."

This insistence on the concept that the enemy actually cares about some kind of universal legal (or ethical) rules, is simply projection of the conservative mindset. They don't care. They care about what's good for their side/ their people, and you don't matter because they hate you and they want you dead. If they have the power, they can always make up some BS rationalization afterwards. "Penumbras" and "emanations," anyone?

Blogger Cail Corishev May 13, 2017 8:45 PM  

I have never understood why pervert-targeted Christian bakeries, etc., simply don't pack up and move out of town, no forwarding address, the minute they're hit with ANY of this kind of nonsense.

You don't understand why people don't immediately abandon businesses and customer bases they spent their lives building up, the first time they're attacked? Really? Do you think these are easy things to create, or to replace?

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey May 13, 2017 8:53 PM  

@((( bob kek mando ))) - ( don't trifle with me, son. i'm a professional, certified 4th degree black belt in the ancient Hebrew martial art of Kibitz Maga )

Naw, it needs to go back to Marbury v. Madison. Demicracy may not be the greatest idea, but this whole kritarchy model is insane. Yet one more observation by de Toqueville that is, if anything, more valid today than when he made it:

"I am unaware that any nation of the globe has hitherto organized a judicial power in the same manner as the Americans. . . . A more imposing judicial power was never constituted by any people."

Anonymous Donald Trump May 13, 2017 8:56 PM  

I always have a lot of discrimination headed my way! My businesses too! The hypocrisy is sad!

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey May 13, 2017 8:59 PM  

@Ingot9455

"they 'ping' everyone in the jurisdiction with a letter asking, "We want to hire you to cater our wedding, and by the way, let me make this clear, we are totally gay. Anyone who sends them an acceptance, they ignore. Anyone who says 'no', they sue." "

So essentially, they are trolling for people as targets who have a combination of strongly held beliefs, honesty, conscientiousness, and pride in their work to select as targets. Those who ignore the letter, or who are willing to lie, then do a crappy job, get by just fine. That's nice.

Anonymous Ghost Who Walks May 13, 2017 9:16 PM  

Many hookers -- and darn near all black hookers -- on Backpage ads would include a line reading "no African American men" (sometimes none under 40). Only criminals may exercise free associationd

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey May 13, 2017 9:20 PM  

@OGRE
"The gay lobby is just a tool, a tool made of useful idiots, in order to achieve this goal, simply to make a mockery of Christ and His Church."

Bingo. It's not about homosexual "marriage," it's about deconstructing Christianity. Of course, as the reigning ideology in the current year, they are vulnerable to this technique, too. Never miss an opportunity to mock progressive sacred cows-- much more effective than dialectic.

Blogger Kristophr May 13, 2017 9:25 PM  

Francis Parker Yockey wrote:@Ingot9455

...

Those who ignore the letter, or who are willing to lie, then do a crappy job, get by just fine. That's nice.


That is pretty much the only way to handle them in the current lawfare climate. Say "sure", and if they are fool enough to accept, bake a deliberate embarrassment.

Anonymous Britboing May 13, 2017 9:29 PM  

@29
'Because the people trolling for a court case don't go for that. Much like the people cheating the stock market currently, they 'ping' everyone in the jurisdiction with a letter asking, "We want to hire you to cater our wedding, and by the way, let me make this clear, we are totally gay." Anyone who sends them an acceptance, they ignore. Anyone who says 'no', they sue.'

In there lies an answer - agree to do it and you'll be overlooked. That just needs to be spread as a message.
Or reply with a 'Currently fully booked/our schedule is full so can't fit you in for the time/date you require.' sort of thing.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey May 13, 2017 9:41 PM  

"An executive order protecting free association for business owners would be extremely popular with every Christian who doesn't want to bake a gay cake, every Jew who doesn't want to print a Nazi t-shirt, and every black who doesn't want to arrange flowers for the KKK."

Except that they don't see this from the standpoint of a universal legal (or ethical) rule. The overriding rule for them is "Who; whom." The law is merely what you write down to justify your decisions after the fact.

Blogger tz May 13, 2017 10:31 PM  

I'm not pro-discrimination, I'm pro-choice.

Anonymous Eric the Red May 13, 2017 10:40 PM  

Silly me. I used to think 'anything not compulsory is forbidden' was a joke.

Anonymous Donald Trump May 13, 2017 10:49 PM  

Innocent bakers are hassled! Illegals hired over Americans!
Why is MS-13 not classified as a terrorist organization?
We need to think about how discrimination works America!

Blogger JaimeInTexas May 13, 2017 11:09 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Stephen May 13, 2017 11:17 PM  

All these complicated legalese argument and presidents from case law mean nothing. Even if you arm twist cuckgress repeal old laws and pass new ones, even make new constitutional amendments the rulings judges make will still be predicted by the answer to the same one question "does it hurt white people?" anything that does is a constitutional/human right no mater what the constitution says, and anything that dose not hurt whites is "unconstitutional/inhumane" and against American* values (*insert any white country name but only white country names here). The Judiciary is completely pozzed from top to bottom it needs to be purged. I always remember being told at school repeatedly that ignorance of the law was never considered an excuse for breaking it, but suddenly it is for supposedly educated Secretaries of State and rapefuges.

Anonymous Donald Trump May 13, 2017 11:27 PM  

The Judiciary is completely pozzed from top to bottom it needs to be purged.

Soon!

Blogger JaimeInTexas May 13, 2017 11:29 PM  

Gonzales v. Raich
Scalia concurring.
Thomas dissenting.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/1/

In pronciple, now if fedgov days growing tomatoes in backyard may interstate commerce then fedgov can regulate.

Blogger bosscauser May 14, 2017 12:33 AM  

What limit do we put on rule by fiat?
Politically popular at the moment or whatever president feels like?

Gab.ai/GaryCauser

Gab.ai/GaryCauser

OpenID aew51183 May 14, 2017 2:45 AM  

Replace Kennedy with another originalist

Get a ruling based on the first, 13th, and 14th amendments for free association.

Blogger Tom Kratman May 14, 2017 7:31 AM  

The EO wouldn't carry all that far. It would prevent DoJ from pursuing a case, but it would not prevent private action. And there are plenty of lawyers who would line up for the chance. Neither would it prevent an activist left wing court from continuing to force feed it to people.

Blogger Tom Kratman May 14, 2017 7:33 AM  

The EO wouldn't carry all that far. It would prevent DoJ from pursuing a case, but it would not prevent private action. And there are plenty of lawyers who would line up for the chance. Neither would it prevent an activist left wing court from continuing to force feed it to people.

Blogger Duke Norfolk May 14, 2017 7:37 AM  

Luke wrote:I have never understood why pervert-targeted Christian bakeries, etc., simply don't pack up and move out of town, no forwarding address, the minute they're hit with ANY of this kind of nonsense.

Do you really think it's so easy to escape the Eye of Sauron?

Blogger Duke Norfolk May 14, 2017 7:39 AM  

Francis Parker Yockey wrote:They don't care.

Too true. You're simply f'd if they get you in their cross hairs.

Blogger Vikki Wilson May 14, 2017 7:49 AM  

Hilarious in its appalling way.

Can you just imagine the intensity of the operation to ROOT OUT THE CHRISTIANS.

These vicious campaigns of personal destruction deserve to be more widely known.

Many ordinary people - and I include many gays in this instance- are utterly dismayed by the unhinged level of malice and authoritarianism on public display.

Very sadly, as with terrorism and the "migrant crisis",the more of this sh-t they pull, the more likely there will be effective public response.

Blogger Tom Kratman May 14, 2017 8:04 AM  

Speaking of rooting out, along with a heavy dose of Untergang des Abendlandes, note the following (somewhat OT, of course):

Dear Germany:

So I understand that your not only unqualified but actually _mis_qualified Minister of Defense, Ursula von der Leyen, has demanded that all Bundeswehr kasernes and bases named for Wehrmacht soldiers must be renamed.

Not wishing to go against the obvious tenor of the times, it is my suggestion that you rename most of the bases for Germany's __enemies_. Thus, for example, you can have a Stalin Kaserne, and Fliegerhorst Wunstorf can be Fliegerhorst Bomber Harris. Some others you can name for major defeats: Stalingrad Kaserne, Kursk Kaserne, Falaise Kaserne.

Then, when you rename one of them "von der Leyen Kaserne" and another "Merkel Kaserne," it will be a perfect fit.

Blogger Vikki Wilson May 14, 2017 8:34 AM  

I think the people who are advising pragmatic compliance with these cases of the left literally having legislating their personal values are missing the essential element here: yes the "activists" have searched for a Christian who will stand up for their own values so that they can have the pleasure of enforcing their new "rights".

Ideally they'd like a globally televised ceremony in Rome where the Pope apologizes and everyone who wants one is given a baby by a nun.(Not beyond the realms with the current antipope...)

What they are more likely to get is the Caliphate. GL.

Anonymous BBGKB May 14, 2017 10:18 AM  

zazzle has refused to make shirts for me that had factual information on them. That black/white income SAT average from the college board was even posted on the journal of blacks in higher EDU, however without highlights of the top number for blacks and the bottom number for whites that are only 3 points different.

You would think there would be a business opportunity for a chain of gay wedding chapels, florists, bakeries, but they are just calling places wasting peoples time until they find one who will refuse. There are gay yellowpages full of businesses that would be glad to deal with them, but one gay couple drove hundreds of miles across 3 states to pick up memories pizza for their wedding, they could have served steaks for the same cost.
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2015/09/29/memories-pizza-said-it-wouldnt-cater-same-sex-weddings-but-this-gay-couple-claims-they-tricked-the-shop-into-doing-just-that/

Keep in mind that a license is a permission from a competent authority to do something that would otherwise be illegal, a tort or a trespass.

like Sell lemonade in your front yard

A more imposing judicial power was never constituted by any people."

Kritarchy is a system of rule by judges (Hebrew: שופטים‎, shoftim) in the tribal confederacy of ancient Israel. Notice anything in common with the worst (((judges)))??

Anonymous Stryker4570 May 14, 2017 11:29 AM  

I am in an industry that is quasi legal. I call it a gray market. The regulatory schemes the states have come up with for this industry are completely corrupt and contradictory making total compliance impossible and ensuring vast new markets are controlled by friends of the legislators. The black market will remain healthy for a long time to come.

Blogger frigger611 May 14, 2017 12:42 PM  

I think if you're a bakery forced to bake a cake, then the path of least resistance is take their money and hire a priest to come and bless it with Holy Water, with direct prayers that the Sodomites see their wickedness and come to Christ.

Publicly and happily post the video and say you're glad God has chosen you for this great challenge.

Of course, intimate that there are secret, unknown ingredients that make this cake extra special.



Blogger Artisanal Toad May 14, 2017 3:01 PM  

@93

If marijuana is legal in that state, it's a legitimate ingredient. Baked into the finger-food that's eaten prior to the cake cutting ceremony it should have everyone in a proper mood for that festive moment. It will also have the beneficial effect of suppressing nausea.

To cap off the festive moment of cutting the cake, the bakery needs to add a special something that will truly commemorate the event. If one searches on Amazon there is a quaint product known as "Liquid Ass" that will work perfectly.

This product produces an odor that a certain favored group might associate with a certain intimate sexual experience. The trick is getting the product released in the act of cutting the cake without mixing it with the cake, since it's not a product for consumption. I'm sure it's just a matter of rigging up a mechanism to release the liquid into the room where it can rapidly make its presence known.

Liquid Ass produces an extremely powerful aroma that is guaranteed to leave a lasting impression on every guest in the room and stimulate thoughts of the upcoming nuptial event.

Do not be fooled by the recommended age of 12-15 for the product, this is for all ages. Indeed, reading the most helpful of the more than 3500 customer reviews will convince even the most humble of bakery-shop owners that this is a product who's time has come.

Blogger tz May 14, 2017 5:34 PM  

Half OT, but Israel and Jews have to deal with being ethno-nationalistic v.s. whatever it is we have in the USA
Mosaic mag reports

Anonymous Yankee Imperialist May 14, 2017 6:31 PM  

Discrimination, as in choosing what brand of peanut butter or type of Brazilian Fart Porn. NOT legal discrimination as defined by citizens at large. Jim Crow laws are gone for good.

Free association is not unfettered. Never has been, never will be.

Blogger Luke May 14, 2017 7:31 PM  

66. Cail Corishev May 13, 2017 8:45 PM
Luke: "I have never understood why pervert-targeted Christian bakeries, etc., simply don't pack up and move out of town, no forwarding address, the minute they're hit with ANY of this kind of nonsense."

Cail: "You don't understand why people don't immediately abandon businesses and customer bases they spent their lives building up, the first time they're attacked? Really? Do you think these are easy things to create, or to replace?"

Maybe for the first few cases, I would agree with you. But, enough of these cases have been prosecuted in liberal cities/states that the routine end game of them is eminently predictable. Either the Christian bakers, etc., lose all their property, or they lose their souls. I suggest that they keep their souls, and as much of their property as can be salvaged under the circumstances. That would be done by, once under such an attack, ASAP fleeing that liberal hellhole, taking what they can with them, and firesaling or scuttling the rest. Once they've been hit with a six-figure court judgement fine, it is too late for anything except going underground in a distant state, never working in their previous profession again (at least this side of the Collapse and Revolution).

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts