The 13 amendment to the United States Constitution forbids "slavery" and "involuntary servitude."
Hwat is baking a cake? >It is a service. What is fining or otherwise coercing someone to bake a cake >compelling involuntary servitude. How long have the Left been compelling slavery and involuntary Servitude by Supreme Court Rulings? >1964 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel,_Inc._v._United_States Normally Amendments to the US Constitution supersede everything that came before the amendment but for over 50 years the Supreme Court has upheld Involuntary Servitude under the Commerce Clause, completely flaunting the 13th Amendment.
It opens up a slippery slope. If somebody wants to deny service to white people to comply with their beliefs would you be OK with that? What if some restaurant says that following health regulations violates their religious views so they refuse to comply with them. Would you be ok with that?
Gabriel Lee
Oh, of course you have to follow health regulations. That is clearly about putting forward a safe product and within the actual purpose of the Commerce Clause.
But you get to decide who you serve for whatever capricious reason you chose. You get to chose the clientele you serve. The state gets to make sure you do it safely so you don't endanger the public.
Zachary Reed
What if my religious views say that I can never wash my hands before making food?
Logan Bell
Then a clause gets created that you have to put up a warning at the front of your establishment or your place of work and include mention of it on the menus
Robert Collins
What if my religious views say that I can't publicly advertise that I don't wash my hands?
Jordan Peterson
Either way you recognize their right to do what they want and can organize a boycott in response.
Easton Turner
No legitimate religion has that. If they did, they would have died out.
You are arguing in bad faith.
Parker Howard
...
Mason Flores
OK I just created a new religion that I can never wash my hands and I have to make food for people. Are you going to discriminate against my religion by not allowing me to work at a restaurant?
Brandon Gutierrez
Yes.
New dormant Involentary Servitude Clause. Not only do you not have to provide services as a business owner, but you don't have to provide jobs.
The government, however, will decide as legislation sees fit.
Anthony Thompson
You protest in the street against bigotry
Aaron Lewis
People refusing services to one demographic or another are free too. More likely than not they will have a very hard time. In the West the market pressure would be tremendous. So long as the non-agression principal is being followed society will self correct
Kayden Murphy
That's what social justice is. Anything white, traditional, or masculine has to serve everything else to make up for these so-called sins we've committed. Doesn't matter that these sins were done in small scale hundreds of years before we were born, we're born with the guilt of them simply for being white/masculine/trad.
It is a permissible reading of the [free exercise clause]...to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the [law] but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended.... To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is "compelling"–permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, "to become a law unto himself,"–contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense. To adopt a true "compelling interest" requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy.
Ryder Lopez
If word gets around that people who eat at your restaurant are getting sick, especially if it's because you're choosing not to handle food safely, the chances of your business thriving are very low.
In the same vein, if a bakery refuses to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple, word will get around and the business will lose clients who don't agree with their choice.
Also, no one's religious views have ever exempted them from inflicting harm on another human being.
Jayden Turner
What astonishes me is hwite women that participate in Womens Day boycotts. They only patron business run by women or minorities.
They never stop to think they might have a hwite son that is trying to support his family, or their hwite daughter's husband's business might suffer from the discrimination they perpertrate.
Andrew Rodriguez
The "compelling government interest" requirement seems benign, because it is familiar from other fields. But using it as the standard that must be met before the government may accord different treatment on the basis of race, see, e.g., Palmore v. Sidoti, or before the government may regulate the content of speech, see, e.g., Sable Communications of California v. FCC, is not remotely comparable to using it for the purpose asserted here. What it produces in those other fields -- equality of treatment, and an unrestricted flow of contending speech -- are constitutional norms; what it would produce here -- a private right to ignore generally applicable laws -- is a constitutional anomaly.
....The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind -- ranging from compulsory military service to the payment of taxes to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws, and traffic laws; to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, child labor laws, animal cruelty laws, environmental protection laws, and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races.
This opinion was written by Scalia, and joined by Rehnquist, noted conservatives.
Blake Russell
Would you support a religious exemption for Muslims from female genital mutilation laws?
Because when I read your comment I could see an argument for an employer discriminating on both religion and race when he refuses to serve or employ someone.
I am simply citing precedent for religious exercise claims vs state law.
Sebastian Walker
>I just created a new religion alright there cultist the ghost of Janet Reno has dispatched the ATF to burn down your house
Isaiah Brooks
To hwat end?
Brody Edwards
That I don't think the same 5 justices who supported Obergefell v Hodges would turn around, ignore precedent, and rule that religious beliefs entitle you to ignore state law.
Caleb Bailey
What is the purpose of this comment?
Palamore is regarding a custody dispute and having the state revoke custody due to a mothers interacial marraige.
Sable Communications v. FCC is again about govt action, in this case, censorship.
I am arguing that an employer can decline to perform a service under the 13 Amendment. You are apparently arguing what? the connection you are articulating explicit.
Can employers use their discretion to decide what service to provide under the 13 amendment, and to whom. Why or why not?
Mason Martinez
>Obergefell v Hodges Most judges are smart enough to understand I an discussing business, a private enterprise, determine what clientele to serve, and the ability of gay people to have a governmental legality applied to them.
Can the government deny Gays the right to marry? No.
Can private business be forced into a involuntary servitude by servicing the wedding?
No.
Nathan Perry
I don't think the 13th amendment has ever been construed to regard restrictions on commerce as slavery.
Generally in actual courts, petitioners claim the 1st amendment enables them via religious beliefs to be exempt from restrictions on the stream of commerce, and that argument, apart from Hobby Lobby, has never worked.
Aaron Campbell
I am referencing the soon-to-apear base of Masterpiece Cakeshop.
Courts have time and time again held that they can compel behavior.
Your arguments are like something straight out the late 19th century, and they didn't work then either.
Nathaniel Brooks
>I don't think the 13th amendment has ever been construed to regard restrictions on commerce as slavery. Address my main point directly. Is the left using Diversity to compel servitude?
IS compelled servitude, in this case, with a $150,000 fine, a clear violation of the 13th amendment, or not?
Aiden Reyes
No.
I don't think restrictions on commerce are servitude, no. Servitude would be like selling the baker to the gay couple for them to use as their permanent personal chef or something.
Jaxon Harris
Absolutely not.
Jaxon Miller
So why do some religious beliefs merit exemptions to the law and not others? Isn't that an inconsistent standard when laws have to be held to be neutrally applicable?
Levi Rodriguez
My arguments haven't really been made in court. Even if they were, I think a plain reading of the 13 amendment would show that fining people for not providing a service is the government working against "involuntary servitude" requirement.
How can we really know if a service was provided voluntarily if there is a threat of punishment behind not providing it?
Slavery was commcerce. It could have been regulated under the commerce clause. The 13th amendment takes the ability for the government to regulate slaver, and compel involuntary servitude absent a criminal conviction.
Reversing many precedents, the Supreme Court held that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 prohibited both private and state-backed discrimination and that the 13th Amendment authorized Congress to prohibit private acts of discrimination as among "the badges and incidents of slavery." Congress possessed the power to "determine what are the badges and incidents of slavery, and the authority to translate that determination into effective legislation."
So in fact the 13th amendment is held to do the opposite!
Jace Martin
You don't define what exception you are looking for.
Are you arguing that you could compel a doctor to perform FGM or MGM?
Sebastian Morales
No, I am arguing that a doctor who performs FGM would be free from prosecution potentially if a court holds that Christian religious beliefs are a valid grounds ignoring relevant state laws. Laws must be applied to be neutral towards all religions, and races. The only thing at issue here is whether anti-gay discrimination is held to be as harmful and noxious to society as racial or religious discrimination have been held to be in the past.
Nolan Watson
By refusing to bake a cake for the gay couple, has the baker: >Harmed the couple, or put them at risk of harm? >Forced them to do something against their will? >Stolen something from them?
No? Then the baker has done nothing where the state needs to interfere with force (and a fine is use of force).
Selling cakes is a voluntary exchange, both parties must agree to the the transaction, otherwise there is no reason it should occur.
Andrew Phillips
Emotional harm is still harm. If emotional harm is found in refusing to seat Black customers at a restaurant, why would this be treated differently?
The issue here is not the cake, it is whether personal beliefs permit anti-gay discrimination.
Jaxson Gutierrez
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones_v._Alfred_H._Mayer_Co. Back up argument1: If the bank decides to sell a black man a house, they must treat him equally, but they don't have to sell him a house at all? >libertarian argument, eventually the banks will act in their enlightened self interest and sell a black man the best house he can afford and this will lead to a mature integration of the races rather than legislating diversity
Second back up: Is fining a bakery $150k a cruel and unusual punishment?
Evan Ward
your free to convert to islam then receive all the benefits of the constitution....but not before...
Jose Carter
Have bakeries been fined before for discrimination? Probably yes I would say. Restaurants certainly have, and probably more money than that. IIRC that Oregon bakery made a TON of money from private donations from Christians after the fine was meted out. They now run a business out of their home to avoid public accommodation laws, which I support. If you sell cakes from your home, you don't have to sell to gay people. If you open your bakery to the public, you have to abide by commerce restrictions relating to public accommodations.
The bank doesn't have to sell him a house, but these laws generally hold that if his race was a factor, even not the deciding one, in refusing him commerce, that the bank is at fault.
Isaiah Green
Emotions and emotional states vary greatly from person to person. They are extremely relative and there's no accurate way to quantify an individuals emotions. A broken arm is a broken arm but a broken heart is hard to tell without talking to the person. You can't legislate morality.
Julian Taylor
>Have bakeries been fined before for discrimination? Probably yes I would say. To be clear, you are agreeing that fining somone $150k for not baking a "gay cake" is cruel and unusual punishment?
What would be a constitutional punishment, in your estimation? And how would you prevent a parade of nuisance litigants from repeatedly calling one Christian bakery in an attempt to legally persecute them out of business?
Blake Ward
The couple claimed emotional harm.
Why should the gay couple's dollar not go as far as that of a straight couple? If the state cannot ensure the right of its citizens to conduct commerce unfettered by discrimination, why does it exist?
What, no? Personally I think the fine is excessive but I think legally it is well within bounds.
Vexatious claims intended to subdue Christian-owned businesses would be hopefully thrown out. None of these cases in the past five years were ever shown to be gay people hunting down Christian-owned businesses on purpose to target them.
Brayden Johnson
I argue any claim is vexatious. Go and bake your own cake or find another baker.
Hunter Reed
High language for compelling involuntary servitude.
Angel Cox
Why should the state be restricted from regulating its own commerce and ensuring that the dollar of every citizen goes equally as far?
You are never the subject of discrimination so you don't care that it occurs. That doesn't make it desirable for the state to have some of its citizens burdened disproportionately to others.
Anthony Cox
Or took your website domain?
Aaron Gutierrez
I cannot legally refuse to serve someone on account of their religion in any state. Public accommodations laws have been repeatedly held to be lawful extensions of local, state, and federal interests. You can see them as involuntary servitude but the law sees them as preventing minority citizens from being held to the whims of the majority.
Kayden Jenkins
Because the 13th amendment prohibits involuntary servitude, of even the smallest act.
Josiah Morgan
The state should not hold so much sway over the views of private citizens. If you don't want to do buisiness with someone, the state shouldn't come in and tell you you have to. Now, do I think people should protest this decision and never buy from that bakery again? Spread the word on social media? Try to get them shut down? I have my opinion, other people have theirs. I'm willing to let that be, why isn't the government?
Justin Perez
>of even the smallest act
It doesn't prohibit the courts from compelling behavior.
Otherwise having to pay child support would be servitude. You are arguing for a reactionary, dramatic reduction in the power of government which they are obviously not going to support. They have to balance everyone's interests, you only have to look out for yours, and you were never a slave nor ever burdened in a financial transaction on account of your race or sexuality.
These arguments didn't hold up in the 19th century, why would they now?
Cameron Hughes
So the state cannot regulate its own commerce stream?
Jaxson Ward
I actually disagree with the religion one, because you can change that shit if you want to. -t. lapsed catholic
Camden Sullivan
>With the Left, diversity is literal slavery. about par for the course with them
Isaiah Reyes
I don't think you are going to get the Civil Rights Act thrown out in court, or public accommodations altogether, on account of gays being included in state and local laws against discrimination.
Christopher Sanchez
>its own That's private commerce, not the governments. The government can take the taxes, but that deal is between the two parties. That money is just paper guaranteeing it against an established value. They can turn that paper into whaterever they want. Could make it into gold and trade with that. Could use it to stockpile ammunition, or invest in a buisiness. The paper may be the state's, but the value is the owners.
Juan Gomez
it's psyops by way of media and court just like the OJ case
Adrian Robinson
>Have bakeries been fined before for discrimination? Probably yes I would say they typically would sanction them by barring them right to be open on a big work day, thats usually enough to send the message and you don't have to position the state immorally by collecting money like a scumbag numbers runner
David Edwards
Public accommodations are by definition open to the public.
Nobody is restricting your ability to found a church or private club that refuses service to gays. They just have multiple tiers of commerce, some with more restrictions than others, and you want to be able to burden minorities, and the state has no interest in doing so.
The state has a more compelling interest in ensuring equal access to its commercial outlets, especially those supposedly open to everyone, than you do to discriminate against people you don't like. If this were a theocracy, things would be different.
Isaiah Williams
I'm not arguing against that part, I just don't think religion should necessarily be included. But hey, that's just my opinion and I don't necessarily have a strong enough one on it to make a fuss. I'm more against an overbearing state than anything else. Human sexuality is a journey, not a destination: and I'm just another voyager on the sea, baby
Joshua Reyes
Agree with your ends, not your means. I would rather the free market take care of it. People will go to the friendly bakery not the one that they keep seeing on the news.
Lucas Bennett
Well but the question is did everyone start equally or are some people making poor decisions intentionally? In order to NOT hold gays as a suspect class (subject to discrimination frequently and therefore deserving of extra legal protection) you would have to argue being gay is a choice and fluctuates during our lives. I don't think there are all that many people who say, marry another man, divorce them after 10 years, and then marry a woman. If that were a common practice, maybe you would have more of an argument but the Supreme Court has recently held that being gay is fixed at birth, similar to race is. The issue is they have either refused or declined to consider sexual orientation as a suspect class so far so nobody knows if it counts as one. One appeals court has said it is, and others disagree. This will be likely resolved in the next few years.
Wanting to fuck over groups with smaller numbers and less power than you has been a problem in the US for quite some time, and allowing it would be chaotic. If there were gay-owned businesses refusing to serve Christians you could claim this is fair to everybody, but largely this is powerful monied interests trampling on the rights of smaller, less powerful groups.
Connor Torres
So you are fine with female genital mutilation?
Sebastian Hughes
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Gavin Gray
I'm arguing that unless it a government related matter i.e. land deals, postal worker hiring, ect. the government shouldn't have that much of a say. Of course! By saying I prefer minimal government interference I was saying I'm in favor of female genital mutilation, an act that is probably not consensual between several adults and a minor and whose justification lies with a checkbox I don't believe should be covered against discrimination. C'mon! You trollin' or are we having a conversation over here?
Cooper Carter
Why does the state not have an interest in regulating its own commerce?
We are having a conversation. How can you make exceptions for some religious beliefs and not others. Why does a personal belief that being gay is harmful entitle you to ignore state laws saying you must not discriminate on account of sexual orientation?
The baker in Colorado thinks of gay people like people thought of witches in Salem. They either are equal citizens or not, and if not, burden is on you to prove how not.
Landon Gutierrez
STOP MAKING THESE THREADS SPECIFICALLY SO THE FAG CAN GET (YOU)S YOU FUCKING IDIOTS
Hudson Parker
>its own commerce That's where you lost me. How is it the states commerce?
Angel Sanders
Commerce within state boundaries is generally allowed to be restricted by the state. I can't sell Peyote in an Oregon head shop if state law proscribes it.
Sebastian Green
And I disagree with that. To an extent. It's not an intoxicating substance, it's a service being provided.
Jaxson Ward
Ok well you clearly support more anarchy than most courts do.
Hunter Ward
didja read how they call prisoners actual slaves? did you read if you read enough, of the SLAVE TAX? how much are they fucking us over since its a war against us and they think we agree like, and i yea hate. stupid pigs need to be told to fuckign suck a dick and theyre needs to be real shit declared bfore they run around like stupid and have NO OTHER excuse and .. like be put in jail for shit like some shootings. WTF, worthless cocksucker mob gangs copshooting videos x5 on some sites. not old. people talking about pussy regulations. cops not shouting any warnings, WOMEN being allowed to BE PIGS. it gets worse FEMINISM is included in it, since. Well, WOMEN. ARE. COPS. and maybe killed a man hding in womens clothing.
Adam Williams
I don't see how a religious institution serving gay couples or people's means that they support what that person does in anyway. They just being jackasses and they know it. Blatant discrimination.
Dominic Miller
tldr they dont pay their slave tax tldr we dont give a shit about nothing in the law system IF ITS WORKING. dont care. if we have total anarchy well, whos to blame right but the govenrment is a complete incompetent piece of shit
Nicholas Bell
That I do friend. I dis enjoy talking to you though. Thanks for actually discussing thing and not name calling or whatever else.
Jack Rivera
The issue here is that the 7th Circuit held gays to be protected under the Civil Rights Act FEDERALLY under the sex discrimination provision. Were that to go into effect, religious folk would be enfeebled in their ability to fuck over gays maliciously per their religious instructions. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held in 2012 that gays are a quasi-suspect class, which holds claims against gays to a higher standard than if they were not a suspect class. That would mean those discriminating against gays would need a better reason than just their religion.
A big issue is that the appeals court labeled sexual orientation a quasi-suspect class United States v. Windsor but the Supreme Court sidestepped the issue so there is no consistent guidance on the issue.
Christians are desperately trying to prevent sexual orientation from becoming enshrined in law as a group, like Blacks, that are VERY hard to discriminate against lawfully.
Benjamin Lopez
They know that heterosexuality will become a protected class too right? Who cares what sexual orientation you are, just do your fucking job and make that money. Go private if you want to discriminate. Like I said, just because you "bake a cake" for gays doesn't mean you inherently support their cause, you can still remain true to your Christian values.
Dylan Foster
Yes, laws must be applied neutrally. They tried passing a law in Colorado in the 1990s that protected gay people, not sexual orientation, and it got thrown out in court.
I suppose the issue at hand is bakers have to physically transport the cake usually to the wedding and set it up there. Again, that is not itself an endorsement to me, but that's the argument.
Luke Ortiz
I don't know how sexuality isn't a protected class by now. They can't hire staff or workers to transport the cake? The fuck? "Oooh if I see a gay wedding that means I'm done for in the eyes of the Lord" give me a fucking break...
Gavin Butler
It is ostracism of gays. It is treating a class of people as unclean and unfit to conduct commerce with. The issue here is including sexual orientation as a protected class would not be likely to happen without gender identity being included, and that is a can of worms.
Xavier Hernandez
nice strawman
Liam Martinez
You're right, being refused service at a business for your sexual orientation is emotionally harmful in multitudes of ways but I don't believe that the state should interfere by initiating force.
I believe that the state's action in this case has the following effects: >As the benefactors of state violence, the gay community becomes more likely to resort to seeing the state's monopoly on violence to further their cause. >As victims of state violence, the Christian community becomes more radicalized and less likely to have a real dialog with the gay community.
There's a lot more I want to say on this, but it's getting late.
Basically, I think that the two communities were much more likely to actually engage with each other and resolve their differences had the state not interfered. State interference reduced the chances of that happening tremendously.
Nathaniel Morris
Evangelical Christians never had a serious interest in not fucking over gays. It is one of their selling points. Join us and you will get free shit after death, unlike those evil people who find other men attractive!
Henry Morales
Are there people who at some point stopped believing in every tenant of Evangelical Christianity? Are there people who identify as Evangelical Christians from birth because of association, but are still in the process of formulating and understanding what they truly believe in?
Perhaps it's a bit too optimistic, but it's possible, even for Evangelical Christians, to change their beliefs. Or just stop being Evangelical Christians. Real, human interaction and dialog in a community can result in that.
Being forced to pay a fine will most likely do the opposite and cause one to double-down on their beliefs.
Joseph Peterson
I don't care if they "double-down" as long as they don't harm gay people. At this point they are only speeding up the process of gays being immune to their discriminatory aims.
Jacob Davis
The state mechanism of justice is too crude to appropriately handle the complexities in incidents of emotional harm.
Christopher Bell
It does so regarding race and religion just fine. The issue is solely that being gay is not always visible so it is easier to claim that we are choosing to do it as a justification for trying to fuck us over.
Christian Parker
beating an already dead horse, we already know the left are faggots
Grayson Jackson
This is unrelated, but how do you feel about Trump saying he wants to protect and enshrine religious liberty? He even has that guy Robert Jeffress advising him on it.
I like the idea of amending the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include a ban of discrimination based on sexual orientation. It would be simple. It would be straightforward. We don’t need to rewrite the laws currently on the books, although I do think we need to address hate-crimes legislation. But amending the Civil Rights Act would grant the same protection to gay people that we give to other Americans — it’s only fair. I actually suggested this first, and now I see [Democratic presidential candidate] Bill Bradley has jumped on the bandwagon and is claiming the idea as his own. [A bill to amend the Civil Rights Act that would have included protections on the basis of sexual orientation was first introduced in the 1970s. — Ed.]
-Donald Trump
I voted for him as a social moderate. Apart from him throwing transgender people under the bus to try to get a defense spending bill passed (not that I love transgender people), he has so far mostly been a social moderate, with minor actions taken against gays.
He could have written a much stronger order restricting gay rights in favor of religious rights but he chose not to.
His religious efforts to me appear mostly symbolic in value. Religious people already have a LOT of rights.
Mason Nguyen
Wouldn't it have made sense to it for Hillary for expanded gay rights then, despite her being such a vile cunt?
Kayden Morris
*to vote for
Grayson Ortiz
Hillary was no friend of the gays ever. She supported DOMA as a way of fucking over the gays to prove her husband was a moderate by sacrificing our rights. Donald Trump supported Civil Unions in 2000. Hillary I believe did not come around on the issue until around 2010 when it was politically expedient to do so.
Obviously she was arrogant, but at least she came around to respect it, at least in the public sphere. I'm just saying, if we really wanted an action taken on protecting gays and adding sexual orientation to to protected classes, she seemed like the way to go.
