Denver Bakery Refuses Service to Gay couple, sued and lost in court....

[TRWXXA]

Hmm. Guns on school property.

Seems I have seen a bunch of threads on here about how that is an infringement. But I guess if if it's okay for the gubbamint to do it, it's okay for everyone to do it.

Your previous posts lead me to believe you were against the government telling people what to do.

 

[TRWXXA]

Well, logically you can't park on your neighbor's lawn (or in his living room for that matter) because his property rights can deny entry to you and to your vehicle, yes? The prohibition extends beyond your person entering a building to the parking lot, where you may not enter by any means with a firearm on your person.

It's not about property rights. It's a 2A issue.

Ignoring your reductio ad absurdum (someone parking in your livimg room), even if someone parks on your property without permission (a tresspass), you do not have the right to that vehicle or the right to enter it. It is still the properrty of the owner. You could jump through all kinds of hoops to have it removed, and you (not the towing company) would still be liable for any damage caused to the vehicle.

 

[RockofStrength]

Ignoring your reductio ad absurdum (someone parking in your livimg room), even if someone parks on your property without permission (a tresspass), you do not have the right to that vehicle or the right to enter it. It is still the properrty of the owner. You could jump through all kinds of hoops to have it removed, and you (not the towing company) would still be liable for any damage caused to the vehicle.

I'm confused. Who cares to search your car at all? If I believe you have a weapon in there, I don't need to prove there is one in order to tell you to leave. I'm not trying to sue you for breaking a law (which would require proof, etc.) just giving a specific reason for you to leave the property I own. Why would I even bother to remove the car at all? A car can't use a firearm, you can and it's you I care about. If you want to leave the weapon at home, all well and good. If you leave a weapon in your vehicle (or if I believe you do, even without proof) you can stay off of my property, aside from returning to recover your car and its unmolested contents.

 

[Crossbow Porpoise]

Nice. This thread is now 15 pages of a political circle jerk.

 

[Whosyer]

And rule of law in Colorado has shown..you do not have a right to refuse business to homosexuals.

You cannot complain that government is overstepping it's bounds in the case of this bakery owner and then say the government is doing the right thing by forcing a business to allow employees or customers to have weapons on their property.

Do I have the right to perform satanic rituals in my van in a church parking lot on Sunday morning? It's open to the public. I'm inside my which is my property and I have the right to freedom of religion. Are my rights being violated when the pastor tells me to perform my rituals elsewhere?

Is this your handiwork ?

Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature - U.S. News

 

[Mackey]

They should be able to refuse service upon the religious grounds cited. According to the first amendment, they should have the freedom to exercise their religious beliefs. Apparently they do not.

I wonder what religion there is that indicates that you should starve out, ignore, refuse services to someone you consider a "sinner."
I have heard of a "leader" of a certain religion that actually ate with "sinners" and even went so far as to say that you should " love your enemies."
Not very loving to refuse service.

 

[Bunnykid68]

To All,

To my thinking many business owners (aka human beings) fail to understand the full implications of the decisions they make.

Most businesses incorporate that plan to stay in business for a long time. They do this for a variety of reasons. The entrepreneur through legal incorporation seeks special treatment from the State. The entrepreneur seeks special legal status, special tax status, special "privileges" for lack of a better word. For example, if I am a baker and I incorporate and one of the cakes the corporation makes hurts someone very badly I cannot loose my personal home, my personal savings. In a word, the only thing lost IS the business and its assets - most of the time. Incorporation means that the company is legally a separate, individual person under the law. Business owners tend to overlook the fact that it isn't completely "theirs" anymore. They don't own it per se, they own stock in it.

When the entrepreneur seeks to create this separate person (aka corporation) they forget that by doing so the State, while giving certain privileges, is well within the parameters of reasonability to make certain demands. Your company, which is NOT you, will follow certain rules and regulations. If you seek protection by making a new person it is not unreasonable for the State giving such protection to make demands upon that new "person." These demands are not a surprise nor are they unforeseen or unforeseeable.

So it should not be a total surprise that the owner of the stock in the company that he controls but isn't "him" is not allowed to foist his personal religious beliefs (or any other viewpoints) upon the corporation that is not him, and thus upon the customers.

I am NOT being anti-business, rather anti-hypocrisy. I think it hypocritical to expect all of the benefits of doing a thing and then whine about all of the negatives about doing a thing. No decision is without benefits and without liabilities. Each must be weighed to make the best decision possible.

Regards,

Doug

You bring up some very interesting points here Doug. Are we sure the baker has a corporation or is he just a sole proprietor?

 

[Libertarian01]

You bring up some very interesting points here Doug. Are we sure the baker has a corporation or is he just a sole proprietor?

To Bunnykid68,

I am presuming that he has incorporated. I could be wrong (and probably am if I hang my hat on that premise) but as most small businesses wind up going S Corp I will guess likely he is.

IF he were a sole proprietor I would argue that he should have MUCH more freedom to do as he chooses, as he is not seeking special privileges from the State. I would argue purely on ethical grounds then and not legal ones as I would support his decision to serve whom he chooses as an independent person. Once he incorporates however... not completely his say anymore.

Regards,

Doug

 

[hornadylnl]

Seems I have seen a bunch of threads on here about how that is an infringement. But I guess if if it's okay for the gubbamint to do it, it's okay for everyone to do it.

Your previous posts lead me to believe you were against the government telling people what to do.

Didn't say I agreed with that law. You asked if there was a law, I told you.

Government forcing a business to serve someone is telling them what to do.

Government forcing a business to allow thing on their property that they don't want is not telling them what to do. Got it.

 

[Bummer]

... I don't have to respect any one of your inalienable rights on my property except your right to live.

What about liberty? Last I heard enslaving someone because they stepped onto your property is frowned upon.

I hesitate to mention property, because of the potential vagueness of "pursuit of happiness". Some argue that Jefferson meant property, because of Locke. Others go different directions. I suppose you would be able to get away with making me unhappy, but that would probably depend on how you did it. That being said, I'm pretty sure you aren't supposed to simply take my stuff because I've stepped onto your property.

Those would seem to expand the list to the somewhat traditional life, liberty, estate. Or am I incorrect?

 

[Expat]

I wonder what religion there is that indicates that you should starve out, ignore, refuse services to someone you consider a "sinner."
I have heard of a "leader" of a certain religion that actually ate with "sinners" and even went so far as to say that you should " love your enemies."
Not very loving to refuse service.

They will be starved out if they don't force these particular people to bake them a wedding cake? How dramatic.

Is this the same leader that took up a staff to beat the money changers in the temple? The same leader that after saving the woman from a stoning, told her to sin no more? Not to keep up the great work as a whore.

 

[Bummer]

Please reference anything or anyone who supports your bizarre view that the difference in wording of those two Amendments means that one is directed only at Congress and the other at private citizens.

How about the words of the Amendments themselves?

In the First, Congress is clearly specified. At the time it was quite common for the States to violate those rights as they chose. Did it not take an interpretation of the Fourteenth to expand that to the States?

The Second does not specify any government agency of any kind, only that the right shall not be infringed. In that it is unlikely they forgot how to specify the Congress in the time between writing the First and Second, just why does it not mean everyone? Even if this were not the case, why should the Fourteenth apply to the First but not the Second?

As to "anyone", who agrees, who should care? The Constitution says what it says, whether anyone, including the Supreme Court agrees.

Why do they not mean exactly what they say?

 

[bmbutch]

Nice. This thread is now 15 pages of a political circle jerk.

Ha, & welcome to INGO! It's pretty common on these threads. I rarely post in them, but sometimes peruse them for some odd reason.

 

[SaintsNSinners]

Brokeback Biscuits gravy on the side

 

[steveh_131]

Are they coming over as part of an invitation, or are they contractually obligated to come to your house?

Tell me the specifics of the contract and we can proceed.

If the contract specifies that employment hinges on certain criteria, including things such as firearm rules, then the employee should either refuse to accept the contract, or follow it once he accepts it. You have a choice in signing contracts. And the employer is held to the contract as well. I see no problem with this - all free and voluntary.

If you are talking about basic employment where no contracts are signed, then no one is 'obliged' to go anywhere. If you don't like the rules at work, don't go. Find a better place of employment. Also free and voluntary.

Can you tell them they can't have a firearm in their car on the ride to your house? When they park their car on your driveway, does that give you the right to enter their vehicle and search for a firearm, or drugs, or cash, or anything else you think they shouldn't have? Or do your property rights stop at the door to their property?

We can enter into a verbal contract. I can say "I don't want any firearms on my property. If you choose to come visit, I want to search your vehicle to make sure there are none." They can either follow my rules or they can choose to not enter my property. Again, free and voluntary.

It is ironic that for a thread full of people trying to staunchly defend their freedom, a whole lot of them sure embrace the idea of forcing their will upon others.

I wouldn't personally do any of these things. But I do believe in property rights. And I will respect the property rights of others.

 

[dross]

How about the words of the Amendments themselves?

In the First, Congress is clearly specified. At the time it was quite common for the States to violate those rights as they chose. Did it not take an interpretation of the Fourteenth to expand that to the States?

The Second does not specify any government agency of any kind, only that the right shall not be infringed. In that it is unlikely they forgot how to specify the Congress in the time between writing the First and Second, just why does it not mean everyone? Even if this were not the case, why should the Fourteenth apply to the First but not the Second?

As to "anyone", who agrees, who should care? The Constitution says what it says, whether anyone, including the Supreme Court agrees.

Why do they not mean exactly what they say?

And when you and I disagree about what they say "exactly" who determines which of our views is the correct one? This argument is always advanced as if everything is so obvious that reasonable people can never disagree. As soon as there is disagreement about the meaning, a method is needed to determine the meaning.

Even if I accept your meaning, it doesn't matter, because I'm not infringing on anyone's rights by not letting them come on my property. You don't have a right to use my property, so it's not infringing on anything if I don't let you use it. I can let someone else use it and refuse to let you use it. It's mine. No infringement of your rights.

 

[TRWXXA]

Didn't say I agreed with that law. You asked if there was a law, I told you.

Government forcing a business to serve someone is telling them what to do.

Government forcing a business to allow thing on their property that they don't want is not telling them what to do. Got it.

I just found it absurd that you would cite a law most on here consider to be part of an overreaching, tyrannical government to support the assertion that you can tell an employee that they can not exercise their 2nd Amendment freedom as they commute to and from work. If government is a tyrant, then I guess that would make you a petty tyrant.

 

[TRWXXA]

Tell me the specifics of the contract and we can proceed.

If the contract specifies that employment hinges on certain criteria, including things such as firearm rules, then the employee should either refuse to accept the contract, or follow it once he accepts it. You have a choice in signing contracts. And the employer is held to the contract as well. I see no problem with this - all free and voluntary.

If you are talking about basic employment where no contracts are signed, then no one is 'obliged' to go anywhere. If you don't like the rules at work, don't go. Find a better place of employment. Also free and voluntary.



We can enter into a verbal contract. I can say "I don't want any firearms on my property. If you choose to come visit, I want to search your vehicle to make sure there are none." They can either follow my rules or they can choose to not enter my property. Again, free and voluntary.



I wouldn't personally do any of these things. But I do believe in property rights. And I will respect the property rights of others.

Since you are such a strong proponent of properrty rights, please enumerate them for us.

You talk about "property rights" like they were the Bill of Rights. You probably think "property rights" mean you can do whatever you want with your property. Can you open a business on it? If it is a business, can you establish a residence on it? Can you burn a pile of trash on it? Can you fire a gun on it? Can you let the grass grow as long as you want? Does the government tax it? Is there an easment on it, or a right-of-way running through it? Are there setback rules? Can you build a structure on it without a permit? Can a HOA kick you off of it? Can the bank take it? Can the government take it from you and give it to someone else? Can the EPA march on to it and deny you its use?

The "property rights" you hold so dear are pretty abstract, aren't they.

In the eyes of the law, when my vehicle (my enclosed, personal property) is parked on another's property, legally or illegally, it is still MY property. The other property owner holds no rights to it.

 

[steveh_131]

Since you are such a strong proponent of properrty rights, please enumerate them for us.

You talk about "property rights" like they were the Bill of Rights. You probably think "property rights" mean you can do whatever you want with your property. Can you open a business on it? If it is a business, can you establish a residence on it? Can you burn a pile of trash on it? Can you fire a gun on it? Can you let the grass grow as long as you want? Does the government tax it? Is there an easment on it, or a right-of-way running through it? Are there setback rules? Can you build a structure on it without a permit? Can a HOA kick you off of it? Can the bank take it? Can the government take it from you and give it to someone else? Can the EPA march on to it and deny you its use?

Your questions are a muddled mess. Are you asking me if I 'can' do these things in a legal sense? Or in a moral sense?

The "property rights" you hold so dear are pretty abstract, aren't they.

No, not in a moral sense. We can keep it simple. I can do whatever I want with my property up to the point that it initiates force against you or your property. I can shoot on my property. If I shoot from my property onto yours, then we have a problem.

You do not have a right to enter my property. If I allow you entrance, we have an inherent contract; you may enter my property on my terms. You are not forced to accept my terms. You have the option of leaving or not entering my property in the first place.

In the eyes of the law, when my vehicle (my enclosed, personal property) is parked on another's property, legally or illegally, it is still MY property. The other property owner holds no rights to it.

The property owner has every right to remove both you and your vehicle from his property for any reason he chooses, unless you have both agreed to terms in a contract that stipulate that he cannot. You do not have the right to park your car in my yard just because you own the car. That makes absolutely no sense.

 

[dross]

In the eyes of the law, when my vehicle (my enclosed, personal property) is parked on another's property, legally or illegally, it is still MY property. The other property owner holds no rights to it.

Correct. Now please remove your car from my property. You are welcome to bring it back and park it on my property again when there's no gun in it. See?