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

[dross]

Let's play, "Make an Employment Contract."

.........................................
I agree to hire you and to pay you for hours worked. We both agree that either party may terminate the relationship without giving cause. You agree to follow my rules. One of my rules is that you can't bring your firearm on to my property. My property includes the parking lot.
..........................................

Oh, you don't like my rules? Okay, no problem. Let's shake hands and go our separate ways.

Let freedom ring.

 

[Expat]

Let's play, "Make an Employment Contract."

.........................................
I agree to hire you and to pay you for hours worked. We both agree that either party may terminate the relationship without giving cause. You agree to follow my rules. One of my rules is that you can't bring your firearm on to my property. My property includes the parking lot.
..........................................

Oh, you don't like my rules? Okay, no problem. Let's shake hands and go our separate ways.

Let freedom ring.

crazy radicals

 

[billmyn]

So, what about signs saying "No Blacks Allowed", "No Jews Allowed", or "No Muslims Allowed", or "No Christians Allowed"?
Would that be ok?

.

Yes this should be the owners choice. But it is also peoples choice on whether or not to do buisness there. If the majority of the people decide not to shop there then he will fail as a buisness and close up shop. Thats the way it works. Just like price shopping if the price is to high one place you look for a better deal somewhere else. But the shop owner has to decide get on board with or sink his or her own ship.

 

[hornadylnl]

I'd bet that being anti gun has little to do with most employers banning weapons on their property. It's so that when your disgruntled coworker goes out to his car, grabs his gun and kills you, the employer can demonstrate to the court that they took some measure to prevent it. Not that Americans would sue for things like that.

 

[hornadylnl]

Yes this should be the owners choice. But it is also peoples choice on whether or not to do buisness there. If the majority of the people decide not to shop there then he will fail as a buisness and close up shop. Thats the way it works. Just like price shopping if the price is to high one place you look for a better deal somewhere else. But the shop owner has to decide get on board with or sink his or her own ship.

I wish it were legal for store owners to discriminate. Let them wear it on their sleeves. I and any others who weren't born in a cave can take our business elsewhere. We'll see how near and dear racism and bigotry is to these neanderthals when they're rewarded with no customers. They'll either grow up or go out of business.

 

[hornadylnl]

Let's play, "Make an Employment Contract."

.........................................
I agree to hire you and to pay you for hours worked. We both agree that either party may terminate the relationship without giving cause. You agree to follow my rules. One of my rules is that you can't bring your firearm on to my property. My property includes the parking lot.
..........................................

Oh, you don't like my rules? Okay, no problem. Let's shake hands and go our separate ways.

Let freedom ring.

The only rights you have are those enumerated in the constitution. You don't have property rights. I don't like the color of your shutters. Change it or I'll sick the law on you.

 

[dross]

The only rights you have are those enumerated in the constitution. You don't have property rights. I don't like the color of your shutters. Change it or I'll sick the law on you.

I've learned a new way to read the Constitution. For instance, it says "Congress shall make no law". I think it's saying that Congress can't make any laws. I think it's like that trick that teachers use to see if you read the instructions on the test where it says at the top to put your name down and then hand it in.

 

[Bummer]

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.

I said nothing whatsoever about property. I simply addressed the wording of two Amendments. I am not involved in the discussion of property rights. For the record, I agree that I have no right whatsoever to so much as step onto your property. That, of course, has nothing to do with what I'm writing about.

You stated "Please reference anything or anyone who supports your bizarre view..." Since I share his view, I referenced the words of the Bill of Rights in response to your challenge.

You disagree with what they say? Ok, then what does your copy say? Does the First not specify "Congress shall make no law..."? Does the Second not say "..shall not be infringed."? Didn't the States infringe on the rights listed in the First until the Fourteenth was used to stop them? Does the Second specify any government entity at all?

The copy the government displays reads exactly as I have quoted.

I'm talking about the actual words of the Constitution, of which the Bill of Rights is a part.

Why do they not mean what they say?

 

[dross]

I said nothing whatsoever about property. I simply addressed the wording of two Amendments. I am not involved in the discussion of property rights. For the record, I agree that I have no right whatsoever to so much as step onto your property. That, of course, has nothing to do with what I'm writing about.

You stated "Please reference anything or anyone who supports your bizarre view..." Since I share his view, I referenced the words of the Bill of Rights in response to your challenge.

You disagree with what they say? Ok, then what does your copy say? Does the First not specify "Congress shall make no law..."? Does the Second not say "..shall not be infringed."? Didn't the States infringe on the rights listed in the First until the Fourteenth was used to stop them? Does the Second specify any government entity at all?

The copy the government displays reads exactly as I have quoted.

I'm talking about the actual words of the Constitution, of which the Bill of Rights is a part.

Why do they not mean what they say?

I disagree with what you say those words mean. Now who decides what they mean?

 

[Bunnykid68]

I disagree with what you say those words mean. Now who decides what they mean?

Let me be the one that decides.

Everyone knows rabbits are fair.

 

[Bummer]

I disagree with what you say those words mean. Now who decides what they mean?

I see. You've argued "Does not".

My apologies for bothering you. I thought you were someone else.

 

[1911ly]

I tossed a guy out of a business. We was a pedophile that had just been released from prison. My boss had grandkids that hung around the store. He called the police and the BBB on me. They told him the same thing I told him. Had the right to refuse service to anyone without reason. He asked me why and I just said I would be glad to if he wanted he wanted me to but that there were a room full of people that might not like his situation. He tried to come back a few times but finally figured he wasn't welcome.

He might have paid his debt to society but the world is filled with re-offenders. I might be the bad guy but not as bad a guy as he was! I am not afraid to refuse service.

 

[dross]

I see. You've argued "Does not".

My apologies for bothering you. I thought you were someone else.

Incorrect.

I write for a living. I write technical material. Quite often I write something I think is clear as day. My editor thinks it's clear. When it goes out to general review to the team, someone or someones often take issue with the wording, insisting that to them it means something else. Many times there are different factions who see it different ways. And this is on black and white technical issues among experts.

Words are abstractions. Your position suggests they are concrete. Your insistence that they mean what they mean or they do not betrays your real position, which is that YOU and YOUR interpretation are what is correct and true. That is an unworkable system unless you are a dictator. As soon as someone disagrees with what you say is obvious, your position falls apart. Unless you then categorize them as obviously wrong.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Some things never change

 

[dross]

Some things never change

I'm going to take that to mean that you're glad to see me.

 

[dross]

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.

I just love these kinds of posts.

A: I'm SO above this kind of silliness aren't you?
B: Oh yes! I"m above it tooo, oh so much!
A: I think I'll post on the internet to show how much I"m above posting my views on the internet!
B: (Squeal!!!) Oh, me tooo! Me toooo!

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I'm going to take that to mean that you're glad to see me.

Glad to see you haven't changed

I just love these kinds of posts.

A: I'm SO above this kind of silliness aren't you?
B: Oh yes! I"m above it tooo, oh so much!
A: I think I'll post on the internet to show how much I"m above posting my views on the internet!
B: (Squeal!!!) Oh, me tooo! Me toooo!

C: I must now castigate you for your blatant hypocrisy. Now kneel before Zod! (at which point A and B [STRIKE]reach for a dictionary[/STRIKE] go to [STRIKE]dictionary.com[/STRIKE] wikipedia and look up the word castigate).

 

[1911ly]

Glad to see you haven't changed



C: I must now castigate you for your blatant hypocrisy. Now kneel before Zod! (at which point A and B [STRIKE]reach for a dictionary[/STRIKE] go to [STRIKE]dictionary.com[/STRIKE] wikipedia and look up the word castigate).

I prefer to keep mine thank you!

 

[HeadlessRoland]

The only rights you have are those enumerated in the constitution. You don't have property rights. I don't like the color of your shutters. Change it or I'll sick the law on you.

Hey, I've already said that the paint will be cerulean blue.

 

[Crossbow Porpoise]

A: I'm SO above this kind of silliness aren't you?
B: Oh yes! I"m above it tooo, oh so much!
A: I think I'll post on the internet to show how much I"m above posting my views on the internet!
B: (Squeal!!!) Oh, me tooo! Me toooo!

I am most certainly not above this behavior. Even though this behavior not being beneath me, it does not mean that this thread is not an exercise in political mutual self-gratification.