Sunday, August 04, 2013

We Need To March

Free Web Page Hit Counter

"Words without actions are the assassins of idealism." ~ Herbert Hoover

I've been thinking. I was listening to the Alan Colmes radio program a few days ago, and he was literally laughing at a Liberal caller who mentioned she was planning on joining a "march on Washington". He asked her what she hoped to accomplish by marching on Washington, and the poor, misguided woman couldn't answer his question. She didn't know. She just wanted to be part of something. He went on to explain that these marches and rallies on Washington never accomplish anything. 

That started me thinking.

Alan Colmes is wrong! Actually, it was the anti-war marches and rallies in Washington that motivated Nixon to surrender in Vietnam. They really do work! 

With that in mind, I've decided that possibly, if we can get enough people involved, we could motivate Congress to start impeachment proceedings against Obama, and maybe even convince them to repeal Obamacare, do whatever is necessary to prevent illegal immigration, stop this reckless overspending, etc.

Liberal mobs have been marching and protesting since at least the 60's and they have been effective at making changes in governmental and public policies, and they are still making big differences. Look, for instance, at the "gay rights" movement. How else could 1-2% of the population force lawmakers into passing laws that effectively violate our first amendment right to free exercise of religion?

Mobs. You'd think after 5-6 decades Conservatives would learn.

It's high time Conservatives adopt these tactics. We need to march on Washington. We need to stage rallies, We need to break windows. We need to make noise. We need to do whatever it takes to turn our country around and return it to the Constitutional Republic the founders envisioned. We need to hound our Representatives until they acquiesce. 


The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Yes, I know we have the tea party, but frankly, the tea party is too polite. That's why they are marginalized. We Conservatives need to get rude and loud, and force these lawmakers to do the job we elected them to do.

123 comments:

Jim said...

You need to get this book then. Sounds like you should get familiar with community organizing.

Marshall Art said...

The problem, Mark, is that, unlike the lefties, conservatives work for a living and have little time to go marching on anyone.

Jim said...

Or lefties make time. Lefties can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Marshall Art said...

Yeah, Jim. That must be it.

Always On Watch said...

I've been told over and over by a friend in London that Americans who oppose the present governmental policies need to get out into the streets and make some noise.

Across The Pond, some people are wondering why, in the Land of the Free, WE THE PEOPLE are so quiet and polite.

Jim said...

Quiet and polite? Have you seen a Tea Party rally or a town hall meeting lately?

Duckys here said...

How else could 1-2% of the population force lawmakers into passing laws that effectively violate our first amendment right to free exercise of religion?

-------
Oh please, I really want to hear the details.

By the way, the reason gay rights have made such progress is not pressure by gays but rather the coming out of gays and the realization by the majority of the population that bigotry by the religious right is just that, bigotry.

Now, how have your religious rights been impaired?

Jim said...

Ducky is right on. Once people started learning that their daughters, sons, nieces, nephews, brothers, sisters, neighbors, and co-workers were gay they began to realize that gays weren't icky and were fine with them having the right to be happy and live in a stable, committed relationship.

1-2% of the population don't force lawmakers. 50+ percent of their families, friends, neighbors, and associates do.

Which religious rights are impaired?

Marshall Art said...

That's not quite how it works, boys. Once people started learning their relatives were homosexuals, they began to act towards the sin and the sinner the same way other people have acted toward relatives that have committed other sinful or illegal acts. It isn't new. It isn't a revelation. It's human nature to view your own as not the asshole the rest of the world might easily know him to be. It's no different than a mother claiming her boy isn't so bad.

As to which rights of Christians are infringed upon, you two liars both have been schooled on that answer, while never providing true examples of rights denied to homosexuals.

As to this:

"Quiet and polite? Have you seen a Tea Party rally or a town hall meeting lately?"

...Jim confuses Tea Party rallies with Occupy Whatever rallies. Tea Party rallies have been routinely orderly, polite and, above all, cleaned up after it was over. But yeah, town hall meetings can get noisy considering all the pissed off people trying to get straight answers from evasive politicians.

Jim said...

But yeah, town hall meetings can get noisy considering all the pissed off people trying to get straight answers from evasive politicians.

Yeah, like this one.

they began to act towards the sin and the sinner the same way other people have acted toward relatives that have committed other sinful

Most people in this country don't give a shit about this anymore, and that's a good thing no matter how sanctimonious you choose to be about it. They are no longer trapped in a prior millenium as you are.

Regardless. The point that was offered was that 1-2% of the population forced lawmakers to legislate protection of rights for LGBTs. Clearly this is absurdly false, as it was their family, friends and neighbors who put pressure on lawmakers.

you two liars both have been schooled on that answer,

We don't take lessons from a pederast. And we have provided multiple examples of rights denied upheld by the judicial system.

Marshall Art said...

I don't know if you can legitimately say most people don't give a shit about this since still, most states that have allowed their citizens to vote on SSM have voted 60% in favor of real marriage. You hang your hat on polls which do not survey more than a few thousand people.

I am not trapped in a prior time. I am simply not spineless when it comes to sexual morality.

And once again you default to "the judicial system" to determine your morality. Legal decisions do not equate to either morality or legitimate rights denied. What you think are rights denied is based on a fiction that unfortunately too many in our government have bought into.

So what we have is people like yourself that are too morally corrupt to even understand what morality is, relatives of morally corrupted people who will deny the immorality of their loved ones' behavior, and morally corrupted politicians that will do anything for votes. Wait a minute. You're right. I AM trapped.

Finally, you can bristle when your lies provoke charges of your being a liar, and calling me a pederast might pass for clever amongst desperate people like yourself. But to pretend the rights of Christians have not been infringed upon in favor of homosexuals makes you a liar, whether you have the character to accept it or not. Which you obviously don't.

Jim said...

And once again you default to "the judicial system" to determine your morality.

And once again you make this utterly false assertion. Nothing I have written here relates to my morality (which exists completely outside the legal system). It is irrelevant to the issue, just as much as is yours.

Legal decisions do not equate to either morality or legitimate rights denied.

It is correct that legal decisions do not equate to morality. I've never said they do.

It is absurd to suggest that legitimate rights denied is separate from legal decisions.

Whatever rights our Creator has endowed us with are protected by the legal system.

"Legitimate" rights are not defined by you nor your self-claimed inerrant sense of morality. They are claimed by whoever asserts them and upheld by the system of laws and justice of the land.

There is not a single right you can demonstrate that has been denied to Christians in this matter.

Marshall Art said...

"Nothing I have written here relates to my morality (which exists completely outside the legal system). It is irrelevant to the issue, just as much as is yours."

Yet, with sociopathic consistency, you insist on bringing up legal decisions, opinions and the law in discussions regarding morality.

"Whatever rights our Creator has endowed us with are protected by the legal system."

With the obvious exception of one's right to run one's business according to the dictates of one's faith. The New Mexico photographer was told that her right to religious expression must bend to the demand of a couple of lesbians who feel they have a right to make a business do their bidding. You insist that people like the photographer, the florist, the bed and breakfast owner, the baker are not having their rights as free Americans denied when they are forced to serve people who wish to celebrate what the Christians know are sinful relationships, forcing them to take part in celebrating those relationships by providing their services. None of the homosexuals involved are denied anything because there are plenty of morally corrupt people who will take their money and provide the goods and services they seek to celebrate their depravity.

People like Frank Turec have been denied employment for the crime of expressing their beliefs about homosexual issues, and you want to pretend that no Christian is denied rights over homosexual issues. Such people are expected to stifle their God-given and Constitutionally protected right to speak freely on homosexual issues without the threat of loss of income, without the threat of loss of privacy while homosexual activists publish and publicize the addresses of those who speak out against SSM and other homosexual issues. Don't tell me Christians and those opposed to homosexual "rights" are being denied. You'd have to be a liar to insist such lies are true.

Jim said...

But you aren't talking about your church and family. You are talking about your community, your state, and your country. Not everyone outside your church and family (or inside, for that matter) agrees with you. So if you insist on trying to impose your morals outside of your family and church, which is what this particular post is about, it must necessarily be a discussion of "legal decisions, opinions, and the law..."

With the obvious exception of one's right to run one's business according to the dictates of one's faith.

You are not getting this. I don't know why. If you operate a business that offers goods and services TO THE PUBLIC, you must adhere to the applicable government regulations. Your faith may object to mixed-race marriages, but you cannot operate a public business and deny services to a mixed-race couple. Such couples are not obligated to just find another business that will accommodate them.

If you are a photographer and wish to photograph the weddings of only couples that adhere to your church's tenets, then you must limit your services to members of your church. That goes for bakers and B&B operators. Limit your business to your church members or club members and you can restrict gays. But if you open your business to the public, you must adhere to the rules of public accommodation.

It's really that simple: church or private club vs. public accommodation.

The Constitution guarantees that no laws are to be made that restrict free speech. It does not guarantee that people are free from the consequences of their speech. There is no right to say anything anywhere and be free of the consequences. You are free to tell your wife she has a fat butt, but you are not immune to the consequences of that "free speech". If it is a company policy not to express private or religious opinions at work or work activities, that company has every right to terminate an employee who does not follow those rules.

Marshall Art said...

You haven't denied the facts I present. You have only stated that the law dictates what is right and wrong, exactly as I continue to indicate and exactly what you deny is your fallback position.

The issue is really, once again, the laws you put forth as the be all and end all of your morality do not actually determine what morality is, but only dictates what everyone must regard as morality.

If a photographer doesn't wish to do business with a party that demand a record of their heinous actions, you would insist that the photographer has no choice but to comply. And regardless of the fact that the law might impose that immoral demand, the law doesn't make it moral to demand and expect that anyone comply. It only makes it the law that is in effect. To demand that a Christian must do business with anyone that wishes to celebrate immoral behavior is to infringe upon the Constitutional rights of the business owner, regardless of whether or not a corrupt court demands they do so. To you, the court's demand dictates the morality of the action. It does not and honest and faithful Christians easily understand the distinction.

By your reasoning, no bar owner can deny the sale of alcohol to a customer because the customer decides to get hammered and then go for a drive. But the law can penalize a bar for doing just that. The law decided the morality (or immorality) of excessive drinking and then driving, and the bar must comply or face possible prosecution for the harm the drunk might cause. In this case, the law is unnecessary for the moral bar owner who can tell when a customer has had enough. Yet the bar owner is making the exact same type of judgement as the photographer, baker, florist, or whatever, in acknowledging that the customer is acting immorally.

The difference is that the law has now dictated a false premise that must be accepted by those who know better: that two of the same sex acting as lovers must be treated as normal couples who are married or intending to be.

So in one case, the law demands the bar owner to interfere with the intent of a customer based on a subjective and personal belief that a customer might be drinking too much...but then ignore the immoral behavior of a couple who states they intend to marry, when their pairing does not fit the definition, and thus are acting immorally or improperly. In the second case, the law demands a business IGNORE the immorality of the customer's request and pretend otherwise. It makes the business owner complicit in the immoral act against their will, when they would prefer to not be involved.

Any law that demands a business owner to act against their firmly held religious beliefs (or really against ANY firmly held beliefs) is unethical, immoral and unAmerican. The only exception that makes any sense is any case where a life would be put at risk if a business denied service to a customer. That would be like a private hospital not providing care for someone based on race, creed or even sexual orientation.

But if I don't want to sell to a homosexual, or even a person of another race, a product or service where the denial of that product or service won't put the customer's life at risk, I see or have no issue with such a thing to the extent that I would dare demand the government force the business to comply. I would instead encourage the customer to simply find another provider.

What it all comes down to is that there is no justification for classifying sexual orientation as a protected class. It is ludicrous and cannot help but infringe upon the rights of so many people who understand the truth of what such legislation does to the culture.

Jim said...

You haven't denied the facts I present.

WHAT facts?

You have only stated that the law dictates what is right and wrong

Wrong. I have stated that the law dictates what is legal and illegal.

To demand that a Christian must do business with anyone that wishes to celebrate immoral behavior is to infringe upon the Constitutional rights of the business owner

What Constitutional rights would those be? Providing goods and services to the public is not exercising religion.

To you, the court's demand dictates the morality of the action.

What part of "no" do you not understand. The court's demand dictates what is legal.

By your reasoning, no bar owner can deny the sale of alcohol to a customer because the customer decides to get hammered and then go for a drive.

This is just about the looniest of any "argument" you've ever made here. The law decided what is legal and illegal regarding drinking and driving not by morality but by public safety.

Yet the bar owner is making the exact same type of judgement as the photographer, baker, florist, or whatever, in acknowledging that the customer is acting immorally.

This so ludicrous that I did a spit take when I read it. The bartender makes no judgement or acknowledgement of the customer's morality, only his impact on public safety.

Any law that demands a business owner to act against their firmly held religious beliefs (or really against ANY firmly held beliefs) is unethical, immoral and unAmerican.

So a business income tax upon a person who believes that taxes are theft should be able to not pay those taxes because being forced to do so would impose on his firmly held beliefs and thus be immoral, right?

I would instead encourage the customer to simply find another provider.

So you are a Rand Paulian who believes the Civil Rights Act should never have been passed, huh?

there is no justification for classifying sexual orientation as a protected class.

Says you. Fortunately that boat has sailed.

the truth of what such legislation does to the culture.

What it does for the culture is make it freer, more diverse, more inclusive, and over time less bigoted. Sooner or later you will die.

Mark said...

Jim the point of the post is that Conservatives need to be pro-active. Sitting around and complaining won't change anything. Only by taking a page out of the Liberal's book will Conservatives make a difference in political discourse. The homosexual lobby putting pressure on the politicians is merely a perfect example of what can be accomplished by getting noisy.

Mark said...

"Any law that demands a business owner to act against their firmly held religious beliefs (or really against ANY firmly held beliefs) is unethical, immoral and unAmerican."

In addition to that, it is also unconstitutional, to wit: "Congress shall pass no law regarding the establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof"

Mark said...

In other words, any law passed to force business owners to violate their own firmly held religious beliefs directly contradicts the establishment clause of the first amendment.

Jim said...

"Congress shall pass no law regarding the establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof"

Operating a business open to the public is not exercising religion.

Marshall Art said...

"WHAT facts?"

This question indicates a failure to pay attention, a vast lack of intelligence or a sociopathic level of dishonesty. I'm going with #3 with a heaping helping of #2.

"Wrong. I have stated that the law dictates what is legal and illegal.


What part of "no" do you not understand. The court's demand dictates what is legal."


These two suggest more of #2. As I continue to remind you, the question of what is or isn't legal is irrelevant and besides the point of discussion. I haven't argued that at all. But YOU keep bringing it up during discussions of what is moral so how do expect anyone to believe your morality isn't based on whatever is legal at the moment? Just because you'll then deny it?

"What Constitutional rights would those be? Providing goods and services to the public is not exercising religion."

Unlike pretend and nominal Christians like yourself, Jim, real Christians intend to live out every aspect of their lives according to their faith. They don't want to go near anything that conflicts with their beliefs, but you are totally cool with the law forcing them to do so.

"This is just about the looniest of any "argument" you've ever made here. The law decided what is legal and illegal regarding drinking and driving not by morality but by public safety."

The argument isn't flawed at all. You're just too full of #2 to understand the point. You're also too full of it to understand the law. The law does not prohibit a bar from serving drinks in any quantity. It holds the bar liable for damages caused by the drunk he served. Another bad law, but my point dealt with the bartender who decides for himself, without force of any law except the law of his own morality, to deny the drunk any more drinks. The comparison was that by your argument, the bartender must NOT deny the drunk regardless of his beliefs because he is operating a business that serves the public. The bartender understands the harm that serving the drunk will cause. The florist/photographer/bed & breakfast owner/etc. all understand the harm contributing to sinful behavior will cause.

Marshall Art said...

"So a business income tax upon a person who believes that taxes are theft..."

Being so full of #2, you think an exception negates the principle. Life doesn't work that way. Also indicates #3.

"So you are a Rand Paulian who believes the Civil Rights Act should never have been passed, huh?"

No. I'm a Marshall Artisan who agrees with Rand Paul that the Civil Rights Act as written should not have been passed. Even the name of the act suggests holding private businesses to that standard was inappropriate. "Civil" in this case indicates law, under which too many were not being treated equally as the Constitution intended.

"Says you. Fortunately that boat has sailed."

Says honest people of character, which eliminates you and too many leftists. But don't get cocky. Laws have been reversed before.

"What it does for the culture is make it freer, more diverse, more inclusive, and over time less bigoted. Sooner or later you will die."

Wow! Talk about #2!! Time will never eliminate those who understand biology, morality and truth. This law does none of what you say. It only codifies perversity and immorality.

Mark said...

"Operating a business open to the public is not exercising religion."

No, but practicing the precepts of your religion is regardless of where they is practiced. Maybe you drop your religion off at the door when you arrive at work, but that isn't what God wants us to do.

Jim said...

Your post here is about nothing but the law. Otherwise what are you rising up in protest against? Your neighbors and fellow citizens who aren't "moral" enough for you? You said your goal is to "force these lawmakers to do the job we elected them to do." So it's entirely about the law.

the question of what is or isn't legal is irrelevant and besides the point of discussion.

From my above response the question of what is legal or illegal is entirely relevant and directly on the point of the discussion. Again, otherwise what are you rising up to get the lawmakers to do? Pass a resolution?

They don't want to go near anything that conflicts with their beliefs

Then they should not provide goods and services to people outside their church. Should they refuse service to folks who don't believe Christ is the Son of God? Wouldn't that conflict with their beliefs?

"without force of any law except the law of his own morality"

Are you suggesting that concern for public safety is a matter of morality and not simply the desire that his friends, neighbors, relatives, and clients not get killed?

by your argument, the bartender must NOT deny the drunk regardless of his beliefs because he is operating a business that serves the public.

A bartender does not deny alcohol because of his beliefs. This is where your argument falls apart. A bartender denies a drunk because of public safety and his potential liability should his non-denial lead to injury or death.

The bartender understands the harm that serving the drunk will cause.

Indeed, but not because of his religious beliefs.

The florist/photographer/bed & breakfast owner/etc. all understand the harm

NO they don't because there is no public harm or matter of safety involved. The only harm they can "understand" is the harm to the souls of those they believe are damned.

private businesses to that standard was inappropriate.

The only "private" businesses are churches or clubs that restrict their membership. Anything that serves the general public is not a private business and is subject to the laws regarding business and public accommodation.

Marshall Art said...

"Your post here is about nothing but the law."

Read it again. It's about marching and protesting in order to draw attention to whatever law enough people wish to change. Laws that force God-fearing people to act against their conscience are examples of such laws.

"From my above response the question of what is legal or illegal is entirely relevant and directly on the point of the discussion."

Clearly I was referring to your constant references to what is legal when the morality of a behavior enabled by law is being discussed. Evidence of #1 likely do to your being full of #2.

"Should they refuse service to folks who don't believe Christ is the Son of God? Wouldn't that conflict with their beliefs?"

I guess that would depend on whether or not your consider belief to be a willful action like stealing, lying or engaging in immoral sexual activity. Or that you are full of #2 to make such a suggestion. You don't seem to give a crap about the fact that in each of the cases used as examples, the intention to engage in sinful behavior is made known to the Christian business owner, and thus his/her serving the sinner is akin to participating. It is aiding and abetting. And it is just as it is for the bartender who serves more drinks to the drunk, or the gun-shop owner who sells a gun to someone who says he'll use it to rob.

Once again, in the case of the florist, she sold flowers to the homosexual who complained about her refusal to supply his wedding. She had homosexuals who had worked for her. But the specific request to provide for the wedding is different than merely selling flowers to a homosexual. It is taking part in the celebration of a sinful lifestyle.

In the case of the bed and breakfast owner, there's no evidence he would have refused to rent a room to each homosexual individually. But to rent one room to the couple is to enable the sin in which they are likely to engage (regardless if they do or not). I recall a similar case not too many years ago involving a landlord or B&B owner who refused to rent to an unmarried hetero couple. The interesting aspect of this case is that the refusal led to the couple's separation after the man decided that he was indeed living in sin with the woman, who wanted to legally hold the landlord responsible.

Marshall Art said...

"Are you suggesting that concern for public safety is a matter of morality and not simply the desire that his friends, neighbors, relatives, and clients not get killed?"

Are you suggesting that there is no moral component to a bartender who, without the force of law, denies further drinks to a drunk because of the potential for harm to others? Are you really so full of #2 and #3 that you would suggest concern for the safety of others is not a moral good? You're one desperate fool.

"A bartender does not deny alcohol because of his beliefs. This is where your argument falls apart. A bartender denies a drunk because of public safety and his potential liability should his non-denial lead to injury or death."

Yeah. This pretty much settles it. It's #2 and plenty of it. The ability to hold a bartender responsible for the harm caused by the drunk he served is a relatively new situation. It was not always so. But apparently you don't think there ever existed a bartender with the moral character to refuse service to a drunk before the law, or who only thinks about the law now. And once again, since you're too full of #2 to understand, but concern for public safety is a moral attitude. To deny a drunk more drinks is a moral act. But the point, and here I hope your issue with #1 doesn't interfere with your comprehension, your defense of the law with regards to business owners serving homosexuals in their desire to celebrate their lifestyle, would demand the Christian bartender serve the drunk despite the potential for harm.

"The bartender understands the harm that serving the drunk will cause.

Indeed, but not because of his religious beliefs."


That hardly matters because my position protects even an atheist with a sense of morality that would result in the same choice to deny, regardless of what compels it.

"NO they don't because there is no public harm or matter of safety involved. The only harm they can "understand" is the harm to the souls of those they believe are damned."

Unlike pretenders like yourself, real Christians find that harm of far more concern than physical harm. But unlike dishonest people like you, they also know of the physical and emotional harm to which the lifestyle leads, as well as the harm to the culture.

"Anything that serves the general public is not a private business and is subject to the laws regarding business and public accommodation."

You don't understand business. I've explained the difference between public and private businesses before and am not about to go through it again. But private businesses are most businesses and the laws to which they must abide and the customers they serve have nothing to do with it. And once again, you bring up law to defend a principle of morality. I'm well aware of what the law says regarding what businesses must do in terms of "public accommodation". But the laws are unjust and unethical and extremely unAmerican based on the intent of the founders in crafting Constitutional law. They sought to restrict what the gov't could do, not the private business owner.

Christal said...

This is awesome!

Jim said...

That hardly matters because my position protects even an atheist with a sense of morality

Holy s**t! So you admit that morality exists without God? That's new.

Are you suggesting that there is no moral component to a bartender who, without the force of law, denies further drinks to a drunk because of the potential for harm to others?

No, but I'm not claiming that it's the ONLY component or the primary component. I'd place common sense and concern for public safety ahead of any moral component.

But apparently you don't think there ever existed a bartender with the moral character to refuse service to a drunk before the law, or who only thinks about the law now.

No. See previous answer.

concern for public safety is a moral attitude.

It could be a totally selfish attitude since his wife, daughter, pastor, neighbor or best friend might be driving around at the time.

To deny a drunk more drinks is a moral act.

Not really.

your defense of the law with regards to business owners serving homosexuals in their desire to celebrate their lifestyle, would demand the Christian bartender serve the drunk despite the potential for harm.

Not is any way, shape, or form. Totally apples and oranges.

they also know of the physical and emotional harm to which the lifestyle leads, as well as the harm to the culture.

No such harm is proved.

You don't understand business.

I understand business quite well.

I've explained the difference between public and private businesses before and am not about to go through it again.

If you think the difference is government vs. non-government, then your explanation is incorrect.

But private businesses are most businesses and the laws to which they must abide and the customers they serve have nothing to do with it.

But of course they do. You don't understand business. Apparently you've never heard of a bar or restaurant at a country club that does not accept blacks as members.

you bring up law to defend a principle of morality.

No. I bring up the law because it IS the law. Morality has nothing to do with it.

But the laws are unjust and unethical and extremely unAmerican based on the intent of the founders in crafting Constitutional law.

Please cite the words of the founding fathers and/or and Supreme Court decisions that would support this wild assertion.

Jim said...

draw attention to whatever law enough people wish to change.

So it's about the law.

I guess that would depend on whether or not your consider belief to be a willful action like stealing, lying or engaging in immoral sexual activity.

I was referring to the belief of the vendor.

the intention to engage in sinful behavior is made known to the Christian business owner,

Made known how, exactly?

serving the sinner is akin to participating.

No it's not.

It is aiding and abetting.

That's a legal term, isn't it? It pertains to a criminal offense, right?

she sold flowers to the homosexual who complained about her refusal to supply his wedding.

Wait. She sold him flowers? But apparently his intention to engage in sinful behavior was known to her since she knew he was gay. Likely these flowers were meant to decorate the man's bedroom. So if she knew he intended to engage in a sinful act when she sold him flowers, why would she deny him flowers for a wedding? I mean, sex is the sinful act, right? Not the wedding ceremony. Right?

Marshall Art said...

"So you admit that morality exists without God?"

Well played, little Jimmy. That's the hat trick for you! An absolute trifecta! You cover #3 by the lie of the question, you're absolutely full of #2 for suggesting it and you prove #1 by obviously not paying attention to what my position is on atheism as it pertains to morality. An atheist can of course have a sense of morality. That has nothing to do with the source of morality (not to mention exactly what passes for morality in the mind of an atheist---you claim to be a Christian and your sense of morality is highly questionable, to say the least).

"I'd place common sense and concern for public safety ahead of any moral component."

More evidence of #2 as you fail to understand that concern for anyone's safety flows from morality. It is a moral "thing" to have compassion for the well being of others.

"It could be a totally selfish attitude since his wife, daughter, pastor, neighbor or best friend might be driving around at the time."

Huh? Concern for the safety of strangers or friends is still concern for "others". Your desperation is showing.

"Not is any way, shape, or form. Totally apples and oranges."

Only the harm from each is different, but the principle is exactly the same. You simply are either too full of #2 or willing to spew #3 to concede the point. And the harm of homosexual behavior has been totally proven, but again, you don't possess the level of character required to accept truth.

"If you think the difference is government vs. non-government, then your explanation is incorrect."

The explanation is absolutely correct. The only other possible alternative involves whether a company is wholly owned by one person or corporation, or is publicly traded with shares sold to whomever wishes to buy in. But even then, the business is not "public" in the sense that everyone owns it or has a right to anything the company owns.

"But of course they do. You don't understand business."

You're clearly the idiot Mark has always accused you of being or you are purposely trying to be obtuse. Again, try paying attention. That businesses must abide law has nothing to do with whether or not they are public entities. Individuals must abide law as well and are not public entities.

Marshall Art said...

"Apparently you've never heard of a bar or restaurant at a country club that does not accept blacks as members."

Of course I have. The question here is whether laws dictating they MUST accept blacks as members is Constitutionally sound. They are not. Public courses must because they are run by the town in which they exist.

"I bring up the law because it IS the law. Morality has nothing to do with it."

You bring up the law because you are too stupid to realize you have no argument to defend laws that conflict with moral, ethical or Constitutional principles. And as I am well aware of the laws, you're constant reminder of what I know is an exercise in mindless redundancy on your part.

"Please cite the words of the founding fathers and/or and Supreme Court decisions that would support this wild assertion."

If you are unaware that the founders designed the Constitution as a restraint on government and not the people, then there is little hope for you. You're debating with no understanding of the principles being discussed. I'm not surprised.

"draw attention to whatever law enough people wish to change.

So it's about the law."


Again, pay try to pay attention. It's about laws believed to be poorly crafted. All law is a matter of morality. The question is whether the law enables morality or immorality. You always seem to favor the latter.

"the intention to engage in sinful behavior is made known to the Christian business owner,

Made known how, exactly?"


Oh, I don't know little Jimmy. How do you think the New Mexico photographer knew the lesbians wanted their "union" celebrated and recorded with pictures? How do you think the florist knew the homosexuals wanted flowers for their "wedding"? #2

"serving the sinner is akin to participating.

No it's not."


Absolutely it is. It's called aiding and abetting in law, and yes, it's used in law, but the words are not strictly legal. In fact, I'd say most words used in law existed before lawyers and politicians adopted them for use in legal matters. Both words merely mean "to assist", which doesn't require a crime in order to use them, you idiot. One could aid and abet a cop in his attempt to solve a crime.

"Wait. She sold him flowers?"

Yes, you complete moron. He was already a customer of the florist, but then sought her flowers for his wedding. What is so hard about this distinction for you to figure out? Do you think the lady questions everyone about why they want to buy her flowers? Maybe she does. Let's assume so. So she asks the homo why he wants to buy flowers and he says they're for his mother's birthday, or his boss's funeral or maybe for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with his being a homo. But once he says he needs flowers for his homo wedding, he is enlisting her help in his desire to celebrate a sinful relationship. He is asking her to aid and abet his sinful intentions. And by the way, one could buy flowers for one's lover without sex ever being an absolutely necessary part of their relationship. If the florist was old enough, and I understand she was indeed a much older woman, she might actually still regard the term "lovers" as two people who love each other, but not necessarily living in sin. The term did have that more general connotation at one time. But hey, nice try #2.

Marshall Art said...

OH, and by the way, fool. My position allows for the florist to decide on the spot whether or not she wishes to serve any customer. She has the right, according to my position, which is based on original intent of the founders, to serve or deny anyone at any time for any reason and then changer her mind the next day. The issue isn't whether she will or won't or why she'd decide to do either. It's whether or not she can be made by the gov't to serve anyone, which shouldn't ever be the case.

Jim said...

The question here is whether laws dictating they MUST accept blacks as members is Constitutionally sound. They are not. Public courses must because they are run by the town in which they exist.

Marsha, sweetie. You are clearly too young to understand the variations of business establishments and the laws pertaining to them.

Sit down, be still, and I'll explain. A "private" golf club, like Cypress Point, is one in which membership is exclusive and services are not provided to the general public.

A "public" golf course cannot discriminate against customers because they offer their services TO THE PUBLIC. It may interest you to know that Pebble Beach is not a private golf course. It is open to the public. Anyone who can pony up $400 can play if they dress and act appropriately.

It is NOT a municipal golf course. It is owned by a privately held limited partnership.

A public course, like Pebble Beach, and a municipal course, like Torrey Pines, are bound by the laws of accommodation, not because of who owns them, but because of who they offer their services to.

If you are unaware that the founders designed the Constitution as a restraint on government and not the people, then there is little hope for you.

I am aware that parts of the Constitution and its amendments place restraints on government. But that restraint is not total and unlimited. Otherwise, what is the point of constructing an institution that creates laws by which its constituents must abide.

And so I ask again that you cite the words of the founding fathers that would suggest that the laws of public accommodation are unfair, unamerican, and unconstitutional.

Jim said...

She has the right, according to my position, which is based on original intent of the founders, to serve or deny anyone at any time for any reason and then changer her mind the next day.

Does she need a business license? Can she serve liquor to minors? Sell cigarettes to people under the age of 18?

How about abortions to pregnant women?

Anonymous said...

Something for Christians to read, or anyone else, for that matter.

Marshall Art said...

Anon,

It take more than a few paragraphs to find your link spews a tired argument.

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

Again you go with the nonsense. I was never speaking about anything other than the difference between "municipal" courses and those privately owned, some of which are membership only and some open to all. Jeez, you're dense!

The municipal courses are governed by the same idea of what the gov't must do as regards treating everyone as equal. The concept of blind justice is at play here.

But the privately owned courses should not be so governed because they are private businesses. You seem to imply there's a standard by which a private membership course might benefit that privately owned course open to the public do not. I would say that the membership courses have been able to enjoy the right of association (a Constitutionally protected right) where they've been able to withstand lawsuits regarding those to whom they won't allow membership.

You keep asking for the founders intentions. Do some freakin' studying, but until then, recall how the Constitution so often uses the phrase "Congress shall make no law" or words to that effect, without ever speaking to what citizens may not do.

Jim said...

Jeez, you're dense!

No, you are the dense one with the ridiculous argument.

There is little if any difference in the rules of accommodation between a privately-owned course open to the public and a municipal course. It's not who owns it. It's who it serves. I challenge you to provide documentation of any significant difference in the rules by which a municipal course must operate compared to a privately-owned public course.

The municipal courses are governed by the same idea of what the gov't must do as regards treating everyone as equal.

Uh, no. A golf course doesn't have its own set of customer accommodation rules because it's owned by a government entity.

they are private businesses.

They serve the public and are bound by the laws of public accommodation.

You seem to imply there's a standard by which a private membership course might benefit that privately owned course open to the public do not.

No, I don't imply that. I assert it as fact. A private course can exclude blacks or women from play. A course open to the public cannot.

I would say that the membership courses have been able to enjoy the right of association

So stipulated.

Do some freakin' studying

I study all the time, but I don't present the evidence of your fantasies. You got it? Show it.

recall how the Constitution so often uses the phrase "Congress shall make no law"

Recall how the Constitution uses that phrase exactly once, in Amendment I.

There's some stuff about bearing arms, speedy trials, quatering soldiers, bills of attainder, and self-incrimination, but otherwise, not so much. Nothing that says the Congress can't make laws to prevent discrimination, Rand Paul not withstanding.

Anonymous said...

OK dick head. How about this one?

Marshall Art said...

JIm,

This is an example of how dense you are:

"There is little if any difference in the rules of accommodation between a privately-owned course open to the public and a municipal course."

No freakin' duh! The issue is whether there should be. My position is that based on the Constitution being created to restrict the government and not the private individual, a municipal course would naturally have a different standard to meet than would any private course, whether open to the public or members only. #1 & 2 at work here for you.

In fact, your entire last comment up to the last lines indicate your trouble paying attention. You continue to want to cite a law to prevent arguing whether or not the law is appropriate. I know what the laws of public accommodation are. You can't seem to understand how poorly applied they are, nor how they infringe upon the Constitutional rights of the business owner.

And nothing in the Constitution suggests Congress can make any law telling a business owner who he must do business with. If Congress makes anti-discrimination policy for gov't, that is proper based on the the spirit and wording of the Constitution.

Marshall Art said...

Anon,

You'll have to do much better than adding a second link to more tired arguments. This second one is worse than the first. Why don't you tell me which part of it you find most compelling, and then I'll tell you why its crap as an argument in favor of the homosexual agenda.

Jim said...

My position is that based on the Constitution being created to restrict the government...

It wasn't. You might want to read the Constitution again (though judging from your recent posts it might be for the first time).

Pay close attention to Article I starting with Section 8 and then 9 and 10. Other than habeas corpus, bills of attainder, and capitation, you'll note that there is nothing in the powers of Congress which restricts what laws it can create in order to provide for the general welfare of the United States. The Bill of Rights provides restrictions in specific areas like speech, religion, assembly, bearing arms, self-incrimination, speedy trial, etc., but nothing about restrictions on civil rights laws or laws of public accommodation.

So your position is a fail.

a municipal course would naturally have a different standard to meet than would any private course

It doesn't. Naturally.

You continue to want to cite a law to prevent arguing whether or not the law is appropriate.

There is no question that the law is appropriate. No serious challenge to the laws has succeeded.

You can't seem to understand how poorly applied they are

I can't seem to understand that because it is a laughable premise.

nor how they infringe upon the Constitutional rights of the business owner.

You have yet to cite from the Constitution any such right. You tried, but failed.

And nothing in the Constitution suggests Congress can make any law telling a business owner who he must do business with.

The Congress has the power to provide for the general welfare. It's vague and it's broad, but nothing in the Constitution suggests Congress CAN'T make any law telling a business owner who he must do business with. Such laws have been passed at the federal, state, and municipal level and few if any challenges have been successful.

But again, I'll read any citation you provide from the ACTUAL Constitution (not your fantasy one) that "proves" your case or any Supreme Court case which has struck down any of these laws.

Marshall Art said...

Ah! I see what you're doing. You're arguing from silence, as so many lefties do to justify doing what the Bible prohibits. Here, because the Constitution doesn't strictly say the gov't can't create laws of public accommodation, then they can.

But this ignores the whole point of the Constitution, crafted after a struggle over the oppressive behavior of a former gov't, while creating for themselves a new one, the idea of which was to limit gov't and allow personal liberty. Sure. Such a people and Constitution would leave open a hole through which gov't could then impose itself on the liberty of private business owners. Got it.

"There is no question that the law is appropriate. No serious challenge to the laws has succeeded."

I see. So numbers is what determines right and wrong. Our nation could vote for slavery, and if no serious challenge arises, then slavery is right and appropriate. It is helpful to remember that not all possible scenarios can be perceived until after an action has taken place. Where the founders had liberty in mind, those who crafted and founded the Civil Rights laws that imposed this infringement would never have dreamed that businesses were forced to abide the immoral behaviors of their fellow citizens.

"I can't seem to understand that because it is a laughable premise."

You can't understand because you have no sense of morality and justice. You're corrupt and not very bright.

"You have yet to cite from the Constitution any such right. You tried, but failed."

I've succeeded easily but you've ignored. Among those rights upon which your position infringes upon businesses, the one most obvious to reasonable and honest people is the right to associate with whomever one chooses (as well as to choose with whom one will not associate). This is basic stuff.

"...nothing in the Constitution suggests Congress CAN'T make any law telling a business owner who he must do business with."

See the above. This is to say nothing of the fact that for Congress to provide for the general welfare is not a license to force private individuals to do it, too.

I've already given plenty regarding the Constitution and the intentions of those who authored it. You've provided nothing aside from extremely poor and self-serving interpretations. Perhaps you can find any instance of a founder expressly intending that private individuals are to be made to do anything. As to SCOTUS decisions, you once again appeal to law to determine morality, while I continue to argue for the immorality of the law. What SCOTUS does is not gospel.

Jim said...

You're arguing from silence, as so many lefties do to justify doing what the Bible prohibits.

The BIBLE prohibits accommodation laws? Chapter and verse, please.

Here, because the Constitution doesn't strictly say the gov't can't create laws of public accommodation, then they can.

Yes. That's how it works. The Constitution doesn't strictly say that government can't make marijuana illegal, but it has. Nothing about banning public nudity either, yet those laws have been enacted.

the idea of which was to limit gov't and allow personal liberty.

This is clearly not true. The idea of the Constitution was to set up a government that is representative of the people and the states. The Constitution as written, signed, and ratified says nothing about limiting laws regarding personal liberty.

Our nation could vote for slavery

Yada, yada, yada. Our nation DID allow slavery. It does not now and never will again. That issue has been settled for 150 years. Catch up.

The rest of that paragraph makes no sense. Your editor is not doing her job.

the one most obvious to reasonable and honest people is the right to associate with whomever one chooses

Doing business with the public is commerce, not association. You associate at your home, church, club, gym, or the park. At your business you engage in commerce. This is basic stuff.

You've provided nothing aside from extremely poor and self-serving interpretations.

Actually I've provided chapter and verse (or Article and Section in this case). You have not.

Perhaps you can find any instance of a founder expressly intending that private individuals are to be made to do anything.

Perhaps I can. You must not be familiar with the Militia Acts of 1792, passed by the Congress and signed by the President. Unless of course you don't consider George Washington a founder.

you once again appeal to law to determine morality

You must be confusing the word "morality" with "reality".

Marshall Art said...

"The BIBLE prohibits accommodation laws? Chapter and verse, please."

Whoa! BIG time #2 here, as I was drawing a parallel, not making an exact comparison.

"Yes. That's how it works."

How it works and how it is supposed to work are two very different things and a major difference between the conservative faction of our nation and the idiots on the other side.

"This is clearly not true. The idea of the Constitution was to set up a government that is representative of the people and the states."

Right. A gov't of the people, whereas the gov't against which the rebelled was one of the gov't OVER the people. Try to keep up.

More later, just checkin' in.

Jim said...

I was drawing a parallel, not making an exact comparison.

Baloney! You keep telling me what the Constitution says and what the founding fathers meant, but you provide no actual text to make your argument. And then you bring in "what the Bible prohibits". The Bible has nothing to do with the Constitution and vice versa. What the Bible supposedly prohibits is irrelevant when it comes to the Constitution and that's why the founding fathers left "God" out of it.

How it works and how it is supposed to work are two very different things and a major difference between the conservative faction of our nation and the idiots on the other side.


Yep, ad hominem is always the right way to go when you have no argument. How it works is how it works.

A gov't of the people

Whose representatives have passed laws of public accommodation.

Try to keep up.

And the sun rises in the East. Try to keep up.

Anonymous said...

I like this one, too.

Marshall Art said...

"Baloney!"

Big #2 here. Obviously, to those not so full of #2, the parallel was this:

Jim: Arguing based on what the Constitution doesn't say, meant to imply what is lawful.

Average lefty: Arguing based on what the Bible doesn't say, to justify bad behaviors.

Note the parallel. So I wasn't "bringing up" what the Bible prohibits, but comparing how you with another example of arguing from silence. IF you remove your head from your ass, all this would be much easier for you to see.

"How it works is how it works."

There is no problem in presenting solid arguments. The problem is your honesty and/or intelligence in arguing against them. Hence the ad homs. They fit. Here, we once again see that you are incapable of understanding that "how it works" is never the point of discussion, but rather, "how it should be working" always is. Get a clue.

"Whose representatives have passed laws of public accommodation."

No shit. Again, not a point of discussion and never has been. But whether they pass laws that align with Constitutional intent is. I find it remarkable that you routinely respond to arguments about the morality, validity, reasonableness or sense of a law by stating that the law is the law. No position on why or how a law is justified against clear arguments suggesting how or why a law isn't, just a statement of the obvious as if the law's existence in such a discussion could ever be forgotten or unknown. You're really full of #2.

Jim said...

Arguing based on what the Constitution doesn't say, meant to imply what is lawful.

If the Constitution was written primarily as a means of restricting the power of the government (which it wasn't), how can it restrict what it doesn't say it restricts.

Arguing based on what the Bible doesn't say, to justify bad behaviors.

What "bad behaviors"? Who is justifying "bad behaviors"? And if the Bible doesn't say they are "bad", who is to say they ARE "bad"?

How unfortunate for you and those few business owners who see a same sex couple and immediately fixate on what they do in their bedroom instead of how much they love each other!

But whether they pass laws that align with Constitutional intent is.

The original intent was for the people's representatives to pass laws and for the Supreme Court to adjudicate "all cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution".

Since the founders were not all of the same mind on many of the issues surrounding the establishment of the Constitution, and none of them are alive today to argue one way or the other, it is up to the Supreme Court TODAY decide what is moral, valid, and reasonable. Yet what they decide is only case law and not set in stone. It is precedent but precedent can be broken as our current court has often demonstrated. And people can disagree and work to change precedent like Roe or Citizens. But no one person, least of all you or Thomas or Scalia or Ginsburg, has a lock on what the Constitution means or what the founders original intent was. If that were the case, we'd only need one Justice of the Supreme Court.

No position on why or how a law is justified against clear arguments suggesting how or why a law isn't

This is a clear indication that you don't read for comprehension. Whereas I have cited case law and Constitutional text to justify my position, you have presented erroneous guesses (e.g. multiple examples of "Congress shall make no laws" in the Constitution).

Anonymous said...

Here is something very interesting.

This makes the case that the Bible never discusses homosexual "behavior", as you call it, within the context of marriage and therefore neither condemns nor blesses it. There's much more.

Marshall Art said...

"If the Constitution was written primarily as a means of restricting the power of the government (which it wasn't), how can it restrict what it doesn't say it restricts."

Please explain and/or clarify the above convoluted question.

"What "bad behaviors"? Who is justifying "bad behaviors"?"

You are really lacking in intelligence, aren't you? You go on to question my ability to comprehend, but you still can't understand this simple concept. I was comparing your arguing from silence ("the Constitution doesn't say anything about...") to those who do the same with Scripture. THAT'S the parallel. Try keeping up.

"How unfortunate for you and those few business owners who see a same sex couple and immediately fixate..."

How dishonest for you and all other activists and enablers that you immediately assume anyone is fixating on any specific couple is doing sexually. There is no guessing about how any homo/lez couple might engage in sex, but the question is not how, how often or anything like that, but that they do at all. And when a couple makes a request for goods or services to celebrate that lifestyle, that is a far cry from a homo, pedophile, druid or whatever from entering to simply purchase a product or contract a service without any mention of the reason. That is, if I know a homo and he enters my store to buy a pack of smokes, I don't deny him simply because he's a homo. 99% of those how understand right and wrong wouldn't deny him, either.

"The original intent was for the people's representatives to pass laws and for the Supreme Court to..."

...determine that those laws, which were protested later and brought before them, aligned with the Constitution based on what the original intent of the founders. There is plenty available left by the founders to infer their intentions. Good justices defer to that information in forming their opinions. Some do it well (the right-wing side) and others too often fail (the leftists).

"Whereas I have cited case law and Constitutional text to justify my position," and thereby determine your morality. But what you don't do, and haven't anywhere in THIS comment thread (or anywhere else), is argue why a law with which you agree is just. YOUR argument is that it is law (duh) and may have been determined just or Constitutional by a majority of SCOTUS justices. This doesn't explain why it is just at all. No law is justified because SCOTUS says it is Constitutional. It is only made legal and the source of your morality.

Jim said...

This doesn't explain why it is just at all.

OK, I'll make it simple for you:

These laws are just because they are passed to prevent discrimination. The people and their representatives know that discrimination is unjust and harmful not only to the targets of discrimination but to the society that allows it.

Discrimination against homosexuals, and any class of people, harms them, their families, and our national sense of fairness, justice, and equality.

That is the moral justification for laws against discrimination.

Jim said...

Please explain and/or clarify the above convoluted question.

First, if you will, please explain what YOU mean by this:

"Arguing based on what the Constitution doesn't say, meant to imply what is lawful."

THAT'S the parallel. Try keeping up.

It is you who is lagging behind. this was way past the "parallel". I'm asking what "bad behaviors" are relevant here and who exactly is justifying them? Try keeping up.

but that they do at all.

If a heterosexual couple comes into your bakery and orders a wedding cake, do you ask them if they are going to engage in anal sex on their wedding night? Do you ask them if they intend to engage in any kind of sexual behavior that has no chance of producing children?

There is plenty available left by the founders to infer their intentions.

So it is your position that each and every one of the 39 signers of the Constitution were completely of one mind when it came to each and every provision of that document? The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists were in complete agreement on everything? That every Article, Section, and clause of the Constitution clearly enumerates the unanimous intent of the founders?

Really?

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

"That is the moral justification for laws against discrimination."

What your explanation fails to address is the ramifications of this "justification". By imposing these laws on private citizens in the operation of their private affairs, including their businesses, it discriminates against their lifestyles, their beliefs, their pursuit of happiness. It forces them to accept what to them is unacceptable, which is what your "justification" claims to remove.

And that is another failure. It cannot remove anything, because the attitudes still exist despite a person being forced to comply under the threat of legal action. I would wager that it would intensify the attitude the law seeks to dispel.

But society can make a greater impression upon those who run their businesses openly in opposition to that which the owner finds objectionable. If enough people find oppose the way he runs his business, he will soon have no business or only one that serves like-minded people. As far as this issue goes, we have seen that not only has companies like Chic-Fil-A prospered, but some polls show that businesses, like the florist and photographer, have every right to deny business as they have.

"First, if you will, please explain what YOU mean by this:"

You could have simply gone back and re-read what led to my use of that comment. It stemmed from your clear implication that because the Constitution doesn't specifically deny Congress the authority to pass "public accommodation" laws, they are free to do so. That is arguing from silence. It is the same tactic used by pro-homosexual nominal christians who claim that because the Bible doesn't specifically mention SSM, then there is no moral problem. Arguing from silence. That is the parallel. You do with the Constitution what CINOs do with Scripture.

AS to what bad behaviors are relevant here, you have to have been absorbing plenty of #2 to even ask.

"If a heterosexual couple comes into your bakery and orders a wedding cake..."

This is a blatant example of #2 overdose on your part. Assuming a homo couple orders a wedding cake and makes it known that it is for their own wedding, I don't need to know any details about how they engage in sexual relations. The mere admission that they intend to live as man and wife speaks volumes about their intention to violate God's will on the subject of human sexuality and its proper context. You'll note, if you ever study Scripture, that Leviticus merely mentions "lying with a male as one would with a female". That encompasses whatever a given male feels is appropriate with a female, but then doing with a male. One doesn't need a picture painted. He intends to have a relationship with a member of the same gender. This prohibition is crystal clear to anyone who is honest and looking to know God's will regardless of it's impact on one's own desires.

"So it is your position that each and every one of the 39 signers of the Constitution were completely of one mind when it came to each and every provision of that document?"

Absolutely, to the extent that it was indeed ratified. We know they debated quite a bit, but in the end they came up with something on which they could attach their individual scrawls. But more importantly,


There is plenty available left by the founders to infer their intentions.


Find something that contradicts what I believe to be true.

Marshall Art said...

Anon,

That last link is only interesting if you put your brain out in the garage while you read it. It makes a series of idiotic arguments that have been refuted, rebutted, corrected and shredded exhaustively. But leave it to the activists and their enablers to continue to put forth idiocy and pretend it is thoughtful and compelling. Let's look at a few, beginning with what you wrote.

"This makes the case that the Bible never discusses homosexual "behavior", as you call it, within the context of marriage and therefore neither condemns nor blesses it."

This requires some of Jim's #2 to even put it forth as a legitimate argument. Why would the Bible find it necessary to discuss a concept based on what it already clearly prohibits in all contexts? The prohibition in Leviticus is basically just saying, "Don't do this". There's not "except" or "unless" or any hint of a context in which it would be permissible. Nowhere throughout the Bible does any such hint exist. What's more, unlike other sexual prohibitions, this one carried a death penalty. So we're to believe it sensible that the Bible would address the behavior within a marriage? It's ludicrous and one must suspend all common sense to even suggest it.

Look at the very first sentence.

"The Bible is often used as proof that homosexuality should be condemned" (or words to that effect).

This is inane. Homosexuality, or more to the point, homosexual behavior, is already condemned in Scripture. And no true Christian, which you won't find sending in videos to NALT, claims any authority to condemn anyone. We leave that to God. All we do is remind homosexuals of how God views the behavior they intend to perpetrate. That's not hateful, it's not bigoted and it's not marginalizing anyone anymore than reminding thieves God's position on stealing is.

If you think you see anything on that page that is especially compelling, feel free to copy and paste. But there's nothing there that I haven't seen a million times, and I sincerely believe you shouldn't put any stock into anything developed by that homosexual version of Fred Phelps named Dan Savage.

Jim said...

private affairs, including their businesses

I don't know why you can't understand that "their businesses" are NOT private affairs. From Wikipedia:

"Within US law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreation facilities and service centers. Private clubs and religious institutions are exempt. Public accommodation must be handicap-accessible and must not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin."

Many states have added sexual orientation and gender identification to their laws of accommodation.

To repeat, a business is not a private affair.

it discriminates against their lifestyles

You mean what they do in their bedrooms?

It forces them to accept what to them is unacceptable

They don't have to accept anything except the business of their customers.

their beliefs

The solution is simple. If they so deeply believe that customers engaging in anal sex somehow affects them morally, they should stop providing a service to the public. Nobody is forcing them to run a business that operates according to the law. Just like the bakery that closed its doors. Now THERE is a principled stand on beliefs!

"we have seen that not only has companies like Chic-Fil-A prospered"

Chic-Fil-A doesn't discriminate against gays. The owner just made his personal opinions known and people acted accordingly. Totally different thing.

but some polls show that businesses, like the florist and photographer, have every right to deny business as they have.

Polls don't make rights. Or as you would say, polls don't make morality.

In my opinion, the opinion of most people, and according to the law, the harm caused by discrimination far outweighs the non-existent harm to the beliefs of the business person. That is the justification. Simple. How can accommodating a customer harm a belief?

It stemmed from your clear implication that because the Constitution doesn't specifically deny Congress the authority to pass "public accommodation" laws, they are free to do so.

It's not an implication. It's an assertion of fact.

Your clear implication is that if the Constitution doesn't specifically say government CAN do something then it can't. That's absurd.

We know they debated quite a bit, but in the end they came up with something on which they could attach their individual scrawls.

"Scrawling" their names on the document as a whole by no means signifies their full agreement with every aspect. Did the Anti-Federalists become Federalists as they signed the Constitution? Did the Federalists become Anti-Federalists once they passed the Bill of Rights?

No, they compromised. This is a concept with which I am sure you are unfamiliar or at least reject, but that's what they did.

Find something that contradicts what I believe to be true.

No. You back up your beliefs. I've already presented citations of Constitution and law which contradiction your beliefs. You have yet to cite any actual text from the Constitution or from any writings of a founder that supports your belief.

Marshall Art said...

"I don't know why you can't understand that "their businesses" are NOT private affairs."

I don't understand how stupid one has to be in order to continually fail to understand the distinction between a law, the existence of which is neither in question or forgotten, and whether or not that law is just and meets the original intention of the founders when they crafted the US Constitution. I know what the laws of accommodation are and what they are thought to accomplish. Unless, as you continue to deny, that you are looking to this law's existence as the basis for your moral understanding of what liberty is meant to be, there is no point in continually bringing up that it exists.

"Chic-Fil-A doesn't discriminate against gays."

Neither did the florist, who often sold flowers to homosexuals and had even had homosexual employees. Neither have any of the bed/breakfast owners who have met with lawsuits who were willing to rent a room to each of a homosexual couple, but not both. Neither did the New Mexico photographer who had no policy for denying photos be taken of homosexuals. In each of these cases, and others, the business owners weren't discriminating against people to begin with. They were discriminating against a behavior in which they were expected to take part.

"Polls don't make rights. Or as you would say, polls don't make morality."

Then it's a good thing I wasn't citing that fact to make either argument. But the polls do say that many people better understand what constitutes both a right and morality in the public accommodation laws.

"How can accommodating a customer harm a belief?"

No one has established the harm perpetrated against any homosexual for denying them service in their quest for flowers at their wedding, wedding cake or photos, all of which they could acquire elsewhere by other morally corrupt citizens willing to take their money. But the argument is not that the beliefs of business owners are harmed, but their right to pursue their own happiness and express their religious beliefs in the daily actions of their lives, as well as their right to associate (or NOT associate) with whomever they choose are all infringed upon by the whining of homosexuals seeking to force their immorality upon the nation.

"It's not an implication. It's an assertion of fact."

It is NOT a fact. Laws, especially federal laws, are supposed to align with Constitutional concepts, and SCOTUS is supposed to rule as to whether or not they do. In the meantime, this FACT contradicts your assertion that I am trying to imply something I never have or intended to imply. SCOTUS is not automatically right and rarely are they unanimous.

Marshall Art said...

""Scrawling" their names on the document as a whole by no means signifies their full agreement with every aspect."

But it does meant that what they did sign on to was close enough to sign their names to it. What's so hard for you to understand here? If they were still adamant on one aspect or another, it would not have been ratified.

Did they compromise? Sure. But there has been no compromise in any of this pro-homo legislation. It's been totally one-sided and continues to be. There is no quarter given to the individual who disagrees nor to the business owner who is forced to act against his beliefs.

"No. You back up your beliefs."

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."

Patrick Henry


The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."

Daniel Webster


One must also keep in mind the whole purpose of the US Revolution and the desire to form their own government. They felt oppressed and sought to form a government that was ruled by the people rather than the other way around. This is all basic history. You should read about it sometime.

Jim said...

I don't understand how stupid one has to be in order to continually fail

You should know. You continually assert that a public business is a private affair. It is not now. It never has been. There is absolutely nothing you can cite that says the founders or the Constitution they passed would prohibit laws of public accommodation.

Neither did the florist

Nonsense. He sold flowers for the weddings of straight customers. He refused to sell flowers for the wedding of gay customers. That is discrimination whether it's based on beliefs or the pain of eczema or psoriasis.

the business owners weren't discriminating against people to begin with

Nonsense. In each case the vendors provided services to straight couples which they refused to provide to gay couples. That is discrimination.

No one has established the harm perpetrated against any homosexual for denying them service

So you would deny the harm perpetrated against a black couple for disallowing them to sit at a diner counter, or marry, or drink at a whites only fountain? Same thing.

as well as their right to associate

Customers are not associates.

The Constitution does not forbid what it does not forbid. There is nothing in it that forbids laws of public accommodation. There is nothing you can cite by any founder that there was any original intent to forbid laws of public accommodation. Your Patrick Henry and Daniel Webster quotes don't suggest that the government can't pass laws of public accommodation.

If they were still adamant on one aspect or another, it would not have been ratified.

Again, you are suggesting that Anti-Federalists accepted the arguments of the Federalists and became Federalists. That's nonsense. The Anti-Federalists signed the Constitution in exchange for the assurance that the Bill of Rights would immediately follow. In other words, unlike the Federalists, they did not believe that the Constitution as signed was satisfactory by itself.

What part of the Constitution allows freeway speed limits? What part of the Constitution allows laws that impose building codes on home construction? What part of the Constitution allows laws barring the sale of alcohol to minors? What part of the Constitution allows laws making marijuana illegal? What part of the Constitution allows laws that restrict a woman and her doctor to terminate a pregnancy?

Laws of accommodation meet the test of the preamble of the Constitution which was established to secure the blessings of liberty "to ourselves and our posterity."

Any business owner who refuses a customer protected by a law of public accommodation has the liberty of finding another way to make a living.

I know my history just fine.

Marshall Art said...

"There is absolutely nothing you can cite that says the founders or the Constitution they passed would prohibit laws of public accommodation."

Obviously the two citations I've offered suggest that very thing.

"That is discrimination whether it's based on beliefs or the pain of eczema or psoriasis."

Oh sure, it's discrimination. But it's discrimination in the same way one discriminates against any other bad behavior. Real marriage doesn't conflict with the beliefs of a Christian.

"So you would deny the harm perpetrated against a black couple for disallowing them to sit at a diner counter, or marry, or drink at a whites only fountain?"

What harm? Could they not find another place to eat? Are they not able to marry? Can they not find another water fountain? What harm does one do to any potential customer by refusing to serve them if the service they sought was not related to the sustenance of their lives? But even if I believed that the public accommodation laws are truly Constitutional, which they are not, I do not equate skin color with sexual behavior.

"Customers are not associates."

Of course they are, #2. Do you mean to suggest that business owners do not associate with their customers? Are you suggesting that there is some Constitutional definition of "associate" the prohibits the use of the word in this case? Are you prepared to show evidence the founders defined the word as you need it to be in order to make your failed case?

And once again, my citations do indeed suggest the founders would not be inclined to support public accommodation laws, particularly as idiot lefties would demand them.

"Laws of accommodation meet the test of the preamble of the Constitution which was established to secure the blessings of liberty "to ourselves and our posterity."

The absence of such laws do nothing to deny or infringe upon anyone's blessings of liberty. As Ben Franklin said, in not so many words, the Constitution only secures the right to pursue happiness. You need to catch up to it yourself.

"Any business owner who refuses a customer protected by a law of public accommodation has the liberty of finding another way to make a living."

Totally in conflict with anything any founder ever stated or believed. I note you've provided nothing to contradict this so far. I doubt you could ever succeed in the attempt. You don't know your history much at all. You DO know #2.

Jim said...

Obviously the two citations I've offered suggest that very thing.

By that logic the citations would prohibit any laws restricting anything. So no laws prohibiting abortion. Or prohibiting same sex marriage.

But it's discrimination in the same way one discriminates against any other bad behavior.

Horse manure! Do you have any examples of photographers, florists, or bakers who have refused business to anybody besides same sex couples for "bad behavior"?

What harm? Could they not find another place to eat? Are they not able to marry? Can they not find another water fountain? What harm does one do to any potential customer by refusing to serve them if the service they sought was not related to the sustenance of their lives?

This paragraph proves that you are an un-American, racist, bigot. If you have ever said the Pledge of Allegiance, you are a huge hypocrite. Simply despicable.

I do not equate skin color with sexual behavior.

Discrimination is discrimination. You've already said it's fine to discriminate against skin color.

Do you mean to suggest that business owners do not associate with their customers?

They may associate with some of them but the vendor/customer relationship is not by itself an association as a member of a club or organization. Freedom of association has nothing to do with who a vendor serves or doesn't unless they are members of a private club that doesn't serve the public.

And once again, my citations do indeed suggest the founders would not be inclined to support public accommodation laws

Only if they mean that Congress shall pass no laws at all.

Totally in conflict with anything any founder ever stated or believed.

Prove it.

Marshall Art said...

"By that logic the citations would prohibit any laws restricting anything."

Not at all, little Jimmy. You confuse the concept of what the limits of our gov't are supposed to be with a simplistic understanding of gov't restraint. And once again, I'm unaware of any laws the prohibit SSM, but rather have only heard of legislation that reiterates what the definition of the word is for purposes of law.

"Horse manure! Do you have any examples..."

What difference would it make to the truth of my statement? Discriminating against what people do is no the same as discriminating against the people themselves due to something like skin color. But, I can simply refer to the previous example of the bartender who refuses to serve an obnoxious drunk. Indeed, he can deny him for having a history of being obnoxious. But by your idiotic reasoning, a black baker must bake a cake for a Klan meeting, complete with a little statue of a lynched black ma. Or a Jewish photographer must take pictures of a Nazi party gathering. Or how about a homosexual bed and breakfast owner renting rooms to a group from Westboro Baptist Church as they travel to protest another funeral for America's tolerance of homosexual behavior?

"This paragraph proves that you are an un-American, racist, bigot."

Only to those who are full of #2. Of course I realize that it easier to call someone names who puts a tough to dispute point across. What a typed does not even slightly indicate my position on people who deny service based on race (for example), only that I don't believe it is Constitutional for the gov't to force a racist to serve anyone the racist does not want to serve. But the question for you remains: How does it harm? You claim it does, so in what way? Because it makes them find another place to eat? So would a crowded restaurant with an hour and half wait for a table. So would a restaurant that's closed. Both of these possibilities therefore inflict harm upon a hopeful customer. So how would you legislate that the restaurant owner compensate for the harm of denying a meal to someone because his place was closed or too crowded?

Here's your answer: There's no harm. None whatsoever.

"Discrimination is discrimination. You've already said it's fine to discriminate against skin color."

Neither of these statements is the least bit true. In the first, it suggests discrimination is always wrong. Clearly this is not true or you are an asshole for choosing grape juice over orange or tomato. I would not prevent you from entering my place of business simply because of how stupid you are, but if you insist on acting stupidly, you aren't welcome and will be denied entry. So the first statement demonstrates how badly you suffer from #2.

The second is a complete lie. While typical, #3 is never a good thing. The second statement does not in any way resemble any position I've ever taken or expressed in any comment I've ever posted.

Marshall Art said...

"Freedom of association has nothing to do with who a vendor serves or doesn't unless they are members of a private club that doesn't serve the public."

So you believe the gov't has the authority to tell you with whom you must associate. That's your idea of liberty. Because you run a business, you must associate with whomever walks through the door because the gov't says you must, regardless of your own beliefs and feelings. That's your idea of liberty.

"Only if they mean that Congress shall pass no laws at all."

This is really stupid. The Constitution dictates what the gov't can do, and that does include the forming of laws. But the difference is that you stupidly believe that there is no difference in the Constitution forcing the gov't to treat everyone the same regardless of race, gender, religion, and the gov't forcing private business owners to serve everyone as if they are Constitutionally required. You haven't shown where the Constitution places that burden on the private sector.

"Totally in conflict with anything any founder ever stated or believed.

Prove it."


I did. I gave you two citations from two founders. You've provided nothing.

Jim said...

Marsha, Marsha, sweetie. I know you are up past your bedtime, but, oh, OK.

Not allowing a a same sex couple to have all the benefits of marriage is a restriction on their liberty.

I can simply refer to the previous example of the bartender who refuses to serve an obnoxious drunk.

Gays are not f**king on the floor of the bakery. THAT would be bad behavior.

a black baker must bake a cake for a Klan meeting

Klansmen are not a protected class.

a Jewish photographer must take pictures of a Nazi party gathering.

Nazis are not a protected class.

a homosexual bed and breakfast owner renting rooms to a group from Westboro Baptist Church

This is a tough one. They are Christians. Let WBC sue and we'll see what happens.

I realize that it easier to call someone names who puts a tough to dispute point across.

Here's YOUR answer: "There's no harm. None whatsoever." This is what's ignorant, bigoted, and despicable.

I wasn't talking about juice (ad hominem here). I was talking about humans.

you aren't welcome and will be denied entry.

THAT would be fine. Stupidity is not a protected class.

The second statement does not in any way resemble any position I've ever taken or expressed in any comment I've ever posted.

"What harm? Could they not find another place to eat? Are they not able to marry? Can they not find another water fountain? What harm does one do to any potential customer by refusing to serve them if the service they sought was not related to the sustenance of their lives?"

Jim said...

So you believe the gov't has the authority to tell you with whom you must associate.

Of course not. A commercial transaction is not an association.

you must associate with whomever walks through the door because the gov't says you must

It's not association. It's commercial business. You have some discretion, like wearing shoes, not carrying a gun, or not playing loud music. It's still not association.

The Constitution dictates what the gov't can do

It also dictates what it can do including promoting the general welfare.

But the difference is that you stupidly believe that there is no difference in the Constitution forcing the gov't to treat everyone the same regardless of race, gender, religion, and the gov't forcing private business owners to serve everyone as if they are Constitutionally required.

This is a remarkably stupid statement. And it's based on your refusal to understand that who owns or runs a business is totally irrelevant. It's who the business serves. By your logic the cafeteria in a government building would have to allow non-government employees to eat there because they must treat all people equally. But a government cafeteria does not serve the public. That's the difference. There is no such thing as a "private" business if it serves the public. It may have private owners, but it is not a private business. I know it's complicated, Marsha, but say it with me: "A business that serves the public is not private."

You haven't shown where the Constitution places that burden on the private sector.

It doesn't. Laws passed by the people's representatives as directed by the Constitution and upheld by the Supreme Court as directed by the Constitution place that burden.

By the way, you may want to note that most laws of business accommodation were passed and exist at the state and local level which is also according to Amendment X of the Constitution. Anti-discrimination laws protecting gays exist PRIMARILY at the state and local level.

I did. I gave you two citations from two founders.

And I easily refuted your assertion that they meant to bar laws of accommodation.

Marshall Art said...

"Not allowing a a same sex couple to have all the benefits of marriage is a restriction on their liberty."

Apparently it doesn't matter if you're up late or not. This still misses the truth, that they have never been denied the benefits of marriage, but rather, that they've insisted what they wanted should also qualify as a marriage. Not having demands met does not equate to having liberties denied.

"Gays are not f**king on the floor of the bakery. THAT would be bad behavior."

YOU don't have to agree with what another person views as bad behavior, and no doubt, as you are morally confused, you wouldn't. But if you force a black party planner to decorate a hall for a Klan rally, you're forcing him to participate in behaviors he opposes. You deny him the liberty of deciding with whom he must do business.

"Klansmen are not a protected class."

The foolishly granted protected status of homosexuals is irrelevant to whether or not a florist is forced to participate in their moral corruption.

"This is a tough one."

For those afflicted with #2, perhaps. Not for rational and reasonable people.

"Here's YOUR answer: "There's no harm. None whatsoever." This is what's ignorant, bigoted, and despicable."

Yet you can't seem to describe just how they are harmed. "Deprived of liberty!!" No. Not really. Simply deprived of whatever it is they wanted from the business owner who chooses not to serve them. And while the refusal to serve may indeed be based on bigotry, you deny the business owner his own liberty by interfering and demanding he act on YOUR idea of right/wrong.

"THAT would be fine. Stupidity is not a protected class."

And your own stupidity is apparent here as you fail to understand the distinction between being stupid and acting stupidly. And of course you fail to understand the distinction between being homosexual and the behavior unique to homosexuals.

I said:

"The second statement does not in any way resemble any position I've ever taken or expressed in any comment I've ever posted."

and you repeat a statement that does not prove your accusation. #2

Marshall Art said...

"Of course not. A commercial transaction is not an association."

Of course it is. You do not understand the meaning of the word "associate".

"It also dictates what it can do including promoting the general welfare."

What is "general" about "protected class"?

"By your logic the cafeteria in a government building would have to allow non-government employees to eat there because they must treat all people equally."

Talk about stupid statements! This is not the same as gov't treating everyone equally under the law, which is the point.

Gotta go

Anonymous said...

Maybe this will help with this freedom of association issue:

"Freedom of association is the right to join or leave groups of a person's own choosing, and for the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of members. It is both an individual right and a collective right, guaranteed by all modern and democratic legal systems, including the United States Bill of Rights, article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and international law, including articles 20 and 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Conventions 87 and 98 of the International Labour Organization.

"Freedom of association is primarily manifested through the right to join a trade union, free speech or debating societies, political parties, or any other club or association such as religious groups, fraternities, or sport clubs. It is closely linked with the freedom of assembly, particularly under the US Bill of Rights. More specifically the freedom of assembly is understood in a political context, although depending on the source (constitution, human rights instrument, etc.) the right to freedom of association may be understood to include the right to freedom of assembly."

You'll note that it has nothing to do with customer relations.

Jim said...

they have never been denied the benefits of marriage

Idiotic statement.

But if you force a black party planner to decorate a hall for a Klan rally

Can't force that. Klan is not a protected group.

You deny him the liberty of deciding with whom he must do business.

Nope. When he obtained a business license he freely gave up that right.

The foolishly granted protected status of homosexuals is irrelevant to whether or not a florist is forced to participate in their moral corruption.

I fail to see how flowers cause moral corruption.

Nonetheless, the people HAVE granted that protected status, making it totally relevant.

Yet you can't seem to describe just how they are harmed.

Though it's obvious, Marsha, let me recap. Public humiliation, second class citizenship, denial of public accommodation, just to name a few.

the behavior unique to homosexuals.

The behavior is not unique to homosexuals.

you repeat a statement that does not prove your accusation.

Your own words make a prima facie proof which is why I repeated them. There is no getting around the fact that denial of public accommodation to people of color is discrimination on the basis of skin color, and your claim that there is no harm to this discrimination proves your racism.

Of course it is. You do not understand the meaning of the word "associate".

Actually I do. And so does Anon. You, on the other hand, have no clue.

What is "general" about "protected class"?

Discrimination against homosexuals, and any class of people, harms them, their families, and our national sense of fairness, justice, and equality.

This is not the same as gov't treating everyone equally under the law, which is the point.

Your "point" is clueless at best and moronic at worst. A government facility does not treat people equally because it is a government facility. It treats people equally when and because it serves THE PUBLIC.

Marshall Art said...

"they have never been denied the benefits of marriage

Idiotic statement."


It's an absolute, non-contestable fact.

"Can't force that. Klan is not a protected group."

This flies in the face of your entire argument about public accommodation. It flies in the fact of your entire argument about the perspective of the proprietor. It flies in the face of all the crap about homos not getting special treatment by "protected status" laws.

"Nope. When he obtained a business license he freely gave up that right."

Nope. It was taken from him (unConstitutionally) when the Civil Rights Act included this public accommodation infringement.

"I fail to see how flowers cause moral corruption."

There is so very much you fail to see due to your issues with #2. But this statement goes way beyond your chronic stupidity to be also purposely deceitful.

"Though it's obvious, Marsha, let me recap. Public humiliation, second class citizenship, denial of public accommodation, just to name a few."

OOH! Public humiliation!!! I never thought of THAT!! I hope somehow anyone publicly humiliated will find a way to heal. Let's hang the proprietor!!!

How can a private citizen affect the citizenship status (first OR second class) of another? This is made up crap.

Denial of public accommodation harms someone by denying them public accommodation. Good argument.

"...just to name a few." You've actually named just one, and that's because I'm giving you the horrible "public humiliation" mortal sin.

"The behavior is not unique to homosexuals."

I wasn't counting YOU lying with a man as you would a woman. I was speaking of homosexuals. The rest of us heteros don't do that.

"There is no getting around the fact that denial of public accommodation to people of color is discrimination on the basis of skin color,"

I did not say otherwise.

"...and your claim that there is no harm to this discrimination proves your racism."

In your fevered dreams perhaps. Aside from the horrors of public humiliation, you haven't been able to demonstrate any harm that cannot be avoided by merely doing business with those who are not racist, like me.

"Actually I do. And so does Anon. You, on the other hand, have no clue."

I can associate with whomever I choose, and conversely NOT associate with whomever I choose. Where do I have a problem with the concept?

"Discrimination against homosexuals, and any class of people, harms them, their families, and our national sense of fairness, justice, and equality."

Do you suppose that without the force of law that there would exist no one who would associate with people of different races, or even people with sexual disorders like homosexual attractions? You're too stupid to understand that you are discriminating against those who choose to discriminate for whatever reason compels them to do so. Where's the fairness and justice for them? Who are you to say their reasons are not valid? How can you dare force your morality upon those who cannot stand whatever it is that repulses them about another group?

"Your "point" is clueless at best and moronic at worst."

No, YOU are the one lacking intelligence. The whole point is NOT a matter of gov't facilities. It's about everyone being equal under the law. But to craft law that forces me to treat as equal someone I find morally corrupt, and provide for them whatever they want to celebrate their corruption forces me to be, like you, an enabler of plainly immoral and psychologically disordered behaviors. Now MY orientation is made to be second class. Now MY beliefs are allowed to be ignored and dismissed.

Jim said...

It's an absolute, non-contestable fact.

Clearly untrue.

This flies in the face of your entire argument about public accommodation.

Not in the least. I'm sorry that the truth ruins your phoney argument. A vendor has the right to post signs that say "No shirt, no shoes, no service." They do not have the right to refuse service to people because of race, color, creed, disability, national origin, religion, and in most states sexual orientation or gender identity. The Klan does not fall into any of these categories.

It was taken from him (unConstitutionally) when the Civil Rights Act included this public accommodation infringement.

You might want to check out Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964) wherein the Supreme Court upheld the Civil Rights Act 9-0. If I'm not mistaken, that made it unanimous.

I can associate with whomever I choose, and conversely NOT associate with whomever I choose.

Yes you can. However, customers are not associates and commercial transactions are not associations. You might want to check your dictionary.

You're too stupid to understand that you are discriminating against those who choose to discriminate for whatever reason compels them to do so. Where's the fairness and justice for them? Who are you to say their reasons are not valid? How can you dare force your morality upon those who cannot stand whatever it is that repulses them about another group?

Man, you are f**ked up.

Anonymous said...

Doncha just hate that?!

Marshall Art said...

"It's an absolute, non-contestable fact.

Clearly untrue."


You're a liar as well as stupid. Under the ages-old definition of marriage, no homosexual or lesbian has ever been denied the right to marry.

"They do not have the right to refuse service to people because of race, color, creed, disability, national origin, religion, and in most states sexual orientation or gender identity. The Klan does not fall into any of these categories."

Again you cite the law as if it was ever in question. You really are a moron. The law denies them the right to choose with whom they do business and as such the law is unConstitutional, regardless of which SCOTUS opinion says otherwise. What's more, the Klan is definitely a group based on a specific creed.

"You might want to check out Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964) wherein the Supreme Court upheld the Civil Rights Act 9-0. If I'm not mistaken, that made it unanimous."

But it doesn't make it either Constitutional or just. Again, child, you argue that because a SCOTUS decision turns one way that it constitutes fact and truth, when the reality is that it only constitutes the opinion of SCOTUS which has some strength of law. That is to say, what is law is not necessarily moral or just. It is only the law. What's more, if the whole world agreed that slavery was OK, that wouldn't make it moral or righteous. Thus, a unanimous SCOTUS decision does not mean anything in terms of what is just or righteous, including public accommodation laws. You seem to have an impossible time defending such laws without merely citing the law itself and the opinions of others as if it means more than merely their opinion. How incredibly sad, but telling.

"However, customers are not associates and commercial transactions are not associations."

You're confusing concepts. I must associate with a person with whom I do business in order to transact that business. The law you find so profound forces me to associate with those I might prefer not to. It denies my right to decide for myself with whom I can or must associate.

What's really going on here over the term "associate" is the typical lefty deceitfulness of dictating the understanding of a word in such a manner so as to gain advantage. It's also called "lying". You have to narrowly define the term for the argument to work in your favor. As I said...typical.

"Man, you are f**ked up."

...which is Jim/lib-speak for "I am unable to respond to your logical argument, so I will cuss at you." Another typical lib tactic when failure is obvious.

Marshall Art said...

Yeah, Anon, I DO hate that our culture has come to this. I hate other aspects of cultural decline as well. I also hate that unfortunate reprobates like yourself are so given over to your immorality that you think your post is some kind of amusing shot. I find it all so incredibly sad for humanity and future generations.

Jim said...

Under the ages-old definition of marriage, no homosexual or lesbian has ever been denied the right to marry.

Ask them. They have no interest in marrying 700 women (the age-old definition of marriage). Or any number of people of the opposite sex. They are denied the right to marry the person they love.

The law denies them the right to choose with whom they do business and as such the law is unConstitutional

It is not unconstitutional. Besides, they do have the right to choose who they do business with as long as their business does not offer services to the public.

if the whole world agreed that slavery was OK

Oh f**kin' slavery yada, yada, yada.

I must associate with a person with whom I do business in order to transact that business.

Only if you are both members of a club or church and your business is confined to members of that club. That is an association. Again, do us all a favor and look up the word.

The law you find so profound forces me to associate with those I might prefer not to.

It doesn't force you to associate with them. It requires you to sell to them. You are free to associate with them if you want to form a club with them or be in Rotary with them, or be in AARP with them.

Do us all a favor and look up the word.

What's really going on here over the term "associate" is the typical lefty deceitfulness of dictating the understanding of a word in such a manner so as to gain advantage.

Actually any dictionary or law book will dictate to you the meaning of association. Do us all a favor and look up the word.

You have to narrowly define the term for the argument to work in your favor.

I have no need to narrowly define anything. The definition of association is very clear. Do us all a favor and look up the word.

Jim/lib-speak for "I am unable to respond to your logical argument, so I will cuss at you."

I am not cussing at you. I'm describing your state of social consciousness. You are unamerican and bigoted, not to mention ignorant and proud of it.

You are one f**ked up dude.

Anonymous said...

"I DO hate that our culture has come to this."

Yeah, I know, right? Imagine soldiers honoring their comrade and accepting him for who he is.

It's just disgusting.

Marshall Art said...

"They are denied the right to marry the person they love."

Another lie your side insists on perpetrating. No one can be stopped from committing one's self to another person. What you're arguing is akin to being denied the right to be a dog. Their demand simply never qualified for state recognition. That's not a denial of rights.

"Oh f**kin' slavery yada, yada, yada."

Again Jim hoists the white flag.

I'm well aware of the definition of the word "associate". I'm applying it correctly. It seems your also demanding that a business owner ONLY deal with customers in a particular manner. Most businesses claim to want to develop relationships with customers that are deeper and more personal than merely a business level. Most regular customers patronize a given business due to a friendship level relationship with the business.

"You are unamerican and bigoted, not to mention ignorant and proud of it."

And you have yet to prove it. Fly that white flag, Jimmy-boy.

Marshall Art said...

Anon,

You must be Parkie.

"Yeah, I know, right? Imagine soldiers honoring their comrade and accepting him for who he is."

Imagine soldiers accepting their comrade but holding fast to traditional notions of morality and virtue. It is sad that our culture no longer cares for such things and pretends there is virtue in celebrating the darker aspects of a comrade's nature. The corruption of our culture is apparent in this. It is apparent in you in believing the problem is in people like me.

Jim said...

No one can be stopped from committing one's self to another person.

"Committing" is not being married. Otherwise the issue would have died long ago.

What you're arguing is akin to being denied the right to be a dog.

Only in your delusional mind.

Again Jim hoists the white flag.

Only in the sense that I stop watching you beat a dead horse.

I'm well aware of the definition of the word "associate".

Apparently not or you wouldn't continue to misuse it.

I'm applying it correctly.

You are not. You are desperately trying to make the word fit your argument, but you continue to fail miserably.

It seems your also demanding that a business owner ONLY deal with customers in a particular manner.

Not at all.

Most regular customers patronize a given business due to a friendship level relationship with the business.

What village do you live in? Most regular customers patronize a given business because it is convenient, provides good service, and gives them the value they desire. You should venture out of the "holler" once in a while.

And you have yet to prove it.

I have a prima facie case.

Marshall Art said...

""Committing" is not being married."

Clearly another #2 comment. Committing is exactly what being married is all about, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, etc. No matter what, the two promises complete fidelity and partnership with each other. Of course, you're a lefty, so it's no surprise you don't define marriage this way.

"Only in your delusional mind."

That's funny coming from you, but such a comment is more evidence of your inability to defend the defenseless. Marriage has always been defined a specific way. You want a new definition, to pretend a union that doesn't qualify actually does, just as one would pretend one is actually a dog when one isn't. The analogy is apt. Your ability to see it is inept.

"Only in the sense that I stop watching you beat a dead horse."

The horse will be dead only when there no longer exists anyone to defend truth, reason and logic.

"Apparently not or you wouldn't continue to misuse it."

I haven't misused it ever. You simply don't like the way in which this particular use proves the failure of your position. You refuse to associate with this definition.

"You are desperately trying to make the word fit your argument, but you continue to fail miserably."

The desperation is yours as you scramble to defend your pro-homosexual orientation.

"Most regular customers patronize a given business because it is convenient, provides good service, and gives them the value they desire."

I'm sorry. I forgot I was dealing with someone without principles. While many people put up with all sorts of things rather than go out of their way, many others will never do business with someone who offends them is some way. I know it's discriminatory, but you lefties haven't figured out a way to force people to shop where you want them to shop.

"I have a prima facie case."

A prima facie case requires evidence. You've provided none. You don't even understand the lion's share of principle and concept that has been presented here in this comment thread, and thus couldn't formulate a case, as your bad arguments have demonstrated. You aren't the first one to fail in proving I'm bigoted, unAmerican OR ignorant. But your accusation is another piece of evidence that serves to demonstrate your failure.

Jim said...

Committing is exactly what being married is all about

I know what marriage is. I know what committing is. Marriage is committing, but committing is not marriage.

Marriage has always been defined a specific way.

Did you check with King Solomon about that?

You want a new definition, to pretend a union that doesn't qualify actually does

It actually does in 13 states and the District of Columbia. Hawaii coming soon. New Mexico is going gay as we speak.

The analogy is apt.

No it isn't. No states have yet proclaimed men to be dogs or recognized any man's claim to be a dog. On the other hand see above regarding states allowing same sex marriage.

You refuse to associate with this definition.

There is no such definition that one could associate with. I'd be happy to look at a link to your dictionary which defines a business transaction as an association.

The desperation is yours as you scramble to defend your pro-homosexual orientation.

I'm not scrambling at all. You are scrambling to find SOME way, any way, to make the word "association" mean something that no dictionary or law book agrees with.

many others will never do business with someone who offends them is some way. I know it's discriminatory, but you lefties haven't figured out a way to force people to shop where you want them to shop.

Now you have truly gone off the rails. You've changed the subject from the vendor to the customer. Nobody EVER, EVER said anything about forcing people to shop anywhere. This is about public accommodation which is about who a vendor sells to, not who a customer buys from.

You aren't the first one to fail in proving I'm bigoted, unAmerican OR ignorant. But your accusation is another piece of evidence that serves to demonstrate your failure.

Others have discovered this about you? That's no surprise, I guess. You might want to ask yourself why this keeps happening.

Marshall Art said...

"Marriage is committing, but committing is not marriage."

Two people committed to spending their lives together, in love and fidelity, forsaking all others is marriage. A license isn't needed to do it, nor others to acknowledge the commitment, in order for it to be a marriage. Again you demand a narrow definition to make your argument.

"Did you check with King Solomon about that?"

Why? To find out that he had multiple one man/one woman unions?

"It actually does in 13 states and the District of Columbia."

And, as if on cue, you default to the law to determine your morality. So again I remind you that existing law is not at issue, but rather whether existing law (as well as proposed law) is moral and/or constitutional.

"No states have yet proclaimed men to be dogs or recognized any man's claim to be a dog."

Not required for the analogy to be apt. Damn! you're stupid.

"I'd be happy to look at a link to your dictionary which defines a business transaction as an association."

Good for you. I'm not making that argument. Try paying attention.

"You are scrambling to find SOME way, any way, to make the word "association" mean something that no dictionary or law book agrees with."

Any of the following work for my purpose and accurately describe what takes place between any proprietor and his customer:

verb (used with object)
1.
to connect or bring into relation, as thought, feeling, memory, etc.: Many people associate dark clouds with depression and gloom.
2.
to join as a companion, partner, or ally: to associate oneself with a cause.
3.
to unite; combine: coal associated with shale.
verb (used without object)
4.
to enter into union; unite.
5.
to keep company, as a friend, companion, or ally: He was accused of associating with known criminals.
6.
to join together as partners or colleagues.


Note the second offering wherein both customer and proprietor unite for the cause of doing business.

"Now you have truly gone off the rails."

Not at all. You're just not smart enough, or honest enough, to see the point. If it's discriminatory for a business to deny service to a customer, it is also discriminatory for a customer to deny a business his patronage. Try to keep up.

"Others have discovered this about you? That's no surprise, I guess. You might want to ask yourself why this keeps happening."

Others have tried when, like you, they fail to make their argument work against better logic and more solid reasoning. In other words, that's what you lefties do when you lose a debate. You accuse and call names. Indeed, it's quite clear why it happens.

Jim said...

A license isn't needed to do it

A license is needed to enjoy the full legal benefits of marriage. Only ignorant people don't know and understand this.

Why? To find out that he had multiple one man/one woman unions?

This is foolishness. There is a difference between a wedding and a marriage.

And, as if on cue, you default to the law to determine your morality

And on cue you bring up this tired old false assertion. SSM should never be based on YOUR morality.

Not required for the analogy to be apt.

It's only "apt" if you have a warped sense of logic.

I'm not making that argument.

You most certainly are. You have said over and over that a vendor should be free to serve or not serve any customer based on the freedom of association guaranteed by the Constitution. Serving a customer is a business transaction.

Any of the following work for my purpose and accurately describe what takes place between any proprietor and his customer

Uh nope:

1. to connect or bring into relation, as thought, feeling, memory, etc.:

Nope

2. to join as a companion, partner, or ally: to associate oneself with a cause.

Nope. A customer who walks off the street to buy a pack of smokes is not a companion, not a partner, and not an ally. Forming a union to secure fair wages is associating with a cause. Forming a civic group for banning abortions is associating with a cause. Joining a political party to further political goals is associating with a cause. Buying smokes is a transaction, not a cause.

3. to unite; combine: coal associated with shale.
verb


Nope.

4. to enter into union; unite.

Nope.

5. to keep company, as a friend, companion, or ally

Nope.

6. to join together as partners or colleagues.

Nope.

Note the second offering wherein both customer and proprietor unite for the cause of doing business.

Note the second definition above. Doing business is a transaction, not a cause.

If it's discriminatory for a business to deny service to a customer, it is also discriminatory for a customer to deny a business his patronage.

Keep digging. You'll get to China yet. You have a shovel called "nonsense". Customers are not licensed and are not required to conform to laws of public accommodation.

that's what you lefties do when you lose a debate. You accuse and call names.

Hmmm, let me see. "Stupid". "Morally corrupt". "Idiot". "Sociopathic". "you complete moron". "Fool". "Lacking in intelligence." "Your chronic stupidity". "Liar".

By your criteria you lost the debate a really, really long time ago.

Marshall Art said...

"A license is needed to enjoy the full legal benefits of marriage. Only ignorant people don't know and understand this."

Of course, you were talking about marriage not being a commitment and commitment not being marriage. So your jackass remark is moot. What YOU'RE too ignorant to understand is that to qualify for a marriage license, one must meet the criteria the state demands. Now, by force of activist judicial opinions, and corrupt representatives in the legislatures, one of those criteria has been eliminated, leaving polygamists, the incestuous, those who are attracted to really young people and the bestial victims of "discrimination". Those who are not ignorant (all of whom are on my side of the argument), would prefer that list of criteria to remain as it always has for the general welfare of our nation.

"There is a difference between a wedding and a marriage."

And again, in rapid succession, you post a comment that has no bearing on what led to the comment of mine to which you attempt to respond. I wasn't referring to weddings at all.

"And on cue you bring up this tired old false assertion. SSM should never be based on YOUR morality."

Far more than an assertion, it is a statement of fact and you continue to engage in that very tactic when you cannot provide an intelligent response to a specific point. The immorality of SSM is not based on MY morality, but on the clear and unmistakable teachings of the God of the Christian Bible. This would be the God you pretend to worship.

In the meantime, you demand some warped idea of morality as a basis for forcing this abomination upon the whole of our culture. So who you crappin'?

"It's only "apt" if you have a warped sense of logic."

My logic is sound because the analogy is apt. You just aren't honest enough to admit it or intelligent enough to understand it. I'm betting on a great deal of both.

"Serving a customer is a business transaction."

Any business transaction requires two or more parties to associate with each other in order for the transaction to ever take place. Try keeping up.

Marshall Art said...

Because you are so full of #2, enjoy engaging in #3 and aren't sharp enough to avoid #1, I'll go through each definition and demonstrate when they apply:

1. to connect or bring into relation, as thought, feeling, memory, etc.:

Right off the bat, possibly the weakest definition. Yet, there is a connection between the proprietor and the consumer in the engagement of any transaction.

2. to join as a companion, partner, or ally: to associate oneself with a cause.

Obviously, to anyone honest and clear thinking, the proprietor and customer hold a cause in common: the exchange of property. Money for the product/service.

3. to unite; combine: coal associated with shale.

This one is really the same as definition 2, despite the example of coal and shale. Customer and proprietor unite for the purpose of engaging in a transaction.

4. to enter into union; unite.

Ditto.

5. to keep company, as a friend, companion, or ally

They are certainly allied in the common cause of exchanging property. They must keep company, if only briefly, to complete the task.

6. to join together as partners or colleagues.

They join together for the cause of exchanging property. In doing so, they might even regard each other as partners in the deal. After all, any two parties engaged in mutually beneficial business often call themselves partners, but here it would be the loosest use of the term.

"Doing business is a transaction, not a cause."

Just because you don't like to regard it as such, doesn't diminish the truth of it. The cause is the two coming together to exchange property for the mutual benefit of both.

"Customers are not licensed and are not required to conform to laws of public accommodation."

Oh really, Einstein? What a freakin' newsflash! That hardly mitigates the fact that it is the other side of the same coin. The reality is that the law forces only one side of the transaction to forsake personal choice as to with whom one does business. THAT is what constitutes any nonsense, that it has been made so. Would a homosexual proprietor not suffer for lack of business solely because he is a homosexual? Your position is woefully inconsistent.

"By your criteria you lost the debate a really, really long time ago."

I demonstrate why those labels apply so well to you. You default to name calling when you have no counter to my solid arguments.

Jim said...

you were talking about marriage not being a commitment

Never, EVER said any such thing. Ever. Wouldn't say it.

What YOU'RE too ignorant to understand is that to qualify for a marriage license, one must meet the criteria the state demands.

And apparently you are too ignorant or dense to recognize that gays meet the criteria the state demands to qualify for a marriage in 13 states and the District of Columbia, AND the US government now recognizes that they meet those criteria.

all of whom are on my side of the argument

Your side is rapidly losing.

I wasn't referring to weddings at all.

It is the only way you can logically claim that King Solomon's marital history was 700 sequential individual "marriages" and not one of multiple, concurrent spouses. This is another of your incredibly ridiculous arguments.

The immorality of SSM is not based on MY morality, but on the clear and unmistakable teachings of the God of the Christian Bible.

So marriages outside the Christian church are immoral?

The federal, state, and county governments who license and recognize marriages owe no allegiance to those so-called "unmistakable teachings" and are in fact obligated to disregard them.

In the meantime, you demand some warped idea of morality as a basis for forcing this abomination

The only "morality" I have demanded is equality. I know of no one who is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex.

Any business transaction requires two or more parties to associate with each other

Not in any way. Standing across a counter from someone is not associating with them. Talking to someone is not associating with them. Handing someone currency or a credit card is not associating with them. Handing someone a receipt is not associating with them. Saying "Have a nice day" to a customer is not associating with them. If you cannot comprehend the definitions that you yourself have listed here, you are a hopeless case and should try to get your money back from grade school.

Jim said...

I think this is really great. Heartwarming even.

Don't you?

Something about it makes me want to join in the cause of buying hardware. Because Lord knows we must fight for that right. It's such a righteous cause. Tomorrow is Saturday. I thing I'll go to Home Depot and associate.

Anonymous said...

My cause is lumber.

Marshall Art said...

How sad that anyone would celebrate the disorder suffered by those two in the hardware store. Typical of Jim, who has no morals, lacks any sense of right/wrong and sees injustice where none exists.

Forgive them (and Jim), Father, for they know not what they do.

Marshall Art said...

And as luck would have it, there is this far better example of "heartwarming", and shows what a true believer in both God and truth/fact looks like.

Jim said...

In one particular altercation, he said that boys had urinated on the clothes he was wearing. The bullying, made worse by his parents' disapproval, drove him to seclude himself.

I'm sure Marsha feels that they had every right to do so. Like, "where is the harm?"

"If you're not perfect, if you don't have 8 percent body fat and look like Justin Timberlake, you're completely shunned in the gay community."

I guess you haven't seen the pictures of SSM proposals and weddings where the people are short, tall, overweight, skinny, old and gray. McNutt must have hung out in an unusual gay "community".

"The church has not done a good job of reaching out to the gay community at all," he charged, urging churches to start ministries geared toward loving gay people.

Ya think? Maybe not calling them "perverts", "morally corrupt", "deranged", "sick", or "mentally diseased" might be a better approach.

Marshall Art said...

"I'm sure Marsha feels that they had every right to do so. Like, "where is the harm?""

What an absolutely and typically idiotic presumption. What kind of desperation is required to compel a lefty to assume the worst would be permissible to one who believes in liberty? That I believe in the right of my fellow man to hold an opinion with which I might disagree means that I approve of bad behavior based on that opinion? Only a lefty would suggest such a preposterous possibility. Well done, Jim.

" McNutt must have hung out in an unusual gay "community"."

Apparently one who lives through an experience has no credibility as regards that experience. Perfect lefty spin.

"Maybe not calling them "perverts", "morally corrupt", "deranged", "sick", or "mentally diseased" might be a better approach."

True love and outreach requires truth and honesty (terms for which lefties like Jim have no appreciation). Homosexual desire and behavior is as perversion. If not, how could it be opposed by loving Christians reaching out? Reaching out to whom and for what? The terms are appropriate even when used without explanation. The love and outreach comes in accepting them anyway and helping them to deal with or overcome their perverted, morally corrupt, deranged, since and mentally diseased condition. It is the same with anyone else who feels overwhelmed with other sinful desires and compulsions, such as lying about Christian positions on homosexuality and SSM.

Jim said...

What kind of desperation is required to compel a lefty to assume the worst would be permissible to one who believes in liberty?

Well, it's not a big stretch after you asked what is the harm in barring blacks from sitting at a diner counter, drinking from a whites-only water fountain, or using a whites-only restroom.

Perfect lefty spin.

The only spin is that what he is describing is not the norm in homosexual communities.

Marshall Art said...

"Well, it's not a big stretch after you asked what is the harm in barring blacks from sitting at a diner counter, drinking from a whites-only water fountain, or using a whites-only restroom."

So you compare denying service at a restaurant as equal in harm to pissing on someone's clothes? I see. The content of your character is even more apparent than it already had been. And what low character you expose by attempting to compare the two.

"The only spin is that what he is describing is not the norm in homosexual communities."

I see. So you have absolute knowledge of what constitutes "the norm" in homosexual communities. Why would anyone believe someone who actually lived amongst the very people we're discussing? Because it doesn't help the agenda even though chumps like yourself won't believe the truth until it bites you in the ass. This is why you're a reprobate.

Jim said...

Why would anyone believe someone who actually lived amongst the very people we're discussing?

Who said I didn't believe him? I only suggested that his experience was not common.

So you compare denying service at a restaurant as equal in harm to pissing on someone's clothes?

I didn't actually compare the two. But since you ask, let me think.

Hmmm. Yeah, pretty much.

Marshall Art said...

"I only suggested that his experience was not common."

I don't believe you have the experience to know or suggest one way or the other. What's more, the video the link contained was merely one of about a dozen this guy has made, and perhaps there is more to learn about the community by watching them all. But we're faced with wondering who presents a more accurate picture of that community: Those who wish to promote it as benign and comparable to any other, or those who lived it and say otherwise.

"I didn't actually compare the two. But since you ask, let me think.

Hmmm. Yeah, pretty much."


So here, we have a very broad understanding of the word "harm" because it works better for you argument, while narrowly defining "associate" for the same purpose. You low character is clearer with every comment.

Denying service, or more accurately, refusing to associate with someone, is hardly comparable to pissing on their clothes. Which would you prefer for yourself if made to choose? In my case, I'd be more than happy to find another water fountain. Perhaps you're keen on urine.

Jim said...

I don't believe you have the experience to know or suggest one way or the other.

Nor do I believe that you have the experience to know otherwise. Unlike you, I'm quite comfortable around associates (as in colleagues) I've worked with or for who are gay and who have not been shunned by their own community.

So here, we have a very broad understanding of the word "harm"

It's not broad at all. It's the number one definition.

"physical or mental damage or injury"

while narrowly defining "associate" for the same purpose.

It's not narrow at all. We reviewed all six definitions of association, and not one of them fit your "definition".

Denying service, or more accurately, refusing to associate with someone [apparently you will go to your grave misunderstanding this concept], is hardly comparable to pissing on their clothes.

In both cases the motive and result is public humiliation. That is mental injury which is the definition of harm. Someone denied the use of a restroom may urinate in his pants causing the same result.

I'd be more than happy to find another water fountain.

So much for being a "freedom-loving 'murican".

Marshall Art said...

"Nor do I believe that you have the experience to know otherwise."

Never pretended to.

"Unlike you, I'm quite comfortable around associates (as in colleagues) I've worked with or for who are gay and who have not been shunned by their own community."

Well. How wonderful for you. But I don't recall ever expressing that I would be uncomfortable working with or for homosexuals. Haven't been so far. I do feel pity for them, however, as I do for you.

"It's not broad at all. It's the number one definition.

"physical or mental damage or injury""


So, when one is denied service from, say, a restaurant, one suffers physical or mental damage or injury? I guess that's possible for those who find the restaurant they wish to patronize is booked up for the evening? Or perhaps because it is no longer open for business? What do these people do? Seek redress from the Supreme Court? How about those turned away for dressing according to the dress code of the restaurant? Discrimination, with grievous harm? OH, the freakin' HORROR!!!

"We reviewed all six definitions of association, and not one of them fit your "definition"."

And again, as is typical and expected of a lefty, you are in denial. They all fit quite well as I've demonstrated. There is no honesty in you.

"In both cases the motive and result is public humiliation."

What kind of weak people do you know that would be so crippled by such a thing? What's more, why do think there would such a plethora of business owners that would actually be willing to bar anyone because of race, gender or even the disingenuous "sexual orientation"?

No one likes to suffer humiliation, public or otherwise. But few people are so crushed by it for the federal government to act to prevent the possibility of one being humiliated. It's absurd that this level of harm is something against which you believe anyone need be protected. What a pantywaist you are.

Anyway, a racist denying service is not intending to humiliate the denied. He is intending to avoid having to be in close proximity with someone of another race. Like blacks who speak of "black culture" and "it's a black thing", or Latinos who do not assimilate, some whites prefer living amongst whites. For some of each of these three groups (and people of other cultures are no different), there are those who are racist and others who simply see life amongst their own as easier and more convenient. As a liberty loving American, I let them choose and I expect them to let me choose with whom I wish to associate, socially or in business.

Jim said...

So, when one is denied service from, say, a restaurant, one suffers physical or mental damage or injury?

You betcha.

I guess that's possible for those who find the restaurant they wish to patronize is booked up for the evening? Or perhaps because it is no longer open for business? What do these people do?

Are you that big a f**king idiot?

They all fit quite well as I've demonstrated.

They don't and you haven't because you can't.

There is no honesty in you.

There is no clue in you.

What kind of weak people do you know that would be so crippled by such a thing?

I really dislike resorting to this language, but you are a clueless moron.

Marshall Art said...

"So, when one is denied service from, say, a restaurant, one suffers physical or mental damage or injury?

You betcha."


Of a level that requires gov't protection? And you dare call me "a f**king idiot"? Talk about a victimhood mentality!

["They all fit quite well as I've demonstrated.

They don't and you haven't because you can't.

There is no honesty in you.

There is no clue in you."
]

Your responses indicate a desperate waving of a white flag. Another is your frantic attempts to deny the application of the word "associate" simply because it isn't, in your mind, the most common or comfortable. Pretty lame on your part.

"What kind of weak people do you know that would be so crippled by such a thing?

I really dislike resorting to this language, but you are a clueless moron."


You've already accused me of bigotry, hatred and being unAmerican, not to mention "a f**king idiot". Not doubt you indeed enjoy resorting to this language. More importantly how you do so rather than defend your position. I'll give you another chance: What kind of weak people do you know that would be so crippled by such a thing from which they would need gov't protection?

Jim said...

Of a level that requires gov't protection?

Do you happen to remember the end of that pledge you used to recite in school? You know, "and justice for all"?

it isn't...the most common

It isn't ANY!

you do so rather than defend your position.

Seriously? My position is defended very well. The problem is you refuse to get a clue. The proper definition of "associate" is a case in point.

What kind of weak people do you know that would be so crippled by such a thing from which they would need gov't protection?

Apparently you were not alive or socially conscious during the 1960s. Apparently you are not aware of the prevalence of Jim Crow laws and the fights against them. Apparently you are comfortable with a second-class citizenry.

Apparently you think denying service to someone because all tables are filled with customers is akin to denying them service because of their race. Apparently you are a f**king idiot.

Apparently you have no empathy for the humiliation of people told to eat, drink, or urinate somewhere else because they are black. Apparently you think that being humiliated, feeling like a second-class citizen, and realizing that justice for all means excluding them, are weak. Apparently you are a clueless moron.

Marshall Art said...

"Do you happen to remember the end of that pledge you used to recite in school? You know, "and justice for all"?"

I remember that pledge. It refers to the Constitution, our form of gov't, which protects liberty and justice for all. Did you ever take a history class?

"Seriously? My position is defended very well."

No. You haven't even come close. For example, you haven't offered any evidence that the idea of equality before the law somehow means that private citizens must treat anyone equally. I have shown that the Constitution dictates that the gov't is treat everyone equally. You keep spouting off about laws and/or SCOTUS opinions, but you haven't done jack to defend either. "The harm! The harm!" Life is full of harm. Getting up in the morning is harmful. People deliver harm without even trying. I don't need gov't trying to regulate pussy-assed harm of which you think public accommodation laws protect anyone from suffering. YOU, apparently, are a weak-kneed sissy.

"Apparently you are comfortable with a second-class citizenry."

Apparently you don't understand that what I do in the course of my private business affairs does nothing to render anyone a second-class citizen. Only gov't shortcomings can provide that. You also don't seem to understand that none of these public accommodation laws have done squat for ridding our culture of racism and bigotry. Indeed, a case can be made that it is worse than ever, between every accusation of racism and bigotry thrown about by certain segments of our society (the left).

"Apparently you think denying service to someone because all tables are filled with customers is akin to denying them service because of their race. Apparently you are a f**king idiot."

No. I'm saying that only a f**king idiot would suggest that the harm from denial for one reason is any more tangible than for another. It is typical leftist race-baiting and whiny victimhood.

"Apparently you have no empathy for the humiliation of people told to eat, drink, or urinate somewhere else because they are black."

Not at all. I would never engage in such nor patronize any who would. I'm saying that private businesses can run their businesses any way they want and those that are overtly racist in their behaviors are not likely to last very long in most parts of the country, including the south.

Even more to the point, I'm saying that even these laws, which should never have been passed, do not apply to behaviors and those who deny providing their private property for use in the celebration of behaviors that conflict with their beliefs are not discriminating against people in the way denying a water fountain to a black man is.

And once again, justice for all is a legal concept, as in, all people judged the same for breaking the same law. It is not me providing flowers for a homo wedding. Such is not a matter of justice. Forcing a florist to provide flowers for homo weddings is an infringement of the florists liberty. Period. Laws of accommodation, and opinions by idiots in black robes, like that dick in New Mexico, do not change that fact.

Jim said...

Did you ever take a history class?

Yes, but what does that have to do with anything?

For example, you haven't offered any evidence that the idea of equality before the law somehow means that private citizens must treat anyone equally.

Why would I? I've never claimed that.

I have shown that the Constitution dictates that the gov't is treat everyone equally.

You said that but not shown it. Doesn't matter. It's irrelevant in the case of commerce and business. We are not talking about government florists, bakers, or photographers.

You keep spouting off about laws and/or SCOTUS opinions, but you haven't done jack to defend either.

The opinions defend themselves. They are the defense of the laws. That's why I cite them with links, unlike you.

Life is full of harm. Getting up in the morning is harmful. People deliver harm without even trying. I don't need gov't trying to regulate pussy-assed harm of which you think public accommodation laws protect anyone from suffering. YOU, apparently, are a weak-kneed sissy.

I'm not among a protected minority so I don't need them. Getting up in the morning? Are you that big a f**king idiot?

Apparently you don't understand that what I do in the course of my private business affairs does nothing to render anyone a second-class citizen.

I understand that would be the case if your business affairs did not include providing goods or services to the public. Because once one DOES offer goods and services to the public, they are no longer private business affairs.

You also don't seem to understand that none of these public accommodation laws have done squat for ridding our culture of racism and bigotry.

That's debatable. But they have rid our culture of the injustice of minorities being denied goods and services.

Indeed, a case can be made that it is worse than ever,

Make it.

I'm saying that only a f**king idiot would suggest that the harm from denial for one reason is any more tangible than for another.

Then you are a clueless moron. I suppose the harm of not being able to use your car in the morning is just as tangible whether you forgot to put gas in it or a tree fell on it.

I'm saying that private businesses can run their businesses any way they want

Only if they are private. A business that serves the public isn't private. This is a concept you apparently just cannot fathom.

I'm saying that even these laws, which should never have been passed, do not apply to behaviors

They don't. They apply to sexual orientation. Behaviors not performed on the floor of your shop are assumed by you.

Marshall Art said...

"Did you ever take a history class?

Yes, but what does that have to do with anything?"


Your blatherings indicate you don't know you ass from a hole in the ground as regards US History.

"Why would I? I've never claimed that."

Of course you have. Every attempt by me to draw a distinction between what the founders intended that our gov't should be doing from what is now forced upon private individuals and businesses is met with some citation of law or SCOTUS opinion, as if that closes the book on the subject in a discussion such as this (such as it is).

"You said that but not shown it."

Perhaps not in a manner that would be clear to one as dense as you. For that I apologize. I could just copy and paste the entire US Constitution, but as we've found, you're too dense for such an endeavor. Instead, why not just look up Article IV, Section 4 known as the Guarantee Clause which makes certain guarantees to the states. It guarantees states a
republican form of government, the meaning of which included the rule of law. The rule of law requires that the government and the governed alike be equally subject to the law and equally protected by the law.

Therefore, it matters as from whom justice is rendered and toward whom. It's what the Pledge is proclaiming; that the US gov't will provide justice for all. In other words, it matters in regards to your poor understanding of the Pledge and what it means.

"We are not talking about government florists, bakers, or photographers."

No. We're not. We're talking about private individuals who are trying to run businesses that are now burdened by gov't regulations, including being forced to participate in that which conflicts with their Constitutionally protected religious freedoms and liberties.

"The opinions defend themselves. They are the defense of the laws. That's why I cite them with links, unlike you."

SCOTUS opinions do not defend themselves. They are a defense, in the opinion of the justice rendering said opinion, of whatever law is in question. It doesn't mean the opinion is just or proper or even rational. It's just an opinion by which we must abide if it is shared by the Court's majority (until such time as another appeal can be heard). But the opinions are supposed to align with the intent of the Constitution as written by the authors. These laws clearly conflict with the founder's intent as I have very clearly (except to you because you're dense) have shown.

What's more, as the Constitution and rule of law requires everyone be treated equally, there is no justice for all if there are "protected classes", which you defend. Thus, your argument is clearly in conflict with the Constitution and the guarantees it is supposed to provide.

"Because once one DOES offer goods and services to the public, they are no longer private business affairs."

Once again, dickhead, this is the very point of this discussion. Does offering ANYTHING to the public render a private individual a "public business"? You haven't made the case for why that should be so (even your lame arguments about "humiliation" aren't compelling enough for that-what a desperate stretch).

Marshall Art said...

"But they have rid our culture of the injustice of minorities being denied goods and services."

No. It just prevented them from having to seek out someone who'll sell them those goods or services when the first guy they tried refused. So now, instead of denying someone of another's property (temporarily--until another source is found), you would deny that other of his sovereignty over his property to assuage your one-sided ideas of liberty and justice. That's the point here. While one group may be denied by members of another group, neither is force by gov't to do anything. They make their own way. The market (meaning the rest of us) decides how to deal with the issue by patronizing the proprietor or not, or supporting the denied or not. That's as it should be.

"I suppose the harm of not being able to use your car in the morning is just as tangible whether you forgot to put gas in it or a tree fell on it."

Uh, yeah. As far as my ability to use the car in the morning. But it is a moronic attempt at analogy. A better one would be having my use of the car denied because I lost the keys, or because someone hid the keys. In either case, my "harm" is alleviated at the point the keys are found and the reason I was forced to look won't matter to the time it took to seek out the keys. In the same way, someone denied a meal because of his race, a full restaurant...all of the these are alleviated in the same amount of time it takes to find another place to eat.

"Only if they are private. A business that serves the public isn't private. This is a concept you apparently just cannot fathom."

What you don't fathom is that the business is always private, but because of assholes who don't understand the Constitution and concepts of freedom and liberty, you know, people like you, who are in positions of power to pass laws, have dictated unto private individuals that which is unConstitutional.

"They don't. They apply to sexual orientation. Behaviors not performed on the floor of your shop are assumed by you."

No, idiot, they are not "assumed" in the least. Their intentions were broadcast happily and proudly with the selfish expectation that whatever business owner from whom they attempted to procure a product or service would be more than happy and proud to enable the immoral acts they intend to perpetrate. It was very specific the reason the business people balked at complying. It was not merely a matter of the "orientation" of the customer, which in at least a few of the cases, was not normally an issue in the normal course of doing business.

Jim said...

Your blatherings indicate you don't know you ass from a hole in the ground as regards US History.


Just not your warped version.

Of course you have.

Of course I have not. I have never claimed that private citizens must treat all people equally.

private individuals and businesses

These are two distinctly different things. For some reason you are too boneheaded to accept the fact that the owner of a business that serves the public is NOT a private individual as far as his business is concerned.

I could just copy and paste the entire US Constitution

No need. I have a copy at my desk at all times. Just cite the relevant text as you have done below.

But...

It guarantees states a
republican form of government, the meaning of which included the rule of law.


It does indeed guarantee a republican form of government. There was and has been a lot of debate about what that meant, but no one can deny that the rule of law is a basic tenet of the Constitution and its amendments whether it's Article IV or something else.

So what? The rule of law applies not only to the government versus he governed but also means that individuals and private entities are accountable as to the law.

It's what the Pledge is proclaiming; that the US gov't will provide justice for all.

It does no such thing. It is an oath of allegiance to a nation that values liberty and justice for all. It says nothing about the government or its obligations.

We're talking about private individuals who are trying to run businesses that are now burdened by gov't regulations, including being forced to participate in that which conflicts with their Constitutionally protected religious freedoms and liberties.

We've beaten this horse to death so I'll just say, "Nope."

SCOTUS opinions do not defend themselves. They are a defense, in the opinion of the justice rendering said opinion, of whatever law is in question.

You've betrayed your ignorance once again. The Court does not render an opinion without pages of reasoning and case law precedent that defends that opinion.

These laws clearly conflict with the founder's intent as I have very clearly (except to you because you're dense) have shown.

If that were the case then surely they were struck down by the various liberal or conservative Courts over their nearly 50 year tenure. Oh, yeah. They weren't.

What's more, as the Constitution and rule of law requires everyone be treated equally, there is no justice for all if there are "protected classes", which you defend.

You have, in these words, vindicated my argument and rendered your own null and void. The reason for "protected classes" is to make sure they are TREATED EQUALLY, as you admit the Constitution requires the government to do.

Does offering ANYTHING to the public render a private individual a "public business"?

Yes

No. It just prevented them from having to seek out someone who'll sell them those goods or services when the first guy they tried refused....

Blah blah blah blah blah.

That's as it should be.

Not in America.

all of the these are alleviated in the same amount of time it takes to find another place to eat.

Proving once again that you are an un-American, clueless moron.

What you don't fathom is that the business is always private

What you don't fathom is that it's not when it serves the public.

whatever business owner from whom they attempted to procure a product or service would be more than happy and proud to enable the immoral acts they intend to perpetrate.

Do you somehow think that any enabling by a business owner is necessary for ANY couple to engage in anal sex? (Besides a drug store proprietor.)

Marshall Art said...

"Just not your warped version."

At some point you'll really have to make a serious attempt at demonstrating just what makes "my" version "warped". Thus far, you've not shown you're the least bit capable.

"I have never claimed that private citizens must treat all people equally."

Business owners are private citizens. You insist they are to provide their products and services to anyone who seeks to purchase them.

"For some reason you are too boneheaded to accept the fact that the owner of a business that serves the public is NOT a private individual as far as his business is concerned."

For some reason you are too boneheaded to accept the fact that this is exactly what is at issue here: whether or not a business SHOULD be made to forsake his liberty as a private individual simply because some boneheads have legislated that he should. Your boneheaded argument is that a business is not private because a business is not private.

"The rule of law... also means that individuals and private entities are accountable as to the law."

This also is not at issue here. Try paying attention. We're talking about a specific law at this point and whether it is Constitutional. Your argument is that it is because some SCOTUS decision or other says it is. That's not an argument. That doesn't explain why it should be regarded as Constitutional when clearly, it isn't. You apparently feel a SCOTUS decision relieves you of your obligation to think.

"It is an oath of allegiance to a nation that values liberty and justice for all. It says nothing about the government or its obligations."

Good gosh, you're stupid, or incredibly deceitful. One pledges one's allegiance "to the republic" for which the flag stands, which is described as one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all. It absolutely speaks of the government and its obligation to provide liberty and justice for all.

"We've beaten this horse to death so I'll just say, "Nope.""

And we'll continue to beat the carcass until you can finally present a sound argument as to where my position is flawed. Thus far, you have only persisted in presenting laws and SCOTUS decisions which do nothing more but argue that the law is the law because its the law.

"The Court does not render an opinion without pages of reasoning and case law precedent that defends that opinion."

That's what an opinion is; pages of reasoning and case law precedent. In the end, it is still only an opinion, and rarely shared by the entirety of the court. It is only the majority opinion by which our form of gov't determines how to proceed from that point. But still, only an opinion. It doesn't mean it is a correct opinion or even an intelligent one (as Roe v Wade clearly proves, for example).

"If that were the case then surely they were struck down by the various liberal or conservative Courts over their nearly 50 year tenure. Oh, yeah. They weren't."

Please. Clearly I am far more embarrassed for you than you are for yourself. You're not bright enough to know you should be. This statement is no different than those who defended slavery for it having been in place for far longer than 50 years. That a bad law has gone unchallenged for any number of years has no bearing on whether or not the law is just or Constitutional.

Marshall Art said...

"The reason for "protected classes" is to make sure they are TREATED EQUALLY, as you admit the Constitution requires the government to do."

Protecting some classes leaves the rest of the classes vulnerable to unequal treatment, as we see in each of these cases of homo vs person of faith. As soon as you place one class apart from the rest for special protection, equality is thrown out the window.

Your link is just more "the law is the law because its the law" arguing.

"Not in America."

That's the problem. You're forcing one group to cater to the demands of another in a one-way street manner. That is neither equality or American. You don't have to like how racist a business owner is. I don't. I don't do business with such people.

"Proving once again that you are an un-American, clueless moron."

Yet, ironically, you're to much the clueless moron in being unable to defend your position or prove how my position indicates I'm either un-American or clueless. Saying so doesn't make it so, little Jimmy.

"Do you somehow think that any enabling by a business owner is necessary for ANY couple to engage in anal sex?"

Wow, Jimmy, your penchant for the stupid question is unrivaled. Or were you just looking for an opportunity to bring up anal sex? You obviously don't understand the concept of enabling. But know that you are an enabler of the homosexual community and their agenda when you defend the forcing of businesses into complicity with their lifestyles.

Anonymous said...

Fox News contributor Bernie Goldberg has it right.

Jim said...

Business owners are private citizens.

Business. Owners. Are. Not. Private. Citizens. When. Operating. A. Business. Serving. The. Public.

You insist they are to provide their products and services to anyone who seeks to purchase them.


No. Customers must wear shirts and shoes. Otherwise, yeah. Pretty much.

a business is not private because a business is not private.

Absolutely correct when the business offers its services to the public at large.

Your argument is that it is because some SCOTUS decision or other says it is.

No, I'm saying it is Constitutional because the legislators passed the law according to the powers granted them by the Constitution, and the Supreme Court affirmed it for half a century. Furthermore, you have no standing in the court of Constitutionality. You have your opinion, but like most people you also have a rectum.

when clearly, it isn't.

Not being a Constitution scholar, your opinion is worthless. Real Constitutional scholars affirm the law.

which is described as one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all.

Since when is a government a nation?

It absolutely speaks of the government and its obligation to provide liberty and justice for all.

It doesn't, but if it did, it would only affirm that the government has the obligation to provide justice (equal treatment) for all and therefore makes civil rights laws and laws of accommodation not only Constitutional, but as you alluded to earlier, required.

until you can finally present a sound argument as to where my position is flawed.

Your position is flawed because it is based on ignorance. You don't understand the meaning of association. You don't understand the concepts of private versus public businesses. You don't understand the concept of harm. You think that religious liberty trumps everything else.

It is only the majority opinion by which our form of gov't determines how to proceed from that point.

So find yourself a place with a better process if you don't like this one and move there.

Slavery yada yada yada.

That a bad law has gone unchallenged for any number of years has no bearing on whether or not the law is just or Constitutional.

Sure it does. If nobody challenges it then everyone must agree with it. Including Constitutional scholars.

Protecting some classes leaves the rest of the classes vulnerable to unequal treatment

If they needed protection they would be protected. That's why over time some groups have been added to the list of protected classes.

As soon as you place one class apart from the rest for special protection, equality is thrown out the window.

Nonsense. A protected class is not set apart. It is specifically included to prevent exclusion.

You're forcing one group to cater to the demands of another in a one-way street manner.

No, the law is forcing one group to cater to the demands of a just society. That is VERY American.

You don't have to like how racist a business owner is.

To paraphrase you, why would I want to enable bad behavior?

Saying so doesn't make it so, Marsha, sweetie.

You obviously don't understand the concept of enabling.

I totally understand the concept of enabling. But if, as you claim, a gay couple can take their business elsewhere, how is providing or not providing service enabling or not enabling "bad behavior"?

It's not, which again makes your argument moot.

But know that you are an enabler of the homosexual community

I attended the same sex wedding of an associate (someone I worked with). I am convinced that they both laid with a man as they would with a woman long before I knew either of them, often after they were married, and probably that very same night. Clearly there is no way that I did any enabling by celebrating their wedding.

Marshall Art said...

No, Anon. Bernie is absolutely wrong, for all the reasons you and Jim are wrong. So for the future, linking to someone saying the same crap Jim does is not a source that proves anything more than one more idiot saying the same crap Jim does.

Marshall Art said...

"Business. Owners. Are. Not. Private. Citizens. When. Operating. A. Business. Serving. The. Public."

Try all caps in bold print next time and see if it makes a difference. Restating your position doesn't win the debate. Defending it with something akin to an argument does. Try this: take out the law and SCOTUS opinions and defend the concept that somehow a private citizen is no longer private, with sovereign control of his own property, simply because he sells that property in a store he owns. I'll wait here.

"No, I'm saying it is Constitutional because the legislators passed the law according to the powers granted them by the Constitution, and the Supreme Court affirmed it for half a century."

That's not what makes anything Constitutional. It makes it law. It must align with the Constitution as understood by the people who wrote it for it to be Constitutional. Roe v Wade is unConstitutional because it deprives people of the right to life. You seriously are in need of an education on what the Constitution is and what it was meant to do. So far, all you've been doing is repeating opinions and pretending opinions by SCOTUS justices means something is Constitutional. It does not. Like most lefties, you are a rectum.

"Real Constitutional scholars affirm the law."

List a few.

"Your position is flawed because it is based on ignorance."

Nothing that follows this baseless statement is an argument. They are just more accusations for which you offer no support. There's no misunderstanding on my part regarding what "associate" or "association" means just because you can't understand that doing business with someone is one way one person associates with another.

You can't accuse me of not understanding business when you fail to understand that if one owns the business, then he owns the products he sells, and thus it is a matter of private property rights upon which the laws of accommodation infringe.

You can't accuse me of not understanding the concept of harm when you insist upon putting forth some ambiguous and non-life/limb threatening level of harm against which you believe gov't protection is required. It's absolutely ludicrous. You are insisting upon laws preventing the hurting of someone's feelings.

I believe and know that religious liberty is of far more value than the right to have one's sexual desires and behaviors viewed as normal and of equal value to society as that which leads to the next generation.

"So find yourself a place with a better process if you don't like this one and move there."

It is not the process I find troublesome, but the manner in which it is corrupted and abused by people like yourself and those you enable.

The case of slavery is an example of what you are defending: the concept that numbers determines morality, or a length of time a law remains determines its morality. Stop bringing up such stupidity and I won't need to refer to appropriate but unfortunate parallels from our history.

"If they needed protection they would be protected. That's why over time some groups have been added to the list of protected classes."

Which is unequal treatment and thus, unConstitutional.

Marshall Art said...

"No, the law is forcing one group to cater to the demands of a just society. That is VERY American."

No. It is not the least bit just or indicative of a just society to force one group to act against its firmly held beliefs in a nation set up to allow people to live according to their firmly held beliefs. That is unAmerican.

"You don't have to like how racist a business owner is.

To paraphrase you, why would I want to enable bad behavior?"


I'm not sure how your question goes with the highlighted statement of mine. It makes no sense.

"I totally understand the concept of enabling. But if, as you claim, a gay couple can take their business elsewhere, how is providing or not providing service enabling or not enabling "bad behavior"?"

Your question does not support your claim of understanding enabling. It requires ignoring the point of the florist/photographer/baker/etc's situation and pretending it was merely some dude not wanting to sell to a homo. So pay attention this time:

The lesbians wanted a photographer to record the celebration of their immoral union. To agree to the request makes the photographer complicit in their plans to live an immoral life. The photographer, as well as other businesses that provide catering or flowers, etc, as well as all those who "celebrate" with the lesbians are enabling their wickedness and perversion by their supportive gestures, acting as if their intentions are honorable and good, when they are not. They, in effect, make it easy for them to carry on the charade of their sinful and mentally twisted desires and behaviors by giving their support and, in the case of the photog, florist and baker, their business for the occasion.

"Clearly there is no way that I did any enabling by celebrating their wedding."

And clearly you do not understand the concept of enabling. Your attendance is one more validation of their lifestyle. Your conspicuous absence, were you a person of higher moral character, would have done the opposite. It would be mitigated by the numbers who did show up and also if you were not high on their list of "must have" guests. But imagine if half the invited guests did not show because they opposed the concept and could not support it. Imagine if no one showed.

Enabling is somewhat like peer-pressure. The difference is that in the latter case, everyone knows the action to be taken is wrong, whereas in the former, everyone pretends the action is OK.

So yes, you attendance was very much an act of enabling.

Anonymous said...

Marshall Art: "Black is white. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. La la la la la la la la."

Anonymous said...

"defend the concept that somehow a private citizen is no longer private, with sovereign control of his own property,"

When you get behind the wheel of your car, your own property, and drive on public roads, are you allowed to carry an open container of alcohol (which you bought)? Are you allowed to be intoxicated? Are you allowed to ignore traffic laws? It's your own property, for gosh sakes!

"what the Constitution is and what it was meant to do."

It was not meant to create rights for fetuses unless you can provide some text from a founder that specifically says it does.

"There's no misunderstanding on my part regarding what "associate" or "association" means"

There is, but you can use it anyway you want. Just be aware that as far as the Constitution is concerned, freedom of association refers to forming organizations such as trade unions and political parties.

"Which is unequal treatment and thus, unConstitutional."

How is making sure people are treated equally "unequal treatment"?

"Imagine if no one showed."

I guess they wouldn't be enabled to have immoral sex after dinner, so they would just say "adios" and go looking for an opposite gender person to have real, moral sex with.

Right?

Marshall Art said...

""Black is white. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. La la la la la la la la.""

Hardly, Anon. But "black is white" certainly describes YOUR position. Whether religious (immorality is immoral) or secular (abnormal/disordered is normal/ordered), you insist on pushing a lie as truth. Projecting this tactic onto me is also a lie.

"When you get behind the wheel of your car, your own property, and drive on public roads, are you allowed to carry an open container of alcohol (which you bought)?..."

This is apples to oranges. What you describe here is the abuse of liberty, which conflicts with the founders' position that our form of gov't requires a moral people. A florist denying the sale of her products for the celebration of immorality is not the same at all. Think harder.

"It was not meant to create rights for fetuses unless you can provide some text from a founder that specifically says it does."

The right to life is unalienable. Or haven't you heard? And despite the notion, put forth by even Scalia, that the founders were thinking of "born" people, it is every bit as likely that they were thinking of men of property or that had the subject of murdering one's own child in the womb was an issue, they would have included the unborn.

"Just be aware that as far as the Constitution is concerned, freedom of association refers to forming organizations such as trade unions and political parties."

Actually, the Constitution refers to "freedom of assembly". I've been waiting for one of you clowns to bring it up. But to have the freedom to associate with whom one chooses flows from this and other enumerated rights. In any case, I've used the word appropriately despite the fact that it rubs you guys the wrong way.

"How is making sure people are treated equally "unequal treatment"?"

Really? "Protected class" doesn't suggest to you putting one class over another? Wow. No wonder our country is in such bad shape.

"I guess they wouldn't be enabled to have immoral sex after dinner, so they would just say "adios" and go looking for an opposite gender person to have real, moral sex with."

If you're competing with Jim for stupidest comment, you're doing a fine job. If no one showed up to celebrate a homo couple's "wedding", it would suggest to them that no one approves of it. That would be a good thing for enforcing standards of right and wrong.

Jim said...

conflicts with the founders' position that our form of gov't requires a moral people.

As defined by the Christian Bible? I don't think so.

The right to life is unalienable.

That applies to "all men".

it is every bit as likely that they ... had the subject of murdering one's own child in the womb was an issue, they would have included the unborn.

Not a chance.

I've been waiting for one of you clowns to bring it up.

Says the head clown. The fact that Amendment I refers to freedom assembly has for centuries been construed as freedom of association in terms of trade, business, or political organizations. This is not new.

I've used the word appropriately despite the fact that it rubs you guys the wrong way.

No, you haven't. Please find any dictionary or legal case law that agrees with you.

"Protected class" doesn't suggest to you putting one class over another?

Not in the least. It suggests that they are protected from being denied the rights that everyone else has, the very essence of equality and equal treatment in the United States.

it would suggest to them that no one approves of it.

So they would stop having sex with one another?

Marshall Art said...

"As defined by the Christian Bible? I don't think so."

Back then, real men didn't equivocate with such zeal as leftists nowadays demonstrate. Of course they meant "as defined by the Christian Bible".

"The right to life is unalienable.

That applies to "all men"."


So, women and children were screwed, right?

"Not a chance."

Based on what, besides your own fevered and desperate notions of human sexuality?

"The fact that Amendment I refers to freedom assembly has for centuries been construed as freedom of association in terms of trade, business, or political organizations."

And individual contact with other individuals. You can look it up if you want, just by reading anything Google will provide for "Freedom of Association".

"No, you haven't. Please find any dictionary or legal case law that agrees with you."

What a liar! I gave you six examples from a dictionary and explained how each examples proves my point about the words "associate/association". You've done nothing to explain why those examples do not fit the association between a proprietor and his customer except something along the lines of "nuh uh". As to legal case law, I don't need it or any SCOTUS opinion to tell me what a word means, especially after having provided clear definitions. Do you have case law examples that show the word must NEVER be used as I've used it? What's more, unlike you, I don't need case law in order for me to understand right and wrong

"It suggests that they are protected from being denied the rights that everyone else has, the very essence of equality and equal treatment in the United States."

Who protects ME from being denied rights? Who protects people of faith? Who protects people of differing opinions? On the subject of SSM, people of faith are being denied their rights as has been proven over and over. YOU, and other enablers, be they legal, political or just jerks like you haven't demonstrated anything more than a desire to provide SPECIAL status to homosexuals and stifle the protected rights of religious expression of everyone else.

"it would suggest to them that no one approves of it.

So they would stop having sex with one another?"


One can only hope that the sinful would turn to righteousness and the disordered turn to help, but unfortunately, one can't hold one's breath. I'd be happy if they went back into their closets if they chose their sexual desires over truth.

No matter how many people insist murder is wrong, people still murder. I am not so naive as to believe that even with public sentiment shifting back to truth and righteousness that there would not still exist those for whom pleasing the self is paramount. But some would be compelled to deny themselves their selfish desires as many people do all the time regarding all manner of sinful or destructive compulsions. It's called character. You might have heard someone talking about it at some point in your life. It's too bad you never took the time to listen and hear what was said about it.

Here's a good explanation of the application of the notion of freedom of association. While it focuses on labor markets, it clearly explains the subject in a manner that mirrors my position, particularly when it speaks of the freedom including the freedom to choose with whom one wishes not to associate.

Jim said...

Of course they meant "as defined by the Christian Bible".

Horse pucky! Apparently you are as bad at history as you claim I am.

So, women and children were screwed, right?

At the time, yes.

Based on what, besides your own fevered and desperate notions of human sexuality?

Based on you have not one shred of evidence that they had fetuses in mind on any issue at the time.

And individual contact with other individuals. You can look it up if you want

Nope. "Contact" is not association. The only definition I found that included one individual with another individual was "to keep company, as a friend, companion, or ally". A commercial transaction is not keeping company.

You need to give this one up.

I gave you six examples from a dictionary and explained how each examples proves my point

You didn't explain how each example proved your point. You simply listed them and suggested that one might fit your use. Still none of that came anywhere near proving your point.

You've done nothing to explain why those examples do not fit the association between a proprietor and his customer except something along the lines of "nuh uh".

Not true, of course. I said, "A customer who walks off the street to buy a pack of smokes is not a companion, not a partner, and not an ally. Forming a union to secure fair wages is associating with a cause. Forming a civic group for banning abortions is associating with a cause. Joining a political party to further political goals is associating with a cause. Buying smokes is a transaction, not a cause."

The other definitions needed no explanation as they clearly didn't fit your usage.

Do you have case law examples that show the word must NEVER be used as I've used it?

Can't prove a negative, so don't ask.

I don't need case law in order for me to understand right and wrong

We aren't talking "right and wrong". We are talking the definition of a word.

people of faith are being denied their rights as has been proven over and over.

One can't be denied rights they have waved by getting a business license.

you haven't demonstrated anything more than a desire to provide SPECIAL status to homosexuals and stifle the protected rights of religious expression of everyone else.


What a ridiculous statement!

there would not still exist those for whom pleasing the self is paramount.

Ah, the return of the Sex Nazi!

Your linked article does not in any way support your position as to the meaning of association. I read the entire article. What did I miss? Please show your notes.

Marshall Art said...

"Horse pucky!"

Well that describes your arguments thus far. Now it just saves you time over your standard unsubstantiated drivel.

"At the time, yes."

Wow. Yeah. Horse pucky indeed. To assert that women and children were not endowed with the right to life back at the time of the founding is beyond stupid.

"Based on you have not one shred of evidence that they had fetuses in mind on any issue at the time."

from a discussion I found on the web:

"James Wilson’s “Lectures on Law,” given at what eventually was to become the University of Pennsylvania, clearly affirm that the right to life encompasses the unborn. Wilson was one of only six men to sign both the Declaration and the Constitution, and was a Supreme Court justice from 1789 to 1798. Recognized as “the most learned and profound legal scholar of his generation,” Wilson’s lectures were attended by President George Washington, Vice President John Adams, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and a “galaxy of other republican worthies.” For this reason, as constitutional scholar Walter Berns states, “Wilson, when speaking on the law, might be said to be speaking for the Founders generally.” So what do the Founders say about the right to life?
Wilson clearly answers this question: “With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and in some cases, from every degree of danger.”"

"You need to give this one up."

Not at all. When you can show that my explanations for how the relationship between a proprietor and his customer is NOT an association, that they are NOT associating with one another, to counter how I showed that each of the six definitions I listed earlier actually make the terms appropriate in this context, then there might be some motivation for me to "give it up". As such, the ball is still in your court and "nuh uh" is not an argument.

Two people coming together to exchange property for the mutual benefit of both is a cause, whether you like it or not. Your childish denials does not mitigate the fact.

"Can't prove a negative, so don't ask."

A white flag offering if ever there was one. Typical lefty dodge when the lefty's argument is lost.

"We aren't talking "right and wrong". We are talking the definition of a word."

But definitions have been provided and worse for your cause, you again insist on "case law" and the opinions of others (as if those opinions are gospel) to argue your position. The problem is that doing so doesn't make your position correct, but only shows that others also hold the wrong perspective. Numbers don't determine what is right or wrong, or in this case, correct or incorrect.

Marshall Art said...

"One can't be denied rights they have waved by getting a business license."

This is stupid. Unless one is content to earn on the good graces of an employer, one is forced by law to set aside God-given rights to run a business. This is not a willing waving of rights if the law leaves one no choice.

"Ah, the return of the Sex Nazi!"

I no you think this is clever, but it really only underscores your own moral bankruptcy that the suggestion that people control their unseemly sexual urges (hopefully in a manner that not only pleases God but benefits society) shows there's a problem with me. If standing for virtue and morality makes me a "sex Nazi", I'm cool with it. How sad you think it denotes a negative.

"Your linked article does not in any way support your position as to the meaning of association. I read the entire article. What did I miss?"

The point. The article deals specifically with freedoms of association as pertains business, and the rights a business possesses and especially makes a reference to how the current situation conflicts with the founders' intentions. It also speaks to the freedom as being also allowing one to NOT associate with someone. Read it again and have someone explain the big words for you.

Jim said...

For this reason, as constitutional scholar Walter Berns states, “Wilson, when speaking on the law, might be said to be speaking for the Founders generally.”

Really? So speaking TO people means you are speaking FOR them? If I attended a speech by George Wallace (which I did) he was speaking on my behalf? Everyone in an audience is somehow infused with the ideology they are presented with?

I don't think so. Major fail.

When you can show that my explanations for how the relationship between a proprietor and his customer is NOT an association, that they are NOT associating with one another

You copied in the meanings yourself so not only have I shown you are wrong, you showed you were wrong yourself.

Two people coming together to exchange property for the mutual benefit of both is a cause

Here's a childish denial. No it's not.

Typical lefty dodge when the lefty's argument is lost.

Prove no Martian has EVER visited the earth's surface.

This is not a willing waving of rights if the law leaves one no choice.

The law allows anyone the choice of not selling goods and services to the public. If one runs a public restaurant, one gives up the God-given right to not clean their kitchen.

people control their unseemly sexual urges

Sex Nazi!

It also speaks to the freedom as being also allowing one to NOT associate with someone.

Which is to say the freedom to not join a union, trade association, or the Rotary Club.

The article claims that an employer has the right to not associate with a union. This is just absurd since the union is an association formed specifically for the cause of bargaining. But the employer can only associate with the union if he joins it which is nonsensical.

Marshall Art said...

"Really? So speaking TO people means you are speaking FOR them?"

Well, if I wasn't a chucklehead desperately trying to defend the indefensible, I might read that to mean only that as one of the founders, his sentiments are likely to have been held by other founders. Here again we see Jim, like a typical lefty, insisting that what HE wants something to mean, MUST mean what he wants it to mean. More importantly, you demanded some "shred" of evidence that the founders had fetuses in mind when defending everyone's right to life. I gave it, you soiled yourself.

"You copied in the meanings yourself so not only have I shown you are wrong, you showed you were wrong yourself."

Now this is a convoluted attempt! I copied/provided six definitions and showed how each applied. YOU merely deny. Childishly.

"Two people coming together to exchange property for the mutual benefit of both is a cause

Here's a childish denial. No it's not."


Childish denial is all you have, little Jimmy. One definition of the word "cause" is the reason or motive for some human action The exchange of property between proprietor and customer (goods for money) is the reason for the human action of the two parties associating. You're doing so much to help make my case. Thank you.

"Typical lefty dodge when the lefty's argument is lost.

Prove no Martian has EVER visited the earth's surface."


Another typical lefty dodge. Demand something really stupid when the argument is lost.

"The law allows anyone the choice of not selling goods and services to the public. If one runs a public restaurant, one gives up the God-given right to not clean their kitchen."

Only you would try to use an argument like this. Once again you equate the abuse of liberty with the denial of liberty. This incredibly stupid attempt at an argument is nothing like being denied to run a business according to one's religious beliefs. Makes a nice white flag, though.

"people control their unseemly sexual urges

Sex Nazi!"


Yeah. I get it. You think this is clever. It's not. But it does make crystal clear just how pathetic you are at defending bad behavior. In that, you're a complete success. Congratulations. You must be very proud.

As to the article to which I linked, you are still purposely missing the point. It speaks of associations between employers and employees. It speaks of the laws forcing the employers to engage in such associations that are directed by employees unions. It says absolutely nothing that suggests anything like the employer can only associate with the union if he joins it. From what dark and smelly orifice did you pull this gem and how could it fit along side your head? The position that the employer has a right NOT to associate with a union is only absurd to one who isn't paying attention, is stupid and/or is lying (you hit on #'s 1,2 AND 3. Well done). Re-read it again, more slowly this time, and really, get someone who can read without moving his/her lips to help you understand what the author is trying to say.