I'm not really a splitting hares/hairs person but a bigot can be a bigot at heart and not practice bigotry.

__________________

*Apathy rules

*unless apathy doesn't rule

Boeing would file chapter 11 because the American consumers would stop buying Boeing airplanes?

__________________

*Apathy rules

*unless apathy doesn't rule

Sorry, my thinking was in terms of airline carrier … sorry for equating Boeing as such..

JWK

PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION

Property does not lose its private character merely because the public is generally invited to use it for designated purposes.


Homosexuals just as homophobes both have an inalienable right to pursue their happiness, so long as that in doing so neither impinges upon the other’s inalienable rights. One of the most fundamental inalienable rights of each, and a right which exists without government, is the inalienable right to reject unwanted contracts and associations and mutually agree in business contracts and associations.


What you fail to take into account is that there are homosexual “bigots”, feminist “bigots”, bible thumper “bigots”, homophobe bigots, bisexual bigots, White bigots, Black bigots, ___ indeed, there are all types of bigots, but each of these bigots has a fundamental right to reject unwanted business contracts and associations and without having to justifying to folks in government why they have rejected a contract or business association.

The ordinance in question is intentionally designed to give an identifiable group ___ homosexuals, bisexuals and lesbians who have been promoting the ordinance ___ a unique opportunity to drag a business or property owner into a legal nightmare if one should dare to deny an ordinance supporter a job or rent a room to one, even if the property/business owner may have made the decision based upon his/her own economic interests. The mere allegation of discrimination based upon sex, or sexual orientation starts the ball rolling and may culminate in the property/business owner having to spend thousands of dollars defending his decision while government [taxpayer] picks up the tab for the party alleging said “discrimination”. These type of laws, claiming to know what is in the hearts and minds of the accused, are always bad law, and ultimately benefit our leech infested lawyer industry.

As I have correctly pointed out elsewhere, when the ADA [Americans With Disabilities Act] was being debated and, it was affectionately referred to by lawyers pushing the Act as the Lawyers Full Employment Act. After its passage, a distinct ADA law practice evolved in many law firms across the country and many fortunes were accumulated by lawyers under it.


BTW, your bigotry has been well displayed in this thread. You have repeatedly lambasted and taken to task a number of identifiable groups, such as homophobes, while supporting and defending other identifiable groups, such as “gays”. The obvious prejudice you have displayed is, you pay no attention to bigoted gays, lesbians, and bisexuals who flaunt their sexual proclivities and hatred for Christians and who they refer to as bible thumpers. Sorry, but I do not accept you selective bigotry thinking, and no freedom loving person ought to.


Get it????!!!!!

What is so hard to understand??!!!


JWK

No rights exist without government. The law defines what rights people have, not your personal opinion.

No matter how strongly you believe that people should have a right to reject all unwanted contracts and associations, that doesn't make it an "inalienable right" that any court in the country is bound to enforce.

"gays who flaunt their sexual proclivities"? Your biases and homophobia are showing.

"our leech-invested lawyer industry" also clearly shows your biases. You hate lawyers and any law that makes you do something you don't want to do, we get that.

As for your counterexample, if a gay business owner unjustly fired an employee because they were Christian, that would be just as illegal.

We're clearly at an impasse. You think people should have an absolute, "inalienable" right to discriminate against any group they choose, regardless of the consequences, and we disagree.

You think that a right to make contracts should trump the rights of gays, blacks, and other persecuted minorities to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No discussion is going to change this fundamental disagreement of ours.

Yes it does. Check out the hundreds of websites that address this issue. Two federal government sites in particular:

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
(overs more than just employment, it has a page devoted to public accommodations)
www.eeoc.gov/index.html

click on "public accommodations

and:

DEPT. OF JUSTICE
TITLE III REGULATION 28 CFR, part 36

www.ada.gov/reg3a.html

__________________
"Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes." -- Walt Whitman, Leaves Of Grass

I never referred to Christians as "bible-thumpers". You did. Check out every post in this thread.

Denigrating anyone's religious beliefs goes against my Buddhist values.

__________________
"Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes." -- Walt Whitman, Leaves Of Grass

I believe many of our founding fathers, those who founded our nation and its Supreme Law, would disagree with your uninformed opinion:

And what has our SC stated with regard to “Liberty“, identified by our founding fathers as an unalienable right?


Our courts are bound to uphold “this Constitution”, and not one they make up as they go along, nor are our Courts granted the power to hand down decisions which violate the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution, each article, section, clause and amendment, was adopted.


No biases in my thinking. You just made that up. In context I stated:

I also pointed out:

I hate lawyers? Did your local teal leaf reader tell you that? My “biases” are not with lawyers as such, but with the leaches who have infested our legal system. I’m beginning to believe you may be suffering from a reading comprehension problem, or intentionally misrepresenting what I have posted in the thread.

You forgot to provide the case law. But regardless of case law, homosexual business owners have an inalienable right to reject unwanted contracts and associations, even if it is only with Christians. Why do you have such a problem with homosexuals exercising a fundamental inalienable right ___ the right to reject unwanted business contracts and associations? Oh, I forgot. You are the fountain of all wisdom and it is your moral code which is to be followed by all, even though our SC has stated, in crystal clear language, our government‘s job is to: “define the liberty of all, not to mandate its own moral code”


There you go again, misrepresenting what I have written. I have never suggested that people have an absolute, "inalienable" right to discriminate against any group they choose, regardless of the consequences. I have repeatedly indicated people may exercise inalienable rights, so long as they do not impinge upon another’s inalienable rights. EXAMPLE OF WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN:

Trump? There you go again, misrepresenting what I have written, or perhaps you really do have a reading comprehension problem.

I see nothing wrong with gays, blacks, and other persecuted minorities rejecting unwanted business contracts and associations in pursuing their happiness which may include advancing their own economic interests, while exercise their liberty. Why would you want to interfere with one of these identifiable group’s most basic and fundamental inalienable rights?

I do know the force of government was once used to advance anti Chinese laundry laws during the 1860’s and up to the 1900’s and such laws were intentionally worded to appear to be nondiscriminatory but were an assault upon the Chinese. But the bottom line was, such laws impinged upon both economic liberty, and the inalienable right to contract and were repeatedly, and correctly, struck down by federal courts.

The ordinance in question is in fact intentionally designed to create an advantage for one identifiable group to the disadvantage of another identifiable group, and presumes the latter is guilty of an intolerable act without knowing what is in the minds and hearts of those persecuted under it.


JWK

If I opened a large four star hotel in Philadelphia and decided I was prohibiting gays (including lesbians, bisexuals, transgender people, etc) in employment, checking into rooms, access to the bars and restaurants, the ability to rent meeting rooms and facilities, etc etc
... I guess that means I can expect no legal ramifications or opposition. It's my unalienable right, after all. The government will be on my side, after all these people are trying to abridge my rights as a property owner, right?

__________________
"Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes." -- Walt Whitman, Leaves Of Grass

Originally Posted by john w k
And you check out what the SCOTUS has clearly stated:

I see you have referenced the Lawyers Full Employment Act, the ADA. You're funny!