Texas Restaurant Bans Gay Couple Because ‘We Do Not Like Fags’

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

It states what the Federal Govt is allowed to do, in a sense. It places boundaries on it.

Where it isn't addressed, it is left to the State to decide.

Same question for driving is posed to you.

originally posted by: macman

The Constitution does not grant the right or the privilege to marry. It is therefore left up the the State to decide. This is very clearly defined.

No one ever asks or questions why states were given the right to Marriage laws. I personally find that interesting.

State Marriage laws are definitely one of those things some love to bring up in this type discussion.

The state rights of marriage was purely discriminatory to begin with. It gave communities the right to pick and choose who they wanted to live in their little social structure, and the right to exclude those they didn't.

However, Federal laws against discrimination trump all state laws. That's where the Constitution comes in (14th amendment).

While states will still have the right of Marriage laws, such as age, blood tests, etc -- they will not be able to deny a couple from getting married because of who they are.

Once LGBT are included as a Federally protected minority, which they will be, people like Big Earl will have no legal standing in actions against his view of Men not acting as Men. Or a personal view of illicit behavior -- unless that view is consistent across the board of all his customers.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
So all discrimination should be outlawed and nobody should have the freedom to choose?

Please don't put words in my mouth.

You honestly believe that unless the government is holding a gun to people's head's in the 21st century that discrimination and bigotry will be widespread and that the only one pure enough to stop bigotry is the federal government?

I do believe that without laws to the contrary, discrimination would be widespread. History has proven it so.

Secondly, it doesn't matter if it's "widespread" or just a few people. EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN has the right to be treated equally under the law - not just the majority. The Constitution is for EVERYONE. And if the government has to step in to make sure that happens, then yes. I think it should.

And you leftists call gun owners paranoid and fearful...

I'm not a leftist and I support the second amendment, as well as the 14th. I do not call gun owners paranoid and fearful.

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: macman

It goes against everything the Constitution stands for to allow a state to remove privileges from one group, while allowing those same privileges to another. This is the meaning of discrimination. Yes, privileges can be taken away, but if you are going to remove privileges, then remove them from all citizens. If you are going to allow privileges, then allow them to all citizens. Otherwise, you have discrimination.

The Constitution does not grant the right or the privilege to marry. It is therefore left up the the State to decide. This is very clearly defined.

It doesn't have to specify marriage -- it deals with any and all privileges, generally speaking.

It doesn't have to specify?????

This truly is mind boggling.

So, how can a state restrict someone with poor eyesight from driving?
It isn't implied nor addressed in the Constitution, and according to you, doesn't need to be specifically addressed.

Because driving with poor eyesight can hurt or kill others - the reason protects the general public. Now you are talking about the public's right to life, which IS specifically addressed in the Constitution. Not allowing two gays to marry each other because being gay is "icky" is simply discrimination.

originally posted by: macman
It doesn't have to specify?????

This truly is mind boggling.

That's right. It doesn't have to specify. Can you show me where the Constitution specifies our right to vote? No, you cannot. Because the Constitution does not grant us the right to vote.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

It states what the Federal Govt is allowed to do, in a sense. It places boundaries on it.

Where it isn't addressed, it is left to the State to decide.

But it DOES address how the state is to handle the laws it makes. In the 14th amendment which has been mentioned and quoted many times. Please read it.

Yes, some things are left to the states, but the states are NOT permitted to makes laws that abridge the privileges of its citizens. 14th amendment. Reading comprehension.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: NavyDoc
So all discrimination should be outlawed and nobody should have the freedom to choose?

Please don't put words in my mouth.

You honestly believe that unless the government is holding a gun to people's head's in the 21st century that discrimination and bigotry will be widespread and that the only one pure enough to stop bigotry is the federal government?

I do believe that without laws to the contrary, discrimination would be widespread. History has proven it so.

Secondly, it doesn't matter if it's "widespread" or just a few people. EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN has the right to be treated equally under the law - not just the majority. The Constitution is for EVERYONE. And if the government has to step in to make sure that happens, then yes. I think it should.

And you leftists call gun owners paranoid and fearful...

I'm not a leftist and I support the second amendment, as well as the 14th. I do not call gun owners paranoid and fearful.

That's what you seem to be saying--that the state should take away the freedom of association because you don't like what you see as discrimination.

Yes, everyone should be equal under the law but when you have laws that force people to do business or associate with whom they don't want to, you create inequality--you make one person's choice over another person's.

So you also think affirmative action and race based scholarships and preferences for hiring and should be banned by law as well? The federal government should shut down the United Negro Collage fund due to discrimination?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: macman

The Constitution does not grant the right or the privilege to marry. It is therefore left up the the State to decide. This is very clearly defined.

No one ever asks or questions why states were given the right to Marriage laws. I personally find that interesting.

State Marriage laws are definitely one of those things some love to bring up in this type discussion.

The state rights of marriage was purely discriminatory to begin with. It gave communities the right to pick and choose who they wanted to live in their little social structure, and the right to exclude those they didn't.

However, Federal laws against discrimination trump all state laws. That's where the Constitution comes in (14th amendment).

While states will still have the right of Marriage laws, such as age, blood tests, etc -- they will not be able to deny a couple from getting married because of who they are.

Once LGBT are included as a Federally protected minority, which they will be, people like Big Earl will have no legal standing in actions against his view of Men not acting as Men. Or a personal view of illicit behavior -- unless that view is consistent across the board of all his customers.

Yes, Comrade! The State will make another protected class and force those evil Kulaks to do what we want them to! Forward!!!

originally posted by: NavyDoc

Yes, everyone should be equal under the law but when you have laws that force people to do business or associate with whom they don't want to, you create inequality--you make one person's choice over another person's.

Everyone has the right of choice not to own/operate a public accommodating business.

Affirmative Action is way off topic. I will say I am against a caste system, and support ways of getting out.

a reply to: Annee

Dear Annee,

May I add a little to your post? It may be creating a false impression for some.

No one ever asks or questions why states were given the right to Marriage laws. I personally find that interesting.

Ummmm, and who gave the states that right? Certainly not the Federal government, it was the Constitution, which has as a major theme that the States and Citizens thereof have rights and they give up a few of those to the federal government. The States always had the right.

The state rights of marriage was purely discriminatory to begin with. It gave communities the right to pick and choose who they wanted to live in their little social structure, and the right to exclude those they didn't.

Discrimination is not always a bad word. The US "discriminated" against the Mormons when they outlawed polygamy. We jail people for laws violated in one state, when those laws don't even exist in another. We put curfews and smoking and drinking restrictions on the young, even though the next day may not apply. We don't let convicted sex criminals work in children's day cares.

The military has physical tests that have the effect of discriminating against females. Citizens of other countries can't run for president. Felons can't exercise their 2nd amendment rights. Sorry, I'm getting carried away, but not all discrimination is bad. The argument is whether this particular form of discrimination is bad or good. Two sides, two opinions. Neither is "obviously" wrong.

However, Federal laws against discrimination trump all state laws. That's where the Constitution comes in (14th amendment).

OK, but switch the source of your certainty. The Supreme Court has used the 14th Amendment just a few times in a hundred and fifty years. Many Constitutional attorneys believe that the 14th is no longer very relevant, being replaced in large part by Article IV.

With respect,
Charles1952

I'm gay and this would really hurt to be treated this way. At the same time, I wouldn't have gone into a business with a sign on the door like the sign pictured. I don't know why some people find it necessary to be cruel. We are human beings.

As for the "rights" issue - I think people taking on their yelp reviews are within their rights as much as the restaurant is. I think they deserve bad publicity for behaving so cruelly.

Also, I don't understand the urge to treat people unkindly and then hide behind Christianity. It seems to go against the "Love thy neighbor as thyself" bit and the "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone" bit and the "Judge not, lest ye be judged," bit, etc. I just don't get it.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

Yes, everyone should be equal under the law but when you have laws that force people to do business or associate with whom they don't want to, you create inequality--you make one person's choice over another person's.

Everyone has the right of choice not to own/operate a public accommodating business.

Affirmative Action is way off topic. I will say I am against a caste system, and support ways of getting out.

So if you dare open a business the government can tell you what to do?

Affirmative action IS essential to the topic. I see you avoid the question--perhaps because you support it. If you do, then you support racial discrimination. I find that those who complain about discrimination the most, love it the most as long as the discrimination is something they like. Leftists like yourself LOVE discrimination--they call it racial preferences or affirmative action. You SAY you hate discrimination, but you embrace certain types of it.

You say that, but you, in your endorsement and support of creating yet another "protected class", actually support a caste system and support discrimination. As long as you agree with the discrimination, obviously it is fine by you.

originally posted by: NatTx
I'm gay and this would really hurt to be treated this way. At the same time, I wouldn't have gone into a business with a sign on the door like the sign pictured. I don't know why some people find it necessary to be cruel. We are human beings.

As for the "rights" issue - I think people taking on their yelp reviews are within their rights as much as the restaurant is. I think they deserve bad publicity for behaving so cruelly.

Also, I don't understand the urge to treat people unkindly and then hide behind Christianity. It seems to go against the "Love thy neighbor as thyself" bit and the "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone" bit and the "Judge not, lest ye be judged," bit, etc. I just don't get it.

Yep. I agree. Big Earl should have the freedom to be a jerk and the customers and Yelp reviewers have the freedom to call him out on it.

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: Annee

Dear Annee,

May I add a little to your post? It may be creating a false impression for some.

No one ever asks or questions why states were given the right to Marriage laws. I personally find that interesting.

Ummmm, and who gave the states that right? Certainly not the Federal government, it was the Constitution, which has as a major theme that the States and Citizens thereof have rights and they give up a few of those to the federal government.

With respect,
Charles1952

The Constitution is a 226+ year old document (ratification 1787). It's a framework, thrown together from bits and pieces of other documents.

It is NOT perfect. It is a framework that needs to adjust over time. It is not black and white, even though some try to use it that way.

There is a reason we have Constitutional lawyers.

When you build a society and communities grow, laws are enacted for various reasons. So NO, I do not agree people have rights outside the laws of a community.

As far as polygamy and Mormons. Their rights should have been protected under freedom of religion. But, Christian dominance in government ignored that right.

This is wandering too far off the thread subject.

Please do not respond to this post. I'm done with anymore Constitution talk.

originally posted by: NatTx

Also, I don't understand the urge to treat people unkindly and then hide behind Christianity. It seems to go against the "Love thy neighbor as thyself" bit and the "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone" bit and the "Judge not, lest ye be judged," bit, etc. I just don't get it.

Bullies aren't limited to middle schoolers, unfortunately. It's just that when they are an adult, they don't like to admit they are a bully, so they use something like religion to justify their behavior. But these aren't true Christians. True followers of Christ, who really try to live by what He said, don't make judgments against others who aren't hurting anyone, and are much more likely to live and let live.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
That's what you seem to be saying--that the state should take away the freedom of association because you don't like what you see as discrimination.

Tell me what you mean by "freedom of association". As far as I know, it does not mean that you have the right to keep a certain group out of your restaurant. It's the freedom to associate with each other, not to choose NOT to associate with certain groups. It's the freedom for an organization to determine who its members will be.

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.[1]

Freedom of Association

freedom of association
The right to form societies, clubs, and other groups of people, and to meet with people individually, without interference by the government.

Dictionary

I can't go into a grocery store, see someone I don't like and demand that they leave because I don't want to associate with them.

Yes, everyone should be equal under the law but when you have laws that force people to do business or associate with whom they don't want to, you create inequality--you make one person's choice over another person's.

The same could be said when you allow the business owner to ban someone because they're gay, making the business owner's choice more important than the gay couple who wish to associate with the people in the restaurant.

So you also think affirmative action and race based scholarships and preferences for hiring and should be banned by law as well? The federal government should shut down the United Negro Collage fund due to discrimination?

I'm on the fence about that. I don't feel strongly either way.

I am very interested in what you mean by freedom of association.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Leftists like yourself LOVE discrimination--

Why must yo resort to this kind of crap? I want to have an adult discussion with you, but you keep throwing out this unfounded political trolling.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
Freedom of association. You should be free to associate with whomever you want or not associate with whomever you want and the state shouldn't be telling you who you should or should not associate with. It's a simple concept.

So on the fence with affirmative action? Does that mean you might not have a problem with racial discrimination if you agree with the underlying reason? Does that not mean you might be okay with discrimination you agree with?

Do you think a Jewish man should be forced to bake a cake for a Nazi themed wedding, complete with Swastikas drawn out of frosting or a black man be forced to cater a KKK rally because he has the best barbecue in town, or do you think those people should have the right not to serve people they disagree with?

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Leftists like yourself LOVE discrimination--

Why must yo resort to this kind of crap? I want to have an adult discussion with you, but you keep throwing out this unfounded political trolling.

It's not trolling. It's the truth. Leftists HATE discrimination except for affirmative action, racial preferences in employment, minority only scholarships, minority preferences in government contracts, etc.

People say that they hate discrimination but usually one can find discrimination that they love and embrace and I find most of it very hypocritical. Most of you who want to force Big Earl not to "discriminate" have no problem with blatant racial discrimination in other areas, not by private entities even, but the government and find many ways to justify that version of bigotry.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

Yes, everyone should be equal under the law but when you have laws that force people to do business or associate with whom they don't want to, you create inequality--you make one person's choice over another person's.

Everyone has the right of choice not to own/operate a public accommodating business.

That comment is nonsensical. It's like saying "you are free to read any books you like as long as you read the books we approve. "

edit on 3-6-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)