ADVERTISEMENT

OT...the timeless wit of Ben Franklin...

How about the tyranny of the judicial branch to determine which minority gets precedence?

The baker whose conscious says certain now legal marriage is wrong, will be required to bake cakes for those activities, even when there are other bakers available. Some minorities don't just want their freedom. They want those who disagree to be drowned in the majority dust. That's not what the Constitution was written to do.

In reading it, that just isn't there. Only those who view the Constitution as an evolving docoment, meaning if they have a tyrannical mind they have the freedom to make it say whatever they want it to, would read it in the way that you contend.
 
The US Constitution was intended to be an evolving document. Hence, we have the availability of amendments, and a court was established to define what the Constitution meant.

Those who wrote the Constitution were definitely not in agreement about the rights of others. Although there was considerable debate over slavery, nobody at the convention seemed to notice that we did not guarantee that the laws and protections of the Constitution extended to women. Some men were included as only three-fifths of a man, and even that had nothing to do with their rights. They had no rights. The provision was an accounting for census purposes that would accrue to the benefits available to a state. Yet, the people who wrote the Constitution were aware that at some point slavery would be terminated. They knew that what they were creating would be changed as society evolved.

Basically, you can be bigoted as long as you don't act upon it. There are countless things on which you would be quite willing to permit someone to do or believe, as long as it is within their own homes and doesn't affect others. That's kind of where the courts have decided that your rights end, where they interfere with someone else's. We decided some time ago that you could be a racist, but you couldn't refuse to serve African-Americans. Do we have to go through that dance for every group, or can we just accept that business operates outside the home, and it is subject to operate in a non-discriminatory way?

If the Constitution had not been an evolving document, I strongly suspect that fewer than ten percent of the people on this board would have the right to vote according to the laws that were set up by some communities. Even poor white males could not vote.
 
  • Like
Reactions: K2C Sooner
The constitution is a relatively short document that was intended to be easy to understand yet we have nine people whose full time job is to interpret the constitution in secrecy behind closed doors. Oh, and those nine members are basically unaccountable to the citizens they serve, and they are not responsible for the results or consequences of their decisions as their appointment is for life.
 
"A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch...
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote".

(booyaa)



Sad to say fitty, but I think in todays world..................


504a6d421d683.preview-300.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Section22Sooner
Well, sooner or later even the most ardent progressive will have an epiphany, and realize how utterly screwed they're getting supporting half the population that doesn't work, or contribute in any manner to the __________good of society. (parasites)
Then the pendulum will start to swing the other way.
This is a cyclical issue...it will start swinging the other way.
 
Last edited:
Well, sooner or later even the most ardent progressive will have an epiphany, and realize how utterly screwed they're getting supporting half the population that doesn't work, or contribute in any manner to the collective good of society. (parasites)
Then the pendulum will start to swing the other way.
This is a cyclical issue...it will start swinging the other way.


Well, I like your post, but I would strike the word "collective". I hate that word. Sounds like "It takes a Village". I get your point though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Section22Sooner
[QUOTE="sybarite, post: 179166, member.

Do we have to go through that dance for every group, or can we just accept that business operates outside the home, and it is subject to operate in a non-discriminatory way?

.[/QUOTE]

So do you have a problem with Wal Mart, Amazon, many others banning the sell of the Confederate flag, high school rings and cakes? Are they discriminating against the southern people that see it as piece of history?

Let's go a little further, would you consider it discrimination if someone came into a bakery and demanded you make a cake of child porno?

This could go on and on....I state the individual that owns the bakery should have the right to serve who they want. The public has not only the right to reject them, but ostracize them.

Should the individual business owner be forced to serve hoods that won't wear shirts and have their pants hanging below their knees?
 
The US Constitution was intended to be an evolving document. Hence, we have the availability of amendments, and a court was established to define what the Constitution meant.

Those who wrote the Constitution were definitely not in agreement about the rights of others. Although there was considerable debate over slavery, nobody at the convention seemed to notice that we did not guarantee that the laws and protections of the Constitution extended to women. Some men were included as only three-fifths of a man, and even that had nothing to do with their rights. They had no rights. The provision was an accounting for census purposes that would accrue to the benefits available to a state. Yet, the people who wrote the Constitution were aware that at some point slavery would be terminated. They knew that what they were creating would be changed as society evolved.

Basically, you can be bigoted as long as you don't act upon it. There are countless things on which you would be quite willing to permit someone to do or believe, as long as it is within their own homes and doesn't affect others. That's kind of where the courts have decided that your rights end, where they interfere with someone else's. We decided some time ago that you could be a racist, but you couldn't refuse to serve African-Americans. Do we have to go through that dance for every group, or can we just accept that business operates outside the home, and it is subject to operate in a non-discriminatory way?

If the Constitution had not been an evolving document, I strongly suspect that fewer than ten percent of the people on this board would have the right to vote according to the laws that were set up by some communities. Even poor white males could not vote.
So with all of that usual liberal blah blah said, you would agree that I would have legal recourse against a black preacher who refused to marry my wife and I in a KKK themed wedding?

I'm going to enjoy this...
 
So with all of that usual liberal blah blah said, you would agree that I would have legal recourse against a black preacher who refused to marry my wife and I in a KKK themed wedding?

I'm going to enjoy this...


Yup, like I said in the post above, where does it end? K2C loves to get naked like thousands of other perverts or nudists. I think I should be able to walk into any bakery/Wal Mart in the land and show off my sexy body.

You know, they have to serve me.........


Pictures available only to the women on this board......lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: Section22Sooner
You're just jealous. She loves me. Rippled abs, huge triceps and biceps.

Not a grey hair on my head, well at least none you can see. I have a Oklabama hat..........:)


fitty......ot: You ever have any dealings with Tractor Yard dealership in Coweta? I need a new mower and they seem to have some good deals on Craigslist?


Now back to talking about my sexy body................Ha!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Section22Sooner
If someone were to take WalMart to court, it is possible that the court might rule against WalMart. I don't know if you can sue for refusal to sell a particular product in such a situation. That would force WalMart to carry every product in the world. I wouldn't mind hearing how the court would rule. There is one difference in that WalMart is not refusing to sell something to one individual as opposed to another. They are simply refusing to carry a product. I doubt you could make them.

The courts did rule that we had to let the Nazi Party march in Skokie which is somewhat similar. But, it that case, they wanted to march. I doubt we could have forced them to march.
 
The constitution is a relatively short document that was intended to be easy to understand yet we have nine people whose full time job is to interpret the constitution in secrecy behind closed doors. Oh, and those nine members are basically unaccountable to the citizens they serve, and they are not responsible for the results or consequences of their decisions as their appointment is for life.

And this is why Presidential elections matter. To the winner goes the spoils.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oklabama
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." Ben Franklin
 
ADVERTISEMENT