Tal that will play havock on all those civil rights and gender rights laws that protect special classes of people if they apply to anyone based on constructs of feelings instead of their physical reality .

We already saw an example of that played out in colleges hiring a blond haired blue eyed Elizabeth Warren because she identified as a Native American. Warren listed herself as 'white ' while teaching at the university of Texas. In the late 80s she began listing herself as a Native American. Shortly after that she landed a high paying job teaching in an Ivy League school .

Hey ,she may in fact be 1/32 Cherokee . DNA tests show I have some African DNA in me . Should I then identify as an African when there is a chance to benefit from it ?

You're a capitalist! Benefit is what you do isn't it? Or is that profit? I'll just point out that there would be no need for special protection if there were no need for it from other humans. You know equal protection under the law, and equal opportunity like it says in our Constitution? Even the founders didn't follow it as written, and we still don't today.

Maybe that's the problem!

Are you admitting that laws protecting special groups are unnecessary and unconstitutional ?

As long as there are those that discriminate there must be a balancing reaction. Like affirmative action to address lack of equal opportunity. Such things are very NECESSARY, even if they are as unconstitutional as the situation they seek to address. If discrimination isn't addressed, then what would be a better corrective action? Jail for those that knowingly discriminate? Will that include law makers that make discriminatory laws?

The answer is that only laws barring the state from discriminating are constitutional. For the private sector ,if competitive market forces are allowed to work, the problem of discrimination will be solved by the entry of new firms who will cater to mass markets, wholly without legal compulsion. Individuals have 1st amendment rights to speech ,association ,religion,and thought .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Are you admitting that laws protecting special groups are unnecessary and unconstitutional ?

---

What has happened that special groups need laws in the first place?

Quote:

---

1. What has happened that special groups need laws in the first place?

---

Plessy v Ferguson codified state discrimination . Brown v Board of Education reversed it . It has to do with state powers . Once Brown reversed Plessy then the clear language of the 14th amendment applied .The laws could not be discriminatory . It says nothing about special protections for protected groups against private discrimination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Plessy v Ferguson codified state discrimination . Brown v Board of Education reversed it . It has to do with state powers . Once Brown reversed Plessy then the clear language of the 14th amendment applied .The laws could not be discriminatory . It says nothing about special protections for protected groups against private discrimination.

---

That doesn't answer my question. WHY are special protections needed? WHY affirmative action? Aren't we a Christian nation helping "the least of these"?

That's what individuals should do. There is no virtue if the individual is compelled to help . The reason there are the laws is because of the false idea that the government can control people's thoughts. If they understood the market place they would know that if a florists did not want to provide services for a gay 'marriage' then another one would be willing to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

If they understood the market place they would know that if a florists did not want to provide services for a gay 'marriage' then another one would be willing to do so.

---

Why did you put the word marriage in single quote marks?

Maybe the gay couple thought, since the bakery was open for business, the owner(s) wanted customers who would pay for products.

Quote:

---

1. Why did you put the word marriage in single quote marks?

---

Since you know my position on the issue the answer should be obvious

Quote:

---

1. Maybe the gay couple thought, since the bakery was open for business, the owner(s) wanted customers who would pay for products.

---

Maybe they did . But when the baker made it clear that they did not want the patronage then it was time to move on and find one willing to do business with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Maybe they did . But when the baker made it clear that they did not want the patronage then it was time to move on and find one willing to do business with them.

---

So if you go to a well-known bakery on Main Street, the clerk asks if you are a straight male, you say yes, and then the clerk says,"Sorry. We don't bake for and sell to straight men," what would you think and do? (That's probably a rhetorical question. I know YOU would politely thank them and with a jauntiness in your step return to your car and go to another bakery that likes straight-men dollars.)

of course . I certainly wouldn't compel them or use the force of law against them . I could only hazard a guess as to what the cake would contain. I always want the places I patron to want to serve me. If you are a Muslim baker why should you be compelled to cater to a bar mitzvah ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

of course . I certainly wouldn't compel them or use the force of law against them . I could only hazard a guess as to what the cake would contain. I always want the places I patron to want to serve me. If you are a Muslim baker why should you be compelled to cater to a bar mitzvah ?

---

But we're not talking about specialty bakeries here. We're talking about run-of-the-mill main-street bakeries that are in business to sell baked goods to customers who walk in to the shop. No bakery clerk has EVER asked me if I'm a lesbian before ringing up my purchase.

And bakeries don't usual cater at dinners/celebrations/events. They will bake and possibly deliver the ordered goodies. Or one of the organizers will pick up the baked goods.

What you are saying is that a baker (originally I used a florist but the point is the same ) no longer has the right to exercise religious liberty .

So it's okay to discriminate in public/private sector because of YOUR religious beliefs? That's not even close to hate the sin but love the sinner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

What you are saying is that a baker (originally I used a florist but the point is the same ) no longer has the right to exercise religious liberty .

---

Why would he/she? What's the point? If the baker is Christian, he/she definitely misunderstands Jesus' second greatest commandment.

Whether you think they are good Christians or not is irrelevent . Government is based on coercion ,not on the free will that God gave us. Please show me the quote where Jesus implored the government to use force to transfer resources from one group to another. Don't waste your time ;you can't . So if anything I am amused when someone tells me that government should force Christians to act in what THEY define a Christian way .

The below quote is relevant whether you are forcing someone to give charity ,or forcing them to act against their beliefs .

“There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as "caring" and "sensitive" because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money -- if a gun is held to his head.” [PJ O'Rourke]

Quote:

---

I am amused when someone tells me that government should force Christians to act in what THEY define a Christian way .

---

*cough* Where have I said anything about government coercion? I said, if the business-desiring baker is truly Christian, he will sell his goods to any customer who walks in -- doctor, lawyer, Indian chief, lesbian, alcoholic, gay guy, grandmother, burglar, liar, cheater, priest, AMHD member and so on (without being questioned at the door).

(A bakery business is not a charity.)

Just like a Muslim cannot contradict the laws of the land to practice certain tenants of sharia law, the Christian is also obliged to follow the law against discrimination. I didn't know that Christians were exempt from the laws of the land, even if they are in some cases accommodated by it. What I find interesting is the Christians who seek to make other Americans subjects to their religious morality by attempting to making laws, and policies that go into other peoples bedrooms, and private lives.

I'm surprised that those that discriminate aren't sued for all they are worth.

A bit off topic I know, but that's my two cents.