!agree

So I wanted to propose a compromise to satisfy both sides on the denying of cakes for a gay wedding. The bakery must sell cakes to anyone, but can deny creating a cake that he believes would violate his religion. IE: no rainbows or topping with 2 grooms

@Deleted User @Rils great. So we all agree that Masterpiece should have just sold a white tiered cake with flowers and that way everyone is happy.

@Deleted User I'm trying to find a way for the gay couple and the Baker to leave happy. "I don't want to do a gay wedding cake, but I will do a generic wedding cake and you do with it what you will" and then they say "no thanks"

@Deleted User I understand, but allowing a business to discriminate on their religion and next a business will refuse to serve black people

@Deleted User @Rils have neither of you heard of the restaurant that refused to serve black people in 1964, and the supreme court ruled using the "commerce clause" that the federal government had the authority to compel a business to not discriminate because it would affect interstate travel?

@Deleted User @Rils wait. Seriously you've never heard of this? Am I that old?

I'm 38

That one, also Heart of Atlanta Hotel vs United States

Okay, so quick back story from an "old man" about why you no longer see "whites only" signs in the United states , as soon as I get done playing with my dog that seems to be wanting my attention

@NotQuiteHuman regarding your request for resources on the race and crime debate, the "cheet sheet" is to go to the wikipedia page, skim the page for what you are looking for, find out what their references are, look up the references they cite, and quote those for your report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States

@Rils @Deleted User hey so I'm going to try and make the "why you do not see 'whites only' signs in the windows of American businesses anymore" short. So the people who lived in the 13 colonies that declared independence from King George III didn't want to live under a tyrant who could just tell them what to do, so they purposely made the governments ability to make laws hard.

So having a "whites only" sign in your business was legal, until the "Civil Rights Act of 1964" prohibited discrimination in "public accommodations" based on: race, color, religion, sex, or national origin

In that era, many businesses pushed back saying the federal government had no power to tell them how to run their businesses that were local, raised the chickens out back, customers were only from that town, etc.

And remember the part about "didn't want to live under a tyrant", the federal government had to find a way to prohibit discrimination, but do it in a way that I'm sure the local businesses considered tyranical

So they went back to the constitution, and found a section called "the commerce clause" that regulated interstate business, and interpreted that to mean that discrimination in public accommodations was related to the trade between the sates

And of course, it was fought then, lots of people tried to make lots of arguments against it. But that's why you don't see those signs in the windows of American businesses today

@Rils yes they did

It's not a great system

It's just better than all the others

I once heard my father (this was like 20 years ago) wonder aloud what would happen if the President directly acted against a ruling from SCOTUS. I want to say it's a constitutional question that's not come up in 200+ years

@Rils you don't have to answer if you don't want to, but how old are you?

Do you think the better system would be to put the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a new constitutional amendment?

Oh sorry, today is literally the most time I've ever spent on Discord. I walked away from online chatting in 2003

Agreed

At this point, I feel like we could have an amendment like it to the constitution pass, and that would be for the best

I would like to see it done, just so we don't have to rely on the commerce clause anymore. And add "sexual orientation" while we are at it

Interesting, I hadn't considered morals

I like to think of the laws as there to guarantee our freedoms, and a law that prohibits someone from discriminating against me for something I cannot control as a way to guarantee more freedoms for more people

An eye for an eye is not United States law, and I'm ill equipped to debate anything else

It might be based on that, but like Rils and I were saying earlier, it's better to go by whats in the law now, instead of trying to manipulate the law into what you think it should be

And also I don't think an eye for eye is the correct way to go through life. Context matters after all

Hey gang, I'm being pulled away by real life.

Yes, legalize marijuanna, 100%

Mariijuanna*

however it's spelleed

!gamer