Message from @Rils
Discord ID: 463135786213048341
I agree
Instead it looks like they wanted to have it out
@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"
anyone wanna debate about gaddafi?
They never got that far though, so we're purely in a hypothetical scenario.
But that's the thing, he doesn't want to accomodate the wedding because it goes against his religion @kilo (twitter-imkilo)
In any manner
It still would've been up to the gay couple to not file a civil rights greivance
@Deleted User I understand, but allowing a business to discriminate on their religion and next a business will refuse to serve black people
And I think a large number of gay couples would've just gone on with their lives and found another shop.
I'm sure that's thing already
A business that refuses to serve black people is actively cutting off business, it may try to do it, but it won't last.
If one business refuses to serve black people, they lose revenue. And, more people refuse to come because the owners are racist. Free market will ensure that the place goes bankrupt
It's the beauty of capitalism
Before the Jim Crow laws, businesses were not interested in discrimination based on race because it harmed their profits.
^^yeep!
Sowell's most recent book talks about it at length.
@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?
Could you be more specific?
I gotta look that up. Maybe it was due to it's location
As a sidebar, I disagree with that assessment, racial discrimination has nothing to do with interstate commerce and shouldn't be under the purview of the commerce clause.
@Deleted User @Rils wait. Seriously you've never heard of this? Am I that old?
I'm indian, sorry
I haven't heard about this vague event.
I'm 38
I'm 17....
Katzenbach v. McClung?
The restaurant acted specifically to push back against government overreach.
That one, also Heart of Atlanta Hotel vs United States
let it be know the first real debate was actually this server and its new authoritarian ruleset 😛
I kid btw
The commerce clause was intended to keep the Federal government from becoming involved in local commerce, but the courts have stretched it so far that almost everything is interstate commerce and so the Federal government has authority.
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
well the internet kinda made everything interstate commerce
not to mention most transactions are handled via credit card terminals which means most data is proably transfered over state lines
so where do you actually draw the line between local and interstate transaction now?
(this is not an argument one way or another, just bringing up points)
If my business only pays with cash and only accepts cash, would I be exempt?
I would say so, but im no lawyer
im just saying the lines between intrastate and interstate commerce has significally blurred (imo) since the advent of the internet and digital payment technologies