Individual Liberty wins over fascist tactics again!

Story and timeline of events here.

Wish they had gone further.  As it is, it's a very narrow victory based on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's inappropriate handling of the case rather than the larger issue of whether he had the right ot refuse service on religious grounds.  I personally think one should have the right to chose to associate, or not associate, with anyone for any reason, whether in personal or professional dealings.

Quote from: Technomancer;1042237Wish they had gone further.  As it is, it's a very narrow victory based on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's inappropriate handling of the case rather than the larger issue of whether he had the right ot refuse service on religious grounds.  I personally think one should have the right to chose to associate, or not associate, with anyone for any reason, whether in personal or professional dealings.

Yeah. It hasn't actually ruled on the core question of whether to overturn the ability of the Civil Rights Act (and parallel state laws) to prevent businesses from discriminating.

I think that government has a right to regulate public businesses, enforcing certain behavior such as health codes, fire codes, and safety codes. And part of that potential regulation includes the Civil Rights Act that regulates how public accomodations can discriminate among customers.

Quote from: jhkim;1042251Yeah. It hasn't actually ruled on the core question of whether to overturn the ability of the Civil Rights Act (and parallel state laws) to prevent businesses from discriminating.

I think that government has a right to regulate public businesses, enforcing certain behavior such as health codes, fire codes, and safety codes. And part of that potential regulation includes the Civil Rights Act that regulates how public accomodations can discriminate among customers.

The government has no rights. They did have the authority to enact and enforce the Jim Crow laws. While I do think that the government should have the authority to do some enforcement, I think discrimination is a dicey proposition. But we went around and around this topic many times already.

Quote from: jhkim;1042251And part of that potential regulation includes the Civil Rights Act that regulates how public accomodations can discriminate among customers.

Well I think the framers of the US Constitution would have seen that as an illegal government interference with the property of the business owner. Obviously in the US system the government effectively has whatever rights the Supreme Court says it has.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1042254The government has no rights. They did have the authority to enact and enforce the Jim Crow laws. While I do think that the government should have the authority to do some enforcement, I think discrimination is a dicey proposition. But we went around and around this topic many times already.

Yeah, we've been around on it - but since jeff37923 brought it up again and the thread was approved, I think it's reasonable to reply.

I agree about the government having authority rather than rights. I misspoke about that.

There are plenty of examples of bad laws that the government can and has enacted, but I don't think that implies that no government or no government regulation is the answer.

Morally and ethically according to governmental principles, I think the Jim Crow laws were always wrong. Those who are governed and subject to the laws of the state should always have a vote in that government. It's why I push for universal suffrage. That's a little different than problems of tyranny of the majority - where everyone gets a vote, but the fairly-decided law restricts individuals too much.

Quote from: jhkim;1042273There are plenty of examples of bad laws that the government can and has enacted, but I don't think that implies that no government or no government regulation is the answer.

I agree.

Quote from: Technomancer;1042237Wish they had gone further.  As it is, it's a very narrow victory based on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's inappropriate handling of the case rather than the larger issue of whether he had the right ot refuse service on religious grounds.  I personally think one should have the right to chose to associate, or not associate, with anyone for any reason, whether in personal or professional dealings.

Which resulted in Southern towns where nobody would sell anything to a black person.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1042283Which resulted in Southern towns where nobody would sell anything to a black person.

In other worlds, people doing or not doing what they wanted with their own property.

Quote from: jhkim;1042273Yeah, we've been around on it - but since jeff37923 brought it up again and the thread was approved, I think it's reasonable to reply.

Oh, it is reasonable for you to reply. You have also not disappointed in your disapproval of the verdict because religious freedom is not high on your list of priorities.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1042283Which resulted in Southern towns where nobody would sell anything to a black person.

No, Jim Crow laws resulted in that. Capitalism would have solved the issue, plenty of folks willing to take green from black Americans, so they had to make laws to enforce the segregation.

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1042309No, Jim Crow laws resulted in that. Capitalism would have solved the issue, plenty of folks willing to take green from black Americans, so they had to make laws to enforce the segregation.

For once, Ras Algethi is saying something that isn't entirely pants-on-head stupid.

Capitalism does have its flaws, but it also has advantages as well. Which is why I support a mixed-market system.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1042283Which resulted in Southern towns where nobody would sell anything to a black person.

 You mean no one COULD sell to black people because the law said so, not because of what business owners would want to do .

Quote from: oggsmash;1042337You mean no one COULD sell to black people because the law said so, not because of what business owners would want to do .

There were cases of enforced segregation particularly after Plessy v. Ferguson - but even where it wasn't legally required, many businesses still segregated. Legally required segregation was overturned in 1954 with Brown v. Board of Education, but businesses continued to segregate. The Woolworth's lunch counters, for example, were segregated by company policy - not by law. Woolworth's was able to end the segregation by a simple change of policy. No change of law was required.

In regions where 51%+ voted for Jim Crow laws, businesses that didn't segregate would have a very difficult time dealing with the withering social pressure and boycotts - even if it weren't for the laws.

Quote from: jhkim;1042363In regions where 51%+ voted for Jim Crow laws, businesses that didn't segregate would have a very difficult time dealing with the withering social pressure and boycotts - even if it weren't for the laws.

"Withering social pressure" is a rather mild description for arson and murder.

The Masterpiece Cakeshop decision appears to be another Roberts Court Special: a tiny morsel of red meat for conservatives that has no real effect. Conservatives will believe that there is nothing the Colorado Civil Rights Commission could have said that would be neutral enough on religion to pass muster, but the majority opinion reaffirmed that anti-discrimination laws are constitutional. And that means there is something the Commission could have said to reach the same result and be upheld, and they just need to teach their commissioners what that is. Like earlier decisions on the Affordable Care Act, this "victory" will inconvenience individuals but ultimately do little. I would have preferred a unanimous upholding of earlier precedents from the 60s, when the same arguments failed against anti-discrimination laws, but that obviously wasn't going to happen with the current court.