Paging @arrendek. Sorry to bother you. It seems that the mute button is not working anymore.
Well, one can hope that this does indeed bode ill for his travel ban. It would make sense.
The big catch is that I can’t think of a time the Free Exercise clause has been applied to protect non-citizens living abroad who are attempting to enter the US. In other words, can religious animus be a problem if it’s affecting someone without constitutional rights? Hasn’t the court held that non-citizens living abroad can be held indefinitely with minimal due process rights if they are suspected of terror crimes, for instance?
https://twitter.com/byrdinator/status/1003752754148327424?s=19
Except…
https://twitter.com/jpitney/status/1003757525458538496?s=19
From Cruz:
The pardon power was not seen as suspension or dispensation. Traditional
understandings of the pardon portray it not as a policy instrument, but as an in-
strument for achieving justice or ameliorating political dissent on a case-by-case
basis. As Chief Justice Marshall wrote, “A pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from
the power intrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual,
on whom it is bestowed, from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has
committed.” United States v. Wilson, 32 U.S. 150, 160–61 (1833). The pardon power
carries a scope specifically limited to crimes already committed. The pardon may
not apply to acts that have not yet been committed, because it would function as a
personal waiver, the impermissible dispensation of the laws. James Pfiffner, Pardon
Power, in THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION 203 (Edwin Meese III et al.
eds., 2005). As a result, the pardon power does not encompass an expansive policy
of nonenforcement under the guise of prosecutorial discretion.
Has anybody studied whether the president can pardon himself? I think his response is fair, as that’s a very specific question.
Yes, it’s been studied various times, generally when a president is about to be impeached.
I’ll look at it soon. Still using Firefox right? Current version? I had to update something a few weeks ago because these Discourse chaps added some Session key thingy to stop bad actors from updating things in the API and either that isn’t working in Firefox or they changed another thing, I’m guessing.
But go into Grease Monkey for me and click the auto update button on my script, just in case?
If you have a business and someone wants to buy things that you sell, you sell your goods to them. That’s the price of doing business. You don’t want to do it, you don’t open a public-facing business.
Nobody is forced to buy anything from anyone they don’t want to, but selling isn’t the same as buying. The government is not forcing anyone to buy anyting, but they can and should force anyone who can pay the price of their goods to sell to that person. Anything else is in the same category as racism, mysogeny, classism, nazi-ism, etc. Let’s not do that as a country, ok?
How about fuck that?
There’s no “price of doing business” which involves giving up my rights as an individual. That’s totally contrived bullshit.
It’s how people should treat each other. You start saying people can’t buy things at your business because they are XXXX, you have entered the same realm as Nazis. Sorry to be the one to say it.
No, that is not even remotely true. Do I have to bother explains why it’s not?
Timex, are you arguing that there should be no such thing as a protected class? Or that because of the very significant implications of that status, we as a society should be very very careful when expanding what is a protected class?
Yes, exactly. This particular couple had the means to purchase a cake elsewhere, but others might not have the same options. Not to mention the denial itself likely is a reminder of the treatment some people still think you deserve. The baker’s religous freedom is no more important to protect than the rights of the LGBT community. I do hope a precedent is set in the future in a more clear cut case. (or at least a case that doesn’t have any legal failings to pick apart)
First, I’m arguing against the notion that everyone should be granted to protections that we currently grant to perfected classes. This argument, to me, seems obvious. We do not abandon our constitution rights to free expression of we open a business. Such a suggestion is insane. I’m not obligated to do business with everyone. Barring cases of protected classes, I absolutely can (and should be able to) refuse to buy or sell anything from or to anyone. And doing so is a critical alert of my free expression, and empowers me to stand up against ideals i disagree with, and those who espouse them, like Nazis. I absolutely can refuse to serve Nazis. I can refuse to engage in business contracts with them. I can refuse to engage in business with those who engage in business with them.
Now, beyond that, i question the efficacy of the civil Rights laws that compel people to engage in business with members of protected classes. I understand the motivations, and given that the regulations are narrowly defined I’m not too afraid of a slippery slope (although perhaps i should be, given how quick some folks seem to be willing to believe that the government should totally dictate such things to us). But I’m not sure such laws actually work, or benefit anyone.
Forcing a bigot to sell goods or services to those he hates isn’t likely to be real beneficial for the buyers. They are likely going to get substandard service. And they are paying a bigot so that he can spite them. However, I understand that this prob of the argument is far, far less obvious than the first one.
In some cases, substandard service is mighty preferable to none. Folks in tough situations can forego a cake, but at the end of the day, if they need their insulin, they need their insulin, even if it’s going to come from a sneering “Christian” fuckstain who will bemoan their religious plight enabling their “homosex daliances in the eyes of the good Lerrrd aberrrve.”
I’m pretty sure my pharmacy doesn’t know my sexual orientation.
Regardless, I’m not as strongly sold on the second argument about the efficacy of laws protecting protected classes. And frankly, it’s already done.
Also, forcing someone to engage in people who are black, for instance, doesn’t really infringed on that person’s freedom of expression… As there’s really no meaningful expression that could be made there other than “i don’t like black people”. So I’m not going to argue for removing those laws.
I’m absolutely going to argue against the idea that everyone should be forced to engage in commerce with legally anyone though.
*shrugs* Small towns gonna small town. Gossip spreads and bigots spout hate. It’s not fun growing up gay in Small Town, Biblebelt, Murica. Either stay closeted for fear of years of hatred and abuse, or, well, years of hatred and abuse.
Freedom of expression has nothing to do with who you sell your goods to. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with who you sell your goods to. Freedom to discriminate against who you sell your goods to is not one of our rights.
Discrimination is discrimination and it’s ugly and doesn’t belong in this country.
My money is as good as your money.
You wanna only sell to your religious sect? Fine, only sell to them, not to the public. But if you sell to the public, then you have to, you know, sell to the public. All of the public. Otherwise you’ll end up with whites only and there we are hanging with the Nazis again.
Obviously incorrect. I mean, this is literally the reason we are seeing this case. Freedom of expression doesn’t just cease to exist if someone expresses a view you don’t like.
Yes, it absolutely is. You are expressing an opinion of that person, and how they conduct themselves, by choosing not to do business with them.
This is what boycotts are.
Yes, it absolutely is.
You are making entirely unsubstantiated, baseless statements.
No, fuck that. Seriously dude, you are absolutely full of shit here.
If you are a fucking Nazi, I am absolutely within my right to refuse to do business with you. I am absolutely within my right to ostracize you.
You do not have any constitutional right guaranteeing that you can do business with me. That is merely a figment of your imagination. Where exactly do you think that right exists within the constitution? Point to the article or amendment which says that you are guaranteed to be able to enter into contracts with me.
I assure you that such an article or amendment does not exist, AT ALL. Which is really entirely obvious based on the fact that businesses have had the right to refuse service to people, forever, because OF COURSE THEY DO. If you come into my place of business, without bathing for a month, I’m not obligated to serve you. If you come in wearing a KKK hood, I am not obligated to serve you. I can refuse to serve you for literally any reason I want, with the very narrow exception of certain types of descrimination based on protected classes of people.
Business is not just about money.
I’ve refused to engage in business with people before, because those people were immoral, unethical, assholes. I refused to associate with them. Because by associating with them, I would tarnish my own reputation.
And you do not have any right to tell me who I must associate with in my business dealings. Because it’s not YOUR business.
No, you don’t. Stop saying stuff that isn’t true.
No, because race is a protected class.
The only way you’re forced to hang out with nazis is by people like you trying to force people to do business with them.
How does this differ from not having protected classes at all?