Pharmacies provide an essential service and they are essentially acting on behalf of the state, as the state has chosen the private sector as its method of healthcare treatment distribution. Therefore I'm pretty sure that pharmacies must simply sell to everyone and not just simply not discriminate on the basis of membership of a protected class, but even sell to racists for example. Of course, no one has ever been refused birth control before. Again, these are essential services. The Civil Rights Act 1964 forbids this, and although in 2018 I would much rather that social pressure can be allowed to be the cure of this sort of discrimination, rather than force of government gun, I wouldn't shed too many tears if some racist piece of human garbage who doesn't want to serve a black guy based on his race, is compelled by law to serve them. The same goes for a homophobic piece of human garbage who doesn't want serve a gay guy based on his sexual orientation. Sorry, what case is this? Would it be different if it WAS a choice? In what instance?
There have been instances of individuals refusing to sell birth control or in this instance abortion medication to woman who's fetus was already dead. https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...arriage-drug-for-fetus-with-no-heartbeat/amp/ It was a hypothetical. I suppose not.
You did say this did you not? Regulations for businesses are like laws for people. The regulation that prevents a butcher from selling you rotten meat as fresh is equivalent to the law that makes it illegal for an individual to poison you.
Sure, but you realise that the federal government accepts state laws and allows states to exercise those laws right?
I was quoting post # 40 by AKS. "Anyone should be able to discriminate for any reason whatsoever. No one has the right to tell a man that he must work for another." That was not a legal argument he asserted. It was an ideological view he promoted and it was a mischaracterization/ exaggeration of what civil rights acts do, and it is a mischaracterization of what any post-13th amendment regulation of private enterprise does. It does not 'infringe on any man's right to decide whether he has to work for another' any more than any other regulation. Laws that allow for slavery, or involuntary servitude or compulsory military service would be far better examples of that sort of 'infringement' than a rule that says if you sell cakes, you must be willing to write similar things on those cakes, regardless of whether they are designed to please a gay or straight couple. Not exactly chains and shackles here. That was my point. I never said that selling a business was easy, or that obeying regulations imposed by federal, state or local governments is easy. I said there are choices left for a business owner (as a 'man') other than disobeying or flouting those regulations, or allowing someone to infringe on his right not to work for another .
Are you not aware that this was incorporated into state constitutions between 1940 and 1947? Are you not aware that the State of Colorado was SLAM DUNKED by the Supreme Court for violating the First Amendment in the baker/wedding cake case?
No, but the courts bent the envelope of the 14th A with affirmative action which discriminates in of itself. You can't bend the rules for some and not for others, especially when they are a protected class.
But you realise that SCOTUS didn't refer to the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the original case involving this baker? You mean codified the 1st Amendment in the Civil Rights Act?
I didn't say that it was a "legal argument", just that he was clearly saying what he said in debate of the laws. If he wasn't debating the laws, then why would he have said what he said? Yes, it was an ideological view which GOES TO the argument that there shouldn't be a law which compels someone to work for someone - certainly not in a non-essential service context such as a bakery! And it in an ideal world it should never have been in an essential service context either, although I do recognise the positive effect that the laws had back in those days, being far from an ideal world. Why do you mention the 13th amendment here? All other regulations protect against potential physical and financial harm to employees and customers, which would include your fire extinguisher example. And as such, these regulations are reasonable. What do you mean "write similar things on those cakes?" Of course there are choices, but are they reasonable choices?
The latest one with this Colorado cake shop and the gender transition cake. The Supreme Court made its ruling, it's not likely to go differently than the last one if it gets that far, I want to say this lawsuit (and the next one) are probably boarding on harassment but he's also a dick so I don't really care all that much honestly.
Personally. It isn't an easy argument, personally. Legally is a whole other matter. I find religious objections b.s.. Does he refuse to bake cakes for people getting married for the second time? Or people who've had premarital sex? Does he not ask and rationalize a loophole based around blissful ignorance? I don't know know. Does he design cakes with cartoon characters? The bible had something to say about taking other idols if I recall. If you want to practice your weird cosplay have at it, but don't use it as an excuse to treat people differently and if you do I going to think you're a dick. You're free to disagree.
