Freedom of association

[exploited]

[Medius]

[exploited]

I don't give a shit what the Founders intended, and neither does the government. Those rights not enumerated belong to the people, sure, that's fine. Too bad that statement makes no sense at all and has virtually no impact on the day-to-day lives of Americans. Nor does it provide any actual legal protections.

Again, there is American constitutional fantasy land, in which rights are given by nature and are inalienable, and there is real life, where rights are only acknowledged when they are clearly defined and passed into law by the collective representation of the people.... ie the legislature.

[John Galt]

it depends on what it is. trial by jury is a social right, one that isn't necessary in general. and yes, we give up some stuff in that we allow governments to take away life, liberty, and property for various reasons. but freedom of association is outlined as being something that the federal (and since the 14th amendment, state) government cannot infringe upon, just the same as it cannot collect taxes for a church. i can associate freely with whom i wish, and if i do not wish to associate with someone, if i do not wish to do business with someone, i can do that. even if you bring up not doing business with blacks and forcing businesses to do that... i contend even if i was to say that was morally justified it is irrelevant to what we're talking about:

we are not discussing associating with someone for what they are

we are discussing associating with someone for what they do

[exploited]

So, according to your convoluted logic, it is fine for a business owner to refuse to make a cake for an interracial couple, but not fine for him to refuse a black couple, because the first example is "what they do," but the second is "who they are."

[John Galt]

[jimmyz]

New America:

"you will make the cake for the gays or forfeit monies to the state"
"you will buy the healthcare product A, B, or C or receive a visit from the IRS enforcers"
"you have typed offensive words and will be profiled for NSA review"

Yay! USA! USA!

[exploited]

Yes, but the "state of being" is the defining characteristic of the refusal. This guy doesn't want to avoid wedding cakes, he wants to avoid gay wedding cakes.

If dude wants to not make wedding cakes at all so he doesn't have to make a cake for something he disagrees with, fine. That's cool, I can respect that. But the issue is he does wedding cakes for straights but not for gays, with that distinction being the only difference in the work. Which is against the law.

[Medius]

[The Dude]