Progressive Constitutionalist versus Originalist Constitutionalist

MAKAVELI

Well-Known Member
Owning someone as property and refusing to provide someone with a good or service is slightly different. I am not saying it’s right. In this extreme scenario the business owner refusing service to blacks people or women or whoever would be absolutely wrong but I think the market should be what fixes the problem, and it would fix the problem in that example. I don’t think the government should be telling private business owners who they can or can not serve.

Take the recent cake shop owners case. He made cakes for the gay couple multiple times with no problem whatsoever. He is a religious man and believes marriage should be between a man and a woman and it was against his morals to provide his product for that occasion. The government should not be able to force him provide his services for something he is fundamentally opposed to.
Cuckservatives will always claim a business owner has more rights than a person. Smh.......
 

BrownArmy

Well-Known Member
I encourage it. I don’t want bigots getting my money anyways. Please by all means make yourself known.

Yahhhh

Can’t tell if you’re trolling or not.

I want a free market where everyone can succeed.

It’s hella difficult to implement that scenario if I buy gatorade from k.singh who sees my Irish name on my debit card and cancels the transaction ‘cuz she’s not down with the Irish.

That’s not how commerce works.

I don’t believe you, you’re talking ‘Constitution’ bla bla, seems you’re not up on it.

(Kid, I’ll be dead before anyone leaves the planet...shouldn’t we think seven generations out?)
 

Yaba Daba Do

Donkey Punch Extraordinaire
Cuckservatives will always claim a business owner has more rights than a person. Smh.......
You do not have a right to their time and labor. You can not force them to get up off their ass and make something for you if they don’t want to. You could organize a boycott and spend your money at a competing business but you can’t tell him what to do with his private business. If he is racist or sexist he will not be in business very long. Why would you want to give him your money anyway? He doesn’t deserve it.
 

Yaba Daba Do

Donkey Punch Extraordinaire
I just think the less government involvement the better. The last time the government told people who they could and couldn’t serve it didn’t turn out so well. This was an extreme example as businesses can not refuse service based on things like sex, race, religion, or country of origin according to the government now but what will the government be like 100 years from now? My opinion is the free market would take care of racist bigots and the government doesn’t need to be involved.
 

SanguiniusII

Active Member
I firmly believe in limited government because it seems like everything they dip their fingers into ends up getting worse. Almost like the US government was meant to stay within certain boundaries or something.
 

MAKAVELI

Well-Known Member
You do not have a right to their time and labor. You can not force them to get up off their ass and make something for you if they don’t want to. You could organize a boycott and spend your money at a competing business but you can’t tell him what to do with his private business. If he is racist or sexist he will not be in business very long. Why would you want to give him your money anyway? He doesn’t deserve it.
I do have rights which a business can not deprive.
Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia
 

Yaba Daba Do

Donkey Punch Extraordinaire
I do have rights which a business can not deprive.
Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia
Yes you do. I was thinking more about the bakery owners case that went against his religion and because of the extreme example we were discussing i jumbled everything else in there too like race and sex and I was wrong. I just tend to lean towards less governmen intervention and I kind of ran with it there.
 
Last edited:

El Correcto

god is dead
We are talking about title 3 and 7 of the civil rights act.

Even then if you repealed the 14th amendment states could enact these policies on their own.
 

It will be fine

Well-Known Member
64D701D9-1100-45D7-8215-3AD0BB72E52E.jpeg

How do you guys think the free market would have decided this? Looks like the market was supportive of discrimination to me.
 
Top