https://www.conservativereview.com/florida-mother-to-be-evicted-from-home-unless-she-gets-vaccinated-2655057507.html?utm_source=cr-weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=CR%20Weekly%202021-09-22&utm_term=ACTIVE%20-%20CR%20Weekly
QuoteThe landlord is currently requiring all tenants over the age of 18 who want to renew their lease to provide proof of a COVID-19 vaccination
I'd sue his ass for moving costs. Everyone hates court, so he's most likely concede.
She will make a bundle sueing him for illegal discrimination. Many people will.
As I said in the other end, vaccination status is not a protected group under current laws. While I don't agree with what he's doing, but it is his business he has the right to, as long as it does not violate any current discrimination laws, to deny a lease to anybody he wants.
Quote from: p1tchblack on September 23, 2021, 05:54:56 AMAs I said in the other end, vaccination status is not a protected group under current laws. While I don't agree with what he's doing, but it is his business he has the right to, as long as it does not violate any current discrimination laws, to deny a lease to anybody he wants.
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2021-09-02/schools-businesses-to-be-fined-in-florida-for-requesting-proof-of-vaccination
you can not ask to see proof of vaccination in Florida.
QuoteThe Florida Department of Health will issue a "notice of violation to any business entity, governmental entity or educational institution" found violating a coronavirus documentation statute, which prohibits any entity from requiring proof of vaccination. Each violation will result in a $5,000 fine per individual and separate violations against the business, governmental entity or school.
Quote from: Possum on September 23, 2021, 06:10:43 AMhttps://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2021-09-02/schools-businesses-to-be-fined-in-florida-for-requesting-proof-of-vaccination
you can not ask to see proof of vaccination in Florida.
Looks like typical government overreach. Unfortunate for the owner of the place.
Quote from: p1tchblack on September 23, 2021, 06:42:50 AMLooks like typical government overreach. Unfortunate for the owner of the place.
Over reach is the government telling you not to discriminate? Over reach is the government telling you that medical records are private? That is not over reach, that is following the law.
Quote from: Possum on September 23, 2021, 10:02:45 AMOver reach is the government telling you not to discriminate? Over reach is the government telling you that medical records are private? That is not over reach, that is following the law.
No, overreach is the government telling a property owner who they have to allow onto their property.
Quote from: p1tchblack on September 23, 2021, 10:49:40 AMNo, overreach is the government telling a property owner who they have to allow onto their property.
Not when its against the law. It is a crime to treat the unvaxed different than the vaxed for IN ANY WAY. Why? Because there is not reason. You must have a valid scientific reason and since you cannot even prove covid exists then vax status isnt a scientific reason. We are all EQUAL UNDER THE LAW. If they were allowed to treat unvaxed differently then that would be DIFFERENT UNDER THE LAW. See how thats unconstitutional?
Quote from: T Hunt on September 23, 2021, 11:02:50 AMNot when its against the law. It is a crime to treat the unvaxed different than the vaxed for IN ANY WAY. Why? Because there is not reason. You must have a valid scientific reason and since you cannot even prove covid exists then vax status isnt a scientific reason. We are all EQUAL UNDER THE LAW. If they were allowed to treat unvaxed differently then that would be DIFFERENT UNDER THE LAW. See how thats unconstitutional?
Do you have a link to the law that you keep referencing?
Quote from: p1tchblack on September 23, 2021, 10:49:40 AMNo, overreach is the government telling a property owner who they have to allow onto their property.
The government is not telling the owner he has to turn his property into rental, that would be over reach. The landowner decided to open his property up to the public as rentals. There are all kinds of permits to follow, codes to follow, rules to follow. One of these is you do not discriminate. I understand you see no problem with racial discrimination, you have said as much in other posts, but conservatives are against it and so is the law.
Quote from: Possum on September 23, 2021, 12:51:49 PMThe government is not telling the owner he has to turn his property into rental, that would be over reach. The landowner decided to open his property up to the public as rentals. There are all kinds of permits to follow, codes to follow, rules to follow. One of these is you do not discriminate. I understand you see no problem with racial discrimination, you have said as much in other posts, but conservatives are against it and so is the law.
I
do have a problem with discrimination, just as I have an issue with people using racial slurs or burning the flag but, I support the right of people to use racial slurs and burn the flag as part of free speech.
So, do you believe Masterpiece Cake Shop should be forced to make a cake for a gay wedding?
Quote from: p1tchblack on September 23, 2021, 01:45:24 PMI do have a problem with discrimination, just as I have an issue with people using racial slurs or burning the flag but, I support the right of people to use racial slurs and burn the flag as part of free speech.
So, do you believe Masterpiece Cake Shop should be forced to make a cake for a gay wedding?
he did not discriminate, he offered to sell them anything that was out for the public to buy.
Quote from: Possum on September 23, 2021, 01:50:18 PMhe did not discriminate, he offered to sell them anything that was out for the public to buy.
Does Masterpiece cake shop not offer the service of making wedding cakes to the public?
Quote from: p1tchblack on September 23, 2021, 02:22:30 PMJust not a wedding cake.... which they make.
they had wedding cakes on display, they did not have one with two girls on the top as the owner did not make those. they asked for a special custom one made that he did not make, had no history of making, and no plans to start making them. How is that discrimination? It's not and the court agreed.
Quote from: Possum on September 23, 2021, 02:26:03 PMthey had wedding cakes on display, they did not have one with two girls on the top as the owner did not make those. they asked for a special custom one made that he did not make, had no history of making, and no plans to start making them. How is that discrimination? It's not and the court agreed.
Outside of the plastic piece on top, which no baker makes, can you explain the difference between a gay and straight wedding cake?
Quote from: p1tchblack on September 23, 2021, 03:08:11 PMOutside of the plastic piece on top, which no baker makes, can you explain the difference between a gay and straight wedding cake?
It does not matter what my definition was/is/ or will be. What does matter, the couple wanted a cake that the owner did not make, never did make, or have plans to make. The court agreed that was his right not to make something he does not make and more important this was not discrimination. That should settle this issue.
But to get back on thread, in the case of the owner suddenly wanted to see vaccine proof, he has no history of ever wanting this before, and there have been vaccines before, he did not close up shop before the vaccine was available, and he is in a public business that has rules against discrimination. He is in a world where medical records of others are none of his business. Florida is very clear, you can not discriminate because you want to see vaccine passports.
Quote from: p1tchblack on September 23, 2021, 03:08:11 PMOutside of the plastic piece on top, which no baker makes, can you explain the difference between a gay and straight wedding cake?
If they wanted rainbows and unicorns and other gay crap on it, then I would think it would be.
:mellow:
Quote from: Possum on September 23, 2021, 03:23:53 PMIt does not matter what my definition was/is/ or will be. What does matter, the couple wanted a cake that the owner did not make, never did make, or have plans to make. The court agreed that was his right not to make something he does not make and more important this was not discrimination. That should settle this issue.
But to get back on thread, in the case of the owner suddenly wanted to see vaccine proof, he has no history of ever wanting this before, and there have been vaccines before, he did not close up shop before the vaccine was available, and he is in a public business that has rules against discrimination. He is in a world where medical records of others are none of his business. Florida is very clear, you can not discriminate because you want to see vaccine passports.
No the courts didn't rule on the legality or whether it was discrimination. The court kicked the can down the road.
So amI right that gay and straight needing cakes have the same ingredients? There's no gay flour or gay eggs, right?
An ID card isn't a medical record. You are implying that there would be a HIPAA violation and I don't see any basis for that.
Quote from: p1tchblack on September 23, 2021, 05:36:04 PMNo the courts didn't rule on the legality or whether it was discrimination. The court kicked the can down the road.
So amI right that gay and straight needing cakes have the same ingredients? There's no gay flour or gay eggs, right?
An ID card isn't a medical record. You are implying that there would be a HIPAA violation and I don't see any basis for that.
Two small details you left out, the courts did not find the baker guilty of discrimination, and in Florida you can not ask for a vaccine passport.
Quote from: Possum on September 23, 2021, 05:46:02 PMTwo small details you left out, the courts did not find the baker guilty of discrimination, and in Florida you can not ask for a vaccine passport.
The courts didn't rule on the discrimination aspect. Again, they kicked the can down the road.
Florida will fine you if you do, but I'm saying the own
should have the right to determine who he rents to.
Legalities are secondary, in this case, to the point I'm trying to make.
Quote from: p1tchblack on September 23, 2021, 11:09:53 AMDo you have a link to the law that you keep referencing?
You need a link to the constitution? Sorry, not allowed to discriminate for no reason.
Quote from: p1tchblack on September 23, 2021, 01:45:24 PMI do have a problem with discrimination, just as I have an issue with people using racial slurs or burning the flag but, I support the right of people to use racial slurs and burn the flag as part of free speech.
So, do you believe Masterpiece Cake Shop should be forced to make a cake for a gay wedding?
Why would they? Thats religion. Covid is science fiction. Do you think we should force all people to show proof of whether they love star wars?
Quote from: p1tchblack on September 23, 2021, 03:08:11 PMOutside of the plastic piece on top, which no baker makes, can you explain the difference between a gay and straight wedding cake?
Yes, it is who is buying it. And since being gay is a sin, we are allowed to publicly treat it as such regarding our personal property, thats freedom of religion. Of course LLCs or public things would be different.
It is a fact that gayness is a mental disorder, just as trans is. Thats science.
We are allowed to treat it as such. Thats why we dont have to normalize it.
Thats why I as an american under the constitution have the right to hire and fire, serve or not serve based on gayness, if it is publicly known. Same with slavery. Under the constitution that was always illegal. We fought a war to force the south to abide by the constitution. You seem to think that somehow the supreme court trumps the constitution or that somehow sexuality trumps religion. They dont.
Now I cant force someone to tell me their sexual status and in most cases I would never ask. But if I know because they are shoving it in everyones faces then I can use that as a determinate on whether to hire or fire someone. Just as I can use pink hair. However, I cannot use covid vax status since covid cannot even be proven to exist in a court of law. it is science fiction.
Since the covid hoax is an attack on our nation by a foreign country it gets treated differently.
Now dont try derailing this thread by making it about homosexuality.
Quote from: p1tchblack on September 23, 2021, 05:36:04 PMNo the courts didn't rule on the legality or whether it was discrimination. The court kicked the can down the road.
QuoteSo amI right that gay and straight needing cakes have the same ingredients? There's no gay flour or gay eggs, right?
An ID card isn't a medical record. You are implying that there would be a HIPAA violation and I don't see any basis for that.
Does there need to be? Their lifestyle is the problem, it goes against nature, both spiritually(our nations founding religion) and scientifically(mental disorder), so Im constitutionally allowed to treat them as such and avoid them in public and forbid them from my property, business included. IF they are open about it. I cannot force them to tell me. Really the constitution end up with something like the "dont ask dont tell" policy which worked so well for the army.
Remember, there is nothing normal about homosexuality and we as a country do not want to normalize it, nor are we forced to per the constitution.
Again, bring this back to the subject of the thread, the mother being unconstitutionally evicted for science fiction.
Quote from: T Hunt on September 23, 2021, 08:06:55 PMYou need a link to the constitution? Sorry, not allowed to discriminate for no reason.
The Constitution protects our rights from infringement from the government, not private entities.
Quote from: p1tchblack on September 23, 2021, 08:37:32 PMThe Constitution protects our rights from infringement from the government, not private entities.
So we can refuse service to someone for just being gay then? And I can ask them about it? You just said the law doesnt protect us from private entities....
And what about murder? So the constitution protects me from the govt murdering me but not from a citizen?
Quote from: T Hunt on September 23, 2021, 08:43:12 PMSo we can refuse service to someone for just being gay then? And I can ask them about it? You just said the law doesnt protect us from private entities....
That's not what I said, you dunce.
Quote from: p1tchblack on September 23, 2021, 08:44:44 PMThat's not what I said, you dunce.
Yes you did...
QuoteThe Constitution protects our rights from infringement from the government, not private entities.
Quote from: T Hunt on September 23, 2021, 08:45:39 PMYes you did...
The Constitution and Laws are not the same thing.
Quote from: p1tchblack on September 23, 2021, 08:50:06 PMThe Constitution and Laws are not the same thing.
They are actually. Laws cannot override the constitution. The state cannot write laws giving it powers the constitution doesnt. The constitution allows for the state to make laws regarding murder being bad.
It does not grant the state powers to write laws discriminating for no reason. Nor does it allow the state to write laws infringing on religious freedoms or normalizing mental disorders and deviant sexual behavior.
Quote from: T Hunt on September 23, 2021, 08:52:23 PMThey are actually. Laws cannot override the constitution. The state cannot write laws giving it powers the constitution doesnt. The constitution allows for the state to make laws regarding murder being bad.
It does not grant the state powers to write laws discriminating for no reason. Nor does it allow the state to write laws infringing on religious freedoms or normalizing mental disorders and deviant sexual behavior.
Laws and the Constitution are not the same thing. You cannot tell your boss to "Fuck off" and claim first amendment protection.
Where is sexual behavior mentioned in the Constitution?
Quote from: p1tchblack on September 23, 2021, 08:54:20 PMLaws and the Constitution are not the same thing. You cannot tell your boss to "Fuck off" and claim first amendment protection.
Where is sexual behavior mentioned in the Constitution?
Yes they are, the constitution is the supreme law of the land. As I said, laws cannot override the constitution nor can they give powers to the state that the constitution doesnt.
Sexual behavior is not in there, thats the point. Religion is. There can be no protections based on sexual class that usurp freedom of religion.
Quote from: p1tchblack on September 23, 2021, 05:36:04 PMNo the courts didn't rule on the legality or whether it was discrimination. The court kicked the can down the road.
So amI right that gay and straight needing cakes have the same ingredients? There's no gay flour or gay eggs, right?
An ID card isn't a medical record. You are implying that there would be a HIPAA violation and I don't see any basis for that.
Kicked the can down the road???? It was a 7-2 decision. :lol: :lol: :lol: The baker did not refuse to sell them what was up for sale, that would be discrimination, he told them he would not use his talents to create them a special cake, a kind he does not make. The court ruling was it was his right to refuse to use his talents on something he sees as wrong.
The Florida ruling is correct, nobody has any right to know what kind of medical care/treatment/ etc another individual has taken. Ex. can a landlord who only wants adults. no kids, ask a potential tenant if they are taking birth control. Of course not, none of his business.
Again, there are rules to follow when you go into business that is open to the public. You do not agree with this one, fine. That is one opinion, it did not change the rules.
Quote from: Possum on September 24, 2021, 04:02:50 AMKicked the can down the road???? It was a 7-2 decision. :lol: :lol: :lol: The baker did not refuse to sell them what was up for sale, that would be discrimination, he told them he would not use his talents to create them a special cake, a kind he does not make. The court ruling was it was his right to refuse to use his talents on something he sees as wrong.
The Florida ruling is correct, nobody has any right to know what kind of medical care/treatment/ etc another individual has taken. Ex. can a landlord who only wants adults. no kids, ask a potential tenant if they are taking birth control. Of course not, none of his business.
Again, there are rules to follow when you go into business that is open to the public. You do not agree with this one, fine. That is one opinion, it did not change the rules.
You clearly didn't read the court's decision. They did not rule on anything regarding cakes, weddings, religious rights or anything that mattered in the case. They ruled, basically, that the Colorado Commission behaved badly:
Instead, the Court decided the case, but on the narrowest grounds imaginable—that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission during its consideration of the case had shown anti-religious bias. The result was a decision that provides almost no guidance for lower courts facing similar cases. "In this case," Kennedy wrote, "the adjudication concerned a context that may well be different going forward." Thus, "the outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts."https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/06/the-court-slices-a-narrow-ruling-out-of-masterpiece-cakeshop/561986/
As far as requiring medical records - kids have to provide immunization records to go to school. People traveling to specific countries have to, I believe, get specific vaccines and employers are already requiring vaccines for employees. Florida may make laws, but the concept that it's inherently illegal to require proof of vaccination is incorrect.
Quote from: p1tchblack on September 24, 2021, 05:56:27 AMYou clearly didn't read the court's decision. They did not rule on anything regarding cakes, weddings, religious rights or anything that mattered in the case. They ruled, basically, that the Colorado Commission behaved badly:
Instead, the Court decided the case, but on the narrowest grounds imaginable—that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission during its consideration of the case had shown anti-religious bias. The result was a decision that provides almost no guidance for lower courts facing similar cases. "In this case," Kennedy wrote, "the adjudication concerned a context that may well be different going forward." Thus, "the outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts."
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/06/the-court-slices-a-narrow-ruling-out-of-masterpiece-cakeshop/561986/
As far as requiring medical records - kids have to provide immunization records to go to school. People traveling to specific countries have to, I believe, get specific vaccines and employers are already requiring vaccines for employees. Florida may make laws, but the concept that it's inherently illegal to require proof of vaccination is incorrect.
One of us did not read it, the lower court found the baker guilty of violating Colorado's anti discrimination law, seven supreme court judges voted to overturn that. Did either side get all it wanted in that ruling, some say no. BUT, where as the court leaned toward that you can not refuse sale, which is the part that would apply to the landlord, they also ruled that you can not make someone apply their talents toward something they do not believe in. Had the tenant wanted a "special" room to rent, the landowner can refuse. That is not the case here, the landlord is discriminating because a tenant is not getting medical care HE feels they should be. Again, there are rules to follow when you open yourself to doing business with the public, you may not like the law as you don't in this case, but it is still the law.