This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Court To Bakery Owners: You Have No Property Rights
Submitted by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,
The Colorado Appeals Court ruled that the owners of a bakery do not have any right to control their property, and that they shall be forced to provide bakery services to a couple that the owner would rather not do business with. In other words, they have no property rights. The court writes:
Masterpiece remains free to continue espousing its religious beliefs, including its opposition to same-sex marriage. However, if it wishes to operate as a public accommodation and conduct business within the State of Colorado, CADA prohibits it from picking and choosing customers based on their sexual orientation.
These sorts of rulings essentially rewrite the very nature of commerce and our whole concept of contracts. A business agreement (i.e., a contract) is based on two parties agreeing to a voluntary relationship. This is the foundation not only of business relationships, but of the relationship between citizens and states themselves. This is why "social contract" theory is so popular among theorists. Everyone recognizes that coerced relationships are inherently unjust, which is why defenders of the modern state system claim that states derive their legitimacy from a "social contract" in which both parties agree to the relationship.
Without this contract into which both parties have presumably entered voluntarily, the relationship is unjust and a violation of basic human rights. But that all just goes out the window, apparently, when we're talking about discrimination. With court decisions like these, the court is saying that we can have contracts in which one only side agrees to it. But let's just call this what it is: seizure of one of the party's private property.
Moreover, in an attempt to muddy the waters further, we're being told that this case is about religion. Ultimately, though, cases like these are really about nothing more than the simple right to control one's private property:
In practice, the decision to exclude is always based on some type of discrimination. The type of discrimination can run the gamut from “you’re banned from my store because you groped customers” to “I don’t serve your (racial) kind.” In everyday life, the merchant, salesman, clerk, or owner of any kind must — because time is scarce — make constant discriminatory decisions as to whether or not he will do business with client A or client B. Indeed, every single economic act requires this sort of discrimination. A person may prefer to do business with more attractive people, or people who are friendlier. Or he may wish to work only with his co-religionists or citizens of his own nation-state. On a fundamental level, everyone knows this is the case, but many accept that it is the legitimate role of the state to decide which types of discrimination are acceptable and which are not. Hence, discrimination against unattractive people remains acceptable. Discrimination against certain racial groups is not.
Regardless of what groups end up being favored, the effect of any anti-discrimination law is to curtail the freedom of the owner and to increase the size and scope of government’s coercive power over the lives and livelihoods of property owners. Moreover, since anti-discrimination law is heavily dependent on proving intent and motivation, such regulation also puts the government in the position of investigating the thoughts and opinions of owners. Sometimes, owners make this easy for regulators by stating their motivations outright, but in other cases, private owners are investigated and inferences are made as to the feelings and views of owners. This is necessary because, since every business transaction requires some sort of discrimination, the mere act of not entering into a business transaction is not sufficient to prove not-government-approved discrimination.
And even from a consequentialist angle, there is no real "cost" on the party being refused service. In this case, the refused party merely needs to drive down the road to one of dozens of similar bakeries in the Denver metropolitan area. But even if there were no other bakery in town (which is untrue of any community but the tiniest) the answer to this is to encourage more commercial freedom. Restricting commercial freedom merely produced the opposite effect of producing fewer bakeries:
Thus, those who wish to lessen the negative effects of discrimination on consumers ought to concentrate on expanding the economic options for those who face discrimination. This is done through deregulation of industry and the elimination of corporate welfare and other anti-market programs and regulations that favor incumbent and semi-monopolist firms. Unfortunately, however, those who favor regulation of discrimination also tend to favor government regulation in general, including wage rates, employment practices, lending practices, food “purity,” and nearly everything else, in spite of the fact that the sum effect of such regulations is to prevent the entry of new firms into the market place while protecting the standing of large politically-powerful firms. The result is fewer merchants, fewer firms, fewer jobs, and more monopoly power which leads precisely to the negative discrimination-imposed burdens that the pro-regulation lobby claims to be fighting against.
»
- 79957 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
You mean the Jesus of the mythological story of the virgin birth etc?
Why should the purported words of a 'person' who likely never existed matter at all?
Create businesses outside of the reach this country and its fascist laws and do it until the trend is reversed.
Ah yes, the messiah jew who walks on water, that the goy are foolish enough to whoreship.
I logged in just so I could down vote your piece of shit idea.
Wow you have not read the bible Matthew chapter 5 confirms that we are still required to keep the Old Testament laws except the ones done a way with you need to read the bible before making such a statement. Oh - "God Hates The Wicked All Day Long"!
Good Luck with your lifestyle
I have a direct Bible quote for you on this.
Jesus Christ never condemned anyone.
BUT he also never justified sin for anyone either.
Actually Jesus Christ said he came to bring a sword NOT love to everyone unconditionally.
the sin of adultery is similar to homosexuality because both are sexual sin...
read here:
John 8:11
She said no man Lord. And Jesus said to her neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.
scripture is clear. no condemnation to a homosexual. but no justification of homosexuality. Go and sin no more.
Matthew 19:4-6:
You know, there's no direct quote about pedophilia either. #LoveWins
How do i delete my message
Nmewn the Baker: So, did you enjoy the frosting?
Extra creamy?
Well, we thought that it should have been sweeter, not salty.
Take the faggot cake order with a smile, then when they come to pick it up pretend you never heard of it. Watch the "bride" tear up and have a hissy fit, while you read a sermon about the evil of faggotry.
Or use ingredients that have been sitting in a back closet for 25 years. Cheaper than taking it to the dump, and more environmentally friendly.
Compare the damage from the alleged discrimination of a bakery not wanting to put a message on a wedding cake for personal religious reasons with the discriminatory behavior of Amazon in penalizing workers who get pregnant on the job or who need to take off time from work to care for a seriously ill family member. The weekend New York Times story exposing the cruel and slave-like working conditions for Amazon employees cited the case of an Amazon emplyee caring for a family member with cancer, putting his family ahead of Bezos' dreams of becoming the world's richest man. The Colorado court case shows once again that in the USA there is one law for the rich and powerful and another for small businesses. The NYT story indirectly reveals something even more disturbing: the craven lying of American media (but not you, Tyler) in covering up illegal labor practices at Amazon, assisted by corrupt government officials. Having a corporate policy that discriminates against persons with disabilities, whether pregnancy or cancer, is a violation of human rights laws. The record now shows that bullying in the workplace is bad except when Amazon does it. American reporters and editors had to have ignored thousands of inquiries from former Amazon employees asking for the reporters to write about the harsh working conditions at Amazon. To a person, these so-called journalists did not cover the story. Seymour Hersh is right, most of the journalists and editors we have are worthless, a pack of liars. That people have stopped reading newspapers or watching TV news (except if they are over 50 years old) is in large part because people are tired of being lied to by empty suit journalists with journalism degrees but no backbones. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/technology/inside-amazon-wrestling-big-ideas-in-a-bruising-workplace.html
Man has always wanted to be God, and we're merely watching the most recent version of something that hasn't changed in thousands of years of civilization. The old kings wanted the power to make any law they wanted, and for it to 'just work.' Now, we want to bend even the laws of Nature to our will. It will be interesting to see how far the West will contort itself until it falls apart.
By Social Contract you mean the divine right of the elected majority to subjugate all minorities. And the easiest way to become that majority is via bribery of the weakest and most corrupt.
Property rights ? You've never had property rights once you start paying property tax.
What you have are property privaleges. As with all your rights. You have no rights. You only have privaleges.
You have pay rent (property tax) to the government. Stop paying the rent on the property that you "own" and the compassionate government will throw you out on the street, selling "your" property to pay for government employee ridiculously high salaries and pensions.
Yup. And if you think about it, the court said they have to please their customers.
So when does that include servicing the customer's sexual desires?
I suppose when they make it legal and tax it, eh?
The homo couple still wants a cake from that joint? Bullshit.
I'd give them their fucking cake.
Don't wish to harm fags. Live and let live. Hear that,??? Live and let live!
You queers need to stop ramming your abhorant, unnatural lifestyle up our ass. Pun intended. Do your thing. Marry your lover. But, you cannot legislate my acceptance. Take your victory, or victories and leave the rest of us alone. You will push too far.
They aim to. Several at work have been reprimanded for inappropriate conversation topics but they continue unabated. They know they are a protected class and untouchable. So now when they openly discuss anal bleaching I ignore them because they thrive on my discomfort and reaction.
Wedding cakes pale in comparison to the disease in the gay community I have to deal with daily. When I am required to participate in Gay Pride, the issue will be forced.
Miffed
Miffed, Next time they converse of such, tell 'em they should try those new sulfuric acid enemas, they're all the rage these days...
Protected class or not, you can sue your employer for letting them create a hostile work environment. Use it.
It's not physical property rights. The courts are ordering the baker's to undergo involuntary labor. Forcing one to work for another is slavery. That makes every person property to be used as required by the State. That's what I'm reading into this decision.
Speaking of Property Rights:
"Each person has a right to his own life, which means that each person is a self-owner (assuming that his behavior has been and is non-coercive). Because a man has a right to own his life, he has the same right to any part of that life. Property is one part of a man’s life. Material goods are necessary to sustain life, and so are the ideas which a man generates. So, man invests his time in generating ideas and in producing and maintaining material goods. A man’s life is made up of time, so when he invests his time in material or intellectual property (ideas) he is investing parts of his life, thereby making that property an extension of his life. The right to property is part of the right to life. There is no conflict between property rights and human rights—property rights are human rights."
Just another example of how monstrous the courts have become. They must be refused, no matter the cost.
You have no rights in today's world. You have no "human" rights. You only have the privilege to live by your owners.
Yup!
We all know the democrat party never gave up their belief in slavery. They work to enslave relentlessly.
Cue the Wednesday Addams cake meme in 3 ... 2 ...
Sure you HAVE TO provide service them.
Just generate a New Price List For the SPECIALIZED SEVICES at 10X what an ordinary service costs.
Problem fixed.
The Courts can only enforce the providence of services, not the pricing for services.
The tyranical courts would disallow the while you were thinking about it.
Shut up and do what we say peon.
I actaully see it.
If 10% of the population is gay, then services for a gay themed cake are "special" above and beyond, out of the ordinary.
I think ya'll get too hung up on the gay thing here at ZH, but just because I think that does not mean I should force you to provide a "gay themed" service, especially when this runs against your religion AND you are not hurting the person by saying no (maybe their feelings, but that is not my point, you are not denying them fundamental basics to survive).
If I refused to sew your clothes becasue you are gay, I am a moron, there is nothing to do different for your clothes than anyone else. You are not forcing me to act as if I am approving of what you are doing or supporting it. But this cake thing really is another matter.
Thus if you are forced to provide the service, and only 1/10 of the population might need it, a 10X markup really works.
Morons have flown to ZH like moths to a flame. But it seems ZH has sold out to clicks. This is not my Zero Hedge!
This is not moronic nor the province of morons. No one, in private industry, should be compelled to provide service to anyone no matter the reason. A diner not serving blacks is just bad business and offensive to decent people and it should not extend beyond that. It is also more honest than the thin veneer of civility and fairness we have now.
Freedom is simple.
You can call names, but since I am a moron, I need it explained to me why you are responding to my post the way you are. It is not obvious to me.
This ruling is NOT libertarian, that is for damn sure. Government out of my bedroom. Government out of my marriage. Government out of my business.
I see the hardship for a gay person in a small town, I would move if I was gay and stuck with that. If they hurt me, or deny me food, clothing, shelter, that is discrimination. If you deny me a certain themed cake, I don't need that to survive.
Well, I operate under the assumption that all humans are humans. Sexual orientation does not change the basic DNA. And my observation about morons is " self evident". I remember when members, here, were concerned about those fucking them over as opposed to those, for whom they had no concern, were fucking! That is libertarianism.
"This is not my Zero Hedge!"
There you go again moron, thinking something is yours that clearly isn't. You're welcome to fuck off if you don't like it Nazi.
'I think y'all get too hung up on the gay thing here'
Then you have no idea about why this is relevant. I am an atheist, so it's not a religious thing, and I could not care less what two adults want to do with each other as long as it's consensual. It has nothing to do with the gay part for me, or for most of us. It has to do with a government telling a small business person what they must do with their business. Personally, I think bringing up 'religious objections' is stupid, because you shouldn't have to invoke 'religious liberty' to simply do what you want with your own property. You don't need any reason, as a matter of fact. " cuz I don't fuckin want to, get off my property" is a perfectly acceptable reason.
I agree.
Where I get hung up is the same logic can be used to refuse service based on race. I don't know what to do about that. I don't want to regulate that one either, but it is wrong. Just like refusing to serve someone because they are gay. It is a conundrum I don't know how to solve. I don't like regulation, I think it sucks to block someone from access to meeting their basic survival needs because of race or sexual orientation. They should not be starved or harmed for christ's sake (heh heh).
In the specific case of the cake, I see the religious freedom issue as a way out of the problem. The cake shoves the gay issue down the throats of people who, by their religion, are afraid of it, have prohibitions against it, etc. They are being forced to support a gay marriage, never mind the sex. That is not okay to do. Gay people should have no interest in doing that to others, any more than imposing straight sex on them would be okay.
The 'authority' with the power to impose destruction (closure of business) or violence (imprisonment) mandated that one human MUST provide services to another. That is a fucking totalitarian measure, with only the goon squad missing.
There are other issues as well; I mean, am I going to be going into a bakery someday in the near future, and see 'Penis Cakes' sold by the inch? Lord, I hope not.
Don't go to that bakery again. If enough of you feel the same way, the business will fail.
They'll have frozen dicksickles for the kids.
edit: cocksickles lol.
I think it's the creative aspect that is the main point. It's not that they didn;t want to sell them the cake, it was just the decorating part with "Lyle & Bruce" on it.
Can you force a sculptor to create a 10 foot tall penis? Can you make a hindu decorate a Christmas tree at Lowes?
If I owned a store, I wouldn't sell cigarettes. They kill people. Can the smokers sue me?
I think when this goes to the supreme court, it might get sorted out. Until then, it's all a gray area.
Because putting 'Lyle and Bruce" on a cake would be the same thing as making a ten-foot penis...
What if the couple were named Chris and Pat?
Not to point out the obvious...but I think the courts just proved they can enforce what ever the fuck they want.
Actually no the courts can't, Drs. can refuse you service by refusing to take you on as a new patient.
Sex shops should do well
And you will like it peasants.
-Your Lords and Masters
That's so gay.
/s
Here"s the deal: If you homos want to be married, then create your own homo church in which to do so. Then, if you want a cake, hire a fucking homo to bake it for you!!!!
Here's a better deal: If you're going to use religious bullshit to discriminate against people, do it out a fucking church then there won't be any problems and the people in question will know not to bother going there in the first place you mouth breather.
So drop the religious bullshit and just deny the service for some other bullshit reason. Every business has the right to decide who they do business with anyway. Eventually the bad businesses would go the fuck OUT OF BUSlNESS!!! Gee, how novel.
Dumbasses.
Testify!
There a number of legitimate reasons for a restaurant to refuse service, some of which include:
In most cases, refusal of service is warranted where a customer’s presence in the restaurant detracts from the safety, welfare, and well-being of other patrons and the restaurant itself.
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/restaurants-right-to-refuse-service.html#sthash.9cBEylCl.dpuf
I'm an artist and I paint murals. If someone wants me to paint an orgy on the side of a wall, I'm not going to do it, for any amount of $. The court is telling this artist, the cake creator, they MUST create this work of art for this customer. That is not American in any way, shape or form. You are saying the government should have the right to dictate to artists what art they must create based solely on the desire of somebody else.
That's sick.
This is why when it finally does get to the supreme court, I think it will be struck down.
I wouldn't bet on it. SCOTUS has proven to be nothing more than a gang of corrupt NW0 rubber-stamping hacks.
The cocksucking US president and the queer packing and the strap on wearing dike SCOTUS members say different.
This is not about discrimination. This is about forcing recognition of their public expression. They DEMAND to be not only tolerated but accepted. The imposition of their values as equal to anyone else's.
When we are not allowed to discriminate, we are not free.
Discrimination does not mean we can harm another, simply that we can choose in how we interact and participate with others. This is ultimately reflecting values as that is what to discriminate means to me. What they are telling us is what our values will be. No choice. If we do not share the collective values we are not allowed to participate economically.
I do see what you're saying. But where is the line? What constitutes harm? Personally, I could care less the sexual orientation. But the reality is, if the feds had not stepped in, lynchings could possibly be accepted as libertarian behavior.
Absolutly not. My rights end at the start of another persons nose. We have free speach, not free assualt. But in this sase the point is the government is forcing an artist to create art. You don't find that very disturbing?
Maybe Michelangelo should send his cakes to the Louvre. Then when he's dead they'll be worth millions.
"Forcing an artist to create art" indeed. It's a FUCKING CAKE! If baking fills you with such angst, then become a plumber or something.
Well, if its 'just a fucking cake'.....why didn't the gay couple simply take their business to another bakery? Why are they leveraging the violence of government against simple non-michelangelo people who bake cakes?
"in this sase the point is the government is forcing an artist to create art."
I disagree with calling cake decorating an art in this context.
Further: if that was the case then the 'artist' 'decorating' the cake might take liberties with the design and execution thereof and still be fully entitled to payment upon delivery. Artistic license and all..
In reality it is the production of propaganda or advertising which is being coerced/forced, NOT art..
IF I were in such a position -that is: cooerced to create, I would:
1. demand fulll payment before undertaking the project, and
2. simply make my artistic statemet reflect my feelings on the matter regardless of the wishes of the patron; -which is inarguably what artists DO.
My patron might not be very happy with the appearance or taste of the final product, and may decline to patronize in the future; but, I would get my paid to produce my 'art' and the patron would get the 'art' they paid for...
You lost me at the lynching part. Not sure what your definition of libertarian is.
There is the ideal, and there are the assholes posturing behind the ideal. The latter, historically, is much more prevalent.
A general statement not directed at anyone.
I think we all recognized as we share this planet and as such impose on one another to some level, if no more than to breath the same air. But our goal should be to NOT impose involuntarily on each other. The simple fact that another can demand product or service from me, regardless of remuneration, says I am being imposed upon. There is no absolute need of a wedding cake and as long as it can be demonstrated that other options exist, there should be no imposition placed on anyone. In this respect we can not only force a grocery to sell food, but also demand that someone else pay for it as well, if ultimately the goal is to not deny. Payment is secondary and only relevant if actual theft is involved. Transitions are always difficult but while force always seems that most expeditious means to accommodate it, voluntary action has a better result with less baggage and resentment that as we see can linger for many years. Homosexuals may believe they have accomplished a great coup but they will find the force used will be remembered and held against them when the tide turns...as it always has.
And if the road, where the bakery exists ( hypothetically) was, in part, paid for by the gay tax paying neighbor, as well as the police and fire service, the electrical grid, the sewage, the internet and all infrastructure which enables the bakery to exist within the parameters that allow businesses to exist, then what? The problem with the libertarian viewpoint is the refusal to know that only Nothing exists in a vacuum. I'm all for reeling back this fascist entity called the US government, but humans can still be very flawed, individually. Is the unsubstantiated threat of a hellacious afterlife the only means to hold people accountable?
Freedom exists in a vacuum. we are born into this circus. We are taxed involuntarily and are left to our own devices to feed ourselves, unless you accept that government's full tit dependency is a real option. ALL of us must work and eat to survive, YET, as you say, we live in an interdependent society that does demand some rules to function. This compact appears to now not just refrain from actual damage to each other physically, but also their feelings. As is typical, we have allowed our government to take the worst behaviors as an excuse to force ALL others to surrender their human rights to individual choice. does no one see the parallels to gun control...that a few bad actors can be used as an excuse to take our right to self defense away from us? Because a relatively few murderers and assholes have done egregious things to some minority groups, we ALL must surrender our rights. Lets not confuse the issues. No harm has come to ANY person because they were refused a cake. When that action DOES cause harm, then we should visit and correct that action.
ALL THINGS ARE NOT EQUAL.
"A business agreement (i.e., a contract) is based on two parties agreeing to a voluntary relationship." End of discussion...
See the ruling.
Ben Dover.
The new interpretation is that to simply accept money for service establishes that there is no other voluntary contract. We have entered a contract with the courts who will decide who we do business with and if and when we will get paid. If you want to eat, you will capitulate to state enforced values. As we initially submitted to law at our founding, we have no defense against it other than the moneys of which they allow us to accumulate and the illusion that we can in anyway defy them. The supreme Court will ultimately decide what values we should follow. People that none of us voted for and can never be fired.
Making us all we can be.....and beyond.
The US isn't getting worse. It's already there.
The Bankruptcy of The United States
United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303
Speaker-Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House:
"Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11.. Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any Bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government. We are setting forth hopefully, a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a coroner’s report that will lead to our demise.
It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress m session June 5, 1933 - Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only.
The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International Bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. All United States Offices, Officials, and Departments are now operating within a de facto status in name only under Emergency War Powers. With the Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved, the receivers of the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government for the United States. This new form of government is known as a Democracy, being an established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America. This act was instituted and established by transferring and/or placing the Office of the Secretary of Treasury to that of the Governor of the International Monetary Fund. Public Law 94-564, page 8, Section H.R. 13955 reads in part: "The U.S. Secretary of Treasury receives no compensation for representing the United States?’
Gold and silver were such a powerful money during the founding of the united states of America, that the founding fathers declared that only gold or silver coins can be "money" in America. Since gold and silver coinage were heavy and inconvenient for a lot of transactions, they were stored in banks and a claim check was issued as a money substitute. People traded their coupons as money, or "currency." Currency is not money, but a money substitute. Redeemable currency must promise to pay a dollar equivalent in gold or silver money. Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) make no such promises, and are not "money." A Federal Reserve Note is a debt obligation of the federal United States government, not "money?’ The federal United States government and the U.S. Congress were not and have never been authorized by the Constitution for the united states of America to issue currency of any kind, but only lawful money, -gold and silver coin.
It is essential that we comprehend the distinction between real money and paper money substitute. One cannot get rich by accumulating money substitutes, one can only get deeper into debt. We the People no longer have any "money." Most Americans have not been paid any "money" for a very long time, perhaps not in their entire life. Now do you comprehend why you feel broke? Now, do you understand why you are "bankrupt," along with the rest of the country?
Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are unsigned checks written on a closed account. FRNs are an inflatable paper system designed to create debt through inflation (devaluation of currency). when ever there is an increase of the supply of a money substitute in the economy without a corresponding increase in the gold and silver backing, inflation occurs.
Inflation is an invisible form of taxation that irresponsible governments inflict on their citizens. The Federal Reserve Bank who controls the supply and movement of FRNs has everybody fooled. They have access to an unlimited supply of FRNs, paying only for the printing costs of what they need. FRNs are nothing more than promissory notes for U.S. Treasury securities (T-Bills) - a promise to pay the debt to the Federal Reserve Bank.
There is a fundamental difference between "paying" and "discharging" a debt. To pay a debt, you must pay with value or substance (i.e. gold, silver, barter or a commodity). With FRNs, you can only discharge a debt. You cannot pay a debt with a debt currency system. You cannot service a debt with a currency that has no backing in value or substance. No contract in Common law is valid unless it involves an exchange of "good & valuable consideration." Unpayable debt transfers power and control to the sovereign power structure that has no interest in money, law, equity or justice because they have so much wealth already.
Their lust is for power and control. Since the inception of central banking, they have controlled the fates of nations.
The Federal Reserve System is based on the Canon law and the principles of sovereignty protected in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In fact, the international bankers used a "Canon Law Trust" as their model, adding stock and naming it a "Joint Stock Trust." The U.S. Congress had passed a law making it illegal for any legal "person" to duplicate a "Joint Stock Trust" in 1873. The Federal Reserve Act was legislated post-facto (to 1870), although post-facto laws are strictly forbidden by the Constitution. [1:9:3]
The Federal Reserve System is a sovereign power structure separate and distinct from the federal United States government. The Federal Reserve is a maritime lender, and/or maritime insurance underwriter to the federal United States operating exclusively under Admiralty/Maritime law. The lender or underwriter bears the risks, and the Maritime law compelling specific performance in paying the interest, or premiums are the same.
Assets of the debtor can also be hypothecated (to pledge something as a security without taking possession of it.) as security by the lender or underwriter. The Federal Reserve Act stipulated that the interest on the debt was to be paid in gold. There was no stipulation in the Federal Reserve Act for ever paying the principle.
Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free and clear of any liens or mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913)
"Hypothecated" all property within the federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, -in which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title. The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a "beneficiary" of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets and labor of their "subjects," the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to the Federal Reserve System.
In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend the federal United States corporation all the credit "money substitute" it needed. Like any other debtor, the federal United States government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan. Since the federal United States didn’t have any assets, they assigned the private property of their "economic slaves", the U.S. citizens as collateral against the unpayable federal debt. They also pledged the unincorporated federal territories, national parks forests, birth certificates, and nonprofit organizations, as collateral against the federal debt. All has already been transferred as payment to the international bankers.
Unwittingly, America has returned to its pre-American Revolution, feudal roots whereby all land is held by a sovereign and the common people had no rights to hold allodial title to property. Once again, We the People are the tenants and sharecroppers renting our own property from a Sovereign in the guise of the Federal Reserve Bank. We the people have exchanged one master for another.
This has been going on for over eighty years without the "informed knowledge" of the American people, without a voice protesting loud enough. Now it’s easy to grasp why America is fundamentally bankrupt.
Why don’t more people own their properties outright?
Why are 90% of Americans mortgaged to the hilt and have little or no assets after all debts and liabilities have been paid? Why does it feel like you are working harder and harder and getting less and less?
We are reaping what has been sown, and the results of our harvest is a painful bankruptcy, and a foreclosure on American property, precious liberties, and a way of life. Few of our elected representatives in Washington, D.C. have dared to tell the truth. The federal United States is bankrupt. Our children will inherit this unpayable debt, and the tyranny to enforce paying it.
America has become completely bankrupt in world leadership, financial credit and its reputation for courage, vision and human rights. This is an undeclared economic war, bankruptcy, and economic slavery of the most corrupt order! Wake up America! Take back your Country."
Jail to you, Rep. James Traficant, Jr., do not pass go, do not collect $200.
Great, can't wait to get my membership for Curves! (No, not really.)
I think Bruce, er, Caitlyn has already applied.
This is direct evidence that legalized marijuana creeps into the water supply and decisively screws up every shred of rational thought.
These judges ought to be dismissed and incarcerated for failure to uphold the Constitution of the United States. This is treason.
Where's my Coors?
legalized marijuana? Ask some Jamaicans or Bobo Rastas their thoughts about homosexuality.
It's funny you blame that particular plant. What about all the pills, mister? What. a. bout. the. pills?
If you drink tap water without heavy filtration and separation, reverse osmosis - you're a second-hand pill-head.
I'm sensing the farce is strong with this one!
"The result is fewer merchants, fewer firms, fewer jobs, and more monopoly power which leads precisely to the negative discrimination-imposed burdens that the pro-regulation lobby claims to be fighting against."
For fuck's sake, Mises. Really? That's the reason we don't have a strong economy? It's not your benefactors sending all manufacturing jobs overseas to enrich themselves? Let them eat cake, indeed.
Actually there is more than one reason, but I don't have time to list them all
We sent the jobs overseas and we can bring them back. All we have to do is refuse to buy foreign made goods....but then that might mean we have to pay more.
You're right, it will never happen.
But, of course, Putin is the bad guy for not letting the fags recruit in schools.
I wonder how many judges were active on this site.
Not a judge, but at least they spelled my name right.
The horror....and really...should diners [have] to allow 'blacks' to eat there?
The horror. [sarc off just in case you needed that clue]
Race is not a choice.
Homosexuality is a choice.
Big difference.
Actually, your rights to a meal, or a wedding cake, or anything else for that matter, are not above my property rights. Personally, I wouldn't particularly care about making a cake for a gay wedding, or letting blacks eat in my restaurant as long as the act like normal human beings, but I still respect , 100%, the rights of others to not transact with anyone of their choosing.
Personally, if I was one of these people, or groups, I would rather not give someone who discriminates against me like that my money anyway. Oh, wait, I just remembered this is America, and people just see a way to sue someone, take their property, and out them out of business for personal gain. Fucking low lives.
Which proves this is not about denial of service but of forcible imposition of their values. They could go anywhere to get their cake but instead go to where they know they are not wanted and then DEMAND service. They only think they are winning. They will ultimately discover that the power they used to oppress others can be turned against them easily enough, once they have served their purpose.
Evidence?
Black is not a choice and a dennys breakfast is not a wedding cake with two male plastic figures sucking dicks on top. Your argument is shit. But as for me I would bake that cake , it would be very expensive and it would taste like underarm funk
Right to refuse service to anyone, at any time, for any reason.
Bite me, psychopath.
Dildonacht.
The answers to this is just so simple.
Burn the cake. Accidentally add salt instead of sugar. Whatever you want. Oops, forgot to add egg.
Can they force them to make a delicous cake?
Union equivalent of "go slow"
Let us get simpler and without ruining a perfectly good cake (I prefer buttercream icing)
Come up with a symbol ( the pi symbol, the artist formerly known as Prince symbol, a chocolate covered starfish, etc. ) that is understood to mean ( or broadcast to the world) that gays are vile creatures. It goes on all cakes. The gays can have their cake and consume the hatred if they so choose, or go somewhere else.
This makes as much sense as the CO ruling.
The point is force is being used. Sure, you can always use a "earthy" self derived chocolate substitute as revenge, but it is the force that should be resisted.
That's what I've always thought. And make them pay in advance.
Peoples Socialist Colorado..I left that state years ago because it is total socialism.
Running out of states to go...
This is so silly. Merely make them a VERY CRAPPY cake. top it off with dog shit if you want. let them taste that legal victory! i don't care what the fuck the law says, if you make a good product, you will have customers. if certain cakes are terrible, you won't have orders. what's so complicated?
Don't care what the law says? Enjoy your very own dog shit cake then. Bet it's finger lickin' good.
Why force these people to provide services? If I was gay I would not want these people making my cake, for the very reason the poster you are replying to has talked about. Let them post their religious stance publicly so that folks can move on to someone who would put their heart into making an awesome cake. Plenty of folks would love to.
And come on, you know folks like that are often bland Heinz Ketchup, Wonder bread, jello kinds of folks (since we are sterotyping anyway). Why would that cake taste good? They probably use "cake mix!" I want high quality tastes and design if I can get it.
As for the law, puhleeesz. The law is not always right or just. Banksters sure don't care about the law...
Some laws are meant to be broken.
Personally, I'm not freaked out by gays, I find it repugnant, but to each his own.
I for damned sure wouldn't want to eat at some restaurant where the staff hated white people to the point that they 'treat' my food. I'd much rather have a "you're not welcome here". Fine, I'll go to the next place.
...
I happen to be one of those gay men that are more manly than yourself. would i choose to get a legal mandate for somebody that hates me to make my wedding cake? how silly is that? could you spit in my burger as well? this is asshat ridiculous politics. i don't care if you're are handling snakes on sunday, if you need my business, you will be polite.
You got that right but you are still confused because the parts don't fit.
I only debate semantics with heterosexual men that never wanted to make their chick back dorothy. Or maybe sleep with their wife with a buggering board. What the fuck do you care what I do with my cock, and why do you care? How would you feel if the sex police came up into your home? Quit being such a typical mark for xenophobia. you dudes want ZERO regulation for anything you do... 'cept give them the death penality if they put their dick in the wrong place.
No, but we should be free to differ and do it publicly without being attacked, just as you desire to live. It is bullshit that we are supposed to be forced to agree on everything. It is a fragile world when we are so insecure in our lives that we cannot tolerate disagreement. Progressives have made an industry of destroying their opposition. It is their weakness as they have lost all ability to form a rational argument in their defense beyond calling their opponent racist or worse.
dude.... i'm not going to do your
wife in her ass? why do you care?
Dude....then why do we care about anything except making our dick happy?
Ultimate enlightenment. Everyone knows that ALL advanced societies are obsessed with what they do with their dicks.
It is sad that so many allow their "sexuality" define them. When they are obsessed with not only expressing this sexuality through dress, speech and mannerisms, and desperately seek public acceptance of these behaviors, it wouldn't seem to leave room for much else in their lives. We all have "preferences" but far too many allow them to rule their lives. Not just homosexuality but hetero as well, not to mention all of the other fetishes.
To each their own. Just don't expect me to make YOU feel secure in YOUR choices, Which is what this is. Forced acceptance. Decent is not allowed.
What about bars? Bouncers are illegal now.
Have you read a credit card agreement lately? It states that it is an at will agreement wherein the bank or other issuing agency can modify the agreement at will. Much like most employment agreements.
It's another step into full blown socalism. It's not about you. It's about everyone else.
Existing contracts cannot be modified without consideration, typically. I can say whatever I want, don't make it so.
Peppercorns, motherfuckers.
That's right. If they change the terms, just tell them No, and they won't apply the new terms. But they'll also cancel your card; you pay off the existing CC debt per the old terms.
That's right. This isn't the 90s. You're not special. We're all the fucking same.
Isn't that what the right wing wants? All of us, the same. No special rights, no talk of class or race or sexuality. And Christian. We should all be Christians. And Americans. No foreigners wanted.
Sounds like a type of socialism to me...
Instead of being whiny losers, the gay couple in question could have gone to another bakery. But no, they had to be bullies. Not brave enough to do it themselves, they had to call down the power of the state. Fucking despicable cunts.
They've achieved escape velocity. Everything is going their way. Media. Schools. Government. Courts.
This is spiking the ball.
You fags won't be happy until you have a bench clearing event, huh?
Most people tolerate you. Most people a just programmed by social media and peer pressure.
Some tolerate, but despise your unnatural abhorant sickness.
I'll accept gay when pedophiles are accepted. Both have their wires crossed. And don't give me " born that way". People are born sick and deformed every day. But we try to cure it.
Normally, I wouldn't waste my fucking time commenting on buggery, but this .gov sanctioned shit chaffes my ass.
Young children cannot consent. They need to be protected, they can be physically hurt (I don't need to debate psychological damage, but that too).
They are not the same.
Adults can consent. If I stay out of their bedroom, I want them to stay out of mine. If I suck a dick, he should be able to suck a dick. If you say my dick sucking is sodomy, and I should be arrested, that is state over reach. There was a period of time where anything but missionary position was considered sodomy. If "he" wants to suck a dick and he is not 3 years old, he, like me, should be able to. I don't want vag. but it should not be your business if I did.
The point is that the fags insist on making their sexuality a 24x7 public display. That is bizarre and frankly is going to backlash against them. Most people are willing to be tolerant -- to a point. They don't need to see a constant clown showing of "pride".
I USED TO BE TOLERANT. Now I hate fags, because of this insistence on parading it in everyone's face. You don't see heteros going out of their way to bother everyone with their choice.
No cunts...that is part of the problem...
This is the Rise of the Self-Absorbed -- the Narcissist and Sociopath -- to a critical mass of places of influence and control.
You'll notice that its tenure is coming to a head.
Are you referring to the gays or the religious zealots? Or both?
Yeah, ya know. If your gonna sell a cake to some married preacher who is banging 6 woman secretly. Or a guy who is banging his dog but putting on a good face publically. Then you should be able to sell to a gay couple who just have a few wires crossed but aint hurting anyone.
At least you know they are honest and open about their confusion. IMHO.
True, and Bill Clinton should never have received the free fucking pass he got/gets..
People on both sides of this issue are pretty dumb, in my opinion. The last I looked, money from a same sex couple had the same value as money from an opposite sex couple, and turning away paying customers never is a good idea.
On the other side, the same sex couple is pretty stupid for insisting that someone who doesn't approve of them make them something edible. I'd be concerned that they would bake a cake that, at best, tasted shitty or, at worst, had some questionable ingredients.
I never send food back to the kitchen in a restaurant for just that reason.
the business was targeted, wasn't it?
Yeah, all that 'were here and were queer, get over it' can be a tough sell in that part of the country, and the closer you get to Colorado Springs, the worse it gets, due in large part to 'Focus on the Family' (or as we used to call it when I lived there, 'Focus on your own damm Family') I gotta think that this non-story is about something else, and not just a couple of *rump-rangers* who randomly got their feelings hurt. I lived there for ten yaers, Denver, Colorado Springs, Lakewood, Wheatridge and Golden, and never noticed an unusual amount of that type of behavior, or heard about it, for the most part peeps were cool there.
It probably was. I doubt anyone else read the linked article, or the actual court ruling beyond that, but suing cake makers is a "thing" apparently. On page 18:
"An Oregon ALJ reached a similar conclusion when addressing an Oregon bakery’s argument that its refusal to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple was not on account of the couple’s sexual orientation, but rather the bakery’s
objection to participation in the event for which the cake would be prepared — a same-sex wedding ceremony."
Let us make logic! nobody in their right fucking mind would demand someone that hated them to make them a tastey fucking pastry. it simply does not add up. this is not what happens in the real world. this is bullshit politics.
Almost 100% of these cases are brought by social justice warrior types. Litigation sucks enough to avoid this shit at all costs. All SCOTUS cases are hand selected and fluffed for the best narrative. We live in a contrived world.
If only they knew the disservice they were doing.
You never buy fast food then?
Cos pound to a penny not everyone who serves you fast food loves their customers.
I once worked with an exMcDonalds employee, and baed on one conversation we had on a single day (He struck me as being a very truthful sort of dude, birds of a feather and all that...) I would NEVER buy a choclate shake from their solihull branch...
want to end it quick---just knee cap their lawyer---he'll be in court on krutches beging the "judge" to throw out the previous ruling--it's just a ruling you know--not the law--
Sure, I'll bake you a chocolate cake.
With a creamy, peanutty fudge layer...
This cannot be rightfully adjudicated by the black robed pigs of the Judiciary. Nor can it be properly resolved by the ballot box.
There is really just one way remaining, and history teaches that freedom almost always requires bloody sacrifice. Personally, I don't think any Merikan, sans those of the III percent would even consider it.
I renounce my pledge of allegiance to a nation of men who sneer at my Constitution with the passion of a rabid pig.
Oink Oink...
Would you really want to eat something prepared by someone forced to provide it to you? Not me!
Most people aren't rapists. You'd have to be a rapist to enjoy forcing somebody to do something against their will.
I remember a story about a bakery who refused a birthday cake for a father who named his kid Adolph Hitler. Everyone stuck up for the bakery. Double standard !!!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3797823/Adolf-Hi...
Let them eat cake...
The guillotine grows hungrier by the day. This one will make it to the Supreme Court for sure.
Nothing supreme about that peice of statist shit.
If I can discriminate against fundamentalist whack jobs, then it should be even steven, right? Ah, shit, damn ruling means I would hafta serve the christofascists too.
I'm gonna convert to Islam just so that I can give you some cold tempered steel. ;) Lefitist fllth
Another stupid religion, go ahead dirtbag.
What possible case precedent, logic, facts or black letter law could have been used by these so-called arbiters of justice?
Other than to make a "statement" that a business owners rights don't matter or exist...unless you are a "big business."
another reason why i'm never bothering to move back to the US. I STRONGLY believe that it is the right of a business to deny service if they so choose for ANY reason. Zero obligation to serve everyone, hell, even a whore is allowed to say no.
Under this ruling, a gay man who likes anal sex and, not finding an available anally inclined man, could force a prostitute who does not do anal, to do anal.
Or, first graders could be forced to take homosexual classes.