The following warnings occurred:
Warning [2] Undefined variable $unreadreports - Line: 32 - File: global.php(961) : eval()'d code PHP 8.1.28 (Linux)
File Line Function
/inc/class_error.php 153 errorHandler->error
/global.php(961) : eval()'d code 32 errorHandler->error_callback
/global.php 961 eval
/printthread.php 16 require_once
Warning [2] Undefined property: MyLanguage::$archive_pages - Line: 2 - File: printthread.php(287) : eval()'d code PHP 8.1.28 (Linux)
File Line Function
/inc/class_error.php 153 errorHandler->error
/printthread.php(287) : eval()'d code 2 errorHandler->error_callback
/printthread.php 287 eval
/printthread.php 117 printthread_multipage



Green Bay Forum
SCOTUS non partison ? - Printable Version

+- Green Bay Forum (http://www.greenbayweathercam.com/gbf)
+-- Forum: Lets Talk (http://www.greenbayweathercam.com/gbf/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: The Nation (http://www.greenbayweathercam.com/gbf/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Thread: SCOTUS non partison ? (/showthread.php?tid=20)

Pages: 1 2 3

RE: SCOTUS non partison ? - j.p. - 10-12-2018

??? Yes, people have no obligation to get into the baking or bar business.

RE: SCOTUS non partison ? - k.d. - 10-12-2018

It is not about an obligation to go into a business, but the right to decide whom you want to serve. The property owner is the one who runs the risk if the market doesn't like the way they operate.

RE: SCOTUS non partison ? - j.p. - 10-12-2018

(10-12-2018, 12:46 PM)k.d. Wrote: It is not about an obligation to go into a business, but the right to decide whom you want to serve. The property owner is the one who runs the risk if the market doesn't like the way they operate.

You are incorrect. You know that, right ?

RE: SCOTUS non partison ? - k.d. - 10-12-2018

Please correct me,then.

RE: SCOTUS non partison ? - j.p. - 10-12-2018

(10-12-2018, 06:07 PM)k.d. Wrote: Please correct me,then.

Civil rights act

RE: SCOTUS non partison ? - k.d. - 10-12-2018

Seriously? The bar owner who refuses to serve someone whom he feels has had too much to drink can have the Feds come down on him?

RE: SCOTUS non partison ? - j.p. - 10-13-2018

Don't think a hammered bar patron is necessarily protected by Civil rights Act of 1964. I was responding specifically to the "right to decide whom you want to serve" comment.

RE: SCOTUS non partison ? - k.d. - 10-13-2018

(10-13-2018, 07:22 AM)j.p. Wrote: Don't think a hammered bar patron is necessarily protected by Civil rights Act of 1964. I was responding specifically to the "right to decide whom you want to serve" comment.

Exactly, and the bar owner was deciding whom he wanted to serve. It is no different than "no shoes. no shirt, no service".

RE: SCOTUS non partison ? - j.p. - 10-14-2018

Agree. Cept he might not have the choice whether to serve or not to serve a drunk. And the no shoes/shirt thing would have to apply to everyone.

RE: SCOTUS non partison ? - k.d. - 10-15-2018

Property rights is about individual rights, not about collectivism or the rights of a collective.