Does a business have Constitutional Rights. The answer is yes. The Supreme Court ruled in the 1920's that a business is a person an individual. So a business can be run on religious grounds. Case in point Chick Fil-A. Agusta National (Masters Golf Tournament) men's only membership, has the Constitutional right to run it's private club the way it wants to. What has been happening in the past 50 years is the Democrats have become more and more the Party that doesn't like our Constitution and when their Presidents appoint Federal Judges, those judges share the Party's dislike for our Constitution. Rather than follow it, they ignore it and rule their own way to futher the social agenda of the Democrat Party. It has allowed the minority to rule the majority using the power of the State (Government)through the Federal Courts. It is government tyanny.
The difference between the bakers cake and the musicians music. The baker can sale his cake to whom ever he chose, he can also refuse to sale his cake to who ever he chose. But if the baker sales me a cake. I can share the cake with who ever I chose, even against the bakers wishes. He may never sale me another cake if he were to learn I shared his cake with my dog. The musician sales there music in walmart, on I phones, I tunes, etc etc etc on a world market. If I buy there music for say 1:00 a song I should have the right to do with the song as I see fit just as I did with the bakers cake. But I can't The difference is in copyright laws.
The courts are more conservative today than they have been in decades.Review some of the recent Supreme Court cases.In addition, Bush "packed" federal disrict courts.
Tyranny comes in many guises. How would you like to live in a country ruled by a very small oligarchy that sees no need to observe even the pretense of democracy?
Fly, In some ways I feel I do in a oligarchy, executive order does that to me. I don't see much of an argument if I buy a copyrighted song not only do I get the song I get the copyright, so I cant complain when the artist doesn't want me playing his song as a march to the white house on my save democracy campaign. My ignorance is not above copyright law. If the copy right is place after I purchased the song then that's another case all toghether. As for the Supreme Court being more conservative that's in the eye of the beholder. As said before we SHOULD be voting on many controversheal issues.
I really don't know how to answer this question, it is very thought provoking. I look at it like this I would not like to be denied service because I was black. Yes they should have that right but as long as they are receiving government money they can't do so. The artist has a right to do what they do because they own the music and are protected by law. We all talk about being treated fair but in certain situations. People try to use the bible as a crotch but only in certain situations. Here's a question without using the bible explain to me why homosexuality is wrong?
Good question Jarock. I find myself lacking an answer. However if a society voted for laws against homosexuality then it would be deemed by law as wrong. I have heard arguments for the legalization of marijuana supported by the bible. I have heard arguments for the legalization as human rights. But until it is passed by a society into law it will be wrong. I can sing songs about it I can preach about it I can show kids on tv shows smoking it but by law it is wrong to have it, smoke it, bath in it, or give it away. Many feel there is nothing wrong with homosexuality many feel there is nothing wrong with marijuana. People can support gay right with the bible same as with herbs. Doesn't make it right or wrong its still a personal choice. What separates the issues is mans law. Homosexuality may not be wrong in your or my eyes but it is a double standard. How do we elect a standard for all people? With a vote.
Standards should never be place on a society by its government or its high courts. Standards should be place by the people. What is happening is government and its courts are dictating a standard.
Charles, to debate this without getting tangled up in copyright laws is like trying to debate homosexuality without the facts of child birth. It can not be done.
That be like looking into a basket containing 10 apples and 2 oranges. Then saying there is 12 fruit in the basket but no oranges. Don't get tangled up in the oranges. It doesn't work.
22, I chose to debate homosexuality as a choice and as a societal norm.
I understand that many people do not feel it is a choice; instead they feel it is a genetically driven. I disagree; I believe many people CHOOSE to identify as homosexual or bi-sexual. I prefer not to pursue the reasons why a person might choose this, as everyone is different and there is no way to confirm a persons reasons.
I also take the same position as you do that our society is still debating the acceptability of homosexuality. One position I do take is this – if homosexuality is presented as a human right to freely and openly pursue sexual preference without regards to societal norms, then what barriers do we have against pedophilia and other fringe expressions of sexuality? Don’t those people have a right to freely and openly express their sexuality as well?
Regarding the ‘who owns the cake/song’ position – well I still do not see a distinction. Let me approach this again.
Chef Boyardee is a devout man who owns a bakery. He sells cakes for people to eat, and his cakes are distinguished by a certain flavor. He would not want his cake re-sold, to protect his brand and the quality of his cake. He has no issue with people sharing his cake for free, once they buy it. A homosexual couple asks him to bake their wedding cake. He declines, citing his religious objections. He does not wish for his cake (or business) to be associated with behavior he objects to. They sue and win; he must comply or close.
Adam Ant is a rock musician. He creates music for people to listen to, and his music is recognizable and popular. He does not allow people to re-sell or personally profit from his music. He has no issue with people buying his music and playing it for others, once they buy it. They just cannot personally profit from it. Adam discovers that a Republican campaign is using his music at campaign functions (no personal profit). He strenuously objects, citing his established position as a Flaming Liberal and his opposition to Republican policy. He has his lawyer issue a cease and desist letter.
If you can argue that the baker MUST sell his cakes (distinguishable, created by his hand as part of his business) because he offers them for sale to the general public, then I feel I can argue that Adam Ant MUST make his music (distinguishable, created by his hand as part of his business) available under the same rule.
Copyright law is protection against copying for profit, stealing ideas, etc. It should not be a tool to distinguish who can play the music or for what purpose, except to exclude others from profiting off the artist’s intellectual work. If copyright gives Adam Ant the right to deny Republican use, then it seem logical (and certainly fair) that Chef Boyardee could use copy right to prevent his cakes from being used by homosexuals. If that is NOT the case, then we have a double standard.
When I take the facts of copyright law out of the equation. Then I see your point of the double standard. However by removing copyright laws and other facts I see this point as more of a rant. Copyright laws cover much more than, copy for profit, and stealing ideas it also gives the holder the right to determine who may adapt the work or even preform the work. If the baker copyrights his bakeries logo and uses said logo on all of his cakes. Then the same copyright laws should apply. It is my understanding that you can copyright a logo. If he bakes the cake under the copyrighted logo then he can have say, as to where his cake, with logo, can and by whom it may be eatin or displayed. You cant walk around with a coke can and claim that because you bought the coke you have the right to advertise your campaign with the coke logo.
No.. a logo is a trademark. Different than a song.
Call it a rant if you want, still a double standard.
Logos can be both trademark and copyright protected. They can be copyright protected at the exact moment you finish the design. A trademark takes much longer.
A double standard majic cake in blue. © Copyright 6/12/2013 by 22
"Omega Globe Design" is one example. You put this logo on a campaign add or sign and omega can by law make you take it down. Double standard or not.
If I wrote a song that hit number 1 on the billboard charts 8 weeks straight and Obama diddy bopped on stage to the rhythms and harmony of my song playing in the back ground. I would sue. I would win and that would make copyright infingment a standard. Not a double standard.
Then by your reckoning, I am wrong. Not the first time. Probably by everyone's reckoning, I am wrong. Not the first time for that either.
Call it a rant. I said what I meant to say and i feel the way I feel. I think I have a pretty well developed sense of right/wrong, and fair play. Double standard, IMO.
Long time, no talk...
With all due respect: you can't copyright a chord progression or a rhythm independently of a melody—otherwise, someone would have copyrighted the basic 12-bar blues progression long ago and become obscenely wealthy. You can copyright a melody, either solo or attached to lyrics. You can also copyright a specific recording (someone else isn't supposed to use it without permission).
I'll leave the political implications to wiser bloggers than myself, but—for your entertainment—here's the "Four-Chord Song" (Axis of Awesome), as proof that chord progressions can be...er..."borrowed."
You really can't compare the two. The music issue has to do with things like the fact that it is a public performance of the song and any public performance means the composer must be paid. That's why venues, broadcast facilities, etc. purchase blanket licenses from ASCAP and/or BMI. And then there's the issue of the fact that the candidate has misused the artist’s identity and created a false impression of endorsement, among other assertions.
So, you see...really can't compare. And I didn't even get into the whole internet thing...whew!
Dr Braz, They better not "barrow" my "song".
Charles, Im not saying your opinion is wrong. I do disagree.
Sparklebeam, sorry to stymie such closure as your last post. I share your opinion.
"I understand that many people do not feel it is a choice;"
It is NOT a choice. When did you choose to be straight? When did you choose to have your heart skip a beat when you see someone you love?
"instead they feel it is a genetically driven. I disagree;"
So you disagree with the thousands of Scientific studies that have proven that Homosexuality is not choice.
"I believe many people CHOOSE to identify as homosexual or bi-sexual. I prefer not to pursue the reasons why a person might choose this, as everyone is different and there is no way to confirm a persons reasons."
You mean you can't provide any logical reason why someone would choose to be hated by everyone including their families.
"if homosexuality is presented as a human right to freely and openly pursue sexual preference without regards to societal norms, then what barriers do we have against pedophilia and other fringe expressions of sexuality?"
CONSENT. Is it really that difficult a concept to understand? When two homosexuals engage in any activity they do so freely and with full knowledge of what they are doing, a child or an animal does not understand.
"Don’t those people have a right to freely and openly express their sexuality as well?"
No, because the other party they are involved with can not give CONSENT.
Phinex what about natural law? “Good should be pursed and evil avoided” Nothing will come of a seed if not planted etc. The seed will never be part of the forest. For man and woman to become a complete part of this universe under natural law there relationship would bring forth fruit. The practical laws of nature are lost when man and man love and woman and woman love there is no tree which bear fruit? In turn the nature of humanity will cease to exist.
Is this also supported my mathematical law 1+1=2? Do the laws of nature and mathematics not refer to reality? Would anything that is not certain then become naturaly taboo?
22, there is also homosexuality in the animal kingdom...yes, there is. And, actually, your mathematical law doesn't quite hold up there. If you are speaking about procreation, then 1+1 would actually = 3....isn't that right?
Sparkle, I would have to say it is quite embarrassing when my male pup mounts another pup of the same sex. It is also quite embarrassing when he mounts my leg. I would have to look to what Phoenix mentioned about consent and full knowledge. And yes 1+1 would = 3 in matters of procreation. There is a known outcome to math a standard that can not very, as well with nature
a standard where the outcome is a constant.
Homosexuality and its relation to natural law is in the lest and abnormality to the constant of the equation that is life. This can be applied to the animal kingdom as well. What are we doing when we manipulate the laws of nature and science? We are manipulating reality to what we desire.
Charlie, to your original post:
Scenario 1 - The musician has no legal ability to prevent anyone from using his product as long as they pay royalties (if they do not receive his or her or their permission to do so gratis).
Scenario 2 - How does the baker know a person's sexual orientation? IS the customer wearing a big yellow star? A sign that says, "Queer and proud"? Would you accord the baker the same right to refuse service to white men over 60?
I am pretty sure with all the lawyers around a political campaign, they pay royalties to stay out of trouble. The gripe I have is that a musician can say, "I don't support your cause, don't use my music" apparently without social repercussions.
Concerning how the baker knows... I assume the 'happy' couple comes in the shop and says "We would like you to do a cake for our wedding." The gripe I have is that a baker can't say, "I don't support your cause, don't use my cake" without social and legal repercussions.
I imagine a business owner should be able to refuse service to whomever he/she wishes, understanding that such action may irreparably harm his/her business.
Honestly, I think that if a business owner told me that they do not support me nor want their goods and services associated with my event, I would find a more supportive goods and services provider. There are always more bakers, photographers, and B&B owners. Why press the issue with a legal suit EXCEPT to push the gay agenda?
Oh yeah... ""We are manipulating reality to what we desire.""
"Why press the issue with a legal suit EXCEPT to push the gay agenda?"
How about to exercise legal rights? How about to seek to alleviate the embarrassment and pain of rejection? How about to make sure someone's son or daughter never suffers a similar humiliation?
As to the musician, the cause can always say "Screw off". Social repercussions are social - you can be part of the repercussion or you can sit and wring your hands at the unfairness of it all.
Much ado about nothing here. The politician is free to buy the record. I repeat; no one is refusing to sell her the record. She is expressly not authorized, by U.S. copyright law, to "perform the work publicly (in the case of sound recordings) by means of a digital audio transmission" without the artist's consent. Food products are not protected by copyright law, for some patently obvious reasons. This is not a liberal double standard, it is part of our long-standing legal code.
22-"Phinex what about natural law? “Good should be pursed and evil avoided”"
Homosexuality is found in Thousands of other spicies, how is Homosexuality not Natural?
Homosexuality in humans occurs at a rate of 10%. The current Human Population is 7.1+ Billion. Further, Homosexuals are quite capable of reproduction, through modern Medical procedures. Your hysterics about the end of the human race are illogical at best.
"Do the laws of nature and mathematics not refer to reality?"
No. the "Laws of nature" are a coward's way of refering their Religion in an attempt to appear intelligent in a discussion or debate because they know that their religious arguments don't hold water.
"Would anything that is not certain then become naturaly taboo?"
The Universe is full of Uncertainties and Taboos are Relative. By your logic Atomic Particles are Taboo.
What is my religion and how do you know?
Ill tell you, you do not know.
I must say for a man to have religion he would have to abandon intelligent thought all together. To do so is not the actions of a coward.
I myself am a coward that prefers not to impose human values on animals. Who are observed in truth as being bisexual not homosexual. Didn't you say animals do not understand?
I feel you see my logic as the argument of my religion which by degree leads your mind to close. Deeming my logic an insult.
I do not mean to insult only to provoke thought.
So I ask why are you insulted?
"What is my religion and how do you know?"
"Christian" most likely Chatholic, you paraphrase the book of Peter and Psalms and the whole "Natural Law" bullcrap comes from St. Thomas of Aquinas, it is not difficult to deduce.
"I must say for a man to have religion he would have to abandon intelligent thought all together. To do so is not the actions of a coward."
They are the actions of a fool.
"I myself am a coward that prefers not to impose human values on animals.Who are observed in truth as being bisexual not homosexual. Didn't you say animals do not understand?"
Nice try but your argument was that Homosexuality is not Natural to which I countered with the fact that Homosexuality has been observed in thousands of different species. And no, it is not true that they are bisexual, strick Homosexual pairing have been documented in many of the species that form long term parings, lying about scientific facts does not help your argument. NO, I did not say animals do not understand, I said they can not give consent.
"I feel you see my logic as the argument of my religion which by degree leads your mind to close. Deeming my logic an insult."
Your logic IS and argument of your religion and does not hold true, stop pretending that your arguments are anything other then religiously motivated, it is dishonest. Again your "Logic" does not hold true for the reasons I have already stated. Homosexuality has been observed and documented in thousands of species for years. Human Homosexuality is present in about 10% of the population and is not contagious, so the argument that if granting Homosexuals equal rights will somehow lead to the end of the human race is laughable.
"I do not mean to insult only to provoke thought."
You call people un-natural you don't mean to insult?
"CONSENT. Is it really that difficult a concept to understand? When two homosexuals engage in any activity they do so freely and with full knowledge of what they are doing, a child or an animal does not understand."
Read the above statement and tell me again that you did not say animals do not understand.
St. Thomas simply added his thoughts to a very old school of thought that is "natural law". Think Aristotle a man whos life was not to unlike Jesus.
If I say it is an unnatural act for someone to smoke. That does NOT mean I am calling the smoker un-natural. I am isolating the act as un-natural, NOT the person.
I never said anything about equal rights or religion. You assume.
My argument has nothing to do with religion dear.
IMO you belittle your own arguments by calling "Christian" "Hindus" "New Age" "Islamic" "Judaic" "Rastafarian" etc believers as all taking the actions of a fool. Is that not what you are saying?
If a man eats his own feces... I think you see where this is going.
What you do when you compare the behavior of animals as a proper comparison for the actions of man is this. You are supporting your own disapproval of this statement – "if homosexuality is presented as a human right to freely and openly pursue sexual preference without regards to societal norms, then what barriers do we have against pedophilia and other fringe expressions of sexuality? Don’t those people have a right to freely and openly express their sexuality as well?" Animals can also be observed mating with there own offspring, eating there own crap and eating there own kind...
One thing you will NEVER find in the animal kingdom.
An animal placed before a tribunal of its own peers for the un-natural act of filicide.
Also you will NEVER find in the animal kingdom the arrogant justification of filicide, in the form of abortion.
By law filicide has become a standard, separated only by the ethical decision of some men and woman that have chosen the life over the death of there own offspring.
Here is where we differ from animals we are bound by conscience to accept or not our own actions as moral behavior. One can not argue with a baboon or a mouse.
What is morally correct for you may not be morally correct for the person to your right.
They may be bound by a religious conviction. Through logic they may arrive to there own convictions.
One fact is this you can not support homosexual actions with the actions of animals without also realizing that by doing so you also support many of the actions of a sociopathic nut job.
I can understand a man and or a woman wanting to terminate there own pregnancy under certain circumstances. Especially if they where forced into such decisions by an animal.
Truth is I don't care if your gay.
I do however disagree with your logic on the mater.
"Read the above statement and tell me again that you did not say animals do not understand."
When engaging in sexual activity with an Adult Human. If you are too ignorant to understand what the argument was you are too ignorant to be having a debate on the matter.
"St. Thomas simply added his thoughts to a very old school of thought that is "natural law". Think Aristotle a man whos life was not to unlike Jesus."
Our understanding of the Natural world has improved a great deal in the last 3,000 years, I suggest you acquaint yourself with those advancement rather then rely on Bronze Age philosophers.
"If I say it is an unnatural act for someone to smoke. That does NOT mean I am calling the smoker un-natural. I am isolating the act as un-natural, NOT the person."
A person's sexuality is not something that can be isolated.
"I never said anything about equal rights or religion. You assume."
Then what is your purpose? Just to display your ignorance and bigotry? To equate Homosexuals to Pedophiles? To shame Homosexuals for who they are?
"My argument has nothing to do with religion dear."
I'm not your dear, You cited "Natural Law" and paraphrase Biblical passages, How does your argument have nothing to do with religion? That is all it is, that is all you have. You really don't have any other arguments. The acceptance of Homosexuals or granting them equal rights will not change Consent Laws. Homosexual account for roughly 10% of the population and the current Human population stand around 7.1 Billion and growning. Homosexuality is not contagious and will likely remain around 10%. So really what other argument do you have against Gays?
"IMO you belittle your own arguments by calling "Christian" "Hindus" "New Age" "Islamic" "Judaic" "Rastafarian" etc believers as all taking the actions of a fool. Is that not what you are saying?"
Spare me the faux persecution complex. Discarding rational, logical thought in favor of Bronze Age superstitions are the action of a fool.
"What you do when you compare the behavior of animals as a proper comparison for the actions of man is this."
Debunk your idiotic assertion that Homosexuality is Not Natural.
"then what barriers do we have against pedophilia and other fringe expressions of sexuality? Don’t those people have a right to freely and openly express their sexuality as well?"
Again CONSENT. A child cannot Consent to engage in sexual activity with an Adult. An Animal cannot Consent to engage in sexual activity with a Human Adult. Further, what barriers do we have against pedophilia, Now? Why would those barries fall, if Homosexual were given equal rights?
"Also you will NEVER find in the animal kingdom the arrogant justification of filicide, in the form of abortion."
How many Animal Languages do you speak?
"They may be bound by a religious conviction. Through logic they may arrive to there own convictions."
As it has been painfully pointed out several times, the "Logic" used by religious nut jobs does not hold water.
"One fact is this you can not support homosexual actions with the actions of animals without also realizing that by doing so you also support many of the actions of a sociopathic nut job."
Isn't that what you are trying to do with your idiotic "Natural Law" crap? And Again citing that Homosexuality exist in other species is to debunk the idiotic argument that Homosexuality is Un-Natural.
"Truth is I don't care if your gay.
I do however disagree with your logic on the mater."
You have yet to demostrate how my logic is faulty. All you have done is cite Bronze Age philosophies and throw in some false equivalencies and some strawmen.
Well in my religion we all eat rainbow stew and drink free bubble up just so we can forget we ever did and start all over again. I think we all find absolution in the end. Maybe I think this way to console my soul over my own sins against the great spirit or man. Or maybe I think this way because I believe love to be just that. But do you really expect me to believe any of that do I look like a fool? When I tell you you made this debate a religious mater, believe me you did. In this lies your fallacy. But right now you have me so perplexed I might as well be talking to an angel.
How could an argument with an ignorant man, be lost, if he have nothing to lose? author 22
Now theres some bs philosophy.