Why hasn't he sent in the regular military? Because he can't. He's NOT CIC.

Currently, we don't have enough evidence to know either way. We only know one thing, he "could have" stopped the count. He didn't. We DON'T know if it was planned as part of a scheme, or deliberate sabotage.

Even an actor would have to blink.

One better possibility, he's drugged up bigly! Cocaine or other stimulants can have this side effect. Assuming he's drugged up to be coherent, this would be a tell.

Either distraction or attempting to escape what's coming.

You are correct.

As a sole proprietor you would not be bound by corporate discrimination laws. It MAY be the same for LLCs and LLPs and others. I am not familiar with those structures to make such a determination.

You summarize well.

"It isn't about discrimination one bit at all. It is about not forcing people to do things that are against their religious (or other) beliefs." That's the heart of the problem.

IMHO, if the product of the BUSINESS is "custom cakes with inscription" then the business opens themselves up to this possibility. The business majority shareholder should be aware of this possibility before they decide to open the business.

In your example, "cake with a swastika..." would touch the "hate speech" laws and could be blown out thereby. Short of that, sadly, yes.

BUT: "goes against the business owner's beliefs." is where most people are getting hung up. INCORPORATED BUSINESSES don't have "owners." They have shareholders. The "owner" is usually considered the person who holds greater than 50 percent of the shares. The majority shareholder CAN direct the BUSINNESS to do something, but the BUSINESS will still be bound by the discrimination laws. The "beliefs" or "preferences" of the majority shareholder stop at the "corporate curtain."

With all respect, who? This is getting very confusing.

Great Question...

Well, from reading the energetic responses from many ppl here, they would say yes. The law however, both state and federal, doesn't agree.

An argument "COULD BE" that one gang member should prevent other gang members may be compelling, but the law doesn't have that distinction. Just because, for example, one Asian was rowdy, doesn't permit the barring of all Asians from your restaurant. That discrimination, like it or not, isn't allowed.

I fully understand, appreciate, and probably mostly agree with everyone here. The problem is that BUSINESSES are highly regulated and adherence to discrimination laws are regularly verified.

The "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is a SPECIFIC exception that is SPECIFICALLY outlined in law. It USUALLY requires that the SPECIFIC individual must have had prior contact with the business and that specific person has taken a SPECIFIC action that harms the business in some way. It can NOT be applied to a "general group" of persons. Trespassing an individual is one likely example. It can not be used to prohibit a general group from doing business with the business.

This is NOT intended to be legal advise.

I would shy away from giving LEGAL advise.

My reaction to your question would be that IF your aesthetician SPECIFIES in the "qualifications" or "capabilities" or "services offered" that she doesn't provide her service to males, then she would be (in my opinion) safe and NOT discriminating. Similarly, you can't require a plumber to fix your electrical device. It's outside their expertise or field of services offered.

If, however, she ADVERTISES that she provides her services to everyone, then if she turns down a male customer because he's male, then there's a problem. IMO

Similarly, if the plumber offers "Plumbing and Electrical Services" and won't fix your electrical device because you're a male, then there's a problem. IMO

This is only my opinion and NOT offered as legal advise.

You are correct. A DBA, LLC, LLP and other such entities are usually governed by respective state law and vary widely state to state. Specifically, I have no experience with those structures. It MAY BE true that such smaller structures are NOT bound by such strict discrimination laws. As a general rule, I would NOT risk such a legal quandary. IF I were running such an entity and had a desire to discriminate, I would dissolve the BUSINESS and sell a product as a PERSON.

That's an interesting angle.

You are correct, compelled speech violates the 5th amendment. I understand and agree with that.

Using this example:

The problem is that the "cake with an inscription" was the product. If the customer pays for it, it's the product. If the business accepts the money, then the business is selling the product. If the product was "cake" then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. The problem is that the product was "cake with inscription" (and probably decorations).

I don't like this any more than anyone else. The problem is that BUSINESS can't discriminate. Persons can. I FEEL (that's my opinion) the some people are not making that distinction. That distinction is very important.

As to your second part, can a Christian demand non kosher foods or a pork sandwich be sold to him/her; Well, -IF- the sandwich shop sells "custom" sandwiches, as subway sandwiches does, and that's one of the "options" then the BUSINESS must sell it as you described. BUT -IF- the BUSINESS offers ONLY SPECIFICALLY made sandwiches, OR that's NOT one of the options, then NO.

IF a business offers a product, then they can't discriminate against any general group of "customers." "This is my product ..., I won't sell my product to you because you're ..." is discrimination.

Technicalities sure. Thank you for the logical discussion.

If a business can refuse a customer because of religion, you become a Theocracy. (Ruled by religion) If a business can refuse a customer because of any general characteristic, you have a social MAJOR problem. Should a White owned restaurant be able to refuse to serve Blacks? No. That's why we have anti-discriminatory laws. Look, I have the same feelings as everyone else, but no, a BUSINESS can't discriminate against any generalized group. If you want to discriminate against anyone for any reason, then close the BUSINESS and do your business as a PERSON. Then you're fine to discriminate anything.

A CUSTOMER deciding NOT to BUY from a BUSINESS is a whole different thing. As a CUSTOMER we DO have the right to NOT BUY from any particular BUSINESS for any reason we choose.

The deciding point is when you open a business. Before you open a business, you can do whatever you want. Once you open a business, you accept the limitations. Your finances are separated, your morals are separated from the business. The business is its own entity. It doesn't matter what the product is. Intellectual, physical or "art" it's the product. The product comes from the business, not you. If you don't want to sell to Jews, Christians or frogs then close the business. Business is business. I totally understand people's emotions, and I have the same feelings, but having run businesses, I know that once the business is open, then YOU are NOT the BUSINESS. The business is a separate entity, governed by DIFFERENT laws than the individual person.

IMHO, this is a bad decision. Businesses CAN'T discriminate. There's a REASON for that. Should a Jewish deli discriminate against Christians? Should a Christian business discriminate against a Jewish customer? This decision opens that door. Once you decide to open a business you can't discriminate. When you are working out of your own house, then you CAN discriminate, but once you become a legal business, you can't discriminate. This is a dangerous decision IMHO.

Interesting thought!!

The fact the it's being denied tells me that SCOTUS agrees that there is NO LAW in the USA that HAS TO be obeyed. Not even the constitution.

It's black and white what the procedures are, and SCOTUS says they don't have to be obeyed. To SCOTUS there is no such thing as the US Constitution.

Unless they take out Kameltoe also, this could be a new/different problem.

Why does this frighten me? Who is he buying off?

YES!

No

Wow, I did NOT know this until you mentioned it. The Fourth Amendment does not provide absolute protection in all circumstances, including when there is probable cause to believe that a person has committed treason.

You may be on to something important.

More charges CAN BE BROUGHT when his father is not longer in control of the power of the pardon.

From Chat GPT:

According to the 22nd Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1951, a president of the United States is limited to serving two terms in office. This amendment states that no individual can be elected to the office of the president more than twice. However, if an individual serves more than two years of someone else's term, they can only be elected to the office once more, for a total of no more than ten years in office.

The restriction on serving a third term is not contingent on whether the country is in a time of war. The 22nd Amendment applies regardless of the circumstances, including periods of war or other national emergencies.

This amendment was introduced to prevent the accumulation of excessive executive power and to ensure a regular turnover of leadership in the presidency. It was a response to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's four-term presidency, which extended from 1933 to 1945, covering the Great Depression and most of World War II.