The Conundrum

[4est_4est_Gump]

It doesn't really sounds like the owner handled things in the best way ... But if the group were indeed deliberately secreting graphic material around the place, I can see why he may have been a bit irate. Not that it was ok, but it's understandable.

They weren't.


That's a lie. They were turned out for their activities off the premise.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Thanks, I appreciate that Colonel. I'm a little conflicted with a state governor who signs a law that causes an employee, sworn to uphold the Constitution, to possibly violate his oath of office and frustrate, hinder, through noncooperation, the constitutional functions of the federal government to enforce federal law. I have no doubt about how the 9th Circuit will come down on this, but I'm not sure about the SCOTUS.

To me this law encourages illegal aliens to enter the United States and when you have the state providing such inducements as college tuition the possibility of a violation of Title 8, U.S.C. 1324 comes into question:

Harboring -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.

Encouraging/Inducing -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who -- encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.

Conspiracy/Aiding or Abetting -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(v) expressly makes it an offense to engage in a conspiracy to commit or aid or abet the commission of the foregoing offenses.

Bringing Aliens to the United States -- Subsection 1324(a)(2) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has not received prior authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, to bring to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever, such alien, regardless of any official action which may later be taken with respect to such alien.

https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1907-title-8-usc-1324a-offenses

Nope. None of the above is applicable to our discussion of a state operating under its authority under the 10th Amendment (whatever that may be). The above citations are all criminal penalties. You can't convict the entity of an entire state, acting through its legislature and governor, of a crime. From your link:

Penalties -- The basic statutory maximum penalty for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(i) and (v)(I) (alien smuggling and conspiracy) is a fine under title 18, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both. With regard to violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(ii)-(iv) and (v)(ii), domestic transportation, harboring, encouraging/inducing, or aiding/abetting, the basic statutory maximum term of imprisonment is 5 years, unless the offense was committed for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in which case the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years.

If the entire state is guilty, who goes to jail?

You were on much firmer footing with 8 USC 1373 and City of New York v. United States.

 

[KimGordon67]

They weren't.


That's a lie. They were turned out for their activities off the premise.

I can't see anything in either report you've linked to that states either of those things. Can you quote it for me as i"'ve obviously missed something

 

[Colonel Hogan]

From the above link:

Members of Abolish Human Abortion recently decided to order drinks in Seattle’s Bedlam coffee shop after posting and distributing pro-life pamphlets in the local community. Activists who joined Caleb Head and Caytie Davis on Oct. 1 were soon berated and told the leave when they were identified.

A Christian pro-life group that was recently ejected...

“Are you denying us service?” Mr. Davis asked.

“I am. Yeah,” Mr. Borgman replied.

Mr. Borgman also said that anti-abortion imagery was hidden within his shop.



The material was out of sight. They were known just like the bakers and the photographer were "known."

Ooops. Sorry. I thought all that occurred after they were served.

Well, then....

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Ooops. Sorry. I thought all that occurred after they were served.

Well, then....

That's okay.

That's why I did due diligence and provided the second link. Someone else here hasn't figured that out.


(I think she's pursuing an agenda...)

 

[Rightguide]

Nope. None of the above is applicable to our discussion of a state operating under its authority under the 10th Amendment (whatever that may be). The above citations are all criminal penalties. You can't convict the entity of an entire state, acting through its legislature and governor, of a crime. From your link:



If the entire state is guilty, who goes to jail?

You were on much firmer footing with 8 USC 1373 and City of New York v. United States.

So the Democrat Governor, state politicians, local mayors, Sheriffs, and radical city council people could conspire to adopt inducements to attract 5 million illegal aliens into the state for the policial purpose of dispossessing and disenfranchising the lawful citizenry and escape unpunished? Don't answer that.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

So the Democrat Governor, state politicians, local mayors, Sheriffs, and radical city council people could conspire to adopt inducements to attract 5 million illegal aliens into the state for the policial purpose of dispossessing and disenfranchising the lawful citizenry and escape unpunished? Don't answer that.

Send them more refugees...


[Cue Tom Petty; rip ]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Another shining example:

So, what did our Cam do to be called on the carpet? Did he disrespect the country that has so richly rewarded him by refusing to honor it by standing respectfully while the national anthem is played? Did he assert, as so many NFL players are doing now, that America is one large racist ghetto where blacks are held down by racist whites? Did he claim that American police officers are cryto-kluxers who seek out and kill innocent black Americans for their amusement? No, no, no. Nothing so trifling as these. Testosterone-free NFL officials, coaches, and owners have made it clear that these actions, slanders, and whopping lies are in fact courageous acts and are to be protected.

Cam’s offense, in the eyes of NFL officials, was far more heinous than suggesting that America is a racist hell-hole unworthy of respect. (I’m about to reveal what Cam did. Reader discretion is advised. You might want to put the children to bed.) There’s no way to sugar-coat this, or take the horror out of it. So I’ll just flat out tell you: Cam had a little fun with the relatively new requirement of having women football reporters.

It happened in this wise: Wednesday, Charlotte Observer reporter Jourdan Rodriguez, a person of the female persuasion, asked Newton about the way receiver Devin Funchess was running his pass routes. Newton, contrary to all current rules of civilized discourse, replied, “It’s funny to hear a female talk about routes. It’s funny.”

[Big-ass Cam smile] ...

Of course the full weight of political correctness fell on Newton’s untutored head. In a statement from league headquarters the NFL gasped that Newton’s statement was “just plain wrong and disrespectful to the exceptional female reporters and all journalists who cover our league.”

Panthers officials were quick to recognize the offense and to counsel their overpriced quarterback on his departure from the party line. “I think there are conversations going on at the club level with the appropriate people with the Panthers,” NFL spokesman Joe Lockhart said. “I don’t want to anticipate the league stepping in.”

Disrespect the country all you want, but women???

He never even laid a hand on her...

 

[Rightguide]

Send them more refugees...


[Cue Tom Petty; rip ]

Yeah, it's over.

 

[KimGordon67]

That's okay.

That's why I did due diligence and provided the second link. Someone else here hasn't figured that out.


(I think she's pursuing an agenda...)

I'm not denying that they were refused service.
I've consistently said that the owner didn't appear to handle things in the best way.
I'm still waiting for evidence that they didn't hide material in the premises. (I also didn't see anything that stated their material 'was out of sight' but maybe I missed that too?)

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

You want me to prove a negative?


Did the owner produce the offensive material after the fact? That would have made his case. Instead he just "stated it."


It reminds me of certain people here...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Think about it.

They say, they came in to take a break and enjoy some good coffee...


He says, they were hiding stuff all over the place. Now when he confronted them, were they are over the place or sitting as a group expecting to be served, like the lesbians expected to be served? He didn't even have a religious objection. He's just a bigoted prick.

 

[KimGordon67]

You want me to prove a negative?


Did the owner produce the offensive material after the fact? That would have made his case. Instead he just "stated it."


It reminds me of certain people here...

Did anybody deny it?

 

[KimGordon67]

Think about it.

They say, they came in to take a break and enjoy some good coffee...


He says, they were hiding stuff all over the place. Now when he confronted them, were they are over the place or sitting as a group expecting to be served, like the lesbians expected to be served? He didn't even have a religious objection. He's just a bigoted prick.

If all the material was 'out of sight' and wasn't distributed around the shop, how did he know they were (a) Christians and (b) anti abortion activists?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Did anybody deny it?

yes





The owner denied it because he produced no materials.


He did what he did because it was reported to him that they were distributing these materials "in the community."

 

[KimGordon67]

yes





The owner denied it because he produced no materials.


He did what he did because it was reported to him that they were distributing these materials "in the community."

Ok, going back through the articles it seems that the group did deny hiding material in the premises.
I can't see any reference to the owner either producing or failing to produce the material.
I can't see any reference to how he knew who they were other than his barista telling him ... how did the barista know?
I can't see any reference to the (potentially graphic) material being either in sight or out of sight.

 

[Ishmael]

If all the material was 'out of sight' and wasn't distributed around the shop, how did he know they were (a) Christians and (b) anti abortion activists?

Let's see, you dropped out of school after the 4th grade, right?

Ishmael

 

[Bray123]

Yeah, and I'm tired of being told that I have no ground to stand upon on the topic of abortion because I'm a man. Not because I haven't studied the subject in order to make a rational argument as to why I oppose it, but because of the emotional reaction to anyone who might have qualms about taking a life. On the other hand, here you are, like them, with an emotional appeal seemingly proud of you lack of knowledge on the subject.

The fact of the matter is, as I stated before and you probably missed, the emotional appeal to the deaths caused by the followers of Allah, we are told, have to be dismissed, because we taint the entire religion because of a tiny number of bad actors, and yet here you are, tainting all of those whom own guns with a tiny minority of bad actors.

Islam killed 3,000+ in one day...

Did I say that? I don't believe I did. I suspect that what I said was the people insist that I have no right to express an opinion on death because I might confuse an AK with an AR.

However since you've just raised the subject, 'Christians' have killed many more people than 'Muslims' in the last 2K years, including during my lifetime in the UK where Christians have murdered other Christians because they don't like their Christianity. Or something like that, no-one really knows.

 

[Rightguide]

Let's see, you dropped out of school after the 4th grade, right?

Ishmael

She's a Validdicktorian, fucked in the head.

 

[KimGordon67]

Let's see, you dropped out of school after the 4th grade, right?

Ishmael

Sure. If it brightens your day to think that, by all means do.

 

[Rightguide]

This would probably be funnier if you gave your actual reason for 'thinking' that.

There's no need for a reiteration of your posting history. It's right there.

 

[Ishmael]

Sure. If it brightens your day to think that, by all means do.

Makes no difference to my day at all. Just an observation of the level of logical thought you apply to an issue.

I can only wonder what your response to a similar scenario would be, where the business owner kicked a group of LGBT's out of the store because "they were hiding stuff all over" (no evidence provided)?

And I can only wonder that if I were to jump to the business owners defense that you would think I'm as lame ass ignorant as I think you are right now?

Ishmael

 

[KimGordon67]

Makes no difference to my day at all. Just an observation of the level of logical thought you apply to an issue.

I can only wonder what your response to a similar scenario would be, where the business owner kicked a group of LGBT's out of the store because "they were hiding stuff all over" (no evidence provided)?

And I can only wonder that if I were to jump to the business owners defense that you would think I'm as lame ass ignorant as I think you are right now?

Ishmael

I've repeatedly said he didn't handle things in the best way. Repeatedly.
His sexual orientation doesn't actually make a blind of difference to my thoughts about that.

Do I care very much about the feelings of anti-abortion activists? Not a great deal, no, given their frequent lack of regard for the feelings of women who have abortions.
Do I think someone should be refused service because of their religious beliefs? No.
Do I think someone should be refused service because they are anti-abortion. No.

From the links I've read, a full and factual account of what happened here is fairly lacking, from both sides. A lot of what AJ has said seems to be based on surmising on his part, although maybe I've missed some things in the account.

 

[Paendragon]

The Swiss model only works for Switzerland. You realize all those banks simply hold other people's money, right?

There isn't that much incentive to invade and kick your ass when all you've basically got is snow and cheese. Oh, and watches. Nice watches.

But, to be sure, there is a security in being a less than tempting target or threatening aggressor.

They only have a five percent active rate. There's a lot of room between 100% and 5%. Still, we do have a similar per capita with the EU I think, so there's that.

For the record, I'm not a strict "take all if the guns" guy.

 

[Paendragon]

That standing Federal army is made up of people that do not even understand the antics of the Left.

In other words, we don;t fear our sons, daughters, brother sisters and other members of our family and community turning their guns on us at the behest of a government of tyrants.

This is my point. That's why the "tyranny" argument is insulting. The idea that our military would turn on it's citizenry is silly. And if it did, we'd, frankly, be fucked.