-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 10/21/18 2:18 PM, jim bell wrote:

On Sunday, October 21, 2018, 1:53:05 AM PDT, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

State Demands Christian US Filmmakers Make Same-Sex Films or Face Jail Time State Demands Christian US Filmmakers Make Same-Sex Films or Face Jail Time

...

https://bbs.thegoyimknow.to/t/state-demands-christian-us-filmmakers-m ake-same-sex-films-or-face-jail-time/302452

...

I consider the State's demand curious, because it is not reported whether the films that these producers are supposed to be required to make must cover same-sex marriages in a "positive", as opposed to a "negative" manner. After all, if an agricultural State wanted to require its film producers to make films about farming, would those producers satisfy the law by making the movie, "Children of the Corn", from a story by Stephen King? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_the_Corn_(1984_film) Jim Bell

i can't imagine that requirement would stand any legal challenge if it indeed exists. 1st amendment protects speech and also tends to protect from compelled speech. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQGcBAEBCAAGBQJbzMk2AAoJEPn/Y5FXPbRC+LwL/1IyDvpI1X0eOSu/4aq75WQj QtbzBOKKuqSGj1//YV1tSyzGirKrZ7o4BBUCYynsQMJAoLvq2oajloFGA4RSW8xj lH3piHfUyvFDwyC+/+5PIlIZjQrm2nTxCeOx4nmI6++WSMoyUKbj9xvjK67h+U5R Az9pycJ3WyQfJl0pUt25ifjnWQkkuvlIBbDKXfnQ/mksT8JbG03EDrNPCzGhxJ5d lWG8DDhwF1NaYtbIbBwAXbPjLDHmTUjl9dgTc4rLG2nbHrVLvM06Xk1lUx9KFGj4 jDMwYYAwPLh99YsIICLo5FuIn20x7ku3fkLPpdIe1CPptIdws/IHt7LvKCRX4eEI aGZyIsSPdOB2ewbfAy4BGXL356PWztuCCLYrcODFrSLljQr6AFWFZNUsj74a1Wru FX4GvfpS9ztQoEicerLo6b3EEx0zjkggEgvM7W3AVU7Qra2XxTNHLYX7Ow9iCVnQ 9THKTwQJsUVITS3zCJ8L8KBlIp6tEGR9XIbT7P1/Rg== =3txU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------- Original message -------- From: Marina Brown Date: 10/21/18 11:45 AM (GMT-08:00) To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Subject: Re: Minnesota "Human Rights": State Demands Christian US Filmmakers  Make Same-Sex Films or Face Jail Time - [PEACE] On 10/21/18 2:18 PM, jim bell wrote:

On Sunday, October 21, 2018, 1:53:05 AM PDT, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

State Demands Christian US Filmmakers Make Same-Sex Films or Face Jail Time State Demands Christian US Filmmakers Make Same-Sex Films or Face Jail Time

...

https://bbs.thegoyimknow.to/t/state-demands-christian-us-filmmakers-m ake-same-sex-films-or-face-jail-time/302452

...

I consider the State's demand curious, because it is not reported whether the films that these producers are supposed to be required to make must cover same-sex marriages in a "positive", as opposed to a "negative" manner.  After all, if an agricultural State wanted to require its film producers to make films about farming, would those producers satisfy the law by making the movie, "Children of the Corn", from a story by Stephen King? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_the_Corn_(1984_film) Jim Bell

i can't imagine that requirement would stand any legal challenge if it indeed exists. 1st amendment protects speech and also tends to protect from compelled speech.

It makes we wonder why any legislature would pass such an obviously-unconstitutional law.  Maybe virtue-signalling is a factor.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling "Virtue signalling, spelled virtue signaling in the United States, is the conspicuous expression of moral values.[1] The term was first used in signalling theory, to describe any behavior that could be used to signal virtue—especially piety among the religious.[2] In recent years, the term has become more commonly used as a pejorative by commentators to criticize what they regard as empty or superficial support of certain political views, and also used within groups to criticize their own members for valuing appearance over action.[3][4][end of quote] One major problem is that simultaneously, that legislature is "signalling" that they consider the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution worthless.                      Jim Bell | | | | | | | | | | | Morality Moral philosophy includes moral ontology, which is the origin of morals; and moral epistemology, which studies t... | | | ×

https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol52/iss1/2/ Prior to 1964, there was a doctrine that "public accommodations" had to serve all customers, in large part because those customers had no or little choice but to deal with the government or business.  On Sunday, October 21, 2018, 3:16:37 PM PDT, Marina Brown wrote: On 10/21/18 6:05 PM, jim bell wrote:

...

...

state-demands-christian-us-filmmakers-m ake-same-sex-films-or-face-jail-time

How about looking at actual law rather than what some ideologue says ? "The goyim know" is a nazi site.

https://codes.findlaw.com/mn/human-rights-ch-363-363a/mn-st-sect-363a-02.htm...

The question at hand appears to be whether wedding photography is a public service or accomodation.

I don't think it can properly be labelled a "public service", unless some governmental or quasi-governmental entity provides it. The term "public accomodation" began to be abused in about 1964. scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol52/iss1/2/ Prior to 1964, there was a doctrine that "public accommodations" had to serve all customers, in large part because those customers had no or little choice but to deal with the government or business.   There were very few "public accommodations".  Utilities, ferries, motels on highways, etc.  And that made sense.    But the 1964 Civil Rights Act decided that it was okay for governments to force businesses to not discriminate, analogous to the fact that prior to 1964, many governments REQUIRED businesses to discriminate ("Jim Crow Laws").   As a libertarian, I cannot abide such control by government.   Also, I am quite confident that in the situation where government neither required nor prohibited businessess from engaging in discrimination, very few businesses would engage in any such discrimination unless the public considered it reasonable.  ("No shirt, no shoes, no service").                     Jim Bell From:    scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol52/iss1/2/       A 1968 law article. "Under English common law, it was the duty of-a common carrier toserve all persons 5 without imposing unreasonable conditions.6 TheEnglish courts considered that "a person [who] holds himself out tocarry goods for everyone as a business . .. is a common carrier,"' andthat any member of the public may create a, contract with the carrierby accepting its general offer.8 The rule remains the same today.9Wherever English common law was exported, the rule that carriershad to serve the public without unreasonable discrimination went withit. The rule is therefore found in cases from Australia," Burma,1Canada,12 India,13 Ireland,' 4 and New Zealand. 15 An early South Africancase held that since a public utility must serve the whole public,an electric tramway could not refuse to carry non-Europeans,"8 althougha later case held that race was a reasonable ground for refusalto carry passengers.7From its earliest days, American law followed the English ruleI'8that railroads and ,other common carriers were legally bound to carryall persons and could not unreasonably exclude anybody, but they hadpower to make reasonable regulations and discriminations, and excludepassengers on reasonable grounds. 9 Even before the Civil War theIllinois Supreme Court had pointed out that ferrymen were commoncarriers because '!he enjoys'a franchise-a special privilege, which isgranted to 'him in 'conseqfience of his superior qualifications to fill apublic trust. 2 0 ° That court also pointed'out that "railroads are .'. commonhighways ... in the sense of being compelled to accept of each andall, and take'and catry to the extent of their ability."21'The rule remains unchanged to the present time. Thus it has beenheld that because of the special privilege of a monopoly franchise givento a common carrier to peiform a service for the public,22 the carrier,like other public utilities, cannot abandon its service without permissionof the authorized governmental commission.2 3 Thus, a recent case hasnoted- "This duty of a common carrier to meet the needs of the publicarises from its acceptance and enjoyment of the' powers and privilegesgranted by'the State and endures 'so long as they' are retained."24 Adistinguishing hallmark of common ;carriers is the obligation to carryall persons without unreasonable discrimination.2 5 Conversely, a carrier which reserves the right to pick and choose its passengers is not a commoncarrier.26 Thus, common carriers of passengers could not engagein racial discrimination merely by virtue of common law or statutoryrules prohibiting unreasonable discrimination, entirely aside from anyspecial statute banning racial discrimination.17Under English common law, a similar rule applied to innkeepers,2who were likewise bound to accommodate all travelers, unless they hadreasonable cause to refuse.2 9 The rule was similar in Scotland, althoughthere hotels could pick the class of guests they chose to accommodate."Cases to the same effect are found in Australia,3' Canada, 32 Ireland,33and South Africa. 34 Thus, when a Negro sued a London hotel for refusinghim accommodations, he was allowed to recover on the theorythat such discrimination was simply one of the many types of unreasonablediscrimination, and no special consideration was paid to the factthat racial discrimination was involved. 35 The Lord Justice-Clerk of theScottish Court of Session observed in a similar case:It is obvious that the defenders are not entitled to exclude thepursuer from their hotel because he is a Jew; and it would havemade no difference, in my opinion, had it been proved that he isa Jew of German origin. An individual is not responsible, andought not to be made responsible, for his ancestry. 3"[end of long quote]

On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 06:16:35PM -0400, Marina Brown wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256

On 10/21/18 6:05 PM, jim bell wrote:

...

...

...

state-demands-christian-us-filmmakers-m ake-same-sex-films-or-face-jail-time

How about looking at actual law rather than what some ideologue says ? "The goyim know" is a nazi site.

https://codes.findlaw.com/mn/human-rights-ch-363-363a/mn-st-sect-363a-02 .html

The question at hand appears to be whether wedding photography is a public service or accomodation.

Oh wow! You're absolutely right - thegoyimknow.to is utter Nazi right wing extremist propaganda - pure trolling. Here's a more up market link for ya: https://www.westernjournal.com/state-demands-christian-us-filmmakers-make-se... A Christian couple who owns a media company is suing the state of Minnesota after being threatened with fines and imprisonment if they refuse to make films involving same-sex marriage. ... (I won't paste it all in.) PS: Whether the question at hand trumps free speech and the right to freedom of thought/ religion/ belief, and the right to be NOT compelled to work for others against your own free will, is the REAL question at hand. This is an old barrister trick: a reasonably plump pidgeon loses a court case in a lowly Magistrate's court, and "muh principles" compel him (or shim) to "fight tha gud fight", but the system or deep state does not particularly want to see a win, but the dang pidgeon has a right to appeal. What to do? Well, the smooth barrister first offers a pro-bono deal that goes like this: "Look I know you don't have access to much funds, and really truly wuly I'd like to represent you pro-bono, but I have this other client here already, and they're already paid $25,000, so you see, unless we can come up with $25,000 to pay them back I won't be able to help you, see?" Now that's one FINE piece of social engineering if ever I saw one. Notwithstanding, pidgeon pays barrister, and what does barrister do? Barrister appeals the case "on a point of law" as is the want of 800 years of "fine English common law history", and asks a sophisticated sounding, but losing, question. Now I don't know about you, but asking some fine legal distinction between "photography is a public service, or accomodation" (and just ignoring free speech, compelled speech, compelled work, creative expression, right to freedom of religion/ thought/ etc) is an absolute classic of legal shirttuckery. Good luck, PS: If you're a little timid and scared of searching Googoyle, and really want some decent Nazi propaganda which will really twist your brain in three (DO --NOT-- GO THERE) there's an absolutely deplorable documentary “Adolf Hitler - The Greatest Story Never Told”. I've^B<ahem>A friend tells me it's really quite good despite being slow (spread over 3 DVDs) and therefore needing to be watched at roughly double speed. [<⟨Trigger warninpc: u might end up with RSI from making lampshades⟩>]