Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Opposing Views)   Baker who refused to make a cake for same sex couple says he prefers gay sex without the commitment   (opposingviews.com ) divider line 314
    More: Dumbass, Fox News, gay sex  
•       •       •

1179 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Dec 2013 at 9:06 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



314 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-11 10:53:34 AM  

dinomyar: Zasteva: There is no such thing as a "gay wedding cake". Wedding cake does not have sexual orientation.


Depends on the decorations. When you get the figurines for the top of the cake, they normally come in man/wife pairs. Should he be forced to purchase other supplies, or open multiple packages to fulfill this order?


if that's the case, and they want the little figurine to be a same sex couple, which he doesn't stock, instead of being a prick about it, he should have called it a "special order" and charged them more since he had to order something he doesn't normally stock.
 
2013-12-11 10:53:37 AM  

Ambivalence: While I agree this guy is a bigot, I don't understand where it's illegal for him to refuse. Businesses can refuse to serve anyone. And the public can refuse to do business with them for it. Nobody likes a bigot.


That is the way it should be. They are correct however the CO does currently have laws in place that would in theory force him to make the cake. He is challenging it.
 
2013-12-11 10:54:11 AM  

EWreckedSean: Zasteva: EWreckedSean: Zasteva: There's a very simple solution.

He can simply subcontract a different cake shop to make the cake, have it delivered to his shop, and call them to pick it up. He might not make any money, but they'll have their cake from his shop and he won't have had to violate his principles by making it.

This will only be a problem if his objection is to them being able to get a wedding cake at all, rather than one of him personally having to make it.

EWreckedSean: Or they could simply call another cake shop. this is 2013. I bet I could find 20 place that make cakes within 10 minutes of here.

Yes, they could do that, but they are under no obligation to. Instead they've chosen to stand up for their rights. 

The baker, on the other hand, is obligated to serve whoever comes to his place of public accommodation, regardless of race, creed, gender or sexual orientation. He's chosen to defy that requirement.

Yes, and I think the requirement is wrong. I think it unfairly abuses the rights of the baker. An as much of a douche as he may be, at least this will hopefully get the benefit of going before the courts to examine that law.


So you believe people should be able to discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation. What other discriminations should be allowed? Race? Creed? Gender?
 
2013-12-11 10:55:26 AM  

pueblonative: Once again, there is no such goddamned thing as a same sex wedding cake as opposed to a different sex wedding cake. NONE. Hell, do a taste test if you want. These people were asking for the same type of cake that he's done for other couples. They didn't even get to the writing on the cake, if there was any.


And I repeat
~~Depends on the decorations. When you get the figurines for the top of the cake, they normally come in man/wife pairs. Should he be forced to purchase other supplies, or open multiple packages to fulfill this order?

~~They didn't even get to the writing on the cake, if there was any.

How do you know this? There is nothing in the article about what they asked for on the cake.
 
2013-12-11 10:57:48 AM  

Churchill2004: Is it really that hard to understand that the degree of burden imposed on the minority is relevant? It's not hard to point out the harm caused by a hotel room refusing a room to a pair of weary travelers. What is the comporable harm here? It doesn't exist.


How much harm was there in making blacks sit in the balcony of the movie theater?
How much harm was there in making them go to that store over there, instead of this one?
"No, you can't eat in this restaurant. The one for you people is on the next block."

No harm, no foul. Right?

Frankly, I'm a bit disgusted that you can't see it.
 
2013-12-11 10:57:58 AM  

EWreckedSean: pueblonative: They didn't even get to that point in the conversation where they were discussing any sort of "writing" on the cake and where he might have had some argument.   Of course, a guy who sells a dog wedding cake and then refuses to sell a cake to a same sex couple doesn't exactly have the soundest of ethical scruples

I'm sorry, I didn't know you have the transcript of what was said. Do you mind posting it, I;d love to read it.


Here you go
 
2013-12-11 10:58:11 AM  

winterbraid: I like the photo below the article:

[www.opposingviews.com image 600x326]

that's what happens at a gay marriage, right? Black woman tries to marry elephant?


That's an awesome pic.  A stampeding elephant would add a certain excitement to your wedding.
 
2013-12-11 10:58:39 AM  

Zasteva: EWreckedSean: Zasteva: EWreckedSean: Zasteva: There's a very simple solution.

He can simply subcontract a different cake shop to make the cake, have it delivered to his shop, and call them to pick it up. He might not make any money, but they'll have their cake from his shop and he won't have had to violate his principles by making it.

This will only be a problem if his objection is to them being able to get a wedding cake at all, rather than one of him personally having to make it.

EWreckedSean: Or they could simply call another cake shop. this is 2013. I bet I could find 20 place that make cakes within 10 minutes of here.

Yes, they could do that, but they are under no obligation to. Instead they've chosen to stand up for their rights. 

The baker, on the other hand, is obligated to serve whoever comes to his place of public accommodation, regardless of race, creed, gender or sexual orientation. He's chosen to defy that requirement.

Yes, and I think the requirement is wrong. I think it unfairly abuses the rights of the baker. An as much of a douche as he may be, at least this will hopefully get the benefit of going before the courts to examine that law.

So you believe people should be able to discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation. What other discriminations should be allowed? Race? Creed? Gender?


I believe there should be a better balance between the civil rights of consumers and the property rights of business owners. The line I would draw is essential goods and services. Frankly I think this guy is an asshole, and I wouldn't do business with him. It should end there. They reasonably could take their business elsewhere.
 
2013-12-11 10:59:26 AM  

dinomyar: pueblonative: Once again, there is no such goddamned thing as a same sex wedding cake as opposed to a different sex wedding cake. NONE. Hell, do a taste test if you want. These people were asking for the same type of cake that he's done for other couples. They didn't even get to the writing on the cake, if there was any.

And I repeat
~~Depends on the decorations. When you get the figurines for the top of the cake, they normally come in man/wife pairs. Should he be forced to purchase other supplies, or open multiple packages to fulfill this order?

~~They didn't even get to the writing on the cake, if there was any.

How do you know this? There is nothing in the article about what they asked for on the cake.


From the undisputed facts on record in the hearing.
 
2013-12-11 11:00:52 AM  

dinomyar: Zasteva: There is no such thing as a "gay wedding cake". Wedding cake does not have sexual orientation.


Depends on the decorations. When you get the figurines for the top of the cake, they normally come in man/wife pairs. Should he be forced to purchase other supplies, or open multiple packages to fulfill this order?


While some wedding cakes have figurines on top, many do not; so it may not even be an issue.

But, assuming this one would normally, it depends on what his normal business practice is. If he has a clear "no special orders" policy, then he won't be obligated to purchase gay figurines he doesn't stock; or make any alterations to his normal wedding cake for them. They have to pick one of his existing designs.

But if he usually asks people to choose what figurines they want, and will order them if he doesn't have them in stock, then yes, he has to put two male or female figures on top if that's what they ask for; even if if means making a special order or opening multiple sets of figurines.
 
2013-12-11 11:00:59 AM  

pueblonative: EWreckedSean: pueblonative: They didn't even get to that point in the conversation where they were discussing any sort of "writing" on the cake and where he might have had some argument.   Of course, a guy who sells a dog wedding cake and then refuses to sell a cake to a same sex couple doesn't exactly have the soundest of ethical scruples

I'm sorry, I didn't know you have the transcript of what was said. Do you mind posting it, I;d love to read it.

Here you go


Thanks, that is actually helpful.
 
2013-12-11 11:02:27 AM  

ManateeGag: if that's the case, and they want the little figurine to be a same sex couple, which he doesn't stock, instead of being a prick about it, he should have called it a "special order" and charged them more since he had to order something he doesn't normally stock.



So I can make a Muslim restaurant stock bacon, just because I want it. Or a Jewish bakery to stock/buy Nazi memorabilia to decorate a cake?

My point is that the government should not be able to force a business to sell something they are not comfortable selling. Regardless of why or how stupid it is.
 
2013-12-11 11:05:56 AM  

give me doughnuts: Churchill2004: Is it really that hard to understand that the degree of burden imposed on the minority is relevant? It's not hard to point out the harm caused by a hotel room refusing a room to a pair of weary travelers. What is the comporable harm here? It doesn't exist.

How much harm was there in making blacks sit in the balcony of the movie theater?
How much harm was there in making them go to that store over there, instead of this one?
"No, you can't eat in this restaurant. The one for you people is on the next block."

No harm, no foul. Right?

Frankly, I'm a bit disgusted that you can't see it.


Jim Crow laws were generally enforced top down from the government.
 
2013-12-11 11:06:55 AM  

dinomyar: ManateeGag: if that's the case, and they want the little figurine to be a same sex couple, which he doesn't stock, instead of being a prick about it, he should have called it a "special order" and charged them more since he had to order something he doesn't normally stock.


So I can make a Muslim restaurant stock bacon, just because I want it. Or a Jewish bakery to stock/buy Nazi memorabilia to decorate a cake?


Are bacon eaters considered a protected class? Are Nazis?

These questions should provide you with an answer.
 
2013-12-11 11:08:15 AM  

dinomyar: ManateeGag: if that's the case, and they want the little figurine to be a same sex couple, which he doesn't stock, instead of being a prick about it, he should have called it a "special order" and charged them more since he had to order something he doesn't normally stock.


So I can make a Muslim restaurant stock bacon, just because I want it. Or a Jewish bakery to stock/buy Nazi memorabilia to decorate a cake?

My point is that the government should not be able to force a business to sell something they are not comfortable selling. Regardless of why or how stupid it is.


You gotta love these little temper tantrums by the right.  "I guess I'll go around and make all these people do horrible things that I've heard about!"

No asshole, you can't make them do something that they have not been in the business of doing anyway.  So shelve that appointment to tell the Jewish Baker to fire up the oven and put in a nazi cake (BTW, political belief is not a protected class) and to get your piggy pie at the halal place down the street.  All these people are wanting is the cake that this guy has made for other couples in the past.
 
2013-12-11 11:09:57 AM  

EWreckedSean: Zasteva: EWreckedSean: Zasteva: EWreckedSean: Zasteva: There's a very simple solution.

He can simply subcontract a different cake shop to make the cake, have it delivered to his shop, and call them to pick it up. He might not make any money, but they'll have their cake from his shop and he won't have had to violate his principles by making it.

This will only be a problem if his objection is to them being able to get a wedding cake at all, rather than one of him personally having to make it.

EWreckedSean: Or they could simply call another cake shop. this is 2013. I bet I could find 20 place that make cakes within 10 minutes of here.

Yes, they could do that, but they are under no obligation to. Instead they've chosen to stand up for their rights. 

The baker, on the other hand, is obligated to serve whoever comes to his place of public accommodation, regardless of race, creed, gender or sexual orientation. He's chosen to defy that requirement.

Yes, and I think the requirement is wrong. I think it unfairly abuses the rights of the baker. An as much of a douche as he may be, at least this will hopefully get the benefit of going before the courts to examine that law.

So you believe people should be able to discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation. What other discriminations should be allowed? Race? Creed? Gender?

I believe there should be a better balance between the civil rights of consumers and the property rights of business owners. The line I would draw is essential goods and services. Frankly I think this guy is an asshole, and I wouldn't do business with him. It should end there. They reasonably could take their business elsewhere.


Give us specific examples. Would this be okay if the guy didn't believe in interracial marriages and the couple was mixed race? Would it be okay if the couple were a jewish and he didn't like jews? Would it be okay if he simply decided he wouldn't sell anything but brownies to black people? What if he were muslim and refused to allow women into his store unless they wore veils?

You've already shown you are willing to accept discrimination against gay people, I just want to see how much bigotry you'd like to support in our society.
 
2013-12-11 11:12:44 AM  

EWreckedSean: A wedding cake that says Happy Wedding Bob and Steve with a figurine of two guys on top is definitely a gay wedding cake. Which I am all for by the way.


They didn't get a chance to describe writing or cake design, as per the undisputed findings of fact in the case. As soon say to men said they wanted a cake for "their" wedding, he refused; explaining the he didn't make cakes for gay weddings.
 
2013-12-11 11:12:56 AM  

Ambivalence: Businesses can refuse to serve anyone.



No, they can't. And it's been thay way for the past half-century.
 
2013-12-11 11:17:47 AM  

Zasteva: Give us specific examples. Would this be okay if the guy didn't believe in interracial marriages and the couple was mixed race? Would it be okay if the couple were a jewish and he didn't like jews? Would it be okay if he simply decided he wouldn't sell anything but brownies to black people? What if he were muslim and refused to allow women into his store unless they wore veils?

You've already shown you are willing to accept discrimination against gay people, I just want to see how much bigotry you'd like to support in our society.


I believe any private discrimination the doesn't deny essential goods and services should be legal. Yes, I think a church should legally be able to not marry an interracial couple if they don't want to. Yes, I believe a club should only allow in Puerto Ricans if they want to, yes I believe a bar should only allow whites in if they want to, yes I believe the repair shop should only take black customers if they want to. Such people are assholes, but they aren't denying somebody a service that can not be easily attained elsewhere, so I don't believe government should violate their rights in favor of somebody else. A person should reasonably be the king of their own property. I also don't believe that we live in a day and age where we need to heavy hand of government to deal with people who act that way. It's not government that will hurt this baker but word of mouth.
 
2013-12-11 11:18:05 AM  

Ambivalence: While I agree this guy is a bigot, I don't understand where it's illegal for him to refuse. Businesses can refuse to serve anyone. And the public can refuse to do business with them for it. Nobody likes a bigot.


It's illegal for the same reason it's illegal for businesses to refuse to serve black people.

Business can refuse to serve anyone for any reason *except* discrimination based on certain things like race, creed, gender, or sexual orientation. He could have said they were too fat to make a wedding cake for and been fine. But he openly declared he was discriminating against them because of their sexual orientation.
 
2013-12-11 11:19:04 AM  

Zasteva: EWreckedSean: A wedding cake that says Happy Wedding Bob and Steve with a figurine of two guys on top is definitely a gay wedding cake. Which I am all for by the way.

They didn't get a chance to describe writing or cake design, as per the undisputed findings of fact in the case. As soon say to men said they wanted a cake for "their" wedding, he refused; explaining the he didn't make cakes for gay weddings.


A cake for a gay wedding is a gay wedding cake. We are getting into semantics that seem beside the point.
 
2013-12-11 11:21:21 AM  

EWreckedSean: Zasteva: Give us specific examples. Would this be okay if the guy didn't believe in interracial marriages and the couple was mixed race? Would it be okay if the couple were a jewish and he didn't like jews? Would it be okay if he simply decided he wouldn't sell anything but brownies to black people? What if he were muslim and refused to allow women into his store unless they wore veils?

You've already shown you are willing to accept discrimination against gay people, I just want to see how much bigotry you'd like to support in our society.

I believe any private discrimination the doesn't deny essential goods and services should be legal. Yes, I think a church should legally be able to not marry an interracial couple if they don't want to. Yes, I believe a club should only allow in Puerto Ricans if they want to, yes I believe a bar should only allow whites in if they want to, yes I believe the repair shop should only take black customers if they want to. Such people are assholes, but they aren't denying somebody a service that can not be easily attained elsewhere, so I don't believe government should violate their rights in favor of somebody else. A person should reasonably be the king of their own property. I also don't believe that we live in a day and age where we need to heavy hand of government to deal with people who act that way. It's not government that will hurt this baker but word of mouth.


So you admit to favoring all sorts of discrimination.
In what other ways are you a horrible person?
 
2013-12-11 11:23:29 AM  

Funk Brothers: To people, it is immoral to provide wedding services for same-sex couples. They should have the right to deny services guarantee by the First Amendment. It's the same people who think having an abortion is immoral. Nobody celebrates an abortion by buying a cake or taking photos.


That gives me an idea...
 
2013-12-11 11:24:23 AM  

give me doughnuts: So you admit to favoring all sorts of discrimination.
In what other ways are you a horrible person?


I understand in a free society people should a) be able to have unpopular opinions, even ones that discuss me b) be able to do what they want with their own property, even if I don't like it.

I'm sorry those concepts are too tough for you.
 
2013-12-11 11:25:09 AM  

EWreckedSean: Zasteva: EWreckedSean: A wedding cake that says Happy Wedding Bob and Steve with a figurine of two guys on top is definitely a gay wedding cake. Which I am all for by the way.

They didn't get a chance to describe writing or cake design, as per the undisputed findings of fact in the case. As soon say to men said they wanted a cake for "their" wedding, he refused; explaining the he didn't make cakes for gay weddings.

A cake for a gay wedding is a gay wedding cake. We are getting into semantics that seem beside the point.


The point is that providing this cake would somehow violate this man's First Amendment rights, so describing how a gay wedding cake is (or isn't) different than a straight wedding cake is kind of the point.You don't get to wrap all of your bigoted behavior in the First Amendment and claim immunity from any law you don't like.
 
2013-12-11 11:25:24 AM  

EWreckedSean: give me doughnuts: So you admit to favoring all sorts of discrimination.
In what other ways are you a horrible person?

I understand in a free society people should a) be able to have unpopular opinions, even ones that discuss me b) be able to do what they want with their own property, even if I don't like it.

I'm sorry those concepts are too tough for you.


*disgust me. Fark so needs Edit.
 
2013-12-11 11:26:17 AM  

pueblonative: EWreckedSean: Zasteva: EWreckedSean: A wedding cake that says Happy Wedding Bob and Steve with a figurine of two guys on top is definitely a gay wedding cake. Which I am all for by the way.

They didn't get a chance to describe writing or cake design, as per the undisputed findings of fact in the case. As soon say to men said they wanted a cake for "their" wedding, he refused; explaining the he didn't make cakes for gay weddings.

A cake for a gay wedding is a gay wedding cake. We are getting into semantics that seem beside the point.

The point is that providing this cake would somehow violate this man's First Amendment rights, so describing how a gay wedding cake is (or isn't) different than a straight wedding cake is kind of the point.You don't get to wrap all of your bigoted behavior in the First Amendment and claim immunity from any law you don't like.


Honestly I think it should be wrapped in the 5th amendment.
 
2013-12-11 11:28:09 AM  

give me doughnuts: No, they can't. And it's been thay way for the past half-century.



We don't sell our products in California due to tax rules and onerous laws that affect our business. Are you saying we can be forced to?


What if I go into McDonalds without shoes, can they refuse me? (Yes, even if I cant wear shoes due to a medical condition)
 
2013-12-11 11:28:26 AM  

EWreckedSean: Zasteva: Give us specific examples. Would this be okay if the guy didn't believe in interracial marriages and the couple was mixed race? Would it be okay if the couple were a jewish and he didn't like jews? Would it be okay if he simply decided he wouldn't sell anything but brownies to black people? What if he were muslim and refused to allow women into his store unless they wore veils?

You've already shown you are willing to accept discrimination against gay people, I just want to see how much bigotry you'd like to support in our society.

I believe any private discrimination the doesn't deny essential goods and services should be legal. Yes, I think a church should legally be able to not marry an interracial couple if they don't want to. Yes, I believe a club should only allow in Puerto Ricans if they want to, yes I believe a bar should only allow whites in if they want to, yes I believe the repair shop should only take black customers if they want to. Such people are assholes, but they aren't denying somebody a service that can not be easily attained elsewhere, so I don't believe government should violate their rights in favor of somebody else. A person should reasonably be the king of their own property. I also don't believe that we live in a day and age where we need to heavy hand of government to deal with people who act that way. It's not government that will hurt this baker but word of mouth.


There are two problems with this:

1) There is no "right" to discrimination, so by enforcing a law against discrimination no rights were violated.

2) Your assumption that word of mouth would take care of this is false -- it certainly wouldn't have worked to end racial discrimination in the south, and there are plenty of parts of the country where the people would be rewarded by the community for their discrimination, rather than punished for it.

Your laissez faire solution does not support rights; it takes away the rights of those being discriminated against.
 
2013-12-11 11:31:13 AM  

EWreckedSean: give me doughnuts: So you admit to favoring all sorts of discrimination.
In what other ways are you a horrible person?

I understand in a free society people should a) be able to have unpopular opinions, even ones that discuss me b) be able to do what they want with their own property, even if I don't like it.

I'm sorry those concepts are too tough for you.


The guy has a charter from the government (incorporation) which gives him certain rights and benefits too (tax write offs, personal protection against lawsuits, etc).  In exchange, he operates that business in a manner consistent with society's needs (no discrimination in public accommodation, adherence to fair labor laws, etc).  If he doesn't like those rules, he can always turn his business private and give up all of those benefits listed and he's free to sell on a private basis to whomever he likes.

I'm sorry if that's too tough for you to comprehend, but I understand.  We've only been doing it that way for about 60 some odd years now.
 
2013-12-11 11:31:18 AM  

EWreckedSean: Zasteva: EWreckedSean: A wedding cake that says Happy Wedding Bob and Steve with a figurine of two guys on top is definitely a gay wedding cake. Which I am all for by the way.

They didn't get a chance to describe writing or cake design, as per the undisputed findings of fact in the case. As soon say to men said they wanted a cake for "their" wedding, he refused; explaining the he didn't make cakes for gay weddings.

A cake for a gay wedding is a gay wedding cake. We are getting into semantics that seem beside the point.


No, it's an important distinction. When you say "he shouldn't have to make a gay wedding cake", you are stating that he is doing a service that is outside the bounds of what he normally does. 

But he is not. What he normally does is make wedding cakes. They are asking him to make a wedding cake, and he refused <b>because they are gay</b>. That is wrong, unethical and illegal.
 
2013-12-11 11:31:51 AM  

Zasteva: There are two problems with this:

1) There is no "right" to discrimination, so by enforcing a law against discrimination no rights were violated.

2) Your assumption that word of mouth would take care of this is false -- it certainly wouldn't have worked to end racial discrimination in the south, and there are plenty of parts of the country where the people would be rewarded by the community for their discrimination, rather than punished for it.

Your laissez faire solution does not support rights; it takes away the rights of those being discriminated against.


1) The 5th amendment gives me domain over my life, liberty and property. Choosing who and what I serve are clearly both rights to liberty and property.

2) Again this is not 1950s Deep South, and we should stop pretending it is.

3) You are suggesting that you have some right to make decisions about somebody else's labors and property.
 
2013-12-11 11:31:54 AM  
Doh! Embedded html fail!
 
2013-12-11 11:34:54 AM  

pueblonative: The guy has a charter from the government (incorporation) which gives him certain rights and benefits too (tax write offs, personal protection against lawsuits, etc).  In exchange, he operates that business in a manner consistent with society's needs (no discrimination in public accommodation, adherence to fair labor laws, etc).  If he doesn't like those rules, he can always turn his business private and give up all of those benefits listed and he's free to sell on a private basis to whomever he likes.

I'm sorry if that's too tough for you to comprehend, but I understand.  We've only been doing it that way for about 60 some odd years now.


Our system of government is a Republic based on the people granting the government a limited certain amount of privileges, not the government granting people rights. We've only been doing it that way for 220 years, I'm sorry if that is too tough for you to understand.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "
 
2013-12-11 11:35:50 AM  

Zasteva: EWreckedSean: Zasteva: EWreckedSean: A wedding cake that says Happy Wedding Bob and Steve with a figurine of two guys on top is definitely a gay wedding cake. Which I am all for by the way.

They didn't get a chance to describe writing or cake design, as per the undisputed findings of fact in the case. As soon say to men said they wanted a cake for "their" wedding, he refused; explaining the he didn't make cakes for gay weddings.

A cake for a gay wedding is a gay wedding cake. We are getting into semantics that seem beside the point.

No, it's an important distinction. When you say "he shouldn't have to make a gay wedding cake", you are stating that he is doing a service that is outside the bounds of what he normally does. 

But he is not. What he normally does is make wedding cakes. They are asking him to make a wedding cake, and he refused <b>because they are gay</b>. That is wrong, unethical and illegal.


It is wrong, it shouldn't be illegal.
 
2013-12-11 11:36:34 AM  

EWreckedSean: Zasteva: There are two problems with this:

1) There is no "right" to discrimination, so by enforcing a law against discrimination no rights were violated.

2) Your assumption that word of mouth would take care of this is false -- it certainly wouldn't have worked to end racial discrimination in the south, and there are plenty of parts of the country where the people would be rewarded by the community for their discrimination, rather than punished for it.

Your laissez faire solution does not support rights; it takes away the rights of those being discriminated against.

1) The 5th amendment gives me domain over my life, liberty and property. Choosing who and what I serve are clearly both rights to liberty and property.

2) Again this is not 1950s Deep South, and we should stop pretending it is.

3) You are suggesting that you have some right to make decisions about somebody else's labors and property.


1) No it doesn't:

"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. "

It says there must be due process of law before life, liberty or property are taken; and if private property is taken for public use there must be just compensation.

I'm not pretending this is the 1950s Deep South. I'm pointing out that the Deep South would still be segregated be if we did things your way.

I don't have the right to make decisions about someone else's labors or property. A judge, acting in accordance with the law, does.
 
2013-12-11 11:36:48 AM  

Ambivalence: While I agree this guy is a bigot, I don't understand where it's illegal for him to refuse. Businesses can refuse to serve anyone. And the public can refuse to do business with them for it. Nobody likes a bigot.


Didn't seem to stop businesses in the south. Sometimes the invisible hand needs to be slapped.
 
2013-12-11 11:37:26 AM  

EWreckedSean: Zasteva: There are two problems with this:

1) There is no "right" to discrimination, so by enforcing a law against discrimination no rights were violated.

2) Your assumption that word of mouth would take care of this is false -- it certainly wouldn't have worked to end racial discrimination in the south, and there are plenty of parts of the country where the people would be rewarded by the community for their discrimination, rather than punished for it.

Your laissez faire solution does not support rights; it takes away the rights of those being discriminated against.

1) The 5th amendment gives me domain over my life, liberty and property. Choosing who and what I serve are clearly both rights to liberty and property.

2) Again this is not 1950s Deep South, and we should stop pretending it is.

3) You are suggesting that you have some right to make decisions about somebody else's labors and property.


Hate to break it to you, Sean.  But they tried that 5th Amendment tactic a long time ago.  DIdn't work out that well.
 
2013-12-11 11:40:27 AM  

dinomyar: ManateeGag: if that's the case, and they want the little figurine to be a same sex couple, which he doesn't stock, instead of being a prick about it, he should have called it a "special order" and charged them more since he had to order something he doesn't normally stock.

So I can make a Muslim restaurant stock bacon, just because I want it. Or a Jewish bakery to stock/buy Nazi memorabilia to decorate a cake?


No, stop with the straw man arguments. If the Muslim restaurant doesn't sell bacon, you can't force them too. If they do sell bacon to Christians, they can't refuse to sell it to other Muslims.

The Jewish bakery can refuse to make a cake with Nazi decorations, since they would refuse that for anyone who asked. They can't refuse to sell a wedding cake to Nazis.

My point is that the government should not be able to force a business to sell something they are not comfortable selling. Regardless of why or how stupid it is.

Which is a great point and not at all what we are talking about.
 
2013-12-11 11:42:17 AM  

pueblonative: EWreckedSean: Zasteva: There are two problems with this:

1) There is no "right" to discrimination, so by enforcing a law against discrimination no rights were violated.

2) Your assumption that word of mouth would take care of this is false -- it certainly wouldn't have worked to end racial discrimination in the south, and there are plenty of parts of the country where the people would be rewarded by the community for their discrimination, rather than punished for it.

Your laissez faire solution does not support rights; it takes away the rights of those being discriminated against.

1) The 5th amendment gives me domain over my life, liberty and property. Choosing who and what I serve are clearly both rights to liberty and property.

2) Again this is not 1950s Deep South, and we should stop pretending it is.

3) You are suggesting that you have some right to make decisions about somebody else's labors and property.

Hate to break it to you, Sean.  But they tried that 5th Amendment tactic a long time ago.  DIdn't work out that well.


I always laugh that every "I don't have to serve gays" argument was tried and failed in the 60s.
 
2013-12-11 11:45:12 AM  

EWreckedSean: give me doughnuts: So you admit to favoring all sorts of discrimination.
In what other ways are you a horrible person?

I understand in a free society people should a) be able to have unpopular opinions, even ones that discuss me b) be able to do what they want with their own property, even if I don't like it.

I'm sorry those concepts are too tough for you.


For the record I fully support your right to have whatever opinions you want, and to express them in speech and writing in public and private forums.

And I also understand that your viewpoint is coming for a desire to promote liberty rather than any personal bias against gays or anyone else.
 
2013-12-11 11:46:17 AM  

Zasteva: 1) No it doesn't:

"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. "

It says there must be due process of law before life, liberty or property are taken; and if private property is taken for public use there must be just compensation.

I'm not pretending this is the 1950s Deep South. I'm pointing out that the Deep South would still be segregated be if we did things your way.

I don't have the right to make decisions about someone else's labors or property. A judge, acting in accordance with the law, does.


1) Yes it does. But obviously you aren't going to see it that way. We can go into that if you want? Up to you, but it will derail things a bit as we will segway in Locke and the history of Natural Rights.

2) As to the Deep South still being segregated, that is pure speculation and it isn't really supported by the actions of any other western societies
 
2013-12-11 11:47:31 AM  

pueblonative: Hate to break it to you, Sean.  But they tried that 5th Amendment tactic a long time ago.  DIdn't work out that well.


You don't have to break it to me. What the courts decide and what is correct aren't often bed mates.
 
2013-12-11 11:47:38 AM  
dinomyar: give me doughnuts: No, they can't. And it's been thay way for the past half-century.


dinomyar: We don't sell our products in California due to tax rules and onerous laws that affect our business. Are you saying we can be forced to?


No, you can't be forced to. That's a business decision not based on race, creed, etc...

dinomyar: What if I go into McDonalds without shoes, can they refuse me? (Yes, even if I cant wear shoes due to a medical condition)

I agree. Again, that is not discrimination based on race, creed, etc...
 
2013-12-11 11:48:44 AM  

Fizpez: I think the guy is 110% WRONG but how can a judge order you to do business with someone?


Simple. You want to stay in business with the public, you serve the public. You don't want to serve the public? Then close down shop and stay the fark home.
 
2013-12-11 11:48:51 AM  

Zasteva: EWreckedSean: give me doughnuts: So you admit to favoring all sorts of discrimination.
In what other ways are you a horrible person?

I understand in a free society people should a) be able to have unpopular opinions, even ones that discuss me b) be able to do what they want with their own property, even if I don't like it.

I'm sorry those concepts are too tough for you.

For the record I fully support your right to have whatever opinions you want, and to express them in speech and writing in public and private forums.

And I also understand that your viewpoint is coming for a desire to promote liberty rather than any personal bias against gays or anyone else.


Well I appreciate you being civil in this discussion. You made the favorites list of people worth talking to.
 
2013-12-11 11:49:21 AM  

EWreckedSean: pueblonative: Hate to break it to you, Sean.  But they tried that 5th Amendment tactic a long time ago.  DIdn't work out that well.

You don't have to break it to me. What the courts decide and what is correct aren't often bed mates.


I don't think you'll get much disagreement on that as a general statement. :-) Just on applying it in this case.
 
2013-12-11 11:49:27 AM  

EWreckedSean: pueblonative: Hate to break it to you, Sean.  But they tried that 5th Amendment tactic a long time ago.  DIdn't work out that well.

You don't have to break it to me. What the courts decide and what is correct aren't often bed mates.


Farker fervant defender of what he imagines the Constitution to be.
 
2013-12-11 11:50:18 AM  

Zasteva: dinomyar: give me doughnuts: No, they can't. And it's been thay way for the past half-century.


dinomyar: We don't sell our products in California due to tax rules and onerous laws that affect our business. Are you saying we can be forced to?

No, you can't be forced to. That's a business decision not based on race, creed, etc...

dinomyar: What if I go into McDonalds without shoes, can they refuse me? (Yes, even if I cant wear shoes due to a medical condition)

I agree. Again, that is not discrimination based on race, creed, etc...


How about ladies night, or 18 and up for women/21 and up for men clubs?
 
2013-12-11 11:51:40 AM  

pueblonative: EWreckedSean: pueblonative: Hate to break it to you, Sean.  But they tried that 5th Amendment tactic a long time ago.  DIdn't work out that well.

You don't have to break it to me. What the courts decide and what is correct aren't often bed mates.

Farker fervant defender of what he imagines the Constitution to be.


What do you think the courts are? And why do you think we constantly have one court rule one way while another rules the exact opposite on the same issue?
 
Displayed 50 of 314 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report