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  
•       •       •

1171 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Dec 2013 at 9:06 AM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-11 04:44:12 PM

EWreckedSean: Zasteva: EWreckedSean: runin800m: Zasteva: I think to get away with it at the scale you are talking about you would have to show that you are using some other criteria than race to deny membership.

Plus, I think that if you are advertising to the public at large that you are whites only; that's pretty much a non-starter. I think if you do advertising, you should automatically be considered as a place of public accommodation.

If that's the case, then how is the Moose Lodge able to get away with it? As stated above, the SC has ruled that they couldn't be denied a liquor license even though they only allow white men as members which would seem to basically affirm that they are allowed to discriminate against women and those of other races. If they are able to, legally, openly use race and gender as a criteria then what would be the difference between that and his Super Chain? Is it OK only if they also have other criteria? I am not seeing any substantial difference.

Plus 1 million members with 2,400 lodges in all 50 states makes them pretty "Super Chain"y.

Actually they are about 800,000 now; but more importantly, they aren't a business and have significant initiation and screening processes. (Several people have died from Moose Lodge initiations).

Check this out -- legal distinctions that determine whether something is a private club or not:

http://www.nationalclub.org/clientuploads/NCALegalQABooklet_FINAL_no %2 0print%20marks.pdf

They have a bar that sells liquor though. That pretty much defines it as a business doesn't it?


Not if they are a non-profit.
 
2013-12-11 04:45:50 PM
give me doughnuts:

"Taking", in Constitutional law (and we do seem to be referring to the 5th Amendment), has a few very specific meanings. This situation doesn't fit those meanings.

It's true, I was applying my own assumed definition of what "takings" meant. Can you provide those specific meanings?
 
2013-12-11 04:46:35 PM

EWreckedSean: Check this out -- legal distinctions that determine whether something is a private club or not:

http://www.nationalclub.org/clientuploads/NCALegalQABooklet_FINAL_no %2 0print%20marks.pdf

This is why I love a good conversation/debate. I'm going to walk away from today with a much better understanding of the subject. Thanks for that.


You bet!
 
2013-12-11 04:50:19 PM

FloydA: DeaH: He said he'd make any other cake for them, so what makes a wedding cake so different?


In the book of Confections, Chapter 7, verse potato, it states clearly   "Birthday cakes, cookies, brownies, these all may thee bakest for any and all, but baketh thee not a wedding cake for same sex couples."

At least it probably says something like that.  "No baking cakes for same sex marriages" must be in the bible somewhere.


Logic is definitely absent. But, then, it's been absent all along. The very people who decried the "gay lifestyle" of partying and sleeping around are the same ones who want to stand in the way of monogamy and settling down. "We hate you for not living like us, and now we hate you more for trying to live like us."
 
2013-12-11 04:53:53 PM

runin800m: grumpfuff: dinomyar: Satan's Bunny Slippers: James!: dinomyar: Could a Muslim tattoo artist refuse to create a tattoo of Mohammad?

Could god microwave a burrito so hot even he couldn't eat it?

Could god make a rock so heavy that he himself couldn't lift it? What then fadda? huh?


Well, since god is imaginary, then I don't think he could create either.


But neither addresses the question, when is it acceptable to refuse service to someone based on religious beliefs?

Yes, he could refuse. As has already been explained to you, you cannot be forced to provide a service you do not normally provide.

Doesn't the tattoo artist normally provide the tattoos that people ask for? I don't see a real distinction. The baker doesn't normally provide cakes for gay weddings.

The same goes for the scenario of the Jewish baker refusing to bake a cake meant to celebrate Hitler and the holocaust. Why could they refuse to make that cake?



If they will make a wedding cake for person X but they refuse to make a wedding cake for person Y, it's discrimination.  The baker is willing to provide a service for one person that s/he denies to another person.

If they refuse to make a Nazi cake for person X and refuse to make a Nazi cake for person Y, it is not discrimination.  The baker has refused to provide that service to anyone.
 
2013-12-11 04:57:19 PM
DeaH:

Logic is definitely absent. But, then, it's been absent all along. The very people who decried the "gay lifestyle" of partying and sleeping around are the same ones who want to stand in the way of monogamy and settling down. "We hate you for not living like us, and now we hate you more for trying to live like us."

Tell me about it.
 
2013-12-11 06:39:26 PM

Zasteva: give me doughnuts:

"Taking", in Constitutional law (and we do seem to be referring to the 5th Amendment), has a few very specific meanings. This situation doesn't fit those meanings.

It's true, I was applying my own assumed definition of what "takings" meant. Can you provide those specific meanings?



From Black's Law Dictionary (9th Ed.): Constitutional law. The government's actual or effective acquisition of private property either by ousting the owner or by destroying the property or severely impairing its utility.

It doesn't have to be a physical ouster or impairment. One case involved an airport expansion and jets flying at low altitude over a neighborhood.
 
2013-12-11 09:49:35 PM

Zasteva: runin800m: grumpfuff: No. See above. Tattoo artists are not obliged to give you any tattoo you want. My friend, the one who refuses tribal designs, also generally refuses to do certain types of names - he'll tattoo your child's name on your arm, but not your SO's.

So if they normally provide religious symbols, like a cross or whatever, are they then compelled to provide any religious symbol or can they discriminate against satanists or whatever other religion they wish?

Yes, he can refuse to do a design as long as he would not do that design for anyone. If that design were a religious symbol only used by one religion and he used it as a proxy for discriminating then it would depend on how good the lawyers were on both sides.

grumpfuff: In terms of this, he generally provides wedding cakes. He can either not make wedding cakes, or sell anyone a wedding cake. He cannot pick and chose who he sells a wedding cake to.

OK, so following that line of logic the Jewish baker would be forced to bake a cake celebrating Hitlers birthday if they generally provide birthday cakes. The baker can either choose to not make birthday cakes or sell anyone who wants a cake to celebrate Hitler's birthday a cake?

That's right, he has no right to refuse to make a birthday cake just because of the person's point of view. He could refuse to put "Happy birthday, Hitler" on it.


Ok, so if the tattoo artist must provide the same tattoo for everyone if he's willing to provide it to some then would you also say that if the tattoo artist happened to be Wiccan or whatever religion and was willing to tattoo things that were sacred within the religion on people who shared that religion but not those who don't practice it would be discrimination?
 
2013-12-11 10:01:55 PM

runin800m: Ok, so if the tattoo artist must provide the same tattoo for everyone if he's willing to provide it to some then would you also say that if the tattoo artist happened to be Wiccan or whatever religion and was willing to tattoo things that were sacred within the religion on people who shared that religion but not those who don't practice it would be discrimination?


You just really like coming up with stupid situations to try to figure out a way to argue the baker wasn't doing anything wrong, huh?

And yes, that would be discrimination.
 
2013-12-11 10:19:20 PM

runin800m: Zasteva: runin800m: grumpfuff: No. See above. Tattoo artists are not obliged to give you any tattoo you want. My friend, the one who refuses tribal designs, also generally refuses to do certain types of names - he'll tattoo your child's name on your arm, but not your SO's.

So if they normally provide religious symbols, like a cross or whatever, are they then compelled to provide any religious symbol or can they discriminate against satanists or whatever other religion they wish?

Yes, he can refuse to do a design as long as he would not do that design for anyone. If that design were a religious symbol only used by one religion and he used it as a proxy for discriminating then it would depend on how good the lawyers were on both sides.

grumpfuff: In terms of this, he generally provides wedding cakes. He can either not make wedding cakes, or sell anyone a wedding cake. He cannot pick and chose who he sells a wedding cake to.

OK, so following that line of logic the Jewish baker would be forced to bake a cake celebrating Hitlers birthday if they generally provide birthday cakes. The baker can either choose to not make birthday cakes or sell anyone who wants a cake to celebrate Hitler's birthday a cake?

That's right, he has no right to refuse to make a birthday cake just because of the person's point of view. He could refuse to put "Happy birthday, Hitler" on it.

Ok, so if the tattoo artist must provide the same tattoo for everyone if he's willing to provide it to some then would you also say that if the tattoo artist happened to be Wiccan or whatever religion and was willing to tattoo things that were sacred within the religion on people who shared that religion but not those who don't practice it would be discrimination?


I've explained the rule a bunch of times to you before. If you consider the customer's race, creed or gender or sexual orientation in making the decision about whether to provide the service or not, it is discrimination. That's always going to be my answer, so yes, that would be discrimination and illegal under law.
 
2013-12-11 11:37:08 PM

runin800m: Zasteva: runin800m: grumpfuff: No. See above. Tattoo artists are not obliged to give you any tattoo you want. My friend, the one who refuses tribal designs, also generally refuses to do certain types of names - he'll tattoo your child's name on your arm, but not your SO's.

So if they normally provide religious symbols, like a cross or whatever, are they then compelled to provide any religious symbol or can they discriminate against satanists or whatever other religion they wish?

Yes, he can refuse to do a design as long as he would not do that design for anyone. If that design were a religious symbol only used by one religion and he used it as a proxy for discriminating then it would depend on how good the lawyers were on both sides.

grumpfuff: In terms of this, he generally provides wedding cakes. He can either not make wedding cakes, or sell anyone a wedding cake. He cannot pick and chose who he sells a wedding cake to.

OK, so following that line of logic the Jewish baker would be forced to bake a cake celebrating Hitlers birthday if they generally provide birthday cakes. The baker can either choose to not make birthday cakes or sell anyone who wants a cake to celebrate Hitler's birthday a cake?

That's right, he has no right to refuse to make a birthday cake just because of the person's point of view. He could refuse to put "Happy birthday, Hitler" on it.

Ok, so if the tattoo artist must provide the same tattoo for everyone if he's willing to provide it to some then would you also say that if the tattoo artist happened to be Wiccan or whatever religion and was willing to tattoo things that were sacred within the religion on people who shared that religion but not those who don't practice it would be discrimination?


Keep farking those straw...chickens.  I'm sure you'll come up with a scenario that's plausible soon enough.
 
2013-12-12 12:28:17 AM
this thread perfectly sums up what libertarianism has become.

business before individual. always.
 
2013-12-12 08:12:11 AM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: uld god make a rock so heavy that he himself couldn't lift it? What then fadda? huh?


Suppose its Easta' vigil.... and you want to receive communion...but things come up, and you cant get to church... but you WANT to receive


..I'm sure God will take that into consideration

And then you're on a ship at sea! And you cross the International Date line....
 
2013-12-12 12:44:31 PM

maddogdelta: Satan's Bunny Slippers: uld god make a rock so heavy that he himself couldn't lift it? What then fadda? huh?

Suppose its Easta' vigil.... and you want to receive communion...but things come up, and you cant get to church... but you WANT to receive


..I'm sure God will take that into consideration

And then you're on a ship at sea! And you cross the International Date line....


Thank FSM SOMEONE got the reference!

I was feeling really, really old....
 
Displayed 14 of 314 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report