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.

(Think Progress)   Bakery that refused to sell wedding cake to lesbian couple found to have discriminated, its owner saying it's part of 'God's plan'. Sure, if God's plan for you is a jury trial   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 676
    More: Followup, lesbian couples, public accommodations  
•       •       •

5464 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Jan 2014 at 1:11 PM (44 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-21 05:00:35 PM  

iheartscotch: toma


THE BROODWICH CANNOT BE TAKEN APART OR DISASSEMBLED!
 
2014-01-21 05:01:27 PM  
"Let them Eat Cake"   With or without a marriage ceremony or license it's a DAMN PASTRY.   Look, I understand that people have their little hang-ups over non-traditional marriages, but how does anybody ever get the idea that there is any conceivable deity that would condemn consider the sale of a dessert to the wrong people as reason for damnation.
 
2014-01-21 05:04:13 PM  

Baz744: InterruptingQuirk: Baz744: Can someone please direct me to the Bible passage which requires Jehovah religionists to discriminate against homosexuals in provision of public services?

Rom 16:17
2 Thess 3:6
2 Thess 3:14


They're applicable if you believe the corresponding bits about homosexuals.

/if

1) Excuse me. I overlooked this.

2) Thanks for the attempt.

3) Actually, all three of these directives call for dehumanizing treatment of other Christians. Two of them explicitly, the third by logical context. None of these passages provide support for the proposition that Christians should subject pagans to the dehumanizing treatment they subject each other to.

So, if the lesbians involved in this case are Christians, and the baker knew it, these passages apply. Otherwise, he's not acting on any religious compulsion.


Fair enough, yet another case where we don't know enough about the situation.
 
2014-01-21 05:05:47 PM  

Uncontrolled_Jibe: "Let them Eat Cake"   With or without a marriage ceremony or license it's a DAMN PASTRY.   Look, I understand that people have their little hang-ups over non-traditional marriages, but how does anybody ever get the idea that there is any conceivable deity that would condemn consider the sale of a dessert to the wrong people as reason for damnation.



My religious text states that paying taxes will result in me being cast straight into the pit of hell.  Therefore, paying taxes violates my religious faith, and I cannot therefore be compelled to pay them.

That's what freedom of religion means, right?
 
2014-01-21 05:06:26 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: Fair enough, yet another case where we don't know enough about the situation.


Or you know, not using stupid arbitrary rules that aren't very moral in the end, to judge people on something totally harmless.  Pretty sure we got a bigger "horses mouth" message at some point about judging and being judged, even if we're pretending the arbitrary rules count.
 
2014-01-21 05:08:29 PM  

HoustonNick: Libtard Creed - You must believe like I believe or be punished.  No other beliefs will be accepted.

This is so disgusting.


Can't tell if you're a troll or retard.
 
2014-01-21 05:10:41 PM  

letrole: Tolerance does not equal Acceptance

It is more than a bit disingenuous to claim moral superiority because you accept or approve of something. "Oh yeah, I think the things that I like are just nifty, and that makes me a good person", as it were.

The real moral winner is the fellow who does not approve, who does not accept, yet still tolerates the things that he does not approve or accept.

But the majority of the posters here would seem to demand that nothing short of full acceptance and approval of homosexuality will do. The amusing thing is that these posters don't view themselves as bigots -- they consider themselves quite open-minded.


I know better than to actually acknowledge a guy with troll in his name, but no one in this thread is asking him to change his beliefs. They are asking for him not to discriminate and pick and choose who he deals with at a public business. He could still think gayness is an "abomination", using his own words, yet still made the cake and gone home and cursed up a storm on how the gheys are ruining the world. in others words, he can still be a bigot just in the privacy of his own home.
 
2014-01-21 05:11:56 PM  

DubtodaIll: Headso: DubtodaIll: You've already gotten your legal rights for marriage, why make an example out of a solitary business and screw over the cakemakers?

Because these lezbos are uppity, breh

Just seems selfish to me.


Yes, of course.  And I'm sure if we lived in a parallel universe where the roles were reversed, you wouldn't complain if businesses refused to serve you on the basis of your heterosexuality.  You would consider it selfish to demand equal treatment.
 
2014-01-21 05:15:43 PM  
Didn't we already have this follow-up?
 
2014-01-21 05:16:08 PM  

BMFPitt: Theaetetus: Not a public, commercial conduct of a business.

Your post fails to actually address what you're responding to, so therefore I award you no points.

So your response is that LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!


No, my response was that none of your hypotheticals are in any way analogous to a question over public, commercial conduct of a business. A church is not a business. A house is not a business.
If you don't understand that distinction, then please ask questions, rather than just shouting and pretending not to understand the arguments being made.

If you believe that conducting business should nullify your right to free association, then make a case for that.

One has nothing to do with the other. The freedom of association (which, incidentally, is not explicitly in the first amendment... maybe you meant the right to assemble?) is an implication of the freedom of speech, under NAACP v. Alabama, in which the Supreme Court noted that in many cases, effective speech requires joining with others. Nonetheless, being able to engage in protests or negotiations as a group is irrelevant here: we're talking about whether a baker can discriminate in their public, commercial business.
They need not associate with anyone to do so, and in fact, can make as many disparaging statements about their customers as they wish. However, in Colorado, they cannot refuse them service, based on their race, creed, sex, sexual orientation, disability, color, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.
 
2014-01-21 05:18:25 PM  

CivicMindedFive: Fark is a weird place where Christians are the ultimate trump card.

Contrast this to the douchey-hipster article who wants government to prevent his neighbors from chopping down trees on their property because he likes those trees.  The Fark brigade is almost universally against the hipster douche siding with private property rights.

Then there's this case, where a lesbian couple wants government to force a baker to participate in a gay wedding, and because the baker is Christian, the same people are ready to feed him to the dogs.

If there's ever a case where cops beat the snot out of anti-abortion demonstrators, the whole universe might divide by zero following the cognitive dissonance coming from fark.


Yes, indeed.  Won't someone think of the poor, oppressed Christians?
 
2014-01-21 05:18:34 PM  

MyRandomName: stpauler: HoustonNick: Libtard Creed - You must believe like I believe or be punished.  No other beliefs will be accepted.

This is so disgusting.

The only real comeback for this is "fark you, you disgusting sad piece of flapping ass shiat".

You realize that you liberals are acting exactly the same towards religious people, right? Liberals always want respect but never respect the religious views of others. The irony is thick.

Are there really zero other wedding cake designers? This is about liberals trying to fark a religious person over. No more, no less.



Please come back to us when an Atheist baker refuses to make a cake for a Christian wedding and the entire rightwingosphere loses their collective shiat over it.

My religion tells me that homophobes should go to jail. STOP TRYING TO FARK OVER MY BELIEFS!!
 
Ant
2014-01-21 05:19:13 PM  

frepnog: the court of public opinion would convict those business owners and the business would founder.


In most places, maybe. What about protection for other, less popular protected groups? Should we always rely on the majority to do the right thing?
 
2014-01-21 05:22:41 PM  

scubamage: frepnog: scubamage: frepnog: Theaetetus: This is their "freedom to conduct business in any manner they see fit", which doesn't actually exist and never has.

untrue.

Theaetetus: Then they probably shouldn't be in the business of selling stuff to the public. Go found a church.

there is nothing wrong with running a business based on christian values.

Christian, like in Christ? Show me where he said to discriminate against gays.

Or, are you just trying to stuff words in his mouth that he never said as an excuse to justify being a knuckle-dragging, backwards, homophobic twatwaffle.

ah.  someone here doesn't know me at all.  or that last sentence would not have been posted.

and trying to act like christianity isn't against homosexuality is stupid.

It's not. Cite otherwise. The only passage citing speech by Christ which could in any way be interpreted as anti-homosexual is when he spoke out against fornicators. There is no statement by Christ which is overtly anti-homosexual. The end.

Jesus had more negative things to say about Caananites than he did about homosexuals, although it's likely that was more Matthew being a racist douchenozzle than the actual words of Christ.

What idiots have tried to inject over the past 2000 years should not be construed as Christianity.


So you're saying Christianity is only what Jesus was recorded as saying (Tetramorph)? Because I am not aware of any Christian factions today that believe according to what you suggest - and if so, certainly not any that are considered mainstream.

You either get the  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Bible  or the  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Bible depending on your persuasion. Both of which consider the OT and NT to be divinely inspired (yes, even all the hateful stone all gays stuff).

So basically nice try, but Christianity is shiat sandwiches all the way down.
 
2014-01-21 05:23:03 PM  

mwfark: So a lady is forced to do something against her will in a supposedly free society, and some people call this progress. I call it tyranny, and while I personally disagree with her position, I do think she should have the right to run her business as she sees fit.


THAT. I support gay couples having equal rights, but I do not support them or anyone else forcing their views on others. The couple could've easily gone to dozens of other bakeries in the area, but noooooo, they had to be intolerant towards others' beliefs and make a huge fuss which has caused others significant harm.

/do no harm doesn't just apply to doctors
 
2014-01-21 05:23:48 PM  

Billygoat Gruff: well as with everything we can pick and choose what fits your agenda. I find it weird that libs have all this hate for christians but you can't get them to leave a black church when an election is coming up.


You're not alone.  I find your delusions and fantasies pretty weird, too.
 
2014-01-21 05:24:31 PM  

Chummer45: Uncontrolled_Jibe: "Let them Eat Cake"   With or without a marriage ceremony or license it's a DAMN PASTRY.   Look, I understand that people have their little hang-ups over non-traditional marriages, but how does anybody ever get the idea that there is any conceivable deity that would condemn consider the sale of a dessert to the wrong people as reason for damnation.


My religious text states that paying taxes will result in me being cast straight into the pit of hell.  Therefore, paying taxes violates my religious faith, and I cannot therefore be compelled to pay them.

That's what freedom of religion means, right?


You see I have such a strong respect for the Constitution that I'd offer them my best wishes in their new life free of the encumbrance of fiat currency and the temptations of material possessions.   If that doesn't work for them, I'd inquire if their religion offers a special exemption for those dying as martyrs in prison.  I'm not in favor of Government intervention to force them to do something, but I wholeheartedly support the idea of people not bringing their business their.   Orthodox Jews do not eat pork or cheeseburgers.  I support their right to not sell either, but I also believe that any Kosher deli that refused people pastrami or a cheese pizza who can pay the stated rate should be known as doing that and people should not support those businesses.

/Offering a free biatch slapping to anyone claiming to be big "L" Libertarian and not realizing that boycotts are ethical options in the market..
 
2014-01-21 05:25:05 PM  

Phinn: What if this baker didn't want to bake a cake for vegetarians? Or the lactose intolerant? Or left-handed Twilight fans? Or teenaged death-metal retro-goths? What if this baker wanted to bake these people a cake but some law prevented her? Is there an ethical principle that addresses these bigotries?


None of those are protected classes of people.
 
2014-01-21 05:26:04 PM  

Phinn: The Freedom of Association is the only ethical principle that is coherent and stands up to the slightest scrutiny. Just like the Freedom of the Press protects ugly and bigoted documents, the Freedom of Association protects ugly and bigoted cake-baking.


The freedom of association prevents the government from stopping you from associating with others to petition the government or engage in collective speech. It has nothing to do with engaging in commercial contracts.

As the Supreme Court said in Runyon v. McCrary:
[The right to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas] is protected because it promotes and may well be essential to the "[e]ffective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones" that the First Amendment is designed to foster.
[However, the] Constitution places no value on discrimination, and while  "nvidious private discrimination may be characterized as a form of exercising freedom of association protected by the First Amendment . . . , it has never been accorded affirmative constitutional protections. And even some private discrimination is subject to special remedial legislation in certain circumstances under § 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment; Congress has made such discrimination unlawful in other significant contexts."

In other words, if you wish to associate yourself with racists, or homophobes, and engage in public speech, petition the government for constitutional amendments, or whatnot, you have total freedom to do so. However, when you operate a public business, you are required to treat customers the same, regardless of their race or sexual orientation, or any of the other protected traits. You do not have to associate with them, and you are not endorsing their beliefs. You merely have to serve them as you would any other customer.
 
2014-01-21 05:27:16 PM  
(last paragraph mine, not quoted)
 
2014-01-21 05:29:34 PM  

ikanreed: InterruptingQuirk: Fair enough, yet another case where we don't know enough about the situation.

Or you know, not using stupid arbitrary rules that aren't very moral in the end, to judge people on something totally harmless.  Pretty sure we got a bigger "horses mouth" message at some point about judging and being judged, even if we're pretending the arbitrary rules count.


I only meant that we don't know what the couple who wanted a cake believe. Of course it doesn't matter in this civil matter what they believe. If they were also believers, the irony in my mind is that, as Baz744 pointed out, they would have call no to associate with the baker for the same reason that he refuses to associate with them. That's why I would like to know, just for the double dilemma they would be in at that point.

/and the lulz, lest we forget the lulz
 
2014-01-21 05:29:52 PM  

BMFPitt: jso2897: It doesn't. your "right to free association" doesn't include the right to discriminate against members of the public on the basis of certain things.

By law I certainly don't.  That's black and white, and this case is a slam dunk that the couple will win.  The law is wrong, as are court cases upholding it.  I was just aging for someone to at least attempt to defend the law other than citing it and declaring victory.

The fact that your right to free association does not include things you think it should does not mean that it has been taken away from you.

My right to free speech is restricted in all kinds of ways.  That doesn't make it OK.


Doesn't make what OK? Your right to free speech?
Or the fact that your right to free speech isn't absolute and unlimited?
I think both those things are OK.
 
2014-01-21 05:30:10 PM  

Uncontrolled_Jibe: Orthodox Jews do not eat pork or cheeseburgers. I support their right to not sell either, but I also believe that any Kosher deli that refused people pastrami or a cheese pizza who can pay the


You do know it is perfectly legal for a kosher deli to not sell pastrami, right?  This would be more like a deli that has lots of pastrami in stock being sold to everyone who walks through the door, unless you're a jew in which case we won't sell it to you.
 
2014-01-21 05:33:16 PM  

Elzar: BalugaJoe: Money is money.  What is wrong with these people.

I had inlaws who owned a small grocery store. They wanted a local handyman to create a shelving system for storing rented out VHS tapes - he was okay doing the carpentry work until he found out they rented rated 'R' movies - then he refused to work anymore. Can you guess what religion he identified with?


Did the government force him to complete the work?
 
2014-01-21 05:34:30 PM  

Green Scorpio: Elzar: BalugaJoe: Money is money.  What is wrong with these people.

I had inlaws who owned a small grocery store. They wanted a local handyman to create a shelving system for storing rented out VHS tapes - he was okay doing the carpentry work until he found out they rented rated 'R' movies - then he refused to work anymore. Can you guess what religion he identified with?

Did the government force him to complete the work?


**Yawn**
 
2014-01-21 05:37:13 PM  

Vector R: THAT. I support gay couples having equal rights, but I do not support them or anyone else forcing their views on others. The couple could've easily gone to dozens of other bakeries in the area, but noooooo, they had to be intolerant towards others' beliefs and make a huge fuss which has caused others significant harm.

/do no harm doesn't just apply to doctors


They're not forcing their views on others. They're a gay couple who wanted to purchase a good or service from a business who was licensed by the state to participate in commerce of their nature. As the business is subject to the laws of the state, they performed an illegal act by discriminating against a protected class of ctizens.

The lesbian couple was not forcing the bakery owner to denounce his made-up version of the Bible. The lesbian couple was not forcing him to believe that gay marraige is appropriate. The lesbian couple were participating in commerce, and as a customer... were given the right not to be discriminated against. This right was breached by the business.

Since the bakery in question is not a religious institution, their supposed 'freedom of religion' is not protected. If these individuals are going to leave the wilderness and participate in civil society, they will abide by the laws set forth by the government regardless of their personal agreement with said laws. Since the government is elected/appointed by the very people they choose to do business with, then the will of the people has indirectly dictated that they must not discriminate against this couple.

If they choose not to abide by the will of the people while at the same time participating in commerce with them, then they will be penalized as such.

If they want to discriminate against gay people, they are free to participate in doing so in either the privacy of their own homes or in a religious institution which allows them to be as hateful as they desire.

But when you enter into a contract with a city, state, etc. to do business with them, then you will be forced to abide by their laws, particularly their business laws. Because the state is obligated to protect the people that reside in it, and those people are reasonably expected to do business within that state.
 
2014-01-21 05:38:14 PM  

lennavan: Phinn: What if this baker didn't want to bake a cake for vegetarians? Or the lactose intolerant? Or left-handed Twilight fans? Or teenaged death-metal retro-goths? What if this baker wanted to bake these people a cake but some law prevented her? Is there an ethical principle that addresses these bigotries?

None of those are protected classes of people.



Thank you for your lack of reading comprehension.

The whole part that you failed to quote was about how I was saying that asserting ethical propositions means that you have to assert meaningful ones.  Justifiable ones.  Principled ones.  Otherwise, you're just talking about what you personally like, which means nothing beyond, well, you.

The real question is: Why are they protected classes?  On what ethical principle does one decide how to define "protected classes" in the first place?  (Vegetarians?  Left-handed Twilight fans?)  What is the justification for specially protecting a class in the first place, as opposed to having laws of UNIVERSAL application?


Theaetetus: You merely have to serve them as you would any other customer.



I understand that is your CONCLUSION, but I don't give a sh*t about your conclusions.  I care about the ethical principle on which your conclusion is based.

"Because the Supreme Court said so" is also not an answer to the question of "why should there be a rule that says X."

Pretend that YOU are on the Supreme Court, and you not only have to cite prior decisions (which you can skip here), and you are expected to provide some ORIGINAL THOUGHT to the question put to you, and (more importantly) convince others that you are ethical and rational.

Go ahead.  Knock it out.
 
2014-01-21 05:38:47 PM  
Dear Fundies,

STOP USING GOD AS AN EXCUSE TO BE AN ASSHOLE!!!!

Signed,

Humanity
 
2014-01-21 05:38:55 PM  

jso2897: Green Scorpio: Elzar: BalugaJoe: Money is money.  What is wrong with these people.

I had inlaws who owned a small grocery store. They wanted a local handyman to create a shelving system for storing rented out VHS tapes - he was okay doing the carpentry work until he found out they rented rated 'R' movies - then he refused to work anymore. Can you guess what religion he identified with?

Did the government force him to complete the work?

**Yawn**


I'll take that as "no"
 
2014-01-21 05:41:07 PM  

Phinn: Why are they protected classes? On what ethical principle does one decide how to define "protected classes" in the first place? (Vegetarians? Left-handed Twilight fans?) What is the justification for specially protecting a class in the first place, as opposed to having laws of UNIVERSAL application?


So you don't understand why being black is a protected class of people yet left-handed twilight fan is not?
 
2014-01-21 05:42:49 PM  

Phinn: The real question is: Why are they protected classes?  On what ethical principle does one decide how to define "protected classes" in the first place?  (Vegetarians?  Left-handed Twilight fans?)  What is the justification for specially protecting a class in the first place, as opposed to having laws of UNIVERSAL application?


Protected classes are generally those that have an established history of being discriminated against and thus being in need of protection.
 
2014-01-21 05:45:35 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Phinn: The real question is: Why are they protected classes?  On what ethical principle does one decide how to define "protected classes" in the first place?  (Vegetarians?  Left-handed Twilight fans?)  What is the justification for specially protecting a class in the first place, as opposed to having laws of UNIVERSAL application?

Protected classes are generally those that have an established history of being discriminated against and thus being in need of protection.


Like vegetarians. Those guys suck.
 
2014-01-21 05:55:13 PM  
DEAR GOD so these two filthy lezzies swagger like men into my shop and DEMAND I bake a cake for their demonic mockery of a Christian wedding.  I told them I don't make tuna-flavored cake, or brimstone, but no, they lifted me off the floor with their hairy, manly arms and demanded I go against my religious convictions and celebrate their unholy union or they would sue.

I have no choice but to shutter my bakery and go live somewhere the law is on my side, like Namibia or Uganda.
 
2014-01-21 05:55:32 PM  
Phinn:
Theaetetus: You merely have to serve them as you would any other customer.

I understand that is your CONCLUSION, but I don't give a sh*t about your conclusions.


Please watch your language. I have extended you every courtesy. If you cannot participate in a conversation like an adult, then do not attempt to do so.

I care about the ethical principle on which your conclusion is based.
"Because the Supreme Court said so" is also not an answer to the question of "why should there be a rule that says X."


That is not what I said. I quoted the Supreme Court's  reasoning for  why there should be a rule that says that. I then went on to provide further explanation for why this is so.

Pretend that YOU are on the Supreme Court, and you not only have to cite prior decisions (which you can skip here), and you are expected to provide some ORIGINAL THOUGHT to the question put to you, and (more importantly) convince others that you are ethical and rational.

Go ahead.  Knock it out.


Once more, but only because I'm attempting to show you that adults can communicate, even with those they disagree with, without acting like assholes.

Why there should be a rule that says that you cannot discriminate in the course of your public, commercial enterprise, is that in our society, we have collectively agreed that minorities should not be oppressed or punished, merely because they are a minority. Every person should have an equal right to participate in the public sphere, regardless of race, creed, color, gender, sexual orientation, etc., because it is through the contribution of different viewpoints and beliefs that our society advances.
Accordingly, when someone discriminates in public accommodations, they are preventing a fellow citizen from participating in that public sphere. Just as you have the right to free speech, you do not have the right to prevent others from speaking, merely because you disagree with their beliefs. Similarly, just as you have the right to engage in commercial activity, you do not have the right to prevent others from doing so, merely because you disagree with their race or gender.
Nor is it a valid answer to say "they can go to some other merchant," just as it's not a valid answer to say "they can go to some other public forum to speak." The same danger occurs - if the minority can only exercise their rights "elsewhere", then the majority may take their rights simply by occupying everywhere they can go.

So, in summary, the ethical principle that prevents you from discriminating against others in your commercial business is the same ethical principle that prevents you from silencing someone from speaking their mind, or prevents you from stopping someone from praying, or prevents you from shredding someone's petition to a court.
 
2014-01-21 05:59:38 PM  

Green Scorpio: jso2897: Green Scorpio: Elzar: BalugaJoe: Money is money.  What is wrong with these people.

I had inlaws who owned a small grocery store. They wanted a local handyman to create a shelving system for storing rented out VHS tapes - he was okay doing the carpentry work until he found out they rented rated 'R' movies - then he refused to work anymore. Can you guess what religion he identified with?

Did the government force him to complete the work?

**Yawn**

I'll take that as "no"


Take it as a "We've gone over this already".
 
2014-01-21 06:00:18 PM  

ciberido: DubtodaIll: Headso: DubtodaIll: You've already gotten your legal rights for marriage, why make an example out of a solitary business and screw over the cakemakers?

Because these lezbos are uppity, breh

Just seems selfish to me.

Yes, of course.  And I'm sure if we lived in a parallel universe where the roles were reversed, you wouldn't complain if businesses refused to serve you on the basis of your heterosexuality.  You would consider it selfish to demand equal treatment.


I'd just go somewhere that wanted my money, certainly wouldn't call the press about it. But that's easy for me to say I'm not an asshole.
 
2014-01-21 06:00:24 PM  

highwayrun: DEAR GOD so these two filthy lezzies swagger like men into my shop and DEMAND I bake a cake for their demonic mockery of a Christian wedding.  I told them I don't make tuna-flavored cake, or brimstone, but no, they lifted me off the floor with their hairy, manly arms and demanded I go against my religious convictions and celebrate their unholy union or they would sue.

I have no choice but to shutter my bakery and go live somewhere the law is on my side, like Namibia or Uganda.


Heh. Good job.
 
2014-01-21 06:03:07 PM  

DubtodaIll: ciberido: DubtodaIll: Headso: DubtodaIll: You've already gotten your legal rights for marriage, why make an example out of a solitary business and screw over the cakemakers?

Because these lezbos are uppity, breh

Just seems selfish to me.

Yes, of course.  And I'm sure if we lived in a parallel universe where the roles were reversed, you wouldn't complain if businesses refused to serve you on the basis of your heterosexuality.  You would consider it selfish to demand equal treatment.

I'd just go somewhere that wanted my money, certainly wouldn't call the press about it. But that's easy for me to say I'm not an asshole.


i18.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-21 06:08:14 PM  

notto: If they have a business license and a tax number and they are using them to sell goods to the public, the RFRA does not apply. They are not a religious organization or acting as an individual. A business does not have religious beliefs and it is the business identified and licensed by the business licence that violated the law and is being punished and fined.


The rights of the people working for the business cannot be infringed for the sake of the business corporate entity. This is especially true in small businesses where the staff and ownership is identical.

Even if we insist on the hard-line analysis of a separating the 'business owner's hat' from the 'baker's hat' in this case, the fact is that the couple's 'baker' aspect retains RFRA rights as employees. Since no other employee at that bakery at the time could serve in stead, the 'business owner' aspect should not be compelled to accept a contract to provide services it cannot.

You (and the lower courts of Oregon and Colorado, apparently) want to compel people to abgogate either their own Constitutional rights to their freedom to assemble or freedom of expression. That, in itself, is unconstitutional. Not to mention ridiculous.
 
2014-01-21 06:09:26 PM  

Theaetetus: If you don't understand that distinction, then please ask questions, rather than just shouting and pretending not to understand the arguments being made.


Says the guy who is desperately trying to pretend not to understand that he is being asked to justify his arbitrary distinction.

One has nothing to do with the other. The freedom of association (which, incidentally, is not explicitly in the first amendment... maybe you meant the right to assemble?) is an implication of the freedom of speech, under NAACP v. Alabama, in which the Supreme Court noted that in many cases, effective speech requires joining with others.

Not sure whether you didn't understand the ruling, or you are trying to edit it because you think that helps your argument.  Either way, are you saying that there is no right to privacy because the text isn't in the Constitution?

...we're talking about whether a baker can discriminate in their public, commercial business.
They need not associate with anyone to do so


So your saying you don't understand what so association is?

jso2897: Doesn't make what OK? Your right to free speech?
Or the fact that your right to free speech isn't absolute and unlimited?
I think both those things are OK.


These things are mutually exclusive.  You have chosen the latter.  You are truly a horrible person.
 
2014-01-21 06:13:35 PM  

Guelph35: Satan's Bunny Slippers: Guelph35: I don't agree with the bakery owner's decision, but when did sexual orientation become a protected class in regards to discrimination?

I did not just read this.

Why?

I believe a private business has the right to make the decisions that they feel are correct for their business (including the right to refuse service) unless they are breaking the law.

I don't have to agree with their decisions but they should be allowed to make them.  If they decide they're losing too much money from their decision they'll change their mind or go out of business.

I just didn't know the law in the state of Oregon or if there was a federal law that trumps the state.


It's bad enough that you were too dumb and lazy to use Google the first time.  Don't come back in and act --- oh.  I get it.  You've been playing dumb all along.   JAQing off, are you?  Or is this your idea of the Socratic method?
 
2014-01-21 06:16:09 PM  

BMFPitt: So your saying


Farking Swype...
 
2014-01-21 06:18:35 PM  

Finger51: TrotlineDesigns: I would have just pissed in the cake at the very least.  Funny thing about farking with people that prepare your food.. it isn't a good idea to fark with people that prepare your food.

/had my dog pee in it too.

Because that's what Jeezus would have done, right?


Wouldn't know.  Far as I know I've never picked up a bible other than use the back page to roll a joint with at a hotel once.
 
2014-01-21 06:23:11 PM  
MyRandomName:

You realize that you liberals are acting exactly the same towards religious people, right? Liberals always want respect but never respect the religious views of others. The irony is thick.

Are there really zero other wedding cake designers? This is about liberals trying to fark a religious person over. No more, no less.


Oh man. You are going to blow a cow when you find out that most liberals are religious.
 
2014-01-21 06:23:35 PM  

TerminalEchoes: HoustonNick: Libtard Creed - You must believe like I believe or be punished.  No other beliefs will be accepted.

This is so disgusting.

This. Done in one.


Wow.  You guys really hate Libertarians.
 
2014-01-21 06:30:06 PM  
gerrymander:

The rights of the people working for the business cannot be infringed for the sake of the business corporate entity. This is especially true in small businesses where the staff and ownership is identical.

You don't  have a religious right to work for a business that discriminates.   You don't have a religious right to own a business that discriminates.  You don't have a right to run a non-regulated law breaking business period.   That is not a requirement of your religion so preventing you from doing it is not an infringement of your rights.

Nobody is stopping you as an individual or as an artist from making or not making cakes.  If you want to sell them to the public, that is where your business hat and the laws associated with it take over.

This is established law, not something theoretical or that  we are making up.  Quit pretending that you can change reality just because you don't like it.

What part of the RFRA governs the selling of goods for profit?  Please be specific.
 
2014-01-21 06:32:38 PM  

Chummer45: This technique - invoking concepts like "economic freedom" or "states rights" - is frequently used by conservatives when they need an excuse for their bigoted public policy ideas.


It is still a strawman. Nobody is using "states rights" as an argument against this, and "states rights" are still the very reason that this couple had a case.

Chummer45: Kind of like how conservatives manage to argue, with a straight face, that the reason they support voter ID laws is because they want to stop voter fraud.


Well I'm a conservative, and I don't support voter ID laws because I want to stop voter fraud. I support them because the gun control crowd has convinced me it is completely reasonable to "slightly inconvenience" the vast majority of citizens when addressing the actions of the very few.
 
2014-01-21 06:36:08 PM  

HoustonNick: Libtard Creed - You must believe like I believe or be punished.  No other beliefs will be accepted.

This is so disgusting.


No. The "libtard" creed is you can believe whatever the hell you want. It's your behavior that counts.
 
2014-01-21 06:37:03 PM  

lennavan: Uncontrolled_Jibe: Orthodox Jews do not eat pork or cheeseburgers. I support their right to not sell either, but I also believe that any Kosher deli that refused people pastrami or a cheese pizza who can pay the

You do know it is perfectly legal for a kosher deli to not sell pastrami, right?  This would be more like a deli that has lots of pastrami in stock being sold to everyone who walks through the door, unless you're a jew in which case we won't sell it to you.


Went back and read what I wrote just in case the keyboard was willingly disobedient, but it does appear what you're saying is the gist of what I wrote.   No braunschweiger today or tomorrow if its Kosher, but I don't seem to be stating in any way that Pastrami is a requirement.     You sell borscht to Levi then if there's still some borscht left then you better not turn down Leroy.
 
2014-01-21 06:38:32 PM  

Theaetetus: Phinn:
Theaetetus: You merely have to serve them as you would any other customer.

I understand that is your CONCLUSION, but I don't give a sh*t about your conclusions.

Please watch your language. I have extended you every courtesy. If you cannot participate in a conversation like an adult, then do not attempt to do so.

I care about the ethical principle on which your conclusion is based.
"Because the Supreme Court said so" is also not an answer to the question of "why should there be a rule that says X."

That is not what I said. I quoted the Supreme Court's  reasoning for  why there should be a rule that says that. I then went on to provide further explanation for why this is so.

Pretend that YOU are on the Supreme Court, and you not only have to cite prior decisions (which you can skip here), and you are expected to provide some ORIGINAL THOUGHT to the question put to you, and (more importantly) convince others that you are ethical and rational.

Go ahead.  Knock it out.

Once more, but only because I'm attempting to show you that adults can communicate, even with those they disagree with, without acting like assholes.

Why there should be a rule that says that you cannot discriminate in the course of your public, commercial enterprise, is that in our society, we have collectively agreed that minorities should not be oppressed or punished, merely because they are a minority. Every person should have an equal right to participate in the public sphere, regardless of race, creed, color, gender, sexual orientation, etc., because it is through the contribution of different viewpoints and beliefs that our society advances.
Accordingly, when someone discriminates in public accommodations, they are preventing a fellow citizen from participating in that public sphere. Just as you have the right to free speech, you do not have the right to prevent others from speaking, merely because you disagree with their beliefs. Similarly, just as you have the right to engage in com ...


I think you've effectively reduced Phinn's argument to "but I don't like your facts".
 
Displayed 50 of 676 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report