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
    More: Dumbass, Fox News, gay sex  
•       •       •

1183 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Dec 2013 at 9:06 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



313 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-12-11 09:08:24 AM  
So he's not a bigot... he's simply a moron?
 
2013-12-11 09:10:16 AM  

clkeagle: So he's not a bigot... he's simply a moron?


static4.fjcdn.comView Full Size
 
2013-12-11 09:10:25 AM  
That's some late-entry HOTY material there, subby.  I lol'd.
 
2013-12-11 09:11:23 AM  

MightyPez: clkeagle: So he's not a bigot... he's simply a moron?

[static4.fjcdn.com image 206x200]


Definitely both.
 
2013-12-11 09:14:00 AM  
He said he'd make any other cake for them, so what makes a wedding cake so different? Is it the fact that wedding cakes sometimes have human figures on top? Is that where he's drawing the line? A wedding cake is just a big cake with several (usually dry) layers. If it eases his mind, he could think of it as a baby shower cake/
 
2013-12-11 09:16:01 AM  
"Jack, are you willing to go to jail for your religious beliefs here?" asked Hasselbeck.

"You know if that's what it takes, I guess I would be," he responded.


Ohh christ, they're going to turn this guy into a martyr
 
2013-12-11 09:16:12 AM  
I think the guy is 110% WRONG but how can a judge order you to do business with someone?
 
2013-12-11 09:16:32 AM  
After the wedding cake is sorted, then there's the Pizza Delivery guy for the bachelor party.

3.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size
 
2013-12-11 09:17:08 AM  
How does this violate his religion?  He has been very clear that the government has compelled him to comply and he in no way condones same sex marriage.

Also, which verse in the Bible outlaws same sex marriage?
 
2013-12-11 09:17:53 AM  
I'm really curious what other sins he checks his clients for before baking them cakes.
 
2013-12-11 09:18:15 AM  

scottydoesntknow: "Jack, are you willing to go to jail for your religious beliefs here?" asked Hasselbeck.

"You know if that's what it takes, I guess I would be," he responded.

Ohh christ, they're going to turn this guy into a martyr


All you have to do is read the screencap captions: SO MUCH FOR FREEDOM!
 
2013-12-11 09:18:57 AM  
"I do believe that the United States constitution as well as the Colorado constitution both protect my right to freely practice my religious beliefs while I'm at my work," he said.

So if you claim religious belief on something it's automatically sanctioned as a constitutional right?
 
2013-12-11 09:19:12 AM  

Epic Fap Session: How does this violate his religion?  He has been very clear that the government has compelled him to comply and he in no way condones same sex marriage.

Also, which verse in the Bible outlaws same sex marriage?


More importantly, which verse in the Bible says Christians aren't supposed to make cakes for gay people?

This guy needs to get the fark over himself.  He's a farking baker.  He makes cake, NOT policy.  Make your damn cakes and STFU.
 
2013-12-11 09:19:48 AM  
"Fox & Friends" host Elisabeth Hasselbeck ... in a segment called "The Death of Free Enterprise."

i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2013-12-11 09:21:20 AM  

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


Judges order business to fulfill contracts all the time.   Businesses can be forced to comply with many regulations or be fined/shutdown.   When you open your business to the public, your are obliged to follow many more laws, including not discriminating.    If he wants to discriminate, he should close his shop to the public and only allow private sales/referrals.
 
2013-12-11 09:22:46 AM  
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.
 
2013-12-11 09:22:54 AM  
I like the photo below the article:

opposingviews.comView Full Size


that's what happens at a gay marriage, right? Black woman tries to marry elephant?
 
2013-12-11 09:23:14 AM  

Jackson Herring: "Fox & Friends" host Elisabeth Hasselbeck ... in a segment called "The Death of Free Enterprise."

[i.imgur.com image 850x478]


Seriously, "the death of free enterprise?"  They're not even being subtle anymore about trying to scare their viewers.  They might as well rename their presidential coverage "OOGA OOGA BOOGA THERE'S A SCARY BLACK MAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND HE MIGHT MOVE INTO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD WHEN HE FINISHES HIS TERM BOOGA BOOGA"
 
2013-12-11 09:25:14 AM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: All you have to do is read the screencap captions: SO MUCH FOR FREEDOM!


I thought you were joking about that until I RTFA.
 
2013-12-11 09:25:53 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?


On second thought, subliminal message: Elephant ruins wedding?
 
2013-12-11 09:28:38 AM  
The guy is a moron. That said, go to another cake shop. The idea that a judge can force a private business owner to perform services against his own, warped as they may be, morals is ridiculous in a free country.
 
2013-12-11 09:30:29 AM  
For not making a wedding cake, he is going to receive a lot of pound cake.
 
2013-12-11 09:30:33 AM  
While this guy is an absolute jackass, so too are the couple making a big legal case out of it. Being turned away from a hotel room or a meal at a restaurant because you're gay? Absolutely, throw the book at the bigot. But a friggin' wedding cake? None of the rationales for why antidiscrimination law should trump freedom of religion and association (which is what they do, justified or not) apply here. There's no significant cost or burden in just getting your cake from someone who isn't a bigot. Ditto with the recent case involving a wedding photographer.

I'm in a SSM. We had to travel out of state for the civil ceremony, but our private ceremony was here in Wisconsin. I would have never dreamed of making our personal statement of love and union into a friggin' poltical exercise in having the state force people to participate. I can't imagine anything that would have tarnished the day more than having unwilling, coerced participants.
 
2013-12-11 09:32:50 AM  

kid_icarus: "I do believe that the United States constitution as well as the Colorado constitution both protect my right to freely practice my religious beliefs while I'm at my work," he said.

So if you claim religious belief on something it's automatically sanctioned as a constitutional right?


You certainly could argue the free exercise clause of the Constitution. Of course that route has failed on some extremes (e.g. multiple wives, smoking pot).
 
2013-12-11 09:34:48 AM  

EWreckedSean: The guy is a moron. That said, go to another cake shop. The idea that a judge can force a private business owner to perform services against his own, warped as they may be, morals is ridiculous in a free country.


Supreme Court has been issuing opinions to the contrary for decades.

/on phone, cant linky to cites
 
2013-12-11 09:36:47 AM  

EWreckedSean: The guy is a moron. That said, go to another cake shop. The idea that a judge can force a private business owner to perform services against his own, warped as they may be, morals is ridiculous in a free country.



Yeah, how dare they force business owners to serve Jews and African-Americans as if they were as good as regular people.
 
2013-12-11 09:36:51 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?


If that's a bull male in musth, they're smart to run like farking hell. The testosterone rise makes them literally insane, it goes to like 60x normal. It's like a giant elephant HULKING THE fark OUT.

Scary stuff.
 
2013-12-11 09:37:50 AM  
Sounds like this guy is begging to be a martyr, even though the Colorado law he was accused of has a max cap of a $500 fine per incident.
 
2013-12-11 09:38:11 AM  

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


amistadresource.orgView Full Size


My religion says I can't serve the darkies.
 
2013-12-11 09:39:29 AM  

Koalaesq: EWreckedSean: The guy is a moron. That said, go to another cake shop. The idea that a judge can force a private business owner to perform services against his own, warped as they may be, morals is ridiculous in a free country.

Supreme Court has been issuing opinions to the contrary for decades.

/on phone, cant linky to cites


Heart of Atlanta Motel would be the relevant case, but most if not all of the reasons that justified that opinion (mainly the degree of burden imposed on members of the relevant minority by discrimination) don't really apply here. Though cutting the other way, that line of cases also had a commerce clause/federal power limits question, which doesn't apply here as this is a state law case, and states have a general police power which the Feds don't.
 
2013-12-11 09:41:49 AM  

pueblonative: Sounds like this guy is begging to be a martyr, even though the Colorado law he was accused of has a max cap of a $500 fine per incident.


If he refuses to pay it, the penalties will escalate until he's jailed for contempt. Try not paying you $150 speeding ticket for a few years and see what happens when you get pulled over.
 
2013-12-11 09:41:56 AM  

Koalaesq: EWreckedSean: The guy is a moron. That said, go to another cake shop. The idea that a judge can force a private business owner to perform services against his own, warped as they may be, morals is ridiculous in a free country.

Supreme Court has been issuing opinions to the contrary for decades.

/on phone, cant linky to cites


While that is a little bit different conversation, the court really hasn't ruled that way so much when it is a religious objection to serving someone, and also I don't think the Civil Rights Act covers sexual orientation.
 
2013-12-11 09:42:21 AM  

Churchill2004: While this guy is an absolute jackass, so too are the couple making a big legal case out of it. Being turned away from a hotel room or a meal at a restaurant because you're gay? Absolutely, throw the book at the bigot. But a friggin' wedding cake? None of the rationales for why antidiscrimination law should trump freedom of religion and association (which is what they do, justified or not) apply here. There's no significant cost or burden in just getting your cake from someone who isn't a bigot. Ditto with the recent case involving a wedding photographer.

I'm in a SSM. We had to travel out of state for the civil ceremony, but our private ceremony was here in Wisconsin. I would have never dreamed of making our personal statement of love and union into a friggin' poltical exercise in having the state force people to participate. I can't imagine anything that would have tarnished the day more than having unwilling, coerced participants.


So businesses shouldn't be allowed to discriminate, except when they want to?
How did you type that without getting whiplash?
 
2013-12-11 09:43:09 AM  

Churchill2004: pueblonative: Sounds like this guy is begging to be a martyr, even though the Colorado law he was accused of has a max cap of a $500 fine per incident.

If he refuses to pay it, the penalties will escalate until he's jailed for contempt. Try not paying you $150 speeding ticket for a few years and see what happens when you get pulled over.


So he'll be jailed for being a deadbeat, not for being a bigot.
 
2013-12-11 09:43:44 AM  

Lady Indica: If that's a bull male in musth, they're smart to run like farking hell. The testosterone rise makes them literally insane, it goes to like 60x normal. It's like a giant elephant HULKING THE fark OUT.

Scary stuff.


Even if that's not the case, elephants as a species are suffering a societal breakdown. Basically, they don't need the testo boost to make them nuts, they suffer psych trauma in their day-to-day lives from hunting and stuff.
 
2013-12-11 09:43:56 AM  

give me doughnuts: EWreckedSean: The guy is a moron. That said, go to another cake shop. The idea that a judge can force a private business owner to perform services against his own, warped as they may be, morals is ridiculous in a free country.


Yeah, how dare they force business owners to serve Jews and African-Americans as if they were as good as regular people.


this. What happens when he and his fellow klansmen decide to stop discriminating against the current popular target and go back to those old favorites, the darkies. Then the jews. If we dont have laws saying you need to serve everyone equally that are enforced, then this one instance of discrimination will multiply to other incidents and targeted groups.
 
2013-12-11 09:44:32 AM  

give me doughnuts: EWreckedSean: The guy is a moron. That said, go to another cake shop. The idea that a judge can force a private business owner to perform services against his own, warped as they may be, morals is ridiculous in a free country.


Yeah, how dare they force business owners to serve Jews and African-Americans as if they were as good as regular people.


Honestly, in this day and age, I think such protections are archaic and shouldn't be provided. If you are a bigot and don't want to serve Jews and African Americans, so be it. It is your private business. I will happily let everybody know you are a racist and take my business elsewhere. I understand there was a time and some places especially in the deep south where such protections where necessary, but that day is gone, and we should balance the business owners rights versus the customers.
 
2013-12-11 09:45:00 AM  
Forgot to add: most (all?) states have a formula where each day in jail equals so many dollars of an unpaid fine. If it's $20/day, for example, refusal to pay a $500 fine could get you 25 days in the clink.
 
2013-12-11 09:45:24 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2013-12-11 09:46:36 AM  

EWreckedSean: give me doughnuts: EWreckedSean: The guy is a moron. That said, go to another cake shop. The idea that a judge can force a private business owner to perform services against his own, warped as they may be, morals is ridiculous in a free country.


Yeah, how dare they force business owners to serve Jews and African-Americans as if they were as good as regular people.

Honestly, in this day and age, I think such protections are archaic and shouldn't be provided. If you are a bigot and don't want to serve Jews and African Americans, so be it. It is your private business. I will happily let everybody know you are a racist and take my business elsewhere. I understand there was a time and some places especially in the deep south where such protections where necessary, but that day is gone, and we should balance the business owners rights versus the customers.



It's pretty obvious that those days aren't over, or else what is this story about?
 
2013-12-11 09:47:23 AM  

Jaws_Victim: give me doughnuts: EWreckedSean: The guy is a moron. That said, go to another cake shop. The idea that a judge can force a private business owner to perform services against his own, warped as they may be, morals is ridiculous in a free country.


Yeah, how dare they force business owners to serve Jews and African-Americans as if they were as good as regular people.

this. What happens when he and his fellow klansmen decide to stop discriminating against the current popular target and go back to those old favorites, the darkies. Then the jews. If we dont have laws saying you need to serve everyone equally that are enforced, then this one instance of discrimination will multiply to other incidents and targeted groups.


Also he didn't say he wouldn't serve them, he said he wouldn't make that type of cake, but would happily bake whatever else they wanted.
 
2013-12-11 09:49:38 AM  

give me doughnuts: Churchill2004: While this guy is an absolute jackass, so too are the couple making a big legal case out of it. Being turned away from a hotel room or a meal at a restaurant because you're gay? Absolutely, throw the book at the bigot. But a friggin' wedding cake? None of the rationales for why antidiscrimination law should trump freedom of religion and association (which is what they do, justified or not) apply here. There's no significant cost or burden in just getting your cake from someone who isn't a bigot. Ditto with the recent case involving a wedding photographer.

I'm in a SSM. We had to travel out of state for the civil ceremony, but our private ceremony was here in Wisconsin. I would have never dreamed of making our personal statement of love and union into a friggin' poltical exercise in having the state force people to participate. I can't imagine anything that would have tarnished the day more than having unwilling, coerced participants.

So businesses shouldn't be allowed to discriminate, except when they want to?
How did you type that without getting whiplash?


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.

There's also the fact that making a cake implicates 1A freedoms in a way nonexpressive services do not. Try suing your local newspaper because they won't publish letters to the editor from people with Jewish names. Your case would go nowhere, even if you had solid proof.
 
2013-12-11 09:50:40 AM  

Churchill2004: Forgot to add: most (all?) states have a formula where each day in jail equals so many dollars of an unpaid fine. If it's $20/day, for example, refusal to pay a $500 fine could get you 25 days in the clink.


Considering that this guy owns a business, there are a lot more effective ways to get the money (liens, bank freezes, etc)  that don't require the state to pay for this guy to get three hots and a cot.  He may wish he was in jail by the time this is all over and he gets his head out of his ass, but it's going to take a lot for the state to decide to jail him.
 
2013-12-11 09:50:59 AM  

give me doughnuts: EWreckedSean: give me doughnuts: EWreckedSean: The guy is a moron. That said, go to another cake shop. The idea that a judge can force a private business owner to perform services against his own, warped as they may be, morals is ridiculous in a free country.


Yeah, how dare they force business owners to serve Jews and African-Americans as if they were as good as regular people.

Honestly, in this day and age, I think such protections are archaic and shouldn't be provided. If you are a bigot and don't want to serve Jews and African Americans, so be it. It is your private business. I will happily let everybody know you are a racist and take my business elsewhere. I understand there was a time and some places especially in the deep south where such protections where necessary, but that day is gone, and we should balance the business owners rights versus the customers.


It's pretty obvious that those days aren't over, or else what is this story about?


Those days are over in that this isn't the old south anymore. Access to goods and services is universally more accessible now. And this attitude is no longer generally excepted by any but the more extreme elements of society. the correct answer here is for this gay couple to not do business with this guy any more, let their friends know he is unfriendly to the gay community, and let his business suffer the consequences. Not threaten somebody with jail because they won't make a cake that goes against their religous beliefs (no matter how stupid you or I may think they are).
 
2013-12-11 09:52:59 AM  

pueblonative: Churchill2004: Forgot to add: most (all?) states have a formula where each day in jail equals so many dollars of an unpaid fine. If it's $20/day, for example, refusal to pay a $500 fine could get you 25 days in the clink.

Considering that this guy owns a business, there are a lot more effective ways to get the money (liens, bank freezes, etc)  that don't require the state to pay for this guy to get three hots and a cot.  He may wish he was in jail by the time this is all over and he gets his head out of his ass, but it's going to take a lot for the state to decide to jail him.


That's entirely possible, but if it works out that way it will be because the state chose not to jail him, not because it couldn't.
 
2013-12-11 09:54:32 AM  

EWreckedSean: Honestly, in this day and age, I think such protections are archaic and shouldn't be provided. If you are a bigot and don't want to serve Jews and African Americans, so be it. It is your private business.


Any business owner can do that right now, all they have to do is not open their business to the public.   Private clubs are exempt from lots of discrimination laws, food safety laws, smoking laws, etc.   Once you open your doors to the public, however, things change.   You can't have your cake and eat it too.
 
2013-12-11 09:55:37 AM  

EWreckedSean: The guy is a moron. That said, go to another cake shop. The idea that a judge can force a private business owner to perform services against his own, warped as they may be, morals is ridiculous in a free country.


I get the feeling that people who feel this way would also have a huge problem if a business decided to discriminate against white and/or christian people.
 
2013-12-11 09:57:03 AM  
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.
 
2013-12-11 09:58:00 AM  

Churchill2004: give me doughnuts: Churchill2004: While this guy is an absolute jackass, so too are the couple making a big legal case out of it. Being turned away from a hotel room or a meal at a restaurant because you're gay? Absolutely, throw the book at the bigot. But a friggin' wedding cake? None of the rationales for why antidiscrimination law should trump freedom of religion and association (which is what they do, justified or not) apply here. There's no significant cost or burden in just getting your cake from someone who isn't a bigot. Ditto with the recent case involving a wedding photographer.

I'm in a SSM. We had to travel out of state for the civil ceremony, but our private ceremony was here in Wisconsin. I would have never dreamed of making our personal statement of love and union into a friggin' poltical exercise in having the state force people to participate. I can't imagine anything that would have tarnished the day more than having unwilling, coerced participants.

So businesses shouldn't be allowed to discriminate, except when they want to?
How did you type that without getting whiplash?

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.

There's also the fact that making a cake implicates 1A freedoms in a way nonexpressive services do not. Try suing your local newspaper because they won't publish letters to the editor from people with Jewish names. Your case would go nowhere, even if you had solid proof.


Quick question:  When I got married, we all talked about the cake that we had bought.  Was the topic:

1.  How did the baker's theme of existential angst manifest itself in the lemon filling?
2.  How did it taste?

I'll give you three guesses and the first five don't count.
 
2013-12-11 10:00:14 AM  

Warlordtrooper: EWreckedSean: The guy is a moron. That said, go to another cake shop. The idea that a judge can force a private business owner to perform services against his own, warped as they may be, morals is ridiculous in a free country.

I get the feeling that people who feel this way would also have a huge problem if a business decided to discriminate against white and/or christian people.


I would absolutely have a problem with the business. Probably take an hour or two to blast them online, tell all my friends they are assholes, and move on. I've been refused service at a Vietnamese pool hall and a Puerto Rican night club in Orlando before for being white. I told them to go fark themselves, laughed at the door guy because they just cost their bartenders a good tip, and went somewhere else. This isn't 1950's deep south any more where people have no access to any local businesses. At some point the property rights of the owners need to be weighed against the right to service of the patrons.
 
2013-12-11 10:01:36 AM  

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.


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.
 
2013-12-11 10:02:58 AM  

EWreckedSean: give me doughnuts: EWreckedSean: give me doughnuts: EWreckedSean: The guy is a moron. That said, go to another cake shop. The idea that a judge can force a private business owner to perform services against his own, warped as they may be, morals is ridiculous in a free country.


Yeah, how dare they force business owners to serve Jews and African-Americans as if they were as good as regular people.

Honestly, in this day and age, I think such protections are archaic and shouldn't be provided. If you are a bigot and don't want to serve Jews and African Americans, so be it. It is your private business. I will happily let everybody know you are a racist and take my business elsewhere. I understand there was a time and some places especially in the deep south where such protections where necessary, but that day is gone, and we should balance the business owners rights versus the customers.


It's pretty obvious that those days aren't over, or else what is this story about?

Those days are over in that this isn't the old south anymore. Access to goods and services is universally more accessible now. And this attitude is no longer generally excepted by any but the more extreme elements of society. the correct answer here is for this gay couple to not do business with this guy any more, let their friends know he is unfriendly to the gay community, and let his business suffer the consequences. Not threaten somebody with jail because they won't make a cake that goes against their religous beliefs (no matter how stupid you or I may think they are).


It's frankly overstated how necessary it even was to end the bad pratices in the Old South. People forget Jim Crow was not some organic bottom-up social movement- it was imposed by state laws that came about specifically because private businesses didn't want to subordinate their profits and/or principles to the whims of racist polticians. In Plessey v Ferguson- the case that infamously established the "seperate but equal" test- the private railroad company was actually on the side of Homer Plessey, the black man, against the state of Louisiana, which was mandating segregation that neither the customers nor the railroad wanted. That sort of story-private business vs. state segregation- was a lot more common than Heart of Atlanta would make you think. The idea that Jim Crow would have long persisted without the laws mandating it is a myth.
 
2013-12-11 10:03:08 AM  

wrs1864: EWreckedSean: Honestly, in this day and age, I think such protections are archaic and shouldn't be provided. If you are a bigot and don't want to serve Jews and African Americans, so be it. It is your private business.

Any business owner can do that right now, all they have to do is not open their business to the public.   Private clubs are exempt from lots of discrimination laws, food safety laws, smoking laws, etc.   Once you open your doors to the public, however, things change.   You can't have your cake and eat it too.


I'm curious, would you be ok with a bar refusing to serve a pregnant woman a drink?
 
2013-12-11 10:03:37 AM  

EWreckedSean: Koalaesq: EWreckedSean: The guy is a moron. That said, go to another cake shop. The idea that a judge can force a private business owner to perform services against his own, warped as they may be, morals is ridiculous in a free country.

Supreme Court has been issuing opinions to the contrary for decades.

/on phone, cant linky to cites

While that is a little bit different conversation, the court really hasn't ruled that way so much when it is a religious objection to serving someone, and also I don't think the Civil Rights Act covers sexual orientation.


Absolutely they have. Recall that the Klan asserts itself as a religion. - a Christian one, at that - based on the Bible's prohibition against race-mixing. Lots of people asserted a "religious right" to discriminate after various local, state, and national ordinances were passed, including the Civil Rights Act. Such objections went nowhere.

After all, if one could exempt oneself from such laws simply by claiming religion, what laws couldn't you exempt yourself from? Should someone be able to kill any endangered species because Genesis says that the birds and beasts are for Man's use? If refused a mining permit should someone begin to mine because the land was given for Man's use? How about the beheading of a wife for adultery? Sorry, can't arrest me, my religion says it's OK. Paying taxes? My religion says no, sorry government!

I realize some of those are a bit over-the-top, but if the state has passed a law through the legitimate political process that says as a requirement for a public business license you agree not to discriminate, then by accepting the license you agree to those terms. You are always free to refuse the license terms and shut down.
 
2013-12-11 10:05:18 AM  

Epic Fap Session: How does this violate his religion?  He has been very clear that the government has compelled him to comply and he in no way condones same sex marriage.

Also, which verse in the Bible outlaws same sex marriage?


Religion =! strict adherence to only the explicit guidelines established in an ancient text, or even strict adherence to the tenets of a particular denomination. Freedom of religion is the ability to comport yourself in a manner consistent with your metaphysical views of the world, whatever they may be.

That said, this whole "freedom of religion is mentioned first in the Bill of Rights, therefore it is the most significant right and supersedes all other rights when they come into conflict" is absolute hogwash. There is established legal precedence that if you want to enter the public sphere to do business you are required to be willing to provide your services to all comers unless you can prove there is a compelling interest to discriminate. The purchase of baked goods has nothing to do with a person's sexual preference, and selling of a cake has no moral relevance to the event the cake is being used for. Are prison cooks making a value judgment in favor of murderers if they accept payment for the preparation of food for serial killers?

As someone mentioned above, you can't just say "sorry, but my religious convictions say I should discriminate against the children of Ham" and get out of treating black customers the same as white ones.
 
2013-12-11 10:06:52 AM  

EWreckedSean: give me doughnuts: EWreckedSean: give me doughnuts: EWreckedSean: The guy is a moron. That said, go to another cake shop. The idea that a judge can force a private business owner to perform services against his own, warped as they may be, morals is ridiculous in a free country.


Yeah, how dare they force business owners to serve Jews and African-Americans as if they were as good as regular people.

Honestly, in this day and age, I think such protections are archaic and shouldn't be provided. If you are a bigot and don't want to serve Jews and African Americans, so be it. It is your private business. I will happily let everybody know you are a racist and take my business elsewhere. I understand there was a time and some places especially in the deep south where such protections where necessary, but that day is gone, and we should balance the business owners rights versus the customers.


It's pretty obvious that those days aren't over, or else what is this story about?

Those days are over in that this isn't the old south anymore. Access to goods and services is universally more accessible now. And this attitude is no longer generally excepted by any but the more extreme elements of society. the correct answer here is for this gay couple to not do business with this guy any more, let their friends know he is unfriendly to the gay community, and let his business suffer the consequences. Not threaten somebody with jail because they won't make a cake that goes against their religous beliefs (no matter how stupid you or I may think they are).


And we've entered a post racial world now that we've elected a black president, right?
 
2013-12-11 10:08:29 AM  

G. Tarrant: EWreckedSean: Koalaesq: EWreckedSean: The guy is a moron. That said, go to another cake shop. The idea that a judge can force a private business owner to perform services against his own, warped as they may be, morals is ridiculous in a free country.

Supreme Court has been issuing opinions to the contrary for decades.

/on phone, cant linky to cites

While that is a little bit different conversation, the court really hasn't ruled that way so much when it is a religious objection to serving someone, and also I don't think the Civil Rights Act covers sexual orientation.

Absolutely they have. Recall that the Klan asserts itself as a religion. - a Christian one, at that - based on the Bible's prohibition against race-mixing. Lots of people asserted a "religious right" to discriminate after various local, state, and national ordinances were passed, including the Civil Rights Act. Such objections went nowhere.

After all, if one could exempt oneself from such laws simply by claiming religion, what laws couldn't you exempt yourself from? Should someone be able to kill any endangered species because Genesis says that the birds and beasts are for Man's use? If refused a mining permit should someone begin to mine because the land was given for Man's use? How about the beheading of a wife for adultery? Sorry, can't arrest me, my religion says it's OK. Paying taxes? My religion says no, sorry government!

I realize some of those are a bit over-the-top, but if the state has passed a law through the legitimate political process that says as a requirement for a public business license you agree not to discriminate, then by accepting the license you agree to those terms. You are always free to refuse the license terms and shut down.


It was for exactly this reason that the Supreme Court reversed itself and started saying that religious exemptions are never constiutionally mandated. Sadly, Congress and the states flipped out at this and so imposed a similar statutory requirement under RFRA. That's why the Hobby Lobby case didn't actually involve the 1st Amendment.
 
2013-12-11 10:09:03 AM  

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.

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.


Yeah, why should they be bothering a Job CreatorTM (TCBUTT) with talk of their civil rights and equal service.
 
2013-12-11 10:09:43 AM  

pueblonative: And we've entered a post racial world now that we've elected a black president, right?


Post racial, no. Racism being the prominent attitude, I think we are clearly past it. That really isn't the point though. Somewhere you have to weigh the rights of a person to make decisions for their own property against the rights of others to be served. Honestly the metric probably should be is someone being denied access to essential goods and services.
 
2013-12-11 10:10:59 AM  

pueblonative: 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.

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.

Yeah, why should they be bothering a Job CreatorTM (TCBUTT) with talk of their civil rights and equal service.


Were they denied access to any essential goods or services? Or were they butthurt that somebody doesn't agree with their lifestyle?
 
2013-12-11 10:13:38 AM  
I have no problem with the guy declining the business.  I also have no problem with everyone in the world knowing he's a douchebag and finding other places to shop for cakes.
 
2013-12-11 10:13:51 AM  

EWreckedSean: pueblonative: 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.

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.

Yeah, why should they be bothering a Job CreatorTM (TCBUTT) with talk of their civil rights and equal service.

Were they denied access to any essential goods or services? Or were they butthurt that somebody doesn't agree with their lifestyle?


Read the statute for yourself.  Now,hit Ctrl+F and type "essential".  Now tell us what you find.
 
2013-12-11 10:17:08 AM  

pueblonative: EWreckedSean: pueblonative: 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.

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.

Yeah, why should they be bothering a Job CreatorTM (TCBUTT) with talk of their civil rights and equal service.

Were they denied access to any essential goods or services? Or were they butthurt that somebody doesn't agree with their lifestyle?

Read the statute for yourself.  Now,hit Ctrl+F and type "essential".  Now tell us what you find.


Oh I believe you that some law is in place. I was discussing what is correct. For the sake of fairness to customers we've abandoned fairness to property owners to make their own decisions about their privately owned assets. Frankly it has gone too far. As I have said, the metric really should be if somebody is being denied access to essential goods and services.
 
2013-12-11 10:24:23 AM  

EWreckedSean: Not threaten somebody with jail


The only person who said anything about jail was a moron Fox and Friends person.  Nobody with a brain or any kind of authority is saying ANYTHING about jail.
 
2013-12-11 10:25:10 AM  

EWreckedSean: give me doughnuts: EWreckedSean: The guy is a moron. That said, go to another cake shop. The idea that a judge can force a private business owner to perform services against his own, warped as they may be, morals is ridiculous in a free country.


Yeah, how dare they force business owners to serve Jews and African-Americans as if they were as good as regular people.

Honestly, in this day and age, I think such protections are archaic and shouldn't be provided. If you are a bigot and don't want to serve Jews and African Americans, so be it. It is your private business. I will happily let everybody know you are a racist and take my business elsewhere. I understand

there was a time and some places especially in the deep south where such protections where necessary, but that day is gone, and we should balance the business owners rights versus the customers.

My head just asploded.

Someone actually typed that out.

That's enough internet for today, I think.
 
2013-12-11 10:29:06 AM  

HMS_Blinkin: EWreckedSean: Not threaten somebody with jail

The only person who said anything about jail was a moron Fox and Friends person.  Nobody with a brain or any kind of authority is saying ANYTHING about jail.


The jail option has been discussed quite thoroughly in this thread. I'd suggesting reading up.
 
2013-12-11 10:30:44 AM  

EWreckedSean: pueblonative: EWreckedSean: pueblonative: 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.

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.

Yeah, why should they be bothering a Job CreatorTM (TCBUTT) with talk of their civil rights and equal service.

Were they denied access to any essential goods or services? Or were they butthurt that somebody doesn't agree with their lifestyle?

Read the statute for yourself.  Now,hit Ctrl+F and type "essential".  Now tell us what you find.

Oh I believe you that some law is in place. I was discussing what is correct. For the sake of fairness to customers we've abandoned fairness to property owners to make their own decisions about their privately owned assets. Frankly it has gone too far. As I have said, the metric really should be if somebody is being denied access to essential goods and services.


So now some people are only entitled to "essential" goods and services in your world.  That must be real nice.  Sorry that society's civil rights inconvenience you and this bigot, but adding the qualifier "essential" to civil rights would pretty much destroy any notion of equality in our society.  Everybody down the line could argue that their goods and services weren't "essential" and that the aggrieved parties could find them somewhere else.  That's why that isn't in the CRA.  It's for all public accommodations; you want to open your business to the public, you have to accept anybody that's willing to pay.

This guy has multiple options other than not being a dick and complying with the law. He can close his business to the public and operate by referral only.  As somebody mentioned he can subcontract another bakery for his orders by same sex couples.  And if he's that offended, he can always get out and find another job.  His job choice isn't that essential when you get right down to it.
 
2013-12-11 10:31:16 AM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: EWreckedSean: give me doughnuts: EWreckedSean: The guy is a moron. That said, go to another cake shop. The idea that a judge can force a private business owner to perform services against his own, warped as they may be, morals is ridiculous in a free country.


Yeah, how dare they force business owners to serve Jews and African-Americans as if they were as good as regular people.

Honestly, in this day and age, I think such protections are archaic and shouldn't be provided. If you are a bigot and don't want to serve Jews and African Americans, so be it. It is your private business. I will happily let everybody know you are a racist and take my business elsewhere. I understand there was a time and some places especially in the deep south where such protections where necessary, but that day is gone, and we should balance the business owners rights versus the customers.

My head just asploded.

Someone actually typed that out.

That's enough internet for today, I think.


That's right, because down here in the south we are all still stuck in 1950. We sure can't wait until we get the freedom to start sending people to the back of the bus again. Lol.
 
2013-12-11 10:33:07 AM  

EWreckedSean: Jaws_Victim: give me doughnuts: EWreckedSean: The guy is a moron. That said, go to another cake shop. The idea that a judge can force a private business owner to perform services against his own, warped as they may be, morals is ridiculous in a free country.


Yeah, how dare they force business owners to serve Jews and African-Americans as if they were as good as regular people.

this. What happens when he and his fellow klansmen decide to stop discriminating against the current popular target and go back to those old favorites, the darkies. Then the jews. If we dont have laws saying you need to serve everyone equally that are enforced, then this one instance of discrimination will multiply to other incidents and targeted groups.

Also he didn't say he wouldn't serve them, he said he wouldn't make that type of cake, but would happily bake whatever else they wanted.


He refused to sell to two people what he willingly sells to other people. This is a refusal of service. He is only willing to sell to these two what he feels will keep them in their proper place. That is called discrimination.
 
2013-12-11 10:33:20 AM  

pueblonative: So now some people are only entitled to "essential" goods and services in your world.  That must be real nice.  Sorry that society's civil rights inconvenience you and this bigot, but adding the qualifier "essential" to civil rights would pretty much destroy any notion of equality in our society.  Everybody down the line could argue that their goods and services weren't "essential" and that the aggrieved parties could find them somewhere else.  That's why that isn't in the CRA.  It's for all public accommodations; you want to open your business to the public, you have to accept anybody that's willing to pay.

This guy has multiple options other than not being a dick and complying with the law. He can close his business to the public and operate by referral only.  As somebody mentioned he can subcontract another bakery for his orders by same sex couples.  And if he's that offended, he can always get out and find another job.  His job choice isn't that essential when you get right down to it.


That's right, because he doesn't believe in gay marriage, and doesn't' want to make a gay marriage cake, he should have to neuter his business, or pay huge fines, or go to jail. I mean, obviously that is the true meaning of rights for making these guys have to spend five minutes and call another cake shop. Because obviously people should have no rights to their own property if you don't think it is fair.
 
2013-12-11 10:33:35 AM  
So if I go to a Muslim owned restaurant, can I force them to cook and serve me bacon? Or a bacon version of something they do make?
 
2013-12-11 10:34:34 AM  

Jaws_Victim: EWreckedSean: Jaws_Victim: give me doughnuts: EWreckedSean: The guy is a moron. That said, go to another cake shop. The idea that a judge can force a private business owner to perform services against his own, warped as they may be, morals is ridiculous in a free country.


Yeah, how dare they force business owners to serve Jews and African-Americans as if they were as good as regular people.

this. What happens when he and his fellow klansmen decide to stop discriminating against the current popular target and go back to those old favorites, the darkies. Then the jews. If we dont have laws saying you need to serve everyone equally that are enforced, then this one instance of discrimination will multiply to other incidents and targeted groups.

Also he didn't say he wouldn't serve them, he said he wouldn't make that type of cake, but would happily bake whatever else they wanted.

He refused to sell to two people what he willingly sells to other people. This is a refusal of service. He is only willing to sell to these two what he feels will keep them in their proper place. That is called discrimination.


No, he refuses to make a gay wedding cake for anybody, and offered to provide them any of the cakes he does make. Is it stupid, yes. Should he be allowed to make that decision for himself. Absolutely.
 
2013-12-11 10:35:50 AM  

dinomyar: So if I go to a Muslim owned restaurant, can I force them to cook and serve me bacon? Or a bacon version of something they do make?


no, because it's not something they normally serve.  just like you can't go to McDonald's and demand they give you a lobster.
 
2013-12-11 10:35:56 AM  

EWreckedSean: HMS_Blinkin: EWreckedSean: Not threaten somebody with jail

The only person who said anything about jail was a moron Fox and Friends person.  Nobody with a brain or any kind of authority is saying ANYTHING about jail.

The jail option has been discussed quite thoroughly in this thread. I'd suggesting reading up.


So tell me, what Colorado official said, "He can bake a cake or pound fudge. The choice is his."?
 
2013-12-11 10:37:43 AM  

EWreckedSean: pueblonative: So now some people are only entitled to "essential" goods and services in your world.  That must be real nice.  Sorry that society's civil rights inconvenience you and this bigot, but adding the qualifier "essential" to civil rights would pretty much destroy any notion of equality in our society.  Everybody down the line could argue that their goods and services weren't "essential" and that the aggrieved parties could find them somewhere else.  That's why that isn't in the CRA.  It's for all public accommodations; you want to open your business to the public, you have to accept anybody that's willing to pay.

This guy has multiple options other than not being a dick and complying with the law. He can close his business to the public and operate by referral only.  As somebody mentioned he can subcontract another bakery for his orders by same sex couples.  And if he's that offended, he can always get out and find another job.  His job choice isn't that essential when you get right down to it.

That's right, because he doesn't believe in gay marriage, and doesn't' want to make a gay marriage cake, he should have to neuter his business, or pay huge fines, or go to jail. I mean, obviously that is the true meaning of rights for making these guys have to spend five minutes and call another cake shop. Because obviously people should have no rights to their own property if you don't think it is fair.


Okay, so tell me what's different about a gay marriage cake versus a straight marriage cake?  And if he takes his faith so seriously, does he make sure that the bride is a virgin and that she's the same faith as her husband?
 
2013-12-11 10:38:56 AM  

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.
 
2013-12-11 10:39:16 AM  

dinomyar: So if I go to a Muslim owned restaurant, can I force them to cook and serve me bacon? Or a bacon version of something they do make?


That depends. Do they usually serve bacon, just not to you? Then yes. If they simply don't serve bacon, then no. The law doesn't say you have to provide anything being asked for - if you walk into a kosher deli and ask for ham they don't have to stock it just for you - but that they provide what they do sell to those that ask for it.

He may argue "I sell Traditional Marriage(tm) wedding cakes, not same-sex ones" but in the eyes of the law what he makes are cakes, and barring it being obscene, he can't refuse to make for them what he would have made if a heterosexual couple walked in the door and asked for the same.
 
2013-12-11 10:39:41 AM  

pueblonative: EWreckedSean: HMS_Blinkin: EWreckedSean: Not threaten somebody with jail

The only person who said anything about jail was a moron Fox and Friends person.  Nobody with a brain or any kind of authority is saying ANYTHING about jail.

The jail option has been discussed quite thoroughly in this thread. I'd suggesting reading up.

So tell me, what Colorado official said, "He can bake a cake or pound fudge. The choice is his."?


The article quotes his lawyer as saying he is being threatened with jail. I'm assuming the lawyer would open himself up to liability if they actually weren't and he claimed they were...
 
2013-12-11 10:41:29 AM  

pueblonative: EWreckedSean: pueblonative: So now some people are only entitled to "essential" goods and services in your world.  That must be real nice.  Sorry that society's civil rights inconvenience you and this bigot, but adding the qualifier "essential" to civil rights would pretty much destroy any notion of equality in our society.  Everybody down the line could argue that their goods and services weren't "essential" and that the aggrieved parties could find them somewhere else.  That's why that isn't in the CRA.  It's for all public accommodations; you want to open your business to the public, you have to accept anybody that's willing to pay.

This guy has multiple options other than not being a dick and complying with the law. He can close his business to the public and operate by referral only.  As somebody mentioned he can subcontract another bakery for his orders by same sex couples.  And if he's that offended, he can always get out and find another job.  His job choice isn't that essential when you get right down to it.

That's right, because he doesn't believe in gay marriage, and doesn't' want to make a gay marriage cake, he should have to neuter his business, or pay huge fines, or go to jail. I mean, obviously that is the true meaning of rights for making these guys have to spend five minutes and call another cake shop. Because obviously people should have no rights to their own property if you don't think it is fair.

Okay, so tell me what's different about a gay marriage cake versus a straight marriage cake?  And if he takes his faith so seriously, does he make sure that the bride is a virgin and that she's the same faith as her husband?


I would assume the figure on top. As to what his religious beliefs are, who knows, and frankly who cares.
 
2013-12-11 10:41:48 AM  

EWreckedSean: Satan's Bunny Slippers: EWreckedSean: give me doughnuts: EWreckedSean: The guy is a moron. That said, go to another cake shop. The idea that a judge can force a private business owner to perform services against his own, warped as they may be, morals is ridiculous in a free country.


Yeah, how dare they force business owners to serve Jews and African-Americans as if they were as good as regular people.

Honestly, in this day and age, I think such protections are archaic and shouldn't be provided. If you are a bigot and don't want to serve Jews and African Americans, so be it. It is your private business. I will happily let everybody know you are a racist and take my business elsewhere. I understand there was a time and some places especially in the deep south where such protections where necessary, but that day is gone, and we should balance the business owners rights versus the customers.

My head just asploded.

Someone actually typed that out.

That's enough internet for today, I think.

That's right, because down here in the south we are all still stuck in 1950. We sure can't wait until we get the freedom to start sending people to the back of the bus again. Lol.



The fact that you think that there is no need for anti-discrimination laws speaks volumes to your intellect.  As in your volume is at zero.  There is no need to reply or attempt to further your viewpoint with me.  I tired of you yesterday.

Welcome to yellow
 
2013-12-11 10:41:49 AM  

EWreckedSean: He refused to sell to two people what he willingly sells to other people. This is a refusal of service. He is only willing to sell to these two what he feels will keep them in their proper place. That is called discrimination.

No, he refuses to make a gay wedding cake for anybody, and offered to provide them any of the cakes he does make. Is it stupid, yes. Should he be allowed to make that decision for himself. Absolutely.


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

What he has done is refused to make a wedding cake, because he knows the people involved will use it for their gay wedding. Again, that is discrimination.

He can make that decision for himself, but he must face the legal consequences if he chooses to do something illegal. Just like everyone else who deliberately violates the law.
 
2013-12-11 10:42:46 AM  

EWreckedSean: pueblonative: EWreckedSean: HMS_Blinkin: EWreckedSean: Not threaten somebody with jail

The only person who said anything about jail was a moron Fox and Friends person.  Nobody with a brain or any kind of authority is saying ANYTHING about jail.

The jail option has been discussed quite thoroughly in this thread. I'd suggesting reading up.

So tell me, what Colorado official said, "He can bake a cake or pound fudge. The choice is his."?

The article quotes his lawyer as saying he is being threatened with jail. I'm assuming the lawyer would open himself up to liability if they actually weren't and he claimed they were...


Yeah, and you know what they say about assuming, right?  But let's look at the exact quote:


"If the government can force you to violate your belief under the threat of a jail sentence, there is really no freedom they can't take away, Elisabeth," Martin said.


There's that word, if.  So she's speaking about a hypothetical that in no way reflects what happened in this case (the guy didn't even get hit with a fine despite the fact that he's done this at least half a dozen times before).
 
2013-12-11 10:43:10 AM  

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.
 
2013-12-11 10:44:20 AM  

ManateeGag: dinomyar: So if I go to a Muslim owned restaurant, can I force them to cook and serve me bacon? Or a bacon version of something they do make?

no, because it's not something they normally serve.  just like you can't go to McDonald's and demand they give you a lobster.



But, he DOESN'T normally make same sex wedding cakes.


The real question is, if I ask them to make me a version of something that they do make, but I ask for it to include bacon, and they refuse, can I sue them to force them to do it?


What about going into a Jewish bakery and asking for a Nazi decorated cake? Do they have the right to refuse?
 
2013-12-11 10:44:39 AM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: The fact that you think that there is no need for anti-discrimination laws speaks volumes to your intellect.  As in your volume is at zero.  There is no need to reply or attempt to further your viewpoint with me.  I tired of you yesterday.

Welcome to yellow


The fact that you will completely ignore one person's rights in complete disregard of another's speaks volumes to your intellect.

Welcome to red.
 
2013-12-11 10:45:25 AM  

EWreckedSean: pueblonative: EWreckedSean: pueblonative: So now some people are only entitled to "essential" goods and services in your world.  That must be real nice.  Sorry that society's civil rights inconvenience you and this bigot, but adding the qualifier "essential" to civil rights would pretty much destroy any notion of equality in our society.  Everybody down the line could argue that their goods and services weren't "essential" and that the aggrieved parties could find them somewhere else.  That's why that isn't in the CRA.  It's for all public accommodations; you want to open your business to the public, you have to accept anybody that's willing to pay.

This guy has multiple options other than not being a dick and complying with the law. He can close his business to the public and operate by referral only.  As somebody mentioned he can subcontract another bakery for his orders by same sex couples.  And if he's that offended, he can always get out and find another job.  His job choice isn't that essential when you get right down to it.

That's right, because he doesn't believe in gay marriage, and doesn't' want to make a gay marriage cake, he should have to neuter his business, or pay huge fines, or go to jail. I mean, obviously that is the true meaning of rights for making these guys have to spend five minutes and call another cake shop. Because obviously people should have no rights to their own property if you don't think it is fair.

Okay, so tell me what's different about a gay marriage cake versus a straight marriage cake?  And if he takes his faith so seriously, does he make sure that the bride is a virgin and that she's the same faith as her husband?

I would assume the figure on top. As to what his religious beliefs are, who knows, and frankly who cares.


Okay, point to the law that requires that a marriage cake have a figure topper?  Or even writing in frosting?  And he was the one that brought out his religious beliefs as an excuse.  He can't have it both ways, so to speak.
 
2013-12-11 10:46:30 AM  

Jaws_Victim: EWreckedSean: Jaws_Victim: give me doughnuts: EWreckedSean: The guy is a moron. That said, go to another cake shop. The idea that a judge can force a private business owner to perform services against his own, warped as they may be, morals is ridiculous in a free country.


Yeah, how dare they force business owners to serve Jews and African-Americans as if they were as good as regular people.

this. What happens when he and his fellow klansmen decide to stop discriminating against the current popular target and go back to those old favorites, the darkies. Then the jews. If we dont have laws saying you need to serve everyone equally that are enforced, then this one instance of discrimination will multiply to other incidents and targeted groups.

Also he didn't say he wouldn't serve them, he said he wouldn't make that type of cake, but would happily bake whatever else they wanted.

He refused to sell to two people what he willingly sells to other people. This is a refusal of service. He is only willing to sell to these two what he feels will keep them in their proper place. That is called discrimination.


Should a Jewish baker be forced to make a birthday cake that reads: "Happy Birthday Hitler- The Greatest Man Alive. Congrats on 6,000,000!"
 
2013-12-11 10:47:52 AM  

pueblonative: EWreckedSean: pueblonative: EWreckedSean: HMS_Blinkin: EWreckedSean: Not threaten somebody with jail

The only person who said anything about jail was a moron Fox and Friends person.  Nobody with a brain or any kind of authority is saying ANYTHING about jail.

The jail option has been discussed quite thoroughly in this thread. I'd suggesting reading up.

So tell me, what Colorado official said, "He can bake a cake or pound fudge. The choice is his."?

The article quotes his lawyer as saying he is being threatened with jail. I'm assuming the lawyer would open himself up to liability if they actually weren't and he claimed they were...

Yeah, and you know what they say about assuming, right?  But let's look at the exact quote:


"If the government can force you to violate your belief under the threat of a jail sentence, there is really no freedom they can't take away, Elisabeth," Martin said.


There's that word, if.  So she's speaking about a hypothetical that in no way reflects what happened in this case (the guy didn't even get hit with a fine despite the fact that he's done this at least half a dozen times before).


Lol seriously? She is just speaking in hypothetical because obviously as a lawyer she wouldn't be discussing this case they are talking about? Wow seriously?
 
2013-12-11 10:49:17 AM  

EWreckedSean: pueblonative: So now some people are only entitled to "essential" goods and services in your world.  That must be real nice.  Sorry that society's civil rights inconvenience you and this bigot, but adding the qualifier "essential" to civil rights would pretty much destroy any notion of equality in our society.  Everybody down the line could argue that their goods and services weren't "essential" and that the aggrieved parties could find them somewhere else.  That's why that isn't in the CRA.  It's for all public accommodations; you want to open your business to the public, you have to accept anybody that's willing to pay.

pueblonative: This guy has multiple options other than not being a dick and complying with the law. He can close his business to the public and operate by referral only.  As somebody mentioned he can subcontract another bakery for his orders by same sex couples.  And if he's that offended, he can always get out and find another job.  His job choice isn't that essential when you get right down to it.

EWreakedSean: That's right, because he doesn't believe in gay marriage, and doesn't' want to make a gay marriage cake, he should have to neuter his business, or pay huge fines, or go to jail. I mean, obviously that is the true meaning of rights for making these guys have to spend five minutes and call another cake shop. Because obviously people should have no rights to their own property if you don't think it is fair.


Again, there is no such thing as a "gay marriage cake". There is wedding cake. Whether that cake, after being purchased by a customer, is used in a gay wedding or a straight wedding is none of his business. It's not his cake, it belongs to the person who purchased it.

He has the right to make decisions for his business concerning what he services he will offer and how he will deliver them. He does not have a right to refuse a service he provides to others just because he doesn't like what they do.
 
2013-12-11 10:49:20 AM  

dinomyar: ManateeGag: dinomyar: So if I go to a Muslim owned restaurant, can I force them to cook and serve me bacon? Or a bacon version of something they do make?

no, because it's not something they normally serve.  just like you can't go to McDonald's and demand they give you a lobster.


But, he DOESN'T normally make same sex wedding cakes.


The real question is, if I ask them to make me a version of something that they do make, but I ask for it to include bacon, and they refuse, can I sue them to force them to do it?


What about going into a Jewish bakery and asking for a Nazi decorated cake? Do they have the right to refuse?


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.
 
2013-12-11 10:50:13 AM  

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?
 
2013-12-11 10:50:14 AM  
What about erotic cakes?
 
2013-12-11 10:50:24 AM  
Ah, the twin trolls are out!

Update your cards, everyone.
 
2013-12-11 10:50:43 AM  

Zasteva: EWreckedSean: He refused to sell to two people what he willingly sells to other people. This is a refusal of service. He is only willing to sell to these two what he feels will keep them in their proper place. That is called discrimination.

No, he refuses to make a gay wedding cake for anybody, and offered to provide them any of the cakes he does make. Is it stupid, yes. Should he be allowed to make that decision for himself. Absolutely.

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

What he has done is refused to make a wedding cake, because he knows the people involved will use it for their gay wedding. Again, that is discrimination.

He can make that decision for himself, but he must face the legal consequences if he chooses to do something illegal. Just like everyone else who deliberately violates the law.


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.

And I agree, he is having to face legal consequences. Hopefully they are that a judge rules he is correct.
 
2013-12-11 10:51:14 AM  

dinomyar: But, he DOESN'T normally make same sex wedding cakes.


What makes a cake a "same sex" wedding cake?  the words?
 
2013-12-11 10:51:50 AM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: Ah, the twin trolls are out!

Update your cards, everyone.


I love it, it only took you two pages to lose this argument. I'm getting better. Thanks for that.
 
2013-12-11 10:51:55 AM  

Mrbogey: Jaws_Victim: EWreckedSean: Jaws_Victim: give me doughnuts: EWreckedSean: The guy is a moron. That said, go to another cake shop. The idea that a judge can force a private business owner to perform services against his own, warped as they may be, morals is ridiculous in a free country.


Yeah, how dare they force business owners to serve Jews and African-Americans as if they were as good as regular people.

this. What happens when he and his fellow klansmen decide to stop discriminating against the current popular target and go back to those old favorites, the darkies. Then the jews. If we dont have laws saying you need to serve everyone equally that are enforced, then this one instance of discrimination will multiply to other incidents and targeted groups.

Also he didn't say he wouldn't serve them, he said he wouldn't make that type of cake, but would happily bake whatever else they wanted.

He refused to sell to two people what he willingly sells to other people. This is a refusal of service. He is only willing to sell to these two what he feels will keep them in their proper place. That is called discrimination.

Should a Jewish baker be forced to make a birthday cake that reads: "Happy Birthday Hitler- The Greatest Man Alive. Congrats on 6,000,000!"


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.
 
2013-12-11 10:51:56 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?


Where does it say they ordered figurines for the cake?  My topper was a blown glass heart.
 
2013-12-11 10:52:02 AM  
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.
 
2013-12-11 10:52:39 AM  

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.
 
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 11:24:23 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?
 
2013-12-11 11:53:07 AM  
EWreckedSean: Well I appreciate you being civil in this discussion. You made the favorites list of people worth talking to.

Aw thanks! Likewise! Everyone deserves to be treated with some basic level of respect, and your polite discussion has earned you a lot more than that in my opinion.
 
2013-12-11 11:53:18 AM  

Funk Brothers: To people, it is immoral to provide wedding services for same-sex couples.


Then they have no business selling cakes to the public in general.

You don't get to pick and choose, but that's exactly what this baker is doing, both with the law and with his own morals.
 
2013-12-11 11:55:05 AM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Funk Brothers: To people, it is immoral to provide wedding services for same-sex couples.

Then they have no business selling cakes to the public in general.

You don't get to pick and choose, but that's exactly what this baker is doing, both with the law and with his own morals.


In a free society why shouldn't you be able to pick and chose.
 
2013-12-11 11:55:12 AM  

Churchill2004: There's no significant cost or burden in just getting your cake from someone who isn't a bigot.


There IS when you don't realize that the cake you already ordered, the cake that the baker already AGREED to make for you, would be coming from a bigot who would cancel your order and force you to have to make those arrangements AGAIN.

Don't want to make your cakes available to the public? Get out of business serving the public then.
 
2013-12-11 11:58:21 AM  

Zasteva: There's a very simple solution.


Yes, but not the one you listed.

He could have just made the cake and kept his religious opinions to himself.
 
2013-12-11 11:58:54 AM  

EWreckedSean: 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...

EWreckedSean: How about ladies night, or 18 and up for women/21 and up for men clubs?


Interesting example. If it's a private club then it's not a problem; private clubs that require memberships can have any rules they want.

But if it's a public bar they could probably be sued by someone who was denied service on that basis -- I'm not sure how the age part plays into it though. 

Most likely "ladies night" where ladies pay lower cost for drinks or get in free while men pay are actually illegal.
 
2013-12-11 11:59:30 AM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Zasteva: There's a very simple solution.

Yes, but not the one you listed.

He could have just made the cake and kept his religious opinions to himself.


That would have been even better :-)
 
2013-12-11 12:00:05 PM  

Zasteva: EWreckedSean: Well I appreciate you being civil in this discussion. You made the favorites list of people worth talking to.

Aw thanks! Likewise! Everyone deserves to be treated with some basic level of respect, and your polite discussion has earned you a lot more than that in my opinion.


I've found you don't learn anything by talking to people who agree with you all the time.
 
2013-12-11 12:00:43 PM  
Is it legally OK for the guy not to serve blacks or Christians?
 
2013-12-11 12:03:33 PM  

Zasteva: Interesting example. If it's a private club then it's not a problem; private clubs that require memberships can have any rules they want.

But if it's a public bar they could probably be sued by someone who was denied service on that basis -- I'm not sure how the age part plays into it though. 

Most likely "ladies night" where ladies pay lower cost for drinks or get in free while men pay are actually illegal.


Every once and a while you will see a lawsuit about it (usually by some kid who had no chance of meeting a girl at ladies' night :) ). They pretty much get universally tossed. But it is funny how discrimination is legally ok when it is a kind most people want.
 
2013-12-11 12:05:02 PM  

Ambivalence: Businesses can refuse to serve anyone.


No, they cannot.
 
2013-12-11 12:05:30 PM  

EWreckedSean: The My Little Pony Killer: Funk Brothers: To people, it is immoral to provide wedding services for same-sex couples.

Then they have no business selling cakes to the public in general.

You don't get to pick and choose, but that's exactly what this baker is doing, both with the law and with his own morals.

In a free society why shouldn't you be able to pick and chose.


So a hospital decides to go white people only, you're okay with that?

A pharmacist decides he won't issue medication he disagrees with (like birth control), you're okay with that?

A fire station won't put out any fires in predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods, you're okay with that?

And before you say anything about a service being a necessity, you are talking about a completely free society. Why should one be allowed to discriminate but another can't? You're discriminating against their ability to discriminate, and that can't happen in a completely free society.

Everybody has to play by the set of rules established. If you don't want to play, don't start a business that's open to the public.
 
2013-12-11 12:09:32 PM  

scottydoesntknow: EWreckedSean: The My Little Pony Killer: Funk Brothers: To people, it is immoral to provide wedding services for same-sex couples.

Then they have no business selling cakes to the public in general.

You don't get to pick and choose, but that's exactly what this baker is doing, both with the law and with his own morals.

In a free society why shouldn't you be able to pick and chose.

So a hospital decides to go white people only, you're okay with that?

A pharmacist decides he won't issue medication he disagrees with (like birth control), you're okay with that?

A fire station won't put out any fires in predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods, you're okay with that?

And before you say anything about a service being a necessity, you are talking about a completely free society. Why should one be allowed to discriminate but another can't? You're discriminating against their ability to discriminate, and that can't happen in a completely free society.

Everybody has to play by the set of rules established. If you don't want to play, don't start a business that's open to the public.


If you read the thread, I've been pretty clear that I would draw the line at essential goods and services.

Somewhere you have to balance somebody's right to life versus somebody's right to liberty and property. That's why we create governments.
 
2013-12-11 12:10:17 PM  

EWreckedSean: pueblonative: 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.

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.

Yeah, why should they be bothering a Job CreatorTM (TCBUTT) with talk of their civil rights and equal service.

Were they denied access to any essential goods or services? Or were they butthurt that somebody doesn't agree with their lifestyle?


"Essential" isn't relevant.  The plaintiffs were denied goods and services that were offered to everyone else who walked into the establishment, even if other patrons' "lifestyles" violated the religious beliefs of the proprietor.  It was ONLY the same-sex couple whose order was denied on the basis of "conflict of religious beliefs".   Thus - any claim that the discrimination was justifiable - was rendered moot.

The person who is being butthurt about someone not agreeing with their "lifestyle" is the PROPRIETOR (if by lifestyle you mean "wanting to discriminate against gay people").

I find it interesting that the proprietor NOW claims that he'd made any other cake for that couple.

Fine.   I volunteer to buy the couple an ANNIVERSARY cake, if the proprietor makes it personally.
How much do you want to bet that he'd still be all butthurt about that even if it didn't say "WEDDING anniversary"?
 
2013-12-11 12:11:58 PM  

ursomniac: "Essential" isn't relevant.  The plaintiffs were denied goods and services that were offered to everyone else who walked into the establishment, even if other patrons' "lifestyles" violated the religious beliefs of the proprietor.  It was ONLY the same-sex couple whose order was denied on the basis of "conflict of religious beliefs".   Thus - any claim that the discrimination was justifiable - was rendered moot.

The person who is being butthurt about someone not agreeing with their "lifestyle" is the PROPRIETOR (if by lifestyle you mean "wanting to discriminate against gay people").

I find it interesting that the proprietor NOW claims that he'd made any other cake for that couple.

Fine.   I volunteer to buy the couple an ANNIVERSARY cake, if the proprietor makes it personally.
How much do you want to bet that he'd still be all butthurt about that even if it didn't say "WEDDING anniversary"?


I find essential to be absolutely relevant.

As to the bolded statement, the court filing says both parties said he agreed to make them any other cake.
 
2013-12-11 12:13:51 PM  

EWreckedSean: scottydoesntknow: EWreckedSean: The My Little Pony Killer: Funk Brothers: To people, it is immoral to provide wedding services for same-sex couples.

Then they have no business selling cakes to the public in general.

You don't get to pick and choose, but that's exactly what this baker is doing, both with the law and with his own morals.

In a free society why shouldn't you be able to pick and chose.

So a hospital decides to go white people only, you're okay with that?

A pharmacist decides he won't issue medication he disagrees with (like birth control), you're okay with that?

A fire station won't put out any fires in predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods, you're okay with that?

And before you say anything about a service being a necessity, you are talking about a completely free society. Why should one be allowed to discriminate but another can't? You're discriminating against their ability to discriminate, and that can't happen in a completely free society.

Everybody has to play by the set of rules established. If you don't want to play, don't start a business that's open to the public.

If you read the thread, I've been pretty clear that I would draw the line at essential goods and services.

Somewhere you have to balance somebody's right to life versus somebody's right to liberty and property. That's why we create governments.


So what is an essential good? What happens when every grocery store in a town (or the only grocery store in a town) decides to not allow black people to shop there?

Who gets to decide what is essential and what isn't?
 
2013-12-11 12:14:12 PM  

EWreckedSean: Zasteva: 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.

EWreckedSean:

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.


Let's steer clear of pulling in outside philosophical sources for a bit and just talk about our own opinions.

The points we've covered so far:
- This is a government taking of liberty and property on the part of the baker -- no dispute there.
- The 5th amendment prohibits such takings without due process of law -- there is no reasonable dispute here
- There has been a process of law (still underway). -- no dispute there

So it seems to me you've got one possible argument -- that somehow the process of law so far does not constitute "due process".

That would be a discussion I'm willing to have.

EWreckedSeam: 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

If you can point out a western societies that has moved away from segregation without instituting laws prohibiting racial discrimination I would really like to see that. To the best of my knowledge all western societies have laws prohibiting racial discrimination.
 
2013-12-11 12:17:08 PM  

EWreckedSean: Satan's Bunny Slippers: EWreckedSean: give me doughnuts: EWreckedSean: The guy is a moron. That said, go to another cake shop. The idea that a judge can force a private business owner to perform services against his own, warped as they may be, morals is ridiculous in a free country.


Yeah, how dare they force business owners to serve Jews and African-Americans as if they were as good as regular people.

Honestly, in this day and age, I think such protections are archaic and shouldn't be provided. If you are a bigot and don't want to serve Jews and African Americans, so be it. It is your private business. I will happily let everybody know you are a racist and take my business elsewhere. I understand there was a time and some places especially in the deep south where such protections where necessary, but that day is gone, and we should balance the business owners rights versus the customers.

My head just asploded.

Someone actually typed that out.

That's enough internet for today, I think.

That's right, because down here in the south we are all still stuck in 1950. We sure can't wait until we get the freedom to start sending people to the back of the bus again. Lol.


Yes, that's essentially the truth of it, though "in the South" isn't particularly necessary.

Do you honestly think (and I realize I'm using those words broadly) that if EO protections were rescinded tomorrow, that there would NOT be a noticeable increase in cases of discrimination?

Would you classify yourself more as stupid or naïve?
 
2013-12-11 12:17:20 PM  

scottydoesntknow: So what is an essential good? What happens when every grocery store in a town (or the only grocery store in a town) decides to not allow black people to shop there?

Who gets to decide what is essential and what isn't?


I would tend to say the courts. Although you could probably make a rather broad definition and let people challenge it where applicable. A wedding cake that can easily be purchased at another local vendor doesn't fit the bill. A hospital would.
 
2013-12-11 12:17:24 PM  

EWreckedSean: The idea that a judge can force a private business owner to perform services against his own, warped as they may be, morals is ridiculous in a free country.


loc.govView Full Size

*ahem*
 
2013-12-11 12:19:24 PM  

EWreckedSean: scottydoesntknow: So what is an essential good? What happens when every grocery store in a town (or the only grocery store in a town) decides to not allow black people to shop there?

Who gets to decide what is essential and what isn't?

I would tend to say the courts. Although you could probably make a rather broad definition and let people challenge it where applicable. A wedding cake that can easily be purchased at another local vendor doesn't fit the bill. A hospital would.


I'm amazed how you can say the courts should decide WHEN THE COURTS ALREADY DECIDED! If you are a business open to the public, you can not discriminate. Simple as that.
 
2013-12-11 12:19:56 PM  

dinomyar: So if I go to a Muslim owned restaurant, can I force them to cook and serve me bacon? Or a bacon version of something they do make?


Yes, if they're serving bacon to other people.

No, if they don't serve bacon to anyone else.

See - it's really very very very simple.

If you make wedding cakes, and your business is open to the public, then you can't refuse to make a wedding cake for a member of that public.
 
2013-12-11 12:20:10 PM  

ursomniac: Yes, that's essentially the truth of it, though "in the South" isn't particularly necessary.

Do you honestly think (and I realize I'm using those words broadly) that if EO protections were rescinded tomorrow, that there would NOT be a noticeable increase in cases of discrimination?

Would you classify yourself more as stupid or naïve?


There would be some, not a lot. I worked 7 years in a rural part of the south in the utility industry (our regular lunch place was the cattle market diner). Are there still racists around? Sure. Predominate. Not a chance.

And by the way, thanks for it taking all of a handful of comments for you to lose this conversation. I'm talking, you are throwing insults. It makes it pretty clear who has a strong position.
 
2013-12-11 12:21:15 PM  

scottydoesntknow: EWreckedSean: scottydoesntknow: So what is an essential good? What happens when every grocery store in a town (or the only grocery store in a town) decides to not allow black people to shop there?

Who gets to decide what is essential and what isn't?

I would tend to say the courts. Although you could probably make a rather broad definition and let people challenge it where applicable. A wedding cake that can easily be purchased at another local vendor doesn't fit the bill. A hospital would.

I'm amazed how you can say the courts should decide WHEN THE COURTS ALREADY DECIDED! If you are a business open to the public, you can not discriminate. Simple as that.


The courts haven't decided because the law isn't written that way. Courts decide based on existing legislation.
 
2013-12-11 12:21:37 PM  

EWreckedSean: Jaws_Victim: EWreckedSean: Jaws_Victim: give me doughnuts: EWreckedSean: The guy is a moron. That said, go to another cake shop. The idea that a judge can force a private business owner to perform services against his own, warped as they may be, morals is ridiculous in a free country.


Yeah, how dare they force business owners to serve Jews and African-Americans as if they were as good as regular people.

this. What happens when he and his fellow klansmen decide to stop discriminating against the current popular target and go back to those old favorites, the darkies. Then the jews. If we dont have laws saying you need to serve everyone equally that are enforced, then this one instance of discrimination will multiply to other incidents and targeted groups.

Also he didn't say he wouldn't serve them, he said he wouldn't make that type of cake, but would happily bake whatever else they wanted.

He refused to sell to two people what he willingly sells to other people. This is a refusal of service. He is only willing to sell to these two what he feels will keep them in their proper place. That is called discrimination.

No, he refuses to make a gay wedding cake for anybody, and offered to provide them any of the cakes he does make. Is it stupid, yes. Should he be allowed to make that decision for himself. Absolutely.


Please show us in ANY of the articles on this issue where a distinction was made between a "gay wedding cake" and a "non-gay wedding cake" OTHER THAN that the people requesting a cake for a wedding in this case weren't heterosexual.

You're running out of straws to grasp.
 
2013-12-11 12:22:11 PM  

EWreckedSean: scottydoesntknow: EWreckedSean: scottydoesntknow: So what is an essential good? What happens when every grocery store in a town (or the only grocery store in a town) decides to not allow black people to shop there?

Who gets to decide what is essential and what isn't?

I would tend to say the courts. Although you could probably make a rather broad definition and let people challenge it where applicable. A wedding cake that can easily be purchased at another local vendor doesn't fit the bill. A hospital would.

I'm amazed how you can say the courts should decide WHEN THE COURTS ALREADY DECIDED! If you are a business open to the public, you can not discriminate. Simple as that.

The courts haven't decided because the law isn't written that way. Courts decide based on existing legislation.


Which way is the law written?
 
2013-12-11 12:22:11 PM  

ursomniac: If you make wedding cakes, and your business is open to the public, then you can't refuse to make a wedding cake for a member of that public.


EWreckedSean: It makes it pretty clear who has a strong position.


Well, it is pretty certain that you don't have the strong position.
 
2013-12-11 12:22:44 PM  

maddogdelta: EWreckedSean: The idea that a judge can force a private business owner to perform services against his own, warped as they may be, morals is ridiculous in a free country.

[www.loc.gov image 800x659]
*ahem*


I said it is ridiculous, not that it doesn't happen. And if you read the thread I even agreed that there was a time and place where such laws were probably necessary.
 
2013-12-11 12:24:26 PM  

scottydoesntknow: EWreckedSean: scottydoesntknow: EWreckedSean: scottydoesntknow: So what is an essential good? What happens when every grocery store in a town (or the only grocery store in a town) decides to not allow black people to shop there?

Who gets to decide what is essential and what isn't?

I would tend to say the courts. Although you could probably make a rather broad definition and let people challenge it where applicable. A wedding cake that can easily be purchased at another local vendor doesn't fit the bill. A hospital would.

I'm amazed how you can say the courts should decide WHEN THE COURTS ALREADY DECIDED! If you are a business open to the public, you can not discriminate. Simple as that.

The courts haven't decided because the law isn't written that way. Courts decide based on existing legislation.

Which way is the law written?


The law is written right now in a way that strips the liberty and property rights away from the business owner in complete favor of the customer. I think it is a poor system that should better balance a property owner's rights with the interests of the customers.
 
2013-12-11 12:24:55 PM  

EWreckedSean: pueblonative: EWreckedSean: pueblonative: So now some people are only entitled to "essential" goods and services in your world.  That must be real nice.  Sorry that society's civil rights inconvenience you and this bigot, but adding the qualifier "essential" to civil rights would pretty much destroy any notion of equality in our society.  Everybody down the line could argue that their goods and services weren't "essential" and that the aggrieved parties could find them somewhere else.  That's why that isn't in the CRA.  It's for all public accommodations; you want to open your business to the public, you have to accept anybody that's willing to pay.

This guy has multiple options other than not being a dick and complying with the law. He can close his business to the public and operate by referral only.  As somebody mentioned he can subcontract another bakery for his orders by same sex couples.  And if he's that offended, he can always get out and find another job.  His job choice isn't that essential when you get right down to it.

That's right, because he doesn't believe in gay marriage, and doesn't' want to make a gay marriage cake, he should have to neuter his business, or pay huge fines, or go to jail. I mean, obviously that is the true meaning of rights for making these guys have to spend five minutes and call another cake shop. Because obviously people should have no rights to their own property if you don't think it is fair.

Okay, so tell me what's different about a gay marriage cake versus a straight marriage cake?  And if he takes his faith so seriously, does he make sure that the bride is a virgin and that she's the same faith as her husband?

I would assume the figure on top. As to what his religious beliefs are, who knows, and frankly who cares.


Ah but the truth is that it NEVER GOT THAT FAR.   He refused the cake (which BTW was completely generic in terms of cakes) SOLELY because the clients were non-heterosexual.

HAD it got that far, he would have had an easy out: "I'm sorry I don't stock a same-sex couple figurine, but I'm sure you can get one online."   Because he doesn't stock them for ANY of his customers, he's not discriminating.
 
2013-12-11 12:25:20 PM  

maddogdelta: ursomniac: If you make wedding cakes, and your business is open to the public, then you can't refuse to make a wedding cake for a member of that public.

EWreckedSean: It makes it pretty clear who has a strong position.

Well, it is pretty certain that you don't have the strong position.


Come talking to me when you have anything to add to the conversation.
 
2013-12-11 12:26:09 PM  

ursomniac: Okay, so tell me what's different about a gay marriage cake versus a straight marriage cake?  And if he takes his faith so seriously, does he make sure that the bride is a virgin and that she's the same faith as her husband?

I would assume the figure on top. As to what his religious beliefs are, who knows, and frankly who cares.

Ah but the truth is that it NEVER GOT THAT FAR.   He refused the cake (which BTW was completely generic in terms of cakes) SOLELY because the clients were non-heterosexual.

HAD it got that far, he would have had an easy out: "I'm sorry I don't stock a same-sex couple figurine, but I'm sure you can get one online."   Because he doesn't stock them for ANY of his customers, he's not discriminating.


Read his question.
 
2013-12-11 12:26:41 PM  

EWreckedSean: The courts haven't decided because the law isn't written that way. Courts decide based on existing legislation.


Actually, the law IS written that way.

And, the courts DID rule on it.
 
2013-12-11 12:27:41 PM  

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.



I'm sorry you're the type of person who thinks discrimination of okay.
I'm sure you won't mind when it is aimed at you.
 
2013-12-11 12:29:07 PM  

Zasteva: If you can point out a western societies that has moved away from segregation without instituting laws prohibiting racial discrimination I would really like to see that. To the best of my knowledge all western societies have laws prohibiting racial discrimination.


Let me do some research.
 
2013-12-11 12:29:11 PM  

EWreckedSean: 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.


... and Rosa should've taken a different bus home.
 
2013-12-11 12:29:44 PM  

EWreckedSean: scottydoesntknow: EWreckedSean: scottydoesntknow: EWreckedSean: scottydoesntknow: So what is an essential good? What happens when every grocery store in a town (or the only grocery store in a town) decides to not allow black people to shop there?

Who gets to decide what is essential and what isn't?

I would tend to say the courts. Although you could probably make a rather broad definition and let people challenge it where applicable. A wedding cake that can easily be purchased at another local vendor doesn't fit the bill. A hospital would.

I'm amazed how you can say the courts should decide WHEN THE COURTS ALREADY DECIDED! If you are a business open to the public, you can not discriminate. Simple as that.

The courts haven't decided because the law isn't written that way. Courts decide based on existing legislation.

Which way is the law written?

The law is written right now in a way that strips the liberty and property rights away from the business owner in complete favor of the customer. I think it is a poor system that should better balance a property owner's rights with the interests of the customers.


But what you think, and what is law, are two completely different things. IMO, the law is written in a way that protects customers from individual discrimination by businesses. I think it is a fine system.

Just because you interpret it one way does mean it is actually that way.
 
2013-12-11 12:29:55 PM  

maddogdelta: EWreckedSean: The courts haven't decided because the law isn't written that way. Courts decide based on existing legislation.

Actually, the law IS written that way.

And, the courts DID rule on it.


Go read what we were actually talking about and then you might be able to post relevant links.
 
2013-12-11 12:30:01 PM  

EWreckedSean: I said it is ridiculous, not that it doesn't happen. And if you read the thread I even agreed that there was a time and place where such laws were probably necessary.


Here is a list of states that have passed restrictive Voter ID laws, ever since the SCOTUS ruled that "racism doesn't happen any more"

And here is a GOP rep who says, out loud, why the laws were written that way..
 
2013-12-11 12:30:41 PM  

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.


It has been mentioned in other articles on the issue.   They ordered a plain wedding cake - he said fine.  When he found out it was for them and they were a same-sex couple, it was no longer fine.
 
2013-12-11 12:32:42 PM  

scottydoesntknow: But what you think, and what is law, are two completely different things. IMO, the law is written in a way that protects customers from individual discrimination by businesses. I think it is a fine system.

Just because you interpret it one way does mean it is actually that way.


I think I have a pretty good understanding of the law and it strips away property and liberty rights from people unnecessarily to protect individual customers from discrimination. I'm sorry, but if somebody wants to have a whites only bar, I'm sure as hell not going there, but there is no reason they shouldn't be able to. A bar isn't an essential service. You aren't going to starve or freeze because you had to go to another pub.
 
2013-12-11 12:33:36 PM  

Lady Indica: 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?

If that's a bull male in musth, they're smart to run like farking hell. The testosterone rise makes them literally insane, it goes to like 60x normal. It's like a giant elephant HULKING THE fark OUT.

Scary stuff.


Pretty sure this is a joke. I doubt they'd really have an elephant chasing them down. First thing I thought of:

inspirationsweb.comView Full Size
 
2013-12-11 12:34:46 PM  

EWreckedSean: Every once and a while you will see a lawsuit about it (usually by some kid who had no chance of meeting a girl at ladies' night :) ). They pretty much get universally tossed. But it is funny how discrimination is legally ok when it is a kind most people want


Actually, the court cases are pretty mixed..  See Ladies' night

In the cases where courts have ruled in favor of allowing Ladies' night type discounts, it has been for things like the not having standing, or "it isn't discrimination against men, it is trying to get more women" (similar to affirmative action rulings), etc.   None have said it ok to discriminate.
 
2013-12-11 12:34:53 PM  

maddogdelta: EWreckedSean: I said it is ridiculous, not that it doesn't happen. And if you read the thread I even agreed that there was a time and place where such laws were probably necessary.

Here is a list of states that have passed restrictive Voter ID laws, ever since the SCOTUS ruled that "racism doesn't happen any more"

And here is a GOP rep who says, out loud, why the laws were written that way..


If you don't have an ID, how did you register to vote? Or get a job? Or rent an apartment? Or cash a paycheck?
 
2013-12-11 12:36:37 PM  

Liese: Lady Indica: 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?

If that's a bull male in musth, they're smart to run like farking hell. The testosterone rise makes them literally insane, it goes to like 60x normal. It's like a giant elephant HULKING THE fark OUT.

Scary stuff.

Pretty sure this is a joke. I doubt they'd really have an elephant chasing them down. First thing I thought of:

[www.inspirationsweb.com image 640x427]


It would have been better if you photo-shopped Jesus on it
 
2013-12-11 12:37:08 PM  

EWreckedSean: scottydoesntknow: But what you think, and what is law, are two completely different things. IMO, the law is written in a way that protects customers from individual discrimination by businesses. I think it is a fine system.

Just because you interpret it one way does mean it is actually that way.

I think I have a pretty good understanding of the law and it strips away property and liberty rights from people unnecessarily to protect individual customers from discrimination. I'm sorry, but if somebody wants to have a whites only bar, I'm sure as hell not going there, but there is no reason they shouldn't be able to. A bar isn't an essential service. You aren't going to starve or freeze because you had to go to another pub.


No, you have a twisted interpretation of the law. Huge difference.
 
2013-12-11 12:37:52 PM  
Guys, I think you should just agree to disagree with EWreckedSean,
 
2013-12-11 12:38:23 PM  

Zasteva: 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 ...


Actually, I'd be satisfied with just less hypocrisy:  the court docs state in extreme detail the degree of the proprietors religious beliefs, but at no point apparently does he apply his desired freedom to discriminate  because of those purported religious beliefs TO ANY OTHER CUSTOMER.   He doesn't tell people who have been divorced before that he won't make THEIR wedding cakes;  he doesn't tell people who are living in sin that he won't make THEIR wedding cakes; he doesn't pre-filter ANYONE else placing a wedding cake order to make sure he won't be making Jayesus sad (who apparently knows who has been naughty and nice) and just takes their money.   It's ONLY the homosexual couple who has this special right to be refused.
 
2013-12-11 12:39:52 PM  

EWreckedSean: If you don't have an ID, how did you register to vote? Or get a job? Or rent an apartment? Or cash a paycheck?


You do realize there are more than 1 form of ID, right? And the ID's that were picked to allow people to vote are the kind of IDs that are very easy to get if you are white and middle or above class.

Concealed weapon permits? OK, easy to get if you own a home.
Student ID, Nope, not allowed for voting.

And do you mean to tell me that DMV's are traditionally known as easy to get to, user friendly environments? Go ahead. Write it down.  Then tell me how bad government is while you tell me how great the DMV is.

BTW, most poor people don't have drivers licenses.

Of course, you could find a lot of this out for yourself if you 1) Tried to live for a year on minimum wage 2) actually talked to a poor black person.

I'm guessing that both are beneath your dignity.
 
2013-12-11 12:41:00 PM  

Almost Everybody Poops: Guys, I think you should just agree to disagree with EWreckedSean,


Not until he says, out loud, how convenient and user friendly that an evil gubmint DMV can be.
 
2013-12-11 12:41:18 PM  

Almost Everybody Poops: Guys, I think you should just agree to disagree with EWreckedSean,


Heaven forbid people have a discussion in a discussion forum.
 
2013-12-11 12:47:01 PM  

EWreckedSean: Almost Everybody Poops: Guys, I think you should just agree to disagree with EWreckedSean,

Heaven forbid people have a discussion in a discussion forum.


This is a discussion? All I've seen is:

You: "This is wrong for the businesses"

Everyone else: "No it isn't and here's the mountains of evidence and court cases to support"

You: "I don't care, it's still wrong"
 
2013-12-11 12:47:04 PM  

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.


All of that is covered in the distinction between a private person doing a service, and a public company providing a service.   When you become the second (even with yourself as the sole employee) you take on additional responsibilities that preclude rights that apply to individuals.    You are arguing that the baker ought to have these rights as a private person - and he does.   His public company is not a private person.

1) not applicable to a company in the way it is a person;
2) Colorado isn't the deep south; the event happened (I think) in 2012;
3) if the company is PUBLIC, then the PUBLIC has a right to shop there; a company is required to abide by laws pertaining to companies.
 
2013-12-11 12:47:25 PM  

EWreckedSean: Almost Everybody Poops: Guys, I think you should just agree to disagree with EWreckedSean,

Heaven forbid people have a discussion in a discussion forum.


I was more talking to the people who are accusing of supporting discrimination rather than the discussion itself.
 
2013-12-11 12:48:08 PM  

Zasteva: - This is a government taking of liberty and property on the part of the baker -- no dispute there.
- The 5th amendment prohibits such takings without due process of law -- there is no reasonable dispute here


Big dispute.
There is due process (courts, judges, all that stuff). The court isn't making him give the cake away, just to sell it like he does every day to lots of other people.
 
2013-12-11 12:50:13 PM  

maddogdelta: 2) actually talked to a poor black person.


I'm curious, why does the poor person you believe he should talk with need to be black?

maddogdelta: BTW, most poor people don't have drivers licenses.


I'm not convinced that this is true.
 
2013-12-11 12:50:44 PM  

scottydoesntknow: EWreckedSean: Almost Everybody Poops: Guys, I think you should just agree to disagree with EWreckedSean,

Heaven forbid people have a discussion in a discussion forum.

This is a discussion? All I've seen is:

You: "This is wrong for the businesses"

Everyone else: "No it isn't and here's the mountains of evidence and court cases to support"

You: "I don't care, it's still wrong"


Zavesta and I had a great conversation, and we'll hopefully have more of them in the future because I enjoyed the debate. We didn't agree, but hehad solid points and was capable of backing them up without resorting to the nonsense most of you seem to thrive on. I'm truly sorry you are incapable of participating. That my friend is your loss.
 
2013-12-11 12:53:51 PM  

EWreckedSean: 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?


Ah - now THERE - perhaps not those particular examples (since the 21 thing largely applies to alcohol) - but other examples that I'm sure you could reproduce.

I completely admit that I find the legality of them somewhat hard to understand or reconcile.

(e.g., Women's health clubs and other "public" business that only will serve women... where in many cases if the corresponding "men's" business were created might get slapped with an anti-discrimination suit...)

(Someone brought up the YMCA and YWCA - but a) I think they're private; and b) I seem to recall that some?/many?/most? YMCA's allow women now (but not the other way around)...)
 
2013-12-11 12:58:13 PM  

runin800m: maddogdelta: 2) actually talked to a poor black person.

I'm curious, why does the poor person you believe he should talk with need to be black?


Mainly because the Voter ID laws are specifically targeted to eliminate poor black people from voting.  Poor white people in NC generally vote Republican.

maddogdelta: BTW, most poor people don't have drivers licenses.

I'm not convinced that this is true.


Here you go...  http://www.npr.org/2012/01/28/146006217/why-new-photo-id-laws-mean-so m e-wont-vote

And here    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/08/vot e r_id_laws_why_do_minorities_lack_id_to_show_at_the_polls_.html
And here
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/how-voter-id-law s- are-being-used-to-disenfranchise-minorities-and-the-poor/254572/

here...
http://www.alternet.org/story/151687/11_states_trying_really_hard_to _k eep_poor,_black,_and_student_voters_from_voting

yup... here too..
http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2005-09-30/294046/

and, you can still go back to the video I posted earlier of the Repube telling us all exactly why they passed the Voter ID laws...
 
2013-12-11 01:01:47 PM  

ursomniac: Ah - now THERE - perhaps not those particular examples (since the 21 thing largely applies to alcohol) - but other examples that I'm sure you could reproduce.

I completely admit that I find the legality of them somewhat hard to understand or reconcile.


One point someone brought up earlier that I thought was good was asking if a Jewish baker could refuse to bake a cake that was celebrating Hitler and the genocide. I feel like many of the same people who have a problem with the baker refusing to bake the wedding cake wouldn't have a problem with the Jewish baker refusing to bake the Hitler cake. I don't see how anyone could logically reconcile holding both of those positions.
 
2013-12-11 01:03:08 PM  

EWreckedSean: ursomniac: Yes, that's essentially the truth of it, though "in the South" isn't particularly necessary.

Do you honestly think (and I realize I'm using those words broadly) that if EO protections were rescinded tomorrow, that there would NOT be a noticeable increase in cases of discrimination?

Would you classify yourself more as stupid or naïve?

There would be some, not a lot. I worked 7 years in a rural part of the south in the utility industry (our regular lunch place was the cattle market diner). Are there still racists around? Sure. Predominate. Not a chance.

And by the way, thanks for it taking all of a handful of comments for you to lose this conversation. I'm talking, you are throwing insults. It makes it pretty clear who has a strong position.


Yes, you're talking, but not listening.   In the course of that "talking" you're saying things that make no logical sense unless you're either naïve about the issues, or incapable of grasping them.

I'm sorry that that reality bothers you, but perhaps instead of re-stating the same things over and over you could actually make an attempt to understand why those statements fail to convince anyone.

I find it amusing (sad - but amusing) that you believe your CSB experience completely overrides the actual experience of literally THOUSANDS of people around you.  How silly of them!   And (using your logic) how silly of Rosa to not just use another bus line!   And why didn't Mandela just go to another country?
 
2013-12-11 01:03:26 PM  

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


Two words for you to look up in your history books, sir: "No Coloreds."
 
2013-12-11 01:04:03 PM  

EWreckedSean: scottydoesntknow: EWreckedSean: Almost Everybody Poops: Guys, I think you should just agree to disagree with EWreckedSean,

Heaven forbid people have a discussion in a discussion forum.

This is a discussion? All I've seen is:

You: "This is wrong for the businesses"

Everyone else: "No it isn't and here's the mountains of evidence and court cases to support"

You: "I don't care, it's still wrong"

Zavesta and I had a great conversation, and we'll hopefully have more of them in the future because I enjoyed the debate. We didn't agree, but hehad solid points and was capable of backing them up without resorting to the nonsense most of you seem to thrive on. I'm truly sorry you are incapable of participating. That my friend is your loss.


It has nothing to do with participation. You refuse to acknowledge fact and instead hold onto your opinion with nothing to back it up except your opinion.

And yes, I also understand you are not a bigot and don't like discrimination. I also understand you are playing devil's advocate for the business (much like a defense lawyer who knows his client is guilty but must defend him anyway). But when playing devil's advocate, you must have more than just your opinion to back up what you say. Otherwise it's just, like, your opinion, man.

You can keep repeating over and over that the "rights" of the businessman are being violated, when the law explicitly disagrees with you.

/And it's Zasteva, in case he wants to see your compliment (won't get a notification with a misspelling)
 
2013-12-11 01:06:27 PM  

ursomniac: Yes, you're talking, but not listening.   In the course of that "talking" you're saying things that make no logical sense unless you're either naïve about the issues, or incapable of grasping them.

I'm sorry that that reality bothers you, but perhaps instead of re-stating the same things over and over you could actually make an attempt to understand why those statements fail to convince anyone.

I find it amusing (sad - but amusing) that you believe your CSB experience completely overrides the actual experience of literally THOUSANDS of people around you.  How silly of them!   And (using your logic) how silly of Rosa to not just use another bus line!   And why didn't Mandela just go to another country?


I find it amusing that you are accusing me of something and doing the exact same thing. You obviously have no grasp of the point I was making, even though I've had to repeat it so many times apparently. You "examples" make it painfully obvious. Have a nice day.
 
2013-12-11 01:10:26 PM  

scottydoesntknow: EWreckedSean: scottydoesntknow: EWreckedSean: Almost Everybody Poops: Guys, I think you should just agree to disagree with EWreckedSean,

Heaven forbid people have a discussion in a discussion forum.

This is a discussion? All I've seen is:

You: "This is wrong for the businesses"

Everyone else: "No it isn't and here's the mountains of evidence and court cases to support"

You: "I don't care, it's still wrong"

Zavesta and I had a great conversation, and we'll hopefully have more of them in the future because I enjoyed the debate. We didn't agree, but hehad solid points and was capable of backing them up without resorting to the nonsense most of you seem to thrive on. I'm truly sorry you are incapable of participating. That my friend is your loss.

It has nothing to do with participation. You refuse to acknowledge fact and instead hold onto your opinion with nothing to back it up except your opinion.

And yes, I also understand you are not a bigot and don't like discrimination. I also understand you are playing devil's advocate for the business (much like a defense lawyer who knows his client is guilty but must defend him anyway). But when playing devil's advocate, you must have more than just your opinion to back up what you say. Otherwise it's just, like, your opinion, man.

You can keep repeating over and over that the "rights" of the businessman are being violated, when the law explicitly disagrees with you.

/And it's Zasteva, in case he wants to see your compliment (won't get a notification with a misspelling)


Again, I've agreed that the law as currently written disagrees with me. You've three or four times now made that attack against me. How many times do I have to agree with you specifically that I agree the law isn't currently written that way before you stop telling me the law isn't written that way? My argument all a long is that the law is wrong, it it does violate the property rights and liberty of the business owners unnecessarily. We are 5 pages into this thread and you are still arguing a point I never made.
 
2013-12-11 01:11:18 PM  

maddogdelta: I'm not convinced that this is true.

Here you go...  http://www.npr.org/2012/01/28/146006217/why-new-photo-id-laws-mean-so m e-wont-vote

And here    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/08/vot e r_id_laws_why_do_minorities_lack_id_to_show_at_the_polls_.html
And here
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/how-voter-id-law s- are-being-used-to-disenfranchise-minorities-and-the-poor/254572/

here...
http://www.alternet.org/story/151687/11_states_trying_really_hard_to _k eep_poor,_black,_and_student_voters_from_voting

yup... here too..
http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2005-09-30/294046/

and, you can still go back to the video I posted earlier of the Repube telling us all exactly why they passed the Voter ID laws...


You need to reread our exchange and then look at what you cited. You said "most poor people don't have drivers licenses." I went through 3 of the links you posted finding nothing that was even remotely suggesting that. The first link starts out by saying that 89% of the voting aged population has a valid photo ID. Majorities of every race/ethnicity have licenses according to those links. I suspect that you are confusing most people without licenses are poor to mean most poor people don't have licenses. Those are two very different statements and only one of them is true.

I never said anything about voter ID laws. I was just disputing your claim that most poor people don't have a license.
 
2013-12-11 01:11:24 PM  
Know what some kosher delis do when you order something with two ingredients that can't go on the same thing and remain kosher? They wrap up the second ingredient separately and tell you to put it on yourself. All this farkwit had to do, if he had actual religious concerns and wasn't trying to make an ass of himself by doing his best to hurt people he didn't agree with, is make a wedding cake, hand them the toppers in a bag, and say "someone else put them on."

There is no reason the farking baker should get to decide whether your marriage is worthy for ANY REASON. He can do his job or not, and if you have a job that your religion supposedly prevents you from doing- pharmacist, baker, anything -get a new Goddamn job. Because it is not incumbent upon the species to wait around for you to grow up and you do not get to inconvenience everyone else with your childishness.

I hope the motherfarker does rot in jail.
 
2013-12-11 01:13:23 PM  

wrs1864: EWreckedSean: Every once and a while you will see a lawsuit about it (usually by some kid who had no chance of meeting a girl at ladies' night :) ). They pretty much get universally tossed. But it is funny how discrimination is legally ok when it is a kind most people want

Actually, the court cases are pretty mixed..  See Ladies' night

In the cases where courts have ruled in favor of allowing Ladies' night type discounts, it has been for things like the not having standing, or "it isn't discrimination against men, it is trying to get more women" (similar to affirmative action rulings), etc.   None have said it ok to discriminate.


Interesting. Great stuff, thanks!
 
2013-12-11 01:15:07 PM  

EWreckedSean: Again, I've agreed that the law as currently written disagrees with me. You've three or four times now made that attack against me. How many times do I have to agree with you specifically that I agree the law isn't currently written that way before you stop telling me the law isn't written that way? My argument all a long is that the law is wrong, it it does violate the property rights and liberty of the business owners unnecessarily. We are 5 pages into this thread and you are still arguing a point I never made.


You have offered nothing but your opinion to back up your assertions. That's the point I am trying to make.

You don't want a discussion, you want someone to agree with you.
 
2013-12-11 01:22:36 PM  

scottydoesntknow: EWreckedSean: Again, I've agreed that the law as currently written disagrees with me. You've three or four times now made that attack against me. How many times do I have to agree with you specifically that I agree the law isn't currently written that way before you stop telling me the law isn't written that way? My argument all a long is that the law is wrong, it it does violate the property rights and liberty of the business owners unnecessarily. We are 5 pages into this thread and you are still arguing a point I never made.

You have offered nothing but your opinion to back up your assertions. That's the point I am trying to make.

You don't want a discussion, you want someone to agree with you.


Obviously you aren't interested in discussion so have a wonderful afternoon.
 
2013-12-11 01:24:14 PM  

EWreckedSean: scottydoesntknow: EWreckedSean: Again, I've agreed that the law as currently written disagrees with me. You've three or four times now made that attack against me. How many times do I have to agree with you specifically that I agree the law isn't currently written that way before you stop telling me the law isn't written that way? My argument all a long is that the law is wrong, it it does violate the property rights and liberty of the business owners unnecessarily. We are 5 pages into this thread and you are still arguing a point I never made.

You have offered nothing but your opinion to back up your assertions. That's the point I am trying to make.

You don't want a discussion, you want someone to agree with you.

Obviously you aren't interested in discussion so have a wonderful afternoon.


Obviously you aren't either, so you also have a wonderful afternoon.
 
2013-12-11 01:24:59 PM  
I am not reading through what I am sure was a great and thoughtful conversation here on Fark, but I have to sorta agree with the baker here

The gay couple could just as easily moved on to the next baker instead of making a big deal about it. The baker is a douche for not doing it, and I am fine with same sex marriage, but this could have been handled a bit differently...
 
2013-12-11 01:25:17 PM  

Zasteva: wrs1864: EWreckedSean: Every once and a while you will see a lawsuit about it (usually by some kid who had no chance of meeting a girl at ladies' night :) ). They pretty much get universally tossed. But it is funny how discrimination is legally ok when it is a kind most people want

Actually, the court cases are pretty mixed..  See Ladies' night

In the cases where courts have ruled in favor of allowing Ladies' night type discounts, it has been for things like the not having standing, or "it isn't discrimination against men, it is trying to get more women" (similar to affirmative action rulings), etc.   None have said it ok to discriminate.

Interesting. Great stuff, thanks!


Yeah that's a good find. The one's I've seen general seem to get tossed (the practice is still hugely popular). Plus I think the guys who push it have to go in hiding afterward from all their college mates who want to kill them.

So another...case...what if a member's only shopping club decided to discriminate, like a Sam's Club or a Costco where you can only shop there if you are a member?
 
2013-12-11 01:27:45 PM  

give me doughnuts: Zasteva: - This is a government taking of liberty and property on the part of the baker -- no dispute there.
- The 5th amendment prohibits such takings without due process of law -- there is no reasonable dispute here

Big dispute.
There is due process (courts, judges, all that stuff). The court isn't making him give the cake away, just to sell it like he does every day to lots of other people.


I'm not sure why you are taking my thing out of context, especially since the very next thing I said was:

"- There has been a process of law (still underway). -- no dispute there

So it seems to me you've got one possible argument -- that somehow the process of law so far does not constitute "due process".

That would be a discussion I'm willing to have."

I share your view that the baker is in the wrong, and that the law is correct and the baker should be compelled to serve them or suffer the consequences if he refuses (probably compensatory and punitive damages, or perhaps contempt of court depending oh how he goes about it).

What you are reading is my attempts to guide EWreckedSean to fully explore the topic from another point of view; something he seems willing to do. You are actually making that more difficult. Why did you do that?
 
2013-12-11 01:31:10 PM  

scottydoesntknow: "Jack, are you willing to go to jail for your religious beliefs here?" asked Hasselbeck.

"You know if that's what it takes, I guess I would be," he responded.

Ohh christ, they're going to turn this guy into a martyr


The problem is, as an atheist, I think he's right to do so.  He just should not be taking the religious persecution tack, but rather another part of the first amendment: the right to assembly.

AnonymousBosch: There is no reason the farking baker should get to decide whether your marriage is worthy for ANY REASON. He can do his job or not


...actually, that's the point of him going to jail is that he really can't.

Anonymous Bosch: and if you have a job that your religion supposedly prevents you from doing- pharmacist, baker, anything -get a new Goddamn job


Pharmacist is another matter entirely.  In my view, dispensing drugs that could make or break a person's life should not have religion brought into it at all.  Baking a cake for a wedding?  Not that critical. And then we bring up the slippery slope: Would he be getting the same jail risk had he refused making a cake for a couple of Klan members, or Satanists, or merely divas who disrupt your business?  Yes, I know the other slope is just as slippery, but that's the fine line we walk: On one side is having to service people you don't like, and on the other is full-on segregation.  Something has to give, unfortunately
 
2013-12-11 01:34:52 PM  

EWreckedSean: So another...case...what if a member's only shopping club decided to discriminate, like a Sam's Club or a Costco where you can only shop there if you are a member?


I'm not sure where that would stand legally -- personally I think it is wrong, and if I were the prosecuting attorney I would argue that the membership is a legal fiction; that by every other measure it is a normal business of public accommodation, and the membership is really a marketing ploy to make more money from consumers and give them a false sense of exclusivity.
 
2013-12-11 01:36:09 PM  

EWreckedSean: So another...case...what if a member's only shopping club decided to discriminate, like a Sam's Club or a Costco where you can only shop there if you are a member?


They would be just as liable, because they are still a public business.
 
2013-12-11 01:38:22 PM  

scottydoesntknow: EWreckedSean: Again, I've agreed that the law as currently written disagrees with me. You've three or four times now made that attack against me. How many times do I have to agree with you specifically that I agree the law isn't currently written that way before you stop telling me the law isn't written that way? My argument all a long is that the law is wrong, it it does violate the property rights and liberty of the business owners unnecessarily. We are 5 pages into this thread and you are still arguing a point I never made.

scottydoesntknow: You have offered nothing but your opinion to back up your assertions. That's the point I am trying to make.

You don't want a discussion, you want someone to agree with you.


I'm sure he does want someone to agree with him, but I also think he wants to have a discussion. 

If you do want a discussion, you could acknowledge that he understands what the law says and ask him more about why he thinks the law is wrong. Just a suggestion though, maybe you are bored with this :-)
 
2013-12-11 01:38:55 PM  

grumpfuff: EWreckedSean: So another...case...what if a member's only shopping club decided to discriminate, like a Sam's Club or a Costco where you can only shop there if you are a member?

They would be just as liable, because they are still a public business.


Are you a public business if you only deal with members? Is the Moose Lodge a public business? Is a members only club a private business?
 
2013-12-11 01:39:57 PM  

dinomyar: So if I go to a Muslim owned restaurant, can I force them to cook and serve me bacon? Or a bacon version of something they do make?


If your ignorant analogy is to even to approach being relevant then the two people went into the bakery and demanded a brake job on their car.

But keep trying I am sure you will approach a cogent point someday
 
2013-12-11 01:40:08 PM  

Zasteva: EWreckedSean: So another...case...what if a member's only shopping club decided to discriminate, like a Sam's Club or a Costco where you can only shop there if you are a member?

I'm not sure where that would stand legally -- personally I think it is wrong, and if I were the prosecuting attorney I would argue that the membership is a legal fiction; that by every other measure it is a normal business of public accommodation, and the membership is really a marketing ploy to make more money from consumers and give them a false sense of exclusivity.


Ok. So is it ok to have a members only club that only allows Men?
 
2013-12-11 01:41:58 PM  

EWreckedSean: So another...case...what if a member's only shopping club decided to discriminate, like a Sam's Club or a Costco where you can only shop there if you are a member?


IANAL, but my understanding is what is important is whether you generally accept everyone, not wither you charge an entry fee or have a club membership.  So, for example, my girlfriend works at a place that gives out free lunches and also has horrible food safety practices.   But, the only people who can eat there are have to (at least claim) they have a mental illness, have gone through an orientation and do stuff to recover from their problems.   So when the health inspector got complaints and did a surprise inspection and found a huge number of violations, the health inspector said "oh, you aren't feeding the general public?  ok, no problem then."  (my girlfriend won't eat the food they serve.)

So, if costco gives memberships to anyone who pays, then they can't discriminate.

But if a church will only marry people who accept their faith and become members of that church, then the church would have no problems with rejecting gay marriages, etc.

The baker accepts the general public as customers, therefore it has to comply with food safety laws, among other things
 
2013-12-11 01:45:30 PM  

Piizzadude: but this could have been handled a bit differently...


Yeah, the baker could have kept his opinion to himself and baked the cake. Your job is a baker, part of your duties involve baking cakes for people. When you choose to open your business to the public, you choose to open it to ALL of the public or you face fines. None of this is a surprise to you when you open said business.
 
2013-12-11 01:47:14 PM  

EWreckedSean: grumpfuff: EWreckedSean: So another...case...what if a member's only shopping club decided to discriminate, like a Sam's Club or a Costco where you can only shop there if you are a member?

They would be just as liable, because they are still a public business.

Are you a public business if you only deal with members? Is the Moose Lodge a public business? Is a members only club a private business?


Costco is a public business because anyone can join. The only requirement is "Pay a small fee." Also, they are listed on the Stock Market(as in publicly traded). Requiring membership is not enough to make something private. Being listed on the stock market is enough to make something a public business.

Moose Lodges, on the other hand, a private "business." Though I really wouldn't call them a business.

At least that's my understanding. Maybe a Fark Lawyer can correct me.
 
2013-12-11 01:49:10 PM  

Zasteva: scottydoesntknow: EWreckedSean: Again, I've agreed that the law as currently written disagrees with me. You've three or four times now made that attack against me. How many times do I have to agree with you specifically that I agree the law isn't currently written that way before you stop telling me the law isn't written that way? My argument all a long is that the law is wrong, it it does violate the property rights and liberty of the business owners unnecessarily. We are 5 pages into this thread and you are still arguing a point I never made.

scottydoesntknow: You have offered nothing but your opinion to back up your assertions. That's the point I am trying to make.

You don't want a discussion, you want someone to agree with you.

I'm sure he does want someone to agree with him, but I also think he wants to have a discussion. 

If you do want a discussion, you could acknowledge that he understands what the law says and ask him more about why he thinks the law is wrong. Just a suggestion though, maybe you are bored with this :-)


I understand exactly why he thinks the law is wrong (because it discriminates against the business owner's religious views). He even acknowledges that, while you made very good points, it did not change his opinion. Why have a discussion with someone when they're so hard-headed they refuse to acknowledge that preventing a business from discriminating is NOT discrimination.
 
2013-12-11 01:50:20 PM  
What if I went into a hardware store and demanded a ham sandwich?

What if I was in a hot air balloon and they wouldn't give me an orange Julius?

What if I was at a Luby's and I stuck my dick in the mashed potatoes?
 
2013-12-11 01:53:43 PM  

grumpfuff: EWreckedSean: grumpfuff: EWreckedSean: So another...case...what if a member's only shopping club decided to discriminate, like a Sam's Club or a Costco where you can only shop there if you are a member?

They would be just as liable, because they are still a public business.

Are you a public business if you only deal with members? Is the Moose Lodge a public business? Is a members only club a private business?

Costco is a public business because anyone can join. The only requirement is "Pay a small fee." Also, they are listed on the Stock Market(as in publicly traded). Requiring membership is not enough to make something private. Being listed on the stock market is enough to make something a public business.

Moose Lodges, on the other hand, a private "business." Though I really wouldn't call them a business.

At least that's my understanding. Maybe a Fark Lawyer can correct me.


So if I opened a super chain, whites only, required membership to use it and didn't offer it up for public stock options (I really feel this has nothing to do with the public issue though), we think it would be legal?
 
2013-12-11 01:56:38 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Zasteva: scottydoesntknow: EWreckedSean: Again, I've agreed that the law as currently written disagrees with me. You've three or four times now made that attack against me. How many times do I have to agree with you specifically that I agree the law isn't currently written that way before you stop telling me the law isn't written that way? My argument all a long is that the law is wrong, it it does violate the property rights and liberty of the business owners unnecessarily. We are 5 pages into this thread and you are still arguing a point I never made.

scottydoesntknow: You have offered nothing but your opinion to back up your assertions. That's the point I am trying to make.

You don't want a discussion, you want someone to agree with you.

I'm sure he does want someone to agree with him, but I also think he wants to have a discussion. 

If you do want a discussion, you could acknowledge that he understands what the law says and ask him more about why he thinks the law is wrong. Just a suggestion though, maybe you are bored with this :-)

I understand exactly why he thinks the law is wrong (because it discriminates against the business owner's religious views). He even acknowledges that, while you made very good points, it did not change his opinion. Why have a discussion with someone when they're so hard-headed they refuse to acknowledge that preventing a business from discriminating is NOT discrimination.


1) That wasn't my point at all. I mean not even remotely. I've said almost nothing about his religious views in this entire 5 pages

2) The purpose of discussion and debate is rarely to change views but to get people to think things through better, to see another's point of view to better define your own. Other people will always look at things from a different perspective. That's how we learn.
 
2013-12-11 01:56:44 PM  

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.
 
2013-12-11 01:58:04 PM  

grumpfuff: EWreckedSean: grumpfuff: EWreckedSean: So another...case...what if a member's only shopping club decided to discriminate, like a Sam's Club or a Costco where you can only shop there if you are a member?

They would be just as liable, because they are still a public business.

Are you a public business if you only deal with members? Is the Moose Lodge a public business? Is a members only club a private business?

Costco is a public business because anyone can join. The only requirement is "Pay a small fee." Also, they are listed on the Stock Market(as in publicly traded). Requiring membership is not enough to make something private. Being listed on the stock market is enough to make something a public business.

Moose Lodges, on the other hand, a private "business." Though I really wouldn't call them a business.

At least that's my understanding. Maybe a Fark Lawyer can correct me.


On the lodges issue btw, most charge fees, and run their own bars. Some serve food, etc as well. Hold concerts, bingo nights, etc. I'd say they truly do function as a members only business.
 
2013-12-11 01:59:44 PM  

EWreckedSean: Is the Moose Lodge a public business? Is a members only club a private business?


Funny that you would pick the moose lodge as an example.   See Loyal Order of Moose

They are a private club for white men only and the SCotUS ruled that they could not be denied a liquor license just because they wouldn't serve blacks.

The Boy Scouts are another example of a bigoted organization that the SCotUS has ruled it is fine for them to discriminate.   As consequence of their discrimination, they have lost all government support in most (all?) states.
 
2013-12-11 02:02:48 PM  

wrs1864: EWreckedSean: Is the Moose Lodge a public business? Is a members only club a private business?

Funny that you would pick the moose lodge as an example.   See Loyal Order of Moose

They are a private club for white men only and the SCotUS ruled that they could not be denied a liquor license just because they wouldn't serve blacks.

The Boy Scouts are another example of a bigoted organization that the SCotUS has ruled it is fine for them to discriminate.   As consequence of their discrimination, they have lost all government support in most (all?) states.


Well I picked a good example then I guess. While I have no interest in joining a white guys only club myself, if that's who these people feel comfortable hanging out with, why shouldn't by free association that have the right to? And what really is the difference between the lodge and the baker?