|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
 Posted: Mon May 23, 2016 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| frijolero01 wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | To put it simply, the first amendment is protection from the government forcing religion on you, not protection for you forcing religion on another person. |
impeding the free exercise of religion
you skip that part?
The Bill of Rights is to protect individuals FROM government, not to allow government to coerce individuals. |
No, I didn't skip it, I just know what it means. I know, for example, that it doesn't mean I can practice human sacrifice, although it does mean I can celebrate it and espouse it. There isn't an unlimited right of behaviors expressed nor implied by the phrase.
And the government isn't coercing, it is preventing coercement. Again, you wouldn't accept this based on an interracial marriage, so it isn't about the right of the government to prohibit discrimination so much as your subjective view of which discrimination passes your muster.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
frijolero01
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 May 2005
Posts: 13324
|
| Posted: Mon May 23, 2016 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | frijolero01 wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | To put it simply, the first amendment is protection from the government forcing religion on you, not protection for you forcing religion on another person. |
impeding the free exercise of religion
you skip that part?
The Bill of Rights is to protect individuals FROM government, not to allow government to coerce individuals. |
No, I didn't skip it, I just know what it means. I know, for example, that it doesn't mean I can practice human sacrifice, although it does mean I can celebrate it and espouse it. There isn't an unlimited right of behaviors expressed nor implied by the phrase.
And the government isn't coercing, it is preventing coercement. Again, you wouldn't accept this based on an interracial marriage, so it isn't about the right of the government to prohibit discrimination so much as your subjective view of which discrimination passes your muster. |
The liberal left is doing the coercing which results in the government getting involved. Nobody was hurt physically or robbed. They did not have a "no gays allowed" sign on their store. They're not receiving help from the government. This is a free (bleep) market. Leave them alone. FIND ANOTHER BAKERY. The 2 women saw an opportunity to capitalize and the government said that their hurt wittle feewings was worth 100k
And, I would accept it as an interracial marriage. Like I previously stated, if a business denied me because of that reason, then fine. I'll move on. It's their business. I'll go somewhere else. I wouldn't (bleep) to mommy and daddy and get a payday.
_________________
Thank you, Kobe. We love you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon May 23, 2016 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| frijolero01 wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | frijolero01 wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | To put it simply, the first amendment is protection from the government forcing religion on you, not protection for you forcing religion on another person. |
impeding the free exercise of religion
you skip that part?
The Bill of Rights is to protect individuals FROM government, not to allow government to coerce individuals. |
No, I didn't skip it, I just know what it means. I know, for example, that it doesn't mean I can practice human sacrifice, although it does mean I can celebrate it and espouse it. There isn't an unlimited right of behaviors expressed nor implied by the phrase.
And the government isn't coercing, it is preventing coercement. Again, you wouldn't accept this based on an interracial marriage, so it isn't about the right of the government to prohibit discrimination so much as your subjective view of which discrimination passes your muster. |
The liberal left is doing the coercing which results in the government getting involved. Nobody was hurt physically or robbed. They did not have a "no gays allowed" sign on their store. They're not receiving help from the government. This is a free (bleep) market. Leave them alone. FIND ANOTHER BAKERY. The 2 women saw an opportunity to capitalize and the government said that their hurt wittle feewings was worth 100k |
You just keep repeating the segregationist south argument like it holds water. And hey, throwing in feelings and the word liberal, and a "hey, we will serve them, just not serve them fully like we do hetero people" doesn't change the basic facts. No one is being coerced. They are required to follow the law, and the law bans discrimination. Free market is not a defense against illegality. Nor is find another store. And it's not robbery isn't a defense against discrimination, any more than it would be against assault, or theft, or false advertising, or any other law.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fan0Bynum17
Franchise Player
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 15436
|
| Posted: Mon May 23, 2016 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| frijolero01 wrote: | | Aussiesuede wrote: | | frijolero01 wrote: |
It seems as though equality and tolerance is not enough. Ok, you're a transgender. Who cares? Good for you. Let's move on. We're all friends. Now you want a separate bathroom and an ESPY?
Perfect example is the bakery that denied service to the gay wedding. All they had to do was accept that it was THEIR PLACE OF BUSINESS and move on. Just say "oh ok. No problem. Thank you're. Nope! Had to be outraged and make national headlines.
People don't want tolerance. They want (bleep) celebration. |
 All they wanted was to be treated like ANY OTHER CUSTOMER. If a divorcee came in and wanted a cake, then you bake them a cake. Ones opinion about how sacreligious it is for someone to decide to thumb their nose at the mate God chose for them, and disrespect God's wisdom in choosing that mate for them, has nothing to do with anything. They are there to buy a cake, not goto church.
A business license is just like any other license. Either you agree to abide by the laws regulating business, or you go outside the jurisdiction of the business license to operate a business. It's no different than desiring to drive on the left side of the road just because you feel like it. When you sign your Drivers license application, you agree to obey traffic laws associated with that license. You do the same when you sign your application for a business license. Don't agree with the rules of the license, then it's simple - don't sign that application for a business license which states you intend to obey the rules associated with that license. |
As a business, you should reserve the right to refuse business to anyone. Are they the only bakery in town? doubt it.
Driving on the opposite side of the road is a dumb comparison. Doing that results in a serious accident that can kill a human being or a dog for you dog lovers. The laws are there for your protection. You're putting yourself and others at danger and you should be shot for even attempting that. There's no danger in taking your ass to another bakery for cake.
They WERE treated like any other customer. They respectfully declined their business. They didn't say. GET OUT FA****S AND DON'T COME BACK!!
For the record, I would've given them the damn cake. I wouldn't of cared. But, that's what this country needs. You do whatever the hell you want. I do whatever the hell I want. As long as I'm not hurting you physically or stealing from you. Leave me the (bleep) alone. |
Except (whether you agree with it or not,) that's not a right businesses actually have in this country. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
frijolero01
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 May 2005
Posts: 13324
|
| Posted: Mon May 23, 2016 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | frijolero01 wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | frijolero01 wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | To put it simply, the first amendment is protection from the government forcing religion on you, not protection for you forcing religion on another person. |
impeding the free exercise of religion
you skip that part?
The Bill of Rights is to protect individuals FROM government, not to allow government to coerce individuals. |
No, I didn't skip it, I just know what it means. I know, for example, that it doesn't mean I can practice human sacrifice, although it does mean I can celebrate it and espouse it. There isn't an unlimited right of behaviors expressed nor implied by the phrase.
And the government isn't coercing, it is preventing coercement. Again, you wouldn't accept this based on an interracial marriage, so it isn't about the right of the government to prohibit discrimination so much as your subjective view of which discrimination passes your muster. |
The liberal left is doing the coercing which results in the government getting involved. Nobody was hurt physically or robbed. They did not have a "no gays allowed" sign on their store. They're not receiving help from the government. This is a free (bleep) market. Leave them alone. FIND ANOTHER BAKERY. The 2 women saw an opportunity to capitalize and the government said that their hurt wittle feewings was worth 100k |
You just keep repeating the segregationist south argument like it holds water. And hey, throwing in feelings and the word liberal, and a "hey, we will serve them, just not serve them fully like we do hetero people" doesn't change the basic facts. No one is being coerced. They are required to follow the law, and the law bans discrimination. Free market is not a defense against illegality. Nor is find another store. And it's not robbery isn't a defense against discrimination, any more than it would be against assault, or theft, or false advertising, or any other law. |
so, just because the law says so, it makes it right? You're in favor of ANY law being passed? Should the government make the Redskins change their name?
_________________
Thank you, Kobe. We love you.
Last edited by frijolero01 on Mon May 23, 2016 3:08 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon May 23, 2016 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| frijolero01 wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | frijolero01 wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | frijolero01 wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | To put it simply, the first amendment is protection from the government forcing religion on you, not protection for you forcing religion on another person. |
impeding the free exercise of religion
you skip that part?
The Bill of Rights is to protect individuals FROM government, not to allow government to coerce individuals. |
No, I didn't skip it, I just know what it means. I know, for example, that it doesn't mean I can practice human sacrifice, although it does mean I can celebrate it and espouse it. There isn't an unlimited right of behaviors expressed nor implied by the phrase.
And the government isn't coercing, it is preventing coercement. Again, you wouldn't accept this based on an interracial marriage, so it isn't about the right of the government to prohibit discrimination so much as your subjective view of which discrimination passes your muster. |
The liberal left is doing the coercing which results in the government getting involved. Nobody was hurt physically or robbed. They did not have a "no gays allowed" sign on their store. They're not receiving help from the government. This is a free (bleep) market. Leave them alone. FIND ANOTHER BAKERY. The 2 women saw an opportunity to capitalize and the government said that their hurt wittle feewings was worth 100k |
You just keep repeating the segregationist south argument like it holds water. And hey, throwing in feelings and the word liberal, and a "hey, we will serve them, just not serve them fully like we do hetero people" doesn't change the basic facts. No one is being coerced. They are required to follow the law, and the law bans discrimination. Free market is not a defense against illegality. Nor is find another store. And it's not robbery isn't a defense against discrimination, any more than it would be against assault, or theft, or false advertising, or any other law. |
so, just because the law says so, it makes it right? You're in favor of ANY law being passed? Should the government make the Redskins change their name? |
You're all over the place. If the law is constitutional and is legally passed, then yes, it should be enforced. And anti discrimination laws are "right", yes, even if you don't particularly care for the group being protected. You keep thinking it is wrong to protect one group in the name of protecting another group's right to discriminate against them.
As for the Redskins, wholly separate scenario. They can legally call themselves whatever they like. They can't, however, deny luxury box tickets to gay couples.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
frijolero01
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 May 2005
Posts: 13324
|
| Posted: Mon May 23, 2016 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | frijolero01 wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | frijolero01 wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | frijolero01 wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | To put it simply, the first amendment is protection from the government forcing religion on you, not protection for you forcing religion on another person. |
impeding the free exercise of religion
you skip that part?
The Bill of Rights is to protect individuals FROM government, not to allow government to coerce individuals. |
No, I didn't skip it, I just know what it means. I know, for example, that it doesn't mean I can practice human sacrifice, although it does mean I can celebrate it and espouse it. There isn't an unlimited right of behaviors expressed nor implied by the phrase.
And the government isn't coercing, it is preventing coercement. Again, you wouldn't accept this based on an interracial marriage, so it isn't about the right of the government to prohibit discrimination so much as your subjective view of which discrimination passes your muster. |
The liberal left is doing the coercing which results in the government getting involved. Nobody was hurt physically or robbed. They did not have a "no gays allowed" sign on their store. They're not receiving help from the government. This is a free (bleep) market. Leave them alone. FIND ANOTHER BAKERY. The 2 women saw an opportunity to capitalize and the government said that their hurt wittle feewings was worth 100k |
You just keep repeating the segregationist south argument like it holds water. And hey, throwing in feelings and the word liberal, and a "hey, we will serve them, just not serve them fully like we do hetero people" doesn't change the basic facts. No one is being coerced. They are required to follow the law, and the law bans discrimination. Free market is not a defense against illegality. Nor is find another store. And it's not robbery isn't a defense against discrimination, any more than it would be against assault, or theft, or false advertising, or any other law. |
so, just because the law says so, it makes it right? You're in favor of ANY law being passed? Should the government make the Redskins change their name? |
You're all over the place. If the law is constitutional and is legally passed, then yes, it should be enforced. And anti discrimination laws are "right", yes, even if you don't particularly care for the group being protected. You keep thinking it is wrong to protect one group in the name of protecting another group's right to discriminate against them.
As for the Redskins, wholly separate scenario. They can legally call themselves whatever they like. They can't, however, deny luxury box tickets to gay couples. |
You just proved my point. They were NOT discriminating. They were just denying a particular service. Any other day, they would've accepted. The bakery did not refuse ordinary service to those women. If they would've said "okay, can you just bake me a birthday cake instead?", they would've gotten it.
Am I discriminating against a white person if I refuse to bake a KKK rally cake? NO,I'm just denying service against a particular event that I feel is offensive.
_________________
Thank you, Kobe. We love you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon May 23, 2016 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| frijolero01 wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | frijolero01 wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | frijolero01 wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | frijolero01 wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | To put it simply, the first amendment is protection from the government forcing religion on you, not protection for you forcing religion on another person. |
impeding the free exercise of religion
you skip that part?
The Bill of Rights is to protect individuals FROM government, not to allow government to coerce individuals. |
No, I didn't skip it, I just know what it means. I know, for example, that it doesn't mean I can practice human sacrifice, although it does mean I can celebrate it and espouse it. There isn't an unlimited right of behaviors expressed nor implied by the phrase.
And the government isn't coercing, it is preventing coercement. Again, you wouldn't accept this based on an interracial marriage, so it isn't about the right of the government to prohibit discrimination so much as your subjective view of which discrimination passes your muster. |
The liberal left is doing the coercing which results in the government getting involved. Nobody was hurt physically or robbed. They did not have a "no gays allowed" sign on their store. They're not receiving help from the government. This is a free (bleep) market. Leave them alone. FIND ANOTHER BAKERY. The 2 women saw an opportunity to capitalize and the government said that their hurt wittle feewings was worth 100k |
You just keep repeating the segregationist south argument like it holds water. And hey, throwing in feelings and the word liberal, and a "hey, we will serve them, just not serve them fully like we do hetero people" doesn't change the basic facts. No one is being coerced. They are required to follow the law, and the law bans discrimination. Free market is not a defense against illegality. Nor is find another store. And it's not robbery isn't a defense against discrimination, any more than it would be against assault, or theft, or false advertising, or any other law. |
so, just because the law says so, it makes it right? You're in favor of ANY law being passed? Should the government make the Redskins change their name? |
You're all over the place. If the law is constitutional and is legally passed, then yes, it should be enforced. And anti discrimination laws are "right", yes, even if you don't particularly care for the group being protected. You keep thinking it is wrong to protect one group in the name of protecting another group's right to discriminate against them.
As for the Redskins, wholly separate scenario. They can legally call themselves whatever they like. They can't, however, deny luxury box tickets to gay couples. |
You just proved my point. They were NOT discriminating. They were just denying a particular service. Any other day, they would've accepted. The bakery did not refuse ordinary service to those women. If they would've said "okay, can you just bake me a birthday cake instead?", they would've gotten it.
Am I discriminating against a white person if I refuse to bake a KKK rally cake? NO,I'm just denying service against a particular event that I feel is offensive. |
No, I didn't prove your point, I merely showed why the redskins scenario was different, and provided how it would be the same. Would you find it OK for the redskins to not sell tickets in in a particular section to gay people? Would you find it OK for a white supremacist to not sell a cake for a wedding of black people?
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aussiesuede
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 10964
|
| Posted: Mon May 23, 2016 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| frijolero01 wrote: |
You just proved my point. They were NOT discriminating. They were just denying a particular service. Any other day, they would've accepted. The bakery did not refuse ordinary service to those women. If they would've said "okay, can you just bake me a birthday cake instead?", they would've gotten it.
Am I discriminating against a white person if I refuse to bake a KKK rally cake? NO,I'm just denying service against a particular event that I feel is offensive. |
If they bake a cake for one customer that simply says:
"Congratulations on Your Wedding"
then they must be willing to sale a cake with that inscription to any customer. What a customer chooses to do with that product once it's been purchased is of no concern to them.
But what's occurring in these cases is the Baker is descriminating who he sales a cake with the inscription
"Congratulations on Your Wedding"
Therein lies the problem. How does the baker even know what the final disposition of the cake will be? It's not like people are requesting an inscription of:
"Congratulations on Our Gay Wedding"
The Baker is making a rash judgement when he see's the customer and assuming that the cake is for a Gay Wedding. Heck, it could be a Gay person purchasing the cake for their Straight sister. The bottom line is what's done with that cake after purchase is none of the Bakers concern.
_________________
I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon May 23, 2016 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aussiesuede wrote: | | frijolero01 wrote: |
You just proved my point. They were NOT discriminating. They were just denying a particular service. Any other day, they would've accepted. The bakery did not refuse ordinary service to those women. If they would've said "okay, can you just bake me a birthday cake instead?", they would've gotten it.
Am I discriminating against a white person if I refuse to bake a KKK rally cake? NO,I'm just denying service against a particular event that I feel is offensive. |
If they bake a cake for one customer that simply says:
"Congratulations on Your Wedding"
then they must be willing to sale a cake with that inscription to any customer. What a customer chooses to do with that product once it's been purchased is of no concern to them.
But what's occurring in these cases is the Baker is descriminating who he sales a cake with the inscription
"Congratulations on Your Wedding"
Therein lies the problem. How does the baker even know what the final disposition of the cake will be? It's not like people are requesting an inscription of:
"Congratulations on Our Gay Wedding"
The Baker is making a rash judgement when he see's the customer and assuming that the cake is for a Gay Wedding. Heck, it could be a Gay person purchasing the cake for their Straight sister. The bottom line is what's done with that cake after purchase is none of the Bakers concern. |
Correct. If a baker says, "I don't make cakes with political or religious/nonreligious symbols on them", that's OK, provided he's willing to make the cake without the symbols for any customer. If he makes wedding cakes, he doesn't have the right to choose which weddings he will and won't make them for. If he puts names on them, he has to do that for all.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
frijolero01
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 May 2005
Posts: 13324
|
| Posted: Mon May 23, 2016 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | Aussiesuede wrote: | | frijolero01 wrote: |
You just proved my point. They were NOT discriminating. They were just denying a particular service. Any other day, they would've accepted. The bakery did not refuse ordinary service to those women. If they would've said "okay, can you just bake me a birthday cake instead?", they would've gotten it.
Am I discriminating against a white person if I refuse to bake a KKK rally cake? NO,I'm just denying service against a particular event that I feel is offensive. |
If they bake a cake for one customer that simply says:
"Congratulations on Your Wedding"
then they must be willing to sale a cake with that inscription to any customer. What a customer chooses to do with that product once it's been purchased is of no concern to them.
But what's occurring in these cases is the Baker is descriminating who he sales a cake with the inscription
"Congratulations on Your Wedding"
Therein lies the problem. How does the baker even know what the final disposition of the cake will be? It's not like people are requesting an inscription of:
"Congratulations on Our Gay Wedding"
The Baker is making a rash judgement when he see's the customer and assuming that the cake is for a Gay Wedding. Heck, it could be a Gay person purchasing the cake for their Straight sister. The bottom line is what's done with that cake after purchase is none of the Bakers concern. |
Correct. If a baker says, "I don't make cakes with political or religious/nonreligious symbols on them", that's OK, provided he's willing to make the cake without the symbols for any customer. If he makes wedding cakes, he doesn't have the right to choose which weddings he will and won't make them for. If he puts names on them, he has to do that for all. |
It's still their business. This is capitalism, people. They would've lost the cash and the shop would've folded anyway. Just let them die their slow death. But, that wasn't enough I guess.
_________________
Thank you, Kobe. We love you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon May 23, 2016 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| frijolero01 wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | Aussiesuede wrote: | | frijolero01 wrote: |
You just proved my point. They were NOT discriminating. They were just denying a particular service. Any other day, they would've accepted. The bakery did not refuse ordinary service to those women. If they would've said "okay, can you just bake me a birthday cake instead?", they would've gotten it.
Am I discriminating against a white person if I refuse to bake a KKK rally cake? NO,I'm just denying service against a particular event that I feel is offensive. |
If they bake a cake for one customer that simply says:
"Congratulations on Your Wedding"
then they must be willing to sale a cake with that inscription to any customer. What a customer chooses to do with that product once it's been purchased is of no concern to them.
But what's occurring in these cases is the Baker is descriminating who he sales a cake with the inscription
"Congratulations on Your Wedding"
Therein lies the problem. How does the baker even know what the final disposition of the cake will be? It's not like people are requesting an inscription of:
"Congratulations on Our Gay Wedding"
The Baker is making a rash judgement when he see's the customer and assuming that the cake is for a Gay Wedding. Heck, it could be a Gay person purchasing the cake for their Straight sister. The bottom line is what's done with that cake after purchase is none of the Bakers concern. |
Correct. If a baker says, "I don't make cakes with political or religious/nonreligious symbols on them", that's OK, provided he's willing to make the cake without the symbols for any customer. If he makes wedding cakes, he doesn't have the right to choose which weddings he will and won't make them for. If he puts names on them, he has to do that for all. |
It's still their business. This is capitalism, people. They would've lost the cash and the shop would've folded anyway. Just let them die their slow death. But, that wasn't enough I guess. |
Again, a free market isn't a blanket do what you want. There are myriad business laws, and among them are anti discrimination laws.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aussiesuede
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 10964
|
| Posted: Mon May 23, 2016 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| frijolero01 wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | Aussiesuede wrote: | | frijolero01 wrote: |
You just proved my point. They were NOT discriminating. They were just denying a particular service. Any other day, they would've accepted. The bakery did not refuse ordinary service to those women. If they would've said "okay, can you just bake me a birthday cake instead?", they would've gotten it.
Am I discriminating against a white person if I refuse to bake a KKK rally cake? NO,I'm just denying service against a particular event that I feel is offensive. |
If they bake a cake for one customer that simply says:
"Congratulations on Your Wedding"
then they must be willing to sale a cake with that inscription to any customer. What a customer chooses to do with that product once it's been purchased is of no concern to them.
But what's occurring in these cases is the Baker is descriminating who he sales a cake with the inscription
"Congratulations on Your Wedding"
Therein lies the problem. How does the baker even know what the final disposition of the cake will be? It's not like people are requesting an inscription of:
"Congratulations on Our Gay Wedding"
The Baker is making a rash judgement when he see's the customer and assuming that the cake is for a Gay Wedding. Heck, it could be a Gay person purchasing the cake for their Straight sister. The bottom line is what's done with that cake after purchase is none of the Bakers concern. |
Correct. If a baker says, "I don't make cakes with political or religious/nonreligious symbols on them", that's OK, provided he's willing to make the cake without the symbols for any customer. If he makes wedding cakes, he doesn't have the right to choose which weddings he will and won't make them for. If he puts names on them, he has to do that for all. |
It's still their business. This is capitalism, people. They would've lost the cash and the shop would've folded anyway. Just let them die their slow death. But, that wasn't enough I guess. |
Actually that's not what happened in the original Bakery case in Indiana that kicked off all these silly shenanigans. Even after all the notoriety, that Baker was still profitable. Bigots from as far away as 60 miles were bringing their business to them just to show support. Yet they still chose to close down a profitable business anyway. A profitable business that they conveniently CHOSE to open in a Gay District at precisely the same time that Gay Weddings were working their way to national legality. Then as soon as they saw their opportunity to pounce on the issue and make a big stink - THEN they decide to close down their profitable business. After only 3 years in business? Sense an agenda on their part??? They were just itching for a fight so they could promote the "religious freedom" mantra. Why else open a business in a gay district and service a large clientele of gay people then all of a sudden decide to not serve them?
_________________
I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
frijolero01
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 May 2005
Posts: 13324
|
| Posted: Mon May 23, 2016 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, I guess a black owned bakery should make a KKK wedding cake too? Should a church start conducting gay weddings?
It's clear you want more government regulations. Protect our freedom by making more laws? Doesn't sound right.
_________________
Thank you, Kobe. We love you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon May 23, 2016 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| frijolero01 wrote: | So, I guess a black owned bakery should make a KKK wedding cake too? Should a church start conducting gay weddings?
It's clear you want more government regulations. Protect our freedom by making more laws? Doesn't sound right. |
Yes, a black bakery owner should sell a wedding cake to a KKK member.
Churches are not required to perform ceremonies in conflict with their religious beliefs, provided they are consistent.
"You want more regulation" is a non sequitur in a debate about a specific regulation being right, wrong, legal, or illegal.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon May 23, 2016 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
BTW, capitalism is defined as:
| Quote: | | an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations... |
Nowhere does that imply that government agencies don't have the right to regulate commercial activities.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aussiesuede
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 10964
|
| Posted: Mon May 23, 2016 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| frijolero01 wrote: | So, I guess a black owned bakery should make a KKK wedding cake too? Should a church start conducting gay weddings?
It's clear you want more government regulations. Protect our freedom by making more laws? Doesn't sound right. |
If a Black customer walks into a black owned bakery that asks for a cake with the inscription:
"Congratulations on Your Wedding"
then YES, they must also sell a cake with the same inscription to someone they suspect of being in the KKK.
If they sell a cake with the Inscription:
"Black People are Monkey's"
to a Black customer then they also MUST sell a cake with the same inscription to someone they suspect of being in the KKK.
If they refuse to sell a cake with the inscription:
"Black People are Monkey's"
to a customer they suspect of being in the KKK, then they must also to refuse to sell a cake with that inscription to anyone else as well.
They get to decide which products they care to sell. They DON'T get to decide who they'll sell those products to. Either they sell it to everyone, or noone.
When a shoe salesman is selling a shoe to someone, they don't get to ask "Will This shoe be involved in a Gay wedding?".
_________________
I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hoopschick29
Franchise Player
Joined: 23 Jul 2004
Posts: 12898
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Mon May 23, 2016 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's their business, but there are still rules of the road. It's YOUR car. But you can't drive YOUR car without a license or insurance. In order to get and maintain a license and insurance, there are rules you have to know and agree to follow.
It's YOUR house. But if you live in an HOA neighborhood (which is pretty much any community built in the last 20 years), there are rules on everything from what color you can paint YOUR house to how many bushes you can have in YOUR yard.
But back to it being THEIR business. Most people don't own anything outright these days. The only thing this business OWNS is it's name. And they had to get a license for that. You have to go through legal channels to own a business, which means there are RULES. You think this flower shop owns the lot and the building that they occupied to run their business?
Nope.
You think this flower shop completely self-contained and not taking advantage of any financing and tax credits afforded businesses big or small??
Nope.
So it's THEIR business, but they're using other people's money, other people's infrastructure, and taxpayer credits to keep the doors open. And they should STILL be able to discriminate against who they want because they own a NAME? There shouldn't be rules of the road like there is for pretty much anything else you want to own and/or operate in this country?
_________________
So glad we gave you your flowers while you were here, Kobe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67708
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Mon May 23, 2016 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You can own a business and refuse to serve if the refusal is not discriminatory. That's a slippery slope.
No shirt, not shoes, no service is not the same as no service for, Blacks, Gays, Jews, etc. but it still could be discrimination.
I'm not sure how discrimination laws read. I think they're based on race and religion.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aussiesuede
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 10964
|
| Posted: Mon May 23, 2016 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | You can own a business and refuse to serve if the refusal is not discriminatory. That's a slippery slope.
No shirt, not shoes, no service is not the same as no service for, Blacks, Gays, Jews, etc. but it still could be discrimination.
I'm not sure how discrimination laws read. I think they're based on race and religion. |
They're based on "Protected Classes" which have previously been found to have been denied liberties, or pursuits of happiness, that are afforded to the majority.
When a business posts a sign that reads "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" it has to be consistent. It can't grant service to a shirtless straight man, then turn around and deny service to a shirtless gay man. It has to be consistent in it's application of it's rules.
_________________
I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Mon May 23, 2016 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How is any of this relevant to the trans bathroom discussion?
No one is being systemically denied access to a bathroom. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Oliver Reed
Star Player
Joined: 28 Sep 2014
Posts: 2626
Location: Globo Gym
|
| Posted: Mon May 23, 2016 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Discrimination, much like racism has been redefined in our society. We are now racists for hating religious fanaticism. We are now bigots for not wanting to cater to lifestyles.
We have tree hugging, hippies who scream at the greed for changing the environment and scream that nature needs to be left alone. Yet, they scream for a man who now wants to, all of a sudden, cut his pecker off and become a woman.
Gimme a break. Pick one or go away. Enough of the explaining (bleep) the way it works in your own head.
_________________
Because we're better than you! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fan0Bynum17
Franchise Player
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 15436
|
| Posted: Mon May 23, 2016 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Oliver Reed wrote: | Discrimination, much like racism has been redefined in our society. We are now racists for hating religious fanaticism. We are now bigots for not wanting to cater to lifestyles.
We have tree hugging, hippies who scream at the greed for changing the environment and scream that nature needs to be left alone. Yet, they scream for a man who now wants to, all of a sudden, cut his pecker off and become a woman.
Gimme a break. Pick one or go away. Enough of the explaining (bleep) the way it works in your own head. |
Could you be more random and disjointed in the things you chose to compare to one another? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 17249
Location: In a no-ship
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fan0Bynum17 wrote: | | Oliver Reed wrote: | Discrimination, much like racism has been redefined in our society. We are now racists for hating religious fanaticism. We are now bigots for not wanting to cater to lifestyles.
We have tree hugging, hippies who scream at the greed for changing the environment and scream that nature needs to be left alone. Yet, they scream for a man who now wants to, all of a sudden, cut his pecker off and become a woman.
Gimme a break. Pick one or go away. Enough of the explaining (bleep) the way it works in your own head. |
Could you be more random and disjointed in the things you chose to compare to one another? |
The guy is confused. It's ok. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hoopschick29
Franchise Player
Joined: 23 Jul 2004
Posts: 12898
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 9:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DuncanIdaho wrote: | | Fan0Bynum17 wrote: | | Oliver Reed wrote: | Discrimination, much like racism has been redefined in our society. We are now racists for hating religious fanaticism. We are now bigots for not wanting to cater to lifestyles.
We have tree hugging, hippies who scream at the greed for changing the environment and scream that nature needs to be left alone. Yet, they scream for a man who now wants to, all of a sudden, cut his pecker off and become a woman.
Gimme a break. Pick one or go away. Enough of the explaining (bleep) the way it works in your own head. |
Could you be more random and disjointed in the things you chose to compare to one another? |
The guy is confused. It's ok. |
Don't ever talk to him like that again. Ya dig?? EVER. 
_________________
So glad we gave you your flowers while you were here, Kobe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
