S
SWolf
Guest
I can’t speak for him, but I have.
Cake shop faces legal action for refusing to make anti LGBT cake
- Thread starter signit
- Start date
- Status
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
What circumstance? What was the basis for refusal?
S
SWolf
Guest
Why does it matter?
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
Well in general terms…was it something you can’t or are unlikely to change like your skin color or religion or gender.
Or was it because you refused to wear shoes in a restaurant. Or because you were drunk and belligerent for example.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
-There needs to be a limit on when a business has a right to deny service.
-I agree in regards to the text the customer wanting being anti-Christian.
-The bakery in question would be wrong if their refusal was based on something other than the conscience of the owner/operator.
S
SWolf
Guest
So, in your view, it should be illegal for a private entity to discriminate based on something someone can’t change?
M
mjs2001
Guest
I agree. The 13th Amendment abolished “slavery” and “involuntary servitude.” If the law requires some lady to bake a cake for somebody else, and she doesn’t want to do it, then it is slavery or involuntary servitude. If she’s a racist, or homophobe, or anti-Christian, or someone who hates Irish people, or any other kind of bigot, I still support her right to not be a serf required by law to give service against her will.
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
In general yes, although I am sure you must have some exception to the rule ready to fire back.
I don’t think that we should look down on a handicap person and say, “We don’t like wheelchair bound people clogging the aisles of our stores”
I don’t think we should put a sign up in Home Depot that says “No retards allowed”
I don’t think it should be legal to say “Your a Christian and can’t you read the sign- 'No Christians are allowed to purchase Groceries here”
I don’t think it should be legal to have a homeless man save up to buy a meal from a fast food restaurant and have the manager say, “Get out we don’t serve your kind”
I don’t think its right for a White man to put a sign up at his diner “No shirt no shoes no service…and no colored folks either”
How people can justify such actions with a Christian World View is beyond me.
H
Hans_W
Guest
We get down to freedom of speech and expression. If the service can be seen as insulting to certain widely held beliefs, religious or not, then yes, the business has a right to refuse.
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
It is not remotely close to slavery…unless she is compelled to be a baker only and must bake cakes regardless.
I am a paramedic, and I can’t go and say I don’t want to serve certain people that call. Even if I “owned my ambulance service”
That is a restriction I put on myself by engaging in Paramedicine.
People who engage in commerce with the public also set aside their right to be racist jerks to people.
Perhaps she could be the exclusive baker for the KKK or perhaps she could find a different line of work where she doesn’t have to deal with people.
W
WKW_69
Guest
I’m sorry we don’t bake cakes for black people.
I’m sorry we don’t bake cakes for Jews.
I’m sorry we don’t bake cakes for JW’s.
I’m sorry we don’t bake cakes for Catholics.
These same sort of business policies existed in the American south 50 years ago and it was a great day when the United States government made it illegal for a business to discriminate against a person because of their race, religion, nationality or sex. These laws help commerce in America and do not hurt it.
S
SWolf
Guest
It seems there’s some confusion between the law ALLOWING such behavior, and APPROVING such behavior.
I see no one on this thread saying such actions are good. I do see people who see it as an infringement of rights to force someone into a contract against their will. Forcing someone into such a contract at the point of a gun forces him to do an act of involuntary servitude, even if the person is a bigot.
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
What you can’t get your head around is that we should make laws that ensure the just protections of all peoples.
That is how minority groups are protected.
I get you have no real world experience of Christians being truly persecuted. Wondering how you will buy food for your family because no one will serve you.
But under your argument, such actions are perfectly legal and there should be no law saying it is illegal to do that.
Its just wrong or immoral, and we shouldn’t combat immorality by passing laws restricting freedom of business to do that.
So, if next year, Iraq stabilizes, God willing, and a it is now commonplace for Christians to be denied service there. So the new Iraq government wants to pass a law that forbids the discrimination by businesses against Christians.
You want me to believe you would oppose such a law?
That you would uphold that it is the Islamic Majority’s rite to refuse service to Christians.
Ridiculous
M
mjs2001
Guest
How about a rule that says a mosque must hire a Lutheran as its imam?
How about requiring the Catholic Church to hire Dan Savage to teach CCD?
What about requiring a Christian Church to perform same-sex weddings against its will?
What about requiring a Catholic parish to accept advertisements for the man-boy love association in its parish bulletin?
What about requiring a woman to hire a male OB/GYN?
E
Elizium23
Guest
Yeah, this is apples and oranges, and I’m sorry if I can’t get behind the plaintiff in this case.
They wanted to write a message of hate into the cake. Nevermind that it wasn’t directed at a person or class of persons, but just at the nebulous “homosexuality”. It was still a message that God hates something.
What would work for me is if a straight couple requested a cake that read “Thank God for traditional marriage” or “One man, one woman” or some other POSITIVE slogan that made it clear this was a traditional marriage cake. Then anyone who refuses to deliver that kind of cake can be sued into oblivion with my compliments.
They wanted to write a message of hate into the cake. Nevermind that it wasn’t directed at a person or class of persons, but just at the nebulous “homosexuality”. It was still a message that God hates something.
What would work for me is if a straight couple requested a cake that read “Thank God for traditional marriage” or “One man, one woman” or some other POSITIVE slogan that made it clear this was a traditional marriage cake. Then anyone who refuses to deliver that kind of cake can be sued into oblivion with my compliments.
C
captainrick
Guest
No, spoken like someone who believes in minimal government interference (despite my career as a government lawyer). If my wife was refused service because she’s a minority (or me, because I’m disabled), I would probably get into a fistfight. But government should stay out of it. Just my opinion.
Of course government itself should not discriminate. As a volunteer EMT I gladly provided care to anyone who needed it. As an individual I would never discriminate against anyone.
S
SWolf
Guest
Because it’s wrong. Laws should only be made to protect life, individual liberty, and property.
History shows otherwise. Like I stated earlier, government initiated a significant amount of the discrimination. Culture is what protects minorities, not government. If bigots exist, we need a cultural change, not an artificial legislative change. There were laws against lynching a hundred years ago. How did that work out?
A business that requires you to state your religious affiliation before shopping is a business that will not last long.
Stupid, but not illegal.
Nope. Involuntary servitude just breeds animosities.
As long as Christians are equally protected of life, liberty, and property, I would. Christians would build their own shops, services, etc. and the businesses belonging to the bigots will lose customers.
It’s an INDIVIDUAL’S right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.
E
exnihilo
Guest
Yes, they have that right. Just because they have that right does not mean they should exercise it. I don’t think everything wrong should be illegal.
Part of being Christian is believing in and allowing Free Will. Allowing people to do things is not approving of it. Actually there is a good reason to allow people to express their prejudice. That way you know who is prejudice. In the modern West since prejudice is illegal it is underground. As a result we have to endure a never ending complaint about undercover prejudice. Before prejudice was out in the open and could be honestly addressed. There is no honesty in the current environment.
It is exactly that. Slavery is not a matter of specific work or duration. It is anytime one man has a right to another man’s labor. There are different forms of slavery but what they all have in common is forcing another man to work.
I’m not sure about that. There is plenty of money lost due to discrimination claims. And besides that these laws will be used to force Christians to support same sex marriage. You are getting more than you bargained for. Oh, and it wasn’t just the South. It was all parts of this country. Prejudice against southerners is still acceptable.These same sort of business policies existed in the American south 50 years ago and it was a great day when the United States government made it illegal for a business to discriminate against a person because of their race, religion, nationality or sex. These laws help commerce in America and do not hurt it.
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
None of these are examples of commerce. They are examples of churches being allowed to require their employees be practicing members.
I never advocated for any of these things.
A woman can hire whoever she wants as her OB.
What I’d oppose is an OB refusing to provide service to certain individuals.
Isn’t this common sense???
R
Robert_Bay
Guest
This is not news about the Catholic Church
- Status