Local bakery owner refuses to make gay couple's wedding cake

[gracepoole]

I can assure you that most of these leftists don’t care one bit about minorities and would not give one cent of their own money to help.

Wow, I can’t wait for the evidence that you surely can provide to support this claim!

 

[abucs]

It is not dictatorial. The bakery can choose not to use public services. What it CAN’T do is use the electricity, for example, that’s supplied by the community and then determine who in the community it can discriminate against. Bakeries that do not want to bake wedding cakes for same-sex couples can choose to get out of the wedding baking business or agree to serve those who are permitted to legally marry.

We are all community grace and we all enter into business arrangements.

The great danger of the secular state in enforcing its religion on the population under the name of ‘community’ is that we stop being community and become vassals of the state.

With the state becoming more and more powerful. politics becomes more and more divisive and heated and that is bad for everyone. In the end something will crack causing catastrophe. We should not repeat those mistakes.

The unchecked power of the state is usually both the cause of violence on the people and the cause of the people’s violence against a repressive state. We should not repeat those mistakes.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

From a legal perspective, I’m pretty sure if the S Ct somehow upholds the right to force a baker or a musician or a florist to provide services for your wedding (whether you are gay, straight, Muslim, Satanist, etc.) It would be the worst legal precedent since the one where they upheld a prosecution for sodomy and later had to overturn themselves.

 

[gracepoole]

We are all community grace and we all enter into business arrangements.

The great danger of the secular state in enforcing its religion on the population under the name of ‘community’ is that we stop being community and followers of the state.

With the state becoming more and more powerful. politics becomes more and more divisive and heated that is bad for everyone. In the end something will crack causing catastrophe. We should not repeat those mistakes.

The unchecked power of the state is usually both the cause of violence on the people and the cause of the people’s violence against a repressive state. We should not repeat those mistakes.

I *want *the state to intervene when individuals determine against whom they can discriminate. That’s what causes catastrophe.

 

[abucs]

I *want *the state to intervene when individuals determine against whom they can discriminate. That’s what causes catastrophe.

That is authoritarian.

Discrimination is one of those words the Left has redefined to fit into its own ideology. Me attending mass each week and not the mosque down the street is discriminating.

We all do it. It is dangerous once you start letting the state dictate personal actions beyond a certain level.

 

[gracepoole]

That is authoritarian.

I think, then, that I’d like to own some slaves. And then I’d like to open a business that sells slaves to others. And why not? It would be authoritarian for the government to deny me my wish.

 

[gracepoole]

Discrimination is one of those words the Left has redefined to fit into its own ideology. Me attending mass each week and not the mosque down the street is discriminating.

We all do it. It is dangerous once you start letting the state dictate personal actions beyond a certain level.

Now we’re into the weeds of equivocation. You not attending a mosque but instead a Catholic Church doesn’t involve you being licensed to serve the public.

 

[PRmerger]

Words aren’t morally neutral, though.

I don’t think this is the same standard you’ve set up by saying that baking a cake for a gay wedding is morally neutral, but baking a cake that has some letters on it that spell out a particular word (or acronym) isn’t morally neutral.

 

[abucs]

I think, then, that I’d like to own some slaves. And then I’d like to open a business that sells slaves to others. And why not? It would be authoritarian for the government to deny me my wish.

Slavery is the ownership of other people and the depriving of their personal autonomy.

The Democratic Party used to believe what you articulate. The Republicans fought a war against them in the name of personal autonomy for all.

Slavery can both be facilitated and opposed by big government.

An ideology of small government and personal autonomy for all protects against any re-introduction of slavery.

 

[ATraveller]

The point of these wedding cases isn’t really about discrimination. It’s about marginalising those who refuse to affirm counterfeit marriages. It’s about forcing Christians out of industries.
Some have tried this in the medical and pharmaceutical field but failed in certain jurisdictions because they could not afford to lose more doctors or discourage those wanting to enter the field. Others have succeeded in coercing medical professionals against their consciences because they aren’t facing those labour supply issues. Let’s be clear about what the real intent is.

 

[SuperLuigi]

The point of these wedding cases isn’t really about discrimination. It’s about marginalising those who refuse to affirm counterfeit marriages. It’s about forcing Christians out of industries.
Some have tried this in the medical and pharmaceutical field but failed in certain jurisdictions because they could not afford to lose more doctors or discourage those wanting to enter the field. Others have succeeded in coercing medical professionals against their consciences because they aren’t facing those labour supply issues. Let’s be clear about what the real intent is.

:clapping:

 

[abucs]

Now we’re into the weeds of equivocation. You not attending a mosque but instead a Catholic Church doesn’t involve you being licensed to serve the public.

It is a matter of responding to your general term of discrimination and supporting the government to step in and control and dictate ‘discrimination’. As I said this has been a word redefined to fit into Progressive ideology.

It is a slippery slope the same way that ‘womens health’ is redefined to support ‘right to abortion’.

 

[lmachine]

Discrimination is one of those words the Left has redefined to fit into its own ideology. Me attending mass each week and not the mosque down the street is discriminating.

ahaha what no it isn’t

 

[gracepoole]

Slavery is the ownership of other people and the depriving of their personal autonomy.

The Democratic Party used to believe what you articulate. The Republicans fought a war against them in the name of personal autonomy for all.

Slavery can both be facilitated and opposed by big government.

An ideology of small government and personal autonomy for all protects against any re-introduction of slavery.

So if we have a small government I can fulfill my wish of owning and selling slaves?

 

[EasterJoy]

The point of these wedding cases isn’t really about discrimination. It’s about marginalising those who refuse to affirm counterfeit marriages. It’s about forcing Christians out of industries.
Some have tried this in the medical and pharmaceutical field but failed in certain jurisdictions because they could not afford to lose more doctors or discourage those wanting to enter the field. Others have succeeded in coercing medical professionals against their consciences because they aren’t facing those labour supply issues. Let’s be clear about what the real intent is.

Let us be frank, here: Nobody is trying to force Christians out of the bakery trade. Consider how many Christian denominations now ENDORSE the idea of marriage between persons of the same sex!! The evil one has sown a great deal of confusion surrounding this issue. People who think they really do have a right to marry and that God’s plan for marriage has been the target of human prejudice for centuries are of course going to defend what they believe to be their rights and they’re going to feel victimized if they are singled out for discrimination.

It is like the issue of abortion. If you swallow the lie that a person is not a person prior to birth, then of course it is a matter of the right of personal determination. If you twist the foundational principles of a principled person, they’ll be just as adamant about protecting false rights as they are about the real ones.

In the case of the Oregon bakery that was hit with one of these suits, the customer was a long-time customer who wanted a cake from THAT bakery. She was crushed when she couldn’t have one and she felt she had been treated unjustly. Just going somewhere where her business was welcome didn’t cut it for her, because she thought in America that ought to be the customer’s decision, not the merchant’s.

 

[gracepoole]

It is a matter of responding to your general term of discrimination and supporting the government to step in and control and dictate ‘discrimination’. As I said this has been a word redefined to fit into Progressive ideology.

It is a slippery slope the same way that ‘womens health’ is redefined to support ‘right to abortion’.

No, what you’ve done is equivocate by using one definition of the word discrimination to apply in situations when it doesn’t actually apply. You can discriminate all you like against eating vegetables you dislike (I will never understand lima beans, for example). But you may not be licensed by the state to serve all and then selectively determine who you’re going to serve.

 

[abucs]

So if we have a small government I can fulfill my wish of owning and selling slaves?

An ideology of small government AND personal autonomy for all protects against any re-introduction of slavery.

The Republican Party has ensured that no, you are not going to control other’s personal autonomy through slavery any more.

Personal autonomy is important. Hence todays opposition to big government. The Republicans are consistently applying their principles. I support them in doing that.

 

[abucs]

No, what you’ve done is equivocate by using one definition of the word discrimination to apply in situations when it doesn’t actually apply. You can discriminate all you like against eating vegetables you dislike (I will never understand lima beans, for example). But you may not be licensed by the state to serve all and then selectively determine who you’re going to serve.

No, you used the word discrimination without distinction. Discrimination is the choosing of one over the other. As Peter Hitchens has said - there used to be sayings like ‘she’s a discriminating shopper’ which meant that she was good at choosing good deals.

Another example is discriminating between good and evil which should be at the core of not just Christianity but spirituality in general.

Two generations of being taught by politically correct schooling has had the affect of some people swallowing the new religion and now using ‘discrimination’ in a different way and Leftist politicians have implemented their ideology into law.

We are becoming culturally two different tribes. The new religion of political correctness is a danger. It creates division and is not accepted by an increasing number of people. Hence the Trump presidency. Whether Trump is a spectacular success or a miserable failure that division and opposition to the new political correctness is not going away.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Originally Posted by gracepoole View Post
So if we have a small government I can fulfill my wish of owning and selling slaves?

Strawman.

 

[lmachine]

The Republican Party has ensured that no, you are not going to control other’s personal autonomy through slavery any more.

I wonder if any states with Republican governments use prison labor