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

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
abucs said:
and again I say you are being authoritarian.
Click to expand...
And again I say that the state must deny individual business owners the ability to selectively choose not to serve those they personally dislike.
abucs said:
a distinction was made after the fact. Not at the time of the posting.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: After posting what, specifically?
 
ATraveller said:
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.
Click to expand...
If that were the case the court cases will be straightforward.
 
abucs said:
That is authoritarian.
Click to expand...
I suppose, in that light, so is the 14th amendment.
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.
Click to expand...
The courts look for invidious discrimination. Sadly, in conversation a short-cut is taken and the word invidious is dropped.
 
lmachine said:
It is very authoritarian to expect people to follow the rules they voluntarily agreed to.
Click to expand...
and again here is a problem with the aggressive Progressive agenda and the widening of the powers of the state. Definitions are being changed and political correctness is being implemented through law. Whether you like it or not, this is seen as authoritarian and whether you like not or not this is causing great division in society and splitting us into tribes which then threatens the cohesiveness of a functioning democracy.

The new religion of political correctness forced through an expanding state is causing this problem.
 
gracepoole said:
And again I say that the state must deny individual business owners the ability to selectively choose not to serve those they personally dislike.
Click to expand...
You are moving the goalposts in saying ‘personally dislike’, but I would oppose government authoritarianism there too.

I think this is part of the problem in that the politically correct religion equates opposition to disliking or hating someone and new Leftist words like Homophobia, Islamophobhia, Transphobia etc are introduced into the lexion without merit in my opinion.

Of course this is part of the fierce divisiveness and irrationality of the pc religion.
 
abucs said:
Whether you like it or not, this is seen as authoritarian and whether you like not or not this is causing great division in society and splitting us into tribes which then threatens the cohesiveness of a functioning democracy.
Click to expand...
Lots of things are “seen” incorrectly as authoritarian by people who don’t want to face the consequences of their actions. The only people who seem to be causing division are those who wish to unlawfully discriminate against people.
 
lmachine said:
Lots of things are “seen” incorrectly as authoritarian by people who don’t want to face the consequences of their actions. The only people who seem to be causing division are those who wish to unlawfully discriminate against people.
Click to expand...
Well of course they are not the only people causing division.

And again I disagree with connotations of your phrase ‘against people’.

In many of these cases the ‘people’ involved have been customers for years. It is the homosexual union wedding cake that is objected to.

Again a distinction is necessary for clarities sake. (whoever she is).
 
Sophie_Lawrence said:
I can see declining to participate in the ceremony for religious objections like being a celebrant or a cantor etc.

A cake is something morally neutral. Especially if the baker doesn’t include gender specific themes.
Click to expand...
The thing is, some bakers might consider customization to be included in the base price for a wedding cake. In that case, they might object to offering non-customized cakes for gay weddings, on the basis that they’d be offering an inferior product (assuming that they object to offering e.g. a same-sex-couple-figurine).
 
dvdjs said:
Actually please remember that this discussion was sparked up by this:

We are talking about ANY REASON.
Click to expand...
The spark is, of course, a part of the problem; but it’s not the whole problem. A spark wouldn’t do much without tinder and kindling. (Hence I try not to be any of those things, if you know what I mean.)
 
I heard a good point made on the radio yesterday. Basically, it was pointing out that, for years, leftists railed against social conservatives who wanted to use the power of government to maintain conventional marriage, battle porn and abortion, and so on. In turn, the left said that the social conservatives had no right to push their morality on everyone else.

Now, the left is using the power of government to force the issue of gay marriage, baking wedding cakes, and so on, while social conservatives are (rightly, I think) looking at how the shoe is on the other foot and wondering exactly where the leftist moral panic is going to end.

So, years ago, the left said that no one had a right to use the law to enforce sanctions against homosexuality. Now, it says no one has the right to honor their conscience over the rule of law.

Just an observation.
 
Borealis said:
The same way it’s been done for centuries in America: You don’t want to serve me for whatever reason? Fine. I’ll go to someone else who will, and I’ll tell my friends not to patronize your establishment. When enough people stop coming to your business, you won’t be making any money.

That won’t work for the gay lobby, because their numbers aren’t enough to impact a business’ bottom line. So they resort to intimidation and lawfare to ruin businesses that don’t pay homage to the Gaystapo.
Click to expand...
Does the Gaystapo operate on the same principles as the Blackstapo and the Catholicstapo?
 
abucs said:
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.
Click to expand...
👍
 
abucs said:
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.
.
Click to expand...
There’s so much confusion and emotionalism about discrimination that I thought I’d take a stab at a dispassionate analysis. Discrimination is simply the act of choice. When we choose Bordeaux wine, we discriminate against Burgundy wine. When I married Mrs. Williams, I discriminated against other women. Even though I occasionally think about equal opportunity, Mrs. Williams demands continued discrimination."
Click to expand...
  • Walter E Williams
 
JonNC said:
  • Walter E Williams
Click to expand...
That’s where we are headed.

There’s already been a video posted about how if you won’t date trans-people, you’re a bigot.

So now they are telling people who they can and cannot date.

And you can bet real money there will be a series of excuse-makers on the left going along with why the government should be involved in that as well.

Notice how a lot of left-leaning Judeo-Christians just go along with whatever the secular world comes up with.

It’s the same mentality when we ask them what the ideal tax rate is as they keep on harping about raising taxes to “help” people. The only answer I ever was at occupy and was 35%. The guy asking the question laughed and said he wished they were that low, but the point is the left always wants to be able to move the goalposts like abucs said. It’s really a consequence of moral relativism and those folks being worried about looking bad in front of the right people.
 
SuperLuigi said:
That’s where we are headed.

There’s already been a video posted about how if you won’t date trans-people, you’re a bigot.

So now they are telling people who they can and cannot date.

And you can bet real money there will be a series of excuse-makers on the left going along with why the government should be involved in that as well.
Click to expand...
For me the greatest danger to individual liberty here is the creation of a hierarchy of individual rights. One right trumps another. Typically, it is the enumerated rights that are demoted by progressives.
Religious free exercise is subservient to gay “marriage”.
Religious free exercise is subservient to abortion and abortifacients in insurance.
Due process and the right to keep and bear arms are subservient to a non-adjudicated no fly list.
When government gets to decide whose rights are more important, no rights are safe from tyranny.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top