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.
JonNC said:
No one can or should be required to give up an constitutionally protected inherent individual right. The entire idea of free exercise excludes in imposition by government that limits it.
Congress shall make no law…
Click to expand...
You would have a point if the government was forcing this woman to be a baker. They are not forcing her to be a baker. She chose to be a baker, knowing that bakers have to follow certain rules.
 
JonNC said:
I will take Goldwater’s principled stance over the racism of the Democratic Party of that time.
Click to expand...
But he wouldn’t and neither would the National Review.
He made an error on that one, and nearly everyone understands that now.
You cannot give the states discretion to uphold the rights of citizens of the United States as they see fit.
 
JonNC said:
No one can or should be required to give up an constitutionally protected inherent individual right. The entire idea of free exercise excludes in imposition by government that limits it.
Click to expand...
You presumably are aware of the case law and legal arguments on this matter.
Human sacrifice? No.
Polygamy? No.
Hence: Asolutism? No.
 
lmachine said:
The contractual arrangement at issue here is not the one between the baker and the customer, it’s the one between the baker and the agency that granted her a business license. The baker agreed to not discriminate against gay people. She chose to violate her contractual arrangement and discriminate against gay people knowing what the consequences will be.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. The contract is between the customer and the baker.
Secondly, it is not discrimination against gay people. It is a religious conviction against same gender marriage. She chose to exercise her constitutionally protected inherent human and individual right. No where does the constitution say that one must check their constitutional rights st the door of their business.
The discrimination is against the baker. It is also a frontal attack on all constitutionally protected rights.
 
SuperLuigi said:
…Now we have people using the force of law in places like Canada to basically recognize more than 2 genders.

The wheels are coming off pretty quick.
Click to expand...
I have to think multi-person restrooms are going to go away, particularly in grade schools where they are so often a place for some kids to bully other kids. I know there are mothers at malls with 7 year old boys who would rather that is what all the public restrooms were. Check to make sure the room is empty, let him go in by himself, and don’t worry. 🤷
 
dvdjs said:
You presumably are aware of the case law and legal arguments on this matter.
Human sacrifice? No.
Polygamy? No.
Hence: Asolutism? No.
Click to expand...
Human sacrifice does violate an individual right to life. To compare that to the baker is, frankly, ridiculous.
Laws against polygamy, on the other hand, can no longer be defended in light of the decision that extended state marriage benefits to same gender couples, assuming no minors are involved.
In a secular state, as long as no one is harmed or has their rights confiscated, who marries whom should be of no concern to the state. But I have no obligation to participate in any manner in the event. I have no obligation beyond common manners to honor or accept it. Tolerate it? Yes. Lend my services to it? No.

But if the courts determine that the baker must violate his conscience, then I encourage him or her to obey the law, but make it clear that all proceeds from the sale will be donated to the National Organization for Marriage or the Tenth Amendment Society .
Posted in the store, and very prominent
 
SuperLuigi said:
It can be seen as that way and therefore be scandalous.

Don’t draw a line at all. Let consumer choice in the free market regulate it.
Click to expand...
I think you have to draw SOME line; otherwise, we might go back to the days of blatant discrimination. As it stands now, we still have subtle discrimination, but it is at least some improvement.
 
JonNC said:
Human sacrifice does violate an individual right to life. To compare that to the baker is, frankly, ridiculous.
Click to expand...
I am not sure how you think bout things, but the principle that you had been upholdig is a sacrosanct right of free exercise. The reductio ad absurdum that I broughtup shows that you must, in fact, mean something else. Excellent. Now that we have established that, please tell us what you actually have on your mind, instead of the absolutist principle - shall make no law - that you said, but did not mean.

And interestingly enough, your response implies a hierarchy of rights that you eschewed in an earlier post.
Laws against polygamy, on the other hand, can no longer be defended in light of the decision that extended state marriage benefits to same gender couples, assuming no minors are involved.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. We shall see what the courts hold.
 
gracepoole said:
A homosexual man does not marry a lesbian woman, just as a heterosexual man does not marry a lesbian woman.
Click to expand...
They certainly can thought. What legal blocks are there? Every court in the nation, and most churches would be glad to officiate.

That that baker would even bake the cake. Which only goes to prove that it would NOT be the orientation of the customers, but the actual event that is being discriminated against.

And events are not people.
 
lmachine said:
You would have a point if the government was forcing this woman to be a baker. They are not forcing her to be a baker. She chose to be a baker, knowing that bakers have to follow certain rules.
Click to expand...
And those rules cannot violate the Freedom of Religion that is part of the Constitution.
 
dvdjs said:
I am not sure how you think bout things, but the principle that you had been upholdig is a sacrosanct right of free exercise. The reductio ad absurdum that I broughtup shows that you must, in fact, mean something else. Excellent. Now that we have established that, please tell us what you actually have on your mind, instead of the absolutist principle - shall make no law - that you said, but did not mean.

And interestingly enough, your response implies a hierarchy of rights that you eschewed in an earlier post.

Perhaps. We shall see what the courts hold.
Click to expand...
Human sacrifice is not free exercise. To put it simply, my right to swing my fist ends at your nose. Human sacrifice is a ridiculous comparison.

There is an absolute principle that the right to religious free exercise is inherent and constitutionally protected. The baker does not deny the right of a same sex to marry, or have a wedding cake, anymore than a priest does.
There is no hierarchy of rights in my presentation. The right of a same gender couple to these things exists. The right of the baker to her religious free exercise exists. Both can exercise their rights without interfering with the other. Neither should impose or try to force the other to give up their right. The same gender couple should not impose their will on the baker by making her bake for them. The baker should not take steps to prevent the same gender couple from getting a cake from a baker who is willing to.
Simple. Exercise your rights. Seek contractual arrangements with those who are agreeable to your request. Don’t force your will on others. Not hierarchy of rights.
 
JonNC said:
Human sacrifice is not free exercise. To put it simply, my right to swing my fist ends at your nose. Human sacrifice is a ridiculous comparison.
Click to expand...
Human sacrifice is not unknown in indigenous American religions. You may all this ridiculous but what has benn established is that your absolutist posture is empty, and that you do in fact accept the idea of a hierarchy of rights however much you claim that there isn’t. QED.
 
Brendan said:
They certainly can thought. What legal blocks are there? Every court in the nation, and most churches would be glad to officiate.

That that baker would even bake the cake. Which only goes to prove that it would NOT be the orientation of the customers, but the actual event that is being discriminated against.

And events are not people.
Click to expand...
That baker would probably bake a cake for their house warming, or one of their birthdays.
 
=JonNC;14892230]Human sacrifice is not free exercise. To put it simply, my right to swing my fist ends at your nose. Human sacrifice is a ridiculous comparison.
Click to expand...
HUMAN sacrifice???

Did someone really say that!?

What a strawman! :rotfl:
 
meltzerboy said:
I think you have to draw SOME line; otherwise, we might go back to the days of blatant discrimination. As it stands now, we still have subtle discrimination, but it is at least some improvement.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Like with my earlier example, if I open a bakery and stock a wide assortment of wedding-cake figurines but every one of them has a Caucasian couple, then that would surely be discrimination … I just don’t think it would be illegal.
 
Peter_J said:
Agreed. Like with my earlier example, if I open a bakery and stock a wide assortment of wedding-cake figurines but every one of them has a Caucasian couple, then that would surely be discrimination … I just don’t think it would be illegal.
Click to expand...
You could make them all bunnies, though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top