Atheistforums.com

No matter which side you're on in this debate, this is a troubling trend. The bakery refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple and were taken to court. They lost and will no longer offer wedding cakes for anyone. They will bake birthday cupcakes for gays, they just won't support gay marriage due to their religious beliefs. The court ruled they they can't refuse to serve gays and now orders the bakery to submit quarterly reports about the customers he refuses to serve and retrain employees to serve everyone. Isn't this a little extreme? I'm pretty sure businesses refuse to deal with people for all sorts of reasons. We, as consumers, can choose to support their policies or not.

This seems to be a trend of entitled attitudes and vengeance on both sides. It will further divide people and may even back fire on their causes. I don't want to see people treated badly, but I also don't want to see others bullied into compliance. Running a small business is tough enough without having to deal with social agendas.

I'm not religious but I'm uncomfortable with this because it always gets worse. Do you think this is fair?


http://denver.cbslocal.com/2014/05/30/bakery-will-stop-making-wedding-cakes-after-losing-discrimination-case/

I got a kick out of this reader comment.  I don't know if the reader was serious or not, but I assume he poking fun at bigotry:

QuoteGay people! Again. Ruining something for everyone else.

Quote from: marymargaret on June 02, 2014, 10:35:08 AM
Do you think this is fair?

I don't have a problem with requiring non discrimination of businesses that do business with the public. We don't let businesses refuse to serve blacks, and I don't see why we should let them discriminate against gays just because they are gay.

Quote from: marymargaret on June 02, 2014, 10:35:08 AM
They will bake birthday cupcakes for gays, they just won't support gay marriage due to their religious beliefs.

They're stupid, then.

That's not supporting gay marriage.

That's profiting from gay marriage.

If they can't tell the difference, they deserve to lose their business.

Quote from: marymargaret on June 02, 2014, 10:35:08 AMNo matter which side you're on in this debate, this is a troubling trend.

Yeah.  What is our nation coming to?  Gays sex no longer criminalized, gay getting married, gays not being barred from businesses by God-fearing Christians understandably outraged by their gayness (the nerve of those gays!).  Hopefully, we can put all this behind us and return to our roots as a Christian nation.

Quote from: Hydra009 on June 02, 2014, 12:51:55 PM
Yeah.  What is our nation coming to?  Gays sex no longer criminalized, gay getting married, gays not being barred from businesses by God-fearing Christians understandably outraged by their gayness (the nerve of those gays!).  Hopefully, we can put all this behind us and return to our roots as a Christian nation.

I can understand why many of you are taking this stand- I don't disagree. It would be nice if we all just saw each other as human beings and treated each other decently, but some people have been conditioned to be biased.

I don't know if many of you run your own business - I did for a few years, and I would not have handled it this way. If you don't want to deal with someone, there are more diplomatic ways of saying no. They could have said that they were booked for that date and recommended a reputable bakery and wished them well. No one needed to be disrespected and the owner will be the one who losses a booking and possible future business from them and their friends.

The bakery business is surprisingly cut throat in some places. Not all sugar and sunshine!!! They could take a booking from a straight couple and end up with the booking from hell and get their reputation trashed and stiffed on payment. It happens quite a bit. This gay couple could have been a great customer and sent more business their way.  You just can't tell sometimes.

My concern is this tit for tat mentality. The baker took a religious stance  and then the gay couple took him to court. Now the baker won't offer wedding cakes and will be seen as a martyr of sorts to the religious folks. Some gay groups will see court as the only way to solve their grievances. This only divides people more. Maybe I'm too idealistic. 

Quote from: drunkenshoe on June 02, 2014, 01:39:25 PM
Then there were more reasons for those people to be careful with their business instead of acting the way they did. But what did they do, they insisted on their "no gays" sign. Carrying it to court is a very civilised way to solve this and seems like the only way. You cannot sit down and chat with these people hoping to come to an agreement in the end, make up and kiss.

I respect your opinion and I am neutral- I try to keep to the center unless the issue is extreme. I don't think this is. I'm just curious- have you ever been mistreated by a rude store clerk or owner? If you were- did you take them to court or did you take your money elsewhere? I've met some pretty obnoxious shop keeps in my day and simply left without spending a dime and gave my money to people who wanted my business. I wouldn't bad mouth those businesses but I wouldn't recommend them either. Instead, I highly recommend the shops that operate with integrity. This may not be everyone's way of thinking, but word of mouth can make or break a business. I just think that the legal system is overused in some cases and desensitizes public opinion.
 

I wonder how xtians would react if a gay-owner of a bakery told them to gtfo when they came for a hetero wedding cake :)) serves them right. I don't go to a bakery for a sermon on "morality", just sell me the fuckin cake.

[edit] Business-wise I can relate to a shopkeep to refuse servicing a troublesome, menacing client, but how is being gay troublesome?

Quote from: marymargaret on June 02, 2014, 01:25:49 PM
My concern is this tit for tat mentality. The baker took a religious stance  and then the gay couple took him to court. Now the baker won't offer wedding cakes and will be seen as a martyr of sorts to the religious folks. Some gay groups will see court as the only way to solve their grievances. This only divides people more. Maybe I'm too idealistic. 

Discrimination issues have been dealt with and corrected by the court system before.  Feathers get ruffled, but we have no other means to rectify the inequality than by courts.  Until these issues are addressed, there is no way to insure fairness in an imperfect world but through arbitration.  But eventually, people come to accept and embrace it.  Not everyone of course.  There are still whites that would enslave blacks, and men that would deny rights to women.

In an ideal world, everyone on the planet could sit down and come to agreement through dialog, but it will never happen.  So we have courts to decide these issues, sometimes fairly and sometimes not.

Quote from: pioteir on June 02, 2014, 01:57:42 PM
Business-wise I can relate to a shopkeep to refuse servicing a troublesome, menacing client, but how is being gay troublesome?

My God, Man!  If you can't understand his, you should be barred from church, and required to attend a Neo Nazi re-education program, so you can identify nasty trouble makers who want to ruin your marriage.

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
-   H. L. Mencken

Why is it that if you support gay marriage you are also supposed to support forcing bakers to bake cakes they do not want to bake?

Why is it that if you support the baker's decision you are also supposed to be against gay marriage?

Libertarians were in favor of gay marriage back when progressives were still fighting for inter-racial marriage and swearing that there was no slippery slope and that approving inter-racial marriage wouldn't lead to gay marriage.  Yet libertarians also don't approve of forcing that business owner to bake that cake.

An emergency trauma surgeon asks a libertarian gunshot victim, "Political affiliation?"
Libertarian gunshot victim replies, "Libertarian."
The emergency trauma surgeon says, "Sorry, I don't treat libertarians." and walks away.
Thirty minutes later the libertarian gunshot victim bleeds out and dies while the hospital staff frantically tries to get another surgeon to come in to treat him.

I suppose you support the emergency trauma surgeon's right to choose who he treats too, right Jason?

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on June 02, 2014, 03:09:34 PM
An emergency trauma surgeon asks a libertarian gunshot victim, "Political affiliation?"
Libertarian gunshot victim replies, "Libertarian."
The emergency trauma surgeon says, "Sorry, I don't treat libertarians." and walks away.
Thirty minutes later the libertarian gunshot victim bleeds out and dies while the hospital staff frantically tries to get another surgeon to come in to treat him.

I suppose you support the emergency trauma surgeon's right to choose who he treats too, right Jason?

Uh, sure, that's exactly what I'm saying, right.  Whatever.

For those that are struggling with the idea of government "intrusion", try the following exercise. Replace "gay" with "black", see if that makes a difference.

Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 02, 2014, 03:30:55 PM
Uh, sure, that's exactly what I'm saying, right.  Whatever.

The way I understood it your position is a service provider has a right to choose who they provide their services to. If that's the case then what is difference between a baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple and a surgeon refusing to operate on a libertarian or a gay person for that matter. Shouldn't the surgeon also have the same right as the baker to choose who they perform services for?

Quote from: SGOS on June 02, 2014, 02:12:28 PM
My God, Man!  If you can't understand his, you should be barred from church, and required to attend a Neo Nazi re-education program, so you can identify nasty trouble makers who want to ruin your marriage.

Sowwy... :shifty:  I must've been in the bathroom when my white-hooded brothers preached about this... I'll immediately report to the nearest reeducation center and then, to never ever forget our teachings, get a bloody-red swastika tattooed on my forehead... Thanks for keeping me on the right path.

I lean towards Libertarian- I hate labels, though. Obviously this is a hot button issue emotionally for many people. 

Let me play devil's advocate- what if the bulk of the barker's business comes from the church going crowd in that community? Yeah- I know- ugly hypocrisy- but that is the level of consciousness we're dealing with in this scenario. If he agrees to make the gay couple's cake- he loses all his customers and his livelihood. If he refuses - he's taken to court and has to adjust his business plan to comply with the court ruling and in doing so, loses a large chuck of his business because he can no longer offer wedding cakes- (a big ticket item, BTW). So, now he has to find a way to make up for that loss of revenue. Will the gay community vow to make up for his losses in return for his support? Is it even fair to expect that from them?

This goes beyond gay/xtian fighting. This dictates how a person is allowed to run a business. Refusing that couple a cake didn't revoke their right to get married, didn't prevent them from having a reception and a cake from another bakery- so how exactly did the baker harm them? No one has to agree with him and can take their business elsewhere- it's their freedom of choice. The baker had limited choice- he had to give up part of his business by court order because they didn't like his attitude.

I think it's wrong to equate minor annoyances with truly despicable hate crimes. I don't know the baker. Did he go out of his way to cause trouble or harass this couple? Did he interfere with their livelihood?  Things can get out of hand if people get too caught up in grievance agendas. They can sometimes do worse harm than what they experienced and feel smugly satisfied about it.       

I get what You're saying mary but he could just say he's booked and simply couldn't make the cake. Then the couple couldn't sue him for discrimination. But if he said he didn't make it BECAUSE they were gay and he would close the bakery down before "complicating his beliefs". Now that's something people can sue him for. And they did :)

On the other hand if it was about business and nothing else, how would the xtian customers find out if he actually did make the gay cake? They wouldn't and everybody woul be happy. I know the devil's advocate thing. Just sayin.

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on June 02, 2014, 03:09:34 PM
An emergency trauma surgeon asks a libertarian gunshot victim, "Political affiliation?"
Libertarian gunshot victim replies, "Libertarian."
The emergency trauma surgeon says, "Sorry, I don't treat libertarians." and walks away.
Thirty minutes later the libertarian gunshot victim bleeds out and dies while the hospital staff frantically tries to get another surgeon to come in to treat him.

I suppose you support the emergency trauma surgeon's right to choose who he treats too, right Jason?

Don't you see Pappy? If everyone became a libertarian all the bad in the world would just magically go away because it's impossible to find unfairness in libertarianism. :eyes:

Quote from: marymargaret on June 02, 2014, 04:13:12 PM
Let me play devil's advocate- what if the bulk of the barker's business comes from the church going crowd in that community? Yeah- I know- ugly hypocrisy- but that is the level of consciousness we're dealing with in this scenario. If he agrees to make the gay couple's cake- he loses all his customers and his livelihood. If he refuses - he's taken to court and has to adjust his business plan to comply with the court ruling

Actually we don't know that. I'm not a lawyer, but I do deal with tort law, and what I'm hearing in your scenario is a good enough reason to explore the issue further and the ruling may in fact be different. There is no way to know for sure until it went to court.

Quote from: Shol'va on June 02, 2014, 04:35:01 PM
Actually we don't know that. I'm not a lawyer, but I do deal with tort law, and what I'm hearing in your scenario is a good enough reason to explore the issue further and the ruling may in fact be different. There is no way to know for sure until it went to court.

I'm not an expert and would appreciate your POV. You're right, we don't know all the facts. The baker may have imposed the restriction upon himself and chose to give up that portion of his business. They don't cover the boring details any more just the emotion triggering snips.

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on June 02, 2014, 03:45:06 PM
The way I understood it your position is a service provider has a right to choose who they provide their services to. If that's the case then what is difference between a baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple and a surgeon refusing to operate on a libertarian or a gay person for that matter. Shouldn't the surgeon also have the same right as the baker to choose who they perform services for?

Ok, you're sticking with that.  Let me make a few minor changes to your example to make it applicable.  There are two possible versions of your example, you choose which one is accurate.

One:
Patient is bleeding, surgeon is about to operate.
Hospital Owner:  Surgeon, stop for a moment.  Patient, what is your political affiliation?
Patient:  Huh?  Libertarian.
Hospital Owner:  Surgeon, I have a policy against serving libertarians at this hospital.  You may not operate on him.
Surgeon:  Huh?

Two
HR Manager:  Your resume looks fairly impressive.  Do you have any reservations about what you may be asked to do at this hospital?
Surgeon:  Yes, I won't operate on libertarians.
HR Manager:  Very well, thank you.  Next candidate please.


So, which of those two are you trying to describe?

Quote from: marymargaret on June 02, 2014, 04:45:13 PM
I'm not an expert and would appreciate your POV. You're right, we don't know all the facts. The baker may have imposed the restriction upon himself and chose to give up that portion of his business. They don't cover the boring details any more just the emotion triggering snips.

It's for the latter part of the comment that I hesitate to delve too much into it. I was looking for the arguments presented by both sides in court, as well as the judge's reasoning and I came up short as far as official documents, all I'm finding is news outlets.
Having said that, I think the issue of public accomodation still comes into play even if you were a gay person and walked into the heart of a Christian community's business that has a long accepted and established reputation of catering to a church.

Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 02, 2014, 04:48:22 PM
Ok, you're sticking with that.  Let me make a few minor changes to your example to make it applicable.  There are two possible versions of your example, you choose which one is accurate.

One:
Patient is bleeding, surgeon is about to operate.
Hospital Owner:  Surgeon, stop for a moment.  Patient, what is your political affiliation?
Patient:  Huh?  Libertarian.
Hospital Owner:  Surgeon, I have a policy against serving libertarians at this hospital.  You may not operate on him.
Surgeon:  Huh?

Two
HR Manager:  Your resume looks fairly impressive.  Do you have any reservations about what you may be asked to do at this hospital?
Surgeon:  Yes, I won't operate on libertarians.
HR Manager:  Very well, thank you.  Next candidate please.


So, which of those two are you trying to describe?

Neither of them, but it surprises me that you don't want to answer the question. It really is a pretty simple question. Why is it OK for the baker to discriminate but not the surgeon?

Because the surgeon is in the employ of the hospital owner, and therefore follows hospital policy.

Quote from: Shol'va on June 02, 2014, 05:16:59 PM
It's for the latter part of the comment that I hesitate to delve too much into it. I was looking for the arguments presented by both sides in court, as well as the judge's reasoning and I came up short as far as official documents, all I'm finding is news outlets.
Having said that, I think the issue of public accomodation still comes into play even if you were a gay person and walked into the heart of a Christian community's business that has a long accepted and established reputation of catering to a church.

I personally don't like to see anyone mistreated. Communities are more diverse than they used to be and a certain amount of give and take would be helpful to keep the peace. Who can say if people from either side deliberately seek out conflict to draw attention to their cause.

Actually, the court ruling gives the baker an edge too.  If he's going to bake wedding cakes, and the court says he has to make them for gays too, the Christian community is going to look like radical extremists if they boycott the baker for baking a gay cake when by law he is prevented from discriminating.  The baker can still announce publically that he hates gays, and still please the Christian Community, but he still gets to bake the cake and collect his fee from the gay couple.  Hell, he can even piss in the cake batter if it's that important to him.  But Good Lord, some of these possible outcomes and scenarios test the limits of absurdity and do not speak well of the human condition.

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on June 02, 2014, 03:45:06 PM
If that's the case then what is difference between a baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple and a surgeon refusing to operate on a libertarian or a gay person for that matter.

The libertarian being refused service might effect him. That's the fucking difference.

This might give more information about the legal ruling. The comments section is a flame war- read at your own risk! There was another article that revealed more info on the baker's policies. He also won't bake cakes for Halloween or Bachelor parties. It also says he makes birthday cakes regularly for a lesbian couple. I'll add that link, too.


com/cafesociety/2014/05/masterpiece_cakeshop_civil_rights_commission_hearing_tomorrow.php (http://com/cafesociety/2014/05/masterpiece_cakeshop_civil_rights_commission_hearing_tomorrow.php)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/06/gay-wedding-cake-cause_n_5100645.html

There's a PDF file for the ruling- I just can't link it right. I am interested in legal proceedings- not sure how many of you want to look at it this closely, but it is interesting reading.  File is titled "Initial Decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop Case"  published by Michael_Lee_Roberts

First link isn't posted properly, FYI.

Only religion can make things so complicated with their BS. Doesn't gay marriage support marriage. When did it become between man and woman only. When blacks and whites wanted to get married you heard the same objections. Why is it anyone else's business what anyone does if it doesn't hurt anyone? Religion is suppose to bring people together with love, not discriminate with bigotry and hate. What would Jesus do?  :wall: Solitary

Quote from: Shol'va on June 02, 2014, 07:24:55 PM
First link isn't posted properly, FYI.

Shol"va- if you have a facebook account you can search Masterpiece cakeshop- that's where I found the links- they just don't relink here- I'm not sure why.

If the baker didn't want to serve a couple because they were of different races, this would not be an issue. Of COURSE they lost the case.

Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 02, 2014, 06:07:57 PM
Because the surgeon is in the employ of the hospital owner, and therefore follows hospital policy.

So it would be ok if it was a Christian hospital run by fundamentalists with a policy to refuse emergency services to homosexuals?

Quote from: marymargaret on June 02, 2014, 10:35:08 AM
No matter which side you're on in this debate, this is a troubling trend. The bakery refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple and were taken to court. They lost and will no longer offer wedding cakes for anyone. They will bake birthday cupcakes for gays, they just won't support gay marriage due to their religious beliefs. The court ruled they they can't refuse to serve gays and now orders the bakery to submit quarterly reports about the customers he refuses to serve and retrain employees to serve everyone. Isn't this a little extreme? I'm pretty sure businesses refuse to deal with people for all sorts of reasons. We, as consumers, can choose to support their policies or not.

This seems to be a trend of entitled attitudes and vengeance on both sides. It will further divide people and may even back fire on their causes. I don't want to see people treated badly, but I also don't want to see others bullied into compliance. Running a small business is tough enough without having to deal with social agendas.

I'm not religious but I'm uncomfortable with this because it always gets worse. Do you think this is fair?

Let's try some perspective:

No matter which side you're on in this debate, this is a troubling trend. The bakery refused to make a wedding cake for a black couple and were taken to court. They lost and will no longer offer wedding cakes for anyone. They will bake birthday cupcakes for blacks, they just won't support black marriage due to their religious beliefs. The court ruled they they can't refuse to serve blacks and now orders the bakery to submit quarterly reports about the customers he refuses to serve and retrain employees to serve everyone. Isn't this a little extreme? I'm pretty sure businesses refuse to deal with people for all sorts of reasons. We, as consumers, can choose to support their policies or not.

This seems to be a trend of entitled attitudes and vengeance on both sides. It will further divide people and may even back fire on their causes. I don't want to see people treated badly, but I also don't want to see others bullied into compliance. Running a small business is tough enough without having to deal with social agendas.

I'm not religious but I'm uncomfortable with this because it always gets worse. Do you think this is fair?

Quote from: marymargaret on June 02, 2014, 01:50:44 PMhave you ever been mistreated by a rude store clerk or owner?

Yes I have. And I've been treated like crap by customers. Never for the color of my skin or my preference of bed partners though. There's a difference between being an asshole and being a bigot.

Quote from: marymargaret on June 02, 2014, 04:13:12 PM
Let me play devil's advocate- what if the bulk of the barker's business comes from the church going crowd in that community? Yeah- I know- ugly hypocrisy- but that is the level of consciousness we're dealing with in this scenario. If he agrees to make the gay couple's cake- he loses all his customers and his livelihood. If he refuses - he's taken to court and has to adjust his business plan to comply with the court ruling and in doing so, loses a large chuck of his business because he can no longer offer wedding cakes- (a big ticket item, BTW). So, now he has to find a way to make up for that loss of revenue. Will the gay community vow to make up for his losses in return for his support? Is it even fair to expect that from them?

His right to do business as he pleases ends when he violates the rights of someone. You can hop up and down yelling "It's only a wedding cake!" all day long but it doesn't change the fact that he's wrong. If he gets away with it, others will try. In a large town it may be of little consequence since there are plenty of bakers (or any other service). In a small town in rural Oklahoma (for example) there may only be one.

Quote from: marymargaret on June 02, 2014, 04:13:12 PM
This goes beyond gay/xtian fighting. This dictates how a person is allowed to run a business. Refusing that couple a cake didn't revoke their right to get married, didn't prevent them from having a reception and a cake from another bakery- so how exactly did the baker harm them? No one has to agree with him and can take their business elsewhere- it's their freedom of choice. The baker had limited choice- he had to give up part of his business by court order because they didn't like his attitude.

You're damned right it dictates how he is allowed to run his busines because by law he is not allowed to discriminate.

Quote from: marymargaret on June 02, 2014, 04:13:12 PM
I think it's wrong to equate minor annoyances with truly despicable hate crimes. I don't know the baker. Did he go out of his way to cause trouble or harass this couple? Did he interfere with their livelihood?  Things can get out of hand if people get too caught up in grievance agendas. They can sometimes do worse harm than what they experienced and feel smugly satisfied about it.       

Where do you draw the line? Not at buying cakes, obviously. Buying food staples maybe? How about medicines? Health care? Or do we have to wait until the baker starts physically harming gay couples who had the audacity to ask him to do what he's in business to do? Do we have to wait until he kills them?

There's a real simple way to avoid the whole problem. Sell them the cake. If he really can't bring himself to do that then I recommend he find a new profession where his bigotry won't be an issue.

Quote from: marymargaret on June 02, 2014, 07:10:53 PM
This might give more information about the legal ruling. The comments section is a flame war- read at your own risk! There was another article that revealed more info on the baker's policies. He also won't bake cakes for Halloween or Bachelor parties. It also says he makes birthday cakes regularly for a lesbian couple.

This actually makes him look like an even worse bigot and really undermines his "religious belief" argument. He should get out of the service industry completely. Maybe become a pastor where he can turn his bigotry into profit.

"I see you are wearing a crucifix. I'm sorry but I don't serve Christians." I wonder how well that would go over.

I don't see the difference between "No gays" and "No colored".

This case isn't about a baker not wanting to do business with a particular individual but discriminating against an entire group of people. There is a difference.

QuoteWho can say if people from either side deliberately seek out conflict to draw attention to their cause.

Who can say? Let me be the first.  Yes, they do. Sometimes we even refer to it as war.

I agree that religious people can be biased- their religious practice requires it in some cases. I don't agree with it and I'm not trying to trivialize how anyone would feel in that situation. I'm just seeing the possibility of people going about this problem in ways that may cause more negative reactions.

If the baker simply said he was booked and referred them to another baker it wouldn't be a news story. He felt the need to make his religious beliefs  an issue and the gay couple decided that they needed to punish him for hurting their feelings. He does make birthday cakes and other baked goods for gay people- he just feels that he can't support their marriage by making a wedding cake. I read a bit more about him, his kids have gay friends from school and they say he has no problem with them. It would be nice if grown people could come to an agreeable compromise. 

It's really human nature, no matter your race, sexual orientation, or religious/non-religious identity. Haven't you ever see someone blow something way out of proportion? We are a society of reality show celebrities- many people want their 15 minutes of fame. The religious guy will get plenty of support from his fellow church goers, they'll crusade for him if they have to, I'll bet. The gay couple will be cause celebrities in their community- each retelling of the experience will be more dramatic. I read an article where the couple said they were ecstatic about the outcome. IDK, maybe it's just me, but if the couple had said something like- we're sad that it had to come to this. We wish we didn't have to take it to court and we hope that it doesn't cause bad feelings - or something to that effect- it would sound sincere. They sound petty and a bit smug. The religious guy sounds self righteous. The comments following the articles are ugly and adding fuel to the fire. 

Everyone gets discriminated against at some point in their lives- we're a superficial species. I don't support any discrimination. No person capable of empathy could.
 

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on June 02, 2014, 09:24:56 PMSo it would be ok if it was a Christian hospital run by fundamentalists with a policy to refuse emergency services to homosexuals?

I know what you want.  You want me to either say "let him die" or carve out a self-serving exception.  But do you seriously honestly want to force someone to operate on you who despises you?

Think about it.  Surgery.  A very delicate and highly involved process, even when it is minor surgery.  There is so much that can go wrong.  If you have someone who does NOT want to be there, does NOT want to operate on a given patient, do you REALLY want to put your life in that person's hands?  Seriously?

Do you think that is a smart thing to do?

Imagine the baker again.  Suppose the court ordered him to bake that particular cake.  Not "either bake it for everybody or bake it for nobody" but "you will bake that particular cake."  How could that possibly go wrong?

"Oops, it appears we forgot to add the sugar."  Or worse "Oops, it appears that we used salt instead of sugar, our bad.  It was an accident."

Or another case, a photographer, because that was in the news not long ago.  "Oops, I forgot to take the lens cap off."

And you want to use force on a surgeon?  Seriously?

That's insane.  I would rather NOT say "I'm going to put a gun to your head so that you will accept the responsibility of my life in your hands."  And yet for some reason you think my position of "If you don't want to do business with me I don't want to do business with you" is unreasonable.

Seriously, you want to force a surgeon?

Quote from: GSOgymrat on June 02, 2014, 11:07:55 PM
"I see you are wearing a crucifix. I'm sorry but I don't serve Christians." I wonder how well that would go over.

I don't see the difference between "No gays" and "No colored".

This case isn't about a baker not wanting to do business with a particular individual but discriminating against an entire group of people. There is a difference.

^this. Forget the surgeon analogy. It is a simple case where someone is excluded service for being something not desirable in the eyes of the baker. the race discrimination thing is a better comparison.

What I want Jason is for anyone that operates a business to be required to treat all potential customers the same with regard to ethnicity, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or any other of the various reasons people use to feel superior to others. No exceptions for the baker or the surgeon.  If they can't do that then they shouldn't be allowed to do business.

Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 03, 2014, 11:12:08 AM

Think about it.  Surgery.  A very delicate and highly involved process, even when it is minor surgery.  There is so much that can go wrong.  If you have someone who does NOT want to be there, does NOT want to operate on a given patient, do you REALLY want to put your life in that person's hands?  Seriously?

Do you think that is a smart thing to do?

Seriously, you want to force a surgeon?

If I go into a new hair salon- I don't want the pissed off stylist anywhere near my hair with scissors!

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on June 03, 2014, 11:33:34 AMWhat I want Jason is for anyone that operates a business to be required to treat all potential customers the same with regard to ethnicity, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or any other of the various reasons people use to feel superior to others. No exceptions for the baker or the surgeon.  If they can't do that then they shouldn't be allowed to do business.

The surgeon analogy was stupid.  The baker is not infringing on the rights of the gay couple.  By not baking for them he is not making them not married.  The same applies if you swap race for orientation.

PopeyesPappy, you are ready to punish people for thoughtcrime.  Now supposing we go down that road.  You get laws implemented that say "if you do not serve people you despise you have to shut down your business."  Of course we're going to ignore the poor service response that you have just pretended away.  We're going to assume that pointing a gun at people and forcing them to conform to what you think is right will actually work.

Next election cycle.  New crop of politicians get their hands on that power.  They take the rules about how the government can force businesses.  They say "new rule, instead of including group X now you must exclude group X."

Nope, that will also be wished away.

Would you care to address the possibility of a photographer who "accidentally" leaves the lens cap on?



Now suppose, the baker had responded differently.   Instead of saying "I don't want to do business with you because you are in group X" the baker had said "You don't want to do business with me because I am prejudiced against group X".  An interesting supposition.  It seems that my idea that people get perverse satisfaction from forcing bigots to wait on them might actually be close to the truth.

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on June 03, 2014, 11:33:34 AM
What I want Jason is for anyone that operates a business to be required to treat all potential customers the same with regard to ethnicity, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or any other of the various reasons people use to feel superior to others. No exceptions for the baker or the surgeon.  If they can't do that then they shouldn't be allowed to do business.

Sorry to butt in here- I know you're addressing Jason, but I see stuff like this all the time. Not just gays, but people who aren't dressed as well as others, people who are socially awkward, people who aren't attractive, and on and on. Not just one particular group but just people in general. If every one of them went to court- they would shut the whole system down. People need to find a better way to resolve their problems and maybe, just maybe, find that they have something in common and see each other as people rather than an agenda pusher.

Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 03, 2014, 11:42:33 AM
The surgeon analogy was stupid.  The baker is not infringing on the rights of the gay couple.  By not baking for them he is not making them not married.  The same applies if you swap race for orientation.

PopeyesPappy, you are ready to punish people for thoughtcrime.  Now supposing we go down that road.  You get laws implemented that say "if you do not serve people you despise you have to shut down your business."  Of course we're going to ignore the poor service response that you have just pretended away.  We're going to assume that pointing a gun at people and forcing them to conform to what you think is right will actually work.

Next election cycle.  New crop of politicians get their hands on that power.  They take the rules about how the government can force businesses.  They say "new rule, instead of including group X now you must exclude group X."

Nope, that will also be wished away.

Would you care to address the possibility of a photographer who "accidentally" leaves the lens cap on?



Now suppose, the baker had responded differently.   Instead of saying "I don't want to do business with you because you are in group X" the baker had said "You don't want to do business with me because I am prejudiced against group X".  An interesting supposition.  It seems that my idea that people get perverse satisfaction from forcing bigots to wait on them might actually be close to the truth.

Not so much stupid as admittedly extreme. However the principle is the same be it race or sexual orientation, baker or surgeon. Discrimination is discrimination and it does affect the rights of the gay couples in the same way it affects the rights of blacks. Whether we are talking about buying a cake or sitting in the front of the bus allowing businesses or business owners to discriminate against gay couples is no different than allowing white only counters at the local diner. Both are wrong. Both are wrong for the same reasons. The courts have recognized that both are wrong for the same reasons. Yea for the courts, and fucking to bad so sad for the bigoted assholes that aren't allowed to legally discriminate.

Quote from: marymargaret on June 03, 2014, 11:44:48 AM
Sorry to butt in here- I know you're addressing Jason, but I see stuff like this all the time. Not just gays, but people who aren't dressed as well as others, people who are socially awkward, people who aren't attractive, and on and on. Not just one particular group but just people in general. If every one of them went to court- they would shut the whole system down. People need to find a better way to resolve their problems and maybe, just maybe, find that they have something in common and see each other as people rather than an agenda pusher.

And that better way is?

Unfortunately reasoning with other people is not a reliable way to resolve our differences. As far as I can tell that leaves the legal system and violence. Personally I prefer the courts to beating someone into submission.

Quote from: drunkenshoe on June 03, 2014, 12:35:57 PM
If the system is not working for that much of people, may be it needs to shut down. You need to understand that wishful thinking doesn't work. And reality doesn't go away when you stand up and shout, 'come on guys let's resolve this between us'. This is exactly the same thing with asking people to pray to get things better.

I totally disagree- there is such a thing as arbitration here, maybe you don't have that in your area. It is absolutely nothing like praying- I can't believe anyone would make such a comparison. Logical review of a situation in an attempt to resolve differences without making it a court case has been a very helpful tool for many. Talk about emotional, knee jerk reactions. 

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on June 03, 2014, 12:30:21 PM
And that better way is?

Unfortunately reasoning with other people is not a reliable way to resolve our differences. As far as I can tell that leaves the legal system and violence. Personally I prefer the courts to beating someone into submission.

That's a really limited point of view - if you don't raise the bar for expectations- you get limited change for the better. It has to come from both sides. At some point, people have got to get past this grievance mentality. There's always a danger of people trivializing real problems by making a big deal out of every slight they experience due to someone's narrow mindedness. The public becomes desensitized to the litany of complaints, defeating the goal of better behaviour. I've also heard people say that they were in support of (fill in the blank) but they don't any more because they are sick of (_____) making more and more demands and wanting special treatment above everyone else. This is where many "Cross the Rubicon" and become unmovable in their position.
 

Despite what you may be hearing on Fox news gays and lesbians are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for equal treatment. So I'm still waiting on your proposed solution that doesn't involve the legal system to address grievances. 

Quote from: drunkenshoe on June 03, 2014, 12:31:40 PMSurgeon analogy is perfectly fine. You are not aware of the consequences of leaving this issue without any sanctions and cannot imagine that people need to be forced. Do you really believe that baker is just doing that in silence to hold on to his personal 'principles' and not using it for commercial means to his own group?

If the baker gets away with this, he will be the example for many other piece of shit to do same. And there will be doctors, lawyers, teachers, paramedics, nurses, firemen...etc. people who provides crucial service for public and they will see it legitimate to do it.

You have a very fucked up understanding of freedom. Thought crime?! You call this thought crime? :lol:  You people are so fucking spoilt.

So you see this situation as perfectly safe:  Even though you, the surgeon, hates me and people like me, I am going to force you to take care of me.  I am going to put my life into your hands, and require you to take care of me.  If you refuse to take care of me, you will be punished by force of law.

You see that as perfectly fine and safe?

Perhaps I was closer to the truth than I realized when I hypothesized that the motive of many here is the smug satisfaction that comes with forcing people to behave the way you want them to.

Despite what PopeyesPappy thinks, I am all about equal treatment.  That's why I am in favor of gay marriage, and also in favor of not forcing the baker to bake a cake that he doesn't want to bake.  At the same time.  Because I'm in favor of equal treatment for everyone, not just special some.

Nothing the baker did resulted in the gay couple not being married.  Therefore he did not violate their rights.  It really is that simple.  He did not violate their rights, they are still married with or without his cake.  He did not force them to do anything, he just declined to do business with them.  He did so for a stupid reason, but you can't take away peoples right to be assholes.  It doesn't work.

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on June 03, 2014, 02:27:59 PM
Despite what you may be hearing on Fox news gays and lesbians are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for equal treatment. So I'm still waiting on your proposed solution that doesn't involve the legal system to address grievances. 

What makes you think I watch Fox News- that's an assumption and I dare say stereotyping someone because they don't agree with you. I can think for myself - thanks. I think the left right paradigm is bullsh*t.

I've gone to school and worked with gay people, I have a fond affection for many of them. My kids had at lease two cross dressing friends who were a heck of a lot of fun on shopping trips. I'm happy that they have the right to get married and enjoy the privileges they were once denied. I understand that MAJOR changes in culture do require legal precedent. It takes time for other members of society to come around, sadly - some never will. What I object to is the shrill whining on both sides when they see a chance to create drama.

Jason has asked you and I'd also like to know- what exact harm did the baker cause the couple? We all choose how we handle difficult situations and difficult people. I've read several articles and not one stated that the baker did anything other than say "no" to baking a wedding cake for them. If he had kept his mouth shut and referred them to another baker and maybe even offered them a discount coupon for a birthday cake or cupcakes- it would have been a non issue. He still would not have made the wedding cake but he would have offered them a good will gesture. He didn't interfere with them and didn't take to the law into their workplace. They did. They may have done him a favor because he has increased business from the people who support him. This may not last- finances get tight, people lose interest- this will impact his business. He has gotten some pretty hateful calls and e mails and I think there was a protest at his store. You may applaud this, but how is this taking the high ground?

Aren't we one of the most litigious countries in the world? Do you really think we need more?     

Quote from: marymargaret on June 03, 2014, 03:55:51 PM
What makes you think I watch Fox News- that's an assumption and I dare say stereotyping someone because they don't agree with you. I can think for myself - thanks. I think the left right paradigm is bullsh*t.

I've gone to school and worked with gay people, I have a fond affection for many of them. My kids had at lease two cross dressing friends who were a heck of a lot of fun on shopping trips. I'm happy that they have the right to get married and enjoy the privileges they were once denied. I understand that MAJOR changes in culture do require legal precedent. It takes time for other members of society to come around, sadly - some never will. What I object to is the shrill whining on both sides when they see a chance to create drama.

Jason has asked you and I'd also like to know- what exact harm did the baker cause the couple? We all choose how we handle difficult situations and difficult people. I've read several articles and not one stated that the baker did anything other than say "no" to baking a wedding cake for them. If he had kept his mouth shut and referred them to another baker and maybe even offered them a discount coupon for a birthday cake or cupcakes- it would have been a non issue. He still would not have made the wedding cake but he would have offered them a good will gesture. He didn't interfere with them and didn't take to the law into their workplace. They did. They may have done him a favor because he has increased business from the people who support him. This may not last- finances get tight, people lose interest- this will impact his business. He has gotten some pretty hateful calls and e mails and I think there was a protest at his store. You may applaud this, but how is this taking the high ground?

Aren't we one of the most litigious countries in the world? Do you really think we need more?     

What I think is that gays and lesbians deserve equal treatment under the law. Based on your earlier comments you seem to think asking for that is the equivalent of demanding special treatment. Well I have news for you it's not. It isn't asking for special treatment to be allowed the same privilege everyone else already gets. It isn't asking for special treatment to expect a business owner to provide you goods or services for the same prices they would happily provide to anyone else because they don't like your sexual orientation.

I'm still waiting on you to tell us what options other than courts these people have. Do you think they should just give it up and be happy living as second class citizens? I don't. I think they need to get out and fight for the right to be treated like everyone else.

BTW. If you dont like being accused of being a Faux News groupie maybe you should stop using their talking points.

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on June 03, 2014, 04:19:36 PM
What I think is that gays and lesbians deserve equal treatment under the law. Based on your earlier comments you seem to think asking for that is the equivalent of demanding special treatment. Well I have news for you it's not. It isn't asking for special treatment to be allowed the same privilege everyone else already gets. It isn't asking for special treatment to expect a business owner to provide you goods or services for the same prices they would happily provide to anyone else because they don't like your sexual orientation.

I'm still waiting on you to tell us what options other than courts these people have. Do you think they should just give it up and be happy living as second class citizens? I don't. I think they need to get out and fight for the right to be treated like everyone else.

They have equal rights under the law- more and more states are coming on board- these things don't happen overnight. You mean you've never been slighted or treated differently than other people? Years ago I remember going to a posh store at the mall to buy a gift for my friend- that happened to be the only place that carried it. There was a person ahead of me and I waited my turn. The snotty clerk looked at my purchase and went to another customer with a more expensive purchase instead of just cashing my quick purchase out. I waited, and she did finally deign to wait on me with no apology. I wonder what she didn't like about me- wasn't I dressed well enough or was my purchase too small to matter? Was she a snob or was she told to put the big spenders first? If I was the crabby person I am now- I would have called her out on it and left. Needless to say I wouldn't shop there again. Funny, when the economy went bad and Amazon came online- that posh store closed. I certainly wasn't treated well and was made to feel like less of a person- I didn't take anyone to court. Maybe you think we all should. Or maybe only certain groups should. I'm really not trying to be difficult- I just want to know how far you think this should go.

What will happen if everyone fears having legal action taken against them for any infraction- real or imagined? How willing will people be to hire people from a group they fear? Do you see this going well?

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on June 03, 2014, 04:26:03 PM
BTW. If you dont like being accused of being a Faux News groupie maybe you should stop using their talking points.

I'm not. I don't feel the need to accuse you of spewing CNN or MSNBC or NPR propaganda- why do you feel the need to do that to me?

Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 03, 2014, 02:50:59 PM
So you see this situation as perfectly safe:  Even though you, the surgeon, hates me and people like me, I am going to force you to take care of me.  I am going to put my life into your hands, and require you to take care of me.  If you refuse to take care of me, you will be punished by force of law.

You see that as perfectly fine and safe?

A surgeon could hate me for any reason whatsoever, too many to cover in a single or even a series of job interviews. I don't expect a surgeon to like me, or care if he does. I expect a surgeon to be a professional, to do his job competently no matter who he may operate on.

Baking is the same way. It is a profession.

Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 03, 2014, 02:50:59 PM
Despite what PopeyesPappy thinks, I am all about equal treatment.  That's why I am in favor of gay marriage, and also in favor of not forcing the baker to bake a cake that he doesn't want to bake.  At the same time.  Because I'm in favor of equal treatment for everyone, not just special some.

And what of the gay couple who now has no way to have a professionally done wedding cake for their special day because the bakery gave them a fuck you? And keep in mind, it's the bakery that gave them the fuck you, not any one baker in the bakery â€" if it was the latter, then another baker in that bakery would take over the job and we wouldn't even have a lawsuit in the first place. Equal treatment only applies to people, and bakeries are not people.

Quote from: marymargaret on June 03, 2014, 04:44:40 PM
I'm not. I don't feel the need to accuse you of spewing CNN or MSNBC or NPR propaganda- why do you feel the need to do that to me?

But you are. Calling equal rights for gays special treatment is using far right talking points.

^ Absolutely true, but it's also possible that those views are genuinely personal and just happen to overlap with the far right talking points.

Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 03, 2014, 11:42:33 AM
PopeyesPappy, you are ready to punish people for thoughtcrime. 

Bollocks. The baker is still free to think whatever he wants about gays and gay marriage. Just like I have the freedom to think that religious fundamentalists are dangerous morons. I don't have the right to refuse my professional services to religious fundamentalists just because I don't like them. Simple as that.

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on June 03, 2014, 05:57:48 PM
But you are. Calling equal rights for gays special treatment is using far right talking points.

I don't recall saying that. I did say that some groups make it appear that way to others. Both, in my opinion, are too emotional to be rational.

Quote from: drunkenshoe on June 03, 2014, 06:25:56 PM
You sure didn't say it straight. But from the post you addressed to me (accepting being rude to a customer as equal to refusing service to people because of their identity) and to repeatedly telling why these people are being let to carry this to court instead of sucking it, (sorry, try to make up and kiss) because system would shout down (?). All you offer is how can we stop people pushing for equality with the most civilised way we invented so far as species.

By the way, carrying a problem to court to be solved -esp a one emerging from a deep issue- IS being rational by definition. Being emotional is doing something extreme, or violent to 'solve' it. Like what happens mostly when people try to solve it between them.

I'm not sure I'm following you - so please bear with me. Wouldn't rude behaviour result from someone judging another person unworthy or of lesser status for whatever reason? From what I've read, the couple received many offers for a free cake from all over. They did get a cake from another local baker. 

So- the only answer to disagreement is going to court? We could just keep expanding the system to accommodate the volume, I guess, but wouldn't this start to affect society in a negative way? People are known for turning a good thing into oppression. Over use and abuse of a system only makes it better-right? More litigation will make things more meaningful and bring people together- right?

I don't recall either party in this story threatening each other. Others reacted negatively and were verbally abusive to the baker- should he now sue? People (on either side of the issue) who had nothing to do with the encounter felt entitled to vent their outrage so that they could be a part of it. How angry do you feel about all this?

When I posted this topic- I did expect reaction in support of either side, but I'm surprised at some of the intensity. This is a first world problem- do you think this rises to the scale of problems other people face?

Quote from: marymargaret on June 03, 2014, 04:42:35 PMYou mean you've never been slighted or treated differently than other people? Years ago I remember going to a posh store at the mall to buy a gift for my friend- that happened to be the only place that carried it. There was a person ahead of me and I waited my turn. The snotty clerk looked at my purchase and went to another customer with a more expensive purchase instead of just cashing my quick purchase out. I waited, and she did finally deign to wait on me with no apology. I wonder what she didn't like about me- wasn't I dressed well enough or was my purchase too small to matter? Was she a snob or was she told to put the big spenders first? If I was the crabby person I am now- I would have called her out on it and left. Needless to say I wouldn't shop there again. Funny, when the economy went bad and Amazon came online- that posh store closed. I certainly wasn't treated well and was made to feel like less of a person- I didn't take anyone to court. Maybe you think we all should. Or maybe only certain groups should. I'm really not trying to be difficult- I just want to know how far you think this should go.

What you're describing above is snobbery or assholishness, not bigotry which is what the baker is guilty of. Treating someone poorly, regardless of reason, makes you an asshole. Treating someone poorly, because they are part of a particular group and for no other reason, makes you a bigot. The baker refused them because they were part of a particular group. If you can't see the difference here then I am truly sorry for you.

Quote from: GalacticBusDriver on June 03, 2014, 09:15:07 PM
What you're describing above is snobbery or assholishness, not bigotry which is what the baker is guilty of. Treating someone poorly, regardless of reason, makes you an asshole. Treating someone poorly, because they are part of a particular group and for no other reason, makes you a bigot. The baker refused them because they were part of a particular group. If you can't see the difference here then I am truly sorry for you.

I know what bigotry feels like- I've been singled out for being the wrong nationality, religion, later- no religion. The article stated that the baker does do business with gays- he just didn't want to make the wedding cake. His issue appears to be the marriage aspect. I'm not taking his side, but I don't think this rises to the level of having a burning cross on your lawn or hate speech spray painted on your property or shunning. He wasn't the only game in town. What this whole exercise illustrates is how blown out of proportion things can get.

No one has answered what exact damage was done to this couple. The baker, bigot, dumbass, or however you want to describe him, didn't prevent them from fulfilling their plans. I understand that people here dislike religion, I'm not a fan of it, myself. Unfortunately, people are going to to disagree over matters. It would be nice if people on both sides could respect each others' choices provided that they are not malicious in nature.

There's really no need for condescension - we don't know each other. Forums are a place for debate and an exchange of ideas, opinions -no? What's to be learned in an echo chamber?

Quote from: marymargaret on June 03, 2014, 09:56:34 PM
I know what bigotry feels like- I've been singled out for being the wrong nationality, religion, later- no religion. The article stated that the baker does do business with gays- he just didn't want to make the wedding cake. His issue appears to be the marriage aspect. I'm not taking his side, but I don't think this rises to the level of having a burning cross on your lawn or hate speech spray painted on your property or shunning. He wasn't the only game in town. What this whole exercise illustrates is how blown out of proportion things can get.

I'm not sure what side you are on here, and I don't care that much.  You did say a couple of times you wanted to play the Devil's advocate.  OK, so the advocates position was attacked.  First of all, this is an emotional issue, it's an emotional issue for the baker, and it's an emotional issue for the many gays in this forum who have been looked upon as second class citizens for the last 100 years, well actually longer.

So it's kind of hard to say (as you do), "Lets put emotions aside and settle this through discussion."  Maybe thoughtful discussion can come later, but for now it's not possible on a national scale.  The more that gay equality looms as a reality of the future, the more emotional the response becomes from the status quo.  If it were that easy to push a button and settle this cerebrally, your suggestion would have more merit.  But that's not the way humans act. 

Enter the civil courts, which is a democratic attempt to move highly emotional unresolvable arguments toward a less emotional solution.  One thing that does strike me about your argument, is that it is not so much about equality for gays (for or against.  I don't know which), but more about the government having civil courts where these types of problems are addressed.  If that is your argument, it's being sidetracked.  In a way, I see two different arguments taking place at the same time.

The issue is service. If you have a business that is available to the general public and then after the fact select out certain groups as not eligible for your services, that act by itself is prejudicial. The baker singled out a specific group of people as ineligible despite the fact that in every other sense they should be, and also willing to serve every other group but them; again prejudicial.

@ MaryMargaret

First I want to apologies for the Fox news comment. What led me down that path was your comment about special privilege. After going back and rereading your post I realized that you weren’t claiming special privilege but talking about other people that might.

Having said that I still disagree with your general position on this topic. Yes the US is an over litigious society. However I do not believe this was a frivolous lawsuit. An example of a frivolous lawsuit is the guy who sued Anheiser-Busch because he didn’t have any luck with the ladies when drunk on their products which was not how the company depicted the situation in their commercials.

Nor do I believe this type of legal action is making any kind of significant contribution to desensitizing people to the injustice of unequal rights for gays. At least not when compared to the amount of good they are doing. You yourself mentioned that more and more states were recognizing equal rights for gays. That’s true. All over the country so called sanctity of marriage laws are being over turned. They are being overturned because people are bringing suit against them claiming a violation of their rights. The same principle applies to the wedding cake case. For decades now the courts have consistently ruled that businesses may not discriminate based on a number of variables such as race, gender and age. The only way gays are get to get the same type of recognition as those other groups is to keep hauling the people that just don’t get it into court.

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on June 04, 2014, 09:33:44 AM
@ MaryMargaret

First I want to apologies for the Fox news comment. What led me down that path was your comment about special privilege. After going back and rereading your post I realized that you weren’t claiming special privilege but talking about other people that might.

Having said that I still disagree with your general position on this topic. Yes the US is an over litigious society. However I do not believe this was a frivolous lawsuit. An example of a frivolous lawsuit is the guy who sued Anheiser-Busch because he didn’t have any luck with the ladies when drunk on their products which was not how the company depicted the situation in their commercials.

Nor do I believe this type of legal action is making any kind of significant contribution to desensitizing people to the injustice of unequal rights for gays. At least not when compared to the amount of good they are doing. You yourself mentioned that more and more states were recognizing equal rights for gays. That’s true. All over the country so called sanctity of marriage laws are being over turned. They are being overturned because people are bringing suit against them claiming a violation of their rights. The same principle applies to the wedding cake case. For decades now the courts have consistently ruled that businesses may not discriminate based on a number of variables such as race, gender and age. The only way gays are get to get the same type of recognition as those other groups is to keep hauling the people that just don’t get it into court.

Thanks. We all get caught up in the heat of an argument and may misinterpret what others say. I get what you mean about people having to pursue legal action. Sad that it has to be that way but sometimes it does. I just don't like to categorize people- if I see someone treated badly, it doesn't matter to me if they're in a particular group or not- I see a fellow human being. I also make no distinction between a$$holes and bigots- they're kissing cousins as far as I'm concerned, they both can inflict great harm. There are cases of people making up offences on both sides. Remember that case of the lesbian waitress who altered the check to make it look like a religious slur against her? That kind of stuff helps no one.   

Trouble is, extremist on both sides can make things much worse and create ill will where there may have been little or none.   

BTW- I like your avatar. We're looking into a rescue shelter that takes in dogs from all over. We've got senior cats and would eventually get a dog. It breaks my heart to see so many abandoned, unloved fur babies. We've rescued about 15 cats over the years.

On assholes and bigots.

All bigots are assholes, but not all assholes are bigots.

No idea where you are located, but I can probably hook you up with a senior greyhound anytime you want one. A word of warning though. They can be addictive.

In in the Northeast- I'm older with a touch of arthritis so I need a dog that won't mind. LOL I've met a few greyhounds and they were real sweethearts. I'm hesitant because of my cats, but I do plan on adopting a small to medium sized dog. I'd appreciate any advice you can give me. :)

The only time I've been around greyhounds, I was at a guy's house who had three of them.  He carefully cautioned me not to try and touch them, or something bad would happen, although I can't remember what it was.  I think he said something about them being high strung, and I'm not sure what that even implied.  I just know that I did not get to know them.  Nor did they take any interest in me.  They looked harmless enough.

Quote from: SGOS on June 04, 2014, 01:54:31 PM
The only time I've been around greyhounds, I was at a guy's house who had three of them.  He carefully cautioned me not to try and touch them, or something bad would happen, although I can't remember what it was.  I think he said something about them being high strung, and I'm not sure what that even implied.  I just know that I did not get to know them.  Nor did they take any interest in me.  They looked harmless enough.

I've heard about the abuse some of them suffer from the racing industry. The rescues I've met were skiddish and shy. The ones raised as pets were friendly. I don't know anything about the breed, but I'm sad to see what happens to them.

I'm leaning towards a good ol' mixed breed pup. The rescue center is very thorough in their adoption process which is a plus. I'm doing a bit of research to see what breeds would fit our household because I do so want this to be a successful adoption. Any info from dog lovers here would be very helpful. I'll start a separate thread - thanks for your reply. :) 

Quote from: marymargaret on June 04, 2014, 02:33:15 PM
I've heard about the abuse some of them suffer from the racing industry. The rescues I've met were skiddish and shy. The ones raised as pets were friendly. I don't know anything about the breed, but I'm sad to see what happens to them.

Yes, yes.  He said that those three had been from the racing industry.  He may have even called them "rescues".  More likely, they had been used up and gotten rid of.

Quote from: SGOS on June 04, 2014, 02:55:59 PM
Yes, yes.  He said that those three had been from the racing industry.  He may have even called them "rescues".  More likely, they had been used up and gotten rid of.

I've heard some horror stories of what happens to them. Can't even repeat it. :(

Quote from: drunkenshoe on June 04, 2014, 03:19:12 PM
I have already written the answer of your questions. No, being rude to someone is not equal of the situation we are discussing here. You keep repeating your wishful thinking and still insist on that this is something people can resolve by themselves.

People living out of the first world wish they had these opportunities. I live in a country that is at some aspect a second, in others a third world. The fact that this is a first world problem, doesn't negate its existence as a real problem.  And I don't see USA as a first world country. Yes, may be some parts of it? Netherlands is a first world country. Sweden or Norway is a first world country.  Not USA.  It will be a first world country when these piece of shits learn that they do not have a right to be offended by someone else's sexual preference. And people need to be forced. I know bigotry and bigots VERY WELL.

You cannot deal with this people by talking to them. They do not like gays, transgenders or this and that people having the same rights with them? They can fuck of to some sharia country and live there. They do not deserve the country they live in. Period.

I personally find it ugly the way you see a fundamental problem of a group of people as something very trivial, because you don't live through it and expect them to suck it. Because doesn't matter if you are aware or not with your 'oh people can deal with it themselves' attitude but this is what you are doing.

You don't see this as a real problem and you are giving ridiculous excuses and no solutions while you are supporting the best solution shouldn't be the one taken. Frankly, I don't like your attitude in general and so far with what you came up with I also don't believe you expected support for both sides.  Nobody said the answer for every conflict is always the court. For this issue YES it is the court.

I feel angry about every kind of discrimination. Esp. this one. ALWAYS. Intense for some people? Tough.

Anyway, this conversation is going nowhere, because either you do not get what is the problem or think discrimination is something trivial.

DS- I don't expect to resolve this issue for anyone. Your anger is evident and maybe this issue hits too close to home for you. We don't know each other. I'm not trying to trivialize anyone's problems. I just would like to see people at least try and bridge the gaps that may lead to more understanding and respect. Maybe I'm too metaphysical in my point of view, but I do believe that people can create a positive or negative wave that will affect others. It can't be all one sided. I personally have had to deal with situations where I could chose to make a situation worse to please myself or to reach out and try to change it for the better.

The couple could have said to the baker, we disagree with your position but we understand that this is distressing to you and we won't ask you to violate your personal religious beliefs. The baker could have then offered to recommend someone else, and maybe a discount on their birthday cakes. (He does do them for gays and has gay customers)
He was more upset about breaking rules he's burdened with rather than hating on the couple. The couple could have demonstrated tolerance for someone they didn't agree with. If he had verbally abused them- then yes- go to court. Are you getting what I'm saying? I'm not in a contest of opinions here- just how people can reach out to each other a little more and change the attitude and fears people have about new things. I'll bet that some of the news would present the story in a positive light. Strength isn't always about defeating the enemy- sometimes it's winning them over to a more open way of thinking. 

On one hand, I agree that businesses can't discriminate based solely on who is fucking who where. On the other hand, as a business owner I have an issue with the courts telling someone how to run their business.

Quote from: Moralnihilist on June 04, 2014, 06:15:21 PM
On one hand, I agree that businesses can't discriminate based solely on who is fucking who where. On the other hand, as a business owner I have an issue with the courts telling someone how to run their business.

I understand the libertarian argument that people should be able to run their businesses with as little government intervention as possible, and generally I agree, but I believe requiring businesses to provide services to all groups of people is reasonable in the best interests of everyone. Companies and businesses like to operate independently but the reality is they rely on transactions, transportation and communication that is support by society and the government. The government ensures that people are not going to walk into your store and take your merchandise without consequence by providing law enforcement and a court system. The government provides roadways for moving goods, currencies, stable utilities... the list is long. Allowing Walmart to refuse to sell merchandise to black people is in no one's interest. Allowing hospitals to refuse treatment to Hispanic people isn't fair. Allowing a local power company to refuse to provide electricity to a church, or a strip club, is wrong. If businesses want to play the game they need to abide by some basic rules and not refusing services to entire groups of people is pretty basic.

I don't want to live in a country where Amazon won't sell merchandise to me because they know from the books I have purchased, and from my search history that they purchased from Google, that I'm an atheist, arguing that they are a company with Christian values and therefore don't support my godless lifestyle. After all, I can just buy books from Barnes and Noble right?

Quote from: Moralnihilist on June 04, 2014, 06:15:21 PM
On one hand, I agree that businesses can't discriminate based solely on who is fucking who where. On the other hand, as a business owner I have an issue with the courts telling someone how to run their business.

The statement "telling someone how to run their business" is too vague.
They're not telling them how to run their business, they're telling them not to be assholes and stop discriminating, and to start treating all customers equally.
Additionally, the customer is doing business with the business, not the individual. Think of what precedent a different ruling in this case might have set. If I'm an atheist working the front counter at the DMV, I might turn away all theists on the grounds that it somehow interferes with my views.

Your business bakes wedding cakes. Someone is having a wedding. They need cake. So shut up and take their money.
Don't want to? That's absolutely fine. Don't be in the business.

Quote from: Moralnihilist on June 04, 2014, 06:15:21 PM
On one hand, I agree that businesses can't discriminate based solely on who is fucking who where. On the other hand, as a business owner I have an issue with the courts telling someone how to run their business.

I'll support your right as a business owner to refuse services to an individual (be it a person or another business/organization) for at least a million different reasons, but not to a class of people based on race, religion, gender, gender identity, age (for adults) or sexual orientation.

Quote from: drunkenshoe on June 03, 2014, 04:11:40 PMYou know what is so simple? People have no rights to be offended bu other people's sexual preference and if they do AND take action with it, they should be sanctioned by law. This is not democracy or freedom. Most of the rights people enjoy became reality exactly this way. They pushed people to get black people in by the law. They pushed people to accept that women will vote...etc.

Like I said, you have a  fucked up understanding of freedom.

When you say "and take action with it" you are conflating not associating with them with going out and beating them up.

If you cannot tell the two apart, no wonder you think I have a fucked up understanding of freedom.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 03, 2014, 04:58:19 PMA surgeon could hate me for any reason whatsoever, too many to cover in a single or even a series of job interviews. I don't expect a surgeon to like me, or care if he does. I expect a surgeon to be a professional, to do his job competently no matter who he may operate on.

Baking is the same way. It is a profession.

And what of the gay couple who now has no way to have a professionally done wedding cake for their special day because the bakery gave them a fuck you? And keep in mind, it's the bakery that gave them the fuck you, not any one baker in the bakery â€" if it was the latter, then another baker in that bakery would take over the job and we wouldn't even have a lawsuit in the first place. Equal treatment only applies to people, and bakeries are not people.

But bakers are people, unless they stop being people the moment they show up for work.

Now I know, not having a cake by that particular baker out of all the options available is the worst crime imaginable.  After all, drunkenshoe cannot tell the difference between a bigot who just won't have anything to do with the people the bigot dislikes, and a bigot who goes out and assaults and tries to murder the people the bigot dislikes.  And if the couple cannot get a cake by that particular baker out of all the options available they are not able to get married at all, they have to cancel the wedding, tell the preacher or judge to go home, rescind the wedding invitations, cancel the reception, cancel the band, cancel the caterer, return their marriage license applications, and never speak to each other again.  All because they didn't get a cake from that particular baker.

No.  You know that particular baker doesn't want to serve them, so it is very vital to make sure that particular baker does serve them.  It is of utmost paramount importance that that particular baker be the one to bake the cake specifically because he doesn't want to.

Quote from: stromboli on June 04, 2014, 09:16:32 AMThe issue is service. If you have a business that is available to the general public and then after the fact select out certain groups as not eligible for your services, that act by itself is prejudicial. The baker singled out a specific group of people as ineligible despite the fact that in every other sense they should be, and also willing to serve every other group but them; again prejudicial.

What about the Red and Black Cafe, that refuses to ever serve cops?

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on June 04, 2014, 07:45:25 PM
I'll support your right as a business owner to refuse services to an individual (be it a person or another business/organization) for at least a million different reasons, but not to a class of people based on race, religion, gender, gender identity, age (for adults) or sexual orientation.

This I agree with. If the guy had called them assholes and refused to make them a cake then I would be supporting this guy 100%, but since the baker went out of his way to go the discrimination route I can't.  The issue I have is when the government steps in and tells someone how to run their business when it comes to who is served vs not. There are other ways that this guy should have handled the situation this I agree. The baker under no circumstances is allowed to use religion to cover the fact that he is a bigot.

Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 05, 2014, 11:03:29 AM
But bakers are people, unless they stop being people the moment they show up for work.

They're professionals. When you are a professional, you're expected to leave your bigotry at the door, and concentrate on servicing your customers because that is what you were hired to do. If you can't do that, too bad but you're not a professional in the field and should not expect to be hired as a professional in the field or continue to work as a professional in that field. The only way a professional would be allowed to do such is if the institution he works for has it as a policy. The reason we know this is a bakery policy is because the bigot baker was not immediately thrown out on his ass for not providing service to an honest customer and missing a sale when this came to light.

We, as a society, have made a statement that denying service to people based on sexual orientation, race, religion, etc. is out of bounds for any professional. Bakers are professionals, and they are subject to this rule.

Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 05, 2014, 11:03:29 AM
Now I know, not having a cake by that particular baker out of all the options available is the worst crime imaginable.  After all, drunkenshoe cannot tell the difference between a bigot who just won't have anything to do with the people the bigot dislikes, and a bigot who goes out and assaults and tries to murder the people the bigot dislikes.  And if the couple cannot get a cake by that particular baker out of all the options available they are not able to get married at all, they have to cancel the wedding, tell the preacher or judge to go home, rescind the wedding invitations, cancel the reception, cancel the band, cancel the caterer, return their marriage license applications, and never speak to each other again.  All because they didn't get a cake from that particular baker.

No.  You know that particular baker doesn't want to serve them, so it is very vital to make sure that particular baker does serve them.  It is of utmost paramount importance that that particular baker be the one to bake the cake specifically because he doesn't want to.

Again, this is not just about just a baker refusing to bake one cake. This is about a bakery refusing service to a whole group of people based on their sexual orientation, as exemplified by that one case. If it were just the baker, he would have been fired for losing a sale due to his unprofessional behavior, and as such, should rethink whether or not he is cut out to be a baker or if his bigotry is worth giving up his profession.

Also, I find this funny juxtaposed with your crowings that Liberitarians have been on the gays' side long before anyone else, because what you're saying is that gays can be gays, but bigots have a right to discriminate against them.

Don't you realize that this is exactly the problem?

Even with the progress that gay rights has made in the past years, it's still a homophobic country. If left alone, that bakery will have set a precident that it's okay to discriminate against gays, and so homophobic customers will be free to ask their own bakeries if they make "gay cakes", and as such other bakeries stands to lose big in certain areas if they don't cave to their louder and more odious homophobic base. And it would not be restricted to bakeries, either. All manner of businesses will fall under the same pressure, and suddenly, you have a lot of services that become much more difficult for gays to purchase.

You are trying to pretend that this is just about one baker who refused to bake one wedding cake. It is not. It is about the attitude of professionals of all stripes, and what we consider appropriate behavior for those professionals. You pay your lip service in support of gay rights, but in every other capacity â€"the ones that matterâ€" you don't.

Yes.  Because we protect EVERYONE's rights, not just the rights of special minorities.  We protect individual rights, not the rights of groups.

That's why we are in favor of gay marriage and also in favor of the baker not having to bake that cake.  Because rights cannot be in conflict.  And in this case they aren't in conflict.  The gays can get married and the baker cannot stop them.  The baker can refuse business, and the gays cannot stop him.

By the way, we really need to settle the distinction here on baker/bakery.  It is a distinction I made with surgeon/hospital, and had that distinction refused.

The boss sets the rules in a business.  (No silly rebuttals about the boss ordering the employee to rob a bank.)  If the boss says "bake a cake for that gay couple" then the baker bakes the cake for the gay couple.  If the boss says "don't bake a cake for that gay couple" then the baker doesn't bake the cake for the gay couple.  It isn't up to the baker in that instance.  When I say "the baker is still a person even after he enters the bakery" I am assuming for the sake of convenience that the baker is the owner of the bakery.

That's why I corrected the surgeon in the hospital example with two options - the hospital owner telling the surgeon to not operate, or the surgeon not getting hired in the first place for bigotry.  Both options were refused.  That's why I think most arguments about moralizing pharmacists are silly, because unless the pharmacist is also the pharmacy owner the pharmacist dispenses any drugs that his employment contract dictates.

If we're going to talk about baker/bakery, then for the sake of simplicity I have to assume that the bakery is the sole proprietorship of the baker.  In that case it does come back to the individual of the baker, not the "but the bakery is a business" but that the baker is a person.  In spite of the baker owning the bakery, the baker is still a person.

I don't say "this group has rights, this group doesn't".  That's your argument, not mine.  And I certainly don't say "you lose your rights because you opened a business."  The argument "but they're professionals" carries no water with me, because they're still individuals first and foremost, first and last and everything in between.  They are individuals who are professionals, they are individuals.

I like it when the hammer of justice falls on the heads of bigots.

I agree that the hammer of law has fallen on him.

Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 05, 2014, 03:12:23 PM
If we're going to talk about baker/bakery, then for the sake of simplicity I have to assume that the bakery is the sole proprietorship of the baker.  In that case it does come back to the individual of the baker, not the "but the bakery is a business" but that the baker is a person.  In spite of the baker owning the bakery, the baker is still a person.

A business owner IS his business when it comes to the law, therefore the owner is responsible for his business (that is, himself) to comply to the law.

QuoteI don't say "this group has rights, this group doesn't".  That's your argument, not mine.  And I certainly don't say "you lose your rights because you opened a business."  The argument "but they're professionals" carries no water with me, because they're still individuals first and foremost, first and last and everything in between.  They are individuals who are professionals, they are individuals.

The point is that the gay couple sued the bakery (a business).  Acting on his beliefs, the business owner made his business infringe the law and the business has been punished according to the law. Simple as that.

Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 05, 2014, 03:12:23 PM
Yes.  Because we protect EVERYONE's rights, not just the rights of special minorities.  We protect individual rights, not the rights of groups.

You realize each and every one of those groups and special minorities is made up of individual people right... you know, the people whose rights had been individually violated by the bakery?

I put the right of the individual gay guy being treated as if he were a worthwhile human being deserving of respect as any other person to walk in that door over the "right" of the owner for being a bigot any day of the week.

Dumbass.

Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 05, 2014, 03:12:23 PM
Yes.  Because we protect EVERYONE's rights, not just the rights of special minorities.  We protect individual rights, not the rights of groups.

That's why we are in favor of gay marriage and also in favor of the baker not having to bake that cake.  Because rights cannot be in conflict.  And in this case they aren't in conflict.  The gays can get married and the baker cannot stop them.  The baker can refuse business, and the gays cannot stop him.

By the way, we really need to settle the distinction here on baker/bakery.  It is a distinction I made with surgeon/hospital, and had that distinction refused.

The boss sets the rules in a business.  (No silly rebuttals about the boss ordering the employee to rob a bank.)  If the boss says "bake a cake for that gay couple" then the baker bakes the cake for the gay couple.  If the boss says "don't bake a cake for that gay couple" then the baker doesn't bake the cake for the gay couple.  It isn't up to the baker in that instance.  When I say "the baker is still a person even after he enters the bakery" I am assuming for the sake of convenience that the baker is the owner of the bakery.

That's why I corrected the surgeon in the hospital example with two options - the hospital owner telling the surgeon to not operate, or the surgeon not getting hired in the first place for bigotry.  Both options were refused.  That's why I think most arguments about moralizing pharmacists are silly, because unless the pharmacist is also the pharmacy owner the pharmacist dispenses any drugs that his employment contract dictates.

If we're going to talk about baker/bakery, then for the sake of simplicity I have to assume that the bakery is the sole proprietorship of the baker.  In that case it does come back to the individual of the baker, not the "but the bakery is a business" but that the baker is a person.  In spite of the baker owning the bakery, the baker is still a person.

I don't say "this group has rights, this group doesn't".  That's your argument, not mine.  And I certainly don't say "you lose your rights because you opened a business."  The argument "but they're professionals" carries no water with me, because they're still individuals first and foremost, first and last and everything in between.  They are individuals who are professionals, they are individuals.

So, by this thinking, Mark Zuckerberg has the right to prevent you from having a Facebook account because you are atheist. Teachers at your children's school have the right to refuse to teach your children because you are atheist. Your local internet service provider can refuse to offer you service because you are atheist. Amazon doesn't have to sell you merchandise because you are atheist. Keep in mind that corporations can be considered individuals in the United States and, just like the baker, if a corporation is designated as Christian it conceivably has the right to exercise it's conscience and operate with Christian values, including not serving people who moderate websites that disparage their beliefs.

Does the business owners right to discriminate also include employment? Should business owners and corporations be able to refuse to hire people based on their religion, race, gender, sexual orientation or political affiliation? As a business owner can I fire the employees that campaign for political candidates that don't support the interests of my business? As an individual business owner, or a corporation that is considered an individual, I should be able to hire and fire whomever I please for whatever reason I like, right?

Misandry

Quote from: drunkenshoe on June 06, 2014, 07:15:05 AM
Oh really?

(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/002/105/yarly.jpg_thumb.jpg)

Their business operates in the nation that its government established, maintains, and defends.
Their business depends in large part on public roads, parking, sidewalks, and water projects.
Their business increases its sales because consumers are confident that mandatory public health inspections improve food safety.
Their business requires ingredients and fuel sourced distributed through public infrastructure and regulated for safety.

No, no... We're a PRIVATE business.  The government has no interest in telling us who we can and can't serve.

That's cool.  Go to a place the government didn't establish the nation or defend it.  Go to a place the government doesn't improve your profits by boosting consumer confidence in food safety.  Go off grid, conquer and defend your natural resources and value chain, and you don't have to do what the government tells you to do.

This is nothing more than the typical hypocrisy of taking the benefits of government while picking and choosing the obligations as a citizen.

Quote from: aileron on June 06, 2014, 08:04:54 AM
Their business operates in the nation that its government established, maintains, and defends.
Their business depends in large part on public roads, parking, sidewalks, and water projects.
Their business increases its sales because consumers are confident that mandatory public health inspections improve food safety.
Their business requires ingredients and fuel sourced distributed through public infrastructure and regulated for safety.

No, no... We're a PRIVATE business.  The government has no interest in telling us who we can and can't serve.

That's cool.  Go to a place the government didn't establish the nation or defend it.  Go to a place the government doesn't improve your profits by boosting consumer confidence in food safety.  Go off grid, conquer and defend your natural resources and value chain, and you don't have to do what the government tells you to do.

This is nothing more than the typical hypocrisy of taking the benefits of government while picking and choosing the obligations as a citizen.

Being the son of a lesbian, I fully understand and respect the anti-discrimination laws. My issue is one of legal precedent. For instance, in my businesses there is a strict no religion rule. I don't give a damn what religion you are, on my property it don't get talked about. Now then because some people in this country think that suing people is the answer to all of lives problems, how much should I worry that eventually some religious nut is going to get bent out of shape and sue me. And because of the legal precedent set by this case if his lawyer argues better than mine does in the deep south(where I live) should I have to worry that I may catch a religious nutter judge who then tries to force me to allow religious crap in my gym? One of the most important things I have learned in my life is that the courts system isn't about right and wrong, its about who argues better.

This had to go to the courts, and they had to lose. If not, the problem of their bigotry would never be resolved, and they would go on feeling high and mighty in their religious justification for not serving gays. Now that there is a verdict, we have precedence, with precedence (provided it stands on appeal)it is less likely that it will be an issue again. Precedence can stave off future bigotry of this nature for fear of losing in court. If this bakery goes out of business soon, their tombstone of a shop front could serve as a further deterrent.

Quote from: Moralnihilist on June 06, 2014, 08:36:14 AM
Being the son of a lesbian, I fully understand and respect the anti-discrimination laws. My issue is one of legal precedent. For instance, in my businesses there is a strict no religion rule. I don't give a damn what religion you are, on my property it don't get talked about. Now then because some people in this country think that suing people is the answer to all of lives problems, how much should I worry that eventually some religious nut is going to get bent out of shape and sue me. And because of the legal precedent set by this case if his lawyer argues better than mine does in the deep south(where I live) should I have to worry that I may catch a religious nutter judge who then tries to force me to allow religious crap in my gym? One of the most important things I have learned in my life is that the courts system isn't about right and wrong, its about who argues better.

But the point is, you're not refusing your service to religious people, therefore this case couldn't serve as a precedent in case some nutjob would sue you. The law is about providing service regardless of customer's sex, sexual orientation, religion, etc., therefore you're in the clear, the bakery was not.

By the way, a point that hasn't been mentioned is that the bakery in question had a history of refusing to bake wedding cakes for gay couples, as for the admission of the baker himself (at least, according to the link in the OP). A court case was long overdue.

Quote from: hrdlr110 on June 06, 2014, 08:46:53 AM
This had to go to the courts, and they had to lose. If not, the problem of their bigotry would never be resolved, and they would go on feeling high and mighty in their religious justification for not serving gays. Now that there is a verdict, we have precedence, with precedence (provided it stands on appeal)it is less likely that it will be an issue again. Precedence can stave off future bigotry of this nature for fear of losing in court. If this bakery goes out of business soon, their tombstone of a shop front could serve as a further deterrent.

There's probably lots of aspects of gay marriage yet to be tested in courts.  Both sides will attempt to get clarification on different points or try to gain an advantage with a subtly different aspect or twist in a case they present.  It seems like gay marriage issue is well on it's way to being settled, but it's probably not.  I anticipate lots of cases yet going to court.  My guess is that eventually gay marriage in the US will be decided by the US Supreme Court, and will be guaranteed by the Federal government.

And I agree, it needs to go to the courts for clarification.  Otherwise, the status quo continues by inertia.  Of course, some people would prefer that.  There is a certain comfort in inertia, but it has little to do with reasoned discussion and certainly nothing to do with fairness.  It's just a way of maintaining something for no other reason than to perpetuate it.  It's what kept slavery alive for so long.

Quote from: Moralnihilist on June 06, 2014, 08:36:14 AM
Being the son of a lesbian, I fully understand and respect the anti-discrimination laws. My issue is one of legal precedent. For instance, in my businesses there is a strict no religion rule. I don't give a damn what religion you are, on my property it don't get talked about. Now then because some people in this country think that suing people is the answer to all of lives problems, how much should I worry that eventually some religious nut is going to get bent out of shape and sue me. And because of the legal precedent set by this case if his lawyer argues better than mine does in the deep south(where I live) should I have to worry that I may catch a religious nutter judge who then tries to force me to allow religious crap in my gym? One of the most important things I have learned in my life is that the courts system isn't about right and wrong, its about who argues better.

IIRC, you own a gym, right?

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the standard that would apply here is "reasonable accommodation."  For example, if your no religion rule means someone can't plop down a soapbox to stand on and shout at the members to repent as they're working out, then you're fine.  You could also enforce rules to prevent members from handing out flyers, accosting other members for religious outreach, etc.

Where such a policy would no longer be a reasonable accommodation is if you have a Muslim customer who works out for several hours a day and needs to pray five times a day.  You could certainly ask him to be reasonable, as in the reasonable accommodation standard, by asking him to go to a private room for that purpose.  Also the rule couldn't go as far as asking to remove religious jewelry, not read from the bible if they're not asking others to join in, etc.  The key word for these kinds of private business rules is reasonable.

Quote from: aileron on June 06, 2014, 09:56:43 AM
IIRC, you own a gym, right?

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the standard that would apply here is "reasonable accommodation."  For example, if your no religion rule means someone can't plop down a soapbox to stand on and shout at the members to repent as they're working out, then you're fine.  You could also enforce rules to prevent members from handing out flyers, accosting other members for religious outreach, etc.

Where such a policy would no longer be a reasonable accommodation is if you have a Muslim customer who works out for several hours a day and needs to pray five times a day.  You could certainly ask him to be reasonable, as in the reasonable accommodation standard, by asking him to go to a private room for that purpose.  Also the rule couldn't go as far as asking to remove religious jewelry, not read from the bible if they're not asking others to join in, etc.  The key word for these kinds of private business rules is reasonable.

I don't accommodate any religion. Jewelry is against the rules because it can break or be harmful. Muslims praying, not in my gym. No religion is allowed anything in my gyms. I tell all those who want to join up that mine is a house of combat not a house of worship. I am quite equal in the fact that no religion is allowed therefore, in my mind, there is no discrimination.

Yes them losing the lawsuit IS FAIR. We are not a theocracy. They have no right to discriminate against gays PERIOD. Religious Christians in the past used their bible as an excuse to keep blacks out of their businesses and or using separate water fountains or bathrooms. Religious Christians also read their bibles and used them as excuses to prevent women from voting.

Equal protection under the law is not silencing them. No one is telling them to shut their business down, merely saying you cant discriminate whom you serve. They are merely being fucking bigoted crybabies.

Quote from: Brian37 on June 07, 2014, 11:42:47 AM
They are merely being fucking bigoted crybabies.

^ This!

I think what our Libertarian friend doesn't get here is that the government IS not forcing them to shut down, but merely saying you cannot deny services to someone based on that issue. No different than we no longer force blacks to use separate bathrooms.

These same idiots denying a wedding cake to gays would not like a gay owner denying a cake to a straight couple. And yes it would be even more absurd with ER doctors. Would these same bigoted assholes like an atheist doctor saying "Nope, I don't help theists".

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 05, 2014, 06:18:00 PMYou realize each and every one of those groups and special minorities is made up of individual people right... you know, the people whose rights had been individually violated by the bakery?

I put the right of the individual gay guy being treated as if he were a worthwhile human being deserving of respect as any other person to walk in that door over the "right" of the owner for being a bigot any day of the week.

Dumbass.

When I defend the individual rights of those seeking to purchase this cake, which to me includes things like "life", "liberty", "property", "freedom of speech", "freedom of association", etc, I do not see how "freedom to buy a cake" fits in.

I guess your name-calling was self-referential.

Quote from: GSOgymrat on June 05, 2014, 09:08:42 PMSo, by this thinking, Mark Zuckerberg has the right to prevent you from having a Facebook account because you are atheist. Teachers at your children's school have the right to refuse to teach your children because you are atheist. Your local internet service provider can refuse to offer you service because you are atheist. Amazon doesn't have to sell you merchandise because you are atheist. Keep in mind that corporations can be considered individuals in the United States and, just like the baker, if a corporation is designated as Christian it conceivably has the right to exercise it's conscience and operate with Christian values, including not serving people who moderate websites that disparage their beliefs.

One of those is not like the others.  I'll leave you with the puzzle of trying to figure out which one it is.

Quote from: Brian37 on June 07, 2014, 01:20:00 PMI think what our Libertarian friend doesn't get here is that the government IS not forcing them to shut down, but merely saying you cannot deny services to someone based on that issue.

Which means they must either provide that service or shut down.  What do you think will happen to the baker if he says "I am going to continue to not provide that service"?

Quote from: Brian37 on June 07, 2014, 01:20:00 PMNo different than we no longer force blacks to use separate bathrooms.

You mean the Jim Crow LAWS where businesses were required to discriminate?  That's an interesting point, because the basis of those laws it the same as the basis of those cheering the outcome of this lawsuit - that the government can dictate to businesses who they can and cannot serve.  Jim Crow LAWS are merely the opposite side of your coin.

Quote from: Brian37 on June 07, 2014, 01:20:00 PMThese same idiots denying a wedding cake to gays would not like a gay owner denying a cake to a straight couple.

I'd have no problem with that.

Quote from: Brian37 on June 07, 2014, 11:42:47 AMYes them losing the lawsuit IS FAIR. We are not a theocracy.

Freedom of association can exist outside of a theocracy, and in fact is usually limited in the opposite direction under theocracies.  See the section on Jim Crow above.

Quote from: Brian37 on June 07, 2014, 11:42:47 AMYes them losing the lawsuit IS FAIR. We are not a theocracy. They have no right to discriminate against gays PERIOD. Religious Christians in the past used their bible as an excuse to keep blacks out of their businesses and or using separate water fountains or bathrooms. Religious Christians also read their bibles and used them as excuses to prevent women from voting.

Earlier there was someone who could not tell the difference between "I won't have anything to do with that person" and "I want to assault and attempt to kill that person."  Now we have someone who can't tell the difference between "I won't have anything to do with that person" and "pass a law to forbid ANYONE from having anything to do with that person."

Quote from: Brian37 on June 07, 2014, 11:42:47 AMEqual protection under the law is not silencing them. No one is telling them to shut their business down, merely saying you cant discriminate whom you serve. They are merely being fucking bigoted crybabies.

So if the baker decides to sell wedding cakes, but to not sell them to gays, then nothing will happen to him?  He won't have his business shut down for ignoring the court order?  Ok then, this lawsuit is actually about nothing.

Or, more likely, your argument contains nothing.

Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 05, 2014, 11:03:29 AM
But bakers are people, unless they stop being people the moment they show up for work.

It's called "being professional." It's what people do when they want to run a respectable business.

Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 09, 2014, 01:00:55 AM
When I defend the individual rights of those seeking to purchase this cake, which to me includes things like "life", "liberty", "property", "freedom of speech", "freedom of association", etc, I do not see how "freedom to buy a cake" fits in.

You do know that we have rights not explicitly spelled out in the constitution, right? That pesky ninth ammendment?

I also like it how you're trying to trivialize gay rights to "freedom to buy a cake" instead of "having the right to reasonable service to a business open to the general public."

Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 09, 2014, 01:00:55 AM
I guess your name-calling was self-referential.

Go fuck yourself, jackass.

Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 09, 2014, 01:00:55 AM
One of those is not like the others.  I'll leave you with the puzzle of trying to figure out which one it is.

I see nowhere where your spiel about "supporting gay rights" is anything more than lip service.

See, your mewlings sounds much like the rationale under Jim Crowe segregation laws. Whites didn't want to associate with blacks, and so they created zones within society designed to keep them separate. Separate but equal was the word of the day, and it was up to individual owners to decide whether and how they would accomodate the two races. This is your Liberitarian spiel taken to its logical extreme â€" we can't beat down dem niggers an' keep 'em ignrant and shit, but we certainly don' need ta associate with 'em.

But then, we passed laws doing away with that, because not only were the segregated facilities manifestly not equal, but the segregation itself was a social stigma imposed upon blacks: they were not good enough to associate with whites, even drinking at the same fountains.

But this is just the beginning. Just because the businessowner happens to be a person doesn't mean that he has the full rights of a random person on the street when he acts as a businessperson.

Let me draw you an analogy. If some random citizen walks up to you and tells you to blow up a building, then you are perfectly within your rights to refuse to do it â€" and I would hope that you do. If there is danger threatening, you are perfectly within your rights to flee to safety. Once you become a soldier, you lose those rights. You cannot disobey a lawful order given to you by your superior officer without severe consequences, even if your superior tells you to blow up a building. You cannot flee at the first sign of the enemy without severe consequences, as that's called desertion. Even though every soldier is an individual, their rights are curtailed because they have willingly accepted the role of a soldier.

If you don't want to be subject to military law, then don't join the military.

If some random citizen walks up to you and demands you bake a cake, then you are perfectly within your rights to refuse them on any grounds whatsoever. When you run a bake shop open to the general public, you lose that right. You must obey the rules and regulations regarding businesses, including the civil rights laws. The courts have ruled that denial of certain services are against the law. Even though every businessman is an individual, their rights are curtailed when acting in their capacity as businessmen because they have willingly accepted the role of a businessman.

If you don't want to be subject to business law, then don't start a business.

If your straight, then you can expect reasonable service from any business, and most businesses would not bat an eye to hear that a white man is marrying a black woman and still be at least professional about it. When you are a gay man, you lose that expectation. Now, you can be turned down even though your request is not really out of line with what is possible for the bakery. Even though every gay guy is an individual, their rights are curtailed because they have the role of a gay guy.

If you don't want to be subject to gay discrimination, then don't be gay...

Wait. Oops. One of these things is not like the other. You can stop being a businessman and you can stop being a soldier. The gay guy can't stop being gay.

Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 09, 2014, 01:00:55 AM
Which means they must either provide that service or shut down.  What do you think will happen to the baker if he says "I am going to continue to not provide that service"?

He gets shut down, because he's in contempt of court. You seem to think that he should be able to flout the law and the courts without consequences.

Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 09, 2014, 01:00:55 AM
You mean the Jim Crow LAWS where businesses were required to discriminate?

Racial segregation was also de facto in the north in many places, where there were no such laws. The Civil Rights acts did away with them, too.

I love watching people who have no understanding of sociology try to argue about sociology.

I refuse to serve them, they are black.
I refuse to serve them, they are women.
I refuse to serve them, they are gay.

"The People" had their chance to sort these issues out, like the libertarian dream that the market would fix the problem. History lesson; it didn't, it took the court to fix all these issues.

The right to be protected from discrimination because of your skin, culture and sexuality outweighs the owner's right to operate his business in any means he sees fit. Same reason we don't (didn't?) allow oil companies to build pipes through refuges or (use to) keep businesses from completely scamming and ripping off their clients... the people, at the end of the day, come first.

The needs of society outweigh the needs of the business. If you do not like this, then practice what you preach and stop buying this product; either get enough people to boycott it so it changes (vote in libertarians [good luck]), change companies (governments) or refuse to follow it's rules.

Quote from: the_antithesis on June 02, 2014, 12:33:33 PM
They're stupid, then.

That's not supporting gay marriage.

That's profiting from gay marriage.

If they can't tell the difference, they deserve to lose their business.

This ^

fuck them, if someone asks for a satanist cake they should prepare it, its money and religious beliefs won't put food on the table.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 09, 2014, 08:25:33 PMHe gets shut down, because he's in contempt of court. You seem to think that he should be able to flout the law and the courts without consequences.

So THAT'S how you get around it.  If he is ordered by a court to change his business practice, and he refuses, he isn't shut down because he's still following the old business practice.  He's shut down for disobeying a judge.  The business practice has nothing whatsoever to do with it, and you can salve your conscience by saying he wasn't shut down for his business practice.

Even though he was.

Quote from: Shiranu on June 10, 2014, 12:59:27 AMI refuse to serve them, they are black.
I refuse to serve them, they are women.
I refuse to serve them, they are gay.

"The People" had their chance to sort these issues out, like the libertarian dream that the market would fix the problem. History lesson; it didn't, it took the court to fix all these issues.

Jim Crow was LAW.  It was illegal to defy Jim Crow.  I would like to remind you of that.

And the reason Jim Crow was law is because the market did work.  Those who defied it stole market share and out-competed their competitors, until their competitors made it law to not do so.

And even when working against LAW, the market finds surprising ways to innovate around such laws.  Take the Montgomery Bus Strike.  The reason it lasted so long was because the government prevented it from being resolved.  When the strike began, local taxis started charging bus fare rates to the strikers out of sympathy for the strike.  So the CITY passed a LAW forbidding the practice and made it against the law to charge whatever you wanted for the service you sold to customers who voluntarily sought you out.  So people started ride sharing.  The CITY passed a LAW requiring insurance companies to drop ride sharers.  The market was constantly outwitting the LAW and the LAW was constantly catching up.

Quote from: Shiranu on June 10, 2014, 12:59:27 AMThe right to be protected from discrimination because of your skin, culture and sexuality outweighs the owner's right to operate his business in any means he sees fit. Same reason we don't (didn't?) allow oil companies to build pipes through refuges or (use to) keep businesses from completely scamming and ripping off their clients... the people, at the end of the day, come first.

Again the two don't compare, because people, at the end of the say, come first.  And even assholes are people.

Quote from: Shiranu on June 10, 2014, 12:59:27 AMThe needs of society outweigh the needs of the business. If you do not like this, then practice what you preach and stop buying this product; either get enough people to boycott it so it changes (vote in libertarians [good luck]), change companies (governments) or refuse to follow it's rules.

The holy grail, "society".  Don't forget to imagine angels singing when you say the word.  But what is society if not the people that comprise it, so if you say that society has the right to impose on people you are actually saying "some people have a right to impose on other people."  You think that the person saying "I don't want to do business with you" is imposing a burden on the person he doesn't want to do business with, but he's not.

I agree that government must never discriminate.  But when you say "person X must suppress his own desires for the sake of person Y" you are not a champion of the people, because you are not a champion of the individual.

Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 15, 2014, 02:22:41 AM
So THAT'S how you get around it.  If he is ordered by a court to change his business practice, and he refuses, he isn't shut down because he's still following the old business practice.  He's shut down for disobeying a judge.

Yes, the judge, whose job is to interpret the law as written at the time the dispute occurs.

Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 15, 2014, 02:22:41 AM
The business practice has nothing whatsoever to do with it, and you can salve your conscience by saying he wasn't shut down for his business practice.

Even though he was.

:laugh: I don't feel the need to "salve my conscience" that he would be shut down for his business practice, because his buisiness practice, at the time he caused the dispute with the gay couple, was against the law. The judge says so, as is his job. The business owner has the duty to obey the laws regarding how businesses may be run, just as I have the duty to obey the laws regarding myself as a private citizen.

If I were to protest a law by way of civil disobedience, I'm not going to whine when I'm arrested and put in jail, because that's the price I would pay for my disobedience. If the business owner doesn't like the law, fine, he can say so and even campaign to have it struck down (good luck), but until then, he would be disobeying the law to not serve the gay couple, and accept the consequences of disobeying the law.

Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 15, 2014, 02:22:41 AM
Jim Crow was LAW.  It was illegal to defy Jim Crow.  I would like to remind you of that.

And the reason Jim Crow was law is because the market did work.  Those who defied it stole market share and out-competed their competitors, until their competitors made it law to not do so.

Again, this doesn't explain why segregation was the de facto situation up north in places, even though it wasn't law. Was the market working there?