Christian baker not backing down after Gov't punishes him for refusing to make gay wedding cake

[EvilCat Breath]

Open to the public means you walk in, you will be served. Special order cakes are by contract. The contract is signed by both parties, in the case of the hapless baker, he is not given the same opportunity to accept or reject the contract. It is forced upon him. The state has not only made itself a party to the contract but purports to contract in place of the baker and hold that baker to a contract it never made.

Masterpiece bakery did all they could do, remove their bakery from the available bakeries that will provide wedding cakes. Perhaps for family and close friends the bakery will still bake their cakes.

No one should ever have to bring up religion. I don't want to should be sufficient.

 

[WorldWatcher]

People in business for themselves don't have to work for anybody they don't want to.

Using the force of the government to make them?

Which is why Public Accommodation laws should be repealed. Private business entities should be allowed to refuse service regardless of the reason be it race, religion, sex, age, national origin or sexual orientation.


>>>>

 

[martybegan]

jake doesn't realize that PA does not mean "any time money changes hands", which is how idiots like him want to define it.

The scope of Public Accommodation laws though is defined by the State Legislature and what businesses (typically for profit) to which it applies. That you may not agree with how the Legislature defines Public Accommodation laws does not change the application of the law within the jurisdiction of that State law.


>>>>

Speaking of arguing the how instead of the why....

But to be fair you do it in a more detailed way than Farkey....

Getting hung up on the "law is the law is the law" doesn't cover why we are doing something, and more importantly, why something like a PA law overrides free exercise of religion without any consideration whatsoever.

 

[martybegan]

People in business for themselves don't have to work for anybody they don't want to.

Using the force of the government to make them?

Which is why Public Accommodation laws should be repealed. Private business entities should be allowed to refuse service regardless of the reason be it race, religion, sex, age, national origin or sexual orientation.


>>>>

Or they should just be applied to actual public accommodations and point of sale transactions, not applied to 'every time money changes hands"

 

[WorldWatcher]

Speaking of arguing the how instead of the why....

But to be fair you do it in a more detailed way than Farkey....

Getting hung up on the "law is the law is the law" doesn't cover why we are doing something, and more importantly, why something like a PA law overrides free exercise of religion without any consideration whatsoever.

Public Accommodation laws are Constitutional, they have been challenged many times and have withstood all challenges since they are laws of general applicability and do not target specific religious practices.

 

[Marion Morrison]

People in business for themselves don't have to work for anybody they don't want to.

Using the force of the government to make them?

Which is why Public Accommodation laws should be repealed. Private business entities should be allowed to refuse service regardless of the reason be it race, religion, sex, age, national origin or sexual orientation.


>>>>

Idk, that's sounds a lot like Jim Crow to me.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Open to the public means you walk in, you will be served. Special order cakes are by contract. The contract is signed by both parties, in the case of the hapless baker, he is not given the same opportunity to accept or reject the contract. It is forced upon him. The state has not only made itself a party to the contract but purports to contract in place of the baker and hold that baker to a contract it never made.

Masterpiece bakery did all they could do, remove their bakery from the available bakeries that will provide wedding cakes. Perhaps for family and close friends the bakery will still bake their cakes.

No one should ever have to bring up religion. I don't want to should be sufficient.

Businesses that do public business are regulated by government: fact. If PA laws are in effect, you obey them or else: fact.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Or they should just be applied to actual public accommodations and point of sale transactions, not applied to 'every time money changes hands"

"Actual Public Accommodations" are defined in the law and not by your personal opinion of what they should be. The fact is that Public Accommodations apply to the full range of goods and services that an entity offers and not it's not "every time money changes hands". The only place that exists is in your hyperbole. There are many financial transactions not covered under PA laws.


>>>>

 

[martybegan]

Speaking of arguing the how instead of the why....

But to be fair you do it in a more detailed way than Farkey....

Getting hung up on the "law is the law is the law" doesn't cover why we are doing something, and more importantly, why something like a PA law overrides free exercise of religion without any consideration whatsoever.

Public Accommodation laws are Constitutional, they have been challenged many times and have withstood all challenges since they are laws of general applicability and do not target specific religious practices.

Separate but equal survived plenty of challenges, until it didn't.

 

[martybegan]

Or they should just be applied to actual public accommodations and point of sale transactions, not applied to 'every time money changes hands"

"Actual Public Accommodations" are defined in the law and not by your personal opinion of what they should be. The fact is that Public Accommodations apply to the full range of goods and services that an entity offers and not it's not "every time money changes hands". The only place that exists is in your hyperbole. There are many financial transactions not covered under PA laws.


>>>>

Are you autistic or something?

Seriously.

More how and not why.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Idk, that's sounds a lot like Jim Crow to me.

Not Jim Crow like at all. Jim Crow were a body of laws that actually required business to discriminate based on race.

Repeal of Public Accommodation laws simply respects the rights of property and association of the business owner. They are not required to discrimination (like Jim Crow laws) but are free to accept or reject and offer of commerce based on whatever criteria they choose to use.


Very different concept.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Are you autistic or something?

Seriously.

More how and not why.

Nope, simply pointing out reality vs. you preferred opinion.

Reality is how things are.

Opinion is how you want them to be.


>>>>

 

[martybegan]

Are you autistic or something?

Seriously.

More how and not why.

Nope, simply pointing out reality vs. you preferred opinion.

Reality is how things are.

Opinion is how you want them to be.


>>>>

This is a message board, hence the opinions.

And we are not arguing about how things are, we are arguing about how things should be. But people like you just like to run to the law is the law is the law is the law like some automaton.

 

[Iceweasel]

If he is a public baker he needs to bake that cake. We can't be prejudice on who we wait on or serve when our door is open to the public.

Liberals live in a fog. There's no such thing as a public baker. Open to the public doesn't not mean publicly owned.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Public accommodation laws don't need to be repealed. Just put back in their proper context. You walk in, you get served with whatever is available. Public accommodation laws should never extend into forcing people into private contracts.

We have an increasingly totalitarian government that is using the power of the courts to leverage social engineering.

 

[Nosmo King]

Not all Christians follow the correct ways. Many have been brainwashed by the wrong bs................whole other issues that isn't worth getting into .

You're right. Not all Christians believe it's right to discriminate. Thank the Lord!

So which Christians should have the final say in our secular government? The Amish? They certainly are pious, but should they be calling the shots? The Roan Catholics? They claim to be members of the church sanctioned by St. Peter. The Baptists who eschew dancing?

Or none of the above?

I have been a Christian for 60 years and never has my minister ever admonished the congregation to avoid commerce with homosexuals. Where did this hatful dogma come from? Are these 'Christian' bakers just twisting a beautiful loving and forgiving faith to serve a vile purpose? And seeking legal cover for their vile purpose, aren't they twisting an open and inclusive set of laws?

 

[Iceweasel]

The fact is PA laws have been expanded in various locals to include things like sexual orientation. If that was a constitutional protection we would need no such laws. They are ideologically driven laws and infringe on the rights of the business owners.

 

[Iceweasel]

I have been a Christian for 60 years and never has my minister ever admonished the congregation to avoid commerce with homosexuals. Where did this hatful dogma come from? Are these 'Christian' bakers just twisting a beautiful loving and forgiving faith to serve a vile purpose? And seeking legal cover for their vile purpose, aren't they twisting an open and inclusive set of laws?

You can't label hate for others, that in itself is hateful. Nobody says it's hateful but leftists. Your congregation is not god, it's filled with flawed humans.

Christians, oddly enough, get the idea from the bible. It labels certain things as sinful so forcing a Christian to accommodate a sinful relationship is wrongheaded and a disgrace to our system of justice. Leftists are trying to destroy individual freedoms every where they can.

 

[Nosmo King]

If he is a public baker he needs to bake that cake. We can't be prejudice on who we wait on or serve when our door is open to the public.

Liberals live in a fog. There's no such thing as a public baker. Open to the public doesn't not mean publicly owned.

By that reasoning a public hotel can discriminate against an African America due to his complexion. A public restaurant can discriminate against a Latino American due to his heritage.

Complexion, heritage and sexual orientation. All immutable traits and all equally protected under the law.

 

[Iceweasel]

If he is a public baker he needs to bake that cake. We can't be prejudice on who we wait on or serve when our door is open to the public.

Liberals live in a fog. There's no such thing as a public baker. Open to the public doesn't not mean publicly owned.

By that reasoning a public hotel can discriminate against an African America due to his complexion. A public restaurant can discriminate against a Latino American due to his heritage.

Complexion, heritage and sexual orientation. All immutable traits and all equally protected under the law.

When did race become a sexual orientation or visa versa? I think they should be allowed to discriminate based on race, height or anything else. If a black bar owner doesn't want to serve a white man I think it should be his right. BUT that has nothing to do with sex.