Discrimination and the New Inclusive America: Bake me a cake or go to Jail!

[JoeMoma]

Here is what is fair, in my opinion. If you are a baker you bake cakes to sell and you sell them to everyone without discrimination. The baker isn't being forced to bake a cake. Not bake cakes, go out of business.

You are buying a cake and know you can buy your cake from any baker. BUT if you want a statement made on that cake, no matter what that statement may be, you do not have the right to force someone to do so.

If you want the cake delivered, then the baker decides, not you, if they are willing to drive the cake to that location. You can not force them to do so.

That would seem simple, but that isn't really what this is about about so simple won't work.

And that's the way it was before these so called cases of discrimination.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Here is what is fair, in my opinion. If you are a baker you bake cakes to sell and you sell them to everyone without discrimination. The baker isn't being forced to bake a cake. Not bake cakes, go out of business.

You are buying a cake and know you can buy your cake from any baker. BUT if you want a statement made on that cake, no matter what that statement may be, you do not have the right to force someone to do so.

If you want the cake delivered, then the baker decides, not you, if they are willing to drive the cake to that location. You can not force them to do so.

Exactly. But liberals won't agree with this fair, tolerant, and rational approach because then they'd be unable to harass/punish religious vendors who objected to hosting or servicing a ceremony that they find offensive.

 

[Freewill]

Here is what is fair, in my opinion. If you are a baker you bake cakes to sell and you sell them to everyone without discrimination. The baker isn't being forced to bake a cake. Not bake cakes, go out of business.

You are buying a cake and know you can buy your cake from any baker. BUT if you want a statement made on that cake, no matter what that statement may be, you do not have the right to force someone to do so.

If you want the cake delivered, then the baker decides, not you, if they are willing to drive the cake to that location. You can not force them to do so.

Exactly. But liberals won't agree with this fair, tolerant, and rational approach because then they'd be unable to harass/punish religious vendors who objected to hosting or servicing a ceremony that they find offensive.

Didja ever wonder why the left seems to get what they want even though it is not usually the popular position? Because truthfully they never stop. They are like the child throwing a tantrum to get what they want but with a child at least eventually it will stop, but not liberals.

My thought on the baker forces no one to do anything but that isn't really something the liberals are interested in. They need to force people to their will or it just ain't fun for them.

 

[Freewill]

Here is what is fair, in my opinion. If you are a baker you bake cakes to sell and you sell them to everyone without discrimination. The baker isn't being forced to bake a cake. Not bake cakes, go out of business.

You are buying a cake and know you can buy your cake from any baker. BUT if you want a statement made on that cake, no matter what that statement may be, you do not have the right to force someone to do so.

If you want the cake delivered, then the baker decides, not you, if they are willing to drive the cake to that location. You can not force them to do so.

That would seem simple, but that isn't really what this is about about so simple won't work.

And that's the way it was before these so called cases of discrimination.

I guess you are right. Seems to me the moving forward and change that the Obamaites crowed about may be something we really don't need.

 

[G.T.]

Emily,

Why is the word "new" in the title?

Business have been unable to discriminate against black customers for quite some fucking time now.

Gays are simply now protected also.

Who should we not protect short of criminals?

 

[Mac1958]

I'd disagree that there has been a great deal of reason, civility and patience, and I think that the proliferation of all these strange attempts at lawmaking are essentially a kneejerk reaction. Those who "disagree" (whatever that might actually mean) with homosexuality are only going to get more and more defensive in this climate.

Can we agree that if someone is forced to provide a service against their will, it's not exactly going to change their mind on that topic? Seems to me it's human nature to want to fight back. It's a new world now, more and more people are accepting homosexuality (or, more to the point, just don't care), and I think it might be time to take another shot at calm conversation.

The debate didn't get so inflamed until your side started to get religious vendors punished and even shut down for not wanting to service gay ceremonies. Not one single case has involved a religious vendor refusing to provide a regular, basic service to gays--all have involved the gay rights bullies punishing religious vendors for the "crime" of not wanting to facilitate a ceremony that they found offensive.

And as for "more and more people" accepting homosexuality, a huge number of those people have been frightened or intimidated into "accepting" homosexuality because they don't want to risk being called "haters," "bigots," etc.

You guys just keep lying and twisting words and avoiding the numerous logical objections to your authoritarian, undemocratic ideology.

If it's "discrimination" for a religious vendor to decline to host/service a gay wedding, then it's also "discrimination" for an Orthodox Jewish baker to refuse to bake a cake that hails Hitler and includes a likeness of him; then it's "discrimination" for a Muslim florist in Europe to refuse to do the flower arrangement at a "commitment ceremony" between a 60-year-old man and a 13-year-old girl who's about to move in with the old pervert; then it's discrimination for a Catholic baker to refuse to bake a cake for local Wiccan group that wants to use the cake in a ceremony to mock Catholicism; then it's "discrimination" for a pro-gay baker in Colorado to refuse to bake a cake that includes Bible verses on marriage and homosexuality (ah, but the "Civil Rights Commission" in Colorado decided that that refusal was okay, even though they had earlier ruled that a Christian baker had committed "discrimination" for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding); etc., etc., etc.

I love this.

I've got a left winger calling me a right winger, and a right winger calling me a left winger.

In the same thread.

Perfect.

This place is a HOOT.

.

Sounds like your views are conflicted.

They just aren't either/or enough for the partisans!

.

 

[Freewill]

In Indiana, a gay person can still be fired from a job or denied a job, simply for being gay.

Please forgive me for doubting you but since we all know what lying scum dimocraps are, can you provide a link to the last person to be fired for being gay in Indiana (or anywhere else).

There are still laws on the books that require a man to walk in front of an automobile at night carrying a gas lamp, too.

I'm smarter than you. Give it up

Yeah that was tough to find.

Marriage Rights Won t Save Gays From Being Fired in Most States - Bloomberg Politics

Yet Indiana and Arkansas already were among the 28 states, primarily in the South and middle of the country, where gays can be denied private-sector jobs or housing purely on the basis of sexual orientation. In 29 states, gays can be refused service in retail stores.

And people that look funny, smell funny, have tattoos or piercings or a billion other things can be denied employment as well. That does not mean that government needs to get involved. Now, if gays were not able to find employment that would be another story altogether – there would be a situation occurring that was holding an entire demographic back but there is no significant barrier for gays becoming employed anywhere.
There are even jobs where gays are PREFERRED. I know – the horror.

You are comparing unrelated things...and in some places appearance has been added to public accommodation and employment laws.

Why are Christians protected by FEDERAL Employment Discrimination and Public Accommodation laws? Can't Christians find employment elsewhere?

How about get rid of the Federal laws protecting Christians before going after local laws protecting gays.

Since it is not just Christians being protected i would think that the first amendment should clue you into your answer.

 

[Freewill]

I'd disagree that there has been a great deal of reason, civility and patience, and I think that the proliferation of all these strange attempts at lawmaking are essentially a kneejerk reaction. Those who "disagree" (whatever that might actually mean) with homosexuality are only going to get more and more defensive in this climate.

Can we agree that if someone is forced to provide a service against their will, it's not exactly going to change their mind on that topic? Seems to me it's human nature to want to fight back. It's a new world now, more and more people are accepting homosexuality (or, more to the point, just don't care), and I think it might be time to take another shot at calm conversation.

The debate didn't get so inflamed until your side started to get religious vendors punished and even shut down for not wanting to service gay ceremonies. Not one single case has involved a religious vendor refusing to provide a regular, basic service to gays--all have involved the gay rights bullies punishing religious vendors for the "crime" of not wanting to facilitate a ceremony that they found offensive.

And as for "more and more people" accepting homosexuality, a huge number of those people have been frightened or intimidated into "accepting" homosexuality because they don't want to risk being called "haters," "bigots," etc.

You guys just keep lying and twisting words and avoiding the numerous logical objections to your authoritarian, undemocratic ideology.

If it's "discrimination" for a religious vendor to decline to host/service a gay wedding, then it's also "discrimination" for an Orthodox Jewish baker to refuse to bake a cake that hails Hitler and includes a likeness of him; then it's "discrimination" for a Muslim florist in Europe to refuse to do the flower arrangement at a "commitment ceremony" between a 60-year-old man and a 13-year-old girl who's about to move in with the old pervert; then it's discrimination for a Catholic baker to refuse to bake a cake for local Wiccan group that wants to use the cake in a ceremony to mock Catholicism; then it's "discrimination" for a pro-gay baker in Colorado to refuse to bake a cake that includes Bible verses on marriage and homosexuality (ah, but the "Civil Rights Commission" in Colorado decided that that refusal was okay, even though they had earlier ruled that a Christian baker had committed "discrimination" for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding); etc., etc., etc.

I love this.

I've got a left winger calling me a right winger, and a right winger calling me a left winger.

In the same thread.

Perfect.

This place is a HOOT.

.

Sounds like your views are conflicted.

They just aren't either/or enough for the partisans!

.

So you admit to not being partisan so some people are right to call you right wing and others left wing? Just depends on their perspective

 

[JoeMoma]

Emily,

Why is the word "new" in the title?

Business have been unable to discriminate against black customers for quite some fucking time now.

Gays are simply now protected also.

Who should we not protect short of criminals?

Do you have any problems with Freewill's post #178?

 

[Mac1958]

I'd disagree that there has been a great deal of reason, civility and patience, and I think that the proliferation of all these strange attempts at lawmaking are essentially a kneejerk reaction. Those who "disagree" (whatever that might actually mean) with homosexuality are only going to get more and more defensive in this climate.

Can we agree that if someone is forced to provide a service against their will, it's not exactly going to change their mind on that topic? Seems to me it's human nature to want to fight back. It's a new world now, more and more people are accepting homosexuality (or, more to the point, just don't care), and I think it might be time to take another shot at calm conversation.

The debate didn't get so inflamed until your side started to get religious vendors punished and even shut down for not wanting to service gay ceremonies. Not one single case has involved a religious vendor refusing to provide a regular, basic service to gays--all have involved the gay rights bullies punishing religious vendors for the "crime" of not wanting to facilitate a ceremony that they found offensive.

And as for "more and more people" accepting homosexuality, a huge number of those people have been frightened or intimidated into "accepting" homosexuality because they don't want to risk being called "haters," "bigots," etc.

You guys just keep lying and twisting words and avoiding the numerous logical objections to your authoritarian, undemocratic ideology.

If it's "discrimination" for a religious vendor to decline to host/service a gay wedding, then it's also "discrimination" for an Orthodox Jewish baker to refuse to bake a cake that hails Hitler and includes a likeness of him; then it's "discrimination" for a Muslim florist in Europe to refuse to do the flower arrangement at a "commitment ceremony" between a 60-year-old man and a 13-year-old girl who's about to move in with the old pervert; then it's discrimination for a Catholic baker to refuse to bake a cake for local Wiccan group that wants to use the cake in a ceremony to mock Catholicism; then it's "discrimination" for a pro-gay baker in Colorado to refuse to bake a cake that includes Bible verses on marriage and homosexuality (ah, but the "Civil Rights Commission" in Colorado decided that that refusal was okay, even though they had earlier ruled that a Christian baker had committed "discrimination" for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding); etc., etc., etc.

I love this.

I've got a left winger calling me a right winger, and a right winger calling me a left winger.

In the same thread.

Perfect.

This place is a HOOT.

.

Sounds like your views are conflicted.

They just aren't either/or enough for the partisans!

.

So you admit to not being partisan so some people are right to call you right wing and others left wing? Just depends on their perspective

Partisans are much more likely to make simplistic assumptions, assuming they know your ideology based on one issue.



.

 

[G.T.]

Emily,

Why is the word "new" in the title?

Business have been unable to discriminate against black customers for quite some fucking time now.

Gays are simply now protected also.

Who should we not protect short of criminals?

Do you have any problems with Freewill's post #178?

Depends joe, my buddy


Quote it. My phone doesnt have the post numbers for some reason

 

[JFK_USA]

.

A reasonable person would not force another to to provide a service that is clearly against their will.

No doubt doing so provides some perverse pleasure for some, but it really isn't necessary.

.

So if a business says "I won't serve black people" , that should be okay.

I love this "Let the free market decide" yet these crazy conservatives donate their money to bigoted businesses to keep them in business to promote their treatment of a group of people as second class citizens.

You think if we didn't force racist businesses to serve black people, you think we would have been in the same position with race as we are today? Absolutely not.

People deserve equality in the land of the free. Period. 50 years from now, this will be a very disgraceful period as we will look back as a human race and see we used religion to deny equal rights under the law to a group of people for being who they are.

 

[G.T.]

The debate didn't get so inflamed until your side started to get religious vendors punished and even shut down for not wanting to service gay ceremonies. Not one single case has involved a religious vendor refusing to provide a regular, basic service to gays--all have involved the gay rights bullies punishing religious vendors for the "crime" of not wanting to facilitate a ceremony that they found offensive.

And as for "more and more people" accepting homosexuality, a huge number of those people have been frightened or intimidated into "accepting" homosexuality because they don't want to risk being called "haters," "bigots," etc.

You guys just keep lying and twisting words and avoiding the numerous logical objections to your authoritarian, undemocratic ideology.

If it's "discrimination" for a religious vendor to decline to host/service a gay wedding, then it's also "discrimination" for an Orthodox Jewish baker to refuse to bake a cake that hails Hitler and includes a likeness of him; then it's "discrimination" for a Muslim florist in Europe to refuse to do the flower arrangement at a "commitment ceremony" between a 60-year-old man and a 13-year-old girl who's about to move in with the old pervert; then it's discrimination for a Catholic baker to refuse to bake a cake for local Wiccan group that wants to use the cake in a ceremony to mock Catholicism; then it's "discrimination" for a pro-gay baker in Colorado to refuse to bake a cake that includes Bible verses on marriage and homosexuality (ah, but the "Civil Rights Commission" in Colorado decided that that refusal was okay, even though they had earlier ruled that a Christian baker had committed "discrimination" for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding); etc., etc., etc.

I love this.

I've got a left winger calling me a right winger, and a right winger calling me a left winger.

In the same thread.

Perfect.

This place is a HOOT.

.

Sounds like your views are conflicted.

They just aren't either/or enough for the partisans!

.

So you admit to not being partisan so some people are right to call you right wing and others left wing? Just depends on their perspective

Partisans are much more likely to make simplistic assumptions, assuming they know your ideology based on one issue.



.

Lets start over Mac.

 

[Mac1958]

.

A reasonable person would not force another to to provide a service that is clearly against their will.

No doubt doing so provides some perverse pleasure for some, but it really isn't necessary.

.

So if a business says "I won't serve black people" , that should be okay.

Yes.

Then word will get around faster than shit through a goose, we can all choose not to financially support the bigot, and his business will go where it belongs, into the shitter.

I want to know who the bigots are, where they are, what they are thinking, and who agrees with them.

Not sure why this needs to be so complicated to so many.

.

 

[JoeMoma]

G.T. Do you have any problem with this?

Here is what is fair, in my opinion. If you are a baker you bake cakes to sell and you sell them to everyone without discrimination. The baker isn't being forced to bake a cake. Not bake cakes, go out of business.

You are buying a cake and know you can buy your cake from any baker. BUT if you want a statement made on that cake, no matter what that statement may be, you do not have the right to force someone to do so.

If you want the cake delivered, then the baker decides, not you, if they are willing to drive the cake to that location. You can not force them to do so.

That would seem simple, but that isn't really what this is about about so simple won't work.

 

[depotoo]

Very well said!

If you are a business open to the PUBLIC, you are a PUBLIC business, not a private business.

And this attempt to blame Government for Jim Crow?

Why do you idiots always act as if 'government' is some force that has nothing to do with the People? The government portion of the South's segregationist policie were there because the Southern PEOPLE kept electing representatives that kept it there.

And don't forget, it was GOVERNMENT that ended segregation in the South. The big central federal government.

1. Racial segregation is one thing. But spiritual beliefs are another.
Beliefs about homosexuality and same sex marriage are spiritual and FAITH-based
and not the same as race which is genetically determined to be by birth.

With homosexuality, this is not proven: there are cases both ways, neither being proven, where SOME people experience this as not a choice but inherent, others have changed orientation or gender, and not everyone agrees spiritually, so BELIEFS or values on this cannot be forced either way, especially NOT by GOVT! [Ex: if you look at how Obama changed his mind on gay marriage, he was convinced and chose by his own free will to change his mind -- GOVT DID NOT FORCE HIM TO BY LAW. So why can't Obama and other pro-gay marriage advocates respect the same FREEDOM OF CHOICE they had to decide WITHOUT govt mandating it FOR THEM. I explain this all the time to PROLIFE people who CHOOSE to be so WITHOUT the law forcing it. And I ask them to respect the same free will for others to make that choice, not by force, but by changing their understanding freely. Prolife is a faith based belief, not proven scientifically, and so is pro-gay beliefs that is natural that isn't proven either, especially when there are as many cases of people who changed and said it WASN'T natural for them. Neither is proven, so this remains faith-based and a free choice of people to decide on their own, not by force of law or penalty by govt coercing or dictating to people what they should believe!]

After spiritual healing, people HAVE reported changing their gender or orientation;
but never their RACE. So their RACE and their "spiritual orientation or gender" are not the same thing.
If you are going to compare RACE you would go with the INBORN GENDER, not the spiritual gender,
you would go with the PHYSICAL GENDER someone was at birth and that would be the same as RACE.

And this is NOT what the transgender and gay advocates are asking for.
They want their BELIEFS to be implemented into public policy, not just protecting them as other beliefs are by law,
but going TOO FAR and imposing to the point of EXCLUDING and penalizing the equal beliefs of others.

So since there is a conflict between BELIEFS, both should be kept out of public laws and left to the people to work out,
or else separate, similar to religions having separate institutions and practices and not forcing themselves on each other!

Religious groups still have their differences, but they aren't allowed to take their beliefs and make all the public recognize them as protected. They are already included under religious freedom and don't need "special rights" to declare
Buddhism or Hinduism "not to be discriminated against". Buddhists who discriminate and reject Christians get rejected all the time; conflicts are mutual. Do you see Buddhists going over to Christians, forcing themselves on them, and then suing?
No, they stay away because they know they have different beliefs and RESPECT EACH OTHER'S FREE EXERCISE.

2. A 100% PUBLIC business is one owned by government.
These are not owned by government such as public housing that is government owned and run.

By your conditions, are private insurance companies PUBLIC?
So we didn't need to pass any additional legislation, then, if they were already required to accept all people
and not discriminate on the basis of preexisting conditions.
Why weren't insurance companies sued for civil rights violations?
Why did these require added legislation if they were already public?

3. The problem, NYcarbineer, is that the customers are not required by law not to discriminate against businesses.
So it is onesided -- customers who are bigoted against Christians can go harass their businesses,
but if the businesses refuse to do business suddenly they aren't allowed to do that.
Until this is addressed, it can be abused. The laws were seeking to emphasize the equal rights of business owners
NOT TO BE HARASSED OR ABUSED EITHER.

What I suggest is either voluntary or mandatory policy that people with conflicting beliefs
agree NOT TO DO BUSINESS TOGETHER. I would set this up as a mediation waiver,
that businesses can ask customers to sign agreeing to resolve all disputes by consensus, or else not do business with each other. if they don't agree to sign, the business can decline business to anyone who wouldn't mediate by consensus instead of seeking legal action and cost the business and the public those legal expenses.

I have issued a mediation agreement to a friend who kept threatening to sue me, my landlords, and anyone else he could find fault with, even a volunteer with a nonprofit who ran for office claiming a donation was improper, just to harass us to threaten me. So I sent this person a written agreement to resolve all conflicts by mediation and consensus in order to prevent legal action or expenses that I didn't believe in. And either sign this in advance, or not communicate.

So if I can do that, anyone can do that.

Nobody is FORCING you to do business with a vendor of different beliefs.
The only group that FORCES interaction is the government, and the govt is not supposed to discriminate either.

The ACA mandates and these excessive fines on businesses dealing with clients who refused to mediate and resolve conflicts by consensus are discriminatory. Why should the business be penalized when the client failed to resolve conflicts either?

The law is onesided and people should not take advantage of that.
Businesses should more clearly adopt a policy of mediation and consensus to resolve disputes,
and only conduct business with clients who aren't out to instigate a lawsuit, like coming in to create
a "slip and fall" incident in order to sue them. That's been abused in the past, and now this is being abused to entrap people.

Sorry, but it's the Golden Rule that if you want people to respect you and your beliefs, then it's NATURAL LAW to respect other people and their beliefs.

if you have a conflict, then mediate and resolve BOTH SIDES equally by MUTUAL CONSENT.

People who don't respect CONSENT of others tend to get into conflicts, especially with others who don't either!

Why should I have to pay for court costs as a taxpayer because other people couldn't mediate?
I believe in free mediation, free speech/press, the right to petition and due process without obstructions.

If more people practiced conflict resolution by consent of the parties to reach consensus,
we wouldn't have so many lawsuits and billion dollar govt shutdowns over legislative deadlocks.

Until we figure this out, these political problems will continue to deadlock because there are equal beliefs at stake on both sides.

The govt is NOT supposed to impose favor or establish one set of beliefs over others.
The people involved will need to reclaim responsibility for resolving matters of their own beliefs,
OR LEAVE EACH OTHER ALONE.

This is completely immature to keep running to Government like Big Daddy and whine when someone disagrees with you
and doesn't want to play with you. Learn to work it out yourself!!!

 

[G.T.]

.

A reasonable person would not force another to to provide a service that is clearly against their will.

No doubt doing so provides some perverse pleasure for some, but it really isn't necessary.

.

So if a business says "I won't serve black people" , that should be okay.

Yes.

Then word will get around faster than shit through a goose, we can all choose not to financially support the bigot, and his business will go where it belongs, into the shitter.

I want to know who the bigots are, where they are, what they are thinking, and who agrees with them.

Not sure why this needs to be so complicated to so many.

.

So you support that the bigoted shop owners were getting boycotted, and arent too happy with the donations then i take it?

 

[G.T.]

G.T. Do you have any problem with this?

Here is what is fair, in my opinion. If you are a baker you bake cakes to sell and you sell them to everyone without discrimination. The baker isn't being forced to bake a cake. Not bake cakes, go out of business.

You are buying a cake and know you can buy your cake from any baker. BUT if you want a statement made on that cake, no matter what that statement may be, you do not have the right to force someone to do so.

If you want the cake delivered, then the baker decides, not you, if they are willing to drive the cake to that location. You can not force them to do so.

That would seem simple, but that isn't really what this is about about so simple won't work.

No.

If you sell, for instance, "cakes with personalized messages," but you discriminate which messages youll pen based on sex, gender, or race - then you dont belong engaging in public commerce for a profit.

The distance in driving analogy also fails.

If they base turning down delivery on distance, thats their right.

If they based deliver on race, sex.....RELIGION even, they are not within their right because they used discriminatory practices according to commerce law.

 

[JoeMoma]

.

A reasonable person would not force another to to provide a service that is clearly against their will.

No doubt doing so provides some perverse pleasure for some, but it really isn't necessary.

.

So if a business says "I won't serve black people" , that should be okay.

Yes.

Then word will get around faster than shit through a goose, we can all choose not to financially support the bigot, and his business will go where it belongs, into the shitter.

I want to know who the bigots are, where they are, what they are thinking, and who agrees with them.

Not sure why this needs to be so complicated to so many.

.

This is the misinformation that one side keeps peddling, that the business will not serve gays ( compaired to not serving blacks) because one specific request for a custom product or service is denied that the business owner finds objectionable.

 

[JFK_USA]

.

A reasonable person would not force another to to provide a service that is clearly against their will.

No doubt doing so provides some perverse pleasure for some, but it really isn't necessary.

.

So if a business says "I won't serve black people" , that should be okay.

Yes.

Then word will get around faster than shit through a goose, we can all choose not to financially support the bigot, and his business will go where it belongs, into the shitter.

I want to know who the bigots are, where they are, what they are thinking, and who agrees with them.

Not sure why this needs to be so complicated to so many.

.

You're forgetting the fact of how many people go out of their way to support bigotry against gay people just like they did in the 1960s with segregation. Except now, the internet allows people across the world to support bigotry with these businesses. Do you really think Memories pizza made 800K in a year ever? No, but in a week get that for being bigots.

Why would anyone care to change their mind on their own they get rewarded for such behavior? They won't. Its up to the government to enforce the principles of Equal Protection engrained in the Constitution. People just won't do anything to change otherwise.