No Cake for You

[NYcarbineer]

Just out of curiosity, a question for the OP and those who agree with him...

Are there any circumstances where the government should be able to require a business owner to serve certain minorities against his will?

 

[martybegan]

Again, that was systemic government mandated racism, at a point of sale, with no customization or moral background issues. You are trying to compare apples and Volkswagons.

Race and sexual orientation are two different things no matter how much you want them to be the same so you can fuck over people who disagree with you, and worse, you government to do your dirty work.

You do realize that race is not the only protected class in PA laws, right? You can't keep playing the "you gays don't have it as bad as blacks did" card since religion, gender, country of origin are ALL included.

Discrimination is discrimination. Go ahead and get rid of all PA laws, but you gotta start with the Federal ones, not these little local laws. Where is your "states rights" defense? You don't like states rights when the laws protect the gays do you?

These laws protect some people at the expense of punishing others. The end result is not worthy of the use of government to ruin someone.

The whole idea of "Protected Classes" is an abomination, making some people more equal than others to right wrongs, that did happen, yes, but more and more are done out of spite and vitriol.

So you'd rather the gay people be punished by not allowing them to shop at their local bakery.

The use of government force to make people comply with a good or service that is readily available from other sources and is not an economic of life necessity is worse than two people having to find another baker and maybe having their feelings hurt.

In your opinion it is worse. Why do you get to decide which is worse for someone else?

It's called having an opinion skippy.

Please tell me why it is worse to have your feelings hurt depending on who you like to bugger.

 

[martybegan]

Just out of curiosity, a question for the OP and those who agree with him...

Are there any circumstances where the government should be able to require a business owner to serve certain minorities against his will?

I can see it being applied to anything involving economic and life necessities, as well as fungible and non specific goods that require no further action than purchase and pay for. Also interstate commerce could be an area where discrimination is a no go, and of course government services, including contracted out government services.

 

[martybegan]

You know what's really funny? The biggest support for gays and PA laws comes from the black community. I wonder why that is?

Ask the question differently, and you would get a different answer.

How about this way?

"Should a business that refuses to provide a service for a gay marriage ceremony be punished by either fining or revocation of their business license?"

At least this poll is honest enough to show the question up front.

Not really. Failure to pay fines would be the reason the license was revoked, not for refusing to provide a service.

That's a weak bullshit excuse and you know it.

It would be like blaming the bullet for someone's death, and not the person pulling the trigger.

 

[martybegan]

Again, that was systemic government mandated racism, at a point of sale, with no customization or moral background issues. You are trying to compare apples and Volkswagons.

Race and sexual orientation are two different things no matter how much you want them to be the same so you can fuck over people who disagree with you, and worse, you government to do your dirty work.

You do realize that race is not the only protected class in PA laws, right? You can't keep playing the "you gays don't have it as bad as blacks did" card since religion, gender, country of origin are ALL included.

Discrimination is discrimination. Go ahead and get rid of all PA laws, but you gotta start with the Federal ones, not these little local laws. Where is your "states rights" defense? You don't like states rights when the laws protect the gays do you?

These laws protect some people at the expense of punishing others. The end result is not worthy of the use of government to ruin someone.

The whole idea of "Protected Classes" is an abomination, making some people more equal than others to right wrongs, that did happen, yes, but more and more are done out of spite and vitriol.

So you'd rather the gay people be punished by not allowing them to shop at their local bakery.

The use of government force to make people comply with a good or service that is readily available from other sources and is not an economic of life necessity is worse than two people having to find another baker and maybe having their feelings hurt.

Like separate drinking fountains?

PUBLIC drinking fountains, people keep forgetting that it was government enforced segregation. Even if there were separate private drinking fountains, that situation was mandated by local law.

and the main issue with that was separate was NEVER equal.

 

[Carla_Danger]

If your sole purpose is to destroy a business instead of giving them business, then you are taking place in militant activism. You are purposefully targeting someone in order to expose and destroy them because of a difference in beliefs. You have crossed the line from holding a mere opinion to using that opinion to inflict damage on other individuals. I'm sorry, but I don't believe for one moment those two ladies had any intention of buying a cake. The law is clear, but the intent was not commercial. Those two women, in fact, were repeat customers there and knowing full well the beliefs of the proprietor(s). But suddenly out of the blue they ask them to bake a cake for a same sex wedding. To me, that is the definition of "ulterior motive."

Every business owner has their own beliefs, their own convictions, and suddenly they have to sacrifice them just to run a business in compliance with the law, and yes, sacrifices must be made. But here's the catch: that's wrong. There is something woefully wrong. Yes, the law is important, and rules are rules; don't misunderstand me here.

But if you have to sacrifice something sacred to you in order to succeed in business and appease the rule of law, then this is justice run amok. I agree, business is business, and money is money and rightly so; but as someone who admires the law, the law also isn't perfect. There are good laws, and not so well thought out ones. Though, until the law changes, people must obey it. To be succinct, however, obedience should not come at the price of your own morals and convictions.

Call me a homophobe, a bigot, ignorant, stupid, misguided or whatever you like, but that is my observation on this topic. I don't hate gay people, but I don't like the ones who would force other people to accept their lifestyle. I mean, if the act of forcing your religious beliefs on others is wrong, just imagine how they feel when the same is done to them! Behavior like such is only self serving and only widens the chasm between supporters and opposition. It breeds more hatred than understanding. If respect and acceptance is the goal, then one must strive to show it also. The double edged sword sitting next to me would agree.



No Icing on the Cake for Christian Business Owners Who Refused to Bake for Lesbian Couple

Oh Gawd, not this again. So they don't get to use their religion to discriminate.....boo fucking hoo!

Coming from a neo-liberal who cries racism at the drop of a hat, thats hilarious!

This thread isn't about racism, it's about discrimination.

This thread is about the OP once again exhibiting his ignorance of the Constitution and its case law, ignorance common to many on the right.

Whether their ignorance is willful or not only they can say.

They do love a good "martyr" story, however, the bakery broke the law as stated in the ding-dong's OP.

"Consequently, as a “public business,” the bakery cannot discriminate because it is allowed by the state of Oregon to exist through a business permit."

 

[martybegan]

If your sole purpose is to destroy a business instead of giving them business, then you are taking place in militant activism. You are purposefully targeting someone in order to expose and destroy them because of a difference in beliefs. You have crossed the line from holding a mere opinion to using that opinion to inflict damage on other individuals. I'm sorry, but I don't believe for one moment those two ladies had any intention of buying a cake. The law is clear, but the intent was not commercial. Those two women, in fact, were repeat customers there and knowing full well the beliefs of the proprietor(s). But suddenly out of the blue they ask them to bake a cake for a same sex wedding. To me, that is the definition of "ulterior motive."

Every business owner has their own beliefs, their own convictions, and suddenly they have to sacrifice them just to run a business in compliance with the law, and yes, sacrifices must be made. But here's the catch: that's wrong. There is something woefully wrong. Yes, the law is important, and rules are rules; don't misunderstand me here.

But if you have to sacrifice something sacred to you in order to succeed in business and appease the rule of law, then this is justice run amok. I agree, business is business, and money is money and rightly so; but as someone who admires the law, the law also isn't perfect. There are good laws, and not so well thought out ones. Though, until the law changes, people must obey it. To be succinct, however, obedience should not come at the price of your own morals and convictions.

Call me a homophobe, a bigot, ignorant, stupid, misguided or whatever you like, but that is my observation on this topic. I don't hate gay people, but I don't like the ones who would force other people to accept their lifestyle. I mean, if the act of forcing your religious beliefs on others is wrong, just imagine how they feel when the same is done to them! Behavior like such is only self serving and only widens the chasm between supporters and opposition. It breeds more hatred than understanding. If respect and acceptance is the goal, then one must strive to show it also. The double edged sword sitting next to me would agree.



No Icing on the Cake for Christian Business Owners Who Refused to Bake for Lesbian Couple

Oh Gawd, not this again. So they don't get to use their religion to discriminate.....boo fucking hoo!

Coming from a neo-liberal who cries racism at the drop of a hat, thats hilarious!

This thread isn't about racism, it's about discrimination.

This thread is about the OP once again exhibiting his ignorance of the Constitution and its case law, ignorance common to many on the right.

Whether their ignorance is willful or not only they can say.

They do love a good "martyr" story, however, the bakery broke the law as stated in the ding-dong's OP.

"Consequently, as a “public business,” the bakery cannot discriminate because it is allowed by the state of Oregon to exist through a business permit."

Which is still wrong. Nothing like getting your way of fucking people over who disagree with you without getting your own hands dirty.

 

[Katzndogz]

An entirely separate, underground, Christian business network should solve all these problems. There are plenty of businesses that want to do business with gays. Good luck to them.

 

[Ravi]

You do realize that race is not the only protected class in PA laws, right? You can't keep playing the "you gays don't have it as bad as blacks did" card since religion, gender, country of origin are ALL included.

Discrimination is discrimination. Go ahead and get rid of all PA laws, but you gotta start with the Federal ones, not these little local laws. Where is your "states rights" defense? You don't like states rights when the laws protect the gays do you?

These laws protect some people at the expense of punishing others. The end result is not worthy of the use of government to ruin someone.

The whole idea of "Protected Classes" is an abomination, making some people more equal than others to right wrongs, that did happen, yes, but more and more are done out of spite and vitriol.

So you'd rather the gay people be punished by not allowing them to shop at their local bakery.

The use of government force to make people comply with a good or service that is readily available from other sources and is not an economic of life necessity is worse than two people having to find another baker and maybe having their feelings hurt.

In your opinion it is worse. Why do you get to decide which is worse for someone else?

It's called having an opinion skippy.

Please tell me why it is worse to have your feelings hurt depending on who you like to bugger.

Because it's no one's business who you like to bugger. And if you are granted a license to do business, it is your business to do business.

 

[Ravi]

Just out of curiosity, a question for the OP and those who agree with him...

Are there any circumstances where the government should be able to require a business owner to serve certain minorities against his will?

I can see it being applied to anything involving economic and life necessities, as well as fungible and non specific goods that require no further action than purchase and pay for. Also interstate commerce could be an area where discrimination is a no go, and of course government services, including contracted out government services.

But not the pursuit of happiness....

 

[Ravi]

You know what's really funny? The biggest support for gays and PA laws comes from the black community. I wonder why that is?

Ask the question differently, and you would get a different answer.

How about this way?

"Should a business that refuses to provide a service for a gay marriage ceremony be punished by either fining or revocation of their business license?"

At least this poll is honest enough to show the question up front.

Not really. Failure to pay fines would be the reason the license was revoked, not for refusing to provide a service.

That's a weak bullshit excuse and you know it.

It would be like blaming the bullet for someone's death, and not the person pulling the trigger.

On the contrary. Business pay fines all the time for engaging in unlawful practices. They get their licenses revoked if they don't.

 

[Ravi]

You do realize that race is not the only protected class in PA laws, right? You can't keep playing the "you gays don't have it as bad as blacks did" card since religion, gender, country of origin are ALL included.

Discrimination is discrimination. Go ahead and get rid of all PA laws, but you gotta start with the Federal ones, not these little local laws. Where is your "states rights" defense? You don't like states rights when the laws protect the gays do you?

These laws protect some people at the expense of punishing others. The end result is not worthy of the use of government to ruin someone.

The whole idea of "Protected Classes" is an abomination, making some people more equal than others to right wrongs, that did happen, yes, but more and more are done out of spite and vitriol.

So you'd rather the gay people be punished by not allowing them to shop at their local bakery.

The use of government force to make people comply with a good or service that is readily available from other sources and is not an economic of life necessity is worse than two people having to find another baker and maybe having their feelings hurt.

Like separate drinking fountains?

PUBLIC drinking fountains, people keep forgetting that it was government enforced segregation. Even if there were separate private drinking fountains, that situation was mandated by local law.

and the main issue with that was separate was NEVER equal.

Cool so I can have separate drinking fountains at my private business! Who knew?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just out of curiosity, a question for the OP and those who agree with him...

Are there any circumstances where the government should be able to require a business owner to serve certain minorities against his will?

I can see it being applied to anything involving economic and life necessities, as well as fungible and non specific goods that require no further action than purchase and pay for. Also interstate commerce could be an area where discrimination is a no go, and of course government services, including contracted out government services.

So a whites only McDonald's would be okay?

 

[OKTexas]

Actually a business should have the ability to refuse service to anyone for any reason, it's called freedom of association. Of course a business is the most democratic thing in our society, if they mess with enough people they won't stay in business. That's the way it should be done, let the customers decide if they remain in business.

And yet NOBODY is trying to get rid of Public Accommodation laws at the Federal level. No one. Federal law protects race, religion, country of origin, etc from discrimination in public accommodation. Some state laws also protect gays and yet those are the ones the bigots are trying to get rid of, not the Civil Rights Act's section on Public Accommodation. How come? Where's your defense of "states rights"?

I think the individuals right to freedom of association should trump any law, state or federal. Like I said earlier in the thread, the supreme court has already ruled in the Hobby Lobby decision that closely held businesses can not be required to violate their religious beliefs but my opinion goes further, no business owner should be required to do business with anyone they find objectionable. I'll even go a step further and say a business owner should be allowed to determine if they want to abide by the dumb ass smoking bans, who the hell is the government to say what happens inside a private business. Then the customers will vote with their dollars to determine if that business remains in business.

 

[martybegan]

These laws protect some people at the expense of punishing others. The end result is not worthy of the use of government to ruin someone.

The whole idea of "Protected Classes" is an abomination, making some people more equal than others to right wrongs, that did happen, yes, but more and more are done out of spite and vitriol.

So you'd rather the gay people be punished by not allowing them to shop at their local bakery.

The use of government force to make people comply with a good or service that is readily available from other sources and is not an economic of life necessity is worse than two people having to find another baker and maybe having their feelings hurt.

In your opinion it is worse. Why do you get to decide which is worse for someone else?

It's called having an opinion skippy.

Please tell me why it is worse to have your feelings hurt depending on who you like to bugger.

Because it's no one's business who you like to bugger. And if you are granted a license to do business, it is your business to do business.

If it's no ones business why force others to accept it?

So in other words, BAKE THE FUCKING CAKE PEASANT

All you really want to do is punish others who disagree with you. Progressives have never evolved past the point of an annoying toddler who doesn't get their way.

 

[martybegan]

Just out of curiosity, a question for the OP and those who agree with him...

Are there any circumstances where the government should be able to require a business owner to serve certain minorities against his will?

I can see it being applied to anything involving economic and life necessities, as well as fungible and non specific goods that require no further action than purchase and pay for. Also interstate commerce could be an area where discrimination is a no go, and of course government services, including contracted out government services.

So a whites only McDonald's would be okay?

I wouldn't go into one, and it would probably go out of business real quick. Plus McDonald's as a corporation would never allow a franchise to do such a thing.

Nice attempt at a point though.

 

[martybegan]

Just out of curiosity, a question for the OP and those who agree with him...

Are there any circumstances where the government should be able to require a business owner to serve certain minorities against his will?

I can see it being applied to anything involving economic and life necessities, as well as fungible and non specific goods that require no further action than purchase and pay for. Also interstate commerce could be an area where discrimination is a no go, and of course government services, including contracted out government services.

But not the pursuit of happiness....

One's happiness should not come at the expense of others if the government has to use force to get it unless there is a compelling overriding reason. Two gay people having to go to another baker is not a compelling reason. A black or gay family being denied lodging at a travel hotel IS a compelling reason.

 

[martybegan]

An entirely separate, underground, Christian business network should solve all these problems. There are plenty of businesses that want to do business with gays. Good luck to them.

People shouldn't have to go "underground" to do this. Accepting that is giving into the progressive morality police.

 

[martybegan]

You know what's really funny? The biggest support for gays and PA laws comes from the black community. I wonder why that is?

Ask the question differently, and you would get a different answer.

How about this way?

"Should a business that refuses to provide a service for a gay marriage ceremony be punished by either fining or revocation of their business license?"

At least this poll is honest enough to show the question up front.

Not really. Failure to pay fines would be the reason the license was revoked, not for refusing to provide a service.

That's a weak bullshit excuse and you know it.

It would be like blaming the bullet for someone's death, and not the person pulling the trigger.

On the contrary. Business pay fines all the time for engaging in unlawful practices. They get their licenses revoked if they don't.

So not selling a cake to someone is now criminal?

 

[martybegan]

These laws protect some people at the expense of punishing others. The end result is not worthy of the use of government to ruin someone.

The whole idea of "Protected Classes" is an abomination, making some people more equal than others to right wrongs, that did happen, yes, but more and more are done out of spite and vitriol.

So you'd rather the gay people be punished by not allowing them to shop at their local bakery.

The use of government force to make people comply with a good or service that is readily available from other sources and is not an economic of life necessity is worse than two people having to find another baker and maybe having their feelings hurt.

Like separate drinking fountains?

PUBLIC drinking fountains, people keep forgetting that it was government enforced segregation. Even if there were separate private drinking fountains, that situation was mandated by local law.

and the main issue with that was separate was NEVER equal.

Cool so I can have separate drinking fountains at my private business! Who knew?

And you would probably go out of business real quick. The difference is you doing it to yourself, and not government doing it to you.