OK Liberals ...

[Samson]

F'ing right wingers and their fear.





.

Fucking Draconian Queer Agenda!!!

We are all out to get you, the poor white male.

The honesty is appreciated, but unnecessary.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I posted this in the Dear Abby is a Bigot thread, but thought it was a topic unto itself.

I'm a supporter of gay rights and gay marriage, and I thought the AZ law that Gov Brewer vetoed was bad law. But I'd like the liberals to answer this question.

First, let's all agree that the law in AZ was a bad one, and no one should be able to discriminate against gay people because they're gay.

However, do we apply the same principles to the vegan as we do the Christian? If a vegan refuses to interact with meat-eaters, are they as morally culpable as Christians who refuse to interact with gay people? In this case, is the vegan who refuses to bake a cake for the meat-eaters' wedding as morally reprehensible as the Christian who refuses to base a cake for the gay wedding?

Why or why not?

Because the issue doesn’t have anything to do with ‘liberals’ or being ‘morally reprehensible,’ it has to do with what constitutes a standard business practice for any given business, and the appropriateness of public accommodations laws.

If a vegan restaurant serves only food absent meat, and a potential patron requestes food with meat, then the vegan refusing to sell such a product to a ‘meat eater’ has not violated any public accommodations law because selling food with meat is not part of the vegan’s standard business practice; the vegan is not ‘refusing’ to accommodate a given patron because he’s a ‘meat eater,’ but because the vegan has no such product to sell.

For a business owner who sells wedding cakes to the general public, however, where selling wedding cakes is part of the baker’s standard business practice, to refuse to sell that same product to a gay couple does constitute a violation of a public accommodations law, assuming such a law exists in that jurisdiction. In this case the business owner is refusing to sell a product to a potential patron because of who he is, where he’s otherwise perfectly capable of accommodating that patron.

Consequently, carving out a ‘religious exemption’ to a public accommodations law undermines the very purpose of the law: to safeguard the local market and all interrelated markets (Gonzales v. Raich (2005)).

Moreover, a law requiring a business owner to accommodate gay patrons, even if that business owner claims a ‘religious objection,’ does not violate the business owner’s religious liberty because the primary focus of the law is to safeguard the local market, not disadvantage religious expression (Employment Division v. Smith (1990)).

 

[Silhouette]

I posted this in the Dear Abby is a Bigot thread, but thought it was a topic unto itself.

I'm a supporter of gay rights and gay marriage, and I thought the AZ law that Gov Brewer vetoed was bad law. But I'd like the liberals to answer this question.

First, let's all agree that the law in AZ was a bad one, and no one should be able to discriminate against gay people because they're gay.

However, do we apply the same principles to the vegan as we do the Christian? If a vegan refuses to interact with meat-eaters, are they as morally culpable as Christians who refuse to interact with gay people? In this case, is the vegan who refuses to bake a cake for the meat-eaters' wedding as morally reprehensible as the Christian who refuses to base a cake for the gay wedding?

Why or why not?

I brought up a similar topic awhile back asking if a muslim cake baker should be required to bake a gay wedding cake.

Let me tell you, not one gay activist suggested they should have to bake that cake. There were strawmen all over the place on that thread. You could've made a hundred bales of hay out of them.

Likewise I've asked the question if a christian cake baker should be required to make a cake depicting Lucifer for a satanist wedding. Same thing. Avoidance, tangents, you name it. Anything but talk about THAT..lol..

According to Jude 1 and Romans 1 of the Bible, christians are absolutely and strictly forbidden under warning of the worst punishment possible [eternity in the pit of fire] for enabling a homosexual takeover of cultural values.

They literally are right between a rock and a hard place on this one. To force them to make gay wedding cakes is to literally force them to abandon being a praciticing christian. Which of course is forbidden by the 1st Amendment. I do not envy the 9 Justices when this arrives at their Bench.. It should be an easy decision but you know how Justices are these days with impartiality as to preserving core religious values: ["catholic" Justice Sotomayor doing the can-can in Times Square on worldwide media just after Miley Cyrus did the opening act]. If I had to pick just one photo to depict the dissolving of our Constitution and the devolving of the impartial judicial system, this would be etched in a relief in bronze right at the entryway to "The Museum of The Fall of America"...

 

[Luissa]

The number one reason the Arizona bill was stupid and not needed was because Arizona has nothing in its states constitution about discrimination based on sexuality etc.. The states where people are being sued that did. The bill was pointless.


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

 

[Plasmaball]

I posted this in the Dear Abby is a Bigot thread, but thought it was a topic unto itself.

I'm a supporter of gay rights and gay marriage, and I thought the AZ law that Gov Brewer vetoed was bad law. But I'd like the liberals to answer this question.

First, let's all agree that the law in AZ was a bad one, and no one should be able to discriminate against gay people because they're gay.

However, do we apply the same principles to the vegan as we do the Christian? If a vegan refuses to interact with meat-eaters, are they as morally culpable as Christians who refuse to interact with gay people? In this case, is the vegan who refuses to bake a cake for the meat-eaters' wedding as morally reprehensible as the Christian who refuses to base a cake for the gay wedding?

Why or why not?

Interesting that you get only conservative respondents so far.

The main tenant that separates The Queer from The Vegan, is the cause of the affliction.

A Vegan is not born a Vegan.

A Queer, like a dwarf, is born a Deviant. They have no choice about their affliction, and therefore should not be made to suffer for it.


Now to Part B: The Religious difference between a Queer and A Vegan.

I take the Quaker, or Orthodox Jew as precedence. There are certain religious groups that isolate themselves from society, or parts of society. They do this voluntarily, and legally. I see no precedent, forcing these groups to interact with "The Inglish" or "The Goyem," that justifies forcing any religious group from interacting with The Dwarf or The Queer or the Vegan, or whoever the fuck they choose based on their wierdo religious belief.

you are the third post in from the OP. Kind limited how many people can chime in.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"If you like your religious expression, you can keep your religious expression. Period."

When you open a business?

That's basically not the case. You are required to follow the law.

Any law which robs you of your religious expression is technically unconstitutional.

Incorrect.

All laws are presumed to be Constitutional until determined otherwise by a court of law (United States v. Lopez (1995)). In order for a law to be in violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, its primary focus and effect must be that of disadvantaging religious expression (Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)); public accommodations laws lack that focus or effect.

Consequently, public accommodations laws do not violate the First Amendment, they do not ‘rob’ one of his religious expression, and are indeed Constitutional.

 

[hjmick]

Wait... Dwarves are deviants?

 

[Plasmaball]

I posted this in the Dear Abby is a Bigot thread, but thought it was a topic unto itself.

I'm a supporter of gay rights and gay marriage, and I thought the AZ law that Gov Brewer vetoed was bad law. But I'd like the liberals to answer this question.

First, let's all agree that the law in AZ was a bad one, and no one should be able to discriminate against gay people because they're gay.

However, do we apply the same principles to the vegan as we do the Christian? If a vegan refuses to interact with meat-eaters, are they as morally culpable as Christians who refuse to interact with gay people? In this case, is the vegan who refuses to bake a cake for the meat-eaters' wedding as morally reprehensible as the Christian who refuses to base a cake for the gay wedding?

Why or why not?

well that really depends on the context in which the situation is happening. If its a friend of a friend then no its not wrong. If its a business transaction then yes it is wrong.

Oh course the simple idea that a vegan would refuse to make something for someone because the customer likes steak is a really weak example.

 

[Coyote]

I posted this in the Dear Abby is a Bigot thread, but thought it was a topic unto itself.

I'm a supporter of gay rights and gay marriage, and I thought the AZ law that Gov Brewer vetoed was bad law. But I'd like the liberals to answer this question.

First, let's all agree that the law in AZ was a bad one, and no one should be able to discriminate against gay people because they're gay.

However, do we apply the same principles to the vegan as we do the Christian? If a vegan refuses to interact with meat-eaters, are they as morally culpable as Christians who refuse to interact with gay people? In this case, is the vegan who refuses to bake a cake for the meat-eaters' wedding as morally reprehensible as the Christian who refuses to base a cake for the gay wedding?

Why or why not?

It depends.

If the vegan operates a bakery that serves the public - and he refuses to bake ANY cake for the meat eater soley because that person eats meat - that would be discrimination against a person due to that person's beliefs.

If the vegan says he'll bake a cake but it will contain no animal products - there is nothing wrong with that. The meat eater can choose to take it or find another baker. The vegan can't be forced to make a product that goes against his conscience by using animal products.

The same thing would apply to asking a baker to bake a cake with pornographic gay imagery or something about Satan. He can't refuse to serve the patron, but he can refuse to create a product that violates his ethics.

At least that is how I see it.

 

[Samson]

Wait... Dwarves are deviants?

Deviants in the best sense of the word.

Merriam Webster: "different from what is considered to be normal"

 

[Zander]

Here's your cake!! Isn't it fabulous!! God bless you!!!

 

[Samson]

Here's your cake!! Isn't it fabulous!! God bless you!!!

Is it Vegan?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"If you like your religious expression, you can keep your religious expression. Period."

When you open a business?

That's basically not the case. You are required to follow the law.

Any law which robs you of your religious expression is technically unconstitutional.

That's complete nonsense. Ask a Rastafarian how well that argument works out.

 

[Samson]

When you open a business?

That's basically not the case. You are required to follow the law.

Any law which robs you of your religious expression is technically unconstitutional.

That's complete nonsense. Ask a Rastafarian how well that argument works out.

Even in Colorado?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Any law which robs you of your religious expression is technically unconstitutional.

That's complete nonsense. Ask a Rastafarian how well that argument works out.

Even in Colorado?

The argument still doesn't work, even if the "sacrament" itself happens to be legal.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

That's complete nonsense. Ask a Rastafarian how well that argument works out.

Even in Colorado?

The argument still doesn't work, even if the "sacrament" itself happens to be legal.

I'm pagan and I would not even tell anyone I work with. If people found out, they would find a way to get rid of me. If I wore a pentacle, people would freak out.

All the bitching I hear about Christians being persecuted is utter nonsense.

 

[Grandma]

The bill in question, and all the other similar bills did not specify cakes or homosexuality.

It specified denial of service based on religious beliefs.

The danger of that is genocide. Imagine if such a law were passed in Utah. Any LGBT, any unwed mother, any pagan, anyone that openly drinks coffee, etc. would be unable to buy food or get shelter in Salt Lake City. They wouldn't be able to rent a U-Haul to move away.
They would be denied service at hospitals if they were deathly ill or gravely injured.

Such a law could easily result in genocide in some parts of the country. It would certainly reduce segments of the population to second-class status. There could be rioting and a civil war.

At the very least, anyone who sees what bullshit discriminatory laws are will boycott the state in question. As an example, a major airline disagrees with the law. Said airline moves its hub to a neighboring state and only runs flights into the discrminatory state at 3am on Tuesdays. A major software distributor moves out of the state leaving thousands unemployed. The tourist trade drops by 75%. Major corporations owned by someone that doesn't adhere to religious dogma will take their businesses - and tax money - elsewhere. The state in question will be considerably poorer.

 

[justonemorevoice]

Wait... Dwarves are deviants?

oh plz plz dont encourage such stupid statements.

 

[Barb]

I posted this in the Dear Abby is a Bigot thread, but thought it was a topic unto itself.

I'm a supporter of gay rights and gay marriage, and I thought the AZ law that Gov Brewer vetoed was bad law. But I'd like the liberals to answer this question.

First, let's all agree that the law in AZ was a bad one, and no one should be able to discriminate against gay people because they're gay.

However, do we apply the same principles to the vegan as we do the Christian? If a vegan refuses to interact with meat-eaters, are they as morally culpable as Christians who refuse to interact with gay people? In this case, is the vegan who refuses to bake a cake for the meat-eaters' wedding as morally reprehensible as the Christian who refuses to base a cake for the gay wedding?

Why or why not?

Unless the wedding requires meat in the cake, then they have no standing.

 

[oldfart]

I posted this in the Dear Abby is a Bigot thread, but thought it was a topic unto itself.

I'm a supporter of gay rights and gay marriage, and I thought the AZ law that Gov Brewer vetoed was bad law. But I'd like the liberals to answer this question.

First, let's all agree that the law in AZ was a bad one, and no one should be able to discriminate against gay people because they're gay.

However, do we apply the same principles to the vegan as we do the Christian? If a vegan refuses to interact with meat-eaters, are they as morally culpable as Christians who refuse to interact with gay people? In this case, is the vegan who refuses to bake a cake for the meat-eaters' wedding as morally reprehensible as the Christian who refuses to base a cake for the gay wedding?

Why or why not?

Let me try for a little clarity here. It is a violation of federal law for employers to discriminate among employees on the basis of eleven criteria. There are legislative exceptions to these laws and the definition of employer is not the same for all categories. Any other criteria, no matter how unreasonable or capricious, is allowed, subject to state and local laws, under the "at-will employment doctrine", so long as such criteria do not result in a discriminatory pattern with respect to the eleven forbidden criteria. Any employer who can show that the results of their employment practices is non-discriminatory is not in violation of the law. Any employer whose employment practices result in a discriminatory result has the burden of proof of showing that the criteria used are statistically valid and reliable, and are not based on the forbidden criteria.

The 11 forbidden criteria are:

1--4) Race, color, religion, and national origin [Civil Rights Act of 1964]
5) Gender [Equal Pay Act of 1963]
6) Age (if over 40) [Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1968]
7) Disability status [Disability Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (for federal contractors) and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (generally)]
8) Pregnancy , childbirth, and related medical conditions [Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978]
9) Bankruptcy status [Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978]
10) Military service or affiliation
11) Genetic information [Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act of 2008]

So our baker or vegan is allowed to discriminate on any basis as long as the basis does not result in a pattern of discriminatory outcomes based on one of the 11 forbidden criteria. I guess a case could be made that a vegan might be favoring the Hindu religion, but since not all vegans are Hindu, I think that would be too much of a stretch. But if our baker decided to refuse service to all men wearing black fedoras with bushy sideburns, I doubt that would pass muster.

Of course, the OP was framed as an ethic question, not a legal one. My personal answer would be that first I obey the law in this area. When not legally required, I would use the same principles in extending or refusing service. I would not be concerned with what people believed, or how they acted (as long as it was not a disturbance of the peace). I would exercise forbearance if there were any plausible argument of free speech involved. But I would not provide a service (accept an engagement) I reasonably believed I could not fulfill. In my line of work, that's tax protestor cases.

All the best!