Pain lingers for lesbian couple denied in Sweet Cakes case

[frigidweirdo]

Well, maybe you think businesses should have rights.

Maybe you think diners should seat blacks elsewhere, and bus companies should put blacks at the back of the bus too. Well, the US decided, a long time ago, that it didn't want a society like this.

So whatever you think SHOULD happen, doesn't.

There are enough businesses huh? Really? Some people live in places where there aren't. I grew up in a one shop place that was the size of your broom cupboard. That closed down. There's a shop a mile or so away. There's are maybe a dozen a bit further in the opposite direction, one supermarket, one bank, one post office, on flower shop, one of this, one of that. Choice huh?

So, imagine if instead of popping round the corner to get some milk, I have to travel the other side of NY City. Do you think people want to live in a society where they're forced to do that because of discrimination?

If someone opens a business, they should be serving everyone UNLESS that person has done something wrong, like shop lifting etc. A gay person hasn't done anything wrong. Who someone sleeps with is not anyone's business.

Note: Bakers don't prevent divorcees from getting cakes. They don't prevent anyone else from getting cakes, even when the Bible says it's a sin.

So you think that if a diner refused to serve black people that there wouldn't be another to open up and serve them? There is no way that market need wouldn't be filled.

You are in some liberal fantasy land if you think people would go without options in today's world.

Did it happen in the South? Did diners appear all over that catered for black people right next to those that catered for whites? What about buses? Did buses appear where whites had to sit at the back?

Didn't happen, but again, many people don't want to live in a divided country. China is moving forwards and destroying the divides in society as much as possible, the US seems to be opening them up, then criticizing those who don't want the divides for being dividers because they annoy the dividers so must want to divide.

Well since we aren't living in the 60's anymore..... You have no leg to stand on.... Back in the 60's it was hard to start a business and costly. Now it's very easy aside from the government regulations you liberals force on to us.

That doesn't mean the market has enough room for a black shop, a white shop, a christian shop etc.

Your assuming that businesses will only serve a niche group.

That makes zero sense for any business trying to make money. Besides if a business isn't serving certain people and word gets out most people will move on elsewhere.

Well, isn't this the thing here? We're talking about shop owners being able to exclude. If gay people, black people etc get excluded, then there needs to be other shops. In many areas in the US there isn't enough room for one shop.

So if the only shop in the area that can survive decides to ban gay people, or a religious area like the deep south all the shops decide to ban gay people, then what?

 

[StLucieBengal]

So you think that if a diner refused to serve black people that there wouldn't be another to open up and serve them? There is no way that market need wouldn't be filled.

You are in some liberal fantasy land if you think people would go without options in today's world.

Did it happen in the South? Did diners appear all over that catered for black people right next to those that catered for whites? What about buses? Did buses appear where whites had to sit at the back?

Didn't happen, but again, many people don't want to live in a divided country. China is moving forwards and destroying the divides in society as much as possible, the US seems to be opening them up, then criticizing those who don't want the divides for being dividers because they annoy the dividers so must want to divide.

Well since we aren't living in the 60's anymore..... You have no leg to stand on.... Back in the 60's it was hard to start a business and costly. Now it's very easy aside from the government regulations you liberals force on to us.

That doesn't mean the market has enough room for a black shop, a white shop, a christian shop etc.

Your assuming that businesses will only serve a niche group.

That makes zero sense for any business trying to make money. Besides if a business isn't serving certain people and word gets out most people will move on elsewhere.

Well, isn't this the thing here? We're talking about shop owners being able to exclude. If gay people, black people etc get excluded, then there needs to be other shops. In many areas in the US there isn't enough room for one shop.

So if the only shop in the area that can survive decides to ban gay people, or a religious area like the deep south all the shops decide to ban gay people, then what?

There were multiple other bakers in that area that wanted the gays business. These gays just were interested in one thing .... To make a headline and hurt these Christians.

It's been quite clear that the other bakers who offered were direct competitors with sweet cakes and Their main competitor is the one who ginned up a media firestorm along with these gays.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Did it happen in the South? Did diners appear all over that catered for black people right next to those that catered for whites? What about buses? Did buses appear where whites had to sit at the back?

Didn't happen, but again, many people don't want to live in a divided country. China is moving forwards and destroying the divides in society as much as possible, the US seems to be opening them up, then criticizing those who don't want the divides for being dividers because they annoy the dividers so must want to divide.

Well since we aren't living in the 60's anymore..... You have no leg to stand on.... Back in the 60's it was hard to start a business and costly. Now it's very easy aside from the government regulations you liberals force on to us.

That doesn't mean the market has enough room for a black shop, a white shop, a christian shop etc.

Your assuming that businesses will only serve a niche group.

That makes zero sense for any business trying to make money. Besides if a business isn't serving certain people and word gets out most people will move on elsewhere.

Well, isn't this the thing here? We're talking about shop owners being able to exclude. If gay people, black people etc get excluded, then there needs to be other shops. In many areas in the US there isn't enough room for one shop.

So if the only shop in the area that can survive decides to ban gay people, or a religious area like the deep south all the shops decide to ban gay people, then what?

There were multiple other bakers in that area that wanted the gays business. These gays just were interested in one thing .... To make a headline and hurt these Christians.

It's been quite clear that the other bakers who offered were direct competitors with sweet cakes and Their main competitor is the one who ginned up a media firestorm along with these gays.

Maybe there were. This isn't the point.

Firstly there are laws, and they're there for a reason. Some places have multiple bakeries, some places don't. You can't have one law for places with multiple bakeries and one law for places with just one.

So the law is that you can't discriminate on the basis of who you have sex with. That's the law, it's there for many reasons, and these people broke that law and they got their ass handed to them in court.

 

[StLucieBengal]

Well since we aren't living in the 60's anymore..... You have no leg to stand on.... Back in the 60's it was hard to start a business and costly. Now it's very easy aside from the government regulations you liberals force on to us.

That doesn't mean the market has enough room for a black shop, a white shop, a christian shop etc.

Your assuming that businesses will only serve a niche group.

That makes zero sense for any business trying to make money. Besides if a business isn't serving certain people and word gets out most people will move on elsewhere.

Well, isn't this the thing here? We're talking about shop owners being able to exclude. If gay people, black people etc get excluded, then there needs to be other shops. In many areas in the US there isn't enough room for one shop.

So if the only shop in the area that can survive decides to ban gay people, or a religious area like the deep south all the shops decide to ban gay people, then what?

There were multiple other bakers in that area that wanted the gays business. These gays just were interested in one thing .... To make a headline and hurt these Christians.

It's been quite clear that the other bakers who offered were direct competitors with sweet cakes and Their main competitor is the one who ginned up a media firestorm along with these gays.

Maybe there were. This isn't the point.

Firstly there are laws, and they're there for a reason. Some places have multiple bakeries, some places don't. You can't have one law for places with multiple bakeries and one law for places with just one.

So the law is that you can't discriminate on the basis of who you have sex with. That's the law, it's there for many reasons, and these people broke that law and they got their ass handed to them in court.

So I just used this real life example to make my point that these "discrimmination" laws aren't necessary in today's america and you just ignore that point?

There is no need for the government to kill that business. When any business stops taking customers they risk losing their business in the long run. The market will weed out these businesses. Government doesn't need to kill people's livelihoods

 

[frigidweirdo]

That doesn't mean the market has enough room for a black shop, a white shop, a christian shop etc.

Your assuming that businesses will only serve a niche group.

That makes zero sense for any business trying to make money. Besides if a business isn't serving certain people and word gets out most people will move on elsewhere.

Well, isn't this the thing here? We're talking about shop owners being able to exclude. If gay people, black people etc get excluded, then there needs to be other shops. In many areas in the US there isn't enough room for one shop.

So if the only shop in the area that can survive decides to ban gay people, or a religious area like the deep south all the shops decide to ban gay people, then what?

There were multiple other bakers in that area that wanted the gays business. These gays just were interested in one thing .... To make a headline and hurt these Christians.

It's been quite clear that the other bakers who offered were direct competitors with sweet cakes and Their main competitor is the one who ginned up a media firestorm along with these gays.

Maybe there were. This isn't the point.

Firstly there are laws, and they're there for a reason. Some places have multiple bakeries, some places don't. You can't have one law for places with multiple bakeries and one law for places with just one.

So the law is that you can't discriminate on the basis of who you have sex with. That's the law, it's there for many reasons, and these people broke that law and they got their ass handed to them in court.

So I just used this real life example to make my point that these "discrimmination" laws aren't necessary in today's america and you just ignore that point?

There is no need for the government to kill that business. When any business stops taking customers they risk losing their business in the long run. The market will weed out these businesses. Government doesn't need to kill people's livelihoods

Problem is that back in the day this didn't happen, did it? Bus companies didn't go out of business because blacks had to sit at the back. Diners didn't go out of business for discriminating against blacks.

In fact this bakery is probably doing better for the all the free advertising they're getting and all the bigoted Christians in the area are flocking to their hidden away bakery.

That's why govt is needed. To stop this ridiculousness.

 

[JoeB131]

and laws cannot subject a person to oppression if the right is protected constitutionally. The right to free exercise of religion is a constitutional right, thus if government wants to override that, it has to do so under the lightest burden possible, and only in situations that show an overwhelming government interest.

Two people's hurt feelings is not a compelling government interest, and fining the sellers into oblivion is not the lightest burden possible.

Again- you can believe in whatever imaginary Sky Pixies you want.

Once you hang a business sign up outside the door, your business does not have a religion.

If their religion really thinks the gays are that icky, they shouldn't be in that business.

 

[JoeB131]

So I just used this real life example to make my point that these "discrimmination" laws aren't necessary in today's america and you just ignore that point?

There is no need for the government to kill that business. When any business stops taking customers they risk losing their business in the long run. The market will weed out these businesses. Government doesn't need to kill people's livelihoods

Ooooh, another one who believes that Magic Market Fairy Dust will beat evil Businesses.

Sorry, don't buy it. Maybe if WalMart goes out of business, I will.

The black man has an absolute right to be served at that diner. What he can't do is compel the waitress to go to his car and give him a blow job. Not even if he saw her give one to someone else. Not even if he pays her.

Not even if she says she doesn't give blow jobs to dirty ni66ers.

So you think not baking a cake after you offered bake a cake is the same as being compelled to give someone a blow job?

once again- Ms. Klein - before her husband slapped her around like Jesus said to - invited Cryer and Bowman to use their shop if they ever got hitched. Then Mr. Klein started howling bible verses at them like a maniac.

 

[JoeB131]

You are saying the right of a gay person to buy a cake, a cake they can get anywhere else, trumps every single constitutionally given right of a person, and if they refuse, the government can crush them and ruin them?

You do realize that you are saying the government gets to take sides in a battle of butt hurt? and gets to ruin one side because the feelings of the other side are more popular with the government and the elites who run it?

But the government does that all the time.

The problem is, of course, is that whenever you Wingnut Liber-retard-ians talk about "freedom", it is usually the ability of those with money and power to abuse those of us without money and power.

When in fact, business law should ALWAYS favor the consumer.

The Homophobic Hater Kleins have an option. If their Angry Imaginary Friend (I.e. Mr. Klein's fetid imagination because most homophobes are latent homosexuals- true story) says the gays are icky, then he has the option of not being in a business where he might encounter gay people.

hurt feelings are not "harm". and what about the hurt feelings of the religious people forced to provide a service they don't want to? Why is their butthurt less than the gay couple's butthurt?

You have a lack of empathy for the people being forced to either do something they don't want to do, or give up their way of earning a living. Me doth think you protest too much. You don't care because you don't like their positions or beliefs, so, pffft, fuck em, right?

Again, they have an option. They can not be in that business. If you are the one getting the money, it's on you to suck up and take it. If your business requires you to deal with people you don't like, find something else to do for a living.

 

[JoeB131]

What I am saying is you can just be absolutist and say "bake that damn cake, peasant", without taking into account both the situation and the overall impact of a decision on EITHER side of the argument.

Except that was done. The Klein's hatred didn't trump the Cryer-Bowman's right to get good service.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Big silence.

 

[Jarlaxle]

This is really where we are heading. Prosecute individuals who refuse to BE Gay or lesbian.

Smokin' some good shit there, cat lady?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Certainly they should not be able to serve on juries and be expelled from the military. They have a mental illness. Their judgment is not to be trusted.

Irony meter just overloaded...

 

[martybegan]

I said no and meant no. Can someone force you out of your house and into a concert hall where the music is too loud? Paying taxes is an arrangement between a citizen and the government. It does not involve the whims of another citizen.

We are supposed to live in a society where we do whst we like. It's called freedom. Why do you dislike it so much? What makes someone else's judgment on what you do better than your own? How personal does interference need to be before you say no?

But you're picking and choosing where no means no. This is the problem.

Can the govt force you to do things?

Yes, it can force you to go to war, force you to go to prison, force you to pay them money, force you to do quite a number of things, actually.

No, you're not supposed to live in a society where you do whatever you like.

If you didn't notice there is something called the Bill of Rights and the theory behind rights is that you can do what you like AS LONG AS you don't harm or hurt other people. In other words, all rights have LIMITS.

I'm sorry no one managed to tell you this before. But it's there.

The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the government not on individuals. This must be the first you are hearing this.

There is no right to not be offended. There is no right to not get your feelings hurt. The government can force you to give it money. When an individual forces you to give him money it's theft.

The government cannot force you to be nice. It can not force you to be a friend or a good neighbor. It cannot force a business to provide good customer service. The government cannot stop someone from being nasty, or insulting. It won't stop anyone from hurting your feelings even if you cry for a week.

Where do you get these nonsense ideas?

I didn't say the Bill of Rights was a limitation on the people. You just decided I had said that. What I said was that the ideals of the Bill of Rights exist and the US is bound up in this theory whether you like it or not.

I didn't say there was a right to not be offended. However we live in a society and the people have decided how they want society to be, and they make rules and regulations to make sure that happens. And yes, there are laws that say you can't do some things, things that hurt people.

No, government can't force you to be nice. But it CAN force you to respect the laws of the land. And if those laws say a business can't discriminate against someone based on gender, sexual preference, skin color, ethnicity, then YOU CAN'T DO IT.

So hurt feelings of a protected class equates to ruining the livelyhood of people selling cakes?

And government force is government force. One wonders if someone like you supports government overwhelming force in something as trivial as a baker not wanting to bake a cake, what other uses of force you could support against people you don't like.

What becomes of law breakers but the effects of government force?

The issue isn't the government force, but it's use over trivial matters that basicially come down to who's feelings are worth more to the government and the chattering class.

 

[martybegan]

But you're picking and choosing where no means no. This is the problem.

Can the govt force you to do things?

Yes, it can force you to go to war, force you to go to prison, force you to pay them money, force you to do quite a number of things, actually.

No, you're not supposed to live in a society where you do whatever you like.

If you didn't notice there is something called the Bill of Rights and the theory behind rights is that you can do what you like AS LONG AS you don't harm or hurt other people. In other words, all rights have LIMITS.

I'm sorry no one managed to tell you this before. But it's there.

The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the government not on individuals. This must be the first you are hearing this.

There is no right to not be offended. There is no right to not get your feelings hurt. The government can force you to give it money. When an individual forces you to give him money it's theft.

The government cannot force you to be nice. It can not force you to be a friend or a good neighbor. It cannot force a business to provide good customer service. The government cannot stop someone from being nasty, or insulting. It won't stop anyone from hurting your feelings even if you cry for a week.

Where do you get these nonsense ideas?

I didn't say the Bill of Rights was a limitation on the people. You just decided I had said that. What I said was that the ideals of the Bill of Rights exist and the US is bound up in this theory whether you like it or not.

I didn't say there was a right to not be offended. However we live in a society and the people have decided how they want society to be, and they make rules and regulations to make sure that happens. And yes, there are laws that say you can't do some things, things that hurt people.

No, government can't force you to be nice. But it CAN force you to respect the laws of the land. And if those laws say a business can't discriminate against someone based on gender, sexual preference, skin color, ethnicity, then YOU CAN'T DO IT.

So hurt feelings of a protected class equates to ruining the livelyhood of people selling cakes?

And government force is government force. One wonders if someone like you supports government overwhelming force in something as trivial as a baker not wanting to bake a cake, what other uses of force you could support against people you don't like.

I don't wonder. I know exactly what these people are about.

Its not the Governments job to protect discrimination and hate. Backward fundie slags need to evolve and join this century.

It is not the government's job to punish people over hurt feelings. Some actual harm has to be established.

And government can use propaganda all it wants to persuade people to "evolve", however when they start using punishments to get the same effect, in the absence of actual harm to a 3rd party, then a line has been crossed.

 

[Jarlaxle]

why should the government get to punish people for being rude?

Why not?

again, the minute they opened a business, they gave up their "right" to be rude.

But you've had the concept of "Public Accommodation" explained to you hundreds of times and you are still in denial.

Me. I'd go further. Your church preaches homophobia? Okay. You no longer get a tax exemption. the IRS will be by in the morning.

Betcha they'll start taking a Sharpie to the Bible when that happens. Or at least pretend that those homophobic verses are up there with the ones about witches and adulterers and slaves they pretend aren't relevent anymore.

No, they did not. and PA laws were never meant for contracted services. Plus the founders of the concept could never have assumed they would be used to ruin people over religious convictions.

Like any good idea that has been abused by asshats such as yourself, they have to be modified to allow concepts of religious freedom to at least be considered in the equation, not ignored.

And as for going after Churches, I expect nothing less from a pathetic, hateful asshole such as yourself.

Barry Goldwater knew how this would end..........

 

[martybegan]

Does the bible admonish people not to sin? Each sinful act doesn't have to be carefully enumerated. If you believe the act to be a sin, don't do it.

What if you have an act and if you do it, it's a sin, if you don't do it, it's a sin? Then what?

That is between the individual and God.

So you're basically saying that gay people need to be considerate towards religious people, but religious people can act however they like? So how is a gay person supposed to know what will and won't offend people? Why do they have to walk around as if egg shells are all over the floor to accommodate people who will use their religion as an excuse for anything?

To me its not about an "excuse for anything", its about being rational about all this. For point of sale items, especially necessities, I can see requiring a business to sell an item. Same thing for timely matters, such as renting a motel room. But for contracted, non-necessary, easily obtainable elsewhere goods or services, a person's religious beliefs should be considered.

When the public accommodation laws were put in place, they originally covered things such as restaurants and hotels, i.e. more immediate needs that weren't easily taken care of on the spot. A wedding being planned in advance doesn't meet this criteria.

They were also put in place to speed up the transition from government mandated discrimination by preventing local governments and groups of businesses from continuing on the policies. They were also needed as a large majority of the white population in the areas where they were needed were just A-OK with continuing said discrimination.

You don't have that same situation today.

 

[martybegan]

What if you have an act and if you do it, it's a sin, if you don't do it, it's a sin? Then what?

That is between the individual and God.

So you're basically saying that gay people need to be considerate towards religious people, but religious people can act however they like? So how is a gay person supposed to know what will and won't offend people? Why do they have to walk around as if egg shells are all over the floor to accommodate people who will use their religion as an excuse for anything?

To me its not about an "excuse for anything", its about being rational about all this. For point of sale items, especially necessities, I can see requiring a business to sell an item. Same thing for timely matters, such as renting a motel room. But for contracted, non-necessary, easily obtainable elsewhere goods or services, a person's religious beliefs should be considered.

When the public accommodation laws were put in place, they originally covered things such as restaurants and hotels, i.e. more immediate needs that weren't easily taken care of on the spot. A wedding being planned in advance doesn't meet this criteria.

The state of Oregon disagrees. And they disagreed a few years ago when a woman was discriminated against by her employer based on her religion. Same law.

Employer discrimination is a different conversation than this.

 

[martybegan]

I do have a right to discriminate. Did you miss that part? I have an absolute right to discriminate and there is not a damn thing anyone can do about it.

Okay, you keep telling yourself that when you homophobes are as much as pariahs as the open racists are.

back in the 1960's government was mandating the discrimination, just like government is mandating the punishments now for wrongthink. Plus the point discrimination in the case of the South was a symptom, not the actual disease. The actual disease was the systemic isolation of a large portion of the population from economic and political power.

Yes, you can try to paint it all day as some kind of statist thing, but Jim Crow existed because most of the white crackers in the South supported it. They just like to pretend it was those "other guys" now.

That does not compare to a minuscule portion of the population that has full economic and political power, and especially does not compare for non-necessary services.

Again, I know gays who've been fired for being gay, I know folks who've been beaten up for being gay. The way you put down that sort of shit is to show NO TOLERANCE for it.

Sooner or later big business will realize the actual damage that can be done by assholes like you is more bark than bite. But until the laws are changed, you can still run to big daddy government to ruin the people you don't like, like the bitch-titted asshole you are.

Naw, guy, big business figured out most of you Cleetus Bubba rednecks don't have any money to spend on their products... so they don't need to pander to you. That's why you'll get bitch slapped down

First of all, stop being lazy and reply to each poster separately.

It is a statist thing, and has far more in common with Jim Crow than my position.

Employer discrimination is a different topic, and I have differing views on that, based on the situation.

The backlash is growing JoeBitch.

 

[martybegan]

So if a Satanist walked into a Catholic Store to buy a cross, said he would use it in a Black Mass, the Catholic Store would be forced to sell the cross to him?

Sure. Why not?

Figures.

 

[martybegan]

and laws cannot subject a person to oppression if the right is protected constitutionally. The right to free exercise of religion is a constitutional right, thus if government wants to override that, it has to do so under the lightest burden possible, and only in situations that show an overwhelming government interest.

Two people's hurt feelings is not a compelling government interest, and fining the sellers into oblivion is not the lightest burden possible.

Again- you can believe in whatever imaginary Sky Pixies you want.

Once you hang a business sign up outside the door, your business does not have a religion.

If their religion really thinks the gays are that icky, they shouldn't be in that business.

Again, where in the constitution does it say you lose all your rights when you decide to sell something?

And again, for me it is not a religious issue, its is an abuse of government power issue.