Red scare of the 1950's, today we have the racist scare

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, simply pointing out that when our government sues a baker for following his or her religious creed, that is government stopping a citizen from exercising their religion, also known a prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

The problem is we have a Constitution that contradicts itself. Can't stop someone from exercising their religion but also can't give any special benefit or recognition of religion. So if someone's religion calls for them to shoot the mayor, stopping them is not letting them exercise their religion, but not stopping them is giving them a special benefit (as you would stop someone trying to kill the mayor for non-religious purposes



I don't know. I guess for me, I don't think that the US should approve religious laws/acts that conflict with US law, be they Christian law, Sharia law, etc.

If my religion calls for me to be able to have an honor killing if my daughter sleeps around should I be able to freely exercise that in the US, or does US law on murder take precedence? And if we say that US law is the law of the land then, is there a point where religious law trumps it? Like stealing a million dollars for religious reasons not ok, but less than 20 bucks and you are in the green?

I believe the US law is the law the US should use in the US.

If they were indeed violating law that prohibits refusing service to customers based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation, whether they felt it was a religious right or not is irrelevant to me.

If your religion says that you can't touch pigs, don't expect to be upset if you choose to work at a pork plant and are asked to do things against your religious beliefs. If you plan on refusing customers based on sexual orientation, don't take a job where you may have customers with different sexual orientations.

Then that violates free expression of religion. Free expression does not have exclusions such as a photographer, a baker, a caterer, a florist. If you are limited to what kind of work you are allowed to do because of religion, that's not free expression.

Equating murder with not baking a cake is ridiculous. Murder violates the general welfare clause in the Constitution. It also violates states rights who set laws and penalties for murder. Nobody is harmed by not baking a cake for a gay wedding; they just have to go somewhere else to buy a cake or have no cake at the wedding at all. They can still have their wedding.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So what you're saying is that if the KKK is having a rally in your town, and they go to a black baker and tell him to make them a KKK cake, he should be forced to make one?

yeah, as long as they are not being threatening, aggressive or insulting to the baker. Any business owner has the right to institute a code of conduct/etiquette for their business and can refuse business if they are disrespected or the rules are broken. But if the rules are not broken then they shouldn't be able discriminate by refusing service because of somebody's race, religion, sex, orientation, or even political views.... Do you think that black baker should be allowed to discriminate?

How is forcing a black baker to make a KKK cake not insulting?

The baker shouldn't have to make a KKK cake, you just injected that into the conversation. I don't think the baker should have to make a cake that says KKK on it. If they guy just wanted to buy a cake then the baker should sell him a cake. If they guy asks for something insulting or inappropriate to be put on the cake then the baker has a right to refuse.

Okay, so how is that different than making a gay wedding cake? Do you think wedding cakes have no indication on them what the cake is for?

I don't know, did the bakers refuse to make a cake or did they refuse to put gay messaging on the cake? You tell me

The stories that I read is that the baker served the gay person before knowing they were gay. They just refused to make a cake for a gay wedding. Baking a wedding cake for a gay occasion is a ritual. A person who's religion is against gay sex is participation in the occasion of the gay wedding by making such a cake.

I can't imagine that the baker refused to make just a plain wedding cake by request. I'm sure they wanted the cake to be an actual wedding cake with inscriptions or perhaps a plastic guy and guy on top of it. I never paid attention to cakes at the few weddings I've attended, but the ones I remember had the names of the couple on the cake.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Were you trying to answer my question? Cause that statement had nothing to do with what I asked... Want to try again?

No, simply pointing out that when our government sues a baker for following his or her religious creed, that is government stopping a citizen from exercising their religion, also known a prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

He was running a business and being discriminatory. He wasn't at home or church praying. You really don't see the difference?

You have to be at home or at church to follow your religion? Where did you get that from? A religious person follows their religion 24/7. If a gay couple asks the baker to make a wedding cake explicitly for their gay marriage, that is against the religious beliefs of the baker and he (constitutionally) does not have to make a cake for that occasion. Now......if a gay person walks in and asks him to make a birthday cake, he can't refuse service to that person because he is gay. But when government sues or allows a suit to proceed because the baker refused to violate his religious beliefs, that's unconstitutional.

You make a fair point and I agree. I don't know the details of the baker case but from what I read the wife was going to make the cake and then husband came in and said that they wouldn't because it was for a gay couple. If they baker didn't want to design two women holding hands on the cake or write happy gay wedding on the cake then I think that would be understandable.

You know I didn't mean you can only practice your religion in your home or church, but if you are going to own a business and perform commerce in this country there is a set of rules that need to be followed, if you are going to teach at a public school then there are certain rules that need to be followed and those rules don't get to be broken for religious reasons.

Rules are fine provided they don't violate the Constitution.

 

[Slash]

\
Then that violates free expression of religion. Free expression does not have exclusions such as a photographer, a baker, a caterer, a florist. If you are limited to what kind of work you are allowed to do because of religion, that's not free expression.

Equating murder with not baking a cake is ridiculous. Murder violates the general welfare clause in the Constitution. It also violates states rights who set laws and penalties for murder. Nobody is harmed by not baking a cake for a gay wedding; they just have to go somewhere else to buy a cake or have no cake at the wedding at all. They can still have their wedding.

Again, both are laws, which is why I brought up at what point is it ok to break a US law in abiding by your religious laws? Like you say Murder violates the US Constitution. Which is the same legal document that protects the law that was made that you can't refuse services based on sexual orientation of the customer. That Colorado law is protected by the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. So what parts of the Constitution do we throw out and which ones do we keep?



If your religion says you can take 10 bucks from the rich, is that ok? Sure, nothing big there. But what about a million bucks?

Me personally I think the US should defend all US law first. I don't think we should start building two buckets to decide which laws to enforce and which ones to not enforce if someone claims religious freedom. Oops, this guys a cop he has to help everyone if his religion says so. This guys an eye doctor, they can drive 50 miles to the next one, he doesn't have to follow the law.

 

[Slade3200]

yeah, as long as they are not being threatening, aggressive or insulting to the baker. Any business owner has the right to institute a code of conduct/etiquette for their business and can refuse business if they are disrespected or the rules are broken. But if the rules are not broken then they shouldn't be able discriminate by refusing service because of somebody's race, religion, sex, orientation, or even political views.... Do you think that black baker should be allowed to discriminate?

How is forcing a black baker to make a KKK cake not insulting?

The baker shouldn't have to make a KKK cake, you just injected that into the conversation. I don't think the baker should have to make a cake that says KKK on it. If they guy just wanted to buy a cake then the baker should sell him a cake. If they guy asks for something insulting or inappropriate to be put on the cake then the baker has a right to refuse.

Okay, so how is that different than making a gay wedding cake? Do you think wedding cakes have no indication on them what the cake is for?

I don't know, did the bakers refuse to make a cake or did they refuse to put gay messaging on the cake? You tell me

The stories that I read is that the baker served the gay person before knowing they were gay. They just refused to make a cake for a gay wedding. Baking a wedding cake for a gay occasion is a ritual. A person who's religion is against gay sex is participation in the occasion of the gay wedding by making such a cake.

I can't imagine that the baker refused to make just a plain wedding cake by request. I'm sure they wanted the cake to be an actual wedding cake with inscriptions or perhaps a plastic guy and guy on top of it. I never paid attention to cakes at the few weddings I've attended, but the ones I remember had the names of the couple on the cake.

I would think the proper response would be to make them a cake but tell them they can't design art to celebrate the union of a gay couple. Just like they can make a cake for the KKK but they shouldn't be required to design it like an upside down cross or mark it with KKK. What the people use the cake for is none of the bakers concern. Just like a tux shop shouldn't be able to refuse the sale of a tux to a man if he is going to use it in a gay wedding. That just doesn't make sense and it screams discrimination.

 

[Slash]

I would think the proper response would be to make them a cake but tell them they can't design art to celebrate the union of a gay couple. Just like they can make a cake for the KKK but they shouldn't be required to design it like an upside down cross or mark it with KKK. What the people use the cake for is none of the bakers concern. Just like a tux shop shouldn't be able to refuse the sale of a tux to a man if he is going to use it in a gay wedding. That just doesn't make sense and it screams discrimination.

I believe their actual response was they'd make them a birthday cake but not a wedding cake as they opposed gay marriage and don't make cakes for same sex weddings or celebrations.

He then was charged under Colorado law, lost his case, his initial appeal hearing, his Colorado court of appeals hearing and is now waiting on the Supreme Court to decide.

A version of that law had already been heard, and the Supreme Court said those discrimation laws may limit what people claim is their religious right as long as the statutes are “neutral laws of general applicability” and not aimed at religion. Meaning as long as your discrimination law isn't specifically written to oppose a religion, you are ok, and this one looks pretty basic to me and devoid of targeting any religion specifically.

 

[Slade3200]

I would think the proper response would be to make them a cake but tell them they can't design art to celebrate the union of a gay couple. Just like they can make a cake for the KKK but they shouldn't be required to design it like an upside down cross or mark it with KKK. What the people use the cake for is none of the bakers concern. Just like a tux shop shouldn't be able to refuse the sale of a tux to a man if he is going to use it in a gay wedding. That just doesn't make sense and it screams discrimination.

I believe their actual response was they'd make them a birthday cake but not a wedding cake as they opposed gay marriage and don't make cakes for same sex weddings or celebrations.

He then was charged under Colorado law, lost his case, his initial appeal hearing, his Colorado court of appeals hearing and is now waiting on the Supreme Court to decide.

A version of that law had already been heard, and the Supreme Court said those discrimation laws may limit what people claim is their religious right as long as the statutes are “neutral laws of general applicability” and not aimed at religion. Meaning as long as your discrimination law isn't specifically written to oppose a religion, you are ok, and this one looks pretty basic to me and devoid of targeting any religion specifically.

It's definitely a grey area. Do you have a link to that account of events?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How is forcing a black baker to make a KKK cake not insulting?

The baker shouldn't have to make a KKK cake, you just injected that into the conversation. I don't think the baker should have to make a cake that says KKK on it. If they guy just wanted to buy a cake then the baker should sell him a cake. If they guy asks for something insulting or inappropriate to be put on the cake then the baker has a right to refuse.

Okay, so how is that different than making a gay wedding cake? Do you think wedding cakes have no indication on them what the cake is for?

I don't know, did the bakers refuse to make a cake or did they refuse to put gay messaging on the cake? You tell me

The stories that I read is that the baker served the gay person before knowing they were gay. They just refused to make a cake for a gay wedding. Baking a wedding cake for a gay occasion is a ritual. A person who's religion is against gay sex is participation in the occasion of the gay wedding by making such a cake.

I can't imagine that the baker refused to make just a plain wedding cake by request. I'm sure they wanted the cake to be an actual wedding cake with inscriptions or perhaps a plastic guy and guy on top of it. I never paid attention to cakes at the few weddings I've attended, but the ones I remember had the names of the couple on the cake.

I would think the proper response would be to make them a cake but tell them they can't design art to celebrate the union of a gay couple. Just like they can make a cake for the KKK but they shouldn't be required to design it like an upside down cross or mark it with KKK. What the people use the cake for is none of the bakers concern. Just like a tux shop shouldn't be able to refuse the sale of a tux to a man if he is going to use it in a gay wedding. That just doesn't make sense and it screams discrimination.

Okay, I can understand that, but what about a photographer? What about a caterer who has to participate with the guests? What about a florist who has to make arrangements according to the (brides?) approval?

So then do we make an exception for just the baker, or for all involved in a gay wedding? As a musician, I think I would take umbrage to playing for a bunch of gay folks dancing with each other.

The point I'm making is that there is a difference between providing a product for a gay wedding and actually being involved with a gay wedding.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

\
Then that violates free expression of religion. Free expression does not have exclusions such as a photographer, a baker, a caterer, a florist. If you are limited to what kind of work you are allowed to do because of religion, that's not free expression.

Equating murder with not baking a cake is ridiculous. Murder violates the general welfare clause in the Constitution. It also violates states rights who set laws and penalties for murder. Nobody is harmed by not baking a cake for a gay wedding; they just have to go somewhere else to buy a cake or have no cake at the wedding at all. They can still have their wedding.

Again, both are laws, which is why I brought up at what point is it ok to break a US law in abiding by your religious laws? Like you say Murder violates the US Constitution. Which is the same legal document that protects the law that was made that you can't refuse services based on sexual orientation of the customer. That Colorado law is protected by the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. So what parts of the Constitution do we throw out and which ones do we keep?



If your religion says you can take 10 bucks from the rich, is that ok? Sure, nothing big there. But what about a million bucks?

Me personally I think the US should defend all US law first. I don't think we should start building two buckets to decide which laws to enforce and which ones to not enforce if someone claims religious freedom. Oops, this guys a cop he has to help everyone if his religion says so. This guys an eye doctor, they can drive 50 miles to the next one, he doesn't have to follow the law.

That's why we have a supreme court; to decide what violates the constitution and what does not.

 

[Slade3200]

The baker shouldn't have to make a KKK cake, you just injected that into the conversation. I don't think the baker should have to make a cake that says KKK on it. If they guy just wanted to buy a cake then the baker should sell him a cake. If they guy asks for something insulting or inappropriate to be put on the cake then the baker has a right to refuse.

Okay, so how is that different than making a gay wedding cake? Do you think wedding cakes have no indication on them what the cake is for?

I don't know, did the bakers refuse to make a cake or did they refuse to put gay messaging on the cake? You tell me

The stories that I read is that the baker served the gay person before knowing they were gay. They just refused to make a cake for a gay wedding. Baking a wedding cake for a gay occasion is a ritual. A person who's religion is against gay sex is participation in the occasion of the gay wedding by making such a cake.

I can't imagine that the baker refused to make just a plain wedding cake by request. I'm sure they wanted the cake to be an actual wedding cake with inscriptions or perhaps a plastic guy and guy on top of it. I never paid attention to cakes at the few weddings I've attended, but the ones I remember had the names of the couple on the cake.

I would think the proper response would be to make them a cake but tell them they can't design art to celebrate the union of a gay couple. Just like they can make a cake for the KKK but they shouldn't be required to design it like an upside down cross or mark it with KKK. What the people use the cake for is none of the bakers concern. Just like a tux shop shouldn't be able to refuse the sale of a tux to a man if he is going to use it in a gay wedding. That just doesn't make sense and it screams discrimination.

Okay, I can understand that, but what about a photographer? What about a caterer who has to participate with the guests? What about a florist who has to make arrangements according to the (brides?) approval?

So then do we make an exception for just the baker, or for all involved in a gay wedding? As a musician, I think I would take umbrage to playing for a bunch of gay folks dancing with each other.

The point I'm making is that there is a difference between providing a product for a gay wedding and actually being involved with a gay wedding.

All very valid questions. I used to work as an event photographer and videographer and I couldn't imagine being mandated to take jobs by the government. I enjoyed the freedom of picking and choosing the jobs I took. I'd think that freedom to choose the jobs you take is still in tact for freelancers like that. Even though a gay wedding would probably be a blast for a band to play, I personally couldn't play for a kkk party.

 

[Slash]

That's why we have a supreme court; to decide what violates the constitution and what does not.

Yes we do. I'll respect that decision even if I don't agree with it, but I don't think that the US should be run by any religious law, but rather US law myself.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's why we have a supreme court; to decide what violates the constitution and what does not.

Yes we do. I'll respect that decision even if I don't agree with it, but I don't think that the US should be run by any religious law, but rather US law myself.

I agree and so did our founders. However when government allows people to be attacked because they are practicing their religious beliefs, it goes against our constitutional rights.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Okay, so how is that different than making a gay wedding cake? Do you think wedding cakes have no indication on them what the cake is for?

I don't know, did the bakers refuse to make a cake or did they refuse to put gay messaging on the cake? You tell me

The stories that I read is that the baker served the gay person before knowing they were gay. They just refused to make a cake for a gay wedding. Baking a wedding cake for a gay occasion is a ritual. A person who's religion is against gay sex is participation in the occasion of the gay wedding by making such a cake.

I can't imagine that the baker refused to make just a plain wedding cake by request. I'm sure they wanted the cake to be an actual wedding cake with inscriptions or perhaps a plastic guy and guy on top of it. I never paid attention to cakes at the few weddings I've attended, but the ones I remember had the names of the couple on the cake.

I would think the proper response would be to make them a cake but tell them they can't design art to celebrate the union of a gay couple. Just like they can make a cake for the KKK but they shouldn't be required to design it like an upside down cross or mark it with KKK. What the people use the cake for is none of the bakers concern. Just like a tux shop shouldn't be able to refuse the sale of a tux to a man if he is going to use it in a gay wedding. That just doesn't make sense and it screams discrimination.

Okay, I can understand that, but what about a photographer? What about a caterer who has to participate with the guests? What about a florist who has to make arrangements according to the (brides?) approval?

So then do we make an exception for just the baker, or for all involved in a gay wedding? As a musician, I think I would take umbrage to playing for a bunch of gay folks dancing with each other.

The point I'm making is that there is a difference between providing a product for a gay wedding and actually being involved with a gay wedding.

All very valid questions. I used to work as an event photographer and videographer and I couldn't imagine being mandated to take jobs by the government. I enjoyed the freedom of picking and choosing the jobs I took. I'd think that freedom to choose the jobs you take is still in tact for freelancers like that. Even though a gay wedding would probably be a blast for a band to play, I personally couldn't play for a kkk party.

That's the problem the way I see it. If a bakery can be sued for not making a wedding cake for a gay marriage, where is the line afterwards?

I don't think anybody should be forced to take a job they don't want to do. For instance on several occasions, I called out professionals to do various work for me. They came out, took measurements or whatever and gave me an estimate, but when I called them back to have them do the job, they never returned my call.

I don't think I should have the right to sue them because they didn't like the job. They wasted my time or the time of others who were here to give them access to look things over. If you don't want to do the job, screw you, there are plenty of people that want my money. I'll never call you again or refer you to anybody else I know.

 

[Slash]

That's the problem the way I see it. If a bakery can be sued for not making a wedding cake for a gay marriage, where is the line afterwards?

I don't think anybody should be forced to take a job they don't want to do. For instance on several occasions, I called out professionals to do various work for me. They came out, took measurements or whatever and gave me an estimate, but when I called them back to have them do the job, they never returned my call.

I don't think I should have the right to sue them because they didn't like the job. They wasted my time or the time of others who were here to give them access to look things over. If you don't want to do the job, screw you, there are plenty of people that want my money. I'll never call you again or refer you to anybody else I know.

While you don't have the ability to sue those people because they didn't take the job, if you have clear proof that they discriminated against you, you do.

Nobody in my opinion is forcing those bakers to be bakers. They can choose any job they want, just follow the legal laws to perform the task. Just like nobody would ever force a Christian who doesn't believe in premarital sex to be a porn star. If your belief is that under no circumstance would you ever take a life, nobody is forcing you to become a police officer.

 

[Seawytch]

Why do you care what they are celebrating? They just want a cake. Make them a cake if you own a cake shop. If I wanted to by my goldfish a birthday cake on a day that wasn't his birthday am I not allowed to by the cake? I don't see what the big deal is

So what you're saying is that if the KKK is having a rally in your town, and they go to a black baker and tell him to make them a KKK cake, he should be forced to make one?

yeah, as long as they are not being threatening, aggressive or insulting to the baker. Any business owner has the right to institute a code of conduct/etiquette for their business and can refuse business if they are disrespected or the rules are broken. But if the rules are not broken then they shouldn't be able discriminate by refusing service because of somebody's race, religion, sex, orientation, or even political views.... Do you think that black baker should be allowed to discriminate?

How is forcing a black baker to make a KKK cake not insulting?

The baker shouldn't have to make a KKK cake, you just injected that into the conversation. I don't think the baker should have to make a cake that says KKK on it. If they guy just wanted to buy a cake then the baker should sell him a cake. If they guy asks for something insulting or inappropriate to be put on the cake then the baker has a right to refuse.

Okay, so how is that different than making a gay wedding cake? Do you think wedding cakes have no indication on them what the cake is for?

They are wedding cakes. You cannot tell the difference between a wedding cake for a gay wedding or a straight wedding. A cake is a cake.

No baker is required to carry Bride and Bride or Groom and Groom wedding toppers and refusing to provide one would not be discriminatory. Not baking the same cake for couple A that you would bake for couple B is discriminatory. Get it now?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's the problem the way I see it. If a bakery can be sued for not making a wedding cake for a gay marriage, where is the line afterwards?

I don't think anybody should be forced to take a job they don't want to do. For instance on several occasions, I called out professionals to do various work for me. They came out, took measurements or whatever and gave me an estimate, but when I called them back to have them do the job, they never returned my call.

I don't think I should have the right to sue them because they didn't like the job. They wasted my time or the time of others who were here to give them access to look things over. If you don't want to do the job, screw you, there are plenty of people that want my money. I'll never call you again or refer you to anybody else I know.

While you don't have the ability to sue those people because they didn't take the job, if you have clear proof that they discriminated against you, you do.

Nobody in my opinion is forcing those bakers to be bakers. They can choose any job they want, just follow the legal laws to perform the task. Just like nobody would ever force a Christian who doesn't believe in premarital sex to be a porn star. If your belief is that under no circumstance would you ever take a life, nobody is forcing you to become a police officer.

So if the KKK came to town and told a black baker he has to make a cake for their rally, he should by law be forced to make the cake?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Seawytch]

yeah, as long as they are not being threatening, aggressive or insulting to the baker. Any business owner has the right to institute a code of conduct/etiquette for their business and can refuse business if they are disrespected or the rules are broken. But if the rules are not broken then they shouldn't be able discriminate by refusing service because of somebody's race, religion, sex, orientation, or even political views.... Do you think that black baker should be allowed to discriminate?

How is forcing a black baker to make a KKK cake not insulting?

The baker shouldn't have to make a KKK cake, you just injected that into the conversation. I don't think the baker should have to make a cake that says KKK on it. If they guy just wanted to buy a cake then the baker should sell him a cake. If they guy asks for something insulting or inappropriate to be put on the cake then the baker has a right to refuse.

Okay, so how is that different than making a gay wedding cake? Do you think wedding cakes have no indication on them what the cake is for?

I don't know, did the bakers refuse to make a cake or did they refuse to put gay messaging on the cake? You tell me

The stories that I read is that the baker served the gay person before knowing they were gay. They just refused to make a cake for a gay wedding. Baking a wedding cake for a gay occasion is a ritual. A person who's religion is against gay sex is participation in the occasion of the gay wedding by making such a cake.

I can't imagine that the baker refused to make just a plain wedding cake by request. I'm sure they wanted the cake to be an actual wedding cake with inscriptions or perhaps a plastic guy and guy on top of it. I never paid attention to cakes at the few weddings I've attended, but the ones I remember had the names of the couple on the cake.

No, you're conflating cases. In the Sweet Cakes case, one of the couple's mothers had used the bakery and they liked their product so when it came time for them to marry, they returned to a business they liked.

And, yes, they refused to make a simple wedding cake exactly like a wedding cake any straight couple would order. There is nothing "gay" about the wedding cake. (Actually, wedding cakes are pretty gay on their own). Only the couples are gay, the cake is a cake you order, usually from a book of photographs.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

It's not a scare..... it's a joke. The only similar scary part is like we saw with the bakers who did not want to do a wedding cake design with a same-sex couple and the state went after their business. What was even more scary is that the same mindset has no problem with other religions or non religions refusing service out of personal beliefs. For instance, a Muslim cab driver can refuse to drive passengers if they have pork or alcohol products in their packages.

Would you argue that all businesses should be able to discriminate or that none should?

I thought that was their personal freedom?

Aren't you a big advocator of personal freedom?

Personal freedom within our laws. Try to keep up man, i'm tired of explaining the obvious to you.

Laws are subject to change.

So?? Keep this moving man, if you have a point to make then make it. I'm growing impatient with you wasting me time with your idocracy. I'm always down for intelligent debate but you keep getting more ridiculous.

Before the 1960's anti-race mixing laws, rather than anti-discrimination laws were in place.

 

[Seawytch]

That's the problem the way I see it. If a bakery can be sued for not making a wedding cake for a gay marriage, where is the line afterwards?

I don't think anybody should be forced to take a job they don't want to do. For instance on several occasions, I called out professionals to do various work for me. They came out, took measurements or whatever and gave me an estimate, but when I called them back to have them do the job, they never returned my call.

I don't think I should have the right to sue them because they didn't like the job. They wasted my time or the time of others who were here to give them access to look things over. If you don't want to do the job, screw you, there are plenty of people that want my money. I'll never call you again or refer you to anybody else I know.

While you don't have the ability to sue those people because they didn't take the job, if you have clear proof that they discriminated against you, you do.

Nobody in my opinion is forcing those bakers to be bakers. They can choose any job they want, just follow the legal laws to perform the task. Just like nobody would ever force a Christian who doesn't believe in premarital sex to be a porn star. If your belief is that under no circumstance would you ever take a life, nobody is forcing you to become a police officer.

So if the KKK came to town and told a black baker he has to make a cake for their rally, he should by law be forced to make the cake?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

As long as it is a cake they would normally make. You can't compel speech.

Someone from the KKK ordering a cake from a black baker and telling them it is for a KKK rally, would be unwise, but yes, the baker should bake the cake...with a "no money back" policy.

 

[Seawytch]

Would you argue that all businesses should be able to discriminate or that none should?

I thought that was their personal freedom?

Aren't you a big advocator of personal freedom?

Personal freedom within our laws. Try to keep up man, i'm tired of explaining the obvious to you.

Laws are subject to change.

So?? Keep this moving man, if you have a point to make then make it. I'm growing impatient with you wasting me time with your idocracy. I'm always down for intelligent debate but you keep getting more ridiculous.

Before the 1960's anti-race mixing laws, rather than anti-discrimination laws were in place.

Is race the only thing listed as being protected under Title II of the Civil Rights Act which covers public accommodation?