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

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

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.

So like gay marriage? You should be able to refuse correct?

Sure, I don't think a baker should be required to write "gay marriage" on a cake, or draw a big penis, or put a satanic symbol, or write I love the KKK... But they certainly can't deny the sale of a cake to a gay couple just because they are gay... we in agreement?

But, but, but, you said on another thread that you're for personal freedom, and see anti-race mixing laws as against personal freedom.

I'm starting to see you only support anti-Racist freedom.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

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?

When has the Civil Rights Act ever cared about dumb Polak jokes against my people?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

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 an interracial wedding? A musician might take umbrage to playing for a bunch of black and white folks dancing with each other.

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

 

[Seawytch]

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?

When has the Civil Rights Act ever cared about dumb Polak jokes against my people?

Dumb jokes are not discrimination...but way to go with cementing stereotypes.

 

[Seawytch]

\
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.

And they have already determined that Public Accommodation laws do not.

 

[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

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.

And if he refuses, he should be sued out of business?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[TNHarley]

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?

People should be able to do whatever they want with their private property. People are so fucking entitled..

 

[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?

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?

No, I don't, because I can't find in the Constitution where religious rights are excluded when you operate a business.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

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?

When has the Civil Rights Act ever cared about dumb Polak jokes against my people?

Dumb jokes are not discrimination...but way to go with cementing stereotypes.

I'm quite certain if dumb Negro jokes were on TV, many would take it as very serious discrimination.

But, because many Poles are White, Catholic, hard working, Conservative, and yes smart.

Then it's merely okay to bash us.

 

[TNHarley]

\
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.

And they have already determined that Public Accommodation laws do not.

"they have determined" a bunch of bullshit that CLEARLY doesnt exist

 

[Seawytch]

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?

When has the Civil Rights Act ever cared about dumb Polak jokes against my people?

Dumb jokes are not discrimination...but way to go with cementing stereotypes.

I'm quite certain if dumb Negro jokes were on TV, many would take it as very serious discrimination.

But, because many Poles are White, Catholic, hard working, Conservative, and yes smart.

Then it's merely okay to bash us.

Definition: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

Have you ever been fired for being Polish? Denied service? Pulled over for driving while Polish?

 

[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?

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?

No, I don't, because I can't find in the Constitution where religious rights are excluded when you operate a business.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The Supreme Court found it when racists tried to use religion when we desegregated.

 

[Seawytch]

\
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.

And they have already determined that Public Accommodation laws do not.

"they have determined" a bunch of bullshit that CLEARLY doesnt exist

Thank you for your opinion...theirs holds the weight of law.

 

[TNHarley]

\
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.

And they have already determined that Public Accommodation laws do not.

"they have determined" a bunch of bullshit that CLEARLY doesnt exist

Thank you for your opinion...theirs holds the weight of law.

yea, and im sure if they ruled on something you didnt like, it would be different. You are a textbook hack

 

[TNHarley]

The Supreme Court found it when racists tried to use religion when we desegregated.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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.

So like gay marriage? You should be able to refuse correct?

Sure, I don't think a baker should be required to write "gay marriage" on a cake, or draw a big penis, or put a satanic symbol, or write I love the KKK... But they certainly can't deny the sale of a cake to a gay couple just because they are gay... we in agreement?

I could agree to that.

 

[Crixus]

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?

They all should. That way the consumer decides weather o not said business stays open or not. That's how it went in Pasadena with a KKK book store. I think it's still there, can't say. But no one go's. It's more socially acceptable to be seen at the porn store. The government has zero business telling folks they can or can't hate folks outside their race. It's against the law. You have the battle of ideas and it all shakes out.

 

[Slash]

yea, and im sure if they ruled on something you didnt like, it would be different. You are a textbook hack

Based on what? I disagree with Roe vs. Wade, but that's the law. I disagree with their decision of Snyder vs. Phelps (allowed Westboro to picket military funerals) but that's the law. I disagree with Citizens vs. FEC for unlimited special interest funds in elections, but that's what the law is.

Just because I disagree with a law doesn't mean I feel I have the right to break it. Just because I disagree with bicyclists having the right of way on roads, doesn't mean I feel I do, and can take the right of way.

When you have to make false arguments and name call to defend your position, you've lost any bit of your debate you are trying to make.

 

[TNHarley]

yea, and im sure if they ruled on something you didnt like, it would be different. You are a textbook hack

Based on what? I disagree with Roe vs. Wade, but that's the law. I disagree with their decision of Snyder vs. Phelps (allowed Westboro to picket military funerals) but that's the law. I disagree with Citizens vs. FEC for unlimited special interest funds in elections, but that's what the law is.

Just because I disagree with a law doesn't mean I feel I have the right to break it. Just because I disagree with bicyclists having the right of way on roads, doesn't mean I feel I do, and can take the right of way.

When you have to make false arguments and name call to defend your position, you've lost any bit of your debate you are trying to make.

Who said anything about breaking the law? Was that some sort of "gotcha?"
I was saying that just because the SC activists rule on something, doesnt mean it was right.
Dude, you have been for a few days. I know that dime store hack, you dont. GFY

 

[Slash]

Who said anything about breaking the law? Was that some sort of "gotcha?"
I was saying that just because the SC activists rule on something, doesnt mean it was right.
Dude, you have been for a few days. I know that dime store hack, you dont. GFY

I don't get your point. The US Constitution gives the Supreme Court the jurisdiction in those matters both as to law and fact. Whether you agree or disagree it was right doesn't matter. Short of burning the articles in the Constitution you disagree with, overthrowing the government, or renouncing your citizenship, that is what the law of the land is. \

Like I said, it is fine to disagree. But to act against the law is not.