Refusal over personal beliefs

[Seawytch]

and if they refused you the right to service based on your race, gender, sexual orientation or religion or ethnicity, and they have a public accommodation law that protects that, then you'd probably have case.

Which of course proves that the PA laws extend rights to certain groups that other groups don't have , making PA laws unconstitutional.

What "group" was discriminated against by him cancelling his show?

If you close shop altogether rather than serve gays/blacks/Christians etc., you're not discriminating.

You're not very smart are you?


CLEARLY these performers are still performing, they are simply discriminating who they will perform for. That's just a fact. Now , myself I believe they have that right. You have in another thread we were in explicity stated that you don't believe a baker has the right to discriminate who they bake a cake for, whilst I certainly believe they do. My beliefs are the same in both situations, you however can't reconcile your diametrically opposed opinions and so now must resort to pretending that picking and choosing where you will perform is not discrimination.

Educate yourself child.

Except they aren't. No single group was identified as a target for discrimination.

If you own a restaurant and you don't want to serve African Americans, what can you do?

Stop trying to justify it. It is what it is, these guys are discriminating PERIOD. Do you know what the word discrimination means? Do you need a dictionary? It is QUITE clear that saying "I'm not doing a concert here because of _______" is discriminatory. Once again, I support their right to do so, you pretend it isn't discrimination (or perhaps are just stupid)

Who is being discriminated against? Name the "group" that was "targeted" for discrimination.

 

[Seawytch]

and if they refused you the right to service based on your race, gender, sexual orientation or religion or ethnicity, and they have a public accommodation law that protects that, then you'd probably have case.

Which of course proves that the PA laws extend rights to certain groups that other groups don't have , making PA laws unconstitutional.

What "group" was discriminated against by him cancelling his show?

If you close shop altogether rather than serve gays/blacks/Christians etc., you're not discriminating.

Gays, blacks, women, the elderly, Hispanics, Muslims, none of them can go to his show, clear discrimination. I mean this is a country that forces it's citizens to bake cake's for each other. We force citizens to take pictured of each other. Why is not forcing citizens to play music for each other suddenly OK?

It's not. They can go to his concerts...just not in NC because he's not having any there.

Exactly, he's still operating, he didn't shut down, and he's discriminating against some of his customers while not discriminating against others. Clear violation of PA laws, he should have to pay $100K, just like if he was refusing to bake cakes for people

Name the "group" that is prevented from attending his concert.

NC residents? Nope, they can go to his concert in another state. Who is discriminated against?

If you close your bakery rather than bake me a cake, you've violated no PA law anywhere.

 

[Seawytch]

View attachment 72578

Belive me the libtards will find a way to justify their hypocrisy

Looks like this retard doesn't know the difference between a boycott and denying someone their constitutional rights.

There's a few of them on the thread...

 

[Seawytch]

The issue isn't about gays, the issue is about forcing somebody to participate in a ritual against their religious beliefs.

This is a cake from Masterpiece Cakes portfolio (one of the bakers drawing national attention). There is no "religious ritual" that goes into making this cake that can be ordered. There is no difference in the cake whether ordered by a different-sex couple or a same-sex couple.


Bakers are not involved with religoius rituals.

The religious rituals take place at the church and the cake is done at the reception.

Of the multiple weddings I've been to, the cake has been delivered, setup and the baker is gone before the religious ritual takes place and before the guest show up for the reception.



Do these religious exemptions only apply to homosexuals? There was the case of Piggie Park that didn't want to serve blacks, can they claim the exception religoius exemption? Or a B&B owner that doesn't believe in interfaith marriages, can they turn away a Catholic and a Jew getting married because of the religion of the customers?


(BTW - my opinion is that public accommodation laws be repealed as we (in general) don't need them anymore. This isn't the 50's and 60's anymore. But I oppose special exemptions to allow the religious to discriminate when anthers moral views (which aren't based on religion) do not get the same treatment.)


>>>>

Christian religions believe that homosexuality is an abomination to God. That's what it says in the Holy Bible. If you are baking a cake for people that are exercising that abomination to God, then yes, it is against your religion. By providing for that ritual, you are participating in that ritual.

You didn't answer these: "Do these religious exemptions only apply to homosexuals? There was the case of Piggie Park that didn't want to serve blacks, can they claim the exception religoius exemption? Or a B&B owner that doesn't believe in interfaith marriages, can they turn away a Catholic and a Jew getting married because of the religion of the customers?"


>>>>

I think that's different because the owner didn't refuse to serve them because they were gay, he refused to serve them because the cake they wanted was to be baked for their wedding. In fact, if I remember correctly, in the one instance the gay person was a regular customer who the baker served all the time knowing he was gay.

Except that's not what the legal findings were. If you bake wedding cakes, you bake wedding cakes. You can't say you'll make a cake for couple A but refuse to make the SAME cake for couple B if they are _______(black, jewish, from Timbuktu, etc)

 

[Centinel]

you know, you can keep repeating these "How I think the world should be" mantras all day, but the fact is, we've had this argument. Your side lost. Deal with it.

Sure. I understand that the state currently has unjust laws on the books. That doesn't mean it's not worthwhile pointing out their injustice.

If you feel at liberty to initiate violence, you basically are nothing more than a technical problem to be dealt with. There's not point arguing with a person who find nothing wrong with initiating violence against innocent people, just as there is no point arguing ethics with a rapist or murderer.

 

[kaz]

Name the "group" that is prevented from attending his concert

So if the baker refused to bake for gays or blacks, that would have worked? Interesting

NC residents? Nope, they can go to his concert in another state. Who is discriminated against?

Queers can go to another baker. Who is discriminated against?

If you close your bakery rather than bake me a cake, you've violated no PA law anywhere.

And can I reopen when you leave?

 

[WorldWatcher]

I think that's different because the owner didn't refuse to serve them because they were gay, he refused to serve them because the cake they wanted was to be baked for their wedding.

Let's swap couples.

"I didn't refuse to serve them because they were black, I refused to serve them because the cake they wanted was to be baked for their wedding". OR "I didn't refuse to serve them because they were interfaith (Catholic and Jew), I refused to serve them because the cake they wanted was to be baked for their wedding".

Ya, that doesn't make sense to me either.

In Newman v. Piggie Part the owner argued that serving black people in his establishment violated his religoius beliefs that the races should not mix. He argued that ""since his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever." he should be exempt from the law.

The same argument you make. He lost.

In fact, if I remember correctly, in the one instance the gay person was a regular customer who the baker served all the time knowing he was gay.

You remember incorrectly. In the Masterpiece Cakes case there was no prior service. In the Sweetcakes by Melissa case there was prior service. Four years before Rachel Cryer had purchased, as an individual, a wedding cake for her mother's wedding (a woman marrying a man).

There is no mention in the court documents of Rachel Cryer and Laurel Brown being "regular" customers, just that Rachel had purchased a cake 4 years earlier. That does not make them "regular" customers and is irrelevant because the Oregon law specifies "Full and Equal" treatment by places of public accommodation, not a full and equal for some, but only a subset for others.


>>>>

 

[eagle1462010]

I don't own a business that is considered a public accommodation. Perhaps your use of "you" and "your" is intended to mean "one" and "he/his".

Also, I don't want people to be able to ignore PA laws. I am arguing that they ought to be repealed because they are inherently unjust for the reason I gave above: They result in government force being used against a person who hasn't trespassed against anyone's person or property. Violence is always ethically unjustified, except in response to trespass or threat of trespass.

I'm sure you don't own anything. This wasn't the point being made.

The point made is that the public supports your business whether they patronize it or not. We give a shitload of tax benefits to businesses on the premise that they serve a public good. There are a lot of laws that are there to protect the businessman from being cheated by customers and vendors. Therefore, there is an obligation to make sure that if you offer a service, you are offering it to everyone equally.

If one is too racist or homophobic to work with blacks or gays, then maybe they should consider doing something else for a living.

At least until that happy day we identify the racists and homophobes and send them to re-education camps. (Yes, I'm fucking with you now, Rightwingers)

We GIve...................Standard mentality of the Liberal Hive............

All he is stated in that last post is the Gov'ts responsibility to the nation under regulating Commerce..........they are hired to do a job and part of that job under the constitution is Commerce.........In that same note the Constitution didn't say........CRONY CAPITALISM where instead of being a Referee.....they now decide who wins and who loses.............

Doesn't matter.............

Now tell me the rest of the story MR. I Lover Gov't Joe........................the part about WE TAKE..............taxes......in all forms...pay for inspections and so on..................

You love the WE GIVE BS.........Now tell me about WE TAKE that the Gov't does.............

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Let's swap couples.

"I didn't refuse to serve them because they were black, I refused to serve them because the cake they wanted was to be baked for their wedding". OR "I didn't refuse to serve them because they were interfaith (Catholic and Jew), I refused to serve them because the cake they wanted was to be baked for their wedding".

Ya, that doesn't make sense to me either.

In Newman v. Piggie Part the owner argued that serving black people in his establishment violated his religoius beliefs that the races should not mix. He argued that ""since his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever." he should be exempt from the law.

The same argument you make. He lost.

Well I don't know what part of the Holy Bible stated that race mixing was an abomination of God. I do know it's in there when it comes to homosexuality. I also know of no religion that preaches against race mixing although I could be wrong. I was educated in a Catholic school as a child and don't remember any teachings that promoted or enforced that. Most Christian religions are about the same.

What I'm saying is it's still apples and oranges. Being against gay activities is taught in Christian religions while race mixing is not. Sure, you can go to the Bible and find things to support your case, but unless it's part of your religion, it probably won't hold up in court.

This kind of reminds me of a story that came out not long ago. A couple of middle-east guys came to the US and got jobs as truck drivers. They were instructed to deliver a trailer of pork items and they refused. The company fired them, and they sued the company because pork is against their beliefs. They didn't have to handle it, they didn't have to look at it, they didn't even have to open the trailer doors until they got to their destination. The judge ruled in their favor stating that the company should have made accommodations because of their religion.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Let's swap couples.

"I didn't refuse to serve them because they were black, I refused to serve them because the cake they wanted was to be baked for their wedding". OR "I didn't refuse to serve them because they were interfaith (Catholic and Jew), I refused to serve them because the cake they wanted was to be baked for their wedding".

Ya, that doesn't make sense to me either.

In Newman v. Piggie Part the owner argued that serving black people in his establishment violated his religoius beliefs that the races should not mix. He argued that ""since his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever." he should be exempt from the law.

The same argument you make. He lost.

Well I don't know what part of the Holy Bible stated that race mixing was an abomination of God. I do know it's in there when it comes to homosexuality. I also know of no religion that preaches against race mixing although I could be wrong. I was educated in a Catholic school as a child and don't remember any teachings that promoted or enforced that. Most Christian religions are about the same.

What I'm saying is it's still apples and oranges. Being against gay activities is taught in Christian religions while race mixing is not. Sure, you can go to the Bible and find things to support your case, but unless it's part of your religion, it probably won't hold up in court.

This kind of reminds me of a story that came out not long ago. A couple of middle-east guys came to the US and got jobs as truck drivers. They were instructed to deliver a trailer of pork items and they refused. The company fired them, and they sued the company because pork is against their beliefs. They didn't have to handle it, they didn't have to look at it, they didn't even have to open the trailer doors until they got to their destination. The judge ruled in their favor stating that the company should have made accommodations because of their religion.

Religious beliefs have to be in the Bible to be valid?


There are many that say that segregation is Biblical - you may not agree - but that is irrelevant. It's THEIR belief. Otherwise you have a situation where you are saying my beliefs about the Bible are correct and your's are incorrect.

The owner cited in the case I previously provided that it was his belief, based on the Bible that the races should be segregated.

The Judge that originally upheld Virginia's anti-interracial marriage law said in his opinion: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

But in previous posts you stressed that the Bakers weren't discriminating against gays, they just didn't want to make them a cake because of their beliefs. So if it's the beliefs of the owner that are the standard, then business owners should be exempt from severing interracial couples if that violates their beliefs, they should be able to not serve blacks and whites in the same establishment if that is their beliefs, they should not be able to serve interfaith couples if that is their beliefs.

So is it religious beliefs that should be protected, or is it only religious beliefs that are in the Bible as long as you agree with that interpretation? If someone interprets it differently, that doesn't count?


>>>>

 

[koshergrl]

Sweet Cakes bakery owners file suit against state of Oregon

 

[dblack]

you know, you can keep repeating these "How I think the world should be" mantras all day, but the fact is, we've had this argument. Your side lost. Deal with it.

Gee Whiz. You're pretty into the jackboot thug thing, eh?

 

[koshergrl]

you know, you can keep repeating these "How I think the world should be" mantras all day, but the fact is, we've had this argument. Your side lost. Deal with it.

Gee Whiz. You're pretty into the jackboot thug thing, eh?

Yup. Meet joe that pig.

 

[kaz]

Let's swap couples.

"I didn't refuse to serve them because they were black, I refused to serve them because the cake they wanted was to be baked for their wedding". OR "I didn't refuse to serve them because they were interfaith (Catholic and Jew), I refused to serve them because the cake they wanted was to be baked for their wedding".

Ya, that doesn't make sense to me either.

In Newman v. Piggie Part the owner argued that serving black people in his establishment violated his religoius beliefs that the races should not mix. He argued that ""since his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever." he should be exempt from the law.

The same argument you make. He lost.

Well I don't know what part of the Holy Bible stated that race mixing was an abomination of God. I do know it's in there when it comes to homosexuality. I also know of no religion that preaches against race mixing although I could be wrong. I was educated in a Catholic school as a child and don't remember any teachings that promoted or enforced that. Most Christian religions are about the same.

What I'm saying is it's still apples and oranges. Being against gay activities is taught in Christian religions while race mixing is not. Sure, you can go to the Bible and find things to support your case, but unless it's part of your religion, it probably won't hold up in court.

This kind of reminds me of a story that came out not long ago. A couple of middle-east guys came to the US and got jobs as truck drivers. They were instructed to deliver a trailer of pork items and they refused. The company fired them, and they sued the company because pork is against their beliefs. They didn't have to handle it, they didn't have to look at it, they didn't even have to open the trailer doors until they got to their destination. The judge ruled in their favor stating that the company should have made accommodations because of their religion.

Religious beliefs have to be in the Bible to be valid?


There are many that say that segregation is Biblical - you may not agree - but that is irrelevant. It's THEIR belief. Otherwise you have a situation where you are saying my beliefs about the Bible are correct and your's are incorrect.

The owner cited in the case I previously provided that it was his belief, based on the Bible that the races should be segregated.

The Judge that originally upheld Virginia's anti-interracial marriage law said in his opinion: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

But in previous posts you stressed that the Bakers weren't discriminating against gays, they just didn't want to make them a cake because of their beliefs. So if it's the beliefs of the owner that are the standard, then business owners should be exempt from severing interracial couples if that violates their beliefs, they should be able to not serve blacks and whites in the same establishment if that is their beliefs, they should not be able to serve interfaith couples if that is their beliefs.

So is it religious beliefs that should be protected, or is it only religious beliefs that are in the Bible as long as you agree with that interpretation? If someone interprets it differently, that doesn't count?


>>>>

I've read his post and your reply three times, and I don't see how you possibly got this reply out of his post

 

[WorldWatcher]

I've read his post and your reply three times, and I don't see how you possibly got this reply out of his post

He cited the Bible as a basis for discrimination.

1. I asked if the Bible was to be considered the only source of religious beliefs.

2. Maybe you are not a Christian, but have religious beliefs about gays, blacks, interfaith couples - are those beliefs to be considered valid?

3. I pointed out that others in the past have cited religious beliefs to support their views on segregation. For example take the case of Bob Jones University. "The sponsors of the University genuinely believe that the Bible forbids interracial dating and marriage. To effectuate these views, Negroes were completely excluded until 1971. From 1971 to May 1975, the University accepted no applications from unmarried Negroes,5but did accept applications from Negroes married within their race."




FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.


>>>>

 

[kaz]

I've read his post and your reply three times, and I don't see how you possibly got this reply out of his post

He cited the Bible as a basis for discrimination.

1. I asked if the Bible was to be considered the only source of religious beliefs.

2. Maybe you are not a Christian, but have religious beliefs about gays, blacks, interfaith couples - are those beliefs to be considered valid?

3. I pointed out that others in the past have cited religious beliefs to support their views on segregation. For example take the case of Bob Jones University. "The sponsors of the University genuinely believe that the Bible forbids interracial dating and marriage. To effectuate these views, Negroes were completely excluded until 1971. From 1971 to May 1975, the University accepted no applications from unmarried Negroes,5but did accept applications from Negroes married within their race."




FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.


>>>>

You're doing things though like taking any reference to the bible to mean whatever reference you want. Every point you made was a left turn from what he actually said. You have to read his actual point and respond to that, not just say oh, that's a bible reference, I'll take it to mean whatever bible reference I want

 

[WorldWatcher]

You're doing things though like taking any reference to the bible to mean whatever reference you want. Every point you made was a left turn from what he actually said. You have to read his actual point and respond to that, not just say oh, that's a bible reference, I'll take it to mean whatever bible reference I want

He's the one that cited the Bible as the yardstick to justify violating the law.

again...

1. I simply point out that not all religious beliefs are based on the Bible, and

2. Others have used the Bible to justify segregation and discrimination and asked if the same exemption should be available to them or if this religoius exemption to generally applicable laws only applies if the customers are homosexual.


>>>>

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Let's swap couples.

"I didn't refuse to serve them because they were black, I refused to serve them because the cake they wanted was to be baked for their wedding". OR "I didn't refuse to serve them because they were interfaith (Catholic and Jew), I refused to serve them because the cake they wanted was to be baked for their wedding".

Ya, that doesn't make sense to me either.

In Newman v. Piggie Part the owner argued that serving black people in his establishment violated his religoius beliefs that the races should not mix. He argued that ""since his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever." he should be exempt from the law.

The same argument you make. He lost.

Well I don't know what part of the Holy Bible stated that race mixing was an abomination of God. I do know it's in there when it comes to homosexuality. I also know of no religion that preaches against race mixing although I could be wrong. I was educated in a Catholic school as a child and don't remember any teachings that promoted or enforced that. Most Christian religions are about the same.

What I'm saying is it's still apples and oranges. Being against gay activities is taught in Christian religions while race mixing is not. Sure, you can go to the Bible and find things to support your case, but unless it's part of your religion, it probably won't hold up in court.

This kind of reminds me of a story that came out not long ago. A couple of middle-east guys came to the US and got jobs as truck drivers. They were instructed to deliver a trailer of pork items and they refused. The company fired them, and they sued the company because pork is against their beliefs. They didn't have to handle it, they didn't have to look at it, they didn't even have to open the trailer doors until they got to their destination. The judge ruled in their favor stating that the company should have made accommodations because of their religion.

Religious beliefs have to be in the Bible to be valid?


There are many that say that segregation is Biblical - you may not agree - but that is irrelevant. It's THEIR belief. Otherwise you have a situation where you are saying my beliefs about the Bible are correct and your's are incorrect.

The owner cited in the case I previously provided that it was his belief, based on the Bible that the races should be segregated.

The Judge that originally upheld Virginia's anti-interracial marriage law said in his opinion: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

But in previous posts you stressed that the Bakers weren't discriminating against gays, they just didn't want to make them a cake because of their beliefs. So if it's the beliefs of the owner that are the standard, then business owners should be exempt from severing interracial couples if that violates their beliefs, they should be able to not serve blacks and whites in the same establishment if that is their beliefs, they should not be able to serve interfaith couples if that is their beliefs.

So is it religious beliefs that should be protected, or is it only religious beliefs that are in the Bible as long as you agree with that interpretation? If someone interprets it differently, that doesn't count?


>>>>

Believe it or not, God condoned slavery way back when, but that doesn't mean you can own slaves today based on what God said about it during biblical days.

This guy with the interracial couple had a weak case because no religion backed up what he was against. There is also severity when it comes to reading the Bible. For instance, the Ten Commandments is like our Bill of Rights when it comes to Christian religions. You might not believe this or really believe that, but nobody in the Christian religion dares violating the top ten.......or at least they are not supposed to.

No religion goes word for word in the Bible. That's why there are different religions. It's sort of picking and choosing what you think is important in God's eyes and thus forming a religion based on those beliefs.

Also, morality comes into play when a baker makes such a decision to not bake a cake. And I've asked this question twice already in this discussion, yet have had anybody answer it. So I'll give you a try:

Let's say a black owned bakery has a customer come in saying he's the Grand Poobah of the KKK. He wants the black baker to make him a cake for their annual Hang The N party. Does that black baker have the moral and legal right to refuse service to the Grand Poobah or not?

 

[kaz]

He's the one that cited the Bible as the yardstick to justify violating the law

Whatever guy, I guess you see what you want to see. I think he argued his first amendment right to you not force your views on others based on their first amendment religious rights. But liberalism is a positive rights ideology that you have the right to force your views on others and anyone not letting you do that is violating your rights while you don't give a shit about theirs

 

[WorldWatcher]

Believe it or not, God condoned slavery way back when, but that doesn't mean you can own slaves today based on what God said about it during biblical days.

This guy with the interracial couple had a weak case because no religion backed up what he was against. There is also severity when it comes to reading the Bible. For instance, the Ten Commandments is like our Bill of Rights when it comes to Christian religions. You might not believe this or really believe that, but nobody in the Christian religion dares violating the top ten.......or at least they are not supposed to.

No religion goes word for word in the Bible. That's why there are different religions. It's sort of picking and choosing what you think is important in God's eyes and thus forming a religion based on those beliefs.

Thank you for agreeing that there are different interpretations of the Bible.

I've shown at least three examples (Newman v. Piggie part, Loving. v. Viriginia, and Bob Jones University v. United States) where the Bible WAS used to justify racial segregation and individual businesses (Piggie Park), a University, and States were required to comply with generally applicable laws. This is the mire that occurs when you argue that a persons individual beliefs should exempt them from consequences under generally applicable laws.

Also, morality comes into play when a baker makes such a decision to not bake a cake. And I've asked this question twice already in this discussion, yet have had anybody answer it. So I'll give you a try:

Let's say a black owned bakery has a customer come in saying he's the Grand Poobah of the KKK. He wants the black baker to make him a cake for their annual Hang The N party. Does that black baker have the moral and legal right to refuse service to the Grand Poobah or not?

MORAL:
As I said earlier, I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws from being applied to private business with very view exceptions having to do with health and safety. So from a moral perspective I support a business owners right to refuse service to anyone based on any reason whether it be race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, veterans status, marital status or the customer is dressed like a one legged pirate with a parrot on his shoulder going "Arrggg Matey!"

(I may not agree with the morality of a decision to discriminate even though I think the owner should have that ability.


LEGAL:
Yes, the black baker can refuse the Grand Poobah of the KKK beause public accommodation law protect based on race (KKK is not a race), sex (KKK is not a sex), religion (KKK is not a religion), ethnicity (KKK is not an ethnicity), and in some states sexual orientation (KKK is not sexual orientation.

If the owner says "I don't serve the KKK", then the decision is based on a characteristic of the customer not covered under public accommodation laws. Now if the owner said "I won't serve you because you are white." - then he's up shits creek because race is covered.



>>>>