Rules For Traditionals: How People In Wedding Trades Can Defend Themselves

[martybegan]

What is refusing service because of a client's legal lifestyle but actively trying to suppress it? According to your definition, the wedding vendor is intolerant as well as not accepting the homosexual client.

The right doesn't believe or have Faith in distinguishing religious morality from capital based morality for their Cause--on a not-for-profit basis.

Was that supposed to make some form of sense?

Only if you have a clue and a Cause.

So in other words, no.

you said it; not me.

The "no" was to you having a point, which you evidently don't

Here is a hint, type simply, speak even simpler. Word count does not equal intellect.

 

[Nosmo King]

If the baker was TOLERANT! He would bake the cake, provide the exact same service he would for any other client, and move on. If he refuses service due to the client'so LEGAL LIFESTYLE, he is being intolerant because he is seeking to suppress that lifestyle. The merchant has no authority to make such a judgment. He is, in fact, forcing that client to seek alternative accommodations simply because that client is Gay.

If no acceptable alternative is available, the bigoted merchant has indeed suppressed the freedom of the client.

There are plenty of alternative to repressed Gay clients in large markets. But in small towns, those alternative do not necessarily exist. Therefore and market based reprisals are ineffective. Only the rule of law in the guise of public accommodation laws provides equal justice.

You can keep calling acceptance tolerance all you want, but it doesn't change things. and its not simply because the client is gay, its because the event is a gay wedding. That has been gone over countless times.

The government has no authority to force a person to act in a way they do not want to for such a trivial matter as baking a cake. And please show me these one baker counties in the US before you start getting into splitting hairs about availability.

What if the only baker in town charged $3000 per cake? Would that count as discrimination as well?

If each and every wedding cake costs $3,000 then, no that's not discrimination. If only cakes for Gay weddings cost $3,000 while other wedding cakes sold for 90% less...

Here in my home town, there is one bakery and a grocery store that bakes. The grocery store cakes taste like, well, grocery store cakes. The next baker is in Pennsylvania, about 15 miles away. then there is a baker in West Virginia, but their cakes tasted as if the frosting is made from shortening and powdered sugar.

So basically its only discrimination if the refusing vendor makes the BEST cakes in the area?

No. the only way market based reactions to discrimination work is if the market is large enough to have such an impact. therefore, the alternative is the great leveler found in our system of jurisprudence.

And what if the market doesn't care, or understands that people should be able to decide who they want to personally serve or interact with? So you are saying any business that doesn't want to cater a gay wedding or be involved should be put out of business? So the only way to be in business for yourself is to cater to YOUR moral compass?

The measuring stick is the degree of impact, and again, having to go to another baker, even 10 miles away, is far less onerous that saying "bake or suffer." You think the gay couples feelings outweigh the personal beliefs of a person no matter what the situation. I apply even weight to both, and in the end, the gay couple getting another baker is easier than the draconian implementation of thought crimes for businesses.

You are giving much more weight to the moral compass of the vendor. And to what end? What's the benefit to the discriminatory vendor for refusing service? What are his benefits? A clear conscious to openly discriminate in a blanket fashion? All gays are not worthy in his eyes so they don't get served. What good comes of that? The impact on the customers deemed not worthy of his services due to their legal lifestyle is not just inconvenience, higher costs and a possibly inferior product. It strips them of their dignity as American citizens, as tax payers, as human beings.

And what does the vendor get in return? Not just a lost sale, but a damaged business reputation and an irreparably damaged personal reputation. Where's his win by inflicting so much loss?

 

[martybegan]

You can keep calling acceptance tolerance all you want, but it doesn't change things. and its not simply because the client is gay, its because the event is a gay wedding. That has been gone over countless times.

The government has no authority to force a person to act in a way they do not want to for such a trivial matter as baking a cake. And please show me these one baker counties in the US before you start getting into splitting hairs about availability.

What if the only baker in town charged $3000 per cake? Would that count as discrimination as well?

If each and every wedding cake costs $3,000 then, no that's not discrimination. If only cakes for Gay weddings cost $3,000 while other wedding cakes sold for 90% less...

Here in my home town, there is one bakery and a grocery store that bakes. The grocery store cakes taste like, well, grocery store cakes. The next baker is in Pennsylvania, about 15 miles away. then there is a baker in West Virginia, but their cakes tasted as if the frosting is made from shortening and powdered sugar.

So basically its only discrimination if the refusing vendor makes the BEST cakes in the area?

No. the only way market based reactions to discrimination work is if the market is large enough to have such an impact. therefore, the alternative is the great leveler found in our system of jurisprudence.

And what if the market doesn't care, or understands that people should be able to decide who they want to personally serve or interact with? So you are saying any business that doesn't want to cater a gay wedding or be involved should be put out of business? So the only way to be in business for yourself is to cater to YOUR moral compass?

The measuring stick is the degree of impact, and again, having to go to another baker, even 10 miles away, is far less onerous that saying "bake or suffer." You think the gay couples feelings outweigh the personal beliefs of a person no matter what the situation. I apply even weight to both, and in the end, the gay couple getting another baker is easier than the draconian implementation of thought crimes for businesses.

You are giving much more weight to the moral compass of the vendor. And to what end? What's the benefit to the discriminatory vendor for refusing service? What are his benefits? A clear conscious to openly discriminate in a blanket fashion? All gays are not worthy in his eyes so they don't get served. What good comes of that? The impact on the customers deemed not worthy of his services due to their legal lifestyle is not just inconvenience, higher costs and a possibly inferior product. It strips them of their dignity as American citizens, as tax payers, as human beings.

And what does the vendor get in return? Not just a lost sale, but a damaged business reputation and an irreparably damaged personal reputation. Where's his win by inflicting so much loss?

Its is the vendor given the more harsh option of comply or be punished.
The gay couple can simply find another baker.

The end I am going for is not letting government force people to do things they don't want to do without an overriding interest. When Jim Crow laws were busted, when a tiered economy as existed in the South was dismantled, that was an overriding interest. A gay couple feeling bad about someone not liking them and not wanting to be part of their wedding is not an overriding interest.

Another question, say some local baker is forced to comply on pain of fine, or doesn't comply and they are run out of business, do you really think the local population is going to be all accepting of the gay couple that forced the issue? I doubt it.

 

[danielpalos]

The right doesn't believe or have Faith in distinguishing religious morality from capital based morality for their Cause--on a not-for-profit basis.

Was that supposed to make some form of sense?

Only if you have a clue and a Cause.

So in other words, no.

you said it; not me.

The "no" was to you having a point, which you evidently don't

Here is a hint, type simply, speak even simpler. Word count does not equal intellect.

Not enough passion to look up words you don't understand, for your Cause; i got it.

 

[bripat9643]

I suggest the strip-ee grow a freaking spine.

So basically its all about acceptance, right?

news flash, it isn't right to use the government to force people to accept other people.

Not about acceptance with a capital "A" but tolerance. Why should someone be so intolerant that commerce and dignity are sacrificed?

What difference does it make? Why should someone be so stupid that they can't understand that your preference aren't always what matters? Other people have different priorities.

Different purposes. To what end? What are these purposes?

To perpetuate petty repression? To continue to make others unworthy? To make those different from you feel less than they are?

Why? What good comes of all that fear and hate?

We live in a society and, occasionally, folks will have to interact with each other.

And all that ignorance, suspicion and fear is accomplishing what goal? What is the benefit of being nothing other than a self righteous bully?

Other people's goals are none of you business. They are entitled to serve their own purposes rather than yours.

but what are those purposes? What'
is the benefit from being a petty little bully? What good does it produce? Why should repression be a protected right?

A bully beats people up. That is, he initiates force against people. Declining to do business with you isn't beating you up. That isn't "repression." The Gaystapo is the only party engaged in repression.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Not about acceptance with a capital "A" but tolerance. Why should someone be so intolerant that commerce and dignity are sacrificed?

What difference does it make? Why should someone be so stupid that they can't understand that your preference aren't always what matters? Other people have different priorities.

Different purposes. To what end? What are these purposes?

To perpetuate petty repression? To continue to make others unworthy? To make those different from you feel less than they are?

Why? What good comes of all that fear and hate?

We live in a society and, occasionally, folks will have to interact with each other.

And all that ignorance, suspicion and fear is accomplishing what goal? What is the benefit of being nothing other than a self righteous bully?

Other people's goals are none of you business. They are entitled to serve their own purposes rather than yours.

but what are those purposes? What'
is the benefit from being a petty little bully? What good does it produce? Why should repression be a protected right?

A bully beats people up. That is, he initiates force against people. Declining to do business with you isn't beating you up. That isn't "repression." The Gaystapo is the only party engaged in repression.

Bigotry is a good thing to repress, and society should do just that, and we do.

 

[Nosmo King]

Not about acceptance with a capital "A" but tolerance. Why should someone be so intolerant that commerce and dignity are sacrificed?

What difference does it make? Why should someone be so stupid that they can't understand that your preference aren't always what matters? Other people have different priorities.

Different purposes. To what end? What are these purposes?

To perpetuate petty repression? To continue to make others unworthy? To make those different from you feel less than they are?

Why? What good comes of all that fear and hate?

We live in a society and, occasionally, folks will have to interact with each other.

And all that ignorance, suspicion and fear is accomplishing what goal? What is the benefit of being nothing other than a self righteous bully?

Other people's goals are none of you business. They are entitled to serve their own purposes rather than yours.

but what are those purposes? What'
is the benefit from being a petty little bully? What good does it produce? Why should repression be a protected right?

A bully beats people up. That is, he initiates force against people. Declining to do business with you isn't beating you up. That isn't "repression." The Gaystapo is the only party engaged in repression.

Sure they are, and I'll imagine that this "Gaystapo" of which you speak is real. Gays are paying customers, cash in hand requesting the exact same services merchants provide during their normal daily course of business to all other customers. Paying customers are repressive in your world? And here I thought you supported Capitalism.

 

[bripat9643]

The idea that those who would refuse provide services to gay weddings are "traditionalists" or they need to defend themselves is absurd.

The idea that you can treat people disrespectfully, refuse them service and then claim to be injured party when they take offence is laughable.

There is no way to defend against such offensive behaviour. Unless you're discriminating against all sinners, in which case you would be no one left you could serve with fearing for you immortal soul, you can't cherry pick among who you choose to turn away.

you are the offended party when some member of the GAYstapo reports you to the government and you get fined for $150,000. They idea that you are entitled to force someone to bake you a cake is what's absurd. It makes about as much sense as claiming you are entitled to enforce them to have you over for dinner.

 

[Nosmo King]

The idea that those who would refuse provide services to gay weddings are "traditionalists" or they need to defend themselves is absurd.

The idea that you can treat people disrespectfully, refuse them service and then claim to be injured party when they take offence is laughable.

There is no way to defend against such offensive behaviour. Unless you're discriminating against all sinners, in which case you would be no one left you could serve with fearing for you immortal soul, you can't cherry pick among who you choose to turn away.

you are the offended party when some member of the GAYstapo reports you to the government and you get fined for $150,000. They idea that you are entitled to force someone to bake you a cake is what's absurd. It makes about as much sense as claiming you are entitled to enforce them to have you over for dinner.

Did homosexual couples walk into a hardware store and demand a wedding cake? Were they so confused that they entered a movie theater and forced the girl behind the candy counter to print their wedding invitations?

NO! They went to a bakery and asked for the EXACT SAME SERVICES that bakery provides to anyone else.

This hyperbole about paying customers 'attacking' businesses with cash or 'forcing bakers to bake' is simply silly and it smacks of desperation.

 

[bripat9643]

What difference does it make? Why should someone be so stupid that they can't understand that your preference aren't always what matters? Other people have different priorities.

Different purposes. To what end? What are these purposes?

To perpetuate petty repression? To continue to make others unworthy? To make those different from you feel less than they are?

Why? What good comes of all that fear and hate?

We live in a society and, occasionally, folks will have to interact with each other.

And all that ignorance, suspicion and fear is accomplishing what goal? What is the benefit of being nothing other than a self righteous bully?

Other people's goals are none of you business. They are entitled to serve their own purposes rather than yours.

but what are those purposes? What'
is the benefit from being a petty little bully? What good does it produce? Why should repression be a protected right?

A bully beats people up. That is, he initiates force against people. Declining to do business with you isn't beating you up. That isn't "repression." The Gaystapo is the only party engaged in repression.

Bigotry is a good thing to repress, and society should do just that, and we do.

Then you opposed the First Amendment?

Speaking of bigotry, having an luck exterminating all the Jews?

 

[bripat9643]

What difference does it make? Why should someone be so stupid that they can't understand that your preference aren't always what matters? Other people have different priorities.

Different purposes. To what end? What are these purposes?

To perpetuate petty repression? To continue to make others unworthy? To make those different from you feel less than they are?

Why? What good comes of all that fear and hate?

We live in a society and, occasionally, folks will have to interact with each other.

And all that ignorance, suspicion and fear is accomplishing what goal? What is the benefit of being nothing other than a self righteous bully?

Other people's goals are none of you business. They are entitled to serve their own purposes rather than yours.

but what are those purposes? What'
is the benefit from being a petty little bully? What good does it produce? Why should repression be a protected right?

A bully beats people up. That is, he initiates force against people. Declining to do business with you isn't beating you up. That isn't "repression." The Gaystapo is the only party engaged in repression.

Sure they are, and I'll imagine that this "Gaystapo" of which you speak is real. Gays are paying customers, cash in hand requesting the exact same services merchants provide during their normal daily course of business to all other customers. Paying customers are repressive in your world? And here I thought you supported Capitalism.

They are when they get laws passed to fine you $150,000 if you refuse to serve them. Since when is declining to do business with someone the equivalent of beating them up?

 

[bripat9643]

The idea that those who would refuse provide services to gay weddings are "traditionalists" or they need to defend themselves is absurd.

The idea that you can treat people disrespectfully, refuse them service and then claim to be injured party when they take offence is laughable.

There is no way to defend against such offensive behaviour. Unless you're discriminating against all sinners, in which case you would be no one left you could serve with fearing for you immortal soul, you can't cherry pick among who you choose to turn away.

you are the offended party when some member of the GAYstapo reports you to the government and you get fined for $150,000. They idea that you are entitled to force someone to bake you a cake is what's absurd. It makes about as much sense as claiming you are entitled to enforce them to have you over for dinner.

Did homosexual couples walk into a hardware store and demand a wedding cake? Were they so confused that they entered a movie theater and forced the girl behind the candy counter to print their wedding invitations?

NO! They went to a bakery and asked for the EXACT SAME SERVICES that bakery provides to anyone else.

This hyperbole about paying customers 'attacking' businesses with cash or 'forcing bakers to bake' is simply silly and it smacks of desperation.

Your belief that they are entitled to the exact same service the bakery provides to everyone else is your mistake. There is no such right. A business is private property, not a public utility. The owner is entitled to use it any way he wishes so long as he doesn't steal or cheat anyone.

 

[bripat9643]

What difference does it make? Why should someone be so stupid that they can't understand that your preference aren't always what matters? Other people have different priorities.

Different purposes. To what end? What are these purposes?

To perpetuate petty repression? To continue to make others unworthy? To make those different from you feel less than they are?

Why? What good comes of all that fear and hate?

We live in a society and, occasionally, folks will have to interact with each other.

And all that ignorance, suspicion and fear is accomplishing what goal? What is the benefit of being nothing other than a self righteous bully?

Other people's goals are none of you business. They are entitled to serve their own purposes rather than yours.

but what are those purposes? What'
is the benefit from being a petty little bully? What good does it produce? Why should repression be a protected right?

A bully beats people up. That is, he initiates force against people. Declining to do business with you isn't beating you up. That isn't "repression." The Gaystapo is the only party engaged in repression.

Bigotry is a good thing to repress, and society should do just that, and we do.

So you would abolish the First Amendment.

Got it. We know where you're coming from, Nazi.

 

[martybegan]

Was that supposed to make some form of sense?

Only if you have a clue and a Cause.

So in other words, no.

you said it; not me.

The "no" was to you having a point, which you evidently don't

Here is a hint, type simply, speak even simpler. Word count does not equal intellect.

Not enough passion to look up words you don't understand, for your Cause; i got it.

No, not any interest in posters who string nonsense together and attempt to call it a "point"

 

[danielpalos]

I am not the who one who can't find a lost clue or a lost Cause; i merely have to pick and choose my advances.

 

[Nosmo King]

The idea that those who would refuse provide services to gay weddings are "traditionalists" or they need to defend themselves is absurd.

The idea that you can treat people disrespectfully, refuse them service and then claim to be injured party when they take offence is laughable.

There is no way to defend against such offensive behaviour. Unless you're discriminating against all sinners, in which case you would be no one left you could serve with fearing for you immortal soul, you can't cherry pick among who you choose to turn away.

you are the offended party when some member of the GAYstapo reports you to the government and you get fined for $150,000. They idea that you are entitled to force someone to bake you a cake is what's absurd. It makes about as much sense as claiming you are entitled to enforce them to have you over for dinner.

Did homosexual couples walk into a hardware store and demand a wedding cake? Were they so confused that they entered a movie theater and forced the girl behind the candy counter to print their wedding invitations?

NO! They went to a bakery and asked for the EXACT SAME SERVICES that bakery provides to anyone else.

This hyperbole about paying customers 'attacking' businesses with cash or 'forcing bakers to bake' is simply silly and it smacks of desperation.

Your belief that they are entitled to the exact same service the bakery provides to everyone else is your mistake. There is no such right. A business is private property, not a public utility. The owner is entitled to use it any way he wishes so long as he doesn't steal or cheat anyone.

Blanket discrimination is illegal. Discriminating based solely on the basis of age, race, or sexual orientation is illegal. Businesses open to the public are supposed to be OPEN TO THE PUBLIC no matter what group, class or race that public happens to be.

 

[bripat9643]

The idea that those who would refuse provide services to gay weddings are "traditionalists" or they need to defend themselves is absurd.

The idea that you can treat people disrespectfully, refuse them service and then claim to be injured party when they take offence is laughable.

There is no way to defend against such offensive behaviour. Unless you're discriminating against all sinners, in which case you would be no one left you could serve with fearing for you immortal soul, you can't cherry pick among who you choose to turn away.

you are the offended party when some member of the GAYstapo reports you to the government and you get fined for $150,000. They idea that you are entitled to force someone to bake you a cake is what's absurd. It makes about as much sense as claiming you are entitled to enforce them to have you over for dinner.

Did homosexual couples walk into a hardware store and demand a wedding cake? Were they so confused that they entered a movie theater and forced the girl behind the candy counter to print their wedding invitations?

NO! They went to a bakery and asked for the EXACT SAME SERVICES that bakery provides to anyone else.

This hyperbole about paying customers 'attacking' businesses with cash or 'forcing bakers to bake' is simply silly and it smacks of desperation.

Your belief that they are entitled to the exact same service the bakery provides to everyone else is your mistake. There is no such right. A business is private property, not a public utility. The owner is entitled to use it any way he wishes so long as he doesn't steal or cheat anyone.

Blanket discrimination is illegal. Discriminating based solely on the basis of age, race, or sexual orientation is illegal. Businesses open to the public are supposed to be OPEN TO THE PUBLIC no matter what group, class or race that public happens to be.

I know what the law says, numskull. We are talking about rights, not the law. Only a complete moron believes they are the same thing.

 

[Seawytch]

The idea that those who would refuse provide services to gay weddings are "traditionalists" or they need to defend themselves is absurd.

The idea that you can treat people disrespectfully, refuse them service and then claim to be injured party when they take offence is laughable.

There is no way to defend against such offensive behaviour. Unless you're discriminating against all sinners, in which case you would be no one left you could serve with fearing for you immortal soul, you can't cherry pick among who you choose to turn away.

you are the offended party when some member of the GAYstapo reports you to the government and you get fined for $150,000. They idea that you are entitled to force someone to bake you a cake is what's absurd. It makes about as much sense as claiming you are entitled to enforce them to have you over for dinner.

Did homosexual couples walk into a hardware store and demand a wedding cake? Were they so confused that they entered a movie theater and forced the girl behind the candy counter to print their wedding invitations?

NO! They went to a bakery and asked for the EXACT SAME SERVICES that bakery provides to anyone else.

This hyperbole about paying customers 'attacking' businesses with cash or 'forcing bakers to bake' is simply silly and it smacks of desperation.

Your belief that they are entitled to the exact same service the bakery provides to everyone else is your mistake. There is no such right. A business is private property, not a public utility. The owner is entitled to use it any way he wishes so long as he doesn't steal or cheat anyone.

Blanket discrimination is illegal. Discriminating based solely on the basis of age, race, or sexual orientation is illegal. Businesses open to the public are supposed to be OPEN TO THE PUBLIC no matter what group, class or race that public happens to be.

I know what the law says, numskull. We are talking about rights, not the law. Only a complete moron believes they are the same thing.

So how's your legal challenge going? How are any legal challenges going?

What To Make Of The Supreme Court s Decision Not To Hear That Anti-Gay Photographer s Case ThinkProgress

 

[bripat9643]

you are the offended party when some member of the GAYstapo reports you to the government and you get fined for $150,000. They idea that you are entitled to force someone to bake you a cake is what's absurd. It makes about as much sense as claiming you are entitled to enforce them to have you over for dinner.

Did homosexual couples walk into a hardware store and demand a wedding cake? Were they so confused that they entered a movie theater and forced the girl behind the candy counter to print their wedding invitations?

NO! They went to a bakery and asked for the EXACT SAME SERVICES that bakery provides to anyone else.

This hyperbole about paying customers 'attacking' businesses with cash or 'forcing bakers to bake' is simply silly and it smacks of desperation.

Your belief that they are entitled to the exact same service the bakery provides to everyone else is your mistake. There is no such right. A business is private property, not a public utility. The owner is entitled to use it any way he wishes so long as he doesn't steal or cheat anyone.

Blanket discrimination is illegal. Discriminating based solely on the basis of age, race, or sexual orientation is illegal. Businesses open to the public are supposed to be OPEN TO THE PUBLIC no matter what group, class or race that public happens to be.

I know what the law says, numskull. We are talking about rights, not the law. Only a complete moron believes they are the same thing.

So how's your legal challenge going? How are any legal challenges going?

What To Make Of The Supreme Court s Decision Not To Hear That Anti-Gay Photographer s Case ThinkProgress

When you can't argue rights you argue the law, and when you can't argue the law you change the subject.

 

[JoeB131]

You do realize that the bigoted pizza place did exactly what you preach, right?

THEY DON'T offer CATERING.

You are either uninformed or simply like calling people names.

But here was the thing. They didn't say, "No, we don't do catering" or not even "no, we don't do wedding receptions, because what kind of classless people serve Pizza at a Wedding Reception".

They specified, "We won't cater a GAY Wedding Reception because It makes Baby Jesus Cry." Or some such shit.