Should a Jewish Bakery Have the Right to Deny...

[emilynghiem]

...a Christian Ideology based White Power group who goes into a Jewish bakery and request a cake in the shape a HHH and a burning cross? If they Jew denied baking this cake, since it's deeply against their religious faith?

Should the Jewish baker be forced to bake such a cake.


I mean few people argued the Baker was wrong when he refused to bake the cake "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler!"

Adolf Hitler denied his birthday cake - Telegraph

Yet in AZ one can not conceive that a religious baker has any argument in not baking a cake for a gay marriage.

The vast vast majority of Christian bakers that don't want any part of a gay marriage ceremony would be fine selling to gays for any other occasion.

I personally disagree with a baker not making money for a gay marriage ceremony, but I can see their argument.

Go back to the birthday cake for Adolf Hitler, I think that baker was in the right and so did most people!

Again, your premise fails because it is a fallacy, comparing two dissimilar things.

A Jewish baker does not make ‘Adolf Hitler’ birthday cakes as part of his standard business practice, whereas a Christian who makes wedding cakes indeed makes wedding cakes as part of his standard business practice. For the Christian baker to refuse service to gay Americans where that identical service is afforded to other customers is a violation of public accommodations laws.

A Jewish baker who refuses to sell an ‘Adolf Hitler’ birthday cake to neo-Nazis or anti-Semites is not in violation of public accommodations laws because that’s a service he doesn’t provide to anyone in any event, including neo-Nazis and anti-Semites.

The issue, therefore, has nothing to do with the item sold – a cake – but the refusal of offering a service to one class of persons while providing that same service to everyone else.

These are good points, Thanks CCJones.

I've had personal experiences where I accepted people's biases and reasons for rejection, even though these could be seen as unfair.

I had one landlord become so uncomfortable showing me and my boyfriend an apt for rent, he came out and told me I shouldn't wear black, as a Vietnamese girl, because he happened to be a Veteran and had flashbacks to seeing civilians in black running through fields setting up soldiers for attack. He was very honest and just wanted to warn me, but anyone else could have taken insult or embarrassment from such a remark, insinuating I "looked like VC."

I had a lady at a community meetings admit in front of the whole group she had trouble working with an "Asian" on the committee (for justice for a latino man shot accidentally by police, because his cousin was the drug dealer they were after). She explained that she was resentful of Asian immigrants who received benefits in business from affirmative action while latino's born in this country didn't receive the same help. And I told her I sympathized with class discrimination, but it happens in all cultures and races; there are poor whites, blacks, vietnamese and latinos fighting to save our historic neighborhood while other people in all our communities neglect and forget us. So it was class division not race that was to blame. I actually respected the fact she was honest, and was trying to work this out. Despite that I made her so uncomfortable, just upset her for being there as if it was a slap in the face. Like what do I have to complain to the police about, it's the latino's who are suffering, not the asians.

I even had an Asian man reject me for a job offer. A businessman needed a secretary who would also help him improve his English. I was born here, and a native speaker, and helped other Asian lawyers or scholars to practice English and to proofread/edit on a professional level, and I tutored English as a teacher. But he couldn't handle having an Asian teach him, and wanted an AMERICAN. the lady at the placement office was so embarrassed, because I WAS AMERICAN, but the man was too embarrassed to even meet me because of HIS culture. And I understood it was an "Asian thing."

When people are that honest, why not just work with their flaws and accept their biases. Is it really people's fault we're not perfect, and have emotional reactions and associations we can't just turn off?
Why can we listen to each other and accept where we have differences, and celebrate the beauty of understanding. Why does everything have to be a political issue or battle.

Can we just be human, with all our flaws, our quirky beliefs, and let each other be ourselves? For the sake of humanity?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

.

The PC Police are very concerned with "the law" when it suits them.

Funny, I don't see them standing up for "the law" when it comes to illegal immigration.

.

That’s a consequence of your ignorance of the law, not your errant perception that the law is applied inconsistently.

As a fact of Constitutional law, undocumented immigrants are entitled to due process rights (Plyler v. Doe (1982)). Consequently, undocumented immigrants are not ‘illegal’ until such time as a court determines they are and their due process rights exhausted.

Therefore, those who advocate for equal protection rights for same-sex couples are consistent in their advocacy of due process rights for undocumented immigrants, as to seek to deny either their civil liberties is equally offensive to the Constitution.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dig deeper, nutters! The world is passing you by. Gay Americans will have equal rights. You cannot stop the train of progress. And this fucker is moving faster than most.

I'd love for a nutter to shock me and land on the right side of an issue for a change.

I don't know which "nutters" you are referring to,

* but the people saying SOME cases of homosexuality can be healed are RIGHT.
Not ALL cases are the same, some can be changed if people are naturally heterosexual,
but some cannot if those souls are spiritually that way.

* the principle of religious freedom works BOTH ways, govt can neither impose/establish a religion which discriminates/denies/excludes equal freedom of others AND cannot abridge the freedom of religion either.

So constitutionally, laws can neither ban nor force gay marriage, but would have to remain neutral in wording and interpretation so as neither to impose or deny either, and leave it to the people to apply in private in accordance with their beliefs.

another example of equal free choice under the Constitution:
* the opponents against ACA mandates (from both the left and the right) are RIGHT
that these mandates unconstitutionally interfere with beliefs in singlepayer, free choice of health care, AND right to pay for health care without interference by private insurance

they may not all word their objections in constitutional terms, but the fact they don't consent to paying insurance mandates can be translated into similar terms the RIGHT use

 

[emilynghiem]

.

The PC Police are very concerned with "the law" when it suits them.

Funny, I don't see them standing up for "the law" when it comes to illegal immigration.

.

That’s a consequence of your ignorance of the law, not your errant perception that the law is applied inconsistently.

As a fact of Constitutional law, undocumented immigrants are entitled to due process rights (Plyler v. Doe (1982)). Consequently, undocumented immigrants are not ‘illegal’ until such time as a court determines they are and their due process rights exhausted.

Therefore, those who advocate for equal protection rights for same-sex couples are consistent in their advocacy of due process rights for undocumented immigrants, as to seek to deny either their civil liberties is equally offensive to the Constitution.

OK CCJones
if these "equal rights" advocates are for due process before depriving people of freedom,
where is the "due process" when assuming citizens won't pay for health care or insurance WITHOUT imposing federal mandates and fines?

why is federal law used to treat taxpaying citizens one way, rigorously enforcing this ACA as a "pre-emptive" measure,
while waiting on due process BEFORE enforcing laws for "alleged" illegal immigrants?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Dig deeper, nutters! The world is passing you by. Gay Americans will have equal rights. You cannot stop the train of progress. And this fucker is moving faster than most.

I'd love for a nutter to shock me and land on the right side of an issue for a change.

I don't know which "nutters" you are referring to,

* but the people saying SOME cases of homosexuality can be healed are RIGHT.
Not ALL cases are the same, some can be changed if people are naturally heterosexual,
but some cannot if those souls are spiritually that way.

* the principle of religious freedom works BOTH ways, govt can neither impose/establish a religion which discriminates/denies/excludes equal freedom of others AND cannot abridge the freedom of religion either.

So constitutionally, laws can neither ban nor force gay marriage, but would have to remain neutral in wording and interpretation so as neither to impose or deny either, and leave it to the people to apply in private in accordance with their beliefs.

another example of equal free choice under the Constitution:
* the opponents against ACA mandates (from both the left and the right) are RIGHT
that these mandates unconstitutionally interfere with beliefs in singlepayer, free choice of health care, AND right to pay for health care without interference by private insurance

they may not all word their objections in constitutional terms, but the fact they don't consent to paying insurance mandates can be translated into similar terms the RIGHT use

Why would you try to heal homosexuality?

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's based on a basic principle of liberalism that posits you and all you produce are the property of the state. Your business exists to serve the state first and your own purposes second.

That's incorrect. It's based on the idea that societies get to set rules for those within said society.

Where did "society" get the authority to set rules for who I can do business with?

They got it from the exact same place they got the authority to lock you up forever or put you to death if you happen to kill your neighbor and dispose of his dismembered body in six garbage bags into a landfill.

Do you wish to contest that authority?

 

[The Rabbi]

That's incorrect. It's based on the idea that societies get to set rules for those within said society.

Where did "society" get the authority to set rules for who I can do business with?

They got it from the exact same place they got the authority to lock you up forever or put you to death if you happen to kill your neighbor and dispose of his dismembered body in six garbage bags into a landfill.

Do you wish to contest that authority?

No they didnt. No society that calls itself free has that authority. Only authoritarian states have that authority.
As usual you're wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

That's incorrect. It's based on the idea that societies get to set rules for those within said society.

Where did "society" get the authority to set rules for who I can do business with?

From the same place they got the authority to create the society in the first place.

Nowhere, in other words.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Where did "society" get the authority to set rules for who I can do business with?

From the same place they got the authority to create the society in the first place.

Nowhere, in other words.

Nowhere, anywhere, everywhere. Doesn't matter now does it because, they have it.

 

[bripat9643]

That's correct, and I fixed it, TY.

And I think not. If they owned it they would be making the payments. No, you own it, we just get to tell you how or if you can drive it, at least on our roads that is.

Not true. Ownership means control. If you don't control it, you don't own it. Lots of men have to make child support payments. Do they own their children?

Ownership means responsibility.

Meaningless twaddle. The bottom line is that if you don't control it, you don't own it.

As for control, that we limit, for good reason, including that used to control your children. We, as a society, have an interest.

More meaningless twaddle. Your "interest" in my property is irrelevant. The issue is whether you have a right to interfere in the use of my property. If it doesn't violate your property rights, then the answer is an emphatic "no."

If you don't like our rules, you are free to leave. That is one of our rules.

Take your rules and Stick them where the sun don't shine, asshole. You have no authority to impose your rules on anyone.

You're a good little boot-licking fascist toady. I fear for humanity when I observe so many loathsome worms like you in the world.

 

[bripat9643]

From the same place they got the authority to create the society in the first place.

Nowhere, in other words.

Nowhere, anywhere, everywhere. Doesn't matter now does it because, they have it.

No they don't, moron. They simple have the power to enforce their whims.

 

[bripat9643]

That's incorrect. It's based on the idea that societies get to set rules for those within said society.

Where did "society" get the authority to set rules for who I can do business with?

They got it from the exact same place they got the authority to lock you up forever or put you to death if you happen to kill your neighbor and dispose of his dismembered body in six garbage bags into a landfill.

Do you wish to contest that authority?

Wrong again. You're referring to the right of self-defense. That has nothing to do with "society" imposing arbitrary rules on people who are bothering no one.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Why do do the Christians only choose to deny services to only homersexuals and not other people that are sinners???

Nice twist of bullshit. They aren't denying gays services. A gay can shop at their bakery. What they are doing si denying a cake for a gay wedding which they object to! Big difference between the two!

Not according to the state of Oregon.

You are wrong.
There is no criminal statute. Only civil.
The basis of this controversy is a successful lawsuit by the plaintiffs.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Not true. Ownership means control. If you don't control it, you don't own it. Lots of men have to make child support payments. Do they own their children?

Ownership means responsibility.

Meaningless twaddle. The bottom line is that if you don't control it, you don't own it.

As for control, that we limit, for good reason, including that used to control your children. We, as a society, have an interest.

More meaningless twaddle. Your "interest" in my property is irrelevant. The issue is whether you have a right to interfere in the use of my property. If it doesn't violate your property rights, then the answer is an emphatic "no."

If you don't like our rules, you are free to leave. That is one of our rules.

Take your rules and Stick them where the sun don't shine, asshole. You have no authority to impose your rules on anyone.

You're a good little boot-licking fascist toady. I fear for humanity when I observe so many loathsome worms like you in the world.

I see time has not made you any smarter, or wiser? So be it...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Nice twist of bullshit. They aren't denying gays services. A gay can shop at their bakery. What they are doing si denying a cake for a gay wedding which they object to! Big difference between the two!

Not according to the state of Oregon.

You are wrong.
There is no criminal statute. Only civil.
The basis of this controversy is a successful lawsuit by the plaintiffs.

There's no suit, just a complaint, which Melissa lost as now has to pay up for.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Nowhere, in other words.

Nowhere, anywhere, everywhere. Doesn't matter now does it because, they have it.

No they don't, moron. They simple have the power to enforce their whims.

Lie to yourself all you wish, it matters not.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Here's the rub. If someone walks into my business and acts in a manner I don't like, I will refuse service and there is not a thing anyone can do about it.
I do not have to give a reason.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Here's the rub. If someone walks into my business and acts in a manner I don't like, I will refuse service and there is not a thing anyone can do about it.
I do not have to give a reason.

You should continue to work for other people. They understand the law you do not.

 

[bripat9643]

Ownership means responsibility.

Meaningless twaddle. The bottom line is that if you don't control it, you don't own it.



More meaningless twaddle. Your "interest" in my property is irrelevant. The issue is whether you have a right to interfere in the use of my property. If it doesn't violate your property rights, then the answer is an emphatic "no."

If you don't like our rules, you are free to leave. That is one of our rules.

Take your rules and Stick them where the sun don't shine, asshole. You have no authority to impose your rules on anyone.

You're a good little boot-licking fascist toady. I fear for humanity when I observe so many loathsome worms like you in the world.

I see time has not made you any smarter, or wiser? So be it...

How ironic!

 

[bripat9643]

Nowhere, anywhere, everywhere. Doesn't matter now does it because, they have it.

No they don't, moron. They simple have the power to enforce their whims.

Lie to yourself all you wish, it matters not.

More irony. Only a moron would equate having all the guns with having "authority."