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

[bucs90]

I think there is a difference in saying:

"I'll make YOU a blue and white vanilla cake, but wont make YOU a blue and white vanilla cake because you're gay"

VS

"I'll make YOU a blue and white vanilla cake...........but YOU, no I wont make a cake the depicts Adolph Hitler and a burning cross"

Asking a person to create a cake depicting a vulgar or offensive image is a lot different than just denying someone the same old cake anyone else could buy just because they are gay.

Huge difference. And I would NEVER support forcing a baker to make a cake that depicts an image that he finds offensive. In fact, forcing him to make that cake (which some say is art) could be a violation of his freedom of speech.

You're inserting your own morals, here. Just because Adolf Hitler's image is offensive to you, doesn't mean that it's factually offensive. Offensive is a -purely- subjective value.

Just because, to you, it seems inherently evil to say I won't bake you the same cake because you're gay, doesn't mean that it's factually evil. Evil is subjective (unless you can prove the nature of the universe). Again, that's your morality, which, at the risk of sounding redundant, is purely subjective.

What I'm saying is that there's only a moral difference here because you've decided that there is one. The action itself is the same. I don't agree with you so I don't want to do business with you.

If that's the case, and the only thing that makes these two actions different is -your- moral view, why should it be -your- moral view that decides how the baker does business and not the -baker's- moral view?

I don't agree.

What if they wanted to buy a tuxedo for the wedding. And two men who don't know each other walk into a store, and both want the SAME tuxedo for their separate weddings.

And the owner realizes one man is gay and the suit may be worn in a gay wedding. The other man is black and will wear it to marry a woman. And a third white straight man walks in, wanting the same style tux the other 2 want.

And the owner says....

I have three of these tuxedos in stock. BUT.....

I'll only sale to the white straight male. Because I don't like blacks, and don't believe in gay marriage. So you other two....you wont get sold these other 2 of the 3 suits.

That is WRONG.

However, if the third man walked in and said "I want the same tux....but, I want you to stitch on some Nazi patches to the sleeves, and stitch "Jews Go To Hell" on the back.

That too would be WRONG, and the owner should be allowed to say no.


Refusing to sale the SAME product to someone simply because you don't like something about their lifestyle outside of the store...which in no way affects your business...is wrong.

But, forcing that businessman to alter his product in a way he finds offensive is wrong too.

Same product, same service.

Demand the product be changed....that is not right.

 

[bucs90]

But, that said, if the customer had a gay wedding, and requested the baker to put on the cake "Steve and John", he should be able to refuse.

If they want the same regular ass cake the straight couple wants, they should get it. But the owner shouldn't be forced to produce or alter a product in a way that he finds offensive.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

What is more vile than this insane belief that homosexuality is something to be "healed"?

Well, back, say, in the fifties the idea that homosexuality was some sort of sickness would have been a common belief, so,

since we've now discovered that most conservatives want to take civil rights back to the fifties or earlier,

we shouldn't be surprised that they'd bring gay rights along.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What a jackass.

lol, really? You just said the current law is wrong. The current law is the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

You oppose that law, you're on the same side of the issue as every other white racist.

No I'm not, asshole. However, pointing out the difference to you is a waste of time. You're only interested in thumping your chest and feeling smug about your supposedly superior moral code. However, the reality is that your jus t a stupid goose stepping thus.

Excellent self projection.

Now make a real argument, please, to the OP.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Apparently some folks didn't get the memo.

no one is "compelling them to work for another" as in slavery.

you simply can't mindlessly discriminate against entire classes of people

But you're enforcing that by compelling them to work for another against their will. You can't ostrich it away.

No. You don't have to take a job that by law requires you to serve people you'd rather discriminate against.

A slave never had that option.

 

[The Rabbi]

no one is "compelling them to work for another" as in slavery.

you simply can't mindlessly discriminate against entire classes of people

But you're enforcing that by compelling them to work for another against their will. You can't ostrich it away.

No. You don't have to take a job that by law requires you to serve people you'd rather discriminate against.

A slave never had that option.

Missed the entire point? That is exactly the point of all this: the bakery in question did have to take a job to serve people they didnt want to.
Geez. The stupidity of the Left knows no bounds.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The only part people are objecting to is forcing private businesses to serve people the owners don't want to server. The Constitution grants no authority to the federal government to do that. Furthermore, it's just plane wrong. A business is private property, and people have the right to prevent whoever they want from using their property. If someone objected to a law that prevented you from publishing racist literature on First Amendment grounds, you would also call them a racist. In fact, that very thing goes on every day on college campuses where freedom of speech is a joke.

The 'only part'? You mean the part that says a business that is open to the public cannot refuse service to black people?

That is the part you and about 90% of the conservatives around here are objecting to.

That makes you racists. That is what racism is.

So if you allow bigots to publish racist literature, does that make you a racist? IF you defend the right of Nazis to parade in Skokie IL, does that make you a racist?

Racist speech protected by the 1st Amendment is not racial discrimination.

 

[Avatar4321]

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?

Because you care about them. Because they are human. Why else would you want to heal someone who needs to be healed?

Why would you want anyone to remain sick?

 

[NYcarbineer]

But you're enforcing that by compelling them to work for another against their will. You can't ostrich it away.

No. You don't have to take a job that by law requires you to serve people you'd rather discriminate against.

A slave never had that option.

Missed the entire point? That is exactly the point of all this: the bakery in question did have to take a job to serve people they didnt want to.
Geez. The stupidity of the Left knows no bounds.

No they didn't. They could have closed down. They could have said, our religious beliefs cannot accommodate us being in a business that by law requires us to serve homosexuals,

therefore we are getting out of this business.

 

[dblack]

no one is "compelling them to work for another" as in slavery.

you simply can't mindlessly discriminate against entire classes of people

But you're enforcing that by compelling them to work for another against their will. You can't ostrich it away.

No. You don't have to take a job that by law requires you to serve people you'd rather discriminate against.

A slave never had that option.

Yikes be careful man you're gonna sprain your brain.

 

[Avatar4321]

No. You don't have to take a job that by law requires you to serve people you'd rather discriminate against.

A slave never had that option.

Missed the entire point? That is exactly the point of all this: the bakery in question did have to take a job to serve people they didnt want to.
Geez. The stupidity of the Left knows no bounds.

No they didn't. They could have closed down. They could have said, our religious beliefs cannot accommodate us being in a business that by law requires us to serve homosexuals,

therefore we are getting out of this business.

So they should starve their families because they hold a religious belief?

And you are the compassionate person here?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Because you care about them. Because they are human. Why else would you want to heal someone who needs to be healed?

Why would you want anyone to remain sick?

Then are you willing to submit to a cure for your sickness? Your bigotry towards homosexuals?

 

[bendog]

I think I mostly agree with Emily, though my focus is different.

I think Goldwater opposed civil rights prohibitions on individual discrimination, as opposed to govts being able to pass laws treating one group differently than another for no good reason. Goldwater was a Jew, who knew discrimination first hand. But, if you force a fundy Christian baker to do what he believes his religion forbids inorder to practice his trade ... you give him an untenable choice. Rather, the Elizabethan compromise underlying our religious freedoms is basically that one may believe whatever one wants, but he may not commit treason against the civil authority.

Still, Goldwater had no issue with finding it illegal for a govt to treat one group differently from another group without stating a good reason. (He did feel the fed govt's power in elections was limited, though I'm not sure if he'd have had a problem with suing individual states to strike down Jim Crowe laws via the 14th amend. Compelling states to have the fed govt decide their voting districts was too much for him)

In short, the govt should not force individual behavior.

I don't understand this, "What we have instead is either unconstitutional laws forcing a policy one way or the other, either pushing gay marriage against opposing beliefs, or banning it against opposing beliefs."

I'm not compelled to do anything when the state is forced to recognize a glbt marriage in way mine is already recognized.

The elephant in the room here is the judicial branch making unconstitutional decisions that the legislature can't pass legislation to overcome because they are limited.

I didn't track that. The only judicial restriction at issue with this is that the state may not pass a law that results in one group being treated differently than another, unless there is a secular reason that is supported by peer reviewed science.

There is no showing that GLBT marriage is any more, or less, beneficial than straight marriage in legit state interests, like child rearing outcome.

There's a weakness to this analysis, imo, in that the court's defer the judgment on who decides when some beneificial aspect occurs. For example polygamy. It may well turn out that statistically we cannot see a difference in the number of girls from poly marriages getting college educations. However, that may be because there are hidden pockets of polygamy, or individual incidents where polygamy is incident to child sexual abuse.

I'd prefer leaving the decision of benefit to the test of public opinion and debate. If it turns out that some states turn a blind eye to obvious equal protection abuse, like Jim Crowe ... well, maybe then.

 

[NYcarbineer]

But you're enforcing that by compelling them to work for another against their will. You can't ostrich it away.

No. You don't have to take a job that by law requires you to serve people you'd rather discriminate against.

A slave never had that option.

Yikes be careful man you're gonna sprain your brain.

Am I wrong? Is anyone forced into the bakery business in modern day America?

 

[The Rabbi]

No. You don't have to take a job that by law requires you to serve people you'd rather discriminate against.

A slave never had that option.

Missed the entire point? That is exactly the point of all this: the bakery in question did have to take a job to serve people they didnt want to.
Geez. The stupidity of the Left knows no bounds.

No they didn't. They could have closed down. They could have said, our religious beliefs cannot accommodate us being in a business that by law requires us to serve homosexuals,

therefore we are getting out of this business.

They could have committed suicide too to avoid it. But I dont think anyone thinks those are reasonable expectations.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

What is more vile than this insane belief that homosexuality is something to be "healed"?

Well, Ann Coulter's belief that Christians are 'perfected Jews' might be a contender.

 

[Katzndogz]

...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.

The baker does make birthday cakes as part of his business. The baker offers the identical product to everyone who isn't named Adolph Hitler. The difference being, the baker does not have to attend the birthday party, but does have to attend the wedding.

If a Christian baker baked the wedding cake exactly as ordered except does not provide two male figurines or two female figurines, and will only do door to door delivery of the cake, or, like a birthday cake, you pick up the box, set up and decorations are the responsibility of the couple, would you be okay with that?

 

[Avatar4321]

Then are you willing to submit to a cure for your sickness? Your bigotry towards homosexuals?

I'd have to have some bigotry first. I don't hate a single person. Quite the opposite. I want all to be well and healthy.

 

[Avatar4321]

No. You don't have to take a job that by law requires you to serve people you'd rather discriminate against.

A slave never had that option.

Yikes be careful man you're gonna sprain your brain.

Am I wrong? Is anyone forced into the bakery business in modern day America?

Typical fascist. Do what I want you to do or you have no right to work in your profession.

 

[Avatar4321]

Missed the entire point? That is exactly the point of all this: the bakery in question did have to take a job to serve people they didnt want to.
Geez. The stupidity of the Left knows no bounds.

No they didn't. They could have closed down. They could have said, our religious beliefs cannot accommodate us being in a business that by law requires us to serve homosexuals,

therefore we are getting out of this business.

They could have committed suicide too to avoid it. But I dont think anyone thinks those are reasonable expectations.

NYC seems to.