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

[dannyboys]

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?

If they believe discriminating against homosexuals is more important than feeding their families that is their decision.

I don't think you need to worry about whether a Jewish family will be going hungry in America any time soon. LOL!
I wonder how many Jewish diamond merchants refuse to sell to gay jewelry store owners? LOL!!!!!!!
It's a free country. I own a business I decide who I do business with. If I don't like the look of your shirt you aren't getting any service from me......period.

 

[dblack]

As an aside, as a Jew myself I recognize Hitler was evil, but without him and the Nazis it's fair to ask if the modern state of Israel would even exist.

That's a very odd 'aside'. What is your point?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

As an aside, as a Jew myself I recognize Hitler was evil, but without him and the Nazis it's fair to ask if the modern state of Israel would even exist.

That's a very odd 'aside'. What is your point?

Point was objecting to making a 'happy birthday to Hitler' cake because you're Jewish is possibly short-sighted. If Hitler never existed and neither did the Holocaust might not have Israel today. So in a temporal cause and effect sense, might be appropriate to make the cake as a Jew.

If not objecting to anything having to do with Egypt because of past enslavement, objecting to Nazi-related things is hypocritical. Understandable, but still hypocritical. At some point, you have to let go of the past. Remember it and honor those who suffered, but holding on to hate is itself against G-d's law. If I could go back in time and had the choice of murdering Hitler as a child, knowing what was to come, would I? No. How things played out was sad and horrible, but historical events unfoled in such a way that what we have today is a direct result of the past. Without Nazis Russia would have been much more powerful. Would Russia and the US have had a nuclear war? Who cans ay. All we can say is because of WWII we have relative peace now, or at least, no nuclear war and resulting calamities. The past was bad, but it could have been worse.

 

[dblack]

As an aside, as a Jew myself I recognize Hitler was evil, but without him and the Nazis it's fair to ask if the modern state of Israel would even exist.

That's a very odd 'aside'. What is your point?

Point was objecting to making a 'happy birthday to Hitler' cake because you're Jewish is possibly short-sighted. If Hitler never existed and neither did the Holocaust might not have Israel today. So in a temporal cause and effect sense, might be appropriate to make the cake as a Jew.

Uh.. ok. But that kind of sounds like you're saying the Holocaust was worth it because it prompted the nation of Israel. You're not saying that are you?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Not saying it 'was worth it.' But yes, without the Holocaust we may not have Israel. And as I then added above, things might have unfolded far worse as nuclear war. ...Still might I suppose and be related to the past, but as of this moment, everything bad that's happened has at least ensured everything and everyone continued.

It's like the Cold War. Spies on both sides are directly responsible for ensuring the Soviets and Americans never had a nuclear war. While on the individual levels people died which was horrible. But a greater good was achieved so tugging on individual fibers of the past unravels the rpesent in ways which might be far worse than what's now regarded as history.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

That’s ridiculous demagoguery.

If one is making a good faith effort to operate a business he needs to know and understand the comprehensive regulatory policies in his jurisdiction he’ll be required to follow, including policies he might incorrectly believe ‘violates’ his religious dogma.

The fact remains that those who refuse to accommodate gay Americans has nothing to do with ‘religion’ and everything to do with an inane and unwarranted hatred of gays, hence the appropriate and Constitutional regulatory policy intended to protect markets from such capricious nonsense.

Thank you for reducing people's strongly felt religious convictions developed over a lifetime and firmly founded in tradition to irrational bigotry.
Now go fuck yourself.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Dear MDR: I would probably agree with your points, but had as much trouble following your detailed elaboration as people have complained about mine.

1. Can you find and cite the exact language used in the Arizona bill that doesn't target homosexual orientation specifically, but is general enough to cover all cases?

I think this would back your point most clearly, that it can be used equally by all and is not targeting refusal of service to gays, for example.

2. as for the conflict with public accommodation/equal treatment and the First Amendment

NATURAL LAW tells us that you get what you give, if you go in discriminating against the business owner then you get the same in return; that is just natural cause and effect.

it defies logic to expect equal fair and inclusive respectful treatment from others
WITHOUT practicing the same yourself.

Unfortunately, there is nothing in the First or Fourteenth Amendment that requires people invoking this to "practice it themselves". That is inherent in natural laws but NOT written into Constitutional laws, which only require govt/public institutions to follow these laws protecting individual rights.

Now, if we are going to start extending these responsibilities to corporations, businesses, etc. then it follows to hold ALL people to the same standards for consistent enforcement.

Clearly, this cannot be legislated, but only chosen by free will. Where people recognize the natural laws: for equal inclusive treatment, it makes sense to respect the same of others.

SB-1062: http://www.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/SB-1062-bill.pdf

As you may already know, Governor Brewer vetoed the bill . . . for an absurdly ambiguous and cowardly reason. But I expected that. She’s a typical career politician, “full of high sentence but a bit obtuse.” I’m an Arizonian. I know the inside politics. The real, unstated reason for Brewer's veto is because the NFL threatened to withhold the Super Bowl. We haven’t had a real classical liberal in the governor’s mansion in years.

Actually, I would have vetoed it too. As I have stated a few times on these threads, it’s clumsily drafted, and its too restrictive concerning the ridiculous burden it places on the respective proprietor or cooperate concern.

The biggest problem is that it incessantly goes on about religious convictions. That’s too narrow and, therefore, inconsistent with the actualities of natural, constitutional and case law. In spit of Jones’ self-serving leftist claptrap, not the law as it is, but what he would have it to be, given his statist-bootlick inclinations, one is free to refuse service for virtually any reason within the parameters of providing a service or a product that entails participating in any activity or making any expression that is ideologically abhorrent to the individual proprietor.

That is the legal test, the only one that matters, and the principle of public accommodation does not trump it. That can’t be repeated too often.

As you can see in the above, sexual orientation is not mentioned in the bill at all. In fact, it’s utterly irrelevant, except to the homofascists and their allies who are wont to impose their morality on others, push them around, bully and harass.

Anyone can invoke it on religious grounds, but if challenged in court one must provide a substantive justification, which brings us to its major flaws.

First, once again, the legal test goes to behavior in terms of participation or expression. Jones’ assertion that the matter hinges simply on the service or product provided everyone else is baby talk. The controlling principle is not public accommodation, but the paramount concerns of the First Amendment. The notion that one should have to redundantly justify their religious objections to any judge or jury given the ramifications of established law is absurd. That which is inalienable is potentially subject to nullification relative to the arbitrary calculations of others?! LOL! The way the bill is drafted, it could potentially be turned on its head, the result being the opposite of that intended.

Second, “religious convictions” could arguably be construed to negate the right of the agnostic or the atheist to object on his moral grounds.

Ultimately, what actually needs to be protected goes to the concern of protecting persons from frivolous lawsuits relative to established law who might otherwise be ruined by mindless, pitchfork-wielding barbarians who would that the government be empowered to nullify that which is inalienable in the name of “social justice”, i.e., the governmental imposition of lefty’s religion of collectivist moral relativism.

This bill was drafted by an incompetent legislator. Such a thing requires the deft and nimble mind of an expert on First Amendment case law.

Forget Brewer. She’s just another political hack--career above the well-being of the people. The reasons she gave for vetoing it demonstrate that she’s ignorant about the founding ethos on which this nation was founded and ignorant about case law too. A competent Governor would have simply sent the bill back to the drawing board, ideally, with a draft of a more sensible version attached.

Once again, make no mistake about it, the laws currently being contested by Christians in New Mexico and elsewhere are going to be struck down, just as ObamaCare’s impositions on the moral convictions of charitable enterprises that have paid staffs and provide healthcare benefits (like The Little Sisters) and for-profit enterprises as well (cooperate individuals like Hobby Lobby) will be struck down. We still have a slightly right of center Supreme Court that will hold to established case law and not create an entirely new principle out of thin air in violation of rights that are inalienable. As for the future . . . well, who knows. We are losing the cultural war, and so goes the government. It will be a bitter victory for the useful idiots though who don’t grasp the ramifications of their elite masters’ agenda at all.

You write: "Now, if we are going to start extending these responsibilities to corporations, businesses. . . ."

Corporations/businesses for all intents and purposes in this regard are individual citizens, yet another fact that falsifies the nonsense that lefty has been blathering on these threads.

Corporate personhood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...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!

unclear on the concept? gawd you people.

You can't get in trouble for refusing to participate in hate. A Christian baker wold not get into trouble for refusing to bake a cake and decorate it with "Let's Kill Jesus again"

 

[Iceweasel]

unclear on the concept? gawd you people.

You can't get in trouble for refusing to participate in hate. A Christian baker wold not get into trouble for refusing to bake a cake and decorate it with "Let's Kill Jesus again"

The problem is that the left wants to define what hate is, in other words, they want to hold all the cards all the time.
A klansman may not be violent but simply believes blacks are inferior and should remain with their own kind. He may not have the emotions to ascribe to him but you want the power and authority to do so.

 

[auditor0007]

...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!

Now let us be more reasonable. Should a Jewish baker be forced to bake a cake for any Christian, Muslim, or atheist? Your example involves a recognized hate group, and you are trying to relate that to gays, who are not part of any hate group.

So, should a Jewish baker be permitted to refuse service to Christians, Muslims, and atheists? Yes or no?

 

[The Rabbi]

...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!

Now let us be more reasonable. Should a Jewish baker be forced to bake a cake for any Christian, Muslim, or atheist? Your example involves a recognized hate group, and you are trying to relate that to gays, who are not part of any hate group.

So, should a Jewish baker be permitted to refuse service to Christians, Muslims, and atheists? Yes or no?

Yes.
Let's make it more topical. How about a Jewish baker asked to bake a cake for members of Jews4Jesus? Absolutely he has every right to refuse. It's his fucking business.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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?

That’s ridiculous demagoguery.

If one is making a good faith effort to operate a business he needs to know and understand the comprehensive regulatory policies in his jurisdiction he’ll be required to follow, including policies he might incorrectly believe ‘violates’ his religious dogma.

The fact remains that those who refuse to accommodate gay Americans has nothing to do with ‘religion’ and everything to do with an inane and unwarranted hatred of gays, hence the appropriate and Constitutional regulatory policy intended to protect markets from such capricious nonsense.

Demagoguery?! Aside from your phony law, which I have exposed repeatedly, not only here but in the past on a number of other issues, what's that?

"The fact remains"?!

"[T]he appropriate and Constitutional regulatory policy intended to protect markets from such capricious nonsense"?!

"[C]apricous"?! "Constitutional"?! (The adjectival form is spelled with a lowercase "c".)

Shut up, you lying, monstrous little snake! Bottom line: the lying fascist thug inevitably exposes his real motive in his hatred for the liberty of those with whom he disagrees. Clearly, the only means by which you could possibly get your way is by governmental force in violation of natural and constitutional law.

Make no mistake about it, we are going to win the pertinent cases. You fascist whores don't have the upper hand in case law or the numbers on the Supreme Court yet.

Eventually, I see that you thugs will prevail, and that will be the end of the Republic as we know it and the beginning of a civil war.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

...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!

Now let us be more reasonable. Should a Jewish baker be forced to bake a cake for any Christian, Muslim, or atheist? Your example involves a recognized hate group, and you are trying to relate that to gays, who are not part of any hate group.

So, should a Jewish baker be permitted to refuse service to Christians, Muslims, and atheists? Yes or no?

Yes.
Let's make it more topical. How about a Jewish baker asked to bake a cake for members of Jews4Jesus? Absolutely he has every right to refuse. It's his fucking business.

The courts disagree. Now what?

 

[Iceweasel]

The courts disagree. Now what?

Now we get to see if enough Americans want to wrestle their freedoms back from the tyranical left. If not, we deserve to circle the drain into the sewer.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The courts disagree. Now what?

Now we get to see if enough Americans want to wrestle their freedoms back from the tyranical left. If not, we deserve to circle the drain into the sewer.

It's been 50 years since the Civil Rights Act of 1964; shouldn't your dire scenarios have materialized by now?

 

[Iceweasel]

The courts disagree. Now what?

Now we get to see if enough Americans want to wrestle their freedoms back from the tyranical left. If not, we deserve to circle the drain into the sewer.

It's been 50 years since the Civil Rights Act of 1964; shouldn't your dire scenarios have materialized by now?

What are you yapping about now? The CRA had many conservative backers. Conservative does not equal evil regardless of your feelings. A black woman marrying a white man did not change the definition of marriage i.e., man and woman. All we get from you guys is spin, accusations and misrepresentation.

 

[Avatar4321]

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?

That’s ridiculous demagoguery.

If one is making a good faith effort to operate a business he needs to know and understand the comprehensive regulatory policies in his jurisdiction he’ll be required to follow, including policies he might incorrectly believe ‘violates’ his religious dogma.

The fact remains that those who refuse to accommodate gay Americans has nothing to do with ‘religion’ and everything to do with an inane and unwarranted hatred of gays, hence the appropriate and Constitutional regulatory policy intended to protect markets from such capricious nonsense.

Really? What false claim am I using to obtain power? In fact, what effort have I taken at all to obtain power over you or anyone here?

Nothing I have said is untrue. Simply because you never bother to think about the logical conclusions about what your proposing isn't my problem. People need to provide for their family. They work to do that.

He is proposing that people should be forced to shut down a business they have put untold hours of labor into. They should give up their dreams and their way to provide for their families simply because someone is offended that you wont do business with them in a way that violates their God given freedom of religion.

You want to force them to do something against their conscience or give up their livelihood and somehow they are the bad guys.

That's the problem with so many of you. You don't give a damn about the consequences of your rules, your regulations. You have no problem making people suffer because you are offended. You just want power and control. Especially over people who have faith. Why? Because you can't control people of faith. They do what they believe regardless of how much violence you use against them. And that scares you. It makes you insecure. "Someone is different than me? That means I could be wrong. I can't consider that."

What if I told you that you couldn't be a doctor unless you were Christian? You'd be pretty pissed if i tried to force you into that choice, wouldn't you? You'd be yelling about your constitutional rights.

But you don't have a problem doing the same thing to others.

You obviously don't like the fact that everyone other than you has the same right to religious freedom as you do. But just because you don't like it. Just because you are an intolerant, bitter, hateful bigot, doesn't mean you are right.

If you don't like what someone thinks or does, try to persuade them your way is right. Or leave them alone. But don't you dare pretend you are a good human being while you propose to use violence to make people suffer for exercising their God given right to disagree with your ignorant conclusions.

 

[bripat9643]

...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!

unclear on the concept? gawd you people.

You can't get in trouble for refusing to participate in hate. A Christian baker wold not get into trouble for refusing to bake a cake and decorate it with "Let's Kill Jesus again"

In other words, you can get in trouble if you knuckle under and comply with the Kommissar's dictates. No shit? You won't get in trouble if you're a servile little toady?

You're such a fountain of wisdom!

 

[bripat9643]

...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!

Now let us be more reasonable. Should a Jewish baker be forced to bake a cake for any Christian, Muslim, or atheist? Your example involves a recognized hate group, and you are trying to relate that to gays, who are not part of any hate group.

So, should a Jewish baker be permitted to refuse service to Christians, Muslims, and atheists? Yes or no?

Yes.
Let's make it more topical. How about a Jewish baker asked to bake a cake for members of Jews4Jesus? Absolutely he has every right to refuse. It's his fucking business.

How about being asked to bake a cake with the Moslem crescent on it?

 

[bripat9643]

The courts disagree. Now what?

Now we get to see if enough Americans want to wrestle their freedoms back from the tyranical left. If not, we deserve to circle the drain into the sewer.

It's been 50 years since the Civil Rights Act of 1964; shouldn't your dire scenarios have materialized by now?

They have. We are circling the drain.