The Free Market In Action

[martybegan]

Melissa Klein Anti-Gay Baker Cries At Values Voter Summit Over Business Closing

Anti-gay baker Melissa Klein cried at the Values Voter Summit last week over the closing of her business after she and her husband, Aaron, faced severe backlash from their refusal to make a cake for a lesbian couple's wedding.

In January 2013, Sweet Cakes By Melissa, located in Gresham, Ore., refused service to a lesbian couple looking for a wedding cake. The subsequent fallout included national media attention and a state investigation for anti-gay discrimination, which may be supported by the Kleins' agreeing to bake cakes for an "ex-gay" group.

The couple is now reportedly fighting a $150,000 lawsuit from the state, a reality that made Klein break into tears while discussing her passion for the process of baking wedding cakes during the Values Voter Summit.

"For me personally, when I would sit down with them, I just would want to know everything about her wedding," an emotional Klein told the audience. "I'd want to know about the flowers, her dress, the centerpieces, her colors, the way her hair is going to be. I would even want to talk about 'where are you going on your honeymoon?'"

Following outrage over the business's anti-gay actions, Sweet Cakes By Melissa eventually chose to shut down their storefront rather than serve gay clients but the bakery is currently operating out of a home kitchen and is still taking orders online.

Video at the link.

What a lot of to-do over nothing. These people made a choice and it cost them dearly. Sad.

i used to HAVE to deliver mail to gay people....no biggie.....great tippers at christmas time....

A government service and a bakery are two different things and you know it.

 

[martybegan]

Just my humble opinion, but I support the right of the management of any private business to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

It's their own loss if they do turn down work, and it seems kind of stupid to spend all that money on advertising only to turn away paying customers. If people want to berate that business on social media and in the street for turning away business based on sexual orientation or any other reason, that to should occur without intervention from The State.

What's wrong with this picture is the legal action being launched against the stupid business by The State. It ain't illegal for a struggling business owner to be stupid and it ain't illegal for a business with too much work on their plate already to be picky.

If they had been smart, they would have simply quoted the job at a much higher price than the market was bearing instead of using the opportunity to create a political football from their livelihood.

It ain't illegal to be stupid...

Yeah well it wasn't a private business for private club members.. It was a business selling to the public. As such they have to adhere to public accommodation laws. They made their bed and decided to burn it.

We have made the term public accommodation into a catch all for every type of business done, and it was never meant to be that. Public accommodations are places like hotels, or stores you walk into to buy a commodity good, not a service like going to someones wedding and performing said service.

 

[martybegan]

Melissa Klein Anti-Gay Baker Cries At Values Voter Summit Over Business Closing

Anti-gay baker Melissa Klein cried at the Values Voter Summit last week over the closing of her business after she and her husband, Aaron, faced severe backlash from their refusal to make a cake for a lesbian couple's wedding.

In January 2013, Sweet Cakes By Melissa, located in Gresham, Ore., refused service to a lesbian couple looking for a wedding cake. The subsequent fallout included national media attention and a state investigation for anti-gay discrimination, which may be supported by the Kleins' agreeing to bake cakes for an "ex-gay" group.

The couple is now reportedly fighting a $150,000 lawsuit from the state, a reality that made Klein break into tears while discussing her passion for the process of baking wedding cakes during the Values Voter Summit.

"For me personally, when I would sit down with them, I just would want to know everything about her wedding," an emotional Klein told the audience. "I'd want to know about the flowers, her dress, the centerpieces, her colors, the way her hair is going to be. I would even want to talk about 'where are you going on your honeymoon?'"

Following outrage over the business's anti-gay actions, Sweet Cakes By Melissa eventually chose to shut down their storefront rather than serve gay clients but the bakery is currently operating out of a home kitchen and is still taking orders online.

Video at the link.

What a lot of to-do over nothing. These people made a choice and it cost them dearly. Sad.

Typical progressive, gloating a the misery of others simply because the person doesn't agree with them politically.

 

[RKMBrown]

Just my humble opinion, but I support the right of the management of any private business to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

It's their own loss if they do turn down work, and it seems kind of stupid to spend all that money on advertising only to turn away paying customers. If people want to berate that business on social media and in the street for turning away business based on sexual orientation or any other reason, that to should occur without intervention from The State.

What's wrong with this picture is the legal action being launched against the stupid business by The State. It ain't illegal for a struggling business owner to be stupid and it ain't illegal for a business with too much work on their plate already to be picky.

If they had been smart, they would have simply quoted the job at a much higher price than the market was bearing instead of using the opportunity to create a political football from their livelihood.

It ain't illegal to be stupid...

Yeah well it wasn't a private business for private club members.. It was a business selling to the public. As such they have to adhere to public accommodation laws. They made their bed and decided to burn it.

We have made the term public accommodation into a catch all for every type of business done, and it was never meant to be that. Public accommodations are places like hotels, or stores you walk into to buy a commodity good, not a service like going to someones wedding and performing said service.

They were not being asked to perform said wedding service, they were asked to bake a frigging cake.

 

[martybegan]

Just my humble opinion, but I support the right of the management of any private business to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

It's their own loss if they do turn down work, and it seems kind of stupid to spend all that money on advertising only to turn away paying customers. If people want to berate that business on social media and in the street for turning away business based on sexual orientation or any other reason, that to should occur without intervention from The State.

What's wrong with this picture is the legal action being launched against the stupid business by The State. It ain't illegal for a struggling business owner to be stupid and it ain't illegal for a business with too much work on their plate already to be picky.

If they had been smart, they would have simply quoted the job at a much higher price than the market was bearing instead of using the opportunity to create a political football from their livelihood.

It ain't illegal to be stupid...

Yeah well it wasn't a private business for private club members.. It was a business selling to the public. As such they have to adhere to public accommodation laws. They made their bed and decided to burn it.

We have made the term public accommodation into a catch all for every type of business done, and it was never meant to be that. Public accommodations are places like hotels, or stores you walk into to buy a commodity good, not a service like going to someones wedding and performing said service.

They were not being asked to perform said wedding service, they were asked to bake a frigging cake.

And to deliver said cake to the wedding, and to become part of a ceremony they find morally objectionable.

 

[RKMBrown]

Just my humble opinion, but I support the right of the management of any private business to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

It's their own loss if they do turn down work, and it seems kind of stupid to spend all that money on advertising only to turn away paying customers. If people want to berate that business on social media and in the street for turning away business based on sexual orientation or any other reason, that to should occur without intervention from The State.

What's wrong with this picture is the legal action being launched against the stupid business by The State. It ain't illegal for a struggling business owner to be stupid and it ain't illegal for a business with too much work on their plate already to be picky.

If they had been smart, they would have simply quoted the job at a much higher price than the market was bearing instead of using the opportunity to create a political football from their livelihood.

It ain't illegal to be stupid...

Yeah well it wasn't a private business for private club members.. It was a business selling to the public. As such they have to adhere to public accommodation laws. They made their bed and decided to burn it.

We have made the term public accommodation into a catch all for every type of business done, and it was never meant to be that. Public accommodations are places like hotels, or stores you walk into to buy a commodity good, not a service like going to someones wedding and performing said service.

They were not being asked to perform said wedding service, they were asked to bake a frigging cake.

And to deliver said cake to the wedding, and to become part of a ceremony they find morally objectionable.

Dropping off a cake is not participating in a ceremony. If you order a pizza to your house and you are having a party.. does that mean the pizza company is participating in the activity in your house?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Melissa Klein Anti-Gay Baker Cries At Values Voter Summit Over Business Closing

Anti-gay baker Melissa Klein cried at the Values Voter Summit last week over the closing of her business after she and her husband, Aaron, faced severe backlash from their refusal to make a cake for a lesbian couple's wedding.

In January 2013, Sweet Cakes By Melissa, located in Gresham, Ore., refused service to a lesbian couple looking for a wedding cake. The subsequent fallout included national media attention and a state investigation for anti-gay discrimination, which may be supported by the Kleins' agreeing to bake cakes for an "ex-gay" group.

The couple is now reportedly fighting a $150,000 lawsuit from the state, a reality that made Klein break into tears while discussing her passion for the process of baking wedding cakes during the Values Voter Summit.

"For me personally, when I would sit down with them, I just would want to know everything about her wedding," an emotional Klein told the audience. "I'd want to know about the flowers, her dress, the centerpieces, her colors, the way her hair is going to be. I would even want to talk about 'where are you going on your honeymoon?'"

Following outrage over the business's anti-gay actions, Sweet Cakes By Melissa eventually chose to shut down their storefront rather than serve gay clients but the bakery is currently operating out of a home kitchen and is still taking orders online.

Video at the link.

What a lot of to-do over nothing. These people made a choice and it cost them dearly. Sad.

i used to HAVE to deliver mail to gay people....no biggie.....great tippers at christmas time....

A government service and a bakery are two different things and you know it.

thats not what i was getting at Marty and i think you knew that.....

 

[martybegan]

Just my humble opinion, but I support the right of the management of any private business to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

It's their own loss if they do turn down work, and it seems kind of stupid to spend all that money on advertising only to turn away paying customers. If people want to berate that business on social media and in the street for turning away business based on sexual orientation or any other reason, that to should occur without intervention from The State.

What's wrong with this picture is the legal action being launched against the stupid business by The State. It ain't illegal for a struggling business owner to be stupid and it ain't illegal for a business with too much work on their plate already to be picky.

If they had been smart, they would have simply quoted the job at a much higher price than the market was bearing instead of using the opportunity to create a political football from their livelihood.

It ain't illegal to be stupid...

Yeah well it wasn't a private business for private club members.. It was a business selling to the public. As such they have to adhere to public accommodation laws. They made their bed and decided to burn it.

We have made the term public accommodation into a catch all for every type of business done, and it was never meant to be that. Public accommodations are places like hotels, or stores you walk into to buy a commodity good, not a service like going to someones wedding and performing said service.

They were not being asked to perform said wedding service, they were asked to bake a frigging cake.

And to deliver said cake to the wedding, and to become part of a ceremony they find morally objectionable.

Dropping off a cake is not participating in a ceremony. If you order a pizza to your house and you are having a party.. does that mean the pizza company is participating in the activity in your house?

Ah, much closer example. Nice to debate with someone with some intellect for once. Is the pizza part of some public ceremony that some people find morally reprehensible? Do you have to consult with your Pizza guy when it comes to the exact specifications of your Pizza?

While entertaining, all of this is moot. The real question is why the hell does the government feel the need to intervene in a contract between two private parties that has zero impact on overall commerce or society?

 

[martybegan]

Melissa Klein Anti-Gay Baker Cries At Values Voter Summit Over Business Closing

Anti-gay baker Melissa Klein cried at the Values Voter Summit last week over the closing of her business after she and her husband, Aaron, faced severe backlash from their refusal to make a cake for a lesbian couple's wedding.

In January 2013, Sweet Cakes By Melissa, located in Gresham, Ore., refused service to a lesbian couple looking for a wedding cake. The subsequent fallout included national media attention and a state investigation for anti-gay discrimination, which may be supported by the Kleins' agreeing to bake cakes for an "ex-gay" group.

The couple is now reportedly fighting a $150,000 lawsuit from the state, a reality that made Klein break into tears while discussing her passion for the process of baking wedding cakes during the Values Voter Summit.

"For me personally, when I would sit down with them, I just would want to know everything about her wedding," an emotional Klein told the audience. "I'd want to know about the flowers, her dress, the centerpieces, her colors, the way her hair is going to be. I would even want to talk about 'where are you going on your honeymoon?'"

Following outrage over the business's anti-gay actions, Sweet Cakes By Melissa eventually chose to shut down their storefront rather than serve gay clients but the bakery is currently operating out of a home kitchen and is still taking orders online.

Video at the link.

What a lot of to-do over nothing. These people made a choice and it cost them dearly. Sad.

i used to HAVE to deliver mail to gay people....no biggie.....great tippers at christmas time....

A government service and a bakery are two different things and you know it.

thats not what i was getting at Marty and i think you knew that.....

Its actually one of the main things. Government should never be able to discriminate, nor should private entities performing a government service, or working under a government contract. The Reconstruction amendments are very clear on that.

What isn't clear is why government now feels the need to force interactions between private entities, where one doesn't want to interact with the other.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yeah well it wasn't a private business for private club members.. It was a business selling to the public. As such they have to adhere to public accommodation laws. They made their bed and decided to burn it.

We have made the term public accommodation into a catch all for every type of business done, and it was never meant to be that. Public accommodations are places like hotels, or stores you walk into to buy a commodity good, not a service like going to someones wedding and performing said service.

They were not being asked to perform said wedding service, they were asked to bake a frigging cake.

And to deliver said cake to the wedding, and to become part of a ceremony they find morally objectionable.

Dropping off a cake is not participating in a ceremony. If you order a pizza to your house and you are having a party.. does that mean the pizza company is participating in the activity in your house?

Ah, much closer example. Nice to debate with someone with some intellect for once. Is the pizza part of some public ceremony that some people find morally reprehensible? Do you have to consult with your Pizza guy when it comes to the exact specifications of your Pizza?

While entertaining, all of this is moot. The real question is why the hell does the government feel the need to intervene in a contract between two private parties that has zero impact on overall commerce or society?

To your question, "is the pizza part of some public ceremony that some people find morally reprehensible?" Point (1) Marriage ceremonies are usually private. Very rare that they are held in public. Point (2) yes some people find ceremonies held by others as morally reprehensible, for example keg parties, as another example, raves, as another example, gay marriage ceremonies.

To your question, "[d]o you have to consult with your Pizza guy when it comes to the exact specifications of your Pizza?" Yes, you have to consult with your Pizza guy to give him the exact specifications of your Pizza Pie. Note: they also serve desert pizzas. And as far as I know all pizza outlets will gladly deliver pizzas to gay wedding ceremonies, and gay owned businesses, and tattoo parlors, and bars, and.... If they don't want to, they better check the public accommodation laws for their state.

To your point that "[t]he real question is why the hell does the government feel the need to intervene in a contract between two private parties that has zero impact on overall commerce or society?"

Commerce is just one of the places where the rubber meets the road, in so far as it is one of the ways the federal government can set rules. However, in this particular case we are talking about a State based public accommodation law, so it's not the federal commerce clause issue. Where money is exchanged in public for public sales... that is something that can be regulated. See sales taxes. See wheel chair access. See regulations on cleanliness. Etc.

There are a number of reasons why civil rights laws are important:

1) Violence typically follows open forms of discrimination and bigoted acts. Thus, to stop violence sometimes you have to write laws that settle said violent debates. Civil rights acts are a matter of public record. Without them women may not be voting, slavery may still be legal, blacks may still be forced to the back of the bus or to use different water fountains, etc. When you disparage a group of individuals they are gonna get angry, and that may lead to violence.

2) This country was formed with the idea of defending minority groups from said tyranny of the majority. Thus, in a sense we have been fighting for the right of minority groups to have a place in our society from the start.

 

[dblack]

Melissa Klein Anti-Gay Baker Cries At Values Voter Summit Over Business Closing

Anti-gay baker Melissa Klein cried at the Values Voter Summit last week over the closing of her business after she and her husband, Aaron, faced severe backlash from their refusal to make a cake for a lesbian couple's wedding.

In January 2013, Sweet Cakes By Melissa, located in Gresham, Ore., refused service to a lesbian couple looking for a wedding cake. The subsequent fallout included national media attention and a state investigation for anti-gay discrimination, which may be supported by the Kleins' agreeing to bake cakes for an "ex-gay" group.

The couple is now reportedly fighting a $150,000 lawsuit from the state, a reality that made Klein break into tears while discussing her passion for the process of baking wedding cakes during the Values Voter Summit.

"For me personally, when I would sit down with them, I just would want to know everything about her wedding," an emotional Klein told the audience. "I'd want to know about the flowers, her dress, the centerpieces, her colors, the way her hair is going to be. I would even want to talk about 'where are you going on your honeymoon?'"

Following outrage over the business's anti-gay actions, Sweet Cakes By Melissa eventually chose to shut down their storefront rather than serve gay clients but the bakery is currently operating out of a home kitchen and is still taking orders online.

Video at the link.

What a lot of to-do over nothing. These people made a choice and it cost them dearly. Sad.

DOWN WITH FREEDOM!!!!!

 

[martybegan]

We have made the term public accommodation into a catch all for every type of business done, and it was never meant to be that. Public accommodations are places like hotels, or stores you walk into to buy a commodity good, not a service like going to someones wedding and performing said service.

They were not being asked to perform said wedding service, they were asked to bake a frigging cake.

And to deliver said cake to the wedding, and to become part of a ceremony they find morally objectionable.

Dropping off a cake is not participating in a ceremony. If you order a pizza to your house and you are having a party.. does that mean the pizza company is participating in the activity in your house?

Ah, much closer example. Nice to debate with someone with some intellect for once. Is the pizza part of some public ceremony that some people find morally reprehensible? Do you have to consult with your Pizza guy when it comes to the exact specifications of your Pizza?

While entertaining, all of this is moot. The real question is why the hell does the government feel the need to intervene in a contract between two private parties that has zero impact on overall commerce or society?

To your question, "is the pizza part of some public ceremony that some people find morally reprehensible?" Point (1) Marriage ceremonies are usually private. Very rare that they are held in public. Point (2) yes some people find ceremonies held by others as morally reprehensible, for example keg parties, as another example, raves, as another example, gay marriage ceremonies.

To your question, "[d]o you have to consult with your Pizza guy when it comes to the exact specifications of your Pizza?" Yes, you have to consult with your Pizza guy to give him the exact specifications of your Pizza Pie. Note: they also serve desert pizzas. And as far as I know all pizza outlets will gladly deliver pizzas to gay wedding ceremonies, and gay owned businesses, and tattoo parlors, and bars, and.... If they don't want to, they better check the public accommodation laws for their state.

To your point that "[t]he real question is why the hell does the government feel the need to intervene in a contract between two private parties that has zero impact on overall commerce or society?"

Commerce is just one of the places where the rubber meets the road, in so far as it is one of the ways the federal government can set rules. However, in this particular case we are talking about a State based public accommodation law, so it's not the federal commerce clause issue. Where money is exchanged in public for public sales... that is something that can be regulated. See sales taxes. See wheel chair access. See regulations on cleanliness. Etc.

There are a number of reasons why civil rights laws are important:

1) Violence typically follows open forms of discrimination and bigoted acts. Thus, to stop violence sometimes you have to write laws that settle said violent debates. Civil rights acts are a matter of public record. Without them women may not be voting, slavery may still be legal, blacks may still be forced to the back of the bus or to use different water fountains, etc. When you disparage a group of individuals they are gonna get angry, and that may lead to violence.

2) This country was formed with the idea of defending minority groups from said tyranny of the majority. Thus, in a sense we have been fighting for the right of minority groups to have a place in our society from the start.

The tyranny of the majority referred to the government's ability to restrict a minorities actions or rights, not of the mass of people as individuals. And what happens if those who don't agree with gay marriage become the minority? Does the protection afforded to gays now flip to them?

The irony is the tyranny isn't being inflicted on the gay couple, its being inflicted on the baker. And yet you seem OK with that.

And an appeal to preventing violence is a weak argument in this case. Jim crow discrimination was systemic and government mandated/enforced. A baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay marriage is not going to lead to the Watts riots.

 

[dblack]

2) This country was formed with the idea of defending minority groups from said tyranny of the majority. Thus, in a sense we have been fighting for the right of minority groups to have a place in our society from the start.

It's ironic that you'd invoke "tyranny of the majority" to justify civil rights laws. Minority rights can never be dependably protected via democratic legislation. That's why such protections are encoded as Constitutional protections and not left up to Congress. In fact, granting government the power to address such concerns via legislation invites true tyranny of the majority, by giving the majority the power to impose its current biases through force of law.

 

[RKMBrown]

They were not being asked to perform said wedding service, they were asked to bake a frigging cake.

And to deliver said cake to the wedding, and to become part of a ceremony they find morally objectionable.

Dropping off a cake is not participating in a ceremony. If you order a pizza to your house and you are having a party.. does that mean the pizza company is participating in the activity in your house?

Ah, much closer example. Nice to debate with someone with some intellect for once. Is the pizza part of some public ceremony that some people find morally reprehensible? Do you have to consult with your Pizza guy when it comes to the exact specifications of your Pizza?

While entertaining, all of this is moot. The real question is why the hell does the government feel the need to intervene in a contract between two private parties that has zero impact on overall commerce or society?

To your question, "is the pizza part of some public ceremony that some people find morally reprehensible?" Point (1) Marriage ceremonies are usually private. Very rare that they are held in public. Point (2) yes some people find ceremonies held by others as morally reprehensible, for example keg parties, as another example, raves, as another example, gay marriage ceremonies.

To your question, "[d]o you have to consult with your Pizza guy when it comes to the exact specifications of your Pizza?" Yes, you have to consult with your Pizza guy to give him the exact specifications of your Pizza Pie. Note: they also serve desert pizzas. And as far as I know all pizza outlets will gladly deliver pizzas to gay wedding ceremonies, and gay owned businesses, and tattoo parlors, and bars, and.... If they don't want to, they better check the public accommodation laws for their state.

To your point that "[t]he real question is why the hell does the government feel the need to intervene in a contract between two private parties that has zero impact on overall commerce or society?"

Commerce is just one of the places where the rubber meets the road, in so far as it is one of the ways the federal government can set rules. However, in this particular case we are talking about a State based public accommodation law, so it's not the federal commerce clause issue. Where money is exchanged in public for public sales... that is something that can be regulated. See sales taxes. See wheel chair access. See regulations on cleanliness. Etc.

There are a number of reasons why civil rights laws are important:

1) Violence typically follows open forms of discrimination and bigoted acts. Thus, to stop violence sometimes you have to write laws that settle said violent debates. Civil rights acts are a matter of public record. Without them women may not be voting, slavery may still be legal, blacks may still be forced to the back of the bus or to use different water fountains, etc. When you disparage a group of individuals they are gonna get angry, and that may lead to violence.

2) This country was formed with the idea of defending minority groups from said tyranny of the majority. Thus, in a sense we have been fighting for the right of minority groups to have a place in our society from the start.

The tyranny of the majority referred to the government's ability to restrict a minorities actions or rights, not of the mass of people as individuals. And what happens if those who don't agree with gay marriage become the minority? Does the protection afforded to gays now flip to them?

The irony is the tyranny isn't being inflicted on the gay couple, its being inflicted on the baker. And yet you seem OK with that.

And an appeal to preventing violence is a weak argument in this case. Jim crow discrimination was systemic and government mandated/enforced. A baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay marriage is not going to lead to the Watts riots.

You say tyranny of the majority referred to the government's ability to restrict a minorities actions or rights. Yes, that's what I said. The laws and spending programs of this country used to enable segregation, discrimination against minority groups, now they do not with the exception of the laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation. Which will soon be remedied, I suspect.

You ask, "what happens if those who don't agree with gay marriage become the minority... does the protection afforded to gays now flip to them?" Bigots are supposed to be protected as well, but not their actions. Remember our liberties are only supposed to protect us up to the part where our actions take away the liberties of others. You are concerned about the liberty to choose who you can sell to. If you want that liberty you need to stop selling to the public at large and start selling only to your private group of individuals. This is because the public at large has the liberty to enjoy commerce in this country. You can't just pick and choose who in the public you want to sell to based on your personal discriminatory and bigoted views, not when the discrimination is based on skin color, race, creed, gender, age, etc. and yes, in some states sexual orientation.

Rightly or wrongly the arbitration for who is harmed the most in these types of situations has already been decided, the guy being paid for his product or the guy buying the product. If a black man wants to buy a home in a nice neighborhood and he has the credit, he's allowed to do so. If a gay couple wants to buy a cake from a public cake baker, in certain states, they are protected in that act. In those states the baker would have to stop selling to the public at large if they want to discriminate against particular members of the public at large.

Ask yourself... is the arbitration for who is harmed the most, the buyer or the seller when the seller discriminates, right or wrong? Are you actually trying to argue that the seller is harmed the most when he is required to sell product to any of his customers even the ones he does not like, esp. given that he made the choice to sell to the public at large knowing full well the prior arbitration decision that he's not allowed to discriminate?

Thus, tyranny has not been forced on this baker. This baker decided to sell to the public in full view of the laws of this state. Further, this baker decided to continue and argue that they were above this law. Still further, this baker was not forced to bake the cake at all. The baker was given the choice to sell to the public and adhere to public accommodation laws, or not to sell to the public and avoid said public accommodation laws. Apparently the baker didn't have enough private repeat customers to sustain their business.

All the baker had to do is take wedding cakes off the public menu, then do wedding cakes on a case by case basis privately.

 

[martybegan]

And to deliver said cake to the wedding, and to become part of a ceremony they find morally objectionable.

Dropping off a cake is not participating in a ceremony. If you order a pizza to your house and you are having a party.. does that mean the pizza company is participating in the activity in your house?

Ah, much closer example. Nice to debate with someone with some intellect for once. Is the pizza part of some public ceremony that some people find morally reprehensible? Do you have to consult with your Pizza guy when it comes to the exact specifications of your Pizza?

While entertaining, all of this is moot. The real question is why the hell does the government feel the need to intervene in a contract between two private parties that has zero impact on overall commerce or society?

To your question, "is the pizza part of some public ceremony that some people find morally reprehensible?" Point (1) Marriage ceremonies are usually private. Very rare that they are held in public. Point (2) yes some people find ceremonies held by others as morally reprehensible, for example keg parties, as another example, raves, as another example, gay marriage ceremonies.

To your question, "[d]o you have to consult with your Pizza guy when it comes to the exact specifications of your Pizza?" Yes, you have to consult with your Pizza guy to give him the exact specifications of your Pizza Pie. Note: they also serve desert pizzas. And as far as I know all pizza outlets will gladly deliver pizzas to gay wedding ceremonies, and gay owned businesses, and tattoo parlors, and bars, and.... If they don't want to, they better check the public accommodation laws for their state.

To your point that "[t]he real question is why the hell does the government feel the need to intervene in a contract between two private parties that has zero impact on overall commerce or society?"

Commerce is just one of the places where the rubber meets the road, in so far as it is one of the ways the federal government can set rules. However, in this particular case we are talking about a State based public accommodation law, so it's not the federal commerce clause issue. Where money is exchanged in public for public sales... that is something that can be regulated. See sales taxes. See wheel chair access. See regulations on cleanliness. Etc.

There are a number of reasons why civil rights laws are important:

1) Violence typically follows open forms of discrimination and bigoted acts. Thus, to stop violence sometimes you have to write laws that settle said violent debates. Civil rights acts are a matter of public record. Without them women may not be voting, slavery may still be legal, blacks may still be forced to the back of the bus or to use different water fountains, etc. When you disparage a group of individuals they are gonna get angry, and that may lead to violence.

2) This country was formed with the idea of defending minority groups from said tyranny of the majority. Thus, in a sense we have been fighting for the right of minority groups to have a place in our society from the start.

The tyranny of the majority referred to the government's ability to restrict a minorities actions or rights, not of the mass of people as individuals. And what happens if those who don't agree with gay marriage become the minority? Does the protection afforded to gays now flip to them?

The irony is the tyranny isn't being inflicted on the gay couple, its being inflicted on the baker. And yet you seem OK with that.

And an appeal to preventing violence is a weak argument in this case. Jim crow discrimination was systemic and government mandated/enforced. A baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay marriage is not going to lead to the Watts riots.

You say tyranny of the majority referred to the government's ability to restrict a minorities actions or rights. Yes, that's what I said. The laws and spending programs of this country used to enable segregation, discrimination against minority groups, now they do not with the exception of the laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation. Which will soon be remedied, I suspect.

You ask, "what happens if those who don't agree with gay marriage become the minority... does the protection afforded to gays now flip to them?" Bigots are supposed to be protected as well, but not their actions. Remember our liberties are only supposed to protect us up to the part where our actions take away the liberties of others. You are concerned about the liberty to choose who you can sell to. If you want that liberty you need to stop selling to the public at large and start selling only to your private group of individuals. This is because the public at large has the liberty to enjoy commerce in this country. You can't just pick and choose who in the public you want to sell to based on your personal discriminatory and bigoted views, not when the discrimination is based on skin color, race, creed, gender, age, etc. and yes, in some states sexual orientation.

Rightly or wrongly the arbitration for who is harmed the most in these types of situations has already been decided, the guy being paid for his product or the guy buying the product. If a black man wants to buy a home in a nice neighborhood and he has the credit, he's allowed to do so. If a gay couple wants to buy a cake from a public cake baker, in certain states, they are protected in that act. In those states the baker would have to stop selling to the public at large if they want to discriminate against particular members of the public at large.

Ask yourself... is the arbitration for who is harmed the most, the buyer or the seller when the seller discriminates, right or wrong? Are you actually trying to argue that the seller is harmed the most when he is required to sell product to any of his customers even the ones he does not like, esp. given that he made the choice to sell to the public at large knowing full well the prior arbitration decision that he's not allowed to discriminate?

Thus, tyranny has not been forced on this baker. This baker decided to sell to the public in full view of the laws of this state. Further, this baker decided to continue and argue that they were above this law. Still further, this baker was not forced to bake the cake at all. The baker was given the choice to sell to the public and adhere to public accommodation laws, or not to sell to the public and avoid said public accommodation laws. Apparently the baker didn't have enough private repeat customers to sustain their business.

I respectfully disagree. All of your points are based on discrimination that so permeates the economy that it leads to a severe disadvantage to those discriminated against. Again, gays are not blacks, and today's cities are not 1880's to 1950's Birmingham. A baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding is not forcing someone in public to ride at the back of the bus, eat in a back alley, or use another toilet. There are plenty of other options for the gay couple to partake of.

And if bigotry is to be punished, it should be by the people as individuals, not the people as government. You may hide it in lofty words, or long explanations of what you mean, but in the end, what you are saying is that people who have opinions differing from the group-think have to shut up and take it, or find work of livelihood in a business that allows them to make no moral choices. Both are far more tyrannous when mandated by government then a gay couple feeling bad for 5 minutes before moving on to the next baker.

 

[RKMBrown]

Dropping off a cake is not participating in a ceremony. If you order a pizza to your house and you are having a party.. does that mean the pizza company is participating in the activity in your house?

Ah, much closer example. Nice to debate with someone with some intellect for once. Is the pizza part of some public ceremony that some people find morally reprehensible? Do you have to consult with your Pizza guy when it comes to the exact specifications of your Pizza?

While entertaining, all of this is moot. The real question is why the hell does the government feel the need to intervene in a contract between two private parties that has zero impact on overall commerce or society?

To your question, "is the pizza part of some public ceremony that some people find morally reprehensible?" Point (1) Marriage ceremonies are usually private. Very rare that they are held in public. Point (2) yes some people find ceremonies held by others as morally reprehensible, for example keg parties, as another example, raves, as another example, gay marriage ceremonies.

To your question, "[d]o you have to consult with your Pizza guy when it comes to the exact specifications of your Pizza?" Yes, you have to consult with your Pizza guy to give him the exact specifications of your Pizza Pie. Note: they also serve desert pizzas. And as far as I know all pizza outlets will gladly deliver pizzas to gay wedding ceremonies, and gay owned businesses, and tattoo parlors, and bars, and.... If they don't want to, they better check the public accommodation laws for their state.

To your point that "[t]he real question is why the hell does the government feel the need to intervene in a contract between two private parties that has zero impact on overall commerce or society?"

Commerce is just one of the places where the rubber meets the road, in so far as it is one of the ways the federal government can set rules. However, in this particular case we are talking about a State based public accommodation law, so it's not the federal commerce clause issue. Where money is exchanged in public for public sales... that is something that can be regulated. See sales taxes. See wheel chair access. See regulations on cleanliness. Etc.

There are a number of reasons why civil rights laws are important:

1) Violence typically follows open forms of discrimination and bigoted acts. Thus, to stop violence sometimes you have to write laws that settle said violent debates. Civil rights acts are a matter of public record. Without them women may not be voting, slavery may still be legal, blacks may still be forced to the back of the bus or to use different water fountains, etc. When you disparage a group of individuals they are gonna get angry, and that may lead to violence.

2) This country was formed with the idea of defending minority groups from said tyranny of the majority. Thus, in a sense we have been fighting for the right of minority groups to have a place in our society from the start.

The tyranny of the majority referred to the government's ability to restrict a minorities actions or rights, not of the mass of people as individuals. And what happens if those who don't agree with gay marriage become the minority? Does the protection afforded to gays now flip to them?

The irony is the tyranny isn't being inflicted on the gay couple, its being inflicted on the baker. And yet you seem OK with that.

And an appeal to preventing violence is a weak argument in this case. Jim crow discrimination was systemic and government mandated/enforced. A baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay marriage is not going to lead to the Watts riots.

You say tyranny of the majority referred to the government's ability to restrict a minorities actions or rights. Yes, that's what I said. The laws and spending programs of this country used to enable segregation, discrimination against minority groups, now they do not with the exception of the laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation. Which will soon be remedied, I suspect.

You ask, "what happens if those who don't agree with gay marriage become the minority... does the protection afforded to gays now flip to them?" Bigots are supposed to be protected as well, but not their actions. Remember our liberties are only supposed to protect us up to the part where our actions take away the liberties of others. You are concerned about the liberty to choose who you can sell to. If you want that liberty you need to stop selling to the public at large and start selling only to your private group of individuals. This is because the public at large has the liberty to enjoy commerce in this country. You can't just pick and choose who in the public you want to sell to based on your personal discriminatory and bigoted views, not when the discrimination is based on skin color, race, creed, gender, age, etc. and yes, in some states sexual orientation.

Rightly or wrongly the arbitration for who is harmed the most in these types of situations has already been decided, the guy being paid for his product or the guy buying the product. If a black man wants to buy a home in a nice neighborhood and he has the credit, he's allowed to do so. If a gay couple wants to buy a cake from a public cake baker, in certain states, they are protected in that act. In those states the baker would have to stop selling to the public at large if they want to discriminate against particular members of the public at large.

Ask yourself... is the arbitration for who is harmed the most, the buyer or the seller when the seller discriminates, right or wrong? Are you actually trying to argue that the seller is harmed the most when he is required to sell product to any of his customers even the ones he does not like, esp. given that he made the choice to sell to the public at large knowing full well the prior arbitration decision that he's not allowed to discriminate?

Thus, tyranny has not been forced on this baker. This baker decided to sell to the public in full view of the laws of this state. Further, this baker decided to continue and argue that they were above this law. Still further, this baker was not forced to bake the cake at all. The baker was given the choice to sell to the public and adhere to public accommodation laws, or not to sell to the public and avoid said public accommodation laws. Apparently the baker didn't have enough private repeat customers to sustain their business.

I respectfully disagree. All of your points are based on discrimination that so permeates the economy that it leads to a severe disadvantage to those discriminated against. Again, gays are not blacks, and today's cities are not 1880's to 1950's Birmingham. A baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding is not forcing someone in public to ride at the back of the bus, eat in a back alley, or use another toilet. There are plenty of other options for the gay couple to partake of.

And if bigotry is to be punished, it should be by the people as individuals, not the people as government. You may hide it in lofty words, or long explanations of what you mean, but in the end, what you are saying is that people who have opinions differing from the group-think have to shut up and take it, or find work of livelihood in a business that allows them to make no moral choices. Both are far more tyrannous when mandated by government then a gay couple feeling bad for 5 minutes before moving on to the next baker.

Your argument amounts to saying it's not like there are as many gays as blacks... so anti-gay discrimination isn't as important as racial discrimination was back in the day.

Yes there are more options, yes this is not as big an issue as racial discrimination was "back in the day". Yes, this is not watts riots.

Do I have your argument right? Your argument amounts to excusing this particular type of public bigotry because gay's don't deserve the same rights as do other minority groups. Do I have that right? If so which other non-violent small groups don't deserve protection from discrimination? Jews? Hispanics? Let's list out the smaller groups that it's ok to discriminate against. Then put together a list of more violent larger groups that it's not ok to discriminate against. Is that your argument?

As for the move on ya homos argument... what if there's only one baker.. what if all the bakers in the county join up to get rid of the homos? If you forgive one baker why not forgive everyone? Hell I'll bet you could easily create entire counties where gays are not welcome, correct?

 

[martybegan]

Ah, much closer example. Nice to debate with someone with some intellect for once. Is the pizza part of some public ceremony that some people find morally reprehensible? Do you have to consult with your Pizza guy when it comes to the exact specifications of your Pizza?

While entertaining, all of this is moot. The real question is why the hell does the government feel the need to intervene in a contract between two private parties that has zero impact on overall commerce or society?

To your question, "is the pizza part of some public ceremony that some people find morally reprehensible?" Point (1) Marriage ceremonies are usually private. Very rare that they are held in public. Point (2) yes some people find ceremonies held by others as morally reprehensible, for example keg parties, as another example, raves, as another example, gay marriage ceremonies.

To your question, "[d]o you have to consult with your Pizza guy when it comes to the exact specifications of your Pizza?" Yes, you have to consult with your Pizza guy to give him the exact specifications of your Pizza Pie. Note: they also serve desert pizzas. And as far as I know all pizza outlets will gladly deliver pizzas to gay wedding ceremonies, and gay owned businesses, and tattoo parlors, and bars, and.... If they don't want to, they better check the public accommodation laws for their state.

To your point that "[t]he real question is why the hell does the government feel the need to intervene in a contract between two private parties that has zero impact on overall commerce or society?"

Commerce is just one of the places where the rubber meets the road, in so far as it is one of the ways the federal government can set rules. However, in this particular case we are talking about a State based public accommodation law, so it's not the federal commerce clause issue. Where money is exchanged in public for public sales... that is something that can be regulated. See sales taxes. See wheel chair access. See regulations on cleanliness. Etc.

There are a number of reasons why civil rights laws are important:

1) Violence typically follows open forms of discrimination and bigoted acts. Thus, to stop violence sometimes you have to write laws that settle said violent debates. Civil rights acts are a matter of public record. Without them women may not be voting, slavery may still be legal, blacks may still be forced to the back of the bus or to use different water fountains, etc. When you disparage a group of individuals they are gonna get angry, and that may lead to violence.

2) This country was formed with the idea of defending minority groups from said tyranny of the majority. Thus, in a sense we have been fighting for the right of minority groups to have a place in our society from the start.

The tyranny of the majority referred to the government's ability to restrict a minorities actions or rights, not of the mass of people as individuals. And what happens if those who don't agree with gay marriage become the minority? Does the protection afforded to gays now flip to them?

The irony is the tyranny isn't being inflicted on the gay couple, its being inflicted on the baker. And yet you seem OK with that.

And an appeal to preventing violence is a weak argument in this case. Jim crow discrimination was systemic and government mandated/enforced. A baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay marriage is not going to lead to the Watts riots.

You say tyranny of the majority referred to the government's ability to restrict a minorities actions or rights. Yes, that's what I said. The laws and spending programs of this country used to enable segregation, discrimination against minority groups, now they do not with the exception of the laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation. Which will soon be remedied, I suspect.

You ask, "what happens if those who don't agree with gay marriage become the minority... does the protection afforded to gays now flip to them?" Bigots are supposed to be protected as well, but not their actions. Remember our liberties are only supposed to protect us up to the part where our actions take away the liberties of others. You are concerned about the liberty to choose who you can sell to. If you want that liberty you need to stop selling to the public at large and start selling only to your private group of individuals. This is because the public at large has the liberty to enjoy commerce in this country. You can't just pick and choose who in the public you want to sell to based on your personal discriminatory and bigoted views, not when the discrimination is based on skin color, race, creed, gender, age, etc. and yes, in some states sexual orientation.

Rightly or wrongly the arbitration for who is harmed the most in these types of situations has already been decided, the guy being paid for his product or the guy buying the product. If a black man wants to buy a home in a nice neighborhood and he has the credit, he's allowed to do so. If a gay couple wants to buy a cake from a public cake baker, in certain states, they are protected in that act. In those states the baker would have to stop selling to the public at large if they want to discriminate against particular members of the public at large.

Ask yourself... is the arbitration for who is harmed the most, the buyer or the seller when the seller discriminates, right or wrong? Are you actually trying to argue that the seller is harmed the most when he is required to sell product to any of his customers even the ones he does not like, esp. given that he made the choice to sell to the public at large knowing full well the prior arbitration decision that he's not allowed to discriminate?

Thus, tyranny has not been forced on this baker. This baker decided to sell to the public in full view of the laws of this state. Further, this baker decided to continue and argue that they were above this law. Still further, this baker was not forced to bake the cake at all. The baker was given the choice to sell to the public and adhere to public accommodation laws, or not to sell to the public and avoid said public accommodation laws. Apparently the baker didn't have enough private repeat customers to sustain their business.

I respectfully disagree. All of your points are based on discrimination that so permeates the economy that it leads to a severe disadvantage to those discriminated against. Again, gays are not blacks, and today's cities are not 1880's to 1950's Birmingham. A baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding is not forcing someone in public to ride at the back of the bus, eat in a back alley, or use another toilet. There are plenty of other options for the gay couple to partake of.

And if bigotry is to be punished, it should be by the people as individuals, not the people as government. You may hide it in lofty words, or long explanations of what you mean, but in the end, what you are saying is that people who have opinions differing from the group-think have to shut up and take it, or find work of livelihood in a business that allows them to make no moral choices. Both are far more tyrannous when mandated by government then a gay couple feeling bad for 5 minutes before moving on to the next baker.

Your argument amounts to saying it's not like there are as many gays as blacks... so anti-gay discrimination isn't as important as racial discrimination was back in the day.

Yes there are more options, yes this is not as big an issue as racial discrimination was "back in the day". Yes, this is not watts riots.

Do I have your argument right? Your argument amounts to excusing this particular type of public bigotry because gay's don't deserve the same rights as do other minority groups. Do I have that right? If so which other non-violent small groups don't deserve protection from discrimination? Jews? Hispanics? Let's list out the smaller groups that it's ok to discriminate against. Then put together a list of more violent larger groups that it's not ok to discriminate against. Is that your argument?

As for the move on ya homos argument... what if there's only one baker.. what if all the bakers in the county join up to get rid of the homos? If you forgive one baker why not forgive everyone? Hell I'll bet you could easily create entire counties where gays are not welcome, correct?

First, this "bigotry" is, unlike racism, actually a part of the religious texts of the main religions in our society. And its not the 1/2 assed justifications in favor of slavery we got from Southerners before the Civil war, this is clear cut text.

My argument is that at this point the market can and will handle this situation. Government intervention is not needed. We are talking about a cake for a wedding, or photographs for a wedding, or a hall for a wedding. Not the essentials of life, or the ability for ease of transportation, and we are not talking about government ordinances that REQUIRE all businesses to discriminate, which was what Jim Crow was all about.

The negative effects of using government to force businesses to serve people they do not want to serve (in non-essential businesses such as this) outweigh any benefit society gets from either 1)forcing these people to comply, or 2) forcing them out of business.

 

[RKMBrown]

To your question, "is the pizza part of some public ceremony that some people find morally reprehensible?" Point (1) Marriage ceremonies are usually private. Very rare that they are held in public. Point (2) yes some people find ceremonies held by others as morally reprehensible, for example keg parties, as another example, raves, as another example, gay marriage ceremonies.

To your question, "[d]o you have to consult with your Pizza guy when it comes to the exact specifications of your Pizza?" Yes, you have to consult with your Pizza guy to give him the exact specifications of your Pizza Pie. Note: they also serve desert pizzas. And as far as I know all pizza outlets will gladly deliver pizzas to gay wedding ceremonies, and gay owned businesses, and tattoo parlors, and bars, and.... If they don't want to, they better check the public accommodation laws for their state.

To your point that "[t]he real question is why the hell does the government feel the need to intervene in a contract between two private parties that has zero impact on overall commerce or society?"

Commerce is just one of the places where the rubber meets the road, in so far as it is one of the ways the federal government can set rules. However, in this particular case we are talking about a State based public accommodation law, so it's not the federal commerce clause issue. Where money is exchanged in public for public sales... that is something that can be regulated. See sales taxes. See wheel chair access. See regulations on cleanliness. Etc.

There are a number of reasons why civil rights laws are important:

1) Violence typically follows open forms of discrimination and bigoted acts. Thus, to stop violence sometimes you have to write laws that settle said violent debates. Civil rights acts are a matter of public record. Without them women may not be voting, slavery may still be legal, blacks may still be forced to the back of the bus or to use different water fountains, etc. When you disparage a group of individuals they are gonna get angry, and that may lead to violence.

2) This country was formed with the idea of defending minority groups from said tyranny of the majority. Thus, in a sense we have been fighting for the right of minority groups to have a place in our society from the start.

The tyranny of the majority referred to the government's ability to restrict a minorities actions or rights, not of the mass of people as individuals. And what happens if those who don't agree with gay marriage become the minority? Does the protection afforded to gays now flip to them?

The irony is the tyranny isn't being inflicted on the gay couple, its being inflicted on the baker. And yet you seem OK with that.

And an appeal to preventing violence is a weak argument in this case. Jim crow discrimination was systemic and government mandated/enforced. A baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay marriage is not going to lead to the Watts riots.

You say tyranny of the majority referred to the government's ability to restrict a minorities actions or rights. Yes, that's what I said. The laws and spending programs of this country used to enable segregation, discrimination against minority groups, now they do not with the exception of the laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation. Which will soon be remedied, I suspect.

You ask, "what happens if those who don't agree with gay marriage become the minority... does the protection afforded to gays now flip to them?" Bigots are supposed to be protected as well, but not their actions. Remember our liberties are only supposed to protect us up to the part where our actions take away the liberties of others. You are concerned about the liberty to choose who you can sell to. If you want that liberty you need to stop selling to the public at large and start selling only to your private group of individuals. This is because the public at large has the liberty to enjoy commerce in this country. You can't just pick and choose who in the public you want to sell to based on your personal discriminatory and bigoted views, not when the discrimination is based on skin color, race, creed, gender, age, etc. and yes, in some states sexual orientation.

Rightly or wrongly the arbitration for who is harmed the most in these types of situations has already been decided, the guy being paid for his product or the guy buying the product. If a black man wants to buy a home in a nice neighborhood and he has the credit, he's allowed to do so. If a gay couple wants to buy a cake from a public cake baker, in certain states, they are protected in that act. In those states the baker would have to stop selling to the public at large if they want to discriminate against particular members of the public at large.

Ask yourself... is the arbitration for who is harmed the most, the buyer or the seller when the seller discriminates, right or wrong? Are you actually trying to argue that the seller is harmed the most when he is required to sell product to any of his customers even the ones he does not like, esp. given that he made the choice to sell to the public at large knowing full well the prior arbitration decision that he's not allowed to discriminate?

Thus, tyranny has not been forced on this baker. This baker decided to sell to the public in full view of the laws of this state. Further, this baker decided to continue and argue that they were above this law. Still further, this baker was not forced to bake the cake at all. The baker was given the choice to sell to the public and adhere to public accommodation laws, or not to sell to the public and avoid said public accommodation laws. Apparently the baker didn't have enough private repeat customers to sustain their business.

I respectfully disagree. All of your points are based on discrimination that so permeates the economy that it leads to a severe disadvantage to those discriminated against. Again, gays are not blacks, and today's cities are not 1880's to 1950's Birmingham. A baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding is not forcing someone in public to ride at the back of the bus, eat in a back alley, or use another toilet. There are plenty of other options for the gay couple to partake of.

And if bigotry is to be punished, it should be by the people as individuals, not the people as government. You may hide it in lofty words, or long explanations of what you mean, but in the end, what you are saying is that people who have opinions differing from the group-think have to shut up and take it, or find work of livelihood in a business that allows them to make no moral choices. Both are far more tyrannous when mandated by government then a gay couple feeling bad for 5 minutes before moving on to the next baker.

Your argument amounts to saying it's not like there are as many gays as blacks... so anti-gay discrimination isn't as important as racial discrimination was back in the day.

Yes there are more options, yes this is not as big an issue as racial discrimination was "back in the day". Yes, this is not watts riots.

Do I have your argument right? Your argument amounts to excusing this particular type of public bigotry because gay's don't deserve the same rights as do other minority groups. Do I have that right? If so which other non-violent small groups don't deserve protection from discrimination? Jews? Hispanics? Let's list out the smaller groups that it's ok to discriminate against. Then put together a list of more violent larger groups that it's not ok to discriminate against. Is that your argument?

As for the move on ya homos argument... what if there's only one baker.. what if all the bakers in the county join up to get rid of the homos? If you forgive one baker why not forgive everyone? Hell I'll bet you could easily create entire counties where gays are not welcome, correct?

First, this "bigotry" is, unlike racism, actually a part of the religious texts of the main religions in our society. And its not the 1/2 assed justifications in favor of slavery we got from Southerners before the Civil war, this is clear cut text.

My argument is that at this point the market can and will handle this situation. Government intervention is not needed. We are talking about a cake for a wedding, or photographs for a wedding, or a hall for a wedding. Not the essentials of life, or the ability for ease of transportation, and we are not talking about government ordinances that REQUIRE all businesses to discriminate, which was what Jim Crow was all about.

The negative effects of using government to force businesses to serve people they do not want to serve (in non-essential businesses such as this) outweigh any benefit society gets from either 1)forcing these people to comply, or 2) forcing them out of business.

So that's your justification for discrimination against gays, religious text? Really? Do you eat pork? Do you work on the Sabbath? Do you sell to people who eat pork and/or work on the Sabbath? Do you sell to harlots? Do you sell to fornicators? How about people who wear tattoos and/or jewelry that indicates they are sinners who worship idols?

No you are talking about discriminating against people based on their adherence or not to your religion.

What is the negative effect of using government to force businesses to serve people they do not want to serve (in non-essential businesses such as this)?

The company was not forced out of business. The company chose to fight public accommodation laws and lost. The public voted with their pocket book. This company was not forced out of business. The company lost it's customers because the goods sucked and the owners were bigots to boot.

 

[martybegan]

The tyranny of the majority referred to the government's ability to restrict a minorities actions or rights, not of the mass of people as individuals. And what happens if those who don't agree with gay marriage become the minority? Does the protection afforded to gays now flip to them?

The irony is the tyranny isn't being inflicted on the gay couple, its being inflicted on the baker. And yet you seem OK with that.

And an appeal to preventing violence is a weak argument in this case. Jim crow discrimination was systemic and government mandated/enforced. A baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay marriage is not going to lead to the Watts riots.

You say tyranny of the majority referred to the government's ability to restrict a minorities actions or rights. Yes, that's what I said. The laws and spending programs of this country used to enable segregation, discrimination against minority groups, now they do not with the exception of the laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation. Which will soon be remedied, I suspect.

You ask, "what happens if those who don't agree with gay marriage become the minority... does the protection afforded to gays now flip to them?" Bigots are supposed to be protected as well, but not their actions. Remember our liberties are only supposed to protect us up to the part where our actions take away the liberties of others. You are concerned about the liberty to choose who you can sell to. If you want that liberty you need to stop selling to the public at large and start selling only to your private group of individuals. This is because the public at large has the liberty to enjoy commerce in this country. You can't just pick and choose who in the public you want to sell to based on your personal discriminatory and bigoted views, not when the discrimination is based on skin color, race, creed, gender, age, etc. and yes, in some states sexual orientation.

Rightly or wrongly the arbitration for who is harmed the most in these types of situations has already been decided, the guy being paid for his product or the guy buying the product. If a black man wants to buy a home in a nice neighborhood and he has the credit, he's allowed to do so. If a gay couple wants to buy a cake from a public cake baker, in certain states, they are protected in that act. In those states the baker would have to stop selling to the public at large if they want to discriminate against particular members of the public at large.

Ask yourself... is the arbitration for who is harmed the most, the buyer or the seller when the seller discriminates, right or wrong? Are you actually trying to argue that the seller is harmed the most when he is required to sell product to any of his customers even the ones he does not like, esp. given that he made the choice to sell to the public at large knowing full well the prior arbitration decision that he's not allowed to discriminate?

Thus, tyranny has not been forced on this baker. This baker decided to sell to the public in full view of the laws of this state. Further, this baker decided to continue and argue that they were above this law. Still further, this baker was not forced to bake the cake at all. The baker was given the choice to sell to the public and adhere to public accommodation laws, or not to sell to the public and avoid said public accommodation laws. Apparently the baker didn't have enough private repeat customers to sustain their business.

I respectfully disagree. All of your points are based on discrimination that so permeates the economy that it leads to a severe disadvantage to those discriminated against. Again, gays are not blacks, and today's cities are not 1880's to 1950's Birmingham. A baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding is not forcing someone in public to ride at the back of the bus, eat in a back alley, or use another toilet. There are plenty of other options for the gay couple to partake of.

And if bigotry is to be punished, it should be by the people as individuals, not the people as government. You may hide it in lofty words, or long explanations of what you mean, but in the end, what you are saying is that people who have opinions differing from the group-think have to shut up and take it, or find work of livelihood in a business that allows them to make no moral choices. Both are far more tyrannous when mandated by government then a gay couple feeling bad for 5 minutes before moving on to the next baker.

Your argument amounts to saying it's not like there are as many gays as blacks... so anti-gay discrimination isn't as important as racial discrimination was back in the day.

Yes there are more options, yes this is not as big an issue as racial discrimination was "back in the day". Yes, this is not watts riots.

Do I have your argument right? Your argument amounts to excusing this particular type of public bigotry because gay's don't deserve the same rights as do other minority groups. Do I have that right? If so which other non-violent small groups don't deserve protection from discrimination? Jews? Hispanics? Let's list out the smaller groups that it's ok to discriminate against. Then put together a list of more violent larger groups that it's not ok to discriminate against. Is that your argument?

As for the move on ya homos argument... what if there's only one baker.. what if all the bakers in the county join up to get rid of the homos? If you forgive one baker why not forgive everyone? Hell I'll bet you could easily create entire counties where gays are not welcome, correct?

First, this "bigotry" is, unlike racism, actually a part of the religious texts of the main religions in our society. And its not the 1/2 assed justifications in favor of slavery we got from Southerners before the Civil war, this is clear cut text.

My argument is that at this point the market can and will handle this situation. Government intervention is not needed. We are talking about a cake for a wedding, or photographs for a wedding, or a hall for a wedding. Not the essentials of life, or the ability for ease of transportation, and we are not talking about government ordinances that REQUIRE all businesses to discriminate, which was what Jim Crow was all about.

The negative effects of using government to force businesses to serve people they do not want to serve (in non-essential businesses such as this) outweigh any benefit society gets from either 1)forcing these people to comply, or 2) forcing them out of business.

So that's your justification for discrimination against gays, religious text? Really? Do you eat pork? Do you work on the Sabbath? Do you sell to people who eat pork and/or work on the Sabbath? Do you sell to harlots? Do you sell to fornicators? How about people who wear tattoos and/or jewelry that indicates they are sinners who worship idols?

No you are talking about discriminating against people based on their adherence or not to your religion.

What is the negative effect of using government to force businesses to serve people they do not want to serve (in non-essential businesses such as this)?

The company was not forced out of business. The company chose to fight public accommodation laws and lost. The public voted with their pocket book. This company was not forced out of business. The company lost it's customers because the goods sucked and the owners were bigots to boot.

The government fining them, and threatening to continue to fine them is not "the public talking with their pocketbook". Its the government telling you to "shut up and sell cakes" And now their stuff sucks? why are you searching for rationalizations to fuck people over?

In actuality, it would be far easier to not sell to someone with tattoos,as they are not a "protected class"

and your example of eating pork is apt. Should I be able to force a jewish butcher to sell me pork?

The negative effect of using government is IN the use of government to force people to do these things. Government force should only be used in serious matters, not to placate a vocal litigious minority.

 

[RKMBrown]

You say tyranny of the majority referred to the government's ability to restrict a minorities actions or rights. Yes, that's what I said. The laws and spending programs of this country used to enable segregation, discrimination against minority groups, now they do not with the exception of the laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation. Which will soon be remedied, I suspect.

You ask, "what happens if those who don't agree with gay marriage become the minority... does the protection afforded to gays now flip to them?" Bigots are supposed to be protected as well, but not their actions. Remember our liberties are only supposed to protect us up to the part where our actions take away the liberties of others. You are concerned about the liberty to choose who you can sell to. If you want that liberty you need to stop selling to the public at large and start selling only to your private group of individuals. This is because the public at large has the liberty to enjoy commerce in this country. You can't just pick and choose who in the public you want to sell to based on your personal discriminatory and bigoted views, not when the discrimination is based on skin color, race, creed, gender, age, etc. and yes, in some states sexual orientation.

Rightly or wrongly the arbitration for who is harmed the most in these types of situations has already been decided, the guy being paid for his product or the guy buying the product. If a black man wants to buy a home in a nice neighborhood and he has the credit, he's allowed to do so. If a gay couple wants to buy a cake from a public cake baker, in certain states, they are protected in that act. In those states the baker would have to stop selling to the public at large if they want to discriminate against particular members of the public at large.

Ask yourself... is the arbitration for who is harmed the most, the buyer or the seller when the seller discriminates, right or wrong? Are you actually trying to argue that the seller is harmed the most when he is required to sell product to any of his customers even the ones he does not like, esp. given that he made the choice to sell to the public at large knowing full well the prior arbitration decision that he's not allowed to discriminate?

Thus, tyranny has not been forced on this baker. This baker decided to sell to the public in full view of the laws of this state. Further, this baker decided to continue and argue that they were above this law. Still further, this baker was not forced to bake the cake at all. The baker was given the choice to sell to the public and adhere to public accommodation laws, or not to sell to the public and avoid said public accommodation laws. Apparently the baker didn't have enough private repeat customers to sustain their business.

I respectfully disagree. All of your points are based on discrimination that so permeates the economy that it leads to a severe disadvantage to those discriminated against. Again, gays are not blacks, and today's cities are not 1880's to 1950's Birmingham. A baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding is not forcing someone in public to ride at the back of the bus, eat in a back alley, or use another toilet. There are plenty of other options for the gay couple to partake of.

And if bigotry is to be punished, it should be by the people as individuals, not the people as government. You may hide it in lofty words, or long explanations of what you mean, but in the end, what you are saying is that people who have opinions differing from the group-think have to shut up and take it, or find work of livelihood in a business that allows them to make no moral choices. Both are far more tyrannous when mandated by government then a gay couple feeling bad for 5 minutes before moving on to the next baker.

Your argument amounts to saying it's not like there are as many gays as blacks... so anti-gay discrimination isn't as important as racial discrimination was back in the day.

Yes there are more options, yes this is not as big an issue as racial discrimination was "back in the day". Yes, this is not watts riots.

Do I have your argument right? Your argument amounts to excusing this particular type of public bigotry because gay's don't deserve the same rights as do other minority groups. Do I have that right? If so which other non-violent small groups don't deserve protection from discrimination? Jews? Hispanics? Let's list out the smaller groups that it's ok to discriminate against. Then put together a list of more violent larger groups that it's not ok to discriminate against. Is that your argument?

As for the move on ya homos argument... what if there's only one baker.. what if all the bakers in the county join up to get rid of the homos? If you forgive one baker why not forgive everyone? Hell I'll bet you could easily create entire counties where gays are not welcome, correct?

First, this "bigotry" is, unlike racism, actually a part of the religious texts of the main religions in our society. And its not the 1/2 assed justifications in favor of slavery we got from Southerners before the Civil war, this is clear cut text.

My argument is that at this point the market can and will handle this situation. Government intervention is not needed. We are talking about a cake for a wedding, or photographs for a wedding, or a hall for a wedding. Not the essentials of life, or the ability for ease of transportation, and we are not talking about government ordinances that REQUIRE all businesses to discriminate, which was what Jim Crow was all about.

The negative effects of using government to force businesses to serve people they do not want to serve (in non-essential businesses such as this) outweigh any benefit society gets from either 1)forcing these people to comply, or 2) forcing them out of business.

So that's your justification for discrimination against gays, religious text? Really? Do you eat pork? Do you work on the Sabbath? Do you sell to people who eat pork and/or work on the Sabbath? Do you sell to harlots? Do you sell to fornicators? How about people who wear tattoos and/or jewelry that indicates they are sinners who worship idols?

No you are talking about discriminating against people based on their adherence or not to your religion.

What is the negative effect of using government to force businesses to serve people they do not want to serve (in non-essential businesses such as this)?

The company was not forced out of business. The company chose to fight public accommodation laws and lost. The public voted with their pocket book. This company was not forced out of business. The company lost it's customers because the goods sucked and the owners were bigots to boot.

The government fining them, and threatening to continue to fine them is not "the public talking with their pocketbook". Its the government telling you to "shut up and sell cakes" And now their stuff sucks? why are you searching for rationalizations to fuck people over?

In actuality, it would be far easier to not sell to someone with tattoos,as they are not a "protected class"

and your example of eating pork is apt. Should I be able to force a jewish butcher to sell me pork?

The negative effect of using government is IN the use of government to force people to do these things. Government force should only be used in serious matters, not to placate a vocal litigious minority.

Wrong. You appear to not have the facts of this case in hand. The owner lost their business before the case was even over. Are you actually arguing that you should be able to ignore the law and not pay your fines when you are caught ignoring the law? The baker really did suck. Are you actually saying government should force people to buy baked goods from shitty bakers because they are bigots?

No jewish butchers are not forced to sell pork, so your strawman fails. If however, they do sell pork public accommodation laws would force them to sell to black people and heaven forbid islamics.

Are you actually trying to say that a wedding cake for a gay couple is a "gay cake?"

Are you actually saying our laws should discriminate against gays to adhere to your religious views? FYI I'm a christian, and I disagree with your opinion that the bible tells me to discriminate against and defend discrimination against gays.