Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[Procrustes Stretched]

The govt. Giving a 150,000 fine to business owners/artisans for exercising their first is a perfect example of people running to the government to fix what they don't like about other people. Yea, real free country we live in folks.

You can re-frame however you like, but facts are facts. The government has not gone after artists and business owners for exercising their first amendment rights.

A baker and a few other sellers of services or goods have claimed a right that has no basis in our law. These people and their supporters keep lying about the facts and worse, keep conflating what they do as being art and forcing them to attend and/or validate gay weddings.

Thought we weren't allowed to use current law, but I'll say this, just because it's law, does not make it right. If that's the case, you cannot say that slavery, Jim Crow, rounding up Japanese, manifest destiny, or pretty much any ugly thing in our past was wrong at the time because it was law

I was not arguing current law. I mentioned "the law." and the baker was charged with violating a law, which one? Not arguing whether the law is good or not or constitutional or not. it is the law. Justice is blind.

Wrongful laws were considered wrongful by many who even supported them. Many times their arguments were the laws were necessary evils or worse, their moral arguments were based on cheap science or cheaper religious readings and interpretations.

You and others are arguing a constitutionally protected right. A right others say does not exist in the way you want it to

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So like the OP, you admit to being against public accommodation laws?

Oh I absolutely do, does it not make business owner take actions that they are fundamentally opposed too ?

Congrats

When one goes into business, one agrees to abide by the laws of the land. "Actions' that they are 'fundamentally' opposed to? What, like delivering a cake or dressing one up before a marriage ceremony takes place? again, it's a ridiculous argument you make, that delivering a cake or dressing it up demands the person selling their services and good must attend the event or recognize it as what it is .. a wonderful union between two people. They can look at it as an abomination and that view is not under attack by the law.

In response see my last post. All those things I listed were laws of the land. In your view they cannot be opposed.

Who gets to determine what's tolerant and intolerant?

Laws get overturned all the time. They were the law of the land at one time.

Toleration is an act one engages in by choice. It comes about when somebody else is usually offensive.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Oh so they didn't get fined, because that is what you said earlier.

I find this

"Forcing someone to bake cakes in gay weddings, and maybe even gay weddings. This is what happens when we become a nation of men, not laws."

Can you post a link to a situation where this has actually happened? Where somebody has been forced to bake a cake for a wedding of a gay couple? Are you saying people have been forced to attend weddings of gay couples? Your first sentence quoted above seems a bit disjointed​

..
and this...

"Splitting hairs Dante, but fine I'll say "bake the cake, or face consequence of a 150,000 fine enforced by the government"

What are you talking about? Somebody was forced to bake a cake or pay a fine?​

yet I don't find what you claim. hmm...

You posted links and in a fuller context they do not back up your assertions. It isn't bake and sell cakes to gay couples, it's get fined if you don't stop violating the laws.

Oh so they didn't get fined, because that is what you said earlier.

I find this

"Forcing someone to bake cakes in gay weddings, and maybe even gay weddings. This is what happens when we become a nation of men, not laws."

Can you post a link to a situation where this has actually happened? Where somebody has been forced to bake a cake for a wedding of a gay couple? Are you saying people have been forced to attend weddings of gay couples? Your first sentence quoted above seems a bit disjointed​

..
and this...

"Splitting hairs Dante, but fine I'll say "bake the cake, or face consequence of a 150,000 fine enforced by the government"

What are you talking about? Somebody was forced to bake a cake or pay a fine?​

yet I don't find what you claim. hmm...

You posted links and in a fuller context they do not back up your assertions. It isn't bake and sell cakes to gay couples, it's get fined if you don't stop violating the laws.

You're kidding me, you cannot continue with this argument until you answer this question. What put them in violation of the law? What actions made them in violation of the law? Was it not baking a cake????

Refusing a service to somebody based upon their belonging to a class of citizens is the classic text book definition of bigotry and discrimination.

First, what law were they charged with violating? The bake-a-cake law?

Wow, so they did not get fined for not baking a cake?

This is coming from the guy who didn't even know that the bakers got fined

Please, do not lie and fabricate.

You got answered in a previous post. You made false claims in that previous post. Claims about what Dante said about fines.

 

[Nosmo King]

How the intolerant have adopted the language of the victim. They think bakers are"forced" to engage in commerce and bake a cake. They see marriage equality as an "attack" on Christianity.

Let's look at these "attacks". Homosexual couples come into a bakery expecting the same high level of service they have seen and heard of that brought them into the store in the first place. These homosexual attackers come with cash and credit cards in hand as paying customers. All they want is what every other customer gets. Quality goods and service.

What manner of attack is this?

A baker bakes cakes. How is a paying customer forcing her to do anything she would not regularly do in the daily course of business?

And these bakers stand up and tell us that their Christian faith...let me repeat that...their Christian Faith dictates that engaging in commerce, the normal commerce of their occupation, dictates that engaging in commerce with homosexuals will endanger their mortal souls.

In my church (Presbyterian) we have never heard an admonishment to avoid commerce with homosexuals. Instead, we are taught to love our neighbor, to judge not lest we be judged and to not cast the first stone as we all bear sins. These are the basic tenets of my faith.

Some are convinced that dogmatic thinking that tells the faithful to ignore those tenets and feel free to continue to perpetuate fear, suspicion and hurtful stereotypes. How quickly they abandon the loving, forgiving and beautiful faith for the cover this dogma provides.

No one who is a paying customer expects any merchant to fit into the narrow template of intolerance. Yet merchants seek to impose their narrow morality upon certain customers, but not all customers. These merchants will gladly accept payment for services from sinners. Green counts more than faith.

And these merchants want to hide behind the 1st amendment claiming that this amendment protects them while they humiliate and discriminate against their fellow American citizens.

"Attacks" on faith? No. There is no attack on faith. No customer is prohibiting merchants from attending services. No paying customer wants to tear down any faith. They just want what every other customer receives. Quality products and great service.

And I do not see it as an attack on Christianity or any other point of view. I see it as a power play that would force somebody to participate in or contribute to an event against that somebody's will. It would be the same regardless of whether the business owner was straight, gay, black, white, or whatever. No business owner or, with very few exceptions, anybody else, should be forced to participate or contribute to an event that he or she disapproves of or just doesn't want to participate in for any reason. And I dare say nobody can give a clear, coherent rationale for how that violates anybody's rights.

if you reguarly served the community as a business, licensed and regulated, and denied someone your services due to your own personal predidices concerning not an individual, but a group, you are denying customers rights. If you ran a theater and refused to sell tickets to any Asian or Latino because of the fact they were Asian or Latino, you would be violating not only their rights, but the law.

Here's a public water fountain, but you cannot drink from it because you are a member of a group I disapprove of. Can you see rights being violated there? Here's a bakery that is open to the public, but you cannot deal there because you are a member of a group I, the baker do not approve of. Can you see the parallel?

If you ran the best, most acclaimed bakery in town and you say I cannot be your customer because I am a member of a group you do not approve of, I have to settle for less.

And merchants are not participants in a wedding unless they are invited guests or members of the wedding party. The notion of mercantile participation is a hollow one. The goods and services merchants provide should not be exclusive to the folks those merchants approve of. Should a criminal, someone acting a fool, someone with unreasonable requests try a merchant, then the merchant can and probably should refuse service. But a same sex couple should be regarded as another customer, not someone to deny simply because they happen to be Gay.

 

[sakinago]

Oh so they didn't get fined, because that is what you said earlier.

I find this

"Forcing someone to bake cakes in gay weddings, and maybe even gay weddings. This is what happens when we become a nation of men, not laws."

Can you post a link to a situation where this has actually happened? Where somebody has been forced to bake a cake for a wedding of a gay couple? Are you saying people have been forced to attend weddings of gay couples? Your first sentence quoted above seems a bit disjointed​

..
and this...

"Splitting hairs Dante, but fine I'll say "bake the cake, or face consequence of a 150,000 fine enforced by the government"

What are you talking about? Somebody was forced to bake a cake or pay a fine?​

yet I don't find what you claim. hmm...

You posted links and in a fuller context they do not back up your assertions. It isn't bake and sell cakes to gay couples, it's get fined if you don't stop violating the laws.

You're kidding me, you cannot continue with this argument until you answer this question. What put them in violation of the law? What actions made them in violation of the law? Was it not baking a cake????

Refusing a service to somebody based upon their belonging to a class of citizens is the classic text book definition of bigotry and discrimination.

First, what law were they charged with violating? The bake-a-cake law?

Wow, so they did not get fined for not baking a cake?

This is coming from the guy who didn't even know that the bakers got fined

Please, do not lie and fabricate.

You got answered in a previous post. You made false claims in that previous post. Claims about what Dante said about fines.

No you didn't answer, you posted a law and asked another question. They were in violation of that law for not baking a cake, we're they not?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I find this

"Forcing someone to bake cakes in gay weddings, and maybe even gay weddings. This is what happens when we become a nation of men, not laws."

Can you post a link to a situation where this has actually happened? Where somebody has been forced to bake a cake for a wedding of a gay couple? Are you saying people have been forced to attend weddings of gay couples? Your first sentence quoted above seems a bit disjointed​

..
and this...

"Splitting hairs Dante, but fine I'll say "bake the cake, or face consequence of a 150,000 fine enforced by the government"

What are you talking about? Somebody was forced to bake a cake or pay a fine?​

yet I don't find what you claim. hmm...

You posted links and in a fuller context they do not back up your assertions. It isn't bake and sell cakes to gay couples, it's get fined if you don't stop violating the laws.

You're kidding me, you cannot continue with this argument until you answer this question. What put them in violation of the law? What actions made them in violation of the law? Was it not baking a cake????

Refusing a service to somebody based upon their belonging to a class of citizens is the classic text book definition of bigotry and discrimination.

First, what law were they charged with violating? The bake-a-cake law?

Wow, so they did not get fined for not baking a cake?

This is coming from the guy who didn't even know that the bakers got fined

Please, do not lie and fabricate.

You got answered in a previous post. You made false claims in that previous post. Claims about what Dante said about fines.

No you didn't answer, you posted a law and asked another question. They were in violation of that law for not baking a cake, we're they not?

What law?

 

[Debra K]

Bakery risks large fine for anti-gay discrimination

They Lost Their Bakery Now Face Bankruptcy Government s Discrimination Fine Brings Baker to Tears

Oregon bakery must pay gay couple for refusing to make cake - NY Daily News

Couple Fined For Refusing To Host Gay Wedding Close Venue The Daily Caller

Sweet Cakes by Melissa crowdfunder breaks record with 352K - Washington Times

It looks like the baker netted some money through discriminatory activity. It appears that other people not only tolerate, but also support discrimination with their dollars.

 

[sakinago]

How the intolerant have adopted the language of the victim. They think bakers are"forced" to engage in commerce and bake a cake. They see marriage equality as an "attack" on Christianity.

Let's look at these "attacks". Homosexual couples come into a bakery expecting the same high level of service they have seen and heard of that brought them into the store in the first place. These homosexual attackers come with cash and credit cards in hand as paying customers. All they want is what every other customer gets. Quality goods and service.

What manner of attack is this?

A baker bakes cakes. How is a paying customer forcing her to do anything she would not regularly do in the daily course of business?

And these bakers stand up and tell us that their Christian faith...let me repeat that...their Christian Faith dictates that engaging in commerce, the normal commerce of their occupation, dictates that engaging in commerce with homosexuals will endanger their mortal souls.

In my church (Presbyterian) we have never heard an admonishment to avoid commerce with homosexuals. Instead, we are taught to love our neighbor, to judge not lest we be judged and to not cast the first stone as we all bear sins. These are the basic tenets of my faith.

Some are convinced that dogmatic thinking that tells the faithful to ignore those tenets and feel free to continue to perpetuate fear, suspicion and hurtful stereotypes. How quickly they abandon the loving, forgiving and beautiful faith for the cover this dogma provides.

No one who is a paying customer expects any merchant to fit into the narrow template of intolerance. Yet merchants seek to impose their narrow morality upon certain customers, but not all customers. These merchants will gladly accept payment for services from sinners. Green counts more than faith.

And these merchants want to hide behind the 1st amendment claiming that this amendment protects them while they humiliate and discriminate against their fellow American citizens.

"Attacks" on faith? No. There is no attack on faith. No customer is prohibiting merchants from attending services. No paying customer wants to tear down any faith. They just want what every other customer receives. Quality products and great service.

And I do not see it as an attack on Christianity or any other point of view. I see it as a power play that would force somebody to participate in or contribute to an event against that somebody's will. It would be the same regardless of whether the business owner was straight, gay, black, white, or whatever. No business owner or, with very few exceptions, anybody else, should be forced to participate or contribute to an event that he or she disapproves of or just doesn't want to participate in for any reason. And I dare say nobody can give a clear, coherent rationale for how that violates anybody's rights.

if you reguarly served the community as a business, licensed and regulated, and denied someone your services due to your own personal predidices concerning not an individual, but a group, you are denying customers rights. If you ran a theater and refused to sell tickets to any Asian or Latino because of the fact they were Asian or Latino, you would be violating not only their rights, but the law.

Here's a public water fountain, but you cannot drink from it because you are a member of a group I disapprove of. Can you see rights being violated there? Here's a bakery that is open to the public, but you cannot deal there because you are a member of a group I, the baker do not approve of. Can you see the parallel?

If you ran the best, most acclaimed bakery in town and you say I cannot be your customer because I am a member of a group you do not approve of, I have to settle for less.

And merchants are not participants in a wedding unless they are invited guests or members of the wedding party. The notion of mercantile participation is a hollow one. The goods and services merchants provide should not be exclusive to the folks those merchants approve of. Should a criminal, someone acting a fool, someone with unreasonable requests try a merchant, then the merchant can and probably should refuse service. But a same sex couple should be regarded as another customer, not someone to deny simply because they happen to be Gay.

I didn't know we were entitled to customers rights, and the right to not be offended, I thought we were supposed to be based off of the constitution and original BOR. In those I don't see the right to not be offended, and customers rights, why? Because that would be in conflict with the original bill of rights.

But hey if your all for letting the government tell is what is and isn't marriage by all means go for it

 

[Nosmo King]

How the intolerant have adopted the language of the victim. They think bakers are"forced" to engage in commerce and bake a cake. They see marriage equality as an "attack" on Christianity.

Let's look at these "attacks". Homosexual couples come into a bakery expecting the same high level of service they have seen and heard of that brought them into the store in the first place. These homosexual attackers come with cash and credit cards in hand as paying customers. All they want is what every other customer gets. Quality goods and service.

What manner of attack is this?

A baker bakes cakes. How is a paying customer forcing her to do anything she would not regularly do in the daily course of business?

And these bakers stand up and tell us that their Christian faith...let me repeat that...their Christian Faith dictates that engaging in commerce, the normal commerce of their occupation, dictates that engaging in commerce with homosexuals will endanger their mortal souls.

In my church (Presbyterian) we have never heard an admonishment to avoid commerce with homosexuals. Instead, we are taught to love our neighbor, to judge not lest we be judged and to not cast the first stone as we all bear sins. These are the basic tenets of my faith.

Some are convinced that dogmatic thinking that tells the faithful to ignore those tenets and feel free to continue to perpetuate fear, suspicion and hurtful stereotypes. How quickly they abandon the loving, forgiving and beautiful faith for the cover this dogma provides.

No one who is a paying customer expects any merchant to fit into the narrow template of intolerance. Yet merchants seek to impose their narrow morality upon certain customers, but not all customers. These merchants will gladly accept payment for services from sinners. Green counts more than faith.

And these merchants want to hide behind the 1st amendment claiming that this amendment protects them while they humiliate and discriminate against their fellow American citizens.

"Attacks" on faith? No. There is no attack on faith. No customer is prohibiting merchants from attending services. No paying customer wants to tear down any faith. They just want what every other customer receives. Quality products and great service.

So there is no 150,000 fine?

And you have no clue what my views are on gay marriage. I don't think government should be telling us what marriage is. If my church wants to marry me and my gay partner, or me and my multiple wives, I should be able to do it. After all we supposably have the freedom of religion. The only part govt should have is recognizing, witnessing, and enforcing the contract I make with those people. The only reason we need to go out and get a marriage license (listen to how ridiculous that statement is) is because people got together and said I don't like whites marrying blacks, so we're going to make people get a license to marry from the govt. And if it's an interracial couple we will deny them that license. Government should not have the power to do that! But no, people see things they don't like and go running to the govt to do something about it, only giving the government more power that shouldn't belong to them. I will stand up for the gay baker refusing to bake a cake for Westboro baptist church, just as much as the Oregon baker. It is their business, and as long as they are not harming, or stealing from anyone, government should have no business in their own damn business. I thought we had property rights in this country?

The govt. Giving a 150,000 fine to business owners/artisans for exercising their first is a perfect example of people running to the government to fix what they don't like about other people. Yea, real free country we live in folks.

Marriage licenses were around for a long time before inter racial marriage became the law of the land. Marriage, in the eyes of the state is a contract. That contract establishes a next of kin relationship where no such relationship existed before. The marriage license establishes a new legal entity. A coupling of fortunes into the singular established by the contract.

We have public Accomodation laws in this nation because there were folks who thought that some of their fellow American citizens were not worthy because of an immutable condition, i.e. race.

Would you welcome back a land of second class citizens because of immutable conditions? It seems so. Sexuality is an immutable condition.

 

[sakinago]

You're kidding me, you cannot continue with this argument until you answer this question. What put them in violation of the law? What actions made them in violation of the law? Was it not baking a cake????

Refusing a service to somebody based upon their belonging to a class of citizens is the classic text book definition of bigotry and discrimination.

First, what law were they charged with violating? The bake-a-cake law?

Wow, so they did not get fined for not baking a cake?

This is coming from the guy who didn't even know that the bakers got fined

Please, do not lie and fabricate.

You got answered in a previous post. You made false claims in that previous post. Claims about what Dante said about fines.

No you didn't answer, you posted a law and asked another question. They were in violation of that law for not baking a cake, we're they not?

What law?

You posted it, action is required to violate a law, what action was in violation?

All you have is to split hairs?

 

[Coyote]

We'll just have to agree to disagree Nosmo. I gave you an excellent argument for why people should not be forced to participate in or contribute to events or activities which they choose not to be involved in. So far you and everybody else has tried to change that argument to something else or make it into something that has not been said or implied.

I have been in the position of procurement on various jobs over the years and I have frequently asked vendors to accommodate my event or activity with products they advertise for sale. Every now and then somebody declines. They don't want to drive that far or the design I want will take more time than they want to devote to a project. In one case the event featured a particularly controversial figure that the business owner simply couldn't stomach and didn't want to be a party to. Not one of those people violated my rights in any way. I either adjusted the order to something that could be accommodated or I went elsewhere for the product or service.

If I hurt your feelings or insult you or make you feel disrespected because I don't want to attend a particular event or activity you invite me to, I am sorry. I might feel insulted or disrespected because you presume to judge me and my choice. But neither of us have violated the other's rights and we each are entitled to our own beliefs, values, and convictions so long as we require nobody else to participate in them or contribute to them.

I don't think that is a fair or accurate summation Foxie. You are comparing apples and oranges on a multitude of levels.

Providing services to a wedding is the same - whether it's same sex or opposite sex. No special services are provided. It is exactly the same with the exception of the sexual orientation of the participants.

Denying service based on who the participants are (what class of people they are) is not the same as denying it because it's too far away, too time consuming etc.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

How the intolerant have adopted the language of the victim. They think bakers are"forced" to engage in commerce and bake a cake. They see marriage equality as an "attack" on Christianity.

Let's look at these "attacks". Homosexual couples come into a bakery expecting the same high level of service they have seen and heard of that brought them into the store in the first place. These homosexual attackers come with cash and credit cards in hand as paying customers. All they want is what every other customer gets. Quality goods and service.

What manner of attack is this?

A baker bakes cakes. How is a paying customer forcing her to do anything she would not regularly do in the daily course of business?

And these bakers stand up and tell us that their Christian faith...let me repeat that...their Christian Faith dictates that engaging in commerce, the normal commerce of their occupation, dictates that engaging in commerce with homosexuals will endanger their mortal souls.

In my church (Presbyterian) we have never heard an admonishment to avoid commerce with homosexuals. Instead, we are taught to love our neighbor, to judge not lest we be judged and to not cast the first stone as we all bear sins. These are the basic tenets of my faith.

Some are convinced that dogmatic thinking that tells the faithful to ignore those tenets and feel free to continue to perpetuate fear, suspicion and hurtful stereotypes. How quickly they abandon the loving, forgiving and beautiful faith for the cover this dogma provides.

No one who is a paying customer expects any merchant to fit into the narrow template of intolerance. Yet merchants seek to impose their narrow morality upon certain customers, but not all customers. These merchants will gladly accept payment for services from sinners. Green counts more than faith.

And these merchants want to hide behind the 1st amendment claiming that this amendment protects them while they humiliate and discriminate against their fellow American citizens.

"Attacks" on faith? No. There is no attack on faith. No customer is prohibiting merchants from attending services. No paying customer wants to tear down any faith. They just want what every other customer receives. Quality products and great service.

And I do not see it as an attack on Christianity or any other point of view. I see it as a power play that would force somebody to participate in or contribute to an event against that somebody's will. It would be the same regardless of whether the business owner was straight, gay, black, white, or whatever. No business owner or, with very few exceptions, anybody else, should be forced to participate or contribute to an event that he or she disapproves of or just doesn't want to participate in for any reason. And I dare say nobody can give a clear, coherent rationale for how that violates anybody's rights.

if you reguarly served the community as a business, licensed and regulated, and denied someone your services due to your own personal predidices concerning not an individual, but a group, you are denying customers rights. If you ran a theater and refused to sell tickets to any Asian or Latino because of the fact they were Asian or Latino, you would be violating not only their rights, but the law.

Here's a public water fountain, but you cannot drink from it because you are a member of a group I disapprove of. Can you see rights being violated there? Here's a bakery that is open to the public, but you cannot deal there because you are a member of a group I, the baker do not approve of. Can you see the parallel?

If you ran the best, most acclaimed bakery in town and you say I cannot be your customer because I am a member of a group you do not approve of, I have to settle for less.

And merchants are not participants in a wedding unless they are invited guests or members of the wedding party. The notion of mercantile participation is a hollow one. The goods and services merchants provide should not be exclusive to the folks those merchants approve of. Should a criminal, someone acting a fool, someone with unreasonable requests try a merchant, then the merchant can and probably should refuse service. But a same sex couple should be regarded as another customer, not someone to deny simply because they happen to be Gay.

I didn't know we were entitled to customers rights, and the right to not be offended, I thought we were supposed to be based off of the constitution and original BOR. In those I don't see the right to not be offended, and customers rights, why? Because that would be in conflict with the original bill of rights.

But hey if your all for letting the government tell is what is and isn't marriage by all means go for it

If you're going to ask the government to recognize your marriage you have invited them into the discussion of what constitutes a marriage. Stop asking for tax breaks for churches and married couples and stop asking for a marriage license from the state

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Refusing a service to somebody based upon their belonging to a class of citizens is the classic text book definition of bigotry and discrimination.

First, what law were they charged with violating? The bake-a-cake law?

Wow, so they did not get fined for not baking a cake?

This is coming from the guy who didn't even know that the bakers got fined

Please, do not lie and fabricate.

You got answered in a previous post. You made false claims in that previous post. Claims about what Dante said about fines.

No you didn't answer, you posted a law and asked another question. They were in violation of that law for not baking a cake, we're they not?

What law?

You posted it, action is required to violate a law, what action was in violation?

All you have is to split hairs?

What law?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

if you reguarly served the community as a business, licensed and regulated, and denied someone your services due to your own personal predidices concerning not an individual, but a group, you are denying customers rights. If you ran a theater and refused to sell tickets to any Asian or Latino because of the fact they were Asian or Latino, you would be violating not only their rights, but the law.

Here's a public water fountain, but you cannot drink from it because you are a member of a group I disapprove of. Can you see rights being violated there? Here's a bakery that is open to the public, but you cannot deal there because you are a member of a group I, the baker do not approve of. Can you see the parallel?

If you ran the best, most acclaimed bakery in town and you say I cannot be your customer because I am a member of a group you do not approve of, I have to settle for less.

And merchants are not participants in a wedding unless they are invited guests or members of the wedding party. The notion of mercantile participation is a hollow one. The goods and services merchants provide should not be exclusive to the folks those merchants approve of. Should a criminal, someone acting a fool, someone with unreasonable requests try a merchant, then the merchant can and probably should refuse service. But a same sex couple should be regarded as another customer, not someone to deny simply because they happen to be Gay.

Like the OP, they have already conceded they are against public accommodation laws.

What is a Public Accommodation?

Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination against certain protected groups in businesses and places that are considered "public accommodations." The definition of a "public accommodation" may vary depending upon the law at issue (i.e. federal or state), and the type of discrimination involved (i.e. race discrimination or disability discrimination). Generally speaking, it may help to think of public accommodations as most (but not all) businesses or buildings that are open to (or offer services to) the general public. More specifically, the definition of a "public accommodation" can be broken down into two types of businesses / facilities:

- Discrimination in Public Accommodations - FindLaw​

Funny how that works

 

[Coyote]

If a baker is allowed to refuse to offer the same service to same sex couples as he does to opposite sex couples then that is no different than refusing to offer his service to couples based on race.

His right to act upon his belief's infringes on the rights of the public to be served equally.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If a baker is allowed to refuse to offer the same service to same sex couples as he does to opposite sex couples then that is no different than refusing to offer his service to couples based on race.

His right to act upon his belief's infringes on the rights of the public to be served equally.

Maybe if they opened up as a Religious Bakery. Then then they could deny cakes to atheists, divorcees, people who beat their children and all the other sinners in the bible?

 

[sakinago]

How the intolerant have adopted the language of the victim. They think bakers are"forced" to engage in commerce and bake a cake. They see marriage equality as an "attack" on Christianity.

Let's look at these "attacks". Homosexual couples come into a bakery expecting the same high level of service they have seen and heard of that brought them into the store in the first place. These homosexual attackers come with cash and credit cards in hand as paying customers. All they want is what every other customer gets. Quality goods and service.

What manner of attack is this?

A baker bakes cakes. How is a paying customer forcing her to do anything she would not regularly do in the daily course of business?

And these bakers stand up and tell us that their Christian faith...let me repeat that...their Christian Faith dictates that engaging in commerce, the normal commerce of their occupation, dictates that engaging in commerce with homosexuals will endanger their mortal souls.

In my church (Presbyterian) we have never heard an admonishment to avoid commerce with homosexuals. Instead, we are taught to love our neighbor, to judge not lest we be judged and to not cast the first stone as we all bear sins. These are the basic tenets of my faith.

Some are convinced that dogmatic thinking that tells the faithful to ignore those tenets and feel free to continue to perpetuate fear, suspicion and hurtful stereotypes. How quickly they abandon the loving, forgiving and beautiful faith for the cover this dogma provides.

No one who is a paying customer expects any merchant to fit into the narrow template of intolerance. Yet merchants seek to impose their narrow morality upon certain customers, but not all customers. These merchants will gladly accept payment for services from sinners. Green counts more than faith.

And these merchants want to hide behind the 1st amendment claiming that this amendment protects them while they humiliate and discriminate against their fellow American citizens.

"Attacks" on faith? No. There is no attack on faith. No customer is prohibiting merchants from attending services. No paying customer wants to tear down any faith. They just want what every other customer receives. Quality products and great service.

So there is no 150,000 fine?

And you have no clue what my views are on gay marriage. I don't think government should be telling us what marriage is. If my church wants to marry me and my gay partner, or me and my multiple wives, I should be able to do it. After all we supposably have the freedom of religion. The only part govt should have is recognizing, witnessing, and enforcing the contract I make with those people. The only reason we need to go out and get a marriage license (listen to how ridiculous that statement is) is because people got together and said I don't like whites marrying blacks, so we're going to make people get a license to marry from the govt. And if it's an interracial couple we will deny them that license. Government should not have the power to do that! But no, people see things they don't like and go running to the govt to do something about it, only giving the government more power that shouldn't belong to them. I will stand up for the gay baker refusing to bake a cake for Westboro baptist church, just as much as the Oregon baker. It is their business, and as long as they are not harming, or stealing from anyone, government should have no business in their own damn business. I thought we had property rights in this country?

The govt. Giving a 150,000 fine to business owners/artisans for exercising their first is a perfect example of people running to the government to fix what they don't like about other people. Yea, real free country we live in folks.

Marriage licenses were around for a long time before inter racial marriage became the law of the land. Marriage, in the eyes of the state is a contract. That contract establishes a next of kin relationship where no such relationship existed before. The marriage license establishes a new legal entity. A coupling of fortunes into the singular established by the contract.

We have public Accomodation laws in this nation because there were folks who thought that some of their fellow American citizens were not worthy because of an immutable condition, i.e. race.

Would you welcome back a land of second class citizens because of immutable conditions? It seems so. Sexuality is an immutable condition.

Not so sure sexuality is an immutable condition since you can be asexual, bi-curios, gender transcendent, and all sorts of different interchangeable labels.

How the intolerant have adopted the language of the victim. They think bakers are"forced" to engage in commerce and bake a cake. They see marriage equality as an "attack" on Christianity.

Let's look at these "attacks". Homosexual couples come into a bakery expecting the same high level of service they have seen and heard of that brought them into the store in the first place. These homosexual attackers come with cash and credit cards in hand as paying customers. All they want is what every other customer gets. Quality goods and service.

What manner of attack is this?

A baker bakes cakes. How is a paying customer forcing her to do anything she would not regularly do in the daily course of business?

And these bakers stand up and tell us that their Christian faith...let me repeat that...their Christian Faith dictates that engaging in commerce, the normal commerce of their occupation, dictates that engaging in commerce with homosexuals will endanger their mortal souls.

In my church (Presbyterian) we have never heard an admonishment to avoid commerce with homosexuals. Instead, we are taught to love our neighbor, to judge not lest we be judged and to not cast the first stone as we all bear sins. These are the basic tenets of my faith.

Some are convinced that dogmatic thinking that tells the faithful to ignore those tenets and feel free to continue to perpetuate fear, suspicion and hurtful stereotypes. How quickly they abandon the loving, forgiving and beautiful faith for the cover this dogma provides.

No one who is a paying customer expects any merchant to fit into the narrow template of intolerance. Yet merchants seek to impose their narrow morality upon certain customers, but not all customers. These merchants will gladly accept payment for services from sinners. Green counts more than faith.

And these merchants want to hide behind the 1st amendment claiming that this amendment protects them while they humiliate and discriminate against their fellow American citizens.

"Attacks" on faith? No. There is no attack on faith. No customer is prohibiting merchants from attending services. No paying customer wants to tear down any faith. They just want what every other customer receives. Quality products and great service.

So there is no 150,000 fine?

And you have no clue what my views are on gay marriage. I don't think government should be telling us what marriage is. If my church wants to marry me and my gay partner, or me and my multiple wives, I should be able to do it. After all we supposably have the freedom of religion. The only part govt should have is recognizing, witnessing, and enforcing the contract I make with those people. The only reason we need to go out and get a marriage license (listen to how ridiculous that statement is) is because people got together and said I don't like whites marrying blacks, so we're going to make people get a license to marry from the govt. And if it's an interracial couple we will deny them that license. Government should not have the power to do that! But no, people see things they don't like and go running to the govt to do something about it, only giving the government more power that shouldn't belong to them. I will stand up for the gay baker refusing to bake a cake for Westboro baptist church, just as much as the Oregon baker. It is their business, and as long as they are not harming, or stealing from anyone, government should have no business in their own damn business. I thought we had property rights in this country?

The govt. Giving a 150,000 fine to business owners/artisans for exercising their first is a perfect example of people running to the government to fix what they don't like about other people. Yea, real free country we live in folks.

Marriage licenses were around for a long time before inter racial marriage became the law of the land. Marriage, in the eyes of the state is a contract. That contract establishes a next of kin relationship where no such relationship existed before. The marriage license establishes a new legal entity. A coupling of fortunes into the singular established by the contract.

We have public Accomodation laws in this nation because there were folks who thought that some of their fellow American citizens were not worthy because of an immutable condition, i.e. race.

Would you welcome back a land of second class citizens because of immutable conditions? It seems so. Sexuality is an immutable condition.

How the intolerant have adopted the language of the victim. They think bakers are"forced" to engage in commerce and bake a cake. They see marriage equality as an "attack" on Christianity.

Let's look at these "attacks". Homosexual couples come into a bakery expecting the same high level of service they have seen and heard of that brought them into the store in the first place. These homosexual attackers come with cash and credit cards in hand as paying customers. All they want is what every other customer gets. Quality goods and service.

What manner of attack is this?

A baker bakes cakes. How is a paying customer forcing her to do anything she would not regularly do in the daily course of business?

And these bakers stand up and tell us that their Christian faith...let me repeat that...their Christian Faith dictates that engaging in commerce, the normal commerce of their occupation, dictates that engaging in commerce with homosexuals will endanger their mortal souls.

In my church (Presbyterian) we have never heard an admonishment to avoid commerce with homosexuals. Instead, we are taught to love our neighbor, to judge not lest we be judged and to not cast the first stone as we all bear sins. These are the basic tenets of my faith.

Some are convinced that dogmatic thinking that tells the faithful to ignore those tenets and feel free to continue to perpetuate fear, suspicion and hurtful stereotypes. How quickly they abandon the loving, forgiving and beautiful faith for the cover this dogma provides.

No one who is a paying customer expects any merchant to fit into the narrow template of intolerance. Yet merchants seek to impose their narrow morality upon certain customers, but not all customers. These merchants will gladly accept payment for services from sinners. Green counts more than faith.

And these merchants want to hide behind the 1st amendment claiming that this amendment protects them while they humiliate and discriminate against their fellow American citizens.

"Attacks" on faith? No. There is no attack on faith. No customer is prohibiting merchants from attending services. No paying customer wants to tear down any faith. They just want what every other customer receives. Quality products and great service.

So there is no 150,000 fine?

And you have no clue what my views are on gay marriage. I don't think government should be telling us what marriage is. If my church wants to marry me and my gay partner, or me and my multiple wives, I should be able to do it. After all we supposably have the freedom of religion. The only part govt should have is recognizing, witnessing, and enforcing the contract I make with those people. The only reason we need to go out and get a marriage license (listen to how ridiculous that statement is) is because people got together and said I don't like whites marrying blacks, so we're going to make people get a license to marry from the govt. And if it's an interracial couple we will deny them that license. Government should not have the power to do that! But no, people see things they don't like and go running to the govt to do something about it, only giving the government more power that shouldn't belong to them. I will stand up for the gay baker refusing to bake a cake for Westboro baptist church, just as much as the Oregon baker. It is their business, and as long as they are not harming, or stealing from anyone, government should have no business in their own damn business. I thought we had property rights in this country?

The govt. Giving a 150,000 fine to business owners/artisans for exercising their first is a perfect example of people running to the government to fix what they don't like about other people. Yea, real free country we live in folks.

Marriage licenses were around for a long time before inter racial marriage became the law of the land. Marriage, in the eyes of the state is a contract. That contract establishes a next of kin relationship where no such relationship existed before. The marriage license establishes a new legal entity. A coupling of fortunes into the singular established by the contract.

We have public Accomodation laws in this nation because there were folks who thought that some of their fellow American citizens were not worthy because of an immutable condition, i.e. race.

Would you welcome back a land of second class citizens because of immutable conditions? It seems so. Sexuality is an immutable condition.

There is a difference between contract and license. License makes it illegal to participate in a certain act, until govt gives you the ok and hands you a license to carry on in that previously illegal act. Now look up miscegenation laws.

And no it was not folks, it was government who thought that some American citizens were not worthy, that's why Jim Crow, slavery, and DOMA we're all LAWS. Because govt was taking power they should not have been taking under the constitution and BOR.

No I wouldn't, nor would I, or any other citizen, have the power to do so. Only people who have been able to create second class citizens have been the ones in government. If I don't want to be photographer of your wedding to your dog, I have free speech, and you do not have the right to not be offended because that conflicts with my rights to property and free speech. That does not make you a second class citizen, since I do not have the power to infringe on your rights.

So you agree that the gay baker has no right to refuse service to member of the west-boro baptist church

 

[flacaltenn]

Like the OP, they have already conceded they are against public accommodation laws.

Funny how that works

Moderation Message: I thought it was clear from my last note that the OP has a right to stipulate the scope of discussion.. In Post #1 ---- Note: existing law is not a valid argument for the thread topic. What the law should be is fair game for this discussion.

I've got to read this as limiting the discussion to how tolerance WORKS (or should work) without any reference to the current (jumbled) interpretation of actual law or court judgements. So how opinions FIT into public accomodation law would be off limits. Anyone that cant' abide that limitation, needs to stand down..

Work within that framework. Open the discussion up BEYOND what you heard on the news. Try it.. You might like it..

FlaCalTenn

 

[sakinago]

If a baker is allowed to refuse to offer the same service to same sex couples as he does to opposite sex couples then that is no different than refusing to offer his service to couples based on race.

His right to act upon his belief's infringes on the rights of the public to be served equally.

Maybe if they opened up as a Religious Bakery. Then then they could deny cakes to atheists, divorcees, people who beat their children and all the other sinners in the bible?

if you reguarly served the community as a business, licensed and regulated, and denied someone your services due to your own personal predidices concerning not an individual, but a group, you are denying customers rights. If you ran a theater and refused to sell tickets to any Asian or Latino because of the fact they were Asian or Latino, you would be violating not only their rights, but the law.

Here's a public water fountain, but you cannot drink from it because you are a member of a group I disapprove of. Can you see rights being violated there? Here's a bakery that is open to the public, but you cannot deal there because you are a member of a group I, the baker do not approve of. Can you see the parallel?

If you ran the best, most acclaimed bakery in town and you say I cannot be your customer because I am a member of a group you do not approve of, I have to settle for less.

And merchants are not participants in a wedding unless they are invited guests or members of the wedding party. The notion of mercantile participation is a hollow one. The goods and services merchants provide should not be exclusive to the folks those merchants approve of. Should a criminal, someone acting a fool, someone with unreasonable requests try a merchant, then the merchant can and probably should refuse service. But a same sex couple should be regarded as another customer, not someone to deny simply because they happen to be Gay.

Like the OP, they have already conceded they are against public accommodation laws.

What is a Public Accommodation?

Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination against certain protected groups in businesses and places that are considered "public accommodations." The definition of a "public accommodation" may vary depending upon the law at issue (i.e. federal or state), and the type of discrimination involved (i.e. race discrimination or disability discrimination). Generally speaking, it may help to think of public accommodations as most (but not all) businesses or buildings that are open to (or offer services to) the general public. More specifically, the definition of a "public accommodation" can be broken down into two types of businesses / facilities:

- Discrimination in Public Accommodations - FindLaw​

Funny how that works

Yes I am, it infringes on freedom of speech and ownership of property. I am also against affirmative action, because it is an anti-discrimination law that undeniably discriminates. Can anyone say doublethink? So the government should have the right to discriminate in the case of affirmative action?

Edit: sorry didn't see the moderators last post

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

THE TOPIC TO BE DISCUSSED: Agree or disagree: tolerance has to be a two way street allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace, or else it is not tolerance but is one side dictating a politically correct point of view to the other and requiring the other to conform. Note: existing law is not a valid argument for the thread topic. What the law should be is fair game for this discussion.

Existing law is not a valid argument for the thread. Mentioning the existing law is not the same thing as arguing it. I have tried to get people to tell me what exact law the baker in question broke. Talking about a fine. Talking about rights. We need to know what law was broken in order to intelligently discuss the why of any fine or government action.