Why Must We Abandon Our Religious Beliefs to Operate A Business?

[jillian]

Don't. Give. A. Fuck.

They don't want to bake you a cake. Doesn't matter why. Go find another baker. Give them a shitty review on Yelp and Facebook. But hauling them into court and closing down their livelihood because your feewings are hurt? Get the fuck over yourself.

I agree, that's the way the law should be.

Although that doesn't preclude the discussion what the law actually is or correcting people when they make up alternative facts to fit a narrative instead of the real facts of the case(s).



>>>>

the law should not and doesn't allow bigoted lowlife twits to decide they can jim crow others when they're working in or running a public business.

 

[WorldWatcher]

the law should not and doesn't allow bigoted lowlife twits to decide they can jim crow others when they're working in or running a public business.

I disagree, the law should recognize rights of property and association for individual business owners.

#1 As such business owners should be able to refuse service to customers based on their own reasons. Whether that be race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status, or for one legged pirates with a parrot on their shoulder.

#2 Customers should be protected in the public square to make information available to the public on the how they were treated in an individual business as long as the claims are true.

#3 Public Accommodation laws should apply only to government entities as to the goods and services they provide and limit their ability to enter into a contracts or purchase goods/services with private entities that operate on a discriminatory business model since the government entity is spending taxpayer dollars.



>>>>

 

[jillian]

the law should not and doesn't allow bigoted lowlife twits to decide they can jim crow others when they're working in or running a public business.

I disagree, the law should recognize rights of property and association for individual business owners.

#1 As such business owners should be able to refuse service to customers based on their own reasons.

#2 Customers should be protected in the public square to make information available to the public on the how they were treated in an individual business as long as the claims are true.

#3 Public Accommodation laws should apply only to government entities as to the goods and services they provide and limit their ability to enter into a contracts or purchase goods/services with private entities that operate on a discriminatory business model since the government entity is spending taxpayer dollars.



>>>>

not up for discussion. you don't get to put up signs anymore saying "no blacks, no jews, no gays".

if you can't live with that, don't run a business.

period.

 

[WorldWatcher]

not up for discussion. you don't get to put up signs anymore saying "no blacks, no jews, no gays".

if you can't live with that, don't run a business.

period.

It's always up for discussion.

I don't have an issue with a business posting a sign saying "no blacks, no jews, no gays". In this day and age they won't be in business long and the market will take care of it.



>>>>

 

[Cecilie1200]

Pretty straight-forward. This is a question to anyone who believes that business owners should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs in order to do business. Also, let me preface this by saying that I am non-religious and that, personally, I generally lean pro-choice and pro-gay-rights. This principle is an exception.

Why? Why should business owners be forced to offer certain forms of compensation (birth control, for instance) if the practice of their religion forbids it?

Why should business owners be forced to abandon their moral reservations and do business with people with whom they'd rather not?

The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand birth control as compensation from an employer. This is simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand service of a business owner. Again, simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

So if the Bill of Rights guarantees religious practice, but nowhere in the founding documents are the rights to demand service or particular forms of compensation, why do both of these things outweigh the right to free exercise?

Particularly, if gay rights activists say that equality of marriage is a right, and rights aren't up for a vote, then why do these same activists believe that the right to the free exercise of religion -can- be infringed when it suits their agenda?

Anyone? Why are your opinion-based rights more valid than the actual legal rights of religious business owners?

Maybe this will help you to see the error of your ways:

Two meanings of religious freedom/liberty:

1. Freedom of belief, speech, practice.

2. Freedom to restrict services, hate, denigrate, or oppress others.


1. The historical meaning of religious freedom:

This term relates to the personal freedom:
•Of religious belief,
•Of religious speech,
•Of religious assembly with fellow believers,
•Of religious proselytizing and recruitment, and
•To change one's religion from one faith group to another -- or to decide to have no religious affiliation -- or vice-versa.


The individual believer has often been the target of oppression for thinking or speaking unorthodox thoughts, for assembling with and recruiting others, and for changing their religious affiliation. Typically, the aggressors have been large religious groups and governments. Freedom from such oppression is the meaning that we generally use on this web site to refer to any of the four terms: religious freedom, religious liberty, freedom of worship and freedom to worship.

2. A rapidly emerging new meaning of religious freedom: the freedom to discriminate and denigrate:

In recent years, religious freedom is taking on a new meaning: the freedom and liberty of a believer apply their religious beliefs in order to hate, oppress, deny service to, denigrate, discriminate against, and/or reduce the human rights of minorities.

Now, the direction of the oppression has reversed. It is now the believer who is the oppressor -- typically fundamentalist and evangelical Christians and other religious conservatives. Others -- typically some women, as well as sexual, and other minorities -- are the targets. This new meaning is becoming increasingly common. It appears that this change is begin driven by a number of factors:

•The increasing public acceptance of women's use of birth control/contraceptives. This is a practice regarded as a personal decision by most faith groups, but is actively opposed by the Roman Catholic and a few other conservative faith groups.
•The increasing public acceptance of equal rights for sexual minorities including Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgender persons and transsexuals -- the LGBT community (); and
•The increasing percentage of NOTAs in North America. These are individuals who are NOT Affiliated with an organized faith group. Some identify themselves as Agnostics, Atheists secularists, Humanists, free thinkers, etc. Others say that they are spiritual, but not religious.


One interesting feature of this "religious freedom to discriminate" is that it generally has people treating others as they would not wish to be treated themselves. It seems to be little noticed among those who practice or advocate "religious freedom to discriminate" that this way of treating people is a direct contradiction to the Golden Rule, which Jesus required all his followers to practice. See Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, and the Gospel of Thomas, 6.

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/relfree.htm

And I'm viewing your little website as a definitive, gospel-truth (you should excuse the expression) source because why?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Pretty straight-forward. This is a question to anyone who believes that business owners should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs in order to do business. Also, let me preface this by saying that I am non-religious and that, personally, I generally lean pro-choice and pro-gay-rights. This principle is an exception.

Why? Why should business owners be forced to offer certain forms of compensation (birth control, for instance) if the practice of their religion forbids it?

Why should business owners be forced to abandon their moral reservations and do business with people with whom they'd rather not?

The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand birth control as compensation from an employer. This is simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand service of a business owner. Again, simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

So if the Bill of Rights guarantees religious practice, but nowhere in the founding documents are the rights to demand service or particular forms of compensation, why do both of these things outweigh the right to free exercise?

Particularly, if gay rights activists say that equality of marriage is a right, and rights aren't up for a vote, then why do these same activists believe that the right to the free exercise of religion -can- be infringed when it suits their agenda?

Anyone? Why are your opinion-based rights more valid than the actual legal rights of religious business owners?

Maybe this will help you to see the error of your ways:

Two meanings of religious freedom/liberty:

1. Freedom of belief, speech, practice.

2. Freedom to restrict services, hate, denigrate, or oppress others.


1. The historical meaning of religious freedom:

This term relates to the personal freedom:
•Of religious belief,
•Of religious speech,
•Of religious assembly with fellow believers,
•Of religious proselytizing and recruitment, and
•To change one's religion from one faith group to another -- or to decide to have no religious affiliation -- or vice-versa.


The individual believer has often been the target of oppression for thinking or speaking unorthodox thoughts, for assembling with and recruiting others, and for changing their religious affiliation. Typically, the aggressors have been large religious groups and governments. Freedom from such oppression is the meaning that we generally use on this web site to refer to any of the four terms: religious freedom, religious liberty, freedom of worship and freedom to worship.

2. A rapidly emerging new meaning of religious freedom: the freedom to discriminate and denigrate:

In recent years, religious freedom is taking on a new meaning: the freedom and liberty of a believer apply their religious beliefs in order to hate, oppress, deny service to, denigrate, discriminate against, and/or reduce the human rights of minorities.

Now, the direction of the oppression has reversed. It is now the believer who is the oppressor -- typically fundamentalist and evangelical Christians and other religious conservatives. Others -- typically some women, as well as sexual, and other minorities -- are the targets. This new meaning is becoming increasingly common. It appears that this change is begin driven by a number of factors:

•The increasing public acceptance of women's use of birth control/contraceptives. This is a practice regarded as a personal decision by most faith groups, but is actively opposed by the Roman Catholic and a few other conservative faith groups.
•The increasing public acceptance of equal rights for sexual minorities including Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgender persons and transsexuals -- the LGBT community (); and
•The increasing percentage of NOTAs in North America. These are individuals who are NOT Affiliated with an organized faith group. Some identify themselves as Agnostics, Atheists secularists, Humanists, free thinkers, etc. Others say that they are spiritual, but not religious.


One interesting feature of this "religious freedom to discriminate" is that it generally has people treating others as they would not wish to be treated themselves. It seems to be little noticed among those who practice or advocate "religious freedom to discriminate" that this way of treating people is a direct contradiction to the Golden Rule, which Jesus required all his followers to practice. See Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, and the Gospel of Thomas, 6.

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/relfree.htm

Sorry, but that website's a fuckin mess. I'm gonna need some citation on that traditional meaning of religious freedom that doesn't include anything about being forced to act in contradiction to one's beliefs, and I'm done trying to navigate that tragedy to find their references.

This article's basically telling me that that traditional meaning of religious freedom implies that feeding Muslims bacon in prison isn't a violation of their religious freedom. Is that your opinion, as well?

The cite works for me. It appears that you reading comprehension needs some work. Otherwise you would understand that the point is that the traditional interpretation of religious freedom is all about how you live your life and NOTHING to do with trying to control how others live, or penalizing them for it. You got it exactly backwards

Oh, I don't doubt that it does. But the fact that you think "This agrees with me, therefore it is true" doesn't make it so, and doesn't obligate anyone else to believe it.

See, we're back to that whole "freedom of belief means I don't need your approval" thing.

 

[dblack]

It seems like, for some people, the whole point of government is bullying people you don't like.

 

[Lysistrata]

This is Masterpiece Cakeshop's advertising:

Are Black People Cursed? The Curse of Ham - Resources - Eternal Perspective Ministries

"Select from one of our galleries or order a custom design. Call or come in. We look forward to serving you!"

Discrimination, from a legal standpoint, means discriminating against a person based on that person's identity. If you're willing to do business with the person in question and offer them exactly the same product that you're offering everyone else, you're not discriminating between customers, you're discriminating between different types of products that you're willing or not willing to produce.

When you conflate these two concepts in order to "win" the argument, you're the one being obtuse.

#1 There was never any discussion of design (so saying things about requiring two grooms is false). This is agreed to in court documents in the Statement of Facts. To say different means you think Mr. Phillips (the baker) is a liar.

#2 The bakers (both Masterpiece Cakeshop and Sweetcakes by Melissa) both admit in court documents that the provided the product in question "i.e. wedding cakes".

#3 When you refuse to sell the exact same product based on who the people are, than yea you are discriminating between customers.


Below is one of the wedding cakes in the Masterpiece Cakeshop catalog (Wedding | MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP). Mr. Phillips would sell the cake to a different-sex couple, but would refuse to sell it to a same-sex couple. Same cake different people, basis then is the customers.

Don't. Give. A. Fuck.

They don't want to bake you a cake. Doesn't matter why. Go find another baker. Give them a shitty review on Yelp and Facebook. But hauling them into court and closing down their livelihood because your feewings are hurt? Get the fuck over yourself.

You are blaming the wrong people. Don't try to shove the responsibility on the would-be customers, who were legitimately there and who properly reported their experience to the state human-rights commission. Why do you think that people should shoulder the burden for people like phillips, drive all over the place, and possibly be subjected to more mistreatment, and keep silent to protect his conduct?They are not responsible for phillip's thoughts. He is. The onus is on him. If he wants to stay in business, he needs to get his personal shit together. It's not the responsibility of the general public to mollycoddle him.

And, actually, the case ended up in court when this guy challenged the decision of the state commission. The couple did not haul him into court. He hauled the state commission into court. He is entirely responsible for being in court and for his livelihood.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yeah, amazingly enough, this has nothing to do with the customers' beliefs. I realize it's hard for people to believe, but everything is not about them. This is about THE BAKER and HIS beliefs, and only that. He's doing his thing, and in no way trying to change them doing THEIR thing. He just doesn't want to participate in it.

One more time: IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS WHAT OTHER PEOPLE DO OR DON'T CARE ABOUT. You don't get to tell them anything on that subject.

You also don't get to dictate what is and isn't a sin, and what "any religion" does or doesn't teach. You aren't God, you aren't the Pope, you aren't the head of any religious denomination, YOU AREN'T DECIDING. Stop fucking trying to deal yourself in to approving or disapproving other people's beliefs, and telling them whether or not those CAN BE their beliefs based on your opinion.

The First Amendment doesn't exist to protect beliefs you agree with; it exists to protect those you don't agree with. And you're making it painfully, excruciatingly obvious WHY the First Amendment is necessary.

the first amendment has nothing to do with public accommodation laws

The first amendment only mentions the free exercise of religion. Baking a cake is not exercising a religion it is baking a cake to be sold in a business that is government by public accommodation laws.

If the baker believes that all Back people should be served from the back alley entrance and be charged 3 times more for everything he would be just as wrong as the guy claiming that the very act of conducting his business for "certain people" violates his religion

Now show me where in any written religious scripture that says it is a sin to conduct any business with a sinner.

I know there's nothing about baking cakes being a sin written in any scripture

The First Amendment has EVERYTHING to do with public accommodation laws, when you insist that public accommodation laws require people to act against their beliefs and that you have a right to define their beliefs because you personally don't think they should believe something that conflicts with your public accommodation ideas.

Oh my freaking God, what IS it with people and running to the blacks? You know how I can tell an idea is left-think bullshit? Because the triumphant "Aha!" argument will always involve using black people as human shields.

Understand the difference between believing "This is bad behavior" versus "Therefore, the government must force people to behave otherwise." SOME bad behavior, like killing people or robbing them, needs to be stopped by the government. Other behavior, like racism, not so much, at least not in this day and age. So no, your "Aha!" moment of being supremely convinced that I'm ALL in favor of the government forcing racists to serve black people has fallen flat. I would much prefer that they be openly repugnant in their racism, so that I and virtually everyone else in the country can avoid giving them our money. I have no desire to be funding people who secretly hold such nasty views because the government forces them to pretend otherwise.

I don't have to "show you where" anything. I'm not trying to convert you, or convince you to agree on the subject of sin, and for me to try to "prove" to you that it's a sin would invalidate my entire argument, which is that IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. Asking me to justify the baker's beliefs to support the argument that you're not entitled to a justification is nonsensical.

I don't give a shit what you "know" or don't "know" about the Scripture, because again, YOU DON'T GET A VOTE. PLEASE stop wasting my time with your constant "Yes, but his beliefs are wrong" posts. They are empty air, because AT NO POINT IN TIME has this ever been about whether or his beliefs can be proven "right" to other people's standards; it's about the fact that HE HAS A RIGHT TO BELIEVE THEM WHETHER YOU AGREE OR NOT. The fact that people DON'T agree on beliefs is exactly why they're protected.

So please, when you start firing out your next post, just save us all some time like this (the parts in all caps should be shouted loudly:

"It's not a sin . . ."
NONE OF MY BUSINESS!
"The scriptures don't say . . ."
NONE OF MY BUSINESS!
"Show me where . . ."
NONE OF MY BUSINESS!
"No religion says . . ."
NONE OF MY BUSINESS!

Because the only answer you are EVER going to get to your attempts to debate whether or not the baker SHOULD believe something is exactly that: NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

Public accommodation laws are not about beliefs they are about equal treatment of the public in businesses open to the public.

And they can believe whatever the fuck they want what they can't do is violate the law with no consequences. The whole baking a cake for certain people is a sin thing is the purest most unadulterated bullshit I have ever seen outside of a political campaign

Hey I can believe that I should only do business with blondes with blue eyes and big tits but that doesn't mean I am justified in declining service to everyone else

In that they are forcing through government power private individuals to do things they do not want to do because other private individuals want them to do it, they very much touch on any number of rights held by private individuals. I have a right to choose not to associate with other people; they do NOT have a right to force others to associate with them. Because of this, public accommodation laws, in and of themselves, violate the Constitution. It is one thing to say that public sector entities, such as government agencies, must service everyone. It is entirely another to say that private sector entities must do so.

Furthermore, to say, "They can believe what they want; they just can't practice it" is to say "They cannot believe it". A major problem with left-think on this subject is that it conflates "belief" with "thought", and assumes that one's beliefs are merely thoughts in one's head, divorced from one's actions. The exact opposite is the truth: one's beliefs are NOT what one thinks, or even what one says. What a person DOES is the truest measure of what he believes, particularly when circumstances are most difficult. The First Amendment recognizes this by guaranteeing not only "freedom of religion" but also "the free exercise thereof".

You are still arrogating to yourself the right to approve the beliefs of others. You are saying, "They have the right to believe what they want, so long as it is acceptable to most people." The First Amendment doesn't exist to protect belief that is generally acceptable to society at large; if it's acceptable to most people, it doesn't NEED protection, because it won't be attacked. The First Amendment exists precisely to protect belief that most people find repugnant.

And yeah, I actually think you should be free to restrict your business only to well-endowed blondes, if that's what you want to do. Of course, I also think you should be free to avail yourself of bankruptcy court when your business closes two months later. What I DON'T think is that you should be legally required to pretend that you like skinny brunettes if you don't choose to.

They chose to open a business open to the public therefore they are held to public accommodation laws just like every other business.

If they do not want to operate according to the law of the land then they can close up shop or structure their business as a private membership only club and that way they can only do business with the people whose sins are acceptable to them and who choose to pay the membership fees

Until then the whole its a sin to bake a cake for sinners is still a feeble excuse for disobeying the law

Yes, yes, I'm well aware that you've passed a law, and you somehow think "the law is" equals "the law should be". But there actually is a difference, and the argument isn't what laws exist, but what laws SHOULD exist.

And "Violate your beliefs or don't work!" is a feeble excuse for morality from someone who presumes to dictate morality for everyone.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Before I go any further, I have a request. Either A tell me how someone who doesn't want to put 2 grooms on a cake or doesn't want to offer birth control as a form of compensation for voluntary labor is using force against a victim, or B stop using murder as your metaphor. Until you can establish that it actually applies, you're just making a rhetorical smoke screen and ignoring me when I point out that it's a rhetorical smoke screen.

Anyway, part of the issue here is how you define equality and how you define rights.

Personally, I don't see how anything that I've suggested here has anything to do with equality under the law, which simply means that the law will be evenly applied. If we simply allow people to operate their own businesses as they see fit, who is being treated unfairly? If you wanna open up a shop that sells card games and model airplanes, name it Hobby Foyer, and offer your employees ONLY health plans that include birth control, your business will be protected by the same police and military system as anybody else's, and legally subject to that protection being enforced on exactly the same terms as those Christian business owners. And if someone doesn't want what you offer, they'll be able to decline working for you, just like they can decline working for Hobby Lobby.

I also don't see how any of what I'm suggesting violates anyone's rights. I've thought about this, and there are enough one horse towns in shitty areas throughout parts of the nation that I'll concede that public accommodations laws ought to apply to the extent of human need. If you go into business selling fuel, food, or lodging, I'm of the mind that you shouldn't be allowed to turn people's business away without cause. In the case of a baker who doesn't want to put two grooms on your cake, or the photographer who doesn't wanna go and do a shoot of your wedding, I don't see whose rights are being violated if these people refuse that business. I get that it's a dick move, but I'm not sure where it is from which one derives the right to force any available baker to design a cake in any particular way, or demand that a professional photographer take on some particular project simply on the grounds that they are a photographer. Not only did I not realize that was a right, but I was actually under the impression that subjugating another human being was abolished after that whole tiff between the North and the South back in the day. Does it not apply to business owners, or Christians?

Aside from rights, if I don't put two grooms on your cake, I haven't hurt you. If you're looking for a job and I've got an add in the classifieds, and then you find out that I don't offer health plans that include birth control, I haven't hurt you.

Firstly, there's nothing in the Bible that says "thou shalt not put two grooms on the wedding game."

What it says in the Bible has to do with STONING. Now, these people have managed to take stoning in the Bible and ignore it because they don't stone gay people or Blasphemous people or the like.

But the Bible gives the SAME punishment, whether you want to carry out the punishment in the name of your religion or not, to Blasphemy, gay sex, rebellious sons and those who work on the Sabbath.

Now, do these religious people treat ALL of these people the same? No, they don't. They do NOT refuse to serve blasphemous people (they might if they did it in their shop, but the gay people aren't fucking in their shop, so the comparable is that they're blasphemous outside of the shop), they do not refuse to serve rebellious sons, they do not refuse to serve those who work on the Sabbath, but they DO refuse to serve gay people.

Why?

My only thought can be that they're using the Bible to protect their bigoted views, rather than having a consistent view of the Bible.

Yes, sure, how you define equality and rights is important.

I mean, there are people on here who think that black people shouldn't have rights. I think that if black people don't have rights, then there aren't any rights, only privileges.

Equality is equality under the law. Laws are equal for all, who you are makes no difference to how the law plays out for you.

Your problem is that you're trying to say that everyone can operate their business as they see fit.

You could ban black people, or have a separate room for black people. You could demand that women cover their faces. You could do a lot of really shitty things, and people would. We know this. They did it under segregation.

If 69% of the population is Christian, and Christians choose to not serve gay people, and then say this is equal, then they're fucking idiots. I'm sorry. I don't like insulting people, but really, it pisses me off immensely.

For me to call them idiots is far less than what they want to do. The same for those people who had black people using separate services. It's just plain wrong and there's no way around that.

The problem is, you want some businesses to have public accommodation laws, and other business to not.

Essential services. "Hey there n*gger, I'll sell your slimy jumped up ass a loaf of bread, because I'm the only seller of bread for 20 miles around here, but you'll have to crawl all the way up here."

You think that would be acceptable?

No, you either have public accommodation laws that are EQUAL FOR ALL PEOPLE based on how they were born, or you don't and you live in a backwards "shithole" as Trump would call it.

If you advertise that you do a particular service, then this service MUST BE OPEN to all people, unless of course they've done something to prove that you don't have to serve them that has nothing to do with how they were born.

You don't have to advertise certain services.

"Hey, I want Garfield on my cake" "I'm sorry sir, but we don't do putting things on cakes."

Who's hurt.

"Hey, I want two grooms on my cake for my wedding" "I'm sorry sir, but I'm a bigot and we won't be serving you"

THIS HURTS PEOPLE. It makes people feel like they're SECOND CLASS CITIZENS in their own country. Unacceptable.

You can stop interpreting Christianity. Your interpretation has no bearing on peoples' freedom to practice their religion. The entire idea of that freedom was that people shouldn't be told what is or isn't a valid interpretation of their own faith, so all of your opinions about what is or isn't valid Christianity are utterly meaningless to this conversation. Whether they ignore half or all of the bible and call it Christianity, that's up to them, not you.

Next up, I actually don't want some businesses to have public accommodations laws. As a principal, I don't like the idea of telling people how they have to operate their own property. I'm willing to concede that point in cases where actual injury or death might occur from discrimination.

I specify "actual" because -FEELING- like a 2nd class citizen isn't an actual injury. -BEING- a 2nd class citizen would mean that the law itself explicitly favors some other class of human being more than it favors you, so someone not making you the cake you want doesn't -actually- make you a 2nd class citizen. Therefore, if you -feel- like a 2nd class citizen as a result of the baker turning down your request, that's an errant emotion, and I don't see why some 3rd party should be responsible for anyone's errant emotions.

If 69 percent of the population and they all, to a person, decided they wouldn't serve gay people, that would be quite a fucking turn of events. You know what wouldn't protect people in that situation? The law. Why, you ask? Because if 69 percent of the country didn't want to serve gay people, that law wouldn't stand a snowballs chance in hell of staying on the books in a nation with a democratic process.

This also means that the very fact that the public accommodations laws have never been upturned implies that this worry that allowing bakers to do business only with whom they wish would result in gay people not being able to get cake is extremely hyperbolic. The majority of business owners in general are more concerned with profiting than they are with avoiding certain identity types.

So, I can say I'm a Christian and say that God hates black people and then I can hide behind the Bible as I go around segregating?

Seriously?

No, because being a black person isn't a sin in the bible. Homosexuality is an abomination to God in the bible. You're an ignorant idiot.

but if you're not committing the gay sin how is baking a cake for someone who is gay a sin?

None. Of. Your. Business.

Maybe you should write this down, because you absolutely SUCK at remembering to quit being a nosy, controlling busybody.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Accommodating the public isn't the same as accommodating employees. Business owners aren't subject to the whims of activists. If you don't like a business, then don't work there or do business there. It's really simple. It's called Liberty.

So...you don't like PA laws at all...what are you actively doing to get them repealed in your state?

I ignore them. Leftist activists want a law for everything. I just ignore the idiots.

If you want an exemption from any law then it is you that has to provide proof that the exemption is justified. If I kill in self defense it is up to me to prove it was self defense so exemption from the murder laws an be applied

So if you don't want to build a house for a gay couple it is up to you to prove that doing so violates your religious bent by providing proof from your religious manual whatever it may be.

Or you could make your business a club where customers have to pay a fee to be a member and you only provide services to your members. I'm sure you can find enough bigots to join you.

Yeah, but we don't want "an exemption" from the law. We want there not to BE laws that violate the Constitution in the first place. We want to not be legally required to give other people a vote in our private lives and decisions. WHY is that so hard for you to comprehend unless it involves agreeing with you? I KNOW you, at least, don't have this problem on other subjects, so I'm foxed as to why you have it now.

You do want an exemption from public accommodation laws.
You want that exemption based on religious grounds but you have yet to provide evidence that your religion or any religion states that doing business with a sinner is a sin in itself

No, wanting an exemption would still validate your erroneous belief that you are entitled to decide whose beliefs are and are not worthy. I don't want to have to ASK you for anything, or explain anything to you, or give evidence to prove anything to you, because - say it with me, now - it's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

Stop trying to legislate people's beliefs and morality, and we wouldn't have to discuss it at all.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They chose to open a business open to the public therefore they are held to public accommodation laws just like every other business.

If they do not want to operate according to the law of the land then they can close up shop or structure their business as a private membership only club and that way they can only do business with the people whose sins are acceptable to them and who choose to pay the membership fees

From a legal perspective just calling yourself a "private club" does not cut the mustard as to being exempt from Public Accommodation law. COSTCO and Sam's Club are both private clubs in that you have to be a member to shop there, that doesn't exempt them from PA laws.

If the business is for profit? Nope, not an excepted. If the "private club" status is an attempt to evade PA laws? Not, not excepted.

Here are a few things that are looked at:

The "public" versus "distinctly private" accommodation distinction makes critical an understanding of what factors courts will consider to determine if a club is public or private for purposes of the PHRA. Courts interpreting similar statutes have considered the following factors in making that determination:

1. the genuine selectivity of the group in the admission of its members;
2. the membership's control over the operations of the establishment;
3. the history of the organization;
4. the use of the facilities by nonmembers;
5. the purpose of the club's existence;
6. whether the club advertises for members;
7. whether the club is profit or nonprofit; and
8. the formalities observed by the club (e.g. bylaws, meetings, membership cards, etc.).

Anti-Discrimination Laws Applicable to Private Clubs or Not? - FindLaw


>>>>

That's the point the religious people would have to be selective and only allow people who aren't sinners to join their private cake club

Yes, that all sounds a LOT simpler and more logical than you just going and finding another fucking baker.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Pretty straight-forward. This is a question to anyone who believes that business owners should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs in order to do business. Also, let me preface this by saying that I am non-religious and that, personally, I generally lean pro-choice and pro-gay-rights. This principle is an exception.

Why? Why should business owners be forced to offer certain forms of compensation (birth control, for instance) if the practice of their religion forbids it?

Why should business owners be forced to abandon their moral reservations and do business with people with whom they'd rather not?

The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand birth control as compensation from an employer. This is simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand service of a business owner. Again, simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

So if the Bill of Rights guarantees religious practice, but nowhere in the founding documents are the rights to demand service or particular forms of compensation, why do both of these things outweigh the right to free exercise?

Particularly, if gay rights activists say that equality of marriage is a right, and rights aren't up for a vote, then why do these same activists believe that the right to the free exercise of religion -can- be infringed when it suits their agenda?

Anyone? Why are your opinion-based rights more valid than the actual legal rights of religious business owners?

Your religion beliefs are bullshit if they make you be unkind towards others.

Which is the problem with religion.

No, that's the problem with ANY belief: there's always someone who thinks your beliefs are bullshit. Aaaaand that's why we have the First Amendment. Like I've said before, no legal protection is needed for beliefs that the majority approves of; it's only needed for beliefs that go against the majority.

Where does it say that religious beliefs of the majority are the only ones protected?

It doesn't, shitforbrains. Would you please get someone to read this to you and explain it so I don't have to waste my effing time explaining that the entire point of what I said is the exact effing opposite of what you thought it was with that tapioca pudding between your ears that you call a brain?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Pretty straight-forward. This is a question to anyone who believes that business owners should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs in order to do business. Also, let me preface this by saying that I am non-religious and that, personally, I generally lean pro-choice and pro-gay-rights. This principle is an exception.

Why? Why should business owners be forced to offer certain forms of compensation (birth control, for instance) if the practice of their religion forbids it?

Why should business owners be forced to abandon their moral reservations and do business with people with whom they'd rather not?

The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand birth control as compensation from an employer. This is simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand service of a business owner. Again, simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

So if the Bill of Rights guarantees religious practice, but nowhere in the founding documents are the rights to demand service or particular forms of compensation, why do both of these things outweigh the right to free exercise?

Particularly, if gay rights activists say that equality of marriage is a right, and rights aren't up for a vote, then why do these same activists believe that the right to the free exercise of religion -can- be infringed when it suits their agenda?

Anyone? Why are your opinion-based rights more valid than the actual legal rights of religious business owners?

Your religion beliefs are bullshit if they make you be unkind towards others.

one has to wonder what jesus would have thought of the pretend Christians. ya know?

One has to wonder why you care NOW when you would be outraged at being asked to care any other time.

 

[dblack]

Yes, yes, I'm well aware that you've passed a law, and you somehow think "the law is" equals "the law should be". But there actually is a difference, and the argument isn't what laws exist, but what laws SHOULD exist.

Statists love to gloat about "the law" when it amounts to a boot in the face of people they disagree with.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Don't. Give. A. Fuck.

They don't want to bake you a cake. Doesn't matter why. Go find another baker. Give them a shitty review on Yelp and Facebook. But hauling them into court and closing down their livelihood because your feewings are hurt? Get the fuck over yourself.

I agree, that's the way the law should be.

Although that doesn't preclude the discussion what the law actually is or correcting people when they make up alternative facts to fit a narrative instead of the real facts of the case(s).



>>>>

Yes, well, I'm not responsible for those people and what they say. I'm just bringing it back to the basic point: that IS the way the law should be, so why the fuck isn't it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Discrimination, from a legal standpoint, means discriminating against a person based on that person's identity. If you're willing to do business with the person in question and offer them exactly the same product that you're offering everyone else, you're not discriminating between customers, you're discriminating between different types of products that you're willing or not willing to produce.

When you conflate these two concepts in order to "win" the argument, you're the one being obtuse.

#1 There was never any discussion of design (so saying things about requiring two grooms is false). This is agreed to in court documents in the Statement of Facts. To say different means you think Mr. Phillips (the baker) is a liar.

#2 The bakers (both Masterpiece Cakeshop and Sweetcakes by Melissa) both admit in court documents that the provided the product in question "i.e. wedding cakes".

#3 When you refuse to sell the exact same product based on who the people are, than yea you are discriminating between customers.


Below is one of the wedding cakes in the Masterpiece Cakeshop catalog (Wedding | MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP). Mr. Phillips would sell the cake to a different-sex couple, but would refuse to sell it to a same-sex couple. Same cake different people, basis then is the customers.

Don't. Give. A. Fuck.

They don't want to bake you a cake. Doesn't matter why. Go find another baker. Give them a shitty review on Yelp and Facebook. But hauling them into court and closing down their livelihood because your feewings are hurt? Get the fuck over yourself.

no.one.cares.what.you.think.

get.over.YOURself.

Nice try at deflection, but that brings us right back to the point: I'M not the one demanding that the law FORCE everyone to care what I think, AND to conform to it. That'd be you. So YOU and your asshole buddies in Left-Think Land are the only ones who need to get over yourselves.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Don't. Give. A. Fuck.

They don't want to bake you a cake. Doesn't matter why. Go find another baker. Give them a shitty review on Yelp and Facebook. But hauling them into court and closing down their livelihood because your feewings are hurt? Get the fuck over yourself.

I agree, that's the way the law should be.

Although that doesn't preclude the discussion what the law actually is or correcting people when they make up alternative facts to fit a narrative instead of the real facts of the case(s).



>>>>

the law should not and doesn't allow bigoted lowlife twits to decide they can jim crow others when they're working in or running a public business.

Have I thanked you yet for showing up and dropping the IQ of the entire discussion by 10 points just by your presence?

 

[Lysistrata]

I wonder how much these folks screaming "abomination!" are enjoying their lives as Hasidic Jews. I don't think they have ever read what the Christians refer to as the Old Testament. Genesis is interesting, but so are Leviticus and Deuteronomy. I guess if any have a brother who dies childless, they will have sex with their brother's widow to produce a child in their brother's name. Oh, there is lots in the OT. Any of you need to purify yourselves? Do any of you believe in the Republic, or are you still monarchists? And then there is the rule against adultery that made it in to the Top Ten, as did the prohibition of theft. Hummm.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This is Masterpiece Cakeshop's advertising:

Are Black People Cursed? The Curse of Ham - Resources - Eternal Perspective Ministries

"Select from one of our galleries or order a custom design. Call or come in. We look forward to serving you!"

Discrimination, from a legal standpoint, means discriminating against a person based on that person's identity. If you're willing to do business with the person in question and offer them exactly the same product that you're offering everyone else, you're not discriminating between customers, you're discriminating between different types of products that you're willing or not willing to produce.

When you conflate these two concepts in order to "win" the argument, you're the one being obtuse.

#1 There was never any discussion of design (so saying things about requiring two grooms is false). This is agreed to in court documents in the Statement of Facts. To say different means you think Mr. Phillips (the baker) is a liar.

#2 The bakers (both Masterpiece Cakeshop and Sweetcakes by Melissa) both admit in court documents that the provided the product in question "i.e. wedding cakes".

#3 When you refuse to sell the exact same product based on who the people are, than yea you are discriminating between customers.


Below is one of the wedding cakes in the Masterpiece Cakeshop catalog (Wedding | MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP). Mr. Phillips would sell the cake to a different-sex couple, but would refuse to sell it to a same-sex couple. Same cake different people, basis then is the customers.

Don't. Give. A. Fuck.

They don't want to bake you a cake. Doesn't matter why. Go find another baker. Give them a shitty review on Yelp and Facebook. But hauling them into court and closing down their livelihood because your feewings are hurt? Get the fuck over yourself.

You are blaming the wrong people. Don't try to shove the responsibility on the would-be customers, who were legitimately there and who properly reported their experience to the state human-rights commission. Why do you think that people should shoulder the burden for people like phillips, drive all over the place, and possibly be subjected to more mistreatment, and keep silent to protect his conduct?They are not responsible for phillip's thoughts. He is. The onus is on him. If he wants to stay in business, he needs to get his personal shit together. It's not the responsibility of the general public to mollycoddle him.

And, actually, the case ended up in court when this guy challenged the decision of the state commission. The couple did not haul him into court. He hauled the state commission into court. He is entirely responsible for being in court and for his livelihood.

Whoa up there, Dobbins. "Drive all over the place"? What is this, 1980? Do we not have Internet and telephones and all manner of devices to find this shit out without "driving all over the place"? If you can't find a listing of gay-friendly, or even GAY-OWNED, bakeries and other wedding service providers, on the Internet within five minutes, you're more tech-clueless than my 80-year-old mother, or you're just not trying.

And can we please dispense with the quaint, and utterly dishonest, fiction that this couple didn't know prior to asking what this baker's beliefs were, and that they didn't ask SPECIFICALLY for the purpose of getting their feewings hurt so they could pitch a hissy fit about it? Puh-frigging-leeze.