Judge orders baker to serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs

[jacob]

no and I am not trying to label you as one...if you read my previous posts in this thread you will see that i am not in favor of what the gay couple did but i am also feel that the baker should have used a CYA tactic instead of blatantly being uncouth....they could have found a way to refuse them service and had a little grace instead of blatantly refusing because they were gay....and it very could be that the business did try that approach and the couple may have continually pressed and pressured to a point that business owner was fed up and just truly told them why they weren't going to be served. who knows?  none of us were there so all we can do i speculate on this end.

Edited December 7, 2013 by jacob

[daddyo]

no and I am not trying to label you as one...if you read my previous posts in this thread you will see that i am not in favor of what the gay couple did but i am also feel that the baker should have used a CYA tactic instead of blatantly being uncouth....they could have found a way to refuse them service and had a little grace instead of blatantly refusing because they were gay....and it very could be that the business did try that approach and the couple may have continually pressed and pressured to a point that business owner was fed up and just truly told them why they weren't going to be served. who knows?  no of us where there so all we can do i speculate on this end.

 

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were trying to label me. I was referring to another post in which that label was used.

Edited December 7, 2013 by daddyo

[tnhawk]

There's probably a baker's story, a gay's story, as well as the unbiased facts.  I don't think it was worth the expense of anyone to make it a court case.

[RobertNashville]

I guess it depends on whether or not you equate the civil rights movement to gay rights. I don't and neither do many blacks.

It isn't a matter of equating; in fact if you re-read what I wrote I said I wasn't really equating the two; rather, I was pointing out the parallels that I think, are pretty obvious regardless of what side one comes down on with regards to the homosexual lifestyle/homosexual "rights".

 

We talk about protected v non-protected classes but I think the bigger and more appropriate question is why should anyone be treated differently than anyone else by a business that ostensibly exists to make a profit by or perhaps only to serve the "public".

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yep, instead of defacing the problem and showing his cards, he should have just said something like, "I'm out of this, today".

 

 

The colored water fountains are not parallels at all. those water fountains were on the way out long before the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

There were some holdouts in the south, maybe even in the non-racist north(sarcasm). I don't remember them in Clarksville and my memory

barely pre-dates the Civil Rights Act. I remember seeing them after that act in some small towns in Alabama and maybe Mississippi, but

they were going away.

 

The bias people have against gays, in general, is because of the steady onslaught by activists in that class, not because of the actions

of all. You take the courts and regulate everyone's behavior and you will eventually have a bigger problem than you started with because

people will end up paying no attention to the law and disobeying others, just like they will with the idiotic laws being passed to thwart

actions that don't harm anyone.

 

You can't legislate kindness, but you can lead by example and encourage it. It's called love. When you add justice in the right doses,

you allow behavior to work out the wrinkles much better.

 

This gay crap is all political, anyway. Go figure it out.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It isn't a matter of equating; in fact if you re-read what I wrote I said I wasn't really equating the two; rather, I was pointing out the parallels that I think, are pretty obvious regardless of what side one comes down on with regards to the homosexual lifestyle/homosexual "rights".

 

We talk about protected v non-protected classes but I think the bigger and more appropriate question is why should anyone be treated differently than anyone else by a business that ostensibly exists to make a profit by or perhaps only to serve the "public".

There should be no protected classes. When that's done, it makes someone into a victim, and someone else into a criminal.

[RobertNashville]

There should be no protected classes. When that's done, it makes someone into a victim, and someone else into a criminal.

I agree, up to a point; by that I mean I don't believe there should be protected classes. However, I also find discrimination detestable and we have pretty ample evidence that, left to their own conscious (or lack thereof), people will do what we saw them do 50 years ago. So, while "protected classes" may be repugnant, they perhaps are not nearly as repugnant as the "wrong" that they are intended to make right.

[RED333]

Bake the cake, oops to much salt, sorry, it is free.

O yea sorry no refunds on cake that leaves the store.

[Guest RebelCowboySnB]

I am disabled. I get treated different than others a lot... Guess what? I am, so what the crap do you expect. I only have a right to control my own actions, not others. I have no use for any law that would force people to treat me other than the way they would chose to on there own. Especially the ones that require thousands of $  in renovation to be aloud to stay i business.

 

I was not there but what I remember reading about the civil rights movement was that discrimination was wrote in to the law forcing the actions of businesses. Not the same thing.

 

This cake place had a choice. I bet most of his business agrees with that choice an would have taken there business elsewhere if he had made the cake. They should not have to throw there business under the bus to server the outsiders. I dont want someone to do that just to serve me.

 

These people knew before they walked in they were going to be turn down.  They were fishing for a court case.

 

Whats next? Are sperm banks going to be requited to buy from the disabled? I could see someone taking one to court over that...

Edited December 7, 2013 by RebelCowboySnB

[jacob]

there is a difference between making someone an equal through legislation and making their morals, sex or ethnicity something that is protected.  i would venture to say that the civil rights movement or women's suffrage was not about a "protection" but rather elevating people to the same level as others.  where this becomes dangerous is when you make it a crime to discriminate against one party, but don't give the opposite party equal protection from discrimination.  that obliterates any form of  true equality at all, and only serves to cause degradation in society.

 

the sad truth is that equality today isn't about equality at all, it is about forcing someone else to support a belief system they do no agree with...that is not a principle our country was founded upon

[GuitaRx]

One of the advantages of owning and running one's own business has always been that they could refuse service to anyone they choose, for whatever reason they choose.

 

Why should someone in the private sector be forced to offer service to someone with whom they don't want to associate? The reason really doesn't matter. I couldn't care less if two people I've never met in my life want to live their lives together. But the government shouldn't be able to force me to do business with them if I don't want to. The reason doesn't matter.

The Bill of Rights works both ways.

 

I absolutely agree..  the same goes for smoking or not smoking....

[Chucktshoes]

It isn't a matter of equating; in fact if you re-read what I wrote I said I wasn't really equating the two; rather, I was pointing out the parallels that I think, are pretty obvious regardless of what side one comes down on with regards to the homosexual lifestyle/homosexual "rights".
 
We talk about protected v non-protected classes but I think the bigger and more appropriate question is why should anyone be treated differently than anyone else by a business that ostensibly exists to make a profit by or perhaps only to serve the "public".

 
The parallels are obvious and what I believe the basis these cases will be ultimately judged on. I personally do equate them as the same thing. That being said, I also think 6.8 is right with his next statement.

 

There should be no protected classes. When that's done, it makes someone into a victim, and someone else into a criminal.

Open for business to the public or not, the government has no right to tell a private entity whom they must do business with. Those portions of the CRA that affected private entities were wrong not because of what it aimed to do, but because the government had no right to do it. Just as the government was wrong being an agent of segregation, it was just as wrong to be an agent of desegregation. Government is obligated to treat folks equally, private entities are not.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

"You have the right to be free. I have the right to be free from you." That's what Andrew Wilcow(sp?) says all the time. I agree.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I agree, up to a point; by that I mean I don't believe there should be protected classes. However, I also find discrimination detestable and we have pretty ample evidence that, left to their own conscious (or lack thereof), people will do what we saw them do 50 years ago. So, while "protected classes" may be repugnant, they perhaps are not nearly as repugnant as the "wrong" that they are intended to make right.

Well, lead by example and quit discriminating. :D Don't tell me how to act. I'm not that stupid. I' would eventually figure it out if I was doing

the discriminating, which I'm not.

 

There's a right way and a wrong way. Passing another social law is the wrong way.

Edited December 7, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[daddyo]

It isn't a matter of equating; in fact if you re-read what I wrote I said I wasn't really equating the two; rather, I was pointing out the parallels that I think, are pretty obvious regardless of what side one comes down on with regards to the homosexual lifestyle/homosexual "rights".

 

We talk about protected v non-protected classes but I think the bigger and more appropriate question is why should anyone be treated differently than anyone else by a business that ostensibly exists to make a profit by or perhaps only to serve the "public".

 

You're right; you did say that and I missed it. Thanks for pointing it out to me.

 

The parallels may be obvious to some, I guess, but I still think it's a stretch. Blacks have no control over their physical characteristics. Gays may or may not have control over their sexual preference, but they do have control over their behavior and the choices they make.

 

I don't know that anyone should be treated differently, but I think a business owner should free to choose who he does business with. If someone doesn't want my business because I carry a gun, I take my business elsewhere. Even if gun owners were a protected class, it still wouldn't give me any right to force the proprietor to violate his own business practices and make me an exception.

Edited December 7, 2013 by daddyo

[TMF]

This is nothing more than another case of people wanting to force other people to do things because one side doesn't like the fact that the other side disagrees with their beliefs. A lot of that going on in just about every issue we face no matter what side a person sits on. The folks guilty of doing it are disgusting; more so than the folks they accuse of being disgusting by far.... no matter what the issue.

It's that same attitude prevalent throughout history which makes it impossible to live and let live; someone disagrees with a belief so the other side finds ways to make the person submit to that belief out of a combination of spite and desire for control. We can never live and let live because there are to many aholes in the world that need their faces punched in.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I am disabled. I get treated different than others a lot... Guess what? I am so what the crap do you expect. I only have a right to control my own actions, not others. I have no use for any law that would force people to treat me other than the way they would chose to on there own. Especially the ones that require thousands of $ renovation to be aloud to stay i business.

 

I was not there my what I remember reading about the civil rights movement was that discrimination was wrote in to the law forcing the actions of businesses. Not the same thing.

 

This cake place had a choice. I bet most of his business agrees with that choice an would have taken there business elsewhere if he had made the cake. They should not have to throw there business under the bus to server the outsiders. I dont want someone to do that just to serve me.

 

These people knew before they walked in they were going to be turn down.  They were fishing for a court case.

 

Whats next? Are sperm banks going to be requited to buy from the disabled? I could see someone taking one to court over that...

Right. However, this cake place's choice has been taken away by a judge. I'm now one of those disabled folks, also. Hell, maybe I should get

a sticker and piss off everyone trying to park my Bimmer. :D

[RobertNashville]

Obvious to some, I guess, but I still think it's a stretch to draw parallels between the two. Blacks have no control over their physical characteristics. Gays may or may not have control over their sexual preference, but they do have control over their behavior and the choices they make.

 

I don't know that anyone should be treated differently, but I think a business owner should free to choose who he does business with. If someone doesn't want my business because I carry a gun, I take my business elsewhere. Even if gun owners were a protected class, it still wouldn't give me any right to force the proprietor to accommodate me.

Well, there are two problems here (at least) that I see.

 

One is that we really don't know with certainty if a homosexual is "born that way" or simply chooses to be that way (and it's probably even more complicated than that meaning that some probably are born that way while for some it's simply a choice).

 

The other major problem is the government in that government shouldn't ever have involved itself in the "marriage" thing in the first place. If there weren't "marriage laws" and favorable tax (and other benefit) treatments based on whether one is married or not a whole lot of this problem would not exist in the first place.

I guess where I start to have a problem with this mess is the concept of a "private business"...I'm still leaning toward the position that when you open your doors to the public you take on certain responsibilities; some of which may be contrary to your personal, private beliefs/policies and we (as a country) have a very long history of government placing requirements on businesses predicated at least partially on the concept that a business is a public entity (regardless of who "owns" it).

Edited December 7, 2013 by RobertNashville

[sigmtnman]

Well, there are two problems here (at least) that I see.

 

One is that we really don't know with certainty if a homosexual is "born that way" or simply chooses to be that way (and it's probably even more complicated than that meaning that some probably are born that way while for some it's simply a choice).

 

The other major problem is the government in that government shouldn't ever have involved itself in the "marriage" thing in the first place. If there weren't "marriage laws" and favorable tax (and other benefit) treatments based on whether one is married or not a whole lot of this problem would not exist in the first place.

I guess where I start to have a problem with this mess is the concept of a "private business"...I'm still leaning toward the position that when you open your doors to the public you take on certain responsibilities; some of which may be contrary to your personal, private beliefs/policies and we (as a country) have a very long history of government placing requirements on businesses predicated at least partially on the concept that a business is a public entity (regardless of who "owns" it).

 

Why does opening a business equate with "opening the doors to the public"?

[daddyo]

Well, there are two problems here (at least) that I see.

 

One is that we really don't know with certainty if a homosexual is "born that way" or simply chooses to be that way (and it's probably even more complicated than that meaning that some probably are born that way while for some it's simply a choice).

 

The other major problem is the government in that government shouldn't ever have involved itself in the "marriage" thing in the first place. If there weren't "marriage laws" and favorable tax (and other benefit) treatments based on whether one is married or not a whole lot of this problem would not exist in the first place.

I guess where I start to have a problem with this mess is the concept of a "private business"...I'm still leaning toward the position that when you open your doors to the public you take on certain responsibilities; some of which may be contrary to your personal, private beliefs/policies and we (as a country) have a very long history of government placing requirements on businesses predicated at least partially on the concept that a business is a public entity (regardless of who "owns" it).

 

Does the concept of "freedom of association" not apply to private business owners? And if that's the case, should they be forced to remove any "no guns" signs because they're violating someone else's rights? After all, that's the whole premise behind this case - someone's perceived rights were violated by a business owner.

[RobertNashville]

Why does opening a business equate with "opening the doors to the public"?

Well, I guess most businesses open to make money...making money means they need customers to which to sell their product and customers are "the public".

[RobertNashville]

Does the concept of "freedom of association" not apply to private business owners? And if that's the case, should they be forced to remove any "no guns" signs because they're violating someone else's rights? After all, that's the whole premise behind this case - someone's perceived rights were violated by a business owner.

I'm not sure that "freedom of association" applies to a business; to a person, yes...a business; probably not.

I know many, perhaps most here see no distinction between a "person" and a "business"; I do see a distinction.

[sigmtnman]

Well, I guess most businesses open to make money...making money means they need customers to which to sell their product and customers are "the public".

 

Many companies do business with a single client/customer.  Perhaps it's semantics, but I'd say that is far from opening the doors to the public.

[Guest RebelCowboySnB]

What a business needs an does not need is not for me to decide. A business is still private property. It is not public like a park any more than my house is when I throw a party..

[Caster]

It's that same attitude prevalent throughout history which makes it impossible to live and let live; someone disagrees with a belief so the other side finds ways to make the person submit to that belief out of a combination of spite and desire for control. We can never live and let live because there are to many aholes in the world that need their faces punched in.

...and every few hundred years its necessary to man up and punch those faces in. British control needed it....and got it.
So, when do we get started? Lol