Judge orders baker to serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs

[Sam1]

Why can't a judge be able to require Chick Fillet to be open on Sunday? Atheists and 7th day adventists are being discriminated against.

I wish that would happen, few times we've went by on a Sunday afternoon craving a good sandwich

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yes you did.

"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)."

 

A private business is not a public entity, and regardless of that long history of government requirements against private businesses doesn't make them right. If it was my business and I told you to leave my place of business, you better leave. I don't have to fill out a form, give you a reason or otherwise. You could have done something that I didn't like, not had to have been gay.

 

Whether or not it makes any sense to you doesn't matter. When you say a business is a public entity you just took away property rights kind of like communism does. There are none with communism. Everything belongs to the state. It either is public or private, take your pick, but it isn't both. It isn't a concept, either.

 

When I said it's their right to take a risk, I should have said it's their right to take a risk and it's their risk that gives you another place to try to conduct business with someone. When you say "public entity" you take away their right to trade by implying someone else has control over their attempt at commerce, to some degree.

Edited December 8, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[mav]

The problem could have been easily solved if the baker would have just told himself that he wasn't baking a wedding cake for them, but instead, a civil union cake.  :)

[tnguy]

I don't want to seem like I'm anti-gay marriage (I'd rather government just keep their noses out of marriage entirely and people can do what they choose) but I wouldn't blame the baker for turning 100% of the gross invoice for that cake over to an anti-gay marriage organization. Of course, now that they have got their way, they're not actually going to spend their money there anyway, I'm sure.

 

Ironically, their lawsuit actually damages the thing they think it promotes. That is, freedom to associate with who we choose to and how.

 

 

Just as a thought, I wonder if they fail to place an order whether the baker could counter-sue.

Edited December 8, 2013 by tnguy

[QuietDan]

The problem could have been easily solved if the baker would have just told himself that he wasn't baking a wedding cake for them, but instead, a civil union cake.  :)

 

I doubt that would have satisfied. The gay couple appears to be in "respect me, respect me" mode. 

[DaveS]

Bakers needs to treat them with respect and make sure they get plenty of boogers, loogeys , and snot in their pastries just to show them that you welcome and love  them and you know they  love your food and will come back for more!  JMO

But why treat them any different than anyone else? If Bakers do that to them, then he'll do it to all of us. Why not just treat people as equals? As far as religion goes, we can interpret our religions however we feel and make good use of it as long as it suits our individual needs. What does the bible say about how we should treat our fellow man? Does that change from one religion to the next? I do not agree with the couple going to court. Maybe they felt they needed to do something to prevent this from happening to someone else in the future.

 

Dave

[Il Duce]

The ignorance and hate in this thread is amazing especially from some of yall who claim to be "Christians". Nothing more than a bunch of hypocrites.

[BrasilNuts]

But why treat them any different than anyone else? If Bakers do that to them, then he'll do it to all of us.

If he did he wouldn't be in business very long would he?

[daddyo]

The ignorance and hate in this thread is amazing especially from some of yall who claim to be "Christians". Nothing more than a bunch of hypocrites.

 

What hate and ignorance are you referring to? I see disagreement, but I see no hate or ignorance.

 

There are numerous definitions of "Christian", most of which have little to no basis in fact. What is yours? Based on your name-calling of some who don't agree with your view, I could call your criticism of people who profess to be Christians "hatred" if I wanted to, and I would be as justified as you in that criticism, but I won't do that.

Does the business owner have the right to refuse someone or not?

Edited December 8, 2013 by daddyo

[TMF]

The ignorance and hate in this thread is amazing especially from some of yall who claim to be "Christians". Nothing more than a bunch of hypocrites.

Specifically what are you referring to?

[BrasilNuts]

You guys didn't get the memo?

Disagreement equals hate/racism.

[Dane]

I would bet this conversation would look entirely different if it had been a soldier refused service.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[mav]

The ignorance and hate in this thread is amazing especially from some of yall who claim to be "Christians". Nothing more than a bunch of hypocrites.

 

I haven't seen any hate in this thread  In regards to the Christians, of course they are a bunch of hypocrites.  Considering they are followers of Christ, not Christ Himself, how can they not be hypocrites?  I think a lot of people that have an animus towards Christianity/Christians really doesn't understand what Christianity is.

[daddyo]

I would bet this conversation would look entirely different if it had been a soldier refused service.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

But it wasn't. Does the business owner have the right to deny someone service because of that?

[daddyo]

You guys didn't get the memo?

Disagreement equals hate/racism.

 

That applies only to one side, of course.

[TMF]

I would bet this conversation would look entirely different if it had been a soldier refused service. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

And folks would still think he had the right to refuse service no matter what their emotions. That's what you and others don't get. It isn't about what is subjectively right and wrong, it's about not using the government as a bully to force people to bow to your subjective views of right and wrong.

[Chucktshoes]

And folks would still think he had the right to refuse service no matter what their emotions. That's what you and others don't get. It isn't about what is subjectively right and wrong, it's about not using the government as a bully to force people to bow to your subjective views of right and wrong.

This. This. A thousand times this. I don't support the baker's refusal of service. What I do support is his right to make that refusal.

[daddyo]

Constitutionally protected rights are not subject to the tyranny of unchecked emotion.

Edited December 8, 2013 by daddyo

[RobertNashville]

But it wasn't. Does the business owner have the right to deny someone service because of that?

Why would they not have that right? If as many have proposed hear a "private business" has a right to refuse service to anyone for any reason then they certainly would have the right to refuse service to a military service member wouldn't they?

[RobertNashville]

I would bet this conversation would look entirely different if it had been a soldier refused service.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I suspect that is an accurate observation. Many here, perhaps even most here would be up in arms if the bakery refused service to some military person because he was in the military.

It wouldn't even matter if they thought the bakery refusing service to military member was there "right" or not; they would be angry because of who service of been refused to.

[tnguy]

Better that a business be able to refuse service to military and then everyone knows about it and can withdraw their custom than that business be protected from their stupidity by government regulation.

Edited December 8, 2013 by tnguy

[RobertNashville]

Yes you did.
"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)."

A private business is not a public entity, and regardless of that long history of government requirements against private businesses doesn't make them right. If it was my business and I told you to leave my place of business, you better leave. I don't have to fill out a form, give you a reason or otherwise. You could have done something that I didn't like, not had to have been gay.

Whether or not it makes any sense to you doesn't matter. When you say a business is a public entity you just took away property rights kind of like communism does. There are none with communism. Everything belongs to the state. It either is public or private, take your pick, but it isn't both. It isn't a concept, either.

When I said it's their right to take a risk, I should have said it's their right to take a risk and it's their risk that gives you another place to try to conduct business with someone. When you say "public entity" you take away their right to trade by implying someone else has control over their attempt at commerce, to some degree.

Well, you just going to have to disagree.

Whether a business is a public entity or not, the point is that when a business opens its doors to the public and invites the public to use its services/products that business takes on certain responsibilities that it would not have otherwise. I don't see it as being any different than when a person buys a home in a large community compared to a person that buys that same home out of the country. When you choose to live in a community close to other people you take on more responsibility for your actions and how they impact others as compared to that which you would have living out in the country miles away from yourclosest neighbor.

I would agree, I would rather see no requirements on any business of any kind - let them refuse service to anybody for any reason including the race, their sex, the color of their hair, or their nationality, or any other reason! However, that is not the world we live in or really, have ever lived in.

No, there is really only one rule any business we need to follow that would solve all the problems; just treat each customer the same way they would like to be treated when they are accustomed. If they did that 99.9% of all the rules exist would not need to exist. However, as with most of the rules we have today that affect citizens the laws and rules we have been that affect businesses exist because businesses have proven that they won't follow that simple rule. Edited December 8, 2013 by RobertNashville

[jacob]

I suspect that is an accurate observation. Many here, perhaps even most here would be up in arms if the bakery refused service to some military person because he was in the military.

It wouldn't even matter if they thought the bakery refusing service to military member was there "right" or not; they would be angry because of who service of been refused to.

I unfortunately would not be one of those people. A private business is not under any obligation to provide services if they so choose, regardless of whether it is a gay person or Jesus Christ himself.

What is the incentive of working for yourself if you have to worry about what the govt thinks? I will tell you, none. The govt is the only entity that is responsible to catering to all people regards of race, sex, or morality, period. And I am inclined to think that if the govt can't treat everyone fairly, then they should stay the hell out of things.

And since they have proven they can't treat everyone fairly because that's life, well....

[QuietDan]

.

Edited December 8, 2013 by QuietDan

[TMF]

I suspect that is an accurate observation. Many here, perhaps even most here would be up in arms if the bakery refused service to some military person because he was in the military.
It wouldn't even matter if they thought the bakery refusing service to military member was there "right" or not; they would be angry because of who service of been refused to.

So? The point of the thread is the baker's right to refuse service, not who finds it offensive. Different people find different things offensive... is that what you're pointing out? What a revelation! The big issue the adults here have is the government becoming involved and enforcing other people's petty emotions.