Individual rights

[shanm]

Seems like everyone except Tim is missing the point. Especially JD, but that's expected.

A baker bakes wedding cakes. If he can bake a normal wedding cake for a hetero couple, he can bake the same cake for a gay couple. He can and should also bake the same cake for blacks, muslims, jews, nazi's and whoever is willing to fork over the money.

On the other hand, if the gay couple asks cock shaped ornaments on the cake, then the baker CAN refuse. That's his right because he does not make cock shaped ornaments. I don't understand how this is so difficult to understand.

Refusing to cater to people with different opinions/outlooks is the very definition of bigotry. The cutomer's sexual orientation should have no bearing on a bakery's decision.

[i'va biggen]

If a Muzzie beheads a Christian then that is expressing his religious expression. and beliefs.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by shanm

Refusing to cater to people with different opinions/outlooks is the very definition of bigotry.

I would call it the very definition of a liberal talk show host.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

What about a Jewish, black or Asian couple ? How about a mixed marriage?Same thing?

or a nudist without his "shirt or shoes"... you fucking Omoron.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by shanm

Seems like everyone except Tim is missing the point. Especially JD, but that's expected.

A baker bakes wedding cakes. If he can bake a normal wedding cake for a hetero couple, he can bake the same cake for a gay couple. He can and should also bake the same cake for blacks, muslims, jews, nazi's and whoever is willing to fork over the money.

On the other hand, if the gay couple asks cock shaped ornaments on the cake, then the baker CAN refuse. That's his right because he does not make cock shaped ornaments. I don't understand how this is so difficult to understand.

Refusing to cater to people with different opinions/outlooks is the very definition of bigotry. The cutomer's sexual orientation should have no bearing on a bakery's decision.

I dunno, looks like I did miss the point. Shot my mouth off and was completely wrong. I'm a lawyer and I operate in a jurisdiction that I can assure you would dismiss out of hand any lawsuit that was filed where the complaint was that somebody wouldn't make you a gay-themed wedding cake. I guess things operate differently in Colorado. According to the link, they have some sort of civil rights commission that provides a forum for complaints like this.

I was wrong and I apologize to all concerned.

[Guest030824]

Tim take a look at the laws in Canada. They are to the point you can't utter a word with out being brought before the courts.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

or a nudist without his "shirt or shoes"... you fucking Omoron.

Or someone with a stupid avatar ura cocksucker.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by timpage

I dunno, looks like I did miss the point. Shot my mouth off and was completely wrong. I'm a lawyer and I operate in a jurisdiction that I can assure you would dismiss out of hand any lawsuit that was filed where the complaint was that somebody wouldn't make you a gay-themed wedding cake. I guess things operate differently in Colorado. According to the link, they have some sort of civil rights commission that provides a forum for complaints like this.

I was wrong and I apologize to all concerned.

A highly honorable post.

It is unfortunate that the clash of rights is so convoluted in this case.

On the one hand, the "right" to operate your private business for your own benefit. The "right" of avoiding being discriminate against. The "right" not to be an indentured servant or slave, being forced to do something by the government you don't want to do.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by shanm

Seems like everyone except Tim is missing the point. Especially JD, but that's expected.

A baker bakes wedding cakes. If he can bake a normal wedding cake for a hetero couple, he can bake the same cake for a gay couple. He can and should also bake the same cake for blacks, muslims, jews, nazi's and whoever is willing to fork over the money.

On the other hand, if the gay couple asks cock shaped ornaments on the cake, then the baker CAN refuse. That's his right because he does not make cock shaped ornaments. I don't understand how this is so difficult to understand.

Refusing to cater to people with different opinions/outlooks is the very definition of bigotry. The cutomer's sexual orientation should have no bearing on a bakery's decision.

You should open up a "cock shaped ornament/fruit cake" store right next to the bakery... make some cash... but then some Progressive Culturist Marxist would want to sue you because you don't have any "uni-corn tears" to chase down the dry/ass fruit cakes... the fuckers

[shanm]

Originally Posted by timpage

I dunno, looks like I did miss the point. Shot my mouth off and was completely wrong. I'm a lawyer and I operate in a jurisdiction that I can assure you would dismiss out of hand any lawsuit that was filed where the complaint was that somebody wouldn't make you a gay-themed wedding cake. I guess things operate differently in Colorado. According to the link, they have some sort of civil rights commission that provides a forum for complaints like this.

I was wrong and I apologize to all concerned.

Their "faith" also tells them that adultery is wrong. I'm willing to bet there's more than a few people he's made cakes for that are guilty of adultery.
Take note of this important point here, "“You can have your beliefs, but you can’t hurt other people at the same time,” . In essence, your rights are only valid as long as they don't encroach on other people's rights. There's plenty of legal precedents for this. Religious beliefs were used in a similar manner to deny interracial marriages. Here:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...cist-anti-gay/

The gay couple asked him to bake a cake, and they were denied on the basis of their sexual orientation. I don't see anything about the cake having a bunch of dicks on it. It's the same thing as denying a black because of his color; discrimination, plain and simple.

I can understand a preacher refusing to give a wedding sermon at a gay wedding, but a baker?? Give me a frickin break.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by shanm

Their "faith" also tells them that adultery is wrong. I'm willing to bet there's more than a few people he's made cakes for that are guilty of adultery.
Take note of this important point here, "“You can have your beliefs, but you can’t hurt other people at the same time,” . In essence, your rights are only valid as long as they don't encroach on other people's rights. There's plenty of legal precedents for this. Religious beliefs were used in a similar manner to deny interracial marriages. Here:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...cist-anti-gay/

The gay couple asked him to bake a cake, and they were denied on the basis of their sexual orientation. I don't see anything about the cake having a bunch of dicks on it. It's the same thing as denying a black because of his color; discrimination, plain and simple.

I can understand a preacher refusing to give a wedding sermon at a gay wedding, but a baker?? Give me a frickin break.

You come in my business and want to throw your aborted fetus away in my trash can... ain't happening Ozombie!

[DSK]

Originally Posted by shanm

Their "faith" also tells them that adultery is wrong. I'm willing to bet there's more than a few people he's made cakes for that are guilty of adultery.
Take note of this important point here, "“You can have your beliefs, but you can’t hurt other people at the same time,” . In essence, your rights are only valid as long as they don't encroach on other people's rights. There's plenty of legal precedents for this. Religious beliefs were used in a similar manner to deny interracial marriages. Here:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...cist-anti-gay/

The gay couple asked him to bake a cake, and they were denied on the basis of their sexual orientation. I don't see anything about the cake having a bunch of dicks on it. It's the same thing as denying a black because of his color; discrimination, plain and simple.

I can understand a preacher refusing to give a wedding sermon at a gay wedding, but a baker?? Give me a frickin break.

Indians get to smoke peace pipes because of their religious beliefs. I also believe they are exempt from EPA laws and game restrictions. I'd rather go to war over stuff like this rather than all the convoluted treaties we have with everyone where we have to defend them.

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Scenario:

I am one of 3 small pizza shops in a medium sized town. As part of my small business I do catering, which requires that I be at the event to provide service. Catering is a small part of my business income.

A gay couple walks into my pizza shop for a slice and a drink - I serve it up. No problem.

A week later that gay couple walks in and wants me to cater their wedding event. Maybe create some "gay themed" pizzas. I say I can't/won't (religious beliefs). I offer to make my regular pizzas for their event. But they have to pick them up. I politely tell them I won't be on site or create "gay themed" pizzas. I also tell them the ABC Pizza shop (across the street) can probably accommodate them. The gay couple refuses and files a discrimination suit, forcing me out of business.

That scenario should never happen. A law is needed to accommodate/protect conscientious religious objections.

Ok Whirlway answer this- I am a Pharmacist by profession- should a Catholic pharmacist have the right to refuse to fill a birth control prescription to a lady or dispense Viagra to a man who is unmarried? Should the store owner have the right to refuse to sell condoms to an 18 year old young man because his religious beliefs forbids pre-marital sex?

[DSK]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Ok Whirlway answer this- I am a Pharmacist by profession- should a Catholic pharmacist have the right to refuse to fill a birth control prescription to a lady or dispense Viagra to a man who is unmarried? Should the store owner have the right to refuse to sell condoms to an 18 year old young man because his religious beliefs forbids pre-marital sex?

Store owner - hell yes he should be able to refuse to sell that stuff. But the 18 year old can buy it somewhere else, and the lady can find a feminist Pharmacist, too.

[SinsOfTheFlesh]

Tim, I just have to say that I am impressed as hell at your last couple of posts. Getting anyone on this board to change their mind or acknowledge an error is like a double rainbow - exceedingly rare, but it does happen.

You also messed up my multi-quote as I was preparing to rebut most of your posts on the first two pages LOL

So, rather than quote posts and respond point for point, I'll just give my two cents on this issue.

First off, incidents where business owners are being hounded for their beliefs are happening more frequently. Its not just one baker here or there. There have now been several cases around the country involving caterers, florists, photographers, and bakers, all of whom are Christian, all of whom have been asked to provide services for same sex marriages, and all of whom have faced legal challenges for declining to do so.

Last year, a bakery declined to make a birthday cake for a child who's name was Adolph Hitler. Similar to the baker in CO, the store was perfectly willing to sell the couple a blank birthday cake, but they declined to write "Adolph Hitler" on it, even though that was the child's name. (Lets not get into a discussion about the likely IQ of the parents, we can probably all agree that Mom and Dad didn't crack triple digits in that department).

I mention the Adolph Hitler cake for one reason. When this story hit the news, no one cared. Well, people cared about the intelligence or lack thereof of the parents, but no one cared that the business said no. In fact, its safe to say that people probably applauded the store. More importantly though, there were no threats of civil or legal action. The store that turned the parents down operated exactly the same the day after they turned down the parents as they did the day before, without consequence.

If we are going to take legal action against Christian business owners for acting on their beliefs, why are we not also taking legal action against any business that turns anyone away, for any reason? Why is it OK for a business to refuse business that in some way promotes Nazi ideology?

My problem with the notion of anti-discrimination is the arbitrary nature of what we choose to care about. Discrimination is perfectly acceptable when what we choose to discriminate against is socially acceptable - Nazi ideology for example. So there is that.

Now, on the other hand, I've been a passionate supporter of gay rights for years. As a bisexual, it is an issue that has been near and dear to my heart for a long time. On this very board, I have argued passionately in favor of same sex marriage, same sex adoption, and legal protections for gays and lesbians.

Never, in all my years though, have I ever argued that anyone in society must accept homosexuality. Frankly, acceptance is the last thing I've ever cared about. I accept myself just fine, and that is the only acceptance that matters.

What these legal fights are about is acceptance. I've argued for tolerance all my life. But tolerance and acceptance are not the same. Granting gays and lesbian equal legal protection is a matter of tolerance. You don't have to agree with homosexuality to tolerate its existence. Nor do you have to accept it. I tolerate racists who believe that their race is superior to others. They are allowed to exist and believe as they choose, just like everyone else. That doesn't mean I have to accept them and invite them over for Sunday brunch either, and therein lies the difference.

I actually find myself very surprised at some of the thoughts that have occurred to me as this issue has evolved. My immediate knee jerk reaction when I first read about a bakery who was called out in the media for refusing to serve a lesbian couple was that of COURSE the bakery was wrong! Dead wrong!

Over time though, I've come to believe that forcing a business owner to act in conflict with their religious beliefs is far more wrong than a homosexual couple having to find another bakery to bake their wedding cake (with or without phallic decorations). Of all the principles that were nearest and dearest to the Founding Father's hearts, religious freedom was one of the most important. I shudder at the idea that we are losing sight of that in our obsessive quest for diversity and tolerance that tolerates anything and everything but faith.

So when it comes down to it, I have no problem with the law Indiana passed. The citizens of Indiana can decide if they like it or not. The next time they vote on their representatives, they can either vote to fire those who passed the law, or they can vote to re-hire them.

One idea that is lost in this debate amid all the legal wrangling is the simple value of ordinary citizens voting with their wallet. I am willing to bet that the store who refused to put Adolph Hitler on a birthday cake probably got a boost to their business. I am also willing to bet that when news hit the media that a nefarious baker had refused to make a lesbian cake, they probably lost some business. Or they perhaps got a boost to their business. Hard to say. But what happened to the good old fashioned boycott? If you don't like how a business conducts themselves, what is wrong with just not patronizing them?

I haven't eaten at a Chipotle's for several years now, even though I loved their food. My little protest. No need for lawyers or the government to get involved. No threat to individual liberty either. Just ordinary citizens making their voices heard, one lost customer at a time. Sometimes the simple solutions make the best solutions in my humble opinion.