Individual rights

[shanm]

Originally Posted by DSK

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.

Honestly NATIVE AMERICANS is a bad example. We came to their land and screwed them over. big time. They can do whatever the fuck they want for all I care.

[dirty dog]

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.

No I don't think you understand. The baker is being forced, by law to make a cake that he feels violates him morally and violates his religious beliefs. Why should the baker have to violate his right to religious belief by making something he objects to. When does the gay couples right supersede the bakers. The baker is not telling them that they cant have a cake, hes not telling them they cannot be gay, he is doing nothing to prevent them from obtaining a cake elsewhere. Why must the baker surrender his right to his religious beliefs. That's all this law does, protect an individuals right to their beliefs and prevent the government from forcing to violate them. It is also deceptive to bring race into this. This is a religious freedom law and it does nothing to change the laws that are already in place protecting race.

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by shanm

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. .

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

What right, you don't have a right to have a cake made, its not like you can demand someone make you a cake. No rights were trampled on because they don't exist. There is nothing to prevent them from going to 50 other bakers. The right being trampled on is the right of the individual to practice their religious belief and being forced to make a cake for something that you do not support on religious grounds, that is the right being trampled on. , "“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. . ut doesn't the knife cut both ways.

[Guest030824]

SOTF I agree with you and it pretty much says what I wanted to say.

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by DSK

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.

That is a very dumb point of view - that's like saying well all IHOPS in TEXAS won't serve Blacks- but IHOPS in Oklahoma serves all races- so with your logic the IHOPS in TEXAS are not doing anything wrong because the African Americans if they really wanted to eat at IHOP he can go to OKlahoma so that makes it right???
How can you say an owner can decide to sell to one person and not the other based on bigotry or religious belief?

[normalguy21]

Originally Posted by tucson

Individual rights are up for grabs. Why should I surrender my individual rights to some one else's individual rights? I have a right to associate with whom so ever I wish but another individual has demanded that I must observe their idea of what my rights will be. Using the fact I must have a business license the city tells me I must do business with whom ever they choose. Why must my rights be sacrificed to those of another. Remember they are called individual rights not the rights of the government.

I think daily about things like you wrote above .

This is by the end of the day what i come to the conclusion of.

atty become judges.

Judges become justice .

justice is what policy dictates.

policy is dictated by those willing to pay re election campaign,s

Until the people as whole voice our Policy,s i,am afraid all we have left is historical documents of what was .

In the highest court there is as the supreme court sat right behind there back it says in god we trust on the wall . They choose to ignore its there .

If god can be ignored - So can our unalienable rights .As government steps in as the maintainer in absence of the creator

Oh and as far as me liking hookers and god at the same time -all i did is take out the man and women in holy matrimony thing -Its still man and women. Cant blame a guy who likes Pussy -Nope

[CuteOldGuy]

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 are right! And just to prove it, if Indiana repeals the law, I'm going to Indianapolis, and did a Muslim restaurant and demand they cater my barbecue with ham, pork ribs and bacon wrapped pork chops. If they refuse, I'm suing their ass for discrimination. They can't let their religious beliefs influence how they serve customers. Slice that ham, Achmed, and make it thin!

[MrGiz]

When are some of you going to understand that Freedom of Expression cuts all ways?
Coupled with that FACT, is the NON-existence of the Right to Not be offended. I am regularly offended by many idiots in this forum, but you all have the right to post as idiots!

[DSK]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

That is a very dumb point of view - that's like saying well all IHOPS in TEXAS won't serve Blacks- but IHOPS in Oklahoma serves all races- so with your logic the IHOPS in TEXAS are not doing anything wrong because the African Americans if they really wanted to eat at IHOP he can go to OKlahoma so that makes it right???
How can you say an owner can decide to sell to one person and not the other based on bigotry or religious belief?

He owns it. It isn't some major crime against society that is equatable with lynching to refuse to sell some kid a condom , and he has to please enough customers or go broke. Why don't more people believe in simple freedom?

[DSK]

Originally Posted by 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.

That is a really good post. I especially liked your comment on the arbitrary nature of the things we discriminate against.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by shanm

Honestly NATIVE AMERICANS is a bad example. We came to their land and screwed them over. big time. They can do whatever the fuck they want for all I care.

Well, if given that power, perhaps they will allow legalization of prostitution on their lands.They could have strip clubs with rentable rooms - they should get more business than casinos.

By the way, since they can do whatever they want according to you, would you graciously allow them to open a bakery and refuse to serve anyone they didn't like, such as gay palefaces?

[IIFFOFRDB]

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by timpage

I've already responded to this ad nauseum. Read my other posts. No baker is going to be forced to put gay ornaments on a cake. No black owned bakery is ever going to be forced to bake a Klan cake. No Jewish baker is going to have prepare a Hitler cake. The entire premise is absurd.....just like you.

Try to keep up. We're getting some pretty interesting posts on this...why don't you just shut the fuck up and read? Maybe you'll learn to be coherent.

You want to tell this story to the baker who lost the family business in Arizona or the photographer who lost the business in Oregon because they did not want to "celebrate" a deviant life style. Read some of the other posts on here from the left. The relish the idea that they can get government to punish people on their behalf. There is only about one more level in the fascist handbook after that.

[JD Barleycorn]

I see what Sha-na-na posted and he got it wrong again. A baker does not just bake a cake for a wedding (unless it is very low class), a baker has to go to great lengths to turn out a great cake. They have to fix it up very nicely, deliver the cake, and make the cake look good in the spot chosen to display it. There will be pictures taken of the cake and people will pose around the cake. Pieces might be saved for posterity. That is called involvement and not just baking a cake. We would be demanding more from a baker than we would from a check out Muslim checker forced to handle bacon (which we have found that you can't do in some states or cities).

I have to ask the question, why doesn't Taco Bell sell pork products? In Central America and Mexico pork is eaten daily. It is considered a staple but why don't they sell it at a "Mexican" eatery as well as most stores (HyVee has taco Tuesday).

Post a citation on YOUR definition of bigotry. I think you got it wrong again. I think when you chose the word "cater", you chopped off your own dick.

[shanm]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I see what Sha-na-na posted and he got it wrong again. A baker does not just bake a cake for a wedding (unless it is very low class), a baker has to go to great lengths to turn out a great cake. They have to fix it up very nicely, deliver the cake, and make the cake look good in the spot chosen to display it. There will be pictures taken of the cake and people will pose around the cake. Pieces might be saved for posterity. That is called involvement and not just baking a cake. We would be demanding more from a baker than we would from a check out Muslim checker forced to handle bacon (which we have found that you can't do in some states or cities).

I have to ask the question, why doesn't Taco Bell sell pork products? In Central America and Mexico pork is eaten daily. It is considered a staple but why don't they sell it at a "Mexican" eatery as well as most stores (HyVee has taco Tuesday).

Post a citation on YOUR definition of bigotry. I think you got it wrong again. I think when you chose the word "cater", you chopped off your own dick.

Well, if that's the case, (although you couldn't have stated it more crudely), then I concede. A baker who doesn't agree to homosexuality because of religion shouldn't have to actually cater a homosexual wedding. If it's just baking the cake though, I still don't think that's a problem.

I think it's because more and more people are realizing that religions are nothing but farcical hogwash. They're used to justify laws and rules that were set forth 2000 years ago, and definitely don't apply to today's society. I would love to his this^ esteemed group of people defend a Muslim's right to do what "Sharia" law tells them to.
Although I personally believe that religion shouldn't be applicable to anything, it's fine if you do. That's what America is all about and I guess some people are forgetting that.