Arizona Pizzeria Protests Anti-Gay Bill By Refusing To Serve Lawmakers

Banned 11 years ago

I would deny anyone service that tried to tell me how to run my business.

Example, I don't smoke but I think it's a bad idea for any local Gov. to force a business to not allow smoking while that same exact local Gov. doesn't have a problem spending tax money billed to cigarettes.

The real question is why would anyone want to eat in a restaurant where the owner has a problem with them?

I don't go places I'm not wanted, at least not on purpose.

Looks like a bunch of antagonist stirring the pot.

[ 4 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8996797].message }}

TLTheLiberator

11 years ago

Originally Posted by yukon

I would deny anyone service that tried to tell me how to run my business.

Example, I don't smoke but I think it's a bad idea for any local Gov. to force a business to not allow smoking while that same exact local Gov. doesn't have a problem spending tax money billed to cigarettes.

The real question is why would anyone want to eat in a restaurant where the owner has a problem with them?

I don't go places I'm not wanted, at least not on purpose.

Looks like a bunch of antagonist stirring the pot.

Why ban ciggs in public indoor public places?

How about 2nd hand smoke?

If someone wants to take themselves out by smoking ciggs that's fine with me they have that right but don't take me with you by smoking indoors in a public place like a restaurant that I'm visiting.

[ 3 ] Thanks
3 replies

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8997805].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Why ban ciggs in public indoor public places?

How about 2nd hand smoke?

If someone wants to take themselves out by smoking ciggs that's fine with me they have that right but don't take me with you by smoking indoors in a public place like a restaurant that I'm visiting.

I thought the smoking and non-smoking areas worked well in most places.
I'm a heavy smoker myself. But I really don't mind not smoking in public places. Regardless of weather second hand smoke is harmful to a non-smoker, the smoke I know, can be irritating.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8997898].message }}

TLTheLiberator

11 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

I thought the smoking and non-smoking areas worked well in most places.
I'm a heavy smoker myself. But I really don't mind not smoking in public places. Regardless of weather second hand smoke is harmful to a non-smoker, the smoke I know, can be irritating.

I don't have a prob with restaurants that have smoking and non-smoking areas. At least give me a choice.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8998040].message }}

seasoned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

I don't have a prob with restaurants that have smoking and non-smoking areas. At least give me a choice.

You ALWAYS have a choice! I HATED the restaurants with "smoking sections". As a kid, I DIDN'T have a choice, and even large restaurants seemed to think smoke was intelligent and obedient. It is NEITHER! A sign doesn't get it to stop. I believe it is CVS that said they would soon stop SELLING the garbage. ******YEAH******! BTW some are finally admitting that smoke is NOT O and I, and recognize that 2nd hand smoke can ALSO hurt you.

Steve
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8998055].message }}
ThomM 11 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

I don't have a prob with restaurants that have smoking and non-smoking areas. At least give me a choice.

Exactly. Of course that same argument could be used by smokers today
But like I said I don't mind not smoking in a public place, at least I don't accidentally pull out a joint from my pack and lite that up anymore
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8998139].message }}

yukon

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Why ban ciggs in public indoor public places?

How about 2nd hand smoke?

If someone wants to take themselves out by smoking ciggs that's fine with me they have that right but don't take me with you by smoking indoors in a public place like a restaurant that I'm visiting.

Go somewhere else If you don't like the smoke.

It's not difficult to figure out.

This is from a guy that doesn't smoke.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8998740].message }}

seasoned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by yukon

Go somewhere else If you don't like the smoke.

It's not difficult to figure out.

This is from a guy that doesn't smoke.

What if you are a hungry little kid?

Steve
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8998752].message }}
- ThomM 11 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by seasoned
  
  What if you are a hungry little kid?
  
  Steve
  
  How many little kids do you see going into a restaurant alone?
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
  Getting old ain't for sissy's
  As you are I was, as I am you will be
  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8998762].message }}
  
  seasoned 11 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by ThomM
  
  How many little kids do you see going into a restaurant alone?
  
  Not many, but I see MANY going in with adults or guardians! I was one! So what is your point?
  
  Steve
  
  Thanks
  
  2 replies
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8998778].message }}
  
  yukon Banned 11 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by seasoned
  
  Not many, but I see MANY going in with adults or guardians! I was one! So what is your point?
  
  Steve
  
  Go somewhere else If you don't like smoke.
  
  It's not difficult to figure out.
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8998792].message }}
  
  seasoned 11 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by yukon
  
  Go somewhere else If you don't like smoke.
  
  It's not difficult to figure out.
  
  OK, so I should have simply left the restaurant, begged for money, found anther restaurant, and gotten food THERE!? I GUESS I could have begged for more money, called my mother, and hoped she was home. REMEMBER, I didn't have a cell phone, and most people didn't have "voicemail".
  
  For something that is "not difficult to figure out.", it seems incredibly hard to do so. And if you INSIST that it is SO easy for say a 0-9yo to do, then why do we have welfare? Of course, welfare isn't for kids either.
  
  Steve
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8998811].message }}
  
  ThomM 11 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by seasoned
  
  Not many, but I see MANY going in with adults or guardians! I was one! So what is your point?
  
  Steve
  
  If they're with an adult, it's the adults decision to go into the restaurant or not.
  Edit: I probably should of add these guys to my responses to you Steve
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
  Getting old ain't for sissy's
  As you are I was, as I am you will be
  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8998820].message }}
  
  seasoned 11 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by ThomM
  
  If they're with an adult, it's the adults decision to go into the restaurant or not.
  Edit: I probably should of add these guys to my responses to you Steve
  
  Yeah, and smokers RARELY understand, EVEN if they are your parents!
  
  Steve
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8998930].message }}
  
  ThomM 11 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by seasoned
  
  Yeah, and smokers RARELY understand, EVEN if they are your parents!
  
  Steve
  
  Steve my daughters all have kids and naturally many of their friends do also. They smoke and never smoke around the kids. It's not the same as when we where kids.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
  Getting old ain't for sissy's
  As you are I was, as I am you will be
  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8998943].message }}

lanfear63

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

2nd hand smoke is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the public.

Actually a much loved British actor, comedian, presenter and trumpet player called Roy Castle died prematurely of Lung cancer. He was playing in smokey nightclubs and it entered his lungs through his trumpet! A life long non smoker died from inhaling 2nd hand smoke!

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9001877].message }}

Midnight Oil

11 years ago

Originally Posted by lanfear63

Actually a much loved British actor, comedian, presenter and trumpet player called Roy Castle died prematurely of Lung cancer. He was playing in smokey nightclubs and it entered his lungs through his trumpet! A life long non smoker died from inhaling 2nd hand smoke!

This has never been proven. That was Castle's own claim. It's also been noted that he was a cigar smoker.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9002003].message }}

David Braybrooke

11 years ago

Right on. Love it!
Is there such a thing as a gay pizza? .... not sure where this one is going.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

"The scientific theory I like best is that the rings of Saturn are composed entirely of lost airline luggage." - Mark Russell

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8996801].message }}

seasoned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by David Braybrooke

Right on. Love it!
Is there such a thing as a gay pizza? .... not sure where this one is going.

Who knows, but homosexuals tried to make it sound like they were being discriminated against, etc... when they WEREN'T! You see, there are possibly not homosexual CAKES either! But having to change all, etc?

We are "discriminated" against ******ALL THE TIME****** We just live with it! If I need new pants, I have a problem. WHY? Because it is at that size that NOBODY wants! TOO large for sears or JC penneys. and TOO small for the big and tall. So I go to sears or JC penney's and try to buy out the store. If I were three sizes smaller, I could go almost anywhere and get almost anything!

HECK, I had a problem and almost died because it is RARE. It is estimated that it happens once for about every 5000 people that have a heart attack! And NOW, I have trouble getting treated because MOST survivors are retired.

I can't even get Lasik! I have astigmatism and am far sighted. I have discussed this in depth with no less than 6 people in the industry, including 2 that do it as a main business, and no less than 3 ophthalmologists.

But someone SUES because ONE company won't give them a wedding cake to order? Someone ELSE SUES because ONE company won't do a photoshoot for them?

As for lawmakers? Some places give them FREE food, and treat them REAL NICE!

Steve
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8997490].message }}
misterme 11 years ago

Originally Posted by David Braybrooke

Is there such a thing as a gay pizza?

I always thought you couldn't make a gay pizza, it had to be born gay.
- [ 2 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9014566].message }}

TLTheLiberator

11 years ago

I saw that last week and it gave me a chuckle.

Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8997314].message }}

SteveJohnson

11 years ago

I've never understood this...

A privately-owned establishment is not public. If some business decides to allow smoking and you don't like it, don't go there.

[ 5 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8998097].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

I've never understood this...

A privately-owned establishment is not public. If some business decides to allow smoking and you don't like it, don't go there.

But they are open to the public.
I don't like it being a law (naturally), and think it should be up to the business owner.

Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8998203].message }}

TLTheLiberator

11 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

I've never understood this...

A privately-owned establishment is not public. If some business decides to allow smoking and you don't like it, don't go there.

As long as a business or any entity is not receiving any type of tax breaks, incentives etc. they can do whatever they like in conducting their business.

But... (wait for it)

Once they accept "public" tax breaks etc., they are "public" and must follow the general rules of the society.

You can't have your cake and eat it too on this issue.

If an entity wants its absolute freedom it must pay for it by not accepting tax breaks etc.

And...

Please do not ask me list any tax breaks etc. that all "public" businesses are entitled to.

Once again, you can not have your cake and eat it too on this issue.

I've never understood this...

...how some folks can't wrap their head around this position which seems to be pretty straight forward.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8999683].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

As long as a business or any entity is not receiving any type of tax breaks, incentives etc. they can do whatever they like in conducting their business.

But... (wait for it)

Once they accept "public" tax breaks etc., they are "public" and must follow the general rules of the society.

You have got it BACKWARDS! A "tax break" is NOT a subsidy or payment. It is a reduction in expenses because the money goes somewhere ELSE. To hear YOU talk, unless they take every PENNY of your money, you are beholden to them! OK, if taking every penny makes you not beholden to them, let them not pay that money to others, because that is a forced contribution that they should NOT force you to make! If they are to claim that a tax BREAK(or refund) is the same as a non payment, then make it a non payment. Bring back INCOME TAX! We do NOT have income tax, we have a WAGE TAX! So even money that you don't owe is taken and THEY get the time value and float! They ALSO get credit from the less observant people for PAYING money, etc...

You can't have your cake and eat it too on this issue.

WHY NOT? YOU WANT IT!

If an entity wants its absolute freedom it must pay for it by not accepting tax breaks etc.

The US government does NOT offer absolute freedom to ANYONE! HECK, except in certain circumstances(and apparently NON of them apply to me), making over a certain amount of money means you must REPORT all related transactions, PAY, and possibly end up in jail! Some freedom!

And DON'T tell me about tax free bonds, etc.... They are given special privileges, often pay less, etc... so you STILL pay.

Please do not ask me list any tax breaks etc. that all "public" businesses are entitled to.

What's the matter? You're having trouble "wrapping your head around it"? Does anyone have one of those sheet metal benders that they canlet TL borrow?

Once again, you can not have your cake and eat it too on this issue.

Why didn't those people go to YOU for the cake?

...how some folks can't wrap their head around this position which seems to be pretty straight forward.

Have you EVER seen the volumes covering the law? I did LONG ago. They are HUGE! You say it is straight forward. It ISN'T! NOBODY knows all the law. And that is just the "legitimate" stuff. Eventually someone argues something on the periphery, or WAY out in left field and THAT then gets included! If things were as straight forward as you claim, congress wouldn't meet so often to complicate it MORE, and tere would be fewer court rooms.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8999991].message }}

TLTheLiberator

11 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

You have got it BACKWARDS! A "tax break" is NOT a subsidy or payment. It is a reduction in expenses because the money goes somewhere ELSE. To hear YOU talk, unless they take every PENNY of your money, you are beholden to them! OK, if taking every penny makes you not beholden to them, let them not pay that money to others, because that is a forced contribution that they should NOT force you to make! If they are to claim that a tax BREAK(or refund) is the same as a non payment, then make it a non payment. Bring back INCOME TAX! We do NOT have income tax, we have a WAGE TAX! So even money that you don't owe is taken and THEY get the time value and float! They ALSO get credit from the less observant people for PAYING money, etc...

WHY NOT? YOU WANT IT!

The US government does NOT offer absolute freedom to ANYONE! HECK, except in certain circumstances(and apparently NON of them apply to me), making over a certain amount of money means you must REPORT all related transactions, PAY, and possibly end up in jail! Some freedom!

And DON'T tell me about tax free bonds, etc.... They are given special privileges, often pay less, etc... so you STILL pay.

What's the matter? You're having trouble "wrapping your head around it"? Does anyone have one of those sheet metal benders that they canlet TL borrow?

Why didn't those people go to YOU for the cake?

Have you EVER seen the volumes covering the law? I did LONG ago. They are HUGE! You say it is straight forward. It ISN'T! NOBODY knows all the law. And that is just the "legitimate" stuff. Eventually someone argues something on the periphery, or WAY out in left field and THAT then gets included! If things were as straight forward as you claim, congress wouldn't meet so often to complicate it MORE, and tere would be fewer court rooms.

Steve

Thanks for your seminar on business taxes etc.

You probably still think businesses that discriminate should get those breaks don't you?

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9000154].message }}

SteveJohnson 11 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Thanks for your seminar on business taxes etc.

You probably still think businesses that discriminate should get those breaks don't you?

Yessiree jack.
- [ 3 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9000611].message }}
- TLTheLiberator 11 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by SteveJohnson
  
  Yessiree jack.
  
  Maybe you're just talking about the LBGTQA community and not the now legally protected classes of people in America such as...
  
  - Ethnicity
  - Race
  - Religion
  - National Origin
  - Sex
  - Age
  
  ... and a few more.
  
  The question of whether the LBGTQA community will be legally included with the other protected classes has still not been decided in this country.
  
  BTW... (the Q&A means queer/asexual)
  
  I think you're only talking about the LBGTQA's and not the legally protected classes.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9000727].message }}

TLTheLiberator

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

I think the government has no business whatsoever telling people to whom they can or cannot sell.

Do you think the government is omniscient? Do you think it owns everything?

Of course not but according to the preamble of the constitution we have instituted a govt to help us govern ourselves etc.

The LBGTQA community is not an legally protected group of people yet but...

If you want to run a business that says any of the people on the protected list can't patronize your business then you shouldn't get any tax breaks - period.

You want to be able to take their money and then turn them away?

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9000768].message }}

Kay King 11 years ago

In the first place - this particular proposed bill was not about what the hype described it as.

In the second place - it was vetoed so it doesn't exist.

Arguing for the sake of being right just goes round and round - no matter which side you are arguing.
- Thanks
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
what it is instead of what you think it should be.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9000785].message }}

TLTheLiberator

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

Why? Are those people somehow less equal than others? Why do you believe in selective discrimination? Why do you condone discrimination against people acting on religious principles?

Maybe we're talking about two different issues.

I'm not talking about the Arizona bill.

Since a lot of people around here are saying businesses should be able to serve whomever they like etc., ...

I'm talking about businesses getting tax dollars and then discriminating against any of the legally protected classes.

Are you for it or not?

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9000824].message }}

TimPhelan

11 years ago

I think they are protected under the 14th amendment under the Equal Protections clause, the US Supreme Court just has not extended suspect-class status to sexual orientation yet.

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

The LBGTQA community is not an legally protected group of people yet but...

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9000949].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

I think they are protected under the 14th amendment under the Equal Protections clause, the US Supreme Court just has not extended suspect-class status to sexual orientation yet.

Freedom to exercise your religion is already protected in the 1st Amendment.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9000987].message }}

TimPhelan

11 years ago

Yep. I think we already went down this road.

Originally Posted by ThomM

Freedom to exercise your religion is already protected in the 1st Amendment.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9000991].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Yep. I think we already went down this road.

Yep. And that thread eventually got all locked up.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9001056].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

So Tim, if it's discriminating (to you) for a person of faith to not participate in an event that goes against their religious beliefs.
Isn't this discrimination also?
Stylist to anti-gay marriage governor: No haircut for you - U.S. News

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9001112].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

So Tim, if it's discriminating (to you) for a person of faith to not participate in an event that goes against their religious beliefs.
Isn't this discrimination also?
Stylist to anti-gay marriage governor: No haircut for you - U.S. News

GOOD POINT! *****AND***** Mr. Sulu ALSO told everyone to boycott the superbowl, etc...

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9001195].message }}

Kay King

11 years ago

Would you require a Jewish deli to serve pork barbecue? If requested, is a Jewish catering company obligated to provide ham sandwiches?

Either everyone has religious freedom - or no one does.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9062234].message }}

Paul Myers

11 years ago

Kay,

Would you require a Jewish deli to serve pork barbecue? If requested, is a Jewish catering company obligated to provide ham sandwiches?

Either everyone has religious freedom - or no one does.

Ummm... You're usually much more rigorous than that.

The original situation that inspired the thread was about someone refusing to sell an item that was standard on their menu because of the customers' orientation. There was no issue of forcing the baker to change their offerings.

If you don't sell ham sandwiches to anyone at all, how is it discrimination when you don't sell them to [X group]?

Also, there seems to be some confusion about the legitimate limits of religious freedom. To take the extreme example: There are quite a few Mayans left in this world, and their religion once called for human sacrifice. Do we defend their right to kill if they choose to go back to the old ways?

Most of us wouldn't. So, the question becomes where do we draw the line, not whether the line exists.

Or, for a more mainstream example, how many of us would push for a literal acceptance of some of the practices prescribed or allowed based on Leviticus?

Not many, I suspect.

Paul

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9062394].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Kay,Ummm... You're usually much more rigorous than that.

The original situation that inspired the thread was about someone refusing to sell an item that was standard on their menu because of the customers' orientation. There was no issue of forcing the baker to change their offerings.

If you don't sell ham sandwiches to anyone at all, how is it discrimination when you don't sell them to [X group]?

Also, there seems to be some confusion about the legitimate limits of religious freedom. To take the extreme example: There are quite a few Mayans left in this world, and their religion once called for human sacrifice. Do we defend their right to kill if they choose to go back to the old ways?

Most of us wouldn't. So, the question becomes where do we draw the line, not whether the line exists.

Or, for a more mainstream example, how many of us would push for a literal acceptance of some of the practices prescribed or allowed based on Leviticus?

Not many, I suspect.

Paul

I think most of this conversation has been about where to draw the line. And neither side seems to agree.

No one would argue your Leviticus argument in this day and age (hopefully

) but that really isn't the same as the question of a religious mans "right" not to serve a cake in a ceremony HE deems against his religion, even while others question HIS belief based on THEIR beliefs.

Since there really isn't an answer that would satisfy all sides you're forced to comply with either a majority...or with the side with the squeakiest wheel.

On a side note, I asked my niece - who is gay and is getting married to her girlfriend soon - what she thought of this situation. Her response, basically, was that she'd simply look for another baker. She also said it didn't offend her because in her view, he wasn't being discriminatory, since he offered to sell them anything else. I found that interesting.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9062419].message }}

Paul Myers

11 years ago

Mike,

Since there really isn't an answer that would satisfy all sides you're forced to comply with either a majority...or with the side with the squeakiest wheel.

Not in this country you're not.

That is one of the reasons the founders chose to establish a republic with a bicameral congress, rather than a straight democracy. I believe the phrase "tyranny of the majority" was common around that time.

Paul

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9062429].message }}

Paul Myers

11 years ago

Mike,

Forgot this part...

that really isn't the same as the question of a religious mans "right" not to serve a cake in a ceremony HE deems against his religion

I don't recall any comment about him being required to serve the cake. Merely to bake it and (possibly) deliver it. There was nothing in any of the stories I saw that suggested anyone believed he should be required to participate in the ceremony directly.

I would absolutely oppose any such attempt.

Paul

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9062438].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Mike,Not in this country you're not.

That is one of the reasons the founders chose to establish a republic with a bicameral congress, rather than a straight democracy. I believe the phrase "tyranny of the majority" was common around that time.

Paul

Well, now you're talking about what's SUPPOSED to be vs. what is reality

People acquiesce to public pressure all the time - they even write laws because of it. Even if the law is questionable.

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Mike,

Forgot this part...I don't recall any comment about him being required to serve the cake. Merely to bake it and (possibly) deliver it. There was nothing in any of the stories I saw that suggested anyone believed he should be required to participate in the ceremony directly.

I would absolutely oppose any such attempt.

Paul

I misspoke. Either way, the baker still felt he couldn't.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9062452].message }}

Paul Myers 11 years ago

Mike,

People acquiesce to public pressure all the time - they even write laws because of it. Even if the law is questionable.

True. Those people have no right to do so in the name of American tradition or Constitutional purity, though. Unlike the baker in the story, those people are moral cowards.

Not feeling a lot of love for such folk.

Paul
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9062461].message }}

Midnight Oil

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

I don't recall any comment about him being required to serve the cake. Merely to bake it and (possibly) deliver it. There was nothing in any of the stories I saw that suggested anyone believed he should be required to participate in the ceremony directly.

Not really looking to get back into the debate, but did want to point out that many feel that baking the cake is participating in the event. In any restaurant catering event, if I'm only cooking the food at the restaurant and not actually in attendance to serve onsite, I'm still participating in the event.

Also, it goes beyond just the three, I think, different bakeries:

New Mexico Supreme Court: Wedding Photographer May Not Decline Business from Same-Sex Couple's Commitment Ceremony » Publications » The Federalist Society

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9062483].message }}

Paul Myers

11 years ago

In any restaurant catering event, if I'm only cooking the food at the restaurant and not actually in attendance to serve onsite, I'm still participating in the event.

Stretching a definition that far is not a sensible way to make public policy. It's a justification for protesting something you don't like.

There's nothing wrong with that, but we needn't assassinate the language in the process.

Paul

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9062490].message }}

Midnight Oil

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Stretching a definition that far is not a sensible way to make public policy. It's a justification for protesting something you don't like.

There's nothing wrong with that, but we needn't assassinate the language in the process.

Having spent thirty-plus years actually preparing, serving and managing too many events to count, as well as special orders for just about every group under the sun, I'd have to disagree with it stretching the definition of participation. It's just reality.

I think some common sense, understanding and tolerance on all sides must apply or we will be spiraling out of control, trying to bend over backwards to satisfy everyone, which just isn't possible.

Like I said further upstream, I don't believe a gay baker should be forced to bake a cake for a Westboro wedding any more than I believe a straight baker should be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

But if either refused for those people to step in the door, sit at the counter or be served period, then there's a real problem.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9062532].message }}

Paul Myers 11 years ago

Midnight Oil,

I can certainly see where someone who cares about making an event as successful and memorable as possible for a client would think of themselves as participating. If you really CARE about what you do, it's a valid personal perspective, and a commendable one. I just don't think it's an objective use of the word.

Law must be as close to objective as is reasonably possible.

I think some common sense, understanding and tolerance on all sides must apply

While I generally have an issue with the word 'tolerance' in these circumstances, I agree wholeheartedly with the spirit of this comment.

This brings to mind a conversation between Anthony De Mello and one of his students. De Mello scandalized the student by suggesting that there is something even G-d cannot do. When the student asked what this could possibly be, Father De Mello replied, "Please everyone."

Paul
- [ 1 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9062579].message }}
- Midnight Oil 11 years ago
  
  Thank you, Paul.
  
  There's been a great deal of back and forth in this thread, but if there's something that I can leave it with, it would be this:
  
  Whether one is religious or not, there's a definition of sin that applies to everyone. Whether it be an offense against God, a reprehensible act or a serious shortcoming . . . it basically comes down to the worst things about us, the worst things we can do.
  
  I think all of us probably spend far too much time examining the sins of others and not near enough time examining our own.
  
  Seems to me there's always a way something like this can be reasonably and respectfully worked out for both parties. It doesn't always have to be about one side or the other getting the win. It doesn't always have to be about refusal, control and force. But people have to be committed to working together to find that solution.
  
  Nothing strong, worthwhile and lasting will ever be built if a hammer and screw are the only tools in our toolbox.
  
  [ 3 ] Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9062788].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Midnight Oil

Like I said further upstream, I don't believe a gay baker should be forced to bake a cake for a Westboro wedding any more than I believe a straight baker should be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Yet again, no one is being forced to bake anything.

However, if you advertise that you bake wedding cakes, actions have consequences: you need to bake them for anyone who asks.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9064073].message }}

socialentry

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

Yet again, no one is being forced to bake anything.

However, if you advertise that you bake wedding cakes, actions have consequences: you need to bake them for anyone who asks.

But what if Slobodan Milosevic asks for a cake?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9064102].message }}

Paul Myers 11 years ago

But what if Slobodan Milosevic asks for a cake?

Then you're in the wrong line of business. Not many bakers can receive orders from Beyond.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9064242].message }}
- socialentry Banned 11 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Paul Myers
  
  Then you're in the wrong line of business. Not many bakers can receive orders from Beyond.
  
  I would frame it as a USP.
  
  "Special rates for returning customers"
  
  kekekeke
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9064275].message }}

socialentry

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

As long as a business or any entity is not receiving any type of tax breaks, incentives etc. they can do whatever they like in conducting their business.

But... (wait for it)

Once they accept "public" tax breaks etc., they are "public" and must follow the general rules of the society.

You can't have your cake and eat it too on this issue.

If an entity wants its absolute freedom it must pay for it by not accepting tax breaks etc.

And...

Please do not ask me list any tax breaks etc. that all "public" businesses are entitled to.

Once again, you can not have your cake and eat it too on this issue.

I've never understood this...

...how some folks can't wrap their head around this position which seems to be pretty straight forward.

In the DPRK there are no taxes and no discrimination either.
If you were gay and black you were be served, no question asked.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9000092].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Originally Posted by socialentry

In the DPRK there are no taxes and no discrimination either.
If you were gay and black you were be served, no question asked.

OH WHAT A PARADISE! I wonder why so many people try to leave and why they are forbidden to. Places of this sort like to play with language, etc... so let's get a little TASTE of the truth......

"Democratic People's Republic of Korea" redirects here. It is not to be confused with the Republic of Korea (South Korea).
Page semi-protected
Coordinates: 40°00′N 127°00′E
Democratic People's Republic of Korea
Chosŏn Minjujuŭi Inmin Konghwaguk[1]

Flag Emblem
Motto:
(English: "Powerful and Prosperous Nation")
Anthem:
"Aegukka" (transliteration)
(English: "The Patriotic Song")

Capital
and largest city Pyongyang
39°2′N 125°45′E
Official languages Korean
Official scripts Chosŏn'gŭl
Demonym
North Korean Korean
Government Hereditary Juche single-party state [2]
- Eternal President Kim Il-sung
- Eternal WPK General Secretary (Workers' Party of Korea) Kim Jong-il
- Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un[a]
- Chairman of the
Assembly Presidium Kim Yong-nam[b]
- Premier Pak Pong-ju
Legislature Supreme People's Assembly
Establishment
- Liberation 15 August 1945
- Formal declaration 9 September 1948
Area
- Total 120,540 km2 (98th)
46,528 sq mi
- Water (%) 4.87
Population
- 2011 estimate 24,554,000[3] (48th)
- 2011 census 24,052,231[4]
- Density 198.3/km2
513.8/sq mi
GDP (PPP) 2011 estimate
- Total $40 billion[5]
- Per capita $1,800[5]
GDP (nominal) 2011 estimate
- Total $12.4 billion[6]
- Per capita $506[6]
Gini (2007) 31
medium
Currency North Korean won (₩) (KPW)
Time zone Korea Standard Time (UTC+9)
Date format
yy, yyyy년 mm월 dd일
yy, yyyy/mm/dd (CE-1911 / CE)
Drives on the right
Calling code +850
ISO 3166 code KP
Internet TLD .kp
a. ^ Kim Jong-un holds four concurrent positions: First Secretary of the Workers' Party, Chairman of the Central Military Commission, First Chairman of the National Defence Commission and Supreme Commander of the People's Army, serve as the "supreme leader" of the DPRK.
b. ^ Kim Yong-nam is the "head of state for foreign affairs". The position of president (formerly head of state) was written out of the constitution in 1998. Kim Il-sung, who died in 1994, was given the appellation "Eternal President" in its preamble.
You may need rendering support to display the Korean text in this article correctly.
North Korea (About this sound listen), officially the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK; Chosŏn'gŭl: 조선민주주의인민공화국; Chosŏn Minjujuŭi Inmin Konghwaguk), is a country in East Asia, in the northern part of the Korean Peninsula. The capital and largest city is Pyongyang. North Korea shares a land border with China to the north and north-west, along the Amnok (Yalu) and Tumen rivers. A small section of the Tumen River also forms North Korea's short border with Russia to the northeast.[7] The Korean Demilitarized Zone marks the boundary between North Korea and South Korea. The legitimacy of this border is not accepted by either side, as both states claim to be the legitimate government of the entire peninsula.

BTW Kim. We all feel sorry for the fate of your uncle that you murdered!

North Korean diplomat: Kim Jong-un's executed uncle committed 'tremendous crimes' | Fox News

Yeah, it is a pity his uncle couldn't enjoy the paradise. BTW NK is NOT unique! Cuba, China, Russia, etc.... ended up the same. They started by saying that the PEOPLE would have a REPUBLIC that would be GOOD for the WORKERS, and have a lot of FREEDOM!

It ALL ended up EXACTLY as they said! They simply redefined all the words!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9000158].message }}

KimW

11 years ago

Back when America still existed a business owner had the right to serve or not serve whoever they wanted.

There should be only two possible situations here.

One party gets their feelings hurt and they have to do business elsewhere.

The business owner gets to run their business the way they choose,for better or worse, and they lose some potential profit.

[ 5 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Read A Post.
Subscribe to a Newsletter
KimWinfrey.Com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8998472].message }}

LarryC

11 years ago

Originally Posted by KimW

Back when America still existed a business owner had the right to serve or not serve whoever they wanted.

There are only two possible situations here.

One party gets their feelings hurt and they have to do business elsewhere.

The business owner gets to run their business the way they choose,for better or worse, and they lose some potential profit.

In theory, I like the idea that businesses can make their own policies. But do we really want to go back to the 1950s when restaurants in the South were segregated? Or even further back:

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8998479].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by LarryC

In theory, I like the idea that businesses can make their own policies. But do we really want to go back to the 1950s when restaurants in the South were segregated? Or even further back:

Do you really think we would go backwards?
I often wonder if the people who suggest that aren't the same people who would do that.
It's like saying if we didn't have seatbelt laws everyone would stop wearing their seatbelts and die in horrible car crashes.

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8998491].message }}

KimW

11 years ago

Originally Posted by LarryC

In theory, I like the idea that businesses can make their own policies. But do we really want to go back to the 1950s when restaurants in the South were segregated? Or even further back:

This is not the same world as before Larry.

That is like saying our brains would devolve .

Originally Posted by ThomM

Do you really think we would go backwards?
I often wonder if the people who suggest that aren't the same people who would do that.
It's like saying if we didn't have seatbelt laws everyone would stop wearing their seatbelts and die in horrible car crashes.

Actually,I have been in 2 horrific vwhicle crashes in my life that if I had been wearing my seatbelt I would be dead.
As in almost everything else, I like to be able to make my own choice.

[ 2 ] Thanks
4 replies

Signature

Read A Post.
Subscribe to a Newsletter
KimWinfrey.Com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8998531].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by KimW

This is not the same world as before Larry.

That is like saying our brains would devolve .

Actually,I have been in 2 horrific vwhicle crashes in my life that if I had been wearing my seatbelt I would be dead.
As in almost everything else, I like to be able to make my own choice.

I've been in a few myself Kim where wearing a seatbelt would of had a bad ending. On the other hand I've been in a few where it either saved my life or at least prevented injury.
I look at them like I do motorcycle helmets, they should be a choice and not a law.
I don't like wearing a helmet, but I do.
Not because I'm afraid of getting in an accident, but to protect my head from suicidal June Bugs and stuff flying off of car tires and lawn mowers.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8998553].message }}

KimW

11 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

I've been in a few myself Kim where wearing a seatbelt would of had a bad ending. On the other hand I've been in a few where it either saved my life or at least prevented injury.
I look at them like I do motorcycle helmets, they should be a choice and not a law.
I don't like wearing a helmet, but I do.
Not because I'm afraid of getting in an accident, but to protect my head from suicidal June Bugs and stuff flying off of car tires and lawn mowers.

Thom
I agree .That was the point I was trying to make.
I wear a seatbelt probably 99% of the time,but there have been a few times where I just didn't feel right about it so I didn't.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Read A Post.
Subscribe to a Newsletter
KimWinfrey.Com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8998589].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by KimW

Thom
I agree .That was the point I was trying to make.
I wear a seatbelt probably 99% of the time,but there have been a few times where I just didn't feel right about it so I didn't.

I started wearing my seatbelt when they added the shoulder strap.
The old ones with just a lap strap where scary

There are times I don't wear mine, but for normal everyday driving I almost always do.
Same with my motorcycle helmet. Just last summer I rode by a guy mowing his lawn and got hit in the side of the head with something his mower kicked up. If I didn't have on the helmet it would of done some serious damage. But when I go play horseshoes on Mondays and for other short trips, I'd just as soon leave the helmet home.

Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8998759].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

11 years ago

Originally Posted by KimW

Actually,I have been in 2 horrific vwhicle crashes in my life that if I had been wearing my seatbelt I would be dead.
As in almost everything else, I like to be able to make my own choice.

Originally Posted by ThomM

I've been in a few myself Kim where wearing a seatbelt would of had a bad ending. On the other hand I've been in a few where it either saved my life or at least prevented injury.
I look at them like I do motorcycle helmets, they should be a choice and not a law.
I don't like wearing a helmet, but I do.
Not because I'm afraid of getting in an accident, but to protect my head from suicidal June Bugs and stuff flying off of car tires and lawn mowers.

Remind me to never get in a car with you two

33 years behind a wheel and no accidents. Never as a passenger either.

Just lucky I guess...

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8999008].message }}

ThomM 11 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio

Remind me to never get in a car with you two

33 years behind a wheel and no accidents. Never as a passenger either.

Just lucky I guess...

Don't worry Mike it's been 30 years since I drove like a mad man.
I can't remember the last time I got a speeding ticket in a car.
- Thanks
Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8999038].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Originally Posted by KimW

Actually,I have been in 2 horrific vwhicle crashes in my life that if I had been wearing my seatbelt I would be dead.
As in almost everything else, I like to be able to make my own choice.

JOIN THE CLUB! I was in only ONE crash, but I got a minor leg fracture. People have DIED by simply wearing seatbelts. That is ONE reason why seatbelts now have a shoulder restraint as well. I had the crash in the early 70s when most vehicles had ONLY the belt. The other person, in the VW BUG had the steering wheel cause severe internal bleeding!

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8998613].message }}

LarryC

11 years ago

Originally Posted by KimW

This is not the same world as before Larry.

That is like saying our brains would devolve .

Actually,I have been in 2 horrific vwhicle crashes in my life that if I had been wearing my seatbelt I would be dead.
As in almost everything else, I like to be able to make my own choice.

It's not exactly the same, but apparently in many places it hasn't changed all that much. The law in Arizona would make it legal for businesses to discriminate against gays as an expression of their religious freedom. But why stop there? Some people interpret religion in such a way that would motivate them to prohibit people of certain races or religions from entering their store or restaurant. For example, people who follow Christian Identity might have a sign saying "We Only Serve White Christians."

My instincts are libertarian and I don't like most laws -including seat belt laws for example. But I can also see that living in a complex, multicultural society such as this one requires certain compromises. Allowing public places to openly discriminate could make the world an even more hostile place than it already is.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8998683].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Originally Posted by LarryC

It's not exactly the same, but apparently in many places it hasn't changed all that much. The law in Arizona would make it legal for businesses to discriminate against gays as an expression of their religious freedom. But why stop there? Some people interpret religion in such a way that would motivate them to prohibit people of certain races or religions from entering their store or restaurant. For example, people who follow Christian Identity might have a sign saying "We Only Serve White Christians."

My instincts are libertarian and I don't like most laws -including seat belt laws for example. But I can also see that living in a complex, multicultural society such as this one requires certain compromises. Allowing public places to openly discriminate could make the world an even more hostile place than it already is.

TRUE STORY! I went to a howard johnsons that generally only gave FREE ALL YOU CAN EAT BREAKFAST to CHRISTIANS! It wasn't even BUFFET! Of course MOST went through the front door and PAID for what they got. HEY, THEY got the same service!

It was a group that took over one of the rooms they had, and the group paid for everything.

BTW the NEW TESTAMENT SPECIFICALLY speaks AGAINST antisemitism. I don't remember EVER seeing a section that was pro white or anti black. The CLOSEST it comes to that is saying that JEW or GENTILE(NON JEW) should not be preferred or discriminated against.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8998712].message }}

Midnight Oil 11 years ago

Originally Posted by KimW

This is not the same world as before Larry.

An excellent point and something that I keep coming back to.

We live in a world now where anything can be ordered online. Even in a very small town, even in the unlikely event there isn't another local baker/grocery store/person who will create their custom cake, bakeries all across the country can, and do, ship and/or deliver their regular goods and specialty items (wedding cakes included). And how hard is it to just order what you need to customize your cake?

Amazon.com: Porcelain Romance Two Grooms Men Gay...
- [ 1 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9013105].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Originally Posted by LarryC

In theory, I like the idea that businesses can make their own policies. But do we really want to go back to the 1950s when restaurants in the South were segregated? Or even further back:

What do you mean FURTHER back? I was in a hotel around 2011, and heard the MANAGER and a CUSTOMER speaking about how they HATED this family! The interesting thing is that the manager and customer were BOTH, and the openly declared this, they were BOTH of irish descent. Anyway, YEP! Apparently MANY there hated this irish family claiming that irish were rude and obnoxious. And Irish are NOT a protected class. Italian and german aren't either, though THEY have been discriminated against.

I didn't see th bad behavior, but c'st la vie. BTW I am of irish descent also, and the people I mentioned liked me. But they, and I, weren't born in ireland and apparently weren't born to anyone born in ireland. I am about 3rd - 5th generation american. So the closest I have is being born to someone that was born to someone that was born to someone in ireland.

But HEY, that is supposedly one reason a lot of Irish people went into government and police.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8998603].message }}

Joe Stewart

11 years ago

Originally Posted by LarryC

In theory, I like the idea that businesses can make their own policies. But do we really want to go back to the 1950s when restaurants in the South were segregated? Or even further back:

"And the sign said, long haired freaky people, need not apply...
so I tucked my hair up under my hat, and I went in to ask him why...

He said you look like a fine upstanding young man, I think you'll do...
so I took off my hat and said imagine that, huh, me, workin' for you..."

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

My New "Share All" Blog Is Coming Soon! Online & Offline Marketing, More!

http://www.UnCENTSored.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9004403].message }}

Joe Mobley 11 years ago

Originally Posted by KimW

Back when America still existed...

Hey, I see what you did! I see what you did.

...

...

And you're right. :rolleyes:

Joe Mobley
- [ 2 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

.
Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9001336].message }}
- Kay King 11 years ago
  
  Now you're some type of thread purist?
  
  Yes - because this is Monday. Monday is purist....Tuesday is laundry...
  
  Well....makes as much sense as half the crap in this thread.....:rolleyes:
  
  [ 6 ] Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
  ***
  One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
  what it is instead of what you think it should be.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9001656].message }}

lilc800

11 years ago

First off if you're a business owner why would care who your customer who is paying you money sleeps with at night?

MONEY IS MONEY I don't care who gives it to me. White, black, asian, gay, straight. I could care less.

It's seriously just childish in sense, Do you think Donald Trump ever said "I'm not going to sale you this building because you're gay" ?... I doubt it.

I realize people have opinions,rights etc... But as a business owner all you should care about is your bottom line, Especially in America!

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8998552].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Originally Posted by lilc800

First off if you're a business owner why would care who your customer who is paying you money sleeps with at night?

THAT ISN'T IT AT ALL!!!!!!

MONEY IS MONEY I don't care who gives it to me. White, black, asian, gay, straight. I could care less.

Well, SOME people don't want to cheat people! I HAVE turned down work! I turned down a deal that could have made me a multimillionare! WHY? Because could have lost my shirt! I turned down helping one guy. WHY? Because I needed the computer for OTHER jobs! I turned down a number of jobs. WHY? Because they weren't laid out well enough, didn't match my skill set, etc.... HECK, I was once asked by many to sell something before I felt it was ready. I pulled it back and gave out refunds. For a while, I was making about $600 an hour! WHY? They even bought things under false pretenses, and I felt I couldn't do right by them. It's a shame.

It's seriously just childish in sense, Do you think Donald Trump ever said "I'm not going to sale you this building because you're gay" ?... I doubt it.

I realize people have opinions,rights etc... But as a business owner all you should care about is your bottom line, Especially in America!

You CAN'T care ONLY about the bottom line! SUPPOSE, Just SUPPOSE, that Donald Trump sold to ANYONE! OK, he sells to a family lawyer(NO PROBLEM), DISNEY(NO PROBLEM), Maybe the main office for a church denomination(NO PROBLEM), and THEN sells to a "gentlemens club", complete with signage. OK, he could be sued by his other tenants(for breach of contract), and the CITY(for violating city ordinances and zoning)!

There is discrimination EVERYWHERE! Heck, I had a coworker, from china ironically, that went to *********APPLE******** to buy an APPLE IPAD!!!!!!!

He COULDN'T! WHY? Because the carrier HE dealt with DISCRIMINATED, and wouldn't let another device on their network. NO PROBLEM, APPLE makes an iPAD that WILL work on their network, so you figure he could simply put down a deposit, RIGHT? *****WRONG*****! They used JUST IN TIME ordering, and EXPECTED to run out, and saved them for the STORE. NO DEPOSITS! So the store told him he could wait every day until it arrived AND buy it on his acquiring it. ALAS, THEY wouldn't help, and HE had to work, so he ended up waiting WEEKS for it!

Had he wanted the far less popular AT&T one, or been unemployed, or just had stupid luck, he could have just bought it!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8998657].message }}

yukon

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

The intent of the law in Arizona was to make sure people do not have to go against their religious convictions. Do you think a Jewish-owned deli should have to cater pork barbecue to a Baptist wedding? Should an atheist-owned print shop be forced to print religious tracts for fundamentalists? .

Exactly this.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8998787].message }}

KimW

11 years ago

Great. Cut out all tax breaks.
We need less government interference,not more.

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Read A Post.
Subscribe to a Newsletter
KimWinfrey.Com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8999928].message }}

seasoned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by KimW

Great. Cut out all tax breaks.
We need less government interference,not more.

NO WONDER why they raise the tax rate so high! THAT way they can give you even a penny back that may now mean you can survive another day, and claim they got you because they gave you a "subsidy". LUDICROUS! By THAT measure, they are subsidizing EVERYONE, including the american indians and amish. A payment should be EXTRA money you get! As I said, if a robber steals $10,000 from me, and gives me $9,000 back I should NOT be grateful! He didn't give me a PENNY! He merely stole $1,000. HECK, I once had something like $13,000 stolen. I had another $200K+ in credit they could steal. I had another $2000+ in commodities they could steal. I had a few thousand in OTHER things they could steal. Should I consider their theft of $13,000 a payment of ~$205K? NOPE!

HECK, I WISH they tried to steal all my furniture. They stole from no less than 12 places in the apartment that day, and stole small and easy to carry things that were of a certain type, VCR, JEWELRY, COINS,CREDIT CARDS. They likely even timed each entry. They wanted to get as much as they could as quickly as they could, and LEAVE. Had they tried to take my coffee table, they would probably have been caught.

TL acts like he thinks he is SO smart. Has he considered what every OTHER government has done in such cases? This government IS morphing into them. This government has tried things that 30 years ago were UNHEARD OF! OH, people knew they happened everywhere else, but HERE? NO WAY! Well, things are changing a LOT now. When TL gets what he wants, he is going to be sorry he wanted any of it.

Steve
- [ 1 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8999998].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

The intent of the law in Arizona was to make sure people do not have to go against their religious convictions. ... No one should be bound by law to go against their religious beliefs. The right to freely practice religion is protected by the Bill of Rights.

There is no "right" to do business, however. Business and religion do not mix well at all. People who truly want to hold fast to all their religious convictions won't be able to do business with the public (unless they practice a very liberal religion).

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9000672].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

Yes, there is a right to do business. What in the hell is wrong with you? How did you manage to become so woefully misinformed?

There is no constitutionally protected "right" to do business. That's why the government is able to make laws about how legitimate businesses are supposed to be run.

Your empty ad hominem doesn't fool any supposedly intelligent human being.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9000851].message }}

Kay King 11 years ago

I'm not talking about the Arizona bill.

Read the title of the thread.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
what it is instead of what you think it should be.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9000896].message }}
- TLTheLiberator 11 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Kay King
  
  Read the title of the thread.
  
  Now you're some type of thread purist?
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9000973].message }}

KimW

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

There is no constitutionally protected "right" to do business. That's why the government is able to make laws about how legitimate businesses are supposed to be run.

Your empty ad hominem doesn't fool any supposedly intelligent human being.

Well, In my opinion the whole constitution is a right to do business.

The government is able to make laws about how legitimate businesses are supposed to be run only because the sheeple are content to let the government rule every aspect of their lives so they can continue to walk around in a mindless daze.

Quit asking and/or expecting the government to make every decision for yourself.

As far as discrimination as a whole I have found that the people that claim to be against discrimination are the ones that do it the most.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Read A Post.
Subscribe to a Newsletter
KimWinfrey.Com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9001132].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic

11 years ago

Originally Posted by KimW

Well, In my opinion the whole constitution is a right to do business.

The government is able to make laws about how legitimate businesses are supposed to be run only because the sheeple are content to let the government rule every aspect of their lives so they can continue to walk around in a mindless daze.

So it follows that you believe that people should be able to sell anything to anyone, no matter how fraudulent or dangerous.

Thank goodness you aren't in charge of anything.

Quit asking and/or expecting the government to make every decision for yourself.

I have never done either one of these things. Nor would I want to.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9001191].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

So it follows that you believe that people should be able to sell anything to anyone, no matter how fraudulent or dangerous.

That doesn't follow AT ALL!

I have never done either one of these things. Nor would I want to.

Actually, you ARE asking that HERE!

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9001205].message }}

KimW

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

So it follows that you believe that people should be able to sell anything to anyone, no matter how fraudulent or dangerous.

Thank goodness you aren't in charge of anything.

I have never done either one of these things. Nor would I want to.

Originally Posted by seasoned

That doesn't follow AT ALL!

Actually, you ARE asking that HERE!

Steve

You are absolutely right Steve, he made no sense at all. Sometimes I am amazed at how people can pull things like that out of thin air.

And you are also right that it seems that is what he is asking here. :rolleyes:

Thanks

Signature

Read A Post.
Subscribe to a Newsletter
KimWinfrey.Com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9001252].message }}

Joe Mobley 11 years ago

Truly a man with his eyes wide open.

Originally Posted by KimW

As far as discrimination as a whole I have found that the people that claim to be against discrimination are the ones that do it the most.

Joe Mobley
- [ 4 ] Thanks
Signature

.
Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9001321].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

There is no "right" to do business, however. Business and religion do not mix well at all. People who truly want to hold fast to all their religious convictions won't be able to do business with the public (unless they practice a very liberal religion).

It said AMONG THEM LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

A society can NOT exist without business unless ll have full resources, and are allowed to hunt, etc....

SO, do YOU want to start tearing down perhaps a few hundred billion dollars worth of property, and get everyone guns? I mean what do you do for food? What will new people do for shelter, etc? Have you SEEN places like venezuela?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/21/wo...anted=all&_r=0

Well, I guess we don't have a right to even MOVE, since THAT isn't specifically listed.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9001180].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic

11 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

It said AMONG THEM LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

You realize that I referred to the Constitution and not the Declaration of Independence, right?

You and Kim are growing sillier by the post in this thread.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9001827].message }}

KimW

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

You realize that I referred to the Constitution and not the Declaration of Independence, right?

You and Kim are growing sillier by the post in this thread.

I'm only responsible for what I say, not for what you understand.:rolleyes:

[ 5 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Read A Post.
Subscribe to a Newsletter
KimWinfrey.Com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9001919].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic 11 years ago

Originally Posted by KimW

I'm only responsible for what I say, not for what you understand.:rolleyes:

Of course. I would never try to hold you responsible for being so silly.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9001932].message }}

seasoned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

You realize that I referred to the Constitution and not the Declaration of Independence, right?

SO WHAT? It states the PURPOSE, and that is what I was discussing.

You and Kim are growing sillier by the post in this thread.

THANKS! Coming from YOU, that is a COMPLIMENT! And tims thanks to the post amplifies it all the more! Thanks TIM! YOU 2 ARE silly ALSO!

Steve
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9001935].message }}

KimW

11 years ago

That is not what this thread was about at all.

Thanks

Signature

Read A Post.
Subscribe to a Newsletter
KimWinfrey.Com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9000828].message }}

David Maschke

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Joe Mobley

Short article... but you got'ta love it.

Arizona Pizzeria Refuses to Serve Legislators Over Anti-Gay Law | TIME.com

Joe Mobley

That's similar to what I went thru in high school. Well, almost. Girls refused to go out on dates with me because I was ugly and stupid

That's not very tolerant, is it?

Thanks

Signature

I

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9001661].message }}

KimW

11 years ago

Yeah, got to say Tim surprised me there...ha ha.
In the end its all good.
I'll sleep well and hopefully so will everyone else.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Read A Post.
Subscribe to a Newsletter
KimWinfrey.Com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9001953].message }}

Dennis Gaskill

11 years ago

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9002302].message }}

SteveJohnson

11 years ago

Something that surprises me is that people really think that beliefs and general morals can be legislated. You'll never stop haters from hating no matter how many laws you pass. Passing a law isn't going to make people who believe homosexuality is immoral magically change their belief. You may be able to force someone to act they way you think they ought to, but it doesn't change their mind.

You people can try and force the cake baker to bake a cake for a gay marriage event, but you gotta wonder what's going to be in the cake...I don't think I'd eat any of it.

But you know what? You can't force me to provide service to someone I don't want to provide service to, no matter how many laws you pass. I will discriminate all I want to, and there's nothing you can do about it, because you'll never know the real reason why I'm refusing.

If the cake baker had lied and said, "Sorry, we can't, we're so totally booked up we couldn't possibly get it done," that would have been that. Instead, they told the truth, and were punished for what they believe.

You think they changed their mind?

But some of you who agree with this type of thing can pat yourselves on the back because the baker closed their business rather than be forced into doing something they didn't believe in. "Serves them right, they shouldn't believe homosexuality is wrong. We showed them!"

You sure did.

[ 7 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9004766].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic

11 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

Something that surprises me is that people really think that beliefs and general morals can be legislated. You'll never stop haters from hating no matter how many laws you pass. Passing a law isn't going to make people who believe homosexuality is immoral magically change their belief. You may be able to force someone to act they way you think they ought to, but it doesn't change their mind.

...

But you know what? You can't force me to provide service to someone I don't want to provide service to, no matter how many laws you pass.

In the military, they say, "We can't make you follow this order, but we can make you wish you had!" Right or wrong, laws are supposed to work in pretty much the same way.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9009892].message }}

socialentry Banned 11 years ago

Will America become a crusader for homos? :confused:

Stay tuned.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9009939].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

In the military, they say, "We can't make you follow this order, but we can make you wish you had!" Right or wrong, laws are supposed to work in pretty much the same way.

Actually, laws are NOT supposed to control for the sake of control, but just to make sure no one area gets too much control, etc...

And EVEN if they worked the way you claimed, the VERY FIRST law, working that way, would prevent the REST!

AGAIN, it does NOT say that you MUST be religious! It doesn't say you can't be ANTI RELIGIOUS. It simply says that the government can NOT support or deny a particular belief or prohibit its practice. And there is ****NO**** statement that it STOPS at a businesses doorstep! Back then, MANY had their OWN business. Their business WAS their life. HECK, EVENTUALLY a lot of towns had a kind of townhome with the lower level being a store, and the upper level where they lived.

GEE, I think that is pretty clear! The pilgrims came here when the Bible was a virtual ******SECRET******! It was PROHIBITED for a lay person to know it or possess such a bible! It was forbidden for such a bible to even EXIST! HERE is the bible they found after searching FAR AND WIDE at the cost of many of their LIVES: Geneva Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia When the COLONISTS came here, the government THEY were from forced support of the ANGLICAN church! THAT bible didn't exist until 51 years AFTER the one I just linked to! based on the NEW testament, which was actually finished FIRST, in all cases, the LUTERAN bible came out only 23 years before the geneva bible! Outside of that, to get a bible, you pretty much had to be given it and know greek(original new) and hebrew(original old), or latin(Catholic church version).

The pilgrims and colonists were PRO religion, but did NOT like the way religion was handled. They came up with a plan that supported ALL!!!!!

OH, and general welfare IS, like it or not, ENUMERATED!

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Borrowing credit is later LIMITED in the constitution! So the US is now in violation of THAT!

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9010010].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

So Tim, if it's discriminating (to you) for a person of faith to not participate in an event that goes against their religious beliefs.
Isn't this discrimination also?
Stylist to anti-gay marriage governor: No haircut for you - U.S. News

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Here's a thought, instead of lying, or discriminating against someone and telling the truth, or serving a cake and putting something in it to get even, how about trying to treat everyone equaly?

So you agree then that in the link I posted, that person was wrong and discriminating against another person.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9010101].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic

11 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

So you agree then that in the link I posted, that person was wrong and discriminating against another person.

I can't speak for Tim, but the hairdresser was definitely not "discriminating."

By definition, discrimination refers to unfair treatment of categories of people, not of single individuals. (And it's usually based on an attribute that these people can't change, such as race, age, or gender - not on public statements they make.)

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9010363].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

I can't speak for Tim, but the hairdresser was definitely not "discriminating."

By definition, discrimination refers to unfair treatment of categories of people, not of single individuals. (And it's usually based on an attribute that these people can't change, such as race, age, or gender - not on public statements they make.)

So it's ok to discriminate against an individual because they have a different belief system then you and they have voiced their beliefs publicly? That's unfair treatment of a category of people, a category that IS protected by the Constitution.
When it comes down to it, when a Cristian refuses to cater a gay wedding, they're not doing anything any different from that hairdresser. Do you think the hairdresser will stop at just one person or will she continue to refuse service to any customer who comes out against gay marriage.

[ 1 ] Thanks
3 replies

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9010426].message }}

TimPhelan

11 years ago

It's a bit different Thom. The hairdresser is turning down a customer because of her political stance on an issue not because she belongs to a certain group of people as Bro alluded to.

Originally Posted by ThomM

So it's ok to discriminate against an individual because they have a different belief system then you and they have voiced their beliefs publicly? That's unfair treatment of a category of people, a category that IS protected by the Constitution.
When it comes down to it, when a Cristian refuses to cater a gay wedding, they're not doing anything any different from that hairdresser. Do you think the hairdresser will stop at just one person or will she continue to refuse service to any customer who comes out against gay marriage.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9010447].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

It's a bit different Thom. The hairdresser is turning down a customer because of her political stance on an issue not because she belongs to a certain group of people as Bro alluded to.

Her political stance, (even though I don't agree with it) is based on her beliefs. Something that almost all political stances are based on.
What you're saying is it's ok to discriminate against someone who doesn't agree with your views.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9010517].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic

11 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

So it's ok to discriminate against an individual because they have a different belief system then you and they have voiced their beliefs publicly? That's unfair treatment of a category of people, a category that IS protected by the Constitution.
When it comes down to it, when a Cristian refuses to cater a gay wedding, they're not doing anything any different from that hairdresser. Do you think the hairdresser will stop at just one person or will she continue to refuse service to any customer who comes out against gay marriage.

Federal law states that we can't discriminate against one another based on our religions (or, among other things, our sexual orientations). It does not state that we can't discriminate against one another based on our 'beliefs.'

The baker's religious argument fails because many Christians would have no qualms at all about catering a gay wedding. OTOH, the hairdresser's stance is meaningless (at least in practice) because there is almost no chance that the governor will sue her for refusing service.

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9010602].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

Federal law states that we can't discriminate against one another based on our religions (or, among other things, our sexual orientations). It does not state that we can't discriminate against one another based on our 'beliefs.'

The baker's religious argument fails because many Christians would have no qualms at all about catering a gay wedding. OTOH, the hairdresser's stance is meaningless (at least in practice) because there is almost no chance that the governor will sue her for refusing service.

When I say beliefs I'm talking about religion.
This whole thing is about Christians being allowed to NOT have to participate in a gay event, such as catering a gay wedding. Christians BELIEVE that homosexuality is a sin.
You claim that the baker's religious argument fails is ridiculous.
Some Christians take living their faith more serious then others.
What your saying is like saying the Pope is no more religious then the person who goes to church only on Easter.

One way of looking at what the hairdresser did with the governor is it would be a peaceful act of protest. That is something I agree with. But I also agree with a person to be able to exercise their religion in a peaceful way, which is what a Christian is doing when they decline taking part in a gay wedding.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9010793].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic

11 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

When I say beliefs I'm talking about religion.
This whole thing is about Christians being allowed to NOT have to participate in a gay event, such as catering a gay wedding. Christians BELIEVE that homosexuality is a sin.
You claim that the baker's religious argument fails is ridiculous.
Some Christians take living their faith more serious then others.
What your saying is like saying the Pope is no more religious then the person who goes to church only on Easter.

You're assuming that the law is completely rational and consistent. Needless to say, that's a bad assumption.

When it comes to discrimination, the law does not address the beliefs of any particular religion, but only whether someone identifies as adhering to that religion.

Thanks

Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9012175].message }}

socialentry

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

Federal law states that we can't discriminate against one another based on our religions (or, among other things, our sexual orientations). It does not state that we can't discriminate against one another based on our 'beliefs.'

The baker's religious argument fails because many Christians would have no qualms at all about catering a gay wedding. OTOH, the hairdresser's stance is meaningless (at least in practice) because there is almost no chance that the governor will sue her for refusing service.

But what if you're a muslim and an iraqi baathist demands to be served? :confused:

There's a lot of people that have prejudice against iraqi baathists in our society.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9010850].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

The baker's religious argument fails because many Christians would have no qualms at all about catering a gay wedding. OTOH, the hairdresser's stance is meaningless (at least in practice) because there is almost no chance that the governor will sue her for refusing service.

YEAH! Then the N word is OK to say because so many blacks say it! It is OK to INSIST jewish people eat bacon because so many "jewish" people do! It is OK to INSIST that a jewish person remove the "yarkmulke" because so many DON'T wear it! It is OK to INSIST that a muslim remove THEIR head covering because so many others do. It is OK to insist that nobody have ANY access to healthcare because so few ever think about it.
It is OK for a christian to worship satan because some "christians" do. And the amish should be forced into the normal life because, again, some do it! HEY, the American indians, for the SAME reason!

MAN what LOGIC! What INSIGHT! Why hasn't ANYONE seen this before!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9012074].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

So it's ok to discriminate against an individual because they have a different belief system then you and they have voiced their beliefs publicly? That's unfair treatment of a category of people, a category that IS protected by the Constitution.
When it comes down to it, when a Cristian refuses to cater a gay wedding, they're not doing anything any different from that hairdresser. Do you think the hairdresser will stop at just one person or will she continue to refuse service to any customer who comes out against gay marriage.

They would have sold a cake. There isn't a problem with THAT. HECK, do you know of ANY bakers, and has anyone even ALLEGED that THESE HAVE, asked such questions?

If you want a hairdresser to use some kind of decoration, or fashion your hair in a way, that they find offensive, they MAY refuse! SO WHAT? Find ANOTHER hair dresser! I have heard of TATTOO artists refusing some art. HEY, IT HAPPENS. SO WHAT!?!?!?

HERE, they wanted a cake celebrating a homosexual marriage, and probably were going into lengthy detail, etc... To simply call it "baking a cake" is oversimplifying. NOTE! I don't believe ANYONE here has answered my question yet! ******WHY THEM******?

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9012055].message }}

TimPhelan

11 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

If you want a hairdresser to use some kind of decoration, or fashion your hair in a way, that they find offensive, they MAY refuse! SO WHAT? Find ANOTHER hair dresser! I have heard of TATTOO artists refusing some art. HEY, IT HAPPENS. SO WHAT!?!?!?

HERE, they wanted a cake celebrating a homosexual marriage, and probably were going into lengthy detail, etc... To simply call it "baking a cake" is oversimplifying.

I don't think the problem was they were asked to make a certain type of "gay cake" and haven't heard anything about them going into lengthy detail about what they wanted. The problem was they didn't want to make it for a gay wedding.

NOTE! I don't believe ANYONE here has answered my question yet! ******WHY THEM******?

Steve

Why them what?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9012079].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

I don't think the problem was they were asked to make a certain type of "gay cake" and haven't heard anything about them going into lengthy detail about what they wanted. The problem was they didn't want to make it for a gay wedding.

They obviously mentioned something along the lines of it being for a homosexual wedding, and the baker said "Sorry, we don't do that.".

Why them what?

Why did they insist that THIS baker create their cake? As was said earlier, would you even TRUST anyone that didn't want to make it? If you were such a person, would you WANT to get in the likely mire? Suppose they made a mistake, like included coconut and weren't supposed to, misspelled a name, or made it not 100% to the spec the others wanted? Why they be accused of being bigots? Would they get dragged through the mud AGAIN? Would they be SUED AGAIN?

You can CLEARLY see it is a LOSE/LOSE/LOSE situation. So again, WHY THEM!?!?!?!?

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9012130].message }}

TimPhelan

11 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

They obviously mentioned something along the lines of it being for a homosexual wedding, and the baker said "Sorry, we don't do that.".

Yes, but that doesn't imply what you are saying, that it would be any different type of cake. The baker seemed to be saying we don't make cakes for homosexual weddings as in "we don't make any cakes for homosexual weddings".

Why did they insist that THIS baker create their cake?

They probably found them through advertisements or by driving pass the store?

As was said earlier, would you even TRUST anyone that didn't want to make it? If you were such a person, would you WANT to get in the likely mire?

That's a whole different question, but I probably wouldn't ask them again after a suit.

Suppose they made a mistake, like included coconut and weren't supposed to, misspelled a name, or made it not 100% to the spec the others wanted? Why they be accused of being bigots? Would they get dragged through the mud AGAIN? Would they be SUED AGAIN?

Well, I don't think they asked this particular baker to bake their cake again after the suit. I didn't read that anywhere but I might be mistaken. I do believe the judge said they can't discriminate in the same way again.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9012183].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Well, I don't think they asked this particular baker to bake their cake again after the suit. I didn't read that anywhere but I might be mistaken. I do believe the judge said they can't discriminate in the same way again.

Judge Orders Colorado Bakery to Cater for Same-Sex Weddings - ABC News

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9012227].message }}

TimPhelan

11 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Judge Orders Colorado Bakery to Cater for Same-Sex Weddings - ABC News

That's what I thought.

Here's something I didn't see before from that article, which kind of hurts the bakers argument:

In concluding that Masterpiece Cakeshop acted unlawfully, a CCRC investigation also showed evidence that Phillips was willing to bake a cake for the "marriage" of a pair of dogs, but not for two women.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9012246].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

That's what I thought.

Here's something I didn't see before from that article, which kind of hurts the bakers argument:

Also in the article.

According to the complaint, Phillips told the couple that the store policy was to deny service to customers who wished to order baked goods for a same-sex wedding, based on his religious beliefs.
Phillips told the men, "I'll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don't make cakes for same-sex weddings."

Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9012261].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

That's what I thought.

Here's something I didn't see before from that article, which kind of hurts the bakers argument:

How does that hurt their argument? The dogs may even have been STRAIGHT! But the Bible doesn't talk about dogs in such a context. You might as well say they were(GASP) caught hanging a picture las night, and therefore had no problem.

Steve

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9012306].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic

11 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

How does that hurt their argument? The dogs may even have been STRAIGHT! But the Bible doesn't talk about dogs in such a context.

If that's your "logic," it works against you, because there is no passage in either testament that talks about same-gender weddings. The only biblical discussions refer to same-gender sex, and even those are controversial among Christians (and Jews).

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9012384].message }}

SteveJohnson

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

If that's your "logic," it works against you, because there is no passage in either testament that talks about same-gender weddings. The only biblical discussions refer to same-gender sex, and even those are controversial among Christians (and Jews).

Not among orthodox Christians and orthodox Jews, the ones that believe what the Bible or Tanakh says. Nor, would it seem from current news stories, are they controversial to orthodox Muslims.

The ones to whom the discussions are 'controversial' are the same ones who argue that the religious canons do not really mean what they say, much like those who proclaim the Constitution a 'living document' that needs to be interpreted in some fashion other than how it was written.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9012593].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic

11 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

Not among orthodox Christians and orthodox Jews, the ones that believe what the Bible or Tanakh says. Nor, would it seem from current news stories, are they controversial to orthodox Muslims.

The ones to whom the discussions are 'controversial' are the same ones who argue that the religious canons do not really mean what they say, much like those who proclaim the Constitution a 'living document' that needs to be interpreted in some fashion other than how it was written.

Unless you're implying that these people are somehow "less Christian" (or Jewish or Muslim) than their orthodox counterparts, none of the above matters in this discussion.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9012656].message }}

SteveJohnson

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

Unless you're implying that these people are somehow "less Christian" (or Jewish or Muslim) than their orthodox counterparts, none of the above matters in this discussion.

Nice try. To orthodox believers, yes, they are less 'whatever'. And it very much matters, when you try to use as an argument that because the beliefs are 'controversial' they are not valid.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9012694].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

The civil rights act ended disrimination in places like public restaurants, which yes, forced the poor racists to serve black people.

Tim there's no comparison between this and the baker. For one he's not refusing to serve gays anything. He said he would sell them anything else they wanted, he just wouldn't make a wedding cake for a gay wedding because of his religious beliefs. No harm was done, nobody was discriminated against. If he refused to allow them to purchase any of his other products or refused them to enter his bakery because they are gay, that's discrimination.
Choosing to not contribute to a wedding, that because of your religious beliefs you believe is immoral, is simply exercising your religious freedoms.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9012723].message }}

TimPhelan

11 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

He said he would sell them anything else they wanted, he just wouldn't make a wedding cake for a gay wedding because of his religious beliefs. No harm was done, nobody was discriminated against.

It seems someone was harmed because they filled a suit and won.

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9014050].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

How's that not discriminating? When he refuses to sell one product that he sells to every other group because of who they are that sure seems like discrimination to me. It doesn't matter that he sells them other products. I don't see the logic there.

Also, I don't see baking a cake as "participating" in a wedding. In fact, I didn't see that phrase used by the baker unless I missed it somewhere.

Of course you don't Tim. If you did it would ruin your argument.

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

It seems someone was harmed because they filled a suit and won.

Harmed, no. Offended, maybe. More like just being vindictive.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9014131].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

It seems someone was harmed because they filled a suit and won.

So...you're saying that every person that wins a lawsuit is right and every one that loses is guilty?

In THIS country? That'll be the day

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9014133].message }}

TimPhelan

11 years ago

OK, I should have left the "won" out of it. My point was that someone felt they were harmed enough to sue and I mentioned that because Thom said nobody was harmed as if that was a fact. I really don't think the couple went looking for someone to sue like some do, like the people who fall in a store on purpose and then sue the store. Does anyone really think that happened here?

Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio

So...you're saying that every person that wins a lawsuit is right and every one that loses is guilty?

In THIS country? That'll be the day

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9014331].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

OK, I should have left the "won" out of it. My point was that someone felt they were harmed enough to sue and I mentioned that because Thom said nobody was harmed as if that was a fact. I really don't think the couple went looking for someone to sue like some do, like the people who fall in a store on purpose and then sue the store. Does anyone really think that happened here?

Was somebody punched or physically assaulted?
How was the couple harmed?
How do you know the couple wasn't looking for someone to sue or that they didn't know in advance the baker was Christian and didn't support gay marriage?

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9014403].message }}

KimW 11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

It seems someone was harmed because they filled a suit and won.

I know this has already been addressed but....
In this country today:

Too many bad lawsuits are allowed to be filed.

Too many bad lawsuits are allowed to proceed.

Too many bad lawsuits are won.

Too many bad judges sit on benches.

Too many people see the above (your statement) action as setting precedence.
- [ 2 ] Thanks
Signature

Read A Post.
Subscribe to a Newsletter
KimWinfrey.Com
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9014321].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic

11 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

Nice try. To orthodox believers, yes, they are less 'whatever'. And it very much matters, when you try to use as an argument that because the beliefs are 'controversial' they are not valid.

Still doesn't matter: even the most orthodox Christians/Jews/Muslims will agree with my earlier statement that there is no specific reference to same-gender weddings in any of the holy scriptures. The controversy I referred to is around same-gender intercourse.

Thanks

Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9012742].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

Unless you're implying that these people are somehow "less Christian" (or Jewish or Muslim) than their orthodox counterparts, none of the above matters in this discussion.

SOME HOW!?!?!?!? There are ATHEISTS in pentacostal churches! There are LOTS of atheist reform jews! Do you REALLY think that all people in a given religion are as devout? I ASSURE you they aren't.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9012890].message }}

KimW

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

That's what I thought.

Here's something I didn't see before from that article, which kind of hurts the bakers argument:

Originally Posted by seasoned

How does that hurt their argument? The dogs may even have been STRAIGHT! But the Bible doesn't talk about dogs in such a context. You might as well say they were(GASP) caught hanging a picture las night, and therefore had no problem.

Steve

I agree with Steve. A marriage of two dogs is called a farce. Even if the owner;s of the dogs took it seriously, most people would not. That is not the same two people of the same race.

As it is,this is a religious matter not a legal, ( yes,this argument has run the race here before too). And as before, I don't think any agreement was reached.

Thanks

Signature

Read A Post.
Subscribe to a Newsletter
KimWinfrey.Com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9012643].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Yes, but that doesn't imply what you are saying, that it would be any different type of cake. The baker seemed to be saying we don't make cakes for homosexual weddings as in "we don't make any cakes for homosexual weddings".

So NO special design? Why didn't they buy the cake? NO special writing? Why didn't they buy the cake? They didn't want catering or delivery? WHY didn't they buy the cake? I'll tell you why they didn't buy the cake. There are only two possibilities:

1. One or more of those assumptions aren't true. That is likely!
2. They WANTED trouble! MORE than likely!

[quote]They probably found them through advertisements or by driving pass the store? [quote]

OH YEAH? It said WEDDING CAKES, WE CATER TO HOMSEXUALS!!?!?!?!?

That's a whole different question, but I probably wouldn't ask them again after a suit.

Well, I don't think they asked this particular baker to bake their cake again after the suit. I didn't read that anywhere but I might be mistaken. I do believe the judge said they can't discriminate in the same way again.

ACTUALLY, if you aren't willing to buy, etc... WHAT IS THE POINT of the suit? So you basically want someone ELSE to risk it and have ANOTHER senseless suit happen?

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9012321].message }}

TimPhelan

11 years ago

Sure, they probably wanted it custom made in some sort of way with writing perhaps, but that's something the baker would provide to anyone. I think the problem was that the baker didn't want to sell them a cake, not that the two didn't want to buy the cake.

Originally Posted by seasoned

So NO special design? Why didn't they buy the cake? NO special writing? Why didn't they buy the cake? They didn't want catering or delivery? WHY didn't they buy the cake?

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9012468].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Sure, they probably wanted it custom made in some sort of way with writing perhaps, but that's something the baker would provide to anyone. I think the problem was that the baker didn't want to sell them a cake, not that the two didn't want to buy the cake.

But Tim the baker told them he would sell them anything else they wanted, it was just his stores policy not to do wedding cakes for same sex marriages.

According to the complaint, Phillips told the couple that the store policy was to deny service to customers who wished to order baked goods for a same-sex wedding, based on his religious beliefs.
Phillips told the men, "I'll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don't make cakes for same-sex weddings."

How is that any different from a bakery not wanting to sell pornographic themed cakes to some one who is having an orgy?

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9012490].message }}

TimPhelan

11 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

But Tim the baker told them he would sell them anything else they wanted, it was just his stores policy not to do wedding cakes for same sex marriages.

How is that any different from a bakery not wanting to sell pornographic themed cakes to some one who is having an orgy?

They wanted a wedding cake and the baker made wedding cakes. In Colorado they do have a law against discrimating because of sexual orintation, so that's where the suit came into play, although I think even without that law they could have suid. Not sure if they would have won though.

I don't get the porn reference.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9012559].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

They wanted a wedding cake and the baker made wedding cakes. In Colorado they do have a law against discrimating because of sexual orintation, so that's where the suit came into play, although I think even without that law they could have suid. Not sure if they would have won though.

I don't get the porn reference.

The bakery already had a policy that they didn't do wedding cakes for same sex weddings.
The porn reference is because some if not most bakeries won't do cakes shaped like genitalia, etc.
If someone comes in and asks for one shaped like something considered lewd for an orgy, they will refuse.
Does that mean under Colorado law they can be sued and forced to make the cake?
Back to the baker in question.
They really are infringing on his right to exercise his religion.
He's not discriminating because he told them he would sell they anything they wanted, except a wedding cake. Only supporting his right not to participate in an event he deemed was against his religious beliefs and not refusing to sell anything else to the couple is not discrimination.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9012627].message }}

TimPhelan

11 years ago

How's that not discriminating? When he refuses to sell one product that he sells to every other group because of who they are that sure seems like discrimination to me. It doesn't matter that he sells them other products. I don't see the logic there.

Also, I don't see baking a cake as "participating" in a wedding. In fact, I didn't see that phrase used by the baker unless I missed it somewhere.

Originally Posted by ThomM

He's not discriminating because he told them he would sell they anything they wanted, except a wedding cake. Only supporting his right not to participate in an event he deemed was against his religious beliefs and not refusing to sell anything else to the couple is not discrimination.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9014031].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

How's that not discriminating? When he refuses to sell one product that he sells to every other group because of who they are that sure seems like discrimination to me. It doesn't matter that he sells them other products. I don't see the logic there.

Also, I don't see baking a cake as "participating" in a wedding. In fact, I didn't see that phrase used by the baker unless I missed it somewhere.

Just because you don't see it that way doesn't mean the baker (or any other store owner) doesn't. So logically, if the Judge feels the way you do then you are simply invalidating what they believe in.

But that doesn't make what they did discriminatory. They followed their religious teachings.

From what I read, they never said they disliked gay people. They simply chose to not supply a cake for a wedding (typically religious in nature) to a gay couple (typically seen by many religious people as going against God).

You don't HAVE to understand or agree with it.

[ 5 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9014129].message }}

TimPhelan

11 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio

But that doesn't make what they did discriminatory. They followed their religious teachings.

From what I read, they never said they disliked gay people. They simply chose to not supply a cake for a wedding (typically religious in nature) to a gay couple (typically seen by many religious people as going against God).

Hmm. So religious teachings say a business shouldn't sell products or services to people who think different from you? I don't think so. Here's why I have a problem with this guy's story: I don't see his religious freedoms being restricted in any form. Lets look at one example of how religious freedom is defined and how it is restricted. The International Religious Freedom Act defines five violations of religious freedom:

Arbitrary prohibitions on, restrictions of, or punishment for: (i) assembling for peaceful religious activities such as worship, preaching, and prayer, including arbitrary registration requirements; (ii) speaking freely about one's religious beliefs; (iii) changing one's religious beliefs and affiliation; (iv) possession and distribution of religious literature, including Bibles and other sacred texts; (v) raising one's children in the religious teachings and practices of one's choice.

When reviewing a country's state of religious freedom, we look for laws or policies that:

1) restrict the right to hold a religious belief;
2) limit the right to change religious belief;
3) restrict the freedom to have an allegiance to a religious leader;
4) disparage individuals or groups on the basis of their religion;
5) discriminate against religious persons in education, the military, employment opportunities or in health services;
6) require the designation of religion on passports or national identity documents, either overtly or in code;
7) restrict religious assembly;
8) restrict religious expression.

I don't see how any of these true religious freedom violations happened simply by making businesses treat everyone equaly. Did they restrict freedom of expression? No. Hey, here's something the baker could have done. He could have sold them a cake and then start preaching to them why they were going to hell. Or, they could have stood outside the wedding and protested it. Or, they could post signs in their store quoting the bible, including verses that they interpreted to be against gay weddings. All this would be freedom of expression.

However, I do not see how a public business refusing service to anyone because of who they are as a religious freedom. As I pointed out in another thread, the same excuse of religious freedom was used to discriminate against all sorts of people in the past and in the present.

I am actually very tolerant and respectful to all religions, but I am very intolerant to those who discriminate and especially to those who do so and then use religion as an excuse.

[ 1 ] Thanks
3 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9014162].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Hmm. So religious teachings say a business shouldn't sell products or services to people who think different from you? I don't think so. Here's why I have a problem with this guy's story: I don't see his religious freedoms being restricted in any form. Lets look at one example of how religious freedom is defined and how it is restricted. The International Religious Freedom Act defines five violations of religious freedom:

I don't see how any of these true religious freedom violations happened simply by making businesses treat everyone equaly. Did they restrict freedom of expression? No. Hey, here's something the baker could have done. He could have sold them a cake and then start preaching to them why they were going to hell. Or, they could have stood outside the wedding and protested it. Or, they could post signs in their store quoting the bible, including verses that they interpreted to be against gay weddings. All this would be freedom of expression.

However, I do not see how a public business refusing service to anyone because of who they are as a religious freedom. As I pointed out in another thread, the same excuse of religious freedom was used to discriminate against all sorts of people in the past and in the present.

I am actually very tolerant and respectful to all religions, but I am very intolerant to those who discriminate and especially to those who do so and then use religion as an excuse.

The baker said he would sell anything else that they wanted so he wasn't refusing to sell to them, he just didn't want to make a cake that promotes something that goes against his religious beliefs.

8) restrict religious expression.

Right there. The baker was expressing his religious beliefs.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9014184].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Hmm. So religious teachings say a business shouldn't sell products or services to people who think different from you? I don't think so. Here's why I have a problem with this guy's story: I don't see his religious freedoms being restricted in any form. Lets look at one example of how religious freedom is defined and how it is restricted. The International Religious Freedom Act defines five violations of religious freedom:

I don't see how any of these true religious freedom violations happened simply by making businesses treat everyone equaly. Did they restrict freedom of expression? No. Hey, here's something the baker could have done. He could have sold them a cake and then start preaching to them why they were going to hell. Or, they could have stood outside the wedding and protested it. Or, they could post signs in their store quoting the bible, including verses that they interpreted to be against gay weddings. All this would be freedom of expression.

However, I do not see how a public business refusing service to anyone because of who they are as a religious freedom. As I pointed out in another thread, the same excuse of religious freedom was used to discriminate against all sorts of people in the past and in the present.

I am actually very tolerant and respectful to all religions, but I am very intolerant to those who discriminate and especially to those who do so and then use religion as an excuse.

Hmmm - still assigning your own words to someone else's. I don't recall saying that any religion teaches a business not to sell to any particular group. That is an asinine thing to assume.

But using that argument, then what YOU must be saying is that everyone MUST set aside what they have been taught because others don't believe what THEY believe? Isn't that one of the reasons the USA was created - to get away from such things?

This is by no means an easy subject. However, it's also not as cut and dried as you seem to think it is. As much as this may bother you (and others like you) there ARE people out there that want to follow their religious teachings. Even if it bothers you.

Life is that way sometimes

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9014200].message }}

TimPhelan

11 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio

I don't recall saying that any religion teaches a business not to sell to any particular group. That is an asinine thing to assume.

It is asinine, but you said he was following his religious teachings. Where are those religious teachings that say he can't bake a cake for a certain group of people or that doing so will be a sin?

You know, a wedding usually requiers many products and services for it to take place. Bottled water for example. Now, what if someone went to Pepsi to buy a few cases of bottled water for their wedding and Pepsi said they wouldn't supply it because of the company's religious beliefs? Is there any doubt that Pepsi would be sued in the same way? I'm sure there are thousands of people who work for companies like Pepsi, should those employees also refuse to provide products and if they do and get fired can they claim their religious freedoms were restricted and sue Pepsi? I don't think so.

I also don't buy the argument that they can just go somewhere else and get the service. Why should a customer be forced to go to another place to get the same product or service just because a business doesn't want to serve them? That sounds too much like Jim Crow laws to me.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9014247].message }}

KimW

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

It is asinine, but you said he was following his religious teachings. Where are those religious teachings that say he can't bake a cake for a certain group of people or that doing so will be a sin?

You know, a wedding usually requiers many products and services for it to take place. Bottled water for example. Now, what if someone went to Pepsi to buy a few cases of bottled water for their wedding and Pepsi said they wouldn't supply it because of the company's religious beliefs? Is there any doubt that Pepsi would be sued in the same way? I'm sure there are thousands of people who work for companies like Pepsi, should those employees also refuse to provide products and if they do and get fired can they claim their religious freedoms were restricted and sue Pepsi? I don't think so.

I also don't buy the argument that they can just go somewhere else and get the service. Why should a customer be forced to go to another place to get the same product or service just because a business doesn't want to serve them? That sounds too much like Jim Crow laws to me.

Sorry Tim. Disagree with most of this post.

First, a marriage requires very few things. People wanting to get married, a person able to legally marry them and that is basically it.
People may WANT other things but they are not required or needed.

And yes they can,could have and should have just gone someplace else. Why shoud a business be forced to serve anyone they don't wan't to serve? Sounds like a dictatorship to me.

By the way, it has also already been pointed out how this is completely different than Jim Crow laws.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Read A Post.
Subscribe to a Newsletter
KimWinfrey.Com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9014336].message }}

Midnight Oil

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

I also don't buy the argument that they can just go somewhere else and get the service. Why should a customer be forced to go to another place to get the same product or service just because a business doesn't want to serve them?

Actually, the baker never refused to serve them at all.

"I'll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don't make cakes for same-sex weddings."

Why can't those who preach "tolerance" respect his wishes on this one thing?

Not every business is all things to all people.

[ 3 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9014346].message }}

TimPhelan

11 years ago

I found some interesting views on this topic from people who express themselves much better than myself. Here's a few:

"Marriage equality is a matter of civil rights and equal protection under the law for homosexual couples and their children. While some religious people may discriminate against homosexual couples and their families in their religious context, other religious people uphold their dignity, equality, and worth on religious grounds. As a religious liberty issue then, marriage equality engages the current constitutional crisis of the government favoring one religion over another.

Laws regarding special status and protection for married persons and families belong to the secular state and not to religion to legislate and enforce. The claim that marriage equality violates anyone's religious liberty is simply dishonest. The state will never coerce clergy to officiate for a gay wedding service any more than it coerces clergy to perform heterosexual weddings outside their tradition or against their will. Nor should the state ever try to prevent clergy from performing gay weddings when their tradition blesses it. The religious definition and rules of marriage differ between religions and fall outside the sphere of the state; marriage equality respects the religious liberty of all traditions, but offers homosexual couples the same civil rights as heterosexual couples." ~ LARRY BETHUNE, Senior Pastor, University Baptist Church, Austin

"However, on the religious side, we need to debate and understand the morality of discrimination. Jesus did not condemn the sinner, and went a step further to prevent bigotry and discrimination by embracing the prostitute to make the point that we cannot refuse services to others.

We may not agree on the definition of sin, but the folks who see religion literally ought to consider keeping their doors open to bring the "sinners' back into the fold of their brand of religion (any religion), instead of condemning them to hell and keeping them at bay. If the literalists want to earn the brownie points with God, then don't shut the door.

Refusing service or products to an individual because I do not agree with his or her sexual orientation violates the fundamental bounds set by the civil society and religion." ~ MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism and speaker on interfaith matters, Dallas

"Certainly our religious freedom, our right to our religious beliefs, is one of our most basic American rights. This basic right, however, does not extend to our use of our religion to discriminate against and impose our beliefs on others with whom we disagree.

When religious beliefs are used as an excuse to discriminate against others, we are allowing the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection to be overturned. Although sexual orientation is not a protected class as is race, this question was addressed in the 1960s when some claimed that segregation was supported by their interpretation of their Bibles. Their insistence that God wanted the separation of the races to bolster their claim of religious liberty to deny access to African Americans didn't stand then, and this false claim of religious liberty to harm gays and lesbians now should not as well." ~ HOWARD COHEN, Lecturer in Jewish/Christian Relations and member of Congregation Shearith Israel and Congregation Beth Torah, Dallas

"When we Americans committed ourselves constitutionally to the First Amendment, prohibiting Congress from passing laws that establish religion or prohibit the free exercise of it, we did more than create the concept that the government had to refrain from defining religious boundaries. We also created a means for the social order to occupy a space in which freely functioning religions could not impose their preferences on anybody except their own voluntary adherents.

Therefore, in the United States of America, the Roman Catholic Church can designate its ordained ministry as a male-only job classification. In doing so, it can still enjoy a constitutional protection from governmental interference, despite a clear system of laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender. Likewise, The United Methodist Church can place limits on the sexual orientation of its ordained ministers, even though such limits would be illegal in secular employment practices.

But religious bodies do not have absolute freedom within the larger social order. A religion that honors the ancient Biblical practice of polygamy cannot expect federal or state laws to protect that practice. A religion that enjoys traditions such as animal (or even human) sacrifice cannot expect the government to be indifferent to those activities. A religion that demands its adherents to treat physical ailments as spiritual defects, amenable only to prayer or ritual actions, cannot keep persons from receiving medication or surgery or psychiatric care. A religion that insists only persons of a certain race may attend its liturgies cannot order its adherents to impose those racist views in their public workplaces.

The social order, after all, has the right not to let religions impose their practices in violation of public virtues. Even though a religion may allow slavery, the society does not. Even though Jews and Muslims have dietary laws which they advise their practitioners to honor, society only has an obligation to recognize the freedom of a religion to stipulate such laws, not to follow them...

Religion in America is a freely exercised, voluntary activity. But no religion can conscript the social order into its practices." ~ WILLIAM LAWRENCE, Dean and Professor of American Church History, Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University

"...this issue is totally analogous to "the right to deny service to black people at a lunch counter." And he overlooks, too, that many Southerners justified their discriminatory practices against African-Americans on grounds of religious conviction. One needs only read Pastor Bob Jones' (Of Bob Jones University) 1960 Easter sermon on the clear biblical mandate to segregate, a speech that stood upon a mountain of earlier Southern doctrinal and biblical exegesis justifying racial discrimination.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act, section II, knowingly granted no exceptions based on religion to private businesses to deny service. The same arguments, principles, and matters of law apply here. If one is offering a "service" or "facility" to the general public, even if privately owned, there is no right, license, or exemption to discriminate. You must serve all. Only "private clubs" with commerical functions can evade this universal legal (and I might add, moral) imperative. This rule has transformed the US for the better, and now, on this matter, is not the time to roll this back...

But I say the 1964 law already has granted them their legal shelters from fairness. If a cake baker doesn't want to serve gay patrons, let him or her register the "Sectarian Christian Cake Baking Private Club" or the "Augusta Golf and Wedding Event Planners Club." There are already 300,000 churches, synagogues, parishes, and other non-commercial, tax-exempt facilities that can pick-and-choose what kind of wedding events they will and will not host. The ability to discriminate already exists for them, The balance already has been achieved. Any expansion of these bunkers is, to my mind, a grave step backward for us as a moral society." ~ GEOFFREY DENNIS, Rabbi, Congregation Kol Ami in Flower Mound; faculty member, University of North Texas Jewish Studies Program

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9014401].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

I found some interesting views on this topic from people who express themselves much better than myself. Here's a few:

That's all well and good Tim, but the baker wasn't using his religious beliefs to discriminate when he stated he would sell them anything else that they wanted. Discrimination would be refusing to sell them anything at all because they are gay.

...this issue is totally analogous to "the right to deny service to black people at a lunch counter."

Which it would be if the baker refused to sell them anything at all based on them being gay. But he didn't.
Let me ask you this.
Say you painted murals for people.
One couple comes in and asks for a mural in their babies room depicting love, peace, and harmony, you would do that right?
Now another couple comes in who are white supremacist.
They want a moral painted in their babies room depicting blacks and jews being persecuted. Would you do that job?

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9014437].message }}

TimPhelan

11 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

That's all well and good Tim, but the baker wasn't using his religious beliefs to discriminate when he stated he would sell them anything else that they wanted. Discrimination would be refusing to sell them anything at all because they are gay.

Which it would be if the baker refused to sell them anything at all based on them being gay. But he didn't.

I don't see any minimum or maximum limits on the difinition of discrimination.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9014476].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

I don't see any minimum or maximum limits on the difinition of discrimination.

So then you would paint the mural for the white supremacist, or is that some how different to you.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9014501].message }}

TimPhelan

11 years ago

Of course it is different. You can't be serious with that analogy. :/

Originally Posted by ThomM

So then you would paint the mural for the white supremacist, or is that some how different to you.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9014581].message }}

TimPhelan

11 years ago

Religious liberty, like public safety, is a just cause, except when it's used to justify intolerance....

"This bill ... bars government discrimination against religious exercise," Tony Perkins, head of the conservative Family Research Council, said of the Arizona measure, "so by vetoing this bill, Gov. Brewer is saying she supports government discrimination against people's religious freedom."

No, that's not what she's saying. Brewer no more supports religious discrimination than Eisenhower encouraged violence in public schools. Perkins knows better, and his inflammatory language hurts his cause...

I empathize with the views of Perkins and others, but I am suspicious when people use religion to marginalize others. Like Michael Tomasky of The Daily Beast, I hear echoes of the segregated South.

"n 1901, Georgia Gov. Allen Candler defended unequal public schooling for African Americans on the grounds that "God made them negroes and we cannot by education make them white folks." After the Supreme Court ordered public schools integrated in Brown v. Board of Education, many segregationists cited their own faith as justification for official racism. Ross Barnett won Mississippi's governorship in a landslide in 1960 after claiming that "the good Lord was the original segregationist." Senator Harry Byrd of Virginia relied on passages from Genesis, Leviticus and Matthew when he spoke out against the civil rights law banning employment discrimination and whites-only lunch counters on the Senate floor."

The Bible is both a holy book and a book of loopholes, open to broad interpretation and, at one time, the source of racist inspiration. My takeaway: In this great and diverse country, we are capable of protecting people's right to express their faith and worship freely without tramping others' rights to live freely.

Religious Liberty Is a Just Causeâ€"Except When It's Used to Justify Intolerance - NationalJournal.com

Thanks

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9014587].message }}

Midnight Oil 11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Of course it is different. You can't be serious with that analogy. :/

Should a gay baker or photographer be forced to provide products or services for a Westboro Baptist wedding?
- [ 4 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9014630].message }}
- Joe Mobley 11 years ago
  
  Ha! Wouldn't that be a hoot!
  
  Joe Mobley
  
  Originally Posted by Midnight Oil
  
  Should a gay baker or photographer be forced to provide products or services for a Westboro Baptist wedding?
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  .
  Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9014676].message }}
  
  seasoned 11 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Joe Mobley
  
  Ha! Wouldn't that be a hoot!
  
  Joe Mobley
  
  HEY YEAH! The cake can say X years of hatred to homosexuals and other sinners, and have the homosexual bakers present the cake with signage, and in the most ostentatious clothing for their particular type!
  
  Here is a film explaining the bill and illustrating ome potential impact, as well as a potential answer to my question. REMEMBER, NOBODY answered it yet!
  
  Episode 461 - Part 2 - Should Business with...
  
  Steve
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9014712].message }}

seasoned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

I don't see any minimum or maximum limits on the difinition of discrimination.

CAREFUL! One law was passed YEARS ago and it affected many other laws(INTENTIONALLY), etc... NOW, it has hurt business, caused people to reduce hours, and effectively REDUCED the income of many people, ESPECIALLY those at minimum wage. I find it ironic that NOW, they are saying that they want to raise the minimum wage to $10.10. Do you know what the minimum wage has to be to negate the effects of the old rule? $10(assuming tax rates don't go up)! Of course, the problem is that raising it to $10.10 is going to mean MORE get laid off. IRONIC! So ALL of these think they will get a huge rage, and it will actually be about 1% for many people, assuming they are still employed.

Yeah, making a rule does NOT automatically negate other laws. If it did, the US would be very different now. But imagine on the wipsawing of income I spoke of earlier. Wouldn't it have been better to stick with what worked, than to do all this?

And HEY, I guess would be OK to force me to donate whole blood to you directly if you needed a blood transfusion. There WOULD be an almost 97% chance that you would DIE, but we shouldn't DISCRIMINATE, RIGHT? KIM was probably VERY upset he had to wait so long, but I bet he is happy they discriminated! YEP, sometimes failure to discriminate can be DEADLY! I just gave you THREE good examples. And SORRY, the law will NOT get rid of a persons allergy, change a persons blood type, or change a persons tissue type.

It ALSO won't change a persons belief or religion. If a believer DARES to change their religion in a material way, it is tantamount to saying that the precepts are merely ancient dictates given by men that mean NOTHING. That says that all they did in their life is a farce. I KNOW that that is what YOU believe, but the law FORBIDS you to act on that belief. That is the whole point of the first amendment. It says, in order of impact, FREEDOM OF RELIGION, FREEDOM OF REDRESS, general FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. It is interesting how some originally wanted to get rid of the first 2 and sometimes talk about getting rid of the third.

The forefathers came here to get away from religious persecution, and were FORBIDDEN to redress government, and there was propaganda affecting the third. It isn't surprising that they spelled this out. AGAIN, it is NOT a right of the people, but a DEMAND that the government NOT restrict those rights! "..SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" sounds pretty clear to me. "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW.." ALSO sounds pretty clear!

Steve
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9014595].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic

11 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

That's all well and good Tim, but the baker wasn't using his religious beliefs to discriminate when he stated he would sell them anything else that they wanted. Discrimination would be refusing to sell them anything at all because they are gay.

Thom, the above statement is completely and utterly incorrect.

When your business sells a product or service to any client, it must legally provide that product or service (at the same rate) to every client who wants to purchase it. To do otherwise is discrimination, regardless of what the motive behind it is.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9014849].message }}

Joe Mobley 11 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

When your business sells a product or service to any client, it must legally provide that product or service

Wrong!

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

(at the same rate)

Wrong!

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

to every client who wants to purchase it.

Wrong!

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

To do otherwise is discrimination,

Wrong!

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

regardless of what the motive behind it is.

Wrong!

Other than that you are fine.

Joe Mobley
- [ 2 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

.
Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9014916].message }}
- Hopeless Bromantic 11 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Joe Mobley
  
  Wrong!
  
  Wrong!
  
  Wrong!
  
  Wrong!
  
  Wrong!
  
  Other than that you are fine.
  
  Joe Mobley
  
  I don't see you trying to prove it.
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
  _______________________________________________
  "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9015012].message }}
  
  Joe Mobley 11 years ago
  
  What I see is someone with a discrimination chip on their shoulder. I also see you are not interested in proof, you are interested in feeding your ego by arguing.
  
  I have better things to do with my time. Rearranging my sock drawer comes to mind.
  
  "Black socks on the left.
  Brown socks on the right.
  Gay socks in the back.
  Lesbian socks up front.
  Girl socks in the middle, along with Spanx.
  And my white socks get a drawer all to themselves... Mainly because they are gym socks and I have a bunch of them."
  
  There, I feel better already.
  
  Joe Mobley
  
  Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic
  
  I don't see you trying to prove it.
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  .
  Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9015078].message }}

Midnight Oil

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

When your business sells a product or service to any client, it must legally provide that product or service (at the same rate) to every client who wants to purchase it. To do otherwise is discrimination, regardless of what the motive behind it is.

So girls are allowed to Seek Bromance on your site now?

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9014983].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Midnight Oil

So girls are allowed to Seek Bromance on your site now?

Nope, and it's not discrimination, because it's a membership site (like the club in Idaho that Sal referred to).

It's the same legal loophole that women-only gyms use, by the way.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9015008].message }}

Midnight Oil

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

Nope, and it's not discrimination, because it's a membership site (like the club in Idaho that Sal referred to).

If I'm not mistaken, that example falls under an interest (smoking) or behavior (again, smoking).

I may be wrong, but I don't think those are protected classes.

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

It's the same legal loophole that women-only gyms use, by the way.

I understand. You use a legal loophole that allows you to not provide the same product or service to every client who wants to purchase it. In this case, females.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time. I just want you to see how easily someone can take offense at your beliefs and business practices, and actively work on wrecking your life. Yours, mine. Anyone's.

Do those three separate bakeries, the photographer, the florist, the inn keeper and others really deserve all of that? Even death threats?

Does it really have to be, "You will bake these cakes / take these photos / send these flowers . . . or else!"

Where's the tolerance in that?

Is that leading by example?

Let me ask you, or anyone else for that matter, what would have been an acceptable solution prior to bringing down hell on their businesses and their personal lives?

Would this be acceptable:

"I'm sorry, but due to personal beliefs, I can't make this type of cake for you, but I do have the name and number of someone who specializes in exactly what you're looking for."

Would that work?

Or is it really just all about the power over and control of someone else?

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9015112].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Midnight Oil

If I'm not mistaken, that example falls under an interest (smoking) or behavior (again, smoking).

I may be wrong, but I don't think those are protected classes.

Actually, you're very much mistaken on this one.

The precedent for same-gender (and some other) clubs is based on the freedom-of-association right protected by the First amendment. The precedent comes from the SCOTUS case of Boy Scouts of America vs Dale.

Originally Posted by MO

I understand. You use a legal loophole that allows you to not provide the same product or service to every client who wants to purchase it. In this case, females.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time. I just want you to see how easily someone can take offense at your beliefs and business practices, and actively work on wrecking your life. Yours, mine. Anyone's.

If a business does not follow the law, anyone can come along and wreck its existence. Actions have consequences.

If a business does follow the law and people take offense at it, that might hurt the volume of business it can do, but it's unlikely to be enough to kill it.

Originally Posted by MO

Let me ask you, or anyone else for that matter, what would have been an acceptable solution prior to bringing down hell on their businesses and their personal lives?

Would this be acceptable:

"I'm sorry, but due to personal beliefs, I can't make this type of cake for you, but I do have the name and number of someone who specializes in exactly what you're looking for."

Would that work?

Or is it really just all about the power over and control of someone else?

No, it isn't. Once again, it's about actions having consequences. The First amendment protects you from prosecution by the government for saying something unpopular. It does not protect you from any other consequences you might suffer for saying something unpopular.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9018928].message }}

Midnight Oil

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Yep, I actually took that from a page that opposing viewpoints from religious leaders in Texas. I kind of expected for someone to post similar opposing viewpoints.

I really don't like getting into quote wars, but Andrew Sullivan did have an interesting thought:

As for the case for allowing fundamentalists to discriminate against anyone associated with what they regard as sin, I'm much more sympathetic. I favor maximal liberty in these cases. The idea that you should respond to a hurtful refusal to bake a wedding cake by suing the bakers is a real stretch to me.

Yes, they may simply be homophobic, rather than attached to a coherent religious worldview. But so what? There are plenty of non-homophobic bakers in Arizona. If we decide that our only response to discrimination is a lawsuit, we gays are ratcheting up a culture war we would do better to leave alone. We run the risk of becoming just as intolerant as the anti-gay bigots, if we seek to coerce people into tolerance. If we value our freedom as gay people in living our lives the way we wish, we should defend that same freedom to sincere religious believers and also, yes, to bigots and haters. You do not conquer intolerance with intolerance.

The Morning After In Arizona « The Dish

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Nope, because that isn't on their menu.

They serve sandwiches. Like the baker, they'll even do special orders. To a point.

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Well, not sure about Bros site but at mine anyone can join. In fact I have advertised to people under 50 because some younger folks like guys/gals over 50.

Your cut off is 18. I asked specifically about 16 and 17 year olds who can legally date older people. There's a reason you don't include them in your services. Perhaps it's just something you don't agree with.

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

I don't like the idea of anyone being forced to do something they don't like, but I don't think this comparison and Thom's example of me painting a mural for white supremacists is a good example.

I'll let Thom speak for himself. But the cake example I used is exactly the same. You just choose not to accept it.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9019166].message }}

Midnight Oil

11 years ago

Tim, Bro . . .

As I've said already, you both limit people you provide services to, whether it be based on age or sex or a personal interpretation of "male dating." Whatever.

That's your choice.

Hide behind all of the "legal loopholes" and private club signs you want.

It still comes down to you thinking it's okay for you to refuse services to others, but it's not okay for others to do the same.

It really is just that simple.

Just because you choose to ignore it, or fail to recognize it, doesn't mean others can't see it.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9019182].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Midnight Oil

Tim, Bro . . .

As I've said already, you both limit people you provide services to, whether it be based on age or sex or a personal interpretation of "male dating." Whatever.

That's your choice.

Hide behind all of the "legal loopholes" and private club signs you want.

It still comes down to you thinking it's okay for you to refuse services to others, but it's not okay for others to do the same.

It really is just that simple.

Just because you choose to ignore it, or fail to recognize it, doesn't mean others can't see it.

As far as I know, the baker could have legally set up some sort of "bakery membership" club if he had so chosen.

But he didn't. He chose to cater to the general public.

Now he's trying to have it both ways, and so are you, whether you fail to recognize it or not.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9019285].message }}

Midnight Oil

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

As far as I know, the baker could have legally set up some sort of "bakery membership" club if he had so chosen.

But he didn't. He chose to cater to the general public.

Now he's trying to have it both ways, and so are you, whether you fail to recognize it or not.

Completely ducked the point made. But I do appreciate your feedback.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9019386].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Midnight Oil

Completely ducked the point made. But I do appreciate your feedback.

Okay, let me see if I can address what I think was your point. And I'll put it as simply as I can.

There are times when federal law says it's okay for certain businesses to refuse service to certain people. Then there are times when federal law says it's not okay.

I did it correctly. The baker did not. Does that help?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9021801].message }}

SteveJohnson

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

Okay, let me see if I can address what I think was your point. And I'll put it as simply as I can.

There are times when federal law says it's okay for certain businesses to refuse service to certain people. Then there are times when federal law says it's not okay.

I did it correctly. The baker did not. Does that help?

That there is no law against it, that some special interest group managed to wrangle a loophole in the law, doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do. It's discrimination, and it hurts the feelings of the people who are discriminated against.

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9022728].message }}

Midnight Oil

11 years ago

I guess Kim was right.

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

Okay, let me see if I can address what I think was your point.

Sorry, but you either still don't get it or you're intentionally avoiding the obvious.

Behind it all, there is little difference between you and the baker.

You: I am not going to provide this specific service to a specific group of people.

The Baker: I am not going to provide this specific service to a specific group of people.

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

There are times when federal law says it's okay for certain businesses to refuse service to certain people. Then there are times when federal law says it's not okay.

The point has nothing to do with how you go about excluding a specific group of people from a service.

The point is that you do it.

But you act as if the baker and others somehow deserve this shitstorm. Reason upon reason why they must be forced to provide a specific service that they don't wish to provide.

All the while justifying your own actions, hiding behind and taking great pride in your use of "legal loopholes" to do the exact same thing.

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

I did it correctly.

It's never wise to be that certain in such matters.

Say what you will. I'm done with this one.

[ 2 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9023376].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic

11 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

That there is no law against it, that some special interest group managed to wrangle a loophole in the law, doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do. It's discrimination, and it hurts the feelings of the people who are discriminated against.

Let's be clear, Steve. Are you saying that it's wrong to operate a women-only gym?

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9024140].message }}

seasoned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

Let's be clear, Steve. Are you saying that it's wrong to operate a women-only gym?

To talk about this, you MUST exclude:
homosexuals,
blacks,
hispanics,
etc..., etc...,
WOMEN

Basically, you ust talk only about pure WHITE, STRAIGHT, MEN!

WHY? Because all others are "protected classes" and not meaningful to the discussion of exclusion, etc...

Steve
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9024210].message }}

SteveJohnson

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

Let's be clear, Steve. Are you saying that it's wrong to operate a women-only gym?

In that it discriminates against non-women, yes. What's the difference between that and operating a bakery that only serves non-gays? Or a lunch counter that won't serve non-whites?

You can't have this both ways, though you try.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9025115].message }}

Paul Myers

11 years ago

Steve,

In that it discriminates against non-women, yes. What's the difference between that and operating a bakery that only serves non-gays? Or a lunch counter that won't serve non-whites?

Wow. This part of the discussion is wild.

There is a difference between catering to natural affinity groups and excluding groups in ways that create artificial social or economic hardships for the "forbidden."

There are plenty of natural affinity groups that "discriminate" based on what might otherwise be problems. Christian Mingle and other faith-based dating sites "discriminate" based on religion, for example. The AARP does so based on age. Women-only gyms base their "discrimination" on gender.

The argument about women-only gyms, for example, is ridiculous. There are perfectly sensible reasons for women to want to exercise without men around that have nothing to do with trying to damage them, or to remove some potential advantage. Like not wanting to hear snarky comments about their weight, or being insulted for their strength. Or just not being ogled or hit on all the time.

None of those even come close to the types of behavior that sensible anti-discrimination laws are intended to prevent or reduce.

There are a lot of grey areas and debatable points in this kind of discussion, but focusing on stuff that is so clearly not relevant to the core principles of the debate is counter-productive.

Paul

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9025159].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Steve,Wow. This part of the discussion is wild.

There is a difference between catering to natural affinity groups and excluding groups in ways that create artificial social or economic hardships for the "forbidden."

There are plenty of natural affinity groups that "discriminate" based on what might otherwise be problems. Christian Mingle and other faith-based dating sites "discriminate" based on religion, for example. The AARP does so based on age. Women-only gyms base their "discrimination" on gender.

The argument about women-only gyms, for example, is ridiculous. There are perfectly sensible reasons for women to want to exercise without men around that have nothing to do with trying to damage them, or to remove some potential advantage. Like not wanting to hear snarky comments about their weight, or being insulted for their strength. Or just not being ogled or hit on all the time.

None of those even come close to the types of behavior that sensible anti-discrimination laws are intended to prevent or reduce.

There are a lot of grey areas and debatable points in this kind of discussion, but focusing on stuff that is so clearly not relevant to the core principles of the debate is counter-productive.

Paul

Logical argument Paul. So how would you classify (from the original story) that baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding? Would not wanting to participate in something he believes to be immoral as per his religious teachings be considered a "sensible reason"? Consider that the baker is not excluding the customer based on his being gay. Nor was he trying to hurt anyone. He said he would bake him any other kind of cake.

I'm interested in your viewpoint on this.

Thanks

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9025189].message }}

SteveJohnson

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Steve,Wow. This part of the discussion is wild.

There is a difference between catering to natural affinity groups and excluding groups in ways that create artificial social or economic hardships for the "forbidden."

There are plenty of natural affinity groups that "discriminate" based on what might otherwise be problems. Christian Mingle and other faith-based dating sites "discriminate" based on religion, for example. The AARP does so based on age. Women-only gyms base their "discrimination" on gender.

The argument about women-only gyms, for example, is ridiculous. There are perfectly sensible reasons for women to want to exercise without men around that have nothing to do with trying to damage them, or to remove some potential advantage. Like not wanting to hear snarky comments about their weight, or being insulted for their strength. Or just not being ogled or hit on all the time.

None of those even come close to the types of behavior that sensible anti-discrimination laws are intended to prevent or reduce.

There are a lot of grey areas and debatable points in this kind of discussion, but focusing on stuff that is so clearly not relevant to the core principles of the debate is counter-productive.

Paul

It is wild, yes, but is relevant in that it serves the purpose of demonstrating that there are sometimes valid reasons for discrimination, and most are subjective in nature.

I don't disagree with the reasoning behind having a single-sex gym -- or club, or dating site, or whatever.

What I disagree with is the sentiment that the baker in Colorado's reasons for not wanting to supply a cake for an event celebrating something he believes is morally wrong are not as valid and deserve no consideration (yes, I know that wasn't the original topic of discussion, but is a good illustration).

I would be tempted to argue that a person's deeply-held religious beliefs (or morals, regardless of their origin) carry as much or more weight for carving out a discrimination 'loophole' than an exercising woman's desire not to be ogled or hit upon.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9025289].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic

11 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

It is wild, yes, but is relevant in that it serves the purpose of demonstrating that there are sometimes valid reasons for discrimination, and most are subjective in nature.

I don't disagree with the reasoning behind having a single-sex gym -- or club, or dating site, or whatever.

Actually, they aren't subjective at all. Their legal basis is in freedom of association (as protected under the First Amendment).

What you're still missing is that there is a difference between these kinds of organizations and one that does business with the general public - such as a typical bakery.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9026767].message }}

Paul Myers

11 years ago

Steve,

So how would you classify (from the original story) that baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding? Would not wanting to participate in something he believes to be immoral as per his religious teachings be considered a "sensible reason"? Consider that the baker is not excluding the customer based on his being gay. Nor was he trying to hurt anyone. He said he would bake him any other kind of cake.

That's a really tough one. On one hand, the guy is clearly not interfering actively in the couple's exercise of their right to get married, nor is he condemning them in any way.

On the other hand, he is denying them service based on a qualifier that has nothing to do with the business he's in. Given that marriage is defined by the state, the state has an interest in defending related rights and privileges.

Consider the luxury (as in, non-essential) nature of the product, and it gets really grey. Add in the "open to the public" aspect that Hopeless Bro mentioned, and it's a mess.

I'd fall marginally in the "You offer it to one, you offer it to all" camp. His religious beliefs do not prevent him from baking, and it doesn't seem anyone asked him to participate in or endorse the marriage.

Paul

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9026960].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Steve,That's a really tough one. On one hand, the guy is clearly not interfering actively in the couple's exercise of their right to get married, nor is he condemning them in any way.

On the other hand, he is denying them service based on a qualifier that has nothing to do with the business he's in. Given that marriage is defined by the state, the state has an interest in defending related rights and privileges.

Consider the luxury (as in, non-essential) nature of the product, and it gets really grey. Add in the "open to the public" aspect that Hopeless Bro mentioned, and it's a mess.

I'd fall marginally in the "You offer it to one, you offer it to all" camp. His religious beliefs do not prevent him from baking, and it doesn't seem anyone asked him to participate in or endorse the marriage.

Paul

I'd have to agree for the most part. Except for your last line - and now we may be splitting hairs - but if you are not of a certain religion then how can you say it's not asking him to endorse the marriage? Maybe in his religion simply baking the cake acknowledges the act which is taught to be "not right". Which is endorsing to a point.

Franky, I fall under the "Well, if you don't want to sell it to me, then I'll take ALL my business elsewhere and tell all my friends" category. It's more the bakers (financial) loss than mine. I also think people in general could thicken their skins just a little.

Thanks

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9027185].message }}

TimPhelan

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Midnight Oil

I really don't like getting into quote wars, but Andrew Sullivan did have an interesting thought:

To me, he's one of the best conservative commentators around today. Good quote from him. Ultimately it comes down to a court decision though and they can be determined by laws passed or not passed of course.

They serve sandwiches. Like the baker, they'll even do special orders. To a point.

True, but I doubt someone will be forced to make a special order they don't want to.

Your cut off is 18. I asked specifically about 16 and 17 year olds who can legally date older people. There's a reason you don't include them in your services. Perhaps it's just something you don't agree with.

Seriously? You wonder why there is a cutoff for minors on an over 50 dating site?

You are losing credibility here and entering the silly realm.

I'll let Thom speak for himself. But the cake example I used is exactly the same. You just choose not to accept it.

"Exactly" is a pretty precise definition. I choose to disagree with you.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9019329].message }}

Midnight Oil 11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

True, but I doubt someone will be forced to make a special order they don't want to.

Unless, of course . . . well, you know.

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Seriously? You wonder why there is a cutoff for minors on an over 50 dating site? You are losing credibility here and entering the silly realm.

Well, Tim, you were the one who said some younger folks like guys/gals over 50. I'm pretty sure that works in reverse, also.

You choose not to offer that service, even though they can legally date. So it appears that it's something you don't personally agree with and don't want to participate in. You can correct me if I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

"Exactly" is a pretty precise definition. I choose to disagree with you.

Well, that's a surprise.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9019363].message }}
seasoned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Seriously? You wonder why there is a cutoff for minors on an over 50 dating site? You are losing credibility here and entering the silly realm.

OK FOLKS, we are entering the twilight zone here!!!!!!!

Some cultures setup their kids AT BIRTH! MANY can marry at like 10-16. And some pedophiles would LOVE such a site. That has been true for MILLENIA! And THAT is "the silly realm"!

And the declaration of "the silly realm" is in a thread about people in the 21st century that were DEMANDED, at a cost exceedng TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS to bake a cake for people that obviously hate them. And WHAT is the cake for? To provide a decoration and dessert for two women that want to marry one another. The declarer contends THAT is not silly, but fair.

REALLY, WHICH is sillier?

Steve
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9019490].message }}
- Midnight Oil 11 years ago
  
  Thanks, guys. I appreciate the discussion, but the poor ol' horse just doesn't look like it can take much more beating. I hope all's well.
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9020216].message }}
  
  KimW 11 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Midnight Oil
  
  Thanks, guys. I appreciate the discussion, but the poor ol' horse just doesn't look like it can take much more beating. I hope all's well.
  
  [ 3 ] Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  Read A Post.
  Subscribe to a Newsletter
  KimWinfrey.Com
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9021035].message }}
  
  seasoned 11 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by KimW
  
  The hide hasn't been tanned, and has ANYONE called the glue factory yet?
  
  Steve
  
  [ 2 ] Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9021092].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

I found some interesting views on this topic from people who express themselves much better than myself. Here's a few:

The claim that marriage equality violates anyone's religious liberty is simply dishonest.

Um - this wasn't about marriage equality. It was about practicing what they BELIEVE to be right or moral based on what they were taught.

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

"Certainly our religious freedom, our right to our religious beliefs, is one of our most basic American rights. This basic right, however, does not extend to our use of our religion to discriminate against and impose our beliefs on others with whom we disagree.

But the baker was not trying to impose his beliefs on anyone. He was trying to practice his own...which apparently, in this country, is frowned upon by groups with louder voices and media control

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

When religious beliefs are used as an excuse to discriminate against others, we are allowing the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection to be overturned.

...at the expense of the constitutions OTHER right - religious freedom.

The only ones calling this an "excuse" - coincidentally - have little regard for religion (or a religion different than their own).

This article - just like every single post in this thread - is an opinion. Obviously, the writer isn't all that religious (or simply doesn't understand the religion they are commenting on) if he simply classifies someone following their own beliefs as discrimination simply because it hurts someone's feelings .

And less face it - so many groups of people (the religious ones included) seem to get their feelings hurt over everything and instead of just moving on with life want to make everyone "sensitive" to their feelings.

It's really mostly about political correctness. Let's not hurt anyone's feelings. That would be discriminatory...

===============

Edit: Tim - so you understand, I will explain a little of my own religious "beliefs". I am Catholic. All my life. But "lapsed" is not descriptive enough. I don't go to church. I don't read the bible. And frankly, I have my own issues with the beliefs and teachings of the Catholic church.

Including their views on same sex relationships. I have family members who are gay.

I personally think the Catholic church is quite hypocritical. God loves us all - unless? Huh. Really.

But putting that all aside, I still believe that it's as much a religious persons RIGHT to practice what they believe as it is a gay couple's RIGHT to be together. I think it's as much "discrimination" to force a religious person to do something against their teachings as it is to, say, deny a gay person entry in to the armed forces. The ONLY difference I see is that one is a "federally protected class" and the other really isn't.

And by the way - don't you think it's about as hypocritical of the government to offer special classification protection to the gay community while at the same time will kick you out of the service for being gay? :rolleyes:

[ 3 ] Thanks

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9015105].message }}

TimPhelan

11 years ago

How could you say he never refused to serve them at all and then quote him where he obviously did refuse to serve them a product he makes for everyone else?

Originally Posted by Midnight Oil

Actually, the baker never refused to serve them at all.

"I'll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don't make cakes for same-sex weddings."

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9014409].message }}

Midnight Oil 11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

How could you say he never refused to serve them at all and then quote him where he obviously did refuse to serve them a product he makes for everyone else?

Everything else was available. One thing he said he didn't do. One thing.

I see on your Over 50 Dating site that you don't offer those services for 16 and 17 year olds. Why not?
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9014439].message }}
seasoned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

How could you say he never refused to serve them at all and then quote him where he obviously did refuse to serve them a product he makes for everyone else?

They DO NOT MAKE IT, PERIOD! And I mean PERIOD in the traditional sense. NEVER! END OF STATEMENT! They homosexuals did NOT want a product the baker made for everyone else! They wanted the baker to provide a SERVICE that included making a product that is SIMILAR to what they make for others.

So it is like going to a urologist and asking them to give you a gynecological exam. It COULD be considered along the same line, but it ISN'T.

HECK, would you ask an orthodoxed jewish company to cook with one pan, or cater a party where bacon is served, etc?

Steve
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9014541].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Hmm. So religious teachings say a business shouldn't sell products or services to people who think different from you? I don't think so. Here's why I have a problem with this guy's story: I don't see his religious freedoms being restricted in any form.

Actually, they kind of DO! There ARE rules, mostly in the old testament, about not doing business with, or even associating with such people. Of course MOST don't follow them, and don't even acknowledge it. But that is NOT what this is about! HECK, it is often aid that Jesus associated with MANY sinners. Of course he wasn't sinning there, didn't condone sin, and destroyed the tables at the temple where merchants sold animals for sacrifice.

ALAS, CAREFUL! You are about to shoot yourself in the foot because homosexual people do what you are claiming is wrong ALL THE TIME! Don't believe me? Read Takei's last letter to the arizona governor! It said he did it before, and was going to do it AGAIN!

Lets look at one example of how religious freedom is defined and how it is restricted. The International Religious Freedom Act defines five violations of religious freedom:

Let's NOT! This is supposed to be the US!!!!! They RAN AWAY from one of the MOST reasonable countries to use that "international" act!

I don't see how any of these true religious freedom violations happened simply by making businesses treat everyone equaly.

What is EQUAL? Can people marry animals? Can kids say 9yo marry? If I had a friend in a car accident could I see that friend as a member of the family? Could multiple people claim marriage to save on taxes or insurance?

Watch the film "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry"! A father has some disaster happen and he AND HIS KIDS are now without insurance! They are FORBIDDEN to have insurance! He has to get married ASAP to get the insurance company to insure everyone, and ends up marrying a friend saying that the two STRAIGHT people are actually homosexual, so he can get coverage!

Did they restrict freedom of expression? No.

YEP, they DID!

Hey, here's something the baker could have done. He could have sold them a cake and then start preaching to them why they were going to hell. Or, they could have stood outside the wedding and protested it. Or, they could post signs in their store quoting the bible, including verses that they interpreted to be against gay weddings. All this would be freedom of expression.

Actually, I think that would be forbidden. It would also be hypocritical! And you REALLY don't think the plaintiffs would sue? YEAH RIGHT! They probably HOPED that would happen!

However, I do not see how a public business refusing service to anyone because of who they are as a religious freedom. As I pointed out in another thread, the same excuse of religious freedom was used to discriminate against all sorts of people in the past and in the present.

Do you always use a crowbar to open every little door? EVENTUALLY, it won't be any good, and you will have a lot of damaged doors!

I am actually very tolerant and respectful to all religions, but I am very intolerant to those who discriminate and especially to those who do so and then use religion as an excuse.

You're not tolerant OR respectful of religions, and your line in threads like this only proves it all the more.

You would probably forbid a CHRISTIAN team at a CHRISTIAN school in a CHRISTIAN town reading a passage from the Bible because it offends a couple people that flew in one day to visit their family, and happened to be at the event even though they hate the sport! And you would say "Well, they should read the bible at home!"!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9014407].message }}

Kay King

11 years ago

I've been reading the opinions and one thing sticks in my mind:

If you aren't happy for me - if you don't agree with my choices - I wouldn't want to give you my money and or want your product/service featured in my personal event.

I would buy my cake, flowers, and everything else only from business people who support my decision and accept my choices/lifestyle.

I can't imagine why any couple - straight/gay/mixed race/disparate ages - would want to do business with any businessperson who disapproves of their customer.

[ 7 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9012494].message }}

TimPhelan

11 years ago

Sure. I agree with that, but I don't see any evidence that they wanted the baker's services after they first went to him. They suid him instead.

Originally Posted by Kay King

I've been reading the opinions and one thing sticks in my mind:

If you aren't happy for me - if you don't agree with my choices - I wouldn't want to give you my money and or want your product/service featured in my personal event.

I would buy my cake, flowers, and everything else only from business people who support my decision and accept my choices/lifestyle.

I can't imagine why any couple - straight/gay/mixed race/disparate ages - would want to do business with any businessperson who disapproves of their customer.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9012554].message }}

seasoned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Sure. I agree with that, but I don't see any evidence that they wanted the baker's services after they first went to him. They suid him instead.

If they didn't need his services, how could you even claim they had STANDING! So you ADMIT IT! They did this SOLELY to cause trouble!

HEY, there are a LOT of religious schools that want you to be THEIR religion! I wonder when people will start suing THEM! But WHAT sense does it make for a devout muslim to send their child to a school that is CATHOLIC?

Steve
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9012580].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Sure, they probably wanted it custom made in some sort of way with writing perhaps, but that's something the baker would provide to anyone. I think the problem was that the baker didn't want to sell them a cake, not that the two didn't want to buy the cake.

The baker WAS willing to sell them "THE CAKE". They SAID SO! They just didn't want to take a PART in it!

Steve

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9012578].message }}

TimPhelan

11 years ago

I haven't seen anything about being asked to "take part" in the wedding. They were just asked to bake a cake from what I have read.

Originally Posted by seasoned

The baker WAS willing to sell them "THE CAKE". They SAID SO! They just didn't want to take a PART in it!

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9012636].message }}

David Braybrooke

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

I haven't seen anything about being asked to "take part" in the wedding. They were just asked to bake a cake from what I have read.

The solution? Ask the baker to make a wedding cake; don't mention the gender of the participants etc. You can give design, icing specifics if you wish but stick the two grooms, two brides ornament on top yourself, after delivery.

This method of ordering may seem 'unfair' to some but let's face it, the world ain't a fair place! If the bakery was selected specifically, in order to make some type of political protest when an obvious rejection happens, then who really wins?

It doesn't usually take a genius to work out if a particular business will likely have homophobic staff working there. Enter and order at your own risk etc. Not excusing the behaviour and attitudes of staff members, but surely a strictly pragmatic approach to these types of wedding purchasing scenarios would help make the staging of such events more bearable for all involved. Just an opinion. And besides, you don't need bad juju at a gay wedding because of cake making issues.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"The scientific theory I like best is that the rings of Saturn are composed entirely of lost airline luggage." - Mark Russell

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9013170].message }}

Midnight Oil

11 years ago

Originally Posted by David Braybrooke

Not excusing the behaviour and attitudes of staff members, but surely a strictly pragmatic approach to these types of wedding purchasing scenarios would help make the staging of such events more bearable for all involved.

I can see how such a scenario would also provide an opportunity to develop product and service solutions for an underserved market.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9013288].message }}

TimPhelan

11 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

Something that surprises me is that people really think that beliefs and general morals can be legislated. You'll never stop haters from hating no matter how many laws you pass. Passing a law isn't going to make people who believe homosexuality is immoral magically change their belief. You may be able to force someone to act they way you think they ought to, but it doesn't change their mind.

I think you are confused here because in this instance the law wasn't passed to keep people from discriminating. It was actually passed to help protect people who discriminate. In the case of the baker he was sued and he lost.

Plus, if there is a law passed to keep people from discriminating it's goal isn't to change the mind of the discriminator, it's to protect the rights of those being discriminated against.

But you know what? You can't force me to provide service to someone I don't want to provide service to, no matter how many laws you pass. I will discriminate all I want to, and there's nothing you can do about it, because you'll never know the real reason why I'm refusing.

Depends. If you were in a situation like the baker you could get away just by lying as you suggest. However in a situation like what happened in public places such as restaurants before the civil rights act was passed, how would you keep refusing to serve black people?

Here's a thought, instead of lying, or discriminating against someone and telling the truth, or serving a cake and putting something in it to get even, how about trying to treat everyone equaly?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9009945].message }}

SteveJohnson

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

I think you are confused here because in this instance the law wasn't passed to keep people from discriminating. It was actually passed to help protect people who discriminate. In the case of the baker he was sued and he lost.

Nope, not confused. He lost because he told the truth.

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Plus, if there is a law passed to keep people from discriminating it's goal isn't to change the mind of the discriminator, it's to protect the rights of those being discriminated against.

Its goal is to force people to act in a way they that their beliefs are against, saying in effect that another person's beliefs are more important. Show me where there is a 'right' to force a person to do business with you.

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Depends. If you were in a situation like the baker you could get away just by lying as you suggest. However in a situation like what happened in public places such as restaurants before the civil rights act was passed, how would you keep refusing to serve black people?

If I were dead set against it, I would find a way. And BTW, a restaurant is not a 'public place', it is a private business, no matter how much distortion is applied to say otherwise.

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Here's a thought, instead of lying, or discriminating against someone and telling the truth, or serving a cake and putting something in it to get even, how about trying to treat everyone equaly?

Why should I tolerate and reward behavior in others that I might find offensive? What if I believe that treating them equally only encourages more of the same behavior?

Why do some people think that one person's right to live as they believe is more important than another's?

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9012572].message }}

TimPhelan

11 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

Nope, not confused. He lost because he told the truth.

You didn't even address my point. :/

Its goal is to force people to act in a way they that their beliefs are against, saying in effect that another person's beliefs are more important. Show me where there is a 'right' to force a person to do business with you.

The civil rights act ended disrimination in places like public restaurants, which yes, forced the poor racists to serve black people.

If I were dead set against it, I would find a way.

I doubt that very much.

And BTW, a restaurant is not a 'public place', it is a private business, no matter how much distortion is applied to say otherwise.

"A public place is generally an indoor or outdoor area, whether privately or publicly owned, to which the public have access by right or by invitation, expressed or implied, whether by payment of money or not, but not a place when used exclusively by one or more individuals for a private gathering or other personal purpose. The following is an example of a state law defining public places for smoking laws:

"Public place" means any enclosed indoor area used by the general public or serving as a place of work containing two hundred fifty or more square feet of floor space, including, but not limited to, all restaurants with a seating capacity greater than fifty, all retail stores, lobbies and malls, offices, including waiting rooms, and other commercial establishments; public conveyances with departures, travel, and destination entirely within this state; educational facilities; hospitals, clinics, nursing homes, and other health care and medical facilities; and auditoriums, elevators, theaters, libraries, art museums, concert halls, indoor arenas, and meeting rooms."

http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/public-place/

Why should I tolerate and reward behavior in others that I might find offensive?

You aren't tolerating or rewarding someone when you sell them a product or service.

What if I believe that treating them equally only encourages more of the same behavior?

So, discrimination is going to discourage them?

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9012662].message }}

SteveJohnson

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

Nope, not confused. He lost because he told the truth.

You didn't even address my point. :/

That I was confused over what the Arizona bill said? Let me address it, then: no, I am not confused. The Arizona bill was written to protect people from being forced to act against their beliefs. It was not written to 'allow discrimination', which is a deliberate distortion.

Quote:
Its goal is to force people to act in a way they that their beliefs are against, saying in effect that another person's beliefs are more important. Show me where there is a 'right' to force a person to do business with you.
The civil rights act ended disrimination in places like public restaurants, which yes, forced the poor racists to serve black people.

So it did.

Quote:
If I were dead set against it, I would find a way.
I doubt that very much

Bet me?

Quote:
And BTW, a restaurant is not a 'public place', it is a private business, no matter how much distortion is applied to say otherwise.
"A public place is generally an indoor or outdoor area, whether privately or publicly owned, to which the public have access by right or by invitation, expressed or implied, whether by payment of money or not, but not a place when used exclusively by one or more individuals for a private gathering or other personal purpose. The following is an example of a state law defining public places for smoking laws:

"Public place" means any enclosed indoor area used by the general public or serving as a place of work containing two hundred fifty or more square feet of floor space, including, but not limited to, all restaurants with a seating capacity greater than fifty, all retail stores, lobbies and malls, offices, including waiting rooms, and other commercial establishments; public conveyances with departures, travel, and destination entirely within this state; educational facilities; hospitals, clinics, nursing homes, and other health care and medical facilities; and auditoriums, elevators, theaters, libraries, art museums, concert halls, indoor arenas, and meeting rooms."

Public Place Law & Legal Definition

As I said, "...no matter how much distortion is applied to say otherwise". Notice that, "The following is an example of a state law defining public places for smoking laws" is just such a distortion. That definition was cobbled together by lawyers for the express purpose of redefining what common sense defines as a "public place", to justify their encroachment on private property.

Quote:
Why should I tolerate and reward behavior in others that I might find offensive?
You aren't tolerating or rewarding someone when you sell them a product or service.

Then how is someone being intolerant when they refuse?

Quote:
What if I believe that treating them equally only encourages more of the same behavior?
So, discrimination is going to discourage them?

It will discourage them from associating themselves with my business.

This is descending into the ridiculous.

The bottom line is that a group of people whose lifestyle is viewed by many as being immoral or wrong has won protected status, and is using that status to force the behavior of people who disagree. The people who disagree are pushing back.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9012820].message }}

Paul Myers

11 years ago

Thom,

If he refused to allow them to purchase any of his other products or refused them to enter his bakery because they are gay, that's discrimination.

Well put. Very nice distinction.

Choosing to not contribute to a wedding, that because of your religious beliefs you believe is immoral, is simply exercising your religious freedoms.

I agree. And this person is not forcing consequences on anyone else. It gets a little dicey when your refusal could have very large consequences for someone else, though. The obvious relevant example is the "only drug store in town" that refuses to sell certain medications. This could range from morning-after birth control to AIDS medications to plain old contraceptives.

At what point does one person's exercise of religious freedom become an active interference with someone else's valid freedoms?

I am of the belief that "no smoking" laws covering public venues are entirely appropriate for places someone might have little choice but to go, and especially where they might have to take children with them. That clearly covers most shopping places, work places, doctor's offices, libraries, and the like.

What about restaurants? "Have to go" is less clear there. Should they be given a choice? I can see valid arguments on both sides.

Bars? To me, it seems clear they should be allowed to choose whether to allow smoking or not.

This gets muddled even more in smaller communities. If you live in New York City, very little harm is going to be done by allowing pharmacists to make those choices. If you live in Podunk, Nebraska, it might result in a complete ban.

People in small towns are more likely to take such stands. Some because of the feeling of power it gives them. Others because of the feeling that what they're doing makes a difference.

Is it right to allow more choice to the pharmacist - or baker - in a big city than to someone in the same business in a small town?

Not easy questions.

Paul

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9012925].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Thom,Well put. Very nice distinction.I agree. And this person is not forcing consequences on anyone else. It gets a little dicey when your refusal could have very large consequences for someone else, though. The obvious relevant example is the "only drug store in town" that refuses to sell certain medications. This could range from morning-after birth control to AIDS medications to plain old contraceptives.

At what point does one person's exercise of religious freedom become an active interference with someone else's valid freedoms?

I am of the belief that "no smoking" laws covering public venues are entirely appropriate for places someone might have little choice but to go, and especially where they might have to take children with them. That clearly covers most shopping places, work places, doctor's offices, libraries, and the like.

What about restaurants? "Have to go" is less clear there. Should they be given a choice? I can see valid arguments on both sides.

Bars? To me, it seems clear they should be allowed to choose whether to allow smoking or not.

This gets muddled even more in smaller communities. If you live in New York City, very little harm is going to be done by allowing pharmacists to make those choices. If you live in Podunk, Nebraska, it might result in a complete ban.

People in small towns are more likely to take such stands. Some because of the feeling of power it gives them. Others because of the feeling that what they're doing makes a difference.

Is it right to allow more choice to the pharmacist - or baker - in a big city than to someone in the same business in a small town?

Not easy questions.

Paul

Thanks Paul, and you have many good points.
I don't know if your allowing more choice for a business in a big city as opposed to a small town. The person looking for any type of service is given more choices because of location.
In a small town where there is only one choice, I think "causing harm" would come into play. If a person needs a certain drug and the pharmacy doesn't carry it (for what ever reason) they are obligated to still get it for that person.
But I also think that in a small town, unless you moved in recently, you already know what the baker will or will not do and what the other businesses will or will not do. Also I know from experience in a small town or rural area you "make do" more often then not

At what point does one person's exercise of religious freedom become an active interference with someone else's valid freedoms?

Personally I think when it has the potential to cause physical harm to another. But I feel the same about anybodies freedom, including my own.

Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9012983].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic

11 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

The bottom line is that a group of people whose lifestyle is viewed by many as being immoral or wrong has won protected status, and is using that status to force the behavior of people who disagree. The people who disagree are pushing back.

And not too long ago, a group of people who were viewed by many as being inferior - and were legally segregated from the majority of Americans in many states and localities - won protected status, and they used that status to force the behavior of people who disagreed. The people who disagreed did a lot of pushing back (and a few still do).

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9013067].message }}

Joe Mobley

11 years ago

Yea, you got'ta give women credit. They hung in there and fought a good fight... and continue to do so. :rolleyes:

Joe Mobley

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

And not too long ago, a group of people who were viewed by many as being inferior - and were legally segregated from the majority of Americans in many states and localities - won protected status, and they used that status to force the behavior of people who disagreed. The people who disagreed did a lot of pushing back (and a few still do).

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

.

Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9013112].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic 11 years ago

Originally Posted by Joe Mobley

Yea, you got'ta give women credit. They hung in there and fought a good fight... and continue to do so. :rolleyes:

Joe Mobley

Them, too.

I don't get the rolly eyes, though: does that mean you don't want women to vote? :confused:
- Thanks
Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9013118].message }}
HeySal 11 years ago

Originally Posted by Joe Mobley

Yea, you got'ta give women credit. They hung in there and fought a good fight... and continue to do so. :rolleyes:

Joe Mobley

Oh yack yack. Shut up and go make me a sandwich.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9013594].message }}
- Joe Mobley 11 years ago
  
  Honey, did you want something to drink with that?
  
  Joe Mobley
  
  Originally Posted by HeySal
  
  Oh yack yack. Shut up and go make me a sandwich.
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  2 replies
  
  Signature
  
  .
  Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9013712].message }}
  
  KimW 11 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by HeySal
  
  Oh yack yack. Shut up and go make me a sandwich.
  
  Originally Posted by Joe Mobley
  
  Honey, did you want something to drink with that?
  
  Joe Mobley
  
  You knew it was coming.
  
  Yakety Yak-The coasters-original song-1958 -...
  
  [ 2 ] Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  Read A Post.
  Subscribe to a Newsletter
  KimWinfrey.Com
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9013723].message }}
  
  MikeAmbrosio 11 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by HeySal
  
  Oh yack yack. Shut up and go make me a sandwich.
  
  Originally Posted by KimW
  
  You knew it was coming.
  
  Yakety Yak-The coasters-original song-1958 - YouTube
  
  ...and one of my favorites:
  
  turkeypotpie - YouTube
  
  (I edited out the "offending" word)
  
  Every now and then I say to my wife "Go fix me a turkey pot pie!", and she promptly smacks the back of my head...
  
  (and now back to the "debate")
  
  [ 3 ] Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9014029].message }}
  
  HeySal 11 years ago
  
  :rolleyes:
  
  Originally Posted by Joe Mobley
  
  Honey, did you want something to drink with that?
  
  Joe Mobley
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Sal
  When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
  Beyond the Path
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9015434].message }}

fbrs

11 years ago

can anyone please tell me the ingredients of a GAY PIZZA???:confused:

just sausage ??

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9009450].message }}

KimW

11 years ago

Here's a thought, instead of lying, or discriminating against someone and telling the truth, or serving a cake and putting something in it to get even, how about trying to treat everyone equaly?

He already answered this Tim

"You may be able to force someone to act they way you think they ought to, but it doesn't change their mind."

Forcing anything doesn't cause or even mean acceptance.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Read A Post.
Subscribe to a Newsletter
KimWinfrey.Com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9009970].message }}

Paul Myers

11 years ago

It would be really nice if we SHOWED the kind of civil tolerance of different beliefs and opinions that we claim to expect to see in other forms of public discourse.

Just a thought.

[ 5 ] Thanks

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9010795].message }}

Kurt

11 years ago

Smoking should be allowed in bars, casinos/poker rooms, pool halls and prison. I don't have a logical argument for this, other than it's just the way things should be.

Thanks

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9012968].message }}

HeySal

11 years ago

As far as restaurants and bars, one of the bars in bumfukegypt Idaho had a solution to the problem of having a large majority of their regular customers being smokers when the laws looked like it was going to take their right to have smoking in an establishment away from them.

They called it a private club and sold memberships for 50 cents at the door. If you wanted to enter, you had to buy a membership. The membership cards were good forever, and it was understood also at the door that this was a smoking allowed establishment and if that was not okay, then people had to go elsewhere. At some point of the law, that restaurant will have to cater to adults only, I believe, but the memberships were "family".

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9012997].message }}

Paul Myers

11 years ago

Thom,

If a person needs a certain drug and the pharmacy doesn't carry it (for what ever reason) they are obligated to still get it for that person.

But are they?

I would think they should, but is it an actual obligation? I'm not sure. I do think it's an appropriate place for legislation, but I think it needs to be very carefully crafted, and that's where the sticking point of "variety of options" could come in.

But is that situational ethics, and does the law have any business straying into that territory? Should a person's principles be given more value because they live in a big city?

I'm not at all comfortable with that notion.

But I also think that in a small town, unless you moved in recently, you already know what the baker will or will not do and what the other businesses will or will not do. Also I know from experience in a small town or rural area you "make do" more often then not

True and true.

Small towns are great, except when they're not. And when they're not great, they really suck.

Paul

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9013024].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Thom,But are they?

I would think they should, but is it an actual obligation? I'm not sure. I do think it's an appropriate place for legislation, but I think it needs to be very carefully crafted, and that's where the sticking point of "variety of options" could come in.

But is that situational ethics, and does the law have any business straying into that territory? Should a person's principles be given more value because they live in a big city?

I'm not at all comfortable with that notion.
Paul

I only think it's an obligation if not having the drug will effect a persons life in a negative way.
Any legislation should be carefully crafted, that's one problem we have where legislators pass laws as knee jerk reactions to look like they're doing something.
I don't think the law has any business in situational ethics unless the action of one party is causing harm, violating privacy, or suppressing the values (or principles) of another party.
Every persons principles should carry the same weight regardless of where they live.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9013109].message }}

Paul Myers 11 years ago

Thom,

I only think it's an obligation if not having the drug will effect a persons life in a negative way.

Are there any drugs you'd need to get from a pharmacist that wouldn't fit that description?

Every persons principles should carry the same weight regardless of where they live.

Even a cannibal's?

Silly example, but sometimes the extremes make the point more clearly. It's easy to say things like this, but it's sort of like the old "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Do you really want a masochist following that advice?

Yes, I know. Those are preferences, not principles. But they (hopefully) make the point without getting into religious or political areas.

Paul
- Thanks
Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9013138].message }}

Dan Riffle

11 years ago

Seems to me, Tim, that you're ignoring point one in the passage you posted. The baker has a belief based on his religion and now his right to that belief is being restricted.

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9014192].message }}

SteveJohnson

11 years ago

Doesn't seem to me to be much difference in this argument than the one over Obamacare's forcing businesses to sell or pay for contraceptives when they believe it's wrong.

The left is tolerant of everything BUT an individual's religious beliefs, when those beliefs stand in the way of their agenda.

Those of us on the wrong side of the road are at a disadvantage because of the way the left has framed the discussion. Who wants to be known as someone who discriminates against another? It's a dirty word.

My answer is to call a spade a spade. Yes, not selling to gays is discriminatory. My beliefs require me to discriminate between what I believe to be right, and what I believe to be wrong. The left may pass a law telling me my beliefs matter less than their collective opinion, and they may punish me for acting on my beliefs in defiance of their law, but they won't change my judgement of right and wrong.

What the left doesn't understand, or refuses to accept, is that there is a higher power than men's laws, and that is a man's conscience. I take that back. They DO understand it, and it pisses them off.

What REALLY pisses them off is that someone would choose the lion's den over acquiescing to their authority.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9014470].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

The left is tolerant of everything BUT an individual's religious beliefs, when those beliefs stand in the way of their agenda.

I'm tempted to ask if you do parties!

My answer is to call a spade a spade. Yes, not selling to gays is discriminatory. My beliefs require me to discriminate between what I believe to be right, and what I believe to be wrong. The left may pass a law telling me my beliefs matter less than their collective opinion, and they may punish me for acting on my beliefs in defiance of their law, but they won't change my judgement of right and wrong.

I had a coworker that neglected to discriminate against a particular company. I found out about it on sunday when he called from his hospital room to say he apparently had some seafood, and was in the hospital and couldn't work on monday.

Sounds crazy, huh? WELL, he was alergic to seafood, and the company LIED! The vegetarian rolls either weren't kept separate, or the grill wasn't properly cleaned, and he ALMOST DIED because of that MINOR failure!

What the left doesn't understand, or refuses to accept, is that there is a higher power than men's laws, and that is a man's conscience. I take that back. They DO understand it, and it pisses them off.

What REALLY pisses them off is that someone would choose the lion's den over acquiescing to their authority.

YOU'VE SAID IT!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9014552].message }}

KimW

11 years ago

Can't we all get along?

I think it's time for some brotherly love.

Neil Diamond - Brother Love's Travelling...

Thanks

Signature

Read A Post.
Subscribe to a Newsletter
KimWinfrey.Com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9015068].message }}

Dennis Gaskill

11 years ago

Round and round and round they go...

Friends, you do realize most, if not everyone, is entrenched in their position and you're not going to change anyone's mind, right?

[ 6 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9015109].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill

Round and round and round they go...

Friends, you do realize most, if not everyone, is entrenched in their position and you're not going to change anyone's mind, right?

Known that for years - especially around here. Sometimes though, everyone needs a good distraction

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9015113].message }}

Paul Myers

11 years ago

if he simply classifies someone following their own beliefs as discrimination simply because it hurts someone's feelings.

I can tell you with complete confidence that this is the definition used by a great many people.

It's sort of like the idiots who cite the First Amendment as their defense for being rude to others in a forum. They've clearly either failed, or never taken, a civics class, and have never actually READ the First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law..."

We ain't Congress, forum rules ain't laws, and the Constitution does not prohibit discriminating against jackasses. Not to mention that, online, the First Amendment is a minor local ordinance.

Or the folks who respond to correction or disagreement with "I have a right to my opinion!"

That is absolutely true. You do not, however, have the right to force others to pay for you to disseminate it. Nor does the fact that you have an opinion require anyone else to respect it or take it seriously. If you want either of those, you have to earn them by supporting your opinion with reasonable bases.

None of us has the "right" to be taken seriously just because we're sure we're right. Most people are, even when they're utterly and completely wrong.

Oh... and even if you prove the other guy is wrong, that does not mean that you are somehow magically proven right.

Paul

PS: There is a small stack of books that I keep handy on my desk. Two of them are titles that I highly recommend for folks who haven't read them: "On Being Certain," by Robert A. Burton, and "The No Asshole Rule," by Robert I. Sutton. You can get both through Amazon. They're less than the cost of most WSOs, and more useful than you might imagine.

[ 3 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9015279].message }}

KimW

11 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio

Known that for years - especially around here. Sometimes though, everyone needs a good distraction

Exactly why I even participate in these discussions.

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

I can tell you with complete confidence that this is the definition used by a great many people.

It's sort of like the idiots who cite the First Amendment as their defense for being rude to others in a forum. They've clearly either failed, or never taken, a civics class, and have never actually READ the First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law..."

We ain't Congress, forum rules ain't laws, and the Constitution does not prohibit discriminating against jackasses. Not to mention that, online, the First Amendment is a minor local ordinance.

Or the folks who respond to correction or disagreement with "I have a right to my opinion!"

That is absolutely true. You do not, however, have the right to force others to pay for you to disseminate it. Nor does the fact that you have an opinion require anyone else to respect it or take it seriously. If you want either of those, you have to earn them by supporting your opinion with reasonable bases.

None of us has the "right" to be taken seriously just because we're sure we're right. Most people are, even when they're utterly and completely wrong.

Oh... and even if you prove the other guy is wrong, that does not mean that you are somehow magically proven right.

Paul

PS: There is a small stack of books that I keep handy on my desk. Two of them are titles that I highly recommend for folks who haven't read them: "On Being Certain," by Robert A. Burton, and "The No Asshole Rule," by Robert I. Sutton. You can get both through Amazon. They're less than the cost of most WSOs, and more useful than you might imagine.

Also very true.
But like Mike said, sometimes we all need a distraction.

Thanks

Signature

Read A Post.
Subscribe to a Newsletter
KimWinfrey.Com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9015735].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

I can tell you with complete confidence that this is the definition used by a great many people.

It's sort of like the idiots who cite the First Amendment as their defense for being rude to others in a forum. They've clearly either failed, or never taken, a civics class, and have never actually READ the First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law..."

We ain't Congress, forum rules ain't laws, and the Constitution does not prohibit discriminating against jackasses. Not to mention that, online, the First Amendment is a minor local ordinance.

Or the folks who respond to correction or disagreement with "I have a right to my opinion!"

That is absolutely true. You do not, however, have the right to force others to pay for you to disseminate it. Nor does the fact that you have an opinion require anyone else to respect it or take it seriously. If you want either of those, you have to earn them by supporting your opinion with reasonable bases.

None of us has the "right" to be taken seriously just because we're sure we're right. Most people are, even when they're utterly and completely wrong.

Oh... and even if you prove the other guy is wrong, that does not mean that you are somehow magically proven right.

Paul

PS: There is a small stack of books that I keep handy on my desk. Two of them are titles that I highly recommend for folks who haven't read them: "On Being Certain," by Robert A. Burton, and "The No Asshole Rule," by Robert I. Sutton. You can get both through Amazon. They're less than the cost of most WSOs, and more useful than you might imagine.

For me, none of this discussion (or others like it) is about proving me right or someone else wrong. I stated it in one or two posts - most of this is about peoples beliefs. I don't follow some, and I know many don't follow mine.

It's also why I added my little edit. Because people will classify others based on what they read in a forum and many times, their classification WOULD be wrong.

In the end, however, I am not trying to change anyone's mind or make them believe what I do. I'm just voicing what I think. People can take it for what they think it means.

And, like I also said - we all need a good distraction from time to time

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9015800].message }}

TimPhelan

11 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio

In the end, however, I am not trying to change anyone's mind or make them believe what I do. I'm just voicing what I think. People can take it for what they think it means.

I completely agree with you on that one Mike!

Hey, I know am I going to be in the minority on most issues in these here parts. Heck, it's usually just as it is in this thread: myself and one or two others on one side and a half dozen or dozen on the other side. That's just the nature of this forum which I think everyone would agree leans much more to the conservative and libertarian side because it is a marketing site.

I have no illusions that one day Seasoned is going to all of a sudden say "Damn Tim, I have THOUGHT about what you have said and I have to admit you are 100% right about a ******LOT****** of things!!!!!!!!!!"

If that ever happened I would probably start to really question myself. lol.

It seems to me everyone is set in their opinions on most issues by now in their stage of life and all are pretty certain they are right. I enjoy the debate and conversation.

Regarding this issue, others have made some good points but I still feel the Arizona bill was wrong. Surprise!

You said it isn't as cut and dry as I think it is but I disagree. I keep comparing it to the civel rights cause in the 60s and in my opinion the issues are very similar if not identical.

Do I have empathy for the people who who say they are following their religious beliefs? Yes. Especially the photographers who actually have to be in attendance to do their job. I can really see their point of view. However, there is a realty that they have to understand if they are in a state that has allowed same sex marriage.

If they are a photographer in one of those states they better think about how to deal with their problems with gay marriage. This issue for them isn't going to just go away. They have different options. I see five.

1.If they are going to tell them that they can't do the job because their religion doesn't approve of gay marriage then they just might get sued. You know, even if that bill had not been vetoed they still could have been sued and lost. The bill would have just made it easier to defend themselves. I have heard it compared to the stand your ground laws and I can see why. Both can create more problems than they solve in my opinion.

2. The photographer can also find another photographer who would love to have the work and just refer them whenever a same sex wedding job comes up. The customer wouldn't know the difference really if the other photographer is called an associate so no "harm" done. By the way, I don't see this as much as an option for someone like a baker but perhaps it could work.

3. Another option is stop doing photography at weddings. This is the worst option it seems to me. I wouldn't want to see anyone have to do this really.

4. Another option is to serve and sell to gays as they would anyone else.

5. One last option is this: The photographer can talk to his or her paster, pastor, rabbi etc... and ask them for guidance. I think if they did this they may be surprised at what they hear and then again perhaps their thoughts would be reinforced. Those quotes I posted earlier were mostly from religious leaders in a conservative state: Texas.

Some will say they shouldn't have to pick any option. Well, that would be option one then and that may very well be their best option.

This is a serious civil rights subject in my opinion. Saying people who are refused service are just having their feelings hurt and can get service elsewhere really minimizes and trivalizes the issue. Again I go back to the civil rights movement of the 60s: You can't tell me the segregation, the voting literacy/tax and the separate but equal laws just caused hurt feelings because they usually didn't cause any physical damage. Does that make any sense at all?

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9016048].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

I have no illusions that one day Seasoned...If that ever happened I would probably start to really question myself. lol.

One could hope, but I doubt it. As for my thinking about whatever? I haven't seen an original point come up YET in "support" on any of those things.

Regarding this issue, others have made some good points but I still feel the Arizona bill was wrong. Surprise!

Yeah, if it happened over 3 decades ago, and I knew only a LITTLE about you, I would have guessed correctly.

You said it isn't as cut and dry as I think it is but I disagree. I keep comparing it to the civel rights cause in the 60s and in my opinion the issues are very similar if not identical.

ACTUALLY, in the 60s, etc... it was more widespread and ingrained, and changing it did NOT conflict with any amendments or the constitution. Many at this point might bring up the 3/5ths argument. THAT can EASILY be shot down!

1. It did NOT refer to blacks!
2. Even if it had, they STILL couldn't vote!

The 3/5ths was to count ANY 5 slaves as 3 people for determining the federal funds and representation to the area. HECK, the black slaves probably would have been preferred not being counted at all. Their work would then be all they provided, and the "owners" would not be as rich. Slavery may have even ended earlier. If only a slight majority wanted slavery, 0/5ths representation would have caused the vote to swing the other way in the house! And the south would have gotten less federal subsidies. If they were counted as 10/5ths, lincoln might not even have been president!

Do I have empathy for the people who who say they are following their religious beliefs? Yes. Especially the photographers who actually have to be in attendance to do their job. I can really see their point of view. However, there is a realty that they have to understand if they are in a state that has allowed same sex marriage.

WOW, you say you have empathy and then specify why you don't. Really, if this went to the nth degree, YIKES! When my mother was here, she even asked other vendors, and perhaps even the mailman, to clean the porch. Should she be able to sue the landscaper that doesn't even provide porch sweeping services? IMAGINE your mail being delayed because the mailman is painting some house because a squatter thought they should!

If they are a photographer in one of those states they better think about how to deal with their problems with gay marriage. This issue for them isn't going to just go away. They have different options. I see five.

WOW, I guess if someone wants me to program a drone to kill all the people at those marriages, I must comply. Seriously, it is a slippery slope. And ALL SORTS OF THINGS end up in court.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9016148].message }}

TimPhelan

11 years ago

Okie dokie. Maybe someone else can explain that one to me.

Originally Posted by seasoned

WOW, I guess if someone wants me to program a drone to kill all the people at those marriages, I must comply.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9016204].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Okie dokie. Maybe someone else can explain that one to me.

you seem to be saying that any person must provide services and products like they do to others. i guess then that goals and type don't matter. i have done custom design work, and HAVE worked on DNC systems, so drones isn't that much of a stretch.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9016255].message }}

TimPhelan

11 years ago

I see. OK, well I don't think drones that kill people are available to the public at neighborhood stores usually so it does seem like a bit of a stretch.

Originally Posted by seasoned

you seem to be saying that any person must provide services and products like they do to others. i guess then that goals and type don't matter. i have done custom design work, and HAVE worked on DNC systems, so drones isn't that much of a stretch.

Steve

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9016314].message }}

Midnight Oil

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

I keep comparing it to the civel rights cause in the 60s and in my opinion the issues are very similar if not identical.

I realize that is a default position for some in these discussions, but you do realize that the comparison isn't shared by many black civil rights and community leaders, right? Many even consider the comparison offensive.

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Those quotes I posted earlier were mostly from religious leaders in a conservative state: Texas.

What you fail to mention, or may not have even realized, is that all of the people you quoted are "progressive" religious leaders, very much on the left of their faiths. Most promote some form of one world Christianity or faith.

Whatever disagreements some may have with Christianity, I'm sure they really wouldn't like to see it mixed in with Sharia, for example.

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

4. Another option is to serve and sell to gays as they would anyone else.

There's a huge difference between a bakery that doesn't allow gays in the doors and one that doesn't provide a specific product.

There are many restaurants across the country where the businesses and menus are built upon religious dietary laws. Does the Muslim shop down the street really have to serve someone a bbq pork sandwich to avoid offending that person?

You and Bro both limit people you provide services to, whether it be based on age or sex or a personal interpretation of "male dating." That's your choice. I just can't get past either of you feeling it's okay for you to do so with your business, but it's not okay for others to do the same.

FWIW, I don't believe a gay baker should be forced to bake a cake for a Westboro wedding any more than I believe a straight baker should be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding. What about you?

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9016402].message }}

TimPhelan

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Midnight Oil

I realize that is a default position for some in these discussions, but you do realize that the comparison isn't shared by many black civil rights and community leaders, right? Many even consider the comparison offensive.

I realize that. Support for gay marriage among blacks is lower than it is among any other ethnic group, although that is changing the last few years as it is among all groups really. Plus, although I compare the two issues I understand the scope and history of the civel rights movement was much larger and different in many ways also, so I can understand why some black leaders take issue with comparisons. When I was mentioning it in this thread I was trying to refer more specifically to the issue of religious rights/freedom vs civil rights of a minority, which ironically seems to be a bigger issue among this current debate than it was back in the 60s although I may be wrong in thinking so. My point was that it was at least a part of the discussion back then.

As a side note, I wonder how the debate would have been different in 50s and 60s if the internet and cable TV were around then. Or would it have made a difference?

What you fail to mention, or may not have even realized, is that all of the people you quoted are "progressive" religious leaders, very much on the left of their faiths.

Yep, I actually took that from a page that opposing viewpoints from religious leaders in Texas. I kind of expected for someone to post similar opposing viewpoints.

There's a huge difference between a bakery that doesn't allow gays in the doors and one that doesn't provide a specific product.

There is a difference. I do get the point and agree with Mike and Thom made that this particular guy isn't a hateful type of person.

There are many restaurants across the country where the businesses and menus are built upon religious dietary laws. Does the Muslim shop down the street really have to serve someone a bbq pork sandwich to avoid offending that person?

Nope, because that isn't on their menu. I haven't heard any evidence that says anyone is being forced to add certain products or services even though some in this thread have implied a gay cake is different than a straight cake. ( By the way, in comedic terms that last part of the last sentence would make a pretty good "straight line" that could be delivered by a "straight man" in a comedy dual. Claude and Dan would jump all over that one. Pun intended.

)

You and Bro both limit people you provide services to, whether it be based on age or sex or a personal interpretation of "male dating." That's your choice. I just can't get past either of you feeling it's okay for you to do so with your business, but it's not okay for others to do the same.

Well, not sure about Bros site but at mine anyone can join. In fact I have advertised to people under 50 because some younger folks like guys/gals over 50. But as Bro said it is also considered a club of sorts. The baker could make his shop a Christian club if he wanted and he might just do very well as one.

FWIW, I don't believe a gay baker should be forced to bake a cake for a Westboro wedding any more than I believe a straight baker should be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding. What about you?

I don't like the idea of anyone being forced to do something they don't like, but I don't think this comparison and Thom's example of me painting a mural for white supremacists is a good example. However, just as the photographer has options the gay baker and I would also. I would take my chances at being sued because I think I would have a good chance of winning. I also probably wouldn't say why I refused the job either. This kind of reminds me of a tattoo themed social networking myspace type of site I used to own. It actually was doing pretty well at one time. One day I got a message from a guy asking me if I would be interested in changing the site to one where it would be mostly his group of skinheads and white supremacists. He said he could get a lot of people to join. I don't recall if he actually wanted to buy the site. Anyways, I was surprised he would actually ask me in such a polite way. I politly said no and he said ok, he understood.

Thanks

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9018889].message }}

seasoned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

I see. OK, well I don't think drones that kill people are available to the public at neighborhood stores usually so it does seem like a bit of a stretch.

DNC stuff and custom work aren't EITHER, so it ISN'T! MOST of the stuff I work on today is NOT available at neighborhood stores, and unless you are a multimillionare or something you probably can't buy a lot of it anyway.

Steve
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9016823].message }}

SteveJohnson

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

2. The photographer can also find another photographer who would love to have the work and just refer them whenever a same sex wedding job comes up. The customer wouldn't know the difference really if the other photographer is called an associate so no "harm" done. By the way, I don't see this as much as an option for someone like a baker but perhaps it could work.

Would only work if the photog and the gays were to follow the "don't ask, don't tell" rule.

Baker [president of Gay and Lesbian Services Organization's board of directors] said Hands On Originals co-owner Blaine Adamson told the GLSO in a follow-up call that the company was declining the order "because we're a Christian organization" but had found another company that would honor its price.

Hands On Originals T-shirt company accused of discrimination | Business | Kentucky.com

Kinda shoots #2 out of the water, doesn't it?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9017502].message }}

TimPhelan 11 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

Would only work if the photog and the gays were to follow the "don't ask, don't tell" rule.

Good one. I agree.

Kinda shoots #2 out of the water, doesn't it?

There weren't asked but they told. Not sure why.
- Thanks
Signature
Over 50 Dating
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9018784].message }}

Paul Myers 11 years ago

Mike,

For me, none of this discussion (or others like it) is about proving me right or someone else wrong.

I didn't think it was. Sorry if I gave that impression.

That was supposed to be a generic comment, rather than a personally directed reply.

Paul
- [ 1 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9016510].message }}
- MikeAmbrosio 11 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Paul Myers
  
  Mike,I didn't think it was. Sorry if I gave that impression.
  
  That was supposed to be a generic comment, rather than a personally directed reply.
  
  Paul
  
  Reading your opinions on this forum since 2000, I did get that. You're pretty much the most level headed person here in issues like this one. But I just wanted to make my viewpoint clear in case others were interested.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9016781].message }}

Dennis Gaskill

11 years ago

It seems to me everyone is set in their opinions by now in their stage of life and all are pretty certain they are right. I enjoy the debate and conversation.

The older I've become, the more I've realized how important it is to not be so "certain" about being right, but instead to be open to other perspectives. I'm not saying you're not, but your comment gave me a chance to illustrate a point.

One of the main problems with being so sure we're right is that we're not always right, but the certainty that we are often prevents us from identifying and rooting out our false beliefs. And, as is often the case, there is no provable right or wrong, there are only chosen preferences. In those cases "our truth" often prevents us from seeing and accepting other people's truth. Anyone who has examined their life honestly knows that "truth" is subject to change.

Regarding the "debate and discussion" you said you enjoy... the reason I commented about everyone just going around in circles is because threads like this, where each post potentially borders on running afoul of the forum rules, have to be more actively monitored by the moderators, and as often as not end up being closed. Making the same point over and over in different ways starts to look less and less like a discussion after a while, and more and more like a time-suck for the mods.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9016115].message }}

TimPhelan

11 years ago

I agree, that's why I added "on most issues".

Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill

The older I've become, the more I've realized how important it is to not be so "certain" about being right, but instead to be open to other perspectives. I'm not saying you're not, but your comment gave me a chance to illustrate a point.

Thanks

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9016194].message }}

SteveJohnson

11 years ago

So a baker is compelled to bake a cake for a gay weeding. A photog is forced to photograph it.

Should the Rev. Joe Bob be forced to officiate?

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9017474].message }}

TimPhelan

11 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

So a baker is compelled to bake a cake for a gay weeding. A photog is forced to photograph it.

Should the Rev. Joe Bob be forced to officiate?

Nope. And they don't have to even accept them into their congregation either.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9018801].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Nope. And they don't have to even accept them into their congregation either.

WHY NOT? YOU SAID....

However, I do not see how a public business refusing service to anyone because of who they are as a religious freedom.
...
The 1964 Civil Rights Act, section II, knowingly granted no exceptions based on religion to private businesses to deny service. The same arguments, principles, and matters of law apply here. If one is offering a "service" or "facility" to the general public, even if privately owned, there is no right, license, or exemption to discriminate. You must serve all.

BTW NEVER mind that marriages, and the cakes, are not offered(in your meaning of SOLD) to the general public ANYWAY. I mean even I have turned down work, and it wasn't because of race, religion, etc... Custom work would be a DISASTER if you didn't discriminate! I found that I couldn't have LASIK! EARLIER, many wouldn't operate on me. NOW, they make it sound like i would have a VERY hard time if I did.

In short, I really CAN'T have LASIK! How do you think that makes ME feel? But it is because I am farsighted with astigmatism.

ANYWAY, let me get this straight....

1. You say they should have the "right" to co-opt the term MARRIAGE. GIVEN from your thread here.
2. You say the STATES should allow and recognize it. GIVEN!
3. You say private businesses should be FORCED to do all REMOTELY similar. you STATED IT HERE!
4. You say PRIVATE PLACES, EVEN CHURCHES, MUST LEASE SPACE, ETC.... HEY, people on your side said it and fought for it.

But you are saying a PASTOR is somehow exempt? How does THAT work?

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9018876].message }}

TimPhelan

11 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

WHY NOT?... But you are saying a PASTOR is somehow exempt? How does THAT work?

Steve

Churches are treated different. You didn't know that? They are considered tax-exempt nonprofit organizations, can hire only people who are of their own faith, and can choose who to have as members of their congregation. The Mormon church had restrictions against blacks becoming full members until 1978 and they were never forced by the government to end their practices of discrimination. There are even openly white supremacist churches including one that has the White Man's Bible.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9019296].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Churches are treated different. You didn't know that? They are considered tax-exempt nonprofit organizations, can hire only people who are of their own faith, and can choose who to have as members of their congregation. The Mormon church had restrictions against blacks becoming full members until 1978 and they were never forced by the government to end their practices of discrimination. There are even openly white supremacist churches including one that has the White Man's Bible.

I knew they WERE, but more and more they AREN'T now!

WHAT IS a church?

The LEGITIMATE description would be an area where people of a given faith gather to do some ceremony or function and they call such a thing a church.

That means a HOME church could be a church! A school area used in such a way is a church, etc....

But MANY seem to have thought it was simply a permanent structure that was declared such by some legal body.

They USED to be tax exempt. NOW, certain legitimate actions in keeping wit their faith may brake that.

They had cases saying that at various points they could NOT restrict hiring. I don't know the final ruling in all cases, but in some they LOST!

There has been a TON of pressure to allow many that violate some tenets.

HECK, look at the boy scouts. I forget the current status, but they were dragged through the courts. GIVE ME A BREAK!

In any event, what IS a church? If you say it is the nonprofit status, they will argue that is for an organization and not the person. If you say it is the building, they will say that at times of non use, it is fair game. If you say it is the PERSON, then why isn't it conferred to the members?

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9019469].message }}

KimW

11 years ago

I think most of us here enjoy the discussion and banter and exchange of ideas as opposed to thinking we are going to change minds.

[ 6 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Read A Post.
Subscribe to a Newsletter
KimWinfrey.Com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9018320].message }}

Midnight Oil

11 years ago

Originally Posted by KimW

I think most of us here enjoy the discussion and banter and exchange of ideas as opposed to thinking we are going to change minds.

True.

There are also those who participate in certain online discussions on a regular basis who really aren't concerned with changing another participant's mind. They're actually laying out their arguments with the lurkers in mind, the ones who've never thought about an issue or are undecided on their position.

[ 6 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9018561].message }}

KimW

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Midnight Oil

True.

There are also those who participate in certain online discussions on a regular basis who really aren't concerned with changing another participant's mind. They're actually laying out their arguments with the lurkers in mind, the ones who've never thought about an issue or are undecided on their position.

These discussions can also be interesting character studies.

[ 3 ] Thanks

Signature

Read A Post.
Subscribe to a Newsletter
KimWinfrey.Com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9019273].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

The following has been predicted by some to be a possible end result. I wonder how long before this hits the us:

British woman marries ...

Would this lead to tax deductions? Would a person killing another after s/he hurts or kills the "partner"be looked at more favorably?

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9027195].message }}

MikeTucker

11 years ago

Facebook conversations have never changed my views
on anything. It is always in forums that my most strongly
entrenched positions might actually be changed.

I'm normally among the most socially Liberal people around,
and I'm a fierce defender and fighter for equal rights based
on sexual orientation-- I believe there is a distinct difference
between legal marriage and "Holy Matrimony".

On the surface this case seems as ludicrous as Peter LaBarbera
filing a class-action lawsuit against "homosexuality", and in this
specific instance I still think it is.

I think it was Midnight Oil that pointed out how silly it would
be to force a gay baker or photographer to serve a wedding
at some group like the Westboro Baptist Church?

The entire conversation gets a lot more "gray" for me when
it starts to include physical safety rather than emotional harm.
(My knee-jerk reaction to the cry-babies is "Toughen-up!")

In the example of whether or not pharmaceuticals are available
to some people because of location, for example... It seems clear
in my humble opinion that they should absolutely not be allowed
to deny customers medication based on religious grounds, and
even silly that they would think they could?

But even that is not a perfect example of what is happening in this
case. The pharmacy may, for example, elect not to carry
contraceptives or condoms at all-- They aren't refusing to sell
to a specific group of people, are they?

On the other hand, if they chose to sell HIV/AIDS medication
to heterosexuals but refused to sell them to homosexuals, or
didn't offer the same pricing, etc... Well it seems clear to me
that it is wrong.

That seems to be more in-line with what this bakery has done.
They made wedding cakes in the area, but refused to make one
for someone based on their sexual orientation. It clearly seems
like discrimination to me.

In the examples such as a females-only gym and a religiously
oriented dating site or bookstore, well that is a part of their
business model, isn't it? Makes perfect sense. This bakery
didn't seem to have it as a part of their business model,
which is probably why they lost the case.

But should the gay couple go on a crusade, throwing up a fuss and sue
the bakery? Seriously? Seems ridiculous to me... I would just
put them on my list of places like Wal-Mart, Chick-fil-A, and
Papa Johns that I boycott for social reasons and be done with it.

It's just a wedding cake, and I'm sorry that your feelings are hurt,
but if you've been homosexual long enough that you have reached
the age where you can marry, then shouldn't you have thicker
skin by now??

Hell, I wouldn't want a single penny of my money to go to
people that held those views, anyway!

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

...A tachyon enters a bar.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9027297].message }}

Kay King 11 years ago

Really - would you WANT to eat food that someone was forced to cook for you?

No thanks - I'll pass.
- [ 5 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
what it is instead of what you think it should be.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9027426].message }}
- seasoned 11 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Kay King
  
  Really - would you WANT to eat food that someone was forced to cook for you?
  
  No thanks - I'll pass.
  
  I have tastes that USED to be CONSERVATIVE! The world changed a bit. So I have to ask for minor changes. SOMETIMES, they just get the order WRONG, even if I ask for a normal menu item with NO changes. HECK, I recently asked for a sandwich that has the major component being TURKEY, and someone thought that, when I said "MUSTARD", I was saying "LESS TURKEY"!!!!!! When I went to a mexican restaurant I used to like, I used to order in SPANISH! WHY? One MAJOR reason was that a mexican would not mishear "con carne y queso pero NO frijoles" the way that an American may mishear "with beef and cheese but NO beans". I really dislike beans, and they are likely the most commonly ordered.
  
  Do I send it back, or correct after the order goes in? NO WAY! Some waiters/waitresses do something REALLY bad. I forget what the term is, but they actually have a NAME for it! And this is with a NORMAL CUSTOMER, and a simple friendly request!
  
  Steve
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9027468].message }}
  
  Paul Myers 11 years ago
  
  Steve,
  
  someone thought that, when I said "MUSTARD", I was saying "LESS TURKEY"!!!!!!
  
  You mean you ****SPEAK**** in mixed case and "with" EXCESSIVE exclamation points, too?????
  
  Paul
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  .
  Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9027651].message }}

KimW

11 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeTucker

F

... I would just
put them on my list of places like Wal-Mart, Chick-fil-A, and
Papa Johns that I boycott for social reasons and be done with it.

I have to ask, I boycott Walmart myself,do we have the same reason? I don't know.
I do not boycott Chik-Filet. I see no reason too. But what is the reason you boycott Papa John's, if I may ask?

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Read A Post.
Subscribe to a Newsletter
KimWinfrey.Com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9027728].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

11 years ago

Originally Posted by KimW

I have to ask, I boycott Walmart myself,do we have the same reason? I don't know.
I do not boycott Chik-Filet. I see no reason too. But what is the reason you boycott Papa John's, if I may ask?

I boycott them for impersonating pizza.

Da noive!

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9027767].message }}

MikeTucker

11 years ago

Originally Posted by KimW

I have to ask, I boycott Walmart myself,do we have the same reason? I don't know.
I do not boycott Chik-Filet. I see no reason too. But what is the reason you boycott Papa John's, if I may ask?

Probably not for the same reasons...
Based on our posts I might be way more Liberal than you?

Wal-Mart because they buy Chinese over American even
when prices are comparable.

Chick-Fil-A because they actively spend significant amounts
of money to lobby against gay marriage rights. (Again, I think
many people confuse legal "marriage" with "Holy Matrimony".)

Papa Johns because they campaigned against the
Affordable Healthcare Act in the most cheap manner I can
imagine, by putting on their boxes that they would have to
raise the price of each pizza by about 20 cents because
they would suddenly be required to offer health insurance
for their part-time employees.

My reaction was WTH? They don't have insurance available
already? Here is a pocket full of quarters, I don't want a
bunch of sick kids making and delivering my food!!

Anyway, each of these are my personal choices, and even
though I won't give my money to those businesses, I respect
their right to their choice. The actions that I'm complaining
about here are not the same as what I see as actual
discrimination by the bakery.

Err, except for Chick-Fil-A's comment that they don't want
gay employees, but that was an isolated incident that was
quickly retracted by their PR office.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

...A tachyon enters a bar.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9027968].message }}

yukon

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeTucker

My reaction was WTH? They don't have insurance available
already? Here is a pocket full of quarters, I don't want a
bunch of sick kids making and delivering my food!!

I'm guessing your not familiar with how min. wage works?

Even If a business has insurance available for employees it doesn't mean an employee can afford that same insurance. It's sort of like COBRA, it exist, even If it's not affordable for most people. Doubtful anyone working min. wage could afford something like that (it still exist).

The min. wage of $7.25 hr. doesn't buy a whole lot of health insurance, food & a roof over a families head trumps any insurance. Don't forget to take about 20% Fed./State tax out of that $7.25 hr. min. wage earnings ($5.80). Also don't forget to take out transportation cost for that min. wage job.

Now imagine a family earning min. wage with a baby in diapers or daycare ($$).

Not much left for insurance.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9056266].message }}

MikeTucker

11 years ago

Originally Posted by yukon

I'm guessing your not familiar with how min. wage works?

Even If a business has insurance available for employees it doesn't mean an employee can afford that same insurance. It's sort of like COBRA, it exist, even If it's not affordable for most people. Doubtful anyone working min. wage could afford something like that (it still exist).

The min. wage of $7.25 hr. doesn't buy a whole lot of health insurance, food & a roof over a families head trumps any insurance. Don't forget to take about 20% Fed./State tax out of that $7.25 hr. min. wage earnings ($5.80). Also don't forget to take out transportation cost for that min. wage job.

Now imagine a family earning min. wage with a baby in diapers or daycare ($$).

Not much left for insurance.

This hurts my brain.

Thanks

Signature

The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

...A tachyon enters a bar.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9056322].message }}

dcrdomains

11 years ago

Every business should be able to deny service to whomever they wish. That doesn't make them right, but since the owners own their business, it's up to them how they run it.

Of course, once word gets out about their discriminatory behavior their profits are liable to shrink and soon they won't be in business. Problem solved through the free market.

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Affiliate Noob - Join Me On The Journey!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9058257].message }}

TimPhelan

11 years ago

Originally Posted by dcrdomains

Every business should be able to deny service to whomever they wish. That doesn't make them right, but since the owners own their business, it's up to them how they run it.

Of course, once word gets out about their discriminatory behavior their profits are liable to shrink and soon they won't be in business. Problem solved through the free market.

Right. The all powerful free market will solve all our problems if it was just given a chance. :/ Only problem with this is we can see that this theory doesn't work just by looking at history. People in this country discriminated against others for centuries and the "free market" didn't solve anything because there was a majority who did the discrimination so business didn't suffer because "word got out".

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9058358].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Right. The all powerful free market will solve all our problems if it was just given a chance. :/ Only problem with this is we can see that this theory doesn't work just by looking at history. People in this country discriminated against others for centuries and the "free market" didn't solve anything because there was a majority who did the discrimination so business didn't suffer because "word got out".

And things are exactly the same now as it was for centuries.
Yep I remember 60 years ago when a business discriminated against a black person it was all over the Internet within a day.
That was all the 24 hour news networks talked about then also.
I sure am glad we've always had the same level of communication that we have now to hinder the word getting out:rolleyes:
You realize there are numerous examples of people effectively boycotting companies now thanks to the level of communication we currently enjoy.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9058453].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic

11 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

And things are exactly the same now as it was for centuries.
Yep I remember 60 years ago when a business discriminated against a black person it was all over the Internet within a day.
That was all the 24 hour news networks talked about then also.
I sure am glad we've always had the same level of communication that we have now to hinder the word getting out:rolleyes:
You realize there are numerous examples of people effectively boycotting companies now thanks to the level of communication we currently enjoy.

If the Internet had existed in those days, colored people would be allowed to use it for only three-fifths as much time.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9058461].message }}

ThomM 11 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

If the Internet had existed in those days, colored people would be allowed to use it for only three-fifths as much time.

We're all colored people
- [ 3 ] Thanks
Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9058478].message }}

TLTheLiberator

11 years ago

Originally Posted by dcrdomains

Every business should be able to deny service to whomever they wish. That doesn't make them right, but since the owners own their business, it's up to them how they run it.

Of course, once word gets out about their discriminatory behavior their profits are liable to shrink and soon they won't be in business. Problem solved through the free market.

Wow! Take my tax dollars and also discriminate against me.

Talk about having your cake and eating it too?

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9059091].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Wow! Take my tax dollars and also discriminate against me.

Talk about having your cake and eating it too?

They're not taking your tax dollar and you can discriminate against them by not doing business with them and convincing others to do the same.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9059209].message }}

TLTheLiberator

11 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

They're not taking your tax dollar and you can discriminate against them by not doing business with them and convincing others to do the same.

#1: Either you're just being argumentative or you don't understand basic U.S. business tax law.

#2: I don't have time for your suggestion regarding combating businesses that discriminate against me - while taking my tax dollars.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9060395].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

#1: Either you're just being argumentative or you don't understand basic U.S. business tax law.

#2: I don't have time for your suggestion regarding combating businesses that discriminate against me - while taking my tax dollars.

1. You don't get to decide who gets tax breaks and who doesn't.
2. You don't have time to not give your business to companies you don't like, but you have time to complain about them?

So you would rather have the government force a business to do as you want rather then taking the personal responsibility of not doing business with them.
Well I don't want you getting any tax breaks that may effect my taxes until you change your attitude.
After all I'm entitled.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9060916].message }}

TLTheLiberator

11 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

1. You don't get to decide who gets tax breaks and who doesn't.
2. You don't have time to not give your business to companies you don't like, but you have time to complain about them?

So you would rather have the government force a business to do as you want rather then taking the personal responsibility of not doing business with them.

Well I don't want you getting any tax breaks that may effect my taxes until you change your attitude.

After all I'm entitled.

You thanked someone for saying this...

"Every business should be able to deny service to whomever they wish. That doesn't make them right, but since the owners own their business, it's up to them how they run it."

Should I take it to mean that's its OK in your book that my daughter and I go into a restaurant and they tell us, we're sorry we don't serve blacks and that's ok with you?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9060960].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

You thanked someone for saying this...

"Every business should be able to deny service to whomever they wish. That doesn't make them right, but since the owners own their business, it's up to them how they run it."

Should I take it to mean that's its OK in your book that my daughter and I go into a restaurant and they tell us, we're sorry we don't serve blacks and that's ok with you?

I answered that for you already. Interesting how you keep going to the race card.
Let me ask you about the same restaurant. Would you want to bring your daughter to a restaurant that is being forced to serve you? Would you trust them to give you a safe meal? Why would you want to give your business to a restaurant that doesn't want it?
Maybe you just like the feeling of superiority you get from forcing (through govt. intervention) someone to bend to your will.
Seems to work for you, you get what you want and you don't have to do the work to get it.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9060990].message }}

TLTheLiberator

11 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

I answered that for you already. Interesting how you keep going to the race card.

Let me ask you about the same restaurant. Would you want to bring your daughter to a restaurant that is being forced to serve you? Would you trust them to give you a safe meal? Why would you want to give your business to a restaurant that doesn't want it?
Maybe you just like the feeling of superiority you get from forcing (through govt. intervention) someone to bend to your will.
Seems to work for you, you get what you want and you don't have to do the work to get it.

That's it I'm done.

Who know's what the hell you're talking about?

You have become very Seasonesk.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9061034].message }}

ThomM 11 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

That's it I'm done.

Who know's what the hell you're talking about?

You have become very Seasonesk.

You're entitled.
- [ 2 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9061073].message }}
- Midnight Oil 11 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by ThomM
  
  You're entitled.
  
  [ 3 ] Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9061238].message }}
Hopeless Bromantic 11 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9061380].message }}
- MikeAmbrosio 11 years ago
  
  [DELETED]
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9061396].message }}
  
  Hopeless Bromantic 11 years ago
  
  [DELETED]
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9061426].message }}

TimPhelan

11 years ago

Thom, I can't really believe you are serious here. Surely you are just pulling TL's chain or something.

First of all, how is TL supposed to know if a restaurant is going to discriminate against him? He doesn't, so your statement about "would you want to bring ..." is moot. Second of all, if he was in another county or state do you really expect him to stay around, protest and get all the locals to not come to that restaurant? Why should he have to do any of that anyways? It's makes much more sense to make discrimination illegal at the point of discrimination than to expect any of those who are being discriminated against to put together some sort of far fetched protest to get people not to go to a racist, bigoted etc... business. Good grief your logic is faulty here. Why is it more important to you to defend the rights of those who discriminate than the rights of those who are discriminated against?

Originally Posted by ThomM

Let me ask you about the same restaurant. Would you want to bring your daughter to a restaurant that is being forced to serve you? Would you trust them to give you a safe meal? Why would you want to give your business to a restaurant that doesn't want it?
Maybe you just like the feeling of superiority you get from forcing (through govt. intervention) someone to bend to your will.
Seems to work for you, you get what you want and you don't have to do the work to get it.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9061444].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

What I bolded pretty much sums it up.

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Thom, I can't really believe you are serious here. Surely you are just pulling TL's chain or something.

First of all, how is TL supposed to know if a restaurant is going to discriminate against him? He doesn't, so your statement about "would you want to bring ..." is moot. Second of all, if he was in another county or state do you really expect him to stay around, protest and get all the locals to not come to that restaurant? Why should he have to do any of that anyways? It's makes much more sense to make discrimination illegal at the point of discrimination than to expect any of those who are being discriminated to put together some sort of far fetched protest to get people not to go to a racist, bigoted etc... business. Good grief your logic is faulty here. Why is it more important to you to defend the rights of those who discriminate than the rights of those who are discriminated against?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9061503].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Why is it more important to you to defend the rights of those who discriminate than the rights of those who are discriminated against?

I'm not. I'm protecting both their rights.
In the Cake example and other examples the situations could easily be reversed.
Should a Gay baker be forced to provide his services for something they find offensive?
If they decided the answer was no, based on their beliefs I would depend their position just as strongly.
Remember in the past I've always said it's about equal rights.
If a Christian has the right to deny their services to the gay couple based on their beliefs, then Gays have the same right to deny Christians their services based on their beliefs.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9061527].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic

11 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

I'm not. I'm protecting both their rights.
In the Cake example and other examples the situations could easily be reversed.
Should a Gay baker be forced to provide his services for something they find offensive?
If they decided the answer was no, based on their beliefs I would depend their position just as strongly.
Remember in the past I've always said it's about equal rights.
If a Christian has the right to deny their services to the gay couple based on their beliefs, then Gays have the same right to deny Christians their services based on their beliefs.

Neither one of them has such a right.

There's plenty of legal precedent that religious beliefs are not a valid reason to discriminate.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9061610].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Yeah, we can ALWAYS judge things by looking at the past and not taking the environment or technology into account.

The idea that ANYONE could get information out in less than 12 hours, give up to the second security prices, or even have movies is LUDICROUS! In fact, if you want to make a lot of money, the big broadcast and print media giants, paper, and ink is where the SMART money goes!

I almost wish the internet DID come about in the 40s. WOW, if nothing else changed, it would give everyone a clear picture of what is happening. If it went back to 1900, YIKES!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9059079].message }}

MikeTucker

11 years ago

Props for the great meme... We need more P&R around here!

Thanks

Signature

The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

...A tachyon enters a bar.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9061309].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Well, people HAVE done pretty weird things at restaurants when they knew NOTHING about the consumers. And you can sue all you want, but you have to prove it was done, and that won't undo damage already done.

GEE, I went to an auto shop once to get my disc pads replaced. No bad problem, I just wanted to PREVENT one.

On the way back home, I almost DIED! A car in front of me slowed, so I did also. LUCKILY, I try to NEVER stop short. Had I stopped short, I would likely be DEAD!

What happened? They didn't screw the pads on properly, and they fell apart. The uneven application of braking caused the car to spin!

They WERE asian, and I am white. Was it racist? I never thought about it. But how would a black have reacted if they were white? If it WEREN'T racism, it still shows what forcing such a company to do work for you can do.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9061417].message }}

NewParadigm

11 years ago

so they withheld service to people in support of others who had service withheld on them? then govt steps in and forces a business to do something? how stupid and hypocritical.

If it was a muslim bakery, would the govt force them to provide svc to gays?

Thanks

Signature

In a moment of decision the best thing you can do is the right thing. The worst thing you can do is nothing. ~ Theodore Roosevelt

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9062406].message }}

Arizona Pizzeria Protests Anti-Gay Bill By Refusing To Serve Lawmakers

Trending Topics

Your Opinion Sucks...

Should we create Backlinks for Product page?

Why do I need an SSL Certificate for my site?

When i see a good product to sell,greedy people are already doing it

How to host LinkedIn live events