Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The fact remains that the bakery serves gay people. You can throw the H word around all you want and try to make it into a bigger issue and stomp feet and call names. That doesn't change the case which is about the making of a cake for an event the owner felt he could not participate in.
The bakery is receiving a lot of public support and their business has been doing very well since the publicity.
And why is it ok for someone to refuse to make a cake based on their religious beliefs but to have a tattoo, when the bible says that is a no-no?
Most amazing is the fact that you refuse to recognize YOUR intolerance as intolerant. I'm not advocating for intolerance, I am advocating for people to be able to exercise their free will, choosing whatever they deem best for their lives, even IF that happens to be intolerance, because it is their choice to make.
Most amazing is the fact that you refuse to recognize YOUR intolerance as intolerant. I'm not advocating for intolerance, I am advocating for people to be able to exercise their free will, choosing whatever they deem best for their lives, even IF that happens to be intolerance, because it is their choice to make.
No, you are arguing for state enforced discrimination. Again, the store owner only has a right to discriminate if the government enforces that right. If the government enforces discrimination then the government is discriminating.
Most amazing is the fact that you refuse to recognize YOUR intolerance as intolerant. I'm not advocating for intolerance, I am advocating for people to be able to exercise their free will, choosing whatever they deem best for their lives, even IF that happens to be intolerance, because it is their choice to make.
Hey! I'll be the first to admit that I have ZERO tolerance for hatred and bigotry against a group of people who just want to be treated fairly and equally and who just want the same right to love (and to marry) the person of their choice and to live the lives that make THEM happy.
I also have ZERO tolerance for child molesters, wife beaters, and animal abusers.
At least I am honest about my intolerance and don't try to hide behind a book of fiction (the bible) - or by making dishonest claims about "advocating for people to be able to exercise their free will" when "free will" seems to only extend to those who share your religious beliefs (hence all your mention of "god" in your posts).
And why is it ok for someone to refuse to make a cake based on their religious beliefs but to have a tattoo, when the bible says that is a no-no?
It's ok because he's a person. Just like you. Just like me. None of us are 100% consistent. None of us are perfect. He's a person. He's an American. He's free to craft his own version of the world, just like each of us does. He's free to believe whatever he wants. He's just not free to act on all of his beliefs. As a society, we've imposed boundaries on individual freedom. We've done this for the good of everyone. We've done this to maximize and balance the freedom of individuals against one another in the name of equality. Anti-discrimination laws aren't anti-freedom laws. They are pro-freedom laws. And they are pro-equality laws. Those of us who think the baker is wrong do so because in discriminating against lesbians he is saying that lesbians aren't his equals, that his judgment supercedes theirs. When we allow systematic discrimination, we harm our entire society, because discrimination is all about inequality. Systematic discrimination allows a society's power structure to regularly and with impunity put a class of people at a lower social status.
The laws to protect these classes of people are meant to end systematic discrimination. And that's an important goal for a society to have.
But it's also important to protect individuals from the power of government. I won't say we'd all like to live in a society without prejudice, without discrimination, because that's untrue. There are some amongst us that revel in prejudice, in excluding others, in exercising power to punish people for not being like them. But it's important to realize that the range is not limited left to right. The range is circular. The baker's beliefs, which the majority of us don't share, is an individual who isn't like us. And the complaint against him seeks to punish him for not being like the majority. That's a slipperly slope. That's why we have to set limits on the power of the government, and the discussion of what these boundaries are, what they should be, to allow the individual to still believe freely in whatever he chooses, and to act according to those beliefs, is an important discussion. Personally, I place the boundary in the commercial sector where creativity, a unique and personal quality, becomes the product of sale.
Gay marriage is NOT legal in Oregon, so why should the baker be forced to make a WEDDING cake for a lesbian couple? And the baker most likely felt that by making a gay wedding cake, he would be showing support for a something that is not yet legal and that he's against. And... he also wanted to prevent other same sex couples from ordering future wedding cakes from him.
According to polls taken in 2011, Oregonians are closely split on the issue of allowing gay marriage. So instead of aiming all the hate towards this baker, go ahead and attack half of the adult and voting Oregon population that are against same sex marriage.
If this bakery's cakes are so wonderful, this couple could have just bought a large cake and decorated it themselves. Cake decorating, especially wedding cakes take a lot of effort and artistic ability and inspiration to pull off well. At least this baker was honest about not wanting to make a cake for a same sex marriage.
The bakery is receiving a lot of public support and their business has been doing very well since the publicity.
I am sure that a lot of the same idiots who lined up at their local Chik-Fil-A to "support traditional marriage" are going out of their way to shop there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
The laws which are being proposed would force the rest of the nation dance to their music.
Exactly. We started passing laws to prevent people from discriminating against colored folk and that just ruined our nation. Now look what it has led to
The first person that I heard explain discrimination as a virtue, one in which we all participate in one form or another, EVERY DAY, was Dr. Walter Williams, a black man, saying discrimination is the act of choice.
It's ok because he's a person. Just like you. Just like me. None of us are 100% consistent. None of us are perfect. He's a person. He's an American. He's free to craft his own version of the world, just like each of us does. He's free to believe whatever he wants. He's just not free to act on all of his beliefs. As a society, we've imposed boundaries on individual freedom. We've done this for the good of everyone. We've done this to maximize and balance the freedom of individuals against one another in the name of equality. Anti-discrimination laws aren't anti-freedom laws. They are pro-freedom laws. And they are pro-equality laws. Those of us who think the baker is wrong do so because in discriminating against lesbians he is saying that lesbians aren't his equals, that his judgment supercedes theirs. When we allow systematic discrimination, we harm our entire society, because discrimination is all about inequality. Systematic discrimination allows a society's power structure to regularly and with impunity put a class of people at a lower social status.
The laws to protect these classes of people are meant to end systematic discrimination. And that's an important goal for a society to have.
But it's also important to protect individuals from the power of government. I won't say we'd all like to live in a society without prejudice, without discrimination, because that's untrue. There are some amongst us that revel in prejudice, in excluding others, in exercising power to punish people for not being like them. But it's important to realize that the range is not limited left to right. The range is circular. The baker's beliefs, which the majority of us don't share, is an individual who isn't like us. And the complaint against him seeks to punish him for not being like the majority. That's a slipperly slope. That's why we have to set limits on the power of the government, and the discussion of what these boundaries are, what they should be, to allow the individual to still believe freely in whatever he chooses, and to act according to those beliefs, is an important discussion. Personally, I place the boundary in the commercial sector where creativity, a unique and personal quality, becomes the product of sale.
No its not a slippery slope. The store owner can believe anything. The government doesn't control that, but what the store owner wants is for the government to enforce his right to discriminate against homosexuals in his business.
He cannot discriminate without the government enforcing his discrimination, that's the slippery slope.
Where we somehow argue that even though the government enforces discrimination against certain groups of Americans, somehow the government isn't homophobic, racist, sexist, etc itself.
I don't understand what is so difficult. They store owner cannot carry out his discrimination against homosexuals without the government enforcing it. Here is the rub.
If I were a bake shop owner, I'd be willing to make wedding cakes for anyone. However, as someone whose parents had some retail furniture stores and has been an antiques dealer, I do reserve the right to serve whoever I want to AND... turn away customers who irk me.
None of us were at the Oregon bakeshop when this went down. We don't know if the owner first politely declined and only got agitated when the lesbian couple insisted that he make their wedding cake. Again, currently Oregon doesn't recognize gay marriages.
And if anything, all this fuss is hurting the cause of gay marriage. Major changes like this can't be forced on the public at large quickly. In addition, there are many serious financial repercussions to allowing gay marriages because it will force our governments and businesses to give full spousal benefits to gay couples... and that is going to add up to big bucks that are going to hurt everyone in this weak economy. It's not just about feeling all warm and fuzzy inside to see same sex couples holding hands while walking down the street. Probably in the long run, spousal benefits will have to be lessened in order to make the same amount spread out evenly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
