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.
Well, if you open a business in Oregon, you will have to obey the laws of that state (regardless of what your "god" says) or you'll be out of business quicker than you can say, "Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore."
He sells baked goods to homosexuals all the time. He doesn't ask. He doesn't care. He makes muffins, cupcakes, breads, and sells to ANYONE who comes in the door. If they want a Black Forest Cake, or a German Chocolate Cake or a Boston Cream Pie, and he's got it in the display case, it's theirs.
He doesn't have wedding cakes in the display case. Because wedding cakes are personalized for the couple getting married. Wedding cakes cost a lot more than Boston Cream Pies for a reason. Because they are creative, artistic collaborations.
He can discriminate without the government enforcing his discrimination. He already has, when he told the lesbian couple he doesn't make wedding cakes for same-sex couples. It's not the store owner wanting the government to enforce anything. It's the lesbian couple wanting to punish the store owner for denying his creative talents and skills to them.
I support Oregon's law against discrimination in public accommodation. I think stores and hotels and banks any business that is open to the public should be open to the entire public. If this baker had refused to sell the lesbians anything that he has in the store when the lesbians come in, I'd want the full weight of the law to be pressed against him.
But I also believe in the Bill of Rights. I believe that people have a right to believe something that is totally wrong. Whether it's a Ku Klux Klansmen who believes he's better than a black man, or it's a conspiracy nut who believes that Americans have never walked on the moon. I ardently support the rights of individuals to be individuals, to believe however they want. And I recognize that our actions often endorse our beliefs. Just like how I am defending this guy, who I don't agree with in any way, because I think that maybe something bigger is at stake here.
I'm saying that we have to have a balance. That freedom is a balancing act. We are constantly having to balance one person's freedom against another's freedom. And for me, the line for maintaining that balance in the commercial sector is creative product. It's the book only I can write. It's the painting only I can paint. When it's my vision, my creativity, that is the product, then I have to have control of that product. Otherwise, society has stripped me of my integrity, my judgment.
The store owner can believe whatever he wants.
Balance, in the context of this discussion means nothing. Discrimination is not freedom.
Either the government will enforce the rights of people to discriminate or it doesn't. There is no gray area.
It all leads back to the same question will the government allow someone to discriminate thus enforcing that discrimination or won't it.
You support a society in which discrimination will be enforced by the government against hated groups of Americans.
The store owner when he made it explicitly clear that he was discriminating against this couple because they are homosexual involved the government. The store owner was saying the law is on my side so I can tell you exactly what I think of you. I have a right to not serve you because you are homosexuals.
The homosexuals involved decided to see if the government would enforce his right to discriminate against homosexuals. He will probably lose because the government will not enforce his rights to discriminate against homosexuals.
Oh get over your stupid persecution complex. Religious institutions are not going to be forced to accept gays. They are not businesses (well not legally. They certainly milk gullible people out of their money like a business).
my synagogue is a Religious institution.
my home is arguably a even more important institution.
and my business is arguably a even more important institution.
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.
no it was the gay terrorists who brought in the government.
Balance, in the context of this discussion means nothing. Discrimination is not freedom.
Either the government will enforce the rights of people to discriminate or it doesn't. There is no gray area.
It all leads back to the same question will the government allow someone to discriminate thus enforcing that discrimination or won't it.
You support a society in which discrimination will be enforced by the government against hated groups of Americans.
The store owner when he made it explicitly clear that he was discriminating against this couple because they are homosexual involved the government. The store owner was saying the law is on my side so I can tell you exactly what I think of you. I have a right to not serve you because you are homosexuals.
The homosexuals involved decided to see if the government would enforce his right to discriminate against homosexuals. He will probably lose because the government will not enforce his rights to discriminate against homosexuals.
THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT AND IS NOT BEING ASKED TO ENFORCE THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE TO DISCRIMINATE.
This is a false statement you keep on repeating.
I DO NOT SUPPORT A SOCIETY WHERE GOVERNMENT ENFORCES DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ANY GROUPS OF AMERICANS, HATED OR NOT.
The lesbian couple did not decide to see if the government would enforce his right to discriminate against them, the lesbian couple decided to see if the government would punish him for discriminating against them. There's a difference.
And yes, he probably will lose.
But that doesn't mean the government is right.
And BALANCE is everything in this situation. There's a reason why scales are symbols of the judicial system. Because the law is always about balance. Sometimes it's balancing the freedom of one individual against the freedom of another. Sometimes it's about the freedom of an individual being weighed against the needs of the society as a whole. But if it's law, it's ALL ABOUT BALANCE. When it's a law, BALANCE is ALWAYS the context.
THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT AND IS NOT BEING ASKED TO ENFORCE THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE TO DISCRIMINATE.
This is a false statement you keep on repeating.
I DO NOT SUPPORT A SOCIETY WHERE GOVERNMENT ENFORCES DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ANY GROUPS OF AMERICANS, HATED OR NOT.
The lesbian couple did not decide to see if the government would enforce his right to discriminate against them, the lesbian couple decided to see if the government would punish him for discriminating against them. There's a difference.
And yes, he probably will lose.
But that doesn't mean the government is right.
And BALANCE is everything in this situation. There's a reason why scales are symbols of the judicial system. Because the law is always about balance. Sometimes it's balancing the freedom of one individual against the freedom of another. Sometimes it's about the freedom of an individual being weighed against the needs of the society as a whole. But if it's law, it's ALL ABOUT BALANCE. When it's a law, BALANCE is ALWAYS the context.
Discrimination is not freedom. Balance in terms of this discussion is irrelevant.
You do support government discrimination against citizens. It is what you are advocating. I don't know why you deny it. When you use the freedom and balance, you are specifically talking about the government making the decision that it is okay to discriminate against certain groups of hated Americans.
It boils down to that. The government will either enforce discrimination or it won't. This is why your argument fails. The government can't have balance when it comes to discrimination.
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.
