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.
Baloney, the gay couple could have easily went and found another baker, but no, they had to make a big stink about it just to get attention and press. I'm getting sick of gays acting like their rights and privileges should trump everyone else.
And you would have been whining 50 years ago about blacks acting like their rights trump everyone else when they challenged being denied access to hotels and restaurants. Same bigotry, different century.
And you would have been whining 50 years ago about blacks acting like their rights trump everyone else when they challenged being denied access to hotels and restaurants. Same bigotry, different century.
The blacks were denied service and access to all venues. They had no choices. Gays very rarely encounter a business today that refuses to serve them. Big difference.
The right to wedding cake is defined where in
the constitution?
Look ... listen carefully ... the right of a business
or individual to serve or not serve is the most fundamental of rights. If you
have no choice, and the government forces you to work for someone else, that is
slavery .. forced labor against your will IS SLAVERY.
Oh, The Drama!! A baker is in the business of selling wedding cakes. Making him sell a cake, which is his business in the first place, is SLAVERY!
Though Phillips objected to providing the cake on religious grounds, the ALJ pointed out that baking a cake is not actually conduct that is part of his religion. Thus, it does not qualify for exemption from regulation:
Respondents’ refusal to provide a cake for Complainants’ same-sex wedding is distinctly the type of conduct that the Supreme Court has repeatedly found subject to legitimate regulation. Such discrimination is against the law; it adversely affects the rights of Complainants to be free from discrimination in the marketplace; and the impact upon Respondents is incidental to the state’s legitimate regulation of commercial activity. Respondents therefore have no valid claim that barring them from discriminating against same-sex customers violates their right to free exercise of religion. Conceptually, Respondents’ refusal to serve a same-sex couple due to religious objection to same-sex weddings is no different from refusing to serve a biracial couple because of religious objection to biracial marriage. However, that argument was struck down long ago in Bob Jones Univ. v. United States.
And you would have been whining 50 years ago about blacks acting like their rights trump everyone else when they challenged being denied access to hotels and restaurants. Same bigotry, different century.
Blacks were denied access because of LAWS set by the GOVERNMENT. If a proprietor wanted to open his doors to BOTH blacks and whites, he couldn't do it because that would have been illegal. That is completely different from this situation, where the law mandates that a person open his doors to everyone.
If Ben agrees to do the event, then decides not to do it after arriving, Ben would be in breech of contract. That is a whole different set of laws.
Well, you can't have your cake and eat it too And, you are seriously chasing your own tail here.
There can be no contract to breach if the transaction is compelled or coerced, and according to you, businesses and individuals have no choice.
So I will ask you again, and I will assume that any further diversions is an implied confession of your own understood hypocrisy ...
Should a gay owned printing company be forced to manufacture banners and posters printed with anti-gay messages for a christian group who intend to use those posters to protest the upcoming gay rights march?
You mean the right to freely practice one's religion? That was established in the Constitution many years ago, but of course, a gay's wedding cake should take priority over someone's constitutional rights.
This business owner is not being denied his right to practice his religion. He can practice it all day long at church.
The blacks were denied service and access to all venues. They had no choices. Gays very rarely encounter a business today that refuses to serve them. Big difference.
Blacks were denied access because of LAWS set by the GOVERNMENT. If a proprietor wanted to open his doors to BOTH blacks and whites, he couldn't do it because that would have been illegal. That is completely different from this situation, where the law mandates that a person open his doors to everyone.
No, Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US was because the motel owner didn't want blacks using his rooms, and the government saying he had to was argued by him as a violation of his 5th and 13th Amendment rights.
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.
And, you are seriously chasing your own tail here.