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.
Baking a cake does not require involvement in any ceremony. Selling rings does not require the jeweler to be involved in the ceremony. Selling a suit or a dress does not require the store owner to be involved in the ceremony. They are all business transactions. Just like the butcher selling me a steak is not involved in my cook out he was involved in a business transaction.
As for the Jewish bakery, if they OFFER swastika cakes, then they should sell them to anyone. But they can't say I'll sell swastika cakes to person A, but not to person B. Same goes for the lynching cake. If the baker has that type of cake in their shop, then they should sell that cake to anyone that wants one.
If a baker OFFERS 3 tier white cakes with sugar flowers and raspberry filling, then they should sell it to anyone.
If the baker finds the ACTION of baking cakes morally objectionable, then they shold probably not be in the baking business.
Actually, that's exactly what it is. The baker, in baking the cake, has now made a material contribution to the ceremony. That's participation, period. I went to a wedding last year. i wasn't getting married but i did help setup the tables, etc... I participated in a material way. You simply cannot get around this basic fact. You're either involved in some way or you're not. Changing the definition of 'involvement' is going to require far more buy-in than you'll ever get. It's an extremely weak argument.
As for the swastika cake... That isn't the argument. A Jewish baker probably wouldn't bake a swastika cake for ANYONE, and why should they be forced to? By NOT baking a swastika cake nobody has their rights violated. Nobody has a right to whatever they demand from whomever they demand it.
Actually, that's exactly what it is. The baker, in baking the cake, has now made a material contribution to the ceremony. That's participation, period. I went to a wedding last year. i wasn't getting married but i did help setup the tables, etc... I participated in a material way. You simply cannot get around this basic fact. You're either involved in some way or you're not. Changing the definition of 'involvement' is going to require far more buy-in than you'll ever get. It's an extremely weak argument.
As for the swastika cake... That isn't the argument. A Jewish baker probably wouldn't bake a swastika cake for ANYONE, and why should they be forced to? By NOT baking a swastika cake nobody has their rights violated. Nobody has a right to whatever they demand from whomever they demand it.
The cake is not part of the wedding ceremony at all. It is served AFTER the ceremony has concluded, generally in a different location than the ceremony, at the reception. A person selling an item has no involvement in the use of that item after it's purchased. Setting up tables is not part of the ceremony either. My wedding had no tables, they were at the reception AFTER the wedding ceremony. There would have been a wedding even if there were no tables or cakes. Neither are part of the WEDDING CEREMONY.
That is the point. The Jewish baker does not offer swastika cakes to ANYONE. He doesn't pick and choose who he will sell them to. If a baker has problems with selling wedding cakes then they should not offer them for sale to anyone. But if they do choose to offer them they they should be sold to anyone that has the cash to buy one.
There not to hurt others, there to protect their deeply held religious beliefs, something you know nothing about.
So these people should have the courage of their 'deeply held religious' convictions and post a sign that they don't serve gay people. But they won't because they probably know that might hurt their business.
Ummmm... this thread is about a law passed in Mississippi... not North Carolina.
You're so deranged with fake outrage you don't even know what state or law you're talking about anymore.
They're all quite similar, so what applies to one applies to the other. The difference is Mississippi has always been a backwards, 3rd world State. And South Carolina is trying to pass a copy of the NC bill, so yes discussing multiple states all trying to legalize the same bigotry is relevant.
The cake is not part of the wedding ceremony at all. It is served AFTER the ceremony has concluded, generally in a different location than the ceremony, at the reception. A person selling an item has no involvement in the use of that item after it's purchased. Setting up tables is not part of the ceremony either. My wedding had no tables, they were at the reception AFTER the wedding ceremony. There would have been a wedding even if there were no tables or cakes. Neither are part of the WEDDING CEREMONY.
That is the point. The Jewish baker does not offer swastika cakes to ANYONE. He doesn't pick and choose who he will sell them to. If a baker has problems with selling wedding cakes then they should not offer them for sale to anyone. But if they do choose to offer them they they should be sold to anyone that has the cash to buy one.
That's irrelevant. It is still part of the entire proceeding. You can split hairs about when it might or might not be used, but it is still a part of the event.
As for the Jewish baker... why can't he pick and choose whom he will provide a service to? As long as the refusal does not violate someone's civil rights he is free to do so. And nobody has a civil right to DEMAND and RECEIVE a product no matter the disposition of the seller. That right doe not exist. Period.
So these people should have the courage of their 'deeply held religious' convictions and post a sign that they don't serve gay people. But they won't because they probably know that might hurt their business.
Heck, they threw a fit when people started putting "we don't discriminate" stickers in their windows.
Quote:
"Ironically,this sticker represents the very promotion of discrimination...against the freedom of religious convictions. Businesses that display this sticker believe Christians should be forced, by law, to embrace homosexuality and deny their faith in personal business practices."
Get that? If you advertise that you don't discriminate, you're persecuting people who want to discriminate.
That's irrelevant. It is still part of the entire proceeding. You can split hairs about when it might or might not be used, but it is still a part of the event.
As for the Jewish baker... why can't be pick and choose whom he will provide a service to? As long as the refusal does not violate someone's civil rights he is free to do so. And nobody has a civil right to DEMAND and RECEIVE a product no matter the disposition of the seller. That right doe not exist. Period.
Why couldn't Piggy Park decide that serving blacks was in violation of their beliefs? Why can't a shop deny service to women based on their beliefs? Why can't a store deny service to Christians based on their beliefs?
Because we are a civilized society that has laws regarding operating business.
Ok, let me pose this question: I'm a baker and a KKK guy comes in and asks for a cake with black people hanging from ropes all across the top and the N word written multiple times. That offends my senses so I refuse.
How is that different from a gay couple coming in and asking me to put two men or two women on the top of the cake and the words "Bruce and Tommy" or "Sally and Megan" with lots of hearts and kisses all over the top, and me being offended and in contrast to my religious feelings ?
Where do we draw the line ?
That is why I think the Government needs to stay out of what people personally believe and their right to conduct THEIR business the way they want.
Ok, let me pose this question: I'm a baker and a KKK guy comes in and asks for a cake with black people hanging from ropes all across the top and the N word written multiple times. That offends my senses so I refuse.
How is that different from a gay couple coming in and asking me to put two men or two women on the top of the cake and the words "Bruce and Tommy" or "Sally and Megan" with lots of hearts and kisses all over the top, and me being offended and in contrast to my religious feelings ?
Where do we draw the line ?
That is why I think the Government needs to stay out of what people personally believe and their right to conduct THEIR business the way they want.
Don
The difference is that you are asking for a cake that they do not make for anyone. I would agree that the bakery should not be required to put any topper that they do not carry on a cake, but most cakes either have custom toppers bought elsewhere, or no topper at all.
If the gay couple goes in and looks through the wedding cake book and asks for one out of their book, they can still be refused even though it is something that they would make for another couple.
the whole deal about the cake wasnt that they was gay, the store had sold cakes to that couple before, it was all about catering the receptance with the cake, attending the service. they claim they would of sold them a plain cake and they could put any top they wanted on it.
the couple wasnt looking for a cake but an bakery that they could attack and sue
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.
