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.
I'm pretty sure Bruce (or his management company) has a business license, perhaps multiple business licenses. The auditorium has a business license and is a public accommodation.
Furthermore discrimination would depend on the states laws regarding their business licenses. Protected classes vary, the sole authoritative source does not include a number of suspect classifications that people may reasonably believe to be included (sexuality, and gender identity being two).
So again, not as simple as ot may appear.
The auditorium's business license has nothing to do with Springsteen.
And it's doubtful that Springsteen has a business license in every state in which he performs. It is more likely that he enters into contracts with the various venues, and that whatever business license Springsteen has does not regulate his choice to perform or not perform in certain states.
However, the baker's license binds the baker to abiding by the laws of the state, and in a few states, business owners are prohibited from certain kinds of discrimination in the operation of their business. By law. If the business owners cannot follow the laws of the state, then they must be prepared to accept whatever penalties can be imposed, or they must be prepared to move to another state which allows them to discriminate in the manner they so choose.
Actually, it's like being Korean and ordering spaghetti from that Italian restaurant, and they refuse by saying "we're not selling spaghetti to you since you're going to eat it in a Korean household".
Not even close. Those bakeries will bake gay people any cake...that they already make..but not a special order with gay references on it. The bakery couldn't care less what gay people do with their cakes once they leave the store. It's about forcing the bakeries to make a gay wedding cake with 2 grooms or 2 brides on it and writing that refers to gay marriage.
An Italian restaurant would sell me spaghetti but they won't put soy sauce in it..and I would never demand that they do. If I want Korean food, I'll go to a Korean restaurant. If gays want a gay cake then they can go to a bakery that bakes gay cakes.
You're argument is so weak and full of holes but it doesn't surprise me being that liberals have trouble understanding simple analogies and twist them to suit their narratives. lol.
Not even close. Those bakeries will bake gay people any cake...that they already make..but not a special order with gay references on it. The bakery couldn't care less what gay people do with their cakes once they leave the store. It's about forcing the bakeries to make a gay wedding cake with 2 grooms or 2 brides on it and writing that refers to gay marriage.
An Italian restaurant would sell me spaghetti but they won't put soy sauce in it..and I would never demand that they do. If I want Korean food, I'll go to a Korean restaurant. If gays want a gay cake then they can go to a bakery that bakes gay cakes.
You're argument is so weak and full of holes but it doesn't surprise me being that liberals have trouble understanding simple analogies and twist them to suit their narratives. lol.
First of all, there's no such thing as a gay cake.
Secondly, you're mistaken about cakes with 2 grooms or 2 brides on it and so on. The objection that bakers have is that the cake is going to be used to celebrate a gay marriage, something the baker does not believe in. It's not how the cake is decorated that is the issue for the baker, it's the cake's purpose they object to.
Thirdly, in many states, bakers can refuse to make a cake that will be served at a gay wedding. Some states have passed laws to prohibit such discrimination. And in those states with such prohibitions, the baker cannot discriminate against same-sex couples unless the baker is willing to break the law and pay the penalty for breaking the law.
The Bible is true becasue it says it's true. If that logic were applied to anything else, a person holding that view would rightfully be called ignorant. And that's not to say that the bible is of no value; that's of course not true. There is plenty of wisdom and truth held in the Bible but any person who cannot apply reason alongside faith is living in the stone age. Thomas Aquinas, a Catholic saint, understood this centuries ago. Why are people still struggling with that now?
Well put. Any person who does apply reason along side faith is likely to struggle a bit, but more to your last question..., we are still struggling now, because all too many people on the planet are not that much less ignorant than back in the stone age, even here in America where beliefs going back before the Dark Ages are still held dear...
Not even close. Those bakeries will bake gay people any cake...that they already make..but not a special order with gay references on it. The bakery couldn't care less what gay people do with their cakes once they leave the store. It's about forcing the bakeries to make a gay wedding cake with 2 grooms or 2 brides on it and writing that refers to gay marriage.
An Italian restaurant would sell me spaghetti but they won't put soy sauce in it..and I would never demand that they do. If I want Korean food, I'll go to a Korean restaurant. If gays want a gay cake then they can go to a bakery that bakes gay cakes.
You're argument is so weak and full of holes but it doesn't surprise me being that liberals have trouble understanding simple analogies and twist them to suit their narratives. lol.
1. The recipe is identical, the bakery owners refused to bake any wedding cake (even a plain one with no toppers) because of where the cake was going. No "soy sauce" in the cake or spaghetti. Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with the Oregon news story.
2. It's "your", not "you're". "You're" is a contraction for "you are". "You are argument is so weak" doesn't sound right, does it?
3. I'm not a liberal. If you thought I was, your bigotry is showing.
4. Your last sentence contradicts itself. How can someone purposely twist an analogy if they don't understand it first?
Edit - whoops, left this written but not posted. DC at the Ridge summed it up nicely.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,470,414 times
Reputation: 12187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
It's difficult to sort out their hypocrisy. Please help.
- Tim Cook: It's OK for Apple to do business with countries that execute men for being homosexual, but it's not OK for a baker to refuse to bake a cake for a homosexual couple in the USA.
- Bruce Springsteen: It's OK for me to refuse to do business with people I don't agree with, but it's not OK for a baker to refuse to do business with people he doesn't agree with.
- Paypal: It's OK for us to do business with countries who execute transgender people but it's not OK for NC to tell transgender people which restroom they must use.
- Barbara Boxer: When the Pope speaks about Global Warming Catholics should listen to him. But when the Pope speaks about abortion, he is wrong and Catholics should not listen to him.
But Springsteen's ignorance is quite amusing. He doesn't even know the difference between and American Indian and somebody from the country of India.
"I mean, it's 2016, who still says they're Indian? This isn't 19th century America, we recognize these people are actually Native Americans," said Springsteen, adding "if Governor Haley wants to disrespect herself that's her business, but I will not play another concert in South Carolina as long as she's governor if she doesn't start using the proper term 'Native American.'"
While she is a natural born American citizen Governor Haley's parents are immigrants from India, a fact that did little to change Springsteen's view on the matter.
Said an indignant Springsteen, "you mean there's a whole country of people who still think like this? Well, that's just one more place that will never be blessed enough to host a concert by me! Equality for all is too important an issue, and anyone who doesn't stand for equality doesn't stand with me, The Boss."
Maybe this sums it up for us;
I am a moderate Democrat and I agree with most of your points. While I support gay marriage and treating transgendered people with respect the whole Intolerance in the Name of Tolerance has gotten out of hand. Bottom line is White Liberals are as racist as any KKK member. They have a higher standard for Whites than for others, which is why they get enraged when a White Christian won't be the preacher at a gay wedding but then they have no problem with an Arab Muslim killing a homosexual. They assail America's gender pay gap but are silent on female genital mutilation in Africa. They are just as arrogant as the GOP's religious right and want to control the lives of the masses as much as possible, whether it's the size of your drink, the MPGs of your car, what kind of house you live in, etc.
I'd also add that White Liberals feel entitled to set 100% of the Democrat agenda when they are 33% of the party. Non Whites are still mostly uneasy about gay marriage, which is why it never passed the popular vote even in California, and yet White Liberals have decided it is the top issue. Most non White Democrats care most about economic issues and yet the extent of the party's help is in increasing the minimum wage, which doesn't help the many minorities who the private sector won't hire anyway. Did I mention how they wailed over themselves over a dead lion while they don't give half a crap about starving people in Africa?
I am a moderate Democrat and I agree with most of your points. While I support gay marriage and treating transgendered people with respect the whole Intolerance in the Name of Tolerance has gotten out of hand. Bottom line is White Liberals are as racist as any KKK member. They have a higher standard for Whites than for others, which is why they get enraged when a White Christian won't be the preacher at a gay wedding but then they have no problem with an Arab Muslim killing a homosexual. They assail America's gender pay gap but are silent on female genital mutilation in Africa. They are just as arrogant as the GOP's religious right and want to control the lives of the masses as much as possible, whether it's the size of your drink, the MPGs of your car, what kind of house you live in, etc.
I'd also add that White Liberals feel entitled to set 100% of the Democrat agenda when they are 33% of the party. Non Whites are still mostly uneasy about gay marriage, which is why it never passed the popular vote even in California, and yet White Liberals have decided it is the top issue. Most non White Democrats care most about economic issues and yet the extent of the party's help is in increasing the minimum wage, which doesn't help the many minorities who the private sector won't hire anyway. Did I mention how they wailed over themselves over a dead lion while they don't give half a crap about starving people in Africa?
Either the statement I bolded in your comment (let alone the rest) is utter garbage or you can provide any evidence any such notion is even remotely true. These sorts of statements are indicative of just how twisted, confused and ultimately wrong we can be about what others believe...
Exactly, both parties have double standards. That's why I'm an independent, I try to vote for the lesser evil at the time. This changes as well. In 2008/2012, it was the Republican Party and now in 2016, I think the Democratic Party is out of control.
The Republicans based on whoever their nominee is the out of control on. I voted Republican in 08 and 12 mainly because I didn't believe in Obama in 08 and in 12 he didn't gain my trust. That said, if the election was in 2014 or 2014's situation was in 2012, I would have voted D over R and I honestly did like Romney (other than the 47% comment (which at the time I kind of tried to block and spin...)) This time I don't trust neither Ted Cruz nor Donald Trump to be what is right for the nation. We either get a liberal globalist insider rich elitist idiot leopard trying to hide his stripes as a nationalist ousider semi-conservative in Trump or an obstructionist Christian conservative in Cruz. As much as I don't like Hillary Clinton, she is who I have to vote for. Voting third party is a waste of a vote.
As for who is out of control, it's the Christian conservatives who fear the gays and hate them. Ironically the Good Book asks us to love thy neighbor. The Good Book would want us to serve our dinner brothers and sisters rather than blindly hate them for sinners. I mean if Jesus Christ himself forgave Judas for turning him in, why should we decide that it is fine to say that it is fine to discriminate on perceived sexual orientation or gender identification reasoning? And this comes from a non-practicing Roman Catholic who turned his back on the church based on this and the fact that they will condemn homosexual acts except when it is a Priest molesting boys.
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.
)) This time I don't trust neither Ted Cruz nor Donald Trump to be what is right for the nation. We either get a liberal globalist insider rich elitist idiot leopard trying to hide his stripes as a nationalist ousider semi-conservative in Trump or an obstructionist Christian conservative in Cruz. As much as I don't like Hillary Clinton, she is who I have to vote for. Voting third party is a waste of a vote.
