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.
Exactly. No law should ever force any citizen into any private contract.
Anti-discrimination laws can violate the freedom of association/assembly and the thirteenth amendment.
If you work with the public you work with them. Just like if a black couple had come in and he had refused.
Just a hypothetical. What if it were a black family bakery and someone came in and wanted a wedding cake with a tree, a rope, and a little black person hanging from a noose on top, as opposed to two women/men in a wedding scene? Or if the customer said they wanted a cake for a KKK rally, as opposed to a gay wedding? Or if the customer asked for a cake with the words "All N!@@3rs Must Hang", instead of "Happy Wedding John and George"? Would the black baker be allowed to refuse to bake the cake?
The reason I bring up this hypo is that I think that a person's ability to refuse a service goes beyond religious beliefs. I believe that if you genuinely disagree with a message, political or otherwise, you shouldn't be forced to produce said message, put it in a box\bag with your name or business on it, and sell it. No one should be able to put words or symbols in your mouth just because you own a business. So, since actions and symbols can be considered speech with respect to the First Amendment, I don't think it's a stretch to argue that the government cannot force you to put forth speech that you disagree with unless there is a significant overriding government interest. And I don't see such an interest in protecting a person's right to buy a wedding cake at a specific bakery.
I think there is a religious argument to be made for sure, but I also think that there are other free speech considerations.
Expect this case to result in a victory for the business owners. Forcing individuals/companies to provide goods/services against their religious beliefs should never be acceptable with anyone or compatible with the Constitution.
a business serving the public cannot pick and choose.
In this case, yes they can, for two reasons. LGBT is not a Federally protected class. And, as ruled in the Hobby Lobby religious objection case, if there is a less restrictive means of acquiring the same result, the religious objection of the owner's closely-held company stands.
The couple could have simply ordered a wedding cake from a different bakery. That would place no restrictions on the objecting baker's First Amendment Rights.
As for planned Parenthood, they don't use Taxpayer $$ to do abortions either.
Yes, they do. Medicaid is taxpayer-funded.
Quote:
"Cash, credit card, certified check or Medicaid and/or your private insurance are the only ways to pay for abortion care at a Planned Parenthood health center in New York State."
I support gun rights and if some store for example does not support my rights I want them to put up a giant sign that says "No guns". This way I can choose to take my money elsewhere.
I honestly don't understand why the gay community does not take the same stance. You are not going to change bigots by sweeping it under the rug, the only thing you are doing is pissing off people like me. I'm a live and let live kind of person, I wouldn't purchase anything in his store because of his views but I 100% support his right to refuse service to gay couples.
The couple could have simply ordered a wedding cake from a different bakery.
What if the business was a train station selling tickets or an airline. And if they refused to sell to the gay couple, then the gay couple had no way to get to their destination because there weren't any competing businesses that went to the same destination.
What if it was a tow truck and or taxicab and there were no others in that town, so the gay couple had no alternatives. What if it was a first responder - paramedics and they left the gay couple in their burning car because they didn't want to service gays?
Once again, harm/inconvenience does not matter to legality. As I said before, you have a right to your opinion, and there are plenty of RWs who agree and want to change the law, but it is changing it.
under current law, you are wrong.
and calling it a nanny state isnt going to change my mind. Im not swayed by optics arguments.
Like I've said a whole bunch of times, the government shouldn't have the right to make such laws.
What if the business was a train station selling tickets or an airline. And if they refused to sell to the gay couple, then the gay couple had no way to get to their destination because there weren't any competing businesses that went to the same destination.
What if it was a tow truck and or taxicab and there were no others in that town, so the gay couple had no alternatives. What if it was a first responder - paramedics and they left the gay couple in their burning car because they didn't want to service gays?
Do you understand the difference between essential and non-essential?
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.
