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.
Of course they won, they knew they was going sue that bakery before they even walked into the door to order the cake, they went looking for someone to sue
OR, they went to a bakery that they knew they liked because they wanted the same cake that one of their mothers had for her wedding.
So any white should have the right to order non-whites out of his or her store? To make that clear from the start a sign could be put on the door that says, "Whites Only".
Yes. They should be able to do that. However that business will not last in the free market and will be publicly scorned and the owners know it.
A theory of law and justice does not support making laws which discriminate against persons (one or many individual or group). Society in general has the duty to protect those persons who would suffer harm as a result of discrimination. This is the basis of the SCOTUS decision to provide protections to marriage between same sex partners e.g. the harm was evident, identifiable and real.
The current case akin to the Masterpiece case puts religious or artistic virtue vs. people. Whether they are gay, purple or blue does not make any difference. Does the baker have a right to discriminate (sell cakes to one person and not another because of his religious beliefs). Can he choose who to sell to? Because of his artistry? Due to his religious thought? If so, he must show a compelling harm to him IF he were to sell to that group.
He will not be able to do so. This one is easy, a double eagle quarter. He is going to lose his case.
This baker got caught up in an unfortunate situation as the tide is changing on being hateful to people because of who they love.
It will be difficult to prove compelling harm to the baker over baking a raspberry dream cake.
Whether this will be enough to sway the five on the Supreme Court remains to be seen.
^^ Insightful and Good post. No longer can hate be protected by religion. How arrogant to think that a person engaged in the public commerce can pick and choose who they sell to based upon millennia old falsity.
It's a wake up call to the good and "decent" church going public.
Would it be all right if doctors and nurses refused to care for certain patients?
If their strongly held beliefs were such that caring for certain people was not something they could do in good conscience, would that all right?
We (doctors and nurses) are allowed certain exceptions but these must be registered in advance with any employer. Most exceptions are the privilege not to be involved in working in abortions or life ending decision making. I have also seen nurses object to caring for people who refuse blood or live saving treatments due to religious choices but that is very rare.
Our training is a very powerful tool to save and preserve life. Many issues come up when christian scientists (who are neither) will not allow their child to be treated but bring them or have the child brought to the hospital. In that circumstance the courts issue emergency orders to treat the child. Additionally if a child say is going to die from a serious medical condition (asthma, bleeding near drowning), we respond to the emergency and treat them under a duty to treat and or moral oath.
The parents (if they can be called that) typically are kept away from the child or are removed by security or police. There are hundreds of these cases nationwide and the law is on the side of the patient.
Last edited by AADAD; 01-23-2018 at 05:34 PM..
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.