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.
lol Choosing to open and operate a bakery is NOT involuntary servitude and this type of scenario certainly was not the intent of the 13th Amendment, not even close, what a laughable embarrassing stretch to make. If one doesn't want to follow anti-discrimination laws, they can close up shop any time and move to a state more friendly with and in line with their personal views (and there are plenty of them out there still) and operate their discriminatory business practices there.
People choose to open a business, including where to open it, what kind of business, when to be open, who to hire, whether to have partners or be solo, etc. Slaves had no choice in anything.
What an awful, disingenuous argument. They didn't "open" a bakery; they continued to operate a bakery after the statute was enacted. But why would it matter whether they opened a bakery? People have to make a living somehow. Today it's bakers, tomorrow it's lawyers, doctors, electricians real estate agents, or anyone else licensed by the state, and the state could literally make any occupation subject to a licensing requirement. The notion that a state can nullify the 13th and 14th Amendments by issuing licenses to its citizens is Constitutionally crazy.
By the way, slaves did have a choice: They could have killed themselves instead of working, so everything they did was voluntary, by your standards. And, according to you, people today have a similar choice: They can starve to death, or they can forfeit their Constitutional rights in order to get government permission to earn a living. You're defending a totalitarian nightmare.
I support this ruling. Businesses that serve the public don't have the luxury of discrimination against anyone.
What is a "business that serves the public"? And what is one that doesn't?
It seems that the defendants in this case were operating a custom-cake business that did NOT serve the (entire) public. How can you claim that they were required to serve the public because they are a business that serves the public, when they didn't? And them punish them for not serving the public (in which case you'r conceding that they're not a business that serves the public)?
And how does one qualify to be a business that doesn't have to serve the public?
I support this ruling. Businesses that serve the public don't have the luxury of discrimination against anyone.
What about those who cant pay?
Would you say the same if a minority owned business refused KKK members service?
What about if an individual walked into an insurance agency bragging that they are an unlicensed illegal alien?
What about a gun shop refusing service to someone who says they want to buy a firearm to kill their ex?
My point is there are always reason that are justifiable to deny service.
I strongly support a business having the right to deny non-life critical services.
Don't own a business if you are going to discriminate. This has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with business. But maybe they should put a sign in the window that says they don't bake for gays. As a catholic, going to catholic schools all my life and church several times a week....we were taught to love and accept everyone, faults and all, even if we didn't agree with them. If they were gay it didn't matter because we were all of god's creations.
Don't own a business if you are going to discriminate. This has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with business. But maybe they should put a sign in the window that says they don't bake for gays. As a catholic, going to catholic schools all my life and church several times a week....we were taught to love and accept everyone, faults and all, even if we didn't agree with them. If they were gay it didn't matter because we were all of god's creations.
Amen I say to you. Same here.
Seems like some people cherry pick who they accept.
You "don't think so"? A court just said bakers must bake cakes against their will or pay $135,000. There's nothing to think about. It's explicit.
Not too bright are you. No one is forcing them to bake any cakes. Are they being forced at gun point? I don't think so.
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.
), then got down to the business of being offended. 
