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.
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.
Bless your heart. That is really sad.
It's literally IMPOSSIBLE to force someone to do something in the sense you're talking about, even at gun point. All you can do is to present incentives and disincentives. Rewards and punishments.
The government is punishing the bakers very harshly for refusing to submit to involuntary servitude. In the normal sense of the word "force", that means the government is forcing them to bake cakes.
Last edited by hbdwihdh378y9; 12-29-2017 at 11:15 PM..
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.
No exceptions -the life of one person, isn't the responsibility of another.
It's literally IMPOSSIBLE to force someone to do something in the sense you're talking about, even at gun point. All you can do is to present incentives and disincentives. Rewards and punishments.
The government is punishing the bakers very harshly for refusing to submit to involuntary servitude. In the normal sense of the word "force", that means the government is forcing them to bake cakes.
They refused services contrary to the operating laws of their state
It's literally IMPOSSIBLE to force someone to do something in the sense you're talking about, even at gun point. All you can do is to present incentives and disincentives. Rewards and punishments.
The government is punishing the bakers very harshly for refusing to submit to involuntary servitude. In the normal sense of the word "force", that means the government is forcing them to bake cakes.
To me, there is a HUGE difference between 'over the counter' service and contracting for outside services.
Contract law, I think, requires that both parties agree ---> to the contract.
Thus, I should sell my cupcakes to everyone and anyone who wants to buy one (over the counter) --- but contract with those to whom I submit a bid, and not with those to whom I don't submit a bid. And so, have a nice day! Done!
Is someone prohibiting you from praying? Has the government burnt your church? NO.
You HAVE freedom of religion.
Freedom of Religion DOES NOT EQUAL discrimination against people who do not adhere to your religion.
Property rights do. you remember those? A cornerstone of our founding as a nation.
Protest against discrimination but respect the rights of the property holder.
That's a pretty steep penalty. To put it in perspective, that would buy them three top model Subaru outbacks, and still leaves a lot of money for hiking gear, softball bats and toothpicks.
Last edited by War Beagle; 12-30-2017 at 12:47 AM..
This ruling will become moot when the Supreme Court rules against the gay couple in that other case. Make no mistake about it, I am deeply upset that some of these bakeries refuse to bake specialized wedding cakes for gay and lesbian couples. Having written that, I also believe that it is an infringement on our 1st Amendment rights for government to force businesses (under threat of fine directly, or imprisonment indirectly) to endorse certain speech (forget about the freedom of religion argument for a second). While it is one thing (and I believe such a move would be constitutional) for government to force businesses to serve individuals in a general sense if they are operating and generally open to the public, there is a fine line. And, indeed, in none of these cases are gays/lesbians/etc. prohibited from engaging with the businesses in 99.9% of other matters . . . they are allowed to buy general baked goods, graduation baked goods, etc. Heck, they're even allowed to buy already-made wedding cakes. They just are not allowed to buy specialized wedding cakes celebrating and highlighting their upcoming big day.
Again, while distasteful and while I wish that these businesses would sell the wedding cakes to any and everyone regardless of sexual orientation, I do not see how what is essentially compelled speech against the baker(s) (i.e. forcing bakers to bake cakes with "x" or "y" message that they fundamentally disagree with) passes constitutional muster.
Note, while I think the religion argument is even stronger, I don't think we need to discuss it.
Again, there is a difference between declining to serve someone (period) based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., once you've decided to enter into the public arena of buying and selling goods vs. being compelled to create specific works of art for purposes that you disagree with.
So...a business can decline service because a customer is fat, black, white, Norwegian, or wears a toupee because it’s against some religious belief to serve such a person? This whole religious freedom crap is just crap. It has no place in civil society of the 21 century. Evolve people.
So...a business can decline service because a customer is fat, black, white, Norwegian, or wears a toupee because it’s against some religious belief to serve such a person?
Legally yes they should be able to for any reason. Because one can doesn't mean they should. The free market takes care of things like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pennyone
This whole religious freedom crap is just crap. It has no place in civil society of the 21 century. Evolve people.
A civil society doesn't force it's beliefs on others when no ones rights have been violated. Organized crime does.
So...a business can decline service because a customer is fat, black, white, Norwegian, or wears a toupee because it’s against some religious belief to serve such a person? This whole religious freedom crap is just crap. It has no place in civil society of the 21 century. Evolve people.
Last I read, the baker's legal team is arguing freedom of artistic expression at the Supreme Court rather than religious freedom.
They are hoping the SC Justices agree with them that cakes are art and he has the right to refuse to sell his art to anyone he wants.
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.
