U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-13-2019, 01:46 PM
 
Location: Seattle
802 posts, read 311,548 times
Reputation: 895

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueg View Post
Well, I don't own a bakery. But I am a liberal, and my reaction would be "I'm in the business of selling cakes, so sure, I'll sell you what you want". As long as your money's green, why on earth should I care?

It would be no weirder than those kitty litter box cakes that were so popular a few years back, and AFAIK, bakeries were perfectly happy to make those.

IOW, no force required.

I agree and this would be my answer as well! You show me the money and I'll make whatever you want! My job is to bake and not to judge....


If I internally don't like what I'm baking, I'll cry to myself...all the way to the bank
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-13-2019, 01:50 PM
 
3,316 posts, read 640,659 times
Reputation: 2287
Quote:
Originally Posted by pete98146 View Post
I agree and this would be my answer as well! You show me the money and I'll make whatever you want! My job is to bake and not to judge....


If I internally don't like what I'm baking, I'll cry to myself...all the way to the bank
And that's YOUR decision. If someone asked me to sell a product forcing me to participate, even indirectly, in something I disapprove of, I'd feel good that my principles mean more than money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2019, 01:52 PM
 
3,316 posts, read 640,659 times
Reputation: 2287
Oh...I have a good example.


It is against my religion to work on Saturday, and therefore if I had a retail business, it would be closed that day. If Christians started demanding I sell them my product on Saturday, because I was discriminating against people who observe the Sabbath on Sunday, I would refuse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2019, 01:57 PM
 
Location: NNJ
9,500 posts, read 5,354,273 times
Reputation: 10446
Quote:
Originally Posted by pete98146 View Post
I agree and this would be my answer as well! You show me the money and I'll make whatever you want! My job is to bake and not to judge....


If I internally don't like what I'm baking, I'll cry to myself...all the way to the bank
That's pretty much personal standpoint.

However, the three of us are exercising a choice in one direction... money is the priority. You can't protect that choice without considering that others my not have money as a priority when it comes to running their business.

Consider this.... There may be a time that a high priced luxury bakery is discriminatory against poor people and force you to sell cakes depending on the social economic status of the customer.


Again... there are always beneficiaries and those that pay the cost of laws and regulations. Some of it is justified.. sure... but it is really easy to jump on the bandwagon when you personally are either not impacted or the beneficiary. However, it doesn't mean that the decision can be used to pave the way for other laws and regulations in which you are going to pay the cost.

I'm fairly liberal.. but I generally side with the conservatives on this issue.

BUT remember!

Conservatives, the same applies when many of you went bat crazy when Alex Jones was kicked off social media sites; namely Youtube. Youtube is a private company and they choose not to carry his content. That is very much a right just like the bakery choosing not to bake a gay themed cake.

You cannot cherry-pick the issues... it is hypocritical. You back the bakery decision (like I do as someone who leans liberal) you gotta back YouTube's decision as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2019, 02:04 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
20,331 posts, read 10,437,970 times
Reputation: 7964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir View Post
If that were true, then you would not be surprised or outraged at your local patisserie making a cake for the local Grand Kleagals appointment ceremony.

If you would be outraged that your local cake shop did that, then it's not as clearly defined as you claim it to be.
If the grand kleagals ordered a cake that the bakery offered to anyone else than the bakery should make that same cake for them too.

The bakery offered three tier white cakes with flowers, then the bakery should make and sell that cake to anyone that wants one. If the bakery offers a cake with a cross on it, they should sell that cake to anyone.
If a bakery offers rubber ducky cakes they should sell them to anyone. If the bakery does not offer a particular cake to anyone, then they do not have to make that cake for anyone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2019, 02:07 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
20,331 posts, read 10,437,970 times
Reputation: 7964
Quote:
Originally Posted by usayit View Post
You still missed the point...

They still have a right to determine what services / goods they offer. If they don't want to bake a cake depicting a gay couple, they don't have to. ... that isn't discrimination. If they refused to sell any cake they have to offer because the couple was gay.. then that's discrimination.

Same thing with Catholic store.... a Jewish person can walk in and buy Catholic specific wares, including a Bible. As long as a Jewish person isn't denied service because they are not Catholic, that is not discrimination. But if said Jewish customer asked to buy a Torah and the store said we don't sell Torahs, that is NOT discrimination.

There is a difference between denial of service due to race, gender, creed, color versus denial of service because the business doesn't offer the service requested.

I'm a supporter of LGBTQ and socially leaning liberal. I have nothing against them. My mother in law, the grandmother of my children, is gay. But I am also vary sensitive to individual rights... and both sides conservative and liberal are guilty of overstepping individual rights. When I say individual rights, I also mean the rights of private businesses.
The bakery did not even find out what the couple wanted the cake to look like before they refused to make them ANY wedding cake. They may have wanted number 42 out of his own book that he had no problem making for a heterosexual couple, but he stated that he would not make them any wedding cake.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2019, 02:09 PM
 
Location: Southern Nevada
2,871 posts, read 1,211,501 times
Reputation: 3182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobdreamz View Post
Christians shouldn't be using their religion to justify their bigotry.
That's a load of crap. Having a faith and beliefs does not make one a bigot,, but the socialist demonic left cannot understand the difference.

You either comply with their demands and agenda or get destroyed in the process. No one should be forced to do anything they don't want to do.

Personally I would've just baked the cake and topped it off with a jar of Vaseline. Either that or just bake the scumbag a fruitcake. That would fit the bill.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2019, 02:23 PM
 
12,633 posts, read 10,483,539 times
Reputation: 17412
Quote:
Originally Posted by usayit View Post
For every law or regulation there are people who gain protections and others that loose freedom of choice. In some cases, it is justified... example child labor laws and civil rights. It really depends on the line that is drawn and who are the beneficiaries and who are those that pay for it with loss of choices.

Government shouldn't be telling individuals how to live their lives because invariably someone who doesn't conform is going to be discriminated against.

Similarly, Government shouldn't be telling individuals how to run their businesses because invariably someone who doesn't confirm is going to be discriminated against.

I've brought up many examples (Bible store being one). There examples everywhere... you just have to look.

Would you require a OB/GYN to see male individuals?

Would you require female gyms that provide a safer environment for females to exercise to accept male individuals?

Would you require female clothing stores to carry clothing for men?

Because if they don't, by your notions they too would be considered discriminatory based on gender. Those businesses aren't discriminating against men, they are simply offering a business model that is specific to females. Forcing them to do so would be a violation of their rights.
I wouldn't require any of those things, my conversation with another poster was about race after someone else brought it up and he explicitly supported race-based discrimination, and my post reflected that and the specific discussion that was had about the Civil Rights Act.

In my post you quoted I only mentioned race and sexual orientation, and I was talking about landlords (which earlier was the basis of my discussion with someone else) and I also said "won't serve them," thinking of a place like a restaurant, bakery, store.

I would not expect OB/GYNs to see male patients, no. That would be ridiculous because their specialty is the female body. I would not expect a gym meant for women to accept men. I support separating people by sex for certain types of services or businesses if there is a benefit to the separation or if it just makes logical sense (like how I don't support all bathrooms or changing rooms to be gender-neutral just because some trans people exist, for safety and privacy reasons it makes sense in some situations to keep women separate from men). It makes sense in some circumstances to have a separation based on sex, it makes sense to have women's clothing stores and men's clothing stores, and I don't think many sane people would object to that or complain that some stores sell only women's clothing or men's clothing. I don't think many sane people would complain that OB/GYNs won't see men as patients or that Curves (the gym) is meant for women. These places, businesses, or individuals in these examples are also not "discriminating" for any arbitrary or hateful purpose.

What sane people would probably object to and what I don't support is a landlord refusing to rent to black people or a restaurant or hotel refusing to serve black or gay people because they are black and gay and the people refusing service are racist or homophobic. Even if no legal protections exist, most would agree this type of discrimination is morally wrong. Most would not agree that an OB/GYN refusing to see a male patient or a clothing store selling only women's clothing is morally wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2019, 02:46 PM
 
1,186 posts, read 1,338,807 times
Reputation: 1088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel976 View Post
Oh...I have a good example.


It is against my religion to work on Saturday, and therefore if I had a retail business, it would be closed that day. If Christians started demanding I sell them my product on Saturday, because I was discriminating against people who observe the Sabbath on Sunday, I would refuse.
Would you refuse to sell somebody a product that you normally have in your store on a Friday if you knew they planned to use it while working on a Saturday?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2019, 02:54 PM
 
Location: SGV
24,760 posts, read 9,640,166 times
Reputation: 9715
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
Seriously? You talking 'bout "asking via legislation"? You talking 'bout legislation period full stop. You talking 'bout being "pro-freedom"?

It's Orwellian:



Slaver States v. Free States & their negotiations ( this is akin to your "asking for legislation" ) began at the Constitution Convention & continued right on up to & throughout the American Civil War. Here's just some of the evidence from before the ACW:

A review of the Congressional Record of the 36th Congress reveals more than 300 proposals in regard to negotiations, some of these are Amendments to the United States Constitution, all are designed to avert military conflict. President Buchanon was the 1st to propose.

'US Constitution & Secession'is a recent book by Dwight Pitcaithley. His book focuses on analyzing the many amendments proposed during this time frame, all designed to avert military conflict ( <-- this is akin to your "negotiating/reasoning with terrorists" ).

Basically he breaks down 350 different topics in the proposed 67 amendments. Slavery expanded in the territories is the largest topic cited. The Slaver State position was that Government should protect slavery because slaves are property. 90% of the amendments proposed were about protecting slavery. 2 out of the 350 discussed tariffs. 5 were logical exit strategies for secession. One described having 4 Presidents, 1 each for North, South, East & West.

Other significant issues discussed:
  • Return of fugitives slaves
  • Protecting slavery in the District of Columbia
  • Slaves were taken from owners when they went to certain states (Virginia sues NY over this)
  • Dred Scott decision
  • Secession issues & reorganizing federal government
  • Jefferson Davis proposed nationalizing slavery (slaves as protected property)
  • The Corwin amendment was approved by Senate (& previously approved by the House); on Inauguration Day it was ratified by 5 states.

Mr Pitcaithley's analysis reaches 3 broad conclusions:
  • The Slave States seceded to protect slavery & the notion of white supremacy.
  • Southern states were railing against the Northern states, its people, abolitionists, & eventually Lincoln.
  • In his analysis of the proposed Amendments: the Slaver States were willing to trade State authority to protect slavery for Federal authority to protect slavery. (In other words, it was about property rights & NOT States' rights)

Negotiations between Free States & Slaver States were ongoing from the Constitutional Convention right on up to & throughout the war.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 2730, enacted April 9, 1866, was the first United States federal law to define citizenship and affirm that all citizens are equally protected by the law.

Even after the war, attempts were made to appease the Slaver States, they would have none of it. They continued to rail against the Free United States, its people, & President Lincoln. Resentful about losing their 'peculiar institutions', they set out to preserve, protect, & defend their 'way of life' based on white supremacy through the enactment of local & state laws.

The Slaver States resisted assimilation into the Free United States for over a century.

Some folks still do. Specifically folks who have 'issues' with Civil Rights Acts, whether from 1866 or 1966 or 2019.

Which Civil Right Acts ( any of them, or any Title ) do you, personally, have issues with?
I have an issue with all involuntary government.

I use my copy of the social contract as a coaster for my beverages.



Impressive knowledge base, BTW, even if it's all fictional poppycock.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top