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.
I'm not saying it should be overlooked. However others have similar reactions to requests for certain services that have as much validity as your reaction to a Nazi.
Because let's be honest any modern day Nazi has not committed genocide, well no more than any other American.
Morality for many is simply a matter of opportunity. Intent is very much a part of criminal law. I'll sit pat, thanks.
They are the same thing. What is different? Same owner, same building, same address. You have to bend reality to say otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
And do you want to answer the question I asked? So it should be totally fine for landlords in an entire city to basically keep out members of one race, stop them from living in any rental, just because in your opinion they shouldn't be told what to do by the government?
I did. As I said earlier; property rights are absolute.
But call me skeptical that in a free society all the landlords in a city would be of one race and/or be unified in the criteria of tenants they would rent to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
This sounds kinda like parts of history and these pesky things called the Equal Protection Clause and Civil Rights Act of 1964 got in the way.
You simply aren't consistent in your values or beliefs because there is nothing equal
about stripping rights of business owners and handing them over to favored groups in exchange for their votes and loyalty.
Except the person in question is not actually a baker, assumedly.
So, yes, the baker is indeed imaginary.
If you make a statement about a scenario like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueg
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.
Then the reality is when challenged by an example, it would normally be reasonable to expect a person making that statement to provide a simple "yes" or "no" answer. Because they themselves are claiming that if they were such a person in such a situation they would sell you whatever you wanted. You don't need to be a Baker to determine that if you were a Baker you would it would not bake a cake of some design for any purpose given or assumed.
Morality for many is simply a matter of opportunity. Intent is very much a part of criminal law. I'll sit pat, thanks.
Which has nothing to do with the point I made.
It's ok, hypocrisy is easy to rationalize away, however it is the very essence of hypocrisy that you would exercise the right of refusal for your personal reasons, while refusing that same right to others over their own reasons, simply because you consider yourself justified, and others not justified.
One thing I do wonder about some of these same-sex couples and Christian baker stories: Suppose that couple knows the baker is ultra-conservative. Why would they go to the bakery any and ask for "Adam & Steve's Wedding Cake" or "Mildred & Latoya's Wedding Cake" to labeled on the cake if they know the baker would object? To me, it seems like they are doing that just for attention, to put the baker in a bad situation, and to garner sympathy.
In some cases....this may be the story...just like parents in our public school sent their 2nd graded with an illustrated Bible to read in class (bring a story) and then the Christian Right spent a million or more and cost us taxpayers plenty bringing all the cases.......
BUT, having been around a lot of young people lately - I can assure you that there is not even the slightest...and I mean slightest...stigma attached to "Adam and Steve". In fact, it's probably the opposite as young people are glad that civil rights are expanded to others.
In many cases I don't think customers know the religious orientation of a bakery owner. I surely don't know those of the 4 or 5 bakeries I use.
One wonders if the Baker would make Military Cakes (with weapons on them) or cakes about success and money (can't fit through the eye of a needle!) or cakes for anyone marrying a 2nd time, or cakes for couples who don't plan to have children.....or 100's of other such situations.
I think we all need to agree these are cases of "personal preference" of the shop owner and not of "religion".
I support biz not dealing with problem customers...even Amazon will disown a customer who constantly returns things and stuff like that.
But, in general, if you want to be a priest or "practice" what you perceive as your religion, there are almost unlimited opportunities to do so and make a living at the same time (orgs, churches, etc.).
Its not an imaginary Baker. In your scenario you are the Baker.
Would you do it?
Since you squirmed I suspect not. Which means that in principle you actually agree that there are certain requests that demand the agency to refuse.
So we'd need to explore what the scope of those requests are, and the scope of reasons for refusal.
???? I already said I would, didn't think I needed to repeat that.
BTW, I have, over the years, had various side hustles. I never, not once, inquired into someone's political stances or personal lives before I agreed to do what they wanted me to do. (Nor have I inquired into someone's political stances or personal lives when I hired people.)
I agree with my Depression Era blue-collar dad (a union man all his life) - "As long as the work's honest and the money's green, what do you care?"
They are the same thing. What is different? Same owner, same building, same address. You have to bend reality to say otherwise.
I did. As I said earlier; property rights are absolute.
But call me skeptical that in a free society all the landlords in a city would be of one race and/or be unified in the criteria of tenants they would rent to.
You simply aren't consistent in your values or beliefs because there is nothing equal
about stripping rights of business owners and handing them over to favored groups in exchange for their votes and loyalty.
You have no idea what you're talking about at all. It isn't even worth trying to reply to this post meaningfully, if you think the government should not be able to legally protect races from baseless discrimination and replied the bolded to my point about the EPC and Civil Rights Act in the context of racial discrimination. Your reply doesn't even make sense.
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.
