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.
Location: Subconscious Syncope, USA (Northeastern US)
2,365 posts, read 2,147,805 times
Reputation: 3814
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident
Eh, this doesn't bother me so much. At the end of the day, though I support same sex marriage and wish that every state (just not through the courts) would legalize it, forcing the minority of businesses who would not bake wedding cakes for gay couples to do so goes about things the wrong way. I personally think that private businesses should be free to discriminate as they see fit. While I would encourage them to be accepting of everyone, even if only for the sake of doing business, forcing people to accept others is troublesome and merely drives hatred underground/endangers the public in some unintended ways. Why would gay couples want to buy a cake from a business whose owner believes their marriage is in sin to begin with? Are they not afraid that they will get a poorer quality cake (even if its not apparent to the naked eye)? That "special ingredients" will be added? If I knew someone didn't like me, I'd take my business elsewhere. The free market at work. For every business that refuses to bake cakes for gay couples, there are numerous others that will. Not to mention the refusal of shops to bake opens up opportunities for new, gay-friendly businesses. Legislating acceptance by private businesses is rarely a good idea in my view.
This reminds me of a gay couple that is suing a doctor for refusing to treat their child (they want the doctor to be forced to treat their child/other gays). Seriously? Does this couple really want that kind of doctor treating their child or other gay families? This is someone who has your life in their hands and who hates who you are!
I dont think you have to hate someone to find a religious reason against accomodating them. If she had been the only Doctor available to the child, she would have probably agreed to treat it, and treat it to the best of her ability. It would reflect very negatively on her as a physcian to let someone die over religous beliefs. She did provide an alternative Doctor who held no religious misgivings about it, which should have been acceptable for a mere well-baby visit (check up).
I dont think its fair to compare this to Jim Crow and black segregation. Anyone can see someone is a different color, but you cant always see someones sexual preference.
I dont care why someone doesnt want to serve me. The fact that they dont want to is enough to get me to keep looking for someone that does.
Cant you just order something for a wedding and not tell the person you are ordering from its for "our gay wedding"? Cant I order a cake, and place the same sex figures, or two scarecrows even, atop it if I wish on my own?
Im really torn on this issue, as you can see. I can agree why should a gay couple getting married have to worry about such things, but I also agree why should I be forced to provide services for someone I dont want to. Why would anyone want a product from someone they know didnt have their heart into its creation - especially a theorheticly once-in-a-lifetime item like a wedding cake?
If Charles Manson (as an example) was getting married in prison, would anyone be defending his right to have his cake baked by anyone of his chosing whether they wanted to bake it or not? Doesnt he have a right to demand service as well? Let's say the Tate or LaBianca families own a bakery - does he have a right to demand they bake that cake for him? Why would he even want them to?
Im sure there is some freaky bakery out there that wouldnt mind the notoriety of having baked Manson's wedding cake. The refusal does give opportunity for other bakeries to shine, and as you say, provide a business opportunity to serve those the more religiously conservative do not wish to serve.
It's a conundrum.
It makes me wonder if I as a Christian have a right to demand Kosher and Halal businesses provide me with non-kosher/non-halal foods? It seems silly that I would want them to, knowing their heart is not into providing such foods. *shrugs*
Last edited by ConeyGirl52; 03-08-2015 at 08:33 AM..
The Governor vetoed the Bills because she was under pressure from her own party to dump it. The nail in the Bills coffin was when large groups of businesses started putting signs in their windows proclaiming they "WILL SERVE ALL". There was even a last minute attempt to get the Bills signed into law by offering an amendment that scared the hell out of the pro-religious groups. That was the single sentence that would require businesses that for religious reasons will not serve a particular group, had to post that notice so those groups would be forewarned and not even bother to patronize that establishment. Well, suddenly businesses (even many with religious beliefs) realized that the amendment is logical and appropriate but, holy mother of god, do you realize what it would mean? So, they, members of the some religious groups, state representatives who initially voted for it, and even the conservative business groups started pressuring the Governor to veto the Bills
You see, the pro religious rights groups want the ability to refuse service to a group but want it done in secrecy so others would have no idea they have that strong belief. If a business wants the right to discriminate base on their religious belief, should that belief be strong enough for them to agree to warn patrons of the discriminated group they are not welcome? Or, is it that they are afraid that other patrons may decide they would rather shop at a more inclusive location? Naw, cause that would mean their deep religious beliefs take second place to their capitalist beliefs.
The truth is, they don't need a law for this garbage. Just put up a freaking sign that says "We don't care to serve Gays, Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, etc. but will do so by law". Now these groups of people will know that you really don't want their business and you've informed them of such without breaking the law. You haven't and won't refuse them service if they are still stupid enough to walk into your establishment and want to give you their hard earned money.
I go to two large fundimentalist churches where the Bible is followed exactly. I think both pastors would go to jail before they would marry a same sex couple and that day may be coming. Both pastors have a large following.
Do they realize the debate is over civil marriage, not religious marriage?
Proposed legistation in Indiana called the Religious Freedom Bill SB101 and SB568 aim to protect businesses with religious objections to gay and lesbian weddings and marriages. Social conservatives are behind the measure . Both are modeled after a Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act also called RFRA from 1993 which was intended to protect religious minorities. Bill SB101 has passed the state senate.
Exactly. Forcing people to serve others is called slavery. Freedom of association is just as important as freedom of speech, and I argue part of freedom of speech. 99% of the time a business will sell to whoever pays. But if a business owner has moral objections to providing a particular service he or she should be free to have a conscience and live by it. If christians don't want to bake cakes for a gay wedding so be it. If gays run a business and wants to cater to gays so be it. If Jamaicans want to provide service or sell to only Jamaicans so be it. If the market (public) doesn't like it the business won't last or won't get that much business.
When you open a business to the public, it is assumed that you are offering goods and services to people. You are not socializing with them. If you don't want to offer goods and services to the public, then don't open a business. Lets not confuse socializing with doing business. Why is this so difficult for people to understand.
You don't seem to understand that to be moral and ethical in a religious sense is the reason that some businesses/professionals do not want to serve/be a part of, homosexual celebrations. And, moral in my world doesn't include sodomy and celebration of such. You must separate your idea of "moral and ethical" from that of people who follow Biblical/religious law.
Does anyone have examples of people being denied "essential" services because of discrimination? I haven't heard of any. And, just because something is legal, it doesn't make it moral. You cannot force acceptance.
I wouldn't want to eat a cake that the government forced someone to make for me and I surely wouldn't want a doctor caring for my baby that was forced to do so by the government.
I actually agree that I would not buy or eat that cake. But, I would still contend that denying service to gay people is no different than denying service to black people, no matter how one rationalizes it. Discrimination and intolerance and judgmentalism is both immoral and unethical.
The feds and many states already have laws like this. Where's all the massive discrimination the fear mongerers attribute to this Indiana bill ?
Bills like this one are controversial only because gays might not get their wedding cakes and flowers from a few businesses here and there. Instead, the poor couple would probably have to suffer through getting free flowers and cake from businesses who have sympathy for their plight.
The Fourteenth Amendment requires the states to provide equal protection to all citizens. The people are equal before the law. thus discrimination of any kind is against the basic foundation of our law and country.
It matters not that you minimize the issue because in this instance it pertains to a bakery.
What is that same bakery refused to make a cake for a Jewish wedding of Christian ceremony or African-American service?
Im really torn on this issue, as you can see. I can agree why should a gay couple getting married have to worry about such things, but I also agree why should I be forced to provide services for someone I dont want to. ...
If Charles Manson (as an example) was getting married in prison, would anyone be defending his right to have his cake baked by anyone of his chosing whether they wanted to bake it or not? Doesnt he have a right to demand service as well? Let's say the Tate or LaBianca families own a bakery - does he have a right to demand they bake that cake for him? Why would he even want them to?
...
Because it is a slippery slope, and that same argument was made 50 years ago regarding civil rights.
Ol' Charlie is not an entire group of people who have done nothing legally wrong or harmed anyone.
The truth is, they don't need a law for this garbage. Just put up a freaking sign that says "We don't care to serve Gays, Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, etc. but will do so by law". Now these groups of people will know that you really don't want their business and you've informed them of such without breaking the law. You haven't and won't refuse them service if they are still stupid enough to walk into your establishment and want to give you their hard earned money.
Is that the list of people you do not like or would not do business with?
Is that the divisive, secular society you think the USA should become?
I wonder if you would say that if you, your wife, your children, your mother were sent packing from any public establishment simply because they were different?
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.
