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.
So where do you draw a line...Lets say a couple went to a Jewish baker and requested that he bake a cake with Hitler's photo...And he refused...should he be forced to bake that cake...
Amazing all these posters who do not support state laws, I thought that's what y'all supported? "The Oregon Equality Act of 2007" is a state law.
I disagree with you about 98.5% of the time but had to give you some rep because you are right. The {R}s used to believe in state rights but want to jam their ideology down the whole countries throats. The voters of Oregon have spoken and the owner is in clear violation of the law. I do give the owner credit he is sticking up for his religious convictions and know he is not in compliance and is man enough to accept the consequences. So what freedom was violated?
This is the exact argument owners of "whites only" businesses in the South used to justify discrimination. It has been illegal for decades. Why are we still debating this?
Times are different today. That was a state sanctioned, socially accepted discrimination that had been a part of society for decades. The civil rights law had its time, and should now be allowed to expire.
I like money, so I wouldn't deny business to anyone who can pay, but it doesn't mean the federal government or state government has the right to enforce social justice on private citizens.
I think that this guys views are antiquated, ignorant, and improper.
That said a private business owner should be able to deny service to anyone, for whatever reason.
If we can put protections in for race, same should be there for GLBT also. I disagree with any kind of tums regulations, but my opinion isn't based on hate, its that its supposed to be a free country.
Government shouldn't be allowed to discriminate, private citizens should be left alone.
How'd that work for the south? Refusing to serve blacks?
You think that should be reinstituted?
So where do you draw a line...Lets say a couple went to a Jewish baker and requested that he bake a cake with Hitler's photo...And he refused...should he be forced to bake that cake...
You can go to any baker today, not just Jewish, and most would refuse to put Hitler's photo on a cake. I'm not sure on the legality, but I imagine the principle aligns with "bad taste" or "offensive".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
Times are different today. That was a state sanctioned, socially accepted discrimination that had been a part of society for decades. The civil rights law had its time, and should now be allowed to expire.
I like money, so I wouldn't deny business to anyone who can pay, but it doesn't mean the federal government or state government has the right to enforce social justice on private citizens.
Times are different, but not equally so in all parts of the country. My friend moved to BFE and told me about a sign that their sheriff put up "no N allowed after dark". I think the civil rights law is still justified, though you might argue a specific aspect is not needed or outdated.
You can go to any baker today, not just Jewish, and most would refuse to put Hitler's photo on a cake. I'm not sure on the legality, but I imagine the principle aligns with "bad taste" or "offensive".
This becomes the problem. Who gets to determine bad taste?
Quote:
Times are different, but not equally so in all parts of the country. My friend moved to BFE and told me about a sign that their sheriff put up "no N allowed after dark". I think the civil rights law is still justified, though you might argue a specific aspect is not needed or outdated.
Civil Rights laws are not outdated. The problem arise with the size of the problem. The government addressed the big picture. They are not so good nor do I want them micro managing everything.
I asked the question earlier what we do here? Force them to make the cake? What happens when he creates an ugly ass cake they do not want to use?
They are not cracking down on his religious views, what they are doing is the same thing as when restaurant owners refused to serve blacks at the whites only lunch counter.
You can go to any baker today, not just Jewish, and most would refuse to put Hitler's photo on a cake. I'm not sure on the legality, but I imagine the principle aligns with "bad taste" or "offensive".
Many consider a gay themed wedding cake "bad taste" and "offensive.
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.
