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 like there is anything wrong with it (gay cake that is). But if a Christian baker does not offer this type of cake or cake topper. What exactly is the problem?
They won't sell this type of cake to me (straight woman), they won't sell it to YOU (straight man), they won't sell to ANYBODY. where is the discrimination?
And not one case about wedding cakes was about the design. In fact in both cases the design of the cake was never mentioned before they were refused service. One baker told them that he would not sell them ANY wedding cake at all.
Not like there is anything wrong with it (gay cake that is). But if a Christian baker does not offer this type of cake or cake topper. What exactly is the problem?
They won't sell this type of cake to me (straight woman), they won't sell it to YOU (straight man), they won't sell to ANYBODY. where is the discrimination?
So you think a cake with a rainbow interior is a gay cake? What if a gay couple order a straight cake, is that okay?
Have you ever been to a gay wedding? Their cakes are not rainbows with muscle men on top, they are the same cakes straight people get....
Also, if you want to buy a rainbow cake as a straight person, there is nothing wrong with that....when it rains and a rainbow comes out, do you think that is nature's way of showing you it too is gay?
What exactly is the double standard. One case revolves around a business owner, the other case involves an employee in which a business owner must provide for reasonable accomidation to the employee's religious beliefs as long as it doesn't have more than a minimal impact on the business. Now, I agree what is a minimal impact and what doesn't could be up for debate, but in this particular case it isn't because the company themselves stated doing so and providing that accomidation wouldn't have an impact on the business
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
In the case of the cake bakers, they were owners of the establishment. They violated an Oregon state law. The EEOC does not apply.
In the case of the drivers, they were employees who were fired without proper cause. Because they were employees, therefore EEOC does apply.
If the drivers had been owners instead of employees, and had lived in the state of Oregon, then you'd have a case for a "double standard." But as it stands you just don't understand the law.
Unfortunately, you two are wasting your time posting actual facts. There is a concerted effort, led by many in the right wing media to portray Christians as the one true victims of current society, and no amount of facts showing how incorrect their arguments for victimhood are will sway them. These are often the same people accusing others of claiming victimhood for personal gain. They will also refuse to acknowledge their own hypocrisy.
Is it? Free exercise of religion and religious liberty is the issue in both cases. Muslimes don't want to handle liquor, Christians don't want to cater to (or bake cakes for) 'gay' so-called 'weddings.'
So you think a cake with a rainbow interior is a gay cake? What if a gay couple order a straight cake, is that okay?
Have you ever been to a gay wedding? Their cakes are not rainbows with muscle men on top, they are the same cakes straight people get....
Also, if you want to buy a rainbow cake as a straight person, there is nothing wrong with that....when it rains and a rainbow comes out, do you think that is nature's way of showing you it too is gay?
Please do not paint me as an anti gay person, you know I am not.
You asked me a question, I answered. No need to give me an attitude.
This thread has MORE to do with DOUBLE STANDARD, very less to do with
1. Should gays get married
2. did you attend a gay wedding?
There is a double standard. If you don't agree, we can agree to disagree. But no need to throw a temper tantrum. We all have our different opinions. As a retailer whose family owns several retail stores, yes, I am curious about this type of subject. No more, no less.
By the way, I am all for gay marriage, but I also know there are many different types of people living in this world. live and let live, if they don't want to serve gay wedding cakes in their bakery, let them or make a compromise, everybody would be happy. Muslims don't want to serve alcohol, fine, christians don't want to sell gay wedding cake, it should be fine too. Just find another person who is willing to do business with you, what is the big deal?
What I am passionate about the government roles in this type of situation. I don't want to give government any more power to butt into people's private businesses. Let the businesses make the decision because the real decision maker is free market. The only loser in this situation WILL be the baker eventually because they are limiting their market. But let free market decide their fate, no need to ruin other people's businesses simply because they are "different." (for lack of a better word.)
Last edited by lilyflower3191981; 12-29-2015 at 04:59 AM..
In the case of the cake bakers, they were owners of the establishment. They violated an Oregon state law. The EEOC does not apply.
In the case of the drivers, they were employees who were fired without proper cause. Because they were employees, therefore EEOC does apply.
If the drivers had been owners instead of employees, and had lived in the state of Oregon, then you'd have a case for a "double standard." But as it stands you just don't understand the law.
Does it really matter which department of government is applicable to either case? The simple truth is that in each case, religious liberty and free exercise were the principle issues.
In one case, the business was forced to accommodate the religion of the complainant. In the other case, the business owners were denied free exercise.
The difference is only that the shoe was on the other foot. I think in both cases, the decisions of the courts were wrong. Employees ought to do the job they were hired to do, or find another job, if they feel they cannot. Business owners ought to have the right not to offer service to clients who insult their religious beliefs, and whose behavior is immoral, unhealthy, and against the teachings of their religion.
The court held that the Muslims beliefs must be accommodated by the business. In the other case, the court held that there could be no accommodation for the beliefs of the Christian business owners.
Is it? Free exercise of religion and religious liberty is the issue in both cases. Muslimes don't want to handle liquor, Christians don't want to cater to (or bake cakes for) 'gay' so-called 'weddings.'
One example has to do with reasonable accomodation the other is a business owner refusing service. If you had a case of a christian not being reasonably accomodated that would be a better comparison or if you could point to a business refusing to sell to straight people that would also be fair. Relgious accomodation does not apply to a business owner.
Here is a case of relgious accomodation for a christian, $580,000 award
Quote:
According to EEOC's lawsuit, Beverly R. Butcher, Jr. had worked as a general inside laborer at the companies' mine in Mannington, W.V., for over 35 years when the mining companies required employees to use a newly installed biometric hand scanner to track employee time and attendance. Butcher repeatedly informed company officials that submitting to biometric hand scanning violated his sincerely held religious beliefs as an Evangelical Christian. He also wrote a letter to company officials explaining his beliefs about the relationship between hand-scanning technology and the "Mark of the Beast" and the Antichrist discussed in the New Testament's Book of Revelation, and requesting an exemption from the hand scanning based on his religious beliefs.
The principle is the same. Christians are forced to violate their religious beliefs, but Muslims get protected. I just want to see what happens when a gay couple demands a wedding cake from a Muslim bakery!
That button will never get pushed.
Why?
Because Muslims seem to stand up to bullies in a very brutal way.... Pretty sure the double standard we see here, is based upon history of a religion of passive tolerance, to one that has aggressive hate...........
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.
