Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 06-26-2017, 03:55 PM
 
52,431 posts, read 26,618,587 times
Reputation: 21097

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Sorry, under Federal Civil Rights Law, LGBT is not a protected class. Employers can discriminate. So can businesses. So can landlords. This has been true in federal case after federal case. If the gay couple sued under the premise of discrimination, they'll lose. The baker's First Amendment Right will prevail.
You are indeed correct.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-26-2017, 03:55 PM
 
Location: Florida
10,454 posts, read 4,036,859 times
Reputation: 8469
Quote:
Originally Posted by theoldnorthstate View Post
I think the cake shop owners offered to provide the wedding cake but for the gay couple to put their own decoration atop the cake. The gay couple refused the offer and wanted the bake shop to place the ornament. Why? Because the gay activist couple had targeted a known Christian bakery to harass them and make their point for their own reasons

That in itself should make this case an interesting argument in court
I'd like to see them try this with a Muslim bakery. I seen a video where a gay couple went to a Muslim district to try and get a wedding cake baked, and they were refused and nothing happened.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2017, 03:59 PM
 
34,619 posts, read 21,607,699 times
Reputation: 22232
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
you continuing to call it "inconvenience" isnt going to magically change the argument . Nor is playing obtuse.
That is all it is, an inconvenience.

If not, explain how it is more than that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2017, 04:02 PM
Status: "everybody getting reported now.." (set 21 days ago)
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,550 posts, read 16,536,658 times
Reputation: 6033
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Sorry, under Federal Civil Rights Law, LGBT is not a protected class. Employers can discriminate. So can businesses. So can landlords. This has been true in federal case after federal case. If the gay couple sued under the premise of discrimination, they'll lose. The baker's First Amendment Right will prevail.

Even NPR knows this:

Did You Know It's Legal In Most States To Discriminate Against LGBT People? : It's All Politics : NPR
again, you said civil rights law, not me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2017, 04:06 PM
Status: "everybody getting reported now.." (set 21 days ago)
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,550 posts, read 16,536,658 times
Reputation: 6033
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
That is all it is, an inconvenience.

If not, explain how it is more than that.
You are arguing the Appeal to Consequences fallacy. " there are other stores to service you, therefore no one is hurt"

arguing that it is an inconvenience rather because it does not physically harm a person, in no way makes it ok.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2017, 04:09 PM
 
Location: City Data Land
17,156 posts, read 12,957,599 times
Reputation: 33185
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
You are arguing the Appeal to Consequences fallacy. " there are other stores to service you, therefore no one is hurt"

arguing that it is an inconvenience rather because it does not physically harm a person, in no way makes it ok
Exactly. And the fact that the baker took their money many times before and had no problem with their dollar bills before their wedding cake request makes it even worse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2017, 04:10 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,000 posts, read 44,804,275 times
Reputation: 13699
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
You are arguing the Appeal to Consequences fallacy. " there are other stores to service you, therefore no one is hurt"

arguing that it is an inconvenience rather because it does not physically harm a person, in no way makes it ok.
It did when SCOTUS ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, et al. In fact, the ruling was based on the fact that the denial of a legally required but religiously objectionable provision is OK if there are other means to acquire such provisions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2017, 04:14 PM
Status: "everybody getting reported now.." (set 21 days ago)
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,550 posts, read 16,536,658 times
Reputation: 6033
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
It did when SCOTUS ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, et al. In fact, the ruling was based on the fact that the denial of a legally required but religiously objectionable provision is OK if there are other means to acquire such provisions.
You continuing to argue the Hobby Lobby case as if it was a service to the public when in reality it was a benefit to employees.

They are not the same case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2017, 04:19 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,000 posts, read 44,804,275 times
Reputation: 13699
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
You continuing to argue the Hobby Lobby case as if it was a service to the public when in reality it was a benefit to employees.
Who are members of the public.

Again, three things in favor of the baker:

1) LGBT is not a Federally protected class.

2) The First Amendment guarantees the Right to exercise one's religion.

3) SCOTUS ruled in favor of HL because what was legally required but they declined to provide due to religious objection was readily available elsewhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2017, 04:21 PM
 
Location: Florida
10,454 posts, read 4,036,859 times
Reputation: 8469
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
Were our Founders and Framers of the Constitution "closed minded?"

"Large number of customers?" How many "gay" "couples" is one bakery likely to see? Not that many, would be my guess. These business that were involved in these suits were specifically targeted. It was no accident.
Yep, I agree. Just like these two recent episodes.




Last edited by warhorse78; 06-26-2017 at 04:53 PM..
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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top