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.
None of this justifies that you are endorsing forcing someone to provide their labor against their will.
There's a word for that ya know,
No one is forcing anyone to provide their labor against their will. This baker has a choice - make special order cakes and sell them to all or don't make cakes and thus sell them to no one. He is arbitrarily picking and choosing who he sells them to based on religion - but I will point out again, as Christianity also, concretely, is against divorce, does he refuse wedding cakes to divorced people remarrying? It prohibits adultery (one of the 10 Commandments, last I checked "thou shall not be gay" is not a commandment), so does he refuse to make cakes for people who cheated with one another, leading to divorce, who are now marrying? This is not about religion at all, it's about this person using it as an excuse to discriminate against a group which sees a lot of discrimination - so much that the state created a law to address it. THAT is a protected class.
KKK members aren't a protected class in any jurisdiction because they have not been historically oppressed. THEY were historically the ones doing the oppressing and killing and discriminating, and they are basically irrelevant today (but still allowed to assemble so where is the discrimination? where is the systematic disparate treatment of clan members?). Oh my God, you are dense.
So, why couldn't clan members be a protected class?
Kind of hard to think of many groups who are as discriminated against as the KKK in modern society.
Just because you think that discrimination is justified because you don't like their beliefs shouldn't have any bearing on it.
Maybe you are having issues understanding protected class.
Gays are not a protected class, sexual orientation is. Everyone has a sexual orientation.
Black is not a protected class, race is. Everyone has a race.
Woman is not a protected class, sex is. Everyone has a sex.
Muslim is not a protected class, religion is. Everyone has a religion (yes atheism is considered a religious belief under these laws)
Affiliation with a private group is not protected for anyone. Maybe if you feel so bad for the Clan you can work on getting them added to your states public accommodation laws.
I think this is right. You shouldn't force businesses to serve customers that they don't want to serve; the reasons are immaterial.
the silly thing is that the baker offered to sell them a cake, but let them decorate the cake any way they saw fit. the couple wanted the baker to decorate the cake which he refused to do. so the couple in question had basically a few choices;
1; buy the cake and have someone else decorate it
2: go to another baker
3: sue over hurt feelings
they choose number three. as a result the baker in question shut down a 1/3 of his business by no longer making wedding cakes.
Maybe you are having issues understanding protected class.
Gays are not a protected class, sexual orientation is. Everyone has a sexual orientation.
Black is not a protected class, race is. Everyone has a race.
Woman is not a protected class, sex is. Everyone has a sex.
Muslim is not a protected class, religion is. Everyone has a religion (yes atheism is considered a religious belief under these laws)
Affiliation with a private group is not protected for anyone. Maybe if you feel so bad for the Clan you can work on getting them added to your states public accommodation laws.
Yes, protected classes are for things we cannot choose. But certain people within those classes have received disparate treatment for merely being them, something they cannot control, due to societal or religious or other individual views (blacks, women, gays, etc.). I would hope no one seriously tries to argue that straight white men, for example, or Christians, historically received disparate/discriminatory treatment in this country because of who they are - though I'm sure some will try.
the silly thing is that the baker offered to sell them a cake, but let them decorate the cake any way they saw fit. the couple wanted the baker to decorate the cake which he refused to do. so the couple in question had basically a few choices;
1; buy the cake and have someone else decorate it
2: go to another baker
3: sue over hurt feelings
they choose number three. as a result the baker in question shut down a 1/3 of his business by no longer making wedding cakes.
They didn’t sue anybody, which just goes to show how little grasp you have over important nuance in this case.
They could be refused because they are clan members but not because they are gay.
"Hi, I;m a gay clan member and I want a cake for my clan meeting featuring a lynching"
Can refuse.
"Hi, I'm a gay clan member and I want a cake for my wedding featuring red roses and white fondant"
Can't refuse.
Sexual orientation protected, that includes heterosexuals.
Clan membership not protected.
It's actually really simple.
You might want to check up on that first refusal. The Klan may well be covered under "religious creed" provisions of the 1964 CRA, I don't know whether it's included or excluded to be frank, but it is a religious creed, and, as distasteful as it seems, it may well be legally a protected class, it has as much right as for example the Amish.
I know it seems to be a really cool whipping boy, but it's really not that simple as "classes I like are protected". Further like I said as distasteful as it seems it may be protected, but that applies to any number of protected classes from orientation to veteran status, distaste is in the eye of the beholder.
No one is forcing anyone to provide their labor against their will. This baker has a choice - make special order cakes and sell them to all or don't make cakes and thus sell them to no one. He is arbitrarily picking and choosing who he sells them to based on religion - but I will point out again, as Christianity also, concretely, is against divorce, does he refuse wedding cakes to divorced people remarrying? It prohibits adultery (one of the 10 Commandments, last I checked "thou shall not be gay" is not a commandment), so does he refuse to make cakes for people who cheated with one another, leading to divorce, who are now marrying? This is not about religion at all, it's about this person using it as an excuse to discriminate against a group which sees a lot of discrimination - so much that the state created a law to address it. THAT is a protected class.
KKK members aren't a protected class in any jurisdiction because they have not been historically oppressed. THEY were historically the ones doing the oppressing and killing and discriminating, and they are basically irrelevant today (but still allowed to assemble so where is the discrimination? where is the systematic disparate treatment of clan members?). Oh my God, you are dense.
Actually, yes, the baker is being forced to make a cake against his will.
the silly thing is that the baker offered to sell them a cake, but let them decorate the cake any way they saw fit. the couple wanted the baker to decorate the cake which he refused to do. so the couple in question had basically a few choices;
1; buy the cake and have someone else decorate it
2: go to another baker
3: sue over hurt feelings
they choose number three. as a result the baker in question shut down a 1/3 of his business by no longer making wedding cakes.
No he didn't. He refuse to sell them ANY wedding cake, but said that he would sell them birthday cakes or cookies or brownies.
So,
1. not on the table as the baker refused them ANY wedding cake.
2. They did.
3. The STATE sued over violation of the states law.
I don't like the baker's choice, but it is just that. For a sole proprietor, single-member LLC, or other very small business that provides a personal service like this, the business owner should be allowed to serve who he or she wishes. But, if the baker does win this case, it will mean that small businesses can refuse to serve people for religious reasons. Think about it, every jewish bakery could refuse to serve any muslim. A christian doctor could refuse to treat an atheist, the possibilities are endless.
They did not refuse to serve the customer. They were willing to provide a cake but not decorate it which they felt meant "approval", or so I understand it. Think about this, if they decide that business owners must go against their religious beliefs to serve a customer, I can order pork from a Muslim caterer. It will be a "narrow" ruling with well-defined perimeters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
I'd like to hear the biblical explanation and be given examples of how in practice Christians do not do business with or should discriminate against sinners.
It isn't about discriminating against sinners, but not celebrating/participating in the sinful event/action.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJJersey
If the SC decides to side with the baker, it will need to create a very well-crafted opinion as to how the case should be relied on in the future. They could limit it to artistic expression cases, but even there you would have a problem. Is make a sandwich for a customer the same type of artistic expression as making a cake?
It will be well-defined.
Quote:
Originally Posted by texan2yankee
your question is immaterial to this discussion. the sc will decide if business owners can be compelled by the state or local government to contradict their religious beliefs as to anti-discrimination laws or government can not. the supreme court ruling will affect business owners of all religions.
Exactly. But, they like to make it just about Christians. Didn't the Muslim bakers have an issue with this also when some were approached?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trlhiker
That were their choices. No one forced them to make those choices.
I guarantee you that Jesus would bake those cakes and smile when he finished and handed the cakes to them.
I don't see how you could possibly guarantee that, what Jesus would do, and when it comes to the law, no one cares what one person or the other thinks Jesus would do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
Yes, protected classes are for things we cannot choose. But certain people within those classes have received disparate treatment for merely being them, something they cannot control, due to societal or religious or other individual views (blacks, women, gays, etc.). I would hope no one seriously tries to argue that straight white men, for example, or Christians, historically received disparate/discriminatory treatment in this country because of who they are - though I'm sure some will try.
I am not a Christian, but I believe that no one should have to provide a service which they feel violates their religious beliefs, NO ONE! We aren't talking about not serving customers, but being a part of a ceremony, playing an important role, especially with some that have to be present during the event. Yeah, I am hoping the SC steps up to protect and doesn't give in to the FORCE applied in the ever constant push for acceptance rather than simply tolerance which the majority do extend.
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.
