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.
There's another narrative who could had entered in scene and opened a pandora box of unintended consequences then some judges of the Supreme Court tried to avoid.
I would say that isn't exactly the same thing. Here is the main reason why. A Muslim cook would not have food that is considered sacrilegious on their menu. If you don't want to make wedding cakes, don't offer that a product line. Plain and simple. Nobody told the Christian baker to be a baker, he decided that on his own free will.
The issue seemingly wasn't that the laws trample over another group (in this case a religious belief) was more so on how exactly the commission went about it and their biased comments. In the past people used religious arguments to support slavery and Jim Crow laws. That said, as it stands right now religious organizations can discriminate based on convictions as per the Civil Rights law, NOT small business owners who have deepmy held religious beliefs. This baker was not a religious organization, just a business owner with religious convictions.
The problem is there is no compromise that will work. If it was only about the money, the baker would have accepted the money from the gay couple who were getting married. It wasn't and based on religious conviction. Either side will get if not feel as though their rights got trampled on in this (and other) cases. If you think a compromise could work, try one because none will satisfy both parties enough.
A compromise is about tolerance not full satisfaction. The compromise is they can order anything on the shelf or custom birthday cakes, cookies, etc. He just doesn't do same sex weddings. That sounds pretty fair.
Hobby Lobby was given leeway with their bc insurance issue for being a closely held company with religious values that opposed abortifacients. Apparently in some situations businesses can be "people" in some respect.
People CAN use religion to discriminate and people CAN use race, gender, sexuality -and protected status to bully and discriminate also, as the Colorado civil rights commission did.
I would say that isn't exactly the same thing. Here is the main reason why. A Muslim cook would not have food that is considered sacrilegious on their menu. If you don't want to make wedding cakes, don't offer that a product line. Plain and simple. Nobody told the Christian baker to be a baker, he decided that on his own free will.
Exactly. If one wants to do business with the public - do business. IF you want to pick and choose your customers - get out of business.
I've worked with the public for 25 years - met them in their homes, hospitals, etc and never ONCE did I get to choose who I helped and who I didn't.
If business owner chooses to discriminate on the basis of sexual identity - I want to know it before I do business there. Put a damn sign in your window you so-called "Christian Bakers". See how ya do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifijohn
The media assumed the judges would vote down party lines, and they are still playing that narrative.
When they take about 'narrow' they aren't talking about the vote. How many times must this be explained?
They are talking about the ruling itself. Not the vote count.
A compromise is about tolerance not full satisfaction. The compromise is they can order anything on the shelf or custom birthday cakes, cookies, etc. He just doesn't do same sex weddings. That sounds pretty fair.
Hobby Lobby was given leeway with their bc insurance issue for being a closely held company with religious values that opposed abortifacients. Apparently in some situations businesses can be "people" in some respect.
People CAN use religion to discriminate and people CAN use race, gender, sexuality -and protected status to bully and discriminate also, as the Colorado civil rights commission did.
No it isn't fair and that is not a compromise. This shows you don't know what a compromise even is. There is no mutual concessions, just those for the gays. If he won't bake a wedding cake for them, just don't do wedding cakes period.
Wrong. This is anything but about a business owner. This decision, narrow as it is, is one about bias, discrimination, even edging around the subject of freedom of speech. When Justice Kennedy writes,
,
then it is clear that one person's right(s) cannot be infringed upon, disregarded, in pursuit of upholding another's right(s). Otherwise, we are in agreement.
It is on society to exercise some commonsense, to stop fighting for ultimate victory. A pure right or wrong position does not exist. We have many immature persons in our society, who can only be ok with themselves, are only comforted, only secure, by being right.
I don't see anything other than hostility against his religion by the commission, its has nothing to do with freedom of speech. There is nothing convincing going forward that would lead you to believe that business can use freedom of speech or religion to discriminate going forward.
I still don't see the problem. Go to a different vendor. Same way I would if I prefer one flower shop over another for whatever reason. Why on earth are people being such "babies" about this?
If you can't see this Pandora's Box - then I can't help you.
There are 1000 ways to discriminate. IF this opens the door to discrimination . . then let's see.
All I ask is that vendor's advertise their intent to discriminate. Sign in the window. We can all vote with our feet and our wallet. Let's see how things go, eh?
No it isn't fair and that is not a compromise. This shows you don't know what a compromise even is. There is no mutual concessions, just those for the gays. If he won't bake a wedding cake for them, just don't do wedding cakes period.
A reasonable compromise is to find another baker. The marrying couple then receives what they want, and the declining baker maintains his value system. Everyone gets what they want.
Unless of course what the marrying couple wants is to stubbornly insist that someone be forced to produce something artistic and individual just for them.
Perspective is important. We're talking about a freakin' cake here. Not an essential service. I think many people would have a very different perspective if we were talking about a doctor, teacher, etc. refusing service. But we're talking about a cake. A damned cake.
{{{Christian}}} Bakers or Bigoted Backers!
I don’t think Christ was bigoted!
Looks like some bakers should learn to live the life of Christ instead of turning people away.
Well then its a good thing that "gay couples" are only a couple percent of the population.
There are likely to be more straight couples that go there specifically as new customers because of this than gay couples that stop going there. Just do the math on how many more people are "normies" than not.
Your math fails in that it fails to factor in all the friends of the gay couples; all their family; all their families' friends and so on and so forth. I am not gay; however I want to know each and every business in my town that discriminates because I absolutely will not do business there .. and many other 'straight' people agree with me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pbmaise
So not a very good victory for this baker.
He was only wronged by the due process. However, was still in the wrong.
At best, what does it give the baker. The baker cannot use this ruling to continue to discriminate against gays.
Perhaps he can sue the Colorado commissioner for heavy handed due process. However, all the money that christian groups spelled with a small c poured into this case are still lost.
Remanded back to lower courts for a more courteous treatment of the baker.
No, it does not. In fact, the baker can once again to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple and the baker can once again be sued because the supreme court decision didn't even TOUCH the baker's argument for 'artistic expression' and other bullchit.
I'm going to have to disagree that it needs to be solved on a local level. The reason being that it is discrimination even if you cite religious conviction for your reasoning. Both opinions cited that the baker shouldn't have discriminated against the homosexuals and even Justice Kennedy stated they should have put a sign up front. Which IMHO, just begs a gotcha situation like the Muslim deli incidents. A true decision and not a botched punt like this was a mistake and lead to only more of these Christian business owners to think they can deny customers whom they disagree with air lifestyle, even through protective classes.
Nowhere in the SCOTUS decision did Kennedy assert that the baker discriminated against homosexuals. Quite the contrary in fact. Here is the first two sentences from the SCOTUS opinion. See for yourself.
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., is a Colorado bakery owned and operated by Jack Phillips, an expert baker and devout Christian. In 2012 he told a same-sex couple that he would not create a cake for their wedding celebration because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriages—marriages that Colorado did not then recognize—but that he would sell them other baked goods, e.g., birthday cakes.
In fact, the bake did not discriminate against people broadly because of their sexual tendencies, which after reading the sentences above from the opinion, you would yourself be willing to admit, if you were an honest person.
Or, if you can provide a quote where Kennedy does accuse the baker of discriminating broadly against homosexuals from the SCOTUS opinion (linked above for your convenience), please do provide it, as we would all like to see. If you can.
Last edited by Spartacus713; 06-05-2018 at 09:15 AM..
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.
or Bigoted Backers! 
