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.
Wrong. The baker refused to create a "special" cake that celebrated the gay union. They could have chosen a generic cake that was readily available.
Wrong. That baker refused service because he claimed homosexuality is contradictory to his religious (Christian) beliefs. You can keep pretending that it's not the same if you want to continue fueling your pseudo-outrage but it doesn't change the facts.
This is 100% different. The Christian group was not demanding the restaurant prepare "Christian only" food items that were not readily on the menu.
And the gay couple was asking for a custom wedding cake just like they offered for sale to heterosexual couples. It is the same and both the Baker for Jesus and the restaurant were IMO wrong. Both offer services to the public and should provide such. If they refuse they open themselves up to discrimination charges.
No, Civil Rights legislation is a good thing. That's a worthy exception to the general concept of property rights. There were special contextual historical circumstances in the South around race, which made it necessary. Human beings have generally agreed that racism is just plain wrong. Yes, our society has enshrined that principle into law. I can live with that. Almost everyone today has no problem with that.
But I'm from Atlanta, where even as recently as 1965, people like Lester Maddox had establishments that fiercely refused service to black people. Just for no other reason than their skin color. That's dehumanizing. And that would have gone on much longer than it did, if not for intervention from the federal government.
Only fringe right wingers today have any issue with Civil Rights anti-discrimination protections around well-established norms about a standard of equal access of everyone based on their appearance or their sex.
But running with the example of the Illinois Nazis, would anyone whine "discrimination!" if the local Jewish Deli turned them away at the door and asked them to eat elsewhere?
Nazi, or any political party, is not a protected class. But the deli has to be clear they are turning them away because they are Nazis, not because they are white or Christian.
The owner cited "staff dignity" as their main reason for telling those customers to **** off.
Nowhere in this statement does it say they the owner found evidence that the church group was going to use dinning in the restaurant as an opportunity to conduct a church meeting and discuss gay marriage, or abortion:
“We have always refused service to anyone for making our staff uncomfortable or unsafe and this was the driving force behind our decision,” read an Instagram post from Metzger Bar and Butchery, a German-influenced restaurant in the Union Hill neighborhood whose kitchen is helmed by co-owner Brittanny Anderson, a veteran of TV cooking shows including “Top Chef” and “Chopped.” “Many of our staff are women and/or members of the LGBTQ+ community. All of our staff are people with rights who deserve dignity and a safe work environment. We respect our staff’s established rights as humans and strive to create a work environment where they can do their jobs with dignity, comfort and safety.”
This looks like a bunch of fascistic, hateful, snowflake wokesters, who retaliate against people based upon their personal beliefs. They just wanted to ban people with differing political views from eating at the restaurant. no different really than white bigots of old, who kicked POC people out of their restaurants.
They aren't a church and I said nothing about a church meeting, nor did they. If you look at OP, the groups invitation clearly states they are going to include a meeting about past successes and future plans.
Their website spells out the activities they engage in, all of which harm LGBTQ community, women, and in fact men as well since they are also working to limit no-fault divorce laws and prevent couples from divorcing without counseling, etc. There is apparently no limit to their meddling in other peoples business.
There is a huge difference between holding personal views on any given subject, and actively working to advance your own personal views to a place of supremacy over other people's personal views, especially if that activity results in trampling other people's rights.
No business has to support that by giving a group like that space to concoct their hateful plans whether they dress them up in religion or not.
Their website spells out the activities they engage in, all of which harm LGBTQ community, women, and in fact men as well since they are also working to limit no-fault divorce laws and prevent couples from divorcing without counseling, etc. There is apparently no limit to their meddling in other peoples business.
There is a huge difference between holding personal views on any given subject, and actively working to advance your own personal views to a place of supremacy over other people's personal views, especially if that activity results in trampling other people's rights.
You're describing essentially all of politics.
None of what you mentioned tramples anyone's rights or constitutes meddling in other people's business. The nature of the society we live in is everyone's business, and it's reasonable (and probably correct) to think that our society would be better off if divorce laws were changed to make divorce more difficult, just like society is better off if we outlaw rape and murder. Societies MUST make laws that limit people's freedom to do things that harm the society.
None of what you mentioned tramples anyone's rights or constitutes meddling in other people's business. The nature of the society we live in is everyone's business, and it's reasonable (and probably correct) to think that our society would be better off if divorce laws were changed to make divorce more difficult, just like society is better off if we outlaw rape and murder. Societies MUST make laws that limit people's freedom to do things that harm the society.
While I don't agree with you on divorce laws per se, you are absolutely right that Blondy has not established any difference between denying this group service and denying any other political group service. I wonder what she would say if I had a shop and told her she couldn't come in because she voted for Joe Biden and I said "Joe Biden tried to weaponize OSHA to get people fired from their jobs for declining a vaccine they didn't want or need -- take a hike."
Nazi, or any political party, is not a protected class. But the deli has to be clear they are turning them away because they are Nazis, not because they are white or Christian.
This is why I think the restaurant might be in trouble here.
I think the restaurant is clearly in the wrong just from an ethical standpoint. The last-minute cancellation after doing some googling is cowardly, and the group that booked was not intending to start a fight, this is a fight the restaurant chose to pick.
But even if you don't agree with me on that, this smells enough like anti-Christian discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act that it seems like the group that was denied service would have a case. I'd talk to a lawyer, anyway, if I were them.
Marriage is not a “human right.” It is a legal right given by men. They can abolish marriage under the law for all I care; my marriage to my husband is a covenant with God. I would go draw up papers to give the same legal benefits that marriage currently offers. It wouldn’t be a human rights violation to abolish marriage for any or all. Do you believe polygamists are having their rights violated?
There are no papers that you can have drawn up that confer all of the legal protections and benefits as a state issued marriage.
The Civil Rights Act includes religion, whether you acknowledge it or not. You can say "I think discrimination should only be disallowed if it's based on something you can't change," but that's an after-the-fact rationalization that you do because you want to take the position here that it's OK to discriminate against Christians. It isn't. And the law says that.
And the restaurant that started this whole thread clearly wasn't that. They weren't refused service because they believed in Jesus. They were refused service because they are an active anti-gay group, and that made this particular establishment feel uncomfortable.
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.
