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.
You are "entitled" because you think you should get what you want when you want it and are ready to use the court system for an issue that can be remedied another way. For something that's trivial in the grand scheme of things. This couple was still able to live well and feed their family even though they couldn't get a cake from this one particular baker, who might not be that great.
If I live in a small town that has a restaurant run by Muslims, do I have the right to sue them because pork isn't among their meat options? We could start getting real slippery slopey with this.
So you still don't understand the difference between something that they already sell to others, and something not up for sale, I see....
A Muslim restaurant won't have pork on the menu, therefore they sell it to NO ONE. Can't ask a restaurant or baker to make something that they do not already make. A baker who sells wedding cakes should sell wedding cakes to whoever asks for one. It isn't there business to determine what weddings are legit, and what weddings are not.
And to think people are entitled because they believe they shouldn't be discriminated against? Really? You CLAIM you have been discriminated against because of skin color, which I am starting to doubt, unless you are just trying to push the discrimination onto others. It's quite sad.
They were not refused "because of who they were". That is your narrow view of it. They were refused because the Colorado baker felt it was a violation of his beliefs. I don't think that's discriminatory. The Oregon baker was. He made it about the couple and not his beliefs. A subtle but important difference.
So then, you obviously believe that I could turn you away, since I don't like whatever race you are? Because I don't like the color of your hair? Eye color? Your voice?
Your argument is simply, "Discrimination is fine, as long as I agree with it." Dumb.
You are "entitled" because you think you should get what you want when you want it and are ready to use the court system for an issue that can be remedied another way. For something that's trivial in the grand scheme of things. This couple was still able to live well and feed their family even though they couldn't get a cake from this one particular baker, who might not be that great.
If I live in a small town that has a restaurant run by Muslims, do I have the right to sue them because pork isn't among their meat options? We could start getting real slippery slopey with this.
That's an ill-informed comment. If the Colorado bakers hadn't been selling wedding cakes they would NOT have been breaking the Law. The fact is they WERE selling such cakes and refused because they thought they were "participating" in a gay wedding. With few exceptions, cake bakers aren't invited to a wedding. Moreover, the gay couple in Colorado were ALREADY married (Colorado had not passed a same sex marriage law and the Supreme Court had not made their ruling).
The couple had flown to Massachusetts to get married and then returned to Colorado for a celebration with their friends and family--the bakers qualified as neither. And the couple went to the bakery as a result of a recommendation from friends.
Quote:
In 2012, when same-sex marriage was still prohibited in Colorado, Craig and Mullins decided to get married in Massachusetts, where it was legal. They would return to Denver for a reception, and those helping with the plans suggested they get a cake from Masterpiece Cakeshop, Phillips’s business in the suburb of Lakewood.
So if a restaurant serves NOBODY the dish you want, you can't sue them for it. The Colorado baker quit baking wedding cakes as a result and suffered a 40% loss in his business and had to lay off a number of employees. I read an article just recently that he has returned to baking cakes and is hopeful his business will return to the days before he let his bigotry rule his business sense.
One of the arguments before the Supreme Court by the baker's attorneys was that "African-American bakers could be forced to sell to members of the KKK." That is a specious argument unworthy of introduction into this case. The state does not prohibit discrimination based on political or social opinion. You want to sell just to Republicans---that is NOT discrimination. Just like Phillips isn’t violating the law when he refuses to sell cakes that celebrate Halloween---because he refuses ALL customers, not just some based on race, age, religion, color, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.
Here's a few unrelated items that are also NOT discrimination. I worked in the insurance industry for 30 years as an underwriter, rate-maker, and compliance officer. We regularly discriminated against bright red cars because statistics showed they were involved in more accidents. We routinely refused to insure anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who had killed a child in an accident. Interestingly we also discriminated against some people for physical handicaps. In Florida, my company once refused to provide auto insurance to a man who was BLIND, for God's sake. The insurance commission of Florida told us we couldn't do that. He might have someone or several someones driving him to the grocery or drugstore or physician. Auto insurance is all about knowing who the drivers are and what their motor vehicle record reveals. In this case we were shut out from using common sense underwriting.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 08-26-2019 at 01:21 PM..
If someone can point to a Bible verse that explicitly allows race discrimination then I can see where you guys are coming from. But you won't find it, because race wasn't a thing thousands of years ago. But there have always been men and women, and we are talking about this Christian whose Bible says men should not lay with men as they do women.
We are not governed by the Bible, so your point is unclear.
LGBT are not protected by the Constitution. A big problem is people not really understanding how the courts work. Anyone can file a lawsuit for anything.
Sexual orientation is a protected class by state law in some states. Oregon, for example.
LGBT are not protected by the Constitution. A big problem is people not really understanding how the courts work. Anyone can file a lawsuit for anything.
Most of the anti-discrimination statutes are in laws, and are not so much in the Constitution. However, the due process clause of the 14th Amendment may apply. I'm not a lawyer, I didn't play one on TV, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express, so my legal advice may not be the best available.
We are not governed by the Bible, so your point is unclear.
...but this is the religion forum, and I'm assuming the bible was the basis for the Colorado baker declining to make a cake. Since you guys want to make comparisons to race discrimination, show me a Bible verse that says it's lawful to deal unjustly with someone because of their race.
...but this is the religion forum, and I'm assuming the bible was the basis for the Colorado baker declining to make a cake. Since you guys want to make comparisons to race discrimination, show me a Bible verse that says it's lawful to deal unjustly with someone because of their race.
Show me one that says it's lawful to deal unjustly with a person because of their orientation.
That's an ill-informed comment. If the Colorado bakers hadn't been selling wedding cakes they would NOT have been breaking the Law. The fact is they WERE selling such cakes and refused because they thought they were "participating" in a gay wedding. With few exceptions, cake bakers aren't invited to a wedding. Moreover, the gay couple in Colorado were ALREADY married (Colorado had not passed a same sex marriage law and the Supreme Court had not made their ruling).
The couple had flown to Massachusetts to get married and then returned to Colorado for a celebration with their friends and family--the bakers qualified as neither. And the couple went to the bakery as a result of a recommendation from friends.
Which renders the baker's defense even less worthy. They are not participating in a wedding (as if anybody believed this rationale), they are simply participating in a party.
...but this is the religion forum, and I'm assuming the bible was the basis for the Colorado baker declining to make a cake. Since you guys want to make comparisons to race discrimination, show me a Bible verse that says it's lawful to deal unjustly with someone because of their race.
Your belief is that because your religion is against homosexuality that it is all right to discriminate against gay people.
I would remind you that for a couple of hundred of years there were many white people who discriminated against black people in churches and based on how they interpreted the bible. And there are still many white people who feel exactly that way toward black folks.
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.
