DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on October 07, 2016, 09:26:01 PM
-
http://www.msn.com/en-us/foodanddrink/restaurantsandnews/oregon-bakery-that-wouldn%e2%80%99t-bake-a-cake-for-gay-couple-closes/ar-BBx90mS?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=UE12DHP
It is just about official.
If you give service to the public , you may not refuse the public any part of that service.
Does this mean that those NATSI wedding cakes are going to get baked too?
Probably , why get excited , who needs the freedom to make less money on a principled stand?
-
What, precisely is the principle in question?
The right to discriminate is the best description I could give.
-
What, precisely is the principle in question?
The right to discriminate is the best description I could give.
Yes.
-
What is the purpose of such discrimination?
Is there any chance that the gay couple will decide to become heterosexual?
Is there any chance that ANY gay couple will become heterosexual?
Is there any possibility that bigoted baker might suffer as a result of baking a gay wedding cake?
This is not really a freedom that is being lost. It is simply grandstanding.
Those who think it is a horrible affront to freedom can send them a contribution, to keep the hate alive, as it were.
-
It's called Freedom of Religion. It's in the Constitution. You should read it sometime
-
As an experiment a journalist called dozens of bakeries in the New York area, and requested a big cake in the shape of a swastika , he was 100% discriminated against.
The days of this being possible are numbered.
-
Yeah, right. religion is all about making cakes or refusing to make cakes. This whole thing about gay wedding cakes is not about religion at all, it is about clowns on power trips trying to force their will on others. I don't have any use for the gay couple OR the nutty bakers.
Get serious. Wedding cakes are not even necessary for any wedding.
If you want a swastika cake, you can make one for yourself.
-
What is the purpose of such discrimination?
Next , doctors will have to perform abortions .
Up till now only a small minority of doctors have been willing to perform abortions, if they can be forced , why put up with the bottleneck?
Pharmacists will have to dispense deadly drugs and instruct in their use , both to state executioners and to suicides.
Why not force Kosher Delis to serve ham?
Why not jail parsons who refuse to perform wedding that they consider anathema?
Why not force teachers to refuse to teach strictly the government approved orthodox .... oh wait we already lost that one.
Why not demand that atheists say the full pledge of allegiance as a condition of employment?
Is the prevention of discrimination boundless?
I want the right to be wrong, to be stupid even!
Because the government has that right in spades , and I need defense from them.
-
That is not the same thing and you know it.
Cakes are only food, and not essential food, either.
Cakes are not a serious matter. And they are not really related to any religious ritual.
This is NOT about "freedom of religion" it is about some assumed freedom to discriminate and claim it has something to do with religion."
-
Yeah, right. religion is all about making cakes or refusing to make cakes. This whole thing about gay wedding cakes is not about religion at all, it is about clowns on power trips trying to force their will on others. I don't have any use for the gay couple OR the nutty bakers.
Get serious. Wedding cakes are not even necessary for any wedding.
If you want a swastika cake, you can make one for yourself.
The clowns on the power trip were the gay couple who went far out of their way to find a shop that would refuse them.
Smart clowns their power trip is getting them a big cash payout.
And shutting down a small business.
For the sake of a cake?
Or for the sake of a power trip, being able to force obedience on a baker.
For a cake they did not need.
And could have had at a closer bakery.
-
Two jerks seeking out dumber jerks.
I don't actually give any importance to this at all.
-
Two jerks seeking out dumber jerks.
I don't actually give any importance to this at all.
The wrong jerks won.
Now who cannot make a shopkeeper obedient?
-
A shopkeeper has an obligation to serve everybody.
No one has the right to refuse service to anyone if it is a business open to the public.
There is the possibility of a baker opening a "Heterosexual Cake Supply Private Club" in which members must be approved by the management, and then only members can enjoy the benefits of the private club.
We have a couple of exclusive membership-only clubs of this sort that I know of in this country. One excludes all but Whites, another accepts mostly Blacks.
If one deems the freedom to segregate necessary, there is always the private club option.
Many of the Founding Fathers discussed politics freely at Masonic Temples, which were exclusive clubs in the colonies. I think there were other such clubs, but the Masons were by far the most common.
-
A shopkeeper has an obligation to serve everybody.
No, they don't. That's the primary flaw in your thought process. You actually believe that if someone walks into a sporting good store, and proclaims an order for a modified (but completely legal) rifle be ordered, so that he can better shoot Clinton, the store owner had an "obligation" to make it??
And before you go off trying to deflect how a cake isn't a gun, that isn't the point. We don't get to pick and choose our freedoms. It's either that a private entity/business has a 1st amendment freedom, or they don't
Like Plane highlighted, your intolerant jerks went out of their way to find a business that they knew chose freedom over profit, in order to try and force them to set aside their religious beliefs. And with the help of a politically correct Government, succeeded
-
I don't think a bakery has the obligation to make a poisonous cake, either.
These homophobic clowns announced in advance what they would not do and brought on their own demise.
The gays who wanted to force them to bake the cake also wanted to make a point.
This isn't about freedom of cakes or religion. It is about jerks taking advantage of free publicity.
I would be unsurprised to learn that the bakers got all their bills and fines paid for by religious nutcases.
-
The publicity jerks here are those who went out of their way to find a business that wouldn't cater to their political correctness agends. Otherwise you wouldn't have heard a peep from the bakery, simply exercising they're 1st Amendment rights
-
It turned out that they had no such rights, didn't it?
-
These homophobic clowns announced in advance what they would not do and brought on their own demise.
No, they were found by searching for a place to make a test case.
If what they wanted really was just cake they had a lot of places they passed to get to the place where they would get a refusal.
Cake was never the point , making commerce obedient was the point.
-
It turned out that they had no such rights, didn't it?
Thus the point of Plane's point of the thread
-
It turned out that they had no such rights, didn't it?
So neither do you or I.
We don't miss them yet , but the time will come when someone orders you to do something you don't want to do, then you may feel the lack.
-
I have no public business and have no plans to start one.
-
What makes you think you think you merely have to run a business to have your rights absolved?
-
This case will never, ever affect me in any conceivable way.
If I owned that bakery, I would have doubled the usual price and baked the damn cake.
Then donated the extra money to some anti-gay cause.
-
I have no public business and have no plans to start one.
Why is the right to abortion precious to you?
-
It is not precious to me at all. I will never have a need for an abortion.
But the right of a woman to have a child should be up to the woman, not random happenstance and/or to the government.
I should have control over my life and so should everyone else even women.
Fetuses are not mature enough to trump that right. When you have to choose between the woman and the fetus that she does not want, the fetus loses. Tough.
-
Apparently, the Government gets to decide if you have that right, or any other for that matter,...... or not
-
Well, it shouldn't... and wouldn't if not for fanatic enemies of women's rights like you.
-
Of course it shouldn't, but there you are, giddy as a child, that they just did
-
It is a compromise and neither side is happy about it.
-
So even though I have a job in which I never choose between customers, I feel diminished in the loss of freedom for those that do.
It may be wiser for a baker that object to merely charge more, but wisdom and integrity seem at odds due to the law.
-
I do not see where integrity has a damned thing to do with it.
Selling cakes has nothing to do with morality.
-
It is a compromise and neither side is happy about it.
There's been a forced unilateral removal of one side's rights, in the name of political correctness.
There's no compromise here
-
I do not see where integrity has a damned thing to do with it.
Selling cakes has nothing to do with morality.
Then why does it matter so much that it draws a fine bigger than the value of the business?
-
The fine is absurd. I suppose the fines were written to prevent racial discrimination long ago, with the intent of being big enough to shut down even chain restaurants. I don't think we know how much the judge's discretion determined the fine.
But seriously, making a wedding cake is not an integral part of any wedding. Baking a cake is not aiding and abetting. No one needs a cake to get married. Imagine a supermarket refusing to sell rice to be thrown at a gay wedding. This is that silly.
-
Absurd is a good word, bizarre too.
But the plaintiffs got paid , so how absurd is it for them?