Justice Dept. sides with baker who refused to make wedding cake for gay couple

[Doctor Amadeus]

English may-hap?

This might be hard to grasp, but this issue is not based on this one example. If people are forced to act in violation of their conscience and property rights that sets a dangerous precedent. Years ago, both the left and the right of the political spectrum understood that dangerous precedents could be used as as easily against them as for them so they refrained from creating dangerous situations. Your morals and mine dictate that discriminating against gays by not making them a cake is wrong, however I realize that the social and political climate may change and create an inverse situation where a gay baker may be forced to make a cake for Nazi or other bigots therefore I do not set the precedent of allowing the government to force non violent people under any circumstances.

Look at the Obama administration. They accrued massive power in the executive Branch not anticipating that that power could end up in the hands of someone they fundamentally disagree with. Had they, and arguable the Bush administration, restrained their reckless power grabs, Trump would be far less dangerous than he is today. The principles are they same. Let freedom decide and I guarantee you will like the result and it will protect everyone form future oppression.

I get what you're saying but the cause for fair treatment isn't frivolous. I can and the better argument can be had an won, but not by trick but because it's real and true.

I'm not a fan of faking it and BS because that unravels. Truth sustains. I stand for but with gay rights. Left right, genius or dumb. They all because we all have the right to be who we were born with no need for pride or shame because of it.

I would fight with and for those that did for me. Most need to know gay people are everywhere and we rely on and need them. I'm sick of losing people over this shit.

[jibberbox85]

I think in situations like this, there also needs to be a reasonable expectation that the customer couldn't take their business elsewhere. I don't believe refusing to support a specific event should be treated the same as refusing a specific customer.

That's where it's a grey area. For example, if some white male walked into a black owned bakery business and requested for something like Robert E Lee to added onto a cake the shops owner might refuse. However, if that same person walked to another business they might not get refused.

Also, for someone to say there's a difference between the two is more so their own perception on what other people should think. The owner, who through his religious beliefs, refused to design a cake with a specific theme.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Well it's the businesses loss of income isn't it? I support it.

We lose because it's made this is ok. It isn't People want things they shouldn't have, but this is something they should have. The right to any shitty over priced cake any other law abiding working decent idiot can to buy this shitty over priced cake.

[Devilyaki]

I for one think businesses are not people and thus have to follow rules that a person there for should not have to. Refusing to serve someone cause of anything is stupid, saying they can starts a slippery slope of all kinds of problems. For now it's just a cake, what's next, "sorry you're too white, don't serve your kind... those seats are not for you, back of the bus please."
America is going down hill fast.

[Malfecto]

Didn't this same baker refuse to sell a cake with anti-gay Bible verses written on it? Or was that a different baker?

You can refuse service to anyone under a consistent code. No shirt, no shoes, no service. It covers everyone regardless of their other variables, and so doesn't discriminate. You can't refuse service if someone is wearing shoes you don't like or has their shirt inside out, UNLESS you have a specific dress code that prohibits it. You can't also, for example, make that code in such a way that it discriminates against a protected class, ie 'No Burkas'. This is how I understand it anyway.

With the SCoTUS ruling on gay marriage, it follows logically that discrimination by sexual orientation will eventually if not de facto fall under the protections of the Civil Rights Act, specifically with regards to public accommadation, which is what we are all discussing here. The court ruled in favor of no cake sale with anti-gay writing because the baker had a policy of no cakes with deragatory or inflammatory language. The initial court ruling against the baker not selling the wedding cake was based on the de facto CRA umbrella, but with disregard to the 1st amendment rights, which is what I suppose the appellate court overruled on.

That all said, the way I see it is, if an LGBT couple comes into a Catholic baker's store and identify as such requesting a cake, it should be that shop owners right in a PRIVATE business to refuse to sell a wedding cake. Refusing to sell them ANY cake would be the fine line difference for discrimination, in my mind. I know that sounds like a petty difference but there ya have it. Now this is of course COMPLETELY different from the clerk of court who refused to issue a marriage license in a State where gay marriage was legal based on her religion. In that case, she represents the public and civil good, and as clerk has a civil duty to serve her citizens under the law, and her religious beliefs can either be checked at the door, or she can find another line of work.

Personally: I think religion should be kept at home or in the place of worship of that religion. It shouldn't creep out into civil society. I also think that in a civil society that anyone should be able to refuse anyone service in a private business, consequences on their head. But it is part of our social contract that we live under that we make our public space equitable for everyone in regards to common need.

[Tiwack]

I'm pretty sure that discriminating people based on race, gender, religion or sexuality is against a whole series of laws, if not against the constitution itself.

As many people pointed out, this might lead to segregation in certain areas.

The only thing that will come from this is an increase in crime, violence and even more political extremism if individual freedom is going to be allowed to trump non-discrimination.

- - - Updated - - -



A gen-OT moderator with views that lean closely towards extremism. :/

Truth. Couldn't agree more!

[Flatspriest]

Yeah like black people to the back of the bus right?

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah, and I am now very clear as to why you hold the beliefs you do.

You realize that makes you seem like someone who agrees with slavery. A private business owner, if being forced to make a cake for someone he or she doesn't want to, would be tantamount to slavery as you are forcing them to do something against their will and threatening them with incarceration if they don't comply. That is also called terrorism.

[Strangebrew]

They need to stand up for their corporatist Democrat overlords like Elizabeth Warren so that we can have more wars in the middle east and more screwing over of everyone by big corporations like Monsanto.

Just throwing it out there, but you're trying to argue with an fedora-tipping twitter SJW who have defended an legit pedophile before(he still is, and he still hangs around pedo's in his little sjw bubbles), and who is an unironic antifa supporter.
Lma0

"trans people are human, gamers aren't"

[Zython]

Your response demonstrates your fundamental misunderstanding of the Democratic Republic that exists in the US. The US is still a majority straight and white at around 60-65 percent of the population, at present.

Source? The 2010 census lists white against black, Asian, Native American, Pacific Islander, and "other". That's...pretty broad catagorization, especially when trying to apply that to more nuanced race relations in this country.

It was much higher during the civil rights movement that movement only succeeded with the support of that majority. Had a majority of them wanted to enforce legal discrimination. they could have done so.

Wait...if they weren't discriminating against them, what the hell do you think the Civil Rights movement was about?

Seeing as how there are no legal rights held by whites or straights that are not held by minorities of any description you assertion of massive discrimination is just that, a baseless assertion.

Yeah, no.

Answer this question, if you would? Would a gay baker be allowed under your system to choose to discriminate against Jack Phillips, the owner of the discriminatory bakery?

No, because there's a world of different between being LGBT and being an asshole. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

This is an issue of property rights. Should I be forced to build my neighbor's house with my own tools and material simply because he wishes me to do so? Your "rights" do not give you the authority to force action on others. Rights are inherently negative and do not force action on others.

If you were a contractor, and he was paying you to do so, what reason would you have to say no?

Your right to life only stops me murdering you and does not force me to care for you and prevent you from dying of starvation.

Nah.

- - - Updated - - -

You realize that makes you seem like someone who agrees with slavery. A private business owner, if being forced to make a cake for someone he or she doesn't want to, would be tantamount to slavery as you are forcing them to do something against their will and threatening them with incarceration if they don't comply. That is also called terrorism.

TIL words don't mean anything anymore.

[Ozyorkbourne]

Should a Muslim butcher shop be compelled through threat of legal ramifactions to handle pig meat?

That's a fairly decent comparison of business 'ethics' based on religious beliefs in a state of law. I wonder if a comparison like this would have been mention in court to frame the argument.

[JohnBrown1917]

Ah MMo-C, the forum where having companies not be allowed to deny service based on sexuality/sex/race makes you one of them dirty SJWs.


So if a black guy lives in a town where all grocery stores refuse to service him, he'll just have to suck it up.

- - - Updated - - -

A gen-OT moderator with views that lean closely towards extremism. :/

But the alt-right told me all MMO-C mods are liberal communist extremists!

- - - Updated - - -

Should a Muslim butcher shop be compelled through threat of legal ramifactions to handle pig meat?

He can choose not to sell pig meat.

[Deleted]

Your response demonstrates your fundamental misunderstanding of the Democratic Republic that exists in the US. The US is still a majority straight and white at around 60-65 percent of the population, at present. It was much higher during the civil rights movement that movement only succeeded with the support of that majority. Had a majority of them wanted to enforce legal discrimination. they could have done so. Seeing as how there are no legal rights held by whites or straights that are not held by minorities of any description you assertion of massive discrimination is just that, a baseless assertion.

Answer this question, if you would? Would a gay baker be allowed under your system to choose to discriminate against Jack Phillips, the owner of the discriminatory bakery?




This is an issue of property rights. Should I be forced to build my neighbor's house with my own tools and material simply because he wishes me to do so? Your "rights" do not give you the authority to force action on others. Rights are inherently negative and do not force action on others. Your right to life only stops me murdering you and does not force me to care for you and prevent you from dying of starvation.

This doesn't have anything to do with property rights, they are a business for crying out loud. They are open to the public, they can't refuse people simply because they feel somehow offended by them. Now apparently they can in the US, but i do not think there is a single other country in the western world that allows for such blatant discrimination.
If you think this would be dangerous then think what could happen if you are able to refuse people in times of need. Can a doctor refuse to help a black person? Can a store refuse service to Latino's just because they are Latino's even if they are the only store in a 100 miles?
And yes, if you see someone is dying you are obligated to help them, otherwise you can be held partially responsible for their deaths. So if you can prevent someone from dying while, you are not endangered by doing so, you have an obligation to do so. That means that you do not have to jump into a burning building when you see someone trapped inside, but you are held responsible for not assisting the poor bastard that is chocking on chicken wings, even if you do not like them.

[Aleksej89]

Not sure why would you want to force a private business to accept a private contract with someone they do not want to do business with.

One thing is to fire your properly working employee because he is gay or a nationalist or whatever - that should be made illegal.
Not only is that a really dick move, but it also should fall under the protections of workers so that your boss can not threaten/blackmail you into behaving how it suits him.

But a private business should be able to decline any unsigned contract (obligation) that they do not want to do business with.
And i do not see why the state should investigate why was a proposed business contract turned down before anyone "signed" it.

Business is free to choose its customers, and customers are free to choose their shops.
Just like a company can refuse to hire someone for "undisclosed reasons", so can customers and shop owners do the same.

You just can not force anyone to sign a private contract that they are a lawfully responsible party in.
Laws should be improved to protect lawful contracts that have been signed and accepted, but not the contracts that are unsigned and hence meaningless.

[Eazy]

Are you sure this doesn't fall under public accommodations? Because there is precedent that bakeries are considered such... now, if he wants to make his place a private club that might be a different matter.

I'm not sure, but I think that when someone is running a private business he can refuse serving customers he doesn't want to serve.

No they fucking don't and we can fight forever if need but I'll do so until I drop to defend the rights of gay people over these homophobic assholes.

Why is that? It's private.

[JohnBrown1917]

You can't claim to be a supporter of free rights/ speech/ will if you think this is wrong. Glad to see the justice in America still makes sense

I'm not claiming to be a full supporter of that.

- - - Updated - - -

Not sure why would you want to force a private business to accept a private contract with someone they do not want to do business with.
.

Becease people, because of their race, could get locked out of all the grocery stores(example) of the town they live in.

[Aleksej89]

Not sure why would you want to force a private business to accept a private contract with someone they do not want to do business with.

One thing is to fire your properly working employee because he is gay or a nationalist or whatever - that should be made illegal.
Not only is that a really dick move, but it also should fall under the protections of workers so that your boss can not threaten/blackmail you into behaving how it suits him.

But a private business should be able to decline any unsigned contract (obligation) that they do not want to do business with.
And i do not see why the state should investigate why was a proposed business contract turned down before anyone "signed" it.

Business is free to choose its customers, and customers are free to choose their shops.
Just like a company can refuse to hire someone for "undisclosed reasons", so can customers and shop owners do the same.

You just can not force anyone to sign a private contract that they are a lawfully responsible party in.
Laws should be improved to protect lawful contracts that have been signed and accepted, but not the contracts that are unsigned and hence meaningless.

Forgot TL;DR:
Already signed business contracts between private parties should be subject to laws and safeguards.
Unsigned private business contracts where only one party is interested should not be protected by any laws, especially not those that would force some other party to sign a contract they do not want to do so on their own.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not claiming to be a full supporter of that.
Becease people, because of their race, could get locked out of all the grocery stores(example) of the town they live in.

That is an absurd situation which is impossible to realistically happen in today's day and age.
Even the shittiest smallest town shack has multiple races/religions/cultures and such a thing has not happened, at least not in the past XX decades.

[JohnBrown1917]

That is an absurd situation which is impossible to realistically happen in today's day and age.
Even the shittiest smallest town shack has multiple races/religions/cultures and such a thing has not happened, at least not in the past XX decades.

You have way too much faith in humanity.

[Deleted]

That shit SJWs used to dogpile up on small business owners for not representing them will be shot down by the Supreme Court.

https://archive.fo/tBOF8

I'm sure many people were similarly discriminatory in the 1960s before the USA allowed non whites to use whatever shops they liked.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not sure, but I think that when someone is running a private business he can refuse serving customers he doesn't want to serve.



Why is that? It's private.

So private businesses can put signs up saying "No blacks" then?

[Aleksej89]

You have way too much faith in humanity.

I have zero faith in humanity.
Statistics and actual realistic scenarios is a different thing that can be relied upon, assuming its accurate.

If you can find reliable sources where the situation you describe is a common occurrence then please share it with all of us in this thread.

But i really doubt you can find a case where a person was starving because no one in the entire CITY would sell them anything.

[Aggrophobic]

I find the double standards of SJWs to be hilarious.

Aren't you sort of a SJW as well though?