Author Topic: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case  (Read 44232 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline HoustonSam

  • "That'll be the day......"
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,982
  • Gender: Male
  • old times there are not forgotten
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #700 on: January 05, 2018, 01:33:43 pm »
Thanks for the mature thoughts.  I'll start the new year trying a bit harder, although it is tough.

Oh I didn't mean to criticize your position, you've got plenty experience to justify it.  I'm just acknowledging that I lack that experience so I have to take a different approach.
James 1:20

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #701 on: January 05, 2018, 02:03:06 pm »
And the Oregon anti-discrimination law serves to protect the public as well by preventing unscrupulous businesses from unfairly discriminating against members of the public on the basis of things like sexual orientation.  The people of Oregon, through their elected representatives, duly deliberated and concluded that was a problem of sufficient magnitude that it warranted legal redress.

But more to the point, both entail forcing someone to do something they may not want to do at the threat of losing their livelihood.  So they are identical where it counts, and if you can’t abide by the restriction on the baker you are committed to being against the restrictions on the builder.

Of course there is no principled distinction between acceptance of the community's law that restricts the "freedom" of builders to use the cheapest materials and rejection of its law that restricts the "freedom" of bakers to deny service on the basis of sexual orientation. 

Of course, there's the unprincipled distinction, and explanation - bigotry.   
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Online sneakypete

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 52,848
  • Twitter is for Twits
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #702 on: January 05, 2018, 02:07:17 pm »
ENOUGH!

QUIT CALLING PEOPLE BIGOTS FOR SAYING THEY BELIEVE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE DOING IS WRONG.
We didn't make up the rules which say so. Ancient writings say so, biology says so (homosexuality is nonprocreative--nothing to further the species), anatomy and physiology demonstrate how the human body was not designed to be used in certain ways. Asserting otherwise until you turn blue will not change what is.
It is as if we are branded bigots for saying, no, Jazzhead, two plus three does not equal seven.

No name you call me or anyone else, no force you exert will ever change the fact that it is wrong.


@Smokin Joe

QUIT CALLING LEFTISTS "LIBERALS!

When you call them "liberals",you are helping them spread their propaganda and win the votes of the ignorant.

Was Hitler "liberal"?

What about Stalin?

Castro?

Che?

Nelson "burning man" Mandela?

Ho Chi Minh?

Mussolini?

Call them what they are,not what the WANT PEOPLE TO THINK THEY ARE SO THEY CAN SELL THEIR LIES TO THE IGNORANT.

They are NOT "liberals",they are FASCISTS!

Anyone who isn't paranoid in 2021 just isn't thinking clearly!

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #703 on: January 05, 2018, 02:07:43 pm »
It’s difficult to treat homosexuals as individuals when they identify based on their group. Much like other liberals, they identify as lgbtqrstuvwxyz-American. Everything with liberal groups is hyphenated American. In the case of homosexuals, they put the bedroom before the hyphen. I’ve never “identified” as a heterosexual-American, a Caucasian-American, a teacher-American, etc. That’s because I don’t need my “group” to determine my “individuality,” which is an impossibility. Groups don’t determine individuality. Individuals do.

You're peeing into the wind.   Modern conservatives have embraced identity politics as vehemently as liberals have.   It's tribe against tribe against tribe.   Conservatives who favored the American melting pot,  and revered individual liberty outside the context of tribalism, are gone with the wind.   
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline HoustonSam

  • "That'll be the day......"
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,982
  • Gender: Male
  • old times there are not forgotten
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #704 on: January 05, 2018, 02:31:43 pm »
Of course there is no principled distinction between acceptance of the community's law that restricts the "freedom" of builders to use the cheapest materials and rejection of its law that restricts the "freedom" of bakers to deny service on the basis of sexual orientation. 

Of course, there's the unprincipled distinction, and explanation - bigotry.   

The principled distinction has been delineated on this thread, more than once by me - building codes protect the public from physical harm.  No allegation of physical harm to the public has been made regarding the bakers' demurral to prepare custom wedding cakes supporting values they reject.

Is it your position that a builder can be legally required to build a custom building for a purpose with which he disagrees on religious grounds?  Can a Muslim contractor be compelled legally to build a pork processing plant?  That is the analogy, not a reference to building codes.

Or let's just cut to the chase here : can an advertising agency owned by a homosexual be legally compelled to prepare collateral for a Southern Baptist Church that prominently advocates against same sex marriage?  If the agency advertises itself to the general public as preparing such custom collateral, can it be compelled legally to do so for a Church which teaches doctrine the agency finds repugnant?
« Last Edit: January 05, 2018, 02:59:13 pm by HoustonSam »
James 1:20

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #705 on: January 05, 2018, 02:59:30 pm »
The principled distinction has been delineated on this thread, more than once by me - building codes protect the public from physical harm.  No allegation of physical harm to the public has been made regarding the bakers' demurral to prepare custom wedding cakes supporting values they reject.

Is it your position that a builder can be legally required to build a custom building for a purpose with which he disagrees on religious grounds?  Can a Muslim contractor be compelled legally to build a pork processing plant?  That is the analogy, not a reference to building codes.

The law at issue here is limited to public accommodations.   A builder isn't a public accommodation.   A bakery shop is - the general public enters the store in response to the shop's posted services.   If it advertises wedding cakes, then it is obliged to conform to the community's rules prohibiting arbitrary discrimination,  and stay true to its word.

This is such a simple concept - rooted in neighborliness and common decency -  that it amazes me that folks get so worked up every time the subject is brought up.   The only explanation that has ever made any sense to me is plain and simple bigotry/hatred toward homosexuals.         
« Last Edit: January 05, 2018, 03:01:15 pm by Jazzhead »
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #706 on: January 05, 2018, 03:10:08 pm »
ENOUGH!

QUIT CALLING PEOPLE BIGOTS FOR SAYING THEY BELIEVE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE DOING IS WRONG.
We didn't make up the rules which say so. Ancient writings say so, biology says so (homosexuality is nonprocreative--nothing to further the species), anatomy and physiology demonstrate how the human body was not designed to be used in certain ways. Asserting otherwise until you turn blue will not change what is.
It is as if we are branded bigots for saying, no, Jazzhead, two plus three does not equal seven.

No name you call me or anyone else, no force you exert will ever change the fact that it is wrong.


:facepalm2:

Offline HoustonSam

  • "That'll be the day......"
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,982
  • Gender: Male
  • old times there are not forgotten
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #707 on: January 05, 2018, 03:13:01 pm »
The law at issue here is limited to public accommodations.   A builder isn't a public accommodation.   A bakery shop is - the general public enters the store in response to the shop's posted services.   If it advertises wedding cakes, then it is obliged to conform to the community's rules prohibiting arbitrary discrimination,  and stay true to its word.

This is such a simple concept - rooted in neighborliness and common decency -  that it amazes me that folks get so worked up every time the subject is brought up.   The only explanation that has ever made any sense to me is plain and simple bigotry/hatred toward homosexuals.       

So you acknowledge that there is a principled distinction between building codes and custom wedding cakes, and that your contention in 701 is entirely false and without any logical merit?

Is the root of your contention the fact of a physical shop, or the fact of advertising?  If the baker maintains a physical shop and advertises that he'll make custom wedding cakes but not for homosexual marriages, is he on safe legal ground in your thinking?  If he maintains no physical shop and operates out of his house, how does that change your analysis?

@Jazzhead you are free to label people bigots and haters if that somehow clarifies your cognition, but don't expect people to react to that graciously, particularly when you conclude from it that they can be compelled to act in ways that violate their principles.

Now you might notice I modified the post to which you just replied : Can an advertising agency owned by a homosexual, operating as a public accommodation, be compelled legally to prepare collateral material for a Southern Baptist church which prominently advocates against homosexual marriage?  The agency holds out its services to the general public as preparing custom marketing collateral.  The church decides it needs such collateral as part of its outreach.  Can the agency be compelled legally to prepare collateral which advocates values the agency finds repugnant?
James 1:20

Offline INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,961
  • Gender: Male
  • Dread To Tread
    • Sword At The Ready
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #708 on: January 05, 2018, 03:30:27 pm »
Can an advertising agency owned by a homosexual, operating as a public accommodation, be compelled legally to prepare collateral material for a Southern Baptist church which prominently advocates against homosexual marriage? 

Discrimination laws only operate to the benefit of the specific groups towards whom the "law" is protecting.  It does not apply to those groups and persons Jazzhead has decreed to be bigots.

Some animals are more equal in his worldview.
Fart for freedom, fart for liberty and fart proudly.  - Benjamin Franklin

...Obsta principiis—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon [the] American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour." - John Adams, February 6, 1775

Offline HoustonSam

  • "That'll be the day......"
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,982
  • Gender: Male
  • old times there are not forgotten
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #709 on: January 05, 2018, 03:34:53 pm »
Discrimination laws only operate to the benefit of the specific groups towards whom the "law" is protecting.  It does not apply to those groups and persons Jazzhead has decreed to be bigots.

Some animals are more equal in his worldview.

Now now, let's give him a fair chance to respond.
James 1:20

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,867
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #710 on: January 05, 2018, 04:20:22 pm »
Now now, let's give him a fair chance to respond.



(I've been waiting to use this for the past week....)
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline HoustonSam

  • "That'll be the day......"
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,982
  • Gender: Male
  • old times there are not forgotten
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #711 on: January 05, 2018, 04:25:28 pm »
(I've been waiting to use this for the past week....)

Hey it's a weekday, a fellow has to take time to do his job.

But if we don't get an answer I'll re-post to this thread a couple of other questions I've posed which were also ignored.  Then readers will be able to draw their own conclusions.
James 1:20

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,867
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #712 on: January 05, 2018, 05:08:35 pm »
Hey it's a weekday, a fellow has to take time to do his job.

But if we don't get an answer I'll re-post to this thread a couple of other questions I've posed which were also ignored.  Then readers will be able to draw their own conclusions.

Yeah.  I work, too, so I probably jumped the gun a bit.  I like your questions, and it's likely they will be dodged or ignored, to the shock of us all.  :thud:
« Last Edit: January 05, 2018, 05:09:39 pm by Cyber Liberty »
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #713 on: January 05, 2018, 05:21:18 pm »
Hey it's a weekday, a fellow has to take time to do his job.

But if we don't get an answer I'll re-post to this thread a couple of other questions I've posed which were also ignored.  Then readers will be able to draw their own conclusions.

I am indeed in the middle of my workday.  But feel free to post all your questions in one spot if you like.   Keep in mind -  the requirement of non-discrimination is unique to businesses that are deemed "public accommodations"  that open their doors to the general public.  Architects, advertising consultants and similar purveyors of customized or specialized services aren't covered by these laws,  so they can pick and choose their clients as they wish.

I understand that the baker, although subject to the rules for public accommodations,  maintains that he's a cake "artiste" who should not be forced to "create" against his will (notwithstanding that it was his free choice to offer wedding cakes to the general public).   But, as has been pointed out before,  he didn't refuse a particular customization request.   As soon as he heard that his potential customers were gay,  he decline to provide any custom service of any sort whatsoever.    Remember -  service was refused before ANY DISCUSSION REGARDING THE DESIGN OR MESSAGE ON THE CAKE HAD TAKEN PLACE.   That is the inconvenient fact that proves, to my mind, that his claims of artistic expression are disingenuous and that his refusal to provide service was rooted in plain and simple bigotry.   

« Last Edit: January 05, 2018, 05:26:14 pm by Jazzhead »
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline HoustonSam

  • "That'll be the day......"
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,982
  • Gender: Male
  • old times there are not forgotten
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #714 on: January 05, 2018, 05:34:58 pm »
I am indeed in the middle of my workday.  But feel free to post all your questions in one spot if you like.   Keep in mind -  the requirement of non-discrimination is unique to businesses that are deemed "public accommodations"  that open their doors to the general public.  Architects, consultants and similar purveyors of customized or specialized services aren't covered by these laws,  so they can pick and choose their clients as they wish.

I understand that the baker, although subject to the rules for public accommodations,  maintains that he's a cake "artiste" who should not be forced to "create" against his will (notwithstanding that it was his free choice to offer wedding cakes to the general public).   But, as has been pointed out before,  he didn't refuse a particular customization request.   As soon as he heard that his potential customers were gay,  he decline to provide any custom service of any sort whatsoever.    Remember -  service was refused before ANY DISCUSSION REGARDING THE DESIGN OR MESSAGE ON THE CAKE HAD TAKEN PLACE.   That is the inconvenient fact that proves, to my mind, that his claims of artistic expression are disingenuous and that his refusal to provide service was rooted in plain and simple bigotry.

Well one of the questions I asked you was whether the baker would be on safe ground had he continued the discussion *until* specific same-sex marriage decoration was requested.  Is it actually significant that he did not react to a *specific* decoration request, or would you still maintain that he has no moral basis for refusing the request because he was discriminating against homosexuals?

In fair regard for your work schedule I am not asking you to respond to this here.  In fairness to my own work schedule I'll include my other questions in a post later this afternoon.
James 1:20

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #715 on: January 05, 2018, 05:59:25 pm »
Well one of the questions I asked you was whether the baker would be on safe ground had he continued the discussion *until* specific same-sex marriage decoration was requested.  Is it actually significant that he did not react to a *specific* decoration request, or would you still maintain that he has no moral basis for refusing the request because he was discriminating against homosexuals?


The law permits discrimination with respect to the message,  just not discrimination with respect to who the customer is.    A baker can certainly refuse to place a swastika on a cake, and I think he'd have the same right to decline to place an offensive message or design (like a penis) on a wedding cake, whether or not requested by a homosexual.  He's under no obligation to stock same sex wedding toppers. 

One practical solution may be to supply the customer with the materials he/she needs, but not to affix the requested message.  If the customer wants an offensive message placed on the cake,  bake the cake and provide the customer with an icing bag and let him/her affix his/her own message.    The idea is to distinguish between lawful discrimination on the basis of the item or message requested and unlawful discrimination based on who the customer is.   
« Last Edit: January 05, 2018, 06:00:58 pm by Jazzhead »
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,867
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #716 on: January 05, 2018, 06:37:03 pm »
The law permits discrimination with respect to the message,  just not discrimination with respect to who the customer is.    A baker can certainly refuse to place a swastika on a cake, and I think he'd have the same right to decline to place an offensive message or design (like a penis) on a wedding cake, whether or not requested by a homosexual.  He's under no obligation to stock same sex wedding toppers. 

One practical solution may be to supply the customer with the materials he/she needs, but not to affix the requested message.  If the customer wants an offensive message placed on the cake,  bake the cake and provide the customer with an icing bag and let him/her affix his/her own message.    The idea is to distinguish between lawful discrimination on the basis of the item or message requested and unlawful discrimination based on who the customer is.   

So, the only difference is who actually puts the message on the cake?  Not being nasty or picky here (which feels odd for me...lol) but what if my penmanship is terrible?  That's a serious question because mine is, and I wouldn't want my cake to look like a cave man did it. 
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #717 on: January 05, 2018, 06:43:50 pm »
So, the only difference is who actually puts the message on the cake?  Not being nasty or picky here (which feels odd for me...lol) but what if my penmanship is terrible?  That's a serious question because mine is, and I wouldn't want my cake to look like a cave man did it.

You should have married a woman who went to Catholic school.  That's how to address bad penmanship in the family. 
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,867
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #718 on: January 05, 2018, 06:49:06 pm »
You should have married a woman who went to Catholic school.  That's how to address bad penmanship in the family.

I did.  I Married up!   888high58888
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #719 on: January 05, 2018, 06:52:40 pm »
I did.  I Married up!   888high58888

There's nothing like marrying a Catholic girl.  To paraphrase Dylan, they cook and sew and make flowers grow.   And write oh so beautifully!   

 :beer: 
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,867
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #720 on: January 05, 2018, 06:53:37 pm »
There's nothing like marrying a Catholic girl.  To paraphrase Dylan, they cook and sew and make flowers grow.   And write oh so beautifully!   

 :beer:

She can do all that, and more!

 :beer:
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #721 on: January 05, 2018, 07:01:03 pm »
The law permits discrimination with respect to the message,  just not discrimination with respect to who the customer is.    A baker can certainly refuse to place a swastika on a cake, and I think he'd have the same right to decline to place an offensive message or design (like a penis) on a wedding cake, whether or not requested by a homosexual.  He's under no obligation to stock same sex wedding toppers. 

One practical solution may be to supply the customer with the materials he/she needs, but not to affix the requested message.  If the customer wants an offensive message placed on the cake,  bake the cake and provide the customer with an icing bag and let him/her affix his/her own message.    The idea is to distinguish between lawful discrimination on the basis of the item or message requested and unlawful discrimination based on who the customer is.   

Are you sure about that?  Being willing to write a customers requested wording on a cake, except if the customer is gay, is refusing a service otherwise provided to the public because of the customers sexual orientation.  I don’t think the baker gets off by handing her a bag of icing and saying “ you want what?  Here, write it yourself”.

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,867
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #722 on: January 05, 2018, 07:17:13 pm »
Are you sure about that?  Being willing to write a customers requested wording on a cake, except if the customer is gay, is refusing a service otherwise provided to the public because of the customers sexual orientation.  I don’t think the baker gets off by handing her a bag of icing and saying “ you want what?  Here, write it yourself”.

That's not what he's suggesting.  He's suggesting don't write anything on the cake, and supply it in kit form so the customer can put whatever he/she/it wants on it.
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #723 on: January 05, 2018, 07:18:17 pm »
Are you sure about that?  Being willing to write a customers requested wording on a cake, except if the customer is gay, is refusing a service otherwise provided to the public because of the customers sexual orientation.  I don’t think the baker gets off by handing her a bag of icing and saying “ you want what?  Here, write it yourself”.

Note that I haven't yet tried to define "offensiveness".   It has to be a reasonable standard, and not a proxy for mere bigotry.   A baker may, for example, generally refuse to write political slogans or symbols on cakes, and such a policy could extend, I suppose, to placing a rainbow flag on a cake.  But refusing to write "Congratulations, Jack and Bob" is likely unreasonable since the baker wouldn't refuse such a message in any other context. 

And even so,  I think the baker would be doing his legal position a favor by, if he declines to write a message, supplying the customer with the icing bag to write it himself.  I recall that hospitals that won't provide abortions often protect themselves by being willing to advise their patient of those hospitals that will.   Call it CYA, but it's better than getting hit with a punitive fine.     

Common sense ought to be the watchword, applied to the basic principle that what is prohibited is discrimination on the basis of who the customer is.   
« Last Edit: January 05, 2018, 07:23:44 pm by Jazzhead »
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,961
  • Gender: Male
  • Dread To Tread
    • Sword At The Ready
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #724 on: January 05, 2018, 08:09:59 pm »
This business retains the right to refuse any customer and message, advertising vehicle, marketing effort, promotional specialty, commercial, artwork, or request to produce or craft any item, service or project that acknowledges, celebrates, promotes or depicts any form of deviant sexual behavior, including adultery, wife swapping, homosexuality, homosexual unions or behaviors, creeds and opinions of belief deemed offensive by the owner and management.

Go somewhere else if you need something done to promote the above-mentioned deviant behavior.  We do not want that kind of business and refuse to serve any request that depicts or serves those behaviors listed above.

Thank you for your attention.

These Premises Protected by Smith & Wesson.
Fart for freedom, fart for liberty and fart proudly.  - Benjamin Franklin

...Obsta principiis—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon [the] American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour." - John Adams, February 6, 1775