"No person shall, directly or indirectly, refuse, withhold from, or deny to any person, or aid in or incite such refusal, denial or withholding of, accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or disability nor shall distinction be made with respect to any person," continued the ordinance
Talk about bad law.
I took a peek at their website. They do beautiful work. The site says they specialize in creating invitations for weddings. That's what hold they themselves out to the general public as doing.
So what gives them the right to discriminate?
I took a peek at their website. They do beautiful work. The site says they specialize in creating invitations for weddings. That's what hold they themselves out to the general public as doing.
So what gives them the right to discriminate?
So what gives them the right to discriminate?
If I'm not free to choose who I work for, regardless of my reasons why, then I am a slave.
Any business can and does. Some businesses choose to offer their services to the general public, and when they do they voluntarily become subject to laws addressing non-discrimination in public accommodations.
Any business can and does. Some businesses choose to offer their services to the general public....
Any business can and does. Some businesses choose to offer their services to the general public, and when they do they voluntarily become subject to laws addressing non-discrimination in public accommodations. So again - when such a business freely chooses to hold itself out to the public as a purveyor of services for "weddings", what gives it the right to discriminate in violation of the law?
So I guess if it's the law, then slavery is OK. Good to know.
I think you've got it arse-backward who's the victim here. Would you enjoy being denied service at a lunch counter for no reason other than the color of your skin?
What slavery? Their website says they provide invitations for weddings. That's their choice. Why should their customer, who engages their establishment based on their advertised services, be the victim of arbitrary discrimination?
I think you've got it arse-backward who's the victim here. Would you enjoy being denied service at a lunch counter for no reason other than the color of your skin?
I'll say it again. If I'm not free to chose who I work for, regardless of my reasons why, then I am a slave.
So, why does the government discriminate against whites? Why is that okay? How is that Constitutional?
They aren't being forced to continue this line of work - they can quit and find something else to do - so they aren't slaves.That's right, they can just take their artistic talent to the grill at McDonald's or some such place.
No. you're a slave if you cannot choice to not work and if you have no choice about what work to do. Otherwise you're not. They aren't being forced to continue this line of work - they can quit and find something else to do - so they aren't slaves.
That's right, they can just take their artistic talent to the grill at McDonald's or some such place.
That's right, they can just take their artistic talent to the grill at McDonald's or some such place.
No, you are. Shame on you. God will judge you for that one day.
I took a peek at their website. They do beautiful work. The site says they specialize in creating invitations for weddings. That's what hold they themselves out to the general public as doing.
So what gives them the right to discriminate?
He is a member of the gaystapo. They are all drama queens.
No, you are. Shame on you. God will judge you for that one day.
No, you are. Shame on you. God will judge you for that one day.
Marriage has been between a man and a woman forever and most all cultures, in the US, 99.9999% of all marriages ever have been between a man and a woman. Yes, there have been some exceptions but why should they have to abide with a redefinition of marriage. Did all of those marriages discriminate in the past?
What's next then? Calling marriage a union between a man and horse?
There is religious freedom too; it was upheld in the past.
What the heck are you talking about? This discussion doesn't pertain to affirmative action. A lunch counter, or a wedding planner, who caters to the general public, cannot arbitrarily discriminate against whites or blacks (or, in some jurisdictions, against gays or straights).
Why don't you do your work (whatever it is) to service white supremacists? Or some other such thing you find vile. Lead the way.
Marriage has been between a man and a woman forever and most all cultures, in the US, 99.9999% of all marriages ever have been between a man and a woman. Yes, there have been some exceptions but why should they have to abide with a redefinition of marriage. Did all of those marriages discriminate in the past?
What's next then? Calling marriage a union between a man and horse?
There is religious freedom too; it was upheld in the past.
Yes, Marriage is between a man and a woman, I discriminate, I also discriminate if I want to listen to rock instead of classical, drive a ford instead of a toyota, eat a hamburger instead of a hotdog, that all comes down to discriminating as well.
Discrimination may not always be bad, we say a person has discriminating tastes and things like that.
The government now recognizes those marriages, citizens should not have to.
I don't believe that God commanded that we cease doing all business with sinners. If that were the case, nobody could do business with anybody, what with original sin.
They aren't being forced to accede to a gay marriage in their personal private affairs, they're being forced to offer their wholly secular commercial services to the general public on a non-discriminatory basis. Completely different issue.
So it's only okay if the government does it.... got it.
I completely disagree on this issue.
As to your signature line, change the election laws if one doesn't like the electoral college, I noted Trump did not go out to campaign a lot in California, so I consider your signature a falsehood.@TomSea
Some businesses do not care to promote even same sex marriage.
You can't change thousands of years of tradition and now declare that a marriage is between two of the same sex or group marriages which could come next and so on.
SCOTUS also upheld slavery, I'd be darned if I'm going to say that was okay.
If you were a Jewish baker and a member of the local chapter of American Nazis entered the shop and said he'd like a cake for his group's annual "Happy Birthday, Adolf Hitler" party, would it be okay for the government to require you to use your artistic and culinary talents in furtherance of that celebration?
Glad to see someone say Clinton should be our president, just don't accuse others of saying they are for Clinton or the Mods will act.@TomSea
I'll take my chances with treating my fellow citizens with dignity and respect.
Um, these ARE your fellow citizens, right here.
If you were a Jewish baker and a member of the local chapter of American Nazis entered the shop and said he'd like a cake for his group's annual "Happy Birthday, Adolf Hitler" party, would it be okay for the government to require you to use your artistic and culinary talents in furtherance of that celebration?
Marriage is seen as a religious institution by many, that takes the secular out of it a bit.
Just like baptisms, bar-mitzvahs, confirmations, communions and whatever else is out there.
If you were a Jewish baker and a member of the local chapter of American Nazis entered the shop and said he'd like a cake for his group's annual "Happy Birthday, Adolf Hitler" party, would it be okay for the government to require you to use your artistic and culinary talents in furtherance of that celebration?
Exactly, these are the examples always used. And gee, I wouldn't myself want to accept that even though I'm not Jewish, many people would object to that.
Then don't bake cakes for the public, or accept that you're running the risk of prosecution if you continue to discriminate. Or subcontract that cake to another baker who doesn't care. Or be smart about it and find some legitimate reason why you can't do it (too many other orders for that particular day) that has nothing to do with discrimination. Or bake this one badly.
Where are the threats of jail against Tom Ford, the fashion designer who refuses to provide his services to Melania Trump?
What slavery? Their website says they provide invitations for weddings. That's their choice. Why should their customer, who engages their establishment based on their advertised services, be the victim of arbitrary discrimination?
I think you've got it arse-backward who's the victim here. Would you enjoy being denied service at a lunch counter for no reason other than the color of your skin?
And they're being treated fairly, just like everyone else: if you offer a commercial service to the public, you cannot arbitrarily refuse to sell to some people.
Well then, let's get the Nazis to demand liberal artists make Nazi-themed art because according to the judge simply printing material with symbols on it doesn't mean the artists would be endorsing Nazism. Since it is legal to belong to the Nazi Party and espouse Nazi ideas, the Nazis should be able to demand their stuff get printed/made, whatever by whomever makes stuff like that.
If I'm not free to choose who I work for, regardless of my reasons why, then I am a slave.
What slavery? Their website says they provide invitations for weddings. That's their choice. Why should their customer, who engages their establishment based on their advertised services, be the victim of arbitrary discrimination?So if a drunk comes in to buy a bottle of whiskey do you have to sell it.
I think you've got it arse-backward who's the victim here. Would you enjoy being denied service at a lunch counter for no reason other than the color of your skin?
Marriage has been between a man and a woman forever and most all cultures, in the US, 99.9999% of all marriages ever have been between a man and a woman. Yes, there have been some exceptions but why should they have to abide with a redefinition of marriage. Did all of those marriages discriminate in the past?
What's next then? Calling marriage a union between a man and horse?
There is religious freedom too; it was upheld in the past.
If your "employer" is the general public, then you don't get to choose your boss.
What slavery? Their website says they provide invitations for weddings. That's their choice. Why should their customer, who engages their establishment based on their advertised services, be the victim of arbitrary discrimination?
I think you've got it arse-backward who's the victim here. Would you enjoy being denied service at a lunch counter for no reason other than the color of your skin?
And yet.....the US federal government discriminates all the time based on the color of skin (no whiteys need apply) via hiring quotas and preferential treatment to minorities and minority-owned businesses. I guess it just depends upon who or what is doing the discriminating.
I can't believe your argument is, in essence, a "well, he does it too!"
Did no one ever teach the hoary old adage that "Two wrongs don't make a right"?!?
You should be working to get that stopped, not looking to spread it *further*!
I can't believe your argument is, in essence, a "well, he does it too!"
Did no one ever teach the hoary old adage that "Two wrongs don't make a right"?!?
You should be working to get that stopped, not looking to spread it *further*!
Actually the right to refuse service should be good for business.
If a racist has a restaurant and refuses to serve minorities, I want the location right across the street where I will advertise all business welcome.
Personally I can't understand why anyone would want to force someone to do business with them. Man up and walk away for pete's sake.
The hell you say. I retain the right to refuse service for any reason whatsoever.The gall that used to cut my hair used to have this up in her shop. She also had a cardboard cut out of John Wayne.
This is EXACTLY right. 'Affirmative action' has done irreparable damage to individual sovereignty and property rights in business. Reverse discrimination is discrimination just the same.
The only equitable position is to assert that any business has the perfect right to refuse service to anyone for any reason... And then let the market sort it out.
If a guy wants to hang nazi paraphernalia all over his business, and post a sign saying Jews and blacks are not welcome, he should have that perfect right... And he will be driven out of business all the same, because someone WILL come up and cater to those he refuses, make more money doing it, and probably take away the clientele of his competitor.
There is no dearth of services for homos. You can't find a gay artist or baker? REALLY? This whole thing is the militant liberal left, tearing yet another gaping hole in the liberty of the American people.
The gall that used to cut my hair used to have this up in her shop. She also had a cardboard cut out of John Wayne.
My dad's neighbor used to run a bar right near the Michigan state line with Ohio or Indiana. He did OK till Michigan made it illegal to smoke in bars. His nearest competitor a half mile down the road across the state line hit the jackpot and has since more than doubled the size of his building. My dad's neighbor has since closed and has the building up for sale.
If the demand for non smoking bars was so great, why did no one open them? There was no law preventing a bar owner from making his establishment non smoking only. It should have become a business opportunity but instead we had to impose an oppressive law on everyone.
Damn right! My business is an extension of my person. It is my property. I have just as much right to kick you or anyone else right out the door - even as I do my personal home.
Just because I have no 'no trespassing' sign at my home (to wit: open to the public at least up the driveway and to the door) does not mean anyone can fee free to trespass, and I have the right to kick anyone off my property I choose (for whatever reason I have). The same extends to my goods and services.
If you want to do that, you still can. Your establishment will just need to be listed as (and advertised as) a private establishment, not open to the public at large. Customers would become "members", with you having the ultimate say as to whom may, or may not, be accepted.
Damn right! My business is an extension of my person. It is my property. I have just as much right to kick you or anyone else right out the door - even as I do my personal home.
Just because I have no 'no trespassing' sign at my home (to wit: open to the public at least up the driveway and to the door) does not mean anyone can fee free to trespass, and I have the right to kick anyone off my property I choose (for whatever reason I have). The same extends to my goods and services.
So I guess if it's the law, then slavery is OK. Good to know.
If you were a Jewish baker and a member of the local chapter of American Nazis entered the shop and said he'd like a cake for his group's annual "Happy Birthday, Adolf Hitler" party, would it be okay for the government to require you to use your artistic and culinary talents in furtherance of that celebration?
Back when the law said that slavery was OK, slavery was OK, and it continued to be OK until the law said that it wasn't.
Open a business without a license, then make the argument that you don't need a license because your business is an extension of your person.
Let us know how you financed the fines and legal fees.
Yes, Marriage is between a man and a woman, I discriminate, I also discriminate if I want to listen to rock instead of classical, drive a ford instead of a toyota, eat a hamburger instead of a hotdog, that all comes down to discriminating as well.
Discrimination may not always be bad, we say a person has discriminating tastes and things like that.
The government now recognizes those marriages, citizens should not have to.
Actually I don't need a license of any kind unless I am employing people. I don't need anything but a name. and a dba.
And 700,000 Americans were killed, can't leave that out.
According to the Small Business Administration, virtually every business needs some sort of license or permit to operate legally, so, once again, go ahead and start a business without adehering to existing permitting and licensing laws and let me know how you work things out with all the different level of government that will come looking for you.
And by the way... that DBA (Doing Business As) separates you, the individual, from your business and puts a wall of separation between you, the person, and the business in order to (among others) protect you from the possibility of negative financial fallout from a failing business.
Sort of puts your whole "an extension of me" thing out to pasture.
So there! Let the religious be oppressed and silenced so they can sear even the hint of a conscience among the electorate. And let the government force religious individuals to violate their own conscience and to disobey the God the serve. It brings them great joy to see that happen.
So if a drunk comes in to buy a bottle of whiskey do you have to sell it.
If a man comes in to buy a gun to blow his brains out you have to sell it.
Do you sell a man a baseball bat so he can beat his wife.
Sure those are already illegal, but they are also sin. Why should the government be able to force you to do something you think is sinful?
Where do you draw the line?
Are they required to also make art for the Westboro Baptist as well? What about Pepe art for the skinheads? Neked pictures for a feminist event?
How about if someone wants a picture of some one p**s**g on a cross?
I think even prostitutes get to turn down clients...
What if you simply get more people who want your service than you can fulfill how can you decide who doesn't get their art?
Where do you draw the line? It's easy, because there's no slippery slope. Every example of "discrimination" you cite is perfectly legal, because it is discrimination based on a customer's behavior. Of course a bartender can refuse service to a drunk, or a shopowner can refuse to sell a baseball bat to a customer who says he's going to use it to beat his wife, or a baker can refuse to write an obscenity on a cake.
Illegal discrimination is arbitrary discrimination based merely on who someone is - white, Christian, straight, etc. As has been pointed out, even that sort of arbitrary discrimination is lawful when practiced outside the context of a public accommodation - a business that advertises its wares to the general public.
To all those who say Christians should either violate their conscience or go out of business. Why does the government have the right to decide Christians can't operate any bossiness related to weddings? Why doesn't that bother anyone?
I know, I know following you conscience is dead and gone relegated to the past. That doesn't make it right.
There is no federal statute explicitly addressing employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. However, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission interprets Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to cover discrimination against LGBT employees, as "allegations of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily state a claim of discrimination on the basis of sex".[2] This interpretation in essence bars employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in accordance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[3] In 2012 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not allow gender identity-based employment discrimination because it is a form of sex discrimination.[4] Then in 2015, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission concluded that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not allow sexual orientation discrimination in employment because it is a form of sex discrimination.[5][6] However, these rulings, while persuasive, may not be binding on courts.[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_employment_discrimination_in_the_United_States
Nope. I am operating a sole proprietorship under my own name. Everything is in order, I have no insurance except on vehicles, and I have no licenses or modifications with the exception of comp exemption with the state.
I file simple sole prop/sched C taxes with state and fed, and have been exactly so for years.
To all those who say Christians should either violate their conscience or go out of business. Why does the government have the right to decide Christians can't operate any bossiness related to weddings? Why doesn't that bother anyone?
I know, I know following you conscience is dead and gone relegated to the past. That doesn't make it right.
I doubt you'll find anyone on this forum who disagrees with you. I actually am quite socially liberal and I find this garbage, as well as 6 figure fines for refusing to bake cakes, to be outrageous.
Only question is what do we do about it?
I doubt you'll find anyone on this forum who disagrees with you. I actually am quite socially liberal and I find this garbage, as well as 6 figure fines for refusing to bake cakes, to be outrageous.
Only question is what do we do about it?
To all those who say Christians should either violate their conscience or go out of business. Why does the government have the right to decide Christians can't operate any bossiness related to weddings? Why doesn't that bother anyone?
I know, I know following you conscience is dead and gone relegated to the past. That doesn't make it right.
We obey God rather than men, and damn the consequences.
This argument would be valid if 'Christians' did speak up about more than just gay marriage. For example, selling products to those that engage in premarital sex.I know a lot of Christians that do speak up about other issues, nor I didn't realize there was a threshold of purity before a person is granted rights. The media will cover 3 people whining about the BLT movement and ignore three hundred that protest abortion or any other issue.
But as they don't, it looks incredibly hypocritical to speak up about this one, single, solitary issue.
This argument would be valid if 'Christians' did speak up about more than just gay marriage. For example, selling products to those that engage in premarital sex.
But as they don't, it looks incredibly hypocritical to speak up about this one, single, solitary issue.
But also imagine what would happen, what our society would be like (and was like not so long ago) if any business that publicly advertises for services and for customers, could also arbitrarily discriminate against you based on your race, ethnicity, religion, etc….or at their whim.
Crazy not to have a corporation today to protect your personal finances from a lawsuit.
You don't carry any business liability insurance? I'm not sure what you do but everyone should carry some liability and errors and ommisions insurance etc if they run a business whether it's white or blue collar.
My wife and I own 3 companies. separate corporation for each. I own my wifes office building and she pays me rent-she is not on that 4th corporation at all-just me. so if one of her employees screws up or something bad happens the suer cannot get the office building.
I have it set up under my own business I am paid as a regular employee.
Plus we have umbrella policies out the wazhoo.
Gay marriage isn't discrimination based on the customer's behavior? Really?
How is this any different that writing an obscenity on the cake when the Bible calls that "marriage" an abomination?
Why does the government have the right to force people to do what the Bible says is wrong? Where does the constitution give the government that right.
It's only arbitrary, because you have chosen not to honor their conscience and they have chosen to follow it.
It's a civil marriage, not a religious marriage. God has nothing to do with it. And God has nothing to do with the BUSINESS of baking cakes.From your point of view.
It's a civil marriage, not a religious marriage. God has nothing to do with it. And God has nothing to do with the BUSINESS of baking cakes.
God has EVERYTHING to do with what I choose to do in life - INCLUDING MY BUSINESS.
I frankly do not give a damn what you or anyone else thinks I should do in terms of whom you demand I serve. I serve those I decide to serve in the manner in which I am using my talents while being obedient to His Word.
If you want to use the government to force us to labor for that which is an abomination, you become nothing but a tyrant yourself - and tyrants need to be resisted and refused.
I don't care who you serve or don't serve. Frankly, as long as you were polite about it, I'd react to your refusal of service by finding another vendor. And that's how most of these potential kerfluffles are handled in the real world. There's always another baker, or wedding planner, quite willing to take one's money.See problem solved no government needed. :laugh:
Crazy not to have a corporation today to protect your personal finances from a lawsuit.
You don't carry any business liability insurance? I'm not sure what you do but everyone should carry some liability and errors and ommisions insurance etc if they run a business whether it's white or blue collar.
Plus we have umbrella policies out the wazhoo.
@roamer_1
From your point of view.
From a Christian point of view: It's his universe and he's the one that gave me a life in it. Too many verses say "Whatsoever thou doest..." As a Christian EVERYTHING I do is God's business.
Why should your point of view be codified in law with no respect to the Christian?
We need some quid pro quo here. Find some gay artists (shouldn't be hard) and insist they produce Christian themed artwork where sinners are punished and the righteous are elevated.
And vice versa. Why should the 'Christian's' POV take precedence?How about that only one of those uses the government to force people to use their labor hours against their will.
As you degrade another's beliefs by labeling them just a POV... so too will your beliefs be belittled.
“We recognize no sovereign but God, and no king but Jesus!”
In an October 13, 1789 address to the military, he said:
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
In a letter to Thomas Jefferson dated June 28, 1813, he said
"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity"
And vice versa. Why should the 'Christian's' POV take precedence?
As you degrade another's beliefs by labeling them just a POV... so too will your beliefs be belittled.
Why indeed. I guess moral relativism has done it's job when such a question is asked on a conservative site.
From your point of view.It's not my point of view, it's a fact - gay marriage is entirely secular, it's a civil contract. It has no religious connotations whatsoever.
From a Christian point of view: It's his universe and he's the one that gave me a life in it. Too many verses say "Whatsoever thou doest..." As a Christian EVERYTHING I do is God's business.
Why should your point of view be codified in law with no respect to the Christian?
Wasn't that done for the Sistene Chapel?
The “pure” libertarian in me (and note the small “l”) and one who supports individual liberty says that a private business owner should be able to choose who they provide services to or not; or who they sell their wares to or not; or who to hire or not hire for employment; and for whatever reason what so ever and without any government interference.
Sounds good doesn’t it? Perhaps in principle. But practice, in reality, sometimes not so much – and it might all depend on if you are the one choosing to discriminate or if you are the one being discriminated against.
One has to understand that in that scenario, of discrimination based on religious or political beliefs or personal prejudices - “sometimes you’re the windshield, and sometimes you’re the bug”.
I get that a conservative Christian business owner would not want to provide services to a gay couple for a gay marriage ceremony – forced to bake the cake, forced to take the photographs, forced to DJ or perform the music, forced to produce the wedding invitations and I would say that in principle that they shouldn’t be forced to do so. No one should be forced to go against their deeply held religious or other convictions.
And I also get how it would be offensive for example to force, for example a Jewish baker (and I suspect many others) to be forced to decorate a cake for a “Happy Birth Adolph Hitler” celebration. I sure wouldn’t want to be forced to do that and I am neither Jewish or a Christian.
But let’s say a Christian couple goes to a very popular baker in town for a very traditional wedding cake with the traditional bride and groom topping and perhaps also a traditional Bible verse or “Marriage Is Only Ordained By God” written on it and the baker who is an Atheist tells them, “I just don’t do that sort of traditional type of wedding cake and I won’t decorate it with any Bible verses because I don’t believe in God”.
Conversely let’s say I’m a devout Evangelical Christian baker and a Catholic or a Mormon or a Muslim or a 7th Day Adventist or an Atheist couple wants me to bake their wedding cake and I refuse because I think Catholicism and Mormonism and Islam and 7th Day Adventists are all “cults” and that Atheists shouldn’t be allowed to get married.
Let’s say that I am a politically conservative owner of a bakery and one day a member of a BLM group wants me to bake a cake with the slogan “Black Lives Matter” or an another group wants me to bake a cake decorated with “Trump Is Not My President” on it.
Let’s say I am a politically liberal owner of a bakery and one day a Trump supporter wants me to bake a cake with a “TRUMP WON! MAGA! Suck It Up Libs!” with a Pepe The Frog on it.
Let’s say I’m a young attractive single woman and my car breaks down. I get on my smart phone and find a towing company and call them. The tow truck operator shows up and he is a devout Muslim and refuses to tow my car because 1) I’m a single woman driving a car and or driving without a male relative and 2) I’m wearing a skimpy bikini top and very short shorts and he finds this manner of dress offensive to his religious beliefs and after showing up refuses to tow my car.
Let’s say that I’m a very conservative Christian tow truck operator who is likewise offended by her clothing or lack thereof and also the “Hillary For President” and “NARAL” and a “Darwin Fish” bumper sticker on her car and after showing up refuses to tow her car.
Let’s say I’m a Conservative Orthodox Jew who runs a kosher catering company and I get a call to cater an event, provide kosher foods for a Messianic Jewish group and I refuse based on my belief that these people are not really Jews and are making a mockery of “real” Judaism.
Let’s say I own a printing/calligraphy shop and I’m a Wiccan/Pagan and one day a Christian comes in and wants me to produce flyers for her church group that says Halloween is Evil and Pagan, should be banned/outlawed and has no place in America and people who celebrate any Pagan holidays are going straight to Hell!
Let’s say I own an Evangelical Christian Book and Gift store and a Catholic priest walks in one day looking for a gift or a book for the child of a friend or relative and I refuse to serve him because perhaps I think that all Catholic priests are pedophiles.
Let’s say I own a coffee shop and I am an animal rights activist and am also anti-gun and I don’t allow people who wear camo style or hunting type clothing to come in and I put a sign on my door that says that guns (open or CC even if allowed by law) or knives are not allowed in my shop.
Let’s say that I am a gay person who owns an architectural/interior design firm and I’m looking to hire someone for a job and I receive a resume from someone who attended a very conservative Christian college that teaches that homosexuality is a sin that should be a punishable crime and advocated conversion therapy and all her prior work experience has been working for Christian organizations with the same POV and although she seems otherwise qualified for the job, I refuse to hire her because I just don’t think she would be a good fit for my company where I and many other gays are working.
Likewise, let’s say I am a devout Christian and the owner of a company where I and nearly all the employees are also Christians and I pass on an applicant who is otherwise very qualified for the job but previously worked for an Atheist org and she comes to her interview with purple hair and with many tattoos and piercings and wearing a Pentagram neckless and I don’t think she would be a good fit.
Let’s say that own a home improvement company and either because of my religious beliefs or just my personal prejudices, I don’t believe in “mixed marriages” and one day I go to the home of a white woman married to a black man or visa versa, who are wanting to get a quote from me to build a new deck on their house and I either refuse to give them a quote or I try to gouge them on the price or do a lousy job because I don’t like their mixed marriage and their “mulatto” children.
Let’s say that I’m an Evangelical Christian belonging to one of those prosperity mega churches and I own a law firm or an insurance brokerage firm. While my business is not a religious org and is not advertised as only serving only the “Christian” community and I don’t hire based on a religious litmus test, I hand out to all employees copies of Joel Osteen’s latest book which I strongly “encourage” everyone to read in their “spare time”, and every morning before work I hold and lead prayer meetings and at lunchtime, a Christian book or Bible study group which are not “mandatory”. However, I do make note of who attends and who doesn’t, who belongs to my church and who doesn’t and those who do not participate just don’t get the same promotion opportunities or the same raises or fair performance evaluations as those who do. (FWIW, I once for a short time, worked at a law firm that did exactly that and had a friend who worked at an insurance brokerage firm that did the same).
Let’s say that I own an apartment complex and I choose not to rent to Blacks, Latinos, Asians and single people who in my “judgement” “might” be gay, or rent to someone with a physical disability such as a blind person or a couple with a child who has Downs Syndrome.
Suppose I go into an upscale clothing and jewelry store and am told by the owner that I can’t shop there because I’m too fat and not attractive enough to be one of their customers.
I have, and was born with natural red hair. Suppose I walk into a small hair studio one day and the owner/hair dresser tells me that she believes that “gingers” have no soul and are “evil”. I’d probably laugh it off as a joke (hopefully) or if not, I’d go somewhere else to get my hair done, I doubt I would sue.
My point is that if you believe that a business owner has the right to discriminate based on their religious or political or any other beliefs or at their whim and that the government should not interfere what so ever with their decisions, and I’m not saying that perhaps they shouldn’t be able to, then also don’t complain when you are on the receiving end of the discrimination.
In a perfect world where people use common sense, the government would stay completely out of as far as privately owned business go and not enforce rules against some belief systems and not against others and let the free market decide.
I also tend to believe that a business that does not discriminate and provides quality goods and services to all paying customers and hires the best, brightest and most qualified people regardless of their race, orientation, religion, political views, etc., assuming that they and their employees also don’t discriminate or force their POV on others, is in a free market, likely going to be the most successful over time.
FWIW, personally, I wouldn’t patronize any business that had a sign on their business door saying – “Gays Not Welcome Here”, “Blacks Not Welcome Here”, We Don’t Serve White People”, “Only Real Christians Are Welcomed Here” or “We Don’t Serve Christians” or “We Don’t Serve Conservatives or Liberals”or ….
But also imagine what would happen, what our society would be like (and was like not so long ago) if any business that publicly advertises for services and for customers, could also arbitrarily discriminate against you based on your race, ethnicity, religion, etc….or at their whim.
As I said, in that scenario, “sometimes you’re the windshield, and sometimes you’re the bug” and nobody really wants to be the bug.
I respect anyone's Christian faith. Practice it in your own life proudly. But, you see, when you operate a business, you're supposed to conform to the requirements of the civil law.
Practice your faith but don't impose it on others. Especially by humiliating your customers just for being who they are, and for what? For the "sin" of seeking the very services you said you'd provide?
How the hell does refusing service to celebrate a practice I find an abomination "imposing" my religion on others? PRACTICING my faith means I DO NOT GIVE INTO providing services that celebrate, acknowledge or affirm that which is an evil practice.
Should we be forced to make DVD covers and commercials for pornographers simply because we provide video editing services?
You're coddling snowflakes if you think refusing services to those engaged in promoting such practices is 'humiliating them'.
If I'm a butcher, and I'm Muslim or Jewish and someone comes in with a pig for me to butcher - am I imposing my religion on the customer because I refuse their request for service?
I'd love to see that attempt run though the courts and note the weighted balances of Justice.
Of course none of these people from the Gay mafia would dare to go to a Muslim business to attempt to get them to celebrate their behavior and engender lawsuits when rebuffed.
Because they will be rightfully told to pound sand, and if that is not enough - the Muslims would do that which Christians will not do if efforts to force compliance were attempted on them.
How is making a business that makes wedding invitations forced to 'celebrate' gay marriage by making their wedding invitations?
Does a gas station 'celebrate' your driving experience when you fill up your gas tank?
How is making a business that makes wedding invitations forced to 'celebrate' gay marriage by making their wedding invitations?
Does a gas station 'celebrate' your driving experience when you fill up your gas tank?
Moral relativism has nothing to do with this. This is a knock on behavior. One can easily believe that the Enlightenment that produced the philosphy governing our nations to be the best... and still knock the behavior that mocks and degrades others for their beliefs.
At one point, we'd actually argue how our values are the best. Now, it's a knee-jerk "how dare you criticize my position" cry.
It's not my point of view, it's a fact - gay marriage is entirely secular, it's a civil contract. It has no religious connotations whatsoever.
I respect anyone's Christian faith. Practice it in your own life proudly. But, you see, when you operate a business, you're supposed to conform to the requirements of the civil law. The civil law, after all, bestows protection on your business, and affords you the advantages of an ordered environment in which to profit from your endeavors. And one of the simple requirements of the civil law is you don't discriminate arbitrarily, whether you cite your "religion" as justification or otherwise.
Practice your faith but don't impose it on others. Especially by humiliating your customers just for being who they are, and for what? For the "sin" of seeking the very services you said you'd provide?
A private business, on private property. Government is "public", yet it is free to discriminate. Strange.
Your view is the absence of freedom.
How the hell does refusing service to celebrate a practice I find an abomination "imposing" my religion on others? PRACTICING my faith means I DO NOT GIVE INTO providing services that celebrate, acknowledge or affirm that which is an evil practice.
Should we be forced to make DVD covers and commercials for pornographers simply because we provide video editing services?
You're coddling snowflakes if you think refusing services to those engaged in promoting such practices is 'humiliating them'.
If I'm a butcher, and I'm Muslim or Jewish and someone comes in with a pig for me to butcher - am I imposing my religion on the customer because I refuse their request for service?
I'd love to see that attempt run though the courts and note the weighted balances of Justice.
Of course none of these people from the Gay mafia would dare to go to a Muslim business to attempt to get them to celebrate their behavior and engender lawsuits when rebuffed.
Because they will be rightfully told to pound sand, and if that is not enough - the Muslims would do that which Christians will not do if efforts to force compliance were attempted on them.
It's not my point of view, it's a fact - gay marriage is entirely secular, it's a civil contract. It has no religious connotations whatsoever.It is your point of view. You need to own that, it doesn't make it wrong and I don't mean that as a put down. We both have to realize we don't see this eye to eye.
I respect anyone's Christian faith. Practice it in your own life proudly. But, you see, when you operate a business, you're supposed to conform to the requirements of the civil law. The civil law, after all, bestows protection on your business, and affords you the advantages of an ordered environment in which to profit from your endeavors. And one of the simple requirements of the civil law is you don't discriminate arbitrarily, whether you cite your "religion" as justification or otherwise.
Practice your faith but don't impose it on others. Especially by humiliating your customers just for being who they are, and for what? For the "sin" of seeking the very services you said you'd provide?
No matter what the Federal Government, US Supreme Court says, a marriage is between a man and a woman. That Obergfell Hodges decision is flawed like Roe v. Wade. Like the Dredd Scott decision.Right on, right on, and right on.
You can call a cat a dog, but it's still a dog. So in a sense, we are living a lie; a marriage never will be between two of the same sex or a group of people or a polygamous/polyamorous relationship.
You do not lose your rights just because you started a business.
Even though you become an evil, profit-making, business scum?
Define "evil" and "scum".
And what's wrong with profit-making? I thought that was the purpose of business?
You do not lose your rights just because you started a business.
Need someone to go into a black owned bakery and order a Confederate flag cake....heads will explode
It is your point of view. You need to own that, it doesn't make it wrong and I don't mean that as a put down. We both have to realize we don't see this eye to eye.
You have a valid point, regarding rights. Allow me to cut this down to the basics. On it's most basic level the law exists to protect rights.
To elaborate for a moment on my point of view, perhaps if we aren't on the same page you can lean over and read from my page for a minute, and I'll try to do the same. From my point of view man is a spiritual being, C S Lewis in the Screwtape letters referred to man as an 'amphibian' both physical and spiritual. Therefore we would be working against our own faith to follow Christian principles in the home and on Sunday and then bow to the demands of the word the rest of the week. Many other Christians feel the same, as noted on this forum.
Marriage, to the Christian is a God given institution. Don't discount that point of view, and I'll try not do discount that you see it as a civil relationship. Therefore marriage specifically falls under the God's commands from his Word. For a Christian to participate or support a marriage outside of the commands laid down in God's word is a serious sin.
As an aside, don't knock Christians for daring to practice their faith on the job. For the most part it helps them to be honest, hard working, and encourages them to turn the other cheek when mistreated instead of going postal. :laugh:
Getting back to basic's, the law exists to protect the rights of the citizens. People ought to be free up to the point their actions infringe on someone else's rights; that's freedom in a nutshell. Hopefully, this is the common ground between our views.
So here's the issue as I see:
Is it an infringement of the rights of customers for the business owner to discriminate against them?
Is it an infringement of the right's of the business owner for force them to sell goods or provide services against their will?
If yes to both, which is the greater infringement and why?
I'm curious if you'd be willing to take a stab at the question from this framework.
No, they can provide their commercial services without arbitrarily discriminating among members of the public. Stop with the sob story - you've calling the victimizer the victim.Should artists/businesses be forced to produce Nazi-themed goods for customers? After all, they'd just be providing a commercial service and not necessarily endorsing Nazism.
Why should religion trump the customer's right to obtain what the shop owner has said he would provide?
Should artists/businesses be forced to produce Nazi-themed goods for customers? After all, they'd just be providing a commercial service and not necessarily endorsing Nazism.
Just like a baker who bakes wedding cakes can be expected to sell wedding cakes to a customer that wants to buy a wedding cake... regardless of sexual orientation.
Just like a baker who bakes wedding cakes can be expected to sell wedding cakes to a customer that wants to buy a wedding cake... regardless of sexual orientation.
They could buy wedding cakes all they like, they can't get the artist to make it a gay themed cake. It's not a service they already provided.
So then a wedding cake baker should be forced to bake a cake for a polygamist or other group marriage? How about a Muslim child bride marriage? A naked blood sacrifice Satanist marriage? Transgender marriage? Bestiality marriage? Any marriage?
If that's the case, then you've created a situation where there can be no moral objection or religious conscience to anything or anyone, and enforced by the govt, making the State the Church.
Which is what they need to do - bake a plain cake in the color of their choice, but no words or symbols on it. Let the gays take it to court. The 5th circuit ruled recently that such speech cannot be compelled. Symbols would likely fall under the same.
but this isn't enough for the homofacists
They could buy wedding cakes all they like, they can't get the artist to make it a gay themed cake. It's not a service they already provided.
True, but I think Christians would win in court. Let the homofascists gnash and gnaw.
So then a wedding cake baker should be forced to bake a cake for a polygamist or other group marriage? How about a Muslim child bride marriage? A naked blood sacrifice Satanist marriage? Transgender marriage? Bestiality marriage? Any marriage?
If that's the case, then you've created a situation where there can be no moral objection or religious conscience to anything or anyone, and enforced by the govt, making the State the Church.
No gay couple asks for a gay-themed cake for a wedding.
That's right.
If a business has moral issue with the clientele that comes from being 'open to the general public', then they can voice their opinion by no longer being 'open to the general public' and then restricting their clientele to those they approve of.
But as long as they are open to the general public, then they will sell what they produce to anyone meeting the notion of the general public.
But as long as they are open to the general public, then they will sell what they produce to anyone meeting the notion of the general public.
Unless they are gays and muslims and refuse to make a Christian cake, then it's fine and dandy
No business can be compelled to produce something that it doesn't already produce.
For your comparison to work, the artist/business would have to be on record as willing to or already producing Nazi-themed goods. In which case, yes, a business that produces Nazi-themed goods would be expected to sell Nazi-themed goods to a customer wanting to buy Nazi-themed goods... regardless of sexual orientation.
Just like a baker who bakes wedding cakes can be expected to sell wedding cakes to a customer that wants to buy a wedding cake... regardless of sexual orientation.
That's right. Now, I think it would be perfectly lawful for a baker to post a sign noting that management reserves the right to decline to write a message deemed obscene, offensive or political. So long as such right is reasonably exercised, I don't think there would be any legal problem, because then the "discrimination" is based on the customer's behavior or request rather than on who he or she merely is. So, no Nazi messages on cakes, or provocative stuff like "God loves homosexuals". But any customer should be able to obtain a wedding cake from a baker who advertises such service, regardless of the baker's claim of "religion". Religion can be no excuse for unlawful discrimination.
You think is "God loves homosexuals" is unduly provocative, but making a cake for a homosexual "wedding" isn't? Interesting priorities there.
Well, then, fine - and I hope that baker gets sued up his bigoted wazoo.
It is hilarious to me that you cannot see your own bigotry.
Not as hilarious as your claim of victimhood as a business owner "forced" to serve homosexuals against your "religion". It's very simple - stay true to your word. How is it "bigoted" for me to suggest that?
That's right. Now, I think it would be perfectly lawful for a baker to post a sign noting that management reserves the right to decline to write a message deemed obscene, offensive or political. So long as such right is reasonably exercised, I don't think there would be any legal problem, because then the "discrimination" is based on the customer's behavior or request rather than on who he or she merely is. So, no Nazi messages on cakes, or provocative stuff like "God loves homosexuals". But any customer should be able to obtain a wedding cake from a baker who advertises such service, regardless of the baker's claim of "religion". Religion can be no excuse for unlawful discrimination.But many religious people find certain sexual practices disgusting...like homosexuality. They find it just as objectionable as Jews would find Nazi-themed goods.
but this isn't enough for the homofacists
This entire thread is nonsense.
I have kicked a thousand people out of my shop, for nothing other than my subjective opinion that the person was an a$$h013, and I did not want them to remain or become a client of mine.I do not want to do business with them.
Now comes an homosexual a$$h013- Who is to say whether I kicked him out because of his homosexuality (which I may or may not know), or the fact of his being an A$$h013? And who has to prove that reason?
Or is it that I cannot discriminate against anyone anymore, to include A$$h013s of any stripe?
Inevitably, I must be free to do business as I choose. It is my risk, it is my property, and it is my talent. To force me to do otherwise is servitude.
Well, you do.
When you kick someone out and you say it was for being gay... as opposed to kicking someone out for being an a-hole.
@Jazzhead Thanks for the explanation about what you meant by civil. I agree with that part. I guess I would challenge the reason someone has the right to receive a service. What you are dealing with are the tacit agreements that unlie the transaction. For example if I go to the store a tacit agreement exists that the prices on the items are correct and that the clerk will tally them correctly ect.
The problem here in dealing with a service is just how many of these agreements carry over into this market. If you view it as a more contractual market then I think it is clear the rights of the producer trump the expectations of the seller. The basis of free exchange is one person trading two willing participants trading goods or labor hours. Artist can hold out for jobs that they want, just because they say they are artist doesn't mean anyone can hire them to slap up a billboard. Think of movie stars they don't have to do just any movie; it's a different market. If you have watched The Fountainhead there are some great examples of this thought. You might look into this, Ayn Rand was no great proponent of Christianty by any stretch.
So I think we are dealing with different market rules than at the grocery store. The tacit agreement that the customer is going to get the standardized product they expected is certainly not as strong. Does their expectation of a service to be provided give them the right to call in the government and force someone to enter into a sale against their will? Given the clear first amendment applications and the fact that such coercion runs counter to the concept of voluntary free trade that the market is built on I do not think the government has the right to force someone into labor against their will.
Just my dos centavos. Thanks for the discussion. You certainly challenged me to think beyond any knee jerk Bible thumping. Not that I discount the religious arguments here, but I wanted another way to skin the cat.
Public accommodation. The following private entities are considered public accommodations for purposes of this subchapter, if the operations of such entities affect commerce—
(A) an inn, hotel, motel, or other place of lodging, except for an establishment located within a building that contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and that is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as the residence of such proprietor;
(B) a restaurant, bar, or other establishment serving food or drink;
(C) a motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium, or other place of exhibition or entertainment;
(D) an auditorium, convention center, lecture hall, or other place of public gathering;
(E) a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment;
(F) a laundromat, dry-cleaner, bank, barber shop, beauty shop, travel service, shoe repair service, funeral parlor, gas station, office of an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment;
(G) a terminal, depot, or other station used for specified public transportation;
(H) a museum, library, gallery, or other place of public display or collection;
(I) a park, zoo, amusement park, or other place of recreation;
(J) a nursery, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate private school, or other place of education;
(K) a day care center, senior citizen center, homeless shelter, food bank, adoption agency, or other social service center establishment; and
(L) a gymnasium, health spa, bowling alley, golf course, or other place of exercise or recreation.
No, I don't. And the bigotry involved in MAKING ME is unconscionable. I took no money. I shook no hand. there is not a contract verbal or otherwise. Until there is, it is a simple matter of MY PROPERTY. I have every right to refuse to do business with ANYONE.
@roamer_1
The person who can sum up their point compellingly using just a few powerful words wins the debate every time.
Thanks for cutting through the sophistry and fashionable double talk to expose the basic issue here. Unless more people begin to understand whats at stake for the individual, and whats being lost in the name of whatever the progressives are calling it today, all really is lost.
The customer's an individual too, and he's the one being victimized by a storeowner who degrades him by refusing to provide an advertised service.
The customer's an individual too, and he's the one being victimized by a storeowner who degrades him by refusing to provide an advertised service.
Oh, please! "Degrades"?
The customer would know that this is a controversial issue and that religious people in particular will have a religious objection to his "service" request. He wants to be accommodated without any regard to the beliefs of the person he wants to accommodate him. By that measure, he is degrading the business owner.
Why shouldn't a customer expect the service that the business owner advertises that he provides? What's unreasonable to expect the business owner to live up to his word? Religion is a bullshit excuse for arbitrary discrimination.
Arbitrary? Nothing arbitrary about it.
Religion is a bullshit excuse for arbitrary discrimination in this situation.
The customer's an individual too, and he's the one being victimized by a storeowner who degrades him by refusing to provide an advertised service.
Why shouldn't a customer expect the service that the business owner advertises that he provides? What's unreasonable to expect the business owner to live up to his word?
Religion is a bullshit excuse for arbitrary discrimination in this situation.
@roamer_1
The person who can sum up their point compellingly using just a few powerful words wins the debate every time.
Thanks for cutting through the sophistry and fashionable double talk to expose the basic issue here. Unless more people begin to understand whats at stake for the individual, and whats being lost in the name of whatever the progressives are calling it today, all really is lost.
And there it is.
Note my wording - "Religion is a bullshit excuse for arbitrary discrimination in this situation ." That situation is the running of a commercial business subject to the laws of the community. Don't give me this malarkey that it's your religion that allows you to humiliate your customers of the wrong skin color or sexual orientation. You set the rules of engagement, you decide what you'll sell, now do the honorable thing and live up to your word.
Just because you cross my threshold does not give you (or anyone else) the right to buy from me. Nor does it give you the right to be treated pleasantly.
Why shouldn't a customer expect the service that the business owner advertises that he provides? What's unreasonable to expect the business owner to live up to his word? Religion is a bullshit excuse for arbitrary discrimination in this situation.An expectation is hardly a basic human right. You won't find it protected by the bill of rights, which is the highest law in the land.
No, but you have the legal obligation to not arbitrarily discriminate. Ignore the law at your peril. God won't help you; you'll need to lawyer up.
No, but you have the legal obligation to not arbitrarily discriminate. Ignore the law at your peril. God won't help you; you'll need to lawyer up.
So what gives them the right to discriminate?
No, but you have the legal obligation to not arbitrarily discriminate. Ignore the law at your peril. God won't help you; you'll need to lawyer up.
Again, @Jazzhead, there is nothing arbitrary about following the clear and unambiguous dictates of most of the major religions in the world. I'm not sure how you can even type that with a straight face.
I don't know about you, but my rights are unalienable. No one "gives" rights. I am free to associate with whomever I please, same for you and the same applies to all Free People.
Back when the law said that slavery was OK, slavery was OK, and it continued to be OK until the law said that it wasn't.
Why shouldn't a customer expect the service that the business owner advertises that he provides? What's unreasonable to expect the business owner to live up to his word? Religion is a bullshit excuse for arbitrary discrimination in this situation….From the customer's perspective, it's arbitrary, insulting and degrading. This is a commercial business, open to the public, and advertising specific wares or services. Religion is no excuse for discrimination. Thank goodness the law provides a remedy.
These are two different things --- The existence of the law and whether or not the law in and of itself is constitutional.
If a law VIOLATES the First Amendment, it ought to be repealed.
Better to obey God than men.
I am willing to DIE to refuse that imposition.
"Religion is a bullshit excuse for arbitrary discrimination in this situation."
Come on, if one says the 14th amendment of the Constitution settles it, what does the 1st amendment mean? Freedom of religion.
Fine, just be willing to accept the consequences of your nihilism.
Then you're a fool.
Failing to bake a cake for a civil wedding has nothing to do with following the "clear and unambiguous dictates" of Christianity.
If anything, the Bible teaches us to honor our promises and treat our neighbors as we'd like to be treated ourselves.
You are part of a community and a nation. The American republic is a nation of laws, not of men. Indulge your selfish nihilism, but don't expect the Lord to assist when you're sued for breaking the rules that order a civil society.The laws of this nation are built on the Bible. Starting with the Pilgrims and the Puritans America has been a nation built on it's moral code with Freedom of religion as its primary objective. You are going to have to bring some ammunition as to why the expectation that someone will sell you something trumps a what is a basic human right.
Engaging in a commercial business is a privilege, not a right
What people forget is that one's freedoms stop at the boundaries of another's freedoms.
The only remedy you are espousing is TYRANNY.
You want to try come and force me to create homosexual wedding invitations and advertisement vehicles because I am a graphic designer - you can go ahead and cheer the government's agents putting a gun to my head to force me to comply, or have my business destroyed - and I will continue to state that I will obey God before I will EVER submit to tyrants like yourself.
I don't give a damn that pervert supporters like you demand I comply with supporting behavioral deviancy simply because you call it discrimination.
I am willing to DIE to refuse that imposition.
You willing to DIE to impose yours?
I want no part of a society that makes Sodom and Gomorrah blush, and I will resist it's attempted imposition on my life, business and family.
Better to obey God than men.
If you are a graphics designer that advertises that he creates wedding invitations, then a customer has every right to expect you will create wedding invitations for customers that will walk through your door.
If you are a graphics designer that advertises that he creates wedding invitations, then a customer has every right to expect you will create wedding invitations for customers that will walk through your door.Expectation are hardly rights. Courts don't even always uphold written contracts under certain circumstances, much less tacit agreements.
The customer's an individual too, and he's the one being victimized by a storeowner who degrades him by refusing to provide an advertised service.
The laws of this nation are built on the Bible. Starting with the Pilgrims and the Puritans America has been a nation built on it's moral code with Freedom of religion as its primary objective. You are going to have to bring some ammunition as to why the expectation that someone will sell you something trumps a what is a basic human right.
Failing to bake a cake for a civil wedding has nothing to do with following the "clear and unambiguous dictates" of Christianity. If anything, the Bible teaches us to honor our promises and treat our neighbors as we'd like to be treated ourselves.
If you believe homosexuality is an abominable sin, don't indulge in the practice. If you happen to be born gay (sexual orientation is not a choice, if you need proof just ask the question of yourself), then remain celibate and thank the Lord for your misery.
Expectation are hardly rights. Courts don't even always uphold written contracts under certain circumstances, much less tacit agreements.
For instance, said graphics designer may already be booked, or on vacation this week. You can't sue them for that.
Do I become a "victim" when my local grocery store advertises Christmas hams at greatly reduced prices, yet when I get there they are sold out?
You've thrown the term "victim" out quite a few times, and quite frankly your standard meaning of that word is fitting for the average college student sitting in safe spaces. The inability to purchase a good or service does not make anyone a victim. The abuse of the property owner is the act of victimizing an otherwise free person by denying the property owner of an unalienable right.
You don't understand freedom or property rights. I'd suggest you do some studying on the subject. That might help you understand the issue.
Your remarks indicate that you might be just a tiny bit rusty in the theological area.
My rights come from God, not the federal government.
As for the silly neighbor argument about how one treat's one's neighbors, that only works if you start from the position that "gay marriage" is supportable. Which those who follow the Abrahamic religions and many of the non-Abrahamic religions do not.
And, it's not about my neighbors' feelings or wants, or mine for that matter. Some things are much bigger than our desires.
Yes, freedom of religion is a right. But, as with any right, the problems start when one person's right infringes on the rights of another. It's one thing for a baker to not practice homosexuality, it's quite another for that baker to arbitrarily impose his morality on the customers who seek the very services he advertises.So their expectation (I can't say I'm convinced it's a right) to buy ends where my religious rights begin. You can turn that around either way. The question is which takes precedence and why?
We are members of a community built on respect for the law and the rights of others (not just our selfish view of our own rights). Religious nihilism is contrary to the ORDERED liberty that is the hallmark of the American experiment.
You don't help your "argument" by such a display of ignorance. You have no inherent right to the law's protection in running a commercial business. You must adhere to the rules of the community consistent with the Constitution. You must maintain the proper permits, pay your taxes, and adhere to various other regulations. You're free as a citizen to lobby and vote for representatives that will lessen those regulatory burdens. But you cannot claim "religion" as an excuse to flout the community's rules.
Why shouldn't a customer expect the service that the business owner advertises that he provides? What's unreasonable to expect the business owner to live up to his word? Religion is a bullshit excuse for arbitrary discrimination in this situation.
it's quite another for that baker to arbitrarily impose his morality on the customers who seek the very services he advertises.
We are members of a community built on respect for the law and the rights of others (not just our selfish view of our own rights).
Religious nihilism is contrary to the ORDERED liberty that is the hallmark of the American experiment.
But you worship a false god, so you now have no rights at all.
See how dangerous that line of thinking can be?
If you are a graphics designer that advertises that he creates wedding invitations, then a customer has every right to expect you will create wedding invitations for customers that will walk through your door.
Engaging in a commercial business is a privilege, not a right.
That is an unmitigated falsehood.
Yes it is an unmitigated falsehood, but today when you have enough people who ascribe to the religion of 'you didn't build that' - it is inevitable that these same people will soon tell us that your private property is a privilege and not a right, and shortly following - your beliefs are a privilege, and not a right.
And then we become North Korea - thanks to people like Jazzhead.
The customer's an individual too, and he's the one being victimized by a storeowner who degrades him by refusing to provide an advertised service.
Are you advocating that rights are not natural? From the Declaration, "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,"
In other words, we are all entitled to the rights that are given to us, first naturally, and secondly by God. Those rights make us unique (separate) individuals and equally entitled to these natural rights.
I bolded some of the text.
Note that these rights are inherent to people, first by nature, then by G-d.
And never once do they ever speak of whose G-d that is.
Most of the language used is of 'the Creator', which all faiths have.
Read Blackstone's Law, which embodies the English Common Law derivative of ancient Celtic Law to better understand the terms.
I bolded some of the text.I disagree, that's a modern reading of an old text. Historic context makes it abundantly clear that which God they were referring to, just as when Whitfield or Jonathan Edwards used the term.
Note that these rights are inherent to people, first by nature, then by G-d.
And never once do they ever speak of whose G-d that is.
Most of the language used is of 'the Creator', which all faiths have.
Which has what to do with the Masonic views held by our Founders?It has to do with the nature of free markets, economies, and the foundation of civilization. Those would be important for establishing whether the government has the right to force people into slavery for someone else.
Which has what to do with the Masonic views held by our Founders?
It has to do with the nature of free markets, economies, and the foundation of civilization. Those would be important for establishing whether the government has the right to force people into slavery for someone else.
And this has what to do with the Masonic views held by our Founders?No, the question has to do with the rights you have over your property and labor hours. Masons have nothing to do with it and the first amendment hits it, I think, only tangentially. Why are you trying to change the discussion away from rights and selling to Masons. A bit fishy if you ask me. This old dog says it's smells like red herring.
Where is the tie-in to our Founding Fathers? They based their rights heavily on Masonic views and the Enlightenment.
Not the Celtic origins of English law.
Your post is a non sequitur.
That Masons (and deists) were present does not mitigate the bare fact that our founders and their documentation provide for a Christian moral ethic, and that by far and away, our founders were Christians.
And this has what to do with the Masonic views held by our Founders?
Where is the tie-in to our Founding Fathers? They based their rights heavily on Masonic views and the Enlightenment.
Not the Celtic origins of English law.
Your post is a non sequitur.
And that's where you make your fundamental mistake. Our Founding Fathers were very much influenced (or were actually) Masons. Deists, Christian in name only.
'Christian' morality was not used in their documents. A Universal morality, common to *ALL*, was at their core.
And this has what to do with the Masonic views held by our Founders?
Where is the tie-in to our Founding Fathers? They based their rights heavily on Masonic views and the Enlightenment.
Not the Celtic origins of English law.
Your post is a non sequitur.
And that's where you make your fundamental mistake. Our Founding Fathers were very much influenced (or were actually) Masons. Deists, Christian in name only.Pass the bread because the baloney just went buy. I've read a lot of stuff written by Patrick Henry, Benjamin Rush, George Washington (also a mason), and even Thomas Jefferson that are more Bible thumping Christianity than what is preached in a a lot of Churches today.
'Christian' morality was not used in their documents. A Universal morality, common to *ALL*, was at their core.
Then you have not read the Federalist papers.Or the Anti-Federalist papers they are even stronger in terms of personal arguing personal liberty.
Pass the bread because the baloney just went buy. I've read a lot of stuff written by Patrick Henry, Benjamin Rush, George Washington (also a mason), and even Thomas Jefferson that are more Bible thumping Christianity than what is preached in a a lot of Churches today.
However, unless Mason's approve of sodomy I don't see how this is at all relevant to the issue at hand. Maybe you could clarify?
This all stemmed from the post here:Maybe I'm dense here. How would does the Mason issue change what the rights of man are as recorded in the Constitution? Your going to have to spell it out.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,237004.msg1167069.html#msg1167069
Meanwhile that suggestion has been compared to "servitude", and "celebration of tyranny" at the point of "government guns", and the slippery slope that will lead to the end of our inalienable rights.
C'mon, folks, all I saying is stay true to your word.
You advertise wedding cakes, then bake wedding cakes. If you don't want to sell wedding cakes, then that's fine too.
Why is the right to ignore the community's quite reasonable rules so highly prized?
Why is the harm caused by arbitrary discrimination so blithely dismissed?
Could it be because the white, straight, male Christians among us have never suffered such discrimination in their lives?
And that's where you make your fundamental mistake. Our Founding Fathers were very much influenced (or were actually) Masons. Deists, Christian in name only.
'Christian' morality was not used in their documents. A Universal morality, common to *ALL*, was at their core.
I love the hysteria on this thread. For my suggestion that a shop owner follow the law and not discriminate regarding services he's advertised to provide, I've been called a pervert, a communist, and accused of being akin to Kim Jung-Il of North Korea. Meanwhile that suggestion has been compared to "servitude", and "celebration of tyranny" at the point of "government guns", and the slippery slope that will lead to the end of our inalienable rights.
C'mon, folks, all I saying is stay true to your word. You advertise wedding cakes, then bake wedding cakes. If you don't want to sell wedding cakes, then that's fine too. Why is the right to ignore the community's quite reasonable rules so highly prized? Why is the harm caused by arbitrary discrimination so blithely dismissed? Could it be because the white, straight, male Christians among us have never suffered such discrimination in their lives?
No such thing in history existed. There were few if any deists among the Founders, and saying their view of rights came from the Masons is a big tenuous logical leap.
C'mon, folks, all I saying is stay true to your word. You advertise wedding cakes, then bake wedding cakes.
Why is the right to ignore the community's quite reasonable rules so highly prized?
Why is the harm caused by arbitrary discrimination so blithely dismissed? Could it be because the white, straight, male Christians among us have never suffered such discrimination in their lives?
@HonestJohn is right - but the Masonic influence is largely sublimated (more or less secret). Their intent is more blatant if one understands occult and masonic symbolism - Study the Apotheosis of Washington if you need your hair curled.
Could it be because the white, straight, male Christians among us have never suffered such discrimination in their lives?
My grandparents were Masons. I could be a Mason if I chose. If I'd have lived in the 1700-1800s, I'd have joined.
Except that the law we've been discussing doesn't violate the First Amendment. Engaging in a commercial business is a privilege, not a right, and you are obliged to temper your religious fervor if it results in the arbitrary degradation of your customers.
I bolded some of the text.
Note that these rights are inherent to people, first by nature, then by G-d. In essence, the writers understood that people's fundamental nature require these rights.
And never once do they ever speak of whose G-d that is.
Most of the language used is of 'the Creator', which all faiths have.
So according to you straight white male Christians face no disapprobation or public scorn in our society?
Theres a real knee slapper.
Why is the harm caused by arbitrary discrimination so blithely dismissed? Could it be because the white, straight, male Christians among us have never suffered such discrimination in their lives?
Then you have not read the Federalist papers.
Sure commercial business is a privilege.
Usually missed in the commentary on this subject is that the business in question ( like the Christian bakers) are not refusing service to a type of people — they are refusing to be party to A TYPE OF MESSAGE. This is not debatable. When you put writing on a same-sex “wedding” cake, you’re crafting a message; if you place figurines (of two men in matrimony, for instance) on that cake, you’re erecting symbols relating that message. Note here that the Supreme Court has already ruled that “Symbolic Speech” — a legal term in U.S. law — is protected under the First Amendment; examples of such rulings would be that pertaining to flag-burning and the Tinker v. Des Moines case.
Neither have I. I keep trying, but I simply don't seem to be able to muster enough intellectual power to keep with it! Kudos to those of you that have!
I am still waiting for you to tell us the actual "harm" caused to the customer who could not buy a product or service from any other specific person.
Imagine you are the low bidder on a government contract and they give it to someone else whose bid is 5% more solely because they are a minority or used a minority as a front. It makes no sense that the government is allowed to discriminate rampantly while the rest of us are forced to serve the most obscene of things.
I love the hysteria on this thread. For my suggestion that a shop owner follow the law and not discriminate regarding services he's advertised to provide, I've been called a pervert, a communist, and accused of being akin to Kim Jung-Il of North Korea. Meanwhile that suggestion has been compared to "servitude", and "celebration of tyranny" at the point of "government guns", and the slippery slope that will lead to the end of our inalienable rights.
C'mon, folks, all I saying is stay true to your word. You advertise wedding cakes, then bake wedding cakes. If you don't want to sell wedding cakes, then that's fine too. Why is the right to ignore the community's quite reasonable rules so highly prized? Why is the harm caused by arbitrary discrimination so blithely dismissed? Could it be because the white, straight, male Christians among us have never suffered such discrimination in their lives?
Your position makes the wall of separation between Church and State into a bulldozer-blade with the State driving it to scrape the Church out of society: just redefine terms so that the Church has no space and the State is supreme. One court decision, and hey presto! What had thirty years prior been a generally held moral precept becomes "bigotry" and "discrimination".
I have thus far refrained from commenting on this thread, but since you are still at it days later, I think you should be reminded that your version depends on telling the story starting in the middle:
The story goes like this:
From time immemorial not only in Christian cultures, but the world over, marriage has involved a man and a woman being given social (and later religious and legal) sanction to have sex, have children, stay together to raise their children. In Christian societies it has been see as blessed by God, in light of various remarks of Jesus in Christian Scripture, the protection offered it in the Old Covenant Law ("Thou shalt not commit adultery"), and the like.
Governments chose to regulate the institution (which is older than any government) for the benefit of society (e.g. so the parentage of orphans could be more easily ascertained, to suppress child marriage,...) and to encourage it as a socially beneficial institution (e.g. by according married couples rights vis-a-vis inheritance, by favorable tax status).
While this was the state of affairs, pious Christians went into business to also support the institution by, for instance, providing art works (hand lettered invitations, decorated cakes,...) or providing venues for weddings.
The government on the plea that its regulation of marriage constituted marriage, changed the definition of marriage to include things which Christians regard not only as not blessed, but as sinful. Now, the rules of the game having been changed in mid-game, all the pious Christians who ran businesses in support of weddings when they were the formation and celebration of marriage as understood by Christian civilization for centuries prior to that decision are to be put out of business because you and your ilk want to equate wishing to provide services for weddings as traditionally understood, but not for celebrations of the newly-government-redefined notion of "marriage" when what is being celebrated is in traditional Christian understanding immoral, with Jim Crow.
Your position makes the wall of separation between Church and State into a bulldozer-blade with the State driving it to scrape the Church out of society: just redefine terms so that the Church has no space and the State is supreme. One court decision, and hey presto! What had thirty years prior been a generally held moral precept becomes "bigotry" and "discrimination".
Maybe I'm dense here. How would does the Mason issue change what the rights of man are as recorded in the Constitution? Your going to have to spell it out.
That different sects and denominations is the whole reason we have a first amendment...
People *WANT* secular marriage. Just defined by their religion.
If one wants to define marriage in religious terms, then it must be limited strictly to religion authorities. Not the secular, governmental authorities.
Are you then in agreement that our right to our own property is a natural right and that it is unalienable? It sounds like you agree with that position. If that is the case, then we are aligned that the decision as to how to use property is simply and only a decision to be made by the owner of that property. Any other position is a position supporting tyranny.
The rights of man are not exclusive to one person, that of the business owner. They apply to ALL, regardless of their religion.
And as soon as the business owner claims his 'right' to refuse service based on one of those natural rights (religion)...
... then one must consider the natural rights of all the parties involved.
No longer is it the sole discretion of the business owner.
Which brings us back to whether the expectation of the person seeking the service takes precedent over the right of the person being forced to perform the service? And why?
Now that we are able to realize that both parties have natural rights which cannot be infringed by the other, we can now stop arguing that the business owner has some special right to infringe on the customer's rights.No it's an expectation not a right. I haven't seen anywhere in the Constitutions that this is a right? On what do you base that this is a right to start with? It is a tacit agreement. As mentioned earlier not even written contracts are upheld in every case by the courts and unspoken or assumed agreement is even less binding.
So this line of arguing is moot.
So we turn to contract and advertising law. If a business advertises they sell something, then they must sell it.
Else we have false advertising.
So if a baker advertises that they sell wedding cakes, then they must sell wedding cakes to customers.
Anything else is false advertising.
No it's an expectation not a right. I haven't seen anywhere in the Constitutions that this is a right? On what do you base that this is a right to start with? It is a tacit agreement. As mentioned earlier not even written contracts are upheld in every case by the courts and unspoken or assumed agreement is even less binding.
Why does the customers expectation take precedent over the first amendment or the right I have to my property or my labor hours to use and employ at my discretion; the basis of a free exchange?
Otherwise rights are violated when I sell my truck and somebody calls me an hour later to buy it. Are rights violated if a photograph is already book on the weekend you want him? I can't think of any court cases where even blatant false advertising was considered a human rights violation, can you?
I will and do refuse to do business with anyone I please. To say that you have the right to force me to do business with you is ridiculous. Good luck with that.Kind of like the right to internet, cellphones, housing, and a $15 an hour job. A right that requires the government to steal from someone else is not a right. Real rights, endowed by our creator, do not require anyone to pay for them.
And now we're back to the natural rights argument. That somehow the business owners rights trump the customers.
They don't. Both are equally valid.
So this line of argument is bunkem.
And now we're back to the natural rights argument. That somehow the business owners rights trump the customers.Why is the expectation equally valid? Because I say so doesn't work on this kid, and it never did.
They don't. Both are equally valid.
So this line of argument is bunkem.
If I were to grant that they were equally valid, which they are not, why give the preference to the customer via government coercion?
So if a baker advertises that they sell wedding cakes, then they must sell wedding cakes to customers.
Anything else is false advertising.
Why is the expectation equally valid? Because I say so doesn't work on this kid, and it never did.
If I were to grant that they were equally valid, which they are not, why give the preference to the customer via government coercion?
If you view them as equally valid how do you propose to reconcile this? A coin toss?
Here is where the INTENT of the First Amendment applies.Very true. This issue really gets down to the fundamentals.
If for anything, this is the FIRST of all amendments because it was intended to protect free speech, free association and free exercise of religion ( that includes one's conscience ) in all spheres of life. It is not intended to limit this only to a church setting.
Unless the First Amendment protects even unpopular speech, its “protection” is a sham. After all, popular speech’s popularity is protection enough. Likewise, however, it’s also true that if the right to refuse to participate in speech doesn’t include the right to refuse to participate in popular speech, it is no right at all.
I've been called a pervert, a communist, and accused of being akin to Kim Jung-Il of North Korea. Meanwhile that suggestion has been compared to "servitude", and "celebration of tyranny" at the point of "government guns", and the slippery slope that will lead to the end of our inalienable rights.
You advertise wedding cakes, then bake wedding cakes.
If you don't want to sell wedding cakes, then that's fine too.
Why is the right to ignore the community's quite reasonable rules so highly prized?
Why is the harm caused by arbitrary discrimination so blithely dismissed?
Could it be because the white, straight, male Christians among us have never suffered such discrimination in their lives?
I took a peek at their website. They do beautiful work. The site says they specialize in creating invitations for weddings. That's what hold they themselves out to the general public as doing.
So what gives them the right to discriminate?
No, but you have the legal obligation to not arbitrarily discriminate. Ignore the law at your peril. God won't help you; you'll need to lawyer up.
By that logic...any store that displays "No shirt no shoes no service" should be sued for discrimination.:thumbsup:
How about this scenario, if "they", a same-sex couple want to buy gas at your gas station, you allow that, but as a baker may not care to bake them that cake. All of this can go either way.
The government on the plea that its regulation of marriage constituted marriage, changed the definition of marriage to include things which Christians regard not only as not blessed, but as sinful. Now, the rules of the game having been changed in mid-game, all the pious Christians who ran businesses in support of weddings when they were the formation and celebration of marriage as understood by Christian civilization for centuries prior to that decision are to be put out of business because you and your ilk want to equate wishing to provide services for weddings as traditionally understood, but not for celebrations of the newly-government-redefined notion of "marriage" when what is being celebrated is in traditional Christian understanding immoral, with Jim Crow.
Your position makes the wall of separation between Church and State into a bulldozer-blade with the State driving it to scrape the Church out of society: just redefine terms so that the Church has no space and the State is supreme. One court decision, and hey presto! What had thirty years prior been a generally held moral precept becomes "bigotry" and "discrimination".
Why should the rights of the shop owner trump the rights of the customer?
I think that's very well put. That's an effective argument. Perhaps the compromise is rather simple - just let the storeowner post a sign indicating he provides services for religious weddings only.
I think that's overdrawn. I'm confident that the courts will respect the rights of churches. The controversies will come with respect to actions by private citizens to deny service in public accommodations on the basis of religion. That's where the clash of rights noted by Honest John takes place. Why should the rights of the shop owner trump the rights of the customer? You may argue that they do, but the shop owner's injection of religion comes at the cost of the customer's dignity.
You may argue that they do, but the shop owner's injection of religion comes at the cost of the customer's dignity.
Business owner has the right to choose who they do business with. That's called free enterprise.
The community still sets the rules for the ordered conduct of commerce. Do you feel child labor laws are illegitimate? Laws that require a business to obtain variances and permits, and to not spill its crap into the river?
It is hardly unreasonable for the community to require that those who choose to trade with the public not arbitrarily discriminate.
It is completely unreasonable. You are trying to redefine discrimination to fit your views.
Using the logic I see being presented I should be able to walk into any business and demand that since I only have two dollars in my pocket, ANYTHING that store has for sale should only cost me $2.
If they don't sell to me at my price they are discriminating against me for being poor.
My dignity and all, ya know?
It's only fair right?
Like I said earlier...if the logic being employed on this bakery were applied more broadly...you and I should be able to walk into a McDonald's barefoot and shirtless and get served...and if we are refused...su MCDonald's Corp for discrimination.
The community still sets the rules for the ordered conduct of commerce. Do you feel child labor laws are illegitimate? Laws that require a business to obtain variances and permits, and to not spill its crap into the river?
It is hardly unreasonable for the community to require that those who choose to trade with the public not arbitrarily discriminate.
Using the logic I see being presented I should be able to walk into any business and demand that since I only have two dollars in my pocket, ANYTHING that store has for sale should only cost me $2.
If they don't sell to me at my price they are discriminating against me for being poor.
My dignity and all, ya know?
Why should the rights of the shop owner trump the rights of the customer? You may argue that they do, but the shop owner's injection of religion comes at the cost of the customer's dignity.
It is completely unreasonable. You are trying to redefine discrimination to fit your views.
Absolutely. Business can set their own standards for their operations. No shoes, no shirt, no service. It is not discriminating. Requiring a dress code or standard of conduct is no different. The customer does not get to demand how the business is run or the what services must be provided.
None of that is unlawful discrimination, because it is not arbitrary discrimination. Unlawful discrimination occurs when an advertised service is withheld because of who the customer is, not because of the behavior the customer exhibits or the demands the customer makes.
As I said above, the solution may well be quite simple - just have a wedding-related business state that it caters to religious marriages only. Civil marriage and religious marriage are not the same thing, and no church should be compelled to convey any spiritual significance to a civil marriage, or to solemnize same. Taking that concept into the realm of commerce, I think that all a baker or calligrapher or photographer needs to do is properly advise the public that its services are limited to the celebration of religious marriage.
This is a false claim. They will sell that customer the same products they sell any other customer. They won't sell a same-sex celebration cake to any customer, regardless of who they are.
None of that is unlawful discrimination, because it is not arbitrary discrimination. Unlawful discrimination occurs when an advertised service is withheld because of who the customer is, not because of the behavior the customer exhibits or the demands the customer makes.
Let 'em post a sign, in full view of the general public, that homosexuals are sinners and aren't welcome. And let their customers - gay and straight - decide whether to patronize the business of someone with such attitudes.
Unlawful discrimination occurs when an advertised service is withheld because of who the customer is, not because of the behavior the customer exhibits or the demands the customer makes.Unless you can name some manner of differentiating them from heteros biologically, homosexuality is entirely defined by behavior. You'll need to come up with another legal definition.
Unless you can name some manner of differentiating them from heteros biologically, homosexuality is entirely defined by behavior. You'll need to come up with another legal definition.
The community still sets the rules for the ordered conduct of commerce. Do you feel child labor laws are illegitimate? Laws that require a business to obtain variances and permits, and to not spill its crap into the river?Yes and no respectively. :whistle:
It is hardly unreasonable for the community to require that those who choose to trade with the public not arbitrarily discriminate.
None of that is unlawful discrimination, because it is not arbitrary discrimination. Unlawful discrimination occurs when an advertised service is withheld because of who the customer is, not because of the behavior the customer exhibits or the demands the customer makes.
As I said above, the solution may well be quite simple - just have a wedding-related business state that it caters to religious marriages only. Civil marriage and religious marriage are not the same thing, and no church should be compelled to convey any spiritual significance to a civil marriage, or to solemnize same. Taking that concept into the realm of commerce, I think that all a baker or calligrapher or photographer needs to do is properly advise the public that its services are limited to the celebration of religious marriage.
So now you have to post a sign for every instance you WON'T serve? How the hell does that work?Pretty sure I already posted that sign. :smokin: But hey maybe @Jazzhead missed it. Is this one good enough @Jazzhead ?
What's wrong with the simple and historical fix which is a sign that says:
"We retain the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason"
That it would need a sign is ridiculous enough.
Yeah, but that's not what they advertise. They advertise wedding cakes. The point as far as I am concerned is not to mislead the customer and then humiliate him/her when the advertised service is requested. These shopowners are hardly noble in their profession of religious principle. They want to make money from weddings. Let 'em post a sign, in full view of the general public, that homosexuals are sinners and aren't welcome. And let their customers - gay and straight - decide whether to patronize the business of someone with such attitudes.
If they define pedophilia and incest as weddings, are they now forced to include them?
Not so. Sexual orientation is something you don't choose. Did you choose to be straight? Could you have sexual feelings for a dude even if you tried?
Some homosexuals remain celibate. That is, I believe, what God demands. He makes 'em gay, and then punishes them with damnation if they act on their feelings. So they remain celibate.
Impulses aren't tangible. I might feel like stealing an item from a department store but I'm not a thief until I commit the act.If it can be 'proved' that alcoholics, drug addicts, pedophiles or god help us any other deviant behavior has a genetic component; do we have to cater to their desires because it's not their fault?
Homosexuality is a behavior. And no, its not God's fault.
YES! That is EXACTLY where all this crap goes with Jazzheads and their aggrieved pervert militants leading the charge. Look at his logic - look at his insistences. Pedophiles, Beastialitists, incest practioners can use the same exact arguments he is making to assert their behaviors deserve holy matrimony status with legal affirmation and will be looking to sue and run out of business anyone who refuses to cater to their demands for service to celebrate those perversions.
If it can be 'proved' that alcoholics, drug addicts, pedophiles or god help us any other deviant behavior has a genetic component; do we have to cater to their desires because it's not their fault?
We are all born sinners and we all have different struggles nobody gets a free pass. We all need forgiveness, I was born that way isn't going to help much on judgement day.
Yeah, but that's not what they advertise. They advertise wedding cakes.
The point as far as I am concerned is not to mislead the customer and then humiliate him/her when the advertised service is requested.
These shopowners are hardly noble in their profession of religious principle.
Let 'em post a sign, in full view of the general public, that homosexuals are sinners and aren't welcome.
Unfortunately, all that Jazzhead is saying fits into progressivsm,
Be for abortions in a rather callous way, be for infertile marriages, call Trump a fascist, stand up for Muslims, talks about others forcing religious beliefs on others. This seems a lot the way the GLBT voting bloc thinks.
But that does not justify the government's abridgment of liberty, especially in such a fundamental matter as this.
JH seems to enjoy attacking the values of others, perhaps one should start dredging up the information on the gay lifestyle being unhealthy and things like that; because as of now, this is very on- sided.
Progressives:
For gay marriage, check
For abortion, check
Sympathetic to Muslims, check.
JH seems to enjoy attacking the values of others, perhaps one should start dredging up the information on the gay lifestyle being unhealthy and things like that; because as of now, this is very on- sided.
Progressives:
For gay marriage, check
For abortion, check
Sympathetic to Muslims, check.
It seems foolish in a debate of whose liberty and fundamental rights warrant the protection by government, to try and make it a personal attack on those with a different opinion. @Jazzhead and I have different perspectives in these discussions but both of us are arguing for the protection of others.
JH seems to enjoy attacking the values of others, perhaps one should start dredging up the information on the gay lifestyle being unhealthy and things like that; because as of now, this is very on- sided.
Progressives:
For gay marriage, check
For abortion, check
Sympathetic to Muslims, check.
It seems foolish in a debate of whose liberty and fundamental rights warrant the protection by government, to try and make it a personal attack on those with a different opinion. @Jazzhead and I have different perspectives in these discussions but both of us are arguing for the protection of others.
Thanks, thackney. I appreciate it.
It seems foolish in a debate of whose liberty and fundamental rights warrant the protection by government, to try and make it a personal attack on those with a different opinion. @Jazzhead and I have different perspectives in these discussions but both of us are arguing for the protection of others.
I appreciate the civil discussion. If we all agree on everything, there is little reason for a forum.
If I cannot defend my position, I may not really understand the issue. I've had my mind changed in similar situations.
Pro-Islam, attacking Christian values, telling others they are forcing beliefs on others and doing like so many of the GLTB lobby do, defend abortions because those people sure don't have it in them to do things, sometimes one has to call a spade a spade.
It seems foolish in a debate of whose liberty and fundamental rights warrant the protection by government, to try and make it a personal attack on those with a different opinion. @Jazzhead and I have different perspectives in these discussions but both of us are arguing for the protection of others.
Gays brought in the HIV virus and spread it, killing thousands in the US due to unsafe sex pra
Somehow I missed that civility when the poster calls the nominee of the Republican Party a Fascist and never defended that as well.
I appreciate the civil discussion. If we all agree on everything, there is little reason for a forum.
If I cannot defend my position, I may not really understand the issue. I've had my mind changed in similar situations.
Are you the moderator? If that was a personal attack report it.
Otherwise, just saying that someone's views repeatedly seem to lean left, democratics or progressive does not seem to be in error especially when that person seemed to bring up their abortion views as well.
Supreme Court upheld Gay Marriage and made abortion a right in 1973, okay.
But it also upheld Slavery, if one leans on the SCOTUS as the ultimate law, then it works both ways.
Of course, this assails one argument so was totally ignored because, yes, of course, one is against slavery.
Bringing past arguments into new topics never seems helpful to a discussion forum. My 2¢
Some forums ban the practice. It shuts down the discussion, which was the point of the forum.
The attempt to make this about slavery seems like a thread hijack, also only my 2¢
Bringing past arguments into new topics never seems helpful to a discussion forum. My 2¢
Some forums ban the practice. It shuts down the discussion, which was the point of the forum.
The attempt to make this about slavery seems like a thread hijack, also only my 2¢
Then why are you talking about abortion? Because JH brought it up? If anyone is hijacking a thread, you all seemed to do it first. My 2 cents.
He's ok, he just thinks a little differently. At least he's thinking which is better than the progressives.
Let's back off of the caffeine for now, and stick to the topic of this thread.where
Perhaps the compromise is rather simple - just let the storeowner post a sign indicating he provides services for religious weddings only.
I want nothing to do with statist progressivism. What I argue for is individual liberty. Some issues, like this one, are difficult because one person's liberty (the consumer) conflicts with another's (the shop owner). I've suggested at several places what I think are reasonable ways to resolve the conflict. Why not allow a wedding business to state to the public that it provides services to celebrate religious marriages only?
Obviously, you've noticed that I've been posting recently on an abortion thread as well. But I'm no "abortion defender", as I've been accused of over there. I think abortion is morally wrong, as do most here. But that's not the issue - the issue is whether abortions should be discouraged and reduced by effective means that don't require the police power of the state. A woman has the right to decide whether to bear a child - I can think of nothing more fundamental to a woman's liberty. Freedom has consequences - people make bad or even immoral choices. But that does not justify the government's abridgment of liberty, especially in such a fundamental matter as this.
Better yet, we could simplify this and by requiring them to post a red cross on their storefront. Heck, we could do this for all different religious business owners, red crosses, yellow stars, and on and on....
Wait, that sounds familiar!
My labor is my body and my dominion, not the states and not societies'. I will not labor for the benefit of evil and I do not have to.
Telling me to quit working if I refuse is fascist; plain and bald-faced evil. Working is our right, their personal perversion is not.
You have no understanding of the meaning of Liberty. I suggest you find some good sources and learn more about the topic. In fact, in the above you claim that a consumer's liberty is harmed by a business (property owner) that is willing to voluntarily enter an economic relationship. Yet, at the same time you fail to recognize the liberty of an unborn child and claim that it is paramount to a woman's liberty to murder another human being.
Your understanding of liberty could not be more incorrect.
This is exactly what we tell people if they would for a business whose message the employee finds evil. Such as a liberal employee of Hobby Lobby or Chik-Fil-A.
Just sayin'.
A public accommodation
"a public accomodation".
I reject the term.
Consumers have rights, business owners have rights. Here they appear to conflict and you insist on a legal resolution. Well, I've proposed one, that accommodates both.
Can you explain to us what it is about the above term you object to?
I reject the term because it allows government to assume the role of controlling all private businesses, something that goes against the whole notion of a free economy.
No, you didn't. Not a realistic one. The legal resolution is to recognize that the free exchange of goods in the marketplace is something the government should not be a party to. The government is not the CEO of all businesses (so-called "public accommodation" a term made up to justify government control of private enterprise and should be sent to the ash heap of history) which your fascist notions would amount to.
your fascist notions
Yeah, but that's not what they advertise. They advertise wedding cakes. The point as far as I am concerned is not to mislead the customer and then humiliate him/her when the advertised service is requested. These shopowners are hardly noble in their profession of religious principle. They want to make money from weddings. Let 'em post a sign, in full view of the general public, that homosexuals are sinners and aren't welcome. And let their customers - gay and straight - decide whether to patronize the business of someone with such attitudes.
But surely there are such things as public accomodations.... What would qualify as such then?
If someone really wanted to expose the hypocrisy of these kind of kerfuffles and expose them for the paucity stunt they are...a hetero couple should go to a bakery in a gay area and request a wedding cake complete with bible versus about marriage between a man and woman...and when the baker refuses..sue them on the basis of discrimination.
Now that is a reasonable position. Alas, the Solons of Phoenix, AZ are still likely to apply the weight of their newly promulgated ordinance against businesses that seek to only provide services for Christian weddings by taking measures you now suggest as meeting your objections.
Now that is a reasonable position. Alas, the Solons of Phoenix, AZ are still likely to apply the weight of their newly promulgated ordinance against businesses that seek to only provide services for Christian weddings by taking measures you now suggest as meeting your objections.
The same government attorney that sued the Colorado baker (which started this crap) admitted he would not file the same case against a Muslim or gay baker.
And that right there tells you everything you need to know about why these cases are filed.
What part of working for Hobby Lobby or Chik-fil-a would be a problem for aliberalleftist employee? The paycheck? The not working on Sunday? What?
The US was found on Judeo-Christian principles, we can't let the Secular Humanists force their beliefs on us, they are anti-Christian and sympathize with other religious systems, this is the way of the left-wing.
For a leftist, Chik-Fil-A's support of anti-gay organizations and Hobby Lobby's refusal to provide the contraception in their health care package as mandated by Obamacare.
We say, "Tough cookies. Don't like it? Get another job!"
---
By doing so, we allow that to be levied against us.
Consumers have rights,
I apologize to all for the formatting issue. I tried, yet clearly am not an expert poster yet...I hope that the quote's are clear vs. my responses to the quoted items.
I figured it out
@geronl Whew, thanks. I still don't understand how to do what I was trying to do. I'm probably too lazy to research it right now....
Have a very nice weekend.
I want nothing to do with statist progressivism.
What I argue for is individual liberty.
Why not allow a wedding business to state to the public that it provides services to celebrate religious marriages only?
the issue is whether abortions should be discouraged and reduced by effective means that don't require the police power of the state. A woman has the right to decide whether to bear a child - I can think of nothing more fundamental to a woman's liberty. Freedom has consequences - people make bad or even immoral choices. But that does not justify the government's abridgment of liberty, especially in such a fundamental matter as this.
What Two Lesbian Printers Teach Us About Conscience Rights
Jim Campbell
Posted: Dec 17, 2016
People all too often assume the worse in others whose views and beliefs are different from their own. We regularly see this when discussing whether a business professional may decline to create speech that conflicts with his deeply held convictions. “That person refused to do what?” many are quick to exclaim. “He can’t discriminate like that!”
But let’s not be so quick to jump to conclusions. It’s better to consider the facts, and think about what we would do if the situation were reversed, before labeling our neighbors as “bigots” or “discriminators.”
Kathy Trautvetter and Diane DiGeloromo, two lesbians who own a print shop in New Jersey, provide a great example of this. They have publicly voiced their support for Hands On Originals and its managing owner, Blaine Adamson, after Hands On Originals found itself in the crosshairs for declining to print shirts promoting a gay pride festival in Lexington, Kentucky. Kathy and Diane considered the facts, imagined how they would feel if the tables were turned, and concluded that Blaine deserves their support rather than their scorn. We can all learn a thing or two from Kathy and Diane.
Yes it’s true—Blaine declined to print messages on a shirt promoting the Lexington Pride Festival. But that doesn’t mean he engaged in unlawful discrimination. I recently had the privilege of explaining this to three judges on the Kentucky Court of Appeals.
The law forbids Blaine from turning away customers because they are members of a protected class, but it doesn’t prohibit him from declining to print a message because he disagrees with the content of what it says....
http://townhall.com/columnists/jimcampbell/2016/12/17/what-two-lesbian-printers-teach-us-about-conscience-rights-n2260757
Fascinating article. Clears up a lot of things we were arguing about here.
And I believe it's the 5th circuit that recently upheld that service could be denied based on messaging.
You are arguing for the mark of the beast. You are arguing for moral anarchy. You are arguing that businesses comply with an edict to celebrate a perverted behavior, or be fined or run out of business.
Personal liberty means I retain my right to discriminate against your perverted behavior and not create an item that will be used to celebrate said perversion, which means I condone and celebrate said behavior by my efforts that I am willing to sell to those practicing it.
Because as I have stated before - and you IGNORED IT - the moment a business advertises they only do Christian weddings, they will be deliberately targeted by the Gay Mafia and their Enforcers in government to punish that business and make a public spectacle for the purposes of creating a hostile environment to any Christian business that dares to resist the agenda of pushing perversion.
The fact you cite abortion to somehow deflect your pro-tyranny stance for the homo agenda is beyond stupid and silly.
A cake to celebrate the union of a loving couple as the mark of the beast? If you say so.
And all I thought was I was arguing for is that if you say you provide a service, then you should stay true to your word.
If you say so. Again, it's a cake - the very cake you advertise to provide.
Calm down. I don't know any members of the "gay mafia".
But I do know friends, relatives and colleagues who have been in committed relationships, true to each other, for longer than you've likely been married to your spouse.
Yes, I know - God blesses your relationship, and condemns theirs.
But forgive me for sticking up for my friends, and their right to be treated fairly and with dignity and respect. Even by Christians.
If what I contribute is "beyond stupid and silly", then I'll just say Merry Christmas and be gone.
Church A = Dancing is sinful, cites Bible verses
Church B = Dancing is okay, cites Bible verses
Other citizens do not have a specific church, still others do not believe in religion
Where does our Constitution specify WHICH CHURCH gets to make rules for everybody?
Church A = Dancing is sinful, cites Bible verses
Church B = Dancing is okay, cites Bible verses
Other citizens do not have a specific church, still others do not believe in religion
Where does our Constitution specify WHICH CHURCH gets to make rules for everybody?
You might try this:
http://townhall.com/columnists/jimcampbell/2016/12/17/what-two-lesbian-printers-teach-us-about-conscience-rights-n2260757
Clears up a lot of the issues.
Thanks. It does NOT address the frequent citation of Bible verses as the guiding evidence in forum discussions, however.
Where does our Constitution specify WHICH CHURCH gets to make rules for everybody?
Church A = Dancing is sinful, cites Bible verses
Church B = Dancing is okay, cites Bible verses
Other citizens do not have a specific church, still others do not believe in religion
Where does our Constitution specify WHICH CHURCH gets to make rules for everybody?