Here it comes again: Arizona Christian Artists May Face Jail Time for Refusing to Service Gay Wedding

[Free Vulcan]

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.

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.

[Free Vulcan]

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.

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.

[Sanguine]

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.

Well put!

[geronl]

"My children are hosting a drug-fueled orgy, your going to cater it!"

"No way"

"Well, you can't deny me.... bwahahaha"

[geronl]

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

[Free Vulcan]

but this isn't enough for the homofacists

True, but I think Christians would win in court. Let the homofascists gnash and gnaw.

[HonestJohn]

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.

No gay couple asks for a gay-themed cake for a wedding.

[geronl]

True, but I think Christians would win in court. Let the homofascists gnash and gnaw.

They didn't win. The other side will shop for  friendly judge. You know that Gays and Muslims are not held to these rules.

[HonestJohn]

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.

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.

[Sanguine]

No gay couple asks for a gay-themed cake for a wedding.

Of course they do!  What on earth do you mean?

[Free Vulcan]

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.

Sorry bud, that's your liberal absolutist religious belief that belongs in a church, not in public policy.

Businesses do not exist as the enforcer of govt mandated religious morality, often concocted by unelected boards pushing political agendas for pet special interest groups to create completely one sided, and unequal status under the law.

[geronl]

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

[HonestJohn]

Unless they are gays and muslims and refuse to make a Christian cake, then it's fine and dandy

Two things:

1. Cakes have a religion?
2. No, it would not be fine.  Those wronged in such a situation could sue and would win.

[Jazzhead]

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.

[roamer_1]

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.

[Sanguine]

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.

[Jazzhead]

You think is "God loves homosexuals" is unduly provocative, but making a cake for a homosexual "wedding" isn't?  Interesting priorities there.

How is baking a wedding cake provocative if that's what you advertise you're in business to provide?   I'm trying to be reasonable here,  by saying that a baker can decline to place an obscene or political message on a cake.   But no,  you seem to insist that a baker can simply refuse service to homosexuals, and claim "religion" as the excuse?   Well, then, fine - and I hope that baker gets sued up his bigoted wazoo.       

[roamer_1]

   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.

[Jazzhead]

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? 

[roamer_1]

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?

Inherent in any free exchange is the 'free' part. I gave no one my word.

If I endeavor to sell a car part on craigslist, and I meet in some parking lot with the prospective buyer, the deal is not done until the money changes hands... Up until then, the item is mine, and I can walk off for ANY reason I choose.

It is no different just because I have bricks and mortar.

[goatprairie]

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.
That is the question...what should merchants be obliged to put on their wares to please the public? Anything and everything if I agree with your arguments. And that would also include goods sold to "hate" groups or sexually or scatologically-themed goods to other people.

[INVAR]

but this isn't enough for the homofacists

No, it isn't and never will be.

Everything you need to know about that mindset and mob mentality is found in Genesis 19.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

@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.

[HonestJohn]

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.

[roamer_1]

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.

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.