What's Inside President Trump's New Religious Freedom Executive Order

[Hoodat]

But you cannot refuse to offer the same product/service you generally provide to one customer as opposed to another on the basis of a proscribed arbitrary characteristic.

The product/service being offered here is a cake celebrating the marriage covenant between one man and one woman.  That product/service is not being refused to anyone.  But then you knew that already.

[Sanguine]

  

[Silver Pines]

If people who do not dress in a certain manner were a protected class under the law, then "yes" those shop owners would be guilty of discrimination.  But as of today, the sign can stay without risk of penalty.

@Right_in_Virginia

This is why I noted that discrimination has an original meaning which has been obscured, and it doesn't involve politically protected groups of people. 
 
 
Definition of discriminate
discriminated; discriminating

transitive verb

1 a : to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features of
Depth perception may be defined as the ability to appreciate or discriminate the third dimension … —H. G. Armstrong

b : distinguish, differentiate discriminate hundreds of colors

2 : to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences : to recognize or identify as separate and distinct discriminate right from wrong; especially : to distinguish from another like object discriminate the individual voices in the choir

intransitive verb

1 a : to make a distinction discriminate among historical sources discriminates between literary fiction and popular fiction

b : to use good judgment

Shop owners who put up the "no service" sign are making a distinction between people who are appropriately dressed, as distinguished by the owners.  Bakeries are making a distinction between gays who want any form of baked goods and a wedding cake.  In both situations, customers might be turned away, but they can easily find service elsewhere.

[Right_in_Virginia]

@Right_in_Virginia

This is why I noted that discrimination has an original meaning which has been obscured, and it doesn't involve politically protected groups of people.   

Oh, okay.  Thanks.  I didn't "get" this from your original post.

[Silver Pines]

 

@Sanguine


 

[Sanguine]

@Sanguine

LOL.   No, I meant the same old same old argument, ad nauseum, delivered by the same characters, who were wrong to start with and are consistently so.  I don't comment on some threads because I know how the argument is going to go and I don't want to get pinged back to the same tired old stuff, but I slipped up and did comment on this one.  That is my regret.   

[truth_seeker]

What if an outdoor garden furniture rental agency, refused to provide goods and services, for a same sex event?

What if a food & beverage catering company, refused to provide goods and services for a same sex event?

What if an Uber driver arrived at a same sex event, but refuses rides to attendees?

The lists go on and on, for goods and services in our society. Singling out the cake example, and claiming it is a special, exception is very hard to demonstrate.

[roamer_1]

What if an outdoor garden furniture rental agency, refused to provide goods and services, for a same sex event?

Find another vendor.

What if a food & beverage catering company, refused to provide goods and services for a same sex event?

Find another vendor.

What if an Uber driver arrived at a same sex event, but refuses rides to attendees?

Find another vendor.

The lists go on and on, for goods and services in our society. Singling out the cake example, and claiming it is a special, exception is very hard to demonstrate.

It isn't a special exception. Find another friggin vendor that wants to cater to your needs. Using government under the color of law to impose your standards is destructive to liberty and to private property (the very hinge of liberty itself).

[truth_seeker]

Find another vendor.

Find another vendor.

Find another vendor.

It isn't a special exception. Find another friggin vendor that wants to cater to your needs. Using government under the color of law to impose your standards is destructive to liberty and to private property (the very hinge of liberty itself).

I believe in most of the US, as much as you dislike it, a vendor refusing to provide services under those circumstances will be highly exposed legally.

Here is wording from Montana, regarding housing.

"In Montana, fair housing means communities are open and welcoming, free from housing discrimination and hostility. It means that each one of us, regardless of race, color, religion, creed, age, national origin, sex, familial status, and mental or physical disability, has access to neighborhoods of opportunity, where our children can attend quality schools, our environment allows us to be healthy, and economic opportunities and self-sufficiency can grow."

http://housing.mt.gov/fairhousing
 

[roamer_1]

I believe in most of the US, as much as you dislike it, a vendor refusing to provide services under those circumstances will be highly exposed legally.

Here is wording from Montana, regarding housing. [...]

I don't care.

Anything that imposes upon a private citizen or entity under the color of law, removing the God-given right to discriminate (discernment), according to and however that person sees fit, is an attack on freedom of association, freedom of speech,  private property, and ownership generally - not to mention attacking (as in this case) freedom of religion.

Your argument is AGAINST liberty, as is the law you use to defend your position.

[truth_seeker]

I don't care.

Anything that imposes upon a private citizen or entity under the color of law, removing the God-given right to discriminate (discernment), according to and however that person sees fit, is an attack on freedom of association, freedom of speech,  private property, and ownership generally - not to mention attacking (as in this case) freedom of religion.

Your argument is AGAINST liberty, as is the law you use to defend your position.

I am not "arguing" for or against anything.

I am simply stating reality, which I believe is the case, across the country, federal and states.

In my profession, I don't get to make or interpret these rules. Whether I like them or agree with them, does not matter.

[roamer_1]

I am not "arguing" for or against anything.

I am simply stating reality, which I believe is the case, across the country, federal and states.

In my profession, I don't get to make or interpret these rules. Whether I like them or agree with them, does not matter.

And so it goes, free-wheeling into socialism. The liberty you get is the liberty you are willing to fight for.

[Hoodat]

I believe in most of the US, as much as you dislike it, a vendor refusing to provide services under those circumstances will be highly exposed legally.

They will be exposed economically.  As Ben Shapiro put it, it should be perfectly legal for a business to refuse him service because he is Jewish.  Because any business that does that will suffer economically through loss of business.  And he would be better off knowing that he wasn't contributing economically to a bigot.

Here is wording from Montana, regarding housing.  .  .

Hold on just a minute.  Unlike the request for the baker to 'create' something new, we aren't talking about a housing provider being forced to 'create' housing for a same-sex couple.  Your example is in regard to something that already exists - in this case a unit of unoccupied rental housing.  This is not at all the case with the baker.  In fact, the baker did indeed offer to sell any existing goods he had to the customer.  That is no different from a housing vendor renting currently unoccupied rental property to that same customer.

But since you want to talk about housing, here is another rabbit hole for you.  What is your opinion of a landlord who refuses to rent to a man/woman couple who are not married?  Is that legal?  What about in a State where cohabitation is illegal?

[Hoodat]

In my profession, I don't get to make or interpret these rules. Whether I like them or agree with them, does not matter.

Assuming you are in Montana, the rules are clear.  They have been enacted into law by the legislature.  And they are available in writing for all to see.  And in those rules, there is no provision saying that a landlord must create from scratch an apartment for anyone to live in.  Just as in Colorado, there is no provision in Colorado law that says a baker must create cakes for same-sex weddings regardless of sexual preference.

Don't get me wrong here.  I hate discrimination with a passion.  I have been in a number of situations where I was asked to engage in business transactions on behalf of African-American friends because they feared they wouldn't be treated the same.  And I was glad to do it.  But the key here is that it was about personally helping those individuals getting what they needed, and not about turning it into some giant civil rights case over a cigarette machine, a boat sale, or a food order.  Yes, the rules should be the same for everyone.  And in the Colorado case, the rules were followed.  The only discrimination in that case involved the product requested, and not the individual making the request.

[txradioguy]

But you cannot refuse to offer the same product/service you generally provide to one customer as opposed to another on the basis of a proscribed arbitrary characteristic.

Unless the person is wearing a MAGA then you argue the exact opposite of what you just said above.

[roamer_1]

Don't get me wrong here.  I hate discrimination with a passion. 

Depends upon the discrimination applied, but I will generally agree.

But even in that, a people free to discern as they see fit necessarily requires allowing for wrongful discernment. As an example, I have nothing in common with Aryans... but they have the right to their thoughts, and they have a right to associate and assemble.

Would I rent a house to  one? Nope. Nor a doper, nor a sexual deviant. Not good having any of that around kids... and I would rather create a family environment, as that assures a better class of folks.

[LauraTXNM]

I am not making that claim. I am pointing out that equal rights, non-discrimination in housing have been around for a long, long time--with little fanfare.

There has apparently arisen a conflict, between "conservatism," of a libertarian variety, and "conservatism," of the Fundamentalist Christian variety.

I am curious how this plays out in real estate, in Fundamentalist communities? Do real estate agents/brokers tell homos to go elsewhere--that their lifestyles are abhorent, and they do not desire to provide them advertised services?

Or do the service providers attract/retain individuals that can separate their church lives, from their chosen professions, as regulated the the state and federal govts.?

As a WWII combat veteran, I know my builder father enjoyed custom design for disabled people, including vets. He incorprated elements, in design options for normally abled families, too. Lower breakfast bar heights, worked well with children, to cite an exmple from long ago.

I believe what I am talking about applies to many professions. I am not a lawyer, but common sense suggests that field would not dondone withholding service, on the basis or race, religion, sexual preference.

@truth_seeker  I really enjoyed reading your post. 

[LauraTXNM]

The product/service being offered here is a cake celebrating the marriage covenant between one man and one woman.  That product/service is not being refused to anyone.  But then you knew that already.

@Hoodat  I think I missed something.  Did the baker's menu list a "heterosexual wedding cake"?

[Hoodat]

@Hoodat  I think I missed something.  Did the baker's menu list a "heterosexual wedding cake"?

@LauraTXNM

Cakes are asexual.

[Silver Pines]

LOL.   No, I meant the same old same old argument, ad nauseum, delivered by the same characters, who were wrong to start with and are consistently so.  I don't comment on some threads because I know how the argument is going to go and I don't want to get pinged back to the same tired old stuff, but I slipped up and did comment on this one.  That is my regret.   

@Sanguine

Lol, I know.  I got what you meant.  i'm not going to lie and say I'm not guilty of doing just that sometimes. 

[LauraTXNM]

@LauraTXNM

Cakes are asexual.

So if a wedding cake is a wedding cake is a wedding cake, the baker wasn't explicit enough, probably because he knew he'd get sued.  It shouldn't matter who someone is marrying, even if it's a tree or a bridge.  If this man sells wedding cakes, that includes to everybody who wants one of his designs.  Unless he's too "busy" and booked that weekend, or only works with specific churches or venues.

[Gefn]

Bookmark

P.S.  I like Cake. I like eclairs better @Cyber Liberty

[txradioguy]

So if a wedding cake is a wedding cake is a wedding cake, the baker wasn't explicit enough, probably because he knew he'd get sued.  It shouldn't matter who someone is marrying, even if it's a tree or a bridge.  If this man sells wedding cakes, that includes to everybody who wants one of his designs.  Unless he's too "busy" and booked that weekend, or only works with specific churches or venues.

IIRC in all of the wedding cake cases...the baker was targeted purposely by the gay community in that particular area.

In each case it's been proven the people suing had other bakeries they could have gone to that were perfectly willing to bake the cake...but those were bypassed and the bakery owened by a Christian owner was targeted and then sued.

[Jazzhead]

IIRC in all of the wedding cake cases...the baker was targeted purposely by the gay community in that particular area.

There's no proof of that, but even if there were, so what?   Are Christians exempt from the requirements of the law?   And forgive me if I'm less than alarmed at the alleged "targeting".   Most shopowners love to be "targeted" by paying customers!   

[txradioguy]

There's no proof of that, but even if there were, so what?   Are Christians exempt from the requirements of the law?   And forgive me if I'm less than alarmed at the alleged "targeting".   Most shopowners love to be "targeted" by paying customers!   

There IS proof of it. It came out in the depositions.

It's been linked to on the cake threads in the past. 

No shop owner wants to be targeted by people whose sole intent is to either force them to convert or be run out of business.

The only people that cheer and support crap like that is you.