Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
ReplyThose bakers should have baked that stupid cake and put ground up glass in it. Or strychnine.
No Hossfly that's illegal
the bakers should have either
1. contracted the work out to other subcontractors whose beliefs wouldn't be violated
2. required all customers and clients to sign waivers in advance agreeing to
consensus and mediation to resolve any disputes, or else agreeing not to do business together if such conflicts cannot be resolved by consensus between both parties (similar to an arbitration waiver, but citing mediation and conflict resolution to avoid legal costs)
Wouldn’t “1” have ended with the same result?
If the couple didn’t know about the subcontract?
Pop23 by same result, do you mean the customers still suing
or do you mean they would still get the cake they want without the conflict obstructing it?
Either way is possible
a. the customers still could have sued if the business said those
remarks they considered harassment or discrimination
b. but as long as the business tried to accommodate the customers
I doubt any lawsuit would go through. For example if I only sew
wedding dresses, and some customer asks me can I also sew
the Tux for the groom or best man. I could say sorry I don't do Tuxes,
but I can hire out that work to someone who can and add it in if you'd like.
So that isn't refusing the business, but hiring subcontractors to do specialized work
that the regular business doesn't do.
What went wrong here, in addition to failing at public accommodation,
is the business owner made those remarks.
I know someone who said something sexist about not hiring women
at the job site because it distracts the men on the job. That's discriminatory to say that.
You have to find a legal way to select the workers you want or don't want on the job,
but can't state something that violates laws or policies.
So that's why I recommend option 2:
From the very start, require customers to sign arbitration or mediation waivers
in case of disputes (regardless of reason) to avoid legal action or costs,
and watch your language. Any dispute that you claim warrants as unresolved
and grounds for terminating business relation could be claimed, but I would
avoid stating any reasons like the ones above relating to sexist or other beliefs.
All businesses should be advised how to handle disputes to avoid lawsuits.
And have the waivers and documents drawn up by lawyers to make sure this is sound.
Online services have arbitration clauses that users sign onto when registering.
So if that can be done legally, there should be a way to put this in writing for
businesses to sign in advance with any customers before conducting business together as well!
It it is a freedom of religion issue. That’s exactly what this is. And that’s what Congress is expressly told what not to do in the 1st A. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t extend to other sincerely held beliefs, but in this scenario it’s absolutely a freedom of religion issueI never said it didn’t...you seem to be in an argument with yourself. I even used the example of atheist should not be forced to swear on a bible. But usually religious people are the ones with these types of sincerely held beliefs that the rest of society may not hold. That doesn’t exclude non religious beliefs or motivations.I’ve never said that. What a crock of shit straw man argument. I even said, as long as your beliefs do not harm or kill people, government cannot force you to violate those beliefs. You have a right to a gay marriage, I or whoever else also have a right not to be forced to participate or serve in that ceremony.EVERYBODY DISCRIMINATES, in one form or the other, even self proclaimed nihilists. An overwhelming majority of society DISCRIMINATES against theft. Nobody wants to be stolen from. However there are certain types of theft that some justify. Take for example of someone stealing a can of soup at the store to feed their starving family. Let’s apply that to a larger scale, how about using government to disproportionately tax the rich to give to the poor? Many people justify that as fair. There are certain sects of the population who think that if you were to leave your door unlocked or you car unlocked with valuables out in the open for everyone to see, you deserve to get stolen from.
What the first amendment does is it gives the individual the power over the government, to choose, follow, and practice/excercise what they believe, as long as that doesn’t involve hurting or stealing from others. A Jew cannot be forced to eat pork, a Muslim cannot be limited to prayer whithin their home, an atheist cannot be required to vow on a bible, or “swear to god.” Just because YOU do not like or agree with these practices, doesn’t mean YOU can use government to force people to violate these practices.
The BOR is the SUPREME law of the land. I will post the first amendment again. I’m sorry you don’t like it, and want to force your beliefs onto those you accuse of forcing their beliefs on others...but be consistent. If you’re not consistent, YOURE GIVING GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO DISCRIMINATE. Making these bakers bake a cake for a ceremony they are religiously opposed to IS DISCRIMINATION. What you are saying is that their beliefs matter less than those of the lesbian couple, that they offered other baking products not dealing with a gay marriage, and the couple who could’ve went to any other baker. In fact their beliefs matter so much more less, that government is not only going to force the cake to baked, but force the bakers to pay 135,000$ because of how much we discriminate against their beliefs...people have a right to their beliefs, and should be able to exercise those beliefs as long as they are not hurting or stealing from others.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
This is a clear violation of the first amendment. You cannot cherry pick the parts of the first amendment you like and ignore the ones you don’t like...THAT IS OPPOSITE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH, what that is, is “I only want to hear/believe/practice what I like, and government should only allow that.” That’s fascism folks. Fascism is censorship and the coherision and forcing of beliefs, anti fascism is freedom of speech and the tolerance of views that you disagree with.
If the law justly applies to the public at large, even if it impedes some specific religious practice, the First Amendment doesn't mean that anyone with a conflicting religious belief can just ignore it. The First was never meant to give religious people special privileges. It's not a "get out of jail free" card. If your religion condones human sacrifice, it doesn't mean you can ignore laws against murder.
The question is whether the law justly applies to the public at large. Should anyone be required to serve someone else against their will, regardless of their reason for refusing? I would answer with an emphatic "No!".
AND NO YOU CANNOT IMPEDE A SPECIFIC RELIGOUS PRACTICE AS STATED BY THE FIRST in the very clear way that “CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW, respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Again this is the first amendment in the BOR, highest law of the land, specifically and very clearly telling the government what it CANNOT do. Because if it wasn’t that way, they’d have absolute power to discriminate against whatever popularly held societal belief was out there...just like they did with DOMA which was WRONG.
A Jew cannot be forced to work on the sabbath. But I don’t have to hire a Jew who can’t work on the sabbath if that’s a crucial day of work for my business. And if that Jew also believes gay marriage goes against gods “natural order” then he should NOT be forced to participate or serve in that wedding. That doesn’t mean you or I have to like or agree with his or her decision/beliefs, what it does mean THAT WE CANNOT FORCE HIM TO VIOLATE HIS SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. Despite what you think is “the best interest of the public.” Just like we cannot force a Jehovah’s Witness to take a life saving blood transfusion. And if a Jehovah’s Witness wants his/her respective business to follow in what they believe god wants for them, then they should not be forced to participate in Holliday ceremonies/celebrations such as Christmas, Easter, birthday parties or whatever. That’s probably a bad business model, but it’s not the governments place to tell them otherwise.
By forcing Christians to violate their beliefs...YOU ARE DISCRIMINATING AGAINST CHRISTIANS. There was nothing stopping this couple from going to a different baker. The bakers were NOT stopping them from having their wedding, they simply wished to not do what they believed violated their beliefs.
That's a lotta caps. My point is that the law violates a far more fundamental freedom of association and conscience. We all have these rights, not just religious people.
Right. But framing it as a freedom of religion issue implies that only religious beliefs should be protected. The baker shouldn't be forced to bake for anyone, in any circumstance, regardless of the reasons.
It it is a freedom of religion issue. That’s exactly what this is. And that’s what Congress is expressly told what not to do in the 1st A. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t extend to other sincerely held beliefs, but in this scenario it’s absolutely a freedom of religion issue
It it is a freedom of religion issue. That’s exactly what this is. And that’s what Congress is expressly told what not to do in the 1st A. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t extend to other sincerely held beliefs, but in this scenario it’s absolutely a freedom of religion issue
Like I stated before, I believe a gay baker should have a right to decline service to someone from the West-boro Baptist church. Property rights folks. If you don’t like who a business serves or refused service too...DONT SHOP THERE. It’s that simple.It it is a freedom of religion issue. That’s exactly what this is. And that’s what Congress is expressly told what not to do in the 1st A. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t extend to other sincerely held beliefs, but in this scenario it’s absolutely a freedom of religion issue
So someone can claim "religion" and then get to discriminate, right?
How did that work for Piggie Park Enterprises when they claimed a religious right to discriminate (Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises) or when Bob Jones University claimed a religious right to discriminate (Bob Jones University v. United States)?
In approximately 21 States it is illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation but in all 50 states it is illegal to discriminate based on religion. In other words in most States bakers can refuse service to gays, but in NO states can a baker refuse a Christian because of their religious views on same-sex marriage.
>>>>
And everybody continues to ignore the first amendment on this issue. It’s a pretty big one. I know defending the first means I have to defend slim balls rights to their point of view...but I do so because it is so important.It it is a freedom of religion issue. That’s exactly what this is. And that’s what Congress is expressly told what not to do in the 1st A. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t extend to other sincerely held beliefs, but in this scenario it’s absolutely a freedom of religion issue
So someone can claim "religion" and then get to discriminate, right?
How did that work for Piggie Park Enterprises when they claimed a religious right to discriminate (Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises) or when Bob Jones University claimed a religious right to discriminate (Bob Jones University v. United States)?
In approximately 21 States it is illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation but in all 50 states it is illegal to discriminate based on religion. In other words in most States bakers can refuse service to gays, but in NO states can a baker refuse a Christian because of their religious views on same-sex marriage.
>>>>
It it is a freedom of religion issue. That’s exactly what this is. And that’s what Congress is expressly told what not to do in the 1st A. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t extend to other sincerely held beliefs, but in this scenario it’s absolutely a freedom of religion issue
Right, but it's more than that. Arguing it as a freedom of religion issue is just arguing for a special exemption for (government approved) religious beliefs, and I think that's a mistake.
It it is a freedom of religion issue. That’s exactly what this is. And that’s what Congress is expressly told what not to do in the 1st A. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t extend to other sincerely held beliefs, but in this scenario it’s absolutely a freedom of religion issue
So someone can claim "religion" and then get to discriminate, right?
How did that work for Piggie Park Enterprises when they claimed a religious right to discriminate (Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises) or when Bob Jones University claimed a religious right to discriminate (Bob Jones University v. United States)?
In approximately 21 States it is illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation but in all 50 states it is illegal to discriminate based on religion. In other words in most States bakers can refuse service to gays, but in NO states can a baker refuse a Christian because of their religious views on same-sex marriage.
>>>>
No. Not everybody.And everybody continues to ignore the first amendment on this issue. It’s a pretty big one. I know defending the first means I have to defend slim balls rights to their point of view...but I do so because it is so important.It it is a freedom of religion issue. That’s exactly what this is. And that’s what Congress is expressly told what not to do in the 1st A. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t extend to other sincerely held beliefs, but in this scenario it’s absolutely a freedom of religion issue
So someone can claim "religion" and then get to discriminate, right?
How did that work for Piggie Park Enterprises when they claimed a religious right to discriminate (Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises) or when Bob Jones University claimed a religious right to discriminate (Bob Jones University v. United States)?
In approximately 21 States it is illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation but in all 50 states it is illegal to discriminate based on religion. In other words in most States bakers can refuse service to gays, but in NO states can a baker refuse a Christian because of their religious views on same-sex marriage.
>>>>
In a (very sad, yet quite comprehensive article) I read today that just punches ya in the gut with what these women have endured (re: the doxing, threats and terrorism right wingers have sent them on their phones and beyond...)They wanted a custom made gay-themed cake. The bakery did not offer them. I have posted in this thread that the baker himself said they serve gay people.
They never got to design discussion, this is agreed to by the bakers in the Statement of Facts that they agreed to as part of the court proceedings.
You statement that they requested a "gay themed cake" is not born out by the facts.
I presented a sample cake from one of the bakers catalog in a previous post. The bakers would have made it and sold it to a different-sex couple but refused it for a same-sex couple. Since it's the exact same cake, what specifically in it's manufacture or design suddenly makes it "gay themed" when it's the same cake?
(The answer of course is that there is no difference in the Wedding Cake, the difference is who is ordering it.)
>>>>>
It it is a freedom of religion issue. That’s exactly what this is. And that’s what Congress is expressly told what not to do in the 1st A. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t extend to other sincerely held beliefs, but in this scenario it’s absolutely a freedom of religion issue
Right, but it's more than that. Arguing it as a freedom of religion issue is just arguing for a special exemption for (government approved) religious beliefs, and I think that's a mistake.
How’d I get quoted on the above?
Tweren’t me folks
It it is a freedom of religion issue. That’s exactly what this is. And that’s what Congress is expressly told what not to do in the 1st A. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t extend to other sincerely held beliefs, but in this scenario it’s absolutely a freedom of religion issue
Right, but it's more than that. Arguing it as a freedom of religion issue is just arguing for a special exemption for (government approved) religious beliefs, and I think that's a mistake.
How’d I get quoted on the above?
Tweren’t me folks
Sorry about this Pop23 - I saw it too late to edit. Maybe a moderator can help us out.
Make me a sammich. Not that kind. The kind I want. Or face jail and a fine.
Beyond serving gays with equal access to everything he offers, what is his business required to do. You tell us.
Curious,
If the baker subcontracted the work out, to satisfy his religious beliefs (someone else created the cake and made the profit, the Baker is just the middleman) how would that sit under the PA laws?
& the whole "the bakers had to attend the event" portion is just garbage.
Thank you.& the whole "the bakers had to attend the event" portion is just garbage.
Even that part is garbage. I worked for a caterer. Usually did 2 weddings every weekend. NEVER, had I attended the actual wedding. You show up at the reception hall HOURS before the reception to set up. In those cases where the bakery delivered the cake, they were long gone by the time the guests arrived.
