Rules For Traditionals: How People In Wedding Trades Can Defend Themselves

[martybegan]

As long as you walk around with a sign saying "I support ruining people because I disagree with them (but only when government does the dirty work for me).

How does a customer, cash in hand, ruin a business? Seems that the business is shooting itself in the foot and claiming victimization at the hands of others.

Then let the market handle it, and keep government out of it. Its not the customer, its the $150k fine the government imposes that ruins it.

So even public accommodation laws represent 'big government'? Aside from assuring rights, defending the coasts, delivering the mail, what else should government be doing? And doesn't this fall squarely in the 'assuring rights' category?

When PA laws are applied to something as trivial as a baker for a wedding cake, yes, it is Big Government. The question is what is the more hurtful impact, A gay couple having to find another baker, or a baker being forced out of business because of their beliefs.

The whole concept of PA laws was for gross economic impact, whole portions of the population (blacks) being denied equal access to whole sectors of an economy, i.e not "a" cake, but all cakes of a given quality. To apply them to every transaction without determining the actual economic impact (not just hurt feeewwings, as in the Oregon case) is bringing a neutron bomb to a knife fight.

It isn't about the baker...

reframing an argument does not mean the reframing is exact.

People have mentioned beliefs. If the baker sells cakes to gays and then doesn't want to sell only wedding cakes, it is about the idea of the wedding. It is none of their business what the couple will be doing with the cake. The baker is NOT being asked to be part of the wedding or support same sex weddings. The baker is being asked to sell a cake -- a wedding cake. What business is it of the baker's how a customer uses his cake -- her cake that THEY paid for?

Its not re framing the argument, its going back to the intent of PA laws, and what they were intended to fight.

But going to your argument, the cake is part of a ceremony, and is being used as part of the expression of commitment between two people, a type of commitment some people disapprove of. This is usually a customized product, and the expression of the bakers skill and own person. Saying that isn't the case is mind games at best.

A counter question, should a religious store be forced to sell a statue they know will be defaced by the buyer?

 

[martybegan]

Whatever 'principles' these homophobic bakers are hiding behind are based in ignorance and fear. They are not 'principles' but mere excuses to perpetuate more petty repression against a class of American citizens who are committing no crime by simply being who they are.

back to the "I don't agree with them, therefore they shouldn't have said beliefs, and if they dare to express them in public they need to be punished" line of narcissism.

 

[martybegan]

How does a customer, cash in hand, ruin a business? Seems that the business is shooting itself in the foot and claiming victimization at the hands of others.

Then let the market handle it, and keep government out of it. Its not the customer, its the $150k fine the government imposes that ruins it.

So even public accommodation laws represent 'big government'? Aside from assuring rights, defending the coasts, delivering the mail, what else should government be doing? And doesn't this fall squarely in the 'assuring rights' category?

Everything is big government to these anarchists, or should I say, these rightwing nuts posing as anarchists.

argumentum ad absurdum, the first and most comforting refuge for the poor debater.

irony alert


outta this

Nice drive by attempt at making a point. Now go shuffle off dainty, adults are talking.

 

[martybegan]

[The question is what is the more hurtful impact, A gay couple having to find another baker, or a baker being forced out of business because of their beliefs.

.

The former, because the latter is the wrongdoer.

In your opinion, and morally, but PA laws are about economics first.
"Wrongdoer" has nothing to do with it, except in your own mind and biases.

Public Accommodation laws are about economics?

Everything is about economics.

 

[Nosmo King]

Whatever 'principles' these homophobic bakers are hiding behind are based in ignorance and fear. They are not 'principles' but mere excuses to perpetuate more petty repression against a class of American citizens who are committing no crime by simply being who they are.

back to the "I don't agree with them, therefore they shouldn't have said beliefs, and if they dare to express them in public they need to be punished" line of narcissism.

They shouldn't apply those beliefs to commerce.

 

[martybegan]

And you want to ruin people without getting your hands dirty.

How is them declaring their business practices ruining them?

Their decisions on who will or will not be served will ruin them....not declaring it

"The let them post their intentions" compromise is a ruse by your side, and you know it.

Quick question. Do you support a $150k fine on a baker for not baking a cake?

It's not a fine for not baking a cake. It's a fine for blanket discrimination.

Semantics. not baking the cake is the original cause of the fine.

Again, the question, do you support it or not? Does not wanting to bake a cake for a gay couple really require $150k in fines as punishment?

disingenuous reframing?

it is about the sale of a cake.

Of which not wanting to leads in this case to government fines.

Again, do you support fining a baker $150k for not baking a cake?

 

[martybegan]

Whatever 'principles' these homophobic bakers are hiding behind are based in ignorance and fear. They are not 'principles' but mere excuses to perpetuate more petty repression against a class of American citizens who are committing no crime by simply being who they are.

back to the "I don't agree with them, therefore they shouldn't have said beliefs, and if they dare to express them in public they need to be punished" line of narcissism.

They shouldn't apply those beliefs to commerce.

Who are you, and more importantly, who is the government to judge this?
Why should your beliefs hold sway over theirs?

 

[Nosmo King]

How does a customer, cash in hand, ruin a business? Seems that the business is shooting itself in the foot and claiming victimization at the hands of others.

Then let the market handle it, and keep government out of it. Its not the customer, its the $150k fine the government imposes that ruins it.

So even public accommodation laws represent 'big government'? Aside from assuring rights, defending the coasts, delivering the mail, what else should government be doing? And doesn't this fall squarely in the 'assuring rights' category?

When PA laws are applied to something as trivial as a baker for a wedding cake, yes, it is Big Government. The question is what is the more hurtful impact, A gay couple having to find another baker, or a baker being forced out of business because of their beliefs.

The whole concept of PA laws was for gross economic impact, whole portions of the population (blacks) being denied equal access to whole sectors of an economy, i.e not "a" cake, but all cakes of a given quality. To apply them to every transaction without determining the actual economic impact (not just hurt feeewwings, as in the Oregon case) is bringing a neutron bomb to a knife fight.

It isn't about the baker...

reframing an argument does not mean the reframing is exact.

People have mentioned beliefs. If the baker sells cakes to gays and then doesn't want to sell only wedding cakes, it is about the idea of the wedding. It is none of their business what the couple will be doing with the cake. The baker is NOT being asked to be part of the wedding or support same sex weddings. The baker is being asked to sell a cake -- a wedding cake. What business is it of the baker's how a customer uses his cake -- her cake that THEY paid for?

Its not re framing the argument, its going back to the intent of PA laws, and what they were intended to fight.

But going to your argument, the cake is part of a ceremony, and is being used as part of the expression of commitment between two people, a type of commitment some people disapprove of. This is usually a customized product, and the expression of the bakers skill and own person. Saying that isn't the case is mind games at best.

A counter question, should a religious store be forced to sell a statue they know will be defaced by the buyer?

Should a gun shop sell a weapon they know will be used in a homicide?

The customer pays for the goods and services. They then OWN those goods. What they do with those goods is not the concern of the seller.

 

[Nosmo King]

Whatever 'principles' these homophobic bakers are hiding behind are based in ignorance and fear. They are not 'principles' but mere excuses to perpetuate more petty repression against a class of American citizens who are committing no crime by simply being who they are.

back to the "I don't agree with them, therefore they shouldn't have said beliefs, and if they dare to express them in public they need to be punished" line of narcissism.

They shouldn't apply those beliefs to commerce.

Who are you, and more importantly, who is the government to judge this?
Why should your beliefs hold sway over theirs?

Each and every law abiding citizen should be able to conduct commerce at businesses open to the public.

 

[martybegan]

Then let the market handle it, and keep government out of it. Its not the customer, its the $150k fine the government imposes that ruins it.

So even public accommodation laws represent 'big government'? Aside from assuring rights, defending the coasts, delivering the mail, what else should government be doing? And doesn't this fall squarely in the 'assuring rights' category?

When PA laws are applied to something as trivial as a baker for a wedding cake, yes, it is Big Government. The question is what is the more hurtful impact, A gay couple having to find another baker, or a baker being forced out of business because of their beliefs.

The whole concept of PA laws was for gross economic impact, whole portions of the population (blacks) being denied equal access to whole sectors of an economy, i.e not "a" cake, but all cakes of a given quality. To apply them to every transaction without determining the actual economic impact (not just hurt feeewwings, as in the Oregon case) is bringing a neutron bomb to a knife fight.

It isn't about the baker...

reframing an argument does not mean the reframing is exact.

People have mentioned beliefs. If the baker sells cakes to gays and then doesn't want to sell only wedding cakes, it is about the idea of the wedding. It is none of their business what the couple will be doing with the cake. The baker is NOT being asked to be part of the wedding or support same sex weddings. The baker is being asked to sell a cake -- a wedding cake. What business is it of the baker's how a customer uses his cake -- her cake that THEY paid for?

Its not re framing the argument, its going back to the intent of PA laws, and what they were intended to fight.

But going to your argument, the cake is part of a ceremony, and is being used as part of the expression of commitment between two people, a type of commitment some people disapprove of. This is usually a customized product, and the expression of the bakers skill and own person. Saying that isn't the case is mind games at best.

A counter question, should a religious store be forced to sell a statue they know will be defaced by the buyer?

Should a gun shop sell a weapon they know will be used in a homicide?

The customer pays for the goods and services. They then OWN those goods. What they do with those goods is not the concern of the seller.

If the store owner had prior knowledge of a proposed crime and provided a weapon, it doesn't matter if he is a licensed seller, he would be an accomplice regardless of the transaction occurring.

The customer only owns the goods when provided, not before.

 

[martybegan]

Whatever 'principles' these homophobic bakers are hiding behind are based in ignorance and fear. They are not 'principles' but mere excuses to perpetuate more petty repression against a class of American citizens who are committing no crime by simply being who they are.

back to the "I don't agree with them, therefore they shouldn't have said beliefs, and if they dare to express them in public they need to be punished" line of narcissism.

They shouldn't apply those beliefs to commerce.

Who are you, and more importantly, who is the government to judge this?
Why should your beliefs hold sway over theirs?

Each and every law abiding citizen should be able to conduct commerce at businesses open to the public.

and if not the government response of putting them out of business no matter how trivial the service provided is of course, perfectly fair.
Just using market pressure isn't enough, dissenters need to be crushed.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

How does a customer, cash in hand, ruin a business? Seems that the business is shooting itself in the foot and claiming victimization at the hands of others.

Then let the market handle it, and keep government out of it. Its not the customer, its the $150k fine the government imposes that ruins it.

So even public accommodation laws represent 'big government'? Aside from assuring rights, defending the coasts, delivering the mail, what else should government be doing? And doesn't this fall squarely in the 'assuring rights' category?

When PA laws are applied to something as trivial as a baker for a wedding cake, yes, it is Big Government. The question is what is the more hurtful impact, A gay couple having to find another baker, or a baker being forced out of business because of their beliefs.

The whole concept of PA laws was for gross economic impact, whole portions of the population (blacks) being denied equal access to whole sectors of an economy, i.e not "a" cake, but all cakes of a given quality. To apply them to every transaction without determining the actual economic impact (not just hurt feeewwings, as in the Oregon case) is bringing a neutron bomb to a knife fight.

It isn't about the baker...

reframing an argument does not mean the reframing is exact.

People have mentioned beliefs. If the baker sells cakes to gays and then doesn't want to sell only wedding cakes, it is about the idea of the wedding. It is none of their business what the couple will be doing with the cake. The baker is NOT being asked to be part of the wedding or support same sex weddings. The baker is being asked to sell a cake -- a wedding cake. What business is it of the baker's how a customer uses his cake -- her cake that THEY paid for?

Its not re framing the argument, its going back to the intent of PA laws, and what they were intended to fight.

But going to your argument, the cake is part of a ceremony, and is being used as part of the expression of commitment between two people, a type of commitment some people disapprove of. This is usually a customized product, and the expression of the bakers skill and own person. Saying that isn't the case is mind games at best.

A counter question, should a religious store be forced to sell a statue they know will be defaced by the buyer?

A cake cannot be part of a ceremony. That is a nonsensical argument.

Anyone selling statues, religious or otherwise are not in the business of demanding a religious test before purchase.

A wedding cake is not "part of the expression" of any marriage ceremony. One can have a wedding without a cake. The cake is part of a party, a celebration. No one who bakes or sells a cake is being asked to celebrate.

Why sell flour to bakeries who sell wedding cakes to gays?

 

[bripat9643]

Whatever 'principles' these homophobic bakers are hiding behind are based in ignorance and fear. They are not 'principles' but mere excuses to perpetuate more petty repression against a class of American citizens who are committing no crime by simply being who they are.

It doesn't make any difference what their motives are. You have no right to be served by any business, period.

 

[martybegan]

Then let the market handle it, and keep government out of it. Its not the customer, its the $150k fine the government imposes that ruins it.

So even public accommodation laws represent 'big government'? Aside from assuring rights, defending the coasts, delivering the mail, what else should government be doing? And doesn't this fall squarely in the 'assuring rights' category?

When PA laws are applied to something as trivial as a baker for a wedding cake, yes, it is Big Government. The question is what is the more hurtful impact, A gay couple having to find another baker, or a baker being forced out of business because of their beliefs.

The whole concept of PA laws was for gross economic impact, whole portions of the population (blacks) being denied equal access to whole sectors of an economy, i.e not "a" cake, but all cakes of a given quality. To apply them to every transaction without determining the actual economic impact (not just hurt feeewwings, as in the Oregon case) is bringing a neutron bomb to a knife fight.

It isn't about the baker...

reframing an argument does not mean the reframing is exact.

People have mentioned beliefs. If the baker sells cakes to gays and then doesn't want to sell only wedding cakes, it is about the idea of the wedding. It is none of their business what the couple will be doing with the cake. The baker is NOT being asked to be part of the wedding or support same sex weddings. The baker is being asked to sell a cake -- a wedding cake. What business is it of the baker's how a customer uses his cake -- her cake that THEY paid for?

Its not re framing the argument, its going back to the intent of PA laws, and what they were intended to fight.

But going to your argument, the cake is part of a ceremony, and is being used as part of the expression of commitment between two people, a type of commitment some people disapprove of. This is usually a customized product, and the expression of the bakers skill and own person. Saying that isn't the case is mind games at best.

A counter question, should a religious store be forced to sell a statue they know will be defaced by the buyer?

A cake cannot be part of a ceremony. That is a nonsensical argument.

Anyone selling statues, religious or otherwise are not in the business of demanding a religious test before purchase.

A wedding cake is not "part of the expression" of any marriage ceremony. One can have a wedding without a cake. The cake is part of a party, a celebration. No one who bakes or sells a cake is being asked to celebrate.

Why sell flour to bakeries who sell wedding cakes to gays?

In most receptions (which if not part of the ceremony, is part of the celebration) you stand over the cake to do a joint cutting, it is an intrinsic part of the celebration. Between the first cutting, to the feeding of each other, it is part of the ritual.

The cake is the bakers form of expression, and it is being used to celebrate something they do not morally agree with. there is a direct contract between the baker and the celebrants. If you add any custom lettering, you now add a speech issue as well.

Trying to extend this to a wholesale item shows you lack of viable points on this topic.

As for your first point, no "religious test" is needed. The comparative example would be a satanist walking up to the register, requesting a Jesus statue, and telling the person who owns the store "I am going to be using this in a black mass." The intent has been willing given to the vendor, just as in the case of a baker willingly being contracted for a gay wedding.

In the statue case, would you force the store to sell the Jesus statue?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Whatever 'principles' these homophobic bakers are hiding behind are based in ignorance and fear. They are not 'principles' but mere excuses to perpetuate more petty repression against a class of American citizens who are committing no crime by simply being who they are.

It doesn't make any difference what their motives are. You have no right to be served by any business, period.

Sorry Bripiss, but repeating what is wrong doesn't make it right. You lost this argument, decades ago.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So even public accommodation laws represent 'big government'? Aside from assuring rights, defending the coasts, delivering the mail, what else should government be doing? And doesn't this fall squarely in the 'assuring rights' category?

When PA laws are applied to something as trivial as a baker for a wedding cake, yes, it is Big Government. The question is what is the more hurtful impact, A gay couple having to find another baker, or a baker being forced out of business because of their beliefs.

The whole concept of PA laws was for gross economic impact, whole portions of the population (blacks) being denied equal access to whole sectors of an economy, i.e not "a" cake, but all cakes of a given quality. To apply them to every transaction without determining the actual economic impact (not just hurt feeewwings, as in the Oregon case) is bringing a neutron bomb to a knife fight.

It isn't about the baker...

reframing an argument does not mean the reframing is exact.

People have mentioned beliefs. If the baker sells cakes to gays and then doesn't want to sell only wedding cakes, it is about the idea of the wedding. It is none of their business what the couple will be doing with the cake. The baker is NOT being asked to be part of the wedding or support same sex weddings. The baker is being asked to sell a cake -- a wedding cake. What business is it of the baker's how a customer uses his cake -- her cake that THEY paid for?

Its not re framing the argument, its going back to the intent of PA laws, and what they were intended to fight.

But going to your argument, the cake is part of a ceremony, and is being used as part of the expression of commitment between two people, a type of commitment some people disapprove of. This is usually a customized product, and the expression of the bakers skill and own person. Saying that isn't the case is mind games at best.

A counter question, should a religious store be forced to sell a statue they know will be defaced by the buyer?

A cake cannot be part of a ceremony. That is a nonsensical argument.

Anyone selling statues, religious or otherwise are not in the business of demanding a religious test before purchase.

A wedding cake is not "part of the expression" of any marriage ceremony. One can have a wedding without a cake. The cake is part of a party, a celebration. No one who bakes or sells a cake is being asked to celebrate.

Why sell flour to bakeries who sell wedding cakes to gays?

In most receptions (which if not part of the ceremony, is part of the celebration) you stand over the cake to do a joint cutting, it is an intrinsic part of the celebration. Between the first cutting, to the feeding of each other, it is part of the ritual.

The cake is the bakers form of expression, and it is being used to celebrate something they do not morally agree with. there is a direct contract between the baker and the celebrants. If you add any custom lettering, you now add a speech issue as well.

Trying to extend this to a wholesale item shows you lack of viable points on this topic.

As for your first point, no "religious test" is needed. The comparative example would be a satanist walking up to the register, requesting a Jesus statue, and telling the person who owns the store "I am going to be using this in a black mass." The intent has been willing given to the vendor, just as in the case of a baker willingly being contracted for a gay wedding.

In the statue case, would you force the store to sell the Jesus statue?

The standing over the cake has NOTHING to do with solidifying a wedding. Saying "which if not part of the ceremony, is part of the celebration" is a text book example of dis-ingenuousness. A cake is used in the celebration. A cake is NOT necessary for a celebration.

A baker has no stake in a wedding, no role, no anything. Form of expression? What, now bakers are expressing support for weddings? When they sell other cakes what are they expressing and being part of? It;s a silly argument.

Bakers sell other cakes to gays. Do they know what gays do with cakes? Some gays MIGHT be using teh cakes during sex. If a gay couple uses a cake during a sexual act, has the Christian offended his god because he participated in a sexual act?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It's all about Pirates and their gay agenda

Pirates rejected puritan society and were socially very liberal. They openly welcomed homosexuality and even had their own form of gay marriage. Matelotage was a civil partnership between two male pirates. Matelotage partners openly had sex with each other. The men shared their property, had the other as their named inheritor, and lived together. It just wasn’t always a strictly monogamous enterprise.​

 

[Syriusly]

What business are these wedding vendors in anyway? Do they provide services to all heterosexual customers? Is servicing weddings their stock in trade?

Refusing services is a fundamental part of doing business. Just yesterday I refused service to 8 different clients. I hand picked the ones I would refuse service to, and when they walked in the front door I told them they would have to go somewhere else. They didn't like it, a couple tried to raise a fuss even. But at the end of the day they went somewhere else.

And that is perfectly legal as long as you didn't discriminate because the customers were:
Black(race)
Christian(religion)
Japanese (country of origin) and in some states and localities
Gay (sexual orientation)

If you refused their business because they were jerks or because they wore red shirts- perfectly legal.

 

[Syriusly]

How about we compromise and let anti-gay marriage businesses acquire a special permit to deny gay weddings catering,
and all they need do is display the sign prominently on the front of their business, and in all their advertising and any websites they use, that they don't serve gays?

lol

The sign should read:

DUE TO OUR DEVOTION TO THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS CHRIST, WE REFUSE TO TREAT OUR NEIGHBORS AS WE WOULD HAVE OURSELVES BE TREATED, THEREFORE WE WILL NOT BAKE CAKES FOR SAME SEX WEDDINGS. PRAISE GOD.

As long as you walk around with a sign saying "I support ruining people because I disagree with them (but only when government does the dirty work for me).

How does a customer, cash in hand, ruin a business? Seems that the business is shooting itself in the foot and claiming victimization at the hands of others.

Then let the market handle it, and keep government out of it. Its not the customer, its the $150k fine the government imposes that ruins it.

Actually it would be the business decision to break the law that ends up ruining a business.

Happens fairly regularly when business' violate zoning laws, health laws, hiring laws, oh and in this case- public accommodation laws.

 

[Syriusly]

The bakery in Westwood does just fine without making wedding cakes for same sex couples. I was there when one couple came in. The bakery has two or three a week that come in for wedding cakes. There was no problem in telling them no.

Think of the profits they are letting walk out the door. Just because they don't approve of their new customers.

It's not as if they would be consigned to flaming pits of hell because their baked goods are shared at a same sex wedding.

Their values and principles are not for sale. Is that concept beyond you? I told a lesbian couple no. They sued and I won. It is n't all that hard to create business practices that avoid compromising one's principles.

Of course if principles are for sale that would be hypocrisy.

What are these "principles" based on other than fear, hate, hurtful stereotypes and shear ignorance?

They certainly are not based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, so don't bring that religious freedom crap!

The bakery I spoke of is owned and operated by muslims. I doubt they care about Jesus Christ at all.

Jesus commanded his followers not to sin. If a Christian determines not to commit a sin they should have the freedom not to do that. They aren't stopping anyone else from being sinful if they wish. Actually no one needs a reason to not perform any act specifically required of them personally. I don't want to should be good enough.

And what is the sin on selling a cake exactly?