Should a Jewish Bakery Have the Right to Deny...

[bripat9643]

Now let us be more reasonable. Should a Jewish baker be forced to bake a cake for any Christian, Muslim, or atheist? Your example involves a recognized hate group, and you are trying to relate that to gays, who are not part of any hate group.

So, should a Jewish baker be permitted to refuse service to Christians, Muslims, and atheists? Yes or no?

Yes.
Let's make it more topical. How about a Jewish baker asked to bake a cake for members of Jews4Jesus? Absolutely he has every right to refuse. It's his fucking business.

The courts disagree. Now what?

secede from the union.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Should a Jewish Bakery Have the Right to Deny...
...a Christian Ideology based White Power group who goes into a Jewish bakery and request a cake in the shape a HHH and a burning cross?

No...

Yes, they should. Hatred, in any form, is not accepted.

Hatred is a form of free expression, Noomi! What should we do? Ban hatred? The problem I see is a matter of belief, not hatred.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

...a Christian Ideology based White Power group who goes into a Jewish bakery and request a cake in the shape a HHH and a burning cross? If they Jew denied baking this cake, since it's deeply against their religious faith?

Should the Jewish baker be forced to bake such a cake.


I mean few people argued the Baker was wrong when he refused to bake the cake "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler!"

Adolf Hitler denied his birthday cake - Telegraph

Yet in AZ one can not conceive that a religious baker has any argument in not baking a cake for a gay marriage.

The vast vast majority of Christian bakers that don't want any part of a gay marriage ceremony would be fine selling to gays for any other occasion.

I personally disagree with a baker not making money for a gay marriage ceremony, but I can see their argument.

Go back to the birthday cake for Adolf Hitler, I think that baker was in the right and so did most people!

Now let us be more reasonable. Should a Jewish baker be forced to bake a cake for any Christian, Muslim, or atheist? Your example involves a recognized hate group, and you are trying to relate that to gays, who are not part of any hate group.

So, should a Jewish baker be permitted to refuse service to Christians, Muslims, and atheists? Yes or no?

Let's cut to the chase.

How about a Muslim walks into a Christian's bakery and demands a cake with a sugary expression atop it reading "Kill all the homos"? or "Kill all the Jews"?

Or how about a homosexual walks in and wants a cake that reads "Kill all the Christians"?

Should the Christian have to serve him? According to Jones' logic, no matter how loud he denies it, wherein the Christian can be compelled to produce a cake that would presumably feature an expression or symbol denoting a sexual union that for him might be every bit as morally repugnant/depraved as these fine examples, he should have to genuflect and fire up the oven.

Heck, the patron demanding the latter might even be Jones. He wants to fine or jail Christians who refuse to betray their God. After that, what's a little murder between friends?

 

[pvsi]

...a Christian Ideology based White Power group who goes into a Jewish bakery and request a cake in the shape a HHH and a burning cross? If they Jew denied baking this cake, since it's deeply against their religious faith?

Should the Jewish baker be forced to bake such a cake.


I mean few people argued the Baker was wrong when he refused to bake the cake "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler!"

Adolf Hitler denied his birthday cake - Telegraph

Yet in AZ one can not conceive that a religious baker has any argument in not baking a cake for a gay marriage.

The vast vast majority of Christian bakers that don't want any part of a gay marriage ceremony would be fine selling to gays for any other occasion.

I personally disagree with a baker not making money for a gay marriage ceremony, but I can see their argument.

Go back to the birthday cake for Adolf Hitler, I think that baker was in the right and so did most people!

Does a prostitute have the right to refuse service to a super fat, ugly man with lots of pimples? YES. end of discussion.

 

[whitehall]

Leftie politicians authorized millions in taxpayer dollars to conform to the religious beliefs of the scum murderer terrorists in Guantanamo but they don't give a crap about the religious beliefs of American citizens.

 

[emilynghiem]

....

Second, “religious convictions” could arguably be construed to negate the right of the agnostic or the atheist to object on his moral grounds.

Ultimately, what actually needs to be protected goes to the concern of protecting persons from frivolous lawsuits relative to established law who might otherwise be ruined by mindless, pitchfork-wielding barbarians who would that the government be empowered to nullify that which is inalienable in the name of “social justice”, i.e., the governmental imposition of lefty’s religion of collectivist moral relativism.

This bill was drafted by an incompetent legislator. Such a thing requires the deft and nimble mind of an expert on First Amendment case law.

Forget Brewer. She’s just another political hack--career above the well-being of the people. The reasons she gave for vetoing it demonstrate that she’s ignorant about the founding ethos on which this nation was founded and ignorant about case law too. A competent Governor would have simply sent the bill back to the drawing board, ideally, with a draft of a more sensible version attached.

Once again, make no mistake about it, the laws currently being contested by Christians in New Mexico and elsewhere are going to be struck down, just as ObamaCare’s impositions on the moral convictions of charitable enterprises that have paid staffs and provide healthcare benefits (like The Little Sisters) and for-profit enterprises as well (cooperate individuals like Hobby Lobby) will be struck down. We still have a slightly right of center Supreme Court that will hold to established case law and not create an entirely new principle out of thin air in violation of rights that are inalienable. As for the future . . . well, who knows. We are losing the cultural war, and so goes the government. It will be a bitter victory for the useful idiots though who don’t grasp the ramifications of their elite masters’ agenda at all.

You write: "Now, if we are going to start extending these responsibilities to corporations, businesses. . . ."

Corporations/businesses are for all intents and purposes in this regard are individual citizens, yet another fact that falsifies the nonsense that lefty has been blathering on these threads.

Corporate personhood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dear MDR: Thanks again for your response in thoughtful detail.
1. I get the overall point, that this bill was more intended to reduce frivolous lawsuits by reinforcing general rights NOT to be imposed upon by public laws to the point of losing religious freedom; and that this bill did not specify anything about homosexuality, but in fact left "religious convictions" open to mean anything, so it could be applied equally to any and all views about anything.

I agree that it should have been better written; and I believe the whole point is to reach a consensus anyway on this issue, or else the conflicts keep resurfacing in different forms, like a zombie or vampire that just won't die.

What I suggest is that people decide once and for all that "religious convictions" should apply to ALL beliefs, including political beliefs such as: prochoice or prolife, progay or antigay, prolegalization or antilegalization or decriminalization, health care as a right or health care as a choice, pro or anti death penalty, etc. and COMMIT not to write bills that have a political or religious bias favoring one view over another. or this conflict recurs.

YES we need to write laws better to avoid this, and YES we need to AGREE to respect different views and NOT have to KEEP writing more and more laws for or against X Y Z.

2. as for what I meant by expanding this to corporations
currently corporations are considered individuals with rights protected under the Bill of Rights from govt infringement; however, since larger corporations have unequal power of collective influence, resources and authority GREATER than an individual person,
that is where the checks and balances can be thrown off. Especially where legal resources make the difference in equal protection of interests; clearly the playing field isn't equal.

so that is where I suggest holding corporations and citizens equally responsible for upholding the same principles in the bill of rights that the govt is required to respect.

the most critical points being respecting parties equal free exercise of religion and equal protections under law from discrimination by creed, and right of due process before seeking to impose action depriving liberty.

it seems people keep wanting to push actions or laws without considering due process affecting others, and just "assuming" they have the right to protect and push their interests.

in the case of people imposing on each other, as long as it is one on one, they have a better chance at resolving the conflicts or agreeing to leave each other alone;
when you get "collective groups" involved taking sides, or you get third parties in between,
that's when it gets complicated, and the "politics' of wining or saving face in public, and
of bullying instead of resolving the conflicts mutually, can block due process and deny equal justice and protections for all interests affected. so that is what I was trying to avoid.

you can see this sidetaking and bullying going on on all levels, from parties to govt, from board debates to media. we need to address this culture of adversity and competition and start encouraging and rewarding successful conflict resolution and collaborative solutions.

 

[emilynghiem]

...a Christian Ideology based White Power group who goes into a Jewish bakery and request a cake in the shape a HHH and a burning cross? If they Jew denied baking this cake, since it's deeply against their religious faith?

Should the Jewish baker be forced to bake such a cake.


I mean few people argued the Baker was wrong when he refused to bake the cake "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler!"

Adolf Hitler denied his birthday cake - Telegraph

Yet in AZ one can not conceive that a religious baker has any argument in not baking a cake for a gay marriage.

The vast vast majority of Christian bakers that don't want any part of a gay marriage ceremony would be fine selling to gays for any other occasion.

I personally disagree with a baker not making money for a gay marriage ceremony, but I can see their argument.

Go back to the birthday cake for Adolf Hitler, I think that baker was in the right and so did most people!

Does a prostitute have the right to refuse service to a super fat, ugly man with lots of pimples? YES. end of discussion.

I look forward to the day people agree we have the right NOT to follow a judge's ruling that makes a onesided ruling on a religious matter; and don't have to follow political beliefs in either right to heath care, right to life, right to choose, etc. but should exercise equal rights and responsibilities for our own beliefs through our own systems we set up ourselves, instead of abusing govt to impose these through public policies on opponents with different views and beliefs they have equal right to exercise, fund and support as our beliefs.

When we will reach that state of equal justice, inclusion and protection of beliefs?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Yes.
Let's make it more topical. How about a Jewish baker asked to bake a cake for members of Jews4Jesus? Absolutely he has every right to refuse. It's his fucking business.

The courts disagree. Now what?

secede from the union.

Godspeed.

 

[dblack]

Yes.
Let's make it more topical. How about a Jewish baker asked to bake a cake for members of Jews4Jesus? Absolutely he has every right to refuse. It's his fucking business.

The courts disagree. Now what?

secede from the union.

No way man. Stick around and fuck with the control freaks' grand ambitions!

 

[bripat9643]

...a Christian Ideology based White Power group who goes into a Jewish bakery and request a cake in the shape a HHH and a burning cross? If they Jew denied baking this cake, since it's deeply against their religious faith?

Should the Jewish baker be forced to bake such a cake.


I mean few people argued the Baker was wrong when he refused to bake the cake "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler!"

Adolf Hitler denied his birthday cake - Telegraph

Yet in AZ one can not conceive that a religious baker has any argument in not baking a cake for a gay marriage.

The vast vast majority of Christian bakers that don't want any part of a gay marriage ceremony would be fine selling to gays for any other occasion.

I personally disagree with a baker not making money for a gay marriage ceremony, but I can see their argument.

Go back to the birthday cake for Adolf Hitler, I think that baker was in the right and so did most people!

Does a prostitute have the right to refuse service to a super fat, ugly man with lots of pimples? YES. end of discussion.

I had a administrator on another forum tell me that if prostitution is legal that prostitutes should be forced to service black man even if they didn't like black men. It didn't seem to dawn on him that he was calling for legalized rape, even after it was pointed out to him.

 

[bripat9643]

The courts disagree. Now what?

secede from the union.

No way man. Stick around and fuck with the control freaks' grand ambitions!

It's an exercise in futility. Secession is the only feasible solution to government oppression.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The courts disagree. Now what?

secede from the union.

No way man. Stick around and fuck with the control freaks' grand ambitions!

Sounds very utopian? If I meet one I'll ask him to drop you a line.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

secede from the union.

No way man. Stick around and fuck with the control freaks' grand ambitions!

It's an exercise in futility. Secession is the only feasible solution to government oppression.

You are welcome to many. many states. Just let me know which ones so that I can build a nice high wall around them, just for your safety of course.

 

[The T]

secede from the union.

No way man. Stick around and fuck with the control freaks' grand ambitions!

It's an exercise in futility. Secession is the only feasible solution to government oppression.

Long overdue.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

....

Second, “religious convictions” could arguably be construed to negate the right of the agnostic or the atheist to object on his moral grounds.

Ultimately, what actually needs to be protected goes to the concern of protecting persons from frivolous lawsuits relative to established law who might otherwise be ruined by mindless, pitchfork-wielding barbarians who would that the government be empowered to nullify that which is inalienable in the name of “social justice”, i.e., the governmental imposition of lefty’s religion of collectivist moral relativism.

This bill was drafted by an incompetent legislator. Such a thing requires the deft and nimble mind of an expert on First Amendment case law.

Forget Brewer. She’s just another political hack--career above the well-being of the people. The reasons she gave for vetoing it demonstrate that she’s ignorant about the founding ethos on which this nation was founded and ignorant about case law too. A competent Governor would have simply sent the bill back to the drawing board, ideally, with a draft of a more sensible version attached.

Once again, make no mistake about it, the laws currently being contested by Christians in New Mexico and elsewhere are going to be struck down, just as ObamaCare’s impositions on the moral convictions of charitable enterprises that have paid staffs and provide healthcare benefits (like The Little Sisters) and for-profit enterprises as well (cooperate individuals like Hobby Lobby) will be struck down. We still have a slightly right of center Supreme Court that will hold to established case law and not create an entirely new principle out of thin air in violation of rights that are inalienable. As for the future . . . well, who knows. We are losing the cultural war, and so goes the government. It will be a bitter victory for the useful idiots though who don’t grasp the ramifications of their elite masters’ agenda at all.

You write: "Now, if we are going to start extending these responsibilities to corporations, businesses. . . ."

Corporations/businesses are for all intents and purposes in this regard are individual citizens, yet another fact that falsifies the nonsense that lefty has been blathering on these threads.

Corporate personhood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dear MDR: Thanks again for your response in thoughtful detail.
1. I get the overall point, that this bill was more intended to reduce frivolous lawsuits by reinforcing general rights NOT to be imposed upon by public laws to the point of losing religious freedom; and that this bill did not specify anything about homosexuality, but in fact left "religious convictions" open to mean anything, so it could be applied equally to any and all views about anything.

I agree that it should have been better written; and I believe the whole point is to reach a consensus anyway on this issue, or else the conflicts keep resurfacing in different forms, like a zombie or vampire that just won't die.

What I suggest is that people decide once and for all that "religious convictions" should apply to ALL beliefs, including political beliefs such as: prochoice or prolife, progay or antigay, prolegalization or antilegalization or decriminalization, health care as a right or health care as a choice, pro or anti death penalty, etc. and COMMIT not to write bills that have a political or religious bias favoring one view over another. or this conflict recurs.

YES we need to write laws better to avoid this, and YES we need to AGREE to respect different views and NOT have to KEEP writing more and more laws for or against X Y Z.

2. as for what I meant by expanding this to corporations
currently corporations are considered individuals with rights protected under the Bill of Rights from govt infringement; however, since larger corporations have unequal power of collective influence, resources and authority GREATER than an individual person,
that is where the checks and balances can be thrown off. Especially where legal resources make the difference in equal protection of interests; clearly the playing field isn't equal.

so that is where I suggest holding corporations and citizens equally responsible for upholding the same principles in the bill of rights that the govt is required to respect.

the most critical points being respecting parties equal free exercise of religion and equal protections under law from discrimination by creed, and right of due process before seeking to impose action depriving liberty.

it seems people keep wanting to push actions or laws without considering due process affecting others, and just "assuming" they have the right to protect and push their interests.

in the case of people imposing on each other, as long as it is one on one, they have a better chance at resolving the conflicts or agreeing to leave each other alone;
when you get "collective groups" involved taking sides, or you get third parties in between,
that's when it gets complicated, and the "politics' of wining or saving face in public, and
of bullying instead of resolving the conflicts mutually, can block due process and deny equal justice and protections for all interests affected. so that is what I was trying to avoid.

you can see this sidetaking and bullying going on on all levels, from parties to govt, from board debates to media. we need to address this culture of adversity and competition and start encouraging and rewarding successful conflict resolution and collaborative solutions.

I would argue that "religious convictions" be struck from any proposed legislation. We need not agree on a broad interpretation to suit inadequate or potentially confusing terminology. Simply use the terms that already denote the desired meaning and purpose, remember, in this instance, relative to behavioral participation and expression: "Ideological convictions." There. That covers them all and encompasses the entirety of the concerns of the First Amendment.

As for the necessary principle of cooperate individuals/citizens, if they were to be held to the same restrictions as those that bind the government, liberty would be destroyed.

Perhaps I've misunderstood you, as what you appear to be advocating smacks of Marxism. But I'm sure that's not what you're after. *Confused*

 

[NYcarbineer]

Now we get to see if enough Americans want to wrestle their freedoms back from the tyranical left. If not, we deserve to circle the drain into the sewer.

It's been 50 years since the Civil Rights Act of 1964; shouldn't your dire scenarios have materialized by now?

They have. We are circling the drain.

That it all makes you cry is a fringe benefit.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

No way man. Stick around and fuck with the control freaks' grand ambitions!

It's an exercise in futility. Secession is the only feasible solution to government oppression.

Long overdue.

You know I used to respond to this sort of sentiment, not with derision, for I understand the frustration, but with respectfully expressed pleas for restraint. But especially since 9/11, I've watched, mouth agape, as all levels of government have ramped up their powers at the expense of indispensable liberties at a frightfully out of control rate.

Now I know I've been wrong about a lot of things, trusted too much when I knew better intellectually. I initially supported the Patriot Act, for example, bought the into the hype and flew the flag.

It's one thing to know it; it's another thing to live it. The last 13 years have been a sobering ride for me. I've railed against statism for years with some trepidation, but mostly as a matter of academics. I've known that the Republic was in trouble for some time, but now I know that it's collapse is not the stuff of some fuzzy tomorrow, but imminent, just a stone's throw way.

I take it all back. You guys were right.

I'm wide awake now.

 

[The T]

It's an exercise in futility. Secession is the only feasible solution to government oppression.

Long overdue.

You know I used to respond to this sort of sentiment, not with derision, for I understand the frustration, but with respectfully expressed pleas for restraint. But especially since 9/11, I've watched, mouth agape, as all levels of government have ramped up their powers at the expense of indispensable liberties at a frightfully out of control rate.

Now I know I've been wrong about a lot of things, trusted too much when I knew better intellectually. I initially supported the Patriot Act, for example, bought the into the hype and flew the flag.

It's one thing to know it; it's another thing to live it. The last 13 years have been a sobering ride for me. I've railed against statism for years with some trepidation, but mostly as a matter of academics. I've known that the Republic was in trouble for some time, but now I know that it's collapse is not the stuff of some fuzzy tomorrow, but imminent, just a stone's throw way.

I take it all back. You guys were right.

I'm wide awake now.

You have history to back you...and sadly it does tend to repeat...time for another round of Liberty to restore...it's out of hand and those responsible are blatent and arrogant about it on BOTH sides.

 

[bripat9643]

It's an exercise in futility. Secession is the only feasible solution to government oppression.

Long overdue.

You know I used to respond to this sort of sentiment, not with derision, for I understand the frustration, but with respectfully expressed pleas for restraint. But especially since 9/11, I've watched, mouth agape, as all levels of government have ramped up their powers at the expense of indispensable liberties at a frightfully out of control rate.

Now I know I've been wrong about a lot of things, trusted too much when I knew better intellectually. I initially supported the Patriot Act, for example, bought the into the hype and flew the flag.

It's one thing to know it; it's another thing to live it. The last 13 years have been a sobering ride for me. I've railed against statism for years with some trepidation, but mostly as a matter of academics. I've known that the Republic was in trouble for some time, but now I know that it's collapse is not the stuff of some fuzzy tomorrow, but imminent, just a stone's throw way.

I take it all back. You guys were right.

I'm wide awake now.

Welcome to the club. I suggest you start reading Hans Hermann Hoppe. You'll learn about the "private law society." It's the only permanent solution to the problem of government power grabs. The first book I recommend is "Democracy: The God that Failed"

 

[bripat9643]

It's been 50 years since the Civil Rights Act of 1964; shouldn't your dire scenarios have materialized by now?

They have. We are circling the drain.

That it all makes you cry is a fringe benefit.

Everyone who loves freedom is crying, numskull. Only a fool would think it's something to gloat about.