The dreaded gay-wedding-cake saga ends: bakers must pay 135 K

[dblack]

Business are not require to sell wedding cakes. Public Accommodation laws however mandate that if they do sell wedding cakes they cannot refuse service based on the customers race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status (depending on location) of the customer.

At this point in the debate, everyone is pretty clear on what Public Accommodation laws mandate. We're debating whether that is good policy or not.

They are free to refuse an order for any other reason not related to the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status (depending on location) of the customer.

And that's what I find insidious about these laws. They aren't banning a harmful act. They're attempting to suppress certain biases. They truly are examples of 'thought crime'. The policy sets a really bad precedent, and I'm confident we'll come to see that with time. It's just a question of how much damage will be done before we correct it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Business are not require to sell wedding cakes. Public Accommodation laws however mandate that if they do sell wedding cakes they cannot refuse service based on the customers race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status (depending on location) of the customer.

At this point in the debate, everyone is pretty clear on what Public Accommodation laws mandate. We're debating whether that is good policy or not.

They are free to refuse an order for any other reason not related to the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status (depending on location) of the customer.

And that's what I find insidious about these laws. They aren't banning a harmful act. They're attempting to suppress certain biases. They truly are examples of 'thought crime'. The policy sets a really bad precedent, and I'm confident we'll come to see that with time. It's just a question of how much damage will be done before we correct it.

The dreaded gay-wedding-cake saga ends bakers must pay 135 K Page 216 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
The dreaded gay-wedding-cake saga ends bakers must pay 135 K Page 219 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


Then maybe you can assist me in explaining to emilynghiem why the examples he keeps makeing are not applicable under Public Accommodation laws.

Thank you for your assistance.


>>>>

 

[Mac1958]

Business are not require to sell wedding cakes. Public Accommodation laws however mandate that if they do sell wedding cakes they cannot refuse service based on the customers race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status (depending on location) of the customer.

At this point in the debate, everyone is pretty clear on what Public Accommodation laws mandate. We're debating whether that is good policy or not.

They are free to refuse an order for any other reason not related to the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status (depending on location) of the customer.

And that's what I find insidious about these laws. They aren't banning a harmful act. They're attempting to suppress certain biases. They truly are examples of 'thought crime'. The policy sets a really bad precedent, and I'm confident we'll come to see that with time. It's just a question of how much damage will be done before we correct it.

And of course, this whole issue is about politics and not laws.

This law only came into effect when the couple chose to file a complaint. They did not have to, but they wanted to see the bakery punished.

This selective passion for "the law" is terribly transparent and dishonest.

.

 

[JoeB131]

And of course, this whole issue is about politics and not laws.

This law only came into effect when the couple chose to file a complaint. They did not have to, but they wanted to see the bakery punished.

This selective passion for "the law" is terribly transparent and dishonest.

Oh, Mac, I think you are a little confused. The laws existed before the Kleins broke it. And the Kleins probably broke this law dozens of times, most people didn't consider it worth the bother to bust them on it.

This couple did. Good on them.

Now, once you get caught breaking the law, most of us have the good sense to just litigate the issue. The Kleins decided to escalate it by subjecting the couple they mistreated to more mistreatment. THAT'S why they paid such a heavy fine.

 

[dblack]

Business are not require to sell wedding cakes. Public Accommodation laws however mandate that if they do sell wedding cakes they cannot refuse service based on the customers race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status (depending on location) of the customer.

At this point in the debate, everyone is pretty clear on what Public Accommodation laws mandate. We're debating whether that is good policy or not.

They are free to refuse an order for any other reason not related to the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status (depending on location) of the customer.

And that's what I find insidious about these laws. They aren't banning a harmful act. They're attempting to suppress certain biases. They truly are examples of 'thought crime'. The policy sets a really bad precedent, and I'm confident we'll come to see that with time. It's just a question of how much damage will be done before we correct it.

And of course, this whole issue is about politics and not laws.

This law only came into effect when the couple chose to file a complaint. They did not have to, but they wanted to see the bakery punished.

This selective passion for "the law" is terribly transparent and dishonest.

.

Well, the reality of the situation is that these are laws, and they are being enforced - albeit selectively. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by political, but these laws are about modifying social mores and opinions, namely stamping out unpopular forms of bigotry (the more popular variety get a pass).

The real question we need to be asking ourselves, as a nation, is if we want government engaging in this kind of social manipulation.

In a democracy, it's important to recognize that government reflects the will of the majority. So when we empower government to exert this kind of control, we're really granting the majority the power to stamp out minority views it doesn't like. There's so much doublespeak around these issues the that fact gets lost, but these laws don't protect real minorities, those most at risk of social persecution. The only thing that ever protects minorities in a democracy is constitutional limits on the power of the majority to force it's will on minorities via government.

 

[JoeB131]

n a democracy, it's important to recognize that government reflects the will of the majority.

Well, no, actually, it isn't. It's the job of government to protect everyone's rights. The majority wouldn't have approved of legalizing interracial marriage until the mid-1990's.

So here you have a dispute between the desires of a baker and a customer. A dispute that occurred because the baker promised to deliver a service and didn't.

 

[Mac1958]

Business are not require to sell wedding cakes. Public Accommodation laws however mandate that if they do sell wedding cakes they cannot refuse service based on the customers race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status (depending on location) of the customer.

At this point in the debate, everyone is pretty clear on what Public Accommodation laws mandate. We're debating whether that is good policy or not.

They are free to refuse an order for any other reason not related to the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status (depending on location) of the customer.

And that's what I find insidious about these laws. They aren't banning a harmful act. They're attempting to suppress certain biases. They truly are examples of 'thought crime'. The policy sets a really bad precedent, and I'm confident we'll come to see that with time. It's just a question of how much damage will be done before we correct it.

And of course, this whole issue is about politics and not laws.

This law only came into effect when the couple chose to file a complaint. They did not have to, but they wanted to see the bakery punished.

This selective passion for "the law" is terribly transparent and dishonest.

.

Well, the reality of the situation is that these are laws, and they are being enforced - albeit selectively. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by political, but these laws are about modifying social mores and opinions, namely stamping out unpopular forms of bigotry (the more popular variety get a pass).

The real question we need to be asking ourselves, as a nation, is if we want government engaging in this kind of social manipulation.

In a democracy, it's important to recognize that government reflects the will of the majority. So when we empower government to exert this kind of control, we're really granting the majority the power to stamp out minority views it doesn't like. There's so much doublespeak around these issues the that fact gets lost, but these laws don't protect real minorities, those most at risk of social persecution. The only thing that ever protects minorities in a democracy is constitutional limits on the power of the majority to force it's will on minorities via government.

The law itself has never been my point. Laws are laws.

My point is the behavior of those who choose to leverage laws to intimidate and punish others.

In case such as this, the "injured" party could have chosen to walk out and pay for the services of someone who actually wanted to work with them. Instead, they saw an opportunity to punish the "offending" party and ran with it. Their supporters then dishonestly pretend that the "injured" party had no choice but to submit the complaint, or that "the law" somehow magically, automatically activates. They also dishonestly pretend that anyone who challenges this strategy is somehow anti-law.

No reasonable person wants to work with someone who does not want to work with them, at least in a case like this.

.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Business are not require to sell wedding cakes. Public Accommodation laws however mandate that if they do sell wedding cakes they cannot refuse service based on the customers race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status (depending on location) of the customer.

At this point in the debate, everyone is pretty clear on what Public Accommodation laws mandate. We're debating whether that is good policy or not.

They are free to refuse an order for any other reason not related to the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status (depending on location) of the customer.

And that's what I find insidious about these laws. They aren't banning a harmful act. They're attempting to suppress certain biases. They truly are examples of 'thought crime'. The policy sets a really bad precedent, and I'm confident we'll come to see that with time. It's just a question of how much damage will be done before we correct it.

And of course, this whole issue is about politics and not laws.

This law only came into effect when the couple chose to file a complaint. They did not have to, but they wanted to see the bakery punished.

This selective passion for "the law" is terribly transparent and dishonest.

.

Well, the reality of the situation is that these are laws, and they are being enforced - albeit selectively. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by political, but these laws are about modifying social mores and opinions, namely stamping out unpopular forms of bigotry (the more popular variety get a pass).

The real question we need to be asking ourselves, as a nation, is if we want government engaging in this kind of social manipulation.

In a democracy, it's important to recognize that government reflects the will of the majority. So when we empower government to exert this kind of control, we're really granting the majority the power to stamp out minority views it doesn't like. There's so much doublespeak around these issues the that fact gets lost, but these laws don't protect real minorities, those most at risk of social persecution. The only thing that ever protects minorities in a democracy is constitutional limits on the power of the majority to force it's will on minorities via government.

The law itself has never been my point. Laws are laws.

My point is the behavior of those who choose to leverage laws to intimidate and punish others.

In case such as this, the "injured" party could have chosen to walk out and pay for the services of someone who actually wanted to work with them. Instead, they saw an opportunity to punish the "offending" party and ran with it. Their supporters then dishonestly pretend that the "injured" party had no choice but to submit the complaint. They also dishonestly pretend that anyone who challenges this strategy is somehow anti-law.

.

If someone denies me service and starts quoting Leviticus to me, you're goddamned right I'm going to file a complaint, and I'm glad that they did.

 

[Mac1958]

Business are not require to sell wedding cakes. Public Accommodation laws however mandate that if they do sell wedding cakes they cannot refuse service based on the customers race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status (depending on location) of the customer.

At this point in the debate, everyone is pretty clear on what Public Accommodation laws mandate. We're debating whether that is good policy or not.

They are free to refuse an order for any other reason not related to the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status (depending on location) of the customer.

And that's what I find insidious about these laws. They aren't banning a harmful act. They're attempting to suppress certain biases. They truly are examples of 'thought crime'. The policy sets a really bad precedent, and I'm confident we'll come to see that with time. It's just a question of how much damage will be done before we correct it.

And of course, this whole issue is about politics and not laws.

This law only came into effect when the couple chose to file a complaint. They did not have to, but they wanted to see the bakery punished.

This selective passion for "the law" is terribly transparent and dishonest.

.

Well, the reality of the situation is that these are laws, and they are being enforced - albeit selectively. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by political, but these laws are about modifying social mores and opinions, namely stamping out unpopular forms of bigotry (the more popular variety get a pass).

The real question we need to be asking ourselves, as a nation, is if we want government engaging in this kind of social manipulation.

In a democracy, it's important to recognize that government reflects the will of the majority. So when we empower government to exert this kind of control, we're really granting the majority the power to stamp out minority views it doesn't like. There's so much doublespeak around these issues the that fact gets lost, but these laws don't protect real minorities, those most at risk of social persecution. The only thing that ever protects minorities in a democracy is constitutional limits on the power of the majority to force it's will on minorities via government.

The law itself has never been my point. Laws are laws.

My point is the behavior of those who choose to leverage laws to intimidate and punish others.

In case such as this, the "injured" party could have chosen to walk out and pay for the services of someone who actually wanted to work with them. Instead, they saw an opportunity to punish the "offending" party and ran with it. Their supporters then dishonestly pretend that the "injured" party had no choice but to submit the complaint. They also dishonestly pretend that anyone who challenges this strategy is somehow anti-law.

.

If someone denies me service and starts quoting Leviticus to me, you're goddamned right I'm going to file a complaint, and I'm glad that they did.

Yes, I have no doubt.

.

 

[dblack]

The law itself has never been my point. Laws are laws.

My point is the behavior of those who choose to leverage laws to intimidate and punish others.

In case such as this, the "injured" party could have chosen to walk out and pay for the services of someone who actually wanted to work with them. Instead, they saw an opportunity to punish the "offending" party and ran with it. Their supporters then dishonestly pretend that the "injured" party had no choice but to submit the complaint, or that "the law" somehow magically, automatically activates. They also dishonestly pretend that anyone who challenges this strategy is somehow anti-law.

No reasonable person wants to work with someone who does not want to work with them, at least in a case like this.

.

I definitely view these circumstances differently. The culprit here is a government the enforces such laws. The whole point of government is to keep us from beating up on each other. When, instead, it becomes the tool for doing that - it's failed utterly.

I don't see much point in demonizing the individuals involved. It's the laws that are bad here, and that's what needs to be addressed.

 

[dblack]

n a democracy, it's important to recognize that government reflects the will of the majority.

Well, no, actually, it isn't. It's the job of government to protect everyone's rights.

Agreed. But that requires a common understanding of the concept of rights. That's really what's missing.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The law itself has never been my point. Laws are laws.

My point is the behavior of those who choose to leverage laws to intimidate and punish others.

In case such as this, the "injured" party could have chosen to walk out and pay for the services of someone who actually wanted to work with them. Instead, they saw an opportunity to punish the "offending" party and ran with it. Their supporters then dishonestly pretend that the "injured" party had no choice but to submit the complaint, or that "the law" somehow magically, automatically activates. They also dishonestly pretend that anyone who challenges this strategy is somehow anti-law.

No reasonable person wants to work with someone who does not want to work with them, at least in a case like this.

.

I definitely view these circumstances differently. The culprit here is a government the enforces such laws. The whole point of government is to keep us from beating up on each other. When, instead, it becomes the tool for doing that - it's failed utterly.

I don't see much point in demonizing the individuals involved. It's the laws that are bad here, and that's what needs to be addressed.

The people are bad, which is why these kinds of laws were created and are still necessary. They didn't come out of a vacuum, they weren't created out of thin air for now damn reason or just to play nanny. They were created because bad people refused to serve others when that is their fucking job!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

n a democracy, it's important to recognize that government reflects the will of the majority.

Well, no, actually, it isn't. It's the job of government to protect everyone's rights.

Agreed. But that requires a common understanding of the concept of rights. That's really what's missing.

Rights and Responsibilities. You fucking Ayn Rand kids always forget that part. There is a Social Contract that you were born to. Deal with it like an adult.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The gay mafia strikes again.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The gay mafia strikes again.

What struck again were laws already the damn books put there for the protection of the consumer from the whims of a Public Accommodation.

 

[kaz]

Business are not require to sell wedding cakes. Public Accommodation laws however mandate that if they do sell wedding cakes they cannot refuse service based on the customers race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status (depending on location) of the customer.

At this point in the debate, everyone is pretty clear on what Public Accommodation laws mandate. We're debating whether that is good policy or not.

They are free to refuse an order for any other reason not related to the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status (depending on location) of the customer.

And that's what I find insidious about these laws. They aren't banning a harmful act. They're attempting to suppress certain biases. They truly are examples of 'thought crime'. The policy sets a really bad precedent, and I'm confident we'll come to see that with time. It's just a question of how much damage will be done before we correct it.

And of course, this whole issue is about politics and not laws.

This law only came into effect when the couple chose to file a complaint. They did not have to, but they wanted to see the bakery punished.

This selective passion for "the law" is terribly transparent and dishonest.

.

Well, the reality of the situation is that these are laws, and they are being enforced - albeit selectively. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by political, but these laws are about modifying social mores and opinions, namely stamping out unpopular forms of bigotry (the more popular variety get a pass).

The real question we need to be asking ourselves, as a nation, is if we want government engaging in this kind of social manipulation.

In a democracy, it's important to recognize that government reflects the will of the majority. So when we empower government to exert this kind of control, we're really granting the majority the power to stamp out minority views it doesn't like. There's so much doublespeak around these issues the that fact gets lost, but these laws don't protect real minorities, those most at risk of social persecution. The only thing that ever protects minorities in a democracy is constitutional limits on the power of the majority to force it's will on minorities via government.

The law itself has never been my point. Laws are laws.

My point is the behavior of those who choose to leverage laws to intimidate and punish others.

In case such as this, the "injured" party could have chosen to walk out and pay for the services of someone who actually wanted to work with them. Instead, they saw an opportunity to punish the "offending" party and ran with it. Their supporters then dishonestly pretend that the "injured" party had no choice but to submit the complaint. They also dishonestly pretend that anyone who challenges this strategy is somehow anti-law.

.

If someone denies me service and starts quoting Leviticus to me, you're goddamned right I'm going to file a complaint, and I'm glad that they did.

Want government to do your manhood for you, huh?

I'd walk across the street to their competitor

 

[kaz]

n a democracy, it's important to recognize that government reflects the will of the majority.

Well, no, actually, it isn't. It's the job of government to protect everyone's rights.

Agreed. But that requires a common understanding of the concept of rights. That's really what's missing.

Rights and Responsibilities. You fucking Ayn Rand kids always forget that part. There is a Social Contract that you were born to. Deal with it like an adult.

LOL, yeah, running to government to use guns to make them bake you a cake, that's dealing "with it like an adult." You're a clown, bro. Where's your clown avatar like the other liberal clowns?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

At this point in the debate, everyone is pretty clear on what Public Accommodation laws mandate. We're debating whether that is good policy or not.

And that's what I find insidious about these laws. They aren't banning a harmful act. They're attempting to suppress certain biases. They truly are examples of 'thought crime'. The policy sets a really bad precedent, and I'm confident we'll come to see that with time. It's just a question of how much damage will be done before we correct it.

And of course, this whole issue is about politics and not laws.

This law only came into effect when the couple chose to file a complaint. They did not have to, but they wanted to see the bakery punished.

This selective passion for "the law" is terribly transparent and dishonest.

.

Well, the reality of the situation is that these are laws, and they are being enforced - albeit selectively. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by political, but these laws are about modifying social mores and opinions, namely stamping out unpopular forms of bigotry (the more popular variety get a pass).

The real question we need to be asking ourselves, as a nation, is if we want government engaging in this kind of social manipulation.

In a democracy, it's important to recognize that government reflects the will of the majority. So when we empower government to exert this kind of control, we're really granting the majority the power to stamp out minority views it doesn't like. There's so much doublespeak around these issues the that fact gets lost, but these laws don't protect real minorities, those most at risk of social persecution. The only thing that ever protects minorities in a democracy is constitutional limits on the power of the majority to force it's will on minorities via government.

The law itself has never been my point. Laws are laws.

My point is the behavior of those who choose to leverage laws to intimidate and punish others.

In case such as this, the "injured" party could have chosen to walk out and pay for the services of someone who actually wanted to work with them. Instead, they saw an opportunity to punish the "offending" party and ran with it. Their supporters then dishonestly pretend that the "injured" party had no choice but to submit the complaint. They also dishonestly pretend that anyone who challenges this strategy is somehow anti-law.

.

If someone denies me service and starts quoting Leviticus to me, you're goddamned right I'm going to file a complaint, and I'm glad that they did.

Want government to do your manhood for you, huh?

I'd walk across the street to their competitor

Not required, nor should it be. Bake the cake and leave the moralizing, and scripture quoting, at church.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

n a democracy, it's important to recognize that government reflects the will of the majority.

Well, no, actually, it isn't. It's the job of government to protect everyone's rights.

Agreed. But that requires a common understanding of the concept of rights. That's really what's missing.

Rights and Responsibilities. You fucking Ayn Rand kids always forget that part. There is a Social Contract that you were born to. Deal with it like an adult.

LOL, yeah, running to government to use guns to make them bake you a cake, that's dealing "with it like an adult." You're a clown, bro. Where's your clown avatar like the other liberal clowns?

No guns were involved and the public dumped them after their illegal actions. That part you should approve of.

As for the avatar I do not follow crowds, nor do I give a fuck what they think or do in most cases. That's for you little morons and your reach-around buddies here who pat your back and make you feel important.

 

[kaz]

And of course, this whole issue is about politics and not laws.

This law only came into effect when the couple chose to file a complaint. They did not have to, but they wanted to see the bakery punished.

This selective passion for "the law" is terribly transparent and dishonest.

.

Well, the reality of the situation is that these are laws, and they are being enforced - albeit selectively. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by political, but these laws are about modifying social mores and opinions, namely stamping out unpopular forms of bigotry (the more popular variety get a pass).

The real question we need to be asking ourselves, as a nation, is if we want government engaging in this kind of social manipulation.

In a democracy, it's important to recognize that government reflects the will of the majority. So when we empower government to exert this kind of control, we're really granting the majority the power to stamp out minority views it doesn't like. There's so much doublespeak around these issues the that fact gets lost, but these laws don't protect real minorities, those most at risk of social persecution. The only thing that ever protects minorities in a democracy is constitutional limits on the power of the majority to force it's will on minorities via government.

The law itself has never been my point. Laws are laws.

My point is the behavior of those who choose to leverage laws to intimidate and punish others.

In case such as this, the "injured" party could have chosen to walk out and pay for the services of someone who actually wanted to work with them. Instead, they saw an opportunity to punish the "offending" party and ran with it. Their supporters then dishonestly pretend that the "injured" party had no choice but to submit the complaint. They also dishonestly pretend that anyone who challenges this strategy is somehow anti-law.

.

If someone denies me service and starts quoting Leviticus to me, you're goddamned right I'm going to file a complaint, and I'm glad that they did.

Want government to do your manhood for you, huh?

I'd walk across the street to their competitor

Not required, nor should it be. Bake the cake and leave the moralizing, and scripture quoting, at church.

Totally agree. And if they do that, punish them by taking your business to their competitor