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

[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?

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

No guns? Then why are they paying the $135K? It's optional? They can just ignore it?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

No guns? Then why are they paying the $135K? It's optional? They can just ignore it?

We have places for people who break our laws. You believe in Law and Order right?

Oh right, that's only for laws that benefit you personally. Sorry, I forgot.

 

[kaz]

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.

No guns? Then why are they paying the $135K? It's optional? They can just ignore it?

We have places for people who break our laws. You believe in Law and Order right?

Oh right, that's only for laws that benefit you personally. Sorry, I forgot.

What laws do I support that benefit me personally? You don't know what that means, do you, Holmes?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

No guns? Then why are they paying the $135K? It's optional? They can just ignore it?

We have places for people who break our laws. You believe in Law and Order right?

Oh right, that's only for laws that benefit you personally. Sorry, I forgot.

What laws do I support that benefit me personally? You don't know what that means, do you, Holmes?

It means that you only support laws that matter to you, or that you approve of. If you get screwed, there ought to be a law, if others do, fuck 'em.

 

[bodecea]

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.

So...the government isn't supposed to enforce laws?

 

[bodecea]

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

Good for you. But laws are there for a reason. You want to beat up people (figuratively) for reporting someone who broke the law.

 

[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.

So...the government isn't supposed to enforce laws?

Try reading my post again. You'll get it.

 

[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

Good for you. But laws are there for a reason. You want to beat up people (figuratively) for reporting someone who broke the law.

Not really, no, being a government snitch doesn't interest me

 

[Faun]

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.

.

Of course, blame the victim. They're the ones to blame, right. Just like a rape victim doesn't have to report the crime, right?

 

[Faun]

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

They did that too.

 

[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.

.

Of course, blame the victim. They're the ones to blame, right. Just like a rape victim doesn't have to report the crime, right?

I see.

"Just like", your words.

So you equate this case with a rape.

Okay, really nothing surprises me any more.

.

 

[Faun]

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, 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.

.

Of course, blame the victim. They're the ones to blame, right. Just like a rape victim doesn't have to report the crime, right?

I see.

"Just like", your words.

So you equate this case with a rape.

Okay, really nothing surprises me any more.

.

No, I equate your reaction to how you think the lesbian couple, who were victims of a crime, should have responded; to that of how a rape victim should respond.

Both are victims of a crime. Both should report being victims of a crime.

 

[Mac1958]

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.

.

Of course, blame the victim. They're the ones to blame, right. Just like a rape victim doesn't have to report the crime, right?

I see.

"Just like", your words.

So you equate this case with a rape.

Okay, really nothing surprises me any more.

.

No, I equate your reaction to how you think the lesbian couple, who were victims of a crime, should have responded; to that of how a rape victim should respond.

Both are victims of a crime. Both should report being victims of a crime.

Great, thanks for your input.

.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

So by your logic, Rosa Parks should have just stopped taking the bus and those kids should never have eaten at Woolworth's?

 

[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.

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

I don't think so. I think their right to get public accommodations outweighs the bakers' belief in an Imaginary Sky Fairy.

And frankly, the religious should be glad of this as well. What protects the rights of gays to get service protects their rights if their sect isn't in the majority.

 

[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.

I don't think so. I think their right to get public accommodations outweighs the bakers' belief in an Imaginary Sky Fairy.

The fact that you think a "right to get public accommodations" is even a coherent concept is exactly what I'm talking about.

And frankly, the religious should be glad of this as well. What protects the rights of gays to get service protects their rights if their sect isn't in the majority.

PA laws don't protect anyone's rights (quite the opposite, actually). They grant special privileges to select interest groups. But you're right, religions are primary benefactors of these laws, and they are utter hypocrites to claim such a perk for themselves, while denying it to gays.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Maybe a little American history will help those that don't understand:

 

[JoeB131]

The fact that you think a "right to get public accommodations" is even a coherent concept is exactly what I'm talking about.

PA laws don't protect anyone's rights (quite the opposite, actually). They grant special privileges to select interest groups. But you're right, religions are primary benefactors of these laws, and they are utter hypocrites to claim such a perk for themselves, while denying it to gays.

again, you might want to live in a Libertarian Jungle where there's no law, and you have to be at the mercy of vendors. Me, I don't. I've been ripped off by enough businesses where I really don't think the consumer protection laws go far enough.

If you don't want to serve customers, DON'T OWN A BUSINESS. No one is making you own a business. If the Kleins are going to be traumatized by the sight of two plastic women on the top of a cake, they need to board themselves up in their little house and not interact with the real world.

 

[dblack]

The fact that you think a "right to get public accommodations" is even a coherent concept is exactly what I'm talking about.

PA laws don't protect anyone's rights (quite the opposite, actually). They grant special privileges to select interest groups. But you're right, religions are primary benefactors of these laws, and they are utter hypocrites to claim such a perk for themselves, while denying it to gays.

again, you might want to live in a Libertarian Jungle where there's no law, and you have to be at the mercy of vendors.

Again, no. I don't, actually.

But, I'm all too familiar with this response when statists would rather avoid discussion. It means - "I got nuthin'".

 

[JoeB131]

Again, no. I don't, actually.

But, I'm all too familiar with this response when statists would rather avoid discussion. It means - "I got nuthin'".

No, it means exactly that.

YOur argument is that the gays should take abuse from vendors. I don't think they should have to.

Any more than I think the blacks at Woolworth should have just "eaten somewhere else".