Colorado baker told to bake that cake

[hadit]

Again, if he doesn't want to have his religious sensibilities offended, he probably needs to find something else to do for a living. Or stop being a prude. That works, too.

Or you could just stop whining that some gay guys have to go to another baker to get their wedding cake.

 

[dblack]

Or you could just stop whining that some gay guys have to go to another baker to get their wedding cake.

Joe thinks government should control, well, pretty much everything. Ask him.

 

[JoeB131]

Or you could just stop whining that some gay guys have to go to another baker to get their wedding cake.

Why should they? You run a public accommedation, that's pretty much it. You've put out a sign and offered services.

Joe thinks government should control, well, pretty much everything. Ask him.

DBlack just thinks that government should protect his white fragility.

 

[saveliberty]

Supreme Court already ruled on this. Nothing less than harassment at this point. I expect a large civil damages verdict in the baker's favor soon. Tommy NEEDS to be accepted in order to feel safe. Not happening.

 

[JoeB131]

Supreme Court already ruled on this. Nothing less than harassment at this point. I expect a large civil damages verdict in the baker's favor soon. Tommy NEEDS to be accepted in order to feel safe. Not happening.

Except they really haven't. The ONLY ruling they made was that the commission should not have been so dismissive of his religious beliefs. They did not give an overall religious exemption to PA Laws, because THAT would cause chaos.

 

[hadit]

Why should they? You run a public accommedation, that's pretty much it. You've put out a sign and offered services.


DBlack just thinks that government should protect his white fragility.

You've offered services, but didn't state that you would violate your religious beliefs. Basically, you're saying an atheist could be compelled to bake a cake celebrating everything he holds in contempt, complete with Bible verses stating everything he held to be false and could do nothing about it. If he bakes a cake, he has to put on it whatever the customer wants.

 

[HeyNorm]

The rule for discrimination cases is the legal argument that you must provide the same rights to those similarly situated to others.

But when we use that rule to those that “identify” as something they are not, we create a problem.

 

[dblack]

The rule for discrimination cases is the legal argument that you must provide the same rights to those similarly situated to others.

That's actually a rule it's ridiculous

 

[HeyNorm]

That's actually a rule it's ridiculous

It’s a primary test of civil rights.

 

[dblack]

It’s a primary test of civil rights.

It's still silly. Political rights are protection from government intrusion. They don't require anyone else to treat you any specific way. In particular, the very concept of a "right" to the service of others is insane.

 

[HeyNorm]

It's still silly. Political rights are protection from government intrusion. They don't require anyone else to treat you any specific way. In particular, the very concept of a "right" to the service of others is insane.

It is the way that we determine rights that even the majority cannot take.

It’s been how minority populations have attained rights they struggled for for throughout history

A black man is similar to a white man in all key aspects, except for a feature that is outside his control. The skin color he was born with. So to not give him the same rights all others have, is the definition of discrimination.

 

[dblack]

It is the way that we determine rights that even the majority cannot take.

It’s been how minority populations have attained rights they struggled for for throughout history

A black man is similar to a white man in all key aspects, except for a feature that is outside his control. The skin color he was born with. So to not give him the same rights all others have, is the definition of discrimination.

The Constitution requires that government treats everyone equally. It doesn't require citizens to treat everyone equally.

 

[HeyNorm]

The Constitution requires that government treats everyone equally. It doesn't require citizens to treat everyone equally.

But now we have extended this similarly test to trans. Trans are said to be discriminated against if they are pre op and told to use the locker facilities of their biological birth.

Keeping a biological born male, insisting that he is a female out of woman’s locker rooms is said to be discriminatory practice because the trans is similarly situated to the females.

 

[JoeB131]

The Constitution requires that government treats everyone equally. It doesn't require citizens to treat everyone equally.

Fair enough. You can be a racist or homophobic douchenoodle if you want to.

But once you open a business, you have to treat everyone equally.

 

[HeyNorm]

But now we have extended this similarly test to trans. Trans are said to be discriminated against if they are pre op and told to use the locker facilities of their biological birth.

Keeping a biological born male, insisting that he is a female out of woman’s locker rooms is said to be discriminatory practice because the trans is similarly situated to the females.

But now we come to the fact that all males are similarly situated to a man who is claiming to be a female. So it would therefore be a discriminatory practice to prohibit men from the same locker room as a man identifying as a woman. The two are similarly situated.

See the problem this creates?

 

[dblack]

But once you open a business, you have to treat everyone equally.

That's the modern liberal dream. It's why socialism blows. They want a cut of your business. They want to be in your business. Telling you how to do your business.

I'll go with "mind your own business".

 

[dblack]

That's the modern liberal dream. It's why socialism blows. They want a cut of your business. They want to be in your business. Telling you how to do your business.

I'll go with "mind your own business".

In any case, current discrimination law actually doesn't require businesses to treat everyone equally.

 

[JoeB131]

hat's the modern liberal dream. It's why socialism blows. They want a cut of your business. They want to be in your business. Telling you how to do your business.

I'll go with "mind your own business".

Nobody wants to live in your dream of unregulated business.

I want to know that when I eat out, I'm not going to find a huge cockroach in my food.
I want to know that when I sign a contract, the business is going to do what they promised to do.
And I want to be sure that if I go into a business, the business owner isn't going to discriminate against me due to my race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation (even though I am a white, atheist heterosexual cisgender male.

None of these are unreasonable demands, but the only way you make them work is with government agencies enforcing them.

 

[dblack]

Nobody wants to live in your dream of unregulated business.

That's not true.

None of these are unreasonable demands, but the only way you make them work is with government agencies enforcing them.

The principle of the policy IS unreasonable, and, as it gets applied more broadly, we're starting to see why. The discrimination laws don't protect equal rights, and they don't require that business treat everyone equally. They just carve out some mandates around "protected classes".

 

[JoeB131]

That's not true.

Yeah, actually it is. If you went into a restaurant and got food poisoning, your response would not be to write them a bad Yelp review, you'd call the board of health and get them shut down.

The principle of the policy IS unreasonable, and, as it gets applied more broadly, we're starting to see why. The discrimination laws don't protect equal rights, and they don't require that business treat everyone equally. They just carve out some mandates around "protected classes".

The problem here is that if you are white, straight and male, you don't need protections. You already have privilege.