For all the Bigoted Bakers, Fanatical Florists and Pharisee Photographers

[ChrisL]

This is quite sad. I really thought we, as Americans, had moved past this kind of thing. Perhaps if we had, such laws would no longer be necessary. All people are human beings and deserve to be treated as such. You can disagree with them, but you cannot open a business and discriminate against because it is just wrong, not to mention just plain mean.

 

[ChrisL]

The court gets to decide regardless, but their decision has no impact on what I think is right or wrong.

Ok. I can certainly respect that.

Exactly. He is still entitled to hate other people. He just cannot discriminate between customers when it comes to providing a service that he agreed to provide when opening the business, regardless of race, sexual orientation, gender, etc.

I think you are completely missing what Marty is saying or the basis of his position.

Okay, explain then. From what I see, he and others are stomping their feet because they can't treat their fellow Americans as second class citizens because of their bigoted views. He is certainly entitled to FEEL anyway he wants, he just cannot apply that to business dealings, as a regular business is treated as any other business and has to abide by secular law as they are not religious institutions.

He is saying it is not the place of the government to force people to associate with others unless there is a compelling interest to do so, such as providing food, housing, etc. He does not consider the need for pastry to constitute a compelling interest. Who the people are involved is not the issue, only the issue of governmental force. He would equally be opposed to the government forcing a gay baker from baking a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church or a black baker from baking a cake for a white power party. He is not supporting discrimination, he is opposing governmental force.

And can you imagine the MESS that would result. Oh this business only caters to this group of people, can't go there. Oh, this business caters to this group of people but refuses to serve this group. Good grief. How stupid.

 

[ChrisL]

In your hypothetical printing business. Business discriminate all the time based in distance, pricing, language and many other factors.

This, class, is what is known as equivocation.

It is called reality. I can't deliver a product or service to someone in my business location at the same price it may take to transport it elsewhere. My business may not allow for a bilingual employee, so working with another language may be a barrier.

That is not discriminating against someone based upon who they are or their "lifestyle."

 

[PratchettFan]

If I opened a printing business, I would expect to have all kinds of customers. If I had a rule, it would apply to all people equally. That is not discriminating.

So then you believe and would support as a matter of law, language in any Court Ruling on this topic when it makes it to SCOTUS in the next year or two, that gay graphic artists would have to be forced to print "homosexuality is an abomination and a mortal sin, forbidden by the teachings of Jesus Christ in the New Testament" for a busy highway billboard, or they could be fined or gagged, or sued into the poorhouse by Christians?

OK, anyone else agree with Chris?

Nope, I would have a rule that I don't print hate speech, regardless of the belief of the customer. That would equally apply to everyone. No discrimination.

What if I had a rule that I didn't put two men or two women on a wedding cake and applied that equally to everyone? Would that be discrimination?

No, that is discriminating against gay people. You could have a rule that you make the cake but you don't decorate them. Or, you can have generic cakes that the public can choose and not deviate from those samples.

What the graphic artist does is create graphics. You think it is ok to refuse service to someone who is expressing a religious position you don't agree with. But it is not ok for the baker to say they won't put two male figures on a cake. One is not discrimination and the other is, despite the fact that both customers are protected classes under the same law. Explain that to me.

 

[saveliberty]

Countries have borders, so do cities and they all discriminate. You up for released sex offenders living next to your house? Going to invite them over for dinner?

 

[PratchettFan]

Ok. I can certainly respect that.

Exactly. He is still entitled to hate other people. He just cannot discriminate between customers when it comes to providing a service that he agreed to provide when opening the business, regardless of race, sexual orientation, gender, etc.

I think you are completely missing what Marty is saying or the basis of his position.

Okay, explain then. From what I see, he and others are stomping their feet because they can't treat their fellow Americans as second class citizens because of their bigoted views. He is certainly entitled to FEEL anyway he wants, he just cannot apply that to business dealings, as a regular business is treated as any other business and has to abide by secular law as they are not religious institutions.

He is saying it is not the place of the government to force people to associate with others unless there is a compelling interest to do so, such as providing food, housing, etc. He does not consider the need for pastry to constitute a compelling interest. Who the people are involved is not the issue, only the issue of governmental force. He would equally be opposed to the government forcing a gay baker from baking a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church or a black baker from baking a cake for a white power party. He is not supporting discrimination, he is opposing governmental force.

And can you imagine the MESS that would result. Oh this business only caters to this group of people, can't go there. Oh, this business caters to this group of people but refuses to serve this group. Good grief. How stupid.

I am not supporting his position, though it does have its merits. I am only saying that if you want to argue his position, then you should argue his position - not one you made up for him.

 

[ChrisL]

If I opened a printing business, I would expect to have all kinds of customers. If I had a rule, it would apply to all people equally. That is not discriminating.

So then you believe and would support as a matter of law, language in any Court Ruling on this topic when it makes it to SCOTUS in the next year or two, that gay graphic artists would have to be forced to print "homosexuality is an abomination and a mortal sin, forbidden by the teachings of Jesus Christ in the New Testament" for a busy highway billboard, or they could be fined or gagged, or sued into the poorhouse by Christians?

OK, anyone else agree with Chris?

Nope, I would have a rule that I don't print hate speech, regardless of the belief of the customer. That would equally apply to everyone. No discrimination.

What if I had a rule that I didn't put two men or two women on a wedding cake and applied that equally to everyone? Would that be discrimination?

No, that is discriminating against gay people. You could have a rule that you make the cake but you don't decorate them. Or, you can have generic cakes that the public can choose and not deviate from those samples.

What the graphic artist does is create graphics. You think it is ok to refuse service to someone who is expressing a religious position you don't agree with. But it is not ok for the baker to say they won't put two male figures on a cake. One is not discrimination and the other is, despite the fact that both customers are protected classes under the same law. Explain that to me.

I didn't say that. I said I would have a rule against "hate speech" and it would apply equally to everyone. If a person wanted an "I hate Christians" sign. I would refuse. If a person wanted an "I hate gays" sign. I would also refuse. That is equal application and not discriminatory business practice.

 

[ChrisL]

Exactly. He is still entitled to hate other people. He just cannot discriminate between customers when it comes to providing a service that he agreed to provide when opening the business, regardless of race, sexual orientation, gender, etc.

I think you are completely missing what Marty is saying or the basis of his position.

Okay, explain then. From what I see, he and others are stomping their feet because they can't treat their fellow Americans as second class citizens because of their bigoted views. He is certainly entitled to FEEL anyway he wants, he just cannot apply that to business dealings, as a regular business is treated as any other business and has to abide by secular law as they are not religious institutions.

He is saying it is not the place of the government to force people to associate with others unless there is a compelling interest to do so, such as providing food, housing, etc. He does not consider the need for pastry to constitute a compelling interest. Who the people are involved is not the issue, only the issue of governmental force. He would equally be opposed to the government forcing a gay baker from baking a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church or a black baker from baking a cake for a white power party. He is not supporting discrimination, he is opposing governmental force.

And can you imagine the MESS that would result. Oh this business only caters to this group of people, can't go there. Oh, this business caters to this group of people but refuses to serve this group. Good grief. How stupid.

I am not supporting his position, though it does have its merits. I am only saying that if you want to argue his position, then you should argue his position - not one you made up for him.

My position is that he cannot refuse to do business with a person based on discriminatory personal views. I haven't made up anything.

 

[saveliberty]

In your hypothetical printing business. Business discriminate all the time based in distance, pricing, language and many other factors.

This, class, is what is known as equivocation.

It is called reality. I can't deliver a product or service to someone in my business location at the same price it may take to transport it elsewhere. My business may not allow for a bilingual employee, so working with another language may be a barrier.

That is not discriminating against someone based upon who they are or their "lifestyle."

Sure its discrimination when I can't sell to someone who can't speak English. I started my business with the understanding I would serve English speaking customers.

 

[saveliberty]

I didn't say that. I said I would have a rule against "hate speech" and it would apply equally to everyone. If a person wanted an "I hate Christians" sign. I would refuse. If a person wanted an "I hate gays" sign. I would also refuse. That is equal application and not discriminatory business practice.

So you made up your own hate speech rule, how discriminatory.

 

[paddymurphy]

More made up constitutional theory by the constitutional illiterate.

Thank you for admitting your are losing the argument. I have been consistent throughout and you have not yet once found any holes in my position, short of "I don't like it"

Yes, that has been your argument "I don't like it." It is not your right to discriminate when it comes to public accommodation business. Sorry that hurts your delicate sensitivities in that you can't treat other human beings as second class citizens. This is not Iran.

I don't like it when gay people are denied a service, I just don't like government force over something so trivial more.

You on the other hand want to treat religious people as 2nd hand citizens the moment they open a business.

The use of government over something like this is more harmful than the event it is trying to prevent.

What is non-trivial to you? Should a company be allowed to fire a man if they find out that he is married to another man because that would result in them providing spousal health insurance coverage as the result of a marriage they object to on religious grounds? How about a hospital denying access to a same sex spouse or considering that spouse's wishes because the hospital is religious based and refuses to recognize same sex marriage? Should a hotel be allowed to refuse to allow a gay couple to sleep in the same room? What about a banquet hall that refuses to allow a reception for a civil marriage? Being denied a cake is trivial. The principle, however, that a business can deny service to someone because they have a religious objection to the way gay people live their lives is not.

Employment law is something else, and the line there has to be drawn only around if the sexuality of the person is in conflict with the job to be done.

Hospitals deal with time and life sensitive issues, government has a compelling reason to force them to act equally.

Hotels should be required to provide rooms equally, however they should be able to choose events they wish to host.

Banquet halls should be allowed to choose the events they wish to hold

It's actually easy to figure out which ones result in actual harm, and which ones only result in people feeling sad that people don't agree with their lifestyle.

And pricks like you get to decide, right? So, you would allow a banquet hall to refuse to host an interracial wedding or one between Muslims?

 

[ChrisL]

Countries have borders, so do cities and they all discriminate. You up for released sex offenders living next to your house? Going to invite them over for dinner?

If a sex offender came into my business, how would I know it was a sex offender? Point number one. Point number two. No, I do not have the right to refuse service to such a person. I CAN object to a particular product, but I cannot refuse to serve this person as a public accommodation business.

 

[ChrisL]

I didn't say that. I said I would have a rule against "hate speech" and it would apply equally to everyone. If a person wanted an "I hate Christians" sign. I would refuse. If a person wanted an "I hate gays" sign. I would also refuse. That is equal application and not discriminatory business practice.

So you made up your own hate speech rule, how discriminatory.

What's discriminatory about it? If it applies equally to all of my customers regardless of their race, religious beliefs, etc., then it is not discrimination. I think you need to learn what discrimination means before you start arguing and make yourself look like a dumb cat.

 

[ChrisL]

I can refuse to make a specific product that my business wouldn't normally offer. That is not discriminatory business practice. Discrimination is when you refuse to do business with a person because of who they are.

For example, refusing to serve people based on gender, race, sexual orientation, etc.

 

[PratchettFan]

So then you believe and would support as a matter of law, language in any Court Ruling on this topic when it makes it to SCOTUS in the next year or two, that gay graphic artists would have to be forced to print "homosexuality is an abomination and a mortal sin, forbidden by the teachings of Jesus Christ in the New Testament" for a busy highway billboard, or they could be fined or gagged, or sued into the poorhouse by Christians?

OK, anyone else agree with Chris?

Nope, I would have a rule that I don't print hate speech, regardless of the belief of the customer. That would equally apply to everyone. No discrimination.

What if I had a rule that I didn't put two men or two women on a wedding cake and applied that equally to everyone? Would that be discrimination?

No, that is discriminating against gay people. You could have a rule that you make the cake but you don't decorate them. Or, you can have generic cakes that the public can choose and not deviate from those samples.

What the graphic artist does is create graphics. You think it is ok to refuse service to someone who is expressing a religious position you don't agree with. But it is not ok for the baker to say they won't put two male figures on a cake. One is not discrimination and the other is, despite the fact that both customers are protected classes under the same law. Explain that to me.

I didn't say that. I said I would have a rule against "hate speech" and it would apply equally to everyone. If a person wanted an "I hate Christians" sign. I would refuse. If a person wanted an "I hate gays" sign. I would also refuse. That is equal application and not discriminatory business practice.

And they have a rule, which they apply equally to everyone. Why is one discrimination and the other not?

 

[PratchettFan]

I can refuse to make a specific product that my business wouldn't normally offer. That is not discriminatory business practice. Discrimination is when you refuse to do business with a person because of who they are.

The scenario is a graphic artist and the customer wants graphics done, which is what that person provides. No different than the baker with a cake. So why is one discrimination and the other is not?

 

[saveliberty]

What's discriminatory about it? If it applies equally to all of my customers regardless of their race, religious beliefs, etc., then it is not discrimination. I think you need to learn what discrimination means before you start arguing and make yourself look like a dumb cat.

YOU made a rule, it excludes a group of customers dumbass.

 

[saveliberty]

Countries have borders, so do cities and they all discriminate. You up for released sex offenders living next to your house? Going to invite them over for dinner?

If a sex offender came into my business, how would I know it was a sex offender? Point number one. Point number two. No, I do not have the right to refuse service to such a person. I CAN object to a particular product, but I cannot refuse to serve this person as a public accommodation business.

I didn't say your business, I said your neighborhood. Very poor deflection.

 

[ChrisL]

What's discriminatory about it? If it applies equally to all of my customers regardless of their race, religious beliefs, etc., then it is not discrimination. I think you need to learn what discrimination means before you start arguing and make yourself look like a dumb cat.

YOU made a rule, it excludes a group of customers dumbass.

No it doesn't exclude a group of customers. Not at all.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I wonder if Joe voted for a bigot for president, because pretty much all presidential candidates were against gay marriage not too many years ago, including Obama in '08 ?