Refusal over personal beliefs

[OKTexas]

So the baker can say he'll do it and just not do it, give the folks their money back and everything is good, right?

Concerts aren't a public accommodation.

Businesses are.

You don't have a case, here, guy. But if you want to piss away tens of thousands of dollars over a $50.00 concert ticket, have at it.

You want to try actually answering the question?

 

[JoeB131]

Public accomodation laws are inherently unjust. They result in government force being used against a person who hasn't trespassed against anyone's person or property. Violence is always ethically unjustified, except in response to trespass or threat of trespass.

How's this for a comprimise. You can totally ignore the PA laws.

But you get no public benefits. At all. No utilities, no police or fire protection, etc.

As long as you business benefits from public support, the government has a right to question it if you are not providing promised services to the public.

 

[JoeB131]

You want to try actually answering the question?

I did. Have someone explain the big words to you.

 

[OKTexas]

You want to try actually answering the question?

I did. Have someone explain the big words to you.

No this was the question, you ignored it.

"So the baker can say he'll do it and just not do it, give the folks their money back and everything is good, right?"

Try again.

 

[Centinel]

How's this for a comprimise. You can totally ignore the PA laws.

But you get no public benefits. At all. No utilities, no police or fire protection, etc.

As long as you business benefits from public support, the government has a right to question it if you are not providing promised services to the public.

I don't own a business that is considered a public accommodation. Perhaps your use of "you" and "your" is intended to mean "one" and "he/his".

Also, I don't want people to be able to ignore PA laws. I am arguing that they ought to be repealed because they are inherently unjust for the reason I gave above: They result in government force being used against a person who hasn't trespassed against anyone's person or property. Violence is always ethically unjustified, except in response to trespass or threat of trespass.

 

[JoeB131]

No this was the question, you ignored it.

"So the baker can say he'll do it and just not do it, give the folks their money back and everything is good, right?"

Try again.

I already answered it, Cleetus. Go back and have someone explain the big words to you...

Wait, I'll try to translate into Redneck,

"Well, dun, der, Cleetus, dat der business is what them yankees call a Public Accommodation, which means that you dun der gots to serve the coloreds and the ka-weeers if they dun come into your shop."

 

[JoeB131]

I don't own a business that is considered a public accommodation. Perhaps your use of "you" and "your" is intended to mean "one" and "he/his".

Also, I don't want people to be able to ignore PA laws. I am arguing that they ought to be repealed because they are inherently unjust for the reason I gave above: They result in government force being used against a person who hasn't trespassed against anyone's person or property. Violence is always ethically unjustified, except in response to trespass or threat of trespass.

I'm sure you don't own anything. This wasn't the point being made.

The point made is that the public supports your business whether they patronize it or not. We give a shitload of tax benefits to businesses on the premise that they serve a public good. There are a lot of laws that are there to protect the businessman from being cheated by customers and vendors. Therefore, there is an obligation to make sure that if you offer a service, you are offering it to everyone equally.

If one is too racist or homophobic to work with blacks or gays, then maybe they should consider doing something else for a living.

At least until that happy day we identify the racists and homophobes and send them to re-education camps. (Yes, I'm ******* with you now, Rightwingers)

 

[Centinel]

Therefore, there is an obligation to make sure that if you offer a service, you are offering it to everyone equally.

There is no ethically legitimate reason to oblige someone to do so, and it would be unethical to initiate force against a person for not doing so. The initiation of violence isn't ethically justified, except in response to trespass against person or property.

 

[JoeB131]

There is no ethically legitimate reason to oblige someone to do so, and it would be unethical to initiate force against a person for not doing so. The initiation of violence isn't ethically justified, except in response to trespass against person or property.

you know, you can keep repeating these "How I think the world should be" mantras all day, but the fact is, we've had this argument. Your side lost. Deal with it.

 

[g5000]

View attachment 72578

Belive me the libtards will find a way to justify their hypocrisy

Looks like this retard doesn't know the difference between a boycott and denying someone their constitutional rights.

 

[boilermaker55]

So , in all white upper class neighborhoods, the police need to check these people out so they are not terrorist.
Equal treatment? Right!

Did any bands perform a concert but refuse entry to Christians? Maybe they told straight people that they were not permitted to attend? Yes?

People paid for the concerts..............they paid for a service..........listening to the bands..............they refused that service because of the personal beliefs...............

The baker refused service.......no payment had ever been made..........because of their personal beliefs........

You can't have your ******* cake and eat it too........

People should sue the band's asses to prove a point.

You really do think these examples are similar don't you? What a dummy.

You really think that it is your right to tell people of the Christian faith to serve to a gay wedding????????? Even though it violates their faith and beliefs......................You really are that stupid..............

If they cater hetero weddings in a state where gays are legally protected from discrimination, then by law, yes, they have to cater a gay wedding.

Then Walmart has to bake the damned Rebel Flag cake.........and all those anti Rebel Flags attacks need to cease and desist......................

You can't have the protections YOU DEMAND unless THEY ARE APPLIED TO ALL and every situation........

If you force a couple to attend a Gay Wedding then you will SHUT THE **** UP about the OTHER ISSUES...........and you will demand those BANDS PLAY.

 

[Deleted member 53821]

When companies refuse to move into a state because of X policy could the states sue them? In a lot of case there may have already been things done to get that company to move into the state. Either laws have been changed or handshake deals. If the company decides to change its mind afterward, after everything has been done, could the state sue them? If tax breaks were issued could the state sue the company for lost revenue?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If one is too racist or homophobic to work with blacks or gays, then maybe they should consider doing something else for a living.

The issue isn't about gays, the issue is about forcing somebody to participate in a ritual against their religious beliefs.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The issue isn't about gays, the issue is about forcing somebody to participate in a ritual against their religious beliefs.

This is a cake from Masterpiece Cakes portfolio (one of the bakers drawing national attention). There is no "religious ritual" that goes into making this cake that can be ordered. There is no difference in the cake whether ordered by a different-sex couple or a same-sex couple.


Bakers are not involved with religoius rituals.

The religious rituals take place at the church and the cake is done at the reception.

Of the multiple weddings I've been to, the cake has been delivered, setup and the baker is gone before the religious ritual takes place and before the guest show up for the reception.



Do these religious exemptions only apply to homosexuals? There was the case of Piggie Park that didn't want to serve blacks, can they claim the exception religoius exemption? Or a B&B owner that doesn't believe in interfaith marriages, can they turn away a Catholic and a Jew getting married because of the religion of the customers?


(BTW - my opinion is that public accommodation laws be repealed as we (in general) don't need them anymore. This isn't the 50's and 60's anymore. But I oppose special exemptions to allow the religious to discriminate when anthers moral views (which aren't based on religion) do not get the same treatment.)


>>>>

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The issue isn't about gays, the issue is about forcing somebody to participate in a ritual against their religious beliefs.

This is a cake from Masterpiece Cakes portfolio (one of the bakers drawing national attention). There is no "religious ritual" that goes into making this cake that can be ordered. There is no difference in the cake whether ordered by a different-sex couple or a same-sex couple.


Bakers are not involved with religoius rituals.

The religious rituals take place at the church and the cake is done at the reception.

Of the multiple weddings I've been to, the cake has been delivered, setup and the baker is gone before the religious ritual takes place and before the guest show up for the reception.



Do these religious exemptions only apply to homosexuals? There was the case of Piggie Park that didn't want to serve blacks, can they claim the exception religoius exemption? Or a B&B owner that doesn't believe in interfaith marriages, can they turn away a Catholic and a Jew getting married because of the religion of the customers?


(BTW - my opinion is that public accommodation laws be repealed as we (in general) don't need them anymore. This isn't the 50's and 60's anymore. But I oppose special exemptions to allow the religious to discriminate when anthers moral views (which aren't based on religion) do not get the same treatment.)


>>>>

Christian religions believe that homosexuality is an abomination to God. That's what it says in the Holy Bible. If you are baking a cake for people that are exercising that abomination to God, then yes, it is against your religion. By providing for that ritual, you are participating in that ritual.

 

[boilermaker55]

Should corporations that negotiated a retirement with Union workers or hourly employees, and then file bankruptcy, can they be sued?
It's like "the donald" says, but he only uses one example, the system is rigged. Rigged for the ultra-wealthy and corporations.

When companies refuse to move into a state because of X policy could the states sue them? In a lot of case there may have already been things done to get that company to move into the state. Either laws have been changed or handshake deals. If the company decides to change its mind afterward, after everything has been done, could the state sue them? If tax breaks were issued could the state sue the company for lost revenue?

 

[Deleted member 53821]

Should corporations that negotiated a retirement with Union workers or hourly employees, and then file bankruptcy, can they be sued?
It's like "the donald" says, but he only uses one example, the system is rigged. Rigged for the ultra-wealthy and corporations.

When companies refuse to move into a state because of X policy could the states sue them? In a lot of case there may have already been things done to get that company to move into the state. Either laws have been changed or handshake deals. If the company decides to change its mind afterward, after everything has been done, could the state sue them? If tax breaks were issued could the state sue the company for lost revenue?

Yes. They owe the money and a lot of workers are depending on it. They planned their lives around it. I say tough shit to the companies. The whole point about bankruptcy is to force people to pay back their creditors. It isn't there to wipe out your debt.

 

[bendog]

View attachment 72578

Belive me the libtards will find a way to justify their hypocrisy

Neither group is hypocritical. The states where the aging rock stars won't perform have laws saying the Christian bigots don't have to serve gays. Your OP is based on a false equivalency. Both groups choose not to serve those whose beliefs they find offensive. You might could honestly say the aging rock stars are no less bigoted than the Christian bigots.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The issue isn't about gays, the issue is about forcing somebody to participate in a ritual against their religious beliefs.

This is a cake from Masterpiece Cakes portfolio (one of the bakers drawing national attention). There is no "religious ritual" that goes into making this cake that can be ordered. There is no difference in the cake whether ordered by a different-sex couple or a same-sex couple.


Bakers are not involved with religoius rituals.

The religious rituals take place at the church and the cake is done at the reception.

Of the multiple weddings I've been to, the cake has been delivered, setup and the baker is gone before the religious ritual takes place and before the guest show up for the reception.



Do these religious exemptions only apply to homosexuals? There was the case of Piggie Park that didn't want to serve blacks, can they claim the exception religoius exemption? Or a B&B owner that doesn't believe in interfaith marriages, can they turn away a Catholic and a Jew getting married because of the religion of the customers?


(BTW - my opinion is that public accommodation laws be repealed as we (in general) don't need them anymore. This isn't the 50's and 60's anymore. But I oppose special exemptions to allow the religious to discriminate when anthers moral views (which aren't based on religion) do not get the same treatment.)


>>>>

Christian religions believe that homosexuality is an abomination to God. That's what it says in the Holy Bible. If you are baking a cake for people that are exercising that abomination to God, then yes, it is against your religion. By providing for that ritual, you are participating in that ritual.

You didn't answer these: "Do these religious exemptions only apply to homosexuals? There was the case of Piggie Park that didn't want to serve blacks, can they claim the exception religoius exemption? Or a B&B owner that doesn't believe in interfaith marriages, can they turn away a Catholic and a Jew getting married because of the religion of the customers?"


>>>>

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The issue isn't about gays, the issue is about forcing somebody to participate in a ritual against their religious beliefs.

This is a cake from Masterpiece Cakes portfolio (one of the bakers drawing national attention). There is no "religious ritual" that goes into making this cake that can be ordered. There is no difference in the cake whether ordered by a different-sex couple or a same-sex couple.


Bakers are not involved with religoius rituals.

The religious rituals take place at the church and the cake is done at the reception.

Of the multiple weddings I've been to, the cake has been delivered, setup and the baker is gone before the religious ritual takes place and before the guest show up for the reception.



Do these religious exemptions only apply to homosexuals? There was the case of Piggie Park that didn't want to serve blacks, can they claim the exception religoius exemption? Or a B&B owner that doesn't believe in interfaith marriages, can they turn away a Catholic and a Jew getting married because of the religion of the customers?


(BTW - my opinion is that public accommodation laws be repealed as we (in general) don't need them anymore. This isn't the 50's and 60's anymore. But I oppose special exemptions to allow the religious to discriminate when anthers moral views (which aren't based on religion) do not get the same treatment.)


>>>>

Christian religions believe that homosexuality is an abomination to God. That's what it says in the Holy Bible. If you are baking a cake for people that are exercising that abomination to God, then yes, it is against your religion. By providing for that ritual, you are participating in that ritual.

You didn't answer these: "Do these religious exemptions only apply to homosexuals? There was the case of Piggie Park that didn't want to serve blacks, can they claim the exception religoius exemption? Or a B&B owner that doesn't believe in interfaith marriages, can they turn away a Catholic and a Jew getting married because of the religion of the customers?"


>>>>

I think that's different because the owner didn't refuse to serve them because they were gay, he refused to serve them because the cake they wanted was to be baked for their wedding. In fact, if I remember correctly, in the one instance the gay person was a regular customer who the baker served all the time knowing he was gay.