Should a Jewish Bakery Have the Right to Deny...

[Not2BSubjugated]

...a Christian Ideology based White Power group who goes into a Jewish bakery and request a cake in the shape a HHH and a burning cross? If they Jew denied baking this cake, since it's deeply against their religious faith?

Should the Jewish baker be forced to bake such a cake.


I mean few people argued the Baker was wrong when he refused to bake the cake "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler!"

Adolf Hitler denied his birthday cake - Telegraph

Yet in AZ one can not conceive that a religious baker has any argument in not baking a cake for a gay marriage.

The vast vast majority of Christian bakers that don't want any part of a gay marriage ceremony would be fine selling to gays for any other occasion.

I personally disagree with a baker not making money for a gay marriage ceremony, but I can see their argument.

Go back to the birthday cake for Adolf Hitler, I think that baker was in the right and so did most people!

1. Are you really claiming to speak for the "vast vast majority" of Christian bakers? What are you basing that claim on?

2. I'm Jewish, and I'm not aware of any tenet of my faith that demands I refuse to serve White Supremacists.

3. Any business is able to refuse to serve any customer they want. They are just not allowed to openly do it for discriminatory reasons. Any Christian baker that doesn't want to bake a cake for a Gay Wedding can refuse to do so, they just aren't allowed to berate the customers with why they aren't doing it. There wouldn't be any lawsuits if the bakers just said "Sorry, we can't accept any more orders now", rather than "We won't cause you're gay".

On number 3. . . You're okay with someone operating their business as they wish to in terms of who they do business with, which is awesome in my opinion. Totally agree with you there. However, where you seem to have a problem, is when they do so in conjunction with an exercise of their 1st Amendment right to free speech. You can discriminate, you're just not allowed to be honest about it or say what's going on.

This is retarded for two reasons. Number 1, limiting free speech on the grounds of people taking offense sets one of the most dangerous precedents possible: If someone -really- doesn't like what you're saying, you shouldn't be allowed to say it. If you can't see where that precedent could lead to some HOLY SHIT oppression, you don't chase logic too effectively.

Number 2, a rose by any other name. WHat kind of pussified, marshmallow psyches are we possessed of in this country when we can only stomach our actions if we lie to ourselves about their motives? What kind of self-diluted basket-case even acts in a manner that's only morally acceptable to themselves if they bullshit about what they're actually doing?

Let's just be honest. Mainstream morality says discriminating against someone is generally wrong. Just because that morality is mainstream, however, doesn't mean that it's correct. Other moral codes, which exist in this country in large number, allow for discrimination. If your morals aren't mainstream, **** it. Own 'em. Be loud and proud about what you believe to be right and tell everybody else to **** off and apply their morals to their -own- fuckin businesses.

 

[bendog]

Trying to get C_Clayton_Jones to see the errors in his "logic" is like trying to explain the color red to someone who has been blind from birth.

I'm getting that impression as well.

B. for the issue of gay marriage or homosexuality in general

the PROPER enforcement of Constitutional standards would be neutral and inclusive: equally defending progay and antigay beliefs without imposing or discriminating either way

States have the right to define marriage. There is no Constitutional definition.

States cannot enforce any law that treats one group differently from another without a rational reason, and there is no scientifically validated reason to treat glbt marriage differentlty form straight ... just junk science.

 

[jillian]

Apparently some folks didn't get the memo.

no one is "compelling them to work for another" as in slavery.

you simply can't mindlessly discriminate against entire classes of people

But you're enforcing that by compelling them to work for another against their will. You can't ostrich it away.

right.

because no kid should see his father thrown out of a public accommodation because of what he was born.

you can paint it any way you want.

you don't get to discriminate against classes of people.

move on.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes we get it. You've joined the KKK in still opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

What a jackass.

lol, really? You just said the current law is wrong. The current law is the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

You oppose that law, you're on the same side of the issue as every other white racist.

No I'm not, asshole. However, pointing out the difference to you is a waste of time. You're only interested in thumping your chest and feeling smug about your supposedly superior moral code. However, the reality is that your jus t a stupid goose stepping thus.

 

[natstew]

There is no valid reason to force me to bake a cake for a Queer Wedding!

 

[bripat9643]

If the Jew doesn't have to serve the Nazi, then the Nazi doesn't have to serve the Jew. If the Black man doesn't have to serve the white racist, then the white racist doesn't have to serve the black man.

Carry that to its logical end and where does it leave us? Back to the pre-1964 Civil Rights Act era, which, of course, is where - we are finding out - most conservatives want to go.

You didn't answer the question, you bootlicking weasel:

Do you support allowing bigots to publish racist literature?

 

[natstew]

Why do do the Christians only choose to deny services to only homersexuals and not other people that are sinners???

It's their choice moron!!

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

no one is "compelling them to work for another" as in slavery.

you simply can't mindlessly discriminate against entire classes of people

But you're enforcing that by compelling them to work for another against their will. You can't ostrich it away.

right.

because no kid should see his father thrown out of a public accommodation because of what he was born.

you can paint it any way you want.

you don't get to discriminate against classes of people.

move on.

Your morals say that it's more important that no kid see his father thrown out of a public accommodation because of what he's born than that a business owner gets to operate his own property as he sees fit.

My moral code says that it's more important that nobody be forced to abide by anyone else's morals.

Please explain why I should acknowledge that your morals are the superior ones, and include why they are -so- superior to my morals that everyone should be forced to abide by them.

 

[bripat9643]

So if you allow bigots to publish racist literature, does that make you a racist? IF you defend the right of Nazis to parade in Skokie IL, does that make you a racist?

No to both questions. What it makes you is Liberal, at least on this issue.

It also means you should send your donation to the ACLU. Those are the kind of things that they defend.

So you're going on the record as being opposed to the First Amendment. Right, you ******* commie?

 

[paperview]

If the Jew doesn't have to serve the Nazi, then the Nazi doesn't have to serve the Jew. If the Black man doesn't have to serve the white racist, then the white racist doesn't have to serve the black man.

Carry that to its logical end and where does it leave us? Back to the pre-1964 Civil Rights Act era, which, of course, is where - we are finding out - most conservatives want to go.

You didn't answer the question, you bootlicking weasel:

Do you support allowing bigots to publish racist literature?

I do.

Why not? It's all over the place here. And while your posts don't classify as literature they sure are racist. Plenty of your brethren here as well.

Of course bigots can publish racist literature. What world are you from?

 

[bendog]

If the Jew doesn't have to serve the Nazi, then the Nazi doesn't have to serve the Jew. If the Black man doesn't have to serve the white racist, then the white racist doesn't have to serve the black man.

Carry that to its logical end and where does it leave us? Back to the pre-1964 Civil Rights Act era, which, of course, is where - we are finding out - most conservatives want to go.

You didn't answer the question, you bootlicking weasel:

Do you support allowing bigots to publish racist literature?

I do.

Why not? It's all over the place here.

Of course bigots can publish racist literature. What world are you from?

Yes, but when the publishing is likely to result in violence, then the state may abridge their freedom to publish.

 

[bripat9643]

if the jew doesn't have to serve the nazi, then the nazi doesn't have to serve the jew. If the black man doesn't have to serve the white racist, then the white racist doesn't have to serve the black man.

Carry that to its logical end and where does it leave us? Back to the pre-1964 civil rights act era, which, of course, is where - we are finding out - most conservatives want to go.

you didn't answer the question, you bootlicking weasel:

Do you support allowing bigots to publish racist literature?

i do.

Why not? It's all over the place here. And while your posts don't classify as literature They sure are racist. Plenty of your brethren here as well.

Of course bigots can publish racist literature. What world are you from?

racist!

 

[bripat9643]

You didn't answer the question, you bootlicking weasel:

Do you support allowing bigots to publish racist literature?

I do.

Why not? It's all over the place here.

Of course bigots can publish racist literature. What world are you from?

Yes, but when the publishing is likely to result in violence, then the state may abridge their freedom to publish.

No it can't.

 

[dblack]

no one is "compelling them to work for another" as in slavery.

you simply can't mindlessly discriminate against entire classes of people

But you're enforcing that by compelling them to work for another against their will. You can't ostrich it away.

right.

because no kid should see his father thrown out of a public accommodation because of what he was born.

you can paint it any way you want.

you don't get to discriminate against classes of people.

move on.

Don't you mean to say that some people don't get to discriminate against some classes of people? Obviously you're not describing a general principle. There's quite a lot of picking and choosing going on here. It's certainly nothing like equal protection of the law.

 

[bendog]

I do.

Why not? It's all over the place here.

Of course bigots can publish racist literature. What world are you from?

Yes, but when the publishing is likely to result in violence, then the state may abridge their freedom to publish.

No it can't.

Yes it can.

First Amendment allows punishment only of subversive advocacy calculated to produce "imminent lawless action" and which is likely to produce such action

Advocacy of Unlawful Action

 

[bucs90]

I think there is a difference in saying:

"I'll make YOU a blue and white vanilla cake, but wont make YOU a blue and white vanilla cake because you're gay"

VS

"I'll make YOU a blue and white vanilla cake...........but YOU, no I wont make a cake the depicts Adolph Hitler and a burning cross"

Asking a person to create a cake depicting a vulgar or offensive image is a lot different than just denying someone the same old cake anyone else could buy just because they are gay.

Huge difference. And I would NEVER support forcing a baker to make a cake that depicts an image that he finds offensive. In fact, forcing him to make that cake (which some say is art) could be a violation of his freedom of speech.

 

[Avatar4321]

You realize some people are offended by gay marriage, right?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I think there is a difference in saying:

"I'll make YOU a blue and white vanilla cake, but wont make YOU a blue and white vanilla cake because you're gay"

VS

"I'll make YOU a blue and white vanilla cake...........but YOU, no I wont make a cake the depicts Adolph Hitler and a burning cross"

Asking a person to create a cake depicting a vulgar or offensive image is a lot different than just denying someone the same old cake anyone else could buy just because they are gay.

Huge difference. And I would NEVER support forcing a baker to make a cake that depicts an image that he finds offensive. In fact, forcing him to make that cake (which some say is art) could be a violation of his freedom of speech.

You're inserting your own morals, here. Just because Adolf Hitler's image is offensive to you, doesn't mean that it's factually offensive. Offensive is a -purely- subjective value.

Just because, to you, it seems inherently evil to say I won't bake you the same cake because you're gay, doesn't mean that it's factually evil. Evil is subjective (unless you can prove the nature of the universe). Again, that's your morality, which, at the risk of sounding redundant, is purely subjective.

What I'm saying is that there's only a moral difference here because you've decided that there is one. The action itself is the same. I don't agree with you so I don't want to do business with you.

If that's the case, and the only thing that makes these two actions different is -your- moral view, why should it be -your- moral view that decides how the baker does business and not the -baker's- moral view?

 

[Avatar4321]

I think I mostly agree with Emily, though my focus is different.

I think Goldwater opposed civil rights prohibitions on individual discrimination, as opposed to govts being able to pass laws treating one group differently than another for no good reason. Goldwater was a Jew, who knew discrimination first hand. But, if you force a fundy Christian baker to do what he believes his religion forbids inorder to practice his trade ... you give him an untenable choice. Rather, the Elizabethan compromise underlying our religious freedoms is basically that one may believe whatever one wants, but he may not commit treason against the civil authority.

Still, Goldwater had no issue with finding it illegal for a govt to treat one group differently from another group without stating a good reason. (He did feel the fed govt's power in elections was limited, though I'm not sure if he'd have had a problem with suing individual states to strike down Jim Crowe laws via the 14th amend. Compelling states to have the fed govt decide their voting districts was too much for him)

In short, the govt should not force individual behavior.

I don't understand this, "What we have instead is either unconstitutional laws forcing a policy one way or the other, either pushing gay marriage against opposing beliefs, or banning it against opposing beliefs."

I'm not compelled to do anything when the state is forced to recognize a glbt marriage in way mine is already recognized.

The elephant in the room here is the judicial branch making unconstitutional decisions that the legislature can't pass legislation to overcome because they are limited.

 

[The Rabbi]

I think there is a difference in saying:

"I'll make YOU a blue and white vanilla cake, but wont make YOU a blue and white vanilla cake because you're gay"

VS

"I'll make YOU a blue and white vanilla cake...........but YOU, no I wont make a cake the depicts Adolph Hitler and a burning cross"

Asking a person to create a cake depicting a vulgar or offensive image is a lot different than just denying someone the same old cake anyone else could buy just because they are gay.

Huge difference. And I would NEVER support forcing a baker to make a cake that depicts an image that he finds offensive. In fact, forcing him to make that cake (which some say is art) could be a violation of his freedom of speech.

You're inserting your own morals, here. Just because Adolf Hitler's image is offensive to you, doesn't mean that it's factually offensive. Offensive is a -purely- subjective value.

Just because, to you, it seems inherently evil to say I won't bake you the same cake because you're gay, doesn't mean that it's factually evil. Evil is subjective (unless you can prove the nature of the universe). Again, that's your morality, which, at the risk of sounding redundant, is purely subjective.

What I'm saying is that there's only a moral difference here because you've decided that there is one. The action itself is the same. I don't agree with you so I don't want to do business with you.

If that's the case, and the only thing that makes these two actions different is -your- moral view, why should it be -your- moral view that decides how the baker does business and not the -baker's- moral view?

Huh? What is offensive is inherently subjective. It is irrelevant. The fact that the person finds it offensive means it is offensive. At least to that person. Does it give the person the right to impose his views on others? No, I dont think so. Like the case of the school mascot that some feminists declared supported male rape. Or somesuch.
OTOH, we're dealing with a person in his own business. If he doesn't want to do business with someone because he finds the transaction offensive, then he should not be forced to. Period.