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

[bendog]

It's a valid question that can the State compel you to give up a profession to maintain your religious beliefs. Making it more interesting is that when one has a state certificate of some kind, like an CPA or doctor, one has a property right that the state may not take without due process, which requires an impartial hearing and the state to assert some interest that may only be protected by taking one's property.

 

[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?

I don't agree.

What if they wanted to buy a tuxedo for the wedding. And two men who don't know each other walk into a store, and both want the SAME tuxedo for their separate weddings.

And the owner realizes one man is gay and the suit may be worn in a gay wedding. The other man is black and will wear it to marry a woman. And a third white straight man walks in, wanting the same style tux the other 2 want.

And the owner says....

I have three of these tuxedos in stock. BUT.....

I'll only sale to the white straight male. Because I don't like blacks, and don't believe in gay marriage. So you other two....you wont get sold these other 2 of the 3 suits.

That is WRONG.

However, if the third man walked in and said "I want the same tux....but, I want you to stitch on some Nazi patches to the sleeves, and stitch "Jews Go To Hell" on the back.

That too would be WRONG, and the owner should be allowed to say no.


Refusing to sale the SAME product to someone simply because you don't like something about their lifestyle outside of the store...which in no way affects your business...is wrong.

But, forcing that businessman to alter his product in a way he finds offensive is wrong too.

Same product, same service.

Demand the product be changed....that is not right.

I don't disagree that, in the scenario you described, the business owner would be "wrong" to turn down the other two men simply because he doesn't like blacks or gays. That's because my morals agree with yours on this point.

It is not, however, your place or my place to tell that business owner how to conduct business. "Wrong", again, is a subjective term. Your morals and my morals are irrelevant to someone else's business. Only the owner/operator's morals are relevant. IF his say don't serve blacks or gays, who are we to say he needs to serve blacks and gays?

Personally, I won't do business with a business that I believe to be racist and discriminatory in its practices. The greater sin, however, in my view, is to force others to abide by my standards of right and wrong. Morals can't be proven, homie. All subjective. I'll never understand why people like you and the evangelical right (and holy shit are you SO MUCH MORE SIMILAR than either side would dare admit) can't be content to live by your morals and let others live by their's.

 

[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?

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.

We actually agree here. My whole point was that what is offensive is inherently subjective, therefore it should never be used as a guideline for telling others how to conduct themselves. Otherwise freedom of speech and freedom of religion are illusory at best.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Missed the entire point? That is exactly the point of all this: the bakery in question did have to take a job to serve people they didnt want to.
Geez. The stupidity of the Left knows no bounds.

No they didn't. They could have closed down. They could have said, our religious beliefs cannot accommodate us being in a business that by law requires us to serve homosexuals,

therefore we are getting out of this business.

So they should starve their families because they hold a religious belief?

And you are the compassionate person here?

God will provide right? The Bible does say that you know. Reference Sparrows.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

We actually agree here. My whole point was that what is offensive is inherently subjective, therefore it should never be used as a guideline for telling others how to conduct themselves. Otherwise freedom of speech and freedom of religion are illusory at best.

We dont disagree then.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It's a valid question that can the State compel you to give up a profession to maintain your religious beliefs. Making it more interesting is that when one has a state certificate of some kind, like an CPA or doctor, one has a property right that the state may not take without due process, which requires an impartial hearing and the state to assert some interest that may only be protected by taking one's property.

The State setting the rules does not compel anything, that's up to you. It's not like they are requiring that you have a Jesus doormat. If your faith can't deal with the requirements of a job, get another job. It's a job not faith.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Missed the entire point? That is exactly the point of all this: the bakery in question did have to take a job to serve people they didnt want to.
Geez. The stupidity of the Left knows no bounds.

No they didn't. They could have closed down. They could have said, our religious beliefs cannot accommodate us being in a business that by law requires us to serve homosexuals,

therefore we are getting out of this business.

They could have committed suicide too to avoid it. But I dont think anyone thinks those are reasonable expectations.

Well I'm okay with that one actually. The fix was, stop baking wedding cakes. Problem solved.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

No. You don't have to take a job that by law requires you to serve people you'd rather discriminate against.

A slave never had that option.

Yikes be careful man you're gonna sprain your brain.

Am I wrong? Is anyone forced into the bakery business in modern day America?

Is anyone forced to buy anything from any particular bakery? I'm pretty sure ACA doesn't stand for Affordable Cake Act.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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

Yep. Don't care, not a bit. Some people still want segregated schools. Not concerned in the slightest.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

No they didn't. They could have closed down. They could have said, our religious beliefs cannot accommodate us being in a business that by law requires us to serve homosexuals,

therefore we are getting out of this business.

They could have committed suicide too to avoid it. But I dont think anyone thinks those are reasonable expectations.

Well I'm okay with that one actually. The fix was, stop baking wedding cakes. Problem solved.

Why should the business owner have to stop baking wedding cakes to satisfy your morals? Why shouldn't the customer buy his shit somewhere else to satisfy the baker's morals?

What makes your morals superior to anyone else's?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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

Yep. Don't care, not a bit. Some people still want segregated schools. Not concerned in the slightest.

The people who want segregated schools want SOCIETY to do something (i.e., segregate the schools). The people who are offended by gay marriage, in this argument, simply want the right to NOT do something (serve people they don't want to). The latter group isn't trying to force anyone else to do ANYTHING. The first group -does- want to force people to do something (choose their schools based on race).

See the difference? Wanting others to abide by your morals, and wanting to abide by your own morals even when they offend others, are ENTIRELY different concepts.

 

[Katzndogz]

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

Because they don't. They only deny those services which require their personal participation. Has a gay person ever complained that they were told to leave a bakery when all they wanted were petit fours for the afternoon tea? No. What they complain about is that the baker will not make a wedding cake that not only requires the baker's personal participation in attending the event, but requires that the baker convey a message (condoning same sex marriage) that the baker does not want to convey.

 

[bucs90]

So I assume you right wingers, this December, aren't gonna say a damn word when businesses start choosing to say "Happy Holidays" and/or refuse to display Christian images of the holiday season?

Or worse, when they tell their Christian employees that they aren't allowed to say "Merry Christmas" to customers as the work place but Happy Holidays instead?

I'll refresh this thread in December to see haha.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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

Yep. Don't care, not a bit. Some people still want segregated schools. Not concerned in the slightest.

The people who want segregated schools want SOCIETY to do something (i.e., segregate the schools). The people who are offended by gay marriage, in this argument, simply want the right to NOT do something (serve people they don't want to). The latter group isn't trying to force anyone else to do ANYTHING. The first group -does- want to force people to do something (choose their schools based on race).

See the difference? Wanting others to abide by your morals, and wanting to abide by your own morals even when they offend others, are ENTIRELY different concepts.

The morals they need to abide by are Our Collective ones. Don't like it, find another Collective, the Vatican for instance.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

They could have committed suicide too to avoid it. But I dont think anyone thinks those are reasonable expectations.

Well I'm okay with that one actually. The fix was, stop baking wedding cakes. Problem solved.

Why should the business owner have to stop baking wedding cakes to satisfy your morals? Why shouldn't the customer buy his shit somewhere else to satisfy the baker's morals?

What makes your morals superior to anyone else's?

It's not my morals, although I agree, it's Our morals. Either fish or cut bait.

 

[Katzndogz]

No. You don't have to take a job that by law requires you to serve people you'd rather discriminate against.

A slave never had that option.

Missed the entire point? That is exactly the point of all this: the bakery in question did have to take a job to serve people they didnt want to.
Geez. The stupidity of the Left knows no bounds.

No they didn't. They could have closed down. They could have said, our religious beliefs cannot accommodate us being in a business that by law requires us to serve homosexuals,

therefore we are getting out of this business.

The valid answer is "our religious beliefs cannot accommodate acting against our beliefs by providing wedding cakes for same sex couples. Therefore we are getting out of the wedding cake business except for our friends and relatives by private arrangement. Wedding cakes are no longer available to the general public.

 

[bucs90]

So if a black man walks into a tire shop in need of a tire to fix his car, and the owner is a white supremacist who believes the Aryan race is God's chosen people and says "Get out of here, I don't fix ni**er cars" you right wingers would support this "right"?

 

[bucs90]

Because if the taxpayer funded police and fire dept serves that business, then all those paying to help protect it should be allowed to shop there.

Right?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Missed the entire point? That is exactly the point of all this: the bakery in question did have to take a job to serve people they didnt want to.
Geez. The stupidity of the Left knows no bounds.

No they didn't. They could have closed down. They could have said, our religious beliefs cannot accommodate us being in a business that by law requires us to serve homosexuals,

therefore we are getting out of this business.

The valid answer is "our religious beliefs cannot accommodate acting against our beliefs by providing wedding cakes for same sex couples. Therefore we are getting out of the wedding cake business except for our friends and relatives by private arrangement. Wedding cakes are no longer available to the general public.

Be sure to bake those suckers for free, or at cost then.

 

[bendog]

So if a black man walks into a tire shop in need of a tire to fix his car, and the owner is a white supremacist who believes the Aryan race is God's chosen people and says "Get out of here, I don't fix ni**er cars" you right wingers would support this "right"?

yes, in the belief that he'll biz won't last 12 mos.