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

[bripat9643]

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.

There's no such thing as "out morals."

 

[bripat9643]

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

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

Typical fascist. Do what I want you to do or you have no right to work in your profession.

The fact that NYCarbeener thinks that's a good resolution to the issue shows all you need to know about him. He's a servile government toady who's incapable of committing logic.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

There's no such thing as "out morals."

The courts and American law beg to differ. I'll go with them.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

"Collective morals" are no morals at all. We're talking about the government here, not some social club. Apparently you believe whatever the rules government chooses to enforce are totally arbitrary. If that's the case, then why should you object to a law making it legal for businesses to discriminate against gays if those are "the collective morals" of the community?

That isn't the case. And they aren't arbitrary, and they are moral in many cases. Besides that you got it all right.

 

[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.

We don't care that you have a hissy fit about a bakery that doesn't want to attend a gay wedding.

Attend? Learn about things called Facts, and ask good old Melissa about hissy fits, like on the one she now has to pay up for having.

 

[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. .

That has to be one of your dumber claims, and that's a low bar to get under. That state uses compulsion to accomplish everything it does.

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.

Why should anyone have to get another job because some homos want to force them to make a gay wedding cake?

What's a gay wedding cake? And if you think your faith means you can't do your job, either get another job or get another faith. I'm going to redesign a job or society at large so that you can serve your God while trying to make a buck.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I remember when liberals used to say things like ...

Say anything you like, within reason.

Who determines what "within reason" means?

Free Speech has limitations as well.

No it doesn't.

Should I be allowed to publish a book that says blacks are an inferior species who should not be allowed to rub elbows with or procreate with white people?

Must you be such an idiot still, after all these years?

United States free speech exceptions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As per your book, have at it.

 

[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.

That's not a "fix." What was the "fix" for blacks when it came to segregation, don't use from white-only drinking fountains?

The fix was a law that said such things no longer exist.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

The most rational post from you I've seen in years...

Years? You've supposedly only been a member since this month. You just admitted that you're a sock.

What I admitted to was knowing your stupidity from years ago on other forums, and you still can't think your way out of a wet paper bag.

 

[paperview]

When the first Public Accommodation Laws were passed (CRA64), there was a great deal of religious belief (mostly in the south, but also in other parts of the country) that "race-mixing" was directly in conflict with their religion. Indeed it was against the law to marry another race in a number of states.

In fact, the judge who upheld Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute in Loving v. Virginia cited the bible and noted God had put the races on separate continents as proof “that he did not intend for the races to mix.” It was literally an appeal to divine authority. Thankfully it was not many years (three to be exact) the Supreme Court would find laws against interracial marriages were unconstitutional.

Nonetheless, it was most certainly a "deeply held religious conviction" to some (and still is) that would allow them to discriminate in exactly the same way as the couple in this instance -- that is, a baker refusing to "be a part of this wedding."

How many would uphold that religious belief as Supreme today? With the baker being allowed to say "I don't believe in mixed race marriages, to me it is a sin?" How has it worked for those who have tried to use it?

As I noted in an earlier post of mine, bigots are free to discriminate, they however need to find a way to be clever about it. In Elane photography, for example, just saying "Sorry, booked up" or some other reason to not produce evidence you are actively discriminating. Same with the bakers.

I'm certain it goes on all the time today, and did in the past for the ones against "race-mixing" and integration for religious reasons. So the message is clear: you want to be a bigot, be one. Just be clever about it.
This does not violate your religious principles.

Unless your purpose is to find an excuse to insult and offend those potential customers you think have cherry-picked as sinners.

Which at its base, I think, is exactly what some of these religious objectors want to do.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

If they believe discriminating against homosexuals is more important than feeding their families that is their decision.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

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

Typical fascist. Do what I want you to do or you have no right to work in your profession.

The fascists ALLOWED refusing to do business with the Jew, remember? You're the fascist, if that's your definition.

btw, I don't believe that just because a guy running a meth lab thinks selling meth should be legal that the government should bow to his personal opinions,

even he chooses to call them religious. Apparently you disagree.

 

[Kosh]

The far left talking points just pour out without any independent thought behind them what so ever.

Then again the law was not intended as the far left media portrayed, but who cares about when they helped push the biggest lies coming form the five years on Obamacare.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In the last few days 8 other state legislatures have pulled their bills similar to the Arizona bill.

This nonsense is dead; the bigots have been routed.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

In the last few days 8 other state legislatures have pulled their bills similar to the Arizona bill.

This nonsense is dead; the bigots have been routed.

Nice but they will rise again, in another form. Give them time.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

That’s ridiculous demagoguery.

If one is making a good faith effort to operate a business he needs to know and understand the comprehensive regulatory policies in his jurisdiction he’ll be required to follow, including policies he might incorrectly believe ‘violates’ his religious dogma.

The fact remains that those who refuse to accommodate gay Americans has nothing to do with ‘religion’ and everything to do with an inane and unwarranted hatred of gays, hence the appropriate and Constitutional regulatory policy intended to protect markets from such capricious nonsense.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The fact remains that those who refuse to accommodate gay Americans has nothing to do with ‘religion’ and everything to do with an inane and unwarranted hatred of gays...

It's not that simple. I wish that it were.

 

[Mac1958]

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?

If they believe discriminating against homosexuals is more important than feeding their families that is their decision.

Correct!

.

 

[dblack]

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

Typical fascist. Do what I want you to do or you have no right to work in your profession.

The fascists ALLOWED refusing to do business with the Jew, remember? You're the fascist, if that's your definition.

You're defining fascism by what it allows? Uh.. no, that's not my definition.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

...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!

If you're in the custom cake making business, you make the cake. Your personal objections and religious beliefs don't transfer over into your business practices. Just as doctors aren't allowed to pick and choose which patients to treat, the same standard should apply to private businesses. If you don't wanna make a Nazi cake, don't make cakes for money.

As an aside, as a Jew myself I recognize Hitler was evil, but without him and the Nazis it's fair to ask if the modern state of Israel would even exist.