State Takes Legal Action to Seize $135K From Bakers Who Refused to Make Cake for Lesbian Couple

[TNHarley]

If people would treat others fairly, PA laws would be unnecessary. They exist only because of people like the homophobes on this thread.

Yes, humans are not perfect. GREAT observation.

They are far less than perfect, they are not even fair-minded, so we pass laws to help make them so. Works like a charm, for the most part.

fair is subjective.

 

[kaz]

So, if I think a person is too fat and I own a grocery store, I should be able to refuse to serve that person? No, you're too fat and have had enough Twinkies, IMO. Get out!

Absolutely, and they should have the right to never come back and tell their friends about you.

The problem is you're hitting a brad with a sledge hammer and taking out lots of other innocents along the way. Government has no legitimate power to force citizens to do business with each other

 

[TNHarley]

It isn't only about religion. I have a buddy that is agnostic like me and he doesn't support gays. If he owned a bakery, he would kick them out. How would it effect the economy? The people wouldn't go somewhere else? They would just give up on a cake because of some asshole?

And if such discrimination was allowed and all bakers in a community felt that way, where does a gay couple get a cake for their wedding? And if such discrimination was allowed, what happens when other groups are shunned? Where do Jews go if all businesses suddenly decide they don't want their business? Or blacks? Or Muslims? PA laws serve a very useful function.

You think that would really happen? lol
Its ok to introduce hypotheticals but at least make them believable

That's not theoretical, that's American history.

yes. You are right. Society really hasn't progressed at all (while rolling eyes)

It's progressed because we passed laws that forced it to...

Could you stay consistent? Thanks

 

[ChrisL]

People can be disgusted at whatever they want. I find some very fat people to be disgusting. Should I be able to refuse to serve fat people? You have to realize the trouble this would cause. The state wants a smooth operation of business and flow of people doing business. THAT is in the best interest of everyone and the state's own bottom line.

Comparing religious conviction to a repulsion to fat people is, not to offend, rather absurd. For one, there is no Constitutional right that protects your right to abhor fat people, but there is one that ensures people of the right to religious freedom and their right to practice that religion.

Your religious beliefs are just your personal beliefs.

 

[kaz]

Here is a good debate
The constitutionality(rather the lack thereof) of anti-discrimination laws and how they trample on American values such as personal liberty. No emotion needs to be involved, though. Emotion doesn't run a country

Agreed, and how many stores turn down customers. Even for blacks in the deep south, government had to implement jim crow to force businesses to not serve paying black customers

 

[ChrisL]

So, if I think a person is too fat and I own a grocery store, I should be able to refuse to serve that person? No, you're too fat and have had enough Twinkies, IMO. Get out!

Absolutely, and they should have the right to never come back and tell their friends about you.

The problem is you're hitting a brad with a sledge hammer and taking out lots of other innocents along the way. Government has no legitimate power to force citizens to do business with each other

Nobody is forcing you to open a public accommodation service business. It's as simple as that. If you cannot abide by the laws in your state (which, yes, they can set business practice laws), then you don't open a business, or not that type of business.

 

[martybegan]

So, if I think a person is too fat and I own a grocery store, I should be able to refuse to serve that person? No, you're too fat and have had enough Twinkies, IMO. Get out!

Absolutely, and they should have the right to never come back and tell their friends about you.

The problem is you're hitting a brad with a sledge hammer and taking out lots of other innocents along the way. Government has no legitimate power to force citizens to do business with each other

Actually government does, but it needs a compelling government interest to get involved. The commerce clause does give them the power, but progressives want that power as absolute, and libertarians such as myself (small "l") want the power tempered against the rights of others.

 

[Iceweasel]

The good thing about the issue is it clearly demonstrates who the tyrants are. "Do as you are commanded to do" isn't exactly the ring of freedom we were founded under.

 

[martybegan]

So, if I think a person is too fat and I own a grocery store, I should be able to refuse to serve that person? No, you're too fat and have had enough Twinkies, IMO. Get out!

Absolutely, and they should have the right to never come back and tell their friends about you.

The problem is you're hitting a brad with a sledge hammer and taking out lots of other innocents along the way. Government has no legitimate power to force citizens to do business with each other

Nobody is forcing you to open a public accommodation service business. It's as simple as that. If you cannot abide by the laws in your state (which, yes, they can set business practice laws), then you don't open a business, or not that type of business.

So choice is only available for those who agree with you?

 

[ChrisL]

Here is a good debate
The constitutionality(rather the lack thereof) of anti-discrimination laws and how they trample on American values such as personal liberty. No emotion needs to be involved, though. Emotion doesn't run a country

But since discrimination is not a recognized religious custom or practice and nobody forces you to open a business that serves the public, how are any of your "personal" liberties being violated? Explain please.

 

[martybegan]

The good thing about the issue is it clearly demonstrates who the tyrants are. "Do as you are commanded to do" isn't exactly the ring of freedom we were founded under.

it's comical that they are on the "moral majority" side from back in the 70's and 80's, and they don't even realize it.

 

[Iceweasel]

So, if I think a person is too fat and I own a grocery store, I should be able to refuse to serve that person? No, you're too fat and have had enough Twinkies, IMO. Get out!

Absolutely, and they should have the right to never come back and tell their friends about you.

The problem is you're hitting a brad with a sledge hammer and taking out lots of other innocents along the way. Government has no legitimate power to force citizens to do business with each other

Actually government does, but it needs a compelling government interest to get involved. The commerce clause does give them the power, but progressives want that power as absolute, and libertarians such as myself (small "l") want the power tempered against the rights of others.

It's been expanded to mean that. It was not the intent to micro-manage who we do or do not do business with.

 

[kaz]

And if such discrimination was allowed and all bakers in a community felt that way, where does a gay couple get a cake for their wedding? And if such discrimination was allowed, what happens when other groups are shunned? Where do Jews go if all businesses suddenly decide they don't want their business? Or blacks? Or Muslims? PA laws serve a very useful function.

You think that would really happen? lol
Its ok to introduce hypotheticals but at least make them believable

That's not theoretical, that's American history.

yes. You are right. Society really hasn't progressed at all (while rolling eyes)

It's progressed because we passed laws that forced it to...

Could you stay consistent? Thanks

So, if I think a person is too fat and I own a grocery store, I should be able to refuse to serve that person? No, you're too fat and have had enough Twinkies, IMO. Get out!

Absolutely, and they should have the right to never come back and tell their friends about you.

The problem is you're hitting a brad with a sledge hammer and taking out lots of other innocents along the way. Government has no legitimate power to force citizens to do business with each other

Nobody is forcing you to open a public accommodation service business. It's as simple as that. If you cannot abide by the laws in your state (which, yes, they can set business practice laws), then you don't open a business, or not that type of business.

It's not just opening a business, it's working in one. So my choices are to starve or succumb to your tyranny. You're not a liberal, you're an authoritarian leftist

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If people would treat others fairly, PA laws would be unnecessary. They exist only because of people like the homophobes on this thread.

Yes, humans are not perfect. GREAT observation.

They are far less than perfect, they are not even fair-minded, so we pass laws to help make them so. Works like a charm, for the most part.

fair is subjective.

As are most things but it's not difficult to see that if you sell candy to the white child not selling the same to a black child is unfair.

 

[ChrisL]

It's a good law. If this forum is any indication, it is a law that is needed too. The government doesn't recognize gay people as being second class citizens. That's all there is to it. If you open a business that serves the public, like it or not, like THEM or not, they are a part of the public you should expect to be serving.

 

[kaz]

So, if I think a person is too fat and I own a grocery store, I should be able to refuse to serve that person? No, you're too fat and have had enough Twinkies, IMO. Get out!

Absolutely, and they should have the right to never come back and tell their friends about you.

The problem is you're hitting a brad with a sledge hammer and taking out lots of other innocents along the way. Government has no legitimate power to force citizens to do business with each other

Actually government does, but it needs a compelling government interest to get involved. The commerce clause does give them the power, but progressives want that power as absolute, and libertarians such as myself (small "l") want the power tempered against the rights of others.

Bull, going to your grocery store has zero to do with interstate commerce

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And if such discrimination was allowed and all bakers in a community felt that way, where does a gay couple get a cake for their wedding? And if such discrimination was allowed, what happens when other groups are shunned? Where do Jews go if all businesses suddenly decide they don't want their business? Or blacks? Or Muslims? PA laws serve a very useful function.

You think that would really happen? lol
Its ok to introduce hypotheticals but at least make them believable

That's not theoretical, that's American history.

yes. You are right. Society really hasn't progressed at all (while rolling eyes)

It's progressed because we passed laws that forced it to...

Could you stay consistent? Thanks

I am being consistent. The reason you feel these laws are no longer necessary is because,............................................................wait for it,.................................................they worked...

 

[ChrisL]

You think that would really happen? lol
Its ok to introduce hypotheticals but at least make them believable

That's not theoretical, that's American history.

yes. You are right. Society really hasn't progressed at all (while rolling eyes)

It's progressed because we passed laws that forced it to...

Could you stay consistent? Thanks

So, if I think a person is too fat and I own a grocery store, I should be able to refuse to serve that person? No, you're too fat and have had enough Twinkies, IMO. Get out!

Absolutely, and they should have the right to never come back and tell their friends about you.

The problem is you're hitting a brad with a sledge hammer and taking out lots of other innocents along the way. Government has no legitimate power to force citizens to do business with each other

Nobody is forcing you to open a public accommodation service business. It's as simple as that. If you cannot abide by the laws in your state (which, yes, they can set business practice laws), then you don't open a business, or not that type of business.

It's not just opening a business, it's working in one. So my choices are to starve or succumb to your tyranny. You're not a liberal, you're an authoritarian leftist

Nope it's about fair business practice and what is best for the state's interests and individual civil rights to be able to go into a store, take a bus, and shop where they choose without fear of being discriminated against. Now, personal issues, such as shoplifters, people who cause a commotion, etc., are another matter entirely. Those people are harming your business. You can ban them for such actions.

 

[TNHarley]

Here is a good debate
The constitutionality(rather the lack thereof) of anti-discrimination laws and how they trample on American values such as personal liberty. No emotion needs to be involved, though. Emotion doesn't run a country

But since discrimination is not a recognized religious custom or practice and nobody forces you to open a business that serves the public, how are any of your "personal" liberties being violated? Explain please.

Why do you keep bringing up religion? We are talking about personal choices and opinions.
Like Kaz said, "conform or starve"! lol

 

[bodecea]

Once you apply for and sign a business permit, you are already agreeing to abide by that particular state's laws regarding business practice.

I will not argue that. lol
My only argument is its not right. I dont agree with mental conformity.
I do agree with free will and personal liberty.
Did I mention I was "pro-choice"?

I am pro free will and liberty too. Nobody forces you to open a public accommodation business. No one is telling how to conduct your personal life or how to feel, but yes, there are going to be rules and regulations whenever you open a business.

This is the same argument that was used against anti-discrimination laws against black people way back when, such as interracial marriages, and serving black people at certain businesses. The only difference? The discrimination now against our gay citizens is based upon personal sexual habits rather than skin color. It failed then and fails now.

I agree with the top. Im not saying these people didn't break the law, I am saying it shouldn't be a law in the first place. In fact, if you gave me a couple hours I could probably gather some good information to explain how it is also unconstitutional. Because, frankly, there is no possible way that it is.
People should be able to refuse service to anyone they feel they don't want to sell their product to. People have a right to feel uncomfortable, a right to personal opinion, a right to the company they OWN and a right to be an asshole.

FYI...PA laws have been challenged in court and determined to be Constitutional. But there is always the legal route of getting PA laws repealed thru the state legislature. I encourage all who do not like PA laws to actively work to get that done.