Why am I Mr. Pink? Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 5 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said: To me (and only me), religion should never play into it. If you carry an item (or provide a service) then you should sell/provide that service to everyone and anyone. Provided, that item/service isn't protected. Is "art" a protected item? Can I force an christian artist to paint me with devil horns smashing jesus christ's face in? The baker here equated his custom cake with a "temporary artistic statute". The baker offered to sell them any one of his premade cakes. Baker should have just said he isnt accepting any custom orders at this time. Done and done. Dont even give a reason. Seems like the baker here was polite about it and does hold sincere deep religious beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 I think he should have just made a really terrible looking and tasting cake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momma There Goes That Man Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 I think you choose to go into business in the public sphere you are entering into a societal contract. You sell goods or services and you leave your beliefs and opinions at home. If youre an atheist, served religious customers and if you are Christian you serve gays etc anything less is discrimination in my mind. You can’t choose not to sell to a customer based on their beliefs in anything imo. That is something you have essentially agreed to when choosing to go into business Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 3 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said: I think you choose to go into business in the public sphere you are entering into a societal contract. You sell goods or services and you leave your beliefs and opinions at home. If youre an atheist, served religious customers and if you are Christian you serve gays etc anything less is discrimination in my mind. You can’t choose not to sell to a customer based on their beliefs in anything imo. That is something you have essentially agreed to when choosing to go into business But that's not the law anywhere (and never has been). Kilmer is right, there are legally protected classes. All discrimination isn't illegal. Can the baker be forced to make cake the depicts an act of pedophilia? If you refuse aren't you discriminating against pedophiles? If NAMBLA is holding an event and wants a cake with something that most people would consider indecent, should people be forced to make it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 Christians don't like porn? Admittedly I'm a bad christian but... ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 3 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said: Christians don't like porn? They dont ADMIT they like porn. publicly....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 Reading the ruling and all the explanations just seemed like the Court was twisting itself in knots to not address the actual issue or what it could possibly mean for future challenges by businesses claiming the right to discriminate against "insert group here" Also, I am not sure why the baker was fine with selling a premade cake for a gay wedding as opposed to making a custom one. Is there something in the bible he can point to that makes a distinction? Does he use different flour, eggs & sugar in premade cakes as opposed to custom orders? This is part of why I have such a hard time buying into "sincerely held religious beliefs" dictating a pretty clearly non-religious public business. There are little to no absolutes in what your "beliefs" are that you can argue just about anything being for or against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 As I wrote in a FB post, I don't want anyone forced to make food for me, you never know if the food will be adulterated. If they want to place a big old sign announcing their policies, at least I know not to go there. And if I have a business, I reserve the right to refuse service to people who disagree with my beliefs, and I am happy to post a sign with my policies. This decision is the slippery slope of codifying state sponsored religion, specifically outlawed in the First Amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 10 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said: This decision is the slippery slope of codifying state sponsored religion, specifically outlawed in the First Amendment. Right. What constitutes a "religious belief" does it have to be something documented in a holy book. Can it just be a feeling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 45 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said: They dont ADMIT they like porn. publicly....... They just like it on twitter. On the whole, the cake decision is probably right but indeed narrow, and isn't really a major victory for either side. If a similar case comes up with somewhat different facts we could see a different result. It was, after all, 7-2, so there had to be some cross-aisle agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 Just now, DogofWar1 said: They just like it on twitter. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 Are they going to investigate his nomination? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 1 hour ago, LadySkinsFan said: As I wrote in a FB post, I don't want anyone forced to make food for me, you never know if the food will be adulterated. If they want to place a big old sign announcing their policies, at least I know not to go there. And if I have a business, I reserve the right to refuse service to people who disagree with my beliefs, and I am happy to post a sign with my policies. This decision is the slippery slope of codifying state sponsored religion, specifically outlawed in the First Amendment. I like the idea of a sign on the door declaring biases of the business. Kind of a warning label for potential customers. Unfortunately if it becomes systemic/ there aren't available alternatives we're right back to civil rights legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 I think that businesses have the right to conduct business with whoever they want as long as they are not breaking a law. And unfortunately there is no law stopping discrimination like this. I think I as a future business owner (we all hope) I would like the ability to pick and choose who I want to provide my services for. Its doesn't even have to be anything as dramatic as above, either. Maybe I just dont like someone. I know plenty of people who I wouldn't want in my bar JUST BECAUSE I know who they are and I dont want them in there. Period. I dont buy the guys excuses of religious beliefs stopping him. He probably just thinks gays are icky. Thats his right. I also think the public has the right to basically shut his doors for him if thats how hes going to act. But I think he has the right to do what he wants. Or he should. Its alot like the kneeling thing. I dont like what you are doing but I defend your right to do it. Or whatever the saying is. What I dont understand is where to draw that line. But thats another topic i think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 I don’t really care about the cake issue. If you want your business to be known as the Bigoted Baker, go for it. And good luck with all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 2 hours ago, NoCalMike said: Reading the ruling and all the explanations just seemed like the Court was twisting itself in knots to not address the actual issue or what it could possibly mean for future challenges by businesses claiming the right to discriminate against "insert group here" Also, I am not sure why the baker was fine with selling a premade cake for a gay wedding as opposed to making a custom one. Is there something in the bible he can point to that makes a distinction? Does he use different flour, eggs & sugar in premade cakes as opposed to custom orders? This is part of why I have such a hard time buying into "sincerely held religious beliefs" dictating a pretty clearly non-religious public business. There are little to no absolutes in what your "beliefs" are that you can argue just about anything being for or against them. I'm sure the pre-made cakes didn't have two men celebrating what the baker considers sinful. I'm guessing they were just generic. Its the content requested that drove the refusal. Like somebody else mentioned, the case revolved more around the commissions clear hostility and discrimination toward the baker's religion, highlighted by their inconsistency in a case that posed the opposite viewpoint of refusal to make an anti-gay cake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 You tell them, Mr. Fredricksen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 15 minutes ago, visionary said: From the old M*A*S*H TV show: "Now just a minute! This is a press conference! The last thing I want to do is answer a lot of questions!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 1 hour ago, RedskinsFan44 said: I like the idea of a sign on the door declaring biases of the business. Kind of a warning label for potential customers. Unfortunately if it becomes systemic/ there aren't available alternatives we're right back to civil rights legislation. This actually reminds me of a scene in the movie Giant, where Rock Hudson and family stop at a roadside diner to get something to eat. His son is married to a Native American woman and has a baby son. The diner has a sign saying he can refuse service to anyone and the owner insults the daughter-in-law and calls the baby a papoose and refuses them service. Rock gets mad and beats the man up. That scene made an impression on me. And we shouldn't resort to signs so we can self-select where we do business. In looking at the decision, some commissioners made disparaging remarks about the baker, which they could have just ruled on the merits of the complaint without disparaging remarks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 Probably couldn't get a gun, so a hatchet had to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.