210 réponses à ce sujet

[TheJediSaint]

See, when conservatives get pissed off with the media in the States, they just make their own news channel.  With blackjack and hookers!  

 

Minus the blackjack and hookers.

[Fast Jimmy]

Your notions of what promotes hate and discrimination are irrelevant to the rights of business owners. If you don't like what they say don't buy from them. It is "ok" for them to be against a lifestyle choice or whatever because the freedom to think and say things, regardless of "muh feelings", is a constitutional right. The guarantee to cake themed however you want from any bakery isn't a constitutional right. There are many things a business could do that should legally qualify as unfair discrimination. Not baking a cake for a gay wedding because of religious beliefs isn't one of them.

It's one thing if you just walk into a bakery and order a cake but if walk through the door, tip your fedora, request a cake that looks like Richard Dawkins and saying "god sucks", they should be able to tell you no.

Civilization and universal reality dictate that a business has no choice in what events it will cater for? According to whom? Do the owners of these businesses not have rights of their own? Government has no role in telling a private business to serve for an event they'd rather not. It's a complete waste of time better spent on fixing real problems.

Seems you're rather clearly on one ideological extreme when you suggest that all Christian bakers get out of the business.

So... take everything you just said, and replace "gays" with "blacks." See if you agree with your statement still.

[Sigma Tauri]

Your notions of what promotes hate and discrimination are irrelevant to the rights of business owners. If you don't like what they say don't buy from them. It is "ok" for them to be against a lifestyle choice or whatever because the freedom to think and say things, regardless of "muh feelings", is a constitutional right. The guarantee to cake themed however you want from any bakery isn't a constitutional right. There are many things a business could do that should legally qualify as unfair discrimination. Not baking a cake for a gay wedding because of religious beliefs isn't one of them.

 

It's one thing if you just walk into a bakery and order a cake but if walk through the door, tip your fedora, request a cake that looks like Richard Dawkins and saying "god sucks", they should be able to tell you no.

 

Which constitutional right? The Kleins' could say "We don't agree with your lifestyle." They can't bar them service though. Cakes by Melissa broke state law.

 

That's really not that different from a bar that pretty much enforces the sign "No Injuns allowed" or "Irish need not apply."

[Fast Jimmy]

Which constitutional right? The Kleins' could say "We don't agree with your lifestyle." They can't bar them service though. Cakes by Melissa broke state law.

That's really not that different from a bar that pretty much enforces the sign "No Injuns allowed" or "Irish need not apply."

Heh. Injuns. That's such a funny word to have been used as a slur.

[Inquisitor Recon]

So... take everything you just said, and replace "gays" with "blacks." See if you agree with your statement still.

I still don't see how it changes things. Part of our rights under the Constitution is that people can the whatever they want regardless of how stupid, racist, or awful it may be. Of course idiots take the most advantage of this but the alternative is a road best not traveled.

 

Under this logic where is business is obliged to serve anybody or any event, should a bakery owned by African Americans being required by law to bake a KKK themed cake for the local Klan meeting if somebody orders one?

[Fast Jimmy]

I still don't see how it changes things. Part of our rights under the Constitution is that people can the whatever they want regardless of how stupid, racist, or awful it may be. Of course idiots take the most advantage of this but the alternative is a road best not traveled.

Under this logic where is business is obliged to serve anybody or any event, should a bakery owned by African Americans being required by law to bake a KKK themed cake for the local Klan meeting if somebody orders one?

That is different. You can refuse an organization that expresses direct ideologies in conflcit with your own. But with individuals, there are constitutional rights that protect discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, gender, age or sexual orientation for any public establishment. Notice that does not say "organization affiliation" or "political party" or "customer who is a complete tool."

There are plenty of good, legal reasons to refuse someone service. But if your sole reason for refusing service is because of one of the protected reasons of the 14th Amendment, then you are breaking the law.

[Inquisitor Recon]

Which constitutional right? The Kleins' could say "We don't agree with your lifestyle." They can't bar them service though. Cakes by Melissa broke state law.

 

That's really not that different from a bar that pretty much enforces the sign "No Injuns allowed" or "Irish need not apply."

They can bar them from service when that service is not one they provide (cakes for gay weddings). They never said "we're not going to serve you because you are gay" or something which is outright discrimination like that.

 

Also it's wondrous to see how hard the "tolerant" left is trying to destroy these people's (the Klein's) lives.

[Inquisitor Recon]

That is different. You can refuse an organization that expresses direct ideologies in conflcit with your own. But with individuals, there are constitutional rights that protect discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, gender, age or sexual orientation for any public establishment. Notice that does not say "organization affiliation" or "political party" or "customer who is a complete tool."

There are plenty of good, legal reasons to refuse someone service. But if your sole reason for refusing service is because of one of the protected reasons of the 14th Amendment, then you are breaking the law.

You can refuse an organization that expresses direct ideologies in conflict with your own but you can't refuse an event based around an ideology in direct conflict with your own? Where is the line between the two and how does the differentiation make any sense at all?

 

You indeed cannot discriminate based on what somebody is but you can decide what service your business actually provides. If a business won't cater a gay wedding that should not be a problem. There are plenty of other businesses that will do it.

[Fast Jimmy]

They can bar them from service when that service is not one they provide (cakes for gay weddings). They never said "we're not going to serve you because you are gay" or something which is outright discrimination like that.

Also it's wondrous to see how hard the "tolerant" left is trying to destroy these people's (the Klein's) lives.

"We don't refuse service to blacks. We just refuse to make pancakes for black people." Imagine if IHOP actually tried to say that today.

[Sigma Tauri]

They can bar them from service when that service is not one they provide (cakes for gay weddings). They never said "we're not going to serve you because you are gay" or something which is outright discrimination like that.

 

Also it's wondrous to see how hard the "tolerant" left is trying to destroy these people's (the Klein's) lives.

 

What reasonable grounds do they have that they can't provide a service like a wedding cake when they're a cake shop? Anyway, it is attested in this article that the Kleins said this

 

Bowman said Aaron Klein, the co-owner of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, said the couple's union was an "abomination unto the lord."

 

And the Bureau of Labors and Industries pretty much stated there is evidence for it. So, they broke state law, and the Kleins placed themselves into this hole.

[Fast Jimmy]

You can refuse an organization that expresses direct ideologies in conflict with your own but you can't refuse an event based around an ideology in direct conflict with your own? Where is the line between the two and how does the differentiation make any sense at all?

Yes indeed cannot discriminate based on what somebody is but you can decide what your business does. If a business won't cater a gay wedding that should not be a problem. There are plenty of other businesses that will do it.

The difference is a matter of choice. You CHOOSE to be a member of the KKK, in the above example. You don't choose to be black, or male, or over the age of 45. Discrimination against an inherent quality that is not tied to the business transaction in play is against the law. Full stop. End of sentence. Not able to be argued. It has been since 1886 when the 14th amendment was added to the Constitution.

Besides, availability is not the problem. If a business refused to hire you because you were black, saying "there's plenty of other jobs out there - go find one of those" wouldn't hold water. Any more than "you've got more money in your bank account, it won't matter if I steal $100 from your wallet." This is not a theological debate, it's a legal one. You can't break the law because you feel like it. At least not without legal consequences.

[Jock Cranley]

 

You can't break the law because you feel like it. At least not without legal consequences.

 

That's a bit idealistic.

[Fast Jimmy]

That's a bit idealistic.

Well, that's fair. Still, you can't be surprised or outraged when you do get caught breaking the law. Especially when you go on national television and talk about how you broke the law.

[Inquisitor Recon]

What reasonable grounds do they have that they can't provide a service like a wedding cake when they're a cake shop? Anyway, it is attested in this article that the Kleins said this

 

 

 

And the Bureau of Labors and Industries pretty much stated there is evidence for it. So, they broke state law, and the Kleins placed themselves into this hole.

Because as they said "we do not do cakes for same sex weddings". In their eyes there is a difference between a same sex wedding and a regular one. Is such a view not allowed under the law now? So they quoted Leviticus? Is that a legal problem?

 

I really don't place all that much value in a judiciary system that will awarded $150,000 for not being able to buy a cake.

 

Damn do I wish I could walk into a bakery, be told "no", and get $150,000.

[Sigma Tauri]

Because as they said "we do not do cakes for same sex weddings". In their eyes there is a difference between a same sex wedding and a regular one. Is such a view not allowed under the law now? So they quoted Leviticus? Is that a legal problem?

 

They acted to bar service to lesbians based on their beliefs. The key word is act. At that point, they broke the law. Oregon state law's pretty clear, which is why they got fined in the first place. If they stated their protest, but still did the service, they wouldn't have gotten the state involved.

 

Damn do I wish I could walk into a bakery, be told "no", and get $150,000.

 

I'd do it if I didn't have a conscience. Man, I do love money.

[Fast Jimmy]

Because as they said "we do not do cakes for same sex weddings". In their eyes there is a difference between a same sex wedding and a regular one. Is such a view not allowed under the law now? So they quoted Leviticus? Is that a legal problem?

I really don't place all that much value in a judiciary system that will awarded $150,000 for not being able to buy a cake.

Damn do I wish I could walk into a bakery, be told "no", and get $150,000.

You're welcome to try? And it doesn't matter what the bakery owner see "in their eyes." It's the law. I'm sure people who smuggle immigrants illegally into the country see it as liberating people from a life of oppression and poverty "in their eyes," but that doesn't mean they won't get their butts imprisoned for doing it.

They are a public business. Just like there are consumer rights laws that prevent a business from ripping you off or else you can take them to court, there are civil rights that prevent a business from refusing you service based on intrinsic, non-relevant qualities about yourself.

Mormons originally had part of their religious beliefs that all black people had been marked by the The Curse of Ham, which Noah had placed on Canaan. It meant black people were not allowed to join the church and were generally thought of as sub-human. If the Church of Latter Day Saints still had this belief, do you think they would be justified in a restaurant refusing to serve a black person because the owner was Mormon and his religion taught that black people were cursed by God?

Religion is not a "Get Out of Jail Free" card to do whatever you want. Everyone is free to pursue their own beliefs in private, but the second you become a public business entity, you are required to follow laws and guidelines about how you can refuse said services to others. That is part of doing business in the US (and nearly every other industrialized country, barring perhaps China and India).

[Commander Rpg]

Say goodbye to Doctor Who and Sherklock

A total gain, if you ask me.

[Commander Rpg]

I really don't place all that much value in a judiciary system that will awarded $150,000 for not being able to buy a cake.

 

Damn do I wish I could walk into a bakery, be told "no", and get $150,000.

You wouldn't succeed in that, where I live. "Homophobia", or anything related to it, doesn't exist in the italian system of law. Yet, and I hope it remains that way.

[Inquisitor Recon]

The difference is a matter of choice. You CHOOSE to be a member of the KKK, in the above example. You don't choose to be black, or male, or over the age of 45. Discrimination against an inherent quality that is not tied to the business transaction in play is against the law. Full stop. End of sentence. Not able to be argued. It has been since 1886 when the 14th amendment was added to the Constitution.

Besides, availability is not the problem. If a business refused to hire you because you were black, saying "there's plenty of other jobs out there - go find one of those" wouldn't hold water. Any more than "you've got more money in your bank account, it won't matter if I steal $100 from your wallet." This is not a theological debate, it's a legal one. You can't break the law because you feel like it. At least not without legal consequences.

How is it tied to an inherent quality in play? As far as I know the nature of homosexuality (inherent or not) is still unknown unlike race or gender but that's irrelevant. The couple was informed that the business does not cater gay weddings. Not that it doesn't serve gays. If they requested a wedding cake for a heterosexual couple and were refused then there would be a clear problem of what can legally be considered discrimination.

 

How does this individual know he was refused because he was black versus being refused because he wasn't the best qualified candidate? This cake incident was a petty dispute the very nature of which means it is a matter ultimately decided by the mindset of the judge versus any basis in law.

[Commander Rpg]

How does this individual know he was refused because he was black versus being refused because he wasn't the best qualified candidate? This cake incident was a petty dispute the very nature of which means it is a matter ultimately decided by the mindset of the judge versus any basis in law.

Think about something more.

Suppose my religious faith doesn't allow me to bless a homosexual union, even if it was stated by national laws. If you punish me with an administrative penalty, you're discriminating my religion, in order to protect the civil beliefs of some people. So I too should get a refund from the state.

[Sigma Tauri]

How is it tied to an inherent quality in play? As far as I know the nature of homosexuality (inherent or not) is still unknown unlike race or gender but that's irrelevant. The couple was informed that the business does not cater gay weddings. Not that it doesn't serve gays. If they requested a wedding cake for a heterosexual couple and were refused then there would be a clear problem of what can legally be considered discrimination.

 

Suffice it to say, considering they're the nature of the couple, they are the recipients of the service being denied, to which according to Oregon Equality Act of 2007, they are entitled to. In this case, the difference between the event and the customer aren't that different.

[Fast Jimmy]

How is it tied to an inherent quality in play? As far as I know the nature of homosexuality (inherent or not) is still unknown unlike race or gender but that's irrelevant.

Religion isn't technically an immutable quality either, but it is protected. I don't make the rules. If you want to get them changed, good luck getting a 75% majority in the House and Senate to change the constitution.

The couple was informed that the business does not cater gay weddings. Not that it doesn't serve gays. If they requested a wedding cake for a heterosexual couple and were refused then there would be a clear problem of what can legally be considered discrimination.

No it wouldn't. If they had requested a "heterosexual cake" (whatever the heck that even means), there would be no discirmnation. Unless they said "we don't make cakes for straight people." Then, yes, that would be against the law.

How does this individual know he was refused because he was black versus being refused because he wasn't the best qualified candidate?

Often, it's difficult to tell, let alone prove in a court of law. In the case of the bakery, the dopes went on national TV and proudly declared that was their sole reasoning. If you find a business that will go on the news tonight saying they refused to hire someone because they were a woman, I'm sure they'd have a similar case on their hands.

This cake incident was a petty dispute the very nature of which means it is a matter ultimately decided by the mindset of the judge versus any basis in law.

That's just patently not true. The law is pretty clear. Again - you can't say "we don't serve gays here." You can't do it. It is not legal. Any judge who looked at the facts and saw that the business clearly stated publicly that they would not serve someone because of their sexual orientation, regardless of reasons, would vote the same way. It is just as open-and-shut as someone going on TV and confessing to killing someone prior to their murder trial.

If the bakery had said they were suddenly overbooked for the weekend in question, or said that there was a conflict of interest that required them to recuse themselves from this wedding or nine million other lies that they could have shoveled out there, there wouldn't be much of a case. It is because the bakery boldly and stupidly declared to not only the customers, but also to anyone who held a microphone in their face, that they were using a protected demographic class as the basis of discriminatory practices. That's not legal. Open and shut.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Labour or Tory, Republican or Democrat, US or UK, it's all just delaying the inevitable political future. Sweden "It should be illegal to urinate standing up" or Australia "We gotta stop the boats".

 

Pick your poison.

 

Jeni Bro knows better!

[Inquisitor Recon]

Religion isn't technically an immutable quality either, but it is protected. I don't make the rules. If you want to get them changed, good luck getting a 75% majority in the House and Senate to change the constitution.

I thought we were talking about Oregon here, not the entire United States. Or do you really think there is a valid case against them based of the 14th Amendment versus whatever laws Oregon may have?
 

No it wouldn't. If they had requested a "heterosexual cake" (whatever the heck that even means), there would be no discirmnation. Unless they said "we don't make cakes for straight people." Then, yes, that would be against the law.

Yes it would be discrimination if we are talking about the same bakery. But if this happened to be some bakery that only did gay weddings, then things would be different.
 

Often, it's difficult to tell, let alone prove in a court of law. In the case of the bakery, the dopes went on national TV and proudly declared that was their sole reasoning. If you find a business that will go on the news tonight saying they refused to hire someone because they were a woman, I'm sure they'd have a similar case on their hands.

Again confirming something like this is entirely up to the judge unless state laws of Oregon state are relevant in this specific case.
 

That's just patently not true. The law is pretty clear. Again - you can't say "we don't serve gays here." You can't do it. It is not legal. Any judge who looked at the facts and saw that the business clearly stated publicly that they would not serve someone because of their sexual orientation, regardless of reasons, would vote the same way. It is just as open-and-shut as someone going on TV and confessing to killing someone prior to their murder trial.

They never said "we don't serve gays here". Assuming there is no Oregon state law which would specifically applies to gay weddings, the judge could disregard the facts completely and come to a "valid" ruling based on whatever the hell he felt like.
 

If the bakery had said they were suddenly overbooked for the weekend in question, or said that there was a conflict of interest that required them to recuse themselves from this wedding or nine million other lies that they could have shoveled out there, there wouldn't be much of a case. It is because the bakery boldly and stupidly declared to not only the customers, but also to anyone who held a microphone in their face, that they were using a protected demographic class as the basis of discriminatory practices. That's not legal. Open and shut.

Of course there shouldn't even be "protected" classes under the notion that everybody is equal, but disregarding that this could only be considered a clear-cut case depending on the laws of Oregon.

[Sigma Tauri]

But if this happened to be some bakery that only did gay weddings, then things would be different.

 

The law would still consider it discriminatory if a straight couple were denied service. A straight and gay wedding are different only on the participants on the events. The couple are still the clientele of the bakery. I know you're trying to make a difference between the events and the clientele. But. your argument's not holding water. This whole thing is exactly about sexual orientation, which is the basis of the event. And the bakery discriminated. State law's clear on this.