People are legally entitled to be served in a certain way. If Christian bakers aren't willing to serve the public without illegal discrimination, they don't deserve to be in business.
That is not true.
Upvote
0
People are legally entitled to be served in a certain way. If Christian bakers aren't willing to serve the public without illegal discrimination, they don't deserve to be in business.
That is not true.
Christian bakers should get to operate their businesses in an illegal manner?
The manner should not be illegal.
Fine, but until that changes, it is and that is the will of society in the states where it's illegal.
Out of curiosity, though, do you advocate religious exemption or do you think any business should just be allowed to refuse service for whatever reason they so choose?
Fine, but until that changes, it is and that is the will of society in the states where it's illegal.
Out of curiosity, though, do you advocate religious exemption or do you think any business should just be allowed to refuse service for whatever reason they so choose?
I believe any non corprate entity has the right to be selective about whom they serve. I do no believe in rights for corporations, so once a business incorporates the jig is up. So there is always the bakery at wal mart for a wedding cake.
As you can see, bhsmte, you guys see it as wrong no matter what. I just love the way you guys play the victim card no matter how people try to accommodate you.
It was wrong to break the law and discriminate against the customers.
It was wrong whether he denied them in short order, or strung it out.
Hope that makes sense.
I have my doubts that society as it were has a clue about the ramifications of "their will".
I believe any non corprate entity has the right to be selective about whom they serve. I do no believe in rights for corporations, so once a business incorporates the jig is up. So there is always the bakery at wal mart for a wedding cake.
Agreed, the baker was perfectly willing to sell generic cakes, generic cookiees, etc. He just wasn't willing to make a wedding cake to celebrate an event he had religious objections to because he believes homosexuality to be a sin.
If he sells wedding cakes as part of his business, customers would expect to be able to buy one.
Except your statement isn't exactly true, he was willing to sell other products, just not a wedding cake.
See above.
It's wrong for you to demand that people have to give up their religious beliefs, and don't say that's not what you are arguing because it is.
Agreed, the baker was perfectly willing to sell generic cakes, generic cookiees, etc. He just wasn't willing to make a wedding cake to celebrate an event he had religious objections to because he believes homosexuality to be a sin.
Except your statement isn't exactly true, he was willing to sell other products, just not a wedding cake.
It's wrong for you to demand that people have to give up their religious beliefs, and don't say that's not what you are arguing because it is.
If you live in the United States, you will likely be disappointed then.
You think society is unaware whether sexual orientation is a protected status in their state?
I suppose it doesn't matter to you that it's amazingly easy to check such things.
So, being a corporation means that you aren't a business anymore? Hobby Lobby will be disappointed.
Do you realize that there is such a thing as operating a business that isn't a public accommodation, which would give you the right to be selective about whom they serve?
I do and that currently is what I feel that those who have religious beliefs should pursue, however, that should not be the case.
Well perhaps the law needs to protect him, or better protect the shop owner and others by allowing folks to serve who.it suits them to in their establishments.
I'll grant you that your position is far more universal than some that have been stated in this topic. However, I think you will find it unlikely that society will be removing anti-discrimination laws any time soon.
This is probably true, which makes me feel warm and fuzzy for those being discriminated against. Not so much for the business owners deprived their rights.
I don't see how that would qualify as hate speech. Look for the record I think both bakers should have had the right to refuse to fill an order that they found offensive. My problem is the double standard that is being demonstrated here.