Colorado Baker accused of discrimination -- wouldn't make anti-gay wedding cake

[mafwons]

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.

 

[Cute Tink]

That is not true.

Christian bakers should get to operate their businesses in an illegal manner?

 

[mafwons]

Christian bakers should get to operate their businesses in an illegal manner?

The manner should not be illegal.

 

[Cute Tink]

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?

 

[mafwons]

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 have my doubts that society as it were has a clue about the ramifications of "their will".

 

[bhsmte]

I have my doubts that society as it were has a clue about the ramifications of "their will".

?????????????????

 

[mafwons]

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.

 

[mafwons]

?????????????????

I agree.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

If you live in the United States, you will likely be disappointed then.

 

[GarfieldJL]

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.

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.

It was wrong to break the law and discriminate against the customers.

Except your statement isn't exactly true, he was willing to sell other products, just not a wedding cake.

It was wrong whether he denied them in short order, or strung it out.

Hope that makes sense.

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.

 

[Cute Tink]

I have my doubts that society as it were has a clue about the ramifications of "their will".

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.

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.

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?

 

[bhsmte]

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.

You can believe it is wrong for a Christian baker who owns a business that caters to the public that is obligated to follow the laws that impact public businesses, but it is the law. As I have stated, the Christian has plenty of opportunity to discriminate against gays in other areas; their church, their private club, their private schools and in their private homes and lives. When they open up their doors to the public, discrimination is not allowed.

 

[Cute Tink]

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.

He denied a service to customers that he offers to the general public and he did so because of their sexual orientation, which you just admitted explicitly with this statement: "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.

Yes, he refused to offer a service he offers to the general public because of the customers' sexual orientation.

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.

Except it's not.

 

[mafwons]

If you live in the United States, you will likely be disappointed then.

I am used to disappointment, no big deal.

 

[mafwons]

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.

 

[Cute Tink]

I do and that currently is what I feel that those who have religious beliefs should pursue, however, that should not be the case.

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.

 

[NotreDame]

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.

This has been addressed already by explanation and argument as to why the freedom you advocate for has been rightfully repudiated by society. Since you espouse nothing new, the prior objections still withstand your repeated pint above.

 

[mafwons]

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.

 

[Cute Tink]

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.

On what basis do you consider them being deprived of "rights"?

 

[NotreDame]

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.

Whether the customer's message was hate speech is not germane to the dialogue. There isn't any double standard because the two cases aren't the same. As was told to you before, not all 4 elements needed for baker Silva to have violated the public accommodation law are present. All four elements are present for baker Phillips' conduct. Hence they aren't the same.

I have provided the expert opinion of Eugene Volokh, in which you've said nothing to refute his position, and he expressed rather lucidly why baker Silva didn't violate the public accommodation law.