First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Post Reply Justice Dept sides with Baker who refused to make wedding cake for gay couple
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17
We're pushing back lads.
Now they just need to reverse the decision in that case where a muslim truck driver who was fired for refusing to deliver alcohol was awarded $240k for 'discrimination'.
38200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17

Rujikin wrote:

I can see this turning real ugly real quick if they don't support the rights of the baker. Imagine what an actual neo-nazi could do to a Jewish baker, have a Jew make a Hitler/Genocide cake. Someone could make a Christian baker make a Satan cake then attack them for being unchristian. You could shut down pretty much every Islamic bakery by demanding a Mohammad cake, many more types of businesses than this. Could make a Gay baker make a "homosexuality is a sin" cake too.

Attacking a person through their business would become a legitimate form of attack against people. Really most family bakeries could be shutdown pretty easily or extorted.


Some important things to keep in mind:

1. No one forces any Christian to become a baker

2. No one forces any Christian bakery to operate as a public accommodation instead of as a private club

3. Operating as a private club would excuse any Christian baker from the laws you're concerned about

4. Private clubs can still be extremely profitable businesses

5. If religious beliefs become an exit clause for any laws one finds inconvenient the harm will be greater than what you imagine

6. If most bakeries could be shut down under this law the discrimination at issue is widespread enough to need the law

7. There is no comparison between the phrase "Congratulations Janet and Martha" and a Nazi swastika
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17

BlueOni wrote:



1. No one forces any Christian to become a baker

2. No one forces any Christian bakery to operate as a public accommodation instead of as a private club



1. No one forces anyone to become LGBTQP

2. No one forces anyone to go into a store to make a purchase

1337 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:

We're pushing back lads.
Now they just need to reverse the decision in that case where a muslim truck driver who was fired for refusing to deliver alcohol was awarded $240k for 'discrimination'.


These are two different things, unfortunately.
To my knowledge, the Muslim truck driver was an employee of Star Transport, LLC.
There's a distinct difference between these two cases.
Let's just look at the "hypothetical legal questions" asked in each case.


"At what point does your religion legally excuse you from doing an aspect of your job? - EEOC vs Star Transport, LLC



"At what point does the First Amendment should annul the Civil Rights Act of 1964" - Masterpiece Cakeshop vs State of Colorado


As you can see, there is a difference between these two questions.
The EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) had sued on behalf of two Muslim drivers as Star Transport fired them as they refused to transport alcohol.
This case especially focused on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
By terminating these two individuals from their jobs because they refused to deliver alcohol, Star Transport, LLC violated the Equal Employment Opportunity clause within the Civil Rights Act.

In the case surrounding the baker and the homosexual couple it, too, focuses on the Civil Rights Act.
The difference is that this time we're looking at Title II (Public Accommodations) instead of Title VII (Equal Employment Opportunity).
As the baker was also the owner of the establishment, it's illegal for him to discriminate against someone based on their religious views (in this case, that it's okay to be homosexual).
Now if the owner of the establishment refused to make it but allowed one of his employees to make it, there wouldn't have been an issue.
Or, to overlap these two cases, if the owner had fired his employee because the employee refused to make a cake for a homosexual couple - then he would have been breaking the law in accordance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

I can see how it can be difficult to differentiate the two since they're both civil right lawsuits.
I hope I've helped you understand the difference here.
38200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:

1. No one forces anyone to become LGBTQP

2. No one forces anyone to go into a store to make a purchase


1. There is no "P" in that acronym no matter how often you put it there. This is not a thing no matter how much you wish it was.

2. Non-discrimination laws are not limited to nor are they constitutionally compelled to be limited to innate characteristics even if we accept your premise that LGBTQ people adopt that status as a "lifestyle choice".

3. Your point about people having the freedom not to shop here or there, while technically true, is irrelevant. If a business incorporates in such a way and operates as a public accommodation its owners have made a business decision that carries consequences. One of those consequences is that they will be compelled to serve the general public without discriminating their services' nature or quality on the basis of protected classes, one of which is sexual orientation in Colorado.
26461 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / In Jail, On Death...
Online
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17

Cydoemus wrote:


saksiss wrote:

Wrong. He's not obliged to make that cake unless he already accepted the payment.


I have zero personal interest in the baker, nor do I have any personal involvement in the matter.
The reality is that our laws in the United States of America indicate that he's legally required to offer his product to all customers unless the discrimination principle that he is using is consistent.
Your statement of "He's not obligated to make that cake unless he already accepted the payment" is incorrect.
Let's simplify things a smidge more so you can understand the context.

You stand outside of a convenience store.
You see a sign that says: "No shoes, no shirt, no service".
This can be seen as a dress code, which is consistent regardless of your race, religion, nationality, or color.
This is legal discrimination, as it's consistent regardless of those factors.
In this situation, if you walked into the convenience store without shoes or shirt, they can refuse you service and ask you to leave.
Your statement would be true if you walked into the convenience store and they allowed you to purchase an item - then, took your item and asked you to leave because you aren't wearing a shirt or shoes.
This is not the same.

Since the baker is selling wedding cakes to his customers, he cannot single out an individual because he doesn't "like them".
If you place the same situation and frame it around race/color, it would be as followed:


A Caucasian woman goes into the bakery and starts the process of ordering a wedding cake. The baker has taken down the requirements and has informed her that he'll make some samples out of her selection so that she and her soon-to-be husband can pick out the one they like. Four days later, the same woman comes into the store with an African-American male whom she introduces as her fiance. The baker has told her and her fiance to leave the store as he will not make cakes for an interracial couple, it goes against his personal beliefs and religion.


No money had been exchanged.
This is illegal in accordance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
There is a gray line here that was also addressed: the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not outline homosexuality, specifically.
However, the issue is that the baker is choosing not to provide services to the couple because of his religious beliefs and this is in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
These are just facts.
The Supreme Court may be able to view the gray line and adapt accordingly, but the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would need amending as well.


runec wrote:


Cydoemus wrote:
In order for the baker to get around this particular case, he would have to be consistent in his discrimination.
As it's illegal for him to discriminate based on race, color, religion, or national origin he would simply have to cease in making wedding cakes altogether.


That's actually exactly what he did rather than comply with the court. This is the case's second appeal. Local and state supreme court have already ruled against him.


That isn't too surprising.
It's the easiest way to be compliant with the Civil Rights Act without leaving the floor open for manipulation or further lawsuits (against him by the State).
I'm actually surprised that he hasn't simply made his bakery a private establishment that requires a membership.
If you think about those who side with him, I'm sure he would be able to convert to a mail-order operation based on a membership scheme.
This would allow him to reject any offers of making a wedding cake for a homosexual couple.


Rujikin wrote:
So you think its ok for people to demand Islamic bakers make Cake's with the picture of Mohammad on it? You know its blasphemy in their religion and can ruin their chance at heaven?


This is quite likely the least logical analogy made on this thread.
The cake, itself, is not "homosexual" in nature.
There aren't any homosexual slurs, jargon, or imagery on a wedding cake.
In many cases, there aren't even words (names) on the wedding cake so it would not be as though he would be required to write "Happy Marriage, Jeff and John." that could place him into a moral complication.

There is a difference between "forcing an artist to do something against their wish" and "expecting the artist to do the same but sell the piece to a person that has a difference of opinions or views".
A wedding cake is a wedding cake.
The couple would go in, set the requirements after a sample tasting and leave.
They expect the cake to be ready before or on their wedding day.
Now, if the couple had asked for two penises sparring on the top of the cake like lightsabers - then your analogy would have credibility.
Since that is not the case, your analogy falls short from common sense.


Ah, so basically, discrimination factors must apply to everyone. To my knowledge, racism was heavily reasoned by use of religious doctrine for some, which is still not allowed. I see. I suppose this is legally inconsistent. Not sure, must think.
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17

Cydoemus wrote:

These are two different things, unfortunately.


Not really. Both showcase why government enforced "civil rights" are a mistake, at least in their current form.



BlueOni wrote:

1. There is no "P" in that acronym no matter how often you put it there. This is not a thing no matter how much you wish it was.

2. Non-discrimination laws are not limited to nor are they constitutionally compelled to be limited to innate characteristics even if we accept your premise that LGBTQ people adopt that status as a "lifestyle choice".

3. Your point about people having the freedom not to shop here or there, while technically true, is irrelevant. If a business incorporates in such a way and operates as a public accommodation its owners have made a business decision that carries consequences. One of those consequences is that they will be compelled to serve the general public without discriminating their services' nature or quality on the basis of protected classes, one of which is sexual orientation in Colorado.


1. Its not me who put it there. The slippery slope was always real.

2. The laws were a mistake in the first place

3. LGBTQP people made a decision that carries consequences as well. One of those consequences is that they will be subject to ridicule and discrimination in any society on earth.

They should just be glad they live in a country where they don't get executed by the state or daily stoning mobs. You know, REAL discrimination.





26461 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / In Jail, On Death...
Online
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17

BlueOni wrote:


Rujikin wrote:

I can see this turning real ugly real quick if they don't support the rights of the baker. Imagine what an actual neo-nazi could do to a Jewish baker, have a Jew make a Hitler/Genocide cake. Someone could make a Christian baker make a Satan cake then attack them for being unchristian. You could shut down pretty much every Islamic bakery by demanding a Mohammad cake, many more types of businesses than this. Could make a Gay baker make a "homosexuality is a sin" cake too.

Attacking a person through their business would become a legitimate form of attack against people. Really most family bakeries could be shutdown pretty easily or extorted.


Some important things to keep in mind:

1. No one forces any Christian to become a baker

2. No one forces any Christian bakery to operate as a public accommodation instead of as a private club

3. Operating as a private club would excuse any Christian baker from the laws you're concerned about

4. Private clubs can still be extremely profitable businesses

5. If religious beliefs become an exit clause for any laws one finds inconvenient the harm will be greater than what you imagine

6. If most bakeries could be shut down under this law the discrimination at issue is widespread enough to need the law

7. There is no comparison between the phrase "Congratulations Janet and Martha" and a Nazi swastika


I do see your point, thought I would recommend not arguing against Amyas_Leigh, of all forumers. Still thinking....I suppose the legal inconsistency in federal protection on every level does apply here.
1337 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

Ah, so basically, discrimination factors must apply to everyone. To my knowledge, racism was heavily reasoned by use of religious doctrine for some, which is still not allowed. I see. I suppose this is legally inconsistent. Not sure, must think.


When discriminating, you must be consistent in your discrimination.
At the same time, it cannot be based on the race, nationality, religion, or color of your customer.
If you're an employee who gets terminated because of any of the aforementioned clauses the employer is to blame and a lawsuit can be made by the government.
If you're an employer/owner of an establishment, you have to ensure that if you're discriminating that it doesn't step onto any of the aforementioned clauses.
When you open a business, you are responsible for following these federal laws:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (if a public establishment, not a private club)
Age Discrimination in Employment Act
Equal Pay Act
Title I of the Americans with Disability Act
Title II of the Americans with Disability Act
Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008

In regard to Titles II and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is considered discrimination when someone or something makes its decision because of a specific trait.
Title II was designed to prevent segregation, at its core.
Another thing to take in mind is that the state of Colorado does have their own civil rights laws that do include sexuality.
SB 25 passed back in 2007.
Source: https://votesmart.org/bill/4143/12872/sexual-orientation-workplace-discrimination#.WbVTNciGO-Y

This means that in the state of Colorado you cannot decline services, product, or employment to someone based on their sexuality or gender identity.

From a personal perspective, I believe that there's a significant chance that the baker will prevail at the federal level.
Even if this is the case, the state civil rights laws are in effect over the federal ones (unless the Supreme Court decides that it's unconstitutional and that will bring about a longer case and discussion).
1337 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


Cydoemus wrote:

These are two different things, unfortunately.


Not really. Both showcase why government enforced "civil rights" are a mistake, at least in their current form.


While they are the same on the front that they're civil rights issues (and you disagree with the current form as to how the government enforces these rights), they're actually completely different cases from a legal standpoint.
Whether or not it's a mistake for the government to enforce civil rights is a different discussion in and of itself.
The Civil Right Act of 1964 was designed, primarily, around the idea of removing segregation from the country.
I, personally, agree with the original intent and purpose but society does change.
1964 was only fifty-three years ago and a lot has changed from a social standpoint since then.

Until we can figure out a way to keep civil rights for all citizens of the United States without infringing on the rights of others the current form is the best we're going to have.
You cannot say "accept me" and "reject them" in the same breath without some type of legal and social ramifications.
15786 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:

Not really. Both showcase why government enforced "civil rights" are a mistake, at least in their current form.



Out of curiosity, what do you think that the government should do to enforce civil rights?
581 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
57 / M
Offline
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


BlueOni wrote:



1. No one forces any Christian to become a baker

2. No one forces any Christian bakery to operate as a public accommodation instead of as a private club



1. No one forces anyone to become LGBTQP

2. No one forces anyone to go into a store to make a purchase



Now you are becoming even more ridiculous if that is even possible. I would not be surprised if next you say no one is forced to live. This approach is one of the reasons why we have anti-discrimination laws
12828 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17
Does the state have the right to command you serve others against your will?

If so, does that not make you a slave?

How is that different from putting you in chains and forcing you to pick cotton in the sun?
1337 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17

TheZaphod wrote:

Does the state have the right to command you serve others against your will?

If so, does that not make you a slave?

How is that different from putting you in chains and forcing you to pick cotton in the sun?


No, the state does not.
But when you decide to start a business, you do have to follow the laws that are established for business owners.

Your analogy is pretty off-par too.
An extreme, slippery slope version of it would have been "does the government prevent you from killing others if you want? if so, then they're your owners and you are slaves to the government".
Laws are there for a reason.
Breaking the law causes an enforcement of said law.
It's a simple enough concept.
120 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/11/17
The couple is clearly just looking for attention. If what they want is a cake for their wedding, simply go to a baker that will make you a cake for your wedding. If the guy feels making their cake is against his first amendment right to practice religion, he has the right to refuse service. He is not limiting any of their constitutional rights, while they are trying to limit his. He cannot possibly be the only baker they can hire.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.