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
1405 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17

Reitrahc wrote:

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.


If you do some investigation into the matter or read the entire thread, you learn that it's no longer the couple versus the baker.
The couple had sued the baker initially and won.
That's done and done.
Then the state sued him and won.
That's also done and done.
Now the Supreme Court/Federal Government is dealing with the case due to the baker's appeals due to the fact that the state-level Supreme Court had ruled against him.

They're not limiting his constitutional right, in any case.
Legally, he must serve the public regardless of what his personal opinion of a certain customer is unless there is a threat to the establishment.
There are loopholes around this; one of which he (the baker) is utilizing by no longer making any kind of wedding cakes at his bakery.
If you're going to discriminate, it must be consistent and it cannot be based on race, religion, nationality, or color.

I believe I'm repeating myself since multiple people are basically saying the same thing without understanding how civil rights and laws work on a fundamental level.
With that being said...

122 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/11/17
He has a constitutional right to practice religion, which, according to the first amendment, cannot be limited by laws. Constitutional rights trump all other laws. That's how the United States works. Regardless of how this has been ruled previously, the baker is entirely within his legal right to refuse service based on his religious beliefs, whether you like that or not.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Our constitution is supreme in this country, regardless of whether people like it or not. He cannot be legally forced to do anything he feels is against his religion, as long as he is not infringing on someone else's constitutional rights. That's part of what makes America different than other countries.
9662 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Ark-La-Tex
Online
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17
Where in the Bible is there a command to refuse service to gay people?
122 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/11/17

geauxtigers1989 wrote:

Where in the Bible is there a command to refuse service to gay people?


Leviticus 18:22King James Version (KJV)
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.


The man is refusing service for a ceremony facilitating what his religion considers an abomination.
9662 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Ark-La-Tex
Online
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17
So, no explicit command, then.
3871 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17
businesses have the right to refuse service based on various things no ? I know some places will put a sign right out front. like no shirt, no shoes no service ? or just simply "reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" or something like that

let see how this will go
44109 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/11/17
Hope they gay couple will be forced to pay the Baker's legal fees so less people try stupid lawsuits like this in the future. Did they ever say what they wanted on the cake? I had seen some very disturbing wedding cakes on reddit.
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17

tomas123987 wrote:

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

Yes of course, they needed a wedding cake or they were going to die right away.


sundin13 wrote:

Out of curiosity, what do you think that the government should do to enforce civil rights?


Nothing. Let people 'vote' with their money. I'm sure Walmart employees would have no problem making the damn cake and the Christian baker would lose his business anyway from the manufactured outrage and virtue signaling.

749 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F
Online
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17

Mariox777 wrote:

Hope they gay couple will be forced to pay the Baker's legal fees so less people try stupid lawsuits like this in the future. Did they ever say what they wanted on the cake? I had seen some very disturbing wedding cakes on reddit.


I doubt the couple will have to pay for the baker's legal fees considering the courts have already deemed the lawsuits to have merit,and even ruled in favor of the coupe two times already.
716 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / cave
Offline
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17
Why did the gay couple just find another bakery i'm sure there must be many cake bakers in their town.
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17

May201m wrote:

Why did the gay couple just find another bakery i'm sure there must be many cake bakers in their town.


They wouldn't get extortion money that way.
27135 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Prison
Online
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17

Reitrahc wrote:

He has a constitutional right to practice religion, which, according to the first amendment, cannot be limited by laws. Constitutional rights trump all other laws. That's how the United States works. Regardless of how this has been ruled previously, the baker is entirely within his legal right to refuse service based on his religious beliefs, whether you like that or not.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Our constitution is supreme in this country, regardless of whether people like it or not. He cannot be legally forced to do anything he feels is against his religion, as long as he is not infringing on someone else's constitutional rights. That's part of what makes America different than other countries.


The right to religion can and has been prohibited. You know, public welfare and all. Religion is not an exemption so one can break a law, a case concerning Peyote determined this, and while I am not sure if Peyote needs to be banned, the reasoning of its usage being circumvented with freedom of religion is nonsense, especially since religion is sure as heck a choice. (Employment Division v. Smith)

There also has been a case in Florida considering animal sacrifice on religious grounds. (Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah)

It is, and should not be a free pass for a great deal of cases. If the law restricts it, it must be examined if the law is constitutional, but a general "Nah, it is religion, so it is fine" seems like a recipe for disaster, such as what transpired with the Koreshian Cult in Waco, Texas.

I also disagree with the argument that, just because it is in the "constitution", we must abide by it dogmatically. That is not what the forefathers had in mind either, and it abides by a seemingly circular logic. It is right because the constitution said so, and since the constitution said so, it is right.

Whether or not it applies in this case? I agree with the idea that laws have to be legally consistent, and since I do agree with laws restricting segregation, and agree with the passage of fundamental civil rights, I think this would be consistent if LGBT weren't discriminated in such a manner, by a public business in a place of public accommodation, otherwise whose services are open to anyone. Being gay and such are innate and usually immutable traits, much like racial identity, ethnics, etc. No easy time "changing" them.





5008 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / BuBbLeS!
Online
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17
same goes with serving Bacon in a restaurant, this is going to offend a couple religions actually, so, I hope the dude gets things worked out. sort of pathetic how this came about in the first place. it's his business, he's only hurting himself if he doesn't want to provide a service to someone, dragging it through the mud is bad on government's part. since obama never had a lemonade stand he doesn't understand such things (since this did happen under his watch).

basically if service can be denied because your face is covered (bank), no shirts, no shoes, no pants, pants must be pulled up... then what's the big deal with denying service because it's based upon a religion guy. be no one is going to see someone going after an Islam because they denied service to someone over something. what of those folks who refuse to ring up pork products at the store, they should be fired, but nope, there they go, continuing to not provide a service.

source: http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/03/muslim_cashiers.html similar article http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17665989/ns/business-us_business/t/target-shifts-muslims-who-wont-ring-pork/ different source link

I wonder if they'll ring up liquor or did that not cross their agenda's wish list? that's a no no in their religion too. but wait I found an interesting article source http://mynorthwest.com/1661/why-can-muslims-refuse-to-sell-liquor-but-christians-must-serve-gay-people/
27135 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Prison
Online
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17

niotabunny wrote:

same goes with serving Bacon in a restaurant, this is going to offend a couple religions actually, so, I hope the dude gets things worked out. sort of pathetic how this came about in the first place. it's his business, he's only hurting himself if he doesn't want to provide a service to someone, dragging it through the mud is bad on government's part. since obama never had a lemonade stand he doesn't understand such things (since this did happen under his watch).

basically if service can be denied because your face is covered (bank), no shirts, no shoes, no pants, pants must be pulled up... then what's the big deal with denying service because it's based upon a religion guy. be no one is going to see someone going after an Islam because they denied service to someone over something. what of those folks who refuse to ring up pork products at the store, they should be fired, but nope, there they go, continuing to not provide a service.

source: http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/03/muslim_cashiers.html similar article http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17665989/ns/business-us_business/t/target-shifts-muslims-who-wont-ring-pork/ different source link

I wonder if they'll ring up liquor or did that not cross their agenda's wish list? that's a no no in their religion too. but wait I found an interesting article source http://mynorthwest.com/1661/why-can-muslims-refuse-to-sell-liquor-but-christians-must-serve-gay-people/


A great deal with it is that sagging is a choice, and applies regardless of the protected classes. Being homosexual and such does fall within the immutable categories of sex, race, national origin, etc to my knowledge, scientifically I believe. Discrimination can be legal if it applies equally, and not inherently dependent on racial identity and such.

That being said, the hypocrisy argument does not prove your point, it just an attack on a person's consistency. It is important to be consistent, but such a display of character is not linked to the case, other than dislike of said person, who you assume holds contradictory beliefs in the first place.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.