If it is illegal for a business to refuse to do business with a class of persons, it should be equally as illegal for that class of persons to refuse to patronize that business based on the owner's views.

Two way street.

What's good for the gander is good for the, well, gander, in this case?

quote:

Originally posted by straightshooter01:
...I do wonder if this baker was trying to make a case and make a point. Otherwise, I would think that a simple conversation with the gay couple something like this ...

there was a similar case in WA and the couple took their business elsewhere, the news picked it up and the AG, Ferguson filed the suit.

Reason does not apply in these cases.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
I am so freaking sick of gay cakes, let a businessman(woman) run their business as they see fit, end of discussion.

Unless it's a government entity or a company with a monopoly on cake creation, then let them exercise their 1st amendment rights. It's pretty damn simple, baker doesn't approve of your sexual orientation, don't give him your hard earned dollars.

Jesse, I'm certainly for the baker's right not to bake a cake that goes against his first amendment right of religious freedom. But you answering and me knowing you're an electrician made me want to ask you a question to explore the issue if you don't mind.

Suppose a gay couple comes into town, buys a house that needs its electrical system to be upgraded to code and suppose you don't believe in gay marriage, should you be allowed to refuse to service them based on the idea that you believe working to bring their house up to electrical code "condones" and "participates" in their marriage? I'm thinking you would say yes, you should be able to refuse and let them find another electrician.

Let's further suppose that it's a small town and all the electricians happen to have the same belief as yours and all of them refuses to work with the gay couple in upgrading their house's electrical system, should the gay couple have any recourse and what should the recourse be?

Along with that, should the gay couple have to go throught the complete list of electricians to confirm none would work for them before they can initiate the recourse?

Isn't this kind of like what liberals in places like SF do? Replace gay couple with CCW holder and you have many businesses where exercising a natural right is enough to exclude your patronage.

I'm not arguing against your point. It merits thought. But this has been going on for some time but only one side gets the attention.

quote:

Originally posted by Icabod:

quote:

Originally posted by straightshooter01:
I agree a business should be able to decide who, what, where, when, and how the provide a service. I do wonder if this baker was trying to make a case and make a point.

Turn it around. Many a Christen business will display a fish or cross. It's entirely possible the gay couple singled the bakery out and expected rejection.

Oh yes, the cake bakers are the ones running around the country trying to make their points known. And this particular cake baker convinced the gay pair to sue him to further the cake baker cause.

quote:

Originally posted by Spokane228:
I'm filing a class action suit because Chick Fil A refuses to serve me on Sunday.

Sue the banks and financial institutions. They have more money.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
This is good example of why laws that create "hate crime" and "anti-discrimination" into "protections" being applied incorrectly are a travesty.

They do not promote a better society, nor one safer for the supposed "protected classes". What they do accomplish is the overstepping and meddling of those who seek position in government, and create environments with which these people in government and those who support/vote for them, to bully and manipulate for themselves, a different "standard", and circumvent the proper class of "all men are created equal", and the understanding of the rights granted by the Creator, applicable to all.

Yep. This whole idea of a "protected class" is BS IMO. To say there are "protected" classes would also imply there are "unprotected" classes. So how then are we all equal before the law? Say I work at a company that has a layoff and the four let go are me, an Asian guy, an Afro-American woman, and a he-she-it. The other three could go sue the employer, and probably get the EEOC involved. Me, not so much. So how then are we all equal under the law?

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:

Jesse, I'm certainly for the baker's right not to bake a cake that goes against his first amendment right of religious freedom. But you answering and me knowing you're an electrician made me want to ask you a question to explore the issue if you don't mind.

Suppose a gay couple comes into town, buys a house that needs its electrical system to be upgraded to code and suppose you don't believe in gay marriage, should you be allowed to refuse to service them based on the idea that you believe working to bring their house up to electrical code "condones" and "participates" in their marriage? I'm thinking you would say yes, you should be able to refuse and let them find another electrician.

Let's further suppose that it's a small town and all the electricians happen to have the same belief as yours and all of them refuses to work with the gay couple in upgrading their house's electrical system, should the gay couple have any recourse and what should the recourse be?

Along with that, should the gay couple have to go throught the complete list of electricians to confirm none would work for them before they can initiate the recourse?

Not to answer for him, but the problem I see with your straw argument is the electrical issues are seperate and unrelated to their orientation. The house has the issues and would regardless of who lived there. Further more, their relationship is of no concesquence to the service needed and has no bearing on the work being performed.

A cake for an occasion is for that specific occasion, and celebrates a particular situation where the relationship is not only relevent but is essential to that event, not just a predefined desert item baked to a standardized cake code.

This battle was lost years ago. The courts have decided anyone offering "public accomodation" could not discriminate based on race. (Lunch counters-remember?) All that remains is whether the courts accept that homosexuality is genetic or a choice. If a choice, fine. If they accept it is biologically driven, the bakers will likely lose. Private property truly is not, the government will tell you who to serve.

quote:

Originally posted by Fredward:
All that remains is whether the courts accept that homosexuality is genetic or a choice.

Just pointing out the logical flaw in that Particular argument:
Virtually all behaviors can be shown to have some genetic link, at least through statistics. So if someone is genetically predisposed to murder or thievery, does that give them a free pass to not be "discriminated against" by the law ?

(I realize homosexuality is not as serious as murder or theft. Just using the extreme example to show that a genetic disposition does not absolve a person from what people in society regard as immoral.)

On the other extreme of that argument is that even if it is a "choice", then aren't free people free to make that choice ?

==> "Genetic or choice" is an irrelevant argument to the real questions of whether their "rights" are being violated or if the baker has his own right to do business in accordance with his morality.

I suspect his position had been well known and I venture he was targeted by gestapo LGBT groups. There's always someone that want to be the test case.

This cake shop is 20 minutes from my house. I have today off of work, so I think I will go down to their store and buy something. I'll also give them a $20 for their legal troubles.

If anyone wants to make a donation, email me (bio) or reply to this thread. I'll give them the donation and you can pay me back via paypal or send me a check/MO. They also have a link to donate on their website. I'll head out about 2:30 today.

http://masterpiececakes.com/

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
If it is illegal for a business to refuse to do business with a class of persons, it should be equally as illegal for that class of persons to refuse to patronize that business based on the owner's views.

Two way street.

You make a lot of sense. Somehow I don't think you have a vote on SCOTUS.

quote:

Originally posted by 911Boss:

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:

Jesse, I'm certainly for the baker's right not to bake a cake that goes against his first amendment right of religious freedom. But you answering and me knowing you're an electrician made me want to ask you a question to explore the issue if you don't mind.

Suppose a gay couple comes into town, buys a house that needs its electrical system to be upgraded to code and suppose you don't believe in gay marriage, should you be allowed to refuse to service them based on the idea that you believe working to bring their house up to electrical code "condones" and "participates" in their marriage? I'm thinking you would say yes, you should be able to refuse and let them find another electrician.

Let's further suppose that it's a small town and all the electricians happen to have the same belief as yours and all of them refuses to work with the gay couple in upgrading their house's electrical system, should the gay couple have any recourse and what should the recourse be?

Along with that, should the gay couple have to go throught the complete list of electricians to confirm none would work for them before they can initiate the recourse?

Not to answer for him, but the problem I see with your straw argument is the electrical issues are seperate and unrelated to their orientation. The house has the issues and would regardless of who lived there. Further more, their relationship is of no concesquence to the service needed and has no bearing on the work being performed.

A cake for an occasion is for that specific occasion, and celebrates a particular situation where the relationship is not only relevent but is essential to that event, not just a predefined desert item baked to a standardized cake code.

Being that I didn't give the impression of refuting any argument, my post doesn't fall under the definition of a straw (man ) argument.

But since you responded, it's not clear from your post how you resolve my question: should the electrician have the right not to provide services based on religious rights? You could even change the gay couple's house to a church of Satan place of worship or a place where porn is commercially filmed (assuming the electrician's beliefs are antithetical and the electrician sees bringing up the building to code as validating whatever behavior his religion outlines as prohibited).

Should the place's owners have any recourse, how many rejections on the same basis can they qualify for the recourse, and what should the recourse be?

I forget the name for what I'm trying to do which is finding the "boundaries" of an issue where the same reasonable person would "flip" their viewpoint. For me in the actual case, the idea that there certainly would be other bakers willing to bake a cake for the couple should have been the couple's recourse and take away the justification for suing the baker in court.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:

quote:

Originally posted by Icabod:

quote:

Originally posted by straightshooter01:
I agree a business should be able to decide who, what, where, when, and how the provide a service. I do wonder if this baker was trying to make a case and make a point.

Turn it around. Many a Christen business will display a fish or cross. It's entirely possible the gay couple singled the bakery out and expected rejection.

Oh yes, the cake bakers are the ones running around the country trying to make their points known. And this particular cake baker convinced the gay pair to sue him to further the cake baker cause.

I slightly misspoke, I did not mean to suggest that the baker wanted to start a legal case, just that he had strong principles and wanted to "state his case" and "make a Point" with the couple. And my point is that sometimes in this ass backwards legal world we live in it is better to take the more subtle approach to reach your desired results.

if you can force someone to do something that is against their religious beliefs, does this mean we can force muslims to eat pork?

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:

quote:

Originally posted by Icabod:

quote:

Originally posted by straightshooter01:
I agree a business should be able to decide who, what, where, when, and how the provide a service. I do wonder if this baker was trying to make a case and make a point.

Turn it around. Many a Christen business will display a fish or cross. It's entirely possible the gay couple singled the bakery out and expected rejection.

Oh yes, the cake bakers are the ones running around the country trying to make their points known. And this particular cake baker convinced the gay pair to sue him to further the cake baker cause.

quote:

Originally posted by Spokane228:
I'm filing a class action suit because Chick Fil A refuses to serve me on Sunday.

Sue the banks and financial institutions. They have more money.

Have learned the gay couple were regular customers of the bakery.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:

quote:

Originally posted by 911Boss:

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:

Jesse, I'm certainly for the baker's right not to bake a cake that goes against his first amendment right of religious freedom. But you answering and me knowing you're an electrician made me want to ask you a question to explore the issue if you don't mind.

Suppose a gay couple comes into town, buys a house that needs its electrical system to be upgraded to code and suppose you don't believe in gay marriage, should you be allowed to refuse to service them based on the idea that you believe working to bring their house up to electrical code "condones" and "participates" in their marriage? I'm thinking you would say yes, you should be able to refuse and let them find another electrician.

Let's further suppose that it's a small town and all the electricians happen to have the same belief as yours and all of them refuses to work with the gay couple in upgrading their house's electrical system, should the gay couple have any recourse and what should the recourse be?

Along with that, should the gay couple have to go throught the complete list of electricians to confirm none would work for them before they can initiate the recourse?

Not to answer for him, but the problem I see with your straw argument is the electrical issues are seperate and unrelated to their orientation. The house has the issues and would regardless of who lived there. Further more, their relationship is of no concesquence to the service needed and has no bearing on the work being performed.

A cake for an occasion is for that specific occasion, and celebrates a particular situation where the relationship is not only relevent but is essential to that event, not just a predefined desert item baked to a standardized cake code.

Being that I didn't give the impression of refuting any argument, my post doesn't fall under the definition of a straw (man ) argument.

But since you responded, it's not clear from your post how you resolve my question: should the electrician have the right not to provide services based on religious rights? You could even change the gay couple's house to a church of Satan place of worship or a place where porn is commercially filmed (assuming the electrician's beliefs are antithetical and the electrician sees bringing up the building to code as validating whatever behavior his religion outlines as prohibited).

Should the place's owners have any recourse, how many rejections on the same basis can they qualify for the recourse, and what should the recourse be?

I forget the name for what I'm trying to do which is finding the "boundaries" of an issue where the same reasonable person would "flip" their viewpoint. For me in the actual case, the idea that there certainly would be other bakers willing to bake a cake for the couple should have been the couple's recourse and take away the justification for suing the baker in court.

Rey, You bring up an interesting discussion point and 911boss had a pretty good reply. I understand you aren't arguing, merely discussing, and I am intellectually curious as well about where the line should be regarding the philosophical principals involved.

My own opinion is that the home owners (in your hypothetical situation) shouldn't have any legal recourse against a business who doesn't care to serve them. If someone doesn't support you and doesn't want to do business with you.... too bad for you. Your "recourse" would normally be going to another vendor but since you took that off the table (for the purposes of this hypothetical) let me suggest recourse could be talking to each other like grown adults.

If I were the cake baker and you sued to me to bake a cake against my conscious and the government literally forced my compliance, well, let's just say you wouldn't enjoy eating the cake I was compelled to make. However, if you came in asking for a cake to celebrate an event which offends me and, upon my rejection, genuinely tried to convince me of the merits of your viewpoint and respected mine.... well, I could be convinced to bake your cake if for no other reason than I appreciated the efforts you made to cross the philosophical bridge dividing us. And as a Christian, it might be an awesome opportunity for me to witness my faith to you.

Legal maneuvering and government force might produce short term wins for anyone, but if we want a society worth living in we need to talk to each other, and respect each others beliefs, and accept when we disagree. That's the way forward here, not endless litigation.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:

quote:

Originally posted by 911Boss:

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:

Jesse, I'm certainly for the baker's right not to bake a cake that goes against his first amendment right of religious freedom. But you answering and me knowing you're an electrician made me want to ask you a question to explore the issue if you don't mind.

Suppose a gay couple comes into town, buys a house that needs its electrical system to be upgraded to code and suppose you don't believe in gay marriage, should you be allowed to refuse to service them based on the idea that you believe working to bring their house up to electrical code "condones" and "participates" in their marriage? I'm thinking you would say yes, you should be able to refuse and let them find another electrician.

Let's further suppose that it's a small town and all the electricians happen to have the same belief as yours and all of them refuses to work with the gay couple in upgrading their house's electrical system, should the gay couple have any recourse and what should the recourse be?

Along with that, should the gay couple have to go throught the complete list of electricians to confirm none would work for them before they can initiate the recourse?

Not to answer for him, but the problem I see with your straw argument is the electrical issues are seperate and unrelated to their orientation. The house has the issues and would regardless of who lived there. Further more, their relationship is of no concesquence to the service needed and has no bearing on the work being performed.

A cake for an occasion is for that specific occasion, and celebrates a particular situation where the relationship is not only relevent but is essential to that event, not just a predefined desert item baked to a standardized cake code.

Being that I didn't give the impression of refuting any argument, my post doesn't fall under the definition of a straw (man ) argument.

But since you responded, it's not clear from your post how you resolve my question: should the electrician have the right not to provide services based on religious rights? You could even change the gay couple's house to a church of Satan place of worship or a place where porn is commercially filmed (assuming the electrician's beliefs are antithetical and the electrician sees bringing up the building to code as validating whatever behavior his religion outlines as prohibited).

Should the place's owners have any recourse, how many rejections on the same basis can they qualify for the recourse, and what should the recourse be?

I forget the name for what I'm trying to do which is finding the "boundaries" of an issue where the same reasonable person would "flip" their viewpoint. For me in the actual case, the idea that there certainly would be other bakers willing to bake a cake for the couple should have been the couple's recourse and take away the justification for suing the baker in court.

Excellent question. I had to think about it for a moment. The chances of this very limited scenario were to happen, but I guess it could in a small town that happens to be very religious.

As far as the cake Baker vs electrician (or other service), I am not participating in their wedding by performing services for their home. This is a major distinction. A wedding to many people is a religious event and a personal moment vs the legal meaning of a wedding.

I wouldn't consider working in someone's home who is in a relationship the violates my religion as condoning their relationship or participating in the marriage. Flip it around a bit and have me wiring landscape lighting and lighting the alter for a evening wedding and I don't think I should be forced to participate in it.

In reality I personally don't care who giving me money. I'll take it all with few exceptions. I wouldn't work for a Nazi for instance, luckily for me they are not a protected class because they violate my religion.

I am not against gay marriage or a very religious person, but I detest the idea of someone being forced to do something that goes against their religion. If an Arab refused to provide me service based on my last name, I'd tell them they are cutting of their nose to spite their face and walk out of the business, but I think they should be able to.

When taken to your extreme, it is very tempting to flip my position and I think when it gets to the point of not being able to get service at all tests my convictions. I think I'd still stand on side of person being forced to do something against their will. I don't know how to answer that and you may be able to get me to flip with enough discussion and only considering a very unlikely scenario.

I will take people being free over people getting their feelings hurt almost every time.

I'll have to think further.

ETA, cowboy was typing as I was, I like his answer.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
if you can force someone to do something that is against their religious beliefs, does this mean we can force muslims to eat pork?

Maybe not eat pork, but at least we could force muslims to buy pork.