Well the bakery is operating under business laws and protections all taxpayers pay for, including Jews, Christians, Gays, Transgenders, et. al. so it can't discriminate.


In Florida, the voters in this state decided my restaurant shall be non-smoking despite my personal preference. How do you feel about that? The voters in Florida have not one cent in investment in my business but they make the rules on how I operate.



Regards.........................the Chiefjag

100% against any legislation dictating how private ran business opperate. You should be able to serve and deciede for your own business what is allowed and what is not.

---

The voters in Florida (and most states) have decided otherwise and since this is a democracy the voter decides law.

 

And without investigating the particulars in the Arizona bakery case I presume the Judge ruled in accordance with Arizona law, which the voters established.

 

Regards.....................the Chiefjag

---

The voters in Florida (and most states) have decided otherwise and since this is a democracy the voter decides law.

 

 

Conversely, should the voters amend the law, and they permit business owners to choose their clientele, I suppose you'll be OK with that?

---

100% against any legislation dictating how private ran business opperate. You should be able to serve and deciede for your own business what is allowed and what is not.

 

lol. Eric, I've discussed this before. It's not the 1890s, as much as would wish it to be. (Perhaps you'll luck out in your next life).

 

America is way past that. Gone are the days when the railroads could deny others (blacks) passage on their rails. But that would be ok by you, would it? Gone are the days when Jews were denied service, but that would be ok by you?

 

Numerous lawsuits have made it clear that if you are open to the public that means the public. That means you don't get to determine who the public is any more than you get to determine who gets to vote. 

 

I know living in a nation of laws can be a drag, but that's the type of government you've got. You make it sound as if you would prefer 1930s Germany.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

Re the Arizona bakery - you're either open to the public or you aren't. It's ok with you if they chose not to serve Jews? Or African-Americans? Or Christians?

 

Fifth amendment right to be left alone. Huh?

 

That is where it gets tricky.  I get where a christian business it coming from, but then where do you draw the line?

---

The voters in Florida (and most states) have decided otherwise and since this is a democracy the voter decides law.

 

And without investigating the particulars in the Arizona bakery case I presume the Judge ruled in accordance with Arizona law, which the voters established.

 

Regards.....................the Chiefjag

 

I don't completely agree with your line of thinking.  It is your business so what if you want to allow people to smoke marijuana or do lines of cocaine?  Shouldn't you get to decide?  Well, no because it is illegal just like it is illegal to smoke in restaurants.  There are rules and will always be in a Government ran society.  Aren't there tons of other regulations you have to follow?  If you thought you could open a restaurant without anyone telling you what to do then you were sorely mistaken.

 

Also, on a side note, not sure why you would want to work or own a restaurant where smoking is allowed.  Besides being pretty disgusting having that waft through the air and clinging to everything, it is incredibly damaging to your own health and as a restaurant owner, I'm sure you work a ton of hours there.  You may want that right, but there are many rights people want that they don't have.

---

lol. Eric, I've discussed this before. It's not the 1890s, as much as would wish it to be. (Perhaps you'll luck out in your next life).

 

America is way past that. Gone are the days when the railroads could deny others (blacks) passage on their rails. But that would be ok by you, would it? Gone are the days when Jews were denied service, but that would be ok by you?

 

Numerous lawsuits have made it clear that if you are open to the public that means the public. That means you don't get to determine who the public is any more than you get to determine who gets to vote. 

 

I know living in a nation of laws can be a drag, but that's the type of government you've got. You make it sound as if you would prefer 1930s Germany.

 

I stated there are protected minority classes, currently sexual orientation is not one of them. Now if you want to argue it should be then we can have that discussion, if you want to argue should there be any protected minority classes  we can have that discussion as well. What I won't do is get into a pointless shame game with you, where you try to pretend I'm a nazi or bigot. 

 

The nazi's where big fans of your neo-conservative state with militarized police, legislative moral authority, social economics and foreign intervention. But you want to make the accusation I might like Germany in 1930 because I believe in protecting free association and choice. Your not defending rights until your defending the rights of someone you oppose. 

 

Perhaps for once your capable of a having a discussion minus your sarcastic undertones, if so I will gladly have that discussion with you.

---

/ 

That is where it gets tricky.  I get where a christian business it coming from, but then where do you draw the line?

 

You draw the line where you decide to do business, who you do business with. If some idiot owns a restaurant and says I won't serve _____ people, that's something we both find offensive and it's up to us as private citizens to not support that establishment. Over time that establishment will either change or go out of business. It's not the governments role to make sure everyone is treated the same. If that is governments role then the question really becomes where do you draw the line? Why can't I shop at walmart as a nudistisn't that discrimination? Why do I always have to take off my hat and sunglasses is that discriminatory against someone sensitive to their hair or lack thereof? What about someone with sensitive eyes and the light physically hurts them? Why can't I demand service regardless of my financial ability to pay isn't that unfair to the poor and disadvantage? 

 

The problem is we've shifted our personal responsibility onto government. 

---

I don't completely agree with your line of thinking.  It is your business so what if you want to allow people to smoke marijuana or do lines of cocaine?  Shouldn't you get to decide?

 

YES

---

/


You draw the line where you decide to do business, who you do business with. If some idiot owns a restaurant and says I won't serve _____ people, that's something we both find offensive and it's up to us as private citizens to not support that establishment. Over time that establishment will either change or go out of business. It's not the governments role to make sure everyone is treated the same. If that is governments role then the question really becomes where do you draw the line? Why can't I shop at walmart as a nudistisn't that discrimination? Why do I always have to take off my hat and sunglasses is that discriminatory against someone sensitive to their hair or lack thereof? What about someone with sensitive eyes and the light physically hurts them? Why can't I demand service regardless of my financial ability to pay isn't that unfair to the poor and disadvantage?


The problem is we've shifted our personal responsibility onto government.

The line being drawn works both ways, but government as it stands absolutely has a say in what you can do with a business. Your idea of civilization is also dangerous. I believe in your world we would not be as far along as we are in creating a better society. We would probably have segregation in schools, even bigger racial tensions then we currently have and a more violent divide. Humans are a product of their environment and the environment would be much different in your world. There is a lot of tension right now, but we have still come a long way since say 1900. I think we as a society morally would be way farther behind in your ideal world.

---

The line being drawn works both ways, but government as it stands absolutely has a say in what you can do with a business. Your idea of civilization is also dangerous. I believe in your world we would not be as far along as we are in creating a better society. We would probably have segregation in schools, even bigger racial tensions then we currently have and a more violent divide. Humans are a product of their environment and the environment would be much different in your world. There is a lot of tension right now, but we have still come a long way since say 1900. I think we as a society morally would be way farther behind in your ideal world.

 

Dangerous is trying to create a better society, that was the justification the Nazi's used, the Romans, Stalin's Communist, Kim Jung Il, Mao and every other form of dictator to come along through out history.

 

Mankind is flawed when we try and forceably correct those flaws through political influence the only thing we accomplish is authoritarianism. Societal corrections against prejudice come from changing peoples hearts and minds, that's the role of other establishments in society not government. 

 

You even acknowledge once pandora's box is open where do you draw the line? You understand why people of a specific religious belief object to being forced to serve individuals living a lifestyle offensive to their religion. Would it be ok to force Hindu restaurant owners serve steak because I demand steak when I visit their establishment?

---

Dangerous is trying to create a better society, that was the justification the Nazi's used, the Romans, Stalin's Communist, Kim Jung Il, Mao and every other form of dictator to come along through out history.


Mankind is flawed when we try and forceably correct those flaws through political influence the only thing we accomplish is authoritarianism. Societal corrections against prejudice come from changing peoples hearts and minds, that's the role of other establishments in society not government.


You even acknowledge once pandora's box is open where do you draw the line? You understand why people of a specific religious belief object to being forced to serve individuals living a lifestyle offensive to their religion. Would it be ok to force Hindu restaurant owners serve steak because I demand steak when I visit their establishment?

To answer your question on the last one, answer is no, and they aren't forced to serve steak so mute point.


Again, there are profound negative consequences to your utopia.


Your comparison to those people is laughable and not really worth a reresponse.

---

To answer your question on the last one, answer is no, and they aren't forced to serve steak so mute point.


Again, there are profound negative consequences to your utopia.


Your comparison to those people is laughable and not really worth a reresponse.

So why isn't the Hindu restaurant owner forced to act against his religious interest to satisfy my needs but the Christian business owner is force to act against their religious interest to satisfy a customers needs?

---

So why isn't the Hindu restaurant owner forced to act against his religious interest to satisfy my needs but the Christian business owner is force to act against their religious interest to satisfy a customers needs?

Because unless the Hindu restaurant serves steak but refuses to serve it to you, the circumstances aren't the same at all. With the case of the steak, you are trying to make them provide something they don't offer, with the case of the bakery, they are refusing to provide a service that they are in business to provide.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

Because unless the Hindu restaurant serves steak but refuses to serve it to you, the circumstances aren't the same at all. With the case of the steak, you are trying to make them provide something they don't offer, with the case of the bakery, they are refusing to provide a service that they are in business to provide.

Fair point but the couple is asking the bakery to make a product they do not normally offer. Cakes a personalized and special products with messages for specific occasion. The decoration of the cake is the cake itself. So asking a baker to decorate a cake in a manor they don't normally decorate a cake is the same as asking a cook to cook a meat they don't normally cook.

---

Fair point but the couple is asking the bakery to make a product they do not normally offer. Cakes a personalized and special products with messages for specific occasion. The decoration of the cake is the cake itself. So asking a baker to decorate a cake in a manor they don't normally decorate a cake is the same as asking a cook to cook a meat they don't normally cook.

So they don't provide wedding cakes? Isn't that what the gay couple wanted?

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

So they don't provide wedding cakes? Isn't that what the gay couple wanted?

They didn't object to making a cake they objected to decorating for an event their belief system does not endorse. If the couple had said we want that cake you cooked for the smiths last week no problem but they wanted a cake specific for their union ( like every other wedding cake). Like I said the cakes decorations are as much of the cake as the cake itself.

---

They didn't object to making a cake they objected to decorating for an event their belief system does not endorse. If the couple had said we want that cake you cooked for the smiths last week no problem but they wanted a cake specific for their union ( like every other wedding cake). Like I said the cakes decorations are as much of the cake as the cake itself.

So they aren't asking for a steak at a vegetarian restaurant, they are asking for what the exact thing the bakery provides...

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

So they aren't asking for a steak at a vegetarian restaurant, they are asking for what the exact thing the bakery provides...

I know my point is it's the decoration the bakers objected to not the cake itself. It's not an exact parallel I'm just trying to point out the lines become blurry when we try to use legislation to correct social injustices. In both cases id defend the establishment owners right to serve who ever they want while at the same time id do business else where. What can say I hate cake and love steak.

---

I know my point is it's the decoration the bakers objected to not the cake itself. It's not an exact parallel I'm just trying to point out the lines become blurry when we try to use legislation to correct social injustices. In both cases id defend the establishment owners right to serve who ever they want while at the same time id do business else where. What can say I hate cake and love steak.

You hate cake?? What kind of crazy talk is that??????



Back on point...yes, you'd do business somewhere else, but what if there was no where else? You live in a small town (probably to small for a bakery...but let's pretend) what if the one store in town refused to provide you with service for whatever reason? Why should you have to drive an hour or more to get the same service that someone else in your town can get?


I know it's not the point you are making, but it seems like the same arguments that were used when blacks fought for the right to sit at the front of the bus or to use any bathrooms, not just colored bathrooms. Using your logic, the blacks should have just used their own bathrooms and been happy about it because the white people didn't want them in theirs any way.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???