Gay Colorado couple sues bakery for allegedly refusing them wedding cake

reply to post by esdad71


Why would race bring Religion into this?
Discrimination of any group is wrong, we have laws protecting people against it.
If people do not like it do not open a business or move to Antarctica.
Like it or not for society to succeed we have to accept others and offer everyone the same chance to buy or sell to everyone no matter what sex,colour or sexual orientation.

reply to post by boymonkey74


I keep thinking that, philosophically, no matter how "right" someone may be in asserting that folks have a right to discriminate in business.....such a position kind of stains you. In a way similar to blaming a victim.

Originally posted by Charmed707
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Regulating social interactions based on feelings is asinine and tyrannical. Plain and simple.

are we talking about a business interaction, or a social interaction? You seem to be moving the goal posts a bit.

Originally posted by esdad71

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by boymonkey74

 

This has nothing to do with blacks like when someone brought up Rosa Parks. Stay on target unless we want to bring race into the equation which then adds religion but....

then again, you did not build your business, did you???

This is the state if America and it is skewed. ALL people should have the same protection but you are picking and choosing and do not see it. How blind and selfish can all of you be.

Even more true: while everyone should have such protection, it is among the most pathetic things in the world that a law has to be made. Like Pythagoras said, "When free men need laws they are no longer fit for freedom."

I say "LET THEM EAT CAKE"!!!

reply to post by boymonkey74


Since people keep running to race in civil rights being related to this issue:

Despised and often attacked, they courageously carried the slaves' cause for thirty years. Why have these inescapably Christian men and women been forgotten?

They were the most hated men and women in America. All across the South, rewards were posted for their lives. Southern postmasters routinely collected their pamphlets from the mail and burned them. In the North, these radicals were mobbed, shouted down, beaten up. Their houses were burned, and their printing presses were destroyed. For thirty years, to the very eve of the Civil War, the word “abolitionist” was an insult.

One reason abolitionists are forgotten is that they were inescapably Christian in their motives, means, and vocabulary. Not that all abolitionists were orthodox Christians, though a large proportion were. But even those who had left the church drew on unmistakably Christian premises, especially on one crucial point: slavery was sin.

Popular American history finds it much easier to assimilate Abraham Lincoln’s cautious, conscience-stricken path than to admire the abolitionists’ uncompromising indictment of their country’s sin. Yet without the abolitionists’ thirty years of preaching, slavery would never have become the issue Lincoln had to face.

www.christianitytoday.com...

Yes a large number of abolitionists were Christian

Originally posted by Charmed707
reply to post by boymonkey74

 

The free market deals with things like that. A business that had the gall to ban a certain race of people or homosexuals, for example, will not fare well- not financially or in terms of their own safety. A business like that will not survive.

edit on 6/13/2013 by Charmed707 because: (no reason given)

This was already tried and in practice for decades. This is an inherent problem in completely free and unregulated capitalism. It looks real good on paper and ideologically, but doesn't hold up in practice in the real world. People are generally irrational, and will do irrational things. Whether it be religious mumbo jumbo or a couple centuries worth of ingrained social engineering people will latch onto irrational and unfounded nonsense to justify discriminating against other people. That is just historical fact. One day we may get to a world that works they way you describe, but until then we will have to rely on the rule of law to guide us there.

reply to post by KeliOnyx

It looks real good on paper and ideologically, but doesn't hold up in practice in the real world.

ditto socialism

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


And just as many if not were slave owners or supported slavery. Just like with gay rights there are Christians for them and against them. Oddly enough in both situations the Christians for and against slavery and gay rights use the Bible as the reasons for their beliefs, which ones have the moral imperative?

reply to post by KeliOnyx


Not to mention that their premise that a business that openly conducted various discriminatory practices would die out from a lack of revenue.....nothing in reality can support that. Laws had to be created to stop discrimination from happening. I remember when my local school district, similarly to the Odessa, TX district (ECISD) were put through court mandated and overseen desegregation. I got bussed across town from the school that I walked 2 blocks to. Did it have a positive effect? Absolutely. Was it inconvenient for me? Absolutely.

It isn't like everyone said one day, "Hey, lets stop being racist to each other". And it still goes on today.

BTW, this was in the 1982 timeframe. Not ancient history by any means.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by KeliOnyx

 

It looks real good on paper and ideologically, but doesn't hold up in practice in the real world.

ditto socialism

Ditto every system that has come and gone. Including whatever camp you are in. Nothing will work, and I think we all know it. So why bother singling out one for specific ridicule? Do you think the US is any better? We have more prisoners than any other nation on Earth, including China (with triple our overall population).

Everyone thinks their nation is best and does it right. Even those poor North Koreans. Just because whatever propaganda you have been putting in your head is more believable than theirs doesn't make it any more true.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


A business interaction is a social interaction. I haven't heard a good reason as to why a private business owner should be obligated to perform a certain action for anyone who they may not want to. The business owner has the most at stake. If their actions cause them to lose profit, then that's on them.

Originally posted by KeliOnyx

There's not one business that wouldn't be met with at least threats of violence or vandalism for refusing service based on race or sexual orientation, especially race. In the end, it's the business owner who has the most to lose.

until then we will have to rely on the rule of law to guide us there.

The rule of law doesn't guide anyone's mind to anywhere.

Originally posted by Charmed707
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

A business interaction is a social interaction. I haven't heard a good reason as to why a private business owner should be obligated to perform a certain action for anyone who they may not want to. The business owner has the most at stake. If their actions cause them to lose profit, then that's on them.

he is offering a public service, a public service he would happily offer to a straight married couple, if he didn't make wedding cakes for anyone, it wouldn't be discriminatory because he doesn't offer that service, as soon as 'some' get it and 'some' don't it becomes discriminating based on sexuality,race,gender etc

it's ridiculous to have laws preventing discrimination, but people should never discriminate regardless of sexuality or religion, or race and gender,

if one does, what is to say the other wont? and the other? how far can the line cross?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
But if the ACLU could find out, don't you think the gay couple could?

I don't know the answer to these questions and I won't pretend to know or to speculate. I'll let you guys do that. You're pretty good at at.

Whatever, if the bakery had a reputation it means that someone somewhere reported it somewhere on some media or whatever.

Let me just say this again. If they knew that someone was breaking the law, I have no issue with them bringing the authorities' attention to it. So, even if they DID know this place would refuse them, it's perfectly legal for them to "target" the place.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


You're getting personal, I see. You must feel your argument slipping away...

reply to post by esdad71

Originally posted by esdad71
The fact you would equate Sharia law to the Laws of the bible make me really wonder you motives.

They are both laws of religion... I don't know why that's so scary.

So, you are ok with Sharia law (as long as it does not infringe) but you do not want this man to have his beliefs?

Show me where I have stated that I don't want this man to have his beliefs. In fact, I have stated just the opposite many times. If you're going to quote me, please quote me.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Yes a large number of abolitionists were Christian

And a large number of Christians (around the world) support gay rights. Your point?

No one is trying to bash Christians here (at least I'm not). No need to get defensive.

reply to post by Charmed707

Originally posted by Charmed707
I haven't heard a good reason as to why a private business owner should be obligated to perform a certain action for anyone who they may not want to.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

reply to post by Charmed707


I see you have that opinion, but it is incorrect. If a social and business interaction were the same thing, people wouldn't call in to work. The saying "work life supports a social life" wouldn't exist, and bosses the world over would avoid telling their employees "Quit socialising" as that would mean he was telling them to reduce business.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Boy when you put it that way it sure sounds like Progressives are horrible people.

But I'm sure that they aren't all like that.