Left Hypocrisy on Serve / No Serve; Don't Tell Me 'Both Sides Do It'

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: UKTruth

You don't seem to get it. I don't care if they don't like gays. I don't care if you don't like gays. I don't care if the Christian baker doesn't like gays. I. don't. care.

What I care about is whether a person who sells a product or service to the general public refuses to sell that product or service to someone just because they are gay.

Decorations don't fall under that. Every baker who advertises that they will custom decorate a cake for you has fine print that states they won't decorate something they find personally offensive.

So tell me why the guy in the video didn't just ask the Muslim bakers for a generic wedding cake with no special "gay" decorations for his same sex wedding? Hmmm?

No, it's clear. You support bigotry when it suits you.
Whichever way you cut it or spin it, there is nothing offensive in the words and the refusal was made purely because the Muslim bakers in question do not like gays. Everything else beyond that simple truth is spin.

a reply to: kaylaluv

And

And what according to you was it specifically that is so offensive to them. Be specific this time.

a reply to: everyone

The couple with the Christian baker wanted a generic wedding cake.

I call it a personalized decoration that the bakers chose not to do, which is perfectly okay.

a reply to: UKTruth

Wrong again, robot man. It doesn't matter if you or I don't find a specific personalized decoration offensive. If the person having to do the personalized decoration finds it offensive, they don't have to do it.

If an atheist baker finds a Christian cross offensive, they can refuse to decorate a cake with a cross on it. There may be nothing offensive about a cross to you or me, but we aren't the baker.

No one is willing to address the fact that the Muslims didn't refuse to bake a generic wedding cake for the guy's gay wedding.

have to ask....

what does all this have to do with the op??
first, you can't treat entertainers as business owners, and you most certainly can't treat a single member of a group like a Rockette as one. they've made contracts with businesses that specialize in taking care of much of the business end of their work... like deciding which gigs would be best to promote the entertainer. so, I would question if these entertainers have 100% decision making ability of weather or not to be performing for trump, or if someone else is making that decision..
I would kind of place the entertainers as more closely resembling an employee.
so, the more fitting question, can the employee of the bakery make the decision of weather or not that cake is made for the gay couple?? or is the employees moral convictions, either way, subplanted by the business owners?

originally posted by: dawnstar
have to ask....

what does all this have to do with the op??

It doesn't, and you're correct. The examples being debated were 'lightning rod' stories/events, hence their use as examples.

The facts are (and you've made a good point), the Rockette is an "employee" and not a "business owner". An "employee" doesn't get to decide what the business does or doesn't do (unless that's what they're charged with doing, which this girl clearly is not).

Bottom line; if the company who owns the Rockettes feels strongly enough about it, they should be able to CAN her ass without impunity for insubordination. Period.

so don't tell me left/right republican/democrat are the same. they are most certainly not

NO they aren't, Republicans are selfish, destroying, a$$holes while liberals want what's best for society, though they sometimes are biased in their efforts, at least they motives are honorable, unlike Republicans who will kill, poison, bankrupt, torture, oppress, or imprison millions of people for their own selfish desires.

originally posted by: CB328

so don't tell me left/right republican/democrat are the same. they are most certainly not

NO they aren't, Republicans are selfish, destroying, a$$holes while liberals want what's best for society, though they sometimes are biased in their efforts, at least they motives are honorable, unlike Republicans who will kill, poison, bankrupt, torture, oppress, or imprison millions of people for their own selfish desires.

And Liberals want all those big compartmentalized big cities too !!

I am sure Trump think's he's a protected class of his own. And many Trump supporters seem to think so. This thread is one such example.

SMH.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

unless of course, she claims that she has a moral issue, which some of them are, then they could conceivable take it into the courts, and if the laws were fair and balanced... win!!!
but regardless of how much the right complains about how hypocritical the left is, this wouldn't happen because the laws aren't fair and balanced when it comes to this.. they are tilted quite steeply towards those religious views that have been decided to be worthy of such protection.

originally posted by: ElGoobero
we all know about the pizza restaurant and the bakery that got in trouble for refusing to do gay weddings.

the left / media mercilessly condemned them and wanted them punished.

now a bunch of entertainers are refusing to provide service to the Trump inauguration, including now a member of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.
www.sltrib.com...

For the singer, it is a moral issue, she wrote. "I only know I could never 'throw roses to Hitler.' And I certainly could never sing for him."

Chamberlin, who said she has been with the choir for five years, did not respond to interview requests and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints declined to comment on her status in the famed group or on how many others might have dropped out or complained.

so why is it wrong for a baker or pizza maker to deny service according to their moral/religious code, but perfectly acceptable for an entertainer to refuse to perform?

consider this; the baker and pizza maker faced legal punishment for their decisions.
no entertainer is experiencing any fallout for refusing.

because the left in this country is authoritarian and willing to bring the full force of the government and legal system against those who disagree.
no conservative is even thinking about legally punishing performers.

so don't tell me left/right republican/democrat are the same. they are most certainly not.

I don't think it's right to compel a performer to perform involuntarily. I just wish the left would extend the same courtesy to those operating from a religious motivation.

You think illogically, as do the multiple people who support your OP.

Cake is ordered for event.
Baker disagrees with event.
Baker refuses to make cake.
Cake will not be at event.

Choir is asked to perform at event.
Singer disagrees with event.
Singer refuses to perform at event.
Choir will still perform at event.

Stop making false equivalences. The logic not the same. Learn some damn critical thinking.

a reply to: ElGoobero

Discrimination in commerce centers on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age or disability.

For example...Just yesterday...

Trump kicks author of critical biography off his golf course
www.washingtonexaminer.com...

THAT is legal...

THIS was not..
‘No Vacancies’ for Blacks: How Donald Trump Got His Start
www.nytimes.com...

Hope that clears it up...

Yeah... its too hard to relate the goods/services of a company that makes an actual product to an entertainers product... which is merely presence, spoken words, and often an endorsement.

Regardless, selling goods or service is not obligatory... if a merchant of goods or services chooses to remove their goods or services from a venue for whatever reason, then they do so at their own doing. Maybe some financial entities rank the message at a higher priority than the finances... who are we to judge... I prefer the freedom to choose over anyone else's opinion any day. We must understand it comes with a wide array of options though... ones that we may not agree with.

This is absolutely ridiculous. I am a paid, performing musician. Have been for the better part of two decades. We turn down more gigs than we accept, for various reasons, and we can do that for any reason we want. We are not in the "service" industry, we are entertainers. I, for one, would not play for Trump as I think he is a terrible human being. I can do that. Before you call me a liberal, or start with the "herp derpitty left" nonsense, I wouldn't perform for Hillary either because she is also a terrible person.

I also work a retail job and help run a bar. We DO NOT refuse service to anybody unless they're causing trouble in our places of business. Refusing service due to something people are born with (race, gender, sexual preference, etc...) not only makes you a s#itty person, it's illegal and gay marriage is now protected by our constitution.

HUGE difference between the above scenario and a musician not wanting to play a particular gig for personal reasons.

a reply to: kaylaluv
Still wsiting on a anwser to this :

"And what according to you was it specifically that is so offensive to them. Be specific this time. "

a reply to: everyone

And you are still completely clueless that it is irrelevant what was/is personally offensive to any baker/store owner. It doesn't matter if the Muslim bakers are homophobic. It doesn't matter if the Christian baker is homophobic. The personal inside the mind feeling doesn't matter.

I give you the permission to hate gay people, black people, women, Asians or whatever race, nationality, religion or sexual orientation you want. The government gives you the same permission. No one is trying to control your personal feelings. It is your actions that matter.

In our structured society, no one should be allowed to refuse to sell the exact same product or service to someone that they are willing to sell to everyone else because of race, religion, gender, nationality, or sexual orientation. The rational behind this is that if allowed, you might see whole commercial areas where people of a certain race/religion/gender/nationality/sexual orientation won't be allowed to participate in general commerce, i.e., they might be shut out of finding a place to eat or sleep or purchase needed items to live.

The Muslim baker never refused to sell a generic wedding cake to the guy in the video. That's a fact. They were following the rules of our structured society. The Christian baker who refused to sell a generic wedding cake to the gay couple was not following the rules of our structured society. Both bakers might have had the exact same personal objections to homosexuality - but one baker followed the rules and the other didn't.

a reply to: kaylaluv

So now all of a sudden it does not matter if someone is homophobic or not. All of a sudden when it comes to muslims you change your tune because we have all seen you on this board before condemning it to no end and using it specifically when it came to trump and his supporters.


I don't need your filthy condescending "permission" for anything, What a laugh.

Hypocrite

a reply to: everyone

You lost this argument and therefore I am done with you.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: everyone

You lost this argument and therefore I am done with you.

ROFL

With that i actually just won it if anything.

This is you in the whole thing:

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: everyone



In our structured society, no one should be allowed to refuse to sell the exact same product or service to someone that they are willing to sell to everyone else because of race, religion, gender, nationality, or sexual orientation. The rational behind this is that if allowed, you might see whole commercial areas where people of a certain race/religion/gender/nationality/sexual orientation won't be allowed to participate in general commerce, i.e., they might be shut out of finding a place to eat or sleep or purchase needed items to live.

The Muslim baker never refused to sell a generic wedding cake to the guy in the video. That's a fact. They were following the rules of our structured society. The Christian baker who refused to sell a generic wedding cake to the gay couple was not following the rules of our structured society. Both bakers might have had the exact same personal objections to homosexuality - but one baker followed the rules and the other didn't.

The Muslim bakers in question are offering a BESPOKE service. They refused this BESPOKE service because they didn't like the fact the request for the BESPOKE writing on the cake said 'Stephen loves Michael'. They refused service because they are offended by homosexuality.

Your 'same product' argument is a deflection away from your hypocrisy on this subject. That you would try so hard to defend bigotry when it suits you shows that your condemnation in other cases is nothing more than political ideology at play.