Last edited by vesper; 12-10-13 at 02:58 AM.
over 118 pages and nothing has changed lets go over the facts:
Owner chose to play in the public realm and open a public access business, this requires a licenses and has rules and laws that regulated it
Owner chose to break the law, commit a crime and make himself a criminal which has consequences
The judge actually let the criminal off easy,he didn't fine him or anything, he just gave him a cease and desist order.
So all the owner has to do is stop breaking the law, committing crimes, illegal discriminating and stop infringing on peoples rights, seems easy to me.
next time this dummy will think twice before breaking the law
heres some qoutes from the judges 13 page ruling
“The undisputed facts show that Respondents (Phillips) discriminated against Complainants because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage,” Judge Spencer wrote.
“Conceptually, [Mr. Phillips's] refusal to serve a same-sex couple due to religious objection to same-sex weddings is no different from refusing to serve a biracial couple because of religious objection to biracial marriage,” wrote Judge Spencer.
The order says the cake-maker must “cease and desist from discriminating” against gay couples. Although the judge did not impose fines in this case, the business will face penalties if it continues to turn away gay couples who want to buy cakes.
“At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses,” Judge Spencer said in his written order. “This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are.”
I love it when equal/human/civil rights wins over discrimination and bigotry and people who support bigotry and or discrimination freak out.
2.) the baker wasnt forced to make a cake, repeating this lie will never make it true, also is this criminals moral conscience is meaningless to law and civil/legal/equal and human rights
3.) and if he continues to break the law he false the penalties
4.) he has no right to say no when it violates civil/legal/equal and human rights
5.) your opinion is meaningless most the country cares about civil/legal/equal and human rights just because you dont doesnt matter
6.) nope its factually protecting civil/legal/equal and human rights
7.) its actually exactly what this county is about protecting civil/legal/equal and human rights if this bothers you you could move maybe russia?
Facts defeat your post again
So it is exactly the same. Plenty of people saw it as immoral that black people were served in a business the same as whites. Many people thought it immoral when women entered the workplace outside the home. It's not UP TO YOU, as a business owner, to pick and choose WHICH protected class is immoral and which isnt. Once covered under anti-discrimination laws, they are the same...equal with every other American
A business owner may even today consider a black person only 3/5 human and consider it immoral to serve them. Is that ok?
And AGAIN. It was explained to you that YOU CAN choose NOT to create cakes that you find morally offensive IF they are not part of that protected classification. You do not have to put a gun on a cake if you morally object to that. You do not have to design a pair of Crocs sandals on a cake...which I find exceedingly in poor taste and morally objectionable...because those things are not "protected."
It is not blind authority. Again, religious people serve people that their religion claims they should not every day. Just selecting a particular thing you find immoral, out of ALL things that are against your religion, is just playing the 'religion card.'
Because as I said, if you were a truly devout Catholic, you would find it immoral to create a cake for a divorcee being remarried. A Jew would find it immoral to create Christmas cakes. And Christians and Muslims wouldnt serve athiests or other people of other religions because their mandates are NOT to support any other faith but instead, try to convert them.
But since you gave me the opening to further prove my point :
"They killed Jesus. They arent Christians and it's immoral to be celebrating a young man being old enough to accept THAT religion that does not believe in Christ. I will not bake his barmitzvah cake. I believe it is immoral."
See how that works? Except it mostly doesnt. Businesses are in business to make $. They have to accommodate all kinds. And they know it. And they know the laws regarding discrimination. So when they normally provide services to people of all faiths, beliefs, lifestyles, etc that are opposing or different to their's, they are just playing 'the religious beliefs' card when all of a sudden something bothers them.
And others have said it, but this conversation has everything to do with race AND gender AND sexual orientation. Do you think people here are vigorously arguing about a cake? No, and claiming so reduces the argument to absurdity. This debate is 100% about discrimination laws and the central notion that all of us are equal. You are (one of) the one(s) arguing that businesses have a right to treat people as subhuman. Doesn't sound very American to most of us. You're in a small, extreme minority, and while I cannot change your point of view, I hope that you understand why your viewpoint is so disgusting to the vast majority of Americans who have heard of the struggle for civil rights. Trust me, this information is readily available should you choose to educate yourself on what this country used to be like for minorities.
A working class hero is something to be
2.) good thing the fact is nobody wants this, this strawman fails
3.) good thing the fact is nobody wants this, this strawman fails
4.) theres no facts to support this lie, nobody wants forced commerce, this strawman fails too
And then...we're back to Rosa Parks not really needing to move a few steps back, just a few!...to sit in the back of the bus.
If people do not stand up and demand their rights....by legal means, by civil disobedience (yeah Rosa!), by petitioning their legislators....how will they ever get them?
Would most 'rational' blacks have moved to the back of the bus? Maybe. Would the cause for black civil rights have been advanced if they did? NO.
A lawsuit by one gay couple is just one step. But it has generated awareness.....