• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

There is no Constitutional right to freedom of association.

Exactly how does a non discrimination law that requires people to provide services to gays and lesbians lead to violation of their religious beliefs? If you could actually articulate what specific religious belief is violated, that would be helpful.

I also find it amusing that conservatives call their disobedience to laws, "annulment" based on their particular interpretation of the Constitutionality of laws.
The bakery was willing to provide services but not bake a wedding cake designed for Gays. They could buy an ordinary cake or bread, cookies or what have you.

Now they are out of business, which does no one any good at all. This sorry episode became a matter of vindictiveness, not law or discrimination.
 
The owner was willing to do business with them, he just didn't want to bake a cake that went against his religious beliefs. Forcing someone to bake a cake they don't want to bake, or decorate, or labor at, is not a good precedent for any free society.

We have laws that say you cannot refuse to sell something to someone on certain basis alone, such as their race, sex, religion, etc. It is no different than refusing to sell a wedding cake to an interracial or interfaith couple. How many wedding cakes does he sell where at least one of the two getting married is getting divorced? Has he ever refused to sell a wedding cake to a remarrying person because it violates his faith? I'm willing to bet he hasn't and yet that goes against religious principles of marriage much more than same sex couples getting married. It is picking and choosing his religious convictions because he doesn't approve of same sex couples getting married. That is not really basing it on religious beliefs, but pure bias, unlawful discrimination.
 
We have laws that say you cannot refuse to sell something to someone on certain basis alone, such as their race, sex, religion, etc. It is no different than refusing to sell a wedding cake to an interracial or interfaith couple. How many wedding cakes does he sell where at least one of the two getting married is getting divorced? Has he ever refused to sell a wedding cake to a remarrying person because it violates his faith? I'm willing to bet he hasn't and yet that goes against religious principles of marriage much more than same sex couples getting married. It is picking and choosing his religious convictions because he doesn't approve of same sex couples getting married. That is not really basing it on religious beliefs, but pure bias, unlawful discrimination.

Since folks don't generally have divorce celebrations where they order a cake none of that applies. The baker wasn't against selling his wares to homosexuals (he made that clear), but was against supporting in any way, even with his wares, the event. I'd be willing to bet he'd have also turned down the job of baking for a polygamist commitment ceremony.
 
The bakery was willing to provide services but not bake a wedding cake designed for Gays. They could buy an ordinary cake or bread, cookies or what have you.

They have a business license in a state that has a non discrimination law which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. They made the decision to do business in that state and thus are subject to its laws to provide all services they offer to the general public.

Now they are out of business, which does no one any good at all. This sorry episode became a matter of vindictiveness, not law or discrimination.

If I went to a heavily Christian community, set up shop, and then was very vocal about how much I disliked Christians, should I be surprised if I lose business and then have to close up? They are free to speak about what they believe and customers are free to take their business elsewhere if they disagree. You call that vindictiveness, I call it voting with your wallet.
 
They have a business license in a state that has a non discrimination law which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. They made the decision to do business in that state and thus are subject to its laws to provide all services they offer to the general public.

I agree with this.
 
The bakery was willing to provide services but not bake a wedding cake designed for Gays. They could buy an ordinary cake or bread, cookies or what have you.

Now they are out of business, which does no one any good at all. This sorry episode became a matter of vindictiveness, not law or discrimination.

they are out of business? thats news to me i thought they just went on-line/private but if they are i guess that will teach criminals not to break the law
 
Since folks don't generally have divorce celebrations where they order a cake none of that applies. The baker wasn't against selling his wares to homosexuals (he made that clear), but was against supporting in any way, even with his wares, the event. I'd be willing to bet he'd have also turned down the job of baking for a polygamist commitment ceremony.

They do get married after divorce though, which violates the religious rules of at least a couple of religions. Catholics consider it constant adultery to get married after getting divorced, basically living in a constant state of sin.
 
We have laws that say you cannot refuse to sell something to someone on certain basis alone, such as their race, sex, religion, etc. It is no different than refusing to sell a wedding cake to an interracial or interfaith couple. How many wedding cakes does he sell where at least one of the two getting married is getting divorced? Has he ever refused to sell a wedding cake to a remarrying person because it violates his faith? I'm willing to bet he hasn't and yet that goes against religious principles of marriage much more than same sex couples getting married. It is picking and choosing his religious convictions because he doesn't approve of same sex couples getting married. That is not really basing it on religious beliefs, but pure bias, unlawful discrimination.

All your questions remain the baker's business. It is about refusing to bake a cake on religious principles and the baker can decide what those principles are, not anyone else.
 
All your questions remain the baker's business. It is about refusing to bake a cake on religious principles and the baker can decide what those principles are, not anyone else.

the baker can do all that as long as it doesn't break the law or infringe on others rights,its a very simple concept and its the same for ALL OF US
 
They have a business license in a state that has a non discrimination law which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. They made the decision to do business in that state and thus are subject to its laws to provide all services they offer to the general public.
Of course there is also this.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
 
All your questions remain the baker's business. It is about refusing to bake a cake on religious principles and the baker can decide what those principles are, not anyone else.

Not if he does this in a way everyone is aware of and can prove. That is the thing about violating laws, if you are going to do it, you need to ensure you do it in a way where you don't get caught. In this case, he openly said he would not sell a cake to any same sex couples because it violates his religious beliefs, yet I'm willing to bet as are others that he does not enforce those same religious beliefs when it comes to selling others wedding cakes, which shows plain bias against same sex couples, and not actual religious convictions in the first place.

Although it really doesn't matter because he agreed to the antidiscrimination laws all businesses of the state/area are subject to when he started his business. He doesn't get to violate those laws simply because he doesn't like certain people.
 
Of course there is also this.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

im glad you posted that since its 100% intact :shrug:
if you disagree simply factually prove otherwise
 
Of course there is also this.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

He is in no way being kept from exercising his religion. He is free to believe that homosexuality is wrong. Refusing to sell someone a cake with certain words on it, while selling cakes with the same words on it to others is discrimination, not excercising your religion.
 
Of course there is also this.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

Congress did not make that non discrimination law, that was a state law. The First Amendment protects free speech from being violated by the Federal Government.

But even still, it is kind of hard to argue that discriminating against gays by denying them cakes and photographs is a part of any religion. It is harder still to argue that this is a core principle of your business when it isn't even mentioned until you deny services.
 
Congress did not make that non discrimination law, that was a state law. The First Amendment protects free speech from being violated by the Federal Government.

But even still, it is kind of hard to argue that discriminating against gays by denying them cakes and photographs is a part of any religion. It is harder still to argue that this is a core principle of your business when it isn't even mentioned until you deny services.

It certainly mentions gays in the Bible and that Homosexuality is a bad thing. The baker believes this, and why not if it is in the Bible? A muslim would feel the same way because of the Koran.

It seems to me that many are not seeing the big picture here. It is abut human rights and freedoms and how there has to be a balance between them. Few seem to see that this baker has been discriminated against. He may have views with which we might disagree but those are his views, are supported by his Holy Book, and he should be allowed to exercise them.

I have a Gay son and know what his response would be, but it would not include going to the courts and destroying another person's livelihood.

The Constitution trumps state law.
 
It certainly mentions gays in the Bible and that it iis a bad thing. The baker believes this, and why not iif it is in the Bible? A muslim would feel the same way because of the Koran.

It seems to me that many are not seeing the big picture here. It is abut human rights and freedoms and how there has to be a balance between them. Few seem to see that this baker has been discriminated against. He may views with which we might disagree but those are his views, are supported by his Holy Book, and he should be allowed to exercise them.

I have a Gay son and know what his response would be, but it would not include going to the courts and destroying another person's livelihood.

Here is the problem with arguing that the baker was discriminated against.

1. The baker chose to obtain a business license in a state that has a non discrimination law that protects sexual orientation.
2. The baker could have still provided the service by contracting it out or finding an employee who would do it.
3. The baker's religious rights do not extend beyond the rights of the customer. All of my rights end where they begin to violate the rights of others. The customers, under state law, had the right to be served.
4. The baker did not make clear, prior to providing services to the general public, that they were comfortable only providing certain services to certain groups.
5. The baker chose to make a public statement about their views, regardless of how those views would affect their business, and as such they lost customers.

The baker made choices, of which you seem ready to absolve them of entirely. Where does the personal responsibility of the baker come into play? Do you think that their religious liberty absolves them of all personal responsibility?

And how is it that the customers are to fault? Did they know the baker would violate the law? Did they know the baker would lose business?

You can't make the baker into a victim here. It isn't that black and white.
 
1. The baker chose to obtain a business license in a state that has a non discrimination law that protects sexual orientation.

The government can not offer or require the signing away of the peoples rights to take part in certain activities. It is complete and utter nonsense to suggest otherwise.

2. The baker could have still provided the service by contracting it out or finding an employee who would do it.

There is no just reason for them to do anything but kick out those they don't desire to serve. Try being a libertarian for once.

3. The baker's religious rights do not extend beyond the rights of the customer. All of my rights end where they begin to violate the rights of others. The customers, under state law, had the right to be served.

No one has the right to the service of someone else. It is a violation of the 13th amendment for any laws to exist that makes someone the servant of another.

4. The baker did not make clear, prior to providing services to the general public, that they were comfortable only providing certain services to certain groups.

Someone being ignorant doesn't make someone have to serve them, nor does it give them the right to someones else's property.
 
Last edited:
Congress did not make that non discrimination law, that was a state law. The First Amendment protects free speech from being violated by the Federal Government.

The first amendment has applied to states for almost a century now.
 
They do get married after divorce though, which violates the religious rules of at least a couple of religions. Catholics consider it constant adultery to get married after getting divorced, basically living in a constant state of sin.

And I wouldn't have any problem with a baker that refused to bake a cake for the ceremony in that case. In fact, I'm not sure the state would either. Divorcees are not a protected class in any state AFAIK.
 
And I wouldn't have any problem with a baker that refused to bake a cake for the ceremony in that case. In fact, I'm not sure the state would either. Divorcees are not a protected class in any state AFAIK.

I don't know. There is some precedent that divorcees actually do hold some protection under the law. They are not specifically covered like Colorado law does for same sex couples/sexuality. But they are covered to a small extent against being treated differently by actual state laws (not sure how well that would carry over to discrimination laws though).
 
hmmmm im gonna bookmark this for a different discussion

i find this interesting
now i agree there is a freedom of association i got no problem with that

but there are a hand full of dishonest biased posters who use the completely failed and retarded arguments like if its not directly in the constitution its not a right and the other one is marriage is not a right even though SCOTUS said it is 14 times that doesnt count LOL

now this has nothing to do with the poster i quoted only those that use those failed arguments and then frequently and dishonestly refer to freedom of association even though thats not impacted

Here's the difference, I'm using freedom of association specifically because it was written into the constitution by the judicial branch. So if you buy the other write/right-ins by the judicial branch, as you do, you have to swallow that one too.
 
Last edited:
The government can not offer or require the signing away of the peoples rights to take part in certain activities.

There is no right to discriminate.

There is no just reason for them to do anything but kick out those they don't desire to serve. Try being a libertarian for once.

I am being libertarian. I can choose to live and do business in a state that does not have a discrimination law in effect, as could they. Liberty does not mean violating any state law you do not like in the name of religious freedom.

No one has the right to the service of someone else. It is a violation of the 13th amendment for any laws to exist that makes someone the servant of another.

If you want a state business license so you can conduct services for the general public, then there are certain people you are obligated to provide services for even if you don't like them. There is no right to deny services. The 13th applied to slavery and involuntary servitude, not paid services, so it is irrelevant to this discussion and a hyperbole at best.

Someone being ignorant doesn't make someone have to serve them, nor does it give them the right to someones else's property.

Once payment has been rendered for property, it is no longer your property. The customers paid for the cake, therefore the baker was obligated to provide the cake.
 
He is in no way being kept from exercising his religion. He is free to believe that homosexuality is wrong. Refusing to sell someone a cake with certain words on it, while selling cakes with the same words on it to others is discrimination, not excercising your religion.

All rights are property rights, and as such all rights are built on discrimination.
 
Here's the difference, I'm using freedom of association specifically because it was written into the constitution by the judicial branch. So if you buy the other right-ins by the judicial branch, as you do, you have to swallow that one too.

Your freedom of association only goes so far, and that wouldn't even really apply here since the guy is willing to associate with homosexuals (according to his claim), but unwilling to treat them equally to other customers when it comes to buying certain products/a certain product.
 
Back
Top Bottom