• 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!

Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed[W:1581]

Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

Yeah, that's the private/difference. A private club or individual has a lot more leeway. Businesses which operate in the public space don't that freedom.

He knows that but he has consistently (and dishonestly) tried to conflate expressive organizations with purely commercial ones.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

Nonsense....The bus may be the only means of transportation on a particular street.

Ahhh, so now there are good reasons to require a business to provide a service to everyone!!!

BTW, I've never seen a bus line that has only one bus on it. They always have buses running at regular intervals, and it's not all the same bus with the same driver.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

Next time you move the goalposts, give me some advance warning so I have time to put my sneakers on.
The goals posts remain in the same place. So does your nine-year-old story.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

Why is age a protected class? Why does age trump deeply held religious views?

Religion is a protected class as well when it comes to a person selling goods to others. A business owner cannot deny service based on religious beliefs of the customer. So if they sell coffee mugs with cats, comic book characters, famous quotes, or Bible scripture on them, they must be willing to sell them to all customers, without regard to the customers religious beliefs (or even lack of). They can't even say " well I'll sell the cat mugs to any theist but not to atheists or agnostics, the comic book character mugs to nonChristians, but not Christians, the famous quotes mugs to atheists and agnostics but not theists, and the bible scripture mugs to Christians, but not nonChristians. This is religious discrimination, even though the place is willing to sell at least two products to any person. This still violates public accommodation laws.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

The fact that the law was changed in order to ensure that gays are not discriminated against should be enough. The law itself specifically singled out the one group of people who use their religion to discriminate and basically told them "We won't get involved!". Continuing to ignore that fact doesn't change the reality of the matter.

The law was changed because gays demanded protected status. The law was also changed because a "reporter" took it on herself to find some Christian somewhere offering a service who spoke honestly and confirmed that the business would not cater a gay wedding. There are prohibitions in the Bible which specifically prohibit homosexual unions. The law as it once stood simply stated that such religious beliefs could be a consideration. The rest is pure hyperbole.

Laws don't prevent murder. Should murder no longer be criminalized? :)

And the bolded was my point. Just because this group or that claims protected status under the law does not bestow them the title of "Thought Police". I don't necessarily condone what that girl said, and she is a younger woman. However, the First Amendment still stands, and I do recognize her right to say it. If you want to penalize people for exercising that right, you'd better check the ground on which you stand. It will be challenged.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

So if he later changes his mind about making penis cakes it really doesn't matter. He'll be stuck to making them forever. Does it matter about the color or size of these penis cakes? What about other body parts? Comply there as well?

This definitely calls for another level of bureaucracy.

Nope. But a baker who claims to one customer to have stopped making such cakes, but then makes them for another customer and the baker can't explain rationally to a judge why he claimed to have stopped making them to one person then made them for another customer is likely going to find themselves facing fines and/or paying a settlement to a customer who sued them. It's not that hard and how such cases have been being decided. The people are brought to court, if enough evidence exists to suggest that they did violate discrimination laws, and then they get to defend themselves. It is not impossible for a judge to rule that the denial of service was not based on a protected class, but rather something else, such as they were out of some ingredient needed or they were married to someone who disapproved of baking such cakes and then they divorced the person, and started making the cakes again. Circumstances are looked at and considered for reasonableness as to an alternative reason for service denial.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

Only from your point of view.



This does nothing to address what I stated.



Christian Wedding Customs and Traditions



You were saying?

Wedding cake is not a Christian anything. When is the last time you heard a priest say, before we can pronounce the husband and wife married, they must cut and consume a piece of the cake?

Since when is it part of Christianity? What place does it have in the wedding ceremony?

Stop selling us nonsense. The wedding cake is a celebratory cake at the wedding reception, it has no religious meaning from a bible point of view.

In the past they used to break bread over a bride's head (in Roman times), in the past it was a bride's pie eaten before the wedding even took place.

For centuries people did not have wedding cakes and their marriages were as Christian as is possible. In fact you do not need a wedding cake at all for a wedding, it is just part of the celebration.

Refusing to bake a cake does not stop a wedding, it has not influence on the ceremony, it is all done to punish gays for having a wedding IMHO. Those bakers who refuse are sore losers and bad Christians IMHO. Christianity does not deny people baked goods, the name sake of their religion even said it, judge not or you will be judged and if they ever go to heaven I hope there is someone who asks them "Really? You denied them a cake? Really? In my name? Really? Ever heard of the sin of Pride?".

A cake as said has no religious function whatsoever, denying them a wedding cake is just misplaced pride and judgemental arrogance towards a fellow man and just wrong however you look at it (from a human standpoint, legal standpoint and even a religious standpoint)
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

The law was changed because gays demanded protected status. The law was also changed because a "reporter" took it on herself to find some Christian somewhere offering a service who spoke honestly and confirmed that the business would not cater a gay wedding. There are prohibitions in the Bible which specifically prohibit homosexual unions. The law as it once stood simply stated that such religious beliefs could be a consideration. The rest is pure hyperbole.



And the bolded was my point. Just because this group or that claims protected status under the law does not bestow them the title of "Thought Police". I don't necessarily condone what that girl said, and she is a younger woman. However, the First Amendment still stands, and I do recognize her right to say it. If you want to penalize people for exercising that right, you'd better check the ground on which you stand. It will be challenged.

The government did not ever seek to penalize her for saying it. This is the problem. People seem to believe that the First Amendment protects people from private citizens. It doesn't, not really. It protects people from government action based on the words said. However, it also does not protect them from the government getting involved if those words become actions, as in denying actual service to gays, even if only certain services or products.

Now, as for the words of other private citizens, it depends on what was being said and how credible a threat the person is/presents. They can be held responsible by the government for their words dependent on the threat they present. They could also be open to a lawsuit by the business owners.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

Ahhh, so now there are good reasons to require a business to provide a service to everyone!!!

Most, if not all metropolitan bus services are government services...Private businesses are not.

BTW, I've never seen a bus line that has only one bus on it. They always have buses running at regular intervals, and it's not all the same bus with the same driver.

Yep, still government services.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

The government did not ever seek to penalize her for saying it. This is the problem. People seem to believe that the First Amendment protects people from private citizens. It doesn't, not really. It protects people from government action based on the words said. However, it also does not protect them from the government getting involved if those words become actions, as in denying actual service to gays, even if only certain services or products.

You're correct. Gay militants sought to penalize her for saying it in order to precipitate government action, which was their desire from the start - it was blatantly supported by a willing media absolutely precipitated by the law's passage. It's true that the girl could be sued for even speaking, if one was frivolous enough to do it. Seems it's more practical to do it through the media and willing political accomplices. All of this presumes that some action was taken. Nothing other than speech was offered. That's protected, too.

Now, as for the words of other private citizens, it depends on what was being said and how credible a threat the person is/presents. They can be held responsible by the government for their words dependent on the threat they present. They could also be open to a lawsuit by the business owners.

Correct again, but I certainly hope that no civil action is contemplated by the business owners. I doubt they would consider it, although I'm relatively certain some attorneys have mentioned it to them.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

Yeah, that's the private/difference. A private club or individual has a lot more leeway. Businesses which operate in the public space don't that freedom.

For constitutional purposes, people and the businesses they run are both private persons. Almost nothing in the Constitution applies to private persons--including discrimination by those persons. The Thirteenth Amendment was relied on in one case, Jones v. Alfred Mayer (upholding law against race discrimination in sale of housing as exercise of Congress's power to prohibit private persons from imposing "badges and incidents" of slavery); the Fifteen Amendment has been used in several cases where private persons interfered with voting; and the Commerce Clause was used as Congress's authority for prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

You're right that private clubs have more freedom not to serve people. But often the reason has not been that they were not serving the general public, but rather that no government discrimination was involved. A good example is Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis. The lodge in Irvis, citing its membership rules, had refused to serve the black guest of a white member at either its bar or its restaurant. He sued, but he lost. The Supreme Court held the fact the state had issued the lodge a liquor license and the fact it used public utilities were not enough to convert its race discrimination into the state action required for the Fourteenth Amendment to apply.

Discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation is not prohibited by federal law. Where states have made sexual orientation a prohibited basis for discrimination in public accommodations, they have relied on their inherent authority to make laws and policies concerning public health, safety, and welfare. It's generally true that the more commercial the character of a thing the state law defines as a public accommodation, the more likely that a state can prohibit discrimination without running afoul of the freedom of association. See Roberts v. Jaycees for a good discussion of this.

The hotel that rents rooms to the guests at a same-sex wedding, the limousine service that transports them, and the caterer who supplies the food probably would not have very strong First Amendment arguments for refusing to do these things, assuming they met the definition of public accommodations under the state's law and that law prohibited them from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. And yet the fact a public accommodation is mainly engaged in commerce does not automatically mean a state law can prohibit it from discriminating against homosexuals.

If an artist had a gallery where he sold his portraits and other paintings, he would be engaged in commerce, and his gallery would be a business. In some states that would make it a public accommodation. But if the artist opposed same-sex marriage, I doubt very much the state law could require him to paint a picture commemorating a homosexual couple's wedding. He would have a very strong argument that the law compelled him to propound a point of view he disagreed with, and therefore, as applied to him, unconstitutionally abridged his freedom of speech.
 
Last edited:
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

What? Do you think that gay's don't like pizza or something? Yeah, you are definitely not an expert. So why say something so lacking in knowledge?

Personally I'm all for gays having a pizza party on their wedding day. To any business that wants to cater it. But I don't believe in forcing anyone to serve anyone else either. This is not the 1200's. We don't live a serf life.

I see. So no one should be forced to serve anyone else, eh? So, if they don't want to serve African Americans, Mexican-Americans, Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Irish or Italian customers, that is fine with you, right?
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

Maybe those calling for tolerance should be more tolerant themselves of others' viewpoints.
So the people calling for tolerance should be tolerant of the intolerance of others? Being tolerant of the intolerance of others is not much different from being intolerant yourself. :)
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

For constitutional purposes, people and the businesses they run are both private persons. Almost nothing in the Constitution applies to private persons--including discrimination by those persons. The Thirteenth Amendment was relied on in one case, Jones v. Alfred Mayer (upholding law against race discrimination in sale of housing as exercise of Congress's power to prohibit private persons from imposing "badges and incidents" of slavery); the Fifteen Amendment has been used in several cases where private persons interfered with voting; and the Commerce Clause was used as Congress's authority for prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

You're right that private clubs have more freedom not to serve people. But often the reason has not been that they were not serving the general public, but rather that no government discrimination was involved. A good example is Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis. The lodge in Irvis, citing its membership rules, had refused to serve the black guest of a white member at either its bar or its restaurant. He sued, but he lost. The Supreme Court held the fact the state had issued the lodge a liquor license and the fact it used public utilities were not enough to convert its race discrimination into the state action required for the Fourteenth Amendment to apply.

Discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation is not prohibited by federal law. Where states have made sexual orientation a prohibited basis for discrimination in public accommodations, they have relied on their inherent authority to make laws and policies concerning public health, safety, and welfare. It's generally true that the more commercial the character of a thing the state law defines as a public accommodation, the more likely that a state can prohibit discrimination without running afoul of the freedom of association. See Roberts v. Jaycees for a good discussion of this.

The hotel that rents rooms to the guests at a same-sex wedding, the limousine service that transports them, and the caterer who supplies the food probably would not have very strong First Amendment arguments for refusing to do these things, assuming they met the definition of public accommodations under the state's law and that law prohibited them from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. And yet the fact a public accommodation is mainly engaged in commerce does not automatically mean a state law can prohibit it from discriminating against homosexuals.

If an artist had a gallery where he sold his portraits and other paintings, he would be engaged in commerce, and his gallery would be a business. In some states that would make it a public accommodation. But if the artist opposed same-sex marriage, I doubt very much the state law could require him to paint a picture commemorating a homosexual couple's wedding. He would have a very strong argument that the law compelled him to propound a point of view he disagreed with, and therefore, as applied to him, unconstitutionally abridged his freedom of speech.

Actually if his business was selling portraits of weddings.. there would be an argument that he was involved in discrimination by not providing a public accommodation to same sex marriage and thus acting against a state accommodation law. Now,,, if his business involved all sorts of other paintings? then no. but if his business was that of providing wedding paintings? then yes.

The same as if he stated that he would not do an interracial couple because such was against his views.

No offense but the accommodation laws do not have to do with government discrimination. Last I knew, the government ran few hotels, hospitals and motels.

Private social clubs may indulge in discrimination because they are not "public" but are inherently exclusionary and are based on the freedom of association.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

I see. So no one should be forced to serve anyone else, eh? So, if they don't want to serve African Americans, Mexican-Americans, Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Irish or Italian customers, that is fine with you, right?

The free market would get rid of these places pretty quickly....Why is it that the first answer of a liberal is to need bigger, more forceful government.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

The fact that the law was changed in order to ensure that gays are not discriminated against should be enough. The law itself specifically singled out the one group of people who use their religion to discriminate and basically told them "We won't get involved!". Continuing to ignore that fact doesn't change the reality of the matter.



Laws don't prevent murder. Should murder no longer be criminalized? :)



Opps.

There are more than one group of people who have served notice they will not do business with gays and lesbians for religious reasons, Islam where they behead homosexuals comes to mind, Sikhs, Hindus and B'Hai.....

The government has singled out one of the groups which has led to this angry mob response and death threats
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

The law was changed because gays demanded protected status.

The same protected status afforded to choices like what religion you'll be a member of and traits you can't do anything about like race. That's not too much to ask.

The law was also changed because a "reporter" took it on herself to find some Christian somewhere offering a service who spoke honestly and confirmed that the business would not cater a gay wedding.

Lol, we talking about the pizza thing? Saying the law was changed because of that is absolutely ridiculous. This law was going to be changed whether a pizza parlor spoke on it or not. Or did the mass demonstrations suggest something else?

There are prohibitions in the Bible which specifically prohibit homosexual unions. The law as it once stood simply stated that such religious beliefs could be a consideration. The rest is pure hyperbole.

That's great, don't get in a homosexual union then. :shrug:

And the bolded was my point. Just because this group or that claims protected status under the law does not bestow them the title of "Thought Police". I don't necessarily condone what that girl said, and she is a younger woman. However, the First Amendment still stands, and I do recognize her right to say it. If you want to penalize people for exercising that right, you'd better check the ground on which you stand. It will be challenged.

Nobody is giving anybody the title of thought police. What is being established is that a business doesn't get the benefits afforded to it through federal laws, and taxes and then discriminate against the populace that makes that possible.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

Opps.

There are more than one group of people who have served notice they will not do business with gays and lesbians for religious reasons, Islam where they behead homosexuals comes to mind, Sikhs, Hindus and B'Hai.....

Your lack reading comprehension is getting really annoying. What is the one group of people who use their religion to discriminate if not the religious? Do you even know what this law was about? Can you cite it? :)

The government has singled out one of the groups which has led to this angry mob response and death threats

Absolute nonsense. A restaurant denying service because of its religion wouldn't be immune regardless of its religion.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

Most, if not all metropolitan bus services are government services...Private businesses are not.

Many bus services are private businesses. the buses that MLKJr started a boycott over were privately owned
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

Your lack reading comprehension is getting really annoying. What is the one group of people who use their religion to discriminate if not the religious? Do you even know what this law was about? Can you cite it? :)



Absolute nonsense. A restaurant denying service because of its religion wouldn't be immune regardless of its religion.



and your insults when called on errors continue to amuse.

We hit another nerve.

Never, no matter what happens, EVER admit a mistake, it would ruin your image
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

and your insults when called on errors continue to amuse.

Instead of complaining about supposed insults, why don't you try reporting my posts? :)

I love hitting a never.

A what?

Never, no matter what happens, EVER admit a mistake, it would ruin your image

I've called you out on this, I've asked you to point out which part of my posts are mistaken, and you can't seem to do it. Is there a reason behind that? :)
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

Nothing. For someone who wants one, it's still there, just like the penis stromboli at Tony Baloney's (Not Workplace Safe) in Hoboken. So far, I see a few trollish comments but no serious responses that argue why refusing to bake a specific type of cake is discriminatory. I guess the Gay Army would rather just cry in their stromboli about how they're being discriminated against and picked on by bigoted Christians even while they can't articulate a serious argument refuting my point.
But you did not have a point. You aired a desire for penis cake.
 
Back
Top Bottom