• 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

He knows that but he has consistently (and dishonestly) tried to conflate expressive organizations with purely commercial ones.

It would be dishonest to claim any clear line could be drawn between the two. That is exactly what the Court discussed in Roberts v. Jaycees, particularly in Justice O'Connors' concurring opinion. It would also be dishonest to claim that the freedom of association is the only First Amendment freedom these public accommodations cases may involve. There is also a line of cases involving government-compelled speech that may form a strong basis for challenges by some businesses to public accommodations laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

I haven't seen the claims the Hitching Post made against the Coeur d'Alene ordinance in federal court that caused the town to back down so quickly and ignominiously. But knowing what the Court has said about compelled speech in Barnette, Wooley, Hurley, and Prune Yard Shopping Center, I have a hunch that had something to do with it. To require the owners of a for-profit wedding chapel to let it be used to celebrate same-sex marriages would compel them to let their property be used to propound a point of view they disagree with. The fact the Hitching Post is a commercial business and a public accommodation did not make the city ordinance any less an unconstitutional infringement of the Knapps' freedom of speech.

The Court in Barnette, which upheld the right of students who were Jehovah's Witnesses not to salute the flag against their beliefs, saw the inconsistency in saying the same First Amendment "which guards the individual's right to speak his own mind, left it open to public authorities to compel him to utter what is not in his mind."
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

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.

Did I say it was? With the exception of the fact that nothing happened, you'd have a point. Nothing happened.



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?

The demonstrations suggested something else. The entire presumption of the demonstrations was that because a reporter decided that perhaps there might be people who might exploit this law because of their religious beliefs would compel them to do so was outrageous. That was the cause of the demonstrations. There was no act other than speech that caused it. And speech, as I am forced to reiterate in this instance, is protected. As I said before, this is all hysterical hyperbole, and rather than offerring substance, you continue the hyperbole.



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

You're assuming I care one way or the other. I don't.



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.

BS. The entire exercise, from the moment that reported decided this was a good thing to do until it's completion, was precisely about condemning someone for spoken thought. You can condemn if you like, but that person still retains the right to say it, whether you like it or not.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

We do that almost every day in our lives.
Just so we are clear, such as?

If we cannot exercise our personal discretion then we lose a basic freedom.
Of course we can, when not in violation of an obligation we freely take on, such as opening a business to the public as opposed to select clientele.

I'm in the tourism industry and have refused service perhaps five times over 25 years to people because of their attitudes.
Good for you. I am sure you did it for the safety or well being of your clients and or staff or property. Say, much like not giving any more drinks to a drunk.

They could have sued me and may have succeeded, but I felt they were being rude either to me or staff and told them they were not welcome. I used my discretion and each time I was correct and was more than willing to face the financial loss.
But not because you disliked a particular group or type of people.

It is a small town where there are few gays getting married or asking Memories pizza to cater. It was a hypothetical question.
Through hypotheticals are principles tested.

I would pleased to cater a Gay wedding were I in the business but may have refused some other type of function where I felt me or my employees felt uncomfortable. It's discretion.
No it is not longer discretion.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

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



A what?



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? :)



I just did.

So I will keep this to really short words.


You said "the one group..."

I pointed out that here were more than one group that have served notice they will NOT do business with GBLT

You were wrong. There is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension.

So now we have two posts in a row where your wrongness has been exposed.

Do not admit it.

have a good day. I am done here.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

I just did.

So I will keep this to really short words.

Lol, good. Then quit your complaining. You have reading comprehension issues and it's obvious to anybody who notices just how badly you miss your mark when addressing 90% of my posts. The best part is that you actually think I said something about a specific group of religious people. :lol:

You said "the one group..."

Yes, that would be the religious.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

Did I say it was? With the exception of the fact that nothing happened, you'd have a point. Nothing happened.

And yet, a law was corrected, and it was made clear that it could not be use to discriminate against gays. Continuing to claim that nothing happened just makes you look like sour grapes at this point. Sort of like the people who claim nothing was accomplished by changing the law.

The demonstrations suggested something else. The entire presumption of the demonstrations was that because a reporter decided that perhaps there might be people who might exploit this law because of their religious beliefs would compel them to do so was outrageous. That was the cause of the demonstrations. There was no act other than speech that caused it. And speech, as I am forced to reiterate in this instance, is protected. As I said before, this is all hysterical hyperbole, and rather than offerring substance, you continue the hyperbole.

Continuing to infer that this was based on a reporter and a religious belief makes you it look like that's what the calls for repeal were about. They weren't. :shrug:

You're assuming I care one way or the other. I don't.

25 posts in this thread alone. Something tells me you do care. :shrug:

BS. The entire exercise, from the moment that reported decided this was a good thing to do until it's completion, was precisely about condemning someone for spoken thought. You can condemn if you like, but that person still retains the right to say it, whether you like it or not.

Still under the belief that this was all started because of a reporter? Hmm. It really wasn't.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

And yet, a law was corrected, and it was made clear that it could not be use to discriminate against gays. Continuing to claim that nothing happened just makes you look like sour grapes at this point. Sort of like the people who claim nothing was accomplished by changing the law.

There was no crime. Therefore, there was nothing worth talking about.



Continuing to infer that this was based on a reporter and a religious belief makes you it look like that's what the calls for repeal were about. They weren't. :shrug:

And you're claiming that absent national attention, something would've happened. That's funny.



25 posts in this thread alone. Something tells me you do care. :shrug:

About the perception and the attempted twisting of it - not the event itself.



Still under the belief that this was all started because of a reporter? Hmm. It really wasn't.

Sure it was. If not for the reporter, nothing would've happened. Tell me, exactly what gay 'would be' couple was soliciting that restaurant for catering services?
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

But you did not have a point. You aired a desire for penis cake.

I asked a hypothetical with an expectation that no one would be able to come up with a reasoned argument to rebut it. I wasn't disappointed. You get one final shot, then you go on my ignore list.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

Many bus services are private businesses. the buses that MLKJr started a boycott over were privately owned

Name for me how many metro bus lines operating routes in our cities today are private...
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

I asked a hypothetical
Yes, a really stupid one and irrelevant to boot.

with an expectation that no one would be able to come up with a reasoned argument to rebut it.
Such stupid questions are best left unreasoned.

I wasn't disappointed.
Well at least you have that.

You get one final shot
At what making a penis cake for you? I am no baker.

then you go on my ignore list.
Oh no, what will I do?
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

There was no crime. Therefore, there was nothing worth talking about.

The bill was literally made into law 2 weeks ago. It received criticism from the minute it was passed because it allowed people to discriminate based on another person's sexual orientation. Continuing to claim that some imaginary crime needed to happen for it to be discussed is absurd.

And you're claiming that absent national attention, something would've happened. That's funny.

Laws don't get changed unless people pay attention to them. What I have argued (though not explicitly) is that people would have noticed in the same way they notice discrimination that goes on in countries they don't live in. They research and then discuss topics. Believing the attention paid was the product of a reporter and not the law itself is absurd. Welcome to Politics 101.

About the perception and the attempted twisting of it - not the event itself.

And yet, it wasn't the "perception and attempted twisting of it" that got it changed. You can't twist a law that wouldn't have allowed for discrimination in the first place.

Sure it was. If not for the reporter, nothing would've happened. Tell me, exactly what gay 'would be' couple was soliciting that restaurant for catering services?

What reporter? Continuing to assert that nothing would have happened is saying that there was nothing wrong with the law and one person convinced mega-corporations, multinationals, and millions of people that there was something wrong with this law. That is patently absurd.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

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.

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.

Although they could have been theoretically sued by anyone, it would not be likely that such a case would go anywhere and would be pretty much dropped immediately since just saying they wouldn't provide pizza for a same sex marriage really doesn't mean that they would have actually done it. There generally has to be an actual person who is turned away, not just the "threat" of doing so.

But what she said is not protected from boycotts or even people talking about it, her, her business, or how they feel that she is wrong. There is also a fine line between illegal threats or slander and making fun of them or calling them names, even if I don't really agree with doing any of those things. People have a right to speak "bad" about others without punishment from the government as well, at least to a point (and in this case, it would be quite difficult to determine if anything that was said about them or even their place of business caused any actual damage to it other than possibly the "threats"). You can't use the government to punish someone for saying things like "their pizza sucks", even lying about the pizza (whether obvious or not that the comments were meant to be satirical for the most part). Lying is not against the law (except for in very specific incidents), particularly not if it cannot be shown that the individual lie actually caused in itself some financial damage.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

If a gay atheist has a problem with catering a religious ceremony (providing the same service he provides to anyone else) then he can cater to the event or he can risk a lawsuit by turning it down on the basis of the customer's religion. His choice.

Anyway, you've made your feelings clear and there's really nothing left for you to add, I suspect. You believe that discrimination is acceptable if it's supported by religious belief, but realistically speaking that's not the direction the country is heading in. Sooner than not, sexual orientation is going to be a protected class on the Federal level. At that point, Christians are going to have to make a choice: risk the government's wrath and discriminate, suck it up and stay in business, or close up shop altogether. Whichever they choose, honestly I couldn't care less. It's their problem, not mine.

Thanks for a good discussion. I think it's clear that my position respects liberty and allows each individual to pursue happiness. While your position respects equality, however it compels behavior and denies pursuit of happiness to some.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

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)

I've already provided a link showing how the cutting of a wedding cake is a religious symbolic gesture in this very thread. You stating the opposite does nothing to disprove that link.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

I've already provided a link showing how the cutting of a wedding cake is a religious symbolic gesture in this very thread. You stating the opposite does nothing to disprove that link.

I missed thew link. Could you repost it?
 
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?

You should have added whites to that list. ;) Though I do realize that you can't possibly put every single race or group in one full post so I don't mind. ;) But yes, I fully believe in a persons right to freedom of association. That does not mean that I would support such a business. In fact I would never give such a business my money. But just because I don't like something does not give me the Right to remove someone else's Rights. Indeed that is exactly what Rights are about. Protecting something that is disagreed with or frowned upon by the general society.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

The bill was literally made into law 2 weeks ago. It received criticism from the minute it was passed because it allowed people to discriminate based on another person's sexual orientation. Continuing to claim that some imaginary crime needed to happen for it to be discussed is absurd.



Laws don't get changed unless people pay attention to them. What I have argued (though not explicitly) is that people would have noticed in the same way they notice discrimination that goes on in countries they don't live in. They research and then discuss topics. Believing the attention paid was the product of a reporter and not the law itself is absurd. Welcome to Politics 101.



And yet, it wasn't the "perception and attempted twisting of it" that got it changed. You can't twist a law that wouldn't have allowed for discrimination in the first place.



What reporter? Continuing to assert that nothing would have happened is saying that there was nothing wrong with the law and one person convinced mega-corporations, multinationals, and millions of people that there was something wrong with this law. That is patently absurd.

That's the lie alright...Congratulations, you have, as usual the narrative to the letter....And it's only been repeated by every liberal hack with a keyboard, or a mic for the past week and a half....Bravo.

What reporter? Continuing to assert that nothing would have happened is saying that there was nothing wrong with the law and one person convinced mega-corporations, multinationals, and millions of people that there was something wrong with this law. That is patently absurd.

What reporter? why the 'bubble headed bleach blonde' whom went in search of a small town business with any glimmer of faith inside that she could blindside with such a stupid question, as to whether or not this po dunk town in where ever Indiana would have a gay couple asking the local pizza joint to cater their wedding...It was always a set up, and typical of snarky, small, petty liberals that want to make a name for themselves.

So, now you'll attack me, instead of just ceasing with the tripe I can read on any liberal rag out there...And written better I might add.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

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.

I suppose it's possible to make any argument, but I think that's a weak one. A state law can only violate a right guaranteed by the First Amendment if the state can show the law is necessary to achieve some compelling government purpose--i.e. that the purpose cannot be achieved in some less burdensome way. It is extremely hard to show that.

There is no basis in the Supreme Court's decisions on government-compelled speech for what you are asserting. What subjects an artist normally portrays in the paintings he sells is irrelevant to his constitutionally protected freedom to express himself in those paintings. They are symbolic speech, and he has the freedom not to say certain things in them. He could paint and sell nothing but portraits of weddings, and it would not diminish his right to refuse to paint a portrait of a same-sex wedding one iota.

The strength of the freedom of association depends on whether the association is mainly expressive or mainly commercial, as the Court discussed in Roberts. But I don't know of anything the Court has said in any of its compelled-speech decisions that implies government is any more free to tell people what they must say--or allow others to say--when those people operate businesses that serve the public.


No offense but the accommodation laws do not have to do with government discrimination . . . Private social clubs may indulge in discrimination because they are not "public" but are inherently exclusionary and are based on the freedom of association.

If you thought I was suggesting they did, you misunderstood what I wrote. The post I was responding to suggested that private clubs are free to discriminate because they do not serve the public. I pointed out that was not the only reason--that sometimes they have been free to discriminate because they were not closely enough connected to state government for what they did to be considered action by the state. If the Moose Lodge in the case I discussed had been closely enough connected to the state for its discrimination against the black guest to constitute state action, the guest would have had a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim. But that amendment does not apply to discrimination by private persons, whether they serve the public or not.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

I missed thew link. Could you repost it?

Christian Wedding Customs and Traditions

Cutting and Feeding of the Cake
The cutting of the cake is another picture of the cutting of the covenant. When the bride and groom take pieces of the cake and feed it to each other, once again, they are showing how they have given their all to one another, and will care for the other as one flesh. At a Christian wedding, the cutting and feeding of the cake can be done joyfully, but should also be done lovingly and reverently, in a way that honors the covenant relationship.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

That's the lie alright...Congratulations, you have, as usual the narrative to the letter....And it's only been repeated by every liberal hack with a keyboard, or a mic for the past week and a half....Bravo.



What reporter? why the 'bubble headed bleach blonde' whom went in search of a small town business with any glimmer of faith inside that she could blindside with such a stupid question, as to whether or not this po dunk town in where ever Indiana would have a gay couple asking the local pizza joint to cater their wedding...It was always a set up, and typical of snarky, small, petty liberals that want to make a name for themselves.

So, now you'll attack me, instead of just ceasing with the tripe I can read on any liberal rag out there...And written better I might add.

Good grief, continuing this lie doesn't change the truth j-mac. The law itself was flawed and the fact that it was changed to ensure no discrimination of gays was allowed reflects that. Continuing this narrative that it was the fault of a reporter is absurd. Did you think the law allowed no discrimination before it entered public discussion? Wait, what exact difference does it make if the law entered discussion because of a reporter? Does that make the law less flawed? Sour grapes all around. ;)
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

I find it interesting that religious persecution has reached political favor.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

It would be dishonest to claim any clear line could be drawn between the two. That is exactly what the Court discussed in Roberts v. Jaycees, particularly in Justice O'Connors' concurring opinion. It would also be dishonest to claim that the freedom of association is the only First Amendment freedom these public accommodations cases may involve.

And it would be dishonest to claim that anyone made such claims.

But I don't expect honesty in your posts.

I haven't seen the claims the Hitching Post made against the Coeur d'Alene ordinance in federal court that caused the town to back down so quickly and ignominiously. But knowing what the Court has said about compelled speech in Barnette, Wooley, Hurley, and Prune Yard Shopping Center, I have a hunch that had something to do with it.

Couer d'Alene didn't back down. The Hitching Post backed down by re-organizing as a religious organization and changed its' policy so it no longer performs non-christian marriages, which made it exempt from the anti-discrimination regulation
 
Last edited:
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

Name for me how many metro bus lines operating routes in our cities today are private...

NYC has several privately run bus companies. Most cities and counties have them. I know for certain that there are privately owned bus companies in the area I now live in.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

I've already provided a link showing how the cutting of a wedding cake is a religious symbolic gesture in this very thread. You stating the opposite does nothing to disprove that link.

I missed thew link. Could you repost it?


The baker doesn't cut the cake. The newlyweds do
 
Back
Top Bottom