Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge say

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

Absentglare said:

Sorry, i wasn't clear. I consider that a very different case. Furthermore, i don't recognize a right to speak poorly of homosexuals without recourse.

Boycotting one another over public statements is fine. The consumer is allowed to discriminate. The business is not necessarily allowed to do so when they are leveraging access to the public (which the government facilitates) for profit.

Click to expand...

Yeah sure, but that's nothing to do with discrimination. That's just forms of thought crime.

MrWonka said:

Guns protect businesses from thieves. Do you think that government should protect businesses and give them a pool of potential customers that businesses can then dehumanize?

Don't be ridiculous, like it's some awful thing for a business to have a customer. That's why it's dehumanizing to turn someone down.

Click to expand...

Guns enforce all sorts of laws, not always ones that are for "protection" (well perhaps in the mafia sense of protection, lol). Government doesn't "give them a pool of potential customers", less we're saying that the government has mandated people to visit and consume from the store. And in that case, sure the store owner couldn't discriminate in any form. If the government is forcing people to consumer their product, they don't get to discriminate. But they are not.

People CHOOSE to consume from a store, there is no force there. The government does not GIVE a pool of potential customers. So yes, let's not be ridiculous, shall we?

"It's dehumanizing to turn someone down", oh what the heck is that nonsense. Some girl turns down a date from a boy, has she "dehumanized" him? lol That's just nonsense. You can say that certain forms of discrimination may be dehumanizing. But not being labored for isn't innately one of them. Forcing someone to labor against their will is, however, because you do not extend the human decency of recognizing their rights to their own labor and property.

So don't be ridiculous.

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

apdst said:

This ruling can force a black videographer to attend a neo-nazi wedding.

Slippery slopes suck, huh?

Click to expand...

Being a Neo Nazi isn’t an inherent trait. It’s just being a white trash asshole.

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

HenryChinaski said:

Being a Neo Nazi isn’t an inherent trait. It’s just being a white trash asshole.

Click to expand...

Some people are just born white trash assholes, man. Who are we to discriminate against them?

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

apdst said:

"You're going to support gay marriage, whether you want to, or not. If you don't want to, we'll make you."

Click to expand...

False. Baking a cake for a gay wedding, or taking video of a gay wedding does not in any way shape or form SUPPORT gay marriage. You are providing a service, and you are being paid for that service just like anybody else would pay you.

Now, if someone asked you to bake a cake, and wrote "Vote yes on gay marriage" on top of the cake that would be a different thing entirely. In that case, they would be forcing you to use your talents in order to make a political statement which you disagreed with.

Discrimination itself is not a political statement alone. It is a harmful act taken against another group. It is considered roughly equivalent to kicking someone in the nuts whether you understand that or not.

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

apdst said:

They would if they wanted to make a political statement. That really what this is all about: government enforced acceptance. Basically, "You're going to support gay marriage, whether you want to, or not. If you don't want to, we'll make you."

Click to expand...

Oh stop, it's not forced acceptance at all. It's about the fact that you can't create a second class of citizen who does not get served simply because they are doing something your country says is their right to do.

Outside of the what's written in the law, what anyone thinks is morally good and bad stops at the end of their nose and matters not at all to anyone else, they need to get over it. If the law is that they must serve, regardless of whether they believe in the lifestyle choices of their customers or not, their option is to serve or find another way or place to make their money. They aren't being "forced" to do anything...if they are that committed to their bigotry that they would allow it to put them setting up home in a cardboard box, God bless them, I support their freedom to do that too.

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

JANFU said:

In many countries this protection is in law. I have difficulty understanding your laws regarding certain protected classes, and that is a Federal area???

Click to expand...

Protected classes are simply types of discrimination the government recognizes like sex, ethnicity, race, sexual orientation and so on. There are federal protected classes and state protected classes.

For example, race is a protected class. Thus you cannot refuse service to someone based on their race. This protects whites as well as other races.

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

CLAX1911 said:

All you have to do is say Nazism is your religion. Then it's a protected class it didn't have to be made into one it can already be one.

But we all know it's a double standard.

My thoughts on it if they don't want to serve you because you're homos go somewhere that wants your business there are businesses that make their Niche and serving gay people why wouldn't you want to do business with them?

But I know really and truly it's not about doing business with people it's about punishing people for thinking things that other people don't agree with.

It's a thought crime issue

Click to expand...

Utter nonsense. No one is being punished for what they think. You can think what you want. However, if you open a business you agree to abide by the local, state, and federal laws pertaining to your business. Thus if you refuse to serve blacks, you are not being punished for racists thoughts, you are being legally compelled to adhere to the public accommodation laws that apply to your business.

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

Ikari said:

Some people are just born white trash assholes, man. Who are we to discriminate against them?

Click to expand...

People’s ways of thinking and racist beliefs are shaped and can change, thus no protection needed. Skin-color and sexual orientation, not so much.

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

countryboy said:

Do we, or do we not have religious freedom in this country? This is an idiotic decision, and in no way connected to reality. This judge should be impeached, and removed from the bench.

Do libs really think decisions like this are going to help them retake any political power any time soon? Wow.

Click to expand...

So if it is your religious belief that blacks are subhuman, you should get an exemption from public accommodation laws as they relate to your business?

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

MrWonka said:

False. Baking a cake for a gay wedding, or taking video of a gay wedding does not in any way shape or form SUPPORT gay marriage. You are providing a service, and you are being paid for that service just like anybody else would pay you.

Click to expand...

If one agrees to said contract, yes. Why is one forced into the contract, force to labor when they do not wish it? It's cake and pictures, we're not exactly talking life-saving medicine here.

MrWonka said:

Now, if someone asked you to bake a cake, and wrote "Vote yes on gay marriage" on top of the cake that would be a different thing entirely. In that case, they would be forcing you to use your talents in order to make a political statement which you disagreed with.

Discrimination itself is not a political statement alone. It is a harmful act taken against another group. It is considered roughly equivalent to kicking someone in the nuts whether you understand that or not.

Click to expand...

Discrimination isn't necessarily a "harmful act". We discriminate all the time for lots of various reasons, and in many ways it can be useful. There are forms of it which can be rude, there are forms of it that can prove harmful. If we have systematic, established discrimination we may want to think about doing something about it. Some bakery somewhere not wanting to bake a cake for a same sex ceremony isn't proof of that.

You don't have the right to that person's property or labor. I don't quite understand the zealousness for this neo-serfdom.

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

HenryChinaski said:

People’s ways of thinking and racist beliefs are shaped and can change, thus no protection needed. Skin-color and sexual orientation, not so much.

Click to expand...

So because someone doesn't think the way you think they should, we can discriminate against them, yes?

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

Ikari said:

So because someone doesn't think the way you think they should, we can discriminate against them, yes?

Click to expand...

A guy walks into a diner wearing a swastika t-shirt, he can legally be refused service. A black dude can’t be refused based on his skin color. The Nazi can change his shirt. The black dude can’t change his race.

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

Ikari said:

No more than when you start creating lists designed to give certain people privileges others do not.



It's a cake.

Here's the fundamental I think about. You do not own the labor of others. So you don't have the right to somebody's property or labor, you cannot force them to labor for you. For me, that's the fundamental. I understand there's always some scenario we can dream of that we'd want to say "well in that case...". I think we have emergency services, fine. But for some private business like a bakery or whatever, should they be able to discriminate without government reprisal? Fundamentally, so long as they are not infringing upon the rights of others, I say yes. It's their ingredients, their labor, they should be able to do as they want. I cannot accept that others innately own the labor of others. And even if someone chooses to labor in a way we find discriminatory or do not like, I'm not sure that in and of itself is cause for government force.

Do we, as a moral people and consumer force have a responsibility to "police" ourselves the businesses that exist through our consumer power? I'd say yes, it's part of the responsibilities which exist within a free Republic. But I personally do not see how one fundamentally owns the labor of another and can thus make them, backed by the guns of government, labor for them.

Click to expand...

What lists are you talking about? I'm not sure what you're referring to, so I'm not sure how to respond.

Yes, I know...it's a cake. Sack up and make the damn thing, it's their job. (Just being contrary).

If discrimination is against the law, it is against the law, I'm having a hard time thinking of any other law that works that way - some kind of sliding scale where, at some point something not ok is deemed ok. Murder is murder, rape is rape, theft is theft, assault is assault....discrimination is discrimination. Companies are regulated in all kinds of ways to make them compatible with the society they operate in, I don't see the difference here.

And if people choose to do business in a place where discrimination is against the law, they either need to obey or they need to move to a place where discrimination is allowed (sounds like a fun place to be), or find a different way of making money where they can only be surrounded by people that think, look, and live exactly like them. Otherwise, get along, do your job, follow the law, and everything will be just fine...

(Let me guess, the Libertarian in you is having a seizure right now...hehe)

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

HenryChinaski said:

A guy walks into a diner wearing a swastika t-shirt, he can legally be refused service. A black dude can’t be refused based on his skin color. The Nazi can change his shirt. The black dude can’t change his race.

Click to expand...

So that's a yes then. OK

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

Ikari said:

No more than when you start creating lists designed to give certain people privileges others do not.

Click to expand...

OK, but if you're a member of the majority, you have that privilege just as a function of being in the dominant class (white, straight, Christian, male in this country for most of our history). You accept that privilege as almost a divine right. So it's very easy for me to be opposed to or ambivalent about public accommodation laws because there hasn't been a single time in my life where I've worried about being subjected to discriminatory practices.

Not accusing you of that, but I do get a little frustrated hearing white male republicans oppose policies that obviously don't affect them or their family or 90%+ of their close friends and colleagues.

Do we, as a moral people and consumer force have a responsibility to "police" ourselves the businesses that exist through our consumer power? I'd say yes, it's part of the responsibilities which exist within a free Republic. But I personally do not see how one fundamentally owns the labor of another and can thus make them, backed by the guns of government, labor for them.

Click to expand...

First, I don't see public accommodation laws any differently than environmental, or labor, or public safety, or building code laws. If you decide to bake cakes, you agree to ALL the laws governing baking cakes, one of them being the agreement to not discriminate, just like you agree to keep your kitchen sanitary, etc.

Second, it is just cakes, and maybe we can agree that cakes or videography of weddings shouldn't be covered activities. Fine. Those things are scheduled well in advance, generally at least weeks, often months, and it's highly unlikely that denying those services will pose an actual burden to many folks. In almost all cases, other businesses will gladly take care of you, and there is at least an arguable case that forcing a person to participate in a gay wedding violates their religion and deeply held beliefs, so the 'rights' are competing here.

But that doesn't (to me at least) mean that we should allow discrimination in all other areas, such as housing, hotels and motels, restaurants, retail outlets. In the modern era, if I reserve a room at a hotel in Gatlinburg, no one should worry that upon arriving the desk clerk will say, "Sorry, but we don't rent rooms to ni***rs or fags. You'll have to find another room for tonight." Or that the two available apartment complexes in that good school district will deliberately prohibit blacks from renting. We don't have to guess those kinds of things had the real effect of creating a two tier system in the South, with blacks disadvantaged in real ways at every turn. IMO it's entirely appropriate that the CRA corrected those (obvious to me) injustices.

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

Aristaeus said:

If you don't want to labour for people, don't open a business to the public. Guess what? There are gay members of the public.

Would you have supported diners that refused to serve black people in the '50s and '60s, or supported bus companies that made black people sit at the back?

Click to expand...

There are Nazi members of the public. The are communist members of the public. There are general all-around assholes in the public. Should you be forced to serve them?

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

OlNate said:

Oh stop, it's not forced acceptance at all. It's about the fact that you can't create a second class of citizen who does not get served simply because they are doing something your country says is their right to do.

Outside of the what's written in the law, what anyone thinks is morally good and bad stops at the end of their nose and matters not at all to anyone else, they need to get over it. If the law is that they must serve, regardless of whether they believe in the lifestyle choices of their customers or not, their option is to serve or find another way or place to make their money. They aren't being "forced" to do anything...if they are that committed to their bigotry that they would allow it to put them setting up home in a cardboard box, God bless them, I support their freedom to do that too.

Click to expand...

It's absolutely forced acceptance. These activists troll for people who will openly refuse to work gay weddings.

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

OlNate said:

What lists are you talking about? I'm not sure what you're referring to, so I'm not sure how to respond.

Click to expand...

Protected classes. It's a list of certain folk who gain higher privilege.

OlNate said:

Yes, I know...it's a cake. Sack up and make the damn thing, it's their job. (Just being contrary).

Click to expand...

Sack up and go somewhere else. Perhaps with the proper consumer pressures the baker who discriminates shall not be a baker for long.

OlNate said:

If discrimination is against the law, it is against the law, I'm having a hard time thinking of any other law that works that way - some kind of sliding scale where, at some point something not ok is deemed ok. Murder is murder, rape is rape, theft is theft, assault is assault....discrimination is discrimination. Companies are regulated in all kinds of ways to make them compatible with the society they operate in, I don't see the difference here.

And if people choose to do business in a place where discrimination is against the law, they either need to obey or they need to move to a place where discrimination is allowed (sounds like a fun place to be), or find a different way of making money where they can only be surrounded by people that think, look, and live exactly like them. Otherwise, get along, do your job, follow the law, and everything will be just fine...

(Let me guess, the Libertarian in you is having a seizure right now...hehe)

Click to expand...

The argument isn't really "what is the law", as I said, that sort of trite deflection doesn't lead to any discussion. That's a 1-post thread. So let's quit with the deflection towards that, I know it's an easy "hurdle", but it's completely tangential. It's whether or not the business owner should be allowed to discriminate along these lines. For me, it's their labor and their property. Someone being denied a cake doesn't infringe upon their rights. They never had right to that other person's cake nor the labor that made it in the first place.

Murder infringes upon the rights of others, rape infringes upon the rights of others, theft infringes upon the rights of others, assault infringes upon the rights of others. Innately, by their very action. So you are denied a cake. Tell me innately, by that very action...how were your rights infringed upon. And is that infringement enough to justify infringing upon the liberty and property rights of the business owner? How so?

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

JANFU said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...?hpid=hp_hp-morning-mix_mm-ban:homepage/story



I agree with the Judges decision, and I am sure some will not.
Not sure on this, but most if not all countries that have SS would not tolerate this discrimination.

Click to expand...

As long as men cannot compete in all women sports? Nooe. I think this pc stuff has gone much too far.

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

apdst said:

It's absolutely forced acceptance. These activists troll for people who will openly refuse to work gay weddings.

Click to expand...

A civilized society doesn't discriminate against inherent traits. You walk into my place of business wearing assless chaps and a pink studded thong, we can legally refuse you service. If a blind black man with MS walks in for service, we cannot refuse service. Do you understand why?

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

HenryChinaski said:

A civilized society doesn't discriminate against inherent traits. You walk into my place of business wearing assless chaps and a pink studded thong, we can legally refuse you service. If a blind black man with MS walks in for service, we cannot refuse service. Do you understand why?

Click to expand...

In that case, Liberals are uncivilized as hell.

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

GDViking said:

So you believe discrimination should be legal bur only against people you are okay with being discriminated against, got it...

Click to expand...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is one of the worst interpretations I have ever seen.

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

Ikari said:

Where is that right derived, is it a fundamental?

Click to expand...

First sentence. Second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these TRUTHS to be SELF-EVIDENT that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL."

These words were chosen for a very specific reason. A self-evident truth is called an Axiom. That is a statement that is accepted as the truth and doesn't need any further justification. It is used as the founding of a formal argument, and for an argument to be valid all other premises, and conclusions must be consistant with and be derived from that. This statement is the single most important Axiom that the United States of America was founded upon, and any Law which contradicts it is by definition un-American.

Ikari said:

Actually, you just choose another videographer.

Click to expand...

This assumes the existence of other equivalent videographers which their may not be. This foolish idea was seen as the foundation of Seperate But Equal. The idea that it was okay for whites to have places that were specifically for them so long as there were equal options available for others. This of course is complete nonsense, and the alternatives were never equal.

I suggest you go back to high school, and try learning about Brown v. Board of Education. When you've had a proper foundation on U.S. History come on back.

Ikari said:

lol, so someone who denies to labor for a same sex marriage is now akin to Hitler?

Click to expand...

To a Nazi. Not necessarily Hitler himself, but to a Nazi, absolutely. Or if you'd prefer a Klan member or white supremicist. They are identical in every relevant way. You are advocating for Segregation whether you're intelligent enough to understand you're doing it or not. Again, go find a nice spot at the back of your local bus and read about Brown v. Board of Education.

Ikari said:

These aren't public businesses, they are private.

Click to expand...

False. They are open to the public. That they are privately owned is irrelevant.

Ikari said:

You claim the "must be open to the public", but it's not based really on the rights of the individual as much as it is your personal preference. We all pay for public infrastructure, including those who open private business. So that's not reason why you own some else's labor. Taxes and infrastructure do not transfer ownership of labor.

Click to expand...

Yes, they do. If you are benefitting from a public good, then the public has a say in how you use it.

Ikari said:

How do you gain the right to the labor of others?

Click to expand...

This has already been explained to you. Read it again more carefully this time. You do not get a right to someone else labor. You gain a right to not be discriminated against. If a person is happily willing to exchange their labor for a given price to one person, then they must be willing to do the same to everyone willing to offer that price, they cannot discriminate based upon race, creed, gender, or sexual orientation. Everyone's money is the same regardless of who offers it to you.

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

Aristaeus said:

People choose to be neo-Nazis; people don't choose to be gay.

Click to expand...

Religion is protected.

I wonder if someone could claim neo Nazis are a religious group? I'm sure some have done so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

HenryChinaski said:

A civilized society doesn't discriminate against inherent traits. You walk into my place of business wearing assless chaps and a pink studded thong, we can legally refuse you service. If a blind black man with MS walks in for service, we cannot refuse service. Do you understand why?

Click to expand...

We discriminate against inherent traits all the time. There are just some we choose not to.