• 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!

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:
Exactly.

Whatever religious belief forbids you from interacting with homosexuals essentially forbids you from running a business in this country. It's not my fault if silly beliefs get in the way of your ability to run a lawful business.
Click to expand...

This is precisely why communists and fascists are ideological brethren. Why should anyone have to tolerate the silly beliefs of others?
 
Ikari said:
One would be hard pressed to go through all the vendors and not find one. But I suppose in the end, you can bake your own cake.
Click to expand...

Completely ridiculous. I suppose if i can't get a hotel because of prejudice against things that are out of my control, i should just build my own?

Here in society, we rely on the commerce of one another. Nobody is their own farmer, architect, builder, electrician, plumber, electricity provider, sewage provider, water purifier, ... i could go on but hopefully i've made my point.

Letting citizens get cut out of public commerce for no good reason harms those citizens. Time is a resource.

Ikari said:
But there has always been an alternative, so this isn't actually happening.
Click to expand...

You're assuming that the discrimination is so rare that it won't harm people, or that when it does happen, a perfectly informed public will boycott that business.

This is a bad assumption if you open the floodgates for the wealthy to trample on the citizens in this manner.

Ikari said:
When their rights have been infringed upon.
Click to expand...

Which happens when they're shut out of commerce in violation of our laws.
 
Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

iguanaman said:
The bigoted videographer can choose another vocation you mean. A public business is no place for bigots.
Click to expand...

so why are you being bigoted? a little hypocritical don't you think?
religious bigotry is bigotry.

this will soon be decided soon by the SCOTUS they have agreed to hear the baker from CO case.
i figure you will see a similar narrow ruling similar to HL.

that a business with few owners are protected under the first amendment.

i feel sorry for those states that have targeted people for their religious beliefs.
they will have to pay back for loss of business and other damages probably.
 
Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

ludin said:
so why are you being bigoted? a little hypocritical don't you think?
religious bigotry is bigotry.

this will soon be decided soon by the SCOTUS they have agreed to hear the baker from CO case.
i figure you will see a similar narrow ruling similar to HL.

that a business with few owners are protected under the first amendment.

i feel sorry for those states that have targeted people for their religious beliefs.
they will have to pay back for loss of business and other damages probably.
Click to expand...
So I suppose a doctor can refuse to treat a patient in the ER for religious reasons, or a cop, or a fireman or a EMT....
 
Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

FederalRepublic said:
private individuals don't open "public" businesses.
Click to expand...

Yes, they do. That's what happens when you get a business license. You are serving the public. Rent a clue.
 
Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

Aristaeus said:
If only Rosa Parks had understand that. She should have just accepted that private companies had a right to enforce racial segregation.
Click to expand...

Rosa Parks was discriminated against by a government employee...
 
Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

Absentglare said:
Completely ridiculous. I suppose if i can't get a hotel because of prejudice against things that are out of my control, i should just build my own?

Here in society, we rely on the commerce of one another. Nobody is their own farmer, architect, builder, electrician, plumber, electricity provider, sewage provider, water purifier, ... i could go on but hopefully i've made my point.

Letting citizens get cut out of public commerce for no good reason harms those citizens. Time is a resource.
Click to expand...

Nobody is going to refuse anyone access to a hotel for being gay, because there is nothing about the service being purchased by the gay person that specifically pertains to being gay. This gay cake is completely different. And a baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple doesn't "shut them out of commerce". They can go find another baker or bake their own cake. Baking is pretty simple. I'm willing to bet you didn't speak out against the SEVERAL bakers that refused to bake a Trump Cake for a 9 year old's birthday party (Source: Bakers refused to make pro-Trump birthday cake for 9-year-old boy: Report - Washington Times. Do you think that mother was "shut out of commerce"? No, she took it upon herself to make things right and baked her own cake. Companies can refuse service for any reason, especially religious reasons pertaining to homosexuality.

Also, several people are their own farmers, plumbers, electricians, etc. Farmers eat some of their own product. Plumbers do their own plumbing. Electricians do their own electrical work.

Absentglare said:
You're assuming that the discrimination is so rare that it won't harm people, or that when it does happen, a perfectly informed public will boycott that business.

This is a bad assumption if you open the floodgates for the wealthy to trample on the citizens in this manner.
Click to expand...

Yes, because this is what happens. There was recently a bar owner in Minneapolis who donated money to David Duke and his staff quit, so the bar closed. (source: http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2017/08/29/club-jager-david-duke/ )
 
Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

vegas giants said:
If you want to be a part of the public you must serve all the public unless there is a compelling interest not to. Not liking gays is not compelling interest
Click to expand...

Who said anything about not liking gays?
 
Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

Media_Truth said:
Also, why do they just refuse to bake a cake for homosexuals? Why don't they refuse to bake a cake for adulterers? Hey, maybe the White House staff could refuse to cook for Trump.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of people who would refuse to work for Trump.
 
Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

FederalRepublic said:
You don't like gays? Or you're constructing a straw man?
Click to expand...
I don't feel like word games right now
 
Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

ludin said:
so why are you being bigoted? a little hypocritical don't you think?
religious bigotry is bigotry.

this will soon be decided soon by the SCOTUS they have agreed to hear the baker from CO case.
i figure you will see a similar narrow ruling similar to HL.

that a business with few owners are protected under the first amendment.

i feel sorry for those states that have targeted people for their religious beliefs.
they will have to pay back for loss of business and other damages probably.
Click to expand...

If "religious beliefs" require practicing discrimination it is no longer protected by the Constitution. Therefore a change of vocation is their only answer. This is settled law from the 1960's.

Instances of institutions and individuals claiming a right to discriminate in the name of religion aren’t new. In the 1960s, we saw institutions object to laws requiring integration in restaurants because of sincerely held beliefs that God wanted the races to be separate. We saw religiously affiliated universities refuse to admit students who engaged in interracial dating. In those cases, we recognized that requiring integration was not about violating religious liberty; it was about ensuring fairness. It is no different today.

Religious freedom in America means that we all have a right to our religious beliefs, but this does not give us the right to use our religion to discriminate against and impose those beliefs on others who do not share them.
Click to expand...

https://www.aclu.org/issues/religious-liberty/using-religion-discriminate/end-use-religion-discriminate
 
Last edited:
Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...

Really? So if I reserve a room at a hotel in Gatlinburg, show up with my wife and kids to check in and am told, "sorry we don't rent to niggers/fags/Jews" that's not dehumanizing?

And all we're asking of that hotel owner is to treat blacks etc. the same as all the other customers who walk in the door. Doesn't seem very dehumanizing to me, actually, or a particularly onerous demand on his labor and property - perform the same amount of labor for that black couple as the white couples before and after, and get paid an identical amount for those services.

I guess I can accept that we have some "right" to our labor and property, but like all our other rights it's NOT absolute, which you recognize, and can be abridged to serve the public interest, and having a society in which we can all fully participate without regard to arbitrary characteristics like race, religion, sexual orientation, gender seems a worthy goal, and a sufficient basis for abridging my right to discriminate on that basis.
 
Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

graeme104 said:
Nobody is going to refuse anyone access to a hotel for being gay, because there is nothing about the service being purchased by the gay person that specifically pertains to being gay. This gay cake is completely different. And a baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple doesn't "shut them out of commerce". They can go find another baker or bake their own cake. Baking is pretty simple. I'm willing to bet you didn't speak out against the SEVERAL bakers that refused to bake a Trump Cake for a 9 year old's birthday party (Source: Bakers refused to make pro-Trump birthday cake for 9-year-old boy: Report - Washington Times. Do you think that mother was "shut out of commerce"? No, she took it upon herself to make things right and baked her own cake. Companies can refuse service for any reason, especially religious reasons pertaining to homosexuality.

Also, several people are their own farmers, plumbers, electricians, etc. Farmers eat some of their own product. Plumbers do their own plumbing. Electricians do their own electrical work.



Yes, because this is what happens. There was recently a bar owner in Minneapolis who donated money to David Duke and his staff quit, so the bar closed. (source: http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2017/08/29/club-jager-david-duke/ )
Click to expand...

The gay cake thing is exactly the same. There's no reason for them to refuse to bake a cake if they sell cakes.

Maybe someone says it's against their religion to sleep in a bed that a homosexual might have had sex in.

If there's a part of the bible in their delusional head that says, "Thou shalt not bake cakes for homos" then they should get the **** out of the cake baking business. There's no right to run a business in violation of the law.

The part i don't get: you, Ikari, and others keep acting like business owners will be sensible and won't discriminate because it will be bad for their business. That's like saying we might as well not have laws against murder because people aren't going to murder one another, it just doesn't make any ****ing sense.
 
Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

FederalRepublic said:
This is precisely why communists and fascists are ideological brethren. Why should anyone have to tolerate the silly beliefs of others?
Click to expand...

It's not the beliefs i'm intolerant of, it's the behaviors that harm American citizens.
 
Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

JasperL said:
Really? So if I reserve a room at a hotel in Gatlinburg, show up with my wife and kids to check in and am told, "sorry we don't rent to niggers/fags/Jews" that's not dehumanizing?
Click to expand...

Huzzah! You found an example. Does that distract from what I said? No. If you were sitting in a restaurant and a server walked by and you snapped your fingers saying "Boy! Come here, I need you to take my order", and they ignored you...are you dehumanized? No, if anything it went the other way. So when I said "not being labored for isn't innately dehumanizing" it didn't mean it COULDN'T be dehumanizing, but that it is not necessarily so.

Jesus tap dancing christ on a pogo stick.

JasperL said:
And all we're asking of that hotel owner is to treat blacks etc. the same as all the other customers who walk in the door. Doesn't seem very dehumanizing to me, actually, or a particularly onerous demand on his labor and property - perform the same amount of labor for that black couple as the white couples before and after, and get paid an identical amount for those services.
Click to expand...

It is in their best interest to do so, corporate likely has the policy to do so. If they do not, there is always boycott.

JasperL said:
I guess I can accept that we have some "right" to our labor and property, but like all our other rights it's NOT absolute, which you recognize, and can be abridged to serve the public interest, and having a society in which we can all fully participate without regard to arbitrary characteristics like race, religion, sexual orientation, gender seems a worthy goal, and a sufficient basis for abridging my right to discriminate on that basis.
Click to expand...

We have "some right" to our labor? Who owns your labor then?

Rights are absolute, it is the infringement upon the exercise of rights which is conditional. And to justly use government force, the exercise of a right should infringe upon the rights of others. One has no right to another's cake.
 
Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

Ikari said:
Huzzah! You found an example. Does that distract from what I said? No. If you were sitting in a restaurant and a server walked by and you snapped your fingers saying "Boy! Come here, I need you to take my order", and they ignored you...are you dehumanized? No, if anything it went the other way. So when I said "not being labored for isn't innately dehumanizing" it didn't mean it COULDN'T be dehumanizing, but that it is not necessarily so.

Jesus tap dancing christ on a pogo stick.



It is in their best interest to do so, corporate likely has the policy to do so. If they do not, there is always boycott.



We have "some right" to our labor? Who owns your labor then?

Rights are absolute, it is the infringement upon the exercise of rights which is conditional. And to justly use government force, the exercise of a right should infringe upon the rights of others. One has no right to another's cake.
Click to expand...

Rights are almost never absolute and come with many restrictions
 
Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

vegas giants said:
Rights are almost never absolute and come with many restrictions
Click to expand...

It's the other way around. Government is restricted in the means and manners through which it can infringe upon the free exercise of rights.
 
Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

Ikari said:
It's the other way around. Government is restricted in the means and manners through which it can infringe upon the free exercise of rights.
Click to expand...

But it can and does restrict rights
 
Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

vegas giants said:
But it can and does restrict rights
Click to expand...

It can, through due process of law, infringe upon the free exercise of rights in very limited and regulated manners.
 
Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

Ikari said:
It can, through due process of law, infringe upon the free exercise of rights in very limited and regulated manners.
Click to expand...

As I said rights are never absolute and come with many restrictions
 
Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

CLAX1911 said:
so why is it only Christians? Have you ever ask a Muslim Baker or florist if they would serve a homosexual wedding?


We never hear about that.
Click to expand...

Common sense is indeed not so common.

Perhaps the reason why you don't hear as much about Muslim florists and Muslim bakers being forced to sell flowers to same sex couples and bake them cakes is the fact that Muslims are only about 1% of the total population of the United States. However, their business would be compelled to sell to them by the same anti-discrimination laws that apply to every one else.

It is absolutely about what people think.

come on I'm not arguing about whether or not there are laws. It's whether or not the laws are just.


Again it's not about whether or not there are laws there is no argument there. It's about whether or not it's right to force someone to make transaction with someone else.
Click to expand...

This was all decided at the federal and state levels back in the 1960s. On one hand you have business owners and their rights to refuse service to anyone. On the other you have the rights of citizens in this country not to be discriminated against by businesses. The law had to be weighed to one side or the other and it is weighed towards the rights of citizens not to be discriminated against due to their race, ethnicity, religious beliefs, sex or sexual orientation. History has shown time and time again that allowing businesses to discriminate against people based on race, ethnicity, religious beliefs, sex, or sexual orientation is the greater evil in a society.

Now you might say we have progressed since then and those laws are no longer needed. All I will say to that is the front runner for the senate race in Alabama is a man that has stated that homosexuality should be illegal. So we haven't progressed that much everywhere, thus the need for anti-discrimination laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom