• 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!

Court rules against Oregon bakers who refused to make gay wedding cake [W:1685]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Herkamer63 said:
My God, I triggered 3 people. To those same 3 people, let's say it was your business. Let's say you base it off your beliefs, and someone comes in, wants you to do something that is in direct violation of your beliefs. Do you do what that customer(s) want you to do or do you reject that person(s)? I know you'd give me a different answer on here because it's easier said than done, but I know for a fact you'd reject them. There's nothing in the US Constitution that says that you can't. If you want to get back at a business for rejecting to do something for you, go somewhere else. In this case there were other bakeries that couple could have gone to, but they chose that one for a reason, is my point. In any case, a business is free to do what it wants so long as they follow the law (which they didn't violate). I say to those same 3 people is I don't think you know how business works, regardless of what it may be (let alone how to operate one). My overall point is the government has no right to tell any business owner what they can and can not do (reject or not reject) with who these owners want to give business to. It didn't concern them nor the rest of the country. This couple became a bunch of babies, ran off, got an attorney, and started sputtering off some bull crap law (if it is true, then it's in clear violation of the US Constitution). Again, and I'll change up some of the wording, this couple should have been like responsible and mature adults, and taken their business elsewhere. So unless if you know business and how it runs, you really shouldn't be talking about this.
Click to expand...
Just about everything you wrote here is wrong.

How embarrassing for you.
 
bluesmoke said:
Ooops. Poorly worded. I meant the "reverse role" case example posted by Herkamer63 "they want the owners to bake them a cake that has a cross and with a Bible verse on it". My apologies.
Click to expand...

My misunderstanding. Thanks for clarifying.
 
Herkamer63 said:
My God, I triggered 3 people. To those same 3 people, let's say it was your business. Let's say you base it off your beliefs, and someone comes in, wants you to do something that is in direct violation of your beliefs. Do you do what that customer(s) want you to do or do you reject that person(s)? I know you'd give me a different answer on here because it's easier said than done, but I know for a fact you'd reject them.
Click to expand...

LOL, you ask a question then tell us how we'd answer/behave. Doesn't that strike you as a BS way to have a discussion? AFAIK, you don't know me or anything about me, so how in the hell can you tell me for "a fact" how I'd react? The fact is businesses have adapted to non-discrimination laws that have been in place for FIFTY YEARS just fine.

There's nothing in the US Constitution that says that you can't.
Click to expand...

Well, the CRA has been in place since 1964, so there might not be anything in the Constitution about it, just like there is nothing in there about selling crack, but places of public accommodation discriminating based on race, sex, etc. has been illegal in this country for 50 years.

If you want to get back at a business for rejecting to do something for you, go somewhere else. In this case there were other bakeries that couple could have gone to, but they chose that one for a reason, is my point.
Click to expand...

The reason was they wanted a delicious cake. Don't lie about why they picked that bakery. It makes your whole point appear dishonest, especially after you've been corrected and can verify that you're wrong with the source documents, cited repeatedly in this thread.

In any case, a business is free to do what it wants so long as they follow the law (which they didn't violate). I say to those same 3 people is I don't think you know how business works, regardless of what it may be (let alone how to operate one). My overall point is the government has no right to tell any business owner what they can and can not do (reject or not reject) with who these owners want to give business to. It didn't concern them nor the rest of the country. This couple became a bunch of babies, ran off, got an attorney, and started sputtering off some bull crap law (if it is true, then it's in clear violation of the US Constitution). Again, and I'll change up some of the wording, this couple should have been like responsible and mature adults, and taken their business elsewhere. So unless if you know business and how it runs, you really shouldn't be talking about this.
Click to expand...

They did violate the law - that's completely obvious, and clear and born out by the judgments against them so far. The SC might invalidate the law or create an exception for makers of wedding cakes or something but they objectively did violate the law in Oregon.

I won't bother addressing the rest because you're making bad arguments when they're not outright lies or false, and insulting everyone who disagrees.
 
bluesmoke said:
Ooops. Poorly worded. I meant the "reverse role" case example posted by Herkamer63 "they want the owners to bake them a cake that has a cross and with a Bible verse on it". My apologies.
Click to expand...

Gotcha, i see now. thanks for explaining, ignore my post 2124 asking you to clarify.
 
MateoMtnClimber said:
Not only that, but he effectively shut down the thread. We had a robust and interesting debate until he started posting. Everyone jumped ship after several pages of his game playing. Sadly, I have seen him do the same thing several times.
Click to expand...

Well...that's what happens when people lose touch with reason and reality.
This is obviously a matter of grave concern for this J person. What knocks me out is, most have already agreed that religious freedom is not happening, for a multitude of reasons, and that the law and the 1st amendment are in conflict. Its not really a question 'if' religious freedoms have been denied, its a question of amending the 1st amendment so that this sort of horse kaka doesn't happen any more.

But that's not a calm conversation this SJW is interested in, because it would promote cooperation between both political sides, and that can never happen...to the staunch SJW.
 
Buzz62 said:
Well...that's what happens when people lose touch with reason and reality.
This is obviously a matter of grave concern for this J person. What knocks me out is, most have already agreed that religious freedom is not happening, for a multitude of reasons, and that the law and the 1st amendment are in conflict. Its not really a question 'if' religious freedoms have been denied, its a question of amending the 1st amendment so that this sort of horse kaka doesn't happen any more.

But that's not a calm conversation this SJW is interested in, because it would promote cooperation between both political sides, and that can never happen...to the staunch SJW.
Click to expand...

I expressed a couple of times earlier in the thread how important this subject is to me and why I am passionate about it. I actually agree with J, but I find his posts childish, counterproductive, and to exhibit a lot of denial. He actually hurts "our" case.
 
Buzz62 said:
What knocks me out is, most have already agreed that religious freedom is not happening, for a multitude of reasons, and that the law and the 1st amendment are in conflict.
Click to expand...

LMAO again you must be in the wrong thread because you keep posting things that aren't true in anyway :)
You are free to "feel" how ever you want but the fact remains there's no rights and religious freedom lost by PA laws. Again if you disagree you are also free to prove otherwise. Simply list the rights i have today that i would lose tomorrow by opening up a PA business in Oregon and prove it, thanks!
 
MateoMtnClimber said:
I expressed a couple of times earlier in the thread how important this subject is to me and why I am passionate about it. I actually agree with J, but I find his posts childish, counterproductive, and to exhibit a lot of denial. He actually hurts "our" case.
Click to expand...
Ya everyone has their 'thing'. I happen to think the bakers are a bit stupid, and that the lesbian couple 'could' have just gone to another baker.
But society is now past the point of rational thought. Everything has to be a battle now. This environment makes it difficult for people with reason, to get their point across over all the irrational and unreasonable shouting...and the flat out denial of reality. As a result of all this SJW signalling and right-wing nut-cases, and interesting opportunity presents itself to actually paraphrase Donny-Boy...and the metaphorical relationship is intended.
BOTH SIDES have reasonable and unreasonable people in them. But its the UNreasonable ones who tend to use up all the oxygen...

AGENT J said:
LMAO again you must be in the wrong thread because you keep posting things that aren't true in anyway :)
You are free to "feel" how ever you want but the fact remains there's no rights and religious freedom lost by PA laws. Again if you disagree you are also free to prove otherwise. Simply list the rights i have today that i would lose tomorrow by opening up a PA business in Oregon and prove it, thanks!
Click to expand...
Blah Blah...Woof Woof...
 
Buzz62 said:
Blah Blah...Woof Woof...
Click to expand...

LMAO thats what I thought, another post and you still can't support any of your failed claims. Let us know when you can.
Fact remains zero rights and religious freedoms are infringed on or lost by PA laws.
 
Buzz62 said:
Ya everyone has their 'thing'. I happen to think the bakers are a bit stupid, and that the lesbian couple 'could' have just gone to another baker.
But society is now past the point of rational thought. Everything has to be a battle now. This environment makes it difficult for people with reason, to get their point across over all the irrational and unreasonable shouting...and the flat out denial of reality. As a result of all this SJW signalling and right-wing nut-cases, and interesting opportunity presents itself to actually paraphrase Donny-Boy...and the metaphorical relationship is intended.
BOTH SIDES have reasonable and unreasonable people in them. But its the UNreasonable ones who tend to use up all the oxygen...


Blah Blah...Woof Woof...
Click to expand...

Yes, but discrimination is not a new problem. The assertion that the lesbian couple could have just gone somewhere else (They did by the way. How do you think they got a cake for their wedding?) is unacceptable. Not only might there only be one bakery (or one hotel or one hospital or one school or one grocery store) in a town, but even if there was an accommodating bakery right next door, gay people do not have to tolerate service refusal just because they're gay. They're equal people. That seems to be a point lost on many people.
 
MateoMtnClimber said:
I expressed a couple of times earlier in the thread how important this subject is to me and why I am passionate about it. I actually agree with J, but I find his posts childish, counterproductive, and to exhibit a lot of denial. He actually hurts "our" case
Click to expand...
I mostly agree with "your" side as well, its not nice to deny someone service because they're gay.

At the same time, I can also understand the point of view from a religious person. Yes they are delusional IMO, but to them religion and God is sacrilege. So whats the compromise?? Do religious people also not have rights??
 
Desert Storm said:
I mostly agree with "your" side as well, its not nice to deny someone service because they're gay.

At the same time, I can also understand the point of view from a religious person. Yes they are delusional IMO, but to them religion and God is sacrilege. So whats the compromise?? Do religious people also not have rights??
Click to expand...

Of course they have rights. They have all the same rights as non-religious people.

In this case, the bakers should not have opened a shop that legally qualified as a place of public accommodation. They opted into the situation with which they later objected. I'm not positive, but I imagine they should have operated their business out of their home or online. They might also have skills and interests other than baking that they could have used to make a living, but that is not for me to say. I do know that the bakery has closed, so they obviously found another profession unless they're just living off their GoFundMe profits.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Closed for review.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom