• 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!

You decide: the wedding cake issue.

I take issue with denying service based on religious beliefs as in the cake case. I'd like to know what other cakes they have refused to bake because it would violate their beliefs. Do they serve other types of sinners or is it just gays? Or maybe they would refuse those others but unlike gays, it's hard to tell them apart from a "regular" customer.
I have less problem with not participating in the actual ceremony so I could see a photographer denying service on religious grounds.
I also do not understand why a gay , black, brown, muslim, hindu, pagan, atheist, biker, cowboy, lawyer, whatever, would want to do business with someone who does not want their business. And if you are that business and you believe that strongly, put up a damn sign so we don't have to accidentally step foot in your business.
In general, being able to deny people access to your business or to provide services based upon your personal biases is not a good thing for society. The next step is going back to "I don't have to hire XXX people". We did that for generations and many of us hoped that every generation was closer to burying it in history.
 
WillyPete said:
Taken literally, there is no such thing as a gay wedding. It's just gay people having a wedding.
Click to expand...

Taken literally, every wedding should be a gay wedding. Why would anyone be sad at their wedding?

Easier bypass might be to set up a private "wedding cake club" that only provides cakes to members. Then they can be arbitrary about the membership.

Trade-off being they wouldn't be open to the general public any more.
Click to expand...

Being open to the general public does not mean that their private property rights and right of association should be taken from them, or curbed.
 
maquiscat said:
Discriminating actions are not limited to business, so it in disingenuous to assume that a libertarian has not experienced such in their lifetimes. I have in many areas, so I do know what it is like. And while I know it I still not a good feeling, I still support the rights of those to do so over my own feelings.
Click to expand...

So, you want the 911 operator to ask for your credit card number before sending the EMT over to check on your reported heart attack?
 
maquiscat said:
Ok so I was thinking about various things while listening to local talk radio (which tends to be more balanced to national talk radio) and an idea struck me as to a potential defense for the (now in)famous cake shop refusing to make the cake for a same sex wedding. I want to see everyone's opinion on this.

it occurs to me that the laws protect certain groups of people, but that is it. People. A possible good defense would be to show that if any gay person came in and bought a birthday cake or a graduation cake, or basically a cake for any event other than a same sex wedding (you could also go with interracial wedding here too. Heck, go for a specific religious wedding including Christian) and the business provided it no problem, then you are not discriminating against the given protected group when refusing the same sex wedding cake. You are refusing to do business for a specific event.

Mind you I still think such is a dick move and any business who does such should be boycotted and/or protested. And of course this would apply to any business. Opinions?
Click to expand...

In states whose public accommodation laws do not prohibit discrimination based on sexual preference, a bakery could refuse to bake a cake for a homosexual, regardless of what it was meant to celebrate.
 
calamity said:
It actually makes sense. We can't very well live in a society where every proprietor decides who he wants to serve or not. Imagine you are in a pinch, call a lawyer to get you out of it, and he says, "Sorry, can't help you, I only serve Jews." It would be chaos.
Click to expand...

And the difference between him saying that and him saying, "Sorry, can't help you, I have a full case load right now" is what? Either way you are still in a pinch and need another lawyer. In this day and age it is the rare situation where you can't find multiple offerings of the same type of service. And anyone who does do such selective clientele is either going to be servicing a sufficient niche market or is going to fail. And continuing with your lawyer comment, a lawyer can, even without having a full case load, decide simply to no take the case. What difference does it make if he doesn't take it because he doesn't like doing that type of case or he doesn't because you are a redhead?
 
maquiscat said:
Being open to the general public does not mean that their private property rights and right of association should be taken from them, or curbed.
Click to expand...

Their rights haven't been touched. If anything, they've voluntarily set them aside in the context of their business.

Have they not agreed to obey public accommodation laws as part of opening a licensed business?
 
maquiscat said:
Being open to the general public does not mean that their private property rights and right of association should be taken from them, or curbed.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And agreed as to the freedom of association. But property rights are less likely to be involved in these cases than the freedom of speech.
 
calamity said:
I disagree on all three points. But, you'll only become to appreciate that if and when someone denies you service when you need it. Libertarians are really bad at understanding how discriminating actions feel to others unless it hits them first.
Click to expand...

C'mon, Calamity. Who needs a wedding cake? And if so, why not go to the bakery down the street?

Seems to me like an auto mechanic specializing in Fords not wanting to get involved in repairing Ferrari's.
 
calamity said:
Let's say you call 911. Someone who knows you answers the phone. You say, "Hey, I think I am having a heart attack. Please send an EMT."

911 operator says, "Oh, you are that libertarian down the street. Well, **** you. Give me your credit card number first."
Click to expand...

There are always exceptions to rules. Number one being of course government. The government is there to serve all the people. This is why it was wrong, even from a libertarian standpoint, for Kim Davis to refuse to issue a marriage license to a gay couple in a state where it was legal. Emergency services are the other exception, and especially in your example, the 911 center is a government facility/operation.
 
maquiscat said:
And the difference between him saying that and him saying, "Sorry, can't help you, I have a full case load right now" is what? Either way you are still in a pinch and need another lawyer. In this day and age it is the rare situation where you can't find multiple offerings of the same type of service. And anyone who does do such selective clientele is either going to be servicing a sufficient niche market or is going to fail. And continuing with your lawyer comment, a lawyer can, even without having a full case load, decide simply to no take the case. What difference does it make if he doesn't take it because he doesn't like doing that type of case or he doesn't because you are a redhead?
Click to expand...

One is a matter of knowing he cannot be effective because he is too busy; the other is because he is discriminating. I'm good with laws which disallow discrimination. We do not need that kind of behavior any more than we need people who set churches on fire.

If I walk into a store or tire shop, I expect to be served if I have the money and they have the time to do me service. It's bad enough as it is when you have a flat and the guy says, it'll be 4 hours before we can get to your car.
 
maquiscat said:
There are always exceptions to rules. Number one being of course government. The government is there to serve all the people. This is why it was wrong, even from a libertarian standpoint, for Kim Davis to refuse to issue a marriage license to a gay couple in a state where it was legal. Emergency services are the other exception, and especially in your example, the 911 center is a government facility/operation.
Click to expand...

Ok, use your imagination, and push it to the hospital. You arrive, and they say, "Nope. Not serving this one. He is X."
 
jimbo said:
C'mon, Calamity. Who needs a wedding cake? And if so, why not go to the bakery down the street?

Seems to me like an auto mechanic specializing in Fords not wanting to get involved in repairing Ferrari's.
Click to expand...

THat's why I said I have no problem with the proprietor refusing to bake a wedding cake, but I would have a problem if the baker refused to sell cupcakes to someone just because they are gay, black or whatever.
 
trblmkr said:
I take issue with denying service based on religious beliefs as in the cake case. I'd like to know what other cakes they have refused to bake because it would violate their beliefs. Do they serve other types of sinners or is it just gays? Or maybe they would refuse those others but unlike gays, it's hard to tell them apart from a "regular" customer.
I have less problem with not participating in the actual ceremony so I could see a photographer denying service on religious grounds.
I also do not understand why a gay , black, brown, muslim, hindu, pagan, atheist, biker, cowboy, lawyer, whatever, would want to do business with someone who does not want their business. And if you are that business and you believe that strongly, put up a damn sign so we don't have to accidentally step foot in your business.
In general, being able to deny people access to your business or to provide services based upon your personal biases is not a good thing for society. The next step is going back to "I don't have to hire XXX people". We did that for generations and many of us hoped that every generation was closer to burying it in history.
Click to expand...

Right now, if I wanted to as a business man, I could decide that I would not hire any redheads. There is nothing in the law to prevent that. Only certain groups are protected.

And I agree that we should be striving to make such discriminatory practices hostory. But the proper way to do so is through social pressure, not law.
 
calamity said:
So, you want the 911 operator to ask for your credit card number before sending the EMT over to check on your reported heart attack?
Click to expand...

Previously addressed
 
WillyPete said:
Their rights haven't been touched. If anything, they've voluntarily set them aside in the context of their business.

Have they not agreed to obey public accommodation laws as part of opening a licensed business?
Click to expand...

Public accommodation laws are the violations of rights. I don't think we should be requiring businesses to be licensed by the government either. Certified by associations sure and we should be using our social pressure to ensure that the certifications are to what we want. In some cases this licensing issue is out of hand. For example, a young man had installed a screen on his relative's house to help keep pests out. She told her friends and they wanted him to do it too. He agreeded to for a fee. But some government agency (don't remember at what level) said not only did he need a business license but had to get certified in pest control, including all kinds of poisons. All so he could install a screen. It is quite simply out of hand.
 
matchlight said:
Agreed. And agreed as to the freedom of association. But property rights are less likely to be involved in these cases than the freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

The owner owns the property. It is not public property. It is private property just as one's home is private property. He'll even if it is an empty lot, it is private property. The owner has the right to say who comes on the property and who doesn't for any reason. Placing a business there should not affect that right.
 
calamity said:
One is a matter of knowing he cannot be effective because he is too busy; the other is because he is discriminating. I'm good with laws which disallow discrimination. We do not need that kind of behavior any more than we need people who set churches on fire.

If I walk into a store or tire shop, I expect to be served if I have the money and they have the time to do me service. It's bad enough as it is when you have a flat and the guy says, it'll be 4 hours before we can get to your car.
Click to expand...

Right now it is legal for a store owner to say to you, "I don't like your hair color, I will not be serving you today." Not a protected group. The only real right you have in regards to that store is the right to seek to do business with them. As part of that right you also get to choose to not do business with them for any reason. You can choose not to do business with them because the owner is Christian. So why shouldn't the reverse be true, on their own property?
 
calamity said:
Ok, use your imagination, and push it to the hospital. You arrive, and they say, "Nope. Not serving this one. He is X."
Click to expand...

Again, emergency services are one of the exceptions. And if it means that the government should be operation emergency rooms, then so be it. That would include the services up to the point that someone is stable. But if a hospital, assuming privately owned, want to refuse your elective surgery, or non immediate life threading procedure, then by right of private property and right of association they should be allowed to.
 
maquiscat said:
Public accommodation laws are the violations of rights. I don't think we should be requiring businesses to be licensed by the government either. Certified by associations sure and we should be using our social pressure to ensure that the certifications are to what we want. In some cases this licensing issue is out of hand. For example, a young man had installed a screen on his relative's house to help keep pests out. She told her friends and they wanted him to do it too. He agreeded to for a fee. But some government agency (don't remember at what level) said not only did he need a business license but had to get certified in pest control, including all kinds of poisons. All so he could install a screen. It is quite simply out of hand.
Click to expand...

I agree it's a slippery slope when the government tries to legislate morality, but as a species we've set the bar remarkably low.

These laws have or will be challenged in the courts. Only other recourse is to agitate for changes to the law.
 
I think the OP has a point but as a small business owner that wants to be a bigot and discriminate I would be covering my (literally no pun intended... just hit me) butt for a while and document all sales tonprotected groups so I could bust them out instantly if the news took a wrong turn due to a future complaint.
 
I would assume that all wedding cakes are not created equal.. every cake is pretty much customized,, flavor, icing , decorations... etc...

Had I been the baker, with those beliefs,, I would have simply priced the cake so ridiculous that the "customer" would go somewhere else..

Had I been the customer,, and walked into a bakery that did not want to serve me, and I took them to court, forcing them to make my cake, and thereby putting them out of business.... I WOULD NOT BE EATING THAT CAKE....

Just saying,, I was in the food service industry as a young person ( after school job)

djl
 
I think that unless we are talking about the gas company or the grocery store that businesses should be able to chose who they do business with.
 
iguanaman said:
So you want to bring back segregation?
Click to expand...

I was wondering when someone was going to bring this up. But I honestly thought the Jim Crow laws would come up first. Allowing a business to choose who it will and will not serve would not bring about segregation, unless you want to count it on a store by store scale. Most businesses would continue to serve all patrons, and the vein if store A didn't serve Christians, Store B would even as it didn't serve Redheads. Regardless, segregation would not be required and thus there will be plenty of businesses who do not. The argument that allowing individuals to choose who they do and do not conduct business with will lead to segregation again, is absurd.
 
maquiscat said:
it occurs to me that the laws protect certain groups of people
Click to expand...
It's a tangent, but I wanted to correct that common misconception. The laws in question protect everyone from discrimination on particular grounds. For example, the law doesn't prohibit discrimination against homosexuals, it prohibits discrimination against anyone on grounds of their (perceived) sexual orientation.

maquiscat said:
People. A possible good defense would be to show that if any gay person came in and bought a birthday cake or a graduation cake, or basically a cake for any event other than a same sex wedding (you could also go with interracial wedding here too. Heck, go for a specific religious wedding including Christian) and the business provided it no problem, then you are not discriminating against the given protected group when refusing the same sex wedding cake. You are refusing to do business for a specific event.
Click to expand...
That doesn't work. The key point is that the business would provide the same wedding cake for a straight couple. Like it or not, the law doesn't recognise any difference between mixed-gender and same-gender weddings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom