• 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.

iguanaman said:
So you want to bring back segregation?
Click to expand...

This is a great time to point out that liberals have to stop concluding people support whatever horrible thing is going on in their head because they oppose their laws.
 
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...

I have never had a problem with that defense but the issue is, for it to be a specific event, they have to not do ANY of those specific events. If they don't do ANY wedding cakes fine. The moment they do other weddings cakes it's illegal discrimination. That's where these bigots and criminals always all on their face. What's even worse they could make up so many reasons but they don;t its like they were their bigotry as a bade of honor while normal decent right respect people laugh at them. They are free to choose to break the law or violate somebody's rights but they have to also accept the consequences.
 
Henrin said:
This is a great time to point out that liberals have to stop concluding people support whatever horrible thing is going on in their head because they oppose their laws.
Click to expand...

A return to segregation is the only logical outcome for a repeal of the Civil Rights act. It was passed specifically to end segregation and the "separate but equal" claptrap that preceded it.
 
maquiscat said:
Public accommodation laws are the violations of rights.
Click to expand...

There's no actual rights that they violate at all. It's a choice they make. :shrug:
Has for licenses, I agree it can get out of hand. Your example seems crazy (I don't agree with it if it's true) and I'm not familiar with it but in general I don't have a problem with the license concept either. In general it is needed it just need to be done better.
 
maquiscat said:
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.
Click to expand...

To me "Whites Only" signs in store windows in the 21st century would amount to a return to segregation. It is so anachronistic it makes the horse and buggy seem current by comparison.
 
iguanaman said:
A return to segregation is the only logical outcome for a repeal of the Civil Rights act. It was passed specifically to end segregation and the "separate but equal" claptrap that preceded it.
Click to expand...

1. We are not talking about the entirety of the civil rights act, but at most two provisions of the act that deal with private individuals.
2. Repealing all provisions that deal with private individuals would leave it up to them to decide who they will commence in commerce with and for what reason they will or will not do so.
3. Even if we were in fact talking about repealing the entire civil rights act that would not lead to anyone by default supporting segregation in any sort of fashion whatsoever.
 
If a person is too bigoted to sell a wedding cake to gays, blacks, women or christians then your choices are: 1.) Do not sell ANY wedding cakes to ANYBODY 2.) You run a private business that isn't public access. :shrug:
 
Henrin said:
1. We are not talking about the entirety of the civil rights act, but at most two provisions of the act that deal with private individuals.
2. Repealing all provisions that deal with private individuals would leave it up to them to decide who they will commence in commerce with and for what reason they will or will not do so.
3. Even if we were in fact talking about repealing the entire civil rights act that would not lead to anyone by default supporting segregation in any sort of fashion whatsoever.
Click to expand...

The behavior of "private" individuals who run public businesses are no longer private. That sign that says "Open For Business" means what it says. If they want it to mean "By invitation only" then they need to put that on the door instead.
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
The behavior of "private" individuals who run public businesses are no longer private. That sign that says "Open For Business" means what it says. If they want it to mean "By invitation only" then they need to put that on the door instead.
Click to expand...

:roll: Nothing you just said has any relation to the argument you were previously making. Are you abandoning your prior argument in favor of this new one?
 
HonestJoe said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ok, I can go with that. Bad wording on my part. How about certain conditions? I'm not sure how better to word it. My main point remains, is that only some conditions are protected though. A store owner might not be able to (openly) refuse service based on sexual orientation, but they can certainly do on dress style, or hair color, or pretty much anything other than the protected statuses.

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.
Click to expand...

Then no one should have been allowed to refuse to play for Trump's inauguration either. The law doesn't recognize the difference between any kind of inauguration. How is that any different? The law doesn't say anything about whether one can refuse business over types of events, only people's status. Thus if they can show where they still do business with gays for other events, they are not refusing based on the individual's sexual orientation. And if the law doesn't recognize any difference between mixed and same gendered weddings, then they are simply refusing an individual wedding.
 
iguanaman said:
To me "Whites Only" signs in store windows in the 21st century would amount to a return to segregation. It is so anachronistic it makes the horse and buggy seem current by comparison.
Click to expand...

Segregation would be a society thing not an individual thing. Otherwise we still have segregation since we are selective on who we allow to enter our homes. And the sign could be "No Christians", or "Redheads Only".
 
LaylaWindu said:
If a person is too bigoted to sell a wedding cake to gays, blacks, women or christians then your choices are: 1.) Do not sell ANY wedding cakes to ANYBODY 2.) You run a private business that isn't public access. :shrug:
Click to expand...

All businesses not owned by government are private entities. As a private entity, I should get to choose who and when others are allowed access to my private property. Hell I can even decide one day no black person can come on my private property, and then the next day, no restrictions, followed by no whites the day after. Does matter if that property is my house, an empty lot or my business.
 
maquiscat said:
All businesses not owned by government are private entities.
Click to expand...
No they are not, if they are public access then they are not private entities in that regard. You do have the option to make it that way though thats why its a choice and no rights are violated. It's only private in your ownership not its access. If that bothers anybody then they can choose to not ba a public access business. It's simple.

maquiscat said:
As a private entity, I should get to choose who and when others are allowed access to my private property.
Click to expand...
You can if you choose to actually be a real private entity but you can't also be public access etc. This is a very easy concept.

maquiscat said:
Hell I can even decide one day no black person can come on my private property, and then the next day, no restrictions, followed by no whites the day after.
Click to expand...
True if it is indeed private or your house, but not for public access etc

maquiscat said:
Doesn't matter if that property is my house, an empty lot or my business.
Click to expand...
Actually it does and that has been proven many many times based on countless judge decisions using laws and rights. You seem to be mixing things up that are not the same.
 
maquiscat said:
Segregation would be a society thing not an individual thing. Otherwise we still have segregation since we are selective on who we allow to enter our homes. And the sign could be "No Christians", or "Redheads Only".
Click to expand...

But we know what most of the signs will read. No gays or No blacks or No Mexicans.
 
Henrin said:
:roll: Nothing you just said has any relation to the argument you were previously making. Are you abandoning your prior argument in favor of this new one?
Click to expand...

What argument? This whole matter is what is called "settled law". It really is foolish to rehash it.
 
iguanaman said:
But we know what most of the signs will read. No gays or No blacks or No Mexicans.
Click to expand...

I really doubt it. And while maybe those would be the first to go up, I have no doubt that there will be no whites and no straights and similar going up, if you made it such that anyone could do it. And I would be willing to bet that all the businesses that do so will be local or regional at best, and few at that. Most businesses will want to keep their customer base. Only those that fill a niche market would even consider it.
 
iguanaman said:
What argument? This whole matter is what is called "settled law". It really is foolish to rehash it.
Click to expand...

Slavery was settled law too at one point. Sodomy laws were settled law, as were anti-same sex marriage laws. Guess what? Laws change.
 
LaylaWindu said:
No they are not, if they are public access then they are not private entities in that regard. You do have the option to make it that way though thats why its a choice and no rights are violated. It's only private in your ownership not its access. If that bothers anybody then they can choose to not ba a public access business. It's simple.


You can if you choose to actually be a real private entity but you can't also be public access etc. This is a very easy concept.


True if it is indeed private or your house, but not for public access etc


Actually it does and that has been proven many many times based on countless judge decisions using laws and rights. You seem to be mixing things up that are not the same.
Click to expand...

I can choose to open my house up to all the public and then also revoke that at any time. I can choose to open it up to only one certain or exclude all but one certain group, and change that at any time. Just because we have made laws claiming that a private entity is a "public accommodation" or is "public access", does not mean we are not violating private property rights or right of association. Violating right via law is not unknown in this country. Major example: we violated the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of all the blacks via legalized slavery. Even Jim Crow laws were a violation of the same rights of private property and association. They forced businesses to segregate, even if the owner didn't want to.
 
iguanaman said:
What argument? This whole matter is what is called "settled law". It really is foolish to rehash it.
Click to expand...

There is really no such thing as settled law. You should also be aware that this idea of settled matters, be that law or cultural issues, is a mistake conservatives made repeatedly when dealing with liberals over the years.
 
maquiscat said:
I can choose to open my house up to all the public and then also revoke that at any time. I can choose to open it up to only one certain or exclude all but one certain group, and change that at any time.
Click to expand...

Not the same, like I said you are clearly mixing things that are not the same and you just proved it.

maquiscat said:
Just because we have made laws claiming that a private entity is a "public accommodation" or is "public access", does not mean we are not violating private property rights or right of association.
Click to expand...
Actually it does because it's not a "claim" it's an agreement, a contract, a rule and or law on how to conduct that particular business. You couldn't be more incorrect which your statement in this specific regard.

maquiscat said:
Violating right via law is not unknown in this country. Major example: we violated the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of all the blacks via legalized slavery. Even Jim Crow laws were a violation of the same rights of private property and association. They forced businesses to segregate, even if the owner didn't want to.
Click to expand...
Good thing I never made such a claim then right? A strawman doesn't change what the actual topic is and what is actually going on. Public accommodation laws are not a violations of rights because it's a choice you or I would make unlike all your examples.
 
Henrin said:
There is really no such thing as settled law. You should also be aware that this idea of settled matters, be that law or cultural issues, is a mistake conservatives made repeatedly when dealing with liberals over the years.
Click to expand...

How about "There is no stopping progress." then? We will no go back to the days of Jim Crow so quit your dreaming.
 
maquiscat said:
Slavery was settled law too at one point. Sodomy laws were settled law, as were anti-same sex marriage laws. Guess what? Laws change.
Click to expand...

They don't change backwards and they won't stop the progress of human equality. You are a part of the past that is best left there.
 
maquiscat said:
Slavery was settled law too at one point. Sodomy laws were settled law, as were anti-same sex marriage laws. Guess what? Laws change.
Click to expand...

You should pick better examples, I'm sure they exist I'm not being a smart ass because sometimes settled law is overturned. But these ones are bad because they work against you. In all the examples the settled law was changed to stop discrimination and violation of rights. That the exact opposite of what you are saying. You want to allow that stuff.
 
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...

Then you find a lawyer who serves your needs. Why is that a problem?

I don't understand the big deal. Every supermarket near here has a bakery that will bake you a cake. There are quite a few specialty bakers that specialize in wedding cakes.
 
iguanaman said:
How about "There is no stopping progress." then? We will no go back to the days of Jim Crow so quit your dreaming.
Click to expand...

You think conservatives never thought their position was safe? You might want to rethinking that if so. The idea that a law is untouchable or that a certain change simply won't happen isn't one I would bank on if I was you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom