LGBT Not So Sweet

[Channman 2]

Well it seems the LGBT have a bitter taste in their month when it comes to Christian Bakery.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/03/todd-american-dispatch-christian-bakery-closes-after-lgbt-threats-protests/

[wmw999 2,130]

Well, threats and the like are wrong, very wrong.

Boycotting a business is well within anyone's right, and organizing a big boycott is also within anyone's right.

A commercial business that is run by white supremacists does not have the right to refuse to serve blacks. Why should a commercial business that is run by Christians have the right to refuse to serve someone based on a legally disallowed discrimination? Would it be OK for them to refuse to bake a cake for non-Christians?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Channman 2]

wmw999

Well, threats and the like are wrong, very wrong.

Boycotting a business is well within anyone's right, and organizing a big boycott is also within anyone's right.

A commercial business that is run by white supremacists does not have the right to refuse to serve blacks. Why should a commercial business that is run by Christians have the right to refuse to serve someone based on a legally disallowed discrimination? Would it be OK for them to refuse to bake a cake for non-Christians?

Wendy P.

Damn it Wendy, why do you always muddy up the water...why can't you just be indignant with me

I have a response...just give me time to think of something...like tomorrow if possible.

[Lefty 0]

wmw999

A commercial business that is run by white supremacists does not have the right to refuse to serve blacks. Why should a commercial business that is run by Christians have the right to refuse to serve someone based on a legally disallowed discrimination? Would it be OK for them to refuse to bake a cake for non-Christians?

The bigger question is, why should a private business be forced by law to associate with anyone it doesn't want to?

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[labrys 0]

Thanks, Wendy

When I first started reading about the "militant homosexual activists" who were "attacking" with "mob tactics" I was expecting to read on to find out that angry protesters were crowing outside the business with bullhorns waving Molotov cocktails or something.

They've organized an aggressive boycott and the state has taken notice that one of its laws is being broken.

The business owners come across like cry-babies. If they're going to chose to deny service to a group of people they should realize that they're going to face consequences. If they want to do business in the free market, they have to follow the law. If their religion is *that* important to them, then they should do something else.

Owned by Remi #?

[billvon 2,406]

>why should a private business be forced by law to associate with anyone it doesn't want to?

Hmm. Do you think a restaurant should be able to refuse service to blacks, or women, or gays?

[NorrinRadd 0]

Indeed! Or whites or males?

Why drive myself crazy trying to be normal, when I am already at crazy?

[Channman 2]

billvon

>why should a private business be forced by law to associate with anyone it doesn't want to?

Hmm. Do you think a restaurant should be able to refuse service to blacks, or women, or gays?

Do you think churches should be forced to perform a same sex marriage when it goes against its beliefs. Should the state pass a law making such a requirement?

[billvon 2,406]

>Do you think churches should be forced to perform a same sex marriage when it goes
>against its beliefs.

No. However, civil ceremonies performed by public servants should not discriminate in a similar manner.

[Channman 2]

billvon

>Do you think churches should be forced to perform a same sex marriage when it goes
>against its beliefs.

No. However, civil ceremonies performed by public servants should not discriminate in a similar manner.

Agreed,

In an attempt to answer Wendy's response even if poorly performed I pose the following:

In regards to the 1st amendment for example, an individual businesses and or an organization that owns a means of publication are able to publish information and opinions without government interference, and cannot be compelled by the government to publish information and opinions that they disagree with.

How is it then an owner of a Bakery, is not afforded the same protections under the 1st amendment and or laws within the Bill of Rights as that of media? I'm thinking of the term, "Freedom of Association" (FOA). Maybe FOA doesn't apply in this case, but if an owner i.e. Bakery wishes to engage in a business that meets all health codes...., but may from time to time re-frame from entering into a contractual relationship with any entity or person for religious reasons, should they not have that right?

You can count off for poor sentence structure

[billvon 2,406]

>How is it then an owner of a Bakery, is not afforded the same protections under the
>1st amendment and or laws within the Bill of Rights as that of media?

In general they should be. There are specific cases (such as the systematic governmental and societal oppression of blacks in the 1950's) where it makes sense to mandate inclusion. But today, given that most of that has gone away in most of the country, it would not make much sense.

Needless to say customers and protesters also have the right to boycott such companies.

[rehmwa 2]

billvon

>why should a private business be forced by law to associate with anyone it doesn't want to?

Hmm. Do you think a restaurant should be able to refuse service to blacks, or women, or gays?

if the restaurant is run by any level of government, no

private? as crappy as it is, yes. Though I suspect none of us would choose to run our business that way. I also think that individuals have a right to publicly humiliate that business so that the public finds out about the policy and can choose to avoid it for any reason.

I suspect that restaurant would soon go out of business. Despite all the crying about it, society has grown up quite a bit - being Big Brother to every biz decision is too over the top, IMO.


Should scholarships be restricted only to women, or minorities? or men? Should there be such a thing as a women's only club? men's only club? Should there be such a thing as "Black TV"? gender only bathrooms?

etc etc etc

as stupid as all these things seem, if any exist, then all variations have to also be allowed

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Lefty 0]

billvon

Do you think a restaurant should be able to refuse service to blacks, or women, or gays?

Yes.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[labrys 0]

Lefty

***Do you think a restaurant should be able to refuse service to blacks, or women, or gays?

Yes.

So do I. As long as they don't use any resources that are funded by the people that they refuse to serve.

Owned by Remi #?

[quade 3]

labrys

******Do you think a restaurant should be able to refuse service to blacks, or women, or gays?

Yes.
So do I. As long as they don't use any resources that are funded by the people that they refuse to serve.

Which would limit them to being located nowhere in this country.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Lefty 0]

labrys

******Do you think a restaurant should be able to refuse service to blacks, or women, or gays?

Yes.

So do I. As long as they don't use any resources that are funded by the people that they refuse to serve.

Meh. Just because my taxes help pave the roads in your neighborhood doesn't give me the right to enter your house and expect to be entertained. I see a private business as a part of the owners' private property. The owners, not the government, should choose the clientele they want to trade with. And the story in the OP link shows that private solutions (boycotts, protests, etc.) are effective at punishing businesses that choose poorly.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[skinnay 0]

Lefty

***Do you think a restaurant should be able to refuse service to blacks, or women, or gays?

Yes.

You should probably move to another country then. Your kind of people died off a couple generations ago

[Lefty 0]

skinnay

******Do you think a restaurant should be able to refuse service to blacks, or women, or gays?

Yes.

You should probably move to another country then. Your kind of people died off a couple generations ago

Either pay attention and learn something, or run along. Had billvon not tried for the cheap points by only listing historically victimized groups, my answer would have remained the same.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[billvon 2,406]

> Despite all the crying about it, society has grown up quite a bit . .. .

Agreed - which is why what was necessary in 1950 isn't as necessary today.

[wmw999 2,130]

Quote

And the story in the OP link shows that private solutions (boycotts, protests, etc.) are effective at punishing businesses that choose poorly.

I don't think that permitting discriminatory business practices is in a free society's favor.

Allowing businesses to choose what they sell (e.g. "we only sell cakes with crosses on them" or even "we only sell T-shirts with swastikas") is no problem. Discrimination based on momentary things (e.g. "no shirt, no shoes, no service") is OK. Discrimination based on behavior (e.g. "don't yell at the waitresses") is fine.

It might be that the means that we have for mass communication now (mainly internet) make the impacts of discrimination smaller. But regardless, a store that's the only (or best) cake-baker in a small town is going to be desirable to everyone in the town, even if they're Jewish, gay, or Muslim.

If they choose to advertise only in Christian publications, and don't operate a public storefront, then their chances of having to serve people they disagree with is small. That's always an option.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[labrys 0]

Quote

Either pay attention and learn something, or run along. Had billvon not tried for the cheap points by only listing historically victimized groups, my answer would have remained the same.

What's the alternative? Groups who haven't been victimized?

Owned by Remi #?

[Lefty 0]

wmw999

I don't think that permitting discriminatory business practices is in a free society's favor.

Allowing businesses to choose what they sell (e.g. "we only sell cakes with crosses on them" or even "we only sell T-shirts with swastikas") is no problem. Discrimination based on momentary things (e.g. "no shirt, no shoes, no service") is OK. Discrimination based on behavior (e.g. "don't yell at the waitresses") is fine.

It might be that the means that we have for mass communication now (mainly internet) make the impacts of discrimination smaller. But regardless, a store that's the only (or best) cake-baker in a small town is going to be desirable to everyone in the town, even if they're Jewish, gay, or Muslim.

If they choose to advertise only in Christian publications, and don't operate a public storefront, then their chances of having to serve people they disagree with is small. That's always an option.

Wendy P.

The very essence of free trade is discriminatory--ie the customers must choose one service/goods provider over another. Why can't the reverse also be accepted? Would it make any sense to say that a Muslim customer would HAVE to purchase a cake with a cross on it? If not, why should the seller of a cake with a cross on it HAVE to sell to a Muslim?

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[JerryBaumchen 1,050]

Hi Channman,

Well, I live right where this has been taking place.

First, do not believe anything coming from Fox News.

Second, I have never read one thing in my local newspaper about any strong-arm tactics.

It is against the law in Oregon ( state law ) to discriminate against anyone based upon their sex or sexuality.

They closed because the state BOLI is coming after them.

JerryBaumchen

http://www.oregon.gov/boli/Pages/index.aspx

[Lefty 0]

labrys

Quote

Either pay attention and learn something, or run along. Had billvon not tried for the cheap points by only listing historically victimized groups, my answer would have remained the same.

What's the alternative? Groups who haven't been victimized?

I doubt such a group exists. I just thought it telling that billvon's list didn't include, say, "white, male, or heterosexual" as additional characteristics for discrimination. Characteristics that, at first glance, are not as sympathetic. And my answer would still be yes.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[billvon 2,406]

> Had billvon not tried for the cheap points by only listing historically victimized groups,
>my answer would have remained the same.

Do you think that blacks have been historically victimized, but gays have not been?