- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Serious question/hypothetical for you legal eagle types
Posted on 2/27/14 at 1:45 pm
Posted on 2/27/14 at 1:45 pm
The decision by Arizona's governor to veto the Arizona Senate bill on discrimination got me thinking again about the somewhat recent story of the Oregon baker who was forced by the courts to bake a cake for a gay wedding has me wondering where we draw the line on this issue.
For instance, let's say you own a bakery and a guy comes into your store wearing a brown shirt, with a swastika arm band. He tells you he wants to order a cake for their upcoming social event. Would the courts force you to bake that cake, even though you are repulsed by their activities?
For instance, let's say you own a bakery and a guy comes into your store wearing a brown shirt, with a swastika arm band. He tells you he wants to order a cake for their upcoming social event. Would the courts force you to bake that cake, even though you are repulsed by their activities?
10
Posted on 2/27/14 at 1:47 pm to L.A.
You can discriminate by political affiliation so no issues I would think.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 1:47 pm to L.A.
quote:
For instance, let's say you own a bakery and a guy comes into your store wearing a brown shirt, with a swastika arm band. He tells you he wants to order a cake for their upcoming social event. Would the courts force you to bake that cake, even though you are repulsed by their activities?
No because Nazis aren't a protected class like gays. You have the right to only offend certain groups of people.
This post was edited on 2/27/14 at 1:49 pm
Posted on 2/27/14 at 1:49 pm to Revelator
quote:Which begs the question, why not?
No because Nazis aren't a protected class like gays.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 1:49 pm to C
quote:
You can discriminate by political affiliation so no issues I would think.
Maybe TODAY.
But guess what? The horse is out of the barn. If you can't discriminate based on where someone put's their dong today, you won't be able to discriminate based on where someone puts their vote tomorrow.
This post was edited on 2/27/14 at 1:51 pm
Posted on 2/27/14 at 1:50 pm to L.A.
quote:
Which begs the question, why not?
Because they don't have an organized advocacy group spending money to promote their causes.
This post was edited on 2/27/14 at 1:50 pm
Posted on 2/27/14 at 1:50 pm to L.A.
quote:
Which begs the question, why not?
Implicit proposition: You can NEVER choose to be gay. Just like you can't choose to be a woman or a minority.
That gets to the heart of the legal issue. Do you agree or disagree?
This post was edited on 2/27/14 at 1:55 pm
Posted on 2/27/14 at 1:55 pm to theunknownknight
quote:I happen agree with the implicit proposition, although I don't think that can be proven one way or the other.
Implicit proposition: You can NEVER choose to be gay. Just like you can't choose to be a woman or a minority.
That get's to the heart of the legal issue. Do you agree or disagree?
So the legal issue is about whether or not the person freely chose whatever it is about them that gives offense? In other words, I can discriminte against an indiviual provided they chose to be whatever it is about them that I find offensive?
Posted on 2/27/14 at 1:55 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
Implicit proposition: You can NEVER choose to be gay. Just like you can't choose to be a woman or a minority.
I can't choose to be a woman with double D tits therefore I cannot get a job at hooters please help me someone.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 1:56 pm to L.A.
I don't think you have to be a legal eagle to answer this question. The courts would most definitely let baker refuse to bake a cake for the Nazi sympathizer. Nazi sympathizers are not cool and the courts are the cool police. Gays are cool right now so you have to serve them now at their every beck and call.
The situation is difficult for me to understand so I'm just taking it all in stride. Just like I don't completely understand women, men are from mars and women are from Venus, well I don't completely understand the courts, hetros are from earth and the courts are from fabulous Uranus.
The situation is difficult for me to understand so I'm just taking it all in stride. Just like I don't completely understand women, men are from mars and women are from Venus, well I don't completely understand the courts, hetros are from earth and the courts are from fabulous Uranus.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 2:00 pm to L.A.
You are comparing apples and oranges. Oregon state law specifically forbids private business owners from discriminating based on sexual orientation.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 2:04 pm to L.A.
quote:
So the legal issue is about whether or not the person freely chose whatever it is about them that gives offense? In other words, I can discriminte against an indiviual provided they chose to be whatever it is about them that I find offensive?
Basically.
BUT that leads to another issue on the horizon: The same logic and research proving "gayness" is not a choice, can prove being a serial killer is not a choice.
But we put serial killers in jail and impede their rights all the time. We discriminate against a protected class (theoretically speaking).
The issue with making dong placement a protected class is most lawmakers can't think past their noses or the next election. Next thing we could hear is "knife placement".
Precedent means nothing.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 2:10 pm to VOLhalla
quote:That makes sense.
Oregon state law specifically forbids private business owners from discriminating based on sexual orientation.
But if that is the legal rationale, are there not competing principles in play here? The baker refuses on religious grounds, which is protected as well. So we have competing rights, as it were. How were the gay person's rights more complelling than the baker's rights?
This post was edited on 2/27/14 at 2:21 pm
Posted on 2/27/14 at 2:11 pm to theunknownknight
quote:Hmmm. Food for thought.
Basically.
BUT that leads to another issue on the horizon: The same logic and research proving "gayness" is not a choice, can prove being a serial killer is not a choice.
But we put serial killers in jail and impede their rights all the time. We discriminate against a protected class (theoretically speaking).
The issue with making dong placement a protected class is most lawmakers can't think past their noses or the next election. Next thing we could hear is "knife placement".
Precedent means nothing.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 2:16 pm to L.A.
Having legitimate religious beliefs doesn't give one an out in obeying the law. There are many religions that require the use of illegal drugs. If the government catches any of these people with drugs they are going to jail.
If it against one's religious beliefs to sell cakes to homosexuals then either don't sell cakes or at least move to a state that doesn't require private business owners to not discriminate based on sexual orientation
If it against one's religious beliefs to sell cakes to homosexuals then either don't sell cakes or at least move to a state that doesn't require private business owners to not discriminate based on sexual orientation
Posted on 2/27/14 at 2:17 pm to L.A.
quote:
So the legal issue is about whether or not the person freely chose whatever it is about them that gives offense? In other words, I can discriminte against an indiviual provided they chose to be whatever it is about them that I find offensive?
So if someone chooses to leave the Catholic church and join up with the Methodists, we are free to discriminate against them for being a Methodist?
I don't think so.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 2:20 pm to L.A.
quote:
For instance, let's say you own a bakery and a guy comes into your store wearing a brown shirt, with a swastika arm band. He tells you he wants to order a cake for their upcoming social event. Would the courts force you to bake that cake, even though you are repulsed by their activities?
Not a federally or state protected class so no, the courts wouldn't force you to.
In Oregon sexual orientation is a protected class. It isn't in AZ.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 2:20 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
BUT that leads to another issue on the horizon: The same logic and research proving "gayness" is not a choice, can prove being a serial killer is not a choice.
Sure gayness is not a choice however the behavior is a choice. And I know the rebuttal to this is, "that choice hurts no one and that choice is between two consenting adults".
With that said, because gays have a particular disposition to SSA, does it mean that they should be a protected class? If we go by the standard set by AAs the answer is NO. People do not have a choice of behaviors based on the color of their skin. However they can make choices based on who they are attracted to.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 2:20 pm to L.A.
quote:
So the legal issue is about whether or not the person freely chose whatever it is about them that gives offense? In other words, I can discriminte against an indiviual provided they chose to be whatever it is about them that I find offensive?
This is 100% wrong by the way
Posted on 2/27/14 at 2:21 pm to L.A.
If I own a bakery and a homosexual Nazi comes in, I bake him a crappy cake.
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News