re: Being forced to provide a service

quote:

---

Segregation is over

---

Your pals on the left are trying their hardest to bring it back.

The problem with this is... If you are refusing service to someone who is being a jack arse, then they can turn around and just claim some bs.

There shouldn't be lines.

quote:

---

It’s called discrimination. It’s illegal. Been illegal for about 50 years now. But hey, let’s bring it back because this cake baker has some convictions.

---

Yeah, we should force people to do stuff they disagree with on moral grounds. Maybe we should force Catholic hospitals to offer abortion services too.

quote:

---

I woulda just made the cake. But mess it up so they don’t recommend you to their lesbian friends if you feel that strongly about it.

---

I would've happily made the cake. But if someone didn't want to bake me a cake, I would happily take my business elsewhere and leave it at that.

NOT EVEN CLOSE. Discrimination because of bigotry or racism is forbidden. This was NOT judged as an individual business owner's desire to express what their moral fiber and religious beliefs dictate in their choice of product and business. A key note in the bakery case is the court dismissed that designing a cake is any type of artistic expression protect etd by freedom of speech...but the court violated religious freedom of expression. The "art" angle was was a manipulative and unconstitutional avenue taken to "force" someone to go against their life's moral creed.

If the bakery denied the lesbians based on their refusal to serve any and all lesbians, I think that would be VERY different here.
They didn't refuse to sell them a wedding cake because they are lesbian, they refused to apply their creative skills based on conflict with how they express their own practice of beliefs. More obvious is that one cannot do their best in giving a customer a product when their own convictions are being violated by the premise.

Should we force a "kosher" restaurant or deli to serve ham hocks and pigs feet simply because not to discriminates against the palettes of certain races? Much closer to racism than the cake IMO, but still should be protected under freedom of religious choice and expression....which here is clearly violated. Should an organic food store/restaurant whose owner's personal moral fiber and beliefs are conflicted by serving unhealthy food be forced to sell grape soda and fried chicken, or fried tortilla's and chorizo because the menu discriminates against the diet cravings of certain races? Still much closer to racism and there are NO religious freedoms here to even be protected!

If any of the above owners refused to serve based on race alone, that is VERY different and should be dealt with in court. If a business owner cannot reconcile their personal religious beliefs with what they would have to do to provide a product reflecting personal desires of a customer.. REGARDLESS OF RACE.... and for a court to force them to do so... THIS would be a violation of constitutional rights and especially the right to express those beliefs. If this is not the case, what about the examples above?...which are MUCH more racially oriented.

I think common sense shows us the difference. What this court did was an open attack on the foundation of our country.

quote:

---

And this is such bullshite. Cooking and baking are skilled crafts, taking care and experience and knowledge.

---

Perhaps, but the attorneys representing the bakers have basically argued that no other service/good provider at the wedding ia considered art. They've argued the florist isn't art, and these people are arguing FOR the baker.

The only case the bakers have is one of free speech, and they're losing so far. I'm just pointing that out so you and others can stop with the Mohammed cartoon at a Muslim bakery meme. Those are clearly free speech issues. A decorative cake that will be used in a wedding is not, at least according to the court.

For anything

This is completely unlike refusing service to blacks at a lunch counter. The baker DID NOT refuse them service. In fact, had provided service to them on many occasions. They simply refused to make one specific cake for them.

The odd thing is, this was probably the only baker in the entire state of Oregon with such convictions. Why the frick didn't they just go to the baker down the street?

quote:

---

quote:
Just to be clear, it is the board’s opinion that restaurants should be able to refuse service to people based on their race? Hotels? Theaters, unless we have separate sections for each race?
Scruffy’s opinion is that any business owner should be able to refuse to serve anyone for any arbitrary reason.

You have brown shoelaces? Well, frick you, sir. Go find service elsewhere.

You yawned in my store? Get the frick out!

You a white boy? frick off!

They can suffer the social and economic ramifications of their actions.

---

they can refuse for arbitrary reasons now ... objectively speaking, the reasons for which they cannot refuse are extremely limited compared to the number of reasons for which they can refuse ...

I am all for including everyone at all times.