- 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
1
Posted on 12/5/17 at 10:28 am to SUB
quote:
it'd be hard for me, morally, to continue selling the product, even though it's being used for something I had not intended and am morally against.
Then it would be your decision to make whether to sell or not to sell. The only caveat would be if you are the only maker of the medicine, then it falls under "the good for all people".
But if there are other makers of the medicine and they are willing to sell and it has no bearing on their religious convictions, then what's the problem?
Posted on 12/5/17 at 10:29 am to cwill
quote:
The proper framing is: he is denying a service.
Is the contractor that built your Christian neighbors house required to build yours?
Posted on 12/5/17 at 10:35 am to Cruiserhog
quote:
because he is a typical cherry picking American Christian that been brainwashed to believe in fiction and likes to use that when its convenient to force his morality on others
Nope. They can buy the cake elsewhere. They aren't forced to buy it from him.
Posted on 12/5/17 at 10:36 am to rooster108bm
"That's why we had a constitutional amendment. Can you show me where we had one for gay people?"
Of course not, but you're missing the point. There is no such constitutional amendment, but even with respect to race, there is no constitutional amendment regarding commercial transactions. Even after the Civil War and reconstruction era amendments (abolishing slavery, extending bill of rights to the states, etc.), a business owner could refuse service to anyone on any basis, including race. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did away with that. With gays, at least in some states, you have state laws that do the same. That's what the case currently before the Supreme Court is all about.
Of course not, but you're missing the point. There is no such constitutional amendment, but even with respect to race, there is no constitutional amendment regarding commercial transactions. Even after the Civil War and reconstruction era amendments (abolishing slavery, extending bill of rights to the states, etc.), a business owner could refuse service to anyone on any basis, including race. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did away with that. With gays, at least in some states, you have state laws that do the same. That's what the case currently before the Supreme Court is all about.
Posted on 12/5/17 at 10:36 am to idlewatcher
quote:
Well written Op-ed from the baker
That's completely rational and in no way controversial
Posted on 12/5/17 at 10:44 am to rooster108bm
quote:
Is the contractor that built your Christian neighbors house required to build yours?
Why would he not?
Can someone construct a good analogy?
Try this: Can a furniture store that sells furniture to the general public that it manufactures, and also sells made to order furniture, refuse to build a made to order wedding dais for a gay couple because they are gay?
Posted on 12/5/17 at 10:44 am to N.O. via West-Cal
quote:
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did away with that.
Can you show me any amendment where the the Federal government assumed rights over the states regarding homosexuals like they did with Black's?
Posted on 12/5/17 at 10:46 am to cwill
quote:
Try this: Can a furniture store that sells furniture to the general public that it manufactures, and also sells made to order furniture, refuse to build a made to order wedding dais for a gay couple because they are gay?
Of course they can? Can you show me case law where they cannot other than scotus creating a law?
Posted on 12/5/17 at 10:46 am to upgrayedd
quote:
That's completely rational and in no way controversial
"Respect my way of life and I'll respect yours" is somehow irrational to some.
Posted on 12/5/17 at 10:51 am to cwill
quote:
Can a furniture store that sells furniture to the general public that it manufactures, and also sells made to order furniture, refuse to build a made to order wedding dais for a gay couple because they are gay?
Your assumption is that every wedding cake is the same which we know isn't true. Perhaps the simple task of writting the two men's names on the cake could be objectionable to the baker? Perhaps it's the cake topper? Maybe it's simply the idea that one of his cakes will be displayed at a gay wedding, giving others the impression that he condoned the wedding?
It could be a myriad of reasons. Either way, it should be his choice.
Posted on 12/5/17 at 10:52 am to rooster108bm
Heres my thing cwill if I ask you to prove to me where a woman has a right to vote, you will show me an amendment, if I ask you where a black person can vote you will show me an amendment. If I ask you where gays get their rights you will point to scotus. You beginning to see the problem? I'm not saying anyone doesn't deserve anything, just some people went the cheap unconstitutional way of getting what they wanted.
Posted on 12/5/17 at 10:54 am to cwill
quote:
refuse to build a made to order wedding dais for a gay couple because they are gay?
Why shouldn't he be able to? What if all of his made to order furniture has a scripture inscribed in each item.
Such as in your example of a wedding dais, Genesis 2:24. Could the couple demand the builder not put the scripture on there?
Posted on 12/5/17 at 10:55 am to TheHarahanian
quote:
This. I don't understand why it's necessary for some people to advertise every aspect of their personal lives. If you want the damn cake, just keep your trap shut for 10 seconds.
May be hard to keep it under wraps when the request has two groom figurines and it is for a "Mr. and Mr." wedding.
Posted on 12/5/17 at 11:00 am to Dizz
quote:
A portrait artist wouldn't be able to turn away a black person because he didn't want to use his artistic expression to paint a black person
Your analogy misses the mark. A better analogy is the Grand Wizard of the KKK being able to force a black artist to paint his portrait glorifying the Klan.
Posted on 12/5/17 at 11:00 am to rooster108bm
quote:
Of course they can? Can you show me case law where they cannot other than scotus creating a law?
I'm just showing you how to write up an analogy...the home builder one didn't work.
Posted on 12/5/17 at 11:00 am to SUB
No shirt, No shoes, No Service. Why is it ok from me to discriminate against the shirtless but not ok for me to violate my conscience by selling to gays, pedo's, and pig lovers?
Posted on 12/5/17 at 11:01 am to Revelator
quote:
Your assumption is that every wedding cake is the same which we know isn't true. Perhaps the simple task of writting the two men's names on the cake could be objectionable to the baker? Perhaps it's the cake topper? Maybe it's simply the idea that one of his cakes will be displayed at a gay wedding, giving others the impression that he condoned the wedding?
It could be a myriad of reasons. Either way, it should be his choice.
Again...and again...I first just showed you how the argument was framed...then I simply set up a proper analogy...I haven't constructed an argument.
Posted on 12/5/17 at 11:02 am to SUB
Why do you not understand the difference between a special order and common stock?
Posted on 12/5/17 at 11:02 am to MadDoggyStyle
quote:
No shirt, No shoes, No Service. Why is it ok from me to discriminate against the shirtless but not ok for me to violate my conscience by selling to gays, pedo's, and pig lovers?
Page 5 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News