We Must Ignite This Couch Message Boards

(1) 2 »

 
No cops allowed?
Gettin' Schmitty
Joined:
12/9/2009 10:45 am
From durham, nc
Posts: 5001
Gym owner posts "no cops allowed" sign.

I find this to be stupid. However, given that many conservatives feel that bakers shouldn't have to serve gay couples...how do you feel about this? Is religious freedom more important than personal feelings without religion?

Posted on: 8/9 5:23 pm
_________________
Most folks are as happy as they make up their minds to be. ~Abraham Lincoln

I don't stand by anything. ~Donald J. Trump
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: No cops allowed?

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12713
It is senseless. People who have trouble with other people should try to interact with them, not isolate themselves from them.

Posted on: 8/9 5:51 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: No cops allowed?
Pitt Hater
Joined:
7/21/2008 9:57 pm
From North Central, WV
Posts: 2265
So true. I don't know how some people can be so small minded.
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ump-birthday-cake-9-year/

Posted on: 8/10 8:14 am
_________________
LET'S GO---------------------------------MOUNTAINEERS---------------
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: No cops allowed?

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12713
Quote:

EERY wrote:
So true. I don't know how some people can be so small minded.
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ump-birthday-cake-9-year/


We need more details about the boy's cake. If he had a specific cake, like Donald Trump's head or something, and bakeries didn't make it because they have a set menu of cakes, that is different than if they just wouldn't make a cake on their menu that said something about Trump. It is also different from a legal standpoint because political ideology isn't a protected class, and religion is.

Posted on: 8/10 9:28 am
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: No cops allowed?
Gettin' Schmitty
Joined:
12/9/2009 10:45 am
From durham, nc
Posts: 5001
Quote:

Eers88 wrote:
Quote:

EERY wrote:
So true. I don't know how some people can be so small minded.
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ump-birthday-cake-9-year/


We need more details about the boy's cake. If he had a specific cake, like Donald Trump's head or something, and bakeries didn't make it because they have a set menu of cakes, that is different than if they just wouldn't make a cake on their menu that said something about Trump. It is also different from a legal standpoint because political ideology isn't a protected class, and religion is.


If one bakery wasn't able to make a cake due to their inability to do so then then this is fake outrage as she could have at least tried another bakery.

If one bakery was able to make the cake but refused then they are discriminating. To me it's all equal...if you bake cakes then you have to bake cakes for everyone. Funny that the lawyer for the anti-gay bakery chose not to be consistent and defend the anti-Trump bakery's right to discriminate but rather attack liberals for not complaining about it.

If several bakeries in one area refused and were able to make the cake then this is seriously an outrage and needs looked into.


Posted on: 8/10 5:51 pm
_________________
Most folks are as happy as they make up their minds to be. ~Abraham Lincoln

I don't stand by anything. ~Donald J. Trump
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: No cops allowed?

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12713
Quote:

eer_4da_beer wrote:
Quote:

Eers88 wrote:
Quote:

EERY wrote:
So true. I don't know how some people can be so small minded.
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ump-birthday-cake-9-year/


We need more details about the boy's cake. If he had a specific cake, like Donald Trump's head or something, and bakeries didn't make it because they have a set menu of cakes, that is different than if they just wouldn't make a cake on their menu that said something about Trump. It is also different from a legal standpoint because political ideology isn't a protected class, and religion is.


If one bakery wasn't able to make a cake due to their inability to do so then then this is fake outrage as she could have at least tried another bakery.

If one bakery was able to make the cake but refused then they are discriminating. To me it's all equal...if you bake cakes then you have to bake cakes for everyone. Funny that the lawyer for the anti-gay bakery chose not to be consistent and defend the anti-Trump bakery's right to discriminate but rather attack liberals for not complaining about it.

If several bakeries in one area refused and were able to make the cake then this is seriously an outrage and needs looked into.



Not all discrimination is unlawful. If a baker doesn't want to make a cake for a Pitt fan, they don't have to make the cake. It is a business issue and not a legal issue. If it is because of the person's membership in a protected class (i.e. race, religion, sex, disability, etc.) then it is unlawful.

The law doesn't require businesses to provide services or products that they don't normally provide just because a customer is in a protected class. For example, if a bakery doesn't make x-rated cakes for anybody, then it doesn't need to make them for a person just because the person is in a protected class. A Trump supporter cannot go into Carvel and order a Donald Trump cake because they don't make it, and the law won't make them make it just because you are a Trump supporter. You can order Fudgie the Whale or Cookiepuss like everyone else. Being a Trump supporter is not protected, and there is no discrimination, unlawful or lawful, because they business isn't providing the service to some and not others.

EDIT: And I am speaking generally here. What I am describing is disparate treatment. There are some claims based on disparate impact, where a policy appears neutral on its face, but has a discriminatory effect. An example would be a doctor refusing to treat patients with sickle cell anemia. It seems facially neutral, but because sick cell predominantly strikes african americans, it is actually discriminatory in practice. I don't think that is what we are discussing.

Posted on: 8/11 12:52 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: No cops allowed?
Gettin' Schmitty
Joined:
12/9/2009 10:45 am
From durham, nc
Posts: 5001
I don't doubt your legal analysis. Just talking from my own "what's right" perspective. I believe the example of the Pitt cake refusal is legally ok but morally wrong...again, just my opinion.

Can a bar refuse to sell a beer if they don't like your team affiliation? Where does the line stop at that sort of legal discrimination?

Posted on: 8/11 4:08 pm
_________________
Most folks are as happy as they make up their minds to be. ~Abraham Lincoln

I don't stand by anything. ~Donald J. Trump
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: No cops allowed?
Pitt Hater
Joined:
7/21/2008 9:57 pm
From North Central, WV
Posts: 2265
Quote:

Eers88 wrote:
Quote:

eer_4da_beer wrote:
Quote:

Eers88 wrote:
Quote:

EERY wrote:
So true. I don't know how some people can be so small minded.
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ump-birthday-cake-9-year/


We need more details about the boy's cake. If he had a specific cake, like Donald Trump's head or something, and bakeries didn't make it because they have a set menu of cakes, that is different than if they just wouldn't make a cake on their menu that said something about Trump. It is also different from a legal standpoint because political ideology isn't a protected class, and religion is.


If one bakery wasn't able to make a cake due to their inability to do so then then this is fake outrage as she could have at least tried another bakery.

If one bakery was able to make the cake but refused then they are discriminating. To me it's all equal...if you bake cakes then you have to bake cakes for everyone. Funny that the lawyer for the anti-gay bakery chose not to be consistent and defend the anti-Trump bakery's right to discriminate but rather attack liberals for not complaining about it.

If several bakeries in one area refused and were able to make the cake then this is seriously an outrage and needs looked into.



Not all discrimination is unlawful. If a baker doesn't want to make a cake for a Pitt fan, they don't have to make the cake. It is a business issue and not a legal issue. If it is because of the person's membership in a protected class (i.e. race, religion, sex, disability, etc.) then it is unlawful.

The law doesn't require businesses to provide services or products that they don't normally provide just because a customer is in a protected class. For example, if a bakery doesn't make x-rated cakes for anybody, then it doesn't need to make them for a person just because the person is in a protected class. A Trump supporter cannot go into Carvel and order a Donald Trump cake because they don't make it, and the law won't make them make it just because you are a Trump supporter. You can order Fudgie the Whale or Cookiepuss like everyone else. Being a Trump supporter is not protected, and there is no discrimination, unlawful or lawful, because they business isn't providing the service to some and not others.

EDIT: And I am speaking generally here. What I am describing is disparate treatment. There are some claims based on disparate impact, where a policy appears neutral on its face, but has a discriminatory effect. An example would be a doctor refusing to treat patients with sickle cell anemia. It seems facially neutral, but because sick cell predominantly strikes african americans, it is actually discriminatory in practice. I don't think that is what we are discussing.


So if a gay couple is trying to get a Christian bakery to bake a cake for their wedding, which puts the Christian bakery in a personal moral dilemma, is it not discrimination by the gay couple to try to force the Christian bakery to bake them a cake? By your own list the Christian bakery owner falls into a protected class.

Posted on: 8/11 11:19 pm
_________________
LET'S GO---------------------------------MOUNTAINEERS---------------
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: No cops allowed?
Gettin' Schmitty
Joined:
12/9/2009 10:45 am
From durham, nc
Posts: 5001
I think that falls into the same category as the Kentucky clerk that wouldn't sign gay marriage certificates. However...the baker is not a government employee. I still say just bake the damn cakes.

Posted on: 8/12 6:56 am
_________________
Most folks are as happy as they make up their minds to be. ~Abraham Lincoln

I don't stand by anything. ~Donald J. Trump
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: No cops allowed?
Pitt Hater
Joined:
7/21/2008 9:57 pm
From North Central, WV
Posts: 2265
I don't think there is any correlation between a public servant and a private business owner.

In the instance of the Clerk, she should do her job or be fired. If she has a moral issue with issuing homosexual couples marriage licenses, then she is free to step down from that position. If it is something she feels passionate enough about, she can become an activist and try to get the law changed.

On the other hand, a private business should have more freedom to choose who or what they are willing to provide a service for. As long as the service being denied is not necessary to the health and life of the other individuals. If a cake maker is not willing to offer a service to another individual, that individual is free to take their business somewhere else. The cake maker is doing it at their own detriment, because they will lose a sale, and the word of mouth will spread.

To say that the cake maker should have to provide the service, is to place the rights of one individual over another. You can try to spin it a hundred different ways, but it still equates to the same thing. Forcing a Christian baker to proved a service is forcing them to place their faith on a shelf. You are saying there is no room for their beliefs in a public setting. Just because you might disagree with their beliefs and the stand by which they take upon them, doesn't change the rights they have to live by them.

Refusing to make a cake for a couple because they are gay, does not force the gay couple to place their homosexuality on a shelf. It forces them to Google another bakery that will provide the service they desire. However their right to be a homosexual was not infringe upon. They might feel slighted, but their rights have not been denied.

Should a Christian or Jewish person have the right to try to force a Muslim business to provide a service that puts them in an awkward position that they don't feel comfortable with? By all means no. The same as a mother doesn't have the right to sue a cake maker for refusing to make a Trump cake for her son. You just gotta put your big boy pants on, and move on with life.

Besides nobody that I ever have known has died because they were denied cake.

Posted on: 8/12 12:33 pm
_________________
LET'S GO---------------------------------MOUNTAINEERS---------------
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: No cops allowed?
Pitt Hater
Joined:
7/21/2008 9:57 pm
From North Central, WV
Posts: 2265
Let's say a Christian was putting together a study on the scriptures in the Bible that say homosexuality is wrong. That Christian in turn goes to a printing company to get some materials made up to use as handouts in the class.

As it turns out the owner and operator of the company is homosexual. Upon seeing the topic of the material and the views expressed, the owner tells the customer that he/she is not comfortable with the subject matter, and denies the customer service.

The denial of service is based solely on the customer's religion, and the views expressed there in. Would that not be equally discriminatory by the gay printer shop owner, to deny service to the Christian customer? Would you side with the homosexual in all instances?

There has to be a dividing line in which all persons' rights are observed equally. Otherwise you are placing one person's rights above another. It's time in this country that we need to stop being easily offended and start being fair. The way we are going about it is greatly degrading our society.

It amazes me that the people who have chosen to cultivate their own world view have placed themselves as the moral authority over us all. No wonder they can't see just how skewed their point of view has become. It's because at their inception point they had no standard to begin with. It's like trying to use a meter that never was calibrated. You can never hit the mark without first basing yourself off of a standard. It is scientific fact.

Posted on: 8/12 1:09 pm
_________________
LET'S GO---------------------------------MOUNTAINEERS---------------
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: No cops allowed?
Pitt Hater
Joined:
7/21/2008 9:57 pm
From North Central, WV
Posts: 2265
As far as the original article posted, I believe the owner has the right to post the sign. I think that person is an idiot. If they are robbed or get assaulted, who are the first people they are going to call for help? Don't bite the hand that feeds you. So to speak.

Posted on: 8/12 1:17 pm
_________________
LET'S GO---------------------------------MOUNTAINEERS---------------
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: No cops allowed?

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12713
Quote:

eer_4da_beer wrote:
I don't doubt your legal analysis. Just talking from my own "what's right" perspective. I believe the example of the Pitt cake refusal is legally ok but morally wrong...again, just my opinion.

Can a bar refuse to sell a beer if they don't like your team affiliation? Where does the line stop at that sort of legal discrimination?


The only protected classes are: Age, sex, race, religion, national origin, color, disability, military status, and some of those are only for employment. Whether it is morally wrong is a different issue and is up to the marketplace to fix--i.e. boycotts, etc.

Posted on: 8/12 1:54 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: No cops allowed?

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12713
Quote:

EERY wrote:
Quote:

Eers88 wrote:
Quote:

eer_4da_beer wrote:
Quote:

Eers88 wrote:
Quote:

EERY wrote:
So true. I don't know how some people can be so small minded.
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ump-birthday-cake-9-year/


We need more details about the boy's cake. If he had a specific cake, like Donald Trump's head or something, and bakeries didn't make it because they have a set menu of cakes, that is different than if they just wouldn't make a cake on their menu that said something about Trump. It is also different from a legal standpoint because political ideology isn't a protected class, and religion is.


If one bakery wasn't able to make a cake due to their inability to do so then then this is fake outrage as she could have at least tried another bakery.

If one bakery was able to make the cake but refused then they are discriminating. To me it's all equal...if you bake cakes then you have to bake cakes for everyone. Funny that the lawyer for the anti-gay bakery chose not to be consistent and defend the anti-Trump bakery's right to discriminate but rather attack liberals for not complaining about it.

If several bakeries in one area refused and were able to make the cake then this is seriously an outrage and needs looked into.



Not all discrimination is unlawful. If a baker doesn't want to make a cake for a Pitt fan, they don't have to make the cake. It is a business issue and not a legal issue. If it is because of the person's membership in a protected class (i.e. race, religion, sex, disability, etc.) then it is unlawful.

The law doesn't require businesses to provide services or products that they don't normally provide just because a customer is in a protected class. For example, if a bakery doesn't make x-rated cakes for anybody, then it doesn't need to make them for a person just because the person is in a protected class. A Trump supporter cannot go into Carvel and order a Donald Trump cake because they don't make it, and the law won't make them make it just because you are a Trump supporter. You can order Fudgie the Whale or Cookiepuss like everyone else. Being a Trump supporter is not protected, and there is no discrimination, unlawful or lawful, because they business isn't providing the service to some and not others.

EDIT: And I am speaking generally here. What I am describing is disparate treatment. There are some claims based on disparate impact, where a policy appears neutral on its face, but has a discriminatory effect. An example would be a doctor refusing to treat patients with sickle cell anemia. It seems facially neutral, but because sick cell predominantly strikes african americans, it is actually discriminatory in practice. I don't think that is what we are discussing.


So if a gay couple is trying to get a Christian bakery to bake a cake for their wedding, which puts the Christian bakery in a personal moral dilemma, is it not discrimination by the gay couple to try to force the Christian bakery to bake them a cake? By your own list the Christian bakery owner falls into a protected class.


From a legal perspective, absolutely not. The baker is providing the goods or services to the public, not the gay couple. The law prohibits commercial enterprises, like the bakery, from engaging in discrimination. There are strong public policies and economic principles supporting this. Moreover, the people are not discriminating against the baker--they are frequenting the bakery despite the religious beliefs of the baker. Discrimination would only occur if they didn't go to that baker because of the baker's religious beliefs. Quite frankly, the "personal moral dilemma" appears to be fabricated. Nobody is asking the baker to marry someone of the same sex. They are asking the baker to bake a cake just like he/she bakes for everybody else.

Posted on: 8/12 2:02 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: No cops allowed?

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12713
Quote:

eer_4da_beer wrote:
I think that falls into the same category as the Kentucky clerk that wouldn't sign gay marriage certificates. However...the baker is not a government employee. I still say just bake the damn cakes.


Sort of. The principle is that the clerk isn't acting in her personal capacity when she carries out her duties, so her personal beliefs aren't relevant to her obligation to carry them out. Similarly, the baker is acting in the flow of commerce, and not as a christian or muslim or whatever. He or she is acting as a baker. That is what matters.

Posted on: 8/12 2:05 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: No cops allowed?

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12713
Quote:

EERY wrote:
I don't think there is any correlation between a public servant and a private business owner.

In the instance of the Clerk, she should do her job or be fired. If she has a moral issue with issuing homosexual couples marriage licenses, then she is free to step down from that position. If it is something she feels passionate enough about, she can become an activist and try to get the law changed.

On the other hand, a private business should have more freedom to choose who or what they are willing to provide a service for. As long as the service being denied is not necessary to the health and life of the other individuals. If a cake maker is not willing to offer a service to another individual, that individual is free to take their business somewhere else. The cake maker is doing it at their own detriment, because they will lose a sale, and the word of mouth will spread.

To say that the cake maker should have to provide the service, is to place the rights of one individual over another. You can try to spin it a hundred different ways, but it still equates to the same thing. Forcing a Christian baker to proved a service is forcing them to place their faith on a shelf. You are saying there is no room for their beliefs in a public setting. Just because you might disagree with their beliefs and the stand by which they take upon them, doesn't change the rights they have to live by them.

Refusing to make a cake for a couple because they are gay, does not force the gay couple to place their homosexuality on a shelf. It forces them to Google another bakery that will provide the service they desire. However their right to be a homosexual was not infringe upon. They might feel slighted, but their rights have not been denied.

Should a Christian or Jewish person have the right to try to force a Muslim business to provide a service that puts them in an awkward position that they don't feel comfortable with? By all means no. The same as a mother doesn't have the right to sue a cake maker for refusing to make a Trump cake for her son. You just gotta put your big boy pants on, and move on with life.

Besides nobody that I ever have known has died because they were denied cake.


The cake baker is just as free not to bake a cake as the clerk is to step down from office. If you don't want to participate in commerce according to the rules, then there is the door.

Posted on: 8/12 2:06 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: No cops allowed?
Pitt Hater
Joined:
7/21/2008 9:57 pm
From North Central, WV
Posts: 2265
Point taken about the there is the door.

How about the theoretical question of the homosexual printing shop owner?

Posted on: 8/12 2:17 pm
_________________
LET'S GO---------------------------------MOUNTAINEERS---------------
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: No cops allowed?

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12713
Quote:

EERY wrote:
Let's say a Christian was putting together a study on the scriptures in the Bible that say homosexuality is wrong. That Christian in turn goes to a printing company to get some materials made up to use as handouts in the class.

As it turns out the owner and operator of the company is homosexual. Upon seeing the topic of the material and the views expressed, the owner tells the customer that he/she is not comfortable with the subject matter, and denies the customer service.

The denial of service is based solely on the customer's religion, and the views expressed there in. Would that not be equally discriminatory by the gay printer shop owner, to deny service to the Christian customer? Would you side with the homosexual in all instances?


Yes, it would be discriminatory if the owner performs the same service for others, which seems likely under your hypothetical.

Quote:


There has to be a dividing line in which all persons' rights are observed equally. Otherwise you are placing one person's rights above another. It's time in this country that we need to stop being easily offended and start being fair. The way we are going about it is greatly degrading our society.

It amazes me that the people who have chosen to cultivate their own world view have placed themselves as the moral authority over us all. No wonder they can't see just how skewed their point of view has become. It's because at their inception point they had no standard to begin with. It's like trying to use a meter that never was calibrated. You can never hit the mark without first basing yourself off of a standard. It is scientific fact.


You have it backwards. It appears that you are literally espousing a system without any standard in place of a system with very clearly defined standards and rules.

Posted on: 8/12 3:30 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: No cops allowed?
Pitt Hater
Joined:
7/21/2008 9:57 pm
From North Central, WV
Posts: 2265
Quote:

Eers88 wrote:

Quote:

There has to be a dividing line in which all persons' rights are observed equally. Otherwise you are placing one person's rights above another. It's time in this country that we need to stop being easily offended and start being fair. The way we are going about it is greatly degrading our society.

It amazes me that the people who have chosen to cultivate their own world view have placed themselves as the moral authority over us all. No wonder they can't see just how skewed their point of view has become. It's because at their inception point they had no standard to begin with. It's like trying to use a meter that never was calibrated. You can never hit the mark without first basing yourself off of a standard. It is scientific fact.


You have it backwards. It appears that you are literally espousing a system without any standard in place of a system with very clearly defined standards and rules.


Well that is a nice observation. What makes you come to that conclusion?

Posted on: 8/12 4:04 pm
_________________
LET'S GO---------------------------------MOUNTAINEERS---------------
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: No cops allowed?

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12713
Quote:

EERY wrote:
Quote:

Eers88 wrote:

Quote:

There has to be a dividing line in which all persons' rights are observed equally. Otherwise you are placing one person's rights above another. It's time in this country that we need to stop being easily offended and start being fair. The way we are going about it is greatly degrading our society.

It amazes me that the people who have chosen to cultivate their own world view have placed themselves as the moral authority over us all. No wonder they can't see just how skewed their point of view has become. It's because at their inception point they had no standard to begin with. It's like trying to use a meter that never was calibrated. You can never hit the mark without first basing yourself off of a standard. It is scientific fact.


You have it backwards. It appears that you are literally espousing a system without any standard in place of a system with very clearly defined standards and rules.


Well that is a nice observation. What makes you come to that conclusion?


The standard is pretty simple. If you perform a service or sell a particular good, then you cannot refuse to sell the service or good to someone because of their race, religion, national origin, disability, etc.

What you are advocating is a system where nobody knows who will sell what to whom, which is a bad idea from any perspective. Economically, which is what the right seems to care about most, it is a disaster. There is a huge cost to discrimination.

Posted on: 8/12 5:38 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 



(1) 2 »




Login
Username:

Password:

remember me





Copyright © 2004-2011 wemustignitethiscouch.com All Rights Reserved