Asher's Bakery Case Update

[Carrikature]

As would be the case with the baker - you could write bad reviews.

Which has limited effect, at best.

Not sure where this "being harassed at work" comes in.

It's an additional example of how going somewhere else isn't a solution.

[Carrikature]

We get it, you are against person freedom and have no problem using the Government to make us all conform to leftist ideology.

Nonsense Carrikature, businesses had the very freedoms I speak of for most of our history, until recently, and we did not have anarchy.

That's not even close to what I said.

[Carrikature]

or of whom they disapprove. And, under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they are not. No one can discriminate based on race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin.

You missed it again, Tassy. It's not that they "don't like the people".

Check the bolding, CP.

[Cow Poke]

Check the bolding, CP.

Yeah, like I said, it's not the PEOPLE - it's their actions.

Check the bolding, C.

[Carrikature]

Yeah, like I said, it's not the PEOPLE - it's their actions.

Check the bolding, C.

It's not a meaningful distinction, especially in these sorts of cases.

But clearly "disapprove of" is referring to actions...

[Cow Poke]

It's not a meaningful distinction, especially in these sorts of cases.

But clearly "disapprove of" is referring to actions...

This thread has been all over the place, and I'm not even sure what point you're arguing...

you bolded only part of the statement, which, in its entirety was....
"The issue is whether service providers are entitled to discriminate against those they do not like or of whom they disapprove."

Digging back several posts, the discussion was about the refusal of the baker to provide a cake for a homosexual wedding, which is why they asked who it was for. If they were ordering a cake for gramma, that would probably not have been a problem. The answer, however, was...

"And when they said it was them, I said, 'Sorry. We don't provide cakes for homosexual marriages,'"

She (is it even a she anymore?) seemed not to have a problem with the PEOPLE that were asking for the cake, but for the purpose.

[Tassman]

It's not a meaningful distinction, especially in these sorts of cases.

But clearly "disapprove of" is referring to actions...

It's the old "hate the sin, love the sinner" palaver...an obvious rationalisation for discriminating against the civil rights of others. But, under the Civil Rights Act, there's no provision for exceptions to special interest groups such as Evangelicals and their specific bible-based prejudice against homosexuality. It applies to all.

[Tassman]

I'll ask you the same thing I asked Carrik (you people never actually answer this question because you are disingenuous to the core and know you are arguing in bad faith): So you have no problem with religious requirements for starting a business? You know, since you aren't forced to start one.

Yes, they are entitled to discriminate, because anti-discrimination is in many cases (like this one) forced labour as well as a breach of other actual constitutional rights. There is no right to be liked or socialized with in any way. If there was liberals would be the first to be thrown in prison for all their anti-white, anti-male, anti-femininity, anti-heterosexual bigotry.

is

In the old days it was mandatory to discriminate against blacks. Segregation wasn't optional even if a business didn't want to segregate. Then the hilariously misnamed civil rights act came along and made forced labour mandatory. The laws on both extremes were unconstitutional (among other things).

They were the days of the Jim Crow laws, were they a good thing in your opinion? Perhaps there should be Jim Crow type type laws mandated against serving homosexuals. Wouldn't that be nice.

There has never been a time where the obvious middle ground was the general practice.

What's this "middle ground", of which you speak...the freedom of Evangelicals to discriminate against homosexuals.

[MaxVel]

Are you really unaware of how often believers claim that atheists are actually theists who want to rebel against the God they actually believe in? I've lost count of the people who have claimed I'm not really an atheist.

That must suck. It's probably at least as often as atheists telling Christians that they're doing Christianity wrong.

IOW - then surely you should realise how wrong - and potentially dangerous - what you advocated is.

[MaxVel]

The comparison doesn't work. Atheism has a single qualifier: theistic disbelief. We're not the ones fragmenting over who is following the proper creed or playing the right music (or not) in service.

Give it time, Carrikature, give it time. NewAtheists v old atheists; Atheism +. Atheism is quite capable of fragmenting over political issues. It's human nature to outgroup people.

[MaxVel]

Gareth Lee and his partner...how is this relevant?

You do realise that the cake was not for a gay wedding, right?

The gay rights activist {Gareth Lee} had requested a cake depicting Sesame Street characters Bert and Ernie below the motto 'Support Gay Marriage' for an event to mark International Day Against Homophobia.

Your analogy fails because you are ignorant of the actual facts of the case, despite Abigail linking to them in the OP. But don't let the truth stand in the way of your anti-Christian bigotry.

[firstfloor]

These Christian bakers made at least one basic mistake:
They imagine that their religious beliefs are respectable and that their customers ought to show them respect because they are Christians.

[Cow Poke]

These Christian bakers made at least one basic mistake:
They imagine that their religious beliefs are respectable and that their customers ought to show them respect because they are Christians.

Firstfloor made at least one basic mistake:
He imagines his anti-Christian beliefs are respectable and that the other posters ought to show him respect because he's .... (haven't figured out that part yet)

[Darth Executor]

Do you have a problem with religious requirements for running a business given that fining someone for not following regulation does not constitute force?

is

This is false, the Civil Rights Act does not cover butt pirates. Or cross-dressing transvestites, dwarf or otherwise.

They were the days of the Jim Crow laws, were they a good thing in your opinion? Perhaps there should be Jim Crow type type laws mandated against serving homosexuals. Wouldn't that be nice.

Jim Crow, like your own preferences, involved forced labour. The only difference between you and Bull Connor as far as this matter is concerned is the year in which you were born.

What's this "middle ground", of which you speak...the freedom of Evangelicals to discriminate against homosexuals.

The freedom of everybody to refuse work for whatever reason, as ensrhined in the 13th amendment.

[JimL]

Do you have a problem with religious requirements for running a business given that fining someone for not following regulation does not constitute force?

Forced labor is a canard. The government isn't forcing them to do what they have chosen to do, the government is merely forcing them not to discriminate with respect to who they do it for.

This is false, the Civil Rights Act does not cover butt pirates. Or cross-dressing transvestites, dwarf or otherwise.

Yes, actually it does.

Jim Crow, like your own preferences, involved forced labour. The only difference between you and Bull Connor as far as this matter is concerned is the year in which you were born.

How so?

The freedom of everybody to refuse work for whatever reason, as ensrhined in the 13th amendment.

People can refuse to work all they want, but if they choose to work in the public arena, then they can't discriminate. Pretty simple.