"We can refuse service for any reason" -> NOPE according to the appeals Court

[glenn1]

So you don't have to make things you find offensive BUT you do have to sell to people you find offensive? If true, that clears up my misunderstanding.

This is rather convenient as advertisers could simply refuse to sell advertising to political groups whose positions they disagreed with. The entire SuperPAC ecosystem for the Democratic Party could be shut down with nowhere to spend their money. Not to mention the avenues this opens up to discriminate against gays, err "not make things people find offensive" that just happen to be demanded by gays.

 

[CitizenKain]

Wall of stupid shit and rightwing talking points Spungo isn't smart enough to understand.

I just want to repeat that you are a fucking dumbass and should have paid attention in school so you would quit embarrassing yourself. Like most republicans on here, you are simply too ignorant to try explain things too, its pointless.

 

[fskimospy]

The passages against gay people are found in the section of the bible where everything is punishable by death. Saying there is no god = death. Working on the sabbath = death. Sex with another man = death. If you're supposed to kill people who do a certain thing, I think it's assumed that you're not supposed to make cakes for them.

Why would that be assumed? You're just making shit up now.

Also, clearly those people don't believe that they should be killed, because they aren't killing them. Or are they simply ignoring the commands of an omnipotent being?

You're saying you don't see a common theme among liberals around the world? You don't see a pattern of fighting against business owners just for the sake of fighting against business owners, regardless of how stupid the lawsuit is? You don't see a world wide pattern of trying to silence freedom of speech? In that SJW thread, I posted several links where the left in UK and Sweden are trying to make it illegal to criticize feminism. In Sweden, the left have gone so far into authoritarianism that it's against the law to criticize the national immigration policy. That's America in 20 years if we don't stop this nonsense.

We are talking about US public accommodation laws that have been in place for half a century. You ranting about Canada and Sweden is entirely irrelevant.

We seem to be on the same path as Germany and Italy around 1930. It's slowly becoming more and more illegal to do or say anything. You can't even criticize Obama in this country without being called a racist. All we need are some laws against hate speech, and it will officially be illegal to criticize anything the government does.

Ahh, so now we're into fascism, somehow Obama came up, and soon it will be illegal to criticize the government.

This is a batshit insane rant. Do you actually believe this nonsense?

You know exactly what I'm talking about. Liberals are constantly defending Islam and saying it's a "religion of peace," which is such an absurd statement that it has become a joke. Even threads on this forum have names like "religion of peace strikes again - another beheading."

It's actually a perfectly reasonable statement considering there are about a billion muslims and the vast, vast, vast majority of them live perfectly peaceful lives. Regardless, it has little to do with whether or not bakers have to comply with public accommodation laws.

Like the lesbian haircut thing, this isn't limited to the US. We're lucky in the US to only be called Islamophobic or racist when we trash Islam and its barbaric practices in the middle east. The UK has gone full retard on this. You can be charged with inciting hatred if you criticize Islam in the UK. They don't have constitutional protection of free speech over there, so their decent into tyranny is a lot quicker. Who is responsible such authoritarian laws over there? The exact same kind of extreme left people who want to suppress free speech in the US. These people need to be fought on every issue in every country, or this disease of political correctness will continue to spread.

More unhinged ranting.

Trying to argue with the left is complete waste of time. They support your right to free speech and religion as long as it doesn't offend anyone on the planet. Jim Norton perfectly explained it on the Opie & Anthony Show. I'm paraphrasing here, but he said he was a little happy when he learned the NSA was spying on everyone. His logic is that too many people are assholes, and they deserve to be spied on because nobody spoke out when famous people were being spied on and judged. Nobody is allowed to have an opinion on anything. You can be fired for thought crime. Donald Sterling was forced to sell his NBA team because, in a private conversation, he told his girlfriend that she could sleep with black guys as long as she doesn't take pictures with them. The left also attacked Patrice O'Neal because... reasons. Maybe he was too black for their liking. They also attacked Daniel Tosh because he verbally destroyed a heckler by using words that are not approved by the left's Ministry of Truth. Joe Rogan was attacked for making the bold claim that men should not be allowed to beat the shit out of women in mixed martial arts. See that progressive stack I posted before; being a transsexual is higher on the totem pole than being a woman, so the left predictably took the position that men should be allowed to get a sex change (which has no effect on bone structure such as longer arms and bigger hands) then kick the crap out of women without disclosing it first.

Bruce Jenner is another classic example of the left being ridiculous. That guy killed a woman because he wasn't paying attention while driving, and the left still holds him up as an inspiration and a hero. Again, see that progressive stack I posted. Being a tranny is higher than being a woman, so you're allowed to kill people and be an attention whore as long as you're pretending to be a woman while doing it.

Now the left is siding with some drama queen gay men who refuse to take their business to a different store. The left up in Canada are siding with some lesbian who refuses to look for another barber in a city of several million people that presumably has several thousand barber shops, each of which can contain more than one barber. The left also sided with that hijab woman who is obviously a lawsuit troll. Devoted enough to Islam to cover her hair in public, but still willing to sell sexualized clothing? It's the most obvious scam ever, but it doesn't matter. The left doesn't care how silly a lawsuit is. As long as it attacks a business in some way, it must be good. Of course, they have this opinion until their business is the one that gets shut down and moved to China.

This is some pretty awesome projection, as it would appear that arguing with you is a waste of time as you don't appear to be capable of making a logical, coherent argument and you're nearly entirely ignorant of the actual law you claim to hate. You've said a number of demonstrably false things (millions in the A&F suit? haha), ignored the actual law that we're talking about, and descended into unhinged ranting about fascism and Obama when challenged on it.

Seriously, what the fuck? haha.

 

[werepossum]

Conservatives tend to hate freedom (for others), for all they swear by it.

Bullshit. In this case the freedom being lost is the bakery owner's. The question is whether her loss of freedom is warranted to preserve the gay couple's rights. I happen to believe the loss of freedom is warranted, but it's a valid question.

This is a stretch, especially if they prove profitable, while it might be fair to say some may stop selling, if others make money off of them I'd be willing to bet you would get at least one place that would serve everyone...

Also its two gay people getting married, hence a wedding involving gay people, or in short a gay wedding.

Are we back to those days, where there is one outlet for "those people" and the rest for "decent people" (I. E. People like me.)

Keep in mind that gays are perhaps 2% to 4% of the population, and in a small, conservative Southern town will be considerably less. A small town will have only one or two bakeries, so gays would be unprofitable if serving them caused any lack of business.

So you don't have to make things you find offensive BUT you do have to sell to people you find offensive? If true, that clears up my misunderstanding.

Well, you are at least protected against having to make things that a reasonable person would find offensive. Whether or not you are protected beyond that depends on whether what you find offensive touches on any protected group. All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. (Which is not necessarily a bad thing, although it certainly can be a bad thing.)

 

[fskimospy]

Well, you are at least protected against having to make things that a reasonable person would find offensive. Whether or not you are protected beyond that depends on whether what you find offensive touches on any protected group. All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. (Which is not necessarily a bad thing, although it certainly can be a bad thing.)

Who is more equal than others? Everyone has the same protections from being discriminated against. Just because gay people are more likely to be discriminated against than straight people doesn't mean that straight people aren't also protected.

 

[werepossum]

Who is more equal than others? Everyone has the same protections from being discriminated against. Just because gay people are more likely to be discriminated against than straight people doesn't mean that straight people aren't also protected.

Gays are more protected, obviously.

 

[fskimospy]

Gays are more protected, obviously.

How?

 

[werepossum]

How?

By laws specifically listing them as protected groups. There simply is no equivalent for straight people. I understand and accept it, but I am not going to pretend it doesn't exist.

 

[fskimospy]

By laws specifically listing them as protected groups. There simply is no equivalent for straight people. I understand and accept it, but I am not going to pretend it doesn't exist.

There is no public accommodation law that lists gay people as a protected group that I am aware of. Can you point to one?

EDIT: Public accommodation laws prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, they do not prohibit discrimination based on being gay. Straight people are also protected by being discriminated against based on their sexual orientation, it's just much less common. A bakery owned by a gay couple could not refuse to make cakes for straight people, for example.

All public accommodation laws are written this way. It's not illegal to discriminate against Muslims, it's illegal to discriminate against anyone based on their religion. Everyone is equally protected at all times.

 

[Cozarkian]

By laws specifically listing them as protected groups. There simply is no equivalent for straight people. I understand and accept it, but I am not going to pretend it doesn't exist.

The laws don't generally prohibit discrimination against blacks or gays, they prohibit discrimination based on race or sexual orientation. Heterosexuality is an orientation, so it is also a protected class.

 

[ivwshane]

There isn't a face palm big enough to describe the utter ignorance with regards to public accommodation laws. If it has to be explained to you that discriminating against gay people equals discriminating people because of their sexual orientation then you should probably just stop posting in this thread and do some serious reading on the subject before giving your opinion.

 

[werepossum]

There is no public accommodation law that lists gay people as a protected group that I am aware of. Can you point to one?

EDIT: Public accommodation laws prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, they do not prohibit discrimination based on being gay. Straight people are also protected by being discriminated against based on their sexual orientation, it's just much less common. A bakery owned by a gay couple could not refuse to make cakes for straight people, for example.

All public accommodation laws are written this way. It's not illegal to discriminate against Muslims, it's illegal to discriminate against anyone based on their religion. Everyone is equally protected at all times.

In theory, sure. In practice, no. Case in point, the "Black Lives Matter" gathering which specifically prohibited white people. Seen any federal interest in that particular instance of well-advertised racial discrimination? In practice, the federal government has protected classes.

 

[K1052]

In theory, sure. In practice, no. Case in point, the "Black Lives Matter" gathering which specifically prohibited white people. Seen any federal interest in that particular instance of well-advertised racial discrimination? In practice, the federal government has protected classes.

Is "Black Lives Matter" a business?

 

[fskimospy]

In theory, sure. In practice, no. Case in point, the "Black Lives Matter" gathering which specifically prohibited white people. Seen any federal interest in that particular instance of well-advertised racial discrimination? In practice, the federal government has protected classes.

No, in practice. Public accommodation laws protect all people from discrimination on the listed attributes, not only specific expressions of those attributes. If a gay bakery refused to serve you because you were straight and you sued them you would absolutely win, so long as it was a state that protects against discrimination based on sexual orientation. (federal law doesn't) No one is 'more equal' than anyone else, we are all protected identically under the law.

As for the Black Lives Matter thing, the federal government wouldn't have any interest in that 'particular instance of well-advertised racial discrimination' because there's absolutely no violation of any law taking place if they were to bar white people from participating in their gathering. What law do you think they are violating? Hell, any law that DID prohibit that would be pretty blatantly unconstitutional.

 

[piasabird]

Just close the bakery and open a private baking club.

 

[werepossum]

Is "Black Lives Matter" a business?

Good point.

No, in practice. Public accommodation laws protect all people from discrimination on the listed attributes, not only specific expressions of those attributes. If a gay bakery refused to serve you because you were straight and you sued them you would absolutely win, so long as it was a state that protects against discrimination based on sexual orientation. (federal law doesn't) No one is 'more equal' than anyone else, we are all protected identically under the law.

As for the Black Lives Matter thing, the federal government wouldn't have any interest in that 'particular instance of well-advertised racial discrimination' because there's absolutely no violation of any law taking place if they were to bar white people from participating in their gathering. What law do you think they are violating? Hell, any law that DID prohibit that would be pretty blatantly unconstitutional.

Could you perhaps point out some of the times the federal government stepped in to protect straight people from discrimination?

 

[ivwshane]

Good point.


Could you perhaps point out some of the times the federal government stepped in to protect straight people from discrimination?

Can you point out some of the times straight people were discriminated against?

 

[fskimospy]

Could you perhaps point out some of the times the federal government stepped in to protect straight people from discrimination?

Federal public accommodation law doesn't protect sexual orientation so why would they step in? That doesn't make any sense.

By all means point out a time where a straight person was denied service in a state where sexual orientation is a protected class and did not have their complaint addressed though.

It's simple. These laws protect everyone, and saying that gay people have special laws just to protect them is bullshit.

 

[HumblePie]

Just close the bakery and open a private baking club.

Or they can make a bakery called "Straight Cakes" and their theme is only to sell to straight people. So no hunchbacks in here!