The Goat Pen

Cletus wrote:

eCat wrote:

Cletus wrote:What if all 25 refuse to serve them? Then what?

for religious reasons? then they go to number 26

What if there are only 25? Will the law force someone to step up and not be a Neanderthal asshole? Or will the couple have to go out of town to find someone?

at that point the couple should stop and ask themselves - is living in an area with 25 religious bakery shops really the best place for us to want to continue our lifestyle, but instead of us recognizing we're not in line with the views of this community, we're going to demand that all 25 business change their fundamental values to accommodate ours . And we'll celebrate by eating a cake made a by man against his will because that is what is important in this world to us.

Better yet, maybe they should evaluate the business climate there and recognize there is a huge opportunity to open a gay bakery catering to clients not supported by 25 neanderthals, reap the profits and rejoice when the others close up shop

Uh, don't you guys know that you cant have this discussion without somebody posting this?

Cletus wrote:What if all 25 refuse to serve them? Then what?

Since you are a liberal, I understand that you live in a make believe, fairy tale, illogical, magical thinking world... I get that... but please summon whatever logical faculties you may still have and realize that there is no place in Colorado - and for that matter, even in Mississippi - where the couple can't easily find bakers who will bake them whatever cake they want.

But please feel free to stop by here, planet earth, any time you can. It might do you some good.

he's trying to equate this with Jim Crow laws in the south

"baker refuses to make a cake for a black couple, or refuses a mixed-race couple, or a Jewish couple, or Muslim couple, or a dwarf couple."

I believed the preferred term these days is "little people"...

"at that point the couple should stop and ask themselves - is living in an area with 25 religious bakery shops really the best place for us to want to continue our lifestyle, but instead of us recognizing we're not in line with the views of this community, we're going to demand that all 25 business change their fundamental values to accommodate ours ."

Well, you could just as easily say to the religious person "is this really the business you want to be going into, b/c as a business you will be legally required to do things that you feel are against your religion. We're not telling you that you can't practice your religion as you see fit or that you can't believe what you want - on you own time. But as a licensed, legal business that enjoys legal protections and tax benefits and the opportunity to set your own hours and be your own boss, etc etc etc, you will be required to behave a certain way irregardless of your religious beliefs. Like they said in The Godfather, this is business, not personal." It's like if a football player said that he can't hit other people b/c it's against his religion. OK, fine, but nobody is going to hire you. You can't just trot out "religious belief" to justify every action. Why is it incumbant upon the customer to (as you seem to be suggesting) move somewhere where there are more people like you rather than making one standard that applies to everybody who wants to open a business, of any kind?

Cletus won't be happy until we are all fed to the lions.

This idea that our government "allows" him to run his business is the problem here.

I find it odd that you have a problem with the government telling a man he can't take heroin , but you're ok with the government telling a man what he should do against his religious convictions. Personal freedoms are a moving target?

sardis wrote:Cletus won't be happy until we are all fed to the lions.

Being fed to the lions is soooooo first century. Let's hit the fast forwards button to the 20th century where Christians should be sent off to the gulags, all in the name of tolerance, pluralism, diversity, open-mindedness, enlightenment, inclusion, and - above all - sustainability.

"This idea that our government "allows" him to run his business is the problem here."

Well, that's a whole nother ball of wax. But given the reality we live in as far as the government's role in business, it seems reasonable to me that every business should have to abide by the same rules. Nobody is forcing that guy to be a baker. But if he wants to be one in a business capacity, he should ask himself if he's willing to do all the things legally required. If he's not, then maybe he should consider the priesthood or some other profession where he won't have to compromise his religious beliefs.

As far as heroin, I don't think it's right that the government can tell me I can't use it, but if I choose to use it anyway, I understand that I will have to face the legal consequences if I get caught. I might not thinks it fair or right, but that's the law as it stands. Why shouldn't the baker have to face the consequences of his actions if he chooses to ignore the law as it stands? Obviously that's the question under debate, whether that is the actual law or not, but if it is, either abide by it, work to change it, or face the consequences if you don't abide by it. You have no problem saying that to the heroin user, I have no problem saying it to the religious person...

Professor Tiger wrote:

sardis wrote:Cletus won't be happy until we are all fed to the lions.

Being fed to the lions is soooooo first century. Let's hit the fast forwards button to the 20th century where Christians should be sent off to the gulags, all in the name of tolerance, pluralism, diversity, open-mindedness, enlightenment, inclusion, and - above all - sustainability.

How do you get from "don't use your stupid superstition to be a dick to people" to that? It is true that I want religion to die out organically and am pretty sure it will but long after we are gone.

hedge wrote:"This idea that our government "allows" him to run his business is the problem here."

Well, that's a whole nother ball of wax. But given the reality we live in as far as the government's role in business, it seems reasonable to me that every business should have to abide by the same rules. Nobody is forcing that guy to be a baker. But if he wants to be one in a business capacity, he should ask himself if he's willing to do all the things legally required. If he's not, then maybe he should consider the priesthood or some other profession where he won't have to compromise his religious beliefs.

As far as heroin, I don't think it's right that the government can tell me I can't use it, but if I choose to use it anyway, I understand that I will have to face the legal consequences if I get caught. I might not thinks it fair or right, but that's the law as it stands. Why shouldn't the baker have to face the consequences of his actions if he chooses to ignore the law as it stands? Obviously that's the question under debate, whether that is the actual law or not, but if it is, either abide by it, work to change it, or face the consequences if you don't abide by it. You have no problem saying that to the heroin user, I have no problem saying it to the religious person...

in this case the law was created unjust because it steps on his basic rights as an American defined in the constitution. We can debate whether heroin use falls into the category of pursuit of happiness and god given rights, but heroin isn't spelled out. Freedom to practice religion, and in this case, the very religion this country was founded on, is specifically spelled out in the constitution. The commerce clause - and commerce specifically is not defined in the constitution and the government takes broad powers in its use to tell a business owner what he can and cannot do.

You are right though that historically - at least for the past 60 years, commerce has pushed for civil rights to trump religious. But that can be changed by replacing 1 more SCOTUS assuming they are receptive to it.

As I understand it, this is a Colorado law and not a federal law yet so commerce clause is a bit premature.

But it also seems to me that you are sidestepping the question. I firmly believe that whether its legal or not, people should not be allowed to take heroin. Whether its legal or not isn't going to change my fundamental viewpoint on it. Setting aside the law, do you believe the government has the right to tell this man he has to bake a cake?

Another retraction...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/08/politics/ ... index.html

CNN is horrible

Fuck convictions. People with convictions are generally assholes. Fuck assholes.

Basically if it's on the menu you need to sell it to anyone, especially any protected classes. The only gray area to me would be if the business offers personalized cakes, I don't think making him write "I love homo gay lifestyle" with rainbow icing would be reasonable. On the other hand, "Happy Wedding Day Adam and Steve" seems okay. Just make the damn cake and when you go home and pray you can apologize to Jesus for not being as big a bigot as He wanted. I have a hunch all will be forgiven and forgotten.

In other news, here in north Atlanta, we got 6 inches of AGW in the last 24 hours. This is how Southerners handle snow:

[youtube]d_KJoYD6Mnk[/youtube]

Tree wrote:Basically if it's on the menu you need to sell it to anyone, especially any protected classes. The only gray area to me would be if the business offers personalized cakes, I don't think making him write "I love homo gay lifestyle" with rainbow icing would be reasonable. On the other hand, "Happy Wedding Day Adam and Steve" seems okay. Just make the damn cake and when you go home and pray you can apologize to Jesus for not being as big a bigot as He wanted. I have a hunch all will be forgiven and forgotten.

so in this case you side with the government on who is a protected class of citizen to the extent that you'd override the constitutional rights of someone

I always find this interesting when people push for a government solution, because its clear you have a distrust , and intense dislike of and feel the current government is incompetent, yet you are comfortable with these people in Washington making decisions about what you can and cannot do as it pertains to running your business.

For example, lets say Donald Trump and the Republican congress decides that people convicted of violent crimes should be able to purchase a gun and we do away with the background check, because its discriminatory against the second amendment which makes no mention of qualifiers in an Americans right to own a gun. I don't know where you fall on gun rights and the 2A but I have a feeling you'd object to this definition of discrimination in society.

The reality is this isn't about what the government declares as a law, its about your personal preference on what the "right" thing to do by a business owner is.

And just as with gun owners, whenever a gun owner carries out some atrocity, the government is the solution types want to enact legislation to punish all gun owners for the actions of a small percentage, in this case, an insignificant percentage of gun owners .

Thats how I see the discrimination laws. Somewhere in the vast nation of ours, some business owners - it might be one, might be community, it might even be an entire town, perhaps its even an segment of an industry decides based on whatever their value set is that they will not serve a specific segment of society. And because of that decision, the government is the solution types declare all business owners must forego their constitutional rights. Now we are at a point where we are trying to define homosexuality, as a trait or choice that cannot be tested or validated as a protected class of citizen in our effort to have the government enforce everyone doing the right thing.

It shouldn't be that easy , and that's not to diminish the civil rights act of '64, but there should have been a different approach to allow personal freedoms of every American versus a government blanket that steps on basic rights afforded to all men.

And no, buying a cake from *any* baker is not a basic constitutional right.

"in this case the law was created unjust because it steps on his basic rights as an American defined in the constitution. We can debate whether heroin use falls into the category of pursuit of happiness and god given rights, but heroin isn't spelled out."

There are so many things that weren't spelled out b/c IMO the founding fathers never conceived that things like eating meat or smoking tobacco or drinking whiskey or using heroin could ever be regarded as something government would have any say over. Things like religion and freedom of speech, etc., had been such a point of contention for centuries in Europe they felt the need to spell it out. If anything, it seems to me that the things that weren't spelled out should be even more protected against government interference than the ones they did spell out. Obviously it hasn't played out that way...

"I firmly believe that whether its legal or not, people should not be allowed to take heroin."

Did you mean to say that even if it was legal, you don't think people should take heroin? I agree with that. But if it's legal, then by definition people are allowed to take it. At that point, "should" doesn't have anything to do with it...