Bakers Who Refused Lesbian Couple A Wedding Cake WILL Have To Pay $135,000

[leibowde84]

It's absolutely ludicrous whatever the 'logic' behind it. 10 grand would send a message as it should probably be 1 or 2 grand tops for a minor case of discrimination.

No wonder there is such an ambulance chasing culture in America, which ultimately costs you all (especially in things like healthcare).

It's important to stop religious business owners from allowing their religious beliefs to get in the way of their duty to fellow citizens. This appeals court sent a very strong message. You cannot use your religious beliefs as reasoning for discrimination. If you do, you will be severely harmed financially and lose your business.

The bakery had many opportunities to apologize and do what was right. They refused at every opportunity.

 

[columbus]

It's important to stop religious business owners from allowing their religious beliefs to get in the way of their duty to fellow citizens.

Why do you think it's ok to force the NFL to put your political beliefs on TV?
Tom

 

[leibowde84]

Next up, Jewish and Muslim restaurants that refuse to serve pork, and Mosques and churches that refuse to do gay weddings. Or the Christian or Muslim convenience store that refuses to sell alcoholic beverages. How far are litigious people willing to push this type of thing. Just get the damn cake somewhere else.

That is such a ludicrous "slippery slope" fallacy that you just articulated there. What a load.

Restaurants are aloud to serve whatever they want, as long as they don't discriminate as to who they serve to, so your pork example has absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand. If they refused to serve food to homosexual couples, then that would be similar.

Churches are not a public accommodation under the Civil Rights Act, so they have nothing to do with the case at hand. Nothing but a strawman there.

Convenience stores are required to sell any products that they don't want to. There are literally thousands upon thousands of convenience stores that don't sell alcohol. And, as long as they don't discriminate as to who they sell to, that situation has absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand.

We have to send a message to religious business owners that they cannot break the law and discriminate as to who they sell their goods to based on their own personal, subjective beliefs. Their religion does not put them above the law. And, selling a cake is not violating their beliefs anyways. If they allowed them to do so, that would be the real slippery slope. If you can refuse to sell products to people based on their sexual orientation, why wouldn't they be able to do the same based on skin color, religion, etc.? According to the law there is nothing negative or "sinful" about homosexuality. All business owners must accept this or risk losing their businesses.

 

[BSM1]

Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it only has to be a public accomodation, which a bakery most certainly is.

Evidently.

 

[leibowde84]

Why do you think it's ok to force the NFL to put your political beliefs on TV?
Tom

I don't. Where did you get the idea that I think it's OK to force the NFL to put my political beliefs on TV. Obviously no one is forcing the NFL to allow the players to protest. The NFL is well within their rights to punish the players for protesting racial prejudice during the anthem. The 1st Amendment only restricts the government from doing so, so my point was only that the government has absolutely no right to interfere.

 

[David1967]

Why do you think it's ok to force the NFL to put your political beliefs on TV?
Tom

Its called, 'selective outrage'.

 

[leibowde84]

Evidently.

How could a bakery not be considered a "public accomodation"?

"Public accommodations, in US law, are generally defined as facilities, both public and private, used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments, and service establishments as well as educational institutions, recreational facilities, and service centers."
42 U.S. Code § 12181 - Definitions

 

[leibowde84]

Its called, 'selective outrage'.

Who has said that it is OK to force the NFL to allow players to protest?! Only the government is restricted from intervening. Employers can limit this kind of expression during work hours.

 

[David1967]

Who has said that it is OK to force the NFL to allow players to protest?! Only the government is restricted from intervening. Employers can limit this kind of expression during work hours.

For the record, I have no problem with gay people. Let people live as they see fit. No problem. My problem is with a few people who are eager and willing to completely ruin anothers life, simply because they believe that to bake a cake for a gay wedding violates their religious belief.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Who has said that it is OK to force the NFL to allow players to protest?! Only the government is restricted from intervening. Employers can limit this kind of expression during work hours.

But of course, some employers are limited in what they can do to employees because of collective bargaining agreements; this applies to the teams which comprise the NFL (the NFL does not directly employ the players).

To try to impose new rules upon players to limit their actions during pre-game activities would likely garner a lawsuit by the players' association on the basis of changing conditions of employment without a negotiated clause.

 

[socharlie]

Often penalties don't solely reflect actual suffering, but are set to send a message.

.

big brother crushes any show of consciousness against their policies, this imo, was wrong, despite that I think that they should have baked the bloody thing just because they were bakers, or the lesbians should have found another baker.

 

[BSM1]

How could a bakery not be considered a "public accomodation"?

"Public accommodations, in US law, are generally defined as facilities, both public and private, used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments, and service establishments as well as educational institutions, recreational facilities, and service centers."
42 U.S. Code § 12181 - Definitions

You can survive without cake. It is not a necessity.

 

[leibowde84]

For the record, I have no problem with gay people. Let people live as they see fit. No problem. My problem is with a few people who are eager and willing to completely ruin anothers life, simply because they believe that to bake a cake for a gay wedding violates their religious belief.

Why should we allow people to discriminate against homosexuals simply because of their personal beliefs. Why would we allow people to discriminate against homosexuals but not black people? Or are you OK with business owners discriminating as they see fit?

 

[leibowde84]

You can survive without cake. It is not a necessity.

But, necessity is not a pre-requisite for public accommodations, so what does that have to do with anything?

 

[BSM1]

Why should we allow people to discriminate against homosexuals simply because of their personal beliefs. Why would we allow people to discriminate against homosexuals but not black people? Or are you OK with business owners discriminating as they see fit?

Absolutely.

 

[leibowde84]

But of course, some employers are limited in what they can do to employees because of collective bargaining agreements; this applies to the teams which comprise the NFL (the NFL does not directly employ the players).

They entered into those agreements willingly, so the owners would have no one to blame but themselves.

To try to impose new rules upon players to limit their actions during pre-game activities would likely garner a lawsuit by the players' association on the basis of changing conditions of employment without a negotiated clause.

ditto.

 

[leibowde84]

Absolutely.

So, you think the rules saying that black people could not sit at certain counters or be served in certain restaurants should have been legally protected?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

For the record, I have no problem with gay people. Let people live as they see fit. No problem. My problem is with a few people who are eager and willing to completely ruin anothers life, simply because they believe that to bake a cake for a gay wedding violates their religious belief.

Christians don't seem to understand that they are working to open the door to anti-Christian discrimination. Wait for this to come to America, when employers refuse to hire Christians because working with one, or giving them money that might be used to buy Bibles or be given to a church, would offend their religious sensibilities.

Indonesian Baker Won’t Write “Merry Christmas” on Cake for Religious Reasons
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...erry-christmas-on-cake-for-religious-reasons/

 

[BSM1]

So, you think the rules saying that black people could not sit at certain counters or be served in certain restaurants should have been legally protected?

Didn't say that.

 

[David1967]

Christians don't seem to understand that they are working to open the door to anti-Christian discrimination. Wait for this to come to America, when employers refuse to hire Christians because working with one, or giving them money that might be used to buy Bibles or be given to a church, would offend their religious sensibilities.

Indonesian Baker Won’t Write “Merry Christmas” on Cake for Religious Reasons

If the Indonesian baker refused to write "Merry Christmas" on my cake due to his religious beliefs, would it irritate me? Possibly. Would I childishly sue him with the intent of ruining his livelihood? Never in a million years. I would get the cake somewhere else or write it myself.