Lesbian couple refused wedding cake files state discrimination complaint

[donkiez]

the First in a nut shell

Your rights to Freedom of Religion and the free exercise thereof means:
•The Freedom of Religion is an inalienable right.
•The First Amendment provides for the Freedom of Religion for all Americans.
•The Free Exercise Clause provides that government will neither control nor prohibit the free exercise of one’s religion.
•The government will remain neutral

I dont believe that those of us that do not agree with how this couple acted, have the right to force them to do something aginst their religous beliefs.

all this has to be within reason. For instance my religion states that posters named DalincolnJones are not allowed to voice their opinion on sportstwo web page. You are clearly in violation of my religious freedoms.

 

[magnifier661]

all this has to be within reason. For instance my religion states that posters named DalincolnJones are not allowed to voice their opinion on sportstwo web page. You are clearly in violation of my religious freedoms.

And if you were the owner of the site, you could ban him forever and there is nothing he could do about it

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I treat woman differently in the workplace based on my religious beliefs:

Religious discrimination against women. The texts of the Torah, Bible and Quran preach discrimination against women, degradation and subjugation of women, and even violence against women! In other words, the texts of these "holy books" systematically ensure a second-class status for one half of the world population - women.

Don't really feel this way, but can you start justifying business decisions based on religious beliefs?

 

[DaLincolnJones]

all this has to be within reason. For instance my religion states that posters named DalincolnJones are not allowed to voice their opinion on sportstwo web page. You are clearly in violation of my religious freedoms.

I suppose if you could show a past pattern, and the ability to prove that this was in fact a religion, then you may have a point..but,then, I would have to take you to court to force my will upon your beliefs..get the "inclusive" liberal groups to take all of their attention off forcing gays in the boy scouts and focus on allowing DaLincolns in to your church..ya know, you could have big problems...if obama had a brother, he might have been named DaLincoln....

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

all this has to be within reason. For instance my religion states that posters named DalincolnJones are not allowed to voice their opinion on sportstwo web page. You are clearly in violation of my religious freedoms.

Impossible scenario.

DalincolnJones does not post opinions - he posts facts!

 

[Denny Crane]

I have no idea if the bakery will settle or not. But I disagree with you about the second couple. If the bakery loses or settles this lawsuit for something other than a nominal settlement, when a second gay couple comes to their business, they will make the cake or at least not say they won't make the cake because the couple is gay.

Assuming they are smart business people.

If they're people of conviction, they will behave the same way every time for the same reason. Even at the expense of going out of business.

 

[Denny Crane]

I treat woman differently in the workplace based on my religious beliefs:

Religious discrimination against women. The texts of the Torah, Bible and Quran preach discrimination against women, degradation and subjugation of women, and even violence against women! In other words, the texts of these "holy books" systematically ensure a second-class status for one half of the world population - women.

Don't really feel this way, but can you start justifying business decisions based on religious beliefs?

Women would start their own businesses or work for those run by enlightened people. The other businesses would suffer from a lesser talent pool to recruit from.

I'm not seeing the point.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

I treat woman differently in the workplace based on my religious beliefs:

Religious discrimination against women. The texts of the Torah, Bible and Quran preach discrimination against women, degradation and subjugation of women, and even violence against women! In other words, the texts of these "holy books" systematically ensure a second-class status for one half of the world population - women.


Don't really feel this way, but can you start justifying business decisions based on religious beliefs?

what is being over looked is the simple fact that the gay couple have the right to choose where they shop at, just like the shop owner has the right to refuse to sale to whom ever he wants. I know I have told peiople to pound sand and that the old saying in retail isthat you never want to buy a bad customer.

who here really kniows..could have been that the gay couple were pains in the ass and the store owner chose to pass..there are hundreds of ways this could have played out, and seldom is it a black and white thing

 

[The_Lillard_King]

If they're people of conviction, they will behave the same way every time for the same reason. Even at the expense of going out of business.

Well that is great for their personal life . . . but that isn't good business.

 

[Denny Crane]

Well that is great for their personal life . . . but that isn't good business.

Not good for business is their penalty.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Women would start their own businesses or work for those run by enlightened people. The other businesses would suffer from a lesser talent pool to recruit from.

I'm not seeing the point.

So you believe I should be able to discriminate against women and that market forces will take care of this situation. I disagree and think the gov't should make it illegal to discriminate based on sex. But at least we understand where we each stand on this topic.

I'm surprised you don't see my point, since my point of view is the current law.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Not good for business is their penalty.

Not enough of a penalty in my view (not this situation since I know very little about it.) But" not good for business" doesn't cut it in the US when discriminating against woman in the workplace.

I doubt the US will go into this "let the free market take care of itself" mode . . . but I do understand that line of argument. Do you see any problems with monopolies, or should the free market regulate that too?

 

[DaLincolnJones]

So you believe I should be able to discriminate against women at that market forces will take care of this situation. I disagree and think the gov't should make it illegal to discriminate based on sex. But at least we understand where we each stand on this topic.

I'm surprised you don't see my point, since my point of view is the current law.

ToB..interesting to think about..YMCA was Young MENS Christian Assoc, Boy Scouts were all boys...All service clubs, Elks, Eagles, OOD Fellows etc, were all male..most religous service clubs ie Knights of Columbus etc were Men..Masons and like wise social clubs, were men..

 

[The_Lillard_King]

what is being over looked is the simple fact that the gay couple have the right to choose where they shop at, just like the shop owner has the right to refuse to sale to whom ever he wants. I know I have told peiople to pound sand and that the old saying in retail isthat you never want to buy a bad customer.

who here really kniows..could have been that the gay couple were pains in the ass and the store owner chose to pass..there are hundreds of ways this could have played out, and seldom is it a black and white thing

Hey, I'm not pretending to know what this is really all about. Really we don't even know if the bakery said those things as it sound like they are just allegations right now.

I somehow got sucked into more the idea if gov't and civil suits should be involved in regulating businesses or do we just let the free market regulate business conduct. I fall more on the side of regulation . . ..which probably makes you and others cringe . . . but that is just how I feel.

 

[blazerboy30]

I have no idea if the bakery will settle or not. But I disagree with you about the second couple. If the bakery loses or settles this lawsuit for something other than a nominal settlement, when a second gay couple comes to their business, they will make the cake or at least not say they won't make the cake because the couple is gay.

Assuming they are smart business people.

If they were smart business people, they wouldn't have started this issue in the first place.

 

[blazerboy30]

So you believe I should be able to discriminate against women and that market forces will take care of this situation. I disagree and think the gov't should make it illegal to discriminate based on sex. But at least we understand where we each stand on this topic.

I'm surprised you don't see my point, since my point of view is the current law.

In all seriousness, I guarantee you subconsciously discriminate and are prejudice about many things like race and sex. The government can't and shouldn't try to do something about that. You have your rights as well.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

ToB..interesting to think about..YMCA was Young MENS Christian Assoc, Boy Scouts were all boys...All service clubs, Elks, Eagles, OOD Fellows etc, were all male..most religous service clubs ie Knights of Columbus etc were Men..Masons and like wise social clubs, were men..

There are also the all men golf courses and all woman fitness facilities. I don't know how I feel about all that (really not opposed to all that). I like to think of myself somewhere in the middle (probably come across as far left).

Some regulation is necessary, but there can definitely be too much regulation and too much sensitivity about this topic (like the situation in this thread). Really not an extremist kind of guy but that is because these are complicated issues, IMO, that can't be handled with a broad brush. Denying a promotion based on sex-wrong, should not be allowed; not making a cake because someone is gay-wrong but who cares; allowing all mens golf course-OK. My reasoning might not be consistent, but there is where I stand.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

If they were smart business people, they wouldn't have started this issue in the first place.

Talk about an over-generalization - this is not necessarily true. But some people care more about their beliefs than money/business. And frankly, there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[blazerboy30]

Talk about an over-generalization - this is not necessarily true. But some people care more about their beliefs than money/business. And frankly, there's nothing wrong with that.

Uh, you just agreed with me. I didn't say there was something wrong with valuing their beliefs over money and business. But that doesn't make them good business people.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

In all seriousness, I guarantee you subconsciously discriminate and are prejudice about many things like race and sex. The government can't and shouldn't try to do something about that. You have your rights as well.

I agree, very easy to discriminate and not get held accountable. But I don't think the gov't should then just take the policy of saying it is OK. It is hard to enforce and I don't think the gov't should be spending tons of money trying to figure ways to enforce it. But if it is blatant and can be proven, I do think the gov't or a civil suit should step in.

 

[blazerboy30]

I agree, very easy to discriminate and not get held accountable. But I don't think the gov't should then just take the policy of saying it is OK. It is hard to enforce and I don't think the gov't should be spending tons of money trying to figure ways to enforce it. But if it is blatant and can be proven, I do think the gov't or a civil suit should step in.

IMO, the government should only be trying to enforce the rights of the citizens. That's all the government was ever supposed to do: uphold the rights of the citizens.

No individual has a "right" to have somebody make them a cake, even if that individual wants to pay for it.

What right of the couple was taken away or infringed upon in this case?

 

[MarAzul]

It was obviously a phony order for a wedding cake. They can't get a marriage license in Oregon.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

IMO, the government should only be trying to enforce the rights of the citizens. That's all the government was ever supposed to do: uphold the rights of the citizens.

No individual has a "right" to have somebody make them a cake, even if that individual wants to pay for it.

What right of the couple was taken away or infringed upon in this case?

well stated and repped

 

[DaLincolnJones]

It was obviously a phony order for a wedding cake. They can't get a marriage license in Oregon.

now that sounds like Lars

 

[The_Lillard_King]

IMO, the government should only be trying to enforce the rights of the citizens. That's all the government was ever supposed to do: uphold the rights of the citizens.

No individual has a "right" to have somebody make them a cake, even if that individual wants to pay for it.

What right of the couple was taken away or infringed upon in this case?

The couple doesn't have a right to make someone make them a cake. But I believe they have a right as citizens not to be discriminated against and be denied just because they are gay. It is silly in this case because we are talking about a cake . . . not exactly the best teat case to file a lawsuit on. But in general, don't citizens have a right not to be discriminated against based on sex orientation.

Doesn't this go back a little to Rosa Parks. Does she have a right to ride in the front of the bus or can a bus company (say greyhound) insist that Black people can only ride in the back of the bus. What rights do people have to force a bus company to give them rides or allow them to sit in the front of the bus.

Yet do we want a society where a bus company is allowed to make Black people and gay people ride in the back of a bus?

 

[Denny Crane]

The couple doesn't have a right to make someone make them a cake. But I believe they have a right as citizens not to be discriminated against and be denied just because they are gay. It is silly in this case because we are talking about a cake . . . not exactly the best teat case to file a lawsuit on. But in general, don't citizens have a right not to be discriminated against based on sex orientation.

Doesn't this go back a little to Rosa Parks. Does she have a right to ride in the front of the bus or can a bus company (say greyhound) insist that Black people can only ride in the back of the bus. What rights do people have to force a bus company to give them rides or allow them to sit in the front of the bus.

Yet do we want a society where a bus company is allowed to make Black people and gay people ride in the back of a bus?

People boycotted the bus company because of how Rosa Parks was treated and the company suffered significant revenue loss. The black people of Montgomery boycotted the bus system for 381 days.

And it was the government that made the law requiring her to sit in the back of the bus.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

hmm.. I dont equate gay with black

gay is not a race

if you dont express you sexual preferance, I probaly would not know, or even better, I dont fucking care

I dont hear about gay on gay killings

(ok the last was a jest)

 

[porkchopexpress]

hmm.. I dont equate gay with black

gay is not a race

if you dont express you sexual preferance, I probaly would not know, or even better, I dont fucking care

I dont hear about gay on gay killings

(ok the last was a jest)

Sexual orientation is still a protected class though. Like sex, race, age and religion. You don't get to decide which equates with the others.

 

[Denny Crane]

Sexual orientation is still a protected class though. Like sex, race, age and religion. You don't get to decide which equates with the others.

As of June 26.

 

[porkchopexpress]

As of June 26.

In Oregon?