ACLU sues baker for discrimination

PrintSmith wrote: You have never had, nor should you ever have, a right to the labor of others for your benefit Brandon. Involuntary servitude is never a just solution.

I see. You're looking forward to a better, more enlightened future. A future where stores and restaurants will not be forced by an unjust and brutal society to serve queers and coons. Because that's tantamount to slavery.

PrintSmith wrote:
[snip]

Equally childish to call someone stupid simply because they don't share your opinions, isn't it? And no, Parent, you are not right anymore than those who subjected others to involuntary servitude before you were. Your attitude may be the majority one at the moment, but might doesn't by default make right and just.

[and more snip]

So the civil rights laws that were put in place in the 60's were unjust? Just asking, because Mr. Masterpiece baker could have just as well decided not to enter into involuntary servitude with a black person.

There are numerous branches of Christianity that believe the black man/woman to be inferior. They are against inter-racial marriages. There are basically the same as any racists but they strongly use their "christian" beliefs to prove their point.

You have the Christian Identity movement which covers 39 groups in the US.

11th Hour Remnant Messenger
Abundant Life Fellowship
America's Promise Ministries
By Yahweh's Design
Christian Identity Church – Aryan Nations
Christ's Gospel Fellowship
Church of Jesus Christ (Arkansas)
Church of Jesus Christ Christian, Aryan Nations of Missouri
Church of the Sons of YHWH
Church of True Israel
Covenant People's Ministry
Ecclesiastical Council for the Restoration of Covenant Israel
Fellowship of God's Covenant People
First Century Christian Ministries
Kingdom Identity Ministries
Kinsman Redeemer Ministries
Mission to Israel
Non-Universal Teaching Ministries
Reformed Church of Israel
Scriptures for America Ministries
Shepherd's Call Ministries, The
The Church of Jesus Christ Christian / Aryan Nations
The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord
United Church of YHWH
Virginia Publishing Company
Watchmen Bible Study Group
Weisman Publications
Yahweh's Truth

That's just a start. Here's their basic religious views about black people.

Racialism, or race based philosophy is the core tenet of Christian Identity, and most CI adherents are White Nationalists or support racial segregation. Some believe that Jews are genetically compelled by their Satanic or Edomite ancestry to carry on a conspiracy against the Adamic seedline and today have achieved almost complete control of the Earth through their illegitimate claim to the white race's status as God's chosen people.[41] As a general rule, Christian Identity followers adhere to the traditional orthodox Christian views on the role of women, abortion, and homosexuality, and view racial miscegenation as a sin and a violation of God's laws as dictated in Genesis of "kind after kind" (Ex. 21:22, Lev. 20:13).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity

Now if one of these pieces of work denied baking a cake for a multiracial couple due to his religious belief, would you support his decision? Would you be using your "involuntary servitude theory" to justify his/her decision not to bake the cake. Simple question. Just a "yes" or "no" answer will suffice.

Brandon wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: You have never had, nor should you ever have, a right to the labor of others for your benefit Brandon. Involuntary servitude is never a just solution.

I see. You're looking forward to a better, more enlightened future. A future where stores and restaurants will not be forced by an unjust and brutal society to serve queers and coons. Because that's tantamount to slavery.

Well at least we finally have one collectivist who is willing to admit that force is being used to compel one to labor for the benefit of another against their will, the very definition of what involuntary servitude happens to be by the way. That's progress I suppose.

Your argument about involuntary servitude was considered unutterably lame by the Supreme Court fifty years ago and age has not improved it.
Since one can spend only so much time crying about civil rights, why don't you answer Walter's question with a "yes" or "no?"

Walter L Newton wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: Equally childish to call someone stupid simply because they don't share your opinions, isn't it? And no, Parent, you are not right anymore than those who subjected others to involuntary servitude before you were. Your attitude may be the majority one at the moment, but might doesn't by default make right and just.

So the civil rights laws that were put in place in the 60's were unjust? Just asking, because Mr. Masterpiece baker could have just as well decided not to enter into involuntary servitude with a black person.

Correct Walter, any law which seeks to compel one to labor for another against their will, against their conscience, is an unjust law. You cannot achieve good by evil means. That's pretty straightforward, isn't it?

Walter L Newton wrote: Now if one of these pieces of work denied baking a cake for a multiracial couple due to his religious belief, would you support his decision? Would you be using your "involuntary servitude theory" to justify his/her decision not to bake the cake. Simple question. Just a "yes" or "no" answer will suffice.

Are you asking if I would support his decision or are you asking me if I would support protecting his right to practice his religion according to his, as opposed to your, conscience Walter. The two are not one and the same. I wouldn't march in a KKK parade through Harlem, but I damned sure support their right to have that parade. Know why? The next person to have their rights infringed might be me; and if that happens, I want to know that others will stand by my side, even if they don't necessarily agree with my particular POV on that particular issue.

I want an honest society Walter, not one with a false facade. Phillips can effect the same outcome by other means. He can deal with planners only and stop selling wedding cakes directly to brides and grooms. Sure, they can be present to nail down the particulars, but all Phillips has to do is not sell directly to the public to avoid being forced to work against his will. He can refuse to bake a cake for a wedding planner who is planning a homosexual wedding even if he can't refuse the homosexuals themselves. So what is the real effect of the law when it can be gotten around so easily? Why put on airs? The man doesn't want to bake wedding cakes for homosexuals. The solution to that is exactly what the homosexual couple did - find a baker whose conscience permits them to bake the cake they want. You are never entitled to the labor of someone else Walter, you have no right to claim their labor for yourself.

Brandon wrote: Your argument about involuntary servitude was considered unutterably lame by the Supreme Court fifty years ago and age has not improved it.
Since one can spend only so much time crying about civil rights, why don't you answer Walter's question with a "yes" or "no?"

And a few years before that the Supreme Court said that separate drinking fountains and separate seating areas were perfectly permissible. What will a future court say 50 years from now Brandon? What does your crystal ball say about whether a future society will view the current "interpretation" as just or unjust?

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. That is the text of the 13th Amendment Brandon. The text doesn't give Congress the right to legislate their own exemptions, it provides for one exemption and only one exemption, and "public accommodation" isn't the exemption it lists.

PrintSmith wrote:

Walter L Newton wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: Equally childish to call someone stupid simply because they don't share your opinions, isn't it? And no, Parent, you are not right anymore than those who subjected others to involuntary servitude before you were. Your attitude may be the majority one at the moment, but might doesn't by default make right and just.

So the civil rights laws that were put in place in the 60's were unjust? Just asking, because Mr. Masterpiece baker could have just as well decided not to enter into involuntary servitude with a black person.

Correct Walter, any law which seeks to compel one to labor for another against their will, against their conscience, is an unjust law. You cannot achieve good by evil means. That's pretty straightforward, isn't it?

Walter L Newton wrote: Now if one of these pieces of work denied baking a cake for a multiracial couple due to his religious belief, would you support his decision? Would you be using your "involuntary servitude theory" to justify his/her decision not to bake the cake. Simple question. Just a "yes" or "no" answer will suffice.

Are you asking if I would support his decision or are you asking me if I would support protecting his right to practice his religion according to his, as opposed to your, conscience Walter. The two are not one and the same. I wouldn't march in a KKK parade through Harlem, but I damned sure support their right to have that parade. Know why? The next person to have their rights infringed might be me; and if that happens, I want to know that others will stand by my side, even if they don't necessarily agree with my particular POV on that particular issue.

I want an honest society Walter, not one with a false facade. Phillips can effect the same outcome by other means. He can deal with planners only and stop selling wedding cakes directly to brides and grooms. Sure, they can be present to nail down the particulars, but all Phillips has to do is not sell directly to the public to avoid being forced to work against his will. He can refuse to bake a cake for a wedding planner who is planning a homosexual wedding even if he can't refuse the homosexuals themselves. So what is the real effect of the law when it can be gotten around so easily? Why put on airs? The man doesn't want to bake wedding cakes for homosexuals. The solution to that is exactly what the homosexual couple did - find a baker whose conscience permits them to bake the cake they want. You are never entitled to the labor of someone else Walter, you have no right to claim their labor for yourself.

Would you support his religious decision not to bake the cake for a multiracial couple. Yes or No?

I don't need all the explanations.

PrintSmith wrote: And a few years before that the Supreme Court said that separate drinking fountains and separate seating areas were perfectly permissible. What will a future court say 50 years from now Brandon? What does your crystal ball say about whether a future society will view the current "interpretation" as just or unjust?

Given the current polling about whether or not it's okay to be gay*, my crystal ball tells me you're going to be very frustrated and angry for the rest of your life.

*Links available upon request - unlike you, I don't make crap up as I go.

I wonder if the ACLU would also choose to sue an Islamic baker who did the same thing?

Walter L Newton wrote:

PrintSmith wrote:

Walter L Newton wrote: Now if one of these pieces of work denied baking a cake for a multiracial couple due to his religious belief, would you support his decision? Would you be using your "involuntary servitude theory" to justify his/her decision not to bake the cake. Simple question. Just a "yes" or "no" answer will suffice.

Are you asking if I would support his decision or are you asking me if I would support protecting his right to practice his religion according to his, as opposed to your, conscience Walter. The two are not one and the same. I wouldn't march in a KKK parade through Harlem, but I damned sure support their right to have that parade. Know why? The next person to have their rights infringed might be me; and if that happens, I want to know that others will stand by my side, even if they don't necessarily agree with my particular POV on that particular issue.

I want an honest society Walter, not one with a false facade. Phillips can effect the same outcome by other means. He can deal with planners only and stop selling wedding cakes directly to brides and grooms. Sure, they can be present to nail down the particulars, but all Phillips has to do is not sell directly to the public to avoid being forced to work against his will. He can refuse to bake a cake for a wedding planner who is planning a homosexual wedding even if he can't refuse the homosexuals themselves. So what is the real effect of the law when it can be gotten around so easily? Why put on airs? The man doesn't want to bake wedding cakes for homosexuals. The solution to that is exactly what the homosexual couple did - find a baker whose conscience permits them to bake the cake they want. You are never entitled to the labor of someone else Walter, you have no right to claim their labor for yourself.

Would you support his religious decision not to bake the cake for a multiracial couple. Yes or No?

I don't need all the explanations.

But I need one from you before your question can be answered yes or no Walter. What do you mean by support his decision? Do you mean agree with the decision he made or do you mean support the right he has to make that decision? The two are not the same thing and your question could mean either depending upon which context one wishes to apply. So tell me, precisely, what it is that you are asking and I will answer your query. You want a definitive answer and I want a definitive question to answer.