ACLU sues baker for discrimination

Again, it should not be the business owner who gets to decide what you can buy and what you can't. If you sell to the general public then you don't get to exclude people based on your own prejudices. It was nice to see the judge agrees, he /she probably knows the law better than we do .. I know, all judges are liberal, except when they are not.

Dystopia

Tick tock.

Let me get this straight....When Bloomberg tells New Yorkers they can't have large sugary drinks, that's bad (and I agreed). But a shop owner telling a whole class of citizens he won't sell them a cake because they don't meet his moral code, well that's good. Conservative logic? Oxymoron.

Again, it should not be the business owner who gets to decide what you can buy and what you can't. If you sell to the general public then you don't get to exclude people based on your own prejudices.

So, if I'm a bartender, I can't refuse to sell a drink to someone that I believe is already intoxicated?

jf1acai wrote:

Again, it should not be the business owner who gets to decide what you can buy and what you can't. If you sell to the general public then you don't get to exclude people based on your own prejudices.

So, if I'm a bartender, I can't refuse to sell a drink to someone that I believe is already intoxicated?

I believe that's the law isn't it?

archer wrote: Let me get this straight....When Bloomberg tells New Yorkers they can't have large sugary drinks, that's bad (and I agreed). But a shop owner telling a whole class of citizens he won't sell them a cake because they don't meet his moral code, well that's good. Conservative logic? Oxymoron.

The baker didn't refuse to serve them at all, he refused to sell them a specific cake, with a specific meaning, which he felt violated his religious ethics. The same baker refused to sell cakes with a Halloween theme for the same reasons. He'll make a fall harvest cake, but not a jack-o-lantern one.

Since when does the government get to tell you who you will work for and who you will not? Involuntary servitude is unconstitutional the last I knew. How can you be made to work for somene against your priciples and your own free will? Has the concept of free association disappeared in my lifetime while i wasn't looking? Must I now associate with those of the government's choosing in addition to participating in commerce of the government's choosing?

PrintSmith wrote:

archer wrote: Let me get this straight....When Bloomberg tells New Yorkers they can't have large sugary drinks, that's bad (and I agreed). But a shop owner telling a whole class of citizens he won't sell them a cake because they don't meet his moral code, well that's good. Conservative logic? Oxymoron.

The baker didn't refuse to serve them at all, he refused to sell them a specific cake, with a specific meaning, which he felt violated his religious ethics. The same baker refused to sell cakes with a Halloween theme for the same reasons. He'll make a fall harvest cake, but not a jack-o-lantern one.

Since when does the government get to tell you who you will work for and who you will not? Involuntary servitude is unconstitutional the last I knew. How can you be made to work for somene against your priciples and your own free will? Has the concept of free association disappeared in my lifetime while i wasn't looking? Must I now associate with those of the government's choosing in addition to participating in commerce of the government's choosing?

Why are you more interested in the baker's rights than your own rights? Do you not have the right to walk into your local store and buy whatever it has for sale to the public within the law? . Do you want the store manager to tell you what you can and cannot buy in his store? Do you want him /her to make that decision based on how you look, or what you believe. I'm surprised that you and so many others here have so little regard for our freedoms and rights as citizens in this country. At the beginning of this thread I thought, oh boy, in this thread I am going to look like a Republican because I think that citizens rights should not be infringed upon.... I sure was wrong. Apparently only the government is the bad guy when they take away your rights, when a business does it they are doing the right thing. Logic be dammed.

"Corporations are people, my friend".... To which should be added, and their rights trump yours. Except a judge didn't think so, and neither do I. We will just have to agree to disagree on this issue, I am incapable of understanding your positionn, just as you are of mine. Have a good night, and stay warm.

archer wrote: Let me get this straight....When Bloomberg tells New Yorkers they can't have large sugary drinks, that's bad (and I agreed). But a shop owner telling a whole class of citizens he won't sell them a cake because they don't meet his moral code, well that's good. Conservative logic? Oxymoron.

Who said it is good? Not I. I only said that a baker should not be a slave.

Liberal logic, slavery is good?

Blazer Bob wrote:

archer wrote: Let me get this straight....When Bloomberg tells New Yorkers they can't have large sugary drinks, that's bad (and I agreed). But a shop owner telling a whole class of citizens he won't sell them a cake because they don't meet his moral code, well that's good. Conservative logic? Oxymoron.

Who said it is good? Not I. I only said that a baker should not be a slave.

Liberal logic, slavery is good?

Not even close, I'm curious how you got that from my posts since I am arguing just the opposite. The conservatives here seem to be arguing for a loss of our freedoms and rights, in favor of the business owner, would that not be closer to the enslavement of citizens by business? Why does a business owners rights trump your rights, or mine?

A citizen should never be a slave......