ACLU sues baker for discrimination

..... And the law trumps us all, I'm unsure exactly what the non discrimination laws say, or what they cover, but generally I believe that you cannot discriminate in a public workplace, cannot refuse service to minorities, or based on gender, unless his bakery is a religious institution /church /affiliated with a church, I don't think he had the law on his side.

The man offered to bake them any other cake they wanted archer, he would have baked them pies, he would have baked them cookies; he simply, on religious grounds, felt unable, uncomfortable, inappropriate, baking them the wedding cake they desired. That is not discrimination, that is exercising the freedom to worship according to one's own conscience. It is excercising the freedom to labor for the person of one's own choosing.

I own a print shop. Must I print a homosexual porn magazine if asked to produce it? Of course not. I have the freedom, denied to this baker by the court ruling, of choosing to produce or reject a job based on the content of the job. If I find homosexual porn personally distasteful, I cannot be made to produce it using he force of government simply because I own a print shop and offer printing services.

You simply cannot legislate away freedom of association archer, it doesn't work that way. Your rights do not allow an infringement of my own, that has historically been the point at which one's individual rights ends. You are not allowed to excercise your rights at the expense of my own. The homosexual couple have no right to the labor of others, we no longer allow slavery or involuntary servitude in this Union of ours.

PrintSmith wrote: The man offered to bake them any other cake they wanted archer, he would have baked them pies, he would have baked them cookies; he simply, on religious grounds, felt unable, uncomfortable, inappropriate, baking them the wedding cake they desired. That is not discrimination, that is exercising the freedom to worship according to one's own conscience. It is excercising the freedom to labor for the person of one's own choosing.

I own a print shop. Must I print a homosexual porn magazine if asked to produce it? Of course not. I have the freedom, denied to this baker by the court ruling, of choosing to produce or reject a job based on the content of the job. If I find homosexual porn personally distasteful, I cannot be made to produce it using he force of government simply because I own a print shop and offer printing services.

You simply cannot legislate away freedom of association archer, it doesn't work that way. Your rights do not allow an infringement of my own, that has historically been the point at which one's individual rights ends. You are not allowed to excercise your rights at the expense of my own. The homosexual couple have no right to the labor of others, we no longer allow slavery or involuntary servitude in this Union of ours.

According to the judge, you may not have that right anymore.

archer wrote:

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......

I'm trying to figure out how the customer in this situation is a slave, and why the shop owner shouldn't have the same rights of conscience. The customer has an infinite number of irrational justifications for not patronizing a certain business based on anything from race to religion. It seems to me that that the customer has more freedom to discriminate than any business owner.

If Walter, you mean that a business owner does not have the right to discriminate against a customer based on their race, age, gender, and now sexual orientation, then yeah...... You have lost that right. You can't refuse to serve an African American couple in a restaurant even if it goes against your own prejudices. If the judge had ruled in favor of the baker we would be back on the path to the days when lunch counters were segregated, when hate ruled and equality was described as separate but equal. Equal treatment under the law does not mean equal treatment only when you decide that the person is worthy of that treatment. If you cannot bring yourself to serve certain people then you don't start a businesses open to the public.

archer wrote: If Walter, you mean that a business owner does not have the right to discriminate against a customer based on their race, age, gender, and now sexual orientation, then yeah...... You have lost that right. You can't refuse to serve an African American couple in a restaurant even if it goes against your own prejudices. If the judge had ruled in favor of the baker we would be back on the path to the days when lunch counters were segregated, when hate ruled and equality was described as separate but equal. Equal treatment under the law does not mean equal treatment only when you decide that the person is worthy of that treatment. If you cannot bring yourself to serve certain people then you don't start a businesses open to the public.

There you go, jumping all over me. a liberal conservative. I was pointing out to PrintSmith that he/she could be in the same situation and that they had better think about it. I'm in favor of the ruling.

Your partisan bigotry is so strong I can smell it from Arizona to Conifer. Stuff it bigot.

He didn't refuse to serve them archer, he refused to bake them a specific cake. That you refuse to accept that is curious. The baker also refuses to do Halloween themed cakes, also for religious purposes. Would these homosexuals have sued him for refusing to sell them a Halloween themed cake as well? Must he be made to violate his religious principles using the coercive force of government? Isn't that a form of religious persecution? Is that not passing a law which infringes upon the free exercise of religion?

This, then, is a prime example of why government should not be in the business of defining what a marriage is, or is not. Marriage involves more than the legal contract aspects which is the only realm in which government has any interests. From a government perspective, a marriage is a civil contract between two people. Nothing more, nothing less.

Of course I am free to refuse to sell my labor, of course I am free to decide whether or not a request for my services is in compliance with my own morals. Of course I cannot be made to labor for you against my principles, my morals, my religious beliefs. What the baker did is not different than my refusal to print a homosexual porn magazine would be. I decide what jobs I will accept. I decide what jobs I will produce. I cannot be made to labor involuntarily for anyone, for any reason. That is a violation of my natural rights. You have no rights to my labor. I, and I alone, decide who I will labor for and how much I charge in compensation for that labor.

The baker made a conscious decision that he would not labor in opposition to his religious beliefs. He doesn't make Halloween cakes, he doesn't make wedding cakes for homosexuals. He likely wouldn't make a cake decorated with a Swastika celebrating the birth of Hitler either. Can he be sued for failing to make that cake now as well? After all, that is the same form of discrimination that he excersized in refusing to produce the homosexual wedding cake, isn't it? Must he produce a Halloween cake now too for anyone who requests one or face being fined for his refusal?

PrintSmith wrote: He didn't refuse to serve them archer, he refused to bake them a specific cake. That you refuse to accept that is curious. .... [ad infinatum]

I think the judge has overruled you, no matter what your opinion is.

Sheesh Walter, I was agreeing with you, read the post, it too was a response to PrintSmith's post.

archer wrote: Sheesh Walter, I was agreeing with you, read the post, it too was a response to PrintSmith's post.

You addressed me and used the word "you" throughout the whole message. Backtracking becomes you.