Judge orders Colorado baker to serve gay couples

[Blasveck]

It goes both ways concerning non-discrimination.
At least, it should be.

Otherwise, what are we even doing? Favoring certain groups over others?

Quite. Logic would dictate that I would be forced to do so.

My general ideas regarding nondiscrimination would enforce such a thing on myself. That's one of the places where my personal interest and my notions regarding societal interest crash head-on.

Of course. But that's the trade-off for a fair and free society.

A little bit of anger here, a pissed-off business owner there, and society as a whole will benefit in the long run.

Or at least, the peoples who have historically been discriminated against have.

[Tel]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. When you open your doors, you open it for everyone; not just the people you like.

The alternative is basically legalizing segregation.

The last thing Colorado needs is segregation, in case you hadn't noticed.

Hard cheese for this bigoted baker. Hopefully Judges won't have to do this in the future.

[Warped Aggression]

I think he has a right to refuse business to who he wants but if he refuses to serve gays then thats just business he is losing and he will probably lose from other people boycotting him as well.

[Galloism]

Quite. Logic would dictate that I would be forced to do so.

My general ideas regarding nondiscrimination would enforce such a thing on myself. That's one of the places where my personal interest and my notions regarding societal interest crash head-on.

Of course. But that's the trade-off for a fair and free society.

A little bit of anger here, a pissed-off business owner there, and society as a whole will benefit in the long run.

Or at least, the peoples who have historically been discriminated against have.

I think what bothers me the most is I would be furthering their actions. Preparing a return for a scummy person doesn't bother me overmuch. It's just a tax return.

Furthering their actions, actually assisting them in doing scummy things: that's what bothers me.

It's why cases like the above are so hard. It wasn't prepping a birthday cake for a person who happens to be homosexual. It's not discrimination based on who they are.

It's refusal to support a particular type of event, namely, a homosexual marriage. That's quite a bit different, and harder.

[New Socialist South Africa]

Well then I am afraid you aren't going to be able to tolerate yourself, because you are doing exactly what it is you say you hate, being intolerant.

"We learn to fear, but we can be taught to love." - Nelson Mandela

"Peace cannot be maintained by force, it can only be achieved through understanding." - Albert Einstein

"An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind." - Mahatma Gandhi

Really? Calling out bigots being bigots is being violent now?

Yeah I'm not taking you seriously now. Why should I allow people who wish to suppress people by laws and cultural ideas because of their skin color, religion, sexuality, gender?

Fuck that noise.

Mass passive but confrontational resistance is what got the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 signed in the first place, or have you never heard of Martin Luther King Jr.? Also the peaceful but confrontational United Democratic Front (UDF) and later even larger Mass Democratic Movement (MDM) used mass boycotts, strikes, stay aways, protests and demonstartions to help the violent Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation) and international pressures to bring an end to Apartheid.

Violent protest movements are nothing without mass peaceful but confrontational protest movements, although violent protest movements do help and speed up the process.

[Ifreann]

This is a disgusting violation of religious freedom. I don't agree with the baker's views, but every business has the right to refuse service to anyone, even if they're discriminatory.

He probably should have mentioned that during the court case.

[New Socialist South Africa]

Well then I am afraid you aren't going to be able to tolerate yourself, because you are doing exactly what it is you say you hate, being intolerant.

"We learn to fear, but we can be taught to love." - Nelson Mandela

"Peace cannot be maintained by force, it can only be achieved through understanding." - Albert Einstein

"An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind." - Mahatma Gandhi

You're not doing this with a straight face, right?

I am. Who do you respect and consider a role model?

[Cannot think of a name]

You're not doing this with a straight face, right?

I am. Who do you respect and consider a role model?

Yeah, you're having a goof. Have fun with that.

[New Socialist South Africa]

I am. Who do you respect and consider a role model?

Yeah, you're having a goof. Have fun with that.

I asked you a question.

[Blasveck]

Of course. But that's the trade-off for a fair and free society.

A little bit of anger here, a pissed-off business owner there, and society as a whole will benefit in the long run.

Or at least, the peoples who have historically been discriminated against have.

I think what bothers me the most is I would be furthering their actions. Preparing a return for a scummy person doesn't bother me overmuch. It's just a tax return.

Furthering their actions, actually assisting them in doing scummy things: that's what bothers me.

It's why cases like the above are so hard. It wasn't prepping a birthday cake for a person who happens to be homosexual. It's not discrimination based on who they are.

It's refusal to support a particular type of event, namely, a homosexual marriage. That's quite a bit different, and harder.

I suppose, in return, the baker will be protected from discrimination if a certain person/business decided to refuse them services on the same grounds.

We make do with what we have. Either we protect everybody, or leave everybody's fate to the whims of others.

If that makes any sense.

[Galloism]

I think what bothers me the most is I would be furthering their actions. Preparing a return for a scummy person doesn't bother me overmuch. It's just a tax return.

Furthering their actions, actually assisting them in doing scummy things: that's what bothers me.

It's why cases like the above are so hard. It wasn't prepping a birthday cake for a person who happens to be homosexual. It's not discrimination based on who they are.

It's refusal to support a particular type of event, namely, a homosexual marriage. That's quite a bit different, and harder.

I suppose, in return, the baker will be protected from discrimination if a certain person/business decided to refuse them services on the same grounds.

We make do with what we have. Either we protect everybody, or leave everybody's fate to the whims of others.

If that makes any sense.

Do you understand the distinction I'm making between being required to serve a person regardless of who they are, vs being required to serve in such a way that furthers or assists actions which the owner finds repulsive?

[Estado Paulista]

I see nothing wrong with it.

[Tel]

You're not doing this with a straight face, right?

I am.

[Farnhamia]

I suppose, in return, the baker will be protected from discrimination if a certain person/business decided to refuse them services on the same grounds.

We make do with what we have. Either we protect everybody, or leave everybody's fate to the whims of others.

If that makes any sense.

Do you understand the distinction I'm making between being required to serve a person regardless of who they are, vs being required to serve in such a way that furthers or assists actions which the owner finds repulsive?

I understand the distinction but what would you, Gallo? Writing anti-discrimination laws to read, "Unless, of course, the thought of providing service to one of these classes of people makes you nauseous, in which case file a From 23947/45C for an exemption"?

[New Socialist South Africa]

I am.

So, who do you respect and admire?

[Herrebrugh]

So, who do you respect and admire?

Jelle Brandt Corstius.

[Tel]

So, who do you respect and admire?

My favorites:

Alan Turing, Abraham Lincoln and F.D.R.

I was more finding your logic amusing from earlier, not your role models. Forgive me if I implied that.

[Galloism]

Do you understand the distinction I'm making between being required to serve a person regardless of who they are, vs being required to serve in such a way that furthers or assists actions which the owner finds repulsive?

I understand the distinction but what would you, Gallo? Writing anti-discrimination laws to read, "Unless, of course, the thought of providing service to one of these classes of people makes you nauseous, in which case file a From 23947/45C for an exemption"?

I'm not sure really. It's a tough situation.

I mean, the thing that always comes to mind is the pacifist boot manufacturer who makes really excellent boots.

Should he be required to sell to the military? What about to someone who part of a rogue militia group with a history of violence? Can a pacifist sell products to people he or she knows will commit violence using them?

No, he'd have to close, even though he's an honorable man. I don't care for that result.

I'm not exactly sure what the answer is. It's just not as simple and clear cut as nationstates would make it out to be.

[Blasveck]

I suppose, in return, the baker will be protected from discrimination if a certain person/business decided to refuse them services on the same grounds.

We make do with what we have. Either we protect everybody, or leave everybody's fate to the whims of others.

If that makes any sense.

Do you understand the distinction I'm making between being required to serve a person regardless of who they are, vs being required to serve in such a way that furthers or assists actions which the owner finds repulsive?

I do.

As I said, the baker also receives protections from being denied service based on a cause or event that somebody else finds repulsive and doesn't want to further.

Would you rather have it another way? I'm not trying to sound accusatory either. I'm just curious.

[New Socialist South Africa]

So, who do you respect and admire?

Jelle Brandt Corstius.

Ok cool, and have his books taught you anything about the world and society that you use in your day to day life?

[Herrebrugh]

Jelle Brandt Corstius.

Ok cool, and have his books taught you anything about the world and society that you use in your day to day life?

I didn't read any of his books, though, I liked "Van Moskou tot Magadan".

[Gramonia]

I am all for homosexual rights, but I personally think that the baker should be allowed to serve who he wants, he is just losing money. The government should not interfere with people's businesses. Is the baker a jerk for banning gays? Yes he is. Can we take control of his freedoms and mind and tell him to think otherwise? No we can't, so the homosexuals should find another business that will accept them. There is no difference between heteros and homos, but the baker thinks otherwise, and he has a right to do so.

[Farnhamia]

I understand the distinction but what would you, Gallo? Writing anti-discrimination laws to read, "Unless, of course, the thought of providing service to one of these classes of people makes you nauseous, in which case file a From 23947/45C for an exemption"?

I'm not sure really. It's a tough situation.

I mean, the thing that always comes to mind is the pacifist boot manufacturer who makes really excellent boots.

Should he be required to sell to the military? What about to someone who part of a rogue militia group with a history of violence? Can a pacifist sell products to people he or she knows will commit violence using them?

No, he'd have to close, even though he's an honorable man. I don't care for that result.

I'm not exactly sure what the answer is. It's just not as simple and clear cut as nationstates would make it out to be.

The bootmaker is not required to sell anything to the government. Government contracts are (generally) bid for, all he would have to do is not put in a bid. The pacifist other person, if he or she knows the rogue militia group is going to commit violent acts, should report them to the government. And refuse to sell to them, basing the refusal on the knowledge that they will commit violent acts using his or her products. That's not discrimination, that's being a good citizen. The baker in this case seemed to feel that his or her religious beliefs grant an exemption from anti-discrimination laws. They do not.

[Farnhamia]

I am all for homosexual rights, but I personally think that the baker should be allowed to serve who he wants, he is just losing money. The government should not interfere with people's businesses. Is the baker a jerk for banning gays? Yes he is. Can we take control of his freedoms and mind and tell him to think otherwise? No we can't, so the homosexuals should find another business that will accept them. There is no difference between heteros and homos, but the baker thinks otherwise, and he has a right to do so.

He has the right to think that. When he opens his business each morning "to the public" he is required by law to serve all the public, not just the ones he approves of.

[Farnhamia]

Ok cool, and have his books taught you anything about the world and society that you use in your day to day life?

I didn't read any of his books, though, I liked "Van Moskou tot Magadan".

That's nice. Not on topic, but that's nice.