Judge orders Colorado baker to serve gay couples

[Farnhamia]

I do indeed "Love the bomb".

You are the bomb.

Man.

[The Emerald Dawn]

I do indeed "Love the bomb".

You are the bomb.

Man.

*Flexes happily*

[Caninope]

Blind 12 year old paraplegic bus drivers attending Yale.

So we have:
1) A club membership where the applicant does not meet the requirements. Not discrimination.
2) A person who is actively making your job more difficult, possibly causing you to lose business, through their own actions. Not discrimination.
3) Age-based discrimination against minors is somewhat arbitrary on where the dividing line should be (that's another thread), but is legally required in bars.
4) Blind bus drivers would presumably be unable to perform their required duties. Not discrimination.

I seriously can't believe the rhetoric I'm hearing here. How can you be so convinced of the 'rights' of a business yet be blind to the horrors such practices have caused in the very recent past?

Actually, all are cases of discrimination, in the sense that customers are being segregated into different groups and then treated different.

There's nothing inherently wrong with discrimination. There is something inherently wrong with bigoted discrimination.

[Old Tyrannia]

FFS... If the definition of a public accommodation is the one you originally presented, then yes, he would be a public accommodation. He would not be required to serve homosexuals if he was disinclined to do so, however, as this is not part of the definition.

Uh... okay?

Not sure where I EVER said anything otherwise. Never have I said that if the law didn't exist, he would have to follow the law.

If he has to be willing to serve homosexuals to have his business be described as a public accommodation, and he refuses to do so, he is not running a public accommodation. Either way, if the law did not exist then he would be breaking no laws. Case closed. If you cannot understand this, congratulations, you just failed basic logic.

Words cannot express how hilarious this is. Your brilliant argument, your shining beacon of reasoning and logic, is apparently that if the law doesn't exist, you can't break it.

Congratu-fucking-lations, you've made a claim no one argued against! Clearly, you've won the debate with your argument not a single person disagreed with. You sir, deserve a medal.

Why, thank you, dear sir. Though I must confess, I do wonder what all your other posts thus far have been about if you never actually disagreed with a word I said.

Perhaps you suffer from some form of text-based verbal diarrhoea?

[Tekania]

I keep seeing people come in saying he was within his rights to do this, and yet, clearly by law he was not.

You might as well be arguing Jeffery Dahmer was within his right to kill guys and stick their body parts in his freezer... it's has the same validity.

The law can be changed.

Natural rights were originally property rights.

Sure laws can be changed, in this case it should not. We know what happens without minority protection of rights. You've done nothing to prove to me we need to stop, and everything to prove to me that we still need it.

[JuNii]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/06/21795833-judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples
appears that if you own a private business you cant decide who you do business with or not anymore
in this story a judge ordered a Colorado baker to make a cake for a gay couple who married in Massachusetts and wanted a wedding cake to celebrate in Colorado. The Judge said if the baker refused then he would have to pay a fine.

OP thought: I don't like it when some same sex couples use their sexual orientation to force people into doing things their way and if they didn't fold they would face a lawsuit for discrimination. and I read the story their is also discrimination on part of the judge & the gay couple they are forcing someone to do something that goes against their religious beliefs.

So NS any words?

must be sad to live in a town with only one bakery. I mean... really... would I want someone who holds me in contempt making any foodstuff for my happy event?

[The Emerald Dawn]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/06/21795833-judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples
appears that if you own a private business you cant decide who you do business with or not anymore
in this story a judge ordered a Colorado baker to make a cake for a gay couple who married in Massachusetts and wanted a wedding cake to celebrate in Colorado. The Judge said if the baker refused then he would have to pay a fine.

OP thought: I don't like it when some same sex couples use their sexual orientation to force people into doing things their way and if they didn't fold they would face a lawsuit for discrimination. and I read the story their is also discrimination on part of the judge & the gay couple they are forcing someone to do something that goes against their religious beliefs.

So NS any words?

must be sad to live in a town with only one bakery. I mean... really... would I want someone who holds me in contempt making any foodstuff for my happy event?

I try to assume that people are professional when they are doing their job.

[ALMF]

Like rape and murder, discrimination is mala en se; wrong in and of itself.

No.

Bigoted discrimination is wrong in and of itself. Some discrimination is necessary.

That depends on what you mean by discrimination. Intermediate scrutany was developed under the bleaf that gender differentiation (well usually sex differentiation but....) was often but not always discrimination. Discrimination is here being used as differentiation that is not "substantially superior method" to achieve a "Important/central governmental objective."

[ALMF]

Source?

Locke. Can't remember exactly where...

Locke was an atack on the existing system of natural rights; hence, you cant use Locke for what natural rights are originally.

[JuNii]

must be sad to live in a town with only one bakery. I mean... really... would I want someone who holds me in contempt making any foodstuff for my happy event?

I try to assume that people are professional when they are doing their job.

I used to assume that... now I Assume people would be people first. if it were me, I would go to another bakery, get the cake and spread the word that the second bakery is superior. if the first bakery doesn't want my business, then they won't get my support. then they can follow their religious beliefs and I would have a happy event with a confection that would not have been made by a bitter business owner?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Making exceptions to serving customers on the basis of identity could result in legitimising petty discrimination.

[Caninope]

No.

Bigoted discrimination is wrong in and of itself. Some discrimination is necessary.

That depends on what you mean by discrimination. Intermediate scrutany was developed under the bleaf that gender differentiation (well usually sex differentiation but....) was often but not always discrimination. Discrimination is here being used as differentiation that is not "substantially superior method" to achieve a "Important/central governmental objective."

Then you're actually not referring to discrimination, but a specific subset of discrimination.

Once again, discrimination is useful and necessary in some circumstances.

[Caninope]

Locke. Can't remember exactly where...

Locke was an atack on the existing system of natural rights; hence, you cant use Locke for what natural rights are originally.

Locke was the one to articulate that the natural rights are life, liberty, and estate.

He's not an attack on natural rights.

[Mavorpen]

Why, thank you, dear sir. Though I must confess, I do wonder what all your other posts thus far have been about if you never actually disagreed with a word I said.

They were probably about what you were actually saying and not ramblings you pretended to be arguing the entire time.

Either that, or you can't distinguish between your own arguments. Which wouldn't surprise me considering you haven't been consistent whatsoever.

[Old Tyrannia]

Why, thank you, dear sir. Though I must confess, I do wonder what all your other posts thus far have been about if you never actually disagreed with a word I said.

They were probably about what you were actually saying and not ramblings you pretended to be arguing the entire time.

Either that, or you can't distinguish between your own arguments. Which wouldn't surprise me considering you haven't been consistent whatsoever.

I have been arguing the same thing the whole time. I don't know what you thought I was arguing. Clearly there has been some miscommunication, which I am sure is entirely down to my own poor expression of my argument, since you have clearly been consistent and logical in your approach all along.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Locke was an atack on the existing system of natural rights; hence, you cant use Locke for what natural rights are originally.

Locke was the one to articulate that the natural rights are life, liberty, and estate.

He's not an attack on natural rights.

No, Natural Rights and Natural Law are different.

[Caninope]

Locke was the one to articulate that the natural rights are life, liberty, and estate.

He's not an attack on natural rights.

No, Natural Rights and Natural Law are different.

That's cool.

All the same, John Locke was not an attack on natural rights.

[Parath]

No, Natural Rights and Natural Law are different.

That's cool.

All the same, John Locke was not an attack on natural rights.

Who is this John Locke I keep seeing in the comments?

[Ifreann]

That's cool.

All the same, John Locke was not an attack on natural rights.

Who is this John Locke I keep seeing in the comments?

He was a guy in Lost.

[Gig em Aggies]

Who is this John Locke I keep seeing in the comments?

He was a guy in Lost.

Was he the weird bald headed guy with a bad attitude?

[The Black Forrest]

That's cool.

All the same, John Locke was not an attack on natural rights.

Who is this John Locke I keep seeing in the comments?

Read Atlas Shrugged.

"Who is John Locke?"

[Mavorpen]

They were probably about what you were actually saying and not ramblings you pretended to be arguing the entire time.

Either that, or you can't distinguish between your own arguments. Which wouldn't surprise me considering you haven't been consistent whatsoever.

I have been arguing the same thing the whole time. I don't know what you thought I was arguing. Clearly there has been some miscommunication, which I am sure is entirely down to my own poor expression of my argument, since you have clearly been consistent and logical in your approach all along.

Glad you agree you've been inconsistent.

[God Kefka]

1. The shop should have the right to decide who it wants to serve and who it wishes not to serve (at its own cost too since it would lose customers).

2. Court saves time and money

3. Gays can get their cake everywhere

TA DA!

Problem solved...

See? It was silly for the court to waste time with this and get to a sub-optimal outcome.

[Liberated Dixieland]

If you disagree with the government laws regulating businesses, don't start one. The baker knowingly violated the laws that he agreed to follow when he got his business license, so he deserves the fine for breaking them.

[Ifreann]

1. The shop should have the right to decide who it wants to serve and who it wishes not to serve (at its own cost too since it would lose customers).

No they shouldn't.