Mod-Sanctioned LGBT Rights & Issues Thread

[Gauthier]

It is tricky because there are many competing issues including

1) Religious freedom - Should people be forced to provide supplies for an event their faith is against? If so, its a drastic choice between surrendering your career or going against your religion

2) Business choice - Theoretically both business and customer should be able to choose whom they do business with. I would find it ridiculous to refuse to serve a gay couple a standard meal at a pub which already has a fixed price menu. However if it is a price that can be changed/negotiated, it will be near impossible to prove that you did not get a better price because you are homosexual. In that sense, its easy to discriminate by higher prices.

3) Manner in which refusal is performed - There is a clear difference between a polite and rude refusal. The mental anguish on a certain method of refusal could be a legal case in itself.

Overall I am against the action being forced, because it was a special event for a wedding in which people should have their own freedom to believe in or not. If this same gay couple wanted a cake for a birthday, there would be no real reason to refuse on religious grounds so I would support a forced sale.

Yet what really gets me is why the couple wanted to take it this far. Was there no other baker?

1. Where in the bible does it say, "Thou shalt not bakst cakes for gay couples"?
2. He did refuse to serve a standard product that was set a fixed price.
3. I'd imagine it was rudely.

It's amusing how so many people are using "Freedom" as a catchword to excuse and promote Separate But Equal.

[Sdaeriji]

OK, this is an example of gay rights taking rights away from other people.

What right? Think carefully about your answer.

[Freiheit Reich]

Most businesses care more about money than principles. I find homosexuality weird and sickening BUT I will gladly take their money. I am probably not the only person that feels this way. Most businesses will take their money with a smile while privately criticizing the growing gay culture in their nation.

Like this bakery privately criticized the growing gay culture obviously.

I said MOST, not all. Even if businesses could discriminate most would not because they want money. The gay couple could have found another bakery but they purposely wanted to be trouble makers to show superiority.

What should have happened:

A: 'Please make a fabulous cake for me and my boy toy.'

B: I am sorry, I don't support the gay agenda and my religious principles prevent me from baking a cake celebrating your sinful act.

A: Pretty please

B: No can do.

A: OK, I will take my money elsewhere. Ta-Ta.

B: Ciao.

This is the conversation that should have happened and everything would have been hunky-dory. Instead the gay couple wanted to make trouble.

[Lost heros]

OK, this is an example of gay rights taking rights away from other people.

Actually, no owner has the right to deny who they sell their product to unless they were a private club with membership requirements.

The baker has religious beliefs that say is is wrong to sell cakes for gay marriages.

Where does it say in the bible, "Thou shalt not bakst cakes for gay couples,"?

The gay couple could easily have went to another bakery but instead chose to be A-holes and sued her.

"The black kids could've gone to a another school, but instead they decided to be A-holes and sued the board of education."

Why do gays insist everybody accepts their views?

They don't.

Is forced acceptance of the gay lifestyle more important than freedom of religion?

Granting gays the right to live just like a straight person doesn't impede your freedom of religion.

Personally, my view is businesses should not be forced to do business with gays.

"Personally, my view is business should not be forced to do business with Blacks/Jews/Other minorities."

The gays can easily find another business to give their money to.

They could, but I don't see why they should settle for being second class citizens.

A similar case happened against a florist in Washington:

http://news.yahoo.com/washington-state- ... 32518.html

Good for the couple.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 is wrong. Businesses should have the right to discriminate.

Businesses open to the public can't just change their mind on who they serve. Why do you support segregation and discrimination?

[Capital Zealand]

I want to increase freedom. The gays can go to another bakery. I doubt that is the only one in town. If they give me $30, I will be happy to bake a cake for them and stick a gay couple figurine in the center.

Because nothing says "freedom" like "Whites only," "Colored only," "Straight only," and "Gay only".

Well, it's his property so he kind of has his say over it just as much as he has his say over his home. It's like non-profit organizations choosing who to accept to their organized events or camps.

[Big Jim P]

Because nothing says "freedom" like "Whites only," "Colored only," "Straight only," and "Gay only".

Well, it's his property so he kind of has his say over it just as much as he has his say over his home. It's like non-profit organizations choosing who to accept to their organized events or camps.

His home is not a business.

[Capital Zealand]

Well, it's his property so he kind of has his say over it just as much as he has his say over his home. It's like non-profit organizations choosing who to accept to their organized events or camps.

His home is not a business.

It's still his property. Some people do business from their own homes because they can't afford separate property for it or due to other reasons. But I realize this wasn't the case on the baker's account.

[Big Jim P]

His home is not a business.

It's still his property. Some people do business from their own homes because they can't afford separate property for it or due to other reasons. But I realize this wasn't the case on the baker's account.

Property he has made into a public business.

Edit: Personally, I think a business should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason (and take the economic consequences of exercising said right), but that is not the way the law works.

[Capital Zealand]

It's still his property. Some people do business from their own homes because they can't afford separate property for it or due to other reasons. But I realize this wasn't the case on the baker's account.

Property he has made into a public business.

Which he has enough power over to distinct when to open and close it. Why can't he also choose who will it be open or closed to?

[Lost heros]

Property he has made into a public business.

Which he has enough power over to distinct when to open and close it. Why can't he also choose who will it be open or closed to?

Because it is a public business. Public means public, not "who I choose"

[Big Jim P]

Property he has made into a public business.

Which he has enough power over to distinct when to open and close it. Why can't he also choose who will it be open or closed to?

Because the law say's he can't.

[New Socialist South Africa]

Like this bakery privately criticized the growing gay culture obviously.

I said MOST, not all. Even if businesses could discriminate most would not because they want money. The gay couple could have found another bakery but they purposely wanted to be trouble makers to show superiority.

What should have happened:

A: 'Please make a fabulous cake for me and my boy toy.'

B: I am sorry, I don't support the gay agenda and my religious principles prevent me from baking a cake celebrating your sinful act.

A: Pretty please

B: No can do.

A: OK, I will take my money elsewhere. Ta-Ta.

B: Ciao.

This is the conversation that should have happened and everything would have been hunky-dory. Instead the gay couple wanted to make trouble.

That is only "hunky-dory" as long as you live in a country were there will be a business that will serve any gay people or (insert discriminated minority group here). And only "hunky-dory" in a nation where the government won't start asking why, if private businesses have the right to discriminate, then why shouldn't they discriminate as well. It is also a lot easier to say "discrimination is ok" when you are the majority and not the discriminated against minority (or discriminated against majority in the case of Apartheid South Africa). Also, while it is clear you don't give a shit, if I was gay I would take offence to the way you portrayed person A in your discussion. That is your freedom to discriminate though and I'm not going to lower myself to responding with one of the many insults that comes to mind and use my freedom to discriminate.

[Wisconsin9]

Why do gays insist everybody accepts their views?

Hmm. I'm not sure. Why do Christians insist everybody accepts their views?

[Farnhamia]

Because nothing says "freedom" like "Whites only," "Colored only," "Straight only," and "Gay only".

Well, it's his property so he kind of has his say over it just as much as he has his say over his home. It's like non-profit organizations choosing who to accept to their organized events or camps.

It's not at all like that. Where memberships are involved the rules are somewhat different, though even that has been changing of late. With businesses such as a bakery or a florist or any other retail establishment, if you are open to the public you are open to the entire public. You do not get to discriminate between your customers. Nor do your religious scruples give you an exemption from the law. The baker is not being prevented from being a Christian nor worshipping in the manner of his choosing. Running his bakery is not an act of worship. As I said earlier in this, he should have taken the money and donated it to his church.

[Capital Zealand]

Which he has enough power over to distinct when to open and close it. Why can't he also choose who will it be open or closed to?

Because the law say's he can't.

Because it is a law, we have to obey it. Really?

The fact aside it's a law, why is it right to the power of the owner of his personal property be limited at that instance?

[New Socialist South Africa]

Why do gays insist everybody accepts their views?

Hmm. I'm not sure. Why do Christians insist everybody accepts their views?

You just made my day. Thanks for that.

[Capital Zealand]

Which he has enough power over to distinct when to open and close it. Why can't he also choose who will it be open or closed to?

Because it is a public business. Public means public, not "who I choose"

Why not? Why should private businesses be mandated to be public as they are private organisations independent of state ownership?

[Orcoa]

Why do gays insist everybody accepts their views?

Hmm. I'm not sure. Why do Christians insist everybody accepts their views?

Its more Conservatives wanting to accept their views then just "Christians"

Anyway, why is it that we have to accept and be ok with their views when most of them are dumb and wrong?

[Lost heros]

Because it is a public business. Public means public, not "who I choose"

Why not? Why should private businesses be mandated to be public as they are private organisations independent of state ownership?

They're not mandated. They chose to open to the public over choosing to be a private club with membership.

[Orcoa]

Because it is a public business. Public means public, not "who I choose"

Why not? Why should private businesses be mandated to be public as they are private organisations independent of state ownership?

Because when you handle with the public (which this bakery is doing) you become a public business and you have to bow before the rules that all other public businesses have to.

Just because you hate gay people does not give you the fucking right to not serve them. That's like me saying I won't serve black people in my business...its wrong and completely stupid.

[Ethel mermania]

1. Where in the bible does it say, "Thou shalt not bakst cakes for gay couples"?
2. He did refuse to serve a standard product that was set a fixed price.
3. I'd imagine it was rudely.

It's amusing how so many people are using "Freedom" as a catchword to excuse and promote Separate But Equal.

freedom does include the freedom to be a bigot.

as to the case at hand, (which didnt we discuss months ago). if colorodo has sexual orientation as a protected class, the judge is correct, what the baker did was wrong, business's operate under a license from the state. the business is not free to violate state law. the owners should move to saudi arabia or another place that is more in line with their beliefs.

[New Socialist South Africa]

Hmm. I'm not sure. Why do Christians insist everybody accepts their views?

Its more Conservatives wanting to accept their views then just "Christians"

Anyway, why is it that we have to accept and be ok with their views when most of them are dumb and wrong?

Yes, but it is usually religious (and in the USA Christianity is the biggest religion) conservatives at the forefront as compared to non-religious conservatives. Its called tolerating non-violent differences. How would you feel if they started trying to illegalise straight marriage and relationships and started discriminating against straight people? (I personally would be pissed off). Which of their ideas are dumb and wrong?

[Capital Zealand]

Why not? Why should private businesses be mandated to be public as they are private organisations independent of state ownership?

They're not mandated. They chose to open to the public over choosing to be a private club with membership.

So a business can come with private membership, which can also be free of charge due to it having its profit from selling its goods. I like that... well, not really. It's a little needless, when you think about it, to go ways to prevent members of a certain ethnicity from generating you some profit.

[Orcoa]

Its more Conservatives wanting to accept their views then just "Christians"

Anyway, why is it that we have to accept and be ok with their views when most of them are dumb and wrong?

Its called tolerating non-violent differences. How would you feel if they started trying to illegalise straight marriage and relationships? (I for personally would be pissed off).Which of their ideas are dumb and wrong?

Why should I tolerate a bigot's views? Views that are known to harm and help hurt groups of people who don't deserve it.

Give me a good reason why?

Because quite honestly, I hate bigots, from racists to sexists and homophobes, I have no respect for them.

[New Socialist South Africa]

Why not? Why should private businesses be mandated to be public as they are private organisations independent of state ownership?

Because when you handle with the public (which this bakery is doing) you become a public business and you have to bow before the rules that all other public businesses have to.

Just because you hate gay people does not give you the fucking right to not serve them. That's like me saying I won't serve black people in my business...its wrong and completely stupid.

I'll second that, though technically it is still a private business even if it is open to the public (because it is owned by a private entrepreneur). A public business is usually one owned by the government or with some government intervention and funding.