Plan B Forum

Freedom of conscience vs. rights????

nah, I don t think that those things are necessarily opposing each other in the case.

I think that as long as we have the freedom to have gay bakers everything will be oooooo kayyyyyyy.....



butchers and bakers AND candlestick makers are free to rub a dub dub, and all is well in the Land of Pleasant Living.......

I suppose you'd also allow white owned luncheonettes not to serve blacks because we could have black luncheonette owners who could serve their own kind?

Big RR wrote:I suppose you'd also allow white owned luncheonettes not to serve blacks because we could have black luncheonette owners who could serve their own kind?

You know, I remember seeing signs in various places that used to read something like "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".  And this was well after the days of segregated lunch counters, toilets, water fountains, and sections of movie theaters and buses.
Whatever happened to that concept?  Or does that mean that no matter how drunk, stoned, loud, rowdy, obscene, unhygienic, inappropriately dressed, or whatever a person may be, a store owner, restaurateur, or shopkeeper has to serve them or risk being sued?

-"BB"-

I am not surprised in the slightest that you attempt to equate refusing to serve someone because they are gay to refusing to serve someone because they are drunk, stoned or smell bad.

BB, if you have a legitimate reason to refuse someone service (because they are causing a disturbance, etc.), then a s a business owner you can. However, you cannot discriminate against someone based on skin color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. if you are running a business open to the general public.

Correction - in most states you can refuse with impunity to serve someone (or hire someone, or rent housing to them) based on their sexual orientation, because most states do not afford protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, housing, public accommodations, etc. What so called "religious liberty" laws will do in those jurisdictions that do have such protections, is to render them meaningless, because anyone can claim a religious basis for their hatred of gay people and so discriminate against them irrespective of laws which say they can't.

no RR, your supposition would be incorrect....

but if the mechanic had a body shop and someone wanted to paint "kill whitey" on their car I would think that it would be fine to refuse that paint job.

I don t think that a baker should refuse service to gay people either, but he should allowed to refuse to promote gay marriage if he wishes.

refusing to promote an idea is different than refusing service to a person.

no?

The "idea" is marriage in either case. By refusing a cake to a same-sex couple but not an opposite-sex couple, you are discriminating against the person, not the idea.

And by using a cake that says "kill whitey" as an analogy to a cake for a same-sex couple, you are certainly showing your true colours.

How about this as a more apt analogy - a baker will produce a wedding cake for a white couple, but not for an interracial couple, because he believes that interracial marriage is a sin against whatever image of God he has created for himself. Would you be so quick to argue that he is refusing to promote the "idea" of interracial marriage, or would you believe that he was discriminating against the persons involved?

Or a devout RC baker will not bake cakes for any weddings other than those performed in the RC church because he dies not believe any other marriages are true marriages in the eyes of god (one of the catechism questions when I helped my RC friends prepare for confirmation in the 60s). Or someone refuses to bake cakes for jewish or moslem weddings. Or civil weddings.

Your job is to bake cakes and sell them, not to impose your view or morality on your customers.

And what about the doctor who refuses to treat the fill in the blank

I heard on tv earlier that the SC had ruled that a tattoo artist was allowed to refuse to create a tattoo that he disagreed with.....

....anyway, I stand by the assertion, and analogy that I presented.

wesw wrote:I heard on tv earlier that the SC had ruled that a tattoo artist was allowed to refuse to create a tattoo that he disagreed with.....

And how is that analogous in any manner to the case at hand?

wesw wrote:....anyway, I can't find anyway to defend the analogy I previously made, because it is garbage. And I am unable to answer the analogies made by others, because I would make myself look like more of a fool than I already am, if I tried.

FTFY

I think there is a significant difference in just why one refuses to deliver a product or service to a potential customer. Some classes are carefully defined and protected. I have heard lots of claims about a 'gay agenda' . Very rarely is it explained just what that agenda is. But one item is to get 'gayness' in its expanded meaning that now includes a whole assortment of letters that I cannot keep up with, included as a protected class.

Along side that protected class of race, color, national origin is the problem of religion in America. It is a special topic that national laws are not supposed to mess with--the separation of church and state. But that wall or separation is in reality impossible. The Supremes are going to deal with this again next term , in a case involving the momentous problem of who pays for playground equipment in a church yard. At the same time, actual religious practice is fragmented and shrinking. If I am free to post a sign in my business that concealed weapons are not allowed inside my coffee shop (in Texas, for example) can I refuse entry to a male adult believer in the principles of the Sikh religion that requires him to carry weapon out of a religious duty to be prepared to protect others who are unable to protect themselves? At the same time the most common answer to polls about religious preference in America is now 'none'.

Can I be a soup nazi and refuse to sell you food in my restaurant, just because I am an ass-hole, but not permitted to refuse to sell you a wedding cake because I think you should not get married?

Where is the wall that prevents me from imposing my religious preferences on you? As I have frequently discussed with a lawyer friend, just what is the basic principle of justice in America? It is not 'natural law'; it is not a deference to divine law; yet it seeks to resist tyranny of the majority.

Justice seems to me to be a shifting, fluid concept; always in a state of change, always a common goal, but never a common definition.

snailgate

And BB, I still see signs that say "No shoes, No Shirt, No Service"

My wife and I have reached an agreement that I may go into such an establishment wearing only shoes and shirt and demand service, but I can only do this after she is dead.

snailgate

Burning Petard wrote:And BB, I still see signs that say "No shoes, No Shirt, No Service"

My wife and I have reached an agreement that I may go into such an establishment wearing only shoes and shirt and demand service, but I can only do this after she is dead.

snailgate

If there is a better and more accurate example of "marital compromise" I have never heard it.


yrs,
rubato

Burning Petard wrote:And BB, I still see signs that say "No shoes, No Shirt, No Service"

I like this one better.  Never seen anyone who took them up on it, though......



-"BB"-