More businesses lining up to urge Brewer to veto AZ anti-gay law-

When your in business to serve the public, it means public, not who you happen to like or agree with their politics or race or sexual orientation.

 

You can refuse to make a pornographic cake. Because the issue is then about nudity and good taste, not sexual orientation. If a guy was known for making pornographic cakes and then decided that he'd only do straight cakes... then you could probably nail him with a discrimination suit, and rightfully so.

 

I think the left still finds murder immoral along with terminating social programs, unfair labor practices, wars overseas, certain financial practices, etc. Start a new thread and I'll add more.

- - - Updated - - -

Shouldn't be in business then. Ought to consider another career in that case.

 

I notice you didn't address the questions. Ozzy Osbourne makes music "for the public". Should he be forced to produce Gospel music? J.J. Abrams makes movies "for the public". Should he be forced to make pornographic films. After all, someone might find those films "humorous or enjoyable".

 

You're really grasping here. When I compare blueberries to rasberries that's one thing. You're comparing blueberries to pineapples.

 

Tell that to the Ferrari dealer who doesn't let just anyone test drive their vehicles...

 

Just because I'm in business doesn't mean I should be forced to do whatever a customer may want.

Thats foolish, and anti-liberty.

 

Oh well too bad, then close up your business.

 

Is that based on perceived ability to pay for a Ferrari, or racial/sexual discrimination?

 

Its discrimination by a business open to the public, I fail to see how it matters what the reason is. If that is the case are you implying bakers or photographers could simply price gays out of their establishments?

 

THat seems to be the slogan for the DNC

 

The difference is: Ozzy Osbourne makes music to sell to the public; people don't call him up on the phone and order up a song to be made. That's a major difference between a baker and musician. They operate under a whole different set of parameters.

- - - Updated - - -

Please elaborate.

- - - Updated - - -

Unless your discriminating against someone, I agree.

 

You are allowed to discriminate about lots of things. Certain establishments won't let you in if you are wearing crappy clothes. They won't let you in if you stink really bad. They won't let you in if they suspect that you can't pay for their products, or that you don't have the money to afford it. What is important is that an establishment doesn't discriminate on the basis of an inherent personal characteristic, such as race or sexual orientation.

As for ways to avoid having to serve homosexuals, I am creative in my bulls*it abilities, so here is what I'd do if I owned a bakery and I was a bigot. I'd have each cake blessed by an Orthodox Christian priest. Only offer blessed cakes. An Orthodox Priest won't bless a cake that is intended for a gay wedding, so you could rightfully say you would be unable to provide your product, and that it had nothing to do with a decision of your own. Also, the blessing of food is an ancient religious tradition, so you could argue that enabling such traditions is one of the primary focuses of your business, and thus skirt the law on this issue.

 

I'm sure you can tell me how creating a society that must be duplicitous and dishonest because they don't want to be sued for their personal beliefs is somehow good...

 

If you support gay rights you should want this law signed into effect. These, not marriage, will be the cases that get gays the strict scrutiny standard they want

 

Nope, I can't. But I can tell you that a society that doesn't allow the open expression of ridiculous racial/sexual bigotry in a public establishment is good.

 

Because the religious people forgot to include divorcees or other adulterers in the bill. It's discriminatory.

 

I would disagree, by pushing people and their beliefs underground you build resentments and get the same attitudes but they are candy coated. It all looks nice, but the result is not real. Its like racial beliefs now, most people on the surface appear to be very much accepting, but dig deeper and a different picture emerges. Becoming satisfied with the outward projection but doing nothing about what negative effects it may have will not solve any problems, but instead make problems harder to solve. If discrimination is open for all to see so are the results. I think the real problem is nobody really wants to see the truth, so a candy coated fantasy is far more appealing...

 

MSNBC reports Gov. Brewer vetoes the proposed bill to allow business to ban gays.

 

Now how do they pass a law that will protect the rights of both sides on the issue?

 

That isn't a view I think is dead wrong or anything, but I disagree. Racism against blacks is less then it was before we banned discrimination against them. So is hatred for homosexuals. I'd say that there has been a net positive effect on racial/sexual perspectives due to anti-discrimination laws. People take most of their views from their family, but they also take some views from society at large...

 

That might be true and you know you do, you change some gay 10K to bake a cake. When they start screaming at you, you tell them go somewhere else. But, you're also talking about something isn't really spelled out. Business owners have the right to refuse service. What is getting called in and the courts need to specific this, is do private business owners have the right to refuse service. Now here is the kicker, there are precedents in place that have said this. Jewish deli owners who refuse to sell pork( Jews doesn't eat pork) cathartic schools refusing lesbians and gays in their schools. Muslims cab drivers reusing people who doesn't wash their feet or something along those lines. So this isn't as easy as saying, if your business you have to deal with the public.

 

Yes and in one of the other threads on this one of the resident leftist said that were it her she would just quote them so high they would go elsewhere. I gave her the example of the KKK going to a black caterer for their celebration of segregation. She said that the law should require the black bakery to do the job but she would just charge them more and they would go away. WELL WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE and if fact could get them sued.

 

It's a moot point now since Gov. Brewer vetoed the bill.

 

What's the difference between not accepting the job offer and charging them a different price in order to deny them your service?