Ohio Bakery refuses birthday cake to lesbian

Yeah, let me help you out.

The lunch counter sit-in in Greensboro and other such protests were about private businesses open to the public.

The civil rights direction resulted in public accommodation and employment law that requires businesses open to the public and thus operating under the protection and with benefit of our various levels of government to serve people equally.

So, to what date do you want to roll back civil rights law?

1950?
1850?
1750?

 

Those private businesses used the government to impose their segregation policies. Those accommodation laws were created to nullify the local and state laws which imposed segregation. And segregation was not just simple refusal of service, it was violent, and blacks had no recourse under local law because local laws mandated segregation.

The problem was the abuse of government.

Get your facts straight. Then you won't have to be hysterical.

 

My point is that hasn’t been the case for decades but people like you have been silent until sexual orientation starts being included and suddenly you’re all about the free market. And even now, the legal arguments have all been about granting religious business exceptions to the sexual orientation element alone. Only when you start up your campaign to scrap all anti-discrimination laws for businesses will you be on firm ground.

Why is it bad for government to discriminate if it isn’t bad for businesses (including potentially all businesses) to discriminate?

 

And now she can post about the bakery's refusal so that every liberal in the area boycotts the bakery and they lose business.

Tough !!!

Seriously, what kind of idiot worries about the morality of baking a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing cake for somebody. They deserve to lose business from sheer stupidity and moral bankruptcy.

 

How do you know I have been silent? All you know is what I choose to put in this forum.

And people can learn, at any point some aspect of it can wake them up. Wouldn't you rather people wake up and do something than remain silent? Isn't it more productive to welcome new people to the cause than to push them away because they were not in it from day 1?


Its bad for government because government has the power to impose upon people.

A bakery cannot force me to do anything, all it can do is withhold its services, in which case I can go to the bakery next door.

The government has the power to take my property, illegally withhold what I am owed, and force me to do whatever it wishes, one bad person in the proper govt position can impose his will on many people. And you will have little recourse trying to fight the Leviathan by yourself. Haven't we seen that over the past few years with the IRS targeting people, the Wisconsin state attorneys targeting conservatives, obamacare, selective spending of the "stimulus" money, political payback to campaign supporters, selective enforcement of immigration law and lawsuits against conservative states but not sanctuary cities?

 

I wasn’t just talking about you specifically but the general lack of campaigns, protests or statements from high profile figures against anti-discrimination laws until sexual orientation started being included. I believe there is a fundamental dishonesty in people now saying they’re against any restrictions to business in this way because they think that is more socially acceptable than admitting to the specific groups of people they wish to see discriminated against.

I’m really just seeking acknowledgement that discrimination (including on grounds of sexual orientation) is a bad thing, otherwise there’d be no reason to stop government imposing it on people (we’re happy for them to impose good and necessary things after all). It’s a key distinction between businesses being free to make neutral choices and businesses being free to do bad things because preventing them would be somehow worse.

Nothing happens in a vacuum though. We know from the historic discrimination (that these laws were brought in against in the first place) that is could easily spread across wider society, even to the point that people who didn’t really want to discriminate themselves could feel pressured or obliged to follow suit. Again, it’s really about whether discrimination is recognised as a bad thing and how you can say “this is wrong” when it is permitted, even potentially promoted, within our society.

It seems to me that you’re already stretching your argument to one against all laws and regulations imposed upon anyone, business owners or otherwise.

 

And in Ohio- perfectly legal for the bakery to refuse to sell to someone because they don't like homosexuals.

Of course it is also perfectly legal for the customer to tell the world about the discrimination.

I am guessing in this thread people will be claiming that the customers 'sought out Christians' etc, etc, but the story is pretty straight forward here- the bakery looked up the person on the internet- found out that she was gay- and then refused her business.

 

oh get real, who expects a baker to refuse you a birthday cake cause of your Facebook account

 

And a person being gay, ordering a birthday cake, is equivalent to any of the above, how exactly?

The obvious difference is between people who threaten one's business in some way through their actions, versus discrimination against someone based on who they are, not what they're doing on your premises.

But sure, let's trout out every example irrelevant to what the thread is actually about in order to be dismissive, because that adds such 'quality' to the discussion.

 

The USA does not have a "national language".

 

why would anyone access a Facebook page before baking a cake unless they were told to go there to get a picture

THere is more to this story than the one-side, gay-agenda BS we get fed

 

This is a clear case of discrimination, just as clear as your written confession of your Agenda of Anti-Gay Bigotry.

 

Determinations on clients should be on the basis of a clients needs and the ability of the business to adequately provide that offered service to the client, and not based on a clients sexual orientation, so if an Automotive mechanics shop fixes brand X cars defects, and refuses a Married Lesbian couple those services based on their being Lesbians and not on the condition of the car or the shops ability to safely and adequately repair that car, that is discrimination and wrong.

My personal opinions on signs about the right to refuse service in a shop, an AMERICAN affectation BTW, I have only seen those signs in America, this is My opinion, I will not post a stupid sign like that in MY SHOP, I have a mouth, and I can simply ask someone to leave, IF the need even EVER arises, I just do not need a sign for that.

 

You specify the violent segregationist rules of state and local government and then suggest the problem was the federal government ending that???

Seriously?

So, to what date do YOU want to roll back civil rights?

 

How about October 1, 1490 ????

 

That's clearly a fail, as there is no reason to suspect others will serve. Also, this same logic extends to all businesses as well as employment, making your idea a prescription for a totally segregated America.

Plus, our government infrastructure (for which we all pay) supports these businesses in numerous ways, and denying service to the public that is taxed for this support is not acceptable.

 

I find it bizarre as well, though your speculation that the baker was "told to go there to get a picture" is just that, mere speculation. We have no more reason to trust your speculation than we do the facts as reported.

 

The govt is supposed to represent the "common good", it is the operating mechanism which protects individual rights shared by all. It is not supposed to represent one subgroup or one individual.

 

English is the "national language", may no be anything official stating that, but it still is

 

The kind of social division promoted by active discrimination is bad for the common good, which is why anti-discrimination laws were established in the first place.

The don't protect particular groups, the prevent discrimination on particular grounds. We could all be discriminated against on grounds of sexual orientation (especially since it will generally be about what the person thinks you are rather than what you actually happen to be).

 

In fact, the government was late to the party - the federal government stepped in after it was clear that peoples protests and actions had doomed segregation. The accommodation laws were the federal govts action which with 20/20 hindsight was the wrong action. People had already solved the problem, with time segregation would have ended and we would not have the negative consequences of affirmative action, hate crime laws, and the race industry. Instead, the govt stepped in, short circuited the process, and left the nation with a different set of race problems.

 

You must really hate people to think that without the govt requiring desegregation that every single business and person would discriminate. Not even in the pre-Civil War South did everyone discriminate, support slavery, or even own slaves.

BTW, my family is multi-racial, some black, some white. We get along just fine without the govt controlling us.

***

So because the govt has overreached and intrudes into too much of peoples lives, you justify further overreach based on existing overreach. The solution is to cut back the govt, not use the govt to further its interference.

 

What a load of nonsense!

Listen to speeches by governor Wallace.

Read your daily paper.

Segregation wasn't ended then, and people are calling for MORE of it today!!

And, then YOU come along and suggest the civil rights movement was already resolved back then! WOW!

 

That's the liberal expansionist view of the "common good" which is made so that some people can use the govt to impose their view on everyone. Look at how far your view of stopping active discrimination has gone - its to the point that the clearly constitutional activity of exercising religion and of the right to private property are being directly denied based on the sexual practice of a handful of people. Now its gotten to the ridiculous with transgenders and bathrooms in elementary school.

As the Cases of Azucar Bakery and Masterpiece Cakeshop shows, these laws are being used to protect one group and harm another group. The same regulatory court in Colorado allowed Azucar to withhold services to a Christian and penalized Masterpiece for withholding services to homosexuals. Masterpiece used Azucar as its legal precedent, the court went through semantic gymnastics to refuse the Azucar precedent.

There will always be social division, that's human nature, and it is not going to be stopped. No matter what you do, everyone gets discriminated against at some point in life. Let people associate with whoever they want, people will be just fine. Its not up to you or me to impose our individual standards for all the population.

 

I would politely counter that with:

Who puts their private personal information on facebook and expects it to end well?

- - - Updated - - -

I rest my case.