Unintended consequences: Black bakery owner loses lawsuit, forced to bake racist kkk

http://www.washingtonweeklynews.com/unintended-consequences-black-bakery-owner-loses-lawsuit-forced-to-bake-racist-kkk-cake/
Liberal groups are up in arms regarding the religous freedom bills in Indiana and other states that would allow business owners to refuse to provide services for events they deem contrary to their faith or belief systems. However, there are unintended consequences to forcing all business owners to provide services for those they disagree with. For instance, would a liberal want a Muslim or a Jewish caterer forced to cater for an “all bacon dinner” at the annual Ham festival in Houston?
And after this article, i understood that RFRA, many other articles and TV shows were created to achieve justice and now... We can see this justice, hope liberals will understand that KKK members are people too, lol! Great job.

 

He should be able to refuse service just as the pizza guy in IN.

 

There needs to be massive push back. Religion is protected by the Constitution but the Civil Rights Act as well.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree, but it simply can't be one sided.

 

Absolutely. It is genuine equality and justice for all and not just specialized interpretation of the law for a tiny little minority group deliberately setting up Christian business owners for attack.

 

So your headline is a lie, it hasn't actually happened, you are just hoping it does.

 

Actually the ideological equivalent is already in play. Or weren't you paying attention when late this past week it was revealed that a Muslim owned bakery and several gay owned bakeries were openly practicing discrimination? Now that it's out in the open some fed up rightwinger or Right of Center organization will eventually begin filing lawsuits. The Left cannot have the law going in only one direction along leftist lines of politically based ideology. The law applies equally to one and all.

 

It's an interesting hypothetical. If a KKK sponsored event were to request a racist cake from a Jewish or black baker, does he have the right to refuse? If yes, does this mean the Christian baker can refuse to cater a gay wedding? If not, what's the difference?

 

Indeed, in their mania for attacking Christianity in the guise of promoting accommodation law our leftists have just inadvertently wedged open that same criteria to be applied in a quite thorough fashion in regards to various of their ideologically protected groups. Legally the law must apply equally to all. It would require an Act of Congress to exempt those cherished groups . . . and even if that were to happen, most likely the Supreme Court would shoot it down.

 

Well the difference in my opinion is do gay people have a history of harming Christians? Were there any constitutional amendments passed or laws passed to protect Christians from gay people? Have gays burned crosses on the lawns of Christian folks? Have gays ever lynched or terrorized Christian folks?

 

Here's two.

 

If the caterer is Halal or Kosher they can't be forced to offer something they don't offer. That is not the point of this. This argument is nonsense.

Well that link was terrible and full of pop ups so can you summarize the article please.

 

Well that aren't discriminating on the basis of race, color or religion. They are refusing service to a group of folks who have harmed and maimed and committed all other kinds of atrocities against them.

 

Sigh...the story's source material is satire, and 2 years old. It took me all of 2 minutes to figure that out.

I'm starting to think we need PSAs informing the American people how to determine if a source is dubious. A little bit of restraint and common sense goes a long way.

 

Interesting, this goes sort of in line with what Jefferson said about the power of government. This may be paraphrasing a bit, "A government that is powerful enough to give you everything you want, is powerful enough to take everything you have."

One thing is for sure, for every law passed there are always unintended consequences. With every law passed someone losses freedom. It is hoped that loss of freedom will effect a minute few while servicing the greater good and majority.

This boils down to another old adage, "What is good for the goose is good for the gander."

 

Totally immaterial. Do businesses get to refuse to violate their own consciences or not? If not then a black owned business has no right to refuse a "Happy Birthday Grand Dragon"
cake request.

 

He can easily remedy that problem, just keep screwing up the cake and I am pretty sure the Klan will take their business elsewhere.

 

Klan members have enough money to buy a cake? I assumed they were all on welfare.

 

Are you saying there have been no innocent victims of 'gay cancer'?

 

The difference is the Socialists deem themselves the orverlords of the peasant class. They will dictate what is and is not acceptable, and you WILL comply to their edicts, or else! As the peasant class you have no brain to think and decide these things for yourself. You are too stupid. They, however, are brilliant, benevolent, gods who are taking the inconvenience of their time to waste it by helping you, the lowly peasant.

 

I agree and why a bakery owner would tell a couple of lesbians she refused to legitimize their marriage with her own work, when she absolutely did not have to, seems incredibly dim to me.
But that's not what she did and now she's out tens of thousands of dollars and probably her whole business in uber liberal Portland, Oregon.

It seems as a private business owner I have a right to refuse service in a special instance like this. Whether the Klan, Nazis or enraged lesbians it makes no difference.

 

You would have no problem with people who dont want to serve blacks doing the same right? Just screw up their order till they dont want to come in anymore?

 

Why would you say black folks?. Their problem is with the KKK not white folks.

 

Again...http://realorsatire.com/tribuneherald-net/

Why do conservatives just post without a shred of fact-checking? It only serves to diminish the conservative media's credibility further.

 

There are two non mutual parts to this argument.

Homosexuality, where it is legally deemed so, is natural. Being a member of the KKK is not.

The other is federal or state based assistance. The klan member's taxes help fund the FDA which the baker uses for approved and safe goods. As does the gay man who funds the FDA which a Christian baker uses to buy said goods.

 

Chocolate Ex-Lax should do the trick