(March 31, 2015 at 5:48 pm)Dystopia Wrote: @DeistPaladin - That's called violation of a contract, and it's a whole different problem - Usually western states demand a compensation (monetary) when someone violates the terms and agreements.

And the Jesusfreaks still tried to use their religion as an excuse for backing out of the contract at the last minute. 

Jesus doesn't save you from contractual obligations. I'm sure you would agree. 

I do tend to agree with the overall legalistic aim of the law (from what I have heard, the government of Indiana did not want to have people getting sued over their religious faith....as in, a Moslem can choose not to serve pork but can't deny someone service), but agree that they should have provided better details in the law to prevent it from being abused (aka a way to discriminate...not sure if that bakery sign was meant as a parody, but not sure they could even get away with it under the new law). It almost seemed like a "leave the government of Indiana out of your petty squabbles...you're wasting our time".

In America, the art of suing has become a new favorite pastime and it's become ridiculous not just related to this particular issue....there was even an incident when a crook won a lawsuit because someone did not have food in their home when he robbed them.

You're going to have to provide something to corroborate that if you want it to be taken seriously.

If you seriously think that this law was not intended to allow businesses to discriminate, then you need to take your Jesus goggles off.

If you decide to ply your wares in the public market, you can't choose who gets to sit at the counter. Opening your doors to the public means exactly that. The public is everyone.

(April 3, 2015 at 3:37 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: If you decide to ply your wares in the public market, you can't choose who gets to sit at the counter. Opening your doors to the public means exactly that. The public is everyone.

Why do you think your statement is true?  Because you say so?  

Some members of the public open carry weapons.  Do businesses have the right to discriminate against them? Some members of the public do not wear formal attire when they go to a restaurant.  Does the restaurant have the right to refuse them service?  It just doesn't follow that just because a business is open to the public it is required to serve anyone who is a member of the public. 

People should be free to exchange goods and services with whoever they want. They should not be forced to exchange goods and service with people they don't want. 
  

---

(April 2, 2015 at 8:49 am)Mezmo! Wrote:

(April 1, 2015 at 9:25 am)whateverist Wrote: As long as the law permits me to turn down the holy roller in the car crash to an accident involving someone whose religious status is closer to my own ..

The key point of law that applies is "compelling state interest." The state has a compelling interest in protecting the lives of its citizens. I fail to see how using the power of government to force a baker to make a cake for someone's wedding is a compelling state interest. Why cry "mommy mommy" to the government instead of taking your business elsewhere.

When the gay customer can easily find another baker willing to bake a cake for their gay wedding, the state has no compelling interest.  This is a case of progressives simply trying to force other people to behave in a way they want them to behave for no good reason other than that is their desire.

(April 3, 2015 at 4:13 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(April 3, 2015 at 3:37 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: If you decide to ply your wares in the public market, you can't choose who gets to sit at the counter. Opening your doors to the public means exactly that. The public is everyone.

Why do you think your statement is true?  Because you say so?  

Some members of the public open carry weapons.  Do businesses have the right to discriminate against them? Some members of the public do not wear formal attire when they go to a restaurant.  Does the restaurant have the right to refuse them service?  It just doesn't follow that just because a business is open to the public it is required to serve anyone who is a member of the public. 

People should be free to exchange goods and services with whoever they want. They should not be forced to exchange goods and service with people they don't want. 
  

---

(April 2, 2015 at 8:49 am)Mezmo! Wrote: The key point of law that applies is "compelling state interest." The state has a compelling interest in protecting the lives of its citizens. I fail to see how using the power of government to force a baker to make a cake for someone's wedding is a compelling state interest. Why cry "mommy mommy" to the government instead of taking your business elsewhere.

When the gay customer can easily find another baker willing to bake a cake for their gay wedding, the state has no compelling interest.  This is a case of progressives simply trying to force other people to behave in a way they want them to behave for no good reason other than that is their desire.

Woody

(April 3, 2015 at 4:13 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(April 3, 2015 at 3:37 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: If you decide to ply your wares in the public market, you can't choose who gets to sit at the counter. Opening your doors to the public means exactly that. The public is everyone.

Why do you think your statement is true?  Because you say so?  

Because those are the rules of civilized society, which are increasingly codified into law. Sorry you don't agree.

(April 3, 2015 at 4:13 pm)Heywood Wrote: Some members of the public open carry weapons.  Do businesses have the right to discriminate against them? Some members of the public do not wear formal attire when they go to a restaurant.  Does the restaurant have the right to refuse them service?  It just doesn't follow that just because a business is open to the public it is required to serve anyone who is a member of the public. 

If the state has open carry laws and those citizens are abiding by the law, then yes. If the restaurant allows those people in when they dress appropriately, then yes.

(April 3, 2015 at 4:13 pm)Heywood Wrote: People should be free to exchange goods and services with whoever they want. They should not be forced to exchange goods and service with people they don't want. 

You're right. There were plenty of establishments for black people to go to in the South, too. Those fucking progressives ruined everything. They even had their own drinking fountains!

(April 3, 2015 at 4:13 pm)Heywood Wrote: When the gay customer can easily find another baker willing to bake a cake for their gay wedding, the state has no compelling interest.  This is a case of progressives simply trying to force other people to behave in a way they want them to behave for no good reason other than that is their desire.

The compelling interest is in a civilized, heterogeneous society, which benefits everyone. The compelling interest is in making sure the majority does not squash the rights of the minority. If you were ever refused service based on something you cannot change, then you would understand.

(April 3, 2015 at 4:13 pm)Heywood Wrote: When the gay customer can easily find another baker willing to bake a cake for their gay wedding, the state has no compelling interest.  This is a case of progressives simply trying to force other people to behave in a way they want them to behave for no good reason other than that is their desire.

But you can't find someone else to bake your cake for your gay wedding when the wedding is tomorrow and the baker said, "Oh, this is a gay wedding? Well, fuck that. My religious convictions won't allow me. My religious freedom allows me to renege on the contract."

Do you seriously think gay people want to force Christian bigots to bake their cakes for their weddings? You really want to go out of your way to have someone who hates you and force them to make your food for your special occasion? I know you're a Christian but try to think logically. The issue comes up because you've already contracted the professionals, you didn't know they were bigots and they want to use their "religious freedom" to back out at the 11th hour when it's too late to just get someone else. 

(April 3, 2015 at 5:15 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(April 3, 2015 at 4:13 pm)Heywood Wrote: Why do you think your statement is true?  Because you say so?  

Because those are the rules of civilized society, which are increasingly codified into law. Sorry you don't agree.

(April 3, 2015 at 4:13 pm)Heywood Wrote: Some members of the public open carry weapons.  Do businesses have the right to discriminate against them? Some members of the public do not wear formal attire when they go to a restaurant.  Does the restaurant have the right to refuse them service?  It just doesn't follow that just because a business is open to the public it is required to serve anyone who is a member of the public. 

If the state has open carry laws and those citizens are abiding by the law, then yes. If the restaurant allows those people in when they dress appropriately, then yes.

(April 3, 2015 at 4:13 pm)Heywood Wrote: People should be free to exchange goods and services with whoever they want. They should not be forced to exchange goods and service with people they don't want. 

You're right. There were plenty of establishments for black people to go to in the South, too. Those fucking progressives ruined everything. They even had their own drinking fountains!

(April 3, 2015 at 4:13 pm)Heywood Wrote: When the gay customer can easily find another baker willing to bake a cake for their gay wedding, the state has no compelling interest.  This is a case of progressives simply trying to force other people to behave in a way they want them to behave for no good reason other than that is their desire.

The compelling interest is in a civilized, heterogeneous society, which benefits everyone. The compelling interest is in making sure the majority does not squash the rights of the minority. If you were ever refused service based on something you cannot change, then you would understand.

In this case, the baker is the minority......and you're squashing his rights.

I can see, when gay marriage is legalized in America in the next few years, a gay couple going to a Church that does not recognize homosexuality and sue the Church when the pastor says they cannot do so because of religious views....you know when the couple can get married at many other Churches that would do so or even get a civil marriage (some countries like France have all marriages be a civil marriage). At one point, it's not about being denied but instead about being acknowledged.....I think that is what Indiana wants to avoid.

(April 3, 2015 at 5:58 pm)Heywood Wrote: In this case, the baker is the minority......and you're squashing his rights.

His rights to squash others' rights? Tell me more.