RE: The Cake Case Revisited
October 5, 2017 at 9:58 am
(This post was last modified: October 5, 2017 at 10:12 am by Aroura.)
Thank you for the honest answer CL.
What if the racist asshole doesnt go out of business, because where he lives, there are a lot of racist assholes? They all support him. His business does better than ever. It happens. The couple discriminated against simply has to suck it up and accept discrimination, I guess? It's why we made these laws, you know, because discrmination was more often rewarded than punished.
And you think people denying an interracial couple is extreme example? Its was common a few decades ago. Not exactly some far fetched, unheard of fantasy. I was trying to give a recent, real world example. You think it would be hard to find people claiming interracial marriage is against their religion? One of the only growing denominations, evangelicals, are often quite openly opposed. Today. Right now. This didn't end in 1969.
Also, how does one, say a judge, tell the difference between a racist asshole and a sincerely held religious belief? By all outward appearances, they are identical. Can't all the racists just start claiming sincere religious beliefs to cover their asses?
No one can force a baker to make a cake for a Nazi. Nazis are not a religion, sexual orientation, or race. Laws forbid us from discriminating against the person, as you say for example a Catholic, but not fir an optional behavior, such as a Nazi rally. You are comparing apples and oranges...or literally Nazis and gay couples. Interesting comparison.
None of those things are based on sex, race, religion, age or sexual orientation.
You and CL both, apples and oranges. And straw men. No court would even hear a case of turning away a nazi, or not participating in a political activity. Those things are actually protected by law, the other way. You set up a false argument, then act like it somehow justifies your point. It doesn't.
This case is about discrimination based on the legally held definitions of the above. Their are no laws, nor proposed laws, stating no discrimination based on anything, ever. There ARE laws stating one cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation, which is why this is even a case all.
Sexual orientation is like race. Sexual orientation is NOT like political leaning. Both of you please stop tossing this strawman into the argument.
What if the racist asshole doesnt go out of business, because where he lives, there are a lot of racist assholes? They all support him. His business does better than ever. It happens. The couple discriminated against simply has to suck it up and accept discrimination, I guess? It's why we made these laws, you know, because discrmination was more often rewarded than punished.
And you think people denying an interracial couple is extreme example? Its was common a few decades ago. Not exactly some far fetched, unheard of fantasy. I was trying to give a recent, real world example. You think it would be hard to find people claiming interracial marriage is against their religion? One of the only growing denominations, evangelicals, are often quite openly opposed. Today. Right now. This didn't end in 1969.
Also, how does one, say a judge, tell the difference between a racist asshole and a sincerely held religious belief? By all outward appearances, they are identical. Can't all the racists just start claiming sincere religious beliefs to cover their asses?
No one can force a baker to make a cake for a Nazi. Nazis are not a religion, sexual orientation, or race. Laws forbid us from discriminating against the person, as you say for example a Catholic, but not fir an optional behavior, such as a Nazi rally. You are comparing apples and oranges...or literally Nazis and gay couples. Interesting comparison.
(October 5, 2017 at 6:20 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(October 4, 2017 at 10:10 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: The point is that a public business is discriminating against those guys for who they are as people. Would you be okay with a business denying service to African Americans based on the owners religious freedom?
What about protesting, by refusing to make a dress for the First Lady and the inauguration? Or performers refusing to sing at Trumps inauguration? And then you had the Springsteen concert that was scheduled in Carolina and canceled for reasons of discrimination. Is this not Ok as well?
None of those things are based on sex, race, religion, age or sexual orientation.
You and CL both, apples and oranges. And straw men. No court would even hear a case of turning away a nazi, or not participating in a political activity. Those things are actually protected by law, the other way. You set up a false argument, then act like it somehow justifies your point. It doesn't.
This case is about discrimination based on the legally held definitions of the above. Their are no laws, nor proposed laws, stating no discrimination based on anything, ever. There ARE laws stating one cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation, which is why this is even a case all.
Sexual orientation is like race. Sexual orientation is NOT like political leaning. Both of you please stop tossing this strawman into the argument.
“Eternity is a terrible thought. I mean, where's it going to end?”
― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead
― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead
