ADVERTISEMENT

Should HROT Have a Politics-Free Day? Or a Religion-Free Day? Both?

The point is this: at some point, forced equality becomes as tyrannical as forced segregation. It is better that people be able to do business with whom they desire to contract with, rather than the government mandating everybody do business with everybody. "We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" should be the way a private business is allowed to operate. If the community doesn't like that, then they're free to speak out or boycott, but using the force of government is wrong.

The point is....democracy can be tyrannical to the minority. Life is not fair. I can't remember who told me that more....my mother or my father. You can "refuse" to serve if you desire.....just not in a public business and not for reasons based on sex, race, religion or sexual persuasion. Maybe you should re-write the Constitution.
 
We are a society of LAW.

Right, so the gays can't infringe upon the rights of the sincerely-religious and vice versa. That's the struggle we have right now. How do we square diametrically-opposed rights?

By being reasonable. But there's a shortage of that on both sides.
 
Right, so the gays can't infringe upon the rights of the sincerely-religious and vice versa. That's the struggle we have right now. How do we square diametrically-opposed rights?

By being reasonable. But there's a shortage of that on both sides.
Gays DO have the right to expect service in a public establishment and not be discriminated against because of the owners religious beliefs. It is not a "chicken or egg" controversy. When you do business with the public, you do business with the public.
 
Uh, Chic-Fil-A will sell you a chicken sandwich whether you're straight, gay, trans, bi, Christian, Buddhist, Atheist, whatever. But if you want them to make a chicken sandwich that says, "Happy Wedding Dave and Mike" written in mayonnaise, Chic-Fil-A should have the right to refuse such a request.
Is Chic-Fil-A a person?
 
If you use the wrong definition of "religious freedom" as used in the Constitution, it's pretty damned easy.,

So, you're saying that someone who sells things to "the public" has to leave his religion outside the door of his establishment? Why??? That's ridiculous. Imagine that you have a business that makes custom t-shirts with "Christian-inspired" slogans and graphics. You primarily make shirts for church groups, religious schools, and some "off the street" sales to individuals. Should a gay "customer" be able to walk into your store and demand that you create a custom t-shirt with a gay slogan? Of course not, that would be ridiculous.
 
So, you're saying that someone who sells things to "the public" has to leave his religion outside the door of his establishment? Why??? That's ridiculous. Imagine that you have a business that makes custom t-shirts with "Christian-inspired" slogans and graphics. You primarily make shirts for church groups, religious schools, and some "off the street" sales to individuals. Should a gay "customer" be able to walk into your store and demand that you create a custom t-shirt with a gay slogan? Of course not, that would be ridiculous.
No. However, he cannot discriminate against a customer based on the customers race, creed, religion ot sexual preference. THAT is the law. If ones religion does not allow them to treat all customers equally, he/she should either 1) get a new religion or 2) get out of the public sector business. I don't like 35 MPH spped limits either, but if I don't obey them, I can get fined.
That is one of the teneants out society is built upon. The RULE of LAW.
 
I don't trust myself to stick to it. What if Big Ben comes out and admits he is actually a serial killer on a non politics day?

Have you seen the amount of people that knew Bill and Hillary that have died? Do you think they didn't have a hand in some of those? I don't think you have to worry about Ben when you have the Clintons walking the earth.
 
THat is your opinion. In Europe, they could. In the USA, I don't know how ethical it is. But anyone who eats ChicFilet probably needs their head examined.
In Ioway this all is rotating around the Odegaard situation.....Origibnally, they were a public entity who publicly refused to serve a gay wedding based on their religious beliefs. You can't do that. Its against the law. Now, they could have made the whole situation really unpleasant for "the couple" and blamed it on a bad day. But you cannot deny service/discriminate (in a public establishment) based on religious beliefs.
Since then, these folks have made their business "a church"....and they have an out. Personally, I think folks who use their religion for such a purpose are not very religious....and even less smart. But it is their decision. The 1st Amendment was never written to protect the religious evangelicals...it was written to protect "we the people."


So why is it OK and overlooked by the left when a Muslim baker refuses to bake anything for gays AND jews?
 
So why is it OK and overlooked by the left when a Muslim baker refuses to bake anything for gays AND jews?
Has it? Link? Want to meet me there and we can pose as a couple and sue the Allah out of them?
 
No. However, he cannot discriminate against a customer based on the customers race, creed, religion ot sexual preference. THAT is the law. If ones religion does not allow them to treat all customers equally, he/she should either 1) get a new religion or 2) get out of the public sector business. I don't like 35 MPH spped limits either, but if I don't obey them, I can get fined.
That is one of the teneants out society is built upon. The RULE of LAW.

If the cake maker puts a plastic bride and groom on all of his cakes, how is he not treating the gay couple equally by refusing to put a groom and groom on top of the cake? Everybody gets everything exactly the same.
 
So, you're saying that someone who sells things to "the public" has to leave his religion outside the door of his establishment? Why??? That's ridiculous.
No one is saying that.

What we're saying is that when someone creates a business and makes a public proffer of goods or services, he's under an obligations to deliver those goods or services to any member of the public who takes him up on his offer to do business.
 
No one is saying that.

What we're saying is that when someone creates a business and makes a public proffer of goods or services, he's under an obligations to deliver those goods or services to any member of the public who takes him up on his offer to do business.

Simply not true.

Many law firms offer divorce services "for men only." I presume that they won't represent a woman? And since they're lawyers, I have to imagine this must be lawful?
 
Simply not true.

Many law firms offer divorce services "for men only." I presume that they won't represent a woman? And since they're lawyers, I have to imagine this must be lawful?
Law firms aren't businesses of public accommodation. Most bakeries are because they choose to be, but they wouldn't have to be structured that way.
 
Law firms aren't businesses of public accommodation. Most bakeries are because they choose to be, but they wouldn't have to be structured that way.

How would the baker structure his business so that he can't be forced to make a cake that he finds offensive?
 
So, you believe a lawyer should be able to turn away a client seeking a gay divorce?
Sure. Google "business of public accommodation" and you will find it has a specific definition. One of the standards is a place that serves food for consumption on the premises. A bakery that simply bakes things, but doesn't serve up the baked goods for immediate consumption could refuse gay wedding cakes all day. But so long as there is a law that says I have a right to something, I am duty bound to insist that right be respected. It would be inhumane to give people a pass to walk on my rights.
 
Sure. Google "business of public accommodation" and you will find it has a specific definition. One of the standards is a place that serves food for consumption on the premises. A bakery that simply bakes things, but doesn't serve up the baked goods for immediate consumption could refuse gay wedding cakes all day. But so long as there is a law that says I have a right to something, I am duty bound to insist that right be respected. It would be inhumane to give people a pass to walk on my rights.

Again, simply not true. No one eats a wedding cake at the bakery. It's delivered to the wedding reception for consumption.
 
Again, simply not true. No one eats a wedding cake at the bakery. It's delivered to the wedding reception for consumption.
Your statement doesn't make what I said untrue. Its not about eating the specific cake. Its about if it is the type of business that sells food for consumption at the location. You don't appear to know this issue well, so google the term.
 
Your statement doesn't make what I said untrue. Its not about eating the specific cake. Its about if it is the type of business that sells food for consumption at the location. You don't appear to know this issue well, so google the term.

So, a baker that doesn't have tables in his establishment can refuse to make a wedding cake for consumption elsewhere? But if a baker does have tables, he can't refuse?

So, if the infamous "Memories Pizza" didn't have tables, they could have refused to deliver pizzas to the gay wedding reception?

This doesn't make any sense.

(edited to ask, WHO THE HELL HAS PIZZA AT THEIR WEDDING RECEPTION?)
 
Simply not true.

Many law firms offer divorce services "for men only." I presume that they won't represent a woman? And since they're lawyers, I have to imagine this must be lawful?
Plenty of services can be reasonably tailored, specialized and targeted to a particular demographic. It's the "reasonableness" that then has to be scrutinized. No one would argue improper discrimination or denial of rights if a tax lawyer turned away divorce cases, for example, because he's a tax lawyer.

We also, as a culture, make exceptions for certain "close" cases. So, for example, a landlord can't generally reject a tenant based on race. But if you are renting part of your own home, we make an exception. Similarly, a baker may not be permitted to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple, but he can refuse business to someone who is falling down drunk and causing a scene even if they happen to be gay.

Most of us can tell the difference between when a refusal of service is reasonable or not. And when we have trouble agreeing on that, we have courts.
 
Plenty of services can be reasonably tailored, specialized and targeted to a particular demographic. It's the "reasonableness" that then has to be scrutinized. No one would argue improper discrimination or denial of rights if a tax lawyer turned away divorce cases, for example, because he's a tax lawyer.

We also, as a culture, make exceptions for certain "close" cases. So, for example, a landlord can't generally reject a tenant based on race. But if you are renting part of your own home, we make an exception. Similarly, a baker may not be permitted to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple, but he can refuse business to someone who is falling down drunk and causing a scene even if they happen to be gay.

Most of us can tell the difference between when a refusal of service is reasonable or not. And when we have trouble agreeing on that, we have courts.

As I believe I mentioned earlier in the thread, being "reasonable" is the only way we can navigate the collision between gay rights and religious rights. Certainly refusing to serve a gay couple at a diner would be ridiculous, but it's also ridiculous to go to place called "Christ's Loaves Bakery" and demand they make a cake that says, "Congratulations on your Wedding Adam and Steve!"
 
I would prefer a day free of WWJD threads and posts. What a day that would be.
 
So, a baker that doesn't have tables in his establishment can refuse to make a wedding cake for consumption elsewhere? But if a baker does have tables, he can't refuse?

So, if the infamous "Memories Pizza" didn't have tables, they could have refused to deliver pizzas to the gay wedding reception?

This doesn't make any sense.

(edited to ask, WHO THE HELL HAS PIZZA AT THEIR WEDDING RECEPTION?)
Yes, that's how it works. You can argue that's not the original intent of the law or it shouldn't be the law, but that is the law. You can work to change it and I will fight to keep it. So long as it is the law, I will encourage people to avail themselves of it because abdicating your rights puts all of us at risk.
 
ADVERTISEMENT