Justice Dept. sides with baker who refused to serve gay couple

[America Needs R'hllor]

On the one hand, forcing businesses to provide services to EVERYONE is problematic.
On the other- the mere notion of someone being denied service for his race/sexual orientation is repulsive and definitely against the principles we should have as democratic nations. Also, if one lives in a town where all bakeries won't provide him service because he's black or because he's gay- that is a terrible thing and he should be able to get service.
In conclusion- add sexual orientation to anti-discriminatory laws that already include race etc. LGBTQ people should be just as protected as people of color. A business should be able to deny service if the customer is being mean or violent- but if a baker wants to deny services because the customer is gay or black, which are exactly the same in terms of the lack of choice a person has over his birth, then let the damned baker pay a nice fine. A wedding gift, you could say.
Also, Wulfric-
You're making weird exceptions. Why is it just ok to deny services for a wedding and not ok otherwise? This is extremely weird. And lastly:

No Business should ever be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, or sex (that's just sex, not sexual orientation or gender identity, although I do support some CSR protections for those groups.).

So now you're making an exception for sexual orientation or gender identity? Ok to discriminate based on it, but not on sex or race? This is worse than weird, this is bizarrely bigoted.

Helping with a wedding is basically indicating one's full approval of a relationship coming into existence. No other occasion or service rises to that level.

Okay, hypothetically, should a devout Catholic cashier be able to refuse to sell condoms? Or maybe just refuse to sell them to gay couples?

Should an accountant be able to refuse to help a married homosexual couple file their taxes jointly?

Should a religious bridal shop owner be able to refuse to sell a dress to a lesbian?

Should a devout realtor be able to refuse to sell a home to a newlywed homosexual couple, where they'll live together?

Should a mattress store owner be able to refuse to sell a mattress to a gay couple, knowing that it will be where they'll consummate the marriage?

Should a small hotel manager be able to refuse to allow a gay couple's wedding party to stay in his hotel's rooms?

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes.

Now replace homosexual with black, and see yourself becoming a racist.
But or course, homophobia is ok because of religion. The feelings of religious people are ALWAYS the most important.

[Idaho Conservative]

I am ok with requiring a publicly-traded corporation to provide services equally to members of the public because a corporation is simply a legal entity with the sole purpose of delivering a profit to its shareholders.   However, I privately owned company should have the absolute right to refuse service to anyone, even to protected classes.   In terms of the masterpiece case, I am 100% on the side of the baker.  It is not the baker imposing his beliefs on the gay couple by not baking them a cake, it is the gay couple imposing their beliefs on the baker by trying to use the government to punish the baker for simply refusing a cake to their wedding.  The government should not be involved in this stuff at all. This is a private dispute between two parties.  This does not belong in any courtroom.  

[Idaho Conservative]

On the one hand, forcing businesses to provide services to EVERYONE is problematic.
On the other- the mere notion of someone being denied service for his race/sexual orientation is repulsive and definitely against the principles we should have as democratic nations. Also, if one lives in a town where all bakeries won't provide him service because he's black or because he's gay- that is a terrible thing and he should be able to get service.
In conclusion- add sexual orientation to anti-discriminatory laws that already include race etc. LGBTQ people should be just as protected as people of color. A business should be able to deny service if the customer is being mean or violent- but if a baker wants to deny services because the customer is gay or black, which are exactly the same in terms of the lack of choice a person has over his birth, then let the damned baker pay a nice fine. A wedding gift, you could say.
Also, Wulfric-
You're making weird exceptions. Why is it just ok to deny services for a wedding and not ok otherwise? This is extremely weird. And lastly:

No Business should ever be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, or sex (that's just sex, not sexual orientation or gender identity, although I do support some CSR protections for those groups.).

So now you're making an exception for sexual orientation or gender identity? Ok to discriminate based on it, but not on sex or race? This is worse than weird, this is bizarrely bigoted.

Helping with a wedding is basically indicating one's full approval of a relationship coming into existence. No other occasion or service rises to that level.

Okay, hypothetically, should a devout Catholic cashier be able to refuse to sell condoms? Or maybe just refuse to sell them to gay couples?

Should an accountant be able to refuse to help a married homosexual couple file their taxes jointly?

Should a religious bridal shop owner be able to refuse to sell a dress to a lesbian?

Should a devout realtor be able to refuse to sell a home to a newlywed homosexual couple, where they'll live together?

Should a mattress store owner be able to refuse to sell a mattress to a gay couple, knowing that it will be where they'll consummate the marriage?

Should a small hotel manager be able to refuse to allow a gay couple's wedding party to stay in his hotel's rooms?

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes.

Now replace homosexual with black, and see yourself becoming a racist.
But or course, homophobia is ok because of religion. The feelings of religious people are ALWAYS the most important.

I'm too smart to fall for you trick.  You are trying to get me to be inconsistent and be ok with discrimination against gays but not blacks.   I am a consistent libertarian and support the right to refuse service to any protect class.  I am a white, straight, male and if a business owner wants to reuse service to me because of any of those characteristics, the power to them.  Special snowflakes get their feelings hurt and go crying al the way to the courthouse to impose their ideology on others.  My common sense solution is simple, go to another baker or make your own cake.  I have baked cakes before, it is not all that difficult.  Consistent libertarianism on this issue isn't racist.  It is only racist is you believe racial discrimination should be legal and other forms of discrimination shouldn't be.  The government must provide all services equally to everyone but private business owners don't have that same responsibility.

[America Needs R'hllor]

On the one hand, forcing businesses to provide services to EVERYONE is problematic.
On the other- the mere notion of someone being denied service for his race/sexual orientation is repulsive and definitely against the principles we should have as democratic nations. Also, if one lives in a town where all bakeries won't provide him service because he's black or because he's gay- that is a terrible thing and he should be able to get service.
In conclusion- add sexual orientation to anti-discriminatory laws that already include race etc. LGBTQ people should be just as protected as people of color. A business should be able to deny service if the customer is being mean or violent- but if a baker wants to deny services because the customer is gay or black, which are exactly the same in terms of the lack of choice a person has over his birth, then let the damned baker pay a nice fine. A wedding gift, you could say.
Also, Wulfric-
You're making weird exceptions. Why is it just ok to deny services for a wedding and not ok otherwise? This is extremely weird. And lastly:

No Business should ever be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, or sex (that's just sex, not sexual orientation or gender identity, although I do support some CSR protections for those groups.).

So now you're making an exception for sexual orientation or gender identity? Ok to discriminate based on it, but not on sex or race? This is worse than weird, this is bizarrely bigoted.

Helping with a wedding is basically indicating one's full approval of a relationship coming into existence. No other occasion or service rises to that level.

Okay, hypothetically, should a devout Catholic cashier be able to refuse to sell condoms? Or maybe just refuse to sell them to gay couples?

Should an accountant be able to refuse to help a married homosexual couple file their taxes jointly?

Should a religious bridal shop owner be able to refuse to sell a dress to a lesbian?

Should a devout realtor be able to refuse to sell a home to a newlywed homosexual couple, where they'll live together?

Should a mattress store owner be able to refuse to sell a mattress to a gay couple, knowing that it will be where they'll consummate the marriage?

Should a small hotel manager be able to refuse to allow a gay couple's wedding party to stay in his hotel's rooms?

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes.

Now replace homosexual with black, and see yourself becoming a racist.
But or course, homophobia is ok because of religion. The feelings of religious people are ALWAYS the most important.

I'm too smart to fall for you trick.  You are trying to get me to be inconsistent and be ok with discrimination against gays but not blacks.   I am a consistent libertarian and support the right to refuse service to any protect class.  I am a white, straight, male and if a business owner wants to reuse service to me because of any of those characteristics, the power to them.  Special snowflakes get their feelings hurt and go crying al the way to the courthouse to impose their ideology on others.  My common sense solution is simple, go to another baker or make your own cake.  I have baked cakes before, it is not all that difficult.  Consistent libertarianism on this issue isn't racist.  It is only racist is you believe racial discrimination should be legal and other forms of discrimination shouldn't be.  The government must provide all services equally to everyone but private business owners don't have that same responsibility.

You didn't "fall to my trick", you just confirmed that you're against anti-discriminatory acts like the civil rights act. That is a position that, even if not coming from racist tedencies, is definitely promoting racist policies. But, I'll say this- a blanket opposition to anti-discriminatory acts is better than opposing it only for sexual orientations, while supporting it for sex or race.

[MasterJedi]

On the one hand, forcing businesses to provide services to EVERYONE is problematic.
On the other- the mere notion of someone being denied service for his race/sexual orientation is repulsive and definitely against the principles we should have as democratic nations. Also, if one lives in a town where all bakeries won't provide him service because he's black or because he's gay- that is a terrible thing and he should be able to get service.
In conclusion- add sexual orientation to anti-discriminatory laws that already include race etc. LGBTQ people should be just as protected as people of color. A business should be able to deny service if the customer is being mean or violent- but if a baker wants to deny services because the customer is gay or black, which are exactly the same in terms of the lack of choice a person has over his birth, then let the damned baker pay a nice fine. A wedding gift, you could say.
Also, Wulfric-
You're making weird exceptions. Why is it just ok to deny services for a wedding and not ok otherwise? This is extremely weird. And lastly:

No Business should ever be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, or sex (that's just sex, not sexual orientation or gender identity, although I do support some CSR protections for those groups.).

So now you're making an exception for sexual orientation or gender identity? Ok to discriminate based on it, but not on sex or race? This is worse than weird, this is bizarrely bigoted.

Helping with a wedding is basically indicating one's full approval of a relationship coming into existence. No other occasion or service rises to that level.

Okay, hypothetically, should a devout Catholic cashier be able to refuse to sell condoms? Or maybe just refuse to sell them to gay couples?

Should an accountant be able to refuse to help a married homosexual couple file their taxes jointly?

Should a religious bridal shop owner be able to refuse to sell a dress to a lesbian?

Should a devout realtor be able to refuse to sell a home to a newlywed homosexual couple, where they'll live together?

Should a mattress store owner be able to refuse to sell a mattress to a gay couple, knowing that it will be where they'll consummate the marriage?

Should a small hotel manager be able to refuse to allow a gay couple's wedding party to stay in his hotel's rooms?

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes.

Now replace homosexual with black, and see yourself becoming a racist.
But or course, homophobia is ok because of religion. The feelings of religious people are ALWAYS the most important.

I'm too smart to fall for you trick.  You are trying to get me to be inconsistent and be ok with discrimination against gays but not blacks.   I am a consistent libertarian and support the right to refuse service to any protect class.  I am a white, straight, male and if a business owner wants to reuse service to me because of any of those characteristics, the power to them.  Special snowflakes get their feelings hurt and go crying al the way to the courthouse to impose their ideology on others.  My common sense solution is simple, go to another baker or make your own cake.  I have baked cakes before, it is not all that difficult.  Consistent libertarianism on this issue isn't racist.  It is only racist is you believe racial discrimination should be legal and other forms of discrimination shouldn't be.  The government must provide all services equally to everyone but private business owners don't have that same responsibility.

Yes, you're so smart that you just admitted that you believe it's ok go discriminate against others because they should have the right to discriminate. Amusing if it wasn't so sad.

Add to that, all your arguments are clearly going against the civil rights act because any business accept those that are left public corporations should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason. Bring back to "no blacks" " no Jews" signs.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

If a person's religious belief that gay sex is a sin is bigotry, is that also true for religious beliefs that drinking alcohol is bigotry?

Social liberalism is getting more and more extreme.

[ProudModerate2]

On the one hand, forcing businesses to provide services to EVERYONE is problematic.
On the other- the mere notion of someone being denied service for his race/sexual orientation is repulsive and definitely against the principles we should have as democratic nations. Also, if one lives in a town where all bakeries won't provide him service because he's black or because he's gay- that is a terrible thing and he should be able to get service.
In conclusion- add sexual orientation to anti-discriminatory laws that already include race etc. LGBTQ people should be just as protected as people of color. A business should be able to deny service if the customer is being mean or violent- but if a baker wants to deny services because the customer is gay or black, which are exactly the same in terms of the lack of choice a person has over his birth, then let the damned baker pay a nice fine. A wedding gift, you could say.
Also, Wulfric-
You're making weird exceptions. Why is it just ok to deny services for a wedding and not ok otherwise? This is extremely weird. And lastly:

No Business should ever be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, or sex (that's just sex, not sexual orientation or gender identity, although I do support some CSR protections for those groups.).

So now you're making an exception for sexual orientation or gender identity? Ok to discriminate based on it, but not on sex or race? This is worse than weird, this is bizarrely bigoted.

Helping with a wedding is basically indicating one's full approval of a relationship coming into existence. No other occasion or service rises to that level.

Okay, hypothetically, should a devout Catholic cashier be able to refuse to sell condoms? Or maybe just refuse to sell them to gay couples?

Should an accountant be able to refuse to help a married homosexual couple file their taxes jointly?

Should a religious bridal shop owner be able to refuse to sell a dress to a lesbian?

Should a devout realtor be able to refuse to sell a home to a newlywed homosexual couple, where they'll live together?

Should a mattress store owner be able to refuse to sell a mattress to a gay couple, knowing that it will be where they'll consummate the marriage?

Should a small hotel manager be able to refuse to allow a gay couple's wedding party to stay in his hotel's rooms?

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes.

Now replace homosexual with black, and see yourself becoming a racist.
But or course, homophobia is ok because of religion. The feelings of religious people are ALWAYS the most important.

I'm too smart to fall for you trick.  You are trying to get me to be inconsistent and be ok with discrimination against gays but not blacks.   I am a consistent libertarian and support the right to refuse service to any protect class.  I am a white, straight, male and if a business owner wants to reuse service to me because of any of those characteristics, the power to them.  Special snowflakes get their feelings hurt and go crying al the way to the courthouse to impose their ideology on others.  My common sense solution is simple, go to another baker or make your own cake.  I have baked cakes before, it is not all that difficult.  Consistent libertarianism on this issue isn't racist.  It is only racist is you believe racial discrimination should be legal and other forms of discrimination shouldn't be.  The government must provide all services equally to everyone but private business owners don't have that same responsibility.

Congratulations .... you're a racist.

[Santander]

If a person's religious belief that gay sex is a sin is bigotry, is that also true for religious beliefs that drinking alcohol is bigotry?

Social liberalism is getting more and more extreme.

Well, if gay marriages are anything like straight marriages, we should be getting them all married as quickly as possible to stop their sinning.

[SteveRogers]

If a person's religious belief that gay sex is a sin is bigotry, is that also true for religious beliefs that drinking alcohol is bigotry?

Social liberalism is getting more and more extreme.

Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic of a person. Choosing to drink alcohol is conduct.

To which you will respond that what is being disapproved of is the conduct of engaging in gay sex.

To which I will point out that plenty of bigots in the 50s argued that they had no problem with black people but opposed interracial sex on religious grounds.

Again, the issue in this case is not limited to discrimination against gay couples. The issue at stake in this case is whether a state legislature may regulate these types of personal services via anti-discrimination legislation, or whether all such measures must give way to first amendment claims of business owners.

Here, Colorado chose to add sexual orientation to the longstanding list of impermissible bases for discrimination that previously included race, sex, religion, age, disability, etc. To my knowledge Colorado has not added "use of alcohol" to that list. If you lived in Colorado, you would certainly have the right to petition your state legislature to change either of those facts. But what the baker in this case is asking for is for that law, passed by a democratically elected legislature, to be struck down by a court.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If a person's religious belief that gay sex is a sin is bigotry, is that also true for religious beliefs that drinking alcohol is bigotry?

Social liberalism is getting more and more extreme.

Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic of a person. Choosing to drink alcohol is conduct.

You sound as if you have zero experience with alcoholics or other addicts.

[SteveRogers]

If a person's religious belief that gay sex is a sin is bigotry, is that also true for religious beliefs that drinking alcohol is bigotry?

Social liberalism is getting more and more extreme.

Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic of a person. Choosing to drink alcohol is conduct.

You sound as if you have zero experience with alcoholics or other addicts.

Sadly that is not the case. But I wasn't aware we were talking about alcoholics. The question was about "drinking alcohol" and whether or not disapproval of such was morally equivalent to bigotry against homosexuals. Did I miss something?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If a person's religious belief that gay sex is a sin is bigotry, is that also true for religious beliefs that drinking alcohol is bigotry?

Social liberalism is getting more and more extreme.

Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic of a person. Choosing to drink alcohol is conduct.

You sound as if you have zero experience with alcoholics or other addicts.

Sadly that is not the case. But I wasn't aware we were talking about alcoholics. The question was about "drinking alcohol" and whether or not disapproval of such was morally equivalent to bigotry against homosexuals. Did I miss something?

Your words implied that alcohol consumption is a choice in much the same manner as some would say that whether homosexuals have gay sex is a choice.

[Idaho Conservative]

On the one hand, forcing businesses to provide services to EVERYONE is problematic.
On the other- the mere notion of someone being denied service for his race/sexual orientation is repulsive and definitely against the principles we should have as democratic nations. Also, if one lives in a town where all bakeries won't provide him service because he's black or because he's gay- that is a terrible thing and he should be able to get service.
In conclusion- add sexual orientation to anti-discriminatory laws that already include race etc. LGBTQ people should be just as protected as people of color. A business should be able to deny service if the customer is being mean or violent- but if a baker wants to deny services because the customer is gay or black, which are exactly the same in terms of the lack of choice a person has over his birth, then let the damned baker pay a nice fine. A wedding gift, you could say.
Also, Wulfric-
You're making weird exceptions. Why is it just ok to deny services for a wedding and not ok otherwise? This is extremely weird. And lastly:

No Business should ever be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, or sex (that's just sex, not sexual orientation or gender identity, although I do support some CSR protections for those groups.).

So now you're making an exception for sexual orientation or gender identity? Ok to discriminate based on it, but not on sex or race? This is worse than weird, this is bizarrely bigoted.

Helping with a wedding is basically indicating one's full approval of a relationship coming into existence. No other occasion or service rises to that level.

Okay, hypothetically, should a devout Catholic cashier be able to refuse to sell condoms? Or maybe just refuse to sell them to gay couples?

Should an accountant be able to refuse to help a married homosexual couple file their taxes jointly?

Should a religious bridal shop owner be able to refuse to sell a dress to a lesbian?

Should a devout realtor be able to refuse to sell a home to a newlywed homosexual couple, where they'll live together?

Should a mattress store owner be able to refuse to sell a mattress to a gay couple, knowing that it will be where they'll consummate the marriage?

Should a small hotel manager be able to refuse to allow a gay couple's wedding party to stay in his hotel's rooms?

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes.

Now replace homosexual with black, and see yourself becoming a racist.
But or course, homophobia is ok because of religion. The feelings of religious people are ALWAYS the most important.

I'm too smart to fall for you trick.  You are trying to get me to be inconsistent and be ok with discrimination against gays but not blacks.   I am a consistent libertarian and support the right to refuse service to any protect class.  I am a white, straight, male and if a business owner wants to reuse service to me because of any of those characteristics, the power to them.  Special snowflakes get their feelings hurt and go crying al the way to the courthouse to impose their ideology on others.  My common sense solution is simple, go to another baker or make your own cake.  I have baked cakes before, it is not all that difficult.  Consistent libertarianism on this issue isn't racist.  It is only racist is you believe racial discrimination should be legal and other forms of discrimination shouldn't be.  The government must provide all services equally to everyone but private business owners don't have that same responsibility.

Yes, you're so smart that you just admitted that you believe it's ok go discriminate against others because they should have the right to discriminate. Amusing if it wasn't so sad.

Add to that, all your arguments are clearly going against the civil rights act because any business accept those that are left public corporations should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason. Bring back to "no blacks" " no Jews" signs.

You are implying that it is not smart of me to express my belief the government shouldn't coerce private business owners into conduct they don't want to take part in.  Am I supposed to be ashamed of that belief?
I looked at your political compass numbers and it is pretty interesting to see how you, a fiscal centrist and social authoritarian, and me a fiscal conservative and social libertarian stack up on this issue.  According to the numbers I am 8 points to the left of you socially.  Fascinating.
Also, I don't oppose the civil rights Act of 1964, I only oppose Title II and parts of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.   Most of the act was to prohibit the federal government, states, and municipalities from discriminating on the basis of race, religion, sex, national origin, etc.  I support those parts wholeheartedly.  In fact, I would even be in favor of adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the Civil Rights Act as long as Title II were repealed and Title VII were amended to no longer apply to private employers.

[Idaho Conservative]

On the one hand, forcing businesses to provide services to EVERYONE is problematic.
On the other- the mere notion of someone being denied service for his race/sexual orientation is repulsive and definitely against the principles we should have as democratic nations. Also, if one lives in a town where all bakeries won't provide him service because he's black or because he's gay- that is a terrible thing and he should be able to get service.
In conclusion- add sexual orientation to anti-discriminatory laws that already include race etc. LGBTQ people should be just as protected as people of color. A business should be able to deny service if the customer is being mean or violent- but if a baker wants to deny services because the customer is gay or black, which are exactly the same in terms of the lack of choice a person has over his birth, then let the damned baker pay a nice fine. A wedding gift, you could say.
Also, Wulfric-
You're making weird exceptions. Why is it just ok to deny services for a wedding and not ok otherwise? This is extremely weird. And lastly:

No Business should ever be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, or sex (that's just sex, not sexual orientation or gender identity, although I do support some CSR protections for those groups.).

So now you're making an exception for sexual orientation or gender identity? Ok to discriminate based on it, but not on sex or race? This is worse than weird, this is bizarrely bigoted.

Helping with a wedding is basically indicating one's full approval of a relationship coming into existence. No other occasion or service rises to that level.

Okay, hypothetically, should a devout Catholic cashier be able to refuse to sell condoms? Or maybe just refuse to sell them to gay couples?

Should an accountant be able to refuse to help a married homosexual couple file their taxes jointly?

Should a religious bridal shop owner be able to refuse to sell a dress to a lesbian?

Should a devout realtor be able to refuse to sell a home to a newlywed homosexual couple, where they'll live together?

Should a mattress store owner be able to refuse to sell a mattress to a gay couple, knowing that it will be where they'll consummate the marriage?

Should a small hotel manager be able to refuse to allow a gay couple's wedding party to stay in his hotel's rooms?

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes.

Now replace homosexual with black, and see yourself becoming a racist.
But or course, homophobia is ok because of religion. The feelings of religious people are ALWAYS the most important.

I'm too smart to fall for you trick.  You are trying to get me to be inconsistent and be ok with discrimination against gays but not blacks.   I am a consistent libertarian and support the right to refuse service to any protect class.  I am a white, straight, male and if a business owner wants to reuse service to me because of any of those characteristics, the power to them.  Special snowflakes get their feelings hurt and go crying al the way to the courthouse to impose their ideology on others.  My common sense solution is simple, go to another baker or make your own cake.  I have baked cakes before, it is not all that difficult.  Consistent libertarianism on this issue isn't racist.  It is only racist is you believe racial discrimination should be legal and other forms of discrimination shouldn't be.  The government must provide all services equally to everyone but private business owners don't have that same responsibility.

Congratulations .... you're a racist.

  Of course the California leftist chooses not to debate the actually issue and cries "racist."   From my experience when someone resorts to insulting his opponent in a debate, it usually means he has no real arguments and has to resort to that. Classic.
The definition of racist according to the dictionary is:  a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others.
How is saying the government should not force business owners into a transaction they don't want to be in= saying one race is batter than another?   Race has nothing to do with property rights.  I am a colorblind person (not literally) and believe our laws must not take race into account.  Supporting laws that require businesses to discriminate of course is racist but simply not wanting any law on the matter is not racist.  Please try to respond next time with facts instead of inaccurate insults.

[SteveRogers]

If a person's religious belief that gay sex is a sin is bigotry, is that also true for religious beliefs that drinking alcohol is bigotry?

Social liberalism is getting more and more extreme.

Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic of a person. Choosing to drink alcohol is conduct.

You sound as if you have zero experience with alcoholics or other addicts.

Sadly that is not the case. But I wasn't aware we were talking about alcoholics. The question was about "drinking alcohol" and whether or not disapproval of such was morally equivalent to bigotry against homosexuals. Did I miss something?

Your words implied that alcohol consumption is a choice in much the same manner as some would say that whether homosexuals have gay sex is a choice.

Again, I read the post I was responding to as asking whether or not religious disapproval of alcohol consumption is bigotry in the same way that discrimination against those who have gay sex is bigotry. Obviously for the vast majority of the population drinking is a choice, and my point was that I do not believe that "people who choose to drink" are a class that needs protection from discrimination in the same way that people need protection from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation. But yes, I understand your point that for alcoholics the urge to drink is a biological predisposition that is indeed an immutable characteristic. I believe decent people should have basic human empathy for alcoholics and also not hate people based on their sexual orientation.

[Dr. Arch]

I don't get the purpose of suing to have the right to give your money to someone that hates you.

I don't get this either. Why would one do business with a company that rejects them for being gay? What good is there in giving them your money to help them turn a profit and stay in business?

Because if enough people feel entitled to do so, you end up getting kicked out of the market for who you are, and then that's a problem.

[Dr. Arch]

I don't get the purpose of suing to have the right to give your money to someone that hates you.

I don't get this either. Why would one do business with a company that rejects them for being gay? What good is there in giving them your money to help them turn a profit and stay in business?

Because if enough people feel entitled to do so, you end up getting kicked out of the market for who you are, and then that's a problem.

Where is this true of? There's probably a very tiny subset of situations where you have a gay couple in a rural area where there's only one bakery in town and only that bakery makes cakes and denies them service.

For the most part there's other options available.

And for those who don't have those options? Sucks for them? What if we were talking about Jim Crow laws? Would you say the same?

[SteveRogers]

I don't get the purpose of suing to have the right to give your money to someone that hates you.

I don't get this either. Why would one do business with a company that rejects them for being gay? What good is there in giving them your money to help them turn a profit and stay in business?

Because if enough people feel entitled to do so, you end up getting kicked out of the market for who you are, and then that's a problem.

Where is this true of? There's probably a very tiny subset of situations where you have a gay couple in a rural area where there's only one bakery in town and only that bakery makes cakes and denies them service.

For the most part there's other options available.

You answered your own question. Do you know how many millions of Americans don't live in a big city full of bakeries.

[Dr. Arch]

I don't get the purpose of suing to have the right to give your money to someone that hates you.

I don't get this either. Why would one do business with a company that rejects them for being gay? What good is there in giving them your money to help them turn a profit and stay in business?

Because if enough people feel entitled to do so, you end up getting kicked out of the market for who you are, and then that's a problem.

Where is this true of? There's probably a very tiny subset of situations where you have a gay couple in a rural area where there's only one bakery in town and only that bakery makes cakes and denies them service.

For the most part there's other options available.

And for those who don't have those options? Sucks for them? What if we were talking about Jim Crow laws? Would you say the same?

Who are these people who don't have options and why? Is it cuz they live in an extremely small town isolated rural area where there's only one bakery in town who won't serve them? I highly doubt these people couldn't just go to the media and either force the Baker into making them one or get enough press coverage to make a gofundme to pay somebody to come into town to bake them their own cake. Giving that person money is a far better endeavor then giving money to some homophobic douchebag dontcha think?

Also LOL at comparing this to black people and Jim Crow. Holy sh*t that comparison is beyond stupid.

Not getting some dumb cake for a wedding from a local Baker has got to be one of the whitest of white bread, first world middle class problems a federal circuit court has dealt with in American history. It's like snobby San Francisco hippies found a pet issue to play with and it escalated out of control.

Listen, I've treated you respectfully, and I expect the same from you. I'm not about to engage in some high school melodramatic exchange of ad hominems. Calling a comparison stupid because you lack depth in the subject, and the comparison actually being stupid for reasons that you enumerate are very different things.

Sure, it starts with a cake, which appears to be inane, but then another business owner of a more vital service decides not to provide that service for the same reasons as well, say, car tow services. Eventually, you have people feeling empowered enough to take it to the next level. So on, so forth. If you let stupidity like this roam free, it'll eventually get to the point where it gets out of control.

I don't want to have to worry about getting services somewhere because my very existence offends someone's religious sensibilities. The same kind of crap argument was used in all other forms of discriminatory actions in the history of the U.S. Stop with the apologist acts and minimization. We've seen enough of it.

[Dr. Arch]

I don't get the purpose of suing to have the right to give your money to someone that hates you.

I don't get this either. Why would one do business with a company that rejects them for being gay? What good is there in giving them your money to help them turn a profit and stay in business?

Because if enough people feel entitled to do so, you end up getting kicked out of the market for who you are, and then that's a problem.

Where is this true of? There's probably a very tiny subset of situations where you have a gay couple in a rural area where there's only one bakery in town and only that bakery makes cakes and denies them service.

For the most part there's other options available.

And for those who don't have those options? Sucks for them? What if we were talking about Jim Crow laws? Would you say the same?

Who are these people who don't have options and why? Is it cuz they live in an extremely small town isolated rural area where there's only one bakery in town who won't serve them? I highly doubt these people couldn't just go to the media and either force the Baker into making them one or get enough press coverage to make a gofundme to pay somebody to come into town to bake them their own cake. Giving that person money is a far better endeavor then giving money to some homophobic douchebag dontcha think?

Also LOL at comparing this to black people and Jim Crow. Holy sh*t that comparison is beyond stupid.

Not getting some dumb cake for a wedding from a local Baker has got to be one of the whitest of white bread, first world middle class problems a federal circuit court has dealt with in American history. It's like snobby San Francisco hippies found a pet issue to play with and it escalated out of control.

Listen, I've treated you respectfully, and I expect the same from you. I'm not about to engage in some high school melodramatic exchange of ad hominems. Calling a comparison stupid because you lack depth in the subject, and the comparison actually being stupid for reasons that you enumerate are very different things.

Sure, it starts with a cake, which appears to be inane, but then another business owner of a more vital service decides not to provide that service for the same reasons as well, say, car tow services. Eventually, you have people feeling empowered enough to take it to the next level. So on, so forth. If you let stupidity like this roam free, it'll eventually get to the point where it gets out of control.

I don't want to have to worry about getting services somewhere because my very existence offends someone's religious sensibilities. The same kind of crap argument was used in all other forms of discriminatory actions in the history of the U.S. Stop with the apologist acts and minimization. We've seen enough of it.

Not getting your preferred cake of choice =/= Jim Crow.

Sigh... Are you done whacking that straw man? I'm saying in the bolded parts that it can and (given U.S. history) will get to that point in certain places because of "religious liberty;" one of the same reasons that were used to push forward Jim Crow laws. If you don't get that, then there's no breaking through. You are attempting to rationalize yourself out of the point.

[ProudModerate2]

On the one hand, forcing businesses to provide services to EVERYONE is problematic.
On the other- the mere notion of someone being denied service for his race/sexual orientation is repulsive and definitely against the principles we should have as democratic nations. Also, if one lives in a town where all bakeries won't provide him service because he's black or because he's gay- that is a terrible thing and he should be able to get service.
In conclusion- add sexual orientation to anti-discriminatory laws that already include race etc. LGBTQ people should be just as protected as people of color. A business should be able to deny service if the customer is being mean or violent- but if a baker wants to deny services because the customer is gay or black, which are exactly the same in terms of the lack of choice a person has over his birth, then let the damned baker pay a nice fine. A wedding gift, you could say.
Also, Wulfric-
You're making weird exceptions. Why is it just ok to deny services for a wedding and not ok otherwise? This is extremely weird. And lastly:

No Business should ever be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, or sex (that's just sex, not sexual orientation or gender identity, although I do support some CSR protections for those groups.).

So now you're making an exception for sexual orientation or gender identity? Ok to discriminate based on it, but not on sex or race? This is worse than weird, this is bizarrely bigoted.

Helping with a wedding is basically indicating one's full approval of a relationship coming into existence. No other occasion or service rises to that level.

Okay, hypothetically, should a devout Catholic cashier be able to refuse to sell condoms? Or maybe just refuse to sell them to gay couples?

Should an accountant be able to refuse to help a married homosexual couple file their taxes jointly?

Should a religious bridal shop owner be able to refuse to sell a dress to a lesbian?

Should a devout realtor be able to refuse to sell a home to a newlywed homosexual couple, where they'll live together?

Should a mattress store owner be able to refuse to sell a mattress to a gay couple, knowing that it will be where they'll consummate the marriage?

Should a small hotel manager be able to refuse to allow a gay couple's wedding party to stay in his hotel's rooms?

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes.

Now replace homosexual with black, and see yourself becoming a racist.
But or course, homophobia is ok because of religion. The feelings of religious people are ALWAYS the most important.

I'm too smart to fall for you trick.  You are trying to get me to be inconsistent and be ok with discrimination against gays but not blacks.   I am a consistent libertarian and support the right to refuse service to any protect class.  I am a white, straight, male and if a business owner wants to reuse service to me because of any of those characteristics, the power to them.  Special snowflakes get their feelings hurt and go crying al the way to the courthouse to impose their ideology on others.  My common sense solution is simple, go to another baker or make your own cake.  I have baked cakes before, it is not all that difficult.  Consistent libertarianism on this issue isn't racist.  It is only racist is you believe racial discrimination should be legal and other forms of discrimination shouldn't be.  The government must provide all services equally to everyone but private business owners don't have that same responsibility.

Congratulations .... you're a racist.

  Of course the California leftist chooses not to debate the actually issue and cries "racist."   From my experience when someone resorts to insulting his opponent in a debate, it usually means he has no real arguments and has to resort to that. Classic.
The definition of racist according to the dictionary is:  a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others.
How is saying the government should not force business owners into a transaction they don't want to be in= saying one race is batter than another?   Race has nothing to do with property rights.  I am a colorblind person (not literally) and believe our laws must not take race into account.  Supporting laws that require businesses to discriminate of course is racist but simply not wanting any law on the matter is not racist.  Please try to respond next time with facts instead of inaccurate insults.

No, not really.
You were just wishy-washy and you were questioning yourself if you were "a racist" or not ("Consistent libertarianism on this issue isn't racist.  It is only racist is you believe racial discrimination should be legal ...).
I just wanted to save you the cost and time of seeing a shrink, and just give it to you "straight."

[SteveRogers]

I don't get the purpose of suing to have the right to give your money to someone that hates you.

I don't get this either. Why would one do business with a company that rejects them for being gay? What good is there in giving them your money to help them turn a profit and stay in business?

Because if enough people feel entitled to do so, you end up getting kicked out of the market for who you are, and then that's a problem.

Where is this true of? There's probably a very tiny subset of situations where you have a gay couple in a rural area where there's only one bakery in town and only that bakery makes cakes and denies them service.

For the most part there's other options available.

And for those who don't have those options? Sucks for them? What if we were talking about Jim Crow laws? Would you say the same?

Who are these people who don't have options and why? Is it cuz they live in an extremely small town isolated rural area where there's only one bakery in town who won't serve them? I highly doubt these people couldn't just go to the media and either force the Baker into making them one or get enough press coverage to make a gofundme to pay somebody to come into town to bake them their own cake. Giving that person money is a far better endeavor then giving money to some homophobic douchebag dontcha think?

Also LOL at comparing this to black people and Jim Crow. Holy sh*t that comparison is beyond stupid.

Not getting some dumb cake for a wedding from a local Baker has got to be one of the whitest of white bread, first world middle class problems a federal circuit court has dealt with in American history. It's like snobby San Francisco hippies found a pet issue to play with and it escalated out of control.

People who care about getting married care about getting a quality wedding cake for their ceremony. Your attempt to play dumb about why someone wants "some dumb cake" is unconvincing. If you truly don't understand the place that a person's wedding ceremony can occupy in someone's heart, then there is no point in trying to explain it to you here.

The fact that someone living in a community with limited options who is discriminated against in that market might still be able to get a wedding cake another way if they try hard enough isn't a solution. No person should be forced to suffer the indignity of jumping through five extra hoops for an opportunity that is afforded to everyone else merely on account of an inherent trait they can't control.

[Dr. Arch]

I don't get the purpose of suing to have the right to give your money to someone that hates you.

I don't get this either. Why would one do business with a company that rejects them for being gay? What good is there in giving them your money to help them turn a profit and stay in business?

Because if enough people feel entitled to do so, you end up getting kicked out of the market for who you are, and then that's a problem.

Where is this true of? There's probably a very tiny subset of situations where you have a gay couple in a rural area where there's only one bakery in town and only that bakery makes cakes and denies them service.

For the most part there's other options available.

And for those who don't have those options? Sucks for them? What if we were talking about Jim Crow laws? Would you say the same?

Who are these people who don't have options and why? Is it cuz they live in an extremely small town isolated rural area where there's only one bakery in town who won't serve them? I highly doubt these people couldn't just go to the media and either force the Baker into making them one or get enough press coverage to make a gofundme to pay somebody to come into town to bake them their own cake. Giving that person money is a far better endeavor then giving money to some homophobic douchebag dontcha think?

Also LOL at comparing this to black people and Jim Crow. Holy sh*t that comparison is beyond stupid.

Not getting some dumb cake for a wedding from a local Baker has got to be one of the whitest of white bread, first world middle class problems a federal circuit court has dealt with in American history. It's like snobby San Francisco hippies found a pet issue to play with and it escalated out of control.

Listen, I've treated you respectfully, and I expect the same from you. I'm not about to engage in some high school melodramatic exchange of ad hominems. Calling a comparison stupid because you lack depth in the subject, and the comparison actually being stupid for reasons that you enumerate are very different things.

Sure, it starts with a cake, which appears to be inane, but then another business owner of a more vital service decides not to provide that service for the same reasons as well, say, car tow services. Eventually, you have people feeling empowered enough to take it to the next level. So on, so forth. If you let stupidity like this roam free, it'll eventually get to the point where it gets out of control.

I don't want to have to worry about getting services somewhere because my very existence offends someone's religious sensibilities. The same kind of crap argument was used in all other forms of discriminatory actions in the history of the U.S. Stop with the apologist acts and minimization. We've seen enough of it.

Not getting your preferred cake of choice =/= Jim Crow.

Sigh... Are you done whacking that straw man? I'm saying in the bolded parts that it can and (given U.S. history) will get to that point in certain places because of "religious liberty;" one of the same reasons that were used to push forward Jim Crow laws. If you don't get that, then there's no breaking through. You are attempting to rationalize yourself out of the point.

You asked me about Jim Crow and therefore equated the two. You presented the straw man ad factum first. Idk why you think the situations are at all similar in their severity.

Are you reading? I said that it can develop INTO those kinds of situations in bold, given enough time and political space. I mentioned the laws, not because they were the same in severity, but because the same reasoning are being brought up to sustain them. You made the connection based on a rhetorical question, and you still make the connection even after I explicate.

[Dr. Arch]

I don't get the purpose of suing to have the right to give your money to someone that hates you.

I don't get this either. Why would one do business with a company that rejects them for being gay? What good is there in giving them your money to help them turn a profit and stay in business?

Because if enough people feel entitled to do so, you end up getting kicked out of the market for who you are, and then that's a problem.

Where is this true of? There's probably a very tiny subset of situations where you have a gay couple in a rural area where there's only one bakery in town and only that bakery makes cakes and denies them service.

For the most part there's other options available.

And for those who don't have those options? Sucks for them? What if we were talking about Jim Crow laws? Would you say the same?

Who are these people who don't have options and why? Is it cuz they live in an extremely small town isolated rural area where there's only one bakery in town who won't serve them? I highly doubt these people couldn't just go to the media and either force the Baker into making them one or get enough press coverage to make a gofundme to pay somebody to come into town to bake them their own cake. Giving that person money is a far better endeavor then giving money to some homophobic douchebag dontcha think?

Also LOL at comparing this to black people and Jim Crow. Holy sh*t that comparison is beyond stupid.

Not getting some dumb cake for a wedding from a local Baker has got to be one of the whitest of white bread, first world middle class problems a federal circuit court has dealt with in American history. It's like snobby San Francisco hippies found a pet issue to play with and it escalated out of control.

Listen, I've treated you respectfully, and I expect the same from you. I'm not about to engage in some high school melodramatic exchange of ad hominems. Calling a comparison stupid because you lack depth in the subject, and the comparison actually being stupid for reasons that you enumerate are very different things.

Sure, it starts with a cake, which appears to be inane, but then another business owner of a more vital service decides not to provide that service for the same reasons as well, say, car tow services. Eventually, you have people feeling empowered enough to take it to the next level. So on, so forth. If you let stupidity like this roam free, it'll eventually get to the point where it gets out of control.

I don't want to have to worry about getting services somewhere because my very existence offends someone's religious sensibilities. The same kind of crap argument was used in all other forms of discriminatory actions in the history of the U.S. Stop with the apologist acts and minimization. We've seen enough of it.

Not getting your preferred cake of choice =/= Jim Crow.

Sigh... Are you done whacking that straw man? I'm saying in the bolded parts that it can and (given U.S. history) will get to that point in certain places because of "religious liberty;" one of the same reasons that were used to push forward Jim Crow laws. If you don't get that, then there's no breaking through. You are attempting to rationalize yourself out of the point.

You asked me about Jim Crow and therefore equated the two. You presented the straw man ad factum first. Idk why you think the situations are at all similar in their severity.

Are you reading? I said that it can develop INTO those kinds of situations in bold, given enough time and political space. I mentioned the laws, not because they were the same in severity, but because the same reasoning are being brought up to sustain them. You made the connection based on a rhetorical question, and you still make the connection even after I explicate.

That doesn't even make sense. America is getting less homophobic and not more when looking at opinion polls on LGBT acceptance and gay marriage.

You are commiting the slippery slope fallacy.

Yes, in general, it may be. But there are people in isolated areas who, as described above by Steve, would still be target of this. Why would we ignore them? Why enable these people to concede some small award for feeling uncomfortable while denying the LGBT community their basic dignity?

Let's say it doesn't continue into other services, and it stops there. How is it okay to let this be legal and not let other kinds of discrimination continue against people based on their immutable characteristics? No matter how you slice it, whether it continues into other services or not, the basic question sustains.

And, IF it does continue, I'm not about to be one of those people who turned a blind eye when it was barely beginning, and it could've been stopped in its tracks.

[Idaho Conservative]

On the one hand, forcing businesses to provide services to EVERYONE is problematic.
On the other- the mere notion of someone being denied service for his race/sexual orientation is repulsive and definitely against the principles we should have as democratic nations. Also, if one lives in a town where all bakeries won't provide him service because he's black or because he's gay- that is a terrible thing and he should be able to get service.
In conclusion- add sexual orientation to anti-discriminatory laws that already include race etc. LGBTQ people should be just as protected as people of color. A business should be able to deny service if the customer is being mean or violent- but if a baker wants to deny services because the customer is gay or black, which are exactly the same in terms of the lack of choice a person has over his birth, then let the damned baker pay a nice fine. A wedding gift, you could say.
Also, Wulfric-
You're making weird exceptions. Why is it just ok to deny services for a wedding and not ok otherwise? This is extremely weird. And lastly:

No Business should ever be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, or sex (that's just sex, not sexual orientation or gender identity, although I do support some CSR protections for those groups.).

So now you're making an exception for sexual orientation or gender identity? Ok to discriminate based on it, but not on sex or race? This is worse than weird, this is bizarrely bigoted.

Helping with a wedding is basically indicating one's full approval of a relationship coming into existence. No other occasion or service rises to that level.

Okay, hypothetically, should a devout Catholic cashier be able to refuse to sell condoms? Or maybe just refuse to sell them to gay couples?

Should an accountant be able to refuse to help a married homosexual couple file their taxes jointly?

Should a religious bridal shop owner be able to refuse to sell a dress to a lesbian?

Should a devout realtor be able to refuse to sell a home to a newlywed homosexual couple, where they'll live together?

Should a mattress store owner be able to refuse to sell a mattress to a gay couple, knowing that it will be where they'll consummate the marriage?

Should a small hotel manager be able to refuse to allow a gay couple's wedding party to stay in his hotel's rooms?

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes.

Now replace homosexual with black, and see yourself becoming a racist.
But or course, homophobia is ok because of religion. The feelings of religious people are ALWAYS the most important.

I'm too smart to fall for you trick.  You are trying to get me to be inconsistent and be ok with discrimination against gays but not blacks.   I am a consistent libertarian and support the right to refuse service to any protect class.  I am a white, straight, male and if a business owner wants to reuse service to me because of any of those characteristics, the power to them.  Special snowflakes get their feelings hurt and go crying al the way to the courthouse to impose their ideology on others.  My common sense solution is simple, go to another baker or make your own cake.  I have baked cakes before, it is not all that difficult.  Consistent libertarianism on this issue isn't racist.  It is only racist is you believe racial discrimination should be legal and other forms of discrimination shouldn't be.  The government must provide all services equally to everyone but private business owners don't have that same responsibility.

Congratulations .... you're a racist.

  Of course the California leftist chooses not to debate the actually issue and cries "racist."   From my experience when someone resorts to insulting his opponent in a debate, it usually means he has no real arguments and has to resort to that. Classic.
The definition of racist according to the dictionary is:  a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others.
How is saying the government should not force business owners into a transaction they don't want to be in= saying one race is batter than another?   Race has nothing to do with property rights.  I am a colorblind person (not literally) and believe our laws must not take race into account.  Supporting laws that require businesses to discriminate of course is racist but simply not wanting any law on the matter is not racist.  Please try to respond next time with facts instead of inaccurate insults.

No, not really.
You were just wishy-washy and you were questioning yourself if you were "a racist" or not ("Consistent libertarianism on this issue isn't racist.  It is only racist is you believe racial discrimination should be legal ...).
I just wanted to save you the cost and time of seeing a shrink, and just give it to you "straight."

I was demonstrating how my viewpoint is not racist.  This has nothing to do with race.  After all this thread is all about gay wedding cakes.