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

[ProudModerate2]

Small businesses should have right to deny service to anyone .

Define exactly a "small business" (for your weird exception).
What about a medium-size business.
Why exceptions for "small businesses," and not other sized businesses.
Do you see the problem.

[ProudModerate2]

I don't believe anyone should be forced to provide a service directly related to any wedding.

Again, why the strange exception to only "weddings" ?
What if a gay couple wanted a cake for celebration of their 1 year dating anniversary (many couples of all types celebrate dating anniversaries) ?
That would be OK then, right ? Well it's not a "wedding."
What if a gay couple wanted a cake for their adopted daughter's birthday, and the owner refused because he was "repulsed" (like the good, loving Christians that they are) just by the sight of the couple in his/her store ?

Where do the strange exceptions start and stop ? When is it acceptable or not acceptable to everyday, normal social contact that WE WANT IN OUR NATION ?

[ProudModerate2]

Small businesses should have right to deny service to anyone.

So you oppose the Civil Rights Acts?

Of course I support the Civil Rights Act
Private Buisnesses not hiring someone based on race and sex is a civil rights violation  , but denying services To customers is not a civil rights violation in any sense of the word .

So not serving someone because they're black is not a civil rights issue? sh**t, you people are the ones who are mentally ill.

...

That is an outrageous accusation, and I specifically said  businesses that arent small businesses or family owned restaurants do not have the right to deny service.

LOL.
Was that suppose to help your argument (in any way, shape or form) ?

[ProudModerate2]

I don't believe anyone should be forced to provide a service directly related to any wedding.

Again, why the strange exception to only "weddings" ?
What if a gay couple wanted a cake for celebration of their 1 year dating anniversary (many couples of all types celebrate dating anniversaries) ?
That would be OK then, right ? Well it's not a "wedding."
What if a gay couple wanted a cake for their adopted daughter's birthday, and the owner refused because he was "repulsed" (like the good, loving Christians that they are) just by the sight of the couple in his/her store ?

Where do the strange exceptions start and stop ? When is it acceptable or not acceptable to everyday, normal social contact that WE WANT IN OUR NATION ?

I've been clear, and I've held this position for a long time. Wedding = Wedding. If it's not directly related to a wedding, then you are required to provide the service. An Anniversary or Adoption or Birthday celebration is not a Wedding.

Yes, but you see, that is where your ridiculousness falls apart.
"The baker" doesn't care if it's for a wedding or not. He isn't "bothered" per se, by the couple because it's a wedding. The baker has a problem with the relationship between same sex people. So the baker would want to refuse service regardless of what the cake is actually for.
It's that the baker's "loving" religion doesn't believe in that "kind" of couple/relationship. Period.

[ProudModerate2]

I'd also like to be clear that Old School Republican and Extreme Republican are on their own turf with their opposition to the civil rights act (for "small" businesses). I completely support the civil rights act. 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.).

What the heck I do support the Civil Rights Act.

You don't support all of it if you think that a small business should be legally allowed to refuse to serve blacks, Jews, gays, etc.

Exactly.
I set-him-up to define and explain this whole "small business" malarkey, and he fell for it hook-line-and-sinker.
Where does this "business is worth under 500,000" come from ? Why not 155,489 ? What exactly and how do we determine this "worth" ?
We might as well say that if your dick is 6 inches or under you can legally "discriminate," but if your bigger than that, you cant ?
Again, where does the ridiculous exceptions of such a basic and decent right of all people start and end ? It's just insane to hear all these excuses, including all this talk about "just let the free market handle it" b.s.

[ProudModerate2]

Small businesses should have right to deny service to anyone .

Because segregation and Jim Crow laws were awesome, and totally cured by the Invisible Hand of the free market, am I right?

Segregation and Jim Crow were laws passed by the state governments not buisnesses . So now segregation was solely to blame on the government .2nd my definition of a small business in this case is a sole proprietorship or partnership and they only have their buisness  in one town.

In my opinion Small Buisnesses should have as few regulations as possible (except of course no hiring a child under 16 , minimum wage laws ,safety of  employees and products,no discrimination in hiring ) because the invisible hand of the free market will already regulate them out of buisnesses if they do something terrible such as discriminating against customers .

You are really "old school."
Just go away and enjoy your rocking chair.

[ProudModerate2]

This is why Evangelicals largely voted for Trump.  Not because the like him but because he doesn't think that they are the equivalent of the KKK.

No one is saying "they are equivalent to the KKK."
The KKK is pure hate. The Christian religion (all faiths) have some flaws, but I do believe that they at least try to preach some basic standards of decency, morals and love.

[ProudModerate2]

This is why Evangelicals largely voted for Trump.  Not because the like him but because he doesn't think that they are the equivalent of the KKK.

No one is saying "they are equivalent to the KKK."
The KKK is pure hate. The Christian religion (all faiths) have some flaws, but I do believe that they at least try to preach some basic standards of decency, morals and love.

But for whatever reason, social liberals are obsessed with Christian teaching against homosexuality.  They think that people who hold such views are a threat to society.

... Bigotry isn't a threat to society?

It's not bigotry any more than Islam or Judaism is bigoted against me, a person who likes bacon.

You realize dietary restrictions are completely different right? No Jewish person looks down on you for eating bacon.

I'm aware.  But the same principle applies.  A Muslim believes that it is immoral to eat bacon, I eat bacon, yet I am not offended.  I'm not Muslim and therefore I have no right to dictate to them what they should or should not believe.  And everyone accepts that.  And people accept that.  But for some reason, the Christian prohibition on sex between people of the same gender is considered a crime against humanity by some people.

No it doesn't apply you idiot. You're conflating decades of oppression based on sexual orientation worth religious dietrary restrictions. You sound like an utter moron.

I agree. This dude is way out there.
Representative Carpetbagger, why don't you move to China .... I hear they have better rights there, than they do here in the US. You can tell us about it, once you get there.

[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.

[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."

[ProudModerate2]

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.

I disagree with the assertion that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic.  I have no idea what causes homosexuality but I highly doubt that babies are born gay.

As for the comparison to interracial marriage, I don't think the two are comparable.  Opponents of interracial marriage twisted the Bible to make it fit into their cultural worldview.  Interracial marriage is actually in the Bible (Moses' wife was black).

Discrimination against homosexuals is when someone says "Gays can't buy my cakes."  It is not discrimination for someone to refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.  By Colorado's logic, it would be discrimination to refuse to bake a cake for a polyamorist wedding when that becomes legal.

Liberals say that sexual orientation and being in a gay wedding are closely related and the law protects the right to cake.   However also in CO, a baker refused to make an anti gay cake.  The state ruled that it was not discrimination based on religion.  If you think about it, a religious belief against homosexuality and religion are intertwined so anti discrimination law should have protected the right to an anti gay cake.  Saying we will serve gays but not service same-sex weddings is like saying we will serve Christians but not provide cakes for certain beliefs such as anti gay ones.  This is why saying, "we have the right to refuse service to anyone, deal with it." is so much simpler.  Liberty works best.

LOL.
One is asking for a cake for love, the other for hate.
Are you that daft ?

[ProudModerate2]

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.

I disagree with the assertion that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic.  I have no idea what causes homosexuality but I highly doubt that babies are born gay.

As for the comparison to interracial marriage, I don't think the two are comparable.  Opponents of interracial marriage twisted the Bible to make it fit into their cultural worldview.  Interracial marriage is actually in the Bible (Moses' wife was black).

Discrimination against homosexuals is when someone says "Gays can't buy my cakes."  It is not discrimination for someone to refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.  By Colorado's logic, it would be discrimination to refuse to bake a cake for a polyamorist wedding when that becomes legal.

Liberals say that sexual orientation and being in a gay wedding are closely related and the law protects the right to cake.   However also in CO, a baker refused to make an anti gay cake.  The state ruled that it was not discrimination based on religion.  If you think about it, a religious belief against homosexuality and religion are intertwined so anti discrimination law should have protected the right to an anti gay cake.  Saying we will serve gays but not service same-sex weddings is like saying we will serve Christians but not provide cakes for certain beliefs such as anti gay ones.  This is why saying, "we have the right to refuse service to anyone, deal with it." is so much simpler.  Liberty works best.

LOL.
One is asking for a cake for love, the other for hate.
Are you that daft ?

The gay couple in the masterpiece case is so loving that they took the baker all the way to the courthouse after they didn't get their cake.  My solution is simple, be a man and go to a different store.
 Still, you can't formulate persuasive or logical arguments, just belief statements of identity politics and vague discussion of love and hate.  In your name you call yourself a moderate but moderates generally don't debate by crying "racist."  Are you from the SF Bay area?  Only there would you be considered a moderate.

You are ignorant. Just because you take someone to court does not mean you "hate" the other party. It's just that an injustice has been committed, and the parties seek the courts to find resolution.
Sometimes, a debate comes down to simple issues, like love and hate. Of course you cant except that, because you have such a sh**tty life full of hatred, that it hurts you just to hear the word "love." I mean listen to yourself .... you are so hung-up on the definition of a "moderate" and then trying to find some obtuse link to it with "the SF Bay area." Really ?
LOL. I just laugh at people like you.