Should it be illegal to refuse to provide a service to gay customers...

[GeorgiaModerate]

Well, this was only a matter of time:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clark subsequently deleted the post and apologized.

[Badger]

I’ve never understood why religion is the most coddled protected class to the point where we’re on the brink of outright legalizing discrimination done in the name of religion. It is the only protected class that is a choice and can be changed.

Atheists can refuse to make wedding cakes for religious wedding as well


It’s more protecting the right of small businesses

How right-wingers can ignore that this has been the law for over 50 years, and what's more has been one of the most successful laws ever passed in American history and transformed race relations and equality, even if it has an obviously solved the problem just like every other law ever passed has it solved the problem it seeks to address 100%, is beyond me

[OSR stands with Israel]

 

I’ve never understood why religion is the most coddled protected class to the point where we’re on the brink of outright legalizing discrimination done in the name of religion. It is the only protected class that is a choice and can be changed.

Atheists can refuse to make wedding cakes for religious wedding as well


It’s more protecting the right of small businesses

How right-wingers can ignore that this has been the law for over 50 years, and what's more has been one of the most successful laws ever passed in American history and transformed race relations and equality, even if it has an obviously solved the problem just like every other law ever passed has it solved the problem it seeks to address 100%, is beyond me

If you cant tell the difference between what Business did in the Jim Crow South and the Baker in this case  then its you who is wrong not the Pro Small Business Conservatives

[Fuzzy Bear]

...that violates the service provider's personal beliefs?

Should it be illegal for a bakery to refuse to prepare a wedding cake to gay customers custom-made for their same-sex marriage?
Should it be illegal for a psychiatrist to refuse to provide gay conversion therapy to a gay customer seeking to change his sexuality?

Discuss.

1. Yes, because he's offering his services to the genral public and not to a specific sector. If he wants, he can provide services for "christian weddings", but he can't discriminate gays because he's a bigot.
2. No, because conversion therapy should be illegal.

What if a person WANTED conversion therapy?

In 1990, I was a wet-behind-the-ears substance abuse counselor, whose main qualifications was a BA degree in something and 6 years in recovery.  One of my mentors was a clinical psychologist.  I remember him discussing the issue of homosexuality in treatment.  The clinical psychiatrist stated that the standard used for this issue was the client's desires; homosexuality was a treatment issue if the client made it an issue.  If the client didn't want to make it an issue, then it was not an issue for treatment.  (And, no, he wasn't practicing conversion therapy, but I would comfortably assume that in 1990, the good Doctor believed that there was a legitimate place for such an approach.)

That was 1990.  Clinical psychologists were still using the DSM-III at that time.  Much has changed in the practice.  But there have been gay persons who wish this sort of therapy, knowing what it entails, and why shouldn't they have it?

I'm speaking now in an entirely secular, non-religious mode.  {Yes, at times I can do tha.)  I will note two facts:

1.  The idea that people are "born gay" is an assertion; it is not an accepted fact, even in science.  I am saying that for those on this forum who wish to state this over and over so people believe it before it is proven.  It may be proven someday, but it is not proven as of this writing.  I don't see this as changing people from what they were born as (although I recognize many are unalterably convinced of this, albeit with surprisingly little proof).

2.  Conversion therapy worked (and works) for some people.  Now I say this in the context of one of my other mentors; a Catholic Priest who was also a clinical psychologist and was a teacher in a graduate course of mine, "Theories of Personality".  In discussing the wide range of approaches (Freudian, Adlerian, RET, Gestalt, Rogerian, Asian Psychotherapies, etc.), many of them conflicting, he made the statement:  "All therapies work with some people."  Conversion therapy HAS worked with some people; why shouldn't someone who wants to try be allowed to do so?

I will also say this:  If you are opposed to a person attempting conversion therapy, why are people wrong to oppose folks wishing to use medical marijuana?  That's an honest question; why should folks be free to experiment with drugs to feel better, but not conversion therapy?

[Fuzzy Bear]

I’ve never understood why religion is the most coddled protected class to the point where we’re on the brink of outright legalizing discrimination done in the name of religion. It is the only protected class that is a choice and can be changed.

Atheists can refuse to make wedding cakes for religious wedding as well


It’s more protecting the right of small businesses

How right-wingers can ignore that this has been the law for over 50 years, and what's more has been one of the most successful laws ever passed in American history and transformed race relations and equality, even if it has an obviously solved the problem just like every other law ever passed has it solved the problem it seeks to address 100%, is beyond me

By "the law", do you mean Katzenbach v. McClung?

[Badger]

I’ve never understood why religion is the most coddled protected class to the point where we’re on the brink of outright legalizing discrimination done in the name of religion. It is the only protected class that is a choice and can be changed.

Atheists can refuse to make wedding cakes for religious wedding as well


It’s more protecting the right of small businesses

How right-wingers can ignore that this has been the law for over 50 years, and what's more has been one of the most successful laws ever passed in American history and transformed race relations and equality, even if it has an obviously solved the problem just like every other law ever passed has it solved the problem it seeks to address 100%, is beyond me

If you cant tell the difference between what Business did in the Jim Crow South and the Baker in this case  then its you who is wrong not the Pro Small Business Conservatives

So you see no fundamental comparisons. As long as there aren't entire swaths of America where entire counties and states largely don't cater to homosexuals siding religious reasons, it's still better because of small business conservative vs etcetera etcetera? Got it.

Once again, your comment about Lively go to another Baker if one refused to make a cake for a Hindi windings analyze the fact that you are a sheltered young kid in the Portland area where you could go literally a block and find someone. Not to mention in greater Portland that Baker would be boycotted and likely go out of business. However, invest portions of Rural America, especially in the South and Midwest, gays would have to travel cities and counties away

If saying a little discrimination is okay somehow means I'm not a small business Conservative, then I damn proudly am not.. But more to the point I am simply not sheltered or tolerant of businesses claiming somehow the Invisible Hand of the market gives them the right to screw with Commerce based on their own religious views / bigotry.

This makes you far more tolerant of racism than it makes me an anti business liberal. I don't believe that to be the case, but it's a hell of a lot more accurate than saying giving businesses the right to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation is on how conservative. It's the same idiot argument people made in 1964 and, guess what, they were 100% wrong then and are no more correct today

[Badger]

...that violates the service provider's personal beliefs?

Should it be illegal for a bakery to refuse to prepare a wedding cake to gay customers custom-made for their same-sex marriage?
Should it be illegal for a psychiatrist to refuse to provide gay conversion therapy to a gay customer seeking to change his sexuality?

Discuss.

1. Yes, because he's offering his services to the genral public and not to a specific sector. If he wants, he can provide services for "christian weddings", but he can't discriminate gays because he's a bigot.
2. No, because conversion therapy should be illegal.

What if a person WANTED conversion therapy?

In 1990, I was a wet-behind-the-ears substance abuse counselor, whose main qualifications was a BA degree in something and 6 years in recovery.  One of my mentors was a clinical psychologist.  I remember him discussing the issue of homosexuality in treatment.  The clinical psychiatrist stated that the standard used for this issue was the client's desires; homosexuality was a treatment issue if the client made it an issue.  If the client didn't want to make it an issue, then it was not an issue for treatment.  (And, no, he wasn't practicing conversion therapy, but I would comfortably assume that in 1990, the good Doctor believed that there was a legitimate place for such an approach.)

That was 1990.  Clinical psychologists were still using the DSM-III at that time.  Much has changed in the practice.  But there have been gay persons who wish this sort of therapy, knowing what it entails, and why shouldn't they have it?

I'm speaking now in an entirely secular, non-religious mode.  {Yes, at times I can do tha.)  I will note two facts:

1.  The idea that people are "born gay" is an assertion; it is not an accepted fact, even in science.  I am saying that for those on this forum who wish to state this over and over so people believe it before it is proven.  It may be proven someday, but it is not proven as of this writing.  I don't see this as changing people from what they were born as (although I recognize many are unalterably convinced of this, albeit with surprisingly little proof).

2.  Conversion therapy worked (and works) for some people.  Now I say this in the context of one of my other mentors; a Catholic Priest who was also a clinical psychologist and was a teacher in a graduate course of mine, "Theories of Personality".  In discussing the wide range of approaches (Freudian, Adlerian, RET, Gestalt, Rogerian, Asian Psychotherapies, etc.), many of them conflicting, he made the statement:  "All therapies work with some people."  Conversion therapy HAS worked with some people; why shouldn't someone who wants to try be allowed to do so?

I will also say this:  If you are opposed to a person attempting conversion therapy, why are people wrong to oppose folks wishing to use medical marijuana?  That's an honest question; why should folks be free to experiment with drugs to feel better, but not conversion therapy?

If someone wants trepanning from a doctor, or a electroshock therapy from a psychologist, doesn't mean the professional Dr should provide such Services. Enough said

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

If someone should be compelled to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, must someone also be compelled to bake a cake for a polyamorous wedding?  How about we just agree that we can think certain behaviors are immoral without hating those that engage in them.

[Cold War Liberal]

1.  The idea that people are "born gay" is an assertion; it is not an accepted fact, even in science.  I am saying that for those on this forum who wish to state this over and over so people believe it before it is proven.  It may be proven someday, but it is not proven as of this writing.  I don't see this as changing people from what they were born as (although I recognize many are unalterably convinced of this, albeit with surprisingly little proof).

Well I tried choosing to be straight and it only led to a decade of self hatred, depression, miserable relationships with women that ended in nothing but pain on both sides, and a few suicidal thoughts thrown in there too, sooo...

Why would anyone choose to be gay? It's not nearly as easy as being straight. I mean, I sure as hell don't want to be gay, and yet here I am, a 6 on the Kinsey scale.

I find the evidence that one is born gay far more compelling that the evidence that one isn't. Additionally, I have my own personal experience, which reinforces that.

[ProudModerate2]

...that violates the service provider's personal beliefs?

Should it be illegal for a bakery to refuse to prepare a wedding cake to gay customers custom-made for their same-sex marriage?
Should it be illegal for a psychiatrist to refuse to provide gay conversion therapy to a gay customer seeking to change his sexuality?

Discuss.

1. Yes, because he's offering his services to the genral public and not to a specific sector. If he wants, he can provide services for "christian weddings", but he can't discriminate gays because he's a bigot.
2. No, because conversion therapy should be illegal.

What if a person WANTED conversion therapy?

In 1990, I was a wet-behind-the-ears substance abuse counselor, whose main qualifications was a BA degree in something and 6 years in recovery.  One of my mentors was a clinical psychologist.  I remember him discussing the issue of homosexuality in treatment.  The clinical psychiatrist stated that the standard used for this issue was the client's desires; homosexuality was a treatment issue if the client made it an issue.  If the client didn't want to make it an issue, then it was not an issue for treatment.  (And, no, he wasn't practicing conversion therapy, but I would comfortably assume that in 1990, the good Doctor believed that there was a legitimate place for such an approach.)

That was 1990.  Clinical psychologists were still using the DSM-III at that time.  Much has changed in the practice.  But there have been gay persons who wish this sort of therapy, knowing what it entails, and why shouldn't they have it?

I'm speaking now in an entirely secular, non-religious mode.  {Yes, at times I can do tha.)  I will note two facts:

1.  The idea that people are "born gay" is an assertion; it is not an accepted fact, even in science.  I am saying that for those on this forum who wish to state this over and over so people believe it before it is proven.  It may be proven someday, but it is not proven as of this writing.  I don't see this as changing people from what they were born as (although I recognize many are unalterably convinced of this, albeit with surprisingly little proof).

2.  Conversion therapy worked (and works) for some people.  Now I say this in the context of one of my other mentors; a Catholic Priest who was also a clinical psychologist and was a teacher in a graduate course of mine, "Theories of Personality".  In discussing the wide range of approaches (Freudian, Adlerian, RET, Gestalt, Rogerian, Asian Psychotherapies, etc.), many of them conflicting, he made the statement:  "All therapies work with some people."  Conversion therapy HAS worked with some people; why shouldn't someone who wants to try be allowed to do so?

I will also say this:  If you are opposed to a person attempting conversion therapy, why are people wrong to oppose folks wishing to use medical marijuana?  That's an honest question; why should folks be free to experiment with drugs to feel better, but not conversion therapy?

Wow.
Do you also believe that the world is flat?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

...that violates the service provider's personal beliefs?

Should it be illegal for a bakery to refuse to prepare a wedding cake to gay customers custom-made for their same-sex marriage?
Should it be illegal for a psychiatrist to refuse to provide gay conversion therapy to a gay customer seeking to change his sexuality?

Discuss.

The second would be medical malpractice, so as others have already pointed out, that example goes way beyond personal belief.

[America Needs R'hllor]

...that violates the service provider's personal beliefs?

Should it be illegal for a bakery to refuse to prepare a wedding cake to gay customers custom-made for their same-sex marriage?
Should it be illegal for a psychiatrist to refuse to provide gay conversion therapy to a gay customer seeking to change his sexuality?

Discuss.

1. Yes, because he's offering his services to the genral public and not to a specific sector. If he wants, he can provide services for "christian weddings", but he can't discriminate gays because he's a bigot.
2. No, because conversion therapy should be illegal.

What if a person WANTED conversion therapy?

In 1990, I was a wet-behind-the-ears substance abuse counselor, whose main qualifications was a BA degree in something and 6 years in recovery.  One of my mentors was a clinical psychologist.  I remember him discussing the issue of homosexuality in treatment.  The clinical psychiatrist stated that the standard used for this issue was the client's desires; homosexuality was a treatment issue if the client made it an issue.  If the client didn't want to make it an issue, then it was not an issue for treatment.  (And, no, he wasn't practicing conversion therapy, but I would comfortably assume that in 1990, the good Doctor believed that there was a legitimate place for such an approach.)

That was 1990.  Clinical psychologists were still using the DSM-III at that time.  Much has changed in the practice.  But there have been gay persons who wish this sort of therapy, knowing what it entails, and why shouldn't they have it?

I'm speaking now in an entirely secular, non-religious mode.  {Yes, at times I can do tha.)  I will note two facts:

1.  The idea that people are "born gay" is an assertion; it is not an accepted fact, even in science.  I am saying that for those on this forum who wish to state this over and over so people believe it before it is proven.  It may be proven someday, but it is not proven as of this writing.  I don't see this as changing people from what they were born as (although I recognize many are unalterably convinced of this, albeit with surprisingly little proof).

2.  Conversion therapy worked (and works) for some people.  Now I say this in the context of one of my other mentors; a Catholic Priest who was also a clinical psychologist and was a teacher in a graduate course of mine, "Theories of Personality".  In discussing the wide range of approaches (Freudian, Adlerian, RET, Gestalt, Rogerian, Asian Psychotherapies, etc.), many of them conflicting, he made the statement:  "All therapies work with some people."  Conversion therapy HAS worked with some people; why shouldn't someone who wants to try be allowed to do so?

I will also say this:  If you are opposed to a person attempting conversion therapy, why are people wrong to oppose folks wishing to use medical marijuana?  That's an honest question; why should folks be free to experiment with drugs to feel better, but not conversion therapy?

OK, you know I usually respect your views, but not on this subject. Sorry, this just disgusts me. It doesn't change anything to me that you want to whitewash the crimes of your mentor- conversion therapy is a mentally scarring, cruel practice, and I don't care about the client's will here (or rather, the will of the bigoted society compelling him to want it), just like I wouldn't care about a client's will to cut off his limbs or get himself electroshocked. I'm not going to argue science with you because you clearly can't accept facts that have overwhelming proofs supporting them, in what appears to be an attempt to whitewash some views from the good ol' days. Blaming homosexuality on us or our parents or our society is not something I'm going to legitimize as a viewpoint. And of course, equating mental torture to marijuana. Cool.

How's this for a scenario? Business cites adherence to "biblical scripture" condemning the dark skinned Sons of Hamm in Genesis, and other verses stating God created lands and homes for all of the different races to dwell in for their time, and accordingly refuses to bake a cake for an African-American, or mixed race marriage.

And before anyone says there's no comparison, those scriptures were (mis-)used a LOT by southern whites in support not just for slavery, but even Jim Crow barely half a century ago. Nor is the supposed biblical condemnation of homosexuality notably more prevalent in the Bible that the above-referenced verses.

Because separate but equal is okay for sex but not race.  We're allowed to have men's and women's restrooms but not black and white restrooms.  Thus, refusing to provide services for a wedding between people of the same sex is different than refusing to provide services for a wedding between people of different races (race is a social construct anyway).

Awesome! I'm glad it didn't take much for you to admit that discrimination based on sexual orientation is ok but race is not You should inform the courts since this is a landmark verdict.

No. If a business owner finds a request by a customer to be so objectionable that they're willing to forego increased profits for the sake of keeping their conscience in tact, then no one should be able to force them to do otherwise.

With the case of bakers, we aren't seeing examples of bakers refusing to simply serve gays regular, non-custom items because they're gay. The bakers are specifically refusing to make custom-made wedding cakes for gay couples. Forcing them to make these custom cakes would be, in essence, requiring these bakers to endorse a practice they find to go against God's law.

Wedding cakes are custom-made because they're larger than regular cakes and have to be made just in time before the wedding. If you are a wedding baker, you are in the business of custom baking. Entenmann's doesn't make wedding cakes. Unless the cake is literally in the shape of two men there's nothing "gay"/Biblically errant about the cake. This is like arguing that auto repair is a custom business because every car is a little bit different.  

If the baker disapproved of an interfaith marriage he would be discriminating on the basis of religion to refuse to make a cake for it and that would be illegal under federal law.

I don't care too much about this court case—the conservatives have lost so much ground on the right to punch and beat gays in the last 8 years, they lined up to vote for Trump in order to get a small bit of turf back. If it means codifying the right to discriminate against gays in business, yes they're going to look like the justices who decided Plessy in 20-30 years when the case gets repealed but for now it makes them feel better, we'll rise above.

Exactly this.

As for the small business argument- lol Republicans. Protecting small businesses is done because they're an important backbone of the economy, not because they're actual human beings with rights. So yes, they should get economic protections, but discriminating against homosexuals doesn't help them economically so I couldn't care less about their non-existant "rights" on this issue.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

1.  The idea that people are "born gay" is an assertion; it is not an accepted fact, even in science.  I am saying that for those on this forum who wish to state this over and over so people believe it before it is proven.  It may be proven someday, but it is not proven as of this writing.  I don't see this as changing people from what they were born as (although I recognize many are unalterably convinced of this, albeit with surprisingly little proof).

Well I tried choosing to be straight and it only led to a decade of self hatred, depression, miserable relationships with women that ended in nothing but pain on both sides, and a few suicidal thoughts thrown in there too, sooo...

Why would anyone choose to be gay? It's not nearly as easy as being straight. I mean, I sure as hell don't want to be gay, and yet here I am, a 6 on the Kinsey scale.

I find the evidence that one is born gay far more compelling that the evidence that one isn't. Additionally, I have my own personal experience, which reinforces that.

While the evidence is quite clear that sexual orientation is fixed at an extremely early age, by age 3 at the latest, we don't yet know the exact mechanism.  Since it is almost impossible to conduct ethical experimentation on subjects that young, even if such experiments weren't on such a controversial issue, I doubt if we'll ever learn the exact mechanism. We have learned some factors that have some predictive value, but again no indication if those factors are directly or indirectly causing the correlation to appear.

Still, we know enuf to know the utter folly of attempting conversion therapy on anyone old enuf to have a knowable sexual orientation.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Exactly this.

As for the small business argument- lol Republicans. Protecting small businesses is done because they're an important backbone of the economy, not because they're actual human beings with rights. So yes, they should get economic protections, but discriminating against homosexuals doesn't help them economically so I couldn't care less about their non-existant "rights" on this issue.

I 100% disagree, I think Small Business should be far less regulated in every area than big business and corporations. Also while the small business is not a human being the small business owner is and forcing him to bake a cake you can argue violates his rights. Lastly, your point on them losing economically if they refuse service, I don't see why then the government should get involved then because that's the free market doing what it does best.

Also I believe an Athiest Baker should have the right to reject to bake a wedding cake for a religious wedding and that baker shouldnt be punished for it.

[ProudModerate2]

... Also I believe an Athiest Baker should have the right to reject to bake a wedding cake for a religious wedding and that baker shouldnt be punished for it.

I think your comparison or analogy regarding a baker (and what is baked) is slightly off.
If the baker is, for example, just a "bread" baker who doesn't make wedding cakes at all, then of course he/she would not be expected to make wedding cakes. But if you make a wedding cake for any couple, then why not produce them for all couples (gay, black, interracial, straight, "religious," etc).

[OSR stands with Israel]

... Also I believe an Athiest Baker should have the right to reject to bake a wedding cake for a religious wedding and that baker shouldnt be punished for it.

I think your comparison or analogy regarding a baker (and what is baked) is slightly off.
If the baker is, for example, just a "bread" baker who doesn't make wedding cakes at all, then of course he/she would not be expected to make wedding cakes. But if you make a wedding cake for any couple, then why not produce them for all couples (gay, black, interracial, straight, "religious," etc).

[/b]

I agree that you should bake it for all couples but I disagree on the forced to do so under the law

[Cold War Liberal]

Exactly this.

As for the small business argument- lol Republicans. Protecting small businesses is done because they're an important backbone of the economy, not because they're actual human beings with rights. So yes, they should get economic protections, but discriminating against homosexuals doesn't help them economically so I couldn't care less about their non-existant "rights" on this issue.

I 100% disagree, I think Small Business should be far less regulated in every area than big business and corporations. Also while the small business is not a human being the small business owner is and forcing him to bake a cake you can argue violates his rights. Lastly, your point on them losing economically if they refuse service, I don't see why then the government should get involved then because that's the free market doing what it does best.

Also I believe an Athiest Baker should have the right to reject to bake a wedding cake for a religious wedding and that baker shouldnt be punished for it.

No one is forcing someone to bake a cake. The baker has decided to sell his products on the market. People are trying to ensure he sells to all people who seek the services he offers, not just those he likes. People have a right to hate gay people but you can make the argument that you give up that right when you choose to sell things to people, just like you give up the right to hate black people when you choose to participate in the market.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Exactly this.

As for the small business argument- lol Republicans. Protecting small businesses is done because they're an important backbone of the economy, not because they're actual human beings with rights. So yes, they should get economic protections, but discriminating against homosexuals doesn't help them economically so I couldn't care less about their non-existant "rights" on this issue.

I 100% disagree, I think Small Business should be far less regulated in every area than big business and corporations. Also while the small business is not a human being the small business owner is and forcing him to bake a cake you can argue violates his rights. Lastly, your point on them losing economically if they refuse service, I don't see why then the government should get involved then because that's the free market doing what it does best.

Also I believe an Athiest Baker should have the right to reject to bake a wedding cake for a religious wedding and that baker shouldnt be punished for it.

No one is forcing someone to bake a cake. The baker has decided to sell his products on the market. People are trying to ensure he sells to all people who seek the services he offers, not just those he likes. People have a right to hate gay people but you can make the argument that you give up that right when you choose to sell things to people, just like you give up the right to hate black people when you choose to participate in the market.

First of all I dont consider a mom and pop bakery shop the same as a Corporation.



For a Corporation or a Big Buisness I 100% agree , I disagree when it comes to small buisnesses

[YE]

Exactly this.

As for the small business argument- lol Republicans. Protecting small businesses is done because they're an important backbone of the economy, not because they're actual human beings with rights. So yes, they should get economic protections, but discriminating against homosexuals doesn't help them economically so I couldn't care less about their non-existant "rights" on this issue.

I 100% disagree, I think Small Business should be far less regulated in every area than big business and corporations. Also while the small business is not a human being the small business owner is and forcing him to bake a cake you can argue violates his rights. Lastly, your point on them losing economically if they refuse service, I don't see why then the government should get involved then because that's the free market doing what it does best.

Also I believe an Athiest Baker should have the right to reject to bake a wedding cake for a religious wedding and that baker shouldnt be punished for it.

No one is forcing someone to bake a cake. The baker has decided to sell his products on the market. People are trying to ensure he sells to all people who seek the services he offers, not just those he likes. People have a right to hate gay people but you can make the argument that you give up that right when you choose to sell things to people, just like you give up the right to hate black people when you choose to participate in the market.

First of all I dont consider a mom and pop bakery shop the same as a Corporation.



For a Corporation or a Big Buisness I 100% agree , I disagree when it comes to small buisnesses

You don't understand the need to reduce regulations on small businesses then. It's not to promote discrimination but foster more competition and even the playing field somewhat as the natural free market state puts too many obstacles for small business development.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Exactly this.

As for the small business argument- lol Republicans. Protecting small businesses is done because they're an important backbone of the economy, not because they're actual human beings with rights. So yes, they should get economic protections, but discriminating against homosexuals doesn't help them economically so I couldn't care less about their non-existant "rights" on this issue.

I 100% disagree, I think Small Business should be far less regulated in every area than big business and corporations. Also while the small business is not a human being the small business owner is and forcing him to bake a cake you can argue violates his rights. Lastly, your point on them losing economically if they refuse service, I don't see why then the government should get involved then because that's the free market doing what it does best.

Also I believe an Athiest Baker should have the right to reject to bake a wedding cake for a religious wedding and that baker shouldnt be punished for it.

No one is forcing someone to bake a cake. The baker has decided to sell his products on the market. People are trying to ensure he sells to all people who seek the services he offers, not just those he likes. People have a right to hate gay people but you can make the argument that you give up that right when you choose to sell things to people, just like you give up the right to hate black people when you choose to participate in the market.

First of all I dont consider a mom and pop bakery shop the same as a Corporation.



For a Corporation or a Big Buisness I 100% agree , I disagree when it comes to small buisnesses

You don't understand the need to reduce regulations on small businesses then. It's not to promote discrimination but foster more competition and even the playing field somewhat as the natural free market state puts too many obstacles for small business development.

100% agree with getting regulations to foster competition .


In my opinion though if the free market can regulate something,  the government shouldn't regulate it and this is an area where the free market can regulate it.

[Virginiá]

100% agree with getting regulations to foster competition .


In my opinion though if the free market can regulate something,  the government shouldn't regulate it and this is an area where the free market can regulate it.

Yes well please forgive 5% - 10% of America if we don't want to hope and pray the Free Market™ prevents blatant discrimination based solely on who we want to be with just so you guys can check off a box on America's Ayn Rand ratings chart.

The only thing banning this type of discrimination would hurt is the sensitivities of people who are hiding their dislike of those icky lgbt people behind their religion. The best, most effective solution here is to address it the same way we've addressed other forms of now-prohibited discrimination, and that doesn't some involve some convoluted capitalist scheme.

[OSR stands with Israel]

100% agree with getting regulations to foster competition .


In my opinion though if the free market can regulate something,  the government shouldn't regulate it and this is an area where the free market can regulate it.

Yes well please forgive 5% - 10% of America if we don't want to hope and pray the Free Market™ prevents blatant discrimination based solely on who we want to be with just so you guys can check off a box on America's Ayn Rand ratings chart.

The only thing banning this type of discrimination would hurt is the sensitivities of people who are hiding their dislike of those icky lgbt people behind their religion. The best, most effective solution here is to address it the same way we've addressed other forms of now-prohibited discrimination,[/ and that doesn't some involve some convoluted capitalist scheme.

You know in OR the judge who fined a baker who did a similar thing over 100k lost the Sec of State Election because of that very issue to a Republican. OR is not a conservative or religious state so that is just not true



Also the free market can easily work as for example if a baker refused to bake a member of my family wedding cakes for our Hindu Wedding, we wouldn't sue that baker we would just go to Safeway or some other bakery.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Exactly this.

As for the small business argument- lol Republicans. Protecting small businesses is done because they're an important backbone of the economy, not because they're actual human beings with rights. So yes, they should get economic protections, but discriminating against homosexuals doesn't help them economically so I couldn't care less about their non-existant "rights" on this issue.

I 100% disagree, I think Small Business should be far less regulated in every area than big business and corporations. Also while the small business is not a human being the small business owner is and forcing him to bake a cake you can argue violates his rights. Lastly, your point on them losing economically if they refuse service, I don't see why then the government should get involved then because that's the free market doing what it does best.

Also I believe an Athiest Baker should have the right to reject to bake a wedding cake for a religious wedding and that baker shouldnt be punished for it.

1. Why? Really, what's the reason small businesses should be far less regulated? I agree with the economic reasons but in this case there's just no logic to it.
2. It's probably a misunderstanding, but I didn't have any point about the baker being economically harmed. I wouldn't mind, and even strongly encourage, homophobes running out of business. In fact, I'd say homosexuals (and anyone else) should definitely not pay him any dime, but still, he shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against them and I'm not willing to trust the free market, which won't work to prevent it because there are enough bigots in, say, Alabama to buy from a homophobic baker.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Exactly this.

As for the small business argument- lol Republicans. Protecting small businesses is done because they're an important backbone of the economy, not because they're actual human beings with rights. So yes, they should get economic protections, but discriminating against homosexuals doesn't help them economically so I couldn't care less about their non-existant "rights" on this issue.

I 100% disagree, I think Small Business should be far less regulated in every area than big business and corporations. Also while the small business is not a human being the small business owner is and forcing him to bake a cake you can argue violates his rights. Lastly, your point on them losing economically if they refuse service, I don't see why then the government should get involved then because that's the free market doing what it does best.

Also I believe an Athiest Baker should have the right to reject to bake a wedding cake for a religious wedding and that baker shouldnt be punished for it.

1. Why? Really, what's the reason small businesses should be far less regulated? I agree with the economic reasons but in this case there's just no logic to it.
2. It's probably a misunderstanding, but I didn't have any point about the baker being economically harmed. I wouldn't mind, and even strongly encourage, homophobes running out of business. In fact, I'd say homosexuals (and anyone else) should definitely not pay him any dime, but still, he shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against them and I'm not willing to trust the free market, which won't work to prevent it because there are enough bigots in, say, Alabama to buy from a homophobic baker.

1. Cause Small Buisnesses unlike Corporations can be regulated by the free market and can easily go out of business. Big Buisnesses and Corporations need to be more regulated because its much harder for the free market to negatively affect them even if they did something unethical .

2 .If there is other competitions in the area say a Safeway(Its a Corporation and it also bakes wedding cakes along with a lot of other things) I would say the Government should not get involved as people can buy their wedding cake from Safeway. If there is no competition in the area I agree the Government should get in and say no you have to bake the cake

3. For example, if a Religious Fundamentalist or an Atheist refused to bake a wedding cake for my family due to our wedding being Hindu we would not sue them but instead just go to Safeway or another bakery shop and order are cakes from them. We also then would tell our friends not to shop at that bakery and spread the word to their friends(and for a mom and pop store this could have terrible consequences).

[Virginiá]

Well, all I have left to say is that I'm glad we have what protections we do against discrimination now, because if we didn't, a lot of minorities and others of all kinds that need such protections would be sh**t out of luck, because there is no shortage of conservatives who have a reason for why explicit protections against discrimination is a bad idea, somehow. I still can't believe I am alive in 2018 and getting real anti-discrimination protections for LGBT people is apparently a non-starter with conservatives.

What. The. F*k.