Hearing set for same-sex wedding cake dispute in Oregon

[ArcadiaGP]

Hearing set for same-sex wedding cake dispute - CBS News

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Pffft, nice try, but I've been told, by leading INGOtarians no less, that SSM will lead to less government, not more government as statists have claimed. Making people do what they do not want to do is not Slavery, but Purity.

Your attempt to claim otherwise does not pass the Purity Test.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[IndyGal65]

Ugh. I wish this issue would go away.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I'll throw an opinion out that has something for everyone to hate!

Simple rule:
If you would sell the same item to anyone else, you must sell it to anyone who will pay for it. If I will sell a straight couple a red velvet cupcake for $1, I must sell a gay couple a red velvet cupcake for $1.
If you want something custom, such as a red velvet cupcake with genitals done in icing on it, and I would not make that for anyone else, I do not have to make it for you. Straight couple asks for genital cupcakes, I say no, gay couple asks for genital cupcakes, I say no.

Reasoning:
Allowing people to refuse to do business with entire classes of people allows those people to be effectively barred from neighborhoods. We saw this with segregation. If black people can't buy food, rent an apartment, etc. they are effectively banned from living in an area. This strikes me as a larger infringement on the American ideals of freedom than the business owner's rights to elect to not serve a certain class.

HOWEVER, it also does not give fringe groups the right to terrorize local businesses by forcing them to comply with or do things that offend their sensibilities. I cannot force you to put rainbows on your cupcakes if you don't normally offer rainbows. I can't force you to put crossed...thingies...on a cake if you don't normally do so.

Result:
People get to live and do business where they choose. Businesses get to decide what products they make.

Now, I'll sit back and wait for everyone to tell me what a horrible idea this is.

 

[Twangbanger]

I'll throw an opinion out that has something for everyone to hate!

Simple rule:
If you would sell the same item to anyone else, you must sell it to anyone who will pay for it. If I will sell a straight couple a red velvet cupcake for $1, I must sell a gay couple a red velvet cupcake for $1.
If you want something custom, such as a red velvet cupcake with genitals done in icing on it, and I would not make that for anyone else, I do not have to make it for you. Straight couple asks for genital cupcakes, I say no, gay couple asks for genital cupcakes, I say no.

Reasoning:
Allowing people to refuse to do business with entire classes of people allows those people to be effectively barred from neighborhoods. We saw this with segregation. If black people can't buy food, rent an apartment, etc. they are effectively banned from living in an area. This strikes me as a larger infringement on the American ideals of freedom than the business owner's rights to elect to not serve a certain class.

HOWEVER, it also does not give fringe groups the right to terrorize local businesses by forcing them to comply with or do things that offend their sensibilities. I cannot force you to put rainbows on your cupcakes if you don't normally offer rainbows. I can't force you to put crossed...thingies...on a cake if you don't normally do so.

Result:
People get to live and do business where they choose. Businesses get to decide what products they make.

Now, I'll sit back and wait for everyone to tell me what a horrible idea this is.

I wouldn't sell a Rick + Ron wedding cake to a straight couple...so I damn sure ain't selling one to anybody else!

Talk about your first-world problems.

 

[jamil]

I'll throw an opinion out that has something for everyone to hate!

Simple rule:
If you would sell the same item to anyone else, you must sell it to anyone who will pay for it. If I will sell a straight couple a red velvet cupcake for $1, I must sell a gay couple a red velvet cupcake for $1.
If you want something custom, such as a red velvet cupcake with genitals done in icing on it, and I would not make that for anyone else, I do not have to make it for you. Straight couple asks for genital cupcakes, I say no, gay couple asks for genital cupcakes, I say no.

Reasoning:
Allowing people to refuse to do business with entire classes of people allows those people to be effectively barred from neighborhoods. We saw this with segregation. If black people can't buy food, rent an apartment, etc. they are effectively banned from living in an area. This strikes me as a larger infringement on the American ideals of freedom than the business owner's rights to elect to not serve a certain class.

HOWEVER, it also does not give fringe groups the right to terrorize local businesses by forcing them to comply with or do things that offend their sensibilities. I cannot force you to put rainbows on your cupcakes if you don't normally offer rainbows. I can't force you to put crossed...thingies...on a cake if you don't normally do so.

Result:
People get to live and do business where they choose. Businesses get to decide what products they make.

Now, I'll sit back and wait for everyone to tell me what a horrible idea this is.

I have a better idea. If I don't want to serve you, for whatever reason, I get to ask you to leave. My property, my business, my rules. Period.

That said, if I were a business owner I'd probably serve just about everyone because I'm a greedy bastard and I want your money.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Now, I'll sit back and wait for everyone to tell me what a horrible idea this is.

It's a bad idea. Let people do what they want with their business. Have you looked at neighborhoods? People self-segregate.

Curves doesn't allow male members ... whocares.

The Kleins have since closed the shop and moved their business to their home.

another win for the left

 

[bingley]

Good job, BBI!

Seriously, if you run an adult toy store, and some guy buys a toy, do you really need a written guarantee about what he will or will not do with the toy, and with whom? What if you run a web store (of any kind)? First World problem is deciding not to serve some good, paying customers based on your "beliefs."

It's a freakin' cake, people.

I'll throw an opinion out that has something for everyone to hate!

Simple rule:
If you would sell the same item to anyone else, you must sell it to anyone who will pay for it. If I will sell a straight couple a red velvet cupcake for $1, I must sell a gay couple a red velvet cupcake for $1.
If you want something custom, such as a red velvet cupcake with genitals done in icing on it, and I would not make that for anyone else, I do not have to make it for you. Straight couple asks for genital cupcakes, I say no, gay couple asks for genital cupcakes, I say no.

Reasoning:
Allowing people to refuse to do business with entire classes of people allows those people to be effectively barred from neighborhoods. We saw this with segregation. If black people can't buy food, rent an apartment, etc. they are effectively banned from living in an area. This strikes me as a larger infringement on the American ideals of freedom than the business owner's rights to elect to not serve a certain class.

HOWEVER, it also does not give fringe groups the right to terrorize local businesses by forcing them to comply with or do things that offend their sensibilities. I cannot force you to put rainbows on your cupcakes if you don't normally offer rainbows. I can't force you to put crossed...thingies...on a cake if you don't normally do so.

Result:
People get to live and do business where they choose. Businesses get to decide what products they make.

Now, I'll sit back and wait for everyone to tell me what a horrible idea this is.

 

[jamil]

Good job, BBI!

Seriously, if you run an adult toy store, and some guy buys a toy, do you really need a written guarantee about what he will or will not do with the toy, and with whom? What if you run a web store (of any kind)? First World problem is deciding not to serve some good, paying customers based on your "beliefs."

It's a freakin' cake, people.

I think it's a solution searching for an actual problem. The only reason this is even a story is because a political group wants to make a big deal of it.

 

[hoosierdoc]

It's a freakin' cake, people.

Yep, Americans can't even sell one as they wish without risk of massive fines and losing their business.

 

[churchmouse]

Ugh. I wish this issue would go away.

I wish cry baby people would go away.

These idiots got butt hurt (yeah, I said it) when someone would not do their bidding and went social media on them. Total crap.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'll throw an opinion out that has something for everyone to hate!

Simple rule:
If you would sell the same item to anyone else, you must sell it to anyone who will pay for it. If I will sell a straight couple a red velvet cupcake for $1, I must sell a gay couple a red velvet cupcake for $1.
If you want something custom, such as a red velvet cupcake with genitals done in icing on it, and I would not make that for anyone else, I do not have to make it for you. Straight couple asks for genital cupcakes, I say no, gay couple asks for genital cupcakes, I say no.

Reasoning:
Allowing people to refuse to do business with entire classes of people allows those people to be effectively barred from neighborhoods. We saw this with segregation. If black people can't buy food, rent an apartment, etc. they are effectively banned from living in an area. This strikes me as a larger infringement on the American ideals of freedom than the business owner's rights to elect to not serve a certain class.

HOWEVER, it also does not give fringe groups the right to terrorize local businesses by forcing them to comply with or do things that offend their sensibilities. I cannot force you to put rainbows on your cupcakes if you don't normally offer rainbows. I can't force you to put crossed...thingies...on a cake if you don't normally do so.

Result:
People get to live and do business where they choose. Businesses get to decide what products they make.

Now, I'll sit back and wait for everyone to tell me what a horrible idea this is.

Meh...if we can't legislate morality, why do we pass legislation forcing people to do business with and live among people they don't like? I'm reasonably sure there's no constitutional language that requires me to work for people I would choose not to. Yep, segregation may occur but guess what...it happens to a large degree anyway. Look at nearly any neighborhood, whether by age, common interests, heritage, socio-ecomomic class, there are segregated neighborhoods all around us.

 

[jamil]

People tend to be around people like them. They tend to shun people who aren't like them. Some ridicule people who are not like them. Even people who think they're open minded. The snotty lefty hipsters think they are pretty open minded as they ridicule people different from themselves.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

People tend to be around people like them. They tend to shun people who aren't like them. Some ridicule people who are not like them. Even people who think they're open minded. The snotty lefty hipsters think they are pretty open minded as they ridicule people different from themselves.

And many of us will still turn to governmental force to mandate things they think everybody else should like or do.

 

[churchmouse]

I'll throw an opinion out that has something for everyone to hate!

Simple rule:
If you would sell the same item to anyone else, you must sell it to anyone who will pay for it. If I will sell a straight couple a red velvet cupcake for $1, I must sell a gay couple a red velvet cupcake for $1.
If you want something custom, such as a red velvet cupcake with genitals done in icing on it, and I would not make that for anyone else, I do not have to make it for you. Straight couple asks for genital cupcakes, I say no, gay couple asks for genital cupcakes, I say no.

Reasoning:
Allowing people to refuse to do business with entire classes of people allows those people to be effectively barred from neighborhoods. We saw this with segregation. If black people can't buy food, rent an apartment, etc. they are effectively banned from living in an area. This strikes me as a larger infringement on the American ideals of freedom than the business owner's rights to elect to not serve a certain class.

HOWEVER, it also does not give fringe groups the right to terrorize local businesses by forcing them to comply with or do things that offend their sensibilities. I cannot force you to put rainbows on your cupcakes if you don't normally offer rainbows. I can't force you to put crossed...thingies...on a cake if you don't normally do so.

Result:
People get to live and do business where they choose. Businesses get to decide what products they make.

Now, I'll sit back and wait for everyone to tell me what a horrible idea this is.

Yeah....just horrible.......Rep inbound

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I think it's a solution searching for an actual problem. The only reason this is even a story is because a political group wants to make a big deal of it.

Just like Blacks not being able to sit at a lunch counter.

 

[jamil]

Just like Blacks not being able to sit at a lunch counter.

So you believe that attitudes changed because of the Civil Rights Act?

 

[steveh_131]

I have a better idea. If I don't want to serve you, for whatever reason, I get to ask you to leave. My property, my business, my rules. Period.

+1

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So you believe that attitudes changed because of the Civil Rights Act?

Do you think they didn't? That attitudes prevalent about segregation in, say 1950, are equally as prevalent and as strongly held today?

What about the forced integration of the US military? Do you think prevalent attitudes today about something like white soldiers serving under a black officer may have evolved a bit from the prevalent attitudes of pre-integration soldiers?