Hearing set for same-sex wedding cake dispute in Oregon

[IndyDave1776]

Yeah, but boycotts are only good when they're against businesses taking pro-same-sex actions. When they're against anti-same-sex actors, they're "economic terrorism.". At least, that's what Huckabee taught me.

And we talk a lot about ostracism here, bit it's usually derisively referred to as "mob shaming." I don't disagree with what you posted, but I don't think it's going to get a lot of traction.

It all depends on what's included in the package? Are we simply talking about voting with your feet? Lawsuits to extort conformity by bankrupting anyone who has the audacity to disagree? Threats, like the ones issued to the pizza parlor?

 

[IndyGal65]

Yes, that's the argument, isn't it. It amazes me that it is 'unfair' to tell someone to find an amoral baker who doesn't care, but it is somehow perfectly fair to jack everything a person has spent his or her life working for over a cake.

I'm not sure it's quite "fair" to call a baker amoral if they agree to provide a cake for a same sex wedding. Having said that, as a gay woman, I think the judgment against the bakery in question in this thread is ridiculous. I stand by the ideal that a business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. If I owned a business, I would want that same protection.

 

[churchmouse]

I'm not sure it's quite "fair" to call a baker amoral if they agree to provide a cake for a same sex wedding. Having said that, as a gay woman, I think the judgment against the bakery in question in this thread is ridiculous. I stand by the ideal that a business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. If I owned a business, I would want that same protection.

Winner

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

I'm not sure it's quite "fair" to call a baker amoral if they agree to provide a cake for a same sex wedding. Having said that, as a gay woman, I think the judgment against the bakery in question in this thread is ridiculous. I stand by the ideal that a business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. If I owned a business, I would want that same protection.

Spot on.

Which is also why we, as folks that support the 2nd Amendment, should be quick to support someone with a big 1st Amendment position.
Similarly - I as a person of one particular religious persuasion, should be quick to support the rights of those of other persuasions (or not - as in athiests, etc).

It's the whole first , they came for the XXXXXX... sort of argument.

Our opinion may be in the majority today - but it may not always be so. We should consider that in how we treat those of a minority position.

 

[churchmouse]

Spot on.

Which is also why we, as folks that support the 2nd Amendment, should be quick to support someone with a big 1st Amendment position.
Similarly - I as a person of one particular religious persuasion, should be quick to support the rights of those of other persuasions (or not - as in athiests, etc).

It's the whole first , they came for the XXXXXX... sort of argument.

Our opinion may be in the majority today - but it may not always be so. We should consider that in how we treat those of a minority position.

My only thought here is how we support those in a minority position that are attempting to set up another/more protected groups or classes of people. The constitution sets up our rights to cover everyone. No one class of people need/deserve more. Violence is just that. Murder the same. No special set of rules/laws need be in place to define why or what. Both are wrong.

 

[jamil]

Yeah, but boycotts are only good when they're against businesses taking pro-same-sex actions. When they're against anti-same-sex actors, they're "economic terrorism.". At least, that's what Huckabee taught me.

And we talk a lot about ostracism here, bit it's usually derisively referred to as "mob shaming." I don't disagree with what you posted, but I don't think it's going to get a lot of traction.

Do you not see a difference between ostracism and mob shaming? Boycotting, picketing and protesting someone's business is quite different from waging a campaign to utterly ruin dissenters.

 

[cobber]

My only thought here is how we support those in a minority position that are attempting to set up another/more protected groups or classes of people. The constitution sets up our rights to cover everyone. No one class of people need/deserve more. Violence is just that. Murder the same. No special set of rules/laws need be in place to define why or what. Both are wrong.

Once we as a society resolve this "Black lives matter" conundrum, we can perhaps address the "LGBT rights matter" conundrum as well.


It would be wrong to be inclusive of all rights and lives, wouldn't it?

 

[Expat]

Once we as a society resolve this "Black lives matter" conundrum, we can perhaps address the "LGBT rights matter" conundrum as well.


It would be wrong to be inclusive of all rights and lives, wouldn't it?

When one of the rights being sought is to force someone to do something against their will because it goes against their deeply held religious beliefs, then obviously we need to stamp out all religion.

 

[LPMan59]

Yes, that's the argument, isn't it. It amazes me that it is 'unfair' to tell someone to find an amoral baker who doesn't care, but it is somehow perfectly fair to jack everything a person has spent his or her life working for over a cake.

You should see the thread about the relative who "stole" $250k from a 3rd party. You wouldn't believe how many people claim to be willing to drop a dime on the alleged offender when the parties involved have chosen to not escalate/resolve the issue.


government is a tool to smash your enemies.

 

[cobber]

When one of the rights being sought is to force someone to do something against their will because it goes against their deeply held religious beliefs, then obviously we need to stamp out all religion.

Why stop there? Stamp out all liberty except for governmentally-approved progressive 'freedoms', such as right to fornicate with adult of your choice, right to ingest drug of your choice, right to destroy human fetuses while zealously protecting various non-sentient wild animals, right not to be offended by white male patriarchical ideas or values, right to government assistance, right to be paid excessive wages for unskilled labor or ditto for not working at all, right in general to live off the labor of others, right to be "safe".

 

[IndyDave1776]

I'm not sure it's quite "fair" to call a baker amoral if they agree to provide a cake for a same sex wedding. Having said that, as a gay woman, I think the judgment against the bakery in question in this thread is ridiculous. I stand by the ideal that a business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. If I owned a business, I would want that same protection.

Fair enough. The hazards involved with summing up a nuanced thought in a single word are a big part of the reason that I tend to end up with page-long posts! I could have done better with that one.

In any event, I would say that we are on the same page here so far as the government should not be in the business of forcing people to act against their will aside from prohibiting them from harming others.

 

[KG1]

In any event, I would say that we are on the same page here so far as the government should not be in the business of forcing people to act against their will aside from prohibiting them from harming others.

This right here is the money quote. Well said Dave.

 

[printcraft]

.......n any event, I would say that we are on the same page here so far as the government should not be in the business of forcing people to act against their will aside from prohibiting them from harming others.

What about my hurt feelings?

 

[KG1]

What about my hurt feelings?

Just go to your safe space.

 

[jamil]

What about my hurt feelings?

Just go to your safe space.

Bully-proof windows.
[video=youtube_share;sXQkXXBqj_U]http://youtu.be/sXQkXXBqj_U[/video]