judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples

[frostback]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/06/21795833-judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples?lite

For or a against the gay issue not withstanding, don't want to get into that argument on here, but what I thought was that business owners could refuse to serve anyone?  A judge should not be able to tell people how to run their shop. How is this happening?

 

[knabe]

Once again, choice is denied. 

Let business decide the soundness of their decision.

For some reason, the left will never understand choice. 

They want everyone to change except themselves.

This new regime reveals itself more and more each day.

 

[Telos]

The left understands choice. What they don't tolerate is prejudice and unfairness. Discrimination.

Business owners should not be able to deny service simply because of "who they are".

Some folks like to buffer their prejudice using religion.

 

[knabe]

Choice is either choice or it isn't.

People have the choice not to go to the store.

The choice to choose is no longer a choice.

Since hardly no one really believes in choice anyway, at each elimination of choice, as long as the simple majority agrees with it, the very concept of choice is eroded with each elimination of it.

Some would rather have a law eliminating choice rather than the choice to choose for themselves. This is how diversity is eliminated.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. We have become what we said we hated.

 

[Telos]

So people have a choice if they want to go around killing other people as well?

There are just some cases where choosing should not be a choice.

I agree Knabe...People have a choice not to go to the store... But when they get there they should not be denied food because of who they are.

 

[knabe]

You are whittling closer to the issue.

The store owner and customer should be allowed to choose whether to enter into a contract or not at any point before a decision is made.

Word will get around and people will choose whether or not they want to go to the store. Business will dictate the success of the business. It is not necessary to involve the courts.

Murder analogy doesn't apply because both don't agree or disagree to enter a contract. Murder is the lack of choice by one party. This is why I'm actually for euthanasia. Both parties choose.

As genetics are figured out and the ability to change them becomes an afterthought, should people have the right to change genetics that affect behavior?  The child is not involved in the decision, but I can see a point when they will.

 

[aj]

So is the old no shoes no shirt....noservice deal uninforceable?

 

[knabe]

So is the old no shoes no shirt....noservice deal uninforceable?

Excellent point.  The end game of rule making is not a pretty sight.

 

[aj]

How does that work for races? Is it a law that says you can't refuse say a black in a eating establishment....or is it you can't segregate seating areas. Like a white only drinking fountain? Could a crazy white honkey be refused at a blues night club(in theory).

 

[BTDT]

If it is a private business, then I do not think the gov't has any right to tell them who they serve or not serve.
I have heard many a story about club calf sellers and purebred stock sellers "choosing" who they sell their calves to; a new person who is just starting and doesn't have "right" parents, will not get the top calf because it will go to the older more experienced showman who knows all the "ins and outs".  If the show calf industry did it the gov't way, the one with the money would get the calf, and lets face it, that doesn't happen sometimes.

Maybe the owner could raise the price and then offer the customers a "special" if they approve of them?  Again, like the club calf business. 

"No shoes, no shirt, no service" would probably be enforceable due to the fact they could argue "sanitation" issues. 

My question is: Since the "majority" is now the "minority"; when do all the benefits of the "old minority" transfer to the "new minority" and when will the "new majority" start taking care of the "old majority" (which is now the new minority)?  Seems if it was fair last year, it should be fair now.  Just a thought.

 

[knabe]

My question is: Since the "majority" is now the "minority"; when do all the benefits of the "old minority" transfer to the "new minority" and when will the "new majority" start taking care of the "old majority" (which is now the new minority)?  Seems if it was fair last year, it should be fair now.  Just a thought.

The redistribution will cintinue.  Notice how laws are written to snare small percentages of people rather than just being fair.  First they came for the millionaires.......

http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/04/02/there-is-no-obamacare-tax-on-most-home-sales-really/

As inflation continues, this will entrap more and more people, just like amt.

 

[chambero]

It depends on the what the "whole story" is behind this one.  I'm fully on board with the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" rule.  You should be able to refuse someone who is disruptive to you or your customers.  I want the right to kick out hooligans.  How did the owner know they were gay?  If it was because they were all over each other I'd refuse them just as I would two hetero college kids if they were being indiscrete in my business.

If they were behaving as the average customer would, they should be served.  This is no different than the when folks denied service to african-americans.  And that is an opinion from someone who is against gay marriage.  It's not ok to to be mean.

 

[knabe]

How does that work for races? Is it a law that says you can't refuse say a black in a eating establishment....or is it you can't segregate seating areas. Like a white only drinking fountain? Could a crazy white honkey be refused at a blues night club(in theory).

Could a white person be barred from playing a black person but a black person be allowed to play a white person?  Can a person of a different race make fun of another or just non-whites? If peoplemwant true equality, and they currently don't, then there would be choice.  More and more, people simply do not like choice, the like more and more rules.

 

[Telos]

The original thread was about a case where discrimination was based on the owner's admission. "It was against his religion".

All of us have the right to pick and choose who we sell things to, until a seller denies service based on race, sex, sexual orientation even though it is against your religion.

As a Restaurant owner I "cannot" deny service to an African American or a Gay person simply because they are African American or gay.

As a Restaurant owner I "can" deny service to an African American if they are disturbing other guess or a gay person who may be offensive to other patrons because of their actions but not simply because of who they are.

This is why they make these "rules" (laws) involving race, sex and sexual orientation. They are made for people who are fearful, scared or dislike other people who are made different then themselves. I am grateful we have made these "rules" which in perspective fall into a very narrow window of all the other possibe rules.

 

[RyanChandler]

If you want to play in OUR marketplace, you'll play by OUR rules.  Discrimination is illegal. Period.

 

[knabe]

If you want to play in OUR marketplace, you'll play by OUR rules.  Discrimination is illegal. Period.

The very essence of discrimination.

Al capone couldn't have put it better.

Time doesnt pass, we pass. 

The hatred will get worse, on all sides and the post, all due to intolerance ,both real and denied.  There is no love, only hate and domination. choice is gone except to kill those with no choice.  It really always does boil down to that. Irony.

Farmingham girls basketball team members shouldnt have been disciplined. How will we keep up with all the rules. What should be the minimum voting age?

 

[chambero]

I'm Catholic, married to a Baptist, go to both churches regularly, and have never had a priest/preacher tell me to shun homosexuals.  Disagreeing with it and not condoning it are very different than mistreating them.

 

[knabe]

There is discussion whether a business is a public or private entity.

The bakers face up to a year in jail.

Free speech is dead.

They could have just went to a diffeent baker, but instead, one group's ,orals are being imposed on another and their liveliehood, all because of a difference of beliefs.

The left hates choice and loves to impose their beliefs on others. Its what makes them happy.

So why the outrage of illinois girl basketball team pic?

One should be able to do anything.

Prosecute anyone who disagrees with the simple majority with hate crimes.

That should bring them in line.

Why the discrimination?

as liberals lavished in violating social norms in the 60's and beyond, they now abhor them. unpopular speech should now be banned in their utopia.  they are nothing but bullies.  there is plenty of commerce for everyone.  they now commit hate speech while the accuse and hang their mortal enemies of it.  nice unity, tolerance and diversity.

 

[vc]

The shop owner did not refuse to serve them, they refused to make them a wedding cake. The story came out months ago, they stated that they did not believe in gay marriage, that is why they refused to make a wedding cake. They have no problem with birthday cakes, cup cakes or what have you, just wedding cakes.
Other part of the story is that the person ordering the cake new their stance on gay marriage prior to attempting to order the cake from them.
The way to address businesses that do things you don't agree with is to take your business elsewhere, or even boycot the establishment, I really do not think they should be able to force a business to go against their beliefs.

 

[bryan6807]

Typical Liberal rhetoric. Your rights end where my feelings begin