"Supreme Court says we get a free ticket to discriminate "

[Glitch]

Hatred of gays or blacks is not rational. Hate never is.

What part of "[a] business that discriminates based solely on the color of someone's skin, gender, or sexual orientation is irrational..." did you not comprehend?

Hatred is not always irrational either. Hatred of anti-American leftist freaks is not only rational, it is specifically permitted under Section 2000e-2(f) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I would never knowingly employ a Democrat. If I found out that I had employed a Democrat, they would be fired on the spot.

I do not tolerate anti-American leftist filth.

 

[Waddy]

The trick is to know when to discriminate. A business that irrationally discriminates is going to put themselves out of business in a hurry. There needs to be a rational reason for the discrimination, such as for liability purposes or religious differences. A business that discriminates based solely on the color of someone's skin, gender, or sexual orientation is irrational, and therefore is not likely to stay in business very long.

We have a black owned local bar-b-que that doesn't like white people or dogs (assistance dogs) in their establishment. Nobody is burning them down. Everybody just knows that's the deal at Ricky's. White people and blind people with dogs are welcome to do carry out, at the window. Ricky doesn't really hate white people, he simply feels his black customers feel more at home if there aren't any white people around.
But in general I do agree that a business has to have a good reason for rejecting any type of customer.

 

[Randomutation]

Do conservative Christians really believe that the phrase "nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof " in the First Amendment of the Constitution and the Supreme Court's decision in the Masterpiece Cake case both mean they have the right to discriminate against gays and other "people we don't like"?

It's a free speech issue. He didn't refuse because they were gay. He simply refused to make a cake that symbolized something he disagreed with.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Why would I do that? If I ran a business I would want all the customers I could get. Business is about business not religion. As far as I understand it, baking a wedding cake for homosexuals doesn't interfere with any religious ritual or practices or prohibitions that I know of. One can bake that cake and still go to confession, accept Jesus as a personal saviou, take communion, sing in the choir, and screw the pastor or the ladies of the choir.

You cannot affirmatively support an evil like the celebration of sodomy.

 

[Luce]

You cannot affirmatively support an evil like the celebration of sodomy.

Why not?

 

[Dayton3]

Why not?

Some things are wrong and will always be wrong.

 

[Luce]

Some things are wrong and will always be wrong.

Sounds like one of those blind faith things, and I'll thank you to keep your religion out of my government.

 

[Dayton3]

Sounds like one of those blind faith things, and I'll thank you to keep your religion out of my government.

I could say virtually the same to you. All depends on whose ox is getting gored doesn't it?

 

[bomberfox]

You have to work for a boss if you are a worker in capitalist societies. With this kind of life or death structure discrimination can be a death sentence.

 

[weaver2]

It's a free speech issue. He didn't refuse because they were gay. He simply refused to make a cake that symbolized something he disagreed with.

If we extend the permission to refuse the sale of products or service to people we dislike our economy, that which makes us a great nation, comes to a screeching halt. No economy can survive letting personal hates take precedence over the exchange of goods and services.

 

[Randomutation]

If we extend the permission to refuse the sale of products or service to people we dislike our economy, that which makes us a great nation, comes to a screeching halt.

Well, no the economy probably would not “come to a screeching halt”. Although some businesses that practiced that might go under for lack of customer base.
But that’s all irrelevant anyway. Because that is not what Masterpiece Cakeshop did. There is no evidence whatsoever that he disliked the customers, much less any evidence that he denied service because of allegedly disliking them.

 

[Ontologuy]

I believe there are laws dealing with this. For instance things like employment, housing, medical treatment are excepts to “religious freedom” claims. Caking baking - not so much.

Yes, but right and moderate sentiment, and the current SCOTUS, don't agree that some of these exceptions to religious freedom should exist. The conflict between religious freedom and civil rights is far from over.

 

[Bullseye]

Yes, but right and moderate sentiment, and the current SCOTUS, don't agree that some of these exceptions to religious freedom should exist. The conflict between religious freedom and civil rights is far from over.

I disagree. As I’ve mentioned a couple of time each of those entities understand the difference between frivolous claimes, e.g. baking a bake, an inagruable basic rights such as employment, housing, education, or medical care.

 

[Ontologuy]

I disagree. As I’ve mentioned a couple of time each of those entities understand the difference between frivolous claimes, e.g. baking a bake, an inagruable basic rights such as employment, housing, education, or medical care.

And I have to disagree. For centrists and moderates in general, it's not all that cut and dried. For moderate rights, rights, and the SCOTUS which leans considerably right, they're ready to restore some decisions in favor of religious rights.

Cases that will come up and are likely to get a fresh look will be selling of abortion contraceptives in Christian-owned pharmacies against the owner's will, Christian-owned businesses hiring gays against their will, .. and don't forget Roe v. Wade, as every scientific discipline shortly after Roe and Webster concurred that a human begins to live at conception.

I think it's all far from over.

 

[weaver2]

So, E Pluribus Unum is just a bunch of Latin words that someone wrote on the Great Seal of the United States of America because they fit into the empty space on the ribbon in the eagles beak. This doesn't bode well for our continued success.

Why should one be forced to do business with someone they do not wish to be associated with?

I don't support bigotry but I oppose unconstitutional actions by the government even if that accomplishes something most people think is good. I think you should have the right to sell to whom you want.

Who also have the right to discriminate. Regardless of whether or not you believe they should. I may be wrong but I would bet you are all for businesses denying service to customers that wear, say...MAGA hats.

I believe when someone opens a business, as owners of that business they have the right to sell whatever products and services they please to whomever they please. Every business has the right to refuse to sell their products or services to whomever they desire, for any reason they desire.

Hatred is not always irrational either. Hatred of anti-American leftist freaks is not only rational, it is specifically permitted under Section 2000e-2(f) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I would never knowingly employ a Democrat. If I found out that I had employed a Democrat, they would be fired on the spot. I do not tolerate anti-American leftist filth.

It's a free speech issue. He didn't refuse because they were gay. He simply refused to make a cake that symbolized something he disagreed with.

 

[Bullseye]

And I have to disagree. For centrists and moderates in general, it's not all that cut and dried. For moderate rights, rights, and the SCOTUS which leans considerably right, they're ready to restore some decisions in favor of religious rights.[/qupte] I doubt there will be much of that beyond what I mentioned above.

Cases that will come up and are likely to get a fresh look will be selling of abortion contraceptives in Christian-owned pharmacies against the owner's will, Christian-owned businesses hiring gays against their will, .. and don't forget Roe v. Wade, as every scientific discipline shortly after Roe and Webster concurred that a human begins to live at conception.

I think it's all far from over.

I think you’re worrying a lot over things unlikely to happen.

 

[Bullseye]

So, E Pluribus Unum is just a bunch of Latin words that someone wrote on the Great Seal of the United States of America because they fit into the empty space on the ribbon in the eagles beak. This doesn't bode well for our continued success.

Huh?

 

[Ontologuy]

I think you're worrying a lot over things unlikely to happen

Clearly you are in error, as I'm not "worrying" about anything, let alone "a lot".

What I foresee is likely to happen, the court challenges all the way to the SCOTUS, challenges to civil rights in the name of religion, and the ending of Roe and Webster.

I'm pretty sure it's others who are worrying about that .. a lot.

 

[Randomutation]

So, E Pluribus Unum is just a bunch of Latin words that someone wrote on the Great Seal of the United States of America because they fit into the empty space on the ribbon in the eagles beak.

E Pluribus Unum refers to people. It does not refer to symbols - like wedding cakes.

 

[Ethel2]

What part of "[a] business that discriminates based solely on the color of someone's skin, gender, or sexual orientation is irrational..." did you not comprehend?

Hatred is not always irrational either. Hatred of anti-American leftist freaks is not only rational, it is specifically permitted under Section 2000e-2(f) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I would never knowingly employ a Democrat. If I found out that I had employed a Democrat, they would be fired on the spot.

I do not tolerate anti-American leftist filth.

You must be a wonderful boss.

 

[Bullseye]

Clearly you are in error, as I'm not "worrying" about anything, let alone "a lot".

What I foresee is likely to happen, the court challenges all the way to the SCOTUS, challenges to civil rights in the name of religion, and the ending of Roe and Webster.

I'm pretty sure it's others who are worrying about that .. a lot.

Do you know that the “conservative” justices crossover to vote with their “liberal” coutnerparts much more frequently that the reverse. Also, most 5-4 are not along ideolgical lines.

 

[Glitch]

You must be a wonderful boss.

I was, I'm retired now. I paid my lowest earning employee more than five times the minimum wage. I always had dozens of applications for every job opening, even from other countries, and I never once knowingly employed an anti-American leftist freak during the 30 years I was in business.

 

[Nickyjo]

you clearly don't understand the concept of rights and the constitution.

Don’t understand. We decided in 1960s legislation that while we are free to discriminate in employment, housing or public accommodations, it is illegal to do so on the basis of race, religion, national origin or ancestry or sex.

 

[TurtleDude]

Don’t understand. We decided in 1960s legislation that while we are free to discriminate in employment, housing or public accommodations, it is illegal to do so on the basis of race, religion, national origin or ancestry or sex.

government overreach and a violation of the tenth amendment.

 

[Ethel2]

I was, I'm retired now. I paid my lowest earning employee more than five times the minimum wage. I always had dozens of applications for every job opening, even from other countries, and I never once knowingly employed an anti-American leftist freak during the 30 years I was in business.

And exactly how did you determine the political philosophy of those applicants?