• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

TODD'S AMERICAN DISPATCH: Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests[W:699]

ksu_aviator said:
It is not an opinion. It is fact. The owner chose not to serve them because he didn't agree with them and they chose to boycott him because they didn't agree with him. It is hypocritical to expect the law to be on the side of one entity and not the other. In fact, since the law says he has to serve someone against his religion, then the law should say they have to buy against their beliefs.
Click to expand...

Businesses open and advertising to the public don't have the same rights as individuals.
 
Boycotts are a fine way to express your opinions and your right (and moral obligation) to make good choices.
 
Peter King said:
I am sorry, but religious freedom should not be an excuse for discrimination.
Click to expand...

freedom isn't an excuse.

"I'm sorry, you have to date a chinese person because you aren't free to discriminate."

what kind of idiot truly believes that line of thinking?
 
ARealConservative said:
freedom isn't an excuse.

"I'm sorry, you have to date a chinese person because you aren't free to discriminate."

what kind of idiot truly believes that line of thinking?
Click to expand...

What kind of idiot thinks this is relevant?
 
Deuce said:
Businesses open and advertising to the public don't have the same rights as individuals.
Click to expand...

thanks to people like you, this is becoming more and more accurate.
 
ARealConservative said:
freedom isn't an excuse.

"I'm sorry, you have to date a chinese person because you aren't free to discriminate."

what kind of idiot truly believes that line of thinking?
Click to expand...

The idiot who offers up straw man arguments?
 
Gardener said:
The idiot who offers up straw man arguments?
Click to expand...

so I am free to discriminate?

which is it? do you even know what you are saying? doesn't seem like it
 
Peter King said:
The question is, can a bakery refuse to make a wedding cake because they do not like the fact that 2 men or 2 women get married to one another.
Click to expand...

Yes.

Religious freedom is all nice and dandy, but they are in the business of baking cakes
Click to expand...

Right. It's a business, and they own the flour and the icing and the ovens and the building and everything else. They choose to use their property to make cakes and they choose to sell the product of their labor to people for money. They don't have to sell cakes to anyone.

Just imagine that a black baker would refuse to bake a cake for a mixed couple, or a white baker refusing to bake for a black couple. What if a muslim baker refused to bake a cake for a jewish couple.
Click to expand...

These examples would not be permitted under current law.

However, they should be permitted, as such laws violate personal liberties. We are not forced to labor for anyone, we choose when we want to exchange property we have for property we want.
 
Deuce said:
Businesses open and advertising to the public don't have the same rights as individuals.
Click to expand...

When the majority of voters in California originally passed Prop 8, the LGBT community obtained donor lists of businesses and individuals who financially supported the pro-Prop 8 amendment. Those people and businesses were picketed and harrassed, with news reports claiming some businesses were driven out of business due to the negative publicity.

Do you agree with this type of action?
 
ARealConservative said:
so I am free to discriminate?

which is it? do you even know what you are saying? doesn't seem like it
Click to expand...

If you do not possess the intelligence necessary to distinguish between public and private, that certainly does not make it my own failing.
 
Deuce said:
10th amendment to the United States constitution.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, the 10th Amendment is explicitly why the government has no authority to make laws about such things.
 
ksu_aviator said:
This just proved what I said in some other threads. The only reason they filed suit was to persecute the owner for religious beliefs. So now we've had a flower company, photographer and bakery. That's unacceptable.
Click to expand...

Nobody can speak with authority about the unspoken motivations of the plaintiffs, we can only comment intelligently on what they're actually doing.

In that spirit, the defendants are not being sued or boycotted for their beliefs -- they are being sued and boycotted for their behavior. The defendants are welcome to believe whatever they like, and no matter how unpopular those beliefs are, it is not appropriate to punish them for their beliefs. It is only appropriate to punish them for what they actually do, and that's what is happening here.

This isn't a case of Christians being persecuted, this is a case of people who violate the law (and social convention) with respect to business practices being punished.
 
Gardener said:
If you do not possess the intelligence necessary to distinguish between public and private, that certainly does not make it my own failing.
Click to expand...

in context, it seems like you are the person lacking intelligence once again.

I am sorry, but religious freedom should not be an excuse for discrimination.

I simply stated you don't need an excuse to exercise freedom.

you were saying?
 
Peter King said:
The question is, can a bakery refuse to make a wedding cake because they do not like the fact that 2 men or 2 women get married to one another. Religious freedom is all nice and dandy, but they are in the business of baking cakes and if someone comes to a baker to order a cake for a wedding cake the baker should not be allowed to discriminate. Just imagine that a black baker would refuse to bake a cake for a mixed couple, or a white baker refusing to bake for a black couple. What if a muslim baker refused to bake a cake for a jewish couple.

All those kinds of things would be discriminatory and this case is discrimination too. Nobody should be refused business because of their sexual preferences.
Click to expand...

So far as I'm concerned any PRIVATE business should be able to choose not to do business with ANY member of the public that it so chooses.... AS LONG AS that business is not directly taking Local, State, or Federal support of any kind.

I don't care if it's sexual preference, gender, skin color, religion, or the color hat they're wearing today, etc.... If I don't want to do business with someone I should not be forced to do so. I have a First Amendment right to Association and thereby Dis-association with whomever I choose.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
, we can only comment intelligently on what they're actually doing.

.
Click to expand...

Some of us, perhaps.

Based upon the quality of so much of the childish sophistry being offered in this thread, intelligence does not seem to be any sort of prerequisite for joining the discussion.
 
Tigger said:
So far as I'm concerned any PRIVATE business should be able to choose not to do business with ANY member of the public that it so chooses.... AS LONG AS that business is not directly taking Local, State, or Federal support of any kind.

I don't care if it's sexual preference, gender, skin color, religion, or the color hat they're wearing today, etc.... If I don't want to do business with someone I should not be forced to do so. I have a First Amendment right to Association and thereby Dis-association with whomever I choose.
Click to expand...

You're welcome to that belief, but under the law you are wrong.
 
Mason66 said:
How is it that the boycott was so effective? Are there only lesbians and gays in that town?
Click to expand...

Probably not, but there are more than likely a large population of the sheeple who refuse to cross picket lines or ignore social pressure.

Hell, if I lived there I'd have been going in and buying their cakes, even when I didn't want or need them, just to piss the protestors off.
 
Nynaeve Meara said:
No one likes discrimination, and this proves it.
Click to expand...

NOPE. It just proves that most people don't have the balls to confront stupid people in large numbers with loud voices.
 
Gardener said:
But their own profanity laced, racist rant has been captured for all to see.

Those who defend these homophobic racists do so BECAUSE they are homophobic racists, make no mistake. All of the rest of the crap they offer about religious "freedom" and all that is just a smokescreen.
Click to expand...

Oh my God I am so tired of hearing "make no mistake"

More than 5 years of it now.
 
Mason66 said:
How is it that the boycott was so effective?

Are there only lesbians and gays in that town?
Click to expand...

militant style protesters came from out of area to prevent business from occurring as usual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom