Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by evlwhtguy 7 years ago
    It is interesting that in this case as almost every other case like this the merchant talks about freedom of religion. The real case here is freedom of association. Apparently the federal government feels that just because you put up a shingle and go in to business, you all of a sudden loose your freedom of association. The freedom of association is pretty clear in the constitution, but Heart of Atlanta Motel V United States has perverted freedom of association so much that we have to hear people using the freedom of religion argument, which is akin to going whining to Mommy when you don't get the answer you want.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 7 years ago
    Go bake you're own friggin' cake.The right to say NO is paramount in a free society. No to everything and anything, whether it is good for you or bad. It is your life and the only one who can tell you how to run it is you. Not any person, group, government agency or religious reformer. In the case of the baker, if he is willing to lose the entire homosexual contingency then, so be it. The word no is attached to the consequences a the word.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by bobsprinkle 7 years ago
    Why hasn't a gay entrepreneur person or group formed a registry for bakers, photographers or whatever other services required for gay weddings? I suspect there is info out there for those services. The gaystapo just wants push back against the rest of the world.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mminnick 7 years ago
    To Quote Howard Roark: "“That’s not the point. The point is, who will stop me?”

    Rand, Ayn. The Fountainhead (p. 11). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

    I think we are going to find out if we have reached the point where there is someone to stop you.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Radio_Randy 7 years ago
    Could I sue, if I asked Walmart to bake me a cake, with the Confederate flag on it, and they refused?
    Actually, I don't need to pick on Walmart, but I don't believe Target has a bakery.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 7 years ago
    The question ultimately has to be "How far do I have to go attempting not to offend?" If a radical Muslim came to me and demanded a birthday cake depicting his son as a suicide bomber, should I be forced to comply? Personally, not only would I offend by refusing, but would compound my "offense" by reporting him to the police.

    I offend regularly by connecting the dots between homosexuals and the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). Every practicing homosexual I've spoken to admits to having been introduced to the lifestyle by an older male, so to me the connection is obvious, even if adult homosexuals aren't attracted to minor males. NAMBLA is an equal opportunity perversion society, also endorsing pedophelia in general. A guy or gal who likes little boys/girls? Welcome aboard.

    We still regard polygamy as illegal in the U.S., but we do find some institutions that turn a blind eye to Muslims who practice the multiple wife family. I don't think there's been a case defending the practice on religious grounds since the mainstream Mormons abandoned the system, but I have no doubt progressive judges will tie themselves in knots to rule in favor of a Muslim petitioner. Would this be a case where the offender is the justice system itself?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by lrshultis 7 years ago
      You are speaking of homosexual lifestyle. That is something that happens long after a person is a homosexual. My brother, e.g., knew he was having different, feelings and emotions that other kids did not have. He tried desperately to change those feelings but could not. He tried suicide twice but was not successful. He is now 72 and living with his companion still after 45 years. As for them being Christians, they have found that there are a number of churches where gays are welcome.
      That "radical Muslim" should more accurately be "fundamentalist Muslim", one who believes and strictly practices Islam.
      Seems like a Dr. is offended easily. As C. Hitchens noted, "...religion poisons everything".
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by GaryL 7 years ago
    If the gay couple does in fact win in the courts then I suggest we all go in to Muslim or even Jewish bake shops and demand them to make us baked goods using pork fat we provide.
    I built a lot of custom furniture pieces and many for gay couples with not a single issue. However, if a gay couple had requested that I build them some sort of special hand carved lamp in the shape of a penis using black ebony I would have said no. I just don't care what they do in the privacy of their own homes but I refuse to assist them in their sexual expressions or endeavors. I would not build the lamp for a straight couple using White Pine either.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by bobsprinkle 7 years ago
      I agree with your post completely. But, I do not understand the significance of "white pine".
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by GaryL 7 years ago
        HA! You should not understand the significance of the Black Ebony either. I actually was asked to make that lamp and I did refuse. I don't do Dildo lamps, black or white!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 7 years ago
          Probably dildo lamps are available on Alibaba anyway at a cheap price. Not worth it to make one here.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by GaryL 7 years ago
            I don't know what Alibaba is but it sounds like a middle eastern concern and to the best of my knowledge homosexuality is highly frowned upon there. Most folks who want a hand made item want something no one else has.
            I suppose we all should think about this because it sure could happen. How will you handle the first time you are invited to a gay wedding? My wife works with a gay man who is well above her in the food chain and she loves him. When/if he marries his partner she can certainly attend if she wants to but it will be without me. I do happen to like both of them but I don't believe in gay marriages, My Right.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 7 years ago
              Absolutely your right. I am not sure why gay people (or anyone actually) want government sanctioned marriage in the first place with all the rules and rregulations. Just live together if you want. I never even saw my parents marriage certificate, nor did I care if they were officially married or not.
              I always thought of marriage as some sort of religious ritual , but then the government got into it forcing people to abide by their rules. Thats when I decided marriage as defined today is just not worth it.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ blarman 7 years ago
                "I always thought of marriage as some sort of religious ritual , but then the government got into it forcing people to abide by their rules."

                And that's precisely what it was, too. Following the Civil War, the South wanted to prevent interracial marriages, so they passed laws stating that all marriages had to have a marriage license from the local county. Then the counties could deny licenses (and they also started denying them for close relations). They also saw it as a revenue source, and I've never met a bureaucrat who didn't like collecting money!

                We can eliminate the entire "gay marriage" controversy simply by acknowledging that government has no granted authority at either the State or Federal level to interfere with marriage (and this should have been the verdict of the Obergfell decision). Let the various religions choose to recognize each others' ceremonies or not.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 7 years ago
      Interesting. I think its your right to spend your time and effort the way you want.

      I think pretty much everyone has a line they wont cross. What about a lamp in the form of a NAZI insignia, with perhaps a hand carved partially dismembered head of a jew as part of it. I bete a LOT of people would draw the line there.

      Personally, I would bake a gay person a cake. Whats the harm in that really? I dont get it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by GaryL 7 years ago
        I don't believe baking the cake was either the issue or the result of this law suit. The baker would have sold them a cake or any other baked goods in his shop but he drew the line at decorating said cake in a gay theme using his artistic talents.
        No! I would not make a NAZI anything but I sure have made some Christian Crosses.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 7 years ago
          The supreme court should NOT demand that we make things we dont want to make, period. If they allow this case, you would have to agree to make the nazi lamp, or maybe something for ISIS.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CaptainKirk 7 years ago
    I plan on going to a Muslim Bakery, and asking them to bake a cake with a picture of Mohammed Kneeling Before Jesus. With the words:
    Please forgive me, I was vile to women, and a child molester.

    AND I want the companies NAME on it.

    So I can take pictures and share with the world.

    And hopefully the ACLU will defend me in court.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by pamzt 7 years ago
    If the couple prevails, should we now demand of Amazon to sell anti gay paraphernalia? There is no difference between each case. These larger organizations who are supporting the couple may want to rethink their positions.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 7 years ago
    Even accepting this case to make a ruling has determined what the court thinks it should be involved in something it has no right being involved in. If they don't rule against the baker this time it will happen next time. I am against prejudice for the sake of prejudice but would allow it to exist for it would tell me that people are free to choose how they will live their lives and how I will deal with them. I would rather a racist post a sign on his restaurant declaring which race he did not want in his establishment. I would not patronize him. I do not like that I might patronize someone who is racist because I am unaware because he serves everyone because he has to. As far as the question 'are we enslaved.' Yes. This is just another of the millions of regulations we must comply with. Whether I support abortion or not does not matter, I must pay for it. We have a nation of slavers who are glad to find employ in riveting the chains upon our necks by working for the myriad of bureaucracies supplying endless regulations telling us whether we can work, have a business or if we can use a vehicle, all of which must be licensed and permitted by the state or we will find ourselves at the business end of a gun. The idea of a 'free' America died almost at its birth.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ pixelate 7 years ago
    When I was first exposed to the Cake-Baking story, I visualized the following...

    You have an insolent demanding toddler that is standing in the doorway of the business establishment (bakery), wailing out the following "You gonna bake me a f$% cake or I gonna get my daddy to beat the f*%@$# out of you!!!" Daddy, of course, is The State. And daddy has a gun.

    You see, a toddler does not know (or care), what a business plan is.
    A toddler does not know what a profit and loss statement is.
    A toddler does not have a system of methods to hire and maintain good staff.
    A toddler does not know how to draft and refine contracts with 3rd party vendors.
    A toddler has no concept of inventory management, portion control or ingredient freshness rotation.
    A toddler has no clue as to the concept of marketing, product pricing or how to build a customer base.

    A toddler knows very little, other than how to make demands to satisfy its immediate feelings.

    What I find strange, are the supposed adults that find alignment with the toddler.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 7 years ago
    The end of custom cake making could be shortly upon us. Buy a standard cake and add the appropriate decorations yourself. Maybe there is a new market just for the decorations, but NOT the actual baking of the cake.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 7 years ago
    I say...No Cake, No Flowers, No pictures...if you want such things...do it yourself!

    Tired of hearing about it. No one should tell anyone whom to associate with...if perverts and government whats to be A-holes then no longer provide those services to anyone.

    Ya wana Cake!...go to stop and shop, then put your own stick figures on it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 7 years ago
    Well, that's true enough. It would be a violation of
    both the 9th and 13th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
    But a great problem has been created by the passage of the Civil Rights Bill of 1964. Don't get me wrong, I am not in favor of any "states' rights objection to it. It was a good and righteous thing to sweep away the legalized injustices in the laws of the Southern States, and to disallow racial and religious discrimination by the state government, and in taxpayer-paid facilities,i.e.,
    public schools, jury rooms, courthouses, etc.
    But on his own private property, a man has the natural, individual right to decide who may and may not enter onto the property He has the right of freedom of association, which that Bill denies.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 7 years ago
    "If the gay couple loses this case, what do they actually lose?"

    "If the baker loses the case, what does he stand to lose?"

    Precisely.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 7 years ago
      If the gay couple wins, we all lose because a simple cake is not the end of it. What about an ISIS member coming in and wanting someone to make an effigy of Trump hanging from a rope. Would a craftsman HAVE to make that for him then?

      If the gay couple loses the case, they can go to another baker. I would be happy to bake them a cake- whats the harm in that?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • -2
    Posted by $ BLaramie 7 years ago
    If you have a business that is open to the public, you must provide your goods and services to all equally. Period. This is not that hard. There is no exception for your political or religious beliefs. Period. You do not have the "right" to discriminate based on your beliefs. The very idea that one would be allowed to discriminate based on religious beliefs in the United States would make Jefferson & Adams turn in their respective graves. Period.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ pixelate 7 years ago
      This is absolute nonsense. I wanted to use a few different words, but the TOS for the Gulch make it clear that I dare not do so.

      An individual's business is a piece of property -- it is an extension of their own body. An individual can choose who they will associate with and who they will avoid. This extends to all of their creative works, including their business. My decision with whom to conduct business (or not) harms no one. It is only through the application of the use of force (threats, coercion, violence) that a business owner would be compelled to provide service or enter into a contract with someone with whom they would choose to have no association.

      I am in alignment with blarman's thoughts on this matter.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -1
        Posted by $ BLaramie 7 years ago
        An Individual's business is not an extension of their own body, any more than a corporation is a person. A corporation is a separate legal entity. It has a "life" of it's own. Your decision with whom to conduct business certainly may affect others, and may harm someone. If you're in the Emergency services business, and decide not to come to someone's aid for some personal reason, it certainly would affect them. It is not only through the use of force (threats, coercion, violence) that a business owner is compelled to provide service with whom they would not choose to have an association. It is through the rule of law, which is the legitimate use of force in a Democracy. As such, yes we can through majority rule pass legislation that says you cannot discriminate against someone by refusing to make their gay wedding cake because of your religious beliefs. It's a perfectly legitimate function of Democratic Government. There is no violation of rights in telling a business that what they provide for one, they must provide for all.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ pixelate 7 years ago
          Ah yes, the triumph of Democracy. The Greater Good for the Greater Many.
          Otherwise known as the Tyranny of the Majority.
          Two wolves and a sheep decide via Democratic Vote what shall be for dinner.

          If an individual owns Business X (whether Emergency services or otherwise) AND Business X has a contract to Entity Y and fails to comply with the contract, then there will be justifiable legal action initiated against Business X on behalf of Entity Y for failure to provide product or service. However, if no such contract exists, there shall be no penalty should Business X not provide product or service to Entity Y.

          What you are advancing here is a direct violation of an individual's right to association in context of their private business. Life is conditional -- I will conditionally provide my services to individuals based on numerous factors, including, but not limited to: credit worthiness. If an individual has no means, express or implied, to pay me, I will not do business with them.

          Go ahead with that Democracy thing... the ending can be computed with mathematical certainty. The individual, who is compelled, by force, to provide services to others that they would prefer not to do business with, will eventually just close their doors... and then disappear... sounds like a book that I have read again for the sixth time.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • -2
            Posted by $ BLaramie 7 years ago
            Yeah, and I produced the movie. Your logic is flawed. There is no violation of an individual's right. They voluntarily decided to open a business. By Law (which is not the tyranny of the Majority. It is a necessary component of a civilized society. We call them Laws), they may not always be good laws, and they may in fact be evil, but that is the opportunity, indeed the triumph of Democracy. I am by no means advocating violating an individual' right to association in context of their private business. You open a shop. You do not have the right to choose your customers. Of course, if they cannot pay, they cannot be customers. We trade for fair value. That's covered. Your goods are available for a price. But if someone is capable of paying that price, you do not have the right to refuse them the ability to purchase their goods. It seems the problem here is that you wish to make a distinction between when a product is made, you have the right to refuse to make it for an individual. What I mean here is that if you manufacture widgets, you really do not know in advance who is going to buy them. In this case, you do not have the right to discriminate on who may purchase them. On the other hand, if your business is to create custom, or "on demand" work, you think that therefore you get to say that you have the right to refuse to do the work because you don't like them. No. If you have laid out clear conditions on the circumstances under which you will perform your service, then you're pretty much in the clear. Your conditions may be ridiculous, but your on pretty firm ground philosophically. So if this baker had posted a sign that said "I don't make cakes for fags", at least he'd have a leg to stand on. But they didn't. They're basing their argument that somehow the customer was supposed to know that they were not welcome. The point is that this capricious decision has a very steep slope. No women. No Jews. No LGBTQ. No Whatever. That's why there's a law. It says you can't discriminate. It's prevents stuff like preventing blacks from eating at the lunch counter. They have a right to eat wherever they damn well please, just like any other human. Same with the cake. If I can buy it for my heterosexual wedding, they can buy it for their gay wedding. I'm sure Ayn Rand would agree. She stood very firmly against discrimination as a Jew.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ pixelate 7 years ago
              Horseshit. This is so absurdly simple. Always look for the gun. I can refuse sevice to anyone that I wish. There is no gun. The prospect simply says "that guy is an asshole" (by the way, I am an asshole and I like it and I can afford to be an asshole ... mark of pride) guy and moves down the street to inquire of the next potential seller. The "law" as you say now introduces the gun. Insists that I have to sell my product (blueberries, cherries, agricultural rental land, residential rentals, financial consulting, software distribution service ...) To any arbitrary prospect. Can you see the gun? Can you conceptualize? Can you or do you have the ability to think? I have a masters in computer science. I have taught engineers from Boeing to Hong Kong. My language is Logic. Do not presume to know what Rand would condone. Did you read The fountainhead? Do you know why Roark demolished Cortland? Democracy can go F*ck itself.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ BLaramie 7 years ago
                If you don’t believe in Democracy, what system do you propose, oh master of logic?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Lucky 7 years ago
                  ".. Democracy .. " Question or insult, to take it at face value as a question-

                  Whatever democracy is, it is not completely observed, for good reasons.
                  Legislatures can vote, but their desires are capped by constitutions (eg US)
                  or upper houses (UK).

                  It is curious that a poster on this site would give a naive definition of
                  democracy ignoring property rights and individual freedom.
                  First, put in place the fundamentals such as property rights, then democracy.
                  Otherwise you have a system where two foxes and a chicken vote on the dinner menu.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ 7 years ago
              If you believe business owners don't get to pick their customers then you believe I can go into a Muslim baker and force him to bake a cake with an image of Mohammed bowing to Jesus with the quote "I am sorry for being a murderous, lying pedophile."

              Seems legit.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ BLaramie 7 years ago
                A Muslim baker yes. A Muslim bakery, no. The baker is an employee, subject to obeying the order of their employer. A Muslim Bakery would by definition have staked out their orientation and therefore properly be able to refuse such a request.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 7 years ago
      That's not true at all and violates the voluntary nature of business. Business transactions are contractual, meaning that both parties must agree to the terms of the contract. Most businesses operate under a generic, open contract that says "here are my goods and my published prices and if you have the money, we'll trade." But those very same businesses reserve the right to refuse service on grounds such as inappropriate attire (no shirt, no shoes = no service).

      We discriminate all the time. Some people like red more than they like blue. Some people like blondes and some like brunettes. "Discrimination" in law-making is nothing more than an ideological hammer, and when wielded by the government is a very dangerous thing indeed. Discrimination comes whenever there are choices: the only way to eliminate discrimination is to eliminate choice.

      And I would point out that that very threat of government coercion was what caused Jefferson and Adams to sign the Declaration of Independence. I think you completely misinterpret how either of those two gentlemen would have acted in this case.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ BLaramie 7 years ago
      I have no idea what you mean by the "voluntary nature of business". I agree that a contract is a voluntary agreement, if that's what you mean. But that is a contract. The is no such thing as a "generic, open contract". When you open a business that provides goods and services, there is no "open contract". There is no "voluntary agreement" There is "here are my goods and services and here is the price." Pay the price, receive the goods or service. It comes down to a simple point. If you open a bakery, it's open to all. If you open a Jewish Deli, it's still open to all. If you open a bakery that specializes in Islamic baked goods, you cannot be forced to make matzo balls. But if you open a sign company, you don't get to agree with everything you are asked to put on a sign. Your making that sign does not imply your consent, agreement or complicity of the contents of that sign. You are simply doing what your business says it is in business to do. The same with cake. It has nothing to do with your belief system one way or the other. It's just a cake for a customer.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Lucky 7 years ago
        BLaramie is right, every Anglo legal jurisdiction recognizes non-written
        contracts, even those that now do not speak English such as Zimbabwe, Israel,
        Malaysia, ..

        There is this problem in enforcing such a contract, you have to show evidence
        that there was a non-written contract, and that it says what you say it says.

        A court may decide that such a contract means you are open for business,
        - that you will deal with blacks whites pinks reds, and with capitalist exploiters or commie spongers regardless (this requirement may now be a statute).
        - that you will provide the product or service in the range that a reasonable Joe-customer could expect you to provide.

        Should the court also insist that you provide a political advertisement with words
        outside the usual experience of such a service?
        Would a court order a Hindu owner of a bakery to provide a beef filled cake, even
        if the owner did not say his bakery was Hindu?
        Consider, an order for wording promoting all inclusive love by
        pederasts/pedophiles, or a smoker told to do words for anti-smoking, or v.v.,
        A little thought would come up with all kinds of examples on
        these lines which are intolerable, and more to the point, could not be inferred by some claimed unwritten contract.
        So my view is that a court would - well should, rule that the purported existence of unwritten general business contracts need strong evidence.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo