|
Post by Ranger John on Jul 8, 2015 8:13:13 GMT -5
It's going to be a bitch to find that article again. I'll do my best. The thing is, it's not really any different than Brendan Eich losing his job at Mozilla. Mozilla never denied service to gays. But they boycotted just the same when they discovered that Eich supported proposition 8. As you can imagine, finding the story about the bakery that was sued after making the cake is impossible to weed out of the google search from all the stories about bakeries that wouldn't make the cake. I think this is the one you're referring to. An Oregon bakery refused a wedding cake for a lesbian couple and were found guilty and fined $135,000 by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries.
I still don't see grounds for discrimination in this case since the couple would not have made the cake for anyone, not just a lesbian couple. They didn't refuse them because they were lesbians; in fact, these two women had patronized the bakery on several different occasions. They were refused a certain product which represented an act that this couple did not agree with. Sounds to me like a First Amendment issue. It's a pretty sad day when people are told when and how they can check their consciences at the door.
Well, that's been the whole problem with this for me from the start. To me, a "public accommodation" at a bakery begins and ends in the case out front. If the item is in there, it's available to the public, and has to be sold to anyone who wants it regardless of who they are. Custom work represents an additional burden of time and skill to the baker, as well as an expression of his or her art. Refusing that sort of service because you don't want your work associated with an event is acceptable to me, as it's a private commission, not a public accommodation. My main concern with those private commissions is that we're consistent with how we treat them legally. If the courts also insist on calling them public accommodations, I don't really agree with that, but then the Christian bakery has to sell gay wedding cakes, and the Left-wing rocker has to sell licenses for his music to be played at Republican campaign events.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 8, 2015 8:57:15 GMT -5
1. It was YOUR "logic" I was responding to. By that "logic", anyone making any decision, especially regarding association, is bigotry, especially if one owns a business. By your "logic", one surrenders all their rights if they dare to open a business. Unless, of course, they are Democrat, in which case, no law applies to them. 2. Again, by your "logic", one can only be black, gay, Indian, or crippled, in their own homes. If they own a business, they can no longer be black, gay, ect, because that might offend someone and create a lawsuit. After all, a business is not an NAACP meeting, a pow wow, or ADA meeting, so they have no right to their personal identities. Actually, that is a large body of law on public accommodations, about which you are evidently ignorant. 3. Where did you see someone wanting that on a cake? What I read was "Homosexuality is wrong", and 2 males holding hands with the red circle/slash. Neither of those is 'hateful', unless you have a predisposition to see any disagreement as 'hate'. Which is exactly how the Left manages to "win" so often. They just shut up any opposition. If they can't do it with insults, they file lawsuits. And judges shut people up for them, as they did in Oregon. I can't open the link now; the site you linked returns a database error. I'll have to verify it tomorrow. 4. Prove it. Show me the civilization that had no religion. Show me the atheist that can disprove the Resurrection. Morality is formed by religion. Since you have been surrounded by religious dictates of morality all your life, that's what defines morality for you. Therefore, even though you claim to be atheist, you conform to the rules and tenets of Judeo-Christianity. There is no way of knowing what you would be if there were a truly non religious community to grow up in, but Soviet Russia comes to mind, with the 80 million dead for not conforming to the religion of government. That's not how logic works. If YOU expect people to believe your god exists, then YOU must provide the proof. No available scientific evidence supports the existence of such a being. All you have is apocryphal. The murders of Russians had less to do with atheism than with how totalitarian governments operate. They were mostly a product of the fact that communism is essentially antithetical to human nature. "Public accommodations" is no longer a law, but a method for Democrats and other mental defectives to silence, and destroy, anyone that doesn't gleefully enough support any insanity they decree. Since "public accommodation" is a Catch 22, and utterly unenforceable in a legal manner, the "body of law" is irrelevant. Since the rights of the business owner must, by necessity, be abrogated under "public accommodation" for the rights of the (fill in the blank) "protected class" individual, it's illegal on it's face. A business is private property. The government decided that private property wasn't acceptable to it's goal of more power, so they unilaterally declared it "NOT private property". Largely in response to Democrats refusing service to blacks. Sorry, I've had problems with links for about a week now. I think the weather has something to do with it. It may have been a corrupted link. Ah, but YOU are the one making the declaration. And as for 'science', it also has "proven" AGW, through faked data, "adjusted" (lying) data, and outright lies. With the governmental interference in all things "science", and governmental declarations of war on religion, it's no wonder "science" can't prove His existence. However, that's not how it works. Belief in God requires faith. I've seen His works in my life, and in the lives of others around me. Just because He doesn't appear to you in a flash of light, with trumpets and a Heavenly choir doesn't mean He doesn't exist. There is as much evidence for Jesus and the Resurrection as there is for Ceasar Augustus. And the murder of Russians is exactly a product of atheism, since atheism declares Man the ultimate being. If he's the ultimate being, then whatever he does is "correct". The state becomes god, therefore whatever the state does is right. No morality, no conscience, no limits.
|
|
|
Post by kemmer on Jul 9, 2015 22:27:22 GMT -5
Best solution I saw to the problem of competing rights (freedom to practice religion / freedom from discrimination) was in a letter to the editor in the WSJ. Discriminating against an individual is wrong. Gay marriage is not a person; it is an activity. It should be legal to refuse to participate in an activity.
I'll add: this would, also, cover not wanting your music used in a political campaign. The candidate is a person; he can buy the record and listen to it if he wants. The campaign, is an activity and refusal to participate would come under political freedom.
There would be no need to prove some religious exemption. One need not have some god to find an activity anathema. Consider a professional photographer and a client who wants hard-core porn shots of himself and various willing partners. One can find pornography (a legal activity) abhorrent for many reasons that do not include religion. (Feminists, for instance, not to mention people with good taste in art.) For the record, I don't think you could find a court willing to entertain a public accommodation lawsuit against a photographer who refused to produce porn on the grounds that SCOTUS has made porn legal.
However, I'm fairly certain that there will be bully activists going from business to business until they find one to refuse to participate in a gay wedding. The courts have shown themselves to be willing-- even eager-- to find guilt in those situations. Remember, just because you're gay, doesn't mean you can't be a "hater." Jim Crow showed us what happens when the state sanctions bigotry. We don't need more of that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2015 23:30:17 GMT -5
I think this is the one you're referring to. An Oregon bakery refused a wedding cake for a lesbian couple and were found guilty and fined $135,000 by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries.
I still don't see grounds for discrimination in this case since the couple would not have made the cake for anyone, not just a lesbian couple. They didn't refuse them because they were lesbians; in fact, these two women had patronized the bakery on several different occasions. They were refused a certain product which represented an act that this couple did not agree with. Sounds to me like a First Amendment issue. It's a pretty sad day when people are told when and how they can check their consciences at the door.
Well, that's been the whole problem with this for me from the start. To me, a "public accommodation" at a bakery begins and ends in the case out front. If the item is in there, it's available to the public, and has to be sold to anyone who wants it regardless of who they are. Custom work represents an additional burden of time and skill to the baker, as well as an expression of his or her art. Refusing that sort of service because you don't want your work associated with an event is acceptable to me, as it's a private commission, not a public accommodation. My main concern with those private commissions is that we're consistent with how we treat them legally. If the courts also insist on calling them public accommodations, I don't really agree with that, but then the Christian bakery has to sell gay wedding cakes, and the Left-wing rocker has to sell licenses for his music to be played at Republican campaign events. I agree.
I think what's of greater concern is cases such as these being handled by the process of administrative law. This particular case was prosecuted by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries and heard by an administrative law judge (not a state or federal judge) who is employed by the same. The monetary award is subject to review by the commissioner of (you guessed it!) the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries. The fix may not have been in, but it's probably not a stretch to say that the outcome was all but certain. It's like going to Aamco and asking if you need a new transmission.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jul 10, 2015 5:21:25 GMT -5
Well, that's been the whole problem with this for me from the start. To me, a "public accommodation" at a bakery begins and ends in the case out front. If the item is in there, it's available to the public, and has to be sold to anyone who wants it regardless of who they are. Custom work represents an additional burden of time and skill to the baker, as well as an expression of his or her art. Refusing that sort of service because you don't want your work associated with an event is acceptable to me, as it's a private commission, not a public accommodation. My main concern with those private commissions is that we're consistent with how we treat them legally. If the courts also insist on calling them public accommodations, I don't really agree with that, but then the Christian bakery has to sell gay wedding cakes, and the Left-wing rocker has to sell licenses for his music to be played at Republican campaign events. I agree.
I think what's of greater concern is cases such as these being handled by the process of administrative. This particular case was prosecuted by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries and heard by an administrative law judge (not a state or federal judge) who is employed by the same. The monetary award is subject to review by the commissioner of (you guessed it!) the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries. The fix may not have been in, but it's probably not a stretch to say that the outcome was all but certain. It's like going to Aamco and asking if you need a new transmission.
Lol... But less than half the people who go to AAMCO need a new transmission. we really need to get away from government agencies that can act as judge, jury and executioner. Just that arrangement by itself is a conflict of interest, and ought to be considered illegal.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 10, 2015 9:29:55 GMT -5
Well, that's been the whole problem with this for me from the start. To me, a "public accommodation" at a bakery begins and ends in the case out front. If the item is in there, it's available to the public, and has to be sold to anyone who wants it regardless of who they are. Custom work represents an additional burden of time and skill to the baker, as well as an expression of his or her art. Refusing that sort of service because you don't want your work associated with an event is acceptable to me, as it's a private commission, not a public accommodation. My main concern with those private commissions is that we're consistent with how we treat them legally. If the courts also insist on calling them public accommodations, I don't really agree with that, but then the Christian bakery has to sell gay wedding cakes, and the Left-wing rocker has to sell licenses for his music to be played at Republican campaign events. I agree.
I think what's of greater concern is cases such as these being handled by the process of administrative. This particular case was prosecuted by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries and heard by an administrative law judge (not a state or federal judge) who is employed by the same. The monetary award is subject to review by the commissioner of (you guessed it!) the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries. The fix may not have been in, but it's probably not a stretch to say that the outcome was all but certain. It's like going to Aamco and asking if you need a new transmission.
Apparently, the fix was absolutely in. Since Avakian, the "judge" in the case, was both giving to and receiving from, large amounts of money to at least one large LGBT group before and during the "trial". It's beginning to look more and more like a Soviet show trial. www.thefederalistpapers.org/christian-nation-2/radical-gay-rights-group-plotted-with-government-to-punish-oregon-bakers
|
|