Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: Jack Phillips should be put on a wedding cake chain gang 58
Bakery Will Stop Making Wedding Cakes After Losing Discrimination Case
How DARE this disgusting thought criminal think he retains freedom of contract, and the capacity to refuse to bake anything for anyone for any reason?
Clearly he is some bigoted Christianist freak who needs to be put down like a rabid dog, in the service of Holy Progress.
How DARE this disgusting thought criminal think he retains freedom of contract, and the capacity to refuse to bake anything for anyone for any reason?
Clearly he is some bigoted Christianist freak who needs to be put down like a rabid dog, in the service of Holy Progress.
Scriptural (Score:2)
Yeah, because it says right there in the Bible, "Thou shalt not bake cakes for homosexuals", and "Thou shalt not feed hungry wedding guests if you don't approve of the nuptial couple's lifestyle."
You can find it in the same part of scripture that was used to fight civil rights, women's suffrage, and miscegenation. There were religious leaders in the 19th century Midwest who said that slavery was scriptural, and God's Way.
Bigots will always find something in scripture that will make them feel righteous. An
Re: (Score:2)
So, you believe that slavery is the right way to respond to somebody not wanting to bake a cake?
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody used "the power of the state" to shut them down?
I didn't see that part in the story. All I saw was that someone was told that it's illegal for a business to not serve someone because of their race, sexual preference, etc.
They decided that baking a cake for a gay couple was so horrendous that it was better to shutter their business.
Here in the US, it's absolutely been decided over a century that claims of religious exemptions to laws are subject to a simple test. Does your faith really forbid some
Re: (Score:2)
Guess some folks just don't get what "open to the general public" means.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that word means what you think it does.
Re: (Score:2)
Forcing somebody to do what they don't want to do isn't slavery?
Re: (Score:2)
Not even close to slavery. When my mom told me to take out the trash or mow the lawn, it was not the same as being sold into indentured servitude. When I pay my taxes, it's not something I want to do, but it's not the same as being put on a block and having my family separated and sold into a life of hardship and forced labor. I could still quit my job tomorrow.
If these bakers were really slaves, they'd be physically forced to bake cakes. Business rules are not slavery. Civil rights legislation is not
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, that's right- they're autocratic job creators! [alliancede...reedom.org]
Re: (Score:2)
"There's no need to sympathize with the baker any more than we have to sympathize with useless art degree majors whining how they only job offers they get (if any) is "beneath" them."
And yet, I do. A mark of civilization is providing every human being with enough profitable work to keep body and soul together.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole point of the commission is that he is NOT free to refuse.
Re: (Score:2)
"A bakery is a business, not a mini-fiefdom where the owner can do anything he wants and get away with it."
There is no ownership in that case.
" Choosing to open a business have consequences, one of which is you're expected to accept anybody's money in exchange for your goods and services. "
Trade shouldn't be mandatory.
"Freedom of choice doesn't mean freedom from consequences."
True. But this isn't freedom of choice, it's tyranny with a lack of ownership and a violation of human rights on the part of the gov
Re: (Score:2)
"Yes there is. The baker owns the bakery. He owns his business. He's free to make decisions about his business, but he's also subject to the consequences of his decisions."
Not if the government can take that ownership away. He has no freedom in decisions at all.
"And it isn't. The baker is free to walk away and stop trading cakes for money, which is exactly what he plans to do."
And thus, he's lost ownership of the bakery.
"Yes it is. The baker is free to choose to open a business or not."
No, he isn't. He ca
Re: (Score:2)
"Except government didn't take his ownership away."
Then he is free to open as he wishes without fear of lawsuits and serve only the people he wishes to serve?
"No, he didn't lose it. He closed it, by his own choice. He still owns the building and assets associated with bakery. If he decide to (again, his choice) sell those assets, he would then own the money or whatever it was he got for selling his business."
And yet, he doesn't have control of that business anymore, which is why he closed it.
"Where's the ev
Re: (Score:2)
The actual court order doesn't actually give him the option of closing- he's doing that in DEFIANCE of the court order, which included mandatory documentation of remedial efforts taken [patheos.com] to re-educate himself and his employees.
Re: (Score:1)
...he's doing that in DEFIANCE of the court order...
Free choice...
Re: (Score:2)
The court order requires him to stay in business and report progress on non-discriminatory policies. His free choice is limited by that, and he's running some risk in closing the business instead.
Re: (Score:1)
The AC has already said all that needs to be said. Either you respect people and their rights, or you don't.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't respect people's rights when they conflict with other people's rights.
Re: (Score:1)
You seem to claim the right to oppress and that there really are no rights at all (seeing that there will always be this "conflict"), which puts you right back to might makes right, the natural animal way of doing things. Not particularly human of you, or anything else that could be regarded as "spiritual". It's just plain animalism. Maybe that's what you think your god expects. One thing for sure is that you make me feel a hell of a lot better about my beliefs.
Re: (Score:2)
And you're not trying to project your own bass-ackwards definitions of "Right" and "Left" onto this discussion?
Your critique in fact shows how MH is very much NOT a leftist. He's completely an anti-Marxist troll under a false flag... and you're completely dumb enough to fall for it. Way to go.
Re: (Score:2)
Very tribal though- which is what humans are and will always be.
Re: (Score:1)
Tribalism is subhuman, a simple natural expression of the herd, and bigotry is a simple extension of that, fear and hate of those that don't conform. I'm not so pessimistic. There is always a chance we will become human(e). It's not very likely, but it is greater than zero. It is an evolutionary process.
Re: (Score:2)
Tribalism is the real human- what we evolved to be *before* there was violence. Human beings are herd animals at our deepest instinct. Always have been, always will be.
"Humane" is just another form of bigotry, claiming to be better than other people.
Re: (Score:1)
No, it's real animal, nature. It doesn't predate violence by any means. It's part and parcel, since the beginning of the universe (if it had a beginning) In fact, your statement is absurd. Humans are but a bit part in the show. But you seem to agree with me, humans are just another species of animal, and that renders a lot, if not all, your philosophies moot. Everybody is doing "god's will". And notably, you are denying the entire concept of free will, which of course, may be true. In such a case all your c
Re: (Score:2)
You have a rather American sense of time [waitbutwhy.com].
You'd be "doing God's will" if you were living like our ancestors did, instead of trying to invent something new.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if by "our ancestors" you take the smallest slice of time out of the last 60,000 years.
Re: (Score:1)
On the contrary. I go as far back as the universe, and so do you. You gotta be a radical and go back to your roots, a little before the 60,000 years you mentioned in your other post.
Re: (Score:2)
Our species goes back 60,000 years. Humanity goes back 60,000 years. Go back further, you aren't human. Go back to only the 1960s like you people stuck in Woodstock, you've missed out on a lot.
Re: (Score:1)
Only 60,000? We are "human" only as a species, not in any other sense. But tell me, what magical event occurred 60,000 years ago that convinces you we are any different from anything else? You said it yourself, we are still trapped in the biological cage while we live and do like all the other animals (tribalism is no different than any other speciesism that all lifeforms practice), and we always will be according to you. We are merely the dominant species. There is nothing special about us on the universa
Re: (Score:2)
The advent of the soul, is 60,000 years in the past. See link.
Re: (Score:2)
Check out the link provided above. There is a line between the other homo species that preceded us, and "Behaviorally modern" humans.
Re: (Score:1)
"stopped embarrassing themselves"? That's hilarious. Language is nothing special. It's just like developing good night vision over many generations for hunting at night, free of daytime predators. Simple evolution. And since you brought it up, please notice the part "human divergence from apes". Do you also accept that as part of your religious beliefs? And that site itself is quite pessimistic, as you seem to be also. However the apparent nihilism of the last sentence fits nicely with where I stand... "Hop
Re: (Score:2)
Yes- human divergence indeed. Or didn't you know that Catholics accept evolution? [vatican.va]
Re: (Score:2)
So in other words, you're fine with discrimination and separating people into groups based on race and sexual orientation. Thanks for being just another unthinking, uncritical heterophobe.
Re: (Score:2)
You're slipping. Babbling incoherently now. Throwing poo at passersby.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it wasn't very hard. "Freedom of contract" doesn't even come close to applying.
Re: (Score:1)
Believe it or not... (Score:2)
I see the problem in how blatant he was about why he didn't want a particular customer. He could have figured out a way to be kinder on his rejection than just exposing himself as a massive homophobe.
Re: (Score:2)
And the couple could have chosen another bakery without exposing themselves as heterophobes.
Re: (Score:2)
And the couple could have chosen another bakery without exposing themselves as heterophobes.
How, exactly, are they showing any hatred of heterosexuals in this case? They wanted only to purchase a product from the baker, which the baker wanted not to sell to them. They brought this up because the baker was openly denying them business based on their sexual orientation, however I do not recall any mention of them saying anything about his.
For that matter, if they had left that bakery, and found a homosexual baker to bake their cake instead, would that not be a more significant case of heterop
Re: (Score:2)
"How, exactly, are they showing any hatred of heterosexuals in this case? "
By forcing heterosexuals to participate in their farce of a marriage- enslaving them against the 13th Amendment.
"They wanted only to purchase a product from the baker, which the baker wanted not to sell to them. They brought this up because the baker was openly denying them business based on their sexual orientation, however I do not recall any mention of them saying anything about his. "
The whole intent of the "denying them based on
Re: (Score:2)
"How, exactly, are they showing any hatred of heterosexuals in this case? "
By forcing heterosexuals to participate
How, exactly, did they force anyone to do anything? The baker refused to sell them a cake, and they pointed out that the baker was discriminating against them based on their sexuality. I have not heard anything of the baker being forced to do anything against his own wishes.
"They wanted only to purchase a product from the baker, which the baker wanted not to sell to them. They brought this up because the baker was openly denying them business based on their sexual orientation, however I do not recall any mention of them saying anything about his. "
The whole intent of the "denying them based on their sexual orientation" claim is an attempt to suppress
What is being suppressed here? The baker said he would not bake them a cake.
heteronormative
Well, that's a fun word, there. Are you trying to claim that heterosexuality is "normal" and all other sexual orientations are "abnormal", ie "wrong"? No
Re: (Score:2)
How, exactly, did they force anyone to do anything? The baker refused to sell them a cake, and they pointed out that the baker was discriminating against them based on their sexuality. I have not heard anything of the baker being forced to do anything against his own wishes.
He lost the lawsuit. His choices are now either make the cake or stop making wedding cakes altogether; both of which are most certainly against his wishes.
What is being suppressed here? The baker said he would n
Re: (Score:1)
The First Amendment guarantees the RIGHT to FREE EXERCISE of Religion. If that means a baker doesn't want to bake a cake for a "ceremony" then so be it.
Most businesses have a sign: "We reserve the right to refuse service..." -- so does this mean that
Re: (Score:1)
MH42 is right on this one.
On the contrary... The AC has him by the balls. Even d_r is ahead of him on this.
icing on the cake (Score:1)
The commission also ordered the baker to submit quarterly reports about the customers he refuses to serve and retrain employees to serve everyone.
Just goes to show that you'd have to be absolutely nuts to own/start a business in America today. (Even aside from the whole what American workers are like nowadays thing/how would you find enough American workers that weren't thoroughly products of the entitlement and litigation aspects of our (Leftists trying to crash the whole system) culture.)
Just being a citizen here, one is a plenty big enough target for governments at the various levels to examine and intrude in our business. Have a business on top