The wedding cake issue again

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sunny

Sunny

SF VIP
Location
Maryland
So, the Supreme Court has sided with the baker. What is your opinion about this?
 

This is far from the last word on the matter. This case was decided not on the basis of free speech or gay rights, but to slap down the heavy-handed missteps by a Colorado anti-discrimination commission.

From the NYTimes:

"Justice Kennedy... focused on what he said were flaws in the proceedings before the (Colorado Civil Rights) Commission. Members of the panel, he wrote, had acted with “clear and impermissible hostility” to sincerely held religious beliefs.One commissioner in particular, Justice Kennedy wrote, had crossed the line in saying that “freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust.”
Justice Kennedy wrote that “this sentiment is inappropriate for a commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law.”'

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
 
It's nice to see that someone in private business that they own are not forced to cater to the desires of a group when there is such an easy remedy.

I believe a barber should be free to say "I'm not cutting hair today" without having to explain it.

It's different if he is an employee of a chain.
 

It's not like the baker wouldn't sell any cakes to the gay couple. He said he'd sell ALL of his cakes to them, just not a wedding cake because it goes against his religion. That's his Constitutional right.

I don't even know why it's an issue except that the Constitution is being ignored by many these days.
 
Camper6 said:
It's nice to see that someone in private business that they own are not forced to cater to the desires of a group when there is such an easy remedy.

I believe a barber should be free to say "I'm not cutting hair today" without having to explain it.

It's different if he is an employee of a chain.
Click to expand...


Pretty much my view as well. A business person should have the right to choose who they wish to do business with.

It had nothing to do with the homosexuals to me.....It had to do with forcing one person to set aside their right , their comfort [or lack of] , to accommodate the desires of another.

If I walk in just now to have a cake made & he says ....Sorry I don't make cakes for old fat guys in green shirts. Why in the world would i want to force him to do business with me & SPEND my money there?
 
As a retired business owner who sold both wholesale and retail, the very few customers that I refused to business with were excluded as patrons because of repeated, egregiously rude behavior when dealing with me or my staff. A customer's family, religious, marital or other status was irrelevant.

US business owners don't have the right to refuse to do business with people based on an arbitrary classification. Suppose for a moment that you went to a college that refuse you admission or a restaurant that refused to seat you because they deemed you to be female, or too old, too fat, too ethnic (based on the last name you gave for your reservation), too ugly, too white (or too non-white, or a mixed-race couple), or too obviously of the wrong religion because of your hijab (or cross necklace, priest's collar or nun's habit), or they prefer not to despoil their ambiance with the presence of your handicapped child?

Ask not for whom the erosion of your fellow citizen's civil rights tolls, my friends. It tolls for thee.
 
hollydolly said:
We've had the same problem here with bakers refusing to bake a wedding cake for homosexuals due to the Baker's religious beliefs..they were sued and they lost the case...and were found guilty of discrimination.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/...t-done-anything-wrong-says-boss-31233797.html
Click to expand...


Trouble is we all discriminate . Do you socialize with those whom you do not care for? That's discrimination...and we should have every right to practice it....IMHO under any & all circumstances in the private sector.

Not talking about the civil sector, services, hospitals , transportation, education, etc. Those are all supported by tax-payer dollars & of course must / should be made available to all.
 
rgp said:
Trouble is we all discriminate . Do you socialize with those whom you do not care for? That's discrimination...and we should have every right to practice it....IMHO under any & all circumstances in the private sector.

Not talking about the civil sector, services, hospitals , transportation, education, etc. Those are all supported by tax-payer dollars & of course must / should be made available to all.
Click to expand...

Oh absolutely, I totally agree with you.
 
Sunny said:
So, the Supreme Court has sided with the baker. What is your opinion about this?
Click to expand...

Like you mentioned in another thread, vote with your feet.

Tell your family, friends, co-workers and wedding guests the story of the baker that refused to make you a wedding cake and more importantly the name of the baker that did make you a wedding cake.
 
Good comments, on both sides of the issue.

My first reaction on reading about the Supreme court decision was, "Why on earth would anyone want to patronize a business whose owner is insulting them?" I (partly) feel as Aunt Bea does: just find another business establishment that does not find you "offensive," and let everyone know about it.

However, there is another side to this. It's a very slippery slope. Does this mean that a business proprietor has the right to turn away a handicapped person, a person of the wrong race or religion, etc.? That could mean the complete destruction of all the civil rights that people have fought (and died) for. Where do we draw the line?

If the baker is forced to provide a particular cake, which could be considered a work of art, what kind of cake would he provide? Would he really work to produce a thing of beauty, that he would be proud to advertise as his
own?

And what if, instead of two gay men, his would-be customers were members of the Nazi party, who insisted on a cake with a swastika? Should he be required to provide it?

So, there really is no good answer to this problem. King Solomon is needed.
 
When I told my wife about this, she said, "I always thought when a person owns the business, they can decide anything concerning the business." I told her, "not so much today, if any."

This cake business was close to Denver, CO when has a rather large LGBT community, which apparently, the location of the bakery has the same. The owner told news media that he lost approx. 40% of his business due to his decision. I may be wrong, but I think I read that he has closed his bakery now.

The LGBT community continues to push everyone to believe and accept their sexuality whereas some do and some don't. They don't care what religion a person is.
 
StarSong said:
As a retired business owner who sold both wholesale and retail, the very few customers that I refused to business with were excluded as patrons because of repeated, egregiously rude behavior when dealing with me or my staff. A customer's family, religious, marital or other status was irrelevant.

US business owners don't have the right to refuse to do business with people based on an arbitrary classification. Suppose for a moment that you went to a college that refuse you admission or a restaurant that refused to seat you because they deemed you to be female, or too old, too fat, too ethnic (based on the last name you gave for your reservation), too ugly, too white (or too non-white, or a mixed-race couple), or too obviously of the wrong religion because of your hijab (or cross necklace, priest's collar or nun's habit), or they prefer not to despoil their ambiance with the presence of your handicapped child?

Ask not for whom the erosion of your fellow citizen's civil rights tolls, my friends. It tolls for thee.
Click to expand...

What about no shoes, no shirt, no service?

Am I forced to watch a guys hairy armpits while I eat?
 
Sunny said:
Good comments, on both sides of the issue.

My first reaction on reading about the Supreme court decision was, "Why on earth would anyone want to patronize a business whose owner is insulting them?" I (partly) feel as Aunt Bea does: just find another business establishment that does not find you "offensive," and let everyone know about it.

However, there is another side to this. It's a very slippery slope. Does this mean that a business proprietor has the right to turn away a handicapped person, a person of the wrong race or religion, etc.? That could mean the complete destruction of all the civil rights that people have fought (and died) for. Where do we draw the line?

If the baker is forced to provide a particular cake, which could be considered a work of art, what kind of cake would he provide? Would he really work to produce a thing of beauty, that he would be proud to advertise as his
own?

And what if, instead of two gay men, his would-be customers were members of the Nazi party, who insisted on a cake with a swastika? Should he be required to provide it?

So, there really is no good answer to this problem. King Solomon is needed.
Click to expand...

In the U.S. the Supreme Court is King Solomon.
 
StarSong said:
As a retired business owner who sold both wholesale and retail, the very few customers that I refused to business with were excluded as patrons because of repeated, egregiously rude behavior when dealing with me or my staff. A customer's family, religious, marital or other status was irrelevant.

US business owners don't have the right to refuse to do business with people based on an arbitrary classification. Suppose for a moment that you went to a college that refuse you admission or a restaurant that refused to seat you because they deemed you to be female, or too old, too fat, too ethnic (based on the last name you gave for your reservation), too ugly, too white (or too non-white, or a mixed-race couple), or too obviously of the wrong religion because of your hijab (or cross necklace, priest's collar or nun's habit), or they prefer not to despoil their ambiance with the presence of your handicapped child?

Ask not for whom the erosion of your fellow citizen's civil rights tolls, my friends. It tolls for thee.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, Starsong. AND, I think those celebrating this decision should be aware that it is, as you said, a VERY narrow decision and does NOT say that businesses can refuse service to homosexuals or anybody else, as a matter of fact, it confirms that they cannot. The decision finds that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's procedures in dealing with the case were flawed and inconsistent and that their ruling should be reversed. Period.
 
Sunny said:
Good comments, on both sides of the issue.

My first reaction on reading about the Supreme court decision was, "Why on earth would anyone want to patronize a business whose owner is insulting them?" I (partly) feel as Aunt Bea does: just find another business establishment that does not find you "offensive," and let everyone know about it.

However, there is another side to this. It's a very slippery slope. Does this mean that a business proprietor has the right to turn away a handicapped person, a person of the wrong race or religion, etc.? That could mean the complete destruction of all the civil rights that people have fought (and died) for. Where do we draw the line?

If the baker is forced to provide a particular cake, which could be considered a work of art, what kind of cake would he provide? Would he really work to produce a thing of beauty, that he would be proud to advertise as his
own?

And what if, instead of two gay men, his would-be customers were members of the Nazi party, who insisted on a cake with a swastika? Should he be required to provide it?

So, there really is no good answer to this problem. King Solomon is needed.
Click to expand...

And what if, instead of refusing to provide a cake for a same-sex wedding, the baker had refused to provide a cake for a Jewish couple? This is a very slippery slope indeed -- if the government sanctions unequal treatment of certain groups, where does it lead? We all can see where it led in Germany in the 30s.
 
Camper6 said:
What about no shoes, no shirt, no service?

Am I forced to watch a guys hairy armpits while I eat?
Click to expand...

Health or business liability considerations are a different matter entirely, but since you brought them up, those rules are non-discriminatory in that they are enforced equally to all customers. Most casual eateries permit both male and female customers to wear sleeveless apparel.
 
I agree with my wife, a business owner should have the right to run his business any way he chooses.

There are nightclubs that have a Dress Code shown on their entrance doors. If a nightclub owner deems certain people "undesirable" to enter his club, he should have that right. There are "Black Tie" events where a lady has to wear a dress and the man has to wear a suit.

Chic-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby aren't open on Sundays and that's their choice.
 
ClassicRockr said:
I agree with my wife, a business owner should have the right to run his business any way he chooses.

There are nightclubs that have a Dress Code shown on their entrance doors. If a nightclub owner deems certain people "undesirable" to enter his club, he should have that right. There are "Black Tie" events where a lady has to wear a dress and the man has to wear a suit.

Chic-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby aren't open on Sundays and that's their choice.
Click to expand...

Not trying to start anything here, but hoping for clarification. Are you suggesting that it should be ok for a restaurant owner to turn away African-Americans or gays from his establishment?
 
Butterfly said:
And what if, instead of refusing to provide a cake for a same-sex wedding, the baker had refused to provide a cake for a Jewish couple? This is a very slippery slope indeed -- if the government sanctions unequal treatment of certain groups, where does it lead? We all can see where it led in Germany in the 30s.
Click to expand...


So should the baker be forced to provide the cake for the Jewish couple? Now we're back to trampling on his rights.

This is why I say discrimination is virtually everywhere, and by their true definition ghettos [ethnic neighborhoods] aren't really a bad thing. Stay within , among those that understand you, and where one is comfortable, or venture out & mingle among others. Let them see your way & learn theirs.

SO LONG AS...no goods or services are denied to said ghetto, and /or it's inhabitants..........jmo
 
StarSong said:
Not trying to start anything here, but hoping for clarification. Are you suggesting that it should be ok for a restaurant owner to turn away African-Americans or gays from his establishment?
Click to expand...

Jumping in here ?.....If it is a totally private, out-of-pocket- run business? Yes...

Like I said earlier...if I walk in and he [restaurateur] says sorry, we don't serve old fat guys in green shirts?...Fine !...why in the world would I WANT to EAT there & spend my MONEY there ?

I'll find another place.
 
StarSong said:
Not trying to start anything here, but hoping for clarification. Are you suggesting that it should be ok for a restaurant owner to turn away African-Americans or gays from his establishment?
Click to expand...

Who the owner turns away should be completely up to the owner, no matter race, gender, whatever.

If you owned a business, would you want others telling you how you can/can not run it?

Rules and policies are set up by the owner of the business.

Why own a business if the owner can’t run it the way they want to?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top