KevinG Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) The salient question is do they have to travel over state lines to buy the cake? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel,_Inc._v._United_States (You only think I'm kidding) And as an added bit of trivia. The place where that hotel used to sit is now a Marriott Marquis with an international and interracial staff, many of whom have been there for decades. ...and they serve booze. Edited January 30, 2015 by KevinG Link to comment
thesometimesaint Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) On a side note if I want cake I go to a baker. If I want Mormonism I go to my Ward (or of course this discussion board). I wonder if an LDS baker can refuse to make a Coca-Cola cake based on their belief in the word of wisdom? On the flip side I wonder if a Jewish Deli can be forced to make pork cubans, since they are in the business of selling sandwiches to the public? Oh the webs we weave when we wonder. Yes. What that baker can't legally do is refuse to sell you a Coca-Cola cake if he/she already makes Coca-Cola cakes. No. What that Jewish Deli can't legally do is refuse to sell to you those delicious pork Cuban sandwiches if they already make those delicious pork Cuban sandwiches. Edited January 30, 2015 by thesometimesaint Link to comment
Calm Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) Not sure here but I am pretty sure that according to the Surgeon General, smelling strong perfume doesnt cause lung cancer, emphysema, or heart disease.It can cause for some extreme health reactions. I know of several people who had to avoid crowds or weren't able to attend church because of perfume. I've been in a couple of wards where they've asked people not to wear strong scents.However if the individual was able to remain sitting next to the woman with the perfume, it was a silly comparison. I have never heard of long term effects/damage, only sensitivities where if they remove themselves the reaction will subside. Edited January 30, 2015 by calmoriah Link to comment
cinepro Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Wow. With answers like that, I can only say that Elder Oaks missed his calling. He should be playing special teams in the NFL... Link to comment
Sleeper Cell Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) As I have stated in another thread, perhaps the photographer should not offer to do weddings. There are plenty of professional photographers who don't shoot weddings. Sure it might cost him business. But doesn't every business that makes a moral choice to not do something loose income? The store that decides to stay closed on Sunday? The store that decides not to carry alcohol? The store that decides to not sell porn? The baker that decides not to bake wedding cakes? All of those choices are perfectly legal and are allowed under the conditions of their business license. It seems like a simple solution. Sometimes standing up for your religious beliefs comes with a price. But the price shouldn’t be exacted by the government. Isn’t that sorta what the First Amendment is all about? Stores that decide to stay closed on Sunday are not therefore required to close on any other day. Store that refuse to carry alcohol are not therefore forbidden to sell soft drinks. Store that refuse to sell porn are not therefore forbidden to sell other magazines. Apparently, only when it comes to SSM, should the conscientious objector be required to violate his religious conscience or get entirely out of the wedding service business. Even if the conscientious objector has a long history of otherwise serving people without regard to sexual orientation. Edited January 30, 2015 by Sleeper Cell 2 Link to comment
Ahab Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 So we should not have laws against cheating people because that would intimidate cheaters and we should leave their punishment to God? Think of the poor man running the Ponzi scheme! We should stop forcing our values onto him!Unless you are suggesting that lawmakers use laws to coerce and intimidate people who want to con other people.Is that what laws should be used for, do you think? Do we really need lawmakers to protect the naive or unsuspecting by making it illegal for other people to try to con them?Stupid is as stupid does, I say. Let people learn from their own mistakes. Link to comment
california boy Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 On a side note if I want cake I go to a baker. If I want Mormonism I go to my Ward (or of course this discussion board). I wonder if an LDS baker can refuse to make a Coca-Cola cake based on their belief in the word of wisdom? On the flip side I wonder if a Jewish Deli can be forced to make pork cubans, since they are in the business of selling sandwiches to the public? Oh the webs we weave when we wonder. Mormon bakeries don't have to offer Coca-Cola cake. They don't even have to offer coffee cake. They don't have to serve coffee. They can choose to offer whatever they want. There is no tangled webs beiing weaved here. Don't make it any more complicated than it is. Link to comment
KevinG Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Yes. What that baker can't legally do is refuse to sell you a Coca-Cola cake if he/she already makes Coca-Cola cakes. No. What that Jewish Deli can't legally do is refuse to sell to you those delicious pork Cuban sandwiches if they already make those delicious pork Cuban sandwiches. Are abortifactants to birth control as delicious pork sandwiches are to corned beef? The Supreme Court only knows. 1 Link to comment
california boy Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 You simply do not understand the laws of the land.Every baker that has refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple has been found in violation of the anti-discrimination laws and ordered to pay a fine. Every photographer who has refused to take photos of a gay wedding when that is part of the services they offer to the public has been found in violation of the anti-discrimination laws. So who doesn't understand the laws of the land???? Link to comment
KevinG Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 So who doesn't understand the laws of the land???? The Supreme Court, Congress and the President. But that is another political discussion... 1 Link to comment
california boy Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 But the price shouldn’t be exacted by the government. Isn’t that sorta what the First Amendment is all about? Stores that decide to stay closed on Sunday are not therefore required to close on any other day. Store that refuse to carry alcohol are not therefore forbidden to sell soft drinks. Store that refuse to sell porn are not therefore forbidden to sell other magazines. Apparently, only when it comes to SSM, should the conscientious objector be required to violate his religious conscience or get entirely out of the wedding service business. Even if the conscientious objector has a long history of otherwise serving people without regard to sexual orientation. Does anyone know what sleeper cell is talking about? Link to comment
The Nehor Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Unless you are suggesting that lawmakers use laws to coerce and intimidate people who want to con other people.Is that what laws should be used for, do you think? Do we really need lawmakers to protect the naive or unsuspecting by making it illegal for other people to try to con them?Stupid is as stupid does, I say. Let people learn from their own mistakes.Which in the case of an obvious scheme might work. It is just the stupid who will suffer. I am not sure why they deserve to. Stupidity is not always a choice.Do we really want to live in a world where there is no regulation of products being what the seller insists they are? If someone sells water with white food coloring and says it is milk is it only the dumb who will suffer? Are we all expected to go to the butcher shops and check to make sure the beef we buy is not cat? Do we all need to take scales to the grocery store to make sure that the weight is right? If we buy Tylenol and it is arsenic does this mean the death is on our conscience for not making sure they gave us the right stuff? If a gas station dispenses crude oil and it wrecks our car is this an example of "buyer beware".The FDA did a random inspection of various nutritional supplements and found that one in three did not actually have everything in them that they said they did. The FDA pushed for regulation and the supplement companies bought some congressmen (including Orrin Hatch) and there was a big scare campaign about government stealing your Vitamin C. Do we want this happening with food? Should all standards be done away with and we trust to the discerning customer to figure it out? Does anyone actually want to live in such a paranoid hellhole where there is no recourse for being lied to and ripped off? And the sleazy inherit the Earth. 2 Link to comment
Ahab Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 ok lets go through this rob. You have a few flaws in what you present. Hopefully you will see the problems.Right now, private business does not have the legal right to discriminate based on any beliief. It is part of the agreement to hold a business license. It is what they agreed to do as a condition of that license. So to be able to do what you suggest, the anti-discrimination laws must be appealed. I have stated this repeatedly. If you feel the bake should have the right to discriminate, then work to change the law. You might succeed. Perhaps there is no legal basis for the government to force a business to not discriminate.The answer to your question is no, the Jewish wedding photographer does not have the right to discriminate against the Islamic person. Unless you can show a legal ruling that says otherwise. Currently the courts have all said, businesses can not discriminate against the customers they service if they are open to the public.The same answer is true for the LDS baker. That is how the law is currently written. If you are reading the law differently, then you wil have to explain how the law allows for discrimination. Currently it does not.As I have stated in another thread, perhaps the photographer should not offer to do weddings. There are plenty of professional photographers who don't shoot weddings. Sure it might cost him business. But doesn't every business that makes a moral choice to not do something loose income? The store that decides to stay closed on Sunday? The store that decides not to carry alcohol? The store that decides to not sell porn? The baker that decides not to bake wedding cakes? All of those choices are perfectly legal and are allowed under the conditions of their business license. It seems like a simple solution. Sometimes standing up for your religious beliefs comes with a price.So you think it's okay or acceptable in today's world for a person to not be able to sell any wedding cakes to anybody just because he doesn't want to sell 1 to some gay people?Oh, excuse me. Of course you would think so, wouldn't you. So lets try another example that you aren't so prejudiced about.Suppose someone wants to be a doctor who helps women deliver babies but he doesn't feel right about helping lesbian women get inseminated, so that's the only thing he isn't willing to do. And just FYI, he doesn't feel totally comfortable helping single women deliver babies either, but in some situations he is willing to do that, just not all situations. So would you say he should not help any women deliver babies just because there are some women that he doesn't feel right about helping.You'll probably say yes to that too but it would be nice if you would surprise me. Link to comment
Ahab Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Mormon bakeries don't have to offer Coca-Cola cake. They don't even have to offer coffee cake. They don't have to serve coffee. They can choose to offer whatever they want. There is no tangled webs beiing weaved here. Don't make it any more complicated than it is.Do you think maybe we could think of "gay wedding cakes" as a type of cake that bakers aren't being intimidated by lawmakers into offering? If bakeries don't have to offer a certain type of drink, why should they have to offer a certain type of cake?Some lawmakers, and judges, are just being mean. Link to comment
HappyJackWagon Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Ahab, this world you describe sounds terrible. Very hateful and hurtful. I don't want to live in a society where this kind of judgementalism is rampant and endorsed as acceptable discrimination. Link to comment
Rob Osborn Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Every baker that has refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple has been found in violation of the anti-discrimination laws and ordered to pay a fine. Every photographer who has refused to take photos of a gay wedding when that is part of the services they offer to the public has been found in violation of the anti-discrimination laws. So who doesn't understand the laws of the land????You are dead wrong. There are many of businesses that turn away folks because of their sexual orientation and cause who have never been prosecuted. I take a lot of photographs (not a professional photographer) and have thought about professional photography and have already predetermined that I wouldnt do gay weddings. Neither would I do a Nazi party or a photoshoot at the Playboy mansion. All three of those things fall under my beliefs of "immorality" and would refuse to participate. Thats my right and am proud of it! Link to comment
Rivers Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 I have been to more then one town that I suspect would not serve Blacks given the option. Your statement suggests that we are somehow past discrimination as if history adheres to the Victorian ideal of slow and stately improvement. It does not.Let's say that the law was reversed and it became legal to refuse services to black people. Would businesses that choose to take advantage stay in business? Wouldn't they be harmed by gaining a poor reputation? Link to comment
The Nehor Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Let's say that the law was reversed and it became legal to refuse services to black people. Would businesses that choose to take advantage stay in business? Wouldn't they be harmed by gaining a poor reputation?Today? In most American cities Probably. In a few it might attract niche customers of white supremacists. We rightly have created a society that looks at racism as something odious. I sadly have to credit this more to public schooling and media banging it into people's heads rather then any moral development. There are still places where you could get away with it or even applauded for it. Link to comment
KevinG Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Today? In most American cities Probably. In a few it might attract niche customers of white supremacists. We rightly have created a society that looks at racism as something odious. I sadly have to credit this more to public schooling and media banging it into people's heads rather then any moral development. There are still places where you could get away with it or even applauded for it.Like a Philly polling place guarded by New Black Panthers. Link to comment
Rob Osborn Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 So, If I decided to open up a wedding cake store called LDS wedding cake speacilties and all of my cakes looked like temples with the bride and groom etched in on the temple would that be a discrimination against gays, or even Catholics for that matter? Link to comment
california boy Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 So, If I decided to open up a wedding cake store called LDS wedding cake speacilties and all of my cakes looked like temples with the bride and groom etched in on the temple would that be a discrimination against gays, or even Catholics for that matter? All of your wedding cakes could indeed look like tempes. But if a gay or Catholic wanted one of the temple cakes, you would be required to sell it to them. Link to comment
Ahab Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Ahab, this world you describe sounds terrible. Very hateful and hurtful. I don't want to live in a society where this kind of judgementalism is rampant and endorsed as acceptable discrimination.While you may not care whether or not the person baking your cake really wants to make it, just as long as he bakes it, I'd kinda like to know that he really wants to bake it instead of feeling like if he doesn't bake it he will be legally driven out of his business because, legally, he is required to bake it.You're going to be putting that in your mouth, if you eat it, don't cha know.Are you also going to make him make you like it? 1 Link to comment
thesometimesaint Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 While you may not care whether or not the person baking your cake really wants to make it, just as long as he bakes it, I'd kinda like to know that he really wants to bake it instead of feeling like if he doesn't bake it he will be legally driven out of his business because, legally, he is required to bake it.You're going to be putting that in your mouth, if you eat it, don't cha know.Are you also going to make him make you like it? The implied threat here is that if I don't like you I will hurt you. Great way to run a society if all are sociopaths. Link to comment
The Nehor Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 The implied threat here is that if I don't like you I will hurt you. Great way to run a society if all are sociopaths. This a libertarian ideal world and I have noticed a libertarian/sociopath correlation. Link to comment
Calm Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) Which in the case of an obvious scheme might work. It is just the stupid who will suffer. I am not sure why they deserve to. Stupidity is not always a choice.Do we really want to live in a world where there is no regulation of products being what the seller insists they are? If someone sells water with white food coloring and says it is milk is it only the dumb who will suffer? Are we all expected to go to the butcher shops and check to make sure the beef we buy is not cat? Do we all need to take scales to the grocery store to make sure that the weight is right? If we buy Tylenol and it is arsenic does this mean the death is on our conscience for not making sure they gave us the right stuff? If a gas station dispenses crude oil and it wrecks our car is this an example of "buyer beware".I agree with some standards needed, maybe even a heck of a lot. I think it may be going too far to make laws not allowing any soda not dark coloured to contain caffeine though because someone might not read the labeling and just assume Mountain Dew and other light colour drinks had to be caffeine free. I hear the law has been changed a few years back though, so perhaps that part of Canada's government is finally letting people grow up. Edited January 31, 2015 by calmoriah Link to comment
Recommended Posts