SeekingUnderstanding Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 And I agree. there shouldn't be any exceptions in a free market. People should be able to run their business as they see fit without the Government dictating social correctness. And the right Divsersity mix.This is a rather myopic view. The free market had 100 years between the civil war and the civil rights act to figure out how to give blacks equal service. It didn't work. It was only when the government stepped in with federal troops that things started to change. Is it your opinion that things were better before public accommodation laws were passed? 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 Thanks, but I think there have always been exceptions (race being the first that comes to mind). Again, I don't think there should be any exceptions.So if I run a private hospital and a black person comes in, can I refuse treatment? What if the injury is not life threatening?
Mystery Meat Posted July 7, 2015 Author Posted July 7, 2015 So if I run a private hospital and a black person comes in, can I refuse treatment? What if the injury is not life threatening? My belief says no. In the case of essentials (like health care) there should be no discrimination allowed. Bakeries, bowling allies, fast food, restaurants, etc. are not essentials.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 My belief says no. In the case of essentials (like health care) there should be no discrimination allowed. Bakeries, bowling allies, fast food, restaurants, etc. are not essentials.Why the difference? Couldn't some other doctor treat them for their non-life threatening problem?
filovirus Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 I am shocked that so many Mormons and former Mormons here have adopted Satans plan of forcing people into a decision and taking away agency.I'm not convinced that Satan's plan was to force people into a decision. More likely his plan was to take away consequences of the moral decisions that we would make. Sorry to take us off topic.
Mystery Meat Posted July 7, 2015 Author Posted July 7, 2015 Why the difference? Couldn't some other doctor treat them for their non-life threatening problem? If there is another hospital in the area that would provide the service then I might be more inclined to agree with you. But healthcare is still dramatically different. A cake is not life and death. Access to the best healthcare very well could be. If you can't see that difference, nothing I can say will help.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 I understand they are going to appeal. Will be interesting to see if the additional order against publishing etc. stands.I would like to hear the perception from the government. It is presented as a shutdown on speech, but I find it hard to believe they can do that.I can see why somebody the other day referred to it as the People's Republic of Oregon.
california boy Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 (edited) I am shocked that so many Mormons and former Mormons here have adopted Satans plan of forcing people into a decision and taking away agency.I don't actually think my hyperbolic statement is any more accurate than your gross mischaracterization of what anyone on this thread is saying. It is becoming (if it hasn't always been) impossible to have a discussion with you on any topic related to SSA/SSM. You often/always mischaratcerize what people say or willfully misunderstand. You also ignore people's questions, points and refuse and choose to not respond. It's just a bit frustrating.ETA: I know these are difficult issues. We are all trying to sort through them. Do you find it even a bit hypocritical of society to celebrate the firing of a CEO who was not in favor of SSM while simultaneously condemning a couple who was not allowed to object to participating in a service they felt like violated their deeply held religious beliefs? Even a little?You don't think this case isn't solely about discriminating against a gay couple that wanted to get married? Then just what is it about? Remember this same bakery was willing to bake cakes supporting divorce, pagan rituals and having children out of wedlock. So tell me what is this case about?And when you and others want to ignore discrimination laws that have been in force for 50 years using the exact arguments that were opposed to the discrimination laws which was RELIGION. It sounds like the same kind of discrimination that plagued this country before. Yes. I honestly thought this country had moved on.And the newly appointed CEO of Mozilla was not fired. He resigned (yes under pressure). As far as I know he still works there. Edited July 7, 2015 by california boy 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 If there is another hospital in the area that would provide the service then I might be more inclined to agree with you. But healthcare is still dramatically different. A cake is not life and death. Access to the best healthcare very well could be. If you can't see that difference, nothing I can say will help. It makes sense. I'm just trying to understand. So in certain instances its okay to force people to act, but only when life and health are on the line? Is that fair?
Mystery Meat Posted July 7, 2015 Author Posted July 7, 2015 It makes sense. I'm just trying to understand. So in certain instances its okay to force people to act, but only when life and health are on the line? Is that fair? In my opinion, that would make sense.
filovirus Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 You don't think this case isn't solely about discriminating against a gay couple that wanted to get married? Then just what is it about? Remember this same bakery was willing to bake cakes supporting divorce, pagan rituals and having children out of wedlock. So tell me what is this case about?And when you and others want to ignore discrimination laws that have been in force for 50 years using the exact arguments that were opposed to the discrimination laws which was RELIGION. It sounds like the same kind of discrimination that plagued this country before. Yes. I honestly thought this country had moved on.As a person living in Oregon, I have been able to hear more about this case. The owners of the bakery knew the same sex couple who wanted to get married. In fact, the owners were on a first name basis with the couple. They provided their services regularly to the couple. There was no discrimination. It was only when the couple asked for a wedding cake (which, by the way, same sex weddings were not legal in Oregon at the time) that they that refused to bake the cake. I believe the owners see this as not discrimination against the couple, but rather against the ritual of a gay wedding. There is a difference between the two. Whether they had a right to discriminate against the ritual, I do not know. Apparently not. Either way, it cost them their livelihoods.
Mystery Meat Posted July 7, 2015 Author Posted July 7, 2015 You don't think this case isn't solely about discriminating against a gay couple that wanted to get married? Then just what is it about? Remember this same bakery was willing to bake cakes supporting divorce, pagan rituals and having children out of wedlock. So tell me what is this case about?And when you and others want to ignore discrimination laws that have been in force for 50 years using the exact arguments that were opposed to the discrimination laws which was RELIGION. It sounds like the same kind of discrimination that plagued this country before. Yes. I honestly thought this country had moved on.And the newly appointed CEO of Mozilla was not fired. He resigned (yes under pressure). As far as I know he still works there. This case is about someone who has a religious objection to participating in a SSM.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 In my opinion, that would make sense.All I can say is that we tried that as a country and it didn't work.
Mystery Meat Posted July 7, 2015 Author Posted July 7, 2015 All I can say is that we tried that as a country and it didn't work. We did? When?
california boy Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 Not if the law wishes to make an example and this is what it did. Of course, there will be hypocrisy. For example, if someone wants to have a conferderate flag on a birthday cake, that can be refused. Or a a jewish bakery receives an order for a swastika cake. That can be refused. Or if a muslim bakery receives a SSM order, that can be refused too. No way does oregon wish to annoy the muslims. And besides, the muslims are part of pluralism. But lets hope that all cakes can be baked. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/walmart-refused-to-make-a-confederate-flag-cake-instead-made-isis-cake-10353937.htmlFor the umpteenth time NO business is compelled to write or decorate any symbols on a cake, tee shirt etc. that they don't want to. they are protected by free speach laws. Please no more swastica cake examples. They still have to bake the cake and the customer can do anything they want with the cake after it leaves the shop. But the bakery is not compelled to decorate it any differently than they usually doSweet cakes bakery only had to bake a wedding cake like they do for all of their customers they did not have to provide a same sex wedding topper nor did they have to write the name of the coupleIt was just a wedding cake 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 (edited) I understand they are going to appeal. Will be interesting to see if the additional order against publishing etc. stands.I would like to hear the perception from the government. It is presented as a shutdown on speech, but I find it hard to believe they can do that. I can see why somebody the other day referred to it as the People's Republic of Oregon. I just spent time reading the decision. What they have been ordered not to say is that they will continue to violate Oregon state law (i.e. refuse to provide wedding cake to Gay couples). While it might not make a difference to you, it makes sense to me that a store can't put up a sign that says "Whites Only, no Negros." Similarly they can't put up a sign saying we don't do wedding cakes for same sex couples. Edited July 7, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding
SeekingUnderstanding Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 We did? When?Public accommodation laws were first passed in the 1960's I believe. The free market had from the time of the civil war until then to figure it out in the South, but it never did.
california boy Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 This case is about someone who has a religious objection to participating in a SSM.Did the bakery participate in a divorce? Did the bakery participate in a pagan ritual? Did the bakery participate in having a child out of Wedlock?
Mystery Meat Posted July 7, 2015 Author Posted July 7, 2015 Did the bakery participate in a divorce? Did the bakery participate in a pagan ritual? Did the bakery participate in having a child out of Wedlock? How is that relevant to participation in a SSM?
Mystery Meat Posted July 7, 2015 Author Posted July 7, 2015 Public accommodation laws were first passed in the 1960's I believe. The free market had from the time of the civil war until then to figure it out in the South, but it never did. I can grant you some point here. It is taken under advisement. Honest question (I am not super familiar with segregation era laws): were there laws that mandated segregation in the south? If so (and for all I know there weren't) then I don't think we have tried it. 1
california boy Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 As a person living in Oregon, I have been able to hear more about this case. The owners of the bakery knew the same sex couple who wanted to get married. In fact, the owners were on a first name basis with the couple. They provided their services regularly to the couple. There was no discrimination. It was only when the couple asked for a wedding cake (which, by the way, same sex weddings were not legal in Oregon at the time) that they that refused to bake the cake. I believe the owners see this as not discrimination against the couple, but rather against the ritual of a gay wedding. There is a difference between the two. Whether they had a right to discriminate against the ritual, I do not know. Apparently not. Either way, it cost them their livelihoods.So I will ask you the same question. When this same bakery agreed to bake a cake celebrating a divorce were they participating in the divorce? When they agreed to bake a cake celebrating a pagan ritual were they participating in a pagan ritual ? When this same bakery agreed to bake a cake celebrating the birth of a child out of wedlock were they part of the forenication ?
Mystery Meat Posted July 7, 2015 Author Posted July 7, 2015 So I will ask you the same question. When this same bakery agreed to bake a cake celebrating a divorce were they participating in the divorce? When they agreed to bake a cake celebrating a pagan ritual were they participating in a pagan ritual ? When this same bakery agreed to bake a cake celebrating the birth of a child out of wedlock were they part of the forenication ? I will ask you again how any of that is relevant to the couple participating in a SSM?
california boy Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 How is that relevant to participation in a SSM?If the bakery claims that making a cake for a same sex marriage means that they are participating in that marriage and condoning it then they also have to believe that they are participating and condoning every other event they make cakes for.
Mystery Meat Posted July 7, 2015 Author Posted July 7, 2015 (edited) If the bakery claims that making a cake for a same sex marriage means that they are participating in that marriage and condoning it then they also have to believe that they are participating and condoning every other event they make cakes for. And...how is that relevant to their condoning (or not condoning) a SSM? Edited July 7, 2015 by Mystery Meat
california boy Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 And...how is that relevant to their condoning (or not condoning) a SSM?Sheess. The bakery is claiming that by baking a cake for a SSM then they are condoning something that is against their beliefs simply by providing the cake.
Recommended Posts