ADVERTISEMENT

I'm just curious

GOIU

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
10,799
0
36
Not trying to start anything...under current laws could a bakery owned by a gay person refuse to make a cake for a straight wedding?

And I'm just curious.
 
Only if the straight folks were Christian and White.....


otherwise...no issues..
 
As I understand it

Since sexual orientation is not a protected class, they have a shot at it. Of course the straight baker still has a shot at denying a gay wedding. The footing is equal on that.

However, religion is a protected class. A gay baker, for example, could not turn down an evangelical wedding (at least not expressly for that reason).
 
Except . . .

regarding the straight baker couldn't turn down a gay wedding in those municipalities where sexual orientation is a protected class.
 
thank you to you and Sope.

As I said it was just curiosity.
 
Sure . . .

but unless the gay baker operated in a large and predominantly gay community I'd guess they'd not have much business.
 
which leads to me to the issue

Penn Jillette was saying how he cannot understand why someone would discriminate, but he is a libertarian and believes such a right to be stupid and do so.

Now I like Penn, and I re-examined my position. But that point is what I cannot get around. In a wild west anything goes scenario, there is a huge imbalance of power. The invisible hand to force someone to serve a white male is a far stronger force than the one to serve a black woman who is Islamic.

In a vacuum, I would love to agree with Penn. But I cannot see it working.
 
Anyone might deny service to

anyone else. That is NOT the issue. If such denial occurred, and IF resulting therefrom there was some governmental action against the denier, could the denier raise, solely as a defense, that they denied service on the basis of their religious belief and if the court bought the argument, then the court would measure the denial of service for religious reasons against any compelling state interest and decide if government action was appropriate and then examine what government action might be the least intrusive.
 
This is why all of this is so infuriating. Once again

INDIANA RFRA IS NOT ABOUT DISCRIMINATION. IT IS ABOUT FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION!

In the context of IRFRA which we have been discussing for the last several days, nobody can deny anybody goods or services unless and until they can show such denial of service is part of the exercise of their religion. This isn't hard to understand but the whole country including important business leaders and politicians can't or won't understand a very simple legal principal. I have mentioned several times if a white, Christian, male bigot tried to say he is exercising his religion by refusing to sell a pizza to a gay person, he'd get laughed out of court. I requested the liberal left wing attorneys, who should know better, on this board to explain the testimony they believe would convince a judge that refusing to serve pizza is an exercise of religion and none of them have done so. Because they can't.

To be clear. In order to take advantage of IRFA, either in its original form, or after the welcome but meaningless amendment, the vendor would have to give clear cogent testimony that he was exercising his religion by refusing service. Believing homosexual relations is a sin won't cut it because everybody sins.










This post was edited on 4/3 7:35 PM by CO. Hoosier
 
Yep

That is why whenever I go out I always wear my "Jesus Saves" sweatshirt, carry a bible, and say God Bless to everyone I see. This always gets me better service service than if I look like a liberal lawyer.

Iuin . . . .the first sarcastic poster doesn't stand a chance.
 
Just bake the damn cake. . .

People are not seeking, nor do they require, the baker's (or any confectioner's) personal or religious approval. They just want the goddamn cake.
 
I'm tired of the woe is me from "white christian"....not everyone.....

but the one's who want to play victim. Walk a mile in my wife's shoes.....born in India, became a citizen in 1999, multiple degrees, but has literally been spit on, cussed at and berated for being, fill in the blank--Muslim (she's Sikh by the way), Middle-Eastern, Mexican. So I'm sorry if I don't feel sorry for white Christians who have someone say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas to them. It must be rough.
 
What happened to your wife is indeed

Inexcusable. But that has as much to do with white Christians as you have to do with the slaughter of the Christian students in Kenya. I think your post is out of line.
 
I don't think you understood his point.

He wasn't blaming white Christians for what happened to his wife. He was saying, "Count your blessings, and quit whining about the little things." It was a comparison, not a cause-effect relationship. If you actually read that into what he wrote, you might be the one who was out of line.
 
I got it

I also got the juxtaposition. I'm not impressed with comparing victimhood and atrocities in this context.
 
Yep . . . .

Bake-the-Cake-copy.jpg,qresize=580,P2C289.pagespeed.ce.fgPA0q_Z6sDG7cOx8dnj.jpg
 
LOL


Something like 80 percent of Americans self-identify as Christians. Unlike olden days Christians who faced off against lions in the Coliseum, modern Christians quiver at the threat that gay people will shove something down their throat. (This fear seems latently wishful to me.) And by "shove something down their throat" I mean "prevent them from discriminating against others."

From the perspective of the rearguard (wink) bigoted defense against the icky gays, it's the end of times when they can't locate their bigotry in God's protected harbor. Are the icky gays on your lawn, CO.? Is that what's got you so emotional?
 
Prejudice in favor of Indians

For over ten years I have participated in finding speakers for a lecture series devoted to world affairs.

During this time I have discovered lecturers born and raised in India who have gained advanced degrees in American colleges. Whenever I suggest these Indians as speakers the committee overwhelmingly elects to have them. The committee just assumes Indians are smart and reasonable scholars with a fresh outlook on world affairs (think Fareed Zakaria). Furthermore these Indians have lived up to the committee's expectations over the years.
 
I was not painting with a broad brush....I was only referring to those

"Christians" who claim victimhood because someone had the audacity to say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. I agree with the point of your post.
 
Curious why would any merchant trying to operate at a profit turn away business? From a marketing standpoint makes no sense. I think we have been asking the wrong questions let the stupid entrepreneur fail and we will all be better off.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT