stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
No patriot or understander and respecter of rights believes that businesses should be forced to allow RKBA in their establishments.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
SCOTUS makes a good call for once!
- Thread starter DrakeZ07
- Start date
- Status
No patriot or understander and respecter of rights believes that businesses should be forced to allow RKBA in their establishments.
OC for ME
Regular Member
It is most certainly not about baking a cake or not. It is about the specific event the cake is for. Gays want a cake, they get a cake. If the cake is for a gay marriage, they do not get a cake. See the CO analog to the OR incident.
Do not conflate anti-gay sentiments with anti-gay marriage sentiments. Gay folks will likely conflate the two.
Liberty minded folks should not conflate the two. In fact liberty minded folks look past the gay marriage component and should see a new power for government to exert over anyone, at the behest of a liberal around the corner.
nonameisgood
Regular Member
Liberty minded folk don't care what kind of cake it is as long as they are paying for it.
But this thread is about the SC ruling. That expanded inclusion. Once a privilege is sufficiently expansive, it is easy to deregulate or regain as a right. In Texas, that was "no carry whatsoever" to "concealed by license" to "openly carried with a license". The progression favors "carry without a license" unless the naysayers are proven right or the 'fraidy cats win out.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But this thread is about the SC ruling. That expanded inclusion. Once a privilege is sufficiently expansive, it is easy to deregulate or regain as a right. In Texas, that was "no carry whatsoever" to "concealed by license" to "openly carried with a license". The progression favors "carry without a license" unless the naysayers are proven right or the 'fraidy cats win out.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
OC for ME
Regular Member
The op, just to keep things in context.
No, the op is not about "as long as I'm paying for it" as you myopically regurgitate. Liberty minded folks recognize and respect the right of a property owner to conduct their business as they see fit, for better or worse.
If a bigot runs a bakery the market (the citizenry) will rule the day.
Liberals do not want to chance the market (the citizenry) and demand that the state punish all citizens who peaceably decline to participate as demanded. Focusing on the cake and not state actions is exactly what liberals want you to focus on.
Again. liberty is diminished and some folks are fine with this.
nonameisgood
Regular Member
Let's go basic: Should restaurants be allowed to refuse service based on skin color?
I think this may depend on many factors, but is it ok for a state to make a law that prohibits licensed businesses from doing so? (As is the case in Oregon)
States frequently take away freedom in the name of protecting freedom. Lawmakers and police aren't interested in freedom, only control. A law prohibiting same sex marriage is less freedom than no law against it, right?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think this may depend on many factors, but is it ok for a state to make a law that prohibits licensed businesses from doing so? (As is the case in Oregon)
States frequently take away freedom in the name of protecting freedom. Lawmakers and police aren't interested in freedom, only control. A law prohibiting same sex marriage is less freedom than no law against it, right?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
OC for ME
Regular Member
Your premise is rejected. That is not what the CO baker is doing, I'm not sure the OR bakers held the same view, though they could have.
The Colorado baker will bake a cake for gays (will provide a service), he stated this, but he drew the line a a gay marriage wedding cake based on his religious convictions (will not serve a gay wedding cake - no service), the peaceable exercise of his 1A...no?
So, what is the issue, not serving gays at all, or a customer not getting the exact product they desire? I suspect that many customers walk out of many businesses every day not getting exactly what they want, receiving service, and are not suing the business. I'll even hazard that some of these folks not getting "service" are members of the protected classes.
The liberal agenda continues to attempt to make this a simple "service or no service" issue when in this case it clearly is not a "service or no service" issue. in fact this has absolutely nothing to do with cakes or services, and everything to do with using the state to punish dissent, to use government to punish peaceable non-participation when it is counter to the liberal agenda.
In my view this is tyranny and even more egregious it is when the state willfully participates in the violation of a citizens enumerated rights.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28445399/lakewood-man-defends-refusal-bake-wedding-cake-gay
It matters not to liberals that the baker is consistent in not baking cakes with messages that he finds distasteful (not exclusive to gays). It matters not that a law exists that justifies that a citizen be held to account for the peaceable exercise of his 1A.
Just as "shall not be infringed" is unambiguous it should be equally unambiguous the bold above.
nonameisgood
Regular Member
I reject the notion that refusing to bake a cake is exercise of religion, but I also agree that I probably should not have a say in that. I agree that the content of what a business will deliver is relevant and I don't think a Waffle House should be required to serve pancakes. Or to make any item not on the menu only because it is not on the menu.
I'm not sure if a gay wedding cake is so different from a straight wedding cake, so my analogy might fail. I think the objection might be that there is no inherent difference between the two. That makes me think that the refusal to bake the gay cake is based only on discrimination and not on anything else. Maybe bakers should have that freedom from oppressive baking laws, but under the existing law (which Oregonians adopted) it seems to be that the choice to reject a customer based on their gayness or the gayness of their wedding is not allowed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm not sure if a gay wedding cake is so different from a straight wedding cake, so my analogy might fail. I think the objection might be that there is no inherent difference between the two. That makes me think that the refusal to bake the gay cake is based only on discrimination and not on anything else. Maybe bakers should have that freedom from oppressive baking laws, but under the existing law (which Oregonians adopted) it seems to be that the choice to reject a customer based on their gayness or the gayness of their wedding is not allowed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
OC Freedom
Regular Member
+1
You are right, this issue is about government abuse and since the masses are accepting this, anything the government deems wrong because of someones "peaceable non-participation" in X,Y,or Z is up for grabs through some form of penalty.
So you don't want health care, no problem, Uncle Sam say's we will just fine you. Don't worry SCOTUS says it's all good.
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
Yes.
I'm having deja vu. Have we already discussed this? I realize fully that you aren't addressing me and that the person you are addressing may not agree with me.
Discrimination in general isn't prohibited, discrimination occurs constantly every day, being performed by nearly every person. It is discrimination based on certain characteristics that is normally prohibited, and then those doing the prohibiting somehow convince millions of people that discrimination only counts as discrimination if it is based on a characteristics of one of their special protected people.
The bottom line is that people have property rights and association rights and religious freedom rights that result in the right for them to be selective about who they interact with, including who they do business with.
Sometimes their criteria for selection may be offensive while other times reasonable. For instance, saying black people can't eat in my restaurant would, should, be considered pretty unreasonable, while requiring a shirt be worn at an upscale restaurant would probably be considered reasonable by most people. Sure, there is a big difference between skin color and whether or not a shirt is worn, that doesn't upset the point being made. The recognition of that difference is largely influential in society's determination of what's reasonable and unreasonable discrimination. The right remains uncompromised. Sometimes rights allow people to do things that others don't like, even some things that might be considered unreasonable. :shock:
The market can sort this stuff out. I recall watching an episode of What Would You Do where they tested customers' reactions to unreasonable discrimination by a business and in case after case people immediately chastised the discriminatory businessman and decided to boycott the business. I thought some of them might actually go buy signs and start picketing right then and there while they were recording the show.
The use of coercion and government regulation is not only wrong, but completely unneeded to achieve the desired result. There is ample evidence of this, which leads to the conclusions that the incessant lobbying for regulation is fueled by ulterior motives.
Liberty-or-Death
Regular Member
Correct!
I respect personal property rights, and the right of freedom of association. If I asked a lesbian cake maker to make a straight pride cake and was refused, I wouldn't even THINK of suing them to FORCE them to. I'd take my business elsewhere.
If the local pawn shop doesn't like my open carry and tells me to put it in my vehicle, I'd put myself in my truck, AND LEAVE.
But! The progressive left, on the other hand, uses their pet causes to strip our freedoms. i.e.: fascism.
Last edited:
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
You are right no doubt. And yet.. And yet.. It gets so very tiresome when the "rights respecting" road seems like a one-way street more and more.
noname...you are referring to a BS win in ONE state, and the state still maintaining its profit center....
Blacks, in 45 +/- years, went NATIONALLY from nothing to equality of rights ~ see what happens today if someone, for whatever BS reason, fails to sell a wedding cake to a person of color who wish to get married!!
LGBT, in 45 years, went NATIONALLY from nothing to equality of rights ~ you've seen what happens when someone fails to sell a wedding cake... as it did in the beginning of the civil rights movements $$$$$ lost by those business owners failing to understand the ramifications of the ruling.
ipse
nonameisgood
Regular Member
The market never sorted out equality of _negroes_. It took government coercion to force people to do what most people today see as fair. The market was full of people who thought it was ok to discriminate. Even when I was a kid "the n-word" was acceptable. In one generation that has all but been eliminated from the zeitgeist. People know the word but would never say it out loud in the manner used up thru the 70's.
I dislike progressive politics and the PC excess in which we find ourselves. However, there does often come a time when leadership takes us in a better direction instead of leading from the back, as so many politicians prefer.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Then answer this why did they have to have laws to segregate?
You claim is easily false.
nonameisgood
Regular Member
Some say that they made the segregation laws to reduce violence associated with "mixing". I think it runs much deeper.
I worked with the first female engineering grad from Prairie View A&M (historically black college) and she told me "my family supplied to all the restaurants in town until the civil right movement started, then I had to go to the back door."
If we go back far enough, Texas outlawed carry of handguns expressly to keep the freedmen and carpetbaggers from carrying here. Our current history of racial discrimination started with black slaves and conquered native tribes. Anyone who wasn't a white European was suspect and treated differently. For gods sake, we counted free negroes as 3/5 of a person because of this.
The recognition of injustice is always ripe for relief.
And someone else getting what you've always had doesn't diminish what you have. (An economist might argue since they think there is never a win-win except to the guy who wins more)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I worked with the first female engineering grad from Prairie View A&M (historically black college) and she told me "my family supplied to all the restaurants in town until the civil right movement started, then I had to go to the back door."
If we go back far enough, Texas outlawed carry of handguns expressly to keep the freedmen and carpetbaggers from carrying here. Our current history of racial discrimination started with black slaves and conquered native tribes. Anyone who wasn't a white European was suspect and treated differently. For gods sake, we counted free negroes as 3/5 of a person because of this.
The recognition of injustice is always ripe for relief.
And someone else getting what you've always had doesn't diminish what you have. (An economist might argue since they think there is never a win-win except to the guy who wins more)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
utbagpiper
Banned
So would you be ok baking a cake or doing printing to advance the cause of a candidate who vowed to abolish the RKBA? Would you do that for your regular price, or would you demand some premium to promote a cause hostile to your beliefs, values, and personal interests?
One can only imagine how Drake would respond to a court order that he provide service to a religious proselyting event on equal grounds as he would render that service to a pro-homosexual event.
Only a fool entrusts his most important photographs to someone who doesn't want to take them. Only a bigger fool forces someone he thinks "hates" him to bake him a cake.
The only reason homosexuals even dare force photographers to take photos at and bakers to make cakes for "weddings" contrary to their convictions and desires is because they know the Christians don't have and won't exhibit one-tenth the hatred toward homosexuals that militant and bigoted homosexuals hold and exhibit toward Christians. Drake's latest anti-religious screed here is proof of where the hatred really lies. Most Christians seek only to peacefully decline to promote or associate with conduct that offends them. Drake and his associates have deep anger and hatred issues and strongly desire to punish anyone who disagrees with them or disapproves of their conduct, no matter how peacefully or civilly expressed.
In brief terms, Drake and his ilk are like the gun haters who are so terrified of people with guns they feel compelled (and perfectly safe) to walk up to OCers and harass them.
Charles
utbagpiper
Banned
I'm no anarchist and I'm ok with anti-discrimination laws. (And I'll be called some names by our resident anarchists for that, so be it.) But I draw the line at forcing business owners to promote a message to which they object.
In Jefferson's words: “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.” -- Thomas Jefferson
I am fine with laws preventing discrimination against democrats, Catholics and atheists, homosexuals, gun owners/carriers, the disabled, etc.
I believe the law crossing into overt infringement of the constitutionally enumerated right of free exercise of religion when it forces a business owner to promote an idea or practice that he finds morally repugnant. In broader terms, it is a violation of all conscience (religious or secular) to force a man to promote or associate with an idea with which he disagrees.
Concrete examples:
No one should be denied service because he is a democrat. But no business should be compelled to provide service to advance the campaign of a democrat candidate or the democrat party. If an individual democrat wants a cake for his private birthday party he should not be denied on the basis of political affiliation. But if he is looking for a cake for a democrat event intended to promote the platform of that party, or to advance the campaign of one its candidates, he should not get to force unwilling business owners to provide services.
Similarly for religion. No Catholic, Mormon, Muslim, atheist, etc should be denied service because of where they do (or don't) attend church. I want a cake for my kid's party, or the office party, or some other random event, I should not expect to be turned away. But if I show up wanting a cake (or catering services) for a Mormon religious event intended to proselyte the LDS faith, to seek converts, or otherwise promote Mormonism, I don't think anyone should be forced to render services for that event contrary to their conscience. Some of my good Evangelical brothers sincerely believe that converting to Mormonism will cost a man his soul. How could I force them to promote or support such an event even if they are making their usual profit in the process?
No gun owner should be denied entrance to or goods/services from a business simply because he is in lawful, peaceful possession of a firearm. But no one should be forced to bake a cake for or take photographs at or rent a private reception hall to a Friends of the NRA event.
In like manner, no one should be denied services simply because he is homosexual. And in all of the bakery and florist cases of which I'm aware, they never were. In fact, the whole reason the homosexual couple asked for services from the establishment was because of the existing relationship of having received good service happily rendered. But weddings are an event that send a message. They are intended to send a message of legitimizing what otherwise would be "illegitimate" including both the sexual union and any children produced by it. What current law effectively says in some places is that while parents, siblings, adult children, and friends & neighbors can decline to attend a wedding they don't approve of, a photographer can be legally compelled to attend, to actively encourage and participate in conduct he abhors by having to stage photos, etc.
These cases are not parallel to denying service based on skin color. I don't know what "black conduct" is or would be. We all know what homosexual sexual conduct is and nobody should have to choose between making an honest living in his chosen field and maintaining his deeply held and sincere religious beliefs regarding the immorality of such conduct.
What two or ten people do in private is private and should not affect access to goods or services in the public space. But weddings are fairly public events, sending a public message that nobody should be forced to promote.
Charles
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Oh, puh-leeez. That you would even ask that question shows the limits of your thinking.
Nonameisgood basically just showed you the height of freedom-mindedness: NMISG is basically saying that a genuinely freedom-minded person won't care about the gay request for cake-baking, recognizing the gay's right to think and hold gay ideas and convictions.
What next, Protestants shouldn't sell to Catholics? Republicans shouldn't sell to Democrats? Blacks shouldn't sell to whites?
"...if you can do one, you can do the other! Because fanaticism is forever busy--and needs feeding."
[video=youtube;S_DQUAuNUvw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_DQUAuNUvw[/video]
Last edited:
utbagpiper
Banned
I'm not sure what point your trying to make as you obviously don't believe government should impose any anti-discrimination laws at all. As I've made clear, I am ok with anti-discrimination laws dealing with race, religion, political affiliation, and even sexual orientation. I draw the line at forcing a person to promote a message he disagrees with.
This presents such a fundamental difference of views from your own, I doubt there is any common ground to debate. I can respectfully agree to disagree with your anarchist views. I do so frankly and honestly rather than resorting to some kind of veiled mockery or sarcasm.
Maybe you could give that a try. You know, treating others the way you'd like to be treated.
Charles
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
1. Your first paragraph is non-sequitur. You didn't attack Nonameisgood in your last post because he was forcing someone to promote a message he disagreed with. He wasn't; and you know it. To claim at the outset of the next paragraph that there is no common ground for a debate is just further diversion. You're not debating anything, you're dodging debate with a non-sequitur.
2. Your claim that you can respectfully, frankly, and honestly disagree is belied by the falsehood in your signature line about anarchists imposing their system on you. You know full well that anarchy is about consent, not imposing. There is nothing respectful, frank, or honest in that sig line's comment about imposing anarchy on others. You've been told over and over and over that nobody is stopping you from getting together with like-minded individuals and creating a compulsory government to rule yourselves. Not one anarchist would stop you; not one anarchist would impose anarchy on you.
Last edited:
- Status