• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Supreme Court to rule on baker refusing to make cake for gay couple

Deacsfan27 said:
No he doesn't. He wants the SCOTUS to rule on the legality of it by weighing the constitutional rights of each party involved.
Click to expand...

He said this:

"Of course not. I want bigots to go out of business if they choose to discriminate through their business practices."

That shows he wants bigots to be allowed to discriminate. He can try to dance around this, but he said they should be able to "choose to discriminate through their business practices".
 
RJKarl said:
.

This should be an easy 9-0 vote against the baker. But it's possible this bigot could win. Yes, you are a bigot if you refuse to serve someone because of who they are.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much what everyone disagrees with you about. It's not simple or easy.
 
WakeBDer said:
I'm sure that will happen in some communities. How do you think they should be punished?
Click to expand...

Their businesses licenses should be revoked. The Supreme Court has ruled that discrimination in public accommodation is illegal. If they don't follow the law, they shouldn't be allowed to be in business.
 
RJKarl said:
He said this:

"Of course not. I want bigots to go out of business if they choose to discriminate through their business practices."

That shows he wants bigots to be allowed to discriminate. He can try to dance around this, but he said they should be able to "choose to discriminate through their business practices".
Click to expand...

He's not trying to dance around anything. He is expressing his views and understands that it's a delicate balance between protecting the rights of the bakery owners to conduct their business in accordance with religion, as well as the gay couple's rights to have a cake made.
 
RJKarl said:
He said this:

"Of course not. I want bigots to go out of business if they choose to discriminate through their business practices."

That shows he wants bigots to be allowed to discriminate. He can try to dance around this, but he said they should be able to "choose to discriminate through their business practices".
Click to expand...

Just because I think someone is a bigot doesn't mean that I don't think they should be allowed to think the things they think and act appropriately within legal guidelines. My worldview doesn't have to be everyone's worldview.
 
RJKarl said:
Do you believe in the long standing SC rulings on public accommodations? If so, it is simple.
Click to expand...

Deacsfan27 said:
Then why is it going to the SCOTUS if it's simple?
Click to expand...

It's almost like RJ didn't stop to consider whether public accommodation discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation has ever come before the Supreme Court before
 
I think SCOTUS was overworked and just wanted to throw an easy one in the mix. Already have everything written up and will just need to write a paragraph that says see public accommodation, if need clarity pm rjkarl ogboards.
 
WakeBDer said:
Just because I think someone is a bigot doesn't mean that I don't think they should be allowed to think the things they think and act appropriately within legal guidelines. My worldview doesn't have to be everyone's worldview.
Click to expand...

I have never said that person can't be a bigot. He has every right to be a bigot. But if that bigotry breaks the laws, like public accommodation, he doesn't have the right to act on his bigotry.

He can deny entry to his home to anyone he chooses. He can choose not go to stores that are owned by gays. He can choose not to go to Jewish doctors. I have no problem with any of those choices or him holding bigoted beliefs.

However, if he's open for business for the public. He has to serve the public.

As to the red part, you just contradicted you own previous post. You said, "Of course not. I want bigots to go out of business if they choose to discriminate through their business practices."

It is clearly illegal to discriminate in many situations.

Which of your posts is real?

Is it your first one that says we should allow bigots to break the law? Remember your response was to my specifically posted about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and public accommodation rulings.

Or should we believe your second posts that says businesses and people must follow the law?

You have taken both sides.
 
RJKarl said:
I have never said that person can't be a bigot. He has every right to be a bigot. But if that bigotry breaks the laws, like public accommodation, he doesn't have the right to act on his bigotry.

He can deny entry to his home to anyone he chooses. He can choose not go to stores that are owned by gays. He can choose not to go to Jewish doctors. I have no problem with any of those choices or him holding bigoted beliefs.

However, if he's open for business for the public. He has to serve the public.

As to the red part, you just contradicted you own previous post. You said, "Of course not. I want bigots to go out of business if they choose to discriminate through their business practices."

It is clearly illegal to discriminate in many situations.

Which of your posts is real?

Is it your first one that says we should allow bigots to break the law? Remember your response was to my specifically posted about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and public accommodation rulings.

Or should we believe your second posts that says businesses and people must follow the law?

You have taken both sides.
Click to expand...

As has been acknowledged, we don't have a standing on public accommodation w/r/t and sexual orientation. People should follow the law whatever it is after we have a ruling from the Supreme Court.
 
WakeBDer said:
As has been acknowledged, we don't have a standing on public accommodation w/r/t and sexual orientation. People should follow the law whatever it is after we have a ruling from the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Here's the original posts:

"Originally Posted by WakeBDer View Post
Again, I think the idea is terrible. It is discrimination through and through. I also believe that businesses that used those signs in today's setting would quickly go out of business in most parts of the country. Thus, individuals are welcome to hold their beliefs, but when they are going to use their beliefs to influence their business they become vulnerable to the market. A market that is arguably much more tolerant."

So, you oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Supreme Court rulings that ban discrimination in public accommodation and would rather "let the market decide".

Before you posted, you copied PH's posts about water fountains and another segregation poster.

None of the three posts have anything to do with sexual orientation. You can't add something that wasn't there to get out of your posted positions.
 
I think the hidden story in this is that wedding cake bakers think too highly of themselves. It's a cake. You're not being commissioned to paint the Sistine Chapel.
 
I actually, strangely, think there's a difference between selling a cake to someone in a store and making one for their wedding. I'm against someone preventing the former, not as much the latter.
 
Well it sounds like the SCOTUS will assess and make a ruling on this matter, one that appears to not be simple, nor cut and dry in the least. I look forward to that ruling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top