Originally posted by Nephthys
It isn't discrimination to refuse service due to discrimination, lol.Letting racists and bigots refuse service based on their beliefs gives their beliefs credibility and acceptability. Which is utterly unacceptable under any circumstances.
Nobody is saying anything about force, but there should be legal reprocussions for refusal of service on discriminatory grounds.
So what kind of legal consequences? Jail time?
Originally posted by Nephthys
Sure. If you spout off hate speech while acting as an employee you can and should rightfully be fired for it. If you do so as a private business owner you can and should be liable to get sued over it.People can have their own views privately, but in the work place discrimination should not be accepted ever.
The difference is that speaking positively about or promoting homosexual acceptance isn't forcing your views upon anyone. It isn't about forcing people to be gay, merely that people should be allowed to be so. You're only "forcing" people to let others do what they want. Homophobia on the other hand advocates the idea that people should be forced to be heterosexual and actively encroaches on other rights.
That's splitting hairs, in my opinion. We can spin it and play word games with it just to make it all "promoting positive idea about this and that." It's an exercise I don't think is honest and I'm not willing to undertake that path of discussion.
Instead, I would prefer to focus on my point which is worrying too much about legally canonizing this line of speaking and acting or that line of thinking and acting. It's not kosher.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Beni is literally saying people can deny expressing themselves in a way he finds reprehensible, but they can be forced to express something they disagree with as long as it aligns with Beni's views. I call him out on the obvious bullshit, and he throws a trademark evasive smiley at me.
Why are you even surprised by that?
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I'm sorry, and I'm asking this because I don't wanna overlook this or accuse you of anything I'm not sure of so I'm asking for clarification. But are you saying someone expressing homophobic views actively encroaches on the rights of gay people?
Homophobia advocates for the encroachment on their rights. Its the advocation that these people should not be allowed to be in charge of their own sexuality. In the same way that saying "Black people should be slaves", it shouldn't be accepted in a position of power or in a professional sense imo.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Must've missed this, but anything the government does is force.
I meant in the literal sense and not in the "well technically you can define it as force" bs sense.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Beni is literally saying people can deny expressing themselves in a way he finds reprehensible, but they can be forced to express something they disagree with as long as it aligns with Beni's views. I call him out on the obvious bullshit, and he throws a trademark evasive smiley at me.
Well, if you did not just strawman his point and that's legit, then, yes, that's a rather stupidass idea that has an absurd slippery slope to it.
Part of the reason why we have the bill of rights is due to this idea that there's just some rights we don't want infringed. If a person wants to be racist: let that person be racist.
We MUST take the bad with the good. I want two dudes to be able to profess their love for each other on the streets just the same as I want a racist person to be able to talk about how much he hates Irish people.
Similar to businesses: I want Joe to sell pro-homosexual sex toys and be happy about it (maybe even gay about it.yippeeee!) just the same as I want Jack Philips to be able to make marriage cakes for only heterosexuals.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Homophobia advocates for the encroachment on their rights. Its the advocation that these people should not be allowed to be in charge of their own sexuality. In the same way that saying "Black people should be slaves", it shouldn't be accepted in a position of power or in a professional sense imo.
Originally posted by Nephthys
I meant in the literal sense and not in the "well technically you can define it as force" bs sense.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Part of the reason why we have the bill of rights is due to this idea that there's just some rights we don't want infringed. If a person wants to be racist: let that person be racist.
They're allowed to be racist, just on their own time. Discrimination in the workplace should not be tolerated. Your personal views do not give you the right to discriminate based on bigotry.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Refuse to cooperate and it comes out in the literal sense in a very real way.
No one gets a black eye from a fine. 🙄
Originally posted by Emperordmb
...but think it would be wrong for the government to keep people from having gay sex or getting married... so not necessarily.
Right-o, and it should be wrong for the government to step in and try to stop that.
You know...consenting adults entering into a relationship or transaction for mutual benefit and enjoyment. Perhaps even cakes would apply. 🙂
Originally posted by Nephthys
They're allowed to be racist, just on their own time. Discrimination in the workplace should not be tolerated. Your personal views do not give you the right to discriminate based on bigotry.
"Discrimination in the workplace" didn't happen.
If he fired his female employee for being female, that would fall under the legal phrase of "discrimination in the workplace." But denying making a gay-themed wedding cake is not "discrimination in the workplace."
At least not yet...
Soon, the thought police may have this changed.
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Forcing someone to bake a cake for you seems pretty counter productive and unnecessary to me.What exactly is the difference between this and forcing a church to perform the gay wedding ceremony?
I'd force them to bake it and then eat it in front of them while watching Queer Eye.
Their tears only make it sweeter.
Originally posted by dadudemon
"Discrimination in the workplace" didn't happen.If he fired his female employee for being female, that would fall under the legal phrase of "discrimination in the workplace." But denying making a gay-themed wedding cake is not "discrimination in the workplace."
At least not yet...
Soon, the thought police may have this changed.
Its discrimination and its taking place at work. You know what I mean.
Its no different than refusing to bake a Jewish cake.
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Forcing someone to bake a cake for you seems pretty counter productive and unnecessary to me.What exactly is the difference between this and forcing a church to perform the gay wedding ceremony?
There's none.
Because businesses and churches are the same thing: both are businesses.
HEEYYOOOOO!!!!!
Don't touch me because I'm on FIIIIRE!
Originally posted by Nephthys
I'd force them to bake it and then eat it in front of them while watching Queer Eye.Their tears only make it sweeter.
haermm
Now this is the type of thing I could get behind (your butt...for the gay homsexual buttsex we would be having while eating our gay cake and watching our queer show).
Originally posted by Nephthys
Its discrimination and its taking place at work. You know what I mean.Its no different than refusing to bake a Jewish cake.
1. I did not know what you meant. That's what I used specific clarifying language. You've since clarified what you meant so tsall good.
2. I advise against bringing baking and Jews into this topic: there's a bad History, there, dude.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
If he's denying them a commissioned piece of artistic expression? Yes.I made it very clear in my previous posts that I have no double standard here:
If you are asking to buy a product already for sale, that's one thing. If you are commissioning artistry though, the person whose artistic talents are at play should be within their rights to accept or refuse any commission for any reason.
Not sure that's the issue exactly here, but you'd have no problem with say a Black couple being denied because they wanted a Black bride&groom represented on their cake and the baker was like "nope, I don't bake for no Blacks, just my beliefs"?