Brace yourselves, a similar case involving flowers may be next.
Originally posted by SquallX
Double standard much?
Speaking of double standards...read about this:
Christian Cake Bakers and Gay Coffee Shop Owners: Why Freedom of Association Is for Everybody
"It's very easy to watch Borgman's rant and decide that, no, his shop shouldn't have to play host to a group of people who were just outside handing out fliers that he found offensive and that he felt attacked him personally.
It's also easy to watch it and immediately think about the upcoming Supreme Court case about whether the government can force a baker to prepare wedding cakes for gay couples. And some, like the legal scholar Jonathan Turley, are doing exactly that. If a coffee shop owner doesn't want to serve a group whose positions he finds disagreeable and offensive, is that subtantially different from a baker refusing to do work for a same-sex marriage he finds offensive?
Washington State's public accommodation laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of "creed," so Borgman cannot simply boot people out of his coffee shop for having Christian religious beliefs. But over at The Stranger, a Seattle alt-weekly, Katie Herzog argues that this case isn't religious discrimination but a disagreement about political positions:
Not believing that woman should have autonomy over their own bodies is not actually a protected class in America, much like...gays. Looks like these folks have more in common than they thought.
She's saying that Borgman isn't kicking them out because they're Christians, which would violate the state's laws; he's kicking them out because he finds their extreme anti-abortion positions offensive. The fact that these positions are informed by their religious beliefs is not relevant."
Notice the weasel logic used by the one woman to say "oh no, it was political" lol. Bullshit. They're against abortion for religious reasons and that won't change no matter how the other side tries to spin it.
"What's fascinating about that argument is how it so closely tracks the response from bakers and florists who don't want to offer their services for gay weddings. They say that they're not discriminating against gay people: Gay people are more than welcome to come into their shops and buy cakes and flowers. Rather, they object to the concept of gay marriage and to the position that it should be treated similarly to heterosexual marriage, and they do not want to be forced to produce goods that suggest that they support it.
By trying to come up with a justification as to why Borgman should allowed to boot these guys from his coffee shop without running afoul of state antidiscrimination laws, Herzog is essentially making the same argument: that this isn't discrimination against people for their identities, but discrimination against certain views.
That's the sort of weird semantic contortions that come when you try to police the circumstances in which people can decline to do business with someone else. People want to preserve their own right to refuse to associate with others while limiting the others' ability to shun them. Using government authority to do this gives people an incentive to look for ways to punish people with whom you have disagreements."
Nailed it.
Members of Abolish Human Abortion had been handing out rather vivid posters outside the shop that seem to link gay acceptance to the prevalence of abortion. They then came inside Bedlam Coffee and received service—until shop owner Ben Borgman angrily threw them out, declaring their views and their posters offensive. -snip
Yeah, clearly the same thing and comparable, squirt <--- This is sarcasm btw
Originally posted by Robtard
Denying people cake and flora services, EXACTLY what Jesus intended.
You were right earlier within the context of what happens when a muslim refuses service etc.......
I'm not a religious individual and most of the time I want the market to pick winners and losers rather then the govt. I don't think the folks fighting for their selective rights to provide services will play well in the end.
It really should be kept as dollars and the community determining who stays in business.
Originally posted by snowdragon
You were right earlier within the context of what happens when a muslim refuses service etc.......I'm not a religious individual and most of the time I want the market to pick winners and losers rather then the govt. I don't think the folks fighting for their selective rights to provide services will play well in the end.
It really should be kept as dollars and the community determining who stays in business.
I understand that, believe me, as I've said they should just be made to have "no service to gay weddings" on their door and adds, so customers can then make an informed choice to patronize them or not.
But that's also shit, as that leaves the door open to "No Blacks", "No Jews", "No Italians" etc. and I'd rather our society not go back to that, as that really wasn't all that long ago, Jim Crow ended only in 1964. Some people seem to want that.
Originally posted by Robtard
Denying people cake and flora services, EXACTLY what Jesus intended.
Just because you disagree with the morality of an action isn't enough justification for the state getting involved in inflicting force to enforce that morality.
Were I the baker, I would've just made them the ****ing cake and I don't have a problem with gays, but I take issue with the government being used to compel what a person does with their own labor and artistic expression.
Originally posted by Robtard
But that's also shit, as that leaves the door open to "No Blacks", "No Jews", "No Italians" etc. and I'd rather our society not go back to that, as that really wasn't all that long ago, Jim Crow ended only in 1964. Some people seem to want that.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Jim Crow was the government compelling businesses to discriminate. Arguing the government shouldn't be involved in controlling who people do business with is the antithesis of an argument in favor of Jim Crow.
And when that ended "Whites Only" bathrooms went away.
But my point, if it's ruled that a business (baker or otherwise) can effectively say "no gays allowed", then why not other discrimination?
Originally posted by Robtard
And when that ended "Whites Only" bathrooms went away.But my point, if it's ruled that a business (baker or otherwise) can effectively say "no gays allowed", then why not other discrimination?
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yes I'm consistent with my standards.1. I'm really not a fan of antidiscrimination laws in general. I don't believe discrimination is a violation of rights and I've made this pretty clear in my other posts on this thread.
2. Even if I did support them, freedom of expression would trump antidiscrimination for me every single time. I have spoken out in favor of freedom of expression for people whose views I find morally reprehensible such as the alt-right, I sure as hell wouldn't deny the extension of that to a Muslim.
3. As a Classical Liberal I believe in the universality of individual rights including the right to one's own property and expression, regardless of the individual's identity, views, or moral character.