Bakery That Refused to Make Cake for Lesbian Couple Raises Record-Breaking Donations

If you don't want to serve the public, don't hang out a shingle. If you do, make yourself aware of the laws of that community. *shrug*
​

​

 

Which truths are those? I'm not aware of any natural right to force your association or your desire to do business on others who would choose otherwise. Perhaps you can explain. You have perverted the philosophy of natural rights and equality before the law with equality of opportunity and "equal treatment." What is self-evident is that every individual has a property right in his life and body and that means choosing with whom he/she associates with in any private capacity, including a private business. You don't actually believe that, but instead believe that your view is so morally superior that the police powers of the state ought to enforce it on private individuals.

 

Maybe Christians need to form their own country since they are so mistreated! Since thwy want a theocracy so babdly it shouldnt be a problem

 

Really? There are a lot of people who don't pay taxes. Why do they get to use roads and public services? In fact, many get public services because they can't pay taxes.

That's not to mention all of the foreign nation that get billions every year from the US and they don't pay taxes nor do their citizens who benefit from US government largesse. This notion that we pay taxes in order to get services is a myth.

 

There is nothing stopping you from joining the ranks of people who don't pay taxes. If they use public roads via a gas vehicle, they certainly pay taxes.
If they purchase goods, they certainly pay taxes.

As for other nations. I don't like we do that either. But it mostly is a bribe, IMO.

 

The "law is the law" is a tautology and therefore a fallacy. Either forced association for peaceful individual is always right, or it's always wrong, or you can clearly define a third principle that isn't a circular argument.

- - - Updated - - -

And, if they don't do either? You made an assertion about the reason for taxes. I said nothing about whether I want to join the ranks of those who don't want to pay them, so that's a strawman. I say that taxes are a means of controlling the populace and extracting wealth for the benefit of the parasitic class and politicians.

So taxes are also to pay for corruption.

Oh, and what about those who leave the country and earn money elsewhere? What services are they receiving for which they have to pay taxes? Even those who give up citizenship can be prosecuted for non-payment of US income taxes on money they earn after giving up that citizenship and being outside of the country for up to 10 years.

 

You want to speak of natural rights...but you in the same breath ignore natural law.

That is saying relative morality out of one side of your mouth and then forcing YOUR particular sense of morality out of the other.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdHV_cT-C00

 

If you own a business that is open to the public, you serve the public, not just the people you like. If you offer goods to the public, you cannot deny the sale of those goods to people on the basis of many things, in this case sexuality.

If you do not like that, there is something called private club license, as is the case with Costco and Sam's Club and some golf courses. It is most certainly a viable option. Those businesses do quite well last time I checked. There are options available, I suggest people use them if they have such a major issue with certain people. Since this bakery is a food service establishment, they qualify:

http://www.oregon.gov/olcc/LIC/pages/for_profit_full_on_premises_license.aspx#Fees

 

No one is forcing the baker to bake. If he doesn't want to associate with the public, he's free not to.




​

 

And I already offered a solution. Options do exist in the USA for people like these bakers. It is up to them to take advantage of those solutions.

 

That shouldn't be too hard to jam.

 

Not discrimination. A bakery bakes cakes and other items for everyone including gays that come into their store and will sell them any item including a blank wedding cake, just refuses to decorate for a gay wedding on religious grounds. How is that different from a Black baker will sell a cakes to everyone, but refuses to decorate a cake with a KKK logo or Confederate flag, is the Black baker discriminating? How about a Jewish Baker who will sell a cake to anyone who comes in his store, but refuses to decorate it with a swastika? Is the Jewish Baker discriminating?

 

Maybe that's the answer. Everyone pays a minimal amount in local taxes for services. Call the Police, you get a bill, call the Fire Dept you get a bill, have kids in school....pay by how many. It's the only fair way yo do things, pay for what you use.

 

Yes, but it's not illegal to discriminate against people for those things.

 

Thanx for the candor.

That so many cannot see the double standard, the flawed logic and the complete hypocrisy in this special treatment is astounding.

 

They do. The first option is not to get into a business that potentially conflicts with his religious beliefs.




​

 

No, it isn't, but the "couple" was looking for decoration to celebrate the union. That's a little different.

And no one from the liberal side has responded to the question of whether a black baker can refuse to decorate a cake to be served at a KKK wedding.

 

What makes you think that?

You will notice religion and religious practice is a protected class by not only the First Amendment to the Constitution as a right but also Codified in the Civil Rights Act. Alas LGBT is simply not there. That puts them in the same category as folks with red hair or thick mustaches and bushy eyebrows.

 

I doubt that's the answer. Your insurance companies who insure for fires, etc would send your policies through the roof.
You aren't forced to live in society where those services are to all the public. Not just the one's who want to afford it. Your neighbor decides not to pay and lets his house burn and all the neighbors houses go with it or get damaged because he didn't bother to call the fire dept, and by the time, you, his neighbor saw the fire, it was way out of control.

- - - Updated - - -

Go look at post 214.

 

It's fair. It's not practical. Three neighbors would stair at each other while your house burns, because they don't want to call the Fire Dept and get a bill. People would argue they shouldn't have to send their kids to school because they can't afford it, and those uneducated kids will end up dragging us all down.

And crime would run rampant because no one would bother to report crimes that they don't expect the police to be able to solve. Why should I pay a bill, just so you can lock that criminal up before he hurts the next guy? Let the next guy pay for it.

The practical way to deal with it is the same way a business apportions overhead. If it isn't practical to bill a cost to a specific division, all the divisions kick in and consider it a community resource.

Besides fire, police, and schools are relative successes for government. You want to make an impact, try and figure out a way to make the cost of the military or Obamacare fair.




​

 

Post 214 is just flat out wrong, constitutionally retarded and an offense to true civil libertarians. That makes your opinion all those things too, by the way.

Ever hear of the fight to let Nazis march in Skokie, Illinois? Our rights only have meaning when unpopular speech and action is protected.

 

I don't welcome anything going to the USSC any more, those clowns forgot what their duties and responsibilities are...

 

In post 214 or myself had offered any opinion on the matter. Only how it is in the legal system today.
So your little tirade about our opinions is unfounded.

 

What? 214 says it's okay to discriminate against some people (the KKK, in this case) as long as the "right" people all agree. And that's about as anti 1st Amendment as it gets.
So your little tirade is not only misinformed but it's factually off base. A black baker could NOT refuse to give service to a racist group as that's discriminatory unless you want to grant the Kleins the same privilege.

 

Then the Fire Dept comes out and protects my house, what's the problem? Besides I have a hydrant 30 feet from my house....a 100 ft 1 1/2" line and spent my teens and 20's in a Vol Fire Dept. I can protect my own property.