Cakegate to be decided by supremes

Which would explain why he has gay and non christian clients. Literally no one involved in the case disputes this. You're just throwing gasoline on the fire.

 

The Court has to rule in favor of the gays or their lives will be ruined

Because all the homosexuals agree that Christians bake the best wedding cakes

No question about it

 

Some gay guy should wear a wire and ask the bakery -- if it hasn't been shut down-- to make a birthday cake for his gay boyfriend. Anyone here think he would refuse to do it? I don't.

 

The owner of an establishment should have the right to serve whoever he pleases and for whatever reason he pleases. An attack on a privately owned enterprise, is an attack on ones personal freedom and can only serve the interest of the corporate one world government freaks. Enjoy your future, it ain't gonna be fun!

 

So a privately owned pharmacy should be able to withhold sales of antibiotics to <insert group> because <insert discriminatory reason, including racial, religious, and ethnicity > ?

 

I think the point is that no, obviously they should not do so, and none do this anyway (profits, baby, yeah!) but the alternative to letting him choose is to have bureaucrats making the choice for him. Also bad.

 

Yes. Any private business should be able to decide whom they will and will not serve, based on any criteria they choose. And they should suffer the consequences, or reap the rewards, of that business decision.

Should a pharmacy choose to discriminate as in your hypothetical, they would be driven out of business, and their competition, and the people, would ultimately be the beneficiary of that poor decision.

 

You are sort of agreeing with what I said

Gays lives will not be worth living if they cant serve a Christian cake at their wedding

 

I'm glad the SC has taken up this cake - it's good to get these things resolved one way or another.

I would think that if the court decides for the baker - then it may also open the door for municipalities to be free to require conspicuous signs be posted that tell customers that said services are not available. It would give customers the knowledge they need to avoid businesses that are biased in that way.

 

There are private hospitals - should they be able to refuse service? There are private waste disposal companies - should they be allowed to refuse service? There are private water treatment companies - should they be allowed to refuse service?

Does the private power company get to shut off the power at a gay wedding?

It's not just about a cake.

 

You mean a sign that reads “this establishment does not bake wedding cakes for homosexuals?”

Thats not the worst idea you ever had

 

I just hope that the SC does not use too much ... flour-y language in its opinion.

"That's a joke, son, I say a joke."

 

Theoretically, yes, but all those examples involve such an intertwining of public utility and private interests that it would never come up. Hospitals that take medicare/medicaid money obviously can't discriminate against a federally protected class, which I don't think homosexuals are (not in title 7) but I could be wrong.

 

Yes, I think that should be required.

Problem is, it opens the door for, "This hospital does not serve Trump supporters." Or, "This restaurant does not serve Mormons." Or "This electrical company does not power Jewish homes."

I think the Supreme Court is going to have to be VERY careful how they word a decision for the baker.

 

I hate signs in general, and federally mandated signs even more, but ... why is this a good idea?

 

I think they will side against the commission, not "for the baker". Tantamount to the same thing, but will hopefully help keep the peace.

 

I can see you are not a libertarian

But neither am I

But I think private businesses shoul be able to do business whith whoever for whatever reason they choose

The public accomidations law was arguable 50 years ago in the wake of white only lunch counters but we are not the same country today

 

Anywhere there is no alternative, there is monopoly. That is the paramount problem in any capitalist system that we need government to address, not dictating to business owners whom they must serve.

The predictable response to respecting business owners freedom of association is "what about when there is no competitive alternative?". When you respect business owners' freedom of association, there MUST always be an avenue for a competitor to serve the demand that a discriminatory business is avoiding. Otherwise you are supporting monopoly, which is detrimental to the free market. That's what we need government to do.

In the case of the cake buyers, they found an alternative and had their happy wedding... and the cake maker has suffered the consequence of his business decision (loss of sales, bad reputation, boycotts, competition boost, etc), while maintaining his principal... as it should be.

 

But it's just not feasible to have two sewer companies in the same small community, or two hospitals, or two waste removal companies, or two power companies trying to use the same lines. The cake is no big deal - the problem comes when George Soros buys your local power company and decides he doesn't have to do business with Trump supporters.

 

Then, if there are two, opportunity is made for a third to address the demand in a new market segment. If Soros's power company doesn't want my money, then the Koch's will happily take it. And if neither wants it, then there is an awesome opportunity for a third to start up. More competition means a WIN for consumers. Supporting monopoly leads to the problems you describe.

 

Most smaller communities only have one power company - hell, most larger communities only have one. Imagine your business without power for a year or two while the infrastructure is put in place to start a second power company. Doesn't work.

 

Infrastructure that uses the public right-of-ways should be required to be made available to competitors, in exchange for the competitors share of maintenance costs. A neighborhood coop, for instance, should be able to generate their own power, and use the installed right-of-way infrastructure to deliver it to their community. This is what we need government for.. to nurture competition, not to support monopoly.

As a sidebar: Localized power generation is the way of the future. Monstrous power grids are not sustainable.

 

Wrong. The Constitution protects your right to have personal beliefs - religious and political. The 1st Amendment prevents the govt from establishing a govt religion, there is no "separation of church and state". You also discard all property rights in your argument. "Property" is more than your building, its your time and skill and labor, its your body and your person - and its your business which is just the product of your time/skill/labor.

Read the Constitution.

 

YES! I believe in total and complete freedom of will and choice, and despise totalitarianism in whichever form it exists. No people should bow down to the whims of others, and governments and laws should be established within the smallest group possible. This would be true democracy, a word that's being thrown around so readily for political expediency, to cover up oppression in all its forms.

Our government was established on the premise that the government could not impose itself on the rights of the people. It was called states rights them, but today because of the immensity of our country, it should be narrowed down to town's rights... because liberal oppression is getting a little out of hand.

If someone doesn't like another because they happen to have green hair, and they're superstitious about people with green hair, then it is their right to deny them service.
If a pharmacist doesn't want to sell to a certain person, that person has every right to go to another pharmacist. It's called freedom of choice, and is the antithesis of the liberal 'permissiveness' of George Soros' 'Open Society', where one set of rules established by who knows what sociopaths, are imposed on others.

 

What if a restaurant says it is only for Evangelical Christians, or for Orthodox Jews? What if by the same token the restaurant made a list of those he does serve, rather than saying he will not serve certain individuals? Then how can it be discriminatory?

Also, what if the baker was to specify when advertising, that he has a right to refuse any writing or decoration that goes against his moral conscience? Shouldn't he have a right to refuse to write words that he considers blasphemous... or just plain filthy?