Religious freedom and discrimination.

no it isn't

A bakery bakes cakes. they wanted a cake. a Jewish deli doesn't sell pork to anybody.

What i am telling you is that you have made an incorrect simily.

the bakery bakes cakes they wanted a cake, not a farrari.

it would be like a jewish deli refusing to serve you pastrami because you are christian.

it's absolute bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and you know it.

 

So then would you agree that a business person should be allowed to refuse service to a black person because serving black people violates their religion?

 

The fact is a business owner should be able to discriminate against anyone for any reason. We should eliminate protected classes.

 

Just wait for the screaming when the owner of a private waste management company refuses to take the trash of Christian Church.

 

Let them scream.

 

Well Failure to pick up trash will lead to health concerns not just for the church but any surrounding neighbors.

Your solution is moronic and causes more problems than it solves.

 

So if your religion thinks paying taxing is immoral, you should be allowed not to pay taxes without punishment? Or if your religion believes theft is moral, you should be allowed to rob convenience stores? Why not? "Religious freedom allows people to do many things not otherwise allowed." You said it yourself.

 

First, localities usually contract out trash pick up. They require that any contractor not discriminate and pick up everyone's trash.

Secondly, there are always other alternatives, such as hauling your trash to the dump yourself.

 

There are always conflicting rights. The baker who choose not to bake a cake for a gay marriage ceremony is actually having his freedom of association, his property rights and his religious freedom infringed upon.

No liberties are unlimited. You can not scream fire in a theatre.. But to infringe on the baker's basic liberties for something as inconsequential as a cake, which I am all but certain could have been purchased elsewhere, is a gross interference of the state in private affairs.

Goldwater was correct, and for the right reasons, when he voted against the civil rights act of 1964. Government should not interfere with a businessman's freedom of association, i.e. tell him who he can or cannot serve, emergency medical treatment being one of the few exceptions.

 

Manged to talk yourself into that circle.

So the dump can't refuse service?

 

Private or public dump?

If I wish to cater a party I can insist the caterer serve everyone I invite to the party. The caterer can choose to accept those terms are not. Pretty simple.

The fact is what I am suggesting is simply a nation without either Jim Crow or Protected Classes and was the general rule for much of the nation before the 1964 CRA.

 

What difference does it make if it is a public or private dump? Why do public businesses have to adhere to special rules?


If laws are created against that they may face criminal liability. And just by being a business that serves people they face civil liability.

 

The difference is individuals are entitled to equal protection under the law. Government should not be allowed to discriminate without a substantial state interest involved. Businesses should be allowed to discriminate.

 

Except if a public business wishes to discriminate.

Who the Hell is talking about government? I thought this was about businesses.

Unless they ate public? You just said they shouldn't. What on earth are you talking about?

Private business like clubs don't really have anything to worry about. Businesses that are open to the public are public.

This nut bag crazy libertarian (*)(*)(*)(*) is stupidity at its worst.

 

Obviously, I am dealing with someone who is poorly educated in political science here and can do little more than name calling so let me blog.

Social conservatives and modern liberals, who stole the term liberal from those who are now labeled libertarian, have one thing in common; they favor the use of coercion to instill their values on the populace.

The fact is in the case of a baker who does not wish to contribute his goods to a gay marriage ceremony our friends on the left believe a gay couples right to shop trumps religious freedom, the right of association and property rights. The fact is Jim Crow was a gross violation of the right of association and so are laws preventing business owners from discriminating. What us classical liberals believe is there should be certain rights that government cannot deny an individual. Social conservatives and liberals believe should be coerced to act in a manner consistent with the values of a tyrannical majority.

No one should lose their natural rights just because they hang a shingle on their door.

 

Clearly you have been defeated in argument, because you resort to ad hominem fallacy.

I only attacked libertarianism. Not you.

You suggested I was poorly educated because you fail at debate. This as hoc nonsense just proves it.

Boogeyman all around you huh?

The crap about religion is just poor defense. No religion requests that you don't sale baked goods to people you disagree with politically.

I actually agree with the above

Nobody did. You don't have the right to operate a business that serves the public.

 

That seems like a curious statement. Presumably a "natural right" would have existed to do whatever one likes with the product of their labor. The question to me seems to be more about whether this is a valid and acceptable restriction as part of the social contract, not whether or not it is a right in the first place. Arguably it makes sense that when one agrees to the social contract to be part of society, that the society expects equitable opportunity to be given to all parties. Without these protections, we have seen groups marginalized and not given full and equal benefit of being in society. This compromise respects both parties right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" with minimal restriction.

At least that's my take on it.

 

What some religious people do.

And that, btw is their right too.

The push back to gay union in the US, like a lot of progressive concepts, is fearsome to some people, usually the gun toting extremely conservative and militant Christian. The majority of Christians should should support it.

And gays and lesbians should be welcome not only in church services, but in all church activities, just as people who "live together" in violation of God's law, "thou shall not commit adultery", should be welcomed, and are.

I continue to make the point that God specifically ruled out ALL union outside of marriage, but makes NO direct reference in Law to same sex union.

We have to recognize too, that no one should be forced into commerce with someone for any reason. The objections to participating are valid, and should be recognized, especially over something as minor as a cake that can be obtained anywhere. For that matter the incident in Indiana was a farce I would have refused to cater pizza to a wedding on grounds of bad taste. Whoever wants catered pizza at a wedding should not be allowed to have a wedding party in the first place.

The problem results from a few things, one the US, is as usual about two decades behind the curve, same sex union has been legal here for over 15 years, and the intransigent nature of the polar extremes in US politics who refuse any form of compromise.

It is far easier to rail and stomp feet over gays and lesbians than actually do anything about the 500,000 illegals streaming across the southern border every year, or get a handle on run-away welfare costs, or make any real changes in the burning social issues on the nation.

Gays and lesbians in the US, are in the same position of blacks in the late 60's, they have rights, but exercising them freely is another matter

 

hmm, I suppose another way I could think about it is that while you may have a right to do as you wish with your labor, the other party also has a right to deny your service as they wish. And in this case, the "other party" is the public. This public has required under their social contract that services be provided equitably when you choose to serve the public. Thus you never had a right to serve the public in the first place, except under the terms that the public agreed to. This would be analogous to two individuals making an agreement in a state of nature, so this works I suppose.

 

I agree, well said.

 

If the cake is so inconsequential, then the baker should just bake it. Discrimination based on characteristics such as race or sexual orientation, however, is quite consequential. You are correct, no liberties are unlimited - hence why anti-discrimination laws exist.