GOP lawmaker: “Businesses should be allowed to turn away people of color”

[Economy 52,861]

6 minutes ago, M Monstre said:

They can be put on the same exact level though.

Being attracted to someone of the same sex has the exact same effect as being a different skin color: both of them are not directly affecting you. You could use that argument with people of color. As recently as the 60s and 70s black people were being beaten and kicked out of restaurants because of their skin color. White people didn't want to contribute to people who were different from them. Obviously in that scenario, because of their conservative and religious upbringing, they felt like they didn't need to serve POC. Are we going to commend them for that now? Absolutely not. 

 

Its not the same tho...

 

What ur describing is literally not wanting to serve them as people. People who are racist like in the 60s wouldn't want to serve a black person anything

 

In this case, u do not know if he doesn't want dealings with homosexuals in general. For all we know he could sell them any other product and not care but in this case it's a specific event that he doesn't agree with

 

The racism ur taking about is literally the person as whole on everything

 

This case refers to being involved with a specific part of a person's life he doesn't agree with it doesn't prove that he refuses to have dealings with homosexuals as a whole

 

Its not quite the same

 

Not wanting to be involved in a specific action or Avenue of someone's life and not accepting a personal for their race is not the same at all in the slightest

 

However if he has these issues I don't get running a business like this

[Economy 52,861]

9 minutes ago, PartySick said:

But by allowing that person to turn away members of the LGBTQ community, are we not infringing on their right to be given service? I mean, if they were being belligerent, refusing to pay, stealing, etc then yeah, turn them away but "they're gay, I'm not serving them" seems pretty messed up.

Imo, the rights of a human being supersede the rights of someone else's stance/opinion.

Yeah, but they're baking a cake, not marrying the couple

They don't have to be a part of the ceremony, they don't have to attend, they don't have to be personally involved at all. Just bake a cake, send the cake, be paid for the cake, and move on with life.

If their religion is THAT important to them, then they need to open a church, not a bakery.

Edit: Besides, the Bible verses these people quote are taken out of context purely to "justify" their own bigotry and homophobia. It's not their religious right to turn away a gay customer, it's their personal privilege due to the abuse of the U.S.' religious liberty.

Look ur missing my point. I'm not saying they should of denied them

 

I was just saying it's not quite on the same level

 

It would be on the same level if he didn't want gays in his store (like I don't want blacks in my store) or if he refused to sell them cakes in general. Let's say he found out a gay man bought a cake for his birthday and hated gays so much he didn't want to sell them a cake for being gay

 

That would be the same thing as not wanting to serve someone for being black because u literally hate their essence

 

We do not know if he is discriminating to the point of not serving LGBT in general or if it was just in the situation of a wedding where that's a specific part of a person's life he doesn't agree with

 

That's why I'm saying it's not quite on the same level.

 

That doesn't mean I'm defending him. Saying 3rd degree murder or manslaughter due to carelessness is not the same doesn't mean the manslaughter is ok in my books

 

[REALITY 80,166]

6 minutes ago, Economy said:

Its not the same tho...

 

What ur describing is literally not wanting to serve them as people. People who are racist like in the 60s wouldn't want to serve a black person anything

 

In this case, u do not know if he doesn't want dealings with homosexuals in general. For all we know he could sell them any other product and not care but in this case it's a specific event that he doesn't agree with

 

The racism ur taking about is literally the person as whole on everything

 

This case refers to being involved with a specific part of a person's life he doesn't agree with it doesn't prove that he refuses to have dealings with homosexuals as a whole

 

Its not quite the same

 

Not wanting to be involved in a specific action or Avenue of someone's life and not accepting a personal for their race is not the same at all in the slightest

 

However if he has these issues I don't get running a business like this

If he won't accept a marriage between two men, then that's being directly homophobic. Perhaps the sit-ins example was too exaggerated, but it's a matter of principle. It's the fact that he won't serve them just because of who they are. That being said, racist people are brought upon conservative and religious values. You cannot deny that religion played a huge part in racism, especially back in the 60s and 70s when liberal counterculture movements started to form, and white Christians were wanting to "preserve their conservatism."

It's true that this isn't the only thing he will decline though. I've heard that he won't do adult-themed cakes or Halloween cakes, and to me, those are separate issues. Having an adult-themed or Halloween themed cake is not contingent upon denying someone service because of who they fundamentally are.

 

[REALITY 80,166]

18 minutes ago, PartySick said:

But by allowing that person to turn away members of the LGBTQ community, are we not infringing on their right to be given service? I mean, if they were being belligerent, refusing to pay, stealing, etc then yeah, turn them away but "they're gay, I'm not serving them" seems pretty messed up.

Imo, the rights of a human being supersede the rights of someone else's stance/opinion.

Yeah, but they're baking a cake, not marrying the couple

They don't have to be a part of the ceremony, they don't have to attend, they don't have to be personally involved at all. Just bake a cake, send the cake, be paid for the cake, and move on with life.

If their religion is THAT important to them, then they need to open a church, not a bakery.

Edit: Besides, the Bible verses these people quote are taken out of context purely to "justify" their own bigotry and homophobia. It's not their religious right to turn away a gay customer, it's their personal privilege due to the abuse of the U.S.' religious liberty.

1

Nothing could ever be more right 

In the same chapter that supposedly condemns homosexuality, it also condemns eating shellfish, men cutting their hair, and getting tattoos, yet bigoted people will always point out the fact that it says, "BUT GOD SAID HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN!!"

[rumours 45,521]

11 minutes ago, PartySick said:

But by allowing that person to turn away members of the LGBTQ community, are we not infringing on their right to be given service? I mean, if they were being belligerent, refusing to pay, stealing, etc then yeah, turn them away but "they're gay, I'm not serving them" seems pretty messed up.

Imo, the rights of a human being supersede the rights of someone else's stance/opinion.

While it indeed seems pretty messed up, there’s a legitimate legal argument on the side of the baker (in the above example) based on current law. I actually predicted the guy was gonna win the case. 

17 minutes ago, PartySick said:

Yeah, but they're baking a cake, not marrying the couple

The man (and his lawyer) actually framed their argument in a pretty smart way. They claimed that baking a specialized cake was an art form (which to be fair it is). Therefore, laws mandating he bake them the cake would not only defy his religious rights (glorifying something he deems “immoral”) but also his right to personal artistic expression. 

[Reginald 13,841]

Where the hell is Azealia Banks when we actually NEED a good drag???? 

[Economy 52,861]

Just now, M Monstre said:

If he won't accept a marriage between two men, then that's being directly homophobic. Perhaps the sit-ins example was too exaggerated, but it's a matter of principle. It's the fact that he won't serve them just because of who they are. That being said, racist people are brought upon conservative and religious values. You cannot deny that religion played a huge part in racism, especially back in the 60s and 70s when liberal counterculture movements started to form, and white Christians were wanting to "preserve their conservatism."

It's true that this isn't the only thing he will decline though. I've heard that he won't do adult-themed cakes or Halloween cakes, and to me, those are separate issues. Having an adult-themed or Halloween themed cake is not contingent upon denying someone service because of who they fundamentally are.

 

Ok maybe I can give an example of how I meant that it's not quite on the same level

 

A racist who doesn't wanna serve someone because they are black probably won't wanna serve a black person anything period because they literally hate them just for their race and nothing else

 

In this case, someone could disagree with the homosexuality part of someone's life and not wanna sell a cake for an event that is celebrating the union they don't agree... But he could perhaps still sell gays a birthday cake and not be bothered by it

 

If he didn't want to have any business with someone just because they are gay then we can put it on the exact same level we were talking about but we don't have the information to say this is the case with him

 

For example I know a lot of Jehovah's witnesses because my boss is one and hires them and I have family who is... They do not agree with homosexuality but they also strongly out emphasis on respecting other individuals and treating them right.

 

If any of them that I know we're asked to make a cake for that event specifically they may also be reluctant but the majority of them would be ok with providing any other type of service for the gays because it's not the person itself but rather a specific part of a person's life

 

I'm not defending discrimination. I'm just pointing out there's several different degrees of it. I wouldn't say it's "exactly the same" in the context we were speaking in

[Economy 52,861]

6 minutes ago, M Monstre said:

Nothing could ever be more right 

In the same chapter that supposedly condemns homosexuality, it also condemns eating shellfish, men cutting their hair, and getting tattoos, yet bigoted people will always point out the fact that it says, "BUT GOD SAID HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN!!"

If I'm not mistaken the rule of no haircutting for men was only for men that held a specific position in God's service as some kind of symbolism... not for men in general

 

Correct me if I'm wrong tho

[CautiousLurker 19,709]

33 minutes ago, M Monstre said:

Nothing could ever be more right 

In the same chapter that supposedly condemns homosexuality, it also condemns eating shellfish, men cutting their hair, and getting tattoos, yet bigoted people will always point out the fact that it says, "BUT GOD SAID HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN!!"

Doesn't the bible say something along the lines of 'no man shall lay with another' or something? Was homosexual marriage ever mentioned specifically? Cuz if not, I mean, how did the baker know if those two were actually laying together - as far as he knew, they were just getting married 

[REALITY 80,166]

29 minutes ago, Economy said:

Ok maybe I can give an example of how I meant that it's not quite on the same level

 

A racist who doesn't wanna serve someone because they are black probably won't wanna serve a black person anything period because they literally hate them just for their race and nothing else

 

In this case, someone could disagree with the homosexuality part of someone's life and not wanna sell a cake for an event that is celebrating the union they don't agree... But he could perhaps still sell gays a birthday cake and not be bothered by it

 

If he didn't want to have any business with someone just because they are gay then we can put it on the exact same level we were talking about but we don't have the information to say this is the case with him

 

For example I know a lot of Jehovah's witnesses because my boss is one and hires them and I have family who is... They do not agree with homosexuality but they also strongly out emphasis on respecting other individuals and treating them right.

 

If any of them that I know we're asked to make a cake for that event specifically they may also be reluctant but the majority of them would be ok with providing any other type of service for the gays because it's not the person itself but rather a specific part of a person's life

 

I'm not defending discrimination. I'm just pointing out there's several different degrees of it. I wouldn't say it's "exactly the same" in the context we were speaking in

I understand what you're saying, but once again, this is rooted in who someone fundamentally is. I understand that he may not want to bake them a wedding cake, but then offer something else, but this issue is deeper than a simple, "I won't bake you that, but I'll bake you something else."

I realize that we have to respect people's religious freedoms, and that's definitely something we should do, but when it starts negatively impacting other people's lives and starts making them feel less than, then I think that's crossing the line.

He's not beating them or kicking them out, absolutely not, but could you imagine having someone refuse to you because of who you are? That's the underlying principle. 

[REALITY 80,166]

31 minutes ago, Economy said:

If I'm not mistaken the rule of no haircutting for men was only for men that held a specific position in God's service as some kind of symbolism... not for men in general

 

Correct me if I'm wrong tho

I don't know specifically, but regardless, other points like not eating shellfish or not getting tattoos seem ridiculous when you see that religious, bigoted folks aren't willing to argue those points but are more than willing to argue those against homosexuality.

3 minutes ago, CautiousLurker said:

Doesn't the bible say something along the lines of 'no man shall lay with another' or something? Was homosexual marriage ever mentioned specifically? Cuz if not, I mean, how did the baker know if those two were actually laying together - as far as he knew, they were just getting married 

They don't mention gay marriage specifically, but the Bible does say something in the vain of "a man should leave his family and join a woman." Actually, the whole "homosexuality is a sin" thing is largely blown out of proportion. From the looks of it, it would seem like every other page condemns it, but the Bible only really takes about it a handful of times. 

[Whispering 18,865]

Do people realize a wedding cake is simply a multi-layered cake or a donut cake or a multitude of choices. Nowadays, they aren't all white with icing flowers. It's not like a baker is going to make a wedding cake with two guys or girls having sex on the front or write "Happy Gay Wedding" on it. Lol

 

[Whispering 18,865]

3 hours ago, Rumours1977 said:

While it indeed seems pretty messed up, there’s a legitimate legal argument on the side of the baker (in the above example) based on current law. I actually predicted the guy was gonna win the case. 

The man (and his lawyer) actually framed their argument in a pretty smart way. They claimed that baking a specialized cake was an art form (which to be fair it is). Therefore, laws mandating he bake them the cake would not only defy his religious rights (glorifying something he deems “immoral”) but also his right to personal artistic expression. 

There's a difference between creating gay art and creating art for gays. If this couple comes into a shop and chooses a cake design that the baker has available to any couple and there's no distinctive gender elements either way and the baker refuses, then the baker is discriminating against gay people. If the gay couple proposes a cake design that depicts two grooms embracing, for example, or even their names, then the baker could claim the "creating gay art" argument. 

A wedding cake is typically just a cake. It isn't "gay or straight".  

[Economy 52,861]

8 hours ago, M Monstre said:

I don't know specifically, but regardless, other points like not eating shellfish or not getting tattoos seem ridiculous when you see that religious, bigoted folks aren't willing to argue those points but are more than willing to argue those against homosexuality.

They don't mention gay marriage specifically, but the Bible does say something in the vain of "a man should leave his family and join a woman." Actually, the whole "homosexuality is a sin" thing is largely blown out of proportion. From the looks of it, it would seem like every other page condemns it, but the Bible only really takes about it a handful of times. 

I mean some religions won't get tattoos either

 

My boss who's a witness (and like 15 of the other employees where I work) won't get tattoos either

 

I get what ur saying about cherry picking that many ppl tho tho

[Economy 52,861]

8 hours ago, M Monstre said:

I understand what you're saying, but once again, this is rooted in who someone fundamentally is. I understand that he may not want to bake them a wedding cake, but then offer something else, but this issue is deeper than a simple, "I won't bake you that, but I'll bake you something else."

I realize that we have to respect people's religious freedoms, and that's definitely something we should do, but when it starts negatively impacting other people's lives and starts making them feel less than, then I think that's crossing the line.

He's not beating them or kicking them out, absolutely not, but could you imagine having someone refuse to you because of who you are? That's the underlying principle. 

I know I know. I wasn't saying that fundamentally it shows what he thinks

 

Its just that when someone said "why are people more sore over racism than this" I was trying to point out there's a bit of a difference

 

Cuz extreme racists who dont want blacks in their shop don't want to serve them period cuz they are black

 

But In this case he could be one of those people that will respect them in general over all despite not agreeing with homosexuality and only refuse if a service is for that nature specifically

 

Maybe because I know so many religious people personally in my family and work I'm more used to seeing the difference

 

Most of them if they don't agree with some aspect of a person's life (it doesn't apply only to homosexuality btw) they won't want to get involved with whatever aspect they don't approve of but then other than that they treat you and respect you overall

 

With The type of racism that was being described you would not get that

 

That's why in my opinion it's not quite the same thing