chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
MarkDaSpark wrote:I didn't hear that (SYG was the reason) from the jurors, but I believe that the REAL reason was that they couldn't consider a lesser count (2nd degree) and could only consider 1st degree Murder. Which has a higher level of proof and requires premeditation.



According to this, jurors were allowed to consider the lesser charges.

"Jurors were also allowed to consider the lesser included charges Second Degree Murder and Manslaughter by Act, but the 12 person jury could not reach a unanimous verdict on any of those options."

I really don't understand why they couldn't convict on one of these. I guess one or more of the jurors really bought his story. It seems in Florida, all you have to say is that you were afraid. These clowns (Zimmerman, Dunn, movie theater guy) are doing more for any gun control agenda than the damn libruls ever could.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 174 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
chemvictim wrote:According to this, jurors were allowed to consider the lesser charges.

"Jurors were also allowed to consider the lesser included charges Second Degree Murder and Manslaughter by Act, but the 12 person jury could not reach a unanimous verdict on any of those options."

I really don't understand why they couldn't convict on one of these. I guess one or more of the jurors really bought his story. It seems in Florida, all you have to say is that you were afraid. These clowns (Zimmerman, Dunn, movie theater guy) are doing more for any gun control agenda than the damn libruls ever could.



Ah, I think the report I read was just after, and only included the "deadlock that could not be overcome on the First Degree Murder charge." Which made it sound like no other charges were considered.

Although it seems strange that they could convict on the 2nd degree Attempted Murder for the other 3, but not on the 2nd degree Murder charge.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
MarkDaSpark wrote:Also, the POINT I was trying to make, wasn't that I was linking them, but rather that the lamestream media was trying to use it. And that this particular Prosecutor seems to go out of their way to appease minorities.



Chem addressed the first part.

As for this part, you said that this DA (and the office) has a gun control agenda. You didn't mention minorities in your POINT () at all. Assuming we're dropping the "gun control agenda" point, what is the basis for your statement that this particular prosecutor (same specific prosecutor or same DA's office with the two cases?) tries to appease "minorities"? Just the instant case and the Z case?

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus

Thoughts on the AZ law to allow business owners to deny service to homosexuals?

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

rjquillin


quality posts: 169 Private Messages rjquillin
kylemittskus wrote:Thoughts on the AZ law to allow business owners to deny service to homosexuals?

So a business person can no longer "reserve the right to refuse service"
Now you're infringing on my rights, and you want to close me down?

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/tucson-pizzeria-we-reserve-the-right-to-refuse-service-to-arizona-legislators/politics/2014/02/21/83505

http://consumerist.com/2013/12/09/judge-tells-baker-you-cant-sell-wedding-cakes-only-to-straight-couples/

CT

klezman


quality posts: 119 Private Messages klezman
kylemittskus wrote:Thoughts on the AZ law to allow business owners to deny service to homosexuals?



The entire thing seems odd to me. Private businesses I thought, in general, could refuse service to anybody. I was unaware that there is some "obligation" to take any/all customers. It's bad business, sure, and there should be some businesses that can't discriminate (e.g. financial services)...but the whole argument seems strange to me.

On the other hand, I despise enshrining bigotry into law. On that ground alone I think Brewer should veto it. It'd also be interesting to see the situation where a business refuses to serve a divorced person because they're a Catholic business.

2014: 28 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Red Re-Mix
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

chipgreen


quality posts: 178 Private Messages chipgreen
rjquillin wrote:So a business person can no longer "reserve the right to refuse service"
Now you're infringing on my rights, and you want to close me down?

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/tucson-pizzeria-we-reserve-the-right-to-refuse-service-to-arizona-legislators/politics/2014/02/21/83505

http://consumerist.com/2013/12/09/judge-tells-baker-you-cant-sell-wedding-cakes-only-to-straight-couples/


Imagine how you or I would feel if we went to a restaurant and were told that they don't serve men with beards. I'd have to go all Billy Jack on 'em!

rjquillin


quality posts: 169 Private Messages rjquillin
chipgreen wrote:Imagine how you or I would feel if we went to a restaurant and were told that they don't serve men with beards. I'd have to go all Billy Jack on 'em!

I'm not endorsing either position, but there are eateries where a coat is required, and many have "no shoes no shirt" requirements.
How about a "you stink, stay out" sign?
How do you deal with those?

I had a store front business servicing professional audio equipment that also crossed over into some consumer gear. I did warranty service for over 50 manufacturers, and while there were times I wanted to not accept equipment, I was obligated to do so. However, for equipment no longer covered by warranty, there were times we would refuse to accept equipment for service for various reasons.
1) we had no service information and may be unable to procure components.
2) the equipment was just plain filthy and we wouldn't even touch it with a pressure washer.
3) we had done previous business with a customer and were unable to please, and didn't want a rerun. I ignored this once and ended up in small claims court; it was a draw.

None of these address lifestyle issues, and personally I don't much care what you do. As a business we provided service for clubs catering to all types of clientele without reservation. However, were the government to tell me I must provide services for someone or some entity I chose to avoid, now you are trying to run my business and I'll take issue with you.
Get your service and/or goods elsewhere.

CT

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus

I had two reactions when I first heard the story. Why the hell is such a law even necessary? And why the hell are those in favor of it using religion as their defense?

How on earth are we forcing private businesses* to provide a good or a service? Absurd.

If these "religious people"** don't want to serve homosexuals, that's fine. I will not support them and make their position known to others. Others can make their own decisions. The business will either survive, adapt, or die. Welcome to FREE MARKET.

*This is completely different from a "private business" that receives gvot' subsidies, assistance, or aid in any way. I'm reminded of hospitals that tried to use this argument to not perform abortions and not provide birth control.

**I really don't understand how this is a religious issue at all. Your religion (I assume Christianity) says you can't serve homosexuals. Huh? Seems easier and "truer" to say, "It's a free market. We're a private business. We'll serve who we want." The religious argument has no bearing on their rights, IMO. Their freedom as a business is 100% applicable, though.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

moondigger


quality posts: 11 Private Messages moondigger

On its face, the bill is bad for a variety of reasons (including the fact that it is overly broad), and if signed by Governor Brewer, will almost certainly be struck down. The parallels to Jim Crow laws are obvious.

But at the same time, I'm uncomfortable with the idea that the government should be compelling people to act against their will. It's messy, and the specifics matter.

For example, I don't think restaurants, hotels etc. should be able to turn people away simply because they are gay -- in the same way that they shouldn't be able to turn away somebody who's black.

But I'm not so sure that a photographer, for example, should be compelled to photograph a wedding he or she doesn't want to photograph. The photographer might well be a bigot or homophobe, but I don't see who benefits when that photographer is compelled to act against his/her will. The photographer's freedom to be a bigot is infringed. The couple getting married would probably be happier (and likely to get better results) going with a different photographer who has no aversion to doing the work.

Similarly, should a restaurant owner whose soldier son died in Afghanistan be required to accommodate a gathering of the Westboro Baptist church in his restaurant?

Should a black baker be compelled to bake a cake for a Klan rally?

I realize that last example is almost purely hypothetical, given that Klan members would be unlikely to patronize that bakery. But the point remains.

I guess the problem here is that both the law in question and the hypothetical opposite of that law can be applied in ways that are unjust.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
klezman wrote:The entire thing seems odd to me. Private businesses I thought, in general, could refuse service to anybody. I was unaware that there is some "obligation" to take any/all customers. It's bad business, sure, and there should be some businesses that can't discriminate (e.g. financial services)...but the whole argument seems strange to me.

On the other hand, I despise enshrining bigotry into law. On that ground alone I think Brewer should veto it. It'd also be interesting to see the situation where a business refuses to serve a divorced person because they're a Catholic business.



I'm not certain about this, but I think it depends on whether it's a protected class. Didn't this thing come about because somebody refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple? transporters.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
chemvictim wrote:I'm not certain about this, but I think it depends on whether it's a protected class. Didn't this thing come about because somebody refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple? transporters.



Not sure if the two are linked inherently, but that did happen.

I still don't understand the "protected" class thing. If I don't want to serve klez because he's a MOT, don't I have the right not to, assuming I'm a 100% independent and private business?

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

moondigger


quality posts: 11 Private Messages moondigger
kylemittskus wrote:
How on earth are we forcing private businesses* to provide a good or a service? Absurd.


Not completely absurd, though (as explained in my previous post) I agree with your point more than I disagree with it.

For example, I don't think a mall, restaurant or jewelry store (to pick three random examples) should be able to turn away customers based on their race or gender. Likewise, I don't think they should be able to turn away people they think (or know) are gay.

If these "religious people"** don't want to serve homosexuals, that's fine.


I mostly disagree there too. The Christian religious objection to homosexuality is to the homosexual acts themselves, not to simple business transactions like selling a gay man a soda or iPod. If you can't refuse to sell an iPod to somebody of a particular race, I don't think you should be allowed to refuse to sell that same iPod to somebody of a particular sexual orientation.

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
kylemittskus wrote:Not sure if the two are linked inherently, but that did happen.

I still don't understand the "protected" class thing. If I don't want to serve klez because he's a MOT, don't I have the right not to, assuming I'm a 100% independent and private business?



No, you don't have that right. And let's not get into circular arguments- a "protected class" is a group based on a characteristic upon which it's illegal to discriminate upon.

And to prevent the other circular argument- we have them because we believe in protecting people from the tyranny of the masses, and the "free market" most certainly hasn't always done the right thing in the past.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
mother wrote:No, you don't have that right. And let's not get into circular arguments- a "protected class" is a group based on a characteristic upon which it's illegal to discriminate upon.

And to prevent the other circular argument- we have them because we believe in protecting people from the tyranny of the masses, and the "free market" most certainly hasn't always done the right thing in the past.



I don't have the right to refuse service to anyone? I'm all about protecting people. That protection goes both ways. I don't like the idea that the govt can tell me who (and then who I can't) serve.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
kylemittskus wrote:I don't have the right to refuse service to anyone? I'm all about protecting people. That protection goes both ways. I don't like the idea that the govt can tell me who (and then who I can't) serve.



You can refuse service to anyone you want, as long as it is for a reason that legitimately has nothing to do with their membership in a protected class.

Rjq is allowed to do all those things he described. A restaurateur can refuse to serve someone who disturbs other customers, unless it disturbs them to see a cripple, or they hate veterans (baby killers you know...), or because that girl is pregnant (even if she's single! Shock!), etc...

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
kylemittskus wrote:I don't have the right to refuse service to anyone? I'm all about protecting people. That protection goes both ways. I don't like the idea that the govt can tell me who (and then who I can't) serve.



You can refuse to serve Klez because he acts up in your restaurant and rides his bicycle around in there, but you can't refuse to serve him because of his race, religion, sex, or nationality. Those are protected classes, bicyclists are not. At least that's my limited understanding of it. I had a short class about this stuff when I entered federal service, but it was a few years ago.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
mother wrote:You can refuse service to anyone you want, as long as it is for a reason that legitimately has nothing to do with their membership in a protected class.

Rjq is allowed to do all those things he described. A restaurateur can refuse to serve someone who disturbs other customers, unless it disturbs them to see a cripple, or they hate veterans (baby killers you know...), or because that girl is pregnant (even if she's single! Shock!), etc...



Huh. I'm not sure I like that, but if that's how it is, then I understand the purpose of the law. Homosexuals aren't currently a protected class according to the Constitution, although I absolutely think sexual orientation needs to be.

Edit: I still don't understand how this is a religious issue. And considering what you said above, bigotry seems to be this law's only reason for existence. Unless someone can point out how serving (or whatever) homosexuals is against whatever religion these people practice.

I say publish the names of the businesses trying to do this and the names of the politicians who signed it into play.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

dlschier


quality posts: 0 Private Messages dlschier
kylemittskus wrote:I say publish the names of the businesses trying to do this and the names of the politicians who signed it into play.



This bill is an ammendment to the Religious Freedom Reformation Act intended to provide protection against discrimination law suits. Aparently Arizona law makers are not happy with how courts are deciding these discrimination cases and feel a need to provide "religious protection".

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
dlschier wrote:This bill is an ammendment to the Religious Freedom Reformation Act intended to provide protection against discrimination law suits. Aparently Arizona law makers are not happy with how courts are deciding these discrimination cases and feel a need to provide "religious protection".



So we return to the seemingly never-ending question of which is more important: exclusionary religious beliefs or a person's civil rights or at least rights non-excluded people have regarding civil matters. (Some people don't think homosexual rights are civil rights which is stupid.)

In related news: what the F is wrong with AZ?

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

tytiger58


quality posts: 74 Private Messages tytiger58


In related news: what the F is wrong with AZ?



I think that should have been the first and last post on this subject.

What contemptible scoundrel stole the cork from my lunch? ~ W. C. Fields

“Freedom is something that dies unless it's used” Hunter S Thompson




klezman


quality posts: 119 Private Messages klezman
tytiger58 wrote:I think that should have been the first and last post on this subject.



Nice

Apparently I'm now a bicycle-riding MOT monkey who makes people uncomfortable in restaurants...

2014: 28 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Red Re-Mix
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

rjquillin


quality posts: 169 Private Messages rjquillin
klezman wrote:Nice

Apparently I'm now a bicycle-riding MOT monkey who makes people uncomfortable in restaurants...

Only if you want unenforced boarders, in AZ.

CT

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
rjquillin wrote:Only if you want unenforced boarders, in AZ.



You lost me. Please elaborate.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

rjquillin


quality posts: 169 Private Messages rjquillin
kylemittskus wrote:You lost me. Please elaborate.

Just stirring the pot referring back to the Holder/Reno (iirc) decision to block enacted AZ immigration laws because the the Fed weren't enforcing existing Fed law.
A quantum leap, excepting it was still in AZ.

CT

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
rjquillin wrote:Just stirring the pot referring back to the Holder/Reno (iirc) decision to block enacted AZ immigration laws because the the Fed weren't enforcing existing Fed law.
A quantum leap, excepting it was still in AZ.



Gotcha. I thought you were maybe talkig about their "carry proof you're legal in case you look Mexican" law that seems to fit under my "in related news" question.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

cmaldoon


quality posts: 62 Private Messages cmaldoon
mother wrote:You can refuse service to anyone you want, as long as it is for a reason that legitimately has nothing to do with their membership in a protected class.

Rjq is allowed to do all those things he described. A restaurateur can refuse to serve someone who disturbs other customers, unless it disturbs them to see a cripple, or they hate veterans (baby killers you know...), or because that girl is pregnant (even if she's single! Shock!), etc...



I fully agree with and endorse Mother's several posts on this subject.

These protected class laws help abate societal divisions and tensions in the long run as typically these divisions are taught. If suddenly it is illegal to divide by a certain criteria, fewer and fewer people learn to make that division and the whole populace slowly becomes more tolerant which hopefully keeps us all a lot more peaceful.

2014 - 20 Btl. Fjellene (10 bot), Urraca Chard (10 bot)
Last purchase: 5/3/14

2013 - 75 btl. 2012 - 98 btl. 2011 - 112 btl. 2010 - 30 btl.
My Cellar

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 174 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
kylemittskus wrote:Huh. I'm not sure I like that, but if that's how it is, then I understand the purpose of the law. Homosexuals aren't currently a protected class according to the Constitution, although I absolutely think sexual orientation needs to be.

Edit: I still don't understand how this is a religious issue. And considering what you said above, bigotry seems to be this law's only reason for existence. Unless someone can point out how serving (or whatever) homosexuals is against whatever religion these people practice.

I say publish the names of the businesses trying to do this and the names of the politicians who signed it into play.



It's obvious that you aren't religious at all. Which is why you can't fathom how much religion means to some people. As you couldn't during the medical discussion.


Religion is not something you can pick and choose which parts you believe in. It's a moral choice, whether or not you believe it's a bigoted one. Such intolerance for any belief different that your own!

According to some, homosexuality is anathema to their moral code. Much as murder, adultery, theft, lying, etc. That doesn't make it right, it just makes it part of their beliefs, just as some still believe in Obama.

So to them, having to bake a cake, photograph a "wedding", etc. is a violation of their Religious Civil Right. Yes, it is indeed a civil right (the " or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" part), based on the 1st Amendment. Gay Rights do not supersede anyone's Civil Rights.

While it may be a bad business decision, it is their choice to make, not the government's. However, I can't see most of those businesses that aren't small businesses participating in the controversy. It will be mostly the small, private businesses, the ones that usually do not receive any form of government handouts.


The point of the Constitution is protecting our freedoms, whether it is to be an Romulan or not. It was also to protect against a government (or leader) run amok.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 174 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
kylemittskus wrote:So we return to the seemingly never-ending question of which is more important: exclusionary religious beliefs or a person's civil rights or at least rights non-excluded people have regarding civil matters. (Some people don't think homosexual rights are civil rights which is stupid.)

In related news: what the F is wrong with AZ?



Religious Rights are indeed, Civil Rights, under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

Your civil rights are the same as my civil rights. Just because you disagree, doesn't make you right.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
MarkDaSpark wrote:
Religion is not something you can pick and choose which parts you believe in. It's a moral choice,


Obviously your definition of choice must differ from mine...

Regardless it's not a choice to be homosexual, have a particular skin color, (for the most part) be less than able bodied, in some cases be a veteran...

To put your "choice" above something someone else had no say in, that's pretty effed up IMHO.

To me it's clearly unconscionable to allow discriminate on the basis of such things. You all wanna debate protecting things like pregnancy, religion, or marital status? At least there would be something to debate there...

moondigger


quality posts: 11 Private Messages moondigger
MarkDaSpark wrote:Religious Rights are indeed, Civil Rights, under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.


I agree, and as I mentioned previously, I have a problem with the idea that the government might compel somebody to act contrary to their beliefs. (e.g., Force a photographer to shoot a wedding he/she doesn't want to shoot or face criminal charges.)

But I also believe there have to be common-sense limitations. Just because some religious people consider homosexuality to be sinful does not mean they should be allowed to discriminate indiscriminately. I am unaware of any religious prohibition against serving somebody dinner in a restaurant, selling them gasoline or groceries, etc. The Arizona bill basically gives people the right to deny any and all services to homosexuals.* It's blatant, Jim Crow-style bigotry enshrined into law.

*Technically, it's even broader than that, not even mentioning homosexuality in the wording of the law. Under this bill, somebody could claim they have a religious objection to serving meals to somebody of another race. Or that they have a religious objection to allowing women in their car dealership. It's ridiculously broad and I honestly don't understand how the legislators who drafted it and voted for it thought it valid.

Last night Brewer vetoed the bill anyway, citing how broadly it was written and talking about how it could have unintended negative consequences. So the entire thing is moot for now, at least until the AZ legislature comes up with another version of the bill or some other state takes up the cause. I thought I saw something recently about Georgia looking into a similar bill.

rjquillin


quality posts: 169 Private Messages rjquillin
kylemittskus wrote:Not sure if the two are linked inherently, but that did happen.

I still don't understand the "protected" class thing. If I don't want to serve klez because he's a MOT, don't I have the right not to, assuming I'm a 100% independent and private business?
klezman wrote:Nice

Apparently I'm now a bicycle-riding MOT monkey who makes people uncomfortable in restaurants...


Could we force a Muslim owned restaurant cater Klez' wedding?

[edit]
and would we really want to?

CT

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
rjquillin wrote:Could we force a Muslim owned restaurant cater Klez' wedding?



Apparently.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
MarkDaSpark wrote:Religious Rights are indeed, Civil Rights, under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

Your civil rights are the same as my civil rights. Just because you disagree, doesn't make you right.



Yes. Religious rights are civil rights. Any other uncontested points you care to argue? My point, that I plainly wrote, was that some people don't see homosexual rights as civil rights, thus complicating this issue. The fact that sexual orientation isn't a protected class makes it even worse, and is IMO, wrong.

Also, I'd like to make clear my "lack of understanding" about religion. I'm not the smartest guy in the room, but I have a fairly strong understanding of religious beliefs, especially Christian beliefs. And I want you and everyone to be able to have the freedom to choose your religion, unequivocally. To suggest otherwise is offensive and absurd.

What I do not "understand" -- and really, it's that I don't sympathize with such causes -- is when a group over-uses their "rights." For example, I think the wedding cake thing is unbelievably stupid. You're gay. I don't want to make your cake. Your solution is to force me to make your cake, thus giving me patronage, as if there aren't Nth more bakeries that would be happy to do so? Stupid.

Where you and I (and apparently most everyone else) differ is that you think your religious rights can and should be used to discriminate. You can think that, of course. But you would be wrong. "It's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion." I think it's freedom from discrimination and if you want to use your religion to do that, I think this is the wrong country for you.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

moondigger


quality posts: 11 Private Messages moondigger

Splitting hairs with a hypothetical:

Baker doesn't want to bake a wedding cake for a wedding at which Tom and Gary will be tying the knot. Say for the sake of argument that's okay, as it's contrary to baker's religious beliefs and people shouldn't be compelled to act against their sincerely held religious beliefs. Tom and Gary get their cake elsewhere.

A few months go by. Can baker subsequently refuse to bake a cake that says "Happy Birthday Martha," just because it is Gary who is ordering the cake?

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
MarkDaSpark wrote:It's obvious that you aren't religious at all. Which is why you can't fathom how much religion means to some people. As you couldn't during the medical discussion.


Religion is not something you can pick and choose which parts you believe in. It's a moral choice, whether or not you believe it's a bigoted one. Such intolerance for any belief different that your own!

According to some, homosexuality is anathema to their moral code. Much as murder, adultery, theft, lying, etc. That doesn't make it right, it just makes it part of their beliefs, just as some still believe in Obama.

So to them, having to bake a cake, photograph a "wedding", etc. is a violation of their Religious Civil Right. Yes, it is indeed a civil right (the " or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" part), based on the 1st Amendment. Gay Rights do not supersede anyone's Civil Rights.

While it may be a bad business decision, it is their choice to make, not the government's. However, I can't see most of those businesses that aren't small businesses participating in the controversy. It will be mostly the small, private businesses, the ones that usually do not receive any form of government handouts.


The point of the Constitution is protecting our freedoms, whether it is to be an Romulan or not. It was also to protect against a government (or leader) run amok.



I appreciate your thoughtful explanation. I must disagree that you can't pick and choose your religious beliefs, but I don't think that matters here.

I agree that everyone has the right to his own beliefs, but the free exercise of those beliefs absolutely is limited when it comes to how you interact with other people. It seems to me that the people on the wrong end of "free exercise" these days are women and homosexuals. The consequences of that can be merely inconvenient (someone won't fill my prescription or make my wedding cake), or devastating (denied or improper medical treatment).

I can empathize with someone who doesn't want to "participate" (however they define that) in another person's sinful activity. However, you have to balance that with the rights of other people. Having a religious belief doesn't make you King. It doesn't give you a free pass to harm others or disregard laws.

Imagine4vr


quality posts: 22 Private Messages Imagine4vr

The fact is that business's do have the right to refuse service. All the baker in NM need to have said was we are busy, cannot accept your business for this date and the couple would have found another baker and this whole point would be moot. It's when you specifically say, as these bakers did, that I won't serve you because you are homosexual that it becomes discriminatory and problematic.

dlschier


quality posts: 0 Private Messages dlschier
kylemittskus wrote:What I do not "understand" -- and really, it's that I don't sympathize with such causes -- is when a group over-uses their "rights." For example, I think the wedding cake thing is unbelievably stupid. You're gay. I don't want to make your cake. Your solution is to force me to make your cake, thus giving me patronage, as if there aren't Nth more bakeries that would be happy to do so? Stupid.



Over use their rights?? Be real. No one will be forced to do anything. They may get sued (if there is any anti discrimination law to base a suit on) but not "forced to make a cake". These cases are brought to try and stamp out discrimination, not because the cake is so good.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
moondigger wrote:A few months go by. Can baker subsequently refuse to bake a cake that says "Happy Birthday Martha," just because it is Gary who is ordering the cake?



I am very uncomfortable with the govt forcing a business to do something that doesn't involve extreme circumstances (hospitals and death, for example). Imagine is right, though. Say "we're too busy" and the problem is solved.

I think I have decided I'm fine with a business not serving someone. I'm not fine with discriminatory law.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

dlschier


quality posts: 0 Private Messages dlschier
Imagine4vr wrote:The fact is that business's do have the right to refuse service. All the baker in NM need to have said was we are busy, cannot accept your business for this date and the couple would have found another baker and this whole point would be moot. It's when you specifically say, as these bakers did, that I won't serve you because you are homosexual that it becomes discriminatory and problematic.



Is that your advice to dodge the Civil Rights Act also?