New Kentucky Governor's Solution for Kim Davis

Renzatic

Suspended
Aug 3, 2011
9,531
10,029
0
Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
It must shock so many people to know that there are these laws...

Yep, a lot of people see it that way too, and that's fine. But there are some that do not, and do not want to be involved in a transaction that condones a ceremony that goes against their faith. They are entitled to decline to be part of such a transaction. That homosexual couple will easily find another baker or florist or photographer that thinks like you do and is willing to take their business.
No, they're not. You run a public business, you're required to serve the public. Period. Your religious or personal convictions don't override that fact. Gay people are members of the public, and therefore must be served, provided they're willing to pay, and aren't otherwise disrupting work.

If you really don't want to deal with those wily gays, then either open a club, or get out of business altogether.
 

Renzatic

Suspended
Aug 3, 2011
9,531
10,029
0
Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
That concept plays out now. Many Jewish delis don't serve pork products. Should a customer sue them for not serving a BLT?
If I go into a Jewish deli, I'll probably be disappointed by the lack of bacon products. But they'll still serve me what they do have.

This is a stupid analogy because no one has the right to force a business to offer anything beyond what they advertise. I can't go into McDonalds and demand they make me hibachi and sushi, for instance. People get what's on the menu. Nothing less, nothing more.

But if a gay couple walks into a wedding cake company and asks for a wedding cake, they get a wedding cake. They're not asking them to go above and beyond for them. Merely to do for them what they do for everyone else.
 

dec.

Suspended
Apr 15, 2012
1,322
747
0
Toronto
But it does impact many people. Kim Davis was just the latest and most prominent example.
Kim Davis refused to do her job as required by government. And no, there's no way even someone of your kind could spin it as part of a "gay agenda" :).

Not to mention any of the photographers, florists or bakers who have been sued or fined because they simply did not want to participate in a gay marriage ceremony.

So no, it by all means certainly does impact people.
Yes, you're right - it impacts people who act against existing discrimination laws (and who are not as """smart""" as "pggdgip")
 
  • Like
Reactions: WarHeadz

pdqgp

macrumors 68020
Mar 23, 2010
2,130
5,432
0
Yes, you're right - it impacts people who act against existing discrimination laws (and who are not as """smart""" as "pggdgip")
helps to live in a states that allows me to pick and choose if I want to photograph your wedding.
 

Renzatic

Suspended
Aug 3, 2011
9,531
10,029
0
Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
helps to live in a states that allows me to pick and choose if I want to photograph your wedding.
Photographers are basically contractors. You can pick and choose whatever you want for whatever reasons, provided they're not discriminatory. Which would be hard to prove anyway, so long as you don't say something stupid like "I ain't do no homo-hitchins'".

But a bakery is a retail entity. They have a store front, and they have to serve any normal customer who comes walking in through their door. And by normal, I mean someone who isn't walking in without shoes on, covered in dog crap or something.
 

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,408
0
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/07/07/bakery-owners-fined-135000-refusing-make-gay-wedding-cake

Yeah, no other negative impact. Right.



Yep, a lot of people see it that way too, and that's fine. But there are some that do not, and do not want to be involved in a transaction that condones a ceremony that goes against their faith. They are entitled to decline to be part of such a transaction. That homosexual couple will easily find another baker or florist or photographer that thinks like you do and is willing to take their business.
Might want to do a little research as your source left our about 97% of the whole story. smh
 

zin

macrumors 6502
May 5, 2010
488
6,419
0
United Kingdom
Not to them. They are being asked to provide services for a ceremony that goes against their religious convictions. Despite what you say or think about it, to them that's a form of participation, and they do not want to be involved with that. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp? To say otherwise shows that you know or feel nothing about people of faith. I guess for you and many others here, it's ok to have faith. Just don't do anything about it.
Do I get to refuse service because of the customer's status because of my non religious beliefs as well?
 

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
0
That concept plays out now. Many Jewish delis don't serve pork products. Should a customer sue them for not serving a BLT?
OMG. We've gone over this before. If they don't carry bacon, how could anybody demand they serve a BLT? By your logic, I should be able to go into a Jewish deli and demand they serve me Mexican food.

Once again, this is not about the product being sold to the customer, this is about denying service of a businesses' normal product to a customer simply because who the customer is.

How many times does this very simple, basic point need to be repeated?
 

zin

macrumors 6502
May 5, 2010
488
6,419
0
United Kingdom
That concept plays out now. Many Jewish delis don't serve pork products. Should a customer sue them for not serving a BLT?
No because they don't offer pork foods. That isn't a product they offer. To take bakers as an example, there is no difference between a "gay" wedding cake and a "straight" wedding cake. They are cakes. The denial of service arises because of the customer's status, not the product being offered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: citizenzen

zin

macrumors 6502
May 5, 2010
488
6,419
0
United Kingdom
Were all the people that boycotted South African goods during the Apartheid era just being silly? After all it would have been purely business as the south african companies were just providing a product and/or service.
I'm afraid I'm not sure I understand the point you're making.
 

Renzatic

Suspended
Aug 3, 2011
9,531
10,029
0
Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
No because they don't offer pork foods. That isn't a product they offer. To take bakers as an example, there is no difference between a "gay" wedding cake and a "straight" wedding cake. They are cakes. The denial of service arises because of the customer's status, not the product being offered.
Gay wedding cakes are ENTIRELY different. They sometimes have two chick or two dude figures on the top...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meister

steve knight

macrumors 68030
Jan 28, 2009
2,583
6,952
0
www.cncrouting.biz
when you break the law by posting the people that are suing you their info on your website including address and phone numbers you have broken the law. the fine was because they endangered the two people that were suing them not because they broke the law of discrimination. Now they are breaking law law by not paying it. wonderful examples of Christians there. all they had to do is say we don't want to do it and it would have been legal and done with but nope they had to throw their faith at the people and that was the problem.
 

zin

macrumors 6502
May 5, 2010
488
6,419
0
United Kingdom
Gay wedding cakes are ENTIRELY different. They sometimes have two chick or two dude figures on the top...
So different. It's as if the baker couldn't just put two male figurines on top instead of one.

Do homosexual wedding cakes taste different, too?
 

0007776

Suspended
Jul 11, 2006
6,474
8,051
0
Somewhere
I'm afraid I'm not sure I understand the point you're making.
You were saying it is silly to see a connection between providing a service at a gay wedding and supporting gay marriage. Back during the apartheid era people around the world boycotted South African goods because it supported the apartheid regime. What changed since that time that businesses that sold South African goods were supporting the government there, but now it is silly to see a connection between a business providing services and an idea?
 

pdqgp

macrumors 68020
Mar 23, 2010
2,130
5,432
0
when you break the law by posting the people that are suing you their info on your website including address and phone numbers you have broken the law. the fine was because they endangered the two people that were suing them not because they broke the law of discrimination. Now they are breaking law law by not paying it. wonderful examples of Christians there. all they had to do is say we don't want to do it and it would have been legal and done with but nope they had to throw their faith at the people and that was the problem.
lawsuites like this are public record. anyone wanting to gather their contact information could simply view the court entries. the law they broke was because Oregon is a state that protects against this type of discrimination.
 

Renzatic

Suspended
Aug 3, 2011
9,531
10,029
0
Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
lawsuites like this are public record. anyone wanting to gather their contact information could simply view the court entries. the law they broke was because Oregon is a state that protects against this type of discrimination.
And you think posting information on a website, drawing extra attention to those suing you, is somehow kosher because the info is freely available anyway?
 

zin

macrumors 6502
May 5, 2010
488
6,419
0
United Kingdom
You were saying it is silly to see a connection between providing a service at a gay wedding and supporting gay marriage. Back during the apartheid era people around the world boycotted South African goods because it supported the apartheid regime. What changed since that time that businesses that sold South African goods were supporting the government there, but now it is silly to see a connection between a business providing services and an idea?
It is silly. Providing a product or service in no way implies your personal endorsement for the customer. I'm still not getting the connection between what I wrote and what you wrote. You're comparing what was effectively a trade embargo to what I'm discussing, which is refusal of service based on the status of the customer.
 

zin

macrumors 6502
May 5, 2010
488
6,419
0
United Kingdom
I don't know if it's you or me who isn't catching the sarcasm, but I'm pretty sure something is flying over someone's head here.
I thought the italics would've made my comment appear sarcastic. Unless you weren't actually being sarcastic and sincerely remarked that the cakes really are different.
 

pdqgp

macrumors 68020
Mar 23, 2010
2,130
5,432
0
And you think posting information on a website, drawing extra attention to those suing you, is somehow kosher because the info is freely available anyway?
My point was that its not illegal. In the end if someone can't take that heat of a lawsuit then perhaps they shouldn't have entered the kitchen.
 

steve knight

macrumors 68030
Jan 28, 2009
2,583
6,952
0
www.cncrouting.biz
lawsuites like this are public record. anyone wanting to gather their contact information could simply view the court entries. the law they broke was because Oregon is a state that protects against this type of discrimination.
No it was because they endangered the suing party. there is plenty of info on this.
My point was that its not illegal. In the end if someone can't take that heat of a lawsuit then perhaps they shouldn't have entered the kitchen.
so it is ok to be a ******* when you are wrong huh? first the bakers suffered from stupidity because all they had to do is say we don't want to make a cake and legally they would have been fine. then they are *******s posting someones info on their webpage. then they beg for money then they choose to not spend that money on the fines. this is something you support?
 

pdqgp

macrumors 68020
Mar 23, 2010
2,130
5,432
0
No it was because they endangered the suing party. there is plenty of info on this.

so it is ok to be a ******* when you are wrong huh? first the bakers suffered from stupidity because all they had to do is say we don't want to make a cake and legally they would have been fine. then they are *******s posting someones info on their webpage. then they beg for money then they choose to not spend that money on the fines. this is something you support?
Has nothing to do with anyone supporting it. Again it's all public record.
 

tgara

macrumors 6502a
Jul 17, 2012
991
2,733
0
Connecticut, USA
It is silly. Providing a product or service in no way implies your personal endorsement for the customer. I'm still not getting the connection between what I wrote and what you wrote. You're comparing what was effectively a trade embargo to what I'm discussing, which is refusal of service based on the status of the customer.
This is where, again, you have it exactly backwards. This isn't zin-world. For these people, providing a product or service DOES imply their personal endorsement, and they want no part of it. You might not think so, but they do, and its their view that matters, not yours. You also have exactly backwards that the refusal of service is based on the status of the customer (e.g., these businesses do not want to serve gays). That is unequivocally NOT, and never has been, the case. They have no problem serving gays when they want birthday cakes or family photos or flowers for a birthday party. It's not the individuals that these businesses object to, it's the CEREMONY they are asked to service. You seem like a smart guy. Why do you not understand this?