1267 replies to this topic

[Zimbochick]

The current Pope is one of the few religious leaders with an impressive education. That leaves many of the faithful in a quandry as they don't care for edumacation.

[artcinco]

Best part is the left seizes his Global Warming pronouncements and then ignores his pro-life ones.

[Mr. Roboto]

Best part is the left seizes his Global Warming pronouncements and then ignores his pro-life ones.

 

Well you could argue that addressing global warming is "pro life". 

 

And I also liked Wham! so obviously your post is bunk.

 

 

[artcinco]

Wake me up before you go all encyclical on me. ;-) 

[Mr. Roboto]

This stupid fat fuck again. 

 

I won't lie, hearing him talk makes me want to punch him in the jaw as hard as possible. 

 

[freedom78]

Wow. 

[Mr. Roboto]

He's "reading right from the scriptures"

 

Turn around and go the other way....says the guy who is against gun control. 

 

[artcinco]

'Minion of Satan' asks to give invocation in Lake County

[Mr. Roboto]

Muslim truck drivers refuse to deliver beer, win $240,000 lawsuit

[PERM BANNED]

y

[freedom78]

So I guess bakeries can now deny wedding cakes to gay couples. Never mind, I forgot the truck drivers were Muslim. I keep forgetting islam's special status at the altar of liberalism.

 

A bit of a non sequitur, here.  There is a fundamental difference between offering a public service and not being able to discriminate as to which members of the public it serves (such as a bakery selling its goods to homosexuals or a hospital treating people of all races) and, on the other hand, an employer's requirement to largely respect the religious beliefs of its employees.  Do you really think that only Muslim religious beliefs are honored?  Has a Jewish employee never asked off for Yom Kippur?  Never?  Never ever ever?  Does nearly every employer, including the entire government, not close for Christmas?  If anything, we make enormous efforts to structure our economy around Christian religious beliefs.  Very few of us are asked to work on Christmas or Easter. 

 

I wouldn't argue that religious beliefs always trump businesses' needs.  For example, if these Muslim truck drivers weren't hauling goods generally, but specifically worked for a beer distributor, then I'd argue that their religious objections are moot, since they chose to work for that specific type of company.  Or, for a smalle business, such as that ultra frightening bakery that sells cakes to gays, if the one person on staff that day religiously objects to handing a cake to a gay person, then I'd say that's too bad, as the business shouldn't be burdened with paying extra people just in case you object to something you're asked to do.  But for a big shipping company, this is easy to accommodate...and instaed they chose to fire people.

[PERM BANNED]

y

[freedom78]

Bakers may be private citizens, but they offer a public service and, as such, are not permitted to discriminate in who they offer that service to.  Now, if a Christian bakery is opened that charges a membership fee and is selective in its clientele, then that would be different.  It's the exact same principle that says, for example, that a golf course open to the public cannot deny someone their service on the basis of their personal characteristics, while a private course with a membership and annual cost can discriminate however they like.

 

Since you believe it's a viable use of 1st Amendment rights to open a bakery that refuses to sell to homosexuals, while selling to all other people, do you also accept the principle that then all such businesses, indeed all businesses of any type, anywhere, can do the same?  I would assume that someone so adamant about applying 1st Amendment protections to our discrimination would also want to apply the principle of Equal Protection.  Under such a principle, if it's permissable for a single business to discriminate, then it's equally permissable for ALL businesses to discriminate.  And that's the standard we have to use when judging such actions.  While someone who has to "walk [their] ass down the street" to a different baker may only suffer minimal hurt, by legalizing discrimination in public services we are opening the door to a renewal of segregation (racial or otherwise).  Who's to say that the next bakery doesn't discriminate similarly?  Who's to say that they can't ALL discriminate similarly?  Should a group of people be isolated and prevented from purchasing/receiving any particular public service because everyone who provides it discriminates?  Because, if you allow one to do so then you MUST treat all others equally and allow them to do the same.  The principle isn't whether one bigoted baker is harmful but whether allowing discrimination in service is harmful, which it is.

 

Additionally, can you conceive of no situation where someone can't just "walk their ass down the street"?  What if a business is the only one of that type in a town, as would be the case in many small towns.  Do you feel the same if the harm gets larger?  What if it's the only pharmacy or doctor in a small town?  Should a doctor or pharmacy, both of which are undoubtedly more important and necessary than a bakery, be able to discriminate based on race, sex, religion, sexuality?  Or, according to your post, should they only be able to discriminate against gays, since they lack "protected status" (as if the same didn't apply to racial groups at one point...)?

 

Yes, the bakers are private citizens.  In their thoughts and deeds as private citizens they can be as bigoted as they please and I will defend their right to do so, so long as they do not ham others.  But in business, even privately owned, they offer services to the public at large and in taking the stance that you are, you're essentially making the case for the legality of segregated facilities in public life.

[PERM BANNED]

t

[freedom78]

And just as hospitals have a legal obligation, so too do all facilities available to the public.  If your position is that this is somehow legal, it is not.  And businesses still have enormous freedom to discriminate due to our actions.  A business that stands by "No shirt, no shoes, no service" can demand certain levels of conduct from its patrons and I don't know anyone who takes issue with that.  However, being straight or white or male or Christian isn't about conduct but about your personal characteristics.  While "no shirt,no shoes, no service" seems reasonable to most, I know of almost no one who would find the notion of a sign reading "no blacks, no gingers, no gays, no women" to be in keeping with even the most minimal standards of our notion of an equal society.