No body is passing a law, the law has been on the books for decades, and not because a few crappy small business owners refused to participate in a gay wedding. Your argument is starting to leak water.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Judge Orders Colorado Bakery to Cater for Same-Sex Weddings
- Thread starter CrazyDude
- Start date
- Status
No body is passing a law, the law has been on the books for decades, and not because a few crappy small business owners refused to participate in a gay wedding. Your argument is starting to leak water.
Sir Garbageman
Member
I can't find the link but I'm 99% sure that a website called this place requesting cakes to celebrate Wiccan ceremonies, divorces, solstice pagan events, etc. and they said yes to all of them.
So yea they are hypocrites on top on being bigots.
So yea they are hypocrites on top on being bigots.
Especially businesses. Businesses have to be forced to do the right thing on a regular basis.
biggersmaller
Banned
So, because of utilities and the post office you think I shouldn't have the right to refuse a sale to a KKK member? A Nazi? A rapist?
I mean, as a white straight man - why should it bother me? Hell, I guess our shitty society also wouldn't look down on me if they were my only customers as most people aren't directly impacted by white power groups or rape.
Not picking sides here, but...
http://www.thenewamerican.com/cultu...oses-over-owners-refusal-to-serve-gay-wedding
ab.aeterno
Member
No I swear guys, if we give businesses free reign there's no way they would fuck people over, because it's immoral, and that's always stopped people before!
If you need me, I'll be sequestering the best and brightest in my not-a-commune, trying to figure out how to run large scale manufacturing businesses without any of the large workforce we just left behind.
If they'd rather close down then operate within the law, they deserve to be closed down.
So fucking what? Why do I care about that? And what does it have to do with the argument that minority rights to do business need protecting?
From the link:
To this I say REALLY?
Really? The homosexual lobby?
Who gives a shit that he did it gently? It's still illegal.
Nice source, not biased at all.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
Just for the record, The New American is the media tentacle of the John Birch Society.
Let's point at pa22word and laugh.
Let's point at pa22word and laugh.
Because you guys basing your argument on the notion that the market wouldn't drive them from business isn't true?
Look, I agree that civil rights laws need to be on the books and that libertarianism is kind of a joke, but you guys jumping down his throat over something that isn't really true isn't right. Use a better argument is all I'm saying, because the notion that the market will drive them from business is one that is indeed based in reality and backed by precedence, not something that exists in some fairyland fantasy world concocted by that poster like some of you were heinously suggesting.
EDIT: And what the hell does the source matter? I just used the first link for the story that popped up in google.
The point is the you guys jumping on his back for "fantasy world bullshit" isn't really fair when what he's saying has basis in reality.
False equivalency.
They decided to close down.
Being driven from business here would simply mean that they went bankrupt.
Live Free or Die
Banned
Well said.
3 of the 5 incidents mentioned in the article you linked were resolved thru lawsuits or government investigations followed with threats of fines. Meaning those cases were completely dependent on there being anti-discrimination laws on the books. The same for the business owner in the OP who has been given an ultimatum by a judge. So it seems it does take the law to enforce equality.
It didn't. They decided to close the business since they couldn't legally discriminate. The legal investigation continues. They may claim they couldn't do business, but they have claimed a lot of bullshit over the last year or so. Not believing a word that comes form their mouth, or a source that editorialises in the middle of 'news reporting' and includes suppositions in the story as facts.
They were driven from business because they could no longer operate in the market due to their fucked up beliefs. Whether it was purely via lost business or LGBT rights activists working against them to close off avenues that resulted in fubar'd and untenable profit margins is kinda irrelevant because those other businesses chose that doing business with them was more of a risk than not.
False. There are plenty of ways one can be driven from business, bankruptcy is only one of those options.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
It's a shit article from a shit source that happens to be the media front of one of America's most stablished far right organizations. Its ridiculous ultraconservative slant (HOMOSEXUAL LOBBY) should be apparent from the get go, but you found it legitimate and used it as counterargument.
Did you actually read the article you posted? It was the most bullshit propaganda I have read in a while. Use a better source.
The very article you linked, bullshit as it is, proves that we need the force of law to get private businesses to adhere to modern social standards or suffer consequences. The law provides the force for consequences, not the imagined goodness of collective human beings.
Jesus christ people, this was a huge story on here a while back and (for the second time!!!) I just used the first link that popped up on google. Proof:
There's like 6-8 different articles beneath that run the same headline.
I just used the first source. Again, I JUST USED THE FIRST SOURCE. I'm not some bigoted asshole like some of you are trying to insinuate or something, yeesh.
citation needed
not from that link, tho
Well sure, maybe they can close down long before bankruptcy if they see the business slowing down, but in this case they decided to close down before being forced to serve gay customers.
edit: they didn't close down though.
They are still operating from home.
So they weren't driven from the market after all.
I'm not saying you chose it intentionally, but it is a terrible source. You can't just use the first source, you have to use a good source.Jesus christ people, this was a huge story on here a while back and (for the second time!!!) I just used the first link that popped up on google. Proof:
There's like 6-8 different articles beneath that run the same headline.
I just used the first source. Again, I JUST USED THE FIRST SOURCE. I'm not some bigoted asshole like some of you are trying to insinuate or something, yeesh.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
The crux of the matter is that you used a terribly prejudiced article as rebuttal. Either your reading comprehension sucks or you agreed with it. In any case, the joke is on you.
This doesn't make any sense. They aren't being punished for an opinion, they're being punished for an action. Denial of service.
If they had baked the cake and said "May god forgive you" or something, that would be an opinion and something that would be allowed.
Or I just opened the first link, scanned it to make sure it was the right story, then posted it.
But sure I definitely agree with the article, you know, despite me saying I don't several times now and that I simply used that link because it was the first thing to pop up?
Check one of the other 20 articles on the same thing then.
They can't keep an open business due to their hateful opinions and actions.
I'd say they were driven from the market is an accurate statement. Whether or not they can still sell a few pies here and there to the rest of their church congregation doesn't really make them an operational business.
Look, it's a shit article that doesn't prove anything. Read it properly then think about whether that article backs up what your are trying to say. Because at the moment, it doesn't.
Again, you can't just use the first article just because it is the first article. It doesn't mean shit except that it is popular.
Even if we accepted that the market would drive these business out (the bakery is still operating), why should the minority have the burden of driving these business out? The state is correct in protecting them by making this "burden" just putting a complaint on the respective gov department, instead of having to create a whole movement and protest against the offending business.
They are still operating. End of story.
They are still operating. End of story.
And I agree and stated as much above, but the fact that some of you are trying to insinuate I'm a bigot because of it are kind of insane. Which is why I felt the need to point out multiple times that I simply used it because it was the first thing that popped up. It was an honest mistake, not some attempt to "push dat radical fundamentalist conservitology" on you guys or something.
Again: I'm not saying or even implying that civil rights laws shouldn't be on the books. Just saying you guys giving the other guy shit for living in a fantasy world is a little disingenuous here. Did the formal complaint filed help smooth the way and expose them for the fucks that they are? Sure, but once exposed the market did indeed reject them, and now they're relegated to operating out of their homes as more of a hobby than an actual business. So saying 'ol boy up there was full of shit and living in a fantasy world again, is just a little disingenuous.
And that's fine, but that is actually the first time you have acknowledged it is not a good source as far as I can see, all I see is defensive posts about how it was the first article. I may have missed your acknowledgement though.
They're certainly not forced to operate a business in the state of Colorado.
But they weren't driven out of business. Their facebook page still shows marriage cakes made in november.
So in the real world, there is still a bakery there that won't take business from gay couples.
Let's say that there wasn't a law against this and everything else was equal.
In a few years they'd recover, change the business name and would be operating again. So again, the minorities would have the burden of boycotting them again. And they are minorities; they not necessarily may be as "successful" as they were this time.
They are free to discriminate when not running a state sanctioned business and using taxpayer funded resources. They are free to move elsewhere, which seems to be a common reply to people who don't like particular states laws.
Random Painted HIghway
Member
Easy decision by the judge based on the lawsof Colorado. When you get those business permits you agree to follow the laws of the jurisdiction, end of story. Besides which, Baking a cake is not participating or promoting a lifetime of sin. Wtf.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Welcome to equality, you have to serve them, QQ more. And lol @ bringing a rapist into the equation as if you know a rapist when you see one. Fuck outta here with this bullshit.
Which is exactly why your opinion and your statements are dumb, horrible and not worth reading. Nor do your posts contirbute anything because it's clear you're one of those "it doesn't bother me /shrug" type people. These issues clearly mean jackshit to you because you were luckily born a straight white privileged male. You're clearly wearing your privilege on your shoulder and I'm fine with that, be out of touch all you want, just know that your views on this are horrible, and nonsensical; and people are like you are the reason we have the very laws that annoy you.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
Weren't those protests so that black people would get the right to sit at the counter? Because I don't think the post you quoted was wondering why gay people would protest to have the equal right to have a cake made at this shop.They don't, no more than these people:
Really loved the ice cream at Woolsworth
I think he was asking why any gay people would go there now for a cake when they know that the owners are homophobic bigots. I know if I was in that position I wouldn't give that shop any money and go somewhere else.
I think he was just commenting on the irony of the situation. Now that the bakery has to serve gay people most, if not all of them will probably stay far away from the business because of the reputation they've given themselves.
That's mostly my fault because I only passively acknowledged it during my attempts to prove that I only posted it because it was just the first thing that popped up in a simple search.
But they were driven from business and are now no longer operating a business. Selling a few cakes out of your home doesn't constitute a business.
And while I agree with the point of this, I'm not sure it would keep them operational. They'd inevitably be asked to serve a LGBT couple again and again be scorned by people. What's the recourse there, changing the name every few years in hope people will eventually get more bigoted? I agree that laws being there to prevent this sort of thing is inherently a good thing. I'm not sure I agree that forcing them to make the cake instead of paying a massive fine is really a good idea though. Making them pay out the ass damages them more long term vs. just bruising their ego a bit by making them make the cake, know what I mean?
But the thing is, they would be still operational or not, depending on the success of the minority's boycott. Today, LGBT rights are way more popular than in other times, so yeah, they are operating a business from home. It's a p big hit. But that doesn't mean that it will always be this way, or that other, less popular minorities, with less effective support groups won't be discriminated against.
AFAIK they will pay a fine at some point; other of the articles talked about a fine for discrimination and a lawsuit and moral damages due.
This is another of those threads where dumb people think that businesses actually have the right to refuse service to anyone they feel like. They don't. They haven't for a long time. This is settled law. You can argue against this settled law all you want, but if you utter the phrase "businesses have the right to refuse service!" you're just dead wrong. It's not a question of opinion, it's a question of the law of the land.
Businesses do not retain the right to refuse service to people of protected classes. Those protected classes are different from state to state. In the state of Colorado, sexual orientation is a protected class, therefore, businesses do not have the right to refuse service based on sexual orientation.
If you believe they do, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the law works in this country.
Businesses do not retain the right to refuse service to people of protected classes. Those protected classes are different from state to state. In the state of Colorado, sexual orientation is a protected class, therefore, businesses do not have the right to refuse service based on sexual orientation.
If you believe they do, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the law works in this country.
toxicgonzo
Taxes?! Isn't this the line for Metallica?
I agree with you 100%. If they won't serve you, go somewhere else. Vote with your wallet and voice your opinion about the business.
Freedom of religion should trump the government forcing your own business to do something you don't agree with. Don't tread on me.
What happens when people form a religion that prohibits from paying taxes.
Does this still apply
We all have to do things we don't want. I didn't agree with the Iraq war. Can I get back my part of the taxes that went towards it? This fallacy that the market will correct itself is so silly. It would completely depend on what part of the country you live in and even then it's not guaranteed.
Did people fall asleep in history class and not learn about the atmosphere towards blacks in the South after slavery was abolished? The majority of businesses would not serve blacks because of their personal beliefs (ie. racism) for a hundred years until the Civil Rights movement helped lead changes to the laws to protect people from discrimination. This includes forcing businesses not to discriminate, whether modern society has the taste to recognize it or not.
ab.aeterno
Member
Well maybe if black people had voted with their wallet and taken their business elsewhere Big Government wouldn't have had to pass laws and tread on businesses' right to serve whomever they wish. The free market could've spoken and taken care of all this through the goodness of people rejecting those businesses.
This is all sarcasm.
Skellig Gra
Member
I'd rather not eat a cake made for me by someone who hates me.
RoninChaos
Member
Jesus christ people, this was a huge story on here a while back and (for the second time!!!) I just used the first link that popped up on google. Proof:
There's like 6-8 different articles beneath that run the same headline.
I just used the first source. Again, I JUST USED THE FIRST SOURCE. I'm not some bigoted asshole like some of you are trying to insinuate or something, yeesh.
Foxnews, Theblaze, persecution.com
This is HILARIOUS.
RoninChaos
Member
I'm sorry, but that is complete and utter horse shit. There are people who believe women shouldn't be allowed to read or drive. There are people who don't believe their kids should go to school. There are people who don't believe they should have to pay taxes. There are some people that think that denying someone service based on their skin color is a-okay.
Having an opinion doesn't mean you can just go "Well, I don't think I should comply with this law because (insert reason)." There are PLENTY of examples of people who think all kinds of crazy shit. Just because they can think it doesn't mean they have a right to do it.
imadinosaur
Banned
I'm not really sure what to think here.
This almost reminds me of the whole Chik-Fil-A fiasco (which I used to work at).
Still, where is the fine line between not agreeing with someone's actions in life and actually discriminating on who they are?
Something I also don't get is when so many people claim that sexual orientation is not the mark of your entire human nature, but then so many others say that it defines who they are.
Gah. Just wish people would agree to live and let live... we're not all going to see eye to eye on everything.
I don't even know what to think about this anymore.
This almost reminds me of the whole Chik-Fil-A fiasco (which I used to work at).
Still, where is the fine line between not agreeing with someone's actions in life and actually discriminating on who they are?
Something I also don't get is when so many people claim that sexual orientation is not the mark of your entire human nature, but then so many others say that it defines who they are.
Gah. Just wish people would agree to live and let live... we're not all going to see eye to eye on everything.
I don't even know what to think about this anymore.
RoninChaos
Member
They would bake the fucking cake and keep their religious beliefs private. Contrary to what some dumb fucks like Sarah Palin like to say, we are a nation of laws. Your religious affiliation doesn't allow you to comply with the laws you like, and break the ones you don't. If, as a business owner, you think gay people are gross and living in sin, you still have to serve them because that's the fucking law. There are still plenty of people who think black folks shouldn't be served in certain restaurants. I'm sure they can come up with a bible verse that says "Don't serve black folk!" to back up their position, but their position and that book they claim allows them to hate people isn't trumped by the law.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked