Quote:
What is so interesting to me in the discussion of this case is how we have so narrowed the scope of rights we retained by the Constitution's limitation of government that they are minimized into a small scope of a few amendments. Madison didn't originally want to include a Bill of Rights for that very reason. The VAST RESIDUUM of rights that were ours in Madison's unamended version did not require a Bill of Rights. He feared that they would become the list of only those rights we posses. That is basically what has happened. We should not have to be pointing to the first amendment to be allowed to speak freely or to be free to practice our religion, or other amendments to bear arms, or the whole limited laundry list of amended guaranteed rights. EVERYTHING that was not given to the limited power of government, before the Bill of Rights was included, was retained by the people and the States. Almost all of that has been vanquished, and we cling to a few of the remaining Bill of Rights. That we are having a discussion of what is or isn't discrimination, or whether we should be allowed to say no, or that we must bake a cake for anybody who asks us is so far from our founding principles that we are like a foreign country compared to the original U.S.A. Discrimination in its broadest sense is a process that delineates who we are as individuals. It is a primary facet of freedom. Ownership of property and how it is disposed is also a primary facet of freedom and was bound with the pursuit of happiness in the eyes of the Founders. The debate should not be if we have those rights, but how little the government can intrude on them. Without those rights what are we but minions of the State? And more than half of our people accept that. |
Quote:
laudable you are "slightly opposed" to adult pot smoking?...what other things are you "slightly opposed" to?...just curious |
Quote:
|
Quote:
TDF Not sure that's a good analogy. A wedding cake for the most part is a commodity item. Sure there are basic ones and fancy ones but it's a generally accepted service that vendors provide to the community. I'm not aware of any provision that you actually have to be getting married to order a wedding cake. A glass swastika would be a one off special request and an odd one at that. I've been to Nebe's shop recently and while there are various vases, bowls, ornaments, paperweights and other non-functional yet beautiful things they all have a generally accepted artistic or functional purpose and are standard offerings of his business or any other glass makers business. It's not the same thing. And all the talk about Federal Constitutional stuff here needs to be put in context of Colorado law, which specifically prohibits a place of public accommodation (i.e. a bakery) from selectively denying service based on sexual orientation. So I'd think that if the cake they were ordering was a somewhat standard cake the vendor would be violating state law. -spence |
Quote:
-spence |
Quote:
|
Quote:
it would be quite a spectacle, would it not to, have this judge ordering the bigot wedding cake baker and the bigot photographer and the bigot caterer and the bigot priest/jop/reverend and the bigot limo driver and the bigot florist and the bigot DJ to all show up at the hall/room owned by the bigot function hall owner to participate in or face a fine or worse to celebrate a wedding/mariage that the State itself does not/ will not recognize..... I guess to REALLY make a point you might shop around for bigot vendors and keep filing suits..but do you really want these people at your wedding???...even more so....do you want them touching your food???.....would you eat the cake???:rotf2: |
Quote:
from what I can decipher from Eben's posts, put in a similar position...he'd either lie to them and say he can't make the item in question....or charge them double for the item and disclaim any responsibility for the creation of the object.....good to have options;) the symbol might be a bad analogy because it would likely not be a denial based on the race, gender or orientation of the requester but there are other examples that would provide better analogies which go to the argument, which is whether he, as the business owner, has the right to refuse to make something and if a judge may compel him to make something that he might disagree with... and if his right to refuse to make something or be compelled to make something that he disagrees with by the Judge supersedes the right of the couple and Judge to force him to make it when...honestly...they could and should go somewhere else...they are perfectly entitled to make their experience public and let the bigot baker's business suffer whatever losses of business it might incur as a result... the story has almost nothing to do with a wedding cake |
Quote:
Quote:
|
May the first glass blower who has NOT made a bong please stand up. If I were to attempt to replace my fish pipe who would I go to with no mmj card? hmmmm
|
i like 2" Bamboo way better :)
|
Quote:
Correct. To the extreme, I cannot perform human sacrifices on religious grounds. And this conflict (the baker's right to freedom of religion, versus the couple's right to avoid discrimination) is what makes this interesting to me. The judge, in this case, said that the couple has the right to not "be hurt for who they are". That's absurd. There is no right to not have your feelings hurt. Teasing is not against the law. WHat the Westboro Baptist Cjurch does, is at least as hurtful, but courts have said that's protected. |
Quote:
Is there such a law? I'm not doubting you, but from what I saw, the judge did not cite a specific state law that the baker was violating. What I saw (and I may well have missed the law you are referring to) was the judge saying that the couple has the right to not be hurt for who they are. That concept seems to be at odds with the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to celebrate the death of military KIA's at their funerals. That is hurtful to the families, but judges have said that despite the hurt inflicted, they have the right to express their religious beliefs in that manner. And if there is such a state law, one might argue that it violates the freedom of religion guaranteed to the baker by the Bill Of Rights. When there is a conflict, the United States Constitution trumps state laws. |
Quote:
Furthermore, the anti-discrimination law has a fundamental problem with equal protection as provided in the Constitution. Anti-discrimination laws as they are written prohibit discrimination against "protected" classes. But they do not prohibit discrimination against those class of people that do not fall into the protected areas (i.e. sexual orientation, religion, race, gender, etc.) If the baker simply didn't like me for some undecipherable "vibes" he detected, not for any of the protected classifications, the laws would not prohibit him from not selling his wares to me. I would not have the equal protection that the laws provide to others. Of course, the obvious unequal application of such laws is the ensuing discrimination against the baker. Anti-discrimination laws are by nature discriminatory. To be truly anti-discrimination, there should be no protected class of people, everybody should be protected, including the baker. That is asking the impossible. Which may be why the Constitution only prohibits the government from discriminating |
Quote:
Clearly they don't like making money, or they knew there would be backlash that would get them publicity. And publicity good OR bad is ALWAYS good. Remember, every time Howard or Imus say something dumb on the radio, listener-ship goes through the roof. |
Quote:
This assumes there is no such thing as a bad law. I remind the lefties of another law which was upheld by the Supreme Court, one which the democrats wanted to hear no more opposition to - slavery. Once again, it was the Republicans who refused to be silenced in their opposition, despite the fact that slavery laws were duly constituted and upheld by the Supreme Court. |
Quote:
My business is so complex, sometimes i don't even know how to describe what i do to people. One day i am making lighting parts for a lamp company, the next i am making huge works for architects, the other day i am teaching 8 year old kids how to make christmas ornaments…. so yes… it is nice to have options :) Never in a million years would i turn someone away from my studio who came in and pointed at something on my shelves that I make because of race, sexual preference or religious beliefs… In fact, i even taught your daughters a class last year, so that says a lot…. :rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2: |
We'll I think we need something to put this discussion in perspective.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niCiKpgeRYo DZ |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Btw that so called ritual you speak is not endorsed by any doctor.All doctors recommend using a vaporizer so that no carcinogens are inhaled and all patients are told this.I stand by my original statement...he makes and sells bongs for $$$. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
you are very clear that you would not have done what the baker did in this instance, that's not the question, the question is whether the baker had or should have the right to say no... to try to pick an easy example for you that might relate as this law pertains to race, religion and orientation, I don't know this for certain but if you happen to be pro-choice....and some representatives of a religious group walk through your door and want to purchase one of your more elaborate sculptures for the centerpiece of their upcoming pro-life rally and fund raising dinner... should you have the right to refuse to sell that object to them if you'd would prefer that your name and artwork not be associated with a cause or event that you might disagree with? ....y/n should a judge, if you decide that you do not want your name or work associated with that event be able to force you to make or sell that object or face a fine ?....y/n should be a pretty simple yes/no.... without wandering off into bong talk :) |
First I would have simply said that I never made one like that before and I'm afraid I would do a really poor job. If that didn't get rid of them I would say , OK , I'll try but the extra time I will need to design it will mean it costs 3 times as much. If that didn't get rid of them I'd make them a really crappy cake and get paid 3X for it! :)
Honestly , I think the baker should be able to just say no. |
Quote:
It's really simple and allows me to sleep very well at night. :) Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
No! No one should be discriminated against based on sexual preference, race or religion. Period. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
sooo....
no....you should not have the right to refuse to sell that object to them if you'd would prefer that your name and artwork not be associated with a cause or event that you might disagree with? and presumably yes... a judge should, if you decide that you do not want your name or work associated with that event be able to force you to make or sell that object or face a fine ?.... interesting....I guess "live and let live" does not apply to the baker? doesn't tolerance go both ways? "I wouldn't turn anyone down for anything I make. I live my life and I let people live their lives. Live and let live." if this is true you should have no opinion regarding the actions of the baker....but you were quite explicit in your condemnation is he not being discriminated against by the judge and couple over his religious/moral views and having their beliefs forced on him? are they bigots? you mentioned earlier that you had a real problem with religions tending to "force" their views on others....does this also apply to the couple and the judge? "No! No one should be discriminated against based on sexual preference, race or religion. Period." this is one of those statements that sounds great when stated initially...then you start applying reality to it and it doesn't make a lot of sense....there is plenty of discrimination that exists..some is attacked and some is protected the baker and the couple could have been tolerant of each other's beliefs and parted ways...one party chose to sue and have their views forced on the other by the State....over a cake :)...or was it? |
Nebe, you posted this earlier...
"If there's one thing that grinds my gears about conservative Christians and of course other religions, it's the fact that they push what they believe onto others. Why doesn't everyone just keep their beliefs to themselves?? Here's what you have not/will not/can not grasp... It is the gay couple and the judge who are forcing their beliefs on the baker, not the other way around. The baker isn't trying to convert anyone to Christianity, he simply wants to be left alone to live in accordance with his beliefs. The baker isn't telling the couple they cannot get married, he just doesn't want to be involved. The baker wants to be left alone to live in accordance with his beliefs. Our country was literally founded on that concept. You also said this... "Against gay marriage?? Don't have one!" Again, your words are precisely what the baker is trying to do...he just wants to be left out of this marriage, but the couple and the judge are telling him to participate in the wedding or face fines. Your arguments here, are supporting the baker's case as well as any lawyer could, and somehow you think you are refuting his case... |
Yup.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Right or wrong, any person should be entitled to discriminate as they see fit. This baker wasn't bothering anyone but the fag nazis want everyone to see things from their perspective.I am not a homophobe at all,I just can't stand that our right to opinion and individualism are being taken away. The government is forcing people to play nice and that is not necessarily in our best interest. I really don't see things Jim's way but I support his view in this case.
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:33 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com