Posted on 05/30/2014 10:48:24 PM PDT by dignitasnews
That’s just it, businesses do not serve everyone. Your lefty local rag is under no obligation to print conservative letters to the editor or even sell ad space to conservatives.
And it will never go both ways. A business that refused to do business with Christians will never face a problem
The posting of a letter to the editor is not a business transaction - and I beg to differ with you about the ad space.
That being said - as far as a normal retail customer:
When business owners hang up open signs, whether literally or figuratively, they have a responsibility to treat all customers equally under the law.
State and federal civil rights laws prohibit discrimination in places of public accommodation for reasons of race, color, national origin/ancestry, sex/gender, religion/creed and disability (physical and mental).
My whole point in this is that if you provide wedding cakes to heterosexuals [with inscriptions - thus, being "custom"], then you can't refuse a same-sex wedding cake. As long as the inscription isn't obscene or otherwise violate law.
The article does not say that they make traditional wedding cakes - but dollars to donutz, they do ...
You just happen to be against the 1st Amendment that’s all.
It is obscene when the “newlyweds” are the same gender.
This is a whole ‘nother step that evil has foisted upon us and all you can do is play legalistic tiddlywinks.
A quick Google search shows that ads get refused all the time. SodaStream can’t buy ads at the Super Bowl and others
Now they are being required to treat all EVENTS equally. These are not marriages. Civil rights does not mean that nonsense gets dictated by government decree. It is like Abraham Lincoln said. If we call a tail a leg, how many legs does the normal dog have. Well it isn’t five.
Actually, the courts would back the Klansman - as long as the swastika did not violate any ordinance or law.
The only place in the world that I know of [for sure] where it would be illegal is Germany - where they prohibited it after WWII by their federal law ...
The law is an ass. It needs to be corrected like asses are corrected.
Courts throw out ordinances and laws all the time, they even violate the constitution and impose laws on states, like homosexual “marriage”
And fools argue for folly!
It’s okay for a newspaper or tv network to reject ads from Christians or Jews but it is a one-way street. They don’t have to do business with us, but they can run us out of business if we do not bow down to them.
Advertisers can be refused if they are in direct competition with the firm [in this case, the Super Bowl] that offers the advertising space. Which is not the case with the Super Bowl.
They can also be refused if the firm that offers the advertising space has an exclusive contract with the advertiser's competitor [say, Coca Cola, in this case]. Coca Cola would have paid a premium to the Super Bowl for exclusivity - thus, negating SodaStream getting the advertising space.
As for the bakery, if a single heterosexual couple had paid for exclusivity on a wedding cake, then all other couples [heterosexual or homosexual] would have been barred from getting wedding cakes. This stance might fly in court - if it bought the argument that the other heterosexual and homosexual couples were in "competition" with the couple that bought the exclusivity.
And our spineless Republican leaders remain silent ...
I just don’t see it that way. I’m not a believer, but I am a traditionalist, and a conservative by nature, and willy-nilly, my sympathies fall with the reluctant bakers.
I was raised liberal, and ingrained with a respect for acts of conscience, so I feel like I recognize these when I see them. Respect for conscience lies at the heart of the founding of the American nation, you know.
“If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.”
N.B. “ ... a ass “
Actually, I'm not. Unfortunately, the 1st is not a perfect clause in the Constitution. More and more, it is pitting certain rights against each other [in this case, freedom of religion and speech].
And, unless the Constitution is amended in a way that guarantees the rights of religion and speech to a degree where one cannot trump the other, these controversies will arise again and again.
I never said in this thread that I SUPPORTED the position that the bakery HAD to provide service - ONLY that [given current law, it had to].
>> I’m sorry - but, when you decide ...
You do realize it’s okay to take a stand on principle, right?
The moral challenges won’t go away by searching for justifications to grant exceptions. This is not about discriminating against the color of one’s skin.
I heartily agree - I do not support gay marriage.
However, per SCOTUS, obscenity is defined as being against community standards.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.