would you serve to defend such a country?
i would not. not anymore.
and i'm pretty sure this is not what the founders envisioned or fought for.
Posted on 07/07/2015 7:24:41 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Oregon baker decision — which required a bakery to pay $135,000 to a same-sex couple for refusing to prepare a cake for their same-sex commitment ceremony — also ordered the bakers to:
“…cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published, circulated, issued or displayed, any communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services or privileges of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination will be made against, any person on account of sexual orientation.”
Statutes prohibiting similar communications (including as to race, religion, and sex, and as to employment and housing as well as public accommodations) are common, and generally thought to be constitutional. But why? Here’s what I think is the right answer, though I agree that courts haven’t been clear on it.
Assume that it is indeed against the law to refuse to serve someone based on race, religion, sexual orientation, and so on — and, in particular, to refuse to provide a cake for a same-sex commitment ceremony. Then, saying we “will … refuse[]” to provide a cake is essentially a true threat of illegal conduct.
To be sure, it is not a threat of violence, or even a threat to commit a crime, but it is a threat to act illegally (by violating the anti-discrimination statute). And it is a threat that would have much the same effect as an outright refusal to provide a cake to someone who shows up and asks for it, because it tells people that it’s futile to even ask.
Indeed, I think we’d see the same in lots of other situations where speech is properly treated as civilly actionable.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
IF I walk into a restaurant with NO SHIRT, NO SHOES (because I belong to the I like to be mostly naked religion), will they be forced to serve me ?
renting an apartment is asking to hold/stay-in property. the landlord does not perform a physical act.
baking a cake is an act on the part of the baker. you’re asking the baker to perform his craft.
to say the baker cannot choose if, when, or where they perform their skills is the same as slavery.
Personally I don't think you should be able to. No one is pushing the drinks down your throat.
If the bartender thinks you're too drunk and out of compassion, or because you're pi$$ing him off, CHOOSES not to serve you, he should be able to do that, too. It's his property!
would you serve to defend such a country?
i would not. not anymore.
and i'm pretty sure this is not what the founders envisioned or fought for.
The whole thing is ridiculous. You cannot refuse to serve a gay person but same-sex marriage is not a gay person. These people oppose same-sex marriage, not the orientation of the people in it.
There’s a simple solution. Put up a sign saying:
A portion of each sale goes to [Your Favorite Pro Family/Christian Organization]
Nope. It's their property. They get to write the rules.....at least that's how it SHOULD be. It's how it USED to be before the corrupt politicians started sticking their noses into everyone elses business. This was once a free country.
If I owned the bakery I’d put a large sign stating my beliefs in plain English. Then I’d say that I’d be happy to take anyone’s money in return for my services.
Otherwise, they'd just find a queer baker who supports their cause. They could have it decorated with semen flavored icing and everything! They could have little turds placed decoratively around the edges! They could have their cake just the way they wanted it - and they could eat it, too!
That's an excellent idea. No laws against charity.
Exactly!
Who would that mandatory buyer be?
Why is it only gays and other perverts have a right to freedom of association, but Christians do not?
Understand first that this is about punishing people for being Christian.
They’ve simply found a point of resistance and made it illegal to resist.
If you don’t resist (based on Christian beliefs) on this issue, they’ll find one on which you will and punish you for it.
You mean in post 12 where the government decides, or the others where the people decide?
If you're referring to post 12, yeah. I wholeheartedly agree.
You’re engaging in the fallacy of abstracting a principle from an event, and then proclaiming the sanctity of the principle. But when the significance of the actual event in question is so minuscule as to be an absurdity, then the abstracted principle also dims in significance.
First they came for the no-gay weddings baker, but I said nothing because I was not a no-gay weddings baker!
There goes free speech, and freedom.
Wei May?
Go back to school...
Oregon ping......again....it’s rising to the top of the media pile now....
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.