|
Replies: 47
| visibility 889
|
All-In [42151]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38238
Joined: 11/30/98
|
If you are upset Sarah Huckabee Sanders...
Jun 23, 2018, 11:01 PM
|
|
...was denied service at a restaurant but argued on here in the past that businesses should be allowed to deny homosexuals service, take a long, long moment tonight to sit and ponder your beliefs.
|
|
|
|
 |
Legend [15749]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17371
Joined: 2/1/99
|
Again, why?
Jun 23, 2018, 11:47 PM
|
|
No one who is upset about Sanders, to my knowledge, has filed a law suit against the restaurant. No one has called for the government to intervene on Sanders’ behalf.
I hate talking in vague reference to thinks like “not serving homosexuals”, so I’m going to use the cake maker as the comparison and please let me know if you are referring to another case.
In that case, the store did not refuse to sell things to the gay couple. They refused to perform a specific service that was counter to their beliefs. The restaurant owner, on the other hand, specifically said that she would not serve Sanders. Sanders, in response, simply left (after offering to pay for what services were provided before the owner got there). If Sanders has said “I’d like to have the Cobb salad, but you have to wear these MAGA hats while you’re bringing it out”, it would be comparable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
I must say
Jun 23, 2018, 11:57 PM
|
|
That was well done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42151]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38238
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Again, why?***
Jun 24, 2018, 12:13 AM
[ in reply to Again, why? ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42151]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38238
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Again, why?
Jun 24, 2018, 12:15 AM
[ in reply to Again, why? ] |
|
Please excuse my blank response previously. I, for one, think businesses should be allowed to deny service and let the customers decide the punishment. I was just preemptively striking the Trump hypocrites whom I know to inhabit this board.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17914]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8938
Joined: 12/24/96
|
You must think Black people should sit at the back of bus to
Jun 24, 2018, 9:48 AM
|
|
Or, have their own water fountain with that attitude.
Do you really run a KKK chapter in SC?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42151]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38238
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: You must think Black people should sit at the back of bus to
Jun 24, 2018, 10:36 AM
|
|
Bruh, if there's a short list of P&R people who have racial issues, I assure you your name is on it, not mine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17914]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8938
Joined: 12/24/96
|
Your list doesn't matter
Jun 24, 2018, 1:39 PM
|
|
...I listen to your opinions - Yes, I do, but your list mean nothing to me. Been on your list a lonnnng time. All i can say to that is, "Thank you for giving me that much free time in your life." I'm sure you update it (list) hourly. LOL
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
I think both should have been served
Jun 24, 2018, 12:16 AM
[ in reply to Again, why? ] |
|
in the cake maker's case they didn't provide a service (making a cake) because of their beliefs. In the red hen's case the owner didn't provide a service (allowing them to dine) because of their beliefs. Both saw allowing them the service as a way of endorsing something they didn't want to endorse. I think it's a bad precedent to set for any business and both should serve their customers no matter their beliefs (but I understand there is a fine line here).
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40929]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42947
Joined: 11/30/98
|
The gay couple was not buying a cake off the shelf or off
Jun 24, 2018, 9:54 AM
|
|
of the menu. They were asking the cake maker to make a wedding cake with 2 dudes on it. They targeted a baker that they knew wouldn't do that for the purpose of suing him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [36450]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18324
Joined: 12/6/13
|
^^^This***
Jun 24, 2018, 5:08 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Here's a good summary of what the case is about:
Jun 24, 2018, 5:27 PM
[ in reply to The gay couple was not buying a cake off the shelf or off ] |
|
http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/09/wedding-cakes-v-religious-beliefs-plain-english/amp/
Baker's case:
"Because of the burden that Colorado’s public-accommodations law places on his religious beliefs, Phillips asserts, the law should be subject to the toughest constitutional test, known as “strict scrutiny.” But the state cannot meet that test, he continues. First, he contends, although the state “has an interest in ensuring that businesses are open to all people, it has no legitimate—let alone compelling—interest in forcing artists to express ideas that they consider objectionable."
State's Case:
The state and Craig and Mullins counter that there is no constitutional problem because the public-accommodations law targets only conduct, not speech: The law makes clear that when businesses sell products or services to the public, they cannot discriminate against some members of that public based on, for example, their sexual orientation.
And the law does not impinge on Phillips’ right to exercise his religion, they insist, because the Supreme Court has ruled that the free-exercise right “does not include a right to disobey neutral and generally applicable laws, including non-discrimination laws.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15749]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17371
Joined: 2/1/99
|
The state’s argument is clearly garbage. IF the baker said
Jun 25, 2018, 8:46 PM
|
|
“I won’t sell a cake that says ‘Congratulations on your gay marriage!’ to a gay couple but I will sell a cake that says that to a straight couple.” then you might have a point. He will sell that cake to no one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Making a "congrats on your gay marriage!" cake...
Jun 25, 2018, 10:58 PM
|
|
would be a weird cake to make for a straight couple. You're right about that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15749]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17371
Joined: 2/1/99
|
That’s not what I wrote.***
Jun 25, 2018, 11:25 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
It's not what you meant.***
Jun 25, 2018, 11:33 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31891]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37177
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Not a good comparison is it?...
Jun 24, 2018, 12:14 AM
|
|
I am assuming you're referring to the issue of the baker making a cake for a gay wedding.
I believe the difference would be that the baker was claiming to refuse to participate in the gay wedding service via providing a cake to the service. I do believe most who support the baker's right in this case are distinguishing between participating in a service that violates their religious beliefs versus refusing service in a public accommodation situation, e.g. a dining room.
From a legal perspective I'm guessing the Huckabee case isn't illegal since she's not in a protected class.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42151]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38238
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Not a good comparison is it?...
Jun 24, 2018, 12:17 AM
|
|
My point is that you cannot support the denial of one and cry out against the denial of another. Or, if we want to flip it, decry the denial of the cake maker and support the denial of Sanders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31891]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37177
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Well, logically you can....
Jun 24, 2018, 12:21 AM
|
|
Since they weren't the same thing.
The Sanders' deal is an issue of public accommodation and the baker deal is an issue of participation in a service.
For the record, I don't think the owner in the Sanders deal did anything illegal, but rather did something incredibly stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Both are considered public accommodations
Jun 24, 2018, 12:36 AM
|
|
but the big difference is the role that religion plays in the cake maker case and not in the red hen's case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31891]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37177
Joined: 11/22/03
|
No, most state's laws distinguish between providing a....
Jun 24, 2018, 10:55 AM
|
|
service and serving someone in a public place, e.g. a public dining room. They're also normally based on the affected person being a protected class, but that varies from state-to-state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
The Colorado case is specifically about public accomodation discrimination vs religious freedom***
Jun 24, 2018, 11:11 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
The source of the belief doesn't matter. In the baker case
Jun 25, 2018, 9:08 AM
[ in reply to Both are considered public accommodations ] |
|
he was refusing to communicate a message: he was not refusing to a product. The restaurant was refusing to sell the product. Those in this thread who refuse to see this difference simply don't like religion and think its okay to deny religious freedom of expression.
The Supreme Court ruled against the Colorado Court 7-2 on that very thing, saying the Colorado court erred in making 'religion' the issue. 7-2 is pretty much a slam dunk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
And of common decency. She had her kids with her
Jun 24, 2018, 6:48 AM
[ in reply to Well, logically you can.... ] |
|
Libs have really gone off the deep end imo.
They can now say the most vile things
And they get cheered by their peers
But back to my point, this is gonna make what should be a typically low turnout on the Presidents side, into a high turnout.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Being cheered for saying vile things...
Jun 24, 2018, 10:30 AM
|
|
Let me know when a liberal becomes President and is supported for precisely that reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42151]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38238
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Well, logically you can....
Jun 24, 2018, 9:32 AM
[ in reply to Well, logically you can.... ] |
|
It's denying service based on ideological principles. To decry one and not the other is hypocrisy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31891]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37177
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Contracting someone to supply a cake to....
Jun 24, 2018, 10:51 AM
|
|
a wedding service is not the same thing as denying to serve someone in a public dining room. It's just not; not logically and not legally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4974]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 5277
Joined: 6/2/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58411]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46322
Joined: 4/23/00
|
The way I understand it, the cake maker did not (and does
Jun 24, 2018, 9:26 AM
[ in reply to Not a good comparison is it?... ] |
|
not) refuse service to customers because they are gay. He refused service because he was being asked to convey a specific message that went against his religious beliefs. For instance, if a heterosexual person had asked him to make a cake conveying the same message (for a gay wedding), he would have refused. He refused service based on his participation in conveying a particular message, not because of who was asking him to make the cake. In fact, he offered to make other baked goods for the gay couple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [47795]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44515
Joined: 9/5/02
|
Cata, did you even read the cake case?***
Jun 24, 2018, 9:35 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42151]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38238
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Cata, did you even read the cake case?***
Jun 24, 2018, 10:37 AM
|
|
I've made it very clear I'm not arguing legality here. I'm taking a preemptive strike against the hypocritical outrage that was on its way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [60043]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22503
Joined: 5/24/17
|
This is all LOL cause once again Democrats
Jun 24, 2018, 9:38 PM
|
|
refuse service. Just like at the counter in Greensboro.
Sanders can drive in Saudi Arabia now
But not have a meal at Red Hen
LOL
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4974]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 5277
Joined: 6/2/03
|
Re: Cata, did you even read the cake case?***
Jun 24, 2018, 11:36 PM
[ in reply to Re: Cata, did you even read the cake case?*** ] |
|
No one is outraged over Sanders treatment. We just recognize it for the unwise and infantile act that it was.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
I liked your question, upvoted it, but if it is outrage you
Jun 25, 2018, 9:22 AM
[ in reply to Re: Cata, did you even read the cake case?*** ] |
|
want to call into question, I think the outrage has to be specified. If one is angry that a person is refused service because of his political views, and also angry that a baker is (initially) denied the right of freedom of expressions, why are those two reactions hypocritical? They might be. I am asking why you think so.
The Supreme Court just ruled 7-2 that the baker was right, pretty much a slam dunk. What they actually said is that the Colorado case is wrong, but even the most narrow view of the ruling means that the baker must sell them a box of cupcakes but does not have to communicate 'happy wedding' on them.
Where is the hypocrisy in believing the restaurant owner was off base but not the baker, especially after even liberals on the Court said the baker wasn't? Isn't the hypocrisy in believing the baker should be sued but not the restaurant owner?
I know the tone of some comments has been argumentative. I'm not arguing here. You have asked a fair question. I am clarifying what the discussion is about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42151]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38238
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: I liked your question, upvoted it, but if it is outrage you
Jun 25, 2018, 10:22 AM
|
|
If one is angry that a person is refused service because of his political views, and also angry that a baker is (initially) denied the right of freedom of expressions, why are those two reactions hypocritical? They might be. I am asking why you think so.
I believe that if you are okay with someone denying someone else service based on the owner's religious beliefs but not okay with someone denying service based on the owner's political beliefs, that's pretty evident hypocrisy. Wouldn't this also be the owner expressing freedom of expression, and thus his/her right as a business owner?
The Supreme Court just ruled 7-2 that the baker was right, pretty much a slam dunk. What they actually said is that the Colorado case is wrong, but even the most narrow view of the ruling means that the baker must sell them a box of cupcakes but does not have to communicate 'happy wedding' on them.
The problem so many people are wrestling with in this thread (and thus not getting a response from me because they aren't getting it) is that I'm not making any legal argument in this. People keep pining about the court decision, but I'm not disputing that. I'm simply pointing out a hypocrisy in ideology. In other words, there are too many here who don't support the cake baker based on the law; they only support service denial against people they don't like.
Where is the hypocrisy in believing the restaurant owner was off base but not the baker, especially after even liberals on the Court said the baker wasn't? Isn't the hypocrisy in believing the baker should be sued but not the restaurant owner?
Again, not arguing the legal aspect. I want people here to understand their hypocrisy. If they supported the baker's freedom over this and agreed with his decision, then they need to rein in their outrage over Sanders.
I know the tone of some comments has been argumentative. I'm not arguing here. You have asked a fair question. I am clarifying what the discussion is about.
I hope I answered it. I also believe it to be hypocritical for someone to decry the baker and cheer the Sanders move, which I'm sure some people have done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Some of this will be a repeat of my last response below,
Jun 25, 2018, 11:48 AM
|
|
which you can now disregard.
"I believe that if you are okay with someone denying someone else service based on the owner's religious beliefs but not okay with someone denying service based on the owner's political beliefs, that's pretty evident hypocrisy. Wouldn't this also be the owner expressing freedom of expression, and thus his/her right as a business owner?"
I fully agree that this would be hypocritical in the extreme. Every Christian, Muslim, Buddhist and atheist every day serves and does business with people of all sorts of religious beliefs, with no problem at all. I certainly affirm this, and I think we all would. I do not mean to split hairs, but that is not the same as being asked to affirm a belief or action. Civility and respect do not mean that I have to do both. If I ran a print shop I would print yard signs for both Reps and Dems. But there might be some messages I would not print. If someone wanted a "Vote for Billy because he's pro choice" sign, I might politely decline.
Where you and I likely agree is that the baker made this way too big of a deal. Or maybe he was targeted. I don't know. But I agree with you that the level of emotion - which is what you referred to in your question - is hypocritical. Both sides do it. People who foamed at the mouth about the baker didn't blink at the Red Hen. People who thought the baker was a great guy hate the Red Hen. Those two cases are not the same, but the emotional tribalism is hypoctical. I have not posted on this board in a few years, and during that time I think I have seen our culture turn tribal. No culture can survive that, but we are getting there as fast as twitter can take us.
I don't intend to post a ton or get involved in political arguments, but I would hope to get past the growing tribal mentality. Not that I am immune to it myself.
Disclaimer: I did not vote for Trump. Am not a Trump supporter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40929]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42947
Joined: 11/30/98
|
It is against the law for a resturant to refuse service
Jun 24, 2018, 9:50 AM
|
|
to a homosexual couple. It is not against the law to refuse service to a white couple. There is a huge difference in serving food off a menu and making a custom cake. The baker has no problem with the gay couple buying a cake off the shelf, but he does have a problem making a cake with 2 dudes on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58411]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46322
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Some people don't seem to understand that.***
Jun 24, 2018, 5:24 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
I think they do but won't admit to it.***
Jun 25, 2018, 9:24 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15749]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17371
Joined: 2/1/99
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17285]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14229
Joined: 12/14/98
|
Let’s agree if I owned a sports bar, refusing Coots service
Jun 24, 2018, 11:40 AM
|
|
Just because they are Coots would be OK because they are dumb arses.
Alright we will serve the Coots but not the Irish ??!
(Seriously seems that treating others with kindness is more aligned with Christian values than the refusal of service from the cake makers or restaurant owner. And I played golf this morning and missed church. It just doesn’t seem that hard.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Fair question. Had to think about it. Responded elsehwere
Jun 25, 2018, 9:26 AM
|
|
in the thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
I might understand. If you are commenting on a hypocrtical
Jun 25, 2018, 11:17 AM
|
|
level of emotion, I would agree with you, adding only that this is true of both sides. When a baker refused to write a message on a cake everyone on the left went ballistic while being blase' about the Red Hen. People on the baker's side were very slow to show understanding of the gay's reaction but instantly hit the panic button about the Red Hen.
There is a fundamental difference between the two cases, but I agree that the righteous indignation of both sides shows a hypocritical tribalism which, imo, is a sign of deteriorating cultural stability. Tribalism can't survive, and we are headed there as fast as twitter will take us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7026]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15686
Joined: 10/10/02
|
I think a buisness owner has the right to refuse service
Jun 25, 2018, 3:53 PM
|
|
to anyone for any reason. Even if it's a bigoted one. Not exactly a good business plan, but go right ahead as long as you're prepared for people to stop coming to your business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1405]
TigerPulse: 54%
Posts: 3412
Joined: 1/10/13
|
Re: I think a buisness owner has the right to refuse service
Jun 25, 2018, 8:56 PM
|
|
Please don't vote
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7026]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15686
Joined: 10/10/02
|
I won't if you don't.***
Jun 26, 2018, 8:07 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10871]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12937
Joined: 4/18/12
|
Re: If you are upset Sarah Huckabee Sanders...
Jun 25, 2018, 11:55 PM
|
|
Debates between someone with a belief and another with an absence of belief is an exercise in futility. One can not see and accept the others perspective. It's like a Muslim and a Christian coming to an agreement on their beliefs. The only agreement would be to disagree. Neither side will accept the others stance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 47
| visibility 889
|
|
|
50
