[peck420]

I've never quite understood a business' thought process on discrimination based on anything other than the colour of your money.

I can't say I have ever opened up shop to push an agenda. I opened to push product...make money.

I could care less who the purchaser is, as long as they have the dollars to pay for my services.

Unless the service your selling directly relates to whatever it is they are discriminating against...it just doesn't make any good fiscal sense.

[Lemmy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

If the ER doctor is treating the patient then it should not matter to them what the patient did or believes except to the effect that it may have on their health care outcome.

YES! So how is that different than the guy decorating the cake?

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Likewise I support religious teaching but would strongly object to it being made mandatory.

Capish?

But in the case of this Mississippi law, are they not saying that religious teachings trump the way a person is born?

This is the case with many rights; we choose which ones are more important than the others. The classic yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater is not free speech, because it interferes with the more important right of safety and security of the person.

Is a person's right to be be treated the same as everyone else important than another person's right to their belief system? Human rights and discrimination laws says it is.

[DrCaleb]

peck420 peck420:

I've never quite understood a business' thought process on discrimination based on anything other than the colour of your money.

I can't say I have ever opened up shop to push an agenda. I opened to push product...make money.

I could care less who the purchaser is, as long as they have the dollars to pay for my services.

Unless the service your selling directly relates to whatever it is they are discriminating against...it just doesn't make any good fiscal sense.

I never quite understood discrimination in general. Under the skin, we really are not much different than anyone else.

[Canadian_Mind]

peck420 peck420:

I've never quite understood a business' thought process on discrimination based on anything other than the colour of your money.

I can't say I have ever opened up shop to push an agenda. I opened to push product...make money.

I could care less who the purchaser is, as long as they have the dollars to pay for my services.

Unless the service your selling directly relates to whatever it is they are discriminating against...it just doesn't make any good fiscal sense.

I feel the same way. But just because it doesn't make sense to me in a business snese doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed.

[BartSimpson]

Lemmy Lemmy:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

If the ER doctor is treating the patient then it should not matter to them what the patient did or believes except to the effect that it may have on their health care outcome.

YES! So how is that different than the guy decorating the cake?

I've already answered that for you.



If the Christian baker can be forced to bake an offensive cake then so can the Jewish baker.

My objection is the 'force' part.

You are free to do what you want.

You are not free to make me do what you want.

[Lemmy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I've already answered that for you. If the Christian baker can be forced to bake an offensive cake then so can the Jewish baker. You are not free to make me do what you want.

You're making a false equivalency. Being gay may or may not be offensive. That's not the standard. The standard is the grounds for discrimination under Human Rights legislation. Being gay is one of those traits. You, as a member of civilized society, are not allowed to cause harm to others on the basis of those protected traits. Now you can argue that sexuality oughtn't be one of those protected grounds. Fair enough. But now you're drifting into hypothetical Bart-world, not the real one. As long as we remain in the real world, you cannot refuse service to gay people that you offer to non-gay people. If you don't want to decorate fag cakes, then sell all your cakes without customization. Don't stock queer cake-toppers. Fine. But as soon as you offer to decorate "Bill & Sue" you must accommodate all who make a similar request. "Bill and Steve" is a similar request.

On the other hand, refusing to make a Hitler cake does not discriminate against any protected group under Human Rights legislation. So anyone refusing to do so has the right. The refusal to offer the Hitler-cake service does not harm a protected group. Again, you can disagree with that, philosophically, but I'm telling you the way it is in the real world.

If Hitler-cake guy really wanted the Jew to bake him a Nazi-cake, he should have just gone into the Jewish baker, showed him your picture above, and said: "Hey, Chaim, we're having a celebration of the end of World War II and we were hoping you could build us a Nazi-cake for us to use in our celebration, as a symbol of the destruction of Nazism and the liberation of the Holocaust survivors." Chaim'd likely be happy to make the cake if you asked him like that. Then the Hitler-cake guy could go away, happy with his cake and doubly happy for sticking it to the filthy Jew baker. Win Win!

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

My objection is the 'force' part. You are free to do what you want. You are not free to make me do what you want.

Then when the raging queen comes into the Emergency room bleeding all over the place, the Christian doctor is free to say "Fuck him, let him croak, I ain't workin' on that faggot."

[Public_Domain]

[martin14]

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

Today I learned that "Adam & Steve" on a cake is equal to systematic enforced rape and Nazism.

Well, you learned wrong, as usual.

[BartSimpson]

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

Today I learned that forcing someone to write "Adam & Steve" on a cake under threat of incarceration and bankruptcy is equal to systematic enforced rape and Nazism.

Pretty much, yes it is. Glad you learned something.

[BartSimpson]

Lemmy Lemmy:

You're making a false equivalency. Being gay may or may not be offensive.

Actually, that's the false equivalency. No gay people were discriminated against just because they were gay. They were always free to buy the same things as everyone else and that they are gay is neither here nor there because the request for a gay wedding cake would have been refused even if the person placing the order was straight.

Lemmy Lemmy:

That's not the standard. The standard is the grounds for discrimination under Human Rights legislation. Being gay is one of those traits.

True. And now in Mississippi being Christian is, too.

$1:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

My objection is the 'force' part. You are free to do what you want. You are not free to make me do what you want.

Then when the raging queen comes into the Emergency room bleeding all over the place, the Christian doctor is free to say "Fuck him, let him croak, I ain't workin' on that faggot."

Different thing. In that case the 'raging queen' (your words, not mine, which sound a tad bigoted on your part) is not asking for any special consideration that's different from anyone else. I'd especially expect a Christian doctor to give that patient the same standard of care as anyone else and I would not have it any other way.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

You're making a false equivalency. Being gay may or may not be offensive. That's not the standard. The standard is the grounds for discrimination under Human Rights legislation. Being gay is one of those traits. You, as a member of civilized society, are not allowed to cause harm to others on the basis of those protected traits.

Bart doesn't get it. He'll never get it.

He's still living in redneck 'Christian' fantasy land where faggots and Muslims aren't welcome because God says so.

Despite saying he's no longer a Christian, he still fights against all these issues using his fairweather Christian 'values'.

[Lemmy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Actually, that's the false equivalency. No gay people were discriminated against just because they were gay. They were always free to buy the same things as everyone else and that they are gay is neither here nor there because the request for a gay wedding cake would have been refused even if the person placing the order was straight.

That's the same failed logic as "A ban on gay marriage doesn't discriminate against gay men because nothing in that ban prevents them from getting a marriage, provided they choose a woman." That argument failed in court, as yours does above because there's a difference between "equal treatment" and "equal benefit" of the law.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

True. And now in Mississippi being Christian is, too.

Until your Supreme Court says otherwise. Care to wager on that outcome?

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Different thing. In that case the 'raging queen' (your words, not mine, which sound a tad bigoted on your part) is not asking for any special consideration that's different from anyone else.

I'm allowed to bigoted against whomever I like. Discrimination is something else. Same failed logic as "Gays aren't being discriminated against when we forbid gay marriage 'cause they're free to marry any woman they want". Fail.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I'd especially expect a Christian doctor to give that patient the same standard of care as anyone else and I would not have it any other way.

I'd expect the same of a Christian baker.

[BartSimpson]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

[BartSimpson]

Lemmy Lemmy:

(Edited for space, no offense intended)

The bottom line here is forcing people to provide specific services that they find offensive.

The example of a gay bakery being forced to bake a "God Hates Fags" cake for the Westboro Church absolutely applies because that would be as offensive to the gay baker as the gay wedding cake is to the Christian baker.

Merely ordering an offensive cake from a gay baker would be a hate crime in Canada.

Why won't you afford everyone else the same understanding as you would for your special groups?

Isn't that discrimination?