by Simon 286 Replies latest social current
Scenario 1 - A husband and wife asks the baker to make and decorate a cake with a pro-gay wedding message for the wedding of their son and his husband-to-be. The baker declines the order.
Scenario 2 - A gay couple go into the shop arm-in-arm and ask the baker to sell them a standard off-the-shelf cake. The baker serves them without reservation.
How can any reasonable person accuse the baker of homophobia?
Lillian Green stamping her feet because she reached the restaurant too late but then realised she could whip out the handy-dandy trusty race card. Works every time!
Worse than that, it's planned - these people make a career of claiming discrimination when none exists and then demanding compensation. It's like a mafia shakedown and the mob of the left are the goons to do the enforcement.
That kind of behavior cannot be rewarded, let alone tolerated if we're to have a working society.
Did you notice the kicker in that article? She's apparently a counsellor / educator who provides equity training for the state FFS - teaching a whole generation how to victimize hard working regular people who aren't racists but hey, can be taken advantage of because who likes to be called that, especially when there's a mob waiting to be called.
THIS is why race relations are in the shitter now. This kind of thing has been allowed and promoted, it's weaponized offence enabled by SJW PC nonsense.
Gay activists doing it are just a different gang.
Thing is, I highly doubt any similar future cases will go so well for the business, that is if you call the baker himself being labelled across the world as a hate filled raging homophobe things going well for him???
Anyway, the case hinged on gay marriage not being legal at the time so the business owner was within his rights to legally decline the business. Now... whisk up people because you're all making whatever the hell sort of cake we order you to!
The real issue is how far does religious freedoms go and whether a person should be able to practise their religious beliefs as a business person. It's a question that will need to be answered eventually and probably will as time goes by and this conflict presents itself more often.
MM Mustard Walter Williams used to make this point quite well. He would point out that you don’t need laws if society is segregating voluntarily. The Jim Crow laws came about from racist Democrats wanting to push back against the natural integration caused by free market voluntarism.
Please correct me MM Mustard and everyone, if i am wrong...i'm British and no expert, but I'm also very interested in this! Id really appreciate the input of you Americans, if u please!
I understood that immediately following the emancipation of the slaves there were no jim crow laws.....for a while.
Then, particularly westerners, didn't want to have to compete with freed slaves for work, who would probably offer more competitive rates (being used to hardship i'm guessing).
I even heard the first whites to take offence to the races competing in an open jobs market were the doctors, who instigated some kind of riot. Slaves simply cured more people, using home grown foods and natural remedies. The house slaves probably practiced good hygeine, too, with good home nursing care.
Where as white doctors were still administering dangerous cures like mercury. Its like many modern hippocratic oaths state - you promise firstly to do no harm to your patient, only then do you promise to do your best to cure.
I understood that immediately following the emancipation of the slaves there were no jim crow laws.....for a while.
Well, they were in the middle of the civil war with the right to own slaves part of the reason for the conflict. Even though the North won and slavery was technically abolished the Democrats in the south enacted Jim Crow laws shortly after to retain power and control over black people - what they could do, where they could go and such.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws
"Fun" fact - a lot of the inspiration for the Nazis racism came from the US Democratic Party and Jim Crow rules although they watered them down because, get this - the nazis thought the Democrats were too racist.
I guess I've got mixed feelings on the subject. Anti-discrimination law in the U.S. does not distinguish between services, as in, "It's okay for you to order takeout here, but don't expect to sit down and be waited on."
So a lot depends on whether a business establishment is open to the public or whether its clientele is exclusive.
As others have pointed out though, this case was more about an unjust procedure than it was about discrimination.
Anyway, the case hinged on gay marriage not being legal at the time so the business owner was within his rights to legally decline the business. Now... whisk up people because you're all making whatever the hell sort of cake we order you to!
Yes, but people should know to accept the order then cancel it claiming "force majeure" instead of giving the real reason.
The problem is that if you allow these kinds of cases to prosper and be rewarded then you open the law up to be abused. That is not what the law is there for.
For instance, go around booking services until someone says they wouldn't be able to take on the work (for whatever reason) and then sue them claiming it's really because you are gay / black / female / muslim or whatever.
Anti-discrimination laws go too far when they are used as a club instead of to protect people from genuine discrimination.
Again the supreme court never answered this question at all.
I suspect because that wasn't the case brought before them to decide (or the justice didn't want to rule on it and took the easy way out).
It was really about whether the Human Rights Commission had been hostile to the baker because of his religion.
Read that last bit again and bask in the irony of it - the commission to make sure people are treated fairly didn't treat people fairly.
There is supposed to be a ruling on a case involving a Christian florist in Washington soon. Most experts are really questioning if the high court will actually make a broad precedent-setting ruling or just punt it again. Kennedy is talking about retirement so that would remove the swing vote for most cases and the President would probably appoint another conservative justice, assuming the GOP keeps the Senate Majority.
BTW conservative members of the court don't necessarily mean Republican-leaning, though it often does, it means that the justice looks at the original intent of the framers more than believing that it is a living document that must change with the times.
