by cofty 27 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
On one hand if I were being gay married and they refused to make a cake I'd be more than happy to take my business elsewhere
On the other IT'S A FRIGGIN CAKE. JUST BAKE THE FRIGGIN CAKE. I can understand if you are a priest or something and you don't want to perform the wedding but IT'S A CAKE. YOU AREN'T ACTUALLY MARRYING THE PEOPLE
http://citopbroker.com/news/canadians-becoming-more-litigious-345
Daryl-Lynn Carlson on September 18, 2008
Canadians have become as inclined to take their battles to court as their United States counterparts over the past five years, concludes a recent survey by Chubb Insurance Company of Canada.
In fact, more Canadians sue for employment-related disputes than their American counterparts.
The latest Chubb Private Company Risk Survey concludes commercial litigation is generally similar in both countries although court awards in Canada are slightly lower.
“The survey findings were surprising as, generally, Canadians are thought to be far less litigious, and therefore Canadian companies are seen to be less vulnerable to litigation, than our American neighbors,” says David Williams, senior vice president of Specialty Insurance for Chubb Insurance Company of Canada.
“There appears to be a gradual shift in Canada to initiating litigation as a method of dispute resolution. We are continuing to see private companies facing similar allegations in litigation against management as larger, public firms.”
He added that “Awards in Canada remain smaller than in the States but on a number of fronts, the survey results should be a real eye-opener for private companies in Canada.”
The survey looks at a number of areas that trigger lawsuits in Canada and calculates the proportion of actions within a five-year time frame.
In suits against directors and officers (D&O), 16 per cent were launched by customers, six per cent by vendors, five per cent by competitors and three per cent by shareholders. Although, in sum, the survey concludes respondents deemed the risk of D&O to be nominal. The average cost to the defendant company was $338,699.
Employment practices liability (EPL) accounts for just under one third, or 27 per cent, of the litigation launched against companies in Canada, which surpasses the proportionate 15 per cent of employment-related lawsuits in the U.S.; Judgments, settlements, fines and legal fees for employment matters cost affected Canadian companies an average of $63,724.
Approximately one in 10 companies in Canada have been sued for errors and omissions, which constitutes an error or failure in service, the survey finds; the mean payout in those claims was $73,649.
The survey was conducted for Chubb by market research firm, Pollara, which interviewed specialty insurance decision-makers at 300 Canadian for-profit, private companies, and 469 firms in the U.S. during the latter part of 2007.
Chubb will release an executive summary of the survey results this fall.
http://www.hrpa.ca/AboutHRPA/Documents/HRPA%20press%20release%20_litigious%20employees.pdf
Viviane being a democrat is a choice, do I get to refuse to bake cakes for them? How about atheists?
As I said, I'm conflicted on this one. I want my daughter to have the wedding she wants, but I do not like the idea of the government forcing people to do things they dislike. As Simon said, would you want these people to bake your cake? It's like hiring a Death Metal band to sing romantic classics at the reception. (OK, I know one of you clowns is going to say that sounds like fun ). And this was in freaking OREGON, its not like its going to be really hard to find a different bakery that will meet their needs.
its not like its going to be really hard to find a different bakery that will meet their needs.
That really is to miss the point.
Refusing to serve gay people is no different from putting a sign in a shop window that says "No Negroes".
The government is not forcing them to do anything. They chose to open a business to serve the public. Along with that comes lots of laws and regulations. One of those is "Don't discriminate".
Viviane being a democrat is a choice, do I get to refuse to bake cakes for them?
Yes. Political affiliation is not a protected class.
How about atheists?
No. Religion (and lack thereof) IS a protected class.
Most excellent. They got exactly what they deserve. And thanks Blondie for that info; damn litigious Canadians!!! Eh!
We discuss this topic every few months it seems. And the responses are the same: those who believe it is not a constitutional right on one side, and those who believe that a business should be able to do what it wishes on the other (good luck with that). And side 1 always wins, because few if any courts in the US have ever found that a business selling commercial services to the general public has a First Amendment right to turn away customers on a discriminatory basis.
And yes, there was a recent court case where the KKK won a lawsuit against a bakery that wouldn't bake them a cake because it offended the owner's religious beliefs. Google it. That is a specious (that means the argument/statement sounds reasonable but is actually woo (yes, I stole Viviane’s word – deal with it) with a bow on it) argument.
Like it or not, the courts have ruled that bakers, photographers, and other businesses are exactly that — businesses. Their business decisions are not speech; they are commercial transactions that are open to the entire public regardless of race, gender, religion, ethnic origin (the original Civil rights Laws circa 1964) and disabilities (ADA – circa 1990) and now sexual orientation based on numerous recent cases. Or Democrats, Republicans, the KKK, the Boy Scouts, Rotary Club or the Black Panthers (are they even still around?), as long as these groups are operating legally and aren’t making requests for services or products that are seditious, illegal or that violate legitimate business interests (e.g., a restaurant can require shoes/shirts for service).
The courts have consistently ruled that free speech rights don’t trump civil rights laws guarded by the Constitution. Businesses are public accommodations, not private individuals. There is no difference between a baker and a bank. Either the business offers its services to everyone, or it doesn’t.
ChaseSerious is one of our legal experts, and he can speak much more eloquently than I on this topic, but the courts have consistently ruled in the same manner for decades. The real problem is with individuals thinking they have rights that they do not have. Nor should they have.
There really isn't much to argue about here. It's pretty simple. "Oregon law bans discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in jobs and in places that serve the public, such as restaurants and bakeries." That was cited in the above news report in the OP.
These folks violated the law and got seriously called on it by two people who were not going to take any crap about their legal life choice.
Was that an over kill?
How fast would us ex JW's act if we found out some Elder, running a public business, discriminated against us because we were ex Jw's . Climb into those shoes and it becomes clearer.
Simon - "What will happen when the discrimination that is an intrinsic part of most religions meets up with a changing society and the law?"
Same thing that happens if the animal rights extremists are dumb enough to get caught in a stampede.
Simon - "Part of me thinks 'sheesh, Americans - sue sue sue'. If you don't like someone's business practices then go elsewhere and let normal market forces work. Do you really want them to make your cake?"
In my observation, people who are quick to sue wanna have their cake and eat it, too.
Also, Americans in general seem a bit more preoccupied with active (as opposed to passive) punishment in response to a perceived wrong (present company excepted).
And yes, there was a recent court case where the KKK won a lawsuit against a bakery that wouldn't bake them a cake because it offended the owner's religious beliefs. Google it. That is a specious (that means the argument/statement sounds reasonable but is actually woo (yes, I stole Viviane’s word – deal with it) with a bow on it) argument.
First, that's not my word. You've taken what I rightfully stole;)
Secondly, wow, I had not realized the KKK won that lawsuit. On the one hand, that amazes me. On the other hand, it was won in Georgia, where non-discriminatory Jesus always loses to KKK Jesus, so I am not THAT surprised.
Viv,
I'm a stalker!!! I will try to limit it to stealing your words!!!!
