Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 19, 2018, 06:00:04 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2018 predictions for US Senate are now open!.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Debate (Moderators: Beet, Apocrypha)
| | |-+  Should a Jewish baker be forced to bake a cake for a Nazi wedding?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 Print
Poll
Question: Should a Jewish baker be forced to bake a cake for a Nazi wedding?
yes   -15 (8.1%)
no   -63 (33.9%)
no, and I see what you're trying to do here and it's not going to work   -108 (58.1%)
Show Pie Chart
Total Voters: 186

Author Topic: Should a Jewish baker be forced to bake a cake for a Nazi wedding?  (Read 10390 times)
Medal506
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 760
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: December 16, 2017, 12:34:38 am »

Political allegiance isn't a protected class, nor should it be.

We should have no protected classes since in the United States we should be equally protected under the law
Logged
Medal506
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 760
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: December 16, 2017, 12:39:30 am »

The difference between a Gay wedding and a Nazi one is that denying a Nazi wedding is a matter of free speech and not flat out discrimination, and I do believe most everyone here would agree that the business owner has the right to limit free speech on the property that they have no right to own.

Dumbass denying a gay wedding is also a matter of free speech and it's not discrimination. If you deny service to someone simply because they're gay then yes that is discrimination and you either should be allowed to discriminate against anyone or not allowed to discriminate against anyone. In other words since we're a country where everyone is equal under the law I'd you are required to service a gay couplethen you have to be required to service a nazi couple. Or if you're allowed to discriminate against the nazi couple then you should be allowed to discriminate against the gay couple. That's basically just called being consistent and not a dumbass socialist.
Logged
Medal506
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 760
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: December 16, 2017, 12:41:14 am »

No, and the Nazis buying the cake should have the sh**t beat out of them.

As to gay wedding cakes, if a business is not going to sell a cake to a gay couple the government shouldn't do anything, but it wouldn't be a tragedy if that business was burnt to the ground.

Someone's frustrated he can't get laid
Logged
Kingpoleon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,738
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: December 24, 2017, 04:07:16 pm »

CLICK HERE TO FIND OUT YOUR IDEOLOGY WITH JUST TWO SIMPLE QUESTIONS!!!


your answer to the forcing the baker to make a gay wedding cake and forcing them to make the Nazi cake should be the same.
if your answer is:
Yes/Yes, you are a consistent authoritarian
Yes/No you are an inconsistent SJW
No/Yes you are alt-right
No/No, you are a libertarian or a conservative
not your entire ideology but it tests whether you are a hypocrite or not!
First of all, not everybody has to be a “libertarian/conservative,” “alt-right” or an “inconsistent SJW”. You continue to derogate Democrats, which merely serves to expose your own partisan idiocy and inconsistency. I disagree with the position of people who would say you have to make a cake for a gay couple, but I don’t start calling them names for it. That’s where you went wrong.
Logged

“Passion and prejudice govern the world; only under the name of reason. It is our part, by religion and reason joined, to counteract them all we can.“ - John Wesley

"Good speech and good looks covers man's every vice. Plain speech and plain looks covers man's every virtue." - Yours Truly

Economic: 1.38
Social: -2.36
megameow
Megameow
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,019
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: January 05, 2018, 05:10:04 am »

Yeah, frankly the law is clear. There are specific protected classes of historically marginalized minority groups; based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability, etc. Political affiliation isn't on that list. So, denying service to someone based on their politics isn't illegal, but doing so based on sexuality is.

Is that right? Should it be different? I think the law right now is fine; it generally protects people based on immutable characteristics (with religion as an exception). It applies to everyone equally to; I can't deny service to a straight couple because they're heterosexual. A Nazi can refuse to serve a Communist, and vice-versa.
Logged

megameow
Megameow
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,019
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: January 05, 2018, 05:16:57 am »

I think people here may need reminding as to why anti-discrimination statutes were created to begin with. Black people were being denied service in public establishments across the country, forced to either find somewhere else to do business or create their own establishments that would serve them. It was a case of separate-but-equal.

Let's remember too the harms to an individual when they're discriminated against in public accommodations. Say they need to stay in a hotel in town for a job interview. Uh-oh, the hotel refuses to rent them a room. No job interview; no job. Economic harm.
Logged

Medal506
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 760
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: January 08, 2018, 11:50:24 pm »

Yeah, frankly the law is clear. There are specific protected classes of historically marginalized minority groups; based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability, etc. Political affiliation isn't on that list. So, denying service to someone based on their politics isn't illegal, but doing so based on sexuality is.

Is that right? Should it be different? I think the law right now is fine; it generally protects people based on immutable characteristics (with religion as an exception). It applies to everyone equally to; I can't deny service to a straight couple because they're heterosexual. A Nazi can refuse to serve a Communist, and vice-versa.


Dumbass there's no law in the United States that says bakers have to serve gay wedding cakes and there shouldn't be any protected classes since we're all supposed to be equal under the law
Logged
megameow
Megameow
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,019
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: January 09, 2018, 01:56:14 am »

Yeah, frankly the law is clear. There are specific protected classes of historically marginalized minority groups; based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability, etc. Political affiliation isn't on that list. So, denying service to someone based on their politics isn't illegal, but doing so based on sexuality is.

Is that right? Should it be different? I think the law right now is fine; it generally protects people based on immutable characteristics (with religion as an exception). It applies to everyone equally to; I can't deny service to a straight couple because they're heterosexual. A Nazi can refuse to serve a Communist, and vice-versa.


Dumbass there's no law in the United States that says bakers have to serve gay wedding cakes and there shouldn't be any protected classes since we're all supposed to be equal under the law

I should clarify then, only in states and jurisdictions where anti-discrimination laws are on the books (which includes many states for LGBT, and federal law for race, religion, and gender), are there "specific protected classes of historically marginalized minority groups." It's debatable whether bakers who are morally opposed to same-sex marriage have to serve a cake to the couple. In my estimation, the bakers are admittedly denying service to the couple because of their sexual orientation (they don't want to serve a homosexual wedding, whereas they'd be fine with a heterosexual one). Therefore I think that that would be illegal according to anti-discrimination laws.

"Protected classes" are not specific groups of people, nor do they accord any additional rights to anyone compared to others. Protected classes, at least the way I used that term in what I said, means attributes of individuals that cannot be the basis for discrimination. 100% of citizens have a race, gender, sexuality, or religious belief. Therefore, 100% of citizens are protected by anti-discrimination laws and are in "protected classes." The impetus for creating the laws however was/is to specifically defend historically marginalized minorities from being discriminated against by those in the majority; anti-discrimination laws aim to protect minority rights and ensure that everyone is "equal under the law."

Hope that cleared up what I was saying, because I don't think you understood me well. Also, it is probably against forum rules for you to call me a "dumbass" like that, but I won't report you.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2018, 01:58:05 am by megameow »Logged

Cold War Liberal
KennedyWannabe99
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,468
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -5.04

P P
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: January 10, 2018, 11:46:16 am »

Yeah, frankly the law is clear. There are specific protected classes of historically marginalized minority groups; based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability, etc. Political affiliation isn't on that list. So, denying service to someone based on their politics isn't illegal, but doing so based on sexuality is.

Is that right? Should it be different? I think the law right now is fine; it generally protects people based on immutable characteristics (with religion as an exception). It applies to everyone equally to; I can't deny service to a straight couple because they're heterosexual. A Nazi can refuse to serve a Communist, and vice-versa.


Dumbass there's no law in the United States that says bakers have to serve gay wedding cakes and there shouldn't be any protected classes since we're all supposed to be equal under the law
Here's the key phrase. It doesn't always work that way in practice, like when, say, a baker denies basic goods and services to a couple because the baker doesn't agree with them personally.
Logged

A Different Path: What if JFK Lived?
Chapter 1
Chapter 2


Endorsements: Ben Jealous, Stacey Abrams, Beto O'Rourke

Kamala Harris/Tammy Baldwin 2020!

I'm not a Grammar Nazi; I'm alt-English major.
man without a country
rascalking
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 85


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: January 10, 2018, 08:27:00 pm »

CLICK HERE TO FIND OUT YOUR IDEOLOGY WITH JUST TWO SIMPLE QUESTIONS!!!


your answer to the forcing the baker to make a gay wedding cake and forcing them to make the Nazi cake should be the same.
if your answer is:
Yes/Yes, you are a consistent authoritarian
Yes/No you are an inconsistent SJW
No/Yes you are alt-right
No/No, you are a libertarian or a conservative

LOL.
Logged
Kingpoleon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,738
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: January 11, 2018, 07:03:45 pm »

Yeah, frankly the law is clear. There are specific protected classes of historically marginalized minority groups; based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability, etc. Political affiliation isn't on that list. So, denying service to someone based on their politics isn't illegal, but doing so based on sexuality is.

Is that right? Should it be different? I think the law right now is fine; it generally protects people based on immutable characteristics (with religion as an exception). It applies to everyone equally to; I can't deny service to a straight couple because they're heterosexual. A Nazi can refuse to serve a Communist, and vice-versa.


Dumbass there's no law in the United States that says bakers have to serve gay wedding cakes and there shouldn't be any protected classes since we're all supposed to be equal under the law

Why did you immediately resort to name-calling??
Logged

“Passion and prejudice govern the world; only under the name of reason. It is our part, by religion and reason joined, to counteract them all we can.“ - John Wesley

"Good speech and good looks covers man's every vice. Plain speech and plain looks covers man's every virtue." - Yours Truly

Economic: 1.38
Social: -2.36
megameow
Megameow
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,019
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: January 12, 2018, 12:27:45 am »

Yeah, frankly the law is clear. There are specific protected classes of historically marginalized minority groups; based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability, etc. Political affiliation isn't on that list. So, denying service to someone based on their politics isn't illegal, but doing so based on sexuality is.

Is that right? Should it be different? I think the law right now is fine; it generally protects people based on immutable characteristics (with religion as an exception). It applies to everyone equally to; I can't deny service to a straight couple because they're heterosexual. A Nazi can refuse to serve a Communist, and vice-versa.


Dumbass there's no law in the United States that says bakers have to serve gay wedding cakes and there shouldn't be any protected classes since we're all supposed to be equal under the law

Why did you immediately resort to name-calling??

I really want his reply to my argument too. D:
Logged

SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,993
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: January 12, 2018, 04:09:53 pm »

your answer to the forcing the baker to make a gay wedding cake and forcing them to make the Nazi cake should be the same.
if your answer is:
Yes/Yes, you are a consistent authoritarian
Yes/No you are an inconsistent SJW
No/Yes you are alt-right
No/No, you are a libertarian or a conservative
Ah yes, the four genders
Logged

Quote
18:37   Clark   Most of you are considered to be trolls, and with good reason

Quote
15:55   windjammer   you should all go to hell
 
For once, SWE is right
PR
Progressive Realist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,871
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: January 18, 2018, 03:53:02 pm »

your answer to the forcing the baker to make a gay wedding cake and forcing them to make the Nazi cake should be the same.
if your answer is:
Yes/Yes, you are a consistent authoritarian
Yes/No you are an inconsistent SJW
No/Yes you are alt-right
No/No, you are a libertarian or a conservative
Ah yes, the four genders

Can't argue with The Political Compass (TM).
Logged

PR
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 37,749
Samoa


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #89 on: January 20, 2018, 11:29:15 am »

I don't think anyone should be forced to bake a cake that has a theme on it that they dislike. But one should not discriminate based on the status of the buyer. So the baker has to sell a cake to a Nazi for a Nazi wedding, if the cake itself is a Nazi free zone. I draw a distinction between denying over the counter sales, and personal services.
Logged
#KavanaughForPrison
Solid4096
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,063


Political Matrix
E: -8.88, S: -8.51

P P
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #90 on: January 20, 2018, 11:35:47 am »

I don't think anyone should be forced to bake a cake that has a theme on it that they dislike. But one should not discriminate based on the status of the buyer. So the baker has to sell a cake to a Nazi for a Nazi wedding, if the cake itself is a Nazi free zone. I draw a distinction between denying over the counter sales, and personal services.
This
Logged

I never use toss ups

Current predictions
Current timelines

REMOVE STEVE KING FROM CONGRESS
teafarm99
Rookie
*
Posts: 34
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #91 on: February 18, 2018, 12:14:44 pm »

No cakes for either Nazis or Homos unless there is consent!!
Logged
Badger
badger
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,822
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #92 on: February 26, 2018, 11:39:05 am »

Yeah, frankly the law is clear. There are specific protected classes of historically marginalized minority groups; based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability, etc. Political affiliation isn't on that list. So, denying service to someone based on their politics isn't illegal, but doing so based on sexuality is.

Is that right? Should it be different? I think the law right now is fine; it generally protects people based on immutable characteristics (with religion as an exception). It applies to everyone equally to; I can't deny service to a straight couple because they're heterosexual. A Nazi can refuse to serve a Communist, and vice-versa.

Correct answer, fwiw
Logged

In America, it's easier to con somebody than to convince them they've been conned.-- Mark Twain.
Moving to New Jersey soon
The Obamanation
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,941
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #93 on: June 09, 2018, 11:50:38 pm »

According to the Supreme Court, no.
Logged

Mr. Morden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 37,507
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #94 on: June 10, 2018, 12:21:36 pm »

I'm kind of a moderate hero on this question: If the Jewish baker refuses to bake the cake for a Nazi wedding, then he should be forced to instead bake a cake for a Nazi divorce.  He should be forced to affirm either Nazi happiness or sorrow.  Indifference is not allowed.
Logged

My magnum opus is now complete.  Read the complete "The Adventures of Hobo Orgy Guy & Blondie" (now in paperback).

What is your opinion of this thread?

Being a moderator is basically like one giant party.  Except you're the one ruining the party and everyone hates you.
Paulite Hick
Yellowhammer
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 662
United States


P P
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #95 on: June 10, 2018, 02:55:58 pm »

A private business owner should have full discretion in regards of who they do business with, and should never be required to make a sale or perform a service for anyone they don't want to.

If a business owner wants to be bigoted and hateful towards customers of a certain category, it's unfortunate, but that's his/her choice. Their community of customers will probably boycott their business and pressure them into either a) changing course or b) closing their doors.
Obviously essential services such as pharmacies, hospitals, etc. must be required to serve everyone, but most other businesses should not.
Logged



“Nobody can discover the world for somebody else. Only when we discover it for ourselves does it become common ground and a common bond and we cease to be alone.” - Wendell Berry
oreomilkshake
Ghost_white
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,984


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #96 on: June 10, 2018, 05:22:05 pm »

A private business owner should have full discretion in regards of who they do business with, and should never be required to make a sale or perform a service for anyone they don't want to.

If a business owner wants to be bigoted and hateful towards customers of a certain category, it's unfortunate, but that's his/her choice. Their community of customers will probably boycott their business and pressure them into either a) changing course or b) closing their doors.
Obviously essential services such as pharmacies, hospitals, etc. must be required to serve everyone, but most other businesses should not.

for lgbt people?i wish that was true.but we can't take it as a certainty yet.sad
Logged

2,868,691
Harry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22,097
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islan


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #97 on: June 10, 2018, 07:37:43 pm »

A private business owner should have full discretion in regards of who they do business with, and should never be required to make a sale or perform a service for anyone they don't want to.

If a business owner wants to be bigoted and hateful towards customers of a certain category, it's unfortunate, but that's his/her choice. Their community of customers will probably boycott their business and pressure them into either a) changing course or b) closing their doors.
Obviously essential services such as pharmacies, hospitals, etc. must be required to serve everyone, but most other businesses should not.


If you're really from Alabama you know this isn't true for large swaths of America. In many rural/Southern areas, it's more likely that churches will start boycotting bakeries that do serve gays than any significant boycott of a bakery that refuses them.
Logged

MarkD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,311
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #98 on: June 11, 2018, 02:57:25 pm »

A private business owner should have full discretion in regards of who they do business with, and should never be required to make a sale or perform a service for anyone they don't want to.

If a business owner wants to be bigoted and hateful towards customers of a certain category, it's unfortunate, but that's his/her choice. Their community of customers will probably boycott their business and pressure them into either a) changing course or b) closing their doors.
Obviously essential services such as pharmacies, hospitals, etc. must be required to serve everyone, but most other businesses should not.


"Should have" that prerogative is a far-fetched wish. It is settled law that the federal government can make businesses like restaurants and hotels eliminate racial discrimination from their business practices.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katzenbach_v._McClung
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel,_Inc._v._United_States
« Last Edit: June 11, 2018, 03:27:02 pm by MarkD »Logged

Rewrite the 14th Amendment!
States should have clear guidelines what laws they cannot pass, and the federal courts should have far less discretion in choosing what laws to strike down. Take away from the federal courts the power to define liberty and the power to define equality. Those are legislative powers and should be in the hands of legislators. Rewrite Section 1 of the 14th to make its meaning narrower and clearer.
Paulite Hick
Yellowhammer
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 662
United States


P P
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #99 on: June 11, 2018, 10:41:52 pm »

A private business owner should have full discretion in regards of who they do business with, and should never be required to make a sale or perform a service for anyone they don't want to.

If a business owner wants to be bigoted and hateful towards customers of a certain category, it's unfortunate, but that's his/her choice. Their community of customers will probably boycott their business and pressure them into either a) changing course or b) closing their doors.
Obviously essential services such as pharmacies, hospitals, etc. must be required to serve everyone, but most other businesses should not.


If you're really from Alabama you know this isn't true for large swaths of America. In many rural/Southern areas, it's more likely that churches will start boycotting bakeries that do serve gays than any significant boycott of a bakery that refuses them.
Some people I'm sure would do so, but they would be a small minority almost everywhere.
Logged



“Nobody can discover the world for somebody else. Only when we discover it for ourselves does it become common ground and a common bond and we cease to be alone.” - Wendell Berry
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines