Justice Dept. sides with baker who refused to serve gay couple

[Ban my account ffs!]

Small businesses should have right to deny service to anyone.

So you oppose the Civil Rights Acts?

Of course I support the Civil Rights Act
Private Buisnesses not hiring someone based on race and sex is a civil rights violation  , but denying services To customers is not a civil rights violation in any sense of the word .

So not serving someone because they're black is not a civil rights issue? sh**t, you people are the ones who are mentally ill.

...

That is an outrageous accusation, and I specifically said  businesses that arent small businesses or family owned restaurants do not have the right to deny service.

There you go again!

What defines a small business?  What happens if such business crosses this threshold in one year but not the next?  Is their right to deny service to interracial or gay couples rescinded and then given back?

What happens if the two gays go into stealth mode and request a service individually and then their gayness is only made apparent after?  Does the business owner have the right to throw up all over them?

If I own a small restaurant and I see people praying in my restaurant do I have a right to angrily haul them out of my restaurant for "spreading their disgusting religion" to my other customers?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I don't believe anyone should be forced to provide a service directly related to any wedding.

Again, why the strange exception to only "weddings" ?
What if a gay couple wanted a cake for celebration of their 1 year dating anniversary (many couples of all types celebrate dating anniversaries) ?
That would be OK then, right ? Well it's not a "wedding."
What if a gay couple wanted a cake for their adopted daughter's birthday, and the owner refused because he was "repulsed" (like the good, loving Christians that they are) just by the sight of the couple in his/her store ?

Where do the strange exceptions start and stop ? When is it acceptable or not acceptable to everyday, normal social contact that WE WANT IN OUR NATION ?

I've been clear, and I've held this position for a long time. Wedding = Wedding. If it's not directly related to a wedding, then you are required to provide the service. An Anniversary or Adoption or Birthday celebration is not a Wedding.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I'd also like to be clear that Old School Republican and Extreme Republican are on their own turf with their opposition to the civil rights act (for "small" businesses). I completely support the civil rights act. No Business should ever be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, or sex (that's just sex, not sexual orientation or gender identity, although I do support some CSR protections for those groups.).

[ProudModerate2]

I don't believe anyone should be forced to provide a service directly related to any wedding.

Again, why the strange exception to only "weddings" ?
What if a gay couple wanted a cake for celebration of their 1 year dating anniversary (many couples of all types celebrate dating anniversaries) ?
That would be OK then, right ? Well it's not a "wedding."
What if a gay couple wanted a cake for their adopted daughter's birthday, and the owner refused because he was "repulsed" (like the good, loving Christians that they are) just by the sight of the couple in his/her store ?

Where do the strange exceptions start and stop ? When is it acceptable or not acceptable to everyday, normal social contact that WE WANT IN OUR NATION ?

I've been clear, and I've held this position for a long time. Wedding = Wedding. If it's not directly related to a wedding, then you are required to provide the service. An Anniversary or Adoption or Birthday celebration is not a Wedding.

Yes, but you see, that is where your ridiculousness falls apart.
"The baker" doesn't care if it's for a wedding or not. He isn't "bothered" per se, by the couple because it's a wedding. The baker has a problem with the relationship between same sex people. So the baker would want to refuse service regardless of what the cake is actually for.
It's that the baker's "loving" religion doesn't believe in that "kind" of couple/relationship. Period.

[Mr. Reactionary]

So not serving someone because they're black is not a civil rights issue? sh**t, you people are the ones who are mentally ill.

Are you drunk?

On hate.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I don't believe anyone should be forced to provide a service directly related to any wedding.

Again, why the strange exception to only "weddings" ?
What if a gay couple wanted a cake for celebration of their 1 year dating anniversary (many couples of all types celebrate dating anniversaries) ?
That would be OK then, right ? Well it's not a "wedding."
What if a gay couple wanted a cake for their adopted daughter's birthday, and the owner refused because he was "repulsed" (like the good, loving Christians that they are) just by the sight of the couple in his/her store ?

Where do the strange exceptions start and stop ? When is it acceptable or not acceptable to everyday, normal social contact that WE WANT IN OUR NATION ?

I've been clear, and I've held this position for a long time. Wedding = Wedding. If it's not directly related to a wedding, then you are required to provide the service. An Anniversary or Adoption or Birthday celebration is not a Wedding.

Yes, but you see, that is where your ridiculousness falls apart.
"The baker" doesn't care if it's for a wedding or not. He isn't "bothered" per se, by the couple because it's a wedding. The baker has a problem with the relationship between same sex people. So the baker would want to refuse service regardless of what the cake is actually for.
It's that the baker's "loving" religion doesn't believe in that "kind" of couple/relationship. Period.

The baker's most serious grievance is likely with having to sanction the event that brings the couple into existence - which is the wedding. I spare them that hardship. But the anniversary, etc. has no affect on the couple's validity, and therefore, a business does not have a serious enough grievance (in my view) to get an exemption on providing service.

If that makes me "not a conservative" or "not consistent", or whatever other insult you have ready, that's what it makes me.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I'd also like to be clear that Old School Republican and Extreme Republican are on their own turf with their opposition to the civil rights act (for "small" businesses). I completely support the civil rights act. No Business should ever be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, or sex (that's just sex, not sexual orientation or gender identity, although I do support some CSR protections for those groups.).

What the heck ,I do support the Civil Rights Act.

[OSR stands with Israel]

You know whats not a small business : Costco, Walmart , Restaurant Chains.


Also I clearly said that no business should have a right to deny employment based on race, sexual orientation , or sex.


Also here's the thing , if any  small business was discriminatory to customers it would be out of business quickly . The free market deals with these types of issues much better than the government does .



Lastly what I meant was that in this case(which I was talking about before it got turned into something else) you dont have the right to make a baker bake the cake you want, you should just accept the cakes he wants to bake or go to another business .

[Badger]

Small businesses should have right to deny service to anyone .

Because segregation and Jim Crow laws were awesome, and totally cured by the Invisible Hand of the free market, am I right?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

You know whats not a small business : Costco, Walmart , Restaurant Chains.


Also I clearly said that no business should have a right to deny employment based on race, sexual orientation , or sex.


Also here's the thing , if any  small business was discriminatory to customers it would be out of business quickly . The free market deals with these types of issues much better than the government does .



Lastly what I meant was that in this case(which I was talking about before it got turned into something else) you dont have the right to make a baker bake the cake you want, you should just accept the cakes he wants to bake or go to another business .

Well you were the one who brought up the "any small business" line.....

I've been clear throughout that I support a wedding exception only.

[Kingpoleon]

Good to know that some people would be okay with someone denying services to an interracial couple.

I would, as the child of an interracial couple.

[7,052,770]

I'd also like to be clear that Old School Republican and Extreme Republican are on their own turf with their opposition to the civil rights act (for "small" businesses). I completely support the civil rights act. No Business should ever be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, or sex (that's just sex, not sexual orientation or gender identity, although I do support some CSR protections for those groups.).

What the heck I do support the Civil Rights Act.

You don't support all of it if you think that a small business should be legally allowed to refuse to serve blacks, Jews, gays, etc.

[Gass3268]

Regardless of this debate, I am happy that Justice Kennedy has gay friends.

[Kingpoleon]

I'd also like to be clear that Old School Republican and Extreme Republican are on their own turf with their opposition to the civil rights act (for "small" businesses). I completely support the civil rights act. No Business should ever be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, or sex (that's just sex, not sexual orientation or gender identity, although I do support some CSR protections for those groups.).

What the heck I do support the Civil Rights Act.

You don't support all of it if you think that a small business should be legally allowed to refuse to serve blacks, Jews, gays, etc.

Indeed, and neither do I. Denying me service for being multiracial or being gay is wrong and immoral, but more than that is necessary for federal prohibition of any actions thereof stated.

[SteveRogers]

I don't believe anyone should be forced to provide a service directly related to any wedding.

Again, why the strange exception to only "weddings" ?
What if a gay couple wanted a cake for celebration of their 1 year dating anniversary (many couples of all types celebrate dating anniversaries) ?
That would be OK then, right ? Well it's not a "wedding."
What if a gay couple wanted a cake for their adopted daughter's birthday, and the owner refused because he was "repulsed" (like the good, loving Christians that they are) just by the sight of the couple in his/her store ?

Where do the strange exceptions start and stop ? When is it acceptable or not acceptable to everyday, normal social contact that WE WANT IN OUR NATION ?

I've been clear, and I've held this position for a long time. Wedding = Wedding. If it's not directly related to a wedding, then you are required to provide the service. An Anniversary or Adoption or Birthday celebration is not a Wedding.

But you understand that there's no Constitutional argument for limiting the scope of the ruling in this case to "just weddings," right? Make no mistake: If SCOTUS rules in favor of the baker here, the Court will be saying that that baker gets to deny such services to anyone for any reason they see fit.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Deplorable bigoted administration is deplorable and bigoted.

/yawn

[ProudModerate2]

I'd also like to be clear that Old School Republican and Extreme Republican are on their own turf with their opposition to the civil rights act (for "small" businesses). I completely support the civil rights act. No Business should ever be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, or sex (that's just sex, not sexual orientation or gender identity, although I do support some CSR protections for those groups.).

What the heck I do support the Civil Rights Act.

You don't support all of it if you think that a small business should be legally allowed to refuse to serve blacks, Jews, gays, etc.

Exactly.
I set-him-up to define and explain this whole "small business" malarkey, and he fell for it hook-line-and-sinker.
Where does this "business is worth under 500,000" come from ? Why not 155,489 ? What exactly and how do we determine this "worth" ?
We might as well say that if your dick is 6 inches or under you can legally "discriminate," but if your bigger than that, you cant ?
Again, where does the ridiculous exceptions of such a basic and decent right of all people start and end ? It's just insane to hear all these excuses, including all this talk about "just let the free market handle it" b.s.

[Badger]

Good to know that some people would be okay with someone denying services to an interracial couple.

I would, as the child of an interracial couple.

And you would be okay with this dude denying services to your parents because they were interracial?

Dude, you're entitled to your own opinions and ideology, but that's just f***** up.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Small businesses should have right to deny service to anyone .

Because segregation and Jim Crow laws were awesome, and totally cured by the Invisible Hand of the free market, am I right?

Segregation and Jim Crow were laws passed by the state governments not buisnesses . So now segregation was solely to blame on the government .2nd my definition of a small business in this case is a sole proprietorship or partnership and they only have their buisness  in one town.


In my opinion Small Buisnesses should have as few regulations as possible (except of course no hiring a child under 16 , minimum wage laws ,safety of  employees and products,no discrimination in hiring ) because the invisible hand of the free market will already regulate them out of buisnesses if they do something terrible such as discriminating against customers .

[SNJ1985]

Small businesses should have right to deny service to anyone .

Because segregation and Jim Crow laws were awesome, and totally cured by the Invisible Hand of the free market, am I right?

The retail landscape is a lot different now than it was in the Jim Crow era. People were much more dependent on small businesses back then. There are far more retail options now. There are Walmarts, Targets, etc. all over the country, and there is online shopping as well.

[ProudModerate2]

Small businesses should have right to deny service to anyone .

Because segregation and Jim Crow laws were awesome, and totally cured by the Invisible Hand of the free market, am I right?

Segregation and Jim Crow were laws passed by the state governments not buisnesses . So now segregation was solely to blame on the government .2nd my definition of a small business in this case is a sole proprietorship or partnership and they only have their buisness  in one town.

In my opinion Small Buisnesses should have as few regulations as possible (except of course no hiring a child under 16 , minimum wage laws ,safety of  employees and products,no discrimination in hiring ) because the invisible hand of the free market will already regulate them out of buisnesses if they do something terrible such as discriminating against customers .

You are really "old school."
Just go away and enjoy your rocking chair.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I don't believe anyone should be forced to provide a service directly related to any wedding.

Again, why the strange exception to only "weddings" ?
What if a gay couple wanted a cake for celebration of their 1 year dating anniversary (many couples of all types celebrate dating anniversaries) ?
That would be OK then, right ? Well it's not a "wedding."
What if a gay couple wanted a cake for their adopted daughter's birthday, and the owner refused because he was "repulsed" (like the good, loving Christians that they are) just by the sight of the couple in his/her store ?

Where do the strange exceptions start and stop ? When is it acceptable or not acceptable to everyday, normal social contact that WE WANT IN OUR NATION ?

I've been clear, and I've held this position for a long time. Wedding = Wedding. If it's not directly related to a wedding, then you are required to provide the service. An Anniversary or Adoption or Birthday celebration is not a Wedding.

But you understand that there's no Constitutional argument for limiting the scope of the ruling in this case to "just weddings," right? Make no mistake: If SCOTUS rules in favor of the baker here, the Court will be saying that that baker gets to deny such services to anyone for any reason they see fit.

1. If SCOTUS rules in favor of the baker, it will likely make some sort of statement on the scope of the decision, and as the chief interpreters of the constitution, SCOTUS has the freedom to set the scope of any decision it makes. It could say that the ruling is narrow, and applies only to wedding cakes. Or it could essentially say that the ruling endorses the full "First Amendment Defense Act". Or something in between.

2. I would prefer this matter is settled through the passage of a scaled back version of the Democrats' 'Equality Act of 2017'. It would be very easy to start from that framework and add any necessary exceptions, including the wedding exception.

[Kamala]

Good to know that some people would be okay with someone denying services to an interracial couple.

I would, as the child of an interracial couple.

I'm also a child of an interracial couple, and this is an example of when "sticking to principles" results in incredibly idiotic conclusions.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Oh America....continue to be the laughing stock of the western world.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Small businesses should have right to deny service to anyone .

Because segregation and Jim Crow laws were awesome, and totally cured by the Invisible Hand of the free market, am I right?

Segregation and Jim Crow were laws passed by the state governments not buisnesses . So now segregation was solely to blame on the government .2nd my definition of a small business in this case is a sole proprietorship or partnership and they only have their buisness  in one town.

In my opinion Small Buisnesses should have as few regulations as possible (except of course no hiring a child under 16 , minimum wage laws ,safety of  employees and products,no discrimination in hiring ) because the invisible hand of the free market will already regulate them out of buisnesses if they do something terrible such as discriminating against customers .

You are really "old school."
Just go away and enjoy your rocking chair.

Supporting the free market is old school lmao