Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Is it okay to force your beliefs on some one else? The answer should be a very obvious no. that is no different then Christians forcing gays to not be with whom they wish to be with. Your taking YOUR personal views and saying that every one else must accept them thus you are infringing upon their rights their beliefs and values and their freedom. You are essentially telling people that if they believe differently then you that you are content with them being killed (because ultimately, if you legislate these into law that is the only way the government is able to force people to behave a certain way, with the threat of imprisonment and if that is not enough, violence and death). So the real question, taking this into consideration, is are you okay with putting a gun to some one's head and forcing them to behave in a way you personally think is right? To do this for something that doesn't actually harm any one else (their are many bakers out their, you can make your own cake, you can in fact make your own business of baking cakes that specifically caters to the gay community.), is in my opinion immoral (but your free to believe otherwise) but the real issue is that its terrifying. Name me one dictator who didn't do exactly this to enforce their will? Name one dictator who didn't arrest or kill those who opposed their world view? As far as I know their isn't any. Basically look at it this way, are you okay with some one doing that to you? Are you okay with Christians (which make up 70% of the population) forcing their religious views on you under the threat of imprisonment and if necessary death? If the answer is no (and I honestly don't see how any other response could be considered), then their is your answer, it is wrong to legislate belief and "morality" into law to force people to do as you want. We also know that this is something that is going to go only one way as a gay coffee shop owner discriminated against a bunch of Christians who had not broken any laws, who had not even said a word to him, they simply bought coffee like every other customer and he found out they where a Christian group, specifically anti abortion, and threw them out of his establishment. The media, the gay community, the left all where silent on this. So this is what people are pushing for, for one group to have power over another and that should be the most terrifying thing to society because if they can come and oppress others, they absolutely will come for you eventually, history has shown that time and time again.
It depemds who is making the decision.
I drive a taxi and as such i am required to provide service to anyone who comes, I would not be allowed to do something like this, I can and do refuse service to people i think I won't pay or who might be a danger to me or something like that, but that form of public service.
Trade generally is a voluntart action, there is no reason anyone should have to make a trade with anyone they dont want to. Obviously refusing service in this way could harm sales and thats something you have to consider when making a choice like this.
One persons freedom ends where someone elses begins, you aren't stopping someone from being gay by not selling them coffee.
They can go and be gay somewhere else, its private property, you can't force someone to do business with you.
So that is a choice made by the owner of the business.
It would not be ok for an employee to make that choice because its not thier place, if they are being paid to serve everyone who comes through the door barring some sort of danger or threat or whatever reasons of that sort they may have for refusing service.
I have no doubt there will be a whole load of people who dont like this answer and frankly I dont care, I believe in freedom, which means freedom for everyone.
It seems to me the thing to do if you are refused service as a homosexual in a religiously owned coffee shop would be to open a competing coffee shop directly opposite or next to them and be outrageously camp / gay.
They have the right to refuse service if it's a private business. People who says that stuff sadly take the law too far and trying to fit their own agenda. And that's exactly what's being done. People are losing their pension, their homes, their lives, and their freedom all because one is trying to take retribution for what was done to them in the past. It's simply done as Revenge. People who are part of that Community knows for the most part certain places hold certain belief systems. They purposely go to these places to start a riot so that they can deliberately get money and do what they want. They became their own bullies, and want to bully other people. Most of the people that are religious, or Christian that don't believe in same-sex practices don't have grudges against other people. They clean people are homophobic, but why do they think that is? Because they're promoting the same fear that they want to clean religious folks do too. Even other homosexuals hate it. It's just evil people doing spiteful and even things. It's very simple. Stop promoting a business you don't agree with.
If your religious sensibilities get in the way of your ability to do your job, then you need to find a new job, elsewhere.
I've heard stories of Muslims in shops who refused to handle certain foodstuffs because their religion forbids it - they aren't fit for the job, the job shouldn't change to suit them.
Plus if you start allowing people to refuse service for arbitrary reasons like sexual orientation, then you have no argument to use when people inevitably start discriminating based on sex, race or political affiliation. That's chaos.
Well first it a private business so technically its not "their job" its their business (otherwise the company dictates what you can and cannot do and vioating that would be grounds for firing (which is perfectly reasonable,, they hired the person to do a job if they don't do it then they have violated their contractual obligation). Second if we allow a group of people to force their beliefs on another, their morals and values, how long do you think it will take before those very people have some one elses beliefs, morals, and values forced on them (like when it was deemed "immoral" for some one to be gay and thus in many nations it was actually illegal)? That is, in my opinion, playing with fire because your view of the world will not always be the dominant one so which is better, to have every one be able to do as they see fit with their lives as long as they are not restricting others or restricting others so that they can only do what others see fit? Personally I think its bad business to deny service for something like that but I'd much rather people be allowed to deny service then to have some one tell me what I can and cannot do with my life and my business.
@hellionthesagereborn
"... so which is better, to have every one be able to do as they see fit with their lives as long as they are not restricting others or restricting others so that they can only do what others see fit?"
The former, which is why I argued for such. And I reject your latter example for it's dishonest wording, it's not restricting someones freedom to expect them to do their job.
Private businesses do not operate outside of the law, discrimination is illegal.
Not at all, if your saying that some one has to do what you think they should do you are restricting them, you have now taken away their freedom. If you demand that the government get involved you are now threatening their life if they do not do as you see fit (because that is the only real power the government has, "do what we say or else"). So again, that's not them not doing their job, their job is what they believe their job is not what others say. Nothing I said was misleading, it was a statement of fact, if you force some one to do something against their will, that is oppression: "Oppression can refer to an authoritarian regime controlling its citizens via state control of politics, the monetary system, media, and the military; denying people any meaningful human or civil rights" You are saying that they cannot have a business unless they run it how you see fit, you are saying they cannot have their religious beliefs because their beliefs do not coincide with your own, that is oppression. Are you saying that the gay coffee shop owner who kicked out a bunch of Christians was allowed to do so? Because no one in the gay community or media or any one else really as far as I can tell, said a word about it. As for descrimination being illegal, if that is the case why are you advocating for descrimination? Your saying that one group has the legal right to force their beliefs on another, that is by definition descrimination.
@hellionthesagereborn
No, no, no, no.
"... If you demand that the government get involved you are now threatening their life if they do not do as you see fit"
Nonsense. I'd be threatening their job - which they are refusing to do. I am blown away by the mental gymnastics being pulled here. We're not talking about random plebs personal opinions from day to day, we are talking about employees refusing to do their jobs.
"that's not them not doing their job, their job is what they believe their job is not what others say"
Have you... had a job before? I don't think you understand how employment works.
"Nothing I said was misleading"
Actually it was. I don't know that it was deliberate, but some of your last post for instance, was very much word-salad and could be interpretted different ways.
For example;
"to have every one be able to do as they see fit with their lives as long as they are not restricting others or restricting others so that they can only do what others see fit?"
Upon reading this again, either one of could have said the same to the other. We both think the other is in favour of the latter, and ourselves the former, right?
"you are saying they cannot have their religious beliefs because their beliefs do not coincide with your own, that is oppression."
I did no such thing. I'm saying that religious beliefs are not an excuse to allow discrimination within a business - that would be illegal.
"Are you saying that the gay coffee shop owner who kicked out a bunch of Christians was allowed to do so?"
I am unfamiliar with this story.
But assuming it is as simple as you made it sound - no, I would not be in favour of kicking someone from a store simply for holding a belief.
If however, you have left out a crucial detail that the Christians were being disruptive, then yes, the store was right to do so.
"As for descrimination being illegal, if that is the case why are you advocating for descrimination? Your saying that one group has the legal right to force their beliefs on another, that is by definition descrimination."
Oh, come on. If you can't be honest, we're done here.
Okay well what happens when your not allowed to work? You starve. If you continue to resist what the government says what do they do then? Imprison you. What if you resist that unjust (in their eyes and quite frankly in mine as well) imprisonment? They use force. What happens if you resist that? They kill you. Its very simple and very straight forward, the only one using mental gymnastics here is you. You are saying that they have to do what YOU, YOU PERSONALLY say or they have to starve to death, if they refuse to do that then you will personally call upon the US government to put a gun to their head and demand that they do as YOU say. That's again, very straight forward, no jumping through hoops or gymnastics required to understand that concept. You are calling for these people to conform to your will or die, its that simple. What do you think would happen if the man refuses to give in to YOUR demands? Do you think that just a threat is going to stop people? That you just saying you don't agree therefore they are not allowed to do it is all it takes? That's incredibly naïve. We went to war over this kind of attitude, why would you think that suddenly people are going to just docile go along with being forced to do things they don't agree with? Your caling for an authoritarian government, your saying that when England had laws against homosexuality that this was perfectly acceptable because that's precisely what your calling for here, your calling for the oppression of a people because you don't agree with them, you think that they are wrong, you don't like what they do ergo they are no longer allowed to do it. But if you push for that guess what? Eventually your going to find yourself on the wrong side of the law, the majority will eventually decide they don't agree with YOU. What then?
As for the Christian group, no they where not being disruptive. The owner found out that a few blocks away they had put up a flier saying that they disagreed with abortion and if some one was in that situation to call a number. That was enough for the gay man to decide that, because the Christians didn't have the same view as him, to kick them out. Of course your unfamiliar with the story, no one cares about descrminating against christians (I mean your endorsing it right now by saying that a Christian is not allowed to act according to their religious beliefs even when those religious beliefs are not infringing upon anothers rights). I'm not sure why you think that I was leaving out some crucial detail unless you really think that some how "your" side is so benevolent that they can never get tribalisitc and religious people are so "bigoted" that they always are?
@hellionthesagereborn
"(I mean your endorsing it right now by saying that a Christian is not allowed to act according to their religious beliefs even when those religious beliefs are not infringing upon anothers rights)"
Liar.
Opinion
141Opinion
OOF! Honestly, if you say no, you're stupid.
I hate religion as much as the next guy...
but if people provide a service in exchange for money, they can do whatever they damn well please with their own business.
There's a consequence in refusing to serve... you lose out on money. These profits could've been used to expand the business and increase productivity. Now the competition has you outmatched and you're shutting down.
But seriously... you want to FORCE people to provide their service for ANYBODY?
You'd be okay with denying service for a child molester or rapist right? How would you feel if someone forced you to service them anyway?
But if we're okay with forcing people to do things then I'm going to grab my gun and pay you a visit and you're going to bake me a goddamn cake with a 12 gauge pressed on the back of your head and I'm putting $100 on the counter when you're done... because that's what you're essentially doing when you try to legislate something like that.
Someone doesn't want to bake a pair of flamers a cake, they get a ticket, and if they disagree with said ticket then the popo comes to take them to jail, and they resist going to jail then they get fucking shot. Government intervention is always done at gunpoint.
I have had trouble coming to a decision on this but I finally came to my conclusion a few months ago. Religious freedom does not extend to businesses. You have the right to practice your religion at home, express your religion in certain ways in public like pray and discuss it with willing participants, and you can go to religious institutions that are specifically for the religion you affiliate with. But a company is not a person. An individual cannot be barred from purchasing and acquiring items from a business unless that person commits a crime or is responsible for a massive disturbance.
If a person was hungry and the only place around they could afford refused to serve them, that means they would not be able to eat. If their car broke down in a small town where they all denied gay people, disabled people, black people, white people... whoever, from their businesses then that means that person is stuck in a town without gas, without food and potentially without service as small towns often have bad coverage or none at all.
Discrimination based on race, gender, religion, disability or sexuality is unnecessarily exclusionary and should be prohibited. To ensure the freedom of everyone some freedoms must be limited. Just like a business owners freedom to hire employees does not include children or a persons freedom to choose to drive under the influence is curtailed.
Freedom of religion also means freedom From religion.
According to federal law, businesses can refuse service to anyone for any cause, unless that reason is against someone in a protected class. "Protected class" includes race/color, national origin, citizen status, sex and/or sexual orientation, age, disability, pregnancy or genetic information. So it's ok to refuse service if they don't wear shoes or shirt, but not because they wear a Mogen David or a Rosary.
That being said, a Muslim shopkeeper can refuse to sell pork because it is haram, or a Hindu can refuse to sell beef. But cannot do so based on religion. Can do it because those meats are not stocked, and cannot be sold if they are not stocked.
Where it gets sticky is, as you mention, LGBTQ customers who want a wedding cake or a photographer to provide services against the beliefs of said vendor of product or service. They do have the right, under the authority many claim was usurped from the people by the government, to demand you discard your personal religious beliefs and must honor their dogma, thus forcing shopkeepers, bakers, wedding chapels and photographers to accept employment by persons with whom they have cultural differences. So anyone can claim to be a religion, and want to marry their same-sex partner, a park bench, their dog or their horse (the latter two have been married in England, I believe).
Where will it end? Now it's two grooms or two brides on a cake. Will it be next a succubus and incubus on a cake for a satanic wedding? Of course! If I'm baking the cake or taking the pictures, I can guarantee, however, the quality will be lower than if I was in religious agreement with said couple.
Personally, I think it's stupid to bring cases involving such things into court, unless the goal is glorious mediocrity in which is no talent, no spark, no soul. Just the basic service. Nothing special for special occasions.
Then again, I'm an old crotchety fogey who may well be wrong in what I see as this whole New World Ordered Orwellian society.
@sheepdip It probably would be lower quality. I don't know how to bake a Mormon cake. I would suggest finding a Mormon bakery, before trying it myself.
If you were Catholic, and were asked to bake Challah, could you or would you, and would it be of the same quality a Jewish bakery could produce?
Notice I did not say I wouldn't do it. I'm saying that I'm not qualified to bake or decorate to a cultural standard I do not know. I would do the best I could, but it would not be of the quality the Mormon couple would want for such an important occasion.
Also, I was talking about a Satanic Temple cake. Would you bake such a cake? Would you even know where to start? That, incidentally, is a recognized religion, and they were working on forcing Christian bakers to produce cakes with pentagrams, upside down crosses, and a horned bride in a red dress (per a 2017 article found using "satanic wedding cake" as a search string.)
But as you point out, I could be forced to do it under law. That's the part that sticks in my craw.
It's okay to refuse being ordered to make a specialty order to endorse the politicization of crimes against nature. After all: unless they flaunt their sexual perversion every which direction, then it can sometimes be hard to tell that someone is into it.
Nobody is gonna go witch-hunting someone's sexual proclivities for purposes of denying them a cheeseburger; so those trying to make it sound that way are beyond dishonest.
That being said, a court suing a bakery into oblivion for refusal to put its name on a cake and endorse a kook fringe left political movement centered around the worship of a specific sexual behavior is absolutely beyond the pale.
Then again, Portland in Oregon allowed an Antifa operative to become their mayor. And now, Antifa terrorize whomever they wish in the streets with reckless abandon. If someone looks particularly like something they might want to attack, and they attack, the victim is criminally charged for being "provocative"! Absolute perversion of justice!
Of course, point this out on Facebook, and how the National Guard needs to step in and depose this seditious anarcho-tyranny with extreme prejudice (i. e.: tank missile fire), and the Antifa operatives who've made themselves the secret police there will get your account suspended.
I think the cake Baker did it right. He would happily sell any gay person a cage off the shelf, a birthday cake, a graduation cake, a get well soon cake, but not a special order wedding cake.
By making the special order wedding cake he would be effectively participating in the wedding that's against his religious beliefs. In a bigger company somebody else employed there could have made it instead of him but that wasn't possible. It's not like he ran them out of the store for being gay. He just wouldn't make that specific cake.
To me that's the best option. People refusing to participate in things against their religious beliefs while not allowing them to outright exclude people simply for being different. If you don't understand how those are different reread the explanation above.
Its ok to refuse service to anyone. People have the freedom of religion as well as freedom of expression. Even just the freedom of conviction and standing behind principles regardless of any religious persuasion or not. I would never force someone to serve me. If you disagree that I'm heterosexual, then I will still support your freedoms. I may not be happy with it just like I can understand an LGBTQ person not being happy by refusal of service. But freedom and rights must be respected as most important way before people's feelings and self entitlements.
It is definitely ok. Nobody should be forced into a choice that violates their morals. Government is different because there is an expected standard of putting yourself aside, but to tell a private business owner what they will and won't accept is wrong. If a gay/lesbian/whatever else exists nowadays demands their rights be respected, I will demand my rights be respected. They can find another place to eat, shop, etc. that accommodates their beliefs without infringing on mine. So yes I believe it is ok.
@slatyb No, that is racist and is not supported ANYWHERE in the Bible. The Bible EXPLICITLY mentions homosexuality is a sin. That gives religious grounds for someone of the Christian faith to have an objection to serving people who violate their faith. Hotels rejecting black people is different because there is literally NO grounds for it and doing so is purely out of hate.
@slatyb The Bible is NOT irrelevant in US law. US law is actually founded on the principals of the Bible. Just take an intro to criminal justice course and you will see that. As for the South claiming enslavement was part of God's plan, look how that worked out. Many people misinterpret the Bible or twist it for their own gain. Even if you belief/ do not believe the Bible, it is relevant because a Christian has just as much right to run their PRIVATE business how they see fit as a Muslim does. Many people cannot read the Qu'ran because it is only in Arabic so people are VERY ignorant of what it says, but I have Muslim friends who can read it and they have admitted Muslims treat homosexuals much worse than Christians do. Regardless, religion is a protected status equal to race, sexual orientation, veteran status, etc. The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that, when the interests of two protected statuses collide in the private sector, the one who holds dominion over the property wins out. For example, if a Christian owns a bakery and refuses to serve a gay couple because it violates a fundamental part of their faith, the interest of the Christian wins because they own the property. Reverse the situation. If a Gay bar owner refuses to serve drinks to a Christian and asks him to leave because he feels the Christian might hurt his business by converting someone, the bar owner's interest wins. Both the Christian and the Gays in each example are protected under federal law, but whoever owns the property/business wins out. I am not here to argue right or wrong, but to mention what the law dictates.
Amazing points. Teach him something. He lacks a lot.
Actually your ignorance is showing. Nowhere does it say homosexuality is a sin. At best is says man shall not lay with a man as he does a woman. And there's more than one way that could be interpreted, so you can't use it as the foundation of an argument.
@BimboBarbie Look in the Book of Luke
No. It's not OK. I'm Muslim, and in my religious beliefs, homosexuality is a sin (so are adultery, alcohol, pork, charging interest... etc.) If I owned a business, I would serve everyone regardless of sexual orientation, national origin, ethnicity, religion, gender... etc. etc. I don't care. Don't have to agree with your neighbor to be a good neighbor.
These are my personal beliefs. It is none of my business what choices people make in their personal lives so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.
It's wrong to not serve a gay couple but that doesn't mean you have to participate in a gay wedding. Baking a cake is participating in their wedding which is what the baker was objecting to.
If he tried to throw them out of his bakery because they were gay he would have lost his case. Thats discrimination and not allowed.
But he can't be forced to participate in something his religion sees as wrong (a gay marriage). That's why he won and didn't have to bake the cake. And it was the right decision.
I guess if you own a private business and you pay your taxes you can do whatever you want. Enjoy the boycotts and or at least the loss of money from turning away customers.
However, religious organisations who receive funding from the tax payer should not be able pick and choose which members of the public they serve. Why should LGBT tax payers pay to be discriminated against?
I find not wanting to serve same sex couples based on religious beliefs is complete bullshit. They are the only ones that get discriminated against based on religious beliefs. It never happens to unwed or divorced mothers. These religious freedom laws rarely target anyone else. And if it's a restaurant with religious owners that wants to refuse to put an engagement ring in the champagne glass for someone wanting to propose to their same-sex partner while including lobster on the menu omfg
Let"s be very blunt about this: sexual orientation is not covered by the civil rights act of 1964, and "what about my freedom of religion" has been used as a cover to exploit that. In case anyone is not reading between the lines, I'm stating that does not make that discrimination acceptable, just as segregation and slavery legality did not make them acceptable.
For anyone who missed civics, owning a private business does not mean you do what you wish and serve who you wish, the civil rights act for example specifically addresses private business. The freedom of religion means that unlike some countries, you should not be prosecuted by your government for the PERSONAL practice of beliefs. You should not be fired for the religion you PERSONALLY practice. If you don't believe i gay marriage, my sugguestion would be to not personally marry someone who is gay, but be warned, I hear those camps do not go well.
Chick fil-A has never refused to serve someone, or give them different treatment based on their race or sexual orientation.
It's my opinion that the owner of a business should be able to deny service to any customer for any reason as long as they have an established policy ahead of time that justifies their decision; a businessman or woman is at that point basically saying "I don't want your money or your business" and that's their loss, plus if their plan is to deny service to an entire demographic, they'll more than likely be crushed by public outcry anyway.
As a general rule I don't think it's okay. In specific circumstances I do. For example, tattoo artists refuse work all the time. Whether it be a certain type of art outside of what they do or even if they just don't like the person. They deny work and it's justified.
If you went to an artist asking for a nude drawing of you, requiring them to look at you naked you are now asking more of them that delves into justifiable reasons to deny service that no one would consider wrong.
In the context of the gay wedding cake. If it were me I would just make the cake and get that cash. But I still think it was their right to decline. My understanding is that they were also being asked to cater the whole wedding aswell and they felt this would have been supporting something they disagreed with.
Technically yes. But moraly no. I believe that morals come before religion. And if we are talking about Christianity specifically then... ok I'm not gonna rant and rave here because... there is a lot I can say but think about this. The first bible was written in Latin. There is no word for gay in Latin. The closest translation to it is a man who takes care of his body... plus the bible was revised by over 200 people.. so yea. And last thing the bible I'm pretty sure says marriage should be man and woman not has to be man and woman. Sounds like a suggestion to me not mandatory
If it’s a public business like McDonald’s or Chase I think it would bad for to deny a service to a client based on their sexual orientation. Yes, that person has their own opinion, but he/she is working under a corporation which have laws against discrimination on that person. However, if it’s a private business, even as fucked up as it sounds, the owner has the right to deny a service to person because of that owner’s belief. Is it mean? Totally, yet he still has the right to say no.
Yes, they have freedom of religion but I have freedom of speech and the ability to refuse service to whomever I please. the LGBT community is not a protected class.
I'm working in the wedding industry with hopes to run my own wedding company someday and I will decide this matter on a case by case basis, but if I decline to do so, it is within my right and I'll use an excuse such as I'm not available to take on new clients right now just to avoid the mess of the real reason but I'm not afraid to go to court for it either.
Just as the case of the people who refuse service to members of political parties. They have the freedom to do so. Albeit, it may be a stupid decision sometimes but they reserve that right.
Okay if it's okay for religious people to do that then it should also be okay for LGBT and nonreligious people to ban religious folks from their stores. That's currently ILLEGAL to do. So basically religious people have a privileged position where they can refuse service to people but nobody is allowed to refuse service to them.
The law either needs to change so we can kick religious folks out OR protections need to apply to LGBT people so nobody can get refused service.
Equality for all either way. Everyone gets kicked or nobody gets kicked. I'm all for equality. That's how a lawful society should operate.
@Tanisha69 okay then people should be able to refuse service to religious people which is currently illegal. Make it equal either way. That's my message. Equality!
@Tanisha69 you don't see the hypocricy of that? The lack of equality for all groups? It's okay for some people to be treated unfairly and others not? Imagine the outrage if this was racial or ethnic related.
@Tanisha69 I doubt he'd be asked to make a pie that wasn't already on his menu. Like I don't frequently go to Burger King and ask for a big Mac. Lol that's not a good comparison you just made.
Why do gay people purposely go to places that don't want to serve them and avoid places that would serve them? It is because they are antagonistic and very intolerant of other's views/beliefs.
They want to be tolerated, but they don't tolerate others.
@Pete671 Just like I wouldn't want to give business to prejudice immoral homos either. Both groups win if they just avoid each other. There are plenty of other businesses to go to for each.
The issue in the news is that bakery run by christians.
The thing is if this happened at a Muslim owned bakery AND same Sex couple was refused, nothing would have been said, mentioned, or an issue made
It's ok for some religions to cry foul and it's ok, but other religions get pounded on for having religious objections
Your picture implies that Chick-fil-A won't serve certain groups. They certainly DO serve all peoples.
But I digress-
I think it's OK for a business owner to refuse service to anyone for any reason they deem necessary. So many places (restaurants, especially) have a sign/line on the menu that says
"we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". The story should simply end there. Period.
As far as suing for "damages" for not having a cake made: in order to have "standing" in a court, the plaintiff has to show they were "damaged" to receive tort compensation. Since the "couple (s)" in question were offered- by the ones they were suing, even!!!- the names of other bakeries who would decorate their cake- they suffered no damages and, thusly, did NOT have standing in the court to receive a tort compensation.
But of course, then the big groups get in on the action to push their agendas and things just go downhill from there.
Yes, I've seen some arguments surrounding the issue, the problem is in the different in being free from or being free to. In reality we are free from and not free to. I'm free from being assaulted but I'm not free to assault. I'm free from being attacked for my sexuality, but I'm not free to force others to do as I please. The Baker is also free from being coerced, but not free to do them harm. Also, the whole bake the cake story is stupid because there are a ton of places that would provide that service.
I have to be careful with my words here - I don't believe in any form of intolerance but I also don't agree with looking for trouble.
If you want a wedding cake for your same sex wedding, you don't go to a fundamentalist religious bakery - Any research through word of mouth or on the internet would find you a LGBTQ friendly bakery.
That said if it was an ambiguous establishment and they then said we can't serve you because you are a same sex couple then I would have an issue.
The baker never said he wouldn't serve them because they were a same-sex couple. If they had been looking for a birthday cake there would have been no problem. His religion does not allow him to participate in a gay wedding (including catering it or baking a cake). If you think this is an extreme position, there are Catholic priests and Southern Baptist ministers in every church of those denominations in your city or town who have the exact same restriction.
@Tanisha69 That was more or less what I was saying that couple went to that bakery to be refused and kick up a fuss.
No, it's not okay to refuse service, employment, or other legal or financial opportunity to people on the basis of sexual orientation.
There are people whose sincerely held religious belief is that non-white races are inferior or unclean, and they refuse to serve them on those grounds.
Religious business owners possess the constitutional right to practice their religion, and if such a religion just so happens to not look favorably upon the LGBT community then they have the right to deny service two members of the LGBT community.
Let's face it, the main reason members of the LGBT community keep going to christian-owned businesses is because they get off on forcing them to go against their religion and serve them, or else risk losing all your business and going into bankruptcy.
There are hundreds of cake places to order a custom cake. Gays just want to make a scene, throw a fit, and use their newfound powers to shut down a family owned business.
Obviously a normal cafe can't reject them but a catholic cake shop has the right to not serve their gay wedding. PLENTY of non catholic cake shops will serve them. Go to one of those.
Bloody wankers...
No it's not ok to refuse service to them... that's because your suppose to be giving some good service to the customer who come to your place of business lookin' for some really good service. Either way service is suppose to be provided to the customer without any discriminating their sexuality, LGBT people need businesses to give them some service just like any other customer. I'm saying this because I know that I would like my Girlfriend to be able to say that "there's good service there that's not pickin' and choosing who to give their service to". It provides that quality service without make it unfair for the customer to get the service that they had came to that business for
I dont think that they should be prohibited from a restaurant or other businesses. But in some cases if they dont give services (not related to restaurant, health care, and such) it's certainly not to attack members of the LGBTQ. I believe that just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean you can't love them. Disagreement doesn't equal hatred. Hatred equals hatred. Like, I may disagree with someone politically, but I can still love them and treat them with kindness.
I am religious but I think this is too far to not feed someone because you don't agree with them? This is not religious freedom this is cruelty, I mean sure they can eat elsewhere but why would you not serve them? It's not like you're singing in their wedding it's just a damn food.
Let me ask you something, if you found someone lost in the desert and they asked you for water but you found out they're gay, would you deny them that? Sure you could say it's not the same but it's almost like it. Even murderers and kids rapist are fed in the prison.
And to claim it's for religious beliefs is even worse if Jesus or Mohammed or Moises or any prophet were alive, do you think they would refuse to give food to someone just because they disagreed with them?
If it's based on your religious belief that you are denying them serves then you are failing your own religion. No matter which religion you follow, if you're discriminating someone based on their belief then you are a hypocrite no matter what religion you follow... you're meant to love everyone and let God do the judgement.
If it's a private business sure. You make your own rules.
Otherwise. No. Lol
I wouldn't hire anyone to work for me if they turned away business like that.
The job requires you to serve everyone. If its against your religion then don't work there and chose a different job.
That's like.. applying for a job as a porn star then getting pissy and saying its against your religion and an infringement on your freedom to do blah blah blah.
Yes and no, yes I think a priest should be allowed to choose which they have as clients. Ie refuse to service same sex people because it against their religion.
No in cases where their sexuality or religion doesn't matter. Ie to go buy a cup of coffee. There is no reason for a coffee shop owner to refuse a gay person coffee. There is no religious context here. So they have no right to refuse on religious grounds.
Personally I think it makes someone a total jerk to refuse to serve people based on that. But I wouldn't make it illegal. I'd like to, because it is discriminatory against a protected demographic, but in the current political climate I don't think it would go over well, and it might do more harm than good.
Absolutely not. Any religion that doesn’t believe in serving its customers equally isn’t a belief system that needs to exist. Period. If you don’t like gay couples, don’t like them at home but you should not get to reject them at a business whatsoever.
you have a right to refuse to serve who you wish, however if you ask whether i think it's morally right to discriminate against someone cos they do not conform to the beliefs you follow.. then i would say it's not ok...
and in a way is forcing your views upon them... as a result.
but if the couple was abusive or had history which effected you badly then sure... it would be ok to refuse morally and justifiably
It's okay for a business to refuse to serve anyone for any reason or for no reason at all.
It's THEIR business. If they don't want you there, fuck off!
You want a gay wedding cake? Open up a gay bakery. Bake it yourself.
Other people aren't your slaves, you're not entitled to their service.
Legally speaking you can't do it for race or disability reasons.
@Hypnos0929 That law just means that nobody owns their own business in America. The Government owns every business and the business "owner" is just renting it out from the government.
That law turns free men into slaves.
No it prevents racist practices and equal opportunity. Considering when it was made it was a very big necessity as business owners everywhere from restaurants to banks to the police would refuse to serve minorities. Their refusal to do so was hurting the economy as a whole and hurt society. Regulations are necessary especially when equal opprotunities are affected.
How exactly is serving someone whose lifestyle you don't agree with an infringement on your religious rights? Does your religion specifically say you cannot sell a cake to a homosexual? Is that breaking some rule in the bible? What rule is that, exactly?
Let's face it, someone who refuses to serve a same-sex couple couple is not doing so out of religious obligation; they are doing it out of hatred.
Religious beliefs should not be a loophole that allows someone to behave like a bigot.
One more thought. If there was a religion that believed it was their right to kill other people who don't believe in their god (I'm being hypothetical here), would it be an infringement on their religious rights to tell them they cannot kill the non-believers? It's a more extreme example, but the same concept.
They have the right to refuse service to anyone they please. Its their business not yours or his or hers. It's their business no one elses.
So if I want to refuse to serve females, people with stain up shirts or what ever reason. I can because its my business.
Nope. If that's the case then I can just be a bitch and make up a religion like others did that lets me discriminate against tons of people. Religions are all madeup so it would be no different other then people would bitch at me claiming it's a fake thing just to be a dick. Yet no one cares their religion preaches hate
And to the two who downvoted me thanks you proving my point
No they should. At the end of the day u can’t physically help your sexual tendencies and who u want to go out with love and marry. Your religion should really support u because it’s what u want and it makes u happy. I’m non religious myself and I’m sorry if what I’m saying offends anyone but let’s face in no one can help who we love: what age they are gender or anything. We all fall in love and if you and your partner want to get married and spend the rest of your life together then so be it. Everyone should support you. We r the 21st century no one let alone your religion should stop u from being with your soul mate. So no they shouldn’t be allowed to stop u from marrying the same sex. U love them u want the world to see that no one or no religion should tell u that u can’t marry who u love.
No, I don't think it's okay because businesses aren't about religion, they are about making money. So, to refuse someone is wrong. You don't have agree with their way of life but you don't get to make life difficult for them because you don't agree. You can't help who you fall in love with and you shouldn't be condemned for it, if just so happens to be someone of the same gender.
Religion plays a part in all we do
I dont support them but refusing them service is just taking money out of your own pockets. So yea if u want something, come buy it. I also find it dumb when stores say no shoes/shirt, no service. Like what if theyre homeless and have no clothes. If someone was nice enough to give them $5 to buy a snack, then they should be serviced.
I do not understand why it would be a problem? Its business, turning it away is bad business. Besides, if an unmarried couple come into an establishment, are they not sinners as well? It is better to create a tolerant society, if a couple does not harm the rights of others, then he/she is not doing anything wrong.
Morally? I don't think it's ok. In the same respect, I don't think it's right to expect anyone to like or accept you just because you're different than they are. Should sexuality matter in a situation like that? I don't think so. But, they do have a right to refuse service to anyone. And even if it's a protected class, they don't have to disclose why they're refusing service.
I am a Christian and I know that God does not approve of same sex marriages for God made two sexes ! for the two sexes are to get married and have children ! Now if I had a bakery then I would make cakes and such for everyone ! however if two same sex people started having sex or kissing each other in my place of business then I would tell them to stop it or leave ! if they did not stop it or leave then I would call the police on them for their trespassing on my property ! Thanks
It’s not an attack. It’s respecting their religion.
I support the LGBTQ+ by the way. I stand by them and I defend their rights.
But I also defend other people’s rights, and just because someone belongs to the LGBTQ+ group, it doesn’t mean everyone will shove away their beliefs for them. It is their right too.
Depending on the circumstances. Like a cake that supports a political view or sexual practice that goes against their religion well then they shouldn't be forced into it.
I mean you wouldn't force a gay baker to make a cake that says marraige is for only a man and a woman.
Sorry just to revisit it. If a buisness owner doesn't want to bake a gay wedding cake or cater a gay wedding that's fine but if you are an employee you should either serve the gay or get fired.
I believe in the right to refuse customers and the right to not be distriminated. It is usually spiteful people, that uses one to break the other. Most people would be understanding and respectfully get over it. Maybe find another serviceprovider or produce a regular service like a simple white wedding cake, that the customer can add two same sex figures on top.
But their are many bakers, isn't it descrimination to then punish a man for not doing what they wanted? That baker has been harassed and sued multiple times now because of his beliefs, that is descrimination. They could have gone some where else and respected his beliefs (he never was rude by thei own admission and he told them they could get any kind of cake they wanted just not a wedding cake because that was what was against his religious views). Respect must go both ways, if you do not respect his views why would he have to respect yours? If you think descrimination is wrong, then it should be wrong regardless of who is doing the descrimination.
Is it ok to refuse to serve mixed-race couples because of religion? What about just refusing to serve non-whites? To me these situations are perfectly analogous. People used to claim that they had a sincere religious belief against race mixing, or against blacks and whites using the same swimming pool. Do you think those people should be able to refuse service to mixed race couples, or a hotel that doesn't serve black guests?
Yes. Private means private. Go somewhere else.
@Hispanic-Cool-Guy So you think we should go back to the days of the Green Book? I don't. If you want to run a business serving the public, serve all of the public.
I serve who the hell I want to serve and do business with. They can get the hell out of my private business and property.
You have no right to force me to do business with whom I wish not for whatever reason.
@Hispanic-Cool-Guy Congress and the Supreme Court and most Americans disagree with you.
I will be more than happy to see the law which states a private business owner can not discriminate to whomever he or she wishes based on race, religion, gender or political affiliations.
I said "private business owner"
@Hispanic-Cool-Guy it's titled "The Civil Rights Act". It was enacted in 1964. It's settled law barring discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, etc.
Title II—public accommodations
Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".
Yeah, nothing here about denying fags their little wedding cake.
@Hispanic-Cool-Guy yes but States can pass anti-discrimination laws that protect other classes. So far the Supreme Court hasn't filled either way on that. But I guarantee that is it goes to hearing one of the justices will ask how discriminating against same-sex couples is different from discriminating against mixed-race couples. Because there is no way the 1964 Civil Rights Act is going to be overturned on grounds of religious freedom.
Yes, you don't have to serve anyone if you don't want to. I can't say it's a particularly lucrative business strategy, but you can refuse service to anyone you like, not based on religious beliefs, but the fact it's your business. You can refuse service to anyone for any reason, but like I say it might not be very smart all of the time.
I’m not 100% sure. My gut is:
- as an independent business owner you shouldn’t be obliged to make a custom service or product you don’t agree with.
- you should not be able to refuse to offer your normal services based on someone’s orientation.
That probably means you shouldn’t have to make little sugar models of something you don’t agree with, but should be obliged to sell your standard products to a gay couple even if you don’t like what they’re going to use it for.
If it's not a necessity for those same-sex couples (refuse medical help for example), then it is perfectly reasonable. It's the business owners choice. And if that choice means he decreases his potential amount of costumers, then so be it. Don't like the business owner doing it? Open up your own business and compete.
If I refused service to someone in my business because they wore a cross, because I see it as a symbol of oppression how would you feel about it? If your religion let's you refuse service to someone of a different belief isn't that oppression?
What about refusing someone because of a handicap?
Or even refusing someone over the fact that they are a woman?
It's an act of aggression.
taking all emotion out of it , yes, it's your business , that old sign we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, I think you shouldn't have to provide services to anyone your uncomfortable with. not really good for business though, but if I dont wish to bake you a cake for whatever reason, I shouldn't have to explain myself.
LOL remember this response was based on a decision not including your primitive human emotions😎
We are living in a free country where discrimination of any kind ESPECIALLY the refusal to serve someone based on gender, sexuality, race etc is illegal. You don’t have to agree with them but you MUST respect their rights. Follow the law of your country. Simple as that.
Who the fuck disliked that? Wtf? Some homophobic, racist, sexist bigots on here...
Things like baking cakes and arranging flowers are not religious endeavours. Religious freedom doesn’t mean taking everyday activities and calling them religious just so you can deny services to someone. If you hold a belief that could interfere with the service you provide, it’s up to you to ensure you don’t put yourself in a position where you could be asked to violate that belief.
Why would it ever be my responsibility to make sure you don’t violate your beliefs?
u I am okay with not forcing people to engage in actions that violate their sincerely hello religious beliefs.
It isn't written anywhere in the Bible or even the Quran (which is quite extreme) that one cannot provide services for homosexuals. They just imply that being a homosexual yourself is a sin. But it does say: 2 Corinthians 1:3-4
Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as Christ God forgave you
Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.
— Galatians 6:2
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, who comforts us all in our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves receive from God.
— 2 Corinthians 1:3-4
Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as Christ God forgave you.
— Romans 12:15
Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble.
— 1 Peter 3:8
Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others, as faithful stewards of God’s grace in its various forms.
— 1 Peter 4:10
This is what the Lord Almighty said: ‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the foreigner or the poor. Do not plot evil against each other.’
Among other stuff. So if they know their own religion, being prejudiced is against their own religion! Therefore not serving someone just cause they are gay is not freedom of religion.
I dont like all the noise that LGBT community makes novadays but at the same time I have nothing against gay people just living a normal life and minding their own business. I would just serve the person as anyone else. I however dislike people parading the things whether it is their sexual orientation or their religious cloth.
Yes.* Somewhere along the line things got messed up and what was intended SPECIFICALLY as a restriction upon government was flipped into using government as a restriction upon private individuals and their property.
* I would not personally, but businesses should be able to serve whom they want. If they fail to serve a population, then other business will appear to take that business.
I think it depends on the context.
For example serve for a gay wedding
Vs
Serve a gay couple a meal.
Since there are a million places someone can go. Businesses should have a right to deny whoever for w. E reason
Who am I to force you to serve someone.
There is give and take here.
Religious shouldn't shun the homosexual but homosexuals shouldn't try and change the religious.
There should be mutual respect and understanding from each side.
Integrate LGBT into society so that they are considered in the same regards as others.( T may need a bit more ideological development)
This both gives them the rights they want and removes their "privileges".
This could have been so much simpler if they had just gone to a different store.
Personally I'm not against homosexuality but some traditional Christians are so I feel it is wrong to try and force one who believes that to make such a cake when they have said they do not want to.
Acceptance of homosexuals has to come on their own terms it can't be forced upon them or otherwise that goes against freedom of beliefs.
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions