Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Gatefan1976]

Now that I had a minute to find it.. A NY court recently ruled in favor of a bar that refused to serve an individual...

https://forum.gateworld.net/threads/...1#post14622398

From the news article cited in that post:


There ya go. Legal precedent for a business choosing not to serve someone.

He made the same mistake as the gay couple, should have gone for arbitration.

[Gatefan1976]

Not saying it's right, but it's the law. You could refuse to serve a customer on any grounds except those mentioned in the constitution (i.e.: Religion). But why would you? It's bad for your reputation and it's bad for business.

No.
The STATE has no right to accept or ignore religion as a matter of law.
Let me rephrase.
If my deeply held religious belief was that all Americans need to die, the state has no right to act on that belief via the mechanism of law.
Is this right?
From what you (and annoyed) are actually arguing, this is correct.
This is why motive is not always a looked at as reason in criminal trials (even though it is preferred to have)
If you give blanket passes for "deeply held religious/moral beliefs", I can commit any crime I wish and claim that the state is violating my "free establishment clause" while ignoring the body of secular law. The Supreme court may have thought it was clever to pass the buck, and even go so far as to say it was NOT establishing judicial precedent, but in essence, it just said "9/11 was fine, it was a expression of deeply held religious beliefs, and we cannot rule on that"

Now, you could consider this a "slippery slope" argument, and to a degree, it is, no argument given, but remember, in tribal politics, either for or against your favoured party, there is tribalism.
I would say, that tribalism has no place in politics. The right wing MUST defend the left sometimes, and the left wing MUST defend the right sometimes. They need to suck up a bucket of equality and just do it.

You could refuse to serve a customer with a hot-dog hat for all I care, maybe you're a burger guy and you don't like that?

Or maybe, you (non personal) should grow the hell up.

Ever heard of the Pastafarians? They actually went as far as to be recognized as a charted religion, and their disciples are now able to wear a strainer on their head for their Drivers license picture. If I would be one of those, I could sue a business if they show me the door because of my strainer-hat and THIS would be considered discrimination.

Under the current ruling, it is.
Their religious right trumps your "oh WTF"
You just didn't get served.

The hot-dog hatter, unfortunately, would have to promptly leave the restaurant and re-think his life.

It violates their rights, as enforced, or not enforced by the state.

[Chaka-Z0]

If my deeply held religious belief was that all Americans need to die, the state has no right to act on that belief via the mechanism of law.
Is this right?

Well, I might just have to re-read the Bible, I must've missed the part where they explicitly mention that!

If you give blanket passes for "deeply held religious/moral beliefs", I can commit any crime I wish and claim that the state is violating my "free establishment clause" while ignoring the body of secular law. The Supreme court may have thought it was clever to pass the buck, and even go so far as to say it was NOT establishing judicial precedent, but in essence, it just said "9/11 was fine, it was a expression of deeply held religious beliefs, and we cannot rule on that"

Good luck demonstrating that in court. You're going way overboard with this. It is well known that Christianity is against gay marriage, there's an actual reasoning behind the Baker's thinking. He's not twisting religion to suit his views, like the terrorists do with Islam when they commit acts of terror.

To be perfectly clear, I am not in favor of the Baker in this case, or for that matter, any individual that is blinded by religion and resort to irrational thinking such as this. Although, I understand that everybody's point of view must be respected even when not understood, to an extent of course. That's what makes us different from animals.

Or maybe, you (non personal) should grow the hell up.

Sorry to have offended you with my Hot-dog hat parallel. I find that using these examples usually doesn't trigger people as much as using bombs, 9/11 and killings. A day without humor is a day wasted - Charlie Chaplin[/QUOTE]

[Gatefan1976]

Well, I might just have to re-read the Bible, I must've missed the part where they explicitly mention that!

The bible is not the only source of religion, nor the Qu'ran, or the Torah.
The EXCUSE is "religious belief", and like any religion, I can get that from any book.

Good luck demonstrating that in court. You're going way overboard with this. It is well known that Christianity is against gay marriage, there's an actual reasoning behind the Baker's thinking. He's not twisting religion to suit his views, like the terrorists do with Islam when they commit acts of terror.

You do realise Jesus never said much about gays, right?
Most Christian objections for gay marriage come from the OT, not the NT.
Sounds a bit like twisting the words of Jesus to suit your views.
I'm not "over thinking" it, I'm putting all nuts on an equal playing field.

To be perfectly clear, I am not in favor of the Baker in this case, or for that matter, any individual that is blinded by religion and resort to irrational thinking such as this. Although, I understand that everybody's point of view must be respected even when not understood, to an extent of course. That's what makes us different from animals.

Your mistake is assuming we are not Animals.
We are.

Sorry to have offended you with my Hot-dog hat parallel. I find that using these examples usually doesn't trigger people as much as using bombs, 9/11 and killings. A day without humor is a day wasted - Charlie Chaplin

I'm not offended, but I am amused you think I would be.
Perhaps hot dogs are against my religion, therefore you, as a hot dog fan, need to be punished in some way.

[aretood2]

I personally think the whole baker thing was stupid. People grandstanding on their religion.

If I was a baker I would bake cakes. I would sell cakes. I would sell cakes to anyone that asked for cake.

Why is this so hard to understand?

You're assuming malice where there is none. The couple never alleged that he was rude nor spiteful with them. If anything, he offered to sell them anything baked good minus a custom wedding cake. No matter how misguided he may be, it is intellectual laziness to simply split this into an "us vs them" mentality like that and automatically assume malice. Does it make things simple, easy, and black and white? Yes. But then again, we live in a world of grey, no?

Personally, I'd bake and sell them the cake and take it to their wedding. It's a service and I am doing it in the name of the company, even if I am self employed it is the company and not myself. Now if he was making a cake from his kitchen or doing it in a way that an artist gets a commision, I would have sided with his interpretations of Christianity. But his company is not an private art studio, it's a bakery. God wouldn't mind at all.

The bible is not the only source of religion, nor the Qu'ran, or the Torah.
The EXCUSE is "religious belief", and like any religion, I can get that from any book.


You do realise Jesus never said much about gays, right?
Most Christian objections for gay marriage come from the OT, not the NT.
Sounds a bit like twisting the words of Jesus to suit your views.
I'm not "over thinking" it, I'm putting all nuts on an equal playing field.

I'm not sure if you read the court opinions, but I'm assuming you did. The problem that SCOTUS pointed to wasn't just a pragmatic punt. They correctly identified a deficiency that needed to be addressed. If the state is going to accept that a business can refuse to bake a cake on the basis that the customer wants a cake with an anti-gay message, then it has to allow for or explore all moral causes for refusal of service. The Colorado commission did not take the baker's moral consideration on two grounds. One, because it was religious and two, because it was a minority opinion.

On the first point, the state cannot treat moral objections that are religious any different than moral objections that are secular. That is set constitutional law based on established precedent. The commission failed to examine the moral objection given by the baker and failed to consider it. They even made derisive comments showing a bias against his moral objection because of its religious nature.

On the second point, SCOTUS has recognized that there is a constitutional need to protect minority opinions. Our rights are not predicated on how popular they are. They are not predicated on whether the excersise of those rights involve unpopular opinions or beliefs. If anything, it's meant to protect the minority from the oppression of the majority. Justice Thomas put it ths way

"If Phillips’ continued adherence to that understanding
makes him a minority after Obergefell, that is all
the more reason to insist that his speech be protected. See
Dale, supra, at 660 (“[T]he fact that [the social acceptance
of homosexuality] may be embraced and advocated by
increasing numbers of people is all the more reason to
protect the First Amendment rights of those who wish to
voice a different view

The majority opinion and the essence of the concurring opinions basically point to the fact that the baker's case was improperly handled. So no, they didn't rule on the religious objection and a better handled case would be more proper to use for that than this hot mess. Reading the entire opinions and the Certiorari really point out a very messed up process on the road to SCOTUS. The need to remedy that and set a precedent that requires states to follow proper constitutional procedures is just as important as ruling on whether or not the baker's free speech/exercise rights were violated.

[Womble]

Perhaps hot dogs are against my religion, therefore you, as a hot dog fan, need to be punished in some way.

Good luck getting an expert witness to confirm that there exists such a system of moral beliefs.

You treat religion as if it's something one comes up with at will after a drunken night. It might be convenient for you in order to not confront the sharper corners of reality, but argumentum ab absurdo is not a valid logical device.

If one's religious convictions can be casually dismissed as if they were equivalent to one's feelings about hot dogs, why not one's convictions about equality of races or genders? Should one be compelled to bake a "white power" cake for Hitler's birthday for that special kind of customer?

On a side note, I wonder how things would've gone if the baker tried a different line of argument - that being perceived as a gay-friendly business places him at risk of assault by religious zealots. Would that get more sympathy?

[Gatefan1976]

Good luck getting an expert witness to confirm that there exists such a system of moral beliefs.

Good luck trying to prove that it's not.

You treat religion as if it's something one comes up with at will after a drunken night. It might be convenient for you in order to not confront the sharper corners of reality, but argumentum ab absurdo is not a valid logical device.

What "sharper corners of reality"?
More people believe in the same old stories?
I treat religion as a -personal thing- Womble, I always have which is why people say I sound like an Atheist sometimes, because I don't need the trappings or cult like mentality of a church, -any church-.

If one's religious convictions can be casually dismissed as if they were equivalent to one's feelings about hot dogs, why not one's convictions about equality of races or genders? Should one be compelled to bake a "white power" cake for Hitler's birthday for that special kind of customer?

In a supposed "free market", YES. My agreement or disagreement with the sentiment is irrelevant (and to be clear, I think the person asking for the cake has issues, but I also feel I have no right to judge them for asking me to do it if my job is to make cakes)
Now, before you go into "but I was just following orders" for another Godwin argument, making a cake is not the same as idly standing by or condoning the mass murder of innocent people for being "different".
It's just not, it's pure false equivalency.

Also, you are missing the point. I find peoples "deeply held religious beliefs" can often be as flexible as weather they are a burger guy or a hot dog guy simply because they will ALLOW the person who likes the food (religion) to get away with crap that they would not condone on the "other food" eaters side.
Tribalism 101.
"US has a good reason to break our beliefs because of XYZ exception, THEM has no such right"

On a side note, I wonder how things would've gone if the baker tried a different line of argument - that being perceived as a gay-friendly business places him at risk of assault by religious zealots. Would that get more sympathy?

Why would it, they are expressing their "deeply held religious beliefs" by attacking the baker, and that trumps secular law, right?

[Womble]

Good luck trying to prove that it's not.

Why would anyone with a basic grasp of logic try to prove a negative? What do I look like to you, an atheist?

What "sharper corners of reality"?
More people believe in the same old stories?
I treat religion as a -personal thing- Womble, I always have which is why people say I sound like an Atheist sometimes, because I don't need the trappings or cult like mentality of a church, -any church-.

But religion is not a personal thing. Unlike one's personal faith, which is a different matter altogether, religion is a social thing.

In a supposed "free market", YES. My agreement or disagreement with the sentiment is irrelevant (and to be clear, I think the person asking for the cake has issues, but I also feel I have no right to judge them for asking me to do it if my job is to make cakes)
Now, before you go into "but I was just following orders" for another Godwin argument, making a cake is not the same as idly standing by or condoning the mass murder of innocent people for being "different".
It's just not, it's pure false equivalency.

No, making a Hitler cake is actively assisting in propaganda of a belief which condones mass murder of innocent people. It's the direct culinary equivalent of painting a "Heil Hitler" banner for a Nazi rally.

Also, you are missing the point. I find peoples "deeply held religious beliefs" can often be as flexible as weather they are a burger guy or a hot dog guy simply because they will ALLOW the person who likes the food (religion) to get away with crap that they would not condone on the "other food" eaters side.
Tribalism 101.
"US has a good reason to break our beliefs because of XYZ exception, THEM has no such right"

For example?

Why would it, they are expressing their "deeply held religious beliefs" by attacking the baker, and that trumps secular law, right?

Is that your actual opinion, or are you hiding behind sarcasm to avoid answering the question?

[Gatefan1976]

Why would anyone with a basic grasp of logic try to prove a negative? What do I look like to you, an atheist?

Nope, something else.

But religion is not a personal thing. Unlike one's personal faith, which is a different matter altogether, religion is a social thing.

No, it isn't, and once more you veer into the territory of my tribe, and if your tribe ALLOWS killings because of your religion, because of "THEY", slap on a swastika and go kill people for being different. (or get snipers to do it, that's the preferred method in your par of the world, right?) all the death, but no threat.

Oh no, I just insulted a symbol of my own religion meant to display good luck and protection, but I understand just how bastardized and misused that symbol has become, and I actually understand why people would find it offensive, so I choose not to employ it.
I make a conscious CHOICE to accept the real pain others have suffered under that symbol because if I do not, what right do I have to even attempt to reconcile with them?
I am no Nazi, I had no role in Nazism, it happened before I was born, but I can understand the pain of families who lived through that period because people who shared the same religious views as me were killed in the inquisition for being "different".

I'm not mad at You for being Jewish, or MG for being a fundamentalist, I am mad because we keep repeating the failures of our forebearers.
Burn the Jew!!!
Kill the Witch!!
Send the Christian to the lions!!
What does it take for us to realise we are ALL people???

No, making a Hitler cake is actively assisting in propaganda of a belief which condones mass murder of innocent people. It's the direct culinary equivalent of painting a "Heil Hitler" banner for a Nazi rally.

A bit like the USA Evangelical community wanting Israel to have Jerusalem because it brings forth the rapture?
Sounds like even more mass murder to me, but whatever.
Actively pushing for the death of the unbeliever to suffer in hell, Hmmmm, this seems familiar somehow.

For example?

Trump??
Like, coveting your Neighbour and his wife is bad, right??
Or did I misread a pretty open passage?

Is that your actual opinion, or are you hiding behind sarcasm to avoid answering the question?

It's sarcasm because you and others are arguing that religion, or more specifically, "religious law", should take precedence over secular law. If I go out and beat someone to death with a Hammer, I'm not Thor with some Divine right to deliver Justice, I am freaking Murderer.
You (generic) want to convert gays by shame therapy, you are not a councillor, you are a psychological torturer.

How much are you willing to sacrifice to be "right"?
If torture of gays and murders of the other is already ok, how much do you have to loose?

[Annoyed]

If you look at the NY case I posted the article about, they took religion out of it altogether. They said the bar had the right to refuse to serve a person due to his political opinion. If they can do that, they can refuse to serve for any reason, I would think.

A Manhattan judge on Wednesday threw out a case alleging that a New York City bar illegally discriminated against a customer who wore a "Make America Great Again" hat.

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice David Cohen ruled that the law doesn’t protect people from political discrimination, meaning the West Village bar did not overstep its bounds in kicking out the customer, The New York Post reported.

Philadelphia accountant Greg Piatek had said he went to the bar in January 2017, shortly after Trump entered office, and was told to leave after he complained about the staff’s service.

He then sued, claiming the incident “offended his sense of being an American,” according to the Post.

The bar's lawyer pointed out in court that only religious beliefs, not political ones, were protected under state and local discrimination laws.

Piatek’s lawyer, Paul Liggieri, then said his client had worn the hat “because he was visiting the 9/11 Memorial.”

“He was paying spiritual tribute to the victims of 9/11. The 'Make America Great Again' hat was part of his spiritual belief,” Liggieri claimed.

“Rather than remove his hat, instead he held true to his spiritual belief and was forced from the bar,” the lawyer added.

When the judge questioned how the bar’s staff was supposed to know about Piatek's religious beliefs, Liggieri said they could do so based on the hat.

In throwing out the case, Cohen said the "plaintiff does not state any faith-based principle to which the hat relates."

The judge said that not being served and being thrown out of the bar because of political beliefs amounted to only a “petty” slight, the Post reported.

“Here the claim that plaintiff was not served and eventually escorted out of the bar because of his perceived support for President Trump is not outrageous conduct," the judge ruled.

So, in NY at least, according to this judge, a business has the right to refuse to serve anyone. If they can refuse to serve someone based on his political opinion, it's damned hard to argue any other position.

[SoulReaver]

Trump??
Like, coveting your Neighbour and his wife is bad, right??
Or did I misread a pretty open passage?

King Don's a good christian he doesn't covet his neighbour's wife (only his own daughter)

[Chaka-Z0]

So, in NY at least, according to this judge, a business has the right to refuse to serve anyone. If they can refuse to serve someone based on his political opinion, it's damned hard to argue any other position.

Sounds perfectly logical to me. You are the owner of your own private business, you should be able to do as you please in regards to service.

What happens if some guy would want a swastika cake? By your logic GF I shouldn't refuse to serve him because that's my own political, personal or religious belief and should not interfere with secular law? Non-sense.

I wonder if the supporters of this point of view actually had some work experience in customer service before. I was the head customer service advisor for a financial institution for many years, and trust me this is a job where you see the worst and the best in people since you're dealing with their life savings.

On occasions, I had no choice but to refuse to serve a specific person for many different reasons: Belligerent customers, outright and vocal racist customers, and many more.

Let me give you a few real example:

1- Racism: One of our cashier was black, and the only one working the noon shift at the time (others were on lunch break). An elderly lady started grumbling that she wouldn't be served by a black man, and was referred to me to complain. I told her, in a polite way, that if she wouldn't accept this she could simply walk out the door. Obviously she threatened to close her account and filed a complaint. I was exonerated, management of the company was behind me 100%. They basically told her that if she wasn't happy with this she could go somewhere else, and that the company would not stand for racism in any shape or form.

2- Religion: A customer kept questioning me in regards to my faith and kept asking if I was a ''good little Christian''. He was very insistent, and wouldn't go any further before I give him an answer. It ended up in an argument, me considering that he had absolutely no right to ask me such a personal question and eventually our manager had to intervene and inform him that he should stop asking these questions and if he wasn't happy with this he could go somewhere else.

I could go on and on and have literally hundreds of cases under my belt that ended up the same way.

To summarize, businesses (private) are not simply service dispensers, some might choose to be but that's their choice, not an obligation.

Refusing to serve someone because he is gay is, to me, unacceptable, yet one must consider religious beliefs as key in one's life. That is why I am torn in this specific case. On one side, you have a guy that thinks baking this cake is against his core religious belief. On the other hand, everybody from any sexual orientation should have access to the same services equally.

[Annoyed]

Sounds perfectly logical to me. You are the owner of your own private business, you should be able to do as you please in regards to service.

What happens if some guy would want a swastika cake? By your logic GF I shouldn't refuse to serve him because that's my own political, personal or religious belief and should not interfere with secular law? Non-sense.

That is my take on this; the owner of a business should have the right to serve whom he chooses. For me, that's the only thing; I have no religious take on this, I'm an agnostic. While I think there may be a God, I simply don't know I do not believe in any of the religions here on Earth. While most of them generally promote what I consider to be good rules for living, I think they all sprouted from the desire of men to control other men.

Your question about the Nazi symbol on a cake is excellent. I would assume that the folks who think the baker should be forced to bake the cake for the gay wedding would also not want him to be forced (or even allowed to) bake the cake for the Nazi ceremony or whatever it was.

How do they defend that position? It's ok for their cause, but not someone elses?

[SoulReaver]

Your question about the Nazi symbol on a cake is excellent. I would assume that the folks who think the baker should be forced to bake the cake for the gay wedding would also not want him to be forced (or even allowed to) bake the cake for the Nazi ceremony or whatever it was.

gay, nazi, or gay-nazi (gazi?) ceremony, should be his choice either way

[Annoyed]

gay, nazi, or gay-nazi (gazi?) ceremony, should be his choice either way

Did someplace unusually warm freeze over? Do we actually agree?
I say the decision is entirely the business owners, he can serve or not serve whomever he chooses.
Is that what you're saying?