Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Chaka-Z0]

Since then, I decided to (holiday) party with a different group of *crazies* from my 2nd job and actually *enjoy* being with them..!
We eat in a quieter atmosphere and can actually hear each other speak. Quite a contrast from the other party-group. More casual, more friendly & family fun, and less prissy... and amazingly -- not even "Christian" (cause there's a mixture of spiritual "religions"/beliefs in there). I still don't drink, tho...

Props to you!

You did not try to force your beliefs onto everybody and tried to change the music, unless you did and if that's the case, no cookie for you. You just simply stopped going there. You realized your religion is a personal choice and you acted accordingly, not requiring the folks at the party to submit to your constraints.

On a personal note, I once gave a coworker a ride since she missed her bus. She was the religious type, but I didn't know that. She flipped out when I started playing my music in my own car (I think it was a piece of Messhuggah or something alike) and she asked (or rather demanded) that I change the song. I just started laughing and told her that this is my car, and if she doesn't like the music she can promptly open the door and get the f*** out of my car.

[Annoyed]

Big difference between bars & clubs, as GF rightly pointed out. You can't compare a bakery with a bar, they are simply not subject to the same regulations. Bars & clubs need to ensure that underage people don't get in and they have specific customers types to maintain the establishment's reputation, therefore a much more careful selection is made before entering the premise.

Bars = No bouncers usually, a more ''relaxed'' atmosphere, can be a tavern
Clubs = Dancing floors / loud music / specific attendance and man female ratio

In the baker's case, if you recall, I was in agreement that he was right not to bake the cake. But now I ask myself, where does this ends? If I go to a bakery and asked for a funny cake with, say, a beer bottle on it, and the owner refuses to bake it since he's Muslim and against alcohol consumption, would you say that he's in his right as well?

Our newly elected provincial Prime Minister (PM) has announced that he would ban all religious signs for people in authority (cops, judges, teachers, etc.) and I think it makes sense to me, although many are angry towards that, it's a taboo topic. I, sure as hell, wouldn't want to be judged in front of a Muslim judge in a DUI case. Does that make me racist?

GF is right, no religious beliefs of ANY kind should be taken into consideration when offering a service and shouldn't have any influence whatsoever towards the law. A ''christian bakery''? Are we going to have Christian hardware stores and supermarkets? Christian restaurants? Gays won't be allowed to buy tools since they will ''gayify'' the objects they touch?

This is a real f***ing joke, hell I'll start my own Cthuluh bakery and only the followers of the mighty Kraken will be able to purchase goods from me. Sorry guys but this BS needs to end, our society is way too politically correct for my liking.

Bars/Clubs, whatever. Same difference, they are all PRIVATE businesses. The reason they want to discriminate is irrelevant, only that they are allowed to do so matters.

And yes, your Muslim baker would be within his rights, as would the Cthuluh bakery.

It comes down to this: Businesses have the right to choose whom they serve or they don't. You can't have one set of rules for some people, and another set for other people. Unless, ofcourse, you want to give some people preferential treatment, which would be problem with "equal protection under the law"

[jelgate]

Someone needs to read up on the civil rights laws

[Chaka-Z0]

Unless, ofcourse, you want to give some people preferential treatment, which would be problem with "equal protection under the law"

That is the conundrum here. By refusing to serve the gay couple, the baker is exercising his freedom of choice, but at the same time refusing to serve gays is offering preferential treatment to other customers. Same for the Muslim baker, he would gladly accept to bake a cake with ''allahu akhbar'' inscribed on it but not if it says God Bless America. Isn't that preferential treatment in itself?

Here's a question for you all. Do you believe the courts would've ruled in the favor of the baker if he was Muslim?

I think not.

[Annoyed]

That is the conundrum here. By refusing to serve the gay couple, the baker is exercising his freedom of choice, but at the same time refusing to serve gays is offering preferential treatment to other customers. Same for the Muslim baker, he would gladly accept to bake a cake with ''allahu akhbar'' inscribed on it but not if it says God Bless America. Isn't that preferential treatment in itself?

Here's a question for you all. Do you believe the courts would've ruled in the favor of the baker if he was Muslim?

I think not.

SCOTUS ruled on the Colorado case due to technicality, the ruling did not apply to all similar.

The issue will no doubt be before SCOTUS again.

[Chaka-Z0]

SCOTUS ruled on the Colorado case due to technicality, the ruling did not apply to all similar.

The issue will no doubt be before SCOTUS again.

Care to answer my question? What's your opinion?

[Annoyed]

Care to answer my question? What's your opinion?

According to the way I think about it, a businessowner has the right to refuse service, so I think the baker should have prevailed Muslim, Christian or cat worshiper.

Next time this goes before SCOTUS, seeing that it's 5-4, and heavily leaning towards originalist, I think they will rule for the business owner as well.

[Chaka-Z0]

According to the way I think about it, a businessowner has the right to refuse service, so I think the baker should have prevailed Muslim, Christian or cat worshiper.

Next time this goes before SCOTUS, seeing that it's 5-4, and heavily leaning towards originalist, I think they will rule for the business owner as well.

Then allow me to have some reserves. I do not believe for a second that right-leaning Replicants in the SCOTUS would vote in favor of a potential Muslim baker refusing service to a good ol' American Christian.

[jelgate]

Then allow me to have some reserves. I do not believe for a second that right-leaning Replicants in the SCOTUS would vote in favor of a potential Muslim baker refusing service to a good ol' American Christian.

They can't because of the Civil Rights Act. Businesses can't discriminate based on religion. Sexual orientation and political ideology aren't covered.

[Chaka-Z0]

They can't because of the Civil Rights Act. Businesses can't discriminate based on religion. Sexual orientation and political ideology aren't covered.

What do you mean? It is discrimination based on religion, just positive discrimination. The Christian baker won not because he was able to discriminate the couple based on sexual orientation, but because he was a Christian and therefore has the right to refuse serving a customer if it goes against his beliefs.

EDIT: And also, what's stopping SCOTUS from changing the rules of the game now?

[mad_gater]

Someone needs to read up on the civil rights laws

Or perhaps you do.....because last time I checked private business owners couldn't be forced into providing their goods and services for a private event (such as a wedding reception). They'd've had a valid case if they stopped in for a simple bite to eat and the baker refused them. But the case involved the manufacture of goods and services for a private event, one that someone who objects to participating in should have every right to refuse participation in.

[jelgate]

That is what I call BS from the baker.

[Annoyed]

What do you mean? It is discrimination based on religion, just positive discrimination. The Christian baker won not because he was able to discriminate the couple based on sexual orientation, but because he was a Christian and therefore has the right to refuse serving a customer if it goes against his beliefs.

EDIT: And also, what's stopping SCOTUS from changing the rules of the game now?

No, in the Colorado case, the baker won on another issue; state of Colorado was doing something wrong, IN THIS CASE ONLY. They explicitly did not rule on the overall issue. That will be decided on some future case that goes before the court.

[Chaka-Z0]

No, in the Colorado case, the baker won on another issue; state of Colorado was doing something wrong, IN THIS CASE ONLY. They explicitly did not rule on the overall issue. That will be decided on some future case that goes before the court.

Yes, and I am certain we won't get an impartial judgment from your biased court. Was true before, is even more true now that the right controls it. Remind me who's voting praying massively for the Replicants? Would you actually believe that they would take the side of a Muslim baker? Don't think so. SDS 1 - The people - 0 (or -1).

[Annoyed]

Yes, and I am certain we won't get an impartial judgment from your biased court. Was true before, is even more true now that the right controls it. Remind me who's voting praying massively for the Replicants? Would you actually believe that they would take the side of a Muslim baker? Don't think so. SDS 1 - The people - 0 (or -1).

Muslim or cat worshiper, it won't matter. The issue at hand is does a privately owned business have the right to serve or refuse service to anyone he wants? And I'm thinking the court will rule in favor of the business owner, regardless of the gender, orientation, religion or political affiliation.

A govt. entity, county clerk, etc.. should take all comers, but that is not a privately owned business.