The Wow I Can't Believe That News Story Thread

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by Exo

As much as I think the cake shop owner is just another old f*ck that needs to die off with his archaic beliefs...they're his beliefs.

And that's all they be unless we're feeling like violating the Establishment clause.

I wish the court ruled the other way but I can't really fault them for not. You can't MAKE a private business make cakes for people they don't want to make cakes for, no matter how ignorant they may be.

If you can force a business to comply with ADA mandates by installing a $5k ramp, then you can force a business to make money on a cake.

If I was the couple I'd just go to another shop and give them my money. Who'd want to go to that shop anyway?

What if it's the only shop in town?

[Exo]

Unfortunately we live in a country where religious beliefs are still protected. According to our current state of law, the courts made the correct ruling. Now it's time to adjust the laws.

Those people should have had their cake but our still backwards views on religious superiority can still prevent them from getting it.

[Key]

I can understand both sides however I do think the guy has the freedom to reject any inquiries he gets since it is his business. Would I personally use his service now? Probably not. But that doesn't mean other people shouldnt. Yeah it's a ****ty thing but he didn't force the wo men to go to his shop.

[Cuthbert]

Originally Posted by Kiiii

I can understand both sides however I do think the guy has the freedom to reject any inquiries he gets since it is his business.

.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by Exo

Unfortunately we live in a country where religious beliefs are still protected. According to our current state of law, the courts made the correct ruling. Now it's time to adjust the laws.

Those people should have had their cake but our still backwards views on religious superiority can still prevent them from getting it.

I would argue that it's unconstitutional because the court has decided that his religious beliefs are more valuable than equal treatment, which is in turn endorsing a religion, violating the establishment clause. Cases like this are why we have both freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

[OccultHawk]

Originally Posted by Kiiii

I can understand both sides however I do think the guy has the freedom to reject any inquiries he gets since it is his business. Would I personally use his service now? Probably not. But that doesn't mean other people shouldnt. Yeah it's a ****ty thing but he didn't force the wo men to go to his shop.

I wouldn’t give that homophobic **** any of my money either.

[Key]

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

I wouldn’t give that homophobic **** any of my money either.

Basically yeah. His business may or may not be effected but he's still within his rights. Unless he actively told them he's not making it because they're gay. Then it's an issue.

[Exo]

Originally Posted by Frownland

I would argue that it's unconstitutional because the court has decided that his religious beliefs are more valuable than equal treatment, which is in turn endorsing a religion, violating the establishment clause. Cases like this are why we have both freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

I think your point would be better suited if the couple was trying to get married which is a right that should be exercised by every citizen. You don't have a right to cake.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by Exo

I think your point would be better suited if the couple was trying to get married which is a right that should be exercised by every citizen. You don't have a right to cake.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Exo]

Originally Posted by Frownland

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The other night I was at a bar and the bartender refused to serve a couple that came in because they refused to tip the last time they drank there. It was his bar. He had every right to not serve them. That was his choice.

I bring this up not to compare a homosexual couple to assh*les but rather compare the "right" to beer and the "right" to cake. You don't have a right to either of those. A cake shop and a bar are not hospitals, post offices, ect...

Dude is an awful twat of a person and I hope they change the laws to exclude religious belief in the denial of any service but we don't have that yet so I don't disagree with the ruling of the court. They called it how it is at the present moment.