Gay Marriage, Forced on Everyone???

Ha!

Reads like bad Don Henley lyrics.

You know that would probably work!

Shit, they're on to me...

So he's been baking the same cake the whole time he's owned his business? What if it was the WBC assclowns demanding a "God Hates Fags" cake and he refused to make it for 'em -- then they got the law to force him to do it?

Compulsory labor is compulsory labor. It's wrong no matter what mechanism is used to compel it against the will of the laborer.

Hey, in the grand scheme of things, there are far worse fates than being Don Henley.

Are there any other kind?

I fucking knew it!

I would be very interested in knowing how many of those who think the law should force him to make the cake for the women, because "It's his job and he can't discriminate," would be willing to argue that he should also make the WBC cake.

Anybody willing to take a stand on it? I've already said he should have the legal right to refuse both. Who else will answer the question: Can he discriminate against WBC because he disapproves of their religion?

I'd poison the cake.


Nothing lethal...laxative, maybe a disease.

He has the right to refuse service. He DOES NOT have the right to do so on the basis of sexual orientation, race or gender.

You won't get many answers, because it's not an honest analogy. The question should be what does the baker do when asked to make a cake for a wedding to be performed under the authority of WBC. And I'd argue that the baker is in the business of making wedding cakes, and ought to do so.

But if you want to get in to whether you can say yes to one and no to the other, I think it is far more reasonable to say no to the WBC customer, because they choose to hate. A lesbian does not choose to be a lesbian, it is who she is.

So, Volpone, when's the wedding? And are we invited?

off topic, but most Libertarians would not necessarily advocate for privatizing things like roads. The hard-core are the loudest, but most understand thatthere is in fact a role for government in things of common public interest.

note that candidate Johnson said specifically that the EPA (as a concept)is an example of necessary government regulation.

Yes, it absolutely is. For the sake of argument, say he doesn't want to make the WBC cake. Should he be compelled to engage in that work against his will?

There has been a dishonest analogy in this discussion, though, and that is the analogy between someone creating a cake and someone slinging hash at a lunch counter. The latter is a refusal of service, but the former is the refusal to create something. Can artistic labor, particularly, be compelled against a creator's will?

In my view, the issue is consistency. the law should be consistently applied vis a via class discrimination.

Async (I think?) makes a very valid point regarding whether or not the man refuses to serve ANY homosexual customer in ANY way, or whether his refusal is specific to the EVENT which violates his conscience.

If he can demonstrate the latter (and i'd want it demonstrated if i were the court) then in my view, he should be free to refuse that particular service - whether it's a same-sex wedding or a second marriage.

It's a reasonable middle ground.

BUT at the same time, on a personal level (i.e. not an agent of the state) - I question the motives of a maker who CLAIMS to be acting on Biblical principle who would refuse the former and serve the latter. the Book is FAR more clear on the subject of remarriage than it is on homosexual orientation. particularly in the case of female homosexuals.

You're missing the point. When he says "...it's not an honest analogy." what he means is "it doesn't fit with my chosen position."

I also want to point out the hypocrisy of this whole thing. The militant lesbians are shrieking for people to tolerate their lifestyle choices...and then promptly turning around and showing intolerance for someone else's lifestyle choice. Again, easy day. In the libertopia of Portland, they could probably just walk down the block and find another bakery that would gladly make them a gay wedding cake. But that isn't the point. They MUST have approval for their lifestyle. And anyone who doesn't approve must be swiftly and ruthlessly punished.

That is actually the #1 play in the Liberal Rule Book: If someone disagrees with your Leftie Agenda accuse them of being intolerant and small minded. Once cries of X-ism have turned the political tide in your favor, use that leverage to destroy your "enemies." This is why I give Lefties no quarter--they view kindness and compromise as weaknesses to be exploited.

Wanna explain what a gay cake is?

Then he doesn't have the right. His right only goes so far as the law decides to offer special protection for some identifiable group. His "right" in your mind boils down to "he can discriminate against anyone we haven't told him he can't discriminate against." Which is NO right at all.

That's like having the right to free speech as long as it expresses a popular opinion. Your right isn't defined by your being able to do it when the community/state supports you; it's defined by your being able to do it when the community/state DOESN'T.

What are your thoughts on mortgage red lining?

Discrimination = free speech?

Wow.

I'm in favor of buyer and seller settling on a mutually agreeable price. If a seller doesn't what to sell, that's his right. If he demands a higher price for what he's selling, that's his right, too. The buyer is always free to decline or to pursue a better deal elsewhere.

No one has the right to demand service of someone else.

That's not red lining.

First, I made an analogy, not an equation. Second, if you hate some group or have beliefs that require you to shun them, shouldn't you be free to express them without fear of state sanction? Short of violating their rights, shouldn't you be free to act on your beliefs?

Or do you accept that the state has and should have the arbitrary power to coerce you into action that goes against your wishes or beliefs?

Okay, I need to explain what is meant by red lining in this case. It has nothing to do with buyer and seller, but regards the lender. Banks used to draw a red line on a map around neighborhoods where they, as a matter of policy, would not lend to black applicants. It was a way to keep certain neighborhoods from desegregating. Should a bank be able to follow this practice?

Then tell me what it is. I googled "redlining" and got the Wikipedia article on it. My reply seems to cover what I read there.

Oh, THAT'S DIFFERENT. Here's my completely revised response.

So if you wanted to sell to a minority buyer, but the bank refused to grant them a mortgage because your house was on the wrong side of the red line, that would be cool with you.

So even though I've explained it, you are going to ignore the meaning and talk about something else? I'll ask again:

Can a bank refuse a lone to somebody because he is black and wants to buy a house in a white neighborhood? Just to be sure you understand that I'm not asking about the seller and buyer, imagine that the two have already made a mutually agreeable deal. With that in mind, and with the buyer having adequate income and credit history to be a good risk on the loan, can a bank say no just the same?

You do know that the deal between the bank and the borrower is a totally separate deal, right?

Just because I'm happy to sell my Space Shuttle to a hobo for $20 Billion doesn't mean that any bank is obligated to loan money to the hobo.

As an aside, I think you're beating a dead horse. I'm pretty sure Paladin has made his stance abundantly clear, and that you already know what answer you're going to get.