"Restrooms are for customers only"

[Rogue Hawk]

Why is the baker an idiot?

I certainly would not call him an idiot. But he does let a church tell him what to think.

 

[vided]

I certainly would not call him an idiot. But he does let a church tell him what to think.

You are correct.
no one has the right to call him an idiot for his beliefs

 

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

I certainly would not call him an idiot. But he does let a church tell him what to think.

no, he let's his invisible friend in the sky do that. i think it is the same invisible friend who endorsed slavery.

 

[RinconRyder]

You are correct.
no one has the right to call him an idiot for his beliefs

Really? What would you call someone who believes the Earth is flat?

 

[UtahPete]

Really? What would you call someone who believes the Earth is flat?

How do you know that's what he believes? Just curious.

 

[vided]

Really? What would you call someone who believes the Earth is flat?

When did he tell you the earth is flat? :roflblack::roflblack::roflblack::roflblack::roflblack:

 

[BoilerAnimal]

How do you know that's what he believes? Just curious.

I took it to be an analogy to his religious beliefs.

 

[vided]

 

[UtahPete]

I took it to be an analogy to his religious beliefs.

I don't think Christians are necessarily 'flat-earthers', so that's why I ask if there is something about this baker which would indicate he is both.

 

[ThreeWheels]

...No shirt, no shoes, no service...

I always see that sign, especially at the shore, but my first thought is always "Do you think they should mention pants in there someplace ?"

 

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

Really? What would you call someone who believes the Earth is flat?

muslim

 

[Rogue Hawk]

...No shirt, no shoes, no service...

 

[kep-up]

I think that the biggest problem with the Starbuck's incident is that the "rules" were not consistently applied throughout their stores.

You cannot allow some people to do something, then turn around later and not allow someone do the same thing. I believe that if a business wants to make the restrooms available for paying customers only, then that should be clearly posted AND consistently enforced at ALL stores. Same thing applies to what constitutes a "paying" customer. If you want to set a time limit on when customers must leave after completing their "business transaction", then it needs to be clearly posted AND consistently enforced.

If you allow one set of rules for some, then apply another set of rules to others, you are undoubtedly setting yourself up for a charge of discrimination, especially if race, sex or religion appears to enter into the decision.

To avoid charges of this manner, consistency is extremely important. Bias runs rampant in this country, whether or not you want to admit it.

Bias runs rampant in every country, whether or not you wish to admit it. It's a human condition.

 

[RinconRyder]

When did he tell you the earth is flat? :roflblack::roflblack::roflblack::roflblack::roflblack:

When he quoted a fictional book.

 

[vided]

When he quoted a fictional book.

oh you mean your handbook

 

[UtahPete]

oh you mean your handbook
View attachment 162081

Wasn't that written by one of our revolutionaries in the British colonies? Our country was founded by radicals, not conservatives.

 

[vided]

 

[Bob Denman]

I always see that sign, especially at the shore, but my first thought is always "Do you think they should mention pants in there someplace ?"

:banghead: :shocked: I KNEW that I forgot to tell the sign-painter something... pps:

 

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

Suppose this case had been a Jewish baker who was asked to decorate a cake with a Swastika on it. Virtually everyone in the country would agree with his right to refuse to decorate a cake in that manner, right?

That is exactly the issue here. The baker did not refuse to make a cake but he did refuse to decorate it in the manner the buyers wanted.

Should we then also say a Muslim restaurant owner would be well within his rights to refuse to serve bacon or ham with breakfast?

Some have said that if you don't like the limitations a business operator has, take your business elsewhere. But couldn't we turn that argument around and say if a person wants to operate a business that caters to the public but doesn't want to provide a specific service to a specific part of the public, then he shouldn't enter the business in the first place, or, get into another business. In the case of Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop his web page has said for years, "Masterpiece cakes are perfect for any occasion..." But apparently he really did not mean "ANY occasion."

The question really is to what extent does a business operator have a right to pick and choose his customers when he opens a business that ostensibly is open to all? In other words, what kinds of discrimination are we willing to consider moral and legal? That question is not explicitly answered by the SCOTUS ruling.

 

[Joel The Biker]

What? This thread is still going?

And way off topic now too. Just a bunch of grumpy old men on here.