Ah now I see where you're coming from.
Pardon me for thinking an actual issue was being discussed with actual rational reasons and viewpoints ... Oops... Guess I don't watch any of your favourite tv stations, so failed to model my conduct on them.
-
There were many reasons for the change of the site software, the biggest was security. The age of the old software also meant no server updates for certain programs. There are many benefits to the new software, one of the biggest is the mobile functionality. Ill fix up some stuff in the coming days, we'll also try to get some of the old addons back or the data imported back into the site like the garage. To create a thread or to reply with a post is basically the same as it was in the prior software. The default style of the site is light colored, but i temporarily added a darker colored style, to change you can find a link at the bottom of the site.
"Restrooms are for customers only"
- Thread starter Rogue Hawk
- Start date
Ah now I see where you're coming from.
Pardon me for thinking an actual issue was being discussed with actual rational reasons and viewpoints ... Oops... Guess I don't watch any of your favourite tv stations, so failed to model my conduct on them.
johnsimion
New member
The smartest thing you said was that the baker should have kept his mouth shut and said he didn't have time to bake the cake. That was good. The rest is BS. Business owners should not have unlimited rights to refuse service for whatever reason. We've had that before in this country. Whether you intend it or not, you're advocating for allowing "whites-only" businesses in this country. We've had that and thankfully it's been relegated to the dustbin of history -- where it belongs!
As for the case itself, you call this the ghetto lottery, I call it the "fake religion" excuse. This is a case of using religion to cover up the fact that the owner simply doesn't like gay people. There's nothing in the Bible that forbids selling a wedding cake to gays or anybody else. The prohibitions in the Bible are on sodomy, not on selling to sodomites. But whatever, we'll assume that the religion was real. Quoting the Court's actual syllabus, the Court ruled for the baker only because it found that the baker's "religious objection was not considered with the neutrality required by the Free Exercise Clause. The State’s interest could have been weighed against Phillips’ sincere religious objections in a way consistent with the requisite religious neutrality that must be strictly observed. But the official expressions of hostility to religion in some of the commissioners’ comments were inconsistent with that requirement, and the [Colorado] Commission’s disparate consideration of Phillips’ case compared to the cases of the other bakers suggests the same." The Court was concerned because the "Commission’s consideration of Phillips’ case was neither tolerant nor respectful of his religious beliefs" and because the State had concluded "concluded in at least three cases that a baker acted lawfully in declining to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages."
See https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf
This is the actual U.S. Supreme Court decision.
Thankfully, the Court's own verbiage makes clear how little precedent this case will have. All the States have to do is treat everybody equally. Colorado didn't do that, so they lost. Next time they'll be more evenhanded and fair, and rightly so. But there's another reason this case doesn't amount to a hill of beans. The facts of this case specify that the couple was gay, but gay people don't usually wear a label that says, "gay." You may think somebody is gay and be wrong about it. I know a gay guy who is totally hetero in appearance and actions. I also know some straight guys who act gay. I want to see what happens when two males come into the bakery together and the baker refuses to serve them because he mistakenly thinks they're a gay couple -- and they're not. Now THAT will be the ghetto lottery and I eagerly await that day.
RinconRyder
New member
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. As justification, he believes in the Biblical version that marriage is between a man and a woman and having two men on the cake goes against his religious beliefs.
The baker is an idiot but he is also entitled to believe what he does and live his life accordingly. The customers could have simply found a gay baker who would not have objected to their request.
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. As justification, he believes in the Biblical version that marriage is between a man and a woman and having two men on the cake goes against his religious beliefs.
The baker is an idiot but he is also entitled to believe what he does and live his life accordingly. The customers could have simply found a gay baker who would not have objected to their request.
canamjhb
Well-known member
From what I understand, and that may be wrong based upon watching biased reports, the baker did not refuse to bake a cake for them. He agreed to bake them a cake. Just not a Wedding cake because of his beliefs. I support his rights to not have him and his business associated with gay weddings. I also support the rights of gays to have cakes baked for them..... The baker didn't refuse their business because they were gay. He just refused to be involved in their wedding. I see no problem with that.
RinconRyder
New member
Figure it out.
vided
New member
RinconRyder
New member
Then don't. Your choice.
vided
New member
Why are you not willing to back up your accusation that the baker is an "idiot".
Just explain why you think he's an idiot.
thank you in advance
SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN
New member
"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?"
Very very well stated, as long as neo nazism is not illegal what would people say about that?
I'm not anti alcohol but at my place i really don't like doing work for those who come in here drunk and i have no
religious objections to drunks.
Very very well stated, as long as neo nazism is not illegal what would people say about that?
I'm not anti alcohol but at my place i really don't like doing work for those who come in here drunk and i have no
religious objections to drunks.
Bob Denman
New member
Orange Spyder Man
New member
commenting on the orginal post of "RESTROOMS ARE FOR CUSTOMERS ONLY" .. i think its the business owner's right to set rules on his establishment... after all its a BUSINESS ... not a public place... if you have ever gone to New Orleans during Mardi Gras... almost every business has a sign stating "RESTROOMS ARE FOR CUSTOMERS ONLY" .. otherwise the restrooms would be over run by non paying visitors and the paying customers would not be have access to restrooms..
BoilerAnimal
New member
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.
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.
SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN
New member
Why the hell should someone be allowed to use a bathroom at a business when they are not a customer? Someone
has to clean it and i'm sure customers aren't going to do it.
has to clean it and i'm sure customers aren't going to do it.
ThreeWheels
Active member
Really. I have no idea. This is another thread where 3/4 of the participants are on my ignore list so I'm missing most of it.
BigGuy66
Member
Attachments
BoilerAnimal
New member
Rogue Hawk
Active member
True, I did want to sit there. The waitress reminded me to be polite which I appreciated.
Similar threads
