Supreme Court Sides with baker who turned away gay couple

[wufan]

The owner's pissed, like many, because at this pace Trump is the front-runner to win in 2020. No?

DgP229zWkAEpuWy.jpg

The way some dems are treating the immigrant kid crisis is really bad. There was a suggestion that the kids and parents stay together, and some elected dems said that it was evil to put them the the general population with other criminals awaiting the ruling on their refugee status. It was then suggested that the parents be given a choice, and it was suggested by some dems in power that it was immoral to make parents choose whether their children went to prison or were separated.

I would say say that it is immoral to bring your children with you in the act of braking a federal law. If the parents are truly seeking asylum and didn’t realize they could cross the border legally and not be arrested at a port of entry, then surely the temporary separation is a small price to pay in seeking freedom from persecution.

[ShockingButTrue]

Some dems (mostly in Cali) seem to be uniting behind Sen. Feinstein, who's own proposal is to prohibit an arrest for illegal entry within 100 miles of any border. Oh, please do...

That's no way to run an intelligent #Resistance. And it's the Trump voters who are stupid?

DgP229zWkAEpuWy.jpg

[ShockerDropOut]

"She knew, she said, that her restaurant and its half-dozen servers and cooks had managed to stay in business for 10 years by keeping politics off the menu." (emphasis mine)

Seems to me the owner of the restaurant did exactly the opposite by denying service to based on nothing more than poliical reasons.

[SB Shock]

So, how does everyone feel about this. The Owner of the Red Hen Explains Why She Asked Sarah Huckabee Sanders to Leave.

Of interest to this discussion: Wilkinson, the owner, huddled with her workers, several who were gay. "Tell me what you want me to do. I can ask her to leave," Wilkinson told the staff, she said. "They said yes."

Overall - I'm not bothered by it. I think capitalism will take care of them. Why would you want to eat somewhere where people who hate you? They are probably going to spit in your food. Same reason why would you want to force somebody to bake you a cake for an event they disagree with - they probably are not going to do their best job for you anyway.

But it just nother piece of evidence that liberals lack tolerance they cry they want, and shows they have no grounding for their self proclaimed ethos.

[ShockerPrez]

I dont know what's more asinine....

The employees calling the owner because they had a customer, or the owner actually going in to deal with the situation.

[WuDrWu]

If an employee of mine called me at home saying "Hey Doc, Nancy Pelosi is here, what should we do?" I'd have said give her the exact same great service you give to everyone else. And had there been so much as a hint of they aren't going to serve her, or someone posted something personal about it on social media, I would have left my house to deal with it......

and write them a check and tell them they were fired.

Principled my butt, it's just more people that believe they need to be heard and want their 15 minutes.

[ShockingButTrue]

... cut all the bull****. She said she was morally superior.

That's it, keep giving people a reason to not put someone with her ideology in a seat of power. S-t-u-p-i-d.

[ShockingButTrue]

The easy answer is that in many states you can legally discriminate.

In what world should I be MORE outraged about this?

Discrimination is good? This kind of thinking is another reason that Trump won. The chickens, and I ain't talking about those no-good chickens up north, are coming back home, as the old proverb goeth...

Just trying to help the people who want success in Nov. '18. Cut out the hate. It won't win.

mad max.jpg

[WstateU]

Discrimination is good? This kind of thinking is another reason that Trump won. The chickens, and I ain't talking about those no-good chickens up north, are coming back home, as the old proverb goeth...

[Shockm]

For the record, I'm not outraged one way or the other about the Colorado incident. I hope we can all agree that what the baker did in Colorado was illegal according to (democratically passed) law. Because it was illegal according to Colorado law, we need to have the court system tell us if Colorado law needs to have exceptions or be struck down or whatever.

Personally, I don't believe the baker was asked to violate his beliefs. But I'm willing to recognize the supreme court needs to make a decision on this issue. If you support the baker, don't be outraged about the lawsuit. It had to happen eventually. What he did was objectively against Colorado law.

As for SHS, if I owned a restaurant, I probably would've served her. But who cares? Does anyone here really want it to be unlawful? Whether you do or do not want the baker stuff to be unlawful, the fact of the matter is that it was unlawful. It is up to congress to pass laws the majority want and the courts to test those laws. By all accounts, that is what is happening in the Colorado case. And I wouldn't worry too much about the baker. His insistence that he denied service because they were gay is the only reason the case has gotten to this stage. Personally, I'm glad he is willing to test the law in this way.

Barronelle Stutzman is a 70 year old grandmother. Is she a bigoted woman who is hateful and who wants to do harm to others, or a woman who loves others but has a religious conscience? Read her story and you decide.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/02/20/livin...gay/index.html

[jdshock]

Barronelle Stutzman is a 70 year old grandmother. Is she a bigoted woman who is hateful and who wants to do harm to others, or a woman who loves others but has a religious conscience? Read her story and you decide.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/02/20/livin...gay/index.html

One of the more extreme false dichotomies I've seen on here.

What she did was likely illegal under state law. It's incredibly important that the court system make a determination as to the constitutionality of the law she violated.

[WuDrWu]

How is it an extreme false dichotomy exactly?

[WuDrWu]

Also, if it's illegal under state law, then the state law is dead wrong, and if it's right and I'm wrong, then I don't want to live in that country.

[Shockm]

I don't see extreme or false either. The Romans crucified Christians for their beliefs 1800 years ago, and ISIS is killing Christians today for their beliefs. Now that is extreme. The King of England put Christians who disagreed with him in prison and I can make a larger list of Christians who fled their countries of origin to come to America because of persecution. I guess if our government,(or other groups of people) persecutes Christians, puts them in prison, or gives out other punishments, for their peaceful disagreements/moral beliefs, then it is a democracy?

[jdshock]

If people on here can't muster even the slightest objectivity to understand why "Option A: this person is a racist, terrible horrible person or Option B: she's a loving religious person" isn't an extreme false dichotomy, this discussion is not worth any of our time.

[Shockm]

I see the dichotemy. I don’t see her conscience as a false POV as long as she is peaceful. As a mother, she probably loves her children and grandchildren even if they choose to believe differently than her. She can be loving to people who she and her conscience totally disagree with. That is not a false dichotomy.

[wufan]

One of the more extreme false dichotomies I've seen on here.

What she did was likely illegal under state law. It's incredibly important that the court system make a determination as to the constitutionality of the law she violated.

I think they’ll side with the florist.

[ShockerPrez]

Which side are the facists again?

Because this really looks like government control of production to me....

Literally.

[wufan]

Which side are the facists again?

Because this really looks like government control of production to me....

Literally.

That’s not what this is. Historically, a more facist tactic that we see today is public harassment of political opposition.

[ShockerPrez]

I was referring to forcing the baker, florist to perform services through government coercion. Which is the control of industry and commerce.

That is how I was educated on facism from an economic perspective.

Obviously public harrassment goes along with that as well.

[wufan]

I think of the florist scenario as coerced labor, whereas government control of production is a quota for goods being set by the gov rather than by the market. While coerced labor can be used for fascist economic policy, it doesn’t have to be. When using a term like facism, it’s important to be distinct.