Christian Bakers Who Lost their Business after Homosexual Attack Refuse to Pay $135K

If someone opens a business they agree to all local state and federal laws - no one has been forced to open a business in any of the cases presented - one of those laws being equal accommodation laws.

Do you feel that people claiming religious affiliation should be excluded from laws or do you believe equal accommodation laws should be forcefully removed by the federal government.

 

I'm not saying that anyone should be exempt from any laws. I am critiquing that laws that make it a crime to opt not to engage in trade with someone. I can't see this being a reasonable criminal offense. The law is idiotic, in my opinion. Choosing not to engage in trade with someone should not be a crime. Otherwise, I would be committing this crime hundreds of times a day.

 

They were not forced into opening a business. They were required (upon starting a business that is open to the public) to follow certain regulations that were agreed to when acquiring a business license and operating permits.

No one, to my knowledge, has been forced into trade within the last century in the US.

 

This whole case has been total BS from the start. The law is ridiculous and they should be allowed to turn away business if they so choose.

We turn away business when we so choose and my company does $600 million a year in sales. When we don't want certain business for whatever reason, we choose not to bid, OR we simply quote an exorbitant price or unreasonable lead time. The rest takes care of itself. These bakers should have offered to do the cake for such a large price tag that would have pushed the couple elsewhere on their own.

 

You mean like many diners did to blacks in the 50's? That's also illegal. What's the name of your company?
A compamy can turn away customers for ligament reasons: however ones skin color, handicap, gender, religion, orientation etc are not.

I'm sure you can see the difference between a firm declining a frp or rfq and a store saying "we don't serve your kind here". Maybe not - thus the reason for public accommodation laws.

Questionable ethics aside, if the bakery would have quoted an extended timeframe this situation would have probably been avoided. They didn't so...

 

Yes I see many differences here. This isn't anything like not serving blacks in diners in the '50's. Nothing whatsoever back then was tied to religious beliefs....it was simply bigoted behavior.

There are clearly legit reasons here that have already been debated ad nauseum. Nothing you or anybody else says will change that. And in my opinion, this case remains total BS, not to mention attempting to destroy a small family business over this is absurd.

 

I'm critiquing the law that makes it a crime not to engage in trade with someone. I can see no justification in initiating violence against someone for not trading with someone.

 

I would agree with you if that's what this case was about. You have made this into a case of forced servitude, which it simply is not. No one forced the bakery to open in the first place - when they did they agreed to the local laws of the area they chose to open in.

Are you arguing that public accomidatiom laws should be abolished?
Or should they just not apply to gay people?

The bakery was not impacted by violence - yes they had anonymous online threats that came idiots, I would completely agree with charges being brought against them, but no legitimate threats ever came about.

 

The treatment of blacks absolutely had basis in religious law. The separation of the colors and "moral fabric of society" were often used.

I agree that this case is complete bs, but for different reasons.
The couple raised enough money to pay all legal bills (they were asking for donations specifically for this reason) yet they chose to shutter their store and keep the money. I guess you would just argue this is capitalism in its finest glory.

 

I don't recall using the words "forced servitude". And I don't see why there needs to be a local law that forces people to ask permission to open a business. If people want to open a business, they should be allowed to do so.

Yes I am. I think people should be able to engage in trade or opt not to engage in trade with whomever they wish.

They should be eliminated.

Yes the were. They were told that they must pay money under threat of violence.

 

They were able to opt out of trade until they opened a business serving the public, no one forced them to open a public business - they could have opened a church instead, or a private club.

I won't argue with you against your belief that anyone should be able to open a business and do whatever they want with no regulation, who needs breathable air or drinkable water. China is a nation to emulate in some people's eyes.

The removal of PA laws would basically leave every handicap person without accessible services, blacks and gays may need to also rethink their area of residence as services may become slim, same can be said for many religious persons.

Should a hospital be able to deny service to a Christain? Afterall that hospital may be owned by a Muslim and we don't want to put requirement on the business - afterall they can always just go somewhere else.

Such a wonderful world you invision - no requirements for business to open, what could go wrong if a fire breaks out with no emergency exits... All of these are requirements of doing business.

And no violence was issued to them by the state.

 

As [MENTION=5588]BleedingHeadKen[/MENTION] pointed out many posts ago, you haven't articulated any ethical justification for threatening to initiate violence against someone for refusing to engage in trade with someone.

And I didn't say opt out of trade. I said opt to not trade with a particular person. Opting not to trade with a particular person should not be a reason to threaten violence against him. The only justification for violence (or violent threats) is in response to violations of someone's person or property.

I critique the law because it is a victimless crime.

You added the "and do whatever they want" part, so nice strawman.

Do you think any insurance company would insure a business with no fire exits?

A threat of violence is tantamount to violence in my book.

 

That is one crappy book, you have there!

 

Have you ever hear of a crime called extortion? That is a case in which the threat of violence is tantamount to violence.

 

Yes but the mere threat of violence does not satisfy the elements of an extortion charge, namely the obtaining of property or money secondary to the threat.

 

Okay. But I still hold that it's wrong to threaten someone with violence. You may think that it's okay to do so, but I consider it unjustified.

 

I hold it wrong as well and I rarely see it as justified. I will normally condemn it as you would, but I don't equate the wrong of threatening a beating with actually doing the beating. Its that 'tantamount' word, I don't like.

 

Well it's actually a crime to threaten somebody with violence. In my state that's called a terroristic threat. Not sure in other places. That is not okay.

 

I have not seen anyone justifying threats of violence against the bakery yet you keep repeating it.
A fine is not violent. Anyone threatening or imposing violence against the bakery should be prosecuted.
I will ignore all future attempts to make this into a case against violence.

Businesses must abide by laws, we are a nation of laws. If they didn't not want to trade with the public then they should not have been open to the public.

The state and the couple in question disagree with your assessment - as do I.

You are the one arguing business should be able to open unhindered by law, correct?

Why would a business have insurance if law does not apply to them? It is easily one of the first things I would drop from my business if I was absolved of state liability, which is what you are arguing, it was save us almost 10% of operating revenue.

 

First I agree they should be allowed to not do business with someone. But back then many people tied exclusion of blacks to religious beliefs. You can tie anything you want to religious beliefs. Because you can have any religious beliefs that you choose be they mainstream Christian, orthodox Islam or a complete fabrication of your own design. I recall hearing preachers and rabbis talking all about the mixing of the races being a religious issue. I also agree that it's simply bigoted behavior, but many people justify that behavior with religion.

The religious angle is a losing position. It's best to abandon it. People can and have justified genocide with religion. You are free to exercise your religion within the confines of law. Just so you don't forget what I stated above. I believe the bakery should have the right to refuse service.

That is what this argument comes down to, whether you own your business or does the public own it.

Their reasons don't really matter. And further it's really an opinion whether they are legitimate or not. I think they are absolutely ridiculous. "We can't bake you a cake because you are homosexual and our interpretation of the bible says that is wrong." That doesn't follow. Especially since they have claimed to bake cakes for homosexual customers before.

The reason is absolutely absurd, but again it's their product/service and they should have the authority to serve who they wish.

So the legitimacy of their reason is not relevant.

This "case" rests on Portland laws, and whether or not the municipality has the right to declare discrimination against same sex couples in trade a crime or not. Remember the couple didn't sue, there was a governing body that offered the owners of the bakery pay restitution to the couple.

The heart of this issue is, does a city government, state or federal for that matter have the ability to forbid this form of discrimination? And if not or so, why?

 

The State has threatened violence against the bakery. They have been ordered to hand over money under threat of violence. If you think a fine is not violent, try not paying one and see what happens.

Then I will accept that you have no idea how the State operates. The State is violence.

As I said before, I am critiquing the law and saying that it is unjust and ought to be repealed. I am not saying that anyone should be able to selectively violate the laws with which they disagree.

You disagree that it is a victimless crime? Okay then please tell me who was the victim and what trespass was done to them or their property.

Nope. I'm not saying that anyone should be able to act unhindered by law. None of us should be able to murder, rape, steal, defraud, rob, break contracts, or otherwise trespass against the person or property of our fellow man. However, I think a law that says a business must ask permission before engaging in trade is an idiotic and despotic law.

Why would the law not apply to someone? The law applies to us all.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree that it is wrong and should be a crime for any person to do so.

 

The state is permitted to extort compliance with laws under threat of violence. Some are even permitted to execute you.

 

Obviously the state can do anything it wants. However, I am critiquing the current law and suggesting the law be changed.

 

I agree the law should be changed, I also believe the law was municipal. But I'm asking a bit of a bigger question. Should municipal state or federal government's be able to make anti discrimination laws? I understand the need for such laws when discrimination causes undue hardship to those being discriminated against. But this was hardly an inconvenience, defiantly not a hardship. (From the transcripts it sounds more like hurt feelings and poor self esteem) I don't think zero tolerance is a good policy.

 

Well the federal government certainly shouldn't be able to, since the constitution grants it no such authority.

As far as state and local governments, they will do whatever they want. I would argue though that they ought not punish a person for opting not to exchange with another. Opting not to exchange with someone is not a trespass against their person or property, so I can't see any reason for criminalizing it.