Supreme Court rules in favor of baker in same sex wedding cake case. (Part 2)

You're not going to further defend your opinion that it isn't being forced to do something?

 

What's there to defend, the Supreme Court ruled in their favor. But would the ruling have been in their favor if they had refused to sell them a dozen doughnuts?
You do see a difference, don't you?

 

Yes, but you would say that if the Supreme Court had ruled against them, that this wouldn't have been infringing on the baker's liberties, right?

Entirely possible. Here's an extract from the court documents:

I don't see how they COULD have acted in a manner neutral to religion, no matter HOW nice they were about it, because they still would've had to "act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices." This is why I see hope for future cases, even though this one was decided on disgracefully narrow grounds.

You mean the difference between something off the shelf and custom made?

 

Would I?

It wasn't settled 7:2?

That is correct.

 

How can I answer that?

Yeah, it wasn't narrow for this reason, but what I mean is "narrow" as in it didn't create a landmark decision so that future people who provide wedding services would be exempt.

Given that I am a libertarian, I don't see any difference, no. Business owners should be able to decide who they serve in their business, whether serving off the shelf or custom. However, if a business has a 'no gays allowed' policy I would be disgusted and I wouldn't shed any tears if the public accommodation laws which I disagree with, are used against such a homophobic, piece of sh*t business owner. However, this isn't the case with this baker, who simply didn't want to participate in a gay wedding by using his labour and artistic skills to customise a cake which celebrates the gay marriage.

 

Why then did you feel a need to imply that I would?
I agreed with their ruling.

Look at who the two were.

On the emboldened above I am in total disagreement.

As long as the baker would not deny the purchase of a cake for them to decorate elsewhere, I agree.

I guess I'm not a libertarian.

 

I didn't, I asked you if that was your position. Anyway, I asked the wrong question. If the Supreme Court had ruled against them if they had refused an off the shelf item, would you say that this wouldn't have been infringing on the baker's liberties?

What about them?

So if you and I each had a service to offer, then you have a right to my services and I have a right to your services?

You certainly are not!

 

Oh no, the Supreme Court rules in favor of baker in same sex wedding cake case. (Part 2) thread has reared its ugly head again.

 

Why ugly?

 

Why not?

 

Your words were "Yes, but you would say..." implying I would say the words following, NOT "Yes, but would you say". There's no need to imply anything, just ask the question.

Do you know who they were?

Depends on the service.

That's a relief.

 

I agree, it's over, let it go.

Color me 'unsubscribed' from this thread.

 

What I actually said was:

Did you not notice the "right?" at the end? This gave you the opportunity to deny it.

I'll ask a different question which I asked you in the last post but you didn't respond to:

If the Supreme Court had ruled against them if they had refused an off the shelf item, would you say that this wouldn't have been infringing on the baker's liberties?

Ginsburg and Sotomayor, two clueless, idiots who wouldn't know what the Constitution was if it smacked them in the back of the head. Why are you asking if I know who they were?

Literally ANY service.

Why is that?

 

And did you notice my words "There's no need to imply anything, just ask the question."?

That's a hypothetical question, so I couldn't answer it without knowing the full details that led to such a ruling.

Just to show that you knew the answer to WHY the ruling was 7:2 and not unanimous.

No.

Leaves me free to make independent decisions on each and every issue.

 

Yeah, it isn't the best way to ask a question, I'll admit.

Well you believe that a business owner shouldn't be able to choose their customers. How is this NOT infringing on a business owners liberties?

So what is an example of a service of mine that you would have the right to and a service of yours that I would have the right to? And what is an example of a service of mine that you WOULD NOT have the right to and a service of yours that I WOULD NOT have the right to?

What, you couldn't put ANY political label on yourself?

 

Then don't start a business if you don't want to serve all customers equally.

Allow me to ask a question, assuming you're Caucasian.
Suppose ALL the businesses within a days travel, who provide your needs/wants were to become owned by Blacks. And then suppose they decided to not serve white skinned customers based on the possibility that they might be racist, without even knowing. Would you just accept it to be their right and make 2 day trips every time you needed to buy something?


What, you couldn't put ANY political label on yourself?[/QUOTE]
Political label? Nope.

 

Sorry, that's just a TERRIBLE argument! You believe that people shouldn't have the freedom to start a business in which they get to decide their own customers. How is this not infringing on liberties?

Correct assumption.

Yes, I would have to accept it as their right, but thankfully, racial discrimination in places of public accommodation is obviously no longer a problem.

Why would putting a political label on yourself stop you from making "independent decisions on each and every issue?"

 

There was such a business in my home town that the owners exercised their 'freedom' to do such a thing. I quickly went out of business.

Blacks can't be racist, so they would only be eliminating the possibility of serving racists.

You just answered your question. A political label tends to associate you with a political party/movement which in turn is identified by a party line platform. I find none I could support without change.

 

Exactly! It went out of business! That's how the market works now! Why can't this be the mechanism by which business operates? Why do you feel government intervention is so necessary?

How can blacks not be racist?

Are you saying that Democrats and Republicans are incapable of making independent decisions on each and every issue?

 

Because such actions tend to result in much more undesirable reactions.

Just pulling your strings.

I'm sure many of them are, but frequently I find neither one acceptable to me. Few, if any at all, issues have but one single correct resolution, which is why I prefer solutions to be resolved as close to their source as possible.

 

What actions are you talking about?

 

Court action, violence, arson, whatever reaction the offended feel appropriate.

 

What does that have to do with government intervention which does not allow business owners to choose their customers?

 

Why would you want to start a business? Simply to make a political statement?

 

When did I say that I want to start a business?