Posted on 12/04/2017 8:16:14 AM PST by davikkm
Once again the story about the baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple is in the ages of our newspapers. We are being asked to look at it as though the baker, Masterpiece Cakeshop, was asking for “the right to discriminate” (LA Times) and that their refusal is akin to a sign saying “No blacks.” But their argument is not only flawed, it is disingenuous and moral cowardice.
You see this is not about refusal of service, in fact, Masterpiece did offer the couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig service, just not the service they asked for. Those who support the couple suing the bakery are missing a major point…Whether it is a religious objection, an ethical objection, or any other kind of objection, the creation for something should not be compelled under law.
If the bakery had refused to sell them an existing cake, then they should be shut down immediately, because this really is discrimination, but they were asking for a unique creation that was not being “offered.”
(Excerpt) Read more at investmentwatchblog.com ...
Artistry on demand is slavery, not “public accommodation.”
No shirt, no shoes, no service.
same same...
Businesses reserve the right to discriminate on many levels. Watering down or diluting that right is probably not needed, as there are other vendors who will fill the customet needs.
The specific views of the objector do not enter into it. The objector only has to prove compulsion.
The concept of "freedom" requires us to accept that people can reject business for any reason they like. It is not the business of government to enforce morality on people.
Compelled labor for any reason is the same foundation upon which slavery is based.
A cousin of the ex-wife is a working artist. At one holiday party, his wife was saying how angry people got when he started declining commissions.
Probably because he already did X number of certain city-scape scenes and he was bored, and wanted new challenges.
The unfair double standards.
That the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled in one week the homosexual baker could refuse a pro-traditional marriage message cake per their political beliefs. But the Christian baker must make the wedding cake or be sued.
That the imam can call for death of homosexuals and be patted on the head, while the Christian who says I don’t want to provide flowers for your homosexual wedding is not only sued and punished, but the state government rips away the corporate veil so that her PERSONAL property can be taken away in addition to her business. In short, extra punishment for the Christian who defies liberal orthodoxy. An unfair standard.
That Facebook can discriminate against non-PC viewpoints it doesn’t like, because it is a private business. But Christian owned businesses cannot discriminate against PC viewpoints because that’s a violation of human rights regulations liberals wrote to privilege their viewpoints and preferred so called victim groups.
Is it ok for muslims to refuse?
Yes. Enemy islamists are not to be hassled for any reason whatsoever.
Can a printer refuse to publish Black Panther hate tracts?
Only lawyers reserved the right to refuse clients.
You are right. Barry Goldwater warned everyone that the Civil Rights act of 1964 would lead to a great deal of abuse.
THESE LAWS, the 16th and the 17th Amendments are the largest FREEDOM KILLERS in our government! In my opinion!!
Everyone always leaves off the 14th amendment, which is in my opinion the most disastrous amendment under which we have suffered. Yes, the 16th and 17th are bad, but it is the incorporation doctrine of the 14th that is the root of much of this forced non-discrimination policy being shoved down people's throats.
True; very true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.