|
DesideriScuri -> RE: Are cakes art? (9/25/2017 8:47:29 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyPact
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Gay wedding cakes aren't available to anyone.
Adding the qualifier that it's a "gay" wedding is why it's discrimination. If you were to put any other type of qualifying word before 'wedding,' the point wouldn't have to be argued. What if it was a wedding between people of different races? What about couples where one of the parties had been married before and got divorced?
That's not up to me to decide, which is kinda the point I'm making. I don't get to decide squat how any business - other than my own - operates. I'm not sure if any Christian religion other than Catholicism looks down so direly on divorce.
quote:
quote:
Then, perhaps, they should take their business elsewhere. That's the beauty of letting the Market work. People don't have to patronize any business the don't want to patronize.
The gay couple wants their beliefs to trump the religious beliefs of a shop owner. That's imposing beliefs upon another. The gay couple can (and likely has) get a cake from other bakeries. They don't have to get one from this bakery. They don't have to ask (or force, if you involve government) this baker to perform an act that he finds opposing his religious beliefs. But, they did and are doing just that.
This is a point where I think we disagree. (This point? I think it's quite a bit more than this point. lol [:D])
If people honestly think they are being discriminated against, the idea isn't supposed to be shut up about it and shop somewhere else. The idea is to be treated equally. The same as any other couple ordering a cake.
Other than spite, why would you want to force a shop that would discriminate against you to provide you a good or service? How is that going to end well? Let the baker decide how he wants to run his bakery, and then let the chips fall where they may.
quote:
quote:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/politics/masterpiece-cakeshop-owner-says-hes-lost-40-of-business-welcomes-scotus-hearing quote:
“Regardless of your viewpoint about same-sex marriage, shouldn’t we all agree that the government shouldn’t force us to speak or act in a way that violates our deepest convictions?” Phillips queried in his prepared statement. “Like the one in Colorado will result in kind-hearted Americans being dragged before state commissions and courts, and punished by the government for peacefully seeking to live and work consistent with their beliefs about marriage? The couple who came to my shop that day 5 years ago are free to hold their beliefs about marriage, and all I ask is that I be allowed the equal opportunity to keep mine.”
I appreciated the additional link. I have to say, it is quite a nice bakery.
However, nobody is actually asking the man to change his mind or his beliefs. He's being asked not to discriminate based on them. Something SCOTUS has already ruled isn't legal.
His belief is that he can't provide a cake celebrating a gay marriage without sinning in the eyes of his God. How is forcing him to not deny wedding cake services to a gay couple NOT forcing him to change his belief?
quote:
quote:
I think you may have made a mistake. If not, you lost me.
I'm probably not being clear. I am rushing a bit.
In my opinion, this case is a case at all because the baker is trying to use his definition of "art" as the difference than cases that have already been lost. Similar cases have already been heard, and anti-discrimination tends to be how they've been ruled on. I expect it to happen again.
That's the thing about many SCOTUS rulings, similarities may or may not cross over. We shall see how they rule in this case.
quote:
quote:
He has lost 40% of his business. IMO, , Free Market at work. If enough people are outraged enough that they decide to not frequent his shop and he goes out of business from it? Free Markets at work. Just like if a place decided not to serve (insert discrimination demographic here), there would be an outcry and a call for a boycott. It would either result in the business changing it's policy, the business going out of business for lack of customers, or the business doing fin because they replaced any lost customers with ones choosing to frequent them over their stance.
This is just my opinion. I think any business that refuses to serve <insert demographic here> should expect a certain fall out.
And, I agree with your opinion.
quote:
quote:
Then why isn't it okay for a businessman to run his business the way he sees fit, and let people make their own choices as to where to shop? Isn't that how business is supposed to work?
It's also supposed to be about treating people equally.
Not it isn't. It's supposed to be about a person running a business as he/she sees fit. If the business goes under, who shoulders the loss? It's not the public. It's the shop owner.
quote:
quote:
At one point in time, I agree anti-discrimination laws were necessary. With social media and the speed at which information travels now? Don't need them. The Free Market will take care of things.
I'm not sure I can go with this. It was only ~25 years ago that this was the same state that put an initiative on the ballot to legally discriminate against people and it became law. We are talking about Colorado here.
What law is that? That's an honest question.
quote:
quote:
It's not been given a chance.
We have different opinions.
You think it's been given a chance in today's business climate? Really?
quote:
The chance existed before. We, as a society, could have chosen not to discriminate, but we didn't do a great job. If we had, we wouldn't need cases like these.
You have to realize how much has changed from 25+ years ago. Times were, you used to have to wait for the 5/6-o'clock news or the newspaper to find out what was going on. By the time you found out, it could have easily changed because of how slowly information traveled. It's damn near real-time now. We can get overanalysis of damn near anything mere moments after that thing happens.
quote:
quote:
Of course you don't think that's the answer. You'd rather government get more involved. That's fucking obvious.
It's not that I want the government to get more involved. Personally, I think it would be really cool if people just did the right thing on their own. The problem is, how do we determine which is the "right" thing?
By choosing where to apply our own dollars. You morality and ethics don't necessarily line up with anyone else's, so how do you get to determine what's right and what's wrong? Tyranny of the majority a better option?
|
|
|
|
