If you're gay, no cake. Fine, I'll tell the gov so they can force you to bake me one

[John of Des Moines]

The libertarian solution is obvious. Non-libertarian Christians/traditionalists have no leg to stand on, since they do not consistently support freedom of association.

"So do you support the 'right' of a business to refuse to serve blacks, Pastor Family-Values?"

"No, of course not, but stop changing the issue. That's completely different."

"No, Pastor, it's not. You're just behind the times. Gays today are like blacks 50 years ago. You're just a bigot who's behind the times."

Refusing to serve someone because of their skin color is a vestige of slavery thus illegal (KKK Act of 1871 - or was it 1872? I forget).

What if the bakery owner was sexually attacked as child by someone of the same sex and that is/was the basis of his refusal?

 

[TonySutton]

Refusing to serve someone because of their skin color is a vestige of slavery thus illegal (KKK Act of 1871 - or was it 1872? I forget).

What if the bakery owner was sexually attacked as child by someone of the same sex and that is/was the basis of his refusal?

What if the bakery owner was sexually attacked as child by somoeone of color and is/was the basis of his refusal?

 

[lib3rtarian]

Just take their money and bake them a shitty cake and they won't come back. What's the problem?

 

[FrankRep]

Anti gay banzai coming, someone will call for gays to be exucuted in public because of this.

Silly statement.

 

[tod evans]

As a business owner I reserve the right to refuse to provide my services to anyone for any reason I choose.

Don't like it?

There's the door!

 

[TonySutton]

As a business owner I reserve the right to refuse to provide my services to anyone for any reason I choose.

Don't like it?

There's the door!

Unfortunately Colorado passed a law that does not allow you to legally refuse business for ANY reason.

 

[pcosmar]

Refusing to serve someone because of their skin color is a vestige of slavery thus illegal (KKK Act of 1871 - or was it 1872? I forget).

ACTUALLY no.

That was meant to dismantle the KKK. Racial segregation was often proscribed by law until the 1960s. (Jim Crow Laws)
The Civil Rights Act went too far,, and should have simply overturned all the Jim Crow laws. And then let folks work it out.
The forced integration has actually done more harm.

 

[Pericles]

The mindset here is they want these people punished for insulting them and they get the government to validate their beliefs by punishing whoever insulted them. It shows them that whoever did this to them is objectively wrong.

What they should do is tell this guy to go to hell and spread the word, let him deal with the loss of business. And really - why would they want to give a guy money who won't respect their relationship?

Just like they showed Chick-Fil-A their economic power. When publicizing a dispute with the policy of a business, and therefore, appealing to the public to support you cause, you really need to understand where the public is on the issue.

That made the tactics of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s effective. The same tactics would not have been so successful in the 1850s and 1860s.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Just take their money and bake them a shitty cake and they won't come back. What's the problem?

But is that the *only* acceptable action? What's the problem with taking a stand for your beliefs? What's the problem with freedom of association?

 

[Fox McCloud]

A lot of gays feel the same way when Christians try to tell them how to live their lives. They learned a lesson from the Christians who like to use government force against gays by not allowing them to have a state sanctioned marriage. Now the gays are using the government for revenge. I think it is called blowback.

Not totally convinced of this---I think it's just ingrained in a lot of people, these days, regardless of which group you're part of, conservative, liberal, or what not...to go running and crying to the government every time someone does something they don't like (or against them/perceived against them) if they believe they can "punish" the other person or get some kind of compensation out of it. This doesn't seem unique to me in any case.

 

[Antischism]

Meh, people try to sue for lots of different reasons, gay or not. I'm sure hardcore so-cons will use this type of article as ammunition to fuel their 'gaytred' though.

 

[ThePenguinLibertarian]

The libertarian solution is obvious. Non-libertarian Christians/traditionalists have no leg to stand on, since they do not consistently support freedom of association.

"So do you support the 'right' of a business to refuse to serve blacks, Pastor Family-Values?"

"No, of course not, but stop changing the issue. That's completely different."

"No, Pastor, it's not. You're just behind the times. Gays today are like blacks 50 years ago. You're just a bigot who's behind the times."

THIS IS THE SHIT I HATE. No, my beliefs are not behind the times. And gays are not the blacks. If that was, gay people would be poor and disenfrachised by condescending straights. Why not privatize marriage? It takes away power from the government and leave people be. That is more libertarian than HUR DUR SOCIAL JUSTICE crap.

 

[affa]

I don't have a problem with someone being gay but given the vast majority of them seem to be clearly liberal....

according to who, the media? it's an issue of physical attraction, not a political stance. however, the christian right has made a big deal out of treating them like 5th class citizens going straight to hell, so yea, I'm sure a lot of the politically ambivalent among them lean left by default. Most people aren't vested enough into politics to discern the difference between social and economic issues. So, for example, you have 'conservatives' complaining about, say, tattoos, and thinking only 'liberals' get them. It's all a bunch of hooey.

Re: this case. I don't blame the couple for complaining. It's what our society trains us to do. Other minorities only got theirs when they grew so loud that people started to listen...

I certainly would have preferred they just organize a boycott or something rather than involve the state, but expecting them to be silent and just move along when they're mistreated isn't a particularly appealing option to me. If I went into a store and they turned me away because of how I looked, I'd be pissed, even if i do think they should be able to do it. And just because I think they should be able to do it, doesn't mean I think I should just shut up and take it... because part of a business being allowed to restrict customers is dealing with the resultant backlash against them.

 

[affa]

And gays are not the blacks. If that was, gay people would be poor and disenfrachised by condescending straights.

I think you're absolutely missing the point of the comparison. If you think gay people haven't been radically mistreated in our society, even beat to death for the way they were born (not unlike lynchings), then you haven't been paying attention. The reason they "aren't poor", etc, is due to two major reasons -- 1) many have been trained since adolescence that they need to hide their true selves behind a 'straight' exterior, and 2) double income, no kids.

But having to 'hide' from who you are, verses not being able to hide your race, isn't exactly an upgrade. Sure, it lowers direct abuse/condescension, but it's got it's share of issues (self-worth, etc).

I know a lot of gay couples. They're all wonderful people. And a good portion of our country looks down on them, thinks they're 'perverts' going to hell, and the destroyers of [society, marriage, etc]. What a load of bollocks. They're people. Yes, some are flamboyant. Guess what? Some people are flamboyantly straight, too. People are different.

 

[Southron]

I predicted this sort of stuff would happen several years ago. Militant homosexuals will never be content until you are run out of business for thinking their degenerate lifestyle is sinful.

 

[mcrow]

according to who, the media? it's an issue of physical attraction, not a political stance. however, the christian right has made a big deal out of treating them like 5th class citizens going straight to hell, so yea, I'm sure a lot of the politically ambivalent among them lean left by default. Most people aren't vested enough into politics to discern the difference between social and economic issues. So, for example, you have 'conservatives' complaining about, say, tattoos, and thinking only 'liberals' get them. It's all a bunch of hooey.

Re: this case. I don't blame the couple for complaining. It's what our society trains us to do. Other minorities only got theirs when they grew so loud that people started to listen...

I certainly would have preferred they just organize a boycott or something rather than involve the state, but expecting them to be silent and just move along when they're mistreated isn't a particularly appealing option to me. If I went into a store and they turned me away because of how I looked, I'd be pissed, even if i do think they should be able to do it. And just because I think they should be able to do it, doesn't mean I think I should just shut up and take it... because part of a business being allowed to restrict customers is dealing with the resultant backlash against them.

Given that the vast majority of gays vote for liberals I would say it is a correct assumption that most gays are liberals. I happen to be a devote Catholic and a Libertarian. The thing is people misunderstand the Catholic stance on damnation, hell and gays. Correct, but often misunderstood(even by many Catholics) stance is that:

#1-Having sex with a person of the same sex is a sin. There is no way around it if you believe in the bible, it is very clear in the bible that it is a sin. However, simply being attracted to someone of the same sex isn't a sin.

#2- We are all sinners and gay sex is a sin but sex outside of marriage is a sin as well, people often forget that.

#3- We are given free choice by God. This is why I believe that Catholicism is the most compatible with Libertarianism of all forms of Christianity. Catholics believe that God has not predetermined our lives, prefers us to make our own choices. This is also where I think the Church is wrong in pushing for laws that reflect Christian teachings. Matthew 22:21 says""So give back to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's.", which IMO indicates the seperation of church and state plus highlights the freedom God gives us in when Jesus himself recognizeseperation.


As far as gays being offended, get over it. People are offended every day and don't sue over it. There are many, many places that have no problem making a cake for anyone, take your buisness elsewhere, FFS.