Who is John Galt? Bakery forced to bake same-sex wedding cake stops baking cakes

[Hotdoger]

"So should businesses also discriminate against people who commit adultery or fornication? "

Should you be able to " discriminate" against, not do business with, a business that glorifies "adultery & and fornication"?

What makes you have those rights and the business not have the same?

 

[Mark 1911]

Perhaps its not about race, but it is the same.

There is something very scary about this kind of thinking. We bemoan the demonization of guns while personal responsibility is totally ignored. How can you say that race, which is physical and something we have no control over, is the same thing as a free will, the ability to make personal choices, a matter of mind and will? Physical attributes are not the same as personal choices.

The parallel arguments about the morality and religious aspects between gay marriage and anti miscegenation laws are blatant.

Only if you totally ignore the concept of objective right and wrong.

Regardless of how you view it religiously or morally, the writing is on the wall, demographically speaking. Young people tend to not have an issue with gay marriage. Old people do. Old people will die first. Its the same reason I blather on about the importance of teaching the youngsters to shoot and enjoy firearms. What we think is right, just, and the American way becomes instantly irrelevant as the next generation takes over. Social mores, laws, Constitutional amendments, they can all be changed with a greater or lesser degree of ease.

Now that is a different argument than your first one. First you claim that gay marriage is no different than race. Then you say, oh well, it doesn't matter because that is the social trend. So is it morally right? Or just the trend of the day? Is there such a thing as right and wrong? Is that purely defined by the trends of a particular generation? Do we invent right and wrong or is their such a thing as truth that we discover as opposed to invent on our own? And if there is such a thing as truth, then is it right to change it to suit what "we think is right" if it doesn't happen to suit our political trends? If young people are more accepting of gay marriage in terms of percentages than old people (and there are exceptions in both groups), could it be because we are failing to teach them certain basic truths that apply equally to all people? And if we are failing to teach them, could it be because we never learned the importance or reality of certain truths ourselves?

I would propose that truth is eternal, it is timeless, it is as relevant for generations that lived 1000 years ago as for generations that lived 100 years ago and are just as relevant today as ever. That truth holds the answers to all of life problems, and offers hope and love to all men regardless of what sins they may happen to struggle with - and all of us do. That is part of being human as well. The answer is not in making a pact with what is wrong, but in understanding that God loves all men and offers his mercy to all, and all of us are as much in need in making that discovery as the next. If we condone what is wrong, then we are denying an opportunity to another to discover what he, and everyone, most needs. That is not love, that is simply politics gone awry, and very sour. If we truly love our fellow man, if we truly want the best for our children, then for the sake of love we must never make pacts with lies no matter what the political climate of the day. The problem with blindly rejecting one side of the argument is that the other side is never heard, if it is never heard it is never learned, if it is never learned it is never taught. We are not the inventors of right and wrong, but we do have a responsibility to learn the difference. Even the authority of our legal system would not exist unless there were a higher authority from which its power came. Do we not recognize the difference between true justice and abuse of power? We complain about it all the time. We understand that without truth there can be no liberty. If we teach lies, if we teach our children to embrace falsehood, then we are cheating them out of something very precious. We are denying to them the essence of what it means to be human, and they will never truly understand who they are, or what it means to be free. We are denying them hope. It is up to us not to let them down.

 

[JetGirl]

I applaud the business owner for sticking to his principles, however I like the idea someone posted upthread about sticking to only what's on the "menu" of available cake toppers offered there. Want one with two men on the top tier? Buy two cakes and move it yourself.

 

[jjtroy912]

My favorite quote regarding law, "The law begins when my fist meets your face" has not in my lifetime been true. After my business law teacher said this we began studying contract law (aka agreements held to a high standard). Can you imagine if we lived in a free land were law only consisted in regards to physical harm and contracts? I would call it, freedom.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

There is something very scary about this kind of thinking. We bemoan the demonization of guns while personal responsibility is totally ignored. How can you say that race, which is physical and something we have no control over, is the same thing as a free will, the ability to make personal choices, a matter of mind and will? Physical attributes are not the same as personal choices.

Only if you totally ignore the concept of objective right and wrong.


Now that is a different argument than your first one. First you claim that gay marriage is no different than race. Then you say, oh well, it doesn't matter because that is the social trend. So is it morally right? Or just the trend of the day? Is there such a thing as right and wrong? Is that purely defined by the trends of a particular generation? Do we invent right and wrong or is their such a thing as truth that we discover as opposed to invent on our own? And if there is such a thing as truth, then is it right to change it to suit what "we think is right" if it doesn't happen to suit our political trends? If young people are more accepting of gay marriage in terms of percentages than old people (and there are exceptions in both groups), could it be because we are failing to teach them certain basic truths that apply equally to all people? And if we are failing to teach them, could it be because we never learned the importance or reality of certain truths ourselves?

I would propose that truth is eternal, it is timeless, it is as relevant for generations that lived 1000 years ago as for generations that lived 100 years ago and are just as relevant today as ever. That truth holds the answers to all of life problems, and offers hope and love to all men regardless of what sins they may happen to struggle with - and all of us do. That is part of being human as well. The answer is not in making a pact with what is wrong, but in understanding that God loves all men and offers his mercy to all, and all of us are as much in need in making that discovery as the next. If we condone what is wrong, then we are denying an opportunity to another to discover what he, and everyone, most needs. That is not love, that is simply politics gone awry, and very sour. If we truly love our fellow man, if we truly want the best for our children, then for the sake of love we must never make pacts with lies no matter what the political climate of the day. The problem with blindly rejecting one side of the argument is that the other side is never heard, if it is never heard it is never learned, if it is never learned it is never taught. We are not the inventors of right and wrong, but we do have a responsibility to learn the difference. Even the authority of our legal system would not exist unless there were a higher authority from which its power came. Do we not recognize the difference between true justice and abuse of power? We complain about it all the time. We understand that without truth there can be no liberty. If we teach lies, if we teach our children to embrace falsehood, then we are cheating them out of something very precious. We are denying to them the essence of what it means to be human, and they will never truly understand who they are, or what it means to be free. We are denying them hope. It is up to us not to let them down.

If I could, I would rep this. Nicely done.

 

[KLB]

I applaud the business owner for sticking to his principles, however I like the idea someone posted upthread about sticking to only what's on the "menu" of available cake toppers offered there. Want one with two men on the top tier? Buy two cakes and move it yourself.

I think this is the part that has been forgotten by most of the discussion of this topic. Wedding cakes tend to be delivered by the bakery to the wedding. The bakers therefor are actually having to take an active if small part in the wedding.

 

[caverjamie]

You can't possibly be serious. Or would you prefer the days when (insert minority of choice) knew their place?

I'm trying to figure out how you can be serious. Who are you to tell some private business who he needs to serve? We should be beyond that by now. Hospitals are not going to refuse to service anyone, that argument is invalid. Non life threatening issues such as finding an apartment or baking a cake - the business should have every right to refuse. I don't like your hair hippie, no cake for you! If people think the business owner is an ass, then they will boycott him and he will go out of business. If no one cares, he may still turn enough people away to run his business into the ground. There are plenty of places these days that will serve whoever, I don't think there is any need for the government to put their boot on the neck of small business owners, market forces will probably do it for them anyway.

 

[Smokepole]

If I could, I would rep this. Nicely done.

Got him or ya with all that I could give.

 

[Smokepole]

I applaud the business owner for sticking to his principles, however I like the idea someone posted upthread about sticking to only what's on the "menu" of available cake toppers offered there. Want one with two men on the top tier? Buy two cakes and move it yourself.

I think this is the part that has been forgotten by most of the discussion of this topic. Wedding cakes tend to be delivered by the bakery to the wedding. The bakers therefor are actually having to take an active if small part in the wedding.

Or they can buy one cake with no topper and then go and buy the two dudes, and put them on top themselves. I have not doubt there would be someplace to buy them. The baker doesn't make them himself. Or maybe just find a gay run bakery and have them make the cake. Win-win. But NOOOOOO. We MUST make a point. Ve haf vays of makingk you OBEY!

That's right too. The baker must participate in the event. They are tailoring the cake to the desires of the couple and then is expected to deliver and set up the cake at the venue for the buyer.

 

[JetGirl]

Or they can buy one cake with no topper and then go and buy the two dudes, and put them on top themselves.

When I said, "Want one with two men on the top tier? Buy two cakes and move it yourself.", I meant move the topper.

 

[rhino]

I still think property rights trump people's feelings.

 

[Vigilant]

I still think property rights trump people's feelings.

Too bad you're not an appeals judge!

 

[hornadylnl]

I still think property rights trump people's feelings.

How do you feel about tall grass?

 

[rhino]

How do you feel about tall grass?

Context, please?

 

[rambone]

 

[RockofStrength]

Perhaps its not about race, but it is the same. The parallel arguments about the morality and religious aspects between gay marriage and anti miscegenation laws are blatant. Regardless of how you view it religiously or morally, the writing is on the wall, demographically speaking. Young people tend to not have an issue with gay marriage. Old people do. Old people will die first. Its the same reason I blather on about the importance of teaching the youngsters to shoot and enjoy firearms. What we think is right, just, and the American way becomes instantly irrelevant as the next generation takes over. Social mores, laws, Constitutional amendments, they can all be changed with a greater or lesser degree of ease.



What an odd concept. Who creates rules of conduct, taboos, laws, etc for the myriad societies that humans have belonged to?

Society does, of course. But rules of conduct, taboos, laws, etc are not right and wrong. Right and wrong are independent of human thought and reason. Otherwise the Spartan culture was "Right" to encourage their young men to steal and kill slaves in order to keep the Helots in line. Otherwise the culture of the 50's was "Right" to segregate Blacks and treat them as subhuman. Right and wrong cannot be declared by society, merely recognized by it and enforced to a greater or lesser degree.

 

[hornadylnl]

Context, please?

Kirk feels tall grass harms him so you have no property right to tall grass.

We regulate peoples property rights away every day. Does a business have the right to choose if they have a (non)smoking establishment?

To the majority of Americans, property rights is king... Until it denies them what they want.

 

[rhino]

Kirk feels tall grass harms him so you have no property right to tall grass.

We regulate peoples property rights away every day. Does a business have the right to choose if they have a (non)smoking establishment?

To the majority of Americans, property rights is king... Until it denies them what they want.

Okay, this is something I've thought about in our ongoing battle against zoning in Montgomery County.

I don't think it's okay. And yes, I think business owners should be allowed to choose if they allow/disallow smoking, shooting, talking, stinking, whatever in their own business.

My take is this: if the guy next to does something on his property that offends you, you have choices:

1. Get over it
2. Ask him to stop
3. Move
4. Buy his property (if he will sell)

None of those violate his rights or yours.

It's never going to happen again that way in good ol' America, but that's the way I think it should work

 

[hornadylnl]

Okay, this is something I've thought about in our ongoing battle against zoning in Montgomery County.

I don't think it's okay. And yes, I think business owners should be allowed to choose if they allow/disallow smoking, shooting, talking, stinking, whatever in their own business.

My take is this: if the guy next to does something on his property that offends you, you have choices:

1. Get over it
2. Ask him to stop
3. Move
4. Buy his property (if he will sell)

None of those violate his rights or yours.

It's never going to happen again that way in good ol' America, but that's the way I think it should work

A government big enough to dictate the condition of your lawn is big enough to dictate how you run your business.

 

[88GT]

Okay, this is something I've thought about in our ongoing battle against zoning in Montgomery County.

I don't think it's okay. And yes, I think business owners should be allowed to choose if they allow/disallow smoking, shooting, talking, stinking, whatever in their own business.

My take is this: if the guy next to does something on his property that offends you, you have choices:

1. Get over it
2. Ask him to stop
3. Move
4. Buy his property (if he will sell)

None of those violate his rights or yours.

It's never going to happen again that way in good ol' America, but that's the way I think it should work

5. Sue him for the damages in small claims court.

I'm not actually recommending this one, but if there really is harm as Kirk claims, then this is the manner it should be addressed.