SadieMarie Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I'm just amazed it's moving so fast. It's been one day and they've already expanded their OWN ruling dramatically. My Facebook feed is full of women who are wondering what's next. The writing is on the wall as far as the culture war in terms of public opinion. So there is going to be a doubling down on other strategies to slow it down (SCOTUS, gerrymandering, voter ID laws... whatever they can think of). That is how it seems to me anyway. My stepmother was complaining to me a few years ago about how hard her generation worked to advance equality for women and how the following generations have just been frittering it away or taking it for granted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SadieMarie Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Well if you let women have whore pills then they become whores. They are just saving us silly women from ourselves. I believe you mean tea addicts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I believe you mean tea addicts. Not from their perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Can ANYONE give me a reasonable argument as to why Wheaton College refuses to fill out the form I pasted above? Anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SadieMarie Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Can ANYONE give me a reasonable argument as to why Wheaton College refuses to fill out the form I pasted above? Anyone? Not a reasonable one lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I believe there have been more studies in the past 12 years. I posted links talking about them in the other thread. People want to ignore more recent evidence. FTR, my kids' debate class tells them that they aren't allowed to use scientific evidence that is more than 5 years old because it will be out of date. It is a Christian debate league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Can ANYONE give me a reasonable argument as to why Wheaton College refuses to fill out the form I pasted above? Anyone? Reasonable? No. One based on a narrow minded, woman hating worldview? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I posted links talking about them in the other thread. People want to ignore more recent evidence. FTR, my kids' debate classes tells then that they aren't allowed to use scientific evidence that is more than 5 years old because it will be out of date. It is a Christian debate league. Those are just facts based on science. Big pharm and the NWO are probably behind the lies as part of their population reduction program. Just like chemtrails and vaccines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 The writing is on the wall as far as the culture war in terms of public opinion. So there is going to be a doubling down on other strategies to slow it down (SCOTUS, gerrymandering, voter ID laws... whatever they can think of). That is how it seems to me anyway. Don't forget voter intimidation and disenfranchisement. My sister votes in a heavily minority precinct in a red state. During the recent primary elections, she was told that she had to have an ID to vote. She told them that the law said that your voter registration card can serve as ID. They tried to insist that she needed a photo ID. This isn't true. They finally let her vote, but only because she was so stubborn about it. Someone more meek might have been turned away. She reported it to the state and federal election boards and the state chapter of the ACLU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SadieMarie Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Don't forget voter intimidation and disenfranchisement. My sister votes in a heavily minority precinct in a red state. During the recent primary elections, she was told that she had to have an ID to vote. She told them that the law said that your voter registration card can serve as ID. They tried to insist that she needed a photo ID. This isn't true. They finally let her vote, but only because she was so stubborn about it. Someone more meek might have been turned away. She reported it to the state and federal election boards and the state chapter of the ACLU. And is it just my paranoia or is the losing side as far as public opinion also the one arming itself to the teeth? Please tell me it is paranoia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MercyA Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I posted links talking about them in the other thread. People want to ignore more recent evidence. FTR, my kids' debate classes tells then that they aren't allowed to use scientific evidence that is more than 5 years old because it will be out of date. It is a Christian debate league. I also cited a study from 2007 and an Oxford Journal Human Reproduction Update from 2008. If there's more recent research specifically on the post-fertilization effects of IUD's, I'm not aware of it. I'm beginning to think there's no pleasing you people. ;) I believe all of the studies I've cited in this thread have been in reference to IUD's. Mrs. Mungo, I only recall you posting links about Plan B. (I could be wrong. There's no way I'm reading through that whole thread again. :)) I'm bowing out of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechWife Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Don't forget the Wheaton College verdict. The Hobby Lobby ruling only applies to closely held private companies..... and now religious non profits as well. It was "narrow" for a less than a week. It is not a verdict - it is a temporary injunction regarding pending case. Reading comprehension is important. Yes, I know the new outlets are calling it a verdict. They are wrong. By granting this temporary injunction SCOTUS is not changing the scope of the HL verdict. They are simply saying that Wheaton can have a reprive while their case winds its way through the court system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechWife Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I wonder if now a vegan-owned company could refuse to cover pig-derived heart valve replacements. I was researching this when a relative was undergoing this procedure, and I found many vegans that *personally* would refuse a pig valve on ethical grounds. I'm guessing, though, that ethical beliefs on animal rights are not held in as high of regard as religious beliefs when it comes to legal exemptions. Despite the fact that there are mechanical valves available, it's not always the best option for certain patients. And open heart surgery is not as easy as birth control to "just pay out of pocket". As far as I know, there is no constitutional protection for vegans. I think it's a reflection on the fact that ethics are based on something, whether or not people acknowledge that fact. A deeply held conviction regarding animal rights has it's roots in having a belief system of some kind that is a basis for determining what is right and what is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechWife Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Yes, I read that last night after I posted this thread. Now all Wheaton has to do is notify the government in writing “that it is a nonprofit organization that holds itself out as religious and has religious objections to providing coverage for contraception services." Because it believes that signing a form is impermissibly facilitating abortions. I loved this quote from The NY Times. “Those who are bound by our decisions usually believe they can take us at our word,†Justice Sotomayor wrote. “Not so today.†The court’s action, she added, even “undermines confidence in this institution.†This is a temporary injunction that gives Wheaton relief while their court case makes it's way through the system. Instead of reading the NY Times, read the order! "Nothing in this interim order affects the ability of theapplicant’s employees and students to obtain, without cost, the full range of FDA approved contraceptives. The Government contends that the applicant’s health insuranceissuer and third-party administrator are required byfederal law to provide full contraceptive coverage regardless whether the applicant completes EBSA Form 700" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechWife Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I think that what you are wanting is the UK NHS: both contraception and all childbirth care are free at the point of need. Thank you for clarifying that these items are not free, just that there is no charge for them at the point of need. It's a far cry from providing "free contraceptives" and "free maternity care." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechWife Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 It seems like we are approaching a consensus for single payer lol. But I must still be asleep and dreaming. I'm not for a single payor system, but I am for separating medical insurance from the place of employment. I think you should be able to shop for the plan that has the coverage you want at the best price, just like you do for your auto and home insurance. People should be required to carry a catastrophic medical policy, just like we are required to carry liability auto insurance. People should be able to change their insurance more frequently than every year to help mitigate issues when people develop illnesses and need to increase their coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechWife Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 What about those of us who have needed birth control pills for things that have zero to do with our sex lives? I've needed a lot of pills for things that have zero to do with my sex life. Should I get those for "free" when I pick up my prescriptions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caroline Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I'm not for a single payor system, but I am from separating medical insurance from the place of employment. I think you should be able to shop for the plan that has the coverage you want at the best price, just like you do for your auto and home insurance. People should be required to carry a catastrophic medical policy, just like we are required to carry liability auto insurance. People should be able to change their insurance more frequently than every year to help mitigate issues when people develop illnesses and need to increase their coverage. How is that going to work, economically? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laura Corin Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Thank you for clarifying that these items are not free, just that there is no charge for them at the point of need. It's a far cry from providing "free contraceptives" and "free maternity care." That's the terminology that we use. Health care is cheap on a per capita basis if you cut out the profit making and billing bureaucracy: the UK spends around USD 3,500 per annum per capita; the US spends over USD 8,500 per annum per capita. Imagine what kind of health system the US could have if that amount of money was actually spent on caring for people's health! L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 That's the terminology that we use. Health care is cheap on a per capita basis if you cut out the profit making and billing bureaucracy: the UK spends around USD 3,500 per annum per capita; the US spends over USD 8,500 per annum per capita. Imagine what kind of health system the US could have if that amount of money was actually spent on caring for people's health! L But you must have two year waits or death panels or something! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 The cake decorator and the photographer vs gay weddings cases, I feel strongly the courts were wrong. They were not refusing to sell a photo off the wall or a cookie out if the case to gay people coming in off the street. They were specifically refusing to participate in a religious ceremony they didn't agree with. To my mind, this is like going into a ok her deli and using when they refused to serve a non-kosher item on demand. They weren't refusing to serve someone walking in. They were refusing to give a custom service. If a painter is selling to anyone who comes in his gallery, is he obligated by law to paint a homosexual couple's wedding portrait if they want him to? I would argue of course not. But according to these cases, he might very well have to or be fined to the point of being driven out of business. And if he would have to paint/photograph/cake that, why not a KKK banquet? I've seen zero evidence of the courts permitting any discretion to businesses to refuse service of any kind. If anything they have removed any choice whatsoever for many, which is just as wrong in the other direction. Courts absolutely permit businesses to refuse service, they simply have to follow public accommodation laws. In most states, they means they can't discriminate on the basis of gender, race, religion, age, etc. In some states, that also includes sexual orientation. Not serving a non-kosher item on demand in a kosher deli would not be a problem, as long they didn't serve non-kosher items to anyone. It only becomes a problem when they refuse to serve non-kosher items only to someone from a protected class, but serve them to everyone else. In the case of the painter, it would only be a problem if he normally paints wedding portraits and only refuses to paint them for gay couples in a state where sexual orientation is a protected class. And as far as I know, the KKK is not a protected class anywhere, so a business owner would be fine not painting a KKK portrait or making a KKK themed cake. While you may not agree with sexual orientation being a protected class, that is the law in some states. It's also interesting to note that in at least one of the gay wedding cake bakery stories that made national headlines, the bakery was quite willing to bake cakes for several other circumstances that went against their biblical beliefs: http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-20698-the_cake_wars.html. And since not all weddings involve a religious ceremony and the cake is normally part of the reception and not the ceremony, I think it's a stretch to say the bakers were being forced to participate in a religious ceremony they were opposed to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I'm not for a single payor system, but I am for separating medical insurance from the place of employment. I think you should be able to shop for the plan that has the coverage you want at the best price, just like you do for your auto and home insurance. People should be required to carry a catastrophic medical policy, just like we are required to carry liability auto insurance. People should be able to change their insurance more frequently than every year to help mitigate issues when people develop illnesses and need to increase their coverage. That is impossible under the current system. If that was possible, the smart play would be to insure at the minimum until you had a health issue, and then increase coverage to what was needed. It would be similar to allowing car owners to increase their coverage limits after an accident, and goes against the basic concept of insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chocolatechip Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Courts absolutely permit businesses to refuse service, they simply have to follow public accommodation laws. In most states, they means they can't discriminate on the basis of gender, race, religion, age, etc. In some states, that also includes sexual orientation. Not serving a non-kosher item on demand in a kosher deli would not be a problem, as long they didn't serve non-kosher items to anyone. It only becomes a problem when they refuse to serve non-kosher items only to someone from a protected class, but serve them to everyone else. In the case of the painter, it would only be a problem if he normally paints wedding portraits and only refuses to paint them for gay couples in a state where sexual orientation is a protected class. And as far as I know, the KKK is not a protected class anywhere, so a business owner would be fine not painting a KKK portrait or making a KKK themed cake. While you may not agree with sexual orientation being a protected class, that is the law in some states. It's also interesting to note that in at least one of the gay wedding cake bakery stories that made national headlines, the bakery was quite willing to bake cakes for several other circumstances that went against their biblical beliefs: http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-20698-the_cake_wars.html. And since not all weddings involve a religious ceremony and the cake is normally part of the reception and not the ceremony, I think it's a stretch to say the bakers were being forced to participate in a religious ceremony they were opposed to. But the point is, individuals and their businesses should have the right to refuse service. It's just plain ridiculous to think that the government thinks it can force them to provide a service for any person or persons (unless they have signed a contract with said person(s). That's a different situation.) Forcing them to provide service because of "public accommodation laws" is just another way of taking away their right to refuse service. :glare: I don't care if the couple is gay or straight. If the bakery doesn't want to make the cake, they shouldn't have to make the cake! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 But the point is, individuals and their businesses should have the right to refuse service. It's just plain ridiculous to think that the government thinks it can force them to provide a service for any person or persons (unless they have signed a contract with said person(s). That's a different situation.) Forcing them to provide service because of "public accommodation laws" is just another way of taking away their right to refuse service. :glare: I don't care if the couple is gay or straight. If the bakery doesn't want to make the cake, they shouldn't have to make the cake! And that is how we ended up with businesses that refused to serve black people. Is that ok too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiana Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 That is impossible under the current system. If that was possible, the smart play would be to insure at the minimum until you had a health issue, and then increase coverage to what was needed. It would be similar to allowing car owners to increase their coverage limits after an accident, and goes against the basic concept of insurance. Yes. That's the whole reason for the pre-existing coverage exclusion or for making people with pre-existing conditions pay more -- they can't afford to have people moseying along on a catastrophic plan, get sick, suddenly buy a better plan and have to start paying out a lot more. If this were implemented, premiums on healthy people would need to go up a lot more to compensate. Insurance (of any kind) is a gamble. You're paying them to assume the risk for you. As such, it will rarely have a positive expected value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 But the point is, individuals and their businesses should have the right to refuse service. It's just plain ridiculous to think that the government thinks it can force them to provide a service for any person or persons (unless they have signed a contract with said person(s). That's a different situation.) Forcing them to provide service because of "public accommodation laws" is just another way of taking away their right to refuse service. :glare: I don't care if the couple is gay or straight. If the bakery doesn't want to make the cake, they shouldn't have to make the cake! And if they don't want to serve blacks or women or Christians you're also o.k. with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caroline Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 But the point is, individuals and their businesses should have the right to refuse service. It's just plain ridiculous to think that the government thinks it can force them to provide a service for any person or persons (unless they have signed a contract with said person(s). That's a different situation.) Forcing them to provide service because of "public accommodation laws" is just another way of taking away their right to refuse service. :glare: I don't care if the couple is gay or straight. If the bakery doesn't want to make the cake, they shouldn't have to make the cake! And if the lunch counter doesn't want to serve black people, then it shouldn't have to. And if the store doesn't want Jewish people shopping there, then it shouldn't have to. Really? That's how you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laura Corin Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 But you must have two year waits or death panels or something! Absolutely: all that timely, free-at-the-point-of-delivery health care that Husband and I have received during the course of his unemployment is clearly a mirage. As is my 90yo mother, with her excellent health and support. L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Absolutely: all that timely, free-at-the-point-of-delivery health care that Husband and I have received during the course of his unemployment is clearly a mirage. As is my 90yo mother, with her excellent health and support. L Unpossible! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QueenCat Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 But the point is, individuals and their businesses should have the right to refuse service. It's just plain ridiculous to think that the government thinks it can force them to provide a service for any person or persons (unless they have signed a contract with said person(s). That's a different situation.) Forcing them to provide service because of "public accommodation laws" is just another way of taking away their right to refuse service. :glare: I don't care if the couple is gay or straight. If the bakery doesn't want to make the cake, they shouldn't have to make the cake! Wow.......... that's sounds like Jim Crow era thinking......... guess you think they shouldn't have to serve people of races and ethnicities that they don't like either. Disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SadieMarie Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I am still waiting for someone to tell me I am just being paranoid. :scared: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I am still waiting for someone to tell me I am just being paranoid. You might need to wait a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsBasil Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 But the point is, individuals and their businesses should have the right to refuse service. It's just plain ridiculous to think that the government thinks it can force them to provide a service for any person or persons (unless they have signed a contract with said person(s). That's a different situation.) Forcing them to provide service because of "public accommodation laws" is just another way of taking away their right to refuse service. :glare: I don't care if the couple is gay or straight. If the bakery doesn't want to make the cake, they shouldn't have to make the cake! I don't care if the couple is black, Asian, Latino, or white. If the bakery doesn't want to make the cake, they shouldn't have to make the cake! I don't care if the women is employed or not. If the bank doesn't want to provide financial services to her, they shouldn't have to provide services to her! I don't care if the person is black or white. If the bus company wants them to sit at the back of the bus, they should have to sit at the back of the bus! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I don't care if the couple is black, Asian, Latino, or white. If the bakery doesn't want to make the cake, they shouldn't have to make the cake! I don't care if the women is employed or not. If the bank doesn't want to provide financial services to her, they shouldn't have to provide services to her! I don't care if the person is black or white. If the bus company wants them to sit at the back of the bus, they should have to sit at the back of the bus! Don't forget the libertarian argument is that market forces will force businesses to end discrimination on their own. Except they ignore that disenfranchised groups tend to have less economic power which makes that process, at best, extremely slow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SadieMarie Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I don't care if the couple is black, Asian, Latino, or white. If the bakery doesn't want to make the cake, they shouldn't have to make the cake! I don't care if the women is employed or not. If the bank doesn't want to provide financial services to her, they shouldn't have to provide services to her! I don't care if the person is black or white. If the bus company wants them to sit at the back of the bus, they should have to sit at the back of the bus! Maybe they could come to a back entrance or something to get that cake? That would be a compromise. Maybe the woman (or member of a minority) could get that loan but just with crappy terms, another compromise! Maybe they could just get their own buses and avoid all this unpleasantness? Wouldn't that be the considerate thing to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chocolatechip Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I think there's a difference between a 'walk in service,' like a bus, lunch counter, ect. and a custom service such as a special order cake. If a couple walked into a bakery and wanted to purchase a ready-made cake, then it's way worse for the proprietor to refuse to sell the cake then it is for the proprietor to refuse to contract for a special order. Don't get me wrong. Racism is horrible. But I think that situations like the one forcing the bakery to make a custom cake for a couple they don't wish to contract with cause too many potential problems. Situations like black people on a bus don't involve anyone condoning anyone's behavior. Situations like Asians, Latinos, and Jews in a grocery store don't involve condoning anyone's behavior. I think the bakery feels like that in making the cake, they'd be condoning homosexuality. I see a difference there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SadieMarie Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Situations like black people on a bus don't involve anyone condoning anyone's behavior. Situations like Asians, Latinos, and Jews in a grocery store don't involve condoning anyone's behavior. I think the bakery feels like that in making the cake, they'd be condoning homosexuality. I see a difference there. If they legally have to be nondiscriminatory to be in business then making the cake is not condoning anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I think there's a difference between a 'walk in service,' like a bus, lunch counter, ect. and a custom service such as a special order cake. If a couple walked into a bakery and wanted to purchase a ready-made cake, then it's way worse for the proprietor to refuse to sell the cake then it is for the proprietor to refuse to contract for a special order. Don't get me wrong. Racism is horrible. But I think that situations like the one forcing the bakery to make a custom cake for a couple they don't wish to contract with cause too many potential problems. Situations like black people on a bus don't involve anyone condoning anyone's behavior. Situations like Asians, Latinos, and Jews in a grocery store don't involve condoning anyone's behavior. I think the bakery feels like that in making the cake, they'd be condoning homosexuality. I see a difference there. Watch your step on your back peddle. You said: "But the point is, individuals and their businesses should have the right to refuse service. It's just plain ridiculous to think that the government thinks it can force them to provide a service for any person or persons (unless they have signed a contract with said person(s). That's a different situation.) Forcing them to provide service because of "public accommodation laws" is just another way of taking away their right to refuse service." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I think there's a difference between a 'walk in service,' like a bus, lunch counter, ect. and a custom service such as a special order cake. If a couple walked into a bakery and wanted to purchase a ready-made cake, then it's way worse for the proprietor to refuse to sell the cake then it is for the proprietor to refuse to contract for a special order. Don't get me wrong. Racism is horrible. But I think that situations like the one forcing the bakery to make a custom cake for a couple they don't wish to contract with cause too many potential problems. Situations like black people on a bus don't involve anyone condoning anyone's behavior. Situations like Asians, Latinos, and Jews in a grocery store don't involve condoning anyone's behavior. I think the bakery feels like that in making the cake, they'd be condoning homosexuality. I see a difference there. I think trying to separate 'walk in service' from 'custom service' is heading down a slippery slope. Wouldn't most haircuts and loans be considered 'custom service'? Also, since the practice of religion is a behavior, would you then be o.k. with a bakery refusing to provide cakes only for Christian weddings because they don't want to condone Christianity or Christian marriages? And if you think bakeries shouldn't have to make cakes for gay weddings, should they also have to refuse to make cakes for other situations that go against their religious beliefs? Or should be the allowed to pick and choose when to apply their beliefs? Also, should they have to prominently advertise who they will not serve or should customers just have to learn about it when they are refused service? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chocolatechip Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Watch your step on your back peddle. You said: "But the point is, individuals and their businesses should have the right to refuse service. It's just plain ridiculous to think that the government thinks it can force them to provide a service for any person or persons (unless they have signed a contract with said person(s). That's a different situation.) Forcing them to provide service because of "public accommodation laws" is just another way of taking away their right to refuse service." True. Good point. Honestly, I think it's important for businesses to be able to refuse service. But I also think we should be kind and loving to everyone. However, I think it's possible to be loving and kind to the person and yet not wish to provide a service to them that the business owner perceives to be condoning a behavior they think is wrong. It's like what I said on the last thread about being able to love and hurt with women who have been terribly wronged by rape but still not support abortion for them. It is a difficult, hot-button issue. I even find it difficult to express exactly what I do think because it is so complex. I think that usually, there aren't many problems with businesses and their right to refuse service EXCEPT when the case involves some sort of moral conflict for the business owner. This all comes right back to the HL case. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justasque Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 But the point is, individuals and their businesses should have the right to refuse service. It's just plain ridiculous to think that the government thinks it can force them to provide a service for any person or persons (unless they have signed a contract with said person(s). That's a different situation.) Forcing them to provide service because of "public accommodation laws" is just another way of taking away their right to refuse service. :glare: I don't care if the couple is gay or straight. If the bakery doesn't want to make the cake, they shouldn't have to make the cake! <speaking gently> Chocolatechip, I am guessing you are too young to have seen much of Jim Crow America in person, and I'm guessing that your US history courses may have stopped before the Civil Rights era. We passed these laws - public accommodation laws - because we as a nation believed that it was just not morally right for a black family making a journey, or moving to a new place, to arrive in a town and find that there was not a single cafe that would serve them, not a single hotel where they could stay, not a single landlord that would rent to them, not a single school that would enroll their children, not a single employer that would hire them, not even a single gas station that would allow them to use the rest room. Many of those who refused service to these folks based their actions on their religious beliefs. (See, for example, Bob Jones University, which banned mixed-race couples until 2000 - only fourteen years ago.) It's not about a single baker making or not making a single cake. It's the cumulative effect of being the target of this kind if refusal of service over a lifetime, and the rights and dignity of the people affected. And it's also about all of the potential these folks have to make a difference in our country, that discrimination can squash. We need these folks - they are our neighbors, our fellow citizens, our family members. They have much to contribute, and we have much to gain from graciously serving them, even if we do not agree with their beliefs or actions. Jesus would have made the cake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsBasil Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I think there's a difference between a 'walk in service,' like a bus, lunch counter, ect. and a custom service such as a special order cake. If a couple walked into a bakery and wanted to purchase a ready-made cake, then it's way worse for the proprietor to refuse to sell the cake then it is for the proprietor to refuse to contract for a special order. Don't get me wrong. Racism is horrible. But I think that situations like the one forcing the bakery to make a custom cake for a couple they don't wish to contract with cause too many potential problems. Situations like black people on a bus don't involve anyone condoning anyone's behavior. Situations like Asians, Latinos, and Jews in a grocery store don't involve condoning anyone's behavior. I think the bakery feels like that in making the cake, they'd be condoning homosexuality. I see a difference there. Would a situation where a doctor refuses to provide services to a pregnant women because she got pregnant out of wedlock be OK? The doctor could have a sincerely held belief that sex outside of marriage is morally wrong and providing care could be seen as condoning the sexual relationship. What about a restaurant being OK with serving gay couples, but not if they are celebrating an anniversary? Just serving them would be condoning nothing, but they could feel as though they are condoning the relationship if they do it on an anniversary. How about a photographer refusing to do a family portrait for an interracial couple. The photographer could sincerely believe that race mixing is morally and religiously wrong. She doesn't want to condone it, so refuses to do the portrait. Or a daycare refusing to take care of a child belonging to an inter racial couple for the same reason. Are these all OK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 But the point is, individuals and their businesses should have the right to refuse service. It's just plain ridiculous to think that the government thinks it can force them to provide a service for any person or persons (unless they have signed a contract with said person(s). That's a different situation.) Forcing them to provide service because of "public accommodation laws" is just another way of taking away their right to refuse service. :glare: I don't care if the couple is gay or straight. If the bakery doesn't want to make the cake, they shouldn't have to make the cake! If the bakery does not want to make the cake, they shouldn't be in the business of making cakes! If they just make cakes for their friends (or people they approve of) then they can pick and choose who they make cakes for. When they became a business, they agreed to provide cakes to the public in a non-discriminatory manner and to be subject to the laws of business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caroline Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 True. Good point. Honestly, I think it's important for businesses to be able to refuse service. But I also think we should be kind and loving to everyone. However, I think it's possible to be loving and kind to the person and yet not wish to provide a service to them that the business owner perceives to be condoning a behavior they think is wrong. It's like what I said on the last thread about being able to love and hurt with women who have been terribly wronged by rape but still not support abortion for them. It is a difficult, hot-button issue. I even find it difficult to express exactly what I do think because it is so complex. I think that usually, there aren't many problems with businesses and their right to refuse service EXCEPT when the case involves some sort of moral conflict for the business owner. This all comes right back to the HL case. . . It is not complex. It is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kate in Arabia Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Honestly, I think it's important for businesses to be able to refuse service. But I also think we should be kind and loving to everyone. However, I think it's possible to be loving and kind to the person and yet not wish to provide a service to them that the business owner perceives to be condoning a behavior they think is wrong. It's like what I said on the last thread about being able to love and hurt with women who have been terribly wronged by rape but still not support abortion for them. I have been refused service. It is not generally a benign experience, where the salesperson approaches you with a warm smile and says, "I'm so sorry, I'm sure you're a wonderful person, but I can't have you in my store." Leaving these situations as the one refused, I was not left with a neutral feeling, like oh well I'll just try the next store. I was embarrassed and frankly intimidated and afraid to even try the next store because who knew what would happen. Part of me wished they would just put a sign on the door so I would know not to go in there -- but can you imagine? I understand that people have personal convictions, but I would also like to live in a welcoming and positive society. I'm not sure how you would balance that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 It's not about a single baker making or not making a single cake. It's the cumulative effect of being the target of this kind if refusal of service over a lifetime, and the rights and dignity of the people affected. THIS. And this is why businesses are subject to different rules than individual people. Because businesses and employers are in a position of power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I have been refused service. It is not generally a benign experience, where the salesperson approaches you with a warm smile and says, "I'm so sorry, I'm sure you're a wonderful person, but I can't have you in my store." Leaving these situations as the one refused, I was not left with a neutral feeling, like oh well I'll just try the next store. I was embarrassed and frankly intimidated and afraid to even try the next store because who knew what would happen. :grouphug: Maybe part of the problem is that too few people have had that actual experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caroline Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I have been refused service. It is not generally a benign experience, where the salesperson approaches you with a warm smile and says, "I'm so sorry, I'm sure you're a wonderful person, but I can't have you in my store." Leaving these situations as the one refused, I was not left with a neutral feeling, like oh well I'll just try the next store. I was embarrassed and frankly intimidated and afraid to even try the next store because who knew what would happen. Part of me wished they would just put a sign on the door so I would know not to go in there -- but can you imagine? I understand that people have personal convictions, but I would also like to live in a welcoming and positive society. I'm not sure how you would balance that. I don't want to like this post, because I don't want it to look like I like that you had these experiences. I believe you make a very important point. Thank you for sharing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane in NC Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I'm always going to be anti-birth control. But I can live with it not having any direct contribution or endorsement from me bc I'm aware I'm a minority in this nation, so I don't expect the nation to reflect my values. However, I do expect it to respect my differing beliefs and thus I don't want to sign papers okaying someone else do the dirty deed of distributing it for me. I don't want to buy into policies for it. I don't want to deal with employees demanding I give it to them. I don't want anything to do with it. Martha, I think that I could fill in some other things for the words "anti-birth control" and "bc" to make a similar statement for myself. But I am trying to consider how taking a firm stance in our modern society plays out. I am not a fan of tobacco. I don't smoke and I do not invest my retirement money in funds that invest in tobacco. But just today I went to a grocery that sells tobacco. Do you have a pharmacy that doesn't sell any form of birth control? Do you shop at CVS or other stores that sell certain non-prescription items? Where do you draw the line? You have said you do not have health insurance. Do you refuse to buy it because birth control is one of the benefits? I understand taking a stand on principles. But I have neighbors who believe that our town ordinances do not apply to them thus they do not have to follow them. If they went through the standard procedure of working with advisory boards and council members to alter the ordinances, I might have more sympathy. Instead, they opt not to follow things which inconveniences everyone else in the neighborhood. (Which is why we have ordinances and laws to begin with--the common good.) I am looking at the HL issue and wondering about the Common Good which is something that I believe is getting lost these days. Apparently some see their individual rights as more important than the rights of other members of society or other groups within society. I mentioned tobacco earlier. This is tricky since a smoker is not just fouling his air space but mine. Does a women using birth control infringe on anyone else's rights? I think not. Which brings me back to HL. Clearly this is not about birth control at all. Something larger is at stake. ETA a note to Martha: You said that you don't expect the nation to reflect your values. Please note that I am not attempting to pick a fight with you. Your post simply sent my poor brain on a meander. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 As far as I know, there is no constitutional protection for vegans. I think it's a reflection on the fact that ethics are based on something, whether or not people acknowledge that fact. A deeply held conviction regarding animal rights has it's roots in having a belief system of some kind that is a basis for determining what is right and what is wrong. Rastafarians are vegans, isn't that considered a religion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts