Another anti-LGBT action by donald chump administration

the chump administration continues its attack against The LGBT community.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/in-major-supreme-court-case-justice-dept-sides-with-baker-who-refused-to-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple/2017/09/07/fb84f116-93f0-11e7-89fa-bb822a46da5b_story.html?utm_term=.a4adc87857ac

Reply 1

shadowdweller

Volunteer Section Leader

21

Oh for goodness sake.

Reply 2

Maker

20

Some LBGT people voted for Trump, one born every minute.

Reply 3

(づ￣ ³￣)づ

16

I think the owner should have every right to refuse to make the cake, it's their company and if they don't want to serve you for whatever reason, they shouldn't be obligated to do so.

Yes refusing to serve someone purely because of their sexuality is a s***y thing, but you shouldn't take it to heart, you just take your business elsewhere to a company living in this century.

Let them run their company into the ground.

Reply 4

ChaoticButterfly

20

What is with bakers and LGBT people?

Reply 5

Notoriety

22

For a country fixated on individual freedoms, it is no surprise that business owners should be allowed to exercise freedom of conscience.

Reply 6

luq_ali

OP

21

Well, the current state of the law prohibits this, as a violation of the public accommodation law portion of federal civil rights legislation that applies nationwide, that applies to restaurants, hotels, gas stations, and other public places of accommodation. The law has it origin, of course, dating to when a baker, for example, could refuse to serve a person because they were Black, Hispanic, Asian, Southeast Asian, etc...or to not be able to go to the ice cream parlor because you are Jewish or Muslim, and so, it starts, the attempted erosion, today, with members of The LGBT community, and then tomorrow, if left unchecked, there is nothing to stop a restaurant, hotel or other business from refusing to serve someone on the basis of race, religion, national origin, etc. Public funds and taxes pay for the roads, expressways, that give access to the public to these facilities, and the law forbids places benefiting from those public taxes which could not be in business with them, from this type of discrimination. This is what chump is seeking to change -in favor of allowing outright discrimination.

Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.

For a country fixated on individual freedoms, it is no surprise that business owners should be allowed to exercise freedom of conscience.

Reply 7

Notoriety

22

Original post by luq_ali

Well, the current state of the law prohibits this, as a violation of the public accommodation law portion of federal civil rights legislation that applies nationwide, that applies to restaurants, hotels, gas stations, and other public places of accommodation. The law has it origin, of course, dating to when a baker, for example, could refuse to serve a person because they were Black, Hispanic, Asian, Southeast Asian, etc...or to not be able to go to the ice cream parlor because you are Jewish or Muslim, and so, it starts, the attempted erosion, today, with members of The LGBT community, and then tomorrow, if left unchecked, there is nothing to stop a restaurant, hotel or other business from refusing to serve someone on the basis of race, religion, national origin, etc. Public funds and taxes pay for the roads, expressways, that give access to the public to these facilities, and the law forbids places benefiting from those public taxes which could not be in business with them, from this type of discrimination. This is what chump is seeking to change -in favor of allowing outright discrimination.

I see the similarities. But America is a religious country and anti-gay marriage is a topic influenced by religious sentiment, in a way classical racism is not. I think, therefore, the anti-gay marriage movement is different to racism. Also the fact this was a rejection of gay marriage, rather than gay people per se, makes it somewhat different. If it were another event involving gay people, such as a gay bloke's birthday cake, would they also have refused to bake the cake? I am not sure they would have.

Reply 8

username1799249

19

Original post by (づ￣ ³￣)づ

Yes refusing to serve someone purely because of their sexuality is a s***y thing, but you shouldn't take it to heart

I am certain, that if you suffered abuse and discrimination on a daily basis simply because of the colour of your skin, or who you happened to be attracted to, and someone said, "Don't take it to heart," you would punch that person in the face.

What an utterly pointless thing to say dear.

Reply 9

Trapz99

21

I think the owner should have the right to refuse to bake the cake. It's not discrimination since even if a straight couple asked the guy to make them a cake for a gay wedding he'd probably have refused. As long as he didn't refuse to serve the gay couple purely because they were gay, he's not in the wrong.

Another anti-LGBT action by donald chump administration

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you