The HuffPo doesn't like this . . .

[Swampman]

so it must be a good thing!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/2 ... 23334.html

Finally! A state legislature that will allow freedom of choice rather than coercion to rule.

[ShotgunBlast]

While I support the LGBT community in their march for equal protections under the law, those equal protections only apply to their interactions with government, not private businesses. Everyone has the freedom of association and that freedom doesn't disappear just because money has been exchanged. Being self-employed I was horrified to hear about the wedding cake case. I like my diverse clientele, but have had to stop working with a few over the years. The last thing I need is for someone to pull a card to coerise me into still associating with them. People think we'll go back to the days of segregation but I think there are too many businesses that won't want to cut their customer count and sales revenue that much.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[WRW]

The incident referenced in the article (wedding photographers) was an agenda driven attempt to vilify Christianity, similar in nature to the gay marriage question at the Miss America Pagent. I mean, really, who would hire a service provider that didn't want the job? If not for the publicity, what could be the up side of the situation?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[dorminWS]

Well, I'd say the wedding cake situation recommends "mediocre compliance" rather than "civil disobedience".

If I were the wedding cake guy and knew I would be court-ordered to make a same-sex wedding cake whether I wanted to or not, I'd demand cash-up-front (I can't imagine there's any other way anybody would sell a wedding cake), and then there might be a momentary lapse in my quality control. You know - a recipe malfunction.

[WRW]

Sorry...wedding cake. "Mediocre compliance" would just as probably have resulted in a lawsuit. No win for the bakers.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[dorminWS]

Sorry...wedding cake. "Mediocre compliance" would just as probably have resulted in a lawsuit. No win for the bakers.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Don't see it. Not talking about poisoning anybody or loading it up with ex-lax (although I reckon that would damn sure ruin the honeymoon), just talking about a shitty-tasting, ugly cake. Word would get around and that particular community would go elsewhere. And if anybody did have little enough to do and plenty of extra money to sue over a $200-$300 cake, so what? give them their money back. You have to be able to prove damages to win a lawsuit. I can think of one ready defense to a complaint by that crowd that the cake "tasted bad".........

[WRW]

Sorry...wedding cake. "Mediocre compliance" would just as probably have resulted in a lawsuit. No win for the bakers.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Don't see it. Not talking about poisoning anybody or loading it up with ex-lax (although I reckon that would damn sure ruin the honeymoon), just talking about a shitty-tasting, ugly cake. Word would get around and that particular community would go elsewhere. And if anybody did have little enough to do and plenty of extra money to sue over a $200-$300 cake, so what? give them their money back. You have to be able to prove damages to win a lawsuit. I can think of one ready defense to a complaint by that crowd that the cake "tasted bad".........

LOL! My thoughts were of small claims court with massive media coverage, but preemptive fee return didn't enter my mind.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[dorminWS]

Massive media coverage would just get the word out faster. You do a press release that does not admit any culpability or misfeasance/malfeasance/nonfeasance, but states that you told them at the outset you would prefer not to make their cake but would comply with the legal coercion to do so if they insisted, but they didn't like the cake after they got it, and you guess there is just no accounting for taste. Both the people you want to do business with and the people you DON'T want to do business with will definitely get the message.

[mamabearCali]

You know ther is no law stating how much sugar has to be in that cake. Awwww........so sorry. Here is your $$ back.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[dorminWS]

Yeah, well................... salt does look a lot like sugar. And I've seen biscuits that would break a feller's toe if he dropped one on his foot.......

[mamabearCali]

Precisely. Once upon a time it was known as the woman's weapon. Once when women had much less protection under the law you still did not want to make a woman angry that was making your food.

Who wants to buy a cake from a person that does not want to make one for them. That is just insane.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[WRW]

Precisely. Once upon a time it was known as the woman's weapon. Once when women had much less protection under the law you still did not want to make a woman angry that was making your food.

Who wants to buy a cake from a person that does not want to make one for them. That is just insane.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Insane!!!

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[dorminWS]

Precisely. Once upon a time it was known as the woman's weapon. Once when women had much less protection under the law you still did not want to make a woman angry that was making your food.

Who wants to buy a cake from a person that does not want to make one for them. That is just insane.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Yup. Which all goes to show that it never was about wanting a cake; it was about forcing someone to participate in something they found repugnant just because they could. There will always be a few people who will abuse remedies designed to protect minorities and instead use them to bully, intimidate, humiliate and polarize. Those people do more damage to society than all the laws government can pass will ever fix.

[Reverenddel]

Again. ALL ABOUT CONTROL!

I don't care who/what you schtup as long as it's consenual. But don't shove your ideals down my throat, and I won't do the same to you.

I don't believe in making every single carpetbagger passing a test to get into the South. I wouldn't MIND it, but I don't BELIEVE in FORCING it.

Either that, or they have to pass a CHP class, buy a handgun, and pass a qual to live here. Again, I wouldn't MIND it, but I don't BELIEVE in FORCING it.

[thekinetic]

Ok I think I'll chime in on this one, to be honost I feel it is a businesses right to deny service. But it becomes a problem if and when it happens en masse, personally if I were owner of a business I would serve all kinds because it's just good business. If the party in question had other options why pursue this one? Shock or just being an ass? As a gay man myself this does not reflect well on the community as a whole.

[SHMIV]

In this day and age, en masse denial of service wouldn't be a problem.

I have an impossible time believing that a gay couple could not find a baker or a photographer that they could pay to provide cakes and pictures. Finding a preacher to officiate? I can believe that. But not bakers and photographers. I know too many people in those professions that are gay, themselves.

Incidentally, I find en masse denial of service to be a business opportunity. Maybe not an opportunity that I would jump on, but one that someone else most assuredly would.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[safaridave]

Ok I think I'll chime in on this one, to be honost I feel it is a businesses right to deny service. But it becomes a problem if and when it happens en masse, personally if I were owner of a business I would serve all kinds because it's just good business. If the party in question had other options why pursue this one? Shock or just being an ass? As a gay man myself this does not reflect well on the community as a whole.

I talked about this with my wife the other day. Kinetic, isn't it still a businesses right to "deny service to ANYONE"? If so then why doesn't AZ just leave it at that and allow any business that chooses not to serve someone based on subjective criteria the freedom to do so? Any owner of such a business should have the freedom to go OUT of business if they choose this route. Forcing a business to serve them is just as bad as recreating the Jim Crow laws of yesteryear denying services.

LGBT folks should just protest with their wallets and smile politely as such businesses go under. This economy should solve those types of problems.

[thekinetic]

You're absolutely right but there are always those who will never be happy unless everyone likes them and their ways, that or those who simply enjoy causing drama (as if life isn't overflowing with it as is).

[dusterdude]

Some folks just like stirring up sh*t and you'll never make em happy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Swampman]

People practice discrimination every day. The fact that some object to that practice is hypocritical, because under examination you'll find that those very same people who raised the stink are guilty of discrimination.

What irks me the most, and Rev hit on it, is the need for a state legislature to pass a law that ALLOWS FREEDOM OF CHOICE. Think about it, natural law has to be codified to make it alright? How is the hell do you justify that?

What needs to happen now, just to make this point, is a federal law needs to be passed that makes it a crime to refuse to serve someone who comes into your business with no shirt or shoes on.

How you choose to live your life is your business. Don't make it my business and take away my rights. You'll get the one-fingered salute so fast it'll make your head spin.