SCOTUS *FINALLY* rules 6-3 that Queers Cannot Force Businesses to Make Shit for Them
(archive.is)
LET'S GOOoOoooo!!!
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (113)
sorted by:
It isn't about discrimination one bit at all. It is about not forcing people to do things that are against their religious (or other) beliefs.
A business can not refuse to sell their products to someone based on the customer's race or creed.
A customer can not force a business to make a product that goes against the business owner's beliefs.
If I were to talk into a bakery owned by a Jew, should I be able to demand that they make me a cake with a swastika on it and the words "All Jews Must Die"? Is it discrimination against me if the owner refuses?
You summarize well.
"It isn't about discrimination one bit at all. It is about not forcing people to do things that are against their religious (or other) beliefs." That's the heart of the problem.
IMHO, if the product of the BUSINESS is "custom cakes with inscription" then the business opens themselves up to this possibility. The business majority shareholder should be aware of this possibility before they decide to open the business.
In your example, "cake with a swastika..." would touch the "hate speech" laws and could be blown out thereby. Short of that, sadly, yes.
BUT: "goes against the business owner's beliefs." is where most people are getting hung up. INCORPORATED BUSINESSES don't have "owners." They have shareholders. The "owner" is usually considered the person who holds greater than 50 percent of the shares. The majority shareholder CAN direct the BUSINNESS to do something, but the BUSINESS will still be bound by the discrimination laws. The "beliefs" or "preferences" of the majority shareholder stop at the "corporate curtain."
A law is not about Right or Wrong. Laws are created to make lawyers more money and to give more power to the government. The laws used to be about Right and Wrong, but it is not so anymore. It didn't take very long before laws were created for other purposes than to maintain a civil and moral society. The laws about discrimination are Wrong. Every person deserves the right to their own beliefs and their right to choose. The laws to punish people for the exercising of their rights is wrong. If there is no physical altercation, then there should be no government interference. You have been brainwashed into thinking that words and hurt feelings should be criminal or incur legal liability. Refusal to provide your services to anyone for any reason is a right. You own your labor and the products you create, not the government, not society, not anyone but you. Don't get me started on Hate speech. That is another travesty of justice.
My father is a general contractor. He owned his own business and worked in the East Bay area (SF region). He refuses all work for lawyers and real estate agents. Is this discrimination? Yes. It is his Right to refuse a contract with anyone for any reason. A lawyer even tried to sue him for refusing work for him. He asked my dad for a quote. My dad declined to give him one. The lawyer asked why and my dad responded with the simple fact that he doesn't enter into contracts with lawyers. The lawyer tried to convince my dad that he was honest, but my dad said no. A week later he was served with papers to let him know he was getting sued. In court the lawyer asked why he told him about his rule about not working with lawyers, when he could have stated that he was too busy, my dad stated that he doesn't lie and that this particular line of thinking was precisely why he doesn't work for lawyers. This wasn't what the lawyer expected to hear and he got angry because of the laughter in the court. My father went on to say that the laws have been subverted to benefit lawyers and they use it as weapons to get what they want out of normal people. He went on to say that the people making laws (politicians) in the State of California were nearly 75% of the elected officials and that they could hardly be seen as unbiased lawmakers. He also stated that he had been legally cheated out of payment for services rendered in the past and had no legal recourse. He ended up winning and counter sued for legal fees. He won the counter suit. This was nearly 40 years ago. I seriously doubt he would win the same suit today, if he wasn't retired. The laws in California have been egregiously tainted for decades. They have been slanted toward certain groups for profit and to grant advantage to those that have friends in politics. The laws are NOT about Right and Wrong anymore. Thinking that they are is foolish and dangerous.