Stanek Easter Sunday funnies 4-5-15
Good morning, and Happy Easter! Here were my top five seven favorite political cartoons this week. Be sure to vote for your fav in the poll at the bottom of this post!
by Steve Breen at Townhall.com…
by Robert Ariail at Townhall.com…
a twofer by Gary Varvel at Townhall.com…
by Glenn McCoy at Townhall.com…
by Steve Kelley at Townhall.com…
by Gary McCoy at Townhall.com…
[polldaddy poll=8780704]
Apr.05, 2015 9:56 am |
Cartoons |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Concerning the RFRA,
I hope the Left plans to go after the Muslim bakers in Dearborn, MI who refused to bake wedding cakes for gay couples. I also hope they go after Muslim grocers who refuse to sell alcohol and Hindu grocers who refuse to sell meat. Kosher butchers should not have the option to sell only kosher meat. They must also sell pork and non kosher meat.
I couldn’t agree more that business owners should not be allowed conduct their businesses in accordance with their religious convictions. This is discriminatory and can create great inconvenience.
Fair is fair.
Happy Easter all!
Court ruling, political parties, or legislation can’t save us.
Only Jesus saves – and thanks to Him for the ultimate sacrifice and victory.
Mary
It was great to see Democracy at work this past week – Indiana GOP came up with a stupid law, the public slapped it down quickly, and they fixed it.
Hey EGV,
Didn’t you read my first post? I agree wholeheartedly that business people have no right to make business decisions based on their religious convictions. I hope you are outraged that the Muslim bakers refused to bake a gay couple’s wedding cake. I also hope you will demand the Hindu grocer sell meat, the Muslim grocer sell liquor, and the Kosher butcher sell non Kosher meat. Fair is fair!!
Happy Easter everyone!!
Mary – I did read your first post – I wasn’t agreeing or disagreeing with anything you said – I was just excited to see how it should work in action – was great to see how the public responded and people caring about the issue.
I have to vote for #5 on this one because how misplaced the priorities of the media is a much bigger story than the story itself.
What’s interesting JDC is I think the media was a step behind on this one – the outrage was from individuals and business – the stories were mainly a step behind all those various statements.
So I think the cartoon is backwards – I think it was the American public mostly not convinced on a potentially larger threat…but you know politicians and political people – they’l find a new “worst country in the world” choice in a few more weeks.
EGV,
I agree. The public should respond to business people running their businesses in accordance with their religious beliefs.
It was really encouraging to see the public descend on that little pizzeria.
Democracy at work.
There was nothing stupid about Indiana’s RFRA law, and nothing that needed fixing.
There was a great deal of stupid reaction to the law. And we have to admit that common sense was defeated.
I don’t think we have to admit that Del.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Obama release Gitmo prisoners to Yemen a few months ago for supervision? And isn’t the Yemen government being overthrown by AlQueada?
Happy Easter to all the pro-life people on this blog!
Mary,
They complain about a Christian who won’t bake cakes for a homosexual wedding but they say nothing about the Muslim’s living under Sharia law. Why? Because the progressives have no backbone and wouldn’t know how to fight their way out of a wet paper bag and they know that the Muslims would kill them.
Hi ts,
True. Gay people under Sharia law don’t fare too well. It would seem there are far more pressing concerns for liberals and gays than some little pizzeria.
I have a question I want to throw out here.
You are a baker and you are approached by the local neo nazi group that is planning a huge celebration commemorating the birth of Hitler. They want a huge cake decorated with swastikas and anti semitic and racist slogans and slurs. The baker is a deeply religious man and is adamant that his religious convictions forbid that he ever produce such a cake. Does he have the right to refuse the neo nazis their cake? Is he violating their rights?
Del says:
And we have to admit that common sense was defeated.
Ex-GOP says:
I don’t think we have to admit that Del.
Good point. Only people who believe in common sense would realize that common sense was defeated.
The truth was overrun by a panic rush of falsehoods. This was mob rule.
When the history of the Fall of America is written, we may point to this as the moment when social media mobs took over our nation. This could be our Kristallnacht.
“Rome knew that she was sick, but she was too intolerant to take the medicine.”
Del –
Step away from the Fox News – this “everything I don’t agree with means the country is falling apart” – it gets old. It’s fearful, dishonest, and more fitting of somebody who lives in the woods.
Common sense wasn’t defeated – right wingers said this wasn’t a law targeting gay people or their mistreatment, so you should be pleased that the language was cleaned up.
If you believe there should be a broad based law allowing people to discriminate against homosexuals, just say it. Mary, truth, Del – just say it. Stop hiding behind the language you are hiding against – just say “I think businesses should be able to discriminate against gay people” – and spell out in what ways.
Otherwise, move on. This conversation is SOOO dishonest it’s sickening.
This wasn’t passed for some neo-nazi group and everybody knows it.
1) I never watch FOX News.
2) RFRA was never going to allow anyone to discriminate against homosexuals. That was the big lie that defeated common sense.
2A) Nobody wants to discriminate against homosexuals. At the most extreme, some people will not want to participate in gay wedding parties. These should be respected.
3) My awareness that America is a failing empire is based on history, with a lot of guidance from GK Chesterton. The parallel with Rome is striking. Rome was already failing under its own decadence, robbing the future to fund their present excess (they killed their children, indulging in widespread prostitution and pederasty). Christian morality appeared near the end, and helped the Empire to limp a long for a few more centuries.
America is similarly bloated and decadent. But instead of meeting Christianity and trying to kill…. We inherited a Christian tradition and we are trying to kill it.
The gay-marriage issue is not going to kill America. Our brain-death happened when we imagined that gay-marriage was even possible. No culture in history ever imagined that two bachelors could become married bachelors. Have we discovered a new reality in the last decade? Or have we lost our common sense?
Since we have shown no evidence of being any smarter or better than previous generations, I think we’re doomed. The question now is how can we avoid falling into oblivion before we hit bottom.
EGV,
No I don’t believe businesses should be able to discriminate against gay people, any more than they should be able to discriminate against black, Jewish, or Latino people.
I wouldn’t support a business denying service to Kanye West because he is black. If he wants a cake with some of his vile racist lyrics, would you support the baker who refused to bake and decorate it?
EGV,
This wasn’t passed for some neo nazi group? Oh so YOU can be selective. The neo nazi group has the legal right to exist, just as the gay couple has the legal right to marry.
So answer my question. Does the baker, because of his religious convictions, have a right to refuse to bake and decorate the neo nazi cake commemorating the birthday of Hitler?
Del –
I’m completely confused. You say the law wasn’t meant to allow discrimination against gay people, but it went against common sense to revamp the law to say you can’t discriminate against gay people. So you’re saying it was already implied, so why say it? Then why not just say it?
Is today a darker time then the 1850’s when we had slavery in roughly half the US states? Are you saying that gay marriage is worse than enslaving black people? I mean, you are saying that – I’m just clarifying you realize that.
Mary –
Everybody knows why this was passed. If you don’t, go read some articles.
You’re going for the fringe questions while ignoring the obvious ones that were used to support this law.
Go back and read some articles on this, then come back. Seriously.
Mary,
Should a Christian restaurant be forced to cater a Planned Parenthood party celebrating the opening of a new abortion mill? I am talking about real Christians, not the Ex-GOP/Obama version of Christian.
LOLLL. Sorry EGV, you can’t have your cake and eat it too, no pun intended. Does this law apply across the board or doesn’t it?
Do you agree the baker, based on his religious convictions, has the right to refuse to bake the neo nazis their cake?
I’m not any kind of legal scholar so I might be off here, but I always thought that only a person can have “rights”. Homosexuals are, of course, persons like all of us, and everyone’s rights ought to be respected.
Last I checked a marriage ceremony (of any kind) is not a person…it’s an event. If a person were invited to a wedding, but for whatever reason, didn’t want to participate…they are free to not show up. Their absence is not a violation of the weddings “rights” because events, like weddings, don’t have any kind of rights. Nor is it a violation of the hosts rights, no matter how disappointed they may be at my absence.
If a business owner doesn’t want to participate (no matter how vicarious that participation may be) in a particular kind of event. People ought to be free to take a pass on a transaction they feel uncomfortable doing…as long as the discrimination is clearly directed towards the kind of event and NOT the kind of person. I think that kind of distinction can be established.
Mary
Are Nazis a protected group of people under the law?
Tommy
Below is a good article addressing a bit of what you’re asking:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121442/indiana-rfra-amendment-defeats-anti-gay-discrimination-intent
The article basically states that something like what you are suggesting could have easily been done, but the GOP went from some broad based overreach, and then it ended up costing them big time.
Hi ts,
Absolutely not.
The problem is EGV doesn’t understand that one can’t pick and choose. The fact I find the neo nazis repugnant is irrelevant. They are within their legal rights to be members of this organization. OK then, the religious baker can’t refuse to bake their cake, right? Any more than he can refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding. BTW did anyone check out those Muslim bakeries yet?
Ex-GOP says:
Del –
I’m completely confused. You say the law wasn’t meant to allow discrimination against gay people, but it went against common sense to revamp the law to say you can’t discriminate against gay people. So you’re saying it was already implied, so why say it? Then why not just say it?
Is today a darker time then the 1850’s when we had slavery in roughly half the US states? Are you saying that gay marriage is worse than enslaving black people? I mean, you are saying that – I’m just clarifying you realize that.
To be honest, I do not yet know if the “correction” was a genuine change to the law, or if it was just window dressing to appease the mob. I have heard both. Indiana Right To Life says that the appeasement has gutted the RFRA protections, such that Indiana could pull force an HHS Mandate on their citizens.
Today is darker than the 1850’s, although the shadow of war does not loom over use. But abortion is a far worse killer than war, and a far worse oppressor than slavery.
I will say this again: Gay-marriage is not going to kill our country. We are already brain-dead, because we have forgotten what marriage is. Gay-marriage is the natural result, following no-fault divorce, contraception, abortion, cohabitation, the invention of a plethora of new genders and orientations, etc.
The natural family is the building blocks of our society. The Culture of Death is a parasite that lives off of the Culture of Life, stealing and killing our children and grandchildren. Gay-marriage is just a symptom of the disease. A little bit of medicine to ease the discomfort of having to participate in pretend-marriage is not going to cure the disease.
EGV,
Not the point if they are protected or not. The NNs are exercising their legal right to be members of this organization.
Now please answer my question.
Let me put it like this:
If somebody thought the pope is the anti-Christ and wouldn’t do business with any Catholic for any reason…that’s a violation of the person.
If, however, he does business with Catholics on all sorts of occasions, but only refuses to participate in Catholic religious services, like a wedding ceremony or celebration…that’s discrimination against an event not a person.
@ Ex-GOP — I think I can sum it all up in a sentence:
Common sense is dead. No one even talks about common sense anymore.
The opposite of common sense is insanity. Our culture is insane. It is difficult to predict how an insane culture will kill itself.
The fact that we are maniacally focused on a gay marriage is a symptom of insanity.
We should be worried about fiscal imbalance and crushing debt, leading international peace, protecting and sheltering those who are being slaughtered by Moslem extremists, and vetting our candidates for the next decade of leadership.
Instead, we have taking up the pitchforks for pizzas and wedding cakes.
Ex-GOP says:
Mary
Are Nazis a protected group of people under the law?
That’s another sign of our insanity. Why do we have “protected groups”?
We should have “protected human rights.” Groups should not be separated into castes.
Perhaps that is the way that our society will fall… into a caste system.
With the loss of common sense, anything is possible — except the good thing, because we have forgotten it. Our society no longer has a goal to aim for.
A few responses to sort though – let me know if I miss anything as I work through.
Del – my understanding of the fix to the law was to simply put sexual orientation as a class that you can’t use the RFRA as a defense on.
Mary
As I read the law, the NeoNazis would not be a protected class. If I’m a bakery owner, I think I’d be fine refusing that service:
“…on the basis of race, color religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or United States military service.”
Del –
On your 9:45 post- I have no idea why the Indiana GOP passed the law in the first place – would have been great if they didn’t and we wouldn’t be having these conversations.
I hear they are considering making atheists a protected class. We need to make Christian a protected class so that we are not forced to defile ourselves by catering to sodomists or those who practice child sacrifice.
EGV
Religion? The neo nazis have their own religious perspective. The baker may be discriminating against a religious group.
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/american/christian-identity/religion-white-racists.html
Mary –
They might be – the courts can settle it out.
I do know that a lot of gay people order cakes throughout the year. I don’t know if there are a lot of Nazis in the US looking for cakes. It is an odd distinction – and I must say, more than a little insulting. I would like to make the case that the Nazis killed millions of jews. The gay community, last I checked, hasn’t done anything like that.
You seem very much in favor of passing a cake nazi bill. If you’d like that to happen, but you want to make sure the gay community faces no discrimination in their cake buying habits – then post that.
I feel though that you feel something strongly, and you are hiding behind nazis and false statements of support.
truth –
You are mixing things up.
The protected class of people who can’t be discriminated against includes Christians.
What you seem to be arguing is that Christians can discriminate against people without any second guessing. That is much different.
EGV,
So since you find the Nazis repugnant, well…that’s different. I have no clue if they order cakes. I have no clue if they don’t. Really not the issue. They are exercising their legal right to belong to an organization, they may even be considered a religious group, and they want a cake. I don’t see how you can have it both ways.
Don’t be absurd EGV, I don’t support any nazi cake bill, I support the right of people be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Amish, or Pagan to exercise their freedom of religion and not be forced to go against their religious convictions.
Obviously gay people are buying wedding cakes so someone is baking them. Just like people buy vile racist rap music, but I support a business person’s right to refuse to sell this garbage, based on their religious convictions.
If Christians were part of a class of people who couldn’t be discriminated against then they could not be forced to cater events that celebrate sodomy or abortion.
Mary –
Nobody is being forced to do anything. the RFRA is just a bit of a trump card in a lawsuit. If somebody feels so strongly that they’ll go straight to hell if they make a wedding cake for somebody – well, I’m sure they won’t care if they are sued.
i posted an article on it – I believe that a law could be written and tailored so that somebody can object to a type of event. As pointed out earlier by Tommy, there is a difference between saying that they won’t cater a gay union and having a gay person coming into a business and saying “I won’t serve them because they are gay”.
The law was written poorly and there was fear that it would prevent simple discrimination just based on somebody being something.
I don’t believe you support that – so you’ll have to tell me otherwise.
truth
Yes, you’re right. This law makes it so that if a Christian owns a bakery, and somebody wants to throw an abortion party, the national guard will come in and force the bakery owner to cater it.
Sigh.
“Today is darker than the 1850’s, although the shadow of war does not loom over use. But abortion is a far worse killer than war, and a far worse oppressor than slavery.”
Abortion and infanticide have existed as long as we’ve had humans. Pretending it didn’t exist in the 1850s is willfully ignorant.
I honestly don’t know what to say to people who think today’s USA is more immoral than the 1800s. Not only did slavery enslave millions, white women and children were chattel to the man of the house as well. That’s totally “family values”. Child protective services didn’t exist until halfway through the 1900s. As the industrial revolution took place millions of workers were exploited and died or became disabled due to this exploitation, including children as young as seven or eight. Infant mortality was astronomical, as was maternal mortality. We lost millions of young men, including young teens, in the bloodiest war in our history. People died in droves of diseases that are easily treated or eliminated today.People were murdered for being gay, Irish immigrants were oppressed horribly. Asian immigrants were exploited and forced into indentured servitude. I mean, come on man. About everything bad in America today existed back then, as well as a whole lot of things that don’t happen in our country now.
And truthseeker, sexual orientation isn’t legally protected as a group at a federal level, it depends on state. In many states it’s still legal to fire someone or refuse to rent to them based on orientation. However, religion IS protected federally and in every. single. state. so stop with the whiny persecution complex people.
Ex-RINO, I don’t know what to say to you as an example because you are comfortable with homosexual ‘marriage’ and with women’s ‘right’ to choose to kill their unborn children. Many Christians are not comfortable participating in the celebration of these practices.
truth
You’re making stuff up again…maybe somebody should refuse to make you a cake…
EGV,
They wouldn’t care if they were sued? I think they would. That can get very expensive. Like it or not EGV, someone is fully within their legal rights to believe they will go straight to hell, and has a right to act accordingly.
Even that baker who you agree should not have to make the NNs their cake. Apparently you get to pick and choose when business people can refuse a service.
Absolutely individuals cannot be refused service. If the local NNs and New Black Panthers want to come into my bakery, buy a box of doughnuts and leave, fine. So long as they conduct themselves appropriately I cannot refuse them service. If they want a cake decorated to celebrate an organization event, and I find their request violates my convictions, be they religious, ethical, or moral, then I have a right to refuse.
Mary
As a Christian, if I had the option of going straight to hell or facing a lawsuit, I’d face a lawsuit.
I think we are actually agreeing at this point. So I don’t know what the issue is.
“Yes, you’re right. This law makes it so that if a Christian owns a bakery, and somebody wants to throw an abortion party, the national guard will come in and force the bakery owner to cater it.
Sigh.”
No Ex-RINO, sigh all you want and it shows how little you are bothered when the progressive ‘Freedom From Religion” organization out of Madison Wisconsin takes them to civil court and the homo-nazis attack their business with crank calls and shut them down.
truth –
As a pro-lifer, I get pretty disappointed to see such hateful speech directed at a group of people. “Homo-nazis”?
Can I remind you that this board is viewed by countless people through the day that form their opinions on the pro-life movement based on the articles and comments.
You have the right to be as thick-headed as you’d like – but I hope you realize how stupid it makes pro-lifers look.
And lllllloooooollllll at blaming the fall of the Roman Empire on decadence. The main reason the Western Roman Empire fell was because they let their military go and were overtaken in various places by different tribes. As well as government corruption and such. Blaming homosexuality and such is HILARIOUS. And if there is one thing the US does not lack it’s a strong military, so I don’t think we’re actual LY following the Romans, haha.
The Eastern Roman Empire lasted for a millennia or so after the Western empire fractured, and they had much the same culture in most areas (but a stronger military and government). Kinda blows your theory up Del.
Ex-RINO, you are comfortable with abortion so you brush it aside. What if Planned Parenthood were opening a new abortion mill and wanted a Christian restaurant to cater their grand opening celebration. Would you be supportive of the restaurant owner’s right to refuse to cater the event based upon religious objections?
truth
I’m not comfortable with abortion. We’ve been over this before.
On your question – yes – I’d have no issue with that.
If a Christian restaurant owner was working one night, and a gay pride group came in to eat, do you believe that the owner should be able to refuse them service because they are gay?
Ex-
I was wondering about the “homo-nazis” thing. I was trying to think of how one could be a “homo-Nazi” and came up blank. Any ideas? Maybe truthseeker can enlighten us.
Ex-RINO,
They placed phony orders for food and attacked the guy on the internet because he said he would not serve pizza’s to a homosexual wedding. IMO the homosexual community as a whole would not even support those actions, only agitators and progressive statists like you do.
truth
Second time
If a Christian restaurant owner was working one night, and a gay pride group came in to eat, do you believe that the owner should be able to refuse them service because they are gay?
“I’m not comfortable with abortion. We’ve been over this before.
On your question – yes – I’d have no issue with that.”
Ex-RINO, You are extremely vague with your answers and tend to flip flop from one one post to the next so I would like you to clarify your above statement. Are you saying that you think Christian restaurant owners should be able to refuse to cater Planned Parenthood events?
EGV, 11:59PM
No I do not believe the restaurant owner would have a right to refuse service. So long as people come in, sit at his tables and conduct themselves appropriately, he has no grounds for refusing service to the gay people or anyone else.
“If a Christian restaurant owner was working one night, and a gay pride group came in to eat, do you believe that the owner should be able to refuse them service because they are gay?”
If they came into the restaurant to overtly shove their ‘pride’ in the faces of other patrons then yes. If they truly came in to eat and just ordered food and kept to themselves then no.
“As a pro-lifer, I get pretty disappointed to see such hateful speech directed at a group of people. “Homo-nazis”?”
Then it is a good thing you are really only a phony pro-lifer and a progressive agitator who makes his living dividing people and setting people against one another. You give nothing to the pro-life cause. You are no better than Harry Reid or Barack Obama who shamelessly tell bold faced lies just to get their ends.
Ex-RINO,
Are you saying that you think Christian restaurant owners should be able to refuse to cater Planned Parenthood events?
crickets… chirp…. chirp… chirp….. chirp
truth –
Quick clue –
If somebody stops commenting at 11ish at night…they’ve probably gone to bed.
truth
Yes – I believe a Christian restaurant owner should be able to refuse to cater a Planned Parenthood event.
truth –
Your 12:17 post – I would throw yourself in the pot as well – you can’t even articulate a legislative path for what you support – can’t articulate why anybody should do anything pro-life through legislation.
You were given a test – you failed massively and worse than I could have imagined.
truth –
“If they came into the restaurant to overtly shove their ‘pride’ in the faces of other patrons then yes. If they truly came in to eat and just ordered food and kept to themselves then no.”
If they hold hands? Share a kiss? Let me ask it this way – is there anything a gay couple could do that you’d throw them out for that you would have no issue if a heterosexual could did the same thing?
Deluded Lib Pro-Lifer says:
“Today is darker than the 1850’s, although the shadow of war does not loom over use. But abortion is a far worse killer than war, and a far worse oppressor than slavery.”
Abortion and infanticide have existed as long as we’ve had humans. Pretending it didn’t exist in the 1850s is willfully ignorant.
That’s a fair point. But at least the children were protected by law, and we weren’t killing 2900 per day.
The US Civil War saw close to 750 thousand killed. What is our abortion death toll now? Close to 60 million?
I’m pretty sure that if we add up all the American deaths by war and by illegal abortion and infanticide prior to Roe v. Wade, it would be a small fraction of the deaths by legal abortion alone since Roe. v. Wade.
“Yes – I believe a Christian restaurant owner should be able to refuse to cater a Planned Parenthood event.”
On what grounds? Can one refuse because it is against God’s will?
truth
Religious objection
“is there anything a gay couple could do that you’d throw them out for that you would have no issue if a heterosexual could did the same thing?”
I’d throw either out if they were being offensive to God.
Good to know that there’s nothing that a gay couple could do that you wouldn’t throw a heterosexual couple out for.
“Religious objection”
So does a Muslim baker have a right to deny service to a woman because she is not wearing a burka? It is a religious objection.
No
What is the difference between that religious objection and the one you claimed previously?
Because in the second example, the baker is simply discriminating against an individual based on who they are.
I believe that you can carve out an exception for things like services or events. Discriminating against somebody simply for who they are though should not be allowed.
No one is saying that someone has to sell a specific product. Nobody is mandating that people have to offer wedding cakes, or perform cross-religious ceremonies, or change their dietary habits. But if a person chooses to offer a product, he or she can’t discriminate against customers. That’s it.
So if you sell cakes, you can’t refuse to sell them to gay people; if you sell ham sandwiches, you can’t refuse to sell them to some other group of people. If you don’t sell ham sandwiches, though, no one is going to make you, or penalize you if you don’t.
Can a bar/restaurant owner refuse to serve alcohol to a pregnant woman?
Can a bar/restaurant owner refuse to serve alcohol to a pregnant woman who has an abortion scheduled?
“Because in the second example, the baker is simply discriminating against an individual based on who they are.”
No, he is refusing service because his religion insists that women wear burkas and he finds it offensive when women without burkas come into his restaurant so he objects.
Should a carpenter or a painter or a plumber be able to refuse to come and work at an abortion mill if the get called for assistance?
truth
On the burka question – Nope – if he got sued, he would lose in a heartbeat.
On your second question – political belief gets no special treatment as a ‘class of people’ – so to my knowledge, there would be no issue.
Prax –
Anybody can refuse service to anybody at anytime.
The question is, would they get away with it in court?
I don’t know if there’s a law in that case.
“On your second question – political belief gets no special treatment as a ‘class of people’ – so to my knowledge, there would be no issue.”
Huh, where did I say anything about political beliefs?
“I believe that you can carve out an exception for things like services or events.”
That is what Tommy R thinks too. April 5, 2015 at 9:23 pm
truth
You can fire questions away all day long. Here’s the bottom line.
RFRA laws were put into place because Native Americans were using drugs in ceremonies that were then costing them federal benefits/jobs/etc… The Supremes ruled against Native Americans because there was no exception – thus RFRA laws started to pop up. They weren’t ever created for the intention of simply discriminating against people, and it was all about relationship to the government (not businesses).
Indiana went too far in that the law was written so broadly that the analysis was that it would allow discrimination against gays or other groups as that group wasn’t a protected class. Rather than carving out a narrow exception for what conservatives wanted to avoid – they went for broad based discrimination, got slapped back hard, and now from my understanding, the gay community will for the first time be a protected class in Indiana.
Again – anybody can deny services to anybody at anytime. Policeman won’t hold guns to people’s heads – but if cases like you describe go to court, especially the burka one, the owner would most likely lose.
On a side note, I think it’s a joke for Christians to try to put a wall around themselves and cast judgmental condemnation on anybody they don’t agree with. If I was a photographer trying to live my life to influence and help others, the last thing I’d probably want to do is run away from an opportunity to be in other people’s life.
truth
If you really want to understand, read this article through a few times (it took me a couple of times just to trace the reasoning).
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121442/indiana-rfra-amendment-defeats-anti-gay-discrimination-intent
Ex-RINO,
You still didn’t answer m question. I asked you if a carpenter or a painter or a plumber should be able to refuse to come and work at an abortion mill if the get called for assistance. You responded about about political beliefs???? I was more interested in your personal opinion and not what you thought was legal. You can skip answering if it makes you feel uncomfortable.
“Can a bar/restaurant owner refuse to serve alcohol to a pregnant woman?”
Legally, no, unless she was visibly intoxicated like any non-pregnant person.
truth
It doesn’t make me uncomfortable – I’m probably the only stinkin’ person on this board that answers questions that come my way. You routinely dodge about 30% of them – please don’t forget that.
The reason I didn’t answer directly and went with the legally definition is that is what you seemed to care about.
To answer your question directly – they should be able to deny service. I have no issue with that.
I also have no issue with a Christian plumber or carpenter refusing to service a GOP office because of how corrupt and hateful they are.
But I would have an issue with any plumber or carpenter refusing service at a place of worship.
I agree that they should be allowed to refuse service to Planned Parenthood. I know if I were forced to go into an abortion mill to work they would throw me out in a hurry anyway…lol
“But I would have an issue with any plumber or carpenter refusing service at a place of worship”
To me, the whole concept is that you shouldn’t have to compromise your principles or violate your conscience. So I guess I would have to disagree with you because no Christian carpenter should be forced to build a sanctuary at a satanic house of worship.
“I’m probably the only stinkin’ person on this board”
Not the only stinkin’ person but it would be fair say your posts are among the most pungent.
My point is truth – either ignorance or pride keeps you from answering a lot of questions on this board.
“On a side note, I think it’s a joke for Christians to try to put a wall around themselves and cast judgmental condemnation on anybody they don’t agree with.”
What is alarming to me is the politically correct Christians who are afraid to cast judgement on any actions to the point where they are silent about mother’s killing their unborn babies.
I agree with your statement – all Christians should voice opposition to abortion.
My points of the statement though is we’re to be light in a dark world – not see the dark world and refuse to ever go into it.
I have no trouble answering questions on this board. With you sometimes I don’t answer ‘your’ questions because your posts are often contradictory and incoherent and I like to clarify the current questions before moving on. If there are any questions in particular you have in mind then just ask.
Mary: I hope the Left plans to go after the Muslim bakers in Dearborn, MI who refused to bake wedding cakes for gay couples. I also hope they go after Muslim grocers who refuse to sell alcohol and Hindu grocers who refuse to sell meat. Kosher butchers should not have the option to sell only kosher meat. They must also sell pork and non kosher meat.
I couldn’t agree more that business owners should not be allowed conduct their businesses in accordance with their religious convictions. This is discriminatory and can create great inconvenience.
Mary, I don’t think people can be forced to sell something, period, like alcohol. Not that I (ahem) would not be in favor of that. : P
Heck,it ought to be almost free, and available 24/7!
It’s when they will do something for some people, but not for others that the trouble begins.
I’ve been ‘porkloin’ as a user name and e-mail address for almost 20 years; a friend of the piggies am I. All for pork being sold, but it’s really the same deal as alcohol, above.
I do think that muslims are “getting away with some stuff” under the guise of religious freedom, and some bending-over-backwards to not be offensive on our part – the part of the US as a whole – when greater scrutiny and taken measures are called for, in my opinion.
The thing in Indiana and Arkansas is a bunch of baloney – some backwoods, superstitious clowns trying to get away with legislative shenanigans, when nothing at all was needed.
I wish we were free of organized religion, period.
Cheers,
Doug
Excellent truth – I have questions in two groups:
1) In your opinion, what is the achievable legislative goal in the next 20 years for the pro-life movement? Is the goal to overturn R v Wade and let states hammer it out? Federal law on abortion? Just more state regulations?
2) Do you believe the GOP should simply overturn Obamacare and go back to the status quo – or should they pass alternative legislation? Whose legislation do you support if you want an alternate law?
And lllllloooooollllll at blaming the fall of the Roman Empire on decadence. The main reason the Western Roman Empire fell was because they let their military go and were overtaken in various places by different tribes. As well as government corruption and such. Blaming homosexuality and such is HILARIOUS. And if there is one thing the US does not lack it’s a strong military, so I don’t think we’re actual LY following the Romans, haha.
Jack, there does seem to be a “shelf life” for hegemonies, empires, etc., and you get much past 200 years and things get dicey. We shall see. : P
Yes, of course blaming homosexuality is hilarious, ludicrous, ridiculous, etc. However, I cannot but believe that the US is in serious, major decline, and this is due to the national debt and the past and present actions of our elected officials. We goin’ down, Holmes.
Doug,
Is there any good you see in organized religion?
“1) In your opinion, what is the achievable legislative goal in the next 20 years for the pro-life movement? Is the goal to overturn R v Wade and let states hammer it out? Federal law on abortion? Just more state regulations?”
1a) To progressively shorten the point in gestation where it is legal to kill unborn children.
1b) Overturning Roe V Wade should be one goal.
1c and 1d) We should support all the legislation we can on the state and federal levels to restrict abortion.
The real end game as I see it will be when society grants the unborn personhood.
2) Do you believe the GOP should simply overturn Obamacare and go back to the status quo – or should they pass alternative legislation? Whose legislation do you support if you want an alternate law?
2a) Repeal it in it’s entirety.
2b) I think we need to debate any legislative fixes and avoid any big comprehensive type of cluster-you-know-what legislation. Definitely no taxes or IRS fines because no $$ ever earmarked for anything has ever been used for the purpose it was earmarked.
Doug,
What about Mother Teresa’s work for the poor? Her work with the Little Sisters of the Poor was made possible through the organized Catholic Church.
Hi Doug,
My point is that people make business decisions based on their religious convictions, i.e. refusing to sell alcohol. This is respected and should be.
It should be free and available 24/7. Didn’t you ever go to college Doug?
Its when we’ll do something for some people and not others that its a problem?
Really? We have to understand that “rights” are a two way street. Jill runs a blog which I consider open to many opinions. Is Jill obligated to give a voice to everyone? Is she not allowed to have rules and standards and to ban those who do not abide by her rules?
Do I have a right to demand that Jill allow me to post hateful and venomous anti Semitic or racist rants in violation of her religious and moral convictions?
Isn’t Jill running her blog by her standards an example of doing something for some people and not others?
I don’t think this is about organized religion. I think its about the right of all of us, whatever our faith or lack thereof, to be free to abide by our convictions, whatever motivates them.
Speaking of pork, I well remember my mother’s Sunday dinner spareribs.
Is there any good you see in organized religion?
Hey TS. : )
Yeah, a ton of good in religion – many people get a lot of comfort from it – and from organized religion; it can be a great force for good. Doesn’t outweigh the bad, IMO, all the horrors perpetrated on individuals and groups ad infinitum down through history. The sense of “tribalism” where muslims are set to attack non-muslims, where christians go after non-christians, gay people, etc.
What about Mother Teresa’s work for the poor? Her work with the Little Sisters of the Poor was made possible through the organized Catholic Church.
TS, for the most part, I think ol’ T was a pretty cool old girl, but there are certainly two sides to her story. Mixing it all together, I think she ends up in the “plus” column. So, she done good.
truth
I appreciate you finally answering the questions you’ve dodged for a long time.
I won’t even rip them up or offer any rebuttals for now – good to just understand that you stand for something.
My point is that people make business decisions based on their religious convictions, i.e. refusing to sell alcohol. This is respected and should be.
Mary, it’s a different deal if somebody decides not to sell pork, booze, peppermint twists, or doilies, based on their beliefs, versus saying they won’t sell “X” to Joe Blow, when they do sell it to other people.
Didn’t you ever go to college Doug?
Yeah, I did. I was kidding about almost free booze, around the clock. In 1973 the Cleveland Indians had “Ten Cent Beer Night,” and hahhhahhhaaaa guess what – they didn’t do that again. : P
Although – this year the Philadelphia Phillies are gonna sell not just beer but wine and hard liquor in the stadium for home games. What could go wrong? And remember – Philadelphia sports fans (are you there, PhillyMiss?). What could go wrong? ; )
Do I have a right to demand that Jill allow me to post hateful and venomous anti Semitic or racist rants in violation of her religious and moral convictions?
No. And I wish there was no organized “Christian” stuff where these pretend-lawmaker clowns try to slide through silly baloney like these “religious freedom bills.” The discriminatory intent is clear despite their transparent and vacuous protests to the contrary.
Thank goodness it’s a dying thing – the older generation is the only one where such malarkey has traction – it doesn’t fly with the younger generation.
Hi Doug,
Again that depends. I gave the analogy of the baker refusing to bake a cake for a neo nazi commemoration of Hitler’s birthday. Would you support this baker’s decision, be it religious, ethical, or moral, to refuse? The man is in the business of baking cakes right?
Yeah, I remember the 25 cent beers in the large cups. One buck and you were set for the night, at least I was.
So you agree Jill has the right to her religious and moral convictions and to run her blog in accordance with those convictions, even though it may mean denying some people a public forum while granting one to others. Thank you.
You know my hard and fast rule. I refuse to debate religion. End of discussion for me on this subject.
“Yes, of course blaming homosexuality is hilarious, ludicrous, ridiculous, etc. However, I cannot but believe that the US is in serious, major decline, and this is due to the national debt and the past and present actions of our elected officials. We goin’ down”
I didn’t say we weren’t in decline. I said comparing us culturally to the Western Roman Empire and saying that’s gonna screw us is ridiculous. I agree with you for the most part about the issues with debt and government, it just won’t be invasion or sexual decadence that finishes us. We’ll implode, not explode!
“Legally, no, unless she was visibly intoxicated like any non-pregnant person.”
So she could go to the bar sober, order 10 shots in quick succession and the bar owner couldn’t refuse to serve her?
If the bar was allowing non-pregnant customers to drink in this manner (yes, I have seen it), isn’t it discriminatory if a pregnant woman isn’t allowed to drink in this manner? What could the courts say?
Yeah, it’s considered discriminatory to deny her alcohol. Unless they deny her in the same way a non-pregnant person would be denied. I think it’s considered gender discrimination to refuse to serve pregnant women on the basis of her being pregnant, but I’m not clear on the exact legal reasoning.
Don’t bartenders have the right to exercise discretion and refuse drinks to customers who are drinking too much or are known alcoholics?
Yes Mary, they make that call all the time…usually not soon enough!
“Don’t bartenders have the right to exercise discretion and refuse drinks to customers who are drinking too much or are known alcoholics?”
Yes. Refusing to serve the alcoholic owner and his buddies is not advised unless you want to be out of a job! However, good bartenders do use discretion and are also good at using diversions to help people pace their drinking, get them rides home, discuss their problems, etc. Bars are filled with alcoholics and most would close up if they refused to serve alcoholics altogether.
I have seen signs behind bars that say on the order of “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” I’m not sure how this would hold up in court if someone claimed/or was discriminated against for any numerous reasons.
Would it be discrimination if the bartender allowed some folks to line up shots for a celebration but refused to line them up for a pregnant woman? I’m all for bartenders refusing to serve even one drink to a pregnant woman. If she wants to drink during pregnancy, she should cut out the middleman.
It’s a crazy world where bartenders are told they must serve a drink(s) to a pregnant woman but that same pregnant woman can choose to have her child killed.
“Don’t bartenders have the right to exercise discretion and refuse drinks to customers who are drinking too much or are known alcoholics?”
Yes. But they can’t pick a specific group of people they treat differently. Thats the basis for the illegality of refusing to serve pregnant women. Its the same as any other business. You can refuse to serve all people who aren’t wearing shoes in your store, but you cant make that apply to just black people, or whatever.
“Would it be discrimination if the bartender allowed some folks to line up shots for a celebration but refused to line them up for a pregnant woman? I’m all for bartenders refusing to serve even one drink to a pregnant woman. If she wants to drink during pregnancy, she should cut out the middleman”
I never said I agreed with it. But yes in your scenario, the bartender would be breaking the law.
And I don’t know why it surprises anyone. If legally we can do nothing to protect babies from abortion,it would be surprising off the law currently allowed babies to be protected from fetal alcohol syndrome.
I also read an article that said that if an establishment serves a pregnant woman alcohol and baby ends up with FAS, the mom can sue the establishment that served her alcohol.
Then another article talked about how in some states police can step in when they deem a pregnant woman is harming her unborn child by drinking alcohol.
There is not too much that surprises me anymore, DLPL!
“I also read an article that said that if an establishment serves a pregnant woman alcohol and baby ends up with FAS, the mom can sue the establishment that served her alcohol”
Well, technically, you can sue almost anybody for almost anything. Whether or not the case would be thrown out or not is the issue. You would be at a high risk of losing a civil rights lawsuit for refusing to serve alcohol to a pregnant woman. I don’t know how likely you’d be to lose a suit about assisting a woman in giving her baby FAS. I know bars have lost suits from families killed by drunk drivers before, but it seems like it would be easier to prove cause and effect in that case. Guy or gal gets drink at a bar, goes off and kills someone, bar found liable. In the case of FAS, it seems near impossible to link the alcohol served at a bar as opposed to possible drinking a woman may have done at home. Possibly liability would be less in such cases. Honestly, I don’t like the thought of suing people got choices freely made of your own accord. They post by law the effects of alcohol on fetuses in bars, it seems like the woman makes a choice to imbibe and the bar has their hands legally tied as to serve her. I don’t see how it makes sense to hold the bar liable for her choices either way, unless she was visibly intoxicated and they failed their “duty of care” legal responsibility by serving in that context. Same with drunk driving.
And the whole protecting the unborn from a mother imbibing alcohol and drugs is weird as well. How can we protect an unborn baby from alcohol and drug effects but allow them to be aborted? Nonsensical and inconsistent imo. What if she really truly promised she was aborting when she got in trouble for drinking or using drugs? It’s just strange to me.
Praxedes, DLPL:
Great discussion points. If someone can sue a bar for serving alcohol that later resulted in someone’s death, even if the alcohol was chosen / requested by the patron, then I wonder if a woman has ever sued an abortionist for killing her child, even if the abortion was chosen / requested by the woman.
Mary: It’s when we’ll do something for some people and not others that its a problem?
Yep.
Really? We have to understand that “rights” are a two way street. Jill runs a blog which I consider open to many opinions. Is Jill obligated to give a voice to everyone? Is she not allowed to have rules and standards and to ban those who do not abide by her rules.
Do I have a right to demand that Jill allow me to post hateful and venomous anti Semitic or racist rants in violation of her religious and moral convictions?
Isn’t Jill running her blog by her standards an example of doing something for some people and not others?
A blog isn’t a business in the same sense as a bakery. The bakery is a place of “public accommodation,” and going clear back to the Civil Rights Law of 1964 it’s going to be affected.
Blogs are different and Jill can legally delete anybody’s posts, block them, wield the Ban Hammer with merciless force and wanton aim, heap any and all manner of scourging criticism and gratuitous insult on us (not that she does much of any of that ;) ) and we have no recourse. Basically, Jill ain’t got to do jack, here.
I don’t think this is about organized religion. I think its about the right of all of us, whatever our faith or lack thereof, to be free to abide by our convictions, whatever motivates them.
What I don’t like about organized religion is that it often gets tribal and the other teams are bad guys and we should kill them/take their stuff/enslave them/deny them this or that blah blah blah. Many people – who wouldn’t go that route on their own – accept it due to brainwashing/indoctrination/it being the price of membership in the club.
If Christians were about to fire up The Crusades II, then I’d say it would be a problem. Looking around the world, and seeing radical Islam, I say it’s a problem.
There are also rather more “chronic” affects, versus acute, with organized religion, around the world, bad treatment of women being one of them.
Mary: Again that depends. I gave the analogy of the baker refusing to bake a cake for a neo nazi commemoration of Hitler’s birthday. Would you support this baker’s decision, be it religious, ethical, or moral, to refuse? The man is in the business of baking cakes right?
Mary, you’re certainly right about “that depends.” There are federal laws (like the ’64 Civil Rights Act) and state and local laws that could affect the situation. The baker has gotta stay in line with those.
Beyond that – as far as me supporting it or not, I, like everybody, am going to draw the line somewhere. If what is wanted is a massively-grinning Hitler, playing an electric guitar, above the slogan “Nazis Rule!” then I’d say that’s a bit much to expect.
If little Billy down the street wants a cake with red icing because red is his favorite color, then can the baker refuse because the baker says that red is a “Nazi color”? I’d be saying, “Oh c’mon, man….” (Like they do on ESPN.)
There are an infinite number of examples in-between, and we’re all going to draw the line somewhere.
If people want a cake with certain graphic themes, then I can see the baker not wanting to do it – this would apply whether “gay” or “straight” was involved. But if the cake is just to say, “Adam and Steve,” then make the thing and y’all go along with your lives, sheesh…. My opinion.
Mary: Don’t bartenders have the right to exercise discretion and refuse drinks to customers who are drinking too much or are known alcoholics?
Mary, there is wide at-the-time latitude granted to bartenders/bar owners, on the basis of a customer being a nuisance/disturbance, etc. If you get too loud and don’t cool it when asked to, you can be kicked out. If you bother other people, out you go. If you go to sleep on the bar, you’re probably done, etc.
The basis of “drinking too much,” on its own, however, that’s a reach without confirming action on the part of the patron. I know numerous people who could have 12 drinks in a couple hours and walk into a bar, and it would not be apparent how much booze was already in them. They’re gonna get served.
If people have been a problem in the past – fighting, too loud, causing damage, etc. – then they can be “barred” and denied entry in the future.
On the basis of “being a known alcoholic,” I don’t think so, though.
I think it’s nonsensical that bars can be sued for serving booze to people. Unless the person was forced to drink the booze, against his will, by bar personnel, then get your foolish behind out of my court.
I don’t know that it’s ever really been challenged, but Applebee’s – the low-end “Neighborhood Grill and Bar” restaurant chain – has a 3-drink policy. At 3 drinks, the bartender is supposed to tell the manager that “Joe Blow has had 3 drinks.” Then the manager decides whether more booze is allowed or not.
It varies widely with restaurant personnel and the locale of the place. This is also true for other places. Mostly, if you are not getting loud, not causing trouble, then you’ll continue to get served.
Doug,
Serving people is one thing. Involving yourself in what goes against your religious, moral, or ethical convictions is another. So the baker then would have to bake a cake commemorating Hitler’s birthday? What if the baker is Jewish? Or Black? Or is someone like me who’s father served in WW2 and would do view this as dishonoring his memory?
So YOU and others will determine when to “draw the line”. I see. When its something that offends your sensibilities, well that’s different. However if “Adam and Steve” offends the baker’s sensibilities, well tough.
Of course he can’t refuse to sell Adam and Steve, or the neo nazis for that matter, a box of doughnuts. The baker does not have to involve himself in the activities of customers that offend his religion, ethics, or morals.
So its OK then for Jill to provide her service, a blog, to some but not others. Its OK to deny some people this service. Blogs didn’t exist in 1964 so they could hardly be covered.
Again any discussion of religion or religious debates are off limits for me.
Thank you for the info on the bartenders. I can see where this is a very gray area. I know of one bartender who was sued when his customer caused a major car accident after drinking too much.
How much was the bartender sued for and how much did the drunk customer get, Mary? I never wanted any of my children to tend bar, but I have one of them who may be doing just that this summer so you may understand a mother’s concern.
I have tended bar(s) and did ask people in different professions how much responsibility could be put on bartender if an accident occurs (or the patron gets picked up for drunk driving as did two people that I know of who I had earlier served).
I was always told that it is not possible for the average bartender to know, nor is it their job to ask, how much alcohol the customer had before they arrived and/or after they left, how often they drink and how much they can handle, what they had eaten throughout the day, what their stress levels are, etc., etc. Just like fake ids. If the average person would think the id was real, the responsibility is on the person using the fake id, not the person who checked it.
I took keys from many people over the years and made many phone calls for rides, but at the end of the day, if a customer refuses to turn over the keys and says s/he’s walking or sleeping in their vehicle, it’s not the bartender’s job to follow them and babysit adults.
Most bartenders don’t push alcohol or serve patrons who are sloppy drunk. Using common sense is important in bartending as it is in most jobs (abortionists are the exception!), and bar owners need to be sure they are hiring folks who they believe are old enough and mature enough to make good decisions. I know I had to take some bartending classes, and I’m sure that these classes probably still exist.
I wonder if I can sue the deli for my lack of a waist! (:
Hi Prax,
This was sometime ago and I don’t recall the amount. I saw it on TV. Obviously the victims were going for the “deep pockets” so the bartender and his employer’s insurance company were the best targets. It was infuriating that even the drunk driver, when interviewed, took no responsibility for his actions. Hey, the bartender should have stopped me. I’m an alcoholic. I can’t help myself. No stupid, if you can’t control yourself, then stay home and drink or get help.
Prax, by far the most outrageous story occurred near where I live. A group of girls had been drinking and stopped to get something to eat. They left and died in a car accident shortly after leaving, it was ruled alcohol was the cause.
Very bad and foolish decision. Tragic consequences. Right? Wrong!
The parents discovered an off duty police officer was having dinner at the same time and sued HIM for not recognizing their daughter was intoxicated and taking her keys away. Why the PO should have any more ability than the average Joe to determine someone’s blood alcohol on sight is beyond me. Do you always know if the other restaurant patrons are intoxicated? Some people hide it well. The loud, boisterous, and obnoxious person may be stone cold sober.
I never heard how that came out. Hopefully the PO got off the hook. Good grief, the poor man probably just stopped to have dinner, read his paper, and like most of us, couldn’t even tell you who was in the restaurant after he left.
Well people have sued McDonald’s for their obesity, so suing your deli wouldn’t be so unthinkable. After all, people ARE dragged through the drive thru kicking and screaming and forced to eat fries, shakes, and Big Macs. Who in a million years would would ever suspect that shakes, fries, and Big Macs might make you heavy?
Mary: So YOU and others will determine when to “draw the line”. I see.
Let’s take this first. Mary, nay! As I said, everybody is going to draw the line somewhere. There will be cases where it’s relatively a “gray area,” and there will be lots of disagreement over it, and who knows what a court would decide…
Then there are others where, for example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 will apply, and the courts will tell the merchant to (basically) shut up and run your business and quit being a discriminatory clown.
And there will be others where most everybody, the courts included, will side with the merchant, i.e. there is no reasonable expectation of the merchant being required to provide said item.
Serving people is one thing. Involving yourself in what goes against your religious, moral, or ethical convictions is another. So the baker then would have to bake a cake commemorating Hitler’s birthday? What if the baker is Jewish? Or Black? Or is someone like me who’s father served in WW2 and would do view this as dishonoring his memory?
It’s that degree of “involvement” that is a good bit of the issue. The baker has his beliefs, the customer may have others. I greatly favor an “and never the twain shall meet” approach, because if not, then anybody can say anything, and claim involvement even when it’s ludicrous.
That said, I am not saying that the cake has to say, “Best wishes to Adam and Steve from Al’s Bakery.” That would be involvement that’s potentially against the baker’s beliefs. If it’s just “Adam and Steve,” then it could be two guys in a romantic relationship, or it could be twins, or two guys who won the city tennis tournament, and it shouldn’t matter to the baker.
When its something that offends your sensibilities, well that’s different.
No, never said anything to that effect.
However if “Adam and Steve” offends the baker’s sensibilities, well tough.
Yes, in my opinion it’s none of the baker’s business, other than that he’s selling cakes and they want a cake.
Of course he can’t refuse to sell Adam and Steve, or the neo nazis for that matter, a box of doughnuts. The baker does not have to involve himself in the activities of customers that offend his religion, ethics, or morals.
Yes, because he’s not really involved. Neo-Nazis buying a box of doughnuts is not the same thing as saying, “Al’s Bakery wishes Hitler the best of birthdays!”
So its OK then for Jill to provide her service, a blog, to some but not others. Its OK to deny some people this service.
Jill is not “providing a service” or “accommodating the public” in the same way. Jill can kick anybody out, for any reason. The baker ain’t-a-gonna be allowed to do that.
Blogs didn’t exist in 1964 so they could hardly be covered.
:: laughing… ::
Again any discussion of religion or religious debates are off limits for me.
Okay, but it’s all the same thing. Denying people on the basis of their beliefs, race, sexual orientation, etc. is just plain not going to fly – and this is more and more operative all the time.
Thank you for the info on the bartenders. I can see where this is a very gray area. I know of one bartender who was sued when his customer caused a major car accident after drinking too much.
To me, this is really *not* a gray area. Should I be able to sue an automobile manufacturer because I got a ticket for 70 MPH in a 60 MPH zone (or worse), because my car is not governed to a top speed of 60 MPH? Heck no, I shouldn’t!
Should I be able to sue a bar/bartender because I was served a 7th drink, putting me over the legal limit to drive, and I then get a ticket (or worse)? Heck no, I shouldn’t!
by far the most outrageous story occurred near where I live. A group of girls had been drinking and stopped to get something to eat. They left and died in a car accident shortly after leaving, it was ruled alcohol was the cause.
Very bad and foolish decision. Tragic consequences. Right? Wrong!
The parents discovered an off duty police officer was having dinner at the same time and sued HIM for not recognizing their daughter was intoxicated and taking her keys away. Why the PO should have any more ability than the average Joe to determine someone’s blood alcohol on sight is beyond me. Do you always know if the other restaurant patrons are intoxicated? Some people hide it well.
Mary, good example of things taken to a ridiculous extent. If I was the judge, I’d tell the parents that it was a sad and tragic thing that happened. Then, that the case is dismissed – if possible ‘with preudice’ (in the legal sense) against the plaintiffs, with as much in court costs levied on them as possible, including (again, if possible) to compensate the police officer for his time and inconvenience.
Mary: Well people have sued McDonald’s for their obesity…
They have, but the precedent now has been well-set, and it’s in McDonald’s favor. It’s too “open,” for one thing – how do we say that it was McDonald’s food that made somebody fat, in the first place? They usually are scarfing down all manner of other stuff, well away from McDonald’s, and it’s not like it’s all watercress and celery.
I think people and lawyers saw a potential “tobacco-like” deal, and were blinded by the possible $$. Many states have enacted protections, now, for food and drink companies, giving them protection from this kind of deal.
Take a look at the makeup of lobbyist and legislator populations. So many lawyers there…. No wonder our country is far gone down the Litigious road.
Can I have a cheeseburger?
Doug,
So everybody is going to draw the line somewhere? Well Doug it looks like we may be in agreement here.
I haven’t seen too many wedding cakes baked for people in tennis tournaments.
So if the neo nazis want a cake commemorating the birth of Hitler, its also none of the baker’s business, right? Can’t have it both ways Doug.
The baker can deny service if the customer is troublesome or disruptive, and violates the rules of his store. Just like Jill can do.
I agree, people should not be denied service on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, gender…or political beliefs.
We are in definite agreement concerning the police officer and McDonald’s. I still indulge in a Big Mac on occasion. They are sooo good! And fries. Yum yum. At my age I’ve earned it!!
So if the neo nazis want a cake commemorating the birth of Hitler, its also none of the baker’s business, right? Can’t have it both ways Doug.
That’s not it, Mary. To a point, the baker is not going to be allowed to say no, by law. At some point, for the neo-Nazis (or, for another example, if the KKK wanted a burning cross, say, on a cake) “hate speech” laws would take effect.
The baker can deny service if the customer is troublesome or disruptive, and violates the rules of his store. Just like Jill can do.
No – Jill can do most anything -We really don’t “have rights” here. “The rules of the store” – Jill can have them be almost anything. The baker has a much different situation – there are federal laws at work, and probably state and perhaps local ones as well.
I agree, people should not be denied service on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, gender…or political beliefs.
Well, if you get ‘sexual orientation’ in there, you’ll be pretty up-to-date.
Come on Doug,
“Hate speech”. What constitutes “hate speech”? We have freedom of speech, however repulsive any of us may find it. Don’t neo nazis and the KKK have this same right? Is their freedom of speech being violated by the baker? It seems that you want certain laws to take effect when its your sensibilities that are being offended. How convenient.
I agree, the baker cannot deny service. He does not have to involve himself in the lives of his customers or violate his conscience in any way.
I overlooked sexual orientation though I pointed out in a previous post that Adam and Steve cannot be denied service. The neo nazis can’t be denied service. So I’m sure you would support a baker being forced to bake a cake commemorating Hitler’s birthday, right?
Mary: Come on Doug,
“Hate speech”. What constitutes “hate speech”? We have freedom of speech, however repulsive any of us may find it. Don’t neo nazis and the KKK have this same right? Is their freedom of speech being violated by the baker? It seems that you want certain laws to take effect when its your sensibilities that are being offended. How convenient.
No, not my sensibilities. “In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.”
Thus, the baker is not going to be legally compelled to put a swastika, for example, on the cake against his will. That’s past the point where most people would draw the line, and past the point where the hate speech laws would take effect. A different thing than the baker, again, for example, not wanting to give little Billy a cake with red icing, red being Billy’s favorite color, because the baker says that “red is a Nazi color.”
The KKK and Neo-Nazis most certainly do have the right of free speech, but it is not without limit.
I agree, the baker cannot deny service. He does not have to involve himself in the lives of his customers or violate his conscience in any way.
The problem is that a good bit of the intent behind the “religious freedom laws” is to facilitate discrimination, under the guise of “not violating the conscience.”
I overlooked sexual orientation though I pointed out in a previous post that Adam and Steve cannot be denied service. The neo nazis can’t be denied service. So I’m sure you would support a baker being forced to bake a cake commemorating Hitler’s birthday, right?
Once again, it depends on just what is requested to be on the cake. If somebody wants a cake on April 20, no problem. If the cake is supposed to have swastikas on it, and say “Death to Jews!” then there is a problem. Almost everybody, and the courts included, would draw the line somewhere in-between.
As far as me supporting the baker not being able to turn down the request, what exactly do you mean by “commemorating Hitler’s birthday”?