Sign in to follow this  
mr6666

democracy, free speech, civility, protest?

255 posts in this topic

Plus there must be other bakeries in the area, which will help them.  The owner of the bake shop puts faith above the almighty dollar, if his business folds so be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, hamradio said:

Plus there must be other bakeries in the area, which will help them.  The owner of the bake shop puts faith above the almighty dollar, if his business folds so be it.

Or he puts hatred of people who are different from him above making money.

Real common in the Jim Crow era. Black customers were always turned away because it was a "whites-only" shop.

We've seen this sort of thing before-- even within my lifetime.

Strictly a very ugly business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

I seriously don't think all that many Christian bakers, with bills to pay and families to feed, will turn away what might be sorely needed business.  It really strikes me as an irresponsible business practice.

Sepiatone

But if it becomes the community standard as it did during Jim Crow era in the South, then all the bakers will be pressured into following suit.  That is the slippery slope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the baker's position is misunderstood. I think this is a case of not wanting to participate in a ceremony for a gay union that the Bible speaks against. I don't think that this is a case of "we don't want to serve your kind". I could be wrong. I have deeply pondered this matter, also being of the Christian faith. Prohibitions against homosexuality are spoken of in the New Testament, but oddly, never by Jesus. He spoke against all kinds of things - even laying out severe limits on divorce, but never spoke against homosexuality. His anger seemed to be reserved for the hypocrites and Pharisees, though.  And every gay person I ever knew says the same thing -that from their earliest days they knew that something was different, but often they did not figure it out until puberty.  This means that they were created this way.  Given the evidence, I can't condemn what comes down to just another form of love. I don't think I would have a problem writing a celebratory message on a wedding cake for a gay couple, arranging flowers, catering, or doing wedding photographs. That is...if I was actually competent at doing any of those things! At least, this conclusion is what my conscience has led me to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, calvinnme said:

I think the baker's position is misunderstood. I think this is a case of not wanting to participate in a ceremony for a gay union that the Bible speaks against. I don't think that this is a case of "we don't want to serve your kind". I could be wrong. I have deeply pondered this matter, also being of the Christian faith. Prohibitions against homosexuality are spoken of in the New Testament, but oddly, never by Jesus. He spoke against all kinds of things - even laying out severe limits on divorce, but never spoke against homosexuality. His anger seemed to be reserved for the hypocrites and Pharisees, though.  And every gay person I ever knew says the same thing -that from their earliest days they knew that something was different, but often they did not figure it out until puberty.  This means that they were created this way.  Given the evidence, I can't condemn what comes down to just another form of love. I don't think I would have a problem writing a celebratory message on a wedding cake for a gay couple, arranging flowers, catering, or doing wedding photographs. That is...if I was actually competent at doing any of those things! At least, this conclusion is what my conscience has led me to.

Yeah, not wanting to bake a cake and write a specific message on it is far different than just kicking them out on the curb or keeping them segregated. It's really a false equivalence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Gershwin fan said:

Yeah, not wanting to bake a cake and write a specific message on it is far different than just kicking them out on the curb or keeping them segregated. It's really a false equivalence. 

I agree which is why I believe the law should be that one should NOT be forced to perform an act that is contrary to their religious beliefs but those that are denied services can sue for damages when there are tangible damages above $500.    E.g. a couple has to travel 80 miles to get a cake from another baker.    Just having one's feeling hurt shouldn't be actionable.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't want to do business with a place that was forced to serve me, especially if the product involved was a consumable. But I can also sympathize with the outrage of anyone who is told that they are "against my religion."

While private businesses may be allowed to play the religion card, I can't agree with the same being pulled by public employees, such as the Kim Davis woman in Kentucky. If your religion prevents you from carrying out the law of the land then ask for a transfer or resign.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I agree which is why I believe the law should be that one should NOT be forced to perform an act that is contrary to their religious beliefs but those that are denied services can sue for damages when there are tangible damages above $500.    E.g. a couple has to travel 80 miles to get a cake from another baker.    Just having one's feeling hurt shouldn't be actionable.

 

 

I don't even agree with that. If the couple can bake the cake themselves with ingredients from the local store then the shop shouldn't have to pay them to travel hundreds of miles. Also if the shop is willing to give them a cake but not to specifically decorate it for the couple, I think that should be taken into account. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Gershwin fan said:

I don't even agree with that. If the couple can bake the cake themselves with ingredients from the local store then the shop shouldn't have to pay them to travel hundreds of miles. Also if the shop is willing to give them a cake but not to specifically decorate it for the couple, I think that should be taken into account. 

To me discrimination that causes financial harm is actionable.    Note that in the vast majority of cases there wouldn't be any any financial harm or harm in excess of $500.    But to allow businesses that serve the general public to discriminate and cause 'substantial' financial harm is something I can't support (even my libertarian side of me).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chicago Bar Bans 'Make America Great Again' Hats

“After much consternation and consideration and to maintain a ‘classy environment’, Replay Lincoln Park has implemented a new and strictly enforced dress code,” the post read

.....Replay Lincoln Park has implemented a new and strictly enforced dress code,” the post read. “No face tattoos, no specific hats, please see below. Let’s keep it classy Chicago. Sincerely, management.” 

The post was accompanied with a photo of a red hat reading Make America Great Again and an image of a man with facial tattoos.

The account later clarified “no gang face tats.” .........

Kwiatkowski said he feels like "there's some sort of good" that can come from the debate surrounding politics in the restaurant industry. He noted Replay is working on a way to raise money for “some good cause that can help advance this or help the people that need help that are crossing our borders.” 

Kwiatkowski added the response to his message has been “overwhelmingly positive,” noting, however, that there are “some strongly worded posts against” the move.

"That’s been pretty encouraging how positive that’s been," he said.

 

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Chicago-Bar-Bans-Make-America-Great-Again-Hats-486487951.html?_osource=SocialFlowTwt_CHBrand

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Editorial from @washingtonpost: Let the Trump team eat in peace

-------------------------------------------------------------

David RobertsVerified account @drvox Jun 24

 
 

19. The WaPo editorial board, like the MSM establishment more generally, has been utterly **** useless in slowing our slide to illiberalism. They've done nothing but obscure what's happening behind a veneer of Normal. They have failed. But for the luvagod ...

... the very least they can do is refrain from concern trolling citizens who are (RIGHTLY) in a panic about the loss of their country.

Maybe the agents of this cruelty, the ones lying on its behalf, should feel a little discomfort. There are worse things in the world. </fin>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mr6666 said:

 

Walgreens pharmacist refuses to give Arizona woman drug to end pregnancy

After learning she was about to miscarry, Nicole Arteaga was denied prescribed medicine by a pharmacist based on his ethical beliefs.

What happens next will be interesting.   I assume Walgreens has the authority to fire this employee for failing to do their job and since they are a national company,  I assume that this what they will do.    As for the women,  she was able to get her prescription filled the next day so at the end of the day,  if the employee is fired,   this overall story is good news.

    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Who Deserves a Place at the Table

"........the Trump Administration is not a normal Presidential Administration. This is the essential and easily fudged fact of our historical moment. The Trump Administration is—in ways that are specific to incipient tyrannies—all about an assault on civility. To the degree that Trump has any ideology at all, it’s a hatred of civility—a belief that the normal decencies painfully evolved over centuries are signs of weakness which occlude the natural order of domination and submission. It’s why Trump admires dictators. Theirs are his values; that’s his feast.

And, to end the normal discourse of democracy, the Trump Administration must make lies respectable—lying not tactically but all the time about everything, in a way that does not just degrade but destroys exactly the common table of democratic debate.

That’s Sarah Huckabee Sanders’s chosen role in life—to further those lies,......

The great threat to American democracy isn’t “policy” but the pretense of normalcy. That’s the danger, for with the lies come the appeasement of tyranny, the admiration of tyranny, and, as now seems increasingly likely, the secret alliance with tyranny.

That’s what makes the Trump Administration intolerable, .......

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/sarah-huckabee-sanders-and-who-deserves-a-place-at-the-table?mbid=social_twitter

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mr6666 said:

 

Walgreens pharmacist refuses to give Arizona woman drug to end pregnancy

After learning she was about to miscarry, Nicole Arteaga was denied prescribed medicine by a pharmacist based on his ethical beliefs.

That idiot pharmacist should know the difference between a miscarriage and an abortion. :wacko:

 The lady WANTS THE BABY! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, hamradio said:

That idiot pharmacist should know the difference between a miscarriage and an abortion. :wacko:

 The lady WANTS THE BABY! 

It doesn't make any difference what the difference is!

 People have a right to buy what they want to buy in a drugstore, or in any other public store.

No employee in a store has a right to tell a customer that they cannot buy a product that is being sold in that store because the employee does not want to sell it to them.

In the case of a pharmacy, the customer had the prescription and it was the job of the pharmacist's to sell the prescribed drug to the customer.

Walgreens sells liquor too. What if all the prohibitionists and teetotalers working in the store said that they would not allow customers to buy liquor because they were against drinking? That's how ridiculous this whole concept in this whole story is.

That's not just bad business --that's discrimination. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Princess of Tap said:

It doesn't make any difference what the difference is!

 People have a right to buy what they want to buy in a drugstore, or in any other public store.

No employee in a store has a right to tell a customer that they cannot buy a product that is being sold in that store because the employee does not want to sell it to them.

In the case of a pharmacy, the customer had the prescription and it was the job of the pharmacist's to sell the prescribed drug to the customer.

Walgreens sells liquor too. What if all the prohibitionists and teetotalers working in the store said that they would not allow customers to buy liquor because they were against drinking? That's how ridiculous this whole concept in this whole story is.

That's not just bad business --that's discrimination. 

I'm simply puzzled over the pharmacist refusing to fill her medication, personal beliefs or not. The customer is going to lose the baby regardless.  Never heard of this scenario before. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, hamradio said:

I'm simply puzzled over the pharmacist refusing to fill her medication, personal beliefs or not. The customer is going to lose the baby regardless.  Never heard of this scenario before. 

Whatever the medical condition of the customer is--

it's none of your business and it's none of the business of the pharmacist--

it is only between her and the doctor who gave her the prescription.

I don't care what the personal beliefs of the pharmacist are. If he's unwilling to do his job, then he just needs to quit.

People who think they can interfere in the Private Affairs of others need to think about how they would like it if somebody was trying to interfere in their private life.

People who think they have the right to control the private lives of strangers--need to think twice.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Princess of Tap said:

Whatever the medical condition of the customer is--

it's none of your business and it's none of the business of the pharmacist--

it is only between her and the doctor who gave her the prescription.

I don't care what the personal beliefs of the pharmacist are. If he's unwilling to do his job, then he just needs to quit.

People who think they can interfere in the Private Affairs of others need to think about how they would like it if somebody was trying to interfere in their private life.

People who think they have the right to control the private lives of strangers--need to think twice.

 

The exception if the doctor is running a pill mill or being reckless in prescribing opioids , drugs that are detrimental, the pharmacist has the right to refuse or the drug store could be in hot water with the FDA especially regarding opioids.

 

After Googling the issue, just found out Tennessee and Arizona can refuse to fill prescriptions based on moral or religious beliefs.  This is news to me (don't kill the messenger).

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2018/06/25/walgreens-prescription-pharmacist-refuse-arizona-tennessee-law/730833002/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us