Refuse to make rainbow cookies; get evicted.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Listen, there is a distinction between business and the property it is in.  
The business can always move -- and if the owners feel strongly about not making cookies for _______  then they SHOULD move.
Another issue is any specifications that are in the contract.  Does it allow for them to ... "descriminate?"

Yeah.  No.  There's no reason the business should have to cede any of its day-to-day operational authority to their landlord.  It doesn't matter who their landlord is, and it doesn't matter if you or I or some university twit or city buerea-tyrant approves of the way they operate their business.

The argument I'm hearing is that because the business bought its property rights from the city, it doesn't deserve to receiver all of those rights.  I think this is insulting and grossly unfair.  It doesn't matter who they're leasing from, it matters what's in the lease.  So far I've seen nothing that indicates the lease prohibits them from declining anyone's business for any reason.

If anything, the fact that they lease from a government entity ought to put the business on more solid ground, not less.  The business owners made a decision based on their religious convictions.  A man's religious convictions must never put him at a disadvantage with the government.

And what gives any else the right to tell these people where they can and can't run their business?  You aren't the one risking your livelihood on these sorts of decisions, they are.  And their business certainly doesn't exist for the purpose of appeasing y'alls PC moral dictates.  So why don't you all butt and mind your own business.

I'm rapidly losing patience with Americans who aren't willing to let their neighbors make their own decisions, run their own businesses, and generally live their lives the way they see fit.  I'm especially bothered by the so-called freedom lovers and libertarians who will preach at me about respecting their freedom, and then turn around and deny other people freedom whenever they feel like it.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

month to month lease?  they are screwed

[Perd Hapley]

month to month lease?  they are screwed

Well, yeah.

The bakers are doing their business on public property, which is ostensibly owned by everyone who pays taxes. Taxpayers, as part owners, have use of this property. Denying them use of it is hurting them.

And denying the bakers the use of the property is hurting them worse. The bakery owners are the actual victims of discrimination in this case. But as I said, that should be obvious.

There was a time when churches preached the divine virtues of slavery and segregation; the Government rightfully opposed that message, even though it was widely shared by many Christians.  There's no reason to analyze Government action to end discrimination against gays any differently.

I have a very good reason to analyze it differently, but that's not really at issue here. What is relevant here is that no "gays" were discriminated against, in this case. The sexual orientation of the customer is irrelevant. Failure to take part in National Coming Out Day is not discrimination. Why must I keep reciting obvious facts?

[BridgeRunner]

Traditionally, professionals have had the right to refuse clients for personal reasons.  Perhaps it is time to recognize that, as participants in an ostensibly classless society, individual Americans have the right to turn down an offer of work. 

I think it's stupid to refuse to make rainbow cookies and I think it's stupid to make a big fuss over someone refusing to make rainbow cookies, but I think that to make it clear that a tenant is being evicted for having turned down a job escalates the stupid far beyond reasonable, everyday instances of stupidity.

Doesn't the City et al have anything better to do?

[MicroBalrog]

I have a question.

Had this been a private landlord, would anybody care why he cut off someone's month-by-month lease, or would it be his personal business?

[lupinus]

I have a question.

Had this been a private landlord, would anybody care why he cut off someone's month-by-month lease, or would it be his personal business?

For the same reason?

I'd call it equally asinine.

[MicroBalrog]

For the same reason?

I'd call it equally asinine.

We're not discussing the wisdom of the decision, are we?

[Perd Hapley]

Had this been a private landlord, would anybody care why he cut off someone's month-by-month lease, or would it be his personal business?

Yes.

What makes this such a giant, flaming absurdity is the notion that anyone who doesn't play along with a left-wing holiday is practicing discrimination, compounded by the actual discrimination of a govt. entity enforcing a bizarre viewpoint (that gay is OK) on people that were just trying to mind their own business, literally, while no one seems to notice that fact that the cookies were being ordered by someone working for/with a public institution using tax dollars to promote something which most taxpayers find absurd and disgusting. And in the middle of a bad economy, to boot.

Silence is no longer an acceptable answer. Avoiding Gay OK Day is not an option. Participate or suffer the consequences.

[Perd Hapley]

Why should I be tolerant of people whose moral views I find abhorrent?

Am I calling for them to be shot, or fined for their beliefs? No, I just refuse to respect those views.

  Tolerance doesn't mean you respect someone's views, it just means you won't shoot or fine them for it.

[MicroBalrog]

  Tolerance doesn't mean you respect someone's views, it just means you won't shoot or fine them for it.

So I am not practicing discrimination by refusing to rent to anti-homosexuals? Just so we're clear.

[Perd Hapley]

So I am not practicing discrimination by refusing to rent to anti-homosexuals? Just so we're clear.

No. Who said you were?

Let me qualify that. I'm using the legal sense of both terms. Legally, ideally, there should be no problem with refusing to rent to anyone for any reason. It's discrimination, but as a private citizen you have that right. Discrimination laws should limit governments, not individuals.

[roo_ster]

What is relevant here is that no "gays" were discriminated against, in this case. The sexual orientation of the customer is irrelevant. Failure to take part in National Coming Out Day is not discrimination. Why must I keep reciting obvious facts?

I think I can help...vvv

[MicroBalrog]

No. Who said you were?

Let me qualify that. I'm using the legal sense of both terms. Legally, ideally, there should be no problem with refusing to rent to anyone for any reason. It's discrimination, but as a private citizen you have that right. Discrimination laws should limit governments, not individuals.

What I am saying is that we have acceptable ways in which we can practice our intolerance of each other.

[Ron]

What I am saying is that we have acceptable ways in which we can practice our intolerance of each other.

So just make the damn cookies and stfu

[Ron]

unless you are OK with the government damaging you economically for not towing the line.

[MicroBalrog]

unless you are OK with the government damaging you economically for not towing the line.

Don't like depending on the government? Stop sucking on the taxpayer's teat.

[Ron]

Don't like depending on the government? Stop sucking on the taxpayer's teat.

They weren't paying rent with a lease?

[Perd Hapley]

What I am saying is that we have acceptable ways in which we can practice our intolerance of each other.

Yes we do. What happened to these bakers is not one of those acceptable ways.

Don't like depending on the government? Stop sucking on the taxpayer's teat.

Funny, but the bakers seem like the only characters in this narrative that AREN'T subsisting on tax money. Those who ordered the cookies work for a public university. The people kicking them out of their store are city government. I could be missing something, but the bakers are working in the private sector, and paying both rent AND taxes to the govt. So I'm not clear on how they're sucking the govt. teat. Then again, I'm no expert on these arrangements.

[MicroBalrog]

As far as I understand, what we have here is some kind of arrangement where the local government built a complex and rented locations to stores to 'encourage local business' or some such sillyness.

Governments shouldn't be either encouraging or discouraging local business.

[lupinus]

As far as I understand, what we have here is some kind of arrangement where the local government built a complex and rented locations to stores to 'encourage local business' or some such sillyness.

Governments shouldn't be either encouraging or discouraging local business.

How is that relevant?

The issue here is the government discriminating against the shop owner for not towing it's political agenda.

[MicroBalrog]

How is that relevant?

The issue here is the government discriminating against the shop owner for not towing it's political agenda.

Yes, and?

This is not different from Eisenhower refusing to provide contracts to companies that practiced racial discrimination. There no laws against private discrimination at the time, so all that private discrimination was was a political agenda.

It's not a right to rent land from the government at good conditions.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

It's not a right to rent land from the government at good conditions.

Government doesn't get to pick and choose who it rents to on the basis of their religious convictions. 

[De Selby]

Government doesn't get to pick and choose who it rents to on the basis of their religious convictions.  

I wonder if everyone on this thread who now champions free speech was of the same opinion when it came to zoning laws that apply to the ground zero mosque?  Wait a second -

http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=25678.msg499419#msg499419

You mean, like, with zoning laws where they will make churches pay hundreds of thousands of dollars just for a plan before allowing them to expand?

That's already the case. The government is already telling people what they can do with their land. How is this any different?

http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=25678.msg499553#msg499553

As relates to the mosque, the issue should have ended at the zoning board (i.e. zoning for the mosque should have been denied), but when it came time for the mayor to make that phone call, he sided in favor of the mosque instead of in favor of his city.  Sadly, Bloomy doesn't have the same fortitude of his predecessor.

I guess some people's level of support for Government neutrality depends on the religion at issue? Because these would seem to be statements that in principle jive exactly with what Micro is saying, and perhaps go further.  

Edit:  Actually, these statements do not accord with Micro's position here - his is more about the Government as a market participant, which is something fundamentally different to legislating the Government's views.

My question is: How can mak and headless think it's okay for the Government to pass zoning laws that prohibit a group from doing something there on the basis that those religious beliefs are offensive to Americans, yet fail to support the more measured Government action of simply refusing to do business on the basis of religious beliefs in a market transaction?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

So, in NYC a mosque development is singled out for special support from the city, support that non-Muslims would never have received.  

And in Indy, a Christian bakery business is singled out for special grief from the city because of their religious convictions, grief that never would have befallen a non-Christian business.

In both instances I point out that I don't think religion shouldn't be a factor in a city's decision process.  This makes me a hypocrite in shootinstudent's eyes.  Go figure.

My question is: How can mak and headless think it's okay for the Government to pass zoning laws that prohibit a group from doing something there on the basis that those religious beliefs are offensive to Americans, yet fail to support the more measured Government action of simply refusing to do business on the basis of religious beliefs in a market transaction?

I don't.  Either you've completely misunderstood my position in the NYC mosque thread, or you're deliberately misrepresenting that position now.  I suspect the latter.

EDIT: I don't want to speak for mak, but it's pretty clear you're "misunderstanding" him, too.

[MechAg94]

I agree.  I believe mak was arguing for equal treatment of all religions by the zoning board and the govt in general.  He wasn't trying to argue in favor or against the idea of zoning.