Refuse to make rainbow cookies; get evicted.

[Perd Hapley]

Unless homosexuals are somehow exempt from paying taxes in that town they are hurting them. They are located on property that is city owned, meaning tax dollars are involved, and some of those dollars come from those unwholesome homosexuals. This is really no different than a religious display - do what you want, but do it on your own property.

No, they are not hurting anyone. Declining to participate in National Coming Out Day hurts no one. This seems obvious. If the bakers put up a No Homosexuals Allowed sign, that might be actionable discrimination. When they get called on the carpet for not making rainbow cookies, the bakers become the victims of discrimination. They are being punished because they would not fall in line and parrot the establishment view. Again, obvious.

It's funny that the NCOD organizers could have simply lined up a different baker, but now the bakers must move their entire operation, or just go out of business. Yet the NCOD organizers are the victims?  Explain that.

[MicroBalrog]

Look, it's not that anybody is saying the government decision is reasonable.

But again, once we've accepted that the government subsidizes businesses by running fairs/business centers, we've opened ourselves up to this.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Unless homosexuals are somehow exempt from paying taxes in that town they are hurting them. They are located on property that is city owned, meaning tax dollars are involved, and some of those dollars come from those unwholesome homosexuals. This is really no different than a religious display - do what you want, but do it on your own property.

they are renting from the city  not squatting  if they ran a book store and offered an anti gay book for sale it would be fine

[roo_ster]

The intolerance of the "tolerant" on full display.

Ayup.

[TommyGunn]

Unless homosexuals are somehow exempt from paying taxes in that town they are hurting them. They are located on property that is city owned, meaning tax dollars are involved, and some of those dollars come from those unwholesome homosexuals. This is really no different than a religious display - do what you want, but do it on your own property.

So now a private enterprise is held hostage to the fact that their in a business district and homosexuals pay taxes? 
Don't they own the enterprise?  Or do they just "lease" it by paying taxes?  Because, by that standard, I don't "own" my house because I still have to pay property taxes. 
This is sort of like saying if I send a letter to the editor of a newspaper, they "have to" publish it, because I pay taxes.  They don't "have to" publish it at all. That argument simply would not work.  If I had a right to have it published, thenm so would every other writer .... and name one paper that has enough space to publish every letter it gets .....

[MicroBalrog]

The intolerance of the "tolerant" on full display.

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.

[RoadKingLarry]

I'd like to see the clause inthe lease that tells the bakery that the landlord has control over their customer base and what they will and won't produce.

[White Horseradish]

So now a private enterprise is held hostage to the fact that their in a business district and homosexuals pay taxes? 
Don't they own the enterprise?  Or do they just "lease" it by paying taxes?  Because, by that standard, I don't "own" my house because I still have to pay property taxes. 

They are on city property, not just in a business district. The city owns the building.

This is sort of like saying if I send a letter to the editor of a newspaper, they "have to" publish it, because I pay taxes.  They don't "have to" publish it at all. That argument simply would not work.  If I had a right to have it published, thenm so would every other writer .... and name one paper that has enough space to publish every letter it gets ..... 

If it was a state-owned paper that would be a valid argument.

No, they are not hurting anyone. Declining to participate in National Coming Out Day hurts no one. This seems obvious. If the bakers put up a No Homosexuals Allowed sign, that might be actionable discrimination. When they get called on the carpet for not making rainbow cookies, the bakers become the victims of discrimination. They are being punished because they would not fall in line and parrot the establishment view. Again, obvious.

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.

It's funny that the NCOD organizers could have simply lined up a different baker, but now the bakers must move their entire operation, or just go out of business. Yet the NCOD organizers are the victims?  Explain that.

They did line up a different baker. Didn't you read the article? They also made their displeasure known, as is their right.

[makattak]

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.

And support using the force of government against them.

As well as support using the government to promote your views.

[MicroBalrog]

And support using the force of government against them.

As well as support using the government to promote your views.

How is it 'force' to evict people from state property?

Or rather: if they stayed on state property, then the money of homosexual taxpayers would have been used to support those who find said homosexuals morally abhorrent. That's equally bad as evicting them would be.

This is the inevitable result of using the government to support business: someone gets screwed.

[De Selby]

And support using the force of government against them.

As well as support using the government to promote your views.

This isn't always wrong - for example, Government backed education programs were instrumental in combatting racism.  The .gov does have a legitimate interest in protecting its constituents from discrimination and other unfair treatment.

When the state does business, it's entirely within its bounds to support its constituents by refusing to deal with those who discriminate against them. 

[Ron]

Property rights are are increasingly becoming a convenient fiction in the USA.

How long before any organization that is incorporated or resides in a corporation will be made to tow the line, regardless of religious of philosophical differences with the state?

Your house is in a corporation (county/city), if you hold a mortgage it is owned by a corporation, some of you are running your whole households as part of your corporation I suspect.

[makattak]

This isn't always wrong - for example, Government backed education programs were instrumental in combatting racism.  The .gov does have a legitimate interest in protecting its constituents from discrimination and other unfair treatment.

When the state does business, it's entirely within its bounds to support its constituents by refusing to deal with those who discriminate against them.  

Sweet. So if an atheist bakery refused to put John 3:16 on a cupcake because they didn't want to be seen as supporting evangelism, you'd be alright with them being evicted?

After all, the government does have a legitimate interest in protecting its constituents from discrimination and other unfair treatment.

[Ron]

Sweet. So if an atheist bakery refused to put John 3:16 on a cupcake because they didn't want to be seen as supporting evangelism, you'd be alright with them being evicted?

After all, the government does have a legitimate interest in protecting its constituents from discrimination and other unfair treatment.

Don't be silly, the government has a vested interest in destroying the common (marginally) Christian culture here in the states.

The old, soon to be abandoned common Christian culture (protestant work ethic, historical Judea/Christian ethics etc.), is the only true competitor here in the states against the worshipers of secular state power.  

Anything government can do to weaken the power base of our historic cultural identity is fair game.

[De Selby]

Mak, there is and always has been a difference between the Government promoting religious messages, and promoting civic messages.  
"Do not discriminate on the basis of religion" is a civic message; "John 3:16" is a religious message.  It's fairly simple to tell one from the other.

The equivalent to this is a bakery refusing to put "justice for all" on a cookie, and then losing a city contract as a result.

[Ron]

Mak, there is and always has been a difference between the Government promoting religious messages, and promoting civic messages.  
"Do not discriminate on the basis of religion" is a civic message; "John 3:16" is a religious message.  It's fairly simple to tell one from the other.

The equivalent to this is a bakery refusing to put "justice for all" on a cookie, and then losing a city contract as a result.

Disagreement about what constitutes "justice" will not be tolerated.

[De Selby]

Don't be silly, the government has a vested interest in destroying the common (marginally) Christian culture here in the states.

The old, soon to be abandoned common Christian culture (protestant work ethic, historical Judea/Christian ethics etc.), is the only true competitor here in the states against the worshipers of secular state power.  

A secular political system was engineered into America from the start.  Thanks in part to Thomas Jefferson.

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.

[MicroBalrog]

Property rights are are increasingly becoming a convenient fiction in the USA.

These people didn't own property.

If you rent, it's best not to tee off your landlord.

[Ron]

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.

non sequitor

Christianity in fact was one of the driving forces behind the end of slavery, see "underground railroad".

Secular Russia and China make the old Church of Rome at its worst look like pikers.

We are talking about a place of business who happens to rent from .gov being told who they have to sell to, whether they like it our not.

[Ron]

These people didn't own property.

If you rent, it's best not to tee off your landlord.

The landlord is acting on behalf of me, I don't like how they are representing me and will work to change that.

[makattak]

Mak, there is and always has been a difference between the Government promoting religious messages, and promoting civic messages. 
"Do not discriminate on the basis of religion" is a civic message; "John 3:16" is a religious message.  It's fairly simple to tell one from the other.

The equivalent to this is a bakery refusing to put "justice for all" on a cookie, and then losing a city contract as a result.

Oh, ok. So, "Those stinking Christians are wrong to think homosexuality is a sin" is a civic message while "I believe homosexuality is a sin" is a religious message.

Got it.

[TommyGunn]

They are on city property, not just in a business district. The city owns the building.

But they don't own the business.....

If it was a state-owned paper that would be a valid argument.
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.
They did line up a different baker. Didn't you read the article? They also made their displeasure known, as is their right.

The whole thing stinks of statism no matter how you cut it.  

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

 

Does leasing property work differently where some of you folks live?

Where I'm from, signing a lease on a piece of property makes you the property owner's tenant, not the property owner's bitch.  Unless the you agree upfront in the lease, taking out a lease does not give the landlord any power over the day-to-day operation of your business.

I'd like to see the clause inthe lease that tells the bakery that the landlord has control over their customer base and what they will and won't produce.

This is the prime question that needs to be answered.  Unless it's in the lease, the landlord (city government or not) needs to STFU and let the bakery go about its business.

So, does anyone have the part of the lease that says the city can run the bakery's business?

[MechAg94]

Where I'm from, signing a lease on a piece of property makes you the property owner's tenant, not the property owner's bitch.

 Agreed.

The article did say they were on a month to month lease so they may be able to prevent renewal of the lease.

[TommyGunn]

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?"
And I will also point out that the story indicates they're too busy to do more "special orders."  If they refuse ALL "special orders" this will likely pass muster legally -- atleast in my neck of the woods.