When does personal belief get to be practiced and when not?

[tallguy]

Dec 31, 2015 2:09:32 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Dec 30, 2015 14:50:28 GMT -5 Opti said:

The business owner in the bakery case put court docs up on FB that had the former customer's address on it.

The former customers got harassed because the business owner did that. It wasn't just the cake.

You mean the cake people publicly made a stink about the lesbian couple in retaliation for them making a stink about them not making a cake? So they "got even"

No. From the other thread:

But when that complaint was filed, a copy was emailed to the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, whereupon they posted the complaint to their Facebook page. The contents of that complaint are the rub.

The names, home address, and email address of the plaintiffs were in that post.

The Bowman-Cryer couple received death threats as a result of that post. The foster children they were trying to adopt were at risk of being taken away from them because the state adoption agency told them they were responsible for keeping the threats at bay and their confidential information out of the hands of those who might endanger the children.

Death threats and the possibility of losing (BECAUSE OF those threats) the foster children they were trying to adopt goes far beyond any concept of "getting even."  The couple filed a discrimination complaint.  It most likely would have been dismissed had the bakery agreed not to discriminate in the future.  For that the women should receive death threats?  They should lose their children?  I don't think so. 

Actual justice in this case would have been for Aaron Klein (who I believe made the Facebook post detailing the names and addresses) to face criminal charges for something along the lines of reckless misconduct, and for the judge to vacate the original damages and institute an amount at least equal to the funds raised from donors.  The bakers should not be allowed to profit from what is essentially criminal behavior.  And again, so little of this is about the cake.  Any concentration on the cake just trivializes the actual damage.

[zibazinski]

Kind of like the McDonalds coffee story

[djAdvocate]

Dec 31, 2015 7:32:46 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Kind of like the McDonalds coffee story

you mean this one?

Burn incident

On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant located at 5001 Gibson Boulevard Southeast. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her grandson's 1989 Ford Probe, which did not have cup holders, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[9] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[10]

Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[11] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her to 83 pounds (38 kg). After the hospital stay, Liebeck needed care for 3 weeks, provided by her daughter.[12] Liebeck suffered permanent disfigurement after the incident and was partially disabled for two years.[13][14]
Pre-trial

Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her past medical expenses were $10,500; her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500; and her daughter's[12] loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately $18,000.[15] Instead, the company offered only $800. When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, Liebeck retained Texas attorney Reed Morgan.

so, woman burns the shit out of herself, asks for money to pay for it, is refused, then sues.

not exactly how the media played it, was it?

[djAdvocate]

Dec 31, 2015 2:09:32 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Dec 30, 2015 14:50:28 GMT -5 Opti said:

The business owner in the bakery case put court docs up on FB that had the former customer's address on it.

The former customers got harassed because the business owner did that. It wasn't just the cake.

You mean the cake people publicly made a stink about the lesbian couple in retaliation for them making a stink about them not making a cake? So they "got even"

precisely.  and the cost of that was $144,000.  good to keep in mind before you take the law into your own hands.

[Deleted]

More than that dj... McDonald's had been cited previously for keeping their coffee dangerously hot, about 200% hotter than industry standards I believe? It's been awhile since o read up on it. 

But i I do think zib was saying this was similar in that people aren't actually maybe talking about the real facts of the case...

[Green Eyed Lady]

I think people are talking about some personal responsibility here - cause and effect. A cup of coffee, at industry standard temperature, if held between your legs and spilled, is going to burn you.  Would it burn you as seriously as this woman was burned?  I don't know that for sure, but I doubt it. Hot is going to burn you. Hotter is going to burn you more seriously.

I don't think people are saying that McDonald's shouldn't have been penalized for ignoring industry standards. At least I'm not. I think they should have paid half - the other half was her responsibility for making a really careless decision.

The same goes for this couple. They decided to take this case to the world. Not the baker. While I think it was simply retaliation in posting their address and other information, that was bound to come out sooner or later. The death threats were the fault of the person/persons making the threats. The possible removal of the children came from the foster care agency. Was it all a result of the posted information? Probably. Did the posted information stem from them taking this case to the world? Yes.

The baker also received consequences for the refusal to serve these ladies.  That was the fault of the baker.  Not anybody else - just the baker.  They made a decision and there were consequences for it.

Personal responsibility is important to me.  People make decisions and there are always consequences. They aren't always good ones. I'm not blaming the couple because if I felt I were discriminated against, I would probably do the same thing. I would do so knowing there will be consequences - possibly both good and bad. 

Some people just suck.  There is absolutely no reason to believe that some people aren't going to suck when it's personal.  You have to be incredibly naïve or just a plain dumbass not to know that.  Do what you think is right - knowing all the while that some people aren't going to agree with you and are going to be mean about it.  It's a fact of life and you don't get to be all surprised when it happens.  Hurt and angry?  Absolutely.  But you don't get to be surprised.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 31, 2015 12:28:29 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

I think people are talking about some personal responsibility here - cause and effect. A cup of coffee, at industry standard temperature, if held between your legs and spilled, is going to burn you.  Would it burn you as seriously as this woman was burned?  I don't know that for sure, but I doubt it. Hot is going to burn you. Hotter is going to burn you more seriously.

I don't think people are saying that McDonald's shouldn't have been penalized for ignoring industry standards. At least I'm not. I think they should have paid half - the other half was her responsibility for making a really careless decision.

The same goes for this couple. They decided to take this case to the world. Not the baker. While I think it was simply retaliation in posting their address and other information, that was bound to come out sooner or later. The death threats were the fault of the person/persons making the threats. The possible removal of the children came from the foster care agency. Was it all a result of the posted information? Probably. Did the posted information stem from them taking this case to the world? Yes.

The baker also received consequences for the refusal to serve these ladies.  That was the fault of the baker.  Not anybody else - just the baker.  They made a decision and there were consequences for it.

Personal responsibility is important to me.  People make decisions and there are always consequences. They aren't always good ones. I'm not blaming the couple because if I felt I were discriminated against, I would probably do the same thing. I would do so knowing there will be consequences - possibly both good and bad. 

Some people just suck.  There is absolutely no reason to believe that some people aren't going to suck when it's personal.  You have to be incredibly naïve or just a plain dumbass not to know that.  Do what you think is right - knowing all the while that some people aren't going to agree with you and are going to be mean about it.  It's a fact of life and you don't get to be all surprised when it happens.  Hurt and angry?  Absolutely.  But you don't get to be surprised.

i have spilled coffee lots of times.  it didn't require skin grafts.

do you believe in corporate responsibility, or is it all on the "person"?

[Green Eyed Lady]

I thought I addressed both those points in my post. Perhaps not. I'll have to go back and re-read what I wrote. It's been a long day.

[Chocolate Lover]

You leaned very heavy on it all being on the person. It's not unreasonable to assume hot coffee won't cause 3rd degree burns and it's not unreasonable to expect the notification of a complaint you filed against someone to remain private and off Facebook. 

[Green Eyed Lady]

I don't know how 50/50 is "leaving very heavy", but yes. I think it should have been 50/50 and said so.   And no. It is not reasonable whatsoever in this day and age to think anything is private. You can hope, but you'll be disappointed. I am, however, feeling quite cynical today and I might not feel the same way tomorrow.

[Chocolate Lover]

You SAID 50/50 but the bulk of your post was clearly in favor of the person taking responsibility for their part but had very little to say about the businesses in question.


It is very much within reason to expect both things I mentioned.  "Filing a complaint" does not automatically make ANYONE think "all my contact info will be on Facebook in return".

[zibazinski]

Anyone ever drink Starbucks tea? You need to add ice to be able to drink it the same day.

[ArchietheDragon]

Dec 31, 2015 13:01:45 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Anyone ever drink Starbucks tea? You need to add ice to be able to drink it the same day.

someone should sue their ass

[zibazinski]

I imagine the people who buy it, like me, realize it's hotter than hades, and deal with it.

[ArchietheDragon]

Dec 31, 2015 13:03:47 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

I imagine the people who buy it, like me, realize it's hotter than hades, and deal with it.

you know you can make tea for like, 2 cents and the water will be perfect. 

[zibazinski]

Yup, but sometimes you're out with Starbucks fanatics and since I don't drink coffee, I deal with it.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Dec 31, 2015 12:55:35 GMT -5 Chocolate Lover said:

You SAID 50/50 but the bulk of your post was clearly in favor of the person taking responsibility for their part but had very little to say about the businesses in question.


It is very much within reason to expect both things I mentioned.  "Filing a complaint" does not automatically make ANYONE think "all my contact info will be on Facebook in return".

So....I SAID 50/50 but I didn't mean it? 

Ah well...we don't agree on what is reasonable to expect in this day and age and we obviously won't.  I hope you are right and I am wrong.

[dondub]

You mean the cake people publicly made a stink about the lesbian couple in retaliation for them making a stink about them not making a cake? So they "got even"





They forgot to turn the other cheek.

[imawino]

Dec 30, 2015 13:32:04 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Dec 30, 2015 8:49:48 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

So what constitutes "harm to non-consenting others?" What about the case of the transgender person being able to use or not use the same facilities (i.e. showers, etc) as the gender they identify with? People want to talk about the religious aspect of one of the examples I used, but this isn't the right board for that; just pointing out two cases where the beliefs of one are considered to be protected and the beliefs of the other are not considered protected to practice. 

harm is defined by law.  anything that is not deemed "harm" is dismissed by the courts.

i really don't get what is so complicated about any of this.

That! 

[Chocolate Lover]

Dec 31, 2015 13:15:32 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Dec 31, 2015 12:55:35 GMT -5 Chocolate Lover said:

You SAID 50/50 but the bulk of your post was clearly in favor of the person taking responsibility for their part but had very little to say about the businesses in question.


It is very much within reason to expect both things I mentioned.  "Filing a complaint" does not automatically make ANYONE think "all my contact info will be on Facebook in return".

So....I SAID 50/50 but I didn't mean it? 

Ah well...we don't agree on what is reasonable to expect in this day and age and we obviously won't.  I hope you are right and I am wrong.

You SAID 50/50 but the text following didn't support that. Is that more clear? 

Yeah, I still expect things that should be expected. Hot coffee to be hot, but not hot enough to remove my skin down past the nerve endings (3rd degree burns). People who own businesses to not act like children and post private information on social media. Shocking I know, but there you are.

[imawino]

Dec 31, 2015 12:28:29 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

I think people are talking about some personal responsibility here - cause and effect. A cup of coffee, at industry standard temperature, if held between your legs and spilled, is going to burn you.  Would it burn you as seriously as this woman was burned?  I don't know that for sure, but I doubt it. Hot is going to burn you. Hotter is going to burn you more seriously.

I don't think people are saying that McDonald's shouldn't have been penalized for ignoring industry standards. At least I'm not. I think they should have paid half - the other half was her responsibility for making a really careless decision.

The same goes for this couple. They decided to take this case to the world. Not the baker. While I think it was simply retaliation in posting their address and other information, that was bound to come out sooner or later. The death threats were the fault of the person/persons making the threats. The possible removal of the children came from the foster care agency. Was it all a result of the posted information? Probably. Did the posted information stem from them taking this case to the world? Yes.

The baker also received consequences for the refusal to serve these ladies.  That was the fault of the baker.  Not anybody else - just the baker.  They made a decision and there were consequences for it.

Personal responsibility is important to me.  People make decisions and there are always consequences. They aren't always good ones. I'm not blaming the couple because if I felt I were discriminated against, I would probably do the same thing. I would do so knowing there will be consequences - possibly both good and bad. 

Some people just suck.  There is absolutely no reason to believe that some people aren't going to suck when it's personal.  You have to be incredibly naïve or just a plain dumbass not to know that.  Do what you think is right - knowing all the while that some people aren't going to agree with you and are going to be mean about it.  It's a fact of life and you don't get to be all surprised when it happens.  Hurt and angry?  Absolutely.  But you don't get to be surprised.

It wouldn't have been a really careless decision had the business not served it dangerously hot.

And filing a complaint is not "taking a case to the world".  It is expecting business to be held to legal standards.  I don't get what you are saying here - should people actually be made to fear trying to get businesses to adhere to the law?  You should expect that if you ask to be treated legally that you will be retaliated against?  That's your definition of "personal responsibility"?

[djAdvocate]

Dec 31, 2015 12:44:45 GMT -5 Chocolate Lover said:

You leaned very heavy on it all being on the person. It's not unreasonable to assume hot coffee won't cause 3rd degree burns and it's not unreasonable to expect the notification of a complaint you filed against someone to remain private and off Facebook. 

here is what shaped my thinking on this.

this woman asked for $20k.  if they had countered with $15k rather than $800, this would never have hit the papers.

instead, they got sued for $2.7M.

i really think that businesses need to think things through before they add insult to injury.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Dec 29, 2015 18:32:54 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Here's what I read:

A customer comes into a bakery and wants a cake with a hateful message.  Baker refuses - Since the baker has a right to freedom of expression, no one's rights have been violated.

A customer comes into a bakery and wants a cake for a (gay) wedding.  Baker refuses because he/she doesn't "believe" in gay marriage - not OK because there's no violation of the baker's right to freedom of expression.

The baker owns his bakery, and owns his skill set, labor, and time and may refuse service to anyone for any reason, or no reason at all. Period.  We settled the argument over the right to put someone to forced labor in the 1860's.  I'm not saying government will not deprive a person of life, liberty, or property for their refusal, I am saying such action is illegitimate. Putting a gun to someone's head and ordering them to do something they find objectionable is so far outside the scope of legitimate government that anyone that doesn't understand this is precisely what's wrong with this country, and it is why we will not remain a free and open society for much longer.

[Deleted]

Dec 31, 2015 22:21:17 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Dec 29, 2015 18:32:54 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Here's what I read:

A customer comes into a bakery and wants a cake with a hateful message.  Baker refuses - Since the baker has a right to freedom of expression, no one's rights have been violated.

A customer comes into a bakery and wants a cake for a (gay) wedding.  Baker refuses because he/she doesn't "believe" in gay marriage - not OK because there's no violation of the baker's right to freedom of expression.

The baker owns his bakery, and owns his skill set, labor, and time and may refuse service to anyone for any reason, or no reason at all. Period.  We settled the argument over the right to put someone to forced labor in the 1860's.  I'm not saying government will not deprive a person of life, liberty, or property for their refusal, I am saying such action is illegitimate. Putting a gun to someone's head and ordering them to do something they find objectionable is so far outside the scope of legitimate government that anyone that doesn't understand this is precisely what's wrong with this country, and it is why we will not remain a free and open society for much longer.

Being required to provide the services that you advertise and willingly provide, equally to all without discrimination is NOT "forced labor". At any time bakeries are free to stop selling wedding cakes. There's no "forced labor" in requiring them to do what they say they do.

If you don't want to bake wedding cakes... don't bake wedding cakes. Pretty simple.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Dec 31, 2015 22:51:49 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Dec 31, 2015 22:21:17 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The baker owns his bakery, and owns his skill set, labor, and time and may refuse service to anyone for any reason, or no reason at all. Period.  We settled the argument over the right to put someone to forced labor in the 1860's.  I'm not saying government will not deprive a person of life, liberty, or property for their refusal, I am saying such action is illegitimate. Putting a gun to someone's head and ordering them to do something they find objectionable is so far outside the scope of legitimate government that anyone that doesn't understand this is precisely what's wrong with this country, and it is why we will not remain a free and open society for much longer.

Being required to provide the services that you advertise and willingly provide, equally to all without discrimination is NOT "forced labor". At any time bakeries are free to stop selling wedding cakes. There's no "forced labor" in requiring them to do what they say they do.

If you don't want to bake wedding cakes... don't bake wedding cakes. Pretty simple.

You're entitled to your opinion, but you're wrong.  What is very simple is that, as I said, if you own a business you may refuse service to anyone for any reason, or no reason at all.  If people like you continue to get your way, the only place a person will be able to "practice" their religion is (maybe) in a bedroom closet.  The aim of the homosexual activists is to criminalize Christianity because they cannot manage to agree to disagree with people whose deeply held religious belief is that homosexual behavior is a sin against God, and that they cannot participate in gay marriage because it desecrates a sacrament of their religion. The First Amendment prohibits interference by government with the FREE EXERCISE of their religion. Period.  There's no real debate-- we just have arrived at a point where the Constitution is not under attack- it is simply ignored, and may as well not exist.  We will either get our servants back under control, and clean house or we will continue to live under tyranny- tolerable though it may be for most, for now.  It will not always be tolerable, but by the time it's full blown hard tyranny- there'll be nothing any of us can do about it.

[Deleted]

Right, you can refuse service to blacks, women, ... anyone you want... 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

We have three branches of government. Only the Congress may legislate. So, the fact that we live by Supreme Court "rulings" is purely voluntary. We have the right to simply ignore the illegitimate acts of the court.  Where Congress is concerned- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.  If the free exercise of one's religion means you have to get a cake elsewhere- you have no "case", no argument, and the government has no legitimate power to force anyone to do anything that violates the free exercise of another's religion.  If the government is successful in criminalizing a religion- Christianity- then no one will be safe.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Dec 31, 2015 23:10:14 GMT -5 oped said:

Right, you can refuse service to blacks, women, ... anyone you want... 

I don't advocate it- but yes, I believe you can.  I don't buy into "public accommodation" one little bit. Property is sacred.  Anyone a person might freely refuse to invite into their living room, they may refuse to invite into their business. I have never bought into the idea that a person has a "right" to be served by another person- as I said, I thought we put that to bed in the 1860's.  

I'm perfectly comfortable with this, in spite of the fact that I personally find it morally objectionable, because I am supremely confident that purely voluntary associations can solve the problem better than violence- which you advocate.

[Deleted]

You can 'believe' you can... And take the legal consequences if you do, cause it's not legal, no matter what you believe. 

Yes, I advocate violence 

[Tennesseer]

Dec 31, 2015 23:04:35 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Dec 31, 2015 22:51:49 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Being required to provide the services that you advertise and willingly provide, equally to all without discrimination is NOT "forced labor". At any time bakeries are free to stop selling wedding cakes. There's no "forced labor" in requiring them to do what they say they do.

If you don't want to bake wedding cakes... don't bake wedding cakes. Pretty simple.

You're entitled to your opinion, but you're wrong.  What is very simple is that, as I said, if you own a business you may refuse service to anyone for any reason, or no reason at all.  If people like you continue to get your way, the only place a person will be able to "practice" their religion is (maybe) in a bedroom closet.  The aim of the homosexual activists is to criminalize Christianity because they cannot manage to agree to disagree with people whose deeply held religious belief is that homosexual behavior is a sin against God, and that they cannot participate in gay marriage because it desecrates a sacrament of their religion. The First Amendment prohibits interference by government with the FREE EXERCISE of their religion. Period.  There's no real debate-- we just have arrived at a point where the Constitution is not under attack- it is simply ignored, and may as well not exist.  We will either get our servants back under control, and clean house or we will continue to live under tyranny- tolerable though it may be for most, for now.  It will not always be tolerable, but by the time it's full blown hard tyranny- there'll be nothing any of us can do about it.

So it all boils down to "...people like you..."