Black Women Send Letter to Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi in Support of Maxine Waters

@CoastalRat,

CoastalRat wrote:

]As far as I can tell, Ms. Sanders was not behaving badly.

she was asked to leave because her actions/behaviour in her job made the employees uncomfortable

behaviour is not a protected status. sexual orientation (still) is.

1 Reply

@CoastalRat,

CoastalRat wrote:

because the action they wanted to undertake (getting married) was inherently disagreeable to the baker.

getting married was not the problem

getting married to a same-sex partner was the problem for that baker

__

it's a truly horrible case. thank goodness the decision on it was so very carefully worded that it can't be a precedent

1 Reply

@maporsche,

I won't argue that with you. Not at all.

The gay couple were denied service not because they were gay, but because there intended action was objectionable to the baker. I understand you (and others) do not see it this way and will refuse to even consider the two cases are fundamentally the same. That's fine. I didn't jump in here to try to change anyone's mind. In fact, the point of my post was not to argue this particular case.

Somehow the point of my post was either missed or being ignored and an example I used (one of several to illustrate my point) is being argued rather than the point itself. Or maybe I just didn't properly make my point in a comprehensible way. I make that mistake sometimes.

3 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

getting married to a same-sex partner was the problem for that baker

I agree. Definitely. But again, and please understand my point is very specific in this case. They were not denied service for being gay. The baker only refused to make a wedding cake since the wedding would be an action that he believed was objectionable. Now, had he refused to make a birthday cake for them, you and I would be on the exact same side here.

If Ms. Sanders' actions can allow someone to refuse to serve her, then the actions of anyone (or intended actions) can be used to refuse service.

1 Reply

@CoastalRat,

CoastalRat wrote:

will refuse to even consider the two cases are fundamentally the same.

that's because they are not the same

Using your reasoning, these two situations are the same:

John was put into detention because he had red hair.

Jeff was put into detention because he swore at the teacher.

0 Replies

@CoastalRat,

I think ehBeth pointed out that the baker didn't have a problem making a wedding cake...they had a problem making a gay wedding cake.

Getting married was the action.
WHO was getting married is the objection.

I don't think you'd be ok with the baker refusing to bake a cake for a mixed-race couple getting married. Or refusing to bake a cake for a Muslim wedding.

The baker had no problem making wedding cakes.
The baker had a problem with the couple because of what they are (gay).

0 Replies

@CoastalRat,

Not even close to being the same. Ms. Huckabee-Sanders chose her actions. The couple did not choose to be gay.

Maybe being a Huckabee did give her a genetic disadvantage. It is still not a protected status.

1 Reply

@CoastalRat,

Would you have a problem with a Jehovah's Witness doctor refusing to give a blood transfusion to someone?

The doctor could perform many different functions for that person, but not a blood transfusion.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Quote:

made the employees uncomfortable

So now a person can be refused service because a person's actions make employees uncomfortable? Ok. Maybe the gay couple's "action" of planning a wedding made the baker uncomfortable. Then would you agree he had a right to refuse to make the cake?

If anyone working for me claimed they were uncomfortable taking care of a customer and wanted me to do something about it, I would politely show my employee the door and tell them to pick up their final check in the morning. But that's me. Being "uncomfortable" is a bunch of bull.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

The cake maker and the restaurant owner were both out of line and had no right to single those people out for discrimination.

Naw, Hunnychile, I don't think that's correct. They had every "right." Whether you think it's the right thing to do is another question.

0 Replies

@CoastalRat,

Absolutely correct.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

The couple did not choose to be gay.

Yeah, right, eh? This homosexual says that's a lie.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

Quote:

Would you have a problem with a Jehovah's Witness doctor refusing to give a blood transfusion to someone?

No, I would not. Lots of other doctors can do what he is refusing to do.

1 Reply

@CoastalRat,

CoastalRat wrote:

Quote:
Would you have a problem with a Jehovah's Witness doctor refusing to give a blood transfusion to someone?
No, I would not. Lots of other doctors can do what he is refusing to do.

I grew up in a town of about 150 people. How many doctors do you think worked there (hint, just one except on some holidays)? Blood transfusions are usually a pretty big deal too; not a lot of leeway in timing or waiting for the doctor from 70 miles away to show up.

Interesting take. I disagree.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

IF blood transfusions are a big deal (I don't know if they are or are not. My guess is they are) then I seriously doubt that a doctor would even attempt to do one outside a hospital setting so your small town doctor would have had a person taken elsewhere anyway. But, if someone in that small town does need one, then I guess they should hope that the doctor is not a JW and refuses to do it.

2 Replies

@CoastalRat,

CoastalRat wrote:

IF blood transfusions are a big deal (I don't know if they are or are not. My guess is they are) then I seriously doubt that a doctor would even attempt to do one outside a hospital setting so your small town doctor would have had a person taken elsewhere anyway. But, if someone in that small town does need one, then I guess they should hope that the doctor is not a JW and refuses to do it.

There a big deal for the patient, not for the doctor.

Nurses can begin transfusions (with a doctor's order; piece of information, I'm a trained nurse).

They don't require a hospital setting.

0 Replies

@CoastalRat,

Ever heard of events? In cases of major incidents all available medical staff are called in. There may not be enough doctors around to pick and choose, and refusing to do blood transfusions can lead to fatalities.

My local supermarket employs a Muslim gentleman on the check out. He may not like handling pork, picking it up by the corner and quickly scanning it, but he does because that's his bloody job.

If you can't do a job without discriminating you're not fit for the job. If you're going to make wedding cakes, make sure you're prepared to make them for all who get legally married. If not do something else.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

Oh good heavens, I don't even know if a JW doctor would ever refuse to do a transfusion! This is a scenario brought up by Ma to, in my opinion, trip me up by having to go against what I have been supposedly arguing.

For the very last time, I believe that anyone who carries an opinion that one of the two cases I mentioned is perfectly acceptable and the other case is not acceptable is being hypocritical. Heck, I didn't even mention which way I lean on the matter, although I'm guessing at some point in the back and forth most can guess my view. But, my view is consistent and I believe that you cannot maintain the one is good one is not view without being a hypocrite.

I get that you (and others) will see it differently. That is fine. I've got no problem with those who see it differently. But this whole back and forth helps make the point I was trying to make with my first post in this thread.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

If you can't do a job without discriminating you're not fit for the job.

And, if you own a dining establishment and cannot serve people without discriminating, then you are not fit for the job.

Now if my statement above reflects your belief, then congrats. I don't consider you a hypocrite. If not, then I guess in my book you are one. Big deal. You probably think I am. If you ever get to Charleston SC I'm sure we could sit down and have a drink and discuss our different opinions without coming to blows. I'll even buy the first round.

3 Replies

@CoastalRat,

CoastalRat wrote:

I get that you (and others) will see it differently. That is fine. I've got no problem with those who see it differently. But this whole back and forth helps make the point I was trying to make with my first post in this thread.

But see CoastalRat, you say this last paragraph and it makes you sound reasonable like "hey we can all have different opinions and that's ok" but just one sentence before you say this you call everyone who doesn't agree with your take on the matter, a hypocrite (this is considered offensive to most, in case that's unclear).

I hope you can see why that may cause people to get a bit defensive...

ETA: the JW blood transfusion question wasn't done to trip you up. It was done to help you see how others view the effect that religious beliefs can have an effect on other areas in life that may not be as "charged" as gay weddings are.

1 Reply

Black Women Send Letter to Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi in Support of Maxine Waters

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know