You seem to have strong feelings though about the NFL/Chiefs punishing a player for committing a crime though. This is all about the decisions of a business and how they react to something they find morally incorrect. That is why it's a valid comparison. The NFL, and at least based on the ruling, the baker are legally allowed to do what they've done. The baker can discriminate against gay people and the NFL/Chiefs can legally suspend or fire the player for beating his kids. We all know this to be true.

The issue is that you think the NFL/Chiefs are wrong for acting on a moral issue. Now, I'm slightly confused on what you actually feel about the morality of denying service based on sexual orientation but there are two options but it seems pretty clear that if the NFL/Chiefs are wrong for what they are doing(assuming you think child abuse is bad and I am certain you do) then shouldn't the baker also be wrong for what he did(assuming you think denying service based on sexual orientation is bad) or you think what the baker did was fine(assuming you think denying service based on sexual orientation is good).

The baker has every right to have his opinion. That was never part of the discussion so no reason to say anything more about that question.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

I'm his father so that would be an impossible task

It's not that simple, Rick. I don't have a strong opinion on what the Baker should or should not do, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that there are bakers everywhere who will gladly take their business. But I don't even want to go down that road. If I were the proprietor, I would have baked their cake, but I certainly don't feel bad for them because someone else didn't. Your assertion that someone has to take a strong stance on this either way to determine whether they hate gay people or not is ridiculous. No one one this message boards hates gays except maybe the Hawk.

We were discussing Hill and the Chiefs on this thread. As it began, I was merely agreeing with WfR that firing him certainly doesn't make the kid or the mom any better off. I still believe that. Do I have strong feelings about it? No. I believe wholeheartedly what I said, but I won't think of it again for one second outside of here.

The comparison was a bad one, but if you want to compare the two, it's as simple as this: I believe businesses are free to conduct their business as they see fit, and we are allowed to debate whether we agree with them or not. What we shouldn't do, but what our society has become very fond of, is force them into what they should do. And if you want to say that an NFL player and a factory worker are different, okay, but so is the NFL and a small town Baker. It would be much more reasonable to believe that the government has a place regulating a behemoth company worth hundreds of billions of dollars than a small town Baker (though on these very different issues, neither should be regulated). But you wanted to make it illegal for the Baker to run a business that conforms with his belief system. I could not disagree more with that.

_________________

Wow. Quite a strawman there. I'm actually impressed.

That's nice.


But, your whole point is that legally they can do what they want and we aren't forcing them to do anything.

Yes, I don't believe that you should be able to deny someone service based on their sexual orientation. I don't mean morally. I mean legally. Since the courts at least for now have decided you can deny someone service based on their sexual orientation, I simply hope the business fails. I guess you can root for the NFL to fail but you should also accept their decision.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

That Baker will actually bake the cake....it's the putting the "HAPPY FAG-GOT WEDDING" on it that's the issue.

So, by your own measure, you are the one who is inconsistent here. Got it.

_________________

I'm 100% sure that the Chiefs and the NFL give precisely zero shits about the safety of Tyreek Hill's child and girlfriend.

_________________

I don't believe so. My argument was always that discrimination based on sexual orientation should be ruled as illegal. The courts should have ruled against him. Now, obviously they went the other way and at least until it gets overturned or another case happens(as they eluded to in the decision about it) then I think he should be able to do it and hopefully the free market responds by putting him out of business.

You on the other hand don't think the NFL should be enacting any punishment and instead the legal system should be the only repercussions for his actions.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Are you intentionally misconstruing the difference between shouldn't and not legally allowed to or do you think there's no difference?

_________________

I can't keep on going back and forth on this. I understand it perfectly.

Here is your stance.

NFL/Chiefs: Legally, can suspend/fire/fine Hill based on his child abuse.
Christian Baker: Legally, can deny service based on sexual orientation.

NFL/Chiefs: Morally, shouldn't suspend/fire/fine Hill based on his child abuse based.
Christian Baker: Morally, ________ deny service based on sexual orientation.

In your stance, is the __________ "shouldn't" or "should".

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

I just heard that the criminal probe has been reopened. So the DA's office didn't have the tape either? Curious.

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.

It's not that simple. I would not have, but I don't think it's a big deal that he did. I also wouldn't say that my Chiefs position is a moral one. I just don't think it helps matters in a practical sense. If the Chiefs were really concerned about his family, they would help him get treatment. But they're not really concerned about it, nor would I expect them to be.

_________________

Not really she held it until he threatened to get rid of her. She saw big contract and her getting tossed and said he’ll no. Drops the recording. Now she gets not only dumped by him but he doesn’t get paid either.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

So it was fine if he beat her son if they were a couple. If not then time to go to the police.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

I don’t get the NFL sometimes. The whole point of having some random unexplainable personal conduct policy is so you can easily take care of PR disasters like Tyreek Hill whatever evidence or lack of evidence you have.