Baker paid damages award

that wasnt the story I read, but this is more of the better article

WAY TO GO QUEBEC...
MAYOR REFUSES TO REMOVE PORK FROM SCHOOL CANTEEN- MENU... EXPLAINS WHY





Muslim parents demanded the abolition of pork in all the school canteens of a Montreal suburb.

The mayor of the Montreal suburb of Dorval,has refused, and the town clerk sent a note to all parents to explain why...

“Muslims must understand that they have to adapt to Canada and Quebec, its customs, its traditions, its way of life, because that's where they chose to immigrate.

“They must understand that they have to integrate and learn to live in Quebec.

“They must understand that it is for them to change their lifestyle, not the Canadians who so generously welcomed them.

“They must understand that Canadians are neither racist nor xenophobic, they accepted many immigrants before Muslims (whereas the reverse is not true, in that Muslim states do not accept non-Muslim immigrants).

“That no more than other nations, Canadians are not willing to give up their identity, their culture.

“And if Canada is a land of welcome, it's not the Mayor of Dorval who welcomes foreigners, but the Canadian-Quebecois people as a whole.

“Finally, they must understand that in Canada (Quebec) with its Judeo-Christian roots, Christmas trees, churches and religious festivals, religion must remain in the private domain.

The municipality of Dorval was right to refuse any concessions to Islam and Sharia.

“For Muslims who disagree with secularism and do not feel comfortable in Canada, there are 57 beautiful Muslim countries in the world, most of them under-populated and ready to receive them with open halal arms in accordance with Shariah.

“If you left your country for Canada, and not for other Muslim countries, it is because you have considered that life is better in Canada than elsewhere.

“Ask yourself the question, just once, “Why is it better here in Canada than where you come from?”
I live in university housing with mostly Muslim students and they can't eat food from cafeteria and for me, I have medical condition that I can't eat at cafeteria. I cooked and baked pork and ham and they don't bother me at all, they respect my boundary.

The pork products are against Islam, same goes with Judaism and they ask for special diet, not eliminate the pork for everyone. I don't share my food with them. Hindi cannot eat beef, anyway.

Nevertheless, I loved the content/response given by the mayor of Quebec....there are a number of places in this world where, at minimum, a similar response and follow-through needs to happen!
 
OK, for example, if I was a KKK member owning a bakery, when I see black people coming in, I kick them out because I have a 1st Amendment right. "I don't like black people so I have rights not to serve them." ? It is not working. Anti-discrimination laws beat a 1st Amendment right. Once you run a business, follow business laws by your state. In other words, the Christian bakers didn't follow the Oregon law so they have to pay for damages.
That's not an accurate comparison.

The Christian bakery didn't kick out the gay customers. They only refused to participate in the wedding cake order. They weren't refusing all services, just that one.

Remember a CEO of Chick-fil-A announced that he doesn't support gay marriages and yet married gay people can still order food there due to the law protecting all kind of people.
It had nothing to do with the law. Chick-fil-A never refused service to anyone, and no one had to sue them for service. The law wasn't involved. It was the gay community that wanted people to boycott the restaurant.
 
OK, for example, if I was a KKK member owning a bakery, when I see black people coming in, I kick them out because I have a 1st Amendment right. "I don't like black people so I have rights not to serve them." ? It is not working. Anti-discrimination laws beat a 1st Amendment right. Once you run a business, follow business laws by your state. In other words, the Christian bakers didn't follow the Oregon law so they have to pay for damages.

Remember a CEO of Chick-fil-A announced that he doesn't support gay marriages and yet married gay people can still order food there due to the law protecting all kind of people.

US Constitution trumps anti-discrimination laws.

The federal government doesn't have anti-discrimination laws that cover on LGBT so it is up to states or locals.
 
That's not an accurate comparison.

The Christian bakery didn't kick out the gay customers. They only refused to participate in the wedding cake order. They weren't refusing all services, just that one.


It had nothing to do with the law. Chick-fil-A never refused service to anyone, and no one had to sue them for service. The law wasn't involved. It was the gay community that wanted people to boycott the restaurant.
You are 100% right that it's not comparable. Thanks for the correction AGAIN.
 
Last edited:
US Constitution trumps anti-discrimination laws.

The federal government doesn't have anti-discrimination laws that cover on LGBT so it is up to states or locals.
What about EEO?

http://www.eeoc.gov/

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/wysk/enforcement_protections_lgbt_workers.cfm

Therefore, the federal government has anti-discrimination laws.

As for business laws, it's up to a state. Oregon doesn't allow discrimination in businesses (between a business and a customer) regardless of business owner(s)' religion.
 
Last edited:
What about EEO?

http://www.eeoc.gov/

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/wysk/enforcement_protections_lgbt_workers.cfm

Therefore, the federal government has anti-discrimination laws.

As for business laws, it's up to a state. Oregon doesn't allow discrimination in businesses (between a business and a customer) regardless of business owner(s)' religion.

You don't understand about civic history.

US Constitution trumps all written laws so it is up to highest court to make decision so they could strike anti-discrimination laws down if conflict with First Amendment so EEOC isn't matter - they can't survive without uphold the anti-discrimination laws via constitution test.
 
Are you serious? Anti-discrimination laws mean nothing due to US Constitution? LOL
 
Back
Top