• Department of Justice sides with baker who refused to bake LGBT Cake
    198 replies, posted
[QUOTE=_Axel;52663671]Dude, since the beginning I'm arguing against the argument that companies should be able to serve whoever they want based on the sole fact they're private entities. Such a broad statement needs to hold up to scrutiny. This includes what you call "what-ifs" because the argument I'm criticizing is supposed to apply to any situation. That it doesn't yield blatant contradictions in the specific scenario you keep bringing up doesn't mean it's a valid argument. I shouldn't have to spell this out for you.[/QUOTE] I'm bringing up 'what-ifs' because, when you present a conceptual scenario like that, you hold all the variables in your head. You have, in your head, what the 'horrible thing that this company did' is. You have, in your head, how big this company is, as well as it's competitors. You also have, in your head, the reach of each of the aforementioned companies, and the consumer's free will and ability to not consume their product. It gives me no argument to make against you because I cannot know the world you've created. (And going from a locally owned cake shop to an international video sharing website is not a good comparison because the reach of a cake shop is far less than that of a website) Arguing by providing extreme examples for the other person to try and justify is the same thing as saying "You can't disprove me, therefore I'm right." No argument can apply to every situation.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;52663452][url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/in-major-supreme-court-case-justice-dept-sides-with-baker-who-refused-to-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple/2017/09/07/fb84f116-93f0-11e7-89fa-bb822a46da5b_story.html]Washington Post[/url] Shockingly, people are allowed to refuse service for whatever reason they please, and people are allowed to not buy services from said person if they disagree with them.[/QUOTE] um public, non-religious, for profit businesses are probably not allowed to just refuse service to anyone arbitrarily. if this is ruled in that favor then we might as well rip up the civil rights act
if he's denying them service because of who they are and not because of the cake he has to make, fuck off if he's denying them service because of the cake he has to make, sure, whatever
[QUOTE=Gunteen8;52663708]I'm bringing up 'what-ifs' because, when you present a conceptual scenario like that, you hold all the variables in your head. You have, in your head, what the 'horrible thing that this company did' is. You have, in your head, how big this company is, as well as it's competitors. You also have, in your head, the reach of each of the aforementioned companies, and the consumer's free will and ability to not consume their product. It gives me no argument to make against you because I cannot know the world you've created. (And going from a locally owned cake shop to an international video sharing website is not a good comparison because the reach of a cake shop is far less than that of a website) Arguing by providing extreme examples for the other person to try and justify is the same thing as saying "You can't disprove me, therefore I'm right." No argument can apply to every situation.[/QUOTE] If you don't want people to rip on your argument, don't make broad statements like the one JoeSkylynx said. His statement was a general one and thus it is only fair to criticize it by testing it through hypothetical scenarios. Being limited to real-world examples when arguing is ridiculous, one shouldn't have to wait for something bad to happen to be able to say that what lead up to that event was a bad idea. Monopolies that abuse their position are already a thing. Lack of backlash from bad PR already happens. Failed boycotts already happen in more favorable conditions. It isn't a stretch to claim that applying such broad principles as "private companies can serve whoever they want" can lead to abuse.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52663747]If you don't want people to rip on your argument, don't make broad statements like the one JoeSkylynx said. His statement was a general one and thus it is only fair to criticize it by testing it through hypothetical scenarios. Being limited to real-world examples when arguing is ridiculous, one shouldn't have to wait for something bad to happen to be able to say that what lead up to that event was a bad idea. Monopolies that abuse their position are already a thing. Lack of backlash from bad PR already happens. Failed boycotts already happen in more favorable conditions. It isn't a stretch to claim that applying such broad principles as "private companies can serve whoever they want" can lead to abuse.[/QUOTE] I didn't say you couldn't use real-world examples, I said using hypothetical scenarios can be bad because their circumstances are not necessarily nailed down and agreed upon. I know bad PR and failed boycotts exist. If I say "people will boycott", a valid argument is not "but what if they're bad at it?" Yes, and what if Godzilla shows up and eats everyone? It's a moot point because there's no proof as to what would happen either way. What-if statements provide far too many possibilities for me to sit down and try to disprove each one individually. We'd be here for hours. His statement was not just a 'general statement', it was a general statement [I]on the laws of this country[/I]. Legally, they have the right to not serve. Morally, it sucks that they didn't. Legality and Morality are two very different concepts.
[QUOTE=Gunteen8;52663775]I didn't say you couldn't use real-world examples, I said using hypothetical scenarios can be bad because their circumstances are not necessarily nailed down and agreed upon. I know bad PR and failed boycotts exist. If I say "people will boycott", a valid argument is not "but what if they're bad at it?" Yes, and what if Godzilla shows up and eats everyone? It's a moot point because there's no proof as to what would happen either way. What-if statements provide far too many possibilities for me to sit down and try to disprove each one individually. We'd be here for hours.[/QUOTE] You're the one who brought up monopolies being toppled by bad PR, which is unprecedented. You also brought up people boycotting monopolies, which has never been successful as far as I'm aware. If anything, you're the one who's making use of "what-ifs" here. It's common sense that allowing private companies to freely discriminate customers would apply to monopolies as well. It's far from obvious that monopolies doing so would magically be toppled, or that people would be willing enough to ignore their needs to boycott a monopoly. You're the one making up Godzilla scenarios here. [QUOTE]His statement was not just a 'general statement', it was a general statement [I]on the laws of this country[/I]. Legally, they have the right to not serve. Morally, it sucks that they didn't. Legality and Morality are two very different concepts.[/QUOTE] No. He said he saw no problem with private companies refusing service to whomever they want. That's a moral statement.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52663794]You're the one who brought up monopolies being toppled by bad PR, which is unprecedented. You also brought up people boycotting monopolies, which has never been successful as far as I'm aware. If anything, you're the one who's making use of "what-ifs" here. It's common sense that allowing private companies to freely discriminate customers would apply to monopolies as well. It's far from obvious that monopolies doing so would magically be toppled, or that people would be willing enough to ignore their needs to boycott a monopoly. You're the one making up Godzilla scenarios here.[/QUOTE] I brought up private companies being toppled by bad PR because we were still talking your magical scenarios that you cropped up to counter his statement. Toppled doesn't necessarily mean completely disheveled, it means that it's fallen. It's been hurt, it's been negatively affected by change. Also, never said it couldn't apply to monopolies too. In fact, I feel I've made it apparent that I DO believe it can happen to monopolies, hence this: [QUOTE=Gunteen8;52663596]Yes, I would say the same thing. Because it'd make the news, they'd be shit on left and right, and there's a good chance they'd change their stance. I think it's a safe assumption to make that a 'quasi-monopoly' wouldn't be stupid enough to jeopardize their entire company by refusing to serve like that. That's economical suicide.[/QUOTE] --- [QUOTE]If anything, you're the one who's making use of "what-ifs" here.[/QUOTE] Uh huh. [QUOTE=_Axel;52663571]What if my religion forbids me from serving black people? What's so special about religion that it warrants special privileges over non-theistic opinions anyway? They may be free to choose another baker, but because of that decision they have less choice to begin with. What if that baker is the only one they can afford? What if they live in a remote village and that baker is the only one available? Refusal of service should be based on concrete, justifiable reasons, not arbitrary ones such as here.[/QUOTE] --- [QUOTE=_Axel;52663794]No. He said he saw no problem with private companies refusing service to whomever they want. That's a moral statement.[/QUOTE]Point me to where you think that he said that. If you're referring to this, [QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;52663479]Private enterprise, and the man told them he would not take the order in the first place. If you are denied service before even starting, I do not see a problem.[/QUOTE] then I don't think you're correct. I think he meant it as "I do not see a problem [in relation to the laws of this country]". But I'm not going to continue arguing his points for him, because he can speak for himself.
[QUOTE=Gunteen8;52663853]I brought up private companies being toppled by bad PR because we were still talking your magical scenarios that you cropped up to counter his statement.[/QUOTE] How exactly is applying the exact stated principle on monopolies a "magical scenario"? [QUOTE]Toppled doesn't necessarily mean completely disheveled, it means that it's fallen. It's been hurt, it's been negatively affected by change.[/QUOTE] "Toppled" means that it's not a monopoly anymore, and that the other company is now a legitimate threat to the former monopoly. If you're so keen on calling my hypotheticals "magical scenarios", then cite me a situation where bad PR has toppled a monopoly. Otherwise you have no leg to stand on. [QUOTE]Also, never said it couldn't apply to monopolies too. In fact, I feel I've made it apparent that I DO believe it can happen to monopolies, hence this:[/QUOTE] And hence my rebuttal and my request for a real world event where such a move was indeed political suicide. [QUOTE]Uh huh.[/QUOTE] Could you tell me which of these scenarios are unrealistic, then?
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;52663479]Private enterprise, and the man told them he would not take the order in the first place. If you are denied service before even starting, I do not see a problem.[/QUOTE] If you are denied service, the service never even transpired, therefore you were never even denied service in the first place! The. Fuck?
[QUOTE=Gunteen8;52663627]It's economical suicide because saying 'Oh by the way, I'm a total asshole' is a good stepping stone for someone else (another company) to say 'But [I]I'm[/I] not an asshole! Buy my stuff instead!', thus toppling their 'quasi-monopoly'. (A 'quasi' monopoly implies, by definition, that it's not [I]actually[/I] a monopoly, which means that they have competitors ready, willing, and able to undercut them.) [/QUOTE] This argument relies on the idea that you customer base actually disagrees with bigotry, which is sadly a flawed assumption. In half the communities in the southern states you could probably open up a business with a "no gays, no muslims, no people who look mexican-y" sign out front and end up with MORE customers than you would otherwise.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52663630]Of course, McDonald's doesn't decorate their food, why bother comparing the two.[/QUOTE] Its 2017. My mcdonolds have touch screens that let you do whatever you want with it. You non-americans should stop being ignorant of our landmarks.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52663884]How exactly is applying the exact stated principle on monopolies a "magical scenario"?[/QUOTE] It's a magical scenario when it's brought up in a 'what-if' like yours. Here, I'll humor you: What if a monopoly gave bad PR? - This question gives light to other questions, such as: How big is the monopoly? How bad was the PR? How big is the consumer market? How active is the consumer market? How active are it's competitors? You are giving too much power to the conceptual monopoly. With no grounds in reality, there are no rules. [QUOTE=_Axel;52663884]"Toppled" means that it's not a monopoly anymore, and that the other company is now a legitimate threat to the former monopoly. If you're so keen on calling my hypotheticals "magical scenarios", then cite me a situation where bad PR has toppled a monopoly. Otherwise you have no leg to stand on.[/QUOTE] Chick-Fil-A did the exact same thing that this bakery did here back in 2011. And every other fast-food chain jumped immediately on the other side and sent out a bunch of pro-gay stuff. And I'll be darned if Chick-Fil-A suddenly started to backpedal. [QUOTE=_Axel;52663884]And hence my rebuttal and my request for a real world event where such a move was indeed political suicide.[/QUOTE] See above. [QUOTE=_Axel;52663884]Could you tell me which of these scenarios are unrealistic, then?[/QUOTE] All of them. --- [QUOTE=Geikkamir;52663921]This argument relies on the idea that you customer base actually disagrees with bigotry, which is sadly a flawed assumption. In half the communities in the southern states you could probably open up a business with a "no gays, no muslims, no people who look mexican-y" sign out front and end up with MORE customers than you would otherwise.[/QUOTE] Sadly, yes. All in perspective.
Chick-fil-a is too good to boycott sucessfully. They didnt did anything wrong either.
[QUOTE=Gunteen8;52663924]It's a magical scenario when it's brought up in a 'what-if' like yours. Here, I'll humor you: What if a monopoly gave bad PR? - This question gives light to other questions, such as: How big is the monopoly? How bad was the PR? How big is the consumer market? How active is the consumer market? How active are it's competitors? You are giving too much power to the conceptual monopoly. With no grounds in reality, there are no rules.[/QUOTE] All of those questions are irrelevant if you can't bring up a single instance of a monopoly being toppled by bad PR. Monopolies are monopolies for a reason: They are extremely hard to topple and aspiring competitors are usually not competitive because of economy of scale. This is not a "what if", it's the real world. The burden of proof is on you to show that a simple bad PR move can topple such behemoths. [QUOTE]Chick-Fil-A did the exact same thing that this bakery did here back in 2011. And every other fast-food chain jumped immediately on the other side and sent out a bunch of pro-gay stuff. And I'll be darned if Chick-Fil-A suddenly started to backpedal.[/QUOTE] Was Chick-Fil-A ever a monopoly? I recall other fast-food chains existing before 2011 and being much more widespread than whatever Chick-Fil-A is. Doesn't seem like a monopoly to me. [QUOTE]All of them.[/QUOTE] So it's unrealistic to have only one baker in a small village? It's unrealistic for people to be so tight on money they can only afford a specific baker? You're just being contrarian for the sake of it.
so someone tried to pay a artist for a commission and the artist said no because they didn't want to create that art. ok. you guys know cake making is one of many numerous artforms right. this is not the same as a major store making mass produced products. Mcdonalds isnt gonna have a sign that says "no gays" on their front door and walmart isnt gonna tell people they can't make a custom gay cake with icing lettering/photo print on a pre-fab cake. this is specifically for people who create custom artpieces for people. A cake-speciality store is specifically a art store, it doesnt matter if the art can be eaten. imagine being a artist and you open commissions up, someone submits a form to make a 30$ drawing of donald trump fucking a minority in the ass with him smiling and doing the ok handsign, A Pro-Gun Poster, a weird ass fetish you don't agree with, the drawing doesn't fit the rules of your commission submissions, etc. this ruling basically says your allowed to tell them to fuck off because you dont do that stuff or pick something else to make. You shouldn't be forced to create art you don't like. Artist Rights should be protected no matter what they want to reject making. Don't get hooked on the LGBT/Religious aspect of this case.
I think cake being the canvas is mudding what is a much more straightforward situation. Would anyone argue an artist who takes commissions should be required (by law) to create a piece of art with a message they disagree with? Decorating a cake--even if it's just putting letters on it--is itself a form of artistic expression, and should be given the same protections any artistic gets. If this couple had been wanting to buy a cake that was not decorated, or a decoration that the baker had previously created (as in, the baker was refusing service because of who their customers were, rather than what they wanted him to create), then I would say this baker should be punished for discrimination. But that doesn't seem to be the case here, the law should never require someone to create art for something they truly disagree with. Wow that ninja.
[QUOTE=Sky King;52663922]Its 2017. My mcdonolds have touch screens that let you do whatever you want with it. You non-americans should stop being ignorant of our landmarks.[/QUOTE] They have those in canada too you know
[QUOTE=Wii60;52664114]so someone tried to pay a artist for a commission and the artist said no because they didn't want to create that art. ok. you guys know cake making is one of many numerous artforms right. this is not the same as a major store making mass produced products. Mcdonalds isnt gonna have a sign that says "no gays" on their front door and walmart isnt gonna tell people they can't make a custom gay cake with icing lettering/photo print on a pre-fab cake. this is specifically for people who create custom artpieces for people. A cake-speciality store is specifically a art store, it doesnt matter if the art can be eaten. imagine being a artist and you open commissions up, someone submits a form to make a 30$ drawing of donald trump fucking a minority in the ass with him smiling and doing the ok handsign, A Pro-Gun Poster, a weird ass fetish you don't agree with, the drawing doesn't fit the rules of your commission submissions, etc. this ruling basically says your allowed to tell them to fuck off because you dont do that stuff or pick something else to make. You shouldn't be forced to create art you don't like. Artist Rights should be protected no matter what they want to reject making. Don't get hooked on the LGBT/Religious aspect of this case.[/QUOTE] Wait did I miss something in the article? Where did it say he was being asked to make any kind of non-standard wedding cake? I'm genuinely asking. If he was being asked to make a cake that specifically had some sort of pro-LGBT message or something then I could agree, but if he was just being asked to make the same kind of wedding cake that would be made for any other wedding I don't see how "artistic expression" comes into it. In fact the first part of the article seems to be saying that his objection didn't have anything to do with the cake he was being asked to make but specifically the clients themselves [QUOTE]The Department of Justice on Thursday filed a brief on behalf of baker Jack Phillips, who was found to have violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act by refusing to created a cake to celebrate the marriage of Charlie Craig and David Mullins in 2012. [B]Phillips said he doesn’t create wedding cakes for same-sex couples because it would violate his religious beliefs.[/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=_Axel;52664065]All of those questions are irrelevant if you can't bring up a single instance of a monopoly being toppled by bad PR. Monopolies are monopolies for a reason: They are extremely hard to topple and aspiring competitors are usually not competitive because of economy of scale. This is not a "what if", it's the real world. The burden of proof is on you to show that a simple bad PR move can topple such behemoths. Was Chick-Fil-A ever a monopoly? I recall other fast-food chains existing before 2011 and being much more widespread than whatever Chick-Fil-A is. Doesn't seem like a monopoly to me. So it's unrealistic to have only one baker in a small village? It's unrealistic for people to be so tight on money they can only afford a specific baker? You're just being contrarian for the sake of it.[/QUOTE] The problem here is that the definition of free speech is very different between the US and what we're used to in France. The US lets you do whatever you want because muh free speech. France's definition is about doing whatever you want as long as it doesn't fuck with other people. Add the fact that we don't treat religion the same way, as in over here it's supposed to be a private thing, where in the USA it's more of a public thing. To us it's gonna be weird, to them it's gonna be weird to, it's a culture clash. But to be fair it shouldn't even be news, the baker is being a cunt, just go to the next one.
[QUOTE=343N;52663716]if he's denying them service because of who they are and not because of the cake he has to make, fuck off if he's denying them service because of the cake he has to make, sure, whatever[/QUOTE] Pretty much this. If he was asked to make a giant dick cake and refused because he didn't like giant dicks then sure. I guess he didn't want to make the LGBT cake because to him it would be like advocating the LGBT cause which goes against his religious beliefs. At the end of the day you can't ask someone to do something they don't want to do.
[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52664329]This exact situation pops up every few months and it's always the same FP thread as well. If a private business should be required to provide service to groups that they personally disagree with, we should also get GoDaddy to rehost The Daily Stormer.[/QUOTE] There is kind of a huge difference between people who are Nazis and people who are gay Smells like bait
[QUOTE=thisguy123;52664344]At the end of the day you can't ask someone to do something they don't want to do.[/QUOTE] Well I mean, that's what the law usually does, actually.
This is a very interesting case, actually, because it's not as simple as it looks. The cake-maker is a self-described "cake artist," and so instead of being a discussion about a grocer discriminating against someone buying food/other goods, it's a case about an artist's right to discriminate in who they sell their art to. There's a surprising amount of nuance to this case when determining its constitutionality. It's on the SCOTUS docket and oral arguments are coming up soon, so it'll be dealt with officially soon enough and the DoJ won't have a choice but to enforce the decision. Should be interesting. I'm guessing it'll be viewed as discriminatory, but there's still a fair chance it could go either way.
Business A provides service X to straight people without a second thought. If a gay person asks for comparable treatment in the provision of service X, and it's (some fact of) their sexuality which prevents business A from providing service X to them, then business A is directly discriminating on the grounds of that person's sexuality, which should not be permitted. Business A benefits from the state-ordered legal protections of incorporation, which includes things like indemnified access to the public marketplace. The state has an obligation to protect its citizens from undue discrimination. If you want to benefit from the protections and permissions that the state grants to you, you should also expect to operate under the conditions the state provides. If you think it's OK to legally require businesses to serve black people - or women - even when their owners don't want to, you're OK with the state telling businesses what to do. Personally, I don't see a convincing argument that separates race from gender or from sexuality in terms of general access rights that people should have. Interestingly, within the USA, some courts have decided that the 1963 Civil Rights Act extends to cover sexual orientation and gender identity. Some decided the other way. You can generally predict what way a court falls by what way its voters tend to lean.
[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52664329]This exact situation pops up every few months and it's always the same FP thread as well. If a private business should be required to provide service to groups that they personally disagree with, we should also get GoDaddy to rehost The Daily Stormer.[/QUOTE] In one case service is denied for people who wants to treat other people like subhumans, and in the other service is denied to people who wants to be treated like people. THey are not comparable [editline]9th September 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=DaMastez;52664144]I think cake being the canvas is mudding what is a much more straightforward situation. Would anyone argue an artist who takes commissions should be required (by law) to create a piece of art with a message they disagree with? Decorating a cake--even if it's just putting letters on it--is itself a form of artistic expression, and should be given the same protections any artistic gets. If this couple had been wanting to buy a cake that was not decorated, or a decoration that the baker had previously created (as in, the baker was refusing service because of who their customers were, rather than what they wanted him to create), then I would say this baker should be punished for discrimination. But that doesn't seem to be the case here, the law should never require someone to create art for something they truly disagree with.[/QUOTE] Only problem is that it has nothing to do with the cake being a canvas at all, but more for the fact that the people ordering are being denied service for being, you know, born.
Man, I bet conservatives would be super pissed if someone refused to serve them for their God forsaken political beliefs. At least you can choose those in some sense.
Can I refuse to sell a cake to religious people on religious grounds as a Jehovahs Witness as their celebrations go against the belief that we don't deserve to celebrate?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52664669]Can I refuse to sell a cake to religious people on religious grounds as a Jehovahs Witness as their celebrations go against the belief that we don't deserve to celebrate?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Man, I bet conservatives would be super pissed if someone refused to serve them for their God forsaken political beliefs. At least you can choose those in some sense.[/QUOTE] I find comments like this funny because all the conservatives I know would be perfectly fine with either of those.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52664684]I find comments like this funny because all the conservatives I know would be perfectly fine with either of those.[/QUOTE] And that's perfectly fine. The subset of people you know isn't representative of much however, as I also know people who are conservatives and would vary with their opinions from the group you speak of.
Say, for example, an atheist who didn't want to make a banner for a Christian event, say, a "welcome" banner. This is similar in the sense that one's religion is a protected trait and the atheist is willing to make banners for non-religious events. Personally, I, and basically every conservative I know, would be fine with the atheist not being forced to do so. [editline]9th September 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52664689]And that's perfectly fine. The subset of people you know isn't representative of much however, as I also know people who are conservatives and would vary with their opinions from the group you speak of.[/QUOTE] Sure, but my anecdotal response has equal merit to the purely anecdotal and/or vague comments I was responding to.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.