• Department of Justice sides with baker who refused to bake LGBT Cake
    198 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Handsome Matt;52663463]Are you allowed to refuse service like serving food if someone is black or gay? Where's the line?[/QUOTE] "The government agreed with Phillips that his cakes are a form of expression, and he cannot be compelled to use his talents for something in which he does not believe." as much as i disagree with the homophobic fuck, there's a difference between a restaurant saying "no gays allowed" and an artist-- and drawing on cakes can indeed be argued to be art-- refusing to provide a "commission" to them. its sketchy, yeah, but it's also reasonable. he can't be forced to write something like "congrats x and x gay people" if he doesn't believe that gay people should be congratulated for getting married; in other words, it would be a violation of his freedom of speech and expression to force him to do so. and as much as it sucks, you can't tell people that they're opinions about other people are wrong. he's a dickhead for hating gays, but he's absolutely allowed to hold that belief. [editline]9th September 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=J!NX;52664362]There is kind of a huge difference between people who are Nazis and people who are gay Smells like bait[/QUOTE] you're misinterpreting what he meant. he didn't say "PEOPLE SHOULDNT SERVE FAGS OR NAZIS CUZ THEYRE BOTRH SCUM!!1" he said "a private business should not be forced to provide a service to groups that go against the PRIVATE owner's beliefs. godaddy has the right to refuse to host the daily stormer because the daily stormer are nazi scum, and godaddy don't want to endorse nazis. similarly, this baker has the right to refuse to make this cake because he does not want to endorse gay marriage by creating a wedding cake that says congrats gay people." he's not comparing gays to nazis, he's comparing the rights of private businesses. don't try to twist the meaning of what he was saying. [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] quite frankly it doesn't matter what the conservatives think. the law has spoken. private business has it's rights. if you have a valid religious reason to deny an art service to somebody, in the private bakery that you run, then what people think means fuck-all. you have the right to deny that service. it's that simple. [editline]9th September 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=gokiyono;52664650]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] 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.[/QUOTE] in the first paragraph, you're kinda right. nazis and gays are not comparable. HE'S NOT COMPARING GAYS TO NAZIS. HE'S COMPARING THE RIGHTS OF A PRIVATE BUSINESS TO DENY A VERY SPECIFIC FORM OF SERVICES TO A SPECIFIC GROUP. it's quite simple. in the second paragraph, tough shit. yeah, the business owner is a scummy homophobe, but until you amend the constitution, he has the same rights as you and me. in this particular case, that right is to deny his private service to a group of people because providing that service would violate his freedom of opinion (or expression or whatever you want to call it). it is about the cake being a canvas, because the cake would presumably congratulate them for their homosexual marriage, which goes against the owner's beliefs.
[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] Yeah go ahead. Literally nothing stopping you lol
I don't have a problem with refusing to bake a cake celebrating something that goes against your religion. A cake isn't like healthcare or any public service. Cake is one of THE quintessential luxury items. While it's annoying for LGBT people, this probably isn't the only bakery in the county either. Let me know when someone's lives or rights are being infringed on because this is hardly a drop of water in a bucket of ignorance happenening this year.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52664863]Separate water fountains didn't exactly infringe on rights, either. They both still got water, right?[/QUOTE] that's not even vaguely comparable to what's happening here. this isn't a matter of the government discriminating against gays. the only rights that could have possibly been infringed on here were the business owner's right to expression. like mr sarcastic said, cakes are a luxury item. the constitution does not provide for the "right to cake" to anybody. it's an artist's commission. if the government forced him to create art celebrating a gay marriage that goes against his religious beliefs, then his constitutional right to freedom of opinion and expression would have been compromised. he's a jackass homophobe, but he still has rights. as much as laws like this suck, the fact is that they are the law. until you get somebody to amend the constitution to say "people only have the right to opinions that [b]I[/b] approve of," (which is never gonna happen by the way because protecting EVERYBODY'S rights is what the constitution is for) this asshole can deny service to as many gay couples as he wants. or even black couples, or any other group that he doesn't like. you might not like it, but that's the way the country works right now.
[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] This is probably the most reasonable post. It's unfortunate that there has to be a problem in the first place, and the LGBT customers will have to find another satisfactory artist, though.
[QUOTE=Mr. Sarcastic;52664843]I don't have a problem with refusing to bake a cake celebrating something that goes against your religion. A cake isn't like healthcare or any public service. Cake is one of THE quintessential luxury items. While it's annoying for LGBT people, this probably isn't the only bakery in the county either. Let me know when someone's lives or rights are being infringed on because this is hardly a drop of water in a bucket of ignorance happenening this year.[/QUOTE] Dont forget that gay people can literally still come in and eat this same guy's cake. He just didnt want to make some LGBT cake. I mean its not like gay people can only eat rainbow LBGT themed cake
[QUOTE=Baconator 7;52664768] you're misinterpreting what he meant. he didn't say "PEOPLE SHOULDNT SERVE FAGS OR NAZIS CUZ THEYRE BOTRH SCUM!!1" he said "a private business should not be forced to provide a service to groups that go against the PRIVATE owner's beliefs. godaddy has the right to refuse to host the daily stormer because the daily stormer are nazi scum, and godaddy don't want to endorse nazis. similarly, this baker has the right to refuse to make this cake because he does not want to endorse gay marriage by creating a wedding cake that says congrats gay people." he's not comparing gays to nazis, he's comparing the rights of private businesses. don't try to twist the meaning of what he was saying. [/QUOTE] my point is that there is a difference between barring nazis (who advocate violence actively) and barring gays (people who literally just want to marry someone) when it comes to banning them... there is factually a difference between the two, regardless of how pro nazi or pro gay you are, its not reasonable to compare the rights of business owners banning one VS the other. it smells like bait because anyone can understand that banning a nazi website that actively spreads hate is way different from baking a gay cake design. If it was banning Nazi's and banning Antifa or Peta it'd work as a point and I'd totally agree with him.
[QUOTE=Baconator 7;52664915]that's not even vaguely comparable to what's happening here. this isn't a matter of the government discriminating against gays. the only rights that could have possibly been infringed on here were the business owner's right to expression. like mr sarcastic said, cakes are a luxury item. the constitution does not provide for the "right to cake" to anybody. it's an artist's commission. if the government forced him to create art celebrating a gay marriage that goes against his religious beliefs, then his constitutional right to freedom of opinion and expression would have been compromised. he's a jackass homophobe, but he still has rights. as much as laws like this suck, the fact is that they are the law. until you get somebody to amend the constitution to say "people only have the right to opinions that [b]I[/b] approve of," (which is never gonna happen by the way because protecting EVERYBODY'S rights is what the constitution is for) this asshole can deny service to as many gay couples as he wants. or even black couples, or any other group that he doesn't like. you might not like it, but that's the way the country works right now.[/QUOTE] Again, where in the article does it say anything about the couple in question requesting anything other than just a regular wedding cake? [editline]9th September 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Sky King;52664925]Dont forget that gay people can literally still come in and eat this same guy's cake. He just didnt want to make some LGBT cake. I mean its not like gay people can only eat rainbow LBGT themed cake[/QUOTE] Okay so either I'm missing something or everyone else is, where is anything mentioned about a LGBT cake? The only thing I see is a statement that says that the owner refused to serve these people specifically because they were gay. Which seems to imply that, no, in fact, they cannot "literally still come in and eat this same guy's cake." [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=RenegadeCop;52664863]Separate water fountains didn't exactly infringe on rights, either. They both still got water, right?[/QUOTE] The Jim Crow era always comes up in debates like this, but it wasn't the free market that did that, it was [i]laws[/i]. Generally, corporations are out to make as much money as possible, and they're not going to turn away paying customers. If companies were actually able to get away with discriminating against black people, they wouldn't have needed to pass laws requiring them to do so. For a company to successfully discriminate against a minority, it has to pass up the entire chain of command that "it is okay to tell people that they can not give us their money", and if that happens then it's a sign of garbage management that doesn't care about profit and is doomed. Turn away enough people of a particular minority, and now, all of a sudden, you have an entire group of people, with money, who are willing to pay for a service. It's an incredible opportunity for somebody to start or expand a business to scoop up that portion of the market. In the entire history of the US there have only been one or two natural monopolies that haven't been toppled one way or another, the ones that actually remain in power usually do so because they get in bed with the government to outlaw competition.
Why would you want to force someone who doesn't want to make food for you to make food for you, anyway? I'm sorry, but I believe in private businesses being able to refuse service to anyone for any reason. This ability works in favor of progress by allowing bigots to out themselves and be boycotted. I have seen businesses fall by being openly anti-progress. Sometimes you have to step back and let these idiots fly too close to the sun. And the flip side is progressive businesses can refuse service to regressive people, which we have seen with web services dropping shit like the Daily Stormer. Would you try to force an LGBT baker to make a Nazi themed cake? No, he should have the right to refuse to make that.
[QUOTE=Geikkamir;52664937]Again, where in the article does it say anything about the couple in question requesting anything other than just a regular wedding cake? [editline]9th September 2017[/editline] Okay so either I'm missing something or everyone else is, where is anything mentioned about a LGBT cake? The only thing I see is a statement that says that the owner refused to serve these people specifically because they were gay. Which seems to imply that, no, in fact, they cannot "literally still come in and eat this same guy's cake."[/QUOTE] well presumably the cake would have something along the lines of this [t]http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/gayweddingcake.jpg[/t] and furthermore, what they wanted the cake to look like was not detailed in the article at all, like you said. so again, who knows if its anything other than a "regular" wedding cake? perhaps they wanted a picture of an lgbt flag on it, or maybe they didn't. we have to base this discussion on what we know. and all we know is that the cake was for a homosexual wedding, and thus presumably would have had some form of art depicting homosexuality in a way that went against the owner's beliefs. sure, to a reasonable person like you or myself that wouldn't be the end of the world. if i was running a bakery i'd sure as fuck make an expensive ass wedding cake regardless of who's being wed. easy money. but to the business owner, that's against his beliefs. it's clearly significant enough that it went to court, and lo and behold the government took his side on it. [editline]9th September 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=J!NX;52664936]my point is that there is a difference between barring nazis (who advocate violence actively) and barring gays (people who literally just want to marry someone) when it comes to banning them... there is factually a difference between the two, regardless of how pro nazi or pro gay you are, its not reasonable to compare the rights of business owners banning one VS the other. it smells like bait because anyone can understand that banning a nazi website that actively spreads hate is way different from baking a gay cake design. If it was banning Nazi's and banning Antifa or Peta it'd work as a point and I'd totally agree with him.[/QUOTE] the nature of their beliefs or sexuality or whatever isn't relevant. you're again missing the point. we're not talking about taking a moral high ground or whatever to say "fuck nazis". we're talking about a business owner who has a belief that conflicts with the customer's nature. it doesn't matter what YOU believe is "good" and "bad". anybody with half a brain would understand that nazis are bad, as are homophobes. they're both assholes. we're not arguing about that. what we're arguing about is that the private business owner should not be forced to "endorse" (for lack of a better term) something that goes against his beliefs-- in one case, nazism, and in this one, homosexuality. his beliefs are against it. don't matter what it is, he shouldn't be forced to have any part in it if he doesn't want to. in this particular circumstance, "banning a nazi website that actively spreads hate" is not at all different from "baking a gay cake design." let's generalize those phrases into: "wanting nothing to do with group A" and "wanting nothing to do with group B." the specifics of what the group is don't matter. the business owner wants nothing to do with the customer's beliefs/nature, and so shouldn't be forced to do so. [sp]and just for the record, you're making the assumption that the gay couple in question aren't nazis. that information was never given. it's entirely possible, as unlikely as it is, that they're literally gay nazis. you're making unfair assumptions in an effort to skew somebody else's point.[/sp]
[QUOTE=Baconator 7;52665056] and just for the record, you're making the assumption that the gay couple in question aren't nazis. that information was never given. it's entirely possible, as unlikely as it is, that they're literally gay nazis. you're making unfair assumptions in an effort to skew somebody else's point.[/QUOTE] Clearly this would be a different argument if they were making a gay nazi cake? I'm not even sure where this fits into any of this. it was never brought up so this statement has literally 0 relevance because they weren't telling them to bake a cake that says "Kill all jews and legalize all gays" What are you even saying with this? is there a point? I don't even want to get into it because it was pretty clearly a baited question to boot. But if you can't figure out the difference between barring a hate group that advocates for systematic murder and barring someone because you disagree with them than boy, that's fucking sad. [QUOTE]in this particular circumstance, "banning a nazi website that actively spreads hate" is not at all different from "baking a gay cake design."[/QUOTE] No, that's not even slightly close. I'd like to point out that one is a choice (Going out and blaming the jews for everything bad) and the other is basically that's just what the person is
[QUOTE=J!NX;52665103]Clearly this would be a different argument if they were making a gay nazi cake? I'm not even sure where this fits into any of this. it was never brought up so this statement has literally 0 relevance because they weren't telling them to bake a cake that says "Kill all jews and legalize all gays" What are you even saying with this? is there a point? I don't even want to get into it because it was pretty clearly a baited question to boot. But if you can't figure out the difference between barring a hate group that advocates for systematic murder and barring someone because you disagree with them than boy, that's fucking sad. No, that's not even slightly close. I'd like to point out that one is a choice (Going out and blaming the jews for everything bad) and the other is basically that's just what the person is[/QUOTE] and just to make sure y'all know, nazis have the same constitutional protections as any other person in the usa. [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/?utm_term=.e27327c30e18]the constitution PROTECTS hate speech.[/url] so when Grenadier says "would you force a gay baker to make a nazi cake?" don't you dare say "well nazis are bad so no". it would be EXACTLY THE SAME situation as we have here, legally speaking. the ruling would have nothing to do with nazis being bad, it would be the baker's beliefs, pure and simple. "i'd like to point out that one is a choice blah blah" yeah i understand what you're saying. trust me. nazis are scum. imo the government should perhaps punish them in some way, perhaps with the death penalty (but definitely not, you know, shooting nazis in the street because saying that gets me banned). again, that's not even something to argue about. so now you're saying "oh well if they were gay NAZIS then that would be different" but... no! it wouldn't. it's legit the same thing. the baker's beliefs conflict with the customer, and so he doesn't have to provide his niche service to them. [editline]9th September 2017[/editline] and also i had that last statement in a spoiler because it was, as you said, clearly a "baited question". you weren't supposed to take it so seriously. the point was that you should pay closer attention to the specifics of the situation. hypothetically speaking, but probably not, it's possible that the couple are nazis, but since we don't know that, you can't make the assumption that they are, nor can you make the assumption that they aren't. in other words, NAZIS SHOULD NOT BE BROUGHT INTO THIS DISCUSSION.
[QUOTE=DinoJesus;52663577]He never said that. The only reason you're adding that subtext is because you dislike his opinion and making him sound like a racist is an easy way to invalidate his opinion here.[/QUOTE] Allow me to point out why exactly what JoeSkylynx said is a fucking problem [img]https://oregonhistoryproject.org/media/uploads/We-Cater-to-White-Trade-Only-FSDM2.jpg[/img] [img]http://15130-presscdn-0-89.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/No-Mexicans-or-Spanish-300x246.jpg[/img] [img]http://uptownmagazine.com/files/2011/12/White-Only.jpg[/img] [img]http://szmarkman.zenfolio.com/img/s1/v19/p673265702-3.jpg[/img] [quote]If you are denied service before even starting, I do not see a problem.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Paramud;52665463]Allow me to point out why exactly what JoeSkylynx said is a fucking problem [img]https://oregonhistoryproject.org/media/uploads/We-Cater-to-White-Trade-Only-FSDM2.jpg[/img] [img]http://15130-presscdn-0-89.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/No-Mexicans-or-Spanish-300x246.jpg[/img] [img]http://uptownmagazine.com/files/2011/12/White-Only.jpg[/img] [img]http://szmarkman.zenfolio.com/img/s1/v19/p673265702-3.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Thats not even close to whats happening in this case
[QUOTE=Baconator 7;52665110]and just to make sure y'all know, nazis have the same constitutional protections as any other person in the usa. [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/?utm_term=.e27327c30e18]the constitution PROTECTS hate speech.[/url] so when Grenadier says "would you force a gay baker to make a nazi cake?" don't you dare say "well nazis are bad so no". it would be EXACTLY THE SAME situation as we have here, legally speaking. the ruling would have nothing to do with nazis being bad, it would be the baker's beliefs, pure and simple.[/QUOTE] Neo-nazi websites are the internet equivalent of a public disturbance The shit that those websites advocate for are far the worse than asking for a nazi flag cake. Never mind that it's undeniably that nazi's and LGBT are a completely different group, and this goes beyonds anyone beliefs. Even then making a nazi flag cake is still objectively on a different moral level than an LGBT cake. One represents genocide and the other represents licking other men. What if a member of ISIS wants someone to bake them an ISIS cake? is that morally the same as baking a gay cake? [QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52665149]You're flipping the perspective. If you argue from the perspective of the group being denied, it's about morality. At that point, there's no right answer since morality is subjective. Once you start arguing from the perspective of the business it becomes an objective thing, namely their right to refuse service if that would require them to do something they don't agree with.[/QUOTE] so what you're saying is that nazi's are only subjectively wrong, and that objectively denying nazi's and homosexuals are both equally within the right of the business lets just forget how you're ignoring the reasons why these two things happened. literally 0 context is being placed behind it. Never mind the fact that neo-nazi's may very likely be regarded as a domestic terrorist faction in the future if they act up. [QUOTE][url]https://www.advocate.com/women/2017/8/14/godaddy-drops-hate-site-daily-stormer-after-vile-post-about-charlottesville-victim[/url] "Despite feigned outrage by the media, most people are glad she is dead, as she is the definition of uselessness," the story read. "A 32-year-old woman without children is a burden on society and has no value."[/QUOTE] Nah man, exactly the same thing as a cake with 2 dudes on it. Don't u see??? Morality is subjective! I don't even agree with them being kicked out for that post alone, but this shit is such a false equivalence that it actually genuinely does make me wonder if you understand the difference. Morality is subjective but there is a blatant objective difference between this site being canned and gays having a cake baked. [QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52665149] An orthodox Jewish baker would bake a decorated cake for a Bar Mitzvah A gay militant atheist would bake a decorated cake for a gay wedding But not vice versa. And my point is you, the government or anyone else should not be able to force them to do so.[/QUOTE] But I thought this was about a nazi website advocating for the oppression of minorities being banned VS not baking a cake because you don't like them If you word it that way, it becomes a matter of respecting others beliefs... not respecting someones connecting themselves to the worlds most dangerous group ever created. Let me remind you that Nazi's aren't a minority like homosexuals are. Nor are they a sexual orientation or race.
Like, people can be racist all they want. No, websites shouldn't be shut down purely because they say 'blacks are dumb' but when you connect yourself with the group that killed millions of people don't be surprised when people hate you. Even nazi's are indefensible compared to run of the mill racists.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52665472]Thats not even close to whats happening in this case[/QUOTE] I dunno I think it's in the same ballpark. One person is being discriminatory towards a whole subset of people, no?
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52665472]Thats not even close to whats happening in this case[/QUOTE] Good thing I pointed out that I was talking about what JoeSkylynyx posted.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52665484]I dunno I think it's in the same ballpark. One person is being discriminatory towards a whole subset of people, no?[/QUOTE] Its their right to do so. I wouldnt be shocked if I went to a Muslim cake artist and asked for a cake of mohammed shitting on the Quran and he told me fuck off. The govt shouldnt force him to make it either.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52665504]Its their right to do so. I wouldnt be shocked if I went to a Muslim cake artist and asked for a cake of mohammed shitting on the Quran and he told me fuck off. The govt shouldnt force him to make it either.[/QUOTE] baking an LGBT cake is the same as directly insulting an entire religion Not even in the same ballpark, unless you mean something else?
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52665517]That's an offensive cake. Objectively, regardless of your arbitrary religion of choice. Being gay is not offensive. It is objectively wrong to be anti-gay, whether you believe so or not. Logically. It does not make sense.[/QUOTE] I mean lets be fair, one could totally argue that homosexuality offends them. If it does, hey that's their opinion I guess. I can bash that but that's them. to add to my previous posts though + agree with you, its just they can't argue that an image that is directly insulting (Nazi flag, ISIS, shitting on Quran) is the same as a rainbow flag if the LGBT couple wanted a cake of 2 dudes fucking and shitting on eachothers chests, I'd totally be behind denying it on the grounds of it being defendable as offensive imagery. Just merely being LGBT in nature is not equal to any of the above.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52665517]That's an offensive cake. Objectively, regardless of your arbitrary religion of choice. Being gay is not offensive. It is objectively wrong to be anti-gay, whether you believe so or not. Logically. It does not make sense.[/QUOTE] Being gay can be offensive to certain people. And no its not objectively wrong to be anti gay either.
[QUOTE=Paramud;52665463]Allow me to point out why exactly what JoeSkylynx said is a fucking problem [img]https://oregonhistoryproject.org/media/uploads/We-Cater-to-White-Trade-Only-FSDM2.jpg[/img] [img]http://15130-presscdn-0-89.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/No-Mexicans-or-Spanish-300x246.jpg[/img] [img]http://uptownmagazine.com/files/2011/12/White-Only.jpg[/img] [img]http://szmarkman.zenfolio.com/img/s1/v19/p673265702-3.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] This would be equivalent if gay people just couldn't buy a cake from him. If they wanted a birthday cake they would have been served. I'm not necessarily taking a side on this debate but your comparison isn't valid.
[QUOTE=srobins;52665541]This would be equivalent if gay people just couldn't buy a cake from him. If they wanted a birthday cake they would have been served. I'm not necessarily taking a side on this debate but your comparison isn't valid.[/QUOTE] I think it is valid if they wanted a normal wedding cake with two dudes or two women. [editline]9th September 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=-nesto-;52665538]Being gay can be offensive to certain people. And no its not objectively wrong to be anti gay either.[/QUOTE] This is not the right issue to be centrist on.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52665538]Being gay can be offensive to certain people. And no its not objectively wrong to be anti gay either.[/QUOTE] No it really is lol. Unless you would like to explain the virtues of being homophobic/anti-gay, I'm pretty sure most people would agree it's wrong to oppose someone simply for their sexuality.
[QUOTE=srobins;52665541]This would be equivalent if gay people just couldn't buy a cake from him. If they wanted a birthday cake they would have been served. I'm not necessarily taking a side on this debate but your comparison isn't valid.[/QUOTE] You're right, it's completely different. It's not an issue of "we won't serve homosexuals," it's an issue of "we serve homosexuals differently." [img]https://jeanbarker.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/segregation-drinking-fountain.jpg[/img] [img]http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/media/filer_public_thumbnails/filer_public/a4/b8/a4b8483f-255c-4712-bd0d-4579743da643/jimcrow_coloredwaitngroom_sign_500.jpg__400x424_q85_crop_subsampling-2_upscale.jpg[/img] [img]http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41073000/jpg/_41073390_whiteonly_b203_ap.jpg[/img] [img]https://thecoastwatcher.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/colored-only11.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.glasgowdoorsopendays.com/images/images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/whites-only-paul-mashburn.jpg[/img] [img]https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTCa6zDi1w8LToai9pZMxBRiWkeL1zgEFWk8ccLgWpJ-ufh6G1m[/img] There we go, all better. [editline]oh hamburgers[/editline] And I'd like to point out, once again, that JoySklynensx specifically fucking said: [quote]If you are denied service before even starting, I do not see a problem.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52665597] This is not the right issue to be centrist on.[/QUOTE] Forcing an artist to do something that violates their constitutional rights shouldnt be a political issue in the first place bud.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52665616]Forcing an artist to do something that violates their constitutional rights shouldnt be a political issue in the first place bud.[/QUOTE] Forcing a business to not discriminate against their customers illegally, however, is a political issue.
[QUOTE=J!NX;52665473]...[/QUOTE] it's not a question of morality. the department of justice did not rule that this man is morally right for being homophobic. nobody is arguing that nazis are morally sound. you are missing the point. possibly trolling at this point. stop trying to turn this into an argument about nazis.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.