Department of Justice sides with baker who refused to bake LGBT Cake
198 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Baconator 7;52665637]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.[/QUOTE]
The original post I was replying to was literally
[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]
and you kept replying to it... regarding nazi's, so I did the same. You were literally there to witness the entire thing. In fact you had a front row seat. Now you're trying to turn it against me.
I never said that anyone was calling nazi's are morally sound. I never said that they ruled him as 'morally in the right'. I've continued to say 'no, these things are not the same', that was my point the entire time.
How great of you to start twisting words around this much though.
[editline]9th September 2017[/editline]
You sure love playing "willfully blind" don't you.
[QUOTE=Paramud;52665626]Forcing a business to not discriminate against their customers illegally, however, is a political issue.[/QUOTE]
if the man hated nazis, would you still find it to be "right" if the government forced him to make a nazi cake?
it doesn't matter if the customer is morally wrong or can't help their sexuality or any dumb shit like that. that is literally completely irrelevant to the situation. furthermore, nobody ever said that the baker was denying business to the gay dudes. the only thing that was said was that he doesn't make WEDDING CAKES for them. as in, cakes that would have art depicting gay marriage, which goes against his religious beliefs, which are [b]protected by the constitution.[/b] what you or i think about the customer means absolutely fucking nothing. get that in your head. your opinion on them is irrelevant in the eyes of the law. the only thing that matters is protecting the religious and expressive rights of the artist in question. there is nothing in the bill of rights saying that gay people have a right to wedding cakes. and once again, the artist can refuse to create a wedding cake because it is a form of art. he cannot deny them, say, a gingerbread man. nobody ever said he could do that. THAT would be like those jim crow era signs that one of you guys keeps posting as if it's a strong point-- that would be ACTUAL discrimination.
gay people not getting a wedding cake from one particular bakery (and being told by the baker that other bakeshops would be happy to help them. he didn't say "fuck you fags get outta my fuckin store" like you're all implying he did) is a far cry from the worst issues that lgbt people face today. stop getting so riled up over what amounts to nothing.
[QUOTE=Baconator 7;52665666]if the man hated nazis, would you still find it to be "right" if the government forced him to make a nazi cake?[/QUOTE]
Way to just bring up nazis when I never mentioned them.
[QUOTE=Baconator 7;52665637]stop trying to turn this into an argument about nazis.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Baconator 7;52665666]if the man hated nazis, would you still find it to be "right" if the government forced him to make a nazi cake[/QUOTE]
I... w-what are you doing
How can you not follow your own advice this terribly :s:
jinx wrote a 4 paragraph post about nazis at the top of this page. that's trying to turn this into an argument about nazis.
i mentioned an extreme that would be relevant to the case of the baker being forced to make a wedding cake for gay people. that's providing an example to show you why your arguments are wrong.
nice for both of you to completely ignore everything else i wrote...
[QUOTE=Baconator 7;52665689]jinx wrote a 4 paragraph post about nazis at the top of this page. that's trying to turn this into an argument about nazis.
i mentioned an extreme that would be relevant to the case of the baker being forced to make a wedding cake for gay people. that's providing an example to show you why your arguments are wrong.
nice for both of you to completely ignore everything else i wrote...[/QUOTE]
I expected you to twist everything around in your favor and you did exactly that
This is like the most beautiful threadshitting I've seen in my life
Lets just ignore the fact that I brought it up specifically because Dave_Parker did. And the fact that you are ignoring literally everything everyone is writing.
Are you ignorant of the fact that Dailystormer is a self identified neo-nazi website? They don't even pretend to hide it.
[QUOTE=Baconator 7;52665689]nice for both of you to completely ignore everything else i wrote...[/QUOTE]
You're welcome.
The man's personal religious beliefs are irrelevant. His [b]business[/b] does not get to deny service based on religious beliefs.
I'm going to predict your next post Baconman
"you just proved that you're wrong"
[QUOTE=Paramud;52665702]You're welcome.
The man's personal religious beliefs are irrelevant. His [b]business[/b] does not get to deny service based on religious beliefs.[/QUOTE]
according to the government it does. according to the constitution he's got a right to freedom of religion. just because you don't like his religion doesn't make it irrelevant.
if some radical muslims came in and tried to have him make them a cake that says "ally ackbar kill all americans" would it be right to force him to make the cake? if some feminists came in and tried to have him make a cake that says "women are better than men" would it be right?
"oh well those people can help their beliefs the gays don't choose to be gay"
if a fart fetishist came in and tried to have him make a cake with a turd on it, would it be right for the government to force him to make that cake? or would he be discriminating against the queer community?
[QUOTE=Baconator 7;52665724]
if some radical muslims came in and tried to have him make them a cake that says "ally ackbar kill all americans" would it be right to force him to make the cake? if some feminists came in and tried to have him make a cake that says "women are better than men" would it be right?
if a fart fetishist came in and tried to have him make a cake with a turd on it, would it be right for the government to force him to make that cake? or would he be discriminating against the queer community?[/QUOTE]
How can you possibly think that that is the same thing as merely wanting a cake with 2 men or whatever
what
[QUOTE=J!NX;52665737]How can you possibly think that that is the same thing as merely wanting a cake with 2 men or whatever
what[/QUOTE]
sure it's the same thing. the fart fetishist can't help the fact that he is sexually attracted to poop. it's part of his lgbtq gender identity. so regardless of what the baker thinks of it, if the fart fetishist wants a turd on his cake, the baker should be forced to do it, right? his opinion on shit don't matter.
[QUOTE=Baconator 7;52665744]sure it's the same thing. the fart fetishist can't help the fact that he is sexually attracted to poop. it's part of his lgbtq gender identity. so regardless of what the baker thinks of it, if the fart fetishist wants a turd on his cake, the baker should be forced to do it, right? his opinion on shit don't matter.[/QUOTE]
Remember, not comparing the 2 but a gay couple wanting a wedding cake and a radical wanting a cake that advocates genocide? Basically you're equally morally in the right for denying either
But remember
not comparing the 2
[editline]9th September 2017[/editline]
I love how you have to bloat the LGBT 'gender identity' thing to the most extreme possible example for your argument to even work
it couldn't have been a normal cake naw, have to blow it up to be the most offensive possible thing for it to exist. The entire post relies on making it as big a deal as possible, far more than any regular LGBT cake would be.
I'm willing to bet that the LGBT couple wasn't doing this. Just saying.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52665538]Being gay can be offensive to certain people. And no its not objectively wrong to be anti gay either.[/QUOTE]
Will somebody please think of the homophobes??
[QUOTE=Tomo Takino;52665816]Will somebody please think of the homophobes??[/QUOTE]
Shitty people have rights too
This entire conversation is stupid as hell. Calling cakes art is generally just stupid. It's food. As people have repeatedly pointed out, and people keep conveniently ignoring, if you substitute "black" for "gay" here it wouldn't fly. So it shouldn't fly here either. Nazis are completely and utterly irrelevant to the subject. Strangely enough homosexuals are legally a protected class. Nazis are [I]not[/I]. It's really not complicated. If the cake is explicitly endorsing gays then maybe some sort of valid argument could be made. But unless it's being made for a pride parade or something it's really not an argument. It was a cake for a private wedding. The cake baker's personal beliefs really have no place in the equation here in any form, regardless of whether they call themselves a "cake artist" instead of a "cake baker".
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52665888]Shitty people have rights too[/QUOTE]
And that has what to do with anything? We shouldn't need to consider the feelings of homophobes when it comes to the rights of homosexuals. Homophobic opinions are by and large objectively [I]wrong[/I] from every logical perspective.
[QUOTE]Being gay can be offensive to certain people.[/QUOTE]
And people as intellectually dishonest as you are incredibly offensive to me. Guess which of the two subjects is worse? Hint: It's most certainly not being gay. And it's [I]definitely[/I] not being gay when being compared to Nazis like people keep trying to say here.
[QUOTE]And no its not objectively wrong to be anti gay either.[/QUOTE]
No it's very explicitly objectively wrong to be anti-gay. Gay people do not harm people by existing. If you have a problem with gay people because they're gay then you're simply an awful person. End of story.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52665888]Shitty people have rights too[/QUOTE]
What does this have to do with the abysmal post of yours I was replying to?
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52665538]Being gay can be offensive to certain people. And no its not objectively wrong to be anti gay either.[/QUOTE]
"Im offended by your existence..."
The Fuck is this logic?
[QUOTE=Alice3173;52665911]This entire conversation is stupid as hell. Calling cakes art is generally just stupid. It's food. As people have repeatedly pointed out, and people keep conveniently ignoring, if you substitute "black" for "gay" here it wouldn't fly. So it shouldn't fly here either. Nazis are completely and utterly irrelevant to the subject. Strangely enough homosexuals are legally a protected class. Nazis are [I]not[/I]. It's really not complicated. If the cake is explicitly endorsing gays then maybe some sort of valid argument could be made. But unless it's being made for a pride parade or something it's really not an argument. It was a cake for a private wedding. The cake baker's personal beliefs really have no place in the equation here in any form, regardless of whether they call themselves a "cake artist" instead of a "cake baker".
And that has what to do with anything? We shouldn't need to consider the feelings of homophobes when it comes to the rights of homosexuals. Homophobic opinions are by and large objectively [I]wrong[/I] from every logical perspective.
And people as intellectually dishonest as you are incredibly offensive to me. Guess which of the two subjects is worse? Hint: It's most certainly not being gay. And it's [I]definitely[/I] not being gay when being compared to Nazis like people keep trying to say here.
No it's very explicitly objectively wrong to be anti-gay. Gay people do not harm people by existing. If you have a problem with gay people because they're gay then you're simply an awful person. End of story.[/QUOTE]
Is the store owner a douchebag? Yes he is. Dont seen anybody saying he isnt or defending him just the justice department choice.
Cakes are definely can be considered art. Have you not seen the bunch of cooking shows where they have makers contest in making huge uniquely designed cakes?
Lets not start saying obvious art pieces isnt art anymore so some gay dude can get an cake from a guy who doesnt want it create it.
Also comparing an single private store owner not wanting to make a cake(he wasnt even denying service to gays, just didnt want to make whatever LBGT related cake they want) to the government literally seperating minorities and white people, the mass racism and abuse of minorities, lynchings, and nazi's genocidal germany.
Just agree the store owner is a dick and be gone with it. Wanting the the department of justice to set an awful precedent over a fucking cake is just stupid. We dont even know what EXACTLY the design they wanted anyways either.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;52665911]This entire conversation is stupid as hell. Calling cakes art is generally just stupid. It's food. [/QUOTE]
Why does the medium being edible make something not art? [url=http://www.baconwrappedmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Amazing-Cake-Art-14.jpg]Can't cake be both?[/url]
[quote]If the cake is explicitly endorsing gays then maybe some sort of valid argument could be made. But unless it's being made for a pride parade or something it's really not an argument. It was a cake for a private wedding.[/quote]
Why is it completely impossible a private wedding cake could have something thematic to the couple being gay?
That said, based on this quote from a [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/the-spurned-couple-the-baker-and-the-long-wait-for-the-supreme-court/2017/08/13/c95c7c5c-7ea8-11e7-83c7-5bd5460f0d7e_story.html?utm_term=.f38c8c98c634]different article[/url], it really seems like the baker was discriminating against them solely because of their sexual orientation, rather than what they were asking him to create:
[quote]The couple arrived with Craig’s mother and a book of ideas, but Phillips cut short the meeting as soon as he learned the cake was to celebrate the couple’s marriage.
Phillips recalled: “Our conversation was just about 20 seconds long. ‘Sorry guys, I don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.’ ”[/quote]
Which should be illegal.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;52665984]Why does the medium being edible make something not art? [url=http://www.baconwrappedmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Amazing-Cake-Art-14.jpg]Can't cake be both?[/url][/QUOTE]
It can but just because a cake can be art does not mean all cakes are art. Nor does it mean all cakes a so-called "cake artist" makes are art either.
[QUOTE]Why is it completely impossible a private wedding cake could have something thematic to the couple being gay?[/QUOTE]
The only thing that'd be likely would be having two grooms instead of the typical bride+groom setup, which really doesn't violate religious beliefs, or asking to have neither which would be even less likely to violate someone's religious beliefs. Unless the cake is explicitly a pro-LGBT statement rather than something that is simply incidentally homosexual in nature then the baker's religious beliefs are totally irrelevant. A wedding cake isn't exactly going to be making a pro-LGBT statement.
[QUOTE]That said, based on this quote from a different article, it really seems like the baker was discriminating against them solely because of their sexual orientation, rather than what they were asking him to create:[/QUOTE]
That too. People have actually pointed it out repeatedly in the thread thus far but people keep ignoring it because it doesn't suit their agenda. I remember when this case first went to court (or when it was getting filed or whatever, there was a news article on it) and that article was pretty clear as well that the cake itself wasn't the actual issue at hand but the fact the couple buying the cake was gay which is blatant discrimination.
Edit:
[QUOTE=Sky King;52665967]IAlso comparing an single private store owner not wanting to make a cake(he wasnt even denying service to gays, just didnt want to make whatever LBGT related cake they want) to the government literally seperating minorities and white people, the mass racism and abuse of minorities, lynchings, and nazi's genocidal germany.[/QUOTE]
The rest of your post is either irrelevant or already basically addressed in my reply to DaMastez but you are completely 110% off the mark here. As DaMastez pointed out, and several others have pointed out previously in the thread, this is in fact related to the couple being gay and not the cake itself. You seem to have a serious issue with reading threads before posting in them. This is at least the second time I've bothered replying to you in the past week pointing out that you didn't read a thread before posting in it and I've seen you do it on several other occasions. I recommend actually reading before making claims like this which have already been debunked before you even made the post.
[QUOTE=J!NX;52665745]Remember, not comparing the 2 but a gay couple wanting a wedding cake and a radical wanting a cake that advocates genocide? Basically you're equally morally in the right for denying either
But remember
not comparing the 2
[editline]9th September 2017[/editline]
I love how you have to bloat the LGBT 'gender identity' thing to the most extreme possible example for your argument to even work
it couldn't have been a normal cake naw, have to blow it up to be the most offensive possible thing for it to exist. The entire post relies on making it as big a deal as possible, far more than any regular LGBT cake would be.
I'm willing to bet that the LGBT couple wasn't doing this. Just saying.[/QUOTE]
I think the point is more that you can't use "The baker is wrong to be offended" as justification for infringing on their rights because there is no objective basis for whether it is right to find something offensive. Anyone can be pissed off by anything, and you're dismissing the cases you're pissed off by as irrelevant to the issue at hand. I don't think assessing whether something is sufficiently offensive to somebody is justification for selectively infringing on the rights of businesses.
There's certainly a difference in morality between denying service to gay people and to people who are interested in violence. But trying to have a 1:1 map between law and morality is how you get shit like religious values being transcribed into law.
[QUOTE=halofreak472;52666052]I think the point is more that you can't use "The baker is wrong to be offended" as justification for infringing on their rights because there is no objective basis for whether it is right to find something offensive. Anyone can be pissed off by anything, and you're dismissing the cases you're pissed off by as irrelevant to the issue at hand. I don't think assessing whether something is sufficiently offensive to somebody is justification for selectively infringing on the rights of businesses.
There's certainly a difference in morality between denying service to gay people and to people who are interested in violence. But trying to have a 1:1 map between law and morality is how you get shit like religious values being transcribed into law.[/QUOTE]
No doubt about that. Everyone will be offended by anything.
For them, it seems like they are taking it to such extremes that the point is completely moot. It's stuff that is nearly universally offensive to people not a part of that ideology VS being offended by someone merely being a part of a minority/group
Really, that is why the law exists, to stop a minority from being treated as a second class citizen and to legally distinguish race/sex/orientation as separate from ideology/religion/faction
all the "white only" rhetoric is out of range - they are not forbidden to visit his bakery and buy his products, they are only rejected on one, very specif case, of very specific kind of order that went against baker's personal believes.
Soo yeah, i'd say even if he refused black couple to bake a cake with words "fuck whites", that is his right.
If he refused disabled people cake with print of giant wheelchair running over puppies, that is his right.
Same goes about "but whut if it only one they can afford" - ffs if you can afford personal order, you sure can afford range of other products in same bakery without suffering from some "cake ration" shortage.
His business is no mandatory action, he can server when you whenever he [B]want[/B], and i'd say rejection of an order prior he ever touched money for it is no law breaking.
Yay for justice and rational thinking and a big fuck you to overraction.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;52666094]2 dudes holding hands on the top of a cake vs a wheelchair squeezing the brains out of a puppy
ill let you decide which one is more offensive and less petty to refuse an order over[/QUOTE]
there are snowflakes who are offended by posts online, and make a fuss out of it.
It's our right to ridiculte it and their to get offended by it cause they're feeling like pussi.
Still they can refuse baking a cake and don't give a damn about.
[t]https://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium/offensive-cake--saif-ahmed.jpg[/t][t]http://imageslogotv-a.akamaihd.net//uri/mgid:file:http:shared:s3.amazonaws.com/articles.newnownext.com-production/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/gay-cake-1493734725.jpg?quality=0.8&format=jpg&width=1800[/t][t]https://static.deathandtaxesmag.com/uploads/2015/03/Penis-Cake.jpg[/t][t]http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1837064/images/o-GAY-WEDDING-CAKE-facebook.jpg[/t][t]https://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2016/01/523828.jpg[/t][t]http://america.aljazeera.com/content/ajam/articles/2015/8/13/baker-who-refused-to-make-gay-wedding-cake-cant-cite-religious-beliefs/jcr:content/headlineImage.adapt.1460.high.GayCake_Headline_20150813.1439575214255.jpg[/t][t]https://i.ytimg.com/vi/q7ePFollQQE/maxresdefault.jpg[/t][t]https://cdn001.cakecentral.com/gallery/2015/03/1024x768_7977665rTG_lady-gaga-born-this-way-cake-with-rainbow-cupcakes-lgbt.jpg[/t][t]https://www.thelocal.fr/userdata/images/article/77d17aec3217deb0d51235f4b73fd3fbb4f334ceaa9cff67283e8a1de6d6a545.jpg[/t]
They're all the same, don't you see?
You could easily not be a giant bitch and suck it up and put a male figurine next to another male figurine
whoa that was the hardest decision you ever made
[QUOTE=Baconator 7;52665724]if some radical muslims came in and tried to have him make them a cake that says "ally ackbar kill all americans"[/quote]
I
[quote]if some feminists came in and tried to have him make a cake that says "women are better than men"[/quote]
You
[quote]if a fart fetishist came in and tried to have him make a cake with a turd on it,[/quote]
Jesus fucking christ
[quote]would he be discriminating against the queer community?[/QUOTE]
You can not write this shit
I thought this was just a situation of an artist refusing a commission, which I wouldn't take issue with because I don't believe in forcing anyone to use their talents to support any ideology they don't believe in, but him outright telling them he wouldn't take their request from the get-go really hurts any benefit of the doubt I could allow him and makes me think more like "oh, he's refusing to serve them purely because of what they are, rather than what they ordered."
The article doesn't give a very clear-cut picture, either.
Fuck their religious beliefs quite frankly. It's shocking how many people are willing to excuse bigotry and homophobia just because it is part of their religion.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;52666017]It can but just because a cake can be art does not mean all cakes are art. Nor does it mean all cakes a so-called "cake artist" makes are art either.
The only thing that'd be likely would be having two grooms instead of the typical bride+groom setup, which really doesn't violate religious beliefs, or asking to have neither which would be even less likely to violate someone's religious beliefs. Unless the cake is explicitly a pro-LGBT statement rather than something that is simply incidentally homosexual in nature then the baker's religious beliefs are totally irrelevant. A wedding cake isn't exactly going to be making a pro-LGBT statement.
That too. People have actually pointed it out repeatedly in the thread thus far but people keep ignoring it because it doesn't suit their agenda. I remember when this case first went to court (or when it was getting filed or whatever, there was a news article on it) and that article was pretty clear as well that the cake itself wasn't the actual issue at hand but the fact the couple buying the cake was gay which is blatant discrimination.
Edit:
The rest of your post is either irrelevant or already basically addressed in my reply to DaMastez but you are completely 110% off the mark here. As DaMastez pointed out, and several others have pointed out previously in the thread, this is in fact related to the couple being gay and not the cake itself. You seem to have a serious issue with reading threads before posting in them. This is at least the second time I've bothered replying to you in the past week pointing out that you didn't read a thread before posting in it and I've seen you do it on several other occasions. I recommend actually reading before making claims like this which have already been debunked before you even made the post.[/QUOTE]
Please show me the "no gays allowed" sign on his store window?
The department of defense was pretty clear it had to do with the cake other wise it wouldve been a open and shut discrimination case. Which it isnt.
[editline]10th September 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=J!NX;52666175]You could easily not be a giant bitch and suck it up and put a male figurine next to another male figurine
whoa that was the hardest decision you ever made[/QUOTE]
Nobody is fucking defending the guy. They are defending artist choice and also the choice to do make whatever cake you want in your own private business.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.