Department of Justice sides with baker who refused to bake LGBT Cake
198 replies, posted
[QUOTE=DinoJesus;52663555]You and I both know he didn't mean that. Stop fishing for zings.
Besides nobody in the private sector has to work for everyone. Call them a dick sure but they have that right to be a dick.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Marbalo;52663535]You don't necessarily get to stretch the logic to its extreme in this case. Drawing comparisons to refusing to serve based on race is also a misunderstanding of this verdict.[/QUOTE]
[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]
Actually guys, in response to what Joe said "a private business can give any reason for refusing service to anyone", what he said was very appropriate. Just because this individual case is actually about the content of the cake itself rather than refusing to serve a specific group (as far as I can tell from the article), doesn't mean that his logic isn't the exact logic that would allow black people to be discriminated against by any business. Did you know you actually can't do that in this country? It's illegal. So his opinion is contrary to how things already work, and in my opinion, in favor of pointless regression through removal of civil rights laws about not being allowed to refuse service in discriminatory manners.
[QUOTE=Bertie;52663604]Seems fine to me. He didn't refuse to make a cake, he refused to make it an LGBT-themed cake. There's a difference.[/QUOTE]
see, this is how you understand the nuance of a case like this
[QUOTE=_Axel;52663487]So you do not see a problem with a private enterprise serving whites only?[/QUOTE]
I think you enter dangerous territory when you start making rules on freedom of x. Infringing on peoples religious beliefs isn't okay, regardless of if it's stupid or not.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52665517]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]
He has a right to be offended by gay people. Just as the person had the right to find another baker. It's not discriminatory unless he refused to serve him on the basis of being gay.
[QUOTE=WhiteGirl88;52666550]I think you enter dangerous territory when you start making rules on freedom of x. Infringing on peoples religious beliefs isn't okay, regardless of if it's stupid or not.
He has a right to be offended by gay people. Just as the person had the right to find another baker. It's not discriminatory unless he refused to serve him on the basis of being gay.[/QUOTE]
So you agree that discriminatory (based on who they are rather than what they request) refusal of service is bad and should be (is) banned, right? Because that's all people are arguing against that kind of statement about.
some of the comparisons you guys are making in this thread are out of this fucking world
b-but what if someone came in and wanted a NAZI CAKE
[QUOTE=karimatrix;52666085]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]
For fuck's sake, all over the thread it's been specified that the baker didn't refuse service based on the nature of the cake, but [I]because of the couple's sexual orientation.[/I] Heck it's been said again a few posts above yours.
It can't be compared to a "fuck whites" cake because it's not about the cake, but about the couple being a minority. If anything it [I]should[/I] be compared to a baker refusing service to a couple because they're black.
Read the fucking thread.
[QUOTE=WhiteGirl88;52666550]It's not discriminatory unless he refused to serve him on the basis of being gay. [/QUOTE]
But they were denied service on the count of being gay, so what are you on about?
[QUOTE=WhiteGirl88;52666550]I think you enter dangerous territory when you start making rules on freedom of x. Infringing on peoples religious beliefs isn't okay, regardless of if it's stupid or not.[/QUOTE]
Religious beliefs aren't any more important than non-theistic beliefs and opinions, and shouldn't be given special treatment. Freedom of religion shouldn't supersede anti-discrimination laws.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52666843]Religious beliefs aren't any more important than non-theistic beliefs and opinions, and shouldn't be given special treatment. Freedom of religion shouldn't supersede anti-discrimination laws.[/QUOTE]
Or put another way: Given the choice between "I choose to believe" and "I exist", only one of them deserves special treatment compared to the other
[QUOTE=_Axel;52666824]For fuck's sake, all over the thread it's been specified that the baker didn't refuse service based on the nature of the cake, but [I]because of the couple's sexual orientation.[/I] Heck it's been said again a few posts above yours.
It can't be compared to a "fuck whites" cake because it's not about the cake, but about the couple being a minority. If anything it [I]should[/I] be compared to a baker refusing service to a couple because they're black.
Read the fucking thread.[/QUOTE]
Well, if this is the case, let's hope the Supreme Court comes down on the right side, and goes against the administration. If they rule the other way, really it'll just be one less thing separating the United States from third world shitholes the world over.
[QUOTE=Sky King;52666352]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.[/QUOTE]
Please read the god damned thread where it has been repeatedly pointed out that he refused their service before ever even discussing the cake just because he learned it was for a gay couple. Hm... Yup, that's clearly about the cake and not the fact they're gay, ain't it? DaMastez, just last page, posted a quote about how one of the guys and his mother had been talking to the baker for like 20 seconds when he found out the guy was gay and he [I]immediately[/I] refused service. Do you get this yet or does it need to be repeated another couple dozen times before it'll finally sink in?
[QUOTE=Baconator 7;52665724]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.[/quote]
You talk like this is a done deal, but the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on it yet. Trump's DoJ is coming out in defense of the homophobic baker (big surprise), but the SC still has to rule on this, and they are ultimately the ones who decide whether or not he has a constitutional right to discriminate against homosexuals.
[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?
"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]
These are all irrelevant examples, because they hinge upon the cake itself being offensive, whereas this baker refused service before even [I]discussing[/I] the cake purely on the grounds that the clients were homosexuals. Let me make some corrections for you:
[quote]if some radical muslims came in and tried to have him make them a cake that says "ally ackbar kill all americans"[/quote]
If some Muslims came in and asked to order a cake, would he be clearly in the wrong for denying service solely on the grounds that they were Muslims? Yes. Absolutely. No question.
[quote]if some feminists came in and tried to have him make a cake that says "women are better than men" would it be right?[/quote]
If a group of women wanted to order a cake, would the baker be wrong for refusing their order solely on the grounds that they were women? Yes. Absolutely. No question.
[quote]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]
If a "queer" wanted to order a cake, would he be in the wrong for refusing to honor his order solely on the grounds that the client were a homosexual? Yes. Absolutely. No question.
There is a huge distinction between discriminating against somebody for [I]who they are[/I] as opposed to refusing service for [I]what they are asking you to create.[/I] The subject of what the cake actually wasn't actually in question here. He didn't refuse service because they asked him to make an "offensive cake," he refused service because they were homosexuals, and that is simply wrong.
Taking back what I said on the first page, if he simply refused to make [I]any [/I]sort of cake for them rather than refused to make something specifically endorsing LGBT-ism then this is a pretty straightforward case of discrimination.
How the fuck did we start rationally at "freedom of artistic expression" and end up at "perfectly rational to fear the queer"?
[QUOTE=GayIlluminati;52667489]How the fuck did we start rationally at "freedom of artistic expression" and end up at "perfectly rational to fear the queer"?[/QUOTE]
Well for starters it was never about freedom of expression, and always about no gays allowed
[QUOTE=gokiyono;52667495]Well for starters it was never about freedom of expression, and always about no gays allowed[/QUOTE]
Not denying it wasn't, just shellshocked by how quickly the argument went down the shitter
[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52666882]He would've let them buy anything in his shop that was already made. He did not want to create a cake for a gay wedding. That's the difference. If he had a "no fags allowed" sign on the door then that would be illegal. Refusing to provide service for ideological reasons is protected under law.[/QUOTE]
What is the difference between having a "no gays allowed" sign and telling the person "no gays allowed" when they want to order something?
[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52668042]When they custom order something for an event which the supplier ideologically disagrees with*[/QUOTE]
So you are fine with denying services to black people because you ideologically disagree with them? Sounds pretty ridiculous, doesn't it?
[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52668042]The one question I have here is: Where does it end? At what point can the baker say "No I'm not comfortable making this cake so I'm not going to".[/QUOTE]
When he gets told how the cake is supposed to look. Like if he was told to depict gay sex or something. However, since most wedding cakes looks pretty generic, he's got no reason to deny them. Even in your (possibly overexaggerated) example he just tells them 'no' for no other reason than them being born
[editline]10th September 2017[/editline]
Put another way. If a commission artist doesn't want to draw Stephen universe art because they might be afraid of the Fandom, that is fine. If same artist doesn't want to make Sherlock art because they might be uncomfortable with what the person requests of them to draw, that is fine. But if they refuse to draw something because the person requesting the art is bisexuality, the that is not fine.
[QUOTE=Paramud;52665613]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]
A more apt comparison would be a baker who served blacks and whites equally, but was unwilling to make cakes for biracial marriages.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52667463]You talk like this is a done deal, but the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on it yet. Trump's DoJ is coming out in defense of the homophobic baker (big surprise), but the SC still has to rule on this, and they are ultimately the ones who decide whether or not he has a constitutional right to discriminate against homosexuals.
These are all irrelevant examples, because they hinge upon the cake itself being offensive, whereas this baker refused service before even [I]discussing[/I] the cake purely on the grounds that the clients were homosexuals. Let me make some corrections for you:
If some Muslims came in and asked to order a cake, would he be clearly in the wrong for denying service solely on the grounds that they were Muslims? Yes. Absolutely. No question.
If a group of women wanted to order a cake, would the baker be wrong for refusing their order solely on the grounds that they were women? Yes. Absolutely. No question.
If a "queer" wanted to order a cake, would he be in the wrong for refusing to honor his order solely on the grounds that the client were a homosexual? Yes. Absolutely. No question.
There is a huge distinction between discriminating against somebody for [I]who they are[/I] as opposed to refusing service for [I]what they are asking you to create.[/I] The subject of what the cake actually wasn't actually in question here. He didn't refuse service because they asked him to make an "offensive cake," he refused service because they were homosexuals, and that is simply wrong.[/QUOTE]
to my knowledge, there are no religions officially acknowledged by the us government that oppose islam or women. for the muslims and the women in your examples, yeah, you're right, he'd be wrong. and i'll admit that my fart example was really stupid so i won't even go into that.
but guess what! there are interpretations of christianity acknowledged by the us government that oppose homosexuality. as far as the constitution is concerned, his religion is protected by the constitution in that sense. and he did NOT deny service because they were homosexuals. to quote the article,
[quote]“Forcing Phillips to create expression for and participate in a ceremony that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs invades his First Amendment rights,” Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall wrote in the brief.[/quote]
they homosexuals were not denied business at the bakery. they were denied that very specific practice, a commission which would include the creation of a work depicting homosexuality (yes jinx, two figurines standing on top of a cake is depicting homosexuality. doesn't matter how clearly petty and fucking stupid it is.).
as i've said time and again, homophobia is wrong. absolutely. no question. however, you can't force an artist to create a work that would violate his freedom of religion, in this case a religion that shuns homosexuality.
believe me, i'm just as much of a neckbeard as the rest of you (maybe not [i]that[/i] much but still a fair bit). i hate religion. it's stupid. this is absolutely an unfair ruling by the doj, and yeah, hopefully the supreme court will tell this asshole to fuck off. but until that time comes, the only official ruling we have is from the doj saying that the constitution defends this man's religion.
the constitution was created with protections for all people in mind. if the government could censor religious homophobes and force them to create works that they don't want to, what's to stop trump from lining up anti-trump protesters and executing them? freedom can't only be given to the people that you like. it can't be a double standard. either EVERYONE is free, or nobody is. until you hold constitution convention 2 and amend the constitution, american, this is a fair ruling.
[editline]10th September 2017[/editline]
oh look at that i didn't even see dave's post before i wrote that. his quote perfectly sums up why this is okay. creating a cake for a gay wedding would essentially be condoning the wedding. he didn't deny it because they were gay, he did it because he didn't want to be part of the wedding, and has a religion that is against gay marriage.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52668415]A more apt comparison would be a baker who served blacks and whites equally, but was unwilling to make cakes for biracial marriages.[/QUOTE]
He's not serving gay people period, for fuck's sake. The "apt comparison" would be him not making cakes for any marriage that involve a black person.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52668475]He's not serving gay people period, for fuck's sake. The "apt comparison" would be him not making cakes for any marriage that involve a black person.[/QUOTE]
I've read like 10 articles on the baker and haven't seen anything that suggests he wouldn't make a cake for a gay person at all. The baker even specifically said that he would be happy to provide the gay couple with other baked goods (like birthday cakes, brownies, shower cakes, and cookies). ([URL]https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/07/just-desserts[/URL])
[editline]10th September 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE]He's not serving gay people period, for fuck's sake.[/QUOTE]
This claim is just factually incorrect. In the vast majority of situations, the baker would have provided baked goods for gay people.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52668475]He's not serving gay people period, for fuck's sake.[/QUOTE]
you are literally wrong. have you read any of the articles about this?
[editline]10th September 2017[/editline]
[url]http://dailysignal.com/2017/06/26/supreme-court-review-case-baker-fined-not-baking-gay-wedding-cake/[/url]
here ya go axel read that
[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52668042]When they custom order something for an event which the supplier ideologically disagrees with*
[/QUOTE]
Except he doesn't. He's advertising himself as a person that makes wedding cakes. That would be like if I sold hot dogs and had a sign that says "I sell hot dogs" but when a gay person asks for one I said "Sorry I don't sell hot dogs. Don't believe in it"
Unless you arguing that gay weddings are not weddings? I checked the site and (although this could have changed) there's nothing anywhere on the site that clarifies that when he uses the word "wedding" he means only a certain kind. Can you just redefine what words mean to you? Can I sell hats and then say "Well to me when a white person wears it its called a hat, and to anybody else its head apparel."
A wedding is a wedding. He doesn't disagree with the event, he disagrees with serving gays which is discrimination. Religion is just an excuse because he's not providing the service of making cakes for [I]Christian[/I] weddings.
[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52668042]Where does it end? At what point can the baker say "No I'm not comfortable making this cake so I'm not going to".[/QUOTE]
He can actually. You just have refuse the order not the person. As a chef/baker you are allowed to decide what kind of food serve, not what kind of people.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52668513]I've read like 10 articles on the baker and haven't seen anything that suggests he wouldn't make a cake for a gay person at all. The baker even specifically said that he would be happy to provide the gay couple with other baked goods (like birthday cakes, brownies, shower cakes, and cookies). ([URL]https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/07/just-desserts[/URL])[/QUOTE]
So essentially you're claiming that he would have made a cake for a gay person who's about to enter a straight marriage? That's fucking dumb.
My point:
[QUOTE=_Axel;52668475]The "apt comparison" would be him not making cakes for any marriage that involve a black person.[/QUOTE]
Still holds.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52668540]So essentially you're claiming that he would have made a cake for a gay person who's about to enter a straight marriage? That's fucking dumb.
My point:
Still holds.[/QUOTE]
No... the point is that he is willing to serve gay people in every other way. He will make gay couples birthday cakes, make them brownies, make them shower cakes, make them cookies (the specific examples given by the baker, himself). The only thing he won't do is make a wedding cake for a gay wedding.
It is factually incorrect to say that he "won't serve gay people, period." That would mean that he wouldn't serve gay people in any way, which is factually wrong.
[QUOTE=Baconator 7;52668530]you are literally wrong. have you read any of the articles about this?
[editline]10th September 2017[/editline]
[url]http://dailysignal.com/2017/06/26/supreme-court-review-case-baker-fined-not-baking-gay-wedding-cake/[/url]
here ya go axel read that[/QUOTE]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/rjFxRHU.png[/img]
I'll read a source that isn't shit.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52668554]I'll read a source that isn't shit.[/QUOTE]
How about The Economist article that I linked (it's rated as "least biased" with "high" factual reporting). Everything I've said is directly from the article linked.
The baker is just fine serving openly gay people in every way other than gay weddings.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52668552]No... the point is that he is willing to serve gay people in every other way. He will make gay couples birthday cakes, make them brownies, make them shower cakes, make them cookies (the specific examples given by the baker, himself). The only thing he won't do is make a wedding cake for a gay wedding.
It is factually incorrect to say that he "won't serve gay people, period." That would mean that he wouldn't serve gay people in any way, which is factually wrong.[/QUOTE]
Your original statement is:
[QUOTE=sgman91;52668415]A more apt comparison would be a baker who served blacks and whites equally, but was unwilling to make cakes for biracial marriages.[/QUOTE]
My response is:
[QUOTE=_Axel;52668475]The "apt comparison" would be him not making cakes for any marriage that involve a black person.[/QUOTE]
Unless you're trying to make the point that he isn't discriminating against gay people because he'd happily bake a cake for a gay people entering a straight marriage, which is a stupid point, my comparison is the apt one. He's not serving gay people when it comes to wedding cakes. That he's okay with baking cakes for other occasions gay couples on the verge of marriage aren't interested in is irrelevant. If a classy restaurant refuses to serve a gourmet meal to black people, is it okay as long as they still offer them a bucket of fried chicken? It fucking isn't.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52668552]No... the point is that he is willing to serve gay people in every other way. He will make gay couples birthday cakes, make them brownies, make them shower cakes, make them cookies (the specific examples given by the baker, himself). The only thing he won't do is make a wedding cake for a gay wedding.
It is factually incorrect to say that he "won't serve gay people, period." That would mean that he wouldn't serve gay people in any way, which is factually wrong.[/QUOTE]
I actually didn't know he had said this when I wrote my last post.
[quote=Masterpiece Cakes]Masterpiece Cakes are perfect for special occasions, and they taste incredible. Choose from any of our many flavors, frostings, and fillings for your wedding, birthday, or specialty cake.[/quote]
It doesn't specify! The gay couple had no way of knowing that he meant [I]Christian[/I] weddings!
[quote=Oxford Dict.]wed·ding
noun
a marriage ceremony, especially considered as including the associated celebrations.[/quote]
:blaze:
[QUOTE=sgman91;52668552]No... the point is that he is willing to serve gay people in every other way. He will make gay couples birthday cakes, make them brownies, make them shower cakes, make them cookies (the specific examples given by the baker, himself). The only thing he won't do is make a wedding cake for a gay wedding.
It is factually incorrect to say that he "won't serve gay people, period." That would mean that he wouldn't serve gay people in any way, which is factually wrong.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]The only thing he won't do is make a wedding cake for a gay wedding.[/QUOTE]
So this would still be fine if
[QUOTE]he is willing to serve black people in every other way. He will make black couples birthday cakes, make them brownies, make them shower cakes, make them cookies (the specific examples given by the baker, himself). The only thing he won't do is make a wedding cake for a black wedding.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.