• Department of Justice sides with baker who refused to bake LGBT Cake
    198 replies, posted
[QUOTE=_Axel;52668554][img]http://i.imgur.com/rjFxRHU.png[/img] I'll read a source that isn't shit.[/QUOTE] since you ignored sgman telling you to read this article instead, how about this one? [url]https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/07/just-desserts[/url] [t]https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/254402335625707520/356574685573545995/wefgwefwef.PNG[/t] which includes exactly the same quote that i was mentioning in the other article [editline]10th September 2017[/editline] the quote in question being that he said he'd serve them anything but a wedding cake because said cake would be his participation in a gay wedding, which his religion opposes
[QUOTE=Baconator 7;52668602]the quote in question being that he said he'd serve them anything but a wedding cake because said cake would be his participation in a gay wedding, which his religion opposes[/QUOTE] And I already addressed that point. That he offers them unrelated products is irrelevant to his denying service based on sexual orientation for the product in question. As for religion, as I already said, it doesn't excuse you from following anti-discrimination laws. Religious beliefs shouldn't be given any more special treatment than other beliefs and opinions. If my religion involves human sacrifice that doesn't mean I get to murder my nephew.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52668621]And I already addressed that point. That he offers them unrelated products is irrelevant to his denying service based on sexual orientation for the product in question. As for religion, as I already said, it doesn't excuse you from following anti-discrimination laws. Religious beliefs shouldn't be given any more special treatment than other beliefs and opinions. If my religion involves human sacrifice that doesn't mean I get to murder my nephew.[/QUOTE] My religion prohibits gambling, Officer! So of course I don't have insurance! Edit: This is a joke. I actually don't see a big deal with with religion being involved in this case considering weddings are often religious ceremonies. For example, a wedding planner from another country only doing Hindu weddings because thats what they knew how to plan for. So long as they advertised themselves as "Hindu wedding planner" not a general purpose one.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52668621] As for religion, as I already said, it doesn't excuse you from following anti-discrimination laws. Religious beliefs shouldn't be given any more special treatment than other beliefs and opinions. If my religion involves human sacrifice that doesn't mean I get to murder my nephew.[/QUOTE] 1. [url=http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/27/lgbt-protection-sex-discrimination-law-241039]homosexuals are not covered under federal anti discrimination laws. there has been no supreme court ruling on the circumstance, and trump's department of justice claims that there is NO federal protection for them.[/url] or rather, they are not granted the "right to wedding cake". they are protected from, say, discrimination in the work place (as far as i know, obama's acts which protect them still apply), and from hate crimes, but this is neither of those things. nonetheless, this is fucked up, yeah, but until you change the law... 2. religious beliefs are protected under the constitution of the united states. like literally, it's the first thing in the bill of rights. give it a read! [url]http://constitutionus.com/[/url] 3. if your religion involves human sacrifice, you don't get to murder your nephew. that's right. but that's because murder is illegal in the us. the religion has nothing to do with it. however, again, there are no laws saying that gay people have a right to wedding cakes.
[QUOTE=Baconator 7;52668695]1. [url=http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/27/lgbt-protection-sex-discrimination-law-241039]homosexuals are not covered under federal anti discrimination laws. there has been no supreme court ruling on the circumstance, and trump's department of justice claims that there is NO federal protection for them.[/url] or rather, they are not granted the "right to wedding cake". they are protected from, say, discrimination in the work place (as far as i know, obama's acts which protect them still apply), and from hate crimes, but this is neither of those things. nonetheless, this is fucked up, yeah, but until you change the law... 2. religious beliefs are protected under the constitution of the united states. like literally, it's the first thing in the bill of rights. give it a read! [url]http://constitutionus.com/[/url] 3. if your religion involves human sacrifice, you don't get to murder your nephew. that's right. but that's because murder is illegal in the us. the religion has nothing to do with it. however, again, there are no laws saying that gay people have a right to wedding cakes.[/QUOTE] So the goal posts have been moved from "should the baker be allowed to do this" to "is what he's doing legal"? Remember, the origin of the discussion is sgman saying this isn't comparable to apartheid practices. But before the civil rights movement, black people weren't a protected class either, so the comparison is actually pretty fitting.
[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52668042][QUOTE]The Daily Signal: To the extent you have to, how do you explain to customers why you aren’t making wedding cakes? Phillips: The two-minute version of it would be: Three years ago, two men came into my bakery and wanted a wedding cake and said it was for their wedding. I said, ‘Sorry, guys, I don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.’ They said, ‘What?’ I said, ‘You know, I’ll make you a birthday cake, shower cake, I’ll sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t do cakes for same-sex weddings.’ At which point they stomped out. One went out one door, the other went out the other door, swearing at me and flipping me off. And then the phones started ringing. They apparently called their friends and said let’s harass this guy, or whatever happened. Then the state sued me.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE] Amazing how majority of people in this thread haven't even seen this^, he didn't deny them service he did however deny making a same-sex wedding cake. LGBT Community retaliated to this ordeal with death threats and extreme escalation. (As what's currently happening in Australia to no voters) [URL]http://dailysignal.com/2015/08/19/24-questions-for-jack-phillips-the-baker-who-gave-up-wedding-cakes-for-god/[/URL]
[QUOTE=_Axel;52668739]So the goal posts have been moved from "should the baker be allowed to do this" to "is what he's doing legal"? Remember, the origin of the discussion is sgman saying this isn't comparable to apartheid practices. But before the civil rights movement, black people weren't a protected class either, so the comparison is actually pretty fitting.[/QUOTE] i've been arguing this entire time that it's "is it legal." we're on facepunch, there's no fucking question that 9/10 people on this forum agree that the guy is an asshole homophobe and that he shouldn't [i]do[/i] it. but our opinions on his morality aren't relevant when the law is broken enough that he can get away with it, legally. [editline]10th September 2017[/editline] and wtf nobody ever moved the goal posts, you were arguing last page about if it's legal to discriminate against people [editline]10th September 2017[/editline] and he's allowed to do this... because it's legal... what were you even trying to say?
[QUOTE=Baconator 7;52668695]1. [url=http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/27/lgbt-protection-sex-discrimination-law-241039]homosexuals are not covered under federal anti discrimination laws. there has been no supreme court ruling on the circumstance, and trump's department of justice claims that there is NO federal protection for them.[/url] or rather, they are not granted the "right to wedding cake". they are protected from, say, discrimination in the work place (as far as i know, obama's acts which protect them still apply), and from hate crimes, but this is neither of those things. nonetheless, this is fucked up, yeah, but until you change the law... 2. religious beliefs are protected under the constitution of the united states. like literally, it's the first thing in the bill of rights. give it a read! [url]http://constitutionus.com/[/url] 3. if your religion involves human sacrifice, you don't get to murder your nephew. that's right. but that's because murder is illegal in the us. the religion has nothing to do with it. however, again, there are no laws saying that gay people have a right to wedding cakes.[/QUOTE] You're arguing on behalf of discrimination because it's legal, in a thread discussing whether or not it should be legal. Also when you say "religion has nothing do with it" and I cant figure out what you mean by this because that's what you're replying to and it's the first thing you mention in 2/3 of the bullets.
[QUOTE=Baconator 7;52668809]i've been arguing this entire time that it's "is it legal." we're on facepunch, there's no fucking question that 9/10 people on this forum agree that the guy is an asshole homophobe and that he shouldn't [i]do[/i] it. but our opinions on his morality aren't relevant when the law is broken enough that he can get away with it, legally.[/QUOTE] No, actually, a pretty significant portion of posters here are arguing that "It's an asshole thing to do, but he should be allowed to make that choice" which is what I'm arguing against.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52668836]No, actually, a pretty significant portion of posters here are arguing that "It's an asshole thing to do, but he should be allowed to make that choice" which is what I'm arguing against.[/QUOTE] and we're saying that he should be allowed to make that choice because the law protects the choice.
[QUOTE=Baconator 7;52668840]and we're saying that he should be allowed to make that choice because the law protects the choice.[/QUOTE] "He [I]should be[/I] allowed to make that choice" means that you agree with it being his right to do so. What you're arguing is "He [I]is[/I] allowed to make that choice".
[QUOTE=Baconator 7;52668840]and we're saying that he should be allowed to make that choice because the law protects the choice.[/QUOTE] [gets in time machine for the sake of hypothetical] You should be allowed to keep the blacks out of your schools. Jim Crow laws exist! This is all the validation I need to utter the phrase "You should be allowed to segregate schools." which in this place in time is a technically true statement. It's fucked up, but hey you change the law! You get why that would make me seem racist right? Instead of saying "You shouldn't be able to, it should be illegal" you're saying "it is already legal, therefore you should be able to" Our argument is you "shouldn't" be able to do things just because they're legal. You should not do them, and then advocate for changes to the law. You don't have to, but you also don't have to be a decent human. People that take advantage of the shitty law to discriminate and people who refuse to abuse its power are totally different people and your wording makes it appear as if you're advocating the actions of the former over the latter. I get that you aren't but it doesn't seem as if you get our side, so sorry if it looked like I was painting you in a bad light with this post. It was for the sake of explanation.
[QUOTE=Baconator 7;52668840]and we're saying that he should be allowed to make that choice because the law protects the choice.[/QUOTE] Just like how tax loopholes exist, so rich people should be allowed to evade taxes.
[QUOTE=Blind Lulu;52668959]Lets be real right now, this is nothing alike to this situation. If a gay couple ordered a generic wedding cake from this bakery they very likely would have been serviced. The bakery refused to bake a cake that was to their specifications. This is entirely different from being denied service because you are gay.[/QUOTE] But sgman said [QUOTE]The only thing he won't do is make a wedding cake for a gay wedding.[/QUOTE] Not a gay wedding cake for a wedding, but a wedding cake for a gay wedding. It was the gay wedding itself that was the deal-breaker to the bigot.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52669016]But sgman said Not a gay wedding cake for a wedding, but a wedding cake for a gay wedding. It was the gay wedding itself that was the deal-breaker to the bigot.[/QUOTE] Ironic use of the word Bigot
[QUOTE=Lebofly;52669075]Ironic use of the word Bigot[/QUOTE] I can't wait for you to explain this stunning bit of logic.
[QUOTE=Lebofly;52669075]Ironic use of the word Bigot[/QUOTE] ironic in... what way exactly?
[QUOTE=BelatedGamer;52669119]I can't wait for you to explain this stunning bit of logic.[/QUOTE] Apparently disapproving of bigotry is bigotry now? I thought it was more like, intolerance based on certain characteristics or like, refusing to make wedding cakes for gay couples getting married.
[QUOTE=Baconator 7;52668468]yes jinx, two figurines standing on top of a cake is depicting homosexuality.[/QUOTE] how was this ever put into question by me lmao [editline]10th September 2017[/editline] No shit???? [editline]10th September 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Baconator 7;52668468] 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.[/QUOTE] his freedom of religion violates homosexuals freedom of marriage, I think this entire argument is way too into the idea of the 'big bad evil government' not 'CONTROLLING peoples lives' Why should blacks be forced out of a business because the person dislikes their existance? Why should jews be denied a custom Israel flag shirt? You're stopping one entity from being forced to do something by forcing another to do another thing. That doesn't even make any sense. Here's a better idea: If your religion makes you intolerant of other people, you should choose to stop being a weak minded person and learn how to make decisions for yourself and not live your entire life based on the words of long-since-dead people. [QUOTE=Baconator 7;52668468] 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. [/QUOTE] The entire basis against the argument is 'the government shouldn't force people to do this thing' it's literally founded on this broad distrust for everything and anything the government does. Gosh, can't let that scary government controlling people now can we? [QUOTE]if the government could censor religious homophobes [/QUOTE] Don't you mean the opposite of censorship? This isn't censoring anyone, for it to be censorship it'd have to be lets say, a Jewish couple selling Jewish cakes and the government stepping in and saying "this is not allowed". For someone that loves to talk about how bad homophobia is it sure seems like you think that being 'forced' to put 2 men together on a cake is the most horrifying thing that could happen to a homophobe. But ultimately, do you know whats worse than being 'forced' to make an lgbt cake? Being treated like a second class citizen because no one is protecting your rights as an individual. Being forced to use a cake that doesn't represent you as an individual. Being forced to go to another store because god forbid they don't tolerate something about you that you literally have no choice over and they do. [QUOTE]what's to stop trump from lining up anti-trump protesters and executing them?[/QUOTE] How do you even take it to such an extreme like this. This is the definition of slippery slope argument. One day faggots are forcing people to make cakes for them... the next day Trump is lining people up and executing them on the spot! How do you even become this cynical of the government. How could you possibly go from censorship to systematically killing people for their beliefs. I must be reading this wrong, this has to be a joke. [QUOTE=Baconator 7;52668468] 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.[/QUOTE] Idk dude, sounds like you love this ruling. This sounds like a lot of "Look guys, I'm just like you" but its worthless. You can say that all day but you're talking about how the government shouldn't force people to do anything. But this is unfair? How contradictory could you possibly be. [editline]10th September 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Baconator 7;52668809]i've been arguing this entire time that it's "is it legal." we're on facepunch, there's no fucking question that 9/10 people on this forum agree that the guy is an asshole homophobe and that he shouldn't [i]do[/i] it. but our opinions on his morality aren't relevant when the law is broken enough that he can get away with it, legally. [/QUOTE] There was all this talk that the government shouldn't force people what to do and now its because its legal but its an unfair ruling even though you think the government shouldn't force people to do things :thinking:
[QUOTE=GayIlluminati;52667503]Not denying it wasn't, just shellshocked by how quickly the argument went down the shitter[/QUOTE] with such a quality opinion like JoeySkylynx's right there in the OP, I believe this thread started off in the shitter then got flushed into the sewage mains and kept going until it flew out the discharge pipe into the ocean of piss
the only legal merit to any of this to my eye is whether or not a custom cake is being ordered. The good being provided by the baker is not a "gay wedding cake" unless it features some adornment that would identify it as such (ie, one of those little miniatures of two dudes holding hands). As terrible as it is, under the first amendment you cannot force someone to make art that they do not want to make - irrespective of the religious aspect. It could literally just be someone who's really homophobic because they're a prick - under the first amendment, you [I]cannot[/I] force them to create art that they do not want to create. There are legal protections for artists (of all forms) that would prevent that, as "art" is considered a form of work that is inherently personal. So, to create a cake with "gay" adornments would be considered to be oppressively forcing an artist to create something they do not want to create. However, if the baker has wedding cakes available that have no adornments whatsoever beyond the typical flowers or whatever, their denial of goods and service is textbook discrimination against a class. However, as mentioned, unfortunately homosexuals are not considered a protected class federally (however, homosexuals [I]are[/I] a protected class in the State of Colorado...but since this is a fed case, SCOTUS doesn't care) so it would appear that this issue is likely going to hinge on whether or not the (a) creation and/or (b) sale of a wedding cake constitutes "artistic creation" as protected under the first amendment. as unfortunate as it is, the best thing you can do is Yelp businesses like this to death. I don't recall the exact statistics but it's something along the lines of 50-65% of businesses with 3 stars or less on review sites like Yelp don't survive more than one further year. So just review them into oblivion using the power of capitalism, as dirty as that may feel.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;52669268]the only legal merit to any of this to my eye is whether or not a custom cake is being ordered. The good being provided by the baker is not a "gay wedding cake" unless it features some adornment that would identify it as such (ie, one of those little miniatures of two dudes holding hands). As terrible as it is, under the first amendment you cannot force someone to make art that they do not want to make - irrespective of the religious aspect. It could literally just be someone who's really homophobic because they're a prick - under the first amendment, you [I]cannot[/I] force them to create art that they do not want to create. There are legal protections for artists (of all forms) that would prevent that, as "art" is considered a form of work that is inherently personal. So, to create a cake with "gay" adornments would be considered to be oppressively forcing an artist to create something they do not want to create. However, if the baker has wedding cakes available that have no adornments whatsoever beyond the typical flowers or whatever, their denial of goods and service is textbook discrimination against a class. However, as mentioned, unfortunately homosexuals are not considered a protected class federally (however, homosexuals [I]are[/I] a protected class in the State of Colorado...but since this is a fed case, SCOTUS doesn't care) so it would appear that this issue is likely going to hinge on whether or not the (a) creation and/or (b) sale of a wedding cake constitutes "artistic creation" as protected under the first amendment. as unfortunate as it is, the best thing you can do is Yelp businesses like this to death. I don't recall the exact statistics but it's something along the lines of 50-65% of businesses with 3 stars or less on review sites like Yelp don't survive more than one further year. So just review them into oblivion using the power of capitalism, as dirty as that may feel.[/QUOTE] The artistic freedom aspect doesn't come into play here because the couple hadn't even made any request yet regarding the aspect of the cake when they were denied. The baker refused them service as soon as he learned it was for a gay marriage. For all we know, the couple may very well have requested a cake virtually identical to one a straight couple would request, had they had the option of doing so.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52669135]Apparently disapproving of bigotry is bigotry now? I thought it was more like, intolerance based on certain characteristics or like, refusing to make wedding cakes for gay couples getting married.[/QUOTE] bigot ˈbɪɡət/Submit noun a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions. I don't think him not wanting to support same-sex marriage is bigoted especially considering marriage has traditionally been between a man and woman long before this whole same-sex marriage charade (AKA Majority of his lifetime) "Conform to it or you're a bigot" :chillout:, I do feel like you however calling him a bigot for having a different opinion to you is bigoted. Feel free to retaliate but I won't respond. EDIT: And I'll admit Ironic was the wrong word.
I dont think it's about artistic freedom in this case. I think its about what the law does and not consider discrimination. I know I was playing devils advocate against this a bit ago, but its not wrong that you technically should be able to discriminate against everything you want withing the confines of the law. It should also be said that the laws should, in that same perfect world, cover no more or less than whats needed. The problem is the guy didn't say "Sorry my brothers, I will not do two tuxes on a cake" he said "No cake of mine will be at a wedding with two tuxes" One is not feeling artistically comfortable and one is not feeling politically comfortable. There should be no argument that the man who's tagline is: [quote=Jack Phillips website] Jack Phillips creates a masterpiece. Custom designs are his specialty:[B] If you can think it up, Jack can make it into a cake![/B][/quote] Can come up with something that would suit their needs. All he would have to do is not discriminate and in return ask that the customer not impede on his right to refuse any designs or design pitches he doesn't approve of. It's really that simple, as long as he's willing to accept homosexual money he can sell them a cake within the parameters of what he deems acceptable. The only risk to his sensibilities is knowing that somewhere gay people and friends of gay people will eat a cake he made and think "wow this is fucking amazing."
[QUOTE=Baconator 7;52668468]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] There are also interpretations of Christianity that preach racial supremacy, ala the Ku Klux Klan. Are they to be tolerated? I am a strong supporter of the freedom of religion, but [I]not[/I] to the extent that it allows you to begin professionally discriminating against people on the basis of that religion. [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.).[/quote] But... they literally [I]were[/I] denied business at the bakery? They entered the bakery seeking to commission work for their wedding (the entire point of a bakery), and were turned away specifically because of their sexual orientation. That is discrimination, which extends beyond the acceptable social limits of "freedom of expression." If you are a business owner, you need to comply with anti-discrimination laws. Refusing service to people on the basis of their race, religion, sexual preferences, or disabilities is unconstitutional, as evidenced by previous supreme court rulings on just that subject. You are aware of the existence of the civil rights act, yea? [quote]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.[/quote] Your freedom of religion is [I]your freedom to practice your religion,[/i] not the freedom to impose your religious values on other people by denying them goods and services. This man has every right to have religious objections to homosexuality, as backwards as that may be, but he does [I]not[/I] have a right to discriminate against customers because of that religious belief. Your rights end where they begin to encroach on somebody else's. [quote]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.[/quote] :rolleyes: Reel it in, bub. I don't think "religion is stupid," and I don't hate it. I respect the role of religion in peoples' lives, and think that it is, by and large, a positive and often beautiful force in the world -- if not without its drawbacks. I am not criticizing this baker because he is religious, I am criticizing him because he believes that his religious preferences give him a right to discriminate against people. [quote]the constitution was created with protections for all people in mind.[/quote] Yes, exactly. The freedom of religion [B]includes[/B] freedom from having religion thrust upon you. Business owners have every right to their personal religious beliefs, but as public facing entities who service the community, they do not have a right to enforce their religious beliefs on their clients and/or discriminate against clients who do not share those beliefs. [quote]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?[/quote] That is such a ridiculously stupid leap of logic that I'm halfway to banning you for it. Drop the "slippery slope to genocide" bullshit and argue rationally, like everybody else. [quote]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.[/quote] Again, by your own argument, this is [B]exactly[/B] why it is important to have the Civil Rights Act and other anti-discriminatory legal frameworks in place. [I]Everybody[/I] has the same rights, and one person's rights don't supplant another's. The baker's religious freedom is not in question -- what [I]is[/I] in question is his "right" to extend his own beliefs into a community-facing business in such a way that actively discriminates against other people. [quote]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] I really don't see how this "disctinction" changes anything whatsoever? He runs a community-facing business making wedding cakes. A couple came in to order a cake, and he denied them because they were homosexuals. As a public business owner, he does not have the right to discriminate against people on the grounds of their sexuality. [editline]10th September 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Blind Lulu;52668959]Lets be real right now, this is nothing alike to this situation. If a gay couple ordered a generic wedding cake from this bakery they very likely would have been serviced. The bakery refused to bake a cake that was to their specifications. This is entirely different from being denied service because you are gay.[/QUOTE] It's clear that you're not actually familiar with the situation, because if you were you would realize that the "specifications" were never in question. The baker refused to make them a cake [i]at all[/I] on the specific grounds that they were homosexuals, and that he believes that gay marriage is a sinful sham.
I think the SC will need to decide if the man was legally able to refuse service once he heard the couple was gay because of the message his cake (his art, therefore his artistic expression which is classified as speech) would give in that circumstance. The biggest issue is whether the placement or usage of his cake (art) would change the meaning and expression inherent within it. Since he is religious, the message of his art would include his belief, which would be "celebration of the union of man and woman under God". If, being told that his cake would be used at a gay wedding, and he then feels that the message of his art would be changed from its original meaning to be "celebration of homosexual marriage", is that the point where he can legally refuse to create the art? Once he has an understanding of how his art will be displayed and used, can he refuse to do the commission? The baker offered alternative services and just did not want to express approval of something against his religious beliefs. It would be like an Wahhabi Baker refusing to bake a cake for a dance recital, or a Jehovah's Witness refusing to bake a cake served to celebrate the grand opening of a casino. While it's homophobic, the baker has a right to his own artistic expression. The key issues here are religious expression, cake as a form of art, location/usage of art as expression, and if knowledge of how one's expression will be used is grounds to refuse commission. It sucks for the homosexual couple, but I think the SC will side with the baker. Note, this is not free reign to discriminate against homosexuals, this is purely an issue of religious expression and art. Comparisons to colored water fountains are ridiculous because racism isn't an inherent religious belief and access to a utility or store is not artistic expression. Honestly, from a morality standpoint, I think this guy is wrong, but from a legal standpoint I think he has his rights. It's a fucking complicated case.
[QUOTE=Lebofly;52669522]bigot ˈbɪɡət/Submit noun a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions. I don't think him not wanting to support same-sex marriage is bigoted especially considering marriage has traditionally been between a man and woman long before this whole same-sex marriage charade (AKA Majority of his lifetime) "Conform to it or you're a bigot" :chillout:, I do feel like you however calling him a bigot for having a different opinion to you is bigoted. Feel free to retaliate but I won't respond. [/QUOTE] Yeah, so like I said. [QUOTE]Apparently disapproving of bigotry is bigotry now?[/QUOTE] Which shows you have [B]zero [/B]understanding of what bigot means. So tell me, in a hypothetical situation where: A: I provide a service even though it disagrees with my religion B: I do not provide a service because it disagrees with my religion which one is, on a scale, more likely to be a bigot than the other. Try using more than half a neuron so you won't post such stupid shit like this. If you wanna bring traditional marriage into this then let's go back like 500 years. You'd be protecting this guy for refusing to serve a monogamous marriage, since concubines and sexual slavery were the norm, so to speak.
[QUOTE=Blind Lulu;52668959]Lets be real right now, this is nothing alike to this situation. If a gay couple ordered a generic wedding cake from this bakery they very likely would have been serviced. The bakery refused to bake a cake that was to their specifications. This is entirely different from being denied service because you are gay.[/QUOTE] Allow me to refer you to my third post [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1578102&p=52665613&viewfull=1#post52665613]right here[/url] [editline] oh hamburgers[/editline] And let me point out again, [b]for the third time[/b], that these posts were in response to these exact words: [quote][b]If you are denied service before even starting, I do not see a problem.[/b][/quote]
Who cares about morals, everyone has some shitty morals. The baker refused the two gay's service which he has the power within the rights granted to him by the American goverment. Not a complicated case at all.
[QUOTE=Reformed;52670381]Who cares about morals, everyone has some shitty morals. The baker refused the two blacks service which he has the power within the rights granted to him by the American goverment. Not a complicated case at all.[/QUOTE] Basically the equivalent of your claim pre-1964.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.