• Department of Justice sides with baker who refused to bake LGBT Cake
    198 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Reformed;52670381]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] Laws are literally morals that majority of people agreed on should be obeyed, bud. And it so happens that morals change with time and so should laws to reflect that because big fucking surprise, most people will agree that not providing service to someone simply for who they are is morally wrong. [editline]11th September 2017[/editline] God, I fucking hate that attitude. "Well, it's in the law so they are technically in their right. :downs: " Makes me almost wish someone would go and make murder legal to see if these people would also defend that shit on grounds of being "technically in the right".
[QUOTE=Reformed;52670381]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] The currently nororiously racist, sexist, corrupt, and bigoted American government no less
[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] carving out any exceptions for specific services to specific people for nebulous reasons still looks a hell of a lot like jim crow
Guy's a cock, but compelling him to make the cake probably wouldn't be best either. Wedding cakes are very artistic creations, and telling the artist that they [B]must[/B] create something that they fundamentally disagree with would probably result in a bad product. An insincere one at least, that wouldn't be worth the money paid for it. That's probably one big reason why the DOJ took this stance. Art generally implies a certain amount of dedication to the messages they convey; it's not quite as simple as if it were a barber shop, or a fast food place. Still, it's a bit shallow. My opinion is that giving other nearby bakeries business and boycotting should be the natural response. He loses enough business he may rethink his stances. Or just close shop.
[QUOTE=KingofBeast;52670655]Guy's a cock, but compelling him to make the cake probably wouldn't be best either. Wedding cakes are very artistic creations, and telling the artist that they [B]must[/B] create something that they fundamentally disagree with would probably result in a bad product. An insincere one at least, that wouldn't be worth the money paid for it. That's probably one big reason why the DOJ took this stance. Art generally implies a certain amount of dedication to the messages they convey; it's not quite as simple as if it were a barber shop, or a fast food place. Still, it's a bit shallow. My opinion is that giving other nearby bakeries business and boycotting should be the natural response. He loses enough business he may rethink his stances. Or just close shop.[/QUOTE] As pointed out several times before, this is irrelevant because the baker's refusal was prior to the couple making any request regarding the cake whatsoever. This is not an "artistic freedom" situation.
A business that is open to the public has no right refusing customers for arbitrary reasons such as sexuality. Period. I think people are totally disregarding the precedence a case like this would set. It would give all businesses the right to discriminate on religious grounds. Color me unsurprised that Jeff "too racist for the 1980s" Sessions is in support of this.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.