If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(KATU)   Worlds most pretentious wedding cake baker refuses to create cake for same-sex couple   (katu.com) divider line 541
    More: Asinine, public accommodations, KATU, Oregon Attorney General, First Amendment, refuses  
•       •       •

11866 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Feb 2013 at 7:46 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



541 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-02-02 12:07:40 AM  
Had one of these in Lakewood, Colorado, a while back.  The baker felt the Internet's wrath.  IDK if any legal consequences ensued.

Why is it always the bakers?  Are there no Christian butchers or candlestick makers?
 
2013-02-02 12:10:10 AM  
Especially a baker named "Sweet Cakes".
 
2013-02-02 06:50:56 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: Had one of these in Lakewood, Colorado, a while back.  The baker felt the Internet's wrath.  IDK if any legal consequences ensued.

Why is it always the bakers?  Are there no Christian butchers or candlestick makers?


I'm pretty sure that refusing to serve someone based on sexual orientation or because of your religious convictions is a violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but IANAL, unless it's a "private club"
 
2013-02-02 07:48:53 AM  
Go
To
A
Different
Bakery
 
2013-02-02 07:49:36 AM  
There are straight people working in the wedding business?
 
2013-02-02 07:49:39 AM  

mr_a: Especially a baker named "Sweet Cakes Cheeks".


Camped that up for you.
 
2013-02-02 07:49:50 AM  
Whether he broke any laws or not, I thnk we can safely agree he's gigantic douchebag.
 
2013-02-02 07:50:46 AM  

SpdrJay: Go
To
A
Different
Bakery


Your previous incarnation told Rosa Parks to walk.
 
2013-02-02 07:50:55 AM  
img708.imageshack.us

I opened this article thinking that he was going to have a No Fear or Tapout shirt.

My powers of prediction are a tad off this morning, it would seem.
 
2013-02-02 07:51:19 AM  
Done in two.
 
2013-02-02 07:51:38 AM  
With all the evil in this world, why get so hung up over people who just want to love someone. Geesh
 
2013-02-02 07:54:42 AM  

BronyMedic: BarkingUnicorn: Had one of these in Lakewood, Colorado, a while back.  The baker felt the Internet's wrath.  IDK if any legal consequences ensued.

Why is it always the bakers?  Are there no Christian butchers or candlestick makers?

I'm pretty sure that refusing to serve someone based on sexual orientation or because of your religious convictions is a violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but IANAL, unless it's a "private club"


No. Federal law does not treat sexual orientation as a protected class (if it did, there could be no "DOMA"). Oregon law, however, does, so it's irrelevant.
Cue all the righties who will defend this lawbreaking criminal's "religious freedom".
 
2013-02-02 07:54:52 AM  
Isn't that illegal, given that you can not deny use of public accommodations based on sex?
 
2013-02-02 07:55:00 AM  

Active introvert: With all the evil in this world, why get so hung up over people who just want to love someone. Geesh


Where do you think the evil comes from?
 
2013-02-02 07:55:03 AM  
Like the sign says, "We have the right to refuse service to anyone".

He refused service based on religious beliefs. Now you libs want the state to attack him and his business for that religious belief? What ever happened to the separation of church and state?
 
2013-02-02 07:56:05 AM  

SpdrJay: Go
To
A
Different
Bakery


No. Prosecute the lawbreaking criminal - just like if he was an illegal alien, or a gang-banger, or somebody else you don't like.
 
2013-02-02 07:56:47 AM  

LoneWolf343: Active introvert: With all the evil in this world, why get so hung up over people who just want to love someone. Geesh

Where do you think the evil comes from?


Hmm, methinks I should have worded that more clearly. I meant to imply that evil comes from people like those who hate gays, not the other way around. It's early.
 
2013-02-02 07:57:42 AM  

shotglasss: Like the sign says, "We have the right to refuse service to anyone".

He refused service based on religious beliefs. Now you libs want the state to attack him and his business for that religious belief? What ever happened to the separation of church and state?


Whatever happened to the "conservative" viewpoint that lawbreaking should be prosecuted? Just think of him as an illegal alien - you know, a person who is breaking the law. Then you'll feel better.
 
2013-02-02 07:58:29 AM  

IlGreven: SpdrJay: Go
To
A
Different
Bakery

Your previous incarnation told Rosa Parks to walk.


Yes.
Because public transportation and a privately owned business are exactly the same thing.
/sarcasm
 
2013-02-02 08:00:28 AM  
He has ear rings. A man with ear rings! That would have gotten him refused service thirty years ago.
 
2013-02-02 08:00:39 AM  

jso2897: No. Prosecute the lawbreaking criminal - just like if he was an illegal alien, or a gang-banger, or somebody else you don't like.


Isn't it a civil matter, not criminal?
 
2013-02-02 08:01:16 AM  

SpdrJay: IlGreven: SpdrJay: Go
To
A
Different
Bakery

Your previous incarnation told Rosa Parks to walk.

Yes.
Because public transportation and a privately owned business are exactly the same thing.
/sarcasm


Fpr our purposes, legally, yeah, they are. Both are public accommodations. A huge portion of the civil rights movement was about this stuff. Crack open a history book.
 
2013-02-02 08:01:24 AM  

jso2897: No. Prosecute the lawbreaking criminal - just like if he was an illegal alien, or a gang-banger, or somebody else you don't like.


Illegal aliens are prosecuted now!? But where are the Job Creators going to come up with 11 million people to do jobs 50-60% of market value!?
 
2013-02-02 08:03:05 AM  

jso2897: shotglasss: Like the sign says, "We have the right to refuse service to anyone".

He refused service based on religious beliefs. Now you libs want the state to attack him and his business for that religious belief? What ever happened to the separation of church and state?

Whatever happened to the "conservative" viewpoint that lawbreaking should be prosecuted? Just think of him as an illegal alien - you know, a person who is breaking the law. Then you'll feel better.


Why do I have to pretend he's something other than a guy trying to make a living and honor his God? You want to turn him into something he's not for what reason?

And if you don't like the way he runs his business, go somewhere else.
 
2013-02-02 08:03:17 AM  

ajgeek: jso2897: No. Prosecute the lawbreaking criminal - just like if he was an illegal alien, or a gang-banger, or somebody else you don't like.

Illegal aliens are prosecuted now!? But where are the Job Creators going to come up with 11 million people to do jobs 50-60% of market value!?


The unemployment office?
 
2013-02-02 08:03:25 AM  
So what if someone was just an jackass and the baker figured 'fark you, I ain't selling to you because you're a jackass.", would that be legal?

Or just impolite?

/doesn't live in the US.
 
2013-02-02 08:03:43 AM  

shotglasss: What ever happened to the separation of church and state?


You may want to request a refund on that Constitutional Law GED.
 
2013-02-02 08:04:19 AM  

phartman: So what if someone was just an jackass and the baker figured 'fark you, I ain't selling to you because you're a jackass.", would that be legal?

Or just impolite?

/doesn't live in the US.


Legal and impolite.
 
2013-02-02 08:04:20 AM  
This is the kind of issue that really makes me pray for the Supreme Court to find that sexual orientation is a quasi-suspect class in about five months.
 
2013-02-02 08:05:08 AM  
Nice little business you have there.

Would be a pity if the Internet decided to destroy it.

/do not piss off the lesbians
//lipstick lesbians are the backbone of the wedding planning industry
 
2013-02-02 08:05:34 AM  

BronyMedic: jso2897: No. Prosecute the lawbreaking criminal - just like if he was an illegal alien, or a gang-banger, or somebody else you don't like.

Isn't it a civil matter, not criminal?


OK, then: "Litigate against the tort-committer." Is your inner pedant satisfied now?
 
2013-02-02 08:06:58 AM  
Pulling that shiat in Portland, Oregon is a bad move.  He'll be out of business by summer.
 
2013-02-02 08:07:04 AM  

shotglasss: jso2897: shotglasss: Like the sign says, "We have the right to refuse service to anyone".

He refused service based on religious beliefs. Now you libs want the state to attack him and his business for that religious belief? What ever happened to the separation of church and state?

Whatever happened to the "conservative" viewpoint that lawbreaking should be prosecuted? Just think of him as an illegal alien - you know, a person who is breaking the law. Then you'll feel better.

Why do I have to pretend he's something other than a guy trying to make a living and honor his God? You want to turn him into something he's not for what reason?

And if you don't like the way he runs his business, go somewhere else.


It's 2012. Arguments against anti-discrimination law lost in the 1960s. Do you really think you could win that battle in todays world, when it was lost then?
 
2013-02-02 08:07:07 AM  

SpdrJay: Go
To
A
Different
Bakery


Yes. Absolutely. Free market answer. Doesn't mean the guy's not a complete assbanana, though.
 
2013-02-02 08:07:27 AM  

leevis: The unemployment office?


pshaw.  Those entitled slackers would want minimum wage and other such nonsense.
 
2013-02-02 08:08:02 AM  
shotglasss: Why do I have to pretend he's something other than a guy trying to make a living and honor his God? You want to turn him into something he's not for what reason?

And if you don't like the way he runs his business, go somewhere else.


Why didn't blacks in the South in the '50s and '60s realize your insight! They could have just gone elsewhere with their business rather than attempting to change the law to force business owners to serve them. I'm sure that would have worked.
 
2013-02-02 08:10:42 AM  

eiger: Why didn't blacks in the South in the '50s and '60s realize your insight


Or the ones who who were denied seats on trains even though they had they purchased legally, or those who got turned away from a reserved hotel room because they neglected to send notice of their negrocity ahead of time.
 
2013-02-02 08:11:49 AM  
Sounds simple enough to me - he is breaking state law. Refusing to bake a cake for someone is not "practising a religion".
 
2013-02-02 08:12:33 AM  
Amusing how people say things like "but the bible says it's wrong" and the guy's got a tat on his arm which the bible also says is wrong. Either follow it or don't but you can't pick and chose
 
2013-02-02 08:12:33 AM  

jso2897: BronyMedic: jso2897: No. Prosecute the lawbreaking criminal - just like if he was an illegal alien, or a gang-banger, or somebody else you don't like.

Isn't it a civil matter, not criminal?

OK, then: "Litigate against the tort-committer." Is your inner pedant satisfied now?


I know I can be a bit of a pedant sometimes, but damn, there are some farking pedantic ass mongoloids in the world today. As an example, America is not a democracy. It is a democratically-elected representative Constitutionally-limited federal bicameral presidential republic. Or so I was told about a week ago.
 
2013-02-02 08:13:23 AM  

eiger: shotglasss: Why do I have to pretend he's something other than a guy trying to make a living and honor his God? You want to turn him into something he's not for what reason?

And if you don't like the way he runs his business, go somewhere else.

Why didn't blacks in the South in the '50s and '60s realize your insight! They could have just gone elsewhere with their business rather than attempting to change the law to force business owners to serve them. I'm sure that would have worked.


It's kind of hilarious that these 12 year old jackasses think anti-discrimination law is some radical idea that's on the table for debate.
 
2013-02-02 08:14:24 AM  

jso2897: It's kind of hilarious that these 12 year old jackasses think anti-discrimination law is some radical idea that's on the table for debate.


12 year old jackasses such as Senator Rand Paul.
 
2013-02-02 08:15:02 AM  

Serious Black: jso2897: BronyMedic: jso2897: No. Prosecute the lawbreaking criminal - just like if he was an illegal alien, or a gang-banger, or somebody else you don't like.

Isn't it a civil matter, not criminal?

OK, then: "Litigate against the tort-committer." Is your inner pedant satisfied now?

I know I can be a bit of a pedant sometimes, but damn, there are some farking pedantic ass mongoloids in the world today. As an example, America is not a democracy. It is a democratically-elected representative Constitutionally-limited federal bicameral presidential republic. Or so I was told about a week ago.


Yeah, I know, and I didn't mean to be snotty. I suppose I should always strive to be the best kind of correct, but sometimes I go with the colorful language. Call it a weakness.
 
2013-02-02 08:16:03 AM  

Active introvert: Amusing how people say things like "but the bible says it's wrong" and the guy's got a tat on his arm which the bible also says is wrong. Either follow it or don't but you can't pick and chose


You seem to be under the impression that their beliefs are based on the Bible, rather than the Bible being used to justify their specific beliefs.
 
2013-02-02 08:16:17 AM  

PonceAlyosha: jso2897: It's kind of hilarious that these 12 year old jackasses think anti-discrimination law is some radical idea that's on the table for debate.

12 year old jackasses such as Senator Rand Paul.


A perfect example of a (mentally and emotionally) 12 year old jackass.
 
2013-02-02 08:16:22 AM  
World's most pretentious same-sex couple refuses to find a different bakery.

They weren't interested in a cake, they were interested in a court case/news story. By all means, boycott the bakery with friends and sympathizers, ruin his reputation on Yelp or whatever, but running and tattling to the state is douchelordish.
 
2013-02-02 08:17:31 AM  

Fuggin Bizzy: World's most pretentious same-sex couple refuses to find a different bakery.

They weren't interested in a cake, they were interested in a court case/news story. By all means, boycott the bakery with friends and sympathizers, ruin his reputation on Yelp or whatever, but running and tattling to the state is douchelordish.


World's most pretentious woman refuses to get in the back of the bus.
 
2013-02-02 08:17:47 AM  

ReverendJasen: shotglasss: What ever happened to the separation of church and state?

You may want to request a refund on that Constitutional Law GED.


I hear lefties with the same Constitutional Law GED scream about separation of church and state all the time. Go be a douchbag over with them, junior.
 
2013-02-02 08:18:00 AM  

Fuggin Bizzy: World's most pretentious same-sex couple refuses to find a different bakery.

They weren't interested in a cake, they were interested in a court case/news story. By all means, boycott the bakery with friends and sympathizers, ruin his reputation on Yelp or whatever, but running and tattling to the state is douchelordish.


Hope you take that attitude toward the next mugger who smashes your head in and takes your wallet - because, you know - running to the State when people break the law is so douchey.
 
2013-02-02 08:19:51 AM  

Fuggin Bizzy: World's most pretentious same-sex couple refuses to find a different bakery.

They weren't interested in a cake, they were interested in a court case/news story. By all means, boycott the bakery with friends and sympathizers, ruin his reputation on Yelp or whatever, but running and tattling to the state is douchelordish.


Given they had previously used the company for a parent's wedding cake, it seems that they're regular customers until he found out they were lesbians.

So it looks like you're wittering nonsense out your arse-flap.
 
2013-02-02 08:21:20 AM  

jso2897: eiger: shotglasss: Why do I have to pretend he's something other than a guy trying to make a living and honor his God? You want to turn him into something he's not for what reason?

And if you don't like the way he runs his business, go somewhere else.

Why didn't blacks in the South in the '50s and '60s realize your insight! They could have just gone elsewhere with their business rather than attempting to change the law to force business owners to serve them. I'm sure that would have worked.

It's kind of hilarious that these 12 year old jackasses think anti-discrimination law is some radical idea that's on the table for debate.


Blacks are humans. Gays are not. They don't deserve the same rights us normal people are born with. How's that?
 
2013-02-02 08:21:52 AM  

shotglasss: jso2897: shotglasss: Like the sign says, "We have the right to refuse service to anyone".

He refused service based on religious beliefs. Now you libs want the state to attack him and his business for that religious belief? What ever happened to the separation of church and state?

Whatever happened to the "conservative" viewpoint that lawbreaking should be prosecuted? Just think of him as an illegal alien - you know, a person who is breaking the law. Then you'll feel better.

Why do I have to pretend he's something other than a guy trying to make a living and honor his God? You want to turn him into something he's not for what reason?

And if you don't like the way he runs his business, go somewhere else.


Why would they want a cake made by someone who was against the event right? No, this happened outside Portland and this poor bastard is about to have his life ruined. He's lucky if he gets by with a smallprotest and full on boycott.
 
2013-02-02 08:22:05 AM  
He has a tattoo. Leviticus 19:28 says "Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD. " I wonder if he serves his arm?
 
2013-02-02 08:22:13 AM  
They weren't interested in a cake, they were interested in a court case/news story. By all means, boycott the bakery with friends and sympathizers, ruin his reputation on Yelp or whatever, but running and tattling to the state is douchelordish.

Actually the lawsuit is what makes it newsworthy, thus is the best way to generate publicity, launch a boycott, and ruin the guy.  It's far more potent than Yelp.
 
2013-02-02 08:22:23 AM  

shotglasss: jso2897: eiger: shotglasss: Why do I have to pretend he's something other than a guy trying to make a living and honor his God? You want to turn him into something he's not for what reason?

And if you don't like the way he runs his business, go somewhere else.

Why didn't blacks in the South in the '50s and '60s realize your insight! They could have just gone elsewhere with their business rather than attempting to change the law to force business owners to serve them. I'm sure that would have worked.

It's kind of hilarious that these 12 year old jackasses think anti-discrimination law is some radical idea that's on the table for debate.

Blacks are humans. Gays are not. They don't deserve the same rights us normal people are born with. How's that?


I think that's refreshingly honest on your part, and I congratulate you.
 
2013-02-02 08:22:37 AM  
I'm actually in favor of gay marriage, but if this baker's smart he'll apologize, take their money, and make them a cake that's misshapen, has mismatched colors, etc.

/"What? I made them a cake!"
 
2013-02-02 08:22:47 AM  
A golden bird that flies away, a candle's fickle flame. To think this couple ordered from him yesterday, his pastry business was just a game.
 
2013-02-02 08:24:09 AM  

Lenny and Carl: They weren't interested in a cake, they were interested in a court case/news story. By all means, boycott the bakery with friends and sympathizers, ruin his reputation on Yelp or whatever, but running and tattling to the state is douchelordish.

Actually the lawsuit is what makes it newsworthy, thus is the best way to generate publicity, launch a boycott, and ruin the guy.  It's far more potent than Yelp.


Why can't a guy break the law with impunity? Waaaaaaaah!
 
2013-02-02 08:24:54 AM  
I'm okay with this for non-essential services like wedding cakes. Of course, it should be a requirement that if you won't serve certain groups of people, you have to prominently display a sign saying as much (and include it in all your ads)- you know, to prevent false advertising. And so the rest of us won't accidentally give you any business.
 
2013-02-02 08:26:08 AM  
He's not one bit pretentious.

This is a non-story. He can refuse service to anyone he wants.
 
2013-02-02 08:26:10 AM  
I think private businesses that aren't getting government funding should be allowed to be as douchey as they want.

I would really hate eating a cake too that someone made for me under government orders.
 
2013-02-02 08:27:01 AM  
Wait until the conservative crowd gets a hold of this story.  If the can wreak vengeance on a small, independent soup kitchen, maybe they can ask for hundreds of cakes.  Send 'em to Rush.
 
2013-02-02 08:27:05 AM  
If this guy doesn't like the anti-discrimination laws in Oregon, he should just take his business elsewhere. There are still a few red states where sexual orientation isn't a protected class - he needs to move.
 
2013-02-02 08:28:13 AM  
Okay, where exactly in the Bible does it say that no one is allowed to make cakes for people whose union they disagree with?  State law is still against him, but if he can find me that passage, I'll give him partial credit.

What if the couple was jewish or atheist or had had children out of wedlock?   What if he knew the bride was going to be wearing a dress made of a mixture of fabrics or would not be making the requisite animal sacrifices or was on her period?

Obviously I wouldn't recommend the couple use any cake he would make them, but he deserves a lawsuit for sure.
 
2013-02-02 08:28:28 AM  
Did Sweet Cakes owner Aaron Klein violate the law when he told the couple that he couldn't sell them a cake because "they were abominations to the Lord?"

He actually said that? To people who wanted to patronize his business? Not even just, "I'm sorry, but I can't take your business," or something?

Wow! Just . . . Wow!
 
2013-02-02 08:29:09 AM  
So what.

I would suggest you libtards start your own business to serve these folks, but you'd rather rant and demand a government agency force businesses to provide politically correct services.

Put your money where your mouth is, instead of a foot for once.

You idiots.
 
2013-02-02 08:29:14 AM  
it's the same deal if a man went in and wanted to marry his lawnmower

and he refused to make a lawnmower cake.

cakes are cakes bro
 
2013-02-02 08:29:24 AM  

swingerofbirches: I think private businesses that aren't getting government funding should be allowed to be as douchey as they want.

I would really hate eating a cake too that someone made for me under government orders.


So he won't call the cops if he is robbed? Exactly what sort of business "uses no government services", and exists independently from society?
None that I can think of.
 
2013-02-02 08:29:38 AM  

dsrtflwr: He's not one bit pretentious.

This is a non-story. He can refuse service to anyone he wants.


Actually, that's not true.
 
2013-02-02 08:30:25 AM  

shotglasss: jso2897: eiger: shotglasss: Why do I have to pretend he's something other than a guy trying to make a living and honor his God? You want to turn him into something he's not for what reason?

And if you don't like the way he runs his business, go somewhere else.

Why didn't blacks in the South in the '50s and '60s realize your insight! They could have just gone elsewhere with their business rather than attempting to change the law to force business owners to serve them. I'm sure that would have worked.

It's kind of hilarious that these 12 year old jackasses think anti-discrimination law is some radical idea that's on the table for debate.

Blacks are humans. Gays are not. They don't deserve the same rights us normal people are born with. How's that?


While I doubt your claim of not being openly racist, at least you're being up-front about your indefensible bigotry.
 
2013-02-02 08:30:38 AM  

ReverendJasen: Whether he broke any laws or not, I thnk we can safely agree he's gigantic douchebag.


He is entitled to his opinion.

Many businesses have a sign which reads "We Reserve the Right to Deny Service".

And why the flock would someone want to spend money at a business that hates them?
 
2013-02-02 08:30:51 AM  

You Idiots: So what.

I would suggest you libtards start your own business to serve these folks, but you'd rather rant and demand a government agency force businesses to provide politically correct services.

Put your money where your mouth is, instead of a foot for once.

You idiots.


1962 called - it wants it's then-relevant "debate" back.
 
2013-02-02 08:31:03 AM  

the opposite of charity is justice: There are straight people working in the wedding business?


I wouldn't have guessed either, but I guess it takes all kinds.
 
2013-02-02 08:31:26 AM  

PonceAlyosha: Fuggin Bizzy: World's most pretentious same-sex couple refuses to find a different bakery.

They weren't interested in a cake, they were interested in a court case/news story. By all means, boycott the bakery with friends and sympathizers, ruin his reputation on Yelp or whatever, but running and tattling to the state is douchelordish.

World's most pretentious woman refuses to get in the back of the bus.


Behavior and physical attributes are not the same thing.
 
2013-02-02 08:31:31 AM  
We see liberals fighting to strip basic gun rights out of our constitution, we see them limiting our religious free speech, and of course we see them pushing their immoral values on the right of us. You better believe they are going to be denied jobs, promotions, or in this case service. These dumbasses have somehow convinced themselves that they can do all the damage to society they wish, they can take all the shots they want, and somehow there is this magical shield around them which protects them against any consequences of their actions. They can street-lawyer away and fantasize about that million dollar settlement they'll never receive, but the bottom line is that the rest of us are going to hold you childish little dumbasses accountable for your actions. That resume is going right in the trash, that pink slip will list no real cause, and you can buy your cake elsewhere.
 
2013-02-02 08:31:51 AM  

KrispyKritter: Many businesses have a sign which reads "We Reserve the Right to Deny Service".


That doesn't magically make them immune from anti-discrimination laws.
 
2013-02-02 08:34:27 AM  
I like the direction this thread is facing

i.imgur.com

And the other direction it's facing too


/My icing is everywhere now
 
2013-02-02 08:34:43 AM  

PonceAlyosha: KrispyKritter: Many businesses have a sign which reads "We Reserve the Right to Deny Service".

That doesn't magically make them immune from anti-discrimination laws.


State anti discrimination laws don't magically trump the 1st amendment.  Take a civics class.
 
2013-02-02 08:34:50 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: PonceAlyosha: Fuggin Bizzy: World's most pretentious same-sex couple refuses to find a different bakery.

They weren't interested in a cake, they were interested in a court case/news story. By all means, boycott the bakery with friends and sympathizers, ruin his reputation on Yelp or whatever, but running and tattling to the state is douchelordish.

World's most pretentious woman refuses to get in the back of the bus.

Behavior and physical attributes are not the same thing.


Sexual Orientation and the size of the anterior commissure of the human brain. Warning PDF. Secret physical attributes FTW.
 
2013-02-02 08:36:11 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: PonceAlyosha: Fuggin Bizzy: World's most pretentious same-sex couple refuses to find a different bakery.

They weren't interested in a cake, they were interested in a court case/news story. By all means, boycott the bakery with friends and sympathizers, ruin his reputation on Yelp or whatever, but running and tattling to the state is douchelordish.

World's most pretentious woman refuses to get in the back of the bus.

Behavior and physical attributes are not the same thing.


Poe's Law alert, especially given the political compass posted in your profile.
 
2013-02-02 08:36:11 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: PonceAlyosha: KrispyKritter: Many businesses have a sign which reads "We Reserve the Right to Deny Service".

That doesn't magically make them immune from anti-discrimination laws.

State anti discrimination laws don't magically trump the 1st amendment.  Take a civics class.


The First Amendment has nothing to do with this case. The First Amendment doesn't say "anything remotely religious a free for all justification." Since no one is establishing a religion through legislature, it's apparent you don't have any idea what the fark you're talking about.
 
2013-02-02 08:36:14 AM  

WhoopAssWayne: We see liberals fighting to strip basic gun rights out of our constitution, we see them limiting our religious free speech, and of course we see them pushing their immoral values on the right of us. You better believe they are going to be denied jobs, promotions, or in this case service. These dumbasses have somehow convinced themselves that they can do all the damage to society they wish, they can take all the shots they want, and somehow there is this magical shield around them which protects them against any consequences of their actions. They can street-lawyer away and fantasize about that million dollar settlement they'll never receive, but the bottom line is that the rest of us are going to hold you childish little dumbasses accountable for your actions. That resume is going right in the trash, that pink slip will list no real cause, and you can buy your cake elsewhere.


That won't work either. Nothing will. It's a lost battle. Let it go, because, you know - it's gone.
 
2013-02-02 08:38:38 AM  

jso2897: You Idiots: So what.

I would suggest you libtards start your own business to serve these folks, but you'd rather rant and demand a government agency force businesses to provide politically correct services.

Put your money where your mouth is, instead of a foot for once.

You idiots.

1962 called - it wants it's then-relevant "debate" back.


You probably cry about cops being bullies, too.
 
2013-02-02 08:40:56 AM  

You Idiots: jso2897: You Idiots: So what.

I would suggest you libtards start your own business to serve these folks, but you'd rather rant and demand a government agency force businesses to provide politically correct services.

Put your money where your mouth is, instead of a foot for once.

You idiots.

1962 called - it wants it's then-relevant "debate" back.

You probably cry about cops being bullies, too.


I don't cry about anything. I'm an old and happy man, and quite pleased with the civilized direction society is moving in.
How about you?
 
2013-02-02 08:40:58 AM  

WhoopAssWayne: We see liberals fighting to strip basic gun rights out of our constitution, we see them limiting our religious free speech, and of course we see them pushing their immoral values on the right of us. You better believe they are going to be denied jobs, promotions, or in this case service. These dumbasses have somehow convinced themselves that they can do all the damage to society they wish, they can take all the shots they want, and somehow there is this magical shield around them which protects them against any consequences of their actions. They can street-lawyer away and fantasize about that million dollar settlement they'll never receive, but the bottom line is that the rest of us are going to hold you childish little dumbasses accountable for your actions. That resume is going right in the trash, that pink slip will list no real cause, and you can buy your cake elsewhere.


Thanks for making it obvious in one post that you're a giant douche. Now I don't have to debate whether or not to tag your posts in flaming bright orange.
 
2013-02-02 08:41:45 AM  
Subby: That is NOT being pretentious, that is called standing up for your beliefs and I happen to agree with him. I would not service gay couples either!
 
2013-02-02 08:42:44 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: PonceAlyosha: KrispyKritter: Many businesses have a sign which reads "We Reserve the Right to Deny Service".

That doesn't magically make them immune from anti-discrimination laws.

State anti discrimination laws don't magically trump the 1st amendment.  Take a civics class.


They don't magically trump the Motor Vehicle Code either - so what? There is no 1st amendment issue here.
 
2013-02-02 08:44:02 AM  

LtDarkstar: Subby: That is NOT being pretentious, that is called standing up for your beliefs and I happen to agree with him. I would not service gay couples either!


See above.
 
2013-02-02 08:44:21 AM  
He's just angling to get his own cake-baking reality show on the Glenn Beck Network: "White Flour"
 
2013-02-02 08:45:06 AM  

jso2897: SpdrJay: Go
To
A
Different
Bakery

No. Prosecute the lawbreaking criminal - just like if he was an illegal alien, or a gang-banger, or somebody else you don't like.


To be fair, would they even want a cake from this guy now? Some things are fungible, like Walmart selling one of a thousand pairs of socks. If Walmart refused to sell socks to gay people, that would be different than creating a work of art that your focus and craft have to go into. This guy's principles are misguided, but I don't know how I feel about forcing someone to create specific art. What if a right-winged redneck came into your cake shop and demanded you make him a birthday cake decorated with machine guns and "F*** Mohammad GO USA!!!" written on it? He could sue you for discrimination if you refused to put your craft into that. Art is special like that.
 
2013-02-02 08:45:11 AM  

LtDarkstar: Subby: That is NOT being pretentious, that is called standing up for your beliefs and I happen to agree with him. I would not service gay couples either!


Well, as long as you don't run a business that serves the public, in a state or other country that treats sexual orienation as a protected class, you're golden. But that's not the case with this fellow.
 
2013-02-02 08:46:59 AM  

PonceAlyosha: Sexual Orientation and the size of the anterior commissure of the human brain. Warning PDF. Secret physical attributes FTW.


Because he looked at their brain scan with his hidden mri machine.

Serious Black: Poe's Law alert, especially given the political compass posted in your profile.


Libertarian means that I don't think the government should be telling you who you work for/with, so no, not a Poe's law alert.  I'm not even sure why you'd think that.

PonceAlyosha: The First Amendment has nothing to do with this case. The First Amendment doesn't say "anything remotely religious a free for all justification." Since no one is establishing a religion through legislature, it's apparent you don't have any idea what the fark you're talking about.


Sure it does.  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.If your religious beliefs suggest that you shouldn't cooperate with people who do certain types of things, then by forcing a person to cooperate, you're prohibiting free exercise of their religious tenets.
 
2013-02-02 08:48:05 AM  

Tommy Moo: jso2897: SpdrJay: Go
To
A
Different
Bakery

No. Prosecute the lawbreaking criminal - just like if he was an illegal alien, or a gang-banger, or somebody else you don't like.

To be fair, would they even want a cake from this guy now? Some things are fungible, like Walmart selling one of a thousand pairs of socks. If Walmart refused to sell socks to gay people, that would be different than creating a work of art that your focus and craft have to go into. This guy's principles are misguided, but I don't know how I feel about forcing someone to create specific art. What if a right-winged redneck came into your cake shop and demanded you make him a birthday cake decorated with machine guns and "F*** Mohammad GO USA!!!" written on it? He could sue you for discrimination if you refused to put your craft into that. Art is special like that.


At this point, I don't think they want a cake from the guy. i think they intend to demonstrate to him that he cannot violate the laws of the State of Oregon with impunity. By making an example of one lawbreaker, you can discourage other potential lawbreakers from breaking the law. Or at least that's the theory of "deterrence".
 
2013-02-02 08:48:31 AM  

WhoopAssWayne: We see liberals fighting to strip basic gun rights out of our constitution, we see them limiting our religious free speech, and of course we see them pushing their immoral values on the right of us. You better believe they are going to be denied jobs, promotions, or in this case service. These dumbasses have somehow convinced themselves that they can do all the damage to society they wish, they can take all the shots they want, and somehow there is this magical shield around them which protects them against any consequences of their actions. They can street-lawyer away and fantasize about that million dollar settlement they'll never receive, but the bottom line is that the rest of us are going to hold you childish little dumbasses accountable for your actions. That resume is going right in the trash, that pink slip will list no real cause, and you can buy your cake elsewhere.


It must burn your candy ass that I work for a liberal and don't really give a shiat about where I get my cake from. You don't want my money? Fine. That much less for you. My business will go to someone with morals.
 
2013-02-02 08:49:03 AM  

dsrtflwr: He's not one bit pretentious.

This is a non-story. He can refuse service to anyone he wants.


He can't refuse to sell them a cake because they're gay.
If they ask him to do something gay with it, like putting a cute groom and groom figure on top, he can refuse that. They don't get to tell him what design his cakes are.
And then they can say "what a dick", and take their money to his competitor instead.
 
2013-02-02 08:49:17 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Because he looked at their brain scan with his hidden mri machine.


"He checked melanin levels with his his hidden immunohistomine dyes."
 
2013-02-02 08:49:25 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: PonceAlyosha: Sexual Orientation and the size of the anterior commissure of the human brain. Warning PDF. Secret physical attributes FTW.

Because he looked at their brain scan with his hidden mri machine.

Serious Black: Poe's Law alert, especially given the political compass posted in your profile.

Libertarian means that I don't think the government should be telling you who you work for/with, so no, not a Poe's law alert.  I'm not even sure why you'd think that.

PonceAlyosha: The First Amendment has nothing to do with this case. The First Amendment doesn't say "anything remotely religious a free for all justification." Since no one is establishing a religion through legislature, it's apparent you don't have any idea what the fark you're talking about.

Sure it does.  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.If your religious beliefs suggest that you shouldn't cooperate with people who do certain types of things, then by forcing a person to cooperate, you're prohibiting free exercise of their religious tenets.


So Quakers should be exempt from paying the portion of their Federal taxes that go to defense?
 
2013-02-02 08:49:45 AM  
Even if his guy is basing his bigotry on the Bible, the line reads that "no man should lie with another man". God was totally down with the girl on girl action.


WhoopAssWayne: We see liberals fighting to strip basic gun rights out of our constitution, we see them limiting our religious free speech


No you haven't.
 
2013-02-02 08:50:23 AM  

jso2897: At this point, I don't think they want a cake from the guy. i think they intend to demonstrate to him that he cannot violate the laws of the State of Oregon with impunity. By making an example of one lawbreaker, you can discourage other potential lawbreakers from breaking the law. Or at least that's the theory of "deterrence".


If they think the supreme court is going to erode religious freedom so they don't have to look for a wedding cake somewhere else, they have another thing coming.

/and that thing isn't a wedding cake
 
2013-02-02 08:50:25 AM  

jso2897: So Quakers should be exempt from paying the portion of their Federal taxes that go to defense?


And my Slaanesh worship means I can earfark whatever I feel like at any time?
 
2013-02-02 08:50:41 AM  

FreakyBunny: He has a tattoo. Leviticus 19:28 says "Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD. " I wonder if he serves his arm?


Well, see, the new testament fulfilled old testament law, so those restrictions don't apply anymore. Unless it's something you find to be "icky." If you think it's icky, then it still applies. Obviously, because homosexuality is icky, he gets to refuse to bake a cake for teh gheys.

Side note: Here we have a male, wearing an earring, who likes to bake artistic cakes, inside his bakery, which has pink walls. And he has a problem with gay people? Not to make any assumptions here... but I wouldn't be surprised to hear that this guy is the next fundie discovered in the park bathroom with 5 other guys.
 
2013-02-02 08:52:30 AM  

WhoopAssWayne: We see liberals fighting to strip basic gun rights out of our constitution, we see them limiting our religious free speech, and of course we see them pushing their immoral values on the right of us. You better believe they are going to be denied jobs, promotions, or in this case service. These dumbasses have somehow convinced themselves that they can do all the damage to society they wish, they can take all the shots they want, and somehow there is this magical shield around them which protects them against any consequences of their actions. They can street-lawyer away and fantasize about that million dollar settlement they'll never receive, but the bottom line is that the rest of us are going to hold you childish little dumbasses accountable for your actions. That resume is going right in the trash, that pink slip will list no real cause, and you can buy your cake elsewhere.


One really can't tell whether this is a troll or meant to be taken seriously, which highlights the difference in cognitive ability between conservatives and liberals.

A liberal in a room full of conservatives would know what to say to pass as one of them. "Wow, gay people are destroying our country with their perverted lifestyles." would set off a round of agreement.

A conservative in a room full of liberals would not. "Wow, I can't wait until it's illegal to own guns." would set off bullsh*t detectors right and left, since that's not at all what most liberals support.

The two sides are better distinguished by intelligence level than by actual viewpoints.
 
2013-02-02 08:52:38 AM  

jso2897: So Quakers should be exempt from paying the portion of their Federal taxes that go to defense?


for offensive warfare, yes.  For pure defense, no.
 
2013-02-02 08:53:58 AM  

PonceAlyosha: jso2897: So Quakers should be exempt from paying the portion of their Federal taxes that go to defense?

And my Slaanesh worship means I can earfark whatever I feel like at any time?


Exactly. And Rastafarians can blaze up anywhere smoking is permiited. And so on, ad absurdum, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
 
2013-02-02 08:54:06 AM  

jso2897: Tommy Moo: jso2897: SpdrJay: Go
To
A
Different
Bakery

No. Prosecute the lawbreaking criminal - just like if he was an illegal alien, or a gang-banger, or somebody else you don't like.

To be fair, would they even want a cake from this guy now? Some things are fungible, like Walmart selling one of a thousand pairs of socks. If Walmart refused to sell socks to gay people, that would be different than creating a work of art that your focus and craft have to go into. This guy's principles are misguided, but I don't know how I feel about forcing someone to create specific art. What if a right-winged redneck came into your cake shop and demanded you make him a birthday cake decorated with machine guns and "F*** Mohammad GO USA!!!" written on it? He could sue you for discrimination if you refused to put your craft into that. Art is special like that.

At this point, I don't think they want a cake from the guy. i think they intend to demonstrate to him that he cannot violate the laws of the State of Oregon with impunity. By making an example of one lawbreaker, you can discourage other potential lawbreakers from breaking the law. Or at least that's the theory of "deterrence".


Makes sense. Still, I'd be much more comfortable with the free market punishing this guy than the government. Let the infamy put him out of business. If the government forces people to make cakes for gay couples, it can force individual churches/pastors to conduct marriage ceremonies. From there it can also force bars to serve racist assholes. I used to own a bar, and if anyone came in there with white power tats, I would have been very tempted to refuse him service. I am a raging atheist, but I do believe in freedom of religion, so long as the government isn't practicing it in any official capacity.
 
2013-02-02 08:54:15 AM  

shotglasss: Like the sign says, "We have the right to refuse service to anyone".

He refused service based on religious beliefs. Now you libs want the state to attack him and his business for that religious belief? What ever happened to the separation of church and state?


The problem with that sign is that there is not and has never been any such right.  There's a right to free speech.  There's a right to bear arms.  There's a right to due process.  But there is no right to refuse service.

Do you know why those signs showed up in the first place?  Those signs were there to give the business something to point to as they were kicking out the black guy.  When you see one of those, know that they're a relic of racism, that the sign has most likely been posted by a racist, and that the signs are a lie.  It's not legal to refuse to do business with someone because of race, and in Oregon, it's not legal to do business with someone because of sexual orentation.

If he were running a church, he would have the right to refuse to allow same-sex couples in.  Private, membership-only club?  Yep, he could keep the gays out.  But he's not doing those things, he's operating a business open to the public.  And by doing so, he consents to follow the law.  He can't refuse to sell to someone because he doesn't like what color they are, no matter what his religion says about it, and he can't refuse to sell to someone because they don't have sex with the people he wants them to, no matter what his religion says about it.

If he doesn't like it, he's free to shut down his business and open a church.
 
2013-02-02 08:55:20 AM  

jso2897: PonceAlyosha: jso2897: So Quakers should be exempt from paying the portion of their Federal taxes that go to defense?

And my Slaanesh worship means I can earfark whatever I feel like at any time?

Exactly. And Rastafarians can blaze up anywhere smoking is permiited. And so on, ad absurdum, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.


I'm actually totally with with BNCW's interpretation of this, but of course my religious beliefs require that no one else enjoy the same level of religious liberty that I. Now if you'll excuse me, I have some weed to smoke out of some skullfark-holes.
 
2013-02-02 08:55:25 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: jso2897: So Quakers should be exempt from paying the portion of their Federal taxes that go to defense?

for offensive warfare, yes.  For pure defense, no.


Oh. You're trolling me. Never mind. I thought you were seriously proposing something.
 
2013-02-02 08:55:44 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Serious Black: Poe's Law alert, especially given the political compass posted in your profile.

Libertarian means that I don't think the government should be telling you who you work for/with, so no, not a Poe's law alert. I'm not even sure why you'd think that.


That's something I've never understood. Libertarianism is supposed to be about maximizing freedom, right? How much freedom can you be maximizing if a person can't shop at their neighborhood grocery store because a racist owner refuses to sell goods to them? How much freedom are you maximizing if they can't get a job because the racist owner won't give them an interview? That seems to be a destruction of freedom to me.
 
2013-02-02 08:55:53 AM  

Greek: Side note: Here we have a male, wearing an earring, who likes to bake artistic cakes, inside his bakery, which has pink walls. And he has a problem with gay people? Not to make any assumptions here... but I wouldn't be surprised to hear that this guy is the next fundie discovered in the park bathroom with 5 other guys.


I've known a few straight guys who became hairstylists, it's not because they're closeted, it's because it gets them laid that much more.  Have a job where most of your customers are women, get more women..
 
2013-02-02 08:56:38 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: jso2897: So Quakers should be exempt from paying the portion of their Federal taxes that go to defense?

for offensive warfare, yes.  For pure defense, no.


So, they can dodge almost all of it.
 
2013-02-02 08:56:55 AM  
Spending  shiatload of money on a big ass wedding and an expensive cake is in itself pretentious. This guy's just a dick. And a closet case.
 
2013-02-02 08:56:57 AM  
I believe this is in fact breaking the state law. His personal freedom of religion isn't being infringed upon. He is attempting to push his religious ideas onto others through his place of business. Just because his interpretation of his religion is homophobic doesn't mean he can openly do homophobic things and hide behind freedom of religion as a defense.

Marriage is not purely a religious device contrary to what many Christians believe. It is secular in the eyes of the law, and thus the Christian definition of marriage and the US's definition are different things. He cannot dictate his bigoted definition to others via his place and call it his expression of religious freedom. It's discrimination pure and simple and seems to me to be in violation of Oregon state law.
 
2013-02-02 08:58:45 AM  

Tommy Moo: What if a right-winged redneck came into your cake shop and demanded you make him a birthday cake decorated with machine guns and "F*** Mohammad GO USA!!!" written on it? He could sue you for discrimination if you refused to put your craft into that.


The point you're missing is that the issue lies in the reason offered for refusing service and not the fact of refusing service. You're free to refuse service but declaring you're discriminating against someone on the basis of their race/disability/etc. is going to cause you some problems.
 
2013-02-02 08:59:58 AM  

Zmog: BraveNewCheneyWorld: jso2897: So Quakers should be exempt from paying the portion of their Federal taxes that go to defense?

for offensive warfare, yes.  For pure defense, no.

So, they can dodge almost all of it.


Or none of it. They changed the name from The Department of War to the Department of Defense for a reason. Everything we blow up and kill now is for our own defense.

/wasn't Nixon a Quaker?
 
2013-02-02 09:00:20 AM  

jso2897: Yeah, I know, and I didn't mean to be snotty. I suppose I should always strive to be the best kind of correct, but sometimes I go with the colorful language. Call it a weakness.


I honestly wasn't trying to be pendantic with you, I was just wondering if things had changed recently? Civil and Criminal are huge differences, at least in my mind, in that one results in a loss of massive freedoms, while the other does not.
 
2013-02-02 09:00:59 AM  

Serious Black: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Serious Black: Poe's Law alert, especially given the political compass posted in your profile.

Libertarian means that I don't think the government should be telling you who you work for/with, so no, not a Poe's law alert. I'm not even sure why you'd think that.

That's something I've never understood. Libertarianism is supposed to be about maximizing freedom, right? How much freedom can you be maximizing if a person can't shop at their neighborhood grocery store because a racist owner refuses to sell goods to them? How much freedom are you maximizing if they can't get a job because the racist owner won't give them an interview? That seems to be a destruction of freedom to me.


Freedom means personal freedom, not the freedom to enslave your neighbor.
 
2013-02-02 09:01:17 AM  

Tommy Moo: What if a right-winged redneck came into your cake shop and demanded you make him a birthday cake decorated with machine guns and "F*** Mohammad GO USA!!!" written on it? He could sue you for discrimination if you refused to put your craft into that. Art is special like that.


That's the worst analogy I've read today but it's very early.
 
2013-02-02 09:02:35 AM  

BronyMedic: jso2897: Yeah, I know, and I didn't mean to be snotty. I suppose I should always strive to be the best kind of correct, but sometimes I go with the colorful language. Call it a weakness.

I honestly wasn't trying to be pendantic with you, I was just wondering if things had changed recently? Civil and Criminal are huge differences, at least in my mind, in that one results in a loss of massive freedoms, while the other does not.


Which is why I apologized earlier for being snotty. In this case, civil law is the appropriate remedy under Oregon law.
 
2013-02-02 09:02:48 AM  

Jon iz teh kewl: it's the same deal if a man went in and wanted to marry his lawnmower

and he refused to make a lawnmower cake.

cakes are cakes bro


That is one of the most idiotic things I have ever had the misfortune to read.
 
2013-02-02 09:03:11 AM  

jso2897: You Idiots: jso2897: You Idiots: So what.

I would suggest you libtards start your own business to serve these folks, but you'd rather rant and demand a government agency force businesses to provide politically correct services.

Put your money where your mouth is, instead of a foot for once.

You idiots.

1962 called - it wants it's then-relevant "debate" back.

You probably cry about cops being bullies, too.

I don't cry about anything. I'm an old and happy man, and quite pleased with the civilized direction society is moving in.
How about you?


You know who else was happy about the direction his society was moving?
 
2013-02-02 09:03:41 AM  

Serious Black: shotglasss: jso2897: eiger: shotglasss: Why do I have to pretend he's something other than a guy trying to make a living and honor his God? You want to turn him into something he's not for what reason?

And if you don't like the way he runs his business, go somewhere else.

Why didn't blacks in the South in the '50s and '60s realize your insight! They could have just gone elsewhere with their business rather than attempting to change the law to force business owners to serve them. I'm sure that would have worked.

It's kind of hilarious that these 12 year old jackasses think anti-discrimination law is some radical idea that's on the table for debate.

Blacks are humans. Gays are not. They don't deserve the same rights us normal people are born with. How's that?

While I doubt your claim of not being openly racist, at least you're being up-front about your indefensible bigotry.


I always thought you were dumb...but now you've proven it. Thanks. And also without a sense of humor.

And for those of you screaming for a boycott of this guy, I'd bet it'll backfire the same way the CFA boycott strengthened their bottom line.
 
2013-02-02 09:04:59 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Serious Black: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Serious Black: Poe's Law alert, especially given the political compass posted in your profile.

Libertarian means that I don't think the government should be telling you who you work for/with, so no, not a Poe's law alert. I'm not even sure why you'd think that.

That's something I've never understood. Libertarianism is supposed to be about maximizing freedom, right? How much freedom can you be maximizing if a person can't shop at their neighborhood grocery store because a racist owner refuses to sell goods to them? How much freedom are you maximizing if they can't get a job because the racist owner won't give them an interview? That seems to be a destruction of freedom to me.

Freedom means personal freedom, not the freedom to enslave your neighbor.


Hey everybody. I have breaking news to report. Being told you have to serve people equally regardless of their skin color or sexual orientation is exactly like being chattel for a plantation owner.
 
2013-02-02 09:06:35 AM  

Serious Black: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Serious Black: Poe's Law alert, especially given the political compass posted in your profile.

Libertarian means that I don't think the government should be telling you who you work for/with, so no, not a Poe's law alert. I'm not even sure why you'd think that.

That's something I've never understood. Libertarianism is supposed to be about maximizing freedom, right? How much freedom can you be maximizing if a person can't shop at their neighborhood grocery store because a racist owner refuses to sell goods to them? How much freedom are you maximizing if they can't get a job because the racist owner won't give them an interview? That seems to be a destruction of freedom to me.


Libertarianism is freedom if you're white, heterosexual, and male.
 
2013-02-02 09:06:44 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Serious Black: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Serious Black: Poe's Law alert, especially given the political compass posted in your profile.

Libertarian means that I don't think the government should be telling you who you work for/with, so no, not a Poe's law alert. I'm not even sure why you'd think that.

That's something I've never understood. Libertarianism is supposed to be about maximizing freedom, right? How much freedom can you be maximizing if a person can't shop at their neighborhood grocery store because a racist owner refuses to sell goods to them? How much freedom are you maximizing if they can't get a job because the racist owner won't give them an interview? That seems to be a destruction of freedom to me.

Freedom means personal freedom, not the freedom to enslave your neighbor.


Aphorism is not an adequate substitute for argument. Remember: A new broom sweeps clean, a fool and his money are soon parted, and a wet bird never flies at night.
 
2013-02-02 09:07:05 AM  

Serious Black: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Serious Black: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Serious Black: Poe's Law alert, especially given the political compass posted in your profile.

Libertarian means that I don't think the government should be telling you who you work for/with, so no, not a Poe's law alert. I'm not even sure why you'd think that.

That's something I've never understood. Libertarianism is supposed to be about maximizing freedom, right? How much freedom can you be maximizing if a person can't shop at their neighborhood grocery store because a racist owner refuses to sell goods to them? How much freedom are you maximizing if they can't get a job because the racist owner won't give them an interview? That seems to be a destruction of freedom to me.

Freedom means personal freedom, not the freedom to enslave your neighbor.

Hey everybody. I have breaking news to report. Being told you have to serve people equally regardless of their skin color or sexual orientation is exactly like being chattel for a plantation owner.


How many whites are in the Congressional Black Caucus? Zero, because those CBC racists won't let them in. When the CBC is disbanded, we'll have a good stating point to have a chat about bigotry.
 
2013-02-02 09:08:05 AM  

You Idiots: jso2897: You Idiots: jso2897: You Idiots: So what.

I would suggest you libtards start your own business to serve these folks, but you'd rather rant and demand a government agency force businesses to provide politically correct services.

Put your money where your mouth is, instead of a foot for once.

You idiots.

1962 called - it wants it's then-relevant "debate" back.

You probably cry about cops being bullies, too.

I don't cry about anything. I'm an old and happy man, and quite pleased with the civilized direction society is moving in.
How about you?

You know who else was happy about the direction his society was moving?


Steve Jobs?
 
2013-02-02 09:08:58 AM  

pxlboy: Libertarianism is freedom if you're white, heterosexual, and male.


And love weed and are sort of an anarchist but really haven't completely thought things through.
 
2013-02-02 09:09:00 AM  

jso2897: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Serious Black: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Serious Black: Poe's Law alert, especially given the political compass posted in your profile.

Libertarian means that I don't think the government should be telling you who you work for/with, so no, not a Poe's law alert. I'm not even sure why you'd think that.

That's something I've never understood. Libertarianism is supposed to be about maximizing freedom, right? How much freedom can you be maximizing if a person can't shop at their neighborhood grocery store because a racist owner refuses to sell goods to them? How much freedom are you maximizing if they can't get a job because the racist owner won't give them an interview? That seems to be a destruction of freedom to me.

Freedom means personal freedom, not the freedom to enslave your neighbor.

Aphorism is not an adequate substitute for argument. Remember: A new broom sweeps clean, a fool and his money are soon parted, and a wet bird never flies at night.


Sure, but it does make you look like a farking jackass who wants to compare his plight to those of black people who were bought and sold against their will. Not you, obviously.
 
2013-02-02 09:09:11 AM  
Mussolini?  The extreme right-wing fascist?
Yeah, he was well known for standing up for the rights of the marginalized.
 
2013-02-02 09:09:57 AM  

ReverendJasen: Whether he broke any laws or not, I thnk we can safely agree he's gigantic douchebag.


There is simply no excuse for his actions, outdated, outmoded and obsolete personal beliefs in the life-rules of an irrational and hateful ancient Jewish Desert God notwithstanding.  The Law is the Law. What is not forbidden is compulsory. The laws of the Folk require obedience to the State. The days of personal adherence to one's personal and private morality are obsolete and have been replaced by the new social consciousness. Armed State Troopers need to be dispatched to his business and force him at gun point to make the cake. He and his family should then be enrolled in a re-education camp for an indeterminate period to adjust their viewpoints. Hard work will make them free.  Seriously, how could anyone except a stupid, silly Troll disagree with this simple, just, final solution?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
/too much?
//not enough deliberate ambiguity?
///proggies, give me a hand here
 
2013-02-02 09:12:23 AM  

pxlboy: Serious Black: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Serious Black: Poe's Law alert, especially given the political compass posted in your profile.

Libertarian means that I don't think the government should be telling you who you work for/with, so no, not a Poe's law alert. I'm not even sure why you'd think that.

That's something I've never understood. Libertarianism is supposed to be about maximizing freedom, right? How much freedom can you be maximizing if a person can't shop at their neighborhood grocery store because a racist owner refuses to sell goods to them? How much freedom are you maximizing if they can't get a job because the racist owner won't give them an interview? That seems to be a destruction of freedom to me.

Libertarianism is freedom if you're white, heterosexual, and male.


And rich. For everyone else it's a subservient life to those who have unfettered power without government there to help level the playing field.
 
2013-02-02 09:13:28 AM  

Serious Black: jso2897: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Serious Black: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Serious Black: Poe's Law alert, especially given the political compass posted in your profile.

Libertarian means that I don't think the government should be telling you who you work for/with, so no, not a Poe's law alert. I'm not even sure why you'd think that.

That's something I've never understood. Libertarianism is supposed to be about maximizing freedom, right? How much freedom can you be maximizing if a person can't shop at their neighborhood grocery store because a racist owner refuses to sell goods to them? How much freedom are you maximizing if they can't get a job because the racist owner won't give them an interview? That seems to be a destruction of freedom to me.

Freedom means personal freedom, not the freedom to enslave your neighbor.

Aphorism is not an adequate substitute for argument. Remember: A new broom sweeps clean, a fool and his money are soon parted, and a wet bird never flies at night.

Sure, but it does make you look like a farking jackass who wants to compare his plight to those of black people who were bought and sold against their will. Not you, obviously.


Whose "plight"? I don't have a "plight" - I'm a white, heterosexual male, and live in America - a society that was built to serve me exclusively. The fact that it has changed (some) in the last few decades doesn't move me to whine about being some kind of victim. As a popular comic pointed out - it f**king ROCKS being a white man - and I have trouble expressing the depth of my contempt for anyone who whines about it
 
2013-02-02 09:14:53 AM  

shotglasss: Serious Black: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Serious Black: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Serious Black: Poe's Law alert, especially given the political compass posted in your profile.

Libertarian means that I don't think the government should be telling you who you work for/with, so no, not a Poe's law alert. I'm not even sure why you'd think that.

That's something I've never understood. Libertarianism is supposed to be about maximizing freedom, right? How much freedom can you be maximizing if a person can't shop at their neighborhood grocery store because a racist owner refuses to sell goods to them? How much freedom are you maximizing if they can't get a job because the racist owner won't give them an interview? That seems to be a destruction of freedom to me.

Freedom means personal freedom, not the freedom to enslave your neighbor.

Hey everybody. I have breaking news to report. Being told you have to serve people equally regardless of their skin color or sexual orientation is exactly like being chattel for a plantation owner.

How many whites are in the Congressional Black Caucus? Zero, because those CBC racists won't let them in. When the CBC is disbanded, we'll have a good stating point to have a chat about bigotry.


Yes, I  CLEARLY support the Congressional Black Caucus banning membership to non-black individuals. After all, I have the word "Black" in my login, so that obviously means I am an African-American who wants to kill whitey. And because I also have the word "Serious" in my login, you know that I never exaggerate on these forums ever. The logic is 100% undeniable.
 
2013-02-02 09:16:01 AM  
After checking profiles, the people on Fark who are OK with his refusal to bake the cake are: white, heterosexual and male.

In other words, those in society who have experienced the least amount of discrimination.
 
2013-02-02 09:16:40 AM  

Serious Black: shotglasss: Serious Black: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Serious Black: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Serious Black: Poe's Law alert, especially given the political compass posted in your profile.

Libertarian means that I don't think the government should be telling you who you work for/with, so no, not a Poe's law alert. I'm not even sure why you'd think that.

That's something I've never understood. Libertarianism is supposed to be about maximizing freedom, right? How much freedom can you be maximizing if a person can't shop at their neighborhood grocery store because a racist owner refuses to sell goods to them? How much freedom are you maximizing if they can't get a job because the racist owner won't give them an interview? That seems to be a destruction of freedom to me.

Freedom means personal freedom, not the freedom to enslave your neighbor.

Hey everybody. I have breaking news to report. Being told you have to serve people equally regardless of their skin color or sexual orientation is exactly like being chattel for a plantation owner.

How many whites are in the Congressional Black Caucus? Zero, because those CBC racists won't let them in. When the CBC is disbanded, we'll have a good stating point to have a chat about bigotry.

Yes, I  CLEARLY support the Congressional Black Caucus banning membership to non-black individuals. After all, I have the word "Black" in my login, so that obviously means I am an African-American who wants to kill whitey. And because I also have the word "Serious" in my login, you know that I never exaggerate on these forums ever. The logic is 100% undeniable.


Shirley, you can't be serious.
 
2013-02-02 09:17:36 AM  

shotglasss: How many whites are in the Congressional Black Caucus? Zero, because those CBC racists won't let them in. When the CBC is disbanded, we'll have a good stating point to have a chat about bigotry.


Yeah! And I have yet to see one male Hooters waitress!
 
2013-02-02 09:18:30 AM  

Serious Black: Sure, but it does make you look like a farking jackass who wants to compare his plight to those of black people who were bought and sold against their will.


I eagerly await the explanation of why not being able to buy a wedding cake everywhere in the country makes them the modern equivalent of slaves.  You just know somebody here probably wants to tackle that one, they're just trying to figure out how to minimize the derpiness.
 
2013-02-02 09:19:27 AM  
I might see how this would be a problem if he was denying them some sort of necessary life service like health care, or transportation. but fark it, he's a cake baker. its not like theyre going to die if they dont get a cake from him. move on.
 
2013-02-02 09:20:39 AM  
As a gay man who has been told repeatedly by "conservatives" to just move to a friendlier place because of how I've been treated by various communities in my life, I woild just like to say, if he doesn't like the fact that society has decided these actions aren't acceptable where he lives, he should bootstrap and move. It worked for me, and I'm just a dirty liberal socialist.
 
2013-02-02 09:20:44 AM  

Tunney: After checking profiles, the people on Fark who are OK with his refusal to bake the cake are: white, heterosexual and male.

In other words, those in society who have experienced the least amount of discrimination.


I don't get that. I'm 62, white, male and hetero - and, in my life in America, I've been treated extremely well - indeed, i've had an awesome life, and about 90% of it was handed to me on a silver platter.
None of that has ever kept me from perceiving that there are other people in this country who haven't been treated fairly, nor made me indifferent to the fact.
 
2013-02-02 09:20:51 AM  

IlGreven: SpdrJay: Go
To
A
Different
Bakery

Your previous incarnation told Rosa Parks to walk.


You're context confusion is understandable if you are a liberal or "progressive.". The CITY bus was PUBLIC transportation paid for with tax money she presumably contributed to. A PRIVATE individual or even a PRIVATE corporation is presumably not being involuntarily supported by the lesbian couple through tax dollars.

UNLESS, of course, you wish to make a somewhat convoluted argument that the lesbian couple are, indeed, involuntarily supporting the baker since his business presumably makes use of the public roads (for deliveries, easy access by walk-in customers) that the lesbian couple helped pay for with their taxes. In that case, using variations of that concept, then one could make an argument that EVERYTHING done by ANYONE is a public act and must be regulated.

(This extension would be similar to that of the Dept of Agriculture (successfully) claiming the ability to regulate your personal economic production of wheat because your production negatively affects the demand (yours) for the interstate shipments of wheat.)
 
2013-02-02 09:22:36 AM  

jso2897: I don't get that. I'm 62, white, male and hetero - and, in my life in America, I've been treated extremely well - indeed, i've had an awesome life, and about 90% of it was handed to me on a silver platter.
None of that has ever kept me from perceiving that there are other people in this country who haven't been treated fairly, nor made me indifferent to the fact.


But there's a Black Entertainment Channel!
 
2013-02-02 09:23:30 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Serious Black: Sure, but it does make you look like a farking jackass who wants to compare his plight to those of black people who were bought and sold against their will.

I eagerly await the explanation of why not being able to buy a wedding cake everywhere in the country makes them the modern equivalent of slaves.  You just know somebody here probably wants to tackle that one, they're just trying to figure out how to minimize the derpiness.


The only person saying that is this guy:
i18.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-02 09:23:40 AM  
Good for him. It's about time people stood up for decency and morality rather than giving in to the nazi-like rainbow coalition.
 
2013-02-02 09:23:48 AM  

Active introvert: With all the evil in this world, why get so hung up over people who just want to love someone. Geesh


With all the evil in this world, why get so hung up over someone who just does not want to have a relationship with someone else? Sheesh.
 
2013-02-02 09:25:38 AM  

jso2897: BronyMedic: BarkingUnicorn: Had one of these in Lakewood, Colorado, a while back.  The baker felt the Internet's wrath.  IDK if any legal consequences ensued.

Why is it always the bakers?  Are there no Christian butchers or candlestick makers?

I'm pretty sure that refusing to serve someone based on sexual orientation or because of your religious convictions is a violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but IANAL, unless it's a "private club"

No. Federal law does not treat sexual orientation as a protected class (if it did, there could be no "DOMA"). Oregon law, however, does, so it's irrelevant.
Cue all the righties who will defend this lawbreaking criminal's "religious freedom".


Except, of course, Federal law trumps state law, right?
 
2013-02-02 09:26:26 AM  

shotglasss: Like the sign says, "We have the right to refuse service to anyone".

He refused service based on religious beliefs. Now you libs want the state to attack him and his business for that religious belief? What ever happened to the separation of church and state?


ZING!
 
2013-02-02 09:26:43 AM  

Terrydatroll: Good for him. It's about time people stood up for decency and morality rather than giving in to the nazi-like rainbow coalition.


Why does he want to do business in a state that disagrees with his so-called "values" ? He should just move on to someplace he's welcome, like the boostrappy all-American individualist he is.
 
2013-02-02 09:27:03 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: jso2897: BronyMedic: BarkingUnicorn: Had one of these in Lakewood, Colorado, a while back.  The baker felt the Internet's wrath.  IDK if any legal consequences ensued.

Why is it always the bakers?  Are there no Christian butchers or candlestick makers?

I'm pretty sure that refusing to serve someone based on sexual orientation or because of your religious convictions is a violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but IANAL, unless it's a "private club"

No. Federal law does not treat sexual orientation as a protected class (if it did, there could be no "DOMA"). Oregon law, however, does, so it's irrelevant.
Cue all the righties who will defend this lawbreaking criminal's "religious freedom".

Except, of course, Federal law trumps state law, right?


Unless federal law says it's illegal to not discriminate against gays, then that has nothing to do with anything that's happening in this story or thread.
 
2013-02-02 09:27:52 AM  

Mugato: shotglasss: How many whites are in the Congressional Black Caucus? Zero, because those CBC racists won't let them in. When the CBC is disbanded, we'll have a good stating point to have a chat about bigotry.

Yeah! And I have yet to see one male Hooters waitress!


i595.photobucket.com

Saddam Hussein in a Hooters outfit serving wings?  Why the fark not?
 
2013-02-02 09:28:50 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: shotglasss: Like the sign says, "We have the right to refuse service to anyone".

He refused service based on religious beliefs. Now you libs want the state to attack him and his business for that religious belief? What ever happened to the separation of church and state?

ZING!


This is what Republicans actually believe think is clever.
 
2013-02-02 09:29:25 AM  

Doctor Funkenstein: Mugato: shotglasss: How many whites are in the Congressional Black Caucus? Zero, because those CBC racists won't let them in. When the CBC is disbanded, we'll have a good stating point to have a chat about bigotry.

Yeah! And I have yet to see one male Hooters waitress!

[i595.photobucket.com image 137x200]

Saddam Hussein in a Hooters outfit serving wings?  Why the fark not?


Actually, they have those now.

media1.break.com
 
2013-02-02 09:30:47 AM  

here to help: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: shotglasss: Like the sign says, "We have the right to refuse service to anyone".

He refused service based on religious beliefs. Now you libs want the state to attack him and his business for that religious belief? What ever happened to the separation of church and state?

ZING!

This is what Republicans actually believe think is clever.


Baker boy should try that line on the judge. I'm sure he'll carry the day with that brilliant legal analysis.
 
2013-02-02 09:31:29 AM  

PonceAlyosha: Doctor Funkenstein: Mugato: shotglasss: How many whites are in the Congressional Black Caucus? Zero, because those CBC racists won't let them in. When the CBC is disbanded, we'll have a good stating point to have a chat about bigotry.

Yeah! And I have yet to see one male Hooters waitress!

[i595.photobucket.com image 137x200]

Saddam Hussein in a Hooters outfit serving wings?  Why the fark not?

Actually, they have those now.

[media1.break.com image 500x506]


Yeah, but that guy looks like he sucks at genocide.  Nobody can top Saddam's mustard wings.
 
2013-02-02 09:31:58 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: jso2897: BronyMedic: BarkingUnicorn: Had one of these in Lakewood, Colorado, a while back.  The baker felt the Internet's wrath.  IDK if any legal consequences ensued.

Why is it always the bakers?  Are there no Christian butchers or candlestick makers?

I'm pretty sure that refusing to serve someone based on sexual orientation or because of your religious convictions is a violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but IANAL, unless it's a "private club"

No. Federal law does not treat sexual orientation as a protected class (if it did, there could be no "DOMA"). Oregon law, however, does, so it's irrelevant.
Cue all the righties who will defend this lawbreaking criminal's "religious freedom".

Except, of course, Federal law trumps state law, right?


Except the Oregon law is not contradicting the federal, and the constitutional right isn't being infringed upon..
 
2013-02-02 09:32:56 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: .If your religious beliefs suggest that you shouldn't cooperate with people who do certain types of things, then by forcing a person to cooperate, you're prohibiting free exercise of their religious tenets.


Bullshiat.  You're free to practice your religion in any way you like as long as you don't break the law.  Running a business is not practicing religion by any stretch of the imagination.

You want to operate a public accommodation? You play by society's rules.  

shotglasss: Like the sign says, "We have the right to refuse service to anyone".


Dude... I need your help.  I put up a sign in my store that said, "The customer assumes all liability while on the premises".  Someone slipped and fell while I was mopping, and they sued me and won a $50,000 judgement!

What should I do?
 
2013-02-02 09:33:47 AM  

swingerofbirches: I think private businesses that aren't getting government funding should be allowed to be as douchey as they want.

I would really hate eating a cake too that someone made for me under government orders.


This, So much this.
 
2013-02-02 09:34:03 AM  

jso2897: Baker boy should try that line on the judge. I'm sure he'll carry the day with that brilliant legal analysis.


I really do hope he fights it tooth and nail and gets all the publicity he deserves. What could possibly go wrong. ;-)
 
2013-02-02 09:34:45 AM  

MayoSlather: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: jso2897: BronyMedic: BarkingUnicorn: Had one of these in Lakewood, Colorado, a while back.  The baker felt the Internet's wrath.  IDK if any legal consequences ensued.

Why is it always the bakers?  Are there no Christian butchers or candlestick makers?

I'm pretty sure that refusing to serve someone based on sexual orientation or because of your religious convictions is a violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but IANAL, unless it's a "private club"

No. Federal law does not treat sexual orientation as a protected class (if it did, there could be no "DOMA"). Oregon law, however, does, so it's irrelevant.
Cue all the righties who will defend this lawbreaking criminal's "religious freedom".

Except, of course, Federal law trumps state law, right?

Except the Oregon law is not contradicting the federal, and the constitutional right isn't being infringed upon..


Still, we don't want to discourage them too much - I find their attempts to "debate" the "Constitutionality" of stuff that was settled case law before they were born pretty amusing, and wouldn't want them to quit entirely. It's like watching Don Quixote charging those windmills.
 
2013-02-02 09:36:06 AM  
And a dudemanbro with BOTH ears pierced is pretty darned homosex IMO... never mind his career choice.
 
2013-02-02 09:37:51 AM  
This happened a couple of years ago with a canadian bakery too
 
2013-02-02 09:38:11 AM  
Klein emphasized the importance of his religious beliefs, saying it outweighs his bottom line and the state law.

If your religious beliefs outweigh state law, then you should not be running a business open to the public since that involves you by default in practices that run counter to your beliefs.

It's like this: If you play in the rain, you'll get wet. If your beliefs require you to stay dry, then you can't play in the rain.  But your belief doesn't entitle you to make the rain stop for eveybody else.
 
2013-02-02 09:40:17 AM  

Greek: Side note: Here we have a male, wearing an earring, who likes to bake artistic cakes, inside his bakery, which has pink walls. And he has a problem with gay people? Not to make any assumptions here... but I wouldn't be surprised to hear that this guy is the next fundie discovered in the park bathroom with 5 other guys.


That would just be the icing on the...how does that saying go again?
 
2013-02-02 09:41:34 AM  
Does management no longer reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason?

Don't get me wrong. "I refuse to make money, and do my job for you based on your sexual orientation" makes you sound ignorant and closed minded. "Based on my religious beliefs" makes you sound, to me, (Agnostic) stupid. "I would rather close my business down than violate my conscience." ... well... despite the reasons *why*, you may have something there...

I mean, hey, I got banned from a coffee shop once for ordering three cookies, just as i had done every day for a couple of weeks. A mix of the only two kinds they had. When asked (at the drive thru) what kind I wanted, i said "A mix, two of one, and one of the other", at which point the girl started screaming through the mic, I drove through, and discovered for the first time in weeks, they had a real variety of cookies. Then I was banned from property (Police got involved and everything).

Like three years later, we stopped there on the way out of town, for a pee break and some refreshments before we hit the highway. The owner recognized me and refused to serve me.

OVER COOKIES.... and he was technically in the right... because management reserved the right to refuse service to anyone.

The reason here is just as stupid and ignorant, but how is it *really* any different, other than his root reason of not agreeing with homosexuality, and this coffee shop owner's reason of hating indecisiveness?

Phrozen
/they were really farking good cookies, too...
 
2013-02-02 09:42:24 AM  

Z-clipped: BraveNewCheneyWorld: .If your religious beliefs suggest that you shouldn't cooperate with people who do certain types of things, then by forcing a person to cooperate, you're prohibiting free exercise of their religious tenets.

Bullshiat.  You're free to practice your religion in any way you like as long as you don't break the law.  Running a business is not practicing religion by any stretch of the imagination.

You want to operate a public accommodation? You play by society's rules.


For many people, their religion doesn't begin and end when they walk through the church door.  Society's first rule is the first amendment, if you don't like it, repeal it, but don't pretend a state law trumps it, because you're not fooling anyone.
 
2013-02-02 09:43:08 AM  

KrispyKritter: He is entitled to his opinion.


Yes, he is.  However, his behavior makes him a gigantic douchebag.
 
2013-02-02 09:44:20 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: I eagerly await the explanation of why not being able to buy a wedding cake everywhere in the country makes them the modern equivalent of slaves.


What is it about threads relating to discrimination against gay people that compels you troll in such a ridiculous manner?
 
2013-02-02 09:44:21 AM  
What the heck is going on? Suddenly everybody is farking gay! We're going to negative population growth at this rate.
 
2013-02-02 09:45:04 AM  

PhrozenStar: Does management no longer reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason?

Don't get me wrong. "I refuse to make money, and do my job for you based on your sexual orientation" makes you sound ignorant and closed minded. "Based on my religious beliefs" makes you sound, to me, (Agnostic) stupid. "I would rather close my business down than violate my conscience." ... well... despite the reasons *why*, you may have something there...

I mean, hey, I got banned from a coffee shop once for ordering three cookies, just as i had done every day for a couple of weeks. A mix of the only two kinds they had. When asked (at the drive thru) what kind I wanted, i said "A mix, two of one, and one of the other", at which point the girl started screaming through the mic, I drove through, and discovered for the first time in weeks, they had a real variety of cookies. Then I was banned from property (Police got involved and everything).

Like three years later, we stopped there on the way out of town, for a pee break and some refreshments before we hit the highway. The owner recognized me and refused to serve me.

OVER COOKIES.... and he was technically in the right... because management reserved the right to refuse service to anyone.

The reason here is just as stupid and ignorant, but how is it *really* any different, other than his root reason of not agreeing with homosexuality, and this coffee shop owner's reason of hating indecisiveness?

Phrozen
/they were really farking good cookies, too...


It's not illegal under Oregon law to refuse service over cookies. It is illegal to refuse service based on Sexual Orientation in Oregon. That is how it is different.
 
2013-02-02 09:46:17 AM  

You Idiots: So what.

I would suggest you libtards start your own business to serve these folks, but you'd rather rant and demand a government agency force businesses to provide politically correct services.

Put your money where your mouth is, instead of a foot for once.

You idiots.


That's actually a great idea. Hire a really competent head baker and staff. Pay over scale to attract and keep the best. Name it something like "GLBT Bakeries." Advertise as THE place to go for alternative lifestyle couples. Hire both tolerant straights and tolerant gays.

The reasoning: how many bakeries are there in a random large metropolitan area? Probably at least 30 or 40, including both chains and mom-and-pop shops. That means, on the average, any store gets maybe 3% of the total business. But the percentage of GLBT people in the population is probably 3.4% to 3.8%. http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/population.htm, http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/10/19/how_many_americans_ a re_gay_or_lesbian_gallup_survey_says_3_4_percent.html. If you offer quality product and huge service, you will have a definite competitive edge.
 
2013-02-02 09:47:06 AM  

wambu: Klein emphasized the importance of his religious beliefs, saying it outweighs his bottom line and the state law.

If your religious beliefs outweigh state law, then you should not be running a business open to the public since that involves you by default in practices that run counter to your beliefs.


Yeah, if you want to refuse service to someone because you find their lifestyle objectionable, you shouldn't have a job and be forced to live in a dumpster!

wambu: It's like this: If you play in the rain, you'll get wet. If your beliefs require you to stay dry, then you can't play in the rain.  But your belief doesn't entitle you to make the rain stop for eveybody else.


Funny how that applies to the lesbian couple even more than the baker.
 
2013-02-02 09:49:42 AM  

MayoSlather: I believe this is in fact breaking the state law. His personal freedom of religion isn't being infringed upon. He is attempting to push his religious ideas onto others through his place of business. Just because his interpretation of his religion is homophobic doesn't mean he can openly do homophobic things and hide behind freedom of religion as a defense.

Marriage is not purely a religious device contrary to what many Christians believe. It is secular in the eyes of the law, and thus the Christian definition of marriage and the US's definition are different things. He cannot dictate his bigoted definition to others via his place and call it his expression of religious freedom. It's discrimination pure and simple and seems to me to be in violation of Oregon state law.


I'm not sure I would see it as pushing his beliefs on others.  My view of that would be "If I make a cake for you, then it has to have certain details that only I approve".  On the other hand, it appears that the baker is saying "The work you are asking me to do conflicts with my beliefs, so I cannot help you this time around".  He may very well be running afoul of secular law, but he chose to follow his conscience...
 
2013-02-02 09:54:35 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: You Idiots: So what.

I would suggest you libtards start your own business to serve these folks, but you'd rather rant and demand a government agency force businesses to provide politically correct services.

Put your money where your mouth is, instead of a foot for once.

You idiots.

That's actually a great idea. Hire a really competent head baker and staff. Pay over scale to attract and keep the best. Name it something like "GLBT Bakeries." Advertise as THE place to go for alternative lifestyle couples. Hire both tolerant straights and tolerant gays.

The reasoning: how many bakeries are there in a random large metropolitan area? Probably at least 30 or 40, including both chains and mom-and-pop shops. That means, on the average, any store gets maybe 3% of the total business. But the percentage of GLBT people in the population is probably 3.4% to 3.8%. http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/population.htm, http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/10/19/how_many_americans_ a re_gay_or_lesbian_gallup_survey_says_3_4_percent.html. If you offer quality product and huge service, you will have a definite competitive edge.


make cakes out of poop and semen and watch your sales go through the roof!!
 
2013-02-02 09:55:00 AM  

Mentalenemasquad: MayoSlather: I believe this is in fact breaking the state law. His personal freedom of religion isn't being infringed upon. He is attempting to push his religious ideas onto others through his place of business. Just because his interpretation of his religion is homophobic doesn't mean he can openly do homophobic things and hide behind freedom of religion as a defense.

Marriage is not purely a religious device contrary to what many Christians believe. It is secular in the eyes of the law, and thus the Christian definition of marriage and the US's definition are different things. He cannot dictate his bigoted definition to others via his place and call it his expression of religious freedom. It's discrimination pure and simple and seems to me to be in violation of Oregon state law.

I'm not sure I would see it as pushing his beliefs on others.  My view of that would be "If I make a cake for you, then it has to have certain details that only I approve".  On the other hand, it appears that the baker is saying "The work you are asking me to do conflicts with my beliefs, so I cannot help you this time around".  He may very well be running afoul of secular law, but he chose to follow his conscience...


He can deal with his conscience in the next life. In this one he gets to deal with secular law. I don't like having to deal with certain people, but I recognize that in a civilized society we must put certain beliefs and urges on hold to ensure that everyone can live their lives. 'Christians' (especially openly hypocritical ones like mr tatty mc tattoo) need to learn this lesson as well.
 
2013-02-02 09:56:46 AM  

truthseeker2083: In this one he gets to deal with secular law.


It's funny how you people dismiss the 1st amendment when it's not convenient.
 
2013-02-02 09:56:53 AM  
Ignoring everything else, the man is a horrible businessman.

You don't want gay couple's business, fine. Make a deal with the bakery across the street. You will refer them business for a 5% finder's fee. Tell the couple that you are already overbooked for that week, but have a friend that makes excellent cakes and would be happy to take your businesses.

This way nobody is forced to violate their "religious beliefs", the happy couple goes away happy, and your business doesn't make the newspapers (in a relatively liberal city) and get itself boycotted.

//and yes, I still think he is a pretentious jerk
 
2013-02-02 09:56:53 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: That's actually a great idea. Hire a really competent head baker and staff. Pay over scale to attract and keep the best. Name it something like "GLBT Bakeries." Advertise as THE place to go for alternative lifestyle couples. Hire both tolerant straights and tolerant gays.

The reasoning: how many bakeries are there in a random large metropolitan area? Probably at least 30 or 40, including both chains and mom-and-pop shops. That means, on the average, any store gets maybe 3% of the total business. But the percentage of GLBT people in the population is probably 3.4% to 3.8%. http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/population.htm, http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/10/19/how_many_americans_ a re_gay_or_lesbian_gallup_survey_says_3_4_percent.html. If you offer quality product and huge service, you will have a definite competitive edge.


Segregation ROCKS!
 
2013-02-02 09:57:41 AM  
And yet he makes a fortune selling penis cakes.
 
2013-02-02 09:59:37 AM  
I seem to recall a rather extended story in the New Testament about a certain prostitute, and Jesus telling the self-righteous assholes to all just fark the hell off and be nice to the poor woman. And/Or bake her a bloody cake if she wanted.
 
2013-02-02 10:01:30 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Society's first rule is the first amendment, if you don't like it, repeal it, but don't pretend a state law trumps it, because you're not fooling anyone.


LOL.  Freedom to practice religion = freedom to ignore the law.  You're a genius.  Why is it that the SCOTUS hasn't agreed with your analysis in slightest over the last 50 years?
 
2013-02-02 10:01:35 AM  
While I believe that it's morally wrong to discriminate against gays, it seems that in this case the state law would infringe upon the man's first amendment rights. I am interested to see how the case turns out.

This won't be good for his business, whether he wins the case or not.
 
2013-02-02 10:01:41 AM  

Bungles: I seem to recall a rather extended story in the New Testament about a certain prostitute, and Jesus telling the self-righteous assholes to all just fark the hell off and be nice to the poor woman. And/Or bake her a bloody cake if she wanted.


I remember him telling everybody not to bash her to death with rocks, not to make a cake.  And don't mistake "love thy neighbor" as "enable your neighbor".
 
2013-02-02 10:01:53 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: For many people, their religion doesn't begin and end when they walk through the church door. Society's first rule is the first amendment, if you don't like it, repeal it, but don't pretend a state law trumps it, because you're not fooling anyone.


Until about 1980, Mormons considered black people sub-human. Jehovah's Witnesses will refuse their own children blood transfusions. Scientologists don't believe in psychiatric help. I don't know everything about Christian Scientists but they have some pretty farked up views about healthcare as well. Should we all bow down to their various idiocies under the guise of the 1st amendment?
 
2013-02-02 10:02:26 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: truthseeker2083: In this one he gets to deal with secular law.

It's funny how you people dismiss the 1st amendment when it's not convenient.


When would be a convenient time to dismiss the 1st Amendment? When we're trying to civilize the heathen Africans?
 
2013-02-02 10:02:43 AM  
Ah yes, that whole "Thou shall not serve cake to sinners" commandment. Glad Jesus will see this guys attempt at being religuous and say "You know what, this was the kind of guy I was talking about the whole time.  Lets go meet my Dad."
 
2013-02-02 10:03:14 AM  

shotglasss: Why do I have to pretend he's something other than a guy trying to make a living and honor his God? You want to turn him into something he's not for what reason?

And if you don't like the way he runs his business, go somewhere else.


Remember, these are the same folks who think that the Civil Rights Act was unnecessary because the free market would punish those who discriminate.

Well, it's the free market at work biatches!!!
 
2013-02-02 10:03:49 AM  

Z-clipped: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Society's first rule is the first amendment, if you don't like it, repeal it, but don't pretend a state law trumps it, because you're not fooling anyone.

LOL.  Freedom to practice religion = freedom to ignore the law.  You're a genius.  Why is it that the SCOTUS hasn't agreed with your analysis in slightest over the last 50 years?


Please cite this case that you must be referring to, where the supreme court made a non protected class's desire to be served trump someone's religious rights.
 
2013-02-02 10:04:05 AM  

jso2897: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Serious Black: Sure, but it does make you look like a farking jackass who wants to compare his plight to those of black people who were bought and sold against their will.

I eagerly await the explanation of why not being able to buy a wedding cake everywhere in the country makes them the modern equivalent of slaves.  You just know somebody here probably wants to tackle that one, they're just trying to figure out how to minimize the derpiness.

The only person saying that is this guy:
[i18.photobucket.com image 480x640]


It's not just that none of the people he's arguing with have said that - it's that he himself is the only person in the entire thread to have said that very thing when he compared anti-discrimination laws to the "freedom to enslave".

The only way his posts make sense (if one could call it that) is if they're read as a kind of satire lampooning the poor logic, overt projection and lack of self-awareness that accompany a bigot's attempt to make an "argument" on any issue involving gay people.
 
2013-02-02 10:04:48 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: truthseeker2083: In this one he gets to deal with secular law.

It's funny how you people dismiss the 1st amendment when it's not convenient.


Its funny how you people dismiss the 4th. Why won't my NY marriage be valid in OH?
 
2013-02-02 10:05:57 AM  

Mugato: BraveNewCheneyWorld: For many people, their religion doesn't begin and end when they walk through the church door. Society's first rule is the first amendment, if you don't like it, repeal it, but don't pretend a state law trumps it, because you're not fooling anyone.

Until about 1980, Mormons considered black people sub-human. Jehovah's Witnesses will refuse their own children blood transfusions. Scientologists don't believe in psychiatric help. I don't know everything about Christian Scientists but they have some pretty farked up views about healthcare as well. Should we all bow down to their various idiocies under the guise of the 1st amendment?


I'm glad you brought that up, yeah, Christian scientists get to let people die, and you people think this will be undone for a farking cake!
 
2013-02-02 10:06:12 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Bungles: I seem to recall a rather extended story in the New Testament about a certain prostitute, and Jesus telling the self-righteous assholes to all just fark the hell off and be nice to the poor woman. And/Or bake her a bloody cake if she wanted.

I remember him telling everybody not to bash her to death with rocks, not to make a cake.   And don't mistake "love thy neighbor" as "enable your neighbor".


Is that the new version of "hate the sin, love the sinner" that people who are acting in no way a Christian manner use to justify their hate?
 
2013-02-02 10:08:47 AM  
So?
 
2013-02-02 10:08:50 AM  

PonceAlyosha: Isn't that illegal, given that you can not deny use of public accommodations based on sex?



But strangely, you must deny the use of accommodations for sex in public.
 
2013-02-02 10:10:02 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Yeah, if you want to refuse service to someone because you find their lifestyle objectionable, you shouldn't have a job and be forced to live in a dumpster!


Pretty much, yes.  There are rules when it comes to running a business.  If you want to do business with the public, you play by the rules.  You can always start a church of your own, or run for office... since apparently anything goes in those enterprises.

Having religious beliefs doesn't entitle you to ignore OSHA standards, pay less than minimum wage, sell poisoned food, or not pay taxes... why the ever loving fark would it entitle you to discriminate against people?
 
2013-02-02 10:10:28 AM  

here to help: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: shotglasss: Like the sign says, "We have the right to refuse service to anyone".

He refused service based on religious beliefs. Now you libs want the state to attack him and his business for that religious belief? What ever happened to the separation of church and state?

ZING!

This is what Republicans actually believe think is clever.


well, since I'm not a Republican, you need to re-think that out.
 
2013-02-02 10:12:13 AM  
Damnit didnt mean 4th ammendment. Meant Article Four. I blame being up almost 30 straight hours...
 
2013-02-02 10:12:27 AM  

Z-clipped: Having religious beliefs doesn't entitle you to ignore OSHA standards, pay less than minimum wage, sell poisoned food, or not pay taxes... why the ever loving fark would it entitle you to discriminate against people?


That is the worst comparison ever.
 
2013-02-02 10:12:37 AM  
img1.etsystatic.com

That dude needed a sign.

From God.
 
2013-02-02 10:13:16 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: well, since I'm not a Republican, you need to re-think that out.


Lemme guess... a libertarian who just happens to vote republican and agrees with everything they do and say?

Who'd you vote for?
 
2013-02-02 10:14:09 AM  

here to help: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: well, since I'm not a Republican, you need to re-think that out.

Lemme guess... a libertarian who just happens to vote republican and agrees with everything they do and say?

Who'd you vote for?


The guy that kept him homeless.
 
2013-02-02 10:14:16 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Z-clipped: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Society's first rule is the first amendment, if you don't like it, repeal it, but don't pretend a state law trumps it, because you're not fooling anyone.

LOL.  Freedom to practice religion = freedom to ignore the law.  You're a genius.  Why is it that the SCOTUS hasn't agreed with your analysis in slightest over the last 50 years?

Please cite this case that you must be referring to, where the supreme court made a non protected class's desire to be served trump someone's religious rights.


None ever has. There is no conflict here - he is free to practice his faith, but not to do that which is otherwise illegal under a claim of faith. just like you, me, and everybody else.
 
2013-02-02 10:14:28 AM  
Klein emphasized the importance of his religious beliefs, saying it outweighs his bottom line and the state law.

"My First Amendment rights allow me to practice my religion as I see it," Klein said. "And as the High Holy Cake Topper of the Church of Fondant, my religion requires me to make and sell cakes with pink ribbons and flowers of icing, marzipan blue birds, and campy figurines, but not to homos."
 
2013-02-02 10:14:35 AM  
What if Cakey-boy said:   "I hate gays or I didn't vote for gay marriage" or whatever abomination is bothering him, but agreed to go through with the business transaction; would that be OK?
 
2013-02-02 10:14:50 AM  
you can't just walk into McDonald's and demand a "butt" burger
they'll just look at you weird and throw you out.  that or give you a big mac
 
2013-02-02 10:15:35 AM  

ACunningPlan: What if Cakey-boy said:   "I hate gays or I didn't vote for gay marriage" or whatever abomination is bothering him, but agreed to go through with the business transaction; would that be OK?


Yup
 
2013-02-02 10:15:53 AM  

truthseeker2083: The guy that kept him homeless.


He worked for Bain and had his job outsourced? Makes sense.
 
2013-02-02 10:16:36 AM  

Amos Quito: [img1.etsystatic.com image 543x435]

That dude needed a sign.

From God.


It's funny that the sign is written in the "old west" font.

/well not "Airplane!" funny
//maybe "Airplane! 2" funny
///before Shatner showed up, those scenes were gold
 
2013-02-02 10:17:20 AM  

ACunningPlan: What if Cakey-boy said:   "I hate gays or I didn't vote for gay marriage" or whatever abomination is bothering him, but agreed to go through with the business transaction; would that be OK?



Or what if he agreed to make the cake on the condition that they make him the meat in their sammich?
 
2013-02-02 10:17:41 AM  

jso2897: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Z-clipped: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Society's first rule is the first amendment, if you don't like it, repeal it, but don't pretend a state law trumps it, because you're not fooling anyone.

LOL.  Freedom to practice religion = freedom to ignore the law.  You're a genius.  Why is it that the SCOTUS hasn't agreed with your analysis in slightest over the last 50 years?

Please cite this case that you must be referring to, where the supreme court made a non protected class's desire to be served trump someone's religious rights.

None ever has. There is no conflict here - he is free to practice his faith, but not to do that which is otherwise illegal under a claim of faith. just like you, me, and everybody else.


No law is being broken, the 1st amendment protects him, and trumps any state law if they conflict, which they do.  If you don't like it, that's fine, but you need to repeal the 1st amendment, which isn't happening.
 
2013-02-02 10:18:32 AM  

ACunningPlan: What if Cakey-boy said:   "I hate gays or I didn't vote for gay marriage" or whatever abomination is bothering him, but agreed to go through with the business transaction; would that be OK?


Yup. I'd still think he was wrong and a bit of a douche for saying it out loud to them, but the freedom of speech allows him to say stupid shiat like that as long as he's not phrasing it as fighting words.
 
2013-02-02 10:18:52 AM  

ACunningPlan: What if Cakey-boy said:   "I hate gays or I didn't vote for gay marriage" or whatever abomination is bothering him, but agreed to go through with the business transaction; would that be OK?


Sure. Mind you, if he adds on a special surcharge, that'd be illegal. Or if he hints that he may have stuck his penis in the cake, then he might end up getting several investigations from the department of health.
 
2013-02-02 10:19:34 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: jso2897: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Z-clipped: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Society's first rule is the first amendment, if you don't like it, repeal it, but don't pretend a state law trumps it, because you're not fooling anyone.

LOL.  Freedom to practice religion = freedom to ignore the law.  You're a genius.  Why is it that the SCOTUS hasn't agreed with your analysis in slightest over the last 50 years?

Please cite this case that you must be referring to, where the supreme court made a non protected class's desire to be served trump someone's religious rights.

None ever has. There is no conflict here - he is free to practice his faith, but not to do that which is otherwise illegal under a claim of faith. just like you, me, and everybody else.

No law is being broken, the 1st amendment protects him, and trumps any state law if they conflict, which they do.  If you don't like it, that's fine, but you need to repeal the 1st amendment, which isn't happening.


Would that same state law conflict if he refused service to the African-American community?
 
2013-02-02 10:20:40 AM  
Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: Iam the LORD. (Leviticus 19:28)

media.katu.com
 
2013-02-02 10:20:50 AM  
BraveNewCheneyWorld:
No law is being broken, the 1st amendment protects him, and trumps any state law if they conflict, which they do.  If you don't like it, that's fine, but you need to repeal the 1st amendment, which isn't happening.

My religion, Farkyouism, requires the religious practice of "therapeutic beatings," so would you mind standing there while I get my baseball bat and beat you soundly around the head and shoulders? No?! How dare you infringe my sacred 1st amendment rights, fascist!
 
2013-02-02 10:21:01 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: jso2897: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Z-clipped: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Society's first rule is the first amendment, if you don't like it, repeal it, but don't pretend a state law trumps it, because you're not fooling anyone.

LOL.  Freedom to practice religion = freedom to ignore the law.  You're a genius.  Why is it that the SCOTUS hasn't agreed with your analysis in slightest over the last 50 years?

Please cite this case that you must be referring to, where the supreme court made a non protected class's desire to be served trump someone's religious rights.

None ever has. There is no conflict here - he is free to practice his faith, but not to do that which is otherwise illegal under a claim of faith. just like you, me, and everybody else.

No law is being broken, the 1st amendment protects him, and trumps any state law if they conflict, which they do.  If you don't like it, that's fine, but you need to repeal the 1st amendment, which isn't happening.


You may want to check out the result of Employment Division v. Smith.
 
2013-02-02 10:21:18 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Z-clipped: Having religious beliefs doesn't entitle you to ignore OSHA standards, pay less than minimum wage, sell poisoned food, or not pay taxes... why the ever loving fark would it entitle you to discriminate against people?

That is the worst comparison ever.


Why? It's one of the legal principles that make anti-discrimination law enforceable. One cannot justify or protect otherwise illegal activities on the supposed basis of "faith"  - or, indeed, any other "conviction".
What the first amendment forbids is any prohibition of OTHERWISE LEGAL activity on the basis of someone's faith.
It does not allow you to smoke weed, not pay taxes, or discriminate unlawfully because you claim your faith mandates it.
 
2013-02-02 10:22:18 AM  

Jon iz teh kewl: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: You Idiots: So what.

I would suggest you libtards start your own business to serve these folks, but you'd rather rant and demand a government agency force businesses to provide politically correct services.

Put your money where your mouth is, instead of a foot for once.

You idiots.

That's actually a great idea. Hire a really competent head baker and staff. Pay over scale to attract and keep the best. Name it something like "GLBT Bakeries." Advertise as THE place to go for alternative lifestyle couples. Hire both tolerant straights and tolerant gays.

The reasoning: how many bakeries are there in a random large metropolitan area? Probably at least 30 or 40, including both chains and mom-and-pop shops. That means, on the average, any store gets maybe 3% of the total business. But the percentage of GLBT people in the population is probably 3.4% to 3.8%. http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/population.htm, http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/10/19/how_many_americans_ a re_gay_or_lesbian_gallup_survey_says_3_4_percent.html. If you offer quality product and huge service, you will have a definite competitive edge.

make cakes out of poop and semen and watch your sales go through the roof!!


AFAIAC the customer is always right. I suspect, however, that there are state health laws that might come into play. And also contamination issues.

Wife and I recently got a Pizza Hut pizza. I LOVE Canadian bacon, pineapple and cashews, but they don't have cashews, and would not agree to add them even if I supplied them with a can. Reason: potential cross contamination of another pizza (particularly bad with a nut-sensitive individual).

But then again, you were just being snarky, right?
 
2013-02-02 10:22:28 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Please cite this case that you must be referring to,


No, it's up to YOU to cite an instance of the SCOTUS ruling that states cannot further define the responsibility of business owners not to discriminate, or further define protected classes within their jurisdiction.

The notion that this is a first amendment issue is ludicrous.
 
2013-02-02 10:24:08 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: No law is being broken, the 1st amendment protects him, and trumps any state law if they conflict, which they do. If you don't like it, that's fine, but you need to repeal the 1st amendment, which isn't happening.


So a doctor can tell a mother, "fark you, I'm a Jehovah's Witness. Your kid isn't getting a blood transfusion! You're dying for the first amendment, kid!"

Funny how these 1st Amendment crusaders weren't as loud when Bush Jr raped the 1st and 4th Amendment

/well not "Naked Gun" funny
//maybe "Naked Gun 2 1/2" funny
///Priscilla Presley was hot
 
2013-02-02 10:25:02 AM  

here to help: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: That's actually a great idea. Hire a really competent head baker and staff. Pay over scale to attract and keep the best. Name it something like "GLBT Bakeries." Advertise as THE place to go for alternative lifestyle couples. Hire both tolerant straights and tolerant gays.

The reasoning: how many bakeries are there in a random large metropolitan area? Probably at least 30 or 40, including both chains and mom-and-pop shops. That means, on the average, any store gets maybe 3% of the total business. But the percentage of GLBT people in the population is probably 3.4% to 3.8%. http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/population.htm, http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/10/19/how_many_americans_ a re_gay_or_lesbian_gallup_survey_says_3_4_percent.html. If you offer quality product and huge service, you will have a definite competitive edge.

Segregation ROCKS!


Lordy, lordy, you really are an idiot.

>>>>>>Segregation ROCKS!

For purposes of having a competitive edge, then yes.
 
2013-02-02 10:26:31 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Z-clipped: Having religious beliefs doesn't entitle you to ignore OSHA standards, pay less than minimum wage, sell poisoned food, or not pay taxes... why the ever loving fark would it entitle you to discriminate against people?

That is the worst comparison ever.


Please, do elaborate.
 
2013-02-02 10:26:39 AM  

Serious Black: You may want to check out the result of Employment Division v. Smith.


Not making cakes isn't inherently a criminal act.
 
2013-02-02 10:28:08 AM  

Mrtraveler01: Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: Iam the LORD. (Leviticus 19:28)

[media.katu.com image 660x495]


I'm pretty sure there's also something in Leviticus about "thou shall not increase thou's douchebagginess by the wearing of a Vans t-shirt and the sporting of facial hair from 1991". I think it's in the appendix somewhere.
 
2013-02-02 10:28:50 AM  
If only he had a sign then he would have been able to break the law! Always make a sign.
 
2013-02-02 10:28:54 AM  

Mugato: BraveNewCheneyWorld: No law is being broken, the 1st amendment protects him, and trumps any state law if they conflict, which they do. If you don't like it, that's fine, but you need to repeal the 1st amendment, which isn't happening.

So a doctor can tell a mother, "fark you, I'm a Jehovah's Witness. Your kid isn't getting a blood transfusion! You're dying for the first amendment, kid!"

Funny how these 1st Amendment crusaders weren't as loud when Bush Jr raped the 1st and 4th Amendment

/well not "Naked Gun" funny
//maybe "Naked Gun 2 1/2" funny
///Priscilla Presley was hot



OJ ruined the memeories of the Naked Gun series.

I'll never forgive him.

For that.
 
2013-02-02 10:29:04 AM  

Z-clipped: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Please cite this case that you must be referring to,

No, it's up to YOU to cite an instance of the SCOTUS ruling that states cannot further define the responsibility of business owners not to discriminate, or further define protected classes within their jurisdiction.

The notion that this is a first amendment issue is ludicrous.


I am not a lawyer, but I suspect at some point this issue makes it to the Supreme Court-not over wedding cakes, but pharmaceuticals. Does a pharmacist's right of free speech and/or religious freedom allow him to deny a customer a legally prescribed medication?

...small town, one pharmacy, patient without transportation, blah blah blah
 
2013-02-02 10:29:36 AM  

Mugato: So a doctor can tell a mother, "fark you, I'm a Jehovah's Witness. Your kid isn't getting a blood transfusion! You're dying for the first amendment, kid!"


Your comparison is stupid, because the doctor would have always had to been against transfusions.
 
2013-02-02 10:30:13 AM  

jso2897: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Z-clipped: Having religious beliefs doesn't entitle you to ignore OSHA standards, pay less than minimum wage, sell poisoned food, or not pay taxes... why the ever loving fark would it entitle you to discriminate against people?

That is the worst comparison ever.

Why? It's one of the legal principles that make anti-discrimination law enforceable. One cannot justify or protect otherwise illegal activities on the supposed basis of "faith"  - or, indeed, any other "conviction".
What the first amendment forbids is any prohibition of OTHERWISE LEGAL activity on the basis of someone's faith.
It does not allow you to smoke weed, not pay taxes, or discriminate unlawfully because you claim your faith mandates it.


That's what a number of Christians keep angling for: the Supreme Court to say that religious beliefs mean that you do not have to abide by neutral laws of general applicability. If they do that and agree that the right also holds for corporate persons, say goodbye to any regulation of the economy whatsoever.
 
2013-02-02 10:30:58 AM  

truthseeker2083: Mentalenemasquad: MayoSlather: I believe this is in fact breaking the state law. His personal freedom of religion isn't being infringed upon. He is attempting to push his religious ideas onto others through his place of business. Just because his interpretation of his religion is homophobic doesn't mean he can openly do homophobic things and hide behind freedom of religion as a defense.

Marriage is not purely a religious device contrary to what many Christians believe. It is secular in the eyes of the law, and thus the Christian definition of marriage and the US's definition are different things. He cannot dictate his bigoted definition to others via his place and call it his expression of religious freedom. It's discrimination pure and simple and seems to me to be in violation of Oregon state law.

I'm not sure I would see it as pushing his beliefs on others.  My view of that would be "If I make a cake for you, then it has to have certain details that only I approve".  On the other hand, it appears that the baker is saying "The work you are asking me to do conflicts with my beliefs, so I cannot help you this time around".  He may very well be running afoul of secular law, but he chose to follow his conscience...

He can deal with his conscience in the next life. In this one he gets to deal with secular law. I don't like having to deal with certain people, but I recognize that in a civilized society we must put certain beliefs and urges on hold to ensure that everyone can live their lives. 'Christians' (especially openly hypocritical ones like mr tatty mc tattoo) need to learn this lesson as well.


I see your point, and am certainly in favor getting along with folks to the extent possible.  I'm sure you know there are times where people are going stand firm in their positions, so I would just agree to disagree and move on.  If I were in the customer's place, I would just vote with my dollars and go to another vendor.
 
2013-02-02 10:32:23 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mugato: So a doctor can tell a mother, "fark you, I'm a Jehovah's Witness. Your kid isn't getting a blood transfusion! You're dying for the first amendment, kid!"

Your comparison is stupid, because the doctor would have always had to been against transfusions.


How does that make it stupid? There are such things as "bloodless doctors" and they aren't very successful.

I've had two ex-girlfriends who were JWs. Don't try to argue with me about that cult.
 
2013-02-02 10:32:30 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Serious Black: You may want to check out the result of Employment Division v. Smith.

Not making cakes isn't inherently a criminal act.


Neutral laws of general applicability can only be statutes deeming something a crime?
 
2013-02-02 10:32:40 AM  

mr_a: Z-clipped: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Please cite this case that you must be referring to,

No, it's up to YOU to cite an instance of the SCOTUS ruling that states cannot further define the responsibility of business owners not to discriminate, or further define protected classes within their jurisdiction.

The notion that this is a first amendment issue is ludicrous.

I am not a lawyer, but I suspect at some point this issue makes it to the Supreme Court-not over wedding cakes, but pharmaceuticals. Does a pharmacist's right of free speech and/or religious freedom allow him to deny a customer a legally prescribed medication?

...small town, one pharmacy, patient without transportation, blah blah blah


It's already started with the pharmacists who keep denying birth control to their customers.

That's going to be the determining case with these sort of things I think.
 
2013-02-02 10:34:20 AM  

Serious Black: jso2897: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Z-clipped: Having religious beliefs doesn't entitle you to ignore OSHA standards, pay less than minimum wage, sell poisoned food, or not pay taxes... why the ever loving fark would it entitle you to discriminate against people?

That is the worst comparison ever.

Why? It's one of the legal principles that make anti-discrimination law enforceable. One cannot justify or protect otherwise illegal activities on the supposed basis of "faith"  - or, indeed, any other "conviction".
What the first amendment forbids is any prohibition of OTHERWISE LEGAL activity on the basis of someone's faith.
It does not allow you to smoke weed, not pay taxes, or discriminate unlawfully because you claim your faith mandates it.

That's what a number of Christians keep angling for: the Supreme Court to say that religious beliefs mean that you do not have to abide by neutral laws of general applicability. If they do that and agree that the right also holds for corporate persons, say goodbye to any regulation of the economy whatsoever.


Actually, establishing that as a precedent in law would pretty well end civilization, if it were applied across the board.
These people always seem to think that their clever ideas will only work for THEM if they get them instituted.
 
2013-02-02 10:35:06 AM  

jso2897: BronyMedic: BarkingUnicorn: Had one of these in Lakewood, Colorado, a while back.  The baker felt the Internet's wrath.  IDK if any legal consequences ensued.

Why is it always the bakers?  Are there no Christian butchers or candlestick makers?

I'm pretty sure that refusing to serve someone based on sexual orientation or because of your religious convictions is a violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but IANAL, unless it's a "private club"

No. Federal law does not treat sexual orientation as a protected class (if it did, there could be no "DOMA"). Oregon law, however, does, so it's irrelevant.
Cue all the righties who will defend this lawbreaking criminal's "religious freedom".


It is not amatter of religous freedom. As long as no tax dollars are involved he should be allowed to refuse to do business with anyone for whatever reason he desires. Would you force a Black baker to work for a wedding where the bride and groom are members of the KKK?
How about a pro-aboriton baker having to work at a pro-life wedding and the cake had to have a choose life decoration on it?

People are entitled to their own ideas and prejudices as long as they do not use tax dollars to finance them and do not express those views in a manner that causes physical harm to others. (Getting your feeling hurt is not a reason) Who are you to force him to accept another lifestyle?

This baker may take financial hit but that is his choice as he is putting his beliefs before monatary considerations. In that respect good for him.
 
2013-02-02 10:35:14 AM  

Mugato: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mugato: So a doctor can tell a mother, "fark you, I'm a Jehovah's Witness. Your kid isn't getting a blood transfusion! You're dying for the first amendment, kid!"

Your comparison is stupid, because the doctor would have always had to been against transfusions.

How does that make it stupid? There are such things as "bloodless doctors" and they aren't very successful.

I've had two ex-girlfriends who were JWs. Don't try to argue with me about that cult.



You sound like a slow learner.


;-)
 
2013-02-02 10:37:36 AM  

Mentalenemasquad: truthseeker2083: Mentalenemasquad: MayoSlather: I believe this is in fact breaking the state law. His personal freedom of religion isn't being infringed upon. He is attempting to push his religious ideas onto others through his place of business. Just because his interpretation of his religion is homophobic doesn't mean he can openly do homophobic things and hide behind freedom of religion as a defense.

Marriage is not purely a religious device contrary to what many Christians believe. It is secular in the eyes of the law, and thus the Christian definition of marriage and the US's definition are different things. He cannot dictate his bigoted definition to others via his place and call it his expression of religious freedom. It's discrimination pure and simple and seems to me to be in violation of Oregon state law.

I'm not sure I would see it as pushing his beliefs on others.  My view of that would be "If I make a cake for you, then it has to have certain details that only I approve".  On the other hand, it appears that the baker is saying "The work you are asking me to do conflicts with my beliefs, so I cannot help you this time around".  He may very well be running afoul of secular law, but he chose to follow his conscience...

He can deal with his conscience in the next life. In this one he gets to deal with secular law. I don't like having to deal with certain people, but I recognize that in a civilized society we must put certain beliefs and urges on hold to ensure that everyone can live their lives. 'Christians' (especially openly hypocritical ones like mr tatty mc tattoo) need to learn this lesson as well.

I see your point, and am certainly in favor getting along with folks to the extent possible.  I'm sure you know there are times where people are going stand firm in their positions, so I would just agree to disagree and move on.  If I were in the customer's place, I would just vote with my dollars and go to another vendor.


I would too, but the law is there for their protection. If it weren't there, people would still have 'No Coloreds' posted everywhere. Only by enforcing the law equally can we have true justice. Does the gay rights movement hang on a cake? No. Is it a step towards full equality? Yes. No matter what certain types of people think, one day, my marriage will be just as legal as everyone elses. (Including that interracial couple's, can you believe it! You'd think their marriage goes against federal law too! Or so we've been told in this thread...)
 
2013-02-02 10:39:32 AM  

Mrtraveler01: mr_a: Z-clipped: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Please cite this case that you must be referring to,

No, it's up to YOU to cite an instance of the SCOTUS ruling that states cannot further define the responsibility of business owners not to discriminate, or further define protected classes within their jurisdiction.

The notion that this is a first amendment issue is ludicrous.

I am not a lawyer, but I suspect at some point this issue makes it to the Supreme Court-not over wedding cakes, but pharmaceuticals. Does a pharmacist's right of free speech and/or religious freedom allow him to deny a customer a legally prescribed medication?

...small town, one pharmacy, patient without transportation, blah blah blah

It's already started with the pharmacists who keep denying birth control to their customers.

That's going to be the determining case with these sort of things I think.


It's all been tried - and failed - before:

"   In 1966, three African-American customers brought a suit against Piggie Park restaurants, and their owner, Maurice Bessinger, for refusal to serve them. Bessinger argued that enforcement of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits that type of discrimination, violated his religious freedom "since his religious beliefs compel[ed] him to oppose any integration of the races whatever."
•    In 1976, Roanoke Valley Christian Schools added a "head of household" supplement to their teachers' salaries - which according to their beliefs meant married men, and not women. When sued under the Equal Pay Act, Roanoke Valley claimed a right to an exemption. According to the church pastor affiliated with the school, "[w]hen we turned to the Scriptures to determine head of household, by scriptural basis, we found that the Bible clearly teaches that the husband is the head of the house, head of the wife, head of the family."•    In the 1980's, Bob Jones University, a religiously-affiliated school in South Carolina, wanted an exemption from a rule denying tax-exempt status to schools that practice racial discrimination. The "sponsors of the University genuinely believe[d] that the Bible forbids interracial dating and marriage," and it was school policy that students engaged in interracial relationships, or advocacy thereof, would be expelled. Did any of these attempts succeed? They really want to try to fight the sixties all over again. How they think they could win now, when they lost then, is beyond me.
 
2013-02-02 10:39:41 AM  

hasty ambush: jso2897: BronyMedic: BarkingUnicorn: Had one of these in Lakewood, Colorado, a while back.  The baker felt the Internet's wrath.  IDK if any legal consequences ensued.

Why is it always the bakers?  Are there no Christian butchers or candlestick makers?

I'm pretty sure that refusing to serve someone based on sexual orientation or because of your religious convictions is a violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but IANAL, unless it's a "private club"

No. Federal law does not treat sexual orientation as a protected class (if it did, there could be no "DOMA"). Oregon law, however, does, so it's irrelevant.
Cue all the righties who will defend this lawbreaking criminal's "religious freedom".

It is not amatter of religous freedom. As long as no tax dollars are involved he should be allowed to refuse to do business with anyone for whatever reason he desires. Would you force a Black baker to work for a wedding where the bride and groom are members of the KKK?
How about a pro-aboriton baker having to work at a pro-life wedding and the cake had to have a choose life decoration on it?

People are entitled to their own ideas and prejudices as long as they do not use tax dollars to finance them and do not express those views in a manner that causes physical harm to others. (Getting your feeling hurt is not a reason) Who are you to force him to accept another lifestyle?

This baker may take financial hit but that is his choice as he is putting his beliefs before monatary considerations. In that respect good for him.


I guess it does take balls to be that open about his bigotry I suppose.
 
2013-02-02 10:39:55 AM  

december: Where in the Bible does it say that in order to be a Christian you must not bake cakes for dykes?


It's right after the verses about no tattoos, piercings, shaving or adultery.You have to look past all the one's 'family values' voters overlook.
 
2013-02-02 10:40:06 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Jon iz teh kewl: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: You Idiots: So what.

I would suggest you libtards start your own business to serve these folks, but you'd rather rant and demand a government agency force businesses to provide politically correct services.

Put your money where your mouth is, instead of a foot for once.

You idiots.

That's actually a great idea. Hire a really competent head baker and staff. Pay over scale to attract and keep the best. Name it something like "GLBT Bakeries." Advertise as THE place to go for alternative lifestyle couples. Hire both tolerant straights and tolerant gays.

The reasoning: how many bakeries are there in a random large metropolitan area? Probably at least 30 or 40, including both chains and mom-and-pop shops. That means, on the average, any store gets maybe 3% of the total business. But the percentage of GLBT people in the population is probably 3.4% to 3.8%. http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/population.htm, http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/10/19/how_many_americans_ a re_gay_or_lesbian_gallup_survey_says_3_4_percent.html. If you offer quality product and huge service, you will have a definite competitive edge.

make cakes out of poop and semen and watch your sales go through the roof!!

AFAIAC the customer is always right. I suspect, however, that there are state health laws that might come into play. And also contamination issues.

Wife and I recently got a Pizza Hut pizza. I LOVE Canadian bacon, pineapple and cashews, but they don't have cashews, and would not agree to add them even if I supplied them with a can. Reason: potential cross contamination of another pizza (particularly bad with a nut-sensitive individual).

But then again, you were just being snarky, right?


i'm just doing what gays like.  they like poop.
 
Ant
2013-02-02 10:41:16 AM  

FreakyBunny: He has a tattoo. Leviticus 19:28 says "Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD. " I wonder if he serves his arm?


Living in Oregon with an attitude like that, I think it's more likely that his arm's gonna be serving him, if you get my meaning.
 
2013-02-02 10:42:28 AM  

mr_a: I am not a lawyer, but I suspect at some point this issue makes it to the Supreme Court-not over wedding cakes, but pharmaceuticals.


It's a bit of a different issue... a pharmacist refusing to stock the morning after pill would be like this cake dickhead refusing to stock pink icing. It doesn't deprive a single class of their rights.  (Women don't have a right to unilateral access to birth control) A pharmacist that refused to carry ANY medications that ONLY women use is in a gray area, and could be sued for sex discrimination.  A pharmacist refusing to sell aspirin to a gay couple while selling to straight couples would definitely run afoul of state anti-discrimination laws, if they protect sexual orientation.
 
2013-02-02 10:42:28 AM  

hasty ambush: It is not amatter of religous freedom. As long as no tax dollars are involved he should be allowed to refuse to do business with anyone for whatever reason he desires. Would you force a Black baker to work for a wedding where the bride and groom are members of the KKK?
How about a pro-aboriton baker having to work at a pro-life wedding and the cake had to have a choose life decoration on it?

People are entitled to their own ideas and prejudices as long as they do not use tax dollars to finance them and do not express those views in a manner that causes physical harm to others. (Getting your feeling hurt is not a reason) Who are you to force him to accept another lifestyle?


So in that case, would you be ok if a business was still allowed to discriminate customers based on race?
 
2013-02-02 10:43:06 AM  

december: Where in the Bible does it say that in order to be a Christian you must not bake cakes for dykes?



Actually the Bibbly Book comes down pretty hard on the gheyish...

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

But I've never seen anything specifically condemning lying with "womankind as with mankind".

Besides, how were all of those Biblical wives and concubines supposed to get their rocks off with only one husband?
 
2013-02-02 10:43:18 AM  

jso2897: Serious Black: jso2897: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Z-clipped: Having religious beliefs doesn't entitle you to ignore OSHA standards, pay less than minimum wage, sell poisoned food, or not pay taxes... why the ever loving fark would it entitle you to discriminate against people?

That is the worst comparison ever.

Why? It's one of the legal principles that make anti-discrimination law enforceable. One cannot justify or protect otherwise illegal activities on the supposed basis of "faith"  - or, indeed, any other "conviction".
What the first amendment forbids is any prohibition of OTHERWISE LEGAL activity on the basis of someone's faith.
It does not allow you to smoke weed, not pay taxes, or discriminate unlawfully because you claim your faith mandates it.

That's what a number of Christians keep angling for: the Supreme Court to say that religious beliefs mean that you do not have to abide by neutral laws of general applicability. If they do that and agree that the right also holds for corporate persons, say goodbye to any regulation of the economy whatsoever.

Actually, establishing that as a precedent in law would pretty well end civilization, if it were applied across the board.
These people always seem to think that their clever ideas will only work for THEM if they get them instituted.


Oh, I know. To wit, I looked up the majority opinion in Employment Division v. Smith. Here's a choice quote:

"The "compelling government interest" requirement seems benign, because it is familiar from other fields. But using it as the standard that must be met before the government may accord different treatment on the basis of race, or before the government may regulate the content of speech, is not remotely comparable to using it for the purpose asserted here. What it produces in those other fields -- equality of treatment, and an unrestricted flow of contending speech -- are constitutional norms; what it would produce here -- a private right to ignore generally applicable laws -- is a constitutional anomaly.

"Nor is it possible to limit the impact of respondents' proposal by requiring a "compelling state interest" only when the conduct prohibited is "central" to the individual's religion. It is no more appropriate for judges to determine the "centrality" of religious beliefs before applying a "compelling interest" test in the free exercise field than it would be for them to determine the "importance" of ideas before applying the "compelling interest" test in the free speech field. What principle of law or logic can be brought to bear to contradict a believer's assertion that a particular act is "central" to his personal faith? Judging the centrality of different religious practices is akin to the unacceptable "business of evaluating the relative merits of differing religious claims." As we reaffirmed only last Term, "t is not within the judicial ken to question the centrality of particular beliefs or practices to a faith, or the validity of particular litigants' interpretation of those creeds." Repeatedly and in many different contexts, we have warned that courts must not presume to determine the place of a particular belief in a religion or the plausibility of a religious claim.

"If the "compelling interest" test is to be applied at all, then, it must be applied across the board, to all actions thought to be religiously commanded. Moreover, if "compelling interest" really means what it says (and watering it down here would subvert its rigor in the other fields where it is applied), many laws will not meet the test. Any society adopting such a system would be courting anarchy, but that danger increases in direct proportion to the society's diversity of religious beliefs, and its determination to coerce or suppress none of them. Precisely because "we are a cosmopolitan nation made up of people of almost every conceivable religious preference," and precisely because we value and protect that religious divergence, we cannot afford the luxury of deeming presumptively invalid, as applied to the religious objector, every regulation of conduct that does not protect an interest of the highest order. The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind -- ranging from compulsory military service, to the payment of taxes, to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws, and traffic laws; to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, child labor laws, animal cruelty laws, environmental protection laws, and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races. The First Amendment's protection of religious liberty does not require this."

 
2013-02-02 10:43:27 AM  
I thought cake making and the gay went hand in hand?
 
2013-02-02 10:44:15 AM  

Amos Quito: ACunningPlan: What if Cakey-boy said:   "I hate gays or I didn't vote for gay marriage" or whatever abomination is bothering him, but agreed to go through with the business transaction; would that be OK?


Or what if he agreed to make the cake on the condition that they make him the meat in their sammich?


Or watch the "you may kiss the bride" bit or wedding night vid...

truthseeker, serious black, theatatus:

Thanks, that's what I thought.  So he's either just really stupid or seeking publicity.

Personal rule; never irritate someone who prepares your food because the sum total of yuckiness in retaliation isn't worth the principle.
 
2013-02-02 10:46:03 AM  
I'm sure he also refuses service to any couples engaging in premarital sex...
 
2013-02-02 10:46:18 AM  
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
 
2013-02-02 10:46:43 AM  

WhoopAssWayne: We see liberals fighting to strip basic gun rights out of our constitution, we see them limiting our religious free speech, and of course we see them pushing their immoral values on the right of us. You better believe they are going to be denied jobs, promotions, or in this case service. These dumbasses have somehow convinced themselves that they can do all the damage to society they wish, they can take all the shots they want, and somehow there is this magical shield around them which protects them against any consequences of their actions. They can street-lawyer away and fantasize about that million dollar settlement they'll never receive, but the bottom line is that the rest of us are going to hold you childish little dumbasses accountable for your actions. That resume is going right in the trash, that pink slip will list no real cause, and you can buy your cake elsewhere.


Well said
/Applauds
 
2013-02-02 10:46:54 AM  
Re Calm: I'm calm. Just hope my point was taken for what it was. Don't let the arsemunches keep ruining my favorite site. It's driving away the cool/funny people.
 
Ant
2013-02-02 10:47:34 AM  

markfara: A liberal in a room full of conservatives would know what to say to pass as one of them. "Wow, gay people are destroying our country with their perverted lifestyles." would set off a round of agreement.

A conservative in a room full of liberals would not. "Wow, I can't wait until it's illegal to own guns." would set off bullsh*t detectors right and left, since that's not at all what most liberals support.

The two sides are better distinguished by intelligence level than by actual viewpoints.


Understanding opposing viewpoints isn't their strong point. If it was, they'd be liberals.
 
2013-02-02 10:47:44 AM  

shotglasss: And for those of you screaming for a boycott of this guy, I'd bet it'll backfire the same way the CFA boycott strengthened their bottom line.


Because when I think of a Conservative utopia that sticks to biblical values, I think of the suburbs of Portland.
 
2013-02-02 10:48:46 AM  

here to help: Re Calm: I'm calm. Just hope my point was taken for what it was. Don't let the arsemunches keep ruining my favorite site. It's driving away the cool/funny people.


I'm still here.

/take that as you will
 
2013-02-02 10:51:17 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Yeah, if you want to refuse service to someone because you find their lifestyle objectionable, you shouldn't have a job and be forced to live in a dumpster!


That's an asshat-ish response.

.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Funny how that applies to the lesbian couple even more than the baker.


Funny how that applies to everyone.
 
2013-02-02 10:52:02 AM  

Mrtraveler01: here to help: Re Calm: I'm calm. Just hope my point was taken for what it was. Don't let the arsemunches keep ruining my favorite site. It's driving away the cool/funny people.

I'm still here.

/take that as you will


*brofist*
 
2013-02-02 10:52:43 AM  

truthseeker2083: BraveNewCheneyWorld: jso2897: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Z-clipped: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Society's first rule is the first amendment, if you don't like it, repeal it, but don't pretend a state law trumps it, because you're not fooling anyone.

LOL.  Freedom to practice religion = freedom to ignore the law.  You're a genius.  Why is it that the SCOTUS hasn't agreed with your analysis in slightest over the last 50 years?

Please cite this case that you must be referring to, where the supreme court made a non protected class's desire to be served trump someone's religious rights.

None ever has. There is no conflict here - he is free to practice his faith, but not to do that which is otherwise illegal under a claim of faith. just like you, me, and everybody else.

No law is being broken, the 1st amendment protects him, and trumps any state law if they conflict, which they do.  If you don't like it, that's fine, but you need to repeal the 1st amendment, which isn't happening.

Would that same state law conflict if he refused service to the African-American community?


I'll repeat the question since it's apparently too hard to think of a way to answer without sounding like a bigot. Would that same law be in conflict if it was based on race instead of sexual orientaton?
 
2013-02-02 10:53:03 AM  
Spooky old book of myths dictates actions of someone devoid of critical thinking.
Film at 11.
 
2013-02-02 10:54:40 AM  
I haven't seen a thread this full of derp since the election. Not even sticking around to see if there were any responses to my previous post.

To those of you defending the store owner, 1956 called, they need you back urgently.

/disgusted
 
Ant
2013-02-02 10:55:03 AM  

DarkVader: The problem with that sign is that there is not and has never been any such right.  There's a right to free speech.  There's a right to bear arms.  There's a right to due process.  But there is no right to refuse service.

Do you know why those signs showed up in the first place?  Those signs were there to give the business something to point to as they were kicking out the black guy.  When you see one of those, know that they're a relic of racism, that the sign has most likely been posted by a racist, and that the signs are a lie.


Whoa there. I wouldn't go that far. Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be attributed to ignorance.
 
2013-02-02 10:55:17 AM  

lemortede: WhoopAssWayne: We see liberals fighting to strip basic gun rights out of our constitution, we see them limiting our religious free speech, and of course we see them pushing their immoral values on the right of us. You better believe they are going to be denied jobs, promotions, or in this case service. These dumbasses have somehow convinced themselves that they can do all the damage to society they wish, they can take all the shots they want, and somehow there is this magical shield around them which protects them against any consequences of their actions. They can street-lawyer away and fantasize about that million dollar settlement they'll never receive, but the bottom line is that the rest of us are going to hold you childish little dumbasses accountable for your actions. That resume is going right in the trash, that pink slip will list no real cause, and you can buy your cake elsewhere.

Well said
/Applauds


What the actual fark? Am I taking crazy pills?
 
2013-02-02 10:55:41 AM  

Barbecue Bob: Spooky old book of myths dictates actions of someone devoid of critical thinking.
Film at 11.



Martha Stewart's Wedding Cakes?
http://www.amazon.com/Martha-Stewarts-Wedding-Cakes-Stewart/dp/03073 94 530
 
2013-02-02 10:55:54 AM  

truthseeker2083: truthseeker2083: BraveNewCheneyWorld: jso2897: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Z-clipped: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Society's first rule is the first amendment, if you don't like it, repeal it, but don't pretend a state law trumps it, because you're not fooling anyone.

LOL.  Freedom to practice religion = freedom to ignore the law.  You're a genius.  Why is it that the SCOTUS hasn't agreed with your analysis in slightest over the last 50 years?

Please cite this case that you must be referring to, where the supreme court made a non protected class's desire to be served trump someone's religious rights.

None ever has. There is no conflict here - he is free to practice his faith, but not to do that which is otherwise illegal under a claim of faith. just like you, me, and everybody else.

No law is being broken, the 1st amendment protects him, and trumps any state law if they conflict, which they do.  If you don't like it, that's fine, but you need to repeal the 1st amendment, which isn't happening.

Would that same state law conflict if he refused service to the African-American community?

I'll repeat the question since it's apparently too hard to think of a way to answer without sounding like a bigot. Would that same law be in conflict if it was based on race instead of sexual orientaton?


In a case brought in 1966, a guy did argue that. He lost. Forty-six years ago. You'd think they'd have gotten over it by now.
 
2013-02-02 10:58:08 AM  

jso2897: truthseeker2083: truthseeker2083: BraveNewCheneyWorld: jso2897: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Z-clipped: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Society's first rule is the first amendment, if you don't like it, repeal it, but don't pretend a state law trumps it, because you're not fooling anyone.

LOL.  Freedom to practice religion = freedom to ignore the law.  You're a genius.  Why is it that the SCOTUS hasn't agreed with your analysis in slightest over the last 50 years?

Please cite this case that you must be referring to, where the supreme court made a non protected class's desire to be served trump someone's religious rights.

None ever has. There is no conflict here - he is free to practice his faith, but not to do that which is otherwise illegal under a claim of faith. just like you, me, and everybody else.

No law is being broken, the 1st amendment protects him, and trumps any state law if they conflict, which they do.  If you don't like it, that's fine, but you need to repeal the 1st amendment, which isn't happening.

Would that same state law conflict if he refused service to the African-American community?

I'll repeat the question since it's apparently too hard to think of a way to answer without sounding like a bigot. Would that same law be in conflict if it was based on race instead of sexual orientaton?

In a case brought in 1966, a guy did argue that. He lost. Forty-six years ago. You'd think they'd have gotten over it by now.


I guess it's just hard to accept that the world has moved past days of 'yes massah', and being able to talk about those 'queers'. When left behind, I guess it's frustrating.
 
2013-02-02 10:58:41 AM  

Mrtraveler01: here to help: Re Calm: I'm calm. Just hope my point was taken for what it was. Don't let the arsemunches keep ruining my favorite site. It's driving away the cool/funny people.

I'm still here.

/take that as you will


What are you talking about, arsemunch?

/jk
 
2013-02-02 10:59:19 AM  

liverpool1892: I'm okay with this for non-essential services like wedding cakes. Of course, it should be a requirement that if you won't serve certain groups of people, you have to prominently display a sign saying as much (and include it in all your ads)- you know, to prevent false advertising. And so the rest of us won't accidentally give you any business.


Couldn't have said it better myself!

Think about it: They put up a sign CLEARLY stating they won't serve anyone that you know, loves someone their "book" doesn't approve of, they are being honest with their advertising. So it's a win for them. Then in turn, the LGBTQ community will know where NOT to go thus hitting them where it hurts...in the wallet. Because ya know, we ARE friends/have family that are STRAIGHT who like cakes too and word gets around fast. Thus, a "win" for us. No courts needed at all. He can practice his religious beliefs and we can be consumers who are free not to give him any business.

/but, if this ends up in the courts, that's good too. It's time to end the discrimination against people who want to celebrate love.
 
2013-02-02 11:00:37 AM  

dsrtflwr: He's not one bit pretentious.

This is a non-story. He can refuse service to anyone he wants.


But you can't refuse service based on gender, race or sexual orientation. He's farked.
 
2013-02-02 11:00:43 AM  

farkinmontana: I'm sure he also refuses service to any couples engaging in premarital sex...


That reminds me, I need to order my premarital sex cake...
 
2013-02-02 11:03:39 AM  

truthseeker2083: I'll repeat the question since it's apparently too hard to think of a way to answer without sounding like a bigot. Would that same law be in conflict if it was based on race instead of sexual orientaton?


I already covered this in the thread.  I'm not repeating every segment of every debate because you don't read.
 
2013-02-02 11:05:37 AM  

PhrozenStar: Does management no longer reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason?


Not against any protected class because customer is of that class, no.

Seeing those signs in a store amuse me. It's basically the store owner telling you that he is so insecure that he has to tell you that he is the lord of his domain, and you're just there because he allows it.
 
2013-02-02 11:07:32 AM  
There is no protection for inflicting your religion on other people.  If he believes that being gay is wrong, he's free to not jump into the sack with another dude.  That's all the protection he has on the subject.  Well, he can petition to have the laws changed, he can say what he thinks, all that, but you see my point.  Since discriminating based on sexuality is illegal in Oregon, he's not free to deny service simply because his customers are gay.

Not that I'm surprised he wants to stick his nose in where it doesn't belong..  My fiancee and I met with a cake baker a few weeks ago and I think she's more excited than we are.  People whose jobs include wedding stuff are really into being a part of it, and all that.
 
2013-02-02 11:08:06 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: truthseeker2083: I'll repeat the question since it's apparently too hard to think of a way to answer without sounding like a bigot. Would that same law be in conflict if it was based on race instead of sexual orientaton?

I already covered this in the thread.  I'm not repeating every segment of every debate because you don't read.


It was a yes or no question. All that was asked for a one word answer. Yes or no. I didn't ask you to defend whatever answer you gave, just yes or no.
 
2013-02-02 11:08:06 AM  

truthseeker2083: Mentalenemasquad: truthseeker2083: Mentalenemasquad: MayoSlather: I believe this is in fact breaking the state law. His personal freedom of religion isn't being infringed upon. He is attempting to push his religious ideas onto others through his place of business. Just because his interpretation of his religion is homophobic doesn't mean he can openly do homophobic things and hide behind freedom of religion as a defense.

Marriage is not purely a religious device contrary to what many Christians believe. It is secular in the eyes of the law, and thus the Christian definition of marriage and the US's definition are different things. He cannot dictate his bigoted definition to others via his place and call it his expression of religious freedom. It's discrimination pure and simple and seems to me to be in violation of Oregon state law.

I'm not sure I would see it as pushing his beliefs on others.  My view of that would be "If I make a cake for you, then it has to have certain details that only I approve".  On the other hand, it appears that the baker is saying "The work you are asking me to do conflicts with my beliefs, so I cannot help you this time around".  He may very well be running afoul of secular law, but he chose to follow his conscience...

He can deal with his conscience in the next life. In this one he gets to deal with secular law. I don't like having to deal with certain people, but I recognize that in a civilized society we must put certain beliefs and urges on hold to ensure that everyone can live their lives. 'Christians' (especially openly hypocritical ones like mr tatty mc tattoo) need to learn this lesson as well.

I see your point, and am certainly in favor getting along with folks to the extent possible.  I'm sure you know there are times where people are going stand firm in their positions, so I would just agree to disagree and move on.  If I were in the customer's place, I would just vote with my dollars and go to another vendor.

I would too, ...


I had older relatives telling me of their experiences under Jim Crow.  Take the Montgomery Bus Boycott for instance; a textbook example of using your dollars to effect change.  That strategy for the most part, kept people out of harm's way.  I can't say I would have participated during the sit-ins because I don't go where I'm not welcomed, and I don't want to worry about people doing things to my food.  Not trying to get all preachy and whatnot, but there is an old script that says it not always advantageous to exert one's rights in every situation.  Concede some battles so you can live to fight another day maybe?  Personally, I thought we should have focused more on building economic power as that could have been a more effective equalizer.
 
2013-02-02 11:12:31 AM  

Active introvert: Amusing how people say things like "but the bible says it's wrong" and the guy's got a tat on his arm which the bible also says is wrong. Either follow it or don't but you can't pick and chose


Actually, the beauty of religion is that you <i>can</i> pick and choose. You can hate anybody you want to, and find justification in the parts of Scripture you've chosen to believe and reinterpret to justify your existing hatreds.
 
2013-02-02 11:14:49 AM  
"My First Amendment rights allow me to practice my religion as I see it," Klein said.

So he's OK with Islamists blowing sh*t up because they're practicing their religion as they see it...
 
2013-02-02 11:14:56 AM  
Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock

This is a pretty similar case.. this photography company refused to work at a same-sex wedding because of their religious beliefs. It's an appeals court in a different state but the arguments seem to apply.

1. Discriminating against homosexual conduct (same-sex marriage) is effectively discriminating against homosexuals. (Christian Legal Society v. Martinez)

2. The mere act of taking photos at a same-sex wedding is not an expression of approval of same-sex marriage (so the state law is not a violation of their right to free speech). I'd think the same could be said for baking a farking cake.

3. Running a business is not in itself a religious act. The state can create laws regulating the conduct of all businesses. As long as the law doesn't single out religious conduct then an incidental burden on your beliefs due to following the law doesn't violate the free exercise clause. In other words, if your beliefs conflict with the rules that come with running a business then don't start one.
 
2013-02-02 11:16:41 AM  
Strawman questions for both sides;

Those who defend the baker would be ok with a gunshop owner not selling you a firearm because you read the holy bible?

Those who defend the gay couple would be ok with gunshops selling a firearm to people who openly (and legally) shoot puppies and enjoy it?


/From what I understand about the bible beliefs, dude should have let them eat cake.
//The baker could have just said sorry, your breath and coont are stinky, now please leave my store. Done.
 
2013-02-02 11:18:03 AM  

Barbecue Bob: Strawman questions for both sides;

Those who defend the baker would be ok with a gunshop owner not selling you a firearm because you read the holy bible?

Those who defend the gay couple would be ok with gunshops selling a firearm to people who openly (and legally) shoot puppies and enjoy it?


/From what I understand about the bible beliefs, dude should have let them eat cake.
//The baker could have just said sorry, your breath and coont are stinky, now please leave my store. Done.


Are the legal puppy shooters a protected class under the state's law?
 
2013-02-02 11:18:32 AM  
They should just order their cake somewhere else. Why would they even want a cake from him anyway. Everyone is looking for a lawsuit or a cause anymore. The issue here is who's rights trump the others, and I would say the constitutional right will probably win out.

His tattoo shouldn't matter either, because he could have found God after he got the tattoo. There was a pastor of a church down the street from my old house that was covered with tattoos. It seems God is a forgiving God.

Anyway...I have a very close friend that is gay, and he and I have had conversations about incidents like this and although he does get offended sometimes, he thinks when people throw some sort of a fit...like these women...it does not help the cause. Actually, he dislikes organizations like GLAAD and the like because he feels that they do not stand for equal rights but more for more rights. Discrimination is an ugly thing, and I don't agree with the view of the baker because although he sees homosexuality as a sin, God also is very clear that it is not our place to judge.

Most of the stores where I live have signs in the store that say something like, "We reserve the right to refuse service for any reason". I don't know that they ever use that right, but whatever. The issue at hand is whether the local or state regulation trumps the Constitution.  Just as the Westboro nuts have the right to their freedom of speech, the business' in their own hometown had the right to refuse to sell them tires. Honestly, I don't know why these women had to specify that the cake was for a same-sex event, because when I got married my husband and I had our topper and put it on after the cake arrived.
 
2013-02-02 11:18:51 AM  

Barbecue Bob: Those who defend the gay couple would be ok with gunshops selling a firearm to people who openly (and legally) shoot puppies and enjoy it?


Puppy-shooters are not a protected class.
 
2013-02-02 11:21:25 AM  

take_flight: They should just order their cake somewhere else. Why would they even want a cake from him anyway. Everyone is looking for a lawsuit or a cause anymore. The issue here is who's rights trump the others, and I would say the constitutional right will probably win out.

His tattoo shouldn't matter either, because he could have found God after he got the tattoo. There was a pastor of a church down the street from my old house that was covered with tattoos. It seems God is a forgiving God.

Anyway...I have a very close friend that is gay, and he and I have had conversations about incidents like this and although he does get offended sometimes, he thinks when people throw some sort of a fit...like these women...it does not help the cause. Actually, he dislikes organizations like GLAAD and the like because he feels that they do not stand for equal rights but more for more rights. Discrimination is an ugly thing, and I don't agree with the view of the baker because although he sees homosexuality as a sin, God also is very clear that it is not our place to judge.

Most of the stores where I live have signs in the store that say something like, "We reserve the right to refuse service for any reason". I don't know that they ever use that right, but whatever. The issue at hand is whether the local or state regulation trumps the Constitution.  Just as the Westboro nuts have the right to their freedom of speech, the business' in their own hometown had the right to refuse to sell them tires. Honestly, I don't know why these women had to specify that the cake was for a same-sex event, because when I got married my husband and I had our topper and put it on after the cake arrived.


It's a good thing for your friend that GLAAD and others exist. Without them pushing for 'more' rights he wouldn't have any. Without organizations like them we'd still be living like the early 50's.
 
2013-02-02 11:22:45 AM  

truthseeker2083: take_flight: They should just order their cake somewhere else. Why would they even want a cake from him anyway. Everyone is looking for a lawsuit or a cause anymore. The issue here is who's rights trump the others, and I would say the constitutional right will probably win out.

His tattoo shouldn't matter either, because he could have found God after he got the tattoo. There was a pastor of a church down the street from my old house that was covered with tattoos. It seems God is a forgiving God.

Anyway...I have a very close friend that is gay, and he and I have had conversations about incidents like this and although he does get offended sometimes, he thinks when people throw some sort of a fit...like these women...it does not help the cause. Actually, he dislikes organizations like GLAAD and the like because he feels that they do not stand for equal rights but more for more rights. Discrimination is an ugly thing, and I don't agree with the view of the baker because although he sees homosexuality as a sin, God also is very clear that it is not our place to judge.

Most of the stores where I live have signs in the store that say something like, "We reserve the right to refuse service for any reason". I don't know that they ever use that right, but whatever. The issue at hand is whether the local or state regulation trumps the Constitution.  Just as the Westboro nuts have the right to their freedom of speech, the business' in their own hometown had the right to refuse to sell them tires. Honestly, I don't know why these women had to specify that the cake was for a same-sex event, because when I got married my husband and I had our topper and put it on after the cake arrived.

It's a good thing for your friend that GLAAD and others exist. Without them pushing for 'more' rights he wouldn't have any. Without organizations like them we'd still be living like the early 50's.


at least they had Diners club cards in the early 50's
where you could buy stuff if you didn't have ca$h
 
2013-02-02 11:23:09 AM  

shotglasss: Like the sign says, "We have the right to refuse service to anyone".

He refused service based on religious beliefs. Now you libs want the state to attack him and his business for that religious belief? What ever happened to the separation of church and state?


2/10 for trolling and/or IQ
 
2013-02-02 11:26:43 AM  

Bungles: Nice little business you have there.

Would be a pity if the Internet decided to destroy it.

/do not piss off the lesbians
//lipstick lesbians are the backbone of the wedding planning industry


Right, because threatening someone to do something they refused to do due to their religious beliefs is the American way!

/USA!USA!
//strong supporter of gay rights, but not forced labor.
 
2013-02-02 11:28:38 AM  

take_flight: They should just order their cake somewhere else. Why would they even want a cake from him anyway. Everyone is looking for a lawsuit or a cause anymore. The issue here is who's rights trump the others, and I would say the constitutional right will probably win out.

His tattoo shouldn't matter either, because he could have found God after he got the tattoo. There was a pastor of a church down the street from my old house that was covered with tattoos. It seems God is a forgiving God.

Anyway...I have a very close friend that is gay, and he and I have had conversations about incidents like this and although he does get offended sometimes, he thinks when people throw some sort of a fit...like these women...it does not help the cause. Actually, he dislikes organizations like GLAAD and the like because he feels that they do not stand for equal rights but more for more rights. Discrimination is an ugly thing, and I don't agree with the view of the baker because although he sees homosexuality as a sin, God also is very clear that it is not our place to judge.

Most of the stores where I live have signs in the store that say something like, "We reserve the right to refuse service for any reason". I don't know that they ever use that right, but whatever. The issue at hand is whether the local or state regulation trumps the Constitution.  Just as the Westboro nuts have the right to their freedom of speech, the business' in their own hometown had the right to refuse to sell them tires. Honestly, I don't know why these women had to specify that the cake was for a same-sex event, because when I got married my husband and I had our topper and put it on after the cake arrived.


There is no issue of "trumping" the Constitution. The Constitution does not say that you can engage in otherwise unlawful activity because you claim that your faith commands it. Indeed, many courts have made many rulings that it, in fact, does not.
 
2013-02-02 11:28:56 AM  

capt.hollister: "My First Amendment rights allow me to practice my religion as I see it," Klein said.

So he's OK with Islamists blowing sh*t up because they're practicing their religion as they see it...


Islamists don't blow sh*t up...terrorists do.
 
2013-02-02 11:29:37 AM  
Fark this, I'm out. Trolls all over the site get away with all sorts of crap, and people asking for others to back up their argument get deleted.
 
2013-02-02 11:30:33 AM  
Freedom. What is it good for?

Obama Chorus: Nothing. Say it say it again ...
 
2013-02-02 11:31:05 AM  

jso2897: take_flight: They should just order their cake somewhere else. Why would they even want a cake from him anyway. Everyone is looking for a lawsuit or a cause anymore. The issue here is who's rights trump the others, and I would say the constitutional right will probably win out.

His tattoo shouldn't matter either, because he could have found God after he got the tattoo. There was a pastor of a church down the street from my old house that was covered with tattoos. It seems God is a forgiving God.

Anyway...I have a very close friend that is gay, and he and I have had conversations about incidents like this and although he does get offended sometimes, he thinks when people throw some sort of a fit...like these women...it does not help the cause. Actually, he dislikes organizations like GLAAD and the like because he feels that they do not stand for equal rights but more for more rights. Discrimination is an ugly thing, and I don't agree with the view of the baker because although he sees homosexuality as a sin, God also is very clear that it is not our place to judge.

Most of the stores where I live have signs in the store that say something like, "We reserve the right to refuse service for any reason". I don't know that they ever use that right, but whatever. The issue at hand is whether the local or state regulation trumps the Constitution.  Just as the Westboro nuts have the right to their freedom of speech, the business' in their own hometown had the right to refuse to sell them tires. Honestly, I don't know why these women had to specify that the cake was for a same-sex event, because when I got married my husband and I had our topper and put it on after the cake arrived.

There is no issue of "trumping" the Constitution. The Constitution does not say that you can engage in otherwise unlawful activity because you claim that your faith commands it. Indeed, many courts have made many rulings that it, in fact, does not.


Although I support gay rights, I support the bakers right not to serve them. Just as the women have the right to live their life as they see fit, so the baker has the right to run his bakery as he sees fit. Is gay marriage even federally legal yet?
 
2013-02-02 11:31:49 AM  

truthseeker2083: 'brave' up there weasled out of it. He's not so brave to come out with a yes or a no. I didn't ask him to cover anything. Just wanted to see if he had the courage of his convictions. It seems not.


He said black's are people (therefore their rights are protected) but gays are not (so they're SOL). It was pretty ridiculous.
 
2013-02-02 11:33:33 AM  
Okay okay... I'm sorry. I'll go do something else.
 
2013-02-02 11:33:48 AM  

truthseeker2083: take_flight: They should just order their cake somewhere else. Why would they even want a cake from him anyway. Everyone is looking for a lawsuit or a cause anymore. The issue here is who's rights trump the others, and I would say the constitutional right will probably win out.

His tattoo shouldn't matter either, because he could have found God after he got the tattoo. There was a pastor of a church down the street from my old house that was covered with tattoos. It seems God is a forgiving God.

Anyway...I have a very close friend that is gay, and he and I have had conversations about incidents like this and although he does get offended sometimes, he thinks when people throw some sort of a fit...like these women...it does not help the cause. Actually, he dislikes organizations like GLAAD and the like because he feels that they do not stand for equal rights but more for more rights. Discrimination is an ugly thing, and I don't agree with the view of the baker because although he sees homosexuality as a sin, God also is very clear that it is not our place to judge.

Most of the stores where I live have signs in the store that say something like, "We reserve the right to refuse service for any reason". I don't know that they ever use that right, but whatever. The issue at hand is whether the local or state regulation trumps the Constitution.  Just as the Westboro nuts have the right to their freedom of speech, the business' in their own hometown had the right to refuse to sell them tires. Honestly, I don't know why these women had to specify that the cake was for a same-sex event, because when I got married my husband and I had our topper and put it on after the cake arrived.

It's a good thing for your friend that GLAAD and others exist. Without them pushing for 'more' rights he wouldn't have any. Without organizations like them we'd still be living like the early 50's.


My friend doesn't want more rights, he just want the same as anyone else. Gays are not persecuted, they are not rounded up into camps or executed. The last I checked they had jobs and lives and friends and even kids before same-sex union.
 
2013-02-02 11:33:50 AM  
Government should NOT tell businesses who they may serve, I don't give a flip if it's "Politically Correct" or not.

If that business model doesn't work, then let the market decide,not some government schmuck who cannot even balance a budget.
 
2013-02-02 11:35:25 AM  

bmihura: Government should NOT tell businesses who they may serve, I don't give a flip if it's "Politically Correct" or not.


Those blacks should've just been grateful to sit in the back of the restaurant instead of out in the street!
 
2013-02-02 11:36:51 AM  

take_flight: truthseeker2083: take_flight: They should just order their cake somewhere else. Why would they even want a cake from him anyway. Everyone is looking for a lawsuit or a cause anymore. The issue here is who's rights trump the others, and I would say the constitutional right will probably win out.

His tattoo shouldn't matter either, because he could have found God after he got the tattoo. There was a pastor of a church down the street from my old house that was covered with tattoos. It seems God is a forgiving God.

Anyway...I have a very close friend that is gay, and he and I have had conversations about incidents like this and although he does get offended sometimes, he thinks when people throw some sort of a fit...like these women...it does not help the cause. Actually, he dislikes organizations like GLAAD and the like because he feels that they do not stand for equal rights but more for more rights. Discrimination is an ugly thing, and I don't agree with the view of the baker because although he sees homosexuality as a sin, God also is very clear that it is not our place to judge.

Most of the stores where I live have signs in the store that say something like, "We reserve the right to refuse service for any reason". I don't know that they ever use that right, but whatever. The issue at hand is whether the local or state regulation trumps the Constitution.  Just as the Westboro nuts have the right to their freedom of speech, the business' in their own hometown had the right to refuse to sell them tires. Honestly, I don't know why these women had to specify that the cake was for a same-sex event, because when I got married my husband and I had our topper and put it on after the cake arrived.

It's a good thing for your friend that GLAAD and others exist. Without them pushing for 'more' rights he wouldn't have any. Without organizations like them we'd still be living like the early 50's.

My friend doesn't want more rights, he just want the same as anyone else. Gays are not persecuted, they are not rounded up into camps or executed. The last I checked they had jobs and lives and friends and even kids before same-sex union.


Without them fighting, we would be. Look at the guy from last year who called for us to be rounded up. There are plenty of people just like that waiting for the day...
 
2013-02-02 11:37:44 AM  
For something like wedding cakes I think the baker should be able to pick and choose his clients.
If I was getting hitched and the baker told me that he didn't want to make my cake because I was hetero: I'd go somewhere else. (1. I would not want to eat that cake because I think food someone makes against their will is more likely to be crappy from inattention to the detail needed in preparing it, 2. I'd be afraid I'd get a substandard, half-assed cake on an important day, 3. I would not want to financially support the asshole.)

Does that mean the guy is right to be a dick? No.

If he has a storefront with premade cakes in cases he should not be able to discriminate to whom he sells the cakes, but if he takes wedding cake orders on a case-by-case basis I think he should be able to decide if he wants the work or not.

If he took the order then decided not to do it after he found out the nature of the wedding party he should be liable for civil damages.
 
2013-02-02 11:40:24 AM  

take_flight: My friend doesn't want more rights, he just want the same as anyone else. Gays are not persecuted, they are not rounded up into camps or executed. The last I checked they had jobs and lives and friends and even kids before same-sex union.


I take it that your gay friend, much like these organizations you mentioned that "do not stand for equal rights but more for more rights", is imaginary?
 
2013-02-02 11:43:02 AM  

Jon iz teh kewl: it's the same deal if a man went in and wanted to marry his lawnmower

and he refused to make a lawnmower cake.

cakes are cakes bro


When I married my lawnmower, my local bakery had no problem making our wedding cake.

The only real problem was consummating the marriage on our honeymoon.
 
2013-02-02 11:44:25 AM  

take_flight: Gays are not persecuted, they are not rounded up into camps or executed.


That's the lowest bar for "persecuted" I've ever seen.

I hope you never, ever complain about anything.
 
2013-02-02 11:45:05 AM  
Deleted?  You've got to be kidding.  Is someone whining, or have you guys totally lost your minds?

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Z-clipped: Having religious beliefs doesn't entitle you to ignore OSHA standards, pay less than minimum wage, sell poisoned food, or not pay taxes... why the ever loving fark would it entitle you to discriminate against people?

That is the worst comparison ever.


I'm still waiting for you to explain why you think that states don't have the power to further define protected classes and write anti-discrimination statutes that follow in the spirit of the Civil Rights Act.  Any SCOTUS ruling to the contrary that you could post might help validate your otherwise nonsensical argument.

No?  Got nothing?
 
2013-02-02 11:46:55 AM  

take_flight: jso2897: take_flight: They should just order their cake somewhere else. Why would they even want a cake from him anyway. Everyone is looking for a lawsuit or a cause anymore. The issue here is who's rights trump the others, and I would say the constitutional right will probably win out.

His tattoo shouldn't matter either, because he could have found God after he got the tattoo. There was a pastor of a church down the street from my old house that was covered with tattoos. It seems God is a forgiving God.

Anyway...I have a very close friend that is gay, and he and I have had conversations about incidents like this and although he does get offended sometimes, he thinks when people throw some sort of a fit...like these women...it does not help the cause. Actually, he dislikes organizations like GLAAD and the like because he feels that they do not stand for equal rights but more for more rights. Discrimination is an ugly thing, and I don't agree with the view of the baker because although he sees homosexuality as a sin, God also is very clear that it is not our place to judge.

Most of the stores where I live have signs in the store that say something like, "We reserve the right to refuse service for any reason". I don't know that they ever use that right, but whatever. The issue at hand is whether the local or state regulation trumps the Constitution.  Just as the Westboro nuts have the right to their freedom of speech, the business' in their own hometown had the right to refuse to sell them tires. Honestly, I don't know why these women had to specify that the cake was for a same-sex event, because when I got married my husband and I had our topper and put it on after the cake arrived.

There is no issue of "trumping" the Constitution. The Constitution does not say that you can engage in otherwise unlawful activity because you claim that your faith commands it. Indeed, many courts have made many rulings that it, in fact, does not.

Although I support gay rights, I su ...


He does not have the "right", in the state of Oregon, the refuse her business on the basis of her sexual orientation. It is illegal to do that in Oregon. Federal law does not recognize sexual orientation as a protected class - but this is not a Federal issue.
 
2013-02-02 11:46:57 AM  
sharetv.org

They should have gone to this guy's shop for SEXY cakes
 
2013-02-02 11:48:31 AM  

truthseeker2083: Fark this, I'm out. Trolls all over the site get away with all sorts of crap, and people asking for others to back up their argument get deleted.


So it's not just me.
 
2013-02-02 11:50:39 AM  

truthseeker2083: take_flight: truthseeker2083: take_flight: They should just order their cake somewhere else. Why would they even want a cake from him anyway. Everyone is looking for a lawsuit or a cause anymore. The issue here is who's rights trump the others, and I would say the constitutional right will probably win out.

His tattoo shouldn't matter either, because he could have found God after he got the tattoo. There was a pastor of a church down the street from my old house that was covered with tattoos. It seems God is a forgiving God.

Anyway...I have a very close friend that is gay, and he and I have had conversations about incidents like this and although he does get offended sometimes, he thinks when people throw some sort of a fit...like these women...it does not help the cause. Actually, he dislikes organizations like GLAAD and the like because he feels that they do not stand for equal rights but more for more rights. Discrimination is an ugly thing, and I don't agree with the view of the baker because although he sees homosexuality as a sin, God also is very clear that it is not our place to judge.

Most of the stores where I live have signs in the store that say something like, "We reserve the right to refuse service for any reason". I don't know that they ever use that right, but whatever. The issue at hand is whether the local or state regulation trumps the Constitution.  Just as the Westboro nuts have the right to their freedom of speech, the business' in their own hometown had the right to refuse to sell them tires. Honestly, I don't know why these women had to specify that the cake was for a same-sex event, because when I got married my husband and I had our topper and put it on after the cake arrived.

It's a good thing for your friend that GLAAD and others exist. Without them pushing for 'more' rights he wouldn't have any. Without organizations like them we'd still be living like the early 50's.

My friend doesn't want more rights, he just want the same as anyo ...


I would say that the majority of Americans are supportive of gay rights. Just because some guy called for gays to be rounded up doesn't mean he had a hope in h*ll of it actually happening. There's a difference between wanting equal right and wanted more rights...or making a spectacle of it.

My friend was introduced to a woman who had a huge dislike of gay people. She asked him why he chose to be gay. He laughed at her and asked her why she thought that he would choose something that made him fear losing friends and family, and why he would choose something that was generally frowned upon at the time. That day that woman realized that it wasn't a choice, and that what she was taught was not right. They became very good friends. Equals. It made no difference to him what the outcome of the meeting was. He won't apologize for who he is. He had the right to speak his mind and live his life. Just as others have the right to theirs.
 
2013-02-02 11:52:00 AM  

Z-clipped: Deleted?  You've got to be kidding.  Is someone whining, or have you guys totally lost your minds?

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Z-clipped: Having religious beliefs doesn't entitle you to ignore OSHA standards, pay less than minimum wage, sell poisoned food, or not pay taxes... why the ever loving fark would it entitle you to discriminate against people?

That is the worst comparison ever.

I'm still waiting for you to explain why you think that states don't have the power to further define protected classes and write anti-discrimination statutes that follow in the spirit of the Civil Rights Act.  Any SCOTUS ruling to the contrary that you could post might help validate your otherwise nonsensical argument.

No?  Got nothing?


There isn't anything. This is old, settled law - and these guys are trying to re-fight arguments they lost a half a century ago. Do they really think that shiat that wouldn't fly in the early sixties will fly now?
Ayn Rand poisoned the minds of an entire generation, it sometimes seems.
 
2013-02-02 11:52:02 AM  
But what about the right to serve refuse to anyone?
 
2013-02-02 11:55:04 AM  

take_flight: truthseeker2083: take_flight: truthseeker2083: take_flight: They should just order their cake somewhere else. Why would they even want a cake from him anyway. Everyone is looking for a lawsuit or a cause anymore. The issue here is who's rights trump the others, and I would say the constitutional right will probably win out.

His tattoo shouldn't matter either, because he could have found God after he got the tattoo. There was a pastor of a church down the street from my old house that was covered with tattoos. It seems God is a forgiving God.

Anyway...I have a very close friend that is gay, and he and I have had conversations about incidents like this and although he does get offended sometimes, he thinks when people throw some sort of a fit...like these women...it does not help the cause. Actually, he dislikes organizations like GLAAD and the like because he feels that they do not stand for equal rights but more for more rights. Discrimination is an ugly thing, and I don't agree with the view of the baker because although he sees homosexuality as a sin, God also is very clear that it is not our place to judge.

Most of the stores where I live have signs in the store that say something like, "We reserve the right to refuse service for any reason". I don't know that they ever use that right, but whatever. The issue at hand is whether the local or state regulation trumps the Constitution.  Just as the Westboro nuts have the right to their freedom of speech, the business' in their own hometown had the right to refuse to sell them tires. Honestly, I don't know why these women had to specify that the cake was for a same-sex event, because when I got married my husband and I had our topper and put it on after the cake arrived.

It's a good thing for your friend that GLAAD and others exist. Without them pushing for 'more' rights he wouldn't have any. Without organizations like them we'd still be living like the early 50's.

My friend doesn't want more rights, he just want the same as anyo ...

I would say that the majority of Americans are supportive of gay rights. Just because some guy called for gays to be rounded up doesn't mean he had a hope in h*ll of it actually happening. There's a difference between wanting equal right and wanted more rights...or making a spectacle of it.

My friend was introduced to a woman who had a huge dislike of gay people. She asked him why he chose to be gay. He laughed at her and asked her why she thought that he would choose something that made him fear losing friends and family, and why he would choose something that was generally frowned upon at the time. That day that woman realized that it wasn't a choice, and that what she was taught was not right. They became very good friends. Equals. It made no difference to him what the outcome of the meeting was. He won't apologize for who he is. He had the right to speak his mind and live his life. Just as others have the right to theirs.


I hate to godwin, but just because some guy called for the jews to be sent to camps, blah blah blah. There may not be too much support for that idea, but if no one was fighting against it, it could happen. As it has in the past. When I can take my husband through all 50 states with him as my legally recognized husband, we will be equal. Until then, we have to push for 'more' rights until we are equal.

When was the last time you were blamed for 9/11, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, viruses, etc?
 
2013-02-02 11:55:42 AM  

Terrydatroll: Good for him. It's about time people stood up for decency and morality rather than giving in to the nazi-like rainbow coalition.


0/10

It's like you're not even trying any more.
 
2013-02-02 11:55:44 AM  

jso2897: Ayn Rand poisoned the minds of an entire generation, it sometimes seems.


It also really disturbs me to see how many people seem to mistake the US Constitution for the Articles of Confederation.
 
2013-02-02 11:56:14 AM  

Biological Ali: take_flight: My friend doesn't want more rights, he just want the same as anyone else. Gays are not persecuted, they are not rounded up into camps or executed. The last I checked they had jobs and lives and friends and even kids before same-sex union.

I take it that your gay friend, much like these organizations you mentioned that "do not stand for equal rights but more for more rights", is imaginary?


Yes...I make up imaginary gay friends all the time. This one is named Freddy and wears a lot of glittery things.

Why would anyone assume that just because someone is gay they automatically have to support GLAAD and other organizations?
 
2013-02-02 11:56:57 AM  

Loose_Cannon: Bungles: Nice little business you have there.

Would be a pity if the Internet decided to destroy it.

/do not piss off the lesbians
//lipstick lesbians are the backbone of the wedding planning industry

Right, because threatening someone to do something they refused to do due to their religious beliefs is the American way!

/USA!USA!
//strong supporter of gay rights, but not forced labor.


Are we going to keep pretending that this is anything to do with religion and everything to do with him not liking gay people?

I'd bet good money that this stand is the sole "religious" thing this man's done in a decade.
 
pla
2013-02-02 11:58:12 AM  
I have just one question for all the liberal-utopian armchair lawyers in this discussion...

If Fred Phelps wanted you to represent him in suing for the right to protest gays at military funerals, would you violate his civil rights on the basis of his batshiat-insane religious beliefs and turn him away?  Or would you bake the cake take the case anyway?
 
2013-02-02 11:59:24 AM  

truthseeker2083: take_flight: truthseeker2083: take_flight: truthseeker2083: take_flight: They should just order their cake somewhere else. Why would they even want a cake from him anyway. Everyone is looking for a lawsuit or a cause anymore. The issue here is who's rights trump the others, and I would say the constitutional right will probably win out.

His tattoo shouldn't matter either, because he could have found God after he got the tattoo. There was a pastor of a church down the street from my old house that was covered with tattoos. It seems God is a forgiving God.

Anyway...I have a very close friend that is gay, and he and I have had conversations about incidents like this and although he does get offended sometimes, he thinks when people throw some sort of a fit...like these women...it does not help the cause. Actually, he dislikes organizations like GLAAD and the like because he feels that they do not stand for equal rights but more for more rights. Discrimination is an ugly thing, and I don't agree with the view of the baker because although he sees homosexuality as a sin, God also is very clear that it is not our place to judge.

Most of the stores where I live have signs in the store that say something like, "We reserve the right to refuse service for any reason". I don't know that they ever use that right, but whatever. The issue at hand is whether the local or state regulation trumps the Constitution.  Just as the Westboro nuts have the right to their freedom of speech, the business' in their own hometown had the right to refuse to sell them tires. Honestly, I don't know why these women had to specify that the cake was for a same-sex event, because when I got married my husband and I had our topper and put it on after the cake arrived.

It's a good thing for your friend that GLAAD and others exist. Without them pushing for 'more' rights he wouldn't have any. Without organizations like them we'd still be living like the early 50's.

My friend doesn't want more rights, ...


People blame gay people for hurricanes and tornados? Seriously? Only the Westboro whack jobs as far as I know and I don't think anyone takes them seriously.
 
2013-02-02 12:00:07 PM  

pla: I have just one question for all the liberal-utopian armchair lawyers in this discussion...

If Fred Phelps wanted you to represent him in suing for the right to protest gays at military funerals, would you violate his civil rights on the basis of his batshiat-insane religious beliefs and turn him away?  Or would you bake the cake take the case anyway?


Has the state mandated that I asthe lawyer take every case in front of me no matter what under the assumption that the pplaintiff is a protected class?
 
2013-02-02 12:00:16 PM  

Mrtraveler01: jso2897: Ayn Rand poisoned the minds of an entire generation, it sometimes seems.

It also really disturbs me to see how many people seem to mistake the US Constitution for the Articles of Confederation.


I like the ones who think they know what the Constitution "says" - but that the courts don't.
 
2013-02-02 12:00:57 PM  
Your right to practice your religion freely doesn't allow you to use your religious beliefs to discriminate against other people.
 
2013-02-02 12:01:46 PM  

pla: I have just one question for all the liberal-utopian armchair lawyers in this discussion...

If Fred Phelps wanted you to represent him in suing for the right to protest gays at military funerals, would you violate his civil rights on the basis of his batshiat-insane religious beliefs and turn him away?  Or would you bake the cake take the case anyway?


He has the right to protests and others have the right to counter his protest. I don't agree with his message, but he has the right to express it.

Try again.
 
2013-02-02 12:02:48 PM  

take_flight: truthseeker2083: take_flight: truthseeker2083: take_flight: truthseeker2083: take_flight: They should just order their cake somewhere else. Why would they even want a cake from him anyway. Everyone is looking for a lawsuit or a cause anymore. The issue here is who's rights trump the others, and I would say the constitutional right will probably win out.

His tattoo shouldn't matter either, because he could have found God after he got the tattoo. There was a pastor of a church down the street from my old house that was covered with tattoos. It seems God is a forgiving God.

Anyway...I have a very close friend that is gay, and he and I have had conversations about incidents like this and although he does get offended sometimes, he thinks when people throw some sort of a fit...like these women...it does not help the cause. Actually, he dislikes organizations like GLAAD and the like because he feels that they do not stand for equal rights but more for more rights. Discrimination is an ugly thing, and I don't agree with the view of the baker because although he sees homosexuality as a sin, God also is very clear that it is not our place to judge.

Most of the stores where I live have signs in the store that say something like, "We reserve the right to refuse service for any reason". I don't know that they ever use that right, but whatever. The issue at hand is whether the local or state regulation trumps the Constitution.  Just as the Westboro nuts have the right to their freedom of speech, the business' in their own hometown had the right to refuse to sell them tires. Honestly, I don't know why these women had to specify that the cake was for a same-sex event, because when I got married my husband and I had our topper and put it on after the cake arrived.

It's a good thing for your friend that GLAAD and others exist. Without them pushing for 'more' rights he wouldn't have any. Without organizations like them we'd still be living like the early 50's.

My friend doesn't want more rights, ...

People blame gay people for hurricanes and tornados? Seriously? Only the Westboro whack jobs as far as I know and I don't think anyone takes them seriously.


Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, The American Family Association... And the list goes on. These people are famous among social conservatives, and have made all those statements and more. I'm on mobile so I cant post links, but yes, people other than those whom you know say and believe these things.
 
2013-02-02 12:03:41 PM  

SpdrJay: Go
To
A
Different
Bakery


Accomodate
The
General
Public
With
Universal
Respect
You
Ignorant
Farkwits
 
2013-02-02 12:04:00 PM  

IlGreven: SpdrJay: Go
To
A
Different
Bakery

Your previous incarnation told Rosa Parks to walk.


Rosa Parks didn't have her own business that wasn't susceptible to Government intrusion.
 
2013-02-02 12:04:15 PM  

Coco LaFemme: Your right to practice your religion freely doesn't allow you to use your religious beliefs to discriminate against other people.


What if this baker used his freedom of religion to discriminate against a satan worshiper? Would there be over 300 comments in support of the satan worshiper?

What about the womenes right to go to another, more friendly bakery?
 
2013-02-02 12:05:57 PM  
if someone running a business is this much of a douchebag i take my business elsewhere.   As for the law in this case it seems sketchy.

Your religion should be left out of your place of business as to avoid any headaches and controversy such as this.

Take the money make the cake just require them to provide their own cake topper id they want a same sex one or only use neutral ones .

Your in business to make money not spread the word of God/Allah or who ever you worship or pray to.
 
2013-02-02 12:06:09 PM  

Fade2black: IlGreven: SpdrJay: Go
To
A
Different
Bakery

Your previous incarnation told Rosa Parks to walk.

Rosa Parks didn't have her own business that wasn't susceptible to Government intrusion.


But Woolworth's in Greensboro, NC did.
 
2013-02-02 12:06:33 PM  

take_flight: Yes...I make up imaginary gay friends all the time. This one is named Freddy and wears a lot of glittery things.

Why would anyone assume that just because someone is gay they automatically have to support GLAAD and other organizations?


Look, I think it's wonderful that you've befriended an imaginary gay person. In fact, I'm sure all of your imaginary friends are lovely people. I also think it's great that you're opposed to imaginary organizations that want gay people to have rights that straight people don't have. Inequality, whether in the real world or in some imaginary realm, is a terrible thing and we should all take a stand against it.

However, seeing as this thread is about individuals and events from the real world, my advice would be to limit the references in your anecdotes to people and organizations that actually exist - if only to avoid unnecessary confusion and misunderstanding.
 
2013-02-02 12:07:44 PM  

truthseeker2083: I hate to godwin, but just because some guy called for the jews to be sent to camps, blah blah blah. There may not be too much support for that idea, but if no one was fighting against it, it could happen. As it has in the past. When I can take my husband through all 50 states with him as my legally recognized husband, we will be equal. Until then, we have to push for 'more' rights until we are equal.

When was the last time you were blamed for 9/11, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, viruses, etc?


Well, according to my fiancee, everything is my fault.  So those probably count.

The point is not just that occasionally someone has an interaction that leaves them more willing to accept the folks around them as human beings with the same rights,  take_flight, but that if enough people are unwilling to do so, then it is the job of the government (based on a constitution and founding documents affirming the idea that we're all equal) to force them to act right.  It's the same as when you were young and hitting your brother and your mother told you to stop.  She didn't tell you to not want to hit your brother, she just told you not to.  Those whose moral compass isn't well enough developed to guide them in treating others well should be forced by the government to not treat folks badly, at least until such time as they are able to take the responsibility for themselves.

Yes, I just called people who discriminate against homosexuals amoral children.  And when they demonstrate that they're capable of keeping their mind out of other folks business and coexisting with people who are different than them, I might even feel bad about that.
 
2013-02-02 12:08:21 PM  

Fade2black: IlGreven: SpdrJay: Go
To
A
Different
Bakery

Your previous incarnation told Rosa Parks to walk.

Rosa Parks didn't have her own business that wasn't susceptible to Government intrusion.


So, government providing a safe environment to operate a business (by police, fire protection, etc) good, but maintaining a certain level playing field for the end consumer is government intrusion?

He should start his business without any protection or help from the government, so no roads, police, firemen, or protection from barbarian horde, then he won't have to worry about that pesky 'intrusion'.
 
2013-02-02 12:08:47 PM  

truthseeker2083: take_flight: truthseeker2083: take_flight: truthseeker2083: take_flight: truthseeker2083: take_flight: It's a good thing for your friend that GLAAD and others exist. Without them pushing for 'more' rights he wouldn't have any. Without organizations like them we'd still be living like the early 50's.

My friend doesn't want more rights, ...

People blame gay people for hurricanes and tornados? Seriously? Only the Westboro whack jobs as far as I know and I don't think anyone takes them seriously.


Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, The American Family Association... And the list goes on. These people are famous among social conservatives, and have made all those statements and more. I'm on mobile so I cant post links, but yes, people other than those whom you know say and believe these things. 

Just because they're religious doesn't mean they're not ignorant. i don't know what kind of person would listen to something like that. Not a reasonable one.
 
2013-02-02 12:10:08 PM  
(I browser searched through this thread for "wedding cake" to see if this has been mentioned yet, instead of reading every comment, so forgive me if it's been mentioned before)

Having had a wedding recently, I noticed that the problem seems to be that the owner told them he wouldn't have the cake on the day they went to get it. 

"The woman who filed the complaint said she had previously bought a cake from Sweet Cakes for her mother's wedding. It was fine. But when her partner went back for their wedding cake on Jan. 17, the owner refused."

So, anybody got evidence that he refused to do the cake and notified them as such with ample time for them to procure a new wedding cake for their wedding? I mean, most people I know, they go to get the cake the DAY OF THE WEDDING.  I don't know a single bakery that'll crank out a half decent looking cake for a late afternoon if you order by early afternoon.  Something like that happening on your wedding day (or even the day prior, think of the stress, people) would make the most prepared person break down.  They have every right to be upset.

I think what he did was douche-nozzley.  If he didn't want to do the cake because of religions beliefs, he should have told them with enough time that they could seek a new baker and get service instead of trying to take him to court.
 
2013-02-02 12:10:26 PM  

pla: I have just one question for all the liberal-utopian armchair lawyers in this discussion...

If Fred Phelps wanted you to represent him in suing for the right to protest gays at military funerals, would you violate his civil rights on the basis of his batshiat-insane religious beliefs and turn him away?  Or would you bake the cake take the case anyway?


Which specific law is there that might compel a lawyer to take this case?
 
2013-02-02 12:11:15 PM  

take_flight: truthseeker2083: take_flight: truthseeker2083: take_flight: truthseeker2083: take_flight: truthseeker2083: take_flight: It's a good thing for your friend that GLAAD and others exist. Without them pushing for 'more' rights he wouldn't have any. Without organizations like them we'd still be living like the early 50's.

My friend doesn't want more rights, ...

People blame gay people for hurricanes and tornados? Seriously? Only the Westboro whack jobs as far as I know and I don't think anyone takes them seriously.

Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, The American Family Association... And the list goes on. These people are famous among social conservatives, and have made all those statements and more. I'm on mobile so I cant post links, but yes, people other than those whom you know say and believe these things. 

Just because they're religious doesn't mean they're not ignorant. i don't know what kind of person would listen to something like that. Not a reasonable one.


And yet plenty do. Which was my point. If it weren't for groups like GLAAD, then those bigots would be all thats left.
 
2013-02-02 12:11:51 PM  

Theaetetus: take_flight: Gays are not persecuted, they are not rounded up into camps or executed.

That's the lowest bar for "persecuted" I've ever seen.

I hope you never, ever complain about anything.



Are gay people allowed to walk freely around the U.S. and have families, jobs, drivers licences, etc.? Yes, they are. I never said that I agree with the baker. I do not, but some of the comments on here are just the trolliest excuses for trolling I have ever seen. You would think that a gay person would have to live under a rock.
 
2013-02-02 12:12:48 PM  

take_flight: What if this baker used his freedom of religion to discriminate against a satan worshiper? Would there be over 300 comments in support of the satan worshiper?


The baker would be in the wrong in that case as well, since religion is a protected class.
 
2013-02-02 12:13:37 PM  

take_flight: Are gay people allowed to walk freely around the U.S. and have families, jobs, drivers licences, etc.? Yes, they are.


Well in that case, they're not persecuted at all. I mean even though they don't have the same rights to a marriage like a heterosexual male like me does, we're both equals!
 
2013-02-02 12:14:42 PM  

pla: I have just one question for all the liberal-utopian armchair lawyers in this discussion...

If Fred Phelps wanted you to represent him in suing for the right to protest gays at military funerals, would you violate his civil rights on the basis of his batshiat-insane religious beliefs and turn him away?  Or would you bake the cake take the case anyway?


No, I'm not a lawyer, it would be unethical for me to represent him and his brood.  Anyway, they're lawyers so they can represent themselves.

Answering the hypothetical you meant, if I was a lawyer I would probably be unable to defend them competently because of my feeling about the message they're spewing.  So, ethically, I would have to not represent them unless they were completely unable to find another lawyer who could.

They have a right to free speech and assembly, which they're happy to employ, and I support them having that right.  They have a right to representation if they're accused of a crime, and I support them having that right, so I would represent them if there was no other way for that right to be realized.
 
2013-02-02 12:16:07 PM  

take_flight: Theaetetus: take_flight: Gays are not persecuted, they are not rounded up into camps or executed.

That's the lowest bar for "persecuted" I've ever seen.

I hope you never, ever complain about anything.


Are gay people allowed to walk freely around the U.S. and have families, jobs, drivers licences, etc.? Yes, they are. I never said that I agree with the baker. I do not, but some of the comments on here are just the trolliest excuses for trolling I have ever seen. You would think that a gay person would have to live under a rock.


Before we started fighting against discrimination, we basically did. There are still battles to be fought in order to gain true equality. Did you have to sue the government to get married, join the armed forces, visit your loved one in the hospital, regain possession of your own home after your spouse died, or pay taxes on the estate after they died? That's how we are discriminated against, but to me, when I hear people complain about 'more rights', it just sounds like you think I'm being uppity.
 
2013-02-02 12:16:40 PM  

I May Be Crazy But...: pla: I have just one question for all the liberal-utopian armchair lawyers in this discussion...

If Fred Phelps wanted you to represent him in suing for the right to protest gays at military funerals, would you violate his civil rights on the basis of his batshiat-insane religious beliefs and turn him away?  Or would you bake the cake take the case anyway?

No, I'm not a lawyer, it would be unethical for me to represent him and his brood.  Anyway, they're lawyers so they can represent themselves.

Answering the hypothetical you meant, if I was a lawyer I would probably be unable to defend them competently because of my feeling about the message they're spewing.  So, ethically, I would have to not represent them unless they were completely unable to find another lawyer who could.

They have a right to free speech and assembly, which they're happy to employ, and I support them having that right.  They have a right to representation if they're accused of a crime, and I support them having that right, so I would represent them if there was no other way for that right to be realized.


I should also add, that I would not be happy about representing them, but since I don't require happiness to survive, I'd be SOL.
 
2013-02-02 12:18:00 PM  
Was the HERO tag on vacation?
 
2013-02-02 12:18:16 PM  

phartman: So what if someone was just an jackass and the baker figured 'fark you, I ain't selling to you because you're a jackass.", would that be legal?

Or just impolite?

/doesn't live in the US.


Yes, it would be legal.  Also legal to say, "I don't bake cakes for redheads."  These laws list specific characteristics of people, i. e., age, sex, race, nationality.  If a characteristic is not on the list, it's legal to discriminate because of it.
 
2013-02-02 12:19:26 PM  

Romeo_Santana: Was the HERO tag on vacation?


What makes him a hero again?
 
2013-02-02 12:21:17 PM  

I May Be Crazy But...: pla: I have just one question for all the liberal-utopian armchair lawyers in this discussion...

If Fred Phelps wanted you to represent him in suing for the right to protest gays at military funerals, would you violate his civil rights on the basis of his batshiat-insane religious beliefs and turn him away?  Or would you bake the cake take the case anyway?

No, I'm not a lawyer, it would be unethical for me to represent him and his brood.  Anyway, they're lawyers so they can represent themselves.

Answering the hypothetical you meant, if I was a lawyer I would probably be unable to defend them competently because of my feeling about the message they're spewing.  So, ethically, I would have to not represent them unless they were completely unable to find another lawyer who could.

They have a right to free speech and assembly, which they're happy to employ, and I support them having that right.  They have a right to representation if they're accused of a crime, and I support them having that right, so I would represent them if there was no other way for that right to be realized.


More to the point, "discrimination" against Phelps wouldn't be on the basis of his beliefs, but rather his public actions. The correct analogue, if one really wants to compare it the sexual orientation/protected class thing for whatever reason, wouldn't be some random unknown gay couple, but a gay couple that made a public spectacle out of stalking and harassing funeral processions.
 
2013-02-02 12:25:01 PM  

Z-clipped: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Z-clipped: Having religious beliefs doesn't entitle you to ignore OSHA standards, pay less than minimum wage, sell poisoned food, or not pay taxes... why the ever loving fark would it entitle you to discriminate against people?

That is the worst comparison ever.

I'm still waiting for you to explain why you think that states don't have the power to further define protected classes and write anti-discrimination statutes that follow in the spirit of the Civil Rights Act.  Any SCOTUS ruling to the contrary that you could post might help validate your otherwise nonsensical argument.


Because it conflicts with freedoms granted by the first amendment.  This isn't a difficult concept.  Gays aren't a protected class on the national level.  I realize you don't like it, but whining doesn't change the fact.

take_flight: Biological Ali: take_flight: My friend doesn't want more rights, he just want the same as anyone else. Gays are not persecuted, they are not rounded up into camps or executed. The last I checked they had jobs and lives and friends and even kids before same-sex union.

I take it that your gay friend, much like these organizations you mentioned that "do not stand for equal rights but more for more rights", is imaginary?

Yes...I make up imaginary gay friends all the time. This one is named Freddy and wears a lot of glittery things.

Why would anyone assume that just because someone is gay they automatically have to support GLAAD and other organizations?


Because that's the propaganda that Biological Ali read in their pamphlet.  He just regurgitates what he hears.
 
2013-02-02 12:27:13 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Because it conflicts with freedoms granted by the first amendment.  This isn't a difficult concept.  Gays aren't a protected class on the national level.  I realize you don't like it, but whining doesn't change the fact.


So how come laws that protect gays from discrimination haven't been strucken down by the Federal Courts before then?
 
2013-02-02 12:27:15 PM  

truthseeker2083: take_flight: Theaetetus: take_flight: Gays are not persecuted, they are not rounded up into camps or executed.

That's the lowest bar for "persecuted" I've ever seen.

I hope you never, ever complain about anything.


Are gay people allowed to walk freely around the U.S. and have families, jobs, drivers licences, etc.? Yes, they are. I never said that I agree with the baker. I do not, but some of the comments on here are just the trolliest excuses for trolling I have ever seen. You would think that a gay person would have to live under a rock.

→Before← we started fighting against discrimination, we basically did. There are still battles to be fought in order to gain true equality. Did you have to sue the government to get married, join the armed forces, visit your loved one in the hospital, regain possession of your own home after your spouse died, or pay taxes on the estate after they died? That's how we are discriminated against, but to me, when I hear people complain about 'more rights', it just sounds like you think I'm being uppity.




I live in a state that allows gay marriage, and all of the other things you mentioned. This particular article is about buying a cake...are there no other bakeries? We're not even talking about a government entity here. It's a baker. The general public can make their own decision as to whether or not they want to shop there.
 
2013-02-02 12:28:41 PM  

take_flight: truthseeker2083: take_flight: Theaetetus: take_flight: Gays are not persecuted, they are not rounded up into camps or executed.

That's the lowest bar for "persecuted" I've ever seen.

I hope you never, ever complain about anything.


Are gay people allowed to walk freely around the U.S. and have families, jobs, drivers licences, etc.? Yes, they are. I never said that I agree with the baker. I do not, but some of the comments on here are just the trolliest excuses for trolling I have ever seen. You would think that a gay person would have to live under a rock.

→Before← we started fighting against discrimination, we basically did. There are still battles to be fought in order to gain true equality. Did you have to sue the government to get married, join the armed forces, visit your loved one in the hospital, regain possession of your own home after your spouse died, or pay taxes on the estate after they died? That's how we are discriminated against, but to me, when I hear people complain about 'more rights', it just sounds like you think I'm being uppity.

I live in a state that allows gay marriage, and all of the other things you mentioned. This particular article is about buying a cake...are there no other bakeries? We're not even talking about a government entity here. It's a baker. The general public can make their own decision as to whether or not they want to shop there.


Apparently, in Oregon, it's illegal to discriminate gays for being gay.

So the small government conservatives should be ok with this then right? Because it keeps the Federal   courts from getting involved?
 
2013-02-02 12:29:42 PM  

Bungles: Are we going to keep pretending that this is anything to do with religion and everything to do with him not liking gay people?

I'd bet good money that this stand is the sole "religious" thing this man's done in a decade.


So what if it is? Is there some minimum requirement on religious practices that's required before you can put your faith into action?

/Bigotry is ugly, no matter where it comes from.
 
2013-02-02 12:33:40 PM  
what if everyone's gay
 
2013-02-02 12:34:10 PM  

take_flight: Coco LaFemme: Your right to practice your religion freely doesn't allow you to use your religious beliefs to discriminate against other people.

What if this baker used his freedom of religion to discriminate against a satan worshiper? Would there be over 300 comments in support of the satan worshiper?


How is that any different than refusing to serve a Jew or a Muslim or a Buddhist?  Satanism is a religion, just like the ones I mentioned previously.
 
2013-02-02 12:36:54 PM  

Mrtraveler01: take_flight: Are gay people allowed to walk freely around the U.S. and have families, jobs, drivers licences, etc.? Yes, they are.

Well in that case, they're not persecuted at all. I mean even though they don't have the same rights to a marriage like a heterosexual male like me does, we're both equals!


Definition of PERSECUTE
1
: to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief
2
: to annoy with persistent or urgent approaches (as attacks, pleas, or importunities) : pester

Stop pretending you're suffering anything remotely close to the plight of slaves.  You can't get married, it's not the same thing as persecution.
 
2013-02-02 12:37:36 PM  

Coco LaFemme: take_flight: Coco LaFemme: Your right to practice your religion freely doesn't allow you to use your religious beliefs to discriminate against other people.

What if this baker used his freedom of religion to discriminate against a satan worshiper? Would there be over 300 comments in support of the satan worshiper?

How is that any different than refusing to serve a Jew or a Muslim or a Buddhist?  Satanism is a religion, just like the ones I mentioned previously.


He should've gone full troll and mentioned Atheists, since they technically aren't a religion.

The material today is WEAK!
 
2013-02-02 12:38:05 PM  
Anti-gay marriage proponents never realize that recognizing the right for gay people to get married - with absolutely equal rights as straight people - also protects straight people.  The measure would strengthen all that family values stuff they're so fond of spouting.
 
2013-02-02 12:38:56 PM  

take_flight: truthseeker2083: take_flight: Theaetetus: take_flight: Gays are not persecuted, they are not rounded up into camps or executed.

That's the lowest bar for "persecuted" I've ever seen.

I hope you never, ever complain about anything.


Are gay people allowed to walk freely around the U.S. and have families, jobs, drivers licences, etc.? Yes, they are. I never said that I agree with the baker. I do not, but some of the comments on here are just the trolliest excuses for trolling I have ever seen. You would think that a gay person would have to live under a rock.

→Before← we started fighting against discrimination, we basically did. There are still battles to be fought in order to gain true equality. Did you have to sue the government to get married, join the armed forces, visit your loved one in the hospital, regain possession of your own home after your spouse died, or pay taxes on the estate after they died? That's how we are discriminated against, but to me, when I hear people complain about 'more rights', it just sounds like you think I'm being uppity.



I live in a state that allows gay marriage, and all of the other things you mentioned. This particular article is about buying a cake...are there no other bakeries? We're not even talking about a government entity here. It's a baker. The general public can make their own decision as to whether or not they want to shop there.


Well, there is gay marriage in your state, we should stop, that's good enough. Yes, it's a baker. If we don't stand up to him, it makes it harder down the road to stand up to others who pose a bigger threat to our equality. I hope things never change enough to where our positions are reversed, because it'd be hard for me to care that you wanted 'more rights'.
 
2013-02-02 12:39:43 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mrtraveler01: take_flight: Are gay people allowed to walk freely around the U.S. and have families, jobs, drivers licences, etc.? Yes, they are.

Well in that case, they're not persecuted at all. I mean even though they don't have the same rights to a marriage like a heterosexual male like me does, we're both equals!

Definition of PERSECUTE
1
: to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief
2
: to annoy with persistent or urgent approaches (as attacks, pleas, or importunities) : pester

Stop pretending you're suffering anything remotely close to the plight of slaves.  You can't get married, it's not the same thing as persecution.


No, it's just separate but equal.

"Why are those blacks protesting? They should be grateful to have that crappy old fountain in that crappy old school while us white folk get all the modern amenities"

Stop kidding yourself man.

Gay people are not on equal footing with us yet. It's close, but allowing them to marry the same sex will be a big step forward in terms of equality.
 
2013-02-02 12:40:04 PM  

Loose_Cannon: Bungles: Are we going to keep pretending that this is anything to do with religion and everything to do with him not liking gay people?

I'd bet good money that this stand is the sole "religious" thing this man's done in a decade.

So what if it is? Is there some minimum requirement on religious practices that's required before you can put your faith into action?

/Bigotry is ugly, no matter where it comes from.


Ah, the old you're a bigot for noticing my bigotry...
 
2013-02-02 12:41:20 PM  

truthseeker2083: Well, there is gay marriage in your state, we should stop, that's good enough. Yes, it's a baker. If we don't stand up to him, it makes it harder down the road to stand up to others who pose a bigger threat to our equality. I hope things never change enough to where our positions are reversed, because it'd be hard for me to care that you wanted 'more rights'.


I wonder if the same folks complaining about the government getting involved would've been ok if the couple went straight to KATU and the other Portland TV/radio and newspaper outlets and told their story that way?
 
2013-02-02 12:41:38 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Stop pretending you're suffering anything remotely close to the plight of slaves.  You can't get married, it's not the same thing as persecution.


That sounds a lot like you're saying that either something is THE WORST EVER or perfectly okay.  In a completely ridiculous comparison, that there's no room for me to try to stop my shaving cut from bleeding as long as someone, somewhere, sometime, has had their head cut off.

/If you could read "THE WORST EVER" as though it were in a loud, echoing voice, that'd be great.
 
2013-02-02 12:41:55 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Freedom means personal freedom, not the freedom to enslave your neighbor.


BraveNewCheneyWorld: Stop pretending you're suffering anything remotely close to the plight of slaves.


Stop hitting yourself, BraveNewCheneyWorld.
 
2013-02-02 12:42:15 PM  
It's just sad the we are over a decade into the 21st century and still arguing about this shiat.  There is nothing wrong with being gay.  Get over it dickbags.
 
2013-02-02 12:42:21 PM  

Fade2black: Rosa Parks didn't have her own business that wasn't susceptible to Government intrusion.


Where do you guys get this ridiculous notion that the government cannot make laws describing how businesses can and can't operate?

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Because it conflicts with freedoms granted by the first amendment.  This isn't a difficult concept.


You're right, it's not a difficult concept.  It's just WRONG.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Gays aren't a protected class on the national level.


Irrelevant. The Fed has extended Equal Rights protection over a variety of classes.  States are free to extend those protections to other classes if they choose.  This isn't a matter up for debate; it's the way the SCOTUS has chosen to interpret the Constitution.  If you have evidence to the contrary I'm willing to entertain it, but otherwise you're just talking out of your ass.

I realize you don't like it, but whining doesn't change the fact.

I'm not the one whining.  I'm describing reality to you.  You're the one who seems to think that our country should work in a different way than it actually does.  It's cool with me if you think that gays shouldn't be protected from discrimination...  You're free to hold that opinion.  But the fact is, in many states they are protected.  Oregon is one of them.  Arguing that they aren't is idiotic.  You may as well be arguing that the sky is purple.
 
2013-02-02 12:42:45 PM  

Mrtraveler01: No, it's just separate but equal.

"Why are those blacks protesting? They should be grateful to have that crappy old fountain in that crappy old school while us white folk get all the modern amenities"


Yeah, let us know when gays are prevented from using water fountains.
 
2013-02-02 12:43:08 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mrtraveler01: take_flight: Are gay people allowed to walk freely around the U.S. and have families, jobs, drivers licences, etc.? Yes, they are.

Well in that case, they're not persecuted at all. I mean even though they don't have the same rights to a marriage like a heterosexual male like me does, we're both equals!

Definition of PERSECUTE
1
: to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief
2
: to annoy with persistent or urgent approaches (as attacks, pleas, or importunities) : pester

Stop pretending you're suffering anything remotely close to the plight of slaves.  You can't get married, it's not the same thing as persecution.


And yet, we are harassed and grieved by law and religious bigots specifically because of who we love.

When was the last time you were blamed for 9/11, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc?
/yeah, that's what I thought
 
2013-02-02 12:44:37 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mrtraveler01: No, it's just separate but equal.

"Why are those blacks protesting? They should be grateful to have that crappy old fountain in that crappy old school while us white folk get all the modern amenities"

Yeah, let us know when gays are prevented from using water fountains.


"They can't get married, but they can have civil unions"

"Blacks can't drink from the same fountain as white, but they can drink from their own fountain"

It's the same freaking basic concept dude!
 
2013-02-02 12:45:37 PM  

Mrtraveler01: truthseeker2083: Well, there is gay marriage in your state, we should stop, that's good enough. Yes, it's a baker. If we don't stand up to him, it makes it harder down the road to stand up to others who pose a bigger threat to our equality. I hope things never change enough to where our positions are reversed, because it'd be hard for me to care that you wanted 'more rights'.

I wonder if the same folks complaining about the government getting involved would've been ok if the couple went straight to KATU and the other Portland TV/radio and newspaper outlets and told their story that way?


Of course not. By shining such a public light on this man's asshattery and bigotry, you are stamping on his 1st Ammendment rights by expressing yours1!1!1
 
2013-02-02 12:46:32 PM  

Z-clipped: You may as well be arguing that the sky is purple.


i45.tinypic.com

I've been trying for a while to come up with a color that the sky never is, and I haven't yet been successful.  I wish I could, because it's a good phrase for saying something that's blatantly untrue, but I'm not creating enough, or something.
 
2013-02-02 12:47:25 PM  

skinink: A golden bird that flies away, a candle's fickle flame. To think this couple ordered from him yesterday, his pastry business was just a game.


Most people seem to have walked on by your comment but I saw how you went the distance.
 
2013-02-02 12:48:04 PM  

I May Be Crazy But...: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Stop pretending you're suffering anything remotely close to the plight of slaves.  You can't get married, it's not the same thing as persecution.

That sounds a lot like you're saying that either something is THE WORST EVER or perfectly okay.  In a completely ridiculous comparison, that there's no room for me to try to stop my shaving cut from bleeding as long as someone, somewhere, sometime, has had their head cut off.


The point is, it's not persecution at all.

Z-clipped: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Because it conflicts with freedoms granted by the first amendment.  This isn't a difficult concept.

You're right, it's not a difficult concept.  It's just WRONG.


lmao, whatever.  If you're just going to lie about the 1st amendment now, there's no point continuing that topic with you.

Z-clipped: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Gays aren't a protected class on the national level.

Irrelevant. The Fed has extended Equal Rights protection over a variety of classes.  States are free to extend those protections to other classes if they choose.


Not when it conflicts with a higher law, it doesn't.

Z-clipped: This isn't a matter up for debate; it's the way the SCOTUS has chosen to interpret the Constitution.


They interpreted gays as a protected class the same as religion and race?  Show me.

Z-clipped: I'm not the one whining.  I'm describing reality to you.  You're the one who seems to think that our country should work in a different way than it actually does.  It's cool with me if you think that gays shouldn't be protected from discrimination...  You're free to hold that opinion.  But the fact is, in many states they are protected.  Oregon is one of them.  Arguing that they aren't is idiotic.  You may as well be arguing that the sky is purple.


Can the federal government raid you for growing pot if it's legal in your state?
 
2013-02-02 12:49:22 PM  

Mrtraveler01: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mrtraveler01: No, it's just separate but equal.

"Why are those blacks protesting? They should be grateful to have that crappy old fountain in that crappy old school while us white folk get all the modern amenities"

Yeah, let us know when gays are prevented from using water fountains.

"They can't get married, but they can have civil unions"

"Blacks can't drink from the same fountain as white, but they can drink from their own fountain"

It's the same freaking basic concept dude!


What's funny, is when we first started fighting for our rights, gays were ok with civil unions. The christians and their ilk said no to that, so we figured, if we have to fight anyways, we'll fight for the gold. Bigotry brought this about. Hahahaha
 
2013-02-02 12:50:48 PM  

truthseeker2083: And yet, we are harassed and grieved by law and religious bigots specifically because of who we love.


Yeah, you're harassed in the same way 20 year olds are harassed for not being able to buy alcohol.

Mrtraveler01: It's the same freaking basic concept dude!


If you can't tell the difference between a protected class of traits and non protected traits, sure then it's the same.
 
2013-02-02 12:51:51 PM  
This thread is funnier than hell.
 
2013-02-02 12:52:18 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mrtraveler01: It's the same freaking basic concept dude!

If you can't tell the difference between a protected class of traits and non protected traits, sure then it's the same.


You know that when there were different water fountains for different races, that race wasn't a protected class right?
 
2013-02-02 12:55:00 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: truthseeker2083: And yet, we are harassed and grieved by law and religious bigots specifically because of who we love.

Yeah, you're harassed in the same way 20 year olds are harassed for not being able to buy alcohol.

Mrtraveler01: It's the same freaking basic concept dude!

If you can't tell the difference between a protected class of traits and non protected traits, sure then it's the same.


Harassment is harassment is harassment. Just like your definition said. It's not my fault what we describe falls under persecution.

And you could say that the 20yo has a case as well, based in age discrimination. If it's not persecution to not allow me to marry my partner of almost a decade, when we get married, will that be persecution? And if it's not such a big deal, why do you people fight against my private life so hard?
 
2013-02-02 01:00:09 PM  
Where is my 1st Ammendment protection (under expression and religion) to marry my partner? Why do my rights get trampled?
 
2013-02-02 01:03:44 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Not when it conflicts with a higher law, it doesn't.


Does the Civil RIghts Act violate the 1st?  For protections for gays to violate the first amendment, protection for blacks and women would have to as well.  Protection for blacks does not. QED

And AGAIN you've failed to provide any evidence to back up your opinion of "how stuff oughta be".  Your tone suggested that you might actually have some intellect backing up your trolling attempts, but you're turning out to have no teeth at all.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: They interpreted gays as a protected class the same as religion and race?  Show me.


They interpreted the states power to do so above and beyond the Civil Rights Act, by specifically allowing one and only one exception to said Act.  (I'll refrain from calling you stupid if you can name that exception. Hint: It doesn't apply to florists.)  Now YOU show ME where they deny the States that power.  Or have they just not gotten around to it over the last 50 years?

BraveNewCheneyWorld: I May Be Crazy But...: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Stop pretending you're suffering anything remotely close to the plight of slaves.  You can't get married, it's not the same thing as persecution.

That sounds a lot like you're saying that either something is THE WORST EVER or perfectly okay.  In a completely ridiculous comparison, that there's no room for me to try to stop my shaving cut from bleeding as long as someone, somewhere, sometime, has had their head cut off.

The point is, it's not persecution at all.

Z-clipped: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Because it conflicts with freedoms granted by the first amendment.  This isn't a difficult concept.

You're right, it's not a difficult concept.  It's just WRONG.

lmao, whatever.  If you're just going to lie about the 1st amendment now, there's no point continuing that topic with you.

Z-clipped: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Gays aren't a protected class on the national level.

Irrelevant. The Fed has extended Equal Rights protection over a variety of classes.  States are free to extend those protections to other classes if they choose.

Not when it conflicts with a higher law, it doesn't.

Z-clipped: This isn't a matter up for debate; it's the way the SCOTUS has chosen to interpret the Constitution.

They interpreted gays as a protected class the same as religion and race?  Show me.

Z-clipped: I'm not the one whining.  I'm describing reality to you.  You're the one who seems to think that our country should work in a different way than it actually does.  It's cool with me if you think that gays shouldn't be protected from discrimination...  You're free to hold that opinion.  But the fact is, in many states they are protected.  Oregon is one of them.  Arguing that they aren't is idiotic.  You may as well be arguing that the sky is purple.

Can the federal government raid you for growing pot if it's legal in your state?


Of course, because pot is specifically illegal under Federal Law.  (Not because there's a No-Pot Amendment, or some nonsense).  States are also allowed to make other substances illegal over and above the Federal Schedule.  See how that works?
 
2013-02-02 01:07:03 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: The point is, it's not persecution at all.


But it's discrimination, certainly.  You can say it's not a bad sort of discrimination if you want, but it certainly is.  And then the difference between discrimination and persecution is thin, when it comes to things like refusing service.

www.randomfailure.com
I just think this is a funny mistake, and everyone could probably use a good laugh by now.
 
2013-02-02 01:07:24 PM  

shotglasss: Like the sign says, "We have the right to refuse service to anyone".

He refused service based on religious beliefs. Now you libs want the state to attack him and his business for that religious belief? What ever happened to the separation of church and state?


It's still illegal to refuse service to black people.

...Oh, wait, gay, sorry. Same situation. Just forgot to switch the word.
 
2013-02-02 01:10:31 PM  

Mrtraveler01: "They can't get married, but they can have civil unions"

"Blacks can't drink from the same fountain as white, but they can drink from their own fountain"

It's the same freaking basic concept dude!


His responses - things like (paraphrased) "Sexual orientation is not skin colour!", or, in this case, "Marriage is not a water fountain!" - have all the hallmarks of someone who has serious difficulties comprehending analogical arguments. Such mental handicaps coupled with a pre-existing bigot's disposition would make any arguments with such a person a pointless endeavor.

Of course, I still suspect that he's pulling everyone's leg here, if only because all his comments seem carefully calculated to be laughably wrong. If some guy was making these arguments in earnest, you'd expect him to at least accidentally get something right every once in a while.
 
2013-02-02 01:15:03 PM  

Biological Ali: Mrtraveler01: "They can't get married, but they can have civil unions"

"Blacks can't drink from the same fountain as white, but they can drink from their own fountain"

It's the same freaking basic concept dude!

His responses - things like (paraphrased) "Sexual orientation is not skin colour!", or, in this case, "Marriage is not a water fountain!" - have all the hallmarks of someone who has serious difficulties comprehending analogical arguments. Such mental handicaps coupled with a pre-existing bigot's disposition would make any arguments with such a person a pointless endeavor.

Of course, I still suspect that he's pulling everyone's leg here, if only because all his comments seem carefully calculated to be laughably wrong. If some guy was making these arguments in earnest, you'd expect him to at least accidentally get something right every once in a while.


As I lived in Alabama for 10 years, I can tell you, there are plenty of people who argue earnestly but manage to never get any part correct, or even close. They exist. Brave on the other hand... Who knows?
 
2013-02-02 01:19:23 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: If you can't tell the difference between a protected class of traits and non protected traits, sure then it's the same.


For someone claiming to have the final word on the application of 1st Amendment, you sure are ignorant when it comes to application of the 10th.

Also, you do realize that all of the Amendments have equal standing, right?  They aren't like the Laws of Robotics.  It's not, "you have the right to not have soldiers quartered in your home, as long as this right doesn't conflict with the 1st or 2nd Amendments.."?  Yes?
 
2013-02-02 01:19:47 PM  
Great for him. I wouldn't take part in the farce of "gay" marriage, either.
 
2013-02-02 01:22:01 PM  

DmGdDawg: Great for him. I wouldn't take part in the farce of "gay" marriage, either.


You put the wrong word in scare quotes. Bigots and trolls always do that to marriage to signify how it would be somehow inferior to your three 'sanctified' marriages. Better luck next thread.
 
2013-02-02 01:25:34 PM  

DmGdDawg: Great for him. I wouldn't take part in the farce of "gay" marriage, either.


Why should anyone be gay at a wedding - it's a serious affair!

/If you still want to live with the person after planning a wedding together, you know you've got it made.
//Hopefully - I'm still at the planning part, but it's hell.
 
2013-02-02 01:30:32 PM  

SpdrJay: Go
To
A
Different
Bakery


Thread should have ended here
 
2013-02-02 01:35:02 PM  

zombat: SpdrJay: Go
To
A
Different
Bakery

Thread should have ended here


Would you have been ok if they had just went to the local media outlets instead of the courts?

They can still get their message that this business discriminates against gays and also the small government types won't have to worry about government interference.

Everyone wins!
 
2013-02-02 01:36:33 PM  

zombat: SpdrJay: Go
To
A
Different
Bakery

Thread should have ended here


Those nice boys in Greensboro didn't have any problem going to a different lunch counter - why can't this couple be more like them?
 
2013-02-02 01:37:05 PM  

Mrtraveler01: hasty ambush: It is not amatter of religous freedom. As long as no tax dollars are involved he should be allowed to refuse to do business with anyone for whatever reason he desires. Would you force a Black baker to work for a wedding where the bride and groom are members of the KKK?
How about a pro-aboriton baker having to work at a pro-life wedding and the cake had to have a choose life decoration on it?

People are entitled to their own ideas and prejudices as long as they do not use tax dollars to finance them and do not express those views in a manner that causes physical harm to others. (Getting your feeling hurt is not a reason) Who are you to force him to accept another lifestyle?

So in that case, would you be ok if a business was still allowed to discriminate customers based on race?


As long as they are no using my tax dollars and I am not forced to do business with them, it is their business to run and ruin. How long would they stay in business if people are free to boycott them for their actions just as they are free to boycott this baker?

Why would you want to do business with somebody who was forced to? What quality of service do you think they would provide? Do you think the baker would provide the best possible cake if he was forced to or just the bare minimum in quality to comply withe the law?

It is like joining a club who only admitted you because of the force of law not out of any real desire to have you has a member. Would you expect it to an enjoyable experience?
Better to let people express their prejudices like this it makes them easier to identify so you know hwo yo want to do business with and associate with.
 
2013-02-02 01:42:52 PM  

truthseeker2083: DmGdDawg: Great for him. I wouldn't take part in the farce of "gay" marriage, either.

You put the wrong word in scare quotes. Bigots and trolls always do that to marriage to signify how it would be somehow inferior to your three 'sanctified' marriages. Better luck next thread.


You're absolutely right. I should have called it "Sodomite" marriage. Keep overplaying your hands, perverts.
 
2013-02-02 01:46:41 PM  

DmGdDawg: truthseeker2083: DmGdDawg: Great for him. I wouldn't take part in the farce of "gay" marriage, either.

You put the wrong word in scare quotes. Bigots and trolls always do that to marriage to signify how it would be somehow inferior to your three 'sanctified' marriages. Better luck next thread.

You're absolutely right. I should have called it "Sodomite" marriage. Keep overplaying your hands, perverts.


Oh no, you called me a pervert. Whatever will I do?! Keep clinging to your guns and sky fairy.
 
2013-02-02 01:54:42 PM  

Mrtraveler01: zombat: SpdrJay: Go
To
A
Different
Bakery

Thread should have ended here

Would you have been ok if they had just went to the local media outlets instead of the courts?

They can still get their message that this business discriminates against gays and also the small government types won't have to worry about government interference.

Everyone wins!


Not if the agenda is forced acceptance that requires legislation.
 
pla
2013-02-02 01:55:13 PM  
I may Be Crazy But... : Answering the hypothetical you meant, if I was a lawyer I would probably be unable to defend them competently because of my feeling about the message they're spewing. So, ethically, I would have to not represent them unless they were completely unable to find another lawyer who could.

But we seem to think it okay to compel a baker to do his best work sculpting a token of love for people he considers an abomination?


Biological Ali : Which specific law is there that might compel a lawyer to take this case?

What an Excellent question! Glad you asked!

Believe it or not, you actually do have the "right" to petition the government for redress of grievances. Strangely, though, you do not have the right to a cake.


See how messy things get when we start forcing people to labor against their will? Good thing the 14th amendment made that illegal, eh?  I absolutely do support gay rights - Moreso than I do in religious rights, in fact. But when we tell someone "you must do this job or your masters will punish you", well, chalk me up as not so cool with that.
 
2013-02-02 01:56:10 PM  

DmGdDawg: truthseeker2083: DmGdDawg: Great for him. I wouldn't take part in the farce of "gay" marriage, either.

You put the wrong word in scare quotes. Bigots and trolls always do that to marriage to signify how it would be somehow inferior to your three 'sanctified' marriages. Better luck next thread.

You're absolutely right. I should have called it "Sodomite" marriage. Keep overplaying your hands, perverts.


Definitely trolling.
 
2013-02-02 01:57:13 PM  

hasty ambush: Mrtraveler01: zombat: SpdrJay: Go
To
A
Different
Bakery

Thread should have ended here

Would you have been ok if they had just went to the local media outlets instead of the courts?

They can still get their message that this business discriminates against gays and also the small government types won't have to worry about government interference.

Everyone wins!

Not if the agenda is forced acceptance that requires legislation.


But if you just report it to the media and the media reports on it, the business will get bad press and will either cave or go out of business.

All without the governments help.

Seems like a win-win to me.
 
2013-02-02 01:58:09 PM  

pla: But we seem to think it okay to compel a baker to do his best work sculpting a token of love for people he considers an abomination?


Would you have the same sentiment if the baker had to make a cake for an interracial marriage?
 
2013-02-02 02:00:27 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mrtraveler01: take_flight: Are gay people allowed to walk freely around the U.S. and have families, jobs, drivers licences, etc.? Yes, they are.

Well in that case, they're not persecuted at all. I mean even though they don't have the same rights to a marriage like a heterosexual male like me does, we're both equals!

Definition of PERSECUTE
1
: to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief
2
: to annoy with persistent or urgent approaches (as attacks, pleas, or importunities) : pester

Stop pretending you're suffering anything remotely close to the plight of slaves.  You can't get married, it's not the same thing as persecution.


... You posted the definition of "persecute" and yet, in spite of it saying "to cause to suffer because of belief" you somehow read it as "the plight of slaves, period, and nothing less".
Remarkable.

Douchey, but remarkable.
 
2013-02-02 02:02:34 PM  
This whole "you can't possibly complain about something like persecution, unless it's the WORST POSSIBLE PERSECUTION POSSIBLE" thing... Do you think these same folks ever complain about something in their own lives? Like, say, having a democratic President or a store that says "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas"?
 
2013-02-02 02:03:25 PM  

truthseeker2083: take_flight: truthseeker2083: take_flight: Theaetetus: take_flight: Gays are not persecuted, they are not rounded up into camps or executed.

That's the lowest bar for "persecuted" I've ever seen.

I hope you never, ever complain about anything.


Are gay people allowed to walk freely around the U.S. and have families, jobs, drivers licences, etc.? Yes, they are. I never said that I agree with the baker. I do not, but some of the comments on here are just the trolliest excuses for trolling I have ever seen. You would think that a gay person would have to live under a rock.

→Before← we started fighting against discrimination, we basically did. There are still battles to be fought in order to gain true equality. Did you have to sue the government to get married, join the armed forces, visit your loved one in the hospital, regain possession of your own home after your spouse died, or pay taxes on the estate after they died? That's how we are discriminated against, but to me, when I hear people complain about 'more rights', it just sounds like you think I'm being uppity.

I live in a state that allows gay marriage, and all of the other things you mentioned. This particular article is about buying a cake...are there no other bakeries? We're not even talking about a government entity here. It's a baker. The general public can make their own decision as to whether or not they want to shop there.

Well, there is gay marriage in your state, we should stop, that's good enough. Yes, it's a baker. If we don't stand up to him, it makes it harder down the road to stand up to others who pose a bigger threat to our equality. I hope things never change enough to where our positions are reversed, because it'd be hard for me to care that you wanted 'more rights'.



Years ago, my husbands idiot friend broke the back window of our car because he didn't make sure that the gas can was in the hatch far enough. This was early in the relationship and we didn't have a lot of money so I called a used auto parts store...not a junkyard...but an auto parts store. He quoted me $450 for a replacement window. The same day, my husband called the SAME PLACE not knowing I had already called them. They quoted him $150 for the SAME WINDOW. Did I call the ACLU? The local new station? NO. I didn't buy the window from them and told all my friends not to shop there.

At my previous job, all the women worked in the same department. We made less than 1/2 of what the men in the other departments made. We were not offered health insurance or vacation time like the men either. The only time we got a raise was when the state raised minimum wage. We were referred to as "temporary" all though we worked full time, even over-time, and some had been there for almost 20 years. State law dictated that people in the same department were paid and offered comparable. So we were just corralled into the same department. It's a very fine line. Did I call the labor department? The local news? NO. I got a different job.

Within an hour driving time of my house there is a LGBT campground that does NOT allow any straight people, INCLUDING family members, except for on "Family & Friend Day". It looks like the campground has a lot of fun activities and bands. I want to camp there, but I can't...is THAT discrimination?
 
2013-02-02 02:10:45 PM  
Not sure how I feel about this. I mean, sure, the guy is a tool, but should his refusal to take this job be illegal?

I prefer that everybody just publicize the fark out of what he did - and by he I mean Aaron Klein who is reachable at (503) 674-5400 or m­e­l­i­ssa[nospam-﹫-backwards]b­e­wsekact­e­e­ws*co­m and whose store is at 44 NE Division Street, Gresham, OR 970301 - and let him know what a backwards-ass jerk he is. The court of public opinion can work wonders. As can the court of "fark you, I won't do business with bigots."

1-This information is publicly available at their website.
 
2013-02-02 02:11:13 PM  

Mrtraveler01: pla: But we seem to think it okay to compel a baker to do his best work sculpting a token of love for people he considers an abomination?

Would you have the same sentiment if the baker had to make a cake for an interracial marriage?


Again that is the baker's choice to make not ours.  Would not forcing him be imposing a morality on him?
 
2013-02-02 02:12:41 PM  

pla: But we seem to think it okay to compel a baker to do his best work sculpting a token of love for people he considers an abomination?


The two professions are not comparable.  A lawyer's decision to take a case is directly related to the details and circumstances of the client.  Those details are material to the lawyer's ability to perform his job. If he doesn't feel he can adequately defend a client for any reason, he is not obligated to take the case.

A cake is a cake, no matter who it's for.  There's no material difference between the cake he would bake for a straight couple, and the cake he would bake for a gay couple.

There very few good examples of professions for which the sexual orientation of the client has a bearing on the performance of the service.  One of the good ones is religious counseling.  Which is why churches are pretty much the only public entities that are allowed to violate certain portions of Equal Protection.
 
2013-02-02 02:12:41 PM  

hasty ambush: Mrtraveler01: pla: But we seem to think it okay to compel a baker to do his best work sculpting a token of love for people he considers an abomination?

Would you have the same sentiment if the baker had to make a cake for an interracial marriage?

Again that is the baker's choice to make not ours.  Would not forcing him be imposing a morality on him?


No, but denying a service to a customer based on their race is discriminatory.
 
2013-02-02 02:16:28 PM  

truthseeker2083: Where is my 1st Ammendment protection (under expression and religion) to marry my partner? Why do my rights get trampled?


The 15th, 19th and 26th amendments don't recognize sexuality as a class.  Where is the federal precedent?  Your rights aren't trampled, you just want a ridiculous thing.  Why should society be forced to publicly recognize your personal relationship?

15th
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

19th
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

26th
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age
 
2013-02-02 02:18:35 PM  

Z-clipped: A cake is a cake, no matter who it's for.  There's no material difference between the cake he would bake for a straight couple, and the cake he would bake for a gay couple.


There is a consequence for the reputation of his business.
 
2013-02-02 02:21:17 PM  

Mrtraveler01: But if you just report it to the media and the media reports on it, the business will get bad press and will either cave or go out of business.


But then you deal with the nasty business of Republicans complaining about the damn librul media destroying businesses because they didn't bow to the whims of the gay agenda. Can't win when it comes to crazies and haters.
 
2013-02-02 02:24:11 PM  
uh-oh ... posting public information is verboten. The nanny state minions are going to get you.
 
2013-02-02 02:24:21 PM  

take_flight: Within an hour driving time of my house there is a LGBT campground that does NOT allow any straight people, INCLUDING family members, except for on "Family & Friend Day". It looks like the campground has a lot of fun activities and bands. I want to camp there, but I can't...is THAT discrimination?


That's human nature at work.  The gay community do have a blind spot when it comes to the rights of others BUT that doesn't mean gay rights should be denied simply because they're behaving as all groups of people do.
 
2013-02-02 02:24:47 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: There is a consequence for the reputation of his business.


If he had made the cake then what "reputation" would there be? Would news somehow spread that he baked a cake for a couple of lesbos? Would people smell the cake baking and think "Hmm that douche, he's making that for a gay couple! I'll never shop here again!" Would people see the cake at the wedding and know "Hey, that one baker made that, I can't believe he even did that. Even though I am at a gay wedding and therefore must agree with this ceremony in some way, I will tell everyone of this atrocity and destroy him!" ? What chain of events would occur here, exactly? As opposed to the massive dent to his reputation now that he is splattered all over the news as an ignorant bigot who thinks baking a cake for one couple violates his religion more than baking a cake for any of the other non-holiest-of-holy-Christian couples he made cakes for?
 
2013-02-02 02:24:55 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Z-clipped: A cake is a cake, no matter who it's for.  There's no material difference between the cake he would bake for a straight couple, and the cake he would bake for a gay couple.

There is a consequence for the reputation of his business.


How so?
 
2013-02-02 02:28:20 PM  

Serious Black: jso2897: BronyMedic: jso2897: No. Prosecute the lawbreaking criminal - just like if he was an illegal alien, or a gang-banger, or somebody else you don't like.

Isn't it a civil matter, not criminal?

OK, then: "Litigate against the tort-committer." Is your inner pedant satisfied now?

I know I can be a bit of a pedant sometimes, but damn, there are some farking pedantic ass mongoloids in the world today. As an example, America is not a democracy. It is a democratically-elected representative Constitutionally-limited federal bicameral presidential republic. Or so I was told about a week ago.




How did into have you on my favorites before now?
 
pla
2013-02-02 02:29:41 PM  
Mrtraveler01 : Would you have the same sentiment if the baker had to make a cake for an interracial marriage?

As a personal opinion, yes, absolutely - Slavery doesn't become "right" just because a protected group gets to hold the whip. Legally, however, I recognize that certain protections exist for racial discrimination that don't exist for the average Joe.  And most relevantly, they don't exist for sexual preference, except in the commission of hate crimes.  No crime otherwise in this case means no hate crime.


Z-clipped : Those details are material to the lawyer's ability to perform his job.

I didn't say anything about qualifications, only a moral objection to the client.

The two professions are not comparable.

Agreed - I would call it much, much more important that a lawyer take someone on as a client, than that someone get a cake from a particular shop. Hilarious to see all the apologists in this discussion arguing exactly the opposite, though. :)


NYCNative : This information is publicly available at their website.

Nice knowin' ya... Enjoy your vacation from Fark.
 
2013-02-02 02:30:34 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Serious Black: jso2897: BronyMedic: jso2897: No. Prosecute the lawbreaking criminal - just like if he was an illegal alien, or a gang-banger, or somebody else you don't like.

Isn't it a civil matter, not criminal?

OK, then: "Litigate against the tort-committer." Is your inner pedant satisfied now?

I know I can be a bit of a pedant sometimes, but damn, there are some farking pedantic ass mongoloids in the world today. As an example, America is not a democracy. It is a democratically-elected representative Constitutionally-limited federal bicameral presidential republic. Or so I was told about a week ago.

How did into I NOT have you on my favorites before now?




ftfm
 
2013-02-02 02:32:27 PM  

ACunningPlan: take_flight: Within an hour driving time of my house there is a LGBT campground that does NOT allow any straight people, INCLUDING family members, except for on "Family & Friend Day". It looks like the campground has a lot of fun activities and bands. I want to camp there, but I can't...is THAT discrimination?

That's human nature at work.  The gay community do have a blind spot when it comes to the rights of others BUT that doesn't mean gay rights should be denied simply because they're behaving as all groups of people do.


I never said gay rights should be denied. I am actually supportive of gay rights. I am simply pointing out that there is some one sidedness going on there. Is it equal rights or more rights, because I am positive if I opened an all heterosexual campground and had a "LGBT friends and family day" I am 100% positive I would be sued.
 
2013-02-02 02:35:10 PM  

take_flight: ACunningPlan: take_flight: Within an hour driving time of my house there is a LGBT campground that does NOT allow any straight people, INCLUDING family members, except for on "Family & Friend Day". It looks like the campground has a lot of fun activities and bands. I want to camp there, but I can't...is THAT discrimination?

That's human nature at work.  The gay community do have a blind spot when it comes to the rights of others BUT that doesn't mean gay rights should be denied simply because they're behaving as all groups of people do.

I never said gay rights should be denied. I am actually supportive of gay rights. I am simply pointing out that there is some one sidedness going on there. Is it equal rights or more rights, because I am positive if I opened an all heterosexual campground and had a "LGBT friends and family day" I am 100% positive I would be sued.


So your imaginary camp doesn't allow gays unless on days you designate?

I have no idea what you're getting at here.
 
2013-02-02 02:37:51 PM  

IlGreven: SpdrJay: Go
To
A
Different
Bakery

Your previous incarnation told Rosa Parks to walk.


And did you know what happen then? People started to boycott the bus service and made a fleet of cars to drive people to their destination. If people stop stop going to his place of business then he'll be forced to close or rethink his business plan. Capitalism how does it work?

/I can smell the butt hurt.
 
2013-02-02 02:38:09 PM  

pla: Mrtraveler01 : NYCNative : This information is publicly available at their website.

Nice knowin' ya... Enjoy your vacation from Fark.


The rules state "Don't post private/contact information no matter how easily obtained."

This isn't a some private person, it is a business.  One that takes pains to have a website for its business and presumably to advertise their wares.  I agree that it would be wrong to post their personal phone number, address or email.  I didn't do that.
 
2013-02-02 02:38:22 PM  

take_flight: ACunningPlan: take_flight: Within an hour driving time of my house there is a LGBT campground that does NOT allow any straight people, INCLUDING family members, except for on "Family & Friend Day". It looks like the campground has a lot of fun activities and bands. I want to camp there, but I can't...is THAT discrimination?

That's human nature at work.  The gay community do have a blind spot when it comes to the rights of others BUT that doesn't mean gay rights should be denied simply because they're behaving as all groups of people do.

I never said gay rights should be denied. I am actually supportive of gay rights. I am simply pointing out that there is some one sidedness going on there. Is it equal rights or more rights, because I am positive if I opened an all heterosexual campground and had a "LGBT friends and family day" I am 100% positive I would be sued.


If two gay folks go camping at any one of hundreds of campsites in the South, and are seen kissing by a certain type of folk, I guarantee you they'll discover it's a "heterosexual campground".

You don't seem to understand why minority spaces have come about in the first place: because people want to avoid the very real and very likely unpleasant occurrences that happen to minority groups. How dare they want to go camping without being spat at at least once in their trip!
 
2013-02-02 02:40:20 PM  

Mrtraveler01: take_flight: ACunningPlan: take_flight:→ Within an hour driving time of my house there is a LGBT campground that does NOT allow any straight people, INCLUDING family members, except for on "Family & Friend Day". It looks like the campground has a lot of fun activities and bands. I want to camp there, but I can't...is THAT discrimination?←

That's human nature at work.  The gay community do have a blind spot when it comes to the rights of others BUT that doesn't mean gay rights should be denied simply because they're behaving as all groups of people do.

I never said gay rights should be denied. I am actually supportive of gay rights. I am simply pointing out that there is some one sidedness going on there.→ Is it equal rights or more rights, because I am positive if I opened an all heterosexual campground and had a "LGBT friends and family day" I am 100% positive I would be sued.←

So your imaginary camp doesn't allow gays unless on days you designate?

I have no idea what you're getting at here.

 
2013-02-02 02:42:35 PM  

take_flight: I am simply pointing out that there is some one sidedness going on there.


Most certainly. The GLBT club on my old campus was notorious for subtly striking out the "B" part by ostracizing anyone in the club who "came out" as bi. And lordy if you're straight you better be in there to just drop a club member off. It was pretty disgusting to see bigotry like that. But then, the bi's just didn't care enough to fight it and the straights sure as hell didn't care about being allowed in some gay club. People like that just need to be called out on their shiat more. If you think you see discrimination happening then try to do something about it. My local gay neighborhood has a lot of stores, bars, parks, various events going on and I've never seen someone turned away from anything for not being GLBT. If I did I would raise hell immediately, because that shiat ain't right.
 
2013-02-02 02:48:01 PM  

take_flight: ACunningPlan: take_flight: Within an hour driving time of my house there is a LGBT campground that does NOT allow any straight people, INCLUDING family members, except for on "Family & Friend Day". It looks like the campground has a lot of fun activities and bands. I want to camp there, but I can't...is THAT discrimination?

That's human nature at work.  The gay community do have a blind spot when it comes to the rights of others BUT that doesn't mean gay rights should be denied simply because they're behaving as all groups of people do.

I never said gay rights should be denied. I am actually supportive of gay rights. I am simply pointing out that there is some one sidedness going on there. Is it equal rights or more rights, because I am positive if I opened an all heterosexual campground and had a "LGBT friends and family day" I am 100% positive I would be sued.


Given that gay marriage is NOT legal throughout all states, you can't possibly claim the setup is one-sided against straight people.  So it is simply a case of equal rights; once gay people have exactly all the same rights that other human beings possess, there shouldn't be a problem.  There will be always be problems - see human nature again - but no system is perfect.  At the moment, the balance is skewed unfairly in favor of straight people and so the gay community naturally circles the wagons around their issue.
 
2013-02-02 02:48:32 PM  

Freschel: IlGreven: SpdrJay: Go
To
A
Different
Bakery

Your previous incarnation told Rosa Parks to walk.

And did you know what happen then? People started to boycott the bus service and made a fleet of cars to drive people to their destination. If people stop stop going to his place of business then he'll be forced to close or rethink his business plan. Capitalism how does it work?

/I can smell the butt hurt.


In retrospect the guy would rather go out of business than to serve people whom he despises. Yes I know that's illegal to refuse service because of that person's creed, race, disability, class and/or sexual preference. But the racist/bigot will have to face serious repercussions if he/she want to pull off that crap. One of then is a boycott.
 
2013-02-02 02:48:32 PM  
jso2897:

No. Federal law does not treat sexual orientation as a protected class (if it did, there could be no "DOMA"). Oregon law, however, does, so it's irrelevant.
Cue all the righties who will defend this lawbreaking criminal's "religious freedom".


No, as a rightie who thinks that he should be able to so discriminate, if the state protects sexual orientation then he's in the wrong. That's the point of federalism, let the states be different.  If you want to be a hetero-only baker, move out of Oregon.
 
2013-02-02 02:48:56 PM  

wyltoknow: take_flight: I am simply pointing out that there is some one sidedness going on there.

Most certainly. The GLBT club on my old campus was notorious for subtly striking out the "B" part by ostracizing anyone in the club who "came out" as bi. And lordy if you're straight you better be in there to just drop a club member off. It was pretty disgusting to see bigotry like that. But then, the bi's just didn't care enough to fight it and the straights sure as hell didn't care about being allowed in some gay club. People like that just need to be called out on their shiat more. If you think you see discrimination happening then try to do something about it. My local gay neighborhood has a lot of stores, bars, parks, various events going on and I've never seen someone turned away from anything for not being GLBT. If I did I would raise hell immediately, because that shiat ain't right.


There are idiot assholes on every side of a debate.

It's just in this debate, one side doesn't routinely assault and brutalised the other side. And one side doesn't nominate one such bully to be their presidential candidate.
 
2013-02-02 02:49:44 PM  

pla: Z-clipped : Those details are material to the lawyer's ability to perform his job.

I didn't say anything about qualifications, only a moral objection to the client.

The two professions are not comparable.

Agreed - I would call it much, much more important that a lawyer take someone on as a client, than that someone get a cake from a particular shop. Hilarious to see all the apologists in this discussion arguing exactly the opposite, though. :)


I think you missed my point.  A lawyer's job is to advocate for his client.  The personal details of the client, Including the lawyer's ability to form a positive relationship with said client, directly and materially affect his ability to do his job.  Because of this, lawyers are afforded a large amount (to my knowledge, nearly unlimited) freedom to refuse to represent a client.

This simply does not apply to most professions, including cake bakers, auto mechanics, doctors, restaurants, and shoe salesmen, as the personal details of the client are not material to the product or service being performed.
 
2013-02-02 02:55:01 PM  

Bungles: take_flight: ACunningPlan: take_flight: Within an hour driving time of my house there is a LGBT campground that does NOT allow any straight people, INCLUDING family members, except for on "Family & Friend Day". It looks like the campground has a lot of fun activities and bands. I want to camp there, but I can't...is THAT discrimination?

That's human nature at work.  The gay community do have a blind spot when it comes to the rights of others BUT that doesn't mean gay rights should be denied simply because they're behaving as all groups of people do.

I never said gay rights should be denied. I am actually supportive of gay rights. I am simply pointing out that there is some one sidedness going on there. Is it equal rights or more rights, because I am positive if I opened an all heterosexual campground and had a "LGBT friends and family day" I am 100% positive I would be sued.

If two gay folks go camping at any one of hundreds of campsites in the South, and are seen kissing by a certain type of folk, I guarantee you they'll discover it's a "heterosexual campground".

You don't seem to understand why minority spaces have come about in the first place: because people want to avoid the very real and very likely unpleasant occurrences that happen to minority groups. How dare they want to go camping without being spat at at least once in their trip!


Spitting on someone would probably be considered harassment or assault regardless of sexual orientation. At least where I live, I don't know what they allow in the south.

This guy refused to bake them a cake. I personally would have baked them the cake, I would have congratulated them and maybe even given them a discount. Now...if he had punched them in the face, spit on them, or shouted slurs at them, THAT would be a completely different story. What happened to Matthew Shepard is a total atrocity, this is a cake.

The last time I went camping at a non-denominational, non-sexual-orientation-caring campground I listened to loud music and generators until 2 am and then listen to a very drunk male and female yell obscenities at each other. I was very offended. No one cared.
 
2013-02-02 02:55:23 PM  

truthseeker2083: Where is my 1st Ammendment protection (under expression and religion) to marry my partner? Why do my rights get trampled?


You're right, but then again, you can go get married to your partner whenever you want.  The problem is you want other people and the government to recognize it.  The first amendment protects free speech, it doesn't force other people to listen.
 
2013-02-02 02:56:57 PM  

foreman3: No, as a rightie who thinks that he should be able to so discriminate, if the state protects sexual orientation then he's in the wrong. That's the point of federalism, let the states be different.  If you want to be a hetero-only baker, move out of Oregon.


OK... so we've now established that this idea is, in fact, comprehensible to the conservative brain.  Thank you, kind sir for your honest and reasoned commentary.

So WTF is  BraveNewCheneyWorld's excuse?
 
2013-02-02 02:57:23 PM  

truthseeker2083: When was the last time you were blamed for 9/11, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, viruses, etc?


Oh, that's just like you people.  Trying to dodge your responsibility for natural disasters, once again.
 
2013-02-02 02:59:05 PM  
If selling someone a cake somehow offends him, he shouldn't be in the business of selling cakes.
 
2013-02-02 03:02:23 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Why should society be forced to publicly recognize your personal relationship?


We're forced to recognize your relationship with your uncle Bob, so I think we can handle theirs as well.  Six o' one, half a dozen of the other, eh.
 
2013-02-02 03:03:42 PM  
PsiChick:

It's still illegal to refuse service to black people.

...Oh, wait, gay, sorry. Same situation. Just forgot to switch the word.


Let's try some just a few other words:
- drunk?
- Shirtless?
- Rude?
- Republican?

You CAN refuse service to any people who are any of the above, even if they are black.  So, yes, you can refuse service to black people, but not if the reason is because they are black.  That's a protected CLASS.  It's up to society to agree on the protected classes.  Maybe Oregon want to make sexual orientation a protected class, and maybe another state doesn't.

Yeah federalism!
 
2013-02-02 03:08:28 PM  

foreman3: Maybe Oregon want to make sexual orientation a protected class, and maybe another state doesn't.


Oregon does make sexual orientation a protected class.

So why are Conservatives biatching about that?
 
2013-02-02 03:08:53 PM  

foreman3: truthseeker2083: Where is my 1st Ammendment protection (under expression and religion) to marry my partner? Why do my rights get trampled?

You're right, but then again, you can go get married to your partner whenever you want.  The problem is you want other people and the government to recognize it.  The first amendment protects free speech, it doesn't force other people to listen.


Well, technically only the government needs to "listen", as the government is the only body with the power to marry people.  Though I suppose you could argue that if the government recognizes gay marriage, the people do by default.

Still, I think the overall point is that the 1st Amendment doesn't protect all actions motivated by religion.  Only the practice of religion itself.  Given that Equal Protection for many classes is already firmly established and accepted, it's clear that any application the 1st might have here is heavily curtailed.
 
2013-02-02 03:10:52 PM  

wyltoknow: Mrtraveler01: But if you just report it to the media and the media reports on it, the business will get bad press and will either cave or go out of business.

But then you deal with the nasty business of Republicans complaining about the damn librul media destroying businesses because they didn't bow to the whims of the gay agenda. Can't win when it comes to crazies and haters.


Yeah, just like how you destroyed Chik-fil-a
 
2013-02-02 03:12:03 PM  

foreman3: PsiChick:

It's still illegal to refuse service to black people.

...Oh, wait, gay, sorry. Same situation. Just forgot to switch the word.

Let's try some just a few other words:
- drunk?
- Shirtless?
- Rude?
- Republican?

You CAN refuse service to any people who are any of the above, even if they are black.  So, yes, you can refuse service to black people, but not if the reason is because they are black.  That's a protected CLASS.  It's up to society to agree on the protected classes.  Maybe Oregon want to make sexual orientation a protected class, and maybe another state doesn't.

Yeah federalism!


A) Oregon does  actually choose to make sexual orientation a protected class, so your argument is invalid anyway.

B) Your examples? Are chosen. You choose to be drunk, shirtless, rude, or even Republican. You do  not choose to be gay. Our society finds it immoral to punish people for factors beyond their control. That's why African-Americans have equal rights.
 
2013-02-02 03:12:33 PM  

ACunningPlan: take_flight: ACunningPlan: take_flight: Within an hour driving time of my house there is a LGBT campground that does NOT allow any straight people, INCLUDING family members, except for on "Family & Friend Day". It looks like the campground has a lot of fun activities and bands. I want to camp there, but I can't...is THAT discrimination?

That's human nature at work.  The gay community do have a blind spot when it comes to the rights of others BUT that doesn't mean gay rights should be denied simply because they're behaving as all groups of people do.

I never said gay rights should be denied. I am actually supportive of gay rights. I am simply pointing out that there is some one sidedness going on there. Is it equal rights or more rights, because I am positive if I opened an all heterosexual campground and had a "LGBT friends and family day" I am 100% positive I would be sued.

Given that gay marriage is NOT legal throughout all states, you can't possibly claim the setup is one-sided against straight people.  So it is simply a case of equal rights; once gay people have exactly all the same rights that other human beings possess, there shouldn't be a problem.  There will be always be problems - see human nature again - but no system is perfect.  At the moment, the balance is skewed unfairly in favor of straight people and so the gay community naturally circles the wagons around their issue.


I'm guessing that gay marriage is legal in Oregon considering that's where the incident took place. You know what else Oregon has? More than one bakery.

I do understand human nature. It will always be, wrong as it may be, and because I live in a state where gay marriage is legal and I never really see the horribleness of people toward the LGBT community doesn't mean that it doesn't exist elsewhere. I guess my argument is who's rights are more important. The baker's right to practice his religion or the women's right to get a cake? I can think of a way for both sides to be happy.  It doesn't make sense to me that these women would want to infringe on someone else's right in preference to their own right. Another right of American's is to not shop at places where they do not agree with the practices.
 
2013-02-02 03:16:29 PM  

PsiChick: You do not choose to be gay.


Therein lies the rub... conservatives don't believe this to be true, any more than they believe they're the descendants of hairless apes, or that the Earth revolves around the sun.
Oh wait, scratch that last one.  I guess most of them have caught up to the 15th century.
 
2013-02-02 03:18:45 PM  

foreman3: wyltoknow: Mrtraveler01: But if you just report it to the media and the media reports on it, the business will get bad press and will either cave or go out of business.

But then you deal with the nasty business of Republicans complaining about the damn librul media destroying businesses because they didn't bow to the whims of the gay agenda. Can't win when it comes to crazies and haters.

Yeah, just like how you destroyed Chik-fil-a


Yes, I can see a line of cars going down the street in suburban Portland defending a baker who doesn't like gays.

/sarcasm
 
2013-02-02 03:25:43 PM  

PsiChick: foreman3: PsiChick:

It's still illegal to refuse service to black people.

...Oh, wait, gay, sorry. Same situation. Just forgot to switch the word.

Let's try some just a few other words:
- drunk?
- Shirtless?
- Rude?
- Republican?

You CAN refuse service to any people who are any of the above, even if they are black.  So, yes, you can refuse service to black people, but not if the reason is because they are black.  That's a protected CLASS.  It's up to society to agree on the protected classes.  Maybe Oregon want to make sexual orientation a protected class, and maybe another state doesn't.

Yeah federalism!

A) Oregon does  actually choose to make sexual orientation a protected class, so your argument is invalid anyway.

B) Your examples? Are chosen. You choose to be drunk, shirtless, rude, or even Republican. You do  not choose to be gay. Our society finds it immoral to punish people for factors beyond their control. That's why African-Americans have equal rights.


You are born shirtless
You may be inclined to homosexuality, but your not a homosexual until you choose to have homo-sex
 
2013-02-02 03:29:47 PM  

take_flight: I guess my argument is who's rights are more important. The baker's right to practice his religion or the women's right to get a cake?


You're confusing belief with behavior.  The women have a right not to be discriminated against by a public accommodation for their sexual preference.  The baker has the right to practice his religion, and to believe whatever he likes.  But the "practice of religion" does not encompass any and all behaviors under the sun.  Praying is a religious practice.  Receiving the holy communion is a religious practice.  Keeping kosher is a religious practice.

Refusing service to black people as a public accommodation is not, by any means, a religious practice.
 
2013-02-02 03:29:55 PM  

Mrtraveler01: foreman3: wyltoknow: Mrtraveler01: But if you just report it to the media and the media reports on it, the business will get bad press and will either cave or go out of business.

But then you deal with the nasty business of Republicans complaining about the damn librul media destroying businesses because they didn't bow to the whims of the gay agenda. Can't win when it comes to crazies and haters.

Yeah, just like how you destroyed Chik-fil-a

Yes, I can see a line of cars going down the street in suburban Portland defending a baker who doesn't like gays.

/sarcasm


You're probably right.  But that's exactly my point on Federalism.  Portland and Oregon have their community standards, which this baker may be violating.  Most of the conservatives here seem to take offense to the community standards.  And that's OK too, they can try to change the law to allow discrimination, but the law was the law at the time.
 
2013-02-02 03:32:06 PM  
I'm willing to accept that some people's religious beliefs would come in conflict with what is become normal acceptable behavior.  And I'm willing to allow the the right to refuse service to same sex couples because of their religious beliefs.  But they should be required to put up a large sign on the front door of the shop stating this very clearly so that EVERYONE will know before entering the shop.  Let's see how his religious beliefs stand up to only catering to the narrow minded clientele.
 
2013-02-02 03:32:45 PM  

foreman3: You are born shirtless
You may be inclined to homosexuality, but your not a homosexual until you choose to have homo-sex


So your argument here is that it's perfectly all right to punish people for having the only type of relationship they are biologically hardwired to have?

ReverendJasen: PsiChick: You do not choose to be gay.

Therein lies the rub... conservatives don't believe this to be true, any more than they believe they're the descendants of hairless apes, or that the Earth revolves around the sun.
Oh wait, scratch that last one.  I guess most of them have caught up to the 15th century.


Yes, but once you take your beliefs out of the church, you have to be able to justify them or STFU.
 
2013-02-02 03:33:01 PM  

foreman3: And that's OK too, they can try to change the law to allow discrimination, but the law was the law at the time.


Why would they do that though?
 
2013-02-02 03:33:36 PM  

OgreMagi: I'm willing to accept that some people's religious beliefs would come in conflict with what is become normal acceptable behavior.  And I'm willing to allow the the right to refuse service to same sex couples because of their religious beliefs.  But they should be required to put up a large sign on the front door of the shop stating this very clearly so that EVERYONE will know before entering the shop.  Let's see how his religious beliefs stand up to only catering to the narrow minded clientele.


I don't like this idea....I love this idea!
 
2013-02-02 03:36:18 PM  

Mrtraveler01: foreman3: And that's OK too, they can try to change the law to allow discrimination, but the law was the law at the time.

Why would they do that though?


They being the conservatives.  If they think that bakers, and others professionals like photographers, DJ, and wedding singers should be allowed to choose not to serve at/for same-sex weddings, they would seeming have to change the law.  You may think that's an ignoble goal, but honest people can disagree, and either way, within their rights to try.
 
2013-02-02 03:36:28 PM  

PsiChick: Yes, but once you take your beliefs out of the church, you have to be able to justify them or STFU.


More my take on it.
 
2013-02-02 03:37:51 PM  

ReverendJasen: PsiChick: Yes, but once you take your beliefs out of the church, you have to be able to justify them or STFU.

More my take on it.


Eh, if you believe in tolerance and compassion for everyone, I'm cool with that. Bhuddists tend to get that one nailed.
 
2013-02-02 03:38:16 PM  

foreman3: You may be inclined to homosexuality, but your not a homosexual until you choose to have homo-sex


LOL
I've got news for you... If you're "inclined to homosexuality", you're gay whether you consummate the relationship or not.
 
2013-02-02 03:39:38 PM  

PsiChick: foreman3: You are born shirtless
You may be inclined to homosexuality, but your not a homosexual until you choose to have homo-sex

So your argument here is that it's perfectly all right to punish people for having the only type of relationship they are biologically hardwired to have?


There's a difference between not providing a non-vital service for someone and punishing them.
Your argument could be restated as "It's perfectly all right to force a baker to violate his conscience if the cause is popular"
 
2013-02-02 03:40:08 PM  

take_flight: ACunningPlan: take_flight: ACunningPlan: take_flight: Within an hour driving time of my house there is a LGBT campground that does NOT allow any straight people, INCLUDING family members, except for on "Family & Friend Day". It looks like the campground has a lot of fun activities and bands. I want to camp there, but I can't...is THAT discrimination?

That's human nature at work.  The gay community do have a blind spot when it comes to the rights of others BUT that doesn't mean gay rights should be denied simply because they're behaving as all groups of people do.

I never said gay rights should be denied. I am actually supportive of gay rights. I am simply pointing out that there is some one sidedness going on there. Is it equal rights or more rights, because I am positive if I opened an all heterosexual campground and had a "LGBT friends and family day" I am 100% positive I would be sued.

Given that gay marriage is NOT legal throughout all states, you can't possibly claim the setup is one-sided against straight people.  So it is simply a case of equal rights; once gay people have exactly all the same rights that other human beings possess, there shouldn't be a problem.  There will be always be problems - see human nature again - but no system is perfect.  At the moment, the balance is skewed unfairly in favor of straight people and so the gay community naturally circles the wagons around their issue.

I'm guessing that gay marriage is legal in Oregon considering that's where the incident took place. You know what else Oregon has? More than one bakery.

I do understand human nature. It will always be, wrong as it may be, and because I live in a state where gay marriage is legal and I never really see the horribleness of people toward the LGBT community doesn't mean that it doesn't exist elsewhere. I guess my argument is who's rights are more important. The baker's right to practice his religion or the women's right to get a cake? I can think of a way for both side ...


No-one's stopping him from practicing his religion; the women weren't insisting he attend the wedding.  The law as I understand it [?] says he can't refuse to do business with someone on the basis of their sexual orientation and he must have known what the law states.  There are numerous ways this incident could have been handled with less stupidity.  He could refuse to make wedding cakes period - so he wouldn't have to face the risk of such an ethical dilemma.  Does he refuse to make cakes for couples who only have a church ceremony because it's so much prettier than another venue and then never set foot in church again - that should be just as offensive to his religious views [more so actually].  Perhaps if he'd explained his view rationally, instead of launching into the whole "abomination" speech, the women might have taken their business elsewhere without any hard feelings.  Some in the gay community do believe their rights take priority over those of others - because like all sectors of society they can be bigots too - BUT in this case, the couple were simply trying to conduct an innocuous business transaction.  Cakey-boy can express his unhappiness at the sale, but he can't refuse the sale on the grounds of sexual orientation.
 
2013-02-02 03:43:13 PM  

Z-clipped: foreman3: You may be inclined to homosexuality, but your not a homosexual until you choose to have homo-sex

LOL
I've got news for you... If you're "inclined to homosexuality", you're gay whether you consummate the relationship or not.


No,
Just like you may be inclined to over-eat, but if you don't you're not fat
Or You may be inclined to be violent, but if you don't act on that inclination, you're not going to jail.
 
2013-02-02 03:43:30 PM  

foreman3: Your argument could be restated as "It's perfectly all right to force a baker to violate his conscience if the cause is popular it's legally required."


A bit closer to the situtation in TFA.
 
2013-02-02 03:48:14 PM  

Mugato: Tommy Moo: What if a right-winged redneck came into your cake shop and demanded you make him a birthday cake decorated with machine guns and "F*** Mohammad GO USA!!!" written on it? He could sue you for discrimination if you refused to put your craft into that. Art is special like that.

That's the worst analogy I've read today but it's very early.


Why? Because you're a liberal and this guy is a conservative?
 
2013-02-02 03:48:23 PM  

ReverendJasen: foreman3: Your argument could be restated as "It's perfectly all right to force a baker to violate his conscience if the cause is popular it's legally required."

A bit closer to the situtation in TFA.


You're not following the conversation. I're already acknowledged the baker's legally wrong.  Not we're discussing the morality of that law vs. freedom of association.
 
2013-02-02 03:49:22 PM  

foreman3: PsiChick: foreman3: You are born shirtless
You may be inclined to homosexuality, but your not a homosexual until you choose to have homo-sex

So your argument here is that it's perfectly all right to punish people for having the only type of relationship they are biologically hardwired to have?

There's a difference between not providing a non-vital service for someone and punishing them.
Your argument could be restated as "It's perfectly all right to force a baker to violate his conscience if the cause is popular"


So why is the baker refusing to provide them a cake?
 
2013-02-02 03:50:59 PM  

shotglasss: jso2897: shotglasss: Like the sign says, "We have the right to refuse service to anyone".

He refused service based on religious beliefs. Now you libs want the state to attack him and his business for that religious belief? What ever happened to the separation of church and state?

Whatever happened to the "conservative" viewpoint that lawbreaking should be prosecuted? Just think of him as an illegal alien - you know, a person who is breaking the law. Then you'll feel better.

Why do I have to pretend he's something other than a guy trying to make a living and honor his God? You want to turn him into something he's not for what reason?

And if you don't like the way he runs his business, go somewhere else.


Yes, I'm sure God is "honored" by his supposed followers blatantly disobeying his commandments. "Love thy neighbor as thyself"? "What you do to the least of your brothers, you do unto me"? Fark that noise, according to people like you and him God is a raging ball of hatred, especially towards people who love others that happen to have the same gonads. This supposedly all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving deity seems to be pretty powerless to fix the supposed "problem" of homosexuality and to reprimand his followers for their hypocritical idiocy.

Also, he was breaking Oregon law. You do care about upholding the law, right?
 
2013-02-02 03:52:06 PM  

pla: What an Excellent question! Glad you asked!

Believe it or not, you actually do have the "right" to petition the government for redress of grievances. Strangely, though, you do not have the right to a cake.


I asked that question because the kind of act outlined in TFA is illegal due to very specific anti-discrimination laws that prohibit refusal of service on the basis of sexual orientation, race, religion and so on. It has nothing to do with the "right to a cake" (or, as in the case of the Greensboro sit-ins, the "right to coffee").

Unless there's some specific law that says you can't refuse service to somebody based on the manner in which they carry out highly public, attention-seeking protests (and not their "religious beliefs" as you suggest), the things you're trying to compare aren't anywhere near analogous.
 
2013-02-02 03:56:46 PM  

PsiChick: B) Your examples? Are chosen. You choose to be drunk, shirtless, rude, or even Republican. You do not choose to be gay. Our society finds it immoral to punish people for factors beyond their control. That's why African-Americans have equal rights.


Not quite. I'm pretty sure businesses in the US can't discriminate on the basis of religion, for instance, and that's definitely not something beyond their control.
 
2013-02-02 04:03:49 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: shotglasss: jso2897: shotglasss: Like the sign says, "We have the right to refuse service to anyone".

He refused service based on religious beliefs. Now you libs want the state to attack him and his business for that religious belief? What ever happened to the separation of church and state?

Whatever happened to the "conservative" viewpoint that lawbreaking should be prosecuted? Just think of him as an illegal alien - you know, a person who is breaking the law. Then you'll feel better.

Why do I have to pretend he's something other than a guy trying to make a living and honor his God? You want to turn him into something he's not for what reason?

And if you don't like the way he runs his business, go somewhere else.

Yes, I'm sure God is "honored" by his supposed followers blatantly disobeying his commandments. "Love thy neighbor as thyself"? "What you do to the least of your brothers, you do unto me"? Fark that noise, according to people like you and him God is a raging ball of hatred, especially towards people who love others that happen to have the same gonads. This supposedly all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving deity seems to be pretty powerless to fix the supposed "problem" of homosexuality and to reprimand his followers for their hypocritical idiocy.

Also, he was breaking Oregon law. You do care about upholding the law, right?


He's also violating Leviticus (the same book with all the gay stuff) by having a tattoo.

He might as well have "hypocrite" tattooed all over his face.
 
2013-02-02 04:04:41 PM  

PsiChick: foreman3: PsiChick: foreman3: You are born shirtless
You may be inclined to homosexuality, but your not a homosexual until you choose to have homo-sex

So your argument here is that it's perfectly all right to punish people for having the only type of relationship they are biologically hardwired to have?

There's a difference between not providing a non-vital service for someone and punishing them.
Your argument could be restated as "It's perfectly all right to force a baker to violate his conscience if the cause is popular"

So why is the baker refusing to provide them a cake?


Because it violates his conscience.  By providing a service, he's supporting there wedding, which he believes he is not supposed to do.

In fact, this highlights what's so egregious with this type of protected class.  They obviously have other choices of bakery, but he MUST bake them a cake.  That doesn't seem right.
 
2013-02-02 04:04:44 PM  

OgreMagi: I'm willing to accept that some people's religious beliefs would come in conflict with what is become normal acceptable behavior.  And I'm willing to allow the the right to refuse service to same sex couples because of their religious beliefs.  But they should be required to put up a large sign on the front door of the shop stating this very clearly so that EVERYONE will know before entering the shop.  Let's see how his religious beliefs stand up to only catering to the narrow minded clientele.


The only trouble is, real life isn't a neat little morality play where everything works out like that, not least of which because there's a not-insignificant proportion of the population that agrees with people like this. They may not be a majority, but they tend to be obnoxiously driven when it comes to making political statements and some of them do have a lot of money.

Remember that when this kind of thing was being done on the basis of race, businesses were often very up-front about it (many of them proudly advertised their policies), and enough of them were able to go on resisting bankruptcy long enough that actual laws had to be passed to put an end to it.
 
2013-02-02 04:08:55 PM  

foreman3: PsiChick: foreman3: PsiChick: foreman3: You are born shirtless
You may be inclined to homosexuality, but your not a homosexual until you choose to have homo-sex

So your argument here is that it's perfectly all right to punish people for having the only type of relationship they are biologically hardwired to have?

There's a difference between not providing a non-vital service for someone and punishing them.
Your argument could be restated as "It's perfectly all right to force a baker to violate his conscience if the cause is popular"

So why is the baker refusing to provide them a cake?

Because it violates his conscience.  By providing a service, he's supporting there wedding, which he believes he is not supposed to do.

In fact, this highlights what's so egregious with this type of protected class.  They obviously have other choices of bakery, but he MUST bake them a cake.  That doesn't seem right.


True, they could just report this to the media and watch all the bad press roll in to that bakery.
 
2013-02-02 04:16:23 PM  

Z-clipped: take_flight: I guess my argument is who's rights are more important. The baker's right to practice his religion or the women's right to get a cake?

You're confusing belief with behavior.  The women have a right not to be discriminated against by a public accommodation for their sexual preference.  The baker has the right to practice his religion, and to believe whatever he likes.  But the "practice of religion" does not encompass any and all behaviors under the sun.  Praying is a religious practice.  Receiving the holy communion is a religious practice.  Keeping kosher is a religious practice.

Refusing service to black people as a public accommodation is not, by any means, a religious practice.


Were these people black? Because I was under the impression that he refused service because they were a same sex couple because it's against his religious belief. They can still buy a cake, just not from him. Just as I said in my previous account of when I was quoted an inflated price from an auto parts store because I am female, I still was able to buy a window, I just chose not to buy the window from them. Why is this cake so important? Because of the principal? Wouldn't they rather just get married and have a happy life? I believe whole-heartedly that years down the road they would laugh about this and then share photos of their reception with a cake from a more understanding baker.
 
2013-02-02 04:18:01 PM  

foreman3: PsiChick: foreman3: PsiChick: foreman3: You are born shirtless
You may be inclined to homosexuality, but your not a homosexual until you choose to have homo-sex

So your argument here is that it's perfectly all right to punish people for having the only type of relationship they are biologically hardwired to have?

There's a difference between not providing a non-vital service for someone and punishing them.
Your argument could be restated as "It's perfectly all right to force a baker to violate his conscience if the cause is popular"

So why is the baker refusing to provide them a cake?

Because it violates his conscience.  By providing a service, he's supporting there wedding, which he believes he is not supposed to do.

In fact, this highlights what's so egregious with this type of protected class.  They obviously have other choices of bakery, but he MUST bake them a cake.  That doesn't seem right.


Oh, no one's saying he MUST bake them a cake--they're saying he broke the law. I'm quite sure that he's not only lost that couple's business, but the business of a good portion of his clientele.

However, exchanging goods for money does not commonly count as support. For example, Wal*Mart does not personally endorse your lifestyle, although you probably bought groceries at Wal*Mart at some point. So this baker broke the law to avoid...what, again?

Biological Ali: PsiChick: B) Your examples? Are chosen. You choose to be drunk, shirtless, rude, or even Republican. You do not choose to be gay. Our society finds it immoral to punish people for factors beyond their control. That's why African-Americans have equal rights.

Not quite. I'm pretty sure businesses in the US can't discriminate on the basis of religion, for instance, and that's definitely not something beyond their control.


That's a different principle behind it, though--the 'no discrimination so we don't devolve into a holy war' one. :p
 
2013-02-02 04:18:30 PM  

Biological Ali: OgreMagi: I'm willing to accept that some people's religious beliefs would come in conflict with what is become normal acceptable behavior.  And I'm willing to allow the the right to refuse service to same sex couples because of their religious beliefs.  But they should be required to put up a large sign on the front door of the shop stating this very clearly so that EVERYONE will know before entering the shop.  Let's see how his religious beliefs stand up to only catering to the narrow minded clientele.

The only trouble is, real life isn't a neat little morality play where everything works out like that, not least of which because there's a not-insignificant proportion of the population that agrees with people like this. They may not be a majority, but they tend to be obnoxiously driven when it comes to making political statements and some of them do have a lot of money.

Remember that when this kind of thing was being done on the basis of race, businesses were often very up-front about it (many of them proudly advertised their policies), and enough of them were able to go on resisting bankruptcy long enough that actual laws had to be passed to put an end to it.


It's in Oregon, so my suggestion would probably work rather well.  It wouldn't work in Independence Kansas for obvious reasons.
 
2013-02-02 04:23:16 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Keizer_Ghidorah: shotglasss: jso2897: shotglasss: Like the sign says, "We have the right to refuse service to anyone".

He refused service based on religious beliefs. Now you libs want the state to attack him and his business for that religious belief? What ever happened to the separation of church and state?

Whatever happened to the "conservative" viewpoint that lawbreaking should be prosecuted? Just think of him as an illegal alien - you know, a person who is breaking the law. Then you'll feel better.

Why do I have to pretend he's something other than a guy trying to make a living and honor his God? You want to turn him into something he's not for what reason?

And if you don't like the way he runs his business, go somewhere else.

Yes, I'm sure God is "honored" by his supposed followers blatantly disobeying his commandments. "Love thy neighbor as thyself"? "What you do to the least of your brothers, you do unto me"? Fark that noise, according to people like you and him God is a raging ball of hatred, especially towards people who love others that happen to have the same gonads. This supposedly all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving deity seems to be pretty powerless to fix the supposed "problem" of homosexuality and to reprimand his followers for their hypocritical idiocy.

Also, he was breaking Oregon law. You do care about upholding the law, right?

He's also violating Leviticus (the same book with all the gay stuff) by having a tattoo.

He might as well have "hypocrite" tattooed all over his face.


Fine he is a hypocrite, he has a right to be one.
 
2013-02-02 04:26:15 PM  

OgreMagi: It's in Oregon, so my suggestion would probably work rather well. It wouldn't work in Independence Kansas for obvious reasons.


That's not a very sound basis for law, though. There's a reason the anti-discrimination portions of the Civil Rights Act (which will eventually cover sexual orientation as well) don't have a "This section is not applicable in places where we think good people will drive the racists out of business on their own" clause.
 
2013-02-02 04:29:30 PM  

PsiChick: foreman3: PsiChick: foreman3: PsiChick: foreman3: You are born shirtless
You may be inclined to homosexuality, but your not a homosexual until you choose to have homo-sex

So your argument here is that it's perfectly all right to punish people for having the only type of relationship they are biologically hardwired to have?

There's a difference between not providing a non-vital service for someone and punishing them.
Your argument could be restated as "It's perfectly all right to force a baker to violate his conscience if the cause is popular"

So why is the baker refusing to provide them a cake?

Because it violates his conscience.  By providing a service, he's supporting there wedding, which he believes he is not supposed to do.

In fact, this highlights what's so egregious with this type of protected class.  They obviously have other choices of bakery, but he MUST bake them a cake.  That doesn't seem right.

Oh, no one's saying he MUST bake them a cake--they're saying he broke the law. I'm quite sure that he's not only lost that couple's business, but the business of a good portion of his clientele.

However, exchanging goods for money does not commonly count as support. For example, Wal*Mart does not personally endorse your lifestyle, although you probably bought groceries at Wal*Mart at some point. So this baker broke the law to avoid...what, again?


We're at an impasse as we disagree on reality.
You're saying he's not forced to bake a cake, but the law he's violating is exactly that: "He MUST bake cakes for same sex couples that asks for one, or he will be punished"

Secondly, yes, Wal*Mart does support your lifestyle.  In fact that's their mission statement:  "We save people money so they can live better."

Support-wise it's analogous to musican asking their song NOT be played by certain politicians.  The presence of their work can be taken as tacit support.
 
2013-02-02 04:33:23 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Keizer_Ghidorah: shotglasss: jso2897: shotglasss: Like the sign says, "We have the right to refuse service to anyone".

He refused service based on religious beliefs. Now you libs want the state to attack him and his business for that religious belief? What ever happened to the separation of church and state?

Whatever happened to the "conservative" viewpoint that lawbreaking should be prosecuted? Just think of him as an illegal alien - you know, a person who is breaking the law. Then you'll feel better.

Why do I have to pretend he's something other than a guy trying to make a living and honor his God? You want to turn him into something he's not for what reason?

And if you don't like the way he runs his business, go somewhere else.

Yes, I'm sure God is "honored" by his supposed followers blatantly disobeying his commandments. "Love thy neighbor as thyself"? "What you do to the least of your brothers, you do unto me"? Fark that noise, according to people like you and him God is a raging ball of hatred, especially towards people who love others that happen to have the same gonads. This supposedly all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving deity seems to be pretty powerless to fix the supposed "problem" of homosexuality and to reprimand his followers for their hypocritical idiocy.

Also, he was breaking Oregon law. You do care about upholding the law, right?

He's also violating Leviticus (the same book with all the gay stuff) by having a tattoo.

He might as well have "hypocrite" tattooed all over his face.


If only God would put that word on all of their foreheads, in glowing red letters.

Also: "We hold these truths to be self-evident that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL".

So not only are these people going against what their almighty God says, they're going against what the United States of America was founded upon. Two, two, TWO hypocriticals in one!

/many other countries treat gays equally, none of them have been have been roasted by holy fire or collapsed in homo anarchy
//explain that, you bigoted wastes of oxygen
 
2013-02-02 04:37:29 PM  

hasty ambush: Mrtraveler01: Keizer_Ghidorah: shotglasss: jso2897: shotglasss: Like the sign says, "We have the right to refuse service to anyone".

He refused service based on religious beliefs. Now you libs want the state to attack him and his business for that religious belief? What ever happened to the separation of church and state?

Whatever happened to the "conservative" viewpoint that lawbreaking should be prosecuted? Just think of him as an illegal alien - you know, a person who is breaking the law. Then you'll feel better.

Why do I have to pretend he's something other than a guy trying to make a living and honor his God? You want to turn him into something he's not for what reason?

And if you don't like the way he runs his business, go somewhere else.

Yes, I'm sure God is "honored" by his supposed followers blatantly disobeying his commandments. "Love thy neighbor as thyself"? "What you do to the least of your brothers, you do unto me"? Fark that noise, according to people like you and him God is a raging ball of hatred, especially towards people who love others that happen to have the same gonads. This supposedly all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving deity seems to be pretty powerless to fix the supposed "problem" of homosexuality and to reprimand his followers for their hypocritical idiocy.

Also, he was breaking Oregon law. You do care about upholding the law, right?

He's also violating Leviticus (the same book with all the gay stuff) by having a tattoo.

He might as well have "hypocrite" tattooed all over his face.

Fine he is a hypocrite, he has a right to be one.


He can be one all he wants, leave it out of your public business. Also love how you say we should be fine with him slapping his God in the face, doesn't make Christians in general look good.
 
2013-02-02 04:46:08 PM  

WhoopAssWayne: We see liberals fighting to strip basic gun rights out of our constitution, we see them limiting our religious free speech, and of course we see them pushing their immoral values on the right of us. You better believe they are going to be denied jobs, promotions, or in this case service. These dumbasses have somehow convinced themselves that they can do all the damage to society they wish, they can take all the shots they want, and somehow there is this magical shield around them which protects them against any consequences of their actions. They can street-lawyer away and fantasize about that million dollar settlement they'll never receive, but the bottom line is that the rest of us are going to hold you childish little dumbasses accountable for your actions. That resume is going right in the trash, that pink slip will list no real cause, and you can buy your cake elsewhere
.

5/

10 excellent trolling
CTRL + Q to Enable/Disable GoPhoto.it
 
2013-02-02 05:03:02 PM  

foreman3: We're at an impasse as we disagree on reality.
You're saying he's not forced to bake a cake, but the law he's violating is exactly that: "He MUST bake cakes for same sex couples that asks for one, or he will be punished"

Secondly, yes, Wal*Mart does support your lifestyle.  In fact that's their mission statement:  "We save people money so they can live better."

Support-wise it's analogous to musican asking their song NOT be played by certain politicians.  The presence of their work can be taken as tacit support.


Well, yes. You know the phrase 'your right to swing your fist ends at my face'? That's a way of summing up a legal concept: Your rights do not supersede the rights of others. The right of a baker to dislike same-sex marriage does  not trump the right of a gay person to receive the same treatment as a straight person. Again: As a society, we feel that, if you do not choose the trait, you cannot be punished for it. Allowing anyone the privilege of discriminating against a gay person would be a punishment.

And as for Wal*Mart's slogan, really? That's endorsement? So how do you know they aren't saving you money so you can 'live better' by tithing?
 
2013-02-02 05:04:26 PM  

foreman3: Z-clipped: foreman3: You may be inclined to homosexuality, but your not a homosexual until you choose to have homo-sex

LOL
I've got news for you... If you're "inclined to homosexuality", you're gay whether you consummate the relationship or not.

No,
Just like you may be inclined to over-eat, but if you don't you're not fat
Or You may be inclined to be violent, but if you don't act on that inclination, you're not going to jail.


What in the what? If you're only attracted to your own sex, and you don't act on it, you're a abstinent gay person. The "gay" part is the attraction part, not acting on those attractions.

Or are you saying that a 22 year old male virgin who is only attracted to women isn't heterosexual? What is he then?
 
2013-02-02 05:05:17 PM  

Biological Ali: OgreMagi: It's in Oregon, so my suggestion would probably work rather well. It wouldn't work in Independence Kansas for obvious reasons.

That's not a very sound basis for law, though. There's a reason the anti-discrimination portions of the Civil Rights Act (which will eventually cover sexual orientation as well) don't have a "This section is not applicable in places where we think good people will drive the racists out of business on their own" clause.


I agree that eventually sexual orientation will be covered by the Civil Rights Act, but at the moment it does not. That is why I suggested a local ordinance fix that would effectively solve the problem in this particular instance.  It's quick, it's easy, and if the baker truly did stand by his beliefs, he wouldn't have a problem with it (which I actually doubt, but it's fun to fark with douches).
 
2013-02-02 05:15:06 PM  
Baker in question wearing earrings on both ears...hypocritical irony.
 
2013-02-02 05:15:12 PM  

foreman3: Yeah federalism!


so if Oregon decided that race should not be a protected class you'd be ok with it?

Yeah localized racism?
 
2013-02-02 05:27:34 PM  

Bungles: Or are you saying that a 22 year old male virgin who is only attracted to women isn't heterosexual? What is he then?


He does not believe that "gay" is an inherent biological quality.  If he did he wouldn't be making such arguments.
 
2013-02-02 06:05:06 PM  

OgreMagi: I agree that eventually sexual orientation will be covered by the Civil Rights Act, but at the moment it does not. That is why I suggested a local ordinance fix that would effectively solve the problem in this particular instance. It's quick, it's easy, and if the baker truly did stand by his beliefs, he wouldn't have a problem with it (which I actually doubt, but it's fun to fark with douches).


I don't think there's really any point in introducing new requirements that will be made redundant as soon as Federal law is updated to fully acknowledge sexual orientation as a protected class. The current law is the simplest approach - it solves the problem at hand, and in being similar to what will eventually be the law of the country (and what already is the law of the country for other classes), it ensures that there won't be any serious transition issues in that state when Federal anti-discrimination laws finally catch up with the times.
 
2013-02-02 06:06:21 PM  
If anyone cares, here is his Facebook page where he derps on about it.

https://www.facebook.com/aaron.klein.946

/Fark won't let me link it for some reason.
 
2013-02-02 06:09:14 PM  

foreman3: You're probably right. But that's exactly my point on Federalism. Portland and Oregon have their community standards, which this baker may be violating. Most of the conservatives here seem to take offense to the community standards. And that's OK too, they can try to change the law to allow discrimination, but the law was the law at the time.


NO, they can stat the Fark out of Oregon, we don't want their kind here.
 
2013-02-02 06:28:52 PM  
This article/thread has really gotten me thinking. I just took a class on avoiding discrimination in the workplace. Federal law provides protection for 11 specific classes of people, but sexual orientation isn't one of them. That's optionally added on a state-by-state basis. CA has it, and apparently OR does too. (Mississippi, surprise surprise, doesn't add any protected classes to the federal list, so apparently in MS you can legally fire someone explicitly for being a homo. That didn't sound right, but the teacher of this class was an attorney with considerable experience in the field, so ... *shrug*) Anyway...

Certain things seem obvious to me. Gay people ought to have equal opportunity in employment, housing, before the law, and etc. I'd even argue this should extend to marriage. But these things matter, these things are important. Do gay people have an inherent right to have a cake baked for them? It sounds weird to ask that out loud, but really - is the right to a wedding cake a fundamental human right? If I went in to a "gay" bakery and they refused my cake order because I'm a Christian, would I really have a legal case for discrimination? Do Christians have a fundamental right to have cakes baked for them? Even with the situation reversed to my disadvantage, it still sounds trivial and stupid.

/I'd probably just find a different bakery instead of making a big farking deal about it.
//People are insufferable.
 
2013-02-02 06:36:21 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: hasty ambush: Mrtraveler01: Keizer_Ghidorah: shotglasss: jso2897: shotglasss: Like the sign says, "We have the right to refuse service to anyone".

He refused service based on religious beliefs. Now you libs want the state to attack him and his business for that religious belief? What ever happened to the separation of church and state?

Whatever happened to the "conservative" viewpoint that lawbreaking should be prosecuted? Just think of him as an illegal alien - you know, a person who is breaking the law. Then you'll feel better.

Why do I have to pretend he's something other than a guy trying to make a living and honor his God? You want to turn him into something he's not for what reason?

And if you don't like the way he runs his business, go somewhere else.

Yes, I'm sure God is "honored" by his supposed followers blatantly disobeying his commandments. "Love thy neighbor as thyself"? "What you do to the least of your brothers, you do unto me"? Fark that noise, according to people like you and him God is a raging ball of hatred, especially towards people who love others that happen to have the same gonads. This supposedly all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving deity seems to be pretty powerless to fix the supposed "problem" of homosexuality and to reprimand his followers for their hypocritical idiocy.

Also, he was breaking Oregon law. You do care about upholding the law, right?

He's also violating Leviticus (the same book with all the gay stuff) by having a tattoo.

He might as well have "hypocrite" tattooed all over his face.

Fine he is a hypocrite, he has a right to be one.

He can be one all he wants, leave it out of your public business. Also love how you say we should be fine with him slapping his God in the face, doesn't make Christians in general look good.


There are things some gays do that might be considered to reflect poorly on their herd so do we judge them all by the actions of a few?  He is  not in your face.  You are not  forced to listen to him or do business with him.   If the couple involved had not decided to make a big deal of it it would not have much of an audience.  Treat him as you would any business that provided poor service and refuse to patronize him.

Should he be able to force you as a business to provide a service to one of his religion's function's, services, rights, ceremonies or whatever they are called?

What if his church was holding a pro-life demonstration outside Planned Parenthood and you ran a charter bus service. Should he or his church be able to, through the force of a city ordinance, make you provide transportation for his group to and from the protest site?

This is a sword that can cut both ways
 
2013-02-02 06:38:27 PM  

Fuggin Bizzy: This article/thread has really gotten me thinking. I just took a class on avoiding discrimination in the workplace. Federal law provides protection for 11 specific classes of people, but sexual orientation isn't one of them. That's optionally added on a state-by-state basis. CA has it, and apparently OR does too. (Mississippi, surprise surprise, doesn't add any protected classes to the federal list, so apparently in MS you can legally fire someone explicitly for being a homo. That didn't sound right, but the teacher of this class was an attorney with considerable experience in the field, so ... *shrug*) Anyway...

Certain things seem obvious to me. Gay people ought to have equal opportunity in employment, housing, before the law, and etc. I'd even argue this should extend to marriage. But these things matter, these things are important. Do gay people have an inherent right to have a cake baked for them? It sounds weird to ask that out loud, but really - is the right to a wedding cake a fundamental human right? If I went in to a "gay" bakery and they refused my cake order because I'm a Christian, would I really have a legal case for discrimination? Do Christians have a fundamental right to have cakes baked for them? Even with the situation reversed to my disadvantage, it still sounds trivial and stupid.

/I'd probably just find a different bakery instead of making a big farking deal about it.
//People are insufferable.


Yeah, it's not like homosexuals have been demonized, discriminated against, physically assaulted, psychologically assaulted, and murdered for decades. I can't imagine why anyone would be upset about being refused service for the sole reason of loving someone with the same gonads. Why, that's as silly as being refused membership in a children's group for not believing in a deity, or being refused the right to vote for not having a penis, or being refused to be seen as a human being for having a darker shade of skin.
 
2013-02-02 06:39:29 PM  

Fuggin Bizzy: Do gay people have an inherent right to have a cake baked for them?


Do black people have an inherent right to have coffee made for them?
 
2013-02-02 06:43:10 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Yeah, it's not like homosexuals have been demonized, discriminated against, physically assaulted, psychologically assaulted, and murdered for decades.


Are these in the same category as being refused service at a bakery?

Biological Ali: Do black people have an inherent right to have coffee made for them?


Do Christians have a fundamental right to have cakes baked for them?
 
2013-02-02 06:49:15 PM  

Fuggin Bizzy: This article/thread has really gotten me thinking. I just took a class on avoiding discrimination in the workplace. Federal law provides protection for 11 specific classes of people, but sexual orientation isn't one of them. That's optionally added on a state-by-state basis. CA has it, and apparently OR does too. (Mississippi, surprise surprise, doesn't add any protected classes to the federal list, so apparently in MS you can legally fire someone explicitly for being a homo. That didn't sound right, but the teacher of this class was an attorney with considerable experience in the field, so ... *shrug*) Anyway...

Certain things seem obvious to me. Gay people ought to have equal opportunity in employment, housing, before the law, and etc. I'd even argue this should extend to marriage. But these things matter, these things are important. Do gay people have an inherent right to have a cake baked for them? It sounds weird to ask that out loud, but really - is the right to a wedding cake a fundamental human right? If I went in to a "gay" bakery and they refused my cake order because I'm a Christian, would I really have a legal case for discrimination? Do Christians have a fundamental right to have cakes baked for them? Even with the situation reversed to my disadvantage, it still sounds trivial and stupid.

/I'd probably just find a different bakery instead of making a big farking deal about it.
//People are insufferable.


If you think this is really about the right to have a wedding cake then you are a moron.  Sorry.
 
2013-02-02 06:50:17 PM  

hasty ambush: There are things some gays do that might be considered to reflect poorly on their herd so do we judge them all by the actions of a few? He is not in your face. You are not forced to listen to him or do business with him. If the couple involved had not decided to make a big deal of it it would not have much of an audience. Treat him as you would any business that provided poor service and refuse to patronize him.

Should he be able to force you as a business to provide a service to one of his religion's function's, services, rights, ceremonies or whatever they are called?

What if his church was holding a pro-life demonstration outside Planned Parenthood and you ran a charter bus service. Should he or his church be able to, through the force of a city ordinance, make you provide transportation for his group to and from the protest site?

This is a sword that can cut both ways


He wouldn't need to "force" me to do anything, because unlike him I'm not going to be a dipshiat retard. He wants to ride my bus, fine. He wants to buy my hamburgers, fine. He wants to hire one of my prostitutes, fine. Unless he starts preaching at me, my employees, or my other customers in a manner that impedes business or causes a major problem, he's welcome to partake of my services.

Defend him all you want, he's an idiot and an asshole. Doubly so, because he's using his religion, one that explicitly tells its followers to not judge, to love each other, and to be a good person, to lash out at people he dislikes because "My religion as I personally see it says they're icky". Triply so, because he's breaking state law by doing it as well.
 
2013-02-02 06:50:58 PM  

Fuggin Bizzy: Keizer_Ghidorah: Yeah, it's not like homosexuals have been demonized, discriminated against, physically assaulted, psychologically assaulted, and murdered for decades.

Are these in the same category as being refused service at a bakery?

Biological Ali: Do black people have an inherent right to have coffee made for them?

Do Christians have a fundamental right to have cakes baked for them?


This isn't that hard to understand.

Many countries - and within the US - states, have categories that you cannot discriminate against in a business setting, mainly because those categories have been historically, and are still, regularly discriminated against.

If you run a business, you can't not serve a Jew because he is a Jew. If that upsets you, do business elsewhere (I hear Somalia's good).
 
2013-02-02 06:52:01 PM  

Fuggin Bizzy: Keizer_Ghidorah: Yeah, it's not like homosexuals have been demonized, discriminated against, physically assaulted, psychologically assaulted, and murdered for decades.

Are these in the same category as being refused service at a bakery?


When it's because of bigotry and hate, yes. "I'm not serving you because my beliefs say you are horrible filth". Says a lot about this supposed "Christian" and all who think like him, doesn't it.
 
2013-02-02 06:53:45 PM  

Fuggin Bizzy: Biological Ali: Do black people have an inherent right to have coffee made for them?

Do Christians have a fundamental right to have cakes baked for them?


The "right" is that nobody can be denied service at public accommodations on the basis of protected traits that include race, religion, sex and in some states, sexual orientation. I'm not sure what the point of you singling cakes out is, beyond establishing that you think cakes are silly for whatever reason.
 
2013-02-02 07:06:55 PM  
Who cares, homos?  They can go find someone else to make a cake.  It's a free country.
 
2013-02-02 07:11:53 PM  

Biological Ali: Fuggin Bizzy: Biological Ali: Do black people have an inherent right to have coffee made for them?

Do Christians have a fundamental right to have cakes baked for them?

The "right" is that nobody can be denied service at public accommodations on the basis of protected traits that include race, religion, sex and in some states, sexual orientation. I'm not sure what the point of you singling cakes out is, beyond establishing that you think cakes are silly for whatever reason.


If anything, I think it nicely highlights the fact that the American Psychiatric Association shouldn't have given in to pressure from gay groups and removed the mental illness designation for homosexuality in the mid 70's.  Among other issues, you people simply cannot tolerate a world that doesn't embrace everything you do.  The rest of the world doesn't desperately seek such approval, why do you?
 
2013-02-02 07:16:20 PM  

Tommy Moo: Mugato: Tommy Moo: What if a right-winged redneck came into your cake shop and demanded you make him a birthday cake decorated with machine guns and "F*** Mohammad GO USA!!!" written on it? He could sue you for discrimination if you refused to put your craft into that. Art is special like that.

That's the worst analogy I've read today but it's very early.

Why? Because you're a liberal and this guy is a conservative?


No.
 
2013-02-02 07:25:26 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: If anything, I think it nicely highlights the fact that the American Psychiatric Association shouldn't have given in to pressure from gay groups and removed the mental illness designation for homosexuality in the mid 70's. Among other issues, you people simply cannot tolerate a world that doesn't embrace everything you do. The rest of the world doesn't desperately seek such approval, why do you?


Now that's better. You haven't quite reached Mike_LowELL standards just yet, but it's definitely an improvement over our previous efforts in the thread.

I give it 6/10. If you want to improve, you've got to put more feeling into it - these trolls still read like they were thrown together at the last minute by someone on a deadline. And as I've said before, try not responding to specific posters; that just makes you seem desperate for bites. Just make one or two posts that are vague enough that anybody reading the thread would be tempted to respond, and leave it at that.
 
2013-02-02 07:37:37 PM  

Biological Ali: BraveNewCheneyWorld: If anything, I think it nicely highlights the fact that the American Psychiatric Association shouldn't have given in to pressure from gay groups and removed the mental illness designation for homosexuality in the mid 70's. Among other issues, you people simply cannot tolerate a world that doesn't embrace everything you do. The rest of the world doesn't desperately seek such approval, why do you?

Now that's better. You haven't quite reached Mike_LowELL standards just yet, but it's definitely an improvement over our previous efforts in the thread.

I give it 6/10. If you want to improve, you've got to put more feeling into it - these trolls still read like they were thrown together at the last minute by someone on a deadline. And as I've said before, try not responding to specific posters; that just makes you seem desperate for bites. Just make one or two posts that are vague enough that anybody reading the thread would be tempted to respond, and leave it at that.


Yep, keep avoiding the facts, cover your ears and yell troll all day long.  It's your standby whenever you need to avoid unpleasant truths.  You know who else relies on bizarre crutches to avoid facing reality?  Mentally ill people.
 
2013-02-02 08:06:00 PM  
BraveNewCheneyWorld

Look, I see what you're trying to do. When you say absurd stuff like "The rest of the world doesn't desperately seek such approval, why do you?", you're evoking bigoted arguments that hold gay people to be uniquely bad for wanting the same kind of equality and respect that black people sought in the 60 - arguments that even mainstream conservatives stopped making decades ago. And when you claim that gay people are crazy as a result of that perceived uppity-ness, the implication is that black people are also mentally ill too for valuing those very things. This leaves the reader to wonder whether the speaker is actually racist, or merely too stupid to see the logical implications of his own argument.

It's classic material and, at least in theory, can be the basis of a very engaging shtick. The only problem is, your delivery is incredibly indecisive. It's like you're not sure whether you want to do a thoughtful satirical critique of social conservatism, or whether you simply want to get a rise out of people to the point where they respond. You veer between approaches with no sense of direction - each of your posts bears little to no narrative connection with the one that preceded it. There's no overall arc, no subplots, and for the sheer number of comments you make, there's never any sense that there's some specific thing you want to convey (beyond your half-hearted impression of a simpleton can't comprehend analogies and other matters of basic logic - something that gets old fairly quickly).

Don't get me wrong; I don't enjoy being this harsh because I can tell you put a lot of time and effort into this craft, but at the same time I'd be doing you an immense disservice if I didn't offer an honest evaluation of your work. I can only hope that you at the very least keep it in mind as you continue with future efforts.
 
2013-02-02 08:06:13 PM  
I hope this guy isn't a hypocrite and is totally ok with devout Muslims working in grocery stores refusing to handle pork products.
 
2013-02-02 08:07:14 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: When it's because of bigotry and hate, yes.


Being refused service at a bakery is in the same category as physical assault and murder?