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  
•       •       •

11863 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 541 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report