Do you have adblock enabled?
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 100
    More: Asinine, public accommodations, KATU, Oregon Attorney General, First Amendment, refuses  
•       •       •

11871 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Feb 2013 at 7:46 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-02-02 07:48:53 AM  
9 votes:
Go
To
A
Different
Bakery
2013-02-02 07:50:46 AM  
5 votes:

SpdrJay: Go
To
A
Different
Bakery


Your previous incarnation told Rosa Parks to walk.
2013-02-02 08:52:30 AM  
4 votes:

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 08:08:02 AM  
4 votes:
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 07:55:03 AM  
4 votes:
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 07:51:38 AM  
4 votes:
With all the evil in this world, why get so hung up over people who just want to love someone. Geesh
2013-02-02 08:29:38 AM  
3 votes:

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 08:18:00 AM  
3 votes:

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 08:17:31 AM  
3 votes:

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 08:14:24 AM  
3 votes:

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 08:10:42 AM  
3 votes:

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 08:07:04 AM  
3 votes:

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 08:06:58 AM  
3 votes:
Pulling that shiat in Portland, Oregon is a bad move.  He'll be out of business by summer.
2013-02-02 08:01:16 AM  
3 votes:

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 08:00:28 AM  
3 votes:
He has ear rings. A man with ear rings! That would have gotten him refused service thirty years ago.
2013-02-02 07:57:42 AM  
3 votes:

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 07:49:50 AM  
3 votes:
Whether he broke any laws or not, I thnk we can safely agree he's gigantic douchebag.
2013-02-02 09:28:50 AM  
2 votes:

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 09:07:05 AM  
2 votes:

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 08:56:57 AM  
2 votes:
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 08:54:15 AM  
2 votes:

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 08:50:41 AM  
2 votes:

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 08:45:11 AM  
2 votes:

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 08:44:21 AM  
2 votes:
He's just angling to get his own cake-baking reality show on the Glenn Beck Network: "White Flour"
2013-02-02 08:36:11 AM  
2 votes:

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 08:31:31 AM  
2 votes:
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 08:29:24 AM  
2 votes:

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 08:26:10 AM  
2 votes:
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 08:26:08 AM  
2 votes:
He's not one bit pretentious.

This is a non-story. He can refuse service to anyone he wants.
2013-02-02 08:22:05 AM  
2 votes:
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 08:16:22 AM  
2 votes:
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 08:12:33 AM  
2 votes:
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 08:11:49 AM  
2 votes:
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 08:04:19 AM  
2 votes:

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 08:03:43 AM  
2 votes:

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 07:58:29 AM  
2 votes:

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 07:49:36 AM  
2 votes:
There are straight people working in the wedding business?
2013-02-03 11:52:04 AM  
1 votes:

take_flight: See, now this is where the whole thing gets a little iffy. I agree 100% that you can not just do whatever you want and file it under "practicing religion", but there is a difference in that if he can prove that his personal religion teaches that homosexuality is "bad".


It's not iffy at all.  The point is, no matter what he believes about the morality of being gay (or black, or female, or whatever), arbitrarily excluding those people from his business based on who they areis not a legally acceptable expression of his beliefs.   It doesn't matter whether his beliefs are a legitimate tenet of his religion or not.  "Doing business" and "practicing religion" are simply not the same activity under the law.  They are subject to different rules in our society.  That's the way it is, and it has been that way for over 50 years now.  Deal with it.  It's not going to change.

take_flight: I am in no way saying that I agree with the bakers view, just that if he is sincerely practicing a religious belief is it appropriate for Oregon to extend that to his business.


I disagree.  And so has the SCOTUS ever since the Civil Rights Act was passed.

take_flight: It just seems as though if these women want their rights and beliefs respected, they should respect the rights and beliefs of others, no matter how asinine those beliefs may be as long as no one is being physically injured.


Their belief is that they are as deserving of respect and dignity as anyone else.  His belief is that they are not.  Sorry, but only one of those beliefs is deserving of respect.

take_flight: Basically they got their feelings hurt.


You're welcome to make this reductionist argument all you like.  Just don't expect to ever get anywhere with it.

take_flight: as long as no one is being physically injured.


So, physical injury is the only acceptable metric for equal rights?  Requiring black children to go to separate "black" schools didn't cause them any physical injury... you OK with that practice?

Listen, couching these positions in language that is soft and innocuous doesn't change the fact that they are bigoted, anti-social and wrong.  Making light of this particular circumstance because of the nature of the business in question is a red herring that has far-reaching negative consequences for society.  Maybe you aren't adroit enough to see them, but luckily, we have smarter people with more perspective to interpret the law and the constitution available.  People have the right to equal treatment in places of public accommodation.  That's it.  It's already been decided.  There's no discussion to be had about whether that's the case.   You may as well be arguing that the moon should be made of cheese.

take_flight: Hence my opinion that they are causing unnecessary emotional stress on themselves by making a national issue...or spectacle...based on the principle.

Basically they got their feelings hurt. Suck it up. They're getting married, it's time to put on the big girl pants


Except that the principle (Civil Rights) is more than important enough to fight, (and even die) for.  Who the fark are you to tell these women to "grow up"?  50 years of law and social agency is on their side.  How about if we let the bigoted asshole who thinks it's still 1955 do the growing up?  This behavior hasn't been acceptable since before you and he were born.  If he wants to run a business in Oregon, he's subject to the laws that govern public accommodations.  You open your business to the public, you have to deal with the public.  Gay people are part of the public.  Don't like it?  Don't open a business.

You think this guy should be allowed to discriminate?  Fine.  You're free to hold that opinion, and the rest of us are free to think of you as being either stupid, or a bigot, or both.
2013-02-02 11:07:22 PM  
1 votes:

octopied: Don't most businesses have the right to refuse service on their own terms?


Unilaterally?  No. They don't.  Not since the 1960s.

octopied: I thought they did.


Well, you were wrong.
2013-02-02 09:18:44 PM  
1 votes:

Fuggin Bizzy: If a Christian were refused service at a "gay" bakery because he was a Christian, would anyone give a shiat? (What's a "gay" bakery? I don't really know. That's why it's in quotes. Just pretend the roles in the story were reversed. Would you still feel the same way about it?)


That would also be against the law.
2013-02-02 08:18:03 PM  
1 votes:

Keizer_Ghidorah: Defend him all you want, he's an idiot and an asshole.


Once again it is his right to be an idiot and an asshole. It comes under the heading of disagreeing with what he says but defending his right to say it.
2013-02-02 06:36:21 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:05:06 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:23:16 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:04:41 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:25:43 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:32:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:03:25 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:42:15 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:38:05 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:16:07 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:33:50 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:28:38 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:26:43 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:53:03 AM  
1 votes:
Spooky old book of myths dictates actions of someone devoid of critical thinking.
Film at 11.
2013-02-02 10:43:18 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:37:36 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:20:40 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:17:41 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:56:53 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:47:06 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:45:04 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:38:11 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:32:56 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:23:48 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:20:44 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:20:39 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:19:27 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:18:30 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:16:01 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:13:28 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:12:23 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:02:48 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:00:59 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:58:45 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:50:25 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:49:45 AM  
1 votes:
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 08:48:05 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:44:02 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:40:56 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:36:14 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:34:50 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:34:43 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:31:51 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:30:51 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:30:25 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:29:09 AM  
1 votes:
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 08:27:05 AM  
1 votes:
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 08:24:54 AM  
1 votes:
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 08:24:09 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:21:52 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:19:51 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:16:17 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:16:03 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:13:23 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:07:07 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:05:08 AM  
1 votes:
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 08:03:05 AM  
1 votes:

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 07:56:05 AM  
1 votes:

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 06:50:56 AM  
1 votes:

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"
 
Displayed 100 of 100 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report