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.

(Opposing Views)   Baker who refused to make a cake for same sex couple says he prefers gay sex without the commitment   (opposingviews.com) divider line 314
    More: Dumbass, Fox News, gay sex  
•       •       •

1172 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Dec 2013 at 9:06 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-11 10:01:36 AM  

Zasteva: There's a very simple solution.

He can simply subcontract a different cake shop to make the cake, have it delivered to his shop, and call them to pick it up. He might not make any money, but they'll have their cake from his shop and he won't have had to violate his principles by making it.

This will only be a problem if his objection is to them being able to get a wedding cake at all, rather than one of him personally having to make it.


Or they could simply call another cake shop. this is 2013. I bet I could find 20 place that make cakes within 10 minutes of here.
 
2013-12-11 10:02:58 AM  

EWreckedSean: give me doughnuts: EWreckedSean: give me doughnuts: EWreckedSean: The guy is a moron. That said, go to another cake shop. The idea that a judge can force a private business owner to perform services against his own, warped as they may be, morals is ridiculous in a free country.


Yeah, how dare they force business owners to serve Jews and African-Americans as if they were as good as regular people.

Honestly, in this day and age, I think such protections are archaic and shouldn't be provided. If you are a bigot and don't want to serve Jews and African Americans, so be it. It is your private business. I will happily let everybody know you are a racist and take my business elsewhere. I understand there was a time and some places especially in the deep south where such protections where necessary, but that day is gone, and we should balance the business owners rights versus the customers.


It's pretty obvious that those days aren't over, or else what is this story about?

Those days are over in that this isn't the old south anymore. Access to goods and services is universally more accessible now. And this attitude is no longer generally excepted by any but the more extreme elements of society. the correct answer here is for this gay couple to not do business with this guy any more, let their friends know he is unfriendly to the gay community, and let his business suffer the consequences. Not threaten somebody with jail because they won't make a cake that goes against their religous beliefs (no matter how stupid you or I may think they are).


It's frankly overstated how necessary it even was to end the bad pratices in the Old South. People forget Jim Crow was not some organic bottom-up social movement- it was imposed by state laws that came about specifically because private businesses didn't want to subordinate their profits and/or principles to the whims of racist polticians. In Plessey v Ferguson- the case that infamously established the "seperate but equal" test- the private railroad company was actually on the side of Homer Plessey, the black man, against the state of Louisiana, which was mandating segregation that neither the customers nor the railroad wanted. That sort of story-private business vs. state segregation- was a lot more common than Heart of Atlanta would make you think. The idea that Jim Crow would have long persisted without the laws mandating it is a myth.
 
2013-12-11 10:03:08 AM  

wrs1864: EWreckedSean: Honestly, in this day and age, I think such protections are archaic and shouldn't be provided. If you are a bigot and don't want to serve Jews and African Americans, so be it. It is your private business.

Any business owner can do that right now, all they have to do is not open their business to the public.   Private clubs are exempt from lots of discrimination laws, food safety laws, smoking laws, etc.   Once you open your doors to the public, however, things change.   You can't have your cake and eat it too.


I'm curious, would you be ok with a bar refusing to serve a pregnant woman a drink?
 
2013-12-11 10:03:37 AM  

EWreckedSean: Koalaesq: EWreckedSean: The guy is a moron. That said, go to another cake shop. The idea that a judge can force a private business owner to perform services against his own, warped as they may be, morals is ridiculous in a free country.

Supreme Court has been issuing opinions to the contrary for decades.

/on phone, cant linky to cites

While that is a little bit different conversation, the court really hasn't ruled that way so much when it is a religious objection to serving someone, and also I don't think the Civil Rights Act covers sexual orientation.


Absolutely they have. Recall that the Klan asserts itself as a religion. - a Christian one, at that - based on the Bible's prohibition against race-mixing. Lots of people asserted a "religious right" to discriminate after various local, state, and national ordinances were passed, including the Civil Rights Act. Such objections went nowhere.

After all, if one could exempt oneself from such laws simply by claiming religion, what laws couldn't you exempt yourself from? Should someone be able to kill any endangered species because Genesis says that the birds and beasts are for Man's use? If refused a mining permit should someone begin to mine because the land was given for Man's use? How about the beheading of a wife for adultery? Sorry, can't arrest me, my religion says it's OK. Paying taxes? My religion says no, sorry government!

I realize some of those are a bit over-the-top, but if the state has passed a law through the legitimate political process that says as a requirement for a public business license you agree not to discriminate, then by accepting the license you agree to those terms. You are always free to refuse the license terms and shut down.
 
2013-12-11 10:05:18 AM  

Epic Fap Session: How does this violate his religion?  He has been very clear that the government has compelled him to comply and he in no way condones same sex marriage.

Also, which verse in the Bible outlaws same sex marriage?


Religion =! strict adherence to only the explicit guidelines established in an ancient text, or even strict adherence to the tenets of a particular denomination. Freedom of religion is the ability to comport yourself in a manner consistent with your metaphysical views of the world, whatever they may be.

That said, this whole "freedom of religion is mentioned first in the Bill of Rights, therefore it is the most significant right and supersedes all other rights when they come into conflict" is absolute hogwash. There is established legal precedence that if you want to enter the public sphere to do business you are required to be willing to provide your services to all comers unless you can prove there is a compelling interest to discriminate. The purchase of baked goods has nothing to do with a person's sexual preference, and selling of a cake has no moral relevance to the event the cake is being used for. Are prison cooks making a value judgment in favor of murderers if they accept payment for the preparation of food for serial killers?

As someone mentioned above, you can't just say "sorry, but my religious convictions say I should discriminate against the children of Ham" and get out of treating black customers the same as white ones.
 
2013-12-11 10:06:52 AM  

EWreckedSean: give me doughnuts: EWreckedSean: give me doughnuts: EWreckedSean: The guy is a moron. That said, go to another cake shop. The idea that a judge can force a private business owner to perform services against his own, warped as they may be, morals is ridiculous in a free country.


Yeah, how dare they force business owners to serve Jews and African-Americans as if they were as good as regular people.

Honestly, in this day and age, I think such protections are archaic and shouldn't be provided. If you are a bigot and don't want to serve Jews and African Americans, so be it. It is your private business. I will happily let everybody know you are a racist and take my business elsewhere. I understand there was a time and some places especially in the deep south where such protections where necessary, but that day is gone, and we should balance the business owners rights versus the customers.


It's pretty obvious that those days aren't over, or else what is this story about?

Those days are over in that this isn't the old south anymore. Access to goods and services is universally more accessible now. And this attitude is no longer generally excepted by any but the more extreme elements of society. the correct answer here is for this gay couple to not do business with this guy any more, let their friends know he is unfriendly to the gay community, and let his business suffer the consequences. Not threaten somebody with jail because they won't make a cake that goes against their religous beliefs (no matter how stupid you or I may think they are).


And we've entered a post racial world now that we've elected a black president, right?
 
2013-12-11 10:08:29 AM  

G. Tarrant: EWreckedSean: Koalaesq: EWreckedSean: The guy is a moron. That said, go to another cake shop. The idea that a judge can force a private business owner to perform services against his own, warped as they may be, morals is ridiculous in a free country.

Supreme Court has been issuing opinions to the contrary for decades.

/on phone, cant linky to cites

While that is a little bit different conversation, the court really hasn't ruled that way so much when it is a religious objection to serving someone, and also I don't think the Civil Rights Act covers sexual orientation.

Absolutely they have. Recall that the Klan asserts itself as a religion. - a Christian one, at that - based on the Bible's prohibition against race-mixing. Lots of people asserted a "religious right" to discriminate after various local, state, and national ordinances were passed, including the Civil Rights Act. Such objections went nowhere.

After all, if one could exempt oneself from such laws simply by claiming religion, what laws couldn't you exempt yourself from? Should someone be able to kill any endangered species because Genesis says that the birds and beasts are for Man's use? If refused a mining permit should someone begin to mine because the land was given for Man's use? How about the beheading of a wife for adultery? Sorry, can't arrest me, my religion says it's OK. Paying taxes? My religion says no, sorry government!

I realize some of those are a bit over-the-top, but if the state has passed a law through the legitimate political process that says as a requirement for a public business license you agree not to discriminate, then by accepting the license you agree to those terms. You are always free to refuse the license terms and shut down.


It was for exactly this reason that the Supreme Court reversed itself and started saying that religious exemptions are never constiutionally mandated. Sadly, Congress and the states flipped out at this and so imposed a similar statutory requirement under RFRA. That's why the Hobby Lobby case didn't actually involve the 1st Amendment.
 
2013-12-11 10:09:03 AM  

EWreckedSean: Zasteva: There's a very simple solution.

He can simply subcontract a different cake shop to make the cake, have it delivered to his shop, and call them to pick it up. He might not make any money, but they'll have their cake from his shop and he won't have had to violate his principles by making it.

This will only be a problem if his objection is to them being able to get a wedding cake at all, rather than one of him personally having to make it.

Or they could simply call another cake shop. this is 2013. I bet I could find 20 place that make cakes within 10 minutes of here.


Yeah, why should they be bothering a Job CreatorTM (TCBUTT) with talk of their civil rights and equal service.
 
2013-12-11 10:09:43 AM  

pueblonative: And we've entered a post racial world now that we've elected a black president, right?


Post racial, no. Racism being the prominent attitude, I think we are clearly past it. That really isn't the point though. Somewhere you have to weigh the rights of a person to make decisions for their own property against the rights of others to be served. Honestly the metric probably should be is someone being denied access to essential goods and services.
 
2013-12-11 10:10:59 AM  

pueblonative: EWreckedSean: Zasteva: There's a very simple solution.

He can simply subcontract a different cake shop to make the cake, have it delivered to his shop, and call them to pick it up. He might not make any money, but they'll have their cake from his shop and he won't have had to violate his principles by making it.

This will only be a problem if his objection is to them being able to get a wedding cake at all, rather than one of him personally having to make it.

Or they could simply call another cake shop. this is 2013. I bet I could find 20 place that make cakes within 10 minutes of here.

Yeah, why should they be bothering a Job CreatorTM (TCBUTT) with talk of their civil rights and equal service.


Were they denied access to any essential goods or services? Or were they butthurt that somebody doesn't agree with their lifestyle?
 
2013-12-11 10:13:38 AM  
I have no problem with the guy declining the business.  I also have no problem with everyone in the world knowing he's a douchebag and finding other places to shop for cakes.
 
2013-12-11 10:13:51 AM  

EWreckedSean: pueblonative: EWreckedSean: Zasteva: There's a very simple solution.

He can simply subcontract a different cake shop to make the cake, have it delivered to his shop, and call them to pick it up. He might not make any money, but they'll have their cake from his shop and he won't have had to violate his principles by making it.

This will only be a problem if his objection is to them being able to get a wedding cake at all, rather than one of him personally having to make it.

Or they could simply call another cake shop. this is 2013. I bet I could find 20 place that make cakes within 10 minutes of here.

Yeah, why should they be bothering a Job CreatorTM (TCBUTT) with talk of their civil rights and equal service.

Were they denied access to any essential goods or services? Or were they butthurt that somebody doesn't agree with their lifestyle?


Read the statute for yourself.  Now,hit Ctrl+F and type "essential".  Now tell us what you find.
 
2013-12-11 10:17:08 AM  

pueblonative: EWreckedSean: pueblonative: EWreckedSean: Zasteva: There's a very simple solution.

He can simply subcontract a different cake shop to make the cake, have it delivered to his shop, and call them to pick it up. He might not make any money, but they'll have their cake from his shop and he won't have had to violate his principles by making it.

This will only be a problem if his objection is to them being able to get a wedding cake at all, rather than one of him personally having to make it.

Or they could simply call another cake shop. this is 2013. I bet I could find 20 place that make cakes within 10 minutes of here.

Yeah, why should they be bothering a Job CreatorTM (TCBUTT) with talk of their civil rights and equal service.

Were they denied access to any essential goods or services? Or were they butthurt that somebody doesn't agree with their lifestyle?

Read the statute for yourself.  Now,hit Ctrl+F and type "essential".  Now tell us what you find.


Oh I believe you that some law is in place. I was discussing what is correct. For the sake of fairness to customers we've abandoned fairness to property owners to make their own decisions about their privately owned assets. Frankly it has gone too far. As I have said, the metric really should be if somebody is being denied access to essential goods and services.
 
2013-12-11 10:24:23 AM  

EWreckedSean: Not threaten somebody with jail


The only person who said anything about jail was a moron Fox and Friends person.  Nobody with a brain or any kind of authority is saying ANYTHING about jail.
 
2013-12-11 10:25:10 AM  

EWreckedSean: give me doughnuts: EWreckedSean: The guy is a moron. That said, go to another cake shop. The idea that a judge can force a private business owner to perform services against his own, warped as they may be, morals is ridiculous in a free country.


Yeah, how dare they force business owners to serve Jews and African-Americans as if they were as good as regular people.

Honestly, in this day and age, I think such protections are archaic and shouldn't be provided. If you are a bigot and don't want to serve Jews and African Americans, so be it. It is your private business. I will happily let everybody know you are a racist and take my business elsewhere. I understand

there was a time and some places especially in the deep south where such protections where necessary, but that day is gone, and we should balance the business owners rights versus the customers.

My head just asploded.

Someone actually typed that out.

That's enough internet for today, I think.
 
2013-12-11 10:29:06 AM  

HMS_Blinkin: EWreckedSean: Not threaten somebody with jail

The only person who said anything about jail was a moron Fox and Friends person.  Nobody with a brain or any kind of authority is saying ANYTHING about jail.


The jail option has been discussed quite thoroughly in this thread. I'd suggesting reading up.
 
2013-12-11 10:30:44 AM  

EWreckedSean: pueblonative: EWreckedSean: pueblonative: EWreckedSean: Zasteva: There's a very simple solution.

He can simply subcontract a different cake shop to make the cake, have it delivered to his shop, and call them to pick it up. He might not make any money, but they'll have their cake from his shop and he won't have had to violate his principles by making it.

This will only be a problem if his objection is to them being able to get a wedding cake at all, rather than one of him personally having to make it.

Or they could simply call another cake shop. this is 2013. I bet I could find 20 place that make cakes within 10 minutes of here.

Yeah, why should they be bothering a Job CreatorTM (TCBUTT) with talk of their civil rights and equal service.

Were they denied access to any essential goods or services? Or were they butthurt that somebody doesn't agree with their lifestyle?

Read the statute for yourself.  Now,hit Ctrl+F and type "essential".  Now tell us what you find.

Oh I believe you that some law is in place. I was discussing what is correct. For the sake of fairness to customers we've abandoned fairness to property owners to make their own decisions about their privately owned assets. Frankly it has gone too far. As I have said, the metric really should be if somebody is being denied access to essential goods and services.


So now some people are only entitled to "essential" goods and services in your world.  That must be real nice.  Sorry that society's civil rights inconvenience you and this bigot, but adding the qualifier "essential" to civil rights would pretty much destroy any notion of equality in our society.  Everybody down the line could argue that their goods and services weren't "essential" and that the aggrieved parties could find them somewhere else.  That's why that isn't in the CRA.  It's for all public accommodations; you want to open your business to the public, you have to accept anybody that's willing to pay.

This guy has multiple options other than not being a dick and complying with the law. He can close his business to the public and operate by referral only.  As somebody mentioned he can subcontract another bakery for his orders by same sex couples.  And if he's that offended, he can always get out and find another job.  His job choice isn't that essential when you get right down to it.
 
2013-12-11 10:31:16 AM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: EWreckedSean: give me doughnuts: EWreckedSean: The guy is a moron. That said, go to another cake shop. The idea that a judge can force a private business owner to perform services against his own, warped as they may be, morals is ridiculous in a free country.


Yeah, how dare they force business owners to serve Jews and African-Americans as if they were as good as regular people.

Honestly, in this day and age, I think such protections are archaic and shouldn't be provided. If you are a bigot and don't want to serve Jews and African Americans, so be it. It is your private business. I will happily let everybody know you are a racist and take my business elsewhere. I understand there was a time and some places especially in the deep south where such protections where necessary, but that day is gone, and we should balance the business owners rights versus the customers.

My head just asploded.

Someone actually typed that out.

That's enough internet for today, I think.


That's right, because down here in the south we are all still stuck in 1950. We sure can't wait until we get the freedom to start sending people to the back of the bus again. Lol.
 
2013-12-11 10:33:07 AM  

EWreckedSean: Jaws_Victim: give me doughnuts: EWreckedSean: The guy is a moron. That said, go to another cake shop. The idea that a judge can force a private business owner to perform services against his own, warped as they may be, morals is ridiculous in a free country.


Yeah, how dare they force business owners to serve Jews and African-Americans as if they were as good as regular people.

this. What happens when he and his fellow klansmen decide to stop discriminating against the current popular target and go back to those old favorites, the darkies. Then the jews. If we dont have laws saying you need to serve everyone equally that are enforced, then this one instance of discrimination will multiply to other incidents and targeted groups.

Also he didn't say he wouldn't serve them, he said he wouldn't make that type of cake, but would happily bake whatever else they wanted.


He refused to sell to two people what he willingly sells to other people. This is a refusal of service. He is only willing to sell to these two what he feels will keep them in their proper place. That is called discrimination.
 
2013-12-11 10:33:20 AM  

pueblonative: So now some people are only entitled to "essential" goods and services in your world.  That must be real nice.  Sorry that society's civil rights inconvenience you and this bigot, but adding the qualifier "essential" to civil rights would pretty much destroy any notion of equality in our society.  Everybody down the line could argue that their goods and services weren't "essential" and that the aggrieved parties could find them somewhere else.  That's why that isn't in the CRA.  It's for all public accommodations; you want to open your business to the public, you have to accept anybody that's willing to pay.

This guy has multiple options other than not being a dick and complying with the law. He can close his business to the public and operate by referral only.  As somebody mentioned he can subcontract another bakery for his orders by same sex couples.  And if he's that offended, he can always get out and find another job.  His job choice isn't that essential when you get right down to it.


That's right, because he doesn't believe in gay marriage, and doesn't' want to make a gay marriage cake, he should have to neuter his business, or pay huge fines, or go to jail. I mean, obviously that is the true meaning of rights for making these guys have to spend five minutes and call another cake shop. Because obviously people should have no rights to their own property if you don't think it is fair.
 
2013-12-11 10:33:35 AM  
So if I go to a Muslim owned restaurant, can I force them to cook and serve me bacon? Or a bacon version of something they do make?
 
2013-12-11 10:34:34 AM  

Jaws_Victim: EWreckedSean: Jaws_Victim: give me doughnuts: EWreckedSean: The guy is a moron. That said, go to another cake shop. The idea that a judge can force a private business owner to perform services against his own, warped as they may be, morals is ridiculous in a free country.


Yeah, how dare they force business owners to serve Jews and African-Americans as if they were as good as regular people.

this. What happens when he and his fellow klansmen decide to stop discriminating against the current popular target and go back to those old favorites, the darkies. Then the jews. If we dont have laws saying you need to serve everyone equally that are enforced, then this one instance of discrimination will multiply to other incidents and targeted groups.

Also he didn't say he wouldn't serve them, he said he wouldn't make that type of cake, but would happily bake whatever else they wanted.

He refused to sell to two people what he willingly sells to other people. This is a refusal of service. He is only willing to sell to these two what he feels will keep them in their proper place. That is called discrimination.


No, he refuses to make a gay wedding cake for anybody, and offered to provide them any of the cakes he does make. Is it stupid, yes. Should he be allowed to make that decision for himself. Absolutely.
 
2013-12-11 10:35:50 AM  

dinomyar: So if I go to a Muslim owned restaurant, can I force them to cook and serve me bacon? Or a bacon version of something they do make?


no, because it's not something they normally serve.  just like you can't go to McDonald's and demand they give you a lobster.
 
2013-12-11 10:35:56 AM  

EWreckedSean: HMS_Blinkin: EWreckedSean: Not threaten somebody with jail

The only person who said anything about jail was a moron Fox and Friends person.  Nobody with a brain or any kind of authority is saying ANYTHING about jail.

The jail option has been discussed quite thoroughly in this thread. I'd suggesting reading up.


So tell me, what Colorado official said, "He can bake a cake or pound fudge. The choice is his."?
 
2013-12-11 10:37:43 AM  

EWreckedSean: pueblonative: So now some people are only entitled to "essential" goods and services in your world.  That must be real nice.  Sorry that society's civil rights inconvenience you and this bigot, but adding the qualifier "essential" to civil rights would pretty much destroy any notion of equality in our society.  Everybody down the line could argue that their goods and services weren't "essential" and that the aggrieved parties could find them somewhere else.  That's why that isn't in the CRA.  It's for all public accommodations; you want to open your business to the public, you have to accept anybody that's willing to pay.

This guy has multiple options other than not being a dick and complying with the law. He can close his business to the public and operate by referral only.  As somebody mentioned he can subcontract another bakery for his orders by same sex couples.  And if he's that offended, he can always get out and find another job.  His job choice isn't that essential when you get right down to it.

That's right, because he doesn't believe in gay marriage, and doesn't' want to make a gay marriage cake, he should have to neuter his business, or pay huge fines, or go to jail. I mean, obviously that is the true meaning of rights for making these guys have to spend five minutes and call another cake shop. Because obviously people should have no rights to their own property if you don't think it is fair.


Okay, so tell me what's different about a gay marriage cake versus a straight marriage cake?  And if he takes his faith so seriously, does he make sure that the bride is a virgin and that she's the same faith as her husband?
 
2013-12-11 10:38:56 AM  

EWreckedSean: Zasteva: There's a very simple solution.

He can simply subcontract a different cake shop to make the cake, have it delivered to his shop, and call them to pick it up. He might not make any money, but they'll have their cake from his shop and he won't have had to violate his principles by making it.

This will only be a problem if his objection is to them being able to get a wedding cake at all, rather than one of him personally having to make it.

EWreckedSean: Or they could simply call another cake shop. this is 2013. I bet I could find 20 place that make cakes within 10 minutes of here.


Yes, they could do that, but they are under no obligation to. Instead they've chosen to stand up for their rights. 

The baker, on the other hand, is obligated to serve whoever comes to his place of public accommodation, regardless of race, creed, gender or sexual orientation. He's chosen to defy that requirement.
 
2013-12-11 10:39:16 AM  

dinomyar: So if I go to a Muslim owned restaurant, can I force them to cook and serve me bacon? Or a bacon version of something they do make?


That depends. Do they usually serve bacon, just not to you? Then yes. If they simply don't serve bacon, then no. The law doesn't say you have to provide anything being asked for - if you walk into a kosher deli and ask for ham they don't have to stock it just for you - but that they provide what they do sell to those that ask for it.

He may argue "I sell Traditional Marriage(tm) wedding cakes, not same-sex ones" but in the eyes of the law what he makes are cakes, and barring it being obscene, he can't refuse to make for them what he would have made if a heterosexual couple walked in the door and asked for the same.
 
2013-12-11 10:39:41 AM  

pueblonative: EWreckedSean: HMS_Blinkin: EWreckedSean: Not threaten somebody with jail

The only person who said anything about jail was a moron Fox and Friends person.  Nobody with a brain or any kind of authority is saying ANYTHING about jail.

The jail option has been discussed quite thoroughly in this thread. I'd suggesting reading up.

So tell me, what Colorado official said, "He can bake a cake or pound fudge. The choice is his."?


The article quotes his lawyer as saying he is being threatened with jail. I'm assuming the lawyer would open himself up to liability if they actually weren't and he claimed they were...
 
2013-12-11 10:41:29 AM  

pueblonative: EWreckedSean: pueblonative: So now some people are only entitled to "essential" goods and services in your world.  That must be real nice.  Sorry that society's civil rights inconvenience you and this bigot, but adding the qualifier "essential" to civil rights would pretty much destroy any notion of equality in our society.  Everybody down the line could argue that their goods and services weren't "essential" and that the aggrieved parties could find them somewhere else.  That's why that isn't in the CRA.  It's for all public accommodations; you want to open your business to the public, you have to accept anybody that's willing to pay.

This guy has multiple options other than not being a dick and complying with the law. He can close his business to the public and operate by referral only.  As somebody mentioned he can subcontract another bakery for his orders by same sex couples.  And if he's that offended, he can always get out and find another job.  His job choice isn't that essential when you get right down to it.

That's right, because he doesn't believe in gay marriage, and doesn't' want to make a gay marriage cake, he should have to neuter his business, or pay huge fines, or go to jail. I mean, obviously that is the true meaning of rights for making these guys have to spend five minutes and call another cake shop. Because obviously people should have no rights to their own property if you don't think it is fair.

Okay, so tell me what's different about a gay marriage cake versus a straight marriage cake?  And if he takes his faith so seriously, does he make sure that the bride is a virgin and that she's the same faith as her husband?


I would assume the figure on top. As to what his religious beliefs are, who knows, and frankly who cares.
 
2013-12-11 10:41:48 AM  

EWreckedSean: Satan's Bunny Slippers: EWreckedSean: give me doughnuts: EWreckedSean: The guy is a moron. That said, go to another cake shop. The idea that a judge can force a private business owner to perform services against his own, warped as they may be, morals is ridiculous in a free country.


Yeah, how dare they force business owners to serve Jews and African-Americans as if they were as good as regular people.

Honestly, in this day and age, I think such protections are archaic and shouldn't be provided. If you are a bigot and don't want to serve Jews and African Americans, so be it. It is your private business. I will happily let everybody know you are a racist and take my business elsewhere. I understand there was a time and some places especially in the deep south where such protections where necessary, but that day is gone, and we should balance the business owners rights versus the customers.

My head just asploded.

Someone actually typed that out.

That's enough internet for today, I think.

That's right, because down here in the south we are all still stuck in 1950. We sure can't wait until we get the freedom to start sending people to the back of the bus again. Lol.



The fact that you think that there is no need for anti-discrimination laws speaks volumes to your intellect.  As in your volume is at zero.  There is no need to reply or attempt to further your viewpoint with me.  I tired of you yesterday.

Welcome to yellow
 
2013-12-11 10:41:49 AM  

EWreckedSean: He refused to sell to two people what he willingly sells to other people. This is a refusal of service. He is only willing to sell to these two what he feels will keep them in their proper place. That is called discrimination.

No, he refuses to make a gay wedding cake for anybody, and offered to provide them any of the cakes he does make. Is it stupid, yes. Should he be allowed to make that decision for himself. Absolutely.


There is no such thing as a "gay wedding cake". Wedding cake does not have sexual orientation.

What he has done is refused to make a wedding cake, because he knows the people involved will use it for their gay wedding. Again, that is discrimination.

He can make that decision for himself, but he must face the legal consequences if he chooses to do something illegal. Just like everyone else who deliberately violates the law.
 
2013-12-11 10:42:46 AM  

EWreckedSean: pueblonative: EWreckedSean: HMS_Blinkin: EWreckedSean: Not threaten somebody with jail

The only person who said anything about jail was a moron Fox and Friends person.  Nobody with a brain or any kind of authority is saying ANYTHING about jail.

The jail option has been discussed quite thoroughly in this thread. I'd suggesting reading up.

So tell me, what Colorado official said, "He can bake a cake or pound fudge. The choice is his."?

The article quotes his lawyer as saying he is being threatened with jail. I'm assuming the lawyer would open himself up to liability if they actually weren't and he claimed they were...


Yeah, and you know what they say about assuming, right?  But let's look at the exact quote:


"If the government can force you to violate your belief under the threat of a jail sentence, there is really no freedom they can't take away, Elisabeth," Martin said.


There's that word, if.  So she's speaking about a hypothetical that in no way reflects what happened in this case (the guy didn't even get hit with a fine despite the fact that he's done this at least half a dozen times before).
 
2013-12-11 10:43:10 AM  

Zasteva: EWreckedSean: Zasteva: There's a very simple solution.

He can simply subcontract a different cake shop to make the cake, have it delivered to his shop, and call them to pick it up. He might not make any money, but they'll have their cake from his shop and he won't have had to violate his principles by making it.

This will only be a problem if his objection is to them being able to get a wedding cake at all, rather than one of him personally having to make it.

EWreckedSean: Or they could simply call another cake shop. this is 2013. I bet I could find 20 place that make cakes within 10 minutes of here.

Yes, they could do that, but they are under no obligation to. Instead they've chosen to stand up for their rights. 

The baker, on the other hand, is obligated to serve whoever comes to his place of public accommodation, regardless of race, creed, gender or sexual orientation. He's chosen to defy that requirement.


Yes, and I think the requirement is wrong. I think it unfairly abuses the rights of the baker. An as much of a douche as he may be, at least this will hopefully get the benefit of going before the courts to examine that law.
 
2013-12-11 10:44:20 AM  

ManateeGag: dinomyar: So if I go to a Muslim owned restaurant, can I force them to cook and serve me bacon? Or a bacon version of something they do make?

no, because it's not something they normally serve.  just like you can't go to McDonald's and demand they give you a lobster.



But, he DOESN'T normally make same sex wedding cakes.


The real question is, if I ask them to make me a version of something that they do make, but I ask for it to include bacon, and they refuse, can I sue them to force them to do it?


What about going into a Jewish bakery and asking for a Nazi decorated cake? Do they have the right to refuse?
 
2013-12-11 10:44:39 AM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: The fact that you think that there is no need for anti-discrimination laws speaks volumes to your intellect.  As in your volume is at zero.  There is no need to reply or attempt to further your viewpoint with me.  I tired of you yesterday.

Welcome to yellow


The fact that you will completely ignore one person's rights in complete disregard of another's speaks volumes to your intellect.

Welcome to red.
 
2013-12-11 10:45:25 AM  

EWreckedSean: pueblonative: EWreckedSean: pueblonative: So now some people are only entitled to "essential" goods and services in your world.  That must be real nice.  Sorry that society's civil rights inconvenience you and this bigot, but adding the qualifier "essential" to civil rights would pretty much destroy any notion of equality in our society.  Everybody down the line could argue that their goods and services weren't "essential" and that the aggrieved parties could find them somewhere else.  That's why that isn't in the CRA.  It's for all public accommodations; you want to open your business to the public, you have to accept anybody that's willing to pay.

This guy has multiple options other than not being a dick and complying with the law. He can close his business to the public and operate by referral only.  As somebody mentioned he can subcontract another bakery for his orders by same sex couples.  And if he's that offended, he can always get out and find another job.  His job choice isn't that essential when you get right down to it.

That's right, because he doesn't believe in gay marriage, and doesn't' want to make a gay marriage cake, he should have to neuter his business, or pay huge fines, or go to jail. I mean, obviously that is the true meaning of rights for making these guys have to spend five minutes and call another cake shop. Because obviously people should have no rights to their own property if you don't think it is fair.

Okay, so tell me what's different about a gay marriage cake versus a straight marriage cake?  And if he takes his faith so seriously, does he make sure that the bride is a virgin and that she's the same faith as her husband?

I would assume the figure on top. As to what his religious beliefs are, who knows, and frankly who cares.


Okay, point to the law that requires that a marriage cake have a figure topper?  Or even writing in frosting?  And he was the one that brought out his religious beliefs as an excuse.  He can't have it both ways, so to speak.
 
2013-12-11 10:46:30 AM  

Jaws_Victim: EWreckedSean: Jaws_Victim: give me doughnuts: EWreckedSean: The guy is a moron. That said, go to another cake shop. The idea that a judge can force a private business owner to perform services against his own, warped as they may be, morals is ridiculous in a free country.


Yeah, how dare they force business owners to serve Jews and African-Americans as if they were as good as regular people.

this. What happens when he and his fellow klansmen decide to stop discriminating against the current popular target and go back to those old favorites, the darkies. Then the jews. If we dont have laws saying you need to serve everyone equally that are enforced, then this one instance of discrimination will multiply to other incidents and targeted groups.

Also he didn't say he wouldn't serve them, he said he wouldn't make that type of cake, but would happily bake whatever else they wanted.

He refused to sell to two people what he willingly sells to other people. This is a refusal of service. He is only willing to sell to these two what he feels will keep them in their proper place. That is called discrimination.


Should a Jewish baker be forced to make a birthday cake that reads: "Happy Birthday Hitler- The Greatest Man Alive. Congrats on 6,000,000!"
 
2013-12-11 10:47:52 AM  

pueblonative: EWreckedSean: pueblonative: EWreckedSean: HMS_Blinkin: EWreckedSean: Not threaten somebody with jail

The only person who said anything about jail was a moron Fox and Friends person.  Nobody with a brain or any kind of authority is saying ANYTHING about jail.

The jail option has been discussed quite thoroughly in this thread. I'd suggesting reading up.

So tell me, what Colorado official said, "He can bake a cake or pound fudge. The choice is his."?

The article quotes his lawyer as saying he is being threatened with jail. I'm assuming the lawyer would open himself up to liability if they actually weren't and he claimed they were...

Yeah, and you know what they say about assuming, right?  But let's look at the exact quote:


"If the government can force you to violate your belief under the threat of a jail sentence, there is really no freedom they can't take away, Elisabeth," Martin said.


There's that word, if.  So she's speaking about a hypothetical that in no way reflects what happened in this case (the guy didn't even get hit with a fine despite the fact that he's done this at least half a dozen times before).


Lol seriously? She is just speaking in hypothetical because obviously as a lawyer she wouldn't be discussing this case they are talking about? Wow seriously?
 
2013-12-11 10:49:17 AM  

EWreckedSean: pueblonative: So now some people are only entitled to "essential" goods and services in your world.  That must be real nice.  Sorry that society's civil rights inconvenience you and this bigot, but adding the qualifier "essential" to civil rights would pretty much destroy any notion of equality in our society.  Everybody down the line could argue that their goods and services weren't "essential" and that the aggrieved parties could find them somewhere else.  That's why that isn't in the CRA.  It's for all public accommodations; you want to open your business to the public, you have to accept anybody that's willing to pay.

pueblonative: This guy has multiple options other than not being a dick and complying with the law. He can close his business to the public and operate by referral only.  As somebody mentioned he can subcontract another bakery for his orders by same sex couples.  And if he's that offended, he can always get out and find another job.  His job choice isn't that essential when you get right down to it.

EWreakedSean: That's right, because he doesn't believe in gay marriage, and doesn't' want to make a gay marriage cake, he should have to neuter his business, or pay huge fines, or go to jail. I mean, obviously that is the true meaning of rights for making these guys have to spend five minutes and call another cake shop. Because obviously people should have no rights to their own property if you don't think it is fair.


Again, there is no such thing as a "gay marriage cake". There is wedding cake. Whether that cake, after being purchased by a customer, is used in a gay wedding or a straight wedding is none of his business. It's not his cake, it belongs to the person who purchased it.

He has the right to make decisions for his business concerning what he services he will offer and how he will deliver them. He does not have a right to refuse a service he provides to others just because he doesn't like what they do.
 
2013-12-11 10:49:20 AM  

dinomyar: ManateeGag: dinomyar: So if I go to a Muslim owned restaurant, can I force them to cook and serve me bacon? Or a bacon version of something they do make?

no, because it's not something they normally serve.  just like you can't go to McDonald's and demand they give you a lobster.


But, he DOESN'T normally make same sex wedding cakes.


The real question is, if I ask them to make me a version of something that they do make, but I ask for it to include bacon, and they refuse, can I sue them to force them to do it?


What about going into a Jewish bakery and asking for a Nazi decorated cake? Do they have the right to refuse?


Once again, there is no such goddamned thing as a same sex wedding cake as opposed to a different sex wedding cake.  NONE.  Hell, do a taste test if you want.  These people were asking for the same type of cake that he's done for other couples.  They didn't even get to the writing on the cake, if there was any.
 
2013-12-11 10:50:13 AM  

Zasteva: There is no such thing as a "gay wedding cake". Wedding cake does not have sexual orientation.



Depends on the decorations. When you get the figurines for the top of the cake, they normally come in man/wife pairs. Should he be forced to purchase other supplies, or open multiple packages to fulfill this order?
 
2013-12-11 10:50:14 AM  
What about erotic cakes?
 
2013-12-11 10:50:24 AM  
Ah, the twin trolls are out!

Update your cards, everyone.
 
2013-12-11 10:50:43 AM  

Zasteva: EWreckedSean: He refused to sell to two people what he willingly sells to other people. This is a refusal of service. He is only willing to sell to these two what he feels will keep them in their proper place. That is called discrimination.

No, he refuses to make a gay wedding cake for anybody, and offered to provide them any of the cakes he does make. Is it stupid, yes. Should he be allowed to make that decision for himself. Absolutely.

There is no such thing as a "gay wedding cake". Wedding cake does not have sexual orientation.

What he has done is refused to make a wedding cake, because he knows the people involved will use it for their gay wedding. Again, that is discrimination.

He can make that decision for himself, but he must face the legal consequences if he chooses to do something illegal. Just like everyone else who deliberately violates the law.


A wedding cake that says Happy Wedding Bob and Steve with a figurine of two guys on top is definitely a gay wedding cake. Which I am all for by the way.

And I agree, he is having to face legal consequences. Hopefully they are that a judge rules he is correct.
 
2013-12-11 10:51:14 AM  

dinomyar: But, he DOESN'T normally make same sex wedding cakes.


What makes a cake a "same sex" wedding cake?  the words?
 
2013-12-11 10:51:50 AM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: Ah, the twin trolls are out!

Update your cards, everyone.


I love it, it only took you two pages to lose this argument. I'm getting better. Thanks for that.
 
2013-12-11 10:51:55 AM  

Mrbogey: Jaws_Victim: EWreckedSean: Jaws_Victim: give me doughnuts: EWreckedSean: The guy is a moron. That said, go to another cake shop. The idea that a judge can force a private business owner to perform services against his own, warped as they may be, morals is ridiculous in a free country.


Yeah, how dare they force business owners to serve Jews and African-Americans as if they were as good as regular people.

this. What happens when he and his fellow klansmen decide to stop discriminating against the current popular target and go back to those old favorites, the darkies. Then the jews. If we dont have laws saying you need to serve everyone equally that are enforced, then this one instance of discrimination will multiply to other incidents and targeted groups.

Also he didn't say he wouldn't serve them, he said he wouldn't make that type of cake, but would happily bake whatever else they wanted.

He refused to sell to two people what he willingly sells to other people. This is a refusal of service. He is only willing to sell to these two what he feels will keep them in their proper place. That is called discrimination.

Should a Jewish baker be forced to make a birthday cake that reads: "Happy Birthday Hitler- The Greatest Man Alive. Congrats on 6,000,000!"


They didn't even get to that point in the conversation where they were discussing any sort of "writing" on the cake and where he might have had some argument.   Of course, a guy who sells a dog wedding cake and then refuses to sell a cake to a same sex couple doesn't exactly have the soundest of ethical scruples.
 
2013-12-11 10:51:56 AM  

dinomyar: Zasteva: There is no such thing as a "gay wedding cake". Wedding cake does not have sexual orientation.


Depends on the decorations. When you get the figurines for the top of the cake, they normally come in man/wife pairs. Should he be forced to purchase other supplies, or open multiple packages to fulfill this order?


Where does it say they ordered figurines for the cake?  My topper was a blown glass heart.
 
2013-12-11 10:52:02 AM  
While I agree this guy is a bigot, I don't understand where it's illegal for him to refuse. Businesses can refuse to serve anyone. And the public can refuse to do business with them for it. Nobody likes a bigot.
 
2013-12-11 10:52:39 AM  

pueblonative: They didn't even get to that point in the conversation where they were discussing any sort of "writing" on the cake and where he might have had some argument.   Of course, a guy who sells a dog wedding cake and then refuses to sell a cake to a same sex couple doesn't exactly have the soundest of ethical scruples


I'm sorry, I didn't know you have the transcript of what was said. Do you mind posting it, I;d love to read it.
 
Displayed 50 of 314 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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