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.

(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
    More: Dumbass, Fox News, gay sex  
•       •       •

1181 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Dec 2013 at 9:06 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-12-11 11:53:07 AM  
EWreckedSean: Well I appreciate you being civil in this discussion. You made the favorites list of people worth talking to.

Aw thanks! Likewise! Everyone deserves to be treated with some basic level of respect, and your polite discussion has earned you a lot more than that in my opinion.
 
2013-12-11 11:53:18 AM  

Funk Brothers: To people, it is immoral to provide wedding services for same-sex couples.


Then they have no business selling cakes to the public in general.

You don't get to pick and choose, but that's exactly what this baker is doing, both with the law and with his own morals.
 
2013-12-11 11:55:05 AM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Funk Brothers: To people, it is immoral to provide wedding services for same-sex couples.

Then they have no business selling cakes to the public in general.

You don't get to pick and choose, but that's exactly what this baker is doing, both with the law and with his own morals.


In a free society why shouldn't you be able to pick and chose.
 
2013-12-11 11:55:12 AM  

Churchill2004: There's no significant cost or burden in just getting your cake from someone who isn't a bigot.


There IS when you don't realize that the cake you already ordered, the cake that the baker already AGREED to make for you, would be coming from a bigot who would cancel your order and force you to have to make those arrangements AGAIN.

Don't want to make your cakes available to the public? Get out of business serving the public then.
 
2013-12-11 11:58:21 AM  

Zasteva: There's a very simple solution.


Yes, but not the one you listed.

He could have just made the cake and kept his religious opinions to himself.
 
2013-12-11 11:58:54 AM  

EWreckedSean: Zasteva: dinomyar: give me doughnuts: No, they can't. And it's been thay way for the past half-century.


dinomyar: We don't sell our products in California due to tax rules and onerous laws that affect our business. Are you saying we can be forced to?

No, you can't be forced to. That's a business decision not based on race, creed, etc...

dinomyar: What if I go into McDonalds without shoes, can they refuse me? (Yes, even if I cant wear shoes due to a medical condition)

I agree. Again, that is not discrimination based on race, creed, etc...

EWreckedSean: How about ladies night, or 18 and up for women/21 and up for men clubs?


Interesting example. If it's a private club then it's not a problem; private clubs that require memberships can have any rules they want.

But if it's a public bar they could probably be sued by someone who was denied service on that basis -- I'm not sure how the age part plays into it though. 

Most likely "ladies night" where ladies pay lower cost for drinks or get in free while men pay are actually illegal.
 
2013-12-11 11:59:30 AM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Zasteva: There's a very simple solution.

Yes, but not the one you listed.

He could have just made the cake and kept his religious opinions to himself.


That would have been even better :-)
 
2013-12-11 12:00:05 PM  

Zasteva: EWreckedSean: Well I appreciate you being civil in this discussion. You made the favorites list of people worth talking to.

Aw thanks! Likewise! Everyone deserves to be treated with some basic level of respect, and your polite discussion has earned you a lot more than that in my opinion.


I've found you don't learn anything by talking to people who agree with you all the time.
 
2013-12-11 12:00:43 PM  
Is it legally OK for the guy not to serve blacks or Christians?
 
2013-12-11 12:03:33 PM  

Zasteva: Interesting example. If it's a private club then it's not a problem; private clubs that require memberships can have any rules they want.

But if it's a public bar they could probably be sued by someone who was denied service on that basis -- I'm not sure how the age part plays into it though. 

Most likely "ladies night" where ladies pay lower cost for drinks or get in free while men pay are actually illegal.


Every once and a while you will see a lawsuit about it (usually by some kid who had no chance of meeting a girl at ladies' night :) ). They pretty much get universally tossed. But it is funny how discrimination is legally ok when it is a kind most people want.
 
2013-12-11 12:05:02 PM  

Ambivalence: Businesses can refuse to serve anyone.


No, they cannot.
 
2013-12-11 12:05:30 PM  

EWreckedSean: The My Little Pony Killer: Funk Brothers: To people, it is immoral to provide wedding services for same-sex couples.

Then they have no business selling cakes to the public in general.

You don't get to pick and choose, but that's exactly what this baker is doing, both with the law and with his own morals.

In a free society why shouldn't you be able to pick and chose.


So a hospital decides to go white people only, you're okay with that?

A pharmacist decides he won't issue medication he disagrees with (like birth control), you're okay with that?

A fire station won't put out any fires in predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods, you're okay with that?

And before you say anything about a service being a necessity, you are talking about a completely free society. Why should one be allowed to discriminate but another can't? You're discriminating against their ability to discriminate, and that can't happen in a completely free society.

Everybody has to play by the set of rules established. If you don't want to play, don't start a business that's open to the public.
 
2013-12-11 12:09:32 PM  

scottydoesntknow: EWreckedSean: The My Little Pony Killer: Funk Brothers: To people, it is immoral to provide wedding services for same-sex couples.

Then they have no business selling cakes to the public in general.

You don't get to pick and choose, but that's exactly what this baker is doing, both with the law and with his own morals.

In a free society why shouldn't you be able to pick and chose.

So a hospital decides to go white people only, you're okay with that?

A pharmacist decides he won't issue medication he disagrees with (like birth control), you're okay with that?

A fire station won't put out any fires in predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods, you're okay with that?

And before you say anything about a service being a necessity, you are talking about a completely free society. Why should one be allowed to discriminate but another can't? You're discriminating against their ability to discriminate, and that can't happen in a completely free society.

Everybody has to play by the set of rules established. If you don't want to play, don't start a business that's open to the public.


If you read the thread, I've been pretty clear that I would draw the line at essential goods and services.

Somewhere you have to balance somebody's right to life versus somebody's right to liberty and property. That's why we create governments.
 
2013-12-11 12:10:17 PM  

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?


"Essential" isn't relevant.  The plaintiffs were denied goods and services that were offered to everyone else who walked into the establishment, even if other patrons' "lifestyles" violated the religious beliefs of the proprietor.  It was ONLY the same-sex couple whose order was denied on the basis of "conflict of religious beliefs".   Thus - any claim that the discrimination was justifiable - was rendered moot.

The person who is being butthurt about someone not agreeing with their "lifestyle" is the PROPRIETOR (if by lifestyle you mean "wanting to discriminate against gay people").

I find it interesting that the proprietor NOW claims that he'd made any other cake for that couple.

Fine.   I volunteer to buy the couple an ANNIVERSARY cake, if the proprietor makes it personally.
How much do you want to bet that he'd still be all butthurt about that even if it didn't say "WEDDING anniversary"?
 
2013-12-11 12:11:58 PM  

ursomniac: "Essential" isn't relevant.  The plaintiffs were denied goods and services that were offered to everyone else who walked into the establishment, even if other patrons' "lifestyles" violated the religious beliefs of the proprietor.  It was ONLY the same-sex couple whose order was denied on the basis of "conflict of religious beliefs".   Thus - any claim that the discrimination was justifiable - was rendered moot.

The person who is being butthurt about someone not agreeing with their "lifestyle" is the PROPRIETOR (if by lifestyle you mean "wanting to discriminate against gay people").

I find it interesting that the proprietor NOW claims that he'd made any other cake for that couple.

Fine.   I volunteer to buy the couple an ANNIVERSARY cake, if the proprietor makes it personally.
How much do you want to bet that he'd still be all butthurt about that even if it didn't say "WEDDING anniversary"?


I find essential to be absolutely relevant.

As to the bolded statement, the court filing says both parties said he agreed to make them any other cake.
 
2013-12-11 12:13:51 PM  

EWreckedSean: scottydoesntknow: EWreckedSean: The My Little Pony Killer: Funk Brothers: To people, it is immoral to provide wedding services for same-sex couples.

Then they have no business selling cakes to the public in general.

You don't get to pick and choose, but that's exactly what this baker is doing, both with the law and with his own morals.

In a free society why shouldn't you be able to pick and chose.

So a hospital decides to go white people only, you're okay with that?

A pharmacist decides he won't issue medication he disagrees with (like birth control), you're okay with that?

A fire station won't put out any fires in predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods, you're okay with that?

And before you say anything about a service being a necessity, you are talking about a completely free society. Why should one be allowed to discriminate but another can't? You're discriminating against their ability to discriminate, and that can't happen in a completely free society.

Everybody has to play by the set of rules established. If you don't want to play, don't start a business that's open to the public.

If you read the thread, I've been pretty clear that I would draw the line at essential goods and services.

Somewhere you have to balance somebody's right to life versus somebody's right to liberty and property. That's why we create governments.


So what is an essential good? What happens when every grocery store in a town (or the only grocery store in a town) decides to not allow black people to shop there?

Who gets to decide what is essential and what isn't?
 
2013-12-11 12:14:12 PM  

EWreckedSean: Zasteva: No it doesn't:

"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. "

It says there must be due process of law before life, liberty or property are taken; and if private property is taken for public use there must be just compensation.

I'm not pretending this is the 1950s Deep South. I'm pointing out that the Deep South would still be segregated be if we did things your way.

I don't have the right to make decisions about someone else's labors or property. A judge, acting in accordance with the law, does.

EWreckedSean:

1) Yes it does. But obviously you aren't going to see it that way. We can go into that if you want? Up to you, but it will derail things a bit as we will segway in Locke and the history of Natural Rights.


Let's steer clear of pulling in outside philosophical sources for a bit and just talk about our own opinions.

The points we've covered so far:
- This is a government taking of liberty and property on the part of the baker -- no dispute there.
- The 5th amendment prohibits such takings without due process of law -- there is no reasonable dispute here
- There has been a process of law (still underway). -- no dispute there

So it seems to me you've got one possible argument -- that somehow the process of law so far does not constitute "due process".

That would be a discussion I'm willing to have.

EWreckedSeam: 2) As to the Deep South still being segregated, that is pure speculation and it isn't really supported by the actions of any other western societies

If you can point out a western societies that has moved away from segregation without instituting laws prohibiting racial discrimination I would really like to see that. To the best of my knowledge all western societies have laws prohibiting racial discrimination.
 
2013-12-11 12:17:08 PM  

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.


Yes, that's essentially the truth of it, though "in the South" isn't particularly necessary.

Do you honestly think (and I realize I'm using those words broadly) that if EO protections were rescinded tomorrow, that there would NOT be a noticeable increase in cases of discrimination?

Would you classify yourself more as stupid or naïve?
 
2013-12-11 12:17:20 PM  

scottydoesntknow: So what is an essential good? What happens when every grocery store in a town (or the only grocery store in a town) decides to not allow black people to shop there?

Who gets to decide what is essential and what isn't?


I would tend to say the courts. Although you could probably make a rather broad definition and let people challenge it where applicable. A wedding cake that can easily be purchased at another local vendor doesn't fit the bill. A hospital would.
 
2013-12-11 12:17:24 PM  

EWreckedSean: 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.


www.loc.gov
*ahem*
 
2013-12-11 12:19:24 PM  

EWreckedSean: scottydoesntknow: So what is an essential good? What happens when every grocery store in a town (or the only grocery store in a town) decides to not allow black people to shop there?

Who gets to decide what is essential and what isn't?

I would tend to say the courts. Although you could probably make a rather broad definition and let people challenge it where applicable. A wedding cake that can easily be purchased at another local vendor doesn't fit the bill. A hospital would.


I'm amazed how you can say the courts should decide WHEN THE COURTS ALREADY DECIDED! If you are a business open to the public, you can not discriminate. Simple as that.
 
2013-12-11 12:19:56 PM  

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?


Yes, if they're serving bacon to other people.

No, if they don't serve bacon to anyone else.

See - it's really very very very simple.

If you make wedding cakes, and your business is open to the public, then you can't refuse to make a wedding cake for a member of that public.
 
2013-12-11 12:20:10 PM  

ursomniac: Yes, that's essentially the truth of it, though "in the South" isn't particularly necessary.

Do you honestly think (and I realize I'm using those words broadly) that if EO protections were rescinded tomorrow, that there would NOT be a noticeable increase in cases of discrimination?

Would you classify yourself more as stupid or naïve?


There would be some, not a lot. I worked 7 years in a rural part of the south in the utility industry (our regular lunch place was the cattle market diner). Are there still racists around? Sure. Predominate. Not a chance.

And by the way, thanks for it taking all of a handful of comments for you to lose this conversation. I'm talking, you are throwing insults. It makes it pretty clear who has a strong position.
 
2013-12-11 12:21:15 PM  

scottydoesntknow: EWreckedSean: scottydoesntknow: So what is an essential good? What happens when every grocery store in a town (or the only grocery store in a town) decides to not allow black people to shop there?

Who gets to decide what is essential and what isn't?

I would tend to say the courts. Although you could probably make a rather broad definition and let people challenge it where applicable. A wedding cake that can easily be purchased at another local vendor doesn't fit the bill. A hospital would.

I'm amazed how you can say the courts should decide WHEN THE COURTS ALREADY DECIDED! If you are a business open to the public, you can not discriminate. Simple as that.


The courts haven't decided because the law isn't written that way. Courts decide based on existing legislation.
 
2013-12-11 12:21:37 PM  

EWreckedSean: 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.


Please show us in ANY of the articles on this issue where a distinction was made between a "gay wedding cake" and a "non-gay wedding cake" OTHER THAN that the people requesting a cake for a wedding in this case weren't heterosexual.

You're running out of straws to grasp.
 
2013-12-11 12:22:11 PM  

EWreckedSean: scottydoesntknow: EWreckedSean: scottydoesntknow: So what is an essential good? What happens when every grocery store in a town (or the only grocery store in a town) decides to not allow black people to shop there?

Who gets to decide what is essential and what isn't?

I would tend to say the courts. Although you could probably make a rather broad definition and let people challenge it where applicable. A wedding cake that can easily be purchased at another local vendor doesn't fit the bill. A hospital would.

I'm amazed how you can say the courts should decide WHEN THE COURTS ALREADY DECIDED! If you are a business open to the public, you can not discriminate. Simple as that.

The courts haven't decided because the law isn't written that way. Courts decide based on existing legislation.


Which way is the law written?
 
2013-12-11 12:22:11 PM  

ursomniac: If you make wedding cakes, and your business is open to the public, then you can't refuse to make a wedding cake for a member of that public.


EWreckedSean: It makes it pretty clear who has a strong position.


Well, it is pretty certain that you don't have the strong position.
 
2013-12-11 12:22:44 PM  

maddogdelta: EWreckedSean: 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.

[www.loc.gov image 800x659]
*ahem*


I said it is ridiculous, not that it doesn't happen. And if you read the thread I even agreed that there was a time and place where such laws were probably necessary.
 
2013-12-11 12:24:26 PM  

scottydoesntknow: EWreckedSean: scottydoesntknow: EWreckedSean: scottydoesntknow: So what is an essential good? What happens when every grocery store in a town (or the only grocery store in a town) decides to not allow black people to shop there?

Who gets to decide what is essential and what isn't?

I would tend to say the courts. Although you could probably make a rather broad definition and let people challenge it where applicable. A wedding cake that can easily be purchased at another local vendor doesn't fit the bill. A hospital would.

I'm amazed how you can say the courts should decide WHEN THE COURTS ALREADY DECIDED! If you are a business open to the public, you can not discriminate. Simple as that.

The courts haven't decided because the law isn't written that way. Courts decide based on existing legislation.

Which way is the law written?


The law is written right now in a way that strips the liberty and property rights away from the business owner in complete favor of the customer. I think it is a poor system that should better balance a property owner's rights with the interests of the customers.
 
2013-12-11 12:24:55 PM  

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.


Ah but the truth is that it NEVER GOT THAT FAR.   He refused the cake (which BTW was completely generic in terms of cakes) SOLELY because the clients were non-heterosexual.

HAD it got that far, he would have had an easy out: "I'm sorry I don't stock a same-sex couple figurine, but I'm sure you can get one online."   Because he doesn't stock them for ANY of his customers, he's not discriminating.
 
2013-12-11 12:25:20 PM  

maddogdelta: ursomniac: If you make wedding cakes, and your business is open to the public, then you can't refuse to make a wedding cake for a member of that public.

EWreckedSean: It makes it pretty clear who has a strong position.

Well, it is pretty certain that you don't have the strong position.


Come talking to me when you have anything to add to the conversation.
 
2013-12-11 12:26:09 PM  

ursomniac: 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.

Ah but the truth is that it NEVER GOT THAT FAR.   He refused the cake (which BTW was completely generic in terms of cakes) SOLELY because the clients were non-heterosexual.

HAD it got that far, he would have had an easy out: "I'm sorry I don't stock a same-sex couple figurine, but I'm sure you can get one online."   Because he doesn't stock them for ANY of his customers, he's not discriminating.


Read his question.
 
2013-12-11 12:26:41 PM  

EWreckedSean: The courts haven't decided because the law isn't written that way. Courts decide based on existing legislation.


Actually, the law IS written that way.

And, the courts DID rule on it.
 
2013-12-11 12:27:41 PM  

EWreckedSean: give me doughnuts: So you admit to favoring all sorts of discrimination.
In what other ways are you a horrible person?

I understand in a free society people should a) be able to have unpopular opinions, even ones that discuss me b) be able to do what they want with their own property, even if I don't like it.

I'm sorry those concepts are too tough for you.



I'm sorry you're the type of person who thinks discrimination of okay.
I'm sure you won't mind when it is aimed at you.
 
2013-12-11 12:29:07 PM  

Zasteva: If you can point out a western societies that has moved away from segregation without instituting laws prohibiting racial discrimination I would really like to see that. To the best of my knowledge all western societies have laws prohibiting racial discrimination.


Let me do some research.
 
2013-12-11 12:29:11 PM  

EWreckedSean: Ambivalence: 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.

That is the way it should be. They are correct however the CO does currently have laws in place that would in theory force him to make the cake. He is challenging it.


... and Rosa should've taken a different bus home.
 
2013-12-11 12:29:44 PM  

EWreckedSean: scottydoesntknow: EWreckedSean: scottydoesntknow: EWreckedSean: scottydoesntknow: So what is an essential good? What happens when every grocery store in a town (or the only grocery store in a town) decides to not allow black people to shop there?

Who gets to decide what is essential and what isn't?

I would tend to say the courts. Although you could probably make a rather broad definition and let people challenge it where applicable. A wedding cake that can easily be purchased at another local vendor doesn't fit the bill. A hospital would.

I'm amazed how you can say the courts should decide WHEN THE COURTS ALREADY DECIDED! If you are a business open to the public, you can not discriminate. Simple as that.

The courts haven't decided because the law isn't written that way. Courts decide based on existing legislation.

Which way is the law written?

The law is written right now in a way that strips the liberty and property rights away from the business owner in complete favor of the customer. I think it is a poor system that should better balance a property owner's rights with the interests of the customers.


But what you think, and what is law, are two completely different things. IMO, the law is written in a way that protects customers from individual discrimination by businesses. I think it is a fine system.

Just because you interpret it one way does mean it is actually that way.
 
2013-12-11 12:29:55 PM  

maddogdelta: EWreckedSean: The courts haven't decided because the law isn't written that way. Courts decide based on existing legislation.

Actually, the law IS written that way.

And, the courts DID rule on it.


Go read what we were actually talking about and then you might be able to post relevant links.
 
2013-12-11 12:30:01 PM  

EWreckedSean: I said it is ridiculous, not that it doesn't happen. And if you read the thread I even agreed that there was a time and place where such laws were probably necessary.


Here is a list of states that have passed restrictive Voter ID laws, ever since the SCOTUS ruled that "racism doesn't happen any more"

And here is a GOP rep who says, out loud, why the laws were written that way..
 
2013-12-11 12:30:41 PM  

dinomyar: pueblonative: 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.

And I repeat
~~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?

~~They didn't even get to the writing on the cake, if there was any.

How do you know this? There is nothing in the article about what they asked for on the cake.


It has been mentioned in other articles on the issue.   They ordered a plain wedding cake - he said fine.  When he found out it was for them and they were a same-sex couple, it was no longer fine.
 
2013-12-11 12:32:42 PM  

scottydoesntknow: But what you think, and what is law, are two completely different things. IMO, the law is written in a way that protects customers from individual discrimination by businesses. I think it is a fine system.

Just because you interpret it one way does mean it is actually that way.


I think I have a pretty good understanding of the law and it strips away property and liberty rights from people unnecessarily to protect individual customers from discrimination. I'm sorry, but if somebody wants to have a whites only bar, I'm sure as hell not going there, but there is no reason they shouldn't be able to. A bar isn't an essential service. You aren't going to starve or freeze because you had to go to another pub.
 
2013-12-11 12:33:36 PM  

Lady Indica: winterbraid: I like the photo below the article:

[www.opposingviews.com image 600x326]

that's what happens at a gay marriage, right? Black woman tries to marry elephant?

If that's a bull male in musth, they're smart to run like farking hell. The testosterone rise makes them literally insane, it goes to like 60x normal. It's like a giant elephant HULKING THE fark OUT.

Scary stuff.


Pretty sure this is a joke. I doubt they'd really have an elephant chasing them down. First thing I thought of:

www.inspirationsweb.com
 
2013-12-11 12:34:46 PM  

EWreckedSean: Every once and a while you will see a lawsuit about it (usually by some kid who had no chance of meeting a girl at ladies' night :) ). They pretty much get universally tossed. But it is funny how discrimination is legally ok when it is a kind most people want


Actually, the court cases are pretty mixed..  See Ladies' night

In the cases where courts have ruled in favor of allowing Ladies' night type discounts, it has been for things like the not having standing, or "it isn't discrimination against men, it is trying to get more women" (similar to affirmative action rulings), etc.   None have said it ok to discriminate.
 
2013-12-11 12:34:53 PM  

maddogdelta: EWreckedSean: I said it is ridiculous, not that it doesn't happen. And if you read the thread I even agreed that there was a time and place where such laws were probably necessary.

Here is a list of states that have passed restrictive Voter ID laws, ever since the SCOTUS ruled that "racism doesn't happen any more"

And here is a GOP rep who says, out loud, why the laws were written that way..


If you don't have an ID, how did you register to vote? Or get a job? Or rent an apartment? Or cash a paycheck?
 
2013-12-11 12:36:37 PM  

Liese: Lady Indica: winterbraid: I like the photo below the article:

[www.opposingviews.com image 600x326]

that's what happens at a gay marriage, right? Black woman tries to marry elephant?

If that's a bull male in musth, they're smart to run like farking hell. The testosterone rise makes them literally insane, it goes to like 60x normal. It's like a giant elephant HULKING THE fark OUT.

Scary stuff.

Pretty sure this is a joke. I doubt they'd really have an elephant chasing them down. First thing I thought of:

[www.inspirationsweb.com image 640x427]


It would have been better if you photo-shopped Jesus on it
 
2013-12-11 12:37:08 PM  

EWreckedSean: scottydoesntknow: But what you think, and what is law, are two completely different things. IMO, the law is written in a way that protects customers from individual discrimination by businesses. I think it is a fine system.

Just because you interpret it one way does mean it is actually that way.

I think I have a pretty good understanding of the law and it strips away property and liberty rights from people unnecessarily to protect individual customers from discrimination. I'm sorry, but if somebody wants to have a whites only bar, I'm sure as hell not going there, but there is no reason they shouldn't be able to. A bar isn't an essential service. You aren't going to starve or freeze because you had to go to another pub.


No, you have a twisted interpretation of the law. Huge difference.
 
2013-12-11 12:37:52 PM  
Guys, I think you should just agree to disagree with EWreckedSean,
 
2013-12-11 12:38:23 PM  

Zasteva: EWreckedSean: Zasteva: EWreckedSean: 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.

So you believe people should be able to discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation. What other discriminations should be allowed? Race? Creed? Gender?

I believe there should be a better balance between the civil rights of consumers and the property rights of business owners. The line I would draw is essential goods and services. Frankly I think this guy is an asshole, and I wouldn't do business with him. It should end there. They reasonably could take their business elsewhere.

Give us specific examples. Would this be okay if the guy didn't believe in interracial marriages and the couple was mixed race? Would it be okay if the couple were a jewish and he didn't like jews? Would it be okay if he simply decided he wouldn't sell anything but brownies to black people? What ...


Actually, I'd be satisfied with just less hypocrisy:  the court docs state in extreme detail the degree of the proprietors religious beliefs, but at no point apparently does he apply his desired freedom to discriminate  because of those purported religious beliefs TO ANY OTHER CUSTOMER.   He doesn't tell people who have been divorced before that he won't make THEIR wedding cakes;  he doesn't tell people who are living in sin that he won't make THEIR wedding cakes; he doesn't pre-filter ANYONE else placing a wedding cake order to make sure he won't be making Jayesus sad (who apparently knows who has been naughty and nice) and just takes their money.   It's ONLY the homosexual couple who has this special right to be refused.
 
2013-12-11 12:39:52 PM  

EWreckedSean: If you don't have an ID, how did you register to vote? Or get a job? Or rent an apartment? Or cash a paycheck?


You do realize there are more than 1 form of ID, right? And the ID's that were picked to allow people to vote are the kind of IDs that are very easy to get if you are white and middle or above class.

Concealed weapon permits? OK, easy to get if you own a home.
Student ID, Nope, not allowed for voting.

And do you mean to tell me that DMV's are traditionally known as easy to get to, user friendly environments? Go ahead. Write it down.  Then tell me how bad government is while you tell me how great the DMV is.

BTW, most poor people don't have drivers licenses.

Of course, you could find a lot of this out for yourself if you 1) Tried to live for a year on minimum wage 2) actually talked to a poor black person.

I'm guessing that both are beneath your dignity.
 
2013-12-11 12:41:00 PM  

Almost Everybody Poops: Guys, I think you should just agree to disagree with EWreckedSean,


Not until he says, out loud, how convenient and user friendly that an evil gubmint DMV can be.
 
Displayed 50 of 314 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and 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