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.

(Think Progress)   Bakery that refused to sell wedding cake to lesbian couple found to have discriminated, its owner saying it's part of 'God's plan'. Sure, if God's plan for you is a jury trial   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 676
    More: Followup, lesbian couples, public accommodations  
•       •       •

5468 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Jan 2014 at 1:11 PM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-21 06:40:40 PM  
BMFPitt: ...  Says the guy who is desperately trying to pretend not to understand that he is being asked to justify his arbitrary distinction.

... Not sure whether you didn't understand the ruling, or you are trying to edit it because you think that helps your argument.  Either way, are you saying that there is no right to privacy because the text isn't in the Constitution?

... So your saying you don't understand what so association is?


I'd like to point out here that your post doesn't actually say anything about what  you believe, just repeated questions about what I said. If you'd like to add something to the discussion, please feel free.

And incidentally, no, I'm saying  you don't understand what "association" means in this context. While you apparently believe that it includes any relationship between two parties, regardless of the substance of the relationship, it does not. In this context, an association specifically is a group of people joining together for mutual speech or political action. See the Supreme Court quote above. It does not apply to two people entering into a contract.
 
2014-01-21 06:44:27 PM  

Uncontrolled_Jibe: lennavan: Uncontrolled_Jibe: Orthodox Jews do not eat pork or cheeseburgers. I support their right to not sell either, but I also believe that any Kosher deli that refused people pastrami or a cheese pizza who can pay the

You do know it is perfectly legal for a kosher deli to not sell pastrami, right?  This would be more like a deli that has lots of pastrami in stock being sold to everyone who walks through the door, unless you're a jew in which case we won't sell it to you.

Went back and read what I wrote just in case the keyboard was willingly disobedient, but it does appear what you're saying is the gist of what I wrote.   No braunschweiger today or tomorrow if its Kosher, but I don't seem to be stating in any way that Pastrami is a requirement.     You sell borscht to Levi then if there's still some borscht left then you better not turn down Leroy.


Exactly and no store that doesn't sell borscht to anyone can be forced to sell it. Why are so many people in this thread finding that hard to comprehend.?
 
2014-01-21 06:46:37 PM  

Theaetetus: BMFPitt: ...  Says the guy who is desperately trying to pretend not to understand that he is being asked to justify his arbitrary distinction.

... Not sure whether you didn't understand the ruling, or you are trying to edit it because you think that helps your argument.  Either way, are you saying that there is no right to privacy because the text isn't in the Constitution?

... So your saying you don't understand what so association is?

I'd like to point out here that your post doesn't actually say anything about what  you believe, just repeated questions about what I said. If you'd like to add something to the discussion, please feel free.

And incidentally, no, I'm saying  you don't understand what "association" means in this context. While you apparently believe that it includes any relationship between two parties, regardless of the substance of the relationship, it does not. In this context, an association specifically is a group of people joining together for mutual speech or political action. See the Supreme Court quote above. It does not apply to two people entering into a contract.


You and your JD must get a lot of enjoyment dicking around with the "GED in Law" crowd.

/This comment shall not be construed as eligible for billable time.
 
2014-01-21 06:46:57 PM  

TrotlineDesigns: Finger51: TrotlineDesigns: I would have just pissed in the cake at the very least.  Funny thing about farking with people that prepare your food.. it isn't a good idea to fark with people that prepare your food.

/had my dog pee in it too.

Because that's what Jeezus would have done, right?

Wouldn't know.  Far as I know I've never picked up a bible other than use the back page to roll a joint with at a hotel once.


I see. So you'd just be a dick for dick-sake. check.
 
2014-01-21 06:52:20 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: Uncontrolled_Jibe: lennavan: Uncontrolled_Jibe: Orthodox Jews do not eat pork or cheeseburgers. I support their right to not sell either, but I also believe that any Kosher deli that refused people pastrami or a cheese pizza who can pay the

You do know it is perfectly legal for a kosher deli to not sell pastrami, right?  This would be more like a deli that has lots of pastrami in stock being sold to everyone who walks through the door, unless you're a jew in which case we won't sell it to you.

Went back and read what I wrote just in case the keyboard was willingly disobedient, but it does appear what you're saying is the gist of what I wrote.   No braunschweiger today or tomorrow if its Kosher, but I don't seem to be stating in any way that Pastrami is a requirement.     You sell borscht to Levi then if there's still some borscht left then you better not turn down Leroy.

Exactly and no store that doesn't sell borscht to anyone can be forced to sell it. Why are so many people in this thread finding that hard to comprehend.?


Because gay people are icky.
 
2014-01-21 06:57:01 PM  

lennavan: tinfoil-hat maggie: Uncontrolled_Jibe: lennavan: Uncontrolled_Jibe: Orthodox Jews do not eat pork or cheeseburgers. I support their right to not sell either, but I also believe that any Kosher deli that refused people pastrami or a cheese pizza who can pay the

You do know it is perfectly legal for a kosher deli to not sell pastrami, right?  This would be more like a deli that has lots of pastrami in stock being sold to everyone who walks through the door, unless you're a jew in which case we won't sell it to you.

Went back and read what I wrote just in case the keyboard was willingly disobedient, but it does appear what you're saying is the gist of what I wrote.   No braunschweiger today or tomorrow if its Kosher, but I don't seem to be stating in any way that Pastrami is a requirement.     You sell borscht to Levi then if there's still some borscht left then you better not turn down Leroy.

Exactly and no store that doesn't sell borscht to anyone can be forced to sell it. Why are so many people in this thread finding that hard to comprehend.?

Because gay people are icky.


Well sure if you're doing it right ; )
 
2014-01-21 07:04:58 PM  

BKITU: Theaetetus: BMFPitt: ...  Says the guy who is desperately trying to pretend not to understand that he is being asked to justify his arbitrary distinction.

... Not sure whether you didn't understand the ruling, or you are trying to edit it because you think that helps your argument.  Either way, are you saying that there is no right to privacy because the text isn't in the Constitution?

... So your saying you don't understand what so association is?

I'd like to point out here that your post doesn't actually say anything about what  you believe, just repeated questions about what I said. If you'd like to add something to the discussion, please feel free.

And incidentally, no, I'm saying  you don't understand what "association" means in this context. While you apparently believe that it includes any relationship between two parties, regardless of the substance of the relationship, it does not. In this context, an association specifically is a group of people joining together for mutual speech or political action. See the Supreme Court quote above. It does not apply to two people entering into a contract.

You and your JD must get a lot of enjoyment dicking around with the "GED in Law" crowd.


I decided to go to law school  because I enjoyed arguing on the Fark politics tab. ;)
 
2014-01-21 07:06:49 PM  
Can you force a Jewish baker to make a Nazi cake for Hitler's birthday?
 
2014-01-21 07:08:27 PM  

Phinn: ciberido: Phinn: Forcing people to interact with other people is evil.

In some cases.  Like, for example, if the person I were forced to interact with were you.  That'd be pretty evil.

I'd gladly defend your right not to associate with me. I'd downright enjoy not having you in my life.


awesome.

Favorited
 
2014-01-21 07:09:51 PM  

Onkel Buck: If the guy refused to make this kind of cake he would be a farking hero to some of you


Can you show us any example of a liberal baker (of which there are many) refusing to serve a gun-lover client? Or a Christian client? Or a tea-party client?

No?

Well, maybe that's because you're just making shiat up and everything you believe is wrong.
 
2014-01-21 07:10:18 PM  

Theaetetus: I decided to go to law school  because I enjoyed arguing on the Fark politics tab. ;)


Well I'm glad you did decide to, it's nice getting your insight into the law in threads.
 
2014-01-21 07:12:42 PM  

mark12A: Can't wait for the Neo-Nazi's to show up en masse on Fark preaching their crap,


Well, you're still here, right?
 
2014-01-21 07:41:18 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: badaboom: Can you force a Jewish baker to make a Nazi cake for Hitler's birthday? 

/Get back to me when a state makes being a Nazi a protect class..


Just out of curiosity, which classes aren't protected?

If I went into a black baker's store and ordered a KKK hood shaped cake with "Happy Birthday Grand-Wizard Grandpa," and they refused to bake it, would you side with my lawsuit or with the "you're-an-attention-whoring-idiot" crowd? I would hope you would side with latter, but in this instance, you're siding with the former.

Even the protected gays can be obnoxious, Miss Maggie.
 
2014-01-21 07:48:21 PM  

notto: You don't have a religious right to work for a business that discriminates. You don't have a religious right to own a business that discriminates. You don't have a right to run a non-regulated law breaking business period. That is not a requirement of your religion so preventing you from doing it is not an infringement of your rights.

Nobody is stopping you as an individual or as an artist from making or not making cakes. If you want to sell them to the public, that is where your business hat and the laws associated with it take over.

This is established law, not something theoretical or that we are making up. Quit pretending that you can change reality just because you don't like it.

What part of the RFRA governs the selling of goods for profit? Please be specific.


That part I emboldened is the part where you're incorrect. The RFRA does not qualify what is, or isn't, part of belief. If you believe something is part of your religion, the government must take the 'least harm' approach in any contention of religious rights. Obviously, this guarantee does not vanish simply because one offers work for money.

So. This impacts selling goods for profit in that sales which require separate contracts on the part of the business to complete, and require expressive effort by the employees, must not run afoul of the RFRA any more than they can other employee protections. Neither can the government require those kindsw of contracts to be accepted by a business if there is some other way to achieve the desired end result.

This makes total sense. A Buddhist vegetarian caterer cannot be compelled to cook and serve you an Easter ham dinner, just because he serves lunch falafel sandwiches. A Jewish Orthodox photographer cannot be compelled to shoot wedding anniversary porn starring you and your wife, just because he offers pictures of architecture for sale. And in a reasonable world, Christian bakers not inclined should not be compelled to create a wedding cake for your gay wedding, just because they sell cupcakes.

Furthermore, adding a layer of corporate governance to that doesn't change the underlying rights accorded to the people working. The willingness to offer products/services for sale does not compel a business owner to offer every product/service for sale. Just because the ACLU offers legal services, it is not required to represent you in a divorce, and turning down your divorce case is not automatically discrimination if you're an impending gay divorcee.
 
2014-01-21 07:48:30 PM  

MJMaloney187: tinfoil-hat maggie: badaboom: 
Even the protected gays can be obnoxious, Miss Maggie.


Political beliefs do not entitle you to protection under the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 or any state enhancement.

Although, I would welcome your lawsuit, just to see you waste massive money for your sniveling, racist beliefs.
 
2014-01-21 07:57:16 PM  

MJMaloney187: If I went into a black baker's store and ordered a KKK hood shaped cake with "Happy Birthday Grand-Wizard Grandpa," and they refused to bake it


Cakes are not a protected class of people.  Cakes are... cakes.  The store is allowed to discriminate against cakes.
 
2014-01-21 08:03:02 PM  

MJMaloney187: tinfoil-hat maggie: badaboom: Can you force a Jewish baker to make a Nazi cake for Hitler's birthday? 

/Get back to me when a state makes being a Nazi a protect class..

Just out of curiosity, which classes aren't protected?

If I went into a black baker's store and ordered a KKK hood shaped cake with "Happy Birthday Grand-Wizard Grandpa," and they refused to bake it, would you side with my lawsuit or with the "you're-an-attention-whoring-idiot" crowd? I would hope you would side with latter, but in this instance, you're siding with the former.

Even the protected gays can be obnoxious, Miss Maggie.


Membership in political organizations is not a protected class. You can refuse to serve someone for being a communist or a KKK member. It's pretty simple Race, religion, national origin - and gender in almost all states, and sexual orientation in some.
"Gays" don't enjoy any special protections under these laws, so it's hard to tell what you mean by "protected gays".
 
2014-01-21 08:06:48 PM  

gerrymander: notto: You don't have a religious right to work for a business that discriminates. You don't have a religious right to own a business that discriminates. You don't have a right to run a non-regulated law breaking business period. That is not a requirement of your religion so preventing you from doing it is not an infringement of your rights.

Nobody is stopping you as an individual or as an artist from making or not making cakes. If you want to sell them to the public, that is where your business hat and the laws associated with it take over.

This is established law, not something theoretical or that we are making up. Quit pretending that you can change reality just because you don't like it.

What part of the RFRA governs the selling of goods for profit? Please be specific.

That part I emboldened is the part where you're incorrect. The RFRA does not qualify what is, or isn't, part of belief. If you believe something is part of your religion, the government must take the 'least harm' approach in any contention of religious rights. Obviously, this guarantee does not vanish simply because one offers work for money.

So. This impacts selling goods for profit in that sales which require separate contracts on the part of the business to complete, and require expressive effort by the employees, must not run afoul of the RFRA any more than they can other employee protections. Neither can the government require those kindsw of contracts to be accepted by a business if there is some other way to achieve the desired end result.

This makes total sense. A Buddhist vegetarian caterer cannot be compelled to cook and serve you an Easter ham dinner, just because he serves lunch falafel sandwiches. A Jewish Orthodox photographer cannot be compelled to shoot wedding anniversary porn starring you and your wife, just because he offers pictures of architecture for sale. And in a reasonable world, Christian bakers not inclined should not be compelled to create a wedding cake for your gay wedding, just because they sell cupcakes.

Furthermore, adding a layer of corporate governance to that doesn't change the underlying rights accorded to the people working. The willingness to offer products/services for sale does not compel a business owner to offer every product/service for sale. Just because the ACLU offers legal services, it is not required to represent you in a divorce, and turning down your divorce case is not automatically discrimination if you're an impending gay divorcee.


more ignorance of the law on display and more stretched analogies. the government has provided a way to meet the supposed religious beliefs. don't sell wedding cakes to anyone. you can't discriminate in your selling and claim it is a religious rite. it is a choice to be in business. they can choose to not sell wedding cakes in a business covered by state accommodation laws. they chose otherwise and agreed when they opened their business.
 
2014-01-21 08:09:34 PM  

Thunderpipes: I don't get it. This is illegal, but a theater company firing the Running Man chick because of her political beliefs is okay?


You are aware that she quit that job right, she wasn't fired.

http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-pc-actress-quits-play-prot es ts-gop-video-20140119,0,3991766.story#axzz2qxR3ir3d
 
2014-01-21 08:17:22 PM  

jmr61: MyRandomName: stpauler: HoustonNick: Libtard Creed - You must believe like I believe or be punished.  No other beliefs will be accepted.

This is so disgusting.

The only real comeback for this is "fark you, you disgusting sad piece of flapping ass shiat".

You realize that you liberals are acting exactly the same towards religious people, right? Liberals always want respect but never respect the religious views of others. The irony is thick.

Are there really zero other wedding cake designers? This is about liberals trying to fark a religious person over. No more, no less.


Sorry dipshiat. It stops being about someone's "closely held religious beliefs' when they open a shop that caters to the public (that's ALL MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC), rent housing and provide jobs.

At least it is in jurisdictions that care enough to include gender identity and sexual orientation into their code.

Good for the plaintiffs.

Hope your business continues to suffer Mr. and Mrs. Bigot Cake Maker. Or better yet drop the stupid religious beliefs and join the future.


What religious belief does he have to drop? His prophet, jesus of Nazareth, commanded him to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" - in short, to render his proper duties to his society on the one hand, and to God on the other - and not to conflate the two.
What he needs to drop is his bigotry and stupidity - his faith does not require it of him, except in his own mind.
 
2014-01-21 08:24:47 PM  

Theaetetus: Do you think it would be morally right for a business owner to refuse to serve black people, on the grounds that he's a Mormon? And that it would be morally wrong for the government to say "serve everyone, regardless of race, or serve no one"?


I'll answer! To your first question, no, that would not be moral. To your second, yes, that would also not be moral. Using the power of the state to enforce morality pretty much never ends well.
 
2014-01-21 08:29:08 PM  

Dr Dreidel: That way, if you're a private club (which specifically doesn't get a license, and is free to deny service to the darkies for their Curse of Ham, and the homos for the Curse of Ken Ham) (not really, but the rules are more relaxed), the state isn't supporting you and you're free to Christ it up with the other Church Ladies (and Satan) as much as you want.


Well, isn't that special?
 
2014-01-21 08:30:38 PM  

frepnog: gerrymander: But they didn't. They wanted a specialty cake for a one-time event, which required a separate contract. A separate contract to create a one-time piece should have been viewed as art, regardless of whether or not the government imposed restrictions upon the place where the art is created. And at that point, the rights enshrined by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act should have taken precedence.

This decision is wrong, as a matter of law.

you put into words what I have been trying to say.  this.

the owner still didn't need to be a dick tho.


I'm not American, so I'm working on a supposition here. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The contract would with the business, not the owner. As businesses do not have religions, religious freedom would seem to be a moot point.
 
2014-01-21 08:41:00 PM  

GnomePaladin: Phinn: And that's what makes you giddy -- control.

Yeah, MAAAAAAN!  Tell the sheeple to WAKE UP!


Great.

imgs.xkcd.com

Now you've done it.
 
2014-01-21 08:47:18 PM  

notto: more ignorance of the law on display and more stretched analogies. the government has provided a way to meet the supposed religious beliefs. don't sell wedding cakes to anyone. you can't discriminate in your selling and claim it is a religious rite. it is a choice to be in business. they can choose to not sell wedding cakes in a business covered by state accommodation laws. they chose otherwise and agreed when they opened their business.


Yes, it really shouldn't be this difficult to understand. A cake make can't be forced to sell a Vulva cake to a couple of lesbians unless that cake maker makes them for straight people.

/Damn though I have noticed in this thread lots of election year trolls coming out that I hadn't had tagged before.
 
2014-01-21 08:48:58 PM  
This is total bullshiat.
Last I looked, this was f*ckin' America.
They are free to refuse service to anyone for any stupid reason.
People are also free to not patronize the business.
 
2014-01-21 08:49:07 PM  

ciberido: GnomePaladin: Phinn: And that's what makes you giddy -- control.

Yeah, MAAAAAAN!  Tell the sheeple to WAKE UP!

Great.

[imgs.xkcd.com image 740x221]

Now you've done it.


I laughed my butt off when I first saw that.
 
2014-01-21 08:51:49 PM  

HoustonNick: Libtard Creed - You must believe like I believe or be punished.  No other beliefs will be accepted.

This is so disgusting.


THIS

Its crossing an important line when people can harass others with an unpopular minority belief and even close their business over it. Where does it stop?
Isn't the state supporting one belief over another here?
Isn't that like requiring that a Kosher restaurant offer pork & etc & hide the Star of David??
 Whatever happened to "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?"

I hope the Jury preserves that fundamental, constitutional freedom.
I also hope that our voters & next President also legislate some commonsense.
 
2014-01-21 08:54:38 PM  

DogBoyTheCat: This is total bullshiat.
Last I looked, this was f*ckin' America.
They are free to refuse service to anyone for any stupid reason.
People are also free to not patronize the business.


Well have fun with that when you're old enough to run a business.

/Oh and everybody should note the word buisiness has the word sin in it.. Religious exemptions be damned.
 
2014-01-21 08:57:03 PM  
JSTACAT: Plonk
 
2014-01-21 08:57:11 PM  

FarkingHateFark: Using the power of the state to enforce morality pretty much never ends well.


Passing the Civil Rights Act ended poorly?
 
2014-01-21 08:59:27 PM  

JSTACAT: Isn't that like requiring that a Kosher restaurant offer pork & etc & hide the Star of David??


No.  This is like requiring a Kosher restaurant that offers pork to a white dude also has to offer it to a black dude.  Kinda like how a cake maker that offers cakes to a straight couple has to offer them to gay couples.

JSTACAT: Whatever happened to "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?"


It never existed.
 
2014-01-21 09:01:02 PM  

DogBoyTheCat: This is total bullshiat.
Last I looked, this was f*ckin' America.
They are free to refuse service to anyone for any stupid reason.
People are also free to not patronize the business.


When exactly was the last time that businesses in the US were free to refuse service to anyone for anyone stupid reason?

This claim is just revisionist history of the last 50 years (or just ignorance of the actual laws businesses need to follow).
 
2014-01-21 09:02:35 PM  
JSTACAT:

 Whatever happened to "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?"

It was probably ruled unlawful before you were born.
 
2014-01-21 09:03:08 PM  

Fury Pilot: frepnog: gerrymander: But they didn't. They wanted a specialty cake for a one-time event, which required a separate contract. A separate contract to create a one-time piece should have been viewed as art, regardless of whether or not the government imposed restrictions upon the place where the art is created. And at that point, the rights enshrined by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act should have taken precedence.

This decision is wrong, as a matter of law.

you put into words what I have been trying to say.  this.

the owner still didn't need to be a dick tho.

I'm not American, so I'm working on a supposition here. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The contract would with the business, not the owner. As businesses do not have religions, religious freedom would seem to be a moot point.


It depends, really.
 
2014-01-21 09:04:21 PM  
ts2.mm.bing.net
 
2014-01-21 09:04:42 PM  

JSTACAT: HoustonNick: Libtard Creed - You must believe like I believe or be punished.  No other beliefs will be accepted.

This is so disgusting.

THIS

Its crossing an important line when people can harass others with an unpopular minority belief and even close their business over it. Where does it stop?
Isn't the state supporting one belief over another here?
Isn't that like requiring that a Kosher restaurant offer pork & etc & hide the Star of David??
 Whatever happened to "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?"

I hope the Jury preserves that fundamental, constitutional freedom.
I also hope that our voters & next President also legislate some commonsense.


We are not going to reverse a half century of settled civil rights law. It's much easier to simply ignore the very small number of people who think like you do. Your arguments have no legal or Constitutional merit, as the courts ruled, long ago.
The jury by the way, will not have the option of repealing civil rights laws - they will be limited to determining liability or lack thereof under the law.
 
2014-01-21 09:10:44 PM  

notto: JSTACAT:

 Whatever happened to "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?"

It was probably ruled unlawful before you were born.


Nonsense. It's still alive and well - you can refuse service to anyone for any lawful reason that you wish.
You can refuse to serve a black man because his poor hygiene makes him a nuisance.
You can refuse to serve a lesbian because she is being loud and abusive.
You can refuse to serve me because I am not wearing any pants.
You just can't do it because of their race, religion, national origin, handicapped status, or, in my state , gender or sexual orientation.
 
2014-01-21 09:16:48 PM  

lennavan: JSTACAT: Isn't that like requiring that a Kosher restaurant offer pork & etc & hide the Star of David??

No.  This is like requiring a Kosher restaurant that offers pork to a white dude also has to offer it to a black dude.  Kinda like how a cake maker that offers cakes to a straight couple has to offer them to gay couples.

JSTACAT: Whatever happened to "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?"

It never existed.


Thousands of shops & bars might have a problem with your [conveniently adopted]  idea.
I see that sign everywhere...
The custom is as old as America itself, in fact it goes back to ancient times. It stems from a fundamental human and animal right.
Birds don't have to sing for you, Cats don't have to purr for you. People are not required to smile at you, laugh at your jokes, ladies not required to be 'excited' by you & etc.

The common factor here is Service with a smile; it is a voluntary gift, you must win that gift by charm and work, not by force or law. It is the heart and soul of those who cook food for the public & other services.

This type of extremism that closed a shop will cause a swing of the pendulum; towards Russia's policies, and Putin's recent statements.

One day we are going to get a President and Congress who think a lot like V. Putin.
because of this ridiculous whinging and crying.
 
2014-01-21 09:27:45 PM  

JSTACAT: lennavan: JSTACAT: Isn't that like requiring that a Kosher restaurant offer pork & etc & hide the Star of David??

No.  This is like requiring a Kosher restaurant that offers pork to a white dude also has to offer it to a black dude.  Kinda like how a cake maker that offers cakes to a straight couple has to offer them to gay couples.

JSTACAT: Whatever happened to "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?"

It never existed.

Thousands of shops & bars might have a problem with your [conveniently adopted]  idea.
I see that sign everywhere...
The custom is as old as America itself, in fact it goes back to ancient times. It stems from a fundamental human and animal right.
Birds don't have to sing for you, Cats don't have to purr for you. People are not required to smile at you, laugh at your jokes, ladies not required to be 'excited' by you & etc.

The common factor here is Service with a smile; it is a voluntary gift, you must win that gift by charm and work, not by force or law. It is the heart and soul of those who cook food for the public & other services.

This type of extremism that closed a shop will cause a swing of the pendulum; towards Russia's policies, and Putin's recent statements.

One day we are going to get a President and Congress who think a lot like V. Putin.
because of this ridiculous whinging and crying.


Pocket Ninja has nothing to worry about.
 
2014-01-21 09:30:57 PM  

JSTACAT: lennavan: JSTACAT: Isn't that like requiring that a Kosher restaurant offer pork & etc & hide the Star of David??

No. This is like requiring a Kosher restaurant that offers pork to a white dude also has to offer it to a black dude. Kinda like how a cake maker that offers cakes to a straight couple has to offer them to gay couples.

JSTACAT: Whatever happened to "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?"

It never existed.

Thousands of shops & bars might have a problem with your [conveniently adopted] idea.


I have no doubt there are many establishments, especially in the south, that are really mad they have to serve black people.  Fortunately, all of the courts including the SCOTUS agree with "my" [conveniently adopted] idea.

JSTACAT: I see that sign everywhere...


Writing some crap on a sign doesn't suddenly make it a right.

JSTACAT: This type of extremism that closed a shop will cause a swing of the pendulum; towards Russia's policies, and Putin's recent statements.


The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964.  I think we're safe.
 
2014-01-21 09:31:31 PM  

DubtodaIll: ciberido: DubtodaIll: Headso: DubtodaIll: You've already gotten your legal rights for marriage, why make an example out of a solitary business and screw over the cakemakers?

Because these lezbos are uppity, breh

Just seems selfish to me.

Yes, of course.  And I'm sure if we lived in a parallel universe where the roles were reversed, you wouldn't complain if businesses refused to serve you on the basis of your heterosexuality.  You would consider it selfish to demand equal treatment.

I'd just go somewhere that wanted my money, certainly wouldn't call the press about it. But that's easy for me to say I'm not an asshole.


It's easy for you to say because you've never experienced that kind of discrimination and never will.  I don't accuse you of lying: I'm sure you believe that's how you would react under those circumstances.   But that's less because you're "not an asshole" and more because you don't understand yourself very well.
 
2014-01-21 09:33:37 PM  

Nytfall: Phinn: ciberido: Phinn: Forcing people to interact with other people is evil.

In some cases.  Like, for example, if the person I were forced to interact with were you.  That'd be pretty evil.

I'd gladly defend your right not to associate with me. I'd downright enjoy not having you in my life.

awesome.

Favorited


I'm glad you guys are having as much fun with this as I am.
 
2014-01-21 09:34:27 PM  
It saddens me that by the letter of the law some of you numbskulls are considered my peers.
 
2014-01-21 09:59:01 PM  

DogBoyTheCat: This is total bullshiat.
Last I looked, this was f*ckin' America.
They are free to refuse service to anyone for any stupid reason.


No, actually, they're not.


You can refuse service to people for ~some~ reasons in some places (i.e., "No shirt, no shoes, no service"), but not in other places, and sometimes in no location for certain reasons.


For example, you can't refuse service to someone if the reason for doing so is discriminatory.

For example, if I have a cake shop, and you come in acting like someone off a Bridezilla show, I can refuse service to you because of your attitude.

But if instead, I say I'm refusing service to you because of a protected class that you fall into, that's where I get in trouble, legally.

However, protected classes vary from state to state, though some are protected at a federal level.

People are also free to not patronize the business.

They can do that, too.

But, for all the morons who have been coming to this thread and blaming the couple...  They're not at fault.  They reported a violation of the law.  The same as any citizen is expected to do.
 
2014-01-21 10:05:29 PM  
One good thing about all of this ...
Some fundamental issues have been well advertised to the general public.
Putin's comments have also been well advertised.
People might actually start to think about all this.
Put 2 + 2 together.
Lets see what the end result will be, eh?
 
2014-01-21 10:14:16 PM  
 
2014-01-21 10:18:08 PM  
"Using the power of the state to enforce morality pretty much never ends well."
This is the fundamental truth which seems to be evading nearly all the debate on this issue and certainly the two parties involved in the initial dispute. "The Power of the State" is an enormous and callous blunt instrument with far reaching and potentially very damaging effects on everyone's fundamental freedoms.
That power should only be invoked where real and tangible harm from one party to another can be demonstrated.  Otherwise, when you invoke said power to settle what is essentially a dispute about who's moral code is more righteous, you are bound to be disappointed when the law eventually gets around to declaring your particular moral code as no longer valid.
I hope this case goes to a jury. I hope they find both the plaintiff and defendant in flagrant violation of the most basic human response of common courtesy and sentence both parties to 90 days purgatory on a play ground with 5th grade children.
This whole goddamned pissing match is over a frikin' pastry (and perhaps whose feelings were hurt the most)!
The Bakers (who are no doubt bigots and worthy of scorn) could have respectfully asked the lesbian couple to seek another baker for their cake.  But no, they had to stamp their feet and refuse to play in the fair world of basic commerce in order to protest their personal religious rights.  Shame on them for being bigots and ignorant.
The lesbians could have politely expressed their disappointment at such outdated and hateful views by boycotting the shop of any further business, like a normal rational person might do.  If they wanted to add a heap of cold ashes to their righteous indignation they could have shared the story of their experience in any number of online blogs or rating services.  But no, they had to prove their moral superiority to the whole world in a court of law by dragging those terrible spiteful Christians and their outdated moral code into the cold light of modern secular society and teach them a lesson.  Shame on them for being arrogant and self absorbed.
And now, because neither one of these two infantile parties had enough common sense to recognize this particular case of "whose moral code is superior" simply does not rise to the level any demonstrable harm to either party, we (the people who have to live with these two kindergartners that have not learned the most basic forms of personal conflict resolution) have to endure whatever new legal construct is devised to resolve their ridiculous dispute. A construct which must necessarily declare one party aggrieved and the other liable; which must necessarily limit someone's right to either free expression or free association.
And for what......"The right to declare your personal moral code superior for appropriate pastry use."  Really.  If this ever sees the light of day in a court room we all suffer.  Oh waite, it has already been litigated.  I feel the pain of stupid now.  It burns us and makes fools of us all.  I shudder for generations that follow..............
 
2014-01-21 10:24:30 PM  

JSTACAT: One good thing about all of this ...
Some fundamental issues have been well advertised to the general public.
Putin's comments have also been well advertised.
People might actually start to think about all this.
Put 2 + 2 together.
Lets see what the end result will be, eh?


Lol, so you're really gonna be a Putin shill?
/It's sad because you ain't getting paid for that
// I know Putin's manly hairless chest can say some people so inclinde but he's not going to sleep with you or do other 'manly things' with you.

junkyardarts.com
 
2014-01-21 10:26:07 PM  

JSTACAT: Put 2 + 2 together.
Lets see what the end result will be, eh?


It's 4. And you're still mistaken about nearly everything you said.
 
Displayed 50 of 676 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | 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