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  
•       •       •

5453 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Jan 2014 at 1:11 PM (31 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 10:31:29 PM

lennavan: The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. I think we're safe.


The Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965; don't get too cocky.
 
2014-01-21 10:33:30 PM

Discorporated: "

Wow, that copy-pasta must have taken you a while to find.

Do you have an original thought in your head? (And by that I mean one that's relevant to the thread?

 
2014-01-21 10:33:42 PM

Discorporated: 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.


No "new legal construct" need be or will be devised to resolve this dispute. It falls under old, settled law.
The case is slated to go to a jury. This jury will not, however find any of the things you suggest. Instead, it will find that the defendant is either liable or not liable, under the old, existing law in question.
No new law will be made.
No precedent will be set.
Nothing will change.

You are entitle to rant all you want about how you think other people ought to act, and how much shiat they should have to politely eat when bigots feel like handing it out - but they don't have to listen to you. Society and history are on their side.
 
2014-01-21 10:35:19 PM

abb3w: lennavan: The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. I think we're safe.

The Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965; don't get too cocky.


Indeed the crazies really wanna come back.
 
2014-01-21 10:36:23 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie: 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 image 425x283]


Again - I don't know what I did, but thank you. :)
 
2014-01-21 10:37:06 PM
Maggie:

Wow, that copy-pasta must have taken you a while to find.

Do you have an original thought in your head? (And by that I mean one that's relevant to the thread?



More is the pity they have not reached yours.
 
2014-01-21 10:41:45 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie: abb3w: lennavan: The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. I think we're safe.

The Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965; don't get too cocky.

Indeed the crazies really wanna come back.


It's weird -  I was in the Civil rights movement in the sixties. There were a lot more of them then, and they were a lot meaner and had a lot more balls then. How these punk ass pussies expect to re-fight the same battle and win now just utterly bemuses me.
Outnumbered, outgunned, and outmanned. It's got to be some weird kind of autism that involves complex delusions.
 
2014-01-21 10:46:17 PM
For you morons trying desperately to equate the civil rights struggle with the gay lifestyle:


1.bp.blogspot.com    www.biography.com ...........OK?
 
2014-01-21 10:48:21 PM

jso2897: Again - I don't know what I did, but thank you. :)


Well, how about this you keep doing what you don't know you're doing : D
 
2014-01-21 10:51:48 PM

Alleyoop: For you morons trying desperately to equate the civil rights struggle with the gay lifestyle:


[1.bp.blogspot.com image 386x400]  ≠  [www.biography.com image 402x402] ...........OK?


Uh.....yeah, sure. Sure thing, buddy........
i18.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-21 10:55:46 PM

Discorporated: More is the pity they have not reached yours.


Yes, I know believing every adult human being should be equal sounds weird to you. As long as they haven't committed a crime it's cool with me.
I don't know what you're problem is other than you are a trolling little attention whore.
 
2014-01-21 11:00:14 PM

Alleyoop: For you morons trying desperately to equate the civil rights struggle with the gay lifestyle:


[1.bp.blogspot.com image 386x400]  ≠  [www.biography.com image 402x402] ...........OK?


Well, I'm convinced.
 
2014-01-22 12:10:57 AM

Hickory-smoked: 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.



If wishes were fishes, Eh?
Public Opinion:
She doesn't care about laws and stuffy old men in robes, lonely lovers, feckless boys, ugly ducklings;
nor does She care about toes getting stepped on.

When She arises, Kings and Nations bow down, history gets a new chapter.
By the time anyone is concerned enough to say something about Her intentions, its already far too late.

She will vacillate wildly,  arousing hope in each suitor, then dashing them against the floor, all the while,  Her true intentions are a mystery to all but Ceiling Cat.
In the end, the most passionate suitors are left out in the cold, in the outer darkness, where the dogs slaver and  howl;  whilst Her favored Champions rejoice with Her in the warm castle.

Here, we have some suitors who have been steadily harassing the Maiden, making more and more demands, increasing the pitch and the volume, playing ever harder and louder their out of tune song... and wouldn't you know it?
 They will be the last to know.
 
2014-01-22 12:43:15 AM

JSTACAT: Hickory-smoked: 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.


If wishes were fishes, Eh?
Public Opinion:
She doesn't care about laws and stuffy old men in robes, lonely lovers, feckless boys, ugly ducklings;
nor does She care about toes getting stepped on.

When She arises, Kings and Nations bow down, history gets a new chapter.
By the time anyone is concerned enough to say something about Her intentions, its already far too late.

She will vacillate wildly,  arousing hope in each suitor, then dashing them against the floor, all the while,  Her true intentions are a mystery to all but Ceiling Cat.
In the end, the most passionate suitors are left out in the cold, in the outer darkness, where the dogs slaver and  howl;  whilst Her favored Champions rejoice with Her in the warm castle.

Here, we have some suitors who have been steadily harassing the Maiden, making more and more demands, increasing the pitch and the volume, playing ever harder and louder their out of tune song... and wouldn't you know it?
 They will be the last to know.


Alcohol is a hell of a drug.
 
2014-01-22 12:55:06 AM

jso2897: JSTACAT: Hickory-smoked: 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.


If wishes were fishes, Eh?
Public Opinion:
She doesn't care about laws and stuffy old men in robes, lonely lovers, feckless boys, ugly ducklings;
nor does She care about toes getting stepped on.

When She arises, Kings and Nations bow down, history gets a new chapter.
By the time anyone is concerned enough to say something about Her intentions, its already far too late.

She will vacillate wildly,  arousing hope in each suitor, then dashing them against the floor, all the while,  Her true intentions are a mystery to all but Ceiling Cat.
In the end, the most passionate suitors are left out in the cold, in the outer darkness, where the dogs slaver and  howl;  whilst Her favored Champions rejoice with Her in the warm castle.

Here, we have some suitors who have been steadily harassing the Maiden, making more and more demands, increasing the pitch and the volume, playing ever harder and louder their out of tune song... and wouldn't you know it?
 They will be the last to know.

Alcohol is a hell of a drug.


I dunno, sounds more like Ambien.
 
2014-01-22 12:56:36 AM

Finger51: 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.


I don't know what "Jeezus" as you put it has to do with any of it.  I take it that according to you, if someone doesn't support gay marriage they have to be a Christian?  I guess that means I should support pedophilia too?  From what I understand the bible is against murder also.. I am against murder so does that mean that because I am against murder but not a Christian than I am being a dick for dick sake to people that kill people?
I know, it isn't illegal to be gay but it is to murder someone.  Well, not long ago it was illegal to be gay so that argument doesn't work either.
For the  record I am not in any way against gay marriage.. What I am against is some jack ass coming into my place of business and telling me how to run it.  If I baked cakes and you wanted me to make a dick cake.. I wouldn't do that either.
I feel the same about anti-abortion people picketing Planned Parenthood.  I doubt you will see the logic though.
 
2014-01-22 01:11:57 AM

TrotlineDesigns: If I baked cakes and you wanted me to make a dick cake.. I wouldn't do that either.


img512.imageshack.us
 This isn't about what's being made. It's about a public business denying a sale to a protected class on the basis of the protected class's protected status.
 
2014-01-22 01:19:57 AM
TrotlineDesigns:  I don't know what "Jeezus" as you put it has to do with any of it.  I take it that according to you, if someone doesn't support gay marriage they have to be a Christian?

Would you agree or disagree that Conservative Christians make up the bulk of the opposition to gay rights in the US? And in particular this baker's personal opposition?


I guess that means I should support pedophilia too?  From what I understand the bible is against murder also.. I am against murder so does that mean that because I am against murder but not a Christian than I am being a dick for dick sake to people that kill people?
I know, it isn't illegal to be gay but it is to murder someone.  Well, not long ago it was illegal to be gay so that argument doesn't work either.


Murder is a violation against another person. Other people having consensual gay sex without you is not. Arguments against homosexuality are entirely based on enforcing traditional general norms.


For the  record I am not in any way against gay marriage.. What I am against is some jack ass coming into my place of business and telling me how to run it.  If I baked cakes and you wanted me to make a dick cake.. I wouldn't do that either.

The Kleins were asked to make a wedding cake, which is something they do. They only objected when they found out who the cake was for.


I feel the same about anti-abortion people picketing Planned Parenthood.  I doubt you will see the logic though.

I don't even see the connection. You're saying your business would not sell cake to abortion protesters?
 
2014-01-22 01:28:56 AM

Hickory-smoked: TrotlineDesigns:  I don't know what "Jeezus" as you put it has to do with any of it.  I take it that according to you, if someone doesn't support gay marriage they have to be a Christian?

Would you agree or disagree that Conservative Christians make up the bulk of the opposition to gay rights in the US? And in particular this baker's personal opposition?


I guess that means I should support pedophilia too?  From what I understand the bible is against murder also.. I am against murder so does that mean that because I am against murder but not a Christian than I am being a dick for dick sake to people that kill people?
I know, it isn't illegal to be gay but it is to murder someone.  Well, not long ago it was illegal to be gay so that argument doesn't work either.

Murder is a violation against another person. Other people having consensual gay sex without you is not. Arguments against homosexuality are entirely based on enforcing traditional general norms.


For the  record I am not in any way against gay marriage.. What I am against is some jack ass coming into my place of business and telling me how to run it.  If I baked cakes and you wanted me to make a dick cake.. I wouldn't do that either.

The Kleins were asked to make a wedding cake, which is something they do. They only objected when they found out who the cake was for.


I feel the same about anti-abortion people picketing Planned Parenthood.  I doubt you will see the logic though.

I don't even see the connection. You're saying your business would not sell cake to abortion protesters?


I didn't even go into the litany of Straw Man arguments in his screed. He's making fallacious argument after fallacious argument, then has the gall to say "I doubt you will see the logic though."

In that regard, he is correct: As his entire screed is a litany of logical fallacies, I refuse to acknowledge them as worthy of consideration.
 
2014-01-22 02:36:02 AM

iheartscotch: UrukHaiGuyz: iheartscotch: I'm all for any business to refuse service; but, these guys did it the wrong way. Should have said that they were booked solid and couldn't possibly make another cake.

Sure, but how's that gonna hoist them up on that cross? They're clearly going for the Chic-Fil-A model, or as I like to call it, the "Southern Fried Strategy".

Well, it would have kept them from getting sued. That's more important than martyrdom.


Nothing is more important than martyrdom. (Although I believe lying in service to God is considered okay.)
 
2014-01-22 05:47:10 AM
I wish I had some cake right now.
 
2014-01-22 05:52:48 AM

TrotlineDesigns: Finger51: 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.

I don't know what "Jeezus" as you put it has to do with any of it.  I take it that according to you, if someone doesn't support gay marriage they have to be a Christian?  I guess that means I should support pedophilia too?  From what I understand the bible is against murder also.. I am against murder so does that mean that because I am against murder but not a Christian than I am being a dick for dick sake to people that kill people?
I know, it isn't illegal to be gay but it is to murder someone.  Well, not long ago it was illegal to be gay so that argument doesn't work either.
For the  record I am not in any way against gay marriage.. What I am against is some jack ass coming into my place of business and telling me how to run it.  If I baked cakes and you wanted me to make a dick cake.. I wouldn't do that either.
I feel the same about anti-abortion people picketing Planned Parenthood.  I doubt you will see the logic though.


Oh great - another f**king gimmick account. For those of you who are not anglers, a "trotline" is a type of fishing rig with a series of hooks in tandem, which can be used to fish slow moving rivers from the banks, a or, ideally for....trolling.
I refuse to respond to trolls who are so crude and hamfisted as to put it in their name. It's vulgar. One might as well converse with LeTrole.
 
2014-01-22 07:23:24 AM

Theaetetus: 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.


Did they teach a class of feigning ignorance in your law school?  I believe that there is no rational basis for forcing a person or company to do business with someone, other than in an emergency.

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.

And as already stated, I understand that the court has decided that such types of commercial speech is not protected in these circumstances.  I'm saying they're wrong.
 
2014-01-22 08:10:42 AM

BKITU: TrotlineDesigns: If I baked cakes and you wanted me to make a dick cake.. I wouldn't do that either.

[img512.imageshack.us image 500x75]
 This isn't about what's being made. It's about a public business denying a sale to a protected class on the basis of the protected class's protected status.


What -if- it  is realised that the business was targeted by persons wishing to harass them for their Religious beliefs?
Then how can the business owner's rights be protected? Are their rights less than their attackers?
Imagine you had a business and people came out of the woodwork specifically to harass you and cause trouble, because they hate what you believe?

The attackers have an easy means of escape [they can go elsewhere], the business owners do not.[they get entrapped]
For someone to force a business owner to violate their Ethics under cover of victimhood is wrong, and the Public will not support it.
These attackers went to great efforts to become a victim, because they hated the business owners for their Religious beliefs.

Christian baiting.
Its the same as Jew baiting.
[N: active persecution or harassment of Jews ]
 
2014-01-22 08:11:35 AM
BMFPitt:

Did they teach a class of feigning ignorance in your law school?  I believe that there is no rational basis for forcing a person or company to do business with someone, other than in an emergency.

Nobody is forcing anybody to do business.  They choose to do business.  If they make that choice, then they need to serve everyone according to the law.

If they don't want to provide wedding cakes to everyone according to the law, they can make the choice to not provide wedding cakes and stick with cupcakes.

They chose to go into a business that would require them to break their religious convictions to stay in business.  They have the choice to get out of that business and go into one that does not present them with this dilemma.

The business license they signed and agreed to is pretty clear on this. Their ignorance of what they signed is no excuse to break the law.
 
2014-01-22 08:18:52 AM

JSTACAT: BKITU: TrotlineDesigns: If I baked cakes and you wanted me to make a dick cake.. I wouldn't do that either.

[img512.imageshack.us image 500x75]
 This isn't about what's being made. It's about a public business denying a sale to a protected class on the basis of the protected class's protected status.

What -if- it  is realised that the business was targeted by persons wishing to harass them for their Religious beliefs?
Then how can the business owner's rights be protected? Are their rights less than their attackers?
Imagine you had a business and people came out of the woodwork specifically to harass you and cause trouble, because they hate what you believe?

The attackers have an easy means of escape [they can go elsewhere], the business owners do not.[they get entrapped]
For someone to force a business owner to violate their Ethics under cover of victimhood is wrong, and the Public will not support it.
These attackers went to great efforts to become a victim, because they hated the business owners for their Religious beliefs.

Christian baiting.
Its the same as Jew baiting.
[N: active persecution or harassment of Jews ]


They ordered a cake at a cake shop.
 
2014-01-22 08:22:21 AM
notto:
They chose to go into a business that would require them to break their religious convictions to stay in business.  They have the choice to get out of that business and go into one that does not present them with this dilemma.

Just wait until someone puts your ethics on the line like that & you have to either abandon your job/business or suffer a destroyed conscience.

What we have here is conflict in the law; inevitable, i suppose, the answer is not cut & dried.

The alleged violation, either side, must be examined for motive.

It is far more likely that the business was hunted down [targeted]; than the business seeking out a person to victimise.
It is a distinction we are forced to examine because of the aggression of recruitment.

The more people think about this, the more likely common sense will prevail.
Grumpycatgood.jpg
 
2014-01-22 08:28:50 AM

Fafai: JSTACAT:

Christian baiting.
Its the same as Jew baiting.
[N: active persecution or harassment of Jews ]

They ordered a cake at a cake shop.



"They" were throwing pennies in front of a shop, or at someone walking down the street.

Looks innocent, but it isn't.
 
2014-01-22 08:29:43 AM

JSTACAT: It is far more likely that the business was hunted down [targeted]; than the business seeking out a person to victimise.


Conflict can happen when people don't see eye to eye. It doesn't mean any one side orchestrated it from the beginning. It just means some people are jerks maybe.
 
2014-01-22 08:34:23 AM

JSTACAT: Fafai: JSTACAT:

Christian baiting.
Its the same as Jew baiting.
[N: active persecution or harassment of Jews ]

They ordered a cake at a cake shop.


"They" were throwing pennies in front of a shop, or at someone walking down the street.

Looks innocent, but it isn't.


Even if that's true, placing malice anywhere you'd like in this situation, the fact remains that the lesbian couple hadn't done anything illegal to the bakery. The bakery, on the other hand, discriminated against the couple, which is illegal. All regardless of motive or intent on either side.

/you sound paranoid
 
2014-01-22 08:45:21 AM

Fafai: JSTACAT: It is far more likely that the business was hunted down [targeted]; than the business seeking out a person to victimise.

Conflict can happen when people don't see eye to eye. It doesn't mean any one side orchestrated it from the beginning. It just means some people are jerks maybe.


Good point, jerkiness should not be an occasion for the severe actions being taken against the cake shop & the owners. It does not have the damages or ill will that the law is intended to prevent.

What if some christian went to a Muslim oriented bake shop and flaunted their christian-ness while demanding service? [such as ordering a confection in the shape of a cross with certain inscriptions or words known to rile a Muslim]
That's nuts to think the shop owner would submit to that.

Would those "victims' want to bake a cake that contained an insult to their beliefs?
Would you bake a cake that represented what you think is an insult to your God?
I doubt it!

Its a catch 22, that's why a Jury is called, For commonsense.
 
2014-01-22 09:05:11 AM

JSTACAT: Just wait until someone puts your ethics on the line like that & you have to either abandon your job/business or suffer a destroyed conscience.


If my ethics ever can be put on the line like that, then my ethics need immediate rethinking.
 
2014-01-22 09:11:22 AM

JSTACAT: For someone to force a business owner to violate their Ethics under cover of victimhood is wrong, and the Public will not support it.


Considering this in TFA... "Since then, Sweet Cakes has closed up its public storefront and the Kleins now run it from home, citing a loss of business due to public scrutiny." [citations in article not reproduced.] ..., I'd say you're in error about what the public will choose to (or not) support.
 
2014-01-22 09:17:53 AM

Alleyoop: For you morons trying desperately to equate the civil rights struggle with the gay lifestyle:


[1.bp.blogspot.com image 386x400]  ≠  [www.biography.com image 402x402] ...........OK?


welcometofark.jpg

it's ok to admit your afraid of teh ghey, that's why your racistTM

let the butthurt flow through you.jpg

you people are going to look so stupid 40 years from now.jpg
 
2014-01-22 09:27:28 AM

I drunk what: you people are going to look so stupid 40 years from now.jpg


Of course, they look plenty stupid today.
 
2014-01-22 09:44:03 AM
So there is this sculptor who, among other works, makes sculptures of male/female couples in a tender embrace or other romantic pose for the couples.  If a gay couple comes into the artist's shop, can they demand that he make a sculpture of them in a romantic pose, even though homosexuality is against his personal belief?  What about a photographer that chooses not to photograph at a gay wedding?  Is the artist violating the gay couple's rights, or is forcing the artist to comply violating his?
 
2014-01-22 09:58:31 AM

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

This is so disgusting.

So if I think disabled people are weak and disgusting, I am free to refuse them service at my business?  And I can serve whites only, that's OK because these are my beliefs, right?


The B&B case has a clearer example of why the whole "I can refuse business based on my religious beliefs" argument is fallacious:

Fundamentalist Christian wants to claim that he doesn't have to serve any client where doing so would violate his religious beliefs.   Client is a Muslim who will want to pray in his rented room.

Whose religious beliefs trump the other?

The reality is that these religious belief arguments only seem to appear when non-heterosexuals are involved.   It really has little to do with religious beliefs since the proprietors never seem to have a problem with customers causing them to violate their religious beliefs in terms of divorce, conflict of religion, etc.
 
2014-01-22 10:06:26 AM

Old_Covered_Bridge: So there is this sculptor who, among other works, makes sculptures of male/female couples in a tender embrace or other romantic pose for the couples.  If a gay couple comes into the artist's shop, can they demand that he make a sculpture of them in a romantic pose, even though homosexuality is against his personal belief?  What about a photographer that chooses not to photograph at a gay wedding?  Is the artist violating the gay couple's rights, or is forcing the artist to comply violating his?


If the sculptor or the photographer are not making works for hire, but making artwork that they offer for sale, then they have freedom to make whatever art they'd like. However, if they offer a service to the public taking commissions, then they cannot discriminate based on those protected traits.
And they are not violating the artist's rights - the artist has voluntarily decided to offer business to the public, so the artist must offer business to the entire public. They are free to close their business.
 
2014-01-22 10:50:42 AM
The stupidity in this thread has reached critical levels. It's reading 1.21 jiggaderps!
 
2014-01-22 10:51:46 AM

JSTACAT: BKITU: TrotlineDesigns: If I baked cakes and you wanted me to make a dick cake.. I wouldn't do that either.

[img512.imageshack.us image 500x75]
 This isn't about what's being made. It's about a public business denying a sale to a protected class on the basis of the protected class's protected status.

What -if- it  is realised that the business was targeted by persons wishing to harass them for their Religious beliefs?
Then how can the business owner's rights be protected? Are their rights less than their attackers?
Imagine you had a business and people came out of the woodwork specifically to harass you and cause trouble, because they hate what you believe?

The attackers have an easy means of escape [they can go elsewhere], the business owners do not.[they get entrapped]
For someone to force a business owner to violate their Ethics under cover of victimhood is wrong, and the Public will not support it.
These attackers went to great efforts to become a victim, because they hated the business owners for their Religious beliefs.

Christian baiting.
Its the same as Jew baiting.
[N: active persecution or harassment of Jews ]


Fine.  Find a tardis and go back in time to annoy the crap out of the people trying to put forth the laws that keep a company from refusing service to someone due to lifestyle, skin color, etc.  If you succeed, we won't remember you because this discussion probably won't exist.  As a result you're as inconsequential as you are now.
 
2014-01-22 11:15:48 AM
I don't understand why there is such confusion on this topic.

One of the goals of a democratic republic is to ensure that all citizens are treated equally. Historically, to accomplish this, laws have been enacted to put into place extra protections for groups that have been identified as being persecuted.

Yes these laws will restrict people's rights to express their hate and prejudices. This is considered an acceptable compromise ... similar to the idea that your right to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater is restricted.

Are these laws perfect? No. Is there some muddy areas around implementation and enforcement? Yes. Are these laws completely necessary? Debatable. They tend to help society move faster in a direction that it was already moving but they also tend to trigger some backlash (i.e. half this thread).

Either way "gay hate" is already shunned in much of today's society. The youth of today don't understand what the big deal is. It wont be long before people are ashamed to admit that their grandpa actually used to rant about the "gay agenda" and they'll make excuses about how he really wasn't a bad guy.

Caveman morals belong in the past.
 
2014-01-22 11:26:49 AM
So if a cake shop refuses to make a cake for people who prefer the companies of goats and little kids, then they'd also be discriminating.


Anyways, if I went to a shop that refused me service, I leave a bad yelp and go to another shop rather than impose my beliefs on a non-essential service.
 
2014-01-22 11:30:55 AM

JSTACAT: BKITU: TrotlineDesigns: If I baked cakes and you wanted me to make a dick cake.. I wouldn't do that either.

[img512.imageshack.us image 500x75]
 This isn't about what's being made. It's about a public business denying a sale to a protected class on the basis of the protected class's protected status.

What -if- it  is realised that the business was targeted by persons wishing to harass them for their Religious beliefs?
Then how can the business owner's rights be protected? Are their rights less than their attackers?
Imagine you had a business and people came out of the woodwork specifically to harass you and cause trouble, because they hate what you believe?

The attackers have an easy means of escape [they can go elsewhere], the business owners do not.[they get entrapped]
For someone to force a business owner to violate their Ethics under cover of victimhood is wrong, and the Public will not support it.
These attackers went to great efforts to become a victim, because they hated the business owners for their Religious beliefs.

Christian baiting.
Its the same as Jew baiting.
[N: active persecution or harassment of Jews ]


Jesus Christ, you're a moron.

Here's the thing. Cases like this are incredibly difficult to prove, because it often times becomes a matter of "he said, she said, I felt". Unless someone states in absolutely concrete terms that they will not do business with someone because of a protected class - race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or even sexual orientation in certain states - the cases are almost always thrown out as unprovable.

The Baker told the couple that they were abominations in the eyes of God, and that he would never make a cake for homosexuals. This guy was not only an idiot, but he handed them a slam dunk discrimination case for the AG to address because he was stupid enough to let his true motives be heard.

Unless you can prove their motive was to troll the baker, then your argument is null and void as concern trolling in the thread. Contrary to your belief, there are not roving bands of homosexual couples out trolling "Christian" bakeries to get them in trouble with the AG for discriminatory business practices.
 
2014-01-22 11:31:36 AM

Dadoody: So if a cake shop refuses to make a cake for people who prefer the companies of goats and little kids, then they'd also be discriminating.


Anyways, if I went to a shop that refused me service, I leave a bad yelp and go to another shop rather than impose my beliefs on a non-essential service.


Uh, no. Sexual paraphilias are not a protected class.
 
2014-01-22 11:49:10 AM

Dadoody: So if a cake shop refuses to make a cake for people who prefer the companies of goats and little kids, then they'd also be discriminating.


I don't think goat herders is a protected class of citizens.  It has been awhile since I have read up on Supreme Court cases, so I might be wrong.
 
2014-01-22 11:59:22 AM
"The case became really strange when a local newspaper started placing orders for cakes it assumed would also be turned away, including a party for a divorce, a celebration of the pagan solstice complete with green pentagram decoration, a congratulatory cake on a grant to study cloning human stem cells, and even a cake celebrating a baby born out of wedlock. All were accepted, reported Willamette Week in May."

forget anything I said.  fark those guys.  hypocrites.
 
2014-01-22 12:12:10 PM

hardinparamedic: Dadoody: So if a cake shop refuses to make a cake for people who prefer the companies of goats and little kids, then they'd also be discriminating.


Anyways, if I went to a shop that refused me service, I leave a bad yelp and go to another shop rather than impose my beliefs on a non-essential service.

Uh, no. Sexual paraphilias are not a protected class.



The selection of particular criteria for this form of special protection is arbitrary and unprincipled.
 
2014-01-22 01:11:37 PM

Theaetetus: Please watch your language. I have extended you every courtesy. If you cannot participate in a conversation like an adult, then do not attempt to do so.



I humbly beg your pardon, kind sir, for the offense I have given.  Please accept my sincere apology for my coarse demeanor, and my pledge to endeavor to refrain from such behavior in the future.  Forsooth, we shall elevate the dignity of this discourse, henceforth.


Theaetetus: Once more, but only because I'm attempting to show you that adults can communicate, even with those they disagree with, without acting like assholes.



Aaaaand, we see that Theatetus is a fu*king hypocrite.  Typical.  Watch your fu*king language, fu*k-stick.


Theaetetus: Why there should be a rule that says that you cannot discriminate in the course of your public, commercial enterprise, is that in our society, we have collectively agreed that minorities should not be oppressed or punished, merely because they are a minority. Every person should have an equal right to participate in the public sphere, regardless of race, creed, color, gender, sexual orientation, etc., because it is through the contribution of different viewpoints and beliefs that our society advances.

Accordingly, when someone discriminates in public accommodations, they are preventing a fellow citizen from participating in that public sphere. Just as you have the right to free speech, you do not have the right to prevent others from speaking, merely because you disagree with their beliefs. Similarly, just as you have the right to engage in commercial activity, you do not have the right to prevent others from doing so, merely because you disagree with their race or gender.

Nor is it a valid answer to say "they can go to some other merchant," just as it's not a valid answer to say "they can go to some other public forum to speak." The same danger occurs - if the minority can only exercise their rights "elsewhere", then the majority may take their rights simply by occupying everywhere they can go.

So, in summary, the ethical principle that prevents you from discriminating against others in your commercial business is the same ethical principle that prevents you from silencing someone from speaking their mind, or prevents you from stopping someone from praying, or prevents you from shredding someone's petition to a court.



1. There is no such thing as "collective agreement."  Collectives cannot agree or disagree.  Only individuals can.  In any event, to the extent that some powerful people have exerted their power over others by establishing a rule for others to follow, the fact that some arbitrary percentage of the population assents to this rule is of no ethical significance whatsoever.  Majorities are no more presumptively ethical than an individual.

2. The way in which you define minorities is arbitrary and unprincipled.  That's what I was getting at with the "left-handed Twilight fans" comment.

3.  You are a disingenuous hypocrite when you claim that your defense of special protections is based on the protection of "different viewpoints," because it is precisely the opposition to gay marriage (a viewpoint!) that is the reason why these bakery people are being prosecuted!  If you were sincerely interested in protecting the expression of "different viewpoints," then you would respect the right of people with different viewpoints to express them.  Sort of obvious, really.  But it is the very act of expressing a different viewpoint that, in your view, justifies the imposition of special penalties.  Your attempt at justifying this law on such grounds is utterly and irretrievably contradicted and destroyed by your own argument.

4. Even though you have already self-detonated your argument, I will entertain the rest of your argument.  Unfortunately, it's a jumble of nonsense bordering on a word salad.  The act of refusing to bake someone a cake is in no way "preventing them from participating in the public sphere."  Nowhere have you explained what the "public sphere" is.  More importantly, there is no way to show how one bakery could ever accomplish such monopolistic prevention of such "participation," or how they have prevented the customer from obtaining a cake elsewhere, or from engaging in any other commercial activity with anyone else.  This is simply untrue, even if it were possible.

5. Your analogy to the Freedom of Speech is nonsensical,  By your argument, my closing my ears, or refusing to read someone's suck-ass blog, is an infringement of the speaker's First Amendment rights.

6. It's perfectly valid to point out that the customers can go elsewhere to get a cake, since that's (a) true and (b) the reason why your "public sphere" argument is utterly meaningless.

7. The only entity that is capable of exercising enough power to control "everywhere [someone] could go" is not this cake-baker, or any other individual, but GOVERNMENT.  It is that organization that is the true monopolist -- it is the only organization that can occupy an entire territory, and impose its will on essentially everyone in it, at the same time.  If monopolization of "viewpoints" and commercial decision-making is wrong, then it is the use of STATE POWER that is the only means of effecting such a monopoly and committing such a wrong.

8. If you can show in detail how, exactly, refusing to bake someone a cake is a form of silencing someone from speaking everywhere, praying everywhere, or shredding their court petition, I'll bake these lesbians a cake myself and deliver it personally.

In summary, your attempt at describing and defending the principles behind your position was pathetic.

The only ethical principle that actually affords people the rights you claim to want to protect (e.g., free will, range of choice, multiplicity of options, expression of differing viewpoints, etc.) is the Freedom of Association, or in this context, the Freedom of Contract -- the right of anyone and everyone to do business with anyone, or to decline to do business with anyone, by MUTUAL AGREEMENT.

It's kind of like the right to marry anyone you want, or not, as BOTH PARTIES (and only those parties) MUTUALLY AGREE to do so.  The State cannot legitimately prevent, or compel, anyone to marry (or not) anyone else.

That is the ethical principle of true equality and free association, in action.

Your special protection of certain designated politically-favored classes is arbitrary and unprincipled.
 
2014-01-22 01:25:02 PM

Phinn: The selection of particular criteria for this form of special protection is arbitrary and unprincipled.


To put it bluntly, Phinn: I don't care. Honestly, I don't care. You're entitled to your opinion, and it's cute and all.

Your posts this entire thread have been about spreading pseudo-intellectual libertarian knucklechildren on everyone else's faces because you think that if protections for people in the minority went away, or worse, the old neoconfederate "state's rights!" cry, that we would all live in a glorious, free market utopia where no one would be treated badly because of their race, religion, creed, or gender/sexual orientation.

If you honestly believe what you posted over and over in this thread is just, right, or ethical, then you're either delusional to the truth of human nature, or a brainwashed randroid.
 
2014-01-22 01:27:43 PM

hardinparamedic: Phinn: The selection of particular criteria for this form of special protection is arbitrary and unprincipled.

To put it bluntly, Phinn: I don't care. Honestly, I don't care. You're entitled to your opinion, and it's cute and all.

Your posts this entire thread have been about spreading pseudo-intellectual libertarian knucklechildren on everyone else's faces because you think that if protections for people in the minority went away, or worse, the old neoconfederate "state's rights!" cry, that we would all live in a glorious, free market utopia where no one would be treated badly because of their race, religion, creed, or gender/sexual orientation.

If you honestly believe what you posted over and over in this thread is just, right, or ethical, then you're either delusional to the truth of human nature, or a brainwashed randroid.



Thanks for letting me know that your psychological defense mechanisms have shut down all of your capacity for rational thought.
 
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 »






Report