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.

(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  
•       •       •

5497 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Jan 2014 at 1:11 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



676 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-21 10:04:55 AM  
Libtard Creed - You must believe like I believe or be punished.  No other beliefs will be accepted.

This is so disgusting.
 
2014-01-21 10:32:43 AM  

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

This is so disgusting.


I think the you must believe meme was tried before. Oh yea I remember when.

s11.postimg.org
 
2014-01-21 10:33:20 AM  

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

This is so disgusting.



Next up: "but we don't want to serve black people."
 
2014-01-21 10:35:05 AM  
It is the Cakewich. The most evil cake ever created. Forged in darkness from wheat harvested in Hell's half acre. Baked by Beelzebub. Slathered with frosting beaten from the evil eggs of dark chicken, force-fed to dogs by the hands of a one-eyed madman!
 
2014-01-21 10:59:46 AM  

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?
 
2014-01-21 12:09:49 PM  

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".
 
2014-01-21 12:19:19 PM  
I will give the lady credit: before this happened I didn't know that discrimination laws protected customers, too.  Well, depending on the state.  I seriously doubt businesses here in SC would get sued by the state for not serving "undesirables."

Previously I'd always thought that massive public shaming would work on its own.
 
2014-01-21 12:32:16 PM  

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".


Ahh, HoustonNick popped in, dropped a turd and ducked out again.
 
2014-01-21 01:11:06 PM  
God is great, amazing and all powerful. I know He has a plan :)

Perhaps his plan is for you to stop being a bigoted dickbag.
 
2014-01-21 01:11:49 PM  

Ennuipoet: Ahh, HoustonNick popped in, dropped a turd and ducked out again.


I'm sure that one of his alts will show up sometime.
 
2014-01-21 01:12:40 PM  
It seems as if God skimped on a few key ingrediants in the bakery owners brain.
 
2014-01-21 01:13:36 PM  
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.
 
2014-01-21 01:14:30 PM  
Money is money.  What is wrong with these people.
 
2014-01-21 01:14:38 PM  

choo: It is the Cakewich. The most evil cake ever created. Forged in darkness from wheat harvested in Hell's half acre. Baked by Beelzebub. Slathered with frosting beaten from the evil eggs of dark chicken, force-fed to dogs by the hands of a one-eyed madman!


That's nice; by the way, I picked the dlsun dried tomatoes off.
 
2014-01-21 01:15:36 PM  

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".
 
2014-01-21 01:15:54 PM  

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.


But that would have been lying and lying is a sin.
 
2014-01-21 01:16:08 PM  
God really seems like a petty asshole with too much time on is hands.
 
2014-01-21 01:16:27 PM  
To all of you that have been praying for Aaron and I, I want to say thank you. I know that your prayers are being heard

Okay, so you know people were praying for you and you know God heard those prayers and you lost the court case.  So I'm thinkin maybe God isn't on your side for this one.
 
2014-01-21 01:16:54 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: God really seems like a petty asshole with too much time on is hands.


God did create man in his own image.
 
2014-01-21 01:17:19 PM  
You know, when God's plan for you is a trial by your peers...

You're in a lot of trouble:

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-01-21 01:18:04 PM  
I think I'd just take my business elsewhere. So how long now has this guy been running their lives? Oh, for a year now, and they're not done yet. it must be nice to have the luxury of being outraged for that long. But I have a life of my own to take care of.
 
2014-01-21 01:18:08 PM  

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.
 
2014-01-21 01:19:03 PM  
I guess my sense of capitalism trumps any of my beliefs...If I owned a bakery I would sale a cake to anyone.....well, except the Irish.
 
2014-01-21 01:20:11 PM  
Stupid subby. It's only Gods plan when it benefits them, If it doesn't, they're being persecuted for their beliefs. Don't you know that?
 
2014-01-21 01:20:21 PM  

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.


That may have worked but you know how some folks like to play the victim. The couple could have went home and called the bakery posing as a straight couple and then GOTCHA! The bakery owner was farked once he unlocked the door that morning.
 
2014-01-21 01:20:48 PM  

cryinoutloud: I think I'd just take my business elsewhere.


cryinoutloud: But I have a life of my own to take care of.


I feel the same way about Rosa Parks.  Didn't she have anything better to do than waste her time biatching about seating on a bus.  Just take yo' business to the back of the bus.
 
2014-01-21 01:21:12 PM  
I still think they are being punished for being essentially bad people, which they are.
 
2014-01-21 01:21:13 PM  

sdd2000: HoustonNick: Libtard Creed - You must believe like I believe or be punished.  No other beliefs will be accepted.

This is so disgusting.

I think the you must believe meme was tried before. Oh yea I remember when.

[s11.postimg.org image 387x281]



The government mandated racial discrimination right before it prohibited it.

There's never really been a significant amount of time when the State respected the freedom of association.
 
2014-01-21 01:21:13 PM  
A lesbian couple should have twice the yeast infections.

Can harvest that are start their own bakery.

Yummmm... vagina baked goodness.
 
2014-01-21 01:21:41 PM  
"I use the Bible to defend me whenever I'm called out on being a bigoted asshat, and claim I'm being persecuted whenever I'm slapped with a fine or a lawsuit for exercising said bigoted asshattery."
 
2014-01-21 01:21:52 PM  
"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. Melissa responded to the decision "

/Almost like some other invisible hand was at work here
 
2014-01-21 01:22:32 PM  
I keep hearing references to this case but may have missed the details. Did the brides want figurines of two women scissoring on top of the cake or something?
 
2014-01-21 01:22:37 PM  

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.
 
rpm
2014-01-21 01:22:51 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: God really seems like a petty asshole with too much time on is hands.


Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't read the bible.
 
2014-01-21 01:23:22 PM  
So a lady is forced to do something against her will in a supposedly free society, and some people call this progress. I call it tyranny, and while I personally disagree with her position, I do think she should have the right to run her business as she sees fit.
 
2014-01-21 01:24:16 PM  

quickdraw: 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.

But that would have been lying and lying is a sin.


Hey, it's a fib! Fibs are different!

/ I've got fibs to the left,
Fibs to the right,
And, their the only cake shop in town!

// yes, that is a Jimmy Buffet reference
 
2014-01-21 01:24:29 PM  

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

This is so disgusting.


/high five broham
 
2014-01-21 01:24:34 PM  

Onkel Buck: 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.

That may have worked but you know how some folks like to play the victim. The couple could have went home and called the bakery posing as a straight couple and then GOTCHA! The bakery owner was farked once he unlocked the door that morning.

decided that discrimination is an expression of faith


Come on, hundreds of non-bigoted bakers are not being sued right right now.
 
2014-01-21 01:24:43 PM  

mwfark: So a lady is forced to do something against her will in a supposedly free society, and some people call this progress. I call it tyranny, and while I personally disagree with her position, I do think she should have the right to run her business as she sees fit.


Someone is forcing this lady to run a cake business?  Shiat, I missed that part of the article.
 
2014-01-21 01:24:48 PM  

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

This is so disgusting.


Romans 13:1

"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."


Why do you rebel against God?
 
2014-01-21 01:25:16 PM  
Mask your contempt and take their money.

/ embroidered on a favorite pillow
 
2014-01-21 01:25:20 PM  
This is why we can't have iced things.
 
rpm
2014-01-21 01:25:31 PM  

mwfark: So a lady is forced to do something against her will in a supposedly free society, and some people call this progress. I call it tyranny, and while I personally disagree with her position, I do think she should have the right to run her business as she sees fit.


They are free not to run the business. Don't want to follow business regulations? Don't go into business for yourself.
 
2014-01-21 01:25:33 PM  

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

This is so disgusting.


Next up: "but we don't want to serve black people."


And?

If you don't like the way someone conducts business, don't shop there.
 
2014-01-21 01:25:38 PM  
cdn.bleacherreport.com
 
2014-01-21 01:25:39 PM  
We reserve the right...
 
2014-01-21 01:25:41 PM  

BalugaJoe: Money is money.  What is wrong with these people.


This
 
2014-01-21 01:26:29 PM  

MyRandomName: 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.


www.elephantjournal.com
 
2014-01-21 01:26:32 PM  
While I think the bakery is retarded, this is pretty stupid. It is a farking wedding cake. If the bakery had "messed up" the order and made it a man and woman on the cake, would it still be illegal? If so, are screwups then illegal?
 
2014-01-21 01:26:39 PM  

lennavan: mwfark: So a lady is forced to do something against her will in a supposedly free society, and some people call this progress. I call it tyranny, and while I personally disagree with her position, I do think she should have the right to run her business as she sees fit.

Someone is forcing this lady to run a cake business?  Shiat, I missed that part of the article.


They are forcing her to serve people she doesn't want to serve, or they're forcing her out of business. Yes - there is force involved, and that's a problem in a free society.
 
2014-01-21 01:26:42 PM  

lennavan: cryinoutloud: I think I'd just take my business elsewhere.

cryinoutloud: But I have a life of my own to take care of.

I feel the same way about Rosa Parks.  Didn't she have anything better to do than waste her time biatching about seating on a bus.  Just take yo' business to the back of the bus.


The hilarious part is that you liberals always attempt economic boycotts to destroy those who disagree with you. Yet if any person attempted an economic boycott of a minority business, you would be outraged. You are the people you complain about. You have simply switched skin color for politics and religion. You are no better. You at just as intolerant.
 
2014-01-21 01:27:01 PM  

CleanAndPure: A lesbian couple should have twice the yeast infections.

Can harvest that are start their own bakery.

Yummmm... vagina baked goodness.


i26.photobucket.com

/this was the most SFW one I could find
 
2014-01-21 01:27:17 PM  

doubled99: We reserve the right...


You can't reserve rights you don't legally have.  And discrimination isn't a fundamental and intractable right.
 
2014-01-21 01:27:43 PM  

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

This is so disgusting.


You're late for your prayer group, Junior.
 
2014-01-21 01:27:49 PM  

karnal: I guess my sense of capitalism trumps any of my beliefs...If I owned a bakery I would sale a cake to anyone.....well, except the Irish.


They're not really people, so it's all good.
 
2014-01-21 01:28:17 PM  

mwfark: So a lady is forced to do something against her will in a supposedly free society, and some people call this progress. I call it tyranny, and while I personally disagree with her position, I do think she should have the right to run her business as she sees fit.


These people thought they could run their business as they saw fit as well.

s30.postimg.org
 
2014-01-21 01:28:19 PM  
Personally, if someone was being a dick to me, I wouldn't sue to be able to give them my business. Quite the opposite.

But welcome to America.
 
2014-01-21 01:28:20 PM  
If god was really on everyone's side who claims it, we wouldn't have gay marriage anywhere, the 10 commandments would be on every courthouse wall and storekeepers would be shot for saying "happy holidays"

Suck it, everyone who wears their religion and/or their politics on their sleeve.
 
2014-01-21 01:28:43 PM  

rpm: They are free not to run the business.



Not with control freaks like you around.
 
2014-01-21 01:29:04 PM  

Lots of shiat is part of God's plan.

It's educational.

 
2014-01-21 01:29:05 PM  
And God, who created all things with infinite wisdom and complexity, said to the faithful; Go out with hatred and be dicks to other people because your faith makes you smarter than everyone else so why would you bother trying to understand anything?
 
2014-01-21 01:29:16 PM  
It is a religious belief they are standing for, that homosexuality is wrong.  Comparing that to segregation is apples and oranges.  The bible never said blacks were not equal, it says the opposite.
 
2014-01-21 01:29:39 PM  

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.


It's cute that you're white knighting Houston Nick.

It's also funny that you've said so many stupid things that you're on just about everyone's block list.  So, I thought I'd reply so your idiocy could stand out.

You're welcome.
 
2014-01-21 01:29:58 PM  

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.



If only there was a way where these bakers could have avoided this legal entanglement while also making a profit?

/ just bake the farking cake
 
2014-01-21 01:30:00 PM  

karnal: I guess my sense of capitalism trumps any of my beliefs...If I owned a bakery I would sale a cake to anyone.....well, except the Irish.


dawsonian.com

/First thing I thought of when I read that...
 
2014-01-21 01:30:11 PM  
MyRandomName:

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

Yup. I remembered when I planned my wedding, actual planning was the furthest thing from my mind. I picked all of my vendors solely on how much we clashed and how horrible an experience the entire process of planning would be. I figured the entire process wasn't a headache enough, I needed to begin a crusade during one of the more hectic times in my life.
 
2014-01-21 01:30:13 PM  
This is such BS.  "Cryer and Bowman filed a complaint alleging unlawful discrimination."

Cryer and Bowman should have their attention-whoring as*es run out of town. Go to a different baker for crying out loud.
 
2014-01-21 01:30:26 PM  

doubled99: We reserve the right...


To be licensed to operate under the rules of the state, county, and city that you reside in. Failure to comply may result in getting your ass handed to you.
 
2014-01-21 01:30:38 PM  
I want businesses that hate me to let me know, up front. God* knows what they'd put in my cake if forced to bake one for me!

*forensics team
 
2014-01-21 01:30:44 PM  

"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."


i293.photobucket.com

 
2014-01-21 01:30:47 PM  

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

This is so disgusting.


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.


I want you to go die in a fire.  or suffer some debilitating injury that leaves you trapped in your own body.  That's my religious belief.  See now I'm protected!
 
2014-01-21 01:30:57 PM  

baconbeard: karnal: I guess my sense of capitalism trumps any of my beliefs...If I owned a bakery I would sale a cake to anyone.....well, except the Irish.

They're not really people, so it's all good.


I may not agree with which cakes you don't make but I'll defend your right not to bake them.
 
2014-01-21 01:31:00 PM  

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


Last I checked, this bakery own remains free to believe homosexuality is immoral. He is not, however, free to discriminate against homosexuals in the public, commercial conduct of his business.
 
2014-01-21 01:31:06 PM  

Onkel Buck: 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.

That may have worked but you know how some folks like to play the victim. The couple could have went home and called the bakery posing as a straight couple and then GOTCHA! The bakery owner was farked once he unlocked the door that morning. Decided to be a bigoted asshole.


FTFY
 
2014-01-21 01:32:11 PM  

MyRandomName: Yet if any person attempted an economic boycott of a minority business, you would be outraged.


No I wouldn't.  But I'm sure that won't stop you from imagining it to be true.
 
2014-01-21 01:32:18 PM  

s2s2s2: I want businesses that hate me to let me know, up front. God* knows what they'd put in my cake if forced to bake one for me!

*forensics team


Attempted murder is quite a bit higher on the penalty list than discrimination. Ma and Pa Bigot would likely get to see just how horrible homosexuality is in a very personal way for a few years or so.
 
2014-01-21 01:32:25 PM  

Born_Again_Bavarian: If only there was a way where these bakers could have avoided this legal entanglement while also making a profit?

/ just bake the farking cake



How about "Just buy a cake from someone else"?
 
2014-01-21 01:32:28 PM  
Become a private bakery club and discriminate to your heart's content.
 
2014-01-21 01:32:48 PM  
Well these people are just stupid. If they didn't want to sella cake, all they had to say was "Oh, I am so sorry, but we are booked up with cake requests that week. Here, try ." Then they wouldn't be sued.
 
2014-01-21 01:32:57 PM  
If you run your own business, you should have every right to be racist, sexist or whatever and discriminate.
 
2014-01-21 01:32:57 PM  

MyRandomName: lennavan: cryinoutloud: I think I'd just take my business elsewhere.

cryinoutloud: But I have a life of my own to take care of.

I feel the same way about Rosa Parks.  Didn't she have anything better to do than waste her time biatching about seating on a bus.  Just take yo' business to the back of the bus.

The hilarious part is that you liberals always attempt economic boycotts to destroy those who disagree with you. Yet if any person attempted an economic boycott of a minority business, you would be outraged. You are the people you complain about. You have simply switched skin color for politics and religion. You are no better. You at just as intolerant.


I just had you farkied as a derper but thanks to this drivel we've reached ignore. Congrats.
 
2014-01-21 01:33:10 PM  
Can someone please direct me to the Bible passage which requires Jehovah religionists to discriminate against homosexuals in provision of public services?
 
2014-01-21 01:33:49 PM  

Baz744: this bakery own remains free to believe homosexuality is immoral. He is not, however, free to discriminate against homosexuals in the public, commercial conduct of his business



The freedom of association says otherwise, but thanks for outlining the point where you think other people's freedoms end, control freak.
 
2014-01-21 01:33:51 PM  

MyRandomName: lennavan: cryinoutloud: I think I'd just take my business elsewhere.

cryinoutloud: But I have a life of my own to take care of.

I feel the same way about Rosa Parks.  Didn't she have anything better to do than waste her time biatching about seating on a bus.  Just take yo' business to the back of the bus.

The hilarious part is that you liberals always attempt economic boycotts to destroy those who disagree with you. Yet if any person attempted an economic boycott of a minority business, you would be outraged. You are the people you complain about. You have simply switched skin color for politics and religion. You are no better. You at just as intolerant.


WTF are you on about?

I rarely see good ole boys in minority run small businesses and zomg color me surprised!
 
2014-01-21 01:33:53 PM  
ITT:
Lots of freedom loving Americans butt hurt they can't discriminate against people because that nasty Constitution says otherwise.
 
2014-01-21 01:33:58 PM  

Phinn: rpm: They are free not to run the business.

Not with control freaks like you around.


That doesn't even make sense.  Is there some liberal rule that says so and so has to run a bakery?


Also,  all the replies to folks indicating that the bakery owner's freedoms are being abridged who respond with the 'whites only' stuff;  they don't care.  In their perfect world, Jim Crow would be alive and well.
 
2014-01-21 01:34:11 PM  

MyRandomName: The hilarious part is that you liberals always attempt economic boycotts to destroy those who disagree with you.


Like the liberals who boycotted Pepsi over some Jay-Z lyrics?
Like the liberals who boycotted Dunkin Donuts over Rachel Ray's neckwear?
Like the liberals who boycotted Starbucks over their decision to not be dicks to their employees?
Like the liberals who boycotted government because Congress wouldn't pass the laws they wanted?
 
2014-01-21 01:34:54 PM  
So can a pro-abortion bakery owner be forced to make a Right To Life cake?  Can a black bakery owner be forced to make a cake for the anniversary celebration of the local KKK chapter?  Can a Kosher bakery owner be forced to bake a cake for a Neo-Nazi party?

Regardless of one's position on gay marriage, this kind of lawsuit should be cause for concern to anyone who believes in free association.
 
2014-01-21 01:35:33 PM  

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.


I'll tolerate a religious person, until their bigotry sets in. Then, I will call them out on their bigotry. I don't care if you hide behind a Bible, a Koran, a Torah, or The Turner Diaries. I don't care what religion you are, or what you use as an excuse, but if you use that to shield yourself from your bigotry and hatred, then you are an idiot and the worst kind of asshole.
 
2014-01-21 01:35:33 PM  
I thought all Americans loved pie.
 
2014-01-21 01:36:22 PM  

vermicious k'nid: MyRandomName: lennavan: cryinoutloud: I think I'd just take my business elsewhere.

cryinoutloud: But I have a life of my own to take care of.

I feel the same way about Rosa Parks.  Didn't she have anything better to do than waste her time biatching about seating on a bus.  Just take yo' business to the back of the bus.

The hilarious part is that you liberals always attempt economic boycotts to destroy those who disagree with you. Yet if any person attempted an economic boycott of a minority business, you would be outraged. You are the people you complain about. You have simply switched skin color for politics and religion. You are no better. You at just as intolerant.

I just had you farkied as a derper but thanks to this drivel we've reached ignore. Congrats.


Wah
 
2014-01-21 01:36:40 PM  

susler: Phinn: rpm: They are free not to run the business.

Not with control freaks like you around.

That doesn't even make sense.  Is there some liberal rule that says so and so has to run a bakery?


Also,  all the replies to folks indicating that the bakery owner's freedoms are being abridged who respond with the 'whites only' stuff;  they don't care.  In their perfect world, Jim Crow would be alive and well.



So, you don't understand the differences among Forced Discrimination, Forced Non-discrimination and Freedom of Association.

Got it.
 
2014-01-21 01:37:10 PM  

Mr. Right: So can a pro-abortion bakery owner be forced to make a Right To Life cake?  Can a black bakery owner be forced to make a cake for the anniversary celebration of the local KKK chapter?  Can a Kosher bakery owner be forced to bake a cake for a Neo-Nazi party?

Regardless of one's position on gay marriage, this kind of lawsuit should be cause for concern to anyone who believes in free association.


None of those groups you listed are "protected groups", so, sure, discriminate away.
 
2014-01-21 01:37:37 PM  
Agree or disagree with the personal views of the business owner, this is a sort of tyranny.  The guy has no problems selling cupcakes off the shelf to anybody.  Making a wedding cake is not the same.  It's an artistic endeavor.  Should some scary dumb hick christian be able to go to a gay liberal artist and ask, nay, demand, he paint them a picture of gays being burned in hell and sue the crap out of him if he refuses?
 
2014-01-21 01:37:57 PM  

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

This is so disgusting.


Next up: "but we don't want to serve black people."

And?

If you don't like the way someone conducts business, don't shop there.


WOW. Are you a f*cking time traveler from the 1950's?
 
2014-01-21 01:38:00 PM  
I don't agree with the bakery owner's decision, but when did sexual orientation become a protected class in regards to discrimination?
 
2014-01-21 01:38:36 PM  
They have been targeted and will feel the wrath of the Gay K K.
 
2014-01-21 01:38:38 PM  

mwfark: They are forcing her to serve people she doesn't want to serve, or they're forcing her out of business. Yes - there is force involved, and that's a problem in a free society.


Oh man, it goes much farther than that.  The government actually forces that poor baker to maintain sanitary conditions where she prepares food.  Shouldn't she be free to prepare them however she wants?  Don't even get me started on what all the government forces her to do if she hires someone.  Why shouldn't I be allowed to employ an 8 year old for $0.25 an hour?
 
2014-01-21 01:38:44 PM  

mwfark: So a lady is forced to do something against her will in a supposedly free society, and some people call this progress. I call it tyranny, and while I personally disagree with her position, I do think she should have the right to run her business as she sees fit.


In constitutional terms, no such right exists. The 10th Amendment says states have the right to police the health, safety, and morals of their residents; including by prohibiting immoral discrimination against homosexuals in provision of public services. I.e., states may permissibly punish evil people.
 
2014-01-21 01:38:51 PM  
Can't wait for the Neo-Nazi's to show up en masse on Fark preaching their crap, but private business owner Drew will be prevented BY LAW from throwing them out because DISCRIMINATION.

/It's a comfy bed you Libtards are setting up for yourselves.
//and yes, people WILL set up private bakeries, restaurants, etc. if this shiat gets much deeper, and America Balkanizes further....
 
2014-01-21 01:39:19 PM  
They should have just gone with "The cake is a lie".
 
2014-01-21 01:39:29 PM  

Dr Dreidel: MyRandomName: The hilarious part is that you liberals always attempt economic boycotts to destroy those who disagree with you.

Like the liberals who boycotted Pepsi over some Jay-Z lyrics?
Like the liberals who boycotted Dunkin Donuts over Rachel Ray's neckwear?
Like the liberals who boycotted Starbucks over their decision to not be dicks to their employees?
Like the liberals who boycotted government because Congress wouldn't pass the laws they wanted?


Ummm... are you going to ruin Madonnas career after she used the N word the other day? Or did she need to say it 20 years ago for it to matter?
 
2014-01-21 01:39:33 PM  

MyRandomName: 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.


As Scientology has proven, any drunken jackass can make up their own religion based on a bar bet. So here, I just made up a religion were no moronic rednecks are allowed to drink at my establishment. I'll probably go broke but I'll have made my point.
 
2014-01-21 01:39:49 PM  

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

This is so disgusting.


Next up: "but we don't want to serve black people."

And?

If you don't like the way someone conducts business, don't shop there.


Also would like to add: If you are afraid of having the spooks, queers, chinks, heebs, and beaners frequent your establishment, then maybe YOU SHOULDN'T RUN A farkING BUSINESS!
 
2014-01-21 01:40:39 PM  

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

This is so disgusting.


Yes, yes you are.
 
2014-01-21 01:40:44 PM  

Guelph35: I don't agree with the bakery owner's decision, but when did sexual orientation become a protected class in regards to discrimination?



Sexual orientation is a protected class in a number of states.  I'm not going to google that for you.
 
2014-01-21 01:41:51 PM  

totallyfubar: It is a religious belief they are standing for, that homosexuality is wrong.  Comparing that to segregation is apples and oranges.  The bible never said blacks were not equal, it says the opposite.


Segregationists used the Bible to justify their actions.
 
2014-01-21 01:41:53 PM  

Guelph35: I don't agree with the bakery owner's decision, but when did sexual orientation become a protected class in regards to discrimination?


June 26, 2013
 
2014-01-21 01:42:00 PM  

Dr Dreidel: MyRandomName: The hilarious part is that you liberals always attempt economic boycotts to destroy those who disagree with you.

Like the liberals who boycotted Pepsi over some Jay-Z lyrics?
Like the liberals who boycotted Dunkin Donuts over Rachel Ray's neckwear?
Like the liberals who boycotted Starbucks over their decision to not be dicks to their employees?
Like the liberals who boycotted government because Congress wouldn't pass the laws they wanted?


static01.mediaite.com
 
2014-01-21 01:42:05 PM  

mark12A: Can't wait for the Neo-Nazi's to show up en masse on Fark preaching their crap, but private business owner Drew will be prevented BY LAW from throwing them out because DISCRIMINATION.

/It's a comfy bed you Libtards are setting up for yourselves.
//and yes, people WILL set up private bakeries, restaurants, etc. if this shiat gets much deeper, and America Balkanizes further....


Political belief is not a protected class.
 
2014-01-21 01:42:10 PM  

tricycleracer: None of those groups you listed are "protected groups", so, sure, discriminate away.


So your argument is that everybody must be treated equally but some groups are more equal than others?
 
2014-01-21 01:43:06 PM  

Baz744: Can someone please direct me to the Bible passage which requires Jehovah religionists to discriminate against homosexuals in provision of public services?


Rom 16:17
2 Thess 3:6
2 Thess 3:14


They're applicable if you believe the corresponding bits about homosexuals.

/if
 
2014-01-21 01:43:11 PM  

Guelph35: I don't agree with the bakery owner's decision, but when did sexual orientation become a protected class in regards to discrimination?


In May 2008, the  passing of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, or Senate Bill 200, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status in housing and public accommodations.
 
2014-01-21 01:43:11 PM  

Baz744: mwfark: So a lady is forced to do something against her will in a supposedly free society, and some people call this progress. I call it tyranny, and while I personally disagree with her position, I do think she should have the right to run her business as she sees fit.

In constitutional terms, no such right exists. The 10th Amendment says states have the right to police the health, safety, and morals of their residents; including by prohibiting immoral discrimination against homosexuals in provision of public services. I.e., states may permissibly punish evil people.



Forcing people to interact with other people is evil.

Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure.
 
2014-01-21 01:43:16 PM  

MJMaloney187: This is such BS.  "Cryer and Bowman filed a complaint alleging unlawful discrimination."

Cryer and Bowman should have their attention-whoring as*es run out of town. Go to a different baker for crying out loud.


Pretty sure they already did.

That doesn't mean the Christian bigot's illegal discriminatory businesses practices don't need to be addressed.

Freedom to discriminate against an entire group of people is not really freedom.

Cryer and Bowman did a brave and necessary thing here.

They could have just walked away and not given the guy their business. That would have been the easy thing to do.

But it wouldn't have been the right thing to do.

Whining because some Baker with half baked ideas got properly called on being a total dick is funny and maybe a little bit sad too.

He's not the victim here.

Learn this.
 
2014-01-21 01:43:47 PM  

Onkel Buck: Dr Dreidel: MyRandomName: The hilarious part is that you liberals always attempt economic boycotts to destroy those who disagree with you.

Like the liberals who boycotted Pepsi over some Jay-Z lyrics?
Like the liberals who boycotted Dunkin Donuts over Rachel Ray's neckwear?
Like the liberals who boycotted Starbucks over their decision to not be dicks to their employees?
Like the liberals who boycotted government because Congress wouldn't pass the laws they wanted?

Ummm... are you going to ruin Madonnas career after she used the N word the other day? Or did she need to say it 20 years ago for it to matter?


She apologized for it and admitted it was stupid.  I don't remember the wedding cake makers apologizing.

But just to err on the safe side, I promise to never purchase anything from Madonna.
 
2014-01-21 01:43:55 PM  

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

This is so disgusting.


Racist/Homophobe Creed - You must tolerate my intolerance.  The fact that I believe in an invisible sky wizard trumps any possible benefit to society from equal treatment of all under the law.

This is so disgusting.
 
2014-01-21 01:44:20 PM  
Christianity isn't a religion, it's a trolling system.
 
2014-01-21 01:44:36 PM  

Phinn: So, you don't understand the differences among Forced Discrimination, Forced Non-discrimination and Freedom of Association.


Forced discrimination: separate water fountains
Forced non-discrimination: TFA, and the main issue in TFT
Freedom of Association: means you retain the right to associate (or not) in your capacity as a citizen with any groups you choose.

Freedom of association does not mean that a license-holder can deny use of the power granted by that license to another citizen for any reason. Just like I can fire someone (in right-to-work states) for NO reason but not for ANY reason, you're free to refuse service for NO reason, but not for ANY reason.

// and the same reason that people are telling the couple to "get over it"/"find a new bakery" are the same reasons I say to the bakers: "Shut up and bake"
// even Abraham made food for heathens and idolators.
 
2014-01-21 01:44:54 PM  

mark12A: //and yes, people WILL set up private bakeries, restaurants, etc. if this shiat gets much deeper, and America Balkanizes further....


uh..this bigoted bakery couldn't even stay in business, what makes you think there would be an underground railroad funneling religious freak bigots to private bakeries?
 
2014-01-21 01:45:38 PM  

Mr. Right: tricycleracer: None of those groups you listed are "protected groups", so, sure, discriminate away.

So your argument is that everybody must be treated equally but some groups are more equal than others?


His argument is there are groups that are protected and groups that are not.  That's why it's okay to discriminate and only hire people with college degrees but it's not okay to discriminate and only hire white people.
 
2014-01-21 01:46:16 PM  

hardinparamedic: mark12A: Can't wait for the Neo-Nazi's to show up en masse on Fark preaching their crap, but private business owner Drew will be prevented BY LAW from throwing them out because DISCRIMINATION.

/It's a comfy bed you Libtards are setting up for yourselves.
//and yes, people WILL set up private bakeries, restaurants, etc. if this shiat gets much deeper, and America Balkanizes further....

Political belief is not a protected class.



When you define what's "protected" by arbitrary rules, then there's no reason "political belief" can't become protected.
 
2014-01-21 01:46:51 PM  

MyRandomName: The hilarious part is that you liberals always attempt economic boycotts to destroy those who disagree with you. Yet if any person attempted an economic boycott of a minority business, you would be outraged. You are the people you complain about. You have simply switched skin color for politics and religion. You are no better. You at just as intolerant.


The hilarious part is that you think that something you make a decision on, such as religion (which is as protected, in fact more protected, than gender and sexual orientation) or political view, is somehow in any way comparable with something you don't make a decision on, such as sexual orientation or gender. In an effort to have some faith in humanity, I will pretend that you're just pretending to be this much of an obtuse piece of shiat, rather than face the likelihood that you are just that stupid and asinine.

And, once again, because you're too stupid to get it every time you're told, seemingly, you seem to be glossing over the fact that  intolerance of intolerance is NOT bigotry.Tolerance of intolerance, however? There's a special word for that:  Appeasement. It's a terrible thing which tends to lead to lynchings and genocide, but filth like you tends to pretend that your bigotry is somehow less bigoted because teh gays and brown people.

Now, on the subject, the Bakers knowingly broke state laws in their actions, and they are facing the consequences of breaking those laws. Now, if you don't believe in a law, civil disobedience, as the bakers practiced, assuming they were not just too dumb to research the laws governing their rights to own a public-serving business in that state (I know. Big assumption), you should not follow it, but part of civil disobedience is taking the consequences of knowingly breaking that law. They could actually maybe take this to the ACLU, which might actually help, as that law might be unconstitutional, for now.
 
2014-01-21 01:46:58 PM  

Onkel Buck: Dr Dreidel: MyRandomName: The hilarious part is that you liberals always attempt economic boycotts to destroy those who disagree with you.

Like the liberals who boycotted Pepsi over some Jay-Z lyrics?
Like the liberals who boycotted Dunkin Donuts over Rachel Ray's neckwear?
Like the liberals who boycotted Starbucks over their decision to not be dicks to their employees?
Like the liberals who boycotted government because Congress wouldn't pass the laws they wanted?

Ummm... are you going to ruin Madonnas career after she used the N word the other day? Or did she need to say it 20 years ago for it to matter?


wat

// going to view Vadge's career the same way I have for the last 15 years - "She's still around?"
// also, I don't really care about boycotts - OP seemed to think it's a thing only "the liberals" do
// and he was incorrect
 
2014-01-21 01:47:10 PM  

notto: totallyfubar: It is a religious belief they are standing for, that homosexuality is wrong.  Comparing that to segregation is apples and oranges.  The bible never said blacks were not equal, it says the opposite.

Segregationists used the Bible to justify their actions.



It's remarkable how throughout history, the conservative movement has pretty consistently used the bible as its excuse for supporting really bad laws, like (among other things) slavery, alcohol prohibition, Jim crow laws, and now bigotry towards gays.

Also, remember when Rand Paul thought the civil rights act should be declared unconstitutional - because in his mind the "freedom to run your business as one sees fit" trumps the right of black people to be treated with respect and dignity?  The whole "economic freedom" and "states rights" nonsense is always invoked by conservatives as their excuse for opposing policies.  It lets them say "I oppose the civil rights act because states' rights," so they can avoid saying the real reason why they oppose it - because they're racist a-holes who think that the "right" to discriminate is a "right" worth defending.
 
2014-01-21 01:47:35 PM  

Phinn: Baz744: this bakery own remains free to believe homosexuality is immoral. He is not, however, free to discriminate against homosexuals in the public, commercial conduct of his business

The freedom of association says otherwise,


Can you direct me to any jurisprudence holding that a "freedom of association" protects a right to discriminate against anyone in the provision of public services?

but thanks for outlining the point where you think other people's freedoms end, control freak.

In constitutional terms, there is no right to discriminate against homosexuals in the provision of public services. My position that a person's public, commercial conduct is permissibly subject to state regulation is consistent with two centuries of American jurisprudence.

Your baseless, unprovoked personal attack reveals more about your character than mine. Are you man enough to apologize and acknowledge wrongdoing?

(shakes magic 8 ball)

"Signs point to 'no.'"
 
2014-01-21 01:48:11 PM  

CivicMindedFive: Agree or disagree with the personal views of the business owner, this is a sort of tyranny.  The guy has no problems selling cupcakes off the shelf to anybody.  Making a wedding cake is not the same.  It's an artistic endeavor.  Should some scary dumb hick christian be able to go to a gay liberal artist and ask, nay, demand, he paint them a picture of gays being burned in hell and sue the crap out of him if he refuses?


You added some content to your scenario here (gays being burned in hell) that makes your analogy a bit off target..

Tell me, what is the difference between a gay wedding cake and a straight one?  Side by side, could you tell the difference?  Just like the cupcakes.
 
2014-01-21 01:49:02 PM  
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.
 
2014-01-21 01:49:05 PM  
Notto - "Segregationists used the Bible to justify their actions. "

That is an incorrect interpretation obviously.  As we all see, the Bible is misused and misquoted too much.  Boil it all down, God loves the sinner and hates the sin.  So do not contribute to the sinning action of others.
 
2014-01-21 01:49:26 PM  

mwfark: lennavan: mwfark: So a lady is forced to do something against her will in a supposedly free society, and some people call this progress. I call it tyranny, and while I personally disagree with her position, I do think she should have the right to run her business as she sees fit.

Someone is forcing this lady to run a cake business?  Shiat, I missed that part of the article.

They are forcing her to serve people she doesn't want to serve, or they're forcing her out of business. Yes - there is force involved, and that's a problem in a free society.


How do you feel about them not serving successful and attractive African Americans?
 
2014-01-21 01:49:28 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Freedom of association does not mean that a license-holder can deny use of the power granted by that license to another citizen for any reason.



Yes, it does.

Freedom of association means that neither you nor the government you empower has the legitimate ability to issue or withhold "licenses" based on people's compliance with your association demands.

Licensing is not carte blanche to control everything about a person's business.  If that's what the licensing law pretends to assert, then the licensing law is itself unethical.
 
2014-01-21 01:50:05 PM  

Guelph35: I don't agree with the bakery owner's decision, but when did sexual orientation become a protected class in regards to discrimination?


October 29, 2009

When it comes to Federal Law, anyway.
 
2014-01-21 01:50:20 PM  

sdd2000: Guelph35: I don't agree with the bakery owner's decision, but when did sexual orientation become a protected class in regards to discrimination?

In May 2008, the  passing of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, or Senate Bill 200, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status in housing and public accommodations.


Lucky of us.
i43.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-21 01:50:23 PM  

Guelph35: I don't agree with the bakery owner's decision, but when did sexual orientation become a protected class in regards to discrimination?


I did not just read this.
 
2014-01-21 01:50:23 PM  
YOU MUST BE TOLERANT OF MY INTOLERANCE!

IT'S THE LAW!
 
2014-01-21 01:50:32 PM  

Hack Patooey: mwfark: lennavan: mwfark: So a lady is forced to do something against her will in a supposedly free society, and some people call this progress. I call it tyranny, and while I personally disagree with her position, I do think she should have the right to run her business as she sees fit.

Someone is forcing this lady to run a cake business?  Shiat, I missed that part of the article.

They are forcing her to serve people she doesn't want to serve, or they're forcing her out of business. Yes - there is force involved, and that's a problem in a free society.

How do you feel about them not serving successful and attractive African Americans?


That's fine, but the ugly poor ones have to go around back and pick from the trashcans.
 
2014-01-21 01:50:44 PM  

Phinn: Baz744: mwfark: So a lady is forced to do something against her will in a supposedly free society, and some people call this progress. I call it tyranny, and while I personally disagree with her position, I do think she should have the right to run her business as she sees fit.

In constitutional terms, no such right exists. The 10th Amendment says states have the right to police the health, safety, and morals of their residents; including by prohibiting immoral discrimination against homosexuals in provision of public services. I.e., states may permissibly punish evil people.

Forcing people to interact with other people is evil.


Nobody is forcing anyone to interact with anyone else. The baker may permissibly delegate the task he finds distasteful to an employee. Or, he may choose not to publicly sell baked goods at all.

Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure.

My penis is four feet long.
 
2014-01-21 01:51:14 PM  

Baz744: In constitutional terms, there is no right to discriminate against homosexuals in the provision of public services.



There are no "public services."  That's an arbitrary construct, invented for the purpose of justifying the assertion of CONTROL over people's private lives.

And that's what makes you giddy -- control.
 
2014-01-21 01:51:24 PM  

notto: Tell me, what is the difference between a gay wedding cake and a straight one?  Side by side, could you tell the difference?  Just like the cupcakes.


Wedding cakes often have those cake topper things with a man and woman (or other combination of people). That might be a clue.
 
2014-01-21 01:52:20 PM  

Baz744: The baker may permissibly delegate the task he finds distasteful to an employee. Or, he may choose not to publicly sell baked goods at all.



That's not for you to say, control freak.
 
2014-01-21 01:52:36 PM  

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.


Congratulations, you just elevated your criminal act from discrimination to something much worse, and will never get licensed from the state health inspector to run a food service business ever again.

Way to stick it to them homoqueers.
 
2014-01-21 01:52:46 PM  

Phinn: When you define what's "protected" by arbitrary rules, then there's no reason "political belief" can't become protected.


Well, cry me a river, Phinn. Until such point that humanity evolves to where it does not make decisions based on inherent stereotypical judgements and racial demographics, protected classes will be necessary.

In reality, our entire country was founded on the ideas of protected classes - namely freedom from religious doctrine in Government dealings, and the idea that the majority's tyranny through "popular opinion" should not determine policy.
 
2014-01-21 01:53:08 PM  
Meh, these bulls are just being martyrs. Anyone else would have gone home vented on their shiatty blog/Facebook, left a bad review on Yelp, and then found another baker. But in America when your feelings are hurt it's like someone just handed you a lawsuit lottery ticket for you to scratch off
 
2014-01-21 01:53:47 PM  

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.


I'm going to agree in a limited way on principle, but this is a cake after all.   Its not required by law to stock same sex figures.  Refusing to at least substantially complete a "wedding cake" is where they went wrong.   They could have said. "We'll build you a cake like any other cake, but you'll have to provide your own topper if none of ours are suitable"..    I reluctantly support the principle of someone not providing spousal benefits IF the state you operate in does not recognize them.   The same for insurance provided birth control since the cost of buying your own generic pills at a pharmacy washes out from the cost of insurance anyway.

This is JUST A DAMN CAKE.   Make it and forget about it.  I've had enough years in retail management to know the time to argue with a paying customer is just about NEVER.   Obviously the cultural mores of Oregon seem to be that the community supports the lesbian couple.   I'd say that there must be other bakers that they could have gone to if their business took a hit financially.    It might have been enough to just hit them with public awareness

/BTW its quite common that one cannot legally provide food for sale out of a residential kitchen.   A visit from the local health board might have been the last nail in the coffin.
 
2014-01-21 01:53:48 PM  
This is a really tough issue, honest. I'm a super-Lib, and I just don't have the answer. On the one hand, discrimination against people of color is why this is an issue to begin with. If people weren't so thick-headed and backwards and would just love others 1/10 as they much as they love themselves this would all be over.

But that's never going to happen, people will always be tribal haters. So the question is then should we force business owners to serve people they don't want to serve? Logically no, people should be free to serve who they wish. It's their business, they are on the hook for P&L, it's their personal fortunes on the line, they have the most interest in doing right.

On the other hand, it was jag-offs like this who helped enforce Jim Crow laws. Their actions helped foster a separate and unequal society. If we allow people to openly discriminate then aren't we encouraging a return to this?

I do think that pharmacies have an obligation to sell to anyone. When it's someone's health in question, discrimination has to go. It just can't be. If you don't like selling things you don't feel are morally appropriate then I suggest another line of work. Would you be a paramedic and refuse to help drunk drivers?

The only action I see is the couple takes their business elsewhere and makes it plain and loud and clear to everyone what the bakery was up to. Let the free market and the neighborhood sort this one out. Not everything in the world needs a supreme court ruling.
 
2014-01-21 01:54:08 PM  

Phinn: Dr Dreidel: Freedom of association does not mean that a license-holder can deny use of the power granted by that license to another citizen for any reason.

Yes, it does.

Freedom of association means that neither you nor the government you empower has the legitimate ability to issue or withhold "licenses" based on people's compliance with your association demands.

Licensing is not carte blanche to control everything about a person's business.  If that's what the licensing law pretends to assert, then the licensing law is itself unethical.


www.leftycartoons.com
 
2014-01-21 01:54:13 PM  
Billygoat Gruff: But in America when your feelings are hurt civil rights are violated it's like someone just handed you a lawsuit lottery ticket for you to scratch off

FTFY.
 
2014-01-21 01:54:28 PM  

Phinn: Baz744: In constitutional terms, there is no right to discriminate against homosexuals in the provision of public services.

There are no "public services."  That's an arbitrary construct, invented for the purpose of justifying the assertion of CONTROL over people's private lives.

And that's what makes you giddy -- control.



Oh jesus christ give me a break.  So are you an anarchist, or do you just think that the government is "tyrannical" whenever it does something that you don't like?


I really wish I could drive 200 mph on the highway.  But the government, drunk on CONTROL, has told me that I can't do that.  When will this tyranny end?  Why can't I dump raw sewage in my front yard - ARE WE NOT A FREE SOCIETY?!?!??!
 
2014-01-21 01:54:38 PM  

Phinn: hardinparamedic: mark12A: Can't wait for the Neo-Nazi's to show up en masse on Fark preaching their crap, but private business owner Drew will be prevented BY LAW from throwing them out because DISCRIMINATION.

/It's a comfy bed you Libtards are setting up for yourselves.
//and yes, people WILL set up private bakeries, restaurants, etc. if this shiat gets much deeper, and America Balkanizes further....

Political belief is not a protected class.

When you define what's "protected" by arbitrary rules, then there's no reason "political belief" can't become protected.


If by "arbitrary rules" you mean "the legislative process," then sure. If you can get enough votes that can certainly happen.

But it's a stupid idea, so probably not.
 
2014-01-21 01:54:44 PM  

Mr. Right: So can a pro-abortion bakery owner be forced to make a Right To Life cake?  Can a black bakery owner be forced to make a cake for the anniversary celebration of the local KKK chapter?  Can a Kosher bakery owner be forced to bake a cake for a Neo-Nazi party?


Nope.
 
2014-01-21 01:54:56 PM  

totallyfubar: Notto - "Segregationists used the Bible to justify their actions. "

That is an incorrect interpretation obviously.  As we all see, the Bible is misused and misquoted too much.  Boil it all down, God loves the sinner and hates the sin.  So do not contribute to the sinning action of others.


Not so obviously to those who disagree with your interpretation.  Interpretations are like aholes.  Everybody has them.

Segregationist certainly did (and probably still do) consider copulation between races to be a sin as outline in their interpretation of the Bible.  This stuff is well documented history and is in the very court cases that were fought.   Doesn't make it right, but certainly makes the comparison to gay marriage and those who fight it on 'religious' grounds a valid comparison.
 
2014-01-21 01:55:25 PM  

hardinparamedic: Phinn: When you define what's "protected" by arbitrary rules, then there's no reason "political belief" can't become protected.

Well, cry me a river, Phinn. Until such point that humanity evolves to where it does not make decisions based on inherent stereotypical judgements and racial demographics, protected classes will be necessary.

In reality, our entire country was founded on the ideas of protected classes - namely freedom from religious doctrine in Government dealings, and the idea that the majority's tyranny through "popular opinion" should not determine policy.



Forced discrimination was the law, right before forced non-discrimination became the law.

Our entire country was founded on one of the essential "rights of Englishmen" -- the freedom of association and its commercial application, freedom of contract.

That was later erased by control freaks pretending to be smarter than everyone else.
 
2014-01-21 01:55:41 PM  

hardinparamedic: Phinn: When you define what's "protected" by arbitrary rules, then there's no reason "political belief" can't become protected.

Well, cry me a river, Phinn. Until such point that humanity evolves to where it does not make decisions based on inherent stereotypical judgements and racial demographics, protected classes will be necessary.

In reality, our entire country was founded on the ideas of protected classes - namely freedom from religious doctrine in Government dealings, and the idea that the majority's tyranny through "popular opinion" should not determine policy.


"Majority rule, minority rights"
 
2014-01-21 01:56:48 PM  
Chummer45

Discrimination against someone for what they are (ex. black) is biblically wrong.  Refusing to participate in a sinful ACT by others is not discrimination.  It would be like a black person asked me to sell them a gun vs. a chinese person asking me to sell them a gun to kill someone.  I would not sell to the one who is going to do something I find morrally wrong but I would sell to the other.
 
2014-01-21 01:57:11 PM  

notto: totallyfubar: Notto - "Segregationists used the Bible to justify their actions. "

That is an incorrect interpretation obviously.  As we all see, the Bible is misused and misquoted too much.  Boil it all down, God loves the sinner and hates the sin.  So do not contribute to the sinning action of others.

Not so obviously to those who disagree with your interpretation.  Interpretations are like aholes.  Everybody has them.

Segregationist certainly did (and probably still do) consider copulation between races to be a sin as outline in their interpretation of the Bible.  This stuff is well documented history and is in the very court cases that were fought.   Doesn't make it right, but certainly makes the comparison to gay marriage and those who fight it on 'religious' grounds a valid comparison.



If the bible is misused and misquoted too much, then maybe it's a bad idea to base our public policy on "biblical principles."
 
2014-01-21 01:57:54 PM  
I guess just going to another bakery was out of the question. Are they still waiting for that cake?
 
2014-01-21 01:58:09 PM  

totallyfubar: Chummer45

Discrimination against someone for what they are (ex. black) is biblically wrong.  Refusing to participate in a sinful ACT by others is not discrimination.  It would be like a black person asked me to sell them a gun vs. a chinese person asking me to sell them a gun to kill someone.  I would not sell to the one who is going to do something I find morrally wrong but I would sell to the other.



uh.... ok.....?  Nothing about what you said made any sense.
 
2014-01-21 01:58:15 PM  
Personally, I would have taken my business elsewhere. The best way to get rid of these bigots is to not give them your business.
 
2014-01-21 01:58:25 PM  

Uncontrolled_Jibe: /BTW its quite common that one cannot legally provide food for sale out of a residential kitchen. A visit from the local health board might have been the last nail in the coffin.


It's a thing Underground foodie dining clubs.
 
2014-01-21 01:58:33 PM  
Phinn:

That was later erased by control freaks pretending to be smarter than everyone else.

Not smarter than everyone.
 
2014-01-21 01:59:03 PM  
BURN IT TO THE GROUND
 
2014-01-21 01:59:11 PM  

BMFPitt: Personally, if someone was being a dick to me, I wouldn't sue to be able to give them my business. Quite the opposite.

But welcome to America.


Maybe they are suing for the greater good of future generations not being discriminated against.

Some people can see past "what's in it for me today"
 
2014-01-21 01:59:50 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: hardinparamedic: Phinn: When you define what's "protected" by arbitrary rules, then there's no reason "political belief" can't become protected.

Well, cry me a river, Phinn. Until such point that humanity evolves to where it does not make decisions based on inherent stereotypical judgements and racial demographics, protected classes will be necessary.

In reality, our entire country was founded on the ideas of protected classes - namely freedom from religious doctrine in Government dealings, and the idea that the majority's tyranny through "popular opinion" should not determine policy.

"Majority rule, minority rights"



Since when our country was founded we still had slaves and indentured servants, and only landowning (white) men could vote, maybe we shouldn't be so ready to invoke "founding principles" in making our arguments.  Maybe it's better just to say "as an ethical and policy matter and in light of this country's history, we need to protect certain groups from discrimination."
 
2014-01-21 02:00:49 PM  

Leishu: If by "arbitrary rules" you mean "the legislative process," then sure. If you can get enough votes that can certainly happen.

But it's a stupid idea, so probably not.



Yeah, you're right.  All legislation is good and right and just.
 
2014-01-21 02:01:22 PM  

MJMaloney187: This is such BS.  "Cryer and Bowman filed a complaint alleging unlawful discrimination."

Cryer and Bowman should have their attention-whoring as*es run out of town. Go to a different baker for crying out loud.



And Rosa Parks should have just sat in the back of the god dammed bus!!!!

High five, bro!
 
2014-01-21 02:02:34 PM  
Notto

That is an incorrect interpretation obviously. As we all see, the Bible is misused and misquoted too much. Boil it all down, God loves the sinner and hates the sin. So do not contribute to the sinning action of others.

Not so obviously to those who disagree with your interpretation. Interpretations are like aholes. Everybody has them.

Segregationist certainly did (and probably still do) consider copulation between races to be a sin as outline in their interpretation of the Bible. This stuff is well documented history and is in the very court cases that were fought. Doesn't make it right, but certainly makes the comparison to gay marriage and those who fight it on 'religious' grounds a valid comparison.

If the bible is misused and misquoted too much, then maybe it's a bad idea to base our public policy on "biblical principles."



And according to the libs, it never was.
 
2014-01-21 02:02:36 PM  
There's a line between being genuinely discriminated against in a way that is malicious and systematic and being a professional victim.  Not being served your wedding cake is not a systematic discrimination.  You've already gotten your legal rights for marriage, why make an example out of a solitary business and screw over the cakemakers?
 
2014-01-21 02:03:20 PM  

Chummer45: InterruptingQuirk: hardinparamedic: Phinn: When you define what's "protected" by arbitrary rules, then there's no reason "political belief" can't become protected.

Well, cry me a river, Phinn. Until such point that humanity evolves to where it does not make decisions based on inherent stereotypical judgements and racial demographics, protected classes will be necessary.

In reality, our entire country was founded on the ideas of protected classes - namely freedom from religious doctrine in Government dealings, and the idea that the majority's tyranny through "popular opinion" should not determine policy.

"Majority rule, minority rights"


Since when our country was founded we still had slaves and indentured servants, and only landowning (white) men could vote, maybe we shouldn't be so ready to invoke "founding principles" in making our arguments.  Maybe it's better just to say "as an ethical and policy matter and in light of this country's history, we need to protect certain groups from discrimination."



Maybe it's better to articulate a legitimate ethical principle, such as "everyone has the right to freely associate with whomever they choose, and no one has the right to force anyone who is peacefully associating to disassociate, nor to force anyone who is declining to associate to associate."

But that would require the capacity for abstract thought, which you haven't demonstrated the ability to employ.
 
2014-01-21 02:04:23 PM  

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.


My boyfriend is a church-going Catholic. So, no, it's not about religion, it's about bigotry. So fark you and the bigotry you come flying in on.
 
2014-01-21 02:04:30 PM  

Chummer45: Phinn: Baz744: In constitutional terms, there is no right to discriminate against homosexuals in the provision of public services.

There are no "public services."  That's an arbitrary construct, invented for the purpose of justifying the assertion of CONTROL over people's private lives.

And that's what makes you giddy -- control.


Oh jesus christ give me a break.  So are you an anarchist, or do you just think that the government is "tyrannical" whenever it does something that you don't like?


I really wish I could drive 200 mph on the highway.  But the government, drunk on CONTROL, has told me that I can't do that.  When will this tyranny end?  Why can't I dump raw sewage in my front yard - ARE WE NOT A FREE SOCIETY?!?!??!



I was on board with your reasoning until this....

Chummer45: Phinn: Baz744: In constitutional terms, there is no right to discriminate against homosexuals in the provision of public services.

There are no "public services."  That's an arbitrary construct, invented for the purpose of justifying the assertion of CONTROL over people's private lives.

And that's what makes you giddy -- control.


Oh jesus christ give me a break.  So are you an anarchist, or do you just think that the government is "tyrannical" whenever it does something that you don't like?


I really wish I could drive 200 mph on the highway.  But the government, drunk on CONTROL, has told me that I can't do that.  When will this tyranny end?  Why can't I dump raw sewage in my front yard - ARE WE NOT A FREE SOCIETY?!?!??!



What a governement drunk on control might look like
www.unmuseum.org
What all cakes in the future will look like:
farm4.staticflickr.com
 
2014-01-21 02:04:50 PM  

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
 
2014-01-21 02:04:53 PM  

SpectroBoy: Rosa Parks should have just sat in the back of the god dammed bus!!!!



Rosa Parks was the victim of government.
 
2014-01-21 02:05:30 PM  

Phinn: Baz744: In constitutional terms, there is no right to discriminate against homosexuals in the provision of public services.

There are no "public services."  That's an arbitrary construct,


These are actually incompatible thoughts. Either "public services" exist, or they do not. You've asserted here first that they do not exist, and second that they exist as an "arbitrary construct."

There is most certainly a legal designation for the public provision of goods and services in commerce. If you sat down in a law library, you could, with sufficient skill, parse out with some precision its full contours.

"Public, commercial services" certainly exists as a coherent concept, independent of the words used to describe it. They would exist whether or not we called them such. Unless you mean to say gravity did not exist before we identified and named it.

You may actually be correct that it was invented as a legal designation for the purposes of justifying control--though not over peoples' private lives, but rather over their public, commercial lives. And it certainly wasn't invented solely to justify control for the sake of control. Most likely it was invented to justify control over the provision of public services for the purpose of regulating some social evil, real or merely perceived.

And that's what makes you giddy -- control.

There two things in this world that actually make me giddy: 1) a certain female partner in an internationally renowned intellectual property law firm, and 2) quality time with my little boy.
 
2014-01-21 02:05:36 PM  

Weatherkiss: 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.

Congratulations, you just elevated your criminal act from discrimination to something much worse, and will never get licensed from the state health inspector to run a food service business ever again.

Way to stick it to them homoqueers.


Well, first of all I would have made the cake and moved on unless it was a bunch of dildos and what not.. then would have made two one for my wife to have a party with her friends with THAT BEING SAID I'm not good at being forced to do much of anything and yea.. I would have pissed in the cake like the employees spit in the food at McDonalds and don't get charged with criminal offenses and what not.

/Wouldn't be my first time in jail or criminal court
 
2014-01-21 02:05:51 PM  
so there's a bakery that makes wedding cakes that doesn't employ gay people.  my question is how good could the cakes possibly be?  the lesbian couple loses points for their poor pastry judgement.
 
2014-01-21 02:05:59 PM  

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.
 
2014-01-21 02:06:13 PM  

DubtodaIll: There's a line between being genuinely discriminated against in a way that is malicious and systematic and being a professional victim.  Not being served your wedding cake is not a systematic discrimination.  You've already gotten your legal rights for marriage, why make an example out of a solitary business and screw over the cakemakers?


When one of the bakery owners, Aaron Klein, discovered the cake was for a same-sex marriage, he called the couple "abominations unto the Lord" and made other comments that reduced the fiancée to tears, according to the complaint.
 
2014-01-21 02:06:46 PM  

Phinn: SpectroBoy: Rosa Parks should have just sat in the back of the god dammed bus!!!!

Rosa Parks was the victim of government.


treating black people  lesser than white people predates our government.
 
2014-01-21 02:06:50 PM  

doubled99: I guess just going to another bakery was out of the question. Are they still waiting for that cake?


I guess just sitting in the back of the bus was out of the question. Is Rosa Parks still waiting for that bus?
 
2014-01-21 02:07:06 PM  

Phinn: Our entire country was founded on one of the essential "rights of Englishmen" -- the freedom of association and its commercial application, freedom of contract.


Our country was also founded on the notion that, for certain bookkeeping purposes, people aren't always full people. The principle of its founding was that The People know how to govern themselves. Full stop.

If 3/4 of the state legislatures decided that Amendment 1 was too silly to keep around, the Founders would have no choice but to accept that We The People knew what the hell we were doing. Madison specifically said they'd prefer if we didn't rely on divinations of their minds (something about preferring not to attach religious significance to them and theirs) to figure it out.

That was later erased by control freaks pretending to be smarter than everyone else.

Sure. It's not like using the power of the state on the one hand to require business to get a license means you can't use the power on the other hand to ensure that any licensed business serves all of the people who granted that license - that would mean disenfranchising the proud business owners at the expense of the people that created, staffed, and enforced the law that separates their business assets from their private assets, the law that creates the rules and requirements of licensure, and the people that staff the courts they use to enforce or dissolve their contracts.

But I've had too many arguments with libertarians to continue. You don't think the state should have any power at all. So, we're done.
 
2014-01-21 02:07:13 PM  

TrotlineDesigns: I would have pissed in the cake like the employees spit in the food at McDonalds and don't get charged with criminal offenses and what not.

/Wouldn't be my first time in jail or criminal court


www.danielyerelian.com
 
2014-01-21 02:07:36 PM  
Fark is a weird place where Christians are the ultimate trump card.

Contrast this to the douchey-hipster article who wants government to prevent his neighbors from chopping down trees on their property because he likes those trees.  The Fark brigade is almost universally against the hipster douche siding with private property rights.

Then there's this case, where a lesbian couple wants government to force a baker to participate in a gay wedding, and because the baker is Christian, the same people are ready to feed him to the dogs.

If there's ever a case where cops beat the snot out of anti-abortion demonstrators, the whole universe might divide by zero following the cognitive dissonance coming from fark.
 
2014-01-21 02:07:49 PM  

MyRandomName: The hilarious part is that you liberals always attempt economic boycotts to destroy those who disagree with you.


I thought you fake Libertarians loved the free market. You do realize that a Boycott is exactly that, right? The free market at work.

 Yet if any person attempted an economic boycott of a minority business, you would be outraged.

More likely we wouldn't notice, as the number of people with a lower IQ than their shoe size in the US is well beyond three standard deviations out, I think, these days. In order for a Boycott to work, it can't just be one or two mouthbreathers doing it, but you tell us how well your one idiot boycott of the Attractive and Successful African Americans goes, okay? I'm sure you'll make Stormfront's front page and have tens of fans.
 
2014-01-21 02:08:04 PM  

WillJM8528: Personally, I would have taken my business elsewhere. The best way to get rid of these bigots is to not give them your business.


That doesn't make them any more of a bigot than you are.  They should have a right in America to not do business with them as long as they aren't getting any government monies.
That whole 'right to refuse service' thing..

/No Shirts, No Shoes, No Service
//No more than 2 school aged children in store at one time
///I could go on
 
2014-01-21 02:08:11 PM  

DubtodaIll: There's a line between being genuinely discriminated against in a way that is malicious and systematic and being a professional victim.  Not being served your wedding cake is not a systematic discrimination.  You've already gotten your legal rights for marriage, why make an example out of a solitary business and screw over the cakemakers?


To make an example of them and hopefully (like happened here) drive them out of business so that a business owner who will follow the law can take their place in the market.  It really is a win for everyone.

If tax dollars are going to provide infrastructure for business, that business cannot refuse service to the community providing it the privilege of using that infrastructure.  Having a business that is a public accommodation and that uses public resources is not a right, it is a privilege bound by laws, licencing, and codes.

It is just these bigoted cakemakers that got 'screwed'.  Law abiding cakemakers will take their place.
 
2014-01-21 02:09:39 PM  

Baz744: You may actually be correct that it was invented as a legal designation for the purposes of justifying control--though not over peoples' private lives, but rather over their public, commercial lives.



By labeling certain behavior "public," the government purported to legitimately assert control.  That's what "public" and "private" mean -- areas that can legitimately be controlled by government, and those that can't.  It's the same concept, using two different sets of words.

Do try to keep up.
 
2014-01-21 02:09:50 PM  

Witty_Retort: DubtodaIll: There's a line between being genuinely discriminated against in a way that is malicious and systematic and being a professional victim.  Not being served your wedding cake is not a systematic discrimination.  You've already gotten your legal rights for marriage, why make an example out of a solitary business and screw over the cakemakers?

When one of the bakery owners, Aaron Klein, discovered the cake was for a same-sex marriage, he called the couple "abominations unto the Lord" and made other comments that reduced the fiancée to tears, according to the complaint.


Feelings are inconsequential.
 
2014-01-21 02:10:08 PM  
Why don't these people just give a price quote that's say 30 percent higher than normal? Not big enough to be directly noticeable, it'll just seem like they are a higher priced bakery and no couple getting married is just getting quotes from one bakery and will most likely not go with the highest price quote. If for some reason they do decide go with your bakery then you've just made extra profit that can be donated to a christian charity if they really feel bad. Instead they have to attention whore about god.
 
2014-01-21 02:10:13 PM  

Mr. Right: So can a pro-abortion bakery owner be forced to make a Right To Life cake?  Can a black bakery owner be forced to make a cake for the anniversary celebration of the local KKK chapter?  Can a Kosher bakery owner be forced to bake a cake for a Neo-Nazi party?

Regardless of one's position on gay marriage, this kind of lawsuit should be cause for concern to anyone who believes in free association.


Bears repeating.  These may not be among the special "protected classes", but all it would take is one lawsuit to change that.  Can't say I want to see this, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Ultimately, going to another bakery would've been the best option.  Instead, this couple has basically just intensified the divisiveness, rather than being the bigger people and moving on.  They may "win", but many people who are distrustful of what they call the "homosexual agenda" will now feel all the more justified in their views, rather than having an example that may be used against them.

But then, I guess I can't say I'm surprised.  Lawsuits are the weapons of the weak and get-rich-quick-schemers, and a jury trial for people who disagree with how others live their lives over a cake is exactly the kind of thing that makes people think of tyranny rather than education and open-mindedness.
 
2014-01-21 02:10:17 PM  

SpectroBoy: MJMaloney187: This is such BS.  "Cryer and Bowman filed a complaint alleging unlawful discrimination."

Cryer and Bowman should have their attention-whoring as*es run out of town. Go to a different baker for crying out loud.


And Rosa Parks should have just sat in the back of the god dammed bus!!!!

High five, bro!


For your information, Boy, Rosa Parks violated the direction of the bus driver. That's why she was arrested. Back then, bus drivers were the equivalent of flight attendants. If you're on a plane and the flight attendant says, "move" - for whatever reason - see what happens when you refuse.

Cryer and Bowman are attention whoring. Double synchronized period.
 
2014-01-21 02:10:44 PM  
Some friends and I werent allowed in a club in Germany one night. When we asked the door man why he said "You are Americans and you steal all the women." So I too, have known the sting of bigotry. We just laughed it off and went to the bar next door and spent our money there. But none of us were looking to be victims we just wanted to get drunk and chase women.
 
2014-01-21 02:10:59 PM  

stpauler: 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.

My boyfriend is a church-going Catholic. So, no, it's not about religion, it's about bigotry. So fark you and the bigotry you come flying in on.

A

re you two engaging in pre-martital sex?  If so, then he is not a good Catholic boy and your opinoin is moot.
 
2014-01-21 02:10:59 PM  

Phinn: Leishu: If by "arbitrary rules" you mean "the legislative process," then sure. If you can get enough votes that can certainly happen.

But it's a stupid idea, so probably not.

Yeah, you're right.  All legislation is good and right and just.


Yeah you're right. Girls who wear short skirts deserved to be rapes and White people are oppressed.

We were playing the "I can't think of an intelligent thing to say so I'll just make shiat up" game, right?
 
2014-01-21 02:11:06 PM  

Phinn: Baz744: The baker may permissibly delegate the task he finds distasteful to an employee. Or, he may choose not to publicly sell baked goods at all.

That's not for you to say, control freak.


In case you're wondering, I'm confident of two facts:

1) that your baseless, unprovoked personal attacks have no impact on my self-perception, and

2) that your baseless, unprovoked personal attacks have no effect on most other readers besides diminishing their evaluation of your character, or your position.
 
2014-01-21 02:11:15 PM  

karnal: I guess my sense of capitalism trumps any of my beliefs...If I owned a bakery I would sale a cake to anyone.....well, except the Irish.


That's not really discrimination because if you owned a bakery you most likely wouldn't even havea liquor licence.
 
2014-01-21 02:12:06 PM  
*raped, not that it matters that much when dealing with somebody possessed of the apparent literacy of a dead hamster.
 
2014-01-21 02:12:13 PM  

Billygoat Gruff: Some friends and I werent allowed in a club in Germany one night. When we asked the door man why he said "You are Americans and you steal all the women." So I too, have known the sting of bigotry. We just laughed it off and went to the bar next door and spent our money there. But none of us were looking to be victims we just wanted to get drunk and chase women.


That's unfortunate, I thought Germany had a high reputation for being open and tolerant of other nationalities.
 
2014-01-21 02:13:26 PM  
TrotlineDesigns:

They should have a right in America to not do business with them as long as they aren't getting any government monies.

They are getting public money via infrastructure and they are taking a spot in the market that could easily be filled by a business willing to follow the laws and accommodate the full community that provides them this infrastructure.
 
2014-01-21 02:13:48 PM  

SpectroBoy: BMFPitt: Personally, if someone was being a dick to me, I wouldn't sue to be able to give them my business. Quite the opposite.

But welcome to America.

Maybe they are suing for the greater good of future generations not being discriminated against.

Some people can see past "what's in it for me today"


Telling the internet about these asshats ran them effectively out of business, as it should have.

Taking it to court makes the couple worse than the bakery.
 
2014-01-21 02:14:06 PM  

Baz744: your baseless, unprovoked personal attacks have no impact on my self-perception



You're openly supporting the use of force against peaceful people, all because you don't like their cake-making decisions!

That makes you an asshole.  Calling you an asshole is therefore neither baseless nor unprovoked.


Baz744: your baseless, unprovoked personal attacks have no effect on most other readers besides diminishing their evaluation of your character, or your position



Your opinions have no impact on my self-perception.
 
2014-01-21 02:14:19 PM  

insertsnarkyusername: Why don't these people just give a price quote that's say 30 percent higher than normal? Not big enough to be directly noticeable, it'll just seem like they are a higher priced bakery and no couple getting married is just getting quotes from one bakery and will most likely not go with the highest price quote. If for some reason they do decide go with your bakery then you've just made extra profit that can be donated to a christian charity if they really feel bad. Instead they have to attention whore about god.


Because this is also illegal.
 
2014-01-21 02:14:23 PM  

karnal: stpauler: 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.

My boyfriend is a church-going Catholic. So, no, it's not about religion, it's about bigotry. So fark you and the bigotry you come flying in on.

Are you two engaging in pre-martital sex?  If so, then he is not a good Catholic boy and your opinoin is moot.


only if he doesn't confess to the priest.
 
2014-01-21 02:14:48 PM  

notto: TrotlineDesigns:

They should have a right in America to not do business with them as long as they aren't getting any government monies.

They are getting public money via infrastructure and they are taking a spot in the market that could easily be filled by a business willing to follow the laws and accommodate the full community that provides them this infrastructure.


For what it's worth, they aren't any more. They went out of business when their bigotry was exposed. I bet the "Libertarians" here have a problem with that.
 
2014-01-21 02:15:01 PM  

Phinn: By labeling certain behavior "public," the government purported to legitimately assert control. That's what "public" and "private" mean -- areas that can legitimately be controlled by government, and those that can't. It's the same concept, using two different sets of words.


That's not the distinction at all. Much "private" conduct is clearly subject to legitimate state regulation. Child abuse, possession of assorted contraband, and other "private" activities are routinely and legitimately regulated.
 
2014-01-21 02:16:08 PM  
karnal:

Are you two engaging in pre-martital sex?  If so, then he is not a good Catholic boy and your opinoin is moot.

I certainly could not sell them a wedding cake when the time comes if that is the case.
 
2014-01-21 02:16:13 PM  

karnal: stpauler: 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.

My boyfriend is a church-going Catholic. So, no, it's not about religion, it's about bigotry. So fark you and the bigotry you come flying in on.

Are you two engaging in pre-martital sex?  If so, then he is not a good Catholic boy and your opinoin is moot.


Actually, if you need shiat about Catholicism, you would also know the stance on freedom of conscience
The Catholic Church has always held to the primacy of conscience and taught that individuals must follow their consciences even when they are wrong. (Vatican II, On Religious Liberty (1965), §2)
 This means, my retarded little poster, that Catholics can and are obliged to dissent from the Church when their conscience disagrees with it. Now who is moot?
 
2014-01-21 02:17:17 PM  
Actually, if you need  knew shiat about Catholicism, you would also know the stance on freedom of conscience
The Catholic Church has always held to the primacy of conscience and taught that individuals must follow their consciences even when they are wrong. (Vatican II, On Religious Liberty (1965), §2)
This means, my retarded little poster, that Catholics can and are obliged to dissent from the Church when their conscience disagrees with it. Now who is moot?
 
2014-01-21 02:17:28 PM  
So if one were to worship Hitler and I want to celebrate the anniversary of the Holocaust, and asked a Jewish baker to make me a cake, by law the baker would be required to do it?

Or better yet, if I ask a lesbian baker to bake me a cake that says "Lesbianism is morally wrong", she would be required to bake it for me?

Just want to make sure this swing both ways here.
 
2014-01-21 02:17:56 PM  

karnal: stpauler: 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.

My boyfriend is a church-going Catholic. So, no, it's not about religion, it's about bigotry. So fark you and the bigotry you come flying in on.

Are you two engaging in pre-martital sex?  If so, then he is not a good Catholic boy and your opinoin is moot.


I've never met a Catholic that didn't engage in some sort of premarital sex.
 
2014-01-21 02:18:04 PM  

Baz744: Phinn: By labeling certain behavior "public," the government purported to legitimately assert control. That's what "public" and "private" mean -- areas that can legitimately be controlled by government, and those that can't. It's the same concept, using two different sets of words.

That's not the distinction at all. Much "private" conduct is clearly subject to legitimate state regulation. Child abuse, possession of assorted contraband, and other "private" activities are routinely and legitimately regulated.



People used to say that child abuse was a private matter, genius.

And in the context of forced discrimination law (and its modern flavor, forced non-discrimination), the designation of "public" and "private" corresponds with That Which Is Controllable and That Which Is Not.

As a Certified Control Freak, you should know that.
 
2014-01-21 02:18:17 PM  

karnal: stpauler: 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.

My boyfriend is a church-going Catholic. So, no, it's not about religion, it's about bigotry. So fark you and the bigotry you come flying in on.

Are you two engaging in pre-martital sex?  If so, then he is not a good Catholic boy and your opinoin is moot.


well as with everything we can pick and choose what fits your agenda. I find it weird that libs have all this hate for christians but you can't get them to leave a black church when an election is coming up.

/I still laugh everytime I think of Hilary picking up the drawl when she was pandering to a black church.
 
2014-01-21 02:18:29 PM  
Headso: uh..this bigoted bakery couldn't even stay in business, what makes you think there would be an underground railroad funneling religious freak bigots to private bakeries?

It's already happening, especially with the religious whackjobs. The ranks of the Off-The-Grid bartering types is growing daily. They trade amongst themselves, have minimal interaction with outsiders. You don't need a bakery to bake a wedding cake. You do it in your own kitchen and barter it for ammo or other goods. I'm aware of it because I'm researching off-grid tech for my retirement farm, and getting magazines and visiting websites covering the subject matter.

To paraphrase the old Star Wars quote: "The more you tighten your grip, the more people will slip through your fingers"

TFA just motivates more people to cut loose from what they see as an increasingly heavy handed government, hell bent on imposing it's world view on the peons.

Stopping discrimination against someone trying to use a public supermarket, or doctor, or gas station is one thing, but coming down like a ton of bricks on a little bakery creeped out by TEH GAYS!! is seen as straight up government bullying.

Secret Private clubs, private trade networks are going to make a big comeback. And constricted trade resulting from that will degrade the prosperity of our society. The downward spiral steepens...
 
2014-01-21 02:18:55 PM  

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

This is so disgusting.


This just in: beliefs and actions are not the same thing.
 
2014-01-21 02:19:13 PM  

CivicMindedFive: Fark is a weird place where Christians are the ultimate trump card.

Contrast this to the douchey-hipster article who wants government to prevent his neighbors from chopping down trees on their property because he likes those trees.  The Fark brigade is almost universally against the hipster douche siding with private property rights.

Then there's this case, where a lesbian couple wants government to force a baker to participate in a gay wedding, and because the baker is Christian, the same people are ready to feed him to the dogs.

If there's ever a case where cops beat the snot out of anti-abortion demonstrators, the whole universe might divide by zero following the cognitive dissonance coming from fark.


The bakery is a PUBLIC accommodation. It is not a private property issue once you cross that line.

They could have created a private bakery and discriminated against all the icky gheys they want. But they didn't. They opened a public business and in doing so agreed to be bound by the law governing such a business.

Try to understand.
 
2014-01-21 02:19:31 PM  

notto: insertsnarkyusername: Why don't these people just give a price quote that's say 30 percent higher than normal? Not big enough to be directly noticeable, it'll just seem like they are a higher priced bakery and no couple getting married is just getting quotes from one bakery and will most likely not go with the highest price quote. If for some reason they do decide go with your bakery then you've just made extra profit that can be donated to a christian charity if they really feel bad. Instead they have to attention whore about god.

Because this is also illegal.


But impossible to prove. And there aren't set prices for wedding cakes. You get a quote based on what you want and the bill isn't itemized.
 
2014-01-21 02:20:11 PM  
I feel that stupidity should be self mitigating. Unfortunately it's not. Case in point: Honey Boo boo.

Is that still a thing? I cut my chord about 5 years ago. TV was making dumber.
 
2014-01-21 02:20:13 PM  

DubtodaIll: There's a line between being genuinely discriminated against in a way that is malicious and systematic and being a professional victim.  Not being served your wedding cake is not a systematic discrimination.  You've already gotten your legal rights for marriage, why make an example out of a solitary business and screw over the cakemakers?


while I feel that suing the cakemaker was ridiculous (sorry gheys, it IS ridiculous to sue a cakemaker because they don't want to make you a cake) honestly we need these types of ridiculous lawsuits.

because the next dumbass bigot might just think twice.
 
2014-01-21 02:20:18 PM  

TrotlineDesigns: WillJM8528: Personally, I would have taken my business elsewhere. The best way to get rid of these bigots is to not give them your business.

That doesn't make them any more of a bigot than you are.  They should have a right in America to not do business with them as long as they aren't getting any government monies.
That whole 'right to refuse service' thing..

/No Shirts, No Shoes, No Service
//No more than 2 school aged children in store at one time
///I could go on


I'll help you 

/No darkies
// No homos
/// No jews

Is that really the world you want?
 
2014-01-21 02:20:33 PM  
I don't get it. This is illegal, but a theater company firing the Running Man chick because of her political beliefs is okay?
 
2014-01-21 02:20:38 PM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: Guelph35: I don't agree with the bakery owner's decision, but when did sexual orientation become a protected class in regards to discrimination?

I did not just read this.


Why?

I believe a private business has the right to make the decisions that they feel are correct for their business (including the right to refuse service) unless they are breaking the law.

I don't have to agree with their decisions but they should be allowed to make them.  If they decide they're losing too much money from their decision they'll change their mind or go out of business.

I just didn't know the law in the state of Oregon or if there was a federal law that trumps the state.
 
2014-01-21 02:20:47 PM  

Itstoearly: So if one were to worship Hitler and I want to celebrate the anniversary of the Holocaust, and asked a Jewish baker to make me a cake, by law the baker would be required to do it?

Or better yet, if I ask a lesbian baker to bake me a cake that says "Lesbianism is morally wrong", she would be required to bake it for me?

Just want to make sure this swing both ways here.


You can always look at the other two idiots who asked the same inflammatory, moronic question in this thread and were answered accurately. Political affiliation is not a protected class, even stupid political affiliation.
 
2014-01-21 02:20:48 PM  

Headso: karnal: stpauler: 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.

My boyfriend is a church-going Catholic. So, no, it's not about religion, it's about bigotry. So fark you and the bigotry you come flying in on.

Are you two engaging in pre-martital sex?  If so, then he is not a good Catholic boy and your opinoin is moot.

only if he doesn't confess to the priest.


I bet he would be in for a big tongue-lashing if he did confess.
 
2014-01-21 02:20:59 PM  

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

This is so disgusting.


Next up: "but we don't want to serve black people."

And?

If you don't like the way someone conducts business, don't shop there.


and that comment just got favourited as being pro-racism.
some enlightened thinking there.
 
2014-01-21 02:21:15 PM  

Itstoearly: So if one were to worship Hitler and I want to celebrate the anniversary of the Holocaust, and asked a Jewish baker to make me a cake, by law the baker would be required to do it?

Or better yet, if I ask a lesbian baker to bake me a cake that says "Lesbianism is morally wrong", she would be required to bake it for me?

Just want to make sure this swing both ways here.


Do you understand the difference between an opinion and a trait?
This is a threshold question before I begin to tell you what's wrong with your post. If you don't understand the distinction, you won't be able to understand the explanation.
 
2014-01-21 02:21:28 PM  

notto: DubtodaIll: There's a line between being genuinely discriminated against in a way that is malicious and systematic and being a professional victim.  Not being served your wedding cake is not a systematic discrimination.  You've already gotten your legal rights for marriage, why make an example out of a solitary business and screw over the cakemakers?

To make an example of them and hopefully (like happened here) drive them out of business so that a business owner who will follow the law can take their place in the market.  It really is a win for everyone.

If tax dollars are going to provide infrastructure for business, that business cannot refuse service to the community providing it the privilege of using that infrastructure.  Having a business that is a public accommodation and that uses public resources is not a right, it is a privilege bound by laws, licencing, and codes.

It is just these bigoted cakemakers that got 'screwed'.  Law abiding cakemakers will take their place.


Oh the "you didn't build that" argument.  We all pay taxes, we all pay for public infrastructure.  Therefore we've already attributed our right to free use of infrastructure in that we have already paid for it.  There is nothing owed beyond that point, especially not changing one's stance on debatable issues to reflect the popular flow of the time.  Of course I don't really see the relevance for that here as this is a case of two pairs of assholes having a who can shiat the biggest on a national stage contest.
 
2014-01-21 02:21:31 PM  

mwfark: lennavan: mwfark: So a lady is forced to do something against her will in a supposedly free society, and some people call this progress. I call it tyranny, and while I personally disagree with her position, I do think she should have the right to run her business as she sees fit.

Someone is forcing this lady to run a cake business?  Shiat, I missed that part of the article.

They are forcing her to serve people she doesn't want to serve, or they're forcing her out of business. Yes - there is force involved, and that's a problem in a free society.


She shouldn't have to be forced to serve people she doesn't want to serve, it's an actual law on the books. Look it up sometime. As for forcing her out of business, she is doing that to herself by limiting her customer base. That and her disgusting attitude. You know that thing tighty-righty idiots are saying? If you don't like the business, don't shop there? They aren't! The people have spoken! There is no place for small minded people or their businesses. Good day, sir. I SAY GOOD DAY!
 
2014-01-21 02:21:33 PM  

Itstoearly: So if one were to worship Hitler and I want to celebrate the anniversary of the Holocaust, and asked a Jewish baker to make me a cake, by law the baker would be required to do it?

Or better yet, if I ask a lesbian baker to bake me a cake that says "Lesbianism is morally wrong", she would be required to bake it for me?

Just want to make sure this swing both ways here.


Nazis or skinheads are not a protected class.
Homophobes are not a protected class.
You are adding specific content/messaging to the cake that makes it different then refusing to sell the same cake to one party and not another.

The need to stretch the analogy demonstrates why the argument against public accomodation laws are so silly.
 
2014-01-21 02:21:52 PM  

DubtodaIll: There's a line between being genuinely discriminated against in a way that is malicious and systematic and being a professional victim.  Not being served your wedding cake is not a systematic discrimination.  You've already gotten your legal rights for marriage, why make an example out of a solitary business and screw over the cakemakers?


See, i dont see the point of involving courts or government in this sort of situation but reading these douchebag cakemakers' quotes makes me kinda want to help put them out of business. *shrug*

One way to stay in business as a cake maker or otherwise is to not publically display your douchiness.

Nearly unrelated...but has anyone else noticed retailers being increasingly jackassish every year up through this Christmas? I swear I got like three "tough cookies...sucks to be you" style responses from managers this year after stores farked up. *sigh* It hurt, but I silently took my business elsewhere (pretty sure one of those businesses was woman-owned).
 
2014-01-21 02:21:56 PM  

TrotlineDesigns: WillJM8528: Personally, I would have taken my business elsewhere. The best way to get rid of these bigots is to not give them your business.

That doesn't make them any more of a bigot than you are.  They should have a right in America to not do business with them as long as they aren't getting any government monies.
That whole 'right to refuse service' thing..

/No Shirts, No Shoes, No Service
//No more than 2 school aged children in store at one time
///I could go on


In Colorado, a "we reserve the right to refuse service" sign is by itself a violation of the law. (Rule 20.4, from the PDF)

[TMYK.gif]
 
2014-01-21 02:21:59 PM  

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

This is so disgusting.


Next up: "but we don't want to serve black people."



4.bp.blogspot.com

cdn.cakecentral.com


halfsteppin.com

fc03.deviantart.net
 
2014-01-21 02:22:23 PM  

Billygoat Gruff: karnal: stpauler: 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.

My boyfriend is a church-going Catholic. So, no, it's not about religion, it's about bigotry. So fark you and the bigotry you come flying in on.

Are you two engaging in pre-martital sex?  If so, then he is not a good Catholic boy and your opinoin is moot.

well as with everything we can pick and choose what fits your agenda. I find it weird that libs have all this hate for christians but you can't get them to leave a black church when an election is coming up.

/I still laugh everytime I think of Hilary picking up the drawl when she was pandering to a black church.

Mitt Romney laughs at your statement
images.politico.com
 
2014-01-21 02:22:47 PM  

MyRandomName: Liberals always want respect but never respect the religious views of others.


This just in: views and actions are not the same thing either.
 
2014-01-21 02:23:01 PM  

insertsnarkyusername: notto: insertsnarkyusername: Why don't these people just give a price quote that's say 30 percent higher than normal? Not big enough to be directly noticeable, it'll just seem like they are a higher priced bakery and no couple getting married is just getting quotes from one bakery and will most likely not go with the highest price quote. If for some reason they do decide go with your bakery then you've just made extra profit that can be donated to a christian charity if they really feel bad. Instead they have to attention whore about god.

Because this is also illegal.

But impossible really easy to prove. And there aren't set prices for wedding cakes. You get a quote based on what you want and the bill isn't itemized.


Hi I'd like a cake, I'm straight.  $100?  Sweet.
Hi I'd like a cake, I'm gay.  $130?  Sweet.
 
2014-01-21 02:23:23 PM  
TrotlineDesigns:

/Wouldn't be my first time in jail or criminal court

Well that's certainly something to be proud of.
 
2014-01-21 02:23:50 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?


GASP! It's almost as if different states have different laws and POLITICAL VIEWS ARE NOT PROTECTED, for the fourth time. You'd save yourself looking like a blithering idiot if you bothered to read the thread.

But, then, that would imply a lack of intentionally stupid posts.
 
2014-01-21 02:23:53 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?


Apples are not oranges.  Maybe that is why you don't get it.
 
2014-01-21 02:23:55 PM  
goldurnded potstirrin hambonesectionals
 
2014-01-21 02:24:19 PM  

Phinn: Baz744: your baseless, unprovoked personal attacks have no impact on my self-perception

You're openly supporting the use of force against peaceful people, all because you don't like their cake-making decisions!


I'm supporting the enforcement of a constitutionally permissible, morally justified law against its transgressor. You've absurdly equated that in your mind with legally impermissible, morally unjustified use of force in other contexts. People almost universally recognize the distinction. They always have. They always will.

That makes you an asshole.  Calling you an asshole is therefore neither baseless nor unprovoked.

"Asshole" is principally a social designation. The problem for you is that the majority of fair-minded readers would conclude based on our dialogue not that I am an asshole--I have stayed well within the bounds of accepted social behavior--but that you are an asshole.

Note: I'm not saying you are an asshole. I'm saying that fair minded readers would conclude that you are. I say this not to attack you personally, but rather to rebut your assertion that your personal attacks against me are somehow well founded or justified.

Baz744: your baseless, unprovoked personal attacks have no effect on most other readers besides diminishing their evaluation of your character, or your position

Your opinions have no impact on my self-perception.


You would have a good point if I had asserted they do. But I do not. They do, however, impact others' perception of you.
 
2014-01-21 02:24:25 PM  

Guelph35: Satan's Bunny Slippers: Guelph35: I don't agree with the bakery owner's decision, but when did sexual orientation become a protected class in regards to discrimination?

I did not just read this.

Why?

I believe a private business has the right to make the decisions that they feel are correct for their business (including the right to refuse service) unless they are breaking the law.

I don't have to agree with their decisions but they should be allowed to make them.  If they decide they're losing too much money from their decision they'll change their mind or go out of business.

I just didn't know the law in the state of Oregon or if there was a federal law that trumps the state.


Look who doesn't understand the difference between "Protected Class" and "feelings"
 
2014-01-21 02:24:29 PM  

CivicMindedFive: Then there's this case, where a lesbian couple wants government to force a baker to participate in a gay wedding, and because the baker is Christian, the same people are ready to feed him to the dogs.


You could've just posted "I don't know what I'm talking about" and saved a lot of words.

DubtodaIll: Witty_Retort: DubtodaIll: There's a line between being genuinely discriminated against in a way that is malicious and systematic and being a professional victim.  Not being served your wedding cake is not a systematic discrimination.  You've already gotten your legal rights for marriage, why make an example out of a solitary business and screw over the cakemakers?

When one of the bakery owners, Aaron Klein, discovered the cake was for a same-sex marriage, he called the couple "abominations unto the Lord" and made other comments that reduced the fiancée to tears, according to the complaint.

Feelings are inconsequential.


But the law is not.

The couple is not suing the bakery. He insulted them enough that they filed a complaint with the AG. The AG investigated and found they had been wronged.

BMFPitt:
Taking it to court makes the couple worse than the bakery.

You could've just posted "I don't know what I'm talking about" and saved a lot of words.
 
2014-01-21 02:25:16 PM  

lennavan: insertsnarkyusername: notto: insertsnarkyusername: Why don't these people just give a price quote that's say 30 percent higher than normal? Not big enough to be directly noticeable, it'll just seem like they are a higher priced bakery and no couple getting married is just getting quotes from one bakery and will most likely not go with the highest price quote. If for some reason they do decide go with your bakery then you've just made extra profit that can be donated to a christian charity if they really feel bad. Instead they have to attention whore about god.

Because this is also illegal.

But impossible really easy to prove. And there aren't set prices for wedding cakes. You get a quote based on what you want and the bill isn't itemized.

Hi I'd like a cake, I'm straight.  $100?  Sweet.
Hi I'd like a cake, I'm gay.  $130?  Sweet.


What world do you live in that a wedding cake costs 100 dollars? This practice is also known as the bridezilla tax, it's fairly common for bakers and caterers to tack on say an extra ten percent if they think you are going to be a pain in the ass.
 
2014-01-21 02:25:23 PM  

notto: TrotlineDesigns:

They should have a right in America to not do business with them as long as they aren't getting any government monies.

They are getting public money via infrastructure and they are taking a spot in the market that could easily be filled by a business willing to follow the laws and accommodate the full community that provides them this infrastructure.


Never owned anything have ya? Well, that you worked for I mean
 
2014-01-21 02:25:37 PM  

lennavan: To all of you that have been praying for Aaron and I, I want to say thank you. I know that your prayers are being heard

Okay, so you know people were praying for you and you know God heard those prayers and you lost the court case.  So I'm thinkin maybe God isn't on your side for this one.



THIS. It's funny how they get to just say whatever they want is god's plan, but god himself apparently doesn't get to tell us. Not only that, they can't actually show us the letter or email or whatever that god sent to them to tell them what he wanted from this whole situation. Being that he's supposedly a being of ultimate power and wisdom this must by definition be what he wanted - for them to be prosecuted for being dicks to people trying to patronize their business.

In other words, they're just making up justifications with no proof whatsoever to do what they already want to do - be assholes to people that they don't think are like them.

Not only is it blasphemous for them to assert that they can speak for god but it's also explicitly counter to Christ's teachings to be so petty and unwelcoming to others as well.
 
2014-01-21 02:26:49 PM  

mongbiohazard: HIS. It's funny how they get to just say whatever they want is god's plan, but god himself apparently doesn't get to tell us. Not only that, they can't actually show us the letter or email or whatever that god sent to them to tell them what he wanted from this whole situation. Being that he's supposedly a being of ultimate power and wisdom this must by definition be what he wanted - for them to be prosecuted for being dicks to people trying to patronize their business.


Something I've learned in my 28 years of existence is that God's will is strangely ALWAYS the same as what the person telling me what it is wants from me.
 
2014-01-21 02:27:10 PM  
It's just another day in Your Gay Indoctrination.

Only a liberal would want the government to force someone to bake them a cake.
 
2014-01-21 02:27:22 PM  

mark12A: Headso: uh..this bigoted bakery couldn't even stay in business, what makes you think there would be an underground railroad funneling religious freak bigots to private bakeries?

It's already happening, especially with the religious whackjobs. The ranks of the Off-The-Grid bartering types is growing daily. They trade amongst themselves, have minimal interaction with outsiders. You don't need a bakery to bake a wedding cake. You do it in your own kitchen and barter it for ammo or other goods. I'm aware of it because I'm researching off-grid tech for my retirement farm, and getting magazines and visiting websites covering the subject matter.

To paraphrase the old Star Wars quote: "The more you tighten your grip, the more people will slip through your fingers"

TFA just motivates more people to cut loose from what they see as an increasingly heavy handed government, hell bent on imposing it's world view on the peons.

Stopping discrimination against someone trying to use a public supermarket, or doctor, or gas station is one thing, but coming down like a ton of bricks on a little bakery creeped out by TEH GAYS!! is seen as straight up government bullying.

Secret Private clubs, private trade networks are going to make a big comeback. And constricted trade resulting from that will degrade the prosperity of our society. The downward spiral steepens...


Way to take something cool like Americans making goods, growing food and providing services sound like some kind of corny rebellion, if there is an actual rise in Americans doing these things then good, I welcome the variety in produce, meat and homemade goods, clothing, art... I live in a rural area and what you describe is pretty much par for the course for many people here, I don't think it's anything new more likely you are personally getting more immersed in that hippyish lifestyle so it seems everyone is doing it.
 
2014-01-21 02:27:26 PM  

CivicMindedFive: Fark is a weird place where Christians are the ultimate trump card.

Contrast this to the douchey-hipster article who wants government to prevent his neighbors from chopping down trees on their property because he likes those trees.  The Fark brigade is almost universally against the hipster douche siding with private property rights.

Then there's this case, where a lesbian couple wants government to force a baker to participate in a gay wedding, and because the baker is Christian, the same people are ready to feed him to the dogs.

If there's ever a case where cops beat the snot out of anti-abortion demonstrators, the whole universe might divide by zero following the cognitive dissonance coming from fark.


freedom of religion, man.  it is in direct opposition to general "freedom", but since america was basically FOUNDED on being able to worship the way one wishes, it is getting into some dark water.

A christian baker should be able to say no to a homosexual customer. the homosexual lifestyle is in direct contradiction to what the religion preaches.

they just should be able to.

however the law makes it wrong.

in this case, however, the gay people wanting the cake are wrong - even if the man said some "i hate the homogheys" stuff.  because freedom of speech.

on the other hand, fark you bigot.

i'm torn.
 
2014-01-21 02:27:35 PM  

BalugaJoe: Money is money.  What is wrong with these people.


Seriously, we're talking the conservative machine here.  By refusing and hitting the conservative press, they'll be inundated with all kinds of offers.
First, a collection to take care of immediate needs - rent, food, etc.
Then, interviews running the gamut of the conservatalkmarketing shows
They'll be touted as heroes - the hubby, a man among men
Next, the book deal!  "How I stood up to the meany nasties for JJJEESSSUUUSSS"


/money is money
//conservative money can make you rich if you play it right
///oh, speaking tours too
 
2014-01-21 02:28:08 PM  

DubtodaIll: Oh the "you didn't build that" argument. We all pay taxes, we all pay for public infrastructure. Therefore we've already attributed our right to free use of infrastructure in that we have already paid for it. There is nothing owed beyond that point, especially not changing one's stance on debatable issues to reflect the popular flow of the time.



Isn't self-referential rationalization just spectacular to behold?

Let's see -- the government forces everyone to pay for roads, and it controls the entire road-building and city-planning business, thereby requiring everyone to use the government's roads just to live, and then points to people's use of government roads to JUSTIFY expanding the government's control over every other aspect of people's lives.

Brilliant.

It's like stealing someone's food, and then when you give it back to him, claiming that he owes you his life in perpetuity for feeding him.
 
2014-01-21 02:28:34 PM  

notto: Itstoearly: So if one were to worship Hitler and I want to celebrate the anniversary of the Holocaust, and asked a Jewish baker to make me a cake, by law the baker would be required to do it?

Or better yet, if I ask a lesbian baker to bake me a cake that says "Lesbianism is morally wrong", she would be required to bake it for me?

Just want to make sure this swing both ways here.

Nazis or skinheads are not a protected class.
Homophobes are not a protected class.
You are adding specific content/messaging to the cake that makes it different then refusing to sell the same cake to one party and not another.

The need to stretch the analogy demonstrates why the argument against public accomodation laws are so silly.


Yep, if lesbian bakers said something like "We don't make cakes for breeders", then they would be breaking the law, by discriminating based upon sexual preference.
 
2014-01-21 02:29:05 PM  

SpectroBoy: CivicMindedFive: Fark is a weird place where Christians are the ultimate trump card.

Contrast this to the douchey-hipster article who wants government to prevent his neighbors from chopping down trees on their property because he likes those trees.  The Fark brigade is almost universally against the hipster douche siding with private property rights.

Then there's this case, where a lesbian couple wants government to force a baker to participate in a gay wedding, and because the baker is Christian, the same people are ready to feed him to the dogs.

If there's ever a case where cops beat the snot out of anti-abortion demonstrators, the whole universe might divide by zero following the cognitive dissonance coming from fark.

The bakery is a PUBLIC accommodation. It is not a private property issue once you cross that line.

They could have created a private bakery and discriminated against all the icky gheys they want. But they didn't. They opened a public business and in doing so agreed to be bound by the law governing such a business.

Try to understand.


You try to understand.  When you can walk into a bakery and buy a wedding cake off the shelf, it would be a public accommodation.  Forcing a baker to participate in something he disagrees with is not.

These lesbians and their supporters as well as douchy-hipster-tree-lover both want to use the heavy boot of government to smash the face of those who don't agree with their views.
 
2014-01-21 02:29:06 PM  

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

This is so disgusting.


Next up: "but we don't want to serve black people."


[4.bp.blogspot.com image 480x640]

[cdn.cakecentral.com image 850x637]


[halfsteppin.com image 850x1275]

[fc03.deviantart.net image 850x637]


Very creative and disgusting. That does not look like food.
 
2014-01-21 02:29:18 PM  

insertsnarkyusername: lennavan:

Hi I'd like a cake, I'm straight.  $100?  Sweet.
Hi I'd like a cake, I'm gay.  $130?  Sweet.

What world do you live in that a wedding cake costs 100 dollars?


One where I felt like larger numbers would have been too difficult for you to understand.  Considering your reply focused on the number rather than the very clear illustration as to how it would be exceedingly simple to prove, I was right, wasn't I?
 
2014-01-21 02:29:41 PM  

frepnog: A christian baker should be able to say no to a homosexual customer. the homosexual lifestyle is in direct contradiction to what the religion preaches.

they just should be able to.


Up until the 1970s, Mormons believed that all black people were sinners. Should they have been able to refuse service to black people?
 
2014-01-21 02:30:37 PM  
TrotlineDesigns:
Never owned anything have ya? Well, that you worked for I mean

I owned your mother last night but you are right, I didn't have to work for it.
 
2014-01-21 02:31:10 PM  
I think that guy from Philipsburg should sue the shoprite for discrimination for refusing to put "happy birthday Adolf Hitler" on his sons cake.
 
2014-01-21 02:31:37 PM  

susler: If god was really on everyone's side who claims it, we wouldn't have gay marriage anywhere, the 10 commandments would be on every courthouse wall and storekeepers would be shot for saying "happy holidays"

Suck it, everyone who wears their religion and/or their politics on their sleeve.


Don't forget their gayness.
 
2014-01-21 02:32:03 PM  
Witty_Retort:

DubtodaIll: Witty_Retort: DubtodaIll: There's a line between being genuinely discriminated against in a way that is malicious and systematic and being a professional victim.  Not being served your wedding cake is not a systematic discrimination.  You've already gotten your legal rights for marriage, why make an example out of a solitary business and screw over the cakemakers?

When one of the bakery owners, Aaron Klein, discovered the cake was for a same-sex marriage, he called the couple "abominations unto the Lord" and made other comments that reduced the fiancée to tears, according to the complaint.

Feelings are inconsequential.

But the law is not.

The couple is not suing the bakery. He insulted them enough that they filed a complaint with the AG. The AG investigated and found they had been wronged.



Yeah the laws the law and should be paid attention to at all times.  It just doesn't seem just to punish someone who would otherwise be successful and harmless unless the "victim" hadn't been offended and that law exist to protect people from being offended.  I don't think either side is in the right here but the law does prefer the lesbian couple in this situation.  While I doubt feelings can ever by removed from the justice process as long as humans are administering the law, I can't see how feelings, which are impossible to verify or prove in any philosophical or scientific way, are able to be proven and acted upon by the law.
 
2014-01-21 02:32:21 PM  

CivicMindedFive: When you can walk into a bakery and buy a wedding cake off the shelf, it would be a public accommodation.  Forcing a baker to participate in something he disagrees with is not.


Know how I know you don't know what the definition of a public accommodation is?
Allow me to help:
Colorado 24-34-601: Discrimination in places of public accommodation
(1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor. "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.
 
2014-01-21 02:33:18 PM  

Guelph35: I believe a private business has the right to make the decisions that they feel are correct for their business (including the right to refuse service) unless they are breaking the law.



frepnog: DubtodaIll: There's a line between being genuinely discriminated against in a way that is malicious and systematic and being a professional victim.  Not being served your wedding cake is not a systematic discrimination.  You've already gotten your legal rights for marriage, why make an example out of a solitary business and screw over the cakemakers?

while I feel that suing the cakemaker was ridiculous (sorry gheys, it IS ridiculous to sue a cakemaker because they don't want to make you a cake) honestly we need these types of ridiculous lawsuits.

because the next dumbass bigot might just think twice.


Are you now contending people may grow out of ignorant, destructive phases of their life?
 
2014-01-21 02:33:21 PM  

ValisIV: Yep, if lesbian bakers said something like "We don't make cakes for breeders", then they would be breaking the law, by discriminating based upon sexual preference.


and yet no suits would be filed, and if they were they would get no traction.

i guarantee you there is at least one black owned bakery out there that wouldn't make a cake for a white person even at gun point.  because racism is real.

and still no suit would get traction.
 
2014-01-21 02:33:34 PM  

stpauler: karnal: stpauler: 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.

My boyfriend is a church-going Catholic. So, no, it's not about religion, it's about bigotry. So fark you and the bigotry you come flying in on.

Are you two engaging in pre-martital sex?  If so, then he is not a good Catholic boy and your opinoin is moot.

Actually, if you need shiat about Catholicism, you would also know the stance on freedom of conscience
The Catholic Church has always held to the primacy of conscience and taught that individuals must follow their consciences even when they are wrong. (Vatican II, On Religious Liberty (1965), §2)
 This means, my retarded little poster, that Catholics can and are obliged to dissent from the Church when their conscience disagrees with it. Now who is moot?



And who is without a wedding cake because I damn sure won't be making one for you fornicating sinners....unless, of course, the government tells me to.


and the Catholic church says:
Pre-marital sex is selfish
Pre-marital sex is unloving
 and
Pre-marital sex is a misuse of our sexuality
 
2014-01-21 02:33:53 PM  

Phinn: DubtodaIll: Oh the "you didn't build that" argument. We all pay taxes, we all pay for public infrastructure. Therefore we've already attributed our right to free use of infrastructure in that we have already paid for it. There is nothing owed beyond that point, especially not changing one's stance on debatable issues to reflect the popular flow of the time.

Isn't self-referential rationalization just spectacular to behold?

Let's see -- the government forces everyone to pay for roads, and it controls the entire road-building and city-planning business, thereby requiring everyone to use the government's roads just to live, and then points to people's use of government roads to JUSTIFY expanding the government's control over every other aspect of people's lives.

Brilliant.

It's like stealing someone's food, and then when you give it back to him, claiming that he owes you his life in perpetuity for feeding him.


Well it all must have worked pretty good if we are down to arguing about lesbians not getting a cake made for them.
 
2014-01-21 02:34:00 PM  
How smart is it to force someone who doesn't want to make you something to eat to make you something to eat?

/Something to eat. You. Force.
 
2014-01-21 02:34:56 PM  

DubtodaIll: I can't see how feelings, which are impossible to verify or prove in any philosophical or scientific way, are able to be proven and acted upon by the law.


They don't need to, nor are feelings part of the law: this is purely objective. The baker found out they were gay and refused service on those grounds. Their level of offense is irrelevant, as all that matters is the baker operates a public business, and the baker refused service for a reason that's illegal.
 
2014-01-21 02:35:05 PM  
One would think that a man wearing earrings would be a little more tolerant of diversity.

Guess not, in this case.
 
2014-01-21 02:35:42 PM  

lennavan: insertsnarkyusername: lennavan:

Hi I'd like a cake, I'm straight.  $100?  Sweet.
Hi I'd like a cake, I'm gay.  $130?  Sweet.

What world do you live in that a wedding cake costs 100 dollars?

One where I felt like larger numbers would have been too difficult for you to understand.  Considering your reply focused on the number rather than the very clear illustration as to how it would be exceedingly simple to prove, I was right, wasn't I?


It's not simple to prove. You've obviously never once worked in this industry. Say I own a bakery and you come in and say you are having a wedding. I say ok, you tell me the number of guests, the size of portions, the design, what kind of cake you want, what kind of icing you want and if you want the cake to be one type or multiple types. Then I do a mental calculation on ingredients, labor, use of kitchen space and then add on profit. Then I give you a number. That's how it works.

Two of my friends are getting married, big gay wedding except one of them is a bit of a groomzilla which is why I go with them to meet caterers and bakers. Just having an idea of how much things cost to produce and average profit margins will save you money. I also know caterer's who only do weddings because they can charge 20 percent more for the same service as a party.
 
2014-01-21 02:35:56 PM  

Theaetetus: frepnog: A christian baker should be able to say no to a homosexual customer. the homosexual lifestyle is in direct contradiction to what the religion preaches.

they just should be able to.

Up until the 1970s, Mormons believed that all black people were sinners. Should they have been able to refuse service to black people?


yes.  is it right?  no.  but freedom of religion is what it is, either we have it or we do not, and freedom of religion should trump your hurt feelings.

or just say fark it, religion means nothing, tax them same as any other business and get on with it.
 
2014-01-21 02:36:03 PM  

Weatherkiss: Billygoat Gruff: Some friends and I werent allowed in a club in Germany one night. When we asked the door man why he said "You are Americans and you steal all the women." So I too, have known the sting of bigotry. We just laughed it off and went to the bar next door and spent our money there. But none of us were looking to be victims we just wanted to get drunk and chase women.

That's unfortunate, I thought Germany had a high reputation for being open and tolerant of other nationalities.



You would be surprised. I was stationed there for 5 years. They biatch about their immigration problem the same way we do here, well that is to say the people I met did, and a lot of them were young people, bu they werent all Nazi-ish either. Assholes are everywhere dude, America hasn't cornered the market on it. Things are tough all over at ground level. But as with any country who values tourist dollars your going to get something slick and shiney and not exactly truthful.But overall my experience in Germany was amazing it was just that one night that sticks out only because it makes me laugh. How many of you havent been allowed in a bar because you were too good with the ladies?
 
2014-01-21 02:36:19 PM  

barneyfifesbullet: It's just another day in Your Gay Indoctrination.

Only a liberal would want the government to force someone to bake them a cake.


At this point, I personally would prefer that he did not bake them a cake. But rather that he pay them substantial damages for his evil choice to subject moral persons conducting themselves lawfully to dehumanizing discrimination in the provision of public services.

Earlier I asked for this baker's apologists to produce any Bible passage requiring Jehovah religionists to discriminate in the provision of public services against homosexuals. No such passage has been produced.

This man is not acting according to any religious compulsion. He is acting solely on his desire to treat a hated class of persons as second class citizens. He is of bad moral character, and because of his actions, he deserves to be punished. And he will be.
 
2014-01-21 02:37:08 PM  

barneyfifesbullet: It's just another day in Your Gay Indoctrination.

Only a liberal would want the government to force someone to bake them a cake.



It's not about the cake.  No one wants a cake made by someone who dislikes him.  Obvi.

The medium is the message.  The superficial message from the government here is: YOU MUST BAKE CAKES FOR THE GAYS.

But the superficial message is unimportant.  It's the import of the communication that matters, the subtext.  Here, the real, unspoken message is: WE CONTROL YOUR BUSINESS.

Arbitrary compliance with fake-rules is what Drill Instructors do to recruits, or what fraternities do to pledges.  The government could make a rule that says, "No baking blue cakes on Thursdays."  Or "You MUST bake blue cakes on Thursdays."  Kind of how it goes from mandating racial discrimination one week, to prohibiting it the next.

The point is not the presence or absence of blue cakes.  The content of the rule doesn't matter.  The EXISTENCE of the rule is what matters, because having a rule is what defines the role of the "governed" as one of submission to authority.

In fact, the more trivial the rule is, the better it is for its use as a tool of symbolic submission.
 
2014-01-21 02:37:26 PM  
Can you imagine the collective support on the right for the baker who refuses to bake a religious themed cake?  I'm sure the right would support their freedom.
 
2014-01-21 02:37:56 PM  

insertsnarkyusername: It's not simple to prove. You've obviously never once worked in this industry. Say I own a bakery and you come in and say you are having a wedding. I say ok, you tell me the number of guests, the size of portions, the design, what kind of cake you want, what kind of icing you want and if you want the cake to be one type or multiple types. Then I do a mental calculation on ingredients, labor, use of kitchen space and then add on profit. Then I give you a number.


A number such as $100.  Now guess what I'm gonna suggest happens next in order to prove you charge gay customers more?
 
2014-01-21 02:38:11 PM  

frepnog: Theaetetus: frepnog: A christian baker should be able to say no to a homosexual customer. the homosexual lifestyle is in direct contradiction to what the religion preaches.

they just should be able to.

Up until the 1970s, Mormons believed that all black people were sinners. Should they have been able to refuse service to black people?

yes.  is it right?  no.  but freedom of religion is what it is, either we have it or we do not, and freedom of religion should trump your hurt feelings.

or just say fark it, religion means nothing, tax them same as any other business and get on with it.


... you do realize that we're talking about a baker, not a church, right? They  are taxed the same as any other bakery.

And no, selling cakes is not part of their religion. They are absolutely free to go home and worship however they want in absolute freedom. They are not free to engage in a public business in a discriminatory manner, and then claim that they were really performing a religious service so that they don't have to obey the law.
 
2014-01-21 02:38:28 PM  
Tolerance does not equal Acceptance

It is more than a bit disingenuous to claim moral superiority because you accept or approve of something. "Oh yeah, I think the things that I like are just nifty, and that makes me a good person", as it were.

The real moral winner is the fellow who does not approve, who does not accept, yet still tolerates the things that he does not approve or accept.

But the majority of the posters here would seem to demand that nothing short of full acceptance and approval of homosexuality will do. The amusing thing is that these posters don't view themselves as bigots -- they consider themselves quite open-minded.
 
2014-01-21 02:39:26 PM  
It'd be best if people are free to act like a dickwad and face the court of public opinion, which can be BRUTAL. But that's only a solution when there's already a large degree of acceptance out there, so you can be assured that Tumblr-activists will rally behind you.

Racial discrimination these days is definitely a matter of "Fark you, I'm going across the street and kiss your yelp rating goodbye." Racial discrimination 80 years ago was a VERY different thing, and that's why the law is on the books now. You can't have a law that's only enforced when it's really bad and turns into a slap on the wrist when it's rare.

There is a little bit of unnecessary vengeance in the gals suing for discrimination, especially when they knew they'd have no trouble stirring up an internet hornet's nest.
 
2014-01-21 02:41:12 PM  

Syrrh: Racial discrimination 80 years ago was a VERY different thing, and that's why the law is on the books now.



Racial discrimination 80 years ago WAS THE LAW.  IT WAS REQUIRED.
 
2014-01-21 02:41:21 PM  

letrole: The real moral winner is the fellow who does not approve, who does not accept, yet still tolerates the things that he does not approve or accept.


Okay.

letrole: But the majority of the posters here would seem to demand that nothing short of full acceptance and approval of homosexuality will do. The amusing thing is that these posters don't view themselves as bigots -- they consider themselves quite open-minded.


And you won't tolerate it!
 
2014-01-21 02:41:51 PM  

Billygoat Gruff: Weatherkiss: Billygoat Gruff: Some friends and I werent allowed in a club in Germany one night. When we asked the door man why he said "You are Americans and you steal all the women." So I too, have known the sting of bigotry. We just laughed it off and went to the bar next door and spent our money there. But none of us were looking to be victims we just wanted to get drunk and chase women.

That's unfortunate, I thought Germany had a high reputation for being open and tolerant of other nationalities.


You would be surprised. I was stationed there for 5 years. They biatch about their immigration problem the same way we do here, well that is to say the people I met did, and a lot of them were young people, bu they werent all Nazi-ish either. Assholes are everywhere dude, America hasn't cornered the market on it. Things are tough all over at ground level. But as with any country who values tourist dollars your going to get something slick and shiney and not exactly truthful.But overall my experience in Germany was amazing it was just that one night that sticks out only because it makes me laugh. How many of you havent been allowed in a bar because you were too good with the ladies?


I was stationed there also and there is a big difference between tourists and American servicemen...there were many a night downtown Bitburg when we deserved their scorn.  Arrogant Americans is what they called us.....and that is what we were, most of the time.
 
2014-01-21 02:41:51 PM  

iheartscotch: quickdraw: 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.

But that would have been lying and lying is a sin.

Hey, it's a fib! Fibs are different!

/ I've got fibs to the left,
Fibs to the right,
And, their the only cake shop in town!

// yes, that is a Jimmy Buffet reference


You spelled Buffett wrong. Some Parrothead you are.
 
2014-01-21 02:42:19 PM  

SisterMaryElephant: Can you imagine the collective support on the right for the baker who refuses to bake a religious themed cake?  I'm sure the right would support their freedom.


I would.
 
2014-01-21 02:42:21 PM  

Baz744: Earlier I asked for this baker's apologists to produce any Bible passage requiring Jehovah religionists to discriminate in the provision of public services against homosexuals. No such passage has been produced.


Actually you said "Can someone please direct me to the Bible passage which requires Jehovah religionists to discriminate against homosexuals in provision of public services?"

And I, not thinking you were asking the bakers apologists to do it, gave a few answers conditioned by the need to believe all the other stuff of course. I don't have a dog in this race. But I had some info that you asked for, kind of.
 
2014-01-21 02:42:30 PM  

Syrrh: There is a little bit of unnecessary vengeance in the gals suing for discrimination, especially when they knew they'd have no trouble stirring up an internet hornet's nest didn't actually sue.


FTFY. You're right, it's a terrible thing, that thing they didn't do.
 
2014-01-21 02:43:08 PM  

Phinn: Syrrh: Racial discrimination 80 years ago was a VERY different thing, and that's why the law is on the books now.

Racial discrimination 80 years ago WAS THE LAW.  IT WAS REQUIRED.


And now the law is different, same with laws regarding abusing animals... society evolves.
 
2014-01-21 02:43:17 PM  

DubtodaIll: Yeah the laws the law and should be paid attention to at all times. It just doesn't seem just to punish someone who would otherwise be successful and harmless unless the "victim" hadn't been offended and that law exist to protect people from being offended. I don't think either side is in the right here but the law does prefer the lesbian couple in this situation. While I doubt feelings can ever by removed from the justice process as long as humans are administering the law, I can't see how feelings, which are impossible to verify or prove in any philosophical or scientific way, are able to be proven and acted upon by the law.


Their feelings are not even admissible at trail. The bakery broke the law when they said 'No `cause Bibble'. That's it. That's illegal in Oregon.

They may have sought out the complaint to the AG's office because he insulted them. The insult is not the illegal action, just a possible motivation on why they sought the complaint.

reubendaley: How smart is it to force someone who doesn't want to make you something to eat to make you something to eat?

/Something to eat. You. Force.


That's not what is happening here.
RTFA and linked articles.
 
2014-01-21 02:45:02 PM  

lennavan: insertsnarkyusername: It's not simple to prove. You've obviously never once worked in this industry. Say I own a bakery and you come in and say you are having a wedding. I say ok, you tell me the number of guests, the size of portions, the design, what kind of cake you want, what kind of icing you want and if you want the cake to be one type or multiple types. Then I do a mental calculation on ingredients, labor, use of kitchen space and then add on profit. Then I give you a number.

A number such as $100.  Now guess what I'm gonna suggest happens next in order to prove you charge gay customers more?


Even in the very unlikely event that the next person orders the completely same cake (which I've never seen happen). And the person running the bakery is stupid enough to give a different quote. At the time you were  totally booked up and have since had a cancellation so you don't need to charge a premium to pay your people over time.
 
2014-01-21 02:45:12 PM  

hardinparamedic: mongbiohazard: HIS. It's funny how they get to just say whatever they want is god's plan, but god himself apparently doesn't get to tell us. Not only that, they can't actually show us the letter or email or whatever that god sent to them to tell them what he wanted from this whole situation. Being that he's supposedly a being of ultimate power and wisdom this must by definition be what he wanted - for them to be prosecuted for being dicks to people trying to patronize their business.

Something I've learned in my 28 years of existence is that God's will is strangely ALWAYS the same as what the person telling me what it is wants from me.


i107.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-21 02:46:19 PM  

SisterMaryElephant: Can you imagine the collective support on the right for the baker who refuses to bake a religious themed cake?  I'm sure the right would support their freedom.


It wouldn't be a story.  Built in to most religions is the idea that every member of that religion is always going to be persecuted by non-members.  Therefore whenever a person of faith encounters discrimination their first reaction will tend to be "well I'm be persecuted, I shall tender my faith and continue to move forward knowing I'm in the right anyway and that poor soul is going to get it in the end without my biatching to the authorities that I've been persecuted"  Of course this isn't always the case but I'd give it a 70/30 chance of it being likely.
 
2014-01-21 02:46:20 PM  

karnal: stpauler: karnal: stpauler: 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.

My boyfriend is a church-going Catholic. So, no, it's not about religion, it's about bigotry. So fark you and the bigotry you come flying in on.

Are you two engaging in pre-martital sex?  If so, then he is not a good Catholic boy and your opinoin is moot.

Actually, if you need shiat about Catholicism, you would also know the stance on freedom of conscience
The Catholic Church has always held to the primacy of conscience and taught that individuals must follow their consciences even when they are wrong. (Vatican II, On Religious Liberty (1965), §2)
 This means, my retarded little poster, that Catholics can and are obliged to dissent from the Church when their conscience disagrees with it. Now who is moot?


And who is without a wedding cake because I damn sure won't be making one for you fornicating sinners....unless, of course, the government tells me to.


and the Catholic church says:
Pre-marital sex is selfish
Pre-marital sex is unloving and
Pre-marital sex is a misuse of our sexuality


I'd love to see where the Catholic Church actually and literally says that. Please cite catechism as I have done before (as opposed to where a pope/bishop/cleric/et al said it-UNLESS the pope was speaking ex cathedra)

I'll give you a hint. Here's where you would find it if it existed. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm"> http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
But it's not there. Because you're dumb.
 
2014-01-21 02:46:53 PM  

insertsnarkyusername: lennavan: insertsnarkyusername: It's not simple to prove. You've obviously never once worked in this industry. Say I own a bakery and you come in and say you are having a wedding. I say ok, you tell me the number of guests, the size of portions, the design, what kind of cake you want, what kind of icing you want and if you want the cake to be one type or multiple types. Then I do a mental calculation on ingredients, labor, use of kitchen space and then add on profit. Then I give you a number.

A number such as $100.  Now guess what I'm gonna suggest happens next in order to prove you charge gay customers more?

Even in the very unlikely event that the next person orders the completely same cake (which I've never seen happen). And the person running the bakery is stupid enough to give a different quote. At the time you were  totally booked up and have since had a cancellation so you don't need to charge a premium to pay your people over time.


Sure.  Also, one single anecdote doesn't prove an actual trend.  Now guess what I'm gonna suggest happens next in order to prove you charge gay customers more?
 
2014-01-21 02:47:11 PM  

Phinn: barneyfifesbullet: It's just another day in Your Gay Indoctrination.

Only a liberal would want the government to force someone to bake them a cake.

It's not about the cake.  No one wants a cake made by someone who dislikes him.  Obvi.

The medium is the message.  The superficial message from the government here is: YOU MUST BAKE CAKES FOR THE GAYS.

But the superficial message is unimportant.  It's the import of the communication that matters, the subtext.  Here, the real, unspoken message is: WE CONTROL YOUR BUSINESS.

Arbitrary compliance with fake-rules is what Drill Instructors do to recruits, or what fraternities do to pledges.  The government could make a rule that says, "No baking blue cakes on Thursdays."  Or "You MUST bake blue cakes on Thursdays."  Kind of how it goes from mandating racial discrimination one week, to prohibiting it the next.

The point is not the presence or absence of blue cakes.  The content of the rule doesn't matter.  The EXISTENCE of the rule is what matters, because having a rule is what defines the role of the "governed" as one of submission to authority.

In fact, the more trivial the rule is, the better it is for its use as a tool of symbolic submission.


This is what Randroid libertarians actually believe folks. Step right up and get your tickets to this mesmerizing display of carnival freak crazy!

Scorn him not for his derangements, my friends. He cannot help it. He was not born like you and I.

Carson Wells:
"Do you have any idea how crazy you are?"

Anton Chiguhr:
"You mean the nature of this conversation?"

Carson Wells:
"I mean the nature of you."

~~No Country for Old Men
 
2014-01-21 02:47:21 PM  

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

This is so disgusting.


This. Done in one.
 
2014-01-21 02:47:55 PM  

Phinn: Let's see -- the government forces everyone to pay for roads, and it controls the entire road-building and city-planning business, thereby requiring everyone to use the government's roads just to live, and then points to people's use of government roads to JUSTIFY expanding the government's control over every other aspect of people's lives.


More like, "If the government's gonna force us ALL to pay for roads, etc, then we should ALL have the same access to them." Meaning a state-licensed business cannot refuse service to someone for reasons the state deems invalid. If you're going to exercise a power granted by the state, you exercise it according to state rules.

Does that help?

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.
 
2014-01-21 02:50:45 PM  

lennavan: insertsnarkyusername: It's not simple to prove. You've obviously never once worked in this industry. Say I own a bakery and you come in and say you are having a wedding. I say ok, you tell me the number of guests, the size of portions, the design, what kind of cake you want, what kind of icing you want and if you want the cake to be one type or multiple types. Then I do a mental calculation on ingredients, labor, use of kitchen space and then add on profit. Then I give you a number.

A number such as $100.  Now guess what I'm gonna suggest happens next in order to prove you charge gay customers more?


There is no set profit margin you have to run as a baker or a caterer. That profit margin will very from job to job depending on a few factors. If for some reason you don't want a job it's a common practice to bid high rather than refuse. You've never worked in this industry, and you know nothing about it. I was never in favor of this practice if used to discriminate, I was just pointing out that it'd be the standard and much easier way of getting rid of a client you don't want. Now I don't think I'll get this through your thick skull unless you decide to actually work in the industry but I might as well try.
 
2014-01-21 02:51:04 PM  

Theaetetus: frepnog: Theaetetus: frepnog: A christian baker should be able to say no to a homosexual customer. the homosexual lifestyle is in direct contradiction to what the religion preaches.

they just should be able to.

Up until the 1970s, Mormons believed that all black people were sinners. Should they have been able to refuse service to black people?

yes.  is it right?  no.  but freedom of religion is what it is, either we have it or we do not, and freedom of religion should trump your hurt feelings.

or just say fark it, religion means nothing, tax them same as any other business and get on with it.

... you do realize that we're talking about a baker, not a church, right? They  are taxed the same as any other bakery.

And no, selling cakes is not part of their religion. They are absolutely free to go home and worship however they want in absolute freedom. They are not free to engage in a public business in a discriminatory manner, and then claim that they were really performing a religious service so that they don't have to obey the law.


don't get me wrong.  i think the baker should have shut up and made the damn cake.  and yes i realize that selling cakes is not a religion.  i also think this lawsuit is needed.  i said so earlier.

however if they have made it known that they run  their business on christian values, then they should be expected to do just that.  homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of christians (well, lots of christians).  if you are gay and a christian tells you that they think you are wrong in the eyes of god, well, what did you expect?  but yeah you don't gotta be a dick about it.

and yes....  for lots of people, a wedding is very much a religious event, and the cake no less a religious trapping.

even if you don't think so.

but if they ran afoul of the law, then that is their own lookout.

in this case however, the law is being used technically correctly, the best kind of correctly, but morally incorrectly.

it is morally wrong to force someone to do business with someone that they don't want to do business with.

and that is part of living in a free society.
 
2014-01-21 02:51:10 PM  
teh ghey iz a race
 
2014-01-21 02:51:49 PM  

farkmedown: One would think that a man wearing earrings would be a little more tolerant of diversity.

Guess not, in this case.


1 Peter 3:3-4

Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight.


Exodus 32:2-4

So Aaron said to them, "Take off the rings of gold that are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me." So all the people took off the rings of gold that were in their ears and brought them to Aaron. And he received the gold from their hand and fashioned it with a graving tool and made a golden calf. And they said, "These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!"

Romans 12:10

Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.

Acts 10:34

Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism

I can play cherry-picked bible passages as well, in order to fit my narrative. And my narrative clearly shows this douchebag baker isn't religious, therefore this isn't religious discrimination.
 
2014-01-21 02:54:05 PM  

insertsnarkyusername: There is no set profit margin you have to run as a baker or a caterer. That profit margin will very from job to job depending on a few factors.


And it is amazingly simple to determine whether or not one of the factors is whether or not someone is gay.

Science motherfarker, how does it work?
 
2014-01-21 02:54:18 PM  
Yes, the laws that ban you discriminating against groups you hate are restricting your freedoms.

Society has deemed the restrictions of these laws are acceptable in order to enable equal treatment of all citizens. Which is, of course, the very cornerstone of a democratic republic.

Hate on your own time bigots.
 
2014-01-21 02:54:41 PM  

mongbiohazard: hardinparamedic: mongbiohazard: HIS. It's funny how they get to just say whatever they want is god's plan, but god himself apparently doesn't get to tell us. Not only that, they can't actually show us the letter or email or whatever that god sent to them to tell them what he wanted from this whole situation. Being that he's supposedly a being of ultimate power and wisdom this must by definition be what he wanted - for them to be prosecuted for being dicks to people trying to patronize their business.

Something I've learned in my 28 years of existence is that God's will is strangely ALWAYS the same as what the person telling me what it is wants from me.

[i107.photobucket.com image 720x624]


 Im surprised the feminists havent forced us to use her coin more often
 
2014-01-21 02:54:53 PM  
Headso: Way to take something cool like Americans making goods, growing food and providing services sound like some kind of corny rebellion, if there is an actual rise in Americans doing these things then good, I welcome the variety in produce, meat and homemade goods, clothing, art... I live in a rural area and what you describe is pretty much par for the course for many people here, I don't think it's anything new more likely you are personally getting more immersed in that hippyish lifestyle so it seems everyone is doing it.

So you're cool with THESE people selling only to selected groups? The Lefties rail against the evil corporations, the Rights rail against the gub'mint, both are escaping from what they see as an increasingly heavy handed and dysfunctional society. What happens when our current Ponzi scheme (massive government deficit spending) collapses and hordes of rioting poor people start demanding food and services, and all those heavily armed country folk sitting out in the country say: "No"? Civil war? March out into the countryside and start seizing stuff?

Heavy handed government social engineering is splitting this country apart. There wouldn't be increasing numbers of people disengaging from the rest of society if there wasn't something driving them off. And that something is petty crap like nuking a small business because they committed ThoughtCrime.
 
2014-01-21 02:56:04 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: Baz744: Can someone please direct me to the Bible passage which requires Jehovah religionists to discriminate against homosexuals in provision of public services?

Rom 16:17
2 Thess 3:6
2 Thess 3:14


They're applicable if you believe the corresponding bits about homosexuals.

/if


1) Excuse me. I overlooked this.

2) Thanks for the attempt.

3) Actually, all three of these directives call for dehumanizing treatment of other Christians. Two of them explicitly, the third by logical context. None of these passages provide support for the proposition that Christians should subject pagans to the dehumanizing treatment they subject each other to.

So, if the lesbians involved in this case are Christians, and the baker knew it, these passages apply. Otherwise, he's not acting on any religious compulsion.
 
2014-01-21 02:56:16 PM  

mwfark: So a lady is forced to do something against her will in a supposedly free society, and some people call this progress. I call it tyranny, and while I personally disagree with her position, I do think she should have the right to run her business as she sees fit.


This. This one's a little conflicting. On one hand, yes it's discriminatory. On the other, what the heck happened to "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? something that,  although it won't exeactly go over well, should remain an essential business choice.
 
2014-01-21 02:57:01 PM  
if you are hetero itz becaws you are afraid of teh ghey and racist
 
2014-01-21 02:57:35 PM  
No one is infringing their freedom of religion. No one is forcing them to operate a business that serves the pubic.  One of the legal requirements of being a business that serves the public is to server all the public without regard to race, creed, color, or sexual orientation. The are perfectly free to surrender their business license and operate a church that hates whoever they want to hate. Just can't operate a business like that.
 
2014-01-21 02:57:58 PM  

Somaticasual: On the other, what the heck happened to "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"?


You can't reserve a right you never had to begin with.
 
2014-01-21 02:58:31 PM  

Dr Dreidel: More like, "If the government's gonna force us ALL to pay for roads, etc, then we should ALL have the same access to them." Meaning a state-licensed business cannot refuse service to someone for reasons the state deems invalid. If you're going to exercise a power granted by the state, you exercise it according to state rules.

Does that help?



No.  You still erroneously believe that "licensing" is like the Swiss Army Knife of justifications.  You think it's like magic.  You think it has god-like super powers.  You think it's the magic word that unlocks all doors.

But "licensing" does not mean "empowering government to control everything you do."  Where does this power to license come from?  What are its limits?

Issuing a driver's license to you does not mean that government gets to abduct you and use you for medical experiments if they find you driving a car on one of their roads.

You still have not articulated a coherent ethical principle for your position as to how the State gets its legitimate power to use "licensing" as a proxy for any and all controls it wants to enact.

When asked if a government rule is legitimate, "because of the license law" is not a substantive answer.  It's just a dodge.  It just kicks the can down the road to the next question -- if the licensing power is legitimate.
 
2014-01-21 03:03:14 PM  
If the guy refused to make this kind of cake he would be a farking hero to some of you

i26.photobucket.com
i26.photobucket.com
/ban assualt cakes
 
2014-01-21 03:07:06 PM  

Phinn: barneyfifesbullet: It's just another day in Your Gay Indoctrination.

Only a liberal would want the government to force someone to bake them a cake.

It's not about the cake.  No one wants a cake made by someone who dislikes him.  Obvi.

The medium is the message.  The superficial message from the government here is: YOU MUST BAKE CAKES FOR THE GAYS.

But the superficial message is unimportant.  It's the import of the communication that matters, the subtext.  Here, the real, unspoken message is: WE CONTROL YOUR BUSINESS.

Arbitrary compliance with fake-rules is what Drill Instructors do to recruits, or what fraternities do to pledges.  The government could make a rule that says, "No baking blue cakes on Thursdays."  Or "You MUST bake blue cakes on Thursdays."  Kind of how it goes from mandating racial discrimination one week, to prohibiting it the next.

The point is not the presence or absence of blue cakes.  The content of the rule doesn't matter.  The EXISTENCE of the rule is what matters, because having a rule is what defines the role of the "governed" as one of submission to authority.

In fact, the more trivial the rule is, the better it is for its use as a tool of symbolic submission.



It's a very simple message: If you wish to conduct business in the state of ______________, then you must follow the rules of __________.

Why is this freaking you out so much? This is how business has been done since (at least) Hammurabi was king. Societies have always operated in this fashion.
 
2014-01-21 03:07:41 PM  

I drunk what: if you are hetero itz becaws you are afraid of teh ghey and racist


I'm guessing we can assume the answer to your name is "paint thinner."
 
2014-01-21 03:08:03 PM  

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

[i26.photobucket.com image 320x195]
[i26.photobucket.com image 320x236]
/ban assualt cakes


Nobody cares about images of guns, except conservatives trying to blame "the media" for the latest school shooting.
 
2014-01-21 03:08:10 PM  

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

[i26.photobucket.com image 320x195]
[i26.photobucket.com image 320x236]
/ban assualt cakes


Another bad analogy.  To fit, the baker in your fantasy would need to refuse to sell the same stock cake design to gun owners that he sells willingly and openly  to non gun owners.

You are comparing apples to oranges (which shows just how poor of an argument it is).
 
2014-01-21 03:09:38 PM  

Baz744: 3) Actually, all three of these directives call for dehumanizing treatment of other Christians. Two of them explicitly, the third by logical context. None of these passages provide support for the proposition that Christians should subject pagans to the dehumanizing treatment they subject each other to.


Let me revise this a little:

Romans 16:17
I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them.

These lesbians caused no divisions among Christians, and placed no obstacles in the baker's way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned--which teaching, by the way, probably refers to Paul's secret teachings to his circle of initiates, and has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Thessalonians 3:6
In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thessalonian s%203&vers ion=NIV#fen-NIV-29685a" title="See footnote a">a] you received from us.

This passage only requires dehumanizing treatment of other Christians, not of pagans.

Thessalonians 3:14
Take special note of anyone who does not obey our instruction in this letter. Do not associate with them, in order that they may feel ashamed. 15Yet do not regard them as an enemy, but warn them as you would a fellow believer.

The "as you would a fellow believer" here could be construed to extend Paul's requirements of dehumanizing treatment to pagans. But Paul's letters discussed evangelism extensively, which necessarily requires association with persons who do not obey his instructions. It is therefore not logically coherent to construe this passage to apply to pagans. Here, again, he means other Christians only.
 
2014-01-21 03:09:56 PM  

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

[i26.photobucket.com image 320x195]
[i26.photobucket.com image 320x236]
/ban assualt cakes


Your cakes are very phallic.
 
2014-01-21 03:11:37 PM  

frepnog: it is morally wrong to force someone to do business with someone that they don't want to do business with.


No one is forcing the baker to do any business, period. The baker can close shop and run a church if they'd like. However, if the baker chooses to do business in the public sphere, then the baker is not allowed to discriminate. And it's morally  right to take steps to stop discrimination in the public sphere.
 
2014-01-21 03:13:41 PM  

JRoo: Dr Dreidel: MyRandomName: The hilarious part is that you liberals always attempt economic boycotts to destroy those who disagree with you.

Like the liberals who boycotted Pepsi over some Jay-Z lyrics?
Like the liberals who boycotted Dunkin Donuts over Rachel Ray's neckwear?
Like the liberals who boycotted Starbucks over their decision to not be dicks to their employees?
Like the liberals who boycotted government because Congress wouldn't pass the laws they wanted?

[static01.mediaite.com image 402x243]


oh wow!  13,741 people liking that page.  As compared to the millions that drink Starbucks daily.  It makes me want a cup of coffee, but the line to the Starbucks here goes around the block.
 
2014-01-21 03:14:04 PM  

mark12A: Headso: Way to take something cool like Americans making goods, growing food and providing services sound like some kind of corny rebellion, if there is an actual rise in Americans doing these things then good, I welcome the variety in produce, meat and homemade goods, clothing, art... I live in a rural area and what you describe is pretty much par for the course for many people here, I don't think it's anything new more likely you are personally getting more immersed in that hippyish lifestyle so it seems everyone is doing it.

So you're cool with THESE people selling only to selected groups? The Lefties rail against the evil corporations, the Rights rail against the gub'mint, both are escaping from what they see as an increasingly heavy handed and dysfunctional society. What happens when our current Ponzi scheme (massive government deficit spending) collapses and hordes of rioting poor people start demanding food and services, and all those heavily armed country folk sitting out in the country say: "No"? Civil war? March out into the countryside and start seizing stuff?

Heavy handed government social engineering is splitting this country apart. There wouldn't be increasing numbers of people disengaging from the rest of society if there wasn't something driving them off. And that something is petty crap like nuking a small business because they committed ThoughtCrime.


The small time farmers and bakers I know sell to whoever will buy their stuff at the farmers market, I paid one of my neighbors to fix our atv, I've paid another to put in some horse fence posts. They are just poor people trying to get money.
 
2014-01-21 03:14:13 PM  

frepnog: in this case however, the law is being used technically correctly, the best kind of correctly, but morally incorrectly.

it is morally wrong to force someone to do business with someone that they don't want to do business with.

and that is part of living in a free society.



Morality is nothing more than tribal custom, and in this case the tribe says that it is quite correct to force them to do business with those of whom they disaprove.
 
2014-01-21 03:14:13 PM  

give me doughnuts: It's a very simple message: If you wish to conduct business in the state of ______________, then you must follow the rules of __________.

Why is this freaking you out so much? This is how business has been done since (at least) Hammurabi was king. Societies have always operated in this fashion.



Once upon a time, not all that long ago, one of the typical "rules of _______" was "You Can't Serve Black People at Counters."

Slavery has been the norm since Hammurabi was king, too.

The rules of Mayan society for centuries was to cut the still-beating hearts out of children.

I don't respect rules merely because they have the imprimatur of the State on them.
 
2014-01-21 03:14:19 PM  
Just another example of conservatives not understanding the constitution they pretend to hold dear and persecuting someone illegally while simultaneously falsely pretending they are persecuted.

So, in other words, a day that ends in 'Y.'
 
2014-01-21 03:14:23 PM  

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.


Hope you are aware that, as you commented on the article with EXACTLY THE SAME SENTENCE, your Facebook profile is wide open to the world, and has all your details in it...
 
2014-01-21 03:15:55 PM  

deffuse: 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.

Hope you are aware that, as you commented on the article with EXACTLY THE SAME SENTENCE, your Facebook profile is wide open to the world, and has all your details in it...


And your profile photos are the same....
 
2014-01-21 03:15:57 PM  

Witty_Retort: ITT:
Lots of freedom loving Americans butt hurt they can't discriminate against people because that nasty Constitution says otherwise.


It's just a piece of paper. The founding fathers couldn't have forseen teh gays wanting to rule the world.
 
2014-01-21 03:15:58 PM  

Leishu: I'm guessing we can assume the answer to your name is "paint thinner."


why do you hate teh gheys?

is it because you are afraid of them or just racist??  or both???
 
2014-01-21 03:16:29 PM  

Somaticasual: mwfark: So a lady is forced to do something against her will in a supposedly free society, and some people call this progress. I call it tyranny, and while I personally disagree with her position, I do think she should have the right to run her business as she sees fit.

This. This one's a little conflicting. On one hand, yes it's discriminatory. On the other, what the heck happened to "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? something that,  although it won't exeactly go over well, should remain an essential business choice.


Where have you been hiding for the past forty-nine years?
 
2014-01-21 03:17:12 PM  

Phinn: Syrrh: Racial discrimination 80 years ago was a VERY different thing, and that's why the law is on the books now.

Racial discrimination 80 years ago WAS THE LAW.  IT WAS REQUIRED.


So how would you like that NSS trophy delivered?
Striking pro-discrimination laws off the books was not enough. Yeah, some people stopped treating blacks like shiat, but not enough for them to 'go to another bakery'. Hell, even after discrimination was legally prohibited it STILL took a while for the south to cut it out.

That's the problem. If it was as simple as "I want the right to discriminate against people with hair", the law doesn't need to back that up. If I want to discriminate against shifty middle-easterners, there's enough public opinion against them that the law IS needed.
 
2014-01-21 03:17:40 PM  

Somaticasual: mwfark: So a lady is forced to do something against her will in a supposedly free society, and some people call this progress. I call it tyranny, and while I personally disagree with her position, I do think she should have the right to run her business as she sees fit.

This. This one's a little conflicting. On one hand, yes it's discriminatory. On the other, what the heck happened to "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? something that,  although it won't exeactly go over well, should remain an essential business choice.


That only applies if you're not violating their constitutional rights. Sexual orientation is a protected class.

This is not new.
 
2014-01-21 03:19:11 PM  

Phinn: give me doughnuts: It's a very simple message: If you wish to conduct business in the state of ______________, then you must follow the rules of __________.

Why is this freaking you out so much? This is how business has been done since (at least) Hammurabi was king. Societies have always operated in this fashion.

Once upon a time, not all that long ago, one of the typical "rules of _______" was "You Can't Serve Black People at Counters."


I don't respect rules merely because they have the imprimatur of the State on them.


Well gee, Grizzly Adams, I guess you'll just have to go live out in the woods because you don't like living by the rules that your society decided to live by.
Hope you  and the rest of the Mountain Men have a good time.
 
2014-01-21 03:20:30 PM  

Syrrh: Striking pro-discrimination laws off the books was not enough.



How do you know?  The law went straight from Mandatory Discrimination to Mandatory Non-Discrimination, and never passed the Free Association zone in between.

The only commonality has been the "Forced" part.  Force is therefore the element that matters most to this benevolent all-knowing government at whose altar you worship.
 
2014-01-21 03:21:04 PM  

give me doughnuts: It's a very simple message: If you wish to conduct business in the state of ______________, then you must follow the rules of __________.


sigh.  pretty much this.

kinda how people in jail for pot offenses in CO right now probably deserve to sit there.  they broke they law when it was a law.
 
2014-01-21 03:21:07 PM  

Girl Sailor: This is a really tough issue, honest.


No, it really isn't.

I'm a super-Lib, and I just don't have the answer. On the one hand, discrimination against people of color is why this is an issue to begin with.

There are good reasons for a society to prohibit businesses from discriminating against minority groups. If such discrimination is permitted, who's to say it would just be one lousy bakery that does it? In some areas the bigots might be rare, but in others they could be the norm.

Do you really want to see towns where most businesses decide that they won't serve black people? Jews? (Insert any minority here). If the minority is too small to have their own "separate but equal" businesses to provide all the services needed, their other choice would be to leave. Leave town, leave the state... whatever it takes to get away from the bigots. Congregate in minority communities so that they can actually go to local businesses and get service.

Is that the kind of "freedom" a civilized society should have? I think not.

Phinn: Baz744: this bakery own remains free to believe homosexuality is immoral. He is not, however, free to discriminate against homosexuals in the public, commercial conduct of his business

The freedom of association says otherwise, but thanks for outlining the point where you think other people's freedoms end, control freak.


So what you're saying is you are fine with businesses discriminating against whomever they want. Don't want to serve black people at your restaurant? That's your choice. Because freedom!
Congratulations, you're a despicable piece of shiat.
 
2014-01-21 03:21:30 PM  

give me doughnuts: go live out in the woods



Dear Fark,

Get new material.

Thanks.
 
2014-01-21 03:22:05 PM  

Theaetetus: frepnog: it is morally wrong to force someone to do business with someone that they don't want to do business with.

No one is forcing the baker to do any business, period. The baker can close shop and run a church if they'd like. However, if the baker chooses to do business in the public sphere, then the baker is not allowed to discriminate. And it's morally  right to take steps to stop discrimination in the public sphere.


I said that the suit was needed.
 
2014-01-21 03:24:00 PM  

Phinn: Once upon a time, not all that long ago, one of the typical "rules of _______" was "You Can't Serve Black People at Counters."



And in another state at the same time, this rule didn't exist.

I don't see why it bothers you though, since this sort of discrimination is exactly what you are arguing in favor of.
 
2014-01-21 03:24:23 PM  

I drunk what: teh ghey iz a race


Leishu: I'm guessing we can assume the answer to your name is "paint thinner."


/THREAD
 
2014-01-21 03:25:50 PM  

frepnog: Theaetetus: frepnog: it is morally wrong to force someone to do business with someone that they don't want to do business with.

No one is forcing the baker to do any business, period. The baker can close shop and run a church if they'd like. However, if the baker chooses to do business in the public sphere, then the baker is not allowed to discriminate. And it's morally  right to take steps to stop discrimination in the public sphere.

I said that the suit was needed.


You also said it was morally wrong. It appears, particularly from your later comment regarding pot possession, that you believe the suit is needed because the law makes it illegal to discriminate, but that you believe the law is morally wrong and should be abolished: i.e. they broke the law, and should be held accountable, but the law should be removed and no one should be subject to its requirements in the future.
 
2014-01-21 03:26:29 PM  

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

[i26.photobucket.com image 320x195]
[i26.photobucket.com image 320x236]
/ban assualt cakes

Nobody cares about images of guns, except conservatives trying to blame "the media" for the latest school shooting.


Hmmm what about all those liberals in schools that kicked the kids out for the  gun shaped Pop-Tart, drawing a picture of a gun, brought in an action figures minature gun, used his fingers to make a gun shape with his hand. Doesnt sound like nobody caring about images of guns to me. I know I know its different when liberals do it.
 
2014-01-21 03:26:42 PM  

frepnog: give me doughnuts: It's a very simple message: If you wish to conduct business in the state of ______________, then you must follow the rules of __________.

sigh.  pretty much this.

kinda how people in jail for pot offenses in CO right now probably deserve to sit there.  they broke they law when it was a law.



... said every statist boot-licker ever.
 
2014-01-21 03:27:18 PM  
I had said it before and i will say it again.

If you own a business keep your politics and religion out of it, just shut up and take the money and sell your product or service.
 
2014-01-21 03:27:24 PM  

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


Yeah, MAAAAAAN!  Tell the sheeple to WAKE UP!
 
2014-01-21 03:28:45 PM  

Phinn: give me doughnuts: go live out in the woods

Dear Fark,

Get new material.

Thanks.


Your arguments don't deserve any new responses.
The law changed forty-nine years ago, and you can no longer keep "those people" away from your lunch counter.
 
2014-01-21 03:29:15 PM  
I guess just going to another bakery was out of the question. Are they still waiting for that cake?

I guess just sitting in the back of the bus was out of the question. Is Rosa Parks still waiting for that bus?



You're right! It's totally the same thing! In fact, why compare them to Rosa Parks-why not Ghandi or Mandela while you're at it.
 
2014-01-21 03:29:19 PM  

Weatherkiss: .


Actually, until the fairly recent age of "feel good" and civil rights legislation (late 50s and onward), you had plenty of say in how you conducted your business. Granted, we saw the obvious downsides ( like "no negros" signs)t, but it was essentially a business by business decision.  Something further to think about: there are plenty of businesses that now legally discriminate against gender or sexual preferences - so how does something like 'curves' get a pass for basically discriminating against males while this cake business gets legally ordered to make a cake for a customer against the owner's religious preferences?
 
2014-01-21 03:29:40 PM  

WillJM8528: Personally, I would have taken my business elsewhere. The best way to get rid of these bigots is to not give them your business.


But ya see, when libtards don't like something they do everything they can to force everyone else into doing things their way.
 
2014-01-21 03:31:04 PM  

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

[i26.photobucket.com image 320x195]
[i26.photobucket.com image 320x236]
/ban assualt cakes

Nobody cares about images of guns, except conservatives trying to blame "the media" for the latest school shooting.

Hmmm what about all those liberals in schools that kicked the kids out for the  gun shaped Pop-Tart, drawing a picture of a gun, brought in an action figures minature gun, used his fingers to make a gun shape with his hand. Doesnt sound like nobody caring about images of guns to me. I know I know its different when liberals do it.


You sound poor.
 
2014-01-21 03:31:11 PM  

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

[i26.photobucket.com image 320x195]
[i26.photobucket.com image 320x236]
/ban assualt cakes

Nobody cares about images of guns, except conservatives trying to blame "the media" for the latest school shooting.

Hmmm what about all those liberals in schools that kicked the kids out for the  gun shaped Pop-Tart, drawing a picture of a gun, brought in an action figures minature gun, used his fingers to make a gun shape with his hand. Doesnt sound like nobody caring about images of guns to me. I know I know its different when liberals do it.



And I know you're selectively choosing to ignore how everyone thought that shiat was ridiculous too. It's more convenient to make a bullshiat point if you just ignore how actual reality conflicts with it.
 
2014-01-21 03:31:25 PM  

Chummer45: The whole "economic freedom" and "states rights" nonsense is always invoked by conservatives as their excuse for opposing policies.  It lets them say "I oppose the civil rights act because states' rights," so they can avoid saying the real reason why they oppose it - because they're racist a-holes who think that the "right" to discriminate is a "right" worth defending.


So let me get this straight. You are derping out about how "states rights" are teh evils in a thread for a story which is about a business violating a state law? A state law which bans discrimination based on sexual preference?
 
2014-01-21 03:31:38 PM  
letrole:
The real moral winner is the fellow who does not approve, who does not accept, yet still tolerates the things that he does not approve or accept.

But the majority of the posters here would seem to demand that nothing short of full acceptance and approval of homosexuality will do.


I won't argue that the bakery owners should have to approve of the gays. They are free to think bigoted thoughts and say bigoted words. They just have to bake the goddamn cake.
 
2014-01-21 03:32:03 PM  

stpauler: karnal: stpauler: karnal: stpauler: 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.

My boyfriend is a church-going Catholic. So, no, it's not about religion, it's about bigotry. So fark you and the bigotry you come flying in on.

Are you two engaging in pre-martital sex?  If so, then he is not a good Catholic boy and your opinoin is moot.

Actually, if you need shiat about Catholicism, you would also know the stance on freedom of conscience
The Catholic Church has always held to the primacy of conscience and taught that individuals must follow their consciences even when they are wrong. (Vatican II, On Religious Liberty (1965), §2)
 This means, my retarded little poster, that Catholics can and are obliged to dissent from the Church when their conscience disagrees with it. Now who is moot?


And who is without a wedding cake because I damn sure won't be making one for you fornicating sinners....unless, of course, the government tells me to.


and the Catholic church says:
Pre-marital sex is selfish
Pre-marital sex is unloving and
Pre-marital sex is a misuse of our sexuality

I'd love to see where the Catholic Church actually and literally says that. Please cite catechism as I have done before (as opposed to where a pope/bishop/cleric/et al said it-UNLESS the pope was speaking ex cathedra)

I'll give you a hint. Here's where you would find it if it existed. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm"> http://www.vat ...


You seem to be moving the goalposts to fit your current lifestyle - I don't need to cite anything to state matter of factly that the Catholic Church has put sexual intercourse within the bonds of marriage.


Look deep into yourself and you will know the truth.....and if it is too dark for you to see, you can seek answers here----> Answers
 
2014-01-21 03:33:00 PM  

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".


Dude, it's an oversized pastry. Get a grip.
 
Ant
2014-01-21 03:33:10 PM  

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

This is so disgusting.


This has nothing to do with belief. If your business is open to the public, you need to serve the public.
 
2014-01-21 03:33:42 PM  
Another day, another cake baker oppressing society.
 
2014-01-21 03:33:46 PM  

The Thoroughbred of Sin: Gentoolive: Blues_X: HoustonNick: Libtard Creed - You must believe like I believe or be punished.  No other beliefs will be accepted.

This is so disgusting.


Next up: "but we don't want to serve black people."

And?

If you don't like the way someone conducts business, don't shop there.

and that comment just got favourited as being pro-racism.
some enlightened thinking there.


It's really simple. If you don't like the way someone conducts business, don't shop there.

The problem with libtards is they insist on shoving their beliefs down everyone else's throats.
 
2014-01-21 03:34:14 PM  

Somaticasual: how does something like 'curves' get a pass for basically discriminating against males while this cake business gets legally ordered to make a cake for a customer against the owner's religious preferences?


Simple.

Old fat guys aren't the current fad.
 
2014-01-21 03:34:16 PM  

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

This is so disgusting.


300+ comments and this is the first one? I have not read the thread yet, but I am going to have a blast seeing all the suckers you reeled in with that doozie.
 
2014-01-21 03:35:58 PM  
you idiots always miss the bigger problem and in this instance it that you have two women, NEITHER of which can make a farking cake.


get your asses back in the kitchen where you belong and we wont have these problems.
 
2014-01-21 03:36:07 PM  

mongbiohazard: hardinparamedic: mongbiohazard: HIS. It's funny how they get to just say whatever they want is god's plan, but god himself apparently doesn't get to tell us. Not only that, they can't actually show us the letter or email or whatever that god sent to them to tell them what he wanted from this whole situation. Being that he's supposedly a being of ultimate power and wisdom this must by definition be what he wanted - for them to be prosecuted for being dicks to people trying to patronize their business.

Something I've learned in my 28 years of existence is that God's will is strangely ALWAYS the same as what the person telling me what it is wants from me.

[i107.photobucket.com image 720x624]


I came here to say, "Ever notice how god's plan so often jives with the intentions of the people claiming something's part of god's plan?"

But looks like you pretty much covered it.
 
2014-01-21 03:38:25 PM  

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

[i26.photobucket.com image 320x195]
[i26.photobucket.com image 320x236]
/ban assualt cakes

Nobody cares about images of guns, except conservatives trying to blame "the media" for the latest school shooting.

Hmmm what about all those liberals in schools that kicked the kids out for the  gun shaped Pop-Tart, drawing a picture of a gun, brought in an action figures minature gun, used his fingers to make a gun shape with his hand. Doesnt sound like nobody caring about images of guns to me. I know I know its different when liberals do it.


All conservatives*.  Why, did you think they were liberals for some specific reason?

*I don't actually care if this is true.
 
2014-01-21 03:38:55 PM  
karnal:  You seem to be moving the goalposts to fit your current lifestyle - I don't need to cite anything to state matter of factly that the Catholic Church has put sexual intercourse within the bonds of marriage.


Look deep into yourself and you will know the truth.....and if it is too dark for you to see, you can seek answers here---->


1) No, I'm an atheist, so I don't need approval from the Catholic Church either way.
2) You're the one who first moved the goal posts by talking about pre-martial sex.
3) You linked to a forum and not to a specific catechism proving:
    A) You're retarded and/or aliterate
    B) Don't realize a forum is not Catholic doctrine
    C) Don't understand Catholic doctrine but feel like constantly talking out of your ass.

Now go along, and know that you're forever shamed on a forum that people will link to later to show your dumbassetry.
 
2014-01-21 03:39:24 PM  
You best start believing in troll threads.

Because you're in one.
 
2014-01-21 03:39:27 PM  

Phinn: frepnog: give me doughnuts: It's a very simple message: If you wish to conduct business in the state of ______________, then you must follow the rules of __________.

sigh.  pretty much this.

kinda how people in jail for pot offenses in CO right now probably deserve to sit there.  they broke they law when it was a law.

... said every statist boot-licker ever.


fark you phinn.  i personally think they should be released, but my personal feelings are not law.  they knowingly broke the law when it WAS law.  sit there.

Theaetetus: You also said it was morally wrong. It appears, particularly from your later comment regarding pot possession, that you believe the suit is needed because the law makes it illegal to discriminate, but that you believe the law is morally wrong and should be abolished: i.e. they broke the law, and should be held accountable, but the law should be removed and no one should be subject to its requirements in the future.


pretty much.  either we have freedom of religion and freedom of speech or we do not.  they claim discriminatory rights based on religious affiliation, and I don't have a problem with it.  attempting to force Christians to bend to your will is just not going to work - it is part of the religion that being homosexual is wrong, and it offends those people on a base level.  I don't really even have a problem with the person telling the gays that they are an affront to god or whatever.  once again, freedom of speech.  even if you don't like it.  makes him a bag of dicks, but whatever.

I also have no problem with the gay people in question revealing the christian's bigotry.

i do have a problem with the government saying "so what if you are christian, make those gays a cake".

but I also understand why we need the law - to eventually ingrain into people that discrimination is wrong.

it is a dark area.

saying "SUFFER ME OR ELSE" is just as wrong as discriminating in the first place.

what's the answer?
 
2014-01-21 03:40:21 PM  

Somaticasual: Something further to think about: there are plenty of businesses that now legally discriminate against gender or sexual preferences - so how does something like 'curves' get a pass for basically discriminating against males while this cake business gets legally ordered to make a cake for a customer against the owner's religious preferences?


This is also something to be worked on. Thankfully, several states are making it discriminatory for Curves or other women-only gyms to only accept female clients. Men have brought lawsuits against women-only fitness clubs and have won.

The legality of gender-based businesses is really dependant on state laws, whereas sexual orientation is a federally-protected class of citizens. While women are a federally-protected class due to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, men are not a federally-protected class. Which makes this largely dependant on state laws.

Which is why we have female-only fitness clubs, but no male-only fitness clubs.
 
Ant
2014-01-21 03:40:50 PM  

MyRandomName: 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.


So you think people should tolerate intolerance? Should we tolerate businesses who refuse service to black people?
 
2014-01-21 03:42:29 PM  

frepnog: but I also understand why we need the law - to eventually ingrain into people that discrimination is wrong.


So people can grow out of phases?
 
2014-01-21 03:42:47 PM  
Not serving black people = not serving gay people?

Yeah, okay, I can see where that is a fair comparison. Fine. Serve the lesbo's a farking penis cake and have done with it! On second thought, 86 the  penis cake and just take their money already. Help make 'em happy on their special day, 'cause that kinda karma credit is good to have.
 
2014-01-21 03:42:49 PM  
Something further to think about: there are plenty of businesses that now legally discriminate against gender or sexual preferences - so how does something like 'curves' get a pass for basically discriminating against males while this cake business gets legally ordered to make a cake for a customer against the owner's religious preferences?

This is also something to be worked on.Thankfully, several states are making it discriminatory for Curves or other women-only gyms to only accept female clients. Men have brought lawsuits against women-only fitness clubs and have won.

The legality of gender-based businesses is really dependant on state laws, whereas sexual orientation is a federally-protected class of citizens. While women are a federally-protected class due to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, men are not a federally-protected class. Which makes this largely dependant on state laws.

Which is why we have female-only fitness clubs, but no male-only fitness clubs.



No, it doesn't. you're missing the point.
 
2014-01-21 03:42:50 PM  
Baz744:

In case you're wondering, I'm confident of two facts:

1) that your baseless, unprovoked personal attacks have no impact on my self-perception, and

2) that your baseless, unprovoked personal attacks have no effect on most other readers besides diminishing their evaluation of your character, or your position.


Oh, snap.
 
2014-01-21 03:43:00 PM  

MyRandomName: Liberals always want respect but never respect the religious views of others.


I think it's fair to say that liberals want basic human rights first (ie no discrimination based on sexual orientation) and if religious beliefs fit in that framework, great. If not, human rights win. Seems like the court agrees, most of the time.
 
2014-01-21 03:43:28 PM  

Phinn: Baz744: In constitutional terms, there is no right to discriminate against homosexuals in the provision of public services.

There are no "public services."


Do they check membership cards at the door? Or can anyone from the general public walk in?

If the latter, guess what, it's a public service.
 
2014-01-21 03:44:08 PM  

Ant: MyRandomName: 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.

So you think people should tolerate intolerance? Should we tolerate businesses who refuse service to black people?


the court of public opinion would convict those business owners and the business would founder.

no government involvement needed.
 
2014-01-21 03:45:57 PM  
FLAMEWAR!

randomgif.com
 
2014-01-21 03:46:21 PM  

frepnog: pretty much.  either we have freedom of religion and freedom of speech or we do not.


Selling cakes is neither part of their religion nor their speech. They can still go off and pray however they want and say whatever stupid shiat they want. Their freedoms of religion and speech are not being infringed. This is their "freedom to conduct business in any manner they see fit", which doesn't actually exist and never has.

they claim discriminatory rights based on religious affiliation, and I don't have a problem with it.  attempting to force Christians to bend to your will is just not going to work - it is part of the religion that being homosexual is wrong, and it offends those people on a base level.

Then they probably shouldn't be in the business of selling stuff to the public. Go found a church.

I don't really even have a problem with the person telling the gays that they are an affront to god or whatever.  once again, freedom of speech.  even if you don't like it.  makes him a bag of dicks, but whatever.
I also have no problem with the gay people in question revealing the christian's bigotry.


Sure. Those are all examples of free speech.
But this isn't:
i do have a problem with the government saying "so what if you are christian, make those gays a cake".

And the government isn't saying that. Rather, the government is saying "if you want to run a business, you don't get to discriminate. You are free to close your business."

but I also understand why we need the law - to eventually ingrain into people that discrimination is wrong.
it is a dark area.
saying "SUFFER ME OR ELSE" is just as wrong as discriminating in the first place.


No, telling someone that they can't run their business in a discriminatory way is not "just as wrong as discriminating in the first place." That's like saying "fining me for illegally dumping waste in the river is just as wrong as me dumping it in the first place, because whar freedom?"
 
2014-01-21 03:46:37 PM  

Somaticasual: Weatherkiss: .

Actually, until the fairly recent age of "feel good" and civil rights legislation (late 50s and onward), you had plenty of say in how you conducted your business. Granted, we saw the obvious downsides ( like "no negros" signs)t, but it was essentially a business by business decision.  Something further to think about: there are plenty of businesses that now legally discriminate against gender or sexual preferences - so how does something like 'curves' get a pass for basically discriminating against males while this cake business gets legally ordered to make a cake for a customer against the owner's religious preferences?


Places like Curves don't get a pass.  There are plenty of lawsuits against places like Curves and there are states making specific laws to make them legal.   The more you know.

http://fitnessmarketing.com/2011/04/are-women-only-gyms-guilty-of-di sc rimination/
 
2014-01-21 03:47:25 PM  
Maybe this is more like it:

i40.photobucket.com
 
Ant
2014-01-21 03:48:02 PM  

Gentoolive: And?

If you don't like the way someone conducts business, don't shop there.


Farking Invisible Hand worshipers.

So all I have to do to get around ADA requirements is to tell them that if they don't like it, they can just go elsewhere? What happens when all other businesses follow suit? The disabled demographic is probably pretty small, so not many businesses are going to voluntarily cater to that market.
 
2014-01-21 03:50:40 PM  

Cold_Sassy: susler: If god was really on everyone's side who claims it, we wouldn't have gay marriage anywhere, the 10 commandments would be on every courthouse wall and storekeepers would be shot for saying "happy holidays"

Suck it, everyone who wears their religion and/or their politics on their sleeve.

Don't forget their gayness.


That's true.  I didn't think of that b/c the post was primarily addressing folks who claim they're behaving the way they are because of god.  People who wear their gayness on their sleeves aren't typically justifying it because of god, they're just jerks.
 
2014-01-21 03:50:48 PM  

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

This is so disgusting.


static1.wikia.nocookie.net

I'm sure you're just the first of many.  I'll come back after the popcorn's ready.
 
2014-01-21 03:51:17 PM  

Weatherkiss: While women are a federally-protected class due to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, men are not a federally-protected class.


The CRA prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. "Male" qualifies.
 
2014-01-21 03:51:20 PM  

Ant: Gentoolive: And?

If you don't like the way someone conducts business, don't shop there.

Farking Invisible Hand worshipers.

So all I have to do to get around ADA requirements is to tell them that if they don't like it, they can just go elsewhere? What happens when all other businesses follow suit? The disabled demographic is probably pretty small, so not many businesses are going to voluntarily cater to that market.


Also, there's the sadly true fact that being a "whites only" business would be a competitive advantage in some parts of the country.
 
Ant
2014-01-21 03:52:25 PM  

MyRandomName: Yet if any person attempted an economic boycott of a minority business, you would be outraged. You are the people you complain about. You have simply switched skin color for politics and religion. You are no better. You at just as intolerant.


I think the root of your problem is that you don't see a difference in the two scenarios.

In the first one, people are boycotting a business simply because it's owned by minorities.
In the second one, people are boycotting based on actions taken by the business owners
 
2014-01-21 03:52:30 PM  

tricycleracer: Ant: Gentoolive: And?

If you don't like the way someone conducts business, don't shop there.

Farking Invisible Hand worshipers.

So all I have to do to get around ADA requirements is to tell them that if they don't like it, they can just go elsewhere? What happens when all other businesses follow suit? The disabled demographic is probably pretty small, so not many businesses are going to voluntarily cater to that market.

Also, there's the sadly true fact that being a "whites only" business would be a competitive advantage in some parts of the country.


You mean like a country club?
 
2014-01-21 03:52:48 PM  

Dr Dreidel: More like, "If the government's gonna force us ALL to pay for roads, etc, then we should ALL have the same access to them." Meaning a state-licensed business cannot refuse service to someone for reasons the state deems invalid. If you're going to exercise a power granted by the state, you exercise it according to state rules.

Does that help?

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.


That's the problem with this ruling. A private contract to create an artistic expression is not -- and really, can never be -- subject to government license.

If the lesbians wanted a standard sheet cake with frosting letters, that would (I expect) have been well under the 'licensed business umbra'. 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.
 
2014-01-21 03:55:02 PM  

Gentoolive: If you don't like the way someone conducts business, don't shop there


For the most part this is all well and fine, but what about a minority in a small town where almost all the store owners refuse? Where there's no economic incentive to not deny service, and, if the populace is crappy enough, providing service may actually get you boycotted?  This is where the real value of the law applies, but then how do you just make a law that works just for that situation and is not universal, that is fair for all?
 
2014-01-21 03:55:20 PM  

stpauler: karnal:  You seem to be moving the goalposts to fit your current lifestyle - I don't need to cite anything to state matter of factly that the Catholic Church has put sexual intercourse within the bonds of marriage.


Look deep into yourself and you will know the truth.....and if it is too dark for you to see, you can seek answers here---->

1) No, I'm an atheist, so I don't need approval from the Catholic Church either way.
2) You're the one who first moved the goal posts by talking about pre-martial sex.
3) You linked to a forum and not to a specific catechism proving:
    A) You're retarded and/or aliterate
    B) Don't realize a forum is not Catholic doctrine
    C) Don't understand Catholic doctrine but feel like constantly talking out of your ass.

Now go along, and know that you're forever shamed on a forum that people will link to later to show your dumbassetry.



Since you are seemingly an expert on shame, you are probably right.

So - you are saying that the Catholic Church  does not put sexual intercourse within the bonds of marriage?
 
2014-01-21 03:55:26 PM  

Somaticasual: Weatherkiss: .

Actually, until the fairly recent age of "feel good" and civil rights legislation (late 50s and onward), you had plenty of say in how you conducted your business. Granted, we saw the obvious downsides ( like "no negros" signs)t, but it was essentially a business by business decision.  Something further to think about: there are plenty of businesses that now legally discriminate against gender or sexual preferences - so how does something like 'curves' get a pass for basically discriminating against males while this cake business gets legally ordered to make a cake for a customer against the owner's religious preferences?


To my knowledge, Curves gets a pass because it's not a public establishment, it is private. Joe-schmoe off the street can't walk in and use their services (jane schmoe in this case). A person has to become a member first, and the standard of membership to a private establishment can be anything that the company wants it to be. It's the difference between a private and public establishment.
 
2014-01-21 03:56:02 PM  

Theaetetus: Weatherkiss: While women are a federally-protected class due to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, men are not a federally-protected class.

The CRA prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. "Male" qualifies.


In that case, I don't think women would be a federally-protected class. Since the CRA is mostly about equal employment and wages. If that's the case, then discrimination against either gender is still a state-by-state law.
 
2014-01-21 03:56:49 PM  
Another thread where the grownups have to debate some pimple-faced virgin teens about the "Constitutionality" of civil rights statutes that were settled law before they were born.
 
2014-01-21 03:57:59 PM  

karnal: I guess my sense of capitalism trumps any of my beliefs...If I owned a bakery I would sale a cake to anyone.....well, except the Irish.


You wouldn't have to worry about it, because you can't be Irish if you're gay.
 
2014-01-21 03:58:46 PM  

verbaltoxin: tricycleracer: Ant: Gentoolive: And?

If you don't like the way someone conducts business, don't shop there.

Farking Invisible Hand worshipers.

So all I have to do to get around ADA requirements is to tell them that if they don't like it, they can just go elsewhere? What happens when all other businesses follow suit? The disabled demographic is probably pretty small, so not many businesses are going to voluntarily cater to that market.

Also, there's the sadly true fact that being a "whites only" business would be a competitive advantage in some parts of the country.

You mean like a country club?


"Club" being the key word.

My father is in a social club that contains exactly 100 white males.  The fact that only white males are admitted is, for him, appealing.
 
2014-01-21 03:59:16 PM  

scubamage: To my knowledge, Curves gets a pass because it's not a public establishment, it is private. Joe-schmoe off the street can't walk in and use their services (jane schmoe in this case). A person has to become a member first, and the standard of membership to a private establishment can be anything that the company wants it to be. It's the difference between a private and public establishment.


It comes down to the state law. Clubs don't get a free pass for many states. It's why Country Clubs have been successfully sued for not allowing club membership to blacks or women, even though their rules can be 'anything they want it to be'.
 
2014-01-21 03:59:19 PM  
gerrymander:

If the lesbians wanted a standard sheet cake with frosting letters, that would (I expect) have been well under the 'licensed business umbra'. 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.


Another example of how people have to grasp at straws to try to claim this is not a matter of discrimination and law breaking.  That amount of grasping demonstrates your argument doesn't really have much to support it.

If they have a business license and a tax number and they are using them to sell goods to the public, the RFRA does not apply.  They are not a religious organization or acting as an individual.  A business does not have religious beliefs and it is the business identified and licensed by the business licence that violated the law and is being punished and fined.
 
2014-01-21 04:00:08 PM  

gerrymander: Dr Dreidel: More like, "If the government's gonna force us ALL to pay for roads, etc, then we should ALL have the same access to them." Meaning a state-licensed business cannot refuse service to someone for reasons the state deems invalid. If you're going to exercise a power granted by the state, you exercise it according to state rules.

Does that help?

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.

That's the problem with this ruling. A private contract to create an artistic expression is not -- and really, can never be -- subject to government license.

If the lesbians wanted a standard sheet cake with frosting letters, that would (I expect) have been well under the 'licensed business umbra'. 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.


The contract would still have the business as a signatory, and the business is beholden to state and federal law.

Just adding "as a matter of law" to your statements doesn't make them correct.
 
2014-01-21 04:00:18 PM  
Places like Curves don't get a pass.  There are plenty of lawsuits against places like Curves and there are states making specific laws to make them legal.   The more you know.

Anyone with a lawsuit against Curves for this reason deserves to be mocked as well.
 
2014-01-21 04:00:38 PM  

Weatherkiss: Theaetetus: Weatherkiss: While women are a federally-protected class due to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, men are not a federally-protected class.

The CRA prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. "Male" qualifies.

In that case, I don't think women would be a federally-protected class. Since the CRA is mostly about equal employment and wages. If that's the case, then discrimination against either gender is still a state-by-state law.


You don't actually have any idea what a "protected class" is, do you? You think it is some sort of group of people.
That's so cute.
Hint: It is not possible for "women" to be a "protected class".
 
2014-01-21 04:01:13 PM  

Hickory-smoked: MyRandomName: 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.

[www.elephantjournal.com image 543x353]


oh I am sorry where in your religion does it say THOU SHALT NOT BAKE CAKES FOR THOSE WHO LAY WITH MEN AS THEY LAY WITH WOMEN.
 
2014-01-21 04:01:18 PM  

Theaetetus: This is their "freedom to conduct business in any manner they see fit", which doesn't actually exist and never has.


untrue.

Theaetetus: Then they probably shouldn't be in the business of selling stuff to the public. Go found a church.


there is nothing wrong with running a business based on christian values.

Theaetetus: But this isn't:
i do have a problem with the government saying "so what if you are christian, make those gays a cake".

And the government isn't saying that. Rather, the government is saying "if you want to run a business, you don't get to discriminate. You are free to close your business."


sigh. i suppose you are right.
 
Ant
2014-01-21 04:01:25 PM  

mark12A: //and yes, people WILL set up private bakeries, restaurants, etc. if this shiat gets much deeper, and America Balkanizes further....


Good. Then we can have all the assholes separated from the rest of us.
 
2014-01-21 04:01:48 PM  

scubamage: gerrymander: Dr Dreidel: More like, "If the government's gonna force us ALL to pay for roads, etc, then we should ALL have the same access to them." Meaning a state-licensed business cannot refuse service to someone for reasons the state deems invalid. If you're going to exercise a power granted by the state, you exercise it according to state rules.

Does that help?

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.

That's the problem with this ruling. A private contract to create an artistic expression is not -- and really, can never be -- subject to government license.

If the lesbians wanted a standard sheet cake with frosting letters, that would (I expect) have been well under the 'licensed business umbra'. 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.

The contract would still have the business as a signatory, and the business is beholden to state and federal law.

Just adding "as a matter of law" to your statements doesn't make them correct.


But it makes them sound correct.  And sounding correct is the most important thing, as a matter of law.
 
2014-01-21 04:02:17 PM  

Weatherkiss: scubamage: To my knowledge, Curves gets a pass because it's not a public establishment, it is private. Joe-schmoe off the street can't walk in and use their services (jane schmoe in this case). A person has to become a member first, and the standard of membership to a private establishment can be anything that the company wants it to be. It's the difference between a private and public establishment.

It comes down to the state law. Clubs don't get a free pass for many states. It's why Country Clubs have been successfully sued for not allowing club membership to blacks or women, even though their rules can be 'anything they want it to be'.


Ahh ok; I believe in PA we still have the ability to establish private clubs for just about any purpose, so I'm not too familiar with it.
 
2014-01-21 04:02:23 PM  

jso2897: You don't actually have any idea what a "protected class" is, do you?


Not really, no. It's not something I've really looked into. Which is why I corrected myself when I found out I was in error.
 
2014-01-21 04:02:32 PM  

Onkel Buck: 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.

That may have worked but you know how some folks like to play the victim. The couple could have went home and called the bakery posing as a straight couple and then GOTCHA! The bakery owner was farked once he unlocked the door that morning.


That's a pretty sad and pathetic way to regard the world around you.

But it's also kinda neat how you paint the bakery owner as an innocent victim and them whine about other people "playing the victim."  At least you have an active imagination.
 
2014-01-21 04:03:08 PM  

Leishu: And, once again, because you're too stupid to get it every time you're told, seemingly, you seem to be glossing over the fact that intolerance of intolerance is NOT bigotry.Tolerance of intolerance, however? There's a special word for that: Appeasement. It's a terrible thing which tends to lead to lynchings and genocide, but filth like you tends to pretend that your bigotry is somehow less bigoted because teh gays and brown people.


reposting because of the awesome.
 
2014-01-21 04:04:37 PM  

frepnog: Theaetetus: This is their "freedom to conduct business in any manner they see fit", which doesn't actually exist and never has.

untrue.

Theaetetus: Then they probably shouldn't be in the business of selling stuff to the public. Go found a church.

there is nothing wrong with running a business based on christian values.


Christian, like in Christ? Show me where he said to discriminate against gays.

Or, are you just trying to stuff words in his mouth that he never said as an excuse to justify being a knuckle-dragging, backwards, homophobic twatwaffle.
 
2014-01-21 04:05:27 PM  

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.
 
2014-01-21 04:05:49 PM  

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?
 
2014-01-21 04:05:50 PM  

MyRandomName: This is about liberals trying to fark a religious person over. No more, no less.


No, but you go right on saying that if it makes you feel better.  It also makes it more fun for us to laugh at you.  So, really, everybody wins.
 
2014-01-21 04:06:46 PM  
So, let's say it's 1955, and I run a bakery, and the government has passed a law MANDATING that I can't bake a cake for gays.

I'll be JAILED for it. But I want to bake for gays. I want the gay baking trade.

And, in response to this unjust law, I say things like, "The law is unjust. The government has NO LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY to prohibit me from selling cakes to gays, or to anyone I want. It's between me and my customers, and (literally) none of your business!"

And since we're all in 1955 and not just me, all of the FarkProg assholes posting in this thread would rise up and call me names and tell me to go live in the woods and cite "licensing" laws, to force me to follow their precious government's laws.

Because Respect My Authoritah.
 
Ant
2014-01-21 04:08:08 PM  

totallyfubar: That is an incorrect interpretation obviously


Not very obvious, actually.
 
2014-01-21 04:08:27 PM  

Weatherkiss: jso2897: You don't actually have any idea what a "protected class" is, do you?

Not really, no. It's not something I've really looked into. Which is why I corrected myself when I found out I was in error.


Good - it isn't complicated. Briefly "religion" is a protected class. "Muslims" are not. "Race" is a protected class. "Asians" are not.
And so on. It applies to the abstract category - not to anyone who falls under them.
In this case "sexual orientation" is protected under Oregon law. "Lesbians" are not.
 
2014-01-21 04:08:40 PM  

Phinn: So, let's say it's 1955, and I run a bakery, and the government has passed a law MANDATING that I can't bake a cake for gays.

I'll be JAILED for it. But I want to bake for gays. I want the gay baking trade.

And, in response to this unjust law, I say things like, "The law is unjust. The government has NO LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY to prohibit me from selling cakes to gays, or to anyone I want. It's between me and my customers, and (literally) none of your business!"

And since we're all in 1955 and not just me, all of the FarkProg assholes posting in this thread would rise up and call me names and tell me to go live in the woods and cite "licensing" laws, to force me to follow their precious government's laws.

Because Respect My Authoritah.


Dear Phinn,

Get new material.

Thanks.
 
2014-01-21 04:08:52 PM  

Baz744: Last I checked, this bakery own remains free to believe homosexuality is immoral. He is not, however, free to discriminate against homosexuals in the public, commercial conduct of his business.


So you'd be OK with freedom of religion except in churches open to the public?

So you'd be OK with freedom of speech only applying to private conversations?

So you'd be OK with freedom of the press only not covering the ability to distribute your material to the public?

So you'd be OK with freedom of assembly to only apply to members of your family?

So you'd be OK with the freedom to redress grievances only if you are talking to your representative behind closed doors?
 
2014-01-21 04:09:23 PM  

Gentoolive: If you don't like the way someone conducts business, don't shop there.


If you don't like following the rules of the land, don't set up a shop there.

Or vote to change them, but that's a little more long-term.
 
2014-01-21 04:10:15 PM  

scubamage: frepnog: Theaetetus: This is their "freedom to conduct business in any manner they see fit", which doesn't actually exist and never has.

untrue.

Theaetetus: Then they probably shouldn't be in the business of selling stuff to the public. Go found a church.

there is nothing wrong with running a business based on christian values.

Christian, like in Christ? Show me where he said to discriminate against gays.

Or, are you just trying to stuff words in his mouth that he never said as an excuse to justify being a knuckle-dragging, backwards, homophobic twatwaffle.


ah.  someone here doesn't know me at all.  or that last sentence would not have been posted.

and trying to act like christianity isn't against homosexuality is stupid.
 
2014-01-21 04:10:27 PM  
BMFPitt:

So you'd be OK with freedom of religion except in churches open to the public?

So you'd be OK with freedom of speech only applying to private conversations?

So you'd be OK with freedom of the press only not covering the ability to distribute your material to the public?

So you'd be OK with freedom of assembly to only apply to members of your family?

So you'd be OK with the freedom to redress grievances only if you are talking to your representative behind closed doors?


Whoosh - right over your head.
 
2014-01-21 04:11:01 PM  

Phinn: So, let's say it's 1955, and I run a bakery, and the government has passed a law MANDATING that I can't bake a cake for gays.

I'll be JAILED for it. But I want to bake for gays. I want the gay baking trade.

And, in response to this unjust law, I say things like, "The law is unjust. The government has NO LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY to prohibit me from selling cakes to gays, or to anyone I want. It's between me and my customers, and (literally) none of your business!"

And since we're all in 1955 and not just me, all of the FarkProg assholes posting in this thread would rise up and call me names and tell me to go live in the woods and cite "licensing" laws, to force me to follow their precious government's laws.

Because Respect My Authoritah.


My favorite "What if...?" was the one where Elektra didn't die.
 
2014-01-21 04:11:24 PM  

MyRandomName: The hilarious part is that you liberals always attempt economic boycotts to destroy those who disagree with you. Yet if any person attempted an economic boycott of a minority business, you would be outraged. You are the people you complain about. You have simply switched skin color for politics and religion. You are no better. You at just as intolerant.


It's always amusing when Conservatives explain how they think Liberalism works.
 
2014-01-21 04:11:32 PM  

BMFPitt: Baz744: Last I checked, this bakery own remains free to believe homosexuality is immoral. He is not, however, free to discriminate against homosexuals in the public, commercial conduct of his business.

So you'd be OK with freedom of religion except in churches open to the public?

So you'd be OK with freedom of speech only applying to private conversations?

So you'd be OK with freedom of the press only not covering the ability to distribute your material to the public?

So you'd be OK with freedom of assembly to only apply to members of your family?

So you'd be OK with the freedom to redress grievances only if you are talking to your representative behind closed doors?


Hey look, the point! It just went whooshing by!
 
2014-01-21 04:13:23 PM  

totallyfubar: It is a religious belief they are standing for, that homosexuality is wrong.  Comparing that to segregation is apples and oranges.  The bible never said blacks were not equal, it says the opposite.


Poe's Law strikes again.  I really can't tell.
 
2014-01-21 04:15:39 PM  

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?


Don't worry, anyone that says that doesn't actually make food for a living. Nobody will hire you if it's known you fark with food.
 
2014-01-21 04:15:39 PM  

Phinn: So, let's say it's 1955, and I run a bakery, and the government has passed a law MANDATING that I can't bake a cake for gays.

I'll be JAILED for it. But I want to bake for gays. I want the gay baking trade.

And, in response to this unjust law, I say things like, "The law is unjust. The government has NO LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY to prohibit me from selling cakes to gays, or to anyone I want. It's between me and my customers, and (literally) none of your business!"

And since we're all in 1955 and not just me, all of the FarkProg assholes posting in this thread would rise up and call me names and tell me to go live in the woods and cite "licensing" laws, to force me to follow their precious government's laws.

Because Respect My Authoritah.


A better analogy would be how people would have reacted in 1955 if someone had proposed that we roll back history and restore slavery.
 
2014-01-21 04:15:54 PM  

frepnog: scubamage: frepnog: Theaetetus: This is their "freedom to conduct business in any manner they see fit", which doesn't actually exist and never has.

untrue.

Theaetetus: Then they probably shouldn't be in the business of selling stuff to the public. Go found a church.

there is nothing wrong with running a business based on christian values.

Christian, like in Christ? Show me where he said to discriminate against gays.

Or, are you just trying to stuff words in his mouth that he never said as an excuse to justify being a knuckle-dragging, backwards, homophobic twatwaffle.

ah.  someone here doesn't know me at all.  or that last sentence would not have been posted.

and trying to act like christianity isn't against homosexuality is stupid.


It's not. Cite otherwise. The only passage citing speech by Christ which could in any way be interpreted as anti-homosexual is when he spoke out against fornicators. There is no statement by Christ which is overtly anti-homosexual. The end.

Jesus had more negative things to say about Caananites than he did about homosexuals, although it's likely that was more Matthew being a racist douchenozzle than the actual words of Christ.

What idiots have tried to inject over the past 2000 years should not be construed as Christianity.
 
2014-01-21 04:17:54 PM  

tricycleracer: Become a private bakery club and discriminate to your heart's content.


The first rule of Private Bakery Club is that you do not talk about Private Bakery Club.
 
2014-01-21 04:21:59 PM  

notto: Whoosh - right over your head.

scubamage: Hey look, the point! It just went whooshing by!


Hard to tell whether you're actually as dense as you're claiming to be.
 
2014-01-21 04:22:06 PM  

frepnog: Theaetetus: This is their "freedom to conduct business in any manner they see fit", which doesn't actually exist and never has.

untrue.


Absolutely true. You may think that such a freedom existed, because you were implicitly reading in a further limitation, like "in any manner they see fit, provided it follows all local laws" or the like. For example, you have never had the freedom to operate a business in which customers are allowed to commit murder.
Your operation of a business has always been subject to governmental regulation.

Theaetetus: Then they probably shouldn't be in the business of selling stuff to the public. Go found a church.

there is nothing wrong with running a business based on christian values.


There is if those values require you to engage in illegal discrimination.

Theaetetus: But this isn't:
i do have a problem with the government saying "so what if you are christian, make those gays a cake".

And the government isn't saying that. Rather, the government is saying "if you want to run a business, you don't get to discriminate. You are free to close your business."

sigh. i suppose you are right.


Let's go to a hypothetical, just in case it clarifies things by distinction. As mentioned above, until 1978, Mormons believed that black people were all sinners, with their skin being a mark of the "curse of Cain".  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"?
 
2014-01-21 04:23:14 PM  

BalugaJoe: Money is money.  What is wrong with these people.


I had inlaws who owned a small grocery store. They wanted a local handyman to create a shelving system for storing rented out VHS tapes - he was okay doing the carpentry work until he found out they rented rated 'R' movies - then he refused to work anymore. Can you guess what religion he identified with?
 
2014-01-21 04:24:18 PM  
Word of mouth can be a biatch, eh?
 
2014-01-21 04:24:28 PM  

HipsterTrash: They have been targeted and will feel the wrath of the Gay K K.



i1.ytimg.com

Exactly.
 
2014-01-21 04:26:12 PM  

BMFPitt: Baz744: Last I checked, this bakery own remains free to believe homosexuality is immoral. He is not, however, free to discriminate against homosexuals in the public, commercial conduct of his business.

So you'd be OK with freedom of religion except in churches open to the public?


Not a public, commercial conduct of a business.

So you'd be OK with freedom of speech only applying to private conversations?

Not a public, commercial conduct of a business. Unless you're trying to say statutes against fraud should be abolished?

So you'd be OK with freedom of the press only not covering the ability to distribute your material to the public?

Uh, that's what it does do. It protects the freedom to publish and distribute. Private writings are really under freedom of speech.

So you'd be OK with freedom of assembly to only apply to members of your family?

Not a public, commercial conduct of a business.

So you'd be OK with the freedom to redress grievances only if you are talking to your representative behind closed doors?

Not a public, commercial conduct of a business.

Your post fails to actually address what you're responding to, so therefore I award you no points.
 
2014-01-21 04:26:18 PM  

mark12A: /It's a comfy bed you Libtards are setting up for yourselves.
//and yes, people WILL set up private bakeries, restaurants, etc. if this shiat gets much deeper, and America Balkanizes further....


Yes, and it's going to happen soon.  Hold your breath.
 
2014-01-21 04:26:33 PM  

Phinn: So, let's say it's 1955, and I run a bakery, and the government has passed a law MANDATING that I can't bake a cake for gays.

I'll be JAILED for it. But I want to bake for gays. I want the gay baking trade.

And, in response to this unjust law, I say things like, "The law is unjust. The government has NO LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY to prohibit me from selling cakes to gays, or to anyone I want. It's between me and my customers, and (literally) none of your business!"

And since we're all in 1955 and not just me, all of the FarkProg assholes posting in this thread would rise up and call me names and tell me to go live in the woods and cite "licensing" laws, to force me to follow their precious government's laws.

Because Respect My Authoritah.


I think you're writing incorrect arguments onto us.  Just because shiatty libertarian ideals would be an improvement on some past states of existence(like say feudalism) you aren't  going to swing us onto your "why can't I beat me own slaves, I own them after all type platform"
 
2014-01-21 04:27:45 PM  

scubamage: What idiots have tried to inject over the past 2000 years should not be construed as Christianity.


So we should ignore what Christians actually believe, and should focus on your interpretation of what they should believe?
 
2014-01-21 04:28:30 PM  

Elzar: BalugaJoe: Money is money.  What is wrong with these people.

I had inlaws who owned a small grocery store. They wanted a local handyman to create a shelving system for storing rented out VHS tapes - he was okay doing the carpentry work until he found out they rented rated 'R' movies - then he refused to work anymore. Can you guess what religion he identified with?



Jedi monk?
 
2014-01-21 04:29:02 PM  

BMFPitt: So we should ignore what Christians actually believe, and should focus on your interpretation of what they should believe?


Based on a new testament that was first written over 300 years after when he thinks the immutable truth was supposedly laid down?
 
2014-01-21 04:32:39 PM  

totallyfubar: It is a religious belief they are standing for, that homosexuality is wrong.  Comparing that to segregation is apples and oranges.  The bible never said blacks were not equal, it says the opposite.


[citation needed]
 
2014-01-21 04:34:17 PM  

Theaetetus: Not a public, commercial conduct of a business.

Your post fails to actually address what you're responding to, so therefore I award you no points.


So your response is that LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!

If you believe that conducting business should nullify your right to free association, then make a case for that.

Pretending not to understand the arguments being made only make you look silly.
 
2014-01-21 04:36:16 PM  

MooseUpNorth: totallyfubar: It is a religious belief they are standing for, that homosexuality is wrong.  Comparing that to segregation is apples and oranges.  The bible never said blacks were not equal, it says the opposite.

[citation needed]


The Mark of Cain doesn't exist.    For what it's worth, congratulations on not being as racist like the people who wrote your holy book.  Really.  No sarcasm.
 
2014-01-21 04:40:13 PM  
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.
 
2014-01-21 04:41:00 PM  

BMFPitt: Theaetetus: Not a public, commercial conduct of a business.

Your post fails to actually address what you're responding to, so therefore I award you no points.

So your response is that LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!

If you believe that conducting business should nullify your right to free association, then make a case for that.


It doesn't. your "right to free association" doesn't include the right to discriminate against members of the public on the basis of certain things. The fact that your right to free association does not include things you think it should does not mean that it has been taken away from you.
 
2014-01-21 04:44:50 PM  

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.


Anyway - nobody is forcing anybody to do anything here. The fact that I am not allowed to drive a car without mufflers does not mean that I am being forced to drive a car equipped with them.
The fact that I am not allowed to build a seven storey structure of unmortared construction block on my lot does not mean that I am being forced to build a structure that is up to code.
And so on.
 
2014-01-21 04:45:16 PM  

totallyfubar: Chummer45

Discrimination against someone for what they are (ex. black) is biblically wrong.  Refusing to participate in a sinful ACT by others is not discrimination.  It would be like a black person asked me to sell them a gun vs. a chinese person asking me to sell them a gun to kill someone.  I would not sell to the one who is going to do something I find morrally wrong but I would sell to the other.


How is baking a cake 'participating in a sinful ACT' ?

Where in the bible does it say "thou shalt not provide baked goods for the homos as it is an abomination unto the lord"
 
2014-01-21 04:47:42 PM  

Finger51: totallyfubar: Chummer45

Discrimination against someone for what they are (ex. black) is biblically wrong.  Refusing to participate in a sinful ACT by others is not discrimination.  It would be like a black person asked me to sell them a gun vs. a chinese person asking me to sell them a gun to kill someone.  I would not sell to the one who is going to do something I find morrally wrong but I would sell to the other.

How is baking a cake 'participating in a sinful ACT' ?

Where in the bible does it say "thou shalt not provide baked goods for the homos as it is an abomination unto the lord"


Even if youi are right (and I suspect you are) it's still bullshiat. religion is, in fact, entirely made up - and if this guy says his god forbids teh ghey - he does. His mistake is in believing that this somehow entitles him to operate his business unlawfully.
 
2014-01-21 04:51:32 PM  

Chummer45: totallyfubar: Chummer45

Discrimination against someone for what they are (ex. black) is biblically wrong.  Refusing to participate in a sinful ACT by others is not discrimination.  It would be like a black person asked me to sell them a gun vs. a chinese person asking me to sell them a gun to kill someone.  I would not sell to the one who is going to do something I find morrally wrong but I would sell to the other.


uh.... ok.....?  Nothing about what you said made any sense.


He's trying to argue that homosexuality is a choice, basically.  It's the old "it's ok to BE gay, but it's not ok to ever have gay sex" chestnut used by some people opposed to homosexuality on moral grounds.

To paraphrase it another way, "I'm not discriminating against you because you're a lesbian; I'm discriminating against you because I know you're going to have sex with another woman, and that's a sin."

It's often associated with the catchphrase, "Love the sinner but hate the sin."
 
2014-01-21 04:54:39 PM  
It's amazing to see so many farkers proudly speak up and show their ignorance and bigotry.
 
2014-01-21 04:55:34 PM  

TrotlineDesigns:  I'm not good at being forced to do much of anything and yea.. I would have pissed in the cake like the employees spit in the food at McDonalds and don't get charged with criminal offenses and what not.

/Wouldn't be my first time in jail or criminal court


Nor your last, at this rate.

ProTip: I'm told you get better food if you claim to be Jewish.
 
2014-01-21 04:55:50 PM  

ikanreed: Phinn: So, let's say it's 1955, and I run a bakery, and the government has passed a law MANDATING that I can't bake a cake for gays.

I'll be JAILED for it. But I want to bake for gays. I want the gay baking trade.

And, in response to this unjust law, I say things like, "The law is unjust. The government has NO LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY to prohibit me from selling cakes to gays, or to anyone I want. It's between me and my customers, and (literally) none of your business!"

And since we're all in 1955 and not just me, all of the FarkProg assholes posting in this thread would rise up and call me names and tell me to go live in the woods and cite "licensing" laws, to force me to follow their precious government's laws.

Because Respect My Authoritah.

I think you're writing incorrect arguments onto us.  Just because shiatty libertarian ideals would be an improvement on some past states of existence(like say feudalism) you aren't  going to swing us onto your "why can't I beat me own slaves, I own them after all type platform"


What I'm getting at is that the FarkProg mentality is incapable of reason in general, and grasping ethical principles in particular.

See, when someone says that X is wrong, or that Rule A is better than Rule B, he's making an ethical assertion. It's more than just saying "I want X to happen." He's advancing a normative proposition.

Now, saying "I want X to happen" is all well and good, but it means as much as the next guy who says "I want Y to happen." They cancel each other out. They are ethically equivalent assertions.

When you claim that X is a better result than Y, or that X is right and Y is wrong, you have (perhaps unwittingly) relied on some principle that supports that conclusion.

What I'm saying is that when the question is whether a particular law is just, "because the State licenses it" is a non-answer. It articulates no ethical principle at all. It's not even wrong.

The State licenses marriage, too. As we've seen with the gays, when they ask, "Why should I not be allowed to get married to my love?" it's not a sufficient answer to say "because the State licenses it."

What if this baker didn't want to bake a cake for vegetarians? Or the lactose intolerant? Or left-handed Twilight fans? Or teenaged death-metal retro-goths? What if this baker wanted to bake these people a cake but some law prevented her? Is there an ethical principle that addresses these bigotries?

The Freedom of Association is the only ethical principle that is coherent and stands up to the slightest scrutiny. Just like the Freedom of the Press protects ugly and bigoted documents, the Freedom of Association protects ugly and bigoted cake-baking.
 
2014-01-21 04:57:55 PM  

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.
 
2014-01-21 04:58:17 PM  

jso2897: Another thread where the grownups have to debate some pimple-faced virgin teens about the "Constitutionality" of civil rights statutes that were settled law before they were born.


Sad isn't it?
 
2014-01-21 04:58:51 PM  

umad: Chummer45: The whole "economic freedom" and "states rights" nonsense is always invoked by conservatives as their excuse for opposing policies.  It lets them say "I oppose the civil rights act because states' rights," so they can avoid saying the real reason why they oppose it - because they're racist a-holes who think that the "right" to discriminate is a "right" worth defending.

So let me get this straight. You are derping out about how "states rights" are teh evils in a thread for a story which is about a business violating a state law? A state law which bans discrimination based on sexual preference?



I thought I made my point pretty clear, but I guess I need to clarify for you.  My point was that many people in this thread have invoked "economic freedom" as their excuse for why they support allowing businesses to discriminate against gays.  This technique - invoking concepts like "economic freedom" or "states rights" - is frequently used by conservatives when they need an excuse for their bigoted public policy ideas.

Kind of like how conservatives manage to argue, with a straight face, that the reason they support voter ID laws is because they want to stop voter fraud.
 
2014-01-21 04:59:04 PM  

ciberido: karnal: I guess my sense of capitalism trumps any of my beliefs...If I owned a bakery I would sale a cake to anyone.....well, except the Irish.

You wouldn't have to worry about it, because you can't be Irish if you're gay.


LoL : )
 
2014-01-21 05:00:16 PM  

jso2897: It doesn't. your "right to free association" doesn't include the right to discriminate against members of the public on the basis of certain things.


By law I certainly don't.  That's black and white, and this case is a slam dunk that the couple will win.  The law is wrong, as are court cases upholding it.  I was just aging for someone to at least attempt to defend the law other than citing it and declaring victory.

The fact that your right to free association does not include things you think it should does not mean that it has been taken away from you.

My right to free speech is restricted in all kinds of ways.  That doesn't make it OK.
 
2014-01-21 05:00:35 PM  

iheartscotch: toma


THE BROODWICH CANNOT BE TAKEN APART OR DISASSEMBLED!
 
2014-01-21 05:01:27 PM  
"Let them Eat Cake"   With or without a marriage ceremony or license it's a DAMN PASTRY.   Look, I understand that people have their little hang-ups over non-traditional marriages, but how does anybody ever get the idea that there is any conceivable deity that would condemn consider the sale of a dessert to the wrong people as reason for damnation.
 
2014-01-21 05:04:13 PM  

Baz744: InterruptingQuirk: Baz744: Can someone please direct me to the Bible passage which requires Jehovah religionists to discriminate against homosexuals in provision of public services?

Rom 16:17
2 Thess 3:6
2 Thess 3:14


They're applicable if you believe the corresponding bits about homosexuals.

/if

1) Excuse me. I overlooked this.

2) Thanks for the attempt.

3) Actually, all three of these directives call for dehumanizing treatment of other Christians. Two of them explicitly, the third by logical context. None of these passages provide support for the proposition that Christians should subject pagans to the dehumanizing treatment they subject each other to.

So, if the lesbians involved in this case are Christians, and the baker knew it, these passages apply. Otherwise, he's not acting on any religious compulsion.


Fair enough, yet another case where we don't know enough about the situation.
 
2014-01-21 05:05:47 PM  

Uncontrolled_Jibe: "Let them Eat Cake"   With or without a marriage ceremony or license it's a DAMN PASTRY.   Look, I understand that people have their little hang-ups over non-traditional marriages, but how does anybody ever get the idea that there is any conceivable deity that would condemn consider the sale of a dessert to the wrong people as reason for damnation.



My religious text states that paying taxes will result in me being cast straight into the pit of hell.  Therefore, paying taxes violates my religious faith, and I cannot therefore be compelled to pay them.

That's what freedom of religion means, right?
 
2014-01-21 05:06:26 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: Fair enough, yet another case where we don't know enough about the situation.


Or you know, not using stupid arbitrary rules that aren't very moral in the end, to judge people on something totally harmless.  Pretty sure we got a bigger "horses mouth" message at some point about judging and being judged, even if we're pretending the arbitrary rules count.
 
2014-01-21 05:08:29 PM  

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

This is so disgusting.


Can't tell if you're a troll or retard.
 
2014-01-21 05:10:41 PM  

letrole: Tolerance does not equal Acceptance

It is more than a bit disingenuous to claim moral superiority because you accept or approve of something. "Oh yeah, I think the things that I like are just nifty, and that makes me a good person", as it were.

The real moral winner is the fellow who does not approve, who does not accept, yet still tolerates the things that he does not approve or accept.

But the majority of the posters here would seem to demand that nothing short of full acceptance and approval of homosexuality will do. The amusing thing is that these posters don't view themselves as bigots -- they consider themselves quite open-minded.


I know better than to actually acknowledge a guy with troll in his name, but no one in this thread is asking him to change his beliefs. They are asking for him not to discriminate and pick and choose who he deals with at a public business. He could still think gayness is an "abomination", using his own words, yet still made the cake and gone home and cursed up a storm on how the gheys are ruining the world. in others words, he can still be a bigot just in the privacy of his own home.
 
2014-01-21 05:11:56 PM  

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.
 
2014-01-21 05:15:43 PM  
Didn't we already have this follow-up?
 
2014-01-21 05:16:08 PM  

BMFPitt: Theaetetus: Not a public, commercial conduct of a business.

Your post fails to actually address what you're responding to, so therefore I award you no points.

So your response is that LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!


No, my response was that none of your hypotheticals are in any way analogous to a question over public, commercial conduct of a business. A church is not a business. A house is not a business.
If you don't understand that distinction, then please ask questions, rather than just shouting and pretending not to understand the arguments being made.

If you believe that conducting business should nullify your right to free association, then make a case for that.

One has nothing to do with the other. The freedom of association (which, incidentally, is not explicitly in the first amendment... maybe you meant the right to assemble?) is an implication of the freedom of speech, under NAACP v. Alabama, in which the Supreme Court noted that in many cases, effective speech requires joining with others. Nonetheless, being able to engage in protests or negotiations as a group is irrelevant here: we're talking about whether a baker can discriminate in their public, commercial business.
They need not associate with anyone to do so, and in fact, can make as many disparaging statements about their customers as they wish. However, in Colorado, they cannot refuse them service, based on their race, creed, sex, sexual orientation, disability, color, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.
 
2014-01-21 05:18:25 PM  

CivicMindedFive: Fark is a weird place where Christians are the ultimate trump card.

Contrast this to the douchey-hipster article who wants government to prevent his neighbors from chopping down trees on their property because he likes those trees.  The Fark brigade is almost universally against the hipster douche siding with private property rights.

Then there's this case, where a lesbian couple wants government to force a baker to participate in a gay wedding, and because the baker is Christian, the same people are ready to feed him to the dogs.

If there's ever a case where cops beat the snot out of anti-abortion demonstrators, the whole universe might divide by zero following the cognitive dissonance coming from fark.


Yes, indeed.  Won't someone think of the poor, oppressed Christians?
 
2014-01-21 05:18:34 PM  

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.



Please come back to us when an Atheist baker refuses to make a cake for a Christian wedding and the entire rightwingosphere loses their collective shiat over it.

My religion tells me that homophobes should go to jail. STOP TRYING TO FARK OVER MY BELIEFS!!
 
Ant
2014-01-21 05:19:13 PM  

frepnog: the court of public opinion would convict those business owners and the business would founder.


In most places, maybe. What about protection for other, less popular protected groups? Should we always rely on the majority to do the right thing?
 
2014-01-21 05:22:41 PM  

scubamage: frepnog: scubamage: frepnog: Theaetetus: This is their "freedom to conduct business in any manner they see fit", which doesn't actually exist and never has.

untrue.

Theaetetus: Then they probably shouldn't be in the business of selling stuff to the public. Go found a church.

there is nothing wrong with running a business based on christian values.

Christian, like in Christ? Show me where he said to discriminate against gays.

Or, are you just trying to stuff words in his mouth that he never said as an excuse to justify being a knuckle-dragging, backwards, homophobic twatwaffle.

ah.  someone here doesn't know me at all.  or that last sentence would not have been posted.

and trying to act like christianity isn't against homosexuality is stupid.

It's not. Cite otherwise. The only passage citing speech by Christ which could in any way be interpreted as anti-homosexual is when he spoke out against fornicators. There is no statement by Christ which is overtly anti-homosexual. The end.

Jesus had more negative things to say about Caananites than he did about homosexuals, although it's likely that was more Matthew being a racist douchenozzle than the actual words of Christ.

What idiots have tried to inject over the past 2000 years should not be construed as Christianity.


So you're saying Christianity is only what Jesus was recorded as saying (Tetramorph)? Because I am not aware of any Christian factions today that believe according to what you suggest - and if so, certainly not any that are considered mainstream.

You either get the  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Bible  or the  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Bible depending on your persuasion. Both of which consider the OT and NT to be divinely inspired (yes, even all the hateful stone all gays stuff).

So basically nice try, but Christianity is shiat sandwiches all the way down.
 
2014-01-21 05:23:03 PM  

mwfark: So a lady is forced to do something against her will in a supposedly free society, and some people call this progress. I call it tyranny, and while I personally disagree with her position, I do think she should have the right to run her business as she sees fit.


THAT. I support gay couples having equal rights, but I do not support them or anyone else forcing their views on others. The couple could've easily gone to dozens of other bakeries in the area, but noooooo, they had to be intolerant towards others' beliefs and make a huge fuss which has caused others significant harm.

/do no harm doesn't just apply to doctors
 
2014-01-21 05:23:48 PM  

Billygoat Gruff: well as with everything we can pick and choose what fits your agenda. I find it weird that libs have all this hate for christians but you can't get them to leave a black church when an election is coming up.


You're not alone.  I find your delusions and fantasies pretty weird, too.
 
2014-01-21 05:24:31 PM  

Chummer45: Uncontrolled_Jibe: "Let them Eat Cake"   With or without a marriage ceremony or license it's a DAMN PASTRY.   Look, I understand that people have their little hang-ups over non-traditional marriages, but how does anybody ever get the idea that there is any conceivable deity that would condemn consider the sale of a dessert to the wrong people as reason for damnation.


My religious text states that paying taxes will result in me being cast straight into the pit of hell.  Therefore, paying taxes violates my religious faith, and I cannot therefore be compelled to pay them.

That's what freedom of religion means, right?


You see I have such a strong respect for the Constitution that I'd offer them my best wishes in their new life free of the encumbrance of fiat currency and the temptations of material possessions.   If that doesn't work for them, I'd inquire if their religion offers a special exemption for those dying as martyrs in prison.  I'm not in favor of Government intervention to force them to do something, but I wholeheartedly support the idea of people not bringing their business their.   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 stated rate should be known as doing that and people should not support those businesses.

/Offering a free biatch slapping to anyone claiming to be big "L" Libertarian and not realizing that boycotts are ethical options in the market..
 
2014-01-21 05:25:05 PM  

Phinn: What if this baker didn't want to bake a cake for vegetarians? Or the lactose intolerant? Or left-handed Twilight fans? Or teenaged death-metal retro-goths? What if this baker wanted to bake these people a cake but some law prevented her? Is there an ethical principle that addresses these bigotries?


None of those are protected classes of people.
 
2014-01-21 05:26:04 PM  

Phinn: The Freedom of Association is the only ethical principle that is coherent and stands up to the slightest scrutiny. Just like the Freedom of the Press protects ugly and bigoted documents, the Freedom of Association protects ugly and bigoted cake-baking.


The freedom of association prevents the government from stopping you from associating with others to petition the government or engage in collective speech. It has nothing to do with engaging in commercial contracts.

As the Supreme Court said in Runyon v. McCrary:
[The right to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas] is protected because it promotes and may well be essential to the "[e]ffective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones" that the First Amendment is designed to foster.
[However, the] Constitution places no value on discrimination, and while  "nvidious private discrimination may be characterized as a form of exercising freedom of association protected by the First Amendment . . . , it has never been accorded affirmative constitutional protections. And even some private discrimination is subject to special remedial legislation in certain circumstances under § 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment; Congress has made such discrimination unlawful in other significant contexts."

In other words, if you wish to associate yourself with racists, or homophobes, and engage in public speech, petition the government for constitutional amendments, or whatnot, you have total freedom to do so. However, when you operate a public business, you are required to treat customers the same, regardless of their race or sexual orientation, or any of the other protected traits. You do not have to associate with them, and you are not endorsing their beliefs. You merely have to serve them as you would any other customer.
 
2014-01-21 05:27:16 PM  
(last paragraph mine, not quoted)
 
2014-01-21 05:29:34 PM  

ikanreed: InterruptingQuirk: Fair enough, yet another case where we don't know enough about the situation.

Or you know, not using stupid arbitrary rules that aren't very moral in the end, to judge people on something totally harmless.  Pretty sure we got a bigger "horses mouth" message at some point about judging and being judged, even if we're pretending the arbitrary rules count.


I only meant that we don't know what the couple who wanted a cake believe. Of course it doesn't matter in this civil matter what they believe. If they were also believers, the irony in my mind is that, as Baz744 pointed out, they would have call no to associate with the baker for the same reason that he refuses to associate with them. That's why I would like to know, just for the double dilemma they would be in at that point.

/and the lulz, lest we forget the lulz
 
2014-01-21 05:29:52 PM  

BMFPitt: jso2897: It doesn't. your "right to free association" doesn't include the right to discriminate against members of the public on the basis of certain things.

By law I certainly don't.  That's black and white, and this case is a slam dunk that the couple will win.  The law is wrong, as are court cases upholding it.  I was just aging for someone to at least attempt to defend the law other than citing it and declaring victory.

The fact that your right to free association does not include things you think it should does not mean that it has been taken away from you.

My right to free speech is restricted in all kinds of ways.  That doesn't make it OK.


Doesn't make what OK? Your right to free speech?
Or the fact that your right to free speech isn't absolute and unlimited?
I think both those things are OK.
 
2014-01-21 05:30:10 PM  

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.
 
2014-01-21 05:33:16 PM  

Elzar: BalugaJoe: Money is money.  What is wrong with these people.

I had inlaws who owned a small grocery store. They wanted a local handyman to create a shelving system for storing rented out VHS tapes - he was okay doing the carpentry work until he found out they rented rated 'R' movies - then he refused to work anymore. Can you guess what religion he identified with?


Did the government force him to complete the work?
 
2014-01-21 05:34:30 PM  

Green Scorpio: Elzar: BalugaJoe: Money is money.  What is wrong with these people.

I had inlaws who owned a small grocery store. They wanted a local handyman to create a shelving system for storing rented out VHS tapes - he was okay doing the carpentry work until he found out they rented rated 'R' movies - then he refused to work anymore. Can you guess what religion he identified with?

Did the government force him to complete the work?


**Yawn**
 
2014-01-21 05:37:13 PM  

Vector R: THAT. I support gay couples having equal rights, but I do not support them or anyone else forcing their views on others. The couple could've easily gone to dozens of other bakeries in the area, but noooooo, they had to be intolerant towards others' beliefs and make a huge fuss which has caused others significant harm.

/do no harm doesn't just apply to doctors


They're not forcing their views on others. They're a gay couple who wanted to purchase a good or service from a business who was licensed by the state to participate in commerce of their nature. As the business is subject to the laws of the state, they performed an illegal act by discriminating against a protected class of ctizens.

The lesbian couple was not forcing the bakery owner to denounce his made-up version of the Bible. The lesbian couple was not forcing him to believe that gay marraige is appropriate. The lesbian couple were participating in commerce, and as a customer... were given the right not to be discriminated against. This right was breached by the business.

Since the bakery in question is not a religious institution, their supposed 'freedom of religion' is not protected. If these individuals are going to leave the wilderness and participate in civil society, they will abide by the laws set forth by the government regardless of their personal agreement with said laws. Since the government is elected/appointed by the very people they choose to do business with, then the will of the people has indirectly dictated that they must not discriminate against this couple.

If they choose not to abide by the will of the people while at the same time participating in commerce with them, then they will be penalized as such.

If they want to discriminate against gay people, they are free to participate in doing so in either the privacy of their own homes or in a religious institution which allows them to be as hateful as they desire.

But when you enter into a contract with a city, state, etc. to do business with them, then you will be forced to abide by their laws, particularly their business laws. Because the state is obligated to protect the people that reside in it, and those people are reasonably expected to do business within that state.
 
2014-01-21 05:38:14 PM  

lennavan: Phinn: What if this baker didn't want to bake a cake for vegetarians? Or the lactose intolerant? Or left-handed Twilight fans? Or teenaged death-metal retro-goths? What if this baker wanted to bake these people a cake but some law prevented her? Is there an ethical principle that addresses these bigotries?

None of those are protected classes of people.



Thank you for your lack of reading comprehension.

The whole part that you failed to quote was about how I was saying that asserting ethical propositions means that you have to assert meaningful ones.  Justifiable ones.  Principled ones.  Otherwise, you're just talking about what you personally like, which means nothing beyond, well, you.

The real question is: Why are they protected classes?  On what ethical principle does one decide how to define "protected classes" in the first place?  (Vegetarians?  Left-handed Twilight fans?)  What is the justification for specially protecting a class in the first place, as opposed to having laws of UNIVERSAL application?


Theaetetus: You merely have to serve them as you would any other customer.



I understand that is your CONCLUSION, but I don't give a sh*t about your conclusions.  I care about the ethical principle on which your conclusion is based.

"Because the Supreme Court said so" is also not an answer to the question of "why should there be a rule that says X."

Pretend that YOU are on the Supreme Court, and you not only have to cite prior decisions (which you can skip here), and you are expected to provide some ORIGINAL THOUGHT to the question put to you, and (more importantly) convince others that you are ethical and rational.

Go ahead.  Knock it out.
 
2014-01-21 05:38:47 PM  
Dear Fundies,

STOP USING GOD AS AN EXCUSE TO BE AN ASSHOLE!!!!

Signed,

Humanity
 
2014-01-21 05:38:55 PM  

jso2897: Green Scorpio: Elzar: BalugaJoe: Money is money.  What is wrong with these people.

I had inlaws who owned a small grocery store. They wanted a local handyman to create a shelving system for storing rented out VHS tapes - he was okay doing the carpentry work until he found out they rented rated 'R' movies - then he refused to work anymore. Can you guess what religion he identified with?

Did the government force him to complete the work?

**Yawn**


I'll take that as "no"
 
2014-01-21 05:41:07 PM  

Phinn: Why are they protected classes? On what ethical principle does one decide how to define "protected classes" in the first place? (Vegetarians? Left-handed Twilight fans?) What is the justification for specially protecting a class in the first place, as opposed to having laws of UNIVERSAL application?


So you don't understand why being black is a protected class of people yet left-handed twilight fan is not?
 
2014-01-21 05:42:49 PM  

Phinn: The real question is: Why are they protected classes?  On what ethical principle does one decide how to define "protected classes" in the first place?  (Vegetarians?  Left-handed Twilight fans?)  What is the justification for specially protecting a class in the first place, as opposed to having laws of UNIVERSAL application?


Protected classes are generally those that have an established history of being discriminated against and thus being in need of protection.
 
2014-01-21 05:45:35 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Phinn: The real question is: Why are they protected classes?  On what ethical principle does one decide how to define "protected classes" in the first place?  (Vegetarians?  Left-handed Twilight fans?)  What is the justification for specially protecting a class in the first place, as opposed to having laws of UNIVERSAL application?

Protected classes are generally those that have an established history of being discriminated against and thus being in need of protection.


Like vegetarians. Those guys suck.
 
2014-01-21 05:55:13 PM  
DEAR GOD so these two filthy lezzies swagger like men into my shop and DEMAND I bake a cake for their demonic mockery of a Christian wedding.  I told them I don't make tuna-flavored cake, or brimstone, but no, they lifted me off the floor with their hairy, manly arms and demanded I go against my religious convictions and celebrate their unholy union or they would sue.

I have no choice but to shutter my bakery and go live somewhere the law is on my side, like Namibia or Uganda.
 
2014-01-21 05:55:32 PM  
Phinn:
Theaetetus: You merely have to serve them as you would any other customer.

I understand that is your CONCLUSION, but I don't give a sh*t about your conclusions.


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 care about the ethical principle on which your conclusion is based.
"Because the Supreme Court said so" is also not an answer to the question of "why should there be a rule that says X."


That is not what I said. I quoted the Supreme Court's  reasoning for  why there should be a rule that says that. I then went on to provide further explanation for why this is so.

Pretend that YOU are on the Supreme Court, and you not only have to cite prior decisions (which you can skip here), and you are expected to provide some ORIGINAL THOUGHT to the question put to you, and (more importantly) convince others that you are ethical and rational.

Go ahead.  Knock it out.


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.

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.
 
2014-01-21 05:59:38 PM  

Green Scorpio: jso2897: Green Scorpio: Elzar: BalugaJoe: Money is money.  What is wrong with these people.

I had inlaws who owned a small grocery store. They wanted a local handyman to create a shelving system for storing rented out VHS tapes - he was okay doing the carpentry work until he found out they rented rated 'R' movies - then he refused to work anymore. Can you guess what religion he identified with?

Did the government force him to complete the work?

**Yawn**

I'll take that as "no"


Take it as a "We've gone over this already".
 
2014-01-21 06:00:18 PM  

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.
 
2014-01-21 06:00:24 PM  

highwayrun: DEAR GOD so these two filthy lezzies swagger like men into my shop and DEMAND I bake a cake for their demonic mockery of a Christian wedding.  I told them I don't make tuna-flavored cake, or brimstone, but no, they lifted me off the floor with their hairy, manly arms and demanded I go against my religious convictions and celebrate their unholy union or they would sue.

I have no choice but to shutter my bakery and go live somewhere the law is on my side, like Namibia or Uganda.


Heh. Good job.
 
2014-01-21 06:03:07 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.


i18.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-21 06:08:14 PM  

notto: If they have a business license and a tax number and they are using them to sell goods to the public, the RFRA does not apply. They are not a religious organization or acting as an individual. A business does not have religious beliefs and it is the business identified and licensed by the business licence that violated the law and is being punished and fined.


The rights of the people working for the business cannot be infringed for the sake of the business corporate entity. This is especially true in small businesses where the staff and ownership is identical.

Even if we insist on the hard-line analysis of a separating the 'business owner's hat' from the 'baker's hat' in this case, the fact is that the couple's 'baker' aspect retains RFRA rights as employees. Since no other employee at that bakery at the time could serve in stead, the 'business owner' aspect should not be compelled to accept a contract to provide services it cannot.

You (and the lower courts of Oregon and Colorado, apparently) want to compel people to abgogate either their own Constitutional rights to their freedom to assemble or freedom of expression. That, in itself, is unconstitutional. Not to mention ridiculous.
 
2014-01-21 06:09:26 PM  

Theaetetus: If you don't understand that distinction, then please ask questions, rather than just shouting and pretending not to understand the arguments being made.


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

One has nothing to do with the other. The freedom of association (which, incidentally, is not explicitly in the first amendment... maybe you meant the right to assemble?) is an implication of the freedom of speech, under NAACP v. Alabama, in which the Supreme Court noted that in many cases, effective speech requires joining with others.

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?

...we're talking about whether a baker can discriminate in their public, commercial business.
They need not associate with anyone to do so


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

jso2897: Doesn't make what OK? Your right to free speech?
Or the fact that your right to free speech isn't absolute and unlimited?
I think both those things are OK.


These things are mutually exclusive.  You have chosen the latter.  You are truly a horrible person.
 
2014-01-21 06:13:35 PM  

Guelph35: Satan's Bunny Slippers: Guelph35: I don't agree with the bakery owner's decision, but when did sexual orientation become a protected class in regards to discrimination?

I did not just read this.

Why?

I believe a private business has the right to make the decisions that they feel are correct for their business (including the right to refuse service) unless they are breaking the law.

I don't have to agree with their decisions but they should be allowed to make them.  If they decide they're losing too much money from their decision they'll change their mind or go out of business.

I just didn't know the law in the state of Oregon or if there was a federal law that trumps the state.


It's bad enough that you were too dumb and lazy to use Google the first time.  Don't come back in and act --- oh.  I get it.  You've been playing dumb all along.   JAQing off, are you?  Or is this your idea of the Socratic method?
 
2014-01-21 06:16:09 PM  

BMFPitt: So your saying


Farking Swype...
 
2014-01-21 06:18:35 PM  

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.
 
2014-01-21 06:23:11 PM  
MyRandomName:

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.


Oh man. You are going to blow a cow when you find out that most liberals are religious.
 
2014-01-21 06:23:35 PM  

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

This is so disgusting.

This. Done in one.


Wow.  You guys really hate Libertarians.
 
2014-01-21 06:30:06 PM  
gerrymander:

The rights of the people working for the business cannot be infringed for the sake of the business corporate entity. This is especially true in small businesses where the staff and ownership is identical.

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.
 
2014-01-21 06:32:38 PM  

Chummer45: This technique - invoking concepts like "economic freedom" or "states rights" - is frequently used by conservatives when they need an excuse for their bigoted public policy ideas.


It is still a strawman. Nobody is using "states rights" as an argument against this, and "states rights" are still the very reason that this couple had a case.

Chummer45: Kind of like how conservatives manage to argue, with a straight face, that the reason they support voter ID laws is because they want to stop voter fraud.


Well I'm a conservative, and I don't support voter ID laws because I want to stop voter fraud. I support them because the gun control crowd has convinced me it is completely reasonable to "slightly inconvenience" the vast majority of citizens when addressing the actions of the very few.
 
2014-01-21 06:36:08 PM  

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

This is so disgusting.


No. The "libtard" creed is you can believe whatever the hell you want. It's your behavior that counts.
 
2014-01-21 06:37:03 PM  

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.
 
2014-01-21 06:38:32 PM  

Theaetetus: Phinn:
Theaetetus: You merely have to serve them as you would any other customer.

I understand that is your CONCLUSION, but I don't give a sh*t about your conclusions.

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 care about the ethical principle on which your conclusion is based.
"Because the Supreme Court said so" is also not an answer to the question of "why should there be a rule that says X."

That is not what I said. I quoted the Supreme Court's  reasoning for  why there should be a rule that says that. I then went on to provide further explanation for why this is so.

Pretend that YOU are on the Supreme Court, and you not only have to cite prior decisions (which you can skip here), and you are expected to provide some ORIGINAL THOUGHT to the question put to you, and (more importantly) convince others that you are ethical and rational.

Go ahead.  Knock it out.

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.

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 com ...


I think you've effectively reduced Phinn's argument to "but I don't like your facts".
 
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 peopl