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.

(Mirror.co.uk)   Religious bakery tells customer it won't bake a Bert and Ernie cake because something.. something about gay marriage   (mirror.co.uk) divider line 650
    More: Asinine, faiths, Bible Teach, Sesame Street character, Belfast Telegraph, Icing on the Cake, executive directors  
•       •       •

8995 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Jul 2014 at 9:48 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-08 01:50:04 PM  

EvilEgg: Isn't a good rule of thumb to never let someone who hates you prepare your food?

/Ernie and Bert were not gay.
//Neither were Felix and Oscar who they were styled after.
\Not sure about the latter couple.


How about Sherlock Holmes and John Watson? They're totally gay, yes?
 
2014-07-08 01:51:11 PM  

Theaetetus: Egoy3k: So what about the idiot kids who want to buy their friend a custom cake with a marijuana leaf on it or profanity and get refused?
The_Six_Fingered_Man: So what is the difference, logically, between refusing to print a large phallus on the cake versus refusing to print image X?

Anti-discrimination laws name specific traits, rather than applying broadly to any belief or statement.


OK, but they aren't refusing service to a gay person, just refusing to make a cake with a phrase on it. Would this really fall under discrimination?

What if they didn't want to make a cake that stated "Girls rule, boys drool!"
 
2014-07-08 01:52:57 PM  

Teresaol31: As for Bert and Ernie being gay, they don't even sleep in the same bed, so it's all in your heads morons.  Get your filthy minds out of the gutter you sex obsessed theist extremists!


Doesn't it say the same thing about someone who would use their image to promote gay rights?
 
2014-07-08 01:53:33 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: You can't discriminate against an image... So I ask you, how can an image carry a specific trait that affords it discrimination protection under the law?


If you already answered your question, why are you asking it?

The Equality Commission is stating that the bakery discriminated against the customer based on his sexual orientation, but all I can find is that they objected to the image and what it represented.

They also made a public statement:
The firm's 24-year-old general manager, Daniel McArthur, said marriage in Northern Ireland "still is defined as being a union between one man and one woman" and said his company was taking "a stand".
In his statement, he specifically says that gay marriage was a factor they considered in their decision making to refuse the order.

It's pretty clear, they refused the order because of sexual orientation of the customers. No one is claiming they were refusing it because they found the colors gaudy or were concerned about copyright infringement. All of the people defending them, other than yourself and a few other Farkers here who clearly missed the point, are talking about freedom of conscience exceptions to anti-discrimination laws.
 
2014-07-08 01:55:02 PM  

jst3p: OK, but they aren't refusing service to a gay person, just refusing to make a cake with a phrase on it. Would this really fall under discrimination?


Victimless offenses is a huge revenue stream in civil law.
 
2014-07-08 01:55:25 PM  

jst3p: Theaetetus: Egoy3k: So what about the idiot kids who want to buy their friend a custom cake with a marijuana leaf on it or profanity and get refused?
The_Six_Fingered_Man: So what is the difference, logically, between refusing to print a large phallus on the cake versus refusing to print image X?

Anti-discrimination laws name specific traits, rather than applying broadly to any belief or statement.

OK, but they aren't refusing service to a gay person, just refusing to make a cake with a phrase on it. Would this really fall under discrimination?

What if they didn't want to make a cake that stated "Girls rule, boys drool!"


If they follow it up with a statement that they refused to make the cake because they believe women are inferior, then they'd likely get a similar letter from the Equality Commission.
 
2014-07-08 01:56:42 PM  

Theaetetus: jst3p: Theaetetus: Egoy3k: So what about the idiot kids who want to buy their friend a custom cake with a marijuana leaf on it or profanity and get refused?
The_Six_Fingered_Man: So what is the difference, logically, between refusing to print a large phallus on the cake versus refusing to print image X?

Anti-discrimination laws name specific traits, rather than applying broadly to any belief or statement.

OK, but they aren't refusing service to a gay person, just refusing to make a cake with a phrase on it. Would this really fall under discrimination?

What if they didn't want to make a cake that stated "Girls rule, boys drool!"

If they follow it up with a statement that they refused to make the cake because they believe women are inferior, then they'd likely get a similar letter from the Equality Commission.


Yeah, I am late to the thread and missed that until the post previous to this one. Thanks.

Bigots need to learn to shut up about their reasons for refusing service if they want to be allowed to refuse service for bigoted reasons.
 
2014-07-08 01:57:11 PM  

GoldSpider: jst3p: OK, but they aren't refusing service to a gay person, just refusing to make a cake with a phrase on it. Would this really fall under discrimination?

Victimless offenses is a huge revenue stream in civil law.


Actually, I haven't seen a single one of these cases that seek monetary damages. Not the wedding cake one, not the wedding photographer... Nothing. So what exactly is this "huge revenue stream" you're talking about?
 
2014-07-08 01:58:10 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Ker_Thwap: Anyone else think it's creepy using images of a childlike muppet to promote a sexual orientation
Ctrl-Alt-Del: The fact that you feel it necessary to include "creepy" and "childlike" says more about you than about folks who think E&B are gay
Ker_Thwap: Did you purposefully ignore the part of my post that said CHILDLIKE

Look how stupid you are

Ker_Thwap: All of the muppets your picture seem to be adult characters. It's been a whole lot of years since I watched Sesame street, but Ernie sure seems like the character of a child to me.
The fact that the two of them live on their own in an apartment makes it pretty clear that they are "adult"  characters. I didn't initially comment on your "NAMBLA" reference, but combined with your continued insistence that Ernie and/or Bert are "childlike", the only thing here that's farking creepy is you.


Yeah, it's weird to think a character who's claim to fame is singing Rubby Ducky might be a child.  Because the only two people who can live in an apartment together are a adults.  I flat out told you I didn't care one way or another about the LGBT aspect of this discussion, yet you still felt it necessary to mistakenly attribute beliefs to me.  I guess that makes you the clever one.  You go enjoy your Buzz Lightyear/Dora the Explorer for safe sex cake now.
 
2014-07-08 01:58:51 PM  

jst3p: Theaetetus: jst3p: Theaetetus: Egoy3k: So what about the idiot kids who want to buy their friend a custom cake with a marijuana leaf on it or profanity and get refused?
The_Six_Fingered_Man: So what is the difference, logically, between refusing to print a large phallus on the cake versus refusing to print image X?

Anti-discrimination laws name specific traits, rather than applying broadly to any belief or statement.

OK, but they aren't refusing service to a gay person, just refusing to make a cake with a phrase on it. Would this really fall under discrimination?

What if they didn't want to make a cake that stated "Girls rule, boys drool!"

If they follow it up with a statement that they refused to make the cake because they believe women are inferior, then they'd likely get a similar letter from the Equality Commission.

Yeah, I am late to the thread and missed that until the post previous to this one. Thanks.

Bigots need to learn to shut up about their reasons for refusing service if they want to be allowed to refuse service for bigoted reasons.


They can't stop themselves. It's no fun being holy if they can't be holier than someone, and make sure that person knows it.
 
2014-07-08 02:01:07 PM  

Theaetetus: ReverendJasen: Does anyone else have the sudden mental image of Theaetetus sitting in a court room flashing pictures of people making faces at the judge and opposing council as they're making their arguments?

http://whatthepublicdefender.tumblr.com/


haha.... some of those are great.  Thanks for contributing to the decline of my productivity.
 
2014-07-08 02:01:27 PM  
Cake thing aside I think whoever the customer is/are are douches for associating gay rights/marriage with Bert and Ernie.
 
2014-07-08 02:03:14 PM  

Theaetetus: In his statement, he specifically says that gay marriage was a factor they considered in their decision making to refuse the order.


And what does that have to do with the customer?

Theaetetus: It's pretty clear, they refused the order because of sexual orientation of the customers.


Clear to who?   If you have another source that indicates the customer is gay, and that the bakery owner knew this, then by all means provide it.  In your line of work, can you substitute conjecture for facts when the latter doesn't support your argument?
 
2014-07-08 02:04:13 PM  

Prince George: In this case though CTW has specifically stated that Bert and Ernie are children puppets. They have no sexual orientation and you are a sick individual if you feel the need to attach any sexual orientation to them and don't want them to be used as a part of that debate.


Part of this whole kerfuffle is that people who live in the less densely populated parts of the USA think of "roomates" as something you have in college, but not in "real life" once you get a job.  They simply have no idea how insane the housing situation is on either coast, and how normal it is for people to have roomates well into adulthood.  Case in point:  Having recently moved to the northeast, at a social function someone mentioned that two of her housemates were getting married to each other.  I chuckled and asked, "So who's moving out, you or them?"  She gives me a funny look and says "Nobody's moving out."  My midwestern jaw drops.  For people in "real america", the only imaginable reason for two or more adults to be sharing a residence would be if they were farking.
 
2014-07-08 02:05:17 PM  

Theaetetus: The_Six_Fingered_Man: You can't discriminate against an image... So I ask you, how can an image carry a specific trait that affords it discrimination protection under the law?

If you already answered your question, why are you asking it?

The Equality Commission is stating that the bakery discriminated against the customer based on his sexual orientation, but all I can find is that they objected to the image and what it represented.

They also made a public statement:
The firm's 24-year-old general manager, Daniel McArthur, said marriage in Northern Ireland "still is defined as being a union between one man and one woman" and said his company was taking "a stand".
In his statement, he specifically says that gay marriage was a factor they considered in their decision making to refuse the order.

It's pretty clear, they refused the order because of sexual orientation of the customers. No one is claiming they were refusing it because they found the colors gaudy or were concerned about copyright infringement. All of the people defending them, other than yourself and a few other Farkers here who clearly missed the point, are talking about freedom of conscience exceptions to anti-discrimination laws.



In an online statement, Mr McArthur said: "The directors and myself looked at it and considered it and thought that this order was at odds with our beliefs.
"It certainly was at odds with what the Bible teaches, and on the following Monday we rang the customer to let him know that we couldn't take his order."

Let's read this.

"The directors and myself looked at it..." Is "it" the order or the customer? Kinda unwieldy to call a person an it, but let's continue.
"and thought that this order was at odds with our beliefs." Ok, so we are talking about the order, which is a cake with an image.
"It certainly was at odds with what the Bible teaches..."There is that "it" again. Can we safely assume that he is still referring to the order and not the customer?
"we rang the customer to let him know that we couldn't take his order." Yup, looks like he is talking about the order being at odds, not the customer.

He specifically says that "gay marriage" was a factor, not that the customer's orientation was a factor. The customer could have been a straight person ordering the cake for the event and it still would have been declined.

You say it's pretty clear that they refused the order because of orientation, but you cannot find one instance of the owners actually meeting the customer or even knowing the orientation of the customer. Their defenders are talking about freedom of conscience arguments because those would apply equally to the image.
 
2014-07-08 02:05:22 PM  

eeyore102: How about Sherlock Holmes and John Watson? They're totally gay, yes?


Don't know, but my money is on Batman and Robin.
 
gja
2014-07-08 02:08:14 PM  

Theaetetus: GoldSpider: jst3p: OK, but they aren't refusing service to a gay person, just refusing to make a cake with a phrase on it. Would this really fall under discrimination?

Victimless offenses is a huge revenue stream in civil law.

Actually, I haven't seen a single one of these cases that seek monetary damages. Not the wedding cake one, not the wedding photographer... Nothing. So what exactly is this "huge revenue stream" you're talking about?


There might not be damages sought, but I defy you to find me a lawyer that works for free and is worth a damn.

/never hire a poor lawyer, never buy from a rich salesperson
 
2014-07-08 02:08:56 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: You say it's pretty clear that they refused the order because of orientation, but you cannot find one instance of the owners actually meeting the customer or even knowing the orientation of the customer.


In some courts, evidently, lawyers don't actually have to prove things.
 
2014-07-08 02:09:43 PM  

Theaetetus: Egoy3k: So what about the idiot kids who want to buy their friend a custom cake with a marijuana leaf on it or profanity and get refused?
The_Six_Fingered_Man: So what is the difference, logically, between refusing to print a large phallus on the cake versus refusing to print image X?

Anti-discrimination laws name specific traits, rather than applying broadly to any belief or statement.


The proper analogy would be a bakery that's normally okay with producing cakes with marijuana leaves, profanity and genitalia on them, but refuses to make them for certain groups of people.

There's just something about topics like these that seems to interfere with peoples' ability to construct logical comparisons.
 
2014-07-08 02:13:15 PM  

Biological Ali: Theaetetus: Egoy3k: So what about the idiot kids who want to buy their friend a custom cake with a marijuana leaf on it or profanity and get refused?
The_Six_Fingered_Man: So what is the difference, logically, between refusing to print a large phallus on the cake versus refusing to print image X?

Anti-discrimination laws name specific traits, rather than applying broadly to any belief or statement.

The proper analogy would be a bakery that's normally okay with producing cakes with marijuana leaves, profanity and genitalia on them, but refuses to make them for certain groups of people.

There's just something about topics like these that seems to interfere with peoples' ability to construct logical comparisons.


That isn't accurate either. He is refusing to create a cake with a phrase on it. It isn't the same as refusing to make a wedding cake for two men because they are gay. I think my analogy, refusing to make a cake that says "Girls rule, boys drool" is a better comparison. It isn't the customer he objects to, it is the message.
 
2014-07-08 02:15:07 PM  

Biological Ali: The proper analogy would be a bakery that's normally okay with producing cakes with marijuana leaves, profanity and genitalia on them, but refuses to make them for certain groups of people.


So if a bakery were dead set against producing cakes that contain wording or imagery that they personally find offensive, that's ok, so long as they don't produce offensive cakes for anyone?

Because the bakery in question also refused other offensive cakes in the past.
 
2014-07-08 02:17:02 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Because the bakery in question also refused other offensive cakes in the past.


The only safe option is to set up a government commission to decide what images/messages are appropriate to print on a cake.
 
2014-07-08 02:17:55 PM  

GoldSpider: Theaetetus: In his statement, he specifically says that gay marriage was a factor they considered in their decision making to refuse the order.

And what does that have to do with the customer?


... the customer was the one who placed the order. When they "refused the order", they refused the  customer's order. Sorry, I thought that was obvious and didn't need to be spelled out.

Theaetetus: It's pretty clear, they refused the order because of sexual orientation of the customers.

Clear to who?   If you have another source that indicates the customer is gay, and that the bakery owner knew this, then by all means provide it.


Ah, so we're back to this, then? The bakery owner can assume someone is gay, and refuse service to them because they're gay, but if they're wrong and the person isn't gay, then it's magically not discrimination?
 
2014-07-08 02:18:46 PM  

jst3p: That isn't accurate either. He is refusing to create a cake with a phrase on it. It isn't the same as refusing to make a wedding cake for two men because they are gay. I think my analogy, refusing to make a cake that says "Girls rule, boys drool" is a better comparison. It isn't the customer he objects to, it is the message.


You might have a point if the bakery had a general policy of not making cakes with political messages on them - that would qualify this particular cake as a product they don't normally produce. But apparently don't have such a policy - or if they do, they haven't bothered to make that argument. All I've been able to gather is that they refused because they have a problem with this specific political message.

Now, if you don't normally have an issue with baking cakes with political slogans on them, but you do have a problem with baking cakes with political slogans that support gay people, then yes - you very clearly are discriminating against gay people.
 
2014-07-08 02:22:15 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: So if a bakery were dead set against producing cakes that contain wording or imagery that they personally find offensive, that's ok, so long as they don't produce offensive cakes for anyone?


The nebulous, vague and potentially inconsistent category of "Things I find personally offensive" tends to not hold as much sway as actual logical assessments of the kinds of products and services you produce, at least when it comes to anti-discrimination laws.

For good reason, too.
 
2014-07-08 02:23:19 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: He specifically says that "gay marriage" was a factor, not that the customer's orientation was a factor. The customer could have been a straight person ordering the cake for the event and it still would have been declined.

You say it's pretty clear that they refused the order because of orientation, but you cannot find one instance of the owners actually meeting the customer or even knowing the orientation of the customer.


You and GoldSpider are barking up the wrong tree on that. Courts have been clear every time this comes up that the anti-discrimination laws focus on the beliefs of the discriminating person. If you refuse to serve someone believe you believe they meet some trait, it doesn't matter whether they actually do or not: your intent is to discriminate.
 
2014-07-08 02:23:25 PM  

Biological Ali: jst3p: That isn't accurate either. He is refusing to create a cake with a phrase on it. It isn't the same as refusing to make a wedding cake for two men because they are gay. I think my analogy, refusing to make a cake that says "Girls rule, boys drool" is a better comparison. It isn't the customer he objects to, it is the message.

You might have a point if the bakery had a general policy of not making cakes with political messages on them - that would qualify this particular cake as a product they don't normally produce. But apparently don't have such a policy - or if they do, they haven't bothered to make that argument. All I've been able to gather is that they refused because they have a problem with this specific political message.

Now, if you don't normally have an issue with baking cakes with political slogans on them, but you do have a problem with baking cakes with political slogans that support gay people, then yes - you very clearly are discriminating against gay people.


You don't have the right to choose the political messages you will create or not? The guy who came up with the Obama logo couldn't tell the GoP he won't work for them? No gay person was discriminated against. He refused to create something with a message he disagreed with.

Don't get me wrong, I am for equal rights and I thought wedding cake guy was in the wrong, I just don't think this is the same situation.
 
2014-07-08 02:23:33 PM  

Biological Ali: jst3p: That isn't accurate either. He is refusing to create a cake with a phrase on it. It isn't the same as refusing to make a wedding cake for two men because they are gay. I think my analogy, refusing to make a cake that says "Girls rule, boys drool" is a better comparison. It isn't the customer he objects to, it is the message.

You might have a point if the bakery had a general policy of not making cakes with political messages on them - that would qualify this particular cake as a product they don't normally produce. But apparently don't have such a policy - or if they do, they haven't bothered to make that argument. All I've been able to gather is that they refused because they have a problem with this specific political message.

Now, if you don't normally have an issue with baking cakes with political slogans on them, but you do have a problem with baking cakes with political slogans that support gay people, then yes - you very clearly are discriminating against gay people.


You may find this shocking but very few hetro wedding cakes  have political slogans  I doubt they've made one before.
 
2014-07-08 02:25:47 PM  

Theaetetus: The bakery owner can assume someone is gay, and refuse service to them because they're gay, but if they're wrong and the person isn't gay, then it's magically not discrimination?


Objection: assuming facts not in evidence.
 
2014-07-08 02:27:02 PM  

Biological Ali: Theaetetus: Egoy3k: So what about the idiot kids who want to buy their friend a custom cake with a marijuana leaf on it or profanity and get refused?
The_Six_Fingered_Man: So what is the difference, logically, between refusing to print a large phallus on the cake versus refusing to print image X?

Anti-discrimination laws name specific traits, rather than applying broadly to any belief or statement.

The proper analogy would be a bakery that's normally okay with producing cakes with marijuana leaves, profanity and genitalia on them, but refuses to make them for certain groups of people.

There's just something about topics like these that seems to interfere with peoples' ability to construct logical comparisons.


Not really. The owner refused to make a cake sporting the words 'support gay marriage'   I'm pretty sure the owner would also refuse to make a 'support gay marriage' cake for a straight person just as quickly as they would for a gay person.  In other words it's not necessarily the orientation of the person that the owner is objecting to but the message that they want on the cake.

Lets be honest though, we all know that the owner would refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple while happily making wedding cakes for straight couples. As such the owner is a douche and that is against the law in the USA, and I assume the UK as well but that isn't what happened here.
 
2014-07-08 02:27:05 PM  

Theaetetus: When they "refused the order", they refused the  customer's order.


What about the order specifically stated to the owners that reviewed the order that the customer in question is gay? Was it the image that the customer requested? Could I (not a gay person) also request that image for an event that my boss is helping to host (he's not gay, but the event folks are).

You are saying that the order (a non-corporeal thing) carries the same trait as the customer.

Theaetetus: Ah, so we're back to this, then? The bakery owner can assume someone is gay, and refuse service to them because they're gay, but if they're wrong and the person isn't gay, then it's magically not discrimination?


You'd first have to show that the customer was actually discriminated against and it wasn't just that the offensive order was refused. So far, you've been unable to do that. You keep saying that because the image has same sex marriage connotations, that the customer that ordered must necessarily be gay. This assumes facts not in evidence. No article I can find lists who the customer was, only the event it was supposed to be made for, and the person that hosted the event.
 
2014-07-08 02:27:52 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Biological Ali: The proper analogy would be a bakery that's normally okay with producing cakes with marijuana leaves, profanity and genitalia on them, but refuses to make them for certain groups of people.

So if a bakery were dead set against producing cakes that contain wording or imagery that they personally find offensive, that's ok, so long as they don't produce offensive cakes for anyone?

Because the bakery in question also refused other offensive cakes in the past.


Let's say the bakery was run by some Klan wizard, and he refused to make a sheet cake that had a message celebrating black history month, because he found it offensive... Would you be defending that in the same way?
 
2014-07-08 02:28:32 PM  

Deedeemarz: Why is this such a big deal? Can't they just find another baker?


www.abhmuseum.org

Yeah.  Just go somewhere else.
 
2014-07-08 02:29:15 PM  

Theaetetus: Ah, so we're back to this, then? The bakery owner can assume someone is gay, and refuse service to them because they're gay, but if they're wrong and the person isn't gay, then it's magically not discrimination?


I actually have a serious question along these lines (though it's a bit of a tangent). If a white customer wanted a cake made that he intended to bring to another kid's birthday party, and the bakery refused because they believed (correctly or not) that this other kid was black, would that still qualify as the kind of racial discrimination that the Civil Rights Act forbids?
 
2014-07-08 02:29:19 PM  

Theaetetus: If you refuse to serve someone believe you believe they meet some trait, it doesn't matter whether they actually do or not: your intent is to discriminate.


And it is circular logic to assume, as you are, that the refusal of service is itself proof of belief and intent to discriminate.
 
2014-07-08 02:29:35 PM  

Theaetetus: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Biological Ali: The proper analogy would be a bakery that's normally okay with producing cakes with marijuana leaves, profanity and genitalia on them, but refuses to make them for certain groups of people.

So if a bakery were dead set against producing cakes that contain wording or imagery that they personally find offensive, that's ok, so long as they don't produce offensive cakes for anyone?

Because the bakery in question also refused other offensive cakes in the past.

Let's say the bakery was run by some Klan wizard, and he refused to make a sheet cake that had a message celebrating black history month, because he found it offensive... Would you be defending that in the same way?


If he said "because I don't support that cause", yes. If he said, "because the customer is black", no. The latter is clearly illegal. Is the former?
 
2014-07-08 02:30:01 PM  

GoldSpider: Theaetetus: The bakery owner can assume someone is gay, and refuse service to them because they're gay, but if they're wrong and the person isn't gay, then it's magically not discrimination?

Objection: assuming facts not in evidence.


Overruled. The sentence was clearly a rhetorical question to point out the error in your statement that the bakery owner must have personal and intimate knowledge of a customer's sexual life in order to discriminate against them.
 
gja
2014-07-08 02:31:57 PM  

Biological Ali: jst3p: That isn't accurate either. He is refusing to create a cake with a phrase on it. It isn't the same as refusing to make a wedding cake for two men because they are gay. I think my analogy, refusing to make a cake that says "Girls rule, boys drool" is a better comparison. It isn't the customer he objects to, it is the message.

You might have a point if the bakery had a general policy of not making cakes with political messages on them - that would qualify this particular cake as a product they don't normally produce. But apparently don't have such a policy - or if they do, they haven't bothered to make that argument. All I've been able to gather is that they refused because they have a problem with this specific political message.

Now, if you don't normally have an issue with baking cakes with political slogans on them, but you do have a problem with baking cakes with political slogans that support gay people, then yes - you very clearly are discriminating against gay people.


But that should be in the contract and stated very clearly, possibly posted in store, for all to see.
Something along the lines of "No political or social agenda slogan cakes, no exceptions"

But it wasn't, so it isn't too hard to deduce it was done as a "taking a stand" (bakers choice of words, not mine).
And that's where they qualify for the 'bigot' moniker.

He could have lied, said it was something else, and made it about some other bullcrap other than his bigotry, and might have pulled it off.
But for that to work, and for him to avoid a legal hassle he would need to shut up about it.
And bigots (with exceedingly rare exceptions) just cannot seem to do that.
They NEED to open mouths and let everyone know just why they feel they are right.


And then they end up linked inside this electronic tome that is............
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-07-08 02:32:37 PM  

ciberido: Deedeemarz: Why is this such a big deal? Can't they just find another baker?

[www.abhmuseum.org image 300x400]

Yeah.  Just go somewhere else.


Nobody click that link unless you don't have anything to do for the rest of the day!  It's fascinating and engrossing!  I learned this to my sorrow the last time it was linked on fark.
 
2014-07-08 02:32:54 PM  
Theaetetus: Let's say the bakery was run by some Klan wizard, and he refused to make a sheet cake that had a message celebrating black history month, because he found it offensive... Would you be defending that in the same way?

"I bet you'd defend a Klansman too!" is an interesting fallback point to retreat to, if not terribly surprising.
 
2014-07-08 02:33:16 PM  

Cold_Sassy: AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: menschenfresser: AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: BFletch651: Oh, good lord.  If some asshole doesn't  want the job, just get someone else.  You don't have to argue with everyone about everything.

^^^^^^^^
So much this.

And who the hell would WANT a cake baked by somebody who didn't want to bake it?

Those black boys in Nashville should have just gone to a different lunch counter where people didn't hate them.

Sadly, I think you might be serious.  Hey?  Remember the old mantra, "We're Here, We're Queer, Get Over It'?   Well, most thinking people have.  The problem is, not everybody WILL, and you're never going to MAKE them.  So why not just go to a different bakery and stop whining about EVERYTHING?  It's a farkin' CAKE.  Or do you really want a cake that some ignorant a-hole is likely to urinate on, or ejaculate into, while he laughs himself silly in the kitchen?  I don't care one way or another to whom you're attracted, but gay people really need to choose their battles more wisely.

Thank you for saying this.  Don't often see this level of intelligence on FARK.


You could be have a bucket of intelligence thrown in your face and you wouldn't recognize it.

How many people are discussing this now? Not just on Fark, either --  it will make some TV news broadcast, obviously Facebook posts, etc. I'm guessing millions if not tens of millions.

That's a lot of publicity for a cause and they certainly wouldn't get that by just going to another bakery.

Or did you think the cake was the actual point? Geez, think a minute before you post.
 
2014-07-08 02:33:46 PM  

GoldSpider: Egoy3k: If the proprietor had declined to make them any cake at all because they were gay then sure they'd have grounds to sue them in the US, but it seems to me the the creator should have the ability to veto designs they don't like regardless of if we agree with their reasons or not.

Lawyers have a heavily vested interest in creating new reasons to sue.

debug: Well, he's partially correct.  It's an advertisement of the quality of the bakery and nothing more.

The rules of artistic interpretation aren't quite that simple.


Please elaborate.
 
2014-07-08 02:34:32 PM  
From a legal stand point there's only one real question that needs to be answered.
If a hetro couple had ordered the same cake would they have refused service.
I thinks it's obvious that they would have. Therefore they were treated equally.
 
2014-07-08 02:34:37 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Theaetetus: When they "refused the order", they refused the  customer's order.

What about the order specifically stated to the owners that reviewed the order that the customer in question is gay? Was it the image that the customer requested? Could I (not a gay person) also request that image for an event that my boss is helping to host (he's not gay, but the event folks are).


Absolutely, you could, and if they refused to sell it to you then that would also potentially be discrimination. It doesn't matter whether  you are gay or not.

You are saying that the order (a non-corporeal thing) carries the same trait as the customer.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that the intent of the discriminator matters, not the actual presence or absence of the trait.

Theaetetus: Ah, so we're back to this, then? The bakery owner can assume someone is gay, and refuse service to them because they're gay, but if they're wrong and the person isn't gay, then it's magically not discrimination?

You'd first have to show that the customer was actually discriminated against and it wasn't just that the offensive order was refused.


You don't have to show the customer was actually gay to show they were actually discriminated against.

So far, you've been unable to do that. You keep saying that because the image has same sex marriage connotations, that the customer that ordered must necessarily be gay.

You moaned and whined and rent your garments because you claimed I misrepresented something you said. Now, you're misrepresenting something I said, for the second time. You're a hypocrite.
 
2014-07-08 02:35:14 PM  

Theaetetus: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Biological Ali: The proper analogy would be a bakery that's normally okay with producing cakes with marijuana leaves, profanity and genitalia on them, but refuses to make them for certain groups of people.

So if a bakery were dead set against producing cakes that contain wording or imagery that they personally find offensive, that's ok, so long as they don't produce offensive cakes for anyone?

Because the bakery in question also refused other offensive cakes in the past.

Let's say the bakery was run by some Klan wizard, and he refused to make a sheet cake that had a message celebrating black history month, because he found it offensive... Would you be defending that in the same way?


If he had a history of refusing to make all offensive cakes, even for white people, yes.
 
2014-07-08 02:36:11 PM  

GoldSpider: Theaetetus: Let's say the bakery was run by some Klan wizard, and he refused to make a sheet cake that had a message celebrating black history month, because he found it offensive... Would you be defending that in the same way?

"I bet you'd defend a Klansman too!" is an interesting fallback point to retreat to, if not terribly surprising.


We've already pointed out the similarities between the fight for racial equality and the fight for sexual orientation equality, so, no, it's not terribly surprising at all. I notice you didn't answer... why?
 
2014-07-08 02:36:59 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Theaetetus: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Biological Ali: The proper analogy would be a bakery that's normally okay with producing cakes with marijuana leaves, profanity and genitalia on them, but refuses to make them for certain groups of people.

So if a bakery were dead set against producing cakes that contain wording or imagery that they personally find offensive, that's ok, so long as they don't produce offensive cakes for anyone?

Because the bakery in question also refused other offensive cakes in the past.

Let's say the bakery was run by some Klan wizard, and he refused to make a sheet cake that had a message celebrating black history month, because he found it offensive... Would you be defending that in the same way?

If he had a history of refusing to make all offensive cakes, even for white people, yes.


You're saying that a cake that celebrates black history month is offensive? O.o
 
2014-07-08 02:37:57 PM  

genner: From a legal stand point there's only one real question that needs to be answered.
If a hetro couple had ordered the same cake would they have refused service.
I thinks it's obvious that they would have. Therefore they were treated equally.


Legally, that's about as correct as "gay people have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as heterosexual people, so they are treated equally."
 
2014-07-08 02:38:03 PM  

Theaetetus: the error in your statement that the bakery owner must have personal and intimate knowledge of a customer's sexual life in order to discriminate against them.


So prove the bakery owner assumed the customer was gay.
 
gja
2014-07-08 02:38:23 PM  
4.bp.blogspot.com
/took nearly 500 posts to get this in?
 
Displayed 50 of 650 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report