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  
•       •       •

8994 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Jul 2014 at 9:48 AM (52 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-08 02:39:57 PM  

Rigby-Reardon: Matthew 26:49
Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, "Greetings, Rabbi!" and kissed him.


If only gay marriage ceremonies ended with one of the two gays getting a purse full of silver, and the other nailed to a cross and tortured until death

...because that really would be marriage equality.

/Ba-doom, ksshh
//I'm here all week.
///Tip your waitress, try the veal.
 
2014-07-08 02:40:15 PM  

GoldSpider: 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.


First, you're conceding that the bakery owner doesn't have to know someone is gay to discriminate against them? You keep refusing to be pinned down on anything else, so I want to make sure we're on the same page before we proceed.
 
2014-07-08 02:40:28 PM  

Theaetetus: I notice you didn't answer... why?


Because my point, which I already made, doesn't require me to invite you to attack me as a Klan-sympathizer, as is clearly your intent with that kind of question.
 
2014-07-08 02:41:47 PM  

jst3p: 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.


Firstly, you're allowed (with some small exceptions perhaps) to legally discriminate based on political party. So that's not even in the same league here.

Secondly, if "refused to create a message he disagreed with" is your standard for what violates this guy's freedom of expression, the same could very much apply to wedding cakes (since he may well decide that he disagrees with any "message" that simply acknowledges that gay people are actually married).

This is why "Things I disagree with" is a fuzzy and meaningless standard to go by - the only sensible thing is to define the kinds of products the establishment normally provides in an objective way.
 
2014-07-08 02:41:50 PM  

gja: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 300x227]
/took nearly 500 posts to get this in?


Nope. Only four.
 
2014-07-08 02:42:20 PM  

Theaetetus: 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."


Nope.  If I have a marriage certificate with my name on it Dave cannot sign the other portion and get it accepted but Denise can.  Dave does not have the same rights (to marry such a stud of course) as Denise due to his gender therefore it is not equality.  I know this because I actually did believe what you said for some time even though I supported gay rights. I never bought the equality argument until it was put to me that way.
 
2014-07-08 02:42:31 PM  

Theaetetus: 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."


I am no law talking guy but that doesn't sound right.

They didn't refuse service to someone because of their sexual orientation, he refused to create something because he disagreed with what it endorsed.

In your black history month example, if the person ordering the cake is white but the baker refused to make it has anyone been discriminated against?
 
2014-07-08 02:42:33 PM  

GoldSpider: Theaetetus: I notice you didn't answer... why?

Because my point, which I already made, doesn't require me to invite you to attack me as a Klan-sympathizer, as is clearly your intent with that kind of question.


Not at all: I fully expect you to distance yourself from any Klan sympathies. My intent is to attack you as a hypocrite who admits that discrimination based on race is bad, but refuses to admit that discrimination based on sexual orientation is bad.
 
2014-07-08 02:44:11 PM  

ReverendJasen: prepared in some fashion


You seem pretty worried about corresponding parts in analogies. Funny how you missed this part. You might want to try that again, cuz your analogy sucked.
 
2014-07-08 02:44:42 PM  

genner: 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.


Well now someone has to order one made. See what you did?
 
2014-07-08 02:45:11 PM  

Theaetetus: First, you're conceding that the bakery owner doesn't have to know someone is gay to discriminate against them?


Depends, are we talking about the law or common sense?  Because I happen to think claiming discrimination without the presence of a person of a protected demographic is the very definition of "victimless crime".
 
2014-07-08 02:46:43 PM  

Theaetetus: Now, you're misrepresenting something I said, for the second time. You're a hypocrite.


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


Did you not say that the order is of the customer?

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


They refused the order (the customer's order) because of the sexual orientation of the customers.

You are saying, quite clearly, that because the order was refused (due to being at odds with the owner's beliefs) that the refusal was obviously done because of the orientation of the customer, meaning that the customer is gay or perceived to be gay. Are you not stating this?
 
2014-07-08 02:47:14 PM  

Egoy3k: Theaetetus: 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."

Nope.  If I have a marriage certificate with my name on it Dave cannot sign the other portion and get it accepted but Denise can.  Dave does not have the same rights (to marry such a stud of course) as Denise due to his gender therefore it is not equality.  I know this because I actually did believe what you said for some time even though I supported gay rights. I never bought the equality argument until it was put to me that way.


Yes, that's the point. It's still discrimination if a baker is willing to make a "white supremacy now" cake for a white person or a black person, and refuses to make a "support black history month" cake for a white person or black person, even if they're "treated equally".
 
2014-07-08 02:48:27 PM  

Egoy3k: Theaetetus: 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."

Nope.  If I have a marriage certificate with my name on it Dave cannot sign the other portion and get it accepted but Denise can.  Dave does not have the same rights (to marry such a stud of course) as Denise due to his gender therefore it is not equality.  I know this because I actually did believe what you said for some time even though I supported gay rights. I never bought the equality argument until it was put to me that way.


Correct. The difference here is there's no combination of gender or sexual orientation that this shop would sell this particular cake to.
 
2014-07-08 02:50:01 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?


Someone is paying the lawyer $200/hr.  It's the loser in the court case, in most situations.  Case like this... 100 billable hours would be very low.  If it goes to court, expect more like 500 billable hours.
 
2014-07-08 02:50:06 PM  

Theaetetus: My intent is to attack you as a hypocrite who admits that discrimination based on race is bad, but refuses to admit that discrimination based on sexual orientation is bad.


Then I'm sorry to disappoint you.  I'd support the Klan wizard's decision to refuse any order as long as he did so consistently across customer demographics.
 
2014-07-08 02:50:16 PM  

Theaetetus: 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


Is it normal operation for you to twist the words of those that you engage in debate? Wait, of course it is, you're a lawyer.

I am not saying that Black History Month is offensive. You indicated that the Klan Wizard Baker would deem it offensive. But, as you may or may not be aware, there are even prominent black people who think that Black History Month is ridiculous.

But the fact that you attempted a poor shot at a hypocrisy gotcha, and when presented with a logically consistent viewpoint, you then twist my words to attempt to paint me as a racist?

Eat a bag of dicks.
 
2014-07-08 02:51:35 PM  

jst3p: Theaetetus: 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."

I am no law talking guy but that doesn't sound right.

They didn't refuse service to someone because of their sexual orientation, he refused to create something because he disagreed with what it endorsed.

In your black history month example, if the person ordering the cake is white but the baker refused to make it has anyone been discriminated against?


Does it change anything in your analysis if the person ordering the cake is white but is ordering it for a group of black friends?
 
gja
2014-07-08 02:52:10 PM  

Agent Smiths Laugh: gja: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 300x227]
/took nearly 500 posts to get this in?

Nope. Only four.


DAMN YOU CHIP!


/tiny fists, see them shake
 
2014-07-08 02:52:29 PM  

Theaetetus: Egoy3k: Theaetetus: 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."

Nope.  If I have a marriage certificate with my name on it Dave cannot sign the other portion and get it accepted but Denise can.  Dave does not have the same rights (to marry such a stud of course) as Denise due to his gender therefore it is not equality.  I know this because I actually did believe what you said for some time even though I supported gay rights. I never bought the equality argument until it was put to me that way.

Yes, that's the point. It's still discrimination if a baker is willing to make a "white supremacy now" cake for a white person or a black person, and refuses to make a "support black history month" cake for a white person or black person, even if they're "treated equally".


I don't agree.  I don't think you can discriminate against a message.  I support gay rights and I think these guys are complete assholes but if I owned a bakery I wouldn't want to make a cake that says something I disagree with.  I would refuse to make KKK cakes or DOMA cakes and the like.  It has nothing to do with the person asking and everything to do with what i would want to spend my time creating.

By the same token if I were a sign painter or a printer I sure as hell wouldn't accept a job to produce signs of leaflets for a klan rally. fark those guys.
 
2014-07-08 02:54:23 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Theaetetus: Now, you're misrepresenting something I said, for the second time. You're a hypocrite.

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

Did you not say that the order is of the customer?

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

They refused the order (the customer's order) because of the sexual orientation of the customers.

You are saying, quite clearly, that because the order was refused (due to being at odds with the owner's beliefs) that the refusal was obviously done because of the orientation of the customer, meaning that the customer is gay or perceived to be gay. Are you not stating this?


Once more, hypocrite, you claimed that I said "because the image has same sex marriage connotations, that the customer that ordered must necessarily be gay." I never said that, and have said the opposite at least a half dozen times. So, either admit that you were wrong and misrepresented what I said; copy-paste where I said that and prove me wrong; or stfu and gfy.
 
2014-07-08 02:55:01 PM  

Theaetetus: Yes, that's the point. It's still discrimination if a baker is willing to make a "white supremacy now" cake for a white person or a black person, and refuses to make a "support black history month" cake for a white person or black person, even if they're "treated equally".


So both conditions, the baker is willing to make a "white supremacy now" cake, and  the baker refuses to make a "support black history month" cake, must be present to demonstrate discrimination?
 
2014-07-08 02:57:50 PM  

Egoy3k: Theaetetus: Egoy3k: Theaetetus: 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."

Nope.  If I have a marriage certificate with my name on it Dave cannot sign the other portion and get it accepted but Denise can.  Dave does not have the same rights (to marry such a stud of course) as Denise due to his gender therefore it is not equality.  I know this because I actually did believe what you said for some time even though I supported gay rights. I never bought the equality argument until it was put to me that way.

Yes, that's the point. It's still discrimination if a baker is willing to make a "white supremacy now" cake for a white person or a black person, and refuses to make a "support black history month" cake for a white person or black person, even if they're "treated equally".

I don't agree.  I don't think you can discriminate against a message.  I support gay rights and I think these guys are complete assholes but if I owned a bakery I wouldn't want to make a cake that says something I disagree with.  I would refuse to make KKK cakes or DOMA cakes and the like.  It has nothing to do with the person asking and everything to do with what i would want to spend my time creating.


So, someone comes in to your bakery and says, "I'd like to order a wedding cake with white bride and groom cake toppers," and you say "okay". And then the next person comes in to your bakery and says, "I'd like to order a wedding cake with black bride and groom cake toppers," and you say "absolutely not". And then a third person comes in to your bakery and says, "I'd like to order a wedding cake with bride and bride cake toppers," and you say "absolutely not".  And you think there's no discrimination in those situations?
 
2014-07-08 02:58:48 PM  

Theaetetus: Frank N Stein: Again, falling back on allusions to 1960s civil rights movement. Just stop.

Again, refusing to admit any parallels to the 1960s civil rights movement. Just stop.


"Muh comic!"

Yeah, the issue here is a little more nuanced than your bumper sticker sloganeering.
 
2014-07-08 02:58:56 PM  

GoldSpider: Theaetetus: Yes, that's the point. It's still discrimination if a baker is willing to make a "white supremacy now" cake for a white person or a black person, and refuses to make a "support black history month" cake for a white person or black person, even if they're "treated equally".

So both conditions, the baker is willing to make a "white supremacy now" cake, and  the baker refuses to make a "support black history month" cake, must be present to demonstrate discrimination?


If the baker doesn't make cakes with messages at all, then there's no discrimination. We dealt with this way up thread with your comparison to someone who goes into a fish restaurant and asks for steak.
 
gja
2014-07-08 03:00:22 PM  

Egoy3k: Theaetetus: Egoy3k: Theaetetus: 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."

Nope.  If I have a marriage certificate with my name on it Dave cannot sign the other portion and get it accepted but Denise can.  Dave does not have the same rights (to marry such a stud of course) as Denise due to his gender therefore it is not equality.  I know this because I actually did believe what you said for some time even though I supported gay rights. I never bought the equality argument until it was put to me that way.

Yes, that's the point. It's still discrimination if a baker is willing to make a "white supremacy now" cake for a white person or a black person, and refuses to make a "support black history month" cake for a white person or black person, even if they're "treated equally".

I don't agree.  I don't think you can discriminate against a message.  I support gay rights and I think these guys are complete assholes but if I owned a bakery I wouldn't want to make a cake that says something I disagree with.  I would refuse to make KKK cakes or DOMA cakes and the like.  It has nothing to do with the person asking and everything to do with what i would want to spend my time creating.

By the same token if I were a sign painter or a printer I sure as hell wouldn't accept a job to produce signs of leaflets for a klan rally. fark those guys.


And you would end up in court. I would bet heavy money on that.
 
2014-07-08 03:00:48 PM  

Frank N Stein: Theaetetus: Frank N Stein: Again, falling back on allusions to 1960s civil rights movement. Just stop.

Again, refusing to admit any parallels to the 1960s civil rights movement. Just stop.

"Muh comic!"

Yeah, the issue here is a little more nuanced than your bumper sticker sloganeering.


Look, I realize the comparison to the civil rights era makes you uncomfortable because, like GoldSpider, you admit that racial discrimination is bad but refuse to admit that sexual orientation discrimination is bad. But that doesn't mean that we all have to tiptoe around your uncomfortable feelings and refuse to make any such comparisons.
 
2014-07-08 03:02:14 PM  

GoldSpider: Theaetetus: My intent is to attack you as a hypocrite who admits that discrimination based on race is bad, but refuses to admit that discrimination based on sexual orientation is bad.

Then I'm sorry to disappoint you.  I'd support the Klan wizard's decision to refuse any order as long as he did so consistently across customer demographics.


So, as long as the Klan wizard refuses to make "black history month" cakes for anyone, while gleefully making "white history month" cakes for anyone, you don't believe there's any disparate treatment based on race going on?
 
2014-07-08 03:04:20 PM  
This also reminds me of the wedding photographers with the "I refuse to photograph a gay wedding, but I'd refuse to do so for anyone, so it's not discrimination!" argument. That failed also.
 
2014-07-08 03:05:07 PM  

Theaetetus: If the baker doesn't make cakes with messages at all, then there's no discrimination. We dealt with this way up thread with your comparison to someone who goes into a fish restaurant and asks for steak.


That doesn't answer my question.  If this particular baker refuses to print both "Support Gay Marriage" AND "Oppose Gay Marriage" messages, by your analogy does that mean no discrimination has occurred?
 
2014-07-08 03:06:19 PM  

Egoy3k: 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.



As I mentioned upthread, this bakery doesn't seem to have an issue with political messages on cakes in general - only certain messages (such as this one). Establishments selectively refusing to provide services and products that they normally provide in ways that impact certain groups of people is exactly the kind of silliness that anti-discrimination laws were meant to stop.

As for "Well they would have refused to make this cake for a straight person too" - I asked upthread whether a baker's refusal to sell a cake to a white person based on the belief that it would be used at a desegregated event would constitute racial discrimination. I'm actually not sure about this - I know the anti-discrimination requirements for employers in the Civil Rights Act also cover the person's association with people of other races etc. in addition to the person's own race, but I'm not sure whether it applies to public accommodations dealing with customers.

It's an important philosophical consideration, and if one grants that it should apply to businesses dealing with customers (as I think it should), then it would broaden the category of things that constitute race/gender/sexual orientaiton-based discrimination.
 
2014-07-08 03:07:10 PM  
what if the baker made the black history cake, but for a bunch of skinheads who planned to booby trap the cake to sabotage a black history celebration.

wouldn't that be more racist and offensive than not making the cake at all for whatever reason?
 
2014-07-08 03:08:13 PM  

To The Escape Zeppelin!: Am I the only one who always assumed that Bert and Ernie were brothers?


I just assumed they were roommates. I mean, not everyone has to be farking, y'know?
 
2014-07-08 03:08:49 PM  

Theaetetus: like GoldSpider, you admit that racial discrimination is bad but refuse to admit that sexual orientation discrimination is bad.


Stop pretending to know what I believe.  I assure you, you don't.

Theaetetus: So, as long as the Klan wizard refuses to make "black history month" cakes for anyone, while gleefully making "white history month" cakes for anyone, you don't believe there's any disparate treatment based on race going on?


Not to the extent that I believe a crime has been committed.  But that's just my opinion; I realize lawmakers have a major boner for creating criminals out of people.
 
gja
2014-07-08 03:09:03 PM  

GoldSpider: Theaetetus: If the baker doesn't make cakes with messages at all, then there's no discrimination. We dealt with this way up thread with your comparison to someone who goes into a fish restaurant and asks for steak.

That doesn't answer my question.  If this particular baker refuses to print both "Support Gay Marriage" AND "Oppose Gay Marriage" messages, by your analogy does that mean no discrimination has occurred?


Go see upthread for my post. I covered this. It would need to have been stated as "No political agendas or slogans allowed" or something along those lines. And it would need to have been pointed out in contract or preferably conspicuously posted in-store to avoid anyone saying they did not know.
 
2014-07-08 03:10:33 PM  

Theaetetus: GoldSpider: Theaetetus: I notice you didn't answer... why?

Because my point, which I already made, doesn't require me to invite you to attack me as a Klan-sympathizer, as is clearly your intent with that kind of question.

Not at all: I fully expect you to distance yourself from any Klan sympathies. My intent is to attack you as a hypocrite who admits that discrimination based on race is bad, but refuses to admit that discrimination based on sexual orientation is bad.


Dumb it down for me. How does one equal the other, or in what way is that hypocritical? Also I see what you did there with that "I fully expect you to distance yourself from any Klan sympathies" quip. This is why one discrimination most people agree on is arbiterphobia.
 
2014-07-08 03:10:47 PM  

Theaetetus: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Theaetetus: Now, you're misrepresenting something I said, for the second time. You're a hypocrite.

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

Did you not say that the order is of the customer?

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

They refused the order (the customer's order) because of the sexual orientation of the customers.

You are saying, quite clearly, that because the order was refused (due to being at odds with the owner's beliefs) that the refusal was obviously done because of the orientation of the customer, meaning that the customer is gay or perceived to be gay. Are you not stating this?

Once more, hypocrite, you claimed that I said "because the image has same sex marriage connotations, that the customer that ordered must necessarily be gay." I never said that, and have said the opposite at least a half dozen times. So, either admit that you were wrong and misrepresented what I said; copy-paste where I said that and prove me wrong; or stfu and gfy.


Let's start at the beginning, shall we?

I'm arguing that the bakery assumed the customers had a particular sexual orientation and refused service on those grounds(argument based on assumption based on image requested)

It's pretty clear, they refused the order because of sexual orientation of the customers.(this is clear only to you and is not evidenced by any statement made by the bakery)

the customer was the one who placed the order. When they "refused the order", they refused the  customer's order.(refusal of an order based on message, according to the online statement that you linked)

he specifically says that gay marriage was a factor they considered in their decision making to refuse the order.(gay marriage was a factor they considered, not the orientation of the ordering customer)

So nowhere does it state that the bakery refused because of the orientation of the customer, but you have deduced that since they refused to print the image, that the bakery assumed that they customers were gay. This is not supported by any evidence that you have decided to grace us with. You are conflating the image requested with the orientation of the customer and indicating that you think it is "pretty clear" that the sexual orientation of the customers was the reason for the refusal.

You assume that since the order was refused and that the image was in support of same sex marriage, that the sexual orientation of the customer is "pretty clear."

If those were not your words (as I copied and pasted from this thread), then you should really have the modmins examine your account for possible unwarranted intrusion.
 
2014-07-08 03:10:50 PM  

GoldSpider: Theaetetus: If the baker doesn't make cakes with messages at all, then there's no discrimination. We dealt with this way up thread with your comparison to someone who goes into a fish restaurant and asks for steak.

That doesn't answer my question.  If this particular baker refuses to print both "Support Gay Marriage" AND "Oppose Gay Marriage" messages, by your analogy does that mean no discrimination has occurred?


Yes, now you've got it. The baker is free to refuse to make any cakes addressing those traits, just as they could refuse to make wedding cakes for  anyone, or the photographer could freely state that they don't photograph weddings. When they offer a service, though, they cannot discriminate in the offering of that service.
 
2014-07-08 03:11:49 PM  

Serious Black: MonoChango: Satan's Bunny Slippers: Here's a thought....if you have such issues with other peoples' lives PERHAPS YOU SHOULDN'T OPEN A BUSINESS THAT IS PUBLIC.

STFU bakers, and close your damn doors then.

Forcing someone to do something that is against their belief system is bad.   Even if their belief is wierd, stupid or just something you just don't like.  As long as it doesn't hurt anyone, I'm not going to tell a baker he can't be stupid.  Nor am I going to tell gay guys they can't go have fun doing whatever they want to do.  The main point here is that Burt and Ernie are NOT gay. Two guys that sleep in the same room are room mates and anyone who turns them into that just make a political point should just go DIAF.   Quit screwing up my childhood!

I run a deli. I think women who are on their periods are poisonous and risk ruining society. I want to force women to reveal their cooters to me or a designated representative and prove that they are not gushing blood out of their twat before I allow them to come inside. Do you support my position?


I give you bonus points for picking an issue specifically commanded by the Bible yet ignored by most Christians.
 
2014-07-08 03:12:39 PM  

GoldSpider: I realize lawmakers have a major boner for creating criminals out of people.


Yes, curse those lawmakers for making criminals out of people who just wanted to be free to refuse service based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc.!
 
2014-07-08 03:14:02 PM  

scotchlandia: Theaetetus: GoldSpider: Theaetetus: I notice you didn't answer... why?

Because my point, which I already made, doesn't require me to invite you to attack me as a Klan-sympathizer, as is clearly your intent with that kind of question.

Not at all: I fully expect you to distance yourself from any Klan sympathies. My intent is to attack you as a hypocrite who admits that discrimination based on race is bad, but refuses to admit that discrimination based on sexual orientation is bad.

Dumb it down for me. How does one equal the other, or in what way is that hypocritical? Also I see what you did there with that "I fully expect you to distance yourself from any Klan sympathies" quip. This is why one discrimination most people agree on is arbiterphobia.


I'm not sure I understand your question: "in what way is it hypocritical to believe that racial discrimination is bad but sexual orientation discrimination is not"? Are you really asking that?
 
2014-07-08 03:15:03 PM  

Theaetetus: jst3p: Theaetetus: 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."

I am no law talking guy but that doesn't sound right.

They didn't refuse service to someone because of their sexual orientation, he refused to create something because he disagreed with what it endorsed.

In your black history month example, if the person ordering the cake is white but the baker refused to make it has anyone been discriminated against?

Does it change anything in your analysis if the person ordering the cake is white but is ordering it for a group of black friends?


No, in both cases it is the cake they aren't making not a person or group of persons being discriminated against.
 
2014-07-08 03:15:51 PM  

Theaetetus: GoldSpider: Theaetetus: My intent is to attack you as a hypocrite who admits that discrimination based on race is bad, but refuses to admit that discrimination based on sexual orientation is bad.

Then I'm sorry to disappoint you.  I'd support the Klan wizard's decision to refuse any order as long as he did so consistently across customer demographics.

So, as long as the Klan wizard refuses to make "black history month" cakes for anyone, while gleefully making "white history month" cakes for anyone, you don't believe there's any disparate treatment based on race going on?


I don't think anyone ever said that there's no disparate treatment based on sexual orientation. That's why this is an issue. The issue is whether or not a company has an obligation to make a product with an essentially political message on it. And no, I do not believe that it should have that obligation.
And like it or not, the world isn't your hugbox and people can still tell you to gtfo.

Your situation, of course, can be reversed. Can a New Black Panthers Party leader refuse to make a "White History Month" cake?
 
2014-07-08 03:16:08 PM  

Biological Ali: It's an important philosophical consideration, and if one grants that it should apply to businesses dealing with customers (as I think it should), then it would broaden the category of things that constitute race/gender/sexual orientaiton-based discrimination.


Rather than broadening the definition of "discrimination" to the point where anyone can accidentally run afoul of the law, why doesn't this "activist" leverage the power of 21st century communications and tell the world that this particular baker is a religious nutter and recommend a more accommodating baker?
 
gja
2014-07-08 03:17:45 PM  

ciberido: Serious Black: MonoChango: Satan's Bunny Slippers: Here's a thought....if you have such issues with other peoples' lives PERHAPS YOU SHOULDN'T OPEN A BUSINESS THAT IS PUBLIC.

STFU bakers, and close your damn doors then.

Forcing someone to do something that is against their belief system is bad.   Even if their belief is wierd, stupid or just something you just don't like.  As long as it doesn't hurt anyone, I'm not going to tell a baker he can't be stupid.  Nor am I going to tell gay guys they can't go have fun doing whatever they want to do.  The main point here is that Burt and Ernie are NOT gay. Two guys that sleep in the same room are room mates and anyone who turns them into that just make a political point should just go DIAF.   Quit screwing up my childhood!

I run a deli. I think women who are on their periods are poisonous and risk ruining society. I want to force women to reveal their cooters to me or a designated representative and prove that they are not gushing blood out of their twat before I allow them to come inside. Do you support my position?

I give you bonus points for picking an issue specifically commanded by the Bible yet ignored by most Christians.


U mad?
www.fws.gov
 
2014-07-08 03:20:19 PM  
The_Six_Fingered_Man:
"It's pretty clear, they refused the order because of sexual orientation of the customers."

You assume that since the order was refused and that the image was in support of same sex marriage, that the sexual orientation of the customer is "pretty clear."


Nope - the intent of the refusal was "pretty clear". Reading is fundamental.

If those were not your words (as I copied and pasted from this thread), then you should really have the modmins examine your account for possible unwarranted intrusion.

You claimed I said "because the image has same sex marriage connotations, that the customer that ordered must necessarily be gay".You didn't copy and paste that from  anywhere. You piss and moan whenever someone claims to misrepresent what you said, but you stick words in people's mouths and then lie about it. You're a liar and a hypocrite, and really just a waste of time. Bye.
 
Ant
2014-07-08 03:20:57 PM  

nekom: Who makes a "support gay marriage" cake anyway?

So let's get this gay marriage thing going!  Shall we call our elected representatives?  No, how about we go to the media to present our side?  NO!  Wait, I got it!  We'll get a cake made!  BRILLIANT!


 I wonder how many people are just trolling religious bakeries now, trying to see if they'll refuse to bake a pro-gay rights cake.

Pretty funny, if you ask me.
 
2014-07-08 03:21:15 PM  

Theaetetus: Yes, curse those lawmakers for making criminals out of people who just wanted to be free to refuse service based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc.!


If we're going to make an act a crime, I think there should at least be a "victim".  I understand why you would disagree though.
 
gja
2014-07-08 03:22:23 PM  

Theaetetus: GoldSpider: I realize lawmakers have a major boner for creating criminals out of people.

Yes, curse those lawmakers for making criminals out of people who just wanted to be free to refuse service based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc.!


Wow. I must say I find it amusing to see that word used as something to not be ridiculed herein.
Most times that word is used derisively and in a offensively mocking manner by those who vehemently believe any manner or degree of it is a demonstrated madness or mental defect.
 
2014-07-08 03:22:45 PM  

GoldSpider: Theaetetus: Yes, curse those lawmakers for making criminals out of people who just wanted to be free to refuse service based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc.!

If we're going to make an act a crime, I think there should at least be a "victim".  I understand why you would disagree though.


Feelings are the victims. And as we all know, there is absolutely nothing worse than hurt feelings.
 
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 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