First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Post Reply Justice Dept sides with Baker who refused to make wedding cake for gay couple
2021 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Sacramento, CA
Offline
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17

Ryulightorb wrote:
It's offensive in the way that if i hated black people i would refuse to serve them because it's against my beliefs.


Right. So not offensive at all, and not at all akin to making a cake with Satan or Swastikas on it.
23182 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17

runec wrote:


Rujikin wrote:
I can see this turning real ugly real quick if they don't support the rights of the baker. Imagine what an actual neo-nazi could do to a Jewish baker, have a Jew make a Hitler/Genocide cake. Someone could make a Christian baker make a Satan cake then attack them for being unchristian. You could shut down pretty much every Islamic bakery by demanding a Mohammad cake, many more types of businesses than this. Could make a Gay baker make a "homosexuality is a sin" cake too.

Attacking a person through their business would become a legitimate form of attack against people. Really most family bakeries could be shutdown pretty easily or extorted.


"Real quick"? This is the second appeal of this case.

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that generally applicable laws that place incidental burdens on individual freedoms are not a violation of said freedoms. They have NEVER ruled otherwise. It's the thing that stops you from committing crimes and claiming they are part of your religion. You can't smoke crack for Jesus. So toss that argument out.

So what they're trying to do instead is make a disingenuous argument that a bakery making cakes is not a function of business by rather an expression that makes the baker an association of the customer. They're basically arguing that making a cake is too personal a creative expression to have to conform to discrimination laws.

But again, the Supreme Court has never ruled that public for profit businesses get Free Speech exemptions in regards to discrimination. Since that reopens the door to the days of whites only businesses.

So no, your argument is absurd and you should actually worry about things getting real ugly if anyone actually ruled the *opposite*.


So you think its ok for people to demand Islamic bakers make Cake's with the picture of Mohammad on it? You know its blasphemy in their religion and can ruin their chance at heaven?
51656 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/11/17
The problem with the argument against the baker is that nowhere in the Civil RIghts Act does it say it applies to gays and lesbians. I think the baker is a jackass but completely within his rights, especially since his service can not be considered a vital service. Saying his cakes are a form of free expression is the wrong path to take.
2021 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Sacramento, CA
Offline
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17

Rujikin wrote:
If you make a Satan Mohammad cake then expect to have your business blown up with a suicide car (See Charlie Hebdo). So refusing that is in your life's best interests.


Again, this analogy is literally retarded.


You make them expensive as shit. I know lots of people who don't have the money for such stuff so they have a simple wedding and just focus on having friends and family there not spending lots of money.


Yeah, people like to splurge and celebrate on the biggest day of their lives.. What jerks.


Heh heh. I am not unemployed nor do I sit behind a screen all day long. I think you should start shivering now.


I would be shivering if I believed a word you said. But since anyone can claim to be anything on the internet, I feel pretty safe in my assumption that you're nothing but a pathetic troll.

runec 
39520 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17

Rujikin wrote:
So you think its ok for people to demand Islamic bakers make Cake's with the picture of Mohammad on it? You know its blasphemy in their religion and can ruin their chance at heaven?


I'm telling you what the law of the United States of America is and has been.

And if you can't figure out the difference between this and your absurd examples let me spell it out nice and easy:

An Islamic baker refusing to make a Mohammad cake is not making Mohammad cakes for ANYONE.
A Jewish baker refusing to make Nazi cakes is not making Nazi cakes for ANYONE.
A Christian baker refusing to make a gay wedding cake is refusing to make a wedding cake for SOMEONE SPECIFIC while still providing wedding cakes to everyone else.

Get it?

That's why the baker in question here refused to comply with the court orders by simply refusing to make wedding cakes for anyone. Because that's legal. He's not discriminating because he's not making them for anyone. He is discriminating if he's making them for everyone BUT a specific race/religion/gender/sexuality/etc. He cannot choose who he does and does not want to offer his product to if he is selling it to the general public.

This isn't hard, dude.

23182 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17

DrunkKanti wrote:


Rujikin wrote:
If you make a Satan Mohammad cake then expect to have your business blown up with a suicide car (See Charlie Hebdo). So refusing that is in your life's best interests.


Again, this analogy is literally retarded.


You make them expensive as shit. I know lots of people who don't have the money for such stuff so they have a simple wedding and just focus on having friends and family there not spending lots of money.


Yeah, people like to splurge and celebrate on the biggest day of their lives.. What jerks.


Heh heh. I am not unemployed nor do I sit behind a screen all day long. I think you should start shivering now.


I would be shivering if I believed a word you said. But since anyone can claim to be anything on the internet, I feel pretty safe in my assumption that you're nothing but a pathetic troll.



http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30710883

Yet again you are assuming they can splurge. What is it like not having to worry about money ever?

Oh no I have been found out Woof Woof!

23182 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/11/17

runec wrote:


Rujikin wrote:
So you think its ok for people to demand Islamic bakers make Cake's with the picture of Mohammad on it? You know its blasphemy in their religion and can ruin their chance at heaven?


I'm telling you what the law of the United States of America is and has been.

And if you can't figure out the difference between this and your absurd examples let me spell it out nice and easy:

An Islamic baker refusing to make a Mohammad cake is not making Mohammad cakes for ANYONE.
A Jewish baker refusing to make Nazi cakes is not making Nazi cakes for ANYONE.
A Christian baker refusing to make a gay wedding cake is refusing to make a wedding cake for SOMEONE SPECIFIC while still providing wedding cakes to everyone else.

Get it?

That's why the baker in question here refused to comply with the court orders by simply refusing to make wedding cakes for anyone. Because that's legal. He's not discriminating because he's not making them for anyone. He is discriminating if he's making them for everyone BUT a specific race/religion/gender/sexuality/etc. He cannot choose who he does and does not want to offer his product to if he is selling it to the general public.

This isn't hard, dude.



That Christian baker is refusing to make a gay wedding cake for ANYONE. You just contradicted yourself.

2021 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Sacramento, CA
Offline
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17

LOL. This is nothing but proof you're a troll. Nobody can be this stupid. These two issues have nothing to do with each other.


Yet again you are assuming they can splurge. What is it like not having to worry about money ever?

It's great! Maybe if you got out from behind that computer screen and actually made something of yourself you could know what it feels like.


Oh no I have been found out Woof Woof!


I'm pretty sure anybody whose ever read ANY of your posts already knows exactly who you are.


Edit-


Rujikin wrote:
That Christian baker is refusing to make a gay wedding cake for ANYONE. You just contradicted yourself.


No he's refusing to make a regular wedding cake for a gay couple because they're gay. Again, there's no difference between a gay wedding cake and a normal one.

runec 
39520 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17

Rujikin wrote:
That Christian baker is refusing to make a gay wedding cake for ANYONE. You just contradicted yourself.


If that is seriously all you've got for this argument.

Fortunately, the law in this case doesn't give a shit what you think and talking down to the Supreme Court in an amicus brief probably won't go over well with them.

23182 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17

DrunkKanti wrote:


LOL. This is nothing but proof you're a troll. Nobody can be this stupid. These two issues have nothing to do with each other.


Yet again you are assuming they can splurge. What is it like not having to worry about money ever?

It's great! Maybe if you got out from behind that computer screen and actually made something of yourself you could know what it feels like.


Oh no I have been found out Woof Woof!


I'm pretty sure anybody whose ever read ANY of your posts already knows exactly who you are.


Those who learn nothing from History are doomed to repeat it while historians shake their head as they watch it repeat over and over.

My work IS behind this computer screen. If I got away from it I would not be making money :P
2021 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Sacramento, CA
Offline
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17

Rujikin wrote:
Those who learn nothing from History are doomed to repeat it while historians shake their head as they watch it repeat over and over.

Cool story bro. But how are these two stories in any way similar? I don't know why I'm even asking. You're not going to answer. You're just going to deflect with some other ridiculous claim that even a child could call out as bs.


My work IS behind this computer screen. If I got away from it I would not be making money :P


That's cool. I don't really give a shit. Honestly, I just kind of feel sorry for you at this point. But I'm done here. No more feeding the trolls.

20760 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M / Auburn, Washington
Offline
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17

Rujikin wrote:

The justice department is right with this one.


Damn straight.

LOL that came out wrong

577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
57 / M
Offline
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17

Rujikin
It's a good thing you are not a judge. When you make a court decision you must both think of the current situation and what could result from your rulings.


Really, you think a judge should make decisions based not upon the law alone but what they think might be a consequence of their decision?
17275 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17
There are some interesting similarities to a case in Northern Ireland. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-37748681

It may just be coincidence but the US baker had rulings against him in December 2013 and May 2014 and the request for the cake in Northern Ireland was made in May 2014. I wonder if the US case inspired the customer in Northern Ireland to see what happened there.
1329 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17

saksiss wrote:

Wrong. He's not obliged to make that cake unless he already accepted the payment.


I have zero personal interest in the baker, nor do I have any personal involvement in the matter.
The reality is that our laws in the United States of America indicate that he's legally required to offer his product to all customers unless the discrimination principle that he is using is consistent.
Your statement of "He's not obligated to make that cake unless he already accepted the payment" is incorrect.
Let's simplify things a smidge more so you can understand the context.

You stand outside of a convenience store.
You see a sign that says: "No shoes, no shirt, no service".
This can be seen as a dress code, which is consistent regardless of your race, religion, nationality, or color.
This is legal discrimination, as it's consistent regardless of those factors.
In this situation, if you walked into the convenience store without shoes or shirt, they can refuse you service and ask you to leave.
Your statement would be true if you walked into the convenience store and they allowed you to purchase an item - then, took your item and asked you to leave because you aren't wearing a shirt or shoes.
This is not the same.

Since the baker is selling wedding cakes to his customers, he cannot single out an individual because he doesn't "like them".
If you place the same situation and frame it around race/color, it would be as followed:


A Caucasian woman goes into the bakery and starts the process of ordering a wedding cake. The baker has taken down the requirements and has informed her that he'll make some samples out of her selection so that she and her soon-to-be husband can pick out the one they like. Four days later, the same woman comes into the store with an African-American male whom she introduces as her fiance. The baker has told her and her fiance to leave the store as he will not make cakes for an interracial couple, it goes against his personal beliefs and religion.


No money had been exchanged.
This is illegal in accordance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
There is a gray line here that was also addressed: the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not outline homosexuality, specifically.
However, the issue is that the baker is choosing not to provide services to the couple because of his religious beliefs and this is in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
These are just facts.
The Supreme Court may be able to view the gray line and adapt accordingly, but the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would need amending as well.


runec wrote:


Cydoemus wrote:
In order for the baker to get around this particular case, he would have to be consistent in his discrimination.
As it's illegal for him to discriminate based on race, color, religion, or national origin he would simply have to cease in making wedding cakes altogether.


That's actually exactly what he did rather than comply with the court. This is the case's second appeal. Local and state supreme court have already ruled against him.


That isn't too surprising.
It's the easiest way to be compliant with the Civil Rights Act without leaving the floor open for manipulation or further lawsuits (against him by the State).
I'm actually surprised that he hasn't simply made his bakery a private establishment that requires a membership.
If you think about those who side with him, I'm sure he would be able to convert to a mail-order operation based on a membership scheme.
This would allow him to reject any offers of making a wedding cake for a homosexual couple.


Rujikin wrote:
So you think its ok for people to demand Islamic bakers make Cake's with the picture of Mohammad on it? You know its blasphemy in their religion and can ruin their chance at heaven?


This is quite likely the least logical analogy made on this thread.
The cake, itself, is not "homosexual" in nature.
There aren't any homosexual slurs, jargon, or imagery on a wedding cake.
In many cases, there aren't even words (names) on the wedding cake so it would not be as though he would be required to write "Happy Marriage, Jeff and John." that could place him into a moral complication.

There is a difference between "forcing an artist to do something against their wish" and "expecting the artist to do the same but sell the piece to a person that has a difference of opinions or views".
A wedding cake is a wedding cake.
The couple would go in, set the requirements after a sample tasting and leave.
They expect the cake to be ready before or on their wedding day.
Now, if the couple had asked for two penises sparring on the top of the cake like lightsabers - then your analogy would have credibility.
Since that is not the case, your analogy falls short from common sense.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.