First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last

Supreme Court rules 7-2 in favor of Colorado baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple

Post Reply
qwueri 
26920 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
33 / M / TN
Offline
Posted 6/13/18 , edited 6/13/18

MonoDreams wrote:

Awww did he hurt your precious feelings? It's not hurting anyone.


That would require me to drive out to his store to be harassed while I shop. I don't have to take something as a personal affront to see a person as a trollish douche-nozzle claiming civil liberties for openly discriminating against customers.
10245 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
20 / M / Palm Coast, Florida
Offline
Posted 6/16/18 , edited 6/16/18

Mishio1 wrote:


It's a sign, it's not hurting anyone. Not saying I agree with "Black, White, Asian, Indian, etc only" signs.
38563 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 6/16/18 , edited 6/16/18

MonoDreams wrote:

Awww did he hurt your precious feelings? It's not hurting anyone.


He's the one letting his personal feelings about homosexuals determine whether he'll sell someone a pack of nails. That's kind of petty, don't you think?
4469 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
Online
Posted 6/16/18 , edited 6/16/18

MonoDreams wrote:
It's a sign, it's not hurting anyone. Not saying I agree with "Black, White, Asian, Indian, etc only" signs.


So you're saying that you arn't fine with discrimination based on race, but you are fine with discrimination based on sexual orientation?
Posted 6/16/18 , edited 6/16/18
Of course, people shouldn't be forced into catering for minorities because they are 'minorities', individualism and liberty must be preserved along with freedom of thought and freedom of choice, they are fundamental principles of a progressive society and should not be destroyed for the sake of diversity and multiculturalism, of course the baker in this case is ignorant, but forcing someone to abandon their principles and cater for someone else's is in of itself ignorant and a perfect example of double-standards that is so common into liberal politics today.
4469 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
Online
Posted 6/16/18 , edited 6/16/18

ronchester44 wrote:

Of course, people shouldn't be forced into catering for minorities because they are 'minorities', individualism and liberty must be preserved along with freedom of thought and freedom of choice, they are fundamental principles of a progressive society and should not be destroyed for the sake of diversity and multiculturalism, of course the baker in this case is ignorant, but forcing someone to abandon their principles and cater for someone else's is in of itself ignorant and a perfect example of double-standards that is so common into liberal politics today.


Unless I'm seriously misunderstanding something, they weren't asking for special treatment. Customized cakes were a featured product of the shop. But when they tried to order one, the decorator refused on the basis of their sexual orientation, which is discrimination. If they'd had a good reason to refuse service, such as they were being disruptive, or insisting on receiving special treatment, that would be one thing. But as far as I can tell, they wern't.
Posted 6/16/18 , edited 6/16/18
Which is precisely why I said the baker in particular was ignorant
4469 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
Online
Posted 6/16/18 , edited 6/16/18

ronchester44 wrote:

Which is precisely why I said the baker in particular was ignorant


Then you're going to need to explain what you said about it being a double standard and such. "Individualism and liberty" as you described it, generally end the moment you start to impinge on another person's rights. Just like how you don't have the right to shoot someone without a damn good reason; because the person you're shooting has a right to not be shot without a damn good reason.

Understanding that you aren't allowed to deny service on such a basis is a requisite to running a business. If you arn't capable of doing so, you shouldn't be running a business in the first place. That was one of the major victories of the Civil Rights Movement.

Also, it's not a double standard because it works both ways. You can't deny service because someone is gay, a Muslim. But conversely, you also arn't allowed to deny service because someone is straight, a Christian. The latter examples just never come up for multiple reasons.
Posted 6/16/18 , edited 6/16/18
Soooo, clearly you're quite upset, don't worry baby cakes emotions are quite normal. Anyway, you misunderstood my point on 'freedom and liberty', the baker was within his rights to refuse them, it wasn't an act of violence it was an act of opinion, 'discrimination' in this sense should refer to institutionalised discrimination not anecdotal acts of it, the fact that the couple took it to court shows a deluded sense of importance and a reluctance to acknowledge that yes, other people have differing opinions opposed to your own, forcing diversity doesn't make a society diverse as people won't have 'diverse opinions', people don't have a right to have a cake made for them, not being able to shoot someone doesn't represent a gay couple being refused a cake, so don't use it as an analogy. I wasn't defending the baker, but making a point of how all people have biases and discriminatory opinions, gays more so than anyone, the likelihood is they would refuse someone else service based on their political or sexual beliefs.

4469 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
Online
Posted 6/16/18 , edited 6/16/18

ronchester44 wrote:

Soooo, clearly you're quite upset, don't worry baby cakes emotions are quite normal.


More annoyed that you're just repeating the same arguments that others have already made, and were debunked.


Anyway, you misunderstood my point on 'freedom and liberty', the baker was within his rights to refuse them, it wasn't an act of violence it was an act of opinion, 'discrimination' in this sense should refer to institutionalised discrimination not anecdotal acts of it,


Wrong. It doesn't matter if they bother putting up a sign or not. If what you said was indeed the case, anyone who wanted to discriminate would simply need to avoid explicitly saying they do in their paper work and do it "anecdotally." Also, Danagram already cited the relevent law/bill two pages ago. You can go and check that if you want confirmation.


the fact that the couple took it to court shows a deluded sense of importance and a reluctance to acknowledge that yes, other people have differing opinions opposed to your own


While I do agree that bringing it up all the way to the Supreme Court was overdoing it, everything you said beyond that was speculation. Rather biased speculation IMO.


forcing diversity doesn't make a society diverse as people won't have 'diverse opinions'


Are you suggesting everyone will simply stop discriminating on their own? Get real. That attitude would just allow it to fester.


people don't have a right to have a cake made for them


If a place of business has such a cake featured as one of their products, then yes, they do. They offer it to everyone, or they don't offer it at all (which, iirc, is what the baker ended up doing). You can't pick and choose who can and can't place an order.


not being able to shoot someone doesn't represent a gay couple being refused a cake, so don't use it as an analogy.


It's a fairly extreme comparison, I'll admit, but the analogy stands. Someone's right to shoot things ends severely at another person's right to not get shot unless they did something that warrants losing that right.


I wasn't defending the baker, but making a point of how all people have biases and discriminatory opinions, gays more so than anyone, the likelihood is they would refuse someone else service based on their political or sexual beliefs.


Most people have the sense to separate their prejudices with how they run their business. Runec previously cited Chick-Fil-a as a good example of this. They're a Christian business too, but you don't see them denying service to gays. And anyone who can't handle that should know better then to open such a business to begin with.
Posted 6/16/18 , edited 6/16/18
Fair refutations I must admit, perhaps my 'point' was flawed in that yes if the business advertises discrimination-free cake making then indeed the baker was at fault refusing a gay couple based on discriminatory opinions, they were clearly violating company regulations and principles so it does make sense as to why they could be viewed as a being a bigot.

As to my point of forced diversity I was thinking of the drama of LGBT rights and college campuses involving Jordan Peterson that occurred a few years back, citing the refusal to use someone's pronouns as a criminal offence within Bill C-16 as an example of forced diversity, which in the cases of the specific campuses that it applied to, caused conflict rather than genuine benefits to regular LGBT people opposed to the terrorists belonging to Antifa. Diversity (or at least the level we have today) hasn't been forced as I understand; people have been enlightened to the fact that black people are by no means inferior or women any less capable than men, previously preserved by ill-informed pseudoscience in conjunction with general bigotry, diversity has been achieved by informed, conscious decisions made by informed, intelligent people equating to an egalitarian society which is certainly a testament to the progression of humanity.

The grey area occurs when people are forced into accepting common opinion or held legally accountable for their opinions as with Bill C-16, you can't force people to use a certain pronoun or hold a different belief, while these may be inherently ignorant forcing someone to accept the status quo is synonymous with an authoritarian society, and especially contrary to the virtues of our society; tolerance, acceptance... I believe tolerating homosexuality is a genuinely good thing, although we must also tolerate differing opinions as this is the nature of tolerance; it must be objective rather than subjective.
runec 
43115 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/16/18 , edited 6/16/18

ronchester44 wrote:
Soooo, clearly you're quite upset, don't worry baby cakes emotions are quite normal.


There was no reason for you to act like an arse here and pull the "snowflake" card just because someone asked you for clarification. This board has enough crap flying around as. I mean, you're clearly capable of actually discussing your position without resorting to trollish behaviour so why do that?



10245 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
20 / M / Palm Coast, Florida
Offline
Posted 6/16/18 , edited 6/17/18

Mishio1 wrote:


MonoDreams wrote:
It's a sign, it's not hurting anyone. Not saying I agree with "Black, White, Asian, Indian, etc only" signs.


So you're saying that you arn't fine with discrimination based on race, but you are fine with discrimination based on sexual orientation?


Yes, if it's so hard for you to read what I typed.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.