cake guy has to make cake for gays - how exactly will this work?

[SpursforSix]

so he has to make a cake for a gay wedding.
Is he going to make the cake as good as his others?
Are the gays going to complain about the quality of the cake no matter what?
Is he going to be persecuted because the gays say that he skimped on their cake?
Why would a gay person demand a cake from someone that didn't like them?



http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/08/13/court-christian-baker-must-provide-wedding-cakes-for-same-sex-couples.html?intcmp=hpbt4

[Blizzardwizard]

Why would a gay person demand a cake from someone that didn't like them?



WTF :lol

You know that they'll be paying the guy, right? They aren't holding a knife to his throat.

How dare they have the audacity to ask a guy who makes cake to make a cake for them.

Only in Murica.

[SpursforSix]

WTF :lol

You know that they'll be paying the guy, right? They aren't holding a knife to his throat.

How dare they have the audacity to ask a guy who makes cake to make a cake for them.

Only in Murica.

yeah...I get that. but surely they have other choices. You seriously want to pay someone to make a cake for you that 1) really really doesn't want to and 2) is being forced to?
I would think they wouldn't want him near their cake. But I guess when you really don't care what goes in your mouth, it doesn't matter so much.

[CosmicCowboy]

yeah...I get that. but surely they have other choices. You seriously want to pay someone to make a cake for you that 1) really really doesn't want to and 2) is being forced to?
I would think they wouldn't want him near their cake. But I guess when you really don't care what goes in your mouth, it doesn't matter so much.

:lol

I see what you did there...:}

[Blake]

so he has to make a cake for a gay wedding.
Is he going to make the cake as good as his others?
Are the gays going to complain about the quality of the cake no matter what?
Is he going to be persecuted because the gays say that he skimped on their cake?
Why would a gay person demand a cake from someone that didn't like them?



http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/08/13/court-christian-baker-must-provide-wedding-cakes-for-same-sex-couples.html?intcmp=hpbt4


Jack, a devout Christian who honors God through his baking, had argued that he could not participate in same-sex ceremonies because it would violate his religious beliefs.

So Jack is going to do a half ass job? Is he a devout Christian or not?

and God damn another fucking Christian bashing thread :cry

[SpursforSix]

So Jack is going to do a half ass job? Is he a devout Christian or not?

and God damn another fucking Christian bashing thread :cry

It doesn't matter what Jack does. The gays are going to complain about the cake.

[SpursforSix]

Although it'd be super funny if the gays requested a cake with the toppers fucking each other in the butt.

[Blake]

It doesn't matter what Jack does. The gays are going to complain about the cake.

if it's a bad job I bet de gheys will post pics on the Facebook

http://41.media.tumblr.com/0b8f7dbb2048e3fbc5a297fa89f518a9/tumblr_muoc0aUhyL1qe10v3o6_540.jpg

[Blake]

Although it'd be super funny if the gays requested a cake with the toppers fucking each other in the butt.

it'd be funnier if the baker would have to oblige to that but he doesn't

[SpursforSix]

it'd be funnier if the baker would have to oblige to that but he doesn't

that's not funny. it'd be funny if they requested that and he puts some AIDS looking ones on there

[Splits]

If you Google Jack’s name – you’ll find that many of the LGBT bullies and their minions have smeared his good name. He’s been called all sorts of things – from homophobic to a right-wing bigot.

But in reality he’s none of those things.

:lmao in reality he is all of those things

[Clipper Nation]

WTF :lol

You know that they'll be paying the guy, right? They aren't holding a knife to his throat.

How dare they have the audacity to ask a guy who makes cake to make a cake for them.

Only in Murica.
Holy shit - a diehard socialist is actually admitting that profit motives are a thing? There may be hope for you yet!

[Splits]

“The ALJ found that Phillips had been a Christian for approximately thirty-five years and believes in Jesus Christ as his Lord and savior. Phillips believes that decorating cakes is a form of art, that he can honor God through his artistic talents, and that he would displease God by creating cakes for same-sex marriages.”

:lmao :lol :lol :lmao

[SpursforSix]

:lmao :lol :lol :lmao

almost as funny as two gays forcing such a nut to make them a cake. Maybe they all deserve each other.

[SpursforSix]

https://gokristi.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/gay-queens.jpg
Gay Couple : we would like you to make us a gay wedding cake
http://cdn0.dailydot.com/cache/10/53/1053840dfe701276067331f45863a701.jpg
Baker : I hate gays and will not make a cake for you.
Gay Couple : you will damn well make a cake for us and it better be good and not a prejudice cake.
Baker : Enjoy your cake faggots
http://images2.villagevoice.com/imager/u/original/6520430/gaywedding.jpg

[mrsmaalox]

This cake thing baffles me. Where the hell are all the gay bakers?! You know they're out there. My daughter better get out of culinary school before this one blows over, because we are going to open a cake shop and sell the biggest, gayest cakes ever. As long as it's not kid or animal smut, I'll put ANYTHING you want on a cake! But it won't be cheap :)

[CosmicCowboy]

This cake thing baffles me. Where the hell are all the gay bakers?! You know they're out there. My daughter better get out of culinary school before this one blows over, because we are going to open a cake shop and sell the biggest, gayest cakes ever. As long as it's not kid or animal smut, I'll put ANYTHING you want on a cake! But it won't be cheap :)

That's a good deal. I was freaking shocked at how expensive my daughters wedding cake was.

[SpursforSix]

This cake thing baffles me. Where the hell are all the gay bakers?! You know they're out there. My daughter better get out of culinary school before this one blows over, because we are going to open a cake shop and sell the biggest, gayest cakes ever. As long as it's not kid or animal smut, I'll put ANYTHING you want on a cake! But it won't be cheap :)

Will you cater to trannies with neck beards that want you to make them a cake so they can serve it to the little girls in the preschool locker rooms?

[Blizzardwizard]

yeah...I get that. but surely they have other choices. You seriously want to pay someone to make a cake for you that 1) really really doesn't want to and 2) is being forced to?
I would think they wouldn't want him near their cake. But I guess when you really don't care what goes in your mouth, it doesn't matter so much.

Well, considering baking is the guy's occupation, and he gets paid a salary to do it, tough shit if he 'really doesn't want to do it'.

[Jacob1983]

Why not just bake crownies?

[JoeChalupa]

Nowhere in the Bible does it say it is wrong to serve gay people. Quite the contrary if you ask me.

[Blake]

Nowhere in the Bible does it say it is wrong to serve gay people. Quite the contrary if you ask me.

it says to kill gays JoeChalupa

you should read it sometime. It's quite crazy.

[SpursforSix]

Well, considering baking is the guy's occupation, and he gets paid a salary to do it, tough shit if he 'really doesn't want to do it'.

he doesn't get paid a salary. He's his own boss.

[hater]

So if he refuses he gets a lawsuit?

Pretty fucked uo but there's ways around it, just have your minion do it. You don't even have to touch the cake.

God dam the whining on both sides is fucking pathetic

[boutons_deux]

Does the Bible humper extremist baker ask a an engaged couple ordering a cake if they have had premarital sex, then refuse to sell them a cake?

[CosmicCowboy]

I have to side with the baker on this one.

The faggots are just looking for a fight and their 15 minutes of fame..

I know I have people/companies I refuse to work for...not because they are gay but because they are dicks...If they sued me to work for them I would give them a big "FUCK YOU".

[SpursforSix]

So if he refuses he gets a lawsuit?

Pretty fucked uo but there's ways around it, just have your minion do it. You don't even have to touch the cake.

God dam the whining on both sides is fucking pathetic

Yeah...both sides are idiots. It's just a fucking cake. The baker should have been smarter and just said that he didn't have time to do it or something. Obviously both sides looking to make a point.
Over a cake.

[hater]

The baker is obviously a closet homosexual like the father in American Beauty. Only that explains the whining.

But the faggots that requested the cake are also typical entitled cumbuckets.

Blame is on both sides tbqh fucking children

[101A]

1st World, entitled, rich people issues.

Self indulgent bastards is what we are.

[SpursforSix]

The baker is obviously a closet homosexual like the father in American Beauty. Only that explains the whining.

But the faggots that requested the cake are also typical entitled cumbuckets.

Blame is on both sides tbqh fucking children

thank god they weren't black gays

[101A]

Gays get all worked up over this shit, like it means something, meanwhile homosexuality ITSELF is illegal, and punished by death or imprisonment is much of the world

Meanwhile guy somehow thinks God gives half a rats fuck for what event he displays his cake-honoring-God art for? God is, I'm pretty sure, much more concerned with the glutinous consumption, and pointless disposal of uneaten portions of said cake while people all over the world are starving! God has spoken on the issue: weddings should feature dry fish and bread, served in baskets, if we want to get technical.

[Blizzardwizard]

he doesn't get paid a salary. He's his own boss.

Ok, but he still makes money off this, is turning down customers simply because of their orientation really a good look for your business?

[ElNono]

It's not that the baker doesn't have a million excuses not to bake for these guys, it's that I'm fairly confident that he's using this case to go through the courts, SCOTUS included if needed be, in order to get that Colorado law ruled unconstitutional.

[SpursforSix]

Ok, but he still makes money off this, is turning down customers simply because of their orientation really a good look for your business?

In general, turning down customers is not good for business. In this case however, he has probably gotten extra business out of it.

[CosmicCowboy]

This crap is like suing over "no shirt, no shoes, no service"

[hater]

thank god they weren't black gays

And thank god the baker was not a part time neighborhood watch

[Spurminator]

This crap is like suing over "no shirt, no shoes, no service"

Unless you're born allergic to shoes and refused service, this is retarded comparison.

[CosmicCowboy]

Unless you're born allergic to shoes and refused service, this is retarded comparison.

No it's not.

The Baker should have the right to serve or not serve anyone he wants. He doesn't have a monopoly on bakeries and is not denying the faggots the right to eat cake.

[hater]

No it's not.

The Baker should have the right to serve or not serve anyone he wants. He doesn't have a monopoly on bakeries and is not denying the faggots the right to eat cake.

Agrre. But closet homo baker didn't have to be a bitch about it either. It's a fucking cake

[CosmicCowboy]

Agrre. But closet homo baker didn't have to be a bitch about it either. It's a fucking cake

Exactly. Go down the street and get a fucking cake somewhere else.

[Blake]

No it's not.

The Baker should have the right to serve or not serve anyone he wants. He doesn't have a monopoly on bakeries and is not denying the faggots the right to eat cake.

So you think he should be able to deny people based on skin color if he wants

[CosmicCowboy]

So you think he should be able to deny people based on skin color if he wants

I knew some faggot would go there.

[Blake]

I knew some faggot would go there.

I knew you would get defensive about your retarded post

[CosmicCowboy]

I knew you would get defensive about it

Faggots aren't covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

[Blake]

Faggots aren't covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I knew you'd probably move the goal post.

[CosmicCowboy]

I knew you'd probably move the goal post.

Doesn't matter what I think if it's against the law.

[SpursforSix]

And thank god the baker was not a part time neighborhood watch

and thank god the baker didn't shoot them

[vy65]

So you think he should be able to deny people based on skin color if he wants

Is there a generally accepted religious belief that would allow him to do so?

[vy65]

It's not that the baker doesn't have a million excuses not to bake for these guys, it's that I'm fairly confident that he's using this case to go through the courts, SCOTUS included if needed be, in order to get that Colorado law ruled unconstitutional.

[JoeChalupa]

it says to kill gays JoeChalupa

you should read it sometime. It's quite crazy.

I've read it. Interpretation is what is whack. I just don't subscribe to the hate based on biblical text.

[vy65]

I thought liberals were vehemently opposed to having the government force citizens to do things against their will?

[JoeChalupa]

Faggots aren't covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

You really show your ignorance sometimes. Can't make a point without doing so? Thought you were above name calling.

[CosmicCowboy]

You really show your ignorance sometimes. Can't make a point without doing so? Thought you were above name calling.

LOL It's a message board populated with its fair share of idiots. Name calling and irritating the PC cops is just part of the fun.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Faggots aren't covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

But they are covered by state law

[CosmicCowboy]

But they are covered by state law

dumb law, but true.

[Blake]

Is there a generally accepted religious belief that would allow him to do so?

don't know what you mean by "generally accepted" and don't really care because it's irrelevant to CC's statement.

[boutons_deux]

But they are covered by state law

the next battle is to get LGBT added to Federal anti-discrimination laws. iow, Fuck The Christian Haters.

[Blake]

I've read it. Interpretation is what is whack. I just don't subscribe to the hate based on biblical text.

How else do you interpret this:

Leviticus 20:13Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

13*`And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood [is] on them.

[Blake]

dumb law, but true.

Well you think the CRA of 64 is dumb too. You just don't know you think that.

[Blake]

I thought liberals were vehemently opposed to having the government force citizens to do things against their will?

that's as stereotypical conservative as it gets

[spurraider21]

I thought liberals were vehemently opposed to having the government force citizens to do things against their will?
lol since when

[CosmicCowboy]

Well you think the CRA of 64 is dumb too. You just don't know you think that.

I think that a government discriminating against anyone over race, religion, sexual preference etc. is absolutely wrong.

I think the government forcing a private citizen to conduct business with someone he doesn't want to conduct business with for whatever reason is absolutely wrong too as long as there are multiple providers of the same service.

In that regard you can say that I am philosophically opposed to the general interpretation of the CR act of 1964.

I have no personal animosity against any race or religion or gender but resent the government intrusion into otherwise non criminal personal interactions.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I think that a government discriminating against anyone over race, religion, sexual preference etc. is absolutely wrong.

I think the government forcing a private citizen to conduct business with someone he doesn't want to conduct business with for whatever reason is absolutely wrong too as long as there are multiple providers of the same service.

We tried that before. Didn't work out too well for some people.

[CosmicCowboy]

We tried that before. Didn't work out too well for some people.

Why is that?

[CosmicCowboy]

A philosophical analogy is that it was wrong for the bus line, a governmental entity to make Rosa Parks sit in the back of the bus.

In my opinion it would be equally wrong for the government to force me as a private citizen to pick up Rosa Parks if she was hitchhiking.

[vy65]

lol since when

Abortion for starters. The. There's the whole surveillance state/war on terror thing. Drug testing welfare applicants is another example.

[boutons_deux]

A philosophical analogy is that it was wrong for the bus line, a governmental entity to make Rosa Parks sit in the back of the bus.

In my opinion it would be equally wrong for the government to force me as a private citizen to pick up Rosa Parks if she was hitchhiking.

:lol wow try again

I'm not running a public-serving, for-profit business driving my car

[vy65]

don't know what you mean by "generally accepted" and don't really care because it's irrelevant to CC's statement.

Not hard to understand but I'll put it in cuck speak since you're a moron: is there a mainstream religion that instructs its followers that being black is a sin?

[vy65]

Is there a difference between instructing a business which customers it must serve and which prices it must set for its goods?

[boutons_deux]

Is there a difference between instructing a business which customers it must serve and which prices it must set for its goods?

The LAW rules a business cannot discriminate base on any of several criteria. If you don't like the law, get it changed.

[vy65]

The LAW rules a business cannot discriminate base on any of several criteria. If you don't like the law, get it changed.

Was there an answer to my question in there? Didn't see one ...

[hater]

Not hard to understand but I'll put it in cuck speak since you're a moron: is there a mainstream religion that instructs its followers that being black is a sin?

Mormon gets close tbqh.

[Spurminator]

Exactly. Go down the street and get a fucking cake somewhere else.

What if he lives in a small East Texas town with one bakery?

[vy65]

Mormon gets close tbqh.

Lol mark of Cain

[Spurminator]

Look, this is why racial segregation had to be outlawed. It wasn't the government who forced restaurants to separate the blacks into other restrooms, other areas of the restaurant, or outright refuse to serve them. Businesses did this because their clientele expected it. A business that didn't segregate would lose business.

Allowing businesses to discriminate based on sexual orientation opens the door to majority Christian areas to PROMOTE such discrimination by only doing businesses with those places that discriminate. Say Ace and Gary are a married couple in Palestine, TX, but the one Palestine auto shop decides it won't service cars for gay couples. Are they supposed to tow their car to Athens? What if no auto shop in Athens will take their business? What if the Tow Truck company in Palestine won't take their car?

[Spurminator]

A philosophical analogy is that it was wrong for the bus line, a governmental entity to make Rosa Parks sit in the back of the bus.

In my opinion it would be equally wrong for the government to force me as a private citizen to pick up Rosa Parks if she was hitchhiking.

This is another terrible comparison. Picking up hitchhikers isn't your business unless you're a cab driver or bus driver. And if you refused to pick up Rosa Parks while driving a cab, well... you'd be like many cab drivers but it would still be illegal.

[boutons_deux]

Is there a difference between instructing a business which customers it must serve and which prices it must set for its goods?

yes

[vy65]

yes

Elaborate

[Oh, Gee!!]

Why is that?

Cuz white folks be trippin

[Spurminator]

Abortion for starters.

Who's forced to perform abortions? On the other end, you would have the government force a women to carry her pregnancy to term.


There's the whole surveillance state/war on terror thing.

How is this aligned with liberal philosophy?


Drug testing welfare applicants is another example.

I didn't know Rick Scott was a liberal. How is drug testing welfare recipients aligned with liberal philosophy?

[vy65]

Who's forced to perform abortions? On the other end, you would have the government force a women to carry her pregnancy to term.

How is this aligned with liberal philosophy?

I didn't know Rick Scott was a liberal. How is drug testing welfare recipients aligned with liberal philosophy?

1. "Keep your laws off women's bodies"

2. Liberals loved the PATRIOT Act and what happened in Guantanemo Bay, you're right.

3. Opposition to drug testing

[Spurminator]

1. "Keep your laws off women's bodies"

2. Liberals loved the PATRIOT Act and what happened in Guantanemo Bay, you're right.

3. Opposition to drug testing

I misread your post as proof of instances liberals were okay with government intrusion, since your first post was sarcastic.

[CosmicCowboy]

This is another terrible comparison. Picking up hitchhikers isn't your business unless you're a cab driver or bus driver. And if you refused to pick up Rosa Parks while driving a cab, well... you'd be like many cab drivers but it would still be illegal.

Business owners are still PRIVATE individuals. Especially small businesses. I refuse to work for Toyota because their maintenance guys are pricks, but that doesn't mean Toyota should be able to sue me because as a Japanese company they should be a protected class.

[vy65]

Look, this is why racial segregation had to be outlawed. It wasn't the government who forced restaurants to separate the blacks into other restrooms, other areas of the restaurant, or outright refuse to serve them. Businesses did this because their clientele expected it. A business that didn't segregate would lose business.

Allowing businesses to discriminate based on sexual orientation opens the door to majority Christian areas to PROMOTE such discrimination by only doing businesses with those places that discriminate. Say Ace and Gary are a married couple in Palestine, TX, but the one Palestine auto shop decides it won't service cars for gay couples. Are they supposed to tow their car to Athens? What if no auto shop in Athens will take their business? What if the Tow Truck company in Palestine won't take their car?

This isn't a great analogy because, in the case of racial segregation, there is no competing (religious) right that justified discrimination. Racial discrimination didn't/doesn't have the nuance of being religiously justified. Without the opposition of one's religious beliefs, resolving racial discrimination was pretty straightforward, legally speaking.

When it comes to teh gays, things are more complicated because of the religious opposition. You might (and probably do) think that religious opposition is just a fancy way of dressing up discrimination. And there may be some truth to that. But there's also some truth to the guy who just wants to practice his religious beliefs.

Law's like the CADA are shitty because they don't strike a balance between these competing rights. And this analogy doesn't exactly work either because it similarly is missing that balancing between rights.

[vy65]

But again, this is exactly what Nono said it was: a test case for CADA.

There would be no issue if this guy simply refused to serve the queers and didn't say anything about his religious beliefs.

Only some attention whore who emphasizes his refusal is religiously based would get in trouble. If he just simply refused, he'd probably be fine.

[Spurminator]

Business owners are still PRIVATE individuals. Especially small businesses. I refuse to work for Toyota because their maintenance guys are pricks, but that doesn't mean Toyota should be able to sue me because as a Japanese company they should be a protected class.

You are discriminating based on business reasons, not racial/sexual/demographic. That's not illegal, nor should it be.

[Blake]

Not hard to understand but I'll put it in cuck speak since you're a moron: is there a mainstream religion that instructs its followers that being black is a sin?

I'll put this in dumbfuck speak: don't know, don't care, it's irrelevant.

Can't dumbfuck it down for you any further, dumbfuck.

[Spurminator]

This isn't a great analogy because, in the case of racial segregation, there is no competing (religious) right that justified discrimination. Racial discrimination didn't/doesn't have the nuance of being religiously justified. Without the opposition of one's religious beliefs, resolving racial discrimination was pretty straightforward, legally speaking.

When it comes to teh gays, things are more complicated because of the religious opposition. You might (and probably do) think that religious opposition is just a fancy way of dressing up discrimination. And there may be some truth to that. But there's also some truth to the guy who just wants to practice his religious beliefs.

Law's like the CADA are shitty because they don't strike a balance between these competing rights. And this analogy doesn't exactly work either because it similarly is missing that balancing between rights.

Racial discrimination USED to absolutely be religiously justified. It was only in 1967 that the Supreme Court had to step in to rule that states couldn't ban interracial marriage. Interracial sex was a felony a hundred years ago. Defenders of these laws in both cases used God to justify the cause.

[SpursforSix]

Allowing businesses to discriminate based on sexual orientation opens the door to majority Christian areas to PROMOTE such discrimination by only doing businesses with those places that discriminate. Say Ace and Gary are a married couple in Palestine, TX, but the one Palestine auto shop decides it won't service cars for gay couples. Are they supposed to tow their car to Athens? What if no auto shop in Athens will take their business? What if the Tow Truck company in Palestine won't take their car?

What if someone lived in Palestine and drove a BMW but the one car shop in town didn't know how to fix BMWs? The owner has to figure out something else.

[vy65]

Racial discrimination USED to absolutely be religiously justified. It was only in 1967 that the Supreme Court had to step in to rule that states couldn't ban interracial marriage. Interracial sex was a felony a hundred years ago. Defenders of these laws in both cases used God to justify the cause.

you got any links for that homeslice? I wasn't aware there was a religious component to Loving

[Blake]

This isn't a great analogy because, in the case of racial segregation, there is no competing (religious) right that justified discrimination. Racial discrimination didn't/doesn't have the nuance of being religiously justified. Without the opposition of one's religious beliefs, resolving racial discrimination was pretty straightforward, legally speaking.

When it comes to teh gays, things are more complicated because of the religious opposition. You might (and probably do) think that religious opposition is just a fancy way of dressing up discrimination. And there may be some truth to that. But there's also some truth to the guy who just wants to practice his religious beliefs.

Law's like the CADA are shitty because they don't strike a balance between these competing rights. And this analogy doesn't exactly work either because it similarly is missing that balancing between rights.

religious rights take a backseat if they infringe on someone else's human rights, dumbfuck.

[vy65]

I'll put this in dumbfuck speak: don't know, don't care, it's irrelevant.

Can't dumbfuck it down for you any further, dumbfuck.

so your analogy is really much of one then. cool.

[CosmicCowboy]

You are discriminating based on business reasons, not racial/sexual/demographic. That's not illegal, nor should it be.

Well, who judges intent and what is to keep them from suing me claiming it was for racial discrimination?

[Spurminator]

What if someone lived in Palestine and drove a BMW but the one car shop in town didn't know how to fix BMWs? The owner has to figure out something else.

No one is born a BMW owner. When you choose to purchase a BMW you do so with the understanding that there may be fewer options for you to get repairs.

[vy65]

religious rights take a backseat if they infringe on someone else's human rights, dumbfuck.

according to our local fedora-donning neck bearded white knighter, Blake, sure. too bad what you want and what is reality are very diff things.

[Spurminator]

Well, who judges intent and what is to keep them from suing me claiming it was for racial discrimination?

Unless you ever stated specifically that you won't do business with Japanese suppliers, there's nothing they can do about it.

The law can't fix everything, but intent is clear when a bakery owner says "I won't serve gays."

[CosmicCowboy]

according to our local fedora-donning neck bearded white knighter, Blake, sure. too bad what you want and what is reality are very diff things.

Getting cucked permanently scarred him.

[SpursforSix]

No one is born a BMW owner. When you choose to purchase a BMW you do so with the understanding that there may be fewer options for you to get repairs.

When you buy a car, you do so knowing that it may break down in an inconvenient place.

[vy65]

Well, who judges intent and what is to keep them from suing me claiming it was for racial discrimination?

That's exactly why these laws are so stupid.

You can discriminate on religious grounds. It'd have to be done by simply telling the fags "no." That scenario that avoids the intent of the law (ending discrimination) and the only way to deal with it, like you said, is to start examining each and every refusal for discriminatory intent.

[Spurminator]

you got any links for that homeslice? I wasn't aware there was a religious component to Loving


In this written judgment, dated January 22, 1965, Leon M. Bazile, judge of the Caroline County Circuit Court, refuses a motion on behalf of Richard and Mildred Loving to vacate their 1959 conviction (http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Judgment_Against_Richard_and_Mildred_Loving_Januar y_6_1959) for violating the state law that forbids interracial marriage. The Lovings eventually appealed their case (http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Loving_v_Virginia_1967) to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in their favor (http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Loving_v_Virginia_June_12_1967) in 1967.

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his [arrangement] there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/opinion_of_judge_leon_m_bazile_january_22_1965

[Spurminator]

When you buy a car, you do so knowing that it may break down in an inconvenient place.

Well the law doesn't, and shouldn't, protect you from inconvenience. It does, and should, protect you from racial and sexual discrimination.

[Blake]

so your analogy is really much of one then. cool.

Dumbfuck, I didn't give you an analogy, dumbfuck.

[SpursforSix]

Well the law doesn't, and shouldn't, protect you from inconvenience. It does, and should, protect you from racial and sexual discrimination.

It also protects people from religious discrimination as well.

[vy65]

http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/opinion_of_judge_leon_m_bazile_january_22_1965

Interesting, thanks, but not exactly what I was going for.

What's quoted is a judge's religious spin on his justification for anti-miscegenation laws. I was asking for evidence of a more widespread/cultural resistance to miscegenation on religious grounds (i.e., what we had with the anti-gay marriage debate).

I think the debates are different simply because there is scripture that directly addresses homosexuality -- that textual basis, in itself, makes the assertion of religious opposition qualitatively different

[vy65]

Dumbfuck, I didn't give you an analogy, dumbfuck.

Heavy flow day?

[Spurminator]

It also protects people from religious discrimination as well.

This isn't an example of religious discrimination. What is this baker being asked to do that other bakers (or business owners) don't have to do?

[Blake]

Well, who judges intent and what is to keep them from suing me claiming it was for racial discrimination?

Nothing but they need to have evidence of racial discrimination.

This baker openly admitted to discriminating because of his religious beliefs

[Spurminator]

Interesting, thanks, but not exactly what I was going for.

What's quoted is a judge's religious spin on his justification for anti-miscegenation laws. I was asking for evidence of a more widespread/cultural resistance to miscegenation on religious grounds (i.e., what we had with the anti-gay marriage debate).

I think the debates are different simply because there is scripture that directly addresses homosexuality -- that textual basis, in itself, makes the assertion of religious opposition qualitatively different

There are scriptures that ban interracial marriage. There are scriptures that command the genocide of entire races.

I don't have evidence of "widespread cultural resistance"... I'm sure it's out there. But it was 1967, so it sort of goes without saying.

[Spurminator]

And the thing is, Christian New Testament scripture doesn't say anything about doing business with homosexuals. Frankly I have a hard time believing anyone who has really studied the teachings of Jesus Christ would believe he would have refused to do carpentry work for a gay couple.

Christians like this baker have cherry-picked scripture to fit their biases. My guess is he'd have no problem baking a cake for a man and woman who were each on their fourth marriage.

[Blake]

Heavy flow day?

oh calling me a woman now because I called you a dumbfuck. Your question was dumb per par, dumbfuck. That's why I'm calling you a dumbfuck, dumbfuck.

[SpursforSix]

This isn't an example of religious discrimination. What is this baker being asked to do that other bakers (or business owners) don't have to do?

I don't know and really don't care. In reality, there aren't a lot of businesses that turn down paying customers. Here we have a dumbass baker and a pair overly dramatic gays. I'm sure each side thinks they're about to go down in history like Brown v. Board of Education. But it's a fucking cake. And they don't live in backwoods East Texas in a town with one bakery. I don't think he should be forced to make them a cake. He said it's against his religion. And it's not some spurs of the moment thing he made up. But if the law says he has to, then he needs to go ahead and get baking. It's all too ridiculous.

[Spurminator]

Well yeah it's ridiculous. Stuff like this only makes the news because SJW's and RJW's share it a million times on Facebook.

[vy65]

oh calling me a woman now because I called you a dumbfuck. Your question was dumb per par, dumbfuck. That's why I'm calling you a dumbfuck, dumbfuck.

Congratulations on recognizing the insult and saying dumbfuck. You're a testament to neckbeards everywhere

[vy65]

And the thing is, Christian New Testament scripture doesn't say anything about doing business with homosexuals. Frankly I have a hard time believing anyone who has really studied the teachings of Jesus Christ would believe he would have refused to do carpentry work for a gay couple.

Christians like this baker have cherry-picked scripture to fit their biases. My guess is he'd have no problem baking a cake for a man and woman who were each on their fourth marriage.

Agreed, but what you're proposing -- evaluating the consistency/integrity of one's religious beliefs -- is not something that the law even considers touching.

Again, this is a stupid scenario because the guy got on a soap box and resisted baking a cake on religious grounds. That's idiotic.

The law also is idiotic because it can't stop people who simply tell the queers "no, I can't bake you a cake."

[Spurminator]

Agreed, but what you're proposing -- evaluating the consistency/integrity of one's religious beliefs -- is not something that the law even considers touching.

Nor should it... I'm not proposing that at all. Banning discrimination based on sexual orientation isn't a gray area. Religion doesn't enter into it in the law's eyes.

[SpursforSix]

Well yeah it's ridiculous. Stuff like this only makes the news because SJW's and RJW's share it a million times on Facebook.

what's SJW/RJW?

NM. Got it. Agreed. Too many people looking for something to get upset about. It's permeating every single aspect of our lives. Instead of enjoying the little things in life, everyone's made a hobby of getting worked up about any little perceived injustice. Even cutting at a 4 way stop.

[Jacob1983]

Why would a gay couple want a cake from someone that thinks they're gross and weird? I wouldn't be surprised if the baker put pubes in the cakes. This is like going to a Jewish deli and demand that they put bacon on a sandwich. Seriously, what are you expecting to happen? Are you so hell bent on getting your way that you are willing to be a dick about it?

[SpursforSix]

Why would a gay couple want a cake from someone that thinks they're gross and weird? I wouldn't be surprised if the baker put pubes in the cakes. This is like going to a Jewish deli and demand that they put bacon on a sandwich. Seriously, what are you expecting to happen? Are you so hell bent on getting your way that you are willing to be a dick about it?

I already said all of this. It's like giving your waiter shit before she brings you food. But the baker should have just made the cake. Like Rodney King said, "Cant' we alls jus gets alongs?"

[Blake]

Congratulations on recognizing the insult and saying dumbfuck. You're a testament to neckbeards everywhere

Ok dumbfuck.

[Blake]

This is like going to a Jewish deli and demand that they put bacon on a sandwich.

It's not like that at all.

[CosmicCowboy]

It's not like that at all.

You are demanding he do something against his religious convictions.

[diego]

Why would a gay couple want a cake from someone that thinks they're gross and weird? I wouldn't be surprised if the baker put pubes in the cakes. This is like going to a Jewish deli and demand that they put bacon on a sandwich. Seriously, what are you expecting to happen? Are you so hell bent on getting your way that you are willing to be a dick about it?

More like going to a Jewish deli and asking for a pastrami sandwich, and getting refused for being gentile.

As a baker myself, all this dumbass had to do was give an absurd price or simply state he was overbooked for that date, instead he had to be a drama queen

[boutons_deux]

Bible humping Christian supremacists want to impose their morals, ethics on everybody else, eg, commercial customers.

"If you don't comply with my morals, I won't sell to you."

If Bible humpers were to win this case, they would ratchet up the Bible morals in other non-Chrisitan spheres.

I wonder at what price a Bible humpers would cave?

Say it was gay organization looking to buy a $5M catering deal? Would a Bible humping baker turn down $5M?

[Oh, Gee!!]

He should compromise and make cupcakes instead.

[Blake]

You are demanding he do something against his religious convictions.

which would be demanding he give you something he generally doesn't have at all, genius.

[SpursforSix]

More like going to a Jewish deli and asking for a pastrami sandwich, and getting refused for being gentile.

As a baker myself, all this dumbass had to do was give an absurd price or simply state he was overbooked for that date, instead he had to be a drama queen

I don't think he could have charged a price out of line with his other stuff. It'd be the same issue.

[boutons_deux]

Was that you, CC?

Taxi Driver Fined $25K for Refusing to Pick Up Black Executive and Her Kids

https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20150806/midtown/taxi-driver-fined-25k-for-refusing-pick-up-black-executive-her-kids

[SpursforSix]

Was that you, CC?

Taxi Driver Fined $25K for Refusing to Pick Up Black Executive and Her Kids

https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20150806/midtown/taxi-driver-fined-25k-for-refusing-pick-up-black-executive-her-kids

LOL. what a dumbfuck.

http://i.imgur.com/BcMcpym.gif

[Spurminator]

Man some of you guys are fucking terrible at metaphors, how did you pass the SAT?

[SpursforSix]

Man some of you guys are fucking terrible at metaphors, how did you pass the SAT?

Passing the SAT was music to my ears.

[CosmicCowboy]

Passing the SAT was music to my ears.

yep...99 percentile

[Slutter McGee]

I wonder at what price a Bible humpers would cave?

Say it was gay organization looking to buy a $5M catering deal? Would a Bible humping baker turn down $5M?

So you admit that the profit motive can affect positive societal change? Well I'll be.. boutons, maybe you can make a good Republican someday.

Slutter McGee

[JohnnyMarzetti]

You are demanding he do something against his religious convictions.

If only the fact his religion states he cannot sell to gays were true.

[Wild Cobra]

so he has to make a cake for a gay wedding.
Is he going to make the cake as good as his others?
Are the gays going to complain about the quality of the cake no matter what?
Is he going to be persecuted because the gays say that he skimped on their cake?
Why would a gay person demand a cake from someone that didn't like them?



http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/08/13/court-christian-baker-must-provide-wedding-cakes-for-same-sex-couples.html?intcmp=hpbt4

This guy will lose his business no matter what now. I have a friend who used to have a business, and did not wrong, but went bankrupt from a lawsuit by a gay. He won the case, but there was no money to recover for his expenses.

[admiralsnackbar]

This guy will lose his business no matter what now. I have a friend who used to have a business, and did not wrong, but went bankrupt from a lawsuit by a gay. He won the case, but there was no money to recover for his expenses.

Poor guy.

As far as your Rip City baker goes... I guess he shouldn't have transgressed strongly-worded state law, huh?

Bummer.

[Wild Cobra]

Poor guy.

As far as your Rip City baker goes... I guess he shouldn't have transgressed strongly-worded state law, huh?

Bummer.

Sorry. He's not from Rip City. He's east of there in Gresham.

From what I read, he lost the suit due to embarrassing the couple online instead of for their not making them a cake. The verdict was for emotional injury, not gay rights.

[SpursforSix]

How we supposed to like the guys when they are even more litigious and entitled than the blacks.

[boutons_deux]

How we supposed to like the guys

:lol who is expecting you to like anybody?

[SpursforSix]

And by the way what would happen if a Muslim ask the Baker to make a terrorist cake? Would he have to make that as well

[SpursforSix]

:lol who is expecting you to like anybody?

I meant homos

[Th'Pusher]

You are demanding he do something against his religious convictions.
I think I am going to go into an ice cream shop and demand they sell me a lawn mower this afternoon.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Passing the SAT was music to my ears.

Would have been funnier if you had written "music to my eyes."

[Th'Pusher]

That's exactly why these laws are so stupid.

You can discriminate on religious grounds. It'd have to be done by simply telling the fags "no." That scenario that avoids the intent of the law (ending discrimination) and the only way to deal with it, like you said, is to start examining each and every refusal for discriminatory intent.

Why does that make the law stupid? The law prevents intentional discrimination. Why is that a bad thing?

[Oh, Gee!!]

And by the way what would happen if a Muslim ask the Baker to make a terrorist cake? Would he have to make that as well

Probably, if he makes cakes for Christian terrorist groups.

[boutons_deux]

And by the way what would happen if a Muslim ask the Baker to make a terrorist cake? Would he have to make that as well

Not a terrorist cake, just a cake honoring Mohammed, maybe with a icing picture of Mohammed.

Or a Jewish cake with Jewish symbols? Extremist Christians hate other religions, and don't get along with other Christian sects, branches, that aren't as extremist.

As with all the other bullshit crap Repugs and Christian Taliban invent to oppress, slander, fuck up other people, the cake-denied-ONLY-for-LGBT is fucking bullshit.

[ElNono]

It's difficult to discern how this will play out after Obergefell v. Hodges. Prior to that case the religious argument would've very likely been the deciding factor. But now you might be looking at competing constitutional rights, with no prior jurisprudence that I know of.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby was decided upon the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and not the free exercise of religion protections afforded by the 1st Amendment. The RFRA only applies to the federal government, after most of it's parts being ruled unconstitutional. So the RFRA won't work in this case, it would have to go directly through the 1st Amendment claim, IMO.

[Blake]

And by the way what would happen if a Muslim ask the Baker to make a terrorist cake? Would he have to make that as well

http://www.awesomelyluvvie.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/guncake.jpg

[vy65]

Why does that make the law stupid? The law prevents intentional discrimination. Why is that a bad thing?

The law prevents people from saying "I refuse to sell to gays." It doesn't prevent intentional discrimination.

[Th'Pusher]

The law prevents people from saying "I refuse to sell to gays." It doesn't prevent intentional discrimination.
That's a fair point. Still, what's wrong with a law that explicitly prevents you from voicing your reason for discrimination?

[vy65]

That's a fair point. Still, what's wrong with a law that explicitly prevents you from voicing your reason for discrimination?

I never said there was anything wrong with it.

[SpursforSix]

http://www.awesomelyluvvie.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/guncake.jpg

That looks more like a Happy 2nd Amendment cake.

[SpursforSix]

I think I am going to go into an ice cream shop and demand they sell me a lawn mower this afternoon.

Did you ended up doesing this?

[Th'Pusher]

That's exactly why these laws are so stupid.

You can discriminate on religious grounds. It'd have to be done by simply telling the fags "no." That scenario that avoids the intent of the law (ending discrimination) and the only way to deal with it, like you said, is to start examining each and every refusal for discriminatory intent.


I never said there was anything wrong with it.

[vy65]

Stupid isn't the same thing as wrong you retarded female

[Th'Pusher]

Stupid isn't the same thing as wrong you retarded female

Why is it stupid to have a law that explicitly prevents someone from voicing their intentions when discriminating.

[vy65]

Why is it stupid to have a law that explicitly prevents someone from voicing their intentions when discriminating.

Because it's pointless. Who the fuck cares if people aren't explicitly voicing the reasons why they aren't baking fags cakes when they can keep their mouths shut and not bake fags cakes.

Is stopping bakers from saying "I hate fags" really that important to you?

[Th'Pusher]

Because it's pointless. Who the fuck cares if people aren't explicitly voicing the reasons why they aren't baking fags cakes when they can keep their mouths shut and not bake fags cakes.

Is stopping bakers from saying "I hate fags" really that important to you?
Legally removing the soapbox that allows them to voice their intention to discriminate doesn't bother me. I'm not sure I'd label it important to me, but if a city or state wants to enact a law to do just that, I have no problem with it.

[vy65]

Crofl soapbox.

[TheSanityAnnex]

People are too thin skinned these days, everything goes to a lawsuit. If the anti-fag baker doesn't want to make the fags a fag cake the fags can go on yelp whine and complain and the market will decide if it will continue to keep anti-fag baker in business. The fags can also go to a pro-fag bakery that would be happy to bake them a fag cake. Neither the anti-fag baker nor the fags like eachother so why are they forced to do business together.

[Th'Pusher]

Crofl soapbox.
Yeah. You need a dictionary?

soap·box
/'sōp,bäks/
'soʊp,bɑks/



▶n (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/n).

a (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/a) box (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/box) or (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/or) crate (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/l/m_en_us1236884) used (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/l/m_en_us1303228) as (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/as) a (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/a) makeshift (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/l/m_en_us1265491) stand (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/l/m_en_us1293803) by (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/by) a (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/a) public (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/l/m_en_us1281634) speaker (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/l/m_en_us1292863): [as (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/as) modifier (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/l/m_en_us1268648)
]
a (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/a) soapbox (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/l/m_en_us1291951) orator (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/l/m_en_us1273786)
.

■a (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/a) thing (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/l/m_en_us1298362) that (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/l/m_en_us1298122) provides (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/provides) an (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/an) opportunity (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/l/m_en_us1273666) for (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/for) someone (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/l/m_en_us1292324) to (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/to) air (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/l/m_en_us1220553) their (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/l/m_en_us1298151)views (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/views) publicly (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/l/m_en_us1281653): fanzines (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/fanzines) are (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/are) soapboxes (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/soapboxes) for (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/for) critical (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/l/m_en_us1237115) sports (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/sports) fans (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/fans)
.



New Oxford American Dictionary © 2010 Oxford University Press

[vy65]

Yeah. You need a dictionary?

soap·box
/'sōp,bäks/
'soʊp,bɑks/



▶n (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/n).

a (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/a) box (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/box) or (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/or) crate (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/l/m_en_us1236884) used (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/l/m_en_us1303228) as (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/as) a (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/a) makeshift (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/l/m_en_us1265491) stand (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/l/m_en_us1293803) by (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/by) a (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/a) public (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/l/m_en_us1281634) speaker (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/l/m_en_us1292863): [as (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/as) modifier (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/l/m_en_us1268648)
]
a (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/a) soapbox (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/l/m_en_us1291951) orator (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/l/m_en_us1273786)
.

■a (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/a) thing (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/l/m_en_us1298362) that (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/l/m_en_us1298122) provides (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/provides) an (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/an) opportunity (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/l/m_en_us1273666) for (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/for) someone (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/l/m_en_us1292324) to (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/to) air (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/l/m_en_us1220553) their (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/l/m_en_us1298151)views (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/views) publicly (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/l/m_en_us1281653): fanzines (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/fanzines) are (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/are) soapboxes (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/soapboxes) for (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/for) critical (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/l/m_en_us1237115) sports (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/sports) fans (file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Application/6328E530-AE4B-453A-A5C9-6094344AD633/NOAD.app/w/fans)
.



New Oxford American Dictionary © 2010 Oxford University Press

How does law prevent bakers from expressing anti-gay rhetoric -- which is what you mean by "intent to discriminate," isn't it?

[Th'Pusher]

How does law prevent bakers from expressing anti-gay rhetoric -- which is what you mean by "intent to discriminate," isn't it?
I don't know what you're asking here. A law was put into place to prevent people from discriminating based on sexual orientation. I don't think this is stupid like you do. The law can easily be skirted if the bigot simply keeps his mouth shut and elects not to serve the couple. There is nothing that can be done about this, nor should there be.

If if the baker want to tell everyone he hates gays, I have no issue with that either. That said, he should not be able openly discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Is that clear to you?

[thunder]

Th'Pusher where does your username come from, tbh?..

[ElNono]

People are too thin skinned these days, everything goes to a lawsuit. If the anti-fag baker doesn't want to make the fags a fag cake the fags can go on yelp whine and complain and the market will decide if it will continue to keep anti-fag baker in business. The fags can also go to a pro-fag bakery that would be happy to bake them a fag cake. Neither the anti-fag baker nor the fags like eachother so why are they forced to do business together.

Not really. I mean, look at Dred Scott v. Sandford, one of the worst decisions by the SCOTUS, that was indirectly one of the triggers to the Civil War... discrimination isn't new and has been litigated for pretty much as long as this country has existed...

[Th'Pusher]

Th'Pusher where does your username come from, tbh?..

I push pills. You into opiates?

[vy65]

Nono, you my nig, but are you seriously comparing a scotus decision denying citizenship to blacks to a Colorado state court decision requiring a Christian to bake a cake for fags?

[boutons_deux]

"If the anti-fag baker doesn't want to make the fags a fag cake the fags can go on yelp whine"

they're fighting the next battle, aiming for Federal anti-discrimination law. the cake episode isn't a question of thin skin, but of being pissed at being denied lots of other stuff beside cake.

[ElNono]

Nono, you my nig, but are you seriously comparing a scotus decision denying citizenship to blacks to a Colorado state court decision requiring a Christian to bake a cake for fags?

I'm just thinking ahead. I could be wrong but I think this is clearly heading towards the SCOTUS because that's exactly what the goal is. In general terms this is a matter of individual rights.

Interestingly enough, Dred Scott v. Sandford opened the door to the creation of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which is where Obergefell v. Hodges was decided (Due Process, Equal Protection), and apparently granted certain rights to the same-sex class.

I don't know about a direct comparison, but historically there's definite connection.

[ElNono]

I should add that Dred Scott didn't sue seeking to establish his citizenship rights. He sued to end his and his wife's slavery. The citizenship thing was all Taney, which thankfully came up with such a stupid decision, because it made the ruling largely non-binding.

[SpursforSix]

but of being pissed at being denied lots of other stuff beside cake.


Like what?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Like what?
Pussy.

[SpursforSix]

Pussy.

8/10.

But seriously...other than a "fag cake", what's the problem? Hostess or Little Debbie should start cranking out Faggot Bars or Little Faggot Rolls and make some money off this.

[DarrinS]

http://youtu.be/RgWIhYAtan4

[ChumpDumper]

Oh look, the same video!

The Muslims should bake the cake too if that is the law where they operate.

You can put that straw man away now, Darrin.

[Winehole23]

I should add that Dred Scott didn't sue seeking to establish his citizenship rights. He sued to end his and his wife's slavery. The citizenship thing was all Taney, which thankfully came up with such a stupid decision, because it made the ruling largely non-binding.No comeback, Nice post.

:tu

[Blake]

PAXTON, Illinois, March 30, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- A Christian couple in rural Illinois vow they will never host same-sex “marriages” or civil unions at their bed and breakfast, despite having just been docked $80,000 in damages to a same-sex couple they turned away in 2011.

Jim and Beth Walder were looking for a low-stress occupation when they opened the TimberCreek B&B in Paxton, Illinois in 2003. They never got their wish, having been flooded out three times since then and watched as half the trees on their pastoral property were torn down by a gale.

But worse was to come. Hard on the heels of Illinois recognizing same-sex civil unions, a homosexual couple, Todd and Mark Wathen, inquired as to whether they would be hosting civil unions. “No,” responded Jim Walder. “We only do weddings.” At this point the Wathens had already been turned down by one B&B. *

But Walder didn’t just turn them down, the couple later complained. He hurt their feelings when he emailed them that, “We will never host same-sex civil unions. We will never host same-sex weddings even if they become legal in Illinois. We believe homosexuality is wrong and unnatural based on what the Bible says about it. If this is discrimination, I guess we unfortunately discriminate.”

The Wathens then threatened Walder with prosecution under a state law prohibiting any business from discriminating. Walder replied that the Bible “trumps Illinois law, United States law and Global law should there ever be any. Please read John 3:16.”

Though the Wathens complained immediately to the Illinois Human Rights Commission it took until last December for it to rule. The Wathens, supported by the American Civil Liberties Union, based their case on state human rights legislation while the Walders invoked the state’s recent law protecting religious freedom. Their lawyers also argued their B&B was not a public facility and that they hadn’t refused service directly but merely described their operation.

But a judge ruled there was “substantial evidence” of discrimination based on sexual orientation. A week ago came the award of $15,000 each to the aggrieved homosexuals and $50,000 for their lawyers. As well came an order to cease all discrimination.

The Wathens, who eventually had their ceremony in their own backyard, were pleased, as was the ALCU, whose spokesman Ed Yohnka told reporters, “We’ve seen this in other states, but this is now the clear interpretation of Illinois public accommodation laws. We hope that no other bed-and-breakfast and no other business in Illinois would be so bold as to discriminate.”

However the Walders, so far, are not surrendering. They issued a statement that says, in part, “We cannot host a same-sex wedding even though fines and penalties have been imposed by the Illinois Human Rights Commission. Our policy will not be changing.”

“In our opinion, neither the state of Illinois nor the U.S. Supreme Court has the authority to tamper with the definition of marriage. God alone created marriage and declared thousands of years ago that it was to be between a man and a woman. Not two men. Not two women.”
....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.lifesitenews.com/mobile/news/christian-bb-isnt-backing-down-despite-80000-fine-for-refusing-to-host-gay#

Gawd is proud of us

[boutons_deux]

Gawd is proud of us

More same-sex couples ought to use these Christian haters as ATMs.

[Chinook]

Shit, I'd get a friend and go to that B&B pretending like we wanted to get married. Free money.

[Blake]

More same-sex couples ought to use these Christian haters as ATMs.

No kidding

[RD2191]

Ok dumbfuck.
Lol. You got fucking owned in this thread cuck faggot.

[Blake]

Lol. You got fucking owned in this thread cuck faggot.

Lol your opinion means 0, dumbfuck

[Wild Cobra]

Why no response from my earlier post:

"From what I read, he lost the suit due to embarrassing the couple online instead of for their not making them a cake. The verdict was for emotional injury, not gay rights."

Why are you guys ignoring the relevant facts of the case? He made online derogatory statements about them. This is what the case was won over. Not his refusal to bake the cake. He was wrong, and I support that court decision.

[Blake]

Why no response from my earlier post:

"From what I read, he lost the suit due to embarrassing the couple online instead of for their not making them a cake. The verdict was for emotional injury, not gay rights."

Why are you guys ignoring the relevant facts of the case? He made online derogatory statements about them. This is what the case was won over. Not his refusal to bake the cake. He was wrong, and I support that court decision.

As usual you don't link anything.

[Blake]

Op: "family bakery owned by a Christian cannot refuse to make wedding cakes for homosexual couples, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled Thursday."

[Wild Cobra]

As usual you don't link anything.

I did in the past in a different thread. Resurrecting a thread so many months later gets confusing. The Gresham Oregon court case was won because of the things he or his wife said on social media, demeaning the gay couple. It started as a complaint for being gay vs. Christians not serving them, but that isn't what won the case. I know I have linked the facts, so it must have been in a different thread. My earlier link in this thread is not the specifics of the Gresham couple. Post 136 tripped me up looking back, because this thread is about a Colorado case. Not the Oregon case.

[Blake]

I did in the past in a different thread. Resurrecting a thread so many months later gets confusing. The Gresham Oregon court case was won because of the things he or his wife said on social media, demeaning the gay couple. It started as a complaint for being gay vs. Christians not serving them, but that isn't what won the case. I know I have linked the facts, so it must have been in a different thread. My earlier link in this thread is not the specifics of the Gresham couple. Post 136 tripped me up looking back, because this thread is about a Colorado case. Not the Oregon case.

Yeah well you shouldn't wonder why nobody responded. Nobody wants to keep up with your shit for you

[CosmicCowboy]

Op: "family bakery owned by a Christian cannot refuse to make wedding cakes for homosexual couples, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled Thursday."

No problem. Worst cake fucking ever.

[pgardn]

How else do you interpret this:

Leviticus 20:13Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

13*`And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood [is] on them.

Liething complicates the baking of a cake.

[pgardn]

No problem. Worst cake fucking ever.

You mean fucking cake, not cake fucking. Don't confuse what is already a messy business.

Leviticus had nothing to say about liething with cakes as one would lieth with a women.
By my interpretation.

[Blake]

No problem. Worst cake fucking ever.

Depends. Why don't you describe exactly what you'd do to the cake if you were him.

[MultiTroll]

Hmmn.
What could straights force a gay bakery to make?

[DisAsTerBot]

Hmmn.
What could straights force a gay bakery to make?

a cake? you're such an idiot

[MultiTroll]

^^^take a Midol.

I mean could they force them to quote scriptures denouncing homosexuality on the cake.

[pgardn]

Hmmn.
What could straights force a gay bakery to make?

A stone tablet cake from God with the Leviticus proclamation etched on the surface.

Then add part C section II (3b) concerning women liething with women if one made business with lesbian bakers.

Edit: Holyshit as I look up the polytroll read my mind.

[Blake]

^^^take a Midol.

I mean could they force them to quote scriptures denouncing homosexuality on the cake.

No. What other things can you think of tho

[PublicOption]

when you are selling a cake....make the fucking cake. stop worrying about other shit. your making a fucking living....don't worry who eats the fucker.:lmao

[MultiTroll]

I mean could they force them to quote scriptures denouncing homosexuality on the cake.


No. What other things can you think of tho
So the gay bakery gets to discriminate against them?

[Chinook]

Again, the question of artisans' rights is being completely glossed over in the current debate. Making laws prohibiting people from denying a generic service is understandable. Making laws forcing people to create works that endorse or promote ideas or actions go against their political/religious/philosophical leanings is a bigger issue. If that line between generic cakes and custom cakes isn't drawn, it could be a big issue.

Can a liberal baker refuse to make a Trump design on a cake? Before all this started, I would have believed yes pretty easily. Now, I can't justify that belief. And that scenario is SOOOO benign compared to other possible ones.

[SpursforSix]

Hmmn.
What could straights force a gay bakery to make?

maybe like an eclair stuffed through a doughnut? idk. what about a blueberry muffin shaped like a man having sex with rye bread.

[Blake]

Can a liberal baker refuse to make a Trump design on a cake?

Sure, why not

[Blake]

So the gay bakery gets to discriminate against them?

In that case yes. You especially can't force someone into creating something hateful.

Should be simple to figure this stuff out.

[spurraider21]

In that case yes. You especially can't force someone into creating something hateful.

Should be simple to figure this stuff out.
who is the arbiter of what qualifies as hateful

is it possible that a devout christian sees gay marriage as hateful against his religion?

[angrydude]

Can a neo nazi make a jewish cake maker to make a cake celebrating the holocaust?

[Chinook]

Sure, why not

Because if the courts are ruling that artisans don't have the right to refuse to create works they don't want to make, then that leaves the issue open to all sorts of things. If someone wants them to make a Trump cake and is willing to pay the cost for it, then how does that baker have any more right to refuse it than he does a request for a cake depicting a same-sex wedding?

Can a religious baker refuse to make a cake with the Flying Spaghetti Monster on it?

[Blake]

who is the arbiter of what qualifies as hateful

The court mostly.


Hate speech is communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women

http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hate-speech/




is it possible that a devout christian sees gay marriage as hateful against his religion?

Sure. That's why he got sued.

[Blake]

Because if the courts are ruling that artisans don't have the right to refuse to create works they don't want to make, then that leaves the issue open to all sorts of things.

Slippery. Slope.


If someone wants them to make a Trump cake and is willing to pay the cost for it, then how does that baker have any more right to refuse it than he does a request for a cake depicting a same-sex wedding?

Because he's not in the business of making Trump cakes. He's in the business of making wedding cakes. He denied the gays a wedding cake.

Why is this hard to get?



Can a religious baker refuse to make a cake with the Flying Spaghetti Monster on it?

A Christian baker can refuse to make a Muslim cake. He can't refuse service to Muslims for being Muslim.

Get it?

[Chinook]

Slippery. Slope.

There's nothing fallacious about what I said. If you have an issue with it, you should elaborate on what that is.


Because he's not in the business of making Trump cakes. He's in the business of making wedding cakes. He denied the gays a wedding cake.

Who are you talking about? Do you mean this specific guy? If so, I don't know and don't even really care. As I said in my first post in this thread, if the cakes are generic, I can at least understand why people would want the law to step in. If the cakes are customized, that's a different issue. My gripe would be about a law or ruling NOT making that distinction, not really with the general law saying that gay people can buy a cake if it's for sale and they are willing to pay for it.


A Christian baker can refuse to make a Muslim cake. He can't refuse service to Muslims for being Muslim.

Get it?

It's as I said above. Generic cake, I can understand the law (while still disagreeing with it). Custom cake, I think it has farther reaching effects than people are understanding.

[Blake]

Because if the courts are ruling that artisans don't have the right to refuse to create works they don't want to make, then that leaves the issue open to all sorts of things. If someone wants them to make a Trump cake and is willing to pay the cost for it, then how does that baker have any more right to refuse it than he does a request for a cake depicting a same-sex wedding?

Can a religious baker refuse to make a cake with the Flying Spaghetti Monster on it?

Det slippery slope into Trump cakes and frat party penis cakes



"Logicians call the*slippery slope*a classiclogical fallacy. There’s no reason to reject doing one thing, they say, just because it might open the door for some undesirable extremes; permitting “A” does not suspend our ability to say 'but not B' or 'certainly not Z' down the line. Indeed, given the endless parade of imagined horribles one could conjure up for any policy decision, the slippery slope can easily become an argument for doing nothing at all. Yet act we do; as George Will once noted, 'All politics takes place on a slippery slope.'.......

http://grammar.about.com/od/rs/g/slipslopeterm.htm

It's nearly text book.

[Blake]

I can at least understand why people would want the law to step in. If the cakes are customized, that's a different issue. My gripe would be about a law or ruling NOT making that distinction, not really with the general law saying that gay people can buy a cake if it's for sale and they are willing to pay for it.



It's as I said above. Generic cake, I can understand the law (while still disagreeing with it). Custom cake, I think it has farther reaching effects than people are understanding.

They wanted a wedding cake. Have you ever seen a wedding cake?

I don't know how you would make a gay cake vs a straight cake. The only difference might be two grooms on the top, I guess. Maybe a rainbow?

I don't understand how people don't understand how backwards our society would be if we allowed businesses open to the general public to discriminate based on physical characteristics. It's bad enough people are still ignorant about being born gay vs it being a choice.

Crazy.

[Chinook]

Det slippery slope into Trump cakes and frat party penis cakes



It's nearly text book.

How is a Trump cake an extreme?

[Chinook]

They wanted a wedding cake. Have you ever seen a wedding cake?

https://www.google.com/search?q=wedding+cakes&espv=2&biw=1080&bih=1795&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnuZ2x7PfLAhWEQCYKHRcdA8wQ_AUIBigB#tbm= isch&q=custom+wedding+cakes

Yeah, so it's not like they aren't customizable.


I don't know how you would make a gay cake vs a straight cake. The only difference might be two grooms on the top, I guess. Maybe a rainbow?

That does count as being different.


I don't understand how people don't understand how backwards our society would be if we allowed businesses open to the general public to discriminate based on physical characteristics.

It's not the government's job to stop people from being "backward". That's why the Duck Dynasty guys have a show. It's there to protect the rights and interests of its citizens. And that doesn't just mean its gay citizens.


t's bad enough people are still ignorant about being born gay vs it being a choice.

This really has no factor in discrimination.

[Blake]

How is a Trump cake an extreme?

Because what kind of bakery would it be without an assorted collection of fine Trump cakes

[Mitch]

Bakery should make the cake, but shouldn't be forced to make it themed for a homosexual couple in any way.

Would make the issue clear if we could see the cake the fudgpackers wanted, tbh

[Blake]

https://www.google.com/search?q=wedding+cakes&espv=2&biw=1080&bih=1795&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnuZ2x7PfLAhWEQCYKHRcdA8wQ_AUIBigB#tbm= isch&q=custom+wedding+cakes

Yeah, so it's not like they aren't customizable.

Point out the ones made for heterosexual weddings.

[spurraider21]

A Christian baker can refuse to make a Muslim cake. He can't refuse service to Muslims for being Muslim.

Get it?
So a Christian baker can refuse to make a Muslim cake but he can't refuse to make a gay cake? Arbitrary cutoffs are arbitrary

[Blake]

So a Christian baker can refuse to make a Muslim cake but he can't refuse to make a gay cake? Arbitrary cutoffs are arbitrary

Nope. Re-read or I'll repeat if you need it

[Blake]

That does count as being different.

was that an issue here?



It's not the government's job to stop people from being "backward". That's why the Duck Dynasty guys have a show. It's there to protect the rights and interests of its citizens. And that doesn't just mean its gay citizens.

once you open your doors to welcome the general public in, your individual rights are greatly reduced. You don't get to do whatever you want.



This really has no factor in discrimination.

I don't care. It's my own opinion.

[vy65]

It's nearly text book.

Do you know what stare decisis is?

[Chinook]

Point out the ones made for heterosexual weddings.

I mean, you're right that the depictions of a male and female character could still be for a gay couple. I don't think that does any work, though, since I have been talking about the cakes themselves and not the clients.

[Chinook]

was that an issue here?

I don't know what you mean by "here". I've said before that my comment was talking about the court ruling and the laws, not about any particular instance.


once you open your doors to welcome the general public in, your individual rights are greatly reduced. You don't get to do whatever you want.

Yes, that's a basic tenant of all moral and social philosophy. Somehow, you think that the "right" for gay people to get wedding cakes is somehow inalienable, though. We have systems for determining which rights take precedence over others, and intellectually, the cake-makers should have the superseding right in these cases. That the government is flipping the script is always cause for scrutiny, as it's only supposed to do so in extreme circumstances.


I don't care. It's my own opinion.

It's fine that you think being gay isn't a choice. I agree with you. But it's not true that you think that being born with a characteristic is the only factor in determining what's discrimination, since you used Muslims as an example in this thread, and religion is obviously not something one is born with.

[Blake]

Do you know what stare decisis is?

Yeah

[vy65]

Yeah

Good. Does that change your opinions on the "slippery slope."

If not, why?

[vy65]

Somehow, you think that the "right" for gay people to get wedding cakes is somehow inalienable, though.

This. I didn't realize that constitutional due process protections safeguard life, liberty, and gay cakes.

[Chinook]

Because what kind of bakery would it be without an assorted collection of fine Trump cakes

Most probably don't have tumeric- or coriander-flavored cakes, either. I don't think anyone considers that an ending worthy of a slippery-slope, though.

[Blake]

Good. Does that change your opinions on the "slippery slope."

If not, why?

There's no precedent for anyone being forced to make a Trump cake. Or a frat penis cake.

[Blake]

This. I didn't realize that constitutional due process protections safeguard life, liberty, and gay cakes.

Nobody is demanding a gay cake.

[SpursforSix]

Nobody is demanding a gay cake.

idk if they demanded it but here's a gay cake

http://henrymakow.com/upload_images/Gay-Wedding-Cake-973x1024.jpg

[Blake]

Most probably don't have tumeric- or coriander-flavored cakes, either. I don't think anyone considers that an ending worthy of a slippery-slope, though.

You specifically said it could open the door for things like being forced to make a Trump cake. I can't explain the slippery slope fallacy and your crystal clear use of it here any more than I have. Anything further is redundancy.

[SpursforSix]

Also...if someone wanted to pay me, I'd make this ^ cake for them.

[vy65]

There's no precedent for anyone being forced to make a Trump cake. Or a frat penis cake.

Not what I'm talking about. If you know what what stare decisis is, does that knowledge change your :lol slippery slope :lol position?

[vy65]

There's no precedent for anyone being forced to make a Trump cake. Or a frat penis cake.

There's precedent for people being forced to make cakes against their will. So why is the Trump cake hypothetical outlandish?

[Chinook]

You specifically said it could open the door for things like being forced to make a Trump cake. I can't explain the slippery slope fallacy and your crystal clear use of it here any more than I have. Anything further is redundancy.

You quoted a source saying that it's using an extreme end to warn against a current decision. How is a Trump cake extreme? Simply saying, "These two things are logically connected" doesn't make it a slippery slope.

[Blake]

There's precedent for people being forced to make cakes against their will. So why is the Trump cake hypothetical outlandish?

The precedent is denying service to a gay couple, not making an outlandish cake against their will, genius.

[Blake]

You quoted a source saying that it's using an extreme end to warn against a current decision. How is a Trump cake extreme? Simply saying, "These two things are logically connected" doesn't make it a slippery slope.

Making Trump cakes isn't their business. Making wedding cakes is.

[vy65]

The precedent is denying service to a gay couple, not making an outlandish cake against their will, genius.

And that precedent makes it legitimate to force a cake maker to make a cake against his beliefs. Explain why that cannot be used by a subsequent court to hold that a cake maker can be forced to make a trump cake against their beliefs.

Good to see you backed off :lol slippery slope :lol

[Chinook]

Making Trump cakes isn't their business. Making wedding cakes is.

Isn't who's business? Again, you keep going to this specific case. I am talking about the law or precedent that will come from this. Is that ONLY going to cover regular (or even any) wedding cakes? No. But what will it cover? That was my question. We don't know how this is going to shake out, and it could have consequences that people aren't considering.

[Blake]

I am talking about the law or precedent that will come from this.

Yes, your slippery slope.

If someone doesn't have the materials to make a Trump cake, how are they supposed to make one.

[Blake]

And that precedent makes it legitimate to force a cake maker to make a cake against his beliefs. Explain why that cannot be used by a subsequent court to hold that a cake maker can be forced to make a trump cake against their beliefs.

Good to see you backed off :lol slippery slope :lol

It's still a slippery slope. Not sure where you got that I backed off, but you're a multiple time proven dumb fuck so there's that.

[vy65]

It's still a slippery slope. Not sure where you got that I backed off, but you're a multiple time proven dumb fuck so there's that.

Oh, dumb fuck. Cool.

Explain what stare decisis means.


Explain why that cannot be used by a subsequent court to hold that a cake maker can be forced to make a trump cake against their beliefs.

And that too

[Chinook]

Yes, your slippery slope.

No, there's actually going to be a national standard created from this. That's not some threat from me to get everyone in line. It'll happen soon, and it's perfectly fair to think about what it will be.

[Blake]

Oh, dumb fuck. Cool.

Explain what stare decisis means.



And that too

Lol fancy words to look smart.

Nobody is being forced here to make a gay cake. Whatever that might be.

You're a fucking idiot.

[Blake]

No, there's actually going to be a national standard created from this. That's not some threat from me to get everyone in line. It'll happen soon, and it's perfectly fair to think about what it will be.

Trump Cake coming!

[vy65]

Lol fancy words to look smart.

Nobody is being forced here to make a gay cake. Whatever that might be.

You're a fucking idiot.

Can't answer straightforward questions huh? For someone who's :lol trump cake :lol you sure are sounding like the Donald

[Blake]

Can't answer straightforward questions huh? For someone who's :lol trump cake :lol you sure are sounding like the Donald

I already answered your question in two different ways. You're just slow and stupid.

But I'll do it again:

1) a trump cake is very specific. If someone doesn't normally make one, you can't force them to make one.

2) nobody is being asked to make a "gay cake". They were asked to make a wedding cake which was going to be for a gay wedding celebration.

If you ask again, I'll try to dumb it down further, but I'm not sure how much simpler I can make it for you.

[vy65]

I already answered your question in two different ways. You're just slow and stupid.

But I'll do it again:

1) a trump cake is very specific. If someone doesn't normally make one, you can't force them to make one.

2) nobody is being asked to make a "gay cake". They were asked to make a wedding cake which was going to be for a gay wedding celebration.

If you ask again, I'll try to dumb it down further, but I'm not sure how much simpler I can make it for you.

Let me go about it this way:

I want to buy a cake for a Trump 2016 rally. So, I go to a bakery run by a pastry chef who is very queer and very liberal. I mention why I want the cake, and ask him to bake me one with his normal cakes (no "Trump 2016" bullshit on it). He refuses. Can I sue the bakery and force them to bake and sell me a cake?

If the answer is no, explain why?

If the answer is yes, what difference does it then make if I ask them to put "Trump 2016" (or "Mike and Tom forever," or "fags rule," or "The Prophet Mohammed is the Best," etc...) or not on the cake? If the baker is already required to make and sell me the cake, why draw the line at the words on the cake?

I think you're drawing the line at the cake having words that express a pro-gay opinion. What if it says "Mike and Tom," or has the two groomsmen on it? More importantly, why do the words on the cake matter if the basis of the baker's objection is that they do not want to have their products/work used in connection with a cause they don't support?

This isn't like the Ollie's BBQ case where the Supreme Court held there was no basis for denying ribs to black people because there's a countervailing 1st amendment objection here. You're going to have to have a court say that birthday cakes to fags is more important than the christian-right baker's first amendment rights. That's a really shitty ruling.

[Blake]

Tldr don't really care about your stupid scenario.

The CRA of 64 has protected classes. Some states go further and protect gays. I think it's just a matter of time before gays are protected on a federal level too.

That's about it. No slippery Trump cake slope.

[vy65]

What a lazy, stupid take

[Blake]

I've already read up on it and I'm confident I'm right. I don't really give a shit if you agree or not. I think you're an idiot not worth going back and forth on this with. Sorry.

[vy65]

^ More lazy, stupid drivel.

[Blake]

Lol I'm not gonna do research or critical thinking for you.

Nice try, lazy retard.