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

[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/201...utive-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/201...utive-her-kids

LOL. what a dumb .

[Spurminator]

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

[SpursforSix]

Man some of you guys are ing 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.

ter 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/...l?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 en led than the blacks.

[boutons_deux]

How we supposed to like the guys

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]

who is expecting you to like anybody?

I meant s

[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 s "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 bull crap Repugs and Christian Taliban invent to oppress, slander, up other people, the cake-denied-ONLY-for-LGBT is ing bull .

[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 cons utional 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 uncons utional. 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

[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.