Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I don't think he will win, but I also don't think he should be forced to do this either. There are other bakeries to go to.

At times it is hard to take the hysteria over this seriously. I was reading an article earlier today about this and the mother of one of the gay guys says she was with her son in the immediate aftermath of this event and he began crying and shaking.

Jack Phillips is a moron

/end thread.

Originally posted by Surtur
I was reading an article earlier today about this and the mother of one of the gay guys says she was with her son in the immediate aftermath of this event and he began crying and shaking.
LMFAO seriously?! What a joke kek

Triple A title! haha


But, yes, some are getting tired of Judicial Activism from our Supreme Court and they feel that they are not "doing things correctly."


I think business owners should be able to turn away people that they disagree with and it be protected under the 1st Amendment. Just the same as I think people should get to horribly review that business if they turn away gays and let the public vote to not shop at that business.

And if they don't go out of business, looks like people either don't care or support that position.


Let me give an example because I don't like hypocrites:

I don't buy Tyson foods because of how poorly they treat their animals. I am not be a vegan but I'm close to being an animal loving, tree hugging hippy. So companies that have rubbed me the wrong way, especially when it comes to the treatment of animals, don't get my dollars.

FYI, Lenny and Larry's cookies are made with high standards and if you're vegan, they are good sources of protein:




Other than their non-GMO stance (which I think it ignorant), I love their products and I don't feel bad eating them because they are a US company and they don't hurt animals unnecessarily to make their food.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
LMFAO seriously?! What a joke kek

I'd daresay maybe someone isn't emotionally mature enough to get married if being denied a wedding cake causes them to break down in tears.

That is the way a child reacts. I bet this person has a shitload of participation trophies at home.

Love thy neighbour, unless they're gay, I guess

Originally posted by Scribble
Love thy neighbour, unless they're gay, I guess

The dude is citing religion.

Can I ask a muslim baker for a Muhammad cake? Do not respond with "no because it is against their religion" lol. Their offense? Irrelevant.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Triple A title! haha


But, yes, some are getting tired of Judicial Activism from our Supreme Court and they feel that they are not "doing things correctly."


I think business owners should be able to turn away people that they disagree with and it be protected under the 1st Amendment. Just the same as I think people should get to horribly review that business if they turn away gays and let the public vote to not shop at that business.

And if they don't go out of business, looks like people either don't care or support that position.


Let me give an example because I don't like hypocrites:

I don't buy Tyson foods because of how poorly they treat their animals. I am not be a vegan but I'm close to being an animal loving, tree hugging hippy. So companies that have rubbed me the wrong way, especially when it comes to the treatment of animals, don't get my dollars.

FYI, Lenny and Larry's cookies are made with high standards and if you're vegan, they are good sources of protein:




Other than their non-GMO stance (which I think it ignorant), I love their products and I don't feel bad eating them because they are a US company and they don't hurt animals unnecessarily to make their food.

Weird thing is, the guy was willing to sacrifice business. I read he just stopped doing wedding cakes. Which not only did he apparently enjoy doing, but they made up 40% of his business.

So I dunno, true bigots rarely seem willing to lose out on shitloads of cash. Unless they already have plenty of money.

He's essentially been f*cked over because he doesn't wanna be forced to make a cake for a gay wedding lol. Victory...I guess? A livelihood might be destroyed, but f*ck it they had to virtue signal.

I can almost guarantee these people(one of whom cried over this) have busted out cliches like "it's about the principle, not the cake".

PS: It's about the cake lol.

Originally posted by Surtur
The dude is citing religion.

Can I ask a muslim baker for a Muhammad cake? Do not respond with "no because it is against their religion" lol. Their offense? Irrelevant. Not really, the religion thing would be fair enough in most circumstances, like a Muhammed cake would be against one of their core beliefs. It'd be like asking a Christian to make a Satan cake or something, in which case, fair enough, I wouldn't expect them to make that cake. This 'Christian' is citing such a tiny part of his religion whilst ignoring the larger, core beliefs. Just pointing out the ridiculous hypocrisy involved.

Originally posted by Scribble
Not really, the religion thing would be fair enough in most circumstances, like a Muhammed cake would be against one of their core beliefs. It'd be like asking a Christian to make a Satan cake or something, in which case, fair enough, I wouldn't expect them to make that cake. This 'Christian' is citing such a tiny part of his religion whilst ignoring the larger, core beliefs. Just pointing out the ridiculous hypocrisy involved.

They are against gay marriage and they do not wanna make a custom cake for a gay marriage lol. Seems simple enough to me.

Also, muslims are not big fans of gays. I wonder if there would be an outcry if a Muslim didn't wanna bake a cake because they were gay?

Lol who am I kidding? There wouldn't be anywhere near as big an outcry.

Originally posted by Surtur
They are against gay marriage and they do not wanna make a custom cake for a gay marriage lol. Seems simple enough to me.

Also, muslims are not big fans of gays. I wonder if there would be an outcry if a Muslim didn't wanna bake a cake because they were gay?

Lol who am I kidding? There wouldn't be anywhere near as big an outcry. They are meant to treat all people as equals and let God judge in the afterlife. They are meant to love thy neighbour, and do to others as they would have done to them. That's Christianity. Or, it's supposed to be, anyway. So the religious argument, in their case, is flimsy at best. I think their God will forgive them for baking a gay cake, as it would be in keeping with the more important rules and actual commandments, as opposed to the other less structurally important rules such as "gaybad".

Originally posted by Scribble
They are meant to treat all people as equals and let God judge in the afterlife. They are meant to love thy neighbour, and do to others as they would have done to them. That's Christianity. Or, it's supposed to be, anyway. So the religious argument, in their case, is flimsy at best. I think their God will forgive them for baking a gay cake, as it would be in keeping with the more important rules and actual commandments, as opposed to the other less structurally important rules such as "gaybad".

God would forgive them for baking a cake? And no doubt Allah would forgive them for drawing Muhammad....lol. Worst case scenario they just behead an infidel.

Originally posted by Surtur
God would forgive them for baking a cake? And no doubt Allah would forgive them for drawing Muhammad....lol. Worst case scenario they just behead an infidel. Why do you keep talking about Muslims? Idgi, are there any Muslims even involved in this scenario? What does a potential yet entirely unfounded and fictional double-standard scenario have to do with this real-life scenario that is literally happening in the real world right now?

Originally posted by Scribble
Why do you keep talking about Muslims? Idgi, are there any Muslims even involved in this scenario? What does a potential yet entirely unfounded and fictional double-standard scenario have to do with this real-life scenario that is literally happening in the real world right now?

Cuz I'm tired of religious double standards in this country. You'd think in a majority christian country the double standard would exist the other way around, but nope lol.

Originally posted by Scribble
Not really, the religion thing would be fair enough in most circumstances, like a Muhammed cake would be against one of their core beliefs. It'd be like asking a Christian to make a Satan cake or something, in which case, fair enough, I wouldn't expect them to make that cake. This 'Christian' is citing such a tiny part of his religion whilst ignoring the larger, core beliefs. Just pointing out the ridiculous hypocrisy involved.

Well, to be the fairest of them all, I'd make a Satan cake. Because my business is to make cakes for people based on their orders, not to dictate my beliefs onto others. But that's only because I see a clear line between business and personal beliefs.

I'm not supporting their beliefs. I am not endorsing their beliefs. I'm doing a job that I'm getting paid for and everything being done is legal.

The non sequitur is when someone says, "Would you make a cake of a man touching a boy for NAMBLA?" Well, now, that's illegal, isn't it, dipshit? It's not illegal to be homosexual (thankfully). It's not illegal to worship Satan. But it is certainly illegal to abuse children.


"Would you make a slave themed cake if it was 1810?" SUUUURE! It's 1820, slavery is legal, and I wouldn't know any better. Doesn't mean I would be a slave owner or endorse owning slaves. I'm still running a business.



Honestly, I could make any cake that didn't disgust me. So I may not be able to make the slave cake...It'd make me "mad, bro."

Originally posted by Surtur
Cuz I'm tired of religious double standards in this country. You'd think in a majority christian country the double standard would exist the other way around, but nope lol. This double-standard is entirely fictional though. You invented it. Just because you assume it would happen that way, doesn't mean there's any ground or reason to debate it. In fact, debating a fictional scenario is just taking debate away from the real-life scenario that we're supposed to be talking about.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, to be the fairest of them all, I'd make a Satan cake. Because my business is to make cakes for people based on their orders, not to dictate my beliefs onto others. But that's only because I see a clear line between business and personal beliefs.

I'm not supporting their beliefs. I am not endorsing their beliefs. I'm doing a job that I'm getting paid for and everything being done is legal.

The non sequitur is when someone says, "Would you make a cake of a man touching a boy for NAMBLA?" Well, now, that's illegal, isn't it, dipshit? It's not illegal to be homosexual (thankfully). It's not illegal to worship Satan. But it is certainly illegal to abuse children.


"Would you make a slave themed cake if it was 1810?" SUUUURE! It's 1820, slavery is legal, and I wouldn't know any better. Doesn't mean I would be a slave owner or endorse owning slaves. I'm still running a business.



Honestly, I could make any cake that didn't disgust me. So I may not be able to make the slave cake...It'd make me "mad, bro." The line between religion and business is definitely a good one to draw. If they were explicitly a Christian cake store, then going in and ordering a Satan cake would be an obvious troll attempt, so it'd be even more fair for them to refuse it. But if the religion side is just personal, then separating business and religion is the best idea.

Coming back to the Muslim thing (sigh, I wish I didn't have to), asking a Muslim to make a Mohammed cake (even if their shop isn't explicitly a Muslim cake shop) would also just be an obvious troll attempt, as nobody needs a Mohammed cake. A Muslim wouldn't want one as it'd be against their religion, so whoever is ordering it is clearly just trying to rile up the shop owner.

Originally posted by Scribble
Coming back to the Muslim thing (sigh, I wish I didn't have to), asking a Muslim to make a Mohammed cake (even if their shop isn't explicitly a Muslim cake shop) would also just be an obvious troll attempt, as nobody needs a Mohammed cake. A Muslim wouldn't want one as it'd be against their religion, so whoever is ordering it is clearly just trying to rile up the shop owner.

Speak for yourself, mother f*cker! angry

Muslim Tiers (damn, this pun is amazing) are delicious. mad

Originally posted by Scribble
This double-standard is entirely fictional though. You invented it. Just because you assume it would happen that way, doesn't mean there's any ground or reason to debate it. In fact, debating a fictional scenario is just taking debate away from the real-life scenario that we're supposed to be talking about.


It's not fictional though, lol. One of the campus reform videos(or a video in the same vein as those) had them going around, asking if a Christian denying a service based on religion was okay. I wish I could find it again, but they were then asked if a Muslim doing the same was okay. Do you think they were consistent? It's not everybody who thinks that, but it absolutely is not solely in my head.

And since you don't live here...lol, how would you even be able to say this double standard doesn't exist?

How would you even think it doesn't also exist by you? What do you guys hear more about in the news: Islamaphobia or the polls that show 40% of british muslims want homosexuality illegal, etc.?

Originally posted by Surtur
It's not fictional though, lol. One of the campus reform videos(or a video in the same vein as those) had them going around, asking if a Christian denying a service based on religion was okay. I wish I could find it again, but they were then asked if a Muslim doing the same was okay. Do you think they were consistent? It's not everybody who thinks that, but it absolutely is not solely in my head.

And since you don't live here...lol, how would you even be able to say this double standard doesn't exist?

How would you even think it doesn't also exist by you? What do you guys hear more about in the news: Islamaphobia or the polls that show 40% of british muslims want homosexuality illegal, etc.? Sorry, hang on a second. How does any of this relate to cakes again? I thought we were discussing the cake thing. The thing at the top of the page, you know, the OP. As far as I know nobody has defended a Muslim for not baking a Mohammed cake, so I don't really understand where you're coming from. You seem to be using another scenario and projecting it onto this one, maybe? I don't know. We were talking about cakes and then you went off about Islam. Seems like a non-sequitur to me. Or should I say, a Non-SequiSurtur.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Speak for yourself, mother f*cker! angry

Muslim Tiers (damn, this pun is amazing) are delicious. mad Oh god awehuhs


Alright, I'll give you that one. That was pretty good.

Originally posted by Scribble
Sorry, hang on a second. How does any of this relate to cakes again? I thought we were discussing the cake thing. The thing at the top of the page, you know, the OP. As far as I know nobody has defended a Muslim for not baking a Mohammed cake, so I don't really understand where you're coming from. You seem to be using another scenario and projecting it onto this one, maybe? I don't know. We were talking about cakes and then you went off about Islam. Seems like a non-sequitur to me. Or should I say, a Non-SequiSurtur.
Oh god awehuhs


Alright, I'll give you that one. That was pretty good.

Lol, I already told you this. I'm tired of the double standards in this country. These same people saying the Christian baker should be forced would not be saying a Muslim should be forced to do something that conflicts with their religion.

You can disagree with that, but I'm being quite clear as to why I'm mentioning this.

I heavily dislike Christianity, I don't enjoy defending it in any way.

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol, I already told you this. I'm tired of the double standards in this country. These same people saying the Christian baker should be forced would not be saying a Muslim should be forced to do something that conflicts with their religion.

You can disagree with that, but I'm being quite clear as to why I'm mentioning this.

I heavily dislike Christianity, I don't enjoy defending it in any way. What? How do you know? Has this happened, or is this 100% conjecture? Also, what does it have to do with the actual situation itself?


Besides, the scenarios are entirely different. Your scenario presents someone wanting a Mohammed cake, which is a very insulting thing to ask a Muslim, whilst the real-life scenario is just someone wanting a wedding cake.

Originally posted by Scribble
What? How do you know? Has this happened, or is this 100% conjecture? Also, what does it have to do with the actual situation itself?


Besides, the scenarios are entirely different. Your scenario presents someone wanting a Mohammed cake, which is a very insulting thing to ask a Muslim, whilst the real-life scenario is just someone wanting a wedding cake.

It's not conjecture. We see it even right now lol. Look at what you *just* said. "It's very insulting to Muslims". And....? If the baker feels this is very insulting, what then?

I'm guessing it wouldn't matter at all if he felt it was very insulting, would it? Admit that. It would be *you* and others like you deciding on how offended he should or should not be. Tell me I'm wrong lol.

If the baker feels it would be very insulting to make him do this...should he be forced to do it? Yes or no.

Originally posted by Surtur
It's not conjecture. We see it even right now lol. Look at what you *just* said. "It's very insulting to Muslims". And....? If the baker feels this is very insulting, what then?

I'm guessing it wouldn't matter at all if he felt it was very insulting, would it? Admit that. It would be *you* and others like you deciding on how offended he should or should not be. Tell me I'm wrong lol. I could just go back to the last page and compile a bunch of my other posts that cover all of this, but that'd probably just take more time than just stating what I need again.


This scenario: A Christian, whose core religious beliefs include forgiveness for sins; loving thy neighbour; not judging, for that is God's right; doing to others as you would have done to yourself; is trying to claim that his making a gay wedding cake is 'against his religion' (it isn't).


Your fake scenario: A Muslim, one of whose core beliefs is to not create images of his prophet, denies a customer who wants him to make a cake of his prophet.


How in the name of sense and critical thinking can you not see the difference here?


Also, you're wrong. It has nothing to do with feelings or offence.

Originally posted by Scribble
I could just go back to the last page and compile a bunch of my other posts that cover all of this, but that'd probably just take more time than just stating what I need again.


This scenario: A Christian, whose core religious beliefs include forgiveness for sins; loving thy neighbour; not judging, for that is God's right; doing to others as you would have done to yourself; is trying to claim that his making a gay wedding cake is 'against his religion' (it isn't).


Your fake scenario: A Muslim, one of whose core beliefs is to not create images of his prophet, denies a customer who wants him to make a cake of his prophet.


How in the name of sense and critical thinking can you not see the difference here?


Also, you're wrong. It has nothing to do with feelings or offence.

You just said the muslim shouldn't have to do it because it would be very insulting.

If the baker says making the cake would be very insulting, should he be forced to make it? Yes or no.

Originally posted by Surtur
You just said the muslim shouldn't have to do it because it would be very insulting.

If the baker says making the cake would be very insulting, should he be forced to make it? Yes or no. No I didn't, I just said the person who'd be going to order the cake would be doing it to be insulting, which isn't the point, it was a side point. Reading comprehension mother ****er, can you use it?

Originally posted by Scribble
No I didn't, I just said the person who'd be going to order the cake would be doing it to be insulting, which isn't the point, it was a side point. Reading comprehension mother ****er, can you use it?

Or they could be asking as a joke lol. Or to see if they'd do it.

Should the guy be forced to make the cake if he finds it very insulting? Yes or no.

Remember, dude was willing to stop making wedding cakes, which make up 40% of his business. He feels strongly about this. Who are you to say he is or is not as offended as a Muslim would be?

Scribble, I'm a Christian, I think the anti-gay shit is stupid and I disagree with it.

But answer the question. Do you think this man should be forced to express through a custom cake this message that he disagrees with? Yes or no. You can call him an ******* or idiot if you want, but should he have the right to say "no, I'm not going to make a cake with a message I disagree with"?

Originally posted by Surtur
Or they could be asking as a joke lol. Or to see if they'd do it.

Should the guy be forced to make the cake if he finds it very insulting? Yes or no.

Remember, dude was willing to stop making wedding cakes, which make up 40% of his business. He feels strongly about this. Who are you to say he is or is not as offended as a Muslim would be? He shouldn't be forced to do it because it is against the core principles of his religion, not because of feelings. Just read my post and use your brain and maybe you'll actually figure out what's going on here, because you're creating fake agendas out of tiny parts of my posts whilst ignoring the rest, and now I'm just having to repeat myself again and again, and it's getting really tiring.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Scribble, I'm a Christian, I think the anti-gay shit is stupid and I disagree with it.

But answer the question. Do you think this man should be forced to express through a custom cake this message that he disagrees with? Yes or no. You can call him an ******* or idiot if you want, but should he have the right to say "no, I'm not going to make a cake with a message I disagree with"? He runs the business, he can refuse anything he wants. I just think his use of 'religious reasons' as an excuse are completely bogus and that he's a massive hypocrite who doesn't understand his own religious creed.

Originally posted by Scribble
He shouldn't be forced to do it because it is against the core principles of his religion, not because of feelings. Just read my post and use your brain and maybe you'll actually figure out what's going on here, because you're creating fake agendas out of tiny parts of my posts whilst ignoring the rest, and now I'm just having to repeat myself again and again, and it's getting really tiring.

And this man feels so strongly about this being against his religion he is willing to lose FORTY PERCENT of his business.

If the baker is very offended by this should he be forced to make it? Your answer is clearly yes lol.

Originally posted by Surtur
If the baker is very offended by this should he be forced to make it? Your answer is clearly yes lol. Boy is the egg on your face now, chuck.

Originally posted by Scribble
Boy is the egg on your face now, chuck.

Not really, this is getting ridiculous. If the man would be very insulted over it because he feels it goes against his religion, that should be enough.

You don't get to decide how offended he should be or how important the gay thing is to that specific Christian lol.

A person should not be forced, period.

Originally posted by Surtur
Not really, this is getting ridiculous. If the man would be very insulted over it because he feels it goes against his religion, that should be enough.

You don't get to decide how offended he should be or how important the gay thing is to that specific Christian lol.

A person should not be forced, period. I'm not deciding anything, I clearly just stated that he should be allowed to do what he wants,
Originally posted by Scribble
I just think his use of 'religious reasons' as an excuse are completely bogus and that he's a massive hypocrite who doesn't understand his own religious creed.
How are you not getting this? Are you on a slow day or something?

It's completely cool you think his reasons are bogus. My thing is, you don't get to decide that lol. You seem to get that, so good talk

I got that all along and never said anything about what should be done in the situation, just pointed out hypocrisy. You then went off about Muslims for ages, created my own political stance for me, argued against your invented political stance for me, got confused repeatedly, then eventually realised I'd never said anything of the sort and stopped.


Not really what I'd consider a "good talk", more of a "total waste of time for everyone", but sure.

Originally posted by Scribble
I got that all along and never said anything about what should be done in the situation, just pointed out hypocrisy. You then went off about Muslims for ages, created my own political stance for me, argued against your invented political stance for me, got confused repeatedly, then eventually realised I'd never said anything of the sort and stopped.


Not really what I'd consider a "good talk", more of a "total waste of time for everyone", but sure.

Hate to break this to you, not a single post on this forum is not a waste of time lol.

Originally posted by Surtur
Hate to break this to you, not a single post on this forum is not a waste of time lol. Yeah, and all ice cream is ice cream. But some amounts of ice cream are much bigger than others, just like some wastes of time are much bigger than others.

tbf Scribble if you prefaced everything with the statement that he shouldn't be forced to do it I doubt it would've turned into this lengthy back and forth.

Originally posted by Scribble
Yeah, and all ice cream is ice cream. But some amounts of ice cream are much bigger than others, just like some wastes of time are much bigger than others.

Hey when you're right you are right. Sort of like my "all transgenders are mentally ill, but the guy thinking he is 6 is way more mentally ill than most". I gotcha

Originally posted by Emperordmb
tbf Scribble if you prefaced everything with the statement that he shouldn't be forced to do it I doubt it would've turned into this lengthy back and forth.

Old McDonald had a farm and bingo was his name-o. B I N G O, B I N G O, B I N G O and bingo was his name-o

Originally posted by Emperordmb
tbf Scribble if you prefaced everything with the statement that he shouldn't be forced to do it I doubt it would've turned into this lengthy back and forth. Why? He jumped to a conclusion I made no hints at. He assumed that me, being generally quite left, held a specific position (despite it being the type of position I've argued against before), so that seems like his own issue, there. Also, he could have just asked me in the first place. It seems silly to enter into a conversation without making your opposition's opinions clear first, and even sillier to put words into someone else's mouth.


My post was literally just:
Originally posted by Scribble
Love thy neighbour, unless they're gay, I guess


If he made all of those assumptions just from that, then it's certainly not my fault, is it?

Originally posted by Surtur
Hey when you're right you are right. Sort of like my "all transgenders are mentally ill, but the guy thinking he is 6 is way more mentally ill than most". I gotcha And Non-SequiSurtur was his name-o

Originally posted by Scribble
Why? He jumped to a conclusion I made no hints at. He assumed that me, being generally quite left, held a specific position (despite it being the type of position I've argued against before), so that seems like his own issue, there.
You're right he did and he shouldn't have.

Originally posted by Scribble
Also, he could have just asked me in the first place. It seems silly to enter into a conversation without making your opposition's opinions clear first, and even sillier to put words into someone else's mouth.
He did ask you twice and you didn't respond, so I asked very clearly because the back and forth was getting warn out and I wanted to resolve it.

Bingo bango.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
He did ask you twice and you didn't respond, so I asked very clearly because the back and forth was getting warn out and I wanted to resolve it. I don't answer loaded questions. Your posing of the question was the first time it has been asked in a non-loaded manner, which is why I answered you.

Originally posted by Surtur
If the baker feels it would be very insulting to make him do this...should he be forced to do it? Yes or no.
Originally posted by Surtur
If the baker says making the cake would be very insulting, should he be forced to make it? Yes or no.
Originally posted by Surtur
Should the guy be forced to make the cake if he finds it very insulting? Yes or no.
I mean, if these are loaded questions you could've still just clarified your position and called him out for loaded questions and it would've put an end to this back and forth a few posts earlier. It doesn't strike me as reasonable to obfuscate your actual position which would end the controversy of your discussion just because you don't like the way you were being asked about it.

A political commissar should hold a gun to his head to make sure he bakes the cake.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
A political commissar should hold a gun to his head to make sure he bakes the cake.

Indeed, and leftists say guns have no good uses...

Nice to see that people are still more interested in scoring political points than having an open and honest debate.

I was listening to Ben Shapiro discuss this, he gave more details. Apparently this wasn't about the guy not wanting to sell a cake to people who would use it at a gay wedding. He was willing. It was about what the couple specifically wanted him to put on the cake. Either a pro gay message or two guys or something I dunno. But apparently it was about something they wanted him specifically to put on there.

Originally posted by Scribble
I don't answer loaded questions. Your posing of the question was the first time it has been asked in a non-loaded manner, which is why I answered you.
You have no obligation to play along with Surt's deflectionary tactics or his never ending search for non existent hypocrisy

Nobody said he was obligated, next.

Look at all the retarded whataboutery in this thread.

Let's get something straight: the baker did not refuse to make a "gay" wedding cake; he refused to sell a regular wedding cake to gay customers.

This is not an issue of compelling speech from the baker. It is an issue of compelling a private business owner to sell all the products he provides to all of the public in accordance to the law.

Now maybe all you alt-right ****boys can stop white knighting for the poor, Christian baker, who thinks his magical fairytale beliefs exempt him from whatever laws he does not want to follow.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Look at all the retarded whataboutery in this thread.

Let's get something straight: the baker did not refuse to make a "gay" wedding cake; he refused to sell a regular wedding cake to gay customers.

This is not an issue of compelling speech from the baker. It is an issue of compelling a private business owner to sell all the products he provides to all of the public in accordance to the law.

Now maybe all you alt-right ****boys can stop white knighting for the poor, Christian baker, who thinks his magical fairytale beliefs exempt him from whatever laws he does not want to follow.

So Ben Shapiro is lying? By all means, show me the source.

And nobody in this thread is alt right, try again.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Look at all the retarded whataboutery in this thread.

Let's get something straight: the baker did not refuse to make a "gay" wedding cake; he refused to sell a regular wedding cake to gay customers.

This is not an issue of compelling speech from the baker. It is an issue of compelling a private business owner to sell all the products he provides to all of the public in accordance to the law.

Now maybe all you alt-right ****boys can stop white knighting for the poor, Christian baker, who thinks his magical fairytale beliefs exempt him from whatever laws he does not want to follow. While I completely understand your point, and agree with you, the cake sadly becomes a "gay cake" in the context of the argument, despite it actually just being a general wedding cake.
Originally posted by Surtur
I was listening to Ben Shapiro discuss this, he gave more details. Apparently this wasn't about the guy not wanting to sell a cake to people who would use it at a gay wedding. He was willing. It was about what the couple specifically wanted him to put on the cake. Either a pro gay message or two guys or something I dunno. But apparently it was about something they wanted him specifically to put on there. Well of course they wanted him to put something specific on it, it's a wedding cake. Two men, two women, it's a wedding cake either way.

Okay, but from what was said...it wasn't that he was against just selling a cake, it was that he was against what they wanted him to put on it. From the way it was described...it sounds like they wanted more then "congratulations" or something on it. But this is being presented the way Adam just claimed: that the guy just plain did not want to sell *any* cake that would be used in a gay wedding. If that is not the case that is a big detail to distort IMO. Not saying I am sure it is true.

And we also see the way people over react and doom their own arguments. "You're alt right" might as well be "you're a nazi" lol.

Originally posted by Surtur
Okay, but from what was said...it wasn't that he was against just selling a cake, it was that he was against what they wanted him to put on it. From the way it was described...it sounds like they wanted more then "congratulations" or something on it. But this is being presented the way Adam just claimed: that the guy just plain did not want to sell *any* cake that would be used in a gay wedding. If that is not the case that is a big detail to distort IMO. Not saying I am sure it is true.

And we also see the way people over react and doom their own arguments. "You're alt right" might as well be "you're a nazi" lol.
It's not even just Ben Shapiro, it's lefty sources as well like the huffington post

And yeah it's pretty pathetic the way "alt-right" is being thrown around lol

Like I said, the baker was a moron. if he didn't want to make the cake he should have just said no, as a private business can refuse service to anyone they want.

His problem(other than being a bigot) was being retarded enough to admit his reason for refusing service. as there are laws against discriminating against protected classes.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
It's not even just Ben Shapiro, it's lefty sources as well like the huffington post

And yeah it's pretty pathetic the way "alt-right" is being thrown around lol

The the Huff Po is also saying it was specifically about what they wanted on the cake? Interesting.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Look at all the retarded whataboutery in this thread.

Let's get something straight: the baker did not refuse to make a "gay" wedding cake; he refused to sell a regular wedding cake to gay customers.

This is not an issue of compelling speech from the baker. It is an issue of compelling a private business owner to sell all the products he provides to all of the public in accordance to the law.

Now maybe all you alt-right ****boys can stop white knighting for the poor, Christian baker, who thinks his magical fairytale beliefs exempt him from whatever laws he does not want to follow.


Let's cover several numbered points to keep things clear:

1. Jack, the man in this case, has refused to make a gay marriage theme cake (from the video and one of the hearings). This is part of his convictions on the type of work he will accept.

2. He has even refused to do anti-LGBTQ+ cakes, as well. But you don't hear or read lefties talking about that, do you?

(3:35, in the video)

3. And he never turned their business away, he turned away their gay wedding cake request. Offered cookies, birthday cakes, etc. He did not turn them away.

4. If this was simply a "regular wedding" cake, then there would not be the need to ask him for the custom cake, which is what was refused. If this was a regular cake, then they could have selected from any of the other non-custom cakes for their occasion. What he refused was to apply his artistic talents to a gay-wedding cake.

So, please, peeps....just watch the video and don't spread misinformation.



In Jack's own words (with me adding numbers to correspond to the points):



http://www.adfmedia.org/news/prdetail/8700



1,2, and 3:
hfshnP_yqsQ



That should clarify where any confusion may come from about this particular scenario. All information needed to know what's happening with this situation would be in the links and video.

Also, it's pretty despicable that he was harassed and received death threats.

How very progressive and liberal, eh?

How about just...stop giving him business? Review his shop, "Great art, won't make gay-theme wedding cakes, though."


Seems like there are better ways to handle this other than doing illegal things.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Let's cover several numbered points to keep things clear:

1. Jack, the man in this case, has refused to make a gay marriage theme cake (from the video and one of the hearings). This is part of his convictions on the type of work he will accept.

2. He has even refused to do anti-LGBTQ+ cakes, as well. But you don't hear or read lefties talking about that, do you?

(3:35, in the video)

3. And he never turned their business away, he turned away their gay wedding cake request. Offered cookies, birthday cakes, etc. He did not turn them away.

4. If this was simply a "regular wedding" cake, then there would not be the need to ask him for the custom cake, which is what was refused. If this was a regular cake, then they could have selected from any of the other non-custom cakes for their occasion. What he refused was to apply his artistic talents to a gay-wedding cake.

So, please, peeps....just watch the video and don't spread misinformation.



In Jack's own words (with me adding numbers to correspond to the points):



http://www.adfmedia.org/news/prdetail/8700



1,2, and 3:
hfshnP_yqsQ



That should clarify where any confusion may come from about this particular scenario. All information needed to know what's happening with this situation would be in the links and video.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, it's pretty despicable that he was harassed and received death threats.

How very progressive and liberal, eh?

How about just...stop giving him business? Review his shop, "Great art, won't make gay-theme wedding cakes, though."


Seems like there are better ways to handle this other than doing illegal things.

Daaaamn

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/masonry/000/946/735/a0a.jpg

Scribs and AdamPoE

Originally posted by Robtard
^
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/masonry/000/946/735/a0a.jpg

In here. Well done, fellas.

Have to even give a secondary shout-out to SM, we rarely agree, but his point in here was overall on as well

LMAO! Oh Rob, I will just assume you didn't see DDM's posts. Adam got slapped down something fierce.

Your opinion has been noted. /noted

EDIT: Sorry.

Anyways, I do think there is more of a chance the couple won't win now, but I don't think it is likely.

Yeah I hope the couple doesn't win, the idea that you can force someone to express something they disagree with is disgusting. This is America not Canada.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yeah I hope the couple doesn't win, the idea that you can force someone to express something they disagree with is disgusting. This is America not Canada.

It's just amazing seeing that a person on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission apparently sees fit to compare this to religion being used to justify slavery and the holocaust.

Lol...what is with these people and nazis/Hitler/The Holocaust? I can't see how they do not realize how this makes them come off.

So the same services that are offered to a straight couple are not being offered to a gay couple, which is textbook discrimination.

And if we allow a business to practice discrimination here, we must be consistent and allow discrimination EVERYWHERE in business.

#MAGA

Originally posted by Firefly218
So the same services that are offered to a straight couple are not being offered to a gay couple, which is textbook discrimination.

And if we allow a business to practice discrimination here, we must be consistent and allow discrimination EVERYWHERE in business.

#MAGA

Why should he be forced to do something he claims does not mesh with his own religious beliefs?

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yeah I hope the couple doesn't win, the idea that you can force someone to express something they disagree with is disgusting. This is America not Canada. I'm sure the cake maker wasn't being asked to depict a dick going up another man's ass or sodomy or anything, just the same privileges as a straight couple.

What kind of custom cake would a straight couple ask for? Husband and wife holding hands or something? Why not husband and husband or wife and wife holding hands?

Originally posted by Surtur
Why should he be forced to do something he claims does not mesh with his own religious beliefs? He shouldn't be forced, but it sucks that if you're a gay couple the whole world is against you.

Originally posted by Firefly218
I'm sure the cake maker wasn't being asked to depict a dick going up another man's ass or sodomy or anything, just the same privileges as a straight couple.

Same privileges as the straight couple? Not really. A straight couple doesn't have the right to demand he do something he is uncomfortable with anymore than a gay couple does.



I assume something with two men. Which, again,if his beliefs are against that...you could see why he wouldn't wanna do it.

Originally posted by Firefly218
He shouldn't be forced, but it sucks that if you're a gay couple the whole world is against you.

Why are you so dramatic? The "whole world" is not against them. It's not like bakers all across the nation united to say "no gays allowed!".

Originally posted by Surtur
And we also see the way people over react and doom their own arguments. "You're alt right" might as well be "you're a nazi" lol. Ignore those bits, they don't make a further argument invalid, even when they weaken the position of the speaker themselves.
Originally posted by Surtur
I assume something with two men. Which, again,if his beliefs are against that...you could see why he wouldn't wanna do it. I repeat: it may be against his views, but is not against his religion, which is what he is claiming.

Originally posted by Scribble
Ignore those bits, they don't make a further argument invalid, even when they weaken the position of the speaker themselves.

^^It's like this guy is the second coming of Hitler.

Originally posted by Surtur
Same privileges as the straight couple? Not really. A straight couple doesn't have the right to demand he do something he is uncomfortable with anymore than a gay couple does.



I assume something with two men. Which, again,if his beliefs are against that...you could see why he wouldn't wanna do it. The homophobe has a right to not make a cake for a gay couple, but lets not defend him too much or make him the victim.

Lets not forget that just a short while ago there were signs everywhere outside small businesses in the south which said NO BLACKS ALLOWED. The government has rightly taken those down.

Originally posted by Firefly218
The homophobe has a right to not make a cake for a gay couple, but lets not defend him too much or make him the victim.

Lets not forget that just a short while ago there were signs everywhere outside small businesses in the south which said NO BLACKS ALLOWED. The government has rightly taken those down.

I know, but this isn't saying gays aren't allowed. It's about what they wanted on the cake. I'm guessing if a straight couple had came and wanted a gay themed cake(or whatever) the guy would have also said no.

As for being the victim, eh. He's been painted as a bigot by a lot of people. As just an all around mean person. I certainly don't think any of that was deserved.

Originally posted by Firefly218
I'm sure the cake maker wasn't being asked to depict a dick going up another man's ass or sodomy or anything, just the same privileges as a straight couple.
If there was some feminist baker who believed marriage should be abolished because it's "patriarchal" and oppressive or some such nonsense and didn't want to make me a wedding cake, I would happily find another baker, I wouldn't demand that they express something they don't agree with.

Originally posted by Firefly218
What kind of custom cake would a straight couple ask for? Husband and wife holding hands or something? Why not husband and husband or wife and wife holding hands?
It doesn't matter how obscene or offensive the message or commissioned artistic being asked for was, it's the point of principle. You should not be able to threaten someone with force to make them express something verbally, in writing, or artistically that they don't agree with, it's compelled speech and it's wrong.

There's a difference between refusing to sell someone a product you would sell someone else, and refusing to make a product which is an artistic work that carries a message you don't agree with. It doesn't matter how objectionable the message is from the perspective of the general public, if you refuse to make a statement, regardless of how benign others would consider it, you should not be compelled at point of force to do it.


Again, if I were the baker I would've gladly made the gay couple the cake and told them "congratulations, I hope you have a nice wedding." I'm not opposed to homosexuality or gay marriage, I'm against compelled speech. This man was not violating this couple's life, liberty, or property by refusing to perform a work of artistic expression he did not agree with, and this is the man whose rights are being violated in this case, and I find that disgusting.

Originally posted by Firefly218
The homophobe has a right to not make a cake for a gay couple, but lets not defend him too much or make him the victim.
He is the victim, it's his liberty being threatened, not the gay couple, their lives liberty and property are not under any threat whatsoever. It's this man whose having his name dragged through the mud in national publicity because he refused to make an artistic expression he did not agree with, it's this man who is receiving ****ing death threats.

Originally posted by Surtur
^^It's like this guy is the second coming of Hitler. Who, the Cakeman?

CakeGate

Originally posted by Surtur
LMAO! Oh Rob, I will just assume you didn't see DDM's posts. Adam got slapped down something fierce.

Maybe, maybe not. I think AP and I agree about 90%. I was just riding his correction coattails.

Originally posted by Firefly218
So the same services that are offered to a straight couple are not being offered to a gay couple, which is textbook discrimination.

And if we allow a business to practice discrimination here, we must be consistent and allow discrimination EVERYWHERE in business.

#MAGA

I agree with you and this is a good post (except the MAGA hashtag).

Let business discriminate as much as they want. Let them be as racist, antitheistic, sexist, accepting, good, loving, wholesome as they want.

Let the customers and potential customers decide.

Originally posted by Firefly218
The homophobe has a right to not make a cake for a gay couple, but lets not defend him too much or make him the victim.

Lets not forget that just a short while ago there were signs everywhere outside small businesses in the south which said NO BLACKS ALLOWED. The government has rightly taken those down.


Well, that first sentence, that's where I lose you. The gay couple is NOT a victim. He is most certainly a victim of harassment and death threats, however. It's utterly ridiculous to force someone else to operate against their religious beliefs by forcing them to do art for you. If I walk into a business and they turn me away because I'm white, I'd take my business elsewhere while flipping them off, farting, or something else immature. But I wouldn't be victim.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree with you and this is a good post (except the MAGA hashtag).

Let business discriminate as much as they want. Let them be as racist, antitheistic, sexist, accepting, good, loving, wholesome as they want.

Let the customers and potential customers decide. Exactly, that's what the free market is all about.

Except there must be certain ground rules and government regulations that prevent small businesses all across the south from putting up NO BLACKS ALLOWED signs or preventing what happened all across Europe with the NO JEWS ALLOWED signs and crap like that. Discrimination has its limits.

So it's ok for small businesses in other parts of the country to put up "no blacks allowed" signs?

Originally posted by Silent Master
So it's ok for small businesses in other parts of the country to put up "no blacks allowed" signs? hmmm

Didn't realize that was a difficult question, take all the time you need.

Originally posted by Firefly218
Exactly, that's what the free market is all about.

Except there must be certain ground rules and government regulations that prevent small businesses all across the south from putting up NO BLACKS ALLOWED signs or preventing what happened all across Europe with the NO JEWS ALLOWED signs and crap like that. Discrimination has its limits.

I disagree. I think businesses should get to discriminate. I don't want secret racists. I want them out in the open. I want to be able to go to Yelp or their website and know they are racist. So I can avoid giving them my business.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Didn't realize that was a difficult question, take all the time you need.

haermm


I need to get on your level of condescension.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree. I think businesses should get to discriminate. I don't want secret racists. I want them out in the open. I want to be able to go to Yelp or their website and know they are racist. So I can avoid giving them my business. But not everyone is as moral as you are. If that kind of discrimination is allowed, I gaurentee you there'd be entire towns which bar people of color.

Originally posted by Firefly218
But not everyone is as moral as you are. If that kind of discrimination is allowed, I gaurentee you there'd be entire towns which bar people of color.

But, that's perfectly okay to me, dude.

Do you think I'd ever want to visit a town like that? Let them gather together and group up. Keeps them closer together and not sprinkled throughout the population.

Trump won partly because of the secret Trumpers. I suspect that some of them are racists. Closet racists.

For me, I understand that freedom comes with bad and good. I also think that many Americans would boycott super racist businesses. I feel we live in a different time. This is why Obama won in 2008, IMO. There's still racism but they are a very small vocal minority, in my opinion.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But, that's perfectly okay to me, dude.

Do you think I'd ever want to visit a town like that? You don't have to visit a town like that. But people of colour who live there kind of like, do. Or people of colour who end up there whilst travelling cross-country, being denied food, drink and board. Denying things such as those goes beyond the idea of a free market and travels into human rights violations.


I get your overall point, but it seems short-sighted and mostly formed from a position of privilege (wow, I've never said that before. I think I finally get it).

Originally posted by Scribble
You don't have to visit a town like that. But people of colour who live there kind of like, do. Or people of colour who end up there whilst travelling cross-country, being denied food, drink and board. Denying things such as those goes beyond the idea of a free market and travels into human rights violations.


I get your overall point, but it seems short-sighted and mostly formed from a position of privilege (wow, I've never said that before. I think I finally get it). I have nothing to add

Originally posted by Scribble
You don't have to visit a town like that. But people of colour who live there kind of like, do. Or people of colour who end up there whilst travelling cross-country, being denied food, drink and board. Denying things such as those goes beyond the idea of a free market and travels into human rights violations.


I get your overall point, but it seems short-sighted and mostly formed from a position of privilege (wow, I've never said that before. I think I finally get it).

I'm okay with all those negatives you said. They do not change my position. In fact, thinking more about it, it doesn't seem as bad as you make it out to be.


Probably none of the scenarios you describe would ever happen. This is not 1850. It just would not happen. I've been to poor countries where the people were so poor that they lived in straw huts. They still had smart phones. If they can't avoid a known racist town and get super hungry, while traveling, looks like they will just travel to the next town?


You do realize that these racist towns exist, right? They already exist. But none of this stuff you describe happens in them.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm okay with all those negatives you said. They do not change my position. In fact, thinking more about it, it doesn't seem as bad as you make it out to be.


Probably none of the scenarios you describe would ever happen. This is not 1850. It just would not happen. I've been to poor countries where the people were so poor that they lived in straw huts. They still had smart phones. If they can't avoid a known racist town and get super hungry, while traveling, looks like they will just travel to the next town?


You do realize that these racist towns exist, right? They already exist. But none of this stuff you describe happens in them. Well, yeah. None of this stuff I mentioned happens in them because we have our current laws in place. If things worked the way you described, they would.

I personally just wouldn't want to live in a country where humans rights violations were allowed to happen because of some misguided sense of 'freedom', a sense of freedom that ignores many other people's freedom to have basic access to the things humans need to survive.

Like, imagine being in a country with laws like you've described, but one where white people are frequently discriminated in in such a way. You live there, and you're travelling. It's a big place. You're tired, you're hungry, you just want a burger and a coffee to keep you on the road. The smartphone GPS has no info for the town you're travelling through, so you have to hope for the best. You're denied entrance to every shop, so no burger. No coffee places open to 'your kind' either. Well, better find a motel. Except all the nearby motels have the sign "No whites, no dogs" in the window. So you have to park in some run-down parking lot and sleep rough in the back seat. Good thing you didn't have the kids with you.

But hey, thank god for freedom.


Yes, I know. This is total, unabashed pathos. I know. But sometimes a bit of pathos can put things in perspective.

Originally posted by Scribble
Well, yeah. None of this stuff I mentioned happens in them because we have our current laws in place. If things worked the way you described, they would.


No, those things didn't happen even during Jim Crow era. Sure, some...but not many. They wanted their money. So they put them in other places.


Very few had the "No Negroes" and "No Irish" signs.


Originally posted by Scribble
I personally just wouldn't want to live in a country where humans rights violations were allowed to happen because of some misguided sense of 'freedom', a sense of freedom that ignores many other people's freedom to have basic access to the things humans need to survive.

There's the problem: they wouldn't be violations.


So you'd rather live in a country where your drinks and food get spit in or pubes get put in them because they are racist but don't advertise it? I'd rather avoid those places.



I don't. I prefer the freedom and options to vote with my money and social media. I can't do that, now. Not readily. I don't like these secret racists. Let them come out.


Originally posted by Scribble
Like, imagine being in a country with laws like you've described, but one where white people are frequently discriminated in in such a way. You live there, and you're travelling. It's a big place. You're tired, you're hungry, you just want a burger and a coffee to keep you on the road. The smartphone GPS has no info for the town you're travelling through, so you have to hope for the best. You're denied entrance to every shop, so no burger. No coffee places open to 'your kind' either. Well, better find a motel. Except all the nearby motels have the sign "No whites, no dogs" in the window. So you have to park in some run-down parking lot and sleep rough in the boot. Good thing you didn't have the kids with you.

But hey, thank god for freedom.

Oh, you mean exactly like how it is in Japan where they won't feed white "Gajins" and turn them away?

That's simply not true ^^^, federal laws had to be passed to force the entire south to accommodate black people.

And many times it wasn't even the businesses fault. They wouldn't serve black people because if they did, their other white customers would no longer come

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, those things didn't happen even during Jim Crow era. Sure, some...but not many. They wanted their money. So they put them in other places.

Very few had the "No Negroes" and "No Irish" signs.

There's the problem: they wouldn't be violations.

So you'd rather live in a country where your drinks and food get spit in or pubes get put in them because they are racist but don't advertise it? I'd rather avoid those places.

I don't. I prefer the freedom and options to vote with my money and social media. I can't do that, now. Not readily. I don't like these secret racists. Let them come out.

Oh, you mean exactly like how it is in Japan where they won't feed white "Gajins" and turn them away? Yeah, just like those places in Japan. They sound bloody awful. What's your point?

Those circumstances may be exaggerated, but they're rooted in reality. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/25/no-irish-no-coloureds-notices-were-no-myth (that's a UK source)

Why wouldn't they be violations? Because they aren't seen as such in the country? I think all of the human rights councils of the world would likely disagree.

The spitting in the burger stuff, okay, so is that pure conjecture? You say that stuff happening in the Jim Crow era is exaggerated, and then rely on pure hearsay and conjecture to prove a point? Doesn't seem like a good tactic to me.


Like I say, I get your overall point, and it'd be great if it could work that way. But if racism is seen as a totally fine thing to practice, it'll never go away, and it would only enhance cultural and social separation and create areas where racism is seen as the norm and as a totally fine thing, and not the excuse to treat people like shit for no reason that it actually is.

Originally posted by Firefly218
That's simply not true ^^^, federal laws had to be passed to force the entire south to accommodate black people.

And many times it wasn't even the businesses fault. They wouldn't serve black people because if they did, their other white customers would no longer come

So only the South had to be forced to accommodate black people?

Originally posted by Silent Master
So only the South had to be forced to accommodate black people? Reconstruction era policies were specifically geared towards the states which seceded from the union, all of which were in the south.

Originally posted by Scribble
Yeah, just like those places in Japan. They sound bloody awful. What's your point?

Those circumstances may be exaggerated, but they're rooted in reality. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/25/no-irish-no-coloureds-notices-were-no-myth (that's a UK source)

Why wouldn't they be violations? Because they aren't seen as such in the country? I think all of the human rights councils of the world would likely disagree.

The spitting in the burger stuff, okay, so is that pure conjecture? You say that stuff happening in the Jim Crow era is exaggerated, and then rely on pure hearsay and conjecture to prove a point? Doesn't seem like a good tactic to me.


Like I say, I get your overall point, and it'd be great if it could work that way. But if racism is seen as a totally fine thing to practice, it'll never go away, and it would only enhance cultural and social separation and create areas where racism is seen as the norm and as a totally fine thing, and not the excuse to treat people like shit for no reason that it actually is.

Point is, they still get a shitload of tourists "just passing through." It's obviously no where even close to as bad as you think it is. So what? Go somewhere else. Spend your money at another place that is not shitty.

Right, I did talk about that: they existed. But they were rare. They still want money.

You're correct. Not violations. Not human rights violations. Unless you want to say the UN is cracking down on Japan?

No, not pure conjecture. Talk to any well-traveled black man. Probably any will do. They will have at least one story to share with you. Out of the millions of encounters, there's at least one racist story to share. It's too bad that you dismiss real discrimination, though. It sucks that you prefer silent abuses over making known who is racist.

If what you said was correct, then racism would have gone away. Here's the problem: humans are naturally racist. This has been studied long enough that it's fairly obvious we're just doomed to always be racist. It has to be trained out of us. Unless we modify the tribalism out of our genes.

Originally posted by Firefly218
Reconstruction era policies were specifically geared towards the states which seceded from the union, all of which were in the south.

So that's a yes?

Originally posted by Silent Master
So that's a yes? I'm not gonna hold your hand, bye

Originally posted by dadudemon
Point is, they still get a shitload of tourists "just passing through." It's obviously no where even close to as bad as you think it is. So what? Go somewhere else. Spend your money at another place that is not shitty.

Right, I did talk about that: they existed. But they were rare. They still want money.

You're correct. Not violations. Not human rights violations. Unless you want to say the UN is cracking down on Japan?

No, not pure conjecture. Talk to any well-traveled black man. Probably any will do. They will have at least one story to share with you. Out of the millions of encounters, there's at least one racist story to share. It's too bad that you dismiss real discrimination, though. It sucks that you prefer silent abuses over making known who is racist.

If what you said was correct, then racism would have gone away. Here's the problem: humans are naturally racist. This has been studied long enough that it's fairly obvious we're just doomed to always be racist. It has to be trained out of us. Unless we modify the tribalism out of our genes. I do see a lot of your points, and agree a fair bit, to be honest. I think the sad part is that although I do not think things would work in your scenario, I also don't think things are working as they are now. Trading in one shit world for another seems like another chain in a cycle of awfulness. I don't really know which I'd prefer, because I speak from a position of privilege and have not experienced racism towards me since I left secondary (read: high) school. From an attempted 'objective' view: secret racism or up-front racism, which do I prefer? I don't know, they both sound shit.

Originally posted by Firefly218
I'm not gonna hold your hand, bye

You're running away because you know that the South isn't the only part of the country that needed to be forced to accept black people, you're just not man enough to admit it.

Keep being a bigot.

Originally posted by Firefly218
That's simply not true ^^^, federal laws had to be passed to force the entire south to accommodate black people.

And many times it wasn't even the businesses fault. They wouldn't serve black people because if they did, their other white customers would no longer come

What's not true, the fact that "No Negroes" and "No Irish" signs were very rare even during the racist of racism times? Because what I said is true. Are you familiar with Jim Crow laws? No, I am not being condescending. Many cofuse what they were.



And look at how forcing desegregation has worked out for us! Schools seem more segregated than ever, right?

Originally posted by Silent Master
So that's a yes?
Originally posted by Firefly218
I'm not gonna hold your hand, bye


haermm


Well, if you did hold his hand and wanted it on a cake, I know at least cake baker who would turn you away.

Originally posted by dadudemon
haermm


Well, if you did hold his hand and wanted it on a cake, I know at least cake baker who would turn you away.

He is a massive bigot and didn't like that I was pointing it out.

Yeah as if letting people who do commissioned expressive works choose not to perform acts of artistic expression they do not agree with is going to return us to the time of Jim Crow and make black people starve to death.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yeah as if letting people who do commissioned expressive works choose not to perform acts of artistic expression they do not agree with is going to return us to the time of Jim Crow and make black people starve to death.
Whether Jim Crow laws would come back isn't relevant. The principle remains the same. If it was ok to prevent businesses from discriminating against black people, why isn't it ok to stop them from discriminating against gays?

I agree with dadoodoo, racists are bad. So let's give their views legal rights and protections.

Originally posted by dadudemon


And look at how forcing desegregation has worked out for us! Schools seem more segregated than ever, right?
That's cause we stopped. When we were implementing integration, both the scores of white and black kids improved. However white families not wanting black kids to go to their school pressured the government to stop integration anyway. The government gave in to that race-motivated pressure, and here we are today.

On the topic of cakes and other baked goodies, I'm inclined to support the idea of refusing a service based on an opposition to the message. For example if an alt-brony wanted me to make them a swastika cake, or a member of the Westboro bapist church a "god hates f*gs cake", I'd like to be allowed tell them to f*ck off.

On the other hand that's because those messages encourage discriminatory and hateful practices, not because they support extending the institution of marriage to gay people. I feel as if somewhere we need to draw a line around what is acceptable and not acceptable to refuse.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
I agree with dadoodoo, racists are bad. So let's give their views legal rights and protections.

You don't agree with me. I don't want that. That's a strawman.

They already have the right to be racist.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Whether Jim Crow laws would come back isn't relevant. The principle remains the same. If it was ok to prevent businesses from discriminating against black people, why isn't it ok to stop them from discriminating against gays?

You're right. I want businesses to be able to do both. And more!


I want businesses to be able to be as racist and as atrocious as possible in their view/who they serve.


It would be great if no one could dictate their beliefs on other people, right? Go ahead, spin this around somehow. But it just doens't work.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Whether Jim Crow laws would come back isn't relevant. The principle remains the same. If it was ok to prevent businesses from discriminating against black people, why isn't it ok to stop them from discriminating against gays?
It's not the same thing though, because he didn't say he wouldn't sell his products to gay people, he said he would not make a product he did not agree with. This is not remotely the same thing as having a no black people allowed policy.

I'm sure you wouldn't want to force a gay baker to make a cake with Leviticus 18:22 on it, and I'm sure you wouldn't force a black person to bake a cake with a pro-KKK message, or a Jew to bake a cake with a Swastika on it. Both of us would agree that this isn't on that level, but it's the same principle at play that you should not be able to force someone to perform an act of artistic expression they disagree with it. If someone refuses to sell you something, that's one thing, if someone refuses to take a commission of artistic expression they fundamentally disagree with, they should be well within their rights to do that.

There is nothing in allowing this man to say no that would allow all business to refuse service to black people. On this set of principles, if a black man walked in and wanted to buy a cake, a baker couldn't refuse selling him a cake. If however the black man requested a pro-BLM cake, and a baker wouldn't be comfortable making it because they disagree with BLM's narrative and find their general attitude and behavior reprehensible, then they could absolutely refuse to express a message they disagree with through their work. Again, I see no problem with this, because it's by this same principle that a black baker could refuse to bake a KKK cake or a Jew could refuse to make a swastika cake, this is a point of principle I am very comfortable with.

This is a part of the first amendment, and to force this baker to bake a cake that expresses a message he disagrees with would be even more egregious than censorship, it would be compelled speech. And I'm sorry, but free speech is more important than anti-discrimination policy, because controlling someone's speech with government force is a violation of their inalienable rights, whereas a business discriminating against someone isn't. It is much worse to threaten someone with force into expressing a message they disagree with than it is to tell someone "I won't express myself through my work for you in a way I disagree with, please go find another baker of which there are many." You do not have a right to anyone else's personal expression.

Despite all of their many flaws, the Trump administration is completely right about this: "A custom wedding cake is not an ordinary baked good; its function is more communicative and artistic than utilitarian," Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued. "Accordingly, the government may not enact content-based laws commanding a speaker to engage in protected expression: An artist cannot be forced to paint, a musician cannot be forced to play, and a poet cannot be forced to write."

Also, did you not tell me a few weeks ago that you disagreed with anti-discrimination laws?

Originally posted by Beniboybling
On the topic of cakes and other baked goodies, I'm inclined to support the idea of refusing a service based on an opposition to the message. For example if an alt-brony wanted me to make them a swastika cake, or a member of the Westboro bapist church a "god hates f*gs cake", I'd like to be allowed tell them to f*ck off.

On the other hand that's because those messages encourage discriminatory and hateful practices, not because they support extending the institution of marriage to gay people. I feel as if somewhere we need to draw a line around what is acceptable and not acceptable to refuse.
So bottom line is you think this is a principle that should be applied with a double standard whereby people are allowed to refuse expressing a message as long as you also disagree with the message, but that you can force them to express a message as long as that message aligns with your views?

How about this, how about you and everyone else **** off and don't control anyone's speech with force in order to push your agenda. The idea that you can revoke someone's right to have control over their own personal expression based on whether or not you find their views agreeable or disagreeable is disgusting quite frankly, and more in line with an alt-right brony wannabe fascist than with someone who actually believes in liberty.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Didn't realize that was a difficult question, take all the time you need.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, that first sentence, that's where I lose you. The gay couple is NOT a victim. He is most certainly a victim of harassment and death threats, however. It's utterly ridiculous to force someone else to operate against their religious beliefs by forcing them to do art for you. If I walk into a business and they turn me away because I'm white, I'd take my business elsewhere while flipping them off, farting, or something else immature. But I wouldn't be victim.

And I think it is silly when people call the guy a homophobe. He doesn't fear gays nor has he ever said anything to indicate a hatred of gays.

This is what some on the left do. If you do not share their views you become a nazi or a white supremacist or a racist or a bigot. This man literally said nothing hateful. We've seen it in this thread. You are suddenly *alt right* if you don't think the baker should be forced to do this. That is how ridiculous the lunatics in this country are getting. Frothing at the mouth crazy people who think everybody is either on their side or a nazi.

Even worse is: some will defend it lol. Some will defend the constant hurling of insults like nazi and alt right. They will find some way to rationalize their irrational thoughts.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
How about this, how about you and everyone else **** off and don't control anyone's speech with force in order to push your agenda. The idea that you can revoke someone's right to have control over their own personal expression based on whether or not you find their views agreeable or disagreeable is disgusting quite frankly, and more in line with an alt-right brony wannabe fascist than with someone who actually believes in liberty.

Actually...you're right. The state forcing people to do and act the way it wants them to, when they would rather abstain, IS more in line with a controlling fascist state does.


So, yes, I'm inclined to agree that I would prefer racism, sexism, etc. from businesses refusing to serve people than to have the state dictate that people must do action x or must do action y.

Well I mean Beni's from the UK, where they're literally building a police hub to police "hate speech" online which is Orwellian and disgusting.

Originally posted by Scribble
While I completely understand your point, and agree with you, the cake sadly becomes a "gay cake" in the context of the argument, despite it actually just being a general wedding cake.

Um, no. A cake does not suddenly become "gay," because gay people wanted to buy it. That is idiotic. Especially, when they are trying to buy the same exact cake the baker sells to everyone else.




Originally posted by Scribble
Well of course they wanted him to put something specific on it, it's a wedding cake.

Wrong. If you had actually bothered to read the details of the case, you would know that the specifications of the cake were never discussed. Two men said they would like to place an order for a wedding cake, and the baker told them he does not sell wedding cakes to gay couples.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, it's pretty despicable that he was harassed and received death threats.

How very progressive and liberal, eh?

How about just...stop giving him business? Review his shop, "Great art, won't make gay-theme wedding cakes, though."


Seems like there are better ways to handle this other than doing illegal things.

It is despicable that he did not report the alleged death threats to the police, but he did report them to conservative media to advertise his crowd-funding initiative, which has raised nearly $4-million.

And I hope he used that money to hire a damn good lawyer.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
And I hope he used that money to hire a damn good lawyer. If a gay couple asks for a cake that is normal and not gay themed, does the cake maker then have a right to refuse service?

Originally posted by Firefly218
If a gay couple asks for a cake that is normal and not gay themed, does the cake maker then have a right to refuse service?
If you are asking to buy a product already for sale, that's one thing. If you are commissioning artistry though, the person whose artistic talents are at play should be within their rights to accept or refuse any commission for any reason.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
If there was some feminist baker who believed marriage should be abolished because it's "patriarchal" and oppressive or some such nonsense and didn't want to make me a wedding cake, I would happily find another baker, I wouldn't demand that they express something they don't agree with.

In your pretend scenario, the feminist baker did not single you out for discrimination, because he or she does not bake wedding cakes for anyone.




Originally posted by Emperordmb
It doesn't matter how obscene or offensive the message or commissioned artistic being asked for was, it's the point of principle. You should not be able to threaten someone with force to make them express something verbally, in writing, or artistically that they don't agree with, it's compelled speech and it's wrong.

There's a difference between refusing to sell someone a product you would sell someone else, and refusing to make a product which is an artistic work that carries a message you don't agree with. It doesn't matter how objectionable the message is from the perspective of the general public, if you refuse to make a statement, regardless of how benign others would consider it, you should not be compelled at point of force to do it.

By all means, identify the message the couple requested to which the baker objected. According to the court documents, the request was denied within 20 seconds of being asked. The couple said they would like to order a wedding cake, and the baker denied the request, saying he does not make wedding cakes for gay couples. There was no discussion of details of the cake.




Originally posted by Emperordmb
Again, if I were the baker I would've gladly made the gay couple the cake and told them "congratulations, I hope you have a nice wedding." I'm not opposed to homosexuality or gay marriage, I'm against compelled speech. This man was not violating this couple's life, liberty, or property by refusing to perform a work of artistic expression he did not agree with, and this is the man whose rights are being violated in this case, and I find that disgusting.

He is violating their 14th Amendment rights.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
It's not the same thing though, because he didn't say he wouldn't sell his products to gay people, he said he would not make a product he did not agree with. This is not remotely the same thing as having a no black people allowed policy.

I thought he was just selling a normal cake?

I'm not too sure anymore.

It's principally flawed, but the results of not implementing them would have been awful.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
If you are asking to buy a product already for sale, that's one thing. If you are commissioning artistry though, the person whose artistic talents are at play should be within their rights to accept or refuse any commission for any reason. So if a gay person asks for a Spider-Man cake they can be refused because it falls within the boundaries of artistic expression?

Originally posted by Firefly218
So if a gay person asks for a Spider-Man cake they can be refused because it falls within the boundaries of artistic expression?
Yes.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
In your pretend scenario, the feminist baker did not single you out for discrimination, because he or she does not bake wedding cakes for anyone.
She'd bake cakes for other purposes though. Just not one tailored to an event she fundamentally disagrees with.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
By all means, identify the message the couple requested to which the baker objected. According to the court documents, the request was denied within 20 seconds of being asked. The couple said they would like to order a wedding cake, and the baker denied the request, saying he does not make wedding cakes for gay couples. There was no discussion of details of the cake.
It's irrelevant because it's still his own commissioned artistic expression, and if he feels uncomfortable tailoring his work to something he disagrees with, then he shouldn't be forced to.

He's saying buy one of the cakes I already have on sale or go find another baker. They're saying if you don't do what we want we're going to bring down the hammer of government force on you. You're going to have a hard time convincing me the law should rule in favor of the couple here.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
He is violating their 14th Amendment rights.
I am not advocating for inequality of treatment under the law because I believe in equally applying this principle Adam. The idea that the law should force anyone to do something with their personal artistic expression that they disagree with is a complete government overreach IMO.

If the Westboro baptist church finds a gay baker and goes "some gay dude got murdered and we want you to bake a cake for our celebration party" I think the gay dude should have every right to say "**** off" and refuse to provide his artistic services for that celebration, regardless of whether or not they're asking for a cake with a picture of a good ol' fashioned *** drag on it or if they're commissioning a regular old cake.

I mean shit, it's apparent right here that I'm clearly not asking the law to differentiate between specific groups as to whose protected and that this is a consistent standard:
Originally posted by Emperordmb
If you are commissioning artistry though, the person whose artistic talents are at play should be within their rights to accept or refuse any commission for any reason.

By all means though, keep screeching about how everyone who disagrees with you is a Nazi. See where that gets you.

Whatever decisions the SC makes on this case, it sounds like it'll be very very close.

In my opinion, I don't feel this is an issue the state should be involved in, whether local or federal. What I find odd is that some on the #BaketheCake side argue that the Christian baker is forcing his views upon the gay couple and indeed it could certainly be interpreted that way. Yet they don't seem to see the issue in the state dictating who the baker should serve regardless of his personal opinion on the type of people he is serving, essentially an enforcement of a particular viewpoint.

The baker, as both the business and property owner, should reserve the right to serve whoever they so wish and to what capacity. We live in a capitalist society where the transaction of money for goods and services needs to be consensual and agreed upon by both parties in the exchange, not just the consumer. This, in my view, should come with no repercussions from the state.

Moreover, capitalism brings with it a market which in turn has competition between businesses within each industry wrangling for customers as a means to maximise their profit. If a baker where to refuse a gay couple, then they can simply go to a competing baker who will provide the service they desire. It is as simple as that. The gay couple receive the good they wanted in the cake and the baker losses out by turning down potential customers. The gay couple, if they are offended and dissatisfied because of this rejection, are within their liberty to give that baker a bad name, thus spoiling the bakeries reputation within the local community and potentially leading to a loss in profit for the baker and most likely a growth in business for his competitors. Thus meaning the baker has essentially shot himself in the foot. He has turned down potential business and run the risk of losing profit due to the fallout afterwards. This is a way market functions can 'punish', if you wish to word it that way, the business without government intervention for this discrimination.

In conclusion, the business owner has a right to express their religious opinion within their own business, with which they are the property owner of. If he wishes not consent to serving customers, in this case homosexuals, because of personal convictions, then he shouldn't be prevented from doing so, especially by the state. There are other businesses that are bound to take the gay couple up on their request. At the end of the day, I don't feel that the freedom of speech, religion and property rights of a individual should be violated by the state to spare the feelings of some people.

Originally posted by Firefly218
So if a gay person asks for a Spider-Man cake they can be refused because it falls within the boundaries of artistic expression?

Question, let us say your name is John Smith and you own a bakery and I come in and say I want a cake. On the cake I want you to write "John Smith is a poopyhead".

Should you be forced to make the cake if you do not want to?

Originally posted by Firefly218
If a gay couple asks for a cake that is normal and not gay themed, does the cake maker then have a right to refuse service?

Yes. And they should have the right to refuse business to a Native American or Black person, too. I believe people should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
I thought he was just selling a normal cake?

No, he offered normal cakes. He refused making a custom-themed gay wedding cake.


Originally posted by Adam_PoE
By all means, identify the message the couple requested to which the baker objected. According to the court documents, the request was denied within 20 seconds of being asked. The couple said they would like to order a wedding cake, and the baker denied the request, saying he does not make wedding cakes for gay couples. There was no discussion of details of the cake.


Court Docs:

Originally posted by dadudemon
4. If this was simply a "regular wedding" cake, then there would not be the need to ask him for the custom cake, which is what was refused. If this was a regular cake, then they could have selected from any of the other non-custom cakes for their occasion. What he refused was to apply his artistic talents to a gay-wedding cake.

In Jack's own words (with me adding numbers to correspond to the points):

Originally posted by dadudemon
I like these kinds of Muslims. Do you have a problem with Christians who do the opposite?

Lock this ****wad up and throw away the key.