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

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/12/19/colorado-cake-baker-jack-phillips-faces-another-lgbtq-bias-allegation/2362740002/

Replace the flour with baking soda and the frosting with mayonnaise and tell them it's a "transitional cake".

Link doesn't work for me.

Originally posted by Raptor22
Link doesn't work for me.

Try this one:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/12/19/colorado-cake-baker-jack-phillips-faces-another-lgbtq-bias-allegation/2362740002/

That one works

This guy really needs to look in the mirror and ask himself "what wuld Jesus do?". IMO, Jesus would bake this cake as well and it would be a marvelous cake, cos Jesus loves everyone and it's just a cake they're asking for.

So he didn't want to bake a cake that was pink on the outside and blue on the inside. This raises the question, would he make the same refusal to bake such a colored cake if the customer was straight and that was just their color preference, or is it exclusively because the customer was trans? If it's the latter then I imagine him having more trouble with this case because there is nothing inherently or overtly weird about a cake that is blue and pink, and it then just becomes discrimination on his part not wanting to sell a cake to a trans person that he would anyone else.

Originally posted by Robtard
This guy really needs to look in the mirror and ask himself "what wuld Jesus do?". IMO, Jesus would bake this cake as well and it would be a marvelous cake, cos Jesus loves everyone and it's just a cake they're asking for. Jesus didn't bake. bible feats or it didn't happen. he certainly wouldn't have refused to make them a table.

Here we ****ing go again...

This has more to do with him having a problem with gays and transgender people than his bullshit claim that baking them a cake would force him to sin.

**** that guy and his shop.

I'm not anti-trans/transphobic, but I do believe that this baker has the right to a refusal, even if it is a shitty reason. You have to take the bad with the good when it comes to freedom of religion and speech.

Originally posted by Robtard
This guy really needs to look in the mirror and ask himself "what wuld Jesus do?". IMO, Jesus would bake this cake as well and it would be a marvelous cake, cos Jesus loves everyone and it's just a cake they're asking for.

A damned persons money is as good as a saved persons.

If he was serious, make it Christians only. An exclusive club.

Originally posted by Impediment
I'm not anti-trans/transphobic, but I do believe that this baker has the right to a refusal, even if it is a shitty reason. You have to take the bad with the good when it comes to freedom of religion and speech.

He has the right to limit clients.

He doesn't have the right to serve the entire public, except "those people."

Originally posted by Robtard
This guy really needs to look in the mirror and ask himself "what wuld Jesus do?". IMO, Jesus would bake this cake as well and it would be a marvelous cake, cos Jesus loves everyone and it's just a cake they're asking for.



Let's form our own religion.


But I get to be the Joseph Smith of the religion. You can be the Racist Brigham Young.


Originally posted by Impediment
I'm not anti-trans/transphobic, but I do believe that this baker has the right to a refusal, even if it is a shitty reason. You have to take the bad with the good when it comes to freedom of religion and speech.




Robtard, Impediment can join our church. I guess PVS can join the church, too. Not sure of his role, yet, though.


Edit - And about the topic, he should get to refuse anyone based on if he likes them or not. If he thinks someone looks like a LotR fan and he hates LotR fans, let him. If he hates Muslims: let him. Let him run his business how he wants. I don't care that someone's feelings will get hurt. If people still give him money, he will stay in business.

Can I be Jesus? He got to hang out with whores.

Originally posted by cdtm
He doesn't have the right to serve the entire public, except "those people."

Actually, it's entirely his right to do so, but it doesn't make it right.

Originally posted by BackFire
Can I be Jesus? He got to hang out with whores.

Everybody already crucifies Surtur all the time so he gets to be Jesus.


You'll be the person that molests us when we go to confessional. Someone has to be molesty...

Sounds perfect.

Originally posted by Impediment
Actually, it's entirely his right to do so, but it doesn't make it right.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm fairly certain the backbone of "protected classes" revolves around whether a business serves the entire public or not. It was developed originally to stop businesses from refusing to serve blacks/African Americans/whatever the acceptable term is now. Then they kept adding to it, but the concept remains the same.

You can say "I won't serve you if you don't wear shoes." You can't say "I don't serve women", because they're folded under a protected class of people that you must take with the general public.

Same deal for religion. A Muslim baker serving the community must serve Christians, and a Christian baker must serve Muslims.


That's only for public businesses though, Pretty sure you can make a "Muslims only" business, require some form of membership id or payments, and do whatever you want.

Originally posted by cdtm
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm fairly certain the backbone of "protected classes" revolves around whether a business serves the entire public or not. It was developed originally to stop businesses from refusing to serve blacks/African Americans/whatever the acceptable term is now. Then they kept adding to it, but the concept remains the same.

You can say "I won't serve you if you don't wear shoes." You can't say "I don't serve women", because they're folded under a protected class of people that you must take with the general public.

Same deal for religion. A Muslim baker serving the community must serve Christians, and a Christian baker must serve Muslims.


That's only for public businesses though, Pretty sure you can make a "Muslims only" business, require some form of membership id or payments, and do whatever you want.

I hear what you're saying bruh, I really do. Still, as a private business owner, it's his right to refuse service to whomever he chooses, even if it is a bigoted reason that will put him in a very actionable position. That's called the First Amendment.

As much as I disagree with him. AFAIK, he isn't refusing to serve them. just refusing to make custom orders. they can still purchase his regular cakes.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
Jesus didn't bake. bible feats or it didn't happen. he certainly wouldn't have refused to make them a table.




Jesus can cast various healing spells, transmutation spells, can talk to fish like Aquaman, can manipulate weather like Storm (X-Men), can create food and water, can cause vegetation to wither and die and can bring back the dead like some damned necromancer; including himself. So excuse me if I'm banking that a simple cake isn't beyond Jesus' magical repertoire of abilities.

Originally posted by Silent Master
As much as I disagree with him. AFAIK, he isn't refusing to serve them. just refusing to make custom orders. they can still purchase his regular cakes.

Yup, that's always been his position. He refuses to make "art."

Not sure what's so "art" about a pink cake with blue frosting? Stands to reason he's made a similar cake in the past for some birthday or baby gender reveal party.

From the last time we discussed this nonsense:

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
If I'm going to indulge the idea that it would be a sin to make the custom-ordered cakes for both LGBTQ customers to use in their wicked celebrations, then how is the situation any different by selling them pre-made cakes to use for the exact same events? Why would it not be a sin to sell them pre-made cakes identical to the ones requested?

It sounds like he refused to work for gays and transgenders out of spite, yet still wanted to make a sale, so he offered them cakes he'd already made.

As much as I don't like bending in the way of bigotry, this a**hole should be allowed to refuse service.

But it is funny how some people still defend his guy's bigotry by trying to make it be something else. It's clearly the "gay" and "transgender" aspects this guy has a problem with. If I went in there and asked for the same exact cake and said "it's for my twins' first birthday", he'd have no problem with the order.

Originally posted by Robtard
As much as I don't like bending in the way of bigotry, this a**hole should be allowed to refuse service.

But it is funny how some people still defend his guy's bigotry by trying to make it be something else. It's clearly the "gay" and "transgender" aspects this guy has a problem with. If I went in there and asked for the same exact cake and said "it's for my twins' first birthday", he'd have no problem with the order.

Wasn't he the same guy bitching that people boycotting his bakery and spreading the news about his refusal to serve LGBTQ were killing his business, or was that the couple of cvnts in the Midwest?

Maybe they should just sell them some cakes.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Wasn't he the same guy bitching that people boycotting his bakery and spreading the news about his refusal to serve LGBTQ were killing his business, or was that the couple of cvnts in the Midwest?

Maybe they should just sell them some cakes.

These garbage people are all kinda the same, they'll act like bigots and then cry rape when it comes back to bite them in the ass. So not sure.

That would be the easiest path it seems, a baker selling a very basic cake.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yup, that's always been his position. He refuses to make "art."

Sounds to me like both sides are bigots this time around.

As always, the one thing that stands out from this episode:

Lawyers suck. If we ever have a western style Adab Spring, there will be a lot of legal professionals with heads on a spike..

So how many times can you get sued for the same thing?

Yeah this cake guy just has a Target on his back now.

The Left now ASSASINATES People via the Legal System and Public Opinion.

Man The Left are Horrible HORRIBLE People

Originally posted by Robtard
This guy really needs to look in the mirror and ask himself "what wuld Jesus do?". IMO, Jesus would bake this cake as well and it would be a marvelous cake, cos Jesus loves everyone and it's just a cake they're asking for.

Jesus would just magic a cake into existence, but he also wouldn't force someone else to bake a cake if they didn't wanna bake it.

Originally posted by Robtard
But it is funny how some people still defend his guy's bigotry by trying to make it be something else. It's clearly the "gay" and "transgender" aspects this guy has a problem with. If I went in there and asked for the same exact cake and said "it's for my twins' first birthday", he'd have no problem with the order.

What? Who's doing that? I see no one, including the baker, doing that. It's quite specifically all about their "sins." He's not hidden that. Anyone trying to state otherwise is just being dishonest.


He's made it clear and it has been made very clear: he refuses to create art for things he believes are sin.

Also let's not pretend this second lawsuit is in good faith. This transgender attorney is obviously targeting him.

She obviously didn't stumble into his bakery unaware looking for a cake, she obviously wants to **** this dude over.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Also let's not pretend this second lawsuit is in good faith. This transgender attorney is obviously targeting him.

She obviously didn't stumble into his bakery unaware looking for a cake, she obviously wants to **** this dude over.

Wow! Really!?

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Also let's not pretend this second lawsuit is in good faith. This transgender attorney is obviously targeting him.

She obviously didn't stumble into his bakery unaware looking for a cake, she obviously wants to **** this dude over.

Multiple people have been trying to do this to him. This is probably the first case that is legit enough to get traction.

Also again, I'm a pretty devout Christian... I would've baked the ****ing cake for them.

Whether or not he should've made the cake isn't the issue I'm speaking to, the issue I'm speaking to is whether or not he should have a choice to make the cake or not make the cake, and I support his liberty 100%

Originally posted by Robtard
Jesus can cast various healing spells, transmutation spells, can talk to fish like Aquaman, can manipulate weather like Storm (X-Men), can create food and water, can cause vegetation to wither and die and can bring back the dead like some damned necromancer; including himself. So excuse me if I'm banking that a simple cake isn't beyond Jesus' magical repertoire of abilities.

no-limits fallacy: DENIED

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
I am mad cause no one will make me a cake shaped like a small child so I can Rape it...cause I love the Child Raping!!!!!



Bow Wow Woof Woof!

Originally posted by Impediment
I hear what you're saying bruh, I really do. Still, as a private business owner, it's his right to refuse service to whomever he chooses, even if it is a bigoted reason that will put him in a very actionable position. That's called the First Amendment.

Sorry, you are just wrong on the law. cdtm is right.

Constitution>Congress's legislation

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Sorry, you are just wrong on the law. cdtm is right.

Probably. Colorado is a Blue State and Blue States are really shit on Human Rights. Very Selective when it comes to those.

They will favor only Half of them.

Originally posted by Robtard
As much as I don't like bending in the way of bigotry, this a**hole should be allowed to refuse service.

But it is funny how some people still defend his guy's bigotry by trying to make it be something else. It's clearly the "gay" and "transgender" aspects this guy has a problem with. If I went in there and asked for the same exact cake and said "it's for my twins' first birthday", he'd have no problem with the order.

This ******* has agreed to make cakes for a wedding of two dogs, a pagan solstice party, a divorce party, and a celebration of having multiple children out of wedlock. So let's not pretend this is about the First Amendment, when it's just cosigning his anti-LGBT bigotry.

And the Truth starts to come out.

The Left are truly Fascist.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Also let's not pretend this second lawsuit is in good faith. This transgender attorney is obviously targeting him.

She obviously didn't stumble into his bakery unaware looking for a cake, she obviously wants to **** this dude over.

Who the **** cares? If a convenience store is suspected of not verifying the age of customers to whom it sells alcohol, and someone attempts to purchase alcohol to confirm whether that is true, do you cry, "Boo hoo, the customer did not enter that transaction in good faith, the poor convenience store is being targeted, because there is suspicion it is not complying with the law?" Get the **** out of here with that noise.

Quite frankly, politically I don't care about whether or not I would've made the same choice as him (I would've baked the cake), I don't care about his reasons (whether it's legitimate religious conviction or some mighty eeeeevvvviiiillll bigotry).

It's his business, his property, his artistic expression, his labor. It's his, not the government's, not the public's, not the collective's. His. It's his.

I believe an exchange of property must be consensual on both ends. Nobody else should force him to accept their money and force him to bake a cake for them any more than he should be able to take their money out of their pockets and bake them a cake they didn't ask for.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Who the **** cares? If a convenience store is suspected of not verifying the age of customers to whom it sells alcohol, and someone attempts to purchase alcohol to confirm whether that is true, do you cry, "Boo hoo, the customer did not enter that transaction in good faith, the poor convenience store is being targeted, because there is suspicion it is not complying with the law?" Get the **** out of here with that noise.

If a kid uses a convincing fake id, you'd better believe it.

Maybe you've heard of Traci Lords. A lot of heads were on the chopping block, because she was fooling the industry for years. Only thing that saved them, was the government themselves were fooled, when she applied for a passport.

Which means they had to go after themselves. Best to just drop it, they enforce the rules, not play by them.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Quite frankly, politically I don't care about whether or not I would've made the same choice as him (I would've baked the cake), I don't care about his reasons (whether it's legitimate religious conviction or some mighty eeeeevvvviiiillll bigotry).

It's his business, his property, his artistic expression, his labor. It's his, not the government's, not the public's, not the collective's. His. It's his.

I believe an exchange of property must be consensual on both ends. Nobody else should force him to accept their money and force him to bake a cake for them any more than he should be able to take their money out of their pockets and bake them a cake they didn't ask for.

Yup.


I've already covered the argument extremely thoroughly. Your right to expression does not supersede my right to not express. Ever. Never.

He has the right to refuse service.

End of argument.

Originally posted by Impediment
He has the right to refuse service.

End of argument.

Not according to the law in Colorado.

Yes. In Colorado. The Business Owner is a SLAVE to the Whims of their Customers.

Truly Leftist are Horrible, HORRIBLE People.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Not according to the law in Colorado.

Supremacy clause in the US Constitution and the precedence now established by the US Supreme Court means that those Colorado laws are null in cases that are similar to the original case.

The Law in Colorado means jack, now. He can always appeal to any Federal District Court and win every single time, now. As long as he stays within the bounds of the original ruling.

Edit - Also, at this point, people who continue to bring up similar cases may be guilty of tortious interference.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Who the **** cares? If a convenience store is suspected of not verifying the age of customers to whom it sells alcohol, and someone attempts to purchase alcohol to confirm whether that is true, do you cry, "Boo hoo, the customer did not enter that transaction in good faith, the poor convenience store is being targeted, because there is suspicion it is not complying with the law?" Get the **** out of here with that noise.

Stop getting triggered like a b*tch over a cake.

Originally posted by Surtur
Stop getting triggered like a b*tch over a cake.

In Colorado it is your God Given Right to do Just That Apparently.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
In Colorado it is your God Given Right to do Just That Apparently.

He's exactly the kind of person I could see pulling some shit like this on a place they know won't take the order lol.

Yeah. Is there No Vid of them walking in to the store and trying to act like they caught this guy in a full on GOTCHYA moment?

Really shocked if their isn't.

Maybe we are looking at this the wrong way....these cakes could just be so crazy good that you absolutely lose your mind and act like a little b*tch if denied one.

I bet science could figure this out, and you know who loves science?

https://i.imgur.com/fKLNU8o.jpg

Originally posted by Impediment
He has the right to refuse service.

End of argument. What is the purpose of this thread then

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Also again, I'm a pretty devout Christian... I would've baked the ****ing cake for them.

Whether or not he should've made the cake isn't the issue I'm speaking to, the issue I'm speaking to is whether or not he should have a choice to make the cake or not make the cake, and I support his liberty 100%

If his beliefs were that strong he should have just said "no thanks" and left it at that. his problem is saying his refusal is because of their status.

IOW, he's a bigot and a moron. not a good combination.

Originally posted by Silent Master
If his beliefs were that strong he should have just said "no thanks" and left it at that. his problem is saying his refusal is because of their status.

IOW, he's a bigot and a moron. not a good combination.

I feel like if I legit just want a cake and I ask for some custom cake to celebrate my "change" and I hear "no thanks" I'd just go "okay" and leave. But if I'm there because I know the guys history and I want to play the victim? I'm going to continually press him for a reason why he is refusing me service until I get one.

Originally posted by Surtur
I feel like if I legit just want a cake and I ask for some custom cake to celebrate my "change" and I hear "no thanks" I'd just go "okay" and leave. But if I'm there because I know the guys history and I want to play the victim? I'm going to continually press him for a reason why he is refusing me service until I get one.


The request was obviously done in bad faith, which is why I called both sides bigots earlier. it's just the baker is also a moron for giving them ammo. he should have just said "no thanks" and left it at that.

The Left hates People of the Christian Faith. That is what this is really about.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
What is the purpose of this thread then

For people to tell me that I'm wrong.

Ok...

https://media.giphy.com/media/MxH83SEztdtao/giphy.gif

Originally posted by Surtur
People aren't defending his beliefs, they are merely saying he shouldn't be forced to bake a cake for someone he doesn't wanna bake one for.

Originally posted by Surtur
People aren't defending his beliefs, they are merely saying he shouldn't be forced to bake a cake for someone he doesn't wanna bake one for.

I would agree to this only if the person being refused service is someone the owner has a personal beef with (guy who owes him money, ******* neighbor he's been feuding with, etc), someone who was curt and disrespectful or unruly in his bakery, or someone who had requested a vulgar or obscene order (dick cakes, pussy cakes, hateful messages on the cake, etc).

Anyone with a reasonable cake order should be served, regardless of whether or not he approves of their race, religion, sex, gender, or sexual orientation.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
I would agree to this only if the person being refused service is someone the owner has a personal beef with (guy who owes him money, ******* neighbor he's been feuding with, etc), someone who was curt and disrespectful or unruly in his bakery, or someone who had requested a vulgar or obscene order (dick cakes, pussy cakes, hateful messages on the cake, etc).

Anyone with a reasonable cake order should be served, regardless of whether or not he approves of their race, religion, sex, gender, or sexual orientation.

Okay so he can refuse someone who he has a personal beef with, but other than that it's not okay. But someone who has a personal beef with HIS views can come in and stir up this shit storm and it's okay, am I understanding you correctly?

According to Colorado Law...YEP!

Cuz see I have this crazy notion that "reasonable cake orders" are not orders you make that you already know will be rejected, but you make them anyways cuz you're a little snowflake looking to start shit. Just my opinion.

Originally posted by Surtur
Okay so he can refuse someone who he has a personal beef with, but other than that it's not okay. But someone who has a personal beef with HIS views can come in and stir up this shit storm and it's okay, am I understanding you correctly?
No, you're adding a twist to what I had said.

If they came in being dicks to him, the baker would have had every right to refuse them service on those grounds.

If they came to his bakery to politely request a custom-colored cake within a reasonable timeframe and he refused them service for being gay or transgender, then he absolutely deserves the amount of shit he's trudging in now.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
No, you're adding a twist to what I had said.

If they came in being dicks to him, the baker would have had every right to refuse them service on those grounds.

If they came to his bakery to politely request a custom-colored cake within a reasonable timeframe and he refused them service for being gay or transgender, then he absolutely deserves the amount of shit he's trudging in now.

I'm not adding a twist to what you said, I'm accurately describing this situation. A transgender lawyer is the one doing this lol.

What do you feel the chances are she/he just happened to wander into this specific cakeshop and request this?

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
The KKK showing up at his bakery, robed or wearing racist paraphernalia or even muttering their hate speech, falls under the "being a dick" clause, and no one would fault the baker for telling them to **** off.

So then a tranny lawyer doing this just to stir shit up falls under the "being a dick" clause(and the "having a dick" clause, tee hee!)

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm not adding a twist to what you said, I'm accurately describing this situation. A transgender lawyer is the one doing this lol.

What do you feel the chances are she/he just happened to wander into this specific cakeshop and request this?

If that transgender lawyer deliberately went in to create a lawsuit, then the lawyer can **** off right along with the baker for refusing service to people because he doesn't approve of their sexual orientation or gender.

The baker is in the wrong, regardless of whether the lawyer is an opportunistic **** or not. Had he just baked the goddamned cakes, he wouldn't be in this mess.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
If that transgender lawyer deliberately went in to create a lawsuit, then the lawyer can **** off right along with the baker for refusing service to people because he doesn't approve of their sexual orientation or gender.

The baker is in the wrong, regardless of whether the lawyer is an opportunistic **** or not. Had he just baked the goddamned cakes, he wouldn't be in this mess.

Well wait, before you said it's okay if there is a beef. But if the customer has a beef with the guy and deliberately goes there...the baker is STILL wrong?

So essentially the baker will have to have been wronged in the past somehow by a person...before he can refuse them? Am I still twisting your intent here? Cuz this sounds like what you're saying.

You can beef with someone without ever having met or spoken to them. Leftists have proved that with Trump.

EDIT: or is it...if you have beef, but are polite about it...it's okay? Just trying to understand. There was an obvious agenda here with the lawyer.

I like beef.

Originally posted by BackFire
I like beef.

Oh?

94bNyh6BBB0

Originally posted by Surtur
Well wait, before you said it's okay if there is a beef. But if the customer has a beef with the guy and deliberately goes there...the baker is STILL wrong?

So essentially the baker will have to have been wronged in the past somehow by a person...before he can refuse them? Am I still twisting your intent here? Cuz this sounds like what you're saying.

You can beef with someone without ever having met or spoken to them. Leftists have proved that with Trump.

EDIT: or is it...if you have beef, but are polite about it...it's okay? Just trying to understand. There was an obvious agenda here with the lawyer.

Yes, because even if the transgender lawyer went with the purpose of creating a situation for a lawsuit, the baker still refused to serve a transgender person simply for being transgender. They'd both be in the wrong. It's not one or the other.

It's akin to a guy going over to pick a fight with another guy and getting punched, when the second guy would've have punched the first guy even if he was respectful and had no intention of fighting.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Who the **** cares? If a convenience store is suspected of not verifying the age of customers to whom it sells alcohol, and someone attempts to purchase alcohol to confirm whether that is true, do you cry, "Boo hoo, the customer did not enter that transaction in good faith, the poor convenience store is being targeted, because there is suspicion it is not complying with the law?" Get the **** out of here with that noise.

This post is correct, btw. Whether the initial attempted transaction was done in "good faith" or not isn't relevant as far as legality goes. Either his refusal is legal or it is not, the intent of the lawyer doesn't matter much. In the end the court will decide the outcome based on the reasoning of the baker's refusal, not in if the lawyer set a trap for him by asking for a blue and pink cake.

She is taking a person to court on False Charges. I hope the Kunt gets Jail time for wasting the courts resources.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If the KKK wants a plain white cake with nothing obscene on it, then he should sell it to them.
I don't agree with that, I think he should have the freedom of association to not be forced to support the KKK with his labor.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The irony is not lost on me that the same people defending the right of a business owner to refuse service to someone on the basis of a class to which he belongs, are also the people who cry "censorship" when a speaker is refused a platform on the content of his speech.

And that is the myopia of bigotry: never imaging a scenario in which the shoe is on the other foot, and the group to which you belong is not in power. Newsflash: people with no religious adherence are the second largest group in the United States after Roman Catholics and are on the rise, while Christianity continues to decline. Christians will be a minority in American in your lifetime, so you should start considering how fair these principles will be when they are applied to you.
Here's the thing, I might argue against a lot of censorship but at the end of the day I don't think the government should force them to do what I want them to do (though institutions that receive public money are a different story). It's perfectly in keeping with my principles to criticize the **** out of a business's censorship, just as it is for me to criticize hateful speech even though I don't think the government should punish either of them.

Private enterprise is within the property rights of the people who own each thing. Public institutions are a different story since they are funded with money involuntarily taken from citizens.

My principles for my view of private and public institutions and free market principles are pretty consistent.

It's his property and labor and nobody else is entitled it, same with shitty companies that censor shit on their platforms, not the same with publicly funded institutions which taxpayers have paid for.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I don't agree with that, I think he should have the freedom of association to not be forced to support the KKK with his labor.

Selling a cake to a racist is not an endorsement of his racism.

If that were not the case, then if the baker sold a plain white cake with nothing obscene on it to customer who is secretly a member of the KKK, then the baker would have just endorsed racism without his knowledge.

And if the baker was truly concerned about not supporting racists, then he would 1. survey all of his customers about their beliefs, which the baker in Colorado clearly does not, and 2. have a private club instead of a business open to the public.

What all of the free market capitalists in this conversation do not seem to understand is that the cost of having a business in America is that you have to serve all of the public. That is the law, and those are the terms to which you agree, when you pursue a license to operate a business that is open to the public.

You can shout about "forced labor" all you want. Ask the "taxation is theft" ideologues how well that defense works against not paying taxes.

Whoa that's really big of you. Don't hurt your back trying to suck your own cock, pepe

Are you offering to do it for him?

There is a Special Thread now just for Bashy in the Off Topic Forum.

CAST YOUR VOTE!

Everyone put their penises away and quit the dick waving and get back to topic, please.

Originally posted by Impediment
Everyone put their penises away...

I will not.

Everyone but you.

Originally posted by BackFire
I will not.
Originally posted by Impediment
Everyone but you.

Yeah it is just a little prick ... no big THANG!!!!!!

Your mom says otherwise!

Lol! A "Mom" joke.

The classics never die.

They seem to be missing a couple of groups in their list of a$$holes. must have run out of room, right?

Originally posted by Silent Master
They seem to be missing a couple of groups in their list of a$$holes. must have run out of room, right?

Who were you hoping would make the list?

While I agree with the people in the list, they just left off few groups.

Originally posted by Silent Master
While I agree with the people in the list, they just left off few groups.

They were having a problem specifically with white supremacists. Kinda pointless to name other groups when the owners are trying to send a message to that group in particular.

You don't set rat traps when you've got a cockroach infestation.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
They were having a problem specifically with white supremacists. Kinda pointless to name other groups when the owners are trying to send a message to that group in particular.

You don't set rat traps when you've got a cockroach infestation.

White supremacists weren't on the list. so, that's one group they forgot.

Originally posted by Silent Master
White supremacists weren't on the list. so, that's one group they forgot.
They forgot communists and black supremacists.

Originally posted by BackFire
This post is correct, btw. Whether the initial attempted transaction was done in "good faith" or not isn't relevant as far as legality goes. Either his refusal is legal or it is not, the intent of the lawyer doesn't matter much. In the end the court will decide the outcome based on the reasoning of the baker's refusal, not in if the lawyer set a trap for him by asking for a blue and pink cake.


Yeah there was a similar incident that happened here in Australia, a couple of months ago.

This woman took her daughter to a barber & asked him to cut her daughter's hair.

The barber explained to her that he had only cut men's hair in the 20 years he's been cutting & had no experience with women's hair.
He explained to her that being a barber was different to being a hair dresser/stylist & he wasn't confident or qualified in cutting women's hair.

The douche bag woman just happened to be a lawyer.
She cried discrimination & made an official complaint to the Dept.Of Fair Trading & then threatened to sue him in court.

The poor guy ha a nervous breakdown worried about losing his livelihood & reputation. He forked out $60,000 to hire a lawyer anticipating a court case. His family took sides saying he should've juz cut the girl's hair instead of standing up to his moral integrity...

In the end, the douche bag lawyer/mother knowing fully well that the barber had financially suffered demanded he make a public apology acknowledging that he was in the wrong for refusing to cut her daughter's hair.

While privilege douche baggery.

Originally posted by BackFire
This post is correct, btw. Whether the initial attempted transaction was done in "good faith" or not isn't relevant as far as legality goes. Either his refusal is legal or it is not, the intent of the lawyer doesn't matter much. In the end the court will decide the outcome based on the reasoning of the baker's refusal, not in if the lawyer set a trap for him by asking for a blue and pink cake.

Intent was only brought up cuz "it's okay if they beefing!" was mentioned.

Don't feel like making a new thread for it:

Two Girls Face JAIL Over Refusal To Make "Same-Sex" Art

jL77Dhs9-dg

These 2 babes need to start their own sexual charges. Cause they is Broads and that makes what the gays is doing Sexist....cause Loony Lefty Logic..

Originally posted by Impediment
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/12/19/colorado-cake-baker-jack-phillips-faces-another-lgbtq-bias-allegation/2362740002/

Replace the flour with baking soda and the frosting with mayonnaise and tell them it's a "transitional cake". shocked to see this dangerous criminal is still roaming american streets

Originally posted by BackFire
This post is correct, btw. Whether the initial attempted transaction was done in "good faith" or not isn't relevant as far as legality goes. Either his refusal is legal or it is not, the intent of the lawyer doesn't matter much. In the end the court will decide the outcome based on the reasoning of the baker's refusal, not in if the lawyer set a trap for him by asking for a blue and pink cake.


There's morals, there's justice, and then there's the law.

Part of the problem with law, is zero tolerance policy. Fake id on a minor, screw you, you're going to jail.

Religious artifact resembles a weapon, screw you,

Zero tolerance laws are made by politicians in response to political experiency. The people in the field, whose hands are tied by these politicians, are forced to deal with the unintended consequences of draconian laws. As are any people unfortunate enough to violate the letter of a law, if not the spirit of it.

Originally posted by Surtur
Intent was only brought up cuz "it's okay if they beefing!" was mentioned.

Okay. My point was simply that legally it won't make a difference at all.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes. Sort of. What was ruled is that your monetized artistic skills cannot be forced to be used regardless of the reasons. It's a bit different than refusing to sell stuff in your store. I don't think the Supreme Court ruled you can do that and that probably would not be upheld.

But you cannot force an artist to be commissioned to do art that they don't want to do.

The court did not rule on the merits whatsoever. They kicked it back to the lower court, stating that the Colorado Human Rights Commission may not have given him a fair hearing.

Right right, it's not disturbing at all. I agree with the comments in the video about monopolies.

That's not a solid case at all nor is that even remotely a good point.

That's just good lawyering, right there. Considering almost exactly 100% of people do not read Terms and Conditions + the lack of great online small-business retail services like Etsy.

They have Etsy and...?



Besides, how are they going to confirm that their Etsy client is Trans or gay unless they specifically indicate that in the order details?

Also Etsy is a private business. If they violate Etsy's terms and services, Etsy can stop doing business with them.

That's a different consequence than a government's threat of force.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's not a solid case at all nor is that even remotely a good point.

That's just good lawyering, right there. Considering almost exactly 100% of people do not read Terms and Conditions + the lack of great online small-business retail services like Etsy.

They have Etsy and...?



Besides, how are they going to confirm that their Etsy client is Trans or gay unless they specifically indicate that in the order details?

Try the "no one reads the terms and conditions" defense in a court of law and see where it gets you.

They torpedoed their own case by agreeing to serve LGBT people in one jurisdiction then saying their "deeply-held" religious beliefs prohibit them from doing so in another jurisdiction.

Apparently, those beliefs are only deeply-held in Phoenix, but not across state and international lines.

That is why they lost, but hey, it's not good lawyering.

It is sad to see the LGBQT Community take such a ugly and militant stance with in its self all just because they have become pawns of a Political Movement.

Hate will do that to a person and a group.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Yeah there was a similar incident that happened here in Australia, a couple of months ago.

This woman took her daughter to a barber & asked him to cut her daughter's hair.

The barber explained to her that he had only cut men's hair in the 20 years he's been cutting & had no experience with women's hair.
He explained to her that being a barber was different to being a hair dresser/stylist & he wasn't confident or qualified in cutting women's hair.

The douche bag woman just happened to be a lawyer.
She cried discrimination & made an official complaint to the Dept.Of Fair Trading & then threatened to sue him in court.

The poor guy ha a nervous breakdown worried about losing his livelihood & reputation. He forked out $60,000 to hire a lawyer anticipating a court case. His family took sides saying he should've juz cut the girl's hair instead of standing up to his moral integrity...

In the end, the douche bag lawyer/mother knowing fully well that the barber had financially suffered demanded he make a public apology acknowledging that he was in the wrong for refusing to cut her daughter's hair.

While privilege douche baggery.

You're right, there are some jerks out there. This one lady harassed a store owner because he was still selling Hillary for President memorabilia, after the election, because she felt it was disrespectful to Democrats. The shopowner only saw it as stock he paid for, that he had to try and sell. Basically, the woman was the definition of a "snowflake".

The barber was probably an elderly guy, who has no clue about modern social politics, that really felt he didn't know what he was doing.

Did the mother even insist? Tell him "We'll take our chances"? Or did she jump straight to yelling discrimination?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/barber-who-refused-cut-girls-hair-accused-discrimination-876823%3famp=1

She's claiming he ever said he wasn't trained: Only that he preferred it men's only.

Could be lying. Could not be.

If she's not, he's kind of an idiot, tbh. That, or just out of time, like one's grandfather, which would get more sympathy from me.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Try the "no one reads the terms and conditions" defense in a court of law and see where it gets you.

They torpedoed their own case by agreeing to serve LGBT people in one jurisdiction then saying their "deeply-held" religious beliefs prohibit them from doing so in another jurisdiction.

Apparently, those beliefs are only deeply-held in Phoenix, but not across state and international lines.

That is why they lost, but hey, it's not good lawyering.

I think you didn't read my post.

Here, this is the important part:


Originally posted by dadudemon
That's just good lawyering, right there.

It's time you know, DDM, no one reads your posts.

Originally posted by BackFire
It's time you know, DDM, no one reads your posts.


Nearly spit out my hot chocolate that time.

Colorado and Baker End Fight Over Whether He Can Be Forced To Make a Transgender Cake

It's a start

Originally posted by BackFire
It's time you know, DDM, no one reads your posts. DDM, It's just Backfire and I that don't read them, honest, and sometimes I do...

Originally posted by Surtur
Colorado and Baker End Fight Over Whether He Can Be Forced To Make a Transgender Cake

It's a start



While that case was making its way up the courts, a transgender attorney contacted Phillips claiming she wanted to have a custom cake made to celebrate her identity, saying she wanted one with a blue exterior and pink interior.

Phillips also has religious objections to recognizing transgender identities, and so

Transgender attorney wants a cake made to celebrate transgression from the baker infamous for not wanting to makw a cake to celebrate a gay wedding.


Tell me that isn't odd as hell, If not outright suspicious.

Why should a baker be forced to do something which he/it doesn't want to? This is outrageous.

This is both good and bad. It's good for the baker, but it's bad in the sense that no real answer was reached, which means this same group can target others in the future for similar things. Especially since it's been made quite clear people are willing to go and try to make an example of these businesses once they find out the beliefs of the owners. That's exactly what the tranny lawyer did.

Could be.

The intent could also have been to force a "test case", and get a different decision. Instead, we got an example of the limits on what the law requires, which apparently preclude "signaling".

If I'm right, and they want to be dicks about it, they could always go back and ask for a plain white/dark cake.

Originally posted by cdtm
Could be.

The intent could also have been to force a "test case", and get a different decision. Instead, we got an example of the limits on what the law requires, which apparently preclude "signaling".

If I'm right, and they want to be dicks about it, they could always go back and ask for a plain white/dark cake.

I think they'll probably pick a new target cuz if they keep targeting the same guy it seems like harassment.

What if it's a guy in a dress and MAGA hat?

How dare a baker have sovereignty over how his own labor is used!

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
What if it's a guy in a dress and MAGA hat?

The baker would have sucked him off. This is a fact.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm still shocked that a state the size of Colorado only has one bakery.

This is because you've never traveled outside of your home city, let alone your house really.

Originally posted by Robtard
This is because you've never traveled outside of your home city, let alone your house really.

Of course I have, do better next time. You're allowed one do-over, use it wisely.

No No No Surt. Remember. If they IMAGINE IT , then That Makes it True!!!

Never Doubt the Power of Their...

https://media.tenor.com/images/5a0723132622bfd44e6ff186663cd795/tenor.gif

Easy mistake... Still, only 36 percent of Americans hold a valid passport, according to the State Department, compared to 60 percent of passport-holding Canadians and 75 percent for Brits and Aussies. That means almost 70 percent of you are unqualified for international travel.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
What if it's a guy in a dress and MAGA hat?

Or Westboro Baptist Church members?

I don't think anyone should ever be compelled to do anything they don't want to do for anyone.

As a business owner, if you're smart you'd want to serve as wide a base as you can, for capital gains. But if this particular business wants to limit his client base, for whatever reason, it's entirely up to him.

If he required membership passes, there wouldn't be an issue.

Costco gets away with what it does because of that.

^ Wouldn't the outcome still be the same? The transgender and the gay couple would simply be denied membership and sue the baker for being discriminated against.