Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
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?
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
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.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
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.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Last edited by Surtur on Dec 6th, 2017 at 04:27 PM
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.
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
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.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
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.
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.
Alliance Defending Freedom is an anti-LGBT hate group that supports the criminalization of homosexuality and the sterilization of trans people, links homosexuality to pedophilia, and claims the "homosexual agenda" will destroy Christianity and society—and you are an ******* for citing them, let alone suggesting they are impartial.
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.
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
And I hope he used that money to hire a damn good lawyer.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
"Tired of people invoking Muslims in the same-sex wedding cake case. Muslims regularly sell you alcohol, drive you home when you’re drunk, and open their hotels to unmarried couples without imposing their beliefs on you."
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
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.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
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.
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.
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
Yes.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
She'd bake cakes for other purposes though. Just not one tailored to an event she fundamentally disagrees with.
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.
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:
By all means though, keep screeching about how everyone who disagrees with you is a Nazi. See where that gets you.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
Last edited by Emperordmb on Dec 6th, 2017 at 08:12 PM
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.
KMC Community Forums
Dec 6th, 2017 04:07 PM
