US Supreme Pizza Part II: Bake a Cake

Originally posted by Beniboybling

I think I meant what I said...

You didn't. You're playing a word game. The opposite of what you say is correct.

Dress it up with word games and troll as much as you'd like.

You want to force a person to make and decorate a cake against his will and I think that's disgusting, thought policing, etc.

👆

Originally posted by Beniboybling
I think your done here, dadoodoo. Until next time. 🙁

Yes, you were done when you took a hardline position about wanting to force people to action against their wills because you view humans as people who exist to think and do by your will and not their own. You lost all semblance of a position when you started playing word games and injecting red herrings just to try and salvage some sort of non-shit position.

I understand the point of view that businesses that discriminate would be undone by a public backlash even if there were no anti-discrimination laws, but only on a macro-scale. My concern is more about the negative effects discrimination would have on a smaller scale with small businesses in less populated areas. Businesses in metropolitans like, say, New York City or Los Angeles, would obviously feel the erosion of decreased customers and revenue due to the diverse setting and increased chance of negative media attention in that area. But the idea that all businesses would be universally hampered if they're outed as racist or homophobic is unrealistic, in my opinion. The simple fact is that if small businesses in rural Kentucky or Alabama or somewhere similar didn't serve African-Americans or homosexuals, the downsides would be far less pronounced, and maybe even non-existent. I think the negative byproduct of repealing anti-discrimination laws in that it leads businesses in backwards parts of the country to reject a certain demographic, thus fostering a gross environment and create enclaves of racism and homophobia, is too much of a downside. You can claim that there is already a racist enclave present if the results of repealed anti-discrimination laws were accurate to my aforementioned description—but I believe the repeal would only exacerbate the problem and further isolate minorities, as well as increase a cultural permittance of racist and homophobic views.

Additionally, another unfortunate truth is that those who aren't part of the demographic being discriminated against, usually, just... don't care about reducing their service to places that discriminate. It doesn't affect them personally, so they're apathetic. I've seen this admitted plenty of times by the same people who claim that racist and homophobic businesses would go under if outed as such. You can show me plenty of cases where people did care enough about a discriminating business to withdraw their service, and I believe it, but the fact remains that many, many people don't care.

Those are just some of my reasons as to why I think anti-discrimination laws should remain in implementation in general. I'm sympathetic to the case against anti-discrimination laws as it pertains to artistic expression, but I still haven't completely made up my mind on that part of the conversation.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Of course, you won't whine about it at all. 😂

I wouldn't, at best I'd talk about the hypocrisy of it. But I think if "no men" or "no blacks" signs for places began to crop up those places would just end up losing business. Their views, in the end, would just do them harm.

For instance, this baker stopped making wedding cakes all together despite the fact a good chunk of his revenue came from them.

Originally posted by |King Joker|
I understand the point of view that businesses that discriminate would be undone by a public backlash even if there were no anti-discrimination laws, but only on a macro-scale. My concern is more about the negative effects discrimination would have on a smaller scale with small businesses in less populated areas. Businesses in metropolitans like, say, New York City or Los Angeles, would obviously feel the erosion of decreased customers and revenue due to the diverse setting and increased chance of negative media attention in that area. But the idea that all businesses would be universally hampered if they're outed as racist or homophobic is unrealistic, in my opinion. The simple fact is that if small businesses in rural Kentucky or Alabama or somewhere similar didn't serve African-Americans or homosexuals, the downsides would be far less pronounced, and maybe even non-existent. I think the negative byproduct of repealing anti-discrimination laws in that it leads businesses in backwards parts of the country to reject a certain demographic, thus fostering a gross environment and create enclaves of racism and homophobia, is too much of a downside. You can claim that there is already a racist enclave present if the results of repealed anti-discrimination laws were accurate to my aforementioned description—but I believe the repeal would only exacerbate the problem and further isolate minorities, as well as increase a cultural permittance of racist and homophobic views.

Additionally, another unfortunate truth is that those who aren't part of the demographic being discriminated against, usually, just... don't care about reducing their service to places that discriminate. It doesn't affect them personally, so they're apathetic. I've seen this admitted plenty of times by the same people who claim that racist and homophobic businesses would go under if outed as such. You can show me plenty of cases where people did care enough about a discriminating business to withdraw their service, and I believe it, but the fact remains that many, many people don't care.

Those are just some of my reasons as to why I think anti-discrimination laws should remain in implementation in general. I'm sympathetic to the case against anti-discrimination laws as it pertains to artistic expression, but I still haven't completely made up my mind on that part of the conversation.

A reasonable position, tbh.

One counter I've heard is that you want to put prejudiced employers out in the open so people they don't like will know not to work there, and they don't have to hire people they'll treat badly anyway.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Ant made you into a joke .

I wonder what impact this ruling will have on this case. Sounds like common sense prevailed:

Forcing bakers to make gay wedding cakes violates free speech, California judge rules

Sad that it even needed to go to court.

"Kern County Judge David Lampe ruled that the state could not force Cathy Miller, owner of Tastries Bakery, to bake a cake that would go against her beliefs, according to Kern Golden Empire.

“For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment,” the judge said in the ruling."

Common sense? Nooooo, it burns! It burns!

What exactly is a "gay cake" though? Can someone explain that?

Seems like the businesses are still refusing the same service they provide to other people, but not to gay people specifically.

Personally, I begrudgingly almost want to say whatever at this point (even though it's clear discrimination), but just force the businesses to openly state their bigoted practices with "no service to gays" displayed on the window of the store and online adds, that way people who are against discrimination know before they patronize the shop and can make an informed decision.

Speaking of discrimination, what's the difference between a baker saying "no gay wedding cakes" or "no Black wedding cakes" or "no Jewish wedding cakes" or "no interracial marriage wedding cakes" etc.? Can one of you "common sense" types spell it out?

Guess it depends on how you define it, I dunno. There is this from the article:

"A key factor in the decision was that the cake being requested by the couple was a custom job that was not regularly sold by the bakery.

The implication is that if the couple had requested a cake that was on display and routinely sold to other customers, it would be discriminatory to refuse to sell it to a gay couple on the basis of religious beliefs.

Here’s more from the ruling: “A wedding cake is not just a wedding cake in Free Speech analysis. It is an artistic expression by the person making it that is to be used traditionally as centerpiece in the celebration of marriage. There could not be greater form of expressive conduct.”

The judge also noted that Miller recommended the couple go to a competitor to get their cake."

Seems like technically a "gay cake" would be any custom designed cake meant for a gay wedding.

Still, I'm glad common sense prevailed.

Let's use the dictionary to define it: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

Ok, so a baker could on the same grounds refuse to bake a 'custom designed cake meant for a Black couple wedding.' Or Jewish, or interracial, or Muslim etc. etc. etc.

That sounds like "common sense" to you and not discrimination? Explain how you came to that belief.

Trump.will not let these people eat cake like Marie Antoinette. No No, No No.

Originally posted by Robtard
What exactly is a "gay cake" though? Can someone explain that?

Seems like the businesses are still refusing the same service they provide to other people, but not to gay people specifically.

Personally, I begrudgingly almost want to say whatever at this point (even though it's clear discrimination), but just force the businesses to openly state their bigoted practices with "no service to gays" displayed on the window of the store and online adds, that way people who are against discrimination know before they patronize the shop and can make an informed decision.

Speaking of discrimination, what's the difference between a baker saying "no gay wedding cakes" or "no Black wedding cakes" or "no Jewish wedding cakes" or "no interracial marriage wedding cakes" etc.? Can one of you "common sense" types spell it out?

What about my idea?

Yelp Review:

"Cakes always look great. Bigoted against the LGBTQ+ community, though."

Seems fair enough. Free speech preserved for everyone.

If it's a commission, then say, for example, an artist could refuse to draw a picture or a painting that goes against their beliefs or whatever, right?

Originally posted by Robtard
What exactly is a "gay cake" though? Can someone explain that?

Seems like the businesses are still refusing the same service they provide to other people, but not to gay people specifically.

Personally, I begrudgingly almost want to say whatever at this point (even though it's clear discrimination), but just force the businesses to openly state their bigoted practices with "no service to gays" displayed on the window of the store and online adds, that way people who are against discrimination know before they patronize the shop and can make an informed decision.

Speaking of discrimination, what's the difference between a baker saying "no gay wedding cakes" or "no Black wedding cakes" or "no Jewish wedding cakes" or "no interracial marriage wedding cakes" etc.? Can one of you "common sense" types spell it out?

Yes, people have the right to do what they like. Consequences do not matter.

Hail Trump.

Originally posted by Surtur
I wonder what impact this ruling will have on this case. Sounds like common sense prevailed:

Forcing bakers to make gay wedding cakes violates free speech, California judge rules

Sad that it even needed to go to court.

[b]"Kern County Judge David Lampe ruled that the state could not force Cathy Miller, owner of Tastries Bakery, to bake a cake that would go against her beliefs, according to Kern Golden Empire.

“For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment,” the judge said in the ruling."

Common sense? Nooooo, it burns! It burns! [/B]

Originally posted by Robtard
Let's use the dictionary to define it: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

Ok, so a baker could on the same grounds refuse to bake a 'custom designed cake meant for a Black couple wedding.' Or Jewish, or interracial, or Muslim etc. etc. etc.

That sounds like "common sense" to you and not discrimination? Explain how you came to that belief.

We have learnt not all people are equal to some other people. Trump is a billionaire and comfortable with inequality.

Originally posted by Robtard
Let's use the dictionary to define it: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

Ok, so a baker could on the same grounds refuse to bake a 'custom designed cake meant for a Black couple wedding.' Or Jewish, or interracial, or Muslim etc. etc. etc.

That sounds like "common sense" to you and not discrimination? Explain how you came to that belief.

Interesting, so in this particular case the baker refused to make a specific item but didn't refuse service in regards to anything that was available on the shelves. Due to his belief system he refused to make a specific item.

So you believe its right for the govt to dictate our actions when it comes to beliefs? Let's not conflate racism with baking a cake for a gay wedding.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Interesting, so in this particular case the baker refused to make a specific item but didn't refuse service in regards to anything that was available on the shelves. Due to his belief system he refused to make a specific item.

So you believe its right for the govt to dictate our actions when it comes to beliefs? Let's not conflate racism with baking a cake for a gay wedding.

Let's not pretend that bigotry against someone's sexual orientation is all than different that bigotry against someone's skin color, religion, sex etc.

So if baker A) can refuse to bake a cake for two men due to the baker's beliefs. Why can't baker B) refuse to bake a cake for a black man and white woman's wedding due to his beliefs? Why is one protected under "freedom" and the other is discrimination?

edit: Should also add, not sure 'freedom of religion/beliefs' covers freedom to be bigoted and deny service? Otherwise someone could refuse service to say a handicapped person and say "well, my religious beliefs" as the excuse.

Originally posted by Robtard
What exactly is a "gay cake" though? Can someone explain that?

Seems like the businesses are still refusing the same service they provide to other people, but not to gay people specifically.

Personally, I begrudgingly almost want to say whatever at this point (even though it's clear discrimination), but just force the businesses to openly state their bigoted practices with "no service to gays" displayed on the window of the store and online adds, that way people who are against discrimination know before they patronize the shop and can make an informed decision.

Speaking of discrimination, what's the difference between a baker saying "no gay wedding cakes" or "no Black wedding cakes" or "no Jewish wedding cakes" or "no interracial marriage wedding cakes" etc.? Can one of you "common sense" types spell it out?

Isn't "DIGGING" against the Rules at KMC?