US Supreme Pizza Part II: Bake a Cake

Is this the baker who was asked for a blank cake?

Not much excuse, if that's the case. Even if this is a pretty obvious stunt (They chose a Christian baker, after all. Not likely an accident, that.)

Originally posted by cdtm
Is this the baker who was asked for a blank cake?

Not much excuse, if that's the case. Even if this is a pretty obvious stunt (They chose a Christian baker, after all. Not likely an accident, that.)

Not only that, but they claim that after they were told no they went and burst into tears over it. That just seems made up to me.

I think that anti-discrimination laws, when not overdone, are helpful in situations where the prejudice is so overwhelming you can't get market alternatives (e.g. the Deep South in 1950). I suppose, then, that federal law on the issue to some extent makes sense, but I'm not sure to what degree.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
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?

Right. In this case, he did not deny them the ability to purchase any of the premade things.

Originally posted by Robtard
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.

There is truth in what you said, however in this particular instance it wasn't denial of service rather it was a very particular product that he didn't want to make. So while I see where someone might take that slippery slope argument however it isn't needed, it's just more govt oversight dictating actions.

There are enough social factors and the market itself that can correct outliers like this where no govt intervention is required.

If this guy had just said, sorry I'm busy then nothing would have happened. By stating his position based on his beliefs then the govt needs to intervene.....that is a problem.

Georgia votes for adoption law that would let agencies deny gay couples.

Looks like Georgia's on a role on being awful lately.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Georgia votes for adoption law that would let agencies deny gay couples.

Looks like Georgia's on a role on being awful lately.

Christian values.

Originally posted by Robtard
Christian values.

Better those then Leftist Fascist Values.

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

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.

Originally posted by Scribble
He runs the business, he can refuse anything he wants.

mmm

Originally posted by Nephthys
Georgia votes for adoption law that would let agencies deny gay couples.

Looks like Georgia's on a role on being awful lately.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
does an orphaned child count as a custom good?

Their parts do. At least according to PlannedParentHood.

Them Abortion Mills just Rake in dat Body Parts Money!!!!!!

Originally posted by Beniboybling
does an orphaned child count as a custom good?

I'd say its more of a produce. Home grown.

Fascists do love them dead babies.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Georgia votes for adoption law that would let agencies deny gay couples.

Looks like Georgia's on a role on being awful lately.

It's sad that they have to create a law for something that should already be allowed under the First Amendment.

Stupid judicial activism.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It's sad that they have to create a law for something that should already be allowed under the First Amendment.

Stupid judicial activism.

You're being silly. The constitution clearly states that gays need to be allowed to adopt whoever they want. This is pure fact. If you question me on it I'm gonna pick up a garbage can and throw it at a door.

Originally posted by Surtur
You're being silly. The constitution clearly states that gays need to be allowed to adopt whoever they want. This is pure fact. If you question me on it I'm gonna pick up a garbage can and throw it at a door.

^ This is you being a "massive phaggot" again, it's denying same-sex couples to adopt children outright

Originally posted by Robtard
^ This is you being a "massive phaggot" again, it's denying same-sex couples to adopt children outright

You're the biggest phaggot here, get over it.

Do you even know why you're against same-sex couples adopting children, Surt? Do tell; sell me on it with logic and reason. Go.

I'm not against them adopting kids. Nor am I against a religious adoption agency holding true to their values of who they want to entrust children to.

Adopting a kid is not a right. Get over it.