Originally posted by Beniboybling
And your examples are not discrimination issues, yeah, what’s the problem here?
My issue here is we won't be saying "this tranny wants a custom cake and it needs to be made, this other person wants a custom cake and it doesn't need to be made".
Do you or do you not grasp this?
Originally posted by Surtur
Thing is, can you explain how Jesus wasn't passing judgement on the merchants he whipped?
I cannot, because the Bible is a highly-unreliable source of history, as well as a highly-impractical guide in which to view the world, which is why don't use it to influence my everyday decisions and life choices. It's full of contradictions, because it isn't much more than a collection of fables that got lost in translation over countless generations. I don't even believe Jesus existed, and if he did, his works were greatly exaggerated...but then again, Jesus was supposed to be god, and only god can judge, so there you go...do as he says, not as he does.
Originally posted by Surtur
As for discrimination, for me it's gotta be all or nothing. If it cannot be okay to refuse a cake then Sarah Sanders can dine wherever the f*ck she wants.Nobody saying the cake should be baked would ever support a customer demanding a muslim baker put muhammad on a cake. They'd give the best reasons, they'd cite he law(and I'd be curious how they feel about the law when it comes to illegal immigrants, like the law of separating children from their parents if they are arrested at the border. I always think about these things when I see those on the left doing the whole 'it's the law' spiel) etc.
I personally feel it's utterly ridiculous religious beliefs are protected but political beliefs are not.
The owner of the Red Hen restaurant, like the baker in question, also imperiled her own business. She also accepted that risk when she asked Sarah Sanders and her party to leave on the premise that she's both a lying cvnt and serves an anti-gay administration. She was not discriminated against due to race, color, gender, religion, age, disability, or national origin, and therefore broke no law.
Here's where I stand on the issue, as someone who's had at least ten years of direct customer service experience: unless someone is being disrespectful, vulgar, obscene, or violent, do your job and serve them. As an employee, it is your duty, and as an owner, you accepted the risk of having to serve people you do not agree with on any number of matters, including religion and politics, which I would agree should also be protected under discrimination laws.
A Muhammad cake would be offensive to a Muslim baker, and could reasonably and justifiably refuse to make it. A dick cake would probably be considered vulgar to most Christian bakers, and could reasonably and justifiably refuse to make it....however, what the baker here in Colorado did was refuse to bake a pink and blue birthday cake because of what it symbolized to the patrons (a sex-change), and apparently flat-out refused service to a transgender person. No unreasonable requests were made, yet he discriminated against them based on sex, gender, and sexual orientation; hence, how he broke the law and is being sued.
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
I cannot, because the Bible is a highly-unreliable source of history, as well as a highly-impractical guide in which to view the world, which is why don't use it to influence my everyday decisions and life choices. It's full of contradictions, because it isn't much more than a collection of fables that got lost in translation over countless generations. I don't even believe Jesus existed, and if he did, his works were greatly exaggerated...but then again, Jesus was supposed to be god, and only god can judge, so there you go...do as he says, not as he does.The owner of the Red Hen restaurant, like the baker in question, also imperiled her own business. She also accepted that risk when she asked Sarah Sanders and her party to leave on the premise that she's both a lying cvnt and serves an anti-gay administration. She was not discriminated against due to race, color, gender, religion, age, disability, or national origin, and therefore broke no law.
Here's where I stand on the issue, as someone who's had at least ten years of direct customer service experience: unless someone is being disrespectful, vulgar, obscene, or violent, do your job and serve them. As an employee, it is your duty, and as an owner, you accepted the risk of having to serve people you do not agree with on any number of matters, including religion and politics, which I would agree should also be protected under discrimination laws.
A Muhammad cake would be offensive to a Muslim baker, and could reasonably and justifiably refuse to make it. A dick cake would probably be considered vulgar to most Christian bakers, and could reasonably and justifiably refuse to make it....however, what the baker here in Colorado did was refuse to bake a pink and blue birthday cake because of what it symbolized to the patrons (a sex-change), and apparently flat-out refused service to a transgender person. No unreasonable requests were made, yet he discriminated against them based on sex, gender, and sexual orientation; hence, how he broke the law and is being sued.
And making a custom cake for a tranny offends this guy. Why is that anymore or less valid than some offended muslim?
So someone from the alt-right very politely and respectfully requests a custom cake for their rally, vanilla on top chocolate on the bottom, to represent the rightful place of certain people in society... do you think the baker can say go **** yourself and not bake it?
Freedom of expression is a much more important principle than antidiscrimination legislation because freedom of expression actually protects somebody's right to their own labor and expressive faculties, while antidiscrimination laws assume you have a right to someone else's.
It should be the bakers decision to decide what celebrations violate his conscience to the extent that he is unwilling to participate in them with his own labor and expressive faculties, he shouldn't be bullied by the government into associating with something or supporting something through his work that he finds objectionable.
I would've baked the ****ing cake because I could care less about someone being gay or trans. In fact if I was a baker and Joker or Wulf or Fated wanted a wedding cake, I'd be overjoyed to do it kek.
That doesn't change the point of principle that people should have the right to sovereignty over their own property, business, labor, and expressive faculties and I don't think it's justified to bully someone with government force to do something with their labor and expressive faculties that they fundamentally disagree with.
If I went to a black baker and requested a custom cake, and it turned out he was a black supremacist who didn't want to make it for me because I'm white, I'd think the dude's a piece of shit, but I don't think it would be ethical for me to get the government to pull the proverbial gun on him to make him bake me the ****ing cake. I'm not entitled to his labor, and to be honest I'd rather not patronize the business of someone like that.
You should not get to make the decision for someone else what events they must support with their work and expressive faculties, and what events it is okay for them to refuse to service. A person should be able to freely associate or not associate with whatever events they feel comfortable with. I don't care if their reasons are bullshit, I don't care if it's a black baker refusing to bake a celebratory cake for a white supremacist event or a racist white baker who doesn't want to bake a cake for a wedding between two black people, because both of them should have the right to their own liberty and property to decide that they do not have to service events and messages they disagree with.
In the same way people should be legally allowed to speak in ways I find morally objectionable or disagreeable, they should also be allowed to give or refuse service in ways I find morally objectionable or disagreeable.
To many personal pronouns, no one asked for manifesto. 😘
And there is no proverbial gun involved. He is facing a fine, not forced labour. If the baker does not wish to bake cakes without discriminating against his customers he can go and choose a more suitable profession, ideally not in retail.
That said I agree that people should have control over their own labour and who they dole it out to. A baker should be able to refuse an alt-rightie's racist cake on the basis they find it repugnant, just as Surt should be able to refuse to dog-sit for the person who kissed his girlfriend, even if it was only once. I draw the line at protected classes because though they do not have a right to that person's labour, this concerns the right to fair and equal treatment.