Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Look at all the retarded whataboutery in this thread.Let's get something straight: the baker did not refuse to make a "gay" wedding cake; he refused to sell a regular wedding cake to gay customers.
This is not an issue of compelling speech from the baker. It is an issue of compelling a private business owner to sell all the products he provides to all of the public in accordance to the law.
Now maybe all you alt-right ****boys can stop white knighting for the poor, Christian baker, who thinks his magical fairytale beliefs exempt him from whatever laws he does not want to follow.
Let's cover several numbered points to keep things clear:
1. Jack, the man in this case, has refused to make a gay marriage theme cake (from the video and one of the hearings). This is part of his convictions on the type of work he will accept.
2. He has even refused to do anti-LGBTQ+ cakes, as well. But you don't hear or read lefties talking about that, do you?
(3:35, in the video)
3. And he never turned their business away, he turned away their gay wedding cake request. Offered cookies, birthday cakes, etc. He did not turn them away.
4. If this was simply a "regular wedding" cake, then there would not be the need to ask him for the custom cake, which is what was refused. If this was a regular cake, then they could have selected from any of the other non-custom cakes for their occasion. What he refused was to apply his artistic talents to a gay-wedding cake.
So, please, peeps....just watch the video and don't spread misinformation.
In Jack's own words (with me adding numbers to correspond to the points):
“Though I serve everyone who comes into my shop, like many other creative professionals, I don’t create custom designs for events or messages that conflict with my conscience. I don’t create cakes that celebrate Halloween, promote sexual or anti-American themes, or disparage people, including individuals who identify as LGBT[2]. For me, it’s never about the person making the request. It’s about the message the person wants the cake to communicate.“I am here at the Supreme Court today because I respectfully declined to create a custom cake that would celebrate a view of marriage in direct conflict with my faith’s core teachings on marriage. [1]I offered to sell the two gentlemen suing me anything else in my shop or to design a cake for them for another occasion[3][4].
http://www.adfmedia.org/news/prdetail/8700
1,2, and 3:
YouTube video
That should clarify where any confusion may come from about this particular scenario. All information needed to know what's happening with this situation would be in the links and video.
Also, it's pretty despicable that he was harassed and received death threats.
How very progressive and liberal, eh?
How about just...stop giving him business? Review his shop, "Great art, won't make gay-theme wedding cakes, though."
Seems like there are better ways to handle this other than doing illegal things.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Let's cover several numbered points to keep things clear:1. Jack, the man in this case, has refused to make a gay marriage theme cake (from the video and one of the hearings). This is part of his convictions on the type of work he will accept.
2. He has even refused to do anti-LGBTQ+ cakes, as well. But you don't hear or read lefties talking about that, do you?
(3:35, in the video)
3. And he never turned their business away, he turned away their gay wedding cake request. Offered cookies, birthday cakes, etc. He did not turn them away.
4. If this was simply a "regular wedding" cake, then there would not be the need to ask him for the custom cake, which is what was refused. If this was a regular cake, then they could have selected from any of the other non-custom cakes for their occasion. What he refused was to apply his artistic talents to a gay-wedding cake.
So, please, peeps....just watch the video and don't spread misinformation.
In Jack's own words (with me adding numbers to correspond to the points):
http://www.adfmedia.org/news/prdetail/8700
1,2, and 3:
YouTube videoThat should clarify where any confusion may come from about this particular scenario. All information needed to know what's happening with this situation would be in the links and video.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, it's pretty despicable that he was harassed and received death threats.How very progressive and liberal, eh?
How about just...stop giving him business? Review his shop, "Great art, won't make gay-theme wedding cakes, though."
Seems like there are better ways to handle this other than doing illegal things.
Daaaamn
Speaking of opinions, let us hear about the opinions from some on this case, mainly from Justice Kennedy:
An encouraging oral argument in the Colorado cake case
"With Kennedy seemingly holding the key vote, the couple and their supporters at first seemed to have reason to be optimistic. Discussing the impact that a ruling for the baker could have for gays and lesbians, Kennedy told Solicitor General Noel Francisco, who argued on behalf of the United States in support of Masterpiece Cakeshop, that if the baker were to win, he could put up a sign indicating that he would not bake cakes for same-sex couples. That, Kennedy suggested, would be “an affront to the gay community.”
But the tide seemed to shift later in the argument, as Kennedy asked Colorado Solicitor General Frederick Yarger, representing the state, about a statement by a member of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission who noted that religious beliefs had in the past been used to justify other forms of discrimination, like slavery and the Holocaust. It is, the commission member contended, “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use their religion to hurt others.” If we thought that at least this member of the commission had based his decision on hostility to religion, Kennedy asked Yarger, could the judgment against Masterpiece stand?
That wasn’t all:
Kennedy returned to this idea again a few minutes later, telling Yarger that “tolerance is essential in a free society.” But Colorado, Kennedy posited, hasn’t been very tolerant of Phillips’ religious beliefs in this case. And, following up on Gorsuch’s suggestion that the training required of Phillips would amount to compelled speech, Kennedy commented (more than a little derisively) that Phillips would “have to teach that state law supersedes our religious beliefs.”
That last Kennedy comment harks back to what he wrote in the Obergefell case, where he established a constitutional right to marry someone of the same sex:
The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons.
David French is fascinated and encouraged by Kennedy’s fixation on “Colorado’s” animus towards religious belief. He writes:
Justice Kennedy labels a common leftist talking point — that freedom of religion is used to justify discrimination — a “despicable piece of rhetoric.” Kennedy then went on to raise the question of whether there was “a significant aspect of hostility to a religion in this case.”
Many progressives have been playing the bigotry card since the inception of this case, but Justice Kennedy raises the possibility that the true bigots may have been the government officials who punished Jack Phillips.
Again, that harks back to his opinion in Obergefell.
French is also heartened by this exchange between Kennedy and the lawyer for the gay couple:
JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, but this whole concept of identity is a slightly — suppose he says: Look, I have nothing against — against gay people. He says but I just don’t think they should have a marriage because that’s contrary to my beliefs. It’s not -_
MR. COLE: Yeah.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: It’s not their identity; it’s what they’re doing.
MR. COLE: Yeah.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: I think it’s — your identity thing is just too facile.
Yeah.
French concludes:
Phillips never, ever, discriminated on the basis of identity. He merely refused to use his talents to support actions and messages he believes to be immoral.
Justice Kennedy gets the key distinction in this case. Now let’s hope this thought makes it into the opinion of the Court."
I love the slapping down of the talking point about religion being used to discriminate. 👆
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yeah I hope the couple doesn't win, the idea that you can force someone to express something they disagree with is disgusting. This is America not Canada.
It's just amazing seeing that a person on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission apparently sees fit to compare this to religion being used to justify slavery and the holocaust.
Lol...what is with these people and nazis/Hitler/The Holocaust? I can't see how they do not realize how this makes them come off.
Originally posted by Firefly218
So the same services that are offered to a straight couple are not being offered to a gay couple, which is textbook discrimination.And if we allow a business to practice discrimination here, we must be consistent and allow discrimination EVERYWHERE in business.
#MAGA
Why should he be forced to do something he claims does not mesh with his own religious beliefs?
Originally posted by EmperordmbI'm sure the cake maker wasn't being asked to depict a dick going up another man's ass or sodomy or anything, just the same privileges as a straight couple.
Yeah I hope the couple doesn't win, the idea that you can force someone to express something they disagree with is disgusting. This is America not Canada.
What kind of custom cake would a straight couple ask for? Husband and wife holding hands or something? Why not husband and husband or wife and wife holding hands?
Originally posted by Firefly218
I'm sure the cake maker wasn't being asked to depict a dick going up another man's ass or sodomy or anything, just the same privileges as a straight couple.
Same privileges as the straight couple? Not really. A straight couple doesn't have the right to demand he do something he is uncomfortable with anymore than a gay couple does.
What kind of custom cake would a straight couple ask for? Husband and wife holding hands or something? Why not husband and husband or wife and wife holding hands?
I assume something with two men. Which, again,if his beliefs are against that...you could see why he wouldn't wanna do it.
Originally posted by SurturIgnore those bits, they don't make a further argument invalid, even when they weaken the position of the speaker themselves.
And we also see the way people over react and doom their own arguments. "You're alt right" might as well be "you're a nazi" lol.
Originally posted by SurturI repeat: it may be against his views, but is not against his religion, which is what he is claiming.
I assume something with two men. Which, again,if his beliefs are against that...you could see why he wouldn't wanna do it.
Originally posted by SurturThe homophobe has a right to not make a cake for a gay couple, but lets not defend him too much or make him the victim.
Same privileges as the straight couple? Not really. A straight couple doesn't have the right to demand he do something he is uncomfortable with anymore than a gay couple does.I assume something with two men. Which, again,if his beliefs are against that...you could see why he wouldn't wanna do it.
Lets not forget that just a short while ago there were signs everywhere outside small businesses in the south which said NO BLACKS ALLOWED. The government has rightly taken those down.