US Supreme Pizza Part II: Bake a Cake

Originally posted by Beniboybling
I will explain this to you a final time.

Breaking anti-discrimination laws, refusing to pay a fine, and then refusing and resisting arrest comes with the threat of force, yes. Breaking anti-discrimination laws in itself does not, and to suggest otherwise is to conflate it with other offences. It's that simple.

respond with a yes beni I understand or don't bother. 😘

Again, people think he should be punished if he refuses to sin... that's f*cked up.

If you're going to make it a "religious freedom, he doesn''t want to sin!" angle, I'd like to see where in the Bible does it say not to bake a cake that is pink on the inside and blue on the outside, is it in Leviticus?

You're opening this up to where anyone can say "well, that's a sin too me" as a means to circumvent laws. eg Paying traffic fines is a sin to me, but I still pay them.

The only absurdity here is the idea we should take his delusions seriously, yeah.

Religious freedom implies practicing your religious beliefs so long as they don't interfere or act detrimental to other people in the society. Whether not baking a cake is detrimental to the couple or the trans lawyer is debatable(I would say it isn't, but there's a principle to these things).

Originally posted by Robtard
If you're going to make it a "religious freedom, he doesn''t want to sin!" angle, I'd like to see where in the Bible does it say not to bake a cake that is pink on the inside and blue on the outside, is it in Leviticus?

You're opening this up to where anyone can say "well, that's a sin too me" as a means to circumvent laws. eg Paying traffic fines is a sin to me, but I still pay them.

No because in the event of something like a traffic fine the guy takes a specific action. Penalizing him for that action is no different than arresting a radical muslim terrorist who attacks people in the name of Allah. In the bakers case, he's simply refusing to take an action that he considers a sin. By the same token, if the guy with a religious basis to refuse the traffic fine he should have taken the obvious course of not speeding. By taking the action he was effectively trying to force his religion on others. Freedom of religion means one can say "I can't *insert action* because it's a sin in my religion", it doesn't mean "You can't *insert action* because it's a sin in my religion". And don't get me wrong because a large number of Christians don't understand that subtle difference and are the worst about doing it. This baker didn't do that though. He didn't try to stop the wedding by refusing the cake, he offered them any other cake he'd already made. They could have bought one, taken it to someone else to have decorated however they wanted and the guy wouldn't have said a word about it.

That's sort of a broad catch-all you're making. I also don't see how a pink/blue cake is sinning, I'm sure the man has made cakes with both pink and blue in them before (eg a baby's sex reveal party), he's just deciding now that this specific pink/blue cake is a sin.

I believe someone brought it up that the guy isn't being asked to bake a cake with Satan sucking dicks on it or "I <3 Sodomy and taking the Lord's name in vein!" writing, which sure, I can understand if the guy wants to hide behind his religion for that.

edit: And I still maintain that he should be allowed, but let's cut the shit with trying to excuse this guy's bigotry as something else, under his religion or whatnot. He simply does not like gays and trans people; that's bigotry plain and simple

Originally posted by Robtard
That's sort of a broad catch-all you're making. I also don't see how a pink/blue cake is sinning, I'm sure the man has made cakes with both pink and blue in them before (eg a baby's sex reveal party), he's just deciding now that this specific pink/blue cake is a sin.

I believe someone brought it up that the guy isn't being asked to bake a cake with Satan sucking dicks on it or "I <3 Sodomy and taking the Lord's name in vein!" writing, which sure, I can understand if the guy wants to hide behind his religion for that.

It's not the law to cater to every invented whim. Like I said, can I be excused out of paying traffic fines because I see those as a "sin"? No, you'd laugh at me and rightfully so. It's also not mob-like extortion when I have to pay them or face greater consequences.

Also, see my edit.

Originally posted by Robtard
edit: And I still maintain that he should be allowed, but let's cut the shit with trying to excuse this guy's bigotry as something else, under his religion or whatnot. He simply does not like gays and trans people; that's bigotry plain and simple

I thought everyone agreed that business should be able to do whatever they want?

Originally posted by darthgoober
He believes they live in a state of sin. You can believe he's wrong about it but when you get right down to it none of us will know for sure unless there is a God and he tells us after we're dead.

See? The law doesn't care though.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's not the law to cater to every invented whim. Like I said, can I be excused out of paying traffic fines because I see those as a "sin"? No, you'd laugh at me and rightfully so. It's also not mob-like extortion when I have to pay them or face greater consequences.

Also, see my edit.

Originally posted by Robtard
I believe paying traffic fines is a sin. You can believe I'm wrong about it but when you get right down to it none of us will know for sure unless there is a God and he tells us after we're dead.

See? The law doesn't care though.

Originally posted by darthgoober
You're forfeiting the right to avoid traffic fines when you speed. Freedom of religion doesn't make all your actions excusable. At least it doesn't any more, there was the whole witch burning things back in the day... but see we've learned since then. If you're saying that it doesn't grant us any protection whatsoever however, then why keep it on the books at all?

I believe you're arguing against the baker now? He has freedom of religion, certainly. But that freedom does not allow him to break established laws because of his religion and that's the specific issue here. There are laws against discriminating against a person's sexual orientation (regardless of how you feel on these); this is what is being claimed again.

It's almost as if he's being sued for the action of discriminating against his customers, not for refusing to sin.

Originally posted by FreshestSlice
The best type of laws are the one based on the arbitrary definition of what people find offensive. Not wanting to work for a Neo-Nazi is fine, but it's offensive to not want to work for a black person. Therefore one should be fine, but the latter should get you sent to prison.

Originally posted by Robtard
I believe you're arguing against the baker now? He has freedom of religion, certainly. But that freedom does not allow him to break established laws because of his religion and that's the specific issue here. There are laws against discriminating against a person's sexual orientation (regardless of how you feel on these); this is what is being claimed again.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
It's almost as if he's being sued for the action of discriminating against his customers, not for refusing to sin.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Genetic traits =/ things you choose to believe lal

Originally posted by darthgoober
Discriminating by refusing to sin...