US Supreme Pizza Part II: Bake a Cake

Originally posted by Robtard
We're just going to have to disagree on the reasons this imaginary painter is refusing the Phelps.

Depends on a case-to-case basis. eg If one's religion allows them to have sex with a nine year old I have no problem with laws stopping that because it's child abuse, harm is being done to someone else. But a law forbidding someone to wear a burka is stupid and purposely done to attack Islam, as wearing a burka harms no one. I'd also have a problem with a law that forbade Mormons from wearing their magical underwear; it's their choice, let them wear it.

Funny you bring that up, cos there's people here who cried rape over this baker since the start, but gleefully approve of a law that would ban burkas and that's solely a personal thing. Weird, no.

Refusing to bake a special cake doesn't actually harm anyone either...

I don't doubt it, but I'm not one of them. I'm pretty firm in my principals.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
I think you'll find that treating one person worse than another based on something that they can neither dictate nor causes harm to others is objectively unethical and can only be justified via unprovable fantasies or bigoted delusions.

He is refusing them services he is providing to the straight equivalent, he is treating them worse.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
He is refusing them services he is providing to the straight equivalent, he is treating them worse.

Rubbish. He is not refusing them service on the basis he finds gay people artistically uninspiring, but on the basis that he opposes gay relationships. And I've seen your above scenario, and I find no comparison to be drawn with a gay painter being made to depict violence committed on those of his sexual orientation, how you do is anyone's guess.

Originally posted by darthgoober
We're not disagreeing about why he's refusing them, you just can't find a way to spin it lol. He's refusing because he finds their religion deplorable, plain and simple. Their words and protests are constitutionally protected in and of themselves and are based upon their religion which is also protected. Therefor if the baker has to do the cake then the painter has to do the mural.

Refusing to bake a special cake doesn't actually harm anyone either...

I don't doubt it, but I'm not one of them. I'm pretty firm in my principals.

If you want to claim imaginary victory over the imaginary scenario, okay then. I believe I've properly addressed why the scenarios are not the same.

This cake isn't "special" though, in fact, there's an extremely high possibility this baker has baked a similar cake with a pink cake mix and blue frosting. If this person had requested the baker design a cake depicting a man with boobs and a bloody severed penis, I think you'd have the beginning of an argument why this refusal is on religious/artistic grounds and not "no tranny!" bigotry. But alas, he seemed to be cool with baking the pink/blue cake until he heard the customer was transsexual.

I didn't think you were, Surtur was one of those phaggots, since you're asking.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Rubbish. He is not refusing them service on the basis he finds gay people artistically uninspiring, but on the basis that he opposes gay relationships. And I've seen your above scenario, and I find no comparison to be drawn with a gay painter being made to depict violence committed on those of his sexual orientation, how you do is anyone's guess.

The baker believe that the gay wedding goes against his religion, which is just as protected as the gays sexual orientation. A person's own constitutionally protected freedoms either allow them to discriminate against a protected class, or they don't. It's not the governments place to legislate taste as the case against Larry Flint established. Being wildly offensive to some isn't reason to restrict a persons first amendment right, period. So if the painter offers custom murals to the public then he'd have to offer them to the church too going by the precedent you want to set. That's a huge part of the way the laws works, past precedent. As I said in my thread about banning lawyers from using the phrase Undocumented Immigrant you have to be careful of the precedents you set today because it's very likely they'll be used against you in the future.

Originally posted by Robtard
If you want to claim imaginary victory over the imaginary scenario, okay then. I believe I've properly addressed why the scenarios are not the same.

This cake isn't "special" though, in fact, there's an extremely high possibility this baker has baked a similar cake with a pink cake mix and blue frosting. If this person had requested the baker design a cake depicting a man with boobs and a bloody severed penis, I think you'd have the beginning of an argument why this refusal is on religious/artistic grounds and not "no tranny!" bigotry. But alas, he seemed to be cool with baking the pink/blue cake until he heard the customer was transsexual.

I didn't think you were, Surtur was one of those phaggots, since you're asking.

Originally posted by darthgoober
He's an artist, creating a special cake requires some level of inspiration, yes it does.

The baker believe that the gay wedding goes against his religion, which is just as protected as the gays sexual orientation.

A person's own constitutionally protected freedoms either allow them to discriminate against a protected class, or they don't.

It's not the governments place to legislate taste as the case against Larry Flint established. Being wildly offensive to some isn't reason to restrict a persons first amendment right, period.

So if the painter offers custom murals to the public then he'd have to offer them to the church too going by the precedent you want to set.

That's a huge part of the way the laws works, past precedent. As I said in my thread about banning lawyers from using the phrase Undocumented Immigrant you have to be careful of the precedents you set today because it's very likely they'll be used against you in the future.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
I never denied that, I denied that those were his reasons for refusing service.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Not when it involves the mistreatment of others.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
They don't, or shouldn't.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Agreed, this being irrelevant to being made to partake in something wildly offensive. FYI: Being gay is not wildly offensive by any rational metric.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
No, that does not follow at all. A painter has no obligation to paint that they find offensive, provided that offense isn't based in discrimination. The bakers refusal is based in discrimination.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
I agree, why did no one think about the poor bigoted bakers before passing anti-discrimination laws. 🙁

Originally posted by darthgoober
Anything custom is special. And this whole thing since the get go been an effort to force this guy to do something he considers a sin. That's the whole reason they told him it was a trans cake anyway. He's an openly Christian baker who refuses to make anything that goes against his beliefs so more than likely the original gay couple was doing the same thing. That shouldn't be supported by ANYONE regardless of the circumstances. That's no different than repeatedly trying to come up with a way to force Muslims to remove their burkas in public.

You're seriously going to stand by that this is all about his artisty and religion and if I had called and said "Me and my wife want to order a pink cake that is blue on the outside for our unborn daughter's sex-reveal party where people will think it's a boy and then surprise, we cut the cake and it's pink" this guy would have said "nope, muh religion and the artist in me tells me no."

He would happily bake the same exact cake for a straight person or couple. His sole reason for denying this time was the transgender person asking. Case closed.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're seriously going to stand by that this is all about his artisty and religion and if I had called and said "Me and my wife want to order a pink cake that is blue on the outside for our unborn daughter's sex-reveal party where people will think it's a boy and then surprise, we cut the cake and it's pink" this guy would have said "nope, muh religion and the artist in me tells me no."

He would happily bake the same exact cake for a straight person or couple. His sole reason for denying this time was the transgender person asking. Case closed.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
mistreat
mɪsˈtriːt/
verb
treat (a person or animal) badly, cruelly, or unfairly.

Making a custom cake for a heterosexual wedding but refusing a custom cake for a homosexual wedding is to treat the latter unfairly. In principle, the extent of the impact on that person's wellbeing does not factor into it. Wellbeing that could easily be exacerbated if in the arguably unlikely but nonetheless possible event that the couple were unable to find anyone who would service their wedding at all.

You're reaching with the "unfairly" part:

verb (used with object)
to treat badly or abusively.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/mistreat

If your only avenue to try and win an argument is with a word game, you should review why your argument is so weak that you have to relegate yourself to playing a word game and then reconsider making a better argument.

Regardless, if you wish to legislate "unfair", you've got an absurdly complicated subjective system to wade through and you'll never create a fairly regulated system. It's an impossible task.

Instead of focusing on the impossible, focus on maximizing freedom. What maximizes the most freedom? Not creating laws that force people to do things.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
He is refusing them services he is providing to the straight equivalent, he is treating them worse.

He's treating the gay couples better, actually.

What happens when you force someone to do something they don't want to do? Do you think the gay couple will get themselves a fair-cake to the straight couple if the cake decorator is forced to make it?

It's fairer for the gay couple to give their money to someone else.

Originally posted by darthgoober
No because that argument is basically one of those "[b]YOU can't take action because it's a sin in my religion".

This is obviously going nowhere so I'll ask you the same questions I'm still waiting on Rob to answer. Would you prefer that the freedom of religion should just be done away completely? If not, what do think it should encompass? [/B]

You're not arguing for freedom of religion, you're arguing for privilege of religion.

Whether or not you agree with the law is one thing, but whether a religion agrees or disagrees with a law isn't a valid criteria.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Whether or not you agree with the law is one thing, but whether a religion agrees or disagrees with a law isn't a valid criteria.

I think any reason is a valid enough reason for a person to have ownership over their own labor though.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Freedom of speech is a fallacy, to be honest, the only idiots moronic enough to buy into it are ****wit, popularist rightists and internet warriors. It's a joke, most places where internet warriors yell about the right to free speech are "private" forums. I could explain how free speech doesn't exist in the non virtual world also, but to be honest I can't be bothered.

Social mores intervene when it comes to "free speech." However free speech as defined in the US constitution still has merit as it prevents the govt from stifling you.

I'm assuming, of course, you meant "free speech" in private engagements.

In the new situation with the baker (cough artist) he has fooked himself.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Freedom of religion is the right to not be oppressed based on your beliefs. That's not the same as a pardon for all action that aligns with one's beliefs.

You're not arguing for freedom of religion, you're arguing for privilege of religion.

Whether or not you agree with the law is one thing, but whether a religion agrees or disagrees with a law isn't a valid criteria.

Originally posted by darthgoober
Saying "sin or be punished" is having your religion oppressed. People are knowingly and intentionally trying to force the guy to violate the tenants of his religion.

They asked him, a baker, to bake a pink cake with blue frosting. Baking the cake for the transsexual customer would not have made him an accomplice in sin, nor would it demonstrate that he condones homosexuality and sex-changes. He refused because he took issue with the customer being transsexual. That is discrimination, and that's why he's justifiably being sued.

It's also against his religion to pass judgement on others, yet he had not issue doing that. The New Testament has plenty of scripture against passing judgment on others, and several more about things like forgiveness, helping people, and being humble.

Luke 6:31-36

31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.
32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them.
33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that.
34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full.
35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.
36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

Romans 2:1-3

2 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth.
3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment?

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
They asked him, a baker, to bake a pink cake with blue frosting. Baking the cake for the transsexual customer would not have made him an accomplice in sin, nor would it demonstrate that he condones homosexuality and sex-changes. He refused because he took issue with the customer being transsexual. That is discrimination, and that's why he's justifiably being sued.

It's also against his religion to pass judgement on others, yet he had not issue doing that. The New Testament has plenty of scripture against passing judgment on others, and several more about things like forgiveness, helping people, and being humble.

Luke 6:31-36

31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.
32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them.
33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that.
34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full.
35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.
36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

Romans 2:1-3

2 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth.
3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment?

Whether or not he CHOOSES to commit other sins(whether they be passing judgment or whatever) has no bearing on whether or not the government should be allowed to demand that he sin. That's like saying it's OK to force Muslims who are in jail to eat bacon if committing a sin like stealing is what landed them in jail. If violating the tenants of ones religion takes away their freedom of religion then basically no one should have the freedom cause nobodies perfect.