US Supreme Pizza Part II: Bake a Cake

Originally posted by Surtur
The quote you gave says he will not create cakes celebrating marriage that are contrary to his understanding of biblical teaching. You then say he will not make a straight themed cake for a gay couple. How does that track? A "straight themed cake" as you put it...would not be about gay marriage, hence it being "straight themed". Gay marriage is not being celebrating in a straight themed cake, no matter who orders the cake.

What reason would the cake maker have to refuse to make a cake with hearts on it? There's no gay message in that cake.

Is this literally just about if theres a man and a woman on top of the cake vs two dudes, lol? Should they just make cakes pretending both people don't have dicks and then the customers manually switch the genders afterwards?

How insecure about your place in heaven do you have to be to be that petty? Just go sit in a box and tell a pedo that your fee-fees hurt that you made two mans instead of one and put up with it. 🙄

Or how about if some dude doesn't want to bake you a wedding cake, go find someone who does instead of threatening the dude with force?

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Tomorrow the US Supreme Court will hear arguments regarding the Christian baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Here's an excerpt from a Huffington post article regarding this that illustrates the two opposing sides of the issue:

[b]The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on Tuesday in a case that could have huge ramifications for freedom of speech and protections against discrimination. But it all began with a same-sex couple who just wanted a special wedding cake.

In 2012, Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips pointed to his conservative Christian beliefs in refusing to make a custom wedding cake for Colorado couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins.

Phillips argues that when he designs his custom cakes, he is an artist and that he can’t be forced to use his artistic expression to send a message he finds religiously objectionable ― in this case, that any marriage other than one between a man and a woman should be celebrated. His lawyers say it is a matter of free speech.

The Trump administration has taken up the baker’s cause. “Forcing Phillips to create expression for and participate in a ceremony that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs invades his First Amendment rights,” the Justice Department wrote in an amicus brief filed in September.

But in refusing to make Craig and Mullins a custom cake, Phillips violated Colorado anti-discrimination law that prohibits businesses from denying services to people based on sexual orientation, among other factors. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled against him in May 2014.

Several court decisions later, the case has reached the Supreme Court ― with the scope of free speech and anti-discrimination protections on the line.

The implications of Phillips’ claim that he should be able to deny the couple services based on his free speech rights as a Christian are “staggering,” American Civil Liberties Union attorneys representing Craig and Mullins wrote in a brief filed last year.

“People hold religious beliefs about a wide variety of things, including racial and
religious segregation and the role of women in society,” the ACLU lawyers wrote. “If religious motivation exempted businesses from anti-discrimination laws, government would be powerless to protect all Americans from the harms of invidious discrimination.”

So there are two conflicting points of principles here, anti-discrimination, and the first amendment rights of freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

What are your thoughts on which way SCOTUS will rule, and how do you think they should rule on this case? Why do you feel this way? [/B]

YouTube video

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Or how about if some dude doesn't want to bake you a wedding cake, go find someone who does instead of threatening the dude with force?

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Or how about if some dude doesn't want to bake you a wedding cake, go find someone who does instead of threatening the dude with force?

Nah, its about "should discrimination be legal". And any respectable person should be saying no.

What if you live in a small community and they're the only patisserie nearby? Should you be forced to drastically inconvenience yourself, possibly financially, just to avoid making a bigot uncomfortable?

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Or how about if some dude doesn't want to bake you a wedding cake, go find someone who does instead of threatening the dude with force?

Probably because we have discrimination laws?

Would you feel the same way if a baker didn't want to sell a cake to a Chinese couple because he/she was prejudiced against Asians?

Personally, I say make the prejudice bakers have a sign that reads "no gays allowed", that way people can decide if they want to patronize them. But that's a slippery slope, cause if "no gays allowed" is allowed, why not "no Blacks", or "no handicapped', "No Jews" etc.

edit: Or what Neph said

Originally posted by Robtard
Probably because we have discrimination laws?

Would you feel the same way if a baker didn't want to sell a cake to a Chinese couple because he/she was prejudiced against Asians?

I made it very clear in my previous posts that I have no double standard here:

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I am not advocating for inequality of treatment under the law because I believe in equally applying this principle Adam. The idea that the law should force anyone to do something with their personal artistic expression that they disagree with is a complete government overreach IMO.

If the Westboro baptist church finds a gay baker and goes "some gay dude got murdered and we want you to bake a cake for our celebration party" I think the gay dude should have every right to say "**** off" and refuse to provide his artistic services for that celebration, regardless of whether or not they're asking for a cake with a picture of a good ol' fashioned *** drag on it or if they're commissioning a regular old cake.

I mean shit, it's apparent right here that I'm clearly not asking the law to differentiate between specific groups as to whose protected and that this is a consistent standard:

If you are asking to buy a product already for sale, that's one thing. If you are commissioning artistry though, the person whose artistic talents are at play should be within their rights to accept or refuse any commission for any reason.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Nah, its about "should discrimination be legal". And any respectable person should be saying no.

Originally posted by Nephthys
What if you live in a small community and they're the only patisserie nearby? Should you be forced to drastically inconvenience yourself, possibly financially, just to avoid making a bigot uncomfortable?

It isn't discrimination to refuse service due to discrimination, lol.

Letting racists and bigots refuse service based on their beliefs gives their beliefs credibility and acceptability. Which is utterly unacceptable under any circumstances.

Nobody is saying anything about force, but there should be legal reprocussions for refusal of service on discriminatory grounds.

Originally posted by Nephthys
That isn't discrimination in the same way that, say, Dadudemon's example absolutely 100% is.

Should a bus driver be able to tell a black person they can't get on? Or a cab driver? Should a doctor be able to refuse to administer to a Jew? Or to save their lives purely for racist reasons? Should a vet let your pet get sick because kiss dudes?

Is the bus privately owned or is it state owned?

If private, yes. If no, too bad, the government has a set of "company" standards they have to follow. If he or she doesn't like it, quit the job and start their own business where they can try to succeed as a racist business.

Edit - And I'd also like to point out that most businesses do and will continue to have anti-sexist, racist, harassment policies. No matter what the state decides to do with laws and freedom of speech. Freedom of Speech doesn't apply to your job and employer in this capacity. If you're racist at work, and there is a policy at work against racism, too bad, you're f*cking fired and you can't sue because it is not protected speech.

Originally posted by Nephthys
It isn't discrimination to refuse service due to discrimination, lol.

Letting racists and bigots refuse service based on their beliefs gives their beliefs credibility and acceptable. Which is utterly unacceptable under any circumstances.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
This same argument could be used in favor of hate speech laws which I find utterly abhorrent despite disagreeing with the content of hate speech.

Well, to be far, many people think promoting homosexual and polyamorous (to name just two) is abhorrent and atrocious speech.

If we make laws against things that people get offended by, no one could say anything, ever.

Let's make this topic more clear.

What's really going on?

1. What's going on is people want to force their beliefs on other people

2. They want to force their ideas of what they think is right.

3. They want to force people to do actions that they think is right but go against the people's beliefs that they are forcing to act in a certain way.

None of this is right. All 3 are wrong. This is infringing upon what Locke defined as natural rights. No matter how hard you try, you cannot force a person to think, feel, and act the way you want. This is a shitty horrible atrocious idea.

Just accept the idea that things are going to offend you. And deal with it like an adult instead of trying to build all these walls around other people to make your feelings safe from the bad things.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
This same argument could be used in favor of hate speech laws which I find utterly abhorrent despite disagreeing with the content of hate speech.

Sure. If you spout off hate speech while acting as an employee you can and should rightfully be fired for it. If you do so as a private business owner you can and should be liable to get sued over it.

People can have their own views privately, but in the work place discrimination should not be accepted ever.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, to be far, many people think promoting homosexual and polyamorous (to name just two) is abhorrent and atrocious speech.

If we make laws against things that people get offended by, no one could say anything, ever.

The difference is that speaking positively about or promoting homosexual acceptance isn't forcing your views upon anyone. It isn't about forcing people to be gay, merely that people should be allowed to be so. You're only "forcing" people to let others do what they want. Homophobia on the other hand advocates the idea that people should be forced to be heterosexual and actively encroaches on other rights.

Originally posted by Firefly218
Can't a cake with hearts on it celebrate a gay marriage?

What reason would the cake maker have to refuse to make a cake with hearts on it? There's no gay message in that cake.

There is nothing gay about it, are you saying all the couple asked for was some hearts and nothing else?

Originally posted by Nephthys
Letting racists and bigots refuse service based on their beliefs gives their beliefs credibility and acceptability. Which is utterly unacceptable under any circumstances.

Nobody is saying anything about force, but there should be legal reprocussions for refusal of service on discriminatory grounds.

So you support censorship? Also, allowing people with discriminatory opinions speak doesn't suddenly give their ideas credibility. If you allow people to speak their mind in public, it can be more easily challenged and debunked. If you censor them, then it is easier for them to play the victim and get attention from this. This occurs all the time e.g. Richard Spencer and the Florida case.

As for your point on force. The state forcing someone to pay a fine or whatever else as punishment for simply exercising their opinion on their own private property is a use of force. It doesn't need to be violent to be considered 'force'.

Originally posted by Nephthys
The difference is that speaking positively about or promoting homosexual acceptance isn't forcing your views upon anyone. It isn't about forcing people to be gay, merely that people should be allowed to be so. Homophobia on the other hand advocates the idea that people should be forced to be heterosexual and actively encroaches on other rights.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Nobody is saying anything about force, but there should be legal reprocussions for refusal of service on discriminatory grounds.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
So bottom line is you think this is a principle that should be applied with a double standard whereby people are allowed to refuse expressing a message as long as you also disagree with the message, but that you can force them to express a message as long as that message aligns with your views?

How about this, how about you and everyone else **** off and don't control anyone's speech with force in order to push your agenda. The idea that you can revoke someone's right to have control over their own personal expression based on whether or not you find their views agreeable or disagreeable is disgusting quite frankly, and more in line with an alt-right brony wannabe fascist than with someone who actually believes in liberty.