Originally posted by Adam_PoE
This ******* has agreed to make cakes for a wedding of two dogs, a pagan solstice party, a divorce party, and a celebration of having multiple children out of wedlock. So let's not pretend this is about the First Amendment, when it's just cosigning his anti-LGBT bigotry.
Cowardlly phaggots here will defend his bigotry by trying to rebrand it as something. He’s a bigot and his refusal is solely based on his bigotry; nothing else. The “should he be allowed” is an aside to that.
Originally posted by Robtard
Cowardlly phaggots here will defend his bigotry by trying to rebrand it as something. He’s a bigot and his refusal is solely based on his bigotry; nothing else. The “should he be allowed” is an aside to that.
People aren't defending his beliefs, they are merely saying he shouldn't be forced to bake a cake for someone he doesn't wanna bake one for.
Originally posted by Surtur
People aren't defending his beliefs, they are merely saying he shouldn't be forced to bake a cake for someone he doesn't wanna bake one for.
I would agree to this only if the person being refused service is someone the owner has a personal beef with (guy who owes him money, ******* neighbor he's been feuding with, etc), someone who was curt and disrespectful or unruly in his bakery, or someone who had requested a vulgar or obscene order (dick cakes, pussy cakes, hateful messages on the cake, etc).
Anyone with a reasonable cake order should be served, regardless of whether or not he approves of their race, religion, sex, gender, or sexual orientation.
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
I would agree to this only if the person being refused service is someone the owner has a personal beef with (guy who owes him money, ******* neighbor he's been feuding with, etc), someone who was curt and disrespectful or unruly in his bakery, or someone who had requested a vulgar or obscene order (dick cakes, pussy cakes, hateful messages on the cake, etc).Anyone with a reasonable cake order should be served, regardless of whether or not he approves of their race, religion, sex, gender, or sexual orientation.
Okay so he can refuse someone who he has a personal beef with, but other than that it's not okay. But someone who has a personal beef with HIS views can come in and stir up this shit storm and it's okay, am I understanding you correctly?
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I’m sorry but if the KKK wants a white cake, nothing obscene on it, just a plain white cake, he should be able to tell them to **** off even if he doesn’t have a personal beef with them and even if their cake is not obscene.
Hey those KKK guys never lynched anyone he knows, it's legit! Make the cake.
This is the part where the argument falls apart and people will defer back to "well...something something protected classes".
Originally posted by Surtur
Okay so he can refuse someone who he has a personal beef with, but other than that it's not okay. But someone who has a personal beef with HIS views can come in and stir up this shit storm and it's okay, am I understanding you correctly?
If they came in being dicks to him, the baker would have had every right to refuse them service on those grounds.
If they came to his bakery to politely request a custom-colored cake within a reasonable timeframe and he refused them service for being gay or transgender, then he absolutely deserves the amount of shit he's trudging in now.
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
No, you're adding a twist to what I had said.If they came in being dicks to him, the baker would have had every right to refuse them service on those grounds.
If they came to his bakery to politely request a custom-colored cake within a reasonable timeframe and he refused them service for being gay or transgender, then he absolutely deserves the amount of shit he's trudging in now.
I'm not adding a twist to what you said, I'm accurately describing this situation. A transgender lawyer is the one doing this lol.
What do you feel the chances are she/he just happened to wander into this specific cakeshop and request this?
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I’m sorry but if the KKK wants a white cake, nothing obscene on it, just a plain white cake, he should be able to tell them to **** off even if he doesn’t have a personal beef with them and even if their cake is not obscene.
The KKK showing up at his bakery, robed or wearing racist paraphernalia or even muttering their hate speech, falls under the "being a dick" clause, and no one would fault the baker for telling them to **** off.
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
The KKK showing up at his bakery, robed or wearing racist paraphernalia or even muttering their hate speech, falls under the "being a dick" clause, and no one would fault the baker for telling them to **** off.
So then a tranny lawyer doing this just to stir shit up falls under the "being a dick" clause(and the "having a dick" clause, tee hee!)
Originally posted by Surtur
I'm not adding a twist to what you said, I'm accurately describing this situation. A transgender lawyer is the one doing this lol.What do you feel the chances are she/he just happened to wander into this specific cakeshop and request this?
If that transgender lawyer deliberately went in to create a lawsuit, then the lawyer can **** off right along with the baker for refusing service to people because he doesn't approve of their sexual orientation or gender.
The baker is in the wrong, regardless of whether the lawyer is an opportunistic **** or not. Had he just baked the goddamned cakes, he wouldn't be in this mess.
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
If that transgender lawyer deliberately went in to create a lawsuit, then the lawyer can **** off right along with the baker for refusing service to people because he doesn't approve of their sexual orientation or gender.The baker is in the wrong, regardless of whether the lawyer is an opportunistic **** or not. Had he just baked the goddamned cakes, he wouldn't be in this mess.
Well wait, before you said it's okay if there is a beef. But if the customer has a beef with the guy and deliberately goes there...the baker is STILL wrong?
So essentially the baker will have to have been wronged in the past somehow by a person...before he can refuse them? Am I still twisting your intent here? Cuz this sounds like what you're saying.
You can beef with someone without ever having met or spoken to them. Leftists have proved that with Trump.
EDIT: or is it...if you have beef, but are polite about it...it's okay? Just trying to understand. There was an obvious agenda here with the lawyer.
Originally posted by Surtur
Well wait, before you said it's okay if there is a beef. But if the customer has a beef with the guy and deliberately goes there...the baker is STILL wrong?So essentially the baker will have to have been wronged in the past somehow by a person...before he can refuse them? Am I still twisting your intent here? Cuz this sounds like what you're saying.
You can beef with someone without ever having met or spoken to them. Leftists have proved that with Trump.
EDIT: or is it...if you have beef, but are polite about it...it's okay? Just trying to understand. There was an obvious agenda here with the lawyer.
Yes, because even if the transgender lawyer went with the purpose of creating a situation for a lawsuit, the baker still refused to serve a transgender person simply for being transgender. They'd both be in the wrong. It's not one or the other.
It's akin to a guy going over to pick a fight with another guy and getting punched, when the second guy would've have punched the first guy even if he was respectful and had no intention of fighting.