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.
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
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?
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
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?
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.
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
If he's denying them a commissioned piece of artistic expression? Yes.
I made it very clear in my previous posts that I have no double standard here:
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
There are plenty of respectable libertarians who believe bigotry and discrimination are bad but oppose antidiscrimination laws. Being against these laws in partiality or totality is not the same thing as being in support of bigoted behavior or points of view.
I'd be more comfortable with that than saying that the government should threaten this man with force to express himself in a way he doesn't want to quite frankly. One is an inconvenience, the other is threatening someone's liberty with force, and I don't think there's an equivalency there.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
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.
__________________
Last edited by Nephthys on Dec 6th, 2017 at 10:19 PM
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.
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Dec 6th, 2017 at 10:19 PM
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
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.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
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.
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.
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.
__________________
Last edited by Nephthys on Dec 6th, 2017 at 10:30 PM
There is nothing gay about it, are you saying all the couple asked for was some hearts and nothing else?
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
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'.
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
I'm sorry, and I'm asking this because I don't wanna overlook this or accuse you of anything I'm not sure of so I'm asking for clarification. But are you saying someone expressing homophobic views actively encroaches on the rights of gay people?
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
Must've missed this, but anything the government does is force.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
KMC Community Forums
Dec 6th, 2017 09:53 PM
Official pimp of Steverules 
