Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Gay Bakeries Refuse Service to...

ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 7:27:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
... anti-gay marriage customer.

Thought this was interesting for a few reasons.

First, bakeries in this same area (California) which refused service to gay couples seeking a wedding cake were sued and forced by the government to make cakes against their beliefs.

Second, many of these bakeries were quoted saying things like "This institution doesn't support that." or "Half of our staff is gay so we don't want to make your cake." Flip the tables around when Christians say such a thing i.e. we don't support that or half our staff are practicing Catholics. There would be hell to pay.

Third, they ALL refused him in some capacity. Not one place picked up, heard the request and said "sure". They ALL had to say SOMETHING which honestly reeks of unprofessionality.

Fourth, simply saying "Gay marriage is wrong" is not hateful its simply a statement of belief because

INB4: This man wanted a HATEFUL cake and you can refuse service because it was OFFENSIVE.

To all of you thinking that: wrong. It's a simple statement of belief no different than asking for a cake that says murder is wrong or the sky is blue. A cake for a gay wedding says "gay marriage is right" just as much as this cake says gay marriage is wrong yet one group is forced by their government overlords to bake their cakes and one group is lauded by "activists" everywhere for standing up to "hate".

Thoughts?

Frankly either make these people bake the anti-gay marriage cakes or don't make the Christians bake theirs. Where's the 14th Amendment? The 1st Amendment? Come on.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 8:16:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 7:27:32 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
... anti-gay marriage customer.



Thought this was interesting for a few reasons.

First, bakeries in this same area (California) which refused service to gay couples seeking a wedding cake were sued and forced by the government to make cakes against their beliefs.

Second, many of these bakeries were quoted saying things like "This institution doesn't support that." or "Half of our staff is gay so we don't want to make your cake." Flip the tables around when Christians say such a thing i.e. we don't support that or half our staff are practicing Catholics. There would be hell to pay.

Third, they ALL refused him in some capacity. Not one place picked up, heard the request and said "sure". They ALL had to say SOMETHING which honestly reeks of unprofessionality.

Fourth, simply saying "Gay marriage is wrong" is not hateful its simply a statement of belief because

INB4: This man wanted a HATEFUL cake and you can refuse service because it was OFFENSIVE.

To all of you thinking that: wrong. It's a simple statement of belief no different than asking for a cake that says murder is wrong or the sky is blue. A cake for a gay wedding says "gay marriage is right" just as much as this cake says gay marriage is wrong yet one group is forced by their government overlords to bake their cakes and one group is lauded by "activists" everywhere for standing up to "hate".

Thoughts?

Frankly either make these people bake the anti-gay marriage cakes or don't make the Christians bake theirs. Where's the 14th Amendment? The 1st Amendment? Come on.

I don't know the whole story, but the theme I agree with. If we require a culture which means we need to produce materials and products that go against our beliefs, then then we need to allow all of them given all other factors are equal.

Thus if anti-gay marriage individuals are required to make products which endorse gay marriage, then Pro-Gay marriage individuals should be required to make products that oppose it.

I am pretty sure the facts of the story vary from what they are on the surface (e.g. was the cake request a bigoted one, does it promote hate, etc. which changes things, obviously), so I reserve judgement until I know all the facts of this case.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 8:20:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 8:16:09 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/16/2014 7:27:32 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
... anti-gay marriage customer.



Thought this was interesting for a few reasons.

First, bakeries in this same area (California) which refused service to gay couples seeking a wedding cake were sued and forced by the government to make cakes against their beliefs.

Second, many of these bakeries were quoted saying things like "This institution doesn't support that." or "Half of our staff is gay so we don't want to make your cake." Flip the tables around when Christians say such a thing i.e. we don't support that or half our staff are practicing Catholics. There would be hell to pay.

Third, they ALL refused him in some capacity. Not one place picked up, heard the request and said "sure". They ALL had to say SOMETHING which honestly reeks of unprofessionality.

Fourth, simply saying "Gay marriage is wrong" is not hateful its simply a statement of belief because

INB4: This man wanted a HATEFUL cake and you can refuse service because it was OFFENSIVE.

To all of you thinking that: wrong. It's a simple statement of belief no different than asking for a cake that says murder is wrong or the sky is blue. A cake for a gay wedding says "gay marriage is right" just as much as this cake says gay marriage is wrong yet one group is forced by their government overlords to bake their cakes and one group is lauded by "activists" everywhere for standing up to "hate".

Thoughts?

Frankly either make these people bake the anti-gay marriage cakes or don't make the Christians bake theirs. Where's the 14th Amendment? The 1st Amendment? Come on.

I don't know the whole story, but the theme I agree with. If we require a culture which means we need to produce materials and products that go against our beliefs, then then we need to allow all of them given all other factors are equal.

Thus if anti-gay marriage individuals are required to make products which endorse gay marriage, then Pro-Gay marriage individuals should be required to make products that oppose it.

I am pretty sure the facts of the story vary from what they are on the surface (e.g. was the cake request a bigoted one, does it promote hate, etc. which changes things, obviously), so I reserve judgement until I know all the facts of this case.

The original case was a gay couple walks into a small, family run bakery in California and asks for a cake for their gay wedding. The couple, devout Christians, were uncomfortable with the request and declined to bake them their wedding cake. The couple was then sued and forced to pay monetary reparations and were then forced to bake the cake anyways, against their initial denial of service and against the beliefs that their institution held.

Fast forward to this cake, the guy is asking for a cake for his Pro-traditional marriage party and requests that the cake read "Gay marriage is wrong" because he believes that is on par with having a wedding cake with two men on top (which is claimed to be an affirmation that gay marriage is right). In the second case he is refused service MULTIPLE times but the point is there will be no legal action or action by the government on behalf of the man who wants a cake for his pro-traditional marriage party.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 8:30:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 8:20:10 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/16/2014 8:16:09 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/16/2014 7:27:32 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
... anti-gay marriage customer.



Thought this was interesting for a few reasons.

First, bakeries in this same area (California) which refused service to gay couples seeking a wedding cake were sued and forced by the government to make cakes against their beliefs.

Second, many of these bakeries were quoted saying things like "This institution doesn't support that." or "Half of our staff is gay so we don't want to make your cake." Flip the tables around when Christians say such a thing i.e. we don't support that or half our staff are practicing Catholics. There would be hell to pay.

Third, they ALL refused him in some capacity. Not one place picked up, heard the request and said "sure". They ALL had to say SOMETHING which honestly reeks of unprofessionality.

Fourth, simply saying "Gay marriage is wrong" is not hateful its simply a statement of belief because

INB4: This man wanted a HATEFUL cake and you can refuse service because it was OFFENSIVE.

To all of you thinking that: wrong. It's a simple statement of belief no different than asking for a cake that says murder is wrong or the sky is blue. A cake for a gay wedding says "gay marriage is right" just as much as this cake says gay marriage is wrong yet one group is forced by their government overlords to bake their cakes and one group is lauded by "activists" everywhere for standing up to "hate".

Thoughts?

Frankly either make these people bake the anti-gay marriage cakes or don't make the Christians bake theirs. Where's the 14th Amendment? The 1st Amendment? Come on.

I don't know the whole story, but the theme I agree with. If we require a culture which means we need to produce materials and products that go against our beliefs, then then we need to allow all of them given all other factors are equal.

Thus if anti-gay marriage individuals are required to make products which endorse gay marriage, then Pro-Gay marriage individuals should be required to make products that oppose it.

I am pretty sure the facts of the story vary from what they are on the surface (e.g. was the cake request a bigoted one, does it promote hate, etc. which changes things, obviously), so I reserve judgement until I know all the facts of this case.

The original case was a gay couple walks into a small, family run bakery in California and asks for a cake for their gay wedding. The couple, devout Christians, were uncomfortable with the request and declined to bake them their wedding cake. The couple was then sued and forced to pay monetary reparations and were then forced to bake the cake anyways, against their initial denial of service and against the beliefs that their institution held.

Fast forward to this cake, the guy is asking for a cake for his Pro-traditional marriage party and requests that the cake read "Gay marriage is wrong" because he believes that is on par with having a wedding cake with two men on top (which is claimed to be an affirmation that gay marriage is right). In the second case he is refused service MULTIPLE times but the point is there will be no legal action or action by the government on behalf of the man who wants a cake for his pro-traditional marriage party.

Mm, I mean philosophically they seem on par. As for reactions form people, well there is a reason why praising someone is seen differently to defaming someone. We can't post forum threads here negatively portraying someone, yet we are allowed to post threads positively portraying someone.

The same kind of thing is happening here it looks like, where the negative portrayal of Gay Marriage is not seen as equal to it's positive portrayal.

I wonder if they would have to make a cake for me if I requested one with the inscriptions:

"Your lives are meaningless"
"God doesn't exist"
"Raping Babies for fun is not objectively wrong"

Etc. Etc.

Despite those being genuine positions of mine. IF we have a society/legal mandate where people are required to comply with manufacturing requests which endorse things that go against their beliefs, THEN all of those statements I should be able to get printed on a wedding cake for me if I so requested it.

So I understand what you are saying that it needs to be applied equally, it seems to be a side effect of the real significance of this mandate. We have a right to offend others, which entails that we do not have a right not to be offended, I think people forget that too often, which seems to be the case with this.
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 9:04:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 7:27:32 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
... anti-gay marriage customer.

Thoughts?

If a bakery owned by a gay couple refused service to a couple based on their (dumb) religious beliefs, then that's not good.

The responsible way to handle that would have been to say, "I will bake your cake for you, and hope that you have a happy marriage with your husband/wife, even though you would not wish the same for me."

The problem here is that beating homophobia requires being better than homophobia, not by acting like a petulant child... or the soup nazi.
Tsar of DDO
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 9:28:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 9:04:15 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/16/2014 7:27:32 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
... anti-gay marriage customer.

Thoughts?

If a bakery owned by a gay couple refused service to a couple based on their (dumb) religious beliefs, then that's not good.

The responsible way to handle that would have been to say, "I will bake your cake for you, and hope that you have a happy marriage with your husband/wife, even though you would not wish the same for me."

The problem here is that beating homophobia requires being better than homophobia, not by acting like a petulant child... or the soup nazi.

I just find it interesting that they don't see the hypocricy in their actions. They should bake them the cake or if not, they shouldn't get upset when someone refuses them their cake.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 9:35:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 9:28:37 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:04:15 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/16/2014 7:27:32 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
... anti-gay marriage customer.

Thoughts?

If a bakery owned by a gay couple refused service to a couple based on their (dumb) religious beliefs, then that's not good.

The responsible way to handle that would have been to say, "I will bake your cake for you, and hope that you have a happy marriage with your husband/wife, even though you would not wish the same for me."

The problem here is that beating homophobia requires being better than homophobia, not by acting like a petulant child... or the soup nazi.

I just find it interesting that they don't see the hypocricy in their actions. They should bake them the cake or if not, they shouldn't get upset when someone refuses them their cake.

To be fair, in your synopsis, they are not similar instances.
Refusing to bake a cake because the names are Adam and Steve is different than refusing to bake a cake that reads "Gays can go fvck themselves for they are unholy creatures and deserve to burn in hell".
My work here is, finally, done.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 9:38:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 9:35:14 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:28:37 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:04:15 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/16/2014 7:27:32 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
... anti-gay marriage customer.

Thoughts?

If a bakery owned by a gay couple refused service to a couple based on their (dumb) religious beliefs, then that's not good.

The responsible way to handle that would have been to say, "I will bake your cake for you, and hope that you have a happy marriage with your husband/wife, even though you would not wish the same for me."

The problem here is that beating homophobia requires being better than homophobia, not by acting like a petulant child... or the soup nazi.

I just find it interesting that they don't see the hypocricy in their actions. They should bake them the cake or if not, they shouldn't get upset when someone refuses them their cake.

To be fair, in your synopsis, they are not similar instances.
Refusing to bake a cake because the names are Adam and Steve is different than refusing to bake a cake that reads "Gays can go fvck themselves for they are unholy creatures and deserve to burn in hell".

It didn't say that >.>
Thanks strawman.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 9:44:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 9:35:14 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:28:37 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:04:15 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/16/2014 7:27:32 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
... anti-gay marriage customer.

Thoughts?

If a bakery owned by a gay couple refused service to a couple based on their (dumb) religious beliefs, then that's not good.

The responsible way to handle that would have been to say, "I will bake your cake for you, and hope that you have a happy marriage with your husband/wife, even though you would not wish the same for me."

The problem here is that beating homophobia requires being better than homophobia, not by acting like a petulant child... or the soup nazi.

I just find it interesting that they don't see the hypocricy in their actions. They should bake them the cake or if not, they shouldn't get upset when someone refuses them their cake.

To be fair, in your synopsis, they are not similar instances.
Refusing to bake a cake because the names are Adam and Steve is different than refusing to bake a cake that reads "Gays can go fvck themselves for they are unholy creatures and deserve to burn in hell".

This highlights a great exaggeration that happens in our culture today. Everyone thinks that saying something is wrong (which is normally a statement of opinion or belief) is somehow some sort of violent hate speech when its not. I already explained this up a few posts ^^^^^^
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 9:45:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 9:38:28 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:35:14 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:28:37 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:04:15 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/16/2014 7:27:32 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
... anti-gay marriage customer.

Thoughts?

If a bakery owned by a gay couple refused service to a couple based on their (dumb) religious beliefs, then that's not good.

The responsible way to handle that would have been to say, "I will bake your cake for you, and hope that you have a happy marriage with your husband/wife, even though you would not wish the same for me."

The problem here is that beating homophobia requires being better than homophobia, not by acting like a petulant child... or the soup nazi.

I just find it interesting that they don't see the hypocricy in their actions. They should bake them the cake or if not, they shouldn't get upset when someone refuses them their cake.

To be fair, in your synopsis, they are not similar instances.
Refusing to bake a cake because the names are Adam and Steve is different than refusing to bake a cake that reads "Gays can go fvck themselves for they are unholy creatures and deserve to burn in hell".

It didn't say that >.>
Thanks strawman.

Oh, sorry. It said: "Gay marriage is wrong", which, is still an affront to someone to write. My point still stands. Asking for a cake with two men's names, or whatever you meant by "for a gay wedding".
Further, does it matter what I said the cake said? Your argument would still be the same, wouldn't it? Or, are you saying that something is too far, and would not be hypocritical?

It's not a strawman, as the difference is between baking a cake for someone you don't like vs. baking a cake with offensive decorations.
My work here is, finally, done.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 9:51:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 9:45:53 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:38:28 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:35:14 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:28:37 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:04:15 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/16/2014 7:27:32 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
... anti-gay marriage customer.

Thoughts?

If a bakery owned by a gay couple refused service to a couple based on their (dumb) religious beliefs, then that's not good.

The responsible way to handle that would have been to say, "I will bake your cake for you, and hope that you have a happy marriage with your husband/wife, even though you would not wish the same for me."

The problem here is that beating homophobia requires being better than homophobia, not by acting like a petulant child... or the soup nazi.

I just find it interesting that they don't see the hypocricy in their actions. They should bake them the cake or if not, they shouldn't get upset when someone refuses them their cake.

To be fair, in your synopsis, they are not similar instances.
Refusing to bake a cake because the names are Adam and Steve is different than refusing to bake a cake that reads "Gays can go fvck themselves for they are unholy creatures and deserve to burn in hell".

It didn't say that >.>
Thanks strawman.

Oh, sorry. It said: "Gay marriage is wrong", which, is still an affront to someone to write. My point still stands. Asking for a cake with two men's names, or whatever you meant by "for a gay wedding".
Further, does it matter what I said the cake said? Your argument would still be the same, wouldn't it? Or, are you saying that something is too far, and would not be hypocritical?

It's not a strawman, as the difference is between baking a cake for someone you don't like vs. baking a cake with offensive decorations.

Well putting two men or two women on top of the cake and writing "Happy Marriage Jenny and Jane" is an affront to some Christians.

My point is, if we're going to force people to do things against their will/beliefs it should be uniformly applied and not give special priviledges to gay bakery owners because that's the cool thing to do right now.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 10:03:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
IMO a business should be able to refuse service for any reason. But as long as people are forced to serve gay weddings, these businesses should have to serve this party.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 10:04:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 9:51:08 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:45:53 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:38:28 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:35:14 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:28:37 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:04:15 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/16/2014 7:27:32 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
... anti-gay marriage customer.

Thoughts?

If a bakery owned by a gay couple refused service to a couple based on their (dumb) religious beliefs, then that's not good.

The responsible way to handle that would have been to say, "I will bake your cake for you, and hope that you have a happy marriage with your husband/wife, even though you would not wish the same for me."

The problem here is that beating homophobia requires being better than homophobia, not by acting like a petulant child... or the soup nazi.

I just find it interesting that they don't see the hypocricy in their actions. They should bake them the cake or if not, they shouldn't get upset when someone refuses them their cake.

To be fair, in your synopsis, they are not similar instances.
Refusing to bake a cake because the names are Adam and Steve is different than refusing to bake a cake that reads "Gays can go fvck themselves for they are unholy creatures and deserve to burn in hell".

It didn't say that >.>
Thanks strawman.

Oh, sorry. It said: "Gay marriage is wrong", which, is still an affront to someone to write. My point still stands. Asking for a cake with two men's names, or whatever you meant by "for a gay wedding".
Further, does it matter what I said the cake said? Your argument would still be the same, wouldn't it? Or, are you saying that something is too far, and would not be hypocritical?

It's not a strawman, as the difference is between baking a cake for someone you don't like vs. baking a cake with offensive decorations.

Well putting two men or two women on top of the cake and writing "Happy Marriage Jenny and Jane" is an affront to some Christians.
But, that is what you do on a wedding cake - figurines and names.
You do not make political commentary, thus, it is not analogous.
It's like comparing a car accident which results in a death to a murder, and saying it is hypocritical one goes free.

My point is, if we're going to force people to do things against their will/beliefs it should be uniformly applied and not give special priviledges to gay bakery owners because that's the cool thing to do right now.
So, then, how was my comment a straw man, if you believe that, if they should be forced to serve, they should be forced to write that, and it is hypocritical not to?
My work here is, finally, done.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 10:07:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 10:04:14 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:51:08 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:45:53 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:38:28 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:35:14 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:28:37 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:04:15 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/16/2014 7:27:32 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
... anti-gay marriage customer.

Thoughts?

If a bakery owned by a gay couple refused service to a couple based on their (dumb) religious beliefs, then that's not good.

The responsible way to handle that would have been to say, "I will bake your cake for you, and hope that you have a happy marriage with your husband/wife, even though you would not wish the same for me."

The problem here is that beating homophobia requires being better than homophobia, not by acting like a petulant child... or the soup nazi.

I just find it interesting that they don't see the hypocricy in their actions. They should bake them the cake or if not, they shouldn't get upset when someone refuses them their cake.

To be fair, in your synopsis, they are not similar instances.
Refusing to bake a cake because the names are Adam and Steve is different than refusing to bake a cake that reads "Gays can go fvck themselves for they are unholy creatures and deserve to burn in hell".

It didn't say that >.>
Thanks strawman.

Oh, sorry. It said: "Gay marriage is wrong", which, is still an affront to someone to write. My point still stands. Asking for a cake with two men's names, or whatever you meant by "for a gay wedding".
Further, does it matter what I said the cake said? Your argument would still be the same, wouldn't it? Or, are you saying that something is too far, and would not be hypocritical?

It's not a strawman, as the difference is between baking a cake for someone you don't like vs. baking a cake with offensive decorations.

Well putting two men or two women on top of the cake and writing "Happy Marriage Jenny and Jane" is an affront to some Christians.
But, that is what you do on a wedding cake - figurines and names.
You do not make political commentary, thus, it is not analogous.
It's like comparing a car accident which results in a death to a murder, and saying it is hypocritical one goes free.

My point is, if we're going to force people to do things against their will/beliefs it should be uniformly applied and not give special priviledges to gay bakery owners because that's the cool thing to do right now.
So, then, how was my comment a straw man, if you believe that, if they should be forced to serve, they should be forced to write that, and it is hypocritical not to?

Well you misconstrued my argument in your original post by amplifying it for shock value.

And lets take the marriage part out of the equation. The type of cake is not the point. Let us say that a gay couple walked into a Christian establishment and wanted a cake that said "Gay marriage is right". Would you think they have grounds to be refused? If not then what do you say to the reverse of this which is happening in the video?
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 10:16:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 9:51:08 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:45:53 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:38:28 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:35:14 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:28:37 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:04:15 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/16/2014 7:27:32 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
... anti-gay marriage customer.

Thoughts?

If a bakery owned by a gay couple refused service to a couple based on their (dumb) religious beliefs, then that's not good.

The responsible way to handle that would have been to say, "I will bake your cake for you, and hope that you have a happy marriage with your husband/wife, even though you would not wish the same for me."

The problem here is that beating homophobia requires being better than homophobia, not by acting like a petulant child... or the soup nazi.

I just find it interesting that they don't see the hypocricy in their actions. They should bake them the cake or if not, they shouldn't get upset when someone refuses them their cake.

To be fair, in your synopsis, they are not similar instances.
Refusing to bake a cake because the names are Adam and Steve is different than refusing to bake a cake that reads "Gays can go fvck themselves for they are unholy creatures and deserve to burn in hell".

It didn't say that >.>
Thanks strawman.

Oh, sorry. It said: "Gay marriage is wrong", which, is still an affront to someone to write. My point still stands. Asking for a cake with two men's names, or whatever you meant by "for a gay wedding".
Further, does it matter what I said the cake said? Your argument would still be the same, wouldn't it? Or, are you saying that something is too far, and would not be hypocritical?

It's not a strawman, as the difference is between baking a cake for someone you don't like vs. baking a cake with offensive decorations.

It's a strawman, because the gay couple did not ask for it to say.. "We are getting married because Christian Marriage is wrong!".

Well putting two men or two women on top of the cake and writing "Happy Marriage Jenny and Jane" is an affront to some Christians.

How are Jenny and Jane an affront to Christians?

My point is, if we're going to force people to do things against their will/beliefs it should be uniformly applied and not give special priviledges to gay bakery owners because that's the cool thing to do right now.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 10:16:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 10:07:46 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/16/2014 10:04:14 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:51:08 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:45:53 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:38:28 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:35:14 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:28:37 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:04:15 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/16/2014 7:27:32 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
... anti-gay marriage customer.

Thoughts?

If a bakery owned by a gay couple refused service to a couple based on their (dumb) religious beliefs, then that's not good.

The responsible way to handle that would have been to say, "I will bake your cake for you, and hope that you have a happy marriage with your husband/wife, even though you would not wish the same for me."

The problem here is that beating homophobia requires being better than homophobia, not by acting like a petulant child... or the soup nazi.

I just find it interesting that they don't see the hypocricy in their actions. They should bake them the cake or if not, they shouldn't get upset when someone refuses them their cake.

To be fair, in your synopsis, they are not similar instances.
Refusing to bake a cake because the names are Adam and Steve is different than refusing to bake a cake that reads "Gays can go fvck themselves for they are unholy creatures and deserve to burn in hell".

It didn't say that >.>
Thanks strawman.

Oh, sorry. It said: "Gay marriage is wrong", which, is still an affront to someone to write. My point still stands. Asking for a cake with two men's names, or whatever you meant by "for a gay wedding".
Further, does it matter what I said the cake said? Your argument would still be the same, wouldn't it? Or, are you saying that something is too far, and would not be hypocritical?

It's not a strawman, as the difference is between baking a cake for someone you don't like vs. baking a cake with offensive decorations.

Well putting two men or two women on top of the cake and writing "Happy Marriage Jenny and Jane" is an affront to some Christians.
But, that is what you do on a wedding cake - figurines and names.
You do not make political commentary, thus, it is not analogous.
It's like comparing a car accident which results in a death to a murder, and saying it is hypocritical one goes free.

My point is, if we're going to force people to do things against their will/beliefs it should be uniformly applied and not give special priviledges to gay bakery owners because that's the cool thing to do right now.
So, then, how was my comment a straw man, if you believe that, if they should be forced to serve, they should be forced to write that, and it is hypocritical not to?

Well you misconstrued my argument in your original post by amplifying it for shock value.
What you call shock value, I call the logical extreme. That is how I like to look at things.

And lets take the marriage part out of the equation. The type of cake is not the point.
I disagree that the type of cake is irrelevant. Was the cake in this case wedding or not?
I have not watched the video as I do not have sound at this computer.

Let us say that a gay couple walked into a Christian establishment and wanted a cake that said "Gay marriage is right". Would you think they have grounds to be refused?
Ignoring any laws on the books, which conflate this issue most likely....
I think they should be able to refuse for any reason.
However, I think it is stupid and would fire my employee for refusing that message (on a non-wedding cake) because it is the customer's opinion, not his.

If not then what do you say to the reverse of this which is happening in the video?
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 10:28:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 10:16:40 AM, fazz wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:51:08 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

It's not a strawman, as the difference is between baking a cake for someone you don't like vs. baking a cake with offensive decorations.

It's a strawman, because the gay couple did not ask for it to say.. "We are getting married because Christian Marriage is wrong!".

Why is it a strawman to take something one step further when we are discussing a principle? The issue is the message caused refusal. What does it matter what the message says, if any message should be allowed?
My work here is, finally, done.
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 10:33:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 10:28:36 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/16/2014 10:16:40 AM, fazz wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:51:08 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

It's not a strawman, as the difference is between baking a cake for someone you don't like vs. baking a cake with offensive decorations.

It's a strawman, because the gay couple did not ask for it to say.. "We are getting married because Christian Marriage is wrong!".

Why is it a strawman to take something one step further when we are discussing a principle? The issue is the message caused refusal. What does it matter what the message says, if any message should be allowed?

Yeah ok.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 10:34:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 10:16:59 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/16/2014 10:07:46 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/16/2014 10:04:14 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:51:08 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:45:53 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:38:28 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:35:14 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:28:37 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:04:15 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/16/2014 7:27:32 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
... anti-gay marriage customer.

Thoughts?

If a bakery owned by a gay couple refused service to a couple based on their (dumb) religious beliefs, then that's not good.

The responsible way to handle that would have been to say, "I will bake your cake for you, and hope that you have a happy marriage with your husband/wife, even though you would not wish the same for me."

The problem here is that beating homophobia requires being better than homophobia, not by acting like a petulant child... or the soup nazi.

I just find it interesting that they don't see the hypocricy in their actions. They should bake them the cake or if not, they shouldn't get upset when someone refuses them their cake.

To be fair, in your synopsis, they are not similar instances.
Refusing to bake a cake because the names are Adam and Steve is different than refusing to bake a cake that reads "Gays can go fvck themselves for they are unholy creatures and deserve to burn in hell".

It didn't say that >.>
Thanks strawman.

Oh, sorry. It said: "Gay marriage is wrong", which, is still an affront to someone to write. My point still stands. Asking for a cake with two men's names, or whatever you meant by "for a gay wedding".
Further, does it matter what I said the cake said? Your argument would still be the same, wouldn't it? Or, are you saying that something is too far, and would not be hypocritical?

It's not a strawman, as the difference is between baking a cake for someone you don't like vs. baking a cake with offensive decorations.

Well putting two men or two women on top of the cake and writing "Happy Marriage Jenny and Jane" is an affront to some Christians.
But, that is what you do on a wedding cake - figurines and names.
You do not make political commentary, thus, it is not analogous.
It's like comparing a car accident which results in a death to a murder, and saying it is hypocritical one goes free.

My point is, if we're going to force people to do things against their will/beliefs it should be uniformly applied and not give special priviledges to gay bakery owners because that's the cool thing to do right now.
So, then, how was my comment a straw man, if you believe that, if they should be forced to serve, they should be forced to write that, and it is hypocritical not to?

Well you misconstrued my argument in your original post by amplifying it for shock value.
What you call shock value, I call the logical extreme. That is how I like to look at things.

And lets take the marriage part out of the equation. The type of cake is not the point.
I disagree that the type of cake is irrelevant. Was the cake in this case wedding or not?
I have not watched the video as I do not have sound at this computer.

Let us say that a gay couple walked into a Christian establishment and wanted a cake that said "Gay marriage is right". Would you think they have grounds to be refused?
Ignoring any laws on the books, which conflate this issue most likely....
I think they should be able to refuse for any reason.
However, I think it is stupid and would fire my employee for refusing that message (on a non-wedding cake) because it is the customer's opinion, not his.

If not then what do you say to the reverse of this which is happening in the video?

Hold on I want to clarify somethings.

1. The issue is about refusing service based on beliefs of the institutions or employees of the institutions. When Christians did it they were sued and coerced. These bakeries are doing the same thing, refusing service on grounds of belief. They believe gay marriage is right so they don't want a cake saying gay marriage is wrong.

2. The type of cake in the video is not a wedding cake but rather just a custom cake (which the bakeries advertise as being a service they provide) for a pro-traditional marriage party. If you want to split the issue into wedding cakes and non-wedding cakes fine but I believe the central issue is in tact.
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 10:36:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 10:16:59 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/16/2014 10:07:46 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/16/2014 10:04:14 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:51:08 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:45:53 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:38:28 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:35:14 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:28:37 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:04:15 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/16/2014 7:27:32 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
... anti-gay marriage customer.

Thoughts?

If a bakery owned by a gay couple refused service to a couple based on their (dumb) religious beliefs, then that's not good.

The responsible way to handle that would have been to say, "I will bake your cake for you, and hope that you have a happy marriage with your husband/wife, even though you would not wish the same for me."

The problem here is that beating homophobia requires being better than homophobia, not by acting like a petulant child... or the soup nazi.

I just find it interesting that they don't see the hypocricy in their actions. They should bake them the cake or if not, they shouldn't get upset when someone refuses them their cake.

To be fair, in your synopsis, they are not similar instances.
Refusing to bake a cake because the names are Adam and Steve is different than refusing to bake a cake that reads "Gays can go fvck themselves for they are unholy creatures and deserve to burn in hell".

It didn't say that >.>
Thanks strawman.

Oh, sorry. It said: "Gay marriage is wrong", which, is still an affront to someone to write. My point still stands. Asking for a cake with two men's names, or whatever you meant by "for a gay wedding".
Further, does it matter what I said the cake said? Your argument would still be the same, wouldn't it? Or, are you saying that something is too far, and would not be hypocritical?

It's not a strawman, as the difference is between baking a cake for someone you don't like vs. baking a cake with offensive decorations.

Well putting two men or two women on top of the cake and writing "Happy Marriage Jenny and Jane" is an affront to some Christians.
But, that is what you do on a wedding cake - figurines and names.
You do not make political commentary, thus, it is not analogous.
It's like comparing a car accident which results in a death to a murder, and saying it is hypocritical one goes free.

My point is, if we're going to force people to do things against their will/beliefs it should be uniformly applied and not give special priviledges to gay bakery owners because that's the cool thing to do right now.
So, then, how was my comment a straw man, if you believe that, if they should be forced to serve, they should be forced to write that, and it is hypocritical not to?

Well you misconstrued my argument in your original post by amplifying it for shock value.
What you call shock value, I call the logical extreme. That is how I like to look at things.

And lets take the marriage part out of the equation. The type of cake is not the point.
I disagree that the type of cake is irrelevant. Was the cake in this case wedding or not?
I have not watched the video as I do not have sound at this computer.

Let us say that a gay couple walked into a Christian establishment and wanted a cake that said "Gay marriage is right". Would you think they have grounds to be refused?

However, I think it is stupid and would fire my employee for refusing that message (on a non-wedding cake) because it is the customer's opinion, not his.

I am just looking at it from a different angle. I would just tell him, what is a Christian establishment, and can a Bakery really be christian just because the owner is Christian, right?

If not then what do you say to the reverse of this which is happening in the video?
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 10:38:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 10:34:18 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/16/2014 10:16:59 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/16/2014 10:07:46 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/16/2014 10:04:14 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:51:08 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:45:53 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:38:28 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:35:14 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:28:37 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:04:15 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/16/2014 7:27:32 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
... anti-gay marriage customer.

Thoughts?

If a bakery owned by a gay couple refused service to a couple based on their (dumb) religious beliefs, then that's not good.

The responsible way to handle that would have been to say, "I will bake your cake for you, and hope that you have a happy marriage with your husband/wife, even though you would not wish the same for me."

The problem here is that beating homophobia requires being better than homophobia, not by acting like a petulant child... or the soup nazi.

I just find it interesting that they don't see the hypocricy in their actions. They should bake them the cake or if not, they shouldn't get upset when someone refuses them their cake.

To be fair, in your synopsis, they are not similar instances.
Refusing to bake a cake because the names are Adam and Steve is different than refusing to bake a cake that reads "Gays can go fvck themselves for they are unholy creatures and deserve to burn in hell".

It didn't say that >.>
Thanks strawman.

Oh, sorry. It said: "Gay marriage is wrong", which, is still an affront to someone to write. My point still stands. Asking for a cake with two men's names, or whatever you meant by "for a gay wedding".
Further, does it matter what I said the cake said? Your argument would still be the same, wouldn't it? Or, are you saying that something is too far, and would not be hypocritical?

It's not a strawman, as the difference is between baking a cake for someone you don't like vs. baking a cake with offensive decorations.

Well putting two men or two women on top of the cake and writing "Happy Marriage Jenny and Jane" is an affront to some Christians.
But, that is what you do on a wedding cake - figurines and names.
You do not make political commentary, thus, it is not analogous.
It's like comparing a car accident which results in a death to a murder, and saying it is hypocritical one goes free.

My point is, if we're going to force people to do things against their will/beliefs it should be uniformly applied and not give special priviledges to gay bakery owners because that's the cool thing to do right now.
So, then, how was my comment a straw man, if you believe that, if they should be forced to serve, they should be forced to write that, and it is hypocritical not to?

Well you misconstrued my argument in your original post by amplifying it for shock value.
What you call shock value, I call the logical extreme. That is how I like to look at things.

And lets take the marriage part out of the equation. The type of cake is not the point.
I disagree that the type of cake is irrelevant. Was the cake in this case wedding or not?
I have not watched the video as I do not have sound at this computer.

Let us say that a gay couple walked into a Christian establishment and wanted a cake that said "Gay marriage is right". Would you think they have grounds to be refused?
Ignoring any laws on the books, which conflate this issue most likely....
I think they should be able to refuse for any reason.
However, I think it is stupid and would fire my employee for refusing that message (on a non-wedding cake) because it is the customer's opinion, not his.

If not then what do you say to the reverse of this which is happening in the video?

Hold on I want to clarify somethings.

1. The issue is about refusing service based on beliefs of the institutions or employees of the institutions. When Christians did it they were sued and coerced. These bakeries are doing the same thing, refusing service on grounds of belief. They believe gay marriage is right so they don't want a cake saying gay marriage is wrong.

2. The type of cake in the video is not a wedding cake but rather just a custom cake (which the bakeries advertise as being a service they provide) for a pro-traditional marriage party. If you want to split the issue into wedding cakes and non-wedding cakes fine but I believe the central issue is in tact.

I think Gay marriage is an oxymoron in the same way that Christian Bakery is not a real thing..
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 10:39:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 10:36:30 AM, fazz wrote:

I am just looking at it from a different angle. I would just tell him, what is a Christian establishment, and can a Bakery really be christian just because the owner is Christian, right?

Sure it can.
1. If the owner is the only employee.
2. If the owner operates it as such.

If I work at a kosher deli, and I am not Jewish, it doesn't make the meal any less kosher.

To be honest, I'd ask, if they are so Christian, why are they open on Sundays, and things of that nature?
My work here is, finally, done.
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 10:43:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 10:39:05 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/16/2014 10:36:30 AM, fazz wrote:

I am just looking at it from a different angle. I would just tell him, what is a Christian establishment, and can a Bakery really be christian just because the owner is Christian, right?

Sure it can.
1. If the owner is the only employee.
2. If the owner operates it as such.

If I work at a kosher deli, and I am not Jewish, it doesn't make the meal any less kosher.

That opposes legal tender.

Also, does that means that the kosher deli would not serve a non-kosher person?

My point is, it's only Christian in name, legally its a non-denominated business.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 1:30:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 7:27:32 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
... anti-gay marriage customer.



Thought this was interesting for a few reasons.

First, bakeries in this same area (California) which refused service to gay couples seeking a wedding cake were sued and forced by the government to make cakes against their beliefs.

Second, many of these bakeries were quoted saying things like "This institution doesn't support that." or "Half of our staff is gay so we don't want to make your cake." Flip the tables around when Christians say such a thing i.e. we don't support that or half our staff are practicing Catholics. There would be hell to pay.

Third, they ALL refused him in some capacity. Not one place picked up, heard the request and said "sure". They ALL had to say SOMETHING which honestly reeks of unprofessionality.

Fourth, simply saying "Gay marriage is wrong" is not hateful its simply a statement of belief because

INB4: This man wanted a HATEFUL cake and you can refuse service because it was OFFENSIVE.

To all of you thinking that: wrong. It's a simple statement of belief no different than asking for a cake that says murder is wrong or the sky is blue. A cake for a gay wedding says "gay marriage is right" just as much as this cake says gay marriage is wrong yet one group is forced by their government overlords to bake their cakes and one group is lauded by "activists" everywhere for standing up to "hate".

Thoughts?

Frankly either make these people bake the anti-gay marriage cakes or don't make the Christians bake theirs. Where's the 14th Amendment? The 1st Amendment? Come on.

The reason I think they refused is not because of any amendment rights. It's probably because he is a douche. The first store was a cookie cake shop that specifically making cookie cakes designed for gay people because of it's theme (Like you wouldn't walk into a gay bar and ask for a heterosexual waitress or stripper. It's called common sense.) Now if the cake store owners of Christians want to sell their cakes and make it known they only want their traditional view of marriage, they should put up a sign or slogan for it before hand. But there are gay Jews, gay Christians and then heterosexual Christians like me who believe marriage is a man made ceremony and God blessed it. However, we also believe that gays not only have the right to have a wedding, but that God blesses their legit marriage. So this guy is just trying to be rude like most "traditional" marriage Christians.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 1:50:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 7:27:32 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
... anti-gay marriage customer.



Thought this was interesting for a few reasons.

First, bakeries in this same area (California) which refused service to gay couples seeking a wedding cake were sued and forced by the government to make cakes against their beliefs.

Second, many of these bakeries were quoted saying things like "This institution doesn't support that." or "Half of our staff is gay so we don't want to make your cake." Flip the tables around when Christians say such a thing i.e. we don't support that or half our staff are practicing Catholics. There would be hell to pay.

Third, they ALL refused him in some capacity. Not one place picked up, heard the request and said "sure". They ALL had to say SOMETHING which honestly reeks of unprofessionality.

Fourth, simply saying "Gay marriage is wrong" is not hateful its simply a statement of belief because

INB4: This man wanted a HATEFUL cake and you can refuse service because it was OFFENSIVE.

To all of you thinking that: wrong. It's a simple statement of belief no different than asking for a cake that says murder is wrong or the sky is blue. A cake for a gay wedding says "gay marriage is right" just as much as this cake says gay marriage is wrong yet one group is forced by their government overlords to bake their cakes and one group is lauded by "activists" everywhere for standing up to "hate".

Thoughts?

Frankly either make these people bake the anti-gay marriage cakes or don't make the Christians bake theirs. Where's the 14th Amendment? The 1st Amendment? Come on.

There is a noticeable matter of false equivalence. The man in the video wants the cake to have a hateful message written on it, and yes it is hateful don't kid yourself. If the guy was asking for a cake that said "Jews, n*ggers, and queers are wrong! Christ #1!" you could also say it's not hateful, it's just a belief. It's also BS

The case of the gays being refused is different because they were just asking for a wedding cake, no message was being written on it. The same cake could have been bought by a straight couple, but because the owners knew they were gay they refused. I'm sure had this guy in the vid just asked for a cookie or cake w/o a message on it (even if he told them what it was for) he'd have gotten it.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 2:21:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 1:54:19 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
For the love of dog. Saying something is wrong is not hateful.

If that is what people think than this entire exercise is hopeless.

You are aware of the difference between:
Me saying X is wrong, and
You thinking X is right, me thinking X is wrong, and me forcing you literally state X is wrong (via the cake).
My work here is, finally, done.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 2:29:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 2:21:36 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:54:19 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
For the love of dog. Saying something is wrong is not hateful.

If that is what people think than this entire exercise is hopeless.

You are aware of the difference between:
Me saying X is wrong, and
You thinking X is right, me thinking X is wrong, and me forcing you literally state X is wrong (via the cake).

You're not stating any such thing. If I say my name is CP and I pay you to write down "My name is CP" is your name suddenly CP? No.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 2:33:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 10:34:18 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

Hold on I want to clarify somethings.

1. The issue is about refusing service based on beliefs of the institutions or employees of the institutions. When Christians did it they were sued and coerced. These bakeries are doing the same thing, refusing service on grounds of belief. They believe gay marriage is right so they don't want a cake saying gay marriage is wrong.

Is it hypocritical? Probably, assuming this bakery wants to force Christians bakeries to serve gays.
Unfortunately, the law is sort of clear on this.
http://www.calaborlaw.com...
Discriminating against a protected class is illegal, and, I assume CA has a law similar to MN that forces you to not refuse service to a protected class.
So, the reverse discrimination is not illegal, nor is it hypocritical, due to the law.
<sigh>

2. The type of cake in the video is not a wedding cake but rather just a custom cake (which the bakeries advertise as being a service they provide) for a pro-traditional marriage party. If you want to split the issue into wedding cakes and non-wedding cakes fine but I believe the central issue is in tact.

True, but the issue revolves around what is "too far".
Should a woman be forced to draw a dic on a cake if she finds it is offensive?
Is taking offense to something enough to declare it "unfair" to force someone to act?
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 2:35:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 2:29:02 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/16/2014 2:21:36 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:54:19 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
For the love of dog. Saying something is wrong is not hateful.

If that is what people think than this entire exercise is hopeless.

You are aware of the difference between:
Me saying X is wrong, and
You thinking X is right, me thinking X is wrong, and me forcing you literally state X is wrong (via the cake).

You're not stating any such thing. If I say my name is CP and I pay you to write down "My name is CP" is your name suddenly CP? No.

And things taken out of context are never slander or libel, right?

I am pretty sure we are on the same page that both of these businesses should have been allowed to refuse service, right?
My work here is, finally, done.