(June 7, 2018 at 8:40 am)johan Wrote:

(June 6, 2018 at 11:01 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: No this isn't where we disagree, I think the Baker should be able to refuse a service as long as he refuses it to everyone. If you put a "congrats Chuck and Mary" on a cake I don't see "congrats Chuck and Larry" as asking for something outside of his regular service. 

I do. But lets have it your way. So my question is where do we draw the line then? Because what you're suggesting, probably without intending to, is that the law require some who offers on-demand creation of something to now produce any and all variations of that something. 

I mean in essence what you're saying is cake is a cake is a cake and the details of it don't matter. One cake is exactly the same as any other in the eyes of the law. So where do we draw the line on that? If we say that a cake is a cake is a cake, mustn't we also say that a painting is a painting is a painting? Or that a house is a house is a house? 

If the gay couple in question went to the baker and asked for a cake that congratulations Edgar and Harriett, I bet the baker would have been more than happy to sell it to them gay or not. I believe the baker has said as much. 

Because whether anyone wants to acknowledge it or not, wedding cakes are an item that generally involve individual design and customization. Just like paintings. Just like houses. So where do we draw the line? Should a gay couple be able to force a builder to build a house of any design they can think of? The baker would not create a cake that said Congratulations Bill and Steve on it for anyone regardless of sexual orientation. And people here arguing discrimination because of it. So wouldn't the same apply to a builder of houses? If a cake is a cake is a cake, doesn't the same apply to everything that can be built to order?

If a cake is the same as any other why isn't one house the same as any other? If a builder builds houses with vinyl siding but doesn't like to build houses with cedar siding, should a gay couple be able to legally force the builder to do so lest he be discriminating against them? Where do we draw the line?

No that is not what I said at all, what I said is that cakes don't have sexual orientation. Also what if you had two different cakes with the same message reading "Congrats Joe and Alex" one was for a straight wedding man and woman and one was for a gay wedding Man and Man. Are you really arguing that the baker would make the cake for the gay wedding because he used that message for a straight wedding? Of course he wouldn't make the cake, because this isn't about the names on the cake or the design, it's about the people being gay. They didn't even get to the design part of the cake, they were denied a wedding cake simply because it was for a gay wedding. We have already went through this whole design art thing, nobody is arguing the businesses should be forced to provide products or services that they don't offer, so please stop repeating that position to me because I'm getting tired of addressing it with the same rebuttal. If straight people can buy your wedding cakes than gay people should be able to buy you wedding cakes.

I think the christians are jealous that gays get to properly complain about persecution but when the christians do it, they know in the back of their mind that they're living in a christian country and that they are trying to fool themselves into thinking that they are somehow special.

Just imagine if a baker put up a sign saying "No blacks. No Christians".

The christians would be outraged at being barred. And they'd love it! You wouldn't hear the end of how christians are being discriminated against and can't even order a cake.

Of course the people reading this will think it a silly idea. Most of the customers would be christian so the baker would go bust very quickly.

Except it's not that outlandish to make the comparison. Regular church-going christians are a minority in the UK for example. On a par with the ratio of population who are gay in fact.

So a baker could try it in the UK for example. The American pastors would gleefully seize upon the story to motivate their flock and how America was one of the last few countries worshiping God.

And sure, the British baker still go bust but not specifically because he refused christians, but because he is a bigot.

(June 7, 2018 at 9:43 am)Mathilda Wrote: I think the christians are jealous that gays get to properly complain about persecution but when the christians do it, they know in the back of their mind that they're living in a christian country and that they are trying to fool themselves into thinking that they are somehow special.

Just imagine if a baker put up a sign saying "No blacks. No Christians".

The christians would be outraged at being barred. And they'd love it! You wouldn't hear the end of how christians are being discriminated against and can't even order a cake.

Of course the people reading this will think it a silly idea. Most of the customers would be christian so the baker would go bust very quickly.

Except it's not that outlandish to make the comparison. Regular church-going christian are a minority in the UK for example. On a par with the ratio of population who are gay in fact.

So a baker could try it in the UK for example. The American pastors would gleefully seize upon the story to motivate their flock and how America was one of the last few countries worshipping God.

And sure, the British baker still go bust but not specifically because he refused christians, but because he is a bigot.

Oh hell yes they get off to there own delusions of victimhood .They love pretending there trodden  upon .It's mytr complex .If you want proof just watch Christian movies .

(June 7, 2018 at 8:53 am)A Theist Wrote: What they did decide...

Words and words and words.  I;m sure that if you repeat them enough, they will somehow become true.  

If you want to talk about actual precedent, try this..

1968 Newman vs Piggie Park
The contention was that the civil rights act contravened the will of god. Therefore infringing on the right to free ex. The courts response?

"Patently frivolous."

This colorado baker case set no precedent and was specifically worded so that it did not do so, while simultaneously affirming -in- it;s decision that we no longer give bigots carte blanche to be bigots. It chastized a lower court for procedural missteps in it;s handling of the trial..but it did not affirm his or anyones right to discriminate.

Its the hate cake equivalent of the OJ verdict.

(June 7, 2018 at 9:18 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: We have already went through this whole design art thing, nobody is arguing the businesses should be forced to provide products or services that they don't offer, so please stop repeating that position to me because I'm getting tired of addressing it with the same rebuttal. If straight people can buy your wedding cakes than gay people should be able to buy you wedding cakes.

Ok I'm on board, its not about the design. But to be fair, you're saying if straight people can buy the wedding cake, gay people should be able to buy them too. I guarantee you that baker would happily sell any gay couple a wedding cake. So long as its for a wedding between a man and woman. So its not the design of the cake. But its also not the sexual orientation of the person making the purchase which is what you're claiming. 

Anyway enough of this. Its becoming pointless. Pass any law you want. Fuck anyone foolish enough to own a business or create custom work for money.

If you really, really hate someone, it's okay right? I mean, if I make my customer wait 30 minutes while I go through all their social media just to check I approve of everything they do, that's reasonable isn't it? Selling them a pencil is exactly the same as actively endorsing everything they stand for.

---

(June 7, 2018 at 10:58 am)johan Wrote:

(June 7, 2018 at 9:18 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: We have already went through this whole design art thing, nobody is arguing the businesses should be forced to provide products or services that they don't offer, so please stop repeating that position to me because I'm getting tired of addressing it with the same rebuttal. If straight people can buy your wedding cakes than gay people should be able to buy you wedding cakes.

Ok I'm on board, its not about the design. But to be fair, you're saying if straight people can buy the wedding cake, gay people should be able to buy them too. I guarantee you that baker would happily sell any gay couple a wedding cake. So long as its for a wedding between a man and woman. So its not the design of the cake. But its also not the sexual orientation of the person making the purchase which is what you're claiming. 

Anyway enough of this. Its becoming pointless. Pass any law you want. Fuck anyone foolish enough to own a business or create custom work for money.

We're not passing any law, and this case wasn't contesting any law. It was contesting how the case in particular was handled.

There's a very clear distinction between discussing how the law currently is (not a matter of opinion), and how it should be (a matter of opinion).

Here are the comments which lead to the decision, made by one Diann Rice....a lifelong protestant..at a commission meeting.

Quote:Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust, whether it be — I mean, we — we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination and to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to — to use their religion to hurt others

Her opinion now, in light of how those comments were leveraged to spring a deplorable out of a jam by the ADF?

Quote:I wasn’t disparaging Mr. Phillips’ faith in any way. I was just saying that you can’t make excuses for discriminating. I don’t regret standing up for what I believe

Yeah, damn christian anti christian bigots standing up for what they believe about fairness and equality! The shame!

Personally, I can see how she went wrong with that one...she...like so many other decent people..didn;t realize that what he had faith in -was- discrimination.

The product in question, a wedding cake, is not being sold as a commodity. It is a bespoke product. It is also a product used specifically as a symbolic expression to convey meaning. It is like the difference between a bed sheet and a flag. Burning a bed sheet is not a symbolic act; burning a flag is a symbolic act. The plaintiffs in this specific case are using state power and forcing the baker to design and craft a symbolic product. As such, it is compelled speech.

Speaking personally, as an architect, I could understand if other architects chose not to design religious buildings or abortion clinics. I don't see why a lawyer could not decline to defend oil company lobbists or graphic designers refuse to design product packaging for sex toys. As far as I'm concerned if a flag maker chose make flags and banners for any country, except Israel or South Africa, that's fine by me. For many business owners and entrepreneurs, such as myself, what we do for a living is an extension of ourselves. We choose to go into businesses so that we can decide for ourselves what is important and reflects our values. Having your own business represents personal and financial liberty. We apply our talents and resources so as not to be beholden to supervisors, bosses, or shareholders. We especially do not want to be agents of the state, having the government twist our businesses to satisfy whatever social engineering goals that the government considers desirable.

...........unless it';s a bespoke product?

Nope, still on the hook.

Quote: I don't see why a lawyer could not decline to defend oil company lobbists or graphic designers refuse to design product packaging for sex toys.

They can. So.........whats the problem?

Quote:We choose to go into businesses so that we can decide for ourselves what is important and reflects our values. Having your own business represents personal and financial liberty.

Liberty from adherence to the law?

Maybe the christian bigots of the world should choose which master they want to serve..first? God or Mammon..and remember, you can only pick one. You wanna discriminate against teh gayz? Fine, go start your own local chapter of Westboro Baptist. You wanna make money? Well.....we have this thing called civil rights legislation.

(June 7, 2018 at 10:58 am)johan Wrote:

(June 7, 2018 at 9:18 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: We have already went through this whole design art thing, nobody is arguing the businesses should be forced to provide products or services that they don't offer, so please stop repeating that position to me because I'm getting tired of addressing it with the same rebuttal. If straight people can buy your wedding cakes than gay people should be able to buy you wedding cakes.

Ok I'm on board, its not about the design. But to be fair, you're saying if straight people can buy the wedding cake, gay people should be able to buy them too. I guarantee you that baker would happily sell any gay couple a wedding cake. So long as its for a wedding between a man and woman. So its not the design of the cake. But its also not the sexual orientation of the person making the purchase which is what you're claiming. 

Anyway enough of this. Its becoming pointless. Pass any law you want. Fuck anyone foolish enough to own a business or create custom work for money.

I'm not passing a law, the law is already there.  It may not be the orientation of the person standing there with credit card but it is a refusal of service based on sexual orientation and that is the discrimination. It is the same as a business saying you can't buy our things for black people, just because just because nobody can buy your product for black people doesn't make it less discriminatory. Under Colorado's Public Accommodation law you cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, meaning you can't say I don't make cakes for gay weddings because your basis for refusal is the sexual orientation of a group of people.