(June 8, 2018 at 12:26 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Okay, I did ask..I'll ask again...what do you think that the legal wing of the christian right is getting into all these cake baking cases for?

It's what bigots do.

(June 8, 2018 at 12:09 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote: I know there's a different discussion being had here right now but my basic question with this ruling is this:

How is a "gay" wedding cake sufficiently different than a "straight" wedding cake such that it affect the baker's decorating ability?  For example, a couple comes in wanting a white wedding cake with a cascade of sugar flowers in golds, yellows and violets.  How does whether the couple is gay or straight affect the baker's ability to artfully arrange sugar flowers?  Where in the creative process of designing that cake does the gender of the people getting married affect how to arrange the sugar flowers or smooth the fondant?

Is this a silly question?  Because I can't think of a way in which the two cakes would be different...

You might want to read Justice Gorsuch's concurring opinion on that matter.

See here.

@Min
LOL, We know that.

I;m just offering RR a chance to show that he either a: doesn;t know that, or b:...knows it and loves it..... but for some reason feels the need to perambulate endlessly.

(June 8, 2018 at 12:09 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote: I know there's a different discussion being had here right now but my basic question with this ruling is this:

How is a "gay" wedding cake sufficiently different than a "straight" wedding cake such that it affect the baker's decorating ability?  For example, a couple comes in wanting a white wedding cake with a cascade of sugar flowers in golds, yellows and violets.  How does whether the couple is gay or straight affect the baker's ability to artfully arrange sugar flowers?  Where in the creative process of designing that cake does the gender of the people getting married affect how to arrange the sugar flowers or smooth the fondant?

Is this a silly question?  Because I can't think of a way in which the two cakes would be different...

How does effect a person's decorating ability? It obviously doesn't effect a person's ability one bit. The issue is should a person be legally required to use their ability to create a cake to be used for a function or purpose which they personally don't agree with.

No one here would argue that a baker has every right to refuse to bake a cake for a NAMBLA recruiting event. But when the event is a gay wedding, people feel differently. Should that be the law? Well gay people certainly deserve to be protected from discrimination. I do get concerned about a law like this overreaching when it comes to those who do creative output otherwise known as 'art' but I suppose there's no way around that if we're going to give homosexuals the equal treatment they deserve.

A more interesting question is this. Suppose when the gay couple approached this baker he had instead told them that he'd be willing to bake them a wedding cake but since he didn't personally agree with gay marriage, he did not expect that the resulting cake would be his best work. IOW, I'll make it for you and sell it to you, but I won't do a very good job and you're probably not going to like it. Still illegal then?

Same old... same old.

You can’t discuss ideas and show critical thinking. It’s name calling and straw men.

However the inconsistency is to be expected.

..and precisely what idea are we supposed to be discussing, RR? What is it that the christian right is seeking with these gay cake cases, if not the right to discriminate against gays?

(June 8, 2018 at 12:47 pm)Khemikal Wrote: ..and precisely what idea are we supposed to be discussing, RR?  What is it that the christian right is seeking with these gay cake cases, if not the right to discriminate against gays?

Oh he will bluster some bullshit about freedom of conscience or belief or some bullshit like that .But we can guess the real goal.It's pretty obvious .

(June 8, 2018 at 12:39 pm)johan Wrote:  IOW, I'll make it for you and sell it to you, but I won't do a very good job and you're probably not going to like it. Still illegal then?

As long as he keeps the quiet parts quiet, no. Theres nothing in our laws that say a person can;t sell a shitty cake. If he says the quiet parts out loud, then the courts could recognize his actions as an attempt to weasel around discrimination laws.

At that point, he specifically, overtly, and intententionally fucked up their cake because gay, which is, in fact, not offering equal services under the public accommodations section.

The better way to pull that off..would be to tell them he sprained his wrist jacking off in the cooler. Bet that turns em right out the door.

(June 8, 2018 at 12:47 pm)Khemikal Wrote: ..and precisely what idea are we supposed to be discussing, RR? What is it that the christian right is seeking with these gay cake cases, if not the right to discriminate against gays?

How many times do I need to repeat it. It’s not about being able to refuse service because someone is same sex attracted. I don’t agree with that and don’t see anyone suggesting that.

Since you have been told numerous times what it is and is not. Is this the part where I accuse you of being either disingenuous or stupid?

(June 8, 2018 at 1:11 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(June 8, 2018 at 12:47 pm)Khemikal Wrote: ..and precisely what idea are we supposed to be discussing, RR?  What is it that the christian right is seeking with these gay cake cases, if not the right to discriminate against gays?

How many times do I need to repeat it. It’s not about being able to refuse service because someone is same sex attracted. I don’t agree with that and don’t see anyone suggesting that.  

"It" is definitely about that.  If it weren;t, then they would have no issue with selling gay cakes, and no grounds to complain to scotus about not being able to discriminate against the gays, or for having been found afoul of civil rights law in doing so. If a group sues the court for the right to discriminate against gays....that's the "it" they want.

Quote:Since you have been told numerous times what it is and is not. Is this the part where I accuse you of being either disingenuous or stupid?

See, was that so hard?  You disagree with "it" and them.  Now I can put you in the naive pile where every decent human being accidentally on the wrong side of some issue can safely be momma birded. You;re in good company, the christian who made the remarks that ultimately OJ'd the bigoted baker out of trouble also disagreed with "it". So do I. So does everyone with the slightest ounce of humanity in their veins. So does the supreme court.