RE: The Cake Case Revisited
October 6, 2017 at 2:28 pm
(This post was last modified: October 6, 2017 at 2:31 pm by Divinity.)
(October 6, 2017 at 2:04 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Defends Free Speech rights of artists = Tyannt
Wants Government to compel artists to create = Freedom Fighter
Divinity, you are so fucked-up and twisted that you don't even realize that you are advocating State control over artistic production.
I'm not the fucked up one. That'd be you, fucknuts.
State control over artistic production would be the state saying what is and isn't okay to do artistically. But I don't expect you to understand that because you're so fucking stupid that I'm surprised you know how to get out of bed in the morning without breaking every limb in your goddamn body.
Writing names on a goddamn cake has fuck all to do with artistic expression. If you're willing to write names on a cake, you should write them on there regardless of what sex or gender they are. To do otherwise is DISCRIMINATION. You're like "Oh to write it on there would be to say PISS ON CHRIST!" (And given the chance, I would totally piss on Christ. Fuck Jesus. He's a fucking asshole. Especially if his shitty followers are anything to go by ) But the two aren't comparable at all, because you can easily have a rule and guideline that does not discriminate against anyone that offensive language isn't used on your cakes. So you wouldn't do a cake with PISS ON MOHAMMED or PISS ON JESUS. To do otherwise would be discriminating against one group. But you can't have a rule or guideline that isn't discriminatory that allows you to write "John and Jane" but not "john and Jack". It's discriminatory by nature.
This isn't fucking hard to understand. Of course in the end it's never about artistic expression anyway. It's all about privilege. It's not about their moral code. It has fuck all to do with that, because they'll gladly do a muslim cake, they'll make a cake for someone on their 18th wedding for all the fuck they care. No matter how much these other people go against their beliefs, they'll continue to fucking do business with them. But as soon as it's a gay couple? Suddenly that's where their convictions really stick in. Mostly because they're really fucking shitty people who need another group to hate on. Because when it comes down to it, hate is all they have. It's discrimination plain and simple. And that you don't want to see that--it says a lot about what kind of person you are. And that's a really fucking shitty one.
(October 6, 2017 at 2:09 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: 2. The Christian baker doesn't know this is their client's 2nd or 3rd marriage (because how would they?)
Maybe they should fucking ask, since it's so fucking important to them that they not do a gay wedding. But doing a wedding for a second or third or fourth or fifth marriage? Apparently that doesn't bother them. Mostly because their moral convictions are nothing but an excuse for their discriminatory behavior. They're using their religion as a shield. That this doesn't bother religious people is pretty damning.
"Tradition" is just a word people use to make themselves feel better about being an asshole.