Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 24, 2025, 4:34 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Cake Case Revisited
RE: The Cake Case Revisited
(October 6, 2017 at 2:28 pm)Divinity Wrote:
(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.

I'm sure they don't ask their clients if they are marrying someone of the same sex, either. It's one of those things where it's only if they happen to find out.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly." 

-walsh
Reply



Messages In This Thread
The Cake Case Revisited - by Paraselene - October 3, 2017 at 6:09 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Bob Kelso - October 3, 2017 at 6:16 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by downbeatplumb - October 4, 2017 at 2:47 am
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Pat Mustard - October 4, 2017 at 6:33 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Bob Kelso - October 4, 2017 at 7:13 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Edwardo Piet - October 6, 2017 at 11:00 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by chimp3 - October 3, 2017 at 6:23 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Mister Agenda - October 5, 2017 at 2:30 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Catholic_Lady - October 3, 2017 at 6:26 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Minimalist - October 3, 2017 at 8:46 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Alex K - October 4, 2017 at 3:54 am
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Catholic_Lady - October 4, 2017 at 4:02 am
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by downbeatplumb - October 4, 2017 at 11:42 am
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by vorlon13 - October 3, 2017 at 6:57 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by vorlon13 - October 3, 2017 at 7:07 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Rev. Rye - October 3, 2017 at 8:30 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Paraselene - October 3, 2017 at 8:32 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Rev. Rye - October 3, 2017 at 8:36 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Seraphina - October 3, 2017 at 10:35 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Rev. Rye - October 3, 2017 at 11:10 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Rev. Rye - October 3, 2017 at 9:17 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Minimalist - October 3, 2017 at 9:21 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Catholic_Lady - October 3, 2017 at 9:58 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by vorlon13 - October 3, 2017 at 10:44 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by The Grand Nudger - October 3, 2017 at 11:19 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Amarok - October 3, 2017 at 11:51 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Minimalist - October 3, 2017 at 11:56 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Rev. Rye - October 4, 2017 at 12:02 am
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Minimalist - October 4, 2017 at 12:07 am
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Rev. Rye - October 4, 2017 at 12:12 am
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Minimalist - October 4, 2017 at 12:25 am
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by ignoramus - October 4, 2017 at 3:24 am
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by vorlon13 - October 4, 2017 at 2:19 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Pat Mustard - October 5, 2017 at 2:53 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Ravenshire - October 4, 2017 at 3:30 am
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Catholic_Lady - October 4, 2017 at 4:09 am
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Mr.wizard - October 4, 2017 at 7:17 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Catholic_Lady - October 4, 2017 at 9:04 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Mr.wizard - October 4, 2017 at 10:10 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by RoadRunner79 - October 5, 2017 at 6:20 am
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Ravenshire - October 4, 2017 at 11:03 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Catholic_Lady - October 4, 2017 at 11:44 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Aroura - October 5, 2017 at 2:23 am
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Catholic_Lady - October 5, 2017 at 9:23 am
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Aroura - October 5, 2017 at 10:21 am
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Catholic_Lady - October 5, 2017 at 10:29 am
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Ravenshire - October 5, 2017 at 1:47 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by ignoramus - October 4, 2017 at 4:08 am
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by The Grand Nudger - October 4, 2017 at 7:42 am
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Catholic_Lady - October 4, 2017 at 12:09 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Minimalist - October 4, 2017 at 12:31 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by The Grand Nudger - October 4, 2017 at 12:36 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by vorlon13 - October 4, 2017 at 2:16 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Minimalist - October 4, 2017 at 9:09 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Catholic_Lady - October 4, 2017 at 9:15 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Minimalist - October 4, 2017 at 9:20 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by The Grand Nudger - October 4, 2017 at 10:05 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by The Grand Nudger - October 4, 2017 at 10:28 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by vorlon13 - October 4, 2017 at 10:28 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by The Grand Nudger - October 4, 2017 at 10:31 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by The Grand Nudger - October 4, 2017 at 11:16 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by vorlon13 - October 5, 2017 at 12:38 am
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Aroura - October 5, 2017 at 9:58 am
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by RoadRunner79 - October 6, 2017 at 11:44 am
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Catholic_Lady - October 5, 2017 at 10:19 am
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Aroura - October 5, 2017 at 3:54 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Drich - October 5, 2017 at 4:28 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by The Grand Nudger - October 5, 2017 at 5:20 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Whateverist - October 6, 2017 at 11:30 am
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Divinity - October 6, 2017 at 9:31 am
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by vorlon13 - October 6, 2017 at 9:43 am
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Catholic_Lady - October 6, 2017 at 9:51 am
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Divinity - October 6, 2017 at 10:04 am
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Catholic_Lady - October 6, 2017 at 11:09 am
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Divinity - October 6, 2017 at 11:31 am
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Neo-Scholastic - October 6, 2017 at 12:43 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Aegon - October 6, 2017 at 1:31 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Crossless2.0 - October 6, 2017 at 1:33 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Aroura - October 6, 2017 at 4:26 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Catholic_Lady - October 6, 2017 at 1:16 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Divinity - October 6, 2017 at 1:41 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by vorlon13 - October 6, 2017 at 1:57 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by RoadRunner79 - October 6, 2017 at 2:05 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Catholic_Lady - October 6, 2017 at 2:09 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by dyresand - October 6, 2017 at 3:15 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Joods - October 6, 2017 at 11:32 am
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Divinity - October 6, 2017 at 11:36 am
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Ravenshire - October 6, 2017 at 12:08 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Joods - October 6, 2017 at 1:43 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Ravenshire - October 6, 2017 at 4:52 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Mr.wizard - October 6, 2017 at 6:04 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Joods - October 6, 2017 at 11:37 am
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Pat Mustard - October 6, 2017 at 5:05 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Divinity - October 6, 2017 at 11:49 am
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by The Grand Nudger - October 6, 2017 at 1:02 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Divinity - October 6, 2017 at 1:04 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by dyresand - October 6, 2017 at 1:25 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Neo-Scholastic - October 6, 2017 at 2:04 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Divinity - October 6, 2017 at 2:28 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Neo-Scholastic - October 6, 2017 at 2:43 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by vorlon13 - October 6, 2017 at 4:15 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Catholic_Lady - October 6, 2017 at 2:56 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Amarok - October 6, 2017 at 1:08 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by vorlon13 - October 6, 2017 at 2:11 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Catholic_Lady - October 6, 2017 at 2:18 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by vorlon13 - October 6, 2017 at 2:20 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Divinity - October 6, 2017 at 2:51 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by vorlon13 - October 6, 2017 at 4:16 pm
RE: The Cake Case Revisited - by Cecelia - October 6, 2017 at 10:01 pm

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Trevon Revisited again, unfortunately... Brian37 302 56234 June 6, 2020 at 2:08 am
Last Post: Little lunch
  Bounty Hunters found not guilty in case of gunning down innocent black man Cecelia 21 3425 August 3, 2019 at 8:49 pm
Last Post: Fireball
  Former judge files new motions pushing for special prosecutor in Jussie Smollett case EgoDeath 15 3114 July 1, 2019 at 12:21 am
Last Post: EgoDeath
  Trump responds to special counsel Robert Mueller’s statement: ‘The case is closed WinterHold 21 4846 June 7, 2019 at 2:28 am
Last Post: WinterHold
  Lastest development in Smollett case EgoDeath 76 13204 March 12, 2019 at 4:48 pm
Last Post: EgoDeath
  From the cake to the school Paraselene 5 1400 June 17, 2018 at 12:00 am
Last Post: Cecelia
  No Big Piece Of Chocolate Cake This Time Minimalist 1 827 August 2, 2017 at 10:10 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  In Case Anyone Thinks Trumptards Have A Shred of Decency Minimalist 17 4351 July 31, 2017 at 3:08 am
Last Post: Fake Messiah
  The Strange Case Of Canuck The Crow Amarok 0 1205 June 27, 2017 at 1:25 pm
Last Post: Amarok
  Bill Cosby Case: mistrial Paraselene 27 11455 June 24, 2017 at 8:53 pm
Last Post: Seraphina



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)