RE: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Round 2
August 22, 2018 at 3:33 pm
(August 22, 2018 at 12:58 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I fail to understand how people cannot see the obvious difference between discriminating against a person because of who they are and refusing to promote a message with which they disagree. I guess the pleasure of self-righteousness anger overrides all reason for them.
I can see the difference. What I disagree on is that a cake for a gay wedding is promoting a message with which they disagree. A cake isn't a message. I'm not even sure you could call it a symbol. It's a cake. It's food. It gets looked at and then eaten.
That's the crux of the matter for me. If the baker is fine baking a cake for a hetero wedding, they should have no problem baking a cake for a same-sex wedding. As far as I can see, unless the baker requests detailed background checks against both the bride and groom, there could be any number of reasons he might object to their union. This only seems to happen to people who he feels fine discriminating against though (i.e. gays and transgenders).
(August 22, 2018 at 3:12 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(August 22, 2018 at 2:54 pm)Joods Wrote: And if there isn't another one?
You don't get to keep hiding behind your religion to get out of serving your customers if you are a business owner. You are doing business with the public. Learn how to deal with it.
Do you honestly believe that the person complaining about Philips actually followed through with another baker because he or she really and truly wanted that particular cake design? Elegant Bake Shop is 1 block away and Azucar Bakery is less than 5 minutes away from Masterpiece. Either one would probably been willing.
I've seen this brought up a few times in the thread, that because an activist purposefully tried to get rejected for a cake, means that the rejection is somehow less "not OK". I find the argument confusing at best. The reasoning for the person going there, whether they had an ulterior motive or not, should not be relevant to the outcome. The law is tested by people challenging it. Do you have a problem with the fact that Rosa Parks planned her protest? That she was practically hand-selected to be the face of anti-segregation? You shouldn't, because whether or not she was trying to get arrested to raise awareness is not relevant to the fact that the law was unfair and unjust. Same goes with the Scopes trial; John Scopes was paid by the ACLU to purposefully break the law in order to challenge it.
