The Cake Case Revisited

[dyresand]

Always funny to see people use 'moral convictions' to justify discrimination.

How many of these good Christian folks deny people a wedding cake because it's their second marriage?  Or third?  Isn't divorce supposed to be against their moral convictions?  Yet you NEVER hear these wedding cake fuckers saying they can't sell a cake to someone on their second or third wedding.  As long as it's not to someone of the same sex, they're Aok with it.

Funny how that works.  

Moral convictions are just an excuse.  And a pretty fucking poor one at that.

you can use the bible to say racism and discrimination is okay because god and jesus did it. 
and yeah they have in the bible.

[vorlon13]

...fucked up ...fucknuts...fucking stupid...goddamn...fuck all...I would totally piss on Christ.  Fuck Jesus....fucking asshole...shitty...fucking ...fuck all...fuck...fucking ...fucking shitty people..fucking shitty...fucking...fucking...

LOL It's like she just learned how to use swear words.

Doesn't matter who is and isn't OK with remarriage following divorce since Jesus isn't OK with it.

...except in the case of sexual immorality, which He clearly specified, inconsistently.

TFTFY

[vorlon13]

why the faithful draw attention to problematic Scriptures is always a frelling mystery to me . . .

[Aroura]

Sexual orientation is like race.

Does race induce certain desires or motivate specific behaviors not found in other races?

Are you saying love, sex, and marriage are not found in other types of couples?  Because those are the behaviors (specifically marriage/wedding) being discussed.

The cake is for a WEDDING. It's a normal, everyday wedding cake. The kind they make for many, many, many, many other couples without issue. They didn't request it to say, "Fuck me in the ass, Steve".

You gave a super shitty example.  The behavior, marriage, is ABSOLUTELY found in other groups of people. That's why this is an issue. They are refusing because the couple is gay, not because the couple is getting married.  They have no objection to NON gay people getting married.  It isn't the behavior they object to, it is the sexual orientation of the couple.

[Ravenshire]

(emphasis is mine)

I have to disagree on this point. The public is exactly who pays the costs these businesses incur. All those costs get passes along to the customers in the price of the products.

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason" does not include refusing to serve someone based on reasons deemed illegal. Refusing to serve someone based on sexual orientation is no different than refusing to serve someone based on skin color.

Excellent point. My thought was that the Baker shouldn't be forced to make a cake for someone if they don't want to. What if the baker decided to close up shop and no longer make cakes at all.

I guess what I'm saying is that, unless there is overwhelming evidence that the baker violated the rights of someone, then you really can't force a private business owner to make something he doesn't want to.
Furthermore, the people involved could simply take their money elsewhere. After all that, I'd be weary of the baker spitting in my cake if a judge forced him to make one.

That's not a cake I'd want to serve at my wedding, regardless.

It's not a cake I'd want to eat either, but the point that the couple was discriminated against doesn't go away just because they take their business elsewhere. Discriminatory business practices need to be exposed and the perpetrators punished and this is a case of discrimination.

[Pat Mustard]

Clearly, you missed my point entirely.

Honestly, it is you who is missing the point of taxes. You pay taxes because the government is providing you with a service.

After a lot of years of political propoganda (by parties of the right and the "centre-left"*) to make it palatable that those who gain most from government services pay the least people have forgotten this essential fact.

*Being the same as the right wing parties, except with a fake sincerity slapped on like lipstick on a sow.

[Mr.wizard]

(emphasis is mine)

I have to disagree on this point. The public is exactly who pays the costs these businesses incur. All those costs get passes along to the customers in the price of the products.

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason" does not include refusing to serve someone based on reasons deemed illegal. Refusing to serve someone based on sexual orientation is no different than refusing to serve someone based on skin color.

Excellent point. My thought was that the Baker shouldn't be forced to make a cake for someone if they don't want to. What if the baker decided to close up shop and no longer make cakes at all.

I guess what I'm saying is that, unless there is overwhelming evidence that the baker violated the rights of someone, then you really can't force a private business owner to make something he doesn't want to.
Furthermore, the people involved could simply take their money elsewhere. After all that, I'd be weary of the baker spitting in my cake if a judge forced him to make one.

That's not a cake I'd want to serve at my wedding, regardless.

If you want to operate a business that is open to the public, you have to abide by the anti-discrimination laws and all other laws, whether you agree with them or not. I mean what if all the grocery stores in a town where owned by Christians who decided they weren't going to serve blacks or gays, those tax paying people would not even be able to shop for groceries in the very town that their taxes support.

[Cecelia]

Religion is a poison to western society. It's time we make these folks take tests to remain in this country if their values don't add up with ours. That's what they want to do with the muslims, right? So we ought to apply it to them as well.

[Edwardo Piet]

People at my work refer to female jiggly bits as "cake"

??