The Cake Case Revisited

[Catholic_Lady]

And what if it was your wedding cake? is that okay? Can I deny service to a Catholic wedding? You never seem to mention that. Just baptism or a pro-life rally.

Also you're the one equating gays to Nazi's. Gay people have never done any of the terrible awful things the Catholic Church has done. (And still does)

That's bc catholic baptism and pro life views are more controversial than catholic weddings, so the example is more realistic. But sure. If someone out there legitimately had a moral opposition to people getting married in a catholic church, they should absolutely not be legally forced to make a cake for the catholic wedding.

---

And what if it was your wedding cake? is that okay? Can I deny service to a Catholic wedding? You never seem to mention that. Just baptism or a pro-life rally.

Also you're the one equating gays to Nazi's. Gay people have never done any of the terrible awful things the Catholic Church has done. (And still does)

And no. I am absolutely NOT equating gays to nazis and I would appreciate you not falsely accusing me of something so nasty.

[Whateverist]

In fact, there are, enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_conti...suZiTIq3XI

Nice find.  Of course the speaker is a philosophy professor so that will be a challenge for many even though he speaks in perfectly good, jargon free normal english.

[Divinity]

Did you or did you not compare "Happy Wedding Day Ralph and Steve" to a nazi swastika?

[Joods]

So then what about all those businesses who display signs saying "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason"?

If a for-profit business owner in the service industry, paying taxes on the profit they gain, doesn't have the right to choose who they want to provide their service to, then perhaps they shouldn't have to pay taxes because they are being forced to provide services to those they don't want to.

Morally and ethically, yep, it's wrong to use ones beliefs to discriminate, but at the end of the day, the public isn't paying the expenses that business incurs, so the business should be entitled to bake a cake (for example), for whomever they want.

Will it cost them business? Probably, but that's their lesson to learn. They shouldn't get sued over it.

[Divinity]

If a for-profit business owner in the service industry, paying taxes on the profit they gain, doesn't have the right to choose who they want to provide their service to, then perhaps they shouldn't have to pay taxes because they are being forced to provide services to those they don't want to.

Okay, so if they get to deny service to the public, and not pay taxes, then logically.. they don't get to use the sidewalks provided by the city and state, the roads provided by the city and state, the sewage system by the city and state.  And if they get robbed, they don't get to call the police.  ANd if arson occurs they don't get to use the fire department.

[Joods]

I believe I shared a horror story here back when I was in school, about a relaxer I had been forced to give to a child.

Worst part of what I had to do in school and now, if you ask me to do a relaxer, I won't do one.

That was too traumatic for me. Could someone say I'm being racist because relaxers are primarily for black women? Sure, but they would have a hard time suing me for that. My reason for not doing relaxers have nothing to do with race

---

If a for-profit business owner in the service industry, paying taxes on the profit they gain, doesn't have the right to choose who they want to provide their service to, then perhaps they shouldn't have to pay taxes because they are being forced to provide services to those they don't want to.

Okay, so if they get to deny service to the public, and not pay taxes, then logically.. they don't get to use the sidewalks provided by the city and state, the roads provided by the city and state, the sewage system by the city and state.  And if they get robbed, they don't get to call the police.  ANd if arson occurs they don't get to use the fire department.

Clearly, you missed my point entirely.

[RoadRunner79]

What about protesting, by refusing to make a dress for the First Lady and the inauguration? Or performers refusing to sing at Trumps inauguration?   And then you had the Springsteen concert that was scheduled in Carolina and canceled for reasons of discrimination. Is this not Ok as well?

None of those things are based on sex, race, religion, age or sexual orientation.  

You and CL both, apples and oranges. And straw men. No court would even hear a case of turning away a nazi, or not participating in a political activity. Those things are actually protected by law, the other way. You set up a false argument, then act like it somehow justifies your point. It doesn't.

This case is about discrimination based on the legally held definitions of the above. Their are no laws, nor proposed laws, stating no discrimination based on anything, ever. There ARE laws stating one cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation, which is why this is even a case all.

Sexual orientation is like race. Sexual orientation is NOT like political leaning. Both of you please stop tossing this strawman into the argument.

I was just asking some questions (not really making an argument).  Would it be correct from your response, to say that you believe one should be able to discriminate based political orientation?  Can someone refuse services to someone who walks in, with a t-shirt in support of of a politician or cause that you do not approve of or support yourself?  Is there a difference between turning away the person based on something completely unrelated to the task being asked of you; and, declining from doing the task being asked?  For example a restaurant owner refusing to serve someone food wearing a pro-firearms shirt, vs a T-Shrit shop refusing to print it to begin with, because the material goes against their convictions

Also, from what I have seen almost no one on the side of the bakers in these types of cases is advocating that someone be able to discriminate based on sexual orientation.  As well most of business owners involved who I have heard speak on the issue, have said, that it is not about the person and that they have no problem in another instance doing work for them. 

In the case of a bakery, personally; I'm on the fence.  I think that there is room for discussion.  I also think that when discussing such things such as freedoms or discrimination you need to keep in mind that it also applies to causes and incidences that you may or may not support.

[Divinity]

Didn't miss your point at all.

My taxpayer dollars go toward funding things that allow those businesses to stay open. I don't want my taxpayer dollars going toward businesses that discriminate. Whatever the reason. So I think compensation is due when companies discriminate, whatever the basis. Be it sexual orientation, religion, gender, or race.

[Ravenshire]

So then what about all those businesses who display signs saying "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason"?

If a for-profit business owner in the service industry, paying taxes on the profit they gain, doesn't have the right to choose who they want to provide their service to, then perhaps they shouldn't have to pay taxes because they are being forced to provide services to those they don't want to.

Morally and ethically, yep, it's wrong to use ones beliefs to discriminate, but at the end of the day, the public isn't paying the expenses that business incurs, so the business should be entitled to bake a cake (for example), for whomever they want.

Will it cost them business? Probably, but that's their lesson to learn. They shouldn't get sued over it.

(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.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Did you or did you not compare "Happy Wedding Day Ralph and Steve" to a nazi swastika?

Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party? Forcing people to create expressive products, i.e. content, is a totalitarian impulse. An oil painter is a business as much as any other kind. In Lefty way of thinking, the government could make it illegal for an artist to refuse commissions that incorporate themes the artist finds objectionable.

"Happy Wedding Day to Ralph and Steve" is equivalent to "Piss Christ", it's just a matter of degree. If would-be tyrants like Divinity had their way, they could force photographers to take pictures of naked men with bullwhips stuck up their asses too.

Sexual orientation is like race.

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