Posts: 67193
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Round 2
August 21, 2018 at 10:31 pm
(This post was last modified: August 21, 2018 at 10:35 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(August 21, 2018 at 10:26 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: ...and communion wafers are "just" crackers so it is okay to feed them to dogs in front of CL?
There's no law against it. The manufacturers don't even ask what I want to do with them..they just take the money and give me the crackers..like common law abiding citizens.
They even ship internationally (and offer gluten free product lines as well as distributorships)! For the life of me..I can't find "are you gay" or "is this for gay shit" on their order page.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 14932
Threads: 684
Joined: August 25, 2008
Reputation:
143
RE: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Round 2
August 21, 2018 at 10:31 pm
(August 21, 2018 at 10:26 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: ...and communion wafers are "just" crackers so it is okay to feed them to dogs in front of CL?
Are they my crackers, my dogs, and is C_L being forced to watch?
Posts: 11697
Threads: 117
Joined: November 5, 2016
Reputation:
43
RE: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Round 2
August 21, 2018 at 10:46 pm
(This post was last modified: August 21, 2018 at 10:46 pm by Amarok.)
Quote:...and communion wafers are "just" crackers so it is okay to feed them to dogs in front of CL?
Why the manufacturer even care? There certainly is no law against it.
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.
Inuit Proverb
Posts: 67193
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Round 2
August 21, 2018 at 10:51 pm
(This post was last modified: August 21, 2018 at 10:51 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
They don't, they're in the cracker business..which is the business of selling crackers..not the business of sticking it to the gaygenda. That would be church business...which is exempt.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Round 2
August 22, 2018 at 1:05 am
(This post was last modified: August 22, 2018 at 1:05 am by robvalue.)
I imagine going into this guy's shop to burn it down ask him to make a cake with the message, "Happy anniversary to my partner".
I imagine him squirming like a bitch. "So sir... is your partner... a woman?"
"Why does that matter?"
"Erm..."
"If it's so important to you, yes. She's a woman."
He sighs with relief. "Okay, one moment... here's your cake fine sir."
"Thank you." As I'm leaving the shop, "She used to be a man though!" I run off.
"You evil motherfucker! I'm going to sue you! I have religious bigot rights!"
Posts: 3405
Threads: 33
Joined: July 17, 2013
Reputation:
43
RE: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Round 2
August 22, 2018 at 1:51 am
(August 21, 2018 at 8:12 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: (my bold)
...And therein lies the problem. Many people don't consider male circumsicion genital mutilation, and many people don't consider abortion killing a human life. And many DO consider them those things. As an example, I would be ok with making a cake for a Jewish circumcision ceremony, but would be horrified at the thought of making one for a pro choice fundraiser.
Many people, yourself included, are wrong ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This is hardly the venue to debate abortion.
(August 21, 2018 at 8:12 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I say if you owned a bakery, you should be allowed to refuse the circumcision cake. And if I owned a bakery I should be allowed to refuse the abortion cake. Both can be legally refused, along with the other examples.
It wouldn't really be fair for the government to arbitrarily deem one ok to be refused and not the other. It has to be more objective than that.
I honestly don't think the right to be a petty bastard is as important as you're making it out to be 
"Every luxury has a deep price. Every indulgence, a cosmic cost. Each fiber of pleasure you experience causes equivalent pain somewhere else. This is the first law of emodynamics [sic]. Joy can be neither created nor destroyed. The balance of happiness is constant.
Fact: Every time you eat a bite of cake, someone gets horsewhipped.
Facter: Every time two people kiss, an orphanage collapses.
Factest: Every time a baby is born, an innocent animal is severely mocked for its physical appearance. Don't be a pleasure hog. Your every smile is a dagger. Happiness is murder.
Vote "yes" on Proposition 1321. Think of some kids. Some kids."
Posts: 1897
Threads: 33
Joined: August 25, 2015
Reputation:
27
RE: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Round 2
August 22, 2018 at 9:14 am
It's easy for the majority to be in favor of legal discrimination. If you don't want to serve gay wedding cakes, maybe move to a country like Saudi Arabia. Then you won't have to worry about violating your conscience! You'll have the freedom to discriminate against gay people all you like.
"Tradition" is just a word people use to make themselves feel better about being an asshole.
Posts: 10694
Threads: 15
Joined: September 9, 2011
Reputation:
119
RE: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Round 2
August 22, 2018 at 9:43 am
(August 21, 2018 at 6:34 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I'm not advocating that the Baker should ask what the cake is for. I should have made clear that my examples were for if the people requesting the cake voluntarily mentioned what it was for... would the baker then be allowed to refuse to make it if it was for a cause/event he strongly opposed? It doesn't have to be for religious reasons, either. It could be personal moral reasons that have nothing to do with their religion. Like BennyBoy said, he would have refused to make a cake if he knew it was for a Jewish circumcision celebration.
That's an interesting difference. Public accommodation doesn't protect political stances, so from a purely legal standpoint, a business covered by public accommodation laws should be able to refuse service to a political event to which they are opposed, and it would not even have to be on religious grounds. Perhaps the baker should adopt a policy of not serving liberals, that should cover most of the people for whom he would object baking a cake for. If he does so, it would be common courtesy for him to put up a sign to that effect.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
Posts: 33007
Threads: 1412
Joined: March 15, 2013
Reputation:
152
RE: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Round 2
August 22, 2018 at 9:46 am
Isn't it obvious. All the hoopla is about cake being next to godliness.
Posts: 10694
Threads: 15
Joined: September 9, 2011
Reputation:
119
RE: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Round 2
August 22, 2018 at 9:48 am
(This post was last modified: August 22, 2018 at 9:54 am by Mister Agenda.)
(August 21, 2018 at 7:11 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Fair enough. Being legally allowed to refuse services if it is for hate group gatherings makes sense.
How do you personally feel about what lies in the middle?
Examples:
-Refusing to make a cake for a Jewish circumcision ceremony.
-Refusing to make a cake for a pro life or pro choice fundraiser.
-Refusing to make a cake for a Catholic infant baptism.
-Refusing to make a cake for a campaign fundraiser for a political candidate you oppose.
Again, this is all assuming the cakes are generic and the Baker only knows because the information was voluntarily relayed to him by the customer without him asking.
Jews (in matters pertaining to them being a Jew) are a protected class in every state.
Fundraisers for political causes are not protected in any state.
Catholics (in matters pertaining to them being a Catholic) are a protected class in every state.
Fundraisers for political causes are not protected in any state.
(August 21, 2018 at 9:39 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: (August 21, 2018 at 9:34 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Here’s another scenario I’d like some feedback on.
A man goes into the store on his own and requests a wedding cake. The baker also has a delivery service and agrees to bring it to the venue. When the baker arrives with the cake, he realizes that it is a same-sex wedding. Is the baker within his rights to refuse to deliver the cake and refund the couple’s money?
It'd be super shitty, but legally I think he should have the right to do that, yeah.
And just so everyone knows I'm being completely objective here, I'd say the same thing if the scenario was a Catholic baptism or something.
I think it would be reasonable to sue someone who did that for deliberately ruining your event at the last minute.
(August 21, 2018 at 10:26 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: ...and communion wafers are "just" crackers so it is okay to feed them to dogs in front of CL?
That falls under 'legal, but not okay'.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
|
