On Topic Discussion So, should the baker be legally compelled to make the gay wedding cake? (US Supreme Court)

[eastofeden]

This is a case about discrimination BUT these people are gonna go to their grave blaming the Bible for their own bullshit...just like they used the Bible to justify slavery..and women not voting...and anything else they want to twist to justify their crap...like having 72 virgins as a reward for JIHAD in the Koran...

...and people will argue all day long that this is NOT what either of the books mean...or what passage is relevant and what isn't...but religious freedom wins...alot...

Hobby Lobby knows this already....

Did you know they just included unborn fetuses in the tax bill? The reason..they want to establish person hood....so they have a precedent...

(I check Snopes out alot) https://www.snopes.com/gop-tax-bill-fetal-personhood-legislation/

This case...they want a precedent that establishes that they are "protecting their religious freedom"....and so at this point....let them have their day in court NOW..before we get the next Supreme Court Justice....

It's bad enough now with the current court...

I completely understand that this is about discrimination pure and simple...but it is always wise to know your enemy and what the fuck they are up to......and pretending right wing and conservative religion is not your enemy and you are gay is insane....but over half of us do it...

As it is...we are going to see a kinder and gentler approach where they aren't calling us perverts...and not because they are kinder and gentler...they just want to APPEAR to be....not a good sign....
__________________________________

...and one more thing...IF they win...the sign I ask for...that will introduce their "win" in the court of public opinion..each and every day....

Back to the drawing board we go.....

Don't worry though..trump and his religious right fans intend to take most everything backward....

Imagine that...a con man using religion.... and religion using a con man...

...the definitive match made in hell.....

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

still waiting on someone to explain the difference to me, I couldn't help but chuckle when someone suggested it would be ok "as long as they put a sign outside."

 

[peeonme]

still waiting on someone to explain the difference to me, I couldn't help but chuckle when someone suggested it would be ok "as long as they put a sign outside."

Like 'whites only?' The word "only" tells it all, the word before only tells who the target is.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Like 'whites only?' The word "only" tells it all, the word before only tells who the target is.

I posted one to get the point across but the image isn't showing up anymore but yeah that's the idea. I almost fell out my fucking chair when someone was like "It's ok just let them put a sign outside." I was like uhhhh we already went through that and America is currently on a deliberate campaign to erase that part of our history because no one (who matters) is proud of it. The ONLY difference betewen "straights only" and "whites only" is the adjective. Same deplorable, discriminatory concept.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Refusing service, whatever that means in this scenario. I've seen hints in your posts that maybe they asked for something the bakery doesn't normally do in the first place, gay or straight, but that doesn't seem to be the case. They were refused service because they both have penises. Period. We can expound and pontificate until the cows come home but this is, by definition (quite textbook) discrimination.

And discrimination is rampant. That doesn't make all discrimination in itself bad. People are refused service based on the product requested all the time. There's a reason I used commonly-considered vulgarity in my examples when contrasting it with a 'gay wedding cake'. It's because that's both the reference some people are using (gay marriage hasn't been legal long enough for adults to consider it part of an uninterrupted landscape) and because people deny the creation/use of things if they think they'll be used in or to encourage nefarious purpose, despite whether someone else considers that purpose nefarious or not.

Well, also because it conveniently opens up the question "Well, what harm?" in demanding mandatory cakey creations as a whole. Now moi, I don't think there's any intrinsic harm in a themed cake of any variety - I think it depends on its context.

However, I'd wager a guess that most people believe that subject trumps the context that the cake is in, otherwise you'd have been unlikely to believe my referencing of Bayros and such was a 'subtle dig at the possibility they could have asked for something inappropriate', in so many words. Perhaps using the classics as an 'eye of the beholder' example wasn't as clear as I'd hoped it was. And yea, I know, context also informs the subject but I'd like to point out it doesn't restrict the subject to all other comers. Are the subjects of a wedding cake intrinsic to the cake's wedding theme? The answer depends on who and how the question is asked.

I doubt the grocers are willing to put even a tame, non-explicit excerpt-image of 'The Golden Ass' on a cake once they've formed opinions on 'The Cake & What Its Creation Means" (since both the intent and the architecture are routinely discussed - "Whose the lucky couple then?" and "What kind've cake", first impressions) but I think I could get a local erotic baker to do a really lewd one. But there is no guarantee because they might consider it past their ethics as well. You're demanding that a cake and its stated or inferred context (which may or may not be considered a lewd concept depending on who you ask) be reliably separated as a legal matter, cake vs what people infer by the cake; but people do not do that, generally speaking, because of the inability to agree about what comprises a subject.

And now, according to some of the people opposing the great bigoted ass in the lawsuit, everyone should be mandated to create everything, no matter how many personal ethics it trumps?

People are absolute Shite at separating what something is from what something represents to what something may endorse and none of those are clear cut concepts in the first place, which make it all the more difficult. And I doubt as a collective we'll be getting any better at it. I, personally, hate seeing stupid outliers of the 'Nya nya nya, let's be an obvious canker about the right to refuse" persuasion discouraging such a fine concept as protecting self expression by being obvious pillocks - which inadvertently encourages limiting the exorcising of internal discretion by demanding no right of refusal. Just because someone is a walking obstruction doesn't mean I'm keen to go vote on mandatory acceptance and service for every possible customer.

Now, I've no idea whether he sells only unique creations or not - at this point I'm guessing yes. Unique content or no, mandatory creation for everyone who asks isn't feasible*, which is what no refusal would mean, as the only way to prove refusal would be to get fool saying what that guy did.

How would you enforce 'they denied us a sumptuous baked good cuz sexual orientation' if the bakers simply said 'No, sorry, we're booked/we haven't the skill'? It's not really a circumstance you can legislate away when commissions for unique content must be agreed on by all parties beforehand and the ability to refuse does not come with a mandatory explanation of truth. It's literally just a jackass thumbing their nose because they can and willfully making a stink about it instead of pretending they're booked, like any other face-saving gesture used to assuage both parties. It's not medical care, it's not shelter - it barely qualifies as food considering the sugar content. I'm not seeing the refusal of a specific giver being considered an attack on getting a wedding cake somewhere else.

*(or physically possible; there aren't enough artists (or time) in the world to assuage that kind of demand for every cliched internal daydream of a subject's own reflections, let alone just the interesting ones.

Nothing was meant as a subtle hint that 'someone asked for a message that they don't do'. I was more muddling through what makes the components of a message and what makes a message considered appropriate. It was more 'what qualifies as encouraging a concept not agreed on?' There isn't a singular definition of wedding which ....really doesn't help. My point was the message is often (usually, from what I can tell) considered contextual. It was stating that depending on the cakely contextual assumptions with particular emphasis on the specifications it might be a message they won't do. And yes, that may be a shit decision, not to do something because you dislike how the product could be construed. It's also one that happens all the time.

But then, I'm suddenly reminded of bath houses and the complete barring of me thereof because in a bathhouse, the clientele are also, contextually speaking, the product. But there was a great big silence the last time I pointed that out and, if memory serves, gays are all for keeping that particularly ability for refusing service. Keep in mind access to a bathhouse is not an agreement for sexual congress with any specific person (or anyone at all) but it is smack-dab in the 'frivolous possibilities' department.

 

[Kulindahr]

I get the broader sense and all that jazz but what this boils down to is a double standard. Have these same sanctimonious bakers ever denied making a cake for an unwed couple? For alcoholics? For people who work on the sabbath? If they're not applying their Christian standards across the board to every single customer then this is discrimination point blank period no matter how much we theorize, pontificate, extrapolate or dress their rights and priveleges up in colorful words. It's, by definition, discrimination. Should they be allowed to do it? Fuck no.

The truly sad part is that an actual Christian would pay attention to the words saying "If a man asks you to go with him one mile, go two", and "If a man demands you coat, give him your overcoat as well".

 

[luckynumbah7]

Also, I'm pretty sure I managed to repeat myself at least twice but fuckit, I give up. In retrospect I also should've used a different example than Bayros when kneejerk reaction depends largely on familiarity, so assumptions that I was using it as an example of 'obscene message regardless of intent' should've occurred to me. Establishing something's intent is more than meets the eye was the direction it was supposed to be headed.

I'm mostly just saying there's all sorts of discriminatory procedures, from Nothardup's Victoria's Secret possibility on down to vintage erotic cartoons, and that not all the discrimination is bad. Some of it's bad but 'allowed' for good reasons and some of it is probably good but the reasoning might not be internally logical. And some of it is just fucking stupid but that depends more on how laws interact with particular circumstances and particular preconceptions, I think.

(nor would I advocate for men's changing rooms in Victoria's Secret at the moment, that would encourage a whole host of problems that we can't currently deal with, mostly of guy's sexual proclivities and that weird concept of what constitutes sexual assault.) Changing reactions effectively has more to do with social acceptability than what passes in the courts. Change the acceptability and court decisions will follow.

 

[Kulindahr]

As much as I think places shouldn’t be forced to do anything, I think it’s just as stupid as people who can’t leave their religion at the door when they work in a business that deals with the public. If you can’t se aside your beliefs and just do your job, or do the business you set up to do, then you’re just as much of a idiot as anyone trying to force you to do something you don’t want to do.

As a vegetarian I didn’t kick a guy out of my store or refuse business to him when he said he was looking for pain medicine because he was castrating Pigs, even though I’m vehemently against that. You know why? Because I’m not a fucking baby who thinks the world revolves around me.

I find it stupid because they're not being Christian at all when they do this -- in fact it looks very much to me like they don't understand that Christ put an end to the whole "unclean!" thing so what someone else does with a cake they bake can't possibly hurt them. They appear to me to believe they can be harmed by what others do, which would mean they don't really believe Christ actually did what He claimed to have done.

 

[Kulindahr]

But, can that plumber tell gays that he won't work on their old lead pipes if he works on other peoples old lead pipes?
If you make wedding cakes, you sell wedding cakes to everyone. It's pretty simple.

That's not the question; the question is whether they have to make one that is specifically gay -- which is equivalent to not handling lead pipes. If someone asks for a plain cake without anything showing who it's for, then of course they should have to make and sell it regardless of what they may suspect.

But a respectable business would tell them where they could get the decorating they want, if they won't do it themselves.

 

[Kulindahr]

Agreed.

The onus is on the employee who accepts a job that knowingly puts him in conflict with his ethics, religion or morality. He can choose to work in another industry or occupation. An observant Jew or Muslim can ill accept a job in grocery that sells pork if his job it to mop at night and he must mop the meat market. A pacificist should consider declining the job in the small department store that also sells handguns.

Or on the employer who fails to find someone to do things he would personally regard as against his conscience.

 

[Kulindahr]

So, can a cake shop tell a black hetero. couple that it will only top the cake with figures that depict white couples?

Only if it's a deeply held religious conviction, on the order of getting a conscience pass on being drafted.

 

[Kulindahr]

Doesn't matter if they're PUTTING their sins on display on the cake, if the business isn't going to sell to homosexuals then they can't sell to anyone else who commits any of the 116,000 sins in the bible. I thought that was pretty clear, maybe next time I'll spell it out for you a little more clearly and concisely.

Or at least the couple hands-full of things called "abomination".

Or the list of things Paul includes as keeping people out of heaven.

It all depends on what they're looking at as their reason -- there are Christian groups which deny the validity of anything from the Old Testament but still oppose homosexuality.


Though that brings up something I've wondered: what if the couple said they planned only a platonic marriage?

 

[Kulindahr]

I just read the title of this thread again.
Re: So, should the baker be legally compelled to make the gay wedding cake?
Cakes aren't gay. People might be.
Really, this revolves around a proprietor telling a segment of our population "I don't like your kind". It's akin to the Jim crow laws of the
south.
It alienates, ostracizes and prevents people from assimilating in to being a part of the whole. It hangs a banner over their head that says "not normal".
It sets a standard in society to treat gays, lesbians, bisexuals and trans genders in a discriminatory fashion under the guise of religion.
It is not freedom of speech, it is hate speech.

At core it revolves around people sticking by their conscience. The unfortunate reality is that to give them protection, we inevitably give protection to the sort you describe as well, since no one can see anyone's heart.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Or on the employer who fails to find someone to do things he would personally regard as against his conscience.

Now that I could get behind, within reason. But isn't that part of the current law, broadly speaking, based on how many employees a company has?

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

And discrimination is rampant. That doesn't make all discrimination in itself bad. People are refused service based on the product requested all the time. There's a reason I used commonly-considered vulgarity in my examples when contrasting it with a 'gay wedding cake'. It's because that's both the reference some people are using (gay marriage hasn't been legal long enough for adults to consider it part of an uninterrupted landscape) and because people deny the creation/use of things if they think they'll be used in or to encourage nefarious purpose, despite whether someone else considers that purpose nefarious or not.

Well, also because it conveniently opens up the question "Well, what harm?" in demanding mandatory cakey creations as a whole. Now moi, I don't think there's any intrinsic harm in a themed cake of any variety - I think it depends on its context.

However, I'd wager a guess that most people believe that subject trumps the context that the cake is in, otherwise you'd have been unlikely to believe my referencing of Bayros and such was a 'subtle dig at the possibility they could have asked for something inappropriate', in so many words. Perhaps using the classics as an 'eye of the beholder' example wasn't as clear as I'd hoped it was. And yea, I know, context also informs the subject but I'd like to point out it doesn't restrict the subject to all other comers. Are the subjects of a wedding cake intrinsic to the cake's wedding theme? The answer depends on who and how the question is asked.

I doubt the grocers are willing to put even a tame, non-explicit excerpt-image of 'The Golden Ass' on a cake once they've formed opinions on 'The Cake & What Its Creation Means" (since both the intent and the architecture are routinely discussed - "Whose the lucky couple then?" and "What kind've cake", first impressions) but I think I could get a local erotic baker to do a really lewd one. But there is no guarantee because they might consider it past their ethics as well. You're demanding that a cake and its stated or inferred context (which may or may not be considered a lewd concept depending on who you ask) be reliably separated as a legal matter, cake vs what people infer by the cake; but people do not do that, generally speaking, because of the inability to agree about what comprises a subject.

And now, according to some of the people opposing the great bigoted ass in the lawsuit, everyone should be mandated to create everything, no matter how many personal ethics it trumps?

People are absolute Shite at separating what something is from what something represents to what something may endorse and none of those are clear cut concepts in the first place, which make it all the more difficult. And I doubt as a collective we'll be getting any better at it. I, personally, hate seeing stupid outliers of the 'Nya nya nya, let's be an obvious canker about the right to refuse" persuasion discouraging such a fine concept as protecting self expression by being obvious pillocks - which inadvertently encourages limiting the exorcising of internal discretion by demanding no right of refusal. Just because someone is a walking obstruction doesn't mean I'm keen to go vote on mandatory acceptance and service for every possible customer.

Now, I've no idea whether he sells only unique creations or not - at this point I'm guessing yes. Unique content or no, mandatory creation for everyone who asks isn't feasible*, which is what no refusal would mean, as the only way to prove refusal would be to get fool saying what that guy did.

How would you enforce 'they denied us a sumptuous baked good cuz sexual orientation' if the bakers simply said 'No, sorry, we're booked/we haven't the skill'? It's not really a circumstance you can legislate away when commissions for unique content must be agreed on by all parties beforehand and the ability to refuse does not come with a mandatory explanation of truth. It's literally just a jackass thumbing their nose because they can and willfully making a stink about it instead of pretending they're booked, like any other face-saving gesture used to assuage both parties. It's not medical care, it's not shelter - it barely qualifies as food considering the sugar content. I'm not seeing the refusal of a specific giver being considered an attack on getting a wedding cake somewhere else.

*(or physically possible; there aren't enough artists (or time) in the world to assuage that kind of demand for every cliched internal daydream of a subject's own reflections, let alone just the interesting ones.

Nothing was meant as a subtle hint that 'someone asked for a message that they don't do'. I was more muddling through what makes the components of a message and what makes a message considered appropriate. It was more 'what qualifies as encouraging a concept not agreed on?' There isn't a singular definition of wedding which ....really doesn't help. My point was the message is often (usually, from what I can tell) considered contextual. It was stating that depending on the cakely contextual assumptions with particular emphasis on the specifications it might be a message they won't do. And yes, that may be a shit decision, not to do something because you dislike how the product could be construed. It's also one that happens all the time.

But then, I'm suddenly reminded of bath houses and the complete barring of me thereof because in a bathhouse, the clientele are also, contextually speaking, the product. But there was a great big silence the last time I pointed that out and, if memory serves, gays are all for keeping that particularly ability for refusing service. Keep in mind access to a bathhouse is not an agreement for sexual congress with any specific person (or anyone at all) but it is smack-dab in the 'frivolous possibilities' department.

I hate how concise you are, it almost makes it impossible to disagree with you, alas we are gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. For the life of me I still can't see this as anything but that ugly D word and it's all the more palpable with that suggestion about hanging a sign that lets homos know their patronage isn't welcome.

 

[Kulindahr]

Don't worry though..trump and his religious right fans intend to take most everything backward....

Imagine that...a con man using religion.... and religion using a con man...

...the definitive match made in hell.....

Because Trump and his supporters think that making America "great" again means having it look like Leave It to Beaver.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Because Trump and his supporters think that making America "great" again means having it look like Leave It to Beaver.

I....don't think that's a quote of mine? Not that I disagree with the sentiment but I'm fairly sure I didn't write that one.

 

[Kulindahr]

I....don't think that's a quote of mine? Not that I disagree with the sentiment but I'm fairly sure I didn't write that one.

Not sure what happened there, but I saw this in time to be able to figure it out and edit for correct attribution.

 

[Kulindahr]

Now that I could get behind, within reason. But isn't that part of the current law, broadly speaking, based on how many employees a company has?

I have no clue. I know some things are based on number of employees, but if this is one?

 

[luckynumbah7]

I hate how concise you are, it almost makes it impossible to disagree with you, alas we are gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. For the life of me I still can't see this as anything but that ugly D word and it's all the more palpable with that suggestion about hanging a sign that lets homos know their patronage isn't welcome.

Oh, I agree it's discrimination, that's not my contention. East agrees it's also discrimination, not sure anyone on this thread has claimed it isn't, except perhaps the author of the post who heavily implied he had different views from what he figured everyone else has. It's how discrimination is legislated that I'm concerned with, and the repurcussions legislating things like malleable definitions and concepts bring up.