Asher's Bakery Case Update

[Sparko]

No, that was your example. My claim was always "There are cases of bakers refusing to make any wedding cake for a gay couple, regardless of whether it is adorned with a message or not. That is discrimination against gays. " And in at least one of the cases I cited it was definitely about the customers, since the bakers did not initially refuse to make the cakes - they refused after they became aware of the sexuality of the customers. That is stated directly in the cited article, and suggests the bakers would not have refused the request if the cakes in question were being ordered for a heterosexual wedding. You are simply wrong here.I have provided examples of what I claimed occurred - you are simply misremembering what I wrote.

In order to cast these cases as being anti-message rather than anti-gay, you have now shifted your position to the point where you are suggesting that a wedding cake suitable for use in either a heterosexual marriage or a homosexual marriage represents a "gay message" if used in the latter. That is absurd.

You are sort of correct. I started out saying that the bakers were not discriminating against the customer, but the message that went against their belief. I gave the example that they would not have refused to make a Happy Birthday cake for a gay couple. You decided to move the goal posts and responded that there were plenty of cases where bakers refused to make wedding cakes for gay couples. I countered saying that wedding cakes for gay marriage are a message and that example doesn't count since my claim was they would not refuse to do a cake for a gay customer who was not requesting a product with a gay message.

In other words, as I have stated from the beginning, it is about the message, not the customer. They would refuse the same message from a heterosexual customer.

[Roy]

You may be right, but it's still a dangerous precedent IMHO. Are you sure you're 'atheist enough'? One day someone might weigh your actions and decide that you aren't really an atheist, and need a spell in re-education (for your own good,of course).

Are you really unaware of how often believers claim that atheists are actually theists who want to rebel against the God they actually believe in? I've lost count of the people who have claimed I'm not really an atheist.

[Cow Poke]

I think the "rub" is that the left always portrayed itself as 'tolerant', and the right was a bunch of intolerant bigots.

But, it doesn't seem to run both ways.... the left seems quick to use "the hammer of justice", rather than tolerate the beliefs and convictions of others.

It appears that these cases with bakers and photographers seem more to be about "I want to rub it in your face that you have to comply" rather than "I really need this service that I can't easily get anywhere else".

Again, if I, as a uniformed police officer, knew that certain workers at a local restaurant hated cops, I'd choose to eat elsewhere because they could spit in my food, or worse. I could force them to serve me, but, hey.... what's my objective?

[Cow Poke]

Are you really unaware of how often believers claim that atheists are actually theists who want to rebel against the God they actually believe in? I've lost count of the people who have claimed I'm not really an atheist.

I'm pretty confident that's true in some cases, Roy, but I've known others - a very good friend of mine - who is an atheist simply because he believes he's a 'good man' and doesn't need God. Fact is, he really IS a 'good man', a great father, a good friend.... he behaves better than a lot of Christians I know.

[Roy]

In other words, as I have stated from the beginning, it is about the message, not the customer. They would refuse the same message from a heterosexual customer.

Not so:

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3464222/Gay-couple-feel-dehumanized-Christian-baker-refuses-make-wedding-cake.html

The dispute began after Valencia and Marmolejo, who plan to tie the knot on March 27, entered the bakery to get a price for a wedding cake made of individual petit fours.

They had just received a competitive quote when DeLorme challenged the couple who the cake was for.

When they explained it was for their upcoming nuptials, the baker owner replied in an allegedly 'disgusted' tone: 'Sorry. We don't provide cakes for homosexual marriages'.

© Copyright Original Source

The order was not refused before the baker discovered the customer's sexuality.

[Roy]

It appears that these cases with bakers and photographers seem more to be about "I want to rub it in your face that you have to comply" rather than "I really need this service that I can't easily get anywhere else".

Again, if I, as a uniformed police officer, knew that certain workers at a local restaurant hated cops, I'd choose to eat elsewhere because they could spit in my food, or worse. I could force them to serve me, but, hey.... what's my objective?

As usual I agree with you - I would prefer to avoid patronising any such service if possible. Nor do I have much sympathy for anyone claiming damages if they deliberately target a prejudiced supplier when others are available.

But in many of these cases, including the ones I've cited (but not necessarily the one in the OP), it seems that the customers genuinely did not know that their requests would be refused.

[Roy]

I'm pretty confident that's true in some cases, Roy, but I've known others - a very good friend of mine - who is an atheist simply because he believes he's a 'good man' and doesn't need God. Fact is, he really IS a 'good man', a great father, a good friend.... he behaves better than a lot of Christians I know.

I wouldn't class your friend as an atheist, on the grounds that he "doesn't need God" - which is a tacit admission that there is a God not no need.

[Cow Poke]

Not so:

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3464222/Gay-couple-feel-dehumanized-Christian-baker-refuses-make-wedding-cake.html

The dispute began after Valencia and Marmolejo, who plan to tie the knot on March 27, entered the bakery to get a price for a wedding cake made of individual petit fours.

They had just received a competitive quote when DeLorme challenged the couple who the cake was for.

When they explained it was for their upcoming nuptials, the baker owner replied in an allegedly 'disgusted' tone: 'Sorry. We don't provide cakes for homosexual marriages'.

© Copyright Original Source

The order was not refused before the baker discovered the customer's sexuality.

Interesting - I just read the article in the local Longview, Texas newspaper from which this DailyMail article comes (and is cited), and there's no mention at all of the "disgusted tone".

[Sparko]

Again, if I, as a uniformed police officer, knew that certain workers at a local restaurant hated cops, I'd choose to eat elsewhere because they could spit in my food, or worse. I could force them to serve me, but, hey.... what's my objective?

exactly. in fact that just happened recently: http://www.insideedition.com/headlin...-word-to-other

Law enforcement will no longer eat at a Washington State restaurant after the eatery's owner asked them not to come back, officials said.

[Roy]

Interesting - I just read the article in the local Longview, Texas newspaper from which this DailyMail article comes (and is cited), and there's no mention at all of the "disgusted tone".

I'm not at all surprised that the Daily Fail might have spiced up the story a bit - but your article also includes the relevant detail that the order was only refused because of the customer's sexuality, and not because of the cake itself:

Source: ibid

"And when they said it was them, I said, 'Sorry. We don't provide cakes for homosexual marriages,'"

© Copyright Original Source

[rogue06]

I wouldn't class your friend as an atheist, on the grounds that he "doesn't need God" - which is a tacit admission that there is a God not no need.

"No true atheist"...

I think there are a few who call themselves atheists who are in "rebel[lion] against the God they actually believe in" considering how they go on and on claiming that He is unjust.

[Cow Poke]

I wouldn't class your friend as an atheist, on the grounds that he "doesn't need God" - which is a tacit admission that there is a God not no need.

Well, that's how he describes it, but he freely classifies himself as an atheist. I think his "I don't need God" is a polite slap at people who have "invented" God because they 'need a crutch' or something. He's not a real "in your face" kinda guy.

It actually makes it hard to witness to him, cause he'll ask, "why do I need God? I'm living better than most people in your Church". And, sadly, he's right.

[Roy]

exactly. in fact that just happened recently: http://www.insideedition.com/headlin...-word-to-other

Possibly a good way to become a target for criminals.

[Sparko]

Not so:

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3464222/Gay-couple-feel-dehumanized-Christian-baker-refuses-make-wedding-cake.html

The dispute began after Valencia and Marmolejo, who plan to tie the knot on March 27, entered the bakery to get a price for a wedding cake made of individual petit fours.

They had just received a competitive quote when DeLorme challenged the couple who the cake was for.

When they explained it was for their upcoming nuptials, the baker owner replied in an allegedly 'disgusted' tone: 'Sorry. We don't provide cakes for homosexual marriages'.

© Copyright Original Source

The order was not refused before the baker discovered the customer's sexuality.

no. until he discovered it was for a homosexual wedding. The message that gay marriage is OK is against what Christians believe. If the gay couple wanted a cake for a nongay event they would not have been refused. It is the message.

[Cow Poke]

exactly. in fact that just happened recently: http://www.insideedition.com/headlin...-word-to-other

Our local McDonald's actually fired two people who bragged on social media that they 'spit in the food' when cops ordered.