SCOTUS & gay wedding cakes

[JimL]

"French cuisine" in a French restaurant is whatever that particular restaurant puts on their menu. It won't likely include chicken fried alligator or tacos or General Tso's chicken.

This baker (not just cake maker) bakes all kinds of things and should have the same freedom as the French restaurant to serve what they want to serve, as long as they serve it to everybody who requests it.

Now you're beginning to get it.

[Sparko]

The baker is perfectly free to believe what he wants, but as a businessman he is not free to discriminate agasinst those who don't believe as he does. When someone comes into his shop and requests that he bake them a cake according to their personal specifications, they are not asking him to deny his own beliefs. You may not like it, but that's the law!

You all seem to forget. The supreme court agreed he was right. He was not discriminating against those who don't believe as he does (that isn't even against the law by the way, unless it is religion being discriminated against)

[Cow Poke]

Talk about drama queens.

On purpose, yes.

The gay community is part of your "everybody else", which is apparently what you don't like. Your rant is like saying "yeah, I know, whatever black people want, and the heck with everybody else.

In this case, the "gay community", after fighting for 'tolerance', is intolerantly demanding that other people forsake their own beliefs in favor of 'the gay community'.

bake-the-cake-same-sex-marriage.jpg

[JimL]

OR.... he can keep refusing to make Gay Wedding Cakes and be ultimately justified by the Supreme Court of the USA!

He makes wedding cakes, gay marriage is legal, to refuse to make gay wedding cakes would be discrimination and illegal.

[Cow Poke]

"French cuisine" in a French restaurant is whatever that particular restaurant puts on their menu. It won't likely include chicken fried alligator or tacos or General Tso's chicken.

This baker (not just cake maker) bakes all kinds of things and should have the same freedom as the French restaurant to serve what they want to serve, as long as they serve it to everybody who requests it.

Now you're beginning to get it.

Here's the part you don't get at all, and it was right there in my post:

"French cuisine" in a French restaurant is whatever that particular restaurant puts on their menu. It won't likely include chicken fried alligator or tacos or General Tso's chicken.

This baker (not just cake maker) bakes all kinds of things and should have the same freedom as the French restaurant to serve what they want to serve, as long as they serve it to everybody who requests it.

[JimL]

On purpose, yes.



In this case, the "gay community", after fighting for 'tolerance', is intolerantly demanding that other people forsake their own beliefs in favor of 'the gay community'.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28220[/ATTACH]

Exactly, and you'd be saying the same about blacks, that their intolerant, if the baker refused to serve them.

[Cow Poke]

He makes wedding cakes, gay marriage is legal, to refuse to make gay wedding cakes would be discrimination and illegal.

Let's try that here...

"He makes wedding cakes, belonging to the KKK is legal, to refuse to make KKK wedding cakes would be discrimination and illegal."

[Sparko]

What exactly is the difference between a "same sex" wedding cake and a "gay" wedding cake...

The difference is that you are still trying to force the issue onto the people buying the cake, not what the cake represents: an event.

The event is "same sex wedding" that the cake represents. Not the "gay people"

So when you are saying "wedding cakes for gay people" you are doing a subtle shift from the event to the people buying it. Despite evidence that it is the event that he is refusing to participate in. He sells cakes to gay people for other events. And he refuses to make cakes for different events that he also disagrees with: Halloween for example.

What is happening is that you refuse to admit that he is not discriminating against gay people so you have to keep trying to shift the description of what happened back to the people buying the cake instead of the event. That is dishonest on your part. You know that if he merely refuses to make a cake for specific events that you have no argument. Rather than just admit you were wrong, you continue to try to force your view onto the situation, instead of letting the actual situation inform your view. Basically this is just Eisogesis. Forcing your interpretation onto the situation.

[JimL]

Here's the part you don't get at all, and it was right there in my post:

I didn't miss that at all. If the baker makes personally designed wedding cakes then he can't discriminate as to who he makes them for.

[Cow Poke]

Exactly, and you'd be saying the same about blacks, that their intolerant, if the baker refused to serve them.

Absolute outright lie. That's just buttdumb stupid. I have made it clear that they have a right to serve anybody who comes in (as long as they're wearing shoes and shirts and not carrying guns where not permitted, etc), but they should not be forced to serve things they don't choose to bake or cook.

[Cow Poke]

Exactly, and you'd be saying the same about blacks, that their intolerant, if the baker refused to serve them.

And I would never say "their intolerant". I would use the proper "they're".

Rogue?

[carpedm9587]

Wow, Carpe, if I ever need defended, I hope you're not the only one available.

I think you meant "defending"

[Sparko]

Fail.

"food for black people" is simply a quick name for any food that a black person will eat - just as "same sex wedding cake" is just a quick name for any cake that will be used at a same sex wedding cake.

Well unless you are trying to be racist and say that black people only eat certain foods like watermelon and fried chicken, that is a bad example.

Let's sub out "food for black people" for "Kosher meat" since a Jew will only eat certain meats that have been killed in a specific way.

Should a butcher be forced to sell kosher meat? Or Halal meat?

Is it bigotry to say, "Sorry, we don't have any kosher meat here. Try down the road"

[Cow Poke]

I think you meant "defending"

You'd still not be the one.

[carpedm9587]

The main problem with your analogy is that any restruant anywhere is allowed to chose it's quisine. And it doesn't matter one lick why they chose to serve what they serve. They just have to serve what they serve to anyone that walks in the door. So if there is such a thing as 'black people food', a restruant owner has every right to decide not to serve it or to only serve it or anything in between.

Jim

In the case of the restaurant - the food is being refused because of the race of the consumer. In the case of the baker - the cake is being refused because of the sex of the two people marrying. The cases are analogous: service is being refused on the basis of the genetics of the end consumer(s) of the product.