SCOTUS & gay wedding cakes

[carpedm9587]

I don't see how anyone can dictate to a cake maker thou shalt put two men on top of a wedding cake if they directly and explicitly only offer cakes with a male and and female decoration.

Jim

See my previous post.

[Cow Poke]

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"

Actually, I have tried to buy "kosher meat" when we've had Seder at our Church, and the butcher didn't just say "Try down the road", he helpfully recommended an outlet that specialized in Kosher products. But, yeah!

[JimL]

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."

Now you know that's a Trojen Horse CP. The KKK is not a protected class and so are not subject to anti-discrimination laws. I'm sure that must have been pointed out to you before.

[carpedm9587]

So then stop telling everyone how bigoted they are for simply not agreeing with you. That's very bigoted of YOU.

Your opinion is duly noted. But I will continue to call our prejudice/bigotry when I see it. My moral code requires it of me. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." (Burke)

[carpedm9587]

If somebody ordered a wedding cake with KKK and Swastikas all over it, should the baker be forced to sell that "wedding cake"?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28218[/ATTACH]

No.

[carpedm9587]

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

As I have noted before - I actually agree with the judgment, because I was unaware of the anti-religion bias/actions of the governing agencies. I hope the entire thing surfaces again, this time without that angle.

[Cow Poke]

In the case of the restaurant - the food is being refused because of the race of the consumer.

Oh, for cryin' in a bucket!!!! WHAT food is being refused because of the race of the consumer? Is this your "black people food" analogy, where you really think somebody goes into a restaurant and says, "hey, I want some black people food"? Carpe, you're WAY smarter than this.

In the case of the baker - the cake is being refused because of the sex of the two people marrying.

Nope, the cake is being 'refused' because the baker doesn't have any of those in stock. He's plumb out! Doesn't expect to get any in the foreseeable future.

The cases are analogous: service is being refused on the basis of the genetics of the end consumer(s) of the product.

No. H-E-DoubleHockeySticks no.

[Cow Poke]

No.

Why?

[JimL]

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

Rogue?

Now when you said that you didn't miss the combative nature of our discussions CP, is this what you meant?

[carpedm9587]

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 the marrying of two people.

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

So the discrimination lies in their refusal to serve two people who are marrying because they have the same genitals. That is selective service on the basis of a genetic attribute, so a classic example of bigotry/prejudice.

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.

It doesn't matter who buys it. I have repeatedly made that point. Maybe you missed it?

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.

The heart of the issue is indeed discrimination against people who are gay. They are being denied something people who are NOT gay are not denied: the right to marry. It is now legal for them to marry in this country (finally), and the only distinction between the wedding cake for the heterosexual couple and the wedding cake for the homosexual couple is the genitals the respective partners possess. If it is discriminatory to differentiate the morality of an act (or event) on the basis of skin color, it is likewise discriminatory to do so on the basis of sex.

[Cow Poke]

Now when you said that you didn't miss the combative nature of our discussions CP, is this what you meant?

Ah, so I can't kid either? I'll try to add that to my list. Carpe and I tear each other up on this all the time, cause he's my buddy, and he doesn't take offense.

[Sparko]

Right, so if they've chosen to sell wedding cakes, then they have to sell them to anyone who comes in the door.

In the baker's mind, "wedding" is only valid for a man and a woman. A marriage between a man and a man is not a valid wedding according to Christianity. So, if the baker only makes wedding cakes for weddings, then a gay wedding is not a marriage and he doesn't have to sell them a cake.

[carpedm9587]

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.

The analogy was based on whom the food was for, not the nature of the food.

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"

If a butcher serves kosher food, they need to serve it to anyone that wants to buy it. If they do not serve kosher food, that is not a service they offer to anyone - no problem.
If the baker serves wedding cakes, they need to serve them to anyone that wants to buy it. If they do not make wedding cakes, that is not a service they offer to anyone - no problem.

[Sparko]

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

Adultery is legal too, but I bet he wouldn't make an adultery cake for a heterosexual couple.

[carpedm9587]

You'd still not be the one.

Oh of that I am sure...