The Gay-Wedding Cake Fight Isn’t About Religious Freedom—It’s About Sex

by Guest Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:22 pm

First topic message reminder :

The slippery-slope argument goes something like this: If Masterpiece Cakeshop, and its owner, Jack Phillips, can refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, what’s to stop him from refusing to bake a wedding cake for two Jews, or an interracial couple, or anyone else for that matter?

There are good reasons to make that argument—I’ve made it myself on many occasions, and it may carry the day when the Supreme Court hears the case next week.

But ultimately, it misses the point: that it’s not Jews or people of color or anyone else who are the targets of these “religious freedom” claims. It’s women and LGBT people. Because at the end of the day, these “religious freedom” claims aren’t about religious freedom. They’re about the Culture War. They’re about sex.

First, if Phillips and his ilk were consistent, they would have plenty of sinful people to turn away from their businesses. In Matthew 5:32, for example, Jesus forbids divorce and says that remarriage is the same as adultery. So why isn’t Phillips turning away the remarried?

Here’s another example. In 1 Corinthians 6:9, one of the seven so-called clobber verses (out of 31,102 in the Bible) that talk about homosexuality, Paul states that “neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes (malakoi) nor homosexual offenders (arsenokoitai) nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” Whoever Paul is talking about here—it’s almost certainly not all gay men, and definitely not lesbians, but even if it were—they are placed on the same level as thieves, slanderers, and swindlers. No better and no worse.

And yet, I’m unaware of a single case in which a service provider sought the right to refuse service to a slanderer on the basis of a religious belief. Why?

Nor has Phillips asserted a right to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a Hindu wedding, even though most evangelical Christians believe Hinduism to be a form of idolatry—which is forbidden over 100 times in the Bible, on penalty of death.

In other words, these “religious freedom” claimants are being highly selective about when their conscience compels them to discriminate. Of all of the sins in Scripture, it seems that only those involving sex and gender—contraception, abortion, LGBT people—are the only ones which trigger such claims.

Quite a coincidence, is it not?

Obviously, it is not. These “religious freedom” claims are extensions of the five-decade old Culture War. They are front-line issues in politicized Christianity, not Christianity itself, and are stand-ins for a cultural clash that runs deeper than any individual claim.

The Culture War is a battle about sex, but it is really a battle about what country we are living in: either a Christian nation, with right-wing Christianity as its moral bedrock, or a diverse, secular nation, in which religious claims are respected, but not used as a trump card over the civil rights of others.

After all, the reason I’ve scare-quoted “religious freedom” here is that these kinds of claims are really quite novel. For two centuries, the First Amendment was primarily a shield held up by persecuted religious minorities—Jehovah’s Witnesses, Native Americans—against governmental interference in their religious practice. No third parties were involved; these minorities wanted to practice their religion and be left alone.

To be sure, this history is still marred by Christian domination. The First Amendment didn’t stop Mormon polygamy from being banned, and it didn’t stop the government from seizing lands held to be sacred by Native Americans. It was often used against Catholics as well.

But in principle, the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment was a shield protecting minority religions from government interference.

Only in the last 20 years has it been used as a sword, allowing a religious individual to discriminate against someone else. In cases like Masterpiece Cakeshop or 2014’s Hobby Lobby, it’s not just the government and the practitioner. It’s the government, the practitioner, and the person the practitioner is harming. That is a crucial, and unprecedented, difference: Today’s “religious freedom” claimants want to abridge the rights of others.

And it’s not a coincidence. Poll data shows that when you scratch a “religious freedom” claimant, what you find underneath is someone who really wants to ban abortion, overturn same-sex marriage, and bring back anti-sodomy laws. These organizations—the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Becket Fund, Liberty Counsel—are fundamentally insincere. They’re not defending our “First Freedom.” They’re fighting the Culture War.

Now, having followed this issue for many years, I know that millions of conservative Christians sincerely believe their religion to be under attack. But the data doesn’t lie. Ultimately, Christian conservatives don’t just want to be left alone to practice their religion in peace. Ultimately, they want to impose their religious beliefs on others. They want to win the Culture War and ban the stuff they don’t like.

That’s why the slippery-slope argument is off point. We shouldn’t be asking “what’s to stop this person from turning away Jews?” We should be asking “why is it that the only people this person wants to turn away are women and gays?” Because that’s what reveals this campaign for what it is.

Now, two important caveats.

First—and this is a historical point I wish we could all keep in mind—this kind of religious freedom claim was, in fact, used against African Americans during the 1960s and 1970s. Bob Jones University, for example, argued that it had a First Amendment right to refuse admission to black students (and, later, to segregate them in special housing).

And on a local level, “religious freedom” was offered as a pretext by restauranteurs and hoteliers to deny service to blacks. God separated the races on different continents, evangelicals said in the 1950s, and we must not interfere with His plan.

The Bob Jones case went all the way to the Supreme Court—the university lost, and lost their tax-exempt status—and historian Randall Balmer has shown that it, not Roe v. Wade, was the chief motivation behind the formation of the “New Christian Right,” the term political scientists use to describe the Christian political movement that was born in the 1970s. (Prior to the Sexual Revolution, most evangelicals thought that Christians should stay out of the dirty business of politics. Times have changed.)

So it’s not as though the slippery slope isn’t true. It was true quite recently, in fact. The modern “religious freedom” movement was born in segregation.

It’s also true that, when pressed, “religious freedom” activists admit that the slippery slope is accurate in principle. In one memorable exchange from 2014, Congressman Jerrold Nadler asked the Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver why, under the laws Staver favored—which have now become law in 22 states—a wedding photographer couldn’t refuse service to Jews.

After trying to weasel out of the question—“I think it wouldn’t be something she wouldn’t object to,” he stammered—Staver admitted that, yes, “She would have an issue there—a violation potential in that case.”

So, in principle, the slippery-slope argument is spot-on, and, as mentioned earlier, it may well be decisive at the Supreme Court. For the rule of law to mean something, people can’t pick which laws they wish to obey.

Yet I want to conclude with Staver’s initial response: “I think it wouldn’t be something she wouldn’t object to.” That may well be true. Anti-Semitism has surged during the Trump administration, but probably Staver’s clients—including the Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis, now a hero of the New Christian Right—wouldn’t turn Jews away. That’s not what they’re worried about.

No—what they’re worried about are women and gays; sex and gender; the Culture War and the Christian Nation. And they want to win. Don’t let claims of “religious freedom” fool you.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-gay-wedding-cake-fight-isnt-about-religious-freedomits-about-sex

by Original Quill Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:49 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Religion is a form of metaphysics. I don't believe in religion, so I guess I raised it to characterize the ethereal, tenuous nature of metaphysics. No one can prove the existence of an old man living in the clouds, who has command of magical skills and controls our lives. Similarly, no one can prove that life exists in the minerals and chemicals that comprise a nascent human being.

Is a puppy a life form in which life exists?

Anything post-partum is.

by Maddog Wed Dec 06, 2017 11:43 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Is a puppy a life form in which life exists?

Anything post-partum is.

That seems fair enough I guess. People who survived abortions were not people during the abortion process, but became people as soon as they exited the womb. Prior to that they were not a life form.

by Maddog Wed Dec 06, 2017 11:43 pm

by Guest Thu Dec 07, 2017 12:14 am

Maddog wrote:
Didge wrote:

Its one thing to deny people based on them being rude, but its another to deny someone based on what they believe or what they do or who they are.

That means anyone could then refuse to serve any former criminals, Politicians, Zionists, Muslims, Republicans, Jews, Blacks, whites, women, Police, men etc.

If you have a buisness, it falls under the parameter of not discriminating anyone within that buisness, which include customers. If not that business should face heavy fines and even closure.

The reality is as seen, that this is a culture war and religion is being used poorly as a tool, in order for some to allow themselves to discriminate. When in reality they do not often adhere themselves to bibilical commands or deny others that would be classed as sinners. They are specificially targeting some here, based on sexual practices/relationships. Of which many hetrosexuals themselves engage in.

As soon as you open up the door to allowing discrimination, you are then allowing anyone to discriminate. When the simple way to deter this is to make it part of a licence for buisness. That they have no right to deny service to a customer. If a customer is rude or threatening. Then call the Police to remove them from the premises. If they discriminate against people. If they continually flout the rules governed by that liecence. Then they could lose that licence.

You want a buisness, then abide by the rules of being entittled to have a buisness in that land.

People discriminate every day. I have no issues with people choosing whom to serve and whom not to. I will choose to do business with you based on that. There are plenty of places I will not patronize because of their business practices. I suggest everyone else do the same.

Then I suggest you try a country where such discrimination is overtly practiced daily.
At the end of the day, you have no reason to deny someone a serivce based on what collectively they are or do. Hence why laws have been created that stop such prejudice.

Again your policies should be applicable to everyone, if not then you fall foul of the law.

by Guest Thu Dec 07, 2017 12:15 am

eddie wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

no they dont automatically have the right to access the goods and services on offer.

any company can turn any costumer away. they do not HAVE to serve a person.

you couldn't be supporting this argument if a man walked into a gay baker and said "make me a cake with I HATE GAYS" written on it

Anyone going to take this point?

This thread makes for interesting reading so far.

I aready did

You do not have to associate with people, but as a buisness, you cannot discriminate against a group of people.

Again

You can refuse a customer, as long as its not arbitrary or applying it to one group of people.

So you could refuse to serve anyone that wanted cakes that were based on hate and discrimination.

That would make it consistant to all customers

Making wedding cakes for only hetrosexuals, would be discrimination and prejudice. As its not consistant to all customers.

by Guest Thu Dec 07, 2017 12:17 am

Maddog wrote:
eddie wrote:

Anyone going to take this point?

This thread makes for interesting reading so far.

I'll take it. I believe all transactions should be voluntary on both sides. No one should be forced to serve someone they done want to. A Jew should never be forced to bake a Nazi cake, even though Nazi cakes are perfectly legal.

Nazi cakes are already made.

Again this could easily be refused as a rule on anything that is associated racism and hate by an owner

Again

You do not have to associate with people, but as a buisness, you cannot discriminate against a group of people.

Again

You can refuse a customer, as long as its not arbitrary or applying it to one group of people.

So you could refuse to serve anyone that wanted cakes that were based on hate and discrimination.

That would make it consistant to all customers

Making wedding cakes for only hetrosexuals, would be discrimination and prejudice. As its not consistant to all customers.

by Guest Thu Dec 07, 2017 12:20 am

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Yes, and the concept of law is another human invention. There are contradictions within and among all human conventions, I agree. To pit one side of a contradiction against the other side, is not progress...but obfuscation.

That is only to say that human ideas are flawed. To determine the existence of life is only to reify one metaphysical idea over another. Metaphysics (def: beyond reality) are by definition, mere guesses. Religion is a form of metaphysics, and you seen where that went.

I am not responsible for contradictions. They exist, so be it. But when it comes to arguing a person's personhood, and right to one's body, it is better to side with those with a birth certificate than those whose status is yet to be determined.

Atheists often believe that the unborn have more rights than minerals and chemicals, so I don't know what religion has to do with this.

Do they?

That is news to me.

Again we already have the sanctioned and unsanctioned taking of life

The unborn cannot survive without the host and thus nobody should force that woman to carry something she does not want.

by Eilzel Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:32 am

eddie wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Freedom to associate with whom you choose is never a wrong turn. Using the government as your personal sledge hammer is however often a wrong turn.

If someone does not like how someone conducts business, they are free to spend their money elsewhere. And, I would encourage them to do so.

And, only the government cab create separate classes of citizens. A business owner cant do that.

You have it the wrong way the Customers freedoms trumps the business freedom.
the customer has the right to access any goods and services advertised as the rest of the general public.
the business's (not a person in this legal transaction) 'right' to refuse service is conditional on anti discrimination laws AND comes secondary to the rights of a human person.
Otherwise you go back to the bad old days of business with signs like "no negros or irish allowed"

no they dont automatically have the right to access the goods and services on offer.

any company can turn any costumer away. they do not HAVE to serve a person.

you couldn't be supporting this argument if a man walked into a gay baker and said "make me a cake with I HATE GAYS" written on it

Anyone going to take this point?

This thread makes for interesting reading so far.

But that's the problem with hanging on small details, yes based on all the arguments made so far there should be no objection to having someone make such a cake. But there is a bigger picture right?

Cake shops usually state somewhere in their store or advertising that they actually do make wedding cakes. If they've made wedding cakes before then they are obliged to make them again for any couple who request such a service.

I know of no cake company that advertises the making of cakes to promote hate, and since such a cake WOULD promote hate, I see no reason why any company should be expected to make it.

Smelly's suggestion of the comparison is idiotic, and only goes to show how he views homosexuality (political/ a side to fight on/ aggressive).

by veya_victaous Thu Dec 07, 2017 7:59 am

@smelly
If a gay man operated a regular bakery that sold 'message on cake' then that bakery would have to supply that too. The bakery is the entity in the transaction therefore it doesn't matter the status of the owner/employee as the transaction is between the business and customer.

And no, they can't just deny service to a customer based on being a minority. If they advertise a good or service without a disclaimer then they must supply it at that cost.

by Guest Thu Dec 07, 2017 8:02 am

What Do the Anti-Discrimination Laws Say?

At the heart of the debate is a system of anti-discrimination laws enacted by federal, state and local governments. The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of “public accommodation” include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores. Nonprofit organizations such as churches are generally exempt from the law.

The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination by private businesses based on disability.

The federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, so gays are not a protected group under the federal law. However, about 20 states, including New York and California, have enacted laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation. In California, you also can’t discriminate based on someone’s unconventional dress. In some states, like Arizona, there’s no state law banning discrimination against gays, but there are local laws in some cities that prohibit sexual orientation discrimination.

So, no matter where you live, you cannot deny service to someone because of his or her race, color, religion, national origin or disability. In some states and cities, you also cannot discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. If there is no state, federal or local law prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations against a particular group of people, then you can legally refuse to serve that group of people.

What Does It Mean to Discriminate Against Someone?

If there’s an anti-discrimination law, does that mean that a business can never refuse service to a member of a group that is protected from discrimination?

The answer is that you can refuse to serve someone even if they’re in a protected group, but the refusal can’t be arbitrary and you can’t apply it to just one group of people.

To avoid being arbitrary, there must be a reason for refusing service and you must be consistent. There could be a dress code to maintain a sense of decorum, or fire code restrictions on how many people can be in your place of business at one time, or a policy related to the health and safety of your customers and employees. But you can’t just randomly refuse service to someone because you don’t like the way they look or dress.

Second, you must apply your policy to everyone. For example, you can’t turn away a black person who’s not wearing a tie and then let in a tieless white man. You also can’t have a policy that sounds like it applies to everyone but really just excludes one particular group of people. So, for example, a policy against wearing headscarves in a restaurant would probably be discriminatory against Muslims.

A couple of recent court cases illustrate the fine line between discrimination and a justifiable refusal of service. In each case, a Colorado baker was sued for violating discrimination laws.

In the first case, the baker refused service to a customer who wanted her to bake a cake with anti-gay Bible verses on it. The customer argued that he was discriminated against because of his religious beliefs. But the court ruled that this was not discrimination because the baker had a consistent policy of refusing to create cakes that used derogatory language or imagery.

In the second case, a baker refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, saying that it violated his religious beliefs. The court held the baker liable, saying that his reason was just a pretext for discriminating against gays.

Which brings us back to the original restaurant signs. “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” sounds vague and arbitrary. As we’ve seen, a business can’t just randomly refuse to serve someone.

“No shirt, no shoes, no service” on the other hand, is a clear dress code that could also relate to health and safety issues. You usually see the sign in beach towns where tourists of all kinds are apt to be walking around shirtless or shoeless. As long as the policy is applied to everyone equally, it’s not likely to violate any discrimination laws.

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-service-can-a-business-refuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance

by veya_victaous Thu Dec 07, 2017 8:27 am

And UK and Aussie laws provide even greater consumer rights than the USA Wink

and a green for didge for bothering to look up he laws for Smelly Laughing

by SEXY MAMA Thu Dec 07, 2017 8:41 am

If you own a shop you need to treat all your customers fairly, that’s just basic common business sense tbh.

What the customers do behind closed doors isn’t your concern.

by Guest Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:21 am

I need my blues uniform dry cleaned for a friend's wedding but was away doing other stuff

My mate took it home to North London for me and went to a Muslim dry cleaner, the man refused to clean the uniform citing his objections to the wars.

He lost the business and my uniform still got cleaned

by Guest Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:53 am

smelly-bandit wrote:I need my blues uniform dry cleaned for a friend's wedding but was away doing other stuff

My mate took it home to North London for me and went to a Muslim dry cleaner, the man refused to clean the uniform citing his objections to the wars.

He lost the business and my uniform still got cleaned

Still not understanding consistancy are you.

by HoratioTarr Thu Dec 07, 2017 8:39 pm

SEXY MAMA wrote:If you own a shop you need to treat all your customers fairly, that’s just basic common business sense tbh.

What the customers do behind closed doors isn’t your concern.

Very true. 'Morals' won't put food on the table or pay the bills.

by Tommy Monk Thu Dec 07, 2017 8:53 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Freedom to associate with whom you choose is never a wrong turn. Using the government as your personal sledge hammer is however often a wrong turn.

If someone does not like how someone conducts business, they are free to spend their money elsewhere. And, I would encourage them to do so.

And, only the government cab create separate classes of citizens. A business owner cant do that.

So hypothetically, if every cake show owner in the country decided they didn't want to associate with gay people, gay people would just have to deal with it?

So by default you are saying some citizens, by doimg nothing but loving another person, are rightfully treated unequally by others?

The cake man didn't refuse to serve them... he just refused to make a cake with the particular 'theme' they requested... as I'm sure he would have refused any other customer wanting that particular 'theme', regardless of any of the customers personal details...

So all customers treated equally... all can have as many cakes as they want... as long as they are within the range of 'themes'/styles that the cake man is willing to provide...!

And isn't that for cake man to decide...?

I bet there's loads of different cake design things he does do for people... so he's quite flexible really... as there are some places here in the SW of England where you can stop for a cream tea, but instead end up getting frog marched out of the place...

Just for asking them to put the jam on first...!!!

lol!

by Eilzel Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:23 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
Eilzel wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Freedom to associate with whom you choose is never a wrong turn. Using the government as your personal sledge hammer is however often a wrong turn.

If someone does not like how someone conducts business, they are free to spend their money elsewhere. And, I would encourage them to do so.

And, only the government cab create separate classes of citizens. A business owner cant do that.

So hypothetically, if every cake show owner in the country decided they didn't want to associate with gay people, gay people would just have to deal with it?

So by default you are saying some citizens, by doimg nothing but loving another person, are rightfully treated unequally by others?

The cake man didn't refuse to serve them... he just refused to make a cake with the particular 'theme' they requested... as I'm sure he would have refused any other customer wanting that particular 'theme', regardless of any of the customers personal details...

So all customers treated equally... all can have as many cakes as they want... as long as they are within the range of 'themes'/styles that the cake man is willing to provide...!

And isn't that for cake man to decide...?

I bet there's loads of different cake design things he does do for people... so he's quite flexible really... as there are some places here in the SW of England where you can stop for a cream tea, but instead end up getting frog marched out of the place...

Just for asking them to put the jam on first...!!!

A technicality, tommy. If we couldn't have got our wedding cake from a place where a heterosexual couple could, we wouldn't be being treated equally.

by Guest Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:41 am

I see tommy is being mind numbingly-stupid as per usual

The shop makes wedding cakes.

The rule has to be consistant to all customers

Baking wedding cakes for hetrosexuals and not homosexuals, is not a consistant rule.

It thus discriminates.

Either the shop owner stops making wedding cakes for everyone, (thus losing a mass of his buiness) or theymakes wedding cakes for all customers. Or end up losing their buisness through a large law suit.

Even this case, had the owner actually stating that he would stop making wedding cakes, in order to not have to make for homosexuals.

Thus showing he understands the law and Tommy does not.

by Guest Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:13 pm

veya_victaous wrote:@smelly
If a gay man operated a regular bakery that sold 'message on cake' then that bakery would have to supply that too. The bakery is the entity in the transaction therefore it doesn't matter the status of the owner/employee as the transaction is between the business and customer.

And no, they can't just deny service to a customer based on being a minority. If they advertise a good or service without a disclaimer then they must supply it at that cost.

but that's the trap, the business is not allowed to add a disclaimer because that's discrimination.

so once again we find ourselves back at the pint where business owners are being forced to make things that could go against their principles, since they are not allowed to write those principles into the ethos or working practices of the business.

the only way this is going to go is now every christian business owner will have to adjust their working practices to inquire about the details before they accept any business, if it turns out to be an event that goes against their principles then they will simply have to decline, im sure there are a dozen legitimate reasons why a business would be unable to accept a contract.

no business is obligated to provide a service simply because they offer it, tradesmen are the worst for it.

by Guest Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:14 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

So hypothetically, if every cake show owner in the country decided they didn't want to associate with gay people, gay people would just have to deal with it?

So by default you are saying some citizens, by doimg nothing but loving another person, are rightfully treated unequally by others?

The cake man didn't refuse to serve them... he just refused to make a cake with the particular 'theme' they requested... as I'm sure he would have refused any other customer wanting that particular 'theme', regardless of any of the customers personal details...

So all customers treated equally... all can have as many cakes as they want... as long as they are within the range of 'themes'/styles that the cake man is willing to provide...!

And isn't that for cake man to decide...?

I bet there's loads of different cake design things he does do for people... so he's quite flexible really... as there are some places here in the SW of England where you can stop for a cream tea, but instead end up getting frog marched out of the place...

Just for asking them to put the jam on first...!!!

thats exactly right

the baker wont make Halloween themed cakes and i think he said he wont make divorce party cakes either

by Guest Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:15 pm

So a shop that has no shirt, no shoes, no service is discrimination, when its consistant to all customers?

scratch

It seems smelly still cannot grasp this

by Guest Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:15 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

The cake man didn't refuse to serve them... he just refused to make a cake with the particular 'theme' they requested... as I'm sure he would have refused any other customer wanting that particular 'theme', regardless of any of the customers personal details...

So all customers treated equally... all can have as many cakes as they want... as long as they are within the range of 'themes'/styles that the cake man is willing to provide...!

And isn't that for cake man to decide...?

I bet there's loads of different cake design things he does do for people... so he's quite flexible really... as there are some places here in the SW of England where you can stop for a cream tea, but instead end up getting frog marched out of the place...

Just for asking them to put the jam on first...!!!

A technicality, tommy. If we couldn't have got our wedding cake from a place where a heterosexual couple could, we wouldn't be being treated equally.

what if the cake baker said he was fully booked or he had too much work on to meet your requirements??

by Guest Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:18 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

A technicality, tommy. If we couldn't have got our wedding cake from a place where a heterosexual couple could, we wouldn't be being treated equally.

what if the cake baker said he was fully booked or he had too much work on to meet your requirements??

That is acceptable, as long as he then did not book someone else in within that time after that customer.

As he would then be shown to have lied and be open to easily being sued.

by Guest Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:19 pm

Didge wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

what if the cake baker said he was fully booked or he had too much work on to meet your requirements??

That is acceptable, as long as he then did not book someone else in within that time after that customer.

As he would then be shown to have lied and be open to easily being sued.

or they could put it down to ''administrative error''

by Guest Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:24 pm

gelico wrote:
Didge wrote:

That is acceptable, as long as he then did not book someone else in within that time after that customer.

As he would then be shown to have lied and be open to easily being sued.

or they could put it down to ''administrative error''

That though could still cost the bakery, by not meeting its obligation Gelico.

by Guest Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:08 pm

gelico wrote:
Didge wrote:

That is acceptable, as long as he then did not book someone else in within that time after that customer.

As he would then be shown to have lied and be open to easily being sued.

or they could put it down to ''administrative error''

Exactly

Dozens of ways to back out of a deal,and I suspect we will see more of these unofficial conditional accepting of contracts.

by Guest Fri Dec 08, 2017 3:38 pm

Walsh: The Gay Couple In The Masterpiece Cakeshop Case Are Vindictive Bullies, Not Victims

The Supreme Court began hearing arguments in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case today. Ben Shapiro has already provided a helpful refresher on the case, which you can read here. If you’re too lazy to click the link, here are the basic bullet points:

-Jack Phillips owns and operates a bakery called Masterpiece Cakeshop.

-Phillips is a devout Christian.

-Phillips used to make beautiful cakes, but is no longer permitted to do so.

-He’s no longer permitted to make cakes because one time, a few years ago, he declined to decorate a cake for a gay wedding.

-I say “decorate a cake” not “make,” because he was perfectly willing to sell the gay couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, a cake. He was willing to sell them any pastry they wanted. But, due to his religious beliefs, he couldn’t decorate it with a gay wedding theme.

-Phillips had also in the past refused to decorate Halloween cakes and divorce party cakes. Nobody ever complained about that.

-Rather than respond like empathetic, decent, civilized human beings, Mullins and Craig decided to embark on a five-year campaign to ruin Phillips and destroy his business.

-The Colorado Civil Rights Commission decreed that Phillips can no longer make any cakes for anyone, and he must provide gay-friendly “reeducation” to his employees.

-Phillips lost 40% of his business and had to fire half of his work force.

-Now the Supreme Court will decide whether a private citizen can be legally compelled to create a piece of art celebrating something they find morally objectionable.

Those are the fundamental facts of the case. Now, here are a few other things to keep in mind as you read about the oral arguments and await the final decision:

1. This is one of the most important Supreme Court cases in American history.

The First Amendment is on trial, not Jack Phillips. If Phillips loses, free speech is effectively finished in this country. If a Christian business owner can be forced by the state to create something that goes against his deeply held religious beliefs — beliefs shared by a majority of the world, by the way — then what function does the First Amendment really serve?

Phillips doesn’t need the First Amendment when he makes a birthday cake. He doesn’t need it when he cooks a batch of brownies. He doesn’t need it when he’s doing innocuous things that no one — not even the gay lobby — could possibly find offensive or upsetting. He needs it precisely when he’s faced with the dilemma that Mullins and Craig presented. He needs it when he makes a decision, grounded in his religious convictions, which will be upsetting to a powerful group like the LGBT lobby. If he doesn’t have it then, he doesn’t have it at all.

If the Supreme Court decides in favor of the gay lobby, what next? If gays have a mystical right to force their fellow citizens to participate in their gay weddings, where does that right end? I’ll tell you: it doesn’t. If Phillips goes down, the churches will be next. And why not? If we’ve just established that gays are a special and superior class of human beings, and their desire for a cake decorated a particular way now must supersede everyone else’s First Amendment rights, why should the churches be exempt? Indeed, if Phillips doesn’t have the right to withhold his cake, why should the local priest have the right to withhold his church? He doesn’t, in that case. He won’t. Mark my words.

2. When First Amendment rights are pitted against LGBT rights, First Amendment rights should always win.

Because LGBT rights don’t exist. Your gayness does not come with special rights and privileges. Your sexual proclivities have no bearing on anything. We all have the same rights, or we should. That’s what “equal protection” means.

Phillips is not claiming any special rights. He is simply saying that he, like anyone, is entitled to use his artistic abilities in a way consistent with his personal and religious convictions. He doesn’t want to advance a message he doesn’t believe. It is his fundamental human right — not his Christian right, or his baker’s right, or any other kind of right — to refrain.

Mullins and Craig, on the other hand, are saying that a special exception must be made for them, specifically, because they’re gay. Notice how nobody is challenging (for now) Phillips’ right to continue turning down Halloween cakes and divorce cakes and lewd bachelorette party cakes, etc. Mullins and Craig are arguing that their situation is different because they’re gay. Whereas a man’s love for Halloween does not entitle him to special privileges and protections, a man’s sexual attraction to other men does. That’s the argument.

It’s deranged, arbitrary, and un-American.

3. The behavior of the gay couple in this case has been truly despicable.

Let’s be clear about the real victim in this situation. Phillips — the decent, hardworking Christian business owner, who employed members of his community and provided a valuable service — is the victim. He did not seek out this notoriety. He did not want to be at the center of a national controversy. He just wanted to make his cakes and live his life. He was a decent, normal man, living a decent, normal, inconspicuous life. Until Mullins and Craig walked in the door.

There were many bakeries they could have chosen. They just so happened to walk into the one bakery run by an openly devout Christian, asking for a flamboyantly decorated cake for their impending gay wedding. Was this just a coincidence? Did these two gay men accidentally stumble into the one bakery in Colorado that would refuse to make their cake?

Well, if that’s the case, then their response to Phillips can only be described as psychotic. If all they wanted was a cake, and their request was completely innocent, and they truly did not expect to be turned away, then their behavior over the following five years is inexplicable and deranged to an unbelievable extreme. They have, by this version of events, spent half a decade angrily exacting revenge on a man because he didn’t want to put gay-themed decorations on a dessert pastry. They have put their whole life on hold to pursue legal penalties against the guy who politely declined to adorn a cake with a rainbow and two plastic grooms. It’s vengeful and spiteful to an unfathomable degree. These are possibly the pettiest human beings to have ever walked the face of the Earth.

Or.

Or this was all calculated. They sought out Jack Phillips hoping to get exactly the response he gave them, and then they proceeded to use him as a pawn to advance their political agenda and destroy the rights of Christians in America. They are activists parading themselves around as an aggrieved and innocent married couple. I think this is the more accurate characterization. And it is entirely in keeping with how the gay lobby usually operates.

Either way, they’re the bullies here. They’re the villains of this drama. Phillips is an innocent man fighting for his right to live and work in peace, and in accordance with his faith.

May his cause prevail, for his sake and ours.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/24333/walsh-gay-couple-masterpiece-cakeshop-case-are-matt-walsh

by Guest Fri Dec 08, 2017 3:39 pm

WALSH: The Gay Lobby Is Fighting For Special Rights, Not Equal Rights

I have heard over and over again that the gay couple in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case are fighting for their “rights.” Curiously, nobody has been able to explain which rights, exactly.

What right did Jack Phillips violate by declining to decorate a wedding cake? Was it their right to cake? Well, even if such a right existed — it doesn’t but I wish it did because I love cake — he still would not have infringed upon it. He was willing to sell them any cake in the store. The only thing he couldn’t do, in good conscience, was decorate the cake to advance a message he finds morally objectionable.

What right, then? Their right to a custom-decorated cake? Now we’re getting strangely specific, aren’t we? But nobody is claiming that everyone has a right to custom designed dessert dishes. There seems to be a wide agreement that a Jewish baker is within his rights to decline to make a cake for a Nazi rally, and a black baker would be similarly justified in not designing a special cake to commemorate the next Klan meeting. In fact, cake designers have all sorts of parameters determining the kinds of cakes they will and won’t make, and nobody has ever had a problem with it. Clearly there is no right to cake, nor a right to a designed cake.

So, what right was infringed upon? Where is this right? Can someone point to it? Was it their right to be served? It’s true that we do generally have that right in modern America, though I don’t think we should and I certainly don’t think the Founders ever intended that we would. A business owner ought to be able to turn away anyone, at any time, for any reason. If it’s a bad or unkind reason, let the market punish him for it.

But that’s not the way things work in our “free” country. A person does, usually, basically, according to our modern laws, have the right to be served by an establishment that’s open to the public. Now here’s the good news: the gay couple were served. They were allowed to enter the store and they were allowed to purchase any item they desired. They could have walked right in and shouted, “We’re gay and we’re buying cookies!” And nobody would have stopped them from buying the cookies. Or cake. Or whatever they wanted. Phillips did not refuse to serve them. Rather, he refused to serve an event.

Ah. So that’s the right? They have a right to compel someone to provide a service, or create a product, for any event they’re planning? But wait. Nobody even pretends that this is a universal right. Again, it is understood that a Jew cannot be conscripted to serve a Nazi rally, a black person cannot be forced to serve a Klan meeting, a Muslim cannot be compelled to serve a conference of pork enthusiasts, a gay man cannot be told that he must create special cupcakes to be enjoyed at the next Westboro Baptist demonstration.

We see that every “right” so far suggested does not, and cannot, exist. But then comes the qualifier, and this appears to be the entire legal argument against Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop: you do not have these rights — unless you’re gay. The gay lobby is not seeking equal protection under the law. They already have it and then some. What they want are special protections.

This is not a matter of fundamental human rights, and they know it. Instead, they’ve lumped it into that vague, ever-changing and expanding category called “gay rights.” But there is no such thing. You are not bequeathed some unique set of rights based on your sexual proclivities. If the rest of us do not have the right to force a baker to make a custom designed cake for an event that he finds personally objectionable, neither do you.

There are no “gay rights,” “women’s rights,” “trans rights,” etc. Rights do not come in different styles and flavors. There are human rights, and only human rights, and we all share them. Free speech and freedom of religion are human rights. The right to custom cakes is a “gay right,” which is to say it is a non-existent, specialized right, meant to put one group above another. So, in this conflict between the two, “gay rights” must lose. It’s as simple as that.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/24379/walsh-gay-lobby-fighting-special-rights-not-equal-matt-walsh

by eddie Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:40 pm

Mr Phillips the cake-maker should come out of the business of cake-making because there clearly aren't enough customers he approves of.
The stupid twat.

by Guest Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:45 pm

eddie wrote:Mr Phillips the cake-maker should come out of the business of cake-making because there clearly aren't enough customers he approves of.
The stupid twat.

he was clearly successful until the militant wing of the LGBT regime ambushed him

by eddie Fri Dec 08, 2017 5:03 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
eddie wrote:Mr Phillips the cake-maker should come out of the business of cake-making because there clearly aren't enough customers he approves of.
The stupid twat.

he was clearly successful until the militant wing of the LGBT regime ambushed him

Good. Because he did pure fuckeries.

by HoratioTarr Fri Dec 08, 2017 5:33 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
eddie wrote:Mr Phillips the cake-maker should come out of the business of cake-making because there clearly aren't enough customers he approves of.
The stupid twat.

he was clearly successful until the militant wing of the LGBT regime ambushed him

Perhaps he'll learn the valuable lesson that sometimes expediency dictates a successful business.

by Maddog Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:43 pm

Didge wrote:
eddie wrote:

Anyone going to take this point?

This thread makes for interesting reading so far.

I aready did

You do not have to associate with people, but as a buisness, you cannot discriminate against a group of people.

Again

You can refuse a customer, as long as its not arbitrary or applying it to one group of people.

So you could refuse to serve anyone that wanted cakes that were based on hate and discrimination.

That would make it consistant to all customers

Making wedding cakes for only hetrosexuals, would be discrimination and prejudice. As its not consistant to all customers.

Of course it would be discrimination. That's what the word means. Having discriminating tastes means you choose one thing over another.

by Maddog Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:53 pm

eddie wrote:Mr Phillips the cake-maker should come out of the business of cake-making because there clearly aren't enough customers he approves of.
The stupid twat.

If that's the case, he won't make much money now will he? That's the beauty of the market. It punishes people who wont serve their fellow man well.

by Maddog Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:55 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

The cake man didn't refuse to serve them... he just refused to make a cake with the particular 'theme' they requested... as I'm sure he would have refused any other customer wanting that particular 'theme', regardless of any of the customers personal details...

So all customers treated equally... all can have as many cakes as they want... as long as they are within the range of 'themes'/styles that the cake man is willing to provide...!

And isn't that for cake man to decide...?

I bet there's loads of different cake design things he does do for people... so he's quite flexible really... as there are some places here in the SW of England where you can stop for a cream tea, but instead end up getting frog marched out of the place...

Just for asking them to put the jam on first...!!!

A technicality, tommy. If we couldn't have got our wedding cake from a place where a heterosexual couple could, we wouldn't be being treated equally.

Why in the fuck would you want to give this man your money?

by Guest Fri Dec 08, 2017 7:00 pm

Maddog wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

A technicality, tommy. If we couldn't have got our wedding cake from a place where a heterosexual couple could, we wouldn't be being treated equally.

Why in the fuck would you want to give this man your money?

quite!

by Maddog Fri Dec 08, 2017 7:29 pm

Didge wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Atheists often believe that the unborn have more rights than minerals and chemicals, so I don't know what religion has to do with this.

Do they?

That is news to me.

Again we already have the sanctioned and unsanctioned taking of life

The unborn cannot survive without the host and thus nobody should force that woman to carry something she does not want.

About 20% of atheists are pro life. I don't know if that's "often" or not.

I would imagine that their views on abortions as the term gets longer also changes, like religious people.

by Guest Fri Dec 08, 2017 7:30 pm

Maddog wrote:
Didge wrote:

I aready did

You do not have to associate with people, but as a buisness, you cannot discriminate against a group of people.

Again

You can refuse a customer, as long as its not arbitrary or applying it to one group of people.

So you could refuse to serve anyone that wanted cakes that were based on hate and discrimination.

That would make it consistant to all customers

Making wedding cakes for only hetrosexuals, would be discrimination and prejudice. As its not consistant to all customers.

Of course it would be discrimination. That's what the word means. Having discriminating tastes means you choose one thing over another.

Which means you will end up costing yourself over such foolishness.

Clearly the stupid pride of people over poor prejudice beliefs is the key to the problem

Where in fact like here, they would never discriminate others based on bibilical commands

The reality is that it has to be consistant to all, otherwiswe more fool that person that discriminates selectively

by Guest Fri Dec 08, 2017 7:32 pm

Maddog wrote:
Didge wrote:

Do they?

That is news to me.

Again we already have the sanctioned and unsanctioned taking of life

The unborn cannot survive without the host and thus nobody should force that woman to carry something she does not want.

About 20% of atheists are pro life. I don't know if that's "often" or not.

I would imagine that their views on abortions as the term gets longer also changes, like religious people.

You mean that 20% are pro choice but also anti-abortion.

You understand the position they hold here?

by Guest Fri Dec 08, 2017 7:34 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

he was clearly successful until the militant wing of the LGBT regime ambushed him

Perhaps he'll learn the valuable lesson that sometimes expediency dictates a successful business.

oh he is learning a lesson alright

the lesson of the LGBT hate mob

by Maddog Fri Dec 08, 2017 7:35 pm

Didge wrote:
Maddog wrote:

About 20% of atheists are pro life. I don't know if that's "often" or not.

I would imagine that their views on abortions as the term gets longer also changes, like religious people.

You mean that 20% are pro choice but also anti-abortion.

You understand the position they hold here?

Use whatever semantics that you like. You know what I meant.

by Maddog Fri Dec 08, 2017 7:36 pm

Didge wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Of course it would be discrimination. That's what the word means. Having discriminating tastes means you choose one thing over another.

Which means you will end up costing yourself over such foolishness.

Clearly the stupid pride of people over poor prejudice beliefs is the key to the problem

Where in fact like here, they would never discriminate others based on bibilical commands

The reality is that it has to be consistant to all, otherwiswe more fool that person that discriminates selectively

I support people's right to be fools.

by Guest Fri Dec 08, 2017 7:36 pm

Maddog wrote:
Didge wrote:

You mean that 20% are pro choice but also anti-abortion.

You understand the position they hold here?

Use whatever semantics that you like. You know what I meant.

I don't think that you do though Maddog

It means they are against criminalizing abortion and pro choice by law, but morally against abortion.

by Maddog Fri Dec 08, 2017 7:37 pm

Didge wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Use whatever semantics that you like. You know what I meant.

I don't think that you do though Maddog

It means they are against criminalizing abortion and pro choice by law, but morally against abortion.

Think what you like.

by Guest Fri Dec 08, 2017 7:38 pm

Maddog wrote:
Didge wrote:

I don't think that you do though Maddog

It means they are against criminalizing abortion and pro choice by law, but morally against abortion.

Think what you like.

I guess you did not realise their position.

So not knocking, just helping

by Victorismyhero Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:16 pm

one has to ask the following

would that baker refuse to make a "gay themed" cake for anyone

if so then one can reasonably suppose that he ISNT discriminating against gays specifically.

I can safely assume that the fact the poeple wanting the cake are gay is IRRELEVANT becasue of the following (reasonable supposition)

lets us examine whether a Muslim butcher could be forced to provide a pork joint

unlikely one would say since HIS argument would (reasonably) be that he is consistant and doesnt supply pork to ANYONE (and so is not discriminating) the fact that those who ask are non jews and non Muslims is IRRELEVANT.

in both cases the same argument applies

by Tommy Monk Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:18 pm

Exactly LF!

by Guest Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:24 pm

Lord Foul wrote:one has to ask the following

would that baker refuse to make a "gay themed" cake for anyone

if so then one can reasonably suppose that he ISNT discriminating against gays specifically.

I can safely assume that the fact the poeple wanting the cake are gay is IRRELEVANT becasue of the following (reasonable supposition)

lets us examine whether a Muslim butcher could be forced to provide a pork joint

unlikely one would say since HIS argument would (reasonably) be that he is consistant and doesnt supply pork to ANYONE (and so is not discriminating) the fact that those who ask are non jews and non Muslims is IRRELEVANT.

in both cases the same argument applies

I see stupidity is contagious here.

Since when did wanting a wedding cake make it a gay cake?

Did the cake fancy another cake of the same icing?

The point is on wedding cakes

Thus the consistency is on wedding events.

You do understand this and hence why the shop has to be consistant on such cakes with a policy.

Your last point had to be the most stupid of all.

I mean how would either a kosher or halal butcher even have pork to serve?

Again, consistency, both neither sell pork to anyone

by Victorismyhero Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:43 pm

Didge wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:one has to ask the following

would that baker refuse to make a "gay themed" cake for anyone

if so then one can reasonably suppose that he ISNT discriminating against gays specifically.

I can safely assume that the fact the poeple wanting the cake are gay is IRRELEVANT becasue of the following (reasonable supposition)

lets us examine whether a Muslim butcher could be forced to provide a pork joint

unlikely one would say since HIS argument would (reasonably) be that he is consistant and doesnt supply pork to ANYONE (and so is not discriminating) the fact that those who ask are non jews and non Muslims is IRRELEVANT.

in both cases the same argument applies

I see stupidity is contagious here.

Since when did wanting a wedding cake make it a gay cake?

well talking of stupidity you are doing a good job of sitting there right in it

he refused to make a "gay themed" wedding cake...not any wedding cake
therfore the question still remains
would he have refused to make a gay themed wedding cake for anyone

Did the cake fancy another cake of the same icing?

The point is on wedding cakes

Thus the consistency is on wedding events.

You do understand this and hence why the shop has to be consistant on such cakes with a policy.

Your last point had to be the most stupid of all.

clearly your intellect is failing ...since you are making the exact same point I did here

I mean how would either a kosher or halal butcher even have pork to serve?

Again, consistency, both neither sell pork to anyone

by Guest Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:57 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Didge wrote:

I see stupidity is contagious here.

Since when did wanting a wedding cake make it a gay cake?

well talking of stupidity you are doing a good job of sitting there right in it

he refused to make a "gay themed" wedding cake...not any wedding cake
therfore the question still remains
would he have refused to make a gay themed wedding cake for anyone

Did the cake fancy another cake of the same icing?

The point is on wedding cakes

Thus the consistency is on wedding events.

You do understand this and hence why the shop has to be consistant on such cakes with a policy.

Your last point had to be the most stupid of all.

clearly your intellect is failing ...since you are making the exact same point I did here

I mean how would either a kosher or halal butcher even have pork to serve?

Again, consistency, both neither sell pork to anyone

Lets deal with your stupidity, one point at a time.

Are you saying that marriage is unequal now?

That somehow marriage between gay people, is not a marriage then?

Its a wedding cake, a wedding theme cake

So are you suggesting that such marriages are not equal in law and that now a gay marriage is unequal?

You must be, as the policy has to be on making wedding cakes

You have to have a policy that is consistant.

To say you cannot make cakes for gay weddings, is you suggesting, that a marriage between the same sex is not a marriage and unequal by law.

As to suggest its gay themed, is ignoring its still a wedding cake.

Policies have to be consistant

Do you need a shovel to dig yourself out of looking a right wally?

By introducing a policy that denies only homosexuals a wedding cake, is not consistant.

As its just a wedding cake. What you are claiming is that somehow, that when Gays marry. That this some how makes it not a marriage at all.

I mean what next?

Are you going to claim that its a Black themed wedding, to deny two black people in love a wedding cake?

Who would have thought you could be so utterly dumb here?

Excuse me, what intellect?

Do you understand consistancy?

Clearly not.

The policy has to be apply to everyone

Are you telling me, you can buy meat from a vegitarian shop and they should serve you meat?

Did you swap your brain with Tommy?