Pretty terrible false equivalences there buddy

that is possibly true. at least the 2 liberals likely woujld have voted differently, i am not sure about kennedy

if he gave the reason "i dont like gay people" it would have gone against him too,

typical leftist answer


they are examples of a baker being allowed to refuse service for something he doesn't believe in

And its unlikely to set a terrible preference. The court made it VERY clear that this decision is for this case and this case ONLY and is due to a poorly worded ruling by Colorado.

Anybody who takes it to imagine that this sets a precedence in either direction doesn't know how to read a decision.

No they aren't. Would the baker bake a cake with Nazi propaganda on it for anyone other than a Nazi? If not, then your equivalence is false.

Would the baker bake a cake with the n word on it for anyone other than a white supremacist? If not, your equivalency is false.

Because the baker WOULD bake a wedding cake for anyone other than a gay couple. Find an equivalence to that and I won't call it terrible.

what if a baker was comfortable baking a cake with the n word for a black man but not for a white man

is that better?

Yes. If the baker was comfortable using the n word for a black customer but not a white customer, then he would be discriminating.

Any chance this is based on any type of real life example?

pretty telling and pathetic that the only comparisons you can think of to "being gay" are invocations of people who killed millions of people in a little thing called the Holocaust, and of the subjugation of an entire race in what is prooooobably the single greatest shame in the history of mankind

I mean, I'm sure to some people "being gay" is worse than those other things, but those some people are all terrible human beings, so...

Sniff... It's so nice to see Mets back posting.

Do you think it matters what excuse someone gives for being a bigot?

Like why do you think it being his “religious” views is somehow relevant?

Like yes it is ok to refuse to put swastikas on a cake.

No it’s not ok to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Why would anyone have a problem operating with these rules?

This is a hot take. You really want to die on that hill? The one where hating gay people is not bigotry?

I am not sure what point you are making. You are talking about contrived hypotheticals. Master is talking about something that actually happened in the real world. Come out of fantasy land and join us in reality

I don't understand how you can force someone to bake a cake. I mean, I know how Birdman would do it, but like in general.

mets, there are a lot of people in some more conservative religious paths that don't believe in marrying anyone outside their religion. Would it be okay for them to refuse to bake a cake for an interfaith wedding?

I mean, I don't think I'm being a knee jerk liberal about this. It's not like the government is forcing this guy's church to perform the ceremony. I agree that would be a violation of separation of church and state and religious freedom. But this is a basic denial of services based upon nothing more than who the service is being provided to, specifically the class of people that the service is being provided to. And that is discrimination, plain and simple. Nobody is telling this guy he can't even go demonstrate outside a church performing a gay wedding if that's what he feels impelled to do.

Would you support the state allowing denying a gay couple the right to rent an apartment because it violated the landlord's religious beliefs? What about denying an unmarried heterosexual couple the right to rent a place to live? What about a mixed race couple? I mean where does it stop?

If you want to operate a business in the public sphere, you treat your customers equally or face the wrath of the law. The gay couple's money is as good as anyone else's. And effectively, this guy told them that it wasn't. That based upon no more than who they were he wouldn't do for them what he does for a living. They weren't asking him to do anything for them that he wouldn't have done for anyone else who walked in the door. That he refused is shameful. And ugly.

It’s amazing to me that people can take away from Christianity that the important lessons are judging other people’s sex lives. I must have missed the parable of the accursed lesbian while I was at school.

And see, statements like this infuriate me too. That's what the legal system is there for. If you discriminate, you get sued and may lose your business. It's called deterrence, and for the most part it works pretty well.

Seems like if you ruled with an iron fist and made people do work they didn't want to, you might end up with a cake that is technically made and delivered, but on your wedding day you discover that the sugar has been mixed up with salt. You will need a mind reading device to prove intent there.

If you provide a service to other people, you should be allowed to refuse your services for no reason whatsoever.

I opened this thread just now..

Spoken like someone who has never been the guy not allowed to sit at the soda fountain counter.

ITT baking a wedding cake = baking a nazi cake

Sounds like mets is turning into one of those spicy 3rd wave feminists we're always hearing about

From what I understand he would have baked a non gay wedding cake for them. The same he'd bake for anyone else.

Wait this is like the only kind of argument you ever make? I point it out quite often.

Soon enough this will be no one. Only people over like fifty right now?

Also dismissing people because of who the are is a common way to try to leverage power over them.