Support NeoGAF

[Two Words]

Naw, that's bullshit. Everyone had a right to make a living and to pursue their craft. I think baking is as valid an art as any so maybe that's why this don't sit well with me. Non-discrimation towards customers shouldn't carry over 1:1 to what those customers want. If you were to commission an artist to paint a painting that is in direct conflict with their personal beliefs, they shouldn't be penalised by the legal system for declining.



Lots of religious business owners don't sell alcohol or pork because that's against their religious beliefs and society is okay with that. edit; perhaps that's a bad analogy. Probably is. The point I'm getting at is that business owners are allowed to express their religious beliefs through not offering and declining to offer products that go against their creed. The baked goods in this scenario, or rather the theme of it, compromise the baker's religious views and I think they shouldn't be punished for it by the legal system. Is it shitty of them? Yes, but I don't think it should be illegal for them to exercise their freedom of religion by not facilitating beliefs in direct compromise with theirs. Even if I have moral objections.

This is a case of discriminating people, not a kind of cake.

 

[Frog-fu]

But the baker has discriminated here. He refused to serve the gay couple a wedding cake when he'd offer that same cake to a straight couple. If he served them a wedding cake that wouldn't go against his beliefs because doing that wouldn't automatically meant that he supported gay marriage. That'd just mean that he made a wedding cake for someone.

Think of it this way, what if the wedding cake was already made and on display in the shop. The guy can't just go "no you can't buy that, it's a wedding cake" to a gay couple interested in purchasing it.

The baker isn't denying service to homosexuals fullstop. They are refusing to fulfill orders that contradict their religious beliefs. It's not the same thing. If a straight couple came into the store and asked the baker to bake the same cake there is nothing to suggest the baker wouldn't refuse them simply because they're straight.

If the baker did the bold, then he should absolutely be penalised by the legal system. 100% would support any ruling that made them suffer the consequences because then they would be discrimating against the costumers by not letting them buy a product in his store because they're gay.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I said they should have the right.

Which they should.

Misread that part my bad

Disagree that they should tho

If you sell wedding cakes to straight couple you have to sell to gay couples

 

[Voysa Reezun]

Great idea:

I'm a black dude, but that unnecessary apostrophe actually might piss me off even more than the sentiment of the sign or what it represents.

Fucking shit man. Plural, not possessive. PLURAL, NOT POSSESSIVE.

 

[Armaros]

The baker isn't denying service to homosexuals fullstop. They are refusing to fulfill orders that contradict their religious beliefs. It's not the same thing. If a straight couple came into the store and asked the baker to bake the same cake there is nothing to suggest the baker wouldn't refuse them simply because they're straight.

If the baker did the bold, then he should absolutely be penalised by the legal system. 100% would support any ruling that made them suffer the consequences because then they would be discrimating against the costumers by not letting them buy a product in his store because they're gay.

And those beliefs just so happen to mean that he wont sell wedding cakes to gay people.

Segregationists used Religious beliefs for denying service to blacks. So you believe Segregation should have been upheld because of Religious beliefs?

 

[Cyan]

The baker isn't denying service to homosexuals fullstop. They are refusing to fulfill orders that contradict their religious beliefs. It's not the same thing. If a straight couple came into the store and asked the baker to bake the same cake there is nothing to suggest the baker wouldn't refuse them simply because they're straight.

Dude, what? He explicitly refused to make the cake because it was for a gay wedding. He would be absolutely fine with making a cake for a straight wedding. That's the entire point here.

 

[ElectricBlanketFire]

The baker isn't denying service to homosexuals fullstop. They are refusing to fulfill orders that contradict their religious beliefs.

This logically makes no sense.

How does baking a cake show you support gay marriage?

 

[Frog-fu]

This is a case of discriminating people, not a kind of cake.

Misread that part my bad

Disagree that they should tho

If you sell wedding cakes to straight couple you have to sell to gay couples

If it's just a standard wedding cake the baker would sell to any straight couple, the baker should absolutely have to serve gay couples.

If a gay couple commissions a custom made cake that goes against the baker's religious belief - which is what I thought this case was about - then I think it should be okay for the baker to decline to bake that cake.

We can agree to disagree. I just hope no one takes my posts the wrong way.

 

[Divvy]

The baker isn't denying service to homosexuals fullstop. They are refusing to fulfill orders that contradict their religious beliefs. It's not the same thing. If a straight couple came into the store and asked the baker to bake the same cake there is nothing to suggest the baker wouldn't refuse them simply because they're straight.

If the baker did the bold, then he should absolutely be penalised by the legal system. 100% would support any ruling that made them suffer the consequences because then they would be discrimating against the costumers by not letting them buy a product in his store because they're gay.

That's not how wedding cakes work. People don't buy wedding cakes from a display. They have to be ordered beforehand. To deny them that to them is basically the same thing as not being able to buy a product on display because they are gay.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

If it's just a standard wedding cake the baker would sell to any straight couple, the baker should absolutely have to serve gay couples.

If a gay couple commissions a custom made cake that goes against the baker's religious belief - which is what I thought this case was about - then I think it should be okay for the baker to decline to bake that cake.

We can agree to disagree. I just hope no one takes my posts the wrong way.

What custom features of a wedding cake would deem it "gay"? Like, if it has the names of the two people getting married, they just happen to be two male names? If that's the case I don't think his moral objections would hold water. He has to provide equal service to all customers. If he customizes cakes for straight couples he has to customize them for gay couples in the same way.

 

[Voysa Reezun]

On this topic: You can have your own religious beliefs, but once you open a business to the public that uses public resources to run (roads, sewers, etc.), leave those beliefs at home or at church or amongst your coffee meetings with friends where you talk about religion and philosophy.

If this dude doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, he can GTFO of the bakery business. He doesn't get to profit from public infrastructure and deny customers solely for religious reasons.

 

[ElectricBlanketFire]

If it's just a standard wedding cake the baker would sell to any straight couple, the baker should absolutely have to serve gay couples.

If a gay couple commissions a custom made cake that goes against the baker's religious belief - which is what I thought this case was about - then I think it should be okay for the baker to decline to bake that cake.

We can agree to disagree. I just hope no one takes my posts the wrong way.

It's not a matter of agree or disagree. You're all over the map.

Are you seriously suggesting a plain white cake is okay but not a "custom gay cake?" What does that even mean?

 

[mr2xxx]

If it's just a standard wedding cake the baker would sell to any straight couple, the baker should absolutely have to serve gay couples.

If a gay couple commissions a custom made cake that goes against the baker's religious belief - which is what I thought this case was about - then I think it should be okay for the baker to decline to bake that cake.

We can agree to disagree. I just hope no one takes my posts the wrong way.

Nah we get it, discrimination based on sexuality is a-ok in your book.

 

[Shaffield]

if this guy was a real Christian he would stop baking wedding cakes permanently now that the blissful sanctity of marriage has been ruined and the ceremony now represents perversion and fornication in the eyes of the Lord

 

[Christopher]

I agree with other posters they weren't invited to attend of go to their wedding and what about any other cake would make this a gay cake outside maybe he topper

 

[pgtl_10]

I'm always shocked that something like this goes to court. If I were the gay couple, and some place told me they wouldn't make my gayke, my first reaction would be to go somewhere else. Even if I got a court to order a baker to make it for me, I would just assume it wouldn't be a good quality or that it was tampered with.

That's not the purpose of the suit.

 

[Frog-fu]

And those beliefs just so happen to mean that he wont sell wedding cakes to gay people.

Segregationists used Religious beliefs for denying service to blacks. So you believe Segregation should have been upheld because of Religious beliefs?

Dude, what? He explicitly refused to make the cake because it was for a gay wedding. He would be absolutely fine with making a cake for a straight wedding. That's the entire point here.

I think the principle extends beyond wedding cakes for gay couples. If he were to deny them, say, a Halloween cake because they were gay, that'd be discriminating against the person, as stated by the law. But I don't think the baker is discrimating against the person by denying to bake them a cake for an event or celebration he disagrees with because of his religious beliefs.

The baker is a bigot, but I don't think his reasoning should be made punishable by law.

This logically makes no sense.

How does baking a cake show you support gay marriage?

It doesn't, at least I wouldn't to me, but if that's how the baker feels we can't make them feel differently.

That's not how wedding cakes work. People don't buy wedding cakes from a display. They have to be ordered beforehand. To deny them that to them is basically the same thing as not being able to buy a product on display because they are gay.

Yeah I should have left the "wedding" part out. For some reason in my mind I treated the wedding cake as just any other generic cake you can just buy over the counter like a pastry or whatever.

 

[Couleurs]

The only difference is that this dude is a white christian and in today's climate it's perfectly okay and safe to shit on what ever beliefs or practices a christian may have.

Won't someone please think of the oppression straight white Christians have to suffer through in this country?

 

[Confidence Man]

If it's just a standard wedding cake the baker would sell to any straight couple, the baker should absolutely have to serve gay couples.

If a gay couple commissions a custom made cake that goes against the baker's religious belief - which is what I thought this case was about - then I think it should be okay for the baker to decline to bake that cake.

We can agree to disagree. I just hope no one takes my posts the wrong way.

The baker can decline as an employee, the business can't.

Your personal bullshit beliefs are irrelevant when it comes to doing business in the US.

 

[pgtl_10]

That cake looks delicious. Anybody know where I can get one?

 

[Ninja Scooter]

I think the principle extends beyond wedding cakes for gay couples. If he were to deny them, say, a Halloween cake because they were gay, that'd be discriminating against the person, as stated by the law. But I don't think the baker is discrimating against the person by denying to bake them a cake for an event or celebration he disagrees with because of his religious beliefs.

The baker is a bigot, but I don't think his reasoning should be made punishable by law.



It doesn't, at least I wouldn't to me, but if that's how the baker feels we can't make them feel differently.

I don't think you are getting the point of this, at all. He can deny making a Halloween cake for a gay patron so long as he is simply not in the business of making Halloween cakes and doesn't make them for any one. If his business is making wedding cakes he needs to provide that service to customers of all classes regardless of what he thinks about them or their lifestyle or what they might be using that cake for, otherwise he is breaking the law and absolutely be punished. People look at this shit lightly because it's always a relatively harmless business like a bakery. "Oh who cares just get your cake somewhere else" when the point is precedence. Replace baker with pharmacy and how would you feel about customers being denied medications because they were gay?

 

[speculawyer]

Link.

PLEASE NOTE: Cake photo is meant to illustrate the story and may not represent final gayness levels of actual cake.

That cake is awesome. It is fabulously gay. Love it.


Phillips has maintained that he has no problem serving gay people at his store but says that making a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding would violate his Christian beliefs.

So does this guy actually think that it is the cake that makes the marriage legal? So if you have a wedding without a cake then people wouldn't be really married.

 

[Two Words]

This is exactly how I feel.



Yes. I'm also okay with businesses refusing to serve whites if they so desire. It's their business, they should be able to pick and choose who they serve. There's obviously plenty of other alternatives.

I'd rather the business owners put their beliefs out in the open for the simple reason being that I'd rather support and give money to a business that shares the same world view that I do.

In the case of this baker, he clearly doesn't agree with gay marriage for whatever reason. Why should someone give him their money when there's more than likely plenty of bakers who would be more than happy to make your rainbow cake? I'd rather someone be honest and say "No, I don't like you!" then put on a mask and pretend they do.



No, because that's dangerous and could potentially result in someone getting killed.

There is a flaw with this logic. A private business owner very well could have paid for their business all on their own, but that isn't the end of it. Businesses benefit from public ally paid infrastructures like roads, police, fire departments, government-funded progress in expanded communications, public education, etc. these businesses are using these public services that are paid by everybody. And the truth is that the businesses are getting a lot of help from public dollars. With that in mind, it should not be in a business owner's right to deny a patron who has actually helped make that business owner's business exist due to discrimination. If somebody truly wants to operate under their own power and discriminate all they want, then they'd have to basically operate outside of all government infrastuctre benefits. So I guess if you find a place to do that and pay for everything that you'd ever need and don't expect any government assistance in any way, then feel free to discriminate.

 

[Cyan]

I think the principle extends beyond wedding cakes for gay couples. If he were to deny them, say, a Halloween cake because they were gay, that'd be discriminating against the person, as stated by the law. But I don't think the baker is discrimating against the person by denying to bake them a cake for an event or celebration he disagrees with because of his religious beliefs.

Ok. But this exact same principle can be used to argue that gay people shouldn't be able to get married at all. In fact, it was used for exactly that. "There's no discrimination here, a gay person can still get married just like everyone else, just not to someone of the same sex." It's the same logic. We decided (as a country via popular opinion and legally via the Supreme Court) that this was faulty, that saying that gay people could get married but not to each other was in fact discriminatory.

It's the same situation here. "You can get any other cake, just not a gay wedding cake. No discrimination here, I would totally make you a straight wedding cake even though you're gay, I don't mind that at all, just not for a gay wedding." It's an attempt at a loophole that just doesn't hold water.

What's the end result? In the first case, that for all intents and purposes gay people can't get married. In the second case, that for all intents and purposes gay people are barred from buying a wedding cake from this bakery. It's discriminatory.

 

[MHWilliams]

Discrimination has been around for ever, it wasn't magically invented in the early to mid 1900s. It's never going away, it's always going to be a thing.

If for whatever reason not serving minorities (or majorities, as odd as that would be) gains Mr.BusinessOwner business, maybe it's time to pack up and leave. If you're living a place where people clearly don't want you there, why would you willingly stay there knowing that there's plenty of places that will?

With 80% of the US population living in urban areas, the chances of you living in a small town where literally every business discriminates against you is probably going to be pretty low.

I'd rather people be completely honest with their beliefs then pretend everything is sunshine and rainbows.

It's not pretending everything is sunshine and rainbows. In fact, it's the opposite. The government long ago decided that people deserve the same commercial service regardless of their race, gender, religion, or whatever. This is largely due to actions that happened during segregation, where black people would not receive service equal to white people and in fact, doing so would improve a person's business.

We as a society have decided that's not good.

You are attempting to conflate this with the idea that "we're trying to hide discrimination", which is disingenuous at best. If you wish to run a business in the United States, you can not operate that business with discriminatory practices. This bakery did so. It had it's day in court. It lost.

This bakery can continue to display its ignorance, as long as it makes the cake.

 

[BamfMeat]

Look, you can't deny a cake to a black couple because they're black, even if it "goes against your religion". It's the same here - you can't deny a gay couple a wedding cake if a straight couple were to come in and request the exact same cake and you would sell it to them.

Either sell it or don't - there is no "sometimes" here.

 

[besada]

The baker has the right to bake what they want and serve who they want serve - just like anyone else - so long as they don't discriminate against costumers, which, as far as I know, this baker hasn't done.

So long as they are willing to serve everyone, they should still have the right to deny them goods that go against his religious beliefs.

You should probably understand the law better. Proprietors are required to offer all services equally to customers. If they make wedding cakes, they can't decide not to make wedding cakes for someone in a protected class. Refusing to make a wedding cake for one customer because they are gay, is a violation of law in Colorado, because it violates that part of the law that requires a proprietor to offer equal service to all customers.

An example: I run a bar and get the idea to offer a particular drink -- the panty dropper -- to women, and I refuse to serve it to men. I've just broken the law.

Alternate example: I run a bar and a guy walks in and asks me to make him a Flaming Jesus Fucks a Bear. I've never heard of this drink, and I find the name of it offensive, so I refuse to make it. Not just for the guy, and not because he's a guy. I refuse to make it for anyone. I am well within the bounds of the law.


By the way, there's nothing stopping the owner from telling people he would rather not serve them but is required to by the law. It's perfectly legal to make customers feel unwelcome, so long as you serve them. There's another fascinating loophole that I keep waiting for these mouth-breathers to figure out, too. The same laws that make it illegal to negatively discriminate against customers do allow positive discrimination. So it's legal to offer women half-price drinks (or men, or gay people, or old people, or handicapped people), which is positive discrimination.

So, the enterprising cake baker would price everything in his shop at +300% mark up and then give Christians and straight people 300% discount on everything. Never been tested in court with those specifics (lady's night drinks have) but I suspect it would hold up, or force a rethink in the letter of the law.

 

[Frog-fu]

Ok. But this exact same principle can be used to argue that gay people shouldn't be able to get married at all. In fact, it was used for exactly that. "There's no discrimination here, a gay person can still get married just like everyone else, just not to someone of the same sex." It's the same logic. We decided (as a country via popular opinion and legally via the Supreme Court) that this was faulty, that saying that gay people could get married but not to each other was in fact discriminatory.

It's the same situation here. "You can get any other cake, just not a gay wedding cake. No discrimination here, I would totally make you a straight wedding cake even though you're gay, I don't mind that at all, just not for a gay wedding." It's an attempt at a loophole that just doesn't hold water.

What's the end result? In the first case, that for all intents and purposes gay people can't get married. In the second case, that for all intents and purposes gay people are barred from buying a wedding cake from this bakery. It's discriminatory.

I didn't look at it from that view, which makes the support for this ruling make a lot more sense to me.

I am still sympathetic to the sentiment that religious people shouldn't be forced to do something they feel compromise their beliefs but the best I can do right now is admit I have a lot to reflect on.

 

[Scrabble]

it would also violate his religious beliefs to make a cake for a catholic, hindu, muslim, atheist/agnostic, mormon, or any other religious wedding if his standard is "no wedding cakes for weddings i don't personally believe in". he should also refuse to make divorce cakes, cakes for birthday parties if the children's parents are unmarried or divorced, and a million other things.

yet i would wager a lot of money that he would not have had any problem making any of those cakes and probably has in the past.

I wasn't responding to the idea of a baker denying a plain wedding cake for a gay weeding, but rather a specifically themed cake that violates his beliefs. A scenario separate from the one in the op, which I mistakenly believed to be the issue. His ideological contradictions don't mean anything as far as the law is concerned.

So youre gonna ignore it was just a regular fucking wedding cake? All he had to do was make the cake that looked EXACTLY like any other wedding cake.

No, I was responding to the idea of a baker refusing a very specific type of cake on the merits it violates his beliefs.

This is the stupidest thing I've read all day. The fact that you're equivocating a flag created explicitly to signify the denial of civil rights and equality to a flag created to celebrate civil rights and equality proves just how out of touch you are. As a white person, you are an embarrassment to me. Stop looking for excuses for your hate. Nobody is listening to that crap any more.


If the baker is willing to serve everyone, he cannot then turn around and deny that service while claiming he's in the right. That is discrimination.

This is why we cant have rational discourse. I just knew someone was going to make that connection. Which is why I sad

One is a symbol for gay pride and the other is a symbol for hate. Their both distinctions regardless of one being hateful and one being about pride and acceptance. Simplifying someone's religious belief and saying "it's just a cake" is not the right argument to make because obviously the symbol of gay pride doesn't jive with the owner. Just like if I was a bakery, making a cake with a swastika wouldn't jive very well me either. Doesn't mean I wouldn't serve a cake to a white supremacist, just that I wouldn't offer a swastika styled cake. And before someone comes out and says "so you're comparing white supremacy to gay pride" no I'm not. Please try to closely examine and interpret an argument with logic before letting your ideology prevent you from rational discourse.

Likewise I'm not equating the meaning of the confederate flag to that of gay pride. Making a comparison between two things is not equating the two. If I set up a scenario where a black bakery owner refuses to offer a confederate cake, and a christian baker refuses a gay pride themed cake it doesn't mean I'm equating the two. It just means both are valid under the law. How does this make me hateful? You people are insane with the lengths some of y'all go to in order to decontextualize an argument into nothing more than a personal attack as to avoid discourse, and would strongly benefit by putting an effort to put your ideology behind you for just a little bit in order to have a logical discussion that doesn't involve me having to defend my self from being homophobic.

 

[partyphone]

I didn't look at it from that view, which makes the support for this ruling make a lot more sense to me.

I am still sympathetic to the sentiment that religious people shouldn't be forced to do something they feel compromise their beliefs but the best I can do right now is admit I have a lot to reflect on.

sure they shouldn't. but making a cake for a gay couple doesn't even come close to meeting any reasonable definition compromising belief. all this religious freedom rhetoric is a poor attempt to rationalize bigotry and doesn't actually have anything to do with religion.

 

[Two Words]

You should probably understand the law better. Proprietors are required to offer all services equally to customers. If they make wedding cakes, they can't decide not to make wedding cakes for someone in a protected class. Refusing to make a wedding cake for one customer because they are gay, is a violation of law in Colorado, because it violates that part of the law that requires a proprietor to offer equal service to all customers.

An example: I run a bar and get the idea to offer a particular drink -- the panty dropper -- to women, and I refuse to serve it to men. I've just broken the law.

Alternate example: I run a bar and a guy walks in and asks me to make him a Flaming Jesus Fucks a Bear. I've never heard of this drink, and I find the name of it offensive, so I refuse to make it. Not just for the guy, and not because he's a guy. I refuse to make it for anyone. I am well within the bounds of the law.


By the way, there's nothing stopping the owner from telling people he would rather not serve them but is required to by the law. It's perfectly legal to make customers feel unwelcome, so long as you serve them. There's another fascinating loophole that I keep waiting for these mouth-breathers to figure out, too. The same laws that make it illegal to negatively discriminate against customers do allow positive discrimination. So it's legal to offer women half-price drinks (or men, or gay people, or old people, or handicapped people), which is positive discrimination.

So, the enterprising cake baker would price everything in his shop at +300% mark up and then give Christians and straight people 300% discount on everything. Never been tested in court with those specifics (lady's night drinks have) but I suspect it would hold up, or force a rethink in the letter of the law.

If you give somebody a 300% discount, then you're paying them twice the inflated cost to take your stuff. I think you meant ~66.66666% discount after the 300% inflation

 

[Monocle]

This is the stupidest thing I've read all day. The fact that you're equivocating a flag created explicitly to signify the denial of civil rights and equality to a flag created to celebrate civil rights and equality proves just how out of touch you are. As a white person, you are an embarrassment to me. Stop looking for excuses for your hate. Nobody is listening to that crap any more.

OK but what exactly is the difference between gay people who want equal treatment and, say, racists, murderers, pedophiles, and animal molesters? All of these groups are exactly the same at face value, right? All of them have exactly the same effect on society, and since they're all united in perversion they should be judged and treated in exactly the same way. Or is it possible I'm missing something?

 

[partyphone]

OK but what exactly is the difference between gay people who want equal treatment and, say, racists, murderers, pedophiles, and animal molesters? All of these groups are exactly the same at face value, right? All of them have exactly the same effect on society, and since they're all united in perversion they should be judged and treated in exactly the same way. Or is it possible I'm missing something?

I...what? I think you are missing something? Or maybe I'm missing something? How are gay people perverted?

 

[xKilltheMx]

No, I was responding to the idea of a baker refusing a very specific type of cake on the merits it violates his beliefs.

So you werent even responding to the OP situation? weird...

 

[Two Words]

OK but what exactly is the difference between gay people who want equal treatment and, say, racists, murderers, pedophiles, and animal molesters? All of these groups are exactly the same at face value, right? All of them have exactly the same effect on society, and since they're all united in perversion they should be judged and treated in exactly the same way. Or is it possible I'm missing something?

 

[Chmpocalypse]

Link.

PLEASE NOTE: Cake photo is meant to illustrate the story and may not represent final gayness levels of actual cake.

Heh.

"I have no problem with you in my store but get out of my store."

GOOD.

 

[LiquidSword]

OK but what exactly is the difference between gay people who want equal treatment and, say, racists, murderers, pedophiles, and animal molesters? All of these groups are exactly the same at face value, right? All of them have exactly the same effect on society, and since they're all united in perversion they should be judged and treated in exactly the same way. Or is it possible I'm missing something?

Are you outing yourself as a homophobe or is it possible I'm missing something?

 

[aeolist]

poe's law guys

 

[Monocle]

I...what? I think you are missing something? Or maybe I'm missing something? How are gay people perverted?

Are you outing yourself as a homophobe or is it possible I'm missing something?

The sarcasm isn't obvious enough? Well, given some of the views I've seen in this thread, I can't really blame you.

 

[Tarydax]

OK but what exactly is the difference between gay people who want equal treatment and, say, racists, murderers, pedophiles, and animal molesters? All of these groups are exactly the same at face value, right? All of them have exactly the same effect on society, and since they're all united in perversion they should be judged and treated in exactly the same way. Or is it possible I'm missing something?

Racists, murderers, pedophiles, and animal molesters have the same effect on society as gay people?

What the fuck am I reading?

Edit: It was sarcasm, nevermind.

 

[xKilltheMx]

OK but what exactly is the difference between gay people who want equal treatment and, say, racists, murderers, pedophiles, and animal molesters? All of these groups are exactly the same at face value, right? All of them have exactly the same effect on society, and since they're all united in perversion they should be judged and treated in exactly the same way. Or is it possible I'm missing something?

Just caught this.
What in gods name am I seeing here? What the fuck. You need to explain.

The sarcasm isn't obvious enough? Well, given some of the views I've seen in this thread, I can't really blame you.

Holy shit thank you.
It really did blend in with the thread.

 

[FortuneFaded]

The sarcasm isn't obvious enough? Well, given some of the views I've seen in this thread, I can't really blame you.

The fact that you have a rainbow inspired avatar should give people a hint.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

If he eventually goes out of business or loses money, what's the problem then? He loses either way, society has spoken.

Because the people who he wouldn't serve were still treated like garbage and subject to denial of service based on something as irelevant as skin tone. And fine, he went out of business but what about all the thrivimg ones that would be blatantly exclusive and work to segregate the communuty. You're being silly if you think the majority is gonna becott something they like, want or need for the minority.

 

[Ke0]

and let the public recognize him for the shithead he is, and put him out of business.

Yea that worked oh so well for Black Americans...all those companies that went out of business for refusing to serve Black Americans, I think that led to the American Great Depression?

 

[Omegasquash]

OK but what exactly is the difference between gay people who want equal treatment and, say, racists, murderers, pedophiles, and animal molesters? All of these groups are exactly the same at face value, right? All of them have exactly the same effect on society, and since they're all united in perversion they should be judged and treated in exactly the same way. Or is it possible I'm missing something?

So...

One of these things is not like the other,
One of these things just doesn't belong.

Edit: And now I see the colors on the avatar. Well done, Monacle. Well done.

 

[partyphone]

The fact that you have a rainbow inspired avatar should give people a hint.

it looks more purple and green which would mean gamergate.

 

[Scrabble]

So you werent even responding to the OP situation? weird...

well I was responding to this

Ah, I think I see now...

A plain cake for a heterosexual couple getting married is okay.
A plain cake for a homosexual couple getting married is okay.
A rainbow cake for a heterosexual couple getting married is okay (but pushing it)
A rainbow cake for a homosexual couple getting married...

BREEEEEEE!!!! BREEEEEEEEEE!!!! DOUBLE RAINBOW 1ST AMENDMENT ALARM!!!!

Sorry, no sale.

after having made the argument in multiple posts prior that a bakery owner doesn't have to provide a gay pride themed cake if it violates his beliefs. I wasn't arguing that the owner can deny service to a gay couple if a plain cake is used in a gay wedding, which is the scenario outlined in the op. I made a mistake and wrongly thought the former scenario is what was being debated.

 

[ElectricBlanketFire]

Monocle couldn't have been more sarcastic if he tried.

 

[Two Words]

If he eventually goes out of business or loses money, what's the problem then? He loses either way, society has spoken.

What about a small town that has only a few stores and the racist population doesn't fight against the shared racist views?

 

[Boy Wander]

OK but what exactly is the difference between gay people who want equal treatment and, say, racists, murderers, pedophiles, and animal molesters? All of these groups are exactly the same at face value, right? All of them have exactly the same effect on society, and since they're all united in perversion they should be judged and treated in exactly the same way. Or is it possible I'm missing something?

Am I drunk or did you just put gay people in the same bracket as criminals. Child sex criminals at that!

EDIT: Wow that's some pretty hardcore level sarcasm.