Support NeoGAF

[Ubername]

Gerrymandering of districts is an example of a very zoomed out one that ultimately affects minorities in the end but isn't targeting them directly. A great portion of a state might vote Democrat but because of the way districts are drawn up, they'll be represented by way more Republicans. The way Republicans create laws in this day and age tend to favor big business, the wealthy, less government funding for programs that help people, and the like which negatively affect minorities because the vast majority of them either don't fit into the economic circles that benefit from those laws or they're losing benefits from those programs that are getting their funding pulled. There are a ton of other examples that can be brought up and I would suggest checking out the secondary or even tertiary problems some laws bring up.

I think it's funny how you try to frame it as republicans being the only ones who benefit from, and pass laws for big business. They're all motivated by the same shit. If you think one side is noble and is out to do something good, then I don't know what to tell you, because that's preposterous in politics, and you know it.

 

[Shouta]

I think it's funny how you try to frame it as republicans being the only ones who benefit from, and pass laws for big business. They're all motivated by the same shit. If you think one side is noble and is out to do something good, then I don't know what to tell you, because that's preposterous in politics, and you know it.

I can see where you infer that but I only pointed out that current Republicans are very much targeting very specific groups, including big business, with their policy making. I did not say the Democrats are more noble or anything.

 

[Vicetrailia]

I think it's funny how you try to frame it as republicans being the only ones who benefit from, and pass laws for big business. They're all motivated by the same shit. If you think one side is noble and is out to do something good, then I don't know what to tell you, because that's preposterous in politics, and you know it.

Yeah, but there are differences.

For example in the wake of mass job losses from offshoring jobs and education programs were created in order to help such laid off workers better themselves. A couple of these programs are around today, and despite the good they have done Republican lawmakers at large still have a problem with them because they cost money.

Democrats like these programs, and Republicans do too when they're using them, just not when they're not.

 

[mckmas8808]

The governement doesn't care about your skin color, only your wallet. Stop pretending policies that screw one economic group of people or the other are racist...

This is factually incorrect. Gov't has made it their business to care about skin color. 400 years of history demonstrates that. From slavery, to Jim Crow laws, to housing discrimination, to the war on drugs.

The gov't has always cared about skin color

My point is that we should boycott businesses or individuals that discriminate.

Didn't this guy discriminate?

 

[BANGS]

This is factually incorrect. Gov't has made it their business to care about skin color. 400 years of history demonstrates that. From slavery, to Jim Crow laws, to housing discrimination, to the war on drugs.

The gov't has always cared about skin color

-"Always"
-"Things that happened a long time ago and don't happen today"

Pick one...

 

[Tigress]

80% of America screams about "my prayers are with you, we're praying for you, pray for Los Vegas" pray for this and pray for that, but when it comes down to the actual belief of the religion then no one stands behind it. Kids in elementary school say the pledge of allegiance under God, the motto on our money is "In God we trust." This country was based on a Catholic/Christain religion, but when someone who actually believes in that faith holds true to his religion he's blackballed and sued!?

This baker showed no malice towards this couple and would of sold them any other cake because he holds no hatred towards them. In Catholic/Christain religion, a wedding is between a man and a woman. Him making specifically a wedding cake is him contributing to something that goes against what he believes. Nothing in his religion says he can't celebrate a gay persons birthday or graduation, hence why he would sell them a birthday cake, but his religion specifically states what marriage is to his belief.

Again, we're taking one person's rights away to cater to another person's right. There's no right and wrong to this I guess, but he shouldn't be forced to do something he doesn't believe in, and I don't understand why the couple is pushing him to do something he doesn't believe.

And this is why I don't like having "in god we trust" on our money and putting "under god" in the allegiance. This country was founded on freedom of religion and you can't have that if you can't have freedom from religion too. Religious slogans have absolutely no business in government/country things.

People don't understand why I think it's a big deal. It's a big deal cause it gives people like you some idea that we are supposed to be run as a Christian nation, not a nation that has freedom of religion. Freedom of religion doesn't just mean freedom for Christian religion.

 

[Dude Abides]

-"Always"
-"Things that happened a long time ago and don't happen today"

Pick one...

Drug war’s over guys, you heard it here first!

 

[BANGS]

Drug war’s over guys, you heard it here first!

What skin color do drugs have?

 

[Bolivar687]

What skin color do drugs have?

Depends if we're talking free base or powder.

 

[BANGS]

Depends if we're talking free base or powder.

lmfao my point exactly...

 

[Night Angel]

ITT we pretend institutionalized racism doesn't exist so we can be free to discriminate against the gays.

 

[Gen X]

Did the cake have any specific theme artistically that the baker didnt want to make?

https://youtu.be/niCiKpgeRYo

 

[WinterIsComing]

Supreme court sides with baker who refused to make gay wedding cake

 

[BANGS]

Supreme court sides with baker who refused to make gay wedding cake

Sad the judge didn't make a ruling on the issue overall. We can't keep wasting taxpayer money on these frivolous cases...

 

[appaws]

A very narrow ruling. Not surprising at all considering Roberts' temperament. He is highly averse to making a lot of sweeping decisions. Those commissioners in Colorado were just asking to be struck down with the intemperate language they used about the baker.

 

[Gexxy1]

Before leftists complain about the ruling, it was a 7-2 ruling. Two liberals on the court sided with the baker.

 

[infinitys_7th]

Supreme court sides with baker who refused to make gay wedding cake

Tom Perez, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said: “This case was never just about a wedding cake. It was about all people – no matter who they are – having the right to celebrate their love without facing discrimination. The Democratic party believes that no individual has a license to discriminate. We believe in the dignity of every human being. And we will continue to fight for equality for LGBTQ people in all areas of our society – from housing and healthcare, to bathrooms and boardrooms, to bakeries and the ballot box.”

I'm not sure how not having a cake from this specific baker is denying the couple a right to celebrate their marriage. You don't need a cake, but then I find a lot of customs to be, uh, commercially propagated.

Getting married? Give the bakers thousands of dollars for a crappy dry cake. Give the tailors thousands for a suit you may wear twice a year or a wedding dress you will never wear again. Why? Because bakers and tailors told people they were necessary for a wedding hundreds of years ago.

How is that really any different from how Santa Claus had been used in the US to commercialize Christmas, or from the diamond market? Just seems hollow to me.

 

[NickFire]

A very narrow ruling. Not surprising at all considering Roberts' temperament. He is highly averse to making a lot of sweeping decisions. Those commissioners in Colorado were just asking to be struck down with the intemperate language they used about the baker.

While it does kick the can down the road, I think its the proper approach to never go more broad than the case requires. Judges are not elected and need to avoid making law as much as possible.

 

[Bolivar687]

While it does kick the can down the road, I think its the proper approach to never go more broad than the case requires. Judges are not elected and need to avoid making law as much as possible.

I normally agree with this sentiment but it is disappointing to me that the Court would not resolve the tremendous implications this incident has on free speech, free exercise, and state anti-discrimination laws. Chief Justice Roberts not attaching his name it any of the concurrence suggests that he may be looking to replace Kennedy as centrist swing vote on the Court after Kennedy leaves.

There's just so much uncertainty here, which, it's really the Supreme Court's job to resolve.

 

[NickFire]

I normally agree with this sentiment but it is disappointing to me that the Court would not resolve the tremendous implications this incident has on free speech, free exercise, and state anti-discrimination laws. Chief Justice Roberts not attaching his name it any of the concurrence suggests that he may be looking to replace Kennedy as centrist swing vote on the Court after Kennedy leaves.

There's just so much uncertainty here, which, it's really the Supreme Court's job to resolve.

Some of the dicta I read (secondhand) may give states who are listening some really good direction. If states tailor their statutes and hearing procedures to reflect this, it could help prevent the issue from coming up again, at least from coming up very often. Basically, keep partisan political beliefs 100% out of the hearing process. When it comes to legitimate expression, freedom of religion prevails. But if the religious claim is not sincere, or the goods / services have nothing to do with bona fide expression, you cannot hide behind religious beliefs to discriminate.

 

[appaws]

Some of the dicta I read (secondhand) may give states who are listening some really good direction. If states tailor their statutes and hearing procedures to reflect this, it could help prevent the issue from coming up again, at least from coming up very often. Basically, keep partisan political beliefs 100% out of the hearing process. When it comes to legitimate expression, freedom of religion prevails. But if the religious claim is not sincere, or the goods / services have nothing to do with bona fide expression, you cannot hide behind religious beliefs to discriminate.

Sounds pretty reasonable, Justice CatsHateDogs.

 

[CampbellzSoup]

I support gay rights 100% and agree with the ruling.

 

[WaterAstro]

What I took from that article is that the baker was being aggressed on, so the aggressors will be at fault. Religious beliefs must also be protected, especially if the religious person in question remains passive.

If I remember the original article correctly, the baker had declined and offered other kinds of cakes. No hate of any kind, just trying to follow his beliefs.

 

[TTOOLL]

One more case blown out of proportion (fucking Supreme Court!!!), 7-2 tells us a LOT!

 

[LordPezix]

No worries, we got LIL DEBBIE bustin out these extra moist silky smooth cakes left and right. We got all the cake you could ever hope to bake.

Muthafuckas I can bake a cake.

 

[llien]

It was clear that the case could not be resolved without offending at least one of the two parties.

Surprised they chose to avoid offending the religious side.

 

[Dunki]

What I took from that article is that the baker was being aggressed on, so the aggressors will be at fault. Religious beliefs must also be protected, especially if the religious person in question remains passive.

If I remember the original article correctly, the baker had declined and offered other kinds of cakes. No hate of any kind, just trying to follow his beliefs.

Was it the same bakery that got shutdown and the couple got threaten with death threats and arson? This thing cold be so easily be solved in the couple seeking another business who wants to do it.

 

[womfalcs3]

It was clear that the case could not be resolved without offending at least one of the two parties.

Surprised they chose to avoid offending the religious side.

You were surprised that the proper outcome was reached?? The baker had as much right to deny service based on his religious beliefs as the couple did to marry.

 

[llien]

You were surprised that the proper outcome was reached?

Well, "proper" is quite subjective, is it not?

We are technically talking about discriminating against homosexual couple being acceptable, because some religion considers such people to be sinners.

 

[Whitecrow]

Im glad the baker won.

Fuck the LGTB people who thinks that they have universal rights for everything.

 

[Dunki]

Well, "proper" is quite subjective, is it not?

We are technically talking about discriminating against homosexual couple being acceptable, because some religion considers such people to be sinners.

Is it? he even tried to offer them an alternative and he was never unfriendly to them. The one who were really agressive was the gay couple. And if you have religous freedom how would you be able to solve it otherwise.

 

[Paasei]

He should be able to say he doesn't want certain clients, no matter how stupid it is that your religion (and therefore being against same sex marriage) is the reason behind it. It's his bakery and his time that is invested into making the cake. Can't force him to say he has to do it.

 

[mckmas8808]

He should be able to say he doesn't want certain clients, no matter how stupid it is that your religion (and therefore being against same sex marriage) is the reason behind it. It's his bakery and his time that is invested into making the cake. Can't force him to say he has to do it.

I don't think this is what the court is saying. Technically he said he would make them a "cake", just not a "wedding cake". Had he not offered them anything, then the baker would have lost this case.

 

[llien]

He should be able to say he doesn't want certain clients, no matter how stupid it... is

Well, replace "homosexual" with some race. Does it still fly?

 

[Bolivar687]

Well, replace "homosexual" with some race. Does it still fly?

Such a bullshit thought experiment.

If you're honestly under the impression that he didn't want to do business with sinners, then you really owe it to yourself to read what this case is about, before you start diluting the discussion with underinformed conjecture.

 

[llien]

If you're honestly under the impression that he didn't want to do business with sinners, then you really owe it to yourself to read what this case is about, before you start diluting the discussion with underinformed conjecture.

I actually did and if you descend from that moral high ground of yours, we could even discuss, which types of "certain clients' are meant in the sentence: "He should be able to say he doesn't want certain clients".

 

[Airola]

Well, replace "homosexual" with some race. Does it still fly?

If they don't make cakes for sinner, they would stop making them to anyone - including themselves. It's not about who is a sinner and who is not.

It's about marriage. They think marriage is a holy ceremony where a man and a female are made into one. They don't believe marriage is about two persons who love each other getting together. It's about a male and a female becoming one. Their wedding cakes are special cakes for a certain type of holy ceremony.

It has nothing to do with sin. It's about providing a special cake into a religious ceremony and to them same sex marriage isn't marriage in a religious sense.

They would certainly bake a cake for an interracial marriage as long as it's about a male and a female becoming one in a holy ceremony, so your comment about race makes zero sense and shows you have no idea why this was an issue to the bakery in the first place.

 

[Paasei]

Well, replace "homosexual" with some race. Does it still fly?

Apples and Oranges.

I don't think this is what the court is saying. Technically he said he would make them a "cake", just not a "wedding cake". Had he not offered them anything, then the baker would have lost this case.

I see now that I read and constructed it wrong. What I meant still goes, though, and it seems you think so as well.

OT:

Spoiler

I really don't know how to add multiple quotes without just "reply" and then copy paste that into my previous mode in "edit", rofl. Must be an easier that I somehow fail to understand.

 

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

Fuck the LGTB people who thinks that they have universal rights for everything.

lol. What does this even mean? The fact that we still treat people and their invisible sky deities different that we treat anyone else with invisible friends is hilarious.

 

[Dunki]

lol. What does this even mean? The fact that we still treat people and their invisible sky deities different that we treat anyone else with invisible friends is hilarious.

So can we do that to Islamic people as well? Tell them to fuck themselves when they wannt time for their prayers each day? We still have religious freedom if you want it or not. I am totally anti religion but we have these laws and he was never disrespectful to them

The only disrespectful people here was the gay couple.

 

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

So can we do that to Islamic people as well?

Why not? The state shouldn't show you any favor based on which imaginary friend you pray to.

Tell them to fuck themselves when they want time for their prayers each day?

Why not?

We still have religious freedom if you want it or not.

lol. ok.

I am totally anti religion but we have these laws and he was never disrespectful to them

If you offer a service, either offer it to everyone or don't offer it. Seems simple.

The only disrespectful people here was the gay couple.

How so?

 

[Dunki]

Why not? The state shouldn't show you any favor based on which imaginary friend you pray to.

Why not?

lol. ok.

If you offer a service, either offer it to everyone or don't offer it. Seems simple.

How so?

How so? How they reacted how they start up a mob so the bakery got death threats and threats of burning their shop down etc. He was firendly explained why he can not do it and then offered a other solution. HE was never unfriendly or disrespectful. As a human being even not agreeing with this person I would just leave and go to another bakery.

Also we have sstuff like girls night, in which women pay less there were cases of a bycicle shop not letting in white men because they want to create safe space for minorities etc. The oly thing he did not was making them a wedding cake they could have bought anything else.

 

[Hulk_Smash]

The baker is a liar.

I assume this is not a new business.

Does he have proof he's checked birth certificates and chromosomes for every wedding cake he's done before?

He doesn't? (He doesn't.)

He's lying. He doesn't know if people he's made cakes for before live up to his self-imposed rule that he applies without any kind of guideline.

It falls apart before you even get to him being a bigot.

Fairly certain if he knew it was a polygamy or incest he wouldn’t be making wedding cakes for them either.

Also, prove he is lying.

 

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

How they reacted how they start up a mob so the bakery got death threats and threats of burning their shop down etc.

What did they do aside from making a complaint with the appropriate agency?

Also we have sstuff like girls night, in which women pay less

That's how you get ladies to come to sausage parties.

there were cases of a bycicle shop not letting in white men because they want to create safe space for minorities

Citation needed.

 

[LegendOfKage]

lol. What does this even mean? The fact that we still treat people and their invisible sky deities different that we treat anyone else with invisible friends is hilarious.

It's somewhat ironic that you would say something this hateful about religion while using a Prince avatar.

 

[llien]

It's about marriage. They think marriage is a holy ceremony where a man and a female are made into one. They don't believe marriage is about two persons who love each other getting together. It's about a male and a female becoming one. Their wedding cakes are special cakes for a certain type of holy ceremony.

Are you arguing that being homosexual, engaging in sexual acts with people of your sex, is not a sin from Christian POV?

If they don't make cakes for sinner, they would stop making them to anyone - including themselves. It's not about who is a sinner and who is not.

It's not about people not being saint, but about the very act, for which cake is being made, being a sin and hence, the baker taking part of it, endorsing it.

Non-homosexual analogy would be asking him to make a, say, sex orgy cake, for, well, a sex orgy.
Wait, that's not spicy enough: a sex orgy with incest.

Apples and Oranges.

Okay, what about interracial marriage?

 

[Bolivar687]

I actually did and if you descend from that moral high ground of yours, we could even discuss, which types of "certain clients' are meant in the sentence: "He should be able to say he doesn't want certain clients".

 

[Dunki]

What did they do aside from making a complaint with the appropriate agency?

That's how you get ladies to come to sausage parties.

Citation needed.

They went on social media leading a vile social media mob and activists to this person.

Also
http://edmontonbikes.ca/services/bikeworks/women-transgender-program/

Even if men have an emergency with their bike they are getting send away.

What if a man comes by with a bike emergency or just needs a quick tube?
I was there Sunday and a cyclist came by pushing a bike with a flat tire, and I said, “I’m sorry, I can’t help you with that. You can go to our north shop.” Another guy stopped by looking for a snap ring for a project, and I had to tell him to come back tomorrow

 

[mckmas8808]

Okay, what about interracial marriage?

The courts are saying nobody in this country has to bake a wedding cake for any interracial marriages based on their religious beliefs.

 

[LegendOfKage]

The courts are saying nobody in this country has to bake a wedding cake for any interracial marriages based on their religious beliefs.

No, they're not. That's not a religious belief you can find anywhere in the Bible. Marriage being a holy union between a man and a woman united before God is definitely found in the Bible. It doesn't say anything about race.

There has to be an historical religious precedent, or religious freedom doesn't make any sense. For example, businesses may try to avoid a religious discrimination lawsuit by allowing certain religions exemptions from aspects of their dress code. But that doesn't mean someone can wear a "no fat chicks" trucker hat to work, and claim it's part of their religion.

Interestingly enough, some people were even exempt from social security cards when those started up, because they could prove that it violated their religious beliefs. You can't just make shit up as you go along. For example: