Support NeoGAF

[Kule]

Thread's been in gaming for almost 4 hours now. Is that a record?

 

[bevishead]

If in spite of the ramification clearly outlined in that you still hold to your notion that it's okay to turn away when being discriminated against because of other potential avenues and then complain about others who choose to stand and fight the discrimination for themselves and others then I have nothing more to say.

Worse still you use your use your claim of interracial relationship and whataboutism in the previous posts as crutches for your close to apathetic attitude.

And this "not a topic for internet" argument holds no water when you're knee deep in it trying to justify one side's actions.



This forum truly has taken a turn to the hard right.

Its not about being part of the hard right. Its about people having different opinions. Its also about this place not being enmeshed in group think. I don't think it is ok for any business owner to be forced to do anything. People should have the right to refuse service for any reason. What they should be punished for is stating they aren't serving someone based on race, religion, sexual orientation, nationality, etc. That should come with a fine for every occurrence, but still not be forced. Customers can vote with their wallet.

 

[Ecto311]

From the article:

The article doesn't show the other side. If people who support gay marriage (and I do) get wind of this then the market will not provide sales to that place. The other side is people will find places that do support their sale and give them whatever they want. It could also spur a new cake place that specializes in just gay cakes and have the right to make just those. It could also shut down this dude because enough people stop going there.

I am 100% against making anyone do anything. I am also agnostic/atheist so doing something based on religion is silly to me personally. I just can't get behind making a business do anything for any reason. Let the money dictate what they do not the government or a court.

 

[xStoyax]

It doesn't matter what the result is going to be, the baker will lose in the end. Social media is just going to get the entire town to boycott his business, and he'll be forced to close shop or something.

OP says this started in 2012....

 

[DR2K]

I think that as a salesman, you should be able to refuse any customer for any reason.

Until they start refusing service to straight white males that is.

 

[dorisdelay]

Good we live in 2017 its clear that is was because the couple where gay or wanted a gay themed cake either one is not a problem for a Modern member of sociaty

Nice ad-hominem. I am not opposed to gay marriage, but the baker has a right not to engage in this sale if he disagrees with what he has to write on the cake. If i went to a Muslim sign maker with a request to get a sign made that says "ban the burqa" do you believe he should create that sign even if it interferes with his fundamental beliefs?

Seriously, if the baker in question used anti-gay slurs against the guys or just shooed them out the shop then I would be totally against the guy, but he has to have some right to freedom of expression as long as it's not hateful.

edit: I think a more concise way of thinking about this is that if he turned them down solely because they were gay then it would be a crime, but as it stands it's an issue of disagreeing with an issue, which you may disagree with but is not illegal.

 

[Sarkozix le Gaulois]

Until they start refusing service to straight white males that is.

Hey look ! It's that guy.

Thanks for your input buddy.

 

[DR2K]

Hey look ! It's that guy.

Thanks for your input buddy.

It’s always funny watching white fragility in action in all forms. Even the hypothetical scenario that would never happen that I mentioned has your blood boiling.

 

[RastaMentality]

Yes, but perhaps his beliefs are more important to him than what society considers acceptable, and he's ready to pay the price ?

An admirable move if you ask me.

Ok? You’re not saying anything.

Good for him I’d he wants to pay the price because he will.

 

[Zog]

The mental hoops some of you are willing to jump through to not give a gay couple their cake...

If they wanted something racist put on a cake, would you be ok with forcing the baker to do it?

 

[kittoo]

I personally am on the Baker's side on this one. Its his beliefs vs the gay couple's identity/orientation/way of life or whatever. He couldnt serve them because of his religious beliefs and that should come under freedom of religion. I also am usually fine with a business deciding who they want to serve, until unless its clearly discriminatory. He offered them other services and businesses. They could go there. To me it looks like the couple made it an issue, not the baker. Doesnt seem like he had any malice for them personally. If that was the case, then I wouldve instantly sided with the couple.

But yeah, it is a tough one indeed as its quite an emotional issue.

 

[test_account]

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.

Yes, so its not about the shape or the graphical theme of the cake itself, its about the marriage, thats what i said. The guy said it was completely hogwash when i said that the baker would likely refuse to bake another shaped weddding cake if the couple have said that it should be a wedding cake.

"Hiding" things behind religion doesnt make it any better. Its the action itself that matters.

 

[RastaMentality]

If they wanted something racist put on a cake, would you be ok with forcing the baker to do it?

Nice try lol. The issue is his practice of not baking cakes for gay couples. Not what the couple requested be put on the cake.

 

[RastaMentality]

I personally am on the Baker's side on this one. Its his beliefs vs the gay couple's identity/orientation/way of life or whatever. He couldnt serve them because of his religious beliefs and that should come under freedom of religion. I also am usually fine with a business deciding who they want to serve, until unless its clearly discriminatory. He offered them other services and businesses. They could go there. To me it looks like the couple made it an issue, not the baker. Doesnt seem like he had any malice for them personally. If that was the case, then I wouldve instantly sided with the couple.

But yeah, it is a tough one indeed as its quite an emotional issue.

Your religious beliefs cannot excuse or justify discrimination of a protected class. This is very basic.

 

[Rocket Number 22]

Seems like a good way to end up with spit or who knows what else in the cake....i would have just gone to another cake maker.

But I can understand them being bitter but you know....thats religious people for you. A quick complaint to a paper/news channel, tell your story, give him bad press and then the new baker good press.

Legal proceedings for a cake....

 

[koss424]

If an octopus in a suit can get a wedding cake, everyone should be able to.

 

[frankthurk]

...I also am usually fine with a business deciding who they want to serve, until unless its clearly discriminatory... Doesnt seem like he had any malice for them personally...

Regardless of if it was done with malice or not, it is clearly discriminatory.

If an octopus in a suit can get a wedding cake, everyone should be able to.

Also this, ha.

 

[Martinski43]

Just as a costumer can chose where to take their business, the business should be able to chose what costumers they want? Right?

Even if it’s their loss and so on.

 

[ironDUKE]

video games

 

[themagicalkitsune]

If they wanted something racist put on a cake, would you be ok with forcing the baker to do it?

Coming from the person who thinks "just stop seeing race" is a legit argument, no wonder this made sense in your head.

It's rather telling that you would associate the two, one being a set of opinions and the other one being something you have no control over.

If the baker had any decency he would reject putting any racist message on his cakes instead of rejecting a gay wedding cake. But seeing how he's clinging tight onto his christian ideals, I wouldn't be surprised if he agreed to make a racist cake, the bible is plenty racist at parts.

 

[Martinski43]

video games

Vidya geams

 

[Bookoo]

If they wanted something racist put on a cake, would you be ok with forcing the baker to do it?

I started to research this because I read an article on National Review where the author was claiming that they asked him to put a rainbow on the cake, but based on other articles it was simply standard procedure for him to not sell wedding cakes for same sex marriages.

 

[llien]

The article doesn't show the other side. If people who support gay marriage (and I do) get wind of this then the market will not provide sales to that place. The other side is people will find places that do support their sale and give them whatever they want. It could also spur a new cake place that specializes in just gay cakes and have the right to make just those. It could also shut down this dude because enough people stop going there. .

It only works if one tries to discriminate against large groups.
5% or so of population is not large enough for the business to face serious consequences.

 

[Big Blue]

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.

Owning a business in America is NOT a right, it's a privilege. It's pretty cut and dry, which is why the baker has lost every decision to this point. if you offer a service for your business you cannot deny service based on sex, race, gender, or in this case sexual orientation.

 

[Big Blue]

If they wanted something racist put on a cake, would you be ok with forcing the baker to do it?

Racists aren't a protected class in America so no...you guys are really not thinking about this in a Constitutional way

 

[i-Lo]

It shouldn't be astounding, and it makes sense.

Imagine if it were switched around? What if we were talking about a baker who was gay? For the longest time he's struggled to enjoy the basic freedoms that others have. Now as a grown adult he has that freedom. He has a cake shop, in which he designs cakes specifically for weddings.

Then along comes a couple whom he knows is opposed to gay marriage. Hell maybe even one of them used to bully him. Should he be forced to make a cake for them?

No. Of course not. You would side with him, and rightly so.

You're opposed to this particular baker because you are opposed to his beliefs. But you need to really think beyond that, because even though his views are diametrically opposed to your own, the law is supposed to be catered to a society in which we can live together despite different views, so we don't end up tearing each other apart.

Right now, most people in the internet community lean left . But that's only right now, and there is a shift in the works within the younger generation.

How would you like to live in a community in which most people were right winged, AND everyone was required to sell to any customer who came into their shop? Judging by your vernacular, I'd wager you wouldn't be too keen on that.

But that's what people are setting themselves up for when they can't see past their own noses. Whenever we're talking about adding to or revising the law, we have to ask ourselves HOW it could possibly be abused, and how it could be implemented in a different social climate.

That is why you shouldn't be stunned. You should be supporting the stance of the baker. Not because he deserves it, not because he's right. But because you want to be able to have that freedom yourself.

With all due respect:

Straight couples (excluding interracial ones) never faced systematic discrimination/oppression so your imagining of the first situation is not equivalent. Things like affirmative action, reservations, etc exist for those who or whose progenitors have been victims of what is today recognized as systematic oppression.

To deny service solely based on gender, race and sexual orientation are grounds for discrimination. It is indeed the will of the baker to serve who he or she wants to as long as they are not discriminatory or born of bigotry.

So no, I could NEVER support the baker when it comes him discriminating against others based on their sexual orientation. Furthermore, this case has far reaching implication that would prohibit businesses from discriminating against others based on sexuality and that includes business owners from all different religions (including "Muslims").

I think I'm beginning to realize what this whole "privilege" deal is for the first time in a long time- To be oblivious to the plight of those whose heritage consist of systematic oppression and try and find what if scenarios of false equivalence. Pretty sure that if we look a few decades back, and perhaps all the more relevant today, people would have had what they claimed to be "right" reasons for racial segregation- "I mean hey, they aren't picking cotton and being whipped anymore right?"

 

[darkinstinct]

Racists aren't a protected class in America so no...you guys are really not thinking about this in a Constitutional way

Well, religion is a protected class, so if the baker feels it doesn't work with his religious beliefs, what do you do? Protect sex or protect religion or protect familial status? You can't have it all. The rights of the baker to adhere to his religion are in this case equally important as the rights of the gay couple to be served.

 

[Big Blue]

Well, religion is a protected class, so if the baker feels it doesn't work with his religious beliefs, what do you do? Protect sex or protect religion or protect familial status? You can't have it all. The rights of the baker to adhere to his religion are in this case equally important as the rights of the gay couple to be served.

Sigh,

The freedom of religion allows anyone to practice whatever religion they feel like. It does not allow you to discriminate or deny service to others based on the protections of the 14th amendment. That's what a protected class means.

I.e, a Muslim bodega has a right to not sell items with pork, but if he decides to, he cannot decide to only sell it to non-Muslims and deny service to these that liberally practice Islam.

 

[mckmas8808]

What!!? Again this is why this topic is such a heated one and probably shouldn't be discussed on a gaming forum. Mental hoops!? His RELIGION!!!! Prevents him from doing it. In the Catholic/Christian faith marriage is between a man and a woman. That's his belief and thats what he believes in!!!!! He didn't have to jump through any mental hoops to come to any conclusion. He even offered other games etc that aren't wedding cakes. In him making them a wedding cake, he would be participating in something that goes against his religion.

If you went to a Muslim baker and asked them the same thing, because of their religion they would say No as well. If you go to a middle eastern country and attemped this same thing, guess what would happen!!?

No one wants to be discriminated against, but to use your rights to subvert someone into doing something against their religion is also backwards thinking.

I get it, but there are millions of other bakerys out there, they could of went anywhere else when the baker told them his belief.

So what if a Christian baker didn't want to make cakes for non-Christan weddings?

 

[Dunki]

Until they start refusing service to straight white males that is.

Already happened with a bicycle shop in England? The shop refused any white male customer for certain days. And strangely many so called progressive were totally fine with it.

Honestly As long it is not encouraged by the law people should be able to do business with who they want. It is their lost sales afterall. If they think they can survive like this be my guest.

Financially it would be a very bad choice however.

 

[TeeDoff]

Did the cake have any specific theme artistically that the baker didnt want to make? Or was it a "standard" wedding cake? The article makes it sound like it was the latter. The birthday cake he offered could technically have been used in the wedding too, so it doesnt sound like any artistic visions was being compromised. Sounds like the baker didnt want to offer a cake that is tied to weddings, only because it was going to be used in a same-sex wedding.

I was under the impression that it was themed in a way that showed support for Gay marriage, but if it wasn't then him refusing to make a standard cake because they were gay is wrong and he should lose.

 

[bevishead]

With all due respect:

Straight couples (excluding interracial ones) never faced systematic discrimination/oppression so your imagining of the first situation is not equivalent. Things like affirmative action, reservations, etc exist for those who or whose progenitors have been victims of what is today recognized as systematic oppression.

To deny service solely based on gender, race and sexual orientation are grounds for discrimination. It is indeed the will of the baker to serve who he or she wants to as long as they are not discriminatory or born of bigotry.

So no, I could NEVER support the baker when it comes him discriminating against others based on their sexual orientation. Furthermore, this case has far reaching implication that would prohibit businesses from discriminating against others based on sexuality and that includes business owners from all different religions (including "Muslims").

I think I'm beginning to realize what this whole "privilege" deal is for the first time in a long time- To be oblivious to the plight of others and try and find what if scenarios of false equivalence. Pretty sure that if we look a few decades back, and perhaps all the more relevant today, people would have had what they claimed to be "right" reasons for racial segregation- "I mean hey, they aren't picking cotton and being whipped anymore right?"

The difference is the baker isn't refusing to bake a cake for gay people. I'm sure if that couple wanted a cake of any other kind, the baker would sell them a cake. I believe the couple specifically wanted a custom decorated wedding cake for their gay marriage possibly with two male figurines or two male names on the cake which goes against the baker's beliefs.

 

[Big Blue]

The difference is the baker isn't refusing to bake a cake for gay people. I'm sure if that couple wanted a cake of any other kind, the baker would sell them a cake. I believe the couple specifically wanted a custom decorated wedding cake for their gay marriage possibly with two male figurines or two male names on the cake which goes against the baker's beliefs.

Again...

The freedom of religion allows anyone to practice whatever religion they feel like. It does not allow you to discriminate or deny service to others based on the protections of the 14th amendment. That's what a protected class means.

I.e, a Muslim bodega has a right to not sell items with pork, but if he decides to, he cannot decide to only sell it to non-Muslims and deny service to these that liberally practice Islam.

 

[George Washington]

While providing services (in this case a cake), you cannot refuse based on the sexual orientation of the client(or race, gender, etc.). Freedom of speech is not protected when it’s used to discriminate services to an individual or group.

 

[mckmas8808]

I don't live in the US, so no, I don't watch Fox news, and I don't know for sure what consequences this might have for the store. All I stated were my opinions on whether s store should be able to refuse a customer for any reason.

That makes sense as to why you said what you said. If you don't live here, I shouldn't have expected you to understand the history that we had here on similar issues.

Nonsense.

Do you remember this?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/01/us/us-chick-fil-a-controversy/index.html

Already happened with a bicycle shop in England? The shop refused any white male customer for certain days. And strangely many so called progressive were totally fine with it.

Honestly As long it is not encouraged by the law people should be able to do business with who they want. It is their lost sales afterall. If they think they can survive like this be my guest.

Financially it would be a very bad choice however.

Well luckily in this country (America) we don't have such terrible laws as that! Again it's so nice for people to act like America pre-1964 never happened.

 

[JordanN]

While providing services (in this case a cake), you cannot refuse based on the sexual orientation of the client(or race, gender, etc.). Freedom of speech is not protected when it's used to discriminate services to an individual or group.

Don't businesses already discriminate? What happen to those "no shoes, no shirt, no service" signs?

I'm surprised these bakers just didn't pick another excuse to skirt the obvious. Couldn't they just say they can't bake a cake because their hands keep knocking off the 2 men or 2 women on a cake?

 

[test_account]

I was under the impression that it was themed in a way that showed support for Gay marriage, but if it wasn't then him refusing to make a standard cake because they were gay is wrong and he should lose.

I understand. In that case, i would agree, that if it was only about not wanting to some artistic work.

Don't businesses already discriminate? What happen to those "no shoes, no shirt, no service" signs?

I'm surprised these bakers just didn't pick another excuse to skirt the obvious. Couldn't they just say they can't bake a cake because they're hands keep knocking off the 2 men or 2 women on a cake?

If there was any serious reason why a person couldnt wear shoes or shirt, like a medical condition or something like that, then it could be seen as discrimination. I heard a case in more recent time where a blind person wasnt allowed to eat at a resturant because she had her guide dog with her, and pets werent allowed.

 

[Dunki]

That makes sense as to why you said what you said. If you don't live here, I shouldn't have expected you to understand the history that we had here on similar issues.



Do you remember this?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/01/us/us-chick-fil-a-controversy/index.html




Well luckily in this country (America) we don't have such terrible laws as that! Again it's so nice for people to act like America pre-1964 never happened.

I am German it was here the same with Jews. But I also think we are past this. And honestly If i were gay and someone does not want to serve me. Why do I neven want to go there?

Especially in this case the bakery got a huge image lost and also lost tons of customers. So his decision had consequences. But the law should not get involved IMO.
The thing I hought was not ok were the threats they recieved because of it. They wanted to kill them, burn the bakery down etc.

 

[mckmas8808]

I am German it was here the same with Jews. But I also think we are past this. And honestly If i were gay and someone does not want to serve me. Why do I neven want to go there?

Especially in this case the bakery got a huge image lost and also lost tons of customers. So his decision had consequences. But the law should not get involved IMO.
The thing I hought was not ok were the threats they recieved because of it. They wanted to kill them, burn the bakery down etc.

The law gets involved to stop future incidents from happening or when they do happen to give those people concequeces for doing said wrongs.

 

[gunslikewhoa]

Do you remember this?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/01/us/us-chick-fil-a-controversy/index.html

Yes. And that has what, exactly, to do with your claim regarding racism?

 

[Alx]

It's not an easy situation, and the answer will obviously depend on local law and culture. My personal opinion on this is :
- when selling goods, businesses shouldn't be allowed to turn down customers. If I go to a bakery and ask for bread on the shelf, they should sell it to me.
- when selling negotiable services, businesses should be free to turn down customers. If I go to an architect or a lawyer, they don't have to accept my case.

So in the end it depends if the "wedding cake" market model is based on a pre-established contract or a negotiable one. If the baker displays official rates, "10$ to customize your cake as you wish", then he has to oblige that offer to anyone. Although he could also display "(messages have to be validated by the baker)", which gives him an official right of refusal. In both cases he sets the rules of the service, and depending on how he writes it he has the freedom to decline or not, but the conditions are set and everybody implicitly agrees with them.

If there's no clear contract and the customers asks "how much for a customized cake ?", then the baker is free to refuse that service.

In the end the reason of the refusal doesn't really matter.

(also I do think the baker is silly and should have made the cake... you don't have to agree with everybody, but business is business and the client is king).

 

[RastaMentality]

Let me make one thing abundantly clear:

Had the baker been a brown Muslim, the moral quandary some of y'all are experiencing right now wouldn't exist.

 

[Blood Borne]

This is tantamount to going to a Muslim chef and demanding he makes you a bacon sandwich. Fucking ridiculous.

I'm sure the supreme Court will favour the bakers. Tired of government violating human rights.

I'm pretty sure the people who are against the bakers will support the bakers if they refused to make a cake saying "Trump is greatest. MAGA. Fuck Hillary, Obama and Democrats".

 

[AfricanKing]

Hope the baker losses the case and goes chapter 11 , let's change the couple , if they where black and he refused to serve them because of that, would half the people in this thread still be in support. When you open a business , it is open to the public you can not discriminate.

 

[RastaMentality]

This is tantamount to going to a Muslim chef and demanding he makes you a bacon sandwich. Fucking ridiculous.

I'm sure the supreme Court will favour the bakers. Tired of government violating human rights.

I'm pretty sure the people who are against the bakers will support the bakers if they refused to make a cake saying "Trump is greatest. MAGA. Fuck Hillary, Obama and Democrats".

You're not smart. This is about the person being served, not the content of what is being served.

 

[Big Blue]

This is tantamount to going to a Muslim chef and demanding he makes you a bacon sandwich. Fucking ridiculous.

I'm sure the supreme Court will favour the bakers. Tired of government violating human rights.

I'm pretty sure the people who are against the bakers will support the bakers if they refused to make a cake saying "Trump is greatest. MAGA. Fuck Hillary, Obama and Democrats".

What? Most halal places don't sell pork products to avoid this issue because that's the logical and rational thing to do. Why would a chef put bacon on the menu if he doesn't want to handle it??

I do support that as political affiliation is NOT a protected class. Which is why you are allowed to refuse service to neo-Nazis, pro-Abortionists, etc.

 

[mckmas8808]

Yes. And that has what, exactly, to do with your claim regarding racism?

Ummm....this was homophopia. Can you not see the connection?

 

[pramod]

What a big waste of time. If the baker doesn't want gay customers he should just bake them as shitty a cake as possible. Problem solved.

 

[Blood Borne]

What? Most halal places don't sell pork products to avoid this issue because that's the logical and rational thing to do. Why would a chef put bacon on the menu if he doesn't want to handle it??

I do support that as political affiliation is NOT a protected class. Which is why you are allowed to refuse service to neo-Nazis, pro-Abortionists, etc.

False.

This sets the precedence of what government can force you to do. People need to stop being myopic and having this "my side versus your side" mentality.

This is fundamentally wrong and a clear violation of human rights. All people are seeing is the headline, "CHRISTIAN versus LGBT" hence it's distorting critical thinking and eliciting emotions.

One should be free to do business with whomever they want.

 

[Big Blue]

False.

This sets the precedence of what government can force you to do. People need to stop being myopic and having this "my side versus your side" mentality.

This is fundamentally wrong and a clear violation of human rights. All people are seeing is the headline, "CHRISTIAN versus LGBT" hence it's distorting critical thinking and eliciting emotions.

One should be free to do business with whomever they want.

There is nothing false about what I said. Just because it goes against your bigoted agenda doesn't make it false. In the United States, owning a business is a privilege. And if you want to do discriminate based on someone's sexuality, you have to suffer the consequences. Sorry, but not really sorry.