Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Omerta

Gay Cakes Are A Problem

Recommended Posts

UK has gay cakes too...

 

So here is this song and dance again. I did not feel like putting it in the Trump thread, because it has literally nothing to do with the man. That beings said in the decision the court wrote it pointed out something very interesting:

"In a nutshell, the objection was to the message and not to any particular person or persons," Judge Brenda Hale wrote in the unanimous decision. "It is deeply humiliating, and an affront to human dignity, to deny someone a service because of that person's race, gender, disability, sexual orientation or any of the other protected personal characteristics. But that is not what happened in this case."

I thought this was pretty remarkable, and accurate. It is the message they were disagreeing with, not the people. That is an interesting take, and one that I actually agree with. For the U.S gay cake problem, the message was the support of gay marriage, he would bake them any other cake, just not that one. It seems like the same argument applies. 

I also find it interesting that this is happening all over in the developed world where people of all backgrounds have to coexist on the daily.

 

And yes you guys are welcome, this rodeo again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a much stronger judgment than the supreme court made here. They ruled in favor of the baker, but were kinda straddling the fence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the correct decision, as was the Supreme Court's decision about Jack Phillips.

By the way, some supposedly trans prick targeted Phillips' shop and has started the process all over again. Masterpiece Cakeshop may be forced to win yet again--and convincingly, again--at the Supreme Court level.

"This is like refusing service to black Americans in the 1960s!"

It's not, morons. He'll sell you a standard cake with which you can decorate as you please. 

Hopefully more business owners start following suit.

Edited by BwareDWare94

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BwareDWare94 said:

"This is like refusing service to black Americans in the 1960s!"

It's not, morons. He'll sell you a standard cake with which you can decorate as you please. 

So if a baker was against interracial marriage, you'd be fine with them refusing to make a cake for such a wedding?

Edited by blotsfan
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a false equivalency. I don't think Christianity tells you that black people are bad and, I don't think it's supposed to lay with a black person is bad.

I really don't think he would have the religious leg to stand on if a baker were to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see where the cake guys have a point and why we should protect the rights of a small business owner. I get that, but the courts all over the country are becoming very conservative at every level of government all the way up to the supreme Court. Sometimes a decision in a case like this can allow for discriminating desicions in other cases and laws being passed. That how both versions of Jim Crow happened. 

Edited by seanbrock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Omerta said:

That's a false equivalency. I don't think Christianity tells you that black people are bad and, I don't think it's supposed to lay with a black person is bad.

Christians 100% used their religion to justify Jim Crow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny thing about the Bible is that it contradicts itself so many times and is written in a way that's open to interpretation that it can be used to justify just about anything.

Edited by seanbrock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention there are religions other than Christianity that the US has to respect equally to Christianity and the fact that a religion can literally made up by anyone means that you can't really use it as a reasonable means for discrimination.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, blotsfan said:

Christians 100% used their religion to justify Jim Crow. 

And they were wrong. They need to get out there Bible and read it a little bit more. Said nothing about that. On the other hand, it does specifically prohibit homosexual Acts.

 

I understand in modern society that they deserve a place at the table, and that they should not be unfairly discriminated against. The reason this is so compelling for many of his, is because you almost have to choose whose rights are going to protect text. That of religious people, or that of homosexual people.

 

That is another reason I thought this court case, specifically the decision, was well thought out. She actually separated out the people from the intended message. It wasn't the people that they were discriminating against too, it was the message. Much like the fellow at masterpiece cake, he would have given them any cake that was a standard keg, he was just not going to decorate it in violation of his views. So it wasn't the couple themselves it was the message. So far I think that is the best summation of this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, blotsfan said:

Not to mention there are religions other than Christianity that the US has to respect equally to Christianity and the fact that a religion can literally made up by anyone means that you can't really use it as a reasonable means for discrimination.  

They let them build a mosque a block away from this site of the September 11th disaster. In my opinion, that's pretty much case closed. We allow any and all religions as a government, it is the people who discriminate. Those people are just as wrong. anybody of any religion can come here and practice, and do so without harm from the government. Look at Scientology that has to be the biggest crock of shit known to mankind, and yet the government still treats them as a legitimate organization when everybody knows they're not.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, seanbrock said:

I see where the cake guys have a point and why we should protect the rights of a small business owner. I get that, but the courts all over the country are becoming very conservative at every level of government all the way up to the supreme Court. Sometimes a decision in a case like this can allow for discriminating desicions in other cases and laws being passed. That how both versions of Jim Crow happened. 

You're right here. That being said, because courts all over the country are being more conservative, even the Supreme Court, does that mean we should step on the rights of small business owners because of the precedent you could set in the higher Court. No I understand the fear, we have been extremely conservative Supreme Court so there's no doubt that if he tries again common it goes up to the Supreme Court again, they very well at minimum squash it, and at most Implement something that could be detrimental the fundamental rights of gay people. I think discrimination is wrong, but as I said in reply.you're going to have to step on someone's rights, I just don't necessarily see both of them as rights. I think small business owners have a right to run their business how they see fit so long as they're not violating the Constitution, I don't think transgender people have a right to force the service from someone.

28 minutes ago, seanbrock said:

Funny thing about the Bible is that it contradicts itself so many times and is written in a way that's open to interpretation that it can be used to justify just about anything.

in general again you are correct. That being said it's also very specific when it comes to homosexuality.

Edited by Omerta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Omerta said:

They let them build a mosque a block away from this site of the September 11th disaster.

Wow. I haven't heard that one in a long time. Not to get too off-topic but:

A) It wasn't a mosque, it was a community center for Muslims. That's like calling a YMCA a church.

B) The same people who discriminate against gay people fought hard against that. There's a reason you know about it. 

C) It never actually got built due to the backlash. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, blotsfan said:

Wow. I haven't heard that one in a long time. Not to get too off-topic but:

A) It wasn't a mosque, it was a community center for Muslims. That's like calling a YMCA a church.

B) The same people who discriminate against gay people fought hard against that. There's a reason you know about it. 

C) It never actually got built due to the backlash. 

Okay, I was wrong. Last I heard it was moving forward and getting built. I missed the article about it being scrapped. So good job on that one. Thank you.

 

Either way though, they're still the point that Muslims are allowed to worship anyway they choose in this country, and that really does nothing for the subject at hand really. It would be really hard for you to prove that the same people who are supporting the baker, are the same people that were against the mosque. That is a generalization, and I think it's somewhat unfair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really don't think think theres a correlation between anti-homosexuality and anti-islam in the US right now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's kind of misdirection at best. I think trying to bring up anti-muslim sentiment in this country to make a point in this thread is kind of far-fetched.

as to is there a correlation between anti-muslim and anti-homosexuality, I don't know. Especially considering Muslims have an extremely harsh stance on homosexuality and of itself, so there might be a very large sect of this world who is obviously not anti-muslim, but extremely anti-homosexual. Now I can't say that for sure because I don't know enough of the population to be able to say that. Neither do you, I think the whole generalization thing and trying to draw conclusions that rationalize a point that you're trying to make is a dangerous sentiment. Trying to say something like Christians are bad because some Christians are anti-muslim and anti-homosexual, is it dangerous generalization.

 

In any event to the point, being anti-muslim has nothing to do with this cake thing at the moment, especially considering it's happening in the UK right now, and a lot of liberals hold them as a more Progressive country than our own. That's kind of why I brought this topic up, is because it's happening a place it's considered more liberal than we are right now. So just to save for one last time I really don't see how this gets intertwined into this topic, But to answer your point I don't know, I don't know if there's a correlation, and I don't think anybody here does either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, blotsfan said:

So if a baker was against interracial marriage, you'd be fine with them refusing to make a cake for such a wedding?

 

Come back with a response thats relevant to the topic 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, BwareDWare94 said:

Come back with a response thats relevant to the topic 

How is it irrelevant? It's about not supporting the the message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, blotsfan said:

How is it irrelevant? It's about not supporting the the message.

It's irrelevant because it's not the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Omerta said:

That's a false equivalency. I don't think Christianity tells you that black people are bad and, I don't think it's supposed to lay with a black person is bad.

I really don't think he would have the religious leg to stand on if a baker were to do that.

Absolutely not a false equivalency. What if there was a religion who did believe it was wrong to have interracial marriages? You set a precedent that its fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Thanatos said:

Absolutely not a false equivalency. What if there was a religion who did believe it was wrong to have interracial marriages? You set a precedent that its fine.

It's irrelevant whether it's the a false equivalence or not (it is), because Jack Phillips didn't refuse service to the gay couple in the first place.

Edited by BwareDWare94

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you'd be ok if he said "I won't provide my  cake decorating services for an interracial marriage because according yo my religious beliefs it is wrong. Have a blank cake instead."?

Edited by blotsfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Race/heritage and what one chooses to do between the sheets at night are two completely different things, blots. Jesus tap-dancing Christ, use some common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. You believe sexuality is a choice. That's dumb and wrong, but at least you've admitted your stance. Was that so hard?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So some people are inclined, by nature, to use the rectum, which is not a sexual organ, as a sexual organ? Right...

Sexual orientation is not natural in the same way race is, period. It's a false equivalence to the Nth degree

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

    Chatbox
    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×