A veritable mixed metaphor of Solomon.
I think the key here is that it is an inherently political message. The cake was being baked and decorated to promote a political agenda. If I go into a bakery as a Trump supporter and ask for a “Make America Great Again” cake, and the baker finds Trump repugnant, should he be compelled to decorate this cake, to push a political agenda he does not support? No, he can refuse to make a Trump cake, and they can refuse to make a pro gay marriage cake. It is not a gay marriage that they are stopping, they don’t believe that the law should be changed.
I get that you may think that I would be aghast, having my own logic used against me. But you’d be wrong. I would tell the gay bakery to stop fucking around and make that cake too. Don’t be assholes, gay or straight
I guess we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it. Purely speculating, I think all wedding cakes, gay or straight, should be protected, because you’re the sexuality you are at birth and its wrong to discriminate. Whatever court that gets the case in your example above will have to decide this.
I can’t. If the state can force custom content creation in one case what principle prevents the state from forcing other custom content creation?
If the state is forcing creation, than yes. And the baker better do a damn good job or risk a re-education camp.
Yeah, it’s like cutting the writing on the wall in half.
It certainly belongs in the pit.
"Here is what these words mean:
Mene[e]: God has numbered the days of your reign and brought it to an end.
Tekel[f]: You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting.
Peres[g]: Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians"
Obviously a troll.
For heaven’s sake! Didn’t we go through this 50 years ago, with segregated businesses refusing to serve blacks?
And US Courts have pretty much a settled outlook on this: if you are operating a public business, you have to serve all members of the public. If you’re not willing to do that, don’t open a business.
So people are forced to publish messages they disagree with? You can get banned from this board for any reason if the administrator so chooses. The government won’t compel this board to host your content. Even if you’re willing to pay. So how is that different? If I want that bakery to make me a cake with let’s say an offensive flag on it would the government compel them to?
You personally may not care. But if somebody said things like that today, many, many liberals would scream at the top of their lungs that it was “hate speach!” Liberals in general have an apparently irresistible impulse to try to force people to think and act in a certain way–that is the sole reason why that bakery got in legal trouble for refusing to serve that gay couple.
No. They could say “We don’t produce content that advocates or opposes particular races, religions, or sexual desires”. The Court of Appeal was clear about that in this case. What they can’t do is tell you they won’t produce your content because it advocates a particular sexual desire,* but then agree to produce content for someone else which advocates one that they agree with.
*From my reading of a summary of the judgment it seems the sexual orientation issue was the only one directly dealt with, although the Court did indicate it was likely to take the same approach to a purely religious discrimination case - which is understandable given the history of the province.
This might be valid if all, or even the preponderance of WASPs supported the Nazis, when, in fact, the larger fraction of that group oppose the Nazis or are mostly indifferent.
Whereas you wouldn’t catch a conservative trying to force other people to think an act in a certain way, no sir. “Live and let live”, the motto of homophobes across the globe.
Yes.
That’s a cost of doing business with the public – you have to deal with people or opinions you don’t agree with.
We forced white restaurants to serve food to black people who they literally hated!
I’ve had to write computer systems for many things I disagreed with: incentives for car salesmen who oversold customers, bonuses for bankers who pushed unneeded accounts, systems to help big companies avoid paying injured workers, etc.
I’m amazed. Who forced you to do that?
You are illustrating my point perfectly. Your choice of words shows that you think that anybody who disagrees with you is a hate-filled monster and should be punished.
We tried the “live and let live” approach. Back in 2003, when Lawrence vs. Texas was before the Supreme Court, the whole rallying cry of gays was “let us do what we want in private.”
But that’s not really what they wanted. It was a lie. They didn’t want equal rights. They wanted special rights – “rights” that had never existed in all of recorded history until a few years ago.
But even that’s not enough for them. Now they’re trying to make merely disagreeing with their lifestyle a hate crime.
Bwa-hahahaha… when?
That’s one of the goofiest posts I’ve seen in a while.
I’m not sure the distinction makes sense. What if the cakemaker says that he is in the “routine business” of putting only male and female figurines on cakes, therefore putting two male figurines on a cake is a sort of customization that he refuses to do?
The comparisons to Jim Crow are also not apt. A publisher must accept black customers, but is not required to publish NAACP posters. Likewise a cakemaker must accept gay customers, but he should need not provide a particular product.
I agree with Flyer. This whole scenario is a sort of victor’s justice that attempts to criminalize opposition to SSM.
That can get confusing. If they sell male and female figurines separately then it’s hard to justify not selling two males or two females. If they only carry single piece male and female figurine combos then I don’t think they should have to start carrying separate ones. If they only but them in male/female sets themselves then they could charge you double to get a mixed set. A pair of figurines is not a political statement per se. And let’s not forget the details, a same-sex couple doesn’t have to be gay to get married, and the customers buying a wedding cake, or the cake in question don’t have to be gay.
Right.
Here’s where you went off track. I disagree with the decision, but also with your conclusion. Opponents to SSM can go get a cake that says “Don’t support gay marriage”.
Also, mentioned above is the idea that a cake store should refuse to put any political messages on a cake if they want to disallow any. I’m not sure I agree with that but it’s better than compelling them to put any political message on a cake.