# question for liberals; you've won, now what? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 20, 2014, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915 "2014-10-20T14:23:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915/201 "2014-10-21T14:29:59Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > One can draw that line, but refusing to bake a cake for same-sex marriages while baking cakes for opposite sex marriages is still discriminating against people because they are gay. “If you’re gay, I’ll bake you a cake, but I won’t bake you a wedding cake for your ceremony” is discrimination. Just because you want that to be the case doesn’t mean that that is necessarily the case. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > One can draw the line, and call it “opposition to an action, not an orientation”, but it’s still discrimination in practice. Yeah, discrimination against a specific _action_, not against an individual. For the proof of that, let’s reconsider the gay guy I mentioned earlier. And let’s say he wears a jacket with the rainbow flag on it, and a patch that says “Gay Pride”. He comes in to a cake shop and orders a birthday cake for his sister. No problem. He comes back next week and orders a birthday cake for himself, requesting the rainbow flag as a design. Again, no problem. He comes back again and says he wants a wedding cake for himself and his boyfriend. The cake shop owner declines. So, the cake shop owner has expressed no discrimination or animosity against Joe due to his sexual orientation. But he has chosen to not be part of an action he thinks immoral. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915/202 "2014-10-21T14:30:22Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Well, those things are discrimination too, but I think being told that you can’t refuse to serve someone as part of your business could be discrimination. If I own a business that makes wedding cakes, and I seriously have a religious belief that says that gay marriage is wrong and that its sinful to participate in a gay wedding or encourage that, the government is basically saying that, if I want to stay in business, I have to do something I think is immoral. And that rubs me the wrong way a little bit. I’m not sure that it’s ok for the government to force someone to do something that’s against their religion or punish them if they don’t. What about hoteliers who believe it’s immoral for blacks and whites to sleep under the same roof? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915/203 "2014-10-21T14:37:53Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Yeah, discrimination against a specific _action_, not against an individual. For the proof of that, let’s reconsider the gay guy I mentioned earlier. And let’s say he wears a jacket with the rainbow flag on it, and a patch that says “Gay Pride”. He comes in to a cake shop and orders a birthday cake for his sister. No problem. He comes back next week and orders a birthday cake for himself, requesting the rainbow flag as a design. Again, no problem. He comes back again and says he wants a wedding cake for himself and his boyfriend. The cake shop owner declines. So, the cake shop owner has expressed no discrimination or animosity against Joe due to his sexual orientation. But he has chosen to not be part of an action he thinks immoral. When the same situation were to apply to a Jew, or to a black man marrying a white woman, is your opinion the same? From my point of view, it doesn’t matter that he “has chosen to not be a part of an action he thinks immoral” – by operating a bakery that serves the public, this choice still constitutes discrimination based on sexual orientation. Just like it would be discrimination if he refused to bake wedding cakes for interracial couples or Jewish couples because he thought that interracial weddings were immoral, or Jewish weddings were immoral, while he would serve the Jew and the black person non-wedding cakes. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915/204 "2014-10-21T14:43:50Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Yeah, discrimination against a specific _action_, not against an individual. For the proof of that, let’s reconsider the gay guy I mentioned earlier. And let’s say he wears a jacket with the rainbow flag on it, and a patch that says “Gay Pride”. He comes in to a cake shop and orders a birthday cake for his sister. No problem. He comes back next week and orders a birthday cake for himself, requesting the rainbow flag as a design. Again, no problem. He comes back again and says he wants a wedding cake for himself and his boyfriend. The cake shop owner declines. So, the cake shop owner has expressed no discrimination or animosity against Joe due to his sexual orientation. But he has chosen to not be part of an action he thinks immoral. That seems a little specious. By the same reasoning, couldn’t anyone discriminate against Christians and their religious _practice_ so long as their religious _belief_ isn’t harmed? If we define protected discrimination so narrowly, what’s stopping a Governor of some state forbidding, let’s say, circumcision, or prayer in public places? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915/205 "2014-10-21T14:47:53Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > That seems a little specious. By the same reasoning, couldn’t anyone discriminate against Christians and their religious _practice_ so long as their religious _belief_ isn’t harmed? If we define protected discrimination so narrowly, what’s stopping a Governor of some state forbidding, let’s say, circumcision, or prayer in public places? Further, **magellan01** ’s argument allows a business to discriminate against _anyone_, because everyone takes “actions” that one could decide are immoral on religious grounds. The cake-maker could decide that he believes that being mixed race and procreating is immoral, so he wouldn’t bake cakes for anyone that is mixed race and getting married, or for the birthdays of any mixed-race children. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915/206 "2014-10-21T15:03:23Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Yeah, discrimination against a specific _action_, not against an individual. For the proof of that, let’s reconsider the gay guy I mentioned earlier. And let’s say he wears a jacket with the rainbow flag on it, and a patch that says “Gay Pride”. He comes in to a cake shop and orders a birthday cake for his sister. No problem. He comes back next week and orders a birthday cake for himself, requesting the rainbow flag as a design. Again, no problem. He comes back again and says he wants a wedding cake for himself and his boyfriend. The cake shop owner declines. So, the cake shop owner has expressed no discrimination or animosity against Joe due to his sexual orientation. But he has chosen to not be part of an action he thinks immoral. Except that courts are increasingly ruling that same sex marriage is subject to the equal protection of law. The assertion that gay marriage is subject to less legal protection than homosexual sex or gay pride marches does not seem to have a firm basis in civil rights law. As others have said, just becaus a baker has baked a cake for a black man does not mean that refusing to bake a wedding cake for an interracial couple is therefore acceptable. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915/207 "2014-10-21T15:40:25Z")
> [@Boogly](#): > > Didn’t the ACA happen? The ACA is a joke; it’s a plan _originally created_ by the Republicans, and mostly just a giveaway to the insurance companies. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915/208 "2014-10-21T16:05:51Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Isn’t there a distinction between your first point and all of the others? Presumably, the baker would have no problems baking a cake for a gay person for a birthday party or some such thing. He doesn’t refuse to serve a customer based upon sexual orientation. He simply refuses to bake a cake related to a particular activity. Fuck that. If you invite me to come into your your place of business to give you money for something on your shelves, you don’t get to decide what you’ll sell me and what you won’t. Similarly, if your business is fabricating certain bespoke items, you don’t get to cordon off your list of services based on who I am. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915/209 "2014-10-21T16:06:57Z")
> [@Boogly](#): > > Liberals win the country and a portion of the voting public realizes that this isn’t what they wanted. So the pendulum swings the other way in increments. > > The pendulum swings the other way, and a portion of the voting public realize this isn’t what they wanted. So the pendulum swings the other in increments. Pendulums don’t swing in increments. Find a different metaphor, please. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915/210 "2014-10-21T16:21:25Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Wait. **jtgain** makes a good point. If a baker is willing to bake a cake for Joe’s (who is gay) birthday (and for sake of argument, let’s say has overt cues like the rainbow flag), but not Joe’s wedding, it’s hard to argue that he is discriminating against a person’s sexual orientation. He’s discriminating against a particular act—SSM. What part of SSM is he discriminating against, the SS or the M part? If he won’t back a wedding cake for anyone, it’s the M part. If he only won’t bake it for someone who’s gay, it’s the SS part, and that’s against the law. > [@](#): > > Why not? Do you think that one is more protected by the constitution than the other? If so, which one? Yes: responding to someone’s political speech as an individual is the one that’s more protected by the constitution than responding to someone’s celebration. If you want me to decorate a cake that denigrates black people, and I refuse you, I’m responding to the political speech, and my own speech in this regard is protected. If you want me to decorate a cake that celebrates a marriage, and I decide whether to refuse you based on whether you’re straight or gay, I’m responding to you as an individual, and my own speech in this regard isn’t protected. My speech would be protected if I refused to decorate any cake that celebrates a marriage. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915/211 "2014-10-21T16:22:03Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > Well, libertarians, as a group, are greedy idiots with no realistic concept of how the world works, so there’s always plenty to bash. Well sure. Liberals are all bubble clueless idiots, as a group, so there is always plenty to bash there as well. And don’t even get me started on conservatives, who, as a group are stick up the ass prudes or evil motherfuckers without any compassion or human decency. Man…it’s a good thing that there aren’t any libertarians, liberals or conservatives in this thread to be offended, and that we are only calling names to people ‘as a group’, right? That way we skate the rules and still get to bash on people all we like without having the mods take notice! ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915/212 "2014-10-21T16:24:31Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Fuck that. If you invite me to come into your your place of business to give you money for something on your shelves, you don’t get to decide what you’ll sell me and what you won’t. > > Similarly, if your business is fabricating certain bespoke items, you don’t get to cordon off your list of services based on who I am. I agree that as long as the product isn’t different from one you’d be willing to sell to or make for someone else, you’re de facto discriminating if you refuse to deliver it to some events and not to others. But I do think that a baker should be allowed to refuse baking a cake with “All hail Satan”, since he wouldn’t do that for anyone, and I’m uncertain if I’d extend that right all the way to refusing to put two grooms on top of a cake. It’d be kind of an Asshole thing to do, “If you want to grooms you have to put them on yourself”, but I’m leaning towards allowable. I’m not entirely sure how to phrase that “loophole” though, so it doesn’t also allow something like “I’ll print a cake cover from any picture of a white person you like and sell it to you, no matter what color your skin.” And I struggle with finding an acceptable way of allowing for my desire to refuse to rent out my hypothetical auditorium to meetings of the local chapter of Lying-spreaders-of-harmful-lies club. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915/213 "2014-10-21T17:18:35Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Isn’t there a distinction between your first point and all of the others? Presumably, the baker would have no problems baking a cake for a gay person for a birthday party or some such thing. He doesn’t refuse to serve a customer based upon sexual orientation. He simply refuses to bake a cake related to a particular activity. > > Yes, that particular activity is related to sexual orientation, but I’ve never understood discrimination laws to reach to the “related to” level. If a baker refused to bake a pro-KKK cake for a rally, that would affect whites much more than other races, but nobody would seriously argue that it is discrimination based on race. > > If a heterosexual black man tried to buy a cake for his previously divorced brother’s interracial SSM is the baker refusing service based upon race, remarriage after divorce, or sexual orientation? It cannot be sexual orientation because the customer is not himself homosexual; it would be hard to say that he is being denied service because of his heterosexuality. If you think the distinction makes a difference (I don’t), then pick any other unacceptable example you like - for example: the baker won’t bake a cake for an interracial wedding, or a wedding between two black people, or a wedding between a sighted/blind couple, etc ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915/214 "2014-10-21T18:43:40Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Pendulums don’t swing in increments. > > Find a different metaphor, please. Well, if you wanna get down to the quantum level, it does. But I guess you were so greatly offended by the analogy…I found it pertinent. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915/215 "2014-10-21T18:45:52Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Why should I give a shit? Again, you’re spinning this elaborate conspiracy theory where people have committed wrongdoings and covered it up, when the best analysis we have has come to the clear conclusion that there’s nothing shady or wrong going on here. I don’t have the time or energy to continue to deal with this stupid conspiracy theory. Taxpayers have to maintain records for as long as seven years. Lois’s hard drive “crashed” after the Congressional investigation began. How very convenient. Could a taxpayer under audit pull that move? > [@](#): > > I don’t know. I don’t particularly care. Again, the best analysis we have indicates that there was no politically motivated wrongdoing. That’s not what the Treasury Inspector General reported. > [@](#): > > Maybe I don’t. That’s why, when it comes to this issue, I defer to expert analysis. Like, say, the government committee responsible for investigating the issue. Who came back with exactly the result I’m touting. Nice cherry picking. One Senate subcommittee vs. TIGTA and the full House of Representatives. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915/216 "2014-10-21T19:53:58Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > What part of SSM is he discriminating against, the SS or the M part? If he won’t back a wedding cake for anyone, it’s the M part. If he only won’t bake it for someone who’s gay, it’s the SS part, and that’s against the law. It’s not as simple as that. I know you’d like it to be, but it’s not. It’s not either/or. It’s the combination of the two. I have no problem with people getting drunk; I also have no problem with people driving cars. But when it’s both of those things, I, and I assume, you, would have a problem. Even if there were no law against it. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Yes: responding to someone’s political speech as an individual is the one that’s more protected by the constitution than responding to someone’s celebration. If you want me to decorate a cake that denigrates black people, and I refuse you, I’m responding to the political speech, and my own speech in this regard is protected. If you want me to decorate a cake that celebrates a marriage, and I decide whether to refuse you based on whether you’re straight or gay, I’m responding to you as an individual, and my own speech in this regard isn’t protected. My speech would be protected if I refused to decorate any cake that celebrates a marriage. I think a person’s right to follow his own religious beliefs is trumps all. For a person to be asked to act in a way that goes against their religious conviction requires an overwhelming argument. For instance, it goes against the religious conviction of Quakers to swear to God. So they are able to affirm a position. This goes back to George Washington during the Revolutionary War when inhabitants of Westchester County (NY) had to take an oath of allegiance. A gay couple having to go to the baker down the street does not qualify as some huge burden. ---
**Author:** ![babygoat666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/2acd7d/32.png) [@babygoat666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/babygoat666)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915/217 "2014-10-21T20:29:33Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I think a person’s right to follow his own religious beliefs is trumps all. For a person to be asked to act in a way that goes against their religious conviction requires an overwhelming argument. For instance, it goes against the religious conviction of Quakers to swear to God. So they are able to affirm a position. This goes back to George Washington during the Revolutionary War when inhabitants of Westchester County (NY) had to take an oath of allegiance. A gay couple having to go to the baker down the street does not qualify as some huge burden. There’a huge difference between making a Quaker swear to God and making a Christian marry someone of the same sex. I mean, bake a cake. What religious conviction would be broken here, anyway? ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915/218 "2014-10-21T20:33:35Z")
> [@babygoat666](#): > > There’a huge difference between making a Quaker swear to God and making a Christian marry someone of the same sex. _I mean, bake a cake. What religious conviction would be broken here, anyway?_ By that same logic, someone could say, “I mean, just swear an oath. It’s just an oath. What religious conviction would be broken here, anyway?” Whether a religious conviction would be broken is heavily subjective based on that person’s perspective. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915/219 "2014-10-21T20:34:34Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I think a person’s right to follow his own religious beliefs is trumps all. For a person to be asked to act in a way that goes against their religious conviction requires an overwhelming argument. So you’re okay with Fred Phelps and his “God Hates Fags” stance? You’re okay with people being condemned to death because they chose to convert from Islam? You’re fine with female genital mutilation? You’re even okay with Taliban rules about not educating women? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915/220 "2014-10-21T20:34:45Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > A gay couple having to go to the baker down the street does not qualify as some huge burden. That’s a terrible argument. A black person having to get up and move to the back of the bus isn’t, in and of itself, a terrible burden - it’s bad because it’s a symptom of systematised inequality. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915.md?page=12)