Anti-gay baker now takes stand against birthdays for trans people

[dianaiad]

Here's something for you to try: Open a deli, post a sign that says "No Negroes Allowed," and claim it is your religion that black people are the cursed sons of Ham.
Then let us know if they force you to do anything or not based on your religious convictions. But we already know what will happen, because the deli services the public, rather than, say, the private LDS temples who barred black men from priesthood due to this alleged curse. That is basically how the First works.

Moving the goalposts there.

If a baker/photographer will 'do' events for gay couples OTHER than weddings, such as birthdays, graduations, 'just because' parties, etc., and the only event s/he will not do is the wedding, then it is not being gay that is the problem.

It's the wedding.

And throwing red herrings, bringing in stuff that is absolutely not applicable here (like your opinion of my religion) only indicates that you have no coherent or logical argument.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I know nothing about Indiana...for some reason, when I opened the link you posted, it took me to southern Utah, with an emphasis on Cedar Breaks National Monument right around Cedar City.

It should have brought up miles-upon-miles of farm, with several names for towns here and there but are so small that there is no town to see on the map (they would be labelled villages and hamlets in settlement hierarchy), except for the bigger ones which aren't that big, with the bigger one having about 50,000 people, with the next biggest having 11,000. Here, it's an hour drive north or south to get to an actual city.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's the wedding.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. They serve the public to make wedding cakes. If you can't do your job, then don't do it. Get out of the way for someone who will. It's not like the cake is an actual personal endorsement of the wedding anyways. The baker isn't having to say "I hope god blesses your marriage and it's long and happy," he is a business owner making a transaction with a customer. Warrant didn't want to write Cherry Pie, but they had a job to do.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Bacon, yeah I guess. And the wedding cake for a 12 yr old girl?

Personally, I think the targeting of the guy for his
beliefs is shameful.

No one is being compelled to supply anything to anyone breaking the law. Your overwrought straw example fails. Try comparing like with like if you wish to participate.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Do you find that this man is an activist ( like those
who went after him)?

The header does suggest it, and that he is expaning
his role. "now" takes stand.


Not “targeting,” but checking to see if he had decided to start obeying the law. What’s wrong with follow-up?

What did the supremes say?

"Those who went after him" were state regulators. Hardly "activists".

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Moving the goalposts there.

If a baker/photographer will 'do' events for gay couples OTHER than weddings, such as birthdays, graduations, 'just because' parties, etc., and the only event s/he will not do is the wedding, then it is not being gay that is the problem.

It's the wedding.

And throwing red herrings, bringing in stuff that is absolutely not applicable here (like your opinion of my religion) only indicates that you have no coherent or logical argument.

If the baker/photographer performs services for weddings for some people, but not others, that's discrimination.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Those who went after him" were state regulators. Hardly "activists".

And the baker should have known better. He had to know that he won the first time around because the state applied the law unevenly. The application was uneven, not the law, that is why he got off. He should have known that he put a huge target on his back. When he went and violated the law a second time he is no longer a "victim" but rather a useful tool and fool.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And the baker should have known better. He had to know that he won the first time around because the state applied the law unevenly. The application was uneven, not the law, that is why he got off. He should have known that he put a huge target on his back. When he went and violated the law a second time he is no longer a "victim" but rather a useful tool and fool.

I wouldn't be surprised if he got the wrong idea, like so many did, and thought it was ruled ok for discrimination, rather than the ruling being focused not even on that issue at all but rather an inconsistency in how the state applied the law.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wouldn't be surprised if he got the wrong idea, like so many did, and thought it was ruled ok for discrimination, rather than the ruling being focused not even on that issue at all but rather an inconsistency in how the state applied the law.

He does not look good either way.

 

[leroy]

If the baker/photographer performs services for weddings for some people, but not others, that's discrimination.

If someone asks you to do something that you would consider that goes against your values. Wouldn't you consider yourself free to reject that project?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

If someone asks you to do something that you would consider that goes against your values. Wouldn't you consider yourself free to reject that project?

Asking me as a private individual, or me as a public business? Because those are different questions

 

[Altfish]

If someone asks you to do something that you would consider that goes against your values. Wouldn't you consider yourself free to reject that project?

I'd give them a quote which was (say) 4 times what I would usually charge.
They'll probably reject the quote and shop elsewhere. But if they say "Yes, make my cake" you can then donate all the extra profit to a deserving charity and feel that your values have been upheld.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I'd give them a quote which was (say) 4 times what I would usually charge.
They'll probably reject the quote and shop elsewhere. But if they say "Yes, make my cake" you can then donate all the extra profit to a deserving charity and feel that your values have been upheld.

But that's discrimination, too. Can't do it as a public company against a protected class.

Further, some jurisdictions can get very sticky about pricefixing or profiteering or otherwise changing your prices without a clear or fair reason

 

[Woberts]

I'd give them a quote which was (say) 4 times what I would usually charge.
They'll probably reject the quote and shop elsewhere. But if they say "Yes, make my cake" you can then donate all the extra profit to a deserving charity and feel that your values have been upheld.

Or you could just give 'em the normal price, and keep your feelings out of the business.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If someone asks you to do something that you would consider that goes against your values. Wouldn't you consider yourself free to reject that project?

That depends. If you take a job as a chef, and offer your services as a chef in exchange for money, do you not think it quite expected that you will occasionally be called upon to make food for people, groups or even events you disagreed with?

If you offer a service, by law you are expected to operate that service in a way that is non-discriminatory. You are not allowed to deny someone access to your services on the basis of race, religion, gender or political affiliation. You cannot simply "consider yourself free" to deny people a service you openly make available on unjust grounds, any more than you can "consider yourself free" to fire an employee just for being black.

 

[Audie]

No one is being compelled to supply anything to anyone breaking the law. Your overwrought straw example fails. Try comparing like with like if you wish to participate.

Only perfect analogies allowed?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Only perfect analogies allowed?

One's that aren't completely irrelevant would be appreciated.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Moving the goalposts there.

If a baker/photographer will 'do' events for gay couples OTHER than weddings, such as birthdays, graduations, 'just because' parties, etc., and the only event s/he will not do is the wedding, then it is not being gay that is the problem.

It's the wedding.

And throwing red herrings, bringing in stuff that is absolutely not applicable here (like your opinion of my religion) only indicates that you have no coherent or logical argument.

Out of curiosity: does anyone know if this guy has ever knowingly made a cake - any cake - for an LGBTQ person? I've seen his claims that he would, but I trust him about as far as I could comfortably throw him... and I note that - AFAICT - his court filings don't actually give any examples of him doing so.

 

[Audie]

One's that aren't completely irrelevant would be appreciated.

you are just being difficult.

Anyway, I am tired of that side. Guess I will join you.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Moving the goalposts there.

If a baker/photographer will 'do' events for gay couples OTHER than weddings, such as birthdays, graduations, 'just because' parties, etc., and the only event s/he will not do is the wedding, then it is not being gay that is the problem.

It's the wedding.

False. If a straight couple asked for services for their wedding and received that service, but a gay couple asked for the exact same services for their wedding and are denied said service, it absolutely is the sexuality that is the issue - even if said services would be offered for other events. It's still the sexual preference of the individuals involved which is the deciding factor.

If I'm happy to sell meat to all people, regardless of colour, but refuse specifically to provide meat to a multi-racial wedding, the only difference between providing the meat to any other kind of wedding is the race of the people involved. Ergo, I am discriminating based on race, even if I would treat the same people differently if it wasn't a wedding. The race is still the determining factor.