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

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes I believe that it would be an abomination, but it should be legal.

Wow.

And it also should be legal to denounce this bakery In the media and in social networks, so that “antiracists” would stop buying form that baker.

That's not an equivalent. Allowing people freedom to choose bakers is vastly outweighed by giving businesses the licence to discriminate against consumers however they please. You can't sacrifice basic rights for freedom of preference, it's absurd.

Racism and homophobia should end because of social awareness, not because the law forces you.

The public accommodation laws aren't in place to "end homophobia or racism", they're ensuring people are treated fairly and without prejudice by organizations and businesses that otherwise would restrict or withhold services to minorities. If you believe racists and homophobes should be free to use businesses to force their agenda on people, you are an apologist for racism and homphobia.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Seriously?

Yes, seriously. Freedom of religion extends to practice of religion, not business.

This man is being forced to do something that is very much against his religion, and you claim that his right to practice his religion isn't being infringed in any way?

Nobody forced him to become a baker who offers, makes and sells wedding cakes.

It is against my religion to drink coffee, tea or alcohol, and it's against my religion to use tobacco. What you are saying is, essentially, that if someone came into my bakery and wanted me to make tiramisu and serve it with espresso at her coffee tasting party, and I refused, she could sue me and that this isn't infringing my right to practice my religion.

If you ran a bakery that offered tiramisu with all of those things in it, yes, it is your fault for offering those things. If, on the other hand, you didn't offer that service, they couldn't touch you.

The baker offers wedding cakes. This is a service they provide. They were asked for a wedding cake by a gay couple. They refused purely on the basis of the couple's sexuality. They were not asked to provide something they wouldn't already provide, but they denied it because of their personal prejudice against homosexuals (religious or otherwise). This is against the law and against basic human rights.

Again, if the baker has a problem with marriage, they shouldn't be offering wedding cakes.

What are you having difficulty understanding?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, seriously. Freedom of religion extends to practice of religion, not business.


Nobody forced him to become a baker who offers, makes and sells wedding cakes.


If you ran a bakery that offered tiramisu with all of those things in it, yes, it is your fault for offering those things. If, on the other hand, you didn't offer that service, they couldn't touch you.

The baker offers wedding cakes. This is a service they provide. They were asked for a wedding cake by a gay couple. They refused purely on the basis of the couple's sexuality. They were not asked to provide something they wouldn't already provide, but they denied it because of their personal prejudice against homosexuals (religious or otherwise). This is against the law and against basic human rights.

Again, if the baker has a problem with marriage, they shouldn't be offering wedding cakes.

What are you having difficulty understanding?

I don't know . . . The baker might have a point. The place gets messy enough when straight wedding cakes have sex. Can you imagine the mess when gay wedding cakes have sex? Frosting everywhere, and in places that God never meant it to be.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

They are objecting to the event. If they were objecting to the people in the event, they wouldn't sell them donuts or cakes for other occasions. If they DO sell them things for other occasions, it's the event.

Why don't you understand this yet?

By your exact same logic, if they supply services to an event, it cannot be the event. But if they refuse to supply services to the same event because of the people taking part in that event, then they are denying service specifically on the basis of the event involving those people.

Why are you being so deliberately obtuse when this has been explained to you so many times?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Uh huh.

You seem to like to bring up my personal beliefs in an attempt to discredit my arguments.

How about this one? The CoJCoLDS owns two businesses that are 'open to the public." One of them manufactures temple garments. The other is a store that sells LDS books, and most of them have a section for the purpose of selling temple garments and white temple clothing.

In order to purchase the clothing, one must have ID that proves that one is a church member; for specific clothing, one must produce a temple recommend.

If you don't have these, you can't buy the clothing. Period.

It wasn't always that way, but before the church cracked down on this, non-members would purchase the garments for the specific purpose of mocking and desecrating them during demonstrations, usually in front of a temple or in videos.

All this is based upon religious beliefs; ours.

But the government seems to be just fine with that.

What's the difference here?

They supply religious garments to a specific market of religious groups.

The baker offers a public service and specifically offers weddings services.

Been explained to you multiple times now. Are you going to understand the difference yet?

 

[leroy]

So if a baker believes it's "morally wrong" for black people to be served as equals to white people, do you believe it should be legal for them to deny service to them?

Wow.


That's not an equivalent. Allowing people freedom to choose bakers is vastly outweighed by giving businesses the licence to discriminate against consumers however they please. You can't sacrifice basic rights for freedom of preference, it's absurd.


The public accommodation laws aren't in place to "end homophobia or racism", they're ensuring people are treated fairly and without prejudice by organizations and businesses that otherwise would restrict or withhold services to minorities. If you believe racists and homophobes should be free to use businesses to force their agenda on people, you are an apologist for racism and homphobia.

If a baker hates McDonald's because it sales garbage food to young children, causing diabetes, cancer and dead.....should he have the right deny baking a cake for that company?

If a baker is pro animal rights, should he have the right de deny baking a cake for a circus that mistreats animals?

If a baker is an ambientalist should he have the right to deny a cake to a company that is causing too much contamination ?


I am assuming that your answer is "yes," he has the right to deny a service.

I am not an homofobic apologists, .I am a pro freedom and pro tolerancd apologists, which includes tolerating people that think different than me (racists, homofobics etc)

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If a baker hates McDonald's because it sales garbage food to young children, causing diabetes, cancer and dead.....should he have the right deny baking a cake for that company?

How is that even remotely comparable to offering a service and then refusing to give that service to particular customer because of their sexual orientation?

If a baker is pro animal rights, should he have the right de deny baking a cake for a circus that mistreats animals?

See above.

If a baker is an ambientalist should he have the right to deny a cake to a company that is causing too much contamination ?

See above.

I am assuming that your answer is "yes," he has the right to deny a service.

I am not an homofobic apologists, .I am a pro freedom and pro tolerancd apologists, which includes tolerating people that think different than me (racists, homofobics etc)

Tolerance of beliefs isn't the same as enabling businesses to actively discriminate however they like against those who they provide public services for.

The very fact that you compare the above examples to this just proves that you really don't understand what is even fundamentally wrong about this particular case, as you fail to see the difference between not providing a service to businesses and not providing a service to individual customers or groups. You seem to believe that consumers don't have rights, which is insane.

Once again, if I don't want to provide a service for someone, I can do that on just grounds. But those grounds do not include race, gender or sexual orientation. Do you understand?

 

[leroy]

How is that even remotely comparable to offering a service and then refusing to give that service to particular customer because of their sexual orientation?


?

In both cases we are talking about a baker who denies a cake because of his own personal moral standards.

It would be arbitrary to agree with one type of discrimination and disagree with the other.

We seem to agree on that the baker is free to deny a cake on the basis that he considers that McDonald's promotes inmoral values.

So why can't the baker deny a service on the basis that he considers that gay weddings promote inmoral values ?

Don't get me wrong, at a personal level I disagree with the baker, in my eyes McDonald's and gay weddings do not promote inmoral values and I would bake the cake in both cases.

But I do believe that he has the right to deny the service in ether case.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

In both cases we are talking about a baker who denies a cake because of his own personal moral standards.

But one is based on a set of personal values that determine how a business owner regards another business, and can be justified. The other is based on a set of personal values that determine how a business owner regards their customers, and cannot be justified.

To compare the two is absurd.

It would be arbitrary to agree with one type of discrimination and disagree with the other.

No, it isn't. It's no more arbitrary than believing in executing criminals while disagreeing with lynching people for being black.

We seem to agree on that the baker is free to deny a cake on the basis that he considers that McDonald's promotes inmoral values.

So why can't the baker deny a service on the basis that he considers that gay weddings promote inmoral values ?

Because they offer wedding cakes to the public.

Don't get me wrong, at a personal level I disagree with the baker, in my eyes McDonald's and gay weddings do not promote inmoral values and I would bake the cake in both cases.

But I do believe that he has the right to deny the service in ether case.

Then you are wrong, and you are an apologist for discrimination.

Or are you seriously unable to differentiate between relationships between two businesses with conflicting values, and a business openly offering a service to the public but then denying that service to a particular customer on discriminatory grounds?

Please show that you understand the difference, or this conversation will not be a productive one.

 

[sojourner]

Isn't that what this is all about? Because one couple wants HIM to make their cake, it doesn't matter whether he has religious objections to their wedding or not, he is being forced to do so.

But here’s the deal: bottom line, he’s in business “to bake cakes for others.” He runs a “bakery.” He’s a baker. He’s not in business “to bake cakes for certain others.” He does not run a “righteous only bakery.” He is not a “baker for straights.”

People (all kinds — not just Certain Kinds) come to his bakery (because he’s a baker) to have cakes baked. They have every right (seeing as he solicits cake-eaters) to assume that he will bake them a cake. 1) They should not have to assume that he would not welcome their business. They shouldn’t have to be forced to skulk about, hiding their identities, wondering if they’re “good enough” to have a baker bake for them. 2) there is no “James Crow” law for homosexuals. The expectation is that a baker is there to bake, and he’s looking for customers. Indeed, he is the one forcing them out of the normal expectation of the baker/customer relationship. The customer is being a normal customer: “I want you to bake me a cake.” The baker is not being a normal baker: “I’m a baker, but I won’t be your baker.”

 

[sojourner]

In both cases we are talking about a baker who denies a cake because of his own personal moral standards.

It would be arbitrary to agree with one type of discrimination and disagree with the other.

We seem to agree on that the baker is free to deny a cake on the basis that he considers that McDonald's promotes inmoral values.

So why can't the baker deny a service on the basis that he considers that gay weddings promote inmoral values ?

Don't get me wrong, at a personal level I disagree with the baker, in my eyes McDonald's and gay weddings do not promote inmoral values and I would bake the cake in both cases.

But I do believe that he has the right to deny the service in ether case.

But the bakers “sphere of concern” should only be the service he offers: “cake-baking.” Is cake-baking immoral? If so, then he needs to not do that. Obviously, it’s not immoral to bake cakes, so that’s what he does! His moral obligation stops there. “I baked a cake. Period.”

 

[leroy]

But the bakers “sphere of concern” should only be the service he offers: “cake-baking.” I

Agree, it should be that way.
If I were a baker I wouldn’t go beyond my sphere of concern.



But it shouldn’t be illegal for a Baker to deny a service that he would consider immoral. That is simply my opinion, feel free to ether agree or disagree.

 

[leroy]

Or are you seriously unable to differentiate between relationships between two businesses with conflicting values, and a business openly offering a service to the public but then denying that service to a particular customer on discriminatory grounds?

Please show that you understand the difference, or this conversation will not be a productive one.

I understated the difference but I don’t believe that the difference is relevant.

What if the baker denies the service to another business that promotes gay weddings. Now we are talking about a business to business relation with conflicting values, under your view this is supposed to be a relevant difference ¿does that changes anything? Should the baker be free to deny the service.

Or pretend that the baker denies the service to the CEO of McDonalds (an individual) who whats a cake for his wedding. Should the baker be free to decide if he wants to provide that service?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I understated the difference but I don’t believe that the difference is relevant.

How is it not relevant? If a company offers services to the public, but then denies that service to a specific member of the public on unjust grounds, that is discrimination. A business choosing not to make a deal with another business for whatever reason isn't remotely the same thing.

What if the baker denies the service to another business that promotes gay weddings. Now we are talking about a business to business relation with conflicting values, under your view this is supposed to be a relevant difference ¿does that changes anything? Should the baker be free to deny the service.

No, because no bakery is required to do business with another bakery. As far as I am aware, no bakery has ever offered every other bakery access to its business. Selling to the public is a completely different matter.

Or pretend that the baker denies the service to the CEO of McDonalds (an individual) who whats a cake for his wedding. Should the baker be free to decide if he wants to provide that service?

Do I have to repeat what I said about protected groups?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Agree, it should be that way.
If I were a baker I wouldn’t go beyond my sphere of concern.



But it shouldn’t be illegal for a Baker to deny a service that he would consider immoral.

Why not? Because you believe businesses have rights over consumers?

Do you not agree that consumers have rights?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

But it shouldn’t be illegal for a Baker to deny a service that he would consider immoral. That is simply my opinion, feel free to ether agree or disagree.

Why not? The baker isn't being paid for his opinion, his moral beliefs nor his religious beliefs. He's being paid to make a cake. If a person sets up a bakery to sell baked goods to the public they're agreeing to do so without discrimination along protected characteristics. Why do you believe a business owner should be allowed to use their religious beliefs to act above the law?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I didn’t say the government ought to be in charge of it. I simply object to the practice of religious film-flammery.

But. From one point of view, since nobody has ever managed to show their god(s) are actually real?

All religion is "film-flammery". Who gets to decide which ones are "real", and deserving of the title "minister" and which ones are not?

... you?

Or a partisan committee of the major religions-- none of whom can actually prove their primary claims?

Who's to say that the First Church Of Elvis isn't the One True Church? At least Elvis was Real....!

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Of course they do. But we’re not talking “Buddhist monk” here. We’re talking Christian clergy.” And all mainline denominations have rigorous training and processes of vetting in place. There are among them some universal standards.

I do not find that to be accurate, actually.....

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Maybe you should clarify your thoughts and tell me specifically what you mean. Feel free to refer to scriptures, too, which you believe indicate God is immoral or tortures people.

The bible is quite clear-- even Jesus made remarks about avoiding hell. That whole it's better to rip your eyeballs out, or cut off body parts, lest you end up in infinite torture for all eternity.

Torture is always immoral. Thus? Even Jesus was immoral. The entire christian narrative, in fact: Inherited "sin" is immoral.

It wants to call innocent babies, "sinners" just for being born.

But in your Special Cherry-Picked Condensed Bible©, none of that is in there. AmIright?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Weddings are much older than religion? That's an interesting claim. Care to prove that one?.

Since all religions have beginning dates, times or periods? But human history is much-much older than all of them?

And since the Ritual Of Pair Bonding (marriage) is older than ANY?

That pretty much establishes it ain't automagically religious.

True, in many places around the world marriages are civil unions, basically; weddings are symbolic..

AND? They are a LEGAL STATUS CHANGE. Otherwise, why bother? In nearly every area on the planet, marriage creates a LEGAL STATUS for both partners, including established rights of inheritance, making medical decisions, etc, etc, etc.

It goes way-- WAY beyond mere symbolism. Which is why Same Sex Marriage was Marriage Equality: too many LAWS use the word "marriage" to establish LEGAL STATUS to simply call it "civil union".

So you are wrong on several points.

.............and that means that they are (wait for it) RELIGIOUS in nature. Perhaps they don't HAVE To be, but mostly they are. The point here is about who gets to decide when it is and when it isn't..

Meaningless claim, and false anyway-- it's more than just symbolic, which destroys your "religious" statement.

(rest of Red Herring ignored, as not relevant to the point)