Judge rules in favor of Baker refusing to make cake for same sex couple.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Would you want to be legally obligated to bake a cake for a Trump rally and face a lawsuit if you refused?

On what grounds?

 

[Curious George]

On what grounds?

I think he is comparing the becoming a protected class nature of the two. That is to say if political ideology was a protected class. Given that sexual orientation is still not a federally protected class in the U.S. the analogy works but in the areas where we see these lawsuits it is a protected class so it does not work.

The analogy, in my opinion, drives at the question whether sexual orientation should be a protected class. I think that most people who take issue with the loss of ability to deny service to LGBTQ simply believe they should be able to discriminate for these reasons.

While I find the idea of some services as speech interesting, I do not think it is genuinely the driving force behind the resistance to prohibiting this type of discrimination.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

America is regressing. It appears the 21st century will be one of regress. How truly sad!

 

[Jainarayan]

but I don't think you understand the implications of requiring all bakers to bake cakes for all events that are requested of them.

Do enlighten me on the implications of universal cake baking.

 

[Jainarayan]

I see a small difference.
Let's consider the modern office environment....
- Not giving someone a decorated cake is acceptable.
- Waving a penis in someone's face will get you the Harvey Weinstein treatment.

But what if someone waves a penis in a bakery?

 

[Revoltingest]

But what if someone waves a penis in a bakery?

I'm shopping elsewhere until it leaves.

 

[SomeRandom]

If same-sex marriage is a sin there are a number of versus regarding conduct with those that sin and the dangers of "enabling" those you know to sin. In some verses it is seen as a source of negative influence be it in the form of modern social pressures or just a "direct tap" for Satan to access.

I do not think Jesus, if holding the view of the baker, would have any believer take part in sins willingly. Again that is if Jesus believes as the baker does.

Bible Gateway passage: 1 Timothy 5:22 - New International Version

Pretty big if. I doubt a literal God would be that petty.

 

[Koldo]

Using your logic, then, we should also prevent people from freely discriminating against others based on their political beliefs. Therefore, all liberal bakers should be forced to bake cakes for Trump rallies and all conservative bakers should be forced to bake cakes for Bernie Sanders rallies. See the issue?

No! I see no issue.
That's exactly where my reasoning leads and that's exactly what I support.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

You can’t refuse to serve a black person because of the colour of their skin, you can’t refuse to serve a Christian because of his religion, you can’t refuse to serve a gay person because of his orientation.

I agree with you, but you're missing the point. The baker did not refuse to serve them *because* they were gay. If you listen to him interviewed he said that they are welcome in his bake shop to buy whatever they want, anytime. What he objects to is selling them a cake that he knows will be used as a gay wedding cake. He was not discriminating against them because of their sexual orientation; he was discriminating against making a cake that would be used at a specific event that his religious views oppose. Major difference.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Do enlighten me on the implications of universal cake baking.

I already did. Why don't you answer my question, bud? Would you want to be legally obligated to bake cakes for a Trump rally? If not, then you cannot say a Christian should be legally obligated to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

 

[columbus]

he was discriminating against making a cake that would be used at a specific event that his religious views oppose. Major difference.

I don't see that as major. I see it as rather petty. But it does tell me about his religious views.
Tom

 

[Rational Agnostic]

No! I see no issue.
That's exactly where my reasoning leads and that's exactly what I support.

Alrighty then. Glad you admit that. We'll just have to agree to disagree then.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree with you, but you're missing the point. The baker did not refuse to serve them *because* they were gay. If you listen to him interviewed he said that they are welcome in his bake shop to buy whatever they want, anytime. What he objects to is selling them a cake that he knows will be used as a gay wedding cake. He was not discriminating against them because of their sexual orientation; he was discriminating against making a cake that would be used at a specific event that his religious views oppose. Major difference.

The fact that he might not discriminate against them in the case of other products and services doesn't somehow mean they didn't discriminate against the couple when it came to wedding cakes.

And if we want to be completely accurate, it was discrimination on the basis of gender, not strictly orientation. He refused the customer a wedding cake because of the gender of her fiancee.

I don't see why the event comes into it. The event is not the expression of the baker. (BTW: I should probably note that I disagree with the court and hope that the decision will be overturned on appeal)

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I don't see that as major. I see it as rather petty. But it does tell me about his religious views.
Tom

It is a major difference, because he is not discriminating against the gay couple, he is discriminating against their event in the same way you would probably discriminate against a Trump rally.

 

[Jainarayan]

I already did. Why don't you answer my question, bud? Would you want to be legally obligated to bake cakes for a Trump rally? If not, then you cannot say a Christian should be legally obligated to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

And the question was already answered, "bud", with the KKK example... not baking a cake for a Trump or KKK rally is not discriminating against a protected class.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I already did. Why don't you answer my question, bud? Would you want to be legally obligated to bake cakes for a Trump rally? If not, then you cannot say a Christian should be legally obligated to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

... unless we draw a distinction between political views and sexual orientation. So far, you've given no reason not to.

 

[columbus]

It is a major difference, because he is not discriminating against the gay couple, he is discriminating against their event in the same way you would probably discriminate against a Trump rally.

Actually I wouldn't.
I am in a similar business, custom picture framing. I have done my thing for lots of people whose beliefs I found abominable.
The only time it was a problem it was around a big game trophy hunter trying to convince me that killing trophy game in Africa was a good thing. The conversation got heated, but I did his maps of great places to kill animals.
I did what he wanted because he paid for the job. I am not in business to police my customers.
Tom

 

[Rational Agnostic]

And the question was already answered, "bud", with the KKK example... not baking a cake for a Trump or KKK rally is not discriminating against a protected class.

You can't discriminate against Trump supporters who just want to buy, say, a birthday cake. You can discriminate against Trump supporters who want to buy a cake for a Trump rally. At least that's my view. This is analagous to the gay wedding scenario.

 

[columbus]

You can't discriminate against Trump supporters who just want to buy, say, a birthday cake. You can discriminate against Trump supporters who want to buy a cake for a Trump rally.

While I think that the laws are obsolete and counterproductive, they're still on the books. Race and orientation are covered, political affiliation is not.
Tom

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree with you, but you're missing the point. The baker did not refuse to serve them *because* they were gay. If you listen to him interviewed he said that they are welcome in his bake shop to buy whatever they want, anytime. What he objects to is selling them a cake that he knows will be used as a gay wedding cake. He was not discriminating against them because of their sexual orientation; he was discriminating against making a cake that would be used at a specific event that his religious views oppose. Major difference.

No, not really. Once one sells a product one does not have any valid claim as to how it is used.

And from my understanding political thought is a protected action. If one refused to make a cake that would be used in a Trump rally but agreed to make one that would be used in a Bernie rally one is opening oneself up to a lawsuit.