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

[Curious George]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this except it seems not like what "sexual orientation" normally means.

In other words the discrimination is about a man liking another man or a woman liking another woman. It is not about the sex of one. It is about the sex of one contingent on the sex of the other and vive versa. In other words, it about the orientation between the two individuals not either one of the individuals.

 

[Jainarayan]

Which one sounds like the same bigotry?

The ignorance, discrimination and bigotry are the same in both cases.

 

[Curious George]

The ignorance, discrimination and bigotry are the same in both cases.

Saying that discrimination against same sex couples is discrimination based on sexual orientation sounds like the same bigotry found in the statement gay men are free to marry whatever women they want?

 

[Jainarayan]

Saying that discrimination against same sex couples is discrimination based on sexual orientation sounds like the same bigotry found in the statement gay men are free to marry whatever women they want?

Booyah!!!

 

[Curious George]

Booyah!!!

How did you get there? I can not see them as even close to the same thing.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think this may be the first time a judge (in California surprisingly) has ruled in favor of a baker on this subject. What do you think? Be nice please.

A wedding cake is an 'artistic expression' that a baker may deny to a same-sex couple, Calif. judge rules

Good for the judge. People in a free nation should not be forced to pander. It's a win for free speech, although there are various ways to go about things where everybody wins without having the court system mucked up with things like decorating a cake.

Addum

Nevermind. I retract my statement. All the couple wanted was a generic cake without any decorating or symbolism.

I'll have to change my mind and say the judge didn't make a good ruling.

 

[Jainarayan]

How did you get there? I can not see them as even close to the same thing.

Ok, that’s your view. These things don’t affect your life so you probably wouldn’t see it the way I do.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

The whole reason for not doing the cake is because they are homosexual. Why do you keep saying it's not?

It's because he objects to their wedding, *not* because they are homosexual. He repeatedly stated that they are welcome customers in his shop and that he will serve them anything other than a wedding cake. He is discriminating against the event, not the people. Whether you think that should be allowed or not is up to you. I am making the distinction to illustrate that what he did is NOT equivalent to refusing to serve someone because of their sexual orientation.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I don't get why you think it is acceptable to freely discriminate against people because of their political stance.

I don't. Why is this so difficult for people to grasp? I have no problem with discriminating against EVENTS, but I certainly do have a problem with discriminating against people. For instance, if I were a baker, I would serve a Scientologist any cake he wants. However, if the Scientologist told me that the cake was going to be given to children at a Scientology indoctrination party, I would object. Likewise, if Alex Jones walked into my bakery, I would give him any cake he wants, unless he told me the cake was going to be used at one of his alt-right conspiracy theory parties. In the same way, the baker told the homosexual couple that he would serve them any cake they want, so long as it is not a cake to be used at their wedding. I don't agree with the baker's actions of course, but I respect his right to not bake a cake for an event that he opposes, as long as he does not discriminate against all homosexuals in general. You may very well disagree with me, and I can respect that, but before disagreeing, you should be sure that you understand my stance correctly, because as of your last post you didn't.

 

[Koldo]

I don't. Why is this so difficult for people to grasp? I have no problem with discriminating against EVENTS, but I certainly do have a problem with discriminating against people. For instance, if I were a baker, I would serve a Scientologist any cake he wants. However, if the Scientologist told me that the cake was going to be given to children at a Scientology indoctrination party, I would object. Likewise, if Alex Jones walked into my bakery, I would give him any cake he wants, unless he told me the cake was going to be used at one of his alt-right conspiracy theory parties. In the same way, the baker told the homosexual couple that he would serve them any cake they want, so long as it is not a cake to be used at their wedding. I don't agree with the baker's actions of course, but I respect his right to not bake a cake for an event that he opposes, as long as he does not discriminate against all homosexuals in general. You may very well disagree with me, and I can respect that, but before disagreeing, you should be sure that you understand my stance correctly, because as of your last post you didn't.

It just so happens there is no way to separate events from people with a clear line.
For instance, one might be opposed to 'homosexual gatherings' and this would include any group of two or more homosexual individuals. If we allow this individual to discriminate against 'homosexual gatherings' we are effectively allowing him to discriminate against homosexuals.

Substitute the term 'homosexual' in the last paragraph for 'people from other countries', 'people from other races', 'people with different political views', 'people from a certain religion', and so on. You are effectively allowing discrimination to run amok.

 

[leibowde84]

Yep, and your example shows exactly why the example of a Muslim being forced to make a ham sandwich fails. It is the exact same product that is made for others. No special artistry tells one the nature of the wedding it is to be used for. It was a generic wedding cake. In the ham sandwich situation a product that is never bought must be bought, a product that is never handled must be handled. The two are not equivalent at all.

Well, the Muslim serving pork analogy is completely irrelevant, nonsensical, and a straw man argument in general. If a store doesn't serve pork (or literally any other product for that matter), then no one can make them sell pork against their will. Can you force the employees at Best Buy to make you a ham sandwich?!

If the Muslim is just an employee and the store does sell pork, the responsibility is on the owner to make reasonable accommodations, which is a completely different issue.

 

[Holdasown]

It's because he objects to their wedding, *not* because they are homosexual. He repeatedly stated that they are welcome customers in his shop and that he will serve them anything other than a wedding cake. He is discriminating against the event, not the people. Whether you think that should be allowed or not is up to you. I am making the distinction to illustrate that what he did is NOT equivalent to refusing to serve someone because of their sexual orientation.

That is double talk. If they were not homosexual he would do the cake for the wedding.

 

[leibowde84]

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?

There actually is no issue with this, legal or otherwise, other than people just being jerks. Of course any store open to the public should not be able to discriminate as to who they serve. That is the law, thanks to the civil rights act. And, as long as the Bernie or Trump supporters aren't asking the baker to write political messages they disagree with (the couple wanted a blank cake; the baker wasn't forced to write or draw anything that even could be considered pro-gay marriage), the baker should have to sell his cakes to anyone, no matter what political party or politicians they support.

How on earth could you support the argument that a Trump-supporting baker shouldn't have to bake a cake destined for a Bernie rally? I'd like to see that argument.

 

[SomeRandom]

My point wasn't about the IF but the conduct verses.

I still fail to see how baking a freaking cake, which is literally the job of a baker, is doing anything but doing the one job said baker is paid to do. Does this same baker make every customer fill out a questionnaire to ensure they are not serving cakes to divorcees or people who have cheated on their spouse? I highly doubt this so called "moral concern" this baker has extends past being a homophobic jerk and hiding behind Jesus because it's convenient to do so.
Do you think Jesus would be okay with such (alleged/inferred) hypocrisy? I don't.

 

[Shad]

I still fail to see how baking a freaking cake, which is literally the job of a baker, is doing anything but doing the one job said baker is paid to do. Does this same baker make every customer fill out a questionnaire to ensure they are not serving cakes to divorcees or people who have cheated on their spouse? I highly doubt this so called "moral concern" this baker has extends past being a homophobic jerk and hiding behind Jesus because it's convenient to do so.

Talk to people with such a belief. Maybe you would gain an understanding from their view. As for now you are merely speculating motives based on a caricature you already held which is already a negative one.

Do you think Jesus would be okay with such (alleged/inferred) hypocrisy? I don't.

So? All are you doing is proposing a better Jesus character which aligns with what you already believed That is no different than say the bake creating a Jesus that supports their view which was already held. Speculating on what Jesus would do is a useless exercise.

 

[columbus]

Speculating on what Jesus would do is a useless exercise.

I wonder how many Christians would agree with that.
Tom

 

[Shad]

I wonder how many Christians would agree with that.
Tom

That is the point. X will say Jesus supports A. Y person says Jesus opposes A. Merely replying to the shallowest of caricatures that have no actual argument is useless exercise. Merely appealing to my emotions and/or standard than demanding I project those standard on to Jesus is also useless.

 

[SomeRandom]

Talk to people with such a belief. Maybe you would gain an understanding from their view. As for now you are merely speculating motives based on a caricature you already held which is already a negative one.



So? All are you doing is proposing a better Jesus character which aligns with what you already believed That is no different than say the bake creating a Jesus that supports their view which was already held. Speculating on what Jesus would do is a useless exercise.

Half my family are orthodox Catholics. My close family friends who I consider family are all Christians of some flavour and every single one of them would find the baker's actions petty and un Jesus like. And half are even No voters on SSM! Even they wouldn't do this!
If I have a negative characture of Christianity it is precisely because of stories like this one. It is one thing to disagree about Jesus' teachings. It's quite another to hide behind Jesus to justify your ill treatment of your fellow man. Which needs no speculation as to whether or not Jesus would favour it. (Ahem Golden Rule anyone?)
Then again perhaps most people I know are just able to act like a professional at their job. Who knows?

 

[Sha'irullah]

These comments are deplorable. The man did what he felt was right and nobody is being hurt nor is he forcing his own religion on somebody else. If I was a vegan I would not want to be forced to eat meat the same way if I did not believe that homosexuality was a moral lifestyle I would not give my support to something I find intolerable. It is a sad part of life but oh well, who cares.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I wonder how many people would feel if a customer walked into a bakery and asked the baker to write on the cake how he or she would like to murder the baker's children . . . for a joke. Or maybe a pedophiliac message on the cake.

I mean the baker has to comply after all . . . am I right?