Trump's Dept of Justice sides with Christian Cake Baker, Going to Supreme Court.

[WiolentOne]

@Jack V Savage

Don't be shy. Make sure you vote.

 

[floivanus]

What do you call pink cakes then?

Strawberry

 

[rokzilla]

Muslims dont eat bacon and usually dont sell them. You cant go to a shop with your own product and say make me this. But what you can do is demand same treatment like everyone and ask them to make you product they make for everyone

He doesn't make cake for gay weddings, that's not something he offers everyone.

 

[Orgasmo]

Private businesses should be able to refuse service and products to anyone they deem undesirable, even if motivated by religious bigotry or racism. It is their right, whether consumers like it or not. You are free to boycott such businesses. Government should not be regulating how a business is operated unless it relates to public safety. If the said business is receiving public contracts from government, then they waive their right to discriminate.

 

[Gervinho]

He doesn't make cake for gay weddings, that's not something he offers everyone.

Thats like saying i dont make sanswiches for gays when i have sanswich shop. But if I was gay and the best cake maker was gay. I would just bring a friend and say can you make a cake for our hetrosexual wedding. Only when he has and i have the cake in safe place i would tell him oooh we are gay actually. Both sides are going over their way to make a point. You can get the cake as long as you tell them what they want to hear. Over the last 50 years christians has lost every social argument. So this is more of just scoring any victory more than anything

 

[Madmick]

Seems like an obvious loss to me but still enough gray to be interesting.

The interesting thing to me is wondering how many people realize that if the baker wins then this legal argument applies to Muslims and Islam and actually increases the chances for Sharia law.

How? Because then any Muslim can make the argument that certain state laws are an infringement on his religious practices and he should be allowed to disregard those state and federal laws to stay in line with his deeply held religious positions.

Absurd argument. How does that inch us closer to Sharia Law?

A Muslim refusing to bake a custom-order cake that violates his religious beliefs achieves nothing in the way of subjecting me to the oppression of his beliefs; it only allows him more freedom-- does nothing to abridge my own. Sharia Law would dictate that I wouldn't be allowed to bake that cake in my own shop.

 

[HomerThompson]

Absurd argument. How does that inch us closer to Sharia Law?

A Muslim refusing to bake a custom-order cake that violates his religious beliefs achieves nothing in the way of subjecting me to the oppression of his beliefs; it only allows him more freedom-- does nothing to abridge my own. Sharia Law would dictate that I wouldn't be allowed to bake that cake in my own shop.

What if Muslims manage to buy all the shops in a given town? Should everyone there they refuse to serve be forced to move to a different town, or to go to extreme lengths just to buy groceries? All of this because of muh market freedoms? That's what's ridiculous.

 

[nhbbear]

Patty cake, patty cake for a man, bake us a cake as gay as you can, rolling in the dough, mark it with a Brian and Joe, put it in the oven for these homeowners

 

[nhbbear]

And I am very glad that this will likely get overturned. That makes me happy, almost terrifically gay, you might say. First, because it will upset the Colorado social justice courts and second, because it is the right thing to do. As I stated last week, I am very supportive of gay rights, but not above the first amendment. The owner should be able to refuse to cater to anyone with the only consequences coming from the free market and not the government

 

[Madmick]

What if Muslims manage to buy all the shops in a given town? Should everyone there they refuse to serve be forced to move to a different town, or to go to extreme lengths just to buy groceries? All of this because of muh market freedoms? That's what's ridiculous.

Yes. Do you now understand why it's important this is a trickle, not a flood, of the poor and ignorant barbarians from across the world? Do you now understand why it is important to police who comes into your country, and first educate them to secular values-- or, even better, to selectively cull only those who seek your country because they share its values, and want to escape that barbarism, not simply because they are weaker barbarians fleeing stronger barbarians? A culture cannot be better than its people. No secular humanist government with a spine will ever see its population become predominantly Sharia-advocating Sunni Muslim. That darkness cannot succeed if you don't allow it, or worse, abet it.

and/or

No. First, let's parse this from discrimination of traits which are wholly innate and cannot be changed (i.e. skin color, gender, etc). We are not talking about traits. We are talking about beliefs and behavior.

Second, again, nothing about this entails discrimination. Discrimination is intrinsic only to a denial of service to a specific group that is afforded to the general public. Custom orders (such as those involving the cake in Oregon) are inherently immune to this critique. Simply because a baker is willing to use his business to offer a custom service where he bakes cakes for heterosexual couples does not behold him to do the same for a homosexual couples. These custom services are not symmetrical.

Otherwise, where does that end? There are lots of demands (since we aren't requesting here) that a person could make for a custom order that do not violate any legal spirit, but would be incredibly offensive to me. Ask me to bake a cake that says, "Kill White People!" just because speech is free? Not me. Piss off. Find another baker.

This is a trope of a familiar, failed argument, but more appropriately deployed, here. Personally, I never found the argument that would deny homosexual civil unions by splitting hairs between same-sex vs. heterosexual couples as asymmetrical institutions (i.e. man+man is not the same as man+woman) to be compelling because it entailed a denial-of-services to gay couples on behalf of the state that are matters of secular law (ex. the classic example from the film Philadelphia where he couldn't stay with his partner in the hospital because he wasn't "immediate family"...and that's just the tip of the iceberg).

From a secular point of view, that isn't a compelling argument. The secularists among us see that these people are partners, who love each other, live together, get sick together, share bank accounts or other resources together, pay taxes together, and intertwine their lives in a virtually identical way to heterosexual couples. Thus, at least in the eyes of the State, pertaining to legal rights, they should be afforded equal rights.

But we're no longer talking about the State. We are now talking about private individuals, and private individuals have the right to their religious beliefs in their own private businesses. They are not denying anyone the right to marry. They are not denying them state rights. They aren't even denying them the right to shop in their stores off the shelves, or to custom order those same heterosexual wedding cakes. They are denying a specific service, not a general service. They are denying it (a homosexual wedding cakes) to heterosexuals the same as they are denying it to homosexuals. So I don't see how this violates the Civil Rights Act.

Hell, this isn't even a matter of minority oppression. Gays might be a minority, but people who support gay marriage are not the minority, anymore. So your hypothetical there deviates from reality, and the metaphor lacks weight.

I acknowledge the weight of logic behind the Civil Rights Act, but this isn't that. This is government overreach. This is liberal bullying.

 

[Lord Coke]

Yes. Do you now understand why it's important this is a trickle, not a flood, of the poor and ignorant barbarians from across the world? Do you now understand why it is important to police who comes into your country, and first educate them to secular values-- or, even better, to selectively cull only those who seek your country because they share its values, and want to escape that barbarism, not simply because they are weaker barbarians fleeing stronger barbarians? A culture cannot be better than its people. No secular humanist government with a spine will ever see its population become predominantly Sharia-advocating Sunni Muslim. That darkness cannot succeed if you don't allow it, or worse, abet it.


This is a trope of a familiar, failed argument, but more appropriately deployed, here. Personally, I never found the argument that would deny homosexual civil unions by splitting hairs between same-sex vs. heterosexual couples as asymmetrical institutions (i.e. man+man is not the same as man+woman) to be compelling because it entailed a denial-of-services to gay couples on behalf of the state that are matters of secular law (ex. the classic example from the film Philadelphia where he couldn't stay with his partner because he wasn't "immediate family"...and that's just the tip of the iceberg). From a secular point of view, that isn't a compelling argument. The secularists among us see that these people are partners, who love each other, live together, get sick together, share bank accounts or other resources together, pay taxes together, and intertwine their lives in a virtually identical way to heterosexual couples. Thus, at least in the eyes of the State, pertaining to legal rights, they should be afforded equal rights.

.

The worst thing about the gay marriage decision isn't really the gay marriage angle. Its the fact that the Supreme Court read into the Constitution something that simply was not there at the time of ratification. Obergefell should have been a simply inquiry. What does the Due Process clause offer. The inquiry should have ended with not marriage. But let's say you believe in a expansionist view of the Due Process clause then the next step is did people believe there was a fundamental right to marry at the time of the ratification of the 14th amendment in 1868. If there was what was marriage defined as, If that is not defined as something similar to what the petitioners are asking for i.e. man on man then no right.
If our laws and the Constitution is the hig


What the Court did was basically say this is what we feel the law should be so it is. This is worse when you don't have a structure to the law and you have people coming in from god knows where. Who is to say the law should not be there to promote diversity and cultural enrichment? Basically we have a unelected minority passing laws at this point and they might say that.

 

[mon]

Nope. No retractions forthcoming. Because the point is to illustrate the absurdity of arguing that this man isn't discriminating against them for being gay. That he's discriminating against their marriage for being a same sex marriage and their actual gayness has nothing to do with it. It's inane.

This is the problem with debating with a professional liar.

You changed the subject because you couldn't refute the evidence presented, my 16 year old niece uses this, it's called deflection.

 

[Bargey]

Seems like an obvious loss to me but still enough gray to be interesting.

The interesting thing to me is wondering how many people realize that if the baker wins then this legal argument applies to Muslims and Islam and actually increases the chances for Sharia law.

How? Because then any Muslim can make the argument that certain state laws are an infringement on his religious practices and he should be allowed to disregard those state and federal laws to stay in line with his deeply held religious positions.

If a Muslim doesn't want to sell me a kebab because I'm Christian then so be it. Don't care - just won't go there again.

 

[Bargey]

i think you should have a right to be a complete dick if you want to be.

but at what point should society draw the line over "religious freedom?" if a buddhist becomes a cop, but says that he cant physically restrain people or shoot at anyone....what are we to do?

Fire him?

 

[Deleted member 159002]

What about the existence of minorities?

History has some really sobering commentary on this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negro_Motorist_Green_Book

Yup, that too.

 

[Seraldo Babalu]

If movie theaters can allow women-only screenings of Wonder Woman, then this baker should be able to bake whatever kind of cake he wants.

 

[Falsedawn]

If movie theaters can allow women-only screenings of Wonder Woman, then this baker should be able to bake whatever kind of cake he wants.

Might wanna look at how that whole situation ended. Probably not your best example. Work on it.

 

[MacDuffle]

If I build buildings, the govt should not fine me for refusing to build your house, shed or barn. I have the right to refuse to make your project.

That refusal can't violate constitutional law however. Projects can be rejected, but not on the basis of discriminatory standards

What kinds of laws do you think your country has on the books, right now, about housing and real estate refusal? You do not have the ability to refuse housing along racial lines

Not every refusal of services is lawful

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Wonder if you can sue some Muslims places over this

Oddly enough, none of the muslim pizza joints take issue with serving pork.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Muslims dont eat bacon and usually dont sell them.

??? I order pepperoni and ham (sometimes add bacon) on my pizza from the the Muslim owned pizza joint and all the Muslim grocers carry bacon in my area.