I'm just dumbfounded by your idiocy. I mean there's some people I disagree with on the VS. forum but you are literally the most pants-on-head moronic poster on this board.
Not special, just equal. I don't know how much clearer that needs to be stated.
But equal means they think you need enough special treatment to level the playing field. They think it's the same thing as giving a handicap, when it's more like not going out of your way to make somebody's life more miserable.
In the first instance, the woman did not refuse to make them a cake, she simply refused to put a saying on it. She even offered to give the buyer a frosting piping kit so they could add the saying themselves if they wanted. She didn't refuse to sell them a cake, she just wouldn't decorate it how they wanted and tried to find an alternative solution.
I have a couple questions. Forgive me if I use the wrong terms...
Because the protected class status protects them from being discriminated against, not an allowance to be protected in everything they do, including discrimination...
But is the business discriminating against someone if the people that are alleging discrimination aren't a protected class?
That's part of the current debate. Also, just because conduct isn't prohibited by the civil rights act of 1964 doesn't mean it isn't discrimination in the plain meaning.
I agree, I just wanted to make sure I understood in terms of the law.
That's it right there. We don't need a law saying that you don't want to do this or that for whatever people for any reason under the sun.
them. I don't care if they won't make wedding cakes because the flying spaghetti monster tells them not to, just don't be an ass to customers, because people tend to spread the bad news a lot easier than the good news. With our ever-more-connected society, the Tweet that Bob's Catering are a bunch of assholes hits before the Camel leaves the parking lot.
I would likely handle it that way myself. But if you're someone filled with zeal and fervor and love of liberty, then you may feel it's your divinely appointed right to tell the gays to stop polluting your store with their gayness. Suggesting that they hide that Liberty Light under a bushel for the sake of keeping the peace is akin to blasphemy.
Good point. I really never thought about it that way. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.
That is what I mean. Most people, gay, straight, white, black, etc. just want to go about their business. They want to go to work, to eat, to the park, whatever. There are a few, of every category of people that want to be vocal about their feelings toward others.
think this was already covered...
Housing is a different beast altogether though as it's protected/regulated by both the broader Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as the Federal Fair Housing Act. The justification being that housing is a critical part of life, a wedding cake is not and therefore we're not likely to see a Federal Equal Pastry Protection law anytime soon.
Because joining a hate group is a choice. The people who do so take the consequences with their actions, animosity toward them and all. Despite not yet being a protected class in most states yet, sexual orientation isn't the same as being in a hate group.
No, we established that the law does not have an opinion on why people are homosexual. This is different from the law establishing that it is a choice. For that matter, the law does not have an opinion on why people are religious but the protection of religious practices dates back the nation's founding so it's just an inconsistency we have to live with.
No, I'm saying that "It's okay if you're gay so long as you don't ACT gay" is a terrible premise for legal protections.
So you're saying something no one else (in this thread) has tried to claim. Great!
Did scientific consensus recently change and humans are no longer considrered part of the animal kingdom?
I think a better example would be "should a Jewish deli be required to cater a baptism if they don't want to?". My personal belief is no, they shouldn't be. And they should have the right to say that their religion is against baptizing in Christian fashion, and therefore don't want to provide a service for an event that goes against their beliefs.
They weren't forced to make the cake. What generally happens in these cases is that you're forced to pay punitive damages. There's few situations where you can actually be compelled to sell something against your will -- real estate being the primary one.
No, but that case would be different anyway. You wouldn't be refusing to draw Muhammad because the customer was [whatever], you'd be refusing because you don't draw Muhammad for anybody. The thing is, a "wedding" cake is just a cake at a wedding. Refusing to make someone a two-tier cake with blue frosting isn't protected just because it'll go to a wedding. You might refuse to put a cake topper on it or refuse to deliver it and have a case. Refusing blankly to make a cake period is where you get in trouble.
This is a better example.^^^
Ok thanks for the clarification. I figured there was some type of contingency (or room for discussion) in there in regards to toppers, writing, etc.
Nope. And in both cases, I think the business should get to choose who they want to serve, and face the consequences or alienating the public and suffer from a smaller customer base.
why make them a cake Just give them the mix and tell them to bake it themself. They would still sue saying they would not make it.
you see only the gays have rights to complain, if your straight and complain noone cares, they would say your forcing your views onto the baker
There should have been.
Sure. So the correct response if the decoration was an issue should have been "We don't do that specific decoration but here's a range of other decorations you can choose from".
