LogFAQs > #922304173

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Baking a cake for a same-sex wedding? No!
MrMallard 05/24/19 4:47:59 AM #91:	DarkRoast posted... They broke no law. The supreme court agreed. Stop pretending otherwise. The only law that potentially could've been broken is forcing the baker to make a decoration he didn't want to make. That would be a violation of free speech. The baker is not denying service by refusing to make a specific decoration. He was willing to sell them a cake of reasonable approximation. Arguments like "well if he makes cakes with brides and grooms, he can't refuse cakes with two grooms" show a gross lack of basic understanding of free speech. Just like Costco will sell you a smiley face cake but not a hentai cake. This is not complicated, and your feelings about bigotry do not change this. You can't force someone to make any decoration you want. This entire post is shitty, but it's this attitude that stands out as being the most revolting. You've just compared gay people to smut to justify your belief in "free speech". How is a cake depicting two men or two women in a romantic context at all analogous to sexual nudity in a public place, or public depictions of sexual intercourse? Why put same-sex love - a chaste cake-topper of two men or two women, or two masculine/feminine names on a wedding cake - on the same pedestal as pornography? It's not perverse if you depict a man and a woman, what makes it so NSFW if it's a same-sex couple? This attitude has been a pervasive argument against homosexuality for decades, if not longer. Can't have gay teachers, because they're all secretly pedophiles who prey on children - because they're sexual deviants! The AIDS epidemic is primarily affecting the gay community because of their promiscuity, and we should do as little as possible to help them. Wait, straight people can get it too? You can get it through blood transfusions? Fund that cure, baby! Comparing gay people to pornography, and boiling their existence down to having sex? It's got roots in Western homophobia that harken back to the days where gay people were sought out, bashed and murdered for their sexuality on a wide scale. When that shit was socially acceptable. Even if this post isn't dog-whistling, and you didn't intend it, that's the legacy of this discourse. That's its historical significance. So your post can go and fuck right off. --- Now Playing: Yakuza 5, A Night in the Woods, Phantasy Star <cite>MrMallard posted [p:922304173] in Baking a c... [t:77735488]...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkRoast posted...</cite> <quote>They broke no law. The supreme court agreed. Stop pretending otherwise. The only law that potentially could've been broken is forcing the baker to make a decoration he didn't want to make. That would be a violation of free speech. The baker is not denying service by refusing to make a specific decoration. He was willing to sell them a cake of reasonable approximation. Arguments like "well if he makes cakes with brides and grooms, he can't refuse cakes with two grooms" show a gross lack of basic understanding of free speech. Just like Costco will sell you a smiley face cake but not a hentai cake. This is not complicated, and your feelings about bigotry do not change this. You can't force someone to make any decoration you want.</quote> This entire post is shitty, but it's this attitude that stands out as being the most revolting. You've just compared gay people to smut to justify your belief in "free speech". How is a cake depicting two men or two women in a romantic context at all analogous to sexual nudity in a public place, or public depictions of sexual intercourse? Why put same-sex love - a chaste cake-topper of two men or two women, or two masculine/feminine names on a wedding cake - on the same pedestal as pornography? It's not perverse if you depict a man and a woman, what makes it so NSFW if it's a same-sex couple? This attitude has been a pervasive argument against homosexuality for decades, if not longer. Can't have gay teachers, because they're all secretly pedophiles who prey on children - because they're sexual deviants! The AIDS epidemic is primarily affecting the gay community because of their promiscuity, and we should do as little as possible to help them. Wait, straight people can get it too? You can get it through blood transfusions? Fund that cure, baby! Comparing gay people to pornography, and boiling their existence down to having sex? It's got roots in Western homophobia that harken back to the days where gay people were sought out, bashed and murdered for their sexuality on a wide scale. When that shit was socially acceptable. Even if this post isn't dog-whistling, and you didn't intend it, that's the legacy of this discourse. That's its historical significance. So your post can go and fuck right off. --- Now Playing: Yakuza 5, A Night in the Woods, Phantasy Star</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1