Current Events > CRAZED conservative fumes as HOMOPHOBIC cake request denied

(+) Yeah! (+)

fenderbender321 posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

What is and isn't offensive is entirely subjective. How a person feels about making a gay wedding cake vs making a cake with swastikas on it is going to vary from person to person based on their own unique set of values, which we should be embracing instead of legislating against.

It being subjective is absolutely why we shouldn't give a fuck what people feel. You open a public business, then serve the public and keep your feelings on the sidelines.

Not that any of that matters to the situation in the OP.

The problem with this logic, though, is that "serve the public" is abstract and subjective. Refusing to bake a cake, for ANY reason at all, is absolutely a way of serving the public. It might not be the way everyone wants, but as John Lennon (actual John Lennon) once said in response to some negative things people said about The Beatles, "we can't be everything for everyone".

No, but a public cake shop can serve the public with cakes. I'm not saying everything should be everything for everyone. I'm not asking for a burger joint to provide legal counsel to divorcees.

Some people prefer a cake shop that won't make gay wedding cakes, and some prefer one that does. There's no basis to allow one set of values to trump everything. The best course of action is to keep things free and open so that there is diversity and variety in the type of trade that is conducted in the US.

This is why you take values out of the equation. Allowing discrimination for any reason don't allow for diversity of trade, whatever the hell that means. It allows for discrimination. And what does a person in small town America do if there is only one business in town providing what they want and the business doesn't like them? What if they are different in a non-standard way and many businesses don't like them?


"OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. UNLESS WE DISAGREE WITH YOUR LIFESTYLE."
---

Some people would prefer a cake shop that won't serve black people. Should that be allowed too Fender? :u Come on now, be honest.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

OpheliaAdenade posted...

Some people would prefer a cake shop that won't serve black people. Should that be allowed too Fender? :u Come on now, be honest.

Of course. And we should allow a business that only serves black people. Choices. Diversity. Respect. I'm all about it.

There you have it folks. :u My work here is done.
---

libertarianism is bullshit
---

fenderbender321 posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

What is and isn't offensive is entirely subjective. How a person feels about making a gay wedding cake vs making a cake with swastikas on it is going to vary from person to person based on their own unique set of values, which we should be embracing instead of legislating against.

It being subjective is absolutely why we shouldn't give a fuck what people feel. You open a public business, then serve the public and keep your feelings on the sidelines.

Not that any of that matters to the situation in the OP.

The problem with this logic, though, is that "serve the public" is abstract and subjective. Refusing to bake a cake, for ANY reason at all, is absolutely a way of serving the public. It might not be the way everyone wants, but as John Lennon (actual John Lennon) once said in response to some negative things people said about The Beatles, "we can't be everything for everyone".

No, but a public cake shop can serve the public with cakes. I'm not saying everything should be everything for everyone. I'm not asking for a burger joint to provide legal counsel to divorcees.

Some people prefer a cake shop that won't make gay wedding cakes, and some prefer one that does. There's no basis to allow one set of values to trump everything. The best course of action is to keep things free and open so that there is diversity and variety in the type of trade that is conducted in the US.

And what does a person in small town America do if there is only one business in town providing what they want and the business doesn't like them?

I would imagine that people would survive in the same manner they did before that business ever existed.

Meaning?

Humanity survives brutal dictatorships too. We survived all kinds of horrific things throughout history. Doesn't mean I advocate for them.
---

Hockey and Ophelia are going all out.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

OpheliaAdenade posted...

Some people would prefer a cake shop that won't serve black people. Should that be allowed too Fender? :u Come on now, be honest.

Of course. And we should allow a business that only serves black people. Choices. Diversity. Respect. I'm all about it.

Awful just awful

Total commitment to ideology over people

And with no guarantee it would even work. Just "I IMAGINE" a store that discriminates would go out of business. You should be JohnLennon not that other guy.

Obsessive devotion to the "rights" of shopkeepers to discriminate if they want to. Meanwhile a ten year old African American girl gets to ask her mama why she cant buy clothes at the same store the pretty white girls in her class shop at. Any compassion for her? Nope.
---

JohnLennon6 posted...

Hockey and Ophelia are going all out.

I missed the all there and was going to say something. :o Don't spread gossip John! Geez.
---

The polar opposite of evil is good, but I wouldnt expect a liberlolian to understand that
---

fenderbender321 posted...

For the very very few instances of people who want to discriminate, 6 figure fines and loss of business license and all that are a severe over-correction of a non-issue that hasn't caused any harm to anyone.

That isn't a "severe over-correction." That is just justice at work. They deserve everything they get hit with.
---

Malcolm_Caradoc posted...

The polar opposite of evil is good, but I wouldnt expect a liberlolian to understand that

Be wary of using concepts like good and evil to define and direct government policy. What constitutes those labels eventually changes, sometimes after decades or hundreds of years and sometimes much more quickly than that.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

The free market has done an outstanding job of doing exactly what you desire. The government and it's Jim Crow laws are what caused a divided and segregated society in the first place. It's basic logic, really. If it's wrong for the government to force a business to segregate blacks/whites, then it's wrong for the government to do the polar opposite. We often forget that polar opposites should be treated the same. It's just that we haven't noticed much of a problem with things on the opposite side, because 99.9999% of the free market has no desire to discriminate against anyone who has money. For the very very few instances of people who want to discriminate, 6 figure fines and loss of business license and all that are a severe over-correction of a non-issue that hasn't caused any harm to anyone.

Uh, where to start...?

Firstly, the Jim Crow laws did not happen in a vacuum. It seems you're saying that racism wouldn't have existed in the US if not for the government, which is absolute nonsense to anyone with any sense. The government imposed those laws *because* people were racist (including those in the government), not the reverse. If that wasn't the case, there would have been much more uproar at the time and the government would not have been able to implement those laws so easily.

Secondly, the argument that because the imposition of segregation is wrong, laws against segregation are also wrong, is bonkers. For a start, segregation is not wrong because the government are imposing it, but because it treats people as second class citizens, for something that is beyond their control and doesn't harm anyone (i.e. their race). On the other hand, laws against segregation are only wrong in your eyes because they come from the government, so to equate them with segregation is nonsense. Are there any compelling arguments against it like there are for segregation based on race? Or is that it?

Thirdly, you say that allowing segregation doesn't cause any problems because of the free market, almost as if racists are coming to their views based on logically sound arguments. In fact, let's go back to the period of Jim Crow laws. They were not legally enforced in the north, so the free market should have solved the problems, right (it didn't)? And when the Jim Crow laws were abolished, did the segregation and racism end the very next day? Of course not. Racism may not occur to the same extent nowadays, but it is naive to presume that the free market can deal with it easily.

It was probably dumb typing all that lol, but YOLO. :P

fenderbender321 posted...

Why would somebody live in a town where they can't buy things they want or need? In fact, how are they already living there if it's something essential to survival? That just doesn't seem like a realistic scenario.

That's a pretty dangerous argument. You're more less defending segregation at a higher level. If black people need to avoid certain areas because of racism, then there certainly *is* a problem that the free market is not solving. At that point, it's completely justified for the government to step in.

ugh libertarians
---

She said she had no difficulty with the wording. She said the order was very complicated in terms its colours use, of capital letters and contained 49 words, which is longer than a typical message.

The managing director said the cake would have taken eight hours to complete. She said other orders were turned away at that time as their order book for bespoke cakes was full .

The bakery had up to 140 cakes in the pipeline and at 80 cakes they decide what can and what cannot be done.

Real reason why they didn't make the cake.
---

Wonder if they would've done it if they coughed up the dough

Lightsasori posted...

She said she had no difficulty with the wording. She said the order was very complicated in terms its colours use, of capital letters and contained 49 words, which is longer than a typical message.

The managing director said the cake would have taken eight hours to complete. She said other orders were turned away at that time as their order book for bespoke cakes was full .

The bakery had up to 140 cakes in the pipeline and at 80 cakes they decide what can and what cannot be done.

Real reason why they didn't make the cake.

As an alternative that they would bake a cake but that an edible topping be made elsewhere.

They also offered him an alternative. Not sure why he thought this would be seen as discrimination.
---

Darmik posted...

Lightsasori posted...

She said she had no difficulty with the wording. She said the order was very complicated in terms its colours use, of capital letters and contained 49 words, which is longer than a typical message.

The managing director said the cake would have taken eight hours to complete. She said other orders were turned away at that time as their order book for bespoke cakes was full .

The bakery had up to 140 cakes in the pipeline and at 80 cakes they decide what can and what cannot be done.

Real reason why they didn't make the cake.

As an alternative that they would bake a cake but that an edible topping be made elsewhere.

They also offered him an alternative. Not sure why he thought this would be seen as discrimination.

How else can you declare persecution?
---