Current Events > Do you think gay bakers should be allowed to refuse to serve Christians?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Fam_Fam posted...

Abyssea posted...

How is a gay wedding a celebration of homosexuality though? That might be your personal definition of it, but deciding how you treat people based on your personal biases is the very definition of discrimination.

To the gay couple, it is just a wedding. You're refusing to serve them in the way you'd serve anyone else ordering something for a wedding, and that makes it discrimination.

its a celebration of a homosexual union, which is sinful according to some christians

To them maybe, to everyone else it is just celebrating a union. You're forcing your definition on them.
---

JACKBUTTMOMMY posted...

Abyssea posted...

Fam_Fam posted...

Abyssea posted...

How is a gay wedding a celebration of homosexuality though? That might be your personal definition of it, but deciding how you treat people based on your personal biases is the very definition of discrimination.

To the gay couple, it is just a wedding. You're refusing to serve them in the way you'd serve anyone else ordering something for a wedding, and that makes it discrimination.

its a celebration of a homosexual union, which is sinful according to some christians

To them maybe, to everyone else it is just celebrating a union. You're forcing your definition on them.

It's almost as if different people believe different things.

And that is wonderful, but you can't run a business with your personal biases and not call it discrimination. :v At least own up to it, geez.
---

Yes I do. If we are going to allow religious people to discriminate against people I don't see why they should be excluded from that. Religious people don't deserve special treatment.

Asherlee10 posted...

Again:

You also seem to think that discrimination has to be consistent in order for it to be discrimination. That's beyond silly.

Whether or not something is discrimination is entirely based around the motives of the person being accused of discrimination. I have clearly explained why these bakers are refusing to bake cakes for gay weddings, and it is not because the people being served are gay.

At this point I don't see how you're not being willfully ignorant.
---

Abyssea posted...

Fam_Fam posted...

Abyssea posted...

How is a gay wedding a celebration of homosexuality though? That might be your personal definition of it, but deciding how you treat people based on your personal biases is the very definition of discrimination.

To the gay couple, it is just a wedding. You're refusing to serve them in the way you'd serve anyone else ordering something for a wedding, and that makes it discrimination.

its a celebration of a homosexual union, which is sinful according to some christians

To them maybe, to everyone else it is just celebrating a union. You're forcing your definition on them.

These bakers aren't forcing their beliefs or definitions on anyone, they simply want to have the freedom to refuse to do something that would make them go against their own moral code.
---

Vindris_SNH posted...

Abyssea posted...

Fam_Fam posted...

Abyssea posted...

How is a gay wedding a celebration of homosexuality though? That might be your personal definition of it, but deciding how you treat people based on your personal biases is the very definition of discrimination.

To the gay couple, it is just a wedding. You're refusing to serve them in the way you'd serve anyone else ordering something for a wedding, and that makes it discrimination.

its a celebration of a homosexual union, which is sinful according to some christians

To them maybe, to everyone else it is just celebrating a union. You're forcing your definition on them.

These bakers aren't forcing their beliefs or definitions on anyone, they simply want to have the freedom to refuse to do something that would make them go against their own moral code.

How is "your Iove is sinful" no wedding cakes for you immoral individuals. Not forcing a definition?
---

Asherlee10 posted...

That amount of mental gymnastics it takes to (unsuccessfully) attempt to show that this is somehow not discrimination is very disappointing and disheartening.

I guess at the end of the day I'm fine with a certain level of discrimination then. They were willing to serve the couple, just not how the couple wanted to be served. I think they offered reasonable accommodations. They were a cake shop, they were willing to sell them a cake, just not the a custom cake.

This is a situation of 2 opposing parties. The baker gets rights as well, not just the gay couple.
---

I highly doubt a devout Christain would go to a gay bakery lol
---

KILBOTz posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

That amount of mental gymnastics it takes to (unsuccessfully) attempt to show that this is somehow not discrimination is very disappointing and disheartening.

I guess at the end of the day I'm fine with a certain level of discrimination then. They were willing to serve the couple, just not how the couple wanted to be served. I think they offered reasonable accommodations. They were a cake shop, they were willing to sell them a cake, just not the a custom cake.

This is a situation of 2 opposing parties. The baker gets rights as well, not just the gay couple.

The baker's rights don't get to overrule the gay couples rights though. What Christians forget is that "religious freedom" goes both ways. You're free to worship the faith of your choosing, but everyone else does too. You can't force tenets of your faith on someone else since that infringes on the "religious freedom" of the other person.

TL;DR: shut up and bake the cake.
---

Abyssea posted...

To them maybe, to everyone else it is just celebrating a union. You're forcing your definition on them.

This would be perfect in the next confederate flag topic.
---

gatorsPENSbucs posted...

Abyssea posted...

To them maybe, to everyone else it is just celebrating a union. You're forcing your definition on them.

This would be perfect in the next confederate flag topic.

Wouldn't work on me. You can fly whatever flag you want, that's your business. I'm free to suspect racial motivations, but you are still entitled to do whatever you want when it comes to flags.
---

Romes187 posted...

yes absolutely

---

Abyssea posted...

KILBOTz posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

That amount of mental gymnastics it takes to (unsuccessfully) attempt to show that this is somehow not discrimination is very disappointing and disheartening.

I guess at the end of the day I'm fine with a certain level of discrimination then. They were willing to serve the couple, just not how the couple wanted to be served. I think they offered reasonable accommodations. They were a cake shop, they were willing to sell them a cake, just not the a custom cake.

This is a situation of 2 opposing parties. The baker gets rights as well, not just the gay couple.

The baker's rights don't get to overrule the gay couples rights though. What Christians forget is that "religious freedom" goes both ways. You're free to worship the faith of your choosing, but everyone else does too. You can't force tenets of your faith on someone else since that infringes on the "religious freedom" of the other person.

TL;DR: shut up and bake the cake.

So, infringe on the baker's rights?
---

Abyssea posted...

gatorsPENSbucs posted...

Abyssea posted...

To them maybe, to everyone else it is just celebrating a union. You're forcing your definition on them.

This would be perfect in the next confederate flag topic.

Wouldn't work on me. You can fly whatever flag you want, that's your business. I'm free to suspect racial motivations, but you are still entitled to do whatever you want when it comes to flags.

Oh, my bad, I wasnt saying to use it towards you. Honestly I dont even pay attention to the usernames, just more of a tag so I can remember to copy it.
---

darkjedilink posted...

Abyssea posted...

KILBOTz posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

That amount of mental gymnastics it takes to (unsuccessfully) attempt to show that this is somehow not discrimination is very disappointing and disheartening.

I guess at the end of the day I'm fine with a certain level of discrimination then. They were willing to serve the couple, just not how the couple wanted to be served. I think they offered reasonable accommodations. They were a cake shop, they were willing to sell them a cake, just not the a custom cake.

This is a situation of 2 opposing parties. The baker gets rights as well, not just the gay couple.

The baker's rights don't get to overrule the gay couples rights though. What Christians forget is that "religious freedom" goes both ways. You're free to worship the faith of your choosing, but everyone else does too. You can't force tenets of your faith on someone else since that infringes on the "religious freedom" of the other person.

TL;DR: shut up and bake the cake.

So, infringe on the baker's rights?

It isn't infringing on their rights. They're still entitled to their personal beliefs, you just can't use them to discriminate. Thinking that baking a cake for a gay wedding would somehow worsen your relationship with god is an example of magical thinking if I ever heard one. We can't write our laws in defense of magical thinking.

The baker was in the wrong here. If the case had been handled properly from the start with proper respect to the baker's faith, we would have actually got a definite answer on this. The matter at hand is the effect of the baker's refusal on the gay couple, we shouldn't be attacking the baker's faith directly since they are entitled to that.
---

Abyssea posted...

KILBOTz posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

That amount of mental gymnastics it takes to (unsuccessfully) attempt to show that this is somehow not discrimination is very disappointing and disheartening.

I guess at the end of the day I'm fine with a certain level of discrimination then. They were willing to serve the couple, just not how the couple wanted to be served. I think they offered reasonable accommodations. They were a cake shop, they were willing to sell them a cake, just not the a custom cake.

This is a situation of 2 opposing parties. The baker gets rights as well, not just the gay couple.

The baker's rights don't get to overrule the gay couples rights though. What Christians forget is that "religious freedom" goes both ways. You're free to worship the faith of your choosing, but everyone else does too. You can't force tenets of your faith on someone else since that infringes on the "religious freedom" of the other person.

TL;DR: shut up and bake the cake.

I mean you're factually wrong based on the supreme court ruling. You can say its unjust or wrong, but the baker's rights do get to overrule the gay couple's right for service in this case.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

KILBOTz posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

That amount of mental gymnastics it takes to (unsuccessfully) attempt to show that this is somehow not discrimination is very disappointing and disheartening.

I guess at the end of the day I'm fine with a certain level of discrimination then. They were willing to serve the couple, just not how the couple wanted to be served. I think they offered reasonable accommodations. They were a cake shop, they were willing to sell them a cake, just not the a custom cake.

This is a situation of 2 opposing parties. The baker gets rights as well, not just the gay couple.

Well, I'm sorry you think this and this is very disappointing.

What do you think the most fair way for all parties is then? Party A wants something, Party B wants to not do that but was willing to provide an alternative. Why is it fair for Party A to be the one to get everything they want and Party B get nothing they want?
---

KILBOTz posted...

I mean you're factually wrong based on the supreme court ruling. You can say its unjust or wrong, but the baker's rights do get to overrule the gay couple's right for service in this case.

That isn't what the ruling decided. The ruling just said that that prior proceedings weren't respectful of the baker's faith and that they wouldn't consider it at this time. They didn't rule on the issue itself at all, they just dismissed it.

We'll have to wait for the issue to make it back to the supreme court to get a real ruling on it.
---

KILBOTz posted...

I mean you're factually wrong based on the supreme court ruling. You can say its unjust or wrong, but the baker's rights do get to overrule the gay couple's right for service in this case.

SCOTUS didn't rule that they can discriminate, though, just that the process by which it was determined their discrimination was unlawful was tainted

the CRA doesn't protect people on the basis of sexual orientation and neither do most states

not to say that is morally right but in legal terms it is 'okay' to discriminate against LGBTQ individuals in most of the country

religion, on the other hand, is covered by the CRA
---

Abyssea posted...

We'll have to wait for the issue to make it back to the supreme court to get a real ruling on it.

even if they did rule in favor of the gay couple it wouldn't provide blanket protections to LGBTQ individuals in the 29 states without protections for them, though

it would just show that the state law applies in favor of the gay couple(s) in these situations where supposedly there are conflicting rights
---

Balrog0 posted...

Abyssea posted...

We'll have to wait for the issue to make it back to the supreme court to get a real ruling on it.

even if they did rule in favor of the gay couple it wouldn't provide blanket protections to LGBTQ individuals in the 29 states without protections for them, though

it would just show that the state law applies in favor of the gay couple(s) in these situations where supposedly there are conflicting rights

Yea, that is true. It would be a step in the right direction though. Hopefully all states will have protections eventually. No reason for religion to be protected when sexuality isn't.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

KILBOTz posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

KILBOTz posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

That amount of mental gymnastics it takes to (unsuccessfully) attempt to show that this is somehow not discrimination is very disappointing and disheartening.

I guess at the end of the day I'm fine with a certain level of discrimination then. They were willing to serve the couple, just not how the couple wanted to be served. I think they offered reasonable accommodations. They were a cake shop, they were willing to sell them a cake, just not the a custom cake.

This is a situation of 2 opposing parties. The baker gets rights as well, not just the gay couple.

Well, I'm sorry you think this and this is very disappointing.

What do you think the most fair way for all parties is then? Party A wants something, Party B wants to not do that but was willing to provide an alternative. Why is it fair for Party A to be the one to get everything they want and Party B get nothing they want?

What I find to be most fair is when a business serves the public they are not to discriminate against people in terms of the services or products they offer. That discrimination category falls into the realm of race, creed, sex, sexuality, and any other characteristic of a person that is related.

A person's personal feelings about any of the things listed above are irrelevant when business transactions (in the most general sense) are involved.

they were willing to do a business transaction, just not create something fresh. personal creation seems a reasonable differentiator to me.
---

KILBOTz posted...

they were willing to do a business transaction, just not create something fresh. personal creation seems a reasonable differentiator to me.

If they were making it in the same style as any other wedding cake, there really shouldn't be an issue. It is functionally the same product. :v
---

Asherlee10 posted...

KILBOTz posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

KILBOTz posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

KILBOTz posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

That amount of mental gymnastics it takes to (unsuccessfully) attempt to show that this is somehow not discrimination is very disappointing and disheartening.

I guess at the end of the day I'm fine with a certain level of discrimination then. They were willing to serve the couple, just not how the couple wanted to be served. I think they offered reasonable accommodations. They were a cake shop, they were willing to sell them a cake, just not the a custom cake.

This is a situation of 2 opposing parties. The baker gets rights as well, not just the gay couple.

Well, I'm sorry you think this and this is very disappointing.

What do you think the most fair way for all parties is then? Party A wants something, Party B wants to not do that but was willing to provide an alternative. Why is it fair for Party A to be the one to get everything they want and Party B get nothing they want?

What I find to be most fair is when a business serves the public they are not to discriminate against people in terms of the services or products they offer. That discrimination category falls into the realm of race, creed, sex, sexuality, and any other characteristic of a person that is related.

A person's personal feelings about any of the things listed above are irrelevant when business transactions (in the most general sense) are involved.

they were willing to do a business transaction, just not create something fresh. personal creation seems a reasonable differentiator to me.

Except they are willing to do a transaction with a caveat, and that caveat is discrimination because of their sexuality.

I guess to me that's part of the cost of a free society. I think forcing someone to do something they don't want is worse than not providing a specific service while offering an alternative.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

KILBOTz posted...

I guess to me that's part of the cost of a free society. I think forcing someone to do something they don't want is worse than not providing a specific service while offering an alternative.

To me, this is why a 100% free market (not free society, that's different than what we are discussing) comes with a myriad of problems and how you end up with sundown towns, discrimination, and fueled hatred between groups of people that are different from each other.

I am talking about a free society, namely where individuals are free to associate and act as they see fit.

I think a free society is an ideal we should strive for. A free market I view as a means to an end, though it is the best economic system we have found, but its not a societal "ideal" like I think a free society should be. I am fine with setting various rules in markets and individuals can choose to participate in those markets or not. If congress decides to make sexuality a protected class, cool, go for it. At that point people can decide whether or not they are good with potentially serving gay people, if they aren't they can choose to do something else.
---

The issue is over religious persecution.
---

KILBOTz posted...

I think a free society is an ideal we should strive for. A free market I view as a means to an end, though it is the best economic system we have found, but its not a societal "ideal" like I think a free society should be. I am fine with setting various rules in markets and individuals can choose to participate in those markets or not. If congress decides to make sexuality a protected class, cool, go for it. At that point people can decide whether or not they are good with potentially serving gay people, if they aren't they can choose to do something else.

I'm not sure how this relates to what you have been saying, though. Congress hasn't made that a provision of the CRA, but Colorado does protect LGBTQ folks from discrimination. You've been saying you find this particular denial of service alright, are you now implying you think it wouldn't be alright if we amended the CRA? Because I don't see how that follows.
---

southcoast09 posted...

The issue is over religious persecution.

yea, using your religion to persecute people is wrong.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

KILBOTz posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

KILBOTz posted...

I guess to me that's part of the cost of a free society. I think forcing someone to do something they don't want is worse than not providing a specific service while offering an alternative.

To me, this is why a 100% free market (not free society, that's different than what we are discussing) comes with a myriad of problems and how you end up with sundown towns, discrimination, and fueled hatred between groups of people that are different from each other.

I am talking about a free society, namely where individuals are free to associate and act as they see fit.

I think a free society is an ideal we should strive for. A free market I view as a means to an end, though it is the best economic system we have found, but its not a societal "ideal" like I think a free society should be. I am fine with setting various rules in markets and individuals can choose to participate in those markets or not. If congress decides to make sexuality a protected class, cool, go for it. At that point people can decide whether or not they are good with potentially serving gay people, if they aren't they can choose to do something else.

We do live in a free society, but that doesn't mean we should have endure discrimination in the name freedom. Society is not the same thing as a market. We are talking about business transactions.

It saddens me to hear that you aren't behind protecting gay people from discrimination until congress or SCOTUS says so.

I don't see this case as protecting gay people. This isn't about being able to live in a neighborhood or get medical treatment. This is about buying a cake. The court itself said it was a narrow ruling. I mean this was a 7-2 ruling. It's rare for rulings to be that lopsided and totally off base. It happens, but I don't think this was one of those cases.
---

KILBOTz posted...

This is about buying a cake. The court itself said it was a narrow ruling. I mean this was a 7-2 ruling. It's rare for rulings to be that lopsided and totally off base. It happens, but I don't think this was one of those cases.

The ruling had almost nothing to do with buying a cake. It was about the conduct of the commission in charge of enforcing discrimination law.
---

Balrog0 posted...

KILBOTz posted...

I think a free society is an ideal we should strive for. A free market I view as a means to an end, though it is the best economic system we have found, but its not a societal "ideal" like I think a free society should be. I am fine with setting various rules in markets and individuals can choose to participate in those markets or not. If congress decides to make sexuality a protected class, cool, go for it. At that point people can decide whether or not they are good with potentially serving gay people, if they aren't they can choose to do something else.

I'm not sure how this relates to what you have been saying, though. Congress hasn't made that a provision of the CRA, but Colorado does protect LGBTQ folks from discrimination. You've been saying you find this particular denial of service alright, are you now implying you think it wouldn't be alright if we amended the CRA? Because I don't see how that follows.

my lines on stuff like this tend to be arbitrary and fuzzy. its all a gray area to me.

I'd support adding sexual orientation to the CRA. If it was in the CRA and there came a case similar to this, I would probably come down to the specifics in the case.

I guess writing it out, offering pre-made cakes to gay couples seems like a reasonable accommodation regardless of everything else, even if it was added to the CRA.
---

Abyssea posted...

southcoast09 posted...

The issue is over religious persecution.

yea, using your religion to persecute people is wrong.

No, its wrong to force somebody to violate his religion just so say you made him do it. Its jusy common respect. I wouldnt demand that a homosexual church cancel its Sunday congregation so I could get married there.

These victims just wanted to be on the news. My favorite was the guy who reached over the counter and wrote something rude on his cake to make it look like they did it, and then got caught. Rekt.
---

if you're doing it for religious purposes, maybe you should be a 501(c)(3)
---

southcoast09 posted...

Abyssea posted...

southcoast09 posted...

The issue is over religious persecution.

yea, using your religion to persecute people is wrong.

No, its wrong to force somebody to violate his religion just so say you made him do it. Its jusy common respect. I wouldnt demand that a homosexual church cancel its Sunday congregation so I could get married there.

These victims just wanted to be on the news. My favorite was the guy who reached over the counter and wrote something rude on his cake to make it look like they did it, and then got caught. Rekt.

Don't go into customer service if your religious beliefs prevent you from serving people equally.
---