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

(+) Yeah! (+)

Lmao at thinking the US private business sector (which is overwhelmingly white) can be trusted to operate without anti discrimination policies. People really want to take us back to Jim cr- I'm sorry. I meant they want to "make America great again"
---

FrisbeeDude posted...

Lmao at thinking the US private business sector (which is overwhelmingly white) can be trusted to operate without anti discrimination policies. People really want to take us back to Jim cr- I'm sorry. I meant they want to "make America great again"

I think gay people would actually fare much better than black people in a free market. Part of the strategy for the gay rights movement was for homosexuals and allies to buy into corporations in order to change their corporate cultures/policies to be more gay friendly. And now you see studies showing that gay men are making more than straight men (not saying that study is an open and shut case but this is clearly different than what has happened with black people since they have achieved 'equality')
---

OTOH, public sector employment is hugely important for african americans

http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/pdf/2011/blacks_public_sector11.pdf
---

Asherlee10 posted...

KILBOTz posted...

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.

That ruling wasn't about the cake. As balrog said, "It was about the conduct of the commission in charge of enforcing discrimination law."

So, I'm not understanding your viewpoint here. And this is a discussion about the protecting gay people from discrimination from businesses open to the public.

understood the majority ruling was based on the commission, i think it was the Thomas writing on it as well hit the core I was looking at that included a first amendment argument. the ruling itself is narrow enough its not particularly interesting

I guess really my view point on this is you have 2 parties. It is impossible for both parties to get what they want. I'd rather someone not get what they want than someone be forced to do something they don't want to do when it is something that is a want, not need.
---

FrisbeeDude posted...

Lmao at thinking the US private business sector (which is overwhelmingly white) can be trusted to operate without anti discrimination policies. People really want to take us back to Jim cr- I'm sorry. I meant they want to "make America great again"

Anyone who thinks this doesn't know what Jim Crow actually was.

Hint - businesses were LEGALLY OBLIGATED to deny services to black people, regardless of personal desires.
---

Abyssea posted...

The baker's rights don't get to overrule the gay couples rights though.

Oh yeah, I forgot the constitution mentions the right to have cake.

Asherlee10 posted...

Vindris_SNH posted...

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.

RE: Bolded texted - It absolutely is not the qualifier for discrimination. Why would you even think this?

Further, you haven't explained anything except display a clear lack of knowledge and understanding of discrimination.

Then please, tell me what you think discrimination is.
---

darkjedilink posted...

FrisbeeDude posted...

Lmao at thinking the US private business sector (which is overwhelmingly white) can be trusted to operate without anti discrimination policies. People really want to take us back to Jim cr- I'm sorry. I meant they want to "make America great again"

Anyone who thinks this doesn't know what Jim Crow actually was.

Hint - businesses were LEGALLY OBLIGATED to deny services to black people, regardless of personal desires.

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2018/05/was_segregation.html

Prior to June 1953, segregation in Washington DC was widely practiced. To the best of our knowledge, there does [sic] not appear to exist any Jim Crow laws in the District mandating segregation. Despite the lack of legal requirement to do so, most movie theaters excluded customers of color, as did restaurants and other private businesses.

I would have thought that the profit motive would have caused the majority of movie theaters in a market that size to allow black people into their theaters. But no.

It turns out, according to Gil and Marion, that it was the profit motive that caused movie theater owners to exclude blacks. They have a clever event study showing that. In June 1953, the Supreme Court found that anti-segregation laws enacted by the D.C. city government in 1872 and 1873 did indeed need to be enforced. Since the ruling applied only to D.C., Gil and Marion can compare revenues at each movie theater before and after the decision with revenues at movie theaters in 25 other cities.

Their hypothesis was that if discriminatory tastes on the part of owners were the only factor responsible for discrimination, then owners' profits should rise after the decision. This is the standard Gary Becker model of discrimination by firms: Firms that wish to discriminate give up profits to do so. So, once they can no longer legally discriminate, and the law is well-enforced, they will make more money but be worse off.

But what if the owners were not particularly racially biased but a large percent of their white customers were? Then, reason Gil and Marion, when the movie theaters are desegregated, you would expect the profits of previously white-only movie theaters to fall. And that's what happened. Gil and Marion don't have direct data on profits but they do have data on revenues. After the Supreme Court decision, revenue per week fell by 11 percent.
---

Balrog0 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

FrisbeeDude posted...

Lmao at thinking the US private business sector (which is overwhelmingly white) can be trusted to operate without anti discrimination policies. People really want to take us back to Jim cr- I'm sorry. I meant they want to "make America great again"

Anyone who thinks this doesn't know what Jim Crow actually was.

Hint - businesses were LEGALLY OBLIGATED to deny services to black people, regardless of personal desires.

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2018/05/was_segregation.html

Prior to June 1953, segregation in Washington DC was widely practiced. To the best of our knowledge, there does [sic] not appear to exist any Jim Crow laws in the District mandating segregation. Despite the lack of legal requirement to do so, most movie theaters excluded customers of color, as did restaurants and other private businesses.

I would have thought that the profit motive would have caused the majority of movie theaters in a market that size to allow black people into their theaters. But no.

It turns out, according to Gil and Marion, that it was the profit motive that caused movie theater owners to exclude blacks. They have a clever event study showing that. In June 1953, the Supreme Court found that anti-segregation laws enacted by the D.C. city government in 1872 and 1873 did indeed need to be enforced. Since the ruling applied only to D.C., Gil and Marion can compare revenues at each movie theater before and after the decision with revenues at movie theaters in 25 other cities.

Their hypothesis was that if discriminatory tastes on the part of owners were the only factor responsible for discrimination, then owners' profits should rise after the decision. This is the standard Gary Becker model of discrimination by firms: Firms that wish to discriminate give up profits to do so. So, once they can no longer legally discriminate, and the law is well-enforced, they will make more money but be worse off.

But what if the owners were not particularly racially biased but a large percent of their white customers were? Then, reason Gil and Marion, when the movie theaters are desegregated, you would expect the profits of previously white-only movie theaters to fall. And that's what happened. Gil and Marion don't have direct data on profits but they do have data on revenues. After the Supreme Court decision, revenue per week fell by 11 percent.

So Jim Crow literally wasn't the problem...
---

@Asherlee10

Actually here, let me do the work for you...

From a google search, "define discrimination":

the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

Discrimination is not simply the unjust treatment of anyone, it is specifically the unjust or unfair treatment of someone based on the fact that they are part of a particular category of people.

Therefore, I am 100% correct in saying, "whether or not something is discrimination is entirely based around the motives of the person being accused of discrimination." If they refuse service specifically because of someone's sexuality, then that is discrimination. In this case, they are refusing service, specifically because in performing that service, they would be going against their own religious beliefs (celebrating homosexuality). That is not discrimination.
---

Vindris_SNH posted...

@Asherlee10

Actually here, let me do the work for you...

From a google search, "define discrimination":

the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

Discrimination is not simply the unjust treatment of anyone, it is specifically the unjust or unfair treatment of someone based on the fact that they are part of a particular category of people.

Therefore, I am 100% correct in saying, "whether or not something is discrimination is entirely based around the motives of the person being accused of discrimination." If they refuse service specifically because of someone's sexuality, then that is discrimination. In this case, they are refusing service, specifically because in performing that service, they would be going against their own religious beliefs (celebrating homosexuality). That is not discrimination.

Not only that, the government literally discriminated against his religious beliefs.
---

darkjedilink posted...

So Jim Crow literally wasn't the problem...

Jim Crow laws typically refers to laws that segregate public accommodations but nope, these things just happened in the same era that Jim Crow laws were in effect. The Jim Crow era as it is commonly known.

do you think that it should be illegal for businesses to discriminate on the basis of race?

hint: my post is an example of US private business sector being blatantly discriminatory for financial gain, as you recall, you were responding to this: Lmao at thinking the US private business sector (which is overwhelmingly white) can be trusted to operate without anti discrimination policies. People really want to take us back to Jim cr- I'm sorry. I meant they want to "make America great again"
---

darkjedilink posted...

Vindris_SNH posted...

@Asherlee10

Actually here, let me do the work for you...

From a google search, "define discrimination":

the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

Discrimination is not simply the unjust treatment of anyone, it is specifically the unjust or unfair treatment of someone based on the fact that they are part of a particular category of people.

Therefore, I am 100% correct in saying, "whether or not something is discrimination is entirely based around the motives of the person being accused of discrimination." If they refuse service specifically because of someone's sexuality, then that is discrimination. In this case, they are refusing service, specifically because in performing that service, they would be going against their own religious beliefs (celebrating homosexuality). That is not discrimination.

Not only that, the government literally discriminated against his religious beliefs.

Considering a gay wedding to be a "celebration of homosexuality" is an opinion though, and that is what makes it discrimination. In function, it is just like any other wedding. Refusing service because the wedding happens to between gay people makes it discrimination. No different than refusing service to an interracial couple.
---

Balrog0 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

So Jim Crow literally wasn't the problem...

Jim Crow laws typically refers to laws that segregate public accommodations but nope, these things just happened in the same era that Jim Crow laws were in effect. The Jim Crow era as it is commonly known.

do you think that it should be illegal for businesses to discriminate on the basis of race?

hint: my post is an example of US private business sector being blatantly discriminatory for financial gain, as you recall, you were responding to this: Lmao at thinking the US private business sector (which is overwhelmingly white) can be trusted to operate without anti discrimination policies. People really want to take us back to Jim cr- I'm sorry. I meant they want to "make America great again"

Except it literally wasn't for financial gain. Had it been allowed to play out as it was, do you really think those theaters would be segregated to this very day?

I mean, ONE integrated theater would make a killing, and the segregated ones would either integrate or go under.
---

darkjedilink posted...

Except it literally wasn't for financial gain. Had it been allowed to play out as it was, do you really think those theaters would be segregated to this very day?

I don't know, but even if things would eventually change, how can you deny the fact that their revenues fell after they were forced to let black people in? It clearly was a decision based on financial gain, projecting that their white customers would pay a premium to not be around blacks. Which they did, and then they lost that premium.

darkjedilink posted...

I mean, ONE integrated theater would make a killing, and the segregated ones would either integrate or go under.

Why would you assume one integrated theater would make a killing? Why wouldn't it just be black theaters and white theaters? Most individuals do not attach a particular value to being around folks of other races
---

Abyssea posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Vindris_SNH posted...

@Asherlee10

Actually here, let me do the work for you...

From a google search, "define discrimination":

the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

Discrimination is not simply the unjust treatment of anyone, it is specifically the unjust or unfair treatment of someone based on the fact that they are part of a particular category of people.

Therefore, I am 100% correct in saying, "whether or not something is discrimination is entirely based around the motives of the person being accused of discrimination." If they refuse service specifically because of someone's sexuality, then that is discrimination. In this case, they are refusing service, specifically because in performing that service, they would be going against their own religious beliefs (celebrating homosexuality). That is not discrimination.

Not only that, the government literally discriminated against his religious beliefs.

Considering a gay wedding to be a "celebration of homosexuality" is an opinion though, and that is what makes it discrimination. In function, it is just like any other wedding. Refusing service because the wedding happens to between gay people makes it discrimination. No different than refusing service to an interracial couple.

The exact same board we're talking about disagrees with you. They asserted numerous times that literally baking a cake with a message means the baker supports that message. That is what's called 'legal precedent.'

By changing their mind about that in this case, they violated his rights under the 14th Amendment. By attacking his religious beliefs to support them changing their minds, they violated the First Amendment.
---

darkjedilink posted...

The exact same board we're talking about disagrees with you. They asserted numerous times that literally baking a cake with a message means the baker supports that message. That is what's called 'legal precedent.'By changing their mind about that in this case, they violated his rights under the 14th Amendment. By attacking his religious beliefs to support them changing their minds, they violated the First Amendment.

A wedding cake doesn't have a message. It is just a cake you eat at a wedding. It is a product, not a billboard. You guys are making it out to be a bigger deal than it is. You can't refuse customers because your faith tells you to because they aren't behold to your choice of religion. That's the other side to religious freedom Christians keep forgetting. You can't force it on others.
---

Balrog0 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Except it literally wasn't for financial gain. Had it been allowed to play out as it was, do you really think those theaters would be segregated to this very day?

I don't know, but even if things would eventually change, how can you deny the fact that their revenues fell after they were forced to let black people in? It clearly was a decision based on financial gain, projecting that their white customers would pay a premium to not be around blacks. Which they did, and then they lost that premium.

darkjedilink posted...

I mean, ONE integrated theater would make a killing, and the segregated ones would either integrate or go under.

Why would you assume one integrated theater would make a killing? Why wouldn't it just be black theaters and white theaters? Most individuals do not attach a particular value to being around folks of other races

One, their supposition was flawed - there is no reason to believe that the theaters honestly made a good-faith effort to integrate, and that would have an adverse effect on revenues. Also, it's not common knowledge that around that time, the theater industry in general was in upheaval, and the way movies were rented by theaters changed. That 'premium' was going to go away regardless of integration.

Two, it would make a killing because we all know that 'separate but equal' was anything but equal. An integrated tyeater would have to be an improvement upon black theaters, getting them more black people than the segregated ones. Then, once tye demographics of DC changed to be what they are now, the segregated theaters wouldn't survive.
---

I don't see any value in arguing these points, but just to be clear, you're denying that racial discrimination is profitable and therefore you're okay with it being legal, right?
---

Balrog0 posted...

I don't see any value in arguing these points, but just to be clear, you're denying that racial discrimination is profitable and therefore you're okay with it being legal, right?

Yes. From a business perspective, discrimination is a horrible business decision, but people should be free to make stupid choices.
---

Literally arguing for businesses to have the "right" to discriminate...holy shit
---

FrisbeeDude posted...

Literally arguing for businesses to have the "right" to discriminate...holy shit

You repeatedly argue that the government should do it, so what's the problem?
---

darkjedilink posted...

Yes. From a business perspective, discrimination is a horrible business decision, but people should be free to make stupid choices.

So are you saying that you just won't accept evidence to the contrary because you hold as a prior feeling that discrimination won't be profitable?
---

Balrog0 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Yes. From a business perspective, discrimination is a horrible business decision, but people should be free to make stupid choices.

So are you saying that you just won't accept evidence to the contrary because you hold as a prior feeling that discrimination won't be profitable?

The evidence you presented is flawed, so no, I won't accept it. The theaters in question would have lost their premium within five years no matter what, so being segregated wouldn't have any profit motive to begin with.

I told you that already, so either you didn't read it, or you're not actually arguing your point in good faith.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

Abyssea posted...

A wedding cake doesn't have a message. It is just a cake you eat at a wedding. It is a product, not a billboard.

This is true.

Then all those bakeries that denied the anti-gay messages should have been compelled by the government to make the cakes.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

Abyssea posted...

A wedding cake doesn't have a message. It is just a cake you eat at a wedding. It is a product, not a billboard.

This is true.

Then all those bakeries that denied the anti-gay messages should have been compelled by the government to make the cakes.

I don't understand your sentence.

Part of the reason the SC ruled in favor of the baker was because the Board disagrees with the assertion that a cake doesn't have a message. They asserted that all cakes DO have a message multiple times, when they said cake makers don't have to make cakes with anti-gay messages.

As such, the 14th Amendment means they HAD to side with the baker in this case.
---

Nevermind, I'm just going to make this instead:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDV4Ymr94ns" data-time="
---

Asherlee10 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

Abyssea posted...

A wedding cake doesn't have a message. It is just a cake you eat at a wedding. It is a product, not a billboard.

This is true.

Then all those bakeries that denied the anti-gay messages should have been compelled by the government to make the cakes.

I don't understand your sentence.

Part of the reason the SC ruled in favor of the baker was because the Board disagrees with the assertion that a cake doesn't have a message. They asserted that all cakes DO have a message multiple times, when they said cake makers don't have to make cakes with anti-gay messages.

As such, the 14th Amendment means they HAD to side with the baker in this case.

I am seriously not following what you are conveying here. I'm sorry.

Cakes have a message, as purported by the Board that said this guy discriminated.
---

Deny service? No way. Deny something thats explicitly against their beliefs, such as a depiction they dont believe in? Absolutely.

Conflict posted...

Why are you guys arguing with someone who considers non-discrimination laws "slavery for the businesses"

Just laugh at the dumb shit he says, mark his posts so his ass can go back to purgatory and keep it going

The state literally violated multiple Amendments to make the decision that the baker had to make the cake. That explicitly proves my point.
---

Abyssea posted...

Considering a gay wedding to be a "celebration of homosexuality" is an opinion though, and that is what makes it discrimination. In function, it is just like any other wedding. Refusing service because the wedding happens to between gay people makes it discrimination. No different than refusing service to an interracial couple.

Part of any wedding is the celebration of love between the two people being married. A gay wedding involves the celebration of love between two people who are gay. It is the celebration of a homosexual relationship. I don't know how you're trying to argue against this very obvious point.

And again, these bakers aren't refusing service because of who they are serving. They are refusing service because in providing that service, they themselves are taking part in the celebration of a homosexual relationship. They would be fine serving any gay person in virtually any other circumstance (like for their birthday). Therefore, since the refusal of service is not based around who they are serving, it is not discrimination.

This is pretty clear cut. Not sure how people aren't getting this.
---

@Asherlee10 posted...

Discrimination, as listed is "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things."

Discrimination is the action, not the intent. Whether or not someone intends to discriminate or not, the action is what matters.

You fail to comprehend what discrimination is, even though you just typed out the definition. Discrimination most certainly involves a motive. It is not discrimination unless the reason that someone is doing something is based on a prejudice against a category of people.

The reason they are refusing service has nothing to do with the people they are serving. If that were true, then why would they be willing to serve a gay person for their birthday?

Asherlee10 posted...

At one point this wasn't discrimination to you because their behavior was inconsistent.

My reason for understanding why this is not discrimination has not changed except in your mind.

Asherlee10 posted...

you are suggesting that separate but equal service is somehow permissible. It is discrimination in the name of a religious belief. If a person's religious would hinder them from not discriminating against the public, then they should alter their business to have a membership so they can decide who they want to serve and not serve.

Still not discrimination, so this point you're trying to make is irrelevant.

I'll bring up this example again, and you tell me if this is discrimination or not:

A gay man walks into a Christian owned bakery and asks for a cake that says "Fuck Jesus". The baker refuses to bake the cake because they believe that in baking this cake, they would be going against their own moral beliefs.
---

Conflict posted...

You don't even know what the first amendment consists of so that statement coming from you is about as credible as a seven year old talking about politics.

wut
---

Asherlee10 posted...

You've done nothing but repeat your premises that do not logically follow to the conclusion you think you are making.

I have reached perfectly logical conclusions. You are the one failing to follow pretty basic logic.

You still haven't answered the question I've been asking, because you know it will put you in a corner:

Vindris_SNH posted...

I'll bring up this example again, and you tell me if this is discrimination or not:

A gay man walks into a Christian owned bakery and asks for a cake that says "Fuck Jesus". The baker refuses to bake the cake because they believe that in baking this cake, they would be going against their own moral beliefs.

This is something you don't want to admit the answer to, because it completely shuts your argument down. At this point it is very clear that you're being irrational, and just trying to validate your own incorrect conclusions in your mind.
---

Vindris_SNH posted...

A gay man walks into a Christian owned bakery and asks for a cake that says "Fuck Jesus". The baker refuses to bake the cake because they believe that in baking this cake, they would be going against their own moral beliefs.

That's a legitimate reason to discriminate.
---

Vindris_SNH posted...

A gay man walks into a Christian owned bakery and asks for a cake that says "Fuck Jesus". The baker refuses to bake the cake because they believe that in baking this cake, they would be going against their own moral beliefs.

That depends. Are they willing to make a Fuck Jesus cake for straight couples but not gay couples? If yes, that's discrimination. If not, then no.

I think the gay Christians should take their business to the competitor in China.