Current Events > Colorado bakers are back in court, but this time over a transgender cake order.

(+) Yeah! (+)

artowen74 posted...

Funkydog posted...

artowen74 posted...

Funkydog posted...

Nick_Saban posted...

The political left is basically just trying to brand everything they disagree with as some sort of horrible atrocity. The endgame isn't equality, it's the inability to be conservative without repercussions.

Or we just want people to be treated fairly and equally over things they can't change.

Fairly, yes, but "things they can't change," no; they literally had extensive surgery to change.

They were always the sex they'd now present as though.

Some surgery to match their appearance to that irrelevant. Plenty of others undergo surgeries as well, yet they aren't discriminated against.

And as others said, many don't even transition.

Well transvestites play dress up, transgenders undergo medical procedures; has society merged the two factions into one?

I frown upon women who buy boobies unless it's because of a mastectomy. Also frown on men who get pec implants and any cosmetic surgery or surgeries that aren't medically necessary for the most part.

That just makes you kind of an ass.

PleaseClap posted...

PleaseClap posted...

iClockwork posted...

OctilIery posted...

iClockwork posted...

OctilIery posted...

artowen74 posted...

Big difference between true gender and gender identity

Nope. They are the same thing.

LOL

I'd assume you know gender isn't biological, but given your earlier posts I wouldn't put anything past you.

gender
/jendr/Submit
noun
1.
the state of being male or female
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Are you going to post the rest of the definition or do I have to

Fine, guess I have to do it

gender
/jendr/Submit
noun
1.
the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).

And we all know this part was added within the last few decades as to maintain a neutrality that encompasses various viewpoints.
---

HenryAllbright posted...

And second, you're completely ignoring the reason why the baker doesn't want to make the cake. You don't have to like his reason, and that's fine, but to pretend like it doesn't exist and therefore conclude that he isn't receiving harm? That's just...weird, dude.

His reason is objectively wrong, therefore it doesn't apply.

It would be like me saying I don't want to work because the sky is red and boss tells me I'm fired if I don't come in.

My belief in something fraudulent and stupid does not supersede my work obligations

Darklit_Minuet posted...

HenryAllbright posted...

And second, you're completely ignoring the reason why the baker doesn't want to make the cake. You don't have to like his reason, and that's fine, but to pretend like it doesn't exist and therefore conclude that he isn't receiving harm? That's just...weird, dude.

His reason is objectively wrong, therefore it doesn't apply.

It would be like me saying I don't want to work because the sky is red and boss tells me I'm fired if I don't come in.

My belief in something fraudulent and stupid does not supersede my work obligations

Sure it applies; he's not going to fire himself no matter the belief systems involved.

As far as your comments about stupidity, see the perfectly valid 'cat argument.' One cannot be something they're not.
---

artowen74 posted...

andel posted...

artowen74 posted...

andel posted...

there isn't even any biblical basis to discriminate against trans people. it isnt legitimate for them to discriminate against gay people either but in this scenario they can't even point to any biblical scripture that says anything against trans people so him claiming religion here is even more bullshit than before

It could easily be said that transgender-ism is akin to homosexuality, which there are numerous biblical texts that speak against. Also one could easily argue that having a surgeon turn you into the opposite of how God created you is sinful.

nah, that isnt a valid argument based on scripture. anyone can infer anything they want from any text but what you are trying to claim just isnt there

Sure is; Romans states that men lying down with other men is sinful. Having your penis removed and sculpting a vagina in it's place, then in turn lying with a man would still violate the 'laws,' that Romans stated. Not sure how this is difficult to wrap one's mind around tbqh.

you are adding context that isnt there to try and stretch.

obviously the bible is an outdated book of myths anyway but it doesnt justify discriminating against trans people (and doesnt justify any kind of discrimination anyway as something being a 'sin' isnt any justification for not associating with people). adultery is a 'sin' but these people dont deny making cake for known adulterers.
---

Where in the Bible does it mention not dealing with trans people?
---

Darklit_Minuet posted...

HenryAllbright posted...

And second, you're completely ignoring the reason why the baker doesn't want to make the cake. You don't have to like his reason, and that's fine, but to pretend like it doesn't exist and therefore conclude that he isn't receiving harm? That's just...weird, dude.

His reason is objectively wrong, therefore it doesn't apply.

It would be like me saying I don't want to work because the sky is red and boss tells me I'm fired if I don't come in.

My belief in something fraudulent and stupid does not supersede my work obligations

Not being a bigot starts and ends with not judging another person's opinion as worse than your own.
---

HenryAllbright posted...

Darklit_Minuet posted...

HenryAllbright posted...

And second, you're completely ignoring the reason why the baker doesn't want to make the cake. You don't have to like his reason, and that's fine, but to pretend like it doesn't exist and therefore conclude that he isn't receiving harm? That's just...weird, dude.

His reason is objectively wrong, therefore it doesn't apply.

It would be like me saying I don't want to work because the sky is red and boss tells me I'm fired if I don't come in.

My belief in something fraudulent and stupid does not supersede my work obligations

Not being a bigot starts and ends with not judging another person's opinion as worse than your own.

Does this mean we can't judge white supremacists lest we become bigots?
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Where in the Bible does it mention not dealing with trans people?

it doesnt and it doesnt justify not dealing with gay people either. jesus explicitly lead by example by associating with prostitutes, these religious nuts just ignore stuff like that and try (and fail) to use it as a crutch to justify their hatred
---

OctilIery posted...

Squall28 posted...

Modern science doesn't support gender bullshit at all.

Actually it does.

Source of study who's basis isn't CIS is the standard.
---

andel posted...

artowen74 posted...

andel posted...

artowen74 posted...

andel posted...

there isn't even any biblical basis to discriminate against trans people. it isnt legitimate for them to discriminate against gay people either but in this scenario they can't even point to any biblical scripture that says anything against trans people so him claiming religion here is even more bullshit than before

It could easily be said that transgender-ism is akin to homosexuality, which there are numerous biblical texts that speak against. Also one could easily argue that having a surgeon turn you into the opposite of how God created you is sinful.

nah, that isnt a valid argument based on scripture. anyone can infer anything they want from any text but what you are trying to claim just isnt there

Sure is; Romans states that men lying down with other men is sinful. Having your penis removed and sculpting a vagina in it's place, then in turn lying with a man would still violate the 'laws,' that Romans stated. Not sure how this is difficult to wrap one's mind around tbqh.

you are adding context that isnt there to try and stretch.

obviously the bible is an outdated book of myths anyway but it doesnt justify discriminating against trans people (and doesnt justify any kind of discrimination anyway as something being a 'sin' isnt any justification for not associating with people). adultery is a 'sin' but these people dont deny making cake for known adulterers.

Trying to stretch? Wow, lol; you're turning a blind eye to context just to stand ground that has already been lost tbqh. You've been friendly about this, so I'll simply say that we're done here.
---

OctilIery posted...

Minor nitpick: For it to be considered discrimination, avoid worded cakes. They could easily say "I wouldn't write that for anyone", and win the case. It's when they refuse a cake they WOULD make for someone else that they are discriminating.

Both of these cases asked for custom made cakes, not just a cake.
---

andel posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Where in the Bible does it mention not dealing with trans people?

it doesnt and it doesnt justify not dealing with gay people either. jesus explicitly lead by example by associating with prostitutes, these religious nuts just ignore stuff like that and try (and fail) to use it as a crutch to justify their hatred

They also can't figure out if the Old Testament still counts or not. Depends on who they want to discriminate against I guess.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

HenryAllbright posted...

Darklit_Minuet posted...

HenryAllbright posted...

And second, you're completely ignoring the reason why the baker doesn't want to make the cake. You don't have to like his reason, and that's fine, but to pretend like it doesn't exist and therefore conclude that he isn't receiving harm? That's just...weird, dude.

His reason is objectively wrong, therefore it doesn't apply.

It would be like me saying I don't want to work because the sky is red and boss tells me I'm fired if I don't come in.

My belief in something fraudulent and stupid does not supersede my work obligations

Not being a bigot starts and ends with not judging another person's opinion as worse than your own.

Does this mean we can't judge white supremacists lest we become bigots?

I am not saying you can't take action if white supremacists try to hurt people.
---

artowen74 posted...

andel posted...

artowen74 posted...

andel posted...

artowen74 posted...

andel posted...

there isn't even any biblical basis to discriminate against trans people. it isnt legitimate for them to discriminate against gay people either but in this scenario they can't even point to any biblical scripture that says anything against trans people so him claiming religion here is even more bullshit than before

It could easily be said that transgender-ism is akin to homosexuality, which there are numerous biblical texts that speak against. Also one could easily argue that having a surgeon turn you into the opposite of how God created you is sinful.

nah, that isnt a valid argument based on scripture. anyone can infer anything they want from any text but what you are trying to claim just isnt there

Sure is; Romans states that men lying down with other men is sinful. Having your penis removed and sculpting a vagina in it's place, then in turn lying with a man would still violate the 'laws,' that Romans stated. Not sure how this is difficult to wrap one's mind around tbqh.

you are adding context that isnt there to try and stretch.

obviously the bible is an outdated book of myths anyway but it doesnt justify discriminating against trans people (and doesnt justify any kind of discrimination anyway as something being a 'sin' isnt any justification for not associating with people). adultery is a 'sin' but these people dont deny making cake for known adulterers.

Trying to stretch? Wow, lol; you're turning a blind eye to context just to stand ground that has already been lost tbqh. You've been friendly about this, so I'll simply say that we're done here.

so you are admitting you have no argument and retreating to a safe space eh? i accept your admittance that you lost.
---

We should start a go fund me for these bakers.

hockeybub89 posted...

andel posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Where in the Bible does it mention not dealing with trans people?

it doesnt and it doesnt justify not dealing with gay people either. jesus explicitly lead by example by associating with prostitutes, these religious nuts just ignore stuff like that and try (and fail) to use it as a crutch to justify their hatred

They also can't figure out if the Old Testament still counts or not. Depends on who they want to discriminate against I guess.

well at least it is easy to use their own attempted justification against them and make them back down when they have no rebuttal
---

HenryAllbright posted...

Funkydog posted...

HenryAllbright posted...

I just said that I wouldn't refuse service to anyone if I was a baker. That seems to be a lot of your guys' definition of the word, so why does that suddenly not apply to me?

The actual definition of the word is to not have any tolerance for people with opposing opinions. Read my post about how I would handle being a baker. I literally said I would respect the opinions of my customers, and of my rival bakeries including ones that didn't extend their services to everyone. That is literally as anti-bigoted as a person can be.

That's good then and I'm glad to hear you personally wouldn't.

However, should that mean others ARE allowed to discriminate over whatever religion they happen to be part of? America is meant to have separation of religion and state so surly logic applies that religion isn't a defence for discrimination?

I think that nothing should be a hard and fast rule at all. I think that as long as somebody isn't creating a serious problem that has a significant impact on somebody's life, they should be allowed to refuse business. Having to go somewhere else to get a cake you want doesn't register as a significant societal problem in my book.

If we run into a situation where we have every grocery store in town discriminating against black people and telling them they can't buy food, then yeah that's a problem, but at the same time that is just so extremely farfetched that there's no reason to chase ghosts when ghosts don't exist. Plus, if a town ever got to the point where businesses were doing things like this just for the sake of being stupid assholes, then we've got much bigger, deeper, more serious foundational problems within our culture that government wouldn't even be able to correct in the first place anyway.

Why let these things start in the first place?

Discrimination is crap, no matter how small. And it only takes it getting a foothold to spread.
---

Funkydog posted...

HenryAllbright posted...

Funkydog posted...

HenryAllbright posted...

I just said that I wouldn't refuse service to anyone if I was a baker. That seems to be a lot of your guys' definition of the word, so why does that suddenly not apply to me?

The actual definition of the word is to not have any tolerance for people with opposing opinions. Read my post about how I would handle being a baker. I literally said I would respect the opinions of my customers, and of my rival bakeries including ones that didn't extend their services to everyone. That is literally as anti-bigoted as a person can be.

That's good then and I'm glad to hear you personally wouldn't.

However, should that mean others ARE allowed to discriminate over whatever religion they happen to be part of? America is meant to have separation of religion and state so surly logic applies that religion isn't a defence for discrimination?

I think that nothing should be a hard and fast rule at all. I think that as long as somebody isn't creating a serious problem that has a significant impact on somebody's life, they should be allowed to refuse business. Having to go somewhere else to get a cake you want doesn't register as a significant societal problem in my book.

If we run into a situation where we have every grocery store in town discriminating against black people and telling them they can't buy food, then yeah that's a problem, but at the same time that is just so extremely farfetched that there's no reason to chase ghosts when ghosts don't exist. Plus, if a town ever got to the point where businesses were doing things like this just for the sake of being stupid assholes, then we've got much bigger, deeper, more serious foundational problems within our culture that government wouldn't even be able to correct in the first place anyway.

Why let these things start in the first place?

Discrimination is crap, no matter how small. And it only takes it getting a foothold to spread.

Because of diminishing returns. At this point we are looking to spend a shitload of society's resources and piss a lot of people off so that less than the 1% of bakeries out there who would have otherwise refused service will be forced to make cakes. Is that really worth it?
---

1. Find place of business with religious owners.
2. Ask them to do something that goes against their beliefs.
3. Make a big deal about one of X amount of places you could use not giving you what you want.
4. Turn social media into your own army.
5. Feel powerful by forcing someone to compromise their principles rather than going about things the right way and eventually seeing real acceptance.

Smart.

SaithSayer posted...

1. Find place of business with religious owners.
2. Ask them to do something that goes against their beliefs.
3. Make a big deal about one of X amount of places you could use not giving you what you want.
4. Turn social media into your own army.
5. Feel powerful by forcing someone to compromise their principles rather than going about things the right way and eventually seeing real acceptance.

Smart.

+1
---

SaithSayer posted...

1. Find place of business with religious owners.
2. Ask them to do something that goes against their beliefs.
3. Make a big deal about one of X amount of places you could use not giving you what you want.
4. Turn social media into your own army.
5. Feel powerful by forcing someone to compromise their principles rather than going about things the right way and eventually seeing real acceptance.

Smart.

6. Compare what you're doing to the work people did during the Civil Rights movement.
---

HenryAllbright posted...

Because of diminishing returns. At this point we are looking to spend a shitload of society's resources and piss a lot of people off so that less than the 1% of bakeries out there who would have otherwise refused service will be forced to make cakes. Is that really worth it?

If so many people are upset at not being allowed to discriminate then clearly not a small issue, is it?
---

HenryAllbright posted...

SaithSayer posted...

1. Find place of business with religious owners.
2. Ask them to do something that goes against their beliefs.
3. Make a big deal about one of X amount of places you could use not giving you what you want.
4. Turn social media into your own army.
5. Feel powerful by forcing someone to compromise their principles rather than going about things the right way and eventually seeing real acceptance.

Smart.

6. Compare what you're doing to the work people did during the Civil Rights movement.

The world has changed. Back then it would've led to almost every place of business turning black people away. Now all you have to do is get the word out that a place discriminates in any way and then people can choose whether or not they want to continue to give them their money.

In the original case the baker offered to sell any already prepared baked goods to the gay couple but wouldn't make a custom creation for them. I haven't read that specifically in this case, but I would assume he took the same approach. If so, I'm totally fine with it. A public store needs to offer the goods it has to the public, I don't think an individual should be forced to create something specifically against their believes though.
---

KILBOTz posted...

I don't think an individual should be forced to create something specifically against their believes though.

His beliefs are wrong and should be fixed

Darklit_Minuet posted...

KILBOTz posted...

I don't think an individual should be forced to create something specifically against their believes though.

His beliefs are wrong and should be fixed

Your desire for thought control is a bit gross.
---

Darklit_Minuet posted...

KILBOTz posted...

I don't think an individual should be forced to create something specifically against their believes though.

His beliefs are wrong and should be fixed

Forcing them is the Magneto way to go about it. Be Charles.

KILBOTz posted...

Your desire for thought control is a bit gross.

It's not control, it's adjustment. We should shame and mock him into believing the right thing, at the cost of his business and personal life and anything else it takes.

His kind has been doing this to us for millennia, time for him to be on the other side of the coin.

Funkydog posted...

HenryAllbright posted...

Because of diminishing returns. At this point we are looking to spend a shitload of society's resources and piss a lot of people off so that less than the 1% of bakeries out there who would have otherwise refused service will be forced to make cakes. Is that really worth it?

If so many people are upset at not being allowed to discriminate then clearly not a small issue, is it?

It pisses people off because of the principle of the matter, not because everyone who would be pissed at the outcome would necessarily discriminate the same way.
---

HenryAllbright posted...

SaithSayer posted...

1. Find place of business with religious owners.
2. Ask them to do something that goes against their beliefs.
3. Make a big deal about one of X amount of places you could use not giving you what you want.
4. Turn social media into your own army.
5. Feel powerful by forcing someone to compromise their principles rather than going about things the right way and eventually seeing real acceptance.

Smart.

6. Compare what you're doing to the work people did during the Civil Rights movement.

Why do libs keep comparing this to the civil rights movement? Aside from the fact that was over 5 decades ago, every US citizen is equal under the word of law in 2018. This cake issue has nothing to do with government oppression. So lets please stop with this fallacy.
---

No decent human being says "his kind". You sound villainous.

Darklit_Minuet posted...

KILBOTz posted...

Your desire for thought control is a bit gross.

It's not control, it's adjustment. We should shame and mock him into believing the right thing, at the cost of his business and personal life and anything else it takes.

His kind has been doing this to us for millennia, time for him to be on the other side of the coin.

That sounds vindictive and like your desire is to harm those who believe differently than you, not actually resolve and heal differences.
---

HenryAllbright posted...

Funkydog posted...

HenryAllbright posted...

Because of diminishing returns. At this point we are looking to spend a shitload of society's resources and piss a lot of people off so that less than the 1% of bakeries out there who would have otherwise refused service will be forced to make cakes. Is that really worth it?

If so many people are upset at not being allowed to discriminate then clearly not a small issue, is it?

It pisses people off because of the principle of the matter, not because everyone who would be pissed at the outcome would necessarily discriminate the same way.

Still don't see how that changes matters.

Just further shows that the matter is more important and relevant than you say.

People being upset that others aren't allowed to use their religion to discriminate should be met with derision not nods of the head.
---

KILBOTz posted...

That sounds vindictive and like your desire is to harm those who believe differently than you, not actually resolve and heal differences.

If his kind wanted to actually resolve and heal differences, I would too. But they don't, so why should we?

Darklit_Minuet posted...

KILBOTz posted...

Your desire for thought control is a bit gross.

It's not control, it's adjustment. We should shame and mock him into believing the right thing, at the cost of his business and personal life and anything else it takes.

His kind has been doing this to us for millennia, time for him to be on the other side of the coin.

"The right thing," maybe right by you but plenty of dictators and megalomaniacs throughout the ages have believed that they were doing "The right thing." Folks could argue that the LGBT community should be "shamed and mocked," into "believing the right thing," doesn't make it right though.

I swear you SJWs are the worst; can't leave the guy alone to his own beliefs, you wanna pester and ridicule people into conforming, hell, crucify people who don't share your own beliefs and lifestyles. If it's the other way around you get out the torches and pitchforks. You bring shame to the LGBT community and humanity in general.

"The right thing," smmfh.
---

artowen74 posted...

Folks could argue that the LGBT community should be "shamed and mocked," into "believing the right thing," doesn't make it right though.

It has been shamed and mocked. This is balancing out the scales.

If one side of the scale has a lot of weight on it, you need an equal amount on the other side to balance it out

Darklit_Minuet posted...

KILBOTz posted...

That sounds vindictive and like your desire is to harm those who believe differently than you, not actually resolve and heal differences.

If his kind wanted to actually resolve and heal differences, I would too. But they don't, so why should we?

"His kind," smmfh. You really can't help yourself, so just go away, you're done...really.
---

Darklit_Minuet posted...

KILBOTz posted...

That sounds vindictive and like your desire is to harm those who believe differently than you, not actually resolve and heal differences.

If his kind wanted to actually resolve and heal differences, I would too. But they don't, so why should we?

See, guys? Magneto.

Darklit_Minuet posted...

artowen74 posted...

Folks could argue that the LGBT community should be "shamed and mocked," into "believing the right thing," doesn't make it right though.

It has been shamed and mocked. This is balancing out the scales.

If one side of the scale has a lot of weight on it, you need an equal amount on the other side to balance it out

Spoken like a true dictator. Good day.
---

artowen74 posted...

Darklit_Minuet posted...

artowen74 posted...

Folks could argue that the LGBT community should be "shamed and mocked," into "believing the right thing," doesn't make it right though.

It has been shamed and mocked. This is balancing out the scales.

If one side of the scale has a lot of weight on it, you need an equal amount on the other side to balance it out

Spoken like a true dictator. Good day.

A dictator controls the powerless.

I want to bring those with power down to scale and even things out.

I'm all about equal rights.

But why can't the dude just bake fucking cakes in peace? If he doesnt want to make a cake, why should he have to? This is just dumb. Go to another bakery ffs
---

How do you "find a business with a religious owner?" With a few exceptions you can't outwardly know that a bakery, florist, or other store is owned by a religious person. Take for instance many of the cases where same sex couples were turned away from the bakery. Many times they were customers for years, even friends and the religious issue never came up. Being Christian and being a bakery never intersected until they wanted to buy a wedding cake. There is no such thing as a Christian Bakery like there are Jewish bakeries.

Often times it's not the left trying to start a conflict.
---

PhazonReborn posted...

I'm all about equal rights.

But why can't the dude just bake fucking cakes in peace? If he doesnt want to make a cake, why should he have to? This is just dumb. Go to another bakery ffs

I don't think that certain groups of people should have to rely on separate but equal facilities
---

ScazarMeltex posted...

Maybe if he wasn't a bigot this wouldn't keep happening.

Government etc has no right to interfere in business or the workplace. Regardless of this guys views, he was within his human and constitutional rights
---

Shadow Flare posted...

Government etc has no right to interfere in business or the workplace.

Do we seriously have to explain the concept of business regulations and laws to you
---

PhazonReborn posted...

But why can't the dude just bake fucking cakes in peace? If he doesnt want to make a cake, why should he have to? This is just dumb. Go to another bakery ffs

If he wants to just bake cakes for a specific clientelle, he's free to start up a private cake club. But no, he owns a public-facing business. As such, he's not allowed to discriminate against the public. Nobody forced him to open a public-facing business.

Maybe he should stop refusing business because his book of stories told him that gays are bad!!!

Hiding behind your religion to be an ass to someone is a weak argument, especially in America. End of story.

But keep deflecting to theres other stores!!!! (enabling hate) and but muh Islam!!!!! (literally has nothing to do with this story).
---

PhazonReborn posted...

I'm all about equal rights.

But why can't the dude just bake fucking cakes in peace? If he doesnt want to make a cake, why should he have to? This is just dumb. Go to another bakery ffs

If he doesn't want to make a cake, he probably shouldn't be running a business where he's expected to serve customers

KILBOTz posted...

Darklit_Minuet posted...

KILBOTz posted...

I don't think an individual should be forced to create something specifically against their believes though.

His beliefs are wrong and should be fixed

Your desire for thought control is a bit gross.

---