Gay wedding cakes and the bigots who won't bake them.

Nutes and Nugs · Mar 6, 2014

heckler73 said:
Does that mean it's a right to (-1*-1=1) serve whomever I don't want?

So the people I do want to serve should not get served?

Why did Dr. Evil need ransom money if he had all of that shit and employees in the first place?
The guy was clearly loaded. He had a custom submarine FFS! And all those Fem-Bots.

Example: Crazy acting old guy comes in McDonalds spitting macadam shells all over the floor,
orders food not on the menu and asks you become a prophet of his religion,
After 2-3 times we get tied of this shit and refuse this nutcases business.
Is this wrong?

UncleBuck · Mar 6, 2014

Nutes and Nugs said:
Example: Crazy acting old guy comes in McDonalds spitting macadam shells all over the floor,
orders food not on the menu and asks you become a prophet of his religion,
After 2-3 times we get tied of this shit and refuse this nutcases business.
Is this wrong?

is that your idea of how gay people generally act?

UncleBuck · Mar 6, 2014

greentrip said:
American values and basic decency

what about my right not to be assaulted by public displays of heterosexual affection?

the new police chief in my town was badged and kissed in a ceremony by his wife. should i be able to sue about this, or is it the case that only gays may not publicly display their relationship and affection?

keep in mind, this pinning of the badge and kiss took place right in front of a uniformed member of our armed forces. what about the gay men and women who honorably serve to protect your freedom? are you some type of a commie leftist who hates out soldiers?

heckler73 · Mar 6, 2014

Boots and Pants said:
Example: Crazy acting old guy comes in McDonalds spitting macadam shells all over the floor,
orders food not on the menu and asks you become a prophet of his religion,
After 2-3 times we get (hog)tied of this shit and refuse this nutcases business.
Is this wrong?

Not yet in your story. Do go on. What happened next?
Did he poo on the floor in the washroom?
Did he start break-dancing after stripping down to his underoos?
Did he file a case against the fine-dining establishment for mental distress and emotional pain?

UncleBuck · Mar 6, 2014

not even i got kicked out after shitting on the floor of the wendy's.

Rob Roy · Mar 6, 2014

UncleBuck said:
my argument has nothing to do with your silly book of fairy tales, subway.

my argument is that sexual orientation is a civil right, just like skin color.

Sexual orientation and skin color are not reasons I would discriminate. I would discriminate more on the basis of behavior. For instance if I owned a restaurant and somebody shit on the floor, I'd probably tell them "their kind" is not welcome.

You see nobody has a right to invade anothers private property. Not if you're gay, not if you're white, not if you're black or erm "mulatto" not even if you wear clown shoes. Nope nobody has a right to be on anothers private property if the owner prefers they not be there. Why do you like prohibitionists tactics so much?

Rob Roy · Mar 6, 2014

Wavels said:
Well, lets say, for illustrative purposes, that an atheist gay couple owns a bakery.
Some Westboro Baptist Church members attempt to patronize this bakery and want to have a cake baked on which they request many of their hateful and wackadoodle slogans be emblazoned.
Should the gay bakers comply?
And if they do not want to, should the Government compel them to do so?

I admit to extreme ambivalence on this issue.
It is not that easy.

It is easy. Respect other persons and their private property. Do not initiate aggression. Use the right of defense appropriately.

The gay couple should tell the church people to pray for a cake and to please leave. If they don't leave, up the ante to , "get the fuck out."

Rob Roy · Mar 6, 2014

fr3d12 said:
I agree they shouldn't but people aren't born Nazi's or Skinheads and it is a choice they make in life to become Nazi or skinhead.
Being gay isn't a lifestyle choice.

These points you make might be true. They still don't address the right of ALL property owners to control their OWN property and not the property of others, do they?

Rob Roy · Mar 6, 2014

jahbrudda said:
I was under the understanding that businesses open to the public could not discriminate against people regardless of sex, race, color, creed, or national origin.

That's a good point. The most discriminating entity on earth, the Federal Gov't., took away some rights from private property owners and declared themselves the deciders of how people will use their property. Of course given this institutions policies of supporting slavery, genocide and prohibiting people from owning their own bodies you should not be surprised they threaten force if people want to peacefully disassociate from others. Peace.

Rob Roy · Mar 6, 2014

UncleBuck said:
should someone have to choose from a lesser pool of goods and services just because they were born a certain way?

No to your question. However, as usual you solved one side of the equation, so you still look good in the dunce cap.

The proper question is , "Should anybody, gay, straight, bible thumper, atheist, etc. be made to use or be prohibited from using, their own body or their own property in ways they have not consented to under threats of force? That's the part you can't figure out. I think you have the same mindset as a Prohibitionist, I really do.

The non aggression principle called again and said your the clown shoes may be pinching off the blood supply to your medula oblongata.

Rob Roy · Mar 6, 2014

UncleBuck said:
you don't need to play dumb, because you are clearly very to dumb to start with.

if you can find any posts from me that conform to the addition to your sig, i will leave this site forever.

but if you can not, then you must wear my new sig for a year.

deal?

I would be very sad if you left forever. Every circus needs a clown. A prohibitionist Prussian school sycophantic meathead controlling clown is even better. Please don't go.

Dr Kynes · Mar 6, 2014

tokeprep said:
Whether a photographer should be required to photograph any wedding is a separate question from what the basis of his right to refuse is. You can certainly make arguments that service providers should not be compelled to provide their services to all seekers, and that was the supreme court's line of thinking for some time, but to suggest that religious freedom is or should be the basis of that right is ridiculous.

You can give as many absurd examples as you like, but we can all agree that some things are more worth protecting than others. Forbidding a hotel from turning away an interracial couple is certainly more defensible than forcing businesses to serve the Klan or neo-Nazis; the former reflects an innate and unchangeable human characteristic, the latter an ignorant, laughable ideology. The rest is pure hyperbole. No one is suggesting anyone has a right to obtain pork from any meat seller; no one is suggesting there should be a right to obtain pornographic magazines from children's bookstores; and no one is suggesting anyone has a right to satisfaction with a math tutor.

If you have a business open to the public you should expect to have to serve the public. That doesn't mean you have to serve everyone--the present anti-discrimination scheme protects only certain immutable characteristics or otherwise enshrined attributes (like religion), which is entirely sensible. Want to be a photographer? I'm sorry, your customers are going to make you do a lot of things you don't like. Deal with it or shut up and go get a job where you won't have to deal with customers. Want to be a pharmacist or a doctor? You're going to need to treat people regardless of what you think of them or the treatment. If your religious convictions are so strong and you're convinced that you'll violate them by doing your job, why even bother flirting with that job? Go do something else. Business is business.

still no explanation of why a baker should compromise his principles and submit to government coercion because he doesnt want to make a cake for a gay wedding.

a merchant has the right to refuse service for ANY reason, until the left takes umbrage to that reason and demands that the merchant serve the "victim"

a cafe cant turn away a bum because stinks of urine, feces and dried semen, nor because he is hacking tuberculosis all over the place, nor for his suppurating lesions, nor for his inane ramblings, because that crazy hobo might be black, chicano, asian, gay, or any of a variety of specially protected groups under the layers of filth.

you create a vision of business that forces the merchant into bondage, but it is as irrelevant as bucky's plaintive cries of "That's Racist!"

Beefbisquit · Mar 6, 2014

BigNBushy said:
There is a lot of evidence out there to suggest that black people have a lower average intelligence. But I will say the point is debatable.

What is not debatable, is that they are human beings, and each individual of the group is capable of being as smart as anyone else. And that they deserve completely equal societal standing and legal protections. You seem to think I am incapable of actually meaning that.

The opposite of inferior is superior, but just because I said that does not hold that I believe whites are superior to all, which is what a white supremacist believes. I do not.

Sexual orientation is not a civil right. The federal government decides what is and what is not a civil right, and as of now the federal government has not decided to say that it is, so it isn't.

We can argue about if it should be, but we can't say it is.

I have complex views on subjects, I'm not a simpleton like you.

So I will admit, that one day I might believe that it should be a civil right, and other days I might believe that it should not. Each time I am being honest and genuine in my convictions.

I would go so far to say this, if I was forced to be nailed down on the issue, and state a position I felt comfortable with never abandoning, I would say that it is deserving of civil right status, but a new level of civil rights ought to be created.

Being gay in my mind does not warrant the same level of protection as being black, for instance. Most of the time, you cannot look at someone and tell they are gay, the same cannot be said of being black.

See, I see it as both are natural conditions that are predetermined.

This means that someone needs to be engaged in some sort of homosexual activity in order to be outted.

Really?

If a black man walks into your diner, you know he is black when he walks into the door.

Really?

Vin Diesel is half black... and gay, coincidentally. lol

He should allowed to enter, and the diner ought to be required to serve him.

If two dudes walk into the same diner, it is often impossible to tell if they are gay. I think the diner might should be allowed to reserve the right to allow homosexuals, but prohibit homosexual activity. In other words, they two dudes can eat there, but you can refuse to serve them one milkshake with two straws, if you get what I'm saying... If not, I think a place should be allowed to disallow public displayes of affection, no kissy kissy.

You can't tell some people they can do something and not others. That's giving special treatment to people, aka discrimination.

This is for many reasons. It is perfectly reasonable that observation of homosexual activity can make others offended, and parents should be able to go out to dinner, without having to explain to their 5 year old why two guys are kissing.

That's a pretty lame excuse. Why are two guys kissing? Because they love each other like mommy and daddy do. Done. Bam. Kid goes back to eating chicken nuggets and shitting their pants.

Also, why should two consenting adults who are in love have to stop holding hands, or kissing, because you don't want to talk to your kids? It's your kid, and your problem. Deal with it and leave the two love birds alone. If it offends you, go somewhere else.

Same on the job. If you find out an employee is gay, tough shit, can't fire him for that alone. But if you have a gay employee who is coming to work and making out with his boyfriend in front of customers (who can get offended) then you can terminate them. This very often applies to straight couples also.

If it applies to straight couples, then fine. If it doesn't, you can't make special rules for certain people. That's the same as saying white people can kiss, but black people can't. Or that white people and black people can kiss, but not each other.

UncleBuck · Mar 6, 2014

Rob Roy said:
the Federal Gov't., took away some rights from private property owners and declared themselves the deciders of how people will use their property.

if you are referring to title II, aka the "robroy is no longer allowed to deny service to blacks" bill, then no. no rights were taken away from business owners, or as you call them "private property owners".

the racist practices of those business owners caused harm, and no one has a right to cause harm to others. the right to swing a fist ends at the other person's face.

since it was never a right in the first place, it couldn't have been taken away.

you should probably bother to learn how rights work before non-stop regurgitating your utopian spooner nonsense all over this forum.

UncleBuck · Mar 6, 2014

Dr Kynes said:
still no explanation of why a baker should compromise his principles and submit to government coercion because he doesnt want to make a cake for a gay wedding.

because sexual orientation is a civil right.

and as we saw in the south in the 1960's, the only way to some bigots (like you, if you ever moved beyond min wage aspirations and owned a business) will abandon their harmful and bigoted practices is via government coercion.

but hey, you're always free to open a private club instead of an 'open to the public' type of affair if kicking out the gays and blacks (and in your case, presumably immigrants and muslims) is the way you operate.

your bigotry is unwelcome, deal with it.

BigNBushy · Mar 6, 2014

UncleBuck said:
what about my right not to be assaulted by public displays of heterosexual affection?

the new police chief in my town was badged and kissed in a ceremony by his wife. should i be able to sue about this, or is it the case that only gays may not publicly display their relationship and affection?

keep in mind, this pinning of the badge and kiss took place right in front of a uniformed member of our armed forces. what about the gay men and women who honorably serve to protect your freedom? are you some type of a commie leftist who hates out soldiers?

One cannot be assaulted by displays of heterosexuality, it is the norm. Displays of normalcy cannot be offensive to a rational human being.

Now, extremism is not the norm. A heterosexual couple doing it doggy style in a booth at mcdonalds is not normal.

Likewise, holding hands or a gentle embrace is normal among plutonic friends, so gays can go that far.

But a 3 second frencher is an offensive act when done by two dudes, and not when done by a guy and a girl.

UncleBuck · Mar 6, 2014

BigNBushy said:
One cannot be assaulted by displays of heterosexuality, it is the norm. Displays of normalcy cannot be offensive to a rational human being.

Now, extremism is not the norm. A heterosexual couple doing it doggy style in a booth at mcdonalds is not normal.

Likewise, holding hands or a gentle embrace is normal among plutonic friends, so gays can go that far.

But a 3 second frencher is an offensive act when done by two dudes, and not when done by a guy and a girl.

nice bigoted double standard, glad you're on twostroke's and kynes' side and not mine, ya white supremacist.

BigNBushy · Mar 6, 2014

Beefbisquit said:
See, I see it as both are natural conditions that are predetermined.

Really?

Really?

Vin Diesel is half black... and gay, coincidentally. lol

You can't tell some people they can do something and not others. That's giving special treatment to people, aka discrimination.

That's a pretty lame excuse. Why are two guys kissing? Because they love each other like mommy and daddy do. Done. Bam. Kid goes back to eating chicken nuggets and shitting their pants.

Also, why should two consenting adults who are in love have to stop holding hands, or kissing, because you don't want to talk to your kids? It's your kid, and your problem. Deal with it and leave the two love birds alone. If it offends you, go somewhere else.

If it applies to straight couples, then fine. If it doesn't, you can't make special rules for certain people. That's the same as saying
white people can kiss, but black people can't. Or that white people and black people can kiss, but not each other.

The picture of the loving couple you displayed outted themselves. If they were wearing normal clothes, one could not automatically assume they were gay. Of course some people who are gay simply have to, for whatever reason, let the whole world know. They have that right, but they need to know that others have a right to have an opinion about that.

If you are an employer, I think it is perfectly reasonable to require that your employees dress within established cultural norms, and behave within those same norms.

If you have a male employee wearing a dress to work, you should be able to require him to go home and change, or take the day off, or even terminate him should you be so inclined.

Homosexuality does not deserve the same level of protection as race, because it can be hidden, and only becomes evident upon your choice to make it known.

I'm find with making it a law, and indeed think it should be, that you can't be fired for being gay. I also think that if you are gay, you should respect your employer enough to not act like a fairy at work, or a dyke, and not be openly engaging in homosexual activity at the workplace.

Of course this also applies to heterosexual couples.

They have to behave within social norms, and the social norms for hetero and homo sexual people's are different.

UncleBuck · Mar 6, 2014

BigNBushy said:
Homosexuality does not deserve the same level of protection as race, because it can be hidden, and only becomes evident upon your choice to make it known.

I'm find with making it a law, and indeed think it should be, that you can't be fired for being gay. I also think that if you are gay, you should respect your employer enough to not act like a fairy at work, or a dyke, and not be openly engaging in homosexual activity at the workplace.

Of course this also applies to heterosexual couples.

so it would be legal to be fired for having a picture of your partner on your desk if you're gay, but not if you're straight (according to your profoundly bigoted logic).

tell me again how your law would pass constitutional muster with the equal protection clause. or alternatively, tell me why you hate the constitution and think it should be done away with.

heckler73 · Mar 6, 2014

Dr Kynes said:
a cafe cant turn away a bum because stinks of urine, feces and dried semen, nor because he is hacking tuberculosis all over the place, nor for his suppurating lesions, nor for his inane ramblings, because that crazy hobo might be black, chicano, asian, gay, or any of a variety of specially protected groups under the layers of filth.

Those are potential public health hazards.
"Religious" sensibilities are only mental health hazards (to those that subscribe to those views).

It appears to be a false analogy in this case.
Does you argument still apply with those elements in bold being removed?

Gay wedding cakes and the bigots who won't bake them.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member