Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Trekkin]

Gay Cakes.

I'm honestly having a hard time forming an opinion on this one. On the one hand, you can't force someone to work if they don't want to, that's basically slavery. On the other hand, can you imagine if a major chain of stores all put up signs on their front doors stating 'No Gays Allowed'? That kind of regulated bigotry in our businesses obviously can't be tolerated. But between these two extremes, where exactly is the line drawn, and how are infractions handled?

Maybe we should just ban all cakes from weddings so that nobody gets offended.

It's hardly forcing someone to work if they don't want to; nobody's saying the couple could just point to a random guy on the street and demand a cake. However, if you're going into business to provide a service to people, that service should not be contingent upon your opinion of their lifestyle. That's simply discrimination.

The argument from free speech is more robust, but it's not like the guy couldn't have just put up a disclaimer somewhere saying that his agreement to bake a cake for someone isn't an endorsement of their wedding; no reasonable person would think that anyway. I don't think my local mall hates gay people just because there's a Chick-Fil-A inside. Nor do I think Boeing is anti-American just because they built the VC-25 that currently hauls Trump around.

Selling products is not protected speech.

[Trekkin]

The problem with the "act of faith" thing is that what constitutes a profession of faith cannot be defined in a religiously neutral manner; if we allow that wedding cakes are an act of faith, then we're explicitly endorsing those faiths for whom weddings are a thing over, say, people who think that providing medical care or public transit or legal counsel is an act of faith. It would be trivially easy for someone to declare that they're, say, a "NotGonnaPlumbGaySinksologist" who believes that plumbing sinks is an act of faith, for example.

[Rolan7]

Businesses provide services to the public. They are the manner in which resources are largely distributed and are in that regard no different from state agencies who provide services. If businesses are allowed to selectively deny their services, parts of the public can be stripped of access to society, this is something we've already all agreed should probably not be allowed to happen.

If you make cakes, you have to offer them to everybody. If you don't make cakes, you don't have to offer them to anybody. Nobody has to take what you offer and nobody can force you to offer something that you don't offer to anybody. That's the line.

It's not completely cut and dry, because there are valid reasons to deny service.  Lack of shirt is a popular one, but even just "causing a scene" or "disturbing other customers" (not sure how those work legally, but it's clearly a thing).

Those reasons aren't the same as skin color, gender, sexuality, or other things people can't choose.

The obvious problem is that it's easy to find a valid excuse to refuse service.  The cake incident wasn't about that cake, it was about setting a legal precedent about whether such discrimination ought to be legal or not.  Which does matter, even if smart discriminators will work around it.  The legal status affects public perception, un-normalizes the behavior.  And the kind of people willing to put discrimination before profit often take too much pride to hide it.

Even if the baker claims to be out of sugar or whatever, it's at least a step forward from "No, because your love is fake, sinner."  It's easier to discriminate when you can do it casually and openly, otherwise it might start feeling wrong or something.

[Trekkin]

We know where this ends. It ends with the evangelical bigots closing ranks in their own small towns, refusing service to people who "endorse sinful behavior" by serving gay couples or divorcees or single women or nonwhite people or whatever they want to claim, and making it impossible for anyone not exactly like them to live there or do business there, let alone own anything. Then, years later, they turn around and claim they're a persecuted minority in need of legal protection since there are no good jobs available in their compounds.

[Folly]

The White House has weighed in. Trump is officially against gay cakes.

[Paxiecrunchle]

We know where this ends. It ends with the evangelical bigots closing ranks in their own small towns, refusing service to people who "endorse sinful behavior" by serving gay couples or divorcees or single women or nonwhite people or whatever they want to claim, and making it impossible for anyone not exactly like them to live there or do business there, let alone own anything. Then, years later, they turn around and claim they're a persecuted minority in need of legal protection since there are no good jobs available in their compounds.

I completley agree.

You wouldn't minf me adding this to my sigs list would you?

[Dunamisdeos]

We know where this ends. It ends with the evangelical bigots closing ranks in their own small towns, refusing service to people who "endorse sinful behavior" by serving gay couples or divorcees or single women or nonwhite people or whatever they want to claim, and making it impossible for anyone not exactly like them to live there or do business there, let alone own anything. Then, years later, they turn around and claim they're a persecuted minority in need of legal protection since there are no good jobs available in their compounds.

I completley agree.

You wouldn't minf me adding this to my sigs list would you?

What will really bake your noodle is that if you replace "evangelical bigots" with "gay agenda" and "gay couples/divorcees/single women" with "Christians/whites/traditional morals" you get the alt-right's exact rhetoric.

QUICK EDIT: Tonight I'm going to sit at my computer with my bible on the shelf, hop on Conan Exiles with my openly bi best friend, my straight atheist best friend, and maybe his openly gay brother, and wonder why both of the most vocal halves of our country are hell bent on literally destroying each other because they believe something different.

[Paxiecrunchle]

We know where this ends. It ends with the gay agenda closing ranks in their own small towns, refusing service to people who "endorse sinfuldiscriminitory behavior" by not serving white moral christians whatever they want to claim, and making it impossible for anyone not exactly like them to live there or do business there, let alone own anything. Then, years later, they turn around and claim they're a persecuted minority in need of legal protection since there are no good jobs available in their compounds.

I completley agree.

You wouldn't minf me adding this to my sigs list would you?

What will really bake your noodle is that if you replace "evangelical bigots" with "gay agenda" and "gay couples/divorcees/single women" with "Christians/whites/traditional morals" you get the alt-right's exact rhetoric.

QUICK EDIT: Tonight I'm going to sit at my computer with my bible on the shelf, hop on Conan Exiles with my openly bi best friend, my straight atheist best friend, and maybe his openly gay brother, and wonder why both of the most vocal halves of our country are hell bent on literally destroying each other because they believe something different.

Darn now thats quote worthy as well!

IDK why my some of my countrymen are so flipping insane and are institutions are so broken, well I mean I gather the latter stems from the formal but I have a sinking feeling that even studying american history wont make it make more sense but rather only reveal that we are *slightly* less insane now.

EDIT: made the suggested edits and it almost works, god its like getting teams of typewriting mokeys and grabbing the worst propaganda they can get before giving it to both parties leaders as though its pure truth, right?

[Egan_BW]

QUICK EDIT: Tonight I'm going to sit at my computer with my bible on the shelf, hop on Conan Exiles with my openly bi best friend, my straight atheist best friend, and maybe his openly gay brother, and wonder why both of the most vocal halves of our country are hell bent on literally destroying each other because they believe something different.

While roleplaying as a pagan barbarian.

[Dunamisdeos]

QUICK EDIT: Tonight I'm going to sit at my computer with my bible on the shelf, hop on Conan Exiles with my openly bi best friend, my straight atheist best friend, and maybe his openly gay brother, and wonder why both of the most vocal halves of our country are hell bent on literally destroying each other because they believe something different.

While roleplaying as a pagan barbarian.

Hail Set.

[MrRoboto75]

Let them eat gay cake.

[Folly]

wonder why both of the most vocal halves of our country are hell bent on literally destroying each other because they believe something different.

Humans have genetically programmed survival instincts compelling us to destroy each-other. The differences in belief are incidental excuses.
Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women.

[Loud Whispers]

Humans have genetically programmed survival instincts compelling us to destroy each-other. The differences in belief are incidental excuses.
Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women.

That said, it's also important to note that humans also have genetically programmed survival instincts compelling us to form social units and cooperate with one another. Whether we choose to act upon our instincts that favour destruction or cooperation is something humans can do

[Reelya]

That said, the typical tribal unit that humans can reasonably cope with is a lot smaller than the entire nation, so we clump into groups of like-minded people and almost never have to deal with non-like-minded people: in fact some writers have noticed that even without effort they seem to know almost no people who would vote for the other party. e.g. one writer I recall was a Democrat, living in an extremely Republican-majority region, and they were musing on how they didn't know a single Republican in their normal social circles. We're so good at segregating that it happens without conscious effort to achieve it.

[Trekkin]

We know where this ends. It ends with the gay agenda closing ranks in their own small towns, refusing service to people who "endorse sinfuldiscriminitory behavior" by not serving white moral christians whatever they want to claim, and making it impossible for anyone not exactly like them to live there or do business there, let alone own anything. Then, years later, they turn around and claim they're a persecuted minority in need of legal protection since there are no good jobs available in their compounds.

I completley agree.

You wouldn't minf me adding this to my sigs list would you?

What will really bake your noodle is that if you replace "evangelical bigots" with "gay agenda" and "gay couples/divorcees/single women" with "Christians/whites/traditional morals" you get the alt-right's exact rhetoric.

QUICK EDIT: Tonight I'm going to sit at my computer with my bible on the shelf, hop on Conan Exiles with my openly bi best friend, my straight atheist best friend, and maybe his openly gay brother, and wonder why both of the most vocal halves of our country are hell bent on literally destroying each other because they believe something different.

Darn now thats quote worthy as well!

IDK why my some of my countrymen are so flipping insane and are institutions are so broken, well I mean I gather the latter stems from the formal but I have a sinking feeling that even studying american history wont make it make more sense but rather only reveal that we are *slightly* less insane now.

EDIT: made the suggested edits and it almost works, god its like getting teams of typewriting mokeys and grabbing the worst propaganda they can get before giving it to both parties leaders as though its pure truth, right?

A) Sig whatever you want
B) If you're going to edit my quotes to say things I didn't say, take my name off the quote box.
C) It is, provided you're looking from far enough away. Judging both sides of any given conflict and sanctimoniously choosing inaction works as long as everyone does it, but as soon as there's any actual problem it stops being commendable to just loudly wonder why we can't just all get along. Yesterday it was marriage licenses. Today it's cakes. What if tomorrow it's groceries, or utilities, or medical care? And make no mistake -- there are people in this country who would gladly deny all three to groups of whose lifestyle they disapprove. I just think there's a real, substantive anisotropy between letting people discriminate and forcing people not to inflict their faith on others, because not being able to buy things is potentially much more dangerous than being forced to sell things you're already willing to sell to people you don't like.