buttpirates vs fundamentalistsFollow

Again. They're not identical products. The product is the service, not the physical cake. By making a custom cake for a gay wedding you are condoning the wedding and participating in it, even if to a small degree. In the same way making a cake for a KKK rally is condoning the rally. Obviously, you should not be forced to participate in something you don't agree with. I'm not even sure how this got to be a thing other than some people seem to be looking only at the identity angle of this, and losing sight of the larger liberty issue at stake.

Right. And a diner can refuse patrons because each hamburger is not identical and a pizza place can refuse you because, after all, each pizza is custom made to order. And you can refuse haircuts because each one is different and refuse to sell a high end suit because it'll be altered so now it's different. And you pick options and colors for a car so the Toyota dealer can show you the door. And a real estate developer can refuse to sell you a unit in their subdivision because that has custom options as well.

That is not how it actually works but you're always one to come up with some insane legal definition that you've convinced yourself is true.

Edited, Apr 8th 2015 7:12pm by Jophiel

Accord to your analogy there, gbaji, it's reasonable to expect a Ford dealership's shop to carry part for a Rolls Royce because they are both cars.

I would hope that this illustration explains why your "ham in a Jewish deli" theory is flawed.

I agree. Honestly, I think we should round them up and sterilize them, so they don't breed.

It is what we are talking about though. You just keep talking to yourself about jewish delis or something.

Oh, sorry.

"I won't _make_ this donut for you because you are gay."

Nope. Still not getting it. It's "I wont make this donut for a gay wedding". Why are you so afraid to accurately describe the choice at hand?

It's not. It's being presented exactly as given: A business refused to deal with a gay couple solely on the basis of their gender preference. Why you think that "cake" is some magical exception is beyond me. Even with your lame reasoning, it's no different than a cafe refusing to seat a gay couple on a date (I'd be custom making a hamburger to help these men fall in love!") or a home builder refusing to sell a house to a gay couple ("They're going to do dirty sinful man-humping in it!"). Obviously you think these things are okay. Many other people don't and those people spoke up about a law that could help facilitate this discrimination. But there's no confusion or "false presentation" at play here.

Edited, Apr 8th 2015 10:45pm by Jophiel

Did you just ignore the last couple pages of talking when you were away?

We already discussed the custom design, wording, items not already being sold, etc.

If a **** came in and wanted to buy rock climbing equipment to go **** rock climbing... what does it matter?



Is that the now-millionaire GoFundMe anti-gay pizza joint? I thought it was all just a hypothetical the owner was talking about on a local news station. That they weren't actually asked, they just said they'd refuse to if asked.

Edited, Apr 8th 2015 11:56pm by TirithRR

Nope. I do not believe that KKK membership (or American Kennel Club membership for that matter) should fall under the need for such protections. I do believe that homosexuality should. I will wait for you to demand to know the difference and then give you a sad laugh.

"Like" and "dislike" have nothing to do with it. I have no special affinity for Syrians for instance, but I do believe that discrimination based solely on ethic origin is wrong. For that matter, I have no special affinity or affection for homosexuals but believe that discrimination on the basis of gender preference is wrong as well. Claiming that it's on the basis of "like" and "dislike" shows either a special lack of understanding or a seriously ham-handed attempt to frame the issue emotionally.

Edited, Apr 8th 2015 11:02pm by Jophiel

No. It refused to provide a specific service due to the nature of the event they were asked to provide the service for. In the case of at least one of the cases we discussed the business owner knew the gay couple and had sold their goods to them for years. Clearly, they weren't refusing to sell baked goods to them because they were gay, or they would have refused to sell them baked goods all along. It was the event they were being asked to provide a cake for. Not the people.

It's funny to me that this distinction is so hard for you to see.



No. I don't think those things are ok. I'm not going to defend the straw man Joph.

In those cases, the thing being provided is not specific to an action or event. The food at the cafe is the same food regardless of who sits down to eat it. The home doesn't change based on the person buying it. But if you were asked to design a home for someone and you didn't like the design (for any reason at all), you'd be free to refuse to do so, right? And if you're asked to cater food, you're free to decline the catering job for any reason you want. You're not required to do that if you don't want to. The difference here (in most of the cases anyway) is foot traffic into an "open to the public" place of business, and "custom contract business". If you are open to the public, you can't refuse service to any member of the public who walks in. The second you're asked to make a custom cake, or cater a wedding reception, or provide floral arrangements, you're entering into a contract business situation. You always have more latitude in that case and are free to take a job, or reject it, for pretty much any reason at all.


It's just really interesting to me how strongly you guys all need to mischaracterize this. Again, if your argument against catering a gay wedding, or doing flower arrangements for a gay wedding, or making a custom cake for a gay wedding was so strong, you wouldn't need to constantly equate it to doing other things that are much more obviously wrong. You're stripping out the key differences in the process. Yes. It would be wrong for a business owner to refuse to sell a cup of coffee to someone because that person is gay. But it's not wrong at all for the exact same business owner to decide that he's not going to provide coffee service for the local gay pride meeting. Those are two completely different cases. Do you honestly not see this?


Again. Let's move this away from an identity case you guys obviously have some kind of emotional stake in. Let's make it "members of the local biker club". If they walk in and buy donuts from a bakery, no one cares or refuses them service. But let's say that the owner of the bakery had a child who was killed riding a bike and can't stand the thought of motorcycles, or anything involving the culture of bike riding. She's asked to cater a local biker club event. She declines. Should she be sued for this? Charged with a crime? I'm honestly curious how you guys actually justify your position in any sort of objective legal way. Because it seems to me like you're rushing to judge the issue based on an emotional reaction to the specific identity group involved here and not really considering the ramifications.

Are bikers a race, religion, sex, age, etc. that is is against the law to discriminate against?

I guess if what ever area you live in if it's against the law to discriminate against bikers then maybe the person would be sued.

If a black person shot her son, would she be allowed to refuse service to black people?

Edited, Apr 9th 2015 12:14am by TirithRR