Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

buttpirates vs fundamentalistsFollow

#177 Apr 08 2015 at 10:15 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'll ask again: Do you think that a black baker should be required by law to provide a cake for a KKK rally? Yes or no.

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.


How about instead of a sad laugh, you actually explain the difference. Because I don't see one. I believe that all people should be treated equally under the law. Don't you?

Quote:
Quote:
Our laws should not cherry pick groups and ideas that we like and dislike and treat them differently. They need to be consistent.

"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.


And if it were actually a case of refusing to sell a donut to someone based on their sexual orientation, you'd have a point. But then again, I'd argue the same thing about refusing to sell a donut based on membership in the AKC, or the KKK. Because I'm consistent about things like this.


As I have repeatedly explained, the issue was with a gay wedding. Being forced to participate in an activity you disagree with is not a violation of the prohibition against unfair discrimination. You keep pretending that it's just about the people being gay, but as has already been pointed out, the same baker who refused to make a cake for a gay wedding had no problems selling baked goods to the same gay couple. it was not about refusing to serve a gay person. I was about refusing to participate in a gay wedding (reception). Those are two different things, and you insisting that they should be treated the same, doesn't make it so.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#178 Apr 08 2015 at 10:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
How about instead of a sad laugh, you actually explain the difference. Because I don't see one.

heh Smiley: frown
Quote:
I believe that all people should be treated equally under the law.

Now THAT is golden Smiley: laugh
Quote:
And if it were actually a case of refusing to sell a donut to someone based on their sexual orientation, you'd have a point.

So you admit that I have a point. Fantastic. Smiley: thumbsup
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#179 Apr 08 2015 at 10:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I love how Gbaji's argument here boils down to "It's not because they're GAY, it's because they're doing gay things!"

Man, if they'd just stop being so gay, what with getting gay-married and all, no one would have a problem with them at all!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#180 Apr 08 2015 at 10:18 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The home doesn't change based on the person buying it.
You've... never bought a new home, have you? Smiley: laugh
The guy has never seen a Jewish deli if this thread is to be believed.

No matter how hard he tries to spin it, "It's discrimination for a business to not provide a service they never provided in the first place" will never stop being funny.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#181 Apr 08 2015 at 10:30 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
No. I don't think those things are ok. I'm not going to defend the straw man Joph.

There is no straw man. If you refuse to make a cake because you refuse to facilitate a gay relationship then ANY business decision made for the same reason is equivalent.


It's not "for the same reason" though. That's the part you keep kinda glossing over. The sale of a donut to a gay person does not have anything to do with the person being gay. It does not validate or invalidate the persons sexual orientation. The person selling the donut is not taking a position on that person's sexual orientation, nor on the issue of gay marriage.

Asking the same person to make a cake for a gay wedding does do those things. If you make a cake for a wedding you are "approving" the wedding. You're not just making a cake, you are making a "wedding cake". If you don't agree with gay marriage, then this is asking you to validate something you don't agree with. Period.


Quote:
Quote:
The food at the cafe is the same food regardless of who sits down to eat it.

So is a cake. Flour, eggs and milk only combine in so many ways. You want to whine about decorations now? Ok, so a barrista who makes those stupid foam designs in the coffee refuses to serve a gay couple on a date because she thinks their date is evil and sinful -- you think is is okay or not okay?


If she's asked to make a pro-gay(marriage) design in foam, I'd support her decision to refuse to do so. For the exact same reason I'd support her reason to refuse to make a swastika design if asked to. Or, a puppy design, if for some reason puppies made her sad. She's free to choose to do that if she wants, and to refuse to do so, if she wants. If she hates clowns, and someone asks here to make a clown in foam, she's within her rights to say "No. I don't do clown designs".

You seriously don't see where the dividing line is here?

Quote:
Quote:
It's just really interesting to me how strongly you guys all need to mischaracterize this.

As interesting as your need to demand that wedding cakes are special and magical and unlike anything else?


They are neither magical nor unlike anything else. They are just like any other special/custom request you make of someone. You ask the piano guy to play a song, he's free to refuse because he doesn't like that song. He needs no other reason. You ask a carpenter to carve giant ***** designs in your bedposts, he's free to say no. He's under zero obligation to agree to any specific job request you make of him. Period. There are an infinite number of cases like this. What I'm talking about is not unique or special or magical. You've just chosen to obsess over this one case and proclaim it to be an exception to the rule.

I'll note the lack of response to any of those other cases. You're the one making wedding cakes some kind of special right Joph. Not me. I'm treating them exactly the same as any other custom request a customer might make of a business. And in all of those cases, I believe that the business owner has the final say as to whether he performs that service/request or not. Period. You want to buy something off the menu our out of the case? That's fine. But the second you're asking for a custom order the condition is changed. It has to be. It's an impossible legal requirement otherwise.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#182 Apr 08 2015 at 10:35 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
You seriously don't see where the dividing line is here?
Yeah, that it's a gay couple.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#183 Apr 08 2015 at 10:37 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
gbaji wrote:
If she's asked to make a pro-***(marriage) design in foam, I'd support her decision to refuse to do so. For the exact same reason I'd support her reason to refuse to make a swastika design if asked to. Or, a puppy design, if for some reason puppies made her sad. She's free to choose to do that if she wants, and to refuse to do so, if she wants. If she hates clowns, and someone asks here to make a clown in foam, she's within her rights to say "No. I don't do clown designs".

You seriously don't see where the dividing line is here?


It's like you just completely ignored two pages of discussion. Smiley: lol
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#184 Apr 08 2015 at 10:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Asking the same person to make a cake for a *** wedding does do those things. If you make a cake for a wedding you are "approving" the wedding.

No you're not. You're selling a cake.

Quote:
If she's asked to make a pro-***(marriage) design in foam, I'd support her decision to refuse to do so.

That wasn't the question. Should she refuse to serve the gay couple on the basis of refusing to facilitate their sinful relationship? If she gives them coffee, by your logic, she's "approving" of their date.

Quote:
You want to buy something off the menu our out of the case? That's fine. But the second you're asking for a custom order the condition is changed. It has to be.

Again, the store in question did not offer to sell a basic cake (and any cake shop has a catalog of basic cakes, they don't custom design every sheet cake from scratch), they refused to sell a cake at all because it was for a wedding between a couple gay dudes.

The reason why people keep comparing it to burgers and whatnot isn't because people are afraid to talk about weddings, it's because people are mocking your clinging to this idea of a "custom" cake as though that's the principle at stake. It's not. It's irrelevant.

Edited, Apr 8th 2015 11:40pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#185 Apr 08 2015 at 10:41 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
No matter how hard he tries to spin it, "It's discrimination for a business to not provide a service they never provided in the first place" will never stop being funny.


Absolutely. Now, I just need you to grasp that any custom order is a "service they never provided in the first place".


You get that I wasn't arguing that a Jewish deli should be required to make ham sandwiches, right? It's strange because you the second person to get that logic completely backwards. I'm saying that in all of these cases, the business owner has the right to choose not to provide a specific service if it's objectionable to him. Other people are arguing that in some cases, they can, and in others they can't. And then spinning around in circles trying to avoid facing the inherent contradiction and inconsistency in their own position.

My position is incredibly consistent. Others in this thread? Kinda all over the place.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#186 Apr 08 2015 at 10:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I'm saying that in all of these cases, the business owner has the right to choose not to provide a specific service if it's objectionable to him. Other people are arguing that in some cases, they can, and in others they can't. And then spinning around in circles trying to avoid facing the inherent contradiction and inconsistency in their own position.

My position is incredibly consistent. Others in this thread? Kinda all over the place.

On this same basis, you think it's reasonable and proper to refuse to deal with someone because they are black or Catholic or Canadian or female or a veteran or missing a hand or autistic. Otherwise you're just "inconsistent", right? Which I personally feel is pretty fucked up but when you're a straight white male I suppose you have the luxury of masturbating over your "liberty" to that extent.

Edited, Apr 8th 2015 11:43pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#187 Apr 08 2015 at 10:45 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Now, I just need you to grasp that any custom order is a "service they never provided in the first place".
So the place that advertises that they make wedding cakes doesn't make wedding cakes?
gbaji wrote:
My position is incredibly consistent.
Oh, it's been consistent. Stupid and hilariously wrong on every single level imaginable, but no one is going to deny that it's consistent.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#188 Apr 08 2015 at 10:46 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
No matter how hard he tries to spin it, "It's discrimination for a business to not provide a service they never provided in the first place" will never stop being funny.


Absolutely. Now, I just need you to grasp that any custom order is a "service they never provided in the first place".

My position is incredibly consistent. Others in this thread? Kinda all over the place.


What if they only do custom work? oO

Admit it; mind blown, amirite.

Think about it.. a business invulnerable to any kind of discrimination suit.

Edited, Apr 9th 2015 12:50am by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#189 Apr 08 2015 at 10:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You all realize that a "wedding" cake is just a cake at a wedding, right? I could buy a frozen Sara Lee pound cake, take it to a wedding and it's a wedding cake.

It's not a question of the shop refusing to sell them a "wedding" cake, they just refused to sell them a cake.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#190 Apr 08 2015 at 10:53 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Semantics. Could be a mechanic that refused to change the oil because religion! and it'd be the same point.

X went to Y to obtain Z, but was refused Z because balls were touching.

Edited, Apr 9th 2015 12:57am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#191 Apr 08 2015 at 10:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, I said it more for Gabji's benefit.

"But it was a wedding cake!! That means it was cuuussssssssstttoooooommmmm!!!!"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#192 Apr 08 2015 at 11:00 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Asking the same person to make a cake for a *** wedding does do those things. If you make a cake for a wedding you are "approving" the wedding.

No you're not. You're selling a cake.


If they buy a generic cake out of the case, yes. If they ask you to make a custom cake for their wedding, you are approving of the wedding. You are validating it as a wedding by making the cake. It's not just a cake. It's what the cake represents.

I'll ask again. Answer the case of the black baker and the KKK rally. Is that just selling them a cake too? If you can't address that case and apply the same reasoning to it, then you need to reassess your position. I suspect you keep ignoring it because you don't want to face the fact that there's a massive gaping flaw in your reasoning.

It's more than just a cake. It's tacit approval of the event the cake is for. You're a fool to think otherwise.

Quote:
Quote:
If she's asked to make a pro-***(marriage) design in foam, I'd support her decision to refuse to do so.

That wasn't the question. Should she refuse to serve the gay couple on the basis of refusing to facilitate their sinful relationship? If she gives them coffee, by your logic, she's "approving" of their date.


I already answered your question. No. She should not refuse to server them a cup of coffee. Or even making a foam design that she had made before for other customers if they ask. Because doing so, despite your perverse need to tell me what my own position is, does not validate their relationship. They are two people having coffee. Just like any other two people having coffee. Her serving them coffee does not require that she validate them as a couple. Nothing about them drinking coffee in a coffee shop has any bearing on their sexual orientation. I'm not sure why you'd think it does.

Do you think that if a guy walks in with a swastika tattoo on his arm, if she serves him coffee she's approving of his neo-**** beliefs? That's insane. How about someone with a t-shirt that says something she disagrees with? Again, you're failing to see where the dividing line is here, despite me clearly explaining it to you several times.

Quote:
Again, the store in question did not offer to sell a basic cake (and any cake shop has a catalog of basic cakes, they don't custom design every sheet cake from scratch), they refused to sell a cake at all because it was for a wedding between a couple gay dudes.


Yeah. because it was for a wedding between a couple of gay dudes. You keep missing this. If they'd just walked in and ordered a cake, they would have made them a cake and sold it to them. If they walked in holding hands and asked for a cake, they'd have sold it to them. It was the act of saying "make us a cake for our wedding" that the baker said no. That should be a clear sign where the issue is. It's not in them "being gay". It's the baker being asked to make a cake "for a gay wedding".

You even said it yourself, but continue to think it's something else. That's... bizarre.

Quote:
The reason why people keep comparing it to burgers and whatnot isn't because people are afraid to talk about weddings, it's because people are mocking your clinging to this idea of a "custom" cake as though that's the principle at stake. It's not. It's irrelevant.


It's exactly the principle at stake. The baker is being asked to make a cake for a specific single event. If the baker does not approve of the event, for any reason at all, he has a right to refuse to make the cake. See how easy that is? It does not matter if it's for a gay wedding, or a KKK rally, or a dog show, or a biker party, or a **** shoot, or a kids birthday, or any of an infinite number of things that a baker might decide he doesn't approve of. he has the right to refuse. Period.

You've chosen to start with the single event, broadly equate it to some other forms of unfair discrimination, and declare this to be unfair as well. But you're ignoring the fact that if the baker refused to make the cake for any other event for any other reason, you'd have no problem with it. So it's not a case of my "side" singling out gay people for discrimination, but your "side" choosing to make an exception case for them. Which IMO is a terrible way to run a legal system. I'm treating all of these cases the same. You are not. But somehow *I'm* the one supporting unfair discrimination?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#193 Apr 08 2015 at 11:03 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Well, I said it more for Gabji's benefit.
My mistake, but you're going to need a bigger boat for him to catch a clue.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#194 Apr 08 2015 at 11:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Now, I just need you to grasp that any custom order is a "service they never provided in the first place".
So the place that advertises that they make wedding cakes doesn't make wedding cakes?


Not that wedding cake, for that wedding. If you ask someone to make a cake "for an event", that is a service they've never provided before, because every event is different.


I'll ask again: Would you support requiring a black baker to make a cake for a KKK rally?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#195 Apr 08 2015 at 11:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Because doing so, despite your perverse need to tell me what my own position is, does not validate their relationship. They are two people having coffee.

Oh, ok. So a person who thinks that going on a gay date is sinful shouldn't be able to refuse service but a person who thinks that gay marriage is sinful should be allowed to. Because, you know, "custom cakes!!!" and stuff.

Well, that totally makes sense and is entirely consistent.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#196 Apr 08 2015 at 11:10 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
If you ask someone to make a cake "for an event", that is a service they've never provided before, because every event is different.
Oh, so now the place that makes cakes "for weddings" doesn't make cakes for weddings.
gbaji wrote:
I'll ask again:
Ask as often as you want, your hypothetical scenarios aren't similar and are just meant to elicit emotional reactions instead of focus on logic.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#197 Apr 08 2015 at 11:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
You all realize that a "wedding" cake is just a cake at a wedding, right? I could buy a frozen Sara Lee pound cake, take it to a wedding and it's a wedding cake.


In this context, they are different. If that had been the case, no one at the grocery store would have cared. In this context "wedding cake" means a cake made specifically for that wedding, not just "random cake we served at a wedding reception".

Quote:
It's not a question of the shop refusing to sell them a "wedding" cake, they just refused to sell them a cake.


False. If the same couple had asked them to make a birthday cake, they would have sold them the cake. You keep trying to weasel out of this, but it's the key point. It was the event for which the cake was being requested that mattered. Not the people requesting it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#198 Apr 08 2015 at 11:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
There's no weaseling. As I said, your argument is: "It's not about them being gay, it's just that they were doing gay stuff"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#199 Apr 08 2015 at 11:16 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
If the same couple had asked them to make a birthday cake, they would have sold them the cake
Prove it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#200 Apr 08 2015 at 11:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If you ask someone to make a cake "for an event", that is a service they've never provided before, because every event is different.
Oh, so now the place that makes cakes "for weddings" doesn't make cakes for weddings.


If they don't believe in gay weddings, then the logical quandary kinda disappears, doesn't it?


Quote:
gbaji wrote:
I'll ask again:
Ask as often as you want, your hypothetical scenarios aren't similar and are just meant to elicit emotional reactions instead of focus on logic.


It's meant to get people to examine other cases and see if the position they're taking makes sense. But if you're so adverse to that specific example, I've also used several others. I think that you don't want to answer because it would require that you admit that your position on the issue of gay weddings is the exception case, and not the rule. And that might lead to having to examine why you're making an exception here, but not in other cases. Is a gay wedding so special that it requires special rules just for it? Rules that don't apply to any other event that someone might ask someone to make a cake for?

If I want a cake to celebrate my years of playing RPGs, and the baker says he thinks that RPG playing is evil and wont make it, I'll just shrug my head, accept that he's free to refuse my request if he wants, and move on to the next baker. If I ask someone to make a birthday cake, and the baker refuses because he doesn't do birthdays, well, same deal. His loss. In every single case I can think of, if a baker decided they didn't want to make a cake I requested, for any reason at all, I'd accept that he's free to do that. It's his choice. I'll go find a baker that doesn't have some objection to whatever thing I'm asking him to make a cake for.

I don't make exceptions. To me, the person making a cake, or catering an event, or doing contract work of any kind always has the right to decide not to do the job he's being asked to do. For any reason he wants. I guess what I'm wondering is if some of you feel differently, do you feel differently in all cases, or just some? And if it's just in some cases, then which ones? And why?

I'm honestly not trying for a gotcha case here. I really do want to understand the though process behind "it's ok for a baker to not make a cake for a satanic celebration, or for a KKK rally, or a dog show, or a birthday, or any of a number of other things, but it's not ok for him not to make one for a gay wedding". Is that the only case where it's not ok? Again. I'm honestly curious where you guys draw the line and how you decide where it is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#201 Apr 08 2015 at 11:30 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If the same couple had asked them to make a birthday cake, they would have sold them the cake
Prove it.


Ok

Quote:
The controversy started in 2012 when a gay couple asked Phillips to make their wedding cake. Phillips politely declined, saying he could not make a cake promoting a same-sex ceremony because of his faith. He offered to make them any other baked item they wanted.


That was easy. Got any other blinders you need removed?

Edited, Apr 8th 2015 10:40pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 269 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (269)