SCOTUS Rules 5-4 In Favor of Gay Marriage

[Wrathbringer]

No.

OMG BIGOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111ONE1!ISAIDELEVENT YTHOUSANDONESnyiggaaaaaaaaah

It's the fema camps for you, you homegrown terrorist you!

[Methais]

What makes discrimination more palatable when it comes under the auspices of religion? I suppose it will take yet another supreme court ruling to make it clear freedom of religion doesn't extend to discriminatory practices against minorities.

So if I go into a bakery owned by black people and demand they make me a KKK cake decorated with a swastika, a black dude hanging from a tree, and a picture of Quentin Tarantino from PF saying "Dead nigger storage" and they refuse, I should be able to sue them into oblivion. Right?

[Warriorbird]

This is what outrages people:

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2015/07/sweet_cakes_final_order_gresha.html

Stay proud, social justice warrior.

[Wrathbringer]

Stay proud, social justice warrior.

I've noticed that you never respond with anything of substance (read: troll constantly). Cool.

REDOMG Thread: SCOTUS Rules 5-4 In Favor of Gay Marriage
Do you shart because the gays have had their way with you?

Sometimes.

[Wrathbringer]

So if I go into a bakery owned by black people and demand they make me a KKK cake decorated with a swastika, a black dude hanging from a tree, and a picture of Quentin Tarantino from PF saying "Dead nigger storage" and they refuse, I should be able to sue them into oblivion. Right?

This is a $135,000 idea. You're a genius. Gotta go to a bakery real fast. brb

edit: nevermind, have to go too far to find a black person, even further to find one that works and owns a bakery.

[Parkbandit]

So if I go into a bakery owned by black people and demand they make me a KKK cake decorated with a swastika, a black dude hanging from a tree, and a picture of Quentin Tarantino from PF saying "Dead nigger storage" and they refuse, I should be able to sue them into oblivion. Right?

It's only "discrimination" if they agree with what is being "discriminated" against.

[Wrathbringer]

It's only "discrimination" if they agree with what is being "discriminated" against.

Killjoy.

[Warriorbird]

I've noticed that you never respond with anything of substance (read: troll constantly). Cool.

Hello pot. How is your life different than kettling?

Are you going to call me black some more?

[Wrathbringer]

What makes discrimination more palatable when it comes under the auspices of religion? I suppose it will take yet another supreme court ruling to make it clear freedom of religion doesn't extend to discriminatory practices against minorities.

Says the guy who'll be billing the taxpayers for his knee replacements in 10 years due to his selfish indulgent dirty running habit. Disgusting. Thanks guy. Keep pounding those joints.

[Wrathbringer]

Hello pot. How is your life different than kettling?

Are you going to call me black some more?

I see you edited to ask if I was going to call you black some more. Good one.

[Kaldonis]

Considering my conference attendance in Beijing, and two job interviews in the US (in the last 2.5 weeks), and living in Tokyo, I'll not read this thread and I will say...

This is the most important social justice change in the United States in my lifetime!

I'm not gay, but I can't see that it matters.

Shart rep me in the butt to prove that I am, in fact, gay.

Maybe in 10 years they'll legalize toking it up.

And in another 50 years they'll get a healthcare system suitable for a so-called industrialized democracy. Though that's gonna fuck up everyone wanting to make good healthcare systems, since they won't be able to look at the US as "what not to do".

[Androidpk]

Maybe 10 years? Will happen far sooner than that.

[Fallen]

So if I go into a bakery owned by black people and demand they make me a KKK cake decorated with a swastika, a black dude hanging from a tree, and a picture of Quentin Tarantino from PF saying "Dead nigger storage" and they refuse, I should be able to sue them into oblivion. Right?

No, but you can go into a bakery owned by black people and expect to able to order a wedding cake for a wedding of two white people.

[Fallen]

Let's take it a step further... do you believe a church should be forced to wed a gay couple in their church, even though their religion believes it to be not right?

Is the church a for-profit business? If so, yes. If not, then no.

[Wrathbringer]

No, but you can go into a bakery owned by black people and expect to able to order a wedding cake for a white wedding.

In b4 David bowie

[Fallen]

In b4 David bowie

Yeah, edited it so as not to inspire outbursts of song.

[Androidpk]

In b4 David bowie

You mean Billy Idol.

[Methais]

No, but you can go into a bakery owned by black people and expect to able to order a wedding cake for a wedding of two white people.

What if the two white people on the cake are wearing klan robes and holding up swastika flags?

[Wrathbringer]

What if the two white people on the cake are wearing klan robes and holding up swastika flags?

Are the two white people gay?

[Wrathbringer]

You mean Billy Idol.

<sigh> you're right, of course.

[Taernath]

Is the church a for-profit business? If so, yes. If not, then no.

Can you even force, say, a Catholic church to perform a Protestant wedding? It seems like a non issue to me.

[Fallen]

Can you even force, say, a Catholic church to perform a Protestant wedding? It seems like a non issue to me.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/religious-organizations-right-to-discriminate.html

You can't call a for-profit business a church, so they can't get the same protections.


The key factors to consider are those that show the institution has a purpose which is primarily religious:

Articles of incorporation that state a religious purpose
Operating day to day with religion as a primary focus
Whether it is a for-profit organization

[Methais]

Are the two white people gay?

Worse. They're white.

https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/p480x480/11061709_866974876672293_3268624508012099498_n.jpg ?oh=abe1ae47cc4f71510cf4c1865f536da1&oe=562E3D15

[Warriorbird]

Worse. They're white.

https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/p480x480/11061709_866974876672293_3268624508012099498_n.jpg ?oh=abe1ae47cc4f71510cf4c1865f536da1&oe=562E3D15

You actually seriously posted that? Hilarious. The poor persecuted Christians!

Straight people have it so tough in America.

[Methais]

You actually seriously posted that? Hilarious. The poor persecuted Christians!

Straight people have it so tough in America.

I know, they get sued for over 100 grand just for not wanting to bake a gay cake!

[Warriorbird]

I know, they get sued for over 100 grand just for not wanting to bake a gay cake!

Because this anecdote is everything. It obviously means that gay people shouldn't be able to get married, shouldn't be able to be served places, and should be freely fired and discriminated against, because *pearl clutch!* think of the straight Christians!

How about it means that... Americans are litigious.

[Androidpk]

Someone think of the poor straight, white Christian children.

[Wrathbringer]

Worse. They're white.

https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/p480x480/11061709_866974876672293_3268624508012099498_n.jpg ?oh=abe1ae47cc4f71510cf4c1865f536da1&oe=562E3D15

Truth.

[Methais]

Because this anecdote is everything. It obviously means that gay people shouldn't be able to get married, shouldn't be able to be served places, and should be freely fired and discriminated against, because *pearl clutch!* think of the straight Christians!

How about it means that... Americans are litigious.

I never said any of that. But you already know this. And we already know you and your inability to post without hyperbole.

People still shouldn't be able to sue someone for not wanting to bake them a gay cake for their gay wedding. As far as I'm aware, none of these bakers have ever been like "I don't serve your kind, get out." either, as opposed to "I'm not going to bake you that particular cake."

I bet you think it's ludicrous to consider that at least some of them probably target Christian run bakeries specifically for this purpose too. It's easy money, after all.

[Parkbandit]

Is the church a for-profit business? If so, yes. If not, then no.

What does profits have to do with anything?

[Androidpk]

What does profits have to do with anything?

Tax status.

[Fallen]

What does profits have to do with anything?

One is considered a religious institution and the other a for-profit business, which by law is not afforded the right to discriminate on religious grounds. The pursuit of profit is a primary means of determining between the two.

[Wrathbringer]

One is considered a religious institution and the other a for-profit business, which by law is not afforded the right to discriminate on religious grounds.

So what you're saying is that only those who do not pay taxes are free. I agree with that much.

[Warriorbird]

I never said any of that. But you already know this. And we already know you and your inability to post without hyperbole.

People still shouldn't be able to sue someone for not wanting to bake them a gay cake for their gay wedding. As far as I'm aware, none of these bakers have ever been like "I don't serve your kind, get out." either, as opposed to "I'm not going to bake you that particular cake."

I bet you think it's ludicrous to consider that at least some of them probably target Christian run bakeries specifically for this purpose too. It's easy money, after all.

You sure posted that stupid cartoon though.

What's more, I'm pretty sure "I don't serve your kind, get out" is exactly why they're able to be sued.

Civil rights are civil rights, hey.

[Latrinsorm]

People still shouldn't be able to sue someone for not wanting to bake them a gay cake for their gay wedding. As far as I'm aware, none of these bakers have ever been like "I don't serve your kind, get out." either, as opposed to "I'm not going to bake you that particular cake." I bet you think it's ludicrous to consider that at least some of them probably target Christian run bakeries specifically for this purpose too. It's easy money, after all."I said, 'I'm very sorry, I believe I have wasted your time. We do not do cakes for same sex weddings,' " Klein testified.

Polite illegal discrimination is still illegal discrimination.

[Tenlaar]

This is what outrages people:

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2015/07/sweet_cakes_final_order_gresha.html

I can see how having to treat people equally would outrage bigots. It just doesn't bother me.

[Methais]

I can see how having to treat people equally would outrage bigots. It just doesn't bother me.

So you think a Jewish baker shouldn't be able to refuse to bake a Nazi cake?

Should an athiest not be able to refuse to bake a cake with Jesus all over it?

Should a pro-abortion baker not be able to refuse to bake a pro-life cake?

Should a gay baker not be able to refuse to bake a straight wedding cake?

Should Latrin not be able to refuse to bake a cake that says "Everything Latrin posts is wrong and pot doesn't cause psychosis"?


"I said, 'I'm very sorry, I believe I have wasted your time. We do not do cakes for same sex weddings,' " Klein testified.

Note how they didn't say they don't do cakes for gay people.

Tell me how do you think this scenario would go:

Gay couple walks into bakery.

Gaycouple says, "We'd like for you to bake us a Darth Vader cake. It's our nephew's birthday and he loves Star Wars!"

Which response do you believe the baker would give?

A) I don't serve gays, sorry.

B) Sure, no problem. That will cost you X dollars and should be ready at Y time.



I can see how having to treat people equally would outrage bigots. It just doesn't bother me.

I can see how retards equate disagreement to bigotry and hate. Which makes sense coming from you, because you're retarded.

[Methais]

Look at this racist store owner refusing to dry clean this guy's clothes. Why hasn't this store owner been sued and branded a racist and a bigot?

https://youtu.be/okFp7UgNFOA?t=1m53s

[Warriorbird]

So you think a Jewish baker shouldn't be able to refuse to bake a Nazi cake?

Should an athiest not be able to refuse to bake a cake with Jesus all over it?

Should a pro-abortion baker not be able to refuse to bake a pro-life cake?

Should a gay baker not be able to refuse to bake a straight wedding cake?

Should Latrin not be able to refuse to bake a cake that says "Everything Latrin posts is wrong and pot doesn't cause psychosis"?



Note how they didn't say they don't do cakes for gay people.

Tell me how do you think this scenario would go:

Gay couple walks into bakery.

Gaycouple says, "We'd like for you to bake us a Darth Vader cake. It's our nephew's birthday and he loves Star Wars!"

Which response do you believe the baker would give?

A) I don't serve gays, sorry.

B) Sure, no problem. That will cost you X dollars and should be ready at Y time.




I can see how retards equate disagreement to bigotry and hate. Which makes sense coming from you, because you're retarded.

You've cleverly discovered a method where people can deny everybody they don't like service!

...nope.

[Parkbandit]

One is considered a religious institution and the other a for-profit business, which by law is not afforded the right to discriminate on religious grounds. The pursuit of profit is a primary means of determining between the two.

So, in your mind.. as long as they are not a for profit enterprise, they can refuse service for anyone they don't agree with.

Scientology is considered a not for profit religion. Most people in Clearwater, FL would disagree, given their huge real estate holdings.

[Warriorbird]

So, in your mind.. as long as they are not a for profit enterprise, they can refuse service for anyone they don't agree with.

Scientology is considered a not for profit religion. Most people in Clearwater, FL would disagree, given their huge real estate holdings.

His mind and the law are two different things. Does that mean laws are always perfect? No.

[Candor]

Here's a simple solution. Post a sign that says something like this:

"This store is owned by people who practice the Fundamentalist Christian faith. In accordance with the law, we will provide services to anyone regardless of sexual orientation. Customers should be aware that a potion of the profits of this store are donated to political organizations whose primary purpose is to repeal all special rights to homosexuals and to remove all homosexual awareness education in the public schools."

The wording is off the top of my head and can probably be improved a bit, but you get the idea.

[Warriorbird]

Here's a simple solution. Post a sign that says something like this:

"This store is owned by people who practice the Fundamentalist Christian faith. In accordance with the law, we will provide services to anyone regardless of sexual orientation. Customers should be aware that a potion of the profits of this store are donated to political organizations whose primary purpose is to repeal all special rights to homosexuals and to remove all homosexual awareness education in the public schools."

The wording is off the top of my head and can probably be improved a bit, but you get the idea.

Totally legal. People can do the same thing for something like "I proudly contribute to the KKK."

[Candor]

and perhaps 30 seconds after I submitted the above post, I got this rep:

<Here's a simple solution: no.>

Why?

You are going to see a few stores take this approach. Are you going to make it illegal? That's a very dangerous road to go down...

[Methais]

You've cleverly discovered a method where people can deny everybody they don't like service!

...nope.

Have you ever noticed that when you're asked a question, your response has nothing to do with what was being asked?

The rest of us have.

[Wrathbringer]

So you think a Jewish baker shouldn't be able to refuse to bake a Nazi cake?

Should an athiest not be able to refuse to bake a cake with Jesus all over it?

Should a pro-abortion baker not be able to refuse to bake a pro-life cake?

Should a gay baker not be able to refuse to bake a straight wedding cake?

Should Latrin not be able to refuse to bake a cake that says "Everything Latrin posts is wrong and pot doesn't cause psychosis"?



Note how they didn't say they don't do cakes for gay people.

Tell me how do you think this scenario would go:

Gay couple walks into bakery.

Gaycouple says, "We'd like for you to bake us a Darth Vader cake. It's our nephew's birthday and he loves Star Wars!"

Which response do you believe the baker would give?

A) I don't serve gays, sorry.

B) Sure, no problem. That will cost you X dollars and should be ready at Y time.




I can see how retards equate disagreement to bigotry and hate. Which makes sense coming from you, because you're retarded.

Excellent point. They never said, "ew you're gay! get away!" They said they didn't make cakes for gay weddings. No way this $135k decision should stand upon appeal if that's all that was said. And lol.

[Warriorbird]

Have you ever noticed that when you're asked a question, your response has nothing to do with what was being asked?

Other outraged conservative social justice warriors have.

Fixed.

My Lord. It's like I've refused to follow your attempts at framing the argument. That must mean that I don't think your attempted rhetoric is persuasive. How about that.

[Wrathbringer]

Here's a simple solution. Post a sign that says something like this:

"This store is owned by people who practice the Fundamentalist Christian faith. In accordance with the law, we will provide services to anyone regardless of sexual orientation. Customers should be aware that a potion of the profits of this store are donated to political organizations whose primary purpose is to repeal all special rights to homosexuals and to remove all homosexual awareness education in the public schools."

The wording is off the top of my head and can probably be improved a bit, but you get the idea.

I like this. This is exactly what I'd do. Good thinking. Sure, I'd word it to be a bit more offensive to make sure they get the point, but other than that...stellar.

[elcidcannon]

Have you ever noticed that when you're asked a question, your response has nothing to do with what was being asked?

The rest of us have.

It's called: he's a troll.

[Methais]

Fixed.

My Lord. It's like I've refused to follow your attempts at framing the argument. That must mean that I don't think your attempted rhetoric is persuasive. How about that.

In the real world, it's called you don't want to contradict yourself with an honest answer so instead you just don't answer at all and instead deflect with your hyperbolic bullshit in an attempt to steer things away from the question in hopes that it will be swept under the rug and forgotten about.

[Latrinsorm]

So you think a Jewish baker shouldn't be able to refuse to bake a Nazi cake? Should an athiest not be able to refuse to bake a cake with Jesus all over it? Should a pro-abortion baker not be able to refuse to bake a pro-life cake? Should a gay baker not be able to refuse to bake a straight wedding cake? Should Latrin not be able to refuse to bake a cake that says "Everything Latrin posts is wrong and pot doesn't cause psychosis"?Anyone is and should be legally allowed to refuse to bake cakes. What they are not and should not be allowed to do is selectively refuse and be open to the public. You either accommodate the public or you don't.
Note how they didn't say they don't do cakes for gay people.This is not and should not be a relevant distinction.
Tell me how do you think this scenario would go: Gay couple walks into bakery. Gaycouple says, "We'd like for you to bake us a Darth Vader cake. It's our nephew's birthday and he loves Star Wars!" Which response do you believe the baker would give? A) I don't serve gays, sorry. B) Sure, no problem. That will cost you X dollars and should be ready at Y time.I suspect these bakers are being funded by conservative groups specifically to generate these court rulings so as to gin people like you into outrage and thus support said conservative groups. As such, I think they would go with option (A).

[Shaps]

I'm going to hire a black, gay, transgender, Jewish man to provide catering service to an Islamic Ramadan feast.

[Tenlaar]

repeal all special rights to homosexuals

And what "special" rights would those be?

[Wrathbringer]

And what "special" rights would those be?

Getting paid $135,000 for calling the media and complaining?

[Tenlaar]

Getting paid $135,000 for calling the media and complaining?

Because no straight people have ever gotten money from suing a business, and certainly not for anything less serious than actual factual discrimination.

[Wrathbringer]

Because no straight people have ever gotten money from suing a business, and certainly not for anything less serious than actual factual discrimination.

It wasn't discrimination. They were gay, don't you get it?

[Fallen]

So, in your mind.. as long as they are not a for profit enterprise, they can refuse service for anyone they don't agree with.

Scientology is considered a not for profit religion. Most people in Clearwater, FL would disagree, given their huge real estate holdings.

Churches have the legal right to discriminate, for-profit businesses, even those owned by churches, are not afforded those same protections. There are of course other types of non and not-for-profit entities besides churches, but they are not afforded special discriminatory protections.

[Candor]

I'd word it to be a bit more offensive to make sure they get the point, but other than that...

"This store doesn't serve idiots who spend their lives playing a virtual world game on the Internet. Worthless scum like that should be placed into forced labor."

[Shaps]

I'd put up a sign stating:

"I spent my own money to make this business, I own it.. and I hate you! So get the fuck out of here you transgender, cracker, fascist, liberal, Christian, conservative, gay, PETA supporting, heterosexual, black, Asian, native American, Hispanic, Caucasian, feminist, misogynist, educated, uneducated, disabled, non-disabled, human, alien bastards. I only serve myself"
-PC Supported, PC approved

[Warriorbird]

In the real world, it's called you don't want to contradict yourself with an honest answer so instead you just don't answer at all and instead deflect with your hyperbolic bullshit in an attempt to steer things away from the question in hopes that it will be swept under the rug and forgotten about.

I'm sorry that you think that having a series of self serving questions means people are going to accept them as the only thing they'll respond to. You probably don't even talk about this stuff "in the real world" unless you're not around anybody who will challenge your ideas, so I doubt you know. The Internet gives you the ability to find people who's lives have also been made so very difficult by homosexuals, black people, liberals, and people who get upset about things (only you are allowed to get upset about things) so you can make sure you'll have people to back you up as you blame those people for everything.

[Methais]

I'm sorry that you think that having a series of self serving questions means people are going to accept them as the only thing they'll respond to. You probably don't even talk about this stuff "in the real world" unless you're not around anybody who will challenge your ideas, so I doubt you know. The Internet gives you the ability to find people who's lives have also been made so very difficult by homosexuals, black people, liberals, and people who get upset about things (only you are allowed to get upset about things) so you can make sure you'll have people to back you up as you blame those people for everything.

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2688/4421757390_d41371ba05_o_d.jpg

[Warriorbird]

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2688/4421757390_d41371ba05_o_d.jpg

Aww.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=123102

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c3846242/tommy-lee-jones-nominates-al-gore-81600

[Tgo01]

Churches have the legal right to discriminate, for-profit businesses, even those owned by churches, are not afforded those same protections. There are of course other types of non and not-for-profit entities besides churches, but they are not afforded special discriminatory protections.

For profit businesses can discriminate all they want, except against the protected classes set forth by federal, state, and local laws. Assuming small breasted women aren't a protected class then a business can refuse to hire or refuse to service small breasted women.

Also it's not just churches that are allowed to discriminate like this, Boy Scouts of America has that whole no gays allowed thing. I think that's still in effect for scout masters, right?

[Fallen]

Apparently that cake shop is in a state where gays are included as a protected class.

Churches have the ability to discriminate beyond what other entities possess.

[Tgo01]

Apparently that cake shop is in a state where gays are included as a protected class.

Yup.


Churches have the ability to discriminate beyond what other entities possess.

This is true, but non profits still have some leeway when it comes to discriminating against protected classes as well.

[Gelston]

I think it is bullshit that a business should go under for refusing service to someone. I think the pay out should be equal to the cost of service.

[Shaps]

I think it is bullshit that a business should go under for refusing service to someone. I think the pay out should be equal to the cost of service.

If I lost my business to some insane lawsuit.. I would sell it all, and give the funds to charity before paying someone. Then I would apply for all the unemployment benefits I could, and tell the court to just take it out of those.

**Edit** I would get the unemployment benefits, then countersue the idiots that sued me first.. and since I am out of my business and livelihood.. ask for 10x more than they sued me for.. for mental anguish and whatever other bullshit I could come up with. Making the welfare state work for you!

[Kembal]

If I lost my business to some insane lawsuit.. I would sell it all, and give the funds to charity before paying someone. Then I would apply for all the unemployment benefits I could, and tell the court to just take it out of those.

**Edit** I would get the unemployment benefits, then countersue the idiots that sued me first.. and since I am out of my business and livelihood.. ask for 10x more than they sued me for.. for mental anguish and whatever other bullshit I could come up with. Making the welfare state work for you!

They'd file an order to attach assets and freeze accounts. You wouldn't be able to move a penny. Your countersuit would get dismissed immediately, since you can't sue for mental anguish or any other cause of action due to damages awarded in a lawsuit.

Beyond the hassle of litigation in general, that's why most businesses settle any lawsuit that has a chance of making the business extinct before it gets anywhere close to trial.

[Shaps]

They'd file an order to attach assets and freeze accounts. You wouldn't be able to move a penny. Your countersuit would get dismissed immediately, since you can't sue for mental anguish or any other cause of action due to damages awarded in a lawsuit.

Beyond the hassle of litigation in general, that's why most businesses settle any lawsuit that has a chance of making the business extinct before it gets anywhere close to trial.

Hmm.. what if I just burned it down? Literally everything.. business.. house.. all of it. I'd rather go to 0 that way, than give it to someone else over a cup of spilled coffee or some other insane legal shenanigans.

[Wrathbringer]

For profit businesses can discriminate all they want, except against the protected classes set forth by federal, state, and local laws. Assuming small breasted women aren't a protected class then a business can refuse to hire or refuse to service small breasted women.

Also it's not just churches that are allowed to discriminate like this, Boy Scouts of America has that whole no gays allowed thing. I think that's still in effect for scout masters, right?

I certainly hope so. Gays are mentally ill sexual deviants. They've no business being around children; same as catholic priests.

[Wrathbringer]

They'd file an order to attach assets and freeze accounts. You wouldn't be able to move a penny. Your countersuit would get dismissed immediately, since you can't sue for mental anguish or any other cause of action due to damages awarded in a lawsuit.

Beyond the hassle of litigation in general, that's why most businesses settle any lawsuit that has a chance of making the business extinct before it gets anywhere close to trial.

This is one reason why no one should trust banks. Can't freeze what they don't have.

[Tenlaar]

If I lost my business to some insane lawsuit..

Illegal discrimination is not some frivolous, made up, money grab lawsuit.

[Tisket]

Hmm.. what if I just burned it down? Literally everything.. business.. house.. all of it. I'd rather go to 0 that way, than give it to someone else over a cup of spilled coffee or some other insane legal shenanigans.

Because spending time in prison for arson is a better alternative than starting over.

The more you use your keyboard, the less impressive your reasoning becomes.

[Wrathbringer]

Illegal discrimination is not some frivolous, made up, money grab lawsuit.

All evidence to the contrary.

[Tisket]

I think it is bullshit that a business should go under for refusing service to someone. I think the pay out should be equal to the cost of service.

But if it isn't financially punitive then what's to stop unethical entities from engaging in all sorts of unsavory behavior?

It's unfortunate but, we can't trust corporations or businesses to engage in ethical conduct. Many of them only do so because the alternative hurts them financially.

I wish it were otherwise.

[Shaps]

Because spending time in prison for arson is a better alternative than starting over.

The more you use your keyboard, the less impressive your reasoning becomes.

Lol.. Tisket.. it's called sarcasm.

The more you use your keyboard, the less impressive your rebuttals become.

[Latrinsorm]

Lol.. Tisket.. it's called sarcasm. The more you use your keyboard, the less impressive your rebuttals become.I am skeptical of this post.

[Shaps]

I am skeptical of this post.

As well you should be. Or should you not be? Hmmm..

[Methais]

But if it isn't financially punitive then what's to stop unethical entities from engaging in all sorts of unsavory behavior?

It's unfortunate but, we can't trust corporations or businesses to engage in ethical conduct. Many of them only do so because the alternative hurts them financially.

I wish it were otherwise.

Word gets out, people boycott the business, business makes no money, goes under.

Still financially punitive, and in a way that makes sense. Having a court force you to give some whiny people all your money because you didn't bake them a cake doesn't.

Let the free market handle shit like that, not the government.

[Warriorbird]

Word gets out, people boycott the business, business makes no money, goes under.

Still financially punitive, and in a way that makes sense. Having a court force you to give some whiny people all your money because you didn't bake them a cake doesn't.

Let the free market handle shit like that, not the government.

So boycotts ended the Jim Crow Era? How about that. You learn something new every day.

[Methais]

So boycotts ended the Jim Crow Era? How about that. You learn something new every day.

WB makes post, post is stupid.

I haven't learned anything new yet today.

[Warriorbird]

WB makes post, post is stupid.

I haven't learned anything new yet today.

You came up with the magical idea that the "free market" would end bigotry when it clearly never did and doesn't in recent times either. Being bigoted actually works as marketing to a certain segment of the population.

It's about as wrong as your "abused Christians" image. So yes. I made a post. The one with problems came beforehand.

[Wrathbringer]

You came up with the magical idea that the "free market" would end bigotry when it clearly never did and doesn't in recent times either. Being bigoted actually works as marketing to a certain segment of the population.

It's about as wrong as your "abused Christians" image. So yes. I made a post. The one with problems came beforehand.

If I didn't already know for a fact that you're trolling, I'd address the mass quantities of lulz here. Unfortunately, that gets old after awhile unlike shart rep which is like the giant redwood of humor.

[Candor]

But if it isn't financially punitive then what's to stop unethical entities from engaging in all sorts of unsavory behavior?

It's unfortunate but, we can't trust corporations or businesses to engage in ethical conduct. Many of them only do so because the alternative hurts them financially.

This is exactly why I think the business took the wrong approach. Denying service based on a customer's sexual orientation was illegal. Posting a sign making it clear that the business is operated by conservative Christians who donate to political organizations which seek to overturn gay marriage would have almost certainly have prevented the situation.

You may not think much of a business which makes such donations, but they aren't breaking the law.

As for whether such a sign would cause the business to close, I expect it might generate so much business from churches and other Christians that they could be turning business away, at least for the short term.

[Wrathbringer]

This is exactly why I think the business took the wrong approach. Denying service based on a customer's sexual orientation was illegal. Posting a sign making it clear that the business is operated by conservative Christians who donate to political organizations which seek to overturn gay marriage would have almost certainly have prevented the situation.

You may not think much of a business which makes such donations, but they aren't breaking the law.

As for whether such a sign would eventually cause the business to close, I expect it would generate so much business from churches and other Christians that they would likely be turning business away.

Technically, they denied service based upon the type of event, not the customer's gayness. The difference is subtle, but it's there. It's not that they are trying to discriminate, it's that they don't want to be seen as condoning the unholy union by catering the hellbound party. The appeal should be interesting.

[Kembal]

This is exactly why I think the business took the wrong approach. Denying service based on a customer's sexual orientation was illegal. Posting a sign making it clear that the business is operated by conservative Christians who donate to political organizations which seek to overturn gay marriage would have almost certainly have prevented the situation.

You may not think much of a business which makes such donations, but they aren't breaking the law.

As for whether such a sign would cause the business to close, I expect it might generate so much business from churches and other Christians that they could be turning business away, at least for the short term.

That's entirely reasonable. Although I'm not sure that it'd be as good of a marketing plan as you think. It'd depend on the locality.

[Tgo01]

Technically, they denied service based upon the type of event, not the customer's gayness. The difference is subtle, but it's there. It's not that they are trying to discriminate, it's that they don't want to be seen as condoning the unholy union by catering the hellbound party. The appeal should be interesting.

I know Wrathbringer is trolling hardcore but he actually does bring up an interesting point.

The bakery didn't deny service because the couple was gay, they denied service because of what type of event the cake was going to be for. If the gay couple had their straight friends buy the cake but inform them it was for a gay marriage would the bakery have still turned them away? If yes then they aren't discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Indeed, they would be enforcing a rule universally to all customers.

[Wrathbringer]

I know Wrathbringer is trolling hardcore but he actually does bring up an interesting point.

The bakery didn't deny service because the couple was gay, they denied service because of what type of event the cake was going to be for. If the gay couple had their straight friends buy the cake but inform them it was for a gay marriage would the bakery have still turned them away? If yes then they aren't discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Indeed, they would be enforcing a rule universally to all customers.

OMG YOU BIGOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!1111111111111111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!ELEVEN

[Warriorbird]

I know Wrathbringer is trolling hardcore but he actually does bring up an interesting point.

The bakery didn't deny service because the couple was gay, they denied service because of what type of event the cake was going to be for. If the gay couple had their straight friends buy the cake but inform them it was for a gay marriage would the bakery have still turned them away? If yes then they aren't discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Indeed, they would be enforcing a rule universally to all customers.

If this sort of thinking ruled in court this would be a different matter. It doesn't.

[Wrathbringer]

If this sort of thinking ruled in court this would be a different matter. It doesn't.

Prove it, mouth.

[Candor]

I know Wrathbringer is trolling hardcore but he actually does bring up an interesting point.

The bakery didn't deny service because the couple was gay, they denied service because of what type of event the cake was going to be for. If the gay couple had their straight friends buy the cake but inform them it was for a gay marriage would the bakery have still turned them away? If yes then they aren't discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Indeed, they would be enforcing a rule universally to all customers.

You bring up an interesting point, but I wonder if it changes anything. My intuition is that such an argument would not hold up in a court of law. Having said that, I am not a lawyer and my legal experience consists of trying to defend myself from a speeding ticket and as a result getting the fine raised by $40...so perhaps my intuition isn't worth too much here.

[Tgo01]

If this sort of thinking ruled in court this would be a different matter. It doesn't.

"If this sort of thinking"? It's exactly this sort of thinking that goes into discrimination suits.

Being gay does not afford one immunity at places of business. If a bakery had a rule that they would never bake a cake with Nazi symbols on it then as long as this rule is applied to everyone equally it is perfectly valid. A gay person can't go in there and demand a Nazi cake then cry discrimination because he's gay.

Likewise if a bakery refuses to bake cakes for any gay wedding and they apply this equally to anyone asking for such a cake, whether gay or straight, then this would be similar to the above case.

It seems very simple to me. Is the bakery refusing services to gays, or refusing service to gay marriages?

Let's put it another way. Will the bakery refuse services for ANY type of gay celebration? Gay pride week? A gay person's birthday? A gay person's graduation? A "get well soon" cake for a gay person? Will they turn away any gay customer regardless of what type of cake they are asking for? If yes then that is clearly discrimination against gays, regardless of who is buying the cake.

If their only rule in regards to gays is they won't bake a cake for a gay wedding and they apply it to everyone who asks for such a cake then that is an entirely different matter.

[velderan]

I don't know if this has been covered in this topic yet, but two-cents are fun to provide when no one wants them!

Sexual orientation is NOT a protected class according to federal law. Sure, gay people can marry, but they still are not a federally recognized class that can have actionable steps taken if discriminated against. So even IF the bakery wouldn't sell to gay people because they were gay, and would sell the same cake to straight people, even though it's for a gay oriented event doesn't make it an actionable discrimination suit.

[Tgo01]

Sexual orientation is NOT a protected class according to federal law. Sure, gay people can marry, but they still are not a federally recognized class that can have actionable steps taken if discriminated against. So even IF the bakery wouldn't sell to gay people because they were gay, and would sell the same cake to straight people, even though it's for a gay oriented event doesn't make it an actionable discrimination suit.

It does in Oregon because sexual orientation is a protected class in that state.

But you are absolutely correct in states where sexual orientation is not a protected class because as you pointed out sexual orientation has no federal protection.

[Tgo01]

Thread: SCOTUS Rules 5-4 In Favor of Gay Marriage

I think you should try to get your GED

Ah yes. Gotta love people who have zero understanding of the nuances of law then instead of trying to argue with facts and reasoning they just dive right into knee jerk hatred reaction.

It's what keeps the human race alive, to be honest.

[Wrathbringer]

Ah yes. Gotta love people who have zero understanding of the nuances of law then instead of trying to argue with facts and reasoning they just dive right into knee jerk hatred reaction.

It's what keeps the human race alive, to be honest.

Never fear, I have compensated with shart rep.

[Ker_Thwap]

This is exactly why I think the business took the wrong approach. Denying service based on a customer's sexual orientation was illegal. Posting a sign making it clear that the business is operated by conservative Christians who donate to political organizations which seek to overturn gay marriage would have almost certainly have prevented the situation.

You may not think much of a business which makes such donations, but they aren't breaking the law.

As for whether such a sign would cause the business to close, I expect it might generate so much business from churches and other Christians that they could be turning business away, at least for the short term.

You're being naive. Putting up that sign would cause more grief. It would be akin to hanging a sign saying "Please fuck with me, waste my time, and eventually sue me until I'm out of business."

You know some clever soul would walk in and keep pushing and pushing until they got told "no" and then they'd claim they were discriminated against. Then they'd blog about how they taught those people a lesson.

Customer: I'd like a cake
Baker: Sure
Customer: A wedding cake
Baker: Sure
Customer: for me and my same sex partner
Baker: Sure
Customer: With rainbow frosting
Baker: Sure
Customer: I want it vagina shaped
Baker: We're not an exotic bakery...
Customer: Get my lawyer on the phone, you're discriminating because we're gay!

It's not even specific to the LGBT community, it's a scummy human thing. People love to screw with business owners, and play the race/LGBT/handicapped/elderly/whatever protected class they can think of ... card.

Blogging outrage without getting half of the facts is just the newest temper tantrum technique.

[Warriorbird]

"If this sort of thinking"? It's exactly this sort of thinking that goes into discrimination suits.

Being gay does not afford one immunity at places of business. If a bakery had a rule that they would never bake a cake with Nazi symbols on it then as long as this rule is applied to everyone equally it is perfectly valid. A gay person can't go in there and demand a Nazi cake then cry discrimination because he's gay.

Likewise if a bakery refuses to bake cakes for any gay wedding and they apply this equally to anyone asking for such a cake, whether gay or straight, then this would be similar to the above case.

It seems very simple to me. Is the bakery refusing services to gays, or refusing service to gay marriages?

Let's put it another way. Will the bakery refuse services for ANY type of gay celebration? Gay pride week? A gay person's birthday? A gay person's graduation? A "get well soon" cake for a gay person? Will they turn away any gay customer regardless of what type of cake they are asking for? If yes then that is clearly discrimination against gays, regardless of who is buying the cake.

If their only rule in regards to gays is they won't bake a cake for a gay wedding and they apply it to everyone who asks for such a cake then that is an entirely different matter.

Lawsuits end up as tests. If the business fails the test they end up paying.

Feelings and emotions and the like aren't supposed to go into it (and usually don't) unless you're in France or a civil law country.

To help you understand (and because I know you thought your reasoning was brilliant), you'd get laughed right out of court with a bakery that refused to bake cakes for black marriages.

[Tgo01]

Lawsuits end up as tests. If the business fails the test they end up paying.

Feelings and emotions and the like aren't supposed to go into it (and usually don't) unless you're in France or a civil law country.

What do feelings and emotions have anything to do with this lawsuit or anything I said in the post you quoted? In fact, you didn't touch on a single thing I mentioned in the post you quoted of mine.

I think it's important to point out that it wasn't "the courts" that ruled on this cake controversy. Rather as far as I can tell it was one person working with the labor board that decided this case. It will be interesting to see how this goes if it ever winds up in an actual court.

Here's a pop quiz for everyone who thinks they know how discrimination lawsuits work.

A bakery refuses to bake cakes with symbols associated with hate groups.

A white person asks for a KKK cake and is turned away.

A black person asks for a Nation Of Islam cake and is turned away.

The same white person asks for a regular wedding cake is served.

The same black person asks for a regular birthday cake and is served.

Were either of these people discriminated against?

Let's try again.

A bakery refuses to bake cakes with symbols associated with hate groups.

A white person asks for a KKK cake and is turned away.

A black person asks for a Nation Of Islam cake and is turned away.

The same white person asks for a regular wedding cake is served.

The same black person asks for a regular birthday cake and is turned away.

The same black person comes back and asks for a normal wedding cake and is turned away.

The same black person comes back and asks for a normal "get well soon" cake and is turned away.

Were either of these people discriminated against?

[Warriorbird]

What do feelings and emotions have anything to do with this lawsuit or anything I said in the post you quoted? In fact, you didn't touch on a single thing I mentioned in the post you quoted of mine.

I think it's important to point out that it wasn't "the courts" that ruled on this cake controversy. Rather as far as I can tell it was one person working with the labor board that decided this case. It will be interesting to see how this goes if it ever winds up in an actual court.

Here's a pop quiz for everyone who thinks they know how discrimination lawsuits work.

A bakery refuses to bake cakes with symbols associated with hate groups.

A white person asks for a KKK cake and is turned away.

A black person asks for a Nation Of Islam cake and is turned away.

The same white person asks for a regular wedding cake is served.

The same black person asks for a regular birthday cake and is served.

Were either of these people discriminated against?

Let's try again.

A bakery refuses to bake cakes with symbols associated with hate groups.

A white person asks for a KKK cake and is turned away.

A black person asks for a Nation Of Islam cake and is turned away.

The same white person asks for a regular wedding cake is served.

The same black person asks for a regular birthday cake and is turned away.

The same black person comes back and asks for a normal wedding cake and is turned away.

The same black person comes back and asks for a normal "get well soon" cake and is turned away.

Were either of these people discriminated against?

All your excess verbiage aside, because these are classed differently according to Oregon law and everywhere else that consider homosexuals a protected class (as you mentioned yourself).

A labor board can easily tell the difference between a protected class and not.

You don't get to be all coy and separate blackness or homosexuality associated events from the class.

[Tgo01]

To help you understand (and because I know you thought your reasoning was brilliant), you'd get laughed right out of court with a bakery that refused to bake cakes for black marriages.

You think so huh?

So a black person comes in, orders a birthday cake, gets their cake. A black person comes in, orders an anniversary cake, gets their cake. A black person comes in, orders a graduation cake, gets their cake.

A white person comes in, orders a cake for a black wedding and is turned away. A black person comes in, orders a cake for a black wedding and is turned away.

How are blacks being discriminated against at this place of business? How are blacks being refused service? The rule is being applied to all people ordering said cake regardless of the person's skin color. Blacks are being served other services.

The reason your example has never been tested in courts before is because I don't think anyone has a problem with blacks getting married yet they have no problem with blacks otherwise.

This is being tested now because some people do have a problem with gays marrying but otherwise would serve gays.

[Warriorbird]

You think so huh?

So a black person comes in, orders a birthday cake, gets their cake. A black person comes in, orders an anniversary cake, gets their cake. A black person comes in, orders a graduation cake, gets their cake.

A white person comes in, orders a cake for a black wedding and is turned away. A black person comes in, orders a cake for a black wedding and is turned away.

How are blacks being discriminated against at this place of business? How are blacks being refused service? The rule is being applied to all people ordering said cake regardless of the person's skin color. Blacks are being served other services.

The reason your example has never been tested in courts before is because I don't think anyone has a problem with blacks getting married yet they have no problem with blacks otherwise.

This is being tested now because some people do have a problem with gays marrying but otherwise would serve gays.

Once again, since you don't get it even though you brought it up. If it's a protected class, you don't get to separate events from the class.

In most places you and your friends can gleefully hate away on homosexuals and the fear of baking them cakes because they are not a protected class.

Making cakes for white weddings but not black ones? I'd strongly recommend not testing that in court.

[Tgo01]

You don't get to be all coy and separate blackness or homosexuality associated events from the class.

You don't?

Race is a protected class, right? Can we agree on that?

Can we agree that a business can't refuse service to a white person based solely on the color of their skin? Because contrary to what you may want to be the truth, being white is a protected class under federal and state laws.

But yet you can tell a white person you won't cater their white supremacist group? But, that's impossible! You are "separating the whiteness associated events from the class."

[Tgo01]

Once again, since you don't get it even though you brought it up. If it's a protected class, you don't get to separate events from the class.

In most places you and your friends can gleefully hate away on homosexuals and the fear of baking them cakes because they are not a protected class.

Making cakes for white weddings but not black ones? I'd strongly recommend not testing that in court.

It's cute how I have asked you several times to answer a very simple question; how was anyone being discriminated against in my examples and you have yet to answer that very simple question.

It's almost as if you have no answer. Gee. Funny that.

[velderan]

So Tgo made me learn something today that I wasn't aware of. Who knew this many states were so progressive!

States or districts that protect sexual orientation AND gender identity:
Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Vermont, Maine, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Washington D.C.

States that ONLY protect sexual orientation and NOT gender identity:
Wisconsin, New York, New Hampshire

A total of 21 locations out of 51 possible locations (50 states plus D.C.)--40% on something this controversial isn't bad in my opinion. Sure, it could be better, and I'm sure it will soon be better as state laws change, but for now, 40% of the country pretty decent. Now, if Federal Law changes and makes sexual orientation and gender identity a protected class, then it's no longer in state hands and everyone everywhere is covered. Much like gay marriage.

[Fallen]

In some cases, but not all, the law and courts are allowed to apply common sense. Trying to skirt the rules as being described would not hold up to scrutiny in court when pressed by a lawyer worth his salt.

Who said they were a lawyer on here? The guy who said he'd talk down an intruder and Jenovadeath, right? They could weigh in.

[Warriorbird]

It's cute how I have asked you several times to answer a very simple question; how was anyone being discriminated against in my examples and you have yet to answer that very simple question.

It's almost as if you have no answer. Gee. Funny that.

It does not have anything to do with your "how are people being discriminated against??!?!?!?" and pearl clutching in defense of your hating people values. These cases feature tests. In said tests, class associated events are not considered separately than classes. Some nice black folks getting married who had the white adopted brother of the groom try to buy a cake and get told in the magical Tgo01 bakery that they didn't make cakes for "black weddings." might even manage to recover.


You don't?

Race is a protected class, right? Can we agree on that?

Can we agree that a business can't refuse service to a white person based solely on the color of their skin? Because contrary to what you may want to be the truth, being white is a protected class under federal and state laws.

But yet you can tell a white person you won't cater their white supremacist group? But, that's impossible! You are "separating the whiteness associated events from the class."

You're stuck on the idea of hate groups as a protected class. They aren't. Hate groups and gangs are even the opposite of a protected class in some places. They can be a prohibited class. You're the one who's trying to make this about morals and rhetoric. It isn't. It's just law or not law.

[Kembal]

You don't?

Race is a protected class, right? Can we agree on that?

Can we agree that a business can't refuse service to a white person based solely on the color of their skin? Because contrary to what you may want to be the truth, being white is a protected class under federal and state laws.

But yet you can tell a white person you won't cater their white supremacist group? But, that's impossible! You are "separating the whiteness associated events from the class."

I think your example confuses hate speech cakes with cakes for a regular life event. Pretty sure there's an exception in regards to that, something First Amendment related.

[Tgo01]

In some cases, but not all, the law and courts are allowed to use common sense. Trying to skirt the rules as you describe would not hold up to scrutiny in court when pressed by a lawyer worth his salt.

I don't think this is a case of trying to skirt the rules. Trying to skirt the rules would be like refusing to service anyone wearing clothes generally worn by the opposite gender in an attempt to not service gays or transgenders. However nowhere did this bakery say they refuse to service gays, they said they refuse to bake cakes for a gay wedding. They didn't even specify who had to be ordering the cake.

It would be interesting though if this bakery only did wedding cakes because then this would effectively cut out all gays who want service from them which may indeed be an attempt to skirt the law.


Who said they were a lawyer on here? The guy who said he'd talk down an intruder and Jenovadeath, right? They could weigh in.

There's like 10 lawyers who post here, and all of them have a huge liberal slant.

[Warriorbird]

I don't think this is a case of trying to skirt the rules.

"huge slant"

Of course YOU don't. I wasn't actually attempting to discuss with you from some political perspective. I think it's ridiculous they're not a Federally protected class. In 60% of the US your nonsense would totally fly.

[Tgo01]

It does not have anything to do with your "how are people being discriminated against??!?!?!?" and pearl clutching in defense of your hating people values. These cases feature tests. In said tests, class associated events are not considered separately than classes. Some nice black folks getting married who had the white adopted brother of the groom try to buy a cake and get told in the magical Tgo01 bakery that they didn't make cakes for "black weddings." might even manage to recover.

Hey you're the one that brought up the stupid black wedding analogy, don't try to pin that stupid shit on me.


You're stuck on the idea of hate groups as a protected class. They aren't. Hate groups and gangs are even the opposite of a protected class in some places. They can be a prohibited class. You're the one who's trying to make this about morals and rhetoric. It isn't. It's just law or not law.

I didn't say hate groups were a protected class, I very specifically said race was a protected class.

Work with me here, WB. I know it's almost impossible for you to actually comment on posts you quote but at least try.

Let's break this down.

Is race a protected class?

Is being white a protected class?

Can a business owner "separate the whiteness from the event" and refuse to cater a KKK event yet otherwise continue to serve white customers?


I think your example confuses hate speech cakes with cakes for a regular life event. Pretty sure there's an exception in regards to that, something First Amendment related.

Who decides what is a "regular life event"?

Can a business owner refuse to cater an anti gay pride event? Is an "anti gay pride" event automatically considered a hate group?

[Candor]

Thread degrade alert...

[Warriorbird]

Hey you're the one that brought up the stupid black wedding analogy, don't try to pin that stupid shit on me.



I didn't say hate groups were a protected class, I very specifically said race was a specific class.

Work with me here, WB. I know it's almost impossible for you to actually comment on posts you quote but at least try.

Let's break this down.

Is race a protected class?

Is being white a protected class?

Can a business owner "separate the whiteness from the event" and refuse to cater a KKK event yet otherwise continue to serve white customers?



Who decides what is a "regular life event"?

Can a business owner refuse to cater an anti gay pride event? Is an "anti gay pride" event automatically considered a hate group? Is it not a "regular life event"?

Holy shit. This is like a spiral. "I didn't say hate groups were a protected class!" "Let me bring up this hate group in my hypothetical."

If there were a popular homosexual hate group business owners could totally refuse to make them wedding cakes.

Hate groups and gangs have legal tests associated with them too.

I understand that this is all about your feelings and pearl clutching. The US legal system is not like that. If you want that, move to France.

Do you see why I bother to be polite so little?

[Wrathbringer]

Holy shit. This is like a spiral. "I didn't say hate groups were a protected class!" "Let me bring up this hate group in my hypothetical."

If there were a popular homosexual hate group business owners could totally refuse to make them wedding cakes.

Hate groups and gangs have legal tests associated with them too.

I understand that this is all about your feelings and pearl clutching. The US legal system is not like that. If you want that, move to France.

Do you see why I bother to be polite so little?

Pearl clutching. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Tgo01]

Work with me here, WB. I know it's almost impossible for you to actually comment on posts you quote but at least try.


Holy shit. This is like a spiral. "I didn't say hate groups were a protected class!" "Let me bring up this hate group in my hypothetical."

If there were a popular homosexual hate group business owners could totally refuse to make them wedding cakes.

Do you see why I bother to be polite so little?

/forehead smack

Let's not forget YOU were the one who said "you can't separate the blackness from the event" but now you are sitting here saying "Yeah it's okay to separate the whiteness from the event" then smugly think you are making some sort of awesome point.

Keep your arguments straight if you want to be taken seriously.

"Yeah it's totally against the law to separate the race from the event, UNLESS I SAY SO! LOL!"

[Warriorbird]

/forehead smack

Let's not forget YOU were the one who said "you can't separate the blackness from the event" but now you are sitting here saying "Yeah it's okay to separate the whiteness from the event" then smugly think you are making some sort of awesome point.

Keep your arguments straight if you want to be taken seriously.

"Yeah it's totally against the law to separate the race from the event, UNLESS I SAY SO! LOL!"

You keep ignoring the fact that your hypothetical has a hate group in it. You could substitute in the Bloods, the Crips, or MS-13 and it'd have the same sort of problems. That's the error here.

It has nothing to do with "me saying it" but with the law. You have a problem with the law? Move to Oregon and actually vote for once.

[Kembal]

Who decides what is a "regular life event"?

Can a business owner refuse to cater an anti gay pride event? Is an "anti gay pride" event automatically considered a hate group?

Courts decide, using common sense for the most part.

I don't know enough about the law to answer your second question. (catering an event is a different question than what frosting appears on a cake)

[Tgo01]

You keep ignoring the fact that your hypothetical has a hate group in it. You could substitute in the Bloods, the Crips, or MS-13 and it'd have the same sort of problems. That's the error here.

It has nothing to do with "me saying it" but with the law. You have a problem with the law? Move to Oregon and actually vote for once.

Cheesus Christ, WB.

Can a bakery refuse service to a group of white nudists? A group of white bikers? A group of white tree hugging hippies?

Apparently not because "you can't separate the whiteness from the event."

I can't wait to see how you twist your logic even more after this one.

[Androidpk]

No shoes, no service.

[Warriorbird]

Cheesus Christ, WB.

Can a bakery refuse service to a group of white nudists? A group of white bikers? A group of white tree hugging hippies?

Apparently not because "you can't separate the whiteness from the event."

I can't wait to see how you twist your logic even more after this one.

If they allow black nudists, bikers, and hippies, no. But they could easily refuse nudists based on indecent exposure, bikers based on gang statues, and hippies for using drugs on the premises. It'd have to be general. You can't treat members of one protected class differently than another.

As far as twisted logic goes, you're the one who's trying to figure out how to help people discriminate. Me, my only personal stake is thinking homosexuals ought to be Federally protected. The rest is just law and court behavior.

[Fallen]

Seems applicable to the discussion: https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-service-can-a-business-refuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance

[Tgo01]

If they allow black nudists, bikers, and hippies, no. But they could easily refuse nudists based on indecent exposure, bikers based on gang statues, and hippies for using drugs on the premises. It'd have to be general. You can't treat members of one protected class differently than another.

Remember, I'm not talking about turning away someone who is in your store and saying "I refuse to service you at all." I am specifically talking about a specific kind of fucking cake here.

Can a business owner refuse to bake a cake for a bunch of white nudists because they don't approve of the nudist lifestyle? It's a simple yes or no.


As far as twisted logic goes, you're the one who's trying to figure out how to help people discriminate.

I don't need to help anyone "figure out" how do discriminate because businesses can legally discriminate against almost anyone and anything they want.


Me, my only personal stake is thinking homosexuals ought to be Federally protected.

I think sexual orientation should be a federally protected class. You know, for being so liberal and thinking you're oh so much better than me, it sure is funny how you think "homosexuals' ought to be federally protected while I think "sexual orientation" should be federally protected. I guess you don't think heterosexuals or bisexuals should be protected, huh? :(

Turn in your liberal card, you are obviously not qualified.

[Tgo01]

Seems applicable to the discussion: https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-service-can-a-business-refuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance


So, no matter where you live, you cannot deny service to someone because of his or her race, color, religion, national origin or disability.

And that's exactly what I've been saying this entire time. You can't tell a gay person (at least in Oregon) "I'm not going to serve you at all because you're gay."

That is not what I am talking about at all. I have not even hinted that this is what I am talking about, regardless of WB twisting my posts and his own logic to make it look like that's what I'm saying.

[Warriorbird]

And that's exactly what I've been saying this entire time. You can't tell a gay person (at least in Oregon) "I'm not going to serve you at all because you're gay."

That is not what I am talking about at all. I have not even hinted that this is what I am talking about, regardless of WB twisting my posts and his own logic to make it look like that's what I'm saying.

You're just innocently finding ways to help these poor honest folks who hate gay people to deny gay people (and their friends) service. Truly deeply moral stuff.


Remember, I'm not talking about turning away someone who is in your store and saying "I refuse to service you at all." I am specifically talking about a specific kind of fucking cake here.

Can a business owner refuse to bake a cake for a bunch of white nudists because they don't approve of the nudist lifestyle? It's a simple yes or no.

Not my impression from how you structured the hypothetical, the examples you used. With that said...

They can most certainly refuse to bake nudists a cake on the basis of obscenity statutes or disapproval.

Nudism isn't a protected class. If you feel strongly about it you should vote.

Homosexuality IS in Oregon (and all the other 40% that protects it).


And that's exactly what I've been saying this entire time. You can't tell a gay person (at least in Oregon) "I'm not going to serve you at all because you're gay."

Obviously. You're trying to figure out tricks and pretexts to deny them service. Fancy that.

[Tgo01]

You're just innocently finding ways to help these poor honest folks who hate gay people to deny them service.


Can a business owner refuse to bake a cake for a bunch of white nudists because they don't approve of the nudist lifestyle? It's a simple yes or no.

Alright since you refused to answer the above question your answer is obviously "yes", yes they can refuse to service the white nudists.

Let's take it a step further. Let's say there is a well known local nudist group that only accepts white members. This group wants a cake. Can the bakery legally refuse to bake a cake for this white only group of nudists?

[Wrathbringer]

You're just innocently finding ways to help these poor honest folks who hate gay people to deny them service.

People are (used to be; should be) free to disagree with and disassociate themselves from whoever they want without being accused of hating the other person. Now, in your case, you get so pissed when people disagree with you that I imagine you do probably hate the people you disagree with, but that doesn't mean that everyone does. Sometimes people aren't hating, they're just wanting no part of what someone else is doing.

[Warriorbird]

Alright since you refused to answer the above question your answer is obviously "yes", yes they can refuse to service the white nudists.

Let's take it a step further. Let's say there is a well known local nudist group that only accepts white members. This group wants a cake. Can the bakery legally refuse to bake a cake for this white only group of nudists?

Race doesn't play into it at first. But if they let the Filipino nudists have a cake, then maybe they might get somewhere.

Your obvious attempt to equate nudism to gay marriage doesn't quite work, however. And nudists still aren't a protected class. Gay people are. People don't generally have a large degree of "nudist rights." Were they to acquire them, on the other hand (like through that pesky Supreme Court, the arbiters of the "supreme law of the land" or the Oregon legislature), you'd be more on point RE: Oregon.

Before the recent ruling you might've gotten a blatantly partisan judge to hear you on your gay marriage wedding cake dodge. Afterwards? Supreme Court cases are extraordinarily influential to lower courts. Maybe someday we'll have a "right to nudism." case. Until then...

[Tgo01]

They can most certainly refuse to bake nudists a cake on the basis of obscenity statutes or disapproval.

GASP! You mean they can separate the whiteness from the group?!

Now how about the well known local nudist club that only admits whites, surely the bakery can refuse to bake a cake for them too, right?


Nudism isn't a protected class. If you feel strongly about it you should vote.

You're the one misunderstanding what "protected class" is, not me.

[Tgo01]

Race doesn't play into it at first. But if they let the Filipino nudists have a cake, then maybe they might get somewhere.

So you're saying the bakery CAN refuse to bake a cake for the white only nudists club?

Well how about that. I guess you can separate the whiteness from the event.

I think we're done here, WB. Thanks :D


Your obvious attempt to equate nudism to gay marriage doesn't quite work, however. And nudists still aren't a protected class. Gay people are. People don't generally have a large degree of nudists rights. Were they to acquire them, on the other hand, you'd be more on point RE: Oregon.

Oh wait, you just totally agree I was 100% right but now you're somehow trying to twist your previous sentence to somehow say I'm not right? :/

Who the fuck was talking about nudist being a protected class in my above scenario? The obvious protected class was the white people. White people are a protected class, right? A group of white people can legally be discriminated against according to your very own words, right?

Alright. Now we're done. Thanks again, WB.

[Warriorbird]

GASP! You mean they can separate the whiteness from the group?!

Now how about the well known local nudist club that only admits whites, surely the bakery can refuse to bake a cake for them too, right?



You're the one misunderstanding what "protected class" is, not me.

You're confused. You're also cutely forgetting the critical point I made about the Filipino group.


So you're saying the bakery CAN refuse to bake a cake for the white only nudists club?

Well how about that. I guess you can separate the whiteness from the event.

I think we're done here, WB. Thanks :D

Oh wait, you just totally agree I was 100% right but now you're somehow trying to twist your previous sentence to somehow say I'm not right? :/

Who the fuck was talking about nudist being a protected class in my above scenario? The obvious protected class was the white people. White people are a protected class, right? A group of white people can legally be discriminated against according to your very own words, right?

Alright. Now we're done. Thanks again, WB.

Your willfully obtuse nature is intense. Not "a group of white people" but a group of nudists.

It only becomes a "group of white people" when some other similar group got served but they did not.

I understand that you're trying so hard to make this emotional and personal like it is for you.

I'm just politely trying to impart how well you'd do in court.

60% of the nation? Quite well. That other 40%? Don't stop believing, buddy.

You can still try to stand up for discrimination while pretending to not in 60% of America.

[Ker_Thwap]

You two are over-complicating this.

You can't refuse someone service because they belong a protected class. You can refuse a specific individual of a protected class, only if they're annoying in some sort of actionable way.

A business owner can select the product line (legal) that choose to sell, or choose not to sell.

[Tgo01]

You're confused. You're also cutely forgetting the critical point I made about the Filipino group.

And if said Filipino group doesn't exist and never exists? What if no other group of nudists have ever asked for a cake or will ever ask for a cake again? Is the bakery's decision in limbo until such an occasion happens? Do we take the bakery's side until that happens? Do we force the bakery to serve the group of nudists to ensure they aren't just looking for a "clever way" to discriminate against whites?


Your willfully obtuse nature is intense. Not "a group of white people" but a group of nudists.

A group of nudists who only accepts white people into their organization, yes.

Just like we're not talking about refusing service to "all gays", but refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding.


It only becomes a "group of white people" when some other similar group got served but they did not.

Right. Sure. Okay. So a bakery can refuse to do a dual gay wedding cake on the basis they don't believe in dual weddings and we just have to wait around for a group of straight people to come along and ask for a dual wedding cake to see how the bakery responds? Do you even realize how stupid this sounds?

[Warriorbird]

You two are over-complicating this.

You can't refuse someone service because they belong a protected class. You can refuse a specific individual of a protected class, only if they're annoying in some sort of actionable way.

A business owner can select the product line (legal) that choose to sell, or choose not to sell.

Definitely. Not selling wedding cakes at all is just fine.

[Warriorbird]

And if said Filipino group doesn't exist and never exists? What if no other group of nudists have ever asked for a cake or will ever ask for a cake again? Is the bakery's decision in limbo until such an occasion happens? Do we take the bakery's side until that happens? Do we force the bakery to serve the group of nudists to ensure they aren't just looking for a "clever way" to discriminate against whites?



A group of nudists who only accepts white people into their organization, yes.

Just like we're not talking about refusing service to "all gays", but refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding.



Right. Sure. Okay. So a bakery can refuse to do a dual gay wedding cake on the basis they don't believe in dual weddings and we just have to wait around for a group of straight people to come along and ask for a dual wedding cake to see how the bakery responds? Do you even realize how stupid this sounds?

Let's sigh a little bit here. None of this is based on "how it sounds" except to you, because you believe the law is what you, Tgo01, think is right as opposed to what is written or "what sounds good" to you. That's why you try to argue that you know best in particular situations by throwing out a lot of mostly unrelated hypotheticals.

If the Filipino group didn't exist, it would depend on what the people were denied for. If they were denied for nudism, they could attempt to make "nudism" a protected class, legally. It's Oregon. It could happen. If they believed they were denied for their race, they'd then have to go through the legal tests for discrimination based on race in Oregon. They'd probably be laughed at, though they might win. Think this is unfair? Well, being white is pretty fucking awesome, so I don't have much sympathy.

To stress it, they COULD claim it was solely because they were white people. This'd be tough if the bakery served white non nudists all the time. Nudism doesn't really equate to marriage, though you're making a really dedicated try. Nudism doesn't have legal protection. Marriage does, be it gay or straight.

If the bakery ONLY sold cakes for single weddings they'd be fine against the people complaining about "gay dual weddings." That's a matter of product line. KerThwap is completely right there.

If the bakery never sold wedding cakes, no gay people could complain.

Now, if the bakery obviously does single wedding cakes for straight people, they run into trouble in Oregon (like in this case.) Saying that they sell other sorts of cakes to gay people is clearly a pretext.

Aka, the sort of thing you're arguing for while you say you're not.

[Parkbandit]

Feelings and emotions and the like aren't supposed to go into it (and usually don't) unless you're in France or a civil law country.
.

{Insert WTF Cat JPEG here}

You are as naive as you are unintelligent.

[Warriorbird]

{Insert WTF Cat JPEG here}

You are as naive as you are unintelligent.

Since you're clearly painfully unaware of the civil law I can totally understand why you'd make such a claim. "Principles of justice." "Principles of equality." can be argued without reference to law or constitution in civil law countries. France is the most prominent. You can say "I think this is wrong!" and they just might listen to you.

We have some crazy nonsense that occurs, but there's a requirement to tie it to something (even if you might disagree, and think me "naive" for saying it).

Some of the dumb decisions that happen in California could be seen as similar. Thankfully, that is but one portion of America.

[Wrathbringer]

{Insert WTF Cat JPEG here}

You are as naive as you are unintelligent.

You, sir, have been trolled.

[Parkbandit]

You, sir, have been trolled.

He's not intelligent enough to actually troll effectively. He honestly believes the stupidity he posts as factual based.

[Tgo01]

To stress it, they COULD claim it was solely because they were white people. This'd be tough if the bakery served white non nudists all the time.

You mean like if a bakery served gays all the time but just refused to bake a gay wedding cake? Couldn't have said it better myself.


I think we're done here, WB. Thanks :D

[Warriorbird]

You mean like if a bakery served gays all the time but just refused to bake a gay wedding cake? Couldn't have said it better myself.

To begin with, your pretext obviously doesn't work in Oregon.

We'll continue though. The class here is gay versus straight. They may certainly serve countless gay people all the time for other cakes. They didn't make them wedding cakes though. They made straight people wedding cakes.

This'd be like, wait for it, making Filipino nudist cakes but not white nudists.

How about that.

Good effort at trying to fight for discrimination.


He honestly believes the stupidity he posts as factual based.

I'm just honestly wowed by all your facts here. There are so many.

[Ker_Thwap]

Basically, this woman owes cash, because she was stubborn and stupid.

If she wanted to be bigoted, she could have done so legally in any number of ways. She could have only stocked cake toppers that were white boy/girl, and had a policy that no one can bring in their own cake topper. She could have said, artistically, I only make little flower crosses, not stars of David, not rainbows, not swastikas, not that satanist symbol (that I forget the name of.) Should could refuse to make black "divorce cakes" because artistically, they don't conform to the image of her shop that she's trying to convey.

If someone who was black, Jewish and gay still chose to buy a wedding cake with a Caucasian boy/girl, cross decorated white frosting cake, and serve it at a Jewish/gay/divorce party, then she sells them the cake, and goes about her business.

No one is forcing her to serve something that isn't on the menu.

[Wrathbringer]

He's not intelligent enough to actually troll effectively. He honestly believes the stupidity he posts as factual based.

Yeah, but it's not all that difficult to get tgo on a rant. As for actually believing what he posts. I doubt it. No one is really that lost. At this point I'm convinced he's employed by some Republican organization to discredit liberals/democrats. And credit where credit is due: He's good.

[Wrathbringer]

Basically, this woman owes cash, because she was stubborn and stupid.

If she wanted to be bigoted, she could have done so legally in any number of ways. She could have only stocked cake toppers that were white boy/girl, and had a policy that no one can bring in their own cake topper. She could have said, artistically, I only make little flower crosses, not stars of David, not rainbows, not swastikas, not that satanist symbol (that I forget the name of.) Should could refuse to make black "divorce cakes" because artistically, they don't conform to the image of her shop that she's trying to convey.

If someone who was black, Jewish and gay still chose to buy a wedding cake with a Caucasian boy/girl, cross decorated white frosting cake, and serve it at a Jewish/gay/divorce party, then she sells them the cake, and goes about her business.

No one is forcing her to serve something that isn't on the menu.

They're forcing her to present an image of her business condoning gay marriage. That's what she's being forced to do. Condone it.

[Warriorbird]

Yeah, but it's not all that difficult to get tgo on a rant. As for actually believing what he posts. I doubt it. No one is really that lost. At this point I'm convinced he's employed by some Republican organization to discredit liberals/democrats. And credit where credit is due: He's good.

The most recent campaigning I did was for a Libertarian. Libertarians want to believe. It's great.

I'm proud for my part in helping Terry McAuliffe win.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sarvis

6.52% that could've been Republican.

[Tgo01]

We'll continue though. The class here is gay versus straight. They may certainly serve countless gay people all the time for other cakes. They didn't make them wedding cakes though. They made straight people wedding cakes.

So refusing to bake a cake for a group of white people isn't discrimination if they served other white people but refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple is discrimination even if they serve gay people for literally every other service.

As I said before I think we are done here. Why do you insist on continuing to contradict your very own arguments?

[Wrathbringer]

The most recent campaigning I did was for a Libertarian. Libertarians want to believe. It's great.

I'm proud for my part in helping Terry McAuliffe win.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sarvis

6.52% that could've been Republican.

Crap, he's a spook. We've been infiltrated.

[Warriorbird]

So refusing to bake a cake for a group of white people isn't discrimination if they served other white people but refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple is discrimination even if they serve gay people for literally every other service.

As I said before I think we are done here. Why do you insist on continuing to contradict your very own arguments?

Cute attempt to eliminate critical parts of the situation and modifiers on the hypothetical.

A "nudist" cake and a wedding cake are different. Nudist cakes aren't likely part of the inventory of most bakeries (unless you're on Hedonism Island) and there might be valid societal reasons not to have them. Tiny little grooms and brides? Pretty standard. Wedding cakes are going out the door all the damn time and are almost always a part of inventory. Nudist figures? Inappropriate icing? Not so much.

You can whinge all you want. You only have a shot in 60% of America.

[Tgo01]

A "nudist" cake and a wedding cake are different.

Really? This is a "critical part" of the situation? How in the world is a "nudist" cake different from a "wedding" cake?


Nudist cakes aren't likely part of the inventory of most bakeries (unless you're on Hedonism Island) and there might be valid societal reasons not to have them. ... Nudist figures? Inappropriate icing? Not so much.

/forehead smack

So you assume nudists are some sort of sexual deviants? Some sort of perverts? Where does this deep seated hatred of nudists come from? Did you grow up in a conservative household to believe that nudists were bad people?

No, seriously. We haven't talked about "nudist figures" or "Inappropriate icing" but you went there in your very obvious hatred against the nudist community. Quite awesome to see someone at the same time claim to be a champion against hate while saying something like this.


You can whinge all you want. You only have a shot in 60% of America.

All you did was reiterate how you agree with what I've been saying all along yet you're still claiming victory. This is the most humorous thing I've seen in a while.

Me: They weren't really denying service to gays, they were just refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.
WB: Doesn't matter! You can't "separate the gay" from the event!
Me: But what about an all white nudist group? Can they refuse to bake that cake?
WB: Well that's different! If they can prove that the bakery served other white people then it's not discrimination.
Me: Exactly...that's what I said at the very beginning of this argument.
WB: Yeah but you're wrong and I'm right because WB said so!!! Also I think all nudists are sexual perverts who want nude figurines and large dongs and hairy vaginas on their cakes!!!!

[Tenlaar]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/d1c4ea48d00133ad15e771990f054509/tumblr_mtum5phCjj1sjchtqo1_500.gif

[Warriorbird]

Really? This is a "critical part" of the situation? How in the world is a "nudist" cake different from a "wedding" cake?

HOT AIR

You kind of missed the whole point of KerThwap's posts, perhaps on purpose. All that matters is whether it is part of inventory and whether people can make an obvious case that others got it and they did not. This bakery had wedding cakes. They did not have nudist cakes. I think some simple research should show that's typical.

[Tgo01]

This bakery had wedding cakes. They did not have nudist cakes. I think some simple research should show that's typical.

I really wonder what exactly you think a wedding cake looks like and what a cake for a gathering of nudists would look like.

You do know just about any cake can be used for any occasion, right? Just add some words saying "Happy 40th birthday!" or "Welcome Nudists of Beach Town!" or put a groom/bride, groom/groom, bride/bride on a cake and you can use the exact same cake for all occasions. I'm not sure why you think "Well this here is a wedding cake! They have wedding cakes stocked! They don't have nudists cakes stocked therefore they can legally refuse service to any and all nudists."

I guess going by your very own logic since they have never sold a gay wedding cake before that means they don't have gay wedding cakes "stocked" so they don't have to sell them.

That's absurd.

[Warriorbird]

I really wonder what exactly you think a wedding cake looks like and what a cake for a gathering of nudists would look like.

You do know just about any cake can be used for any occasion, right? Just add some words saying "Happy 40th birthday!" or "Welcome Nudists of Beach Town!" or put a groom/bride, groom/groom, bride/bride on a cake and you can use the exact same cake for all occasions. I'm not sure why you think "Well this here is a wedding cake! They have wedding cakes stocked! They don't have nudists cakes stocked therefore they can legally refuse service to any and all nudists."

I guess going by your very own logic since they have never sold a gay wedding cake before that means they don't have gay wedding cakes "stocked" so they don't have to sell them.

That's absurd.

Inventory. Not my logic. I'm sorry you feel so histrionic.

[Wrathbringer]

I like turdles.

[Parkbandit]

You kind of missed the whole point of KerThwap's posts, perhaps on purpose. All that matters is whether it is part of inventory and whether people can make an obvious case that others got it and they did not. This bakery had wedding cakes. They did not have nudist cakes. I think some simple research should show that's typical.

Have you ever actually been to a bakery, like ever? This wasn't a "We only make wedding cakes" bakery. (Since they generally don't exist in the real world). It was a bakery that also made cakes, some were even wedding cakes.

Holy shit...

[Warriorbird]

Have you ever actually been to a bakery, like ever? This wasn't a "We only make wedding cakes" bakery. (Since they generally don't exist in the real world). It was a bakery that also made cakes, some were even wedding cakes.

Holy shit...

Worked in a bakery for a year and a half. We most certainly sold wedding cakes. Fairly frequently even. Nudist cakes? Not so much.

If we failed to sell somebody a wedding cake they could've quite easily found people we sold wedding cakes to. Simple proposition.

[Parkbandit]

Worked in a bakery for a year and a half. We most certainly sold wedding cakes. Fairly frequently even. Nudist cakes? Not so much.

If we failed to sell somebody a wedding cake they could've quite easily found people we sold wedding cakes to. Simple proposition.

Lolwut??

It's like you aren't following the same thread you are posting in.

[Warriorbird]

Lolwut??

It's like you aren't following the same thread you are posting in.

I think I prefer not following your nonsense attempts at framing to the whole "I'm full of facts!" stance that you offer.

[Tgo01]

Worked in a bakery for a year and a half. We most certainly sold wedding cakes. Fairly frequently even. Nudist cakes? Not so much.

Based on your posts in this thread I find it hard to believe you worked at a bakery at all.

What exactly do you think would make a "nudist" cake so much different than a wedding cake? I'm really baffled at your line of reasoning here and why you think this is some sort of distinction.

You go to a bakery, say "Hey, my friends and I are having a gathering, can you make a cake that looks like the ocean with some surf boards on it with the words 'Welcome Nudists' written across it with green frosting? Thanks."

Do you have this image in your head that the type of cake I was referring to in my hypothetical was like a giant pair of boobs for a cake or something? Like, that's what I had in mind when I said a gathering for a bunch of nudists?

Likewise do you think a gay wedding cake is decked out with a bunch of men with no shirts on flexing or something?

[Fallen]

Likewise do you think a gay wedding cake is decked out with a bunch of men with no shirts on flexing or something?

Wedding cakes will often have toppers that include bride/groom figures. In the case of a gay wedding it would be two grooms or two brides.

I would imagine if a baker wanted to refuse such a cake, he would have to show a pattern of never using toppers with figures for his wedding cakes, not just specifically objecting to placing one with two males or two females.

[Tgo01]

Wedding cakes will often have toppers that include bride/groom figures. In the case of a gay wedding it would be two grooms or two brides.

I would imagine if a baker wanted to refuse such a cake, he would have to show a pattern of never using toppers with figures for his wedding cakes, not just specifically objecting to placing one with two males or two females.

[/COLOR]

Yeah but this is a wedding cake also:

http://15pictures.com/wp-content/gallery/15-pictures-wedding-cakes/wedding-cake-6.jpg

I have no idea what the cake specifics are in this case but I had just assumed the bakery objected to the cake simply because gay weddings went against their religion, I didn't even think their objection could be to placing two brides on the cake.

I suppose that's possible but I assume as soon as they heard "gay wedding" the bakery called it off.

In fact here is what I could find on how this went down:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-oregon-bakery-wedding-cake-20150703-story.html


When Aaron Klein was told there would be two brides, Rachel and Laurel, he responded that he was sorry, but the bakery did not do wedding cakes for same-sex couples because of his and his wife’s religious convictions, according to the report.

Sounds like as soon as Aaron heard "lesbians" he said "Nope, sorry, not gonna do it."

ETA: I think the craziest thing about this tangent we've been having is at the time this all happened same sex marriage wasn't even legal in Oregon, the couple was having a commitment ceremony. So I guess since the bakery had never done a commitment ceremony cake before that means they didn't legally have to do this one, right WB?

[Warriorbird]

Some nonsense...

What exactly do you think would make a "nudist" cake so much different than a wedding cake? I'm really baffled at your line of reasoning here and why you think this is some sort of distinction.

You go to a bakery, say "Hey, my friends and I are having a gathering, can you make a cake that looks like the ocean with some surf boards on it with the words 'Welcome Nudists' written across it with green frosting? Thanks."

Do you have this image in your head that the type of cake I was referring to in my hypothetical was like a giant pair of boobs for a cake or something? Like, that's what I had in mind when I said a gathering for a bunch of nudists?

Likewise do you think a gay wedding cake is decked out with a bunch of men with no shirts on flexing or something?

I was pretty young when I worked there and most wedding cakes that we did had a bride and groom figure at the top. I assumed the issue here was with bride/bride.

As far as nudists go, we refer to my UP Michigan cousins as the "NRA Nudists" because they are. They've got nude photos everywhere and I'm pretty sure they'd rock genital cakes.




I have no idea what the cake specifics are in this case but I had just assumed the bakery objected to the cake simply because gay weddings went against their religion, I didn't even think their objection could be to placing two brides on the cake.

Sounds like as soon as Aaron heard "lesbians" he said "Nope, sorry, not gonna do it."

ETA: I think the craziest thing about this tangent we've been having is at the time this all happened same sex marriage wasn't even legal in Oregon, the couple was having a commitment ceremony. So I guess since the bakery had never done a commitment ceremony cake before that means they didn't legally have to do this one, right WB?

Discrimination against them just for being who they are WAS though. At that moment 'commitment ceremony' was as close as they could get to wedding. A pretext that worked in their favor and they got an assist from the Supreme Court granting cert.

[Wrathbringer]

What if I wanted a cake of a butt sharting with two turds on top?

[Back]

Businesses who discriminate are poor businesses. The only color any business should care about is green.

[Candor]

What if I wanted a cake of a butt sharting with two turds on top?

If it were me, I would call 911 and suggest you be held for psychological observation.

[Candor]

Businesses who discriminate are poor businesses. The only color any business should care about is green.

Yeah who cares about those stupid union rules, child labor laws, and silly safety standards anyway.

[Back]

Yeah who cares about those stupid union rules, child labor laws, and silly safety standards anyway.

Woah thats a bit of a stretch from my comment. But since you brought it up... freemarket rules!

[Candor]

Woah thats a bit of a stretch from my comment. But since you brought it up... freemarket rules!

Actually I agree with you about freemarket rules...but every time I agree with you I get concerned that I have missed something...

[Wrathbringer]

If it were me, I would call 911 and suggest you be held for psychological observation.

Are you refusing to make my cake? Reported. Tweeted. I'll see you in court to pickup my check.

[Candor]

Are you refusing to make my cake? Reported. Tweeted. I'll see you in court to pickup my check.

...after you're sedated and put into a white coat...it might be worth it...

[Tgo01]

At that moment 'commitment ceremony' was as close as they could get to wedding. A pretext that worked in their favor and they got an assist from the Supreme Court granting cert.

I've never seen someone be so blatantly wrong over and over again and keep moving the goal posts they themselves set up to begin with and still claim not only victory but moral superiority.

Your arguments are quite a sight to behold, WB.

[AestheticDeath]

TL;DR, but why is this thread still going? People being trolls or what?

[Wrathbringer]

TL;DR, but why is this thread still going? People being trolls or what?

It's one of the longest troll battles I've ever witnessed. I attempted to break it up with "I like turdles" and the butt shart turd cake" comment, but to no avail.

[Tgo01]

It's not uncommon to see somebody convinced that absolutely not the facts are the facts in a simple legal matter. You're that guy. It's extra funny given your Mom.

Cute.


It's all right. You've got the edge in 60% of America until homosexuality becomes a protected class for the whole country. Then you claim you supported it anyway.

You are quite literally the worst type of person in the world. Sitting there spewing your own brand of pathetic hatred under the guise of wanting "equal rights" for everyone. You don't give a flying fuck about rights and laws in this country. All you give a shit about is what WB thinks is right.

[Warriorbird]

Cute.

You are quite literally the worst type of person in the world. Sitting there spewing your own brand of pathetic hatred under the guise of wanting "equal rights" for everyone. You don't give a flying fuck about rights and laws in this country. All you give a shit about is what WB thinks is right.

So who have I hated here, apart from making fun of you? I don't hate you, you're pretty typical.

Civil rights laws are what they are. They're applied how they're applied. You're just projecting your annoyance about this ruling and how they work onto me.

Republicans already got the Voting Rights Act removed, I'm sure you can go to work on the Civil Rights Acts next.

[Tgo01]

So who have I hated here, apart from making fun of you? I don't hate you, you're pretty typical.

You can't be fucking serious.


Civil rights laws are what they are. They're applied how they're applied. You're just projecting your annoyance about this ruling and how they work onto me.

Actually all I did was find that it was an interesting distinction that they didn't refuse service to someone because they were gay, they refused to bake a particular fucking cake. If you cared at all about facts (which you don't) you would notice that one of the brides wasn't even there when the bakery refused service yet she was compensated for her pain and suffering. The mother (who is straight) of one of the brides was there when the bakery refused service. But, that's impossible! Clearly they were refusing service only to gays at their bakery so surely the mother could have ordered the cake on the couple's behalf.


Republicans already got the Voting Rights Act removed, I'm sure you can go to work on the Civil Rights Acts next.

This is why you're a hate filled fucking joke. So I don't jump at the chance to take the gay's side in each and every story about someone having their feelings hurt so that must mean I want to roll back all of those discrimination protection laws even though I have gone on record saying I think they should be strengthened, not weakened.

[Warriorbird]

You can't be fucking serious.



Actually all I did was find that it was an interesting distinction that they didn't refuse service to someone because they were gay, they refused to bake a particular fucking cake. If you cared at all about facts (which you don't) you would notice that one of the brides wasn't even there when the bakery refused service yet she was compensated for her pain and suffering. The mother (who is straight) of one of the brides was there when the bakery refused service. But, that's impossible! Clearly they were refusing service only to gays at their bakery so surely the mother could have ordered the cake on the couple's behalf.



This is why you're a hate filled fucking joke. So I don't jump at the chance to take the gay's side in each and every story about someone having their feelings hurt so that must mean I want to roll back all of those discrimination protection laws even though I have gone on record saying I think they should be strengthened, not weakened.

Uh huh. You're all about equal rights. I'm sure if we'd lived in the 50s and 60s you could've told me how I was a horrible person for not defending the lunch counter owners and the bus companies too.

[Tgo01]

Uh huh. You're all about equal rights. I'm sure if we'd lived in the 50s and 60s you could've told me how I was a horrible person for not defending the lunch counter owners and the bus companies too.

This story is not even close to the same thing and the fact that you think it is just proves my point even further.

[Candor]

Would you two get a room and let this thread die...pretty please?

[Warriorbird]

This story is not even close to the same thing and the fact that you think it is just proves my point even further.

Civil rights are civil rights. I'm sorry you have a difficult time coping with it. Cheer up. You can always pretend that you didn't just spend an entire thread defending discrimination by claiming that you're "for equal rights!" some more.

I mean... maybe some of those lunch counters let white people go in to buy food for black people or let black people order certain items through another entrance in the back.

[Tgo01]

Civil rights are civil rights. I'm sorry you have a difficult time coping with it.

I question not only your knowledge of bakeries and cakes in general but also your knowledge of history. You think refusing to serve someone because of the color of their skin is even remotely comparable to refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding, a cake requested by a straight woman no less?


You can always pretend that you didn't just spend an entire thread defending discrimination by claiming that you're "for equal rights!" some more.

Only a hate filled person suffering from the worst case of white guilt can read all of my posts in this thread and claim I have done nothing but "defend discrimination" while at the same time claiming I am not for equal rights for gays.


I mean... maybe some of those lunch counters let white people go in to buy food for black people

This here just proves you are either A) too fucking stupid to understand what my argument is or B) actually you know what? I'm sticking with A. Your unfounded hatred has warped your brain and you can't even think rationally anymore.

I really don't understand what you think you are accomplishing by insisting I am racist or sexist or against gays all of the time. Seriously. What are you proving? What are you accomplishing? Why would I lie about these things? When have I ever been known to pull my punches around here? Why would I bite my tongue when it comes to these issues but you think you're just too fucking smart for that and can see right through all of my lies.

Keep your hatred bullshit to yourself. You're not impressing anyone.

[Wrathbringer]

It's not uncommon to see somebody convinced that absolutely not the facts are the facts in a simple legal matter. You're that guy. It's extra funny given your Mom and all the people you convict or find innocent before trials.

It's all right. You've got the edge in 60% of America until homosexuality becomes a protected class for the whole country. Then you claim you supported it anyway.

That's your greatest trick. "I'm gonna like sit here and steadfastly defend this discrimination but I don't believe it for realz yo!"

7519

yo

[~Rocktar~]

Civil rights are civil rights.

Except when hitting a girl or stalking a person online amirite?

You are one of the largest and most consistently hypocritical pieces of human flesh on this board and here you are with the audacity to call someone else a hypocrite because you don't understand the facts of the argument and others refuse to accept your framing of the argument. You are mad that they are not falling for your shaping of the argument into something it is not and so you resort to the discrimination card.

Let it fucking die, the courts ruled and it's done. Regardless of the facts in the case, the decision has been made and now it's up to legislators to try and fix the laws so that people can operate a business without fear of baseless accusations costing them a livelihood and possibly all the own. Or not as the case may be. And when the last small businesses are dead due to such legal chicanery and the economy collapses or is taken over by a corporate buyout, then you can really celebrate your victory against personal liberty.

Please, just shut up and move on.

[Wrathbringer]

Except when hitting a girl or stalking a person online amirite?

You are one of the largest and most consistently hypocritical pieces of human flesh on this board and here you are with the audacity to call someone else a hypocrite because you don't understand the facts of the argument and others refuse to accept your framing of the argument. You are mad that they are not falling for your shaping of the argument into something it is not and so you resort to the discrimination card.

Let it fucking die, the courts ruled and it's done. Regardless of the facts in the case, the decision has been made and now it's up to legislators to try and fix the laws so that people can operate a business without fear of baseless accusations costing them a livelihood and possibly all the own. Or not as the case may be. And when the last small businesses are dead due to such legal chicanery and the economy collapses or is taken over by a corporate buyout, then you can really celebrate your victory against personal liberty.

Please, just shut up and move on.

lol nice. QFT

[Tgo01]

Defending discrimination is what he was doing. He should own it.

I'm arguing what the law is. Businesses can legally discriminate all the time. All. The. Time.

You're so clueless you probably think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to every business in America, don't ya?

[Wrathbringer]

Oh boy. The first is a variation of Glenn Beck 1990 because somebody was upset that I said some comments of his were racist.

Now I was "stalking" you because I Googled your AOL screen name? Okay buddy.

Defending discrimination is what he was doing. He should own it.

Now, let's get to the real heady territory...



So, ignoring the facts of the case... you've decided that all such accusations are baseless.

And "all small businesses will die" because of being forced to allow gay wedding cakes?

If we're going to talk about small business killers and "corporate takeovers" who did you used to work for again?

Yeah.

lol wut? QFLULZ

[Warriorbird]

I'm arguing what the law is. Businesses can legally discriminate all the time.

HOT AIR

That's funny, what was all the freaking out and calling me the worst person in the world when I was doing exactly what you claim to be doing?

Businesses can legally discriminate in many ways. This was found not to be one.

[Wrathbringer]

That's funny, what was all the freaking out and calling me the worst person in the world when I was doing exactly what you claim to be doing?

Businesses can legally discriminate in many ways. This was found not to be one.

Seriously? Again with the "ZOMG BUT YOU DO IT TOO!!!!!"? Again? Really? I actually thought we might make it through one of your troll sessions without hearing that one. Guess not.

[Tgo01]

That's funny, what was all the freaking out and calling me the worst person in the world when I was doing exactly what you claim to be doing?

I called you the worst kind of person in the world for insisting someone can't be in favor of equal rights unless they always take the side of the gay person in a disagreement. Had nothing to do with anything else.


Businesses can legally discriminate in many ways. This was found not to be one.

So what exactly should I "own"?

[Wrathbringer]

So what exactly should I "own"?

7520

[Warriorbird]

Seriously? Again with the "ZOMG BUT YOU DO IT TOO!!!!!"? Again? Really? I actually thought we might make it through one of your troll sessions without hearing that one. Guess not.

Uh, no. He was saying "I was talking about the law." I was saying "That's what I was doing." That's not "You do it too!" at all.

[Wrathbringer]

Uh, no. He was saying "I was talking about the law." I was saying "That's what I was doing." That's not "You do it too!" at all.

Consider yourself trolled.

[Warriorbird]

I called you the worst kind of person in the world for insisting someone can't be in favor of equal rights unless they always take the side of the gay person in a disagreement. Had nothing to do with anything else.



So what exactly should I "own"?

So once again, you're confused as to how defending the lunch counters during the Civil Rights Era might be seen as anti civil rights? Do you take any time to reflect on what you're saying?

"But this one allowed white people to get food for black people!" "It served food for July 4th celebrations but not black July 4th celebrations! Black people could get July 4th celebration food!"

Businesses can discriminate. You were defending a particular sort that was ruled invalid.

Hardly "talking about the law." You of course backpedal and declare that you're "not for discrimination!"

You might have a point about your "worst person in the world" notion if, for instance, there wasn't actual discrimination. One of the first reasons I thought John Edwards was a bad politician was his boosting of Mike Nifong. Unfortunately for your grand declaration there admittedly was.

[Tgo01]

So once again, you're confused as to how defending the lunch counters during the Civil Rights Era might be seen as anti civil rights? Do you take any time to reflect on what you're saying?

My good God man. When has anyone on this board ever defended the lunch counters during the Civil Rights Era? Much less when did I defend them in the past 24 hours?


"But this one allowed white people to get food for black people!"

Again you prove how you have no clue of what my argument is in this situation. So let's go by your stupid hypothetical here. So the lunch counter refused to serve black people regardless, but served white people regardless, even if they were buying food for black people. So obviously the lunch counter's only opposition was serving black people. That is wrong and is not at all what I am saying.


Businesses can discriminate. You were defending a particular sort that was ruled invalid.

So? It was "ruled invalid" by someone in the position of a desk jockey basically, not like it was a decision handed down by a jury or judges.

And who gives a shit even if it was a decision handed down by a judge? I can't have an opinion that goes counter to what judges say and think?


You of course backpedal and declare that you're "not for discrimination!"

When have I ever said I'm "not for discrimination?"

I am 100% for businesses being able to discriminate in certain circumstances, as is any rational thinking fucking human being, apparently of which you are not one.

High class 4 star restaurants shouldn't be able to turn away people who bring in a noisy and whiny newborn? Grocery stores shouldn't be able to turn away people walking around with an assault rifle over their shoulder? Ice cream parlors shouldn't be able to tell a customer to leave who is shouting racial slurs against other patrons? Hospitals shouldn't be able to tell people to not smoke on their property? Casinos shouldn't be able to tell someone to leave who is walking around wearing only a pair of socks?

Have you had a lobotomy in the past 24 hours or something, WB?

[Warriorbird]

My good God man. When has anyone on this board ever defended the lunch counters during the Civil Rights Era? Much less when did I defend them in the past 24 hours?

And who gives a shit even if it was a decision handed down by a judge? I can't have an opinion that goes counter to what judges say and think?

When have I ever said I'm "not for discrimination?"

I am 100% for businesses being able to discriminate in certain circumstances like if the customer wants a cake for their gay wedding.



We've used a number of analogies. You've defended the notion of a bakery making cakes for straight weddings but not gay ones because "they served gay people if they weren't getting married!"

This is like defending the actions of lunch counters during the Civil Rights era if they served black people out of the back or if white people were buying food for them. "They served them in other ways!"

That you can't differentiate between the simple process of buying a wedding cake and a screaming baby, open carry (which is quite legal in many places if the gun is legal), shouted racial slurs, smoking in hospitals, and dress code violations is precisely the problem.

RE: Judge or not judge, if your views are different than how judges think or operate, maybe you're not actually talking about the law.

[Latrinsorm]

I've always thought of Warriorbird as more of a demigod man.

[Tgo01]

This is like defending the actions of lunch counters during the Civil Rights era if they served black people out of the back or if white people were buying food for them. "They served them in other ways!"

It is not the same thing. Did this bakery say "Oh you're gay? Well then you'll have to enter through the back like the rest of the gays." No. Therefore not the same thing.

And you're totally missing the point with the "white people buying food for black people" bit. Did this bakery say "Oh you're gay? Well I'm not going to serve you at all then, but your straight friend can buy you all the cake you want"? Did that happen here? If so do you have any links you can provide? Because until then you are still clearly missing the point.


That you can't differentiate between the simple process of buying a wedding cake and a screaming baby, open carry (which is quite legal in many places if the gun is legal), shouted racial slurs, smoking in hospitals, and dress code violations is precisely the problem.

A) Just because open carry is legal doesn't mean stores should be forced to allow people to walk around their store with a rifle strapped to their back. The stores should be allowed to DISCRIMINATE and tell them to get the fuck out.
B) So what you're saying is you have no idea what "discriminate" even means, right? Let's just be perfectly clear on this before we even proceed any further.


RE: Judge or not judge, if your views are different than how judges think or operate, maybe you're not actually talking about the law.

/forehead smack

[Wrathbringer]

This is awesome.

[Parkbandit]

I think I prefer not following your nonsense attempts at framing to the whole "I'm full of facts!" stance that you offer.

Saying you are full of idiotic shit isn't the same as me saying "I'm full of facts".

Keep on derpin' up another thread though.

[Wrathbringer]

:popcorn:

[Wrathbringer]

"Oh you're gay? Well then you'll have to enter through the back like the rest of the gays."

Not sure if innuendo is intentional or coincidental... :thinking:

[Warriorbird]

It is not the same thing. Did this bakery say "Oh you're gay? Well then you'll have to enter through the back like the rest of the gays." No. Therefore not the same thing.

And you're totally missing the point with the "white people buying food for black people" bit. Did this bakery say "Oh you're gay? Well I'm not going to serve you at all then, but your straight friend can buy you all the cake you want"? Did that happen here? If so do you have any links you can provide? Because until then you are still clearly missing the point.

HOT AIR

It's a pretext. It's not me who's missing it, because it's exactly what they did. "You're gay? You can't have a wedding cake." "You're black? Come around back."

I'm sorry that you're unable to see that this treatment is discrimination. I'm glad that there's some rational people out there, though. I can't believe you think this would've flown if you substituted "we don't make cakes for black weddings." But, then again, you also frequently "don't see" racism.


Saying you are HOT AIR isn't the same as me saying "I'm full of facts".

HOT AIR

My gosh. You're right. You don't even have any.

[Parkbandit]

My gosh. You're right. I'm a fucking retard.

That goes without saying.

[Warriorbird]

HOT AIR

I'm sorry that you have nothing. Hopefully you'll get over it eventually.

[Parkbandit]

I'm sorry that I have nothing. Hopefully I'll get over it eventually.

It's highly unlikely.

[Atlanteax]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/nathan-collier-montana-man-inspired-by-samesex-marriage-ruling-requests-right-to-wed-two-wives-10361612.html


Nathan Collier said he was inspired by the recent Supreme Court decision that made marriage equal. He said he was particularly struck by the words of dissenting Chief Justice John Roberts who claimed giving gay couples the right to marry, might inspire polygamy.

And so this week, Mr Collier and his two wives, Victoria and Christine, entered a courthouse in Billings, Montana, and sought an application to legalise the trio’s polygamous union.

“Right now we're waiting for an answer," Mr Collier told The Independent. “I have two wives because I love two women and I want my second wife to have the same legal rights and protection as my first.”

He added: "Most people are not us. I am not trying to define what marriage means for anybody else - I am trying to define what marriage means for us."

If gay marriage is A-okay, why not polygamy too??

[Back]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/nathan-collier-montana-man-inspired-by-samesex-marriage-ruling-requests-right-to-wed-two-wives-10361612.html



If gay marriage is A-okay, why not polygamy too??

Why not? Consenting adults and all.

[Parkbandit]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/nathan-collier-montana-man-inspired-by-samesex-marriage-ruling-requests-right-to-wed-two-wives-10361612.html

If gay marriage is A-okay, why not polygamy too??

If 2 or more consenting adults want to be contractually obligated to each other.. why should I care?

[Warriorbird]

It's highly unlikely.

That you'll offer something of value? of course.

[Parkbandit]

It's highly unlikely.


That I'll offer something of value? Of course.

I already stated that.

Thank you Captain Obvious.

[Warriorbird]

I already stated that.

Thank you Captain Obvious.

I know. There's just hot air and nothing more from you. It's tough, but we'll get by it.

[Wrathbringer]

That goes without saying.

:lol:

[Warriorbird]

:lol:

Remember the last time you totally failed to have anything? Me too. At least Tgo01's above you both in that.

[Wrathbringer]

Did you know that I invented the Colonex; a Kleenex for blowing my anus? I considered calling it Kleenexit, but went with colonex in the end.

:wtf:

[Warriorbird]

Self stimulation

Way to be an American.

[Parkbandit]

Remember the last time you totally failed to have anything? Me too. At least Tgo01's above you both in that.

With the gems you posted in this thread.. sometimes you are better of simply not posting rather than proving to everyone how unintelligent you really are.

I'm glad you don't though.. we would miss laughing at you.

[Warriorbird]

HOT AIR trying to reach for conservative support

I'm glad that the Internet can offer you some security in such a rapidly changing world. You're really following the example set by all those people that forward chain conspiracy emails. You're the next step. Like a bridge to the 20th century.

[Parkbandit]

I'm a barely functional retard, but I use the Internet to pretend I can offer something intelligent to say. I like to regurgitate things I've heard other liberals say, but I don't understand many of the big words they use. By the way, have I mentioned today that I am a teacher?

Ooookay?