Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

by Simon 286 Replies latest social current

• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  your sexual orientation is not a choice - correct.

  whereas being a homophobe is a choice - not sure about this one, it may be a choice or not, but being decent and polite to gay people is a choice and something we should do ... even refusing to bake a gay wedding cake can be done decently and politely.

  I'll add one of my own ...

  A gay couple getting married is a choice, i.e. same-sex marriage is a choice.

  The problem happens when gay activists expect everybody to agree with them about gay marriage, and then throw a hissy fit when they find out other people sometimes hold different opinions or have different beliefs.

  As far as I know, the christian baker doesn't actively seek out gay couples and harass them, he doesn't gatecrash gay weddings, etc.

  The gay couple sought him out.

  Did they know beforehand that he had bible-based beliefs, and sought him out to put him on the spot?
  
  
• 

  freemindfade

  These gay activists could use their time in a better way. Instead of trying to force other people to accept them and wasting our court systems valuable time, they should look at the opportunity before them. They can open a bakery to serve the gay community and everyone else or not. If they decide to serve exclusively gay people, that's fine with me. From a business point of view, it'd be stupid, but they would have the right to serve whomever they want. And I would defend that right.

  Capitalism > Discrimination Laws

  To my point much earlier, look at Jim Crow laws, the GOVERNMENT enforced required segregation to hold back the market from NOT discriminating.
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  To my point much earlier, look at Jim Crow laws, the GOVERNMENT enforced required segregation to hold back the market from NOT discriminating.

  
  

  The usual narrative given to us is that society was permeated with racists, and the benevolent government stepped in and used the force of law for good, squashing all those segregationist dreams. In fact, it was the exact opposite.

  Walter Williams used to make this point quite well. He would point out that you don’t need laws if society is segregating voluntarily. The Jim Crow laws came about from racist Democrats wanting to push back against the natural integration caused by free market voluntarism.
  
  
• 

  Simon

  What goes around comes around. Just because you're top of the intersectionality popularity game one week doesn't mean someone else won't come and use the system against you.

  Imagine a world run by activists ...

  https://quillette.com/2018/06/05/portland-bakery-white-guilt-poisons-batter/
  
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  ^^^ hilarious! ^^^

  Lillian Green stamping her feet because she reached the restaurant too late but then realised she could whip out the handy-dandy trusty race card. Works every time!

  
  

  There's nothing so amusing watching leftists against each other in a cat fight. XD
• 

  freemindfade

  What goes around comes around. Just because you're top of the intersectionality popularity game one week doesn't mean someone else won't come and use the system against you.

  A few years back darkmatters2525 (they do funny you tube animation on the Bible), did a video about the inevitable endless plight of SJW's. Eventually, everything becomes guilty and everything becomes banned, even all the SJW's. Modern leftism is as degenerative a mind virus as the Abrahamic religions. Socialism, social justice warrioring, PC culture, the snake just eats the tail.

  And you are totally right Simon, this is why I keep saying, fight for maximum freedoms, not more stupid laws and quit moving the Overton window into oblivion.

  We didn't make the progress we have of liberal ideas up until now by censorship, shaming, and all this other stupid crap. Stephen Fry made that clear a recent Monk debate about political correctness. he as a man married to another man in the UK, knows it didn't happen by shouting down, and censoring the world.
• 

  redvip2000

  Yes, that should be the case.

  No that should not be the case. Again, a public facing service should provide the SAME SERVICE equally to all people and not discriminate based on the person itself. The issue with the cake might be slightly different because it relates a notion. To understand this better, we can think that if a straight couple had walked in and requested a cake with a special message about gay marriage, they would probably still say no. They are not discriminating against a person but against an idea.

  It's up to the artist / person providing the service whether they want that client for whatever reason they want. Maybe they don't want to attend a white christian or a JW wedding, they can chose that too. Oh, wait, you're saying that JWs would have the right to force us to provide services too aren't you ...

  Yes JWs should expect the same level of treatment as anybody else and businesses should be forced to treat them equally. If JWs go to a car paint shop to paint a car red, the shop should be forced to provide them service. If the JWs also wants lettering that says "all non-JWs will die", the shop can refuse that.

  Again, you should not discriminate people, only ideas.

  A photographer cannot discriminate because the customer happens to be gay, and refuse to provide basic service.
• 

  waton

  had I known you were coming i'd have baked a cake

  It is not a anti rainbow message, the video features Rock Hudson. smile.
  
  
• 

  OrphanCrow

  freemindfade: A few years back darkmatters2525 (they do funny you tube animation on the Bible), did a video about the inevitable endless plight of SJW's. Eventually, everything becomes guilty and everything becomes banned, even all the SJW's.

  Oh.

  I think there is a tv series about that too

  
  
• 

  StoneWall