I think it's funny how you try to frame it as republicans being the only ones who benefit from, and pass laws for big business. They're all motivated by the same shit. If you think one side is noble and is out to do something good, then I don't know what to tell you, because that's preposterous in politics, and you know it.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
'Gay wedding cake' case hits US Supreme Court
- Thread starter llien
- Start date
I think it's funny how you try to frame it as republicans being the only ones who benefit from, and pass laws for big business. They're all motivated by the same shit. If you think one side is noble and is out to do something good, then I don't know what to tell you, because that's preposterous in politics, and you know it.
Shouta
Member
I can see where you infer that but I only pointed out that current Republicans are very much targeting very specific groups, including big business, with their policy making. I did not say the Democrats are more noble or anything.
Vicetrailia
Member
Yeah, but there are differences.
For example in the wake of mass job losses from offshoring jobs and education programs were created in order to help such laid off workers better themselves. A couple of these programs are around today, and despite the good they have done Republican lawmakers at large still have a problem with them because they cost money.
Democrats like these programs, and Republicans do too when they're using them, just not when they're not.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
This is factually incorrect. Gov't has made it their business to care about skin color. 400 years of history demonstrates that. From slavery, to Jim Crow laws, to housing discrimination, to the war on drugs.
The gov't has always cared about skin color
Didn't this guy discriminate?
BANGS
Banned
-"Always"
-"Things that happened a long time ago and don't happen today"
Pick one...
And this is why I don't like having "in god we trust" on our money and putting "under god" in the allegiance. This country was founded on freedom of religion and you can't have that if you can't have freedom from religion too. Religious slogans have absolutely no business in government/country things.
People don't understand why I think it's a big deal. It's a big deal cause it gives people like you some idea that we are supposed to be run as a Christian nation, not a nation that has freedom of religion. Freedom of religion doesn't just mean freedom for Christian religion.
Dude Abides
Banned
Drug wars over guys, you heard it here first!
BANGS
Banned
What skin color do drugs have?
Bolivar687
Banned
Depends if we're talking free base or powder.
BANGS
Banned
lmfao my point exactly...
Night Angel
Member
ITT we pretend institutionalized racism doesn't exist so we can be free to discriminate against the gays.
BANGS
Banned
Sad the judge didn't make a ruling on the issue overall. We can't keep wasting taxpayer money on these frivolous cases...
infinitys_7th
Member
I'm not sure how not having a cake from this specific baker is denying the couple a right to celebrate their marriage. You don't need a cake, but then I find a lot of customs to be, uh, commercially propagated.
Getting married? Give the bakers thousands of dollars for a crappy dry cake. Give the tailors thousands for a suit you may wear twice a year or a wedding dress you will never wear again. Why? Because bakers and tailors told people they were necessary for a wedding hundreds of years ago.
How is that really any different from how Santa Claus had been used in the US to commercialize Christmas, or from the diamond market? Just seems hollow to me.
Last edited:
While it does kick the can down the road, I think its the proper approach to never go more broad than the case requires. Judges are not elected and need to avoid making law as much as possible.
Bolivar687
Banned
I normally agree with this sentiment but it is disappointing to me that the Court would not resolve the tremendous implications this incident has on free speech, free exercise, and state anti-discrimination laws. Chief Justice Roberts not attaching his name it any of the concurrence suggests that he may be looking to replace Kennedy as centrist swing vote on the Court after Kennedy leaves.
There's just so much uncertainty here, which, it's really the Supreme Court's job to resolve.
Some of the dicta I read (secondhand) may give states who are listening some really good direction. If states tailor their statutes and hearing procedures to reflect this, it could help prevent the issue from coming up again, at least from coming up very often. Basically, keep partisan political beliefs 100% out of the hearing process. When it comes to legitimate expression, freedom of religion prevails. But if the religious claim is not sincere, or the goods / services have nothing to do with bona fide expression, you cannot hide behind religious beliefs to discriminate.
appaws
Banned
Sounds pretty reasonable, Justice CatsHateDogs.
CampbellzSoup
Member
I support gay rights 100% and agree with the ruling.
WaterAstro
Member
What I took from that article is that the baker was being aggressed on, so the aggressors will be at fault. Religious beliefs must also be protected, especially if the religious person in question remains passive.
If I remember the original article correctly, the baker had declined and offered other kinds of cakes. No hate of any kind, just trying to follow his beliefs.
If I remember the original article correctly, the baker had declined and offered other kinds of cakes. No hate of any kind, just trying to follow his beliefs.
Last edited:
Was it the same bakery that got shutdown and the couple got threaten with death threats and arson? This thing cold be so easily be solved in the couple seeking another business who wants to do it.
womfalcs3
Banned
You were surprised that the proper outcome was reached?? The baker had as much right to deny service based on his religious beliefs as the couple did to marry.
llien
Member
Well, "proper" is quite subjective, is it not?
We are technically talking about discriminating against homosexual couple being acceptable, because some religion considers such people to be sinners.
Is it? he even tried to offer them an alternative and he was never unfriendly to them. The one who were really agressive was the gay couple. And if you have religous freedom how would you be able to solve it otherwise.Well, "proper" is quite subjective, is it not?
We are technically talking about discriminating against homosexual couple being acceptable, because some religion considers such people to be sinners.
Paasei
Member
He should be able to say he doesn't want certain clients, no matter how stupid it is that your religion (and therefore being against same sex marriage) is the reason behind it. It's his bakery and his time that is invested into making the cake. Can't force him to say he has to do it.
Last edited:
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
I don't think this is what the court is saying. Technically he said he would make them a "cake", just not a "wedding cake". Had he not offered them anything, then the baker would have lost this case.
llien
Member
Well, replace "homosexual" with some race. Does it still fly?
Bolivar687
Banned
Such a bullshit thought experiment.
If you're honestly under the impression that he didn't want to do business with sinners, then you really owe it to yourself to read what this case is about, before you start diluting the discussion with underinformed conjecture.
llien
Member
I actually did and if you descend from that moral high ground of yours, we could even discuss, which types of "certain clients' are meant in the sentence: "He should be able to say he doesn't want certain clients".
Airola
Member
If they don't make cakes for sinner, they would stop making them to anyone - including themselves. It's not about who is a sinner and who is not.
It's about marriage. They think marriage is a holy ceremony where a man and a female are made into one. They don't believe marriage is about two persons who love each other getting together. It's about a male and a female becoming one. Their wedding cakes are special cakes for a certain type of holy ceremony.
It has nothing to do with sin. It's about providing a special cake into a religious ceremony and to them same sex marriage isn't marriage in a religious sense.
They would certainly bake a cake for an interracial marriage as long as it's about a male and a female becoming one in a holy ceremony, so your comment about race makes zero sense and shows you have no idea why this was an issue to the bakery in the first place.
Paasei
Member
Apples and Oranges.
I see now that I read and constructed it wrong. What I meant still goes, though, and it seems you think so as well.
OT:
I really don't know how to add multiple quotes without just "reply" and then copy paste that into my previous mode in "edit", rofl. Must be an easier that I somehow fail to understand.
Last edited:
<+)O Robido O(+>
Member
lol. What does this even mean? The fact that we still treat people and their invisible sky deities different that we treat anyone else with invisible friends is hilarious.
So can we do that to Islamic people as well? Tell them to fuck themselves when they wannt time for their prayers each day? We still have religious freedom if you want it or not. I am totally anti religion but we have these laws and he was never disrespectful to them
The only disrespectful people here was the gay couple.
Last edited:
<+)O Robido O(+>
Member
Why not? The state shouldn't show you any favor based on which imaginary friend you pray to.
Why not?
lol. ok.
If you offer a service, either offer it to everyone or don't offer it. Seems simple.
How so?
How so? How they reacted how they start up a mob so the bakery got death threats and threats of burning their shop down etc. He was firendly explained why he can not do it and then offered a other solution. HE was never unfriendly or disrespectful. As a human being even not agreeing with this person I would just leave and go to another bakery.
Also we have sstuff like girls night, in which women pay less there were cases of a bycicle shop not letting in white men because they want to create safe space for minorities etc. The oly thing he did not was making them a wedding cake they could have bought anything else.
Hulk_Smash
Banned
Fairly certain if he knew it was a polygamy or incest he wouldn’t be making wedding cakes for them either.
Also, prove he is lying.
<+)O Robido O(+>
Member
What did they do aside from making a complaint with the appropriate agency?
That's how you get ladies to come to sausage parties.
Citation needed.
LegendOfKage
Member
It's somewhat ironic that you would say something this hateful about religion while using a Prince avatar.
llien
Member
Are you arguing that being homosexual, engaging in sexual acts with people of your sex, is not a sin from Christian POV?
It's not about people not being saint, but about the very act, for which cake is being made, being a sin and hence, the baker taking part of it, endorsing it.
Non-homosexual analogy would be asking him to make a, say, sex orgy cake, for, well, a sex orgy.
Wait, that's not spicy enough: a sex orgy with incest.
Okay, what about interracial marriage?
Last edited:
Bolivar687
Banned
They went on social media leading a vile social media mob and activists to this person.
Also
http://edmontonbikes.ca/services/bikeworks/women-transgender-program/
Even if men have an emergency with their bike they are getting send away.
Last edited:
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
The courts are saying nobody in this country has to bake a wedding cake for any interracial marriages based on their religious beliefs.
LegendOfKage
Member
No, they're not. That's not a religious belief you can find anywhere in the Bible. Marriage being a holy union between a man and a woman united before God is definitely found in the Bible. It doesn't say anything about race.
There has to be an historical religious precedent, or religious freedom doesn't make any sense. For example, businesses may try to avoid a religious discrimination lawsuit by allowing certain religions exemptions from aspects of their dress code. But that doesn't mean someone can wear a "no fat chicks" trucker hat to work, and claim it's part of their religion.
Interestingly enough, some people were even exempt from social security cards when those started up, because they could prove that it violated their religious beliefs. You can't just make shit up as you go along. For example:
Last edited: