Support NeoGAF

[johnny956]

I didn't look at it from that view, which makes the support for this ruling make a lot more sense to me.

I am still sympathetic to the sentiment that religious people shouldn't be forced to do something they feel compromise their beliefs but the best I can do right now is admit I have a lot to reflect on.

The problem is people have used religion in the past to discriminate against people which is why we have protected classes. Being gay will become a protected class soon enough I'd imagine by court or by passing laws (that'll take longer)

 

[xKilltheMx]

well I was responding to this



after having made the argument in multiple posts prior that a bakery owner doesn't have to provide a gay pride themed cake if it violates his beliefs. I wasn't arguing that the owner can deny service to a gay couple if a plain cake is used in a gay wedding, which is the scenario outlined in the op. I made a mistake and wrongly thought the former scenario is what was being debated.

Fair point. At least we both agree the situation was discrimination in the OP. The "gay cake" one I'd agree with you on. Its shitty but legal....

 

[Two Words]

I didn't look at it from that view, which makes the support for this ruling make a lot more sense to me.

I am still sympathetic to the sentiment that religious people shouldn't be forced to do something they feel compromise their beliefs but the best I can do right now is admit I have a lot to reflect on.

Why does religion deserve an exemption? I mean really, what is the difference between somebody who has a religious belief and somebody that has a strong belief in something while also being secular? Why should the religious person be appeased to and not the other? What makes religion a good excuse?

 

[LiquidSword]

The sarcasm isn't obvious enough? Well, given some of the views I've seen in this thread, I can't really blame you.

Lol sorry. With all the shit I've seen spewed about this I couldn't detect the sarcasm

 

[Opiate]

I'm a little conflicted in this. He isn't saying he won't serve gay customers only that he doesn't want to make gay themed cakes. You could say that he's holding himself out to the public, but isn't there a line? Does this mean he would have to make a cake for a hate group too? Now, we can draw a line of reasonableness, but it's still an arbitrary line.

I agree, but saying "I won't make cakes for gay weddings" is effectively tantamount to not serving gay couples if you are a cake designer. Technically, yes, if a gay couple wanted a cake that did not have a groom and a groom on top, he would make it, but this is considered unreasonably limiting given the nature of wedding cakes.

Similarly, I might say I am willing to make wedding cakes for anyone, but I am unwilling to make cakes with an interracial marriage theme. As such, I suppose technically a white man and a black woman could get a cake from that decorator, but in practically that becomes very difficult, as the overwhelming number of wedding cakes will at least have a depiction of the couple on top.

 

[Metaphoreus]

It's his/her business in our fucking society. They should run it how we as a society allow them to run it, because they're using our resources, selling to our people, and are ultimately a part of our society too. Want free reign to do whatever you want? Go head off to an island and see how far it gets you. See how many government roads take people to your place of business.

This is a terrible argument for several reasons:

First, it attempts to justify a particular law on the basis of legislative power--i.e., it argues that, because laws can be made, this law should be made. That's nonsense. Laws should be justified by something other than the mere fact that the law can be made.

Second, in our society, neither the government nor society generally has any claim to all resources. Most businesses will mostly use their own resources, procured through purchase or lease or otherwise.

Third, even those resources that we might call society's, such as roads or other articles of infrastructure provided by government, are made available by society for private use (among other uses). Why should a business owe a duty of obedience to society or the government for using the resources made available to the business for precisely the use to which the resources are put by that business? What's more, the business has arguably paid for its right to access those public resources through taxes, meaning there's even less reason to infer a duty to obey from the use of those resources. In fact, if you're the sort to put much stock into the "social contract" as explaining the legal or moral obligations of a member of a polity, then this particular provision probably would look something like this: "You pay taxes, and we'll provide (among other things) roads for your use."

Fourth, on this issue, society opposes you. So even if your argument were otherwise sound, you'd still lose this debate.

 

[besada]

If you give somebody a 300% discount, then you're paying them twice the inflated cost to take your stuff. I think you meant ~66.66666% discount after the 300% inflation

Yeah, however that works. Me not mathy.

 

[Opiate]

Ok. But this exact same principle can be used to argue that gay people shouldn't be able to get married at all. In fact, it was used for exactly that. "There's no discrimination here, a gay person can still get married just like everyone else, just not to someone of the same sex." It's the same logic. We decided (as a country via popular opinion and legally via the Supreme Court) that this was faulty, that saying that gay people could get married but not to each other was in fact discriminatory.

It's the same situation here. "You can get any other cake, just not a gay wedding cake. No discrimination here, I would totally make you a straight wedding cake even though you're gay, I don't mind that at all, just not for a gay wedding." It's an attempt at a loophole that just doesn't hold water.

What's the end result? In the first case, that for all intents and purposes gay people can't get married. In the second case, that for all intents and purposes gay people are barred from buying a wedding cake from this bakery. It's discriminatory.

The real fine line here is if the guy was willing to make a cake for a gay wedding, but not a gay wedding themed cake. It's at least possible to make a wedding cake that is not explicitly themed.

As a separate example, I am not allowed to reject patrons because they are middle eastern, but I could reject a middle eastern patron if they requested a themed cake I object to. If they want a cake with the Saudi Arabian flag on it, for instance, I can tell them I will not make that specific cake for them.

 

[Cyan]

Technically, yes, if a gay couple wanted a cake that did not have a groom and a groom on top, he would make it...

I haven't seen this stated anywhere, just that he objected to making cakes for gay weddings. If a gay couple came in and said "hey we want a cake for our wedding, just make it super plain, no little figures on it," would he be cool with that? Based on what he's said, he wouldn't be.

 

[Scrabble]

Fair point. At least we both agree the situation was discrimination in the OP. The "gay cake" one I'd agree with you on. Its shitty but legal....

Which is all I've been trying to say but that makes me hateful and homophobic somehow. The dude's "sarcastic" post everyone is bringing up is targeted towards me because obviously that was the argument I was making *rolls eyes*

All because I was arguing that under the 1st amendment, by law, a bakery owner isn't mandated to provide a specifically themed cake or design that goes against his beliefs. You could argue his beliefs are shitty but it doesn't matter as far as the law is concerned. That specific scenario is not discrimination, the situation in the op is. That's what I mean when i'm telling people to put their ideology behind them for a bit in order to have a discussion that doesn't involve ad hominem attacks.

 

[Two Words]

This is a terrible argument for several reasons:

First, it attempts to justify a particular law on the basis of legislative power--i.e., it argues that, because laws can be made, this law should be made. That's nonsense. Laws should be justified by something other than the mere fact that the law can be made.

Second, in our society, neither the government nor society generally has any claim to all resources. Most businesses will mostly use their own resources, procured through purchase or lease or otherwise.

Third, even those resources that we might call society's, such as roads or other articles of infrastructure provided by government, are made available by society for private use (among other uses). Why should a business owe a duty of obedience to society or the government for using the resources made available to the business for precisely the use to which the resources are put by that business? What's more, the business has arguably paid for its right to access those public resources through taxes, meaning there's even less reason to infer a duty to obey from the use of those resources. In fact, if you're the sort to put much stock into the "social contract" as explaining the legal or moral obligations of a member of a polity, then this particular provision probably would look something like this: "You pay taxes, and we'll provide (among other things) roads for your use."

Fourth, on this issue, society opposes you. So even if your argument were otherwise sound, you'd still lose this debate.

I made a point against what you are saying on a page earlier, so I'll just repeat it here.




A private business owner very well could have paid for their business all on their own, but that isn't the end of it. Businesses benefit from public ally paid infrastructures like roads, police, fire departments, government-funded progress in expanded communications, public education, etc. these businesses are using these public services that are paid by everybody. And the truth is that the businesses are getting a lot of help from public dollars. With that in mind, it should not be in a business owner's right to deny a patron who has actually helped make that business owner's business exist due to discrimination. If somebody truly wants to operate under their own power and discriminate all they want, then they'd have to basically operate outside of all government infrastuctre benefits. So I guess if you find a place to do that and pay for everything that you'd ever need and don't expect any government assistance in any way, then feel free to discriminate.

 

[Monocle]

This is a terrible argument for several reasons:

First, it attempts to justify a particular law on the basis of legislative power--i.e., it argues that, because laws can be made, this law should be made. That's nonsense. Laws should be justified by something other than the mere fact that the law can be made.

Second, in our society, neither the government nor society generally has any claim to all resources. Most businesses will mostly use their own resources, procured through purchase or lease or otherwise.

Third, even those resources that we might call society's, such as roads or other articles of infrastructure provided by government, are made available by society for private use (among other uses). Why should a business owe a duty of obedience to society or the government for using the resources made available to the business for precisely the use to which the resources are put by that business? What's more, the business has arguably paid for its right to access those public resources through taxes, meaning there's even less reason to infer a duty to obey from the use of those resources. In fact, if you're the sort to put much stock into the "social contract" as explaining the legal or moral obligations of a member of a polity, then this particular provision probably would look something like this: "You pay taxes, and we'll provide (among other things) roads for your use."

Fourth, on this issue, society opposes you. So even if your argument were otherwise sound, you'd still lose this debate.

Just to be clear, is society better or worse for allowing discrimination against minorities that harm no one and infringe on no one's fundamental rights simply by existing and purchasing goods and services?

 

[RDreamer]

This is a terrible argument for several reasons:

First, it attempts to justify a particular law on the basis of legislative power--i.e., it argues that, because laws can be made, this law should be made. That's nonsense. Laws should be justified by something other than the mere fact that the law can be made.

No it doesn't. What I posted wasn't justifying the law. I could do that with different reasoning. What I posted was discrediting that someone could do whatever they want with their money. They can't, because they're a part of our society, and our society has told them they need to obey certain things. We have health laws they have to follow. We have zoning laws they have to follow. We have tax laws they have to follow. And we have non discrimination laws they have to follow.

Second, in our society, neither the government nor society generally has any claim to all resources. Most businesses will mostly use their own resources, procured through purchase or lease or otherwise.

I would argue that "their own resources" is a very nebulous concept when you're living in a society. Business owners don't spring up out of nothing. Very likely society educated them, society put roads to their business, etc.

Third, even those resources that we might call society's, such as roads or other articles of infrastructure provided by government, are made available by society for private use (among other uses). Why should a business owe a duty of obedience to society or the government for using the resources made available to the business for precisely the use to which the resources are put by that business? What's more, the business has arguably paid for its right to access those public resources through taxes, meaning there's even less reason to infer a duty to obey from the use of those resources. In fact, if you're the sort to put much stock into the "social contract" as explaining the legal or moral obligations of a member of a polity, then this particular provision probably would look something like this: "You pay taxes, and we'll provide (among other things) roads for your use."

"You pay taxes and we'll provide (among other things) roads for you to use, but you have to obey our laws while you're doing it."

Fourth, on this issue, society opposes you. So even if your argument were otherwise sound, you'd still lose this debate.

At one point society sided against black people in general. I don't think polling on this issue is going to sway me.



I'm not attempting to justify the law by saying it can exist. The fact that you read it that way is kind of baffling. I've justified the law in other posts, as have others. I'm discrediting the notion that you can do whatever you want with your money. You can't. Full stop.

Maybe you could argue the owner should be able to do whatever he wants with his money, but at that point can he disobey health codes? How far are we taking this?

 

[The Last Wizard]

Frankly, I am incensed that the cake in the OP doesn't properly represent the rainbow.
Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, Violet - my disgust is palpable.

So what you're saying is that the cake is a lie?

Spoiler

please don't ban me

 

[Goliath]

Which is all I've been trying to say but that makes me hateful and homophobic somehow. The dude's "sarcastic" post everyone is bringing up is targeted towards me because obviously that was the argument I was making *rolls eyes*

All because I was arguing that under the 1st amendment, by law, a bakery owner isn't mandated to provide a specifically themed cake or design that goes against his beliefs. You could argue his beliefs are shitty but it doesn't matter as far as the law is concerned. That specific scenario is not discrimination, the situation in the op is. That's what I mean when i'm telling people to put their ideology behind them for a bit in order to have a discussion that doesn't involve ad hominem attacks.

Let's be fair, you jumped into the thread with the false impression that the image on the article was the exact cake desired by the couple. A quick read of the OP would have prevented that mistake. And even if it is what they requested, unless this bakery has a no rainbow cake policy they will still have to make the cake the image depicts. They could turn down making a cake for Gay Pride Rally but unless the wedding cake request is unreasonable or pornographic, they have to make it.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I made a point against what you are saying on a page earlier, so I'll just repeat it here.

A private business owner very well could have paid for their business all on their own, but that isn't the end of it. Businesses benefit from public ally paid infrastructures like roads, police, fire departments, government-funded progress in expanded communications, public education, etc. these businesses are using these public services that are paid by everybody. And the truth is that the businesses are getting a lot of help from public dollars. With that in mind, it should not be in a business owner's right to deny a patron who has actually helped make that business owner's business exist due to discrimination. If somebody truly wants to operate under their own power and discriminate all they want, then they'd have to basically operate outside of all government infrastuctre benefits. So I guess if you find a place to do that and pay for everything that you'd ever need and don't expect any government assistance in any way, then feel free to discriminate.

Actually, my argument should be considered a counterargument to yours, because I'm denying that access to publicly funded infrastructure imposes any obligation on a business. I'll add that, even to the extent that it imposes some obligation, it certainly doesn't impose any old obligation, however tenuous the connection between the benefit (e.g., roads) and the burden (e.g., non-discrimination). Those burdens need to be justified in some other way.

Just to be clear, is society better or worse for allowing discrimination against minorities that harm no one and infringe on no one's fundamental rights simply by existing and purchasing goods and services?

To be clear, I'm not making an affirmative case in this thread. I'm showing why the argument offered by the fellow I initially replied to fails.

 

[ElectricBlanketFire]

Which is all I've been trying to say but that makes me hateful and homophobic somehow. The dude's "sarcastic" post everyone is bringing up is targeted towards me because obviously that was the argument I was making *rolls eyes*

All because I was arguing that under the 1st amendment, by law, a bakery owner isn't mandated to provide a specifically themed cake or design that goes against his beliefs. You could argue his beliefs are shitty but it doesn't matter as far as the law is concerned. That specific scenario is not discrimination, the situation in the op is. That's what I mean when i'm telling people to put their ideology behind them for a bit in order to have a discussion that doesn't involve ad hominem attacks.

You don't have to put sarcastic in quotes. It was sarcastic.

Let's look at the original cake you thought was involved:

What legal grounds would the bakery have for refusing to bake this cake?

 

[……forgetit]

OK but what exactly is the difference between gay people who want equal treatment and, say, racists, murderers, pedophiles, and animal molesters? All of these groups are exactly the same at face value, right? All of them have exactly the same effect on society, and since they're all united in perversion they should be judged and treated in exactly the same way. Or is it possible I'm missing something?

I'm assuming you're genuine here, and I shouldn't dignify this with a response, but Murderers pedopbiles and animal molesters literally assult people/animals. They cause grievous harm to others. In what way do gay people negatively effect anybody?

BTW we do have equal treatment for racists, you are allowed to be racist.

Edit: oh, sarcasm, gotcha.

 

[NeonBlack]

You don't have to put sarcastic in quotes. It was sarcastic.

Let's look at the original cake you thought was involved:

What legal grounds would the bakery have for refusing to bake this cake?

That it looks so delicious the baker can't guarantee it will be whole.

Edit:

It just hit me, is it against his religious beliefs to serve gay people or to be gay himself?

 

[shadowsdarknes]

I don't really have a problem with a Christian Baker not wanting to make a wedding cake that expressly promotes gay ideals. (I.E a cake that says Congrats Jim and Mike on new love) or something along those lines.

But if it's a straight forward white wedding cake, I do find it discriminatory if you will make the cake for a straight couple and not for a gay couple. If the cake itself doesn't violate your beliefs, then you have to serve it to any law abiding citizen who can pay.

 

[Two Words]

Actually, my argument should be considered a counterargument to yours, because I'm denying that access to publicly funded infrastructure imposes any obligation on a business. I'll add that, even to the extent that it imposes some obligation, it certainly doesn't impose any old obligation, however tenuous the connection between the benefit (e.g., roads) and the burden (e.g., non-discrimination). Those burdens need to be justified in some other way.



To be clear, I'm not making an affirmative case in this thread. I'm showing why the argument offered by the fellow I initially replied to fails.

Denying isn't a counter argument. Our government has designed our tax dollars to greatly benefit the success of businesses. These tax dollars come in great majority from he people. It only makes sense that the people should be given protection of their investment in business success. You are treating taxes as some sort of "hey, what happens with the money, happens with the money" attitude. Citizens pay taxes in order for their lives to be benefited, not to simply line the pockets of companies. If citizens are being discriminated against, then the money they spend to support these businesses is not aiding them. Saying "Nuh-uh" to that is not a counter argument.

 

[Monocle]

I'm assuming you're genuine here, and I shouldn't dignify this with a response, but Murderers pedopbiles and animal molesters literally assult people/animals. They cause grievous harm to others. In what way do gay people negatively affect anybody?

BTW we do have equal treatment for racists, you are allowed to be racist.

Edit: oh, sarcasm, gotcha.

This response might be helpful to readers who really don't get the difference.

 

[RDreamer]

To be clear, I'm not making an affirmative case in this thread. I'm showing why the argument offered by the fellow I initially replied to fails.

Your reading comprehension fails. My argument wasn't justifying the law, it was refuting the notion that someone can do whatever they want with their money.

 

[FStop7]

I'm straight af and I'd eat the shit out of the cake in the OP.

 

[……forgetit]

This is a terrible argument for several reasons:

First, it attempts to justify a particular law on the basis of legislative power--i.e., it argues that, because laws can be made, this law should be made. That's nonsense. Laws should be justified by something other than the mere fact that the law can be made.

Second, in our society, neither the government nor society generally has any claim to all resources. Most businesses will mostly use their own resources, procured through purchase or lease or otherwise.

Third, even those resources that we might call society's, such as roads or other articles of infrastructure provided by government, are made available by society for private use (among other uses). Why should a business owe a duty of obedience to society or the government for using the resources made available to the business for precisely the use to which the resources are put by that business? What's more, the business has arguably paid for its right to access those public resources through taxes, meaning there's even less reason to infer a duty to obey from the use of those resources. In fact, if you're the sort to put much stock into the "social contract" as explaining the legal or moral obligations of a member of a polity, then this particular provision probably would look something like this: "You pay taxes, and we'll provide (among other things) roads for your use."

Fourth, on this issue, society opposes you. So even if your argument were otherwise sound, you'd still lose this debate.

So I have to ask, should businesses be allowed to not let black people in because they don't like them? As it stands businesses are part of our society and pay taxes. They are required to also obey laws.

 

[Opiate]

I haven't seen this stated anywhere, just that he objected to making cakes for gay weddings. If a gay couple came in and said "hey we want a cake for our wedding, just make it super plain, no little figures on it," would he be cool with that? Based on what he's said, he wouldn't be.

That's really the point of contention for me. I did not mean to state it with such certain terms.

 

[Scrabble]

Let's be fair, you jumped into the thread with the false impression that the image on the article was the exact cake desired by the couple. A quick read of the OP would have prevented that mistake. And even if it is what they requested, unless this bakery has a no rainbow cake policy they will still have to make the cake the image depicts. They could turn down making a cake for Gay Pride Rally but unless the wedding cake request is unreasonable or pornographic, they have to make it.

I read the op, and I wasn't the only one that made that mistake as outlined by several other posters who made similar arguments detailing the design or theme of the cake matters when it comes to beliefs and the 1st amendment. And no, a business isn't mandated to make a specific design or theme. They can't deny service to a customer, but they don't have to abide to whatever design or theme a customer wants.

As a bakery owner maybe I decide to not fulfill a customers wish to put a large smiley face on the cake for whatever stupid reason I may have. Sure it's dumb but he's not obligated to comply with making a cake that has a design he doesn't want to do. To make a more realistic point, a Muslim baker wouldn't have to comply with a customers wish of putting an image of Muhammed on the cake. It's a violation of a person's religious freedom, and the 1st amendment, to mandate a Muslim baker to fulfill that customer's wish. Likewise a christian baker doesn't have to comply with designing a cake that's a symbol of gay pride. I don't agree with his beliefs, but he's not mandated to create that specific style of cake.

 

[Astral Dog]

Thats a pretty cake.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

I read the op, and I wasn't the only one that made that mistake as outlined by several other posters who made similar arguments detailing the design or theme of the cake matters when it comes to beliefs and the 1st amendment. And no, a business isn't mandated to make a specific design or theme. They can't deny service to a customer, but they don't have to abide to whatever design or theme a customer wants.

As a bakery owner maybe I decide to not fulfill a customers wish to put a large smiley face on the cake for whatever stupid reason I may have. Sure it's dumb but he's not obligated to comply with making a cake that has a design he doesn't want to do. To make a more realistic point, a Muslim baker wouldn't have to comply with a customers wish of putting an image of Muhammed on the cake. It's a violation of a person's religious freedom, and the 1st amendment, to mandate a Muslim baker to fulfill that customer's wish. Likewise a christian baker doesn't have to comply with designing a cake that's a symbol of gay pride. I don't agree with his beliefs, but he's not mandated to create that specific style of cake.

That's never been at issue. The issue isn't on the product or service, but rather on the customers. these stories come up because they are denying service not based on the product requested, but on the person requesting the product. If you make wedding cakes you have to make them for everyone. Period.

 

[Monocle]

To be clear, I'm not making an affirmative case in this thread. I'm showing why the argument offered by the fellow I initially replied to fails.

That's a fun intellectual exercise, but we're discussing a practical problem that affects real people. In the specific context of this thread, I'm not inclined to reduce any of this stuff to the abstract, personally. I find that it's way too easy to lose sight of the people who are demeaned and insulted by incidents like this cake thing when the discussion spirals into some lofty debate on the finer points of law or whatever.

Ultimately the only thing that really matters here is treating people fairly. And having some random baker in a store invalidate your wedding and basically spit at the concept of your existence is something no normal person should have to put up with in a civilized society.

Thats a pretty cake.

No, it's disgusting!

Sorry, I'm just trying to understand that baker's deeply held religious convictions a little better.

 

[Amory]

No one running their own private business should be forced to do anything for any customer.

The repercussions are theirs to deal with

 

[LiquidSword]

I read the op, and I wasn't the only one that made that mistake as outlined by several other posters who made similar arguments detailing the design or theme of the cake matters when it comes to beliefs and the 1st amendment. And no, a business isn't mandated to make a specific design or theme. They can't deny service to a customer, but they don't have to abide to whatever design or theme a customer wants.

As a bakery owner maybe I decide to not fulfill a customers wish to put a large smiley face on the cake for whatever stupid reason I may have. Sure it's dumb but he's not obligated to comply with making a cake that has a design he doesn't want to do. To make a more realistic point, a Muslim baker wouldn't have to comply with a customers wish of putting an image of Muhammed on the cake. It's a violation of a person's religious freedom, and the 1st amendment, to mandate a Muslim baker to fulfill that customer's wish. Likewise a christian baker doesn't have to comply with designing a cake that's a symbol of gay pride. I don't agree with his beliefs, but he's not mandated to create that specific style of cake.

You just keep repeating the same hypothetical situations post after post. I don't even get what you are arguing anymore because we established that you missunderstood the op thinking this case was about the design of the cake, so idk what you are doing .

 

[xKilltheMx]

No one running their own private business should be forced to do anything for any customer.

The repercussions are theirs to deal with

You havent read this thread at all. And if you have youre just dumb.

 

[Cyan]

You havent read this thread at all. And if you have youre just dumb.

There's no need to be rude.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

No one running their own private business should be forced to do anything for any customer.

The repercussions are theirs to deal with

Yeah fuck a wheelchair ramp tell those cripples to crawl into my store if the need to buy food!

 

[xKilltheMx]

There's no need to be rude.

Fair point....it's just this same exact thing has been stated and rightfully shot down the entire thread. A cursory glance would show that and the replies to it x amount of times before.

 

[NeonBlack]

No one running their own private business should be forced to do anything for any customer.

The repercussions are theirs to deal with

Did you miss the whites only sign on the first page?

 

[Scrabble]

You just keep repeating the same hypothetical situations post after post. I don't even get what you are arguing anymore because we established that you missunderstood the op thinking this case was about the design of the cake, so idk what you are doing .

Because I keep responding to the same arguments from people about shit I've already said just previously. If you don't want me saying the same shit, address what I have to actually say instead of just going on ad hominem attacks, miscontexualinzing what I say, or just outright ignoring my argument and previous posts. Since no one wants to address the scenario I outlined I'll just assume no one has a counter point and drop it. If you do believe a bakery owner must make whatever specific design a customer wishes, you'd be wrong, than put forth an argument or evidence supporting your point.

 

[ElectricBlanketFire]

Because I keep responding to the same arguments from people about shit I've already said just previously. If you don't want me saying the same shit, address what I have to actually say instead of just going on ad hominem attacks, miscontexualinzing what I say, or just outright ignoring my argument and previous posts. Since no one wants to address the scenario I outlined I'll just assume no one has a counter point and drop it. If you do believe a bakery owner must make whatever specific design a customer wishes, you'd be wrong, than put forth an argument or evidence supporting your point.

I did address it and you didn't respond.

 

[Metaphoreus]

No it doesn't. What I posted wasn't justifying the law. I could do that with different reasoning. What I posted was discrediting that someone could do whatever they want with their money. They can't, because they're a part of our society, and our society has told them they need to obey certain things. We have health laws they have to follow. We have zoning laws they have to follow. We have tax laws they have to follow. And we have non discrimination laws they have to follow.

...

I'm not attempting to justify the law by saying it can exist. The fact that you read it that way is kind of baffling.

I'm not sure how else it can be interpreted. The poster you responded to made an argument about what demands society should impose on its constituent members. You replied by arguing that society's demands should be followed. That's either a non sequitur or an argument that, because society can impose a non-discrimination requirement, it therefore should.

I would argue that "their own resources" is a very nebulous concept when you're living in a society. Business owners don't spring up out of nothing. Very likely society educated them, society put roads to their business, etc.

The concept of private property actually makes the question of ownership pretty clear in most cases. And how one came to own his or her property (e.g., whether with the assistance of public roads or not) does little to obfuscate the fact that he or she does own it. You don't regularly enter the wrong house or apartment when you think you're going home, do you? Not even when you've arrived there via public roads? Imagine that! "I mean, I know my name's on the deed, but what's confusing me is, the government funded the roads! Do I really own my house?"

"You pay taxes and we'll provide (among other things) roads for you to use, but you have to obey our laws while you're doing it."

Even if the "But roads!" argument were a valid basis on which to impose a new obligation (and I don't think it is), the fact remains that many jurisdictions don't have laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. And, for those that do, the better justification for following the laws is that they're the laws. Roads have nothing to do with it.

At one point society sided against black people in general. I don't think polling on this issue is going to sway me.

When your argument is based on what society says, it should matter a great deal to you what society says. Unless this whole time you've been secretly defining "society" to mean "me and everyone who agrees with me, but nobody else."

 

[A Link to the Past]

If for whatever reason not serving minorities (or majorities, as odd as that would be) gains Mr.BusinessOwner business, maybe it's time to pack up and leave. If you're living a place where people clearly don't want you there, why would you willingly stay there knowing that there's plenty of places that will?

Oh wow, this is fucking choice. Are you kidding me? People who are routinely discriminated against are people who often don't have the level of income that allows them to find a place that doesn't discriminate.

Why would people stay in a place that discriminates? Well maybe because buying a house in another city, finding that city, having the money to do all of that, quitting your old job and finding a new job, etc. isn't a simple task.

Oh, and what if all of the employers near this person don't hire black people? That person could become unemployed, that person could become homeless, and be pretty much stuck in a shitty situation.

Nope. We're making a shit ton of progress. More integrated then we've ever been. As a society, I strongly believe we've become much, much more accepting of each other as time goes on. That doesn't mean stupid and ignorant people are going to magically disappear. They're always going to exist. I'd rather they blatantly display their ignorance instead of society pretending like it doesn't exist.

America may still have racists (but what country doesn't?), but as a whole I'd say it's not that racist. What other country in the world is even close to being as diverse as America is? The Civil Rights movement may have only been 50 years ago, but a hell of a lot has happened in the past 50 years that's made it incredibly easy to be exposed to a lot of different types of cultures and experiences.

Personally speaking, I'm just a 25 year old guy who was born in the mid west. I'm nothing special, but I have friends who are black, I have friends from South Africa. I have friends from Hong Kong, I have friends from Korea, I have friends who are Hispanic, Cuban, Venezuelan, British, French, Irish, and Malaysian. I have friends from Singapore, I have friends from Canada. I have friends from all over the US. Maybe I'm an anomaly, but I'd like to think that most younger people are like me. 50 years ago, if you were just an average person, you probably weren't going to have a personal relationship with too many people outside of your state (maybe family if they lived abroad). It's 2015, it's incredibly easy to be exposed to more than what's going in your town, state, or even country.

As time goes on and my generation and the generations that follow start running things, racism will continue to decline (just like it has throughout history. It's not a disease though, I don't think it will ever be completely eliminated.

Again, I'd rather bigots display their bigotry out in the open then for society to pretend like it doesn't exist.

Firstly, yes, we made progress. For instance, we stopped allowing businesses to choose who they can and cannot serve and stopped listening to ridiculous and ignorant people who thought this was a good idea. That was a big deal.

Secondly, what place is it for you to say that marginalized people should have to be inconvenienced (or worse) in order for a business to be shut down (except it wouldn't be shut down due to bigots funneling money into it)? Have you so little sympathy that you're willing to allow people to discriminate in order to get their business to fail at the cost of 1. losing perhaps the only business of its kind in what is probably a lower-income small town and 2. the freedom, convenience, and comfort of minorities?

Thirdly, are you white?

 

[Amory]

Did you miss the whites only sign on the first page?

The circumstances are different. This bakery serves gay people, the objection is specifically with participating in the preparation for a gay wedding due to a religious conflict.

 

[Scrabble]

I did address it and you didn't respond.

You responded with "what legal grounds does an owner have to not serve that specific cake?" Really dude? You're telling me I haven't already addressed that?

 

[unholyrevenger72]

The circumstances are different. This bakery serves gay people, the objection is specifically with participating in the preparation for a gay wedding due to a religious conflict.

So they'll serve a straight wedding cake to gay people, but won't serve a gay wedding cake to gay people.

 

[Amory]

So they'll serve a straight wedding cake to gay people, but won't serve a gay wedding cake to gay people.

I don't know what this means.

 

[ElectricBlanketFire]

You responded with "what legal grounds does an owner have to not serve that specific cake?" Really dude? You're telling me I haven't already addressed that?

Yeah, "really" me after you spent half a day not reading the OP.

You said under the 1st amendment bakeries are not required to make themed cakes. On what grounds would they be able to legally not make the cake? It's a symbol, but it's not offensive.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

That is one beautiful cake, no bullshit.

 

[maquiladora]

I've no problem with this. You cannot discriminate against certain people just because you believe that the tales in a thousand+ year old story book are real.

Same goes with any religion. It's all fucking bullshit.

 

[Littlefang]

No one running their own private business should be forced to do anything for any customer.

The repercussions are theirs to deal with

I'm assuming you agree with the judge ruling that he cannot discriminate against customers because of his religious beliefs because those are the repercussions.

The circumstances are different. This bakery serves gay people, the objection is specifically with participating in the preparation for a gay wedding due to a religious conflict.

The circumstances aren't different at all because the bakery doesn't serve gay people, the guy is just saying they do. But they are specifically preventing the gay couple from using one of the services that they offer. What if he didn't support interracial marriage? Would it be okay for him to refuse to sell interracial couples wedding cakes as well?

I mean the reason this is such a big deal is because this type of thinking could be used to defend worse practices in other businesses. If this guy was allowed to discriminate against gay people because of his religious beliefs, it would mean that a person working at a pharmacy wouldn't have to fulfill a birth control prescription for a 14 year old girl because the owner didn't support sex before marriage. Because then the solution becomes "well you can just go to another store" rather than "businesses shouldn't discriminate against who they serve."

 

[A Link to the Past]

That is one beautiful cake, no bullshit.

That's no rainbow