Support NeoGAF

[Shamylov]

I guess you have a good point there.

For me this was about trying to see if there was a case for religious freedom because it seems it was a special case that had more to do with a person dealing with a special religious situation and not about being against gays in general. And that's what I thought it was. I mean, he had his religious way of dealing with certain situations in his business set up from the get go and that should be respected.

But I'm not quite sure about that anymore.

Maybe there is something to the view that if you are in a business, you should have your mind removed from the religious matters and it should be so with any religion in every case. Because, yeah, let's face it, as one poster said there is a possibility for a real slippery slope in matters like these.

I still hold on to the belief that churches should be able to refuse creating a ceremony that goes against what the ceremony stands to them, but perhaps individuals in regular businesses are a completely different matter if just for the sake of making basic life more even for everyone.

I'm not quite sure if I still see the real problem here that people seem to see better than me, but I'm going to think about it.

I don't think the law is telling business owners to remove their religious beliefs from the way they operate. It's just saying that they have to respect boundaries established to protect historically marginalized groups. Even if it seems like a small issue because the couple could have gone to another bakery, we shouldn't allow injustice in any instance and I think it's for the better that the Supreme Court reinforces those protections.

It's good that you're open to thinking more on this issue. Likewise, I am willing to hear any more thoughts you want to share.

 

[Blood Borne]

But the laws against murder were created by filthy leftists who want to ruin everything

How is it leftists that created laws against murder. Even religious books have laws against murder. Also seeing as murder rates keep on rising, how's that law working out. More so, people don't murder people because the government told them not to.

 

[Night Angel]

How is it leftists that created laws against murder. Even religious books have laws against murder. Also seeing as murder rates keep on rising, how's that law working out. More so, people don't murder people because the government told them not to.

You tell me homie.

Yes. Laws are made because leftists want to stomp out the last vestige of anything they deem evil/unjust/unfair.

Leftists can't tolerate anything 'bad' in this life. They're on a mission to create a perfect world and they believe the answer to everything wrong in this life can be solved via legislation.

 

[7echnicolor]

You tell me homie.

hahahah got em

 

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

how's that law working out

.

Why have any laws at all?

More so, people don't murder people because the government told them not to.

Why don't they then? please tell me its Jesus.

 

[Blood Borne]

You tell me homie.

I'm genuinely confused. Please kindly point out my contradiction.

 

[Blood Borne]

.

Why have any laws at all?

Why don't they then? please tell me its Jesus.

Wow. You actually think people don't murder each other because the government said so?

So how did the human species survive before the advent of a hierarchical society?

 

[Night Angel]

I'm genuinely confused. Please kindly point out my contradiction.

I got u fam

How is it leftists that created laws against murder.

Yes. Laws are made because leftists want to stomp out the last vestige of anything they deem evil/unjust/unfair.

Leftists can't tolerate anything 'bad' in this life. They're on a mission to create a perfect world and they believe the answer to everything wrong in this life can be solved via legislation.

 

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

Wow. You actually think people don't murder each other because the government said so?

You don't think the threat of jail time or the death penalty isn't some sort of deterrent?

 

[Blood Borne]

I got u fam

Really?
Ever heard of context?
It was about governmental laws such as Jim crow laws. Laws that force people to violate their human rights. I can't believe that's what you were referring to. Such a strawman.

Also, I think I should explicitly state my political stance.

I'm not an anarchist. Government is needed. But only to protect our liberties and freedoms, therefore, judiciary, police and army. That's it. We don't need government to babysit us and tell us how exactly to live our lives. As long as you're not violating another person's freedom, government should stay the fuck out of our lives.

But this will never happen, because there are people out there who believe they're wiser, scrupulous and more noble than everyone else and it is incumbent for them to use government as a gun to conform to their morals and ideals.

 

[Blood Borne]

You don't think the threat of jail time or the death penalty isn't some sort of deterrent?

There is no law that says you must love and respect your parents, but why do most people do?

As to your question, no. It's not a deterrent, people will do what they want to do regardless of law. That's why they're called NON LAW ABIDING citizens.

 

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

As to your question, no. It's not a deterrent, people will do what they want to do regardless of law. That's why they're called NON LAW ABIDING citizens.

lol.

 

[Night Angel]

Really?
Ever heard of context?
It was about governmental laws such as Jim crow laws. Laws that force people to violate their human rights. I can't believe that's what you were referring to. Such a strawman.

Also, I think I should explicitly state my political stance.

I'm not an anarchist. Government is needed. But only to protect our liberties and freedoms, therefore, judiciary, police and army. That's it. We don't need government to babysit us and tell us how exactly to live our lives. As long as you're not violating another person's freedom, government should stay the fuck out of our lives.

But this will never happen, because there are people out there who believe they're wiser, scrupulous and more noble than everyone else and it is incumbent for them to use government as a gun to conform to their morals and ideals.

Bro you're saying the bolded in a thread about someone trying to infringe on someone's liberty/freedom lol

That's what discrimination is. It's why there are protected classes, to protect the liberty of a marginalized group.

 

[Zog]

Yes. Laws are made because leftists want to stomp out the last vestige of anything they deem evil/unjust/unfair.

Leftists can't tolerate anything 'bad' in this life. They're on a mission to create a perfect world and they believe the answer to everything wrong in this life can be solved via legislation.

...at the expense of the straight white males.

 

[Blood Borne]

...at the expense of the straight white males.

What does straight white males have to do with what I said?

 

[7echnicolor]

imagine thinking that we don't need anti-discrimination laws or protected classes in a country that was built on the backs of slaves

 

[Blood Borne]

Bro you're saying the bolded in a thread about someone trying to infringe on someone's liberty/freedom lol

That's what discrimination is. It's why there are protected classes, to protect the liberty of a marginalized group.

You clearly don't understand the concept of human freedom. Person A walking into Person's B private home/business/land and DEMANDING Person B performs a task against their will.

Whose freedom is being violated?

 

[Zog]

What does straight white males have to do with what I said?

They want to legislate a perfect world at the expense of straight white males who they think are privileged and should to be brought down.

 

[Night Angel]

But this will never happen, because there are people out there who believe they're wiser, scrupulous and more noble than everyone else and it is incumbent for them to use government as a gun to conform to their morals and ideals.

Oh and I gotta point out the irony of using this as a defense for someone refusing service because they think someone else's choices are morally inferior.

You clearly don't understand the concept of human freedom. Person A walking into Person's B private home/business/land and DEMANDING Person B performs a task against their will.

Whose freedom is being violated?

It's almost like a decision in the supreme court would have wider implications than this one isolated incident.

For someone accusing me of ignoring context, you seem to be ignoring the context of how marginalized groups have been treated without protections provided by laws. Are you mad people can't be turned away for being black, too?

 

[7echnicolor]

You clearly don't understand the concept of human freedom. Person A walking into Person's B private home/business/land and DEMANDING Person B performs a task against their will.

Whose freedom is being violated?

the bolded is like, how businesses work, my guy. have you been inside a store before?

if you have a store front on a street that isn't also your home, and you have a front door that opens, as well as hours of availability, and products for sale, you're not running a private business.

 

[Naudi]

Really?
Ever heard of context?
It was about governmental laws such as Jim crow laws. Laws that force people to violate their human rights. I can't believe that's what you were referring to. Such a strawman.

Also, I think I should explicitly state my political stance.

I'm not an anarchist. Government is needed. But only to protect our liberties and freedoms, therefore, judiciary, police and army. That's it. We don't need government to babysit us and tell us how exactly to live our lives. As long as you're not violating another person's freedom, government should stay the fuck out of our lives.

But this will never happen, because there are people out there who believe they're wiser, scrupulous and more noble than everyone else and it is incumbent for them to use government as a gun to conform to their morals and ideals.

The thing is if the government isn't there to tell YOU what you can't do you would gladly go back to owning slaves and stoneing the gay couple wanting a cake. So fuck off and make their damn cake. Not hard. Snowflakes.

 

[Blood Borne]

Oh and I gotta point out the irony of using this as a defense for someone refusing service because they think someone else's choices are morally inferior.

It's almost like a decision in the supreme court would have wider implications than this one isolated incident.

For someone accusing me of ignoring context, you seem to be ignoring the context of how marginalized groups have been treated without protections provided by laws. Are you mad people can't be turned away for being black, too?

Just as government can't force you to date a specific race, government shouldn't force you to transact with anyone you don't want to.

It's ironic how leftists say that it's no one's concern what two consenting adults do in a sexual relationship, which I wholeheartedly agree with, but when it comes two consenting adults in an economic relationship, leftists say it's everyone's concern. Their logic is always inconsistent.

As for your last question. I'm a data analyst/consultant and I've encountered a situation where my client refused to divulge data with me clearly because I'm black. I didn't run to government and demand that he liaise with me. I simply sent in my colleague to replace me and told my manager. We billed the racist douchebag very high. Split the juicy bonus. Participated in my first orgy and use the money to buy my wife a car and life is good.

 

[Blood Borne]

The thing is if the government isn't there to tell YOU what you can't do you would gladly go back to owning slaves and stoneing the gay couple wanting a cake. So fuck off and make their damn cake. Not hard. Snowflakes.

Leftist emotional vomit.
Reading comprehension is your nemesis.
Owning slaves violates human freedom.

 

[Night Angel]

Just as government can't force you to date a specific race, government shouldn't force you to transact with anyone you don't want to.

It's ironic how leftists say that it's no one's concern what two consenting adults do in a sexual relationship, which I wholeheartedly agree with, but when it comes two consenting adults in an economic relationship, leftists say it's everyone's concern. Their logic is always inconsistent.

As for your last question. I'm a data analyst/consultant and I've encountered a situation where my client refused to divulge data with me clearly because I'm black. I didn't run to government and demand that he liaise with me. I simply sent in my colleague to replace me and told my manager. We billed the racist douchebag very high. Split the juicy bonus. Participated in my first orgy and use the money to buy my wife a car and life is good.

R/thathappened

 

[darkinstinct]

You don't think the threat of jail time or the death penalty isn't some sort of deterrent?

It's been proven again and again that they don't. Most murders happen because the murderers think they will get away with it or because they are too stupid to see the consequences or because they can't control themselfs.

 

[Bolivar687]

I had thought this forum moved beyond dog piling.

 

[Night Angel]

I had thought this forum moved beyond dog piling.

Says the dude who obviously doesn't know what dogpiling is.

 

[CampbellzSoup]

The courts will side with the baker. His sexuality had nothing to do with the cake; the wedding did.

 

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

It's been proven again and again that they don't. Most murders happen because the murderers think they will get away with it or because they are too stupid to see the consequences or because they can't control themselfs.

You don't think anyone has ever been close to bumping someone off and paused to think about jail and reconsidered? Like... I think about speeding everyday and don't because I don't want a ticket.

The courts will side with the baker. His sexuality had nothing to do with the cake; the wedding did.

I bet you're serious too.

 

[CampbellzSoup]

You don't think anyone has ever been close to bumping someone off and paused to think about jail and reconsidered? Like... I think about speeding everyday and don't because I don't want a ticket.



I bet you're serious too.

Oh I am.

 

[7echnicolor]

The courts will side with the baker. His sexuality had nothing to do with the cake; the wedding did.

Do a lot of straight people often marry people of the same sex?

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Says the dude who obviously doesn't know what dogpiling is.

It's almost sad that the people who are happy that everyone left still find ways to bitch about their shit opinions and views getting questioned once or twice in a thread.

Persecution complex never goes away I'm afraid.

 

[Shotgun Kiss]

I'm surprised to see so many people defending the baker.

If you think he should have the right to deny people service based on their sexuality, would you also defend shops turning away black people? Women? Disabled people?

 

[Dunki]

I'm surprised to see so many people defending the baker.

If you think he should have the right to deny people service based on their sexuality, would you also defend shops turning away black people? Women? Disabled people?

Actually yes because they would ruin their own shop. The image loss these days would be a total disaster. We do not live in the times in which such acts were encouraged.

But I also someone who rarely would use the law and instead that every action will cause a reaction and in these cases it would be a huge hit on the financial site.

 

[CampbellzSoup]

...at the expense of the straight white males.

When your break out this nonsense means the other side is winning the argument.

 

[Vicetrailia]

As for your last question. I'm a data analyst/consultant and I've encountered a situation where my client refused to divulge data with me clearly because I'm black. I didn't run to government and demand that he liaise with me.

That is a company vs company situation, a then potential client. You don't always have an option to "send your white friend" on an individual level.

Just go learn some history about where we have been, and how we got this far today.

Oh and if you own a business, the constitution says that some basic rights take precedence over other types, but they all still apply at once.

 

[llien]

I think this is a case of intolerance between two protected groups: followers of a certain religion and homosexuals.

The baker can genuinely think that baking a wedding cake for homosexual marriage means committing a sin.

Note that we do police ourselves not to offend religious people, e.g. by not drawing the Muslim prophet. That's something rather easy to do.

But should a homosexual person avoid "offending religious people", when he/she thinks such avoidance is but example of oppression of homosexuals? Could we force the baker to be part of a "committing a sin"?

Most likely scenario is telling religious people that, well, while we tolerate and, in a way, respect their kinky ways, we won't allow them to discriminate against homosexuals, just because their religion says they are sinners.

 

[appaws]

These threads always become like this...

Some people try (on both sides) to have a substantive discussion even though disagreeing vehemently...

...but within a few pages it just becomes name calling.

Maybe we need echo chambers to be happy. Maybe someone should start "Right-Gamer" with an OT board so conservatives can have an "I agree" circle-jerk on every issue.

 

[Naudyboy16]

I've been doing some more reading on this and man, like I said in the first few pages, this is not an easy debate. I'm religious as well so it makes this such a tough decision. In my prior jobs I've worked with several people are openly gay and have become friends with them. Their sexual orientation has nothing to do with their character and who they are as people.

Yet at the same time, the issue of marriage in the Christain religion is between a man and a woman. This baker baking them a wedding game is him participating in something his religion forbids. The baker did offer the couple other types of cakes that aren't bond to marriage though but clearly they were there for a wedding cake.

It's a tough one because by law he is discriminating against them, yet his reasoning is also protected by the same law isn't it?

Personally, to me: because he showed no malice and offered them different types of cakes and even suggested other bakeries that would happily bake this couple a cake, I don't see him as being at fault. This is again my personal opinion, now if he was tossing our slurs and yelling at them to leave his bakery because of their sexual orientation, that would be crossing the line.

Regardless of what side the supreme court lands on, it's going to affect a lot of people. Clearly not an easy decision.

 

[Zog]

When your break out this nonsense means the other side is winning the argument.

You've never seen them play the straight white males are privileged card?

 

[Big Blue]

Actually yes because they would ruin their own shop. The image loss these days would be a total disaster. We do not live in the times in which such acts were encouraged.

But I also someone who rarely would use the law and instead that every action will cause a reaction and in these cases it would be a huge hit on the financial site.

Maybe in NYC, but in a random place in Tennesse??? Probably not...Capitalism didn't end segregation and the oppression of black people FYI.

 

[Dunki]

Maybe in NYC, but in Pennsatucky??? Probably not...

Yeah thats for sure. But personally I think either it counts for everyone or no one.

Discrimination here with this case could be counted for both and there was nothing vile in it as well. And if you want to go by discrimination laws you have to consider both cases. Even if people believe there are no two sides here because it does not fit with their believes or ideology.

 

[cereal_killerxx]

As a Christian, I fully support the Baker's side. The couple could have easily gone to another baker across the street.

 

[Bill O'Rights]

Just a polite nudge. While the general content and tone is fine with people on both sides of the fence, there are a few posts creeping into the 'unnecessarily hostile' territory.

Just reign it in a bit and exert a bit of control

 

[bevishead]

Its a tough situation. Sure you can say serve everyone or no one. I'm sure when the baker opened his business gay marriage wasn't a thing so he never expected to have to make a gay wedding cake which may or may not have determined whether he opened a bakery in the first place. The law changed and now he has faced a situation that he didn't have to consider before.

 

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

As a Christian, I fully support the Baker's side.

As a christian, do you support legislating your religious tenets on those who don't share your beliefs?

 

[Fnord]

the bolded is like, how businesses work, my guy. have you been inside a store before?

if you have a store front on a street that isn't also your home, and you have a front door that opens, as well as hours of availability, and products for sale, you're not running a private business.

Ever look at the fine print on the back of a movie ticket stub? They reserve the right to kick you out at their discretion. The rub is that it doesn't make good business sense to go tossing out paying patrons for no good reason.

 

[HStallion]

As a christian, do you support legislating your religious tenets on those who don't share your beliefs?

Nah you stone them for that.

 

[CampbellzSoup]

As a christian, do you support legislating your religious tenets on those who don't share your beliefs?

Do you support legislation that forces you to do things against your faith?

 

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

Do you support legislation that forces you to do things against your faith?

I don't have a faith. But I am cognizant enough to understand that everyone is not me. I understand that if the law says I can't do a thing, and I do that thing I shouldn't be surprised that there are repercussions.

Seems the baker understands that he cannot violate that law which is why he no longer sells wedding cakes. Which also seems to be why he's pursuing this case under the guise that it is violating his first amendment rights... somehow.

Spoiler

Cakes are speech, apparently.