Cake for gay couple and ESPN blocking religious commercials

[Paratus]

Do I need to put it in extra large font for you? He clearly has no issue with serving "the evil gays".

We'll let see Einstein,

The company would bake a cake for Alice and Bobs wedding but not for Alice and Betty.

What could be the difference? :hmm:

Oh Betty is discriminated against due to her sex. Which happens to be illegal.
You can argue with that and look like a moron, or see the plain logic.

I know which one you'll pick! 😉

Also
Why do you think business should be allowed to engage in illegal practices? Are there any other illegal practices they should be allowed to engage in? Just because?

 

[fskimospy]

Its not irrelevant at all.

If 2 straight dudes can get married just like 2 gay dudes then there cannot be discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation if the baker refuses to bake cakes for both weddings.

This should be immediately obvious to anyone who isn't interested in ramming a gay agenda down everyone's throat.

Incorrect. The discrimination is not in who is getting married, it is discrimination in refusing to provide services based on sexual orientation. In this case, wedding cake service.

This should be immediately obvious to anyone who is not bigoted and irrational.

 

[nehalem256]

We'll let see Einstein,

The company would bake a cake for Alice and Bobs wedding but not for Alice and Betty.

What could be the difference? :hmm:

Oh Betty is discriminated against due to her sex. Which happens to be illegal.
You can argue with that and look like a moron, or see the plain logic.

I know which one you'll pick! 😉

Also
Why do you think business should be allowed to engage in illegal practices? Are there any other illegal practices they should be allowed to engage in? Just because?

They also would not bake a cake for Bob and Alex who are straight men.

So they discriminate equally against same-sex couples regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

No illegal business practices found.

 

[nehalem256]

Incorrect. The discrimination is not in who is getting married, it is discrimination in refusing to provide services based on sexual orientation. In this case, wedding cake service.

Except they would not provide wedding services to a straight same-sex couple either. So discrimination based on sexual orientation not found.

 

[Texashiker]

That's clearly a lie. He is not allowed to discriminate on what services he provides to people based on their sexual orientation.

Which should be protected to a higher degree, civil rights that are protected by law (passed by congress signed by president), or rights that are protected by the bill of rights?

Gun ownership has been protected since the late 1700s.

Gay rights have only recently become protected.

 

[shadow9d9]

They wanted a same-sex wedding cake.

But hey lets go to the obvious counter situation. If some bigoted Christian came to a gay dudes cakeshop and wanted a "Gays will burn in hell" cake, should the gay dude be forced to bake said cake?:hmm:

Their cake was about them getting married. It said nothing about anyone burning in hell. Very, very poor comparison. It IS part of the talking points being handed down though!

They wanted a cake used for a wedding. They make cakes! But again, I am agreeing with you! Hell, they might even have to TOUCH the gheys when they hand them the cake. This CANNOT be allowed!

 

[fskimospy]

Which should be protected to a higher degree, civil rights that are protected by law (passed by congress signed by president), or rights that are protected by the bill of rights?

There is no right to deny customers service based on their sexual orientation in the Bill of Rights. Freedom of religion does not cover it. (this has been brought up in other court cases and has lost)

 

[fskimospy]

Except they would not provide wedding services to a straight same-sex couple either. So discrimination based on sexual orientation not found.

Again, this illogical argument has been raised by you before and has lost. You are seriously insane.

 

[shadow9d9]

Which should be protected to a higher degree, civil rights that are protected by law (passed by congress signed by president), or rights that are protected by the bill of rights?

Gun ownership has been protected since the late 1700s.

Gay rights have only recently become protected.

Equal. There is no priority list of which rights are more important.

Besides, things change. Guns have changed and society has changed. But that is a completely separate issue.

 

[Oldgamer]

You know, I am not so sure it would be wise to eat a cake that someone was forced to make you, who clearly hates you...because no telling what they may have put into that cake. 🙂

 

[nehalem256]

They wanted a cake used for a wedding. They make cakes! But again, I am agreeing with you! Hell, they might even have to TOUCH the gheys when they hand them the cake. This CANNOT be allowed!

So again you are failing at reading comprehsion. Baker at no issue making them a birthday cake. Are you suggesting it would for some reason be more likely to touch them when handing over a wedding cake?

Again, this illogical argument has been raised by you before and has lost. You are seriously insane.

Its only illogical if 2 straight dudes can't get married. Why wouldn't 2 straight dudes want all the same benefits as 2 gay dudes? What law is there against it?

 

[Incorruptible]

There is a lot of double standards here. The bakery owner has the right to discriminate because it's private property but he shouldn't though.

ESPN also has the right to discriminate but they were clearly idiots and in the wrong. Good thing that Bill O'Reilly got involved and those morons got scared and backed off.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Which should be protected to a higher degree, civil rights that are protected by law (passed by congress signed by president), or rights that are protected by the bill of rights?

This is one issue where I actually sort of agree with you; I do think it's a touch disingenuous for people to say that you must respect differences of opinion for one matter (like sexual orientation) but not another (like religious views). But the argument you put forward in the above post - that religious views as espoused in a paid commercial advertisement - are covered by the First Amendment seems... well, not correct.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

A private company refusing to air a religious commercial is not Congress (or any legislative body) making a law respecting an establishment of religion, nor is it preventing the church from freely exercising their religion. It simply means that ESPN is not going to air their religiously motivated commercial. Now, if ESPN airs other religious commercials but not that one, then they'd be discriminating based on religion, which is not actually illegal according to the First Amendment, but is illegal according to the same law that protects discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In the context of that law, neither one "trumps" the other, so neither should be "protected to a higher degree" per your question.

 

[Texashiker]

Equal. There is no priority list of which rights are more important.

Cake company forced to serve gays.

NFL gets to turn away Daniel Defense.

And you see nothing wrong with that?

This is one issue where I actually sort of agree with you;

Thank you.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Though i think the couple that sued them are assholes. they had many other bakery's they could go to but chose this one and sued over it. just move on to another baker and get the damn cake made. but not they chose this for a "point'

There were other seats available on the bus.

 

[Paratus]

They also would not bake a cake for Bob and Alex who are straight men.

So they discriminate equally against same-sex couples regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

No illegal business practices found.

:biggrin: damn your stupid

I just lol'd

Don't know what no discrimination of sex means do you? 😛

Well I knew you'd pick moron and you did. :thumbsup:

Don't ever change!

 

[Paratus]

There were other seats available on the bus.

No no, according to Nehalem it's fine to discriminate against blacks as long as they equally discriminate against latino's too!:biggrin:

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I've had nehalem on Ignore for a while now, and my only regret is missing out on his wonderfully constructed yarns about a plague of straight people getting same-sex marriages specifically for the purpose of taking advantage of bakers and florists. Fortunately, whenever he spins a truly great piece of fantasy, people will quote it and I can bask in the glory of creative genius.

 

[nehalem256]

:biggrin: damn your stupid

I just lol'd

Don't know what no discrimination of sex means do you? 😛

Well I knew you'd pick moron and you did. :thumbsup:

Don't ever change!

If I refuse to sell a wedding cake to 2 men, and I refuse to sell a wedding cake to 2 women. Which sex am I discriminating against?

 

[Paratus]

There is a lot of double standards here. The bakery owner has the right to discriminate because it's private property but he shouldn't though.

ESPN also has the right to discriminate but they were clearly idiots and in the wrong. Good thing that Bill O'Reilly got involved and those morons got scared and backed off.

No the bakery does not because the discrimination was illegal. Business may not perform illegal practices.


And Incorruptible




Happy Holidays! ()🙂

 

[shadow9d9]

Cake company forced to serve gays.

NFL gets to turn away Daniel Defense.

And you see nothing wrong with that?




Thank you.

Cake company forced to make cake for everyone.

I have no interest in the NFL and do not follow it, so I can't comment on that.

 

[Paratus]

If I refuse to sell a wedding cake to 2 men, and I refuse to sell a wedding cake to 2 women. Which sex am I discriminating against?

All of them. On the basis of sex. Which is illegal.

Why do you insist companies may perform illegal practices.

 

[halik]

I'm gay and I would have just gone to a different bakery and vote with my dollars.

If I owned a bakery and Grover Norquist came in, I'd refuse him service.

Don't they have the right to refuse service to anyone?

About this. People have rights to idiotic views; don't see how does gov't come into play here.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Cake company forced to serve gays.

They aren't forced to serve gays, they aren't allowed to say "yes" to straight weddings and "no" to gay weddings. They could do zero weddings and not be guilty of discrimination.

 

[shadow9d9]

So again you are failing at reading comprehsion. Baker at no issue making them a birthday cake. Are you suggesting it would for some reason be more likely to touch them when handing over a wedding cake?



Its only illogical if 2 straight dudes can't get married. Why wouldn't 2 straight dudes want all the same benefits as 2 gay dudes? What law is there against it?

He had an issue making a cake. It is not up to him to decide what people use their cakes for. There is no evidence of any hateful writing on the cake.