Cake for gay couple and ESPN blocking religious commercials

[fskimospy]

Topper sometimes.

The cake decoration is always done by the baker except in rare situations.

What if they want rainbow frosting and the baker only stocks a few colors?

Seriously what are you talking about? Do you know what the law says? There's no requirement for the bakery to stock anything different than it normally would, there's no requirement for them to buy special toppers, there's no requirement for them to buy special frosting, there's no requirement for them to do anything else like that.

All it means... the only thing it means...... is that if you sell wedding cakes that you must be willing to offer the same wedding cakes to everyone.

 

[alkemyst]

Seriously what are you talking about? Do you know what the law says? There's no requirement for the bakery to stock anything different than it normally would, there's no requirement for them to buy special toppers, there's no requirement for them to buy special frosting, there's no requirement for them to do anything else like that.

All it means... the only thing it means...... is that if you sell wedding cakes that you must be willing to offer the same wedding cakes to everyone.

My point was when will that happen.

I was under the impression the couple wanted a specialized cake.

 

[fskimospy]

My point was when will that happen.

I was under the impression the couple wanted a specialized cake.

That will never happen, it's not part of the law. You don't need to provide different or special accommodations to protected groups, just the same accommodations you provide to everyone else.

Does that make sense?

 

[Daverino]

Topper sometimes.

The cake decoration is always done by the baker except in rare situations.

What if they want rainbow frosting and the baker only stocks a few colors?

Then that's all fine. The business owner is obligated to make reasonable accommodations, but is not obligated to provide whatever services the customer wants. In the exact same way that a restaurant doesn't have to serve you food that is not on the menu.

If the bakery made a terrible cake and the recipient can reasonably prove that it was made terrible because of the recipient's race, gender, etc, then they could be sued for discrimination because the product delivered was not the same as would be for someone else. At the minimum they'd be looking at a civil case for breach of contract.

 

[alkemyst]

That will never happen, it's not part of the law. You don't need to provide different or special accommodations to protected groups, just the same accommodations you provide to everyone else.

Does that make sense?

I agree with that. However; that was not my argument.

My argument was if and when it happens.

 

[Daverino]

My point was when will that happen.

I was under the impression the couple wanted a specialized cake.

No. Read the case. The couple went in and asked for a wedding cake. Before any details of the cake were discussed, the owner informed the couple that they would not provide a wedding cake for a same sex wedding under any circumstances. The couple then left.

 

[alkemyst]

No. Read the case. The couple went in and asked for a wedding cake. Before any details of the cake were discussed, the owner informed the couple that they would not provide a wedding cake for a same sex wedding under any circumstances. The couple then left.

Does anyone have the cake they ended up with online?

 

[alkemyst]

Lets force a bunch of people who think our marriage is abhorrent come to our wedding and make cakes/flowers/photos for use what could possibly go wrong?😕

So you end up with :

burnt lopsided cake
wilted flowers
out of focus wedding photos.

/libtard logic

Correct. Now I COULD see if there wasn't a baker, florist, etc in the area that another should step up (again, personally I wouldn't care if someone was gay, bi, trans, etc; I just don't want to be forced into it).

I personally think our establishments should only have to follow these guidelines if they are a publicly traded company or government.

I don't buy into the life that everyone gets the blue ribbon and gets #1 place.

 

[Daverino]

I personally think our establishments should only have to follow these guidelines if they are a publicly traded company or government.

Walmart is a private company, among others. So excusing private companies from discrimination laws isn't going to work. The majority of corporations in America are private.

 

[fskimospy]

I agree with that. However; that was not my argument.

My argument was if and when it happens.

No, you said the judge overstepped here when the law was simply being enforced. To require those things you mentioned would require a new law that would never happen.

 

[alkemyst]

Walmart is a private company, among others. So excusing private companies from discrimination laws isn't going to work. The majority of corporations in America are private.

I am ok with that. There are non-private companies out there.

I don't agree with our government and our people wanting to force these issues.

I don't have problems with race, creed, gender, sexual preference, etc. I have a VERY diversified social circle.

Yet we have establishments that can say the right to bear arms doesn't apply in their place of business and that is in our CONSTITUTION.

You guys are attacking me like I am anti-gay. That is not the case at all.

I believe an American should be able to open a business and serve anyone they chose.

 

[alkemyst]

No, you said the judge overstepped here when the law was simply being enforced. To require those things you mentioned would require a new law that would never happen.

What I read (not on this thread) showed a cake that was customized. I was travelling in California when I saw this on the news.

If it was just a typical cash and carry cake, then that is fine...however; I see this stemming into more control.

Our government is trying really hard to get us all to conform. That is scary to me.

 

[fskimospy]

What I read (not on this thread) showed a cake that was customized. I was travelling in California when I saw this on the news.

If it was just a typical cash and carry cake, then that is fine...however; I see this stemming into more control.

Our government is trying really hard to get us all to conform. That is scary to me.

These laws have been on the books for half a century.

 

[alkemyst]

These laws have been on the books for half a century.

Yes, but only enforced majorly recently. Sadly in the past 30 years, homosexuals were common fodder for most.

We are being pushed harder and harder to conform.

This is my problem.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, but only enforced majorly recently. Sadly in the past 30 years, homosexuals were common fodder for most.

We are being pushed harder and harder to conform.

This is my problem.

Eisenhower called out the national guard to force states to give equal access to black people.

If anything enforcement has become less common.

 

[alkemyst]

Eisenhower called out the national guard to force states to give equal access to black people.

If anything enforcement has become less common.

votes.

 

[nehalem256]

No. Read the case. The couple went in and asked for a wedding cake. Before any details of the cake were discussed, the owner informed the couple that they would not provide a wedding cake for a same sex wedding under any circumstances. The couple then left.

But if either one of the gay men had married a woman* he would have gladly made them a wedding cake.

Once again discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation not found.

*something which is in fact highly possible:

The evidence also suggests that a large number of gay men are married to women.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/08/opinion/sunday/how-many-american-men-are-gay.html?_r=0

Once again marriage has nothing to do with sexual orientation

This is nothing more than government endorsing a right to not have your feelings hurt if you are gay.

 

[fskimospy]

But if either one of the gay men had married a woman* he would have gladly made them a wedding cake.

Once again discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation not found.

*something which is in fact highly possible:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/08/opinion/sunday/how-many-american-men-are-gay.html?_r=0

Once again marriage has nothing to do with sexual orientation

This is nothing more than government endorsing a right to not have your feelings hurt if you are gay.

Please reference the earlier quote from SCOTUS on this matter. How did you forget so quickly?

 

[nehalem256]

Please reference the earlier quote from SCOTUS on this matter. How did you forget so quickly?

Why would I neeed to read what the SCOTUS says when I have FACTS from reality. I now have unequivocal proof that sexual orientation and marriage are not related to each other.

The evidence also suggests that a large number of gay men are married to women.

FACTS trump SCOTUS.

If the SCOTUS disagrees with FACTS then it is wrong. Clearly according to you the SCOTUS is ignoring facts to push a liberal homosexual agenda.

 

[fskimospy]

Why would I neeed to read what the SCOTUS says when I have FACTS from reality. I now have unequivocal proof that sexual orientation and marriage are not related to each other.


FACTS trump SCOTUS.

If the SCOTUS disagrees with FACTS then it is wrong. Clearly according to you the SCOTUS is ignoring facts to push a liberal homosexual agenda.

Nah, it's just that you don't understand the law, as this thread has amply shown.

 

[nehalem256]

Nah, it's just that you don't understand the law, as this thread has amply shown.

Nope, its nothing more than liberals attempting to legislate/judicate thought crime.

Liberals claimed same-sex marriage would not affect straight people. Seems pretty clear that was a lie.

 

[shadow9d9]

Nope, its nothing more than liberals attempting to legislate/judicate thought crime.

Liberals claimed same-sex marriage would not affect straight people. Seems pretty clear that was a lie.

You haven't been allowed to discriminate as a business in this country for a loooong time. Get with the times bigot!

 

[shadow9d9]

Correct. Now I COULD see if there wasn't a baker, florist, etc in the area that another should step up (again, personally I wouldn't care if someone was gay, bi, trans, etc; I just don't want to be forced into it).

I personally think our establishments should only have to follow these guidelines if they are a publicly traded company or government.

I don't buy into the life that everyone gets the blue ribbon and gets #1 place.

Yeah, why should I be FORCED to serve all kinds of people when running a business open to the public!?

Don't worry. You'll never get a first place for anything here...

 

[werepossum]

You haven't been allowed to discriminate as a business in this country for a loooong time. Get with the times bigot!

Actually you can, as the OP's example of ESPN shows. Don't want to sell advertising space to religious groups or firearms manufacturers? No problem. Don't want to sell advertising space to groups opposing Obamacare when your "news" lineup is promoting it? Feds got your back bro.

In theory businesses can't discriminate, but in reality discrimination is supported as long as no protected groups are harmed.

 

[umbrella39]

Nope, its nothing more than liberals...

Ah... the sound of you officially marginalizing yourself. Reality and its usual liberal leanings have defeated you yet again. Face it, there isn't much left for you to do except lose more.