End of baker story. Bakery will have to pay same-sex couple up to $150K

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,667
8,021
136
No, it was the colonies of an absolute monarchy.

People own the land today. The minimum wage is not communism.
Zork has no idea of history or reality. Unless you're just wanting to make fun of him by making him continue airing his lunacy in public, any and all debate is over.

He actually believes that there wasn't a government when the British Crown owned all of the land.

He clearly has no idea of the Articles of Confederation, and why the US GOVERNMENT no longer uses it.

He is delusional.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,498
50,651
136
People owned the land, not Government. People decided fair wages, not Government. There was no Government to speak of.

-John

There was plenty of government back then. You're clueless.

You're right though, people decided fair wages. Like when they decided that the fair wages for their slaves were zero.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Some people think that the only time they're being treated fairly is when they're receiving special treatment.
Yep.

This might be hard for you to understand, but by forcing a person to serve another person, you are more or less inflicting slavery.

As the Government grows, and makes more and more of itself the "right" thing, individual freedom is lost.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

-John
It's true that we lose individual freedom when government steps into cases like this. Pretty much all government involves loss of individual freedom. In return, we gain protection and opportunity. The absolute most freedom one can have is when there is no government and no other people around. There is not, however, all that much protection and opportunity. While one alone in the wilderness can be anything he or she chooses to be, that had better be something that produces food and shelter, and doesn't encounter anything beyond one person's ability to defeat. Maximum freedom, very little protection or opportunity. This is why people institute governments, to willingly trade individual freedom for protection and opportunity.

Philosophically I am against government stepping in and telling a business owner how he must run his business. Pragmatically, I recognize intrusions like this as the lesser evil. We're supposed to be the world's melting pot, all cultures melded into one American culture, individuals united in their individualism, not a bunch of special interest groups who patronize (or can patronize) only their own kind's establishments. We can't be individuals if we allow others to group us into discrete groups and define our treatment by that group identity.

And in the end, if a business owner is fair and reasonable to all customers, and guided by pure capitalism, this will not affect him in the slightest.
 

motsm

Golden Member
Jan 20, 2010
1,822
2
76
First, it wouldn't be a legal violation. It just wouldn't be recognized.
Semantics, you know exactly what I was saying.
Second, the same things were said about those uppity negroes in the 1950s. They should just suck it up and go to another lunch counter, even though they aren't doing anything wrong and the lunch counter is violating the law.
From my understanding a church can refuse to marry a gay couple if it's against their religious beliefs, and be protected by the state. That same couple can apparently go next door and request an item to support that wedding and get refused for the same exact reason, however in that scenario they can sue the business. So I see that as being significantly different than your over the top "negro" argument.

Besides, I agreed they have the legal right, I just think they are a couple cunts. They want their gayness protected, the baker wants his religious ghost spirit protected. In my opinion, it's a wash of ass holes, but the ass hole that brought the law into things comes out to me as the most hatable, and in this case, it was dykes over fundies.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Da'troll is strong here today. A business serving all the public without prejudice is Nazi Germany reborn. Too bad I think it is the opposite.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,667
8,021
136
Semantics, you know exactly what I was saying.From my understanding a church can refuse to marry a gay couple if it's against their religious beliefs, and be protected by the state. That same couple can apparently go next door and request an item to support that wedding and get refused for the same exact reason, however in that scenario they can sue the business. So I see that as being significantly different than your over the top "negro" argument.
A church isn't a public business (well, they are, but that's an entirely different thread).

You don't need to procure a license to open a church.

Besides, I agreed they have the legal right, I just think they are a couple cunts. They want their gayness protected, the baker wants his religious ghost spirit protected. In my opinion, it's a wash of ass holes, but the ass hole that brought the law into things comes out to me as the most hatable, and in this case, it was dykes over fundies.
Clearly you have a problem with gays and women. Otherwise, why the use of wise and beautiful woman and ***?

I'm not sure why a gay woman shouldn't have the same rights and expectations as a straight man. Unless straight men are more valuable and deserve special rights as compared to a gay woman.
 

motsm

Golden Member
Jan 20, 2010
1,822
2
76
A church isn't a public business (well, they are, but that's an entirely different thread).

You don't need to procure a license to open a church.


Clearly you have a problem with gays and women. Otherwise, why the use of wise and beautiful woman and ***?

I'm not sure why a gay woman shouldn't have the same rights and expectations as a straight man. Unless straight men are more valuable and deserve special rights as compared to a gay woman.
I personally just see it as a protected class circle jerk, which is why I don't like that legal action was taken by either side, but I think I've made that clear. As for disliking gays and women, I specifically dislike the two gays, and the female baker in this story. The baker is a wise and beautiful woman for denying to make the cake in the first place, and the gay couple are dykes for bringing the law into it. I don't think I need to explain that further, especially considering excessive language is against the rules here.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,667
8,021
136
I personally just see it as a protected class circle jerk, which is why I don't like that legal action was taken by either side, but I think I've made that clear. As for disliking gays and women, I specifically dislike the two gays, and the female baker in this story. The baker is a wise and beautiful woman for denying to make the cake in the first place, and the gay couple are dykes for bringing the law into it. I don't think I need to explain that further, especially considering excessive language is against the rules here.
Fair enough.

Ultimately, it was just a terrible business decision by a terrible business.

What? You want to give me enough money to make a profit in my business?! Gross! Get out!

What an idiot.
 

motsm

Golden Member
Jan 20, 2010
1,822
2
76
Fair enough.

Ultimately, it was just a terrible business decision by a terrible business.

What? You want to give me enough money to make a profit in my business?! Gross! Get out!

What an idiot.
Very bad business decision indeed, since from what I understand the backlash led to the bakery being shut down.