• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Gays and Their Damn Wedding Cakes! 12/5 for SCOTUS Arguments

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Although I'm not religious at all, when I see differences like this, "wars of morality," I often ask myself, WWJD? The Buddha?
 
senseamp said:
I think if it's about making a specific artwork for a cake, he'd have a leg to stand on. But if it's plainly saying he won't make a wedding cake for a gay couple, even identical to one he would be OK making for a straight couple, then he is in the discrimination weeds. But this SCOTUS is not about common sense, it's about pushing a Republican agenda, so I think he is going to win.

He does not serve them wedding cakes,regardless of design.
Click to expand...

ah now you are being specific. you are correct he does not use his art to promote activities that goes against his beliefs. he does not make custom cakes for gay marriage,, Halloween bachelor or bachelorette parties. BUT HE DOES SELL HIS NON CUSTOM STUFF TO EVERYBODY>
 
OutHouse said:
yea this will be interesting. LGBT are protected but not the rights of the artist of free speech and freedom of religion? the court now has to decide whos civil liberties are more important. its a mess.
Click to expand...
In Colorado, businesses give up some of those rights in favor of the law and its protections. You wanna sell? Play by the rules! SCOTUS indeed has some cleanup to do. Where they come down (my bet is on the side of the gays edit: and the state) will have huge ramifications.
 
Last edited:
bradly1101 said:
In Colorado, businesses give up some of those rights in favor of the law and its protections. You wanna sell? Play by the rules! SCOTUS indeed has some cleanup to do. Where they come down (my bet is on the side of the gays) will have huge ramifications.
Click to expand...

the ramifications will be huge no matter who the SCOTUS rules in favor of.
 
senseamp said:
Baker refused to bake them a cake, period. It never got to design.
Click to expand...
Do you know whats so ironic about all of this? Jesus said to do all things as unto the Lord so if that baker really was a Christian he should bake those gay couples and all of his customers for that matter the best damned cakes they ever laid eyes on.

Jaskalas said:
He'd sell them the god damn cake. 😛
Click to expand...
Yes he would and he'd be very kind to them during the process.
 
Last edited:
bradly1101 said:
Wow! So much litigation for not selling cakes to gays. Arguments to start on 12/5. Should be interesting.

Should businesses be allowed to discriminate against customers? Even if they're GAY?!

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cakeshop-ltd-v-colorado-civil-rights-commn/
Click to expand...


How far do you go with this though?

I think we're living in a time period where not doing it with a smile on your face will simply result in a loss of business as well as bad publicity for your cake shop.

But why are we limiting it to just cakes? How about priests or whomever officiating the wedding, even though the wedding goes completely against their religion? How about a stripper that you want to hire that isn't gay but you want him to strip and dance on someone of the same sex? How about prostitution. Are you discriminating if you refuse to sell your sexual services to a black gay male with aids? You just discriminated on three counts there!

I'm just saying that it gets dicey real quick and it's a very slippery slope. I personally don't think we need laws or enforcement on matters like this. Please don't be ridiculous and compare this to the days of not serving blacks in restaurants. As I said, you're a fool to give up business based on your beliefs (IMO), but let people be stupid.

Sonikku said:
Bisexual myself. I think that if businesses don't want to sell their product to someone that it is their right, with the caveat being that by that same token, we can also choose not to patron said company with our business. Capitalism has the answer to this problem. I would much rather pay my money to a business that supports said causes, and let capitalism sort it all out.

Now that's talking about a cake, mind you. A product. Something like medical care or life and death services is another matter entirely. A doctor for example shouldn't be able to deny treatment to someone because they're gay or married to a gay partner. But something like a cake? I think businesses should be able to sell a consumer product to whoever they do or don't want to, if that makes sense.
Click to expand...

Ding ding, we have a weiner.
 
s0me0nesmind1 said:
How about priests or whomever officiating the wedding, even though the wedding goes completely against their religion?
Click to expand...

Establishment Clause covers this. Also a church is not a business.

How about a stripper that you want to hire that isn't gay but you want him to strip and dance on someone of the same sex?
Click to expand...

I take it you don't know many strippers.

How about prostitution. Are you discriminating if you refuse to sell your sexual services to a black gay male with aids? You just discriminated on three counts there!
Click to expand...

This is, outside a few localities, an illegal business.

I'm just saying that it gets dicey real quick and it's a very slippery slope. I personally don't think we need laws or enforcement on matters like this. Please don't be ridiculous and compare this to the days of not serving blacks in restaurants. As I said, you're a fool to give up business based on your beliefs (IMO), but let people be stupid.
Click to expand...

It's not ridiculous. The concept of public accommodation is not only desirable it is necessary. Nobody is forced to go into business so if you can't abide by the legal requirements imposed then you should not be in a public business.
 
Last edited:
s0me0nesmind1 said:
How far do you go with this though?

I think we're living in a time period where not doing it with a smile on your face will simply result in a loss of business as well as bad publicity for your cake shop.

But why are we limiting it to just cakes? How about priests or whomever officiating the wedding, even though the wedding goes completely against their religion? How about a stripper that you want to hire that isn't gay but you want him to strip and dance on someone of the same sex? How about prostitution. Are you discriminating if you refuse to sell your sexual services to a black gay male with aids? You just discriminated on three counts there!

I'm just saying that it gets dicey real quick and it's a very slippery slope. I personally don't think we need laws or enforcement on matters like this. Please don't be ridiculous and compare this to the days of not serving blacks in restaurants. As I said, you're a fool to give up business based on your beliefs (IMO), but let people be stupid.



Ding ding, we have a weiner.
Click to expand...
You’re telling others not to be ridiculous and yet all you can come up with is strippers and prostitution to make your point? Riiiiight.

You want to run a business, you abide by the laws that govern that business. It’s that simple.
 
After the Hobby Lobby decision it seems logical that people can exempt themselves from basically any law they don’t like so long as they think it conflicts with their religious beliefs. This is why Hobby Lobby is one of the worst decisions of all time.

Public accommodation laws are a great thing, but nonsense cases like this strike at the heart of them. Of course the baker should have to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. If he opens his business to serve the public then he must serve the public without discrimination. It’s common sense. He’s not being forced to marry the couple, he’s not being forced to write ‘I love gay marriage’, he’s just providing a cake.

These business owners need to grow up and take some personal responsibility for their choices. You decided to open a business, now accept the consequences.
 
K1052 said:
Establishment Clause covers this. Also a church is not a business.
I take it you don't know many strippers.
Click to expand...

Great, so you're discriminating that all strippers are whores that will fuck, suck, and take anything from anything that breathes....


This is, outside a few localities, an illegal business.
Click to expand...

That doesn't negate the point. The bunny ranch exists, so I'm very well sure this situation can be a reality.

It's not ridiculous. The concept of public accommodation is not only desirable it is necessary. Nobody is forced to go into business so if you can't abide by the legal requirements imposed then you should not be in a public business.
Click to expand...

And no one is saying that. If they wanted to buy a basic cake that would be one thing - I'm sure anyone would happily sell it. It's what they intend to write-on it and present it that goes against the person's morals and beliefs
 
senseamp said:
Gorsuch is going to vote against the gay couple, you don't have to go to a fortune teller for that one. He ruled for Hobby Lobby's "right" to exempt itself from laws and deny women birth control because their owners happened to be Christian.
Click to expand...
True. Too true. And they can surprise.
 
Puffnstuff said:
Do you know whats so ironic about all of this? Jesus said to do all things as unto the Lord so if that baker really was a Christian he should bake those gay couples and all of his customers for that matter the best damned cakes they ever laid eyes on.
Click to expand...
I think with Roy Moore and Trump, we can see what evangelical Christianity is all about. A bunch of self righteous horseshit in service of a political agenda in service of business interests.
 
fskimospy said:
After the Hobby Lobby decision it seems logical that people can exempt themselves from basically any law they don’t like so long as they think it conflicts with their religious beliefs. This is why Hobby Lobby is one of the worst decisions of all time.

Public accommodation laws are a great thing, but nonsense cases like this strike at the heart of them. Of course the baker should have to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. If he opens his business to serve the public then he must serve the public without discrimination. It’s common sense. He’s not being forced to marry the couple, he’s not being forced to write ‘I love gay marriage’, he’s just providing a cake.

These business owners need to grow up and take some personal responsibility for their choices. You decided to open a business, now accept the consequences.
Click to expand...

That's not how the Republican SCOTUS sees it. Rights of corporations are above all, then Christians, then everyone else.
 
s0me0nesmind1 said:
Great, so you're discriminating that all strippers are whores that will fuck, suck, and take anything from anything that breathes....
Click to expand...

I reiterate, you don't know many strippers.

That doesn't negate the point. The bunny ranch exists, so I'm very well sure this situation can be a reality.
Click to expand...

I don't think the Bunny Ranch currently employs any men so the odds of a gay male frequenting the establishment would seem to be nonexistant. You can't demand a business offer a service that they don't and are unwilling to provide. Also there is no need to leave Vegas, or even your hotel room, if you want to buy gay sex.

And no one is saying that. If they wanted to buy a basic cake that would be one thing - I'm sure anyone would happily sell it. It's what they intend to write-on it and present it that goes against the person's morals and beliefs
Click to expand...

If you sell wedding cakes to the public I don't see a good legal argument for not supplying them to a same sex couple as required by the relevant state law pursuant to the terms of your business license. If said bakery did not make or sell wedding cakes they could not be compelled to do so, but they do.
 
senseamp said:
I think with Roy Moore and Trump, we can see what evangelical Christianity is all about. A bunch of self righteous horseshit in service of a political agenda in service of business interests.
Click to expand...
I consider evangelicals to be of the very same ilk as radical Muslims because neither serves the greater good.
 
s0me0nesmind1 said:
Great, so you're discriminating that all strippers are whores that will fuck, suck, and take anything from anything that breathes....

That doesn't negate the point. The bunny ranch exists, so I'm very well sure this situation can be a reality.

And no one is saying that. If they wanted to buy a basic cake that would be one thing - I'm sure anyone would happily sell it. It's what they intend to write-on it and present it that goes against the person's morals and beliefs
Click to expand...

So you are saying that people should be immune from public accommodation laws if they think someone purchasing a product from them might use it in the future to participate in activity that’s against your religious beliefs? That’s a pretty huge expansion of the first amendment as now it not only protects people from themselves engaging in conduct they don’t believe in, it protects them from engaging in conduct with others if they believe others might not follow their religious beliefs.

Can clothing stores not sell gay people suits because they might use them to get married in? Can a car service refuse to drive them to the courthouse because they might get married there? Can religions who don’t believe in the mixing of races refuse to sell to interrracial couples?
 
Wait, so getting a cake baked for you is a right?

Oh, its not? Time to move on to another establishment that will sell you a cake, or why not just make one yourself? Bakers are free to sell, or not sell, any of their wares to anyone they want. Patrons are free to utilize, or not, any services offered by an establishment. Seems like the sort of thing capitalism would sort out on its own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top