• 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.

Let's Play "Spot the Irony!"

Perknose

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
In January, co-owner Aaron Klein had denied a request to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding. “The Bible tells us to flee from sin,” his wife and business namesake, Melissa Klein told a Fox News columnist recently. “I don’t think making a cake for it helps.

[...]

The final nail in the coffin came in August when the slighted lesbian couple filed an anti-discrimination suit with the state. “The LGBT attacks are the reason we are shutting down the shop. They have killed our business through mob tactics,” Klein said. His wife added: “I guess in my mind I thought we lived in a lot nicer of a world where everybody tolerated everybody.”
Click to expand...

Go! Go! Go!

Pro tip: There's a huge hint in the formatting! 😛
 
bwaaa hahahahha

Sorry, Nelson puts it much better than I can
To the bigoted bakery
nelson-bbpin.gif
 
Are there no other bakeries in the town from which to purchase a cake?

Why would you want someone you yourself don't like to bake your wedding cake?

Seriously, this whole scenario is fucking stupid. Should LGBTQ be allowed to marry each other? Yes. Should a bakery be allowed to bake a cake made of whatever they want and sell it for whatever they want? Yes. Should the two be forced to do business with each other? No.
 
In all seriousness, if you don't want to serve someone why should you be forced to? I think this is pathetic on both sides of the aisle. Go across the street to another cake owner that isn't a dumbass.
 
s0me0nesmind1 said:
In all seriousness, if you don't want to serve someone why should you be forced to? I think this is pathetic on both sides of the aisle. Go across the street to another cake owner that isn't a dumbass.
Click to expand...

I think capitalism worked.

Owners refused service to a customer they didn't want to serve.
Customer spread the word.
Owner lost business.
Owner had to close because of lack of business.

What I don't get is why so many people wanted the government involved.
 
rudeguy said:
I think capitalism worked.

Owners refused service to a customer they didn't want to serve.
Customer spread the word.
Owner lost business.
Owner had to close because of lack of business.

What I don't get is why so many people wanted the government involved.
Click to expand...

So wait, what was their closing based on - Lawsuits from the LGBT or from an overall lack of business from spreading the rumors?


After thinking about it - Ultimately here is where I stand on the issue:
I think you shouldn't be able to refuse your business (In this sense, a store anyone can walk into) under the assumption it is a simple product that is already made: (EX: Come in and buy a batch of cookies). When you want your product customized to something that could be offensive... I think that is where I would draw the line and say the owner can legally refuse.

Let's mix up the scenario: A black woman has a business of making cakes. A Klan leader comes in and wants a festive dozen cakes with the KKK logo and lynchings on each of their cakes. Should the owner/Cake maker not be able to refuse that?
 
rudeguy said:
I think capitalism worked.

Owners refused service to a customer they didn't want to serve.
Customer spread the word.
Owner lost business.
Owner had to close because of lack of business.

What I don't get is why so many people wanted the government involved.
Click to expand...


How many times in all of these threads do you need to have the Constitution explained to you, Rudy?
 
I see why the topic can be hot button.

We the people decided to use government to force others to cater to and serve others. We made a list of reasons you cannot refuse service, and orientation is on that list.

Does the ends justify the means?

Clearly we are being heavy handed in micromanaging other people, but I'm sure a lot of folks say that's worth the sacrifice to form a better society. That to participate in our society you cannot be a bigot.
 
Jaskalas said:
I see why the topic can be hot button.

We the people decided to use government to force others to cater to and serve others. We made a list of reasons you cannot refuse service, and orientation is on that list.

Does the ends justify the means?

Clearly we are being heavy handed in micromanaging other people, but I'm sure a lot of folks say that's worth the sacrifice to form a better society. That to participate in our society you cannot be a bigot.
Click to expand...

You can be a bigot all you want.

You just can't deny other people their rights because of your bigotry.
 
rudeguy said:
I think capitalism worked.

Owners refused service to a customer they didn't want to serve.
Customer spread the word.
Owner lost business.
Owner had to close because of lack of business.

What I don't get is why so many people wanted the government involved.
Click to expand...

Was it exactly like that though? I wonder what they meant by "mob tactics". Perhaps they were subjected to a kind of concerted internet and real life assault that made remaining open intolerable.

Maybe that's the deeper irony here. Refusing service is a clear sign of a person holding a certain opinion, but I'm not sure I would call it intolerance. They may tolerate the LGBT community alright, they just want nothing to do with them. The LGBT community on the other hand appeared to not be able to tolerate that opinion one bit. They apparently hounded the business right out of business. Isn't that what someone who really cannot tolerate something would do? So the group that typically crusades against intolerance went on to participate in it. Is that irony, or just a contradiction? Sometimes I get the two mixed up.
 
Last edited:
i play music at weddings and wouldn't do it at a gay wedding, but i wouldn't say why. i'd just tell them i am too busy. much easier that way.
 
SlitheryDee said:
Was it exactly like that though? I wonder what they meant by "mob tactics". Perhaps they were subjected to a kind of concerted internet and real life assault that made remaining open intolerable.

Maybe that's the deeper irony here. Refusing service is a clear sign of a person holding a certain opinion, but I'm not sure I would call it intolerance. They may tolerate the LGBT community alright, they just want nothing to do with them. The LGBT community on the other hand appeared to not be able to tolerate that opinion one bit. They apparently hounded the business right out of business. Isn't that what someone who really cannot tolerate something would do? So the group that typically crusades against intolerance went on to participate in it. Is that irony, or just a contradiction? Sometimes I get the two mixed up.
Click to expand...

Iunno

I would welcome and proactively advertise to gays and lesbians if I owned a small business. They are some of the best customers I have ever had. When I was in sales I had some really good gay customers. They spent more than the average customer, were fiercely loyal and always sent their friends in to see me. You would have to be an idiot to not want them as customers.

BUT it's perfectly legal to be an idiot.
 
rudeguy said:
Iunno

I would welcome and proactively advertise to gays and lesbians if I owned a small business. They are some of the best customers I have ever had. When I was in sales I had some really good gay customers. They spent more than the average customer, were fiercely loyal and always sent their friends in to see me. You would have to be an idiot to not want them as customers.

BUT it's perfectly legal to be an idiot.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree. Their money is as green as anyone's. I've never seen the sense in refusing service to make a point, and it doesn't sound like the law was ever a factor in this case. Just societal consequences for making a lot of people angry. Perhaps all is as it should be.
 
SlitheryDee said:
Was it exactly like that though? I wonder what they meant by "mob tactics". Perhaps they were subjected to a kind of concerted internet and real life assault that made remaining open intolerable.

Maybe that's the deeper irony here. Refusing service is a clear sign of a person holding a certain opinion, but I'm not sure I would call it intolerance. They may tolerate the LGBT community alright, they just want nothing to do with them. The LGBT community on the other hand appeared to not be able to tolerate that opinion one bit. They apparently hounded the business right out of business. Isn't that what someone who really cannot tolerate something would do? So the group that typically crusades against intolerance went on to participate in it. Is that irony, or just a contradiction? Sometimes I get the two mixed up.
Click to expand...

No. That's Pretzel Logic.


Surely you're smarter than to believe that hash you just slung?
 
tynopik said:
They weren't denied service because of their orientation
Click to expand...

They were buying a cake for a lesbian wedding, and the small context we are provided suggests that they were denied service because of their orientation.

s0me0nesmind1 said:
In all seriousness, if you don't want to serve someone why should you be forced to? I think this is pathetic on both sides of the aisle. Go across the street to another cake owner that isn't a dumbass.
Click to expand...

What if there was no bakery across the street? What if the other bakery was run by bigoted asshats as well and refused service?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top