Court rules against Oregon bakers who refused to make gay wedding cake [W:1685]

ReverendHellh0und said:

So why don't gay people go into muslim cake shops and order cakes? I may have a couple friends try it. :lol:

Click to expand...

Go for it. Be sure to ask for items that they actually offer for sale. Let me know how it goes preferably with video and sound recording.

ReverendHellh0und said:

So I can go to a muslim bakery and demand they make me a bangers and mash cake (bangers has pork in it), or a mohammed cake? How many other bakeries would be happy to bake them a cake? how many did they pass including muslim owned ones to seek these people out.


Do people have a right to religious freedom, freedom of association, and freedom to conduct business or do they not?


I would not buy a cake from these people, but I don't think it's outside thier rights to say they dont want to bake a gay cake,.

Click to expand...

What's a gay cake? Also, does the Muslim bakery bake banger and mash cakes already for everyone else and not gays? Nope they don't so your entire argument is BS.

JasperL said:

And discriminating based on arbitrary characteristics like race, religion, etc. is in more cases bad/worse.

Click to expand...

In individual private citizen can't effect a whole lot, so long as the law is not doing the same.

It's a balancing act. Sure, it would be great if businesses had the "freedom" to discriminate, but unfortunately that prerogative was abused in the South for 200 years, resulting in real harm to blacks throughout the economy because of discrimination with regard to employment, goods and services, housing, schools, etc.

Click to expand...

Not really. You're confusing things like Jim Crow laws and private individuals. If the law is doing their job, being 100% egalitarian, and you have a free market system there will be solutions that come up that address any random people that discriminate. For example, these people could've had a cake made by someone else. There was literally no more harm done to them past hurt feelings. Hurt feelings are not enough to violate the rights of private citizens.

Now, I'll fully admit there are actual vestiges of prejudices against various groups that still exist in government systems and those should be addressed and fixed (like Utah marriage certificate lady who should've been fired).

Praxas said:

So you think forcing a restaurant to serve a black couple is bad, thank you for clarifying that.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think violating the rights of a restaurant owner is bad. I don't see what's so confusing, we have freedom of speech as well, even if that speech is in the public square. I'm sure you want to remove free speech laws as well.

^---way more of a post than what you deserve, btw. Stop crying and try and make big boy statements.

ReverendHellh0und said:

So why don't gay people go into muslim cake shops and order cakes? I may have a couple friends try it. :lol:

Click to expand...

There are 9,000 estimated bakeries in the US. ~3000 of those are commercial. ~6000 of those are retail. Just how many 'muslim bakeries' do you think there are in the US?

Fishking said:

In individual private citizen can't effect a whole lot, so long as the law is not doing the same.

Click to expand...

But you're not even trying to weigh/evaluate the trade-offs here. You're asserting as if it's an accepted fact that ND laws "harm" people who can no longer deny their goods and services on arbitrary criteria like race, religion, sexual orientation. Fine, they harm people, but there is also a clear and obvious benefit of markets open to EVERYONE. Why do I care that a skinhead racist can't satisfy his irrational racism by hanging a "no niggers" sign in his window? I do not care. The question I'm asking is why should I care that he's unable to turn away blacks because they are blacks, or gays because they are gay?

Not really. You're confusing things like Jim Crow laws and private individuals. If the law is doing their job, being 100% egalitarian, and you have a free market system there will be solutions that come up that address any random people that discriminate. For example, these people could've had a cake made by someone else. There was literally no more harm done to them past hurt feelings. Hurt feelings are not enough to violate the rights of private citizens.

Click to expand...

Yes, I realize you have "faith" in free markets, but that's all it is - faith. Solutions probably will arise, but how do you know the gay/black/Muslim couple turned away from a hotel at 2am in the middle of nowhere can find another open hotel? Another place to eat? Get gas?

Sure the cake case involves something pretty trivial, but it's just historically ignorant to claim discrimination against disfavored minorities causes no real harm. You can't possibly believe that discrimination was or still is harmless.

And, again, if you're dismissing getting discriminated against as "hurt feelings" then how in the hell can you quantify the harm to a racist "forced" to sell gasoline or rent a room to blacks or gays? Is that not a trivial harm to him - he gets paid for his gas/room/baked goods on the same basis as he gets paid by white, straight people. Where is the harm? Why should we protect his right to discriminate, versus the right (or if you prefer, privilege) of every citizen to participate in the marketplace on equal terms?

Now, I'll fully admit there are actual vestiges of prejudices against various groups that still exist in government systems and those should be addressed and fixed (like Utah marriage certificate lady who should've been fired).

Click to expand...

Bottom line is the CRA and it's equivalents are the law, have been for 50 years, and you've offered nothing but talking points as justification for why we ought to repeal those laws.

ReverendHellh0und said:

So I can go to a muslim bakery and demand they make me a bangers and mash cake (bangers has pork in it), or a mohammed cake?

Click to expand...

Nope.

If the Muslim store refuses to sell pork to all of its customers, then they don't have to sell it to you. If they refuse to make cakes in the likeness of Mohammed to everyone who asks, then they can refuse to do so for you.

What the store cannot do -- and yes, this has been litigated -- is sell bacon to some people, but not others, on the basis of religion. Or, make Mohammed cakes for some customers, but not others, on the basis of religion.

How many other bakeries would be happy to bake them a cake?

Click to expand...

1963 called, and wants its anti-civil rights arguments back

If you let one business discriminate, then you can't stop another business from discriminating. In short order, huge swaths of the US will deny services to people based on race, creed, gender and more.

Do people have a right to religious freedom, freedom of association, and freedom to conduct business or do they not?

Click to expand...

Not when they are operating as a public accommodation.

If you agree to open your doors to the public, then you do not get to decide who is and is not a member of "the public." You have an obligation to treat all customers the same, regardless of race, creed, gender, and in some states sexual orientation.

Freedom of religion, and freedom of association, is protected by allowing private organizations to discriminate as much as they want. But if you want to associate with the public, again, you do not get to decide who is and is not a member of "the public." Nor does the freedom of religion empower you to discriminate against members of the public; you have to do that in private.

And FYI, millions of segregationists did try to justify their racism by citing religious beliefs.

Totally Wrong!

Visbek said:

Nope.

If the Muslim store refuses to sell pork to all of its customers, then they don't have to sell it to you. If they refuse to make cakes in the likeness of Mohammed to everyone who asks, then they can refuse to do so for you.

What the store cannot do -- and yes, this has been litigated -- is sell bacon to some people, but not others, on the basis of religion. Or, make Mohammed cakes for some customers, but not others, on the basis of religion.



1963 called, and wants its anti-civil rights arguments back

If you let one business discriminate, then you can't stop another business from discriminating. In short order, huge swaths of the US will deny services to people based on race, creed, gender and more.



Not when they are operating as a public accommodation.

If you agree to open your doors to the public, then you do not get to decide who is and is not a member of "the public." You have an obligation to treat all customers the same, regardless of race, creed, gender, and in some states sexual orientation.

Freedom of religion, and freedom of association, is protected by allowing private organizations to discriminate as much as they want. But if you want to associate with the public, again, you do not get to decide who is and is not a member of "the public." Nor does the freedom of religion empower you to discriminate against members of the public; you have to do that in private.

And FYI, millions of segregationists did try to justify their racism by citing religious beliefs.

Click to expand...

Wrong, they too will have to under that law. The Christian bakers in this story said they have refused to make cakes for other beliefs also. They maintained they followed their faith, and as long as your cake didn't defy it everything was good.

If I don't want to give you service I don't have to! What the Christian bakers should have said was sorry where to busy instead of sorry your gay!


But still if some jackass comes in my bakery acting a fool and wants a gangster cake Im throwing him out! And to the 2 gay guys that ruined this family for nothing more than publicity I hope they suffer in the same way!

Marco Montana said:

If I don't want to give you service I don't have to! What the Christian bakers should have said was sorry where to busy instead of sorry your gay!


But still if some jackass comes in my bakery acting a fool and wants a gangster cake Im throwing him out! And to the 2 gay guys that ruined this family for nothing more than publicity I hope they suffer in the same way!

Click to expand...

Wow. The rule of law clearly makes some people really upset. So upset that they have to lie about what this is all about.

Skeptic Bob said:

I am generally against public accommodation laws. I believe that privately owned businesses that provide non-essential goods and services should be able to discriminate for whatever stupid reason they want. I wouldn’t do business with that bigoted bakery but I still believe they should be able to pick and choose who they make cakes for.

It isn’t a litmus test issue for me, though.

Click to expand...

The problem is that the court of public opinion can only be effective with acute awareness of how businesses discriminate with sufficient competition to provide alternative opportunities for consumers.

IOW: our insect-like attention span and general ignorance make your "let bigots be bigots" methodology deeply flawed in practical implementation.

Marco Montana said:

Wrong, they too will have to under that law. The Christian bakers in this story said they have refused to make cakes for other beliefs also. They maintained they followed their faith, and as long as your cake didn't defy it everything was good.

Click to expand...

The cake they wanted was off of the bakeries own menu. It was a cake that they offered so they can not refuse to make that cake for someone based on their sexual orientation.

Marco Montana said:

If I don't want to give you service I don't have to!

Click to expand...

Actually you do if you open a business to the public. That is how civilized society works.

What the Christian bakers should have said was sorry where to busy instead of sorry your gay!

Click to expand...

Indeed, because lying IS after all a Christian value in the world of the scum bag religious nuts.

And to the 2 gay guys that ruined this family for nothing more than publicity I hope they suffer in the same way!

Click to expand...

You MUST also be a so called Christian.

Fishking said:

Yes, I think violating the rights of a restaurant owner is bad. I don't see what's so confusing, we have freedom of speech as well, even if that speech is in the public square. I'm sure you want to remove free speech laws as well.

^---way more of a post than what you deserve, btw. Stop crying and try and make big boy statements.

Click to expand...

You have no "right" to operate a business in violation of the law. What you are saying is that we must capitulate to the demands of bigots, which is just a stupid argument. I simply can't understand how anyone would possibly argue something so hateful.

Fishking said:

Nothing you've said is even remotely higher level in any way that someone wouldn't be able to understand.

Click to expand...

Your limitations do not concern me.

Oborosen said:

Yes I have and the fine is still considered erroneous, even here in our court system and by memory the last three I have worked in.

These people asked to have a cake made for their wedding, which the business owners had a right to deny based on the practices of their faith. Which even not factoring in their right to artistic expression, they still have the religious freedom to voice this issue with the couple in question "which they did". That is were it should have ended, both groups should have shown respect for each other and went their separate ways.

But now we have this couple who have "actually" ruined the lives of business owners, who chose their faith over that transaction "which was their right". The couple also had a right to courteous treatment by the business owners and yet I can find now information showing that they were literally chased from the store with brooms, like some grain house vermin.

A substitute was available to them and they did not take it, instead choosing to make a scene of the whole thing. Dragging this problem into the public view of the masses "many of which would most certainly take offence to the Bakers rights being infringed upon." So not one of those women should have been surprised that such a response had come their way.

Was the story piece supposed to mean something, to help me understand?
It tries to build a sob story for these women that I am somehow supposed to cow to in the end, or something like that?
These women must make the effort to admit that they are at least part of the reason they are getting this hate. I can understand not wanting the money or the coverage. But that ship sailed long ago and now they have to deal with all of the horrible little creeps that crawl on the belly of the internet.

Click to expand...

Your statements give the bakers rights they do not have and violate the rights of the customer couple.

In a single post, you said more than once that the gay couple brought the discrimination onto themselves as if a battered wife had it coming.

Your side of this human rights issue has devolved into a nonsensical line of postings and has actually reduced me to hopelessness for a big segment of the world population.

Groogrux said:

Business owners are just going to be smarter about turning people sway that they don't care to do business with. If these bakers were smart they would have just said, nope all booked up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Obviously. But discriminatory people are, as a rule, stupid people.

Marco Montana said:

Wrong, they too will have to under that law. The Christian bakers in this story said they have refused to make cakes for other beliefs also. They maintained they followed their faith, and as long as your cake didn't defy it everything was good.

Click to expand...

I assure you, I'm correct.

The Christian bakery makes wedding cakes. Therefore, they cannot refuse to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples, or interracial couples, or interfaith couples.

The bakery can decide "we will stop making wedding cakes for everyone." The key is that it has to apply to all customers, regardless of race, creed, gender and (in some states) sexual orientation.

They cannot say "straight couples can order wedding cakes, same-sex couples cannot."

Or: You cannot demand that a Muslim grocery stock bacon, because you're a Christian and you like bacon. It's the choice of the store owner of what goods to stock.

What the grocer cannot do is stock bacon, allow Christians to buy bacon, and then refuse to sell bacon to a Jew or a Muslim on religious grounds.

And in this case, because Oregon extends anti-discrimination protection to same-sex couples, "Sweetcakes by Melissa" was found to violate a lesbian's civil rights, and will have to pay the fine.

Marco Montana said:

Wrong, they too will have to under that law. The Christian bakers in this story said they have refused to make cakes for other beliefs also. They maintained they followed their faith, and as long as your cake didn't defy it everything was good.

Click to expand...

If you're saying a Muslim business will have to offer pork, that's complete nonsense and reveals a fundamental ignorance about what the law requires.

Businesses offering Item A for sale to straight people cannot deny Item A to gays, or blacks, etc. because they are gay/black etc. That Muslim bakery cannot be forced to create something not on their regular menu and or offer goods or services not already offered to others in the normal course of their business.

So, yeah, if Muslim bakery offers pork-based pies to Muslims they have to sell the same pie to gays or Christians or Jews on the same basis they offer the cakes for sale to fellow Muslims. It's not imposing a burden on them except to serve the public on a non-discriminatory basis. And they AGREE to that when they open their doors to the public. Non-discrimination laws have been on the books now for FIFTY YEARS. If they're surprised those laws exist, they're too stupid to run a business.

Marco Montana said:

If I don't want to give you service I don't have to! What the Christian bakers should have said was sorry where to busy instead of sorry your gay!

But still if some jackass comes in my bakery acting a fool and wants a gangster cake Im throwing him out! And to the 2 gay guys that ruined this family for nothing more than publicity I hope they suffer in the same way!

Click to expand...

"Gangsters" are not a protected class. If you do not want to serve someone who is in a criminal organization, that is not a problem from a legal perspective. Similarly, if a customer is acting obnoxious, you don't have to serve them.

The owners could have tried to hide their discrimination. However, aside from undercutting their own moral claims, it might not have worked. They probably would have found out.

The lesbian couple in the Oregon case have won. They might have received threats from strangers over the Internet, but it doesn't seem like they are suffering.

Marco Montana said:

If I don't want to give you service I don't have to! What the Christian bakers should have said was sorry where to busy instead of sorry your gay!

But still if some jackass comes in my bakery acting a fool and wants a gangster cake Im throwing him out! And to the 2 gay guys that ruined this family for nothing more than publicity I hope they suffer in the same way!

Click to expand...

Why are you offering "gangster cakes" to anyone?

And if some jackass comes in your bakery acting a fool, that's an allowable reason to throw his ass out, as long as you don't ONLY throw out gay/black/Muslim jackasses acting a fool, but let straight white jackasses act a fool and serve them with a smile. Easy peasy.

truthatallcost said:

A convicted criminal is someone who has been convicted of a crime, or plead no contest in a criminal court J.

People who've been ordered to pay a fine for a labor law violation are not convicted criminals

People pay fines for all kinds of law violations, such as traffic violations. They are not criminals! You should know the difference.





Again, people who pay fines are not criminals, otherwise 90% of the country would be considered a criminal. Have you ever paid a speeding ticket fine? If yes, does that make you a criminal?

Click to expand...

Facts and Definitions > than your posted lies

If you have one fact that proves my claim and the dicitionary wrong by all means post it, you cant :shrug:
Fact remains what I said is 100% accurate and you can't change that

Visbek said:

"Gangsters" are not a protected class. If you do not want to serve someone who is in a criminal organization, that is not a problem from a legal perspective. Similarly, if a customer is acting obnoxious, you don't have to serve them.

The owners could have tried to hide their discrimination. However, aside from undercutting their own moral claims, it might not have worked. They probably would have found out.

The lesbian couple in the Oregon case have won. They might have received threats from strangers over the Internet, but it doesn't seem like they are suffering.

Click to expand...

LOL, looks like I'm posting the same stuff. I'm not trying to repeat what you said - we're just typing at the same time, and you're faster!

Hatuey said:

There are 9,000 estimated bakeries in the US. ~3000 of those are commercial. ~6000 of those are retail

Click to expand...

Thats effing bullshyte, there's probably 9,000 bakeries in NY State alone