• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Masterpiece Cakeshop owner in court again for denying LGBTQ customer

Wow, remember the days when people had such petty problems that they could lose their s**t over public accommodation laws? Good times, good times....


Lutherf said:
What if the request is for a NAMBLA cake?
Click to expand...
Pedophiles are not a protected class in Colorado. Shops can legitimately refuse that request.


What if the customer wants a sexually graphic design?
Click to expand...
If the shop refuses to make sexually explicit designs for ALL customers, then they can refuse any and all such requests.

What the shop cannot do in Colorado is make sexually explicit designs for straight individuals, but not for LGBT customers. (Or, for men but not for women; for whites but not blacks, and so on).

Different jurisdictions have slightly different rules. Most protect on the basis of sexual orientation and gender, some do not.


What if the customer is just plain being an asshole about everything?
Click to expand...
A public accommodation can refuse service because the customer is behaving poorly.

What they can't do is use bad customer behavior as an excuse to discriminate.


Can the owner adjust pricing at will and, for example, agree to do the cake but will charge $1M up front?
Click to expand...
If they charge all customers $1 million for a custom cake, that's legal.

If they charge cisgender customers $50 for a custom cake, and transgender customers $500,000 for the exact same service, and discrimination on the basis of gender is illegal in that jurisdiction, then no. That's discrimination.


I've refused to do business with a number of potential customers over the years for a number of reasons and will continue to refuse the ones I believe will be trouble makers.
Click to expand...
Refusing to do business with "trouble makers" is fine.

Classifying all black customers as "trouble makers" is not fine. That's discrimination.

Seriously, almost all of the issues relating to discrimination have been worked out in the courts. If you really are running a business, then you really ought to know the law. Maybe you should take 15 minutes and call your lawyer. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure...
 
Irredentist said:
What do you mean "merely"? That was the description of the cake which was ordered. On what religious basis do they object to a blue and pink cake?
Click to expand...

When I say "merely" I mean is a cake with blue and white frosting all that they asked for or did they want any other decoration or or delivery or cutting service, etc.
 
Visbek said:
Wow, remember the days when people had such petty problems that they could lose their s**t over public accommodation laws? Good times, good times....



Pedophiles are not a protected class in Colorado. Shops can legitimately refuse that request.



If the shop refuses to make sexually explicit designs for ALL customers, then they can refuse any and all such requests.

What the shop cannot do in Colorado is make sexually explicit designs for straight individuals, but not for LGBT customers. (Or, for men but not for women; for whites but not blacks, and so on).

Different jurisdictions have slightly different rules. Most protect on the basis of sexual orientation and gender, some do not.



A public accommodation can refuse service because the customer is behaving poorly.

What they can't do is use bad customer behavior as an excuse to discriminate.



If they charge all customers $1 million for a custom cake, that's legal.

If they charge cisgender customers $50 for a custom cake, and transgender customers $500,000 for the exact same service, and discrimination on the basis of gender is illegal in that jurisdiction, then no. That's discrimination.



Refusing to do business with "trouble makers" is fine.

Classifying all black customers as "trouble makers" is not fine. That's discrimination.

Seriously, almost all of the issues relating to discrimination have been worked out in the courts. If you really are running a business, then you really ought to know the law. Maybe you should take 15 minutes and call your lawyer. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure...
Click to expand...

Does Masterpiece refuse to sell to all homosexuals or just refuse to serve same gender weddings?
 
aociswundumho said:
So the government is violating your rights, and you're using that fact as a reason for the government to violate everyone's rights. Brilliant.
Click to expand...

I don't feel that my rights are being violated. Professionalism comes before my personal prejudices. That's the way it should be.
 
dex4974 said:
Nobody should be forced to do business they don't want to do. The people pushing this lawsuit are scumbags looking for attention.
Click to expand...

The public accommodation protections of the 1964 Civil Rights Act says that you are wrong.

He knew the law and he will be slapped by the state, just as long as they don't refer to him as a "religious bigot" when they do it.
 
aociswundumho said:
So the government is violating your rights, and you're using that fact as a reason for the government to violate everyone's rights. Brilliant.
Click to expand...

Protecting equal rights for others is not a violation of your rights or your religious beliefs when you choose to operate a business that serves the public.
 
Irredentist said:
If the free market was enough to stop discrimination, we wouldn't have needed public acommodation laws in the first place.
Click to expand...

We didn't need them in the first place.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Public accommodation laws are pretty clear. If you want to open your business to the public, you have to open it to the public. If you don't, you can hand select your clientele by any metric you choose. You don't get to... have your cake and eat it too.

On a moral note, there's literally nothing in the bible about the alleged sin of baking a cake for a homosexual and this guy is no different than a bigot who would hang a "No negroes" sign in front of his shop. Interacting with black people was also once claimed to be a violation of their religion by bigoted Christians. I'm glad we stopped tolerating that bull****.
Click to expand...

Well said, if he wants financial gain by running a business that serves the public...then serve your customers. Don't hide your racism and bigotry behind the bible. If you have extreme religious "beliefs" that stop you from treating others equally, then stay the hell out of business and run a church.
 
Lisa said:
Protecting equal rights for others is not a violation of your rights or your religious beliefs when you choose to operate a business that serves the public.
Click to expand...

Exactly!
 
dex4974 said:
We didn't need them in the first place.
Click to expand...

Obviously that's not true, as historically there were many businesses which denied service to black people, and the free market did not stop them.
 
Old 'N Chill said:
Exactly!
Click to expand...

They have 3+ choices available to them if they don't like the law.

1.) Sell the business to someone who isn't a bigot

2.) Make it a private (members only) business where they can choose who can enter

3.) Stop selling all wedding cakes, if they don't have a problem with LGBT buying other cakes but only wedding cakes.

4.) Embrace capitalism, understand the LGBT money is just as green as everyone else's and just stop being a bigot.
 
Irredentist said:
What was trans themed about it? The fact that it had blue and pink frosting?
Click to expand...

I assume that they also have a problem with a baby shower gender reveal cake if those colors are an issue.
 
Lisa said:
Protecting equal rights for others is not a violation of your rights or your religious beliefs when you choose to operate a business that serves the public.
Click to expand...

Wrong. I have no "right" to force you to enter into a business contract with me. Only the political left could come up with something so absurd.
 
aociswundumho said:
Wrong. I have no "right" to force you to enter into a business contract with me. Only the political left could come up with something so absurd.
Click to expand...

If that business is open to the public then you have no right to deny equal service to those who walk in off the street. That is the core concept of the public accommodation protections that were put in place to end Whites only bsueisses who were run by people who made the very same claims that you do.

They also claimed that their religious views were being violated by them being forced to serve black and interracial people on an equal basis with whites. The SCOTUS wasn't impressed with their bigotry when they voted 9-0 against them in Newman v. Piggie Park.
 
Lisa said:
If that business is open to the public then you have no right to deny equal service to those who walk in off the street. That is the core concept of the public accommodation protections that were put in place to end Whites only bsueisses who were run by people who made the very same claims that you do.
Click to expand...

The argument is about what the law should be, not what it is now. We all know the dumbass politically correct nonsense about "public accommodation", so I don't know why you keep bringing it up.

It's like you saying marijuana should be legal, and me disagreeing because marijuana is a schedule 1 substance in the controlled substances act.
 
aociswundumho said:
The argument is about what the law should be, not what it is now. We all know the dumbass politically correct nonsense about "public accommodation", so I don't know why you keep bringing it up.

It's like you saying marijuana should be legal, and me disagreeing because marijuana is a schedule 1 substance in the controlled substances act.
Click to expand...

How is being prohibited from denying LGBT people equal service because of your religious bigotry any different from being prohibited from denying black and interracial people because of the owner's religious bigotry? The fact that Jesus was a bigot is lost on these hypocrites.


Conservatives also oppose marijuana freedom because of their religious idiocy.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Aha, so baking a cake for homosexuals isn't a sin, nor is baking a cake for any kind of sinner. It's not a violation of his religion and he's doing it purely from a place of hatred and spite.
Click to expand...

Nope. He's exercising his right to religious freedom and the scumbag hates him for that.

You guys support a thrice married serial adulterer for president, so let's not pretend you have serious moral convictions.
Click to expand...

The topic isn't about your saltiness towards the President.

Lol, exactly. It had nothing to do with him baking some over the top homosexual penis shaped cake, it was a normal cake and he just didn't want "faggots" to eat it. How Christian! :lamo
Click to expand...

The scumbag wanted him to create a trans themed cake, but I can see you have a vivid imagination in that arena.



I don't see any legal requirement for a specific type of cake to be made that the baker doesn't offer.
Click to expand...

Which is part of the point. He doesn't have to make the cake because 1. He's not legally obligated to make trans cakes and 2. It goes against his religious beliefs.

Do you fall into the group of people that wants to see more "No Negroes" signs in front of restaurants and grocery stores?
Click to expand...

For someone that loves to accuse others of racism you sure love to repeatedly mention blacks being discriminated against.

Sorry, we've tried America where businesses can arbitrarily deny service to minorities and it was a nightmare. Hard pass.
Click to expand...

The scumbag is not a minority. And he's denying service because the scumbag keeps harassing him and attempting to destroy his business because he refuses to bake LGBT cakes.
 
Michael Johnson said:
Nope. He's exercising his right to religious freedom and the scumbag hates him for that.
The topic isn't about your saltiness towards the President
The scumbag wanted him to create a trans themed cake, but I can see you have a vivid imagination in that arena.
Which is part of the point. He doesn't have to make the cake because 1. He's not legally obligated to make trans cakes and 2. It goes against his religious beliefs.
For someone that loves to accuse others of racism you sure love to repeatedly mention blacks being discriminated against.
The scumbag is not a minority. And he's denying service because the scumbag keeps harassing him and attempting to destroy his business because he refuses to bake LGBT cakes.
Click to expand...

What's a "transsexual cake"? Can you describe it? From the way you're acting it must be a penis morphing into a vagina while saying "**** christians", right? And yes, I remember when your ilk argued black people in white people restaurants was against your religion too. You couldn't really square it with scripture then and you can't do it now.
 
Michael Johnson said:
The shop only refuses orders for LGBT themed cakes, which is why the scumbag continues to harass the owner.
Click to expand...

Right. It isn't "gay" that's the problem. It's same sex wedding that the owner has an issue with, based on religious beliefs.
 
Lutherf said:
Right. It isn't "gay" that's the problem. It's same-sex wedding that the owner has an issue with, based on religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

This religious hypocrite/bigot is just having a temper tantrum because he thinks that just because marriage equality is the law that he can cite his religious beliefs as a way not to be forced to serve customers. There were bigots who refused to serve black and interracial customers after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act who made the same claim. Shall we look at what the SCOTUS thought of their arguments when they refused to obey the public accommodation protections that put an end to "Whites-Only" businesses?

Newman v Piggie Park. 9-0 by the SCOTUS against the bigot.
Piggie Park Enterprises was, in 1964, a drive-in BBQ chain with four restaurants, created and operated by Maurice Bessinger, the Baptist head of the National Association for the Preservation of White People. He did not allow African-Americans to eat in his restaurants. After Bessinger's refusal to allow Anne Newman, an African-American minister's wife into his restaurant, a lawyer, Matthew J. Perry, filed a class-action lawsuit against the chain.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom