Justice Dept. sides with baker who refused to make wedding cake for gay couple

[-aiko-]

Okay fine, a restaurant. Michelin star restaurants have a perfectly valid argument to claim that their work is artistic expression. Should they be allowed to refuse service based on sexual orientation?

A restaurant refusing to sit and service a gay couple would be discrimination.

A restaurant declining to host and cater a gay wedding, I would not consider discrimination, just bad business.

[Locruid]

I was once discriminated against due to my Religion (or lack thereof).

Went to go buy some speakers for my car as the others were old and blown out. Figured I'd cherry it up with a New stereo too. Anywho in the midst of scanning the stereos, my wife and I got into one of our friendly debates as she is a Christian and I'm an Athiest. Store Manager overheard the conversation and and got slightly offended by my statements of my wife's diety. Long story short he refused to allow anyone to serve us because I'm pretty much an Athiest. I didn't:

Scream/Yell
Curl up into a ball until the bad man went away
Call my shrink cause I now feel threatened.
Called my Attorney
Scheduled a court date for a lawsuit.

Nope, my friends, I asked to speak to the owner which I did. Informed said owner what had happened and that I will be taking my $1000 elsewhere and my future business from here on out to another business (which I did get a $2399 Alarm System later that year). Never went back, but I did see that roughly 2yrs later the business had closed.

Cause you know why? What happened at that store is between myself, the owner and the Manager. What the Owner did to the Manager I could care less. buy him a trophy? Fire him? Don't give a shit. Yea maybe the man stepped over the line involving his own Religion but hey that's fine. That's between the Owner and the Manager. I Just left with my money and found a less discriminating business.

So instead of crying over spilled milk, take YOUR money to a business who is willing to have you as a customer.

[Doctor Funkenstein]

So where do you draw the line? Can the only grocery store in town refuses to sell you food?

One is requesting that someone perform a specific, specialty task contrary to their (idiotic) religious beliefs.
The other is selling food, a basic human requirement.

Yeah, totally the same thing, guy. Totally.

This is parallel to some asshole going into a black-owned hardware shop and asking the equally black guy behind the counter to sell them two large boards, a gas can, a lighter, and to have one of the boards engraved with "FUCK YOU NIGGERS!" on it.

The guy should totally be forced to sell him those items, and engrave the board as desired. That's a far better comparison.

[Sormine]

A restaurant refusing to sit and service a gay couple would be discrimination.

A restaurant declining to host and cater a gay wedding, I would not consider discrimination, just bad business.

Okay, what is the distinction that makes one discrimination and not the other?

[Deleted]

Okay, what is the distinction that makes one discrimination and not the other?

One isn't denying you service based on your sexual orientation, the other is a "fair" discrimination since you aren't obliged to accept specialty work whose inherent message goes against your belief.

[Najnaj]

Personally? Yes, I am okay with it. I would hope the backlash would run the business to the ground, but I do believe they should have that right.

That's not comparable to what actually happened here, however, so it's irrelevant.

It is very comparable. This is why we have words like comparable as opposed to words like identical.

If you think a "No Jews" sigh would run a business into the ground you have clearly not read a lot of history. A baker denying a gay couple a cake is not an isolated incident that only carries weight in a gay wedding cake setting. It sets a precedent and not only for gay people. It comes with shifting social values and people get used to almost anything real fast.

Add to this the very obvious fact that religion has nothing to do with this. Virtually all Christians are ignoring most of Leviticus already and it is most often just being brought out to mask that people are intolerant. If this baker lived his life according to Leviticus I could give him half a point but I can guarantee you that he, and all the other nazis masquerading as religious, just drag in out when it is convenient.

[-aiko-]

Okay, what is the distinction that makes one discrimination and not the other?

One encroaches on the religious freedom of the restaurant and the other does not?

Serving someone food is a basic service and religion doesn't come up. Cooking food for and hosting an event for gay marriage, however?

[Doctor Amadeus]

The salt here is real. Disagreeing with your limited iewpoint does not make one a Neo-Nazi or a White Supremacist. It does showcase how immature you are however. I only wonder if the self-proclaimed 'wise Latina' (her words) was on the right side of history, or if she's going to be shilling it out for Obama and the Alt-Left to the bitter end.

All in all a good day for religious liberty. I don't mind gay people, and I might bake them a cake. But if I choose not to, that is my right. Please don't try to shove your views upon me like some new-age rapist who doesn't grasp that "No means no", and then strive to use the Courts to punish me because I refuse to be party to your pursuit of happiness at the cost of my own. If the community dislikes what the Baker did, they can refuse to do business with him. That is enough.

Repeating stupid shit that makes a person a nazi by their stated beliefs. Doesn't change that they are a nazi. But you supporting this means you have no more currency on your it's unfair to be discriminated for being a Alt-Right nazi.

[-aiko-]

Add to this the very obvious fact that religion has nothing to do with this. Virtually all Christians are ignoring most of Leviticus already and it is most often just being brought out to mask that people are intolerant. If this baker lived his life according to Leviticus I could give him half a point but I can guarantee you that he, and all the other nazis masquerading as religious, just drag in out when it is convenient.

This is a great argument for why Christianity is silly and why many Christians are, quite frankly, hypocrites. I'll give you that. But it is still irrelevant to this case.

- - - Updated - - -

One isn't denying you service based on your sexual orientation, the other is a "fair" discrimination since you aren't obliged to accept specialty work whose inherent message goes against your belief.

This is much better than the way I worded it, thank you.

[Najnaj]

A restaurant refusing to sit and service a gay couple would be discrimination.

A restaurant declining to host and cater a gay wedding, I would not consider discrimination, just bad business.

What are you saying? What do you base this on?

Do you think discrimination vs not discrimination is based on location?

Take some time to think about what you are saying please.

[Dr Assbandit]

As much as I think it's absolutely bloody retarded to use religion as a basis for governing policy, clearly there are hypocrites here who have no problem with it as long as it's the "right" religion .

Private businesses are free to use their idiotic beliefs and imaginary moral high ground to deny me service and I'm free to take my business elsewhere. As long as it's not a business that can directly impact someone's quality of health, or a government entity, then these private businesses should be left in the stone ages where they belong.

Though it's obvious our conservative government is increasingly hellbent on forcing the Christian variant of sharia law on everyone to appeal to a subsection of their voter-base so I'm certain we're going to see more news stories like this in the coming future.

[Sormine]

One encroaches on the religious freedom of the restaurant and the other does not?

Serving someone food is a basic service and religion doesn't come up. Cooking food for and hosting an event for gay marriage, however?

I'm sorry I took a bit to think about this but I still don't see the distinction. I don't mean to be purposefully ignorant here but it seems like you're saying one isn't discrimination because it inconveniences the host more than the other.

[frogger237]

Just about as much of a choice it is for you to be straight .

Yeah I find it funny when people think being gay is a choice.

We tend to get our beliefs from our own experiences so like not once have I ever had the urge to suck a dick, just that and the fact that people sometimes are killed because they are gay shows me being gay isn't a choice so how much and how often to do those people dream about banging a dude that they think "Well I've never acted on my urges so obviously that means being gay is a choice!"

[Sormine]

What are you saying? What do you base this on?

Do you think discrimination vs not discrimination is based on location?

Take some time to think about what you are saying please.

Yeah this guy kind of captures where I'm at mentally.

[Brubear]

In the end, this is a good ruling because it sets the precedent of favoring the business in these situations. They are the ones providing the service; let the free market do its thing. If you can't get the service you want, take your business elsewhere.

So a landlord should be able to evict someone simply because they're black? After all, businesses are providing a service and should have the right to serve who they wish.

An ambulance should be able to refuse service to someone because they're a single mother?

What happens if it's a small town and they're the only bakery in town? Or even more likely, what if it's the only gas station in town and they refuse to serve gays? Better drive another half-hour for gas if you want any.

This is the result of your favoring businesses ruling. You're saying you're fine with all of these scenarios. Who cares if they're the only business that offers that service within a 50 mile radius (fairly common in a lot of small towns and communities), better hope it's not an essential service and/or you can afford to travel to the next town over.

If you're going to refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, then you have to refuse a wedding cake for all couples. It's why the "No shoes, no shirt, no service" signs aren't discriminatory because they're applied equally. If a bar cuts you off, if they do it because you've had too much to drink it's not discrimination, as long as they do that with everyone who has had too much to drink. But if they only do that to gay people, then it's discrimination, because they're no longer cutting you off for misbehaving or causing problems, they're cutting you off simply for who you are, which is discrimination.

[-aiko-]

Read Lemposs' post. He put it much more elegantly than I did.

- - - Updated - - -

So a landlord should be able to evict someone simply because they're black? After all, businesses are providing a service and should have the right to serve who they wish..

Holy shit, I can't have this conversation again. No, that is not what I'm saying.

[Najnaj]

This is a great argument for why Christianity is silly and why many Christians are, quite frankly, hypocrites. I'll give you that. But it is still irrelevant to this case.

- - - Updated - - -

If you want to call something irrelevant, give a good reason why.

[Sormine]

One isn't denying you service based on your sexual orientation, the other is a "fair" discrimination since you aren't obliged to accept specialty work whose inherent message goes against your belief.

Also I don't think you're allowed to deny service to a black couple because they are black, why should you be able to deny a gay couple because they are gay.

[Brubear]

Yeah I find it funny when people think being gay is a choice.

We tend to get our beliefs from our own experiences so like not once have I ever had the urge to suck a dick, just that and the fact that people sometimes are killed because they are gay shows me being gay isn't a choice so how much and how often to do those people dream about banging a dude that they think "Well I've never acted on my urges so obviously that means being gay is a choice!"

What I think of when people say that being gay is a choice.

[jibberbox85]

It is very comparable. This is why we have words like comparable as opposed to words like identical.

If you think a "No Jews" sigh would run a business into the ground you have clearly not read a lot of history. A baker denying a gay couple a cake is not an isolated incident that only carries weight in a gay wedding cake setting. It sets a precedent and not only for gay people. It comes with shifting social values and people get used to almost anything real fast.

Add to this the very obvious fact that religion has nothing to do with this. Virtually all Christians are ignoring most of Leviticus already and it is most often just being brought out to mask that people are intolerant. If this baker lived his life according to Leviticus I could give him half a point but I can guarantee you that he, and all the other nazis masquerading as religious, just drag in out when it is convenient.

You're implying your so called logic off the the premise that if some other random Christian person would've handled this differently then the baker himself (Or others like him) = Nazi's bakers? Nice logic there.