'Gay wedding cake ' baker claim persecution...again

[Draco-Onis]

If you were turned away from some where for being black gay ect would you want to go back there after they were forced to serve you? Rather they like it or not your lining the pockets of some one who hates you I just don’t see why any one would want to do that.

What choice did they have? if you were black and lived in those communities you had no choice also kind of ludicrous that you have to go through hoops just for being born who you are.

[GreenGoldSharpie]

Religious rights are not without limit.

You sure? Arizona is apparently allowing the theft of prescriptions if you disapprove of their intent on religious grounds.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

What choice did they have? if you were black and lived in those communities you had no choice also kind of ludicrous that you have to go through hoops just for being born who you are.

Do theses people have a choice for there cake? If you do have a choice why pay some one who hates you?

[Daedius]

If you want people to change....going out of your way and escalating the issue is not a solution.

Spiteful, vindictive megalomaniacs just like to impose themselves on others. They are the 'new' bullies. Their tactic is to harass and provoke.

[Endus]

You sure? Arizona is apparently allowing the theft of prescriptions if you disapprove of their intent on religious grounds.

Let me rephrase; religious rights should not be without limit.

For the simple and obvious fact that while you have religious freedoms, so does everyone else. The moment you step from saying "I can't do that because of my religion" towards "you can't do that because of my religion", you're not taking a stance rooted in religious rights, but in religious oppression.

- - - Updated - - -

Do theses people have a choice for there cake? If you do have a choice why pay some one who hates you?

At least in this latter case, I think it's clear it was intended to trip the guy up.

But it's like asking why someone bought into a Ponzi scheme, knowing it was a Ponzi scheme. If their intent was to get evidence to get the guy running the scheme charged for it, then it makes at least some sense. It doesn't mean the scammer gets to get away scot-free because you'd figured it was probably a scam.

[GreenGoldSharpie]

Let me rephrase; religious rights should not be without limit.

For the simple and obvious fact that while you have religious freedoms, so does everyone else. The moment you step from saying "I can't do that because of my religion" towards "you can't do that because of my religion", you're not taking a stance rooted in religious rights, but in religious oppression.

Oh, I'm sure you quite agree. I'm only pointing out that "religious freedom" is carving out exceptions to all sots of rules. Theft, as I said above, but also using LGBT tax dollars to openly discriminate against them.

I do like that we're pretending these folks are doing this on moral principle and respect for capitalism instead of outright animosity towards a demographic.

[Endus]

Spiteful, vindictive megalomaniacs just like to impose themselves on others. They are the 'new' bullies. Their tactic is to harass and provoke.

You realize you're describing the baker, not his customers, right?

[Draco-Onis]

Do theses people have a choice for there cake? If you do have a choice why pay some one who hates you?

I feel that you are missing the bigger picture which is why should they have to? I am sure the courts will sort it out one way or another. But we all know where this "religious liberty" nonsense leads to someone will say my religion says I shouldn't serve Jews, black or any type of minority, I mean the KKK was knee deep in religious piety as they were killing people.

[Dextroden]

Do theses people have a choice for there cake? If you do have a choice why pay some one who hates you?

Because people want to be treated stupidly instead of getting a cake. Why else hunt for a guy like this?

[Daedius]

You realize you're describing the baker, not his customers, right?

Yeah... no. I am talking about the SJW/far left masses. I don't see the baker preaching his belief and telling people on what to do, unlike the other side condemning him and wanting him to go out of business loud and publicly, for merely upholding his Faith.

[Daelak]

Yeah... no. I am talking about the SJW/far left masses. I don't see the baker preaching his belief and telling people on what to do, unlike the other side condemning him and wanting him to go out of business loud and publicly, for merely upholding his Faith.

It's like you are completely blind as how identical you sounds to white segregationists during desegregation and before.

[Independent voter]

Oh, I'm sure you quite agree. I'm only pointing out that "religious freedom" is carving out exceptions to all sots of rules. Theft, as I said above, but also using LGBT tax dollars to openly discriminate against them.

I do like that we're pretending these folks are doing this on moral principle and respect for capitalism instead of outright animosity towards a demographic.

That's the thing, how do you know what's in the baker's heart? He convinced the court he was sincere.

There's no mention of trans people in the Bible far as I can tell so his argument that it's against his religion may not be valid.

[GreenGoldSharpie]

That's the thing, how do you know what's in the baker's heart? He convinced the court he was sincere.

There's no mention of trans people in the Bible far as I can tell so his argument that it's against his religion may not be valid.

I could really care less what's in his heart. History bears out that this sort of ability to discriminate on religious grounds is extremely toxic and is certain to lead to ongoing political strife. Moeover, the fundies are already taking it into the public sphere and looking for exceptions to baseline law (as in the prescription theft apparently allowed under Arizona law). If religious folks don't have to respect the property of others why should theirs be respected? It's a breakdown of basic order and the conept of living in a society.

[Prokne]

Yeah... no. I am talking about the SJW/far left masses. I don't see the baker preaching his belief and telling people on what to do, unlike the other side condemning him and wanting him to go out of business loud and publicly, for merely upholding his Faith.

Except he's not "merely upholding his faith" and is "preaching his belief and telling people on what to do" when he tells people he doesn't agree with that he won't make the custom cake they want because he thinks they are immoral. Sure, he's not going around to everyone and saying that he is anti-LGBT and trying to convert people, but he is preaching to those customers that he refuses to serve for moral reasons.

All he has to do to uphold his religious beliefs without closing his business or violating the law is to no longer bake custom cakes. Have a catalog of cakes that won't violate his principles and he won't have any problems.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

I feel that you are missing the bigger picture which is why should they have to? I am sure the courts will sort it out one way or another. But we all know where this "religious liberty" nonsense leads to someone will say my religion says I shouldn't serve Jews, black or any type of minority, I mean the KKK was knee deep in religious piety as they were killing people.

Oh I am missing something as I said before I don’t get it. But even if they shouldn’t have to find some where else to serve them why would they want serve from some one who hates them. If I was turned away from a shop becaus the owner was a bigot then a law was passed to force that same owner to serve me I wouldn’t go back and give the bigot money.

- - - Updated - - -

Let me rephrase; religious rights should not be without limit.

For the simple and obvious fact that while you have religious freedoms, so does everyone else. The moment you step from saying "I can't do that because of my religion" towards "you can't do that because of my religion", you're not taking a stance rooted in religious rights, but in religious oppression.

- - - Updated - - -



At least in this latter case, I think it's clear it was intended to trip the guy up.

But it's like asking why someone bought into a Ponzi scheme, knowing it was a Ponzi scheme. If their intent was to get evidence to get the guy running the scheme charged for it, then it makes at least some sense. It doesn't mean the scammer gets to get away scot-free because you'd figured it was probably a scam.

Getting evidence makes sense but do they need more? Isn’t this guy already being sorted out on court?

[Endus]

Yeah... no. I am talking about the SJW/far left masses. I don't see the baker preaching his belief and telling people on what to do, unlike the other side condemning him and wanting him to go out of business loud and publicly, for merely upholding his Faith.

Well, you're lying about the facts, then.

This guy wasn't "merely upholding his faith". He was denying transgender customers service because he's a bigot, and their rights are protected against exactly that, under State law.

Lying about the facts isn't a strong start.

Getting evidence makes sense but do they need more? Isn’t this guy already being sorted out on court?

The first case was overturned because of procedural fuckups, and double jeopardy means it can't be retried.

The problem seems to be that this guy thought it was a vindication that he's allowed to be a bigot, rather than about a procedural fuckup, so he kept being a bigot to customers. So, now we have another case. He could've avoided this pretty easily by just doing his job, like they were any other customer.

[bellabulldog]

No one has a right to anyone's private services. Business is a voluntary agreement between two or more parties. Anything else and it is coercion.

What standard of morality justifies the forcible use of one to the serves the purposes of another? The forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another is a good definition of slavery.

The reasons don't matter. This is natural law.

Still haven't seen one of you guys arguing against the baker provide a decent argument. All you've been able to do is demonize people for disagreeing with your beliefs. It's pretty common tactic from your side when your argument doesn't hold water to immediately call the opposing side racists, bigots, ____phobes. What if a photographer didn't want to do nude pictures? Is that any different? Should the photographer be forced because you have a right to the services?

Laws that force anything outside of voluntary association are wrong.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Well, you're lying about the facts, then.

This guy wasn't "merely upholding his faith". He was denying transgender customers service because he's a bigot, and their rights are protected against exactly that, under State law.

Lying about the facts isn't a strong start.



The first case was overturned because of procedural fuckups, and double jeopardy means it can't be retried.

The problem seems to be that this guy thought it was a vindication that he's allowed to be a bigot, rather than about a procedural fuckup, so he kept being a bigot to customers. So, now we have another case. He could've avoided this pretty easily by just doing his job, like they were any other customer.

Ok that makes more sense if the first case got screwed start another one.

[Talon8669]

Oh no, not the poor homophobic, transphobic bigots!

Why won't someone help them? What a cruel, cruel world!

It's about his rights as a business owner. Has nothing that I can see, beyond his religious convictions and his rights as a business owner to refuse service, to do with bigotry or homophobia. Just because someone feels or believes things based on religious premise does not automatically make them a hateful person. Now I will admit I know nothing more about this case and perhaps he was being hateful and using slander when he refused service, if that is the case then I would say comments like him being a bigot would be accurate but if he hasn't said anything and he is only refusing to provide service due to his religions convictions then more power to him and he is 100% within his rights.

[Aori]

That's the thing, how do you know what's in the baker's heart? He convinced the court he was sincere.

There's no mention of trans people in the Bible far as I can tell so his argument that it's against his religion may not be valid.

Bible is up to interpretation, I can think of a few ways trans people go against the teachings.

Either way, people are out to get him at this point. He isn't denying service to these people, he is simply saying he can't make what they want. Happens all of the time, welcome to the real world, only this affects hyper sensitive people on their own crusade.

Society these days is tiring me out.