- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Posted on 12/29/17 at 8:47 am to Azkiger
Posted on 12/29/17 at 8:47 am to Azkiger
quote:
quote:
Business shouldn’t have a choice in who they serve.
So if a Christian went to a gay artist and asked them to do a painting of gays burning in hell you think the government should force the artist to do the painting?
That's apples to oranges. Who vs what. You should not have the right to discriminate against someone because of whatever....race, sex, religion, etc. But you most certainly do and should have to right to refuse what you make as a product.
In the case with the Walmart employee, that is probably violation of policy within Walmart. The employee does not have the right to refuse that service. A small business owner would though.
2
Posted on 12/29/17 at 8:49 am to Steadyhands
quote:
That's apples to oranges.
It's almost literally the same thing.
Posted on 12/29/17 at 8:51 am to Will Cover
quote:
Today's ruling sends a strong signal that Oregon remains open to all,
Keep in mind these folks will tell you they are fighting fascism.
Posted on 12/29/17 at 8:52 am to danfraz
quote:
Screaming that you won't bake a cake for someone cause you think "God" doesn't want you to do so is no logic
Actually, religious freedom is a very real right and one that superceeded any supposed gay rights. Because you think that is ridiculous is irrelevant.
Posted on 12/29/17 at 8:56 am to Boudreaux35
quote:
Would they force an african american baker to bake a kkk cake? Or a jewish baker to bake a cake with a nazi swastika?
This is exactly what I want to know.
If an African American bakery has two guys walk in with Klansmen outfits on, and they ask for a vanilla cake, the bakery cannot refuse to serve them. If they ask for a cake with "KKK" on it, the bake can refuse that message. Jewish bakers have to bake cakes for Nazis, but they don't have to bake a cake with a swastika on it. An atheist has to bake a cake for a Christian, but they don't have to bake a cake with a cross on it.
Again, you may disagree, but that's the way civil rights and free speech clash.
Posted on 12/29/17 at 8:56 am to slackster
quote:
They cannot, from a legal standpoint, refuse to make a plain cake for a couple because they're gay.
Except, weren't they refusing to make the cake because it was for a wedding. They weren't refusing to make just a normal cake for them because they were gay.
quote:
If that Christian went to a gay artist and asked for a random painting, the artist couldn't refuse to sell it to him because he's a Christian.
That isn't what happened in this case at all. Not even close.
Posted on 12/29/17 at 8:58 am to Steadyhands
quote:
That's apples to oranges. Who vs what. You should not have the right to discriminate against someone because of whatever....race, sex, religion, etc. But you most certainly do and should have to right to refuse what you make as a product.
Great. So you agree that the bakery was within their rights to refuse to make a cake for a "what". The refusal was not because the couple was gay, the refusal was for what the cake was to depict and be for. Glad you're caught up now.
Posted on 12/29/17 at 8:59 am to slackster
quote:
If an African American bakery has two guys walk in with Klansmen outfits on, and they ask for a vanilla cake, the bakery cannot refuse to serve them.
What does this have to do with anything? This isn't remotely close to what happened in this case.
quote:
An atheist has to bake a cake for a Christian, but they don't have to bake a cake with a cross on it.
So we're in agreement that the court ruled incorrectly here then.
This post was edited on 12/29/17 at 9:00 am
Posted on 12/29/17 at 9:00 am to slackster
This entire case, as well as the case in front of the Supreme Court right now, revolves around whether or not a plain wedding cake is a message or not. Does asking a baker to make a cake for a wedding infringe on that baker's right to free speech? Asking a baker to make something that has an actual message on it, like a flag, symbol, or words, is clearly a violation of their free speech, so they can refuse to make it. Asking them to make a three-tiered vanilla wedding cake may or may not be a message - the Supreme Court will decide in the first half of 2018.
Posted on 12/29/17 at 9:00 am to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
Except, weren't they refusing to make the cake because it was for a wedding
If they stated that their cakes could never be used in ANY wedding then I'd be all for them....
But do you seriously think this wasn't because it was a gay wedding? Again, they are bakers. What right do they have to decide where the person who buys their cake fricking serves it?
Holy shite seriously?
Posted on 12/29/17 at 9:02 am to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
So we're in agreement that the court ruled incorrectly here then.
How do you figure? Do you think a plain cake is a message?
Posted on 12/29/17 at 9:03 am to danfraz
quote:
If they stated that their cakes could never be used in ANY wedding then I'd be all for them....
so, it would be ok to sell you a cake and tell you where you can and cannot serve the cake?
Posted on 12/29/17 at 9:04 am to danfraz
quote:
But do you seriously think this wasn't because it was a gay wedding?
I literally said it was because it was for a gay wedding.
quote:
What right do they have to decide where the person who buys their cake fricking serves it? Holy shite seriously?
They have plenty of rights when they are asked to put a message on a cake they disagree with and have their product used at a ceremony they disagree with. Oregon does not believe they do, but businesses have every right to turn down services so that they do not participate in something they disagree with.
Posted on 12/29/17 at 9:04 am to slackster
quote:
How do you figure? Do you think a plain cake is a message?
Do you think it was a plain cake?
Posted on 12/29/17 at 9:06 am to Breesus
quote:
quote:
That's apples to oranges.
It's almost literally the same thing.
Exactly, but it's not quite. I shouldn't be able to refuse service to you within services I provide, but I should be able to refuse to make certain specifications of my services/products.
Posted on 12/29/17 at 9:07 am to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
Do you think it was a plain cake?
From everything I've read, yes, I do. Legal scholars have pointed out that a rainbow flag or writing "May God Bless this Wedding" would have been easy for the baker to beat. The fact that it's just a plain cake is the sticking point.
Posted on 12/29/17 at 9:09 am to slackster
quote:
From everything I've read, yes, I do. Legal scholars have pointed out that a rainbow flag or writing "May God Bless this Wedding" would have been easy for the baker to beat. The fact that it's just a plain cake is the sticking point.
For starters, it was a wedding cake. That is very different than just some chocolate cake or something. Secondly, were they not putting the two bride's names on the cake as well? Why did they need those then? Thirdly, they refused to make a cake for a specific type of ceremony. They did not refuse to just make a cake and sell to someone because they were gay. IIRC, this bride had gone to this bakery before and was not refused service (though I may be mixing up another case here).
Posted on 12/29/17 at 9:10 am to MorbidTheClown
quote:
If they stated that their cakes could never be used in ANY wedding then I'd be all for them....
so, it would be ok to sell you a cake and tell you where you can and cannot serve the cake?
well legally they'd have more of a leg to stand on. "we don't bake wedding cakes for anyone" meaning they don't bake wedding cakes. a plain flat cake is a plain flat cake and that's what they bake then ok, the lesbians might not have run them out of business. But that was not the case. They baked wedding cakes for straight couples. So legally, they need to bake wedding cakes for everyone.
What the person does with it after they buy it is their choice, which is what I have said all along.
Seems to me that is what the baker(s) were trying to do. Choosing who can buy a wedding cake and where they can serve it. Seems to be discriminatory from someone with no money in the pot
Posted on 12/29/17 at 9:13 am to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
Secondly, were they not putting the two bride's names on the cake as well? Why did they need those then?
I'm not sure. I'd imagine those how they keep track of wedding cake orders.
Look, I think the baker should be able to refuse, but I'm just trying to explain the difference between this case and these hypotheticals of asking a Jewish baker to make a swastika.
Posted on 12/29/17 at 9:14 am to PeterPeterP
quote:
public business
Thankfully we're speaking about private businesses, before you form an opinion on the matter learn the difference between public and private.
Page 7 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News