- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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: SCOTUS to hear gay Wedding cake case
Posted on 12/4/17 at 3:44 pm to NIH
Posted on 12/4/17 at 3:44 pm to NIH
My opinion: if you offer a service it should be illegal to discriminate based on race, sexual orientation, gender, etc.
Americans proved long ago that the free market is inadequate relative to discrimination.
This case is also bad because its not like there was something explicitly lude or sexual requested in the cake design. It was a wedding cake and he refused based strictly on the fact that the customers were gay.
Amoral, unethical and discriminatory.
Americans proved long ago that the free market is inadequate relative to discrimination.
This case is also bad because its not like there was something explicitly lude or sexual requested in the cake design. It was a wedding cake and he refused based strictly on the fact that the customers were gay.
Amoral, unethical and discriminatory.
This post was edited on 12/4/17 at 3:48 pm
2
Posted on 12/4/17 at 3:50 pm to Tigerdev
quote:
So this is where we pretend that those things weren't put in place to counter the impacts of centuries of systematic abuse, oppression, and in many cases murder and assault?
Fun times
Fun indeed, on the taxpayer's dime on the University actions.
As far as the baker thing: "Gee sorry fellas, retiring, going out of business and already taken last cake order." Next month/year opens under new name.
Posted on 12/4/17 at 3:51 pm to Tigerdev
quote:
This case is also bad because its not like there was something explicitly lude or sexual requested in the cake design. It was a wedding cake and he refused based strictly on the fact that the customers were gay.
An a-hole move for sure, but what rabbit hole do we go down by making sexual orientation a protected class?
Posted on 12/4/17 at 3:53 pm to Sidicous
Its a drop in the bucket compared to the horrific human rights abuses that were perpetuated under the shield of U.S law for centuries.
As to the baker... He didn't do that. He refused service strictly based on sexual orientation.
As to the baker... He didn't do that. He refused service strictly based on sexual orientation.
Posted on 12/4/17 at 3:55 pm to Tigerdev
quote:
Its a drop in the bucket compared to the horrific human rights abuses that were perpetuated under the shield of U.S law for centuries.
So what?
quote:
He didn't do that. He refused service strictly based on sexual orientation.
bullshite.
Posted on 12/4/17 at 3:56 pm to NIH
If we want to stop having to create protected classes we might want to try (as a society) to stop discriminating against people on the basis of race, sex, orientation, religion, nationality, etc.
If these businesses were condemned by the majority and couldnt be successful while conducting such policies then it would mean our society worked government would have no reason to step in. Unfortunately that has never been the case. There would still be segregation in some parts of the south if we just hoped people would do the right thing.
If these businesses were condemned by the majority and couldnt be successful while conducting such policies then it would mean our society worked government would have no reason to step in. Unfortunately that has never been the case. There would still be segregation in some parts of the south if we just hoped people would do the right thing.
Posted on 12/4/17 at 3:57 pm to Tigerdev
quote:
This case is also bad because its not like there was something explicitly lude or sexual requested in the cake design.
No but there was a religious, moral, artistic, and political sentiment to the design which the baker disagreed with....You are forcing the baker to create that expression and tacitly endorse that position.
Posted on 12/4/17 at 4:00 pm to Tigerdev
6
Posted on 12/4/17 at 4:03 pm to 14&Counting
What was the design? The quote on record suggests a blanket policy of not baking cakes for same sex marriages period.
Posted on 12/4/17 at 4:03 pm to Tigerdev
quote:Yeah, and to be consistent, we all should be for the freedom of association of all citizens and private business owners. We aren't slaves and we shouldn't be forced to associate with those who we don't want to. The government shouldn't discriminate but the government also shouldn't force private citizens and private business owners to violate their own convictions, either.
You realize you could use that same argument to support White Only bathrooms, private schools, businesses...
Posted on 12/4/17 at 4:05 pm to FooManChoo
So you think that we should appeal our anti-discrimination laws and allow businesses to deny service on the basis of whatever they choose?
So Jim Crow basically.
So Jim Crow basically.
Posted on 12/4/17 at 4:05 pm to Tigerdev
quote:
What was the design? The quote on record suggests a blanket policy of not baking cakes for same sex marriages period.
Doesn't matter....point stands. The baker does not want to endorse the notion of same sex marriage
Posted on 12/4/17 at 4:07 pm to Jjdoc
I think the baker had a hang up on the anal fisting theme the couple wanted.
Posted on 12/4/17 at 4:08 pm to Tigerdev
quote:
The quote on record suggests a blanket policy of not baking cakes for same sex marriages period.
They offered to sell them anything in the shop..as they have always done to straight and gays alike. They offered to sell them a wedding cake. Just not one specially designed for them. A better question may be why did these gay agitators single out them? Answer:
Because they are the kind of gay people who carries every social justice banner that helps turn people against gay agitators. The personality flaw lie with THEM.
Posted on 12/4/17 at 4:08 pm to 14&Counting
Actually it does matter. Otherwise folks wouldnt be in the thread intentionally misrepresenting the events leading to the case.
Posted on 12/4/17 at 4:10 pm to Dale51
You seem angry.
Posted on 12/4/17 at 4:10 pm to Tigerdev
quote:
So you think that we should appeal our anti-discrimination laws and allow businesses to deny service on the basis of whatever they choose?
Why not? Those business would go bankrupt in short order. Why do you support tyranny??
Posted on 12/4/17 at 4:12 pm to Dale51
1950’s arguments in favor of segregation were the same bs. No discrimination by sexual orientation per the law.
Posted on 12/4/17 at 4:12 pm to Dale51
I support the federal government's intervention into civil rights. State and local governments as well as local communities have comitted unspeakable atrocities against United States citizens. You can cry about it all you want but it wont bring back the 50s.
Posted on 12/4/17 at 4:13 pm to Tigerdev
quote:
You seem angry.
Evidenced by what? Calling out bullshite artists is not a sign of anger.
If people were to comply with your mindset, we would still have Jim Crow laws because anyone who pointed out the bullshite of it would be maligned. Typical control freak. Are you a liberal?
This post was edited on 12/4/17 at 4:14 pm
Page 3 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News