- 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: Why does the cake baker allow gay couples to buy his premade cakes?
Posted on 12/6/17 at 5:45 am to DeathValley85
Posted on 12/6/17 at 5:45 am to DeathValley85
quote:
If he doesn’t know those sinful gays are buying his cakes then he has plausible deniability with his lord and savior.
Doesn't matter. If someone comes in ready to buy a cake off the shelf, he should not be able to refuse service for being gay.
He should be able to refuse the customized good or service for any reason or no reason.
3
Posted on 12/6/17 at 6:45 am to member12
quote:
Doesn't matter. If someone comes in ready to buy a cake off the shelf, he should not be able to refuse service for being gay.
He should be able to refuse the customized good or service for any reason or no reason.
This is such a simple concept it should require no law to enforce it.
And any law that says you cannot do that should be repealed immediately.
Anything contrary to that is repugnant tyranny.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 6:48 am to member12
I saw the baker and his attorney just now on FOX say he could not decorate and message a cake that the gays wanted. I wonder exactly what that message was? I've yet to hear it.
BTW, FOX also said the ruling is expected in June 2018. WTF? Exactly what is so invovled about the case that a judgement would take that long?
BTW, FOX also said the ruling is expected in June 2018. WTF? Exactly what is so invovled about the case that a judgement would take that long?
Posted on 12/6/17 at 9:10 am to GoneFishing21
"He didn’t deny them service."
So he made the cake they ordered?
"He has nothing against gay people eating cake."
Thankfully. Never implied that he did.
"He is against being apart of a celebration of a gay wedding."
Then he should definitely be a part of a celebration of a gay wedding.
"By your logic you would criticize a skilled glass worker who refused to make a glass d***o for someone who requested it."
Why would someone refuse to make a glass dingo?
Oh, you meant dildo. Some openly freudian weirdness right here, man. You Republicans are so bonkers with your repression. Why exactly is a wedding cake like a sex toy, again?!? HAHAHAHAHA
"It’s not discrimination."
Would you feel the same way if Arby's wouldn't cater your wedding because you were christian?
So he made the cake they ordered?
"He has nothing against gay people eating cake."
Thankfully. Never implied that he did.
"He is against being apart of a celebration of a gay wedding."
Then he should definitely be a part of a celebration of a gay wedding.
"By your logic you would criticize a skilled glass worker who refused to make a glass d***o for someone who requested it."
Why would someone refuse to make a glass dingo?
Oh, you meant dildo. Some openly freudian weirdness right here, man. You Republicans are so bonkers with your repression. Why exactly is a wedding cake like a sex toy, again?!? HAHAHAHAHA
"It’s not discrimination."
Would you feel the same way if Arby's wouldn't cater your wedding because you were christian?
Posted on 12/6/17 at 9:19 am to Woody Glazer
quote:
"Its not discrimination. "
Would you feel the same way if Arby's wouldn't cater your wedding because you were christian?
Actually, I'd be dumbfounded by Arby's stupidity, then I'd move on to find a caterer who'd appreciate my business.
Free market at work.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 9:26 am to member12
quote:
He should be able to refuse the customized good or service for any reason or no reason.
It seem this whole issue boils down to the placement of a double groom figurine on top of a cake.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 4:09 pm to Perfect Circle
No doubt it would be bad for business. This cake guy is also struggling apparently, had to cut down from 10 to 4 employees or something. The free market is speaking. Are you dumbfounded by his stupidity too?
But this is a legal question, not a business one, first and foremost.
Is it not?
But this is a legal question, not a business one, first and foremost.
Is it not?
Posted on 12/6/17 at 4:13 pm to Woody Glazer
quote:
Oh, you meant dildo. Some openly freudian weirdness right here, man. You Republicans are so bonkers with your repression. Why exactly is a wedding cake like a sex toy, again?!? HAHAHAHAHA
They apparently requested a vagina cake. That might be why, but IDK if that's true
This post was edited on 12/6/17 at 4:15 pm
Posted on 12/6/17 at 4:18 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:So that people don't assume he has the IQ of a potato?
Why? He’s under no obligation to explain his logic to anyone.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 4:29 pm to Woody Glazer
He had to cut employees because to avoid running afoul of the gheys again, he decided to stop making wedding cakes which accounted for 40% of his business.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 4:35 pm to Woody Glazer
quote:
But this a legal question, not a business one, first and foremost.
Is it not?
Oh, it's a legal question alright; the Supreme Court is involved. I just don't understand why it's a legal question. It shouldn't be a legal question.
I know in my business, if I don't want to do a job, I will quote a ridiculous price, or say I'm too swamped to take on any new clients.
I don't understand why someone would want to force someone to do something that's against the core values, or religious beliefs.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 6:09 pm to Woody Glazer
quote:Ideally the baker would've done that, but that's assuming his conscience would allow him to do so. There's such a thing in Christian theology as being a "weaker brother/sister" in terms of conscience, where a Christian has a conviction that it would be sinful for them to participate in something that they think is against God's law, whether that thing truly is against God's law or not. You see this all the time with Christians who believe it's sinful for them to drink alcohol.
That would be objectively better, yes.
It would eliminate the discriminatory nature of the denial of service.
The baker would be free to express his religious thoughts, and the customers would be free to have their own opinion of the baker. Basically, everyone would think the other people were wrong, in their way, but there would be no discrimination based on sexual orientation. (or precedent for discrimination versus any other group under the guise of religious liberty
The issue is whether or not this man's conscience would allow him to bake the cake to support an event that he thinks is offensive to God. If that be the case, it would be wrong to make him violate his conscience on religious grounds.
What this boils down to is which right takes precedent: the religious rights of the baker to refuse service to protect his conscience or the civil rights of the customers who were refused a cake.
Posted on 12/7/17 at 5:10 am to Woody Glazer
1. He did not refuse them service because they were gay. He refused to fulfill a specific request the is at odds with what he believes in.
2. My bad. I could’ve sworn you talked about him refusing to sell a cake to gay people. Maybe I’m wrong.
3. We will chalk that one up to you not having a response to it. People have the right to choose whether they want to celebrate a gay wedding or not. It’s called freedom.
4. I never said a wedding cake was like a dildo. I used that to show that just because someone is capable and has the means to create something as “a part” of their business does not mean they are required to just because someone requests it. Simple to understand. You understood it. You just didn’t want to deal with it.
5. If Arby’s would not cater my wedding because I was a Christian then I would say the same thing I have. They have that right. It’s not discrimination. It’s choosing not to be involved in something you do not agree with.
I’m not sure why you thought you were doing something special with your responses there. You weren’t. All you did was demonstrate that you do not like freedom and it is actually you who try to force your views on everyone else
2. My bad. I could’ve sworn you talked about him refusing to sell a cake to gay people. Maybe I’m wrong.
3. We will chalk that one up to you not having a response to it. People have the right to choose whether they want to celebrate a gay wedding or not. It’s called freedom.
4. I never said a wedding cake was like a dildo. I used that to show that just because someone is capable and has the means to create something as “a part” of their business does not mean they are required to just because someone requests it. Simple to understand. You understood it. You just didn’t want to deal with it.
5. If Arby’s would not cater my wedding because I was a Christian then I would say the same thing I have. They have that right. It’s not discrimination. It’s choosing not to be involved in something you do not agree with.
I’m not sure why you thought you were doing something special with your responses there. You weren’t. All you did was demonstrate that you do not like freedom and it is actually you who try to force your views on everyone else
This post was edited on 12/7/17 at 6:03 am
Page 13 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News