Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 152

Thread: Gay Wedding Cakes

  1. #61
    Philosopher of Men Sleeping in EQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Outside the Matrix
    Posts
    3,477

    Default

    Hate the cake, not the baker.
    We all trust our own unorthodoxies.

  2. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by falafel View Post
    This is troubling. Freedom of religion is a real thing, a protected right. I don't believe the right ends when you leave your house or your church and step into your business. Freedom of religion for all, but only behind closed doors.

    Another issue is the definition of "personal prejudices." Surely you can see that what one group defines as a personal prejudice, another defines as a deeply held religious belief. While the goal of protecting against "discrimination" might sound nice in a hypothetical, it is extremely difficult in practice. Especially where, as described above, protecting one group's rights has the effect of trampling on another group's rights.
    I think I can improve on the words I've used. Maybe this is a work in progress. How about if you operate in the public sphere, you cannot discriminate against protected classes, as defined by society and law?

    Yes, freedom of religion is enshrined in our law. I am trying to draw a distinction, which may not be valid, of keeping both freedom of religion and whatever it is constitutional lawyers call freedom of being discriminated against, in two separate spheres. There should be no law against the practice of religion or religious belief. But in our secular society, I don't find many persuasive arguments that banning discrimination against oppressed minorities in business infringes on expression of religion. In my perfect world, these two spheres can operate independently with the full protection of law. A business owner that holds deeply religious beliefs can practice those as much as he wants in his personal and religious world, and he is protected. In general, I don't think someone's freedom of religion is 'trampled upon' if he is held to a different standard in the public sphere, in a secular society.

  3. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northwestcoug View Post
    I think I can improve on the words I've used. Maybe this is a work in progress. How about if you operate in the public sphere, you cannot discriminate against protected classes, as defined by society and law?

    Yes, freedom of religion is enshrined in our law. I am trying to draw a distinction, which may not be valid, of keeping both freedom of religion and whatever it is constitutional lawyers call freedom of being discriminated against, in two separate spheres. There should be no law against the practice of religion or religious belief. But in our secular society, I don't find many persuasive arguments that banning discrimination against oppressed minorities in business infringes on expression of religion. In my perfect world, these two spheres can operate independently with the full protection of law. A business owner that holds deeply religious beliefs can practice those as much as he wants in his personal and religious world, and he is protected. In general, I don't think someone's freedom of religion is 'trampled upon' if he is held to a different standard in the public sphere, in a secular society.
    very kooky take comrade.
    Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

  4. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mpfunk View Post
    You should not be forced to take business pornographers. Of course, pornographers are not a protected class and a pornographer makes a choice. LGBTQ individuals are not making a choice.
    They're choosing to marry. If the vendor refused to sell them a cake for any occasion, the case would be different. So, using your logic, should BFM be forced to program for gay porn, you know, since he'd be dealing with a protected class?

    "Outlined against a blue, gray
    October sky the Four Horsemen rode again"
    Grantland Rice, 1924

  5. #65
    Trump-hating snowflake Jeff Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The heart of the UC
    Posts
    44,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smokymountainrain View Post
    can somebody - lebowki perhaps since he said it - help me understand how this is different than racial discrimination? TIA

    I'm a baker, black guy comes in and asks me to bake a cake for his wedding. sorry won't do that for you because you're black.

    gay guy comes in and asks me to bake a cake for his wedding. sorry won't do that for you because you're gay.

    I don't see the difference, but to be fair, I'm not very smart.
    If someone walks into a bakery and the baker says, "Sorry, we don't serve gays here" then I would agree that it is indistinguishable from racial discrimination and should be banned. But this baker in Colorado says that he has zero problem selling products to gay people and he does it all the time. Cakes, cookies, bread, etc. But when it comes to preparing a product specifically targeted at a gay marriage celebration, he has moral qualms with that.

    Most folks here are on record as saying that baking a cake in such circumstances shouldn't violate someone's religious sensibilities. But the fact that you and I think it is dumb is irrelevant. This is arguably a rather narrow niche. Do you really feel comfortable employing the hand of government to force compulsion in this case? Should religious sensibilities not be given any weight in the public sphere? Are you comfortable with that balance (or lack thereof) going forward?
    "Socialism is not bad IMHO" - byu71
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.

  6. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by old_gregg View Post
    very kooky take comrade.
    I’m just trying my ethical best here. Not kooky in my head, bro. Just need lawyerly training to make better arguments.

  7. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northwestcoug View Post
    I’m just trying my ethical best here. Not kooky in my head, bro. Just need lawyerly training to make better arguments.
    people should be free to discriminate in all aspects of their lives so long as their discrimination doesn’t threaten others’ access to essential services.
    Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

  8. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by old_gregg View Post
    people should be free to discriminate in all aspects of their lives so long as their discrimination doesn’t threaten others’ access to essential services.
    That’s a kooky Libertarian take. When did you start listening to the UT/Walter faction here?

  9. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northwestcoug View Post
    That’s a kooky Libertarian take. When did you start listening to the UT/Walter faction here?
    certainly not a libertarian take
    Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

  10. #70
    Striving for mediocrity Art Vandelay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,779

    Default

    A friend of my wife works for aforementioned florist (I believe their case is at whatever comes after the state Supreme Court. District?). Every time the case is brought up in the news, there is a huge surge in business. This was especially true after they lost the appeal at the state. Also, all the legal costs are being covered by some conservative group. Iím sure the stress and being labeled homophobic hasnít been worth it, but the whole debacle has been otherwise profitable.

  11. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by old_gregg View Post
    certainly not a libertarian take
    Riiiiiight. Certainly not a liberal take.

  12. #72
    Striving for mediocrity Art Vandelay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,779

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northwestcoug View Post
    Thatís a kooky Libertarian take. When did you start listening to the UT/Walter faction here?
    I wish I had listened (known) to the UT/Walter faction when I was in school and made a boatload of money before I was 30. Iím not sure what political party that falls under, but I endorse it.

  13. #73
    It is NOT a monkey! creekster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Creek
    Posts
    20,300

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northwestcoug View Post
    Thatís a kooky Libertarian take. When did you start listening to the UT/Walter faction here?
    That is not libertarian. That is how the constitution and bill of rights work. You can believe what ever you want. It amazes me how many people think it is the governmentís job to regulate our life and choices. It is not. The constitution and bill of rights was set up specifically to prevent that. OG can be a jerk, but he is spot on here.
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

  14. #74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by creekster View Post
    That is not libertarian. That is how the constitution and bill of rights work. You can believe what ever you want. It amazes me how many people think it is the government’s job to regulate our life and choices. It is not. The constitution and bill of rights was set up specifically to prevent that. OG can be a jerk, but he is spot on here.
    thanks dad
    Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

  15. #75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by creekster View Post
    That is not libertarian. That is how the constitution and bill of rights work. You can believe what ever you want. It amazes me how many people think it is the government’s job to regulate our life and choices. It is not. The constitution and bill of rights was set up specifically to prevent that. OG can be a jerk, but he is spot on here.
    Oh sure. Cue the lawyer protecting his own!
    Is there not a libertarian here that will confirm its core belief is to let people believe and do whatever they want, so long as other people aren’t harmed? Constitutional or not, that’s essentially what OG said.

  16. #76
    It is NOT a monkey! creekster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Creek
    Posts
    20,300

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northwestcoug View Post
    Oh sure. Cue the lawyer protecting his own!
    Is there not a libertarian here that will confirm its core belief is to let people believe and do whatever they want, so long as other people arenít harmed? Constitutional or not, thatís essentially what OG said.
    The constitution is primarily intended to protect us from government, not to empower government to compel us in belief or action. Thatís not libertarian, itís American.
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

  17. #77
    𐐐𐐄𐐢𐐆𐐤𐐝 𐐓𐐅 𐐜 𐐢𐐃𐐡𐐔 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★'s = 1
    Posts
    17,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Art Vandelay View Post
    I wish I had listened (known) to the UT/Walter faction when I was in school and made a boatload of money before I was 30. Iím not sure what political party that falls under, but I endorse it.
    I don't what you are talking about, Art... Walter and I are both college dropouts.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "I never preached in Texas, but I have preached in places as wicked..." -Brigham Young.
    "If we do nothing we'll be substantially behind (other Power leagues) a decade from now." -Bob Bowlsby on Big 12 expansion.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  18. #78
    Trump-hating snowflake Jeff Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The heart of the UC
    Posts
    44,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ted View Post
    I don't what you are talking about, Art... Walter and I are both college dropouts.
    Liar.
    "Socialism is not bad IMHO" - byu71
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.

  19. #79
    Huge Member BigPiney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    4,855

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CJF View Post
    You must only have straight sons.

  20. #80
    Striving for mediocrity Art Vandelay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,779

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ted View Post
    I don't what you are talking about, Art... Walter and I are both college dropouts.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    As were Gates, Jobs, Zuckerberg, Tiger, Lebron never even matriculated to college, etc, etc.

  21. #81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    If someone walks into a bakery and the baker says, "Sorry, we don't serve gays here" then I would agree that it is indistinguishable from racial discrimination and should be banned. But this baker in Colorado says that he has zero problem selling products to gay people and he does it all the time. Cakes, cookies, bread, etc. But when it comes to preparing a product specifically targeted at a gay marriage celebration, he has moral qualms with that.

    Most folks here are on record as saying that baking a cake in such circumstances shouldn't violate someone's religious sensibilities. But the fact that you and I think it is dumb is irrelevant. This is arguably a rather narrow niche. Do you really feel comfortable employing the hand of government to force compulsion in this case? Should religious sensibilities not be given any weight in the public sphere? Are you comfortable with that balance (or lack thereof) going forward?
    at one point in time the LDS church was against interracial marriages - if I'm an LDS cake baker in that era, asked to bake a cake for an interracial couple, you think religious sensibilities should be considered?
    I'm like LeBron James.
    -mpfunk

  22. #82

    Default

    Twitter is abuzz right now about the lawyer for the state’s apparently terrible argument, and Kennedy’s sympathetic response towards the baker.

    Swing, Justice Kennedy!

  23. #83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smokymountainrain View Post
    at one point in time the LDS church was against interracial marriages - if I'm an LDS cake baker in that era, asked to bake a cake for an interracial couple, you think religious sensibilities should be considered?
    Short answer-it shouldn't matter why someone doesn't want to work for someone else, they shouldn't be compelled to do work they don't want to unless it is a basic, necessary service.

    "Outlined against a blue, gray
    October sky the Four Horsemen rode again"
    Grantland Rice, 1924

  24. #84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cowboy View Post
    Short answer-it shouldn't matter why someone doesn't want to work for someone else, they shouldn't be compelled to do work they don't want to unless it is a basic, necessary service.
    in short, a business should be allowed to discriminate, even racially, as long as said business isn't providing a basic or necessary service?
    I'm like LeBron James.
    -mpfunk

  25. #85
    Anti-Mormon Gadfly
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,396

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by All-American View Post
    This gets at what I think is the true underlying issue. Do they really care about having that specific baker bake them a cake? Probably not. Would you really want somebody who believes what you are doing violates their most deeply felt beliefs participating in your big day? I doubt it. This isn't about the cake. It's a challenge to the propriety of believing that gay marriage violates your religious beliefs.

    That belief might be wrong and it might be right, but I don't like government force being used as the vehicle to fight that battle.
    You are right it isn't about the cake. I think you are wrong about what it is about though. It is about finally establishing the level of protection that sexual orientation is going to get as a class. It isn't about religion. Although many religious people want to make this about religious freedom being under attack.

    It isn't under attack. This has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with whether or not a business owner can discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. No one is going to challenge this guys right to believe that homosexual marriage is morally wrong.

    Why I liked the result of Obergefell, I really hate that decision. It was such a punt on actually establishing the level of scrutiny for sexual orientation. Hopefully, it will finally get addressed this time.
    The crux of what has traumatized us about CUF/CG is that we thought they were our friends. And their identity as BYU fans turned out to be the most important thing to them. What empty lives! What a damning indictment of the LDS Church!
    --SeattleUte

  26. #86

    Default

    It's funny how people can't draw a distinction between offering housing, food, banking access, etc and baking a wedding cake.
    Part of it is based on academic grounds. Among major conferences, the Pac-10 is the best academically, largely because of Stanford, Cal and UCLA. ďColorado is on a par with Oregon,Ē he said. ďUtah isnít even in the picture.Ē

  27. #87
    Anti-Mormon Gadfly
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,396

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    If someone walks into a bakery and the baker says, "Sorry, we don't serve gays here" then I would agree that it is indistinguishable from racial discrimination and should be banned. But this baker in Colorado says that he has zero problem selling products to gay people and he does it all the time. Cakes, cookies, bread, etc. But when it comes to preparing a product specifically targeted at a gay marriage celebration, he has moral qualms with that.

    Most folks here are on record as saying that baking a cake in such circumstances shouldn't violate someone's religious sensibilities. But the fact that you and I think it is dumb is irrelevant. This is arguably a rather narrow niche. Do you really feel comfortable employing the hand of government to force compulsion in this case? Should religious sensibilities not be given any weight in the public sphere? Are you comfortable with that balance (or lack thereof) going forward?
    Here is where my cynicism comes out, the only reason he is willing to sell to gays and doesn't discriminate against them from coming into his store and buying something is because that is clearly settled as a public accommodation and he is being forced to do so. If he had a choice, I'm pretty sure he would refuse to sell anything to the gays. Sorry, I'm just not willing to give people seeking to restrict rights based on sexual orientation the benefit of the doubt here.
    The crux of what has traumatized us about CUF/CG is that we thought they were our friends. And their identity as BYU fans turned out to be the most important thing to them. What empty lives! What a damning indictment of the LDS Church!
    --SeattleUte

  28. #88
    Trump-hating snowflake Jeff Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The heart of the UC
    Posts
    44,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smokymountainrain View Post
    at one point in time the LDS church was against interracial marriages - if I'm an LDS cake baker in that era, asked to bake a cake for an interracial couple, you think religious sensibilities should be considered?
    That is not really an answer to my question. Or maybe it is. You are essentially arguing that a religious objection should be ignored if it is an unpopular religious opinion.
    "Socialism is not bad IMHO" - byu71
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.

  29. #89
    Trump-hating snowflake Jeff Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The heart of the UC
    Posts
    44,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mpfunk View Post
    Here is where my cynicism comes out, the only reason he is willing to sell to gays and doesn't discriminate against them from coming into his store and buying something is because that is clearly settled as a public accommodation and he is being forced to do so. If he had a choice, I'm pretty sure he would refuse to sell anything to the gays. Sorry, I'm just not willing to give people seeking to restrict rights based on sexual orientation the benefit of the doubt here.
    I doubt this logic would hold up in court, funk. Sorry.
    "Socialism is not bad IMHO" - byu71
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.

  30. #90
    Anti-Mormon Gadfly
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,396

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    I doubt this logic would hold up in court, funk. Sorry.
    I agree it wouldn't hold up in court. This is a personal belief, not a legal argument.

    Your belief in God wouldn't hold up in court either. It is a personal belief, not a legal argument.
    The crux of what has traumatized us about CUF/CG is that we thought they were our friends. And their identity as BYU fans turned out to be the most important thing to them. What empty lives! What a damning indictment of the LDS Church!
    --SeattleUte

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •