Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gay Wedding Cakes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by cowboy View Post
    Taking this to a ridiculous extreme, this would seem to imply that a female photographer who photographs nude women should be compelled to do the same for a man.
    That's kind of the main point isn't it? Is the medium of "cake baking" covered by free speech? Writing, painting, and photography have been long-recognized mediums for freedom of expression. I don't think cake baking / decorating is inherently expressive in the same way, but IANAL.
    You're actually pretty funny when you aren't being a complete a-hole....so basically like 5% of the time. --Art Vandelay
    Almost everything you post is snarky, smug, condescending, or just downright mean-spirited. --Jeffrey Lebowski

    Anyone can make war, but only the most courageous can make peace. --President Donald J. Trump
    You furnish the pictures, and I’ll furnish the war. --William Randolph Hearst

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by cowboy View Post
      Most people see this case as another version of Katzenbach v. McClung, but I disagree. It would be one thing to refuse service to people because they are gay, but this is opposition to the activity, not the person. The counter argument, of course, is this is a legal activity, and they would not be opposed to providing service if the participants weren't gay. I disagree. Taking this to a ridiculous extreme, this would seem to imply that a female photographer who photographs nude women should be compelled to do the same for a man. No analogy is perfect, so I don't want to go far with that one, but the point is that I don't think anyone should be compelled to provide a service for an activity that they don't want to participate in.

      Before anyone starts calling me a homophobe, I have a business that provided material for a gay wedding, and I'd do it again. I didn't know what it was for at the time, but I certainly didn't have a problem with it. The customer has returned a few times for other things. I just think people should have the freedom to say no.
      The fact that you felt obligated, as would I, to share your "I am not a homophobe" bona fides in any discussion of legal principles and constitutional rights is a sad commentary on how so often the debate/discussion/strategy is not about the legal principle itself or presenting a well-thought-out argument but rather about villainizing one's opponent.

      Comment


      • #18
        One of the interesting things about this case is differences of opinion. George Will argues that the cake baker does not have a case. David French of NRO disagrees:

        http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-still-obtains

        There’s a line, moreover, in Will’s piece that demonstrates surprising ignorance about weddings despite the fact that Will has undoubtedly attended countless ceremonies in his long and illustrious career. Who has ever said that a wedding cake was primarily food? No one wants the cake to taste like trash, but is that the reason that brides, moms, and wedding planners agonize over their cake choice? (Grooms are more likely to be indifferent.) No, they want the cake to be beautiful. They want it to be — dare I say it — a work of art. Rare is the person who attends the wedding reception eager to chow down on a piece of wedding cake. The common and nearly universal experience in weddings where the bride and groom have even the smallest budget to celebrate is the gathering of guests around the cake, to proclaim how “amazing” it looks, to admire the specific aspects that make it special, the “perfect” cake for the perfect couple.
        "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.
        "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
          One of the interesting things about this case is differences of opinion. George Will argues that the cake baker does not have a case. David French of NRO disagrees:

          http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-still-obtains
          An interesting analogy, in my opinion, is whether the government should be able to compel technical/software companies or individuals to do things that violate the religious/moral/expression principles the company disagrees with.

          My company refuses all business from pornographers. Should we be forced to take on their business?
          Should the software engineers at Apple be forced to create government backdoors or to otherwise hack into customer data that the customer hasn't granted them access to?

          If I was an individual contract software engineer, should I be forced to take on projects and write code for things that I felt were morally objectionable?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by BigFatMeanie View Post
            The fact that you felt obligated, as would I, to share your "I am not a homophobe" bona fides in any discussion of legal principles and constitutional rights is a sad commentary on how so often the debate/discussion/strategy is not about the legal principle itself or presenting a well-thought-out argument but rather about villainizing one's opponent.
            poor victims. hey, i have black friends!
            Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by BigFatMeanie View Post

              My company refuses all business from pornographers. Should we be forced to take on their business?
              Depends if it is gay porn.

              Originally posted by BigFatMeanie View Post
              Should the software engineers at Apple be forced to create government backdoors or to otherwise hack into customer data that the customer hasn't granted them access to?
              Software engineers at Apple are clearly artists unlike those so called "cake and flower artists". Therefore, the government has no place forcing an apple artist to change her artistic expression. So of course not.
              "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.
              "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
              GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

              Comment


              • #22
                I could go either way on this. I just don't want to hear all the outlandish "slippery slope" arguments.

                Comment


                • #23
                  In the perfect libertarian world, racist and bigoted business owners of all stripes would be allowed to discriminate freely. And faith in the market and the goodness of the majority of people would eventually drive these people out of business. Or, failing that, sunlight would prove the best disinfectant and force them to conform to society's mores and change their business practices.

                  Hasn't society already hashed this argument out? Haven't we already agreed to reject discrimination in the secular world? Gays now essentially have the same civil rights as every other historically disadvantaged minority. This is not a free speech issue. Bigots can believe and say whatever they want to, in church or in their personal lives. The problem occurs when they try to transfer those beliefs in their secular lives. There should be no discrimination allowed in the business world. Once you enter the business world, you play by the government's rules. If you refuse service to anyone, it better not be based on religious or personal values. I fail to see how this case is any different than a business discriminating against a race.
                  "...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
                  "You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
                  - SeattleUte

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Northwestcoug View Post
                    In the perfect libertarian world, racist and bigoted business owners of all stripes would be allowed to discriminate freely. And faith in the market and the goodness of the majority of people would eventually drive these people out of business. Or, failing that, sunlight would prove the best disinfectant and force them to conform to society's mores and change their business practices.

                    Hasn't society already hashed this argument out? Haven't we already agreed to reject discrimination in the secular world? Gays now essentially have the same civil rights as every other historically disadvantaged minority. This is not a free speech issue. Bigots can believe and say whatever they want to, in church or in their personal lives. The problem occurs when they try to transfer those beliefs in their secular lives. There should be no discrimination allowed in the business world. Once you enter the business world, you play by the government's rules. If you refuse service to anyone, it better not be based on religious or personal values. I fail to see how this case is any different than a business discriminating against a race.
                    Dang it. You were almost to score a touchdown!

                    "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.
                    "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
                      Dang it. You were almost to score a touchdown!

                      I fail to see how my last two sentences detract from my sound argument.

                      And, low blow with the ute pic!
                      "...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
                      "You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
                      - SeattleUte

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Northwestcoug View Post
                        In the perfect libertarian world, racist and bigoted business owners of all stripes would be allowed to discriminate freely. And faith in the market and the goodness of the majority of people would eventually drive these people out of business. Or, failing that, sunlight would prove the best disinfectant and force them to conform to society's mores and change their business practices.

                        Hasn't society already hashed this argument out? Haven't we already agreed to reject discrimination in the secular world? Gays now essentially have the same civil rights as every other historically disadvantaged minority. This is not a free speech issue. Bigots can believe and say whatever they want to, in church or in their personal lives. The problem occurs when they try to transfer those beliefs in their secular lives. There should be no discrimination allowed in the business world. Once you enter the business world, you play by the government's rules. If you refuse service to anyone, it better not be based on religious or personal values. I fail to see how this case is any different than a business discriminating against a race.
                        what in tarnation is the “business world”? private enterprises that do not provide necessary public services or accommodations should be free to discriminate against whomever they please on whatever basis they feel like. a wedding cake bakery does not provide lodging, facilitate travel or provide staple foods.
                        Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Northwestcoug View Post
                          I fail to see how my last two sentences detract from my sound argument.

                          And, low blow with the ute pic!
                          You are painting an inherently complex issue in black and white terms. It is not that simple and it is not equivalent to racial discrimination.'

                          Also, you said:

                          Once you enter the business world, you play by the government's rules.
                          The "government's rules" include freedom of religion. We have a classic case of competing interests here.
                          "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.
                          "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            My not so interesting prediction. The lower court ruling is overturned but in a narrow fashion.

                            I will add that nothing in my religion prevents me from baking a cake for a gay wedding. I am forbidden from getting gay married, but not for attending or celebrating a gay wedding.


                            Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
                            "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
                              The "government's rules" include freedom of religion. We have a classic case of competing interests here.
                              But I suspect that religions that don't conform to recognizing gay marriage will become obsolete in the long run... so add this to my prediction: Someday gays will enjoy being married in the temple as well. Of course, they may not be married for time and "all eternity" for what may seem like an eternity but I would guess they will be married "for time" within my child's lifetime. Someday the church leadership may look back on the ban on gay marriage and write in their FAQ "we don't know where that came from."
                              "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.
                              "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
                              GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Uncle Ted View Post
                                But I suspect that religions that don't conform to recognizing gay marriage will become obsolete in the long run... so add this to my prediction: Someday gays will enjoy being married in the temple as well. Of course, they may not be married for time and "all eternity" for what may seem like an eternity but I would guess they will be married "for time" within my child's lifetime. Someday the church leadership may look back on the ban on gay marriage and write in their FAQ "we don't know where that came from."
                                Ha. You have to be the world's worst libertarian.
                                "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.
                                "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X