Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

by Simon 252 Replies latest social current

  • scotsman
    scotsman

    Apologies, I meant the sign should read "custom made wedding things for heterosexuals only"

  • MeanMrMustard
    MeanMrMustard

    @scotsman:

    Again, I would love for those people to advertise their viewpoints so I know exactly which businesses to avoid.

  • Simon
    Simon
    the sign should read "custom made wedding things for heterosexuals only"

    Wouldn't that be offensive? I'm sure you'd love something like that so you could claim oppression but it doesn't represent the situation as the baker isn't going out of his way to offend anyone, just uphold his personal beliefs in his own life.

  • scotsman
    scotsman

    But would that sign be incorrect if it hung in Masterpiece Bakery? It would be honest. Perhaps he could add "due to sincerely held beliefs" to soften it.

    And if it's acceptable to refuse to make a custom made gay wedding cake it should be acceptable for a photographer to say they'll take your portrait but not your gay wedding photos, or MC your birthday party but not your gay wedding.

  • Simon
    Simon
    And if it's acceptable to refuse to make a custom made gay wedding cake it should be acceptable for a photographer to say they'll take your portrait but not your gay wedding photos, or MC your birthday party but not your gay wedding.

    Yes, that should be the case. It's up to the artist / person providing the service whether they want that client for whatever reason they want. Maybe they don't want to attend a white christian or a JW wedding, they can chose that too. Oh, wait, you're saying that JWs would have the right to force us to provide services too aren't you ...

    What I find difficult to fathom is why gay people would be so adamant to use the services of someone who isn't comfortable with providing those services to them.

    It's almost like they specifically seek them out ...

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    I guess the point is that your sexual orientation is not a choice, whereas being a homophobe is a choice. And not a choice that should be pandered to in public. What homophobes do and say in private is their business. But there should be no place for discrimination in public, no matter how “sincerely held” their homophobia.

  • Simon
    Simon

    I think homophobia is too strong a term and inaccurate - he was perfectly willing to serve them a cake so it doesn't sound like he had any 'intense dislike' of them. He simply didn't want to take part in something that isn't allowed by his beliefs.

    In the same way that someone may do alternative service because they believe in pacifism - it doesn't mean they hate the soldiers (did the medic in Hacksaw ridge hate the soldiers for instance?).

    BTW: Is Christianophobia a thing?

  • MeanMrMustard
    MeanMrMustard
    But there should be no place for discrimination in public, no matter how “sincerely held” their homophobia.

    So you are OK enslaving people?

  • never a jw
    never a jw

    These gay activists could use their time in a better way. Instead of trying to force other people to accept them and wasting our court systems valuable time, they should look at the opportunity before them. They can open a bakery to serve the gay community and everyone else or not. If they decide to serve exclusively gay people, that's fine with me. From a business point of view, it'd be stupid, but they would have the right to serve whomever they want. And I would defend that right.

    No, I am not a homophobe. I support gay marriage all the way without reservation, but I am opposed to people playing victims when they are not. They are just plain obnoxious.

  • freemindfade
    freemindfade
    I guess the point is that your sexual orientation is not a choice, whereas being a homophobe is a choice. And not a choice that should be pandered to in public. What homophobes do and say in private is their business. But there should be no place for discrimination in public, no matter how “sincerely held” their homophobia.

    Oversimplification, it's not just virtuous to hate injustice and hate superstitious religions. You need to proceed in a way that will protect rights for all, there are prices that come with maximum freedom and liberty, but those freedoms mean a lot to all people even good non-bigoted people. So everyone should stop pretending just because you can throw your hand up and say "I hate religion", and "I hate homophobes" you are somehow making some kind of intellectual case and not just virtue signaling which is pointless and self-serving. Many provocative discussions have a broad spectrum of viewpoints that exist, if its this cake case, or climate change, or immigration, of abortion, there are not just two black and white far left and right ideas, but many people trying to walk the center line of sensibility in the middle. Too often the discussion degrade into you are all this or that, usually by the people with nothing intelligent to say and nothing to add to the debate.

    So stop trying to paint everyone into an extreme for wanting to have an idea that evaluates a broader range of issues at play and doesn't reduce it to nonsensical virtue grabbing. Its very nice you dislike homophobia, congratulations, me too! and probably most people, I wish it would go away. Now can we have a discussion about the details of how this impacts free speech, free exercise, and not pretend like its a debate on whether or not being a homophobic ass hole is good or not, because most all of us already believe that's NOT GOOD.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit