Yes You're A...

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Tell me, edge - if a Southern gay couple asked a black baker to bake them a wedding cake emblazoned with the Confederate flag, and he refused, do you think he should face legal and/or civil sanctions for his refusal?

Day dreaming again?
No I don't get it, why would anybody face legal and/or civil sanctions for refusing to make something that represents, hatred, treason and racisim?

How do you ascertain whether his refusal to bake the cake is based upon his objection to "something that represents, hatred, treason and racism", or whether his refusal is based upon his objection to same-sex marriage?
Is he obliged to divulge his reasoning, or are you content to pretend that you have the ability to read his mind?

I din't have to ascertain anything.
The baker can simply say fuck you, I don't make wedding cakes emblazoned with the Confederate flags, now get the fuck out of my bakery.

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Tell me, edge - if a Southern gay couple asked a black baker to bake them a wedding cake emblazoned with the Confederate flag, and he refused, do you think he should face legal and/or civil sanctions for his refusal?

Day dreaming again?
No I don't get it, why would anybody face legal and/or civil sanctions for refusing to make something that represents, hatred, treason and racisim?

How do you ascertain whether his refusal to bake the cake is based upon his objection to "something that represents, hatred, treason and racism", or whether his refusal is based upon his objection to same-sex marriage?
Is he obliged to divulge his reasoning, or are you content to pretend that you have the ability to read his mind?

I din't have to ascertain anything.
The baker can simply say fuck you, I don't make wedding cakes emblazoned with the Confederate flags, now get the fuck out of my bakery.

Really?
He can do that?
Then I guess he should just as easily be able to say, "I don't make wedding cakes with two grooms on top, now get the fuck out of my bakery.", and face no consequences.
Right?

No, that would be refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation which is not legal as far as I know.

Refusing to make something that clearly represents, hatred, treason and racism is legal as far as I know.

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

I din't have to ascertain anything.
The baker can simply say fuck you, I don't make wedding cakes emblazoned with the Confederate flags, now get the fuck out of my bakery.

Really?
He can do that?
Then I guess he should just as easily be able to say, "I don't make wedding cakes with two grooms on top, now get the fuck out of my bakery.", and face no consequences.
Right?

No, that would be refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation which is not legal as far as I know.



Perhaps the baker merely doesn’t like two grooms on top of a cake. The option of having a preference based upon personal taste is his right, is it not?

edge540 wrote:

    Refusing to make something that clearly represents, hatred, treason and racism is legal as far as I know.

As we have been seeing in recent weeks, when it was decided by liberals that the Confederate flag is more dangerous than global warming, assault weapons, and SUVs put together, the flag means different things to different people. And, there is absolutely no law preventing its display or reproduction. So if a baker is allowed to refuse to put the flag on a cake, he should also be allowed to refuse to put two grooms on a cake.
Who knows what those two grooms represent to him?
And I can find no reasonable logic in allowing the government to force him to reveal why the grooms may be objectionable to him, can you?
Why is it that the government should be in the business of telling people how they may or may not interpret any given legal object?

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

I din't have to ascertain anything.
The baker can simply say fuck you, I don't make wedding cakes emblazoned with the Confederate flags, now get the fuck out of my bakery.

Really?
He can do that?
Then I guess he should just as easily be able to say, "I don't make wedding cakes with two grooms on top, now get the fuck out of my bakery.", and face no consequences.
Right?

No, that would be refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation which is not legal as far as I know.



Perhaps the baker merely doesn’t like two grooms on top of a cake. The option of having a preference based upon personal taste is his right, is it not?

edge540 wrote:

    Refusing to make something that clearly represents, hatred, treason and racism is legal as far as I know.

As we have been seeing in recent weeks, when it was decided by liberals that the Confederate flag is more dangerous than global warming, assault weapons, and SUVs put together, the flag means different things to different people. And, there is absolutely no law preventing its display or reproduction. So if a baker is allowed to refuse to put the flag on a cake, he should also be allowed to refuse to put two grooms on a cake.
Who knows what those two grooms represent to him?
And I can find no reasonable logic in allowing the government to force him to reveal why the grooms may be objectionable to him, can you?
Why is it that the government should be in the business of telling people how they may or may not interpret any given legal object?

It's not.
The baker doesn't have say anything unless he's sued in civil court then all bets are off and then he reveals if he's an anti gay bigot or not. Good luck with that.

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

I din't have to ascertain anything.
The baker can simply say fuck you, I don't make wedding cakes emblazoned with the Confederate flags, now get the fuck out of my bakery.

Really?
He can do that?
Then I guess he should just as easily be able to say, "I don't make wedding cakes with two grooms on top, now get the fuck out of my bakery.", and face no consequences.
Right?

No, that would be refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation which is not legal as far as I know.



Perhaps the baker merely doesn’t like two grooms on top of a cake. The option of having a preference based upon personal taste is his right, is it not?

edge540 wrote:

    Refusing to make something that clearly represents, hatred, treason and racism is legal as far as I know.

As we have been seeing in recent weeks, when it was decided by liberals that the Confederate flag is more dangerous than global warming, assault weapons, and SUVs put together, the flag means different things to different people. And, there is absolutely no law preventing its display or reproduction. So if a baker is allowed to refuse to put the flag on a cake, he should also be allowed to refuse to put two grooms on a cake.
Who knows what those two grooms represent to him?
And I can find no reasonable logic in allowing the government to force him to reveal why the grooms may be objectionable to him, can you?
Why is it that the government should be in the business of telling people how they may or may not interpret any given legal object?

It's not.
The baker doesn't have say anything unless he's sued in civil court then all bets are off and then he reveals if he's an anti gay bigot or not. Good luck with that.

What the hell can he be sued for?

Gay discrimination

happy jack wrote:

Should the black baker be liable to be sued for discrimination against southern whites for refusing to bake a cake displaying the Confederate flag?
By refusing to do so, based upon your criteria he is discriminating against a group of persons on the basis of geographical origin, ethnicity, and culture.
Right?

Yeah. Well I can't speak to Edge's "criteria," but the plain fact of the matter is the Confederate Flag represents treason against the United States. It certainly doesn't matter if the baker in question is black or not.  Any baker can refuse such a request.

happy jack wrote:

The baker in question just doesn't happen to like two grooms on top of a cake; good luck using that to prove gay discrimination in a court of law.

I'm sure that will sound very plausible in the deposition that will be brought up in front of the jury, counselor.

Quote :

1. Send the wimmenfolk to the health club to be ogled by the bearded men who pretend to be women.
2. Pour a glass of scotch and sit in your favorite chair, sipping slowly while admiring the fecal art hanging on your walls.
3. Curse loudly while shaking your fist at the imaginary bigots and homophobes who surround you at every waking moment.

It doesn't get any better than that, does it?

The day dreaming never stops, does it?

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

   

happy jack wrote:

Should the black baker be liable to be sued for discrimination against southern whites for refusing to bake a cake displaying the Confederate flag?
By refusing to do so, based upon your criteria he is discriminating against a group of persons on the basis of geographical origin, ethnicity, and culture.
Right?

Yeah. Well I can't speak to Edge's "criteria," but the plain fact of the matter is  the Confederate Flag represents treason against the United States. It certainly doesn't matter if the baker in question is black or not.  Any baker can refuse such a request.

There is no law whatsoever preventing the private display or reproduction of the Confederate flag. And if one baker is allowed to refuse to put a perfectly legal symbol on a cake, then any baker should be able to refuse to put anything he finds to be objectionable on a cake.

Yeah. Well I don't totally disagree on that, but your myopic focus on what goes on the cake misses a larger point.  We're going to have to let the courts sort out the details regarding "toppings," but it's now clearly illegal to deny service to someone based upon sexual orientation.

IMHO, refusing service is not the same thing as refusing to include some figure or symbol that the baker finds objectionable.

That said, a case could be made under the "equal protection" clause that compels a merchant to provide the same range of services for same sex couples as he would provide for opposite sex couples.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

   
IMHO, refusing service is not the same thing as refusing to include some figure or symbol that the baker finds objectionable.

That said, a case could be made under the "equal protection" clause that compels a merchant to provide the same service for same sex couples as he would provide for opposite sex couples.  

Nothing in this discussion was about refusing service to anyone. We were simply discussing who decides what is objectionable, and whether the government should be able to decide for someone what he may or may not find objectionable. Seeing as that what a particular person finds objectionable is highly subjective, I maintain that the government should stay the hell out of it. Hence, either the two grooms and the Confederate flag may both be refused by any given baker, or the two grooms and the Confederate flag must be honored by any given baker. But you can't have one without the other.

But the government isn't deciding what is or is not objectionable. At least, that's not what the gay marriage decision is about... so unless your "discussion" is purely hypothetical, my statements regarding denial of services certainly seem relevant to this discussion.

"We don't make cakes like that." ≠ "We do make cakes like that, but not for you."

It's still not that confusing.

Heretic wrote:

"We don't make cakes like that." ≠ "We do make cakes like that, but not for you."

It's still not that confusing.

All I was ever proposing was that a baker should be allowed to abide by the first part of your statement, ....

"We don't make cakes like that."

.... not the second part.


And if he chooses to not make a Confederate flag cake for anyone, fine.
And if he chooses to not make a cake with two grooms on top for anyone, also fine.
It's still not that confusing.

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

The baker in question just doesn't happen to like two grooms on top of a cake; good luck using that to prove gay discrimination in a court of law.

I'm sure that will sound very plausible in the deposition that will be brought up in front of the jury, counselor.

happy jack wrote:

It doesn't matter what you think it "sounds" like.

Yes I know.

happy jack wrote:

Discrimination needs to be proven, not speculated upon.

That's right.
It will not be a problem when the baker is asked under oath during the deposition WHY he doesn't happen to like two grooms on top of a cake and what he thinks about same sex marriage, now will it.
Simply refusing to bake a cake with two grooms would be enough proof of discrimination for normal, sane people who are not bigots.
Simply claiming that he doesn't like two grooms on top of a cake will not cut it. It's a denial of services to a gay couple which is against the law. Period.
What your baker says during the deposition will nail it for the jury...if it ever gets that far.

happy jack wrote:

All I was ever proposing was that a baker should be allowed to abide by the first part of your statement...

Heretic wrote:

"We don't make cakes like that."

So then you think the baker should be allowed to discriminate,
doesn't surprise me at all.


Meanwhile republicans show their true colors:

Battle Over Confederate Flag Engulfs Congress

WASHINGTON -- A bill to fund the Department of the Interior stalled Thursday after Republicans tried to add an amendment that would protect the Confederate flag in national cemeteries.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/09/confederate-flag-congress_n_7762782.html

Fucking assholes

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

"We don't make cakes like that." ≠ "We do make cakes like that, but not for you."

It's still not that confusing.

All I was ever proposing was that a baker should be allowed to abide by the first part of your statement, ....

"We don't make cakes like that."

.... not the second part.


And if he chooses to not make a Confederate flag cake for anyone, fine.
And if he chooses to not make a cake with two grooms on top for anyone, also fine.
It's still not that confusing.

Yeah, well I believe that you've totally missed the point. Here... perhaps this will help...

"We don't make cakes like that(Confederate Flag Cakes)." ≠ "We do make cakes like that (Wedding Cakes), but not for you."

Does that help?

I really think he believes "gay" wedding cakes can be identified on sight, and that's why all these bakers are refusing them.

They're not offended by the cake.

How do you not get that?

At no point did any of the bigoted bakers say, "we'll make you this cake, but not this one." No, what they said was, "We won't serve you AT ALL."

That's the legal distinction you seem completely unable to wrap your head around.

happy jack wrote:

“We would close down the bakery before we would complicate our beliefs,” he said following the most recent ruling. He then went on to say that he has no problem with selling them cupcakes or cakes for a birthday party, but that he doesn’t feel he should be compelled to “participate in a same-sex wedding."

So baking a wedding cake and selling it, is participating in a same-sex wedding? I don't get it.
I always thought you had to actually had to be at the place the event is actually taking place in order to participate in it.
If a car salesman sells a car to a man that's going to marry another man and it's used in the wedding, is the car salesman participating in the wedding? No, I don't think so.

The reasoning and logic of homophobes and bigots is hard to understand.