Yes You're A...

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:: 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."

I'm not sure to which bigoted bakers you're referring, but that’s not true AT ALL in these cases.

http://www.oregonlive.com/gresham/index.ssf/2013/02/same-sex_couple_files_complain.html

Bowman said the couple initially chose to have their cake made by Sweet Cakes because they bought a wedding cake for $250 years earlier without incident. But that was for the fiancée’s mom and her husband.

In other words...

Quote :: "We do make cakes like that (Wedding Cakes), but not for you."

happy jack wrote:: http://aattp.org/bigoted-christian-bakery-wont-sell-wedding-cakes-anymore-just-to-avoid-making-them-for-gays/

“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."

And again...

Quote :: "We do make cakes like that (Wedding Cakes), but not for you."

Posts : 9728

Heretic wrote:: They're not offended by the cake.

How do you not get that?

Seriously?

Heretic wrote:: 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.

Just one of countless others.

This thread is a hoot.
Yes You're A... - Page 3 Rofl

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:: 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."

I'm not sure to which bigoted bakers you're referring, but that’s not true AT ALL in these cases.

http://www.oregonlive.com/gresham/index.ssf/2013/02/same-sex_couple_files_complain.html

Bowman said the couple initially chose to have their cake made by Sweet Cakes because they bought a wedding cake for $250 years earlier without incident. But that was for the fiancée’s mom and her husband.

In other words...

Quote :: "We do make cakes like that (Wedding Cakes), but not for you."

happy jack wrote:: http://aattp.org/bigoted-christian-bakery-wont-sell-wedding-cakes-anymore-just-to-avoid-making-them-for-gays/

“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."

And again...

Quote :: "We do make cakes like that (Wedding Cakes), but not for you."

No, they do not make cakes like that – for anyone.
In both cases above, gays were treated no differently from anyone else. The baker simply does not make cakes like that – for anyone.
Would it be OK with you if a baker who has no problem baking a cake emblazoned with the American flag refused to bake a cake emblazoned with the Confederate flag?
Would you consider that unequal treatment?
Both, after all, are perfectly legal representations, and both represent different things to different people.

Posts : 6988

edge540 wrote:: 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.

I guess that depends upon your definition of ‘participating’.
If you cook meth, are you ‘participating’ in the drug trade?
I believe the law would say, resoundingly, yes.

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:

Heretic wrote:: They're not offended by the cake.

How do you not get that?

Seriously?

Heretic wrote:: 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.

Just one of countless others.

This thread is a hoot.
Yes You're A... - Page 3 Rofl

The ‘Make mine black ….’ thread would be a mighty fine place to respond to this, Artie:

happy jack wrote:

Incidentally, you have some unfinished business on the ‘Make mine black ….’ thread, wherein you have been asked numerous times to provide examples of my alleged bigotry. Care to finish that business, or are you too busy pussying out of the discussion?
The way I see it, there are three options:

1. Substantiate your allegations of my bigotry.
2. Retract your allegations of my bigotry.
3. Continue to keep your lies on display for all to see.

happy jack wrote:: I don’t believe that it can be said that I have started any topics favorable to blacks, Muslims, or gays, but I also don’t believe it can be said that I’ve started topics ranting against blacks, Muslims, or gays. There have certainly been topics I’ve started that concerned blacks, Muslims, and gays, but I fail to see any rants against any of those groups as a whole. Also, I don’t believe that I’ve started any topics favorable to any one particular thing. I have started my topics with one thing in mind – to get a debate going, welcoming views from any and all perspectives.
So I ask you again, for the third or fourth time: Is it your contention that, merely because a poster does not initiate a thread espousing a particular view, that poster is diametrically opposed to that particular view?

Having said that, I think it's time for you to list the topics you have started that are favorable to blacks, Muslims, and gays.

:bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball:

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:: 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."

I'm not sure to which bigoted bakers you're referring, but that’s not true AT ALL in these cases.

http://www.oregonlive.com/gresham/index.ssf/2013/02/same-sex_couple_files_complain.html

Bowman said the couple initially chose to have their cake made by Sweet Cakes because they bought a wedding cake for $250 years earlier without incident. But that was for the fiancée’s mom and her husband.

In other words...

Quote :: "We do make cakes like that (Wedding Cakes), but not for you."

happy jack wrote:: http://aattp.org/bigoted-christian-bakery-wont-sell-wedding-cakes-anymore-just-to-avoid-making-them-for-gays/

“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."

And again...

Quote :: "We do make cakes like that (Wedding Cakes), but not for you."

No, they do not make cakes like that – for anyone.
In both cases above, gays were treated no differently from anyone else. The baker simply does not make cakes like that – for anyone.

What the hell are you talking about? Perhaps you should read the articles that you post.

From the first article...

Quote :: Laurel Bowman said her fiancée and her fiancée’s mother went to Sweet Cakes by Melissa, 44 N.E. Division St., for a cake testing on Jan. 17. When the owner discovered the cake was for a same-sex marriage, he called the couple “abominations unto the lord,” according to the consumer complaint filed the next day.

Quote :: ...same-sex marriage goes against their Christian faith, he said, and they’ve turned down requests in the past to bake cakes for those occasions.

Seriously. Try reading what you're posting.

From the second article...

Quote :: The Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado gained infamy in 2012 when owner Jack Phillips informed David Mullins and Charlie Craig, a gay couple, that he would not sell them a wedding cake because he is a Christian and does not believe in gay unions.

The judge found that the shop had been practicing discrimination and ordered them to refrain from doing so in the future. Phillips was not satisfied with the ruling and appealed to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, where he once again lost in a recent ruling.

Sure sounds like "gays were treated differently from anyone else" doesn't it?

Quote :: After the ruling Phillips claimed that his religious beliefs are being infringed upon by the courts, and that he has refused to sell wedding cakes to other same sex couples with no negative results.

Phillips has reacted to the latest ruling by announcing that the Masterpiece Cakeshop will no longer sell wedding cakes to anyone. Rather than sell to those his bigotry causes him to look down upon, he will simply not sell wedding cakes to anyone.

So, after he was spanked by the courts, he said that he would stop making wedding cakes for anyone. If someone wanted to do something like that, then there would be no problem going forward.

I know that you probably don't take the time to read articles that other posters put up, but seriously, both these articles are written in English, and you posted them. I shouldn't need to translate for you.

Oh, and BTW - According to their website, it appears that the Masterpiece Cake Shop is still making wedding cakes...

http://masterpiececakes.com/wedding-cakes/

and it certainly appears that "Sweet Cakes" does as well...

http://www.sweetcakesweb.com/4.html

Posts : 6988

Bowman said the couple initially chose to have their cake made by Sweet Cakes because they bought a wedding cake for $250 years earlier without incident.

Phillips told them, “I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cake for same-sex weddings.”

In both cases, gays were served by these establishments. The reason that they didn’t get the product they requested was because the establishments did not make the product they requested - for anyone, gay or straight. Were the cake to have been requested by a straight parent on behalf of his or her gay child, I don’t doubt that the baker would have refused them, also.

happy jack wrote:: Would it be OK with you if a baker who has no problem baking a cake emblazoned with the American flag refused to bake a cake emblazoned with the Confederate flag?
Would you consider that unequal treatment?
Both, after all, are perfectly legal representations, and both represent different things to different people.

Posts : 1165

happy jack wrote:: Bowman said the couple initially chose to have their cake made by Sweet Cakes because they bought a wedding cake for $250 years earlier without incident.

Phillips told them, “I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cake for same-sex weddings.”

In both cases, gays were served by these establishments. The reason that they didn’t get the product they requested was because the establishments did not make the product they requested - for anyone, gay or straight.

Bullshit, it's the SAME fucking product, it's a "wedding cake."
What they do with it is none of bakers business.

I'll keep this very simple so maybe the light bulb will go on.
Two couples walk into a bakery. First couple, a boy and a girl tell the baker they want a wedding cake.
Baker says no problem and asks them the details of the cake and they're done.
The second couple, two girls, tell the baker they want a cake just like the first couple. Baker asks them is this for you two, they say yes it is.
Baker says, sorry I don't bake wedding cakes for same same sex couples.
It's still the same product, jack.
You still support the ~~bigot~~ baker in refusing to make the SAME FUCKING WEDDING CAKE for the two girls??

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.

Did the light bulb go on yet?

Posts : 6988

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:: Bowman said the couple initially chose to have their cake made by Sweet Cakes because they bought a wedding cake for $250 years earlier without incident.

Phillips told them, “I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cake for same-sex weddings.”

In both cases, gays were served by these establishments. The reason that they didn’t get the product they requested was because the establishments did not make the product they requested - for anyone, gay or straight.

Bullshit, it's the SAME fucking product, it's a "wedding cake."
What they do with it is none of bakers business.

I'll keep this very simple so maybe the light bulb will go on.
Two couples walk into a bakery. First couple, a boy and a girl tell the baker they want a wedding cake.
Baker says no problem and asks them the details of the cake and they're done.
The second couple, two girls, tell the baker they want a cake just like the first couple. Baker asks them is this for you two, they say yes it is.
Baker says, sorry I don't bake wedding cakes for same same sex couples.
It's still the same product, jack.
You still support the ~~bigot~~ baker in refusing to make the SAME FUCKING WEDDING CAKE for the two girls??

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.

Did the light bulb go on yet?

I'm still trying to figure out why the baker who might make a cake emblazoned with the American flag, but refuses to make one emblazoned with the Confederate flag, is not held to the same standards.
It would seem to me that, if it is perfectly fine for one person to refuse to sell a product because he finds it objectionable due to his ideology, then it should also be perfectly fine if another person refuses to sell a product he finds objectionable due to his religious beliefs.
Not one of you has been able to satisfactorily explain that set of double standards yet.

Posts : 3520

happy jack wrote:: I'm still trying to figure out why the baker who might make a cake emblazoned with the American flag, but refuses to make one emblazoned with the Confederate flag. . .

I wrote:: "We don't make cakes like that."

happy jack wrote:: if it is perfectly fine for one person to refuse to sell a product because he finds it objectionable due to his ideology, then it should also be perfectly fine if another person refuses to sell a product he finds objectionable due to his religious beliefs.

I wrote:: "We don't make cakes like that."

There still is no double standard; as it's already been explained, the objections to "gay wedding cakes" is not to the cake itself. There really is no way to dumb it down further for you. Clearly, as Scorpion pointed out from your own links, you just cannot comprehend this topic. Chalk it up as a loss... another conundrum beyond your grasp like global warming, gun violence, and evolution.

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:: I'm still trying to figure out why the baker who might make a cake emblazoned with the American flag, but refuses to make one emblazoned with the Confederate flag. . .

I wrote:: "We don't make cakes like that."

happy jack wrote:: if it is perfectly fine for one person to refuse to sell a product because he finds it objectionable due to his ideology, then it should also be perfectly fine if another person refuses to sell a product he finds objectionable due to his religious beliefs.

I wrote:: "We don't make cakes like that."

There still is no double standard; as it's already been explained, the objections to "gay wedding cakes" is not to the cake itself. There really is no way to dumb it down further for you. Clearly, as Scorpion pointed out from your own links, you just cannot comprehend this topic. Chalk it up as a loss... another conundrum beyond your grasp like global warming, gun violence, and evolution.

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:: I'm still trying to figure out why the baker who might make a cake emblazoned with the American flag, but refuses to make one emblazoned with the Confederate flag. . .

I wrote:: "We don't make cakes like that."

happy jack wrote:: if it is perfectly fine for one person to refuse to sell a product because he finds it objectionable due to his ideology, then it should also be perfectly fine if another person refuses to sell a product he finds objectionable due to his religious beliefs.

I wrote:: "We don't make cakes like that."

There still is no double standard; as it's already been explained, the objections to "gay wedding cakes" is not to the cake itself. There really is no way to dumb it down further for you. Clearly, as Scorpion pointed out from your own links, you just cannot comprehend this topic. Chalk it up as a loss... another conundrum beyond your grasp like global warming, gun violence, and evolution.

There is a massive double standard, and I find no way to dumb it down further.
If the baker who refuses to bake a cake emblazoned with the Confederate flag, based upon his principles, gets a free pass from liberals, then why does not a baker who refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding, based upon his principles, not get a free pass?
There is no conundrum whatsoever.

Posts : 1165

happy jack wrote:: if it is perfectly fine for one person to refuse to sell a product because he finds it objectionable due to his ideology...

Being against racist hatred, slavery and treason is an ideology?
Wow jack, you are one fucked up conservative.

happy jack wrote:: it should also be perfectly fine if another person refuses to sell a product he finds objectionable due to his religious beliefs.

It's the SAME fucking product he sells to other people, genius.
That's WHY it's discrimination.

happy jack wrote:: There is a massive double standard, and I find no way to dumb it down further.
If the baker who refuses to bake a cake emblazoned with the Confederate flag, based upon his principles, gets a free pass from liberals, then why does not a baker who refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding, based upon his principles, not get a free pass?
There is no conundrum whatsoever.

Fortunately the justice system in this country does not agree with rabid right wing, extremist, religious wackos.

Posts : 9728

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:: I'm still trying to figure out why the baker who might make a cake emblazoned with the American flag, but refuses to make one emblazoned with the Confederate flag. . .

I wrote:: "We don't make cakes like that."

happy jack wrote:: if it is perfectly fine for one person to refuse to sell a product because he finds it objectionable due to his ideology, then it should also be perfectly fine if another person refuses to sell a product he finds objectionable due to his religious beliefs.

I wrote:: "We don't make cakes like that."

There still is no double standard; as it's already been explained, the objections to "gay wedding cakes" is not to the cake itself. There really is no way to dumb it down further for you.

That's cold Smile

Heretic wrote:: Clearly, as Scorpion pointed out from your own links, you just cannot comprehend this topic.

Troll's brain TOD 12:31PM Crying or Very sad

Heretic wrote:: Chalk it up as a loss... another conundrum beyond your grasp like global warming, gun violence, and evolution.

It must really suck to be considered the village idiot of a message board by everyone on it. :bball:

Posts : 6988

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:: There is a massive double standard, and I find no way to dumb it down further.
If the baker who refuses to bake a cake emblazoned with the Confederate flag, based upon his principles, gets a free pass from liberals....

edge540 wrote:: It's the SAME fucking product he sells to other people, genius.
That's WHY it's discrimination.

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:: I'm still trying to figure out why the baker who might make a cake emblazoned with the American flag, but refuses to make one emblazoned with the Confederate flag. . .

I wrote:: "We don't make cakes like that."

happy jack wrote:: if it is perfectly fine for one person to refuse to sell a product because he finds it objectionable due to his ideology, then it should also be perfectly fine if another person refuses to sell a product he finds objectionable due to his religious beliefs.

I wrote:: "We don't make cakes like that."

There still is no double standard; as it's already been explained, the objections to "gay wedding cakes" is not to the cake itself. There really is no way to dumb it down further for you.

That's cold Smile

Heretic wrote:: Clearly, as Scorpion pointed out from your own links, you just cannot comprehend this topic.

Troll's brain TOD 12:31PM Crying or Very sad

Heretic wrote:: Chalk it up as a loss... another conundrum beyond your grasp like global warming, gun violence, and evolution.

It must really suck to be considered the village idiot of a message board by everyone on it. :bball:

The ‘Make mine black ….’ thread would be a mighty fine place to respond to this, Artie:

happy jack wrote:

Incidentally, you have some unfinished business on the ‘Make mine black ….’ thread, wherein you have been asked numerous times to provide examples of my alleged bigotry. Care to finish that business, or are you too busy pussying out of the discussion?
The way I see it, there are three options:

1. Substantiate your allegations of my bigotry.
2. Retract your allegations of my bigotry.
3. Continue to keep your lies on display for all to see.

happy jack wrote:: I don’t believe that it can be said that I have started any topics favorable to blacks, Muslims, or gays, but I also don’t believe it can be said that I’ve started topics ranting against blacks, Muslims, or gays. There have certainly been topics I’ve started that concerned blacks, Muslims, and gays, but I fail to see any rants against any of those groups as a whole. Also, I don’t believe that I’ve started any topics favorable to any one particular thing. I have started my topics with one thing in mind – to get a debate going, welcoming views from any and all perspectives.
So I ask you again, for the third or fourth time: Is it your contention that, merely because a poster does not initiate a thread espousing a particular view, that poster is diametrically opposed to that particular view?

Having said that, I think it's time for you to list the topics you have started that are favorable to blacks, Muslims, and gays.

:bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball: :bball:

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:: I'm still trying to figure out why the baker who might make a cake emblazoned with the American flag, but refuses to make one emblazoned with the Confederate flag. . .

I wrote:: "We don't make cakes like that."

happy jack wrote:: if it is perfectly fine for one person to refuse to sell a product because he finds it objectionable due to his ideology, then it should also be perfectly fine if another person refuses to sell a product he finds objectionable due to his religious beliefs.

I wrote:: "We don't make cakes like that."

There still is no double standard; as it's already been explained, the objections to "gay wedding cakes" is not to the cake itself. There really is no way to dumb it down further for you. Clearly, as Scorpion pointed out from your own links, you just cannot comprehend this topic. Chalk it up as a loss... another conundrum beyond your grasp like global warming, gun violence, and evolution.

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:: I'm still trying to figure out why the baker who might make a cake emblazoned with the American flag, but refuses to make one emblazoned with the Confederate flag. . .

I wrote:: "We don't make cakes like that."

happy jack wrote:: if it is perfectly fine for one person to refuse to sell a product because he finds it objectionable due to his ideology, then it should also be perfectly fine if another person refuses to sell a product he finds objectionable due to his religious beliefs.

I wrote:: "We don't make cakes like that."

There still is no double standard; as it's already been explained, the objections to "gay wedding cakes" is not to the cake itself. There really is no way to dumb it down further for you. Clearly, as Scorpion pointed out from your own links, you just cannot comprehend this topic. Chalk it up as a loss... another conundrum beyond your grasp like global warming, gun violence, and evolution.

There is a massive double standard, and I find no way to dumb it down further.
If the baker who refuses to bake a cake emblazoned with the Confederate flag, based upon his principles, gets a free pass from liberals, then why does not a baker who refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding, based upon his principles, not get a free pass?

Because, as Heretic stated... the objections to "gay wedding cakes" is not to the cake itself. In actuality, there is no such thing as a "gay" wedding cake. It's just a wedding cake.

The baker is refusing service to gay couples by refusing to make the cake for them. It's no different from a hotel operator refusing to rent a room to a gay couple. A baker's willingness to make them a frickin' cup cake or brownie isn't going to cut it... any more than a hotel operator telling a gay couple that "we do have rooms, but we don't rent rooms to gays, but Hey, there is a campground out back that we let people like you use."

An objection to a Confederate flag cake is about the cake.

Do you get it now? Because frankly, I'm losing my patience.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: An objection to a Confederate flag cake is about the cake.

An objection to a cake featuring the Confederate flag is not about the cake. It is an objection to what the flag represents to the baker, based upon his ideology.
An objection to a cake featuring two grooms is also not about the cake. It is an objection to what the two grooms represent to the baker, based upon his religious beliefs.
You cannot have sympathy to the objections of only one of those bakers. Either the reasoning of both bakers for refusing to provide the service is legitimate, or the reasoning of neither of the bakers for refusing to provide service is legitimate. You can’t separate the two.

Scorpion wrote:: Do you get it now? Because frankly, I'm losing my patience.

Geez.
How the fuck will I be able to sleep, knowing that?

Posts : 1165

happy jack wrote:: An objection to a cake featuring the Confederate flag is not about the cake. It is an objection to what the flag represents to the baker, based upon his ideology.

That's right, that's why is legal and not discrimination.

Now let me know what part you do not get:
http://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rights-overview/what-is-discrimination.html

happy jack wrote:: It is an objection to what the two grooms represent to the baker, based upon his religious beliefs.

Ah, so making a wedding cake for the gay couple without the two grooms is acceptable, right?

again:
Two couples walk into a bakery. First couple, a boy and a girl tell the baker they want a wedding cake.
Baker says no problem and asks them the details of the cake and they're done.
The second couple, two girls, tell the baker they want a cake just like the first couple. Baker asks them is this for you two, they say yes it is.
Baker says, sorry I don't bake wedding cakes for same same sex couples.

It's still the same product, jack.

You still support the bigot baker in refusing to make the SAME FUCKING WEDDING CAKE for the two girls??

Did the light bulb go on yet?

Posts : 6988

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:: An objection to a cake featuring the Confederate flag is not about the cake. It is an objection to what the flag represents to the baker, based upon his ideology.

That's right, that's why is legal and not discrimination.

Now let me know what part you do not get:
http://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rights-overview/what-is-discrimination.html

happy jack wrote:: It is an objection to what the two grooms represent to the baker, based upon his religious beliefs.

Ah, so making a wedding cake for the gay couple without the two grooms is acceptable, right?

again:
Two couples walk into a bakery. First couple, a boy and a girl tell the baker they want a wedding cake.
Baker says no problem and asks them the details of the cake and they're done.
The second couple, two girls, tell the baker they want a cake just like the first couple. Baker asks them is this for you two, they say yes it is.
Baker says, sorry I don't bake wedding cakes for same same sex couples.

It's still the same product, jack.

You still support the bigot baker in refusing to make the SAME FUCKING WEDDING CAKE for the two girls??

Did the light bulb go on yet?

Again:

A New Yorker walks into a bakery and tells the baker he wants a cake emblazoned with the American flag.
The baker says no problem, asks him the details of the cake, and they're done.
A Mississippian walks into the bakery and tells the baker he wants a cake just like the New Yorker, except that he wants the cake emblazoned with the Confederate flag.
The baker says, “Sorry, I bake cakes emblazoned with flags, just not your kind of flag."
It's still the same product, edge.
Do you still support the bigot baker in refusing to make the SAME FUCKING FLAG CAKE for the Mississippian?
Did the light bulb go on yet?

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:: You cannot have sympathy to the objections of only one of those bakers. Either the reasoning of both bakers for refusing to provide the service is legitimate, or the reasoning of neither of the bakers for refusing to provide service is legitimate. You can’t separate the two.

Sure I can. The same sex couple is part of a "protected class" and cannot legally be refused service. They have to be treated the same way as everyone else. This means that a baker cannot deny them a wedding cake because of the fact that they are a same sex couple. Period.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:: You cannot have sympathy to the objections of only one of those bakers. Either the reasoning of both bakers for refusing to provide the service is legitimate, or the reasoning of neither of the bakers for refusing to provide service is legitimate. You can’t separate the two.

Sure I can. The same sex couple is part of a "protected class" and cannot be legally be refused service. They have to be treated the same way as everyone else. This means that a baker cannot deny them a wedding cake because of the fact that they are a same sex couple. Period.

In reference to my last post, just prior to your latest one:
Are you trying to tell me that, for the simple fact that they are gay, the gay couple's rights are somehow stronger, or more valid, or more legitimate than the rights of the Mississippian?
Why may the Mississippian's rights be trampled upon while the rights of the gay couple must be revered?
Or could it be that you are revealing what you believe to be the optimal case - that gays should not have merely equal rights, but that they should have special rights?
Could it be that you are giving away the true game plan, Scorpion?

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:: Or could it be that you are revealing what you believe to be the optimal case - that gays should not have merely equal rights, but that they should have special rights?
Could it be that you are giving away the true game plan, Scorpion?

Jeez. Aren't you being a bit paranoid? Where the hell is that coming from?

Posts : 1165

happy jack wrote:: It's still the same product, edge.

The fuck it is.
Are you really serious? You're trying to tell me the confederate flag is the same thing as an American flag? If you are then you're saying a NAZI flag is the same thing.

happy jack wrote:: Do you still support the bigot baker in refusing to make the SAME FUCKING FLAG CAKE for the Mississippian?

NO, It' NOT the same thing, keyword being "except."

Quote :: A Mississippian walks into the bakery and tells the baker he wants a cake just like the New Yorker, except that he wants the cake emblazoned with the Confederate flag.

Again, for the third fucking time:

I specifically said it's the SAME:

Quote :: The second couple, two girls, tell the baker they want a cake

just like the first couple.

Ya'll wanna try again or are still you going to be willfully ignorant?

Do you still support the bigot baker in refusing to make the SAME FUCKING WEDDING CAKE for the two girls??

PS:
Tell your racist ass Mississippian friend to go fuck himself, nobody has to make him a cake with a confederate flag on it.

Posts : 6988

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:: It's still the same product, edge.

The fuck it is.
Are you really serious? You're trying to tell me the confederate flag is the same thing as an American flag?

No. I’m not.
I’m trying to tell you that, regardless of which flag is represented, they are both still cakes, which places them within the same criteria you’ve been using to rationalize forcing a baker, against his will, to make a cake with two groom figurines.
It really doesn’t matter what you think of either the flag or the figurines, because they both are two perfectly legal products – it only matters what the baker thinks about them, again, based upon either his ideological convictions or his religious beliefs.
If you hold the opinion that either both bakers be forced to make the respective cakes, or that both bakers may be allowed to refuse to make the respective cakes, then that’s fine. But if you hold the view that one may be forced to bake the cake while the other may refuse (and it doesn't matter which of the bakers we’re talking about), then you are 100% wrong.

edge540 wrote:: Tell your racist ass Mississippian friend to go fuck himself, nobody has to make him a cake with a confederate flag on it.

Something about this topic seems to have really raised some serious dander.
Scorpion has lost patience, and edge appears to be really, really angry.
And we know what happens when edge gets angry, don't we?
Looks like he once again sent the wimmenfolk to the health club to be ogled by the bearded men who pretend to be women, poured himself a glass of scotch and is sitting in his favorite chair, sipping slowly while admiring the fecal art hanging on his walls, and cursing loudly while shaking his fist at the imaginary bigots and homophobes who surround him at every waking moment.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:: Or could it be that you are revealing what you believe to be the optimal case - that gays should not have merely equal rights, but that they should have special rights?
Could it be that you are giving away the true game plan, Scorpion?

Jeez. Aren't you being a bit paranoid?

That depends.
Do you believe that our hypothetical Mississippian has the same right to his choice of cake decorations as does our hypothetical gay couple?