What's new
By:

Should a business be allowed to discrimate on the basis of a customer's sexual orientation?

Were they being denied cake or just a specific cake? What exactly did the gay couple ask for on the cake?
 
DutchJazzer said:
i'd rather abort drunk drivers then murder babies in the womb.
Click to expand...

I say let them eat cake!

carolinajazz said:
Habitual drunkards who recklessly endanger the life of innocent people....and there are no "wrong" answers if your asking someone his viewpoint!
Click to expand...

So you probably wouldn't bake them a cake either.


DutchJazzer said:
incorrect the bakery is not selling gay cakes to straight customers. so he does not have to sell a gay cake to gay couple...

....as u can see there is a big noticble differneces between gay cakes en strauight cakes.
but no noticble difference between different beefs....
Click to expand...

oh this is just TOO RICH!!!!

Gay cakes and beefs!!!
Sorry, the discussion about the butcher refusing to sell gay beefs probably belongs in a different thread.

CUE TROUT!!!
Time for a joke about the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker.

oh, right, I think he's banned. Oh well, here you go! Rub a dub dub, they are sea men in a tub :mad:



stitches said:
'Gay cake' and 'straight cake'? You can't be serious?! You ****ing can't be serious?!? Please tell me you are not serious and this is some sort of a joke. I remember now why I'm not posting in this subsection of the forum. Those are custom made cakes, there is nothing inherently different in the process of making the 'gay cake' than there is in the making of any other custom made cake. This is a ridiculous argument.
Click to expand...

I do believe he is serious, yes.

DutchJazzer said:
YOUR MISSING THE POINT THEN

they did not go in shop and ordered a "premade" wedding cake. they wanted a custom baked cake.
not an off the shelf baked good.
Click to expand...

Lordy. A cake is a cake. And those wedding cake toppers are often purchased separately anyhow.


GVC said:
Were they being denied cake or just a specific cake? What exactly did the gay couple ask for on the cake?
Click to expand...

Yeah, so far it's not really clear exactly what they were denied. As I recall from some earlier stories about this or a similar case, the couple (individually and together) had been customers of the bakery for quite some time already, and it was a specific objection to providing a cake for an event that the bakery owner objected to on religious grounds, and really had little to do with any specific decoration on the cake.

this link has some general info, but I can't really find any with specific information about what's involved in these cases
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2015/08/13/court-baker-who-refused-gay-wedding-cake-cant-cite-beliefs
 
I think they should have the right to do as they choose, but I think it's stupid of them to do it.

I liked what a local pastor said about it, "I hope they're denying service to straight people who have had pre-marital sex too then, because that's also against the Bible." Basically calling these people hypocrites for their reasoning. So I think the bakery is stupid, but I still think they should have the right to do as they choose.
 
stitches said:
No, the point is if you offer a service or a product to one set of people, you offer it to all. Your analogy is inaccurate. The corresponding scenario would be - if the grocery store was selling the same kosher produce to non-jews, but not to the jew that would be discrimination. If you sell/make cakes to straight people, you sell/make cakes to all people.



That's not correct. Nobody can make you sell any specific type of product or service, but if you decide to sell it, you sell it to all. It's only discrimination if you offer it to some part of the population, but refuse to offer it to some protected class(in some states sexuality is included in the protected classes, in others it's not - there you can discriminate against them).
Click to expand...

I was being hyperbolic.

I don't really think a Muslim could sue a grocer in Montana for not selling Muslim cuisine today....... But the way things are going I would not be totally shocked if a scenario like that could happen 50 years from now.
 
moevillini said:
those wedding cake toppers are often purchased separately anyhow.
Click to expand...
This is a good point. Could the gay couple just ask the baker to make them a wedding cake and then the couple get the dudes that go on top on their own?

Probably, but that wouldn't get them any publicity or drama so why would they do that?
 
fishonjazz said:
I was being hyperbolic.

I don't really think a Muslim could sue a grocer in Montana for not selling Muslim cuisine today....... But the way things are going I would not be totally shocked if a scenario like that could happen 50 years from now.
Click to expand...

They can sue even now. It's completely different question whether or not they can succeed.
 
DutchJazzer said:
why?

50 years ago the supreme court would have denied ss-marrigaes.
did constitutional law change in the last 50 years?
Click to expand...

I truly hate the slippery slope arguments. They really don't show anything but propensity to feed on fear mongering and practically never add anything of value to the conversation. If any practice in the future is allowed or prohibited by law I'd like to think it will be because there are good arguments for it and they outweigh the arguments against it.

The reasons 50 years ago same sex marriages were not allowed(and nobody punished discrimination against homosexuality) are completely different to the reasons Muslims will not succeed in a suit against a grocery shop for not supplying them with Halal meat. (Homo)Sexuality was not a protected charactistic, it was thought of as mental disorder, etc. The science about it has changed and that's the reason slowly but surely the laws and public perception of it is changing to reflect our new knowledge. Religion is already a protected characteristic. I really cannot fathom a way in which not selling halal meat would ever be discriminatory in that sense, simply because of the different way in which halal meat is procured to other meat. And if good arguments for it come forward and they outweigh the good arguments against it, I'd OK with it. I just don't see it happening.
 
stitches said:
I truly hate the slippery slope arguments. They really don't show anything but propensity to feed on fear mongering and practically never add anything of value to the conversation. If any practice in the future is allowed or prohibited by law I'd like to think it will be because there are good arguments for it and they outweigh the arguments against it.

The reasons 50 years ago same sex marriages were not allowed(and nobody punished discrimination against homosexuality) are completely different to the reasons Muslims will not succeed in a suit against a grocery shop for not supplying them with Halal meat. (Homo)Sexuality was not a protected charactistic, it was thought of as mental disorder, etc. The science about it has changed and that's the reason slowly but surely the laws and public perception of it is changing to reflect our new knowledge. Religion is already a protected characteristic. I really cannot fathom a way in which not selling halal meat would ever be discriminatory in that sense, simply because of the different way in which halal meat is procured to other meat. And if good arguments for it come forward and they outweigh the good arguments against it, I'd OK with it. I just don't see it happening.
Click to expand...


ok Mr Nostradamus
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top