What's new
By:

Supreme court supports Colorado baker in gay marriage cake controversy.

silesian said:
Yeah, that is why bakers are going to the supreme court in order to turn down business.
Click to expand...

I bet you some republican bible bashing right wing hate monger is funding their defence.

Edit:

I'll go further I reckon the whole thing could have been orchestrated by the far right to further their agenda, this very scenario was recently a talking point used by the no campaign in our recent vote to legalise gay marriage. i'm not sure how far back this case goes but it stinks to me.
 
Last edited:
Eminence said:
This sounds fine enough, but where does it stop? Can I offer cakes with names, but guys named Joe don't get service (or more likely here - two grooms on top instead of a man and a woman).
Click to expand...

Religious and class protections don't apply to dudes named Joe. Now if it were Jose or Muhammad. . . Also, forcing a baker to place the damn two grooms wax figure on a cake is exactly the point of the ruling. It is the same as making someone put an LDS temple on a cake. At that point the customer really needs to get a new hobby besides being a prick.
 
Here’s what I don’t get:
As a business owner, I turn down work all the time. Literally daily. I get contacted by people wanting me to do thousands of dollars of work all the time. If I don’t get a good vibe while talking to them, or I don’t like the type of work they want done, or I worry about getting paid, I don’t do the work. If someone calls me with work I don’t want to do, my go to excuse is “I’m fully booked for the next 6-8 weeks (or whatever their timeframe is)”. Why the hell don’t these idiot bakers/florists/photographers do the same thing?
 
bigb said:
Here’s what I don’t get:
As a business owner, I turn down work all the time. Literally daily. I get contacted by people wanting me to do thousands of dollars of work all the time. If I don’t get a good vibe while talking to them, or I don’t like the type of work they want done, or I worry about getting paid, I don’t do the work. If someone calls me with work I don’t want to do, my go to excuse is “I’m fully booked for the next 6-8 weeks (or whatever their timeframe is)”. Why the hell don’t these idiot bakers/florists/photographers do the same thing?
Click to expand...

Simples big man, its cause they want the fight, they want to defend their right to their prejudice, defend the privilege of their prejudice. Without seriously thinking about the history of it, hasn't it always been the case? That certain groups always want to defend their perceived right to discrimination and prejudice, be it directed toward black people, women, the gay community. Didn't you guys go to war over slavery? Bakers going to court is probably progress.
 
bigb said:
Here’s what I don’t get:
As a business owner, I turn down work all the time. Literally daily. I get contacted by people wanting me to do thousands of dollars of work all the time. If I don’t get a good vibe while talking to them, or I don’t like the type of work they want done, or I worry about getting paid, I don’t do the work. If someone calls me with work I don’t want to do, my go to excuse is “I’m fully booked for the next 6-8 weeks (or whatever their timeframe is)”. Why the hell don’t these idiot bakers/florists/photographers do the same thing?
Click to expand...
Because it would be pretty obvious why you were turning down the work if you kept turning down a certain type of customer.

The fear people have is that you can be gay (or black, muslim, etc) and live in a community where everyone is denying you service.
 
framer said:
Religious and class protections don't apply to dudes named Joe. Now if it were Jose or Muhammad. . .
Click to expand...
I mean you're 100% wrong, but I get this whole "white people are discriminated against" really works with ****ing racist idiots, so it's not going anywhere soon. Unlimited supply of racist idiots to eat it up like pudding.
 
framer said:
Religious and class protections don't apply to dudes named Joe. Now if it were Jose or Muhammad. . . Also, forcing a baker to place the damn two grooms wax figure on a cake is exactly the point of the ruling. It is the same as making someone put an LDS temple on a cake. At that point the customer really needs to get a new hobby besides being a prick.
Click to expand...

Hmm, it doesn't seem the same to me. It seems more similar to a baker refusing to put black figurines on for a black couple.

Guess it comes down to considering one a set identity and the other a chosen belief. Where a person feels sexual preference falls on the spectrum could determine where they fall on the issue.
 
I dont think i have ever bought a cake in my entire life...... But if someone wants a cake cant they just go to smiths or walmart or whatever? Or is this about some kind of special fancy cake not being made for someone? First world problems.
 
fishonjazz said:
I dont think i have ever bought a cake in my entire life...... But if someone wants a cake cant they just go to smiths or walmart or whatever? Or is this about some kind of special fancy cake not being made for someone? First world problems.
Click to expand...

Few people buy their wedding cakes at a grocery store, but I guess the store could also discriminate and refuse to make it.
 
silesian said:
Because there is so much discrimination against guys named Joe. Or Archie Bunker. Poor Joe. Poor Archie.
Click to expand...

Seriously morons, there really isn't a constitutional protection because your name is Joe. Your name is not a "protected class." If your name is Joe and you're black, you could make a racial discrimination case, but it wouldn't be because your name is Joe. If you phoned in an order for Jose, and the dude said "screw that!" you could possibly make some assumptions. . .

I'd hate to see the Preparation H bill for all of the butthurt you guys carry.
 
framer said:
Seriously morons, there really isn't a constitutional protection because your name is Joe. Your name is not a "protected class." If your name is Joe and you're black, you could make a racial discrimination case, but it wouldn't be because your name is Joe. If you phoned in an order for Jose, and the dude said "screw that!" you could possibly make some assumptions. . .

I'd hate to see the Preparation H bill for all of the butthurt you guys carry.
Click to expand...
Race is a protected class. All of them.
 
Rubashov said:
You have CAKE????
Click to expand...

First world advantages.

At least ya’ll got hella poisonous snakes and spiders and other deadly wildlife though
 
fishonjazz said:
I dont think i have ever bought a cake in my entire life...... But if someone wants a cake cant they just go to smiths or walmart or whatever? Or is this about some kind of special fancy cake not being made for someone? First world problems.
Click to expand...

My mother bakes wedding cakes. They use a special icing called fondant. She also photographs weddings. My mother doesn't have a business but she would be against baking a cake for a gay couple. I find it morally reprehensible to force someone with her ideals to do so, no matter how much I might disagree with them.
 
idestroyedthetoilet said:
My mother bakes wedding cakes. They use a special icing called fondant. She also photographs weddings. My mother doesn't have a business but she would be against baking a cake for a gay couple. I find it morally reprehensible to force someone with her ideals to do so, no matter how much I might disagree with them.
Click to expand...

If the cake in and of itself had no indication that is was for a gay wedding, would you be against that?

Selling a non-descript cake to a non-gay couple versus a gay couple is kind of the question that SCOTUS punted on, so far as I heard.
 
Bulletproof said:
Race is a protected class. All of them.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but the name Joe isn't really indicative of race or religion and wouldn't at all signify a protected class. You could refuse to put it on a cake. You would be an idiot, but you would be covered legally.
 
Darkwing Duck said:
If the cake in and of itself had no indication that is was for a gay wedding, would you be against that?

Selling a non-descript cake to a non-gay couple versus a gay couple is kind of the question that SCOTUS punted on, so far as I heard.
Click to expand...

I don't think they punted on this. They signaled that not providing the same product that they provided to a straight couple would be problematic. The baker in question actually DID offer this. The court found that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission greatly misrepresented the actions of the baker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top