Supreme court supports Colorado baker in gay marriage cake controversy.

[One Brow]

I specified trivial. Selling gas and food to someone should not be exempt no matter employee count. Forcing the only photographer in town, who is phobic of something, should. It's cruelty.

People are capable of doing this stuff on their own anyway. Rich world society seems to be losing that concept.

You can do-it-yourself on photography, but they won't be as good as the professional, most of the time.

I distinguish between what we should expect from a professional photography business and what we should expect from an individual. I don't think the size of the business is overly relevant for this discussion. Why is it better to force something on a photography business with 10 photographers who are phobic of gay people, or 100, as opposed to 2? The experience isn't any easier for the person selected to do the job.

 

[One Brow]

This is why I defined terms. We were talking about a person who makes and sells cakes. This is, by definition, a business (not necessarily a corporation).

If you are working directly for the individual getting the cake, it is not a business. By your definition, every contractor a company hires is running a business. Apparently, I used to have a newspaper delivery business, because I delivered newspapers for the Dayton Daily News.

The people who buy the cakes are customers (by definition).

They may be employers. It depends on how the operation is run.

An agreement to sell a certain cake at a certain cost on a certain date to be delivered to a certain place, is a contract (by definition)

Yes, a contract.

between the business and the customer.

Possibly between an employer and contract employee.

 

[Gameface]

OB, as far as the case with this cake baker, who, as far as I understand had a brick and mortar cake shop, this person is running a business in your opinion, yes?

I think you and silesian are talking past one another a bit, where he is coming back to the case at hand and you're talking about an individual who bakes cakes for people sometimes.

 

[One Brow]

OB, as far as the case with this cake baker, who, as far as I understand had a brick and mortar cake shop, this person is running a business in your opinion, yes?

I think you and silesian are talking past one another a bit, where he is coming back to the case at hand and you're talking about an individual who bakes cakes for people sometimes.

You may be right about talking past each other. I think that the guy in the Masterpiece case should be required to offer the same services to any customer who comes in through his door, but idestoyedthetoilet's mom can't be forced to work for people she doesn't like. Incorporation or not, running a public venue entails public responsibilities.

 

[JazzGal]

I cannot decide where I fall in this debate.

In the particular case of the lawsuit, I do not understand why a baker cannot make a wedding cake for anyone as typically they are pretty generic (flowers, decorations, etc). Unless the couple was asking for something vulgar on the cake, I'm not sure what about the cake would offend the baker's sensibilities (and I certainly understand refusing to make a vulgar cake no matter the sexual orientation of the customer). Stating that you believe homosexuality is a sin and that you cannot in good conscience make a cake for a gay couple is somewhat ridiculous since I'm certain the baker makes cakes for adulterers, child abusers, thieves, etc. (you know, things Jesus actually condemned). He doesn't question his other customers about their morality, so his conscience is clear just because he cannot "see" the sin?

However, some other wedding services would be more difficult. Being a wedding planner or a photographer would be really difficult if you were repulsed by seeing homosexuals kiss and touch, same as it would have been (and possibly still is) for some people to see interracial couples. Should you be forced to take clients for whom you know you will not be able to do your best work because your feelings are going to get in the way? I just don't know. In an ideal world, people would get over it and treat people fairly and equally, but this is not an ideal world.

In some ways, it would be great if people could put up a sign stating who they will and will not serve. It would make it a lot easier for the rest of us to know which establishments to avoid for their ignorance and discrimination, and their businesses can suffer accordingly. But yeah, this could be a real problem for small towns and anyone with limited choices for services.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

You can do-it-yourself on photography, but they won't be as good as the professional, most of the time.

I distinguish between what we should expect from a professional photography business and what we should expect from an individual. I don't think the size of the business is overly relevant for this discussion. Why is it better to force something on a photography business with 10 photographers who are phobic of gay people, or 100, as opposed to 2? The experience isn't any easier for the person selected to do the job.

I think once you have some number of employees you probably have someone, or at least the resources or ability to outsource, to get the job done. You probably aren't the only game in town either.

I simply find it cruel to force someone to witness something they can't handle. The cake thing is stupid but photography is demanding torture on some.

I don't believe in laws that have a foundation that tortures people and think that gay men can probably deal with the fact that many straight people don't like their PDA. It's a pretty natural reaction. Hell, I'm not homophobic in the least and I don't like gay romance scenes. I could and gladly would photograph a gay marriage if that was my business but I see why others couldn't, and think we should be respectful of their choice regardless of how ignorant we think they are.

We can alter laws to where sensible outcomes are achieved.

Oh, and this applies in reverse as well. I've heard from lesbians that they would be repulsed by kissing a man or merely having sex for a semen donor. I'm sure many LGBTQ cant stand all the straight PDA.

 

[One Brow]

I don't believe in laws that have a foundation that tortures people and think that gay men can probably deal with the fact that many straight people don't like their PDA. It's a pretty natural reaction. Hell, I'm not homophobic in the least and I don't like gay romance scenes. I could and gladly would photograph a gay marriage if that was my business but I see why others couldn't, and think we should be respectful of their choice regardless of how ignorant we think they are.

We can alter laws to where sensible outcomes are achieved.

Oh, and this applies in reverse as well. I've heard from lesbians that they would be repulsed by kissing a man or merely having sex for a semen donor. I'm sure many LGBTQ cant stand all the straight PDA.

Well, there are definitely people who don't like PDAs, period. I'm not sure how much I disagree with the rest of that, I never studied it, but it feels wrong to me.

 

[LogGrad98]

In some ways we are starting to move in the direction of telling people what they are allowed to like and tolerate instead of respecting their choice. One of the founding principles of this country, when one really gets into the constitutional framework, was freedom of thought and belief, no matter how stupid those thoughts and beliefs may be, and freedom from being told what to think and believe. I know many laws enacted since then are intended to limit any damage done between groups who think and believe differently from each other, and they have largely done so, with varying degrees of success. I will not pretend to know what the right answer is here, as this is a very nuanced subject, but I think we are at a point now where the pendulum is swinging the other way, and that is why I think how the SC handled this was about the best you could get right now, as it kept them from putting a hard shove on that pendulum one way or the other.

This is a little bit like the right to smoke. Yes, someone may have a right to smoke, but is that still a right when it infringes on my right to not breathe smokey air? Yes I can move away from the smoker, but why should I have to make the concession and not them? Aside from the public health risks this is a debate with no clear winner. You are never going to legislate all harm out of everything for every individual or group. We can really only do our best to limit the harm and keep it from going crazy in one direction or the other. Sometimes the best you are going to get is that everyone has to endure a little harm. It gets very tough to say whose harm matters more when the lines are not clear-cut.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

Would you be okay with forcing a fundamental Christian to sell a cake to Mormon, if their ideals include the belief that Mormons are cult that worships a false God?

Would you be okay if a Mexican American refused to serve food to any white patrons?

Discriminating on any of these bases seems pretty morally reprehensible.

Yep, and im assuming you meant *not*. I believe in people getting tough when the tough gets going and that's what Mormons do.

My family is all LDS and LDS have the attitude of basically saying **** you to those who oppose their way of life, we will overcome.

I'm tired of being the Ann Coulter in this thread so I'm letting it rest.

 

[gandalfe]

I think once you have some number of employees you probably have someone, or at least the resources or ability to outsource, to get the job done. You probably aren't the only game in town either.

I simply find it cruel to force someone to witness something they can't handle. The cake thing is stupid but photography is demanding torture on some.

I don't believe in laws that have a foundation that tortures people and think that gay men can probably deal with the fact that many straight people don't like their PDA. It's a pretty natural reaction. Hell, I'm not homophobic in the least and I don't like gay romance scenes. I could and gladly would photograph a gay marriage if that was my business but I see why others couldn't, and think we should be respectful of their choice regardless of how ignorant we think they are.

We can alter laws to where sensible outcomes are achieved.

Oh, and this applies in reverse as well. I've heard from lesbians that they would be repulsed by kissing a man or merely having sex for a semen donor. I'm sure many LGBTQ cant stand all the straight PDA.

How are they being forced? If you don't want to do photographs of a wedding between two men, or mixed race marriages, then don't do wedding photography.

 

[Gameface]

How are they being forced? If you don't want to do photographs of a wedding between two men, or mixed race marriages, then don't do wedding photography.

Right, you can always work at Wendy's. Screw your professional skills, experience and education. Should have known what you were getting into.

You're not actually trying to make a real argument in that post, are you?

 

[Gameface]

"Hi, I'd like to hire you to take photos of a religious ceremony."
"Okay, what type of religious ceremony?"
"Well, in my religion we have group sex, men, women, young and old. The entire congregation that is of legal age. We want to have photographs to remember the hollowed occasion."
"I'm sorry, what? You want me to take photos of group sex?"
"Our religious ceremony."
"Which is group sex?"
"Yes, it is our most holy day."
"I'm sorry, I'm not comfortable with that."
"You're disgusting! You hateful little person!"
"I'm just not comfortable taking those kinds of pictures."
"All people are beautiful! You just choose to see things through a lense of hatred and discrimination."
"Well, that's just not the kind of photography I do."
"You're a photographer, you take pictures, right?"
"Yes."
"But you are discriminating against me because of my religion!"
"No, I don't care what you do, I just don't want to be part of it. I don't want to be there."
"That's not your choice! You run a photography business. I'm hiring you to take pictures."
"But I really don't want to take those kinds of pictures. I'm not comfortable with that."
"'Those kinds of pictures?' Do you realize how you sound? How closed minded and simple? The hate you spew without even realizing it?"
"I don't hate you..."
"Yes you do! You think I'm disgusting, you think I'm beneath you. Well let me tell you something, I'm a human too. Just because I have different beliefs and don't adhere to your personal view of the way everyone should be you're refusing to do your job and take photographs. I don't think you realize how bad you messed up. I don't think you realize that you can't tell me no and just send me on my way. I'm hiring you to take photographs and you'll either take the photographs or I'll take you to court!"
"Well I'm very sorry but I suppose you'll have to take me to court, then."
"Bigot!"
"Okay, sorry. Hope you have a nice day."

 

[One Brow]

"Hi, I'd like to hire you to take photos of a religious ceremony."
"Okay, what type of religious ceremony?"
"Well, in my religion we have group sex, men, women, young and old. The entire congregation that is of legal age. We want to have photographs to remember the hollowed occasion."

Because having group sex in front of a stranger is a great comparison to being a gay or an interracial couple.

 

[Gameface]

Because having group sex in front of a stranger is a great comparison to being a gay or an interracial couple.

No, it is not a comparison to that. Why do you assume that's the comparison I was making?

I was using an extreme example a greater number of people could identify with to show a situation a person might genuinely be uncomfortable with and had the SC ruled differently would have been forced to participate in.

 

[One Brow]

No, it is not a comparison to that. Why do you assume that's the comparison I was making?

I was using an extreme example a greater number of people could identify with to show a situation a person might genuinely be uncomfortable with and had the SC ruled differently would have been forced to participate in.

I got the comparison from the contents of the thread you made the post in.

As a straight man, gay PDAs made me uncomfortable when I was younger, but that was because I used to think gayness was an aberration. As I came to understand and accept gayness as natural and normal, they have bothered me much less (I'm still a work in progress).

If you are upset with any sort of PDA, that's one thing, and you should probably not be a wedding photographer. If you are upset with only a subset of PDAs based on gender, race, etc., it's likely based on something you feel about that group.

 

[Gameface]

I got the comparison from the contents of the thread you made the post in.

As a straight man, gay PDAs made me uncomfortable when I was younger, but that was because I used to think gayness was an aberration. As I came to understand and accept gayness as natural and normal, they have bothered me much less (I'm still a work in progress).

If you are upset with any sort of PDA, that's one thing, and you should probably not be a wedding photographer. If you are upset with only a subset of PDAs based on gender, race, etc., it's likely based on something you feel about that group.

I'm not particularly found of any types of PDAs that go beyond hand holding, light kisses or hugging, but I'm not disgusted by anything you'd generally see in public, either.

Look, I made a post of fictional dialogue to illustrate how far this type of force could potentially go. It was made not as an attempt to advocate for the side that wants the right to refuse service to gay people, it was made to allow those who want to require service for gay people (or any other group) to better understand where the people they are arguing with are coming from.

I'm often accused of being a liberal with blinders on who wants to shut down anyone who doesn't agree with me. I disagree with that accusation. This little dialogue that I typed out is something that I do in my own head often. I wish I had time right now, because I wanted to type out similar dialogue, but from the other perspective. I bet you'd enjoy that one and give me likes and all that, even though both have the same value in regard to better understanding the people we are having a discussion with.

 

[One Brow]

I wish I had time right now, because I wanted to type out similar dialogue, but from the other perspective. I bet you'd enjoy that one and give me likes and all that, even though both have the same value in regard to better understanding the people we are having a discussion with.

Possibly, but now you've done and ruined it.