You sell cakes. You sell wedding cakes. A couple comes in to buy a cake. That is not a special service. That is literally selling the exact same item you would sell to someone else is a plain and blatant form of discrimination. That is the crux of why the argument the defenders of this form of discrimination falls so very flat and comes across in a terrible light.

You are missing one point in your example.  The figures on top of said cake.  If said bakery offered cakes with only a man and a woman on their cakes then two men or two women are a special order item.  Now a proper compromise would be for the said gay couple to ask for a 3 tiered cake without a topper.  That however would not fit with the agenda now would it?

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Cake, flag, whatever keeps us from paying attention to the important stuff, right?

Truer words have never been spoken

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Source on the type of cake requested? Because yeah id have a problem with that.


As for you and others comment on the photographer, its not the same thing. They take clients as they chose and I know several that turn down work they are not interested in.


The point is that if its a thing you wouldn't turn down other people for I.E. the cake a baker would gladly sell to any other couple then to say its not discrimination is false IMO.


If you want to say its OK to discriminate than say discrimination is OK with you because that's what this is. It's kind of a moot point because as with denying service based on race, creed, age, sec etc. Discriminating based on orientation will is seen as the same type of evil as those now by a majority of America.

Discrimination is ok.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Your dismissive attitude towards cake is Un-American. I shudder to think of your thoughts about apple pie.

Apple pie is clearly a Republican dish. No Democrat would ever prepare or eat a pie that discriminates against other fruits by excluding them from the same crust.

---

Discrimination is ok.

Sure thing. Stay classy there soldier.

---

You are missing one point in your example. The figures on top of said cake. If said bakery offered cakes with only a man and a woman on their cakes then two men or two women are a special order item. Now a proper compromise would be for the said gay couple to ask for a 3 tiered cake without a topper. That however would not fit with the agenda now would it?

I addressed that very question.

---

You are missing one point in your example.  The figures on top of said cake.  If said bakery offered cakes with only a man and a woman on their cakes then two men or two women are a special order item.  Now a proper compromise would be for the said gay couple to ask for a 3 tiered cake without a topper.  That however would not fit with the agenda now would it?

 

In the Oregon example though, they just asked for a wedding cake.  Then when they asked for the name of the bride and groom, when the person said that there were two brides, they said they didn't make cakes for homosexual events.


 

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

I addressed that very question.

If you did then I missed it.  I did see you dance around the issue but not directly answer the exact question I posed in 2 other post.  So if I did miss it please humor me, again I ask again a bit more specific:  "If a bakery sells cakes with specific toppers only, and you come in asking for a cake with a different topper and they deny your special order are they discriminating against you?"

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Sure thing. Stay classy there soldier.

So people are only free to do what you think is right then. Got it.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

In the Oregon example though, they just asked for a wedding cake.  Then when they asked for the name of the bride and groom, when the person said that there were two brides, they said they didn't make cakes for homosexual events.


 

I see conflicting reports on the actual events of this case and quite frankly am far too busy to delve into the gory details.  With that said I have to ask if a bacon loving redneck walked into a Halal serving establishment and asked for a Fattoush or Tabbouleh salad with bacon and were denied is that discrimination?  Call me simple but I do not see the difference in these examples

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

I see conflicting reports on the actual events of this case and quite frankly am far too busy to delve into the gory details.  With that said I have to ask if a bacon loving redneck walked into a Halal serving establishment and asked for a Fattoush or Tabbouleh salad with bacon and were denied is that discrimination?  Call me simple but I do not see the difference in these examples

 

You really don't see a difference?  I mean, really?


One place doesn't offer bacon to anyone.  They don't say "Oh yeah, you can have bacon, but those people over there.  Nope, not going to give them bacon."


The other place makes wedding cakes, but only for couples that aren't same sex couples.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

So people are only free to do what you think is right then. Got it.

People are free to do whatever they want within the law (Oregon cake situation was against the law). People are also free to criticize them based on their actions and words. I'm sure you'd agree with that.


The country is moving towards me ng discriminating based on orientation as no different than sex,age creed, or race. If people want to hold fast to their bigoted ways then that's on them. They will continue to be criticized and then cry about it.

---

I see conflicting reports on the actual events of this case and quite frankly am far too busy to delve into the gory details. With that said I have to ask if a bacon loving redneck walked into a Halal serving establishment and asked for a Fattoush or Tabbouleh salad with bacon and were denied is that discrimination? Call me simple but I do not see the difference in these examples

That place does not sell bacon. The cake shop sells wedding cakes. Why is this so confusing?

---

If you did then I missed it. I did see you dance around the issue but not directly answer the exact question I posed in 2 other post. So if I did miss it please humor me, again I ask again a bit more specific: "If a bakery sells cakes with specific toppers only, and you come in asking for a cake with a different topper and they deny your special order are they discriminating against you?"

I have not danced around the issue. Do they sell wedding cakes? Then they ought sell the cakes to whoever wants them. Do they sell toppers? Then they ought sell the toppers. An argument could be made that they sell the toppers as a unit and not as individual units. If that's the case then its not a normal sale and sure don't break up the unit to accommodate a special sale. When you decide to not sell normal items you sell on a daily basis based purely on the person themselves that is discrimination. It would be no different than denying a minority because minority or a woman because woman.

---

Source on the type of cake requested? Because yeah id have a problem with that.


As for you and others comment on the photographer, its not the same thing. They take clients as they chose and I know several that turn down work they are not interested in.


The point is that if its a thing you wouldn't turn down other people for I.E. the cake a baker would gladly sell to any other couple then to say its not discrimination is false IMO.


If you want to say its OK to discriminate than say discrimination is OK with you because that's what this is. It's kind of a moot point because as with denying service based on race, creed, age, sec etc. Discriminating based on orientation will is seen as the same type of evil as those now by a majority of America.

There are so many bakery stories now that I mix them up, but here you go:

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2015/06/05/patrick-stewart-defends-uk-bakery-decision-to-refuse-support-gay-marriage-cake/'>http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2015/06/05/patrick-stewart-defends-uk-bakery-decision-to-refuse-support-gay-marriage-cake/</a>


It's from Ireland, but soon coming to America.


So if that same cameraman said to the gay people asking to be filmed that he doesn't film gay movies and only straight ones, would that be discrimination? How about the actor who refuses to do gay scenes?


I'm not saying discriminating against anyone is right, but that we are on a very, very slippery slope when it comes to becoming fascist and authoritarian.

---

I'm not saying discriminating against anyone is right, but that we are on a very, very slippery slope when it comes to becoming fascist and authoritarian.

How does the expectation of equal rights equate to fascism?

---

How does the expectation of equal rights equate to fascism?

You don't see any fascism in a government that inceasingly controls what opinions are right and wrong and punishes people accordingly? The government is trending towards more and more control of our daily lives. They are already controlling what children and soldiers are allowed to eat. They are expanding control on education and business.


If a business has a religious objection to selling something, then that should be respected and the government should butt out. It doesn't make it right, but its too fine of a line to have one group of people tell another group of people that a third group of people's rights trump their rights.

---

People are free to do whatever they want within the law (Oregon cake situation was against the law). People are also free to criticize them based on their actions and words. I'm sure you'd agree with that.


The country is moving towards me ng discriminating based on orientation as no different than sex,age creed, or race. If people want to hold fast to their bigoted ways then that's on them. They will continue to be criticized and then cry about it.

Criticism is irrelevent, criminality is am entirely different matter. Being a bigot, within the context of something I own, should be entirely my right as the owner. What we are seeing now is the famous "you didn't build that" taken to the next level, and it's one more step towards the State as all.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

How does the expectation of equal rights equate to fascism?

Equal rights of a consumer to access a private business should not exist. The rights of the owner should always trump the rights of the consumer. This isn't that complicated. If you do not have the right to make the rules about how what you own is used then you do not own it.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Here's an easy analogy that I think works.  Instead of cakes, think of wedding rings.  They are already made and are out on display.  If 2 guys go in and say, we want those two bands, and the store says, no, that's discrimination.

 

The rings are already made, there is no specialty anything or additional modification that is being made to the rings.  The seller doesn't have to put anything on the wring that he would object two.  It's a simple transaction of property.  Saying you don't agree with 2 guys getting married is fine, as a store owner.  But if a person comes into your store to purchase products that you sell to the public, that person is a part of the public, and by law you are obligated to serve that person.  Your beliefs, at the point of transaction is no longer relevant.

 

Now if the 2 gay guys came to the ring seller and said they wanted a statement put on their rings, I think the seller could object to that.  At the end of the day, when it comes to dealing with people, it's all about delivery and respect.  If the seller say's get the heck out of my store, homosexuality is a sin, then you should expect some push back.  If on the other hand, the seller explains he doesn't feel comfortable with that, but he will gladly sell the rings to them at which point they can find other places to put inscriptions on their rings, I think that is reasonable.

 

But a standard ring that is just on display, there is nothing there that gives the seller the right to determine which segment of the public he's willing to serve.  You own a business, you have to play by the rules and regulations of the laws we have.  That's the deal every company must comply with when they open a business to the public.

---