Let's be honest here, people are only defending the Bakery owners because they were Christians denying Gays, if it were the other way around or hell, even Muslims denying Christians. You would know as all hell that people would be leaking the information of the side that wasn't Christian.
I understand that feeling like someone doesn't approve of who you are is awful, but suing the owners is taking it way too far.
As for the… more "freedom of religion" debate, I'm conflicted. One one hand, you could argue that freedoms end at affected others, but some freedoms DO affect others regardless of what you do, and are accepted by most. On the other hand, it's not like finding someone to bake a cake for a gay couple is difficult. It's one of those things that kinda suck, but you just take in your stride and move on.
I gotta side with the bakery owners on this one. The same laws apply to everyone, so I can tolerate it.
They actually don't have a legal right in the United States to deny service to people just based on who they are. The couple had a case because of the civil rights act of 1964, which outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce. The federal commission ruled that the civil rights act covers sexual orientation discrimination as well, as it's included under "sex based discrimination".
There is no case for the bakery though, as leaking personal information is illegal, plain and simple.
I should've also clarified that the bakery owners leaking the couple's personal info was wrong, no question about that.
But let's look at… more the facts leading up to the whole thing.
All they did was refuse to business with someone, which was their right, both legally and morally speaking.
While the couple on the other hand sued them, which was going to drag them through a bunch a legal proceedings, and was gonna cost the owners thousands of dollars - if not more.
As I stated before, the couple should've acted like adults, and went to someone who would have no problem with making them a wedding cake.
If the couple had just done that, the whole situation could've been avoided.
But instead, the couple's behavior was basically like that of a 5 year old who doesn't get his way, and in turn starts throwing an tantrum.
It's really not that much different than someone doing something, which might bother others, and thus the others call the … [view original content]
I'm sure there are racists somewhere in America's outback that believe black people choose to be black because they could have surgery to become white or something.
I think that that might be what creates a lot of these issues. A lot of people still somehow believe that sexuality is a choice despite tons… more of evidence to the contrary, so even if they knew that law and wouldn't do it if it was illegal, they do believe that it's perfectly legal. It doesn't give them an excuse for refusing service of course, but I thought it'd be interesting to point out.
I'm sure there are racists somewhere in America's outback that believe black people choose to be black because they could have surgery to become white or something.
Regardless of people's beliefs, in the United States you can't deny service to people for who they are, just for people who are causing a disruption or disobeying rules. The civil rights act of 1964 outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce.
I think that that might be what creates a lot of these issues. A lot of people still somehow believe that sexuality is a choice despite tons… more of evidence to the contrary, so even if they knew that law and wouldn't do it if it was illegal, they do believe that it's perfectly legal. It doesn't give them an excuse for refusing service of course, but I thought it'd be interesting to point out.
Probably. That's not typically used as an argument for racism however while those who disagree with gay marriage tend to use the choice argument a lot from what I've seen.
I'm sure there are racists somewhere in America's outback that believe black people choose to be black because they could have surgery to become white or something.
That sign only works for people who are causing problems. You can't deny service to people because of who they are in the United States sin… morece the civil rights act of 1964, which outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce. The federal commission ruled that the civil rights act covers sexual orientation discrimination as well, as it's included under "sex-based discrimination".
Not to mention the bakery doesn't have the right to leak the personal information of the couple. The bakery was clearly in the wrong here.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevents discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce. The bakery was breaking the law, so the couple was well within their rights to sue.
I understand that feeling like someone doesn't approve of who you are is awful, but suing the owners is taking it way too far.
As for the… more "freedom of religion" debate, I'm conflicted. One one hand, you could argue that freedoms end at affected others, but some freedoms DO affect others regardless of what you do, and are accepted by most. On the other hand, it's not like finding someone to bake a cake for a gay couple is difficult. It's one of those things that kinda suck, but you just take in your stride and move on.
I gotta side with the bakery owners on this one. The same laws apply to everyone, so I can tolerate it.
It's especially funny because Jesus never mentioned gays once. You have to go to three verses from Paul's letters (one of which is just a va… moregue condemnation against effeminate men, a second which was probably not actually written by Paul, and a third whose meaning is under dispute), or the really archaic parts of the Old Testament (right around where they talked about how to treat your slaves, not to wear clothes of mixed fibers: ie 99% of modern clothing, etc). So they've decided to focus so much of their public efforts on an issue that was never addressed by Jesus, and has questionable justification elsewhere in the Bible.
I love how they even cherry pick the large stories. OP already brought up S&G in here which he and others like to forget that Lot offered to send out his daughters and wife out to the violent gangrape mob.
In another story just like S&G, they actually do send out a servant girl instead of the man and she is violently gang raped until the morning, she dies, the owner cuts her up and ships her dead body to nations across the lands in order to go to war.
After all of this, they still think homosexuals are the problem.
right around where they talked about how to treat your slaves, not to wear clothes of mixed fibers: ie 99% of modern clothing, etc)
… moreExactly. There's also the part where it says that women must be submissive to men. But for some reason they only focus on what is convenient for them.
I love how they even cherry pick the large stories. OP already brought up S&G in here which he and others like to forget that Lot offere… mored to send out his daughters and wife out to the violent gangrape mob.
In another story just like S&G, they actually do send out a servant girl instead of the man and she is violently gang raped until the morning, she dies, the owner cuts her up and ships her dead body to nations across the lands in order to go to war.
After all of this, they still think homosexuals are the problem.
Yeah, I don't. I just like to point out hypocrisy sometimes. I do find the Bible an interesting story at times, and I watch the Bible Reloaded read it sometimes when I'm bored.
What exactly does "who they are" encompass? Does it include things like religious or political affiliation? For instance, if a fundamentalist Christian man requested that a bakery run by a gay couple bake a cake for his anti-gay celebration, would the bakery then be legally obligated to do so?
Regardless of people's beliefs, in the United States you can't deny service to people for who they are, just for people who are causing a di… moresruption or disobeying rules. The civil rights act of 1964 outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce.
The federal commission ruled that the civil rights act covers sexual orientation discrimination as well, as it's included under "sex-based discrimination".
I love how they even cherry pick the large stories. OP already brought up S&G in here which he and others like to forget that Lot offere… mored to send out his daughters and wife out to the violent gangrape mob.
In another story just like S&G, they actually do send out a servant girl instead of the man and she is violently gang raped until the morning, she dies, the owner cuts her up and ships her dead body to nations across the lands in order to go to war.
After all of this, they still think homosexuals are the problem.
Sadly, the excuse that being black is a choice actually does exist. Those who use this excuse point to the passage in the bible where Noah cursed Ham which is viewed by some to refer to Noah turning his skin black, even though race or skin color is never mentioned (Noah stated "cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren", and there was widespread belief that the Canaanites were dark skinned, although it's now known there were light skinned Canaanites as well). These people think that because someone is dark skinned, they are "cursed", and it's a choice as they could somehow change their pigmentation by making penance with God.
This Curse of Ham passage was (and sometimes still is) used by many people to discriminate against African Americans by claiming that segregation is the will of God. And before that, the Curse of Ham passage and passages of the Bible that stated that slaves should respect their owners was used by many to support slavery during the Abolitionist movement and the American Civil War. It's still used now to support white supremacist organizations like the Ku Klux Klan.
Probably. That's not typically used as an argument for racism however while those who disagree with gay marriage tend to use the choice argument a lot from what I've seen.
I don't know, just thought it was interesting.
It covers everyone, and The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has specific clauses against religious discrimination. A bakery run by a gay couple would have to bake a cake for an anti-gay celebration, as long as hate speech wasn't asked to be printed on the cake (as something that is specifically anti-gay in message would be against the Civil Rights Act in itself, as it would be discrimination against someone for their sexual preferences).
If it had something that didn't have hate speech, like "Straight Pride", on it, then the bakery would have to comply.
What exactly does "who they are" encompass? Does it include things like religious or political affiliation? For instance, if a fundamentalis… moret Christian man requested that a bakery run by a gay couple bake a cake for his anti-gay celebration, would the bakery then be legally obligated to do so?
What about something like "Marriage = 1 Man + 1 Woman" or "Leviticus 20:13"? These strike me as things that a gay bakery shouldn't be forced to put on their cakes.
It covers everyone, and The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has specific clauses against religious discrimination. A bakery run by a gay couple wo… moreuld have to bake a cake for an anti-gay celebration, as long as hate speech wasn't asked to be printed on the cake (as something that is specifically anti-gay in message would be against the Civil Rights Act in itself, as it would be discrimination against someone for their sexual preferences).
If it had something that didn't have hate speech, like "Straight Pride", on it, then the bakery would have to comply.
Those would fall under discrimination against someone for their sexual preferences, and so would most likely be against the Civil Rights Act.
Some bakeries are now refusing to make a cake with a Confederate flag on it on the grounds of racial discrimination via the Civil Rights Act, so these types of cakes could likely be refused as well under the same act.
What about something like "Marriage = 1 Man + 1 Woman" or "Leviticus 20:13"? These strike me as things that a gay bakery shouldn't be forced to put on their cakes.
What exactly does "who they are" encompass? Does it include things like religious or political affiliation? For instance, if a fundamentalis… moret Christian man requested that a bakery run by a gay couple bake a cake for his anti-gay celebration, would the bakery then be legally obligated to do so?
No, it's not an "anti-Christian cake" (whatever that means), but is for a ceremony that the Christian bakers are morally opposed to. My concern was that a gay bakery would likewise have to bake a cake for a ceremony that they might be morally opposed to, such as an anti-gay celebration. And that is apparently the case, which does make me feel less good about the law.
if a fundamentalist Christian man requested that a bakery run by a gay couple bake a cake for his anti-gay celebration
Maybe you wou… moreld like to reformulate your question? It's not the same situation since the gay couple wasn't asking for an anti-christian cake.
Yeah, there's always ups and downs about any legislation, as there are always people who turn that legislation around to do the opposite of its intentions.
Laws like this are good though, as they help a lot, and the amount of people who turn the legislation around to prove a point (such as the man who tricked a Walmart bakery into making an ISIS cake because they were upset that Walmart wouldn't make a Confederate flag cake on the grounds of racial discrimination, then claimed "double standards" even though it was obvious the baker had no idea that it was the ISIS logo) are really small compared to the people who use this legislation the way it was intended.
No, it's not an "anti-Christian cake" (whatever that means), but is for a ceremony that the Christian bakers are morally opposed to. My conc… moreern was that a gay bakery would likewise have to bake a cake for a ceremony that they might be morally opposed to, such as an anti-gay celebration. And that is apparently the case, which does make me feel less good about the law.
Sadly, the excuse that being black is a choice actually does exist. Those who use this excuse point to the passage in the bible where Noah … morecursed Ham which is viewed by some to refer to Noah turning his skin black, even though race or skin color is never mentioned (Noah stated "cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren", and there was widespread belief that the Canaanites were dark skinned, although it's now known there were light skinned Canaanites as well). These people think that because someone is dark skinned, they are "cursed", and it's a choice as they could somehow change their pigmentation by making penance with God.
This Curse of Ham passage was (and sometimes still is) used by many people to discriminate against African Americans by claiming that segregation is the will of God. And before that, the Curse of Ham passage and passages of the Bible that stated that slaves should respect their owners wa… [view original content]
Oh my... No offense to Catholics but come on, it's just a friggin cake... Jeez. I get why the homo couple got offended, even though the two guys could just have put themselves beyond this crap and bought the cake elsewhere. I guess I support for the 70% the couple's decision.
And for fucks sake, it was both, the people and the ceremony. If your entire business is making cakes for all types of ceremonies including weddings and you deny to provide service to a gay couple for their wedding, you are denying the gay couple because they're gay.
How is it so many people know the phrase "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" but don't know the Civil Rights Act means you don't have that right? It's the whole reason black people can go into stores now.
Comments
Let's be honest here, people are only defending the Bakery owners because they were Christians denying Gays, if it were the other way around or hell, even Muslims denying Christians. You would know as all hell that people would be leaking the information of the side that wasn't Christian.
They actually don't have a legal right in the United States to deny service to people just based on who they are. The couple had a case because of the civil rights act of 1964, which outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce. The federal commission ruled that the civil rights act covers sexual orientation discrimination as well, as it's included under "sex based discrimination".
There is no case for the bakery though, as leaking personal information is illegal, plain and simple.
I'm sure there are racists somewhere in America's outback that believe black people choose to be black because they could have surgery to become white or something.
I don't know why but I want this to be a thing, just because it's funny as hell.
Regardless of people's beliefs, in the United States you can't deny service to people for who they are, just for people who are causing a disruption or disobeying rules. The civil rights act of 1964 outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce.
The federal commission ruled that the civil rights act covers sexual orientation discrimination as well, as it's included under "sex-based discrimination".
Probably. That's not typically used as an argument for racism however while those who disagree with gay marriage tend to use the choice argument a lot from what I've seen.
I don't know, just thought it was interesting.
Now that was where they cross the line . Now even I don't dislike like them that much . Someone could have been hurt.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevents discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce. The bakery was breaking the law, so the couple was well within their rights to sue.
The federal commission ruled that the civil rights act covers sexual orientation discrimination as well, as it's included under "sex-based discrimination".
Exactly. There's also the part where it says that women must be submissive to men. But for some reason they only focus on what is convenient for them.
I love how they even cherry pick the large stories. OP already brought up S&G in here which he and others like to forget that Lot offered to send out his daughters and wife out to the violent gangrape mob.
In another story just like S&G, they actually do send out a servant girl instead of the man and she is violently gang raped until the morning, she dies, the owner cuts her up and ships her dead body to nations across the lands in order to go to war.
After all of this, they still think homosexuals are the problem.
What right does a bakery have to deny someone service based on their sexual preference? It's none of their concern or business!
Do i need to announce that i'm straight everytime i go for a coffee now?
Not defending him or anything but, you know all that stuff, yet you don't give a fuck about the Bible?
Yeah, I don't. I just like to point out hypocrisy sometimes. I do find the Bible an interesting story at times, and I watch the Bible Reloaded read it sometimes when I'm bored.
What exactly does "who they are" encompass? Does it include things like religious or political affiliation? For instance, if a fundamentalist Christian man requested that a bakery run by a gay couple bake a cake for his anti-gay celebration, would the bakery then be legally obligated to do so?
LOL, I didn't know about that one. I find funny the fact that they don't remember these things when they start quoting the bible in an argument.
Hell, most Christians ignore half of their religion by ignoring the Old Testament.
Sadly, the excuse that being black is a choice actually does exist. Those who use this excuse point to the passage in the bible where Noah cursed Ham which is viewed by some to refer to Noah turning his skin black, even though race or skin color is never mentioned (Noah stated "cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren", and there was widespread belief that the Canaanites were dark skinned, although it's now known there were light skinned Canaanites as well). These people think that because someone is dark skinned, they are "cursed", and it's a choice as they could somehow change their pigmentation by making penance with God.
This Curse of Ham passage was (and sometimes still is) used by many people to discriminate against African Americans by claiming that segregation is the will of God. And before that, the Curse of Ham passage and passages of the Bible that stated that slaves should respect their owners was used by many to support slavery during the Abolitionist movement and the American Civil War. It's still used now to support white supremacist organizations like the Ku Klux Klan.
It covers everyone, and The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has specific clauses against religious discrimination. A bakery run by a gay couple would have to bake a cake for an anti-gay celebration, as long as hate speech wasn't asked to be printed on the cake (as something that is specifically anti-gay in message would be against the Civil Rights Act in itself, as it would be discrimination against someone for their sexual preferences).
If it had something that didn't have hate speech, like "Straight Pride", on it, then the bakery would have to comply.
What about something like "Marriage = 1 Man + 1 Woman" or "Leviticus 20:13"? These strike me as things that a gay bakery shouldn't be forced to put on their cakes.
Those would fall under discrimination against someone for their sexual preferences, and so would most likely be against the Civil Rights Act.
Some bakeries are now refusing to make a cake with a Confederate flag on it on the grounds of racial discrimination via the Civil Rights Act, so these types of cakes could likely be refused as well under the same act.
Maybe you would like to reformulate your question? It's not the same situation since the gay couple wasn't asking for an anti-christian cake.
No, it's not an "anti-Christian cake" (whatever that means), but is for a ceremony that the Christian bakers are morally opposed to. My concern was that a gay bakery would likewise have to bake a cake for a ceremony that they might be morally opposed to, such as an anti-gay celebration. And that is apparently the case, which does make me feel less good about the law.
Yeah, there's always ups and downs about any legislation, as there are always people who turn that legislation around to do the opposite of its intentions.
Laws like this are good though, as they help a lot, and the amount of people who turn the legislation around to prove a point (such as the man who tricked a Walmart bakery into making an ISIS cake because they were upset that Walmart wouldn't make a Confederate flag cake on the grounds of racial discrimination, then claimed "double standards" even though it was obvious the baker had no idea that it was the ISIS logo) are really small compared to the people who use this legislation the way it was intended.
They shouldn't have turned them away .They have doubled/tripled their price of the cake.
That would have been my move.
Uh... isn't that illegal too?
Only if found out.
At least they have their cake..
That's the spirit.
lol sorry I couldn't resist
Yes, it's the same thing as denying them the cake basically. But I have hopes she's trolling. If not, then she's got a bad opinion.
She, and she most likely isn't. Also, are you sure it's illegal denying someone service if the business is private?
I wish it was a joke. But I'm sure she's serious... sadly.
Oh my... No offense to Catholics but come on, it's just a friggin cake... Jeez. I get why the homo couple got offended, even though the two guys could just have put themselves beyond this crap and bought the cake elsewhere. I guess I support for the 70% the couple's decision.
Not sure about private businesses, but it's a pretty shit move nonetheless.
a wedding isn't a person, so as far as i'm aware the baker wasn't discriminating against a person.
Are you actually serious?
yup
as far as im aware the problem wasn't the sexuality of the customers but the nature of the event the product would've been used in.
Wow.
And for fucks sake, it was both, the people and the ceremony. If your entire business is making cakes for all types of ceremonies including weddings and you deny to provide service to a gay couple for their wedding, you are denying the gay couple because they're gay.
Civil Rights Act stipulates you cannot discriminate in a public business.
How is it so many people know the phrase "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" but don't know the Civil Rights Act means you don't have that right? It's the whole reason black people can go into stores now.