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 in… morecluding weddings and you deny to provide service to a gay couple for their wedding, you are denying the gay couple because they're gay.
I don't know. They were probably only there for the cake. The owners did deny them because of their lifestyle, if you read up on one of the dozen articles about it, you would know this. How about when the Owners leaked the Couple's information?
It's a little unfair just to blame Catholics, because that's just the largest sect of Christianity, when far more offensive sects, with the likes of the Westboro Baptist Church exist.
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 … moreguys could just have put themselves beyond this crap and bought the cake elsewhere. I guess I support for the 70% the couple's decision.
People think places of business can be sneaky with discrimination by displaying those signs, since this:
Is a lot more subtle than this:
Luckily, when it comes to the courts that enforce the civil rights legislation, places using denial of service signs to refuse service to people based simply on who they are don't actually work.
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.
Well, if you want to get into semantics, the bakery didn't deny them a regular cake for their wedding. It denied them a wedding cake, a specific product that's offered to other customers. So yeah, it's discrimination.
are you talking about the evangelic bakery that denied a lesbian (two women, not the OP's two men) a wedding cake in 2013 (not a month ago), when same sex marriages weren't legal in oregon?
because that ended up with the bakery getting a 135k$ fine
I don't know. They were probably only there for the cake. The owners did deny them because of their lifestyle, if you read up on one of the dozen articles about it, you would know this. How about when the Owners leaked the Couple's information?
They didn't deny a product to a wedding, as inanimate objects can't make financial transactions. They denied a wedding cake to a couple who wanted to get married because of their sexual orientation. As DomeWing333 alluded to, they denied the gay couple a product that was available for sale to every heterosexual couple who wanted one. That's not allowed under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as that act gives individuals the right to equal protection under the law, and a federal commission ruled that sexual orientation was covered under the civil rights act.
People think places of business can be sneaky with discrimination by displaying those signs, since this:
Is a lot more subtle than th… moreis:
Luckily, when it comes to the courts that enforce the civil rights legislation, places using denial of service signs to refuse service to people based simply on who they are don't actually work.
do you think that, if two straight people had ordered a cake for their gay marriage, the bakery would have agreed? that if it was a gay couple ordering a cake for a straight wedding, they would have refused?
that is why the discrimination wasn't on the people but on the event.
They didn't deny a product to a wedding, as inanimate objects can't make financial transactions. They denied a wedding cake to a couple who… more wanted to get married because of their sexual orientation. As DomeWing333 alluded to, they denied the gay couple a product that was available for sale to every heterosexual couple who wanted one. That's not allowed under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as that act gives individuals the right to equal protection under the law, and a federal commission ruled that sexual orientation was covered under the civil rights act.
That doesn't make any sense. The federal commission specifically stated that the Civil Rights Act outlaws discrimination based on sexual orientation. Denying service based on the sexual orientation of the people who are getting married is discrimination based on sexual orientation. It doesn't matter who in the wedding party tried to order the cake.
do you think that, if two straight people had ordered a cake for their gay marriage, the bakery would have agreed? that if it was a gay coup… morele ordering a cake for a straight wedding, they would have refused?
that is why the discrimination wasn't on the people but on the event.
are you talking about the evangelic bakery that denied a lesbian (two women, not the OP's two men) a wedding cake in 2013 (not a month ago),… more when same sex marriages weren't legal in oregon?
because that ended up with the bakery getting a 135k$ fine
that's the point, it doesn't matter who orders the cake, it doesn't matter what's the sexuality of the people getting married, what mattered to the bakers (as far as i know) is the marriage itself.
they'd have had a problem with a straight guy marrying another straight guy
That doesn't make any sense. The federal commission specifically stated that the Civil Rights Act outlaws discrimination based on sexual or… moreientation. Denying service based on the sexual orientation of the people who are getting married is discrimination based on sexual orientation. It doesn't matter who in the wedding party tried to order the cake.
that's the point, it doesn't matter who orders the cake, it doesn't matter what's the sexuality of the people getting married, what mattered… more to the bakers (as far as i know) is the marriage itself.
they'd have had a problem with a straight guy marrying another straight guy
Exactly. As you said, they have a problem with marrying two men, which is discrimination based on sexual orientation.
If a white person went into a shop to buy a wedding cake for a black friend, the cake shop owner can't just deny the cake to her because her friend is black, and then turn around and say it wasn't racial discrimination because the person who tried to order a cake for her black friend was white. It would still be racial discrimination because she denied service based on the race of the person to whom the product was going to be given.
that's the point, it doesn't matter who orders the cake, it doesn't matter what's the sexuality of the people getting married, what mattered… more to the bakers (as far as i know) is the marriage itself.
they'd have had a problem with a straight guy marrying another straight guy
they'd have had a problem with a straight guy marrying another straight guy
What? That makes no sense, if it's two men marrying then they're gay, they wouldn't be straight.
Exactly. As you said, they have a problem with marrying two men, which is discrimination based on sexual orientation.
If a white person w… moreent into a shop to buy a wedding cake for a black friend, the cake shop owner can't just deny the cake to her because her friend is black, and then turn around and say it wasn't racial discrimination because the person who tried to order a cake for her black friend was white. It would still be racial discrimination because she denied service based on the race of the person to whom the product was going to be given.
Pretty sure the one we're talking about is the one from shortly ago.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/04/oregon-bakery-same-se… morex-marriage-lawsuit
I'm right, we're talking about the same one, the women one which this discussion is about and...look, from last month. Sorry, you're wrong.
Bruh, I said "We're talking about the same one" meaning everyone else in this thread was talking about the women last month not whatever two men you made up.
It would still be discrimination based on sexual orientation since they'd still be considered a gay couple under the eyes of the law, as the only situation where this would make sense is one like Chuck and Larry, where they get married for benefits and they make every effort to appear gay so as to not get caught in their scam. Since they'd make every effort to appear to be a gay couple, the discrimination legislation based on sexual orientation would still hold (as their true orientation would, of course, not be revealed, lest they get caught in their ruse).
no they do not have a problem against 2 straight people marrying, provided it's not a gay marriage.
They definitely would. Straight people don't marry straight people of the same gender (except under unlawful circumstances), so they're not going to allow a cake just because two people of the same gender say they are straight, when they previously denied the cake to a gay couple.
...you seem to have misunderstood my argument so let me start again
guy A is straight, guy B is straight.
A and B decide to get marrie… mored, so they go to the first evangelic bakery they find and order a cake for their gay wedding.
they're straight, yet their cake gets refused because their marriage (not them) isn't.
they have a problem with a straight person marrying another straight person, which is discrimination based on sexual orientation.
no they do not have a problem against 2 straight people marrying, provided it's not a gay marriage.
You're telling me, that if I go marry another man, then it won't be gay? We would be a gay couple. We would be gay.
Straight =/= gay therefore straight people can not have gay marriage.
...you seem to have misunderstood my argument so let me start again
guy A is straight, guy B is straight.
A and B decide to get marrie… mored, so they go to the first evangelic bakery they find and order a cake for their gay wedding.
they're straight, yet their cake gets refused because their marriage (not them) isn't.
they have a problem with a straight person marrying another straight person, which is discrimination based on sexual orientation.
no they do not have a problem against 2 straight people marrying, provided it's not a gay marriage.
Alright, well how about this.
Man A is white, girl B is black.
A and B decides to get married, so A goes to a bakery to order a cake f… moreor their wedding.
The baker somehow finds out that A is marrying a black woman and refuses man A cake.
You would say that's not discrimination?
That doesn't make sense though, if two straight people of the same gender are marrying, they aren't straight. They are gay, there aren't closeted straight people because no one is afraid of being straight or coming out as straight and therefore don't have to fake a marriage in order to be accepted by society.
Well, the problem in my scenario is that the baker disapproves of a white man marrying a black woman. The fact that she's black is only objectionable because he's white. Just as in your scenario, the problem is that the baker disapproves of a man marrying a man. The fact that the other partner is a man is only objectionable because the first partner is also a man.
And yet the baker's behavior in my scenario seems obviously discriminatory, no?
because the problem there is that she's black
in my example the problem wasn't that they were straight
i didn't say "guy a is straight, girl B is a lesbian, bakers tell them to fuck off because lesbians" because that's discrimination
If a man who currently identifies as gay had a wife, he's actually bisexual, even if he leaves his wife because he prefers men over women.
Contrary to popular opinion, bisexuality actually exists.
If a man who currently identifies as straight had a husband, he'd be bisexual too (unless he entered the marriage illegally). Men don't marry men unless they're gay, bisexual or straight men who are illegally scamming the government out of benefits.
They definitely would. Straight people don't marry straight people of the same gender (except under unlawful circumstances), so they're not going to allow a cake just because someone says they are straight, when they previously denied the cake to a gay couple.
...that's my argument, if they let men marry each other only when they're straight but not when they're gay, that would be sexual orientation discrimination
It would still be discrimination based on sexual orientation since they'd still be considered a gay couple under the eyes of the law, as the… more only situation where this would make sense is one like Chuck and Larry, where they get married for benefits and they make every effort to appear gay so as to not get caught in their scam. Since they'd make every effort to appear to be a gay couple, the discrimination legislation based on sexual orientation would still hold (as their true orientation would, of course, not be revealed, lest they get caught in their ruse).
no they do not have a problem against 2 straight people marrying, provided it's not a gay marriage.
They definitely would. Straight people don't marry straight people of the same gender (except under unlawful circumstances), so they're not going to allow a cake just because two people of the same gender say they are straight, when they previously denied the cake to a gay couple.
If a man who currently identifies as gay had a wife, he's actually bisexual, even if he leaves his wife because he prefers men over women.
… more Contrary to popular opinion, bisexuality actually exists.
If a man who currently identifies as straight had a husband, he'd be bisexual too (unless he entered the marriage illegally). Men don't marry men unless they're gay, bisexual or straight men who are illegally scamming the government out of benefits.
Also worth noting that the bakery owners weren't trying to rip the couple off. They didn't take money from them or even act in a rude manner (as far as I know).
Seriously, people argue over the dumbest things while real issues get ignored.
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]
Also worth noting that the bakery owners weren't trying to rip the couple off. They didn't take money from them or even act in a rude manner (as far as I know).
Seriously, people argue over the dumbest things while real issues get ignored.
That would make sense if it wasn't for the fact that straight men don't marry straight men except under illegal circumstances. That would be like complaining because a mall lets everyone else in except for those who have been banned for committing criminal acts.
They definitely would. Straight people don't marry straight people of the same gender (except under unlawful circumstances), so they're not … moregoing to allow a cake just because someone says they are straight, when they previously denied the cake to a gay couple.
...that's my argument, if they let men marry each other only when they're straight but not when they're gay, that would be sexual orientation discrimination
Comments
Way to take the high road.
Spoken like a true lawyer. I'm sure the defense will argue this.
did they deny any other gay couple service on anything else?
everyone i've seen defending the baker argued this (ignoring the religious nuts), i don't think there's any other defence
I don't know. They were probably only there for the cake. The owners did deny them because of their lifestyle, if you read up on one of the dozen articles about it, you would know this. How about when the Owners leaked the Couple's information?
It's a little unfair just to blame Catholics, because that's just the largest sect of Christianity, when far more offensive sects, with the likes of the Westboro Baptist Church exist.
People think places of business can be sneaky with discrimination by displaying those signs, since this:
Is a lot more subtle than this:
Luckily, when it comes to the courts that enforce the civil rights legislation, places using denial of service signs to refuse service to people based simply on who they are don't actually work.
Well, if you want to get into semantics, the bakery didn't deny them a regular cake for their wedding. It denied them a wedding cake, a specific product that's offered to other customers. So yeah, it's discrimination.
are you talking about the evangelic bakery that denied a lesbian (two women, not the OP's two men) a wedding cake in 2013 (not a month ago), when same sex marriages weren't legal in oregon?
because that ended up with the bakery getting a 135k$ fine
They didn't deny a product to a wedding, as inanimate objects can't make financial transactions. They denied a wedding cake to a couple who wanted to get married because of their sexual orientation. As DomeWing333 alluded to, they denied the gay couple a product that was available for sale to every heterosexual couple who wanted one. That's not allowed under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as that act gives individuals the right to equal protection under the law, and a federal commission ruled that sexual orientation was covered under the civil rights act.
Does this mean I can go to places with no shoes or shirt and still get service?
This is sarcasm.
do you think that, if two straight people had ordered a cake for their gay marriage, the bakery would have agreed? that if it was a gay couple ordering a cake for a straight wedding, they would have refused?
that is why the discrimination wasn't on the people but on the event.
That doesn't make any sense. The federal commission specifically stated that the Civil Rights Act outlaws discrimination based on sexual orientation. Denying service based on the sexual orientation of the people who are getting married is discrimination based on sexual orientation. It doesn't matter who in the wedding party tried to order the cake.
Pretty sure the one we're talking about is the one from shortly ago.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/04/oregon-bakery-same-sex-marriage-lawsuit
I'm right, we're talking about the same one, the women one which this discussion is about and...look, from last month. Sorry, you're wrong.
that's the point, it doesn't matter who orders the cake, it doesn't matter what's the sexuality of the people getting married, what mattered to the bakers (as far as i know) is the marriage itself.
they'd have had a problem with a straight guy marrying another straight guy
only if you have a physical something that makes it impossible or harmful for you to wear shoes/shirt i think
What? That makes no sense, if it's two men marrying then they're gay, they wouldn't be straight.
Exactly. As you said, they have a problem with marrying two men, which is discrimination based on sexual orientation.
If a white person went into a shop to buy a wedding cake for a black friend, the cake shop owner can't just deny the cake to her because her friend is black, and then turn around and say it wasn't racial discrimination because the person who tried to order a cake for her black friend was white. It would still be racial discrimination because she denied service based on the race of the person to whom the product was going to be given.
nah, gay people married straight all the time
you're not contractually obligated to love or want to fuck your partner
...you seem to have misunderstood my argument so let me start again
guy A is straight, guy B is straight.
A and B decide to get married, so they go to the first evangelic bakery they find and order a cake for their gay wedding.
they're straight, yet their cake gets refused because their marriage (not them) isn't.
no they do not have a problem against 2 straight people marrying, provided it's not a gay marriage.
Your logic is giving me a headache.
you confirmed everything i said and then concluded with "you're wrong"
what the hell
Bruh, I said "We're talking about the same one" meaning everyone else in this thread was talking about the women last month not whatever two men you made up.
basically means straights can have all the gay weddings they like
It would still be discrimination based on sexual orientation since they'd still be considered a gay couple under the eyes of the law, as the only situation where this would make sense is one like Chuck and Larry, where they get married for benefits and they make every effort to appear gay so as to not get caught in their scam. Since they'd make every effort to appear to be a gay couple, the discrimination legislation based on sexual orientation would still hold (as their true orientation would, of course, not be revealed, lest they get caught in their ruse).
They definitely would. Straight people don't marry straight people of the same gender (except under unlawful circumstances), so they're not going to allow a cake just because two people of the same gender say they are straight, when they previously denied the cake to a gay couple.
You're telling me, that if I go marry another man, then it won't be gay? We would be a gay couple. We would be gay.
Straight =/= gay therefore straight people can not have gay marriage.
so all those homosexuals that got into straight marriages are actually straight?
Alright, well how about this.
Man A is white, girl B is black.
A and B decides to get married, so A goes to a bakery to order a cake for their wedding.
The baker somehow finds out that A is marrying a black woman and refuses man A cake.
You would say that's not discrimination?
What? Are you talking about closeted gay people?
because the problem there is that she's black
in my example the problem wasn't that they were straight
i didn't say "guy a is straight, girl B is a lesbian, bakers tell them to fuck off because lesbians" because that's discrimination
yup
That doesn't make sense though, if two straight people of the same gender are marrying, they aren't straight. They are gay, there aren't closeted straight people because no one is afraid of being straight or coming out as straight and therefore don't have to fake a marriage in order to be accepted by society.
Well, the problem in my scenario is that the baker disapproves of a white man marrying a black woman. The fact that she's black is only objectionable because he's white. Just as in your scenario, the problem is that the baker disapproves of a man marrying a man. The fact that the other partner is a man is only objectionable because the first partner is also a man.
And yet the baker's behavior in my scenario seems obviously discriminatory, no?
If a man who currently identifies as gay had a wife, he's actually bisexual, even if he leaves his wife because he prefers men over women.
Contrary to popular opinion, bisexuality actually exists.
If a man who currently identifies as straight had a husband, he'd be bisexual too (unless he entered the marriage illegally). Men don't marry men unless they're gay, bisexual or straight men who are illegally scamming the government out of benefits.
...that's my argument, if they let men marry each other only when they're straight but not when they're gay, that would be sexual orientation discrimination
so if i find some ultra rich guy and marry him for money i automatically become bi even if i don't like men?
No, that makes you a gold digger.
Also worth noting that the bakery owners weren't trying to rip the couple off. They didn't take money from them or even act in a rude manner (as far as I know).
Seriously, people argue over the dumbest things while real issues get ignored.
You know...Except leaking personal information.
That would make sense if it wasn't for the fact that straight men don't marry straight men except under illegal circumstances. That would be like complaining because a mall lets everyone else in except for those who have been banned for committing criminal acts.