Where did it go?

[Youkilledkenny]

With the exception of the occasional "wedding cake issue" or the like, it seems that the 'Christian vs. Gay" argument has died down a lot in the USA since gay marriage has become legal.
Have Christians given up on the complaining about how bad gay people are, are Christians re-grouping, have Christians that complained about gay people gone on holiday or have Christians all of a sudden, become "OK" with gay people?
Or, perhaps, the media has found other causes to accost us with these days?
Or are there other reasons (sinister or benign)?

[Bust Nak]

False dichotomy. No, he's fullfilled commissions to write novels condemning the holocaust. That's what he believes, therefore he should be under no compulsion to contradict what he's already written.

Ironic you should say false dichotomy since having fullfilled commissions to write novels condemning the holocaust doesn't mean he hasn't also fullfilled commissions to write novels praising the holocaust. He has writen novels praising the holocaust for clients before, therefore he is compelled to write a novel praising the holocaust for another client. If that was somehow offensive to him now then he should have thought of that before writing holocaust praising novels for other clients.

The real issue isn't so much the content, but his ability to express it the way he chooses. He's being told how to express his art, and he shouldn't have to follow anyone else's expression but his own. The consumer shouldn't be telling the artist how to do his job. If the consumer doesn't like what they see, they should find an artist that produces what they want.

But the consumers DO like what they see, the artist just won't sell it to them based on his views on the particular consumers.

That's what's so great about a free market. They have choices, and there's no reason why their choices should impinge upon the choices of others.

There is well and good when you are not the one being discriminated against. The law is here not just to protect minorities, but to protect every one else too. Granted the majority is not typically the target of discrimination, but you are protected non-the-less.

Sounds like? That's not an argument. Given that it wasn't based upon religious convictions, the judges ruled correctly noting that this baker was discriminated against based upon his religious convictions when the baker's position wasn't based upon his religious convictions,but his freedom of expression. Did you watch the link you provided? That's what was reported. Pretending it's an act of discrimination because that's what it sounds like to you doesn't negate the fact that his defense was based upon his right of freedom of expression.

I don't understand what you are getting at here. Sure, his defense was based upon his right of freedom of expression, why would that make the accusation of discrimination a pretense?

[shnarkle]

False dichotomy. No, he's fullfilled commissions to write novels condemning the holocaust. That's what he believes, therefore he should be under no compulsion to contradict what he's already written.

Ironic you should say false dichotomy since having fullfilled commissions to write novels condemning the holocaust doesn't mean he hasn't also fullfilled commissions to write novels praising the holocaust.

I didn't say it meant he hadn't fulfilled commission to write novels praising the holocaust. I said he was under no compulsion to write those novels.
The fact is that he hadn't written any novels praising the holocaust. The fact is that the baker hadn't ever made a cake in accordance with the gay couple's requirements. He even told them they could buy whatever he had made. All they had to do was get a regular cake, and remove the bride, and place another groom next to the groom on the cake. They don't want to buy anything from a homophobic baker though , do they? They sued him instead.

He has writen novels praising the holocaust for clients before,

No, he hasn't. novels condemning the holocaust are cakes baked for celebrating marriage. For the baker, novels praising the holocaust are cakes baked mocking marriage. He doesn't think it's a joke to praise the holocaust so he won't make that cake.

therefore he is compelled to write a novel praising the holocaust for another client.

Under a system of forced labor, but fortunately that's not the case.

The real issue isn't so much the content, but his ability to express it the way he chooses. He's being told how to express his art, and he shouldn't have to follow anyone else's expression but his own. The consumer shouldn't be telling the artist how to do his job. If the consumer doesn't like what they see, they should find an artist that produces what they want.

But the consumers DO like what they see, the artist just won't sell it to them based on his views on the particular consumers.

Check the link you provided. He said he would sell them his cakes, cookies, etc. They refused, and I don't blame them for not wanting to buy his wares when he doesn't approve of their lifestyle. Of course if he was the only baker in town and they really needed the cake, they would have probably bought it, and been done with the whole mess.

That's what's so great about a free market. They have choices, and there's no reason why their choices should impinge upon the choices of others.

There is well and good when you are not the one being discriminated against. The law is here not just to protect minorities, but to protect every one else too. Granted the majority is not typically the target of discrimination, but you are protected non-the-less.

And so were the gay couple. The gay couple wasn't being refused the opportunity to buy what the baker was selling. They were being told that the baker wasn't going to sell them what he doesn't produce. He produces wedding cakes and they're perfectly welcome to buy any of the cakes he produces. They didn't want what he produces. They wanted him to bake them a cake that he doesn't make. That's on them.

Something similar happened years ago in Texas. A horse rancher applied for a permit to construct shade structures for his horses. His application was declined. He then returned and asked for a permit to build a table and chairs. The county pointed out that they don't process permits for tables and chairs. Oh, the outrage!!! How could they be so cruel as to discriminate against disallowing the ability for him to apply for a permit to build a table and chairs? They informed him that he didn't need a permit and he was well within his rights to go ahead and build a table and chairs without the express written permission of the county. So he built a table and chairs for his horses to shade themselves under. Check it out.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=im ... ORM=IQFRBA


Just like the rancher, the gay couple wasn't being refused the opportunity or ability to purchase any of the cakes the baker had on display in his establishment. They didn't want those cakes. They didn't want what he was producing. That's on them. That's their problem not his. He doesn't validate them. They need to validate themselves. There is no law that requires bakers to validate other people. That's the government's job.

]Sounds like? That's not an argument. Given that it wasn't based upon religious convictions, the judges ruled correctly noting that this baker was discriminated against based upon his religious convictions when the baker's position wasn't based upon his religious convictions,but his freedom of expression. Did you watch the link you provided? That's what was reported. Pretending it's an act of discrimination because that's what it sounds like to you doesn't negate the fact that his defense was based upon his right of freedom of expression.

I don't understand what you are getting at here. Sure, his defense was based upon his right of freedom of expression, why would that make the accusation of discrimination a pretense?

Watch the link you provided. It points out that he was accused of discrimination when he wasn't discrimating at all. He was accused of basing his defense on his own religious convictions when he his defense was based upon his freedom of expression. The lower courts wanted, at the behest of the gay couple; to frame the baker. They wanted to make this a religious issue to see if they could use the court system to remove the right of religious expression. They failed because it wasn't about religious expression in the first place.

The religious would love to be given a stronger right to discriminate based upon their religious convictions, but the courts have essentially ruled that this isn't necessary at all. One can discriminate based solely upon one's right to their freedom of expression; a right which we all have regardless of whether we have any religious convictions or not. We don't need to have any religious convictions to have this right.

[Bust Nak]

I didn't say it meant he hadn't fulfilled commission to write novels praising the holocaust. I said he was under no compulsion to write those novels. The fact is that he hadn't written any novels praising the holocaust.

Woah there, when did this become a fact? The scenario sets out that he did in fact wrote novels praising the holocaust, but suddenly decided that was against his conscience when a particular customer commissioned one based on his past work on such novels.

The fact is that the baker hadn't ever made a cake in accordance with the gay couple's requirements.

That is not a fact at all.

He even told them they could buy whatever he had made. All they had to do was get a regular cake, and remove the bride, and place another groom next to the groom on the cake.

That much I can grant you.

They don't want to buy anything from a homophobic baker though , do they? They sued him instead.

And rightly so. I am still confuse by the supreme court's decision. Seemed to me like an open and shut case. The baker would sell wedding cakes to straight couples, but refuses to sell to gay couples, that's wrong whether it is a matter of religion or freedom of expression.

No, he hasn't. novels condemning the holocaust are cakes baked for celebrating marriage.

You have it backwards, novels celebrating the holocaust are analogous to cakes baked for celebrating marriage, and he's made plenty of those. The whole point of using holocaust as an analogy was to invoke a feeling of disgust as the baker would feel for a gay wedding.

Under a system of forced labor, but fortunately that's not the case.

Does the banning of "no blacks allowed" count as forced labor? Is it unfortunate that it's no longer legal?

Check the link you provided. He said he would sell them his cakes, cookies, etc...

Except his wedding cakes.

And so were the gay couple. The gay couple wasn't being refused the opportunity to buy what the baker was selling.

But they were refused the opportunity to buy what the baker was selling - wedding cakes.

They were being told that the baker wasn't going to sell them what he doesn't produce. He produces wedding cakes and they're perfectly welcome to buy any of the cakes he produces.

No they were not welcomed to buy one particular type of cakes he produces, that's why they sued.

Something similar happened years ago in Texas...

How is this remotely similar? Was the reject application for a stable because of who the client is? Would it be okay to reject someone's application for a stable when everyone else are granted the license, because they can simply build giant tables and chairs instead?

Just like the rancher, the gay couple wasn't being refused the opportunity or ability to purchase any of the cakes the baker had on display in his establishment...

This is straight up false, they were welcomed to purchase any of the cakes the baker had on display in his establishment, EXCEPT wedding cakes.

Watch the link you provided. It points out that he was accused of discrimination when he wasn't discrimating at all. He was accused of basing his defense on his own religious convictions when he his defense was based upon his freedom of expression.

That doesn't answer my question, why would the fact that his defense was based upon his freedom of expression mean the accusation was somehow invalidated?

The lower courts wanted, at the behest of the gay couple; to frame the baker. They wanted to make this a religious issue to see if they could use the court system to remove the right of religious expression. They failed because it wasn't about religious expression in the first place.

Are you suggesting that they would have won had the baker based his defense on right of religious expression?!

The religious would love to be given a stronger right to discriminate based upon their religious convictions, but the courts have essentially ruled that this isn't necessary at all. One can discriminate based solely upon one's right to their freedom of expression; a right which we all have regardless of whether we have any religious convictions or not. We don't need to have any religious convictions to have this right.

And that does not strike you as extremely troubling?

[shnarkle]

I didn't say it meant he hadn't fulfilled commission to write novels praising the holocaust. I said he was under no compulsion to write those novels. The fact is that he hadn't written any novels praising the holocaust.

Woah there, when did this become a fact?

If your allegory isn't related to the facts we're dealing concerning the baker then what's your point? The fact is that baking wedding cakes is to denounce the holocaust while being forced to bake cakes the baker doesn't bake, is tantamount to forcing a writer to write novels praising the holocaust.

The scenario sets out that he did in fact wrote novels praising the holocaust,

I noticed that, and I am simply pointing out that your analogy isn't accurate. I've addressed the reasons why which you are still ignoring.

The fact is that the baker hadn't ever made a cake in accordance with the gay couple's requirements.

That is not a fact at all.

Sure it is. The gay couple required a cake that the baker didn't make, hence the lawsuit. If he'd made the cake they requested they wouldn't have taken him to court.

The baker would sell wedding cakes to straight couples, but refuses to sell to gay couples,

Nope. That's not the case at all. You've already granted the fact that the baker informed them he would sell him any of the cakes cookies, etc. that he bakes.

No, he hasn't. novels condemning the holocaust are cakes baked for celebrating marriage.

Sure, and the holocaust isn't about sending Nazi war heroes to the gas chamber. So he's not going to pretend it is about condemning what never happened. The baker's disgust isn't his views concerning gay weddings, but being restricted in his freedom of expression. That's what the case was about and pretending it wasn't doesn't negate that fact.

Under a system of forced labor, but fortunately that's not the case.

Does the banning of "no blacks allowed" count as forced labor?

False dichotomy. Being forced to work for blacks against one's will, or being forced to work for white people against one's will is what we're dealing with. The baker would have been well within his rights to refuse to bake a cake for black people for the same reasons. It has nothing to do with the color of their skin or their sexual orientation. The baker isn't preventing them from entering his business and buying anything and everything that he sells. He's just refusing to sell what he doesn't offer.

Is it unfortunate that it's no longer legal?

It is legal. The court case just proved it. Didn't you watch the link you provided?

Check the link you provided. He said he would sell them his cakes, cookies, etc...

Except his wedding cakes.

Nope, he'd sell them whatever wedding cake he had for sale. They didn't want any of what he was selling. They wanted what he has never sold, and he told them he doesn't make what they wanted.

And so were the gay couple. The gay couple wasn't being refused the opportunity to buy what the baker was selling.

But they were refused the opportunity to buy what the baker was selling - wedding cakes.

Nope, you keep repeating this as if it were the case, but it isn't. You even admitted this already. Here's the post where you grant this fact:

He even told them they could buy whatever he had made. All they had to do was get a regular cake, and remove the bride, and place another groom next to the groom on the cake.

That much I can grant you.

They were being told that the baker wasn't going to sell them what he doesn't produce. He produces wedding cakes and they're perfectly welcome to buy any of the cakes he produces.

No they were not welcomed to buy one particular type of cakes he produces, that's why they sued.

Nope, he doesn't produce gay wedding cakes. Never has, and doesn't have to because he doesn't feel like expressing his art in that fashion. They were welcome to take their pick from all the wedding cakes he had. They didn't want any of them. They wanted what he didn't have.

Something similar happened years ago in Texas...

How is this remotely similar? Was the reject application for a stable because of who the client is?

Nope, it's because the county simply doesn't provide permits for tables and chairs. The baker simply doesn't bake gay wedding cakes. They could buy what he does produce and manipulate it to suit their situation. The rancher could have paid for a permit to build something the county would permit, but he didn't want to build anything other than shade structures for his horses. He simply built a table and chairs because the county didn't grant or require permits for table and chairs. The gay couple could have done the exact same thing by either modifying this bakers cakes or going elsewhere and finding someone who was more interested in making money than their right to free expression. The gay couple lost, and rightly so. They were just looking to start trouble and they ended up looking like idiots.

Just like the rancher, the gay couple wasn't being refused the opportunity or ability to purchase any of the cakes the baker had on display in his establishment...

This is straight up false, they were welcomed to purchase any of the cakes the baker had on display in his establishment, EXCEPT wedding cakes.

Nope, that's not what the news reported. The baker didn't want to modify his wedding cakes for the couple. All they had to do was buy the wedding cakes and modify them themselves. You've already granted that fact.

Watch the link you provided. It points out that he was accused of discrimination when he wasn't discrimating at all. He was accused of basing his defense on his own religious convictions when he his defense was based upon his freedom of expression.

That doesn't answer my question, why would the fact that his defense was based upon his freedom of expression mean the accusation was somehow invalidated?

Because they're mutually exclusive propositions. The court ruled for the baker because he presented his case of freedom of expression, while the court suggested that his reasons were due to his religious convictions. It doesn't matter what his religious convictions are when they aren't the issue. The baker didn't even have to be religious, unless you're some gay couple that are intolerant of religious people.

The lower courts wanted, at the behest of the gay couple; to frame the baker. They wanted to make this a religious issue to see if they could use the court system to remove the right of religious expression. They failed because it wasn't about religious expression in the first place.

Are you suggesting that they would have won had the baker based his defense on right of religious expression?!

Not at all. He would have won regardless of his religious convictions or expressions, or lack thereof. The point is that the court was the one to bring this into the equation as the reason for their ruling. The higher courts saw that it wasn't a factor. The higher court saw that the lower court was biased against the baker because he was religious so they threw the case out, and rightly so. How would you like it if they did the same thing based upon his sexual orientation or his color?

The religious would love to be given a stronger right to discriminate based upon their religious convictions, but the courts have essentially ruled that this isn't necessary at all. One can discriminate based solely upon one's right to their freedom of expression; a right which we all have regardless of whether we have any religious convictions or not. We don't need to have any religious convictions to have this right.

And that does not strike you as extremely troubling?

Nope. I think people should be able to refuse service for whatever asinine reasons they can think of including race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, etc. We have these organizations now. College campuses around the country have the "CollectiveBlack Students" organizations which have functions open to the community, but don't allow anyone to join who isn't a person of color. There's BET which showcases programming produced and aimed at the black population. Anyone can watch, but white people can't have their white comedians on their comedy programs, etc. I don't have a problem with any of that. if you find it so troubling why aren't you out doing something about that?

A baker who refuses to do business with a certain segment of the population will most likely lose that segment's business. This was what Booker T Washington pointed out when he said that white people can't keep this up forever because the black man's money was just as green as anyone else's. He saw that the free market would probably be one of the best ways to carry out social justice; much quicker than any laws which history has shown were a ridiculous failure. Look at all the laws we have and we still have racists who won't give a black man a job. Laws don't change men's hearts, but take away a man's livelihood through the free market and he'll learn to get along. Force him and he'll just pitch a fit. That doesn't fix anything. Framing a baker as some religious zealot only makes the lower court and the gay couple look like fools.

[Bust Nak]

If your allegory isn't related to the facts we're dealing concerning the baker then what's your point?

Don't know. But that's moot since my allegory is related to the facts we're dealing concerning the baker.

The fact is that baking wedding cakes is to denounce the holocaust while being forced to bake cakes the baker doesn't bake, is tantamount to forcing a writer to write novels praising the holocaust.

Sure, but that's also moot since we are talking about cakes the baker already bakes.

I noticed that, and I am simply pointing out that your analogy isn't accurate.

That's because you are under the mistaken impression that the gay couple could buy everything the baker offers to straight couples, when wedding cakes were the exception.

Sure it is. The gay couple required a cake that the baker didn't make...

No, that's incorrect. The gay couple required a cake that the baker makes all the time, that's why the writer analogy specify that the writer has previously fulfilled commissions for novels parsing the holocaust for other clients.

Nope. That's not the case at all.

Look here, there is no point carrying on until you acknowledges the facts of the case.

You've already granted the fact that the baker informed them he would sell him any of the cakes cookies, etc. that he bakes.

EXCAPT WEDDING CAKES, why are you ignoring that?

Sure, and the holocaust isn't about sending Nazi war heroes to the gas chamber. So he's not going to pretend it is about condemning what never happened. The baker's disgust isn't his views concerning gay weddings, but being restricted in his freedom of expression. That's what the case was about and pretending it wasn't doesn't negate that fact.

That's not a fact at all. That he is also disgust with being restricted in his freedom of expression, doesn't imply in any way he was not disgusted with gay weddings.

False dichotomy. Being forced to work for blacks against one's will, or being forced to work for white people against one's will is what we're dealing with.

That's exactly what the banning of "no blacks allowed" does, force people to work for blacks against one's will. Also, you probably meant "false analogy" or "false equivalence."

The baker would have been well within his rights to refuse to bake a cake for black people for the same reasons. It has nothing to do with the color of their skin or their sexual orientation.

What the hell is going on here? How van refusing to bake a cake for black people have nothing to do with their skin. Explain this.

The baker isn't preventing them from entering his business and buying anything and everything that he sells.

Again, he is preventing them from entering his business and buying anything and everything that he sells - notably wedding cakes.

It is legal. The court case just proved it. Didn't you watch the link you provided?

I was referring to "no blacks allowed" signs, they are not legal.

Nope, he'd sell them whatever wedding cake he had for sale.

No he wouldn't, hence the law suit.

Nope, you keep repeating this as if it were the case, but it isn't.

Check the facts of the case, they were unable to buy a wedding cake. The baker never disputed this, the question was whether he should be allowed to refuse in the first place.

You even admitted this already. Here's the post where you grant this fact:

He even told them they could buy whatever he had made. All they had to do was get a regular cake, and remove the bride, and place another groom next to the groom on the cake.

That much I can grant you.

That said regular cake, as opposed to wedding cakes.

Nope, he doesn't produce gay wedding cakes.

And here it is, the excuse I was fishing for. "Gay wedding cakes" is somehow separate product to wedding cakes. He sells wedding cakes but suddenly won't sell the same wedding cake because the customer is gay, because it is somehow a different product that they don't produce.

Nope, it's because the county simply doesn't provide permits for tables and chairs.

I was asking about stables, something that the country provide permits for, not tables or chairs.

The baker simply doesn't bake gay wedding cakes.

Again, the implication here is that gay wedding cakes are not wedding cakes. How on Earth are you going to justify that?

They could buy what he does produce and manipulate it to suit their situation.

But they can't, the baker won't sell them wedding cakes that he does produce.

The rancher could have paid for a permit to build something the county would permit, but he didn't want to build anything other than shade structures for his horses. He simply built a table and chairs because the county didn't grant or require permits for table and chairs.

Right, but should he be forced to choose an alternative when other people are granted permits?

The gay couple could have done the exact same thing by either modifying this bakers cakes or going elsewhere and finding someone who was more interested in making money than their right to free expression.

Why should they have to go for an alternative where the baker already produces what they were after though?

The gay couple lost, and rightly so. They were just looking to start trouble and they ended up looking like idiots.

The judges are looking like the idiots from where I am sitting. Instead ruling in favor of the baker they should have ordered a retrial, given their objection lies with the bias of the lower court judge as opposed to the facts of the case. Any lawyers reading this can tell me if that was even an option at all?

Nope, that's not what the news reported. The baker didn't want to modify his wedding cakes for the couple. All they had to do was buy the wedding cakes and modify them themselves. You've already granted that fact.

No, the alterative was to buy REGULAR cakes and modify them themselves into a wedding cakes. The wedding cakes that were available for straight couples were off the table for the gay couple.

Because they're mutually exclusive propositions. The court ruled for the baker because he presented his case of freedom of expression, while the court suggested that his reasons were due to his religious convictions. It doesn't matter what his religious convictions are when they aren't the issue. The baker didn't even have to be religious, unless you're some gay couple that are intolerant of religious people.

I still don't understand what you are saying. How is using the freedom of expression to refuse service to someone because they are gay, not discrimination? It's legal therefore it's not discrimination?

Not at all. He would have won regardless of his religious convictions or expressions, or lack thereof.

Then why did you go on and on about what his defense is and isn't if it didn't matter and he would have won either way?

The point is that the court was the one to bring this into the equation as the reason for their ruling. The higher courts saw that it wasn't a factor. The higher court saw that the lower court was biased against the baker because he was religious so they threw the case out, and rightly so. How would you like it if they did the same thing based upon his sexual orientation or his color?

I would have mixed feelings. Glad that the justice in the moral sense has been served, sad that justice in the lawful sense has not been served. What is moral and what is legal should be line up.

Nope. I think people should be able to refuse service for whatever asinine reasons they can think of including race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, etc.

Wow. We would never see eye to eye in this case.

We have these organizations now. College campuses around the country have the "CollectiveBlack Students" organizations which have functions open to the community, but don't allow anyone to join who isn't a person of color. There's BET which showcases programming produced and aimed at the black population. Anyone can watch, but white people can't have their white comedians on their comedy programs, etc. I don't have a problem with any of that. if you find it so troubling why aren't you out doing something about that?

I do have a problem with those, and I will have you know that I am doing something about that.

A baker who refuses to do business with a certain segment of the population will most likely lose that segment's business. This was what Booker T Washington pointed out when he said that white people can't keep this up forever because the black man's money was just as green as anyone else's. He saw that the free market would probably be one of the best ways to carry out social justice; much quicker than any laws which history has shown were a ridiculous failure. Look at all the laws we have and we still have racists who won't give a black man a job. Laws don't change men's hearts, but take away a man's livelihood through the free market and he'll learn to get along. Force him and he'll just pitch a fit.

But a) the law does take away his livelihood though; and b) taking away ones livelihood does not change men's hearts either.

That doesn't fix anything. Framing a baker as some religious zealot only makes the lower court and the gay couple look like fools.

He is a religious zealot though. Sure, that shouldn't matter in a court of law but that's what he is.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 55 by Bust Nak]

If the baker told the couple he would not sell them a wedding cake he had sitting on display, then I would agree that's idiotic. The link you provided didn't indicate that though so until we can agree on the facts presented in the case itself, there's really no point in pursuing a debate on the subject. The baker and the bakers' attorney both pointed out that they had no problem selling the couple whatever they wanted in his store. He just wasn't going to make them a special cake according to their specifications. You see it differently. You see it as a case of discrimination against the gay couple. The higher courts saw that the lower courts were discriminating against the baker on the basis of his religious convictions. It really doesn't matter what the reasons are for the lower courts discrimination. They could just as easily have been discriminating on the basis of his sexual orientation, color, etc.


The fact that the Supreime court didn't go along with that program is a good thing. They could have decided to stick with that meme and rule that the baker had the right to refuse service because of his religious convictions which would have provided the religious in this country with priviledged status. They didn't do that which is a good thing.

What you don't see is that the gay couple has priviledged status in that if the baker doesn't want to bake a cake because of his right to freedom of expression, this is irrelevant to those who choose to look at the gay couple as having a priviledged status. The gay couple can simply accuse the baker of refusing to serve them because they're gay, and waste a whole lot of tax payer money litigating a whole lot of nothing.


As I've pointed out before, people should have rights simply as individuals, and nothing more. People should be allowed to work for whoever they choose. No one should force anyone to work against their will for whatever reason they may have. Clinton may well have suggested "don't ask, don't tell"

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 55 by Bust Nak]

Here are just a few of the relevant facts from the link you provided. Notice the quotation marks.

"who refused to MAKE a CUSTOM wedding cake for a same sex couple"; "refused to BAKE a cake";"Jack serves ALL customer; he simply declines to express messages or celebrate events that violate his deeply held beliefs"; "religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views";"an artist cannot be forced to paint, a musician cannot be forced to play, and a poet cannot be forced to write".

Those are the facts presented which you supplied in the link. So you can pretend that these aren't the facts if you please. It simply doesn't support your position. Essentially what you're saying is that it doesn't matter what the facts are, you still think the baker should have baked the cake for them anyways. Fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion. You're not entitled to your own facts.

[Bust Nak]

If the baker told the couple he would not sell them a wedding cake he had sitting on display, then I would agree that's idiotic. The link you provided didn't indicate that though so until we can agree on the facts presented in the case itself, there's really no point in pursuing a debate on the subject. The baker and the bakers' attorney both pointed out that they had no problem selling the couple whatever they wanted in his store. He just wasn't going to make them a special cake according to their specifications. You see it differently.

Alright, lets go here then. What bakery have off the shelf wedding cakes? Who on Earth would go to a bakery on their wedding day hoping to buy a wedding cake? Doesn't your common sense tell you that wedding cakes are placed on order in advance, and cannot be bought off the shelf?

You see it as a case of discrimination against the gay couple. The higher courts saw that the lower courts were discriminating against the baker on the basis of his religious convictions. It really doesn't matter what the reasons are for the lower courts discrimination. They could just as easily have been discriminating on the basis of his sexual orientation, color, etc.

Right, so reprimand the lower courts for discrimination but why change the ruling, when the law is clearly against the baker?

The fact that the Supreime court didn't go along with that program is a good thing. They could have decided to stick with that meme and rule that the baker had the right to refuse service because of his religious convictions which would have provided the religious in this country with priviledged status. They didn't do that which is a good thing.

A better thing would be to punish the baker.

What you don't see is that the gay couple has priviledged status in that if the baker doesn't want to bake a cake because of his right to freedom of expression, this is irrelevant to those who choose to look at the gay couple as having a priviledged status.

When everyone one has "privileged status" then it isn't a privilege, is it? Everyone, gay or otherwise must be served by the baker without discriminatory based on protected classes re: gender, race and sexuality and so on.

The gay couple can simply accuse the baker of refusing to serve them because they're gay, and waste a whole lot of tax payer money litigating a whole lot of nothing.

Being refused service isn't "nothing."

As I've pointed out before, people should have rights simply as individuals, and nothing more. People should be allowed to work for whoever they choose. No one should force anyone to work against their will for whatever reason they may have. Clinton may well have suggested "don't ask, don't tell"

Again, fundamental disagreement here. People as individuals and business operate under very different rules. No one should be allowed to refuse service based on their gender, race or sexual orientation.

Those are the facts presented which you supplied in the link. So you can pretend that these aren't the facts if you please.

Why would I do that when they prove my point? It clearly states that the baker refused service to a same sex couple just like I said.

Where we disagree is whether declining "to express messages or celebrate events that violate his deeply held beliefs" should be allowed by law or not - I say he shouldn't be allowed. Where we disagree is whether "religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views;" "an artist cannot be forced to paint, a musician cannot be forced to play, and a poet cannot be forced to write" trumps a client's right to be free from discrimination - I say it doesn't. This is my being entitled to my opinion, not a disagreement on facts.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 58 by Bust Nak]

This is my being entitled to my opinion

Yep, and I have been pointing that out from the beginning. You are simply stating your opinion with no regard to the facts presented in the link you provided.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 58 by Bust Nak]

When everyone one has "privileged status" then it isn't a privilege, is it?

Exactly!!! No one should have privileged status to begin with. All should be treated equally. There is no one compelling the public to patronize this bakery, and no one should compel the baker to serve anyone against his will either. It should be a two way street. Fair is fair.