Joe Biden Wins - Becomes 46th president of the United States

[Foxi4]

But it's likely a cake with a gay message on it is for a gay person.

Gay people deserve to be able to receive cakes with messages on them that they want

Why is that likely? Large swathes of the population support gay marriage, and this cake was specifically ordered for a function - International Day Against Homophobia. Irony aside, I doubt every single organiser involved was gay. It's actually presumptuous to assume that. I absolutely agree that they should be able to order such services, but that doesn't empower them to compel others.

 

[smf]

Why is that likely? Large swathes of the population support gay marriage, and this cake was specifically ordered for a function - International Day Against Homophobia. Irony aside, I doubt every single organiser involved was gay. It's actually presumptuous to assume that. I absolutely agree that they should be able to order such services, but that doesn't empower them to compel others.

I think it's unlikely that none of the people who would see/eat the cake were gay.

If they should be able to order such services, but everyone refuses then what do they do? Surely that is the whole point of anti descrimination laws.

This specific cake was to set an example, so that other gay couples could order a cake.

The issue is that the baker actually cares enough about being anti gay that they would turn away business.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

Well that is an interesting question, as soliciting prostitution was illegal in many places then I suspect you'd not succeed in a court case.

I´m not here to win a court case. You have to admit there is no substanial difference. One would be forced labor (and one forced sexual labor).

Anyway back to topic: Trump´s adventures are covered in China in detail. Unlike in the West, the news are usually strictly objective (without opinion pieces) but I know from private conversations that many find it quite funny (and compare it to the HK demonstrations which were praised in the US).

 

[smf]

I´m not here to win a court case. You have to admit there is no substanial difference. One would be forced labor (and one forced sexual labor).

None of the letters that the person was asked to write on the cake is any different from any other letters. It's not forced labor to use a different combination than they normally would.

Prostitution is not a good example, because it has so many issues to balance. I suspect you picked it thinking it would be a slam dunk, but in reality it is a sign of a weak argument.

There is a substantial difference between putting combinations of letters on a cake and having sex with someone.

 

[Foxi4]

I think it's unlikely that none of the people who would see/eat the cake were gay.

If they should be able to order such services, but everyone refuses then what do they do? Surely that is the whole point of anti descrimination laws.

This specific cake was to set an example, so that other gay couples could order a cake.

The issue is that the baker actually cares enough about being anti gay that they would turn away business.

I don't know what they should do - perhaps they should start a bakery, it sounds like an untapped target demographic if *everyone* is refusing them service. Perhaps they should blow the issue up in the media - many businesses have changed their ways under the pressure of public scrutiny. Most times just giving your money to somebody else works, and it takes business away from the bakery that disagrees with your views. The problem here is that if you reversed the situation and had a homophobic customer ordering an anti-gay marriage cake for a function that opposes legalising gay marriage at a gay-owned bakery, chances are that you would side with the bakery refusing service because your moral compass is telling you that this is the more inclusive, compassionate option. In doing so you deprive the other side of their rights and violate their beliefs, which is the exact opposite sentiment. The government should not have the power to coerce one side or the other. In all factuality, you *don't* have a right to any service - you don't, I don't, nobody does. Any form of transaction must necessarily be based on mutual and voluntary exchange, and in these scenarios one side is not volunteering anything - they are refusing to participate. If you were to coerce them under penalty of law, that is indistinguishable from indentured servitude in my eyes. The courts already have the power to adjudicate these matters if the dispute is based on prejudice against the actual customer, but if it is a matter of one's beliefs, however stupid they may be, you are treading the waters of thought crime.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

There is a substantial difference between putting combinations of letters on a cake and having sex with someone.

No, there isn´t if having sex is your (voluntary) occupation.
Let´s say a prostitutes dislikes white people so much, she doesn´t even want to sell her sex videos to them. Is it racist discrimation? Yes (and it is even less labor-intensive then putting letters in a certain way). But it´s ok. Most people are racist, act/discriminate accordingly but just keep quiet about it.

 

[smf]

The courts already have the power to adjudicate these matters if the dispute is based on prejudice against the actual customer, but if it is a matter of one's beliefs, however stupid they may be, you are treading the waters of thought crime.

No, it's not a thought crime. If you hate gay people and keep those thoughts to yourself and don't let it affect your actions then the world is a nicer place.

It is discrimination in the sense that gay customers might want specific words on their cake. Now if they'd asked for the cake to say "anal sex is great" then I would have more sympathy for the baker.

While I agree that people reserve the right to refuse service for any reason, but there are some reasons that open yourself up to discrimination lawsuits because the law is not black and white. There are competing rights that are weighed up.

Let´s say a prostitutes dislikes white people so much, she doesn´t even want to sell her sex videos to them. Is it racist discrimation? Yes. But it´s ok.

I'd argue that it wasn't ok. First sale doctrine means you have no control over whether someone else sells your video to someone you don't like, so you can't claim you would suffer any harm by anyone being able to purchase it. If there is no harm to you, then the only person who can provide evidence of harm is the person you discriminated against.

Most people are racist, act/discriminate accordingly but just keep quiet about it.

Racism is a common human trait, racists act on it while good people rise above it. The ones who discriminate but keep quiet are scum.

 

[mikefor20]

A wedding is a private affair. They have plenty of other bakers around to choose from and you are asking a real person to make it. I wouldn't make a cake for NAMBLA or a MAGA cake and shouldn't be forced to do so. So go to another baker. WTF? He can refuse service and lose business. His prerogative. You can tell everyone and hurt his business, your perogative. Sue him you suck. Let him be free to be a douche. It's the American way!

If I was to force a black baker to craft a KKK cake how would you feel? Force a gay baker make an anti gay cake? Would there be support for the baker? That is damaging to an individual. Where would it end?

Twitter is a bulletin board. Having hate speech up there for all to see under your website's logo is damaging. Damaging to your company and potentially damaging to the morons that read it. When your reach is 300,000,000+ and it's all ages at that, you should probably take some initiative if there is an threat. They are in every country pretty much and can instantly spread hate to the globe. If they leave a swasticka up it could cause real morons to do real stupid shit. Everywhere. Like Wednesday. Trumps tweets have caused plenty of problems. Twitter has every right to protect themselves. As long as they only censor things that constitute a threat to them or their users. They have an obligation to do so.

One wants to protect their beliefs. Feelings..The other in an attempt to protect interests. And the public's interests. Irresponsible tweets from Trump carry real consequences. A cake with 2 dudes.. That's a person making that cake. Want your mama making a giant cock cake against her will?

Both have s right to protect themselves.

I do despise censorship. Hitler took control in a large part by controlling the media. But you have a ringleader slinging hate, lies and giving veiled orders to a bunch of his cultists. Twitter should not be forced.

Cake guy shouldn't be sued either. Hes a douche but so are those guys for pushing the issue. Ridiculous. Go somewhere else.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

Racism is a common human trait, racists act on it while good people rise above it. The ones who discriminate but keep quiet are scum.

That´s quite harsh. You just said it is a human trait. You just called a large part of humanity scum. Most people have sexual preferences and preferences with regards to friends based on race, for example. I.e. most [insert race] people date within said race and have friends of said race (even if they live in societies in which this race is rare).

 

[Foxi4]

No, it's not a thought crime. If you hate gay people and keep those thoughts to yourself and don't let it affect your actions then the world is a nicer place.

It is discrimination in the sense that gay customers want might specific words on their cake. Now if they'd asked for the cake to say "anal sex is great" then I would have more sympathy for the baker.

Supporting or opposing gay marriage is a specific political position, especially in the context of legalisation. If the baker opposes such legislation and you compel said baker to produce materials in support of it, you have compelled the baker to "speak" in support of a cause they oppose. This has nothing to do with gays having or not having the right to buy cakes - they were not refused a cake, or even the service, they were refused on the basis of the messaging. That de facto means that they were not barred from commerce in the establishment on the basis of their orientation - they could've bought anything they wanted. The baker simply refused to write *a specific message*, not any random message. The entire debacle was not over the goods, not over the service of writing on the cake, but over the message that was supposed to be written. It doesn't matter if the baker is a homophobe or not - you yourself have stated that it's legal for them to think whatever they want. This is not a trial of the baker's moral character, it's a trial on whether or not the customer was refused service based on innate characteristics, and the determination was that they weren't.

 

[smf]

you have compelled the baker to "speak" in support of a cause they oppose.

I disagree, I don't see that being paid to write words on a cake means you have to endorse the message on the cake.

If they did then they would be so full of love and best wishes that they would want to spread joy no matter what the message. They just want to perpetuate their hatred of gays.

 

[mikefor20]

I disagree, I don't see that being paid to write words on a cake means you have to endorse the message on the cake.

You are forcing someone to participate in a cause they disagree with. Leave them alone and go somewhere else. Why do you think you deserve to make other people uncomfortable with no consequences? You aren't special and don't have a right to be accepted.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

Isn´t "perpetuating" an action? To me, the baker was the passive one. I think the "victims" even went to many bakeries in order to find one that would deny their request.

 

[Foxi4]

I disagree, I don't see that being paid to write words on a cake means you have to endorse the message on the cake.

It's not about endorsement, it's about the act of an utterance - that's what's protected. In the same fashion you cannot force an actor to play a character in your movie production if they don't like the character. If they don't want to sign a contract with you, they just don't, and no amount of money can change that. They offer acting services to anyone - white directors, black directors, women, men, gay or straight - they just don't want to play a gay guy in your film, for instance, to draw a little parallel. That doesn't have any bearing on what they endorse or don't endorse, it doesn't mean that they're homophobes, it means they don't want to participate in whatever it is you're filming. They have freedom of association and they choose not to be associated with the production in any capacity.

 

[smf]

You are forcing someone to participate in a cause they disagree with.

Their job is to write words on a cake, I'm paying them the going rate to do so. I am not expecting their endorsement.

Isn´t "perpetuating" an action?

No, you can perpetuate something by ignoring it.

It's not about endorsement, it's about the act of an utterance

I am not asking them to say anything.

 

[mikefor20]

Their job is to write words on a cake, I'm paying them the going rate to do so. I am not expecting their endorsement.



No, you can perpetuate something by ignoring it.



I am not asking them to say anything.

It's not a right to have a cake say anything. They don't want your money that's up to them. Not you. You're not special. Get out of my store!

 

[smf]

In the same fashion you cannot force an actor to play a character in your movie production if they don't like the character.

"Characters in a movie" are not a protected class, your argument kinda falls apart at that point.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

No, you can perpetuate something by ignoring it.

Ok then it just means "to keep it alive". What´s wrong with keeping hatred alive? Ever read the Bible? It´s full of hate towards all kinds of people and it helped mine survive. If you think I am obligated to love everyone, you can go back to smoking weed and singing kumbaya. Hate is not a crime, neither is ignoring.

 

[Foxi4]

"Characters in a movie" are not a protected class, your argument kinda falls apart at that point.

Not really. In this instance the customer is the director and the service provider is the actor. The director wants to film a movie that celebrates gay marriage, with the actor playing one of the roles. The actor opposes *the idea* of gay marriage and refuses the role. Playing the role would make him "speak" words someone else wrote down for him that he does not agree with. He has to voluntarily agree to that in order for the contract to be valid. In the same way, a baker has to agree to put somebody else's words on a cake, as the final message, cake or film, is the result of the craftsman's expression, actor or baker. This is a perfect analogy. Who knows, maybe the director is gay - it's a possibility based on the subject matter of the film, right? You don't *know* that he's not, since that was your argument earlier? Is the actor depriving the gay audience of a film that celebrates them? You keep bringing that up, even though it has nothing to do with the case at hand. The reason why it doesn't is because it's irrelevant - anybody else offering that script would also be refused - it's a problem with the script, or the message on the cake.

 

[smf]

It's not a right to have a cake say anything.

No, but you do get protection against indirect discrimination in the EU as part of article 14 of the human rights act.

The bakery would have to refuse to put messages in support of any kind of marriage to be safe.

What´s wrong with keeping hatred alive?

Everything. The world would be a much better place without hate.

The actor opposes *the idea* of gay marriage and refuses the role.

I'm not sure I can get onboard with the idea of an actor that opposes gay marriage. It would be a terrible profession for someone anti gay.

Actors play parts, they love playing parts that are very different from their own views.