Orlanth wrote:

 reds8n wrote:


Whether or not he agrees with the message is irrelevant. You don't actually get to decide what services you'll offer to different people depending upon their religion, sexual orientation, skin colour etc

You have to treat them all the same

You miss the point again.

You don't actually get to decide what services you'll offer to different people depending upon their religion, sexual orientation, skin colour etc

This is correct, so the person cannot be refused if they are protected. I dint like how the law gives protected people a special privilege, but we are talking the law not morality. I would prefer if all persons had the same rights but there we are.

...
....

No, that is not how it works.

Certain behaviours are wrong and are prohibited by law. Namely, discrimination on the grounds of race, religion or sexuality.

It is not that certain classes are protected. Everyone is protected from certain behaviours.

If this baker ever made a wedding cake for a heterosexual marriage, when failing to make a cake for a homosexual marriage he committed a civil offence. It would have been the same if he did it the other way around.

If however the baker had refused to make any wedding cakes for anyone, whatever their creed, colour or cock placement preference, he would not have discriminated.

As a baker you don't have to make wedding cakes. But if you do make wedding cakes you have to make them for everyone's weddings.

"Certain behaviours are wrong and are prohibited by law. Namely, discrimination on the grounds of race, religion or sexuality."

in the fact pattern cited, none of these occurred. There was no refusal to serve anyone.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
No, that is not how it works.

Certain behaviours are wrong and are prohibited by law. Namely, discrimination on the grounds of race, religion or sexuality.

So to cut to the crux of the matter has it been established that the complainants were discriminated against because of their sexuality? That a straight person who requested identical service would not have been refused

A straight person ordering a cake with a straight couple on it?

 d-usa wrote:
A straight person ordering a cake with a straight couple on it?

What if a straight couple ordered a cake that said "get bent"

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
No, that is not how it works.

Certain behaviours are wrong and are prohibited by law. Namely, discrimination on the grounds of race, religion or sexuality.

So to cut to the crux of the matter has it been established that the complainants were discriminated against because of their sexuality? That a straight person who requested identical service would not have been refused

No.

From the facts reported in the OP, the Baker did not refuse to serve a Gay person.

He refused to endorse or be seen to endorse their political campaign by producing politicised content carrying a political slogan (Support Gay Marriage). Presumably they could have ordered a cake without the political slogan, and he would have served them no problem. And a straight person who requested the same content (Support Gay Marriage) would also have been refused.

He objected to the content that they requested, not their homosexuality itself.


No matter how many times people in this thread twist the (currently) known and reported facts to conflate discrimination against a protected class with a refusal to endorse a political view, the answer is always going to be the same.

 d-usa wrote:
A straight person ordering a cake with a straight couple on it?

Perhaps I was unclear. When I said "identical service" I meant a cake with the identical content as was one that was refunded.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
He refused to endorse or be seen to endorse their political campaign by producing politicised content carrying a political slogan (Support Gay Marriage). Presumably they could have ordered a cake without the political slogan, and he would have served them no problem. And a straight person who requested the same content (Support Gay Marriage) would also have been refused.

Seeing as the store was in Belfast taking a stance that no political slogans will be part of any order is not an unwise policy given that sectarian tension is still very much evident in the province

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
A straight person ordering a cake with a straight couple on it?

What if a straight couple ordered a cake that said "get bent"

Apparently some in this thread feel that it is discrimination, even though the customer is straight and the customer was not discriminated upon by his protected class, but simply his ideas... basically having 'government protected ideas'. And that is officially thought police.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
He refused to endorse or be seen to endorse their political campaign by producing politicised content carrying a political slogan (Support Gay Marriage). Presumably they could have ordered a cake without the political slogan, and he would have served them no problem. And a straight person who requested the same content (Support Gay Marriage) would also have been refused.

Seeing as the store was in Belfast taking a stance that no political slogans will be part of any order is not an unwise policy given that sectarian tension is still very much evident in the province

Indeed. But I expect you'd still get folk like Peregrine calling it discrimination, even if applied equally.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
He refused to endorse or be seen to endorse their political campaign by producing politicised content carrying a political slogan (Support Gay Marriage). Presumably they could have ordered a cake without the political slogan, and he would have served them no problem. And a straight person who requested the same content (Support Gay Marriage) would also have been refused.

Seeing as the store was in Belfast taking a stance that no political slogans will be part of any order is not an unwise policy given that sectarian tension is still very much evident in the province

Indeed. But I expect you'd still get folk like Peregrine calling it discrimination, even if applied equally.

And by their logic, denying all political slogans still results in discrimination against "protected ideas" so no refusal of any service based upon content is ever allowed. If you are a business, you are basically a lobotimized slave at the mercy of your customers at the threat of government mandated work. You lose all personal rights when you go to work.

nkelsch wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
A straight person ordering a cake with a straight couple on it?

What if a straight couple ordered a cake that said "get bent"

Apparently some in this thread feel that it is discrimination, even though the customer is straight and the customer was not discriminated upon by his protected class, but simply his ideas... basically having 'government protected ideas'. And that is officially thought police.

Yes, I always find it extremely irritating when people complain on behalf of a certain protected group even though they personally haven't been discriminated against.

Like when I reposted in OT an email chain letter of Irish jokes that my Irish dad sent me (an ethnic Northern Irish protestant from Belfast, who LOVES Irish jokes and comedy), and one busy body who wasn't himself Irish called me racist, but several actual Irish people came to my defense. And these were pretty innocuous jokes of the "An Englishman, Irishman and Scotsman walk into a bar" calibre that weren't specific to Irish people - you could have easily switched the nationality and the effect would have been the same.


We're a nation of thin skinned hyper sensitive wimps who tremble with outrage whenever someone utters something we find even remotely offensive and politically incorrect, and yet we are so damn inconsistent over what is considered offensive.

Sometimes in life, people will offend you. Get over it.

Am I the only one who immediately thought: English Ale, Irish Whiskey, and Scottish Scotch?

 Frazzled wrote:
Am I the only one who immediately thought: English Ale, Irish Whiskey, and Scottish Scotch?

I'm 90% tee total, so I'm the wrong person to ask.

 Frazzled wrote:
Am I the only one who immediately thought: English Ale, Irish Whiskey, and Scottish Scotch?

English Ale, Irish Whiskey, Scotch egg

Tennessee whiskey
Mexican tequila
South American rum

oh my!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Am I the only one who immediately thought: English Ale, Irish Whiskey, and Scottish Scotch?

English Ale, Irish Whiskey, Scotch egg

Is that a deep fried...egg?

 Frazzled wrote:
Tennessee whiskey
Mexican tequila
South American rum

oh my!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Am I the only one who immediately thought: English Ale, Irish Whiskey, and Scottish Scotch?

English Ale, Irish Whiskey, Scotch egg

Is that a deep fried...egg?

if you think thats bad, you should see our Mars Bars.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Like when I reposted in OT an email chain letter of Irish jokes that my Irish dad sent me (an ethnic Northern Irish protestant from Belfast, who LOVES Irish jokes and comedy), and one busy body who wasn't himself Irish called me racist, but several actual Irish people came to my defense. And these were pretty innocuous jokes of the "An Englishman, Irishman and Scotsman walk into a bar" calibre that weren't specific to Irish people - you could have easily switched the nationality and the effect would have been the same.

I think I remember that, I love people taking offence on my behalf....




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Is that a deep fried...egg?

An egg wrapped in sausage meat, bread crumbed, and deep fried

 Frazzled wrote:
"Certain behaviours are wrong and are prohibited by law. Namely, discrimination on the grounds of race, religion or sexuality."

in the fact pattern cited, none of these occurred. There was no refusal to serve anyone.

They refused to make a cake saying Support Gay Marriage. They said in their explanation that is because they do not support gay marriage. They would have made a cake that supported non-gay marriage. I don't really know how more obvious the discrimination can be.

Make an absolute monstrosity of a horrible cake. Problem solved.

What if the terms and conditions of their product had stated that "No political messages are permitted"? Would they still be discriminating against homosexuals by refusing to create this specific cake?

 -Shrike- wrote:
What if the terms and conditions of their product had stated that "No political messages are permitted"? Would they still be discriminating against homosexuals by refusing to create this specific cake?

No, but that wouldn't stop some activist with an axe to grind from suing. They'd argue that Gay Marriage is not a political issue, it's not up for debate, you're not allowed to disagree with and oppose it, either support and endorse it or you're a bigot who ought to go to jail.

No freedom of speech or religion allowed.

Am I doing it right?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:
What if the terms and conditions of their product had stated that "No political messages are permitted"? Would they still be discriminating against homosexuals by refusing to create this specific cake?

No, but that wouldn't stop some activist with an axe to grind from suing. They'd argue that Gay Marriage is not a political issue, it's not up for debate, you're not allowed to disagree with and oppose it, either support and endorse it or you're a bigot who ought to go to jail.

No freedom of speech or religion allowed.

Am I doing it right?

Add a little more fear into it and jpg a "Knife Hand" for effect

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
"Certain behaviours are wrong and are prohibited by law. Namely, discrimination on the grounds of race, religion or sexuality."

in the fact pattern cited, none of these occurred. There was no refusal to serve anyone.

They refused to make a cake saying Support Gay Marriage. They said in their explanation that is because they do not support gay marriage. They would have made a cake that supported non-gay marriage. I don't really know how more obvious the discrimination can be.

I'm guessing UK business operates differently from US businesses, because I know that in the US, almost ALL small business owners, especially those who serve food have a sign somewhere in clear view within their establishment that reads "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" which would make it perfectly legal and justifiable to create a product supporting one political cause, but refuse service to someone asking for a product supporting another.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

No, but that wouldn't stop some activist with an axe to grind from suing. They'd argue that Gay Marriage is not a political issue, it's not up for debate, you're not allowed to disagree with and oppose it, either support and endorse it or you're a bigot who ought to go to jail.

Welll, considering that opposing gay marriage IS bigotry...Yeah. Not that bigots should go to jail or not be able to be bigots...

 skyth wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

No, but that wouldn't stop some activist with an axe to grind from suing. They'd argue that Gay Marriage is not a political issue, it's not up for debate, you're not allowed to disagree with and oppose it, either support and endorse it or you're a bigot who ought to go to jail.

Welll, considering that opposing gay marriage IS bigotry...Yeah. Not that bigots should go to jail or not be able to be bigots...

Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

So those who refuse to allow religious people to belief homosexuality is a sin would also be bigots against religious people. Or is it only bigotry when *you* dislikes the position... Funny thing about supporting freedom of speech, it means people are allowed to have differing opinions which can fight it out in the arena of ideas opposed to thought police mandating 'protected ideas'. Let the beliefs stand or fall on their merits.

Fun facts: not all homosexuals are for gay marriage and not all people who are against gay marriage are religious... Ideas do not equal protected classes because you can be pro-gay and not homosexual and be anti-gay and not religious.

 skyth wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

No, but that wouldn't stop some activist with an axe to grind from suing. They'd argue that Gay Marriage is not a political issue, it's not up for debate, you're not allowed to disagree with and oppose it, either support and endorse it or you're a bigot who ought to go to jail.

Welll, considering that opposing gay marriage IS bigotry...Yeah. Not that bigots should go to jail or not be able to be bigots...

Oh, FFS . For the bazillionth time, NO.

Refusing to serve someone because they are gay = discrimination.

Refusing to endorse a political view by producing a politicised product carrying a political slogan = / = discrimination. Its free speech.

Theres a lot of people here who seem to be unfamiliar with the definition of "bigotry".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry

1.stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

There are a lot of posters in this thread displaying a stubborn and complete intolerance of beliefs and opinions that differ from their own, and they ain't Christians.

I'd prefer a more grownup debate than "So you disagree with my political opinion on gay marriage and sexual morality? BIGOT!"

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
"Certain behaviours are wrong and are prohibited by law. Namely, discrimination on the grounds of race, religion or sexuality."

in the fact pattern cited, none of these occurred. There was no refusal to serve anyone.

They refused to make a cake saying Support Gay Marriage. They said in their explanation that is because they do not support gay marriage. They would have made a cake that supported non-gay marriage. I don't really know how more obvious the discrimination can be.

The point that the person wasn't discriminated against for being a homosexual if the message on the cake would have also been rejected had a heterosexual person came in and ordered the same cake. You can't discriminate against the idea of gay marriage can you? Or do ideas have rights that can be abrogated?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Refusing to endorse a political view by producing a politicised product carrying a political slogan = / = discrimination. Its free speech.

If your service is putting messages on cakes that you sell and you refuse to put that message on the cake you sell then it's not free speech, it's discrimination.

There are a lot of posters in this thread displaying a stubborn and complete intolerance of beliefs and opinions that differ from their own, and they ain't Christians.

1) Wrong.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I'd prefer a more grownup debate than "So you disagree with my political opinion on gay marriage and sexual morality? BIGOT!"

Not wanting to be accused of being a bigot doesn't mean that everyone has to stop, or that they're being childish if they don't. Whether you like it or not opposing gay marriage fits that dictionary definition you quoted. I'd say that trying to deny someone else the marriage rights they deserve is a pretty good example of "stubborn or complete intolerance". Don't like gay marriage? Don't have one. But the moment you start trying to prevent other people from having one you become a bigot.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I'd prefer a more grownup debate than "So you disagree with my political opinion on gay marriage and sexual morality? BIGOT!"

Not wanting to be accused of being a bigot doesn't mean that everyone has to stop, or that they're being childish if they don't. Whether you like it or not opposing gay marriage fits that dictionary definition you quoted. I'd say that trying to deny someone else the marriage rights they deserve is a pretty good example of "stubborn or complete intolerance". Don't like gay marriage? Don't have one. But the moment you start trying to prevent other people from having one you become a bigot.

You're making the assumption that I personally am against Gay Marriage. Which is wrong, I'm not. Unlike you, I don't think everyone should be coerced by law into holding and endorsing a political viewpoint, because that is totalitarian.

Whether you like it or not opposing gay marriage fits that dictionary definition you quoted.

No. Complete intolerance would have meant the Baker saying:

"Sorry, we don't serve your kind here, please leave".

Not:

"Sorry, I'm not willing to make a politicised product carrying that political slogan, because I disagree with it".

I'd say that trying to deny someone else the marriage rights they deserve is a pretty good example of "stubborn or complete intolerance".

How does refusing to endorse gay marriage equate to trying to prevent other people from having it?

You've been answered again and again, you keep disingenuously conflating separate issues and moving the goalposts, but the answer is still the fething same.

Not endorsing a political viewpoint by refusing to produce a specific politicised product carrying a political slogan is not discrimination against a gay person for being gay.

Refusing to serve the customer anything at all, whether a political product or non political product, because they are gay would be discrimination against a gay person for being gay.

 d-usa wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
There are a lot of posters in this thread displaying a stubborn and complete intolerance of beliefs and opinions that differ from their own, and they ain't Christians.

1) Wrong.

And thats your opinion.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I'd prefer a more grownup debate than "So you disagree with my political opinion on gay marriage and sexual morality? BIGOT!"

Not wanting to be accused of being a bigot doesn't mean that everyone has to stop, or that they're being childish if they don't. Whether you like it or not opposing gay marriage fits that dictionary definition you quoted. I'd say that trying to deny someone else the marriage rights they deserve is a pretty good example of "stubborn or complete intolerance". Don't like gay marriage? Don't have one. But the moment you start trying to prevent other people from having one you become a bigot.

You're making the assumption that I personally am against Gay Marriage. Which is wrong, I'm not. Unlike you, I don't think everyone should be coerced by law into holding and endorsing a political viewpoint, because that is totalitarian.

The point is, if you are against gays that want to get married getting married, you pretty much are a bigot. Has little to do with the legal part. No one is saying that you shouldn't legally be able to hold that opinion, just that that opinion should not be able to affect other people especially when you are a for-profit business open to the public.

If you are a business open to the public, there is the expectation of professionalism. I do taxes, and there's plenty of times when I've encountered people doing things that I disagree with. However, as a professional, I am expected to do my job and complete the tax return in a legal manner taking all deductions that are legal even if I disagree with them.

 skyth wrote:


The point is, if you are against gays that want to get married getting married, you pretty much are a bigot. Has little to do with the legal part. No one is saying that you shouldn't legally be able to hold that opinion, just that that opinion should not be able to affect other people especially when you are a for-profit business open to the public.

If you are a business open to the public, there is the expectation of professionalism. I do taxes, and there's plenty of times when I've encountered people doing things that I disagree with. However, as a professional, I am expected to do my job and complete the tax return in a legal manner taking all deductions that are legal even if I disagree with them.

Well, I kind of feel that the bakery owner in this case is probably in a smaller town, yes? and smaller towns tend to be more rural and conservative. If someone comes to him and wants a cake that will probably be advertised as one of his/hers, then it could massively hurt his/her business within that town to the point they either have to move, or shut down. From that point of view, it makes complete sense for him/her to deny that person service. He/she probably supports gay marriage, and would probably make a cake for a couple's wedding with a same sex couple as a topper (as often times, in photos/ads or newspapers that bit is glossed over, so far less likely that some overly conservative person will get "outraged" over this person conducting his business for people.

The difference skyth, between a bakery's work, and yours is that people will recommend either on service, but you merely conduct that service.... That service doesn't have much opportunity for public displays of political statement. As such, you doing taxes for conservatives is not going to hurt your business with liberals, and vice versa. Not recycling your paper products MAY affect your business with Eco-Nazi environmentalists, but not your average walk in client, etc.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
The difference skyth, between a bakery's work, and yours is that people will recommend either on service, but you merely conduct that service.... .

Wrong. A number of my new clients come from recommendations from people I've helped out in the past. However, the fastest way to lose clients is to tell people that I won't give them credits for things that I disagree with. My religious beliefs only affect what I do, not what other people do. In my experience, most cakes don't have a made by label on them that is shown off to other people...So I don't see what the issue would be with them making a cake. And if it's a small, rural area then there is likely a limited number of places that you can go to to get a cake made. Letting bigots win is not good for society.

 skyth wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I'd prefer a more grownup debate than "So you disagree with my political opinion on gay marriage and sexual morality? BIGOT!"

Not wanting to be accused of being a bigot doesn't mean that everyone has to stop, or that they're being childish if they don't. Whether you like it or not opposing gay marriage fits that dictionary definition you quoted. I'd say that trying to deny someone else the marriage rights they deserve is a pretty good example of "stubborn or complete intolerance". Don't like gay marriage? Don't have one. But the moment you start trying to prevent other people from having one you become a bigot.

You're making the assumption that I personally am against Gay Marriage. Which is wrong, I'm not. Unlike you, I don't think everyone should be coerced by law into holding and endorsing a political viewpoint, because that is totalitarian.

The point is, if you are against gays that want to get married getting married, you pretty much are a bigot. Has little to do with the legal part. No one is saying that you shouldn't legally be able to hold that opinion, just that that opinion should not be able to affect other people especially when you are a for-profit business open to the public.

If you are a business open to the public, there is the expectation of professionalism. I do taxes, and there's plenty of times when I've encountered people doing things that I disagree with. However, as a professional, I am expected to do my job and complete the tax return in a legal manner taking all deductions that are legal even if I disagree with them.

And that is how you choose to run your business. Others choose to run it in a different way and take the 'downsides' of publicly taking stances on social issues and not promoting political positions they disagree with... and sometimes for them, that increases business, sometimes it will lead to consumer boycotts. At least in the US, you don't forfeit your rights when you go to work, and in the UK it is similar.

And who says your 'opinions cannot effect others'? 'Ideas' are not protected classes. Protected thought is thought police and censorship which neither the laws in the US or UK currently support.

All of the arguments boil down to 'It feels wrong because I like gay marriage, can't we find a way to get them in trouble?'

Wait, does this company sell Devils Food cake? If it does its soul might already be doomed

No, it's wrong because there are no legitimate arguements against gays that want to getting married and if you are running a public business you serve the public in a professional manner.

 skyth wrote:
No, it's wrong because there are no legitimate arguements against gays that want to getting married and if you are running a public business you serve the public in a professional manner.

Except you can be VERY pro gay marriage, but still refuse to serve someone wanting what amounts to a political statement on a product you design/make... Would this still be a story if someone went into this same person's bakery and said "I want a giant cake with "Vote Pro-Life" on it" and the baker said "No, I won't do that" ??? Would it be an issue if someone wanted a cake that read "ban seatbelt laws" or "get rid of the Education board" ??

It's one thing to do as that proposed AZ law, and deny service to someone because they are gay (or whatever they are that you are against), it's a whole other one to say, "ya know what? You want political slogans on your cakes? Fine, but I won't make them for you. OR, you can buy a blank cake and put the writing on yourself" As a business owner, he is well within his rights to do either, especially if he has one of those "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" signs up. One does indeed make him a bigot/racist, whatever, the other makes him a smart business owner.

 skyth wrote:
No, it's wrong because there are no legitimate arguements against gays that want to getting married and if you are running a public business you serve the public in a professional manner.

Wrong is pretty subjective.

If you're a private business I think it should be more your prerogative than it is.

I'd be willing to bet there are a few gay bakers out there. Give them your business.

Not doing political sayings is one thing. However marriage is not a political thing. It's a human rights thing.

If the bakery doesn't do wedding cakes then fine. A good way of thinking about it is to replace 'gay' with 'black'. Would a business be able to get away with not serving black people?

Yeah but gay people can choose to be straight at the drop of a flamboyant hat.

Blacks need to be really rich to change that with lots of surgery.

 skyth wrote:
Not doing political sayings is one thing. However marriage is not a political thing. It's a human rights thing.

If the bakery doesn't do wedding cakes then fine. A good way of thinking about it is to replace 'gay' with 'black'. Would a business be able to get away with not serving black people?

Dude, the issue at hand isn't a Wedding Cake for a gay couple, it was A cake that said "Support Gay Marriage"


So, by your example it would be equivalent to him saying no to a potential customer who wanted him to make them a cake that read "Black Power" or something like that... he'd still serve them, just not with the phrasing/subject matter they wanted.

If you're a baker I'd expect you to bake things. You're perfectly free to oppose gay marriage by voting for whatever suits you best , but, as has been said, there's an expectation of professionalism involved. If one isn't comfortable icing cakes for people one disagrees with, perhaps one should consider a career change?

You as a private citizen have every right to refuse, but as a professional representative of your trade I expect you to do your job. There's a lot of talk about rights, but rights also come with obligations.

nkelsch wrote:
At least in the US, you don't forfeit your rights when you go to work, and in the UK it is similar.

What rights did the company have that were violated by them decorating the cake in the requested way?

nkelsch wrote:

All of the arguments boil down to 'It feels wrong because I like gay marriage, can't we find a way to get them in trouble?'

No, the argument boils down to 'It feels wrong because its people using lame excuses to discriminate against someone that they don't like. Don't let the bigots win.'

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
"Certain behaviours are wrong and are prohibited by law. Namely, discrimination on the grounds of race, religion or sexuality."

in the fact pattern cited, none of these occurred. There was no refusal to serve anyone.

They refused to make a cake saying Support Gay Marriage. They said in their explanation that is because they do not support gay marriage. They would have made a cake that supported non-gay marriage. I don't really know how more obvious the discrimination can be.

Thats discriminating against an idea, not a person. You're basically advocating thought control.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If you're a baker I'd expect you to bake things. You're perfectly free to oppose gay marriage by voting for whatever suits you best , but, as has been said, there's an expectation of professionalism involved. If one isn't comfortable icing cakes for people one disagrees with, perhaps one should consider a career change?

You as a private citizen have every right to refuse, but as a professional representative of your trade I expect you to do your job. There's a lot of talk about rights, but rights also come with obligations.

I disagree... rights do not inherently come with obligations... If they did, then a whole lot less people would open there mouths for stupid gak to come out of.


Look at the gakstorm created by companies like Starbucks, Chipotle, and Target in the US taking an public stance on the gun control issue (they really aren't, they just asked people not to bring firearms into their stores)... IF they didn't want to serve people carrying firearms, should they have followed a different career? It's a bit ridiculous isnt it? But, guys like Starbucks, Chipotle, and Target are big enough they can afford that backlash, whereas Mom and Pop bakers simply can't.

In the UK at least, "Gun Ownership" isn't listed in the Equality Act (Linking to the 2010 version now, which is actually a much easier read). So that analogy doesn't work.

I believe this is the most relevant section here.

 Compel wrote:
In the UK at least, "Gun Ownership" isn't listed in the [urlhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/2/chapter/2=Equality Act[/url] (Linking to the 2010 version now, which is actually a much easier read). So that analogy doesn't work.

I believe this is the most relevant section here.

I was using it as a reference mostly, because we've had numerous threads on the issue recently. I get that it doesn't really apply to all situations, but you can see how, a company that is facing backlash for taking a stance of some kind on a current, highly-charged political issue is going to affect them. For large businesses, they often can shrug it off, but for a small guy, like a bakery, it could be their death blow.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Compel wrote:
In the UK at least, "Gun Ownership" isn't listed in the [urlhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/2/chapter/2=Equality Act[/url] (Linking to the 2010 version now, which is actually a much easier read). So that analogy doesn't work.

I believe this is the most relevant section here.

I was using it as a reference mostly, because we've had numerous threads on the issue recently. I get that it doesn't really apply to all situations, but you can see how, a company that is facing backlash for taking a stance of some kind on a current, highly-charged political issue is going to affect them. For large businesses, they often can shrug it off, but for a small guy, like a bakery, it could be their death blow.

Companies in the EU don't have the same rights as an individual person, your comparison has no relevance to this issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
"Certain behaviours are wrong and are prohibited by law. Namely, discrimination on the grounds of race, religion or sexuality."

in the fact pattern cited, none of these occurred. There was no refusal to serve anyone.

They refused to make a cake saying Support Gay Marriage. They said in their explanation that is because they do not support gay marriage. They would have made a cake that supported non-gay marriage. I don't really know how more obvious the discrimination can be.

Thats discriminating against an idea, not a person. You're basically advocating thought control.

No, they can have all the biggoted thoughts that they wan't they just can't act on them. See the difference?

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Yeah but gay people can choose to be straight at the drop of a flamboyant hat.

Blacks need to be really rich to change that with lots of surgery.

You might want to be careful in saying that, considering that's one of the things argued against them that realllly gets some people sore.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Yeah but gay people can choose to be straight at the drop of a flamboyant hat.

Blacks need to be really rich to change that with lots of surgery.

You might want to be careful in saying that, considering that's one of the things argued against them that realllly gets some people sore.

You do realise that he was making a joke, right? The Michael Jackson reference should have given it away if nothing else...

PhantomViper wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Yeah but gay people can choose to be straight at the drop of a flamboyant hat.

Blacks need to be really rich to change that with lots of surgery.

You might want to be careful in saying that, considering that's one of the things argued against them that realllly gets some people sore.

You do realise that he was making a joke, right? The Michael Jackson reference should have given it away if nothing else...

Hard to tell in the off-topic forum.

PhantomViper wrote:

Companies in the EU don't have the same rights as an individual person, your comparison has no relevance to this issue.

If you were a small business owner in the EU, what rights would you no longer have, or which would you have "greater" freedom in?? I mean it does seem very foreign to me that you, as a business owner apparently do NOT have a right to refuse service to anyone for any reason... I mean, it could be as stupid as "the guy wasn't wearing a shirt" or as serious as "I don't like asians, so I refuse to serve them"

PhantomViper wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
At least in the US, you don't forfeit your rights when you go to work, and in the UK it is similar.

What rights did the company have that were violated by them decorating the cake in the requested way?

nkelsch wrote:

All of the arguments boil down to 'It feels wrong because I like gay marriage, can't we find a way to get them in trouble?'

No, the argument boils down to 'It feels wrong because its people using lame excuses to discriminate against someone that they don't like. Don't let the bigots win.'

Doesn't matter which side wins because either way, the victor will be "bigoted".

I'm breaking my promised silence to say that this thread really sucks. I've lost a lot of respect for many posters on here who can't tell the difference between a cake and a person. I'm pretty sure I learned the difference in high school: you can lick the frosting off a cake without any fuss, but if you lick another person, you get called into the principal's office. Pretty sure there's another difference or two. The cake was refused the patron was not. If he picked out a different cake, HE still would have been served. You guys need to seriously pull your heads out of your asses and figure out the difference between a baked good and a human being. If I need to, I'll make a pie chart to show you the difference. But this thread has become disgusting, any way you slice it.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
The cake was refused the patron was not. If he picked out a different cake, HE still would have been served.

And if only Mrs. Parks had chosen a different bus seat it would have saved a lot of turmoil in the 60's. That is the argument you are making, no?

Because "I don't want to promote that message, please pick something else" is the same thing as "hey, a white guy wants to sit there. Move it!" Yeah, sure. Good argument. One is a person not wishing to be involved in a lifestyle he opposes for religious reasons, the other is putting a race of people down.

The key thing here is "religious reason" and the protection of a man asserting his religious beliefs. Or rather the lack thereof, as many of you feel there shouldn't be any protection of religion, but there should be protection of sexuality. Not that arguments matter, as any obstruction to people like you is akin to banging our heads against a brick wall-the opposing arguments have been as dense as a wall, that's for sure.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
One is a person not wishing to be involved in a lifestyle he opposes for religious reasons

No it isn't. The bakery owner was not asked to be involved in the "lifestyle" in any way.

 Peregrine wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
One is a person not wishing to be involved in a lifestyle he opposes for religious reasons

No it isn't. The bakery owner was not asked to be involved in the "lifestyle" in any way.

No but he is being coerced into implicitly condoning it by putting a politicised slogan onto his product, thereby associating his brand with gay marriage.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
No but he is being coerced into implicitly condoning it by putting a politicised slogan onto his product, thereby associating his brand with gay marriage.

Only if you make the absurd assumption that "selling a product which contains X" means "personally endorsing X".

And I'm not really feeling any sympathy for the owner over that "association". Anyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot who should be shunned by society, so the "harm" caused is on the same level as the "harm" of having to tell the whole world that you aren't a KKK member.

When your job is to put messages requested by customers on an edible product and you refuse to put some messages on some cakes then you discriminated because you don't offer your service equally.

 d-usa wrote:
When your job is to put messages requested by customers on an edible product and you refuse to put some messages on some cakes then you discriminated because you don't offer your service equally.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
No but he is being coerced into implicitly condoning it by putting a politicised slogan onto his product, thereby associating his brand with gay marriage.

Only if you make the absurd assumption that "selling a product which contains X" means "personally endorsing X".

And when a Christian activist commissions a cake with an anti- gay marriage political slogan?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
No but he is being coerced into implicitly condoning it by putting a politicised slogan onto his product, thereby associating his brand with gay marriage.

Only if you make the absurd assumption that "selling a product which contains X" means "personally endorsing X".

And I'm not really feeling any sympathy for the owner over that "association". Anyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot who should be shunned by society, so the "harm" caused is on the same level as the "harm" of having to tell the whole world that you aren't a KKK member.

So just to be sure, you would also support forcing a business to make anti gay marriage cakes, right? What about one that said "Long Live the KKK"? Would you not let a business turn that down if they wanted to?

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
No but he is being coerced into implicitly condoning it by putting a politicised slogan onto his product, thereby associating his brand with gay marriage.

Only if you make the absurd assumption that "selling a product which contains X" means "personally endorsing X".

And I'm not really feeling any sympathy for the owner over that "association". Anyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot who should be shunned by society, so the "harm" caused is on the same level as the "harm" of having to tell the whole world that you aren't a KKK member.

So just to be sure, you would also support forcing a business to make anti gay marriage cakes, right? What about one that said "Long Live the KKK"? Would you not let a business turn that down if they wanted to?

Nice try on turning his words around. If you follow his logic, you wouldn't be okay with that because that's discriminatory. A cake promoting gay culture is not discriminating anyone.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
And when a Christian activist commissions a cake with an anti- gay marriage political slogan?

Then it can be declined because it's an offensive message, just like a bakery would be justified in declining a cake with an image of Jesus having sex while nailed to the cross.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
So just to be sure, you would also support forcing a business to make anti gay marriage cakes, right? What about one that said "Long Live the KKK"? Would you not let a business turn that down if they wanted to?

No, because there's a difference between the actual cake and your hypothetical examples. A pro-KKK cake is incredibly offensive and promotes hate and discrimination, the pro-gay-marriage cake just said "bigotry and discrimination isn't ok". It's the difference between saying "murder is bad" and "MURDER ALL {black people}", sometimes the two "sides" to an issue are not equivalent.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
And when a Christian activist commissions a cake with an anti- gay marriage political slogan?

Then it can be declined because it's an offensive message, just like a bakery would be justified in declining a cake with an image of Jesus having sex while nailed to the cross.

At which point you're discriminating against a person for his religious beliefs by declining to reproduce a political message that you disagree with.

Your hypocrisy and double think is really quite impressive.

Offensive being fairly subjective. I can imagine anything that promotes gay marriage being offensive to them. just saying with no horse in this race.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
And when a Christian activist commissions a cake with an anti- gay marriage political slogan?

Then it can be declined because it's an offensive message, just like a bakery would be justified in declining a cake with an image of Jesus having sex while nailed to the cross.

At which point you're discriminating against a person for his religious beliefs by declining to reproduce a political message that you disagree with.

Your hypocrisy and double think is really quite impressive.

Mine isn't, religious freedom shouldn't be a thing. You don't get to discriminate because your bearded friend in sky told you so. Religion is a choice, being gay is not, I don't know how many times this has to be repeated. You cannot compare these two.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
At which point you're discriminating against a person for his religious beliefs by declining to reproduce a political message that you disagree with.

No I'm not. There are plenty of political messages that I disagree with that would not be offensive. For example, "cut taxes" is something I disagree with very strongly, but I would question the professional standards of a bakery that refused to provide a cake with that message. Now, granted, that refusal would be legal since economic ideology is not a protected class, but I wouldn't support it. Similarly, I disagree very strongly with Christianity, but it would be religious discrimination to provide a cake decorated with a simple cross since that is not a message that can reasonably be considered offensive.

The reason it's ok to decline the anti-gay-marraige message is that it's a hateful and bigoted message that many/most people would find offensive, just like a picture of Jesus having sex while nailed to the cross. It's not in any way equivalent to a message saying "discrimination sucks".

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I'm breaking my promised silence to say that this thread really sucks. I've lost a lot of respect for many posters on here who can't tell the difference between a cake and a person. I'm pretty sure I learned the difference in high school: you can lick the frosting off a cake without any fuss, but if you lick another person, you get called into the principal's office. Pretty sure there's another difference or two. The cake was refused the patron was not. If he picked out a different cake, HE still would have been served. You guys need to seriously pull your heads out of your asses and figure out the difference between a baked good and a human being. If I need to, I'll make a pie chart to show you the difference. But this thread has become disgusting, any way you slice it.

I assure you one can certainly lick frosting off a person. It's pretty glorious.

And I agree with with the previous poster; the amount of hypocrisy is pretty amazing. You have to put anything on a cake that someone says as long as it doesn't offended or contradict the current zeitgeist.

Shocking, that opinion, really.

 Desubot wrote:
Offensive being fairly subjective. I can imagine anything that promotes gay marriage being offensive to them. just saying with no horse in this race.

Yes, of course they find it offensive, but that doesn't mean it's justified offense. A KKK member would probably find a "don't lynch people because of their skin color" message offensive, but that doesn't mean we should in any way respect that attitude. Similarly, the fact that the KKK member wouldn't see anything offensive about a cake portraying a racist murder doesn't mean that we should judge the offensiveness of that message according to that extremist belief.

The real problem here is that a lot of conservative Christians have decided that they have a right to be free from any reminder that anyone is doing something that their god doesn't approve of, and that anything that interferes with that immunity is persecution.

 Peregrine wrote:


No, because there's a difference between the actual cake and your hypothetical examples. A pro-KKK cake is incredibly offensive and promotes hate and discrimination, the pro-gay-marriage cake just said "bigotry and discrimination isn't ok". It's the difference between saying "murder is bad" and "MURDER ALL {black people}", sometimes the two "sides" to an issue are not equivalent.

I'm trying to figure out how you can justify that "Long live the KKK" is offensive, and I just can't find it.

How would you feel about a cake that read, "Abortion is murder?" Is that also offensive to you?

Peregrine usually excels at this kind of topic. This case is no different.

 cincydooley wrote:
I'm trying to figure out how you can justify that "Long live the KKK" is offensive, and I just can't find it.

...

Seriously? Under what definition of "offensive" is it not offensive?

How would you feel about a cake that read, "Abortion is murder?" Is that also offensive to you?

Yes, because calling someone a murderer is when they aren't one is the kind of thing that usually ends in lawsuits and large fines. I'd say that's a pretty clear sign that society considers false accusations of murder to be offensive.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
No but he is being coerced into implicitly condoning it by putting a politicised slogan onto his product, thereby associating his brand with gay marriage.

Only if you make the absurd assumption that "selling a product which contains X" means "personally endorsing X".

There are plenty of other people that will make that assumption for the business owner.... And if you're a small town shop owner, this needs to be taken into account. Honestly, if the guy were to say "I don't make ANY politically messaged cakes" would you STILL have a problem with him and/or the situation?



To put this, again, in another way... Target came out and asked people to leave guns at home, right? They didn't say, "Guns are banned from all of our stores, if you bring them in, you will be prosecuted, etc" BUUUUUUUT.... people came out of the woodwork screaming "Target is anti-gun!! Theyre after our guns!! I'll never spend another cent there because I can't bring my gun in with me!" See how ridiculous it is?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
No but he is being coerced into implicitly condoning it by putting a politicised slogan onto his product, thereby associating his brand with gay marriage.

Only if you make the absurd assumption that "selling a product which contains X" means "personally endorsing X".

There are plenty of other people that will make that assumption for the business owner.... And if you're a small town shop owner, this needs to be taken into account. Honestly, if the guy were to say "I don't make ANY politically messaged cakes" would you STILL have a problem with him and/or the situation?

He does not care.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
No but he is being coerced into implicitly condoning it by putting a politicised slogan onto his product, thereby associating his brand with gay marriage.

Only if you make the absurd assumption that "selling a product which contains X" means "personally endorsing X".

And I'm not really feeling any sympathy for the owner over that "association". Anyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot who should be shunned by society, so the "harm" caused is on the same level as the "harm" of having to tell the whole world that you aren't a KKK member.

I think it's hilarious that a couple posters think protecting lifestyles is required, but protection of religion isn't. Which is incredibly pants-on-head stupid. Honest question: how would you feel if a Christian walked into a gay cake maker's store and requested a cake that said "God loves the union of man and wife"-if the gay owner refused it, whose side would you be on? Would you side with the owner because the Christian was "obviously trolling him"? Or would you side with the Christian because he shouldn't be denied the cake he wants, regardless of the phrase written on it?

According to most of you, you should side with the Christian, because owning a store means you have to do whatever the customer wants, even if it's personally offensive. To a select few "special people", the owner wins simply because religion doesn't deserve protection. And to the few intelligent people, the store owner deserves to have rights to reserve judgement on statements that are offensive to him, and shouldn't be forced to do something he is personally uncomfortable with. It's different in a chain store-you're stuck with the laws already passed down by higher-ups. But if you own your own store, you deserve to be able to control your own actions.

Christians are just as protected from gay folks as gay folks are protected from Christians though.

It's an argument that falls short from the very beginning.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
It a gay cake shop or an atheist shop refuses to sell wedding cakes, Easter cakes, Christmas confections, to Christians I would find it equally as wrong as a Christian cake shop refusing to sell cakes with a gay message to gays.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Honestly, if the guy were to say "I don't make ANY politically messaged cakes" would you STILL have a problem with him and/or the situation?

No, I wouldn't have any problem with that, as long as the "no political messages" rule was consistently enforced and not just used as an excuse to avoid doing messages the owner doesn't approve of. A business owner has a choice of what products to provide, they just can't discriminate based on a protected class. And "people who want political cakes" is not a protected class.

To put this, again, in another way... Target came out and asked people to leave guns at home, right? They didn't say, "Guns are banned from all of our stores, if you bring them in, you will be prosecuted, etc" BUUUUUUUT.... people came out of the woodwork screaming "Target is anti-gun!! Theyre after our guns!! I'll never spend another cent there because I can't bring my gun in with me!" See how ridiculous it is?

Yes, and those people are a bunch of screaming lunatics that only get any attention because the media thinks they make a good story. They're a tiny and irrelevant minority, and I would be extremely surprised if Target sees any meaningful loss of profit over it.

 d-usa wrote:
When your job is to put messages requested by customers on an edible product and you refuse to put some messages on some cakes then you discriminated because you don't offer your service equally.

Well, unless this bakery is totally different than any other bakery I've been to, selling pastries and pastry like items is their job. Custom decorations on those is a special service they offer, not their job.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:


And if only Mrs. Parks had chosen a different bus seat it would have saved a lot of turmoil in the 60's. That is the argument you are making, no?

That is a profoundly flawed comparison.




Seriously... just to say this again, you who are 'against' the bakery really think there should be a legal recourse to force someone to create art on your behalf so long as they have ever created art in a similar medium for money before?

That is what this is. It is a custom made cake. Read, if nothing else the discussions about art on this very board. It fits what most would agree to be the standards for art. Someone has to make that, by hand. I don't think it a particular onus to be forced to find someone who wants to make your art for you to make your art for you.

I like how being gay is a lifestyle choice.

[url]

 Soladrin wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
And when a Christian activist commissions a cake with an anti- gay marriage political slogan?

Then it can be declined because it's an offensive message, just like a bakery would be justified in declining a cake with an image of Jesus having sex while nailed to the cross.

At which point you're discriminating against a person for his religious beliefs by declining to reproduce a political message that you disagree with.

Your hypocrisy and double think is really quite impressive.

Mine isn't, religious freedom shouldn't be a thing. You don't get to discriminate because your bearded friend in sky told you so. Religion is a choice, being gay is not, I don't know how many times this has to be repeated. You cannot compare these two.

Which would itself be discrimination, and blatant hypocrisy on,your,part.

Progressivism: " freedom and tolerance for all, unless I don't like them!"

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I like how being gay is a lifestyle choice.

It isn't for cakes, they are baked that way.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I like how being gay is a lifestyle choice.

I think it is a choice for some gay people but either way that still doesn't justify discrimination towards them.

 Bromsy wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:


And if only Mrs. Parks had chosen a different bus seat it would have saved a lot of turmoil in the 60's. That is the argument you are making, no?

That is a profoundly flawed comparison.

Why? She would still be on the same bus, the service of transporting her from point A to point B would still have been provided, she just had to choose a different seat...

Its actually the exact same argument that some posters are making in this case.

 Bromsy wrote:

Seriously... just to say this again, you who are 'against' the bakery really think there should be a legal recourse to force someone to create art on your behalf so long as they have ever created art in a similar medium for money before?

That is what this is. It is a custom made cake. Read, if nothing else the discussions about art on this very board. It fits what most would agree to be the standards for art. Someone has to make that, by hand. I don't think it a particular onus to be forced to find someone who wants to make your art for you to make your art for you.

No, they don't have to make that by hand, most of these types of decorations are made using special food printers, this isn't art, its using a scanner and a printer. And yes, if they provide a service then that service should be provided to everyone equally unless doing so would break any law.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I like how being gay is a lifestyle choice.

Tells allot about the posters stating that doesn't it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:



There are plenty of other people that will make that assumption for the business owner.... And if you're a small town shop owner, this needs to be taken into account. Honestly, if the guy were to say "I don't make ANY politically messaged cakes" would you STILL have a problem with him and/or the situation?

No, because if that was the company's policy and they enforced it equally, then they wouldn't be discriminating.

 Bullockist wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I like how being gay is a lifestyle choice.

It isn't for cakes, they are baked that way.

Isn't homosexuality genetic? Pretty sure I recall media stories over the discovery of a "Gay gene".

If you guys are accusing me of calling it a lifestyle CHOICE...I specifically left out the word 'choice' and just called it a lifestyle. I never tried to claim it was a choice. And I don't remember too many other people calling it a choice in this thread either. So way to be on the other side of the argument, putting words in our mouths, then insulting us for imagined words. Shows the character of the other side too.

 Bromsy wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
When your job is to put messages requested by customers on an edible product and you refuse to put some messages on some cakes then you discriminated because you don't offer your service equally.

Well, unless this bakery is totally different than any other bakery I've been to, selling pastries and pastry like items is their job. Custom decorations on those is a special service they offer, not their job.

No. It's part of their job. If you provide the service then it's part of it. You cannot separate making a custom cake from selling the cakes. It's one and the same.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
If you guys are accusing me of calling it a lifestyle CHOICE...I specifically left out the word 'choice' and just called it a lifestyle. I never tried to claim it was a choice. And I don't remember too many other people calling it a choice in this thread either. So way to be on the other side of the argument, putting words in our mouths, then insulting us for imagined words. Shows the character of the other side too.

And I bet you made that omission just so that you could come back with this witty repartee when someone called you up on it.

Being gay isn't a lifestyle any more than being black is a lifestyle and calling it that is just as offensive whether you include the word "choice" at the end or not.

PhantomViper wrote:

Being gay isn't a lifestyle any more than being black is a lifestyle and calling it that is just as offensive whether you include the word "choice" at the end or not.

Well, there are certain aspects of life that both of those groups have at a stereotypical level... While I will not argue whether or not someone has a choice in being gay, they DO have a choice in being flamboyantly so.... The exact same as black people have the choice in acting like/dressing/being a Thug.


Which in many ways IS a "lifestyle" as opposed to simply life. I'd call being gay a part of life, not a lifestyle, because for the many "normal" gay dudes I've known, they just were gay (as I am straight), and they dressed and acted like any other guy you'd meet on the streets (until Pride week comes up that is ), so yeah I'd definitely say there are some choices out there that let people know how your life affects your lifestyle.

PhantomViper wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
If you guys are accusing me of calling it a lifestyle CHOICE...I specifically left out the word 'choice' and just called it a lifestyle. I never tried to claim it was a choice. And I don't remember too many other people calling it a choice in this thread either. So way to be on the other side of the argument, putting words in our mouths, then insulting us for imagined words. Shows the character of the other side too.

And I bet you made that omission just so that you could come back with this witty repartee when someone called you up on it.

Being gay isn't a lifestyle any more than being black is a lifestyle and calling it that is just as offensive whether you include the word "choice" at the end or not.

No, I made the omission because I recognize it isn't a choice. But way to keep putting words in people's mouths. If you think it makes you sound more correct...you're pathetically wrong. But don't let that stop you. You're already on a roll.

PhantomViper wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
If you guys are accusing me of calling it a lifestyle CHOICE...I specifically left out the word 'choice' and just called it a lifestyle. I never tried to claim it was a choice. And I don't remember too many other people calling it a choice in this thread either. So way to be on the other side of the argument, putting words in our mouths, then insulting us for imagined words. Shows the character of the other side too.

And I bet you made that omission just so that you could come back with this witty repartee when someone called you up on it.

Certainly you're not to blame for reading it wrong. It must be an inception-like scheme

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
If you guys are accusing me of calling it a lifestyle CHOICE...I specifically left out the word 'choice' and just called it a lifestyle. I never tried to claim it was a choice. And I don't remember too many other people calling it a choice in this thread either. So way to be on the other side of the argument, putting words in our mouths, then insulting us for imagined words. Shows the character of the other side too.

And I bet you made that omission just so that you could come back with this witty repartee when someone called you up on it.

Certainly you're not to blame for reading it wrong. It must be an inception-like scheme

I'm never wrong! And doubly never in a forum discussion.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
If you guys are accusing me of calling it a lifestyle CHOICE...I specifically left out the word 'choice' and just called it a lifestyle. I never tried to claim it was a choice. And I don't remember too many other people calling it a choice in this thread either. So way to be on the other side of the argument, putting words in our mouths, then insulting us for imagined words. Shows the character of the other side too.

And I bet you made that omission just so that you could come back with this witty repartee when someone called you up on it.

Certainly you're not to blame for reading it wrong. It must be an inception-like scheme

I'm never wrong! And doubly never in a forum discussion.

I guess you're right