Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.