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.

 LordofHats wrote:

Also, are you assuming that Orlanth is Christian?

People who have been here long enough already know Orlanth is Christian. Well, people who actually remember the contents of a thread for more than ten minutes anyway

Shadow Captain Edithae doesn't know me as well.

Nevertheless one need not be a Christian to understand that progressive legislation is leading to lob sided rights entitlements. Some of the most fervent activists at opposing progressive liberalism are atheists, and some have mixed feeling when they see progressivism target Christians, who are the main target for progressive dogma at the moment. Some would not feel particularly distressed if Christianity disappeared, just not this way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Well the Christian could choose not to be a Christian.

It is not a choice, they were born that way

The Gay activist could simply take their money to another Bakery that is willing to reproduce his political slogan on their products. But it appears that remarkably simple solution hasn't occurred to many people in this thread.

I agree, It would have been easy to do so.

At least in the U.S. you have the right to refuse content for any reason. If a bakery is not writing Happy Birthday on their cakes ordered on the 10th of July no one gets to sue them for not making their Happy Birthday cake until the 11th. The same goes for a gay couple wanting a cake that says Keep it PG-13, please. A bakery does not have to make a cake with this message if they feel it is offensive to their sensibilities.

Murica!

Edited by RiTides

This ain't Murica, buddy. In America, religious rights often trump other rights 'cos the Constitution and gak. In Britain, everything else trumps religious rights.

In the article linked by the OP the customers got a full refund and were able to get the cake they wanted from another bakery in good time. They were not deliberately inconvenienced for the sake of inconvenience. They received swift warning that the cake order would not be filled, a full refund was offered and collected with time to spare to locate an alternate venue to get their cake.
The bakery acted morally responsibly, they tried to minimise the burden refusal of service caused, a refusal of service which in most cases would be lawful as no retailer or shopkeeper has the legal obligation to trade with a customer, and no potential customer has the inherent right to demand service.

This is a case of intentionally playing the gay card to make a provocative statement.

But in this case, attacking small business owners who just want to follow their beliefs and get on with their business is a complete gakker dick move.

 Orlanth wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae doesn't know me as well.

Nevertheless one need not be a Christian to understand that progressive legislation is leading to lob sided rights entitlements. Some of the most fervent activists at opposing progressive liberalism are atheists, and some have mixed feeling when they see progressivism target Christians, who are the main target for progressive dogma at the moment. Some would not feel particularly distressed if Christianity disappeared, just not this way.

The thing for me is that I just don't get worked up about this. In the end, if I can deny service for any reason other than some special class I can still deny service to that special class if I feel like it so long as I use some other excuse. It's okay for me to deny someone service because I think they're ugly or dressed like a poor person, but I can't deny them cause they're black or gay or whatever. Well sir its a good thing I said I was deny service because I think you're too tall for my establishment *but really I just don't like black people* wink wink.

That's a standard that just strikes me as laughable. Either we can deny someone service for flimsy reasons or we can't. This whole "you can deny service for a-z stupid reasons except for x and p, because those stupid reasons are specially stupid" makes my eyes roll.

 44Ronin wrote:
But in this case, attacking small business owners who just want to follow their beliefs and get on with their business is a complete gakker dick move.

Would you also defend a racist small business owner who just wants to follow their beliefs and get on with their whites-only business?

 Orlanth wrote:
Nevertheless one need not be a Christian to understand that progressive legislation is leading to lob sided rights entitlements.

I guess you're just going to continue to ignore the fact that the law in question protects Christians just as much as it protects gay people? And that a bakery refusing to make a cake with a Christian message would also be violating the law?

In the article linked by the OP the customers got a full refund and were able to get the cake they wanted from another bakery in good time. They were not deliberately inconvenienced for the sake of inconvenience. They received swift warning that the cake order would not be filled, a full refund was offered and collected with time to spare to locate an alternate venue to get their cake.
The bakery acted morally responsibly, they tried to minimise the burden refusal of service caused, a refusal of service which in most cases would be lawful as no retailer or shopkeeper has the legal obligation to trade with a customer, and no potential customer has the inherent right to demand service.

So it's ok to break the law as long as you do it with good customer service?

 LordofHats wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae doesn't know me as well.

Nevertheless one need not be a Christian to understand that progressive legislation is leading to lob sided rights entitlements. Some of the most fervent activists at opposing progressive liberalism are atheists, and some have mixed feeling when they see progressivism target Christians, who are the main target for progressive dogma at the moment. Some would not feel particularly distressed if Christianity disappeared, just not this way.

The thing for me is that I just don't get worked up about this. In the end, if I can deny service for any reason other than some special class I can still deny service to that special class if I feel like it so long as I use some other excuse. It's okay for me to deny someone service because I think they're ugly or dressed like a poor person, but I can't deny them cause they're black or gay or whatever. Well sir its a good thing I said I was deny service because I think you're too tall for my establishment *but really I just don't like black people* wink wink.

That's a standard that just strikes me as laughable. Either we can deny someone service for flimsy reasons or we can't. This whole "you can deny service for a-z stupid reasons except for x and p, because those stupid reasons are specially stupid" makes my eyes roll.

You write all of this but utterly skirt the issue; this is forcing people to cede their religious beliefs to accommodate someones lifestyle.

Denying service to someone who is attacking your beliefs and sense of religious identity...?

They might as well drop their pants and bend over...

This is dumbocracy

 44Ronin wrote:
You write all of this but utterly skirt the issue; this is forcing people to cede their religious beliefs to accommodate someones lifestyle.

Yes, we already do that - I don't know of any venues where stoning is considered an acceptable remedy for adultery, for example.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
(first world venues)

 44Ronin wrote:
You write all of this but utterly skirt the issue; this is forcing people to cede their religious beliefs to accommodate someones lifestyle.

Do you believe that it's ok for a racist to run a whites-only business? Or does this complaining about being forced to cede beliefs only apply to beliefs that you consider acceptable to hold?

Denying service to someone who is attacking your beliefs and sense of religious identity...?

I fail to see how there was any "attacking" involved. This wasn't a cake with a gay Jesus and "Christians suck" written on it, or even any reference at all to the business owner's beliefs.

Does gay cake taste fabulous?

Gay Cake sounds like something you'd find on urban dictionary.

Cakeboy is apparently a slur for homosexuals.

I love being called it.

Honestly, the point I like best is the role reversal thing: if a Christian went to a cake shop owned by a gay person and wanted a cake made that said "God hates gays", would the owner have the right to refuse? If the answer is yes, then the cake store owner in this case should also have the right to refuse. For the record, I have nothing against gay people, have several gay friends, and I think that religiously bigoted people are pathetic and disgusting. But even bigots should have the right to refuse if it goes against their religious views. I'm sure others will disagree, shrug, but my personal opinion is set. I actually side with the bigot here; not something I ever thought I'd do.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Honestly, the point I like best is the role reversal thing: if a Christian went to a cake shop owned by a gay person and wanted a cake made that said "God hates gays", would the owner have the right to refuse?

That's not an accurate comparison. The correct example would be a Christian going to a cake shop owned by a gay person and asking for a cake with a cross on it. And in that case the owner wouldn't have the right to refuse.

But even bigots should have the right to refuse if it goes against their religious views.

So you support the right to run a whites-only business?

 Ouze wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:
You write all of this but utterly skirt the issue; this is forcing people to cede their religious beliefs to accommodate someones lifestyle.

Yes, we already do that - I don't know of any venues where stoning is considered an acceptable remedy for adultery, for example.

Where to start on this mess?

That's an example of an action, not an actual belief.

Forcing people into ceding a belief by making them conduct an action is not the same as denying them an action based on a belief.

Forcing people to do something is much different than preventing them from doing something.

So let's start with the ignorant western myth that is ever pervasive.
Stoning is not proscribed by Islam and the use of stoning as a punishment per adultery actual violates the Koran and thereby violating the Koran it violates Islam itself..

Stoning is not proscribed anywhere in the Koran. I safely say that the practice is culturally imposed, because that is the basis upon which it is used (Koran says 100 lashes)

#westernmyths.

 44Ronin wrote:
Forcing people into ceding a belief by making them conduct an action is not the same as denying them an action based on a belief.

Exactly. The bakery owner is not being forced to cede their belief, they're just denied the action of refusing service.

I safely say that the practice is culturally imposed, because that is the basis upon which it is used (Koran says 100 lashes)

Do the precise details of torture and execution really matter that much?

 Peregrine wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Honestly, the point I like best is the role reversal thing: if a Christian went to a cake shop owned by a gay person and wanted a cake made that said "God hates gays", would the owner have the right to refuse?

That's not an accurate comparison. The correct example would be a Christian going to a cake shop owned by a gay person and asking for a cake with a cross on it. And in that case the owner wouldn't have the right to refuse.

But even bigots should have the right to refuse if it goes against their religious views.

So you support the right to run a whites-only business?

You make a false statement: I stated specifically for religious reasons. Do you know of any religions that say "all races except white are going to hell"? I doubt it, unless its a super fringe thing that 99.99% of the population will never hear of. A hate group like the KKK or nazis are not religious, they are straight up hatemongering racists. This owner refuses on grounds of his religion: regardless of the fact that his view is unfortunate, we all still deserve our religious rights. My point of the opposing viewpoint is to show that if it was acceptable for service to be refused on the "God hates gays" cake due to a lifestyle choice, it would be damn expected that a person could refuse on grounds of religious view.

TL;DR- refusal based on religion is okay by me, refusal based on straight up racism is not. They're two different beasts, try not to lock them in the same cage.

 44Ronin wrote:
You write all of this but utterly skirt the issue; this is forcing people to cede their religious beliefs to accommodate someones lifestyle.

I skirt the issue because it's ultimately meaningless. Just say you don't like the sound of their voice, because shockingly you can deny a gay person service for pretty much any reason other than being gay. So go deny away.

 Peregrine wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Honestly, the point I like best is the role reversal thing: if a Christian went to a cake shop owned by a gay person and wanted a cake made that said "God hates gays", would the owner have the right to refuse?

That's not an accurate comparison. The correct example would be a Christian going to a cake shop owned by a gay person and asking for a cake with a cross on it. And in that case the owner wouldn't have the right to refuse.

But even bigots should have the right to refuse if it goes against their religious views.

So you support the right to run a whites-only business?

Nice irrelevant tangent into race. What's the relation again?

This has nothing to do with race or even 'denial of service'.

As far as I'm concerned, and this is my position, every artist in the world has an unalienable right to object to subject matter, NO MATTER WHAT.

Don't worry, Ronan, he just likes to argue. He's laughably wrong, of course, but he won't care.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Don't worry, Ronan, he just likes to argue. He's laughably wrong, of course, but he won't care.

Says the one liner with no content in his post.

Put your money where you mouth is?

Do artists have the right to deny commissions based on them finding the content distasteful and or disagreeable?

Think about it for a second?

Artists have a reputation to cultivate. Artists cultivate their reputation very carefully if they want to be held in repute.

As an artist, the right of artistic association is inalienable.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Don't worry, Ronan, he just likes to argue. He's laughably wrong, of course, but he won't care.

Keep arguing in good faith and following rule #1, that'll keep the thread open.

Uh, Ronan...I was agreeing with you. Pere just likes to argue. I'm on your side...

 LordofHats wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:
You write all of this but utterly skirt the issue; this is forcing people to cede their religious beliefs to accommodate someones lifestyle.

I skirt the issue because it's ultimately meaningless. Just say you don't like the sound of their voice, because shockingly you can deny a gay person service for pretty much any reason other than being gay. So go deny away.

But, as I understand it, they weren't being denied service because they were gay, but because they wanted to pay the proprietor to promote a gay organization. (By decorating a cake to support it.) If they'd just come in and ordered a cake, and the owner said "Oh you're gay, we don't serve your kind in here," that'd be a different story.

Or did I miss something? (Always possible, I'm very tired...)

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Uh, Ronan...I was agreeing with you. Pere just likes to argue. I'm on your side...

And Ronan and you don't?

I'd say the only people here who don't like to argue are the people who make one post and leave the thread


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jimsolo wrote:
But, as I understand it, they weren't being denied service because they were gay, but because they wanted to pay the proprietor to promote a gay organization. (By decorating a cake to support it.) If they'd just come in and ordered a cake, and the owner said "Oh you're gay, we don't serve your kind in here," that'd be a different story.

Or did I miss something? (Always possible, I'm very tired...)

Maybe that's what happened, but that's not what the thread is discussing

 LordofHats wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Uh, Ronan...I was agreeing with you. Pere just likes to argue. I'm on your side...

And Ronan and you don't?

I'd say the only people here who don't like to argue are the people who make one post and leave the thread


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jimsolo wrote:
But, as I understand it, they weren't being denied service because they were gay, but because they wanted to pay the proprietor to promote a gay organization. (By decorating a cake to support it.) If they'd just come in and ordered a cake, and the owner said "Oh you're gay, we don't serve your kind in here," that'd be a different story.

Or did I miss something? (Always possible, I'm very tired...)

Well, at least Ronan and I make a point when we argue and don't compare maple syrup to the moon just to get a rise out of people. Lol

Maybe that's what happened, but that's not what the thread is discussing

Never ceases to amaze me how freely the word bigot is tossed around these days.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:
You write all of this but utterly skirt the issue; this is forcing people to cede their religious beliefs to accommodate someones lifestyle.

I skirt the issue because it's ultimately meaningless. Just say you don't like the sound of their voice, because shockingly you can deny a gay person service for pretty much any reason other than being gay. So go deny away.

But, as I understand it, they weren't being denied service because they were gay, but because they wanted to pay the proprietor to promote a gay organization. (By decorating a cake to support it.) If they'd just come in and ordered a cake, and the owner said "Oh you're gay, we don't serve your kind in here," that'd be a different story.

Or did I miss something? (Always possible, I'm very tired...)

The client (gay activist) specifically went to bakery that is named after bible verse asking for a commissioned artwork. Could it be any clearer that this rejection is intentionally provoked?

Artists should have the choice of association, should have the choice to reject the content of commissions.

Bottom line is that they have the right to cultivate their choice of work and be free to reject content for any reason.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Who the hell is ronan?

I think you start bending the bounds of reality when we equate baking to painters and ice carvers;



The primary purpose of a cake is for eating, not appreciating the brush strokes of the icing and how they exemplify man's burning desire to be wanted and appreciated by others

Who the hell is ronan?

A close friend of SpellingError

Meh, so sue me-I spelled your name wrong.

Oh, wait: I'm not a Christian cake maker!!

 44Ronin wrote:
Nice irrelevant tangent into race. What's the relation again?

The relation is that people keep claiming that there should be a right to refuse to do anything that conflicts with a person's beliefs. If that rule is consistently applied then it includes a right to run a whites-only business. So my question here is whether the people advocating this "right to refuse" policy will be consistent and support the racists, or only apply their rule to beliefs that they find acceptable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
You make a false statement: I stated specifically for religious reasons.

Why should religious beliefs be special?

Do you know of any religions that say "all races except white are going to hell"? I doubt it, unless its a super fringe thing that 99.99% of the population will never hear of.

What does being a fringe group have to do with anything? Are you suggesting that the right to refuse service based on religious beliefs only applies to mainstream religious beliefs?

A hate group like the KKK or nazis are not religious, they are straight up hatemongering racists.

Depends on the group. Some of them are quite happy to cite religious justification for their racism.

My point of the opposing viewpoint is to show that if it was acceptable for service to be refused on the "God hates gays" cake due to a lifestyle choice, it would be damn expected that a person could refuse on grounds of religious view.

Except it isn't, because the cake in the real case is not the equivalent of "god hates gays", it's more like a cake with a plain cross on it and no hateful message (something that would be protected).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 44Ronin wrote:
The client (gay activist) specifically went to bakery that is named after bible verse asking for a commissioned artwork. Could it be any clearer that this rejection is intentionally provoked?

And there were plenty of cases where rejections from whites-only businesses were deliberately provoked. The fact that a reaction may have been deliberately provoked does not change the fact that the reaction is illegal.

This really isn't the same as running a whites only business. That is a terrible analogy. They didn't say "Oh, you're gay? Get out of my store I am not doing business with your kind."
I'm sure if the fella would have asked to buy some cupcakes on his way out they'd have sold them to him.


Someone has to make that cake. That is artistry, even at a relatively low and edible level. You shouldn't have a legal recourse to force someone to create art on your behalf.