Current Events > Broke Christians LOSE and Must Pay $135,000 to LESBIANS for being HOMOPHOBIC!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

TrevorBlack79 posted...

Vindris_SNH posted...

The bakers were not refusing to serve the lesbian couple because of the fact that they were lesbians.

TrevorBlack79 posted...

A straight couple would be provided with a wedding cake. The lesbian couple was turned away. That is discrimination, quite literally.

Vindris_SNH posted...

If a straight man who was a friend of the lesbian couple had come in and asked the baker to bake a cake for his friend's lesbian wedding (let's say this guy knew they couldn't afford a cake and was going to surprise them with one), the baker would still have refused, because it's not about who is ordering the service, it's about how the provision of that service would force the baker into a situation where they felt they were breaking their own moral code by participating in the celebration of a lesbian wedding.

This isn't about who you're selling the service to, it's about how the service forces you into a situation where you're breaking your own moral code.

Being punished for refusing to take part in the celebration of something you believe is morally wrong? That is morally wrong.
---

Vindris_SNH posted...

A few points here that I may not have expressed as clearly:

On defining discrimination...

If I refuse to serve a black man a sandwich, not because he's black, but because he doesn't have money to pay for a sandwich, is that discriminatory? Of course not. I'm not refusing to serve him because he's black. I'm refusing to serve him because he can't pay for the service.

My point is that the reasons for denial of service are what determine whether or not it is discriminatory.

The judge, in this case, determined that the baker was being discriminatory, but he was incorrect. The bakers were not refusing to serve the lesbian couple because of the fact that they were lesbians. They were refusing to serve the lesbian couple, because in serving them, the bakers would have been participating in an action that breaks their own moral code.

Their provision of this particular service had the residual effect of them taking part in the celebration of a homosexual marriage, which they believe is morally wrong.

If you were selling guns (legally), and one person came to you saying, "I'm a gay man, and I want to buy a gun so I can murder my husband", would you sell that person a gun? Of course not. Because he just told you how he was going to use the gun, and you do not want to be part of something that you believe to be morally wrong.

If, however, the man that came to you asking to buy a gun had never mentioned anything about murdering his husband, but instead lied and said he was only going to use it at the shooting range, your conscience would be clear, and you would sell him the gun.

The above example had nothing to do with the fact that the man was gay. It had to do with how he was going to use the product you were selling him.

In the same way, these bakers were not concerned with the sexual orientation of the women they were selling the cake to, but rather how the cake was going to be used, which was to celebrate something the bakers believe to be morally wrong. They could not, in good conscience, sell the cake to the lesbian couple; not because they were lesbians, but because they themselves would be participating in the celebration of a homosexual marriage, which they believe to be morally wrong.

I believe the bakers would be perfectly happy selling this lesbian couple a cake to celebrate one of their birthdays.

So, now, we've determined 2 things:
1. Discrimination by denial of service can only occur when your reason for the denial of service is based on the fact that you would be serving a person of a particular race, creed, religion, sexual orientation, etc.
2. The baker's reason for not selling the lesbian couple a cake was not because they were lesbians, but because they did not wish to break their own moral code by participating in a celebration of something they believe is morally wrong.

If a straight man who was a friend of the lesbian couple had come in and asked the baker to bake a cake for his friend's lesbian wedding (let's say this guy knew they couldn't afford a cake and was going to surprise them with one), the baker would still have refused, because it's not about who is ordering the service, it's about how the provision of that service would force the baker into a situation where they felt they were breaking their own moral code by participating in the celebration of a lesbian wedding.

This is not discrimination, it is moral integrity on the part of the baker, and simply unfortunate for the lesbian couple. Telling them to go find another baker should have been the end of the story.

Dude you cant say it wasnt about the sexual orientation of the of customers when they would have baked the cake for a straight couple. Thats clearly what its about. And its a stretch to say simply baking the cake is participating.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

What does open to the public mean? Because it certainly doesn't mean "we will do business with everyone who has money!"

It means you're welcome to go onto their property, discuss potential services, etc.

Actually open to the public does mean theyll do legal business with anyone that can pay. For instance if I go as an over the age of 21 adult to buy beer and I have the money to pay for it, they cant just refuse to sell it to me for a non-legal reason. If Im not drunk myself and Im not buying it for a minor and Im not creating some sort of unlawful disturbance in their place of business they have to sell it to me. They cant choose not to because Im going to give the beer as a gift to two gay friends who are having a Being gay is awesome party or something. Claiming that simply selling me the beer is somehow making them a part of the party is ridiculous.
---

ChaoticKnuckles posted...

Dude you cant say it wasnt about the sexual orientation of the of customers when they would have baked the cake for a straight couple. Thats clearly what its about. And its a stretch to say simply baking the cake is participating.

Read the entire post. It refutes any argument you just brought up, and any other argument that has been discussed in this thread. My post entirely proves the point that the bakery was undeniably not discriminating, based on the actual and even legal definitions of discrimination. I made it as clear as possible and I have nothing else to say. If you don't get it after reading my post, you won't.
---

You're wrong.
---

Villain posted...

daftpunk_mk5 posted...

hortanz posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

ModLogic posted...

008Zulu posted...

Sucks to be small minded bigots.

indeed. imagine faking emotional distress and ruining the livelihood of a family because your cant accept their christian beliefs

That's just it: a private business being forced to make a cake against their will is the same as somebody refusing to make a cake because they don't agree with homosexuality. Both people are mounds of shit here, but the ones getting offended and ruining lives are the stinkier.

Yeah its pretty terrible that the actions of those bakers led to the couple receiving numerous death threats, hate mail, and being unable to adopt

They fucking deserved all of it for suing for something so trivial

discrimination is trivial. Also your account is a decade old and you hold these views. yikes

If someone refused to serve me you know what I'd do? Leave a bad review and go somewhere else
---

Vindris_SNH posted...

This isn't about who you're selling the service to

Yes it is.

TrevorBlack79 posted...

A straight couple would be provided with a wedding cake. The lesbian couple was turned away. That is discrimination, quite literally.

---

fenderbender321 posted...

Villain posted...

You're wrong.

No I'm fucking not. You pay taxes for infrastructure, and you get the benefit of that infrastructure for YOUR property, not OTHER people's property.

Still wrong.
---

Society as a whole makes the infrastructure possibility.

You're still confusing a private residence with a place of business.

You're basically continuing to argue that 2+2=5. It doesn't. You're wrong.
---

And I don't care how many points you'll continue to make. 2+2=4. Any other answer is wrong.
---

Still wrong dude.
---

Villain posted...

Society as a whole makes the infrastructure possibility.

No, society's demands make the infrastructure viable. Individuals pay private contractors to erect the buildings. A public business by it's very nature, makes it public.
---

Vindris_SNH posted...

ChaoticKnuckles posted...

Dude you cant say it wasnt about the sexual orientation of the of customers when they would have baked the cake for a straight couple. Thats clearly what its about. And its a stretch to say simply baking the cake is participating.

Read the entire post. It refutes any argument you just brought up, and any other argument that has been discussed in this thread. My post entirely proves the point that the bakery was undeniably not discriminating, based on the actual and even legal definitions of discrimination. I made it as clear as possible and I have nothing else to say. If you don't get it after reading my post, you won't.

You didnt effectively refute what the whole debate is about in the first place. The argument that them simply baking the cake is them somehow participating in the wedding and therefore breaking their moral code is a weak one. They werent asked to be at the ceremony or cater the event, the were simply asked to provide a product. Thats the only way where their religious beliefs would be compromised, if they actively participated in the event in question. Providing a product for said event is not participating, any moreso than Im participating in a party my friend is having because I let him borrow a table or something.

And by the way, refusing to provide someone a service for any reason that isnt legal IS discrimination. It doesnt matter that its discrimination by proxy, its still discrimination. If I go to purchase a house and I tell the person selling it that Im buying it so that two Hispanic friends of mine can rent it from me and they refuse to sell it to me because they dont want to rent to Hispanic people guess what? Thats discrimination even if Im not Hispanic.
---

ChaoticKnuckles posted...

They werent asked to be at the ceremony or cater the event, the were simply asked to provide a product. Thats the only way where their religious beliefs would be compromised, if they actively participated in the event in question. Providing a product for said event is not participating, any moreso than Im participating in a party my friend is having because I let him borrow a table or something.

Vindris_SNH posted...

If you were selling guns (legally), and one person came to you saying, "I'm a gay man, and I want to buy a gun so I can murder my husband", would you sell that person a gun? Of course not. Because he just told you how he was going to use the gun, and you do not want to be part of something that you believe to be morally wrong.

If, however, the man that came to you asking to buy a gun had never mentioned anything about murdering his husband, but instead lied and said he was only going to use it at the shooting range, your conscience would be clear, and you would sell him the gun.

---

Vindris_SNH posted...

ChaoticKnuckles posted...

They werent asked to be at the ceremony or cater the event, the were simply asked to provide a product. Thats the only way where their religious beliefs would be compromised, if they actively participated in the event in question. Providing a product for said event is not participating, any moreso than Im participating in a party my friend is having because I let him borrow a table or something.

Vindris_SNH posted...

If you were selling guns (legally), and one person came to you saying, "I'm a gay man, and I want to buy a gun so I can murder my husband", would you sell that person a gun? Of course not. Because he just told you how he was going to use the gun, and you do not want to be part of something that you believe to be morally wrong.

If, however, the man that came to you asking to buy a gun had never mentioned anything about murdering his husband, but instead lied and said he was only going to use it at the shooting range, your conscience would be clear, and you would sell him the gun.

It's absolutely phenomenal that you think this is comparable. I mean, no one is this daft.
---

Vindris_SNH posted...

ChaoticKnuckles posted...

They werent asked to be at the ceremony or cater the event, the were simply asked to provide a product. Thats the only way where their religious beliefs would be compromised, if they actively participated in the event in question. Providing a product for said event is not participating, any moreso than Im participating in a party my friend is having because I let him borrow a table or something.

Vindris_SNH posted...

If you were selling guns (legally), and one person came to you saying, "I'm a gay man, and I want to buy a gun so I can murder my husband", would you sell that person a gun? Of course not. Because he just told you how he was going to use the gun, and you do not want to be part of something that you believe to be morally wrong.

If, however, the man that came to you asking to buy a gun had never mentioned anything about murdering his husband, but instead lied and said he was only going to use it at the shooting range, your conscience would be clear, and you would sell him the gun.

Buying a gun to commit a crime is illegal. Not the same thing. I already explained this. If they refuse to provide the service for any reason other than a legal one, its discrimination if theyre selectively choosing who gets the service and who isnt. If youre a baker and you say I just dont do wedding cakes at all thats not discrimination. It applies to everyone, its simply a service you dont provide. But if you say I do wedding cakes but only for certain people thats discrimination. No different than saying youll only serve a certain race or people who arent disabled or a certain gender.
---

faizan_faizan posted...

Anyone else expected them to be fat? All of them?

Expected them to look like the type that wants to talk to the manager
---

A business is not a person
I repeat, a business is not a person
A business cannot have a religion
---

And on that note, if the bakery wanted to discriminate against gay people, they should have made it a private, closed doors, not open to the public, only serves friends and family "business"
I mean sure their profits would be in the double digits for the year but at least then they could legally discriminate against a black person or gay couple or whatever
---

008Zulu posted...

Villain posted...

Society as a whole makes the infrastructure possibility.

erect

Ayyyyyy lmao
---

the majority agrees, it SHOULDN'T be legal
---

Asherlee10 posted...

That is just a false equivalency (gun buyer vs cake buyer). The firearm seller is required by law to not sell a gun to someone who proclaims that.

The problem with the stance you are taking is that is just doesn't make sense at all no matter how many equivalencies you come up with, it doesn't align. The cake shop discriminated against the couple because they are gay. Gay people are a protected class in Oregan.

That's debatable though to begin with.

For starters they were asked to make a custom cake which is different to general service.

For second, even if it's accepted as general service which is a tall order there is question of whether or not refusing to trade for an event should be accepted as violation of protected classes.

For example sex and religion are protected classes but if someone was asked to make a large male penis cake for a Brit Milah and the bakery refused, it would not be considered a violation of protected class based on sex or religion.

However if they refused to serve Jews or men, it would be.

And considering the bakery wouldn't serve straight people a cake for a gay marriage, the issue isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be. Hence why keep having these flurries of lawsuits

And that's just the law, before you even get into the free market and such
---

Rika_Furude posted...

A business is not a person
I repeat, a business is not a person
A business cannot have a religion

Rika_Furude posted...

And on that note, if the bakery wanted to discriminate against gay people, they should have made it a private, closed doors, not open to the public, only serves friends and family "business"
I mean sure their profits would be in the double digits for the year but at least then they could legally discriminate against a black person or gay couple or whatever

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

That is just a false equivalency (gun buyer vs cake buyer). The firearm seller is required by law to not sell a gun to someone who proclaims that.

The problem with the stance you are taking is that is just doesn't make sense at all no matter how many equivalencies you come up with, it doesn't align. The cake shop discriminated against the couple because they are gay. Gay people are a protected class in Oregan.

That's debatable though to begin with.

For starters they were asked to make a custom cake which is different to general service.

For second, even if it's accepted as general service which is a tall order there is question of whether or not refusing to trade for an event should be accepted as violation of protected classes.

For example sex and religion are protected classes but if someone was asked to make a large male penis cake for a Brit Milah and the bakery refused, it would not be considered a violation of protected class based on sex or religion.

However if they refused to serve Jews or men, it would be.

And considering the bakery wouldn't serve straight people a cake for a gay marriage, the issue isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be. Hence why keep having these flurries of lawsuits

And that's just the law, before you even get into the free market and such

In those examples whats happening is a person refusing to make that type of cake for everyone. Thats obviously not discrimination, thats just a product or service they dont offer. Now if they refused to make a penis cake for me but would make one for a woman, guess what? Thats discriminatory.

And the fact that they wouldnt make it for a straight person asking for it for a gay wedding doesnt stop it from being discrimination, as I showed in my real estate example. If someone is willing to sell me a home for me to live in but wont sell it to me if I tell them Im going to gift it to two of my Hispanic friends, thats still a discriminatory act.
---

ChaoticKnuckles posted...

In those examples whats happening is a person refusing to make that type of cake for everyone. Thats obviously not discrimination, thats just a product or service they dont offer. Now if they refused to make a penis cake for me but would make one for a woman, guess what? Thats discriminatory.

Ok but that's irrelevant.

The bakery would serve a cake to anyone.
And would not serve a gay wedding to anyone.

Hence the gray issue in law before you even get into the idea of customization and then free market.

ChaoticKnuckles posted...

And the fact that they wouldnt make it for a straight person asking for it for a gay wedding doesnt stop it from being discrimination,

You just literally argued that it would.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

ChaoticKnuckles posted...

In those examples whats happening is a person refusing to make that type of cake for everyone. Thats obviously not discrimination, thats just a product or service they dont offer. Now if they refused to make a penis cake for me but would make one for a woman, guess what? Thats discriminatory.

Ok but that's irrelevant.

The bakery would serve a cake to anyone.
And would not serve a gay wedding to anyone.

Hence the gray issue in law before you even get into the idea of customization and then free market.

ChaoticKnuckles posted...

And the fact that they wouldnt make it for a straight person asking for it for a gay wedding doesnt stop it from being discrimination,

You just literally argued that it would.

Its not a grey area. Discrimination is against the law.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

ChaoticKnuckles posted...

In those examples whats happening is a person refusing to make that type of cake for everyone. Thats obviously not discrimination, thats just a product or service they dont offer. Now if they refused to make a penis cake for me but would make one for a woman, guess what? Thats discriminatory.

Ok but that's irrelevant.

The bakery would serve a cake to anyone.
And would not serve a gay wedding to anyone.

Hence the gray issue in law before you even get into the idea of customization and then free market.

ChaoticKnuckles posted...

And the fact that they wouldnt make it for a straight person asking for it for a gay wedding doesnt stop it from being discrimination,

You just literally argued that it would.

Theyll still make a wedding cake. The product is a wedding cake. If they didnt make wedding cakes at all, that would be fine. But they do make wedding cakes, they just wont make them for certain weddings. Discriminatory.
---

ChaoticKnuckles posted...

Theyll still make a wedding cake. The product is a wedding cake. If they didnt make wedding cakes at all, that would be fine.

You say this so casually but many many many people would disagree with you and say it's wrong for a bakery to not serve custom gay wedding cakes even if they don't do wedding cakes.

But they do make wedding cakes, they just wont make them for certain weddings. Discriminatory.

UnfairRepresent posted...

For example sex and religion are protected classes but if someone was asked to make a large male penis cake for a Brit Milah and the bakery refused, it would not be considered a violation of protected class based on sex or religion.

However if they refused to serve Jews or men, it would be.

And considering the bakery wouldn't serve straight people a cake for a gay marriage, the issue isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be. Hence why keep having these flurries of lawsuits

And that's just the law, before you even get into the free market and such

---

Excellent news. If you dont like it you can gtfo and take your pathetic persecution complex with you. I hear Cuba is nice this time of year.
---

Religious bigotry doesn't get to dictate business practices. Harassing and making death threats to customers and encouraging others to do the same will get you in a shit-load of trouble. And rightfully so. You can be prejudiced all you want, but you had damn well better leave that shit at home if your working/running a business that's open to the public.
---

Besides its rather appalling that people are whining about how their rights to bully others are being infringed upon.
---

I don't know why you people are still hung up about the discrimination portion of it. It had little to do with the hefty fine. It was all about the doxxing. Airing out their personal information made them liable for all sorts of legal ramifications.

Giving out their info gave the religious fruitcakes the ammo they needed to make the couples lives a living hell. That alone made the judgement a fair, next.

Religious people are the biggest hypocrites on this planet. They claim to follow the teachings of Jesus, yet are the first ones to throw stones. They don't love thy neighbor nor turn the other cheek.
---