Guy asked 13 different gay-owned bakeries to make a cake opposing gay marriage, guess what happened

But are the cookie people on the hook to brilliantly debate some asshole bigot on the phone?
I don't see how they are.

 

Interesting how baked goods became the centerpiece of culture wars.

 

I heard the same radio show - I was getting a blowie from Olivia Wilde while finger blasting Beyoncé in the ass in the penthouse suite of the Burj al Arab.

 

That happens when the opponent is gay. It means we're fighting on their turf, kind of like battling with cans of hairspray in a salon.

 

What if they just came to my shop and wanted to do basic business that I normally do with everyone? Shouldn't I be allowed to tell them to take a hike? What about black business owners? Should they be forced to do business with the KKK?

 

If you're a business open to the public, then you serve anyone unless they give you reason not to do so. Reasons not to do so include disrupting the business by interfering with customers, or store operations, stealing, purposely damaging merchandise, and so on. Reasons that add up to "I don't like their kind" are not valid reasons to deny service. See, this method prevents things like "Whites Only Entrance" and "Homosexuals Will Be Denied Service".

Let's put it another way: People would be shitting bricks if they woke up tomorrow, and went to their favorite convenience store/gas station (owned by, say, Pakistanis, Indians, or African Americans), only to see a sign that said "Whites Will Be Denied Service". Where would they get gas? Where would they get their coffee? Now make it grocery stores, and restaurants; auto repair shops, and hardware stores.

There would be a shit. fit. of epic proportions from politicians the likes of which we'd have never seen before, and rightly so. You don't discriminate against someone because of what they are, biologically speaking. Black isn't a reason to deny someone the ability to shop for food. Gay isn't a reason to deny someone the ability to order a wedding cake. There's a difference between "I want a sign that says Niggers go home!" and "I'm a guy and I want to marry my boyfriend. We need a cake." The former is discrimination and bigotry, tantamount to intimidation tactics and terrorism (as the KKK is most assuredly a terrorist group), and trying to include the business in contributing to that discrimination and terrorism. The latter is a service that is advertised by the business; They make cakes. It's perfectly reasonable to ask for a wedding cake in a cake store that makes wedding cakes. Context does matter, and it really is that simple.

 

John wins this thread.

 

No it is not that simple.There is a world of difference between "blacks not allowed" to "we don't offer gay wedding cakes." The former was based on bigotry while the latter is based on religious grounds.

Also, don't try and equate refusal of a wedding cake to forms of terrorism. That is even more ridiculous than your attempts to equate gay wedding cakes to the civil rights movement. No one is saying gays cant eat at restaurants and there are no gay drinking fountains as far as I can see. I also don't see any lynchings either so enough with the drama and call this what it really is: a few religious businesses practicing their faith are being sued out of spite because some gay people couldn't handle being told no. That's all this really is.

 

It's Selma envy.

The sweeping Civil Rights laws were put in place because blacks couldn't get service hardly anywhere - at all. They couldn't find hotels to stay in without having special notes, often telling them instead of places they could crash. This made travel for them very iffy and extremely inconvenient. The same applied to restaurants, and they faced such hurdles daily.

That is not remotely the same as having to make two phone calls to get a cake that will be used once in a lifetime, and statistically, even if bakers were as unsupportive of gay marriage as the general population, and even if every unsupportive baker took it to the extreme of refusing to bake a wedding cake, it would still take only two phone calls to find a baker who was happy to go all-out. And of course all other cakes are completely unaffected.

Having to dial twice isn't remotely the same as having to have your family sleep on someone stranger's back porch - as normal practice.

 

Oh, I see the problem now, you think the gay couple ordered some sort of cake they don't normally bake. Yes, It would be reasonable for them to say no under such a circumstance. But I'm a bit confused on what is meant by a "gay wedding cake." Can you describe such a thing, and explain how it differs from a "wedding cake"? See, it's easy for me to understand how a cake that says "fuck Jesus," on it would differ from a cake that says "congratulations," or something typical like that. Does making a cake for gay people require a different process? Does it require a distasteful message? Or is it just a cake that a gay person wants to buy?

 

And you've nailed why most people are okay with businesses discriminating, it's not them being discriminated against. If it was, there'd be uproar and people bitching for new laws.

Now I'm pro- businesses having the right to turn custom away, even if it's because the owner is a bigoted piece of shit hiding behind their religion, but then I find the notion that there are people so fucking dumb they'd turn away custom because they're bigots quite alien.

Disagreeing with gay marriage shouldn't stop you baking a cake for one for example, providing a service for something isn't the same as promoting it, if anything it's promoting yourself. If it does, you're not being a good Christian, you're just being a dick.

There has got to be some kind of happy medium. I mean there is, non-legally, but that involves both sides dialling back on the dickishness.

 

It's obviously not the latter, because how would the baker know it was for a gay wedding, especially since a very large number of the wedding planners who call about wedding cakes are gay?

 

And there's your first mistake: assuming that whites have never been discriminated against or made to feel uncomfortable. Most everyone has experienced hate and nastiness in one form or another at least once in their lives.

No. Being a dick is suing a business because they won't make a cake for your wedding. There are many wedding caterers out there along with many bakeries that aren't religous affiliated. Is there something preventing these gay couples from frequenting those establishments?

That will most likely not happen. The more Christian establishments that get sued by members of the gay community for not bending to their will the more both sides will dig in their heels. This will only end with a supreme court ruling and even after that both sides will be incredibly bitter towards the other for many years.

 

There were and are people (like Christian Identity) who try to justify their racism on religious grounds.

 

You can find bad apples in any organization or group. None of which dismisses legitimate concerns on issues of religious freedom or private property rights.

 

I wasn't aware that baked goods had a sexual preference. As one of the experts on the subject, perhaps you can tell us how the ingredients in a "gay wedding cake" differ from those in a "straight wedding cake."

Or just ignore this post the way you ignore anything that challenges your preconceived notions.

 

Oh, and the dickhead in the OP isn't a singular incident, apparently this is a thing going around with Christian Youtubers.
Oboy, a trend.

 

Yep, there are tons of white supremacist "churches" like Church of the Creator which teaches only whites go to heaven and that race mixing is the worst crime imaginable according to god. They also mix in a bunch of neo-Nazi eugenics crap and right wing authoritarianism.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/creativity-movement

 

A look a the polling data

Last year, the Public Religion Research Institute asked Americans if they felt religious liberty was being threatened in America today, and a majority (54 percent) said they felt it was. Nonetheless, 80 percent of their respondents said that a business owner should not be able “be able to refuse services on religious grounds to individuals who happen to be gay or lesbian."

Pew Research Center found something that, at first glance, seems very different. Asking instead if a wedding services business should be “allowed to refuse” or “required to provide” services at a same-sex marriage, voters are far more split, with only 49 percent saying the business should be “required to provide.”

The distinction in question wording is two-fold. The first question is about discrimination in the provision of services generally, while the second question more narrowly focuses on wedding services, which are far more obviously linked to religion than the mere act of serving up a slice of pepperoni. Second, the Pew question notes that the business owner would be “required to provide” services, introducing the idea that the business owner would be compelled to do something they presumably don’t want to.

When the question moves further from generally providing service to all and into the more narrow questions about marriage ceremonies, requirements, and punishments, public opinion swings even further into Memories Pizza’s court. Take another poll, conducted by Marist just a few weeks ago, which showed 65 percent of respondents opposing fines for wedding vendors who decline to provide services. This may seem like splitting hairs to some, but is actually illustrative of the way that many Americans look at the issue.​

So the vast majority think it's wrong to discriminate against gays in the provision of usual goods and services, but they split evenly on whether a wedding service could discriminate, and two-thirds think a wedding vendor should be penalized for declining. The difference between the last two numbers is probably that the vendors shouldn't be dicks, but are free to be dicks if they want to.

I suspect the numbers also reflect a strong feeling that the less being gay affects the action or activity, the less reason their is for discrimination. Selling kitchen appliances, for example, has no excuse to discriminate. If the pollsters had asked about sex services, they would find something close to one hundred percent of agreement that pimps, gigolos, or prostitutes don't have to provide services to gay customers if they have strong objections to it.

And there's the rub. We'll end up having to debate, possibly in court, which businesses can discriminate, and when, and why, instead of going with common sense and reasoning.

 

Common sense and reasoning says we need no new laws protecting religion. Indiana's has clouded the issue and cost them dearly, as it should.

I think you should visit some legitimate brothels in Nevada, GT, and report back.

 

Indiana isn't passing a new law, they're passing the law that's been on the books for over twenty years federally and which offers the protections that most other states like Connecticut already have. The only thing different was that now we have Twitter where college freshman can freak out because they don't know anything except how to emote.

The brothels are key, because if one legal business can discriminate, we're just talking about which ones can discriminate, which gets back to that whole freedom thing. It would be ironic if the push for gay rights ends up undermining accepted civil rights protections by setting precedents.

 

I stopped reading at Public Religion Research Institute.

 

And thus you didn't even get down to the data from the Pew Research Center and other firms that showed much stronger support for protecting religion. The PRRI data showed the least, and the rest of the text explained why.

 

no, just an observation

 

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/26/3333161/religious-liberty-racist-anti-gay/

by contrast, here's a look at some ACTUAL Biblical Christianity:

http://tenthousandplaces.org/2015/04/01/bake-for-them-two/#comment-5316

 

it's the "bad apples" that make ALL laws necessary.

If there were no "bad apples" trying to kill people, we'd need no law against murder would we?

 

Good news everyone! Today I opened a cake shop and converted to Christianity.

Due to my new moral principles, I've decided not to provide catering services to those whose actions violate good Christian moral principals.

Not gay people. The bible doesn't say a lot about homosexuality, and enforcing every little rule in the bible would be too time consuming. My services will be denied to those currently serving in the military and veterans.

"Thou shall not kill" is one of the Ten Commandments. Those in the military kill others, or provide support to those that do. As a good Christian, I cannot support such morally reprehensible behavior.

I apologize to all service men and women, and veterans, but I've made this decision based upon my sincerely held religious beliefs.

I'm sure @gturner , @T.R , and others supporting those who decide not to make cakes for gay weddings will support my decision as well.

 

The Biblical principle of going the second mile is one of doing right and caring about others, even when they are blatantly in the wrong. The Romans invaded (more than once, since Judea was freed from their rule once, in 40 B.C.), occupied, and oppressed. They used their superior military force to put in place any laws they wanted, and requiring anyone who happened to be passing by to carry a soldier's equipment for a mile -- even if he was going the other way -- was one of them.

Are you sure you want to keep comparing this issue to Christians doing what is right even when they are the victims of blatant injustice? Should the requirement to offer the same services to all customers without discrimination based on sexual orientation or practice really be compared to the oppression of a foreign invader?

 

I'm not sure which is more funny:Your ignorance of the bible or the fact you thought that long rant was clever.

 

for the point to be made, it's not necessary for the (precieved) offense to be equally severe. Jesus advised to be overly gracious n the much more severe offense, which would seem to imply all the more strongly that one be gracious in the much lesser offense (if offense one believe it to be)