The Goat Pen

I hear that, when SCOTUS was hearing that case, Sotomayor and Ginsburg inquired how "creative" was the act of making a cake.

That is comical. If the cake is "creative," like maybe if the cake depicts a beaker with a crucifix in it filled with urine, then it could be understood as socially responsible and sustainable, and therefore Justices might give the baker some leeway. "The artist must be free to create!" and all that. But if it is a matter of religious belief, then there would be no leeway for the baker. The full wrath of the federal government and the state of Colorado must be unleashed on him. He must be sent to the dungeon and waterboarded until he gets his mind right, and complies with official state-approved religious beliefs.

Here in the United States of America, we just can't have people living and acting according to their faith and conscience, as if they had some kind of right to do that sort of thing.

Ancient superstition should not be an excuse for discrimination. If your ancient superstition compels you or gives you cover for your discriminatory behavior, the superstition has got to go. It's sad that this is still a thing we argue about in the 21st century.

take out a dollar bill and see what it says on the back. The very currency they used to buy those goods and services references that ancient superstition.

and while we're at it, can the guy not refuse to make a cake for Neo Nazis? or is anti-discrimination limited to the people that you think should or shouldn't be discriminated against based on your viewpoint this decade?

Cletus wrote:Ancient superstition should not be an excuse for discrimination. If your ancient superstition compels you or gives you cover for your discriminatory behavior, the superstition has got to go. It's sad that this is still a thing we argue about in the 21st century.

What's your husbands name.

"I hear that, when SCOTUS was hearing that case, Sotomayor and Ginsburg inquired how "creative" was the act of making a cake."

That's actually a good question...

"and while we're at it, can the guy not refuse to make a cake for Neo Nazis? or is anti-discrimination limited to the people that you think should or shouldn't be discriminated against based on your viewpoint this decade?"

Also good questions...

hedge wrote:"I hear that, when SCOTUS was hearing that case, Sotomayor and Ginsburg inquired how "creative" was the act of making a cake."

That's actually a good question...

"and while we're at it, can the guy not refuse to make a cake for Neo Nazis? or is anti-discrimination limited to the people that you think should or shouldn't be discriminated against based on your viewpoint this decade?"

Also good questions...

No, not a good question. Being a Nazi is a choice while being gay (or black or a woman or disabled) is not a choice. The whole point of the anti discrimination laws is to prevent excluding people over traits they didn't choose.

Cletus wrote:

hedge wrote:"I hear that, when SCOTUS was hearing that case, Sotomayor and Ginsburg inquired how "creative" was the act of making a cake."

That's actually a good question...

"and while we're at it, can the guy not refuse to make a cake for Neo Nazis? or is anti-discrimination limited to the people that you think should or shouldn't be discriminated against based on your viewpoint this decade?"

Also good questions...

No, not a good question. Being a Nazi is a choice while being gay (or black or a woman or disabled) is not a choice. The whole point of the anti discrimination laws is to prevent excluding people over traits they didn't choose.

I don't believe that for a second. We're going to see self identification as an issue in 10 years and you can bet there will be politicians and "enlightened' folks like yourself who will be demanding that people can reject their inherited cultural identity and identify with a new one.

again, for a man who says those that are religious are practicing ancient superstition, you are pretty quick to determine who be protected.
40 years ago society wasn't talking about homosexuality as a born trait. 20 years from now I can only imagine what people will be claiming are born traits.

if this guy was just a dick with his I hate gays thing, I'd be less inclined to support him but this is a guy that is turning away business from people because of his convictions. Halloween , divorce, - he has a history of choosing his convictions over monetary gain. He's not going around saying there should be a law saying gay people can't have a cake, he is saying he, because of his values, cannot support it.

The issue in this country is the shift in the last century from giving religious views precedent over protected classes of people, and just as importantly, relinquishing personal property rights in the name of a commerce clause originally written to address railroads going from state to state.

So now we live in a country where a man who owns his own business and is practicing the religion that this country is founded on and is supported in the very first amendment to this countries constitution in violation of state law because he won't do physical labor for a protected class of citizen.

And this is coming from an atheist. I don't give a shit that guy is religion, but I do give a shit that this guy should be able to practice his religion, own a business and conduct it as it sees fit. If his business practice rejects societies norms, then capitalism steps in to correct this problem. As in other bakeries will seek out the business and profit from it.

The issue should be if we are creating laws that are based on religious dogma that prevents protected classes of people from doing whatever they want, not focusing on individual who live by their values.

Well, you've got to draw the line somewhere. If you want to enjoy the benefits of being in a protected class (in this case, whatever religion you claim to espouse), you have to be willing to behave within certain limits. Now maybe you disagree that that limit includes baking cakes for gay people, but at the very least it's obviously a point that can be debated. There are plenty of things that you aren't allowed to do simply by claiming it's your religious belief and nobody has a problem with it. Not sure why anything to do with the sex lives of other people is the issue that some people seem to regard as the unassailable line in the sand that religious people can act upon and government has not right to compel them on. I mean, nobody is saying that you can take peyote or LSD (or a million other things) just b/c you assert your religious views on the subject (I think some Indian tribes can, but not whitey). I mean, it would be pretty simple for somebody to find some scripture that gives them the religious belief that they shouldn't serve, say, black people, but most everybody would recognize that they were full of shit...

Should a Jewish baker be forced to make a cake with a swastika on it for a neo-Nazi gathering? No.

Should a black baker be forced to make a cake depicting a black man being lynched for a Klan meeting? No.

Should a Muslim baker be forced to make a cake depicting Muhammad doing things with camels? No.

Should a Hindu baker be forced to bake a cake with cow meat in it? No.

I believe there's a pattern here...

Cletus wrote:Ancient superstition should not be an excuse for discrimination. If your ancient superstition compels you or gives you cover for your discriminatory behavior, the superstition has got to go. It's sad that this is still a thing we argue about in the 21st century.

That reminds me of another pious castrato dissing an "ancient superstition"...

Start at 1:17...

[youtube]Zzs-OvfG8tE[/youtube]

Professor Tiger wrote:Should a Jewish baker be forced to make a cake with a swastika on it for a neo-Nazi gathering? No.

Should a black baker be forced to make a cake depicting a black man being lynched for a Klan meeting? No.

Should a Muslim baker be forced to make a cake depicting Muhammad doing things with camels? No.

Should a Hindu baker be forced to bake a cake with cow meat in it? No.

I believe there's a pattern here...

Wake up. The baker wouldn't even hand over a plain-Jane cake with nothing on top to that gay couple - he refuses to do business with them due to their lifestyle, period. Swastikas or fucking camels or whatever lewd thing you can dredge up isn't the issue here. Rest assured nobody can be legally forced to depict a lynching on top of a cake.

Maybe try these examples and see if you see a pattern: baker refuses to make a cake for a black couple, or refuses a mixed-race couple, or a Jewish couple, or Muslim couple, or a dwarf couple.

hedge wrote: I mean, it would be pretty simple for somebody to find some scripture that gives them the religious belief that they shouldn't serve, say, black people, but most everybody would recognize that they were full of shit...

I agree there would have to be limits - but we're talking about two specific instances of domain - a persons religion and their property.

its a perverse twist to the definition of freedom when we're at a point where a practicing religion in this country must yield to an individuals right to purchase a cake.

Nobody is telling these people they can't be gay, that can't have sex with the people they choose, he isn't advocating laws be made or changed to the detriment of a gay lifestyle. All he is doing is telling them he can't make them a cake.

bluetick wrote:

Professor Tiger wrote:Should a Jewish baker be forced to make a cake with a swastika on it for a neo-Nazi gathering? No.

Should a black baker be forced to make a cake depicting a black man being lynched for a Klan meeting? No.

Should a Muslim baker be forced to make a cake depicting Muhammad doing things with camels? No.

Should a Hindu baker be forced to bake a cake with cow meat in it? No.

I believe there's a pattern here...

Wake up. The baker wouldn't even hand over a plain-Jane cake with nothing on top to that gay couple - he refuses to do business with them due to their lifestyle, period. Swastikas or fucking camels or whatever lewd thing you can dredge up isn't the issue here. Rest assured nobody can be legally forced to depict a lynching on top of a cake.

Maybe try these examples and see if you see a pattern: baker refuses to make a cake for a black couple, or refuses a mixed-race couple, or a Jewish couple, or Muslim couple, or a dwarf couple.

actually that's not true, he told them they could purchase any of the pre-made cakes available in his cooler/display case, which I thought was very generous on his part given his religious principles.

eCat wrote: actually that's not true, he told them they could purchase any of the pre-made cakes available in his cooler/display case, which I thought was very generous on his part given his religious principles.

I stand corrected on the 'not handing over a plain-Jane cake' then.

Why couldn't those fags just grab one out of the case and put their names on it themselves?

or go to any other of 25 bakeries in the area

What if all 25 refuse to serve them? Then what?

if this man truly believed that him making a cake was a sin

Now its religious persecution - if he has to pay a fine, go to jail, lose his license, whatever

doesn't matter if you don't respect religion or not

its the foundation of what this country was founded on.

Cletus wrote:What if all 25 refuse to serve them? Then what?

for religious reasons? then they go to number 26

eCat wrote:

Cletus wrote:What if all 25 refuse to serve them? Then what?

for religious reasons? then they go to number 26

What if there are only 25? Will the law force someone to step up and not be a Neanderthal asshole? Or will the couple have to go out of town to find someone?