SCOTUS to take the cake

[Keith&Co.]

Do you think that all of us liberals join up online, and develop a code of ethics that we all sign off on?

Dude, it was a non-binding vote, as well you know.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Usually those who are pro-life instead of pro-choice are religious Christians who take a dim view on homosexuality. You remember the big divide between the pro-life anti-gay Republicans and the pro-choice pro-gay Democrats. It isn't a universal, of course, but those combinations occur often enough to make a valid generalization.

So although there is no apparent connection, there is a real connection.

I know there's probably overlap in their positions on abortion and homosexuality.
I'm saying that the story, however, doesn't appear to show anything like a complete narrative.

There were some people who were not being anti-abortionist and a cafe owner threw them out of his shop for the activities they were not engaged in... Still wondering how he knew who/what they were and why he took it upon himself to be offended, if they were being so peaceful and consumerish.

I think he might have suspected they were antiabortion because they were in his shop not performing abortions.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Do you think he is morally in the right? Do you think he is legally in the right? Do you think he should be legally in the right?

Based on the information available, he kicked out customers due to generally a political view they had, which isn't appropriate. As long as they weren't using his place to sell a political message, they should be allowed there. I can entirely understand his frustration, but the world won't be able to get anything done if we create walls like that.

I have no idea if he had a legal right. Pro-life activists aren't a protected class. People aren't born pro-life.

I don't think he should have a legal right to do so.

I am actually impressed. You are consistent on this, that the vendor should "break the damn cake" and should also "serve the damn coffee", without regard for what group is the server and what group is the customer. Good show.

Multiple posts into this thread and you're still clueless that the gay customers never asked the bakers to say anything on any cake. All they did is ask for a wedding cake and were refused.

Since my position is, was, and continues to be that any private business can deny service to any person for any reason, you seem quite clueless about the fact that I don't care why they chose to deny service. You seem to want to make the case that while vendors can deny service, they cannot do so for religious reasons. A businessman says "I won't serve you because your name is Joe and I think Joe is a stupid name" and you're fine with that, but a businessman says "I won't serve you because your name is Joe and my religion forbids it" and you suddenly are all up in arms? It is almost as if an action itself is completely morally neutral and you have to analyze the motive to determine if it is good or bad.

Is that the case you want to make?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wow, I can scratch that off the bucket list, impress judgmental, self-absorbed Libertarian.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[repoman]

I think this was the flyer

I don't think many gay people have abortions (or are direct biological fathers of aborted fetuses) or disproportionately advocate for them.

If a coffee shop owner was dealing with wacko Larouchies or Black Israelites who also make scenes, then I think that he should be able to tell them to fuck off if they want coffee. Both groups are scum.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Wow, I can scratch that off the bucket list, impress judgmental, self-absorbed Libertarian.

I've always thought that one of the ways you can tell how much class a person has is how they accept compliments.

 

[scombrid]

I'm saying that the story, however, doesn't appear to show anything like a complete narrative.

There were some people who were not being anti-abortionist and a cafe owner threw them out of his shop for the activities they were not engaged in... Still wondering how he knew who/what they were and why he took it upon himself to be offended, if they were being so peaceful and consumerish.

I have the same question and I don't see it answered anywhere.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wow, I can scratch that off the bucket list, impress judgmental, self-absorbed Libertarian.

I've always thought that one of the ways you can tell how much class a person has is how they accept compliments.

Your being "impressed" was based on your baseless judgment of what you want to think I believe. So... no... it wasn't a compliment. It was an exposure of the lack of seriousness you actually put into honestly absorbing what people contribute here.

 

[repoman]

These flyer passers are probably closer to the God Hates Fags crowd than the standard Seattle Sunday school one.

If they had those signs outside of the cafe and then wanted to take a rest I would bet that more people would side with refusing them service.

 

[blastula]

Since my position is, was, and continues to be that any private business can deny service to any person for any reason, you seem quite clueless about the fact that I don't care why they chose to deny service.

No, your argument has been premised on the cakes saying something, like here:

They could also not make cakes with political or controversial messages.

Different people have different beliefs as to what is political or controversial. If your standard was adopted, the original bakers can say "Oh gay marriage is political and controversial" and not have to bake the damn cake.

You seem to want to make the case that while vendors can deny service, they cannot do so for religious reasons.

Sure, not for religious reasons alone. So?

A businessman says "I won't serve you because your name is Joe and I think Joe is a stupid name" and you're fine with that,

No, I'm not.

but a businessman says "I won't serve you because your name is Joe and my religion forbids it" and you suddenly are all up in arms? It is almost as if an action itself is completely morally neutral and you have to analyze the motive to determine if it is good or bad.

No again.

 

[sharon45]

"Hey, you guys, why don't we take a little break, and have some more fun getting thrown out of yet another literally God damned business establishment?"

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

No, your argument has been premised on the cakes saying something, like here:

In that case I was pointing out the hypocrisy of others, specifically those who say "bake the damn cake" to Christians but saying "you can't have a cake" to Trump supporters.

I pointed out hypocrisy, you got stung by it, and am now trying to change my argument for me.

A businessman says "I won't serve you because your name is Joe and I think Joe is a stupid name" and you're fine with that,

No, I'm not.

but a businessman says "I won't serve you because your name is Joe and my religion forbids it" and you suddenly are all up in arms? It is almost as if an action itself is completely morally neutral and you have to analyze the motive to determine if it is good or bad.

No again.

So why is it wrong for the businessman to say "I won't serve you because your name is Joe and I think Joe is a stupid name"?

 

[sharon45]

So why is it wrong for the businessman to say "I won't serve you because your name is Joe and I think Joe is a stupid name"?

I don't think it is so wrong, except that it would be nice if businesses that were more opinionated could warn potential customers ahead of time like the old "No shirt, No shoes, No service." signs.

 

[blastula]

In that case I was pointing out the hypocrisy of others, specifically those who say "bake the damn cake" to Christians but saying "you can't have a cake" to Trump supporters.

I pointed out hypocrisy, you got stung by it, and am now trying to change my argument for me.

But you failed precisely because your argument depends on the gay customers also asking for a message on their cake, which a Trump cake would have. Your comparison doesn't work.

So why is it wrong for the businessman to say "I won't serve you because your name is Joe and I think Joe is a stupid name"?

Because it's unreasonable discrimination.

 

[J842P]

Whoops.

 

[Shadowy Man]

So why is it wrong for the businessman to say "I won't serve you because your name is Joe and I think Joe is a stupid name"?

It may be wrong, but it's not illegal, right? Unless people named Joe are a protected class. I don't think they are.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So why is it wrong for the businessman to say "I won't serve you because your name is Joe and I think Joe is a stupid name"?

Because it's unreasonable discrimination.

Why is it unreasonable?

 

[blastula]

Don't be dense. Just make whatever point you want to make.

 

[Malintent]

There have to be precedents for speech acts undertaken with the assistance of a third party, where it is understood that the third party is not the one making the speech, but merely the one physically inscribing it on a medium (a cake, a shirt, a sign). If it is legitimate for a custom tee shirt company to refuse to make a tee shirt with e.g. profanity on it, the argument could be made that companies have the right to decide what they can render using their resources even when it's somebody else's speech. However, this would only take the bakers' complaint so far, because the baker presumably wants to refuse to bake a cake for a certain type of customer, not just refuse to bake a cake with a certain kind of speech. For example, he would bake a cake that said "Chris and William" only if Chris was short for Christine and the clients were a heterosexual couple. I don't know if there is legal precedent allowing that kind of discrimination, based on the identity of the client rather than the specific message.

yes, I agree that this is the key point... discriminating against ideas is ok, but discriminating against individuals due to a specific, protected group affiliation is not.

 

[Malintent]

Wow, I can scratch that off the bucket list, impress judgmental, self-absorbed Libertarian.

I've always thought that one of the ways you can tell how much class a person has is how they accept compliments.

There is a "subversive poster" on this board that I won't mention by name that I have fairly supported when that person had made a fair, valid point... the rest of the board gives this person no quarter... everything this poster days is immediately demonized, regardless of the content of their post, based on that person's posting history. One time, he had a snarky response to a comment of mine that was supportive of his position, even though it was rather unpopular with the rest of the community... I didn;t appreciate that... coupled with the fact that this person never +rep me for siding with them, and only was a dick whenever he could be, I no longer post in that poster's threads.. at least not if I support the position.... fuck them. on their own.