The Morals & Principles of Cake: Derail from SCOTUS to take the cake

[ruby sparks]

So anybody running a restaurant should be allowed to refuse service to black people?

I think coloradoatheist's point is that they can go to another restaurant or move to a different town.

 

[untermensche]

So anybody running a restaurant should be allowed to refuse service to black people?

I think coloradoatheist's point is that they can go to another restaurant or move to a different town.

Is that the kind of society you would want to live in?

You see that as some kind of justice?

We dispensed with that immorality decades ago. But here it is in another form.

The same ignorant people wanting to be able to harm others with their ignorance.

 

[ruby sparks]

So anybody running a restaurant should be allowed to refuse service to black people?

I think coloradoatheist's point is that they can go to another restaurant or move to a different town.

Is that the kind of society you would want to live in? People are prey to the most common ignorances.

You see that as some kind of justice?

We dispensed with that immorality decades ago.

No, I think it's awful. I was just saying what I thought someone else was saying, had said.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So anybody running a restaurant should be allowed to refuse service to black people?

I think coloradoatheist's point is that they can go to another restaurant or move to a different town.

Correct. But the issue is that once slavery ended and blacks could become part of the workforce and the market place, businesses took them in and didn't care. And the issue was that whites used government to stop it. The government was wrong and doing that and interfering. Those laws at the time were the governments attempts to correct their own mistakes over the century.

So what happens if this baker doesn't sell them a cake, there are plenty of other bakers that don't care and would. and that original thread that talked about about no expression on it, why do we even call them wedding cakes?

 

[untermensche]

Is that the kind of society you would want to live in? People are prey to the most common ignorances.

You see that as some kind of justice?

We dispensed with that immorality decades ago.

No, I think it's awful. I was just saying what I thought someone else was saying, had said.

He sees not allowing discrimination as discrimination.

Like not allowing murder and rape is discrimination against murderers and rapists.

 

[ruby sparks]

But the issue is that once slavery ended and blacks could become part of the workforce and the market place, businesses took them in and didn't care. And the issue was that whites used government to stop it. The government was wrong and doing that and interfering. Those laws at the time were the governments attempts to correct their own mistakes over the century.

Oh that's the issue. Right. I see. Gotcha. It's a good job you're here. We might have gotten that so wrong.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Is that the kind of society you would want to live in? People are prey to the most common ignorances.

You see that as some kind of justice?

We dispensed with that immorality decades ago.

No, I think it's awful. I was just saying what I thought someone else was saying, had said.

He sees not allowing discrimination as discrimination.

Like not allowing murder and rape is discrimination against murderers and rapists.

Not discrimination. It's govt taking away freedoms from people. Our Constitution is guaranteed on keeping rights even if there are outcomes we don't like from them.

 

[untermensche]

He sees not allowing discrimination as discrimination.

Like not allowing murder and rape is discrimination against murderers and rapists.

Not discrimination. It's govt taking away freedoms from people. Our Constitution is guaranteed on keeping rights even if there are outcomes we don't like from them.

So you would like to remove all government restrictions on harmful behavior?

No rape laws. No murder laws.

No discrimination laws.

 

[coloradoatheist]

He sees not allowing discrimination as discrimination.

Like not allowing murder and rape is discrimination against murderers and rapists.

Not discrimination. It's govt taking away freedoms from people. Our Constitution is guaranteed on keeping rights even if there are outcomes we don't like from them.

So you would like to remove all government restrictions on harmful behavior?

No rape laws. No murder laws.

No discrimination laws.

No, When they cause direct physical harm on someone else like rape and murder yes. The discrimination here is very subjective.

 

[ruby sparks]

Sorry, joining this discussion late, and know more about our local case, which sounds similar.

To me, it comes down to whether or not this or that action is reasonable or not. There are anti-discrimination laws, yes, but there are allowed exceptions. 'Having strongly held beliefs' (usually religious ones but wouldn't have to be) seems to be one.

So you might think of an avowed pacifist asked to make a cake celebrating war or violence.

Should that pacifist baker have to make that cake?

I don't think it's cut and dried (excuse pun).

 

[untermensche]

So you would like to remove all government restrictions on harmful behavior?

No rape laws. No murder laws.

No discrimination laws.

No, When they cause direct physical harm on someone else like rape and murder yes. The discrimination here is very subjective.

If no gay person can buy a wedding cake that is direct harm.

You open the door for that.

If they cannot shop freely without prejudice that is a direct harm.

You care more about some bakers ignorant hatreds than people.

You want to enshrine hatred into law.

 

[ruby sparks]

No, When they cause direct physical harm on someone else like rape and murder yes. The discrimination here is very subjective.

That would exclude not getting a job for instance then. The person could try somewhere else, or move to a different area. This is all starting to make so much sense.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So you would like to remove all government restrictions on harmful behavior?

No rape laws. No murder laws.

No discrimination laws.

No, When they cause direct physical harm on someone else like rape and murder yes. The discrimination here is very subjective.

If no gay person can buy a wedding cake that is direct harm.

You open the door for that.

If they cannot shop freely without prejudice that is a direct harm.

You care more about some bakers ignorant hatreds than people.

You want to enshrine hatred into law.

Huh? So there was nowhere in the Denver that the person could buy a cake? So if I go into a store and I can't find what I want am I harmed? McDonalds discriminates against taco lovers, are they harming taco lovers?

- - - Updated - - -

No, When they cause direct physical harm on someone else like rape and murder yes. The discrimination here is very subjective.

That would exclude not getting a job for instance then. The person could try somewhere else, or move to a different area. This is all starting to make so much sense.

Of course. Based on unter's two person consent belief if I interviewed for a job and wanted it but they didn't give it to me that that is a harm since I didn't give consent to them saying no.

Same reasoning, that if you are in a relationship with someone and they want to breakup, but I don't, they can't because I didn't consent to it.

 

[ruby sparks]

Of course. Based on unter's two person consent belief if I interviewed for a job and wanted it but they didn't give it to me that that is a harm since I didn't give consent to them saying no.

So basically, you don't think it's a harm.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Of course. Based on unter's two person consent belief if I interviewed for a job and wanted it but they didn't give it to me that that is a harm since I didn't give consent to them saying no.

So basically, you don't think it's a harm.

Harm in which way though? For the government to discriminate yes, not an individual. But people also have no problem with government discriminating if it's for their belief, like discriminating against rich people. But for an individual yes it may be morally wrong for a person to do, but not one against the law or something to punish. We make discriminating decisions all the time as an individual, but it's not something that should be taken away.

 

[ruby sparks]

Of course. Based on unter's two person consent belief if I interviewed for a job and wanted it but they didn't give it to me that that is a harm since I didn't give consent to them saying no.

So basically, you don't think it's a harm.

Harm in which way though? For the government to discriminate yes, not an individual. But people also have no problem with government discriminating if it's for their belief, like discriminating against rich people. But for an individual yes it may be morally wrong for a person to do, but not one against the law or something to punish. We make discriminating decisions all the time as an individual, but it's not something that should be taken away.

I was just checking.

So to you it wouldn't be harm even if, say, the person didn't get the job because they were gay, or black, for instance? They could try another firm or move towns.

 

[untermensche]

If no gay person can buy a wedding cake that is direct harm.

You open the door for that.

If they cannot shop freely without prejudice that is a direct harm.

You care more about some bakers ignorant hatreds than people.

You want to enshrine hatred into law.

Huh? So there was nowhere in the Denver that the person could buy a cake? So if I go into a store and I can't find what I want am I harmed? McDonalds discriminates against taco lovers, are they harming taco lovers?

If every store in Denver refused to sell to gay people you clearly would have no problem with it. Widespread discrimination based on ignorance and nothing else doesn't bother you.

And this case has nothing to do with not finding something or asking for an item not on the menu.

You are desperate lashing out in all directions blindly.

 

[coloradoatheist]

If no gay person can buy a wedding cake that is direct harm.

You open the door for that.

If they cannot shop freely without prejudice that is a direct harm.

You care more about some bakers ignorant hatreds than people.

You want to enshrine hatred into law.

Huh? So there was nowhere in the Denver that the person could buy a cake? So if I go into a store and I can't find what I want am I harmed? McDonalds discriminates against taco lovers, are they harming taco lovers?

If every store in Denver refused to sell to gay people you clearly would have no problem with it. Widespread discrimination based on ignorance and nothing else doesn't bother you.

And this case has nothing to do with not finding something or asking for an item not on the menu.

You are desperate lashing out in all directions blindly.

So the entity that supposedly puts profit above people would put people above profit in all the stores in Denver. There would be no one willing to make a cake in all of Denver?

 

[ruby sparks]

This fly-on-the-wall footage shows someone being discriminated against in a job interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_jzDGv0KKw

 

[untermensche]

If every store in Denver refused to sell to gay people you clearly would have no problem with it. Widespread discrimination based on ignorance and nothing else doesn't bother you.

And this case has nothing to do with not finding something or asking for an item not on the menu.

You are desperate lashing out in all directions blindly.

So the entity that supposedly puts profit above people would put people above profit in all the stores in Denver. There would be no one willing to make a cake in all of Denver?

That is a billion miles besides the point.

You would allow it to happen.

You care more about satisfying ignorance than real harm to people.

You have no morality fit for human consumption.