T-Shirt Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: No. She's got it figured out just fine. Playing semantic games doesn't change the fact that the bakery is discriminating against a type of person attempting to purchase a cake. Call it ham, or a t-shirt or whatever silly euphemism you want, but at the end of the day a gay person is not able to purchase a cake for the same purpose (wedding) as a straight person would. Dress it up however you want to feel good about it, but it is discrimination. Take the word "gay" out of "gay wedding cake" and you have "wedding cake". Would you support a bakery refusing to sell a "wedding cake" to a gay person if it didn't have 2 men or 2 women on the top (who really does that anyway?) If so, why? What is gay about the actual cake? The baker is refusing to sell a cake to a person because the baker doesn't approve of the place where that cake will be eaten nor by whom. You are making judgments on things for which you have no way of knowing anything. 2 Link to comment
Popular Post Gray Posted July 11, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted July 11, 2017 13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Even when it means infringing on someone's freedom of conscience, apparently. Everyone retains freedom of conscience, but that doesn't trump civil rights. 13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: What about the "civil rights" of the one whose freedom of conscience is being infringed upon? Not only do you have no regard for such freedom, you mock it with cavalier remarks. How noble of you. If a baker decided that Jewish weddings were "abominations", would his freedom of conscience trump their civil rights? 5 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Gray said: If you find it objectionable to marry someone of the same sex, no one will force you into such a relationship. But if you own a business, you'll find yourself catering to all kinds of folks who fail your purity tests. I think what's actually perverse is recasting discriminators as "victims". We've been through all this in the civil rights movement. Let's try to learn from history. Race isn't always apparent, and there are certainly some behaviors connected to race that fundamentalists over the years have strenuously objected to, such as mixed race marriage. And if you decide that Jewish weddings are "perverse" - does that give you a right to refuse service to them? You have utterly ignored the last several posts that differentiate between discrimination against people and refusal to deal in products that offend one's sincerely held values. The baker in question here has never refused to deal with gays as clientele. What he has done is to refuse to sell a specific kind of product to anyone, gay or straight. Edited July 11, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 3 Link to comment
ALarson Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: No. She's got it figured out just fine. Playing semantic games doesn't change the fact that the bakery is discriminating against a type of person attempting to purchase a cake. Call it ham, or a t-shirt or whatever silly euphemism you want, but at the end of the day a gay person is not able to purchase a cake for the same purpose (wedding) as a straight person would. Dress it up however you want to feel good about it, but it is discrimination. Take the word "gay" out of "gay wedding cake" and you have "wedding cake". Would you support a bakery refusing to sell a "wedding cake" to a gay person if it didn't have 2 men or 2 women on the top (who really does that anyway?) If so, why? What is gay about the actual cake? What is a "gay wedding cake"? Are we to start calling cakes for weddings involving black couples a "black wedding cake"? So silly. Did this couple ask to have something offensive written on the cake? Did they ask to have two brides or two grooms on the top? I highly doubt that was a request. 3 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Gray said: Everyone retains freedom of conscience, but that doesn't trump civil rights. You infringe on one's freedom of conscience when you force him to do something in violation of it. No one has a "civil right" to do that. Quote If a baker decided that Jewish weddings were "abominations", would his freedom of conscience trump their civil rights? Not unless he refused to sell them the same product that he offers to everyone else -- which the baker in question has not done. Edited July 11, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 1 Link to comment
ALarson Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: You have utterly ignored the last several posts that differentiate between discrimination against people and refusal to deal in products that offend one's sincerely held values. The baker in question here has never refused to deal with gays as clientele. What he has done is to refuse to sell a certain kind of product to anyone, gay or straight. When did he refuse to sell a wedding cake to a straight couple who were getting married? Did that happen? Or, are you saying that he had refused to sell a "gay wedding cake" to a straight couple who were getting married? Link to comment
HappyJackWagon Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 (edited) 2 minutes ago, ALarson said: When did he refuse to sell a wedding cake to a straight couple who were getting married? Did that happen? Or, are you saying that he had refused to sell a "gay wedding cake" to a straight couple who were getting married? They are pretending that by putting "gay" in front of "wedding cake" that it is a totally different product (like ham or chicken) even though there is nothing substantively different about the wedding cake. They seem to just throw a qualifier in there so they feel justified in the discrimination. Edited July 11, 2017 by HappyJackWagon 3 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 1 minute ago, ALarson said: When did he refuse to sell a wedding cake to a straight couple who were getting married? Did that happen? Of course not. I don't get your point. Quote Or, are you saying that he had refused to sell a "gay wedding cake" to a straight couple who were getting married? I'm saying that anyone, gay or straight, may purchase a wedding cake from him that is not expressly for a gay wedding. Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 (edited) 16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: They are pretending that by putting "gay" in front of "wedding cake" that it is a totally different product (like ham or chicken) even though there is nothing substantively different about the wedding cake. They seem to just throw a qualifier in there so they feel justified in the discrimination. Don't be coy, HappyJackWagon. It's not fooling anyone. Tell you what: If the definition of "gay wedding cake" is so nebulous, all the buyer has to do is purchase a generic wedding cake from the baker, who, from what I can tell, would have no problem selling such a product to anyone. Why hasn't the buyer done this? Oh, I know. It's because he can do some spectacular and vindictive grandstanding and maybe make a lot of money by taking the baker to court and putting him out of business. Edited July 11, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 2 Link to comment
ALarson Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: Of course not. I don't get your point. I'm saying that anyone, gay or straight, may purchase a wedding cake from him that is not expressly for a gay wedding. Well, thank goodness the law disagrees with you. You could not be more wrong here. What the couple does with a cake (and who eats it after they leave the bakery) is up to them, not the baker. 2 Link to comment
ALarson Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: They are pretending that by putting "gay" in front of "wedding cake" that it is a totally different product (like ham or chicken) even though there is nothing substantively different about the wedding cake. They seem to just throw a qualifier in there so they feel justified in the discrimination. I know, I was just teasing a bit. This whole thing of calling a cake "gay" is absolutely ridiculous. Edited July 11, 2017 by ALarson 1 Link to comment
HappyJackWagon Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Don't be coy, HappyJackWagon. It's not fooling anyone. Nothing coy about it. There is nothing substantively different about the cake. It is a wedding cake. The only problem is who is buying it and where it will be used (a gay wedding). Would you agree that if a gay couple went in to the baker to buy a cake and didn't tell the baker that it was for a gay wedding, that the baker should sell it to them? Is it only the baker's knowledge about how it will be used that is the problem? Sounds like you may be an advocate for a Don't ask, Don't tell kind of policy for bakers Edited July 11, 2017 by HappyJackWagon 2 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Nothing coy about it. There is nothing substantively different about the cake. It is a wedding cake. The only problem is who is buying it and where it will be used (a gay wedding). Would you agree that if a gay couple went in to the baker to buy a cake and didn't tell the baker that it was for a gay wedding, that the baker should sell it to them? Is it only the baker's knowledge about how it will be used that is the problem? Sounds like you may be an advocate for a Don't ask, Don't tell kind of policy for bakers You missed my add-on, so I'll repeat it here for your benefit: Tell you what: If the definition of "gay wedding cake" is so nebulous, all the buyer has to do is purchase a generic wedding cake from the baker, who, from what I can tell, would have no problem selling such a product to anyone. Why hasn't the buyer done this? Oh, I know. It's because he can do some spectacular and vindictive grandstanding and maybe make a lot of money by taking the baker to court and putting him out of business. Edited July 11, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 1 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, ALarson said: Well, thank goodness the law disagrees with you. You could not be more wrong here. What the couple does with a cake (and who eats it after they leave the bakery) is up to them, not the baker. I could not be more wrong in what? In saying that "anyone, gay or straight, may purchase a wedding cake from him that is not expressly for a gay wedding"? If I'm wrong in saying that, CFR. Edited July 11, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 1 Link to comment
JulieM Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: The baker in question here has never refused to deal with gays as clientele. What he has done is to refuse to sell a specific kind of product to anyone, gay or straight. Not true (he did refuse to deal with them). He had sold wedding cakes to straight couples, but refused to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple. The cake itself isn't straight or gay even though you insist on calling the cake gay. It's still a wedding cake and the bakery sells them. Edited July 11, 2017 by JulieM 4 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 1 minute ago, JulieM said: Not true (he did refuse to deal with them). He had sold wedding cakes to straight couples, but refused to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple. The cake itself isn't straight or gay even though you insist on calling the cake gay, CFR that he refused to sell a wedding cake (like wedding cakes he sells to others) to a gay couple. Since you seem to have trouble grasping this, let me repeat here what I have said to HJW: Tell you what: If the definition of "gay wedding cake" is so nebulous, all the buyer has to do is purchase a generic wedding cake from the baker, who, from what I can tell, would have no problem selling such a product to anyone. Why hasn't the buyer done this? Oh, I know. It's because he can do some spectacular and vindictive grandstanding and maybe make a lot of money by taking the baker to court and putting him out of business. 1 Link to comment
HappyJackWagon Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: You missed my add-on, so I'll repeat it here for your benefit: Tell you what: If the definition of "gay wedding cake" is so nebulous, all the buyer has to do is purchase a generic wedding cake from the baker, who, from what I can tell, would have no problem selling such a product to anyone. Why hasn't the buyer done this? Oh, I know. It's because he can do some spectacular and vindictive grandstanding and maybe make a lot of money by taking the baker to court and putting him out of business. CFR!!!! Just kidding. But seriously, 3 CFR's in 1 page. Impressive. I've never seen any report that the "gay" wedding cake is any different from any other wedding cake (though I'm open to correction if it can be demonstrated). So if that is the case the only problem is with the who and where unless the knowledge of "who" is using it and "where" it is being used magically transforms this cake into a totally different product; the infamous "gay wedding cake" which is so very different from a "straight wedding cake". You ask why hasn't the buyer purchased a generic wedding cake from this baker? Do we know it wasn't attempted and refused by the baker? Do we know that the "gay" cake was somehow different than a generic cake? CFR!!! Just kidding. Trying to catch up with your Calls for Reference but you're making it tough. Edited July 11, 2017 by HappyJackWagon Link to comment
JulieM Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: CFR that he refused to sell a wedding cake (like wedding cakes he sells to others) to a gay couple. I read that the bakery refused to sell the gay couple a wedding cake that was the same as the wedding cake one of them had previously ordered for their mother's wedding (from the same bakery). The baker sold the first one to her, but refused to sell them the same cake for her own wedding. I'll look for the reference. Link to comment
JulieM Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: CFR!!!! Just kidding. I've never seen any report that the "gay" wedding cake is any different from any other wedding cake (though I'm open to correction if it can be demonstrated). Most couples put their own cake top on the cake after purchasing it. From what I read, this was what the gay couple planned to do too. So it was just a plain wedding cake they were ordering (but the baker learned what they were planning to do with it and then refused to bake it for them.) Edited July 11, 2017 by JulieM 3 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: The baker is refusing to sell a cake to a person because the baker doesn't approve of the place where that cake will be eaten nor by whom. 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: CFR on the above-bolded portion. Who says? My understanding is that the baker would willingly sell to anyone a cake that is to be used at a straight wedding. Ergo, your assertion is not true. I think you're making assumptions here that don't hold up. But I await your response to the CFR. 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: Silly CFR. We're talking about the general issue of bakers refusing to sell gay wedding cakes. So I take it, then, that you refuse to document or substantiate your assertion that "the baker is refusing to sell a cake to a person because the baker doesn't approve of the place where that cake will be eaten nor by whom." I'm going to regard your refusal as an indication that your remark was ill-considered and carelessly expressed. Edited July 11, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 1 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 4 minutes ago, JulieM said: I read that the bakery refused to sell the gay couple a wedding cake that was the same as the wedding cake one of them had previously ordered for their mother's wedding (from the same bakery). The baker sold the first one to her, but refused to sell them the same cake for her own wedding. I'll look for the reference. Please do. And let's make this a formal CFR. Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 2 minutes ago, JulieM said: Most couples put their own cake top on the cake after purchasing it. From what I read, this was what the hay couple planned to do too. So it was just a plain wedding cake they were ordering (but the baker learned what they were planning to do with it and then refused to bake it for them.) We'll have the CFR apply to this as well. Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I've never seen any report that the "gay" wedding cake is any different from any other wedding cake (though I'm open to correction if it can be demonstrated). So if that is the case the only problem is with the who and where unless the knowledge of "who" is using it and "where" it is being used magically transforms this cake into a totally different product; the infamous "gay wedding cake" which is so very different from a "straight wedding cake". Then why doesn't the gay couple just buy a generic wedding cake from the bakery and do with it what they like? Bear in mind you have refused to answer a CFR of your assertion that the baker refused to sell the cake to the couple because he didn't like what they were going to do with it. This indicates you really don't know what you're talking about. Edited July 11, 2017 by Scott Lloyd Link to comment
HappyJackWagon Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: So I take it, then, that you refuse to document or substantiate your assertion that "the baker is refusing to sell a cake to a person because the baker doesn't approve of the place where that cake will be eaten nor by whom." I'm going to regard your refusal as an indication that your remark was ill-considered and recklessly expressed. You should read my response more closely. I stated it was my opinion. Therefore I am not claiming fact. This is why SCOTUS is reviewing the case. Are you intending to uphold your CFR on me stating my opinion? You're now up to 5 CFR's on this page...or is it 6. I've lost count. Edited July 11, 2017 by HappyJackWagon 2 Link to comment
JulieM Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Then why doesn't the gay couple just buy a generic wedding cake from the bakery and do with it what they like? From what I read, this is what they were doing. They planned on putting 2 brides on it after they purchased it. Link to comment
Recommended Posts