Baker must make gay cakes

[LockeJaw]

One day, if the fags get their way...the national anthem will be replaced with "Patty Cake, Patty Cake, Baker's Man"....the baker got a man after all...

 

[DriftingSand]

Weirdly enough, baking a wedding cake for a gay couple isn't compromising his beliefs at all. No is forcing him to become gay.

True ... as long as he doesn't have to write anything on the cake that's contrary to his beliefs. The best solution to this entire thing is for gays to go to a gay baker instead of a Christian baker. Problem solved.

Its not like there are signs on the front window stating GAY BAKERS EMPLOYED HERE is there?

I don't know. I don't frequent gay bake shops but I do know that one of my local radio stations advertises gay-friendly businesses on the radio. Also, I live near a main blvd near downtown Denver. Every few hundred yards, along the sidewalk are these little newspaper dispensers. In some of those dispensers are little newspapers just for gays. I imagine that they have advertisement sections.

So, I doubt that it would be too difficult for a gay to find a gay baker. There's really no reason to enter a Christian bake shop and ask for a "gaily" decorated cake unless a queer is purposely trying to start problems.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I suspect that the baker got his panties in a wad because they asked for a cake that read, "Congratulations on your wedding, Bruce and Bob!"

 

[LockeJaw]

I suspect that the baker got his panties in a wad because they asked for a cake that read, "Congratulations on your wedding, Bruce and Bob!"

Uhhh durrr hurrrr duh duh duh Hurr Hurr Durr..

 

[WorldWatcher]

[/IMG]

Hahaha. Now THAT's what I'm talkin' about. Bam!

Look ... if a queer must go to a straight dude to get a cake just go in and ask for a cake without announcing your sexual preferences. I don't go to Subway and ask for a sandwich then blurt out: " by the way ... I'm straight ... just so ya know." Only a mentally incompetent goon would announce his sexual activities when ordering food.

Let's say you have a fiance, you are getting married. You and she go to a bakery recommended by a friend for the quality of their wedding cakes. Wedding cakes are not something kept in the display case, they are special ordered. The baker needs more information so he can make suggestions and design a cake. He asked "So who's getting married", the answer is "Joan and I".

You really think that is "announcing your sexuality"?

Now if a queer goes in and asks the baker to draw an image of a penis on the cake the baker has EVERY RIGHT UNDER THE SUN to decline such a mentally screwed up request.

If a baker does not normally produce a "penis" cake, then they are not required to produce it for anyone. On the other hand of the baker routinely makes "penis" cakes, then he can't refuse to sell them base on the class of the customer.

If a baker does normally make wedding cakes, they cannot refuse to sell them based on the class of the customer.


>>>>

 

[Samson]

I wish I could have a job where I watch football all the time, I'd be volunteering for overtime work, day and night. Doesn't matter if it's NFL or college football.

Kidding aside, watching football, or any sporting event is a recreational event, not considered as work. If I were to mow my lawn or paint the fence on Sunday, that would be considered work. I do all my house chores after work on weekdays, or on Saturday. In my home Sunday is the day to worship God, and a day to spend with family. Not to mention a day of rest.

The point is (assuming you're able to focus for the millisecond it may take) is that you are not worshiping whilst watching football.

Thus you should probably go to hell.


Sorry, but that's your religion.

You forget that Sunday is a day of worship and a day of rest. Watching football is done while resting. How else are you going to rest? Stare at the wall?

Forget? Bible says nothing about watching football; Sounds like you're grasping.

Good luck with that at The Pearly Gates.

 

[DriftingSand]

=WorldWatcher;9189573]

Let's say you have a fiance, you are getting married. You and she go to a bakery recommended by a friend for the quality of their wedding cakes. Wedding cakes are not something kept in the display case, they are special ordered. The baker needs more information so he can make suggestions and design a cake. He asked "So who's getting married", the answer is "Joan and I".

You really think that is "announcing your sexuality"?

That's my point. How would a baker know that a cake is for two queers unless they made that point known. Just ask for a cake and leave it at that.

If a baker does not normally produce a "penis" cake, then they are not required to produce it for anyone. On the other hand of the baker routinely makes "penis" cakes, then he can't refuse to sell them base on the class of the customer.

If a baker does normally make wedding cakes, they cannot refuse to sell them based on the class of the customer.

And by the same token (and using your logic) if a baker is only used to making cakes with little men statues next to little women statues then he shouldn't be required to provide cakes with two male statues on them. Let the queers buy them elsewhere and plant them on the cake themselves.

 

[DriftingSand]

The point is (assuming you're able to focus for the millisecond it may take) is that you are not worshiping whilst watching football.

Thus you should probably go to hell.


Sorry, but that's your religion.

You forget that Sunday is a day of worship and a day of rest. Watching football is done while resting. How else are you going to rest? Stare at the wall?

Forget? Bible says nothing about watching football; Sounds like you're grasping.

Good luck with that at The Pearly Gates.

The Bible doesn't condemn football either. So ... perhaps you're grasping.

 

[LockeJaw]

"Yer uh chrischun! Yew r stupid! Football is on Sunday, yer breakin yer chrischun doodees!"
"Jesus watches the footbawl wit meh, so screw yew atheeiss!"

we all don't like fags. Let's take a cue from Rodney King's famouse "Cant we all jest get along?"....Wuddya say folks?

 

[WorldWatcher]

=WorldWatcher;9189573]

Let's say you have a fiance, you are getting married. You and she go to a bakery recommended by a friend for the quality of their wedding cakes. Wedding cakes are not something kept in the display case, they are special ordered. The baker needs more information so he can make suggestions and design a cake. He asked "So who's getting married", the answer is "Joan and I".

You really think that is "announcing your sexuality"?

That's my point. How would a baker know that a cake is for two queers unless they made that point known. Just ask for a cake and leave it at that.

Because the bakers ask as part of the design process. The baker (if he or she is any good) wants to know who is getting married, when will the wedding be, where will the wedding be, how many people are to be served, where will the reception be, will it be a smaller cake for pick-up or will it be a large cake for delivery and assembly, is there a theme for the wedding that will be the basis of the design, etc., etc.

Ordering a wedding cake is not like picking a cake out of the display case at your local grocery or ordering a pound of salami from the local deli.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

"Yer uh chrischun! Yew r stupid! Football is on Sunday, yer breakin yer chrischun doodees!"
"Jesus watches the footbawl wit meh, so screw yew atheeiss!"

we all don't like fags. Let's take a cue from Rodney King's famouse "Cant we all jest along?"....Wuddya say folks?

While I can discuss the reality of what the law is, I can have a different opinion on what the law should be (IMHO). Some people can't seem to separate the two.

My solution to the whole thing is:

Step 1: Legalize Same-sex Civil Marriage as there is no compelling government interest in treating law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting adults in a different-sex couple (who can get married in all States) and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting adults in a same-sex couple (who can get married in only some States).

Step 2: Repeal Public Accommodation laws as applied to private business. If a business want to refuse service to a customer because they are white, black, Mexican, Irish, Christian, Jew, male, female, gay, straight, young, old, married, divorced, never served, veteran, pregnant, divorced, or because their dressed like a pirate with a stuffed parrot on their shoulder and say "matey" over other sentence. It's their business, they should be able to define what services they provide to their customer and let the market handle whether that business succeeds or falls. People should be and are free to spread the word about businesses that operate under a discriminatory model. Public Accommodation laws should only apply to government entities and the goods and services they provide and could logically prevent government entities from conducting business with taxpayer money with businesses that discriminate.​

You get the best of both worlds with that compromise. Same-sex couples get equal treatment under the law and private businesses that don't want to serve homosexuals (or blacks, or Asians, or Muslims, or women, or the disabled) get to determine their own rights of property and association).



>>>>

 

[LockeJaw]

Some good points you've got here.
I am willing to compromise to a certain extent.

"Yer uh chrischun! Yew r stupid! Football is on Sunday, yer breakin yer chrischun doodees!"
"Jesus watches the footbawl wit meh, so screw yew atheeiss!"

we all don't like fags. Let's take a cue from Rodney King's famouse "Cant we all jest along?"....Wuddya say folks?

While I can discuss the reality of what the law is, I can have a different opinion on what the law should be (IMHO). Some people can't seem to separate the two.

My solution to the whole thing is:

Step 1: Legalize Same-sex Civil Marriage as there is no compelling government interest in treating law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting adults in a different-sex couple (who can get married in all States) and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting adults in a same-sex couple (who can get married in only some States).

Step 2: Repeal Public Accommodation laws as applied to private business. If a business want to refuse service to a customer because they are white, black, Mexican, Irish, Christian, Jew, male, female, gay, straight, young, old, married, divorced, never served, veteran, pregnant, divorced, or because their dressed like a pirate with a stuffed parrot on their shoulder and say "matey" over other sentence. It's their business, they should be able to define what services they provide to their customer and let the market handle whether that business succeeds or falls. People should be and are free to spread the word about businesses that operate under a discriminatory model. Public Accommodation laws should only apply to government entities and the goods and services they provide and could logically prevent government entities from conducting business with taxpayer money with businesses that discriminate.​

You get the best of both worlds with that compromise. Same-sex couples get equal treatment under the law and private businesses that don't want to serve homosexuals (or blacks, or Asians, or Muslims, or women, or the disabled) get to determine their own rights of property and association).



>>>>

 

[Interpol]

Must make gay cakes?

Cakes aren't gay. Cakes are fucking cakes. Write whatever the fuck the customer wants on them and take their money. Period and FTW.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Panel: Baker must make cakes for gay weddings You have to, or else!

That baker looks like a butch gay, so I don't understand why he wouldn't bake for his own kind.

Oh, that's right. His religious beliefs do not override sexual orientation. Good.

Excellent, odd that he no longer makes wedding cakes but will appeal. His views are shared by 20th century fascists, communists, and 21st century Russins. He could move there, except Archbishop Kirill, (Putin's confessor) says there are no Christians in the US, and favors Russian Orthodox as well.

Didn't Jefferson say that there is no case of tyranny clearer than the government forcing people to violate their conscience?

And yet you have no problem with forcing this man to make a gay wedding cake because now gay is the new crusade that you progressives shove on everyone like it or not, beliefs or not.

Seriously, what ever happened to liberals having tolerance for other peoples values and beliefs?

Seems to have vanished into the thick smoke screen of self-righteous leftist triumphalism.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Must make gay cakes?

Cakes aren't gay. Cakes are fucking cakes. Write whatever the fuck the customer wants on them and take their money. Period and FTW.

So you think a neonazi should be able to go to a Jewish bakery and order cakes with Hitler on them saying 'Heil Hitler!'

You are full of shit.

 

[shart_attack]

"Yer uh chrischun! Yew r stupid! Football is on Sunday, yer breakin yer chrischun doodees!"
"Jesus watches the footbawl wit meh, so screw yew atheeiss!"

we all don't like fags. Let's take a cue from Rodney King's famouse " Cant we all jest along?"....Wuddya say folks?

While I can discuss the reality of what the law is, I can have a different opinion on what the law should be (IMHO). Some people can't seem to separate the two.

My solution to the whole thing is:

Step 1: Legalize Same-sex Civil Marriage as there is no compelling government interest in treating law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting adults in a different-sex couple (who can get married in all States) and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting adults in a same-sex couple (who can get married in only some States).​

As ^ that indented paragraph directly above ^ is presently worded, it doesn't make sense. I'm going to copy the paragraph, put it inside a set of generic quote brackets and reword it as I assume you meant it to sound like this:

Step 1: Legalize same-sex civil marriage, as there is no compelling government interest in treating law-abiding, tax-paying, infertile, non-related, consenting, adult, opposite-sex couples who are US citizens (who can presently get married in all states) any differently than law-abiding, tax-paying, infertile, non-related, consenting, adult, same-sex couples who are US citizens (who can presently get married in only some states).​

Ahhhhhh. There. See that? Now it makes sense.

But even though it's now worded correctly and is in and of itself a cogent argument, it's still not a fail-safe archetype (redundant though that term may sound) if a consensus cannot be reached with regard to whether or not same-sex married couples may and/ or should be given permission on a federal level to adopt children.

There is no such federal statute nor judicial precedent existing now, in the present.

There are some state statutes and judicial precedents existing now, but no federal ones, as gay marriage is itself—not the adopting of children by same-sex married couples—new US Supreme Court territory.

Problems with this are inherent and imminent, as many states are not going to welcome the idea of same-sex married couples' adopting children.

Expect at least 10 years of legal wrangling between states and the federal judiciary on the matter, because that's most likely how long it will take at the least. And after the US Supreme Court does finally make a precedent-establishing decision on the matter, we might also expect the Second American Civil War, as that's how divisive, how polarizing this issue is.

Step 2: Repeal Public Accommodation laws as applied to private business. If a business want to refuse service to a customer because they are white, black, Mexican, Irish, Christian, Jew, male, female, gay, straight, young, old, married, divorced, never served, veteran, pregnant, divorced, or because their dressed like a pirate with a stuffed parrot on their shoulder and say "matey" over other sentence. It's their business, they should be able to define what services they provide to their customer and let the market handle whether that business succeeds or falls. People should be and are free to spread the word about businesses that operate under a discriminatory model. Public Accommodation laws should only apply to government entities and the goods and services they provide and could logically prevent government entities from conducting business with taxpayer money with businesses that discriminate.​

You get the best of both worlds with that compromise. Same-sex couples get equal treatment under the law and private businesses that don't want to serve homosexuals (or blacks, or Asians, or Muslims, or women, or the disabled) get to determine their own rights of property and association).>>>>

Agreed.

 

[JoeB131]

Hahaha. Now THAT's what I'm talkin' about. Bam!

Look ... if a queer must go to a straight dude to get a cake just go in and ask for a cake without announcing your sexual preferences. I don't go to Subway and ask for a sandwich then blurt out: " by the way ... I'm straight ... just so ya know." Only a mentally incompetent goon would announce his sexual activities when ordering food.

Now if a queer goes in and asks the baker to draw an image of a penis on the cake the baker has EVERY RIGHT UNDER THE SUN to decline such a mentally screwed up request.

No, you see, a wedding cake has these little figures on the top...

Which means straights want these.

But these Bible Thumping assholes would freak out if they had to put THIS on top of a cake.

Tough for them. They have a business, they need to fulfill what they promised to do.

 

[Seawytch]

adopt children[/I].

There is no such federal statute nor judicial precedent existing now, in the present.

There are some state statutes and judicial precedents existing now, but no federal ones, as gay marriage is itself—not the adopting of children by same-sex married couples—new US Supreme Court territory.

Problems with this are inherent and imminent, as many states are not going to welcome the idea of same-sex married couples' adopting children.

Expect at least 10 years of legal wrangling between states and the federal judiciary on the matter, because that's most likely how long it will take at the least. And after the US Supreme Court does finally make a precedent-establishing decision on the matter, we might also expect the Second American Civil War, as that's how divisive, how polarizing this issue is.

Your adoption ship has sailed. Single gays can adopt children in all 50 states and couple are only prohibited in a small handful.

 

[Mac1958]

Didn't Jefferson say that there is no case of tyranny clearer than the government forcing people to violate their conscience?

And yet you have no problem with forcing this man to make a gay wedding cake because now gay is the new crusade that you progressives shove on everyone like it or not, beliefs or not.

Seriously, what ever happened to liberals having tolerance for other peoples values and beliefs?

Seems to have vanished into the thick smoke screen of self-righteous leftist triumphalism.

Bravo. They have become what they used to hate.

Just remember, though, that the Left will remind you that Jefferson was a "rich white slave-owner", and nothing those guys said or did counts.

.

 

[Esmeralda]

I see this issue as no different than serving blacks was back in the 60s. If you owned a cafe/restaurant, whatever, the civil rights law dictated that you served blacks as well as whites: that you couldn't discriminate. This is no different: if you own a business, you can't say who you will serve and who you won't serve. That's the bottom line. There is nothing here up for discussion until you can undo the civil rights law.