Baking Cakes and Discrimination: Or, "What Would Jesus Do?"

[Cutlass]

There is a difference between refusing to do something, and making someone else uncomfortable in their beliefs. Otherwise every person who holds a belief is a bigot, discriminates, and is down right hateful, which would make the sting of the rebuke a mute point.

Not really. The point is that if you have a commercial business, and you cannot separate your 'beliefs' from your actions, then you still do not have the right to discriminate against others. If your beliefs cannot support your not discriminating, then you should not be running a business. So you cannot be forced to make a cake, but you have done harm to innocent victims in your refusal. And in doing harm to innocent victims, you should be subject to penalties.

And the reality is that the baker can't claim Christianity as a defense in the first place, since he explicitly is not a Christian.

 

[Zkribbler]

Dred Scott was overturned.

...legislatively, by the passage of the 14th Amendment.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Not relevant.

What you do not understand about capitalism is that is that government allows businesses special privileges. Privileges that they would not enjoy should government not allow and protect them. But in exchange for those privileges, said businesses may not act in ways harmful to the public. Crony Capitalism, which is the God most conservatives these days worship before, during, and after, everything else, wants the privileges, but not the responsibilities.

Of course it's relevant. I was directly responding to a thing you said. Something you've failed to do for two consecutive replies now.

 

[Cutlass]

Of course it's relevant. I was directly responding to a thing you said. Something you've failed to do for two consecutive replies now.

How does it matter in any way if he cares if other people bake him a cake? This does not have a relationship to the topic at hand.

 

[Samson]

There is a difference between refusing to do something, and making someone else uncomfortable in their beliefs. Otherwise every person who holds a belief is a bigot, discriminates, and is down right hateful, which would make the sting of the rebuke a mute point.

No, it would only do that if they use their belief to justify discrimination or hateful behaviour.

I have a question for those supporting the baker here, would you support a doctor who refused to treat an unmarried women with chlamydia?

 

[GenMarshall]

I’m going to feel old saying this: “Let the market decide”.

 

[Naskra]

doctor who refused to treat

Doctors, unlike bakers, take an oath which puts them under obligation.

 

[Samson]

Doctors, unlike bakers, take an oath which puts them under obligation.

This is a decision we make as a society, and a court has decided that we as a society have decided that bakers are under obligation to provide their service to people without discrimination on the grounds of certain protected characteristics. We are discussing if that is appropriate, so it seems that other professions that have such obligations are relevant.

 

[Farm Boy]

This is a decision we make as a society, and a court has decided that we as a society have decided that bakers are under obligation to provide their service to people without discrimination on the grounds of certain protected characteristics. We are discussing if that is appropriate, so it seems that other professions that have such obligations are relevant.

It has also stated that we can be mandated to purchase things from specific individuals. Such as the farmer with grain for his animals/human food in Wikard vs. Filburn or the individual health care mandate. It's just declined to make it explicit yet. So yes, we're a society, and you can be compelled to work for somebody outside the draft, and you can be compelled to buy things from somebody outside the company store. It's more about when the sixteen tons are decided to be worth it. Which is a heck an argument to make here, there are cake shops all over this guy's area, and online reviews put thier prices as competitive to less and thier services competitive to better. So it's not really about the sixteen tons, it's about ideological compliance.

 

[Naskra]

it's about ideological compliance

True. These boys didn't want a cake, they wanted a lawsuit. And the baker obliged them, everyone should be happy.

 

[Zkribbler]

True. These boys didn't want a cake, they wanted a lawsuit. And the baker obliged them, everyone should be happy.

They're more likely men than boys, and how do you know what they really wanted?

 

[Naskra]

how do you know what they really wanted?

They chose to go to court.

 

[Lexicus]

They chose to go to court.

Are you talking about the first lawsuit that the baker ultimately won on a technicality? If so, sure, they chose to go to court, but I think it's likely that what they wanted initially was a cake, not a lawsuit. Of course, being the victim of discrimination like this creates deep feelings of anger, shame, etc. so it's understandable that they would want to go to court after experiencing that.

Meanwhile I think it seem obvious that lawsuit, round 2 which the baker will almost certainly lose was a deliberate plan from the start. The difference between you and me is that while you're whining about "being forced to bake a cake" I'm experiencing a good deal of schadenfreude watching a bully get his comeuppance.

 

[Naskra]

deep feelings of anger, shame

And now you know why I call them boys. Adults manage these situations better.

 

[Zkribbler]

They chose to go to court.

You're walking down the street. Someone hits you in the head with a baseball bat causing you to incur $20,000 in hospital bills. You sue. Is it fair to say you wanted to get hit in the head with a baseball bat?

Maybe the guys just wanted a cake. Maybe they just wanted to be treated like human beings.

 

[Lexicus]

And now you know why I call them boys.

I know why you call them boys: to dehumanize them, to imply their feelings are lesser, to trivialize their concerns. It doesn't reflect well on you.

Adults manage these situations better.

As if you've ever been in anything remotely resembling this situation

 

[Naskra]

I know why you call them boys: to dehumanize them, to imply their feelings are lesser, to trivialize their concerns. It doesn't reflect well on you.

Scientifically speaking, boys are actually a type of human, they're just not very good at it. And the concerns of these boys really are trivial.it's just a cake, remember?

 

[Lexicus]

Scientifically speaking, boys are actually a type of human, they're just not very good at it.

Yeah, I mean, it's not like we have a history in this country of calling fully-grown men "boys", nope, nothing like that

 

[Farm Boy]

They're more likely men than boys, and how do you know what they really wanted?

Well, unless I don't take her on her word, the trans lawyer is a she. And by the version I read, which I'm happy to be corrected on the facts of which if they're mistaken because it changes the nature of the downstream thoughts...

She ordered a cake with a blue exterior and pink interior to symbolize the anniversary of her gender transition. Jack Phillips also claims the same individual, which obviously I can't verify, has been testing his limits with orders for satanic designs and designs "commonly associated with witchcraft" whatever that means. If this is all true, it's not really a matter of who will be served, it's the limits of how far those mandates for compelled service regarding protected classes go in a market that is not otherwise unavailable. She ordered the cake the same day the Supreme Court announced it would take up his previous case. The commission issued it's ruling two weeks after the Supreme Court weewee smacked them on their first ruling. I mean, sure. It's possible that this individual is really really enamored of Jack Phillip's artistic renditions of colorized product and is poorer for living without it. But it's a stretch, man. The events, the requests, and the timeframe are far simpler to explain with this individual really wanting to have Jack Phillips bake her a cake, not just any cake, but a cake that he doesn't want to bake specifically because of his beliefs. That's the question before the Colorado Human Rights Commission, which answered "yes we will compel you, the only reason you aren't serving this individual is the content of her identity not the content of the cake(which can't be compelled)." And that will now be the question before the courts if they decide to take it up, which they might not.

 

[Naskra]

Maybe the guys just wanted a cake. Maybe they just wanted to be treated like human beings.

Sure. And maybe Rosa Parks just wanted a bus ride. And they were treated like human beings: being told "no" is really common among humankind.