4 ms·

All due respect, it seems you completely misunderstood the baker case. I’m very much a supporter of the LGBTQ community, but that particular case was decided co

All due respect, it seems you completely misunderstood the baker case. I’m very much a supporter of the LGBTQ community, but that particular case was decided correctly. The couple was not refused service outright. The owner only refused a custom cake with imagery that went against his personal beliefs. Analogous, if a Jewish baker refused to serve a Nazi, that would be wrong. But the Jewish baker should not be forced to draw swastikas on a Nazi-themed cake. Had the court case gone the other way, it would have set a dangerous precedent.

perl4ever 7y ago
Notwithstanding your tone of reasonability, you are equating "being a Nazi" with "being gay", despite the countless times people have explained why it is different, including in this thread and why one of them is a protected class and the other is not.
- didgeoridoo 7y ago
  So, should a devout Muslim baker be forced to bake a custom cake with the message “Jesus Christ Is The Lord Our God”?
- someguydave 7y ago
  “Protected class” is a distinction that is one “human rights committee” decision away from changing
- skoskie 7y ago
  What a ridiculous comment. In no way did I equate being a Nazi with being gay. I used an analogy to illustrate the scenario in a context that might aid people in understanding the nature of the events that took place. For you to draw equivalents to the people in the analogy can only be the result of willful ignorance, and not worth engaging further. Also, the protected class of the people isn't a factor in this case (or the analogy), because, again, they were not refused service outright and the baker never discriminated against them based on their sexuality. The baker was asked create a custom cake depicting a ceremony that ran counter to his personal beliefs. The argument before the court was that forcing the baker to make this cake would force him to participate in a ceremony that ran counter to his beliefs. > Waggoner (the attorney) said Phillips is willing to sell ready-made products to anyone who enters his store. But, "he simply declines to express messages or celebrate events that violate his deeply held beliefs," she said. Moreover, the ACLU, which represented the couple, said it was pleased the court did not endorse a broad religion-based exemption from anti-discrimination laws, and stated ... > "The court reversed the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision based on concerns unique to the case but reaffirmed its longstanding rule that states can prevent the harms of discrimination in the marketplace, including against LGBT people." - Louise Melling, the ACLU's deputy legal director So the analogy is very applicable. A Jewish baker should not be permitted to refuse service outright to a person just because that person holds beliefs that run counter to his own. But if the customer - a Nazi in this analogy - requests a custom-made cake depicting symbols or imagery that the baker finds offensive or runs counter to their beliefs, it seems fair to me (and SCOTUS and the ACLU) that he not be forced to make that cake. If it makes you feel any better, you can extend the analogy to, let's say, a baker who just doesn't like public education and therefore refuses to make a custom cake with the logo of any public school, but still permits them to purchase any pre-made cake. The class, protected or otherwise, of the baker and customer simply don't play a role here.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    "In no way did I equate being a Nazi with being gay. I used an analogy to illustrate the scenario" You didn't call gay people Nazis, but that's not what I said you said. You equated them in the specific aspects that were being discussed, and ignored the aspects in which they differ that I and other people think are salient. Are you saying you think legally, Jews must serve Nazis under the present regime, or are you saying morally, under a just regime, they should be forced to?

perl4ever 7y ago

Notwithstanding your tone of reasonability, you are equating "being a Nazi" with "being gay", despite the countless times people have explained why it is different, including in this thread and why one of them is a protected class and the other is not.

didgeoridoo 7y ago
So, should a devout Muslim baker be forced to bake a custom cake with the message “Jesus Christ Is The Lord Our God”?
someguydave 7y ago
“Protected class” is a distinction that is one “human rights committee” decision away from changing
skoskie 7y ago
What a ridiculous comment. In no way did I equate being a Nazi with being gay. I used an analogy to illustrate the scenario in a context that might aid people in understanding the nature of the events that took place. For you to draw equivalents to the people in the analogy can only be the result of willful ignorance, and not worth engaging further. Also, the protected class of the people isn't a factor in this case (or the analogy), because, again, they were not refused service outright and the baker never discriminated against them based on their sexuality. The baker was asked create a custom cake depicting a ceremony that ran counter to his personal beliefs. The argument before the court was that forcing the baker to make this cake would force him to participate in a ceremony that ran counter to his beliefs. > Waggoner (the attorney) said Phillips is willing to sell ready-made products to anyone who enters his store. But, "he simply declines to express messages or celebrate events that violate his deeply held beliefs," she said. Moreover, the ACLU, which represented the couple, said it was pleased the court did not endorse a broad religion-based exemption from anti-discrimination laws, and stated ... > "The court reversed the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision based on concerns unique to the case but reaffirmed its longstanding rule that states can prevent the harms of discrimination in the marketplace, including against LGBT people." - Louise Melling, the ACLU's deputy legal director So the analogy is very applicable. A Jewish baker should not be permitted to refuse service outright to a person just because that person holds beliefs that run counter to his own. But if the customer - a Nazi in this analogy - requests a custom-made cake depicting symbols or imagery that the baker finds offensive or runs counter to their beliefs, it seems fair to me (and SCOTUS and the ACLU) that he not be forced to make that cake. If it makes you feel any better, you can extend the analogy to, let's say, a baker who just doesn't like public education and therefore refuses to make a custom cake with the logo of any public school, but still permits them to purchase any pre-made cake. The class, protected or otherwise, of the baker and customer simply don't play a role here.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  "In no way did I equate being a Nazi with being gay. I used an analogy to illustrate the scenario" You didn't call gay people Nazis, but that's not what I said you said. You equated them in the specific aspects that were being discussed, and ignored the aspects in which they differ that I and other people think are salient. Are you saying you think legally, Jews must serve Nazis under the present regime, or are you saying morally, under a just regime, they should be forced to?