4 ms·

>> "bake my cake bigot!" debate What do you mean by that?

jldugger 6y ago
They are referring to the supreme court case revolving around a bakery in Colorado who refused to make a wedding cake if it was going to be served at a gay wedding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission#Facts_of_the_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
tal8d 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora... So many angles to consider, even before addressing the issue of publisher vs platform... but in essence the same people decrying that ruling are applauding the deplatforming and debanking of wrongthinkers.
- fortanatude 6y ago
  Sure, I've never heard it described that way. That makes it sound like the point of asking to be served is to punish and frustrate the bakery. I've never heard civil rights protests called the "serve my lunch racist!" debate. The sentiment behind the phrase "bake my cake bigot!" seems to trivialize the issue of being discriminated against by a public business and incorrectly attributes malice to the person being discriminated against. I'm not attributing any ill-intent to you but wanted to give feedback on that terminology which is why I asked the question. Thanks for your response.
  - tal8d 6y ago
    It sounds to me like I did a good job of phrasing it then, because I do believe that the baker was treated maliciously. One has to be careful with the public accommodation argument - which is why the SC took the easy way out on this one. One wrong step and we get "wax my balls biggot!" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_Human_Rights_Tribunal#Yaniv_v._Various_Waxing_Salons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_Human_Rights_...
    - fortanatude 6y ago
      That's too bad. I'm glad I've called out the drive-by homophobia in your post to make it clear to others it is not acceptable.
      - tal8d 6y ago
        And I'm glad that you've illustrated my point perfectly. Having misinterpreted my statement to be homophobic, you've chanted the magic words to summon the specter of censorship.
      - bitcharmer 6y ago
        Where exactly do you see homophobia in their comments? See, this is the problem right here. Whenever people like you hear something they disagree with you'll start screaming "bigot" or "homophobe" or "nazi". How are we supposed to have a mature, civilised discussion about these things?
      - fastball 6y ago
        How is that "drive-by homophobia"? I see no evidence whatsoever that GC has a prejudice against homosexuals.
      - DeathArrow 6y ago
        I find it unacceptable of accusing people of things they didn't do.
  - notadev 6y ago
    When I read about the cake shop story, I believe the reason I didn't automatically side with the gay couple was because it appeared they visited multiple shops, specifically looking for a shop that would not accommodate their request to make an overtly "gay-themed" cake. Even when they found the shop that was sued, the baker offered to make them alternative cakes, just not one that had their preferred phraseology. It seemed more like they were trying to make a point/easy cash grab, which ultimately backfired.
akiselev 6y ago
In 2018 the Supreme Court decided the case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case in favor of the cakeshop, which had originally refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. The couple sue the cakeshop, claiming illegal discrimination (in Colorado) but the cakeshop won the case not because of its merits, but because US Supreme Court ruled that the members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission were biased... against Christians.
- whatthesmack 6y ago
  Don’t forget to take into account that religious liberty is a real thing in the US... literally the first thing spelled out in the Bill of Rights. That’s why the court considered the state commission’s bias against the religious person’s exercise of their sincerely held belief. Plus, you know, the whole “state can’t compel speech” thing (also part of the Bill of Rights) kind of makes the resulting decision pretty unsurprising.

They are referring to the supreme court case revolving around a bakery in Colorado who refused to make a wedding cake if it was going to be served at a gay wedding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission#Facts_of_the_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

tal8d 6y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora... So many angles to consider, even before addressing the issue of publisher vs platform... but in essence the same people decrying that ruling are applauding the deplatforming and debanking of wrongthinkers.

fortanatude 6y ago
Sure, I've never heard it described that way. That makes it sound like the point of asking to be served is to punish and frustrate the bakery. I've never heard civil rights protests called the "serve my lunch racist!" debate. The sentiment behind the phrase "bake my cake bigot!" seems to trivialize the issue of being discriminated against by a public business and incorrectly attributes malice to the person being discriminated against. I'm not attributing any ill-intent to you but wanted to give feedback on that terminology which is why I asked the question. Thanks for your response.
- tal8d 6y ago
  It sounds to me like I did a good job of phrasing it then, because I do believe that the baker was treated maliciously. One has to be careful with the public accommodation argument - which is why the SC took the easy way out on this one. One wrong step and we get "wax my balls biggot!" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_Human_Rights_Tribunal#Yaniv_v._Various_Waxing_Salons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_Human_Rights_...
  - fortanatude 6y ago
    That's too bad. I'm glad I've called out the drive-by homophobia in your post to make it clear to others it is not acceptable.
    - tal8d 6y ago
      And I'm glad that you've illustrated my point perfectly. Having misinterpreted my statement to be homophobic, you've chanted the magic words to summon the specter of censorship.
    - bitcharmer 6y ago
      Where exactly do you see homophobia in their comments? See, this is the problem right here. Whenever people like you hear something they disagree with you'll start screaming "bigot" or "homophobe" or "nazi". How are we supposed to have a mature, civilised discussion about these things?
    - fastball 6y ago
      How is that "drive-by homophobia"? I see no evidence whatsoever that GC has a prejudice against homosexuals.
    - DeathArrow 6y ago
      I find it unacceptable of accusing people of things they didn't do.
- notadev 6y ago
  When I read about the cake shop story, I believe the reason I didn't automatically side with the gay couple was because it appeared they visited multiple shops, specifically looking for a shop that would not accommodate their request to make an overtly "gay-themed" cake. Even when they found the shop that was sued, the baker offered to make them alternative cakes, just not one that had their preferred phraseology. It seemed more like they were trying to make a point/easy cash grab, which ultimately backfired.

akiselev 6y ago

In 2018 the Supreme Court decided the case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case in favor of the cakeshop, which had originally refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. The couple sue the cakeshop, claiming illegal discrimination (in Colorado) but the cakeshop won the case not because of its merits, but because US Supreme Court ruled that the members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission were biased... against Christians.

whatthesmack 6y ago
Don’t forget to take into account that religious liberty is a real thing in the US... literally the first thing spelled out in the Bill of Rights. That’s why the court considered the state commission’s bias against the religious person’s exercise of their sincerely held belief. Plus, you know, the whole “state can’t compel speech” thing (also part of the Bill of Rights) kind of makes the resulting decision pretty unsurprising.