5 ms·

Denying someone a cake based on their unchangeable sexuality is not the same as denying someone a place to email unproven allegations about the son of a politic

Denying someone a cake based on their unchangeable sexuality is not the same as denying someone a place to email unproven allegations about the son of a politician with an eye to unduly influence an election. You can choose whether to be a QAnon'er. You can't choose to be straight.

anongraddebt 6y ago
>unproven allegations This entire thread concerns Mailchimp specifically. Not sure there is a clearer definition of advertising than "unproven allegations".
disown 6y ago
> Denying someone a cake based on their unchangeable sexuality What happened to fluidity and spectrum. Aren't you actually spouting hate speech right now? You were so quick to virtue signal that you resorted "hate speech". > is not the same as denying someone a place to email unproven allegations about the son of a politician with an eye to unduly influence an election. You are right. Cake is superficial nonsense. Free speech is actually important. Imagine if the story about being denied the cake was censored. Imagine if the cake story was censored for being disinformation - which it turned out it was. I'd rather be denied a cake than to be denied the ability to speak about being denied the cake. I'm sure you'd agree if you weren't clouded by orthodoxy and agenda.
googthrowaway42 6y ago
> Denying someone a cake It wasn't about denying someone a cake. The shop had many premade cakes available for purchase. It was about being forced to create a custom LGBT themed cake that the gay couple wanted baked. If you believe they should have been forced to do that you are an authoritarian.
- daveFNbuck 6y ago
  It wasn't about designing and LGBT-themed cake. They didn't discuss the design of the cake at all [1]. It was about making a cake that would be used by gays at their wedding. [1] https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-111-op-bel-colo-app.pdf https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-111...
  - googthrowaway42 6y ago
    From your linked court document: "In July 2012, Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece, a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, and requested that Phillips design and create a cake to celebrate their same-sex wedding." "LGBT-themed" I suppose is too strong a description so I will grant you that given that they never got into design discussions.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  No, they did not want a "custom LGBT themed cake", they requested a cake that happened to be for gay people getting married. > If you believe they should have been forced to do that you are an authoritarian. It's about as authoritarian as saying that businesses had to integrate and serve interracial couples despite business owners claiming that their religions forbid race mixing, which is exactly what they claimed several decades ago.
  - googthrowaway42 6y ago
    > they requested a cake that happened to be for gay people getting married. From the court filing: "In July 2012, Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece, a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, and requested that Phillips design and create a cake to celebrate their same-sex wedding." They requested that the bakers design the cake for their gay wedding yes. You can't make people design things for you if they don't want to. If you believe that people should be able to compel this sort of work then you are an authoritarian.
    - heavyset_go 6y ago
      I'm not sure where you're getting "a custom LGBT themed cake" from "create a cake to celebrate their same-sex wedding". The first claim elicits images of rainbows and positive affirmations of gay marriage, and the second is just a cake that's for two people getting married who happen to be gay. > If you believe that people should be able to compel this sort of work then you are an authoritarian. On a scale of 1 to 10, how authoritarian was it when the government forced wedding planners, wedding reception venues, photographers, dessert shops etc to plan and serve custom wedding plans and events for interracial couples despite business owners claiming that their religions forbid race mixing?
      - googthrowaway42 6y ago
        I retract my use of the term "LGBT themed", that was too strong a description. However at the very least common sense tells us it would have had some reference to the homosexual nature of the marriage (e.g. "Adam & Steve" written in icing) > On a scale of 1 to 10, how authoritarian was it when the government forced wedding planners, wedding reception venues, photographers, dessert shops etc to plan and serve custom wedding plans and events for interracial couples despite business owners claiming that their religions forbid race mixing? Do you have an actual example of this happening?
- rhcom2 6y ago
  If you replace gay with white/black/christian/jewish, does that still make you an authoritarian?
  - drenvuk 6y ago
    Yes. Just based on definitions. Are you trying to prove him right?
  - googthrowaway42 6y ago
    Yes and for the record I'm Jewish.
- chownie 6y ago
  They shouldn't have to make the cake, but they should be open to legal challenge or fines for not doing it. Discrimination is voluntary, sexuality isn't.
amadeuspagel 6y ago
You can choose whether to be a muslim. Does that mean discriminating against muslims is ok?

anongraddebt 6y ago

>unproven allegations This entire thread concerns Mailchimp specifically. Not sure there is a clearer definition of advertising than "unproven allegations".

disown 6y ago

> Denying someone a cake based on their unchangeable sexuality What happened to fluidity and spectrum. Aren't you actually spouting hate speech right now? You were so quick to virtue signal that you resorted "hate speech". > is not the same as denying someone a place to email unproven allegations about the son of a politician with an eye to unduly influence an election. You are right. Cake is superficial nonsense. Free speech is actually important. Imagine if the story about being denied the cake was censored. Imagine if the cake story was censored for being disinformation - which it turned out it was. I'd rather be denied a cake than to be denied the ability to speak about being denied the cake. I'm sure you'd agree if you weren't clouded by orthodoxy and agenda.

googthrowaway42 6y ago

> Denying someone a cake It wasn't about denying someone a cake. The shop had many premade cakes available for purchase. It was about being forced to create a custom LGBT themed cake that the gay couple wanted baked. If you believe they should have been forced to do that you are an authoritarian.

daveFNbuck 6y ago
It wasn't about designing and LGBT-themed cake. They didn't discuss the design of the cake at all [1]. It was about making a cake that would be used by gays at their wedding. [1] https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-111-op-bel-colo-app.pdf https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-111...
- googthrowaway42 6y ago
  From your linked court document: "In July 2012, Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece, a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, and requested that Phillips design and create a cake to celebrate their same-sex wedding." "LGBT-themed" I suppose is too strong a description so I will grant you that given that they never got into design discussions.
heavyset_go 6y ago
No, they did not want a "custom LGBT themed cake", they requested a cake that happened to be for gay people getting married. > If you believe they should have been forced to do that you are an authoritarian. It's about as authoritarian as saying that businesses had to integrate and serve interracial couples despite business owners claiming that their religions forbid race mixing, which is exactly what they claimed several decades ago.
- googthrowaway42 6y ago
  > they requested a cake that happened to be for gay people getting married. From the court filing: "In July 2012, Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece, a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, and requested that Phillips design and create a cake to celebrate their same-sex wedding." They requested that the bakers design the cake for their gay wedding yes. You can't make people design things for you if they don't want to. If you believe that people should be able to compel this sort of work then you are an authoritarian.
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    I'm not sure where you're getting "a custom LGBT themed cake" from "create a cake to celebrate their same-sex wedding". The first claim elicits images of rainbows and positive affirmations of gay marriage, and the second is just a cake that's for two people getting married who happen to be gay. > If you believe that people should be able to compel this sort of work then you are an authoritarian. On a scale of 1 to 10, how authoritarian was it when the government forced wedding planners, wedding reception venues, photographers, dessert shops etc to plan and serve custom wedding plans and events for interracial couples despite business owners claiming that their religions forbid race mixing?
    - googthrowaway42 6y ago
      I retract my use of the term "LGBT themed", that was too strong a description. However at the very least common sense tells us it would have had some reference to the homosexual nature of the marriage (e.g. "Adam & Steve" written in icing) > On a scale of 1 to 10, how authoritarian was it when the government forced wedding planners, wedding reception venues, photographers, dessert shops etc to plan and serve custom wedding plans and events for interracial couples despite business owners claiming that their religions forbid race mixing? Do you have an actual example of this happening?
rhcom2 6y ago
If you replace gay with white/black/christian/jewish, does that still make you an authoritarian?
- drenvuk 6y ago
  Yes. Just based on definitions. Are you trying to prove him right?
- googthrowaway42 6y ago
  Yes and for the record I'm Jewish.
chownie 6y ago
They shouldn't have to make the cake, but they should be open to legal challenge or fines for not doing it. Discrimination is voluntary, sexuality isn't.

amadeuspagel 6y ago

You can choose whether to be a muslim. Does that mean discriminating against muslims is ok?