3 ms·

> 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

> 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?
      - heavyset_go 6y ago
        I'm on my phone, but here is a quote from the ACLU[1]: > Instances of institutions and individuals claiming a right to discriminate in the name of religion are not new. In the 1960s, we saw objections to laws requiring integration in restaurants because of sincerely held beliefs that God wanted the races to be separate. We saw religiously affiliated universities refuse to admit students who engaged in interracial dating. In those cases, we recognized that requiring integration was not about violating religious liberty; it was about ensuring fairness. It is no different today. This is a good write up about religion and Loving v. Virginia[2]. [1] https://www.aclu.org/issues/religious-liberty/using-religion-discriminate/ https://www.aclu.org/issues/religious-liberty/using-religion... [2] https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5513&context=flr https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=55...
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.

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?
    - heavyset_go 6y ago
      I'm on my phone, but here is a quote from the ACLU[1]: > Instances of institutions and individuals claiming a right to discriminate in the name of religion are not new. In the 1960s, we saw objections to laws requiring integration in restaurants because of sincerely held beliefs that God wanted the races to be separate. We saw religiously affiliated universities refuse to admit students who engaged in interracial dating. In those cases, we recognized that requiring integration was not about violating religious liberty; it was about ensuring fairness. It is no different today. This is a good write up about religion and Loving v. Virginia[2]. [1] https://www.aclu.org/issues/religious-liberty/using-religion-discriminate/ https://www.aclu.org/issues/religious-liberty/using-religion... [2] https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5513&context=flr https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=55...

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.