7 ms·

I know there are a lot of people that are going to disagree with me here, but as a gay man I strongly despise all of this crap around cakes, websites, or whatev

I know there are a lot of people that are going to disagree with me here, but as a gay man I strongly despise all of this crap around cakes, websites, or whatever. We are not talking about someone serving us at a restaurant or other things that have nothing to do with our sexuality. Making a thing for a wedding is tied specifically to being LGBTQ. You can't ignore it while working on the service. I just don't understand why we decided that we need to try to force people to make things for us when there are plenty of people (including those within our own community) which will happily do it. Do you really want someone to make something they don't want to make? The quality is not going to be as good. I would much rather someone just say they don't want to do it. Now tact is also an important part of this and how they say no. But if someone just says no we shouldn't be pressing for "Why" since that just leads to the confrontation. This just bothers me so much especially given the current political issue that something as small as a cake is the hill that we decided to die on instead of making sure trans people can get medical care or the crap going on in Florida. I just can't shake the feeling that we focused so much on the wrong things and got our little "victories" that we celebrated and well... here we are now going backwards on things that actually matter.

brodouevencode 3y ago
As a Christian I appreciate the bulk of this perspective. We can disagree (and probably do) about a lot of things all day long, but the second either of us attempts to coerce the other into doing something under threat of law (force) the line has been crossed.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  I'm also a christian and this whole thing is very clearly intended to enable oppression and harm to already marginalized groups. Supporting this decision is to spit in the face of christ.
  - brodouevencode 3y ago
    > Supporting this decision is to spit in the face of christ Please justify this claim
    - giraffe_lady 3y ago
      No thank you maybe talk to your own priest about it if you have concerns about your spiritual conduct.
- amanaplanacanal 3y ago
  I dunno. A out of people were upset when they were forced to serve black people too, but I’m pretty sure that was a good idea.
  - brodouevencode 3y ago
    Except that there was never a Biblical reason as to not serve other races, which was the beauty of MLK's whole point.
    - lapcat 3y ago
      They can just start a new religion. It's been done.
      - brodouevencode 3y ago
        They're called cults and do not represent Christianity in any way.
        lapcat 3y ago
        > They're called cults It doesn't matter what you call them, it just matters whether the Supreme Court protects them. > do not represent Christianity in any way Hence the phrase "a new religion".
    - ok_dad 3y ago
      Well fuck, if some old book makes the rules for who we can discriminate against, I guess that makes it okay!
- nerdjon 3y ago
  I want to be very clear about my prospective here. If I walk into your restaurant and you refuse to serve me for lunch because I was gay. That is no ok. Me being gay has nothing to do with you serving me lunch. I don't care about your beliefs. If I were to ask you to cater my wedding, thats a different story since you are actively partaking in something. I am fine with that. I just really want to make sure that this is not misconstrued.
  - brodouevencode 3y ago
    I agree with you. I think that you'll find most Christian business owners will not turn away any customer based on their features or lifestyle until they are put into the position of active participation. By forcing someone to bake a cake for a gay wedding then you're asking them to participate (some may even call this "support") in a lifestyle of which they disagree. Also not okay.
  - fzeroracer 3y ago
    > If I walk into your restaurant and you refuse to serve me for lunch because I was gay. That is no ok. Me being gay has nothing to do with you serving me lunch. I don't care about your beliefs. Why not? Cooking is as much of an art as baking a cake and ergo they should have the right to deny serving you food under their right to free expression. This is literally the exact argument that has been used in both of these cases. Well, except in this case the site was literally made up and the supreme court fell for a fake case with zero standing.
    - davidhaymond 3y ago
      Cooking may be an art in one sense of the word, but it generally does not communicate a message. Neither does an off-the-shelf cake from a bakery. A custom wedding cake iced with a message, however, is protected speech.
    - flutas 3y ago
      > Why not? Cooking is as much of an art as baking a cake and ergo they should have the right to deny serving you food under their right to free expression. Except it wasn't. If you know the cake case, they ruled that there was nothing wrong because they offered to sell them an off the shelf cake, they just refused to write a message they didn't support. > Masterpiece's owner Jack Phillips, who is a Christian, declined their cake request, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for marriages of gay couples owing to his Christian religious beliefs, although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store.[0] [0]: 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...
jfengel 3y ago
The problem is that there isn't a legal framework for "things tied specifically to LGBTQ" and "things that aren't". So the hill-being-died-upon isn't the cake or website, but the more general distinction of whether anybody can just make up a reason to discriminate. In this particular case, they went out of their way to fabricate an instance, specifically for the purpose of drawing a distinction where previously there was none -- with the intention of expanding that distinction. That is, of course, a slippery slope argument, except for the fact that it is a conspicuous and deliberate plan to head down that slope. The Court could, theoretically, interrupt that descent. But this decision is a signal that they will not. And yes, that's precisely going backwards on things that actually matter. It sends signals that the courts will also back all of the crap going on in Florida, using similar reasoning.
- nerdjon 3y ago
  Even if this particular instance is fabricated, to my knowledge the past cake battles were not. Or the photographer. I realize from a legal standpoint we don't have a good way to define this. My issue is also not this specific case. But we have been talking about people providing services for gay marriages for 10 years now? Including a few court cases. What bothers me is that those earlier things ever made it to court in the first place and it didn't just end with "well ok I will find someone else". Like what did fighting about this minor thing get us other than making people (conservatives) angry? Thats my problem and concern here. We spent so much time talking about this stuff that doesn't matter, while making the conservative base angry, and I can't shake this feeling that it's biting us in the ass now.
  - mrkeen 3y ago
    > What bothers me is that those earlier things ever made it to court in the first place and it didn't just end with "well ok I will find someone else". What things are you willing to find someone else for? A different doctor? A different lawyer? A different water fountain? Why didn't Rosa Parks simply start a more inclusive (business savvy) bus service and put the bigots out of business?
flutas 3y ago
> I know there are a lot of people that are going to disagree with me here, but as a gay man I strongly despise all of this crap around cakes, websites, or whatever. > We are not talking about someone serving us at a restaurant or other things that have nothing to do with our sexuality. > Making a thing for a wedding is tied specifically to being LGBTQ. You can't ignore it while working on the service. > I just don't understand why we decided that we need to try to force people to make things for us when there are plenty of people (including those within our own community) which will happily do it. Do you really want someone to make something they don't want to make? The quality is not going to be as good. I would much rather someone just say they don't want to do it. Another "as a gay man" here, I fully agree. I also don't want to support them if they don't want to do the job. I'd rather take my money elsewhere to someone at least ambivalent enough to my sexual orientation / politics to not care that it's M+M rather than M+F. I've had people make snide remarks of my sexuality before surrounding big decisions, and they basically made my mind up for me with them. (Ex: Car dealer trying to push me to a Prius on the lot because "your kind like them." I just left that dealership and shopped elsewhere.)
- nerdjon 3y ago
  Yeah I have had those situations where even if they didn't say no to my face it was obvious that I should not be giving them my business. I just honestly don't get it why this is what "we" focused on.
lapcat 3y ago
> Making a thing for a wedding is tied specifically to being LGBTQ. Does it really stop there, though? Under this ruling, what's to stop discrimination against Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and atheists? Or Christians, for that matter. This could backfire against them. > when there are plenty of people (including those within our own community) which will happily do it. Will there be plenty of options in the future, though, now that discrimination is legalized?
- cogman10 3y ago
  > This could backfire against them. Nah, don't be under this delusion. This is a "heads I win tales you lose" situation. You can pretty much predict that if someone is a minority religion all the sudden religious rights have natural bounds we need to follow. But, if they are christians, then all the sudden there are no bounds to what can be argued. That's where we are at. Welcome to Gilead.
uppol 3y ago
It's in focus because these are being used as test cases to define the boundaries of the law. We had a similar one in the UK, which went all the way to our Supreme Court: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/10/uk-supreme-court-backs-bakery-that-refused-to-make-gay-wedding-cake https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/10/uk-supreme-c... The judges agreed with your view too: > The bakers could not refuse to supply their goods to Mr Lee because he was a gay man or supported gay marriage, but that is quite different from obliging them to supply a cake iced with a message with which they profoundly disagreed. Which seems to me also a very reasonable line to draw, in terms of freedom of expression.
hindsightbias 3y ago
The case was engineered. It's fake: https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-... This is the first step. This court is just getting started.

brodouevencode 3y ago

As a Christian I appreciate the bulk of this perspective. We can disagree (and probably do) about a lot of things all day long, but the second either of us attempts to coerce the other into doing something under threat of law (force) the line has been crossed.

giraffe_lady 3y ago
I'm also a christian and this whole thing is very clearly intended to enable oppression and harm to already marginalized groups. Supporting this decision is to spit in the face of christ.
- brodouevencode 3y ago
  > Supporting this decision is to spit in the face of christ Please justify this claim
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    No thank you maybe talk to your own priest about it if you have concerns about your spiritual conduct.
amanaplanacanal 3y ago
I dunno. A out of people were upset when they were forced to serve black people too, but I’m pretty sure that was a good idea.
- brodouevencode 3y ago
  Except that there was never a Biblical reason as to not serve other races, which was the beauty of MLK's whole point.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    They can just start a new religion. It's been done.
    - brodouevencode 3y ago
      They're called cults and do not represent Christianity in any way.
      - lapcat 3y ago
        > They're called cults It doesn't matter what you call them, it just matters whether the Supreme Court protects them. > do not represent Christianity in any way Hence the phrase "a new religion".
  - ok_dad 3y ago
    Well fuck, if some old book makes the rules for who we can discriminate against, I guess that makes it okay!
nerdjon 3y ago
I want to be very clear about my prospective here. If I walk into your restaurant and you refuse to serve me for lunch because I was gay. That is no ok. Me being gay has nothing to do with you serving me lunch. I don't care about your beliefs. If I were to ask you to cater my wedding, thats a different story since you are actively partaking in something. I am fine with that. I just really want to make sure that this is not misconstrued.
- brodouevencode 3y ago
  I agree with you. I think that you'll find most Christian business owners will not turn away any customer based on their features or lifestyle until they are put into the position of active participation. By forcing someone to bake a cake for a gay wedding then you're asking them to participate (some may even call this "support") in a lifestyle of which they disagree. Also not okay.
- fzeroracer 3y ago
  > If I walk into your restaurant and you refuse to serve me for lunch because I was gay. That is no ok. Me being gay has nothing to do with you serving me lunch. I don't care about your beliefs. Why not? Cooking is as much of an art as baking a cake and ergo they should have the right to deny serving you food under their right to free expression. This is literally the exact argument that has been used in both of these cases. Well, except in this case the site was literally made up and the supreme court fell for a fake case with zero standing.
  - davidhaymond 3y ago
    Cooking may be an art in one sense of the word, but it generally does not communicate a message. Neither does an off-the-shelf cake from a bakery. A custom wedding cake iced with a message, however, is protected speech.
  - flutas 3y ago
    > Why not? Cooking is as much of an art as baking a cake and ergo they should have the right to deny serving you food under their right to free expression. Except it wasn't. If you know the cake case, they ruled that there was nothing wrong because they offered to sell them an off the shelf cake, they just refused to write a message they didn't support. > Masterpiece's owner Jack Phillips, who is a Christian, declined their cake request, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for marriages of gay couples owing to his Christian religious beliefs, although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store.[0] [0]: 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...

jfengel 3y ago

The problem is that there isn't a legal framework for "things tied specifically to LGBTQ" and "things that aren't". So the hill-being-died-upon isn't the cake or website, but the more general distinction of whether anybody can just make up a reason to discriminate. In this particular case, they went out of their way to fabricate an instance, specifically for the purpose of drawing a distinction where previously there was none -- with the intention of expanding that distinction. That is, of course, a slippery slope argument, except for the fact that it is a conspicuous and deliberate plan to head down that slope. The Court could, theoretically, interrupt that descent. But this decision is a signal that they will not. And yes, that's precisely going backwards on things that actually matter. It sends signals that the courts will also back all of the crap going on in Florida, using similar reasoning.

nerdjon 3y ago
Even if this particular instance is fabricated, to my knowledge the past cake battles were not. Or the photographer. I realize from a legal standpoint we don't have a good way to define this. My issue is also not this specific case. But we have been talking about people providing services for gay marriages for 10 years now? Including a few court cases. What bothers me is that those earlier things ever made it to court in the first place and it didn't just end with "well ok I will find someone else". Like what did fighting about this minor thing get us other than making people (conservatives) angry? Thats my problem and concern here. We spent so much time talking about this stuff that doesn't matter, while making the conservative base angry, and I can't shake this feeling that it's biting us in the ass now.
- mrkeen 3y ago
  > What bothers me is that those earlier things ever made it to court in the first place and it didn't just end with "well ok I will find someone else". What things are you willing to find someone else for? A different doctor? A different lawyer? A different water fountain? Why didn't Rosa Parks simply start a more inclusive (business savvy) bus service and put the bigots out of business?

flutas 3y ago

> I know there are a lot of people that are going to disagree with me here, but as a gay man I strongly despise all of this crap around cakes, websites, or whatever. > We are not talking about someone serving us at a restaurant or other things that have nothing to do with our sexuality. > Making a thing for a wedding is tied specifically to being LGBTQ. You can't ignore it while working on the service. > I just don't understand why we decided that we need to try to force people to make things for us when there are plenty of people (including those within our own community) which will happily do it. Do you really want someone to make something they don't want to make? The quality is not going to be as good. I would much rather someone just say they don't want to do it. Another "as a gay man" here, I fully agree. I also don't want to support them if they don't want to do the job. I'd rather take my money elsewhere to someone at least ambivalent enough to my sexual orientation / politics to not care that it's M+M rather than M+F. I've had people make snide remarks of my sexuality before surrounding big decisions, and they basically made my mind up for me with them. (Ex: Car dealer trying to push me to a Prius on the lot because "your kind like them." I just left that dealership and shopped elsewhere.)

nerdjon 3y ago
Yeah I have had those situations where even if they didn't say no to my face it was obvious that I should not be giving them my business. I just honestly don't get it why this is what "we" focused on.

lapcat 3y ago

> Making a thing for a wedding is tied specifically to being LGBTQ. Does it really stop there, though? Under this ruling, what's to stop discrimination against Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and atheists? Or Christians, for that matter. This could backfire against them. > when there are plenty of people (including those within our own community) which will happily do it. Will there be plenty of options in the future, though, now that discrimination is legalized?

cogman10 3y ago
> This could backfire against them. Nah, don't be under this delusion. This is a "heads I win tales you lose" situation. You can pretty much predict that if someone is a minority religion all the sudden religious rights have natural bounds we need to follow. But, if they are christians, then all the sudden there are no bounds to what can be argued. That's where we are at. Welcome to Gilead.

uppol 3y ago

It's in focus because these are being used as test cases to define the boundaries of the law. We had a similar one in the UK, which went all the way to our Supreme Court: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/10/uk-supreme-court-backs-bakery-that-refused-to-make-gay-wedding-cake https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/10/uk-supreme-c... The judges agreed with your view too: > The bakers could not refuse to supply their goods to Mr Lee because he was a gay man or supported gay marriage, but that is quite different from obliging them to supply a cake iced with a message with which they profoundly disagreed. Which seems to me also a very reasonable line to draw, in terms of freedom of expression.

hindsightbias 3y ago

The case was engineered. It's fake: https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-... This is the first step. This court is just getting started.