4 ms·

> It is no longer enough for conservative Christians to tolerate same-sex marriage—now they must be legally required to bake cakes and design web pages for the

by zzzeek 2y ago

> It is no longer enough for conservative Christians to tolerate same-sex marriage—now they must be legally required to bake cakes and design web pages for the weddings. Isnt it enough that we can no longer lynch gay people with impunity? now they want to be treated as though they are "normal"? > But however much the backlash has hurt the original cause, the controversies keep activists in business. People getting married want to be able to buy wedding cakes! This is a serious controversy! I can certainly see why Hacker News is upmodding this important piece of Christian Nationalist fascist trash and even commenting on it as though this literal sewer of an article is worth actual discussion and not complete ridicule, what would become of America if bigotry wasn't cool anymore?

Georgelemental 2y ago
[flagged]
- wtfwhateven 2y ago
  > gay clients were free to purchase any baked goods from his store just like everyone else Only because the owner knew they'd get in a lot of trouble trespassing people they assume are gay from their store. Spamming the same paragraph in the thread and pretending they were just misunderstood and the real victim isn't helpful, it's dishonest. >Masterpiece Cakeshop became involved in a similar case in 2018. In June 2017, on the same day the Supreme Court agreed to hear Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the bakery had refused to bake a birthday cake with a pink interior and blue exterior for Autumn Scardina, a transgender woman and Colorado lawyer. >What he refused to do was bake a cake in support of a specific event *refused to treat a gay couple equal to a straight couple and refused to bake a cake featuring two colors because he doesn't like trans people But you know all that as it's in the Wikipedia article you linked, you're just trying to frame it in a specific way to push your agenda I guess
  - Georgelemental 2y ago
    > Only because the owner knew they'd get in a lot of trouble trespassing people they assume are gay from their store. Evidence? > >What he refused to do was bake a cake in support of a specific event > *refused to treat a gay couple equal to a straight couple The important distinction here is that Masterpiece did not refuse to service the wedding because the people being married were homosexual in their sexual orientation; he refused to service it because the people being married were of the same sex. Sexual orientation is a spectrum, and does not inherently force you to marry someone of a particular sex; the latter is a choice. Masterpiece's owner disapproved of the choice his clients made and didn't want to express support for it; that is his right. > and refused to bake a cake featuring two colors because he doesn't like trans people The pink-and-blue color scheme has a particular ideological implication. The baker didn't want to support the specific ideology those colors represent. Just like a baker might refuse to bake a cake with a red color scheme and an elephant decoration, because they don't want to support the Republican Party. It has nothing to do with who the client is!
    - wtfwhateven 2y ago
      >Evidence? Their behavior spanning decades and their belief in Leviticus 20:13 as morally correct. If they were allowed to they would do much worse. >The pink-and-blue color scheme has a particular ideological implication. There's no ideology involved. >It has nothing to do with who the client is! It irrefutably does. >The important distinction There is none. >did not refuse to service the wedding because the people being married were homosexual in their sexual orientation; he refused to service it because the people being married were of the same sex There's no distinction, it's the same thing. Mental gymnastics to justify his behaviour. It's simply making excuses for someone who believes in Leviticus 20:13 to exclude gay people in any way they legally can. Would a white nationalist bakery owner that refuses to bake a cake for a black couple celebrating their wedding also be justified and morally righteous to you?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
zzo38computer 2y ago
> People getting married want to be able to buy wedding cakes! This is a serious controversy! Of course, and they should buy (or make their own) wedding cakes, if they intend to have wedding cakes. My opinion is: If the cake is not a custom order, but just one of their ordinary products, then they should not be allowed to refuse due to such things as homosexual, etc. However, for custom orders, such custom orders could be anything and they should have the right to refuse any such custom orders if they wish (due to the order itself, not due to the discrimination of the customers) (although this will reduce their profit, and may result in a bad reputation, so there is still a risk to refuse them). However, if they are the only bakery in the area, then it is more difficult, since they might not have much of a choice (unless they can learn to decorate it themself). (Although this is also true for any number of other things that nobody has available for sale, etc.) About the specific case, I have received conflicting information about this. Wikipedia says it is a custom order. As the other comment says: They did not refuse to serve clients of a particular sexual orientation. If they did so, that would be discrimination and illegal, as it should be. But a custom order is something different, as I had explained above (this doesn't necessarily mean it would be a good idea, even if it is allowed, though). Freedom of speech and freedom of religion and freedom of opinion is important.

by zzzeek 2y ago

Georgelemental 2y ago

[flagged]

wtfwhateven 2y ago
> gay clients were free to purchase any baked goods from his store just like everyone else Only because the owner knew they'd get in a lot of trouble trespassing people they assume are gay from their store. Spamming the same paragraph in the thread and pretending they were just misunderstood and the real victim isn't helpful, it's dishonest. >Masterpiece Cakeshop became involved in a similar case in 2018. In June 2017, on the same day the Supreme Court agreed to hear Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the bakery had refused to bake a birthday cake with a pink interior and blue exterior for Autumn Scardina, a transgender woman and Colorado lawyer. >What he refused to do was bake a cake in support of a specific event *refused to treat a gay couple equal to a straight couple and refused to bake a cake featuring two colors because he doesn't like trans people But you know all that as it's in the Wikipedia article you linked, you're just trying to frame it in a specific way to push your agenda I guess
- Georgelemental 2y ago
  > Only because the owner knew they'd get in a lot of trouble trespassing people they assume are gay from their store. Evidence? > >What he refused to do was bake a cake in support of a specific event > *refused to treat a gay couple equal to a straight couple The important distinction here is that Masterpiece did not refuse to service the wedding because the people being married were homosexual in their sexual orientation; he refused to service it because the people being married were of the same sex. Sexual orientation is a spectrum, and does not inherently force you to marry someone of a particular sex; the latter is a choice. Masterpiece's owner disapproved of the choice his clients made and didn't want to express support for it; that is his right. > and refused to bake a cake featuring two colors because he doesn't like trans people The pink-and-blue color scheme has a particular ideological implication. The baker didn't want to support the specific ideology those colors represent. Just like a baker might refuse to bake a cake with a red color scheme and an elephant decoration, because they don't want to support the Republican Party. It has nothing to do with who the client is!
  - wtfwhateven 2y ago
    >Evidence? Their behavior spanning decades and their belief in Leviticus 20:13 as morally correct. If they were allowed to they would do much worse. >The pink-and-blue color scheme has a particular ideological implication. There's no ideology involved. >It has nothing to do with who the client is! It irrefutably does. >The important distinction There is none. >did not refuse to service the wedding because the people being married were homosexual in their sexual orientation; he refused to service it because the people being married were of the same sex There's no distinction, it's the same thing. Mental gymnastics to justify his behaviour. It's simply making excuses for someone who believes in Leviticus 20:13 to exclude gay people in any way they legally can. Would a white nationalist bakery owner that refuses to bake a cake for a black couple celebrating their wedding also be justified and morally righteous to you?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

zzo38computer 2y ago

> People getting married want to be able to buy wedding cakes! This is a serious controversy! Of course, and they should buy (or make their own) wedding cakes, if they intend to have wedding cakes. My opinion is: If the cake is not a custom order, but just one of their ordinary products, then they should not be allowed to refuse due to such things as homosexual, etc. However, for custom orders, such custom orders could be anything and they should have the right to refuse any such custom orders if they wish (due to the order itself, not due to the discrimination of the customers) (although this will reduce their profit, and may result in a bad reputation, so there is still a risk to refuse them). However, if they are the only bakery in the area, then it is more difficult, since they might not have much of a choice (unless they can learn to decorate it themself). (Although this is also true for any number of other things that nobody has available for sale, etc.) About the specific case, I have received conflicting information about this. Wikipedia says it is a custom order. As the other comment says: They did not refuse to serve clients of a particular sexual orientation. If they did so, that would be discrimination and illegal, as it should be. But a custom order is something different, as I had explained above (this doesn't necessarily mean it would be a good idea, even if it is allowed, though). Freedom of speech and freedom of religion and freedom of opinion is important.