Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge say

[EMNofSeattle]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

Not sure it would, Neo-Nazis are not a protected class. Fundamentally, yes it should force them to because it's the same thing. But this is a very carefully scripted, and maintained one-way road.

Race is a protected class, so neo nazis can argue they're being denied service because their group is all white.

This is actually an argument because someone who refuses to accomodate gay weddings is not necessarily denying service to gay people. they're refusing to hold a specific event.
If I owned a business and could choose my customers, I would absolutely hold a gay wedding and deny service to neo nazi events, I simply don't think this should be mandatory.

 

[ChezC3]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

1.) no a WEDDING is an event, not doing the wedding based on the PEOPLE in it is discrimination nice try but that failed lie is one of the most asinine dishonest and factually wrong claims ever.
2.) sweet irony since your #1 is complete false. He actually understands that law
3.) correct
4.) what YOU would do personally dont matter to the law and or peoples rights when they apply. If you would CHOOSE to break the law and or violate the rights of others that would be on you.
5.) No it doesnt solve that if you put "names" on all your other wedding cakes you would be factually discrimination.
you could make ZERO wedding cakes, or you could make wedding cakes all the same with no words and no toppers but once you differentiate in many places you would be choosing to break the law
6.) First off thats factually meaningless for this discussion and secondly what lie of active role are you trying to sale here? the wedding doesn't REQUIRE a photos to complete it or anything like that so again you claim is factually wrong and completely dishonest and stupid. stupid. I took pictures or the steelers last sunday. I had to take pictures of a steeler game one time for a youth project, according to your "logic" i played an active role in the game and their win, wow I never knew that!!!:lol:

1. Right, and if it involves two members of the same sex, it is gay. But be clear, it isn't a true wedding. It's legally recognized make believe.
2. Sweet Jesus, No. He doesn't and neither do you.
3. About everything.
4. Unlike yours, my opinion matters
5. Yes it does solve the matter, it's called artistic license.
6. First off, no, it is the issue at hand. Forcing someone to participate in an event which they choose not to. Right, the wedding doesn't require photos so therefore no gripe should be made if one doesn't choose to participate in taking any. The rest of this that you wrote is unintelligible twaddle. Don't waste my time with it.

:lol:
:lamo
:2wave:

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

1. Right, and if it involves two members of the same sex, it is gay. But be clear, it isn't a true wedding. It's legally recognized make believe.
2. Sweet Jesus, No. He doesn't and neither do you.
3. About everything.
4. Unlike yours, my opinion matters
5. Yes it does solve the matter, it's called artistic license.
6. First off, no, it is the issue at hand.
7.) Forcing someone to participate in an event which they choose not to.
8.) The rest of this that you wrote is unintelligible twaddle. Don't waste my time with it.

1.) actual its factual a legal marriage and wedding
2.) yes he does as precedence laws and facts prove
3.) yes my post was and so was the judge based on laws, facts and rights
4.) facts, rights , laws > your factually wrong opinion and feelings
5.) nope because it would factually still be discrimination as already proven by facts, laws and rights
6.) nope thats only what your feelings want to matter but it doesnt
7.) there is no force this retarded lie has been proven wrong countless times lol
8.) oh oh look out facts proving their false claims wrong is making somebody angry:lamo

When you have ONE single fact that supports your proven wrong climes to be true, please present it, we'll be waiting, thanks

 

[Stinger]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

Because you have never been the victim of discrimination no doubt. It is a ugly little secret that has plagued this country for nearly 100 years and it has no place in a country who's motto is "All men are created equal".

Which again does not explain what I asked and you have no idea what my experience is with discrimination and I would advise you not to through and denial of my personal experience against the wall hoping it will stick.

 

[Stinger]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

LOL So the baker never created a "custom cake" for anyone else? He surely did that 1000's of times. Baking a cake does not make him "part of the celebration" either. It's a GD cake not a sacrament.

For some yes for some no. Go listen to the interview he gave and learn for yourself. And yes baking a custom cake for that specific celebration does exactly that it is how he does it he works specifically with the party involved and what it represents to them and the occasion and gives his interpretaion it is NOT a simple Walmart, happy wedding cake it is a very elaborate piece of art, you are arguing out of ignorance about the matter.

 

[vegas giants]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

For some yes for some no. Go listen to the interview he gave and learn for yourself. And yes baking a custom cake for that specific celebration does exactly that it is how he does it he works specifically with the party involved and what it represents to them and the occasion and gives his interpretaion it is NOT a simple Walmart, happy wedding cake it is a very elaborate piece of art, you are arguing out of ignorance about the matter.

I don't care if he is painting the Mona Lisa. Make the cake

 

[iguanaman]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

Which again does not explain what I asked and you have no idea what my experience is with discrimination and I would advise you not to through and denial of my personal experience against the wall hoping it will stick.

At the very least your post shows that you have no understanding of the history of segregation and discrimination this nation bears. If you did you would understand why it was necessary to make the laws we have made to stop it.

 

[Stinger]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

1.) who was "forced" out of business?

This particular baker had to stop producing his custom wedding cakes and his business has suffered. Again you dodge the issue saying no one is forced out of business, they are if they get sued out of business and can no longer engage in it because it would now violate their moral convictions, it was not his choice he was forced by this lawsuit.

2.) 100% meaningless

Abosultely the salient point.

and I dont understand how any rational and honest person thinks that means anything. Its intellectually dishonest.

It is intellectual dishonesty to claim he would not do business with gay people. He does all the time, he will just not use his artistic talents to create something in celebration of homosexuality and same-sex marriage which violates his moral tenets
.

Are you claiming when blacks couldn't sit in the restaurant but could be served at the back door that wasn't discrimination because they were still being served? LOL

Strawman, the baker is happy to sell his standard display case products.

Are you saying that the black sign maker cannot refuse to create special artwork and signs for the KKK rally or honoring Confederate Generals?

If he makes wedding cakes he cant discriminate.

So the black music composer cannot refuse to compose white supremacy songs?

Why should people be forced to do things for which they have personal objections?

He CHOOSE to to have a public access business

What is the difference between a business and a public access business?

What about the gay baker being asked to create cakes for an anti-gay marriage rally? He can be forced to do so?

 

[iguanaman]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

For some yes for some no. Go listen to the interview he gave and learn for yourself. And yes baking a custom cake for that specific celebration does exactly that it is how he does it he works specifically with the party involved and what it represents to them and the occasion and gives his interpretaion it is NOT a simple Walmart, happy wedding cake it is a very elaborate piece of art, you are arguing out of ignorance about the matter.

LOL Both you and the baker are making a cake into something very different in a vain attempt to justify bigotry. I don't suppose you know that similar arguments were made to justify segregation on religious grounds also. It only succeeds in making the religion look bad. Didn't God make gay couples too?

 

[Stinger]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

At the very least your post shows that you have no understanding of the history of segregation and discrimination this nation bears. If you did you would understand why it was necessary to make the laws we have made to stop it.

Oh FAR FAR FAR more than you could ever imagine. I grew up in the deep South in the 50's and 60, I lived it so don't even profess to try and tell me I don't know what is discrimination and segregation. I fought AGAINST it as the vice-president of the Teen-Age Republicans in a major Southern city in the 60's.

 

[iguanaman]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

Oh FAR FAR FAR more than you could ever imagine. I grew up in the deep South in the 50's and 60, I lived it so don't even profess to try and tell me I don't know what is discrimination and segregation. I fought AGAINST it as the vice-president of the Teen-Age Republicans in a major Southern city in the 60's.

Ok Then how was segregation ended then? Not by letting businesses choose who they wish to serve was it?

 

[Stinger]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

LOL Both you and the baker are making a cake into something very different in a vain attempt to justify bigotry. I don't suppose you know that similar arguments were made to justify segregation on religious grounds also. It only succeeds in making the religion look bad. Didn't God make gay couples too?

And again you are showing you ignorance of the matter and what exactly he does. And I'm an atheist I don't believe gods make things.

What if it was a Muslim sculptor and a gay couple wanted him to produce a statue of two men engaged in a homosexual embrace and he refused? What say you then? You believe he could be sued out of business?

 

[Stinger]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

Ok Then how was segregation ended then? Not by letting businesses choose who they wish to serve was it?

Mainly by market forces and the new generations rejecting segregation and the Democrats who supported it and again this baker was no simply refusing to serve gay persons carta blanch, he was being asked to create a special artistic work celebrating the homosexuality. Why do you keep ignoring that? A gay person walks in to buy a cupcake, he sold it to them, a birthday cake, he sold it to them. You seem to want to pretend he had a sign at the door, NO GAY PEOPLE SERVED.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

1.) This particular baker had to stop producing his custom wedding cakes and his business has suffered. Again you dodge the issue saying no one is forced out of business, they are if they get sued out of business and can no longer engage in it because it would now violate their moral convictions, it was not his choice he was forced by this lawsuit.


2.) Abosultely the salient point.
3.) It is intellectual dishonesty to claim he would not do business with gay people. He does all the time
4.) he will just not use his artistic talents to create something in celebration of homosexuality and same-sex marriage which violates his moral tenets
5.)Strawman, the baker is happy to sell his standard display case products.
6.) Are you saying that the black sign maker cannot refuse to create special artwork and signs for the KKK rally or honoring Confederate Generals?
7.)So the black music composer cannot refuse to compose white supremacy songs?
8.)Why should people be forced to do things for which they have personal objections?
9.)What is the difference between a business and a public access business?
10.)What about the gay baker being asked to create cakes for an anti-gay marriage rally? He can be forced to do so?

1.) there is no dodge i asked a specific question and you are not answering.
Ill go slow for you so you understand the fact nobody was forced better.
why were they sued?
2.) no its not in anyway shape or form LMAO
3.) where did i claim he wouldnt do business with gay people? please qoute me saying that or admit you posted a lie and just made it up
4.) which factually by law is discrimination (the reason doesnt matter one bit) unless he makes ZERO wedding cakes its bigoted and discrimination.
5.) well you just proved you dont know what a strawman is LMAO The example is factual proof that service or a practice to a group can be done but another action is still discrimination. You false claim of strawman is factually false. Try again
The baker will not sell them a wedding cake thats discrinitnion
6.) No, "im" not saying anything im destroying your claims with facts and laws that say how it goes. The law says not doing a KKK or confederate sign is not illegal discrimination. If that fact bothers you write your congressmen but the KKK or a Confederate sign is not a gender, race, religion, sexual orientation etc
7.) see #6
8.) good thing nobody is, that retarded lie already failed
9.) public access business have public accommodation laws that regulate them and then in specific cases there are also rights related to the same thing. You not knowing this explains alot and why you have no clue about this subject at all. Are you from america because that would explain your confusion.
10.) see #6

Facts remains there was no force, please let us know when you can post one fact that supports your false claim and makes it true, thanks!

 

[ChezC3]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

1.) actual its factual a legal marriage and wedding
2.) yes he does as precedence laws and facts prove
3.) yes my post was and so was the judge based on laws, facts and rights
4.) facts, rights , laws > your factually wrong opinion and feelings
5.) nope because it would factually still be discrimination as already proven by facts, laws and rights
6.) nope thats only what your feelings want to matter but it doesnt
7.) there is no force this retarded lie has been proven wrong countless times lol
8.) oh oh look out facts proving their false claims wrong is making somebody angry:lamo

When you have ONE single fact that supports your proven wrong climes to be true, please present it, we'll be waiting, thanks

1. You've got your facts mixed up
2. no, and no
3. The part of your post that said I was correct. Yes, that's correct.
4. Facts, rights, laws = my factually correct opinion and feelings
5. Yes, because it would not, factually. As proven by facts, laws, and what you're missing from this post, common sense.
6. Yes, that's the issue, no matter how much you protest otherwise.
7. People who use the word retarded on things they don't like are childish. Responsible adults don't use such language.
8. Fact is, it impossible for me to get angry at a joke.

When you can prove one fact that I have given as wrong, please present it, we won't be waiting because we know you can't, thanks anyway.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

Not unless they make nazis a protected class. The question we should be debating is if homosexuals should be a protected class of people.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

If you are going to have protected classes, then yes, gays should be one of them.

 

[trouble13]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

If you are going to have protected classes, then yes, gays should be one of them.

Do we need to have protected classes?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[iguanaman]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

Mainly by market forces and the new generations rejecting segregation and the Democrats who supported it and again this baker was no simply refusing to serve gay persons carta blanch, he was being asked to create a special artistic work celebrating the homosexuality. Why do you keep ignoring that? A gay person walks in to buy a cupcake, he sold it to them, a birthday cake, he sold it to them. You seem to want to pretend he had a sign at the door, NO GAY PEOPLE SERVED.

LOL Like the Civil Rights act and court decision making "separate but equal" illegal had nothing to do with it. We legislated segregation away, something 100 years of "new generations" could never do. Since racism and bigotry is passed down by families it is only the rule of law that can stop it. We dragged the racists kicking and screaming into the modern world and we will do the same with anti-gay bigots. Their children will thank us for it too, especially the gay ones.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

1. You've got your facts mixed up
2. no, and no
3. The part of your post that said I was correct. Yes, that's correct.
4. Facts, rights, laws = my factually correct opinion and feelings
5. Yes, because it would not, factually. As proven by facts, laws, and what you're missing from this post, common sense.
6. Yes, that's the issue, no matter how much you protest otherwise.
7. People who use the word retarded on things they don't like are childish. Responsible adults don't use such language.
8. Fact is, it impossible for me to get angry at a joke.

When you can prove one fact that I have given as wrong, please present it, we won't be waiting because we know you can't, thanks anyway.

Translation you got nothing and facts win again. Thats what I thought, I love when equal rights causes people to melt down and post bigotry and lies. LMAO

 

[iguanaman]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

And again you are showing you ignorance of the matter and what exactly he does. And I'm an atheist I don't believe gods make things.

What if it was a Muslim sculptor and a gay couple wanted him to produce a statue of two men engaged in a homosexual embrace and he refused? What say you then? You believe he could be sued out of business?

As a fellow atheist you of all people should know the hypocrisy of using God to justify hate. Your strawman arguments only underscore your basic premise that discrimination is a right, be it against a race, a religion or sexual preference. We tried that for far too long and we are still suffering the consequences of that mistake. It is not freedom it is a tyranny that divides and cripples our nation.

 

[Stinger]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

As a fellow atheist you of all people should know the hypocrisy of using God to justify hate. Your strawman arguments only underscore your basic premise that discrimination is a right, be it against a race, a religion or sexual preference. We tried that for far too long and we are still suffering the consequences of that mistake. It is not freedom it is a tyranny that divides and cripples our nation.

Well I don't and there is no hate involved so you fail on both accounts. And your dodges noted.

 

[ChezC3]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

Translation you got nothing and facts win again. Thats what I thought, I love when equal rights causes people to melt down and post bigotry and lies. LMAO

Translation — I win.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

Translation — I win.

As soon as you can post any facts that support your claims and makes them true sure, but you haven't yet :shrug: Please, let us know when you have some thanks!

 

[Bark]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

This sort of topic is going to be floating around for awhile. Fundamentally, I think the business should be able to deny its services. It's ultimately their labor. It doesn't mean things are consequence free. If the community doesn't agree, they won't use their business, and they'll find themselves out of business soon enough. Also, I think it's rather poor business sense to discriminate like this because a job is a job, a business is there to make a profit. But it's their call really.

I do not think you have the right to discriminate. My reason is simple. When you get a business license you are EXPLICITLY agreeing to become a place of public accommodation. That means all public. Subcontract the work if you want but when you agree to that, well you agree to that.

 

[Bark]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

This ruling can force a black videographer to attend a neo-nazi wedding.

Slippery slopes suck, huh?

Not exactly. For example clubs can discriminate based on clothing. The policy has to be enforced the same always. Does it no. But you can't blatantly say no blacks. That is a protected class based on civil rights. Gays will ultimately be a protected class in all states and at the federal level. neo-nazis are not a protected class. You can say all day I long I refuse to serve neo-nazis and there is no legal issue there. The only problem you could run into is if you did one but refused others.