I think the judgement in question is fair, as I understand it. But I think as a principle involving the government in such matters is the wrong, morally and strategically. And since they had to approach 60 something bakeries to find one that would refuse to make thier cake, I don’t think they actually live under the kind of persecution that would require the intervention of the government to save them.
1 Like
I would agree. That being said, historically, it seems to be the only chance any -insert class here- ever gets anything done. The biggest driver of change is always time, with the second biggest being society (who makes its feeling known via govt).
Also agree. But unfortunately the govt was put into an impossible position as they can’t be denying things like this because someone isn’t REEAAALLLY (this is a Jim Carey ‘really’) being persecuted. I shudder to think of a world where govts do that.
Edit: of a world where MY govt does that
Not until there’s a schlong in them, at least.
1 Like
Now that’s a term I haven’t heard in quite some time, lol.
2 Likes
Cakes should be sold. Wedding cakes, no. And hey, the homosexual won’t be able to refuse orthodox Christians cakes, but could still still turn down the “God hates f----ts” cake. Cakes, and wedding cakes, are two very different things. Let’s stop pretending there isn’t a vast difference.
I’m really souring on the idea that if people don’t comply, they can not be allowed to continue putting bread on the table for themselves, their spouse, their children, etc. through their craft.
Can you look at the ingredients for two cakes and tell which one is the wedding cake?
Sir, if you can’t tell what a wedding cake is…
I don’t play silly games. I could turn that aroundand ask the homosexual what does he mean that I’m only selling him a cake and not a wedding cake (as requested). They both have icing and flour.
Just no.
The “Insert human race-is sub-human cake” is made of flour too.
Why doe we need to set aside common sense? And why do we need to try to run people out of their lively-hoods, how they feed their families, over crap like this? I mean, at least through judicial power? Private boycotts are another beast, obviously. A general refusal to sell generic food stuffs, I get that. A specific type of cake? Get the heck out of here with that tyrannical crap.
So a homosexual sees a cake on display that he wants for his wedding. He goes to buy it and the baker tells him as he is ringing up the sale, “btw, this isn’t a wedding cake, so there.” Who decides what is or isn’t a wedding cake? The baker or the person who is buying it? I can buy a donut and use it as a wedding cake.
1 Like
I support the right for an atheist to not sell to me “God is the creator” cakes. What a pathetic people that need everyone at any time to be forced by governmental power to sell specifically themed/messaged cakes. My gosh.
In the South, during segregation and Jim Crow, it was perfectly fine for businesses to turn away blacks? This is the country/community you want to live in?
And this isn’t a “God hates queers” cake. I’ll pick it up later today. Don’t forget the crosses and the little lake of fire full of burning homosexuals.
1 Like
Wasn’t the ruling specifically that they CANT force them to sell specific message cakes?
Is it for a wedding?
I want to live in a country where people can purchase groceries, but also in a country where people can refuse to participate in very specific themes/events/activities. In other words, a country with some semblance of common sense.
1 Like
A wedding cake, is a message…Or, they wound’t be trying to purchase a wedding cake. You can’t have it both ways.
So you’re saying they can’t have their cake and eat it too?? (don’t get up, I’ll show myself out…)
3 Likes
No one is forcing the baker to attend. And bigotry and racism are not common sense.
No one is forging the SJW/homosexual to attend the “God hates queers” sermon. You will have the cake ready by 3, correct?
1 Like
And what message is the chicken or fish that are offered as a meal at the reception sending?