Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Asking the same person to make a cake for a *** wedding does do those things. If you make a cake for a wedding you are "approving" the wedding.
No you're not. You're selling a cake.
If they buy a generic cake out of the case, yes. If they ask you to make a custom cake for their wedding, you are approving of the wedding. You are validating it as a wedding by making the cake. It's not just a cake. It's what the cake represents.
I'll ask again. Answer the case of the black baker and the KKK rally. Is that just selling them a cake too? If you can't address that case and apply the same reasoning to it, then you need to reassess your position. I suspect you keep ignoring it because you don't want to face the fact that there's a massive gaping flaw in your reasoning.
It's more than just a cake. It's tacit approval of the event the cake is for. You're a fool to think otherwise.
Quote:
Quote:
If she's asked to make a pro-***(marriage) design in foam, I'd support her decision to refuse to do so.
That wasn't the question. Should she refuse to serve the g
ay couple on the basis of refusing to facilitate their sinful relationship? If she gives them coffee, by your logic, she's "approving" of their date.
I already answered your question. No. She should not refuse to server them a cup of coffee. Or even making a foam design that she had made before for other customers if they ask. Because doing so, despite your perverse need to tell me what my own position is, does not validate their relationship. They are two people having coffee. Just like any other two people having coffee. Her serving them coffee does not require that she validate them as a couple. Nothing about them drinking coffee in a coffee shop has any bearing on their sexual orientation. I'm not sure why you'd think it does.
Do you think that if a guy walks in with a swastika tattoo on his arm, if she serves him coffee she's approving of his neo-**** beliefs? That's insane. How about someone with a t-shirt that says something she disagrees with? Again, you're failing to see where the dividing line is here, despite me clearly explaining it to you several times.
Quote:
Again, the store in question did not offer to sell a basic cake (and any cake shop has a catalog of basic cakes, they don't custom design every sheet cake from scratch), they refused to sell a cake at all because it was for a wedding between a couple gay dudes.
Yeah.
because it was for a wedding between a couple of gay dudes. You keep missing this. If they'd just walked in and ordered a cake, they would have made them a cake and sold it to them. If they walked in holding hands and asked for a cake, they'd have sold it to them. It was the act of saying "make us a cake for our wedding" that the baker said no. That should be a clear sign where the issue is. It's not in them "being gay". It's the baker being asked to make a cake "for a gay wedding".
You even said it yourself, but continue to think it's something else. That's... bizarre.
Quote:
The reason why people keep comparing it to burgers and whatnot isn't because people are afraid to talk about weddings, it's because people are mocking your clinging to this idea of a "custom" cake as though that's the principle at stake. It's not. It's irrelevant.
It's exactly the principle at stake. The baker is being asked to make a cake for a specific single event. If the baker does not approve of the event, for any reason at all, he has a right to refuse to make the cake. See how easy that is? It does not matter if it's for a gay wedding, or a KKK rally, or a dog show, or a biker party, or a **** shoot, or a kids birthday, or any of an infinite number of things that a baker might decide he doesn't approve of.
he has the right to refuse. Period.
You've chosen to start with the single event, broadly equate it to some other forms of unfair discrimination, and declare this to be unfair as well. But you're ignoring the fact that if the baker refused to make the cake for any other event for any other reason, you'd have no problem with it. So it's not a case of my "side" singling out gay people for discrimination, but your "side" choosing to make an exception case for them. Which IMO is a terrible way to run a legal system. I'm treating all of these cases the same. You are not. But somehow *I'm* the one supporting unfair discrimination?