Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 36 of 36

Thread: Let Them Eat Cake

  1. #31
    Senior Member herbgeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    1,896
    What if I was a religous baker and someone wanted me to write something obscene/vulgar/anti-my-religion on a cake. Do I have the right to say "sorry, I won't do that"?

  2. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    3,382
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    Or what if a Muslim baker refused to decorate a cake with an image of Mohammed due to his/her religions ban on his image? Or, what if a Christian baker refused to cater a wedding party for a polygamist family celebrating their latest 15 year old sister wife's induction to the harem?
    I think that was answered in the suit. It wasn't the cake that was refused, it was the decoration.
    Quote Originally Posted by herbgeek View Post
    What if I was a religous baker and someone wanted me to write something obscene/vulgar/anti-my-religion on a cake. Do I have the right to say "sorry, I won't do that"?

    I think Alan asked that already.
    How about a friend of mine who years ago, went into a bible store, and while turning bibles upside down, was asked if he needed assistance. He asked for a copy of the satanic bible and was chased out of the store. Wouldn't this be the same?

  3. #33
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    3,866
    Quote Originally Posted by ToomuchStuff View Post
    I think Alan asked that already.
    How about a friend of mine who years ago, went into a bible store, and while turning bibles upside down, was asked if he needed assistance. He asked for a copy of the satanic bible and was chased out of the store. Wouldn't this be the same?
    Only if the bible store normally sold satanic bibles. The wedding cake store presumably does sell wedding cakes. Just not to yucky gay people because of their deeply held superstition.

  4. #34
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    5,653
    Quote Originally Posted by ToomuchStuff View Post
    I think Alan asked that already.
    Yes I did, and it was not answered. I have a theory for that if anyone's interested.

    It seems to me that those who view society through a lens of outside factors, such as gender, ethnicity, sexual preference, religion, etc., have differing standards based upon how high or low they place people on their internal social ladder. They seem to perceive white, male, straight Christians as being at the top of the ladder while other variations are limited to the lower rungs. Those at the top are also perceived as a group rather than as individuals and that entire top group of ladder dwellers are expected to relinquish their personal beliefs and conscience in favor of everyone else perceived to be inferior. This makes everyone feel better about themselves as it wouldn't be fair to hold the lower castes to the same standards because, well, they're lower on the observers social hierarchy scale through no fault of their own and should receive special accommodation.

    So, if you go to 10 Muslim bakers and ask them to violate their personal belief structure, and they all refuse, you should probably go to a non-Muslim baker and hope you have better luck. That's the conservative way, that you've asked someone to violate their beliefs and they rightfully refused so you move on. But, if you go to 100 white Christian bakers in order to find one who is willing to stand his/her ground and not violate their beliefs, that person must be brought to heel. That's the SJW way because acquiring the finished product is not the point, it's punishing those who do not act the way you want them to.

    The question isn't answered because it would expose the fact that they don't have enough respect for the lower castes to hold them to the same standard and would also expose the same biases that the Colorado board used against the Christian baker and were so rightly struck down by the Supremes.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  5. #35
    Senior Member flowerseverywhere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,306
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    Yes I did, and it was not answered. I have a theory for that if anyone's interested.

    It seems to me that those who view society through a lens of outside factors, such as gender, ethnicity, sexual preference, religion, etc., have differing standards based upon how high or low they place people on their internal social ladder. They seem to perceive white, male, straight Christians as being at the top of the ladder while other variations are limited to the lower rungs. Those at the top are also perceived as a group rather than as individuals and that entire top group of ladder dwellers are expected to relinquish their personal beliefs and conscience in favor of everyone else perceived to be inferior. This makes everyone feel better about themselves as it wouldn't be fair to hold the lower castes to the same standards because, well, they're lower on the observers social hierarchy scale through no fault of their own and should receive special accommodation.

    So, if you go to 10 Muslim bakers and ask them to violate their personal belief structure, and they all refuse, you should probably go to a non-Muslim baker and hope you have better luck. That's the conservative way, that you've asked someone to violate their beliefs and they rightfully refused so you move on. But, if you go to 100 white Christian bakers in order to find one who is willing to stand his/her ground and not violate their beliefs, that person must be brought to heel. That's the SJW way because acquiring the finished product is not the point, it's punishing those who do not act the way you want them to.

    The question isn't answered because it would expose the fact that they don't have enough respect for the lower castes to hold them to the same standard and would also expose the same biases that the Colorado board used against the Christian baker and were so rightly struck down by the Supremes.
    I believe much of what you say is true

    all Mexicans are rapists and murderers so let’s build a wall. Perhaps this is more acceptable:
    A wall of some type is not a bad idea in many areas, as well as enforcement of our immigration walls. This will help screen immigrants who come to work or visit, while helping keep out drug dealers etc.
    Women who have abortions are murderers vs. each case is unique and matters are best left between patients and their physicians. I will support planned parenthood since they provide so much preventitive and birth control care since I know federal money cannot be used for abortions.

    Unfortunately for for some reason we are a very judgmental and mean species. However, it’s great to be the king, or at least have a seat at the table.

  6. #36
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    3,866
    Quote Originally Posted by herbgeek View Post
    What if I was a religous baker and someone wanted me to write something obscene/vulgar/anti-my-religion on a cake. Do I have the right to say "sorry, I won't do that"?
    Actually yes, at least in Colorado. Around the same time as the Masterpiece Cake situation was happening another bakery, Azucar cakes was approached by a customer who wanted a bible shaped cake but with it decorated with things like a picture of two men holding hands and a circle with a slash over it, and various extremely paraphrashed bible verses that supposedly show that jesus hates gays. The bakery had done plenty of bible cakes and was even owned by a Catholic woman. Despite knowing what he wanted the cake to say she agreed to make a bible cake but refused to do the customization of in the way he wanted. She did, however, even offer to sell him frosting and one of those bags that one uses to write with frosting on cakes, so that he could put whatever message on it he wanted. That seems reasonable to me. She was willing to sell him a product that was "generic" and routinely available to any other customer and even the tools to customize it in a way she found offensive so that she wouldn't have to create the offensive message herself.

    In contrast, in the Masterpiece situation the owner of the bakery shut down the discussion before there was ever any talk of customization. He simply refused to make even a generic wedding cake for the couple. I'm willing to accept that a cakemaker may not be willing to write "Charlie and David. Love Forever" or whatever the plaintiffs may have wanted inscribed on the cake, but it never got to that point. THe owner simply refused to bake any wedding cake, even a completely generic one that he would have sold to any straight couple.

    In my perfect world people wouldn't be using religion to justify hating a certain group of people. But the world will never be perfect. So I'd at least be willing to accept as a minimum that a gay couple can go into any business and buy any product that is 100% the same as what they could buy if they were a straight couple.

    Back in the jim crow era black people planning to take road trips would buy "The Negro Motorist Green Book" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ne...ist_Green_Book because there were not many motels, car repair places, and restaurants that would serve black people because of the "strongly held" beliefs of the owners that they shouldn't have to. It would be really sad if we have to create a modern day version of it for gay people who want to get married but don't happen to live near a large, progressive metropolitan area.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •