It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Well we don't have to go hypothetical here because we know the specifics of the case. And it is discriminatory in that the baker is not going to tell everyone to take the cake home and write whatever they want on it. Baker would have to not do communicative decorations at all for anyone in order to fall under your definition.
originally posted by: kaylaluv
originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
But the baker is still discriminating, making a distinction, based on their own personal views. The other guy wasn't allowed to do that.
The customer here was trying to get the baker to decorate a cake in a manner that is obviously offensive to the baker personally. For the christian baker it was was no less offensive really than putting two men's name on a wedding cake or a figurine of two men.
Nope. Not the same thing. For example, a baker could decide that they won't make a cake that looks like a penis. They won't do it for ANYONE - not for a group of heterosexual women having a bachelorette party, nor for a group of gays.
If the baker agreed to do a penis cake for the heterosexual women, but not do the exact same cake for the gays - THAT is being discriminatory.
This baker won't decorate a cake with an anti-gay message for ANYONE - not for a Jew, not for a Christian, not for an atheist - no one. That is not discriminatory.
originally posted by: Logarock
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Logarock
Bullcrap. In the first case, the gay people were DENIED service. It's not like the bakers made the cake, sold it to them, then made them decorate it with gay themes or anything. They flat out refused to sell them a cake. The bakery in the OP would have sold the cake, even with most of the requests, but wasn't going to be complicit in slandering a group of people. So the bakery gave the person the instructions and icing to decorate it with on how to do it themselves.
Any part of service comes into play here. The guy should get a medal or something because he still offered to make the dam thing? This is like serving blacks out the back door.
originally posted by: Logarock
Well we don't have to go hypothetical here because we know the specifics of the case. And it is discriminatory in that the baker is not going to tell everyone to take the cake home and write whatever they want on it. Baker would have to not do communicative decorations at all for anyone in order to fall under your definition.
originally posted by: kaylaluv
originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
But the baker is still discriminating, making a distinction, based on their own personal views. The other guy wasn't allowed to do that.
The customer here was trying to get the baker to decorate a cake in a manner that is obviously offensive to the baker personally. For the christian baker it was was no less offensive really than putting two men's name on a wedding cake or a figurine of two men.
Nope. Not the same thing. For example, a baker could decide that they won't make a cake that looks like a penis. They won't do it for ANYONE - not for a group of heterosexual women having a bachelorette party, nor for a group of gays.
If the baker agreed to do a penis cake for the heterosexual women, but not do the exact same cake for the gays - THAT is being discriminatory.
This baker won't decorate a cake with an anti-gay message for ANYONE - not for a Jew, not for a Christian, not for an atheist - no one. That is not discriminatory.
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
originally posted by: Logarock
But the baker is still discriminating, making a distinction, based on their own personal views.
She (the baker) discriminated (nonlegal term) against the decorations, not the person. And she wasn't discriminating (legal term) against the customer based on his religion, which is what I assume he was trying to prove (ineffectively).
For the christian baker it was was no less offensive really than putting two men's name on a wedding cake or a figurine of two men.
The gay couple didn't ask for two men's names or a figurine of two men.
originally posted by: Logarock
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
originally posted by: Logarock
But the baker is still discriminating, making a distinction, based on their own personal views.
She (the baker) discriminated (nonlegal term) against the decorations, not the person. And she wasn't discriminating (legal term) against the customer based on his religion, which is what I assume he was trying to prove (ineffectively).
For the christian baker it was was no less offensive really than putting two men's name on a wedding cake or a figurine of two men.
The gay couple didn't ask for two men's names or a figurine of two men.
So its was a matter of conscience for the baker? Based on her world view ect. Wow sounds familiar.
originally posted by: Logarock
Well we don't have to go hypothetical here because we know the specifics of the case. And it is discriminatory in that the baker is not going to tell everyone to take the cake home and write whatever they want on it. Baker would have to not do communicative decorations at all for anyone in order to fall under your definition.
originally posted by: TheArrow
originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
But the baker is still discriminating, making a distinction, based on their own personal views. The other guy wasn't allowed to do that.
The customer here was trying to get the baker to decorate a cake in a manner that is obviously offensive to the baker personally. For the christian baker it was was no less offensive really than putting two men's name on a wedding cake or a figurine of two men.
If the baker won't write hate speech for anyone, it is not discriminatory for him not to do it for the man that asked for it.
He wont write anti-homosexual messages.
He wont write anti-christian messages.
He won't write anti-muslim messages.
He won't write anti-democrat messages.
He won't write anti-republican messages.
He won't write anti-dog messages.
He won't write anti-mexican messages.
Not wanting to write hate speech for anyone isn't discriminatory.
The only way this guy has a leg to stand on is if he can find a time when the baker did write some hate speech on a cake. Which I doubt will happen.
originally posted by: peskyhumans
Sorry but it's the same thing as forcing a Christian baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding. If you expect Christian bakers to bake your gay wedding cakes then gay bakers better be able to bake Christian cakes for Christians.
Take your hypocrisy and suck it down.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: Logarock
Well we don't have to go hypothetical here because we know the specifics of the case. And it is discriminatory in that the baker is not going to tell everyone to take the cake home and write whatever they want on it. Baker would have to not do communicative decorations at all for anyone in order to fall under your definition.
originally posted by: kaylaluv
originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
But the baker is still discriminating, making a distinction, based on their own personal views. The other guy wasn't allowed to do that.
The customer here was trying to get the baker to decorate a cake in a manner that is obviously offensive to the baker personally. For the christian baker it was was no less offensive really than putting two men's name on a wedding cake or a figurine of two men.
Nope. Not the same thing. For example, a baker could decide that they won't make a cake that looks like a penis. They won't do it for ANYONE - not for a group of heterosexual women having a bachelorette party, nor for a group of gays.
If the baker agreed to do a penis cake for the heterosexual women, but not do the exact same cake for the gays - THAT is being discriminatory.
This baker won't decorate a cake with an anti-gay message for ANYONE - not for a Jew, not for a Christian, not for an atheist - no one. That is not discriminatory.
so its discrimination against gays vs discrimination against homophobic bigots.
i love where this is going.
Again is it really the bakers place to discriminate against anyone?
originally posted by: peskyhumans
Sorry but it's the same thing as forcing a Christian baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
If you expect Christian bakers to bake your gay wedding cakes then gay bakers better be able to bake Christian cakes for Christians.
Take your hypocrisy and suck it down.
originally posted by: Logarock
So its was a matter of conscience for the baker? Based on her world view ect.
Again is it really the bakers place to discriminate against anyone? Her poor conscience was being violated? What ever happened to the old burger slogan "anyway you like it".
originally posted by: Logarock
Well we don't have to go hypothetical here because we know the specifics of the case. And it is discriminatory in that the baker is not going to tell everyone to take the cake home and write whatever they want on it. Baker would have to not do communicative decorations at all for anyone in order to fall under your definition.
originally posted by: kaylaluv
originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
But the baker is still discriminating, making a distinction, based on their own personal views. The other guy wasn't allowed to do that.
The customer here was trying to get the baker to decorate a cake in a manner that is obviously offensive to the baker personally. For the christian baker it was was no less offensive really than putting two men's name on a wedding cake or a figurine of two men.
Nope. Not the same thing. For example, a baker could decide that they won't make a cake that looks like a penis. They won't do it for ANYONE - not for a group of heterosexual women having a bachelorette party, nor for a group of gays.
If the baker agreed to do a penis cake for the heterosexual women, but not do the exact same cake for the gays - THAT is being discriminatory.
This baker won't decorate a cake with an anti-gay message for ANYONE - not for a Jew, not for a Christian, not for an atheist - no one. That is not discriminatory.