Left Hypocrisy on Serve / No Serve; Don't Tell Me 'Both Sides Do It'

a reply to: ElGoobero

When you make a cake for a wedding, you are not involved in the wedding. You are involved in making a cake. You do not even have to hand deliver the thing if you make it a certain way. You can get a delivery driver to do it, or have the customer pick the cake up themselves if that seems agreeable. Unless you are being asked to take part in the ceremony, or hang out at the reception, the chances are that all you did was bake a cake.

Performing live at a political function however is very different. Agreement to do so implies support in a way that baking a cake simply does not, and involves the performer in the function with which they disagree, in a way that baking a cake does not. Simply put, there are some pretty obvious differences to anyone without an agenda to parade around like morning wood in a frat house, that separate these situations rather clearly.

a reply to: UKTruth

The fact that I would also defend the Christian baker refusing to decorate a wedding cake with two men's hands and the words "Stephen loves Michael" proves the lack of hypocrisy.

You guys are really trying hard to catch me, but you are failing miserably.

Jesus this is America, cant we just do whatever the eff we want? If she does not want to sing let her not sing someone else will.

If they dont want to do a gay wedding someone else will. People need to stop forcing their agenda on everyone else.

Left and right.

a reply to: goou111

"she" is more in tune of what I would call an employee, and as such, it is all at the whim of others in the organization who would decide who she should be signing to...
this time, some of the "shes" lucked out and those others changed their policy and those shes won't have to sing since there's standbys available to take their places. one she though, just resigned... of course, her position was an unpaid volunteer position, it's just some of the crazies now think that we should have the power to force volunteers to do crap they don't want to do...
and so, we are stuck yacking about wedding cakes and businesses, as if there is any relevance between them and the performers.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: UKTruth

The fact that I would also defend the Christian baker refusing to decorate a wedding cake with two men's hands and the words "Stephen loves Michael" proves the lack of hypocrisy.

You guys are really trying hard to catch me, but you are failing miserably.

You just made up a scenario and hypothetically said you'd be ok with it - again to cover you hypocrisy. Unfortunately, your posting history does not lend credence to that being an honest position. Regardless the writing on the cake is irrelevant as it is a bespoke service being offered and no offensive words were requested. The reason for the refusal was 100% bigotry against gay people.
Hate to break it to you, but you were caught ages ago and have to resort to trying to convince yourself you covered your gaff. Always a dead give away.

a reply to: UKTruth

It's sad that you have to lie to cover your loss of the argument. You are lying because you will never find a post by me that says the Christian bakers should be forced to decorate a cake in a way that is offensive to them. In fact, there are posts I have made in the past that say just the opposite.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: UKTruth

It's sad that you have to lie to cover your loss of the argument. You are lying because you will never find a post by me that says the Christian bakers should be forced to decorate a cake in a way that is offensive to them. In fact, there are posts I have made in the past that say just the opposite.

No I won't find one, because you just made up the scenario to cover your hypocrisy. But we've all seen your ideology at work.
Anyway, crack on, dear.

You still can't explain:
1) why a bespoke service has anything to do with the 'same product' for everyone.
2) what is offensive about 'Stephen loves Michael'

For some reason, and it's becoming clear that it is political ideology, you can't bring yourself to admit that the Muslim bakers in question were being bigoted.

a reply to: UKTruth

Why does it matter that they were being bigoted? They still have the right to refuse to make the decoration.

a reply to: UKTruth

And you can't bring yourself to admit that I am not as concerned with personal feelings as I am with actions that don't allow someone of a certain race/gender/nationality/sexual orientation to buy what everyone else gets to buy.

Do I find a penis offensive? No I do not. Would I find it offensive to decorate a cake with a penis on it for a bachelorette party? No, I would not. There is nothing offensive about a penis -it's a normal part of a man's anatomy.

Would someone else find it offensive to decorate a penis on a cake? Sure. Should that person have to decorate a penis on a cake even though they advertise customized decorations? No, they should not.

However, if a baker agrees to decorate a penis on a cake for a heterosexual bachelorette party, but refuses to decorate that same penis on a cake for a gay party - I have a problem with that.

The Muslim bakers may be bigoted, sure. But they shouldn't have to decorate a cake in any way that they find personally offensive. Neither should the Christian baker, who may also be bigoted. I expect the same from the Muslim baker that I expect from the Christian baker - sell the same product to the gay couple that you would sell to everyone else. No hypocrisy there.

Muslim baker - bigoted, but doesn't refuse to sell a regular wedding cake to a gay couple.

Christian baker - bigoted, but DOES refuse to sell a regular wedding cake to a gay couple.

See the difference there? Do you see why I have a problem with the Christian baker, but not with the Muslim baker, even though both may be bigoted?

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: UKTruth

And you can't bring yourself to admit that I am not as concerned with personal feelings as I am with actions that don't allow someone of a certain race/gender/nationality/sexual orientation to buy what everyone else gets to buy.

Do I find a penis offensive? No I do not. Would I find it offensive to decorate a cake with a penis on it for a bachelorette party? No, I would not. There is nothing offensive about a penis -it's a normal part of a man's anatomy.

Would someone else find it offensive to decorate a penis on a cake? Sure. Should that person have to decorate a penis on a cake even though they advertise customized decorations? No, they should not.

However, if a baker agrees to decorate a penis on a cake for a heterosexual bachelorette party, but refuses to decorate that same penis on a cake for a gay party - I have a problem with that.

The Muslim bakers may be bigoted, sure. But they shouldn't have to decorate a cake in any way that they find personally offensive. Neither should the Christian baker, who may also be bigoted. I expect the same from the Muslim baker that I expect from the Christian baker - sell the same product to the gay couple that you would sell to everyone else. No hypocrisy there.

Muslim baker - bigoted, but doesn't refuse to sell a regular wedding cake to a gay couple.

Christian baker - bigoted, but DOES refuse to sell a regular wedding cake to a gay couple.

See the difference there? Do you see why I have a problem with the Christian baker, but not with the Muslim baker, even though both may be bigoted?

Why are you making the writing something different to what it was?
It was a simple non offensive message. Stop trying to make up scenarios to deflect.
In both instances services were refused because the service providers had a problem with gays. It's that simple.

a reply to: UKTruth

Nothing wrong with having a problem with gays. The problem is with refusing to sell the same product to one person that you sell to everyone else because they are gay. The Muslim baker didn't do that, but the Christian baker did.

a reply to: ElGoobero

The difference is that the bakers and photographers who refuse to serve LGBT, people of color, people of a different ethnicity, etc...are attacking people for their inborn traits. They're attacking people for the way they were born.

People protesting Drumpf are protesting his words and actions. The man is disgusting. That fact has nothing to do with his skin color, his religion, his sexuality or any other inborn traits. He's just a disgusting human being, so are his supporters.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: UKTruth

Why does it matter that they were being bigoted?

Tell that to all the Trump supporters you guys accused of being bigots all that time for just voting for him.


You people are so fake it makes me cringe.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: UKTruth

Nothing wrong with having a problem with gays. The problem is with refusing to sell the same product to one person that you sell to everyone else because they are gay. The Muslim baker didn't do that, but the Christian baker did.

Same product irrelevant argument again. It was a bespoke service.

originally posted by: everyone

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: UKTruth

Why does it matter that they were being bigoted?

Tell that to all the Trump supporters you guys accused of being bigots all that time for just voting for him.


You people are so fake it makes me cringe.

Huh? You don't know me.

originally posted by: everyone

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: UKTruth

Why does it matter that they were being bigoted?

Tell that to all the Trump supporters you guys accused of being bigots all that time for just voting for him.


You people are so fake it makes me cringe.

The thing is their total hypocrisy is being exposed daily and it's joyous to watch. We've got front row seats to the entire scam being ripped apart day by day.

originally posted by: NotTooHappy
a reply to: ElGoobero

The difference is that the bakers and photographers who refuse to serve LGBT, people of color, people of a different ethnicity, etc...are attacking people for their inborn traits. They're attacking people for the way they were born.

People protesting Drumpf are protesting his words and actions. The man is disgusting. That fact has nothing to do with his skin color, his religion, his sexuality or any other inborn traits. He's just a disgusting human being, so are his supporters.

Actual racism and bigotry is ok then, when it suits the left. Then again that has been made obvious for some time now.

a reply to: UKTruth

A bespoke service doesn't mean you have to decorate whatever someone wants you to, no matter what it is.

Your argument is irrelevant yet again.

originally posted by: NotTooHappy
a reply to: ElGoobero

The difference is that the bakers and photographers who refuse to serve LGBT, people of color, people of a different ethnicity, etc...are attacking people for their inborn traits. They're attacking people for the way they were born.

People protesting Drumpf are protesting his words and actions. The man is disgusting. That fact has nothing to do with his skin color, his religion, his sexuality or any other inborn traits. He's just a disgusting human being, so are his supporters.

There is so much wrong your post.
Firstly, who decides the circumstances where it is OK to discriminate? Oh let me guess, the law.... funny how social justice warriors rail against laws and try to change them when it suits, but let discrimination in other forms slide because it's legal. More hypocrisy.
Secondly, Trump is continually attacked for his inborn traits - but not just silence from the putrid left, but they are actually the ones doing it.
Like I said, everything about the SJW movements utter hypocrisy is being exposed daily. I'd be surprised if people can even look at them without vomiting in a couple of years.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: UKTruth

A bespoke service doesn't mean you have to decorate whatever someone wants you to, no matter what it is.

Your argument is irrelevant yet again.

More deflection.
It's not a case of "no matter what it is."
We know what is WAS. "Stephen loves Michael".
Pray tell what is offensive about that?
Or you could just admit that the words are not offensive at all and it's just discriminating and refusing service because the person asking for service is gay. You can try and make up scenarios and generalise all you want, but we KNOW the circumstances. Try and discuss them instead of deflecting.