Topic: Baker refuses to write "God Hates Gays" on cake, now facing civil rights complaint
beckyderp !4aMoRa.T2Q started this discussion 11 years ago #39,890
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later[^] [v] #531,085
The complainant is a butthurt, shit-stirring bigot that will be laughed out of court.
The bakery owner did not refuse accommodation but instead offered reasonable alternatives.
The bakery owner did not refuse accommodation but instead offered reasonable alternatives.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 20 minutes later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #531,086
plays sad violin
Metæ joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 13 minutes later, 35 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #531,093
When did wedding cakes become a civil right??
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 37 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #531,094
@OP
How do you think this would play out in court, assuming they don't settle and it actually goes to trial?
How do you think this would play out in court, assuming they don't settle and it actually goes to trial?
(Edited 15 seconds later.)
beckyderp !4aMoRa.T2Q (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 40 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #531,096
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
It's a civil rights commission thing, which I have basically no knowledge of.
I would think someone like an ACLU or somebody would take on the defense pro bono for publicity. But on second thought, which side would the ACLU actually be on here?? It's very strange.
It's a civil rights commission thing, which I have basically no knowledge of.
I would think someone like an ACLU or somebody would take on the defense pro bono for publicity. But on second thought, which side would the ACLU actually be on here?? It's very strange.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 41 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #531,097
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 27 seconds later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #531,098
beckyderp !4aMoRa.T2Q (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 30 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #531,101
@previous (G)
The baker's. The difference between this and won't-sell-wedding-cakes-to-gays is that this guy was demanding a specific message, whereas the gays were denied service simply for who they were. I'm comfortable with civil rights laws enforcing must-sell-to-everyone but not a specific message.
I do wonder where that will go with actual religious organizations, though - should churches have to perform gay marriages? I don't think so, but I can't articulate a good dividing line.
The baker's. The difference between this and won't-sell-wedding-cakes-to-gays is that this guy was demanding a specific message, whereas the gays were denied service simply for who they were. I'm comfortable with civil rights laws enforcing must-sell-to-everyone but not a specific message.
I do wonder where that will go with actual religious organizations, though - should churches have to perform gay marriages? I don't think so, but I can't articulate a good dividing line.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #531,104
@previous (beckyderp !4aMoRa.T2Q)
Churches are clearly pseudo-private membership organizations. They have criteria for entry and acceptance that are historically based on behaviors and substance. On top of that all, I think the most important factor is they do not charge competitive market rates for their services and therefore are not fully a part of interstate commerce.
Churches are clearly pseudo-private membership organizations. They have criteria for entry and acceptance that are historically based on behaviors and substance. On top of that all, I think the most important factor is they do not charge competitive market rates for their services and therefore are not fully a part of interstate commerce.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #531,107
beckyderp !4aMoRa.T2Q (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #531,110
@531,104 (H)
I'm not sure where the interstate commerce thing is coming from - the 13th amendment allows for regulation of private conduct apart from any commercial purpose. There's no need for interstate commerce to be involved in order for the government to regulate private conduct that involves civil rights.
I'm not sure where the interstate commerce thing is coming from - the 13th amendment allows for regulation of private conduct apart from any commercial purpose. There's no need for interstate commerce to be involved in order for the government to regulate private conduct that involves civil rights.
Anonymous H replied with this 11 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #531,112
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 3 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #531,146
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 5 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #531,205
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 2 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #531,220
He should put on the cake, spelled with AIDS cum