[Chongo]

In other court mandated news.
Colorado baker to stop making wedding cakes after losing discrimination case - CBS News

DENVER - The owner of a bakery in Lakewood said he will no longer sell wedding cakes after the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled he did discriminate against a gay couple when he refused to sell them a cake.

[The Final Dakar]

I'm curious what he'll be pursuing as a business or employment if he has a problem with dealing with teh gays. Maybe Russia is in his future.

[Shaddim]

He should have the right to serve whom he wants to serve. It's as absurd as not having gay marriage in the first place. I usually react the same way, try to force me do anything and I'll go out of my way to thumb my nose at you, no matter what it costs.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'm curious what he'll be pursuing as a business or employment if he has a problem with dealing with teh gays. Maybe Russia is in his future.

Wedding cakes were only a small portion of his bakery business.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

He should have the right to serve whom he wants to serve. It's as absurd as not having gay marriage in the first place. I usually react the same way, try to force me do anything and I'll go out of my way to thumb my nose at you, no matter what it costs.

I vaguely recall this discussion having played out earlier, but I forget how it dealt with racists. Low chanting of "The free market, rah rah"?

I don't think I specified earlier, but if this is a lesser of two evils kind of situation, I'd rather see the discriminators get a hard time rather than the discriminated. They'll be compensated with money, after all.

[Chongo]

The ruling includes mandatory "sensitivity training" AKA "political reeducation" which he says he and his staff (mother and sister) will not attend.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I vaguely recall this discussion having played out earlier, but I forget how it dealt with racists. Low chanting of "The free market, rah rah"?

I don't think I specified earlier, but if this is a lesser of two evils kind of situation, I'd rather see the discriminators get a hard time rather than the discriminated. They'll be compensated with money, after all.

It's not a lesser of two evils situation, it's individual rights vs discrimination (not racism, gays aren't a "race"). I can see if it's a life or health-threatening situation, but it's a bakery for Christ's sake. Most people don't mind if others are forced to do things that make them feel uncomfortable, until it's their turn to be put in that situation.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

It's not a lesser of two evils situation, it's individual rights vs discrimination (not racism, gays aren't a "race").

Limiting rights is a negative. Discrimination is a negative. Hence, two evils.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I can see if it's a life or health-threatening situation, but it's a bakery for Christ's sake.

Well I'm sure we can all come up with a list of places where discrimination can and can't be exercised because of necessity. Sounds easy.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Most people don't mind if others are forced to do things that make them feel uncomfortable, until it's their turn to be put in that situation.

Except people are nuts and will feel uncomfortable dealing with nearly anybody or anything, if left to their own devices.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Limiting rights is a negative. Discrimination is a negative. Hence, two evils.

Ahh, I may see part of the issue here. I personally don't see denying a couple a wedding cake from a specific bakery as "evil", it's just a position I don't agree with. It's more categorized as "benign ignorance".

Baking people who are different is truly evil, declining to bake a cake for their wedding is not.

Well I'm sure we can all come up with a list of places where discrimination can and can't be exercised because of necessity. Sounds easy.

Hospital ER staff, EMTs, firemen, police officers, etc.. Those are the types of jobs where I see forced service as a necessity, because the preservation of life and limb is more vital than an individual's moral conundrum.

Except people are nuts and will feel uncomfortable dealing with nearly anybody or anything, if left to their own devices.

Sure, and they have a right to deny anyone they want, at any time, unless it's a true emergency. Being fair and/or nice isn't a requirement, I'll never be published in Azizah, despite having submitted numerous articles. They don't have to see social issues from my perspective.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Ahh, I may see part of the issue here. I personally don't see denying a couple a wedding cake from a specific bakery as "evil", it's just a position I don't agree with. It's more categorized as "benign ignorance".

That's great, but when talking about discrimination being evil, I'm speaking overall. You keep trying to say discrimination isn't evil because of this instance. This instance isn't the end all be all of discrimination.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Sure, and they have a right to deny anyone they want, at any time, unless it's a true emergency.

Are we talking in theoreticals here? Reality is you're wrong.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That's great, but when talking about discrimination being evil, I'm speaking overall. You keep trying to say discrimination isn't evil because of this instance. This instance isn't the end all be all of discrimination.

We have to look at issues like this on a case-by-case basis, otherwise we'll be painting society with a broad brush and will eventually cover everyone's civil liberties in the process.

Are we talking in theoreticals here? Reality is you're wrong.

What the courts are ruling and what the laws say are two different things. Activism from the bench isn't any better than legislation forcing moral conformity. It isn't the way to correct moral imbalance and only serves to further broaden the gulf between various ideologies (see Louisiana).

[subego]

To repeat where I came down on this, I have a wider scope where I'd like discrimination laws to apply than Shaddim, but it isn't so wide as to include professional wedding photographs or custom-made cakes.

[Chongo]

Its gone from a plea for tolerance to conquest. Welcome to Oceania.

[subego]

Laying it on a bit thick there, eh?

[Chongo]

Nope.
Baker forced to make gay wedding cakes, undergo sensitivity training, after losing lawsuit | Fox News

A family owned bakery has been ordered to make wedding cakes for gay couples and guarantee that its staff be given comprehensive training on Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws after the state’s Civil Rights Commission determined the Christian baker violated the law by refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, in Lakewood, Colorado was directed to change his store policies immediately and force his staff to attend the training sessions. For the next two years, Phillips will also be required to submit quarterly reports to the commission to confirm that he has not turned away customers based on their sexual orientation.

Think of it as reverse conversion therapy (or straight man’s rehab) so that the state can mandate diversity through conformity.

[andi*pandi]

Well, he can choose not to make wedding cakes, but last I heard, gay people also eat bread. So...

It's an anti-discrimination LAW. What else could/should be done to those who break it? While this training sounds a little 1984, there are other government sponsored mandatory education programs for law violators. Safe driving classes for traffic violations comes to mind.

If we make a list of people who HAVE to obey discrimination laws, and then those who MAYBE KINDA have to obey those laws, then, well... doesn't that open other doors for people to ignore other laws?

HAVE TO FOLLOW LAWS:
Police
Firefighters
Ambulance Drivers
Non-Catholic Hospitals
landlords

CAN IGNORE LAWS:
Catholic Hospitals
Christian cake bakers, photographers, landlords, shop owners, etsy sellers
Joe's Deli

???

edit: also, that fox "article" is just smarmy.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

We have to look at issues like this on a case-by-case basis, otherwise we'll be painting society with a broad brush and will eventually cover everyone's civil liberties in the process.

So basically you want a society where it becomes a crapshoot as to whether you're going to be able to get run-of-the-mill services. Sorry, I find that absurd.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

What the courts are ruling and what the laws say are two different things. Activism from the bench isn't any better than legislation forcing moral conformity. It isn't the way to correct moral imbalance and only serves to further broaden the gulf between various ideologies (see Louisiana).

That's legislative, not judicial, and further its transparently obvious that their concerns about "safety" are cover for their real goal of making abortions harder to get.

While I'm sure Chongo has some fascinating conspiracy theory, do you have some proposition as to the ulterior motive of antidiscrimination laws other than being able to do shit without getting grief?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Well, he can choose not to make wedding cakes, but last I heard, gay people also eat bread. So...

He's not averse to selling other goods to gays, his problem comes from specifically making them wedding cakes. He sees it as an endorsement of an immoral practice (gays getting married) and doesn't want to have it appear that his company supports it.

It's an anti-discrimination LAW. What else could/should be done to those who break it? While this training sounds a little 1984, there are other government sponsored mandatory education programs for law violators. Safe driving classes for traffic violations comes to mind.

If we make a list of people who HAVE to obey discrimination laws, and then those who MAYBE KINDA have to obey those laws, then, well... doesn't that open other doors for people to ignore other laws?

Not to sound flippant, here, but I often ignore silly laws. Just because someone has codified a ridiculous idea doesn't mean it has to be followed. Many people engage in civil disobedience, it has a place and a purpose.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So basically you want a society where it becomes a crapshoot as to whether you're going to be able to get run-of-the-mill services. Sorry, I find that absurd.

I find it absurd that someone should give up their values to provide comparatively trivial services to people they don't wish to associate with.

That's legislative, not judicial, and further its transparently obvious that their concerns about "safety" are cover for their real goal of making abortions harder to get.

While I'm sure Chongo has some fascinating conspiracy theory, do you have some proposition as to the ulterior motive of antidiscrimination laws other than being able to do shit without getting grief?

That was my point. The law shouldn't be involved in morality issues. Stay out of a woman's reproductive choices and stay out of an individual's choice in whom they wish to do business with. Both are personal decisions. If a neo-Nazi/Klansman (I know of many) comes to my garage, and we know they are, we'll refuse service. If they want to sue, I have very competent attorneys.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Nope.
Baker forced to make gay wedding cakes, undergo sensitivity training, after losing lawsuit | Fox News

This is the citizens of Colorado thinking it's a good idea to give non-judicial government appointees the authority to penalize you.

It's stupid, I'll grant you that, but conquest?

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So basically you want a society where it becomes a crapshoot as to whether you're going to be able to get run-of-the-mill services. Sorry, I find that absurd.

I think the idea has philosophical merit. The problem becomes when an individual doesn't have the freedom of movement to go someplace else.

Freedom of movement directly correlates with how much money you have.

Therefore, goods and services which are reasonably expected to be needed by poor people should not be allowed to discriminate.

What frosts my ass about this Colorado ruling is these individuals clearly have freedom of movement. They got married in Massachusetts FFS, because gay marriage isn't even legal in Colorado (figure that one out).

So these jokers, who have stated they never want to set foot in the shop again, have both given him a ****ton of free publicity, and have forced someone who I'm sure they consider a homophobe to make cakes for their gay weddings... in a state where it's not even legal to have a gay wedding.

[Golf clap]

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Not to sound flippant, here, but I often ignore silly laws.

I read this three times in a row as "I ignore silly Jews".

But in regards to what you actually wrote, I'm in 100% agreement.

This will sound flip as well, but I care far more about justice than law... and they're very, very different things.

Edit: this is why I'm not bothered by illegal immigrants breaking our immigration laws. They're horribly unjust. I wouldn't follow them either.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Not to sound flippant, here, but I often ignore silly laws.

I'm pretty sure this has been said before, but who doesn't. The problem, like anything else, is agreement on what's silly.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I find it absurd that someone should give up their values to provide comparatively trivial services to people they don't wish to associate with.

So should we allow racism, sexism, etc. too in the name of individual freedom? Why should someone have to associate with blacks, etc. Where do you draw the line? If you don't believe in drawing a line, again, I think that's nuts.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

That was my point. The law shouldn't be involved in morality issues.

What you're telling me is baking a cake is immoral. He's not solemnizing a wedding, he's baking a ****ing cake. It will be eaten. This will have zero effect on the acceptance or condemning of gay marriage.

The law not being involved in morality issues is impossible. A lot of law is codifying of morality – stealing, murder, etc.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

If a neo-Nazi/Klansman (I know of many) comes to my garage, and we know they are, we'll refuse service. If they want to sue, I have very competent attorneys.

Here's the fun part, Neo-nazis are not protected from discrimination under the law. They wouldn't have a leg to stand on, AFAIK.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

They got married in Massachusetts FFS, because gay marriage isn't even legal in Colorado (figure that one out).

So these jokers, who have stated they never want to set foot in the shop again, have both given him a ****ton of free publicity, and have forced someone who I'm sure they consider a homophobe to make cakes for their gay weddings... in a state where it's not even legal to have a gay wedding.

[Golf clap]

The state passed a law banning discrimination based on sexual-orientation in 2008. There's obviously some support for same-sex couples in the state.

[subego]

Of course, but you don't see the irony?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Of course, but you don't see the irony?

You're right; I suppose the humor of the situation left me long ago.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'm pretty sure this has been said before, but who doesn't. The problem, like anything else, is agreement on what's silly.

Anything that isn't a threat to life and/or limb could be considered "silly", in the broad scheme of things.

So should we allow racism, sexism, etc. too in the name of individual freedom? Why should someone have to associate with blacks, etc. Where do you draw the line? If you don't believe in drawing a line, again, I think that's nuts.

Yep. I don't agree with a lot that's said and done in this world, but if they're a consenting adult and aren't mangling/killing people, so be it. I fully support anyone's right to be a prejudicial asswipe, just like I support others' rights to not have anything to do with said asswipe.

What you're telling me is baking a cake is immoral. He's not solemnizing a wedding, he's baking a ****ing cake. It will be eaten. This will have zero effect on the acceptance or condemning of gay marriage.

He thinks gay marriage is immoral, and in modern tradition the wedding cake is a central part of the celebration marking the occasion of getting married. It would be a lot like forcing an anti-theist to bake communion wafers, which I think would be wrong as well.

The law not being involved in morality issues is impossible. A lot of law is codifying of morality – stealing, murder, etc.

Those are ethical considerations, not morality. Stealing, murder, fraud, assault, etc. involve direct conflict that generally leads to loss of life, limb, or property. The only thing really being lost when you refuse to bake a cake for someone is the profit, and potential publicity, baking the cake would have generated. No one was hurt in the non-cake-baking fallout.

Here's the fun part, Neo-nazis are not protected from discrimination under the law. They wouldn't have a leg to stand on, AFAIK.

I hate them and the Klan, and everything they stand for, but their rights to speech and liberty aren't any more sacred than anyone else's. That can be just as racist and disgusting as they want to be, provided they aren't injuring others or damaging their property. It's a part of the price for real freedom. The Westboro nutjobs recently protested a gay pride parade nearby, wearing shirts that read "God Hates Fa***ts" and even though I personally wanted to punch them in the face, it's their Constitutional right to express themselves. Just like many of the people in the parade who were carrying signs proclaiming "Jesus said Love Thy Neighbor, Christian = Hypocrite". Equal protection is just that, equal. Westboro jerks should have the right to express themselves, just like I should have the right to tell them to piss off if they came to my garage and ask me to replace a head gasket. "Go to Pep Boys, asshole."

Regarding the cake thing, if I felt the way the baker in Denver felt (I don't) and the government forced me to bake a wedding cake, I'd put bold disclaimers in the icing (in a contrasting color) claiming that said cake was "baked and decorated under duress" and that I don't agree with the subject of the festivities (I wouldn't charge for the work since it didn't meet their specifications). If the government or celebrants complained or made other threats, I'd tell them to shove said cake up their asses.

[subego]

@Dakar

It's a little more galling than funny. Both that the state is fine with barring discrimination while at the same time being discriminatory, and the hollow victory in making someone who you disgust and would never patronize, serve other people like you.

[Chongo]

Nope, not going to happen?

Gay Danish couples win right to marry in church - Telegraph

Homosexual couples in Denmark have won the right to get married in any church they choose, even though nearly one third of the country's priests have said they will refuse to carry out the ceremonies

"I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history."
Francis Cardinal George on the erosion of religous liberty

[subego]

Denmark has a state church. State churches are illegal here.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

Denmark has a state church. State churches are illegal here.

From the article:

The country's parliament voted through the new law on same-sex marriage by a large majority, making it mandatory for all churches to conduct gay marriages

That sounds like more than just the Church of Denmark (Lutheran)

[Shaddim]

Remember, "tolerance" only applies to what they believe is morally acceptable.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

From the article:


That sounds like more than just the Church of Denmark (Lutheran)

Google says that's bullshit by about a 10-to-1 ratio. Even places with names like "lifesitenews.com" and "christiannews.com" say this applies only to the state church.

You've been played.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I fully support anyone's right to be a prejudicial asswipe, just like I support others' rights to not have anything to do with said asswipe.

And I don't. Life is complicated enough without making the simple act of trying to transact business a game of discriminatory russian roulette. There's no societal benefit, either. Quite the opposite.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

He thinks gay marriage is immoral, and in modern tradition the wedding cake is a central part of the celebration marking the occasion of getting married. It would be a lot like forcing an anti-theist to bake communion wafers, which I think would be wrong as well.

You're inferring a wedding cake has some kind religious qualities. It doesn't. It's be like saying flowers are religious because they got used in the ceremony.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

No one was hurt in the non-cake-baking fallout.

I agree with that. But then again, no one would be hurt if a restaurant owner turned away a black family (exceptional circumstances notwithstanding).

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Equal protection is just that, equal

Not exactly. I mean, we've already heard the argument that it doesn't apply to sexual orientation (and it doesn't by letter of the amendment).

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Nope, not going to happen?

Is America like Denmark or are you just pulling any desperate example you can find, ignoring societal and political realities that make it unlikely?

Should I post about how Russia has outlawed being gay and use it as an example of what the right is trying to do?

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Remember, "tolerance" only applies to what they believe is morally acceptable.

Am I to be crucified for the sins of the Danes?

[Shaddim]

We'll likely always be on opposing sides of this, and if you want to force people to do things that they find morally wrong simply to stave off inconvenience, then that's your prerogative. However, I will (figuratively) fight such views from becoming law in my state, with tooth and nail, despite the fact I don't agree with them.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Am I to be crucified for the sins of the Danes?

Are you Danish? Do you want the USA to mimic Denmark, in that regard?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Is America like Denmark or are you just pulling any desperate example you can find, ignoring societal and political realities that make it unlikely?

Should I post about how Russia has outlawed being gay and use it as an example of what the right is trying to do?

It's not desperate considering there's also the Drewitt-Barlow suit aginst the C of E exemption from performing said ceremonies. There have already been suits in the US for not renting halls for same sex ceremonies

Am I to be crucified for the sins of the Danes?

Jesus has that covered already.

[subego]

Perhaps a link to one of those rather than what a state church has to do would be appropriate.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

We'll likely always be on opposing sides of this, and if you want to force people to do things that they find morally wrong simply to stave off inconvenience, then that's your prerogative. However, I will (figuratively) fight such views from becoming law in my state, with tooth and nail, despite the fact I don't agree with them.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

I have one last question before we can agree to disagree. If I'm reading you right, you'd basically be ok if segregated business arose again like in the south because freedom?

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Are you Danish? Do you want the USA to mimic Denmark, in that regard?

I'm may have a drop of scandinavian blood in me. I don't think churches should be forced to wed anyone they don't want to (That's a religious freedom issue), and quite honestly I think the amount americans who do is probably lower than the amount of americans who would outlaw homosexual acts (But maybe not as low as the amount think it's ok to stone homos)

[subego]

"Religious freedom" and "state church" are incompatible concepts.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

It's not desperate considering there's also the Drewitt-Barlow suit aginst the C of E exemption from performing said ceremonies.

That's England. Not the US.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

There have already been suits in the US for not renting halls for same sex ceremonies

Not the same.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Jesus has that covered already.

That's not an answer.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

"Religious freedom" and "state church" are incompatible concepts.

Who are you talking to?

[subego]

Anyone who will listen!

But mainly you in this case, in regards to forcing churches to do things.

The situation where the church isn't forced to so something won't exist if the church is a government entity.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

The situation where the church isn't forced to so something won't exist if the church is a government entity.

Ah, I missed the meaning. Point taken.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I have one last question before we can agree to disagree. If I'm reading you right, you'd basically be ok if segregated business arose again like in the south because freedom?

"Okay"? No I wouldn't. However, if they want to alienate large chunks of the population, enjoy horrible PR, suffer picket lines (which I'd gladly help carry a sign in*), and generally make themselves out to be a social pariah? Sure, they could choose to do that.

I'm may have a drop of scandinavian blood in me. I don't think churches should be forced to wed anyone they don't want to (That's a religious freedom issue), and quite honestly I think the amount americans who do is probably lower than the amount of americans who would outlaw homosexual acts (But maybe not as low as the amount think it's ok to stone homos)

There's no real difference, whether it's in a church or not, religious "freedom" (even the freedom to be a bigot or hypocrite) is guaranteed and should not be infringed.



(*and quite frankly I think certain religious groups should be picketed more often, to let them know we don't appreciate some of their BS)

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

"Okay"? No I wouldn't. However, if they want to alienate large chunks of the population, enjoy horrible PR, suffer picket lines (which I'd gladly help carry a sign in*), and generally make themselves out to be a social pariah? Sure, they could choose to do that.

Ugh. So the answer is yes, you'd be legally ok with that.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

There's no real difference, whether it's in a church or not, religious "freedom" (even the freedom to be a bigot or hypocrite) is guaranteed and should not be infringed.

I had to look back to figure out what started this. How does this answer if I'm to be crucified for the sins of the Danes?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Ugh. So the answer is yes, you'd be legally ok with that.

I had to look back to figure out what started this. How does this answer if I'm to be crucified for the sins of the Danes?

Ugh, how can you be so totalitarian?

I'm not sure why you think there's a difference between provided services, whether it be presiding over a ceremony or baking a cake. Either way you're forcing someone to work against their will. In for a penny, in for a pound.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Ugh, how can you be so totalitarian?

The current status quo is totalitarian?

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I'm not sure why you think there's a difference between provided services, whether it be presiding over a ceremony or baking a cake. Either way you're forcing someone to work against their will. In for a penny, in for a pound.

I already underscored the difference a few posts back. Needless to say, you disagree.

[Shaddim]

Yes, the "status quo" in some locales is messed up, it's simple statist thuggery and not much different than forced labor, TBH.

Of course I disagree, forcing a person to work against their will is wrong, at least as wrong as the bigoted views that started it all in the first place. Two wrongs aren't better than one, even if you feel you're correcting a moral injustice.

[The Final Dakar]

Forced labor = providing your normal business services without discrimination. Talk about melodramatic.