Continuation of our previous threads:

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2076637
https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2076297


ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> "You can't eat in my diner because you're black,
> but you can go to the diner across the street --
> they take black people. See, I'm not preventing
> you from dining."
>
> Yeah, the "willingness to refer" is nothing but a
> dodge. It doesn't hold up.


Nope it's a false analogy. No evidence was presented showing any bias against gay people. They're free to buy and eat all the ready-made baked goods they want. The baker is not saying, "No gays allowed." They're saying, "Yes, we make wedding cakes, but we don't make gay wedding cakes. Here, you can buy theses generic cakes we make and decorate them however you wish, or check out this competitor of mine."

I believe the SCOTUS will find this is pretty much the same as a photographer politely declining to shoot boudoir shots. Yes, they are a photographer, yes, you are free to purchase any prints they display in their studio, but no, you are not free to force them to perform work that is against their conscience.

You're just resorting to a red herring fallacy. Until somebody actually suggests your absurd suggestion be included in the framework of baking cakes for gay weddings, maybe tone down your bombast a bit?

My men's clothing store only supplies clothes to men, even though women are a protected class and also need clothing. When they turn women away referring them to The Gap, they're not bigots or misogynists, nor are the violating any law. They just don't sell that type of clothing. And women are free to buy any clothing they want off the rack. They're not free to insist that the clothier create clothing for their specific needs.

Weddings and their accompanying support structure are not a human right or a basic human need. In the minds of many Americans, gay weddings are fundamentally different from heterosexual weddings. Those people are entitled to have their opinion, and not be coerced by government to work against their will to provide a good or service. This is especially true when their opinions are rooted in their religious beliefs. And to suggest that one citizen should be compelled by the government to use their artistic talents to create a superfluous, non-essential good or service for another citizen is a bizarre example of an authoritarian state.

Homosexuality is a behavior, not a race or gender. You cannot tell a person's sexuality by looking at them. And many of the world's religions still consider homosexuality to be among a series of behaviors that are forbidden by the deity. You're certainly free to disagree with these beliefs, but you're not free to coerce others to labor with their creative artistry in the celebration of these behaviors.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/07/2018 06:38PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nope it's a false analogy. No evidence was
> presented showing any bias against gay people.

I disagree completely.

Evidence *was* presented showing bias against gay people.

The baker bakes wedding cakes as a normal part of her business.
The baker will bake wedding cakes ("artistic" or not) for heterosexuals.
The baker refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.

End of story.

The rest of your post is word play trying to avoid that simple fact.


> Homosexuality is a behavior, not a race or gender.

No, actually, it's not.
You're free to believe it is if you want. And to consider it "disgusting," or whatever.
But the law says you can't discriminate on that basis.
Period.
Whether you believe it's a "behavior" or not.

I should also point out that your point is irrelevant anyway...

Religious belief is a "behavior," not a race or gender.
Yet discrimination based on religious beliefs is illegal.
How about that.

Your last two paragraphs are full of errors.

1) Contrary to your assertion, homosexuality is not a behavior. It is hard to believe that someone living in the 21st century and with full access to research on the subject could remain uninformed about the matter.

2) Contrary to your assertion, race and gender are not the only classes that are protected by the constitution. Recent supreme court decisions, with opinions written by (the conservative) Kennedy on behalf of majorities, are clear that sexual identity is subject to "strict scrutiny."

3) Contrary to your assertion, whether a characteristic is visible if "you are looking at him" is irrelevant. You can't tell if a person has a mental disability or many physical disabilities by superficial observation but they are covered by the ADA and by constitutional protections. This is settled constitutional law.

4) Contrary to your implication, the opinion of "many of the world's religions" is irrelevant. It has no constitutional import.

5) Even if your observation that "weddings and their accompanying support structure are not a human right or a basic human need" is true, it has no relevance in this context. If a constitutional right exists, its status as a "human right" or a "basic human need" never enters into the discussion.

6) Moving away from constitutional issues, many religions also remain racist and misogynistic as well as class-based. That fact has nothing to recommend those forms of discrimination for the United States and its legal system.

Agree or disagree, popular or unpopular, the only question is whether a protected class of citizens had its constitutional rights violated.

To be a racist or discriminator you have to be in a dominant position of power. I shoudn't have to mention all the infamous historical signs like "White Only," "No Irish Need Apply," "No Dogs, Mexicans, Or Indians Allowed," etc.

When you discriminate against someone you are not only excuding them but also dominating them. You are saying "I am better than they are, they are beneath me, they are nothing, I am superior to them."

LGBTQIA people (or "sexual minorities" if you prefer) are a readily identifiable subset of the population and can be and are now marked for discrimination.

Your argument doesn't wash. Stright cakes and gay cakes aren't different. They are still cakes. There's no difference between the two. It's not the same as an African-American woman with natural hair going into a hair salon and turned away because there aren't any styists who have been trained how to do black hair.

If you don't want to serve the public, don't have a public business licence.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/07/2018 07:02PM by anybody.

Great news! Gayness is not contagious. You can hang around gay people all year long and you will not catch the gay or become any more gay than you were before.

I know that Spencer Kimball did say that if you started to masturbate, you could become gay. In his book "The Miracle of Forgiveness" he stated that masturbation led to mutual masturbation...and that leads to the sin of homosexuality. This is simply not true. I know it is hard to believe but Spencer Kimball was an idiot and he never talked to god.

Culturally mormons are gay-haters. Now that you are no longer a believer in the mormon religion...how about examining the other aspects of your life that have been imprinted on you by our controlling cult? Do you think that gays are "evil"? Can you honestly tell yourself that your feelings about gays is not in part due to living in a cult for however long you were mormon?

For that matter try looking at why you are a Republican. Does that party still resonate with who you are as a person?

I just can’t get behind the idea of forcing a baker to go against their deeply held religious beliefs. No matter how many responses I read that indicate it should be against the law for them to politely suggest another bakery.

The problem with this is that you could equally say a shopkeeper or restaurant owner or landlord should be free to discriminate against people of color or in a mixed-race relationship. Being deeply held does not render the basis for discrimination less invidious.

Well, I'm sure the Supreme Court will let that law stand. I mean, it's not like Mississippi has ever passed laws that turned out to be unconstitutional.

The constitution applies to services.

rubi123 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just can’t get behind the idea of forcing a
> baker to go against their deeply held religious
> beliefs. No matter how many responses I read that
> indicate it should be against the law for them to
> politely suggest another bakery.

"Deeply held religious beliefs" were used as an excuse for racial discrimination and segregation in this country for a very long time. In some places they still are. But they're not an excuse for not treating everyone equally under the law, or in a public accommodation business.

You'll notice, I hope, that no cases have arisen where a baker refuses to bake a wedding cake for an adulterer (which christianity and "many of the world's religions" consider "forbidden by a deity"). Or for someone convicted of a serious crime (say assault, or even murder), which they also consider "forbidden by a deity." Because they never ask their heterosexual clients if they do anything they consider "forbidden by deity." But since a gay couple being gay is "visible" without asking, they have no problem refusing service based on THAT thing they consider "forbidden by deity." Which makes the belief that they can't participate in a wedding that includes behavior "forbidden by a deity" not so deeply-held at all -- or even relevant.

This is bigotry. Plain and simple.

Because they never ask their heterosexual clients if they do anything they consider "forbidden by deity."

Dang. Now I want to open a business if only to ask my customers, "Before I bake you a delicious pastry, have you done anything recently that would be considered forbidden be the deity?"

You make an excellent point!

How about this...the baker says:

"You have asked me to put 'Congratulations Pat and Lou' on a cake. Since I can't tell from those names if you both might be the same gender, you are both going to need to come to the bakery so I can check you genitals. I need to know if I'm being persecuted by customizing a cake for you."

Snicker

Yes!!

Junk check stations at all bakeries!


One rule should always be upheld though:
"No shirt, no shoes, no service"
Amen

This has been an interesting discussion. Who knew that Bakersfield was the cutting edge of avant garde law?

SCOTUS will have a decision in the CO case in a few months (June?). Somebody will be surprised and disappointed.

I personally expect that Colorado will get its fingers slapped for overreach against the baker, but the ruling will basically hold for the gay couple.

As for Bakersfield, what happens in Bakersfield stays in Bakersfield. Thank God.

Would you eat a cake that someone really didn't want to make?

My ex-SIL had bugs in her wedding cake. They must have known her.

kathleen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Would you eat a cake that someone really didn't
> want to make?

If they put bugs in the cake (or otherwise intentionally ruined it), they'd be open to yet another lawsuit.

Getting people to change is hard. Nobody thought it would be easy. It took our country almost 200 years to finally put in place basic racial human rights laws, and in the 60 or so years since, we still struggle with racism. But at least a majority now agree that racial discrimination is unfair, and *should* be illegal.

It'll probably be the same with other kinds of discrimination. Reasonable or not (and they're not), people do indeed have "deeply felt" biases that they don't want to give up. They come up with all sorts of justifications, excuses, and ways to get around admitting them or giving them up (as these threads clearly show). But we're at the point that a majority agree that such discriminations are unfair, and should be illegal. That's good, but the still-biased minority aren't going to go quietly.

Yes, I agree with you Hie. My point was that people can sabotage stuff. Why take a chance on that?

My SIL was disliked and got bugs in the wedding cake.

If I knew someone disliked me, I wouldn't hire them.

A smart cake maker would advertise that there's a wonderful cake in the works for everybody, no matter who they marry--just don't marry my ex!

Wait, you think that women are not allowed to shop at your men's clothing store?

And that wedding cakes have specific sexual identities?

If I'm not mistaken you would have no issue with Jon Mcnaughton refusing to sell one of his paintings to a Democrat. To which you might say why would a Democrat want one of those pieces of trash. To which I will say as a ironic conversation topic at their next conspiracy meeting.

All in jest.

Why are you worried about this?

It's been pointed out to you that homosexuality is not a choice or behavior but is biologically determined.

There is a famous story from the ninteenth century about an African king visiting Germany at a state dinner with the Kaiser.
The king was seated according to his rank -- closer to the Kaiser and not beneath the other lesser royals in attendance. When they compained, the Kaiser said something like "he may be a black n*#&$r but he is still a King" or something like that.

How does this harm you?

I've asked before here if anyone could find any explanation of how serving or treating a LGBTQIA person fairly was a "sin."

I've not found any explanation.

Those "Christians" who claim it is a sin must not have heard of the parable of the good Samaritan.

I am a gay man who has been to hell and back, terrified through fifties and sixties as the reciprocal of all the hate and ugliness that the Mormon church and America had to heap on us. I have been chased by gay bashers and barely escaped over a chain link and bar wire fence cut to bits. I had friends who got electroshocked at BYU and some committed suicide. We fought our way out of being classified as mentally ill, and had to throw bricks at police at Stonewall to make the being hauled off to jail for being gay stop.

I must say I am not only sickened but saddened deeply that so many on this board are clinging to this cake/art thing like it is the heart of the matter. Like what is TRULY IMPORTANT here is someone being able to deny you a cake. You are bigots and you have no idea what you are talking about.

Do you know that when people were finally freed from the Nazi concentration camps that many of the gays were sent from there to regular prisons to finish their sentences?

Fuck cake. Fuck art. And fuck all of you. Quit hiding behind the cake is art crap and admit what you are.


THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE GOD DAMMNED CAKE. THIS IS ABOUT BIGOTRY WHICH SOME OF YOU ARE GUILTY OF--just like the Mormon church making kids turn against their gay parents to be members. No different. Any excuse will do when you want to act that way and all you need to accomplish your mission is a good game of semantic shifting.

And I know about Paragraph 175. Saw it on the History Channel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph_175

D&D:

Love ya.

:)

Thank you. I needed that. I can't take my life being reduced to this pettiness.

These people are talking about "deeply held feelings." The have no idea!

Done & Done, thanks for bringing out the NAZI concentration camp references and dropping some F-Bombs to prove you are the "rational" 1 in this discussion. lol. Comparing having to cross the street to get a cake at another location to racial segregation or NAZI concentration camps is exactly why people think you are over the top.

This isnt a conspiracy to stop gays from getting married. They were already married. Nobody was trying to deny them the right to buy a cake. In fact there is cake literally everywhere in America. Almost every grocery store chain has cakes. Calm down man.

Freedom of speech is a great thing. It affords moral and intellectual cretins the opportunity to reveal the absurdity of their contentions.

you forgot the "LOL"

I was trying to be cryptic, like Judic West.

Frankly people are so busing calling Trump a homophobe they didnt even bother to check his actual opinion on gay marriage. Trump has been POTUS for a year and the people who supposedly are all about gay rights havent even bothered to check his stance on the issue. Maybe if they were concerned more about the facts and less about being outraged then they would feel better.

It can certainly be upsetting to see some of the opinions that come out in these discussions. Sometimes I find the threads deeply disturbing although, I now realize, not as much as you do.

I, presumably like many others here, view you as a friend and value your analytical rigor, wisdom, and empathy immensely. I hope and believe that the things you post will over time have an influence over many people.

It's a privilege to know you even if only virtually.

Thank you. Means a lot coming from you Lot's Wife.

I just think he's cute!

And another thing. I have a company that produces product that is each and every one a work of art. REAL ART NOT CAKES. Not out of a catalogue, but unique for each client. Some of our clients are the extreme religious right who hate gays and I'm gay and I sell our product to them even though I have deep feelings about what they are doing to my people.

Because, and get this, WE ARE OPEN FOR BUSINESS TO THE PUCLIC AND IT IS WHAT YOU DO! PERIOD.

RECIPROCITY. TRY IT SOMETIME.

D&D,

If I said anything to offend you, I am profoundly sorry. I looked at my posts again, and wrote "A smart cake maker would advertise that there's a wonderful cake in the works for everybody, no matter who they marry--just don't marry my ex!"

Sometimes my smart remarks can be misunderstood. That "--just don't marry my ex!" had nothing to do with same-sex marriage.

You are truly a favorite of many here including me.

Love you D&D--no matter who you marry, as long as they're good to you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/07/2018 09:29PM by kathleen.

I liked your post, Kathleen. A lot actually. I like to think I am more easy going usually than I felt I needed to be a few posts up.

And no, I wouldn't want a cake that someone really didn't want to make for me--one of the reasons being exactly what you said. It's also the reason I don't send food back at restaurants. :)

Here is some common sense for you all. How can the state compel someone to sell something that doesnt even exist? We are talking about a cake that was never made and will never be made because the artisan who was asked to make the cake didnt want to make it.

How can you sell a cake that doesnt exist? hmmmmm.

By creating a contract. See, there this branch of the law that makes people live up to their written and signed promises, both to act and to refrain from acting.

One does not walk into a cake shop ten days to two weeks to order a cake and expect to walk out with it. One contracts with the business, promising to pay for the cake, which the seller promises to deliver on a certain date.

You are seriously taking your pettiness to rarified heights. I frankly don't care that you don't agree, but for ghawd's sake, just say it, "Gay people deserve bad things happening to them, because ... ghawd!"

and people have the right to not accept a contract that they dont want to accept! you are saying the state can force these people into contracts they dont want to have.

And dont try to put words in my mouth either.

bakemeacakeasfastasyoucan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> and people have the right to not accept a contract
> that they dont want to accept! you are saying the
> state can force these people into contracts they
> dont want to have.
>
> And dont try to put words in my mouth either.


Contrary to the words you've attempted to put into my mouth, all I did was explain how a customer can arrange to buy a cake that has not been made. Rather than admit your reasoning was faulty in that framework, you simply moved along and told me that I was stating that "...the state can force these people into contracts the don't want to have."

I have no idea what the state can do, much less should do.

And I wasn't trying to "put words into your mouth, either." I was simply trying to get you to upchuck the sentiment I feel brewing within you. It's the only thing that makes any sense, given the current circumstances. Tell me I'm wrong about you believing gays need to be punished for their sins and I'll happily apologize.

Punished for their sins? What are you even talking about? I was talking about the bakers right to refuse an order they dont want to fill. You keep trying to change the subject.

Not really, because I think your stand is agenda driven. Certainly I'm not illogical in this position.

But yes, as you present YOUR position regarding "the bakers right to refuse an order they dont want to fill", I sense some drama behind it.

After all, the government has put into place a rule that people who run businesses must 'generally speaking' not refuse to do business with certain protected classes. Simply stated, the baker wants to breach that rule because of 'deeply felt religious conviction' and a Superior Court judge has ruled in her favor.

Many of us, as you've noticed, do not agree with the decision. I think the majority of us believe (as well as hope) that the judge is overturned on appeal, assuming a SCOTUS decision in re Colorado v. Phillips doesn't put an end to any further litigation, one way or the other. Because what Judge Lampe did was offer his opinion on the exact issue being weighed by SCOTUS, in Colorado v. Phillips.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/at-the-supreme-court-the-cake-bakers-reasoning-falls-flat/2017/12/12/8cf321a6-dc60-11e7-b1a8-62589434a581_story.html?utm_term=.575af3cb6139

When the SCOTUS decision comes, it is likely to be 5 to 4, meaning there will likely be a minority opinion, and one side, yours or ours, will take comfort in that minority decision. I hope it's your side.

And yes, I do sincerely believe that the heart of your opposition is based on bigotry.

How does someone at McDonald's sell a hamburger that hasn't been cooked yet? hmmmmm . . . .

Or a sub sandwich that hasn't been sliced . . .

or a pizza that hasn't been baked . . . . ?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/07/2018 10:57PM by jay.

Thank-you

Let's see many of you were willing to vote for a serial adulterer but are ready to defend a person who refuses to bake a cake for a gay couple -----
HYPOCRITES ONE AND ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I didn't vote for Bill Clinton

HA, HA. Don't remember Bill Clinton cloaking himself with the cloak of Christianity, praying in all his meetings, or courting the Christian right.

Birdman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let's see many of you were willing to vote for a
> serial adulterer but are ready to defend a person
> who refuses to bake a cake for a gay couple -----
>
> HYPOCRITES ONE AND ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't get this...we are living this through right now...

There has got to be a huge overlap between people who voted for our current president and people who "are ready to defend a person who refuses to bake a cake for a gay couple."

?????????



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/07/2018 09:23PM by Tevai.

Honestly the homosexuals here just have a persecution complex. That is the honest truth. They call Trump a homophobe without even realizing that he is pro gay marriage. How homophobic is that? They dont bother to look at the facts. At the drop of a hat they are outraged by something that never happened or call someone a homophobe for beliefs they dont even hold.

bakemeacakeasfastasyoucan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Honestly the homosexuals here just have a
> persecution complex. That is the honest truth.
> They call Trump a homophobe without even realizing
> that he is pro gay marriage. How homophobic is
> that? They dont bother to look at the facts. At
> the drop of a hat they are outraged by something
> that never happened or call someone a homophobe
> for beliefs they dont even hold.

Homophobia is not allowed on RfM.

Ok Tevai but what did I say that was homophobic? All I said was Trump is pro gay marriage and that most homosexuals are ignorant of that fact. They falsely assume that because Trump ran as a Republican then he must hate gays. Its honestly just plain ignorant.

bakemeacakeasfastasyoucan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ok Tevai but what did I say that was homophobic?
> All I said was Trump is pro gay marriage and that
> most homosexuals are ignorant of that fact. They
> falsely assume that because Trump ran as a
> Republican then he must hate gays. Its honestly
> just plain ignorant.

My response was not to something "homophobic" that you said, but was a reminder to those posting in this thread that homophobia is not allowed on RfM.

From what I know (most especially because of Trump's background in the entertainment industry) I, personally, do not think that Trump is homophobic (it is REALLY difficult to be homophobic within the context of the entertainment industry, for countless reasons)...

...but I DO think that Trump can be very easily persuaded to follow directions which are not necessarily his own, which have the EFFECT of being homophobic.

(In other words, and in a given, potential, situation, he---without understanding what he is doing or the CONSEQUENCES of what he is doing---can be persuaded by anti-homosexual partisans he trusts to support THEIR views. (In other words, Trump can be easily persuaded by those he feels support HIM, and admire him, and verbally praise him, to do things that, on a personal level, he might otherwise not be in favor of because he does not understand the consequences.)

The bottom line here on RfM is still the same: homophobia is not allowed here.

Marie Antoinette said it best. Y'know?

The real story of Marie Antoinette (a real person) was quite tragic. She never said "Let them eat cake". But she and her children were murdered for it. BTW, she wasn't French, so that was ok with the French.

I only post this because you posted something profound and important about about your own real life experiences. I have a great deal of sympathy for you having had to live up to deadly bigotry based on who you are.

I know you were probably trying to be light. But I think she still deserves to have someone stick up for her. She was murdered due to who she was and not what she did.

I didn't mean to make light of Marie Antoinette. It's just that quote--however it got started--got stuck in my head during this and I kept thinking, 'Why can't we all just eat the cake and enjoy each other?" It doesn't seem to need to be this difficult.

No disrespect was meant for Marie Antoinette and her tragic end or to you and I regret that it cam off that way to you.. I hope Marie would forgive me and maybe understand the intention if she's out there somewhere.

Best to you, Devoted Exmo.

Best to you Done & Done. Respect.

This entire argument is a dodge.

Anyone with half a brain can see what's really going on here.

Someone who doesn't like gay people and finds them repulsive wants to legally discrimate against them so they claim their religion forbids them to -- even though there is no scripture or doctrine that says treating someone you consider to be a "sinner" fairly just as you would anyone else makes you complicit in their "sin."

I'll say it again: If you don't want to serve the public, don't run a public business.

There's really a category problem that prevents meaningful discussion on this.

If you're someone who places in the same category a person who opts out of creating a gay wedding cake and someone who would bar a black or gay person from medical care, food, or housing, there's not enough common ground for any real conversation. And I question your honesty about the issue.

I'm inclined to believe the SCOTUS is capable of a bit more sophisticated thinking that may well align with the Superior Court decision that started this thread.

That's not how this works.