Topic: Bake Me a Cake—or Else (Read 2544 times)

It is also complete and utter toss. The bakery, as a business, is not being subjected to the 'dominance' of its customers!

Your grasp of the legal entity a commercial operation represents appears to be extremely weak, as well as your understanding of law.

Here, let me explain, although I *really* shouldn't have to because it is that fucking obvious:

Anti-monopoly laws are designed to prevent a business which is a monopoly from abusing that position and, here's the important part, the Anti-monolopy law is ONLY APPLICABLE TO BUSINESSES WHICH ARE MONOPOLIES! So quoting an exception to that law, which is what you did, is false because the statute does not apply to businesses which are not monopolies!

Now, you keep insisting in your wilful ignorance that I have to show you the law which prevents discrimination against people because of their sexual orientation. In the bakery's case it was this one: http://www.glapn.org/6007historyLGBTQrights.html#xxxOregonEqualityAct

Do you get it yet? Your rabid insistence that the bakery was being forced to labour is false because they could have simply shut the entire business down when they realised that anti-discrimination laws meant they would not be able to deny service to people they did not approve of. That they wished to operate as a commercial entity means they are unable to discriminate against their customers.

If they wanted to shut down and close the business they were and are perfectly entitled to do so, ergo, no 'forced' labour.

Sorry, you're mistaken again


Now you're catching on! Movement is work, physical motion is labor... Nobody else is entitled to order another person to perform labor, no matter if they're in business or otherwise. To do so would be to subject that person to a dominance over their own free will... That's the foundation of my entire argument...

You understand that there's a difference between an establishment and the proprietors personal choices right? The proprietor can make their own choices, but not demand employees to make the same choice... How does identifying the limited bond between an establishment and a proprietor make for an incoherant argument?

Yes, I was being a dick. Intentionally... As were you.

I don't think you understand me. You've already put me in a category to which I don't belong... My personal choices aren't relative to the personal choices of any other. I have no reason to discriminate against another group, I've never considered any other ethnicity inferior. I don't see where you come off grouping me with those who have. I respect free will. I don't believe it within my or anybody elses authority to force another person to do something they don't want to do. I've said all I can say, we're just spinning wheels...

But seriously, I really do want to see the legal text that supports your argument. Show me the US code, not just one persons opinion on it...

Oooh, great rebuttal of my criticism concerning your desperate attempt to disassemble your support of discrimination by breaking it down into component parts of physical movement. Projection much?


No, your analogy is false. Not only would I not feel justified in demanding that you move from your bus seat, even if I wanted to sit in that seat because of reasons, I would have no basis by which to demand you to vacate that seat. What point are you even trying to make here, that people are entitled to order other people out of a bus seat?


See, now you're just blatantly being a dick. You know damn well that my references to buses and water fountains are to highlight how your claims towards 'justifying' discrimination are an echo of previously 'accepted' racial discrimination and I am pointing out to you that racial discrimination, being utterly wrong and hateful, is no different to discrimination based on your, or a baker's, disapproval of another persons lifestyle.

Now you're simply agreeing with my point. Are you even paying attention to the crap you're coming out with or is your hatred for 'others' so blinding, you've lost the ability to maintain coherent argument?


Hahahaha, wow, you are desperate, aren't you? Quoting 'U.S. Code Chapter 1 - MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE' as pretext for the right of a business to refuse trade. lol.

Discrimination against whom a business is willing to service is not a fucking 'Monopolies' issue! It is a discrimination issue!

Here, let me point you in the direction of information that is simple enough even you in your blind hatred of 'others' can still understand it.
https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-service-can-a-business-refuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance

Which is *exactly* what I already said and to which you attempted to cite a fucking 'Monopolies' trade law to dispute it! Still, it made me laugh, so thanks for that.

So you disagree then... I find it hillarious how illogical people can be when it suits their own causes... Like a selfish child crying out with pure emotion when they can't have a unicorn.

My analogy was plain and simple, If I'm sitting on a bus and you want my seat, you would feel justified in demanding that I move, regardless of race... Race is a but single example buried beneath a mountain of others, as outlined in this thread.



Please, I'll give you 0.1 btc if you can quote the part of my bus analogy which discriminates against any specific group. In my analogy, any person is free to sit in any open seat, no mention of water fountains. You've invented things that were never said because you want to hate what I said... That's discrimination, and it's irrationally mis-placed because you actually just attacked your own beliefs for no reason, you just wanted to disagree with whatever I said... Good job.

No, I would not consider a black persons protest to be intolerant in that scenario. An establishment is not a person, and can't enforce or demand a discriminatory policy. Period... 



I still don't think you get it... What "rules of public trade" are you referencing? What are you talking about? You're making stuff up. The coffee shop owner can certainly choose not to serve ANY customer they wish as long as they aren't the only coffee shop in town... If they were the only coffee shop, sure... That would be restricting the customers ability to buy coffee, and that would be a violation of the customers right to trade...


15 U.S. Code § 13 - Discrimination in price, services, or facilities

- , That nothing herein contained shall prevent persons engaged in selling goods, wares, or merchandise in commerce from selecting their own customers in bona fide transactions and not in restraint of trade:

Equality is good in principle obviously but where do you stop? Not everyone is born equal, some people are only fit to shovel shit if that. Maybe nowadays some of them end up as managers from corporations to governments. Perfect equality means lowering the bar I guess. Even worse; certifiable psychopaths may get ahead, with extremely serious consequences.  The state has a monopoly on violence, remember? Equality for idiots and nutcases; give it a thought.

No and no.

98789, it appears that you had the chance to, but didn't read or care about my last two paragraphs, so I don't see the point in responding to any more of your nonsense. /ignore

And at the same time you are unconsciously supporting them, either directly or indirectly. Do you use Facebook? If so, you are indirectly supporting gay marriage and the pink mafia (FB recently deleted a large number of posts opposing gay marriage). Also, if you use twitter, you are indirectly supporting the illegal immigration... the list is quite long.

I'm all for boycotting control freaks, arrogant single issue loudmouths, pink fascists, and many other annoying examples of subhumanity.

The fuck? That is the shonkiest, most twisted and warped bit of reasoning I have read in a long time. Seriously, it takes some effort to be so committed to dreaming up a 'justification' for hateful discrimination that you actually start to break it down into physical movement in order to desperately attempt to reach your point.

The bus analogy reflects an 'expression', which was the choice of the racist white people back in the day to socially declare black people as lesser human beings than they. It's got nothing to do with whether somebody is already in the seat and everything to do with expressed rule which clearly showed that white people considered black people to be inferior human beings, to the degree they dictated to black people where they were permitted to sit on the bus, which water fountains they were permitted to use, and so on.

Would you, like most fundie xtian 'conscientious objectors', consider a black person's protest at being told they could not access the same facilities as white people, to be 'intolerant' of the white people's racist rules? Would you claim the black person was trampling on the deeply-held personal beliefs of the white people?


Wrong again, and still a spectacularly warped bit of reasoning.

If a black person walks into a white-person-owned coffee-shop and places an order, it is legal for the proprietor to assert that they are no longer serving customers and turn the customer away. Nobody is forcing the business-owner to have to labour. If, however, the proprietor only declines to provide service when the customer is black, then it is apparent he is not, in fact, denying service to all customers but is picking and choosing who to serve, based on his own personal discriminatory rules. That is not his choice to make. The rules of public trade are that if you are providing goods and services your business must service all customers, not that it must labour, but that if it is labouring to provide goods and service then it cannot refuse to service a customer on the basis of 'conscientiously objecting' to the fact that customer does not conform to the proprietor's definition of an 'acceptable' person.

Equality is not 'special treatment'.

I would be pissed off if I was denied my lesbian cake. I can't see the point in taking it any further. Lots of other cakes in the world.

You can support or deny LGBT without marriage coming into play. Do you think bigots would sell cakes to those they knew were LGBT but did not know they were getting married?

What are these "women-only stores" that prohibit men from purchasing there? Either for women, or for themselves. Does a security guard make you reveal your pubic area before you hit the checkout line, or even the store entry?


I can't answer apples and elephants comparisons, no.

What are these gay bars that deny access to heteros? Does a security guard make you suck a penis or lick a vagina before you enter?

People can think whatever they want, such as "LGBT money has cooties!", but that's a moronic/economically suicidal way to do business.

ETA: Hell, I'd boycott them if they refused to shut up and take any mentally-sound innocent's money.

You're leaving out a critical part of the scenario, which is necessary to compare the events in your assessment here. The baker is being compelled to ACT (move), not restricting the ACTION (choose any available seat) of another...

If a person refuses to move from a bus seat because another person wants that seat, is it discrimination when the passenger already in the seat refuses to yield to the new passenger? A bus seat is a commodity, non-living, and indiscriminate, like a "product" or a "good". Labor on the other hand, is an expression, reflecting the choice of the laborer to produce something of value...


Had the baker refused to sell them a cake that had previously been prepared with no other purpose than to sell at the counter, that would be a different thing entirely. The cake becomes no more than a product after it's been prepared, but up until that point, nobody has a right to demand that a person bake them a cake, even if that person routinely bakes cakes for others... Labor is not a "good" and a laborer has a right not to accept employment from a potential employer if they so desire for any reason, or none at all. Any time a person is working on behalf of another, they are employed by that person, this system doesn't restrict the human rights of either the employer, or employee...

The baker is a contractor, accepting contracts for future labor which utilize a specific set of skills owned only by the baker... Nobody has a right to demand your labor against your will. PERIOD.

P.S.
No part of starting a business (legal trading entity) entails that the owner relinquish control over their labor. The (legal trading entity-business) is merely the proprietors choice to share revenue with the community, and advertise their personal abilities to a grander audience...

When the gay marriage was legalized by the Supreme Court of the United States, some 42% of the population was in favor of that measure, and some 40% were against it (according to the Associated Press-GfK opinion poll). So that means that less than half of the population is supporting the legalization of the homosexual marriage.

Conscientiously objecting to something is one thing, projecting that objection on to other people by discriminating against them is something else entirely. You are free to believe whatever religious-based morality you have been conditioned to replace secular reality with, you are not free, however, to force it on to other people through your discrimination.

The seats may be just as comfy at the back of the bus, but if somebody is told they may not sit on the seats at the front, because people consider that person to be 'not as equal' a human being as those 'kind' who get to sit on the seats at the front of the bus, does telling that person they can choose any seat they wish at the back mean you can dismiss their protestations at being discriminated against as leftist/liberal 'intolerance'?


ORLY? A business is a legal trading entity and, as such, does not have the right to pick and choose who it serves based on the personal discrimination issues of its staff.

You want to sell cakes to white people only? You can't form a company and refuse to serve black people.

You want to give cakes to white people only? Knock yourself out, you racist asshole, you are perfectly entitled to personally hand out cakes just to white people and tell any black person who asks for one that you refuse to because it goes against your fundamentalist xtian 'morality'. That is your right.

Do it for money, though, and your racist self doesn't get to dictate company law because the business, as a legal entity, is performing the trade.

I'd express surprise at the sheer number of people who don't seem to understand that basic fact, but seeing as they are the type who like to call homophobic discrimination 'conscientious objection', and cite those who protest against discrimination as being 'intolerant'. It's almost like they are so wilfully ignorant they don't even understand the irony (as well as absurd stupidity) of using that word to describe people who are against other people's intolerance of those 'who are not like them'.

I read a post above commenting on the "neutrality" of a transaction in the "free market".

Seems like any Bitcoiner would know how fallacious that statement is. The "free market" doesn't represent the goods being traded as much as it represents the market constituents and their willingness to produce, and subsequently sell. The baker was unwilling to produce, that's as far as the inquiry needs to go into the matter, as a human being you have a right to choose who you will work for, and who you won't...

Here's another hypothetical...

If a person submits a job application, but during the interview is dissatisfied by something regarding that establishment, does that establishment then have a legal recourse in suing the person who submitted the application for damages when they choose not to work there?

That's what happened here, the baker is performing a "service" not selling a "good". They're a contractor for hire, not a product for sale...

The baker was fined for choosing not to labor for somebody else... It's as simple as that, your "service" is now considered a "good" and you can be forced to work for anybody if their request falls within your profession. You can no longer turn down a job without the potential for being sued and destroyed...

I agree, I think he's making it up too!

Seriously though, it's unfortunate (and  embarrassing) that people vilify others for conscientiously objecting to something they don't agree with when IT IS THEIR CHOICE to refuse business to anyone they want.

It's ironic. When Liberal crusaders fight for tolerance and do so by being completely intolerant of anyone who doesn't agree with them.

There's a great way to fight this, the proper way to fight this, it's about the vote. Vote for the people you want  in office (even if they aren't perfect).

Lol... that frequently occurs here as well. If you notice carefully, it is clear that most of the experienced users in this forum are libertarian or anti-establishment, and mostly against political correctness. We joined the forum when Bitcoin was going at $5 per coin, i.e before the hype. But most of the users, who joined after the 2013 peak are extreme-leftist nuts. If you browse this subsection, you can find certain users who indulge in verbal diarrhea all the time, especially when someone disagree with the leftist thought.

I think most sane people can agree that it's ludicrous.

there are all kinds of "isms" on the rise.  I can only speak for what is going on in the US as, although I read world news sources, I don't have a ton of insight into what is happening in other countries.

what is going on here is ludicrous, IMO.  catering to all and every special interest group is a massive waste of time and resources and is impossible.

all any group has to do is paint itself as a victim of something, get some press, march around a bit and suddenly they are legitimate.  anyone that opposes that viewpoint is vilified.

we've seen it here with illegal aliens.  people that have no right whatsoever to be here are now victims.  but there are a lot of them and their friends vote.  so they are victims.  speak up on the simple fact that they are breaking the law simply by being here in the first place, much less sucking resources, and you are a racist, a hater, a _______-ophobe   blah, blah, blah. 

stick that label on the opposition and ride them into the ground, whether or not they have a logical, or legal, point is utterly irrelevant. if you can make it fashionable to support your cause so morons can send it viral on social media to make themselves feel and look good you are absolutely golden.

right now it's "black lives matter" and cops suck, and of course gays and illegals and a bazillion other little groups.

our public policy is being highly influenced and driven by people that support something because it's popular.   these are the same lemming-like morons that idolize the Kardashians and their ilk.  If that isn't enough to scare the living hell out of anyone I don't know what is.