Gay Cake Controversy!

Outlaw Pete

Liberals for the past year: Christians should have to bake cakes for customers no matter their personal beliefs about that customer or how they choose to live their lives.

Liberals today: A restaurant owner is perfectly entitled to kick a politician out and refuse to serve them if they disagree with their political stance.

Christy42

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Liberals for the past year: Christians should have to bake cakes for customers no matter their personal beliefs about that customer or how they choose to live their lives.

Liberals today: A restaurant owner is perfectly entitled to kick a politician out and refuse to serve them if they disagree with their political stance.

Seems more like conservatives are simply upset that their hard won right to discriminate (if I recall correctly the gay cake case went the way of the bakery in the US) has been used against them! While I don't agree with the owner it does seem like they are perfectly entitled to do so in the US.

I don't agree with the restaurant owner but can only imagine Sanders supports their right to do this so. I can hardly complain if the victim (presumably and in spite of Trump's contrary opinion) does not feel this way.

I should also point out there was complaints against the administration's mistreatment of children across the board and I am not sure mistreating kids counts as a political stance!

Hande hoche!

That restaurant looked like a bit of a dive. Imagine they will get massive increase in customer numbers all the same.

DickSwiveller

Christy42 wrote: »

Seems more like conservatives are simply upset that their hard won right to discriminate (if I recall correctly the gay cake case went the way of the bakery in the US) has been used against them! While I don't agree with the owner it does seem like they are perfectly entitled to do so in the US.

I don't agree with the restaurant owner but can only imagine Sanders supports their right to do this so. I can hardly complain if the victim (presumably and in spite of Trump's contrary opinion) does not feel this way.

I should also point out there was complaints against the administration's mistreatment of children across the board and I am not sure mistreating kids counts as a political stance!

He's pointing out the hypocrisy of the liberal ideologues.

Christy42

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

Seems more like conservatives are simply upset that their hard won right to discriminate (if I recall correctly the gay cake case went the way of the bakery in the US) has been used against them! While I don't agree with the owner it does seem like they are perfectly entitled to do so in the US.

I don't agree with the restaurant owner but can only imagine Sanders supports their right to do this so. I can hardly complain if the victim (presumably and in spite of Trump's contrary opinion) does not feel this way.

I should also point out there was complaints against the administration's mistreatment of children across the board and I am not sure mistreating kids counts as a political stance!

He's pointing out the hypocrisy of the liberal ideologues.

I am aware but it seems to me that conservatives are far more upset over this. The liberal posts that I have seen are mostly amused by the situation as opposed to taking a legal stance on the matter. Might be wrong but at worst issues with both sides are being shown up.
https://mobile.twitter.com/jsidman/status/1011231075459268608?s=19
Plus I believe Trump had his own tweet.

As I said I don't agree with the restaurant but find it amusing that conservative chickens have come home to roost.

JimiTime

Christy42 wrote: »

Seems more like conservatives are simply upset that their hard won right to discriminate (if I recall correctly the gay cake case went the way of the bakery in the US) has been used against them! While I don't agree with the owner it does seem like they are perfectly entitled to do so in the US.

I don't agree with the restaurant owner but can only imagine Sanders supports their right to do this so. I can hardly complain if the victim (presumably and in spite of Trump's contrary opinion) does not feel this way.

I should also point out there was complaints against the administration's mistreatment of children across the board and I am not sure mistreating kids counts as a political stance!

What the baker did was say that he could not put his talents to a situation that went against his conscience. He didn't refuse service because of the customer, but refused to make a particular product for a particular event.

The restaurant owner refused to serve a person on the basis of their politics and who they work for.

There is no equivalence here. They are VASTLY different. An equivalence would be if the baker had said, 'Sorry, I don't serve gay people', which he most certainly didn't.

Now, I happen to believe that the restaurant are free to serve who they want, even if I think their behaviour here was reproachful. But these two cases are far, far from equivalent.

"Liberals", which is modern code for Authoritarians, are adept at beating people over the head with sticks of 'tolerance' and 'diversity', but its a case of the 'lady doth protest too much'. They are the ones that are intolerant, and lose their minds at anything or anyone who are diverse from their tunnel visioned, closed minded myopic 'utopia'. They get quite hateful and aggressive about dissenters.
A good rule of thumb for such people I find, is that anything they say they are for, they are usually the polar opposite.

silverharp

Christy42 wrote: »

I am aware but it seems to me that conservatives are far more upset over this. The liberal posts that I have seen are mostly amused by the situation as opposed to taking a legal stance on the matter. Might be wrong but at worst issues with both sides are being shown up.
https://mobile.twitter.com/jsidman/status/1011231075459268608?s=19
Plus I believe Trump had his own tweet.

As I said I don't agree with the restaurant but find it amusing that conservative chickens have come home to roost.

thats the market, a company does something and the customers or public have an opinion on it. I doubt anyone thinks that it should become a legal issue though

Zubeneschamali

JimiTime wrote: »

"Liberals", which is modern code for Authoritarians, are adept at beating people over the head with sticks

I am neither a "Liberal" nor an Authoritarian, but I must admit that does sound like fun.

JimiTime

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I am neither a "Liberal" nor an Authoritarian, but I must admit that does sound like fun.

You are just in the closet about it. Grab a stick and come on out

Gwen Cooper

JimiTime wrote: »

What the baker did was say that he could not put his talents to a situation that went against his conscience. He didn't refuse service because of the customer, but refused to make a particular product for a particular event.

The restaurant owner refused to serve a person on the basis of their politics and who they work for.

There is no equivalence here. They are VASTLY different. An equivalence would be if the baker had said, 'Sorry, I don't serve gay people', which he most certainly didn't.

What if the restaurant owner also refused SHS because it went against their conscience?

As you said (and later edited it out because you most likely saw the hypocrisy there), the baker refused to make the cake because it went against his beliefs. Is it so hard to accept that SHS wasn't served because of the restaurant owner's belief? Isn't it exactly the same?

silverharp

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

What if the restaurant owner also refused SHS because it went against their conscience?

As you said (and later edited it out because you most likely saw the hypocrisy there), the baker refused to make the cake because it went against his beliefs. Is it so hard to accept that SHS wasn't served because of the restaurant owner's belief? Isn't it exactly the same?

unless she ordered racist food or the peas to spell something offensive

super_furry

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Liberals for the past year: Christians should have to bake cakes for customers no matter their personal beliefs about that customer or how they choose to live their lives.

Liberals today: A restaurant owner is perfectly entitled to kick a politician out and refuse to serve them if they disagree with their political stance.

Conservatives for the past year: Private businesses should be able to discriminate and decide who they want to serve on the basis of their own personal beliefs.

Conservatives today: A restaurant owner should not kick out a member of Trump's staff who lies to the world daily.

super_furry

Have to say though on the whole cake issue, I did enjoy this exchange between Jim Jefferies and Jordan Peterson.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdvS2Re21Og

JimiTime

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

What if the restaurant owner also refused SHS because it went against their conscience?

Like I already said, the restaurant is free to refuse service. SHS recognised this and left and even offered to pay for any food that was being prepared before they kicked her out.

Doubt if You'll see a court case about it. And even if it was on a conscientious basis, its still a personal discrimination.
"im not serving YOU because of WHO you are and what you do, and who you work for."
In the case of the baker it was not the customer that was refused, but rather the product requested was refused.

Being someone who does not see wisdom in getting the courts involved in such things, I actually respect the rights of both of these stances. I also see the restaurant stance as a lot worse than the baker due to the fact it was a personal attack. Again, it would be like saying I wont serve you because you're gay.
Some people however are hypocritically pleased with the restaurant, while bleating myopically about the baker case. Its de DISCRIMINATION innit.

As you said (and later edited it out because you most likely saw the hypocrisy there), the baker refused to make the cake because it went against his beliefs. Is it so hard to accept that SHS wasn't served because of the restaurant owner's belief? Isn't it exactly the same?

Not sure what you think you saw tbh, but you sound a little paranoid.

JimiTime

super_furry wrote: »

Conservatives for the past year: Private businesses should be able to discriminate and decide who they want to serve on the basis of their own personal beliefs.

Conservatives today: A restaurant owner should not kick out a member of Trump's staff who lies to the world daily.

Your complete misrepresenting of the issues aside.

You do realise that both these made up positions are not at odds with each other anyway?

Gwen Cooper

JimiTime wrote: »

Like I already said, the restaurant is free to refuse service. SHS recognised this and left and even offered to pay for any food that was being prepared before they kicked her out.

Doubt if You'll see a court case about it. And even if it was on a conscientious basis, its still a personal discrimination.
"im not serving YOU because of WHO you are and what you do, and who you work for."
In the case of the baker it was not the customer that was refused, but rather the product requested was refused.

Being someone who does not see wisdom in getting the courts involved in such things, I actually respect the rights of both of these stances. I also see the restaurant stance as a lot worse than the baker due to the fact it was a personal attack. Again, it would be like saying I wont serve you because you're gay.
Some people however are hypocritically pleased with the restaurant, while bleating myopically about the baker case. Its de DISCRIMINATION innit.





Not sure what you think you saw tbh, but you sound a little paranoid.

Excellent, we can agree on something. I also firmly believe that both businesses had the right to refuse service, however I would say that the bakery case is worse. That opinion is subjective though and I understand that there is no point arguing about that because neither of us is going to shift their opinion on who's the bigger a**hole in these two scenarios.

As for "what I think I saw", I don't think. I know it was written there. I clicked on the Quote button while it was still there to point out the hypocrisy. When a new window opened to write the new post, your post was already edited. I thought that maybe I clicked on the wrong post, so I exited the response window and went back to the window with the thread and guess what, it was originally there! Once I refreshed the page, it was gone.

Calling me paranoid purely because you refuse to admit that you wrote something that doesn't make sense actually makes it sound much worse than it is.

Peace. :cool:

Christy42

silverharp wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

I am aware but it seems to me that conservatives are far more upset over this. The liberal posts that I have seen are mostly amused by the situation as opposed to taking a legal stance on the matter. Might be wrong but at worst issues with both sides are being shown up.
https://mobile.twitter.com/jsidman/status/1011231075459268608?s=19
Plus I believe Trump had his own tweet.

As I said I don't agree with the restaurant but find it amusing that conservative chickens have come home to roost.

thats the market, a company does something and the customers or public have an opinion on it. I doubt anyone thinks that it should become a legal issue though

I think death threats have made it a legal issue though!

Certainly there will be no case between Sanders and the restaurant. Given their particular positions Sanders and Trump should not have outed the restaurant but that is a separate issue due to their jobs. Trump's especially which made complaints completely separate to the issue at hand seem to be an issue. Make no mistake that it was Sanders and not the restaurant who wanted to make this a public issue.

It seems to be more of an issue about Sanders stated views on lgbt people. Especially with regards to banning them from the military. Given the restaurants lgbt staff there is an issue about whether you should be forced to serve someone who has talks about you as a second class citizen by virtue of your birth.

Having said all that I disagree with the decision. The high road against this would have been to treat as a normal customer.

Zubeneschamali

Christy42 wrote: »

The high road against this would have been to treat as a normal customer.

On both the bigot bakers and Trump officials, I'm with Lily Allen:

JimiTime

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

Excellent, we can agree on something. I also firmly believe that both businesses had the right to refuse service, however I would say that the bakery case is worse. That opinion is subjective though and I understand that there is no point arguing about that because neither of us is going to shift their opinion on who's the bigger a**hole in these two scenarios.

There is every point in arguing about it .
So make your case as to why you think refusing service to a person based on their beliefs, politics, gender, sex habits etc is worse than
being willing to serve a person whatever their beliefs, politics or life choices.

I think its fairly easy to see the '@rsehole' as you say, but its certainly not the person who doesn't discriminate against their customers as you say. I think its entirely reasonable to say, 'Everyone welcome in my shop' but you cannot demand I make you what you want for what I want.

As for "what I think I saw", I don't think. I know it was written there. I clicked on the Quote button while it was still there to point out the hypocrisy. When a new window opened to write the new post, your post was already edited. I thought that maybe I clicked on the wrong post, so I exited the response window and went back to the window with the thread and guess what, it was originally there! Once I refreshed the page, it was gone.

Calling me paranoid purely because you refuse to admit that you wrote something that doesn't make sense actually makes it sound much worse than it is.

Peace. :cool:

This does not help you appearing paranoid. I haven't denied anything, as there is nothing to deny You think you have found some edit that hides some intent or somesuch. Well, sorry Columbo, I don't have any idea what you're talking about.

_Dara_

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Liberals for the past year: Christians should have to bake cakes for customers no matter their personal beliefs about that customer or how they choose to live their lives.

Liberals today: A restaurant owner is perfectly entitled to kick a politician out and refuse to serve them if they disagree with their political stance.

I’d be classed as a liberal.

I was actually okay with the bakery not making a cake for the gay couple. They can do what they want with their business.

Aaaaand, I’m okay with yer wan being refused service at the restaurant. They can do want they want with their business.

It’s almost as if you can’t generalise about how an amorphous group of people will react to something. Crazy, I know.

Zubeneschamali

I really don't see why people are comparing them. The Gay cake in the North is in the context of the anti-discrimination legislation in place in the North. Amazingly, this legislation does not apply in Virginia.

Hande hoche!

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I really don't see why people are comparing them. The Gay cake in the North is in the context of the anti-discrimination legislation in place in the North. Amazingly, this legislation does not apply in Virginia.

Considering that there was a Colorado based baker in similar circumstances that ended up before the supreme court, hardly surprising its being discussed here.

Zubeneschamali

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Considering that there was a Colorado based baker in similar circumstances that ended up before the supreme court, hardly surprising its being discussed here.

But it is nothing to do with asking a paid mouthpiece for racist lying homophobic child-kidnappers to leave your premises.

keano_afc

There's no comparison with these cases.

The baker refused to make a particular product. The customers could have ordered anything else and would have been served. The issue wasnt the customer, it was the product.

The restaurant refused service based on the customer. Regardless of the product requested, the order would not have been filled.

Massive difference.

super_furry

One instance is discrimination against a group of people, based on blind bigotry, making a decision to refuse service without knowing the person or their character.

One instance is making a decision to refuse service to an individual based on the known content of their character and based specifically on their actions.

Gwen Cooper

JimiTime wrote: »

There is every point in arguing about it .
So make your case as to why you think refusing service to a person based on their beliefs, politics, gender, sex habits etc is worse than
being willing to serve a person whatever their beliefs, politics or life choices.

Ok, making my case:

1) Bakery: The bakery refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding because they don't believe that gay marriage is right and did not support something that is against their morals.

2) Red Hen: The restaurant refused to serve SHS who regularly lies to the public and supports and defends a president who is openly racist. They do not believe that it's right and did not support something that is against their morals.

JimiTime wrote: »

This does not help you appearing paranoid. I haven't denied anything, as there is nothing to deny You think you have found some edit that hides some intent or somesuch. Well, sorry Columbo, I don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Again, thank you for calling me paranoid. Since we're advising each other on mental health, I recommend you get yourself checked for split personality, because if you don't remember editing that post, you might have an issue.

Havockk

I just came here to see copious amounts of hypocrisy from the right.


Not disappointed LOL

7aubzxk43m2sni

Havockk wrote: »

I just came here to see copious amounts of hypocrisy from the right.


Not disappointed LOL

What hypocrisy?

silverharp

super_furry wrote: »

One instance is discrimination against a group of people, based on blind bigotry, making a decision to refuse service without knowing the person or their character.

One instance is making a decision to refuse service to an individual based on the known content of their character and based specifically on their actions.

so you are saying its subjective, good man!

DeVore

Serve the b*tch her chicken,
Bake the f*cking cake,
Write the goddamned marriage cert,
Do your f*cking job.

This isnt hard.