tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,164
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 24, 2015 10:24:34 GMT -5
(I'll put this in a separate post so it is easier to delete.)
Virgil, you are becoming almost Paul-like in both your zeal to espouse a conservative viewpoint and your willingness to suspend both truth and reason in order to do so. I can't tell you how disappointing that is.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,484
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 24, 2015 12:01:11 GMT -5
As consumers we have the right to pick and chose whom we do business with. So, As a business owner I am required by law to do business with everyone that I do not agree with gender, religion beliefs or other differences by law. It would really be cool to be able to sue people that choose not to do business with me because they don't agree with my beliefs, principles or convictions. Should it not be a two way street? As an individual, I pick and choose. As a sole proprietor, I pick and choose. Corporations may not pick and choose.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 24, 2015 12:40:23 GMT -5
The second baker did not say, we will not decorate a cake like that FOR YOU... They said, we do not decorate cakes like that FOR ANYONE.... There was NO discrimination.... Alternately, the first baker said, yes, we make cakes like that for OTHER PEOPLE... we just will not make one FOR YOU... Discrimination.... And here's float #4 in the double standard parade. 4. A business owner may conditionally refuse to render a service if said service can be misconstrued as universally denied to the public. Ergo when Joe and Bob request a "Joe and Bob" custom frosting on their cake, the business owner need only reply, "I'm sorry, but we don't offer custom decorations involving two same-sex names. We also have a policy of never selling two wedding gowns to the same wedding party. This isn't discrimination against you specifically; it's for anyone who walks through our doors." oped at al.: "Oh no. Not in that case. Wait. We..."
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,147
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 24, 2015 12:44:21 GMT -5
The second baker did not say, we will not decorate a cake like that FOR YOU... They said, we do not decorate cakes like that FOR ANYONE.... There was NO discrimination.... Alternately, the first baker said, yes, we make cakes like that for OTHER PEOPLE... we just will not make one FOR YOU... Discrimination.... And here's float #4 in the double standard parade. 4. A business owner may conditionally refuse to render a service if said service can be misconstrued as universally denied to the public. Ergo when Joe and Bob request a "Joe and Bob" custom frosting on their cake, the business owner need only reply, "I'm sorry, but we don't offer custom decorations involving two same-sex names. We also have a policy of never selling two wedding gowns to the same wedding party. This isn't discrimination against you specifically; it's for anyone who walks through our doors." oped at al.: "Oh no. Not in that case. Wait. We..." I doubt very much that this is correct. denying service to one group that fails to meet a uniform standard is not OK.
your logic could be extended to miscegenation, for example, which is clearly a violation of the law.
no, the cake shop guy could say "we don't do custom frostings", and that would have to apply to all couples. that is about it.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 24, 2015 12:47:38 GMT -5
You are the light of reason burning in the darkness, sir. Absolute nonsense, and beneath your level of logic.
One cannot be legally compelled to act in a manner contrary to law. Writing what is effectively hate speech on a cake is such a matter. The original baker refused to make a cake FOR THAT COUPLE. ONLY. That is discrimination. The second offered to bake and frost the cake, and also offered the customer the pastry bag and icing to write whatever they wanted on the cake. That is not in any way discriminatory.
If faced with the prospect of either having a frivolous lawsuit laughed out of court, or the very real prospect of being sued (and losing) for having written hate speech on a cake, it is a very simple choice.
We don't even know what the "hate speech" is. The word "hate" is used so casually these days, the "hateful speech" might have been anything from "Shame on You!" to Leviticus 18:22. And in case you hadn't noticed: not a single argument in the entire thread is contingent on whether the "hateful speech" legally constituted hate speech, or whether it's the slightest bit reasonable to assume a cake maker would be held liable for fulfilling a customer's "hate cake" order to spec.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 24, 2015 12:48:24 GMT -5
And here's float #4 in the double standard parade. 4. A business owner may conditionally refuse to render a service if said service can be misconstrued as universally denied to the public. Ergo when Joe and Bob request a "Joe and Bob" custom frosting on their cake, the business owner need only reply, "I'm sorry, but we don't offer custom decorations involving two same-sex names. We also have a policy of never selling two wedding gowns to the same wedding party. This isn't discrimination against you specifically; it's for anyone who walks through our doors." oped at al.: "Oh no. Not in that case. Wait. We..." I doubt very much that this is correct. denying service to one group that fails to meet a uniform standard is not OK.
your logic could be extended to miscegenation, for example, which is clearly a violation of the law.
no, the cake shop guy could say "we don't do custom frostings", and that would have to apply to all couples. that is about it.
So tell that to oped. It's her logic, not mine.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,147
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 24, 2015 12:52:07 GMT -5
I doubt very much that this is correct. denying service to one group that fails to meet a uniform standard is not OK.
your logic could be extended to miscegenation, for example, which is clearly a violation of the law.
no, the cake shop guy could say "we don't do custom frostings", and that would have to apply to all couples. that is about it.
So tell that to oped. It's her logic, not mine. no, Virgil. it appears from the thread above that you agree with the logic, so I will be taking it up with you.
if you want to repudiate the logic, please do so now, and I will take it up with oped.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,147
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 24, 2015 12:54:19 GMT -5
Absolute nonsense, and beneath your level of logic.
One cannot be legally compelled to act in a manner contrary to law. Writing what is effectively hate speech on a cake is such a matter. The original baker refused to make a cake FOR THAT COUPLE. ONLY. That is discrimination. The second offered to bake and frost the cake, and also offered the customer the pastry bag and icing to write whatever they wanted on the cake. That is not in any way discriminatory.
If faced with the prospect of either having a frivolous lawsuit laughed out of court, or the very real prospect of being sued (and losing) for having written hate speech on a cake, it is a very simple choice.
We don't even know what the "hate speech" is. The word "hate" is used so casually these days, the "hateful speech" might have been anything from "Shame on You!" to Leviticus 18:22. And in case you hadn't noticed: not a single argument in the entire thread is contingent on whether the "hateful speech" legally constituted hate speech, or whether it's the slightest bit reasonable to assume a cake maker would be held liable for fulfilling a customer's "hate cake" order to spec. actually, hate speech has a very clear legal definition.
note: I have some problems with hate speech that is not employed in another crime, for the record. I think it should be protected.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,515
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 24, 2015 13:04:24 GMT -5
We don't even know what the "hate speech" is. The word "hate" is used so casually these days, the "hateful speech" might have been anything from "Shame on You!" to Leviticus 18:22. And in case you hadn't noticed: not a single argument in the entire thread is contingent on whether the "hateful speech" legally constituted hate speech, or whether it's the slightest bit reasonable to assume a cake maker would be held liable for fulfilling a customer's "hate cake" order to spec. actually, hate speech has a very clear legal definition.
note: I have some problems with hate speech that is not employed in another crime, for the record. I think it should be protected.
Denver's Azucar Bakery Under Investigation For Allegedly Refusing To Bake Anti-Gay Cake"God Hates Gays" is very Westboro Baptist Church.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 24, 2015 13:11:34 GMT -5
(I'll put this in a separate post so it is easier to delete.)
Virgil, you are becoming almost Paul-like in both your zeal to espouse a conservative viewpoint and your willingness to suspend both truth and reason in order to do so. I can't tell you how disappointing that is. I'm not going to delete your post. Zealousness and conservatism are admirable qualities as far as I'm concerned. Your assessment about which side of the argument is devoid of sound reasoning is totally wrong. We'll have to settle on an irreconcilable difference of opinion, but you can rest assured that the litany of hairs split and excuses contrived in this thread have soundly convinced me I'm on the right side of it. Having said this, imagine how you'd feel if, in response to your no-holds-barred critique of a conservative poster's exceptionally banal arguments, I made it known to you how deeply disappointed I was by your exhibiting such liberal zeal at the expense of truth and reason. ... I'm certain you can deduce where I'm going with this.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,147
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 24, 2015 13:11:56 GMT -5
it is. and unfortunately, the same first amendment that allows me to say that Obama's drone policy is immoral protects those assholes.
if the question devolves to denial of service in this case, then the customer would have to show that he is part of a protected class. I very much doubt that is the case, but if he wants to find out by pursuing it in the courts, that is absolutely his right.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,147
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 24, 2015 13:13:34 GMT -5
(I'll put this in a separate post so it is easier to delete.)
Virgil, you are becoming almost Paul-like in both your zeal to espouse a conservative viewpoint and your willingness to suspend both truth and reason in order to do so. I can't tell you how disappointing that is. I'm not going to delete your post. Zealousness and conservatism are admirable qualities as far as I'm concerned. Your assessment about which side of the argument is devoid of sound reasoning is totally wrong. We'll have to settle on an irreconcilable difference of opinion, but you can rest assured that the litany of hairs split and excuses contrived in this thread have soundly convinced me I'm on the right side of it. Having said this, imagine how you'd feel if, in response to your no-holds-barred critique of a conservative poster's exceptionally banal arguments, I made it known to you how deeply disappointed I was by your exhibiting such liberal zeal at the expense of truth and reason. ... I'm certain you can deduce where I'm going with this. it is good to see that the board has not become an analogy free zone.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 24, 2015 13:15:11 GMT -5
It's good to see that 3.5 pages into the excuse-a-thon, somebody actually bothered to check what the "hate speech" actually was. ETA: Not that it matters, but do "God Hates Gays" or two men with an 'X' even legally constitute hate speech? If the Westboro zealots can march around waving it on placards, I imagine not.
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Jan 24, 2015 13:20:28 GMT -5
God Hates gays? That is harsh. Would she be willing to pipe Satan Loves Gays?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,515
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 24, 2015 13:24:55 GMT -5
it is. and unfortunately, the same first amendment that allows me to say that Obama's drone policy is immoral protects those assholes.
if the question devolves to denial of service in this case, then the customer would have to show that he is part of a protected class. I very much doubt that is the case, but if he wants to find out by pursuing it in the courts, that is absolutely his right.
The customer is claiming he was discriminated against because of his creed/religion. So he is claiming religious discrimination and religion is a protected class. But he fails in that regard too. To avoid a charge of religious discrimination, an employer or business owner must first offer a reasonable accommodation which does not greatly affect the owner or employer. In this case, the bakery was offended by the guy's message so the bakery shop offered the guy a reasonable accommodation- by offering to make and frost the cakes he wanted-they then offered to provide the icing and icing bag so that the guy could write his own message(s). So he loses on that front too.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,515
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 24, 2015 13:25:49 GMT -5
God Hates gays? That is harsh. Would she be willing to pipe Satan Loves Gays? Ridiculous and childish.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 24, 2015 13:27:49 GMT -5
So tell that to oped. It's her logic, not mine. no, Virgil. it appears from the thread above that you agree with the logic, so I will be taking it up with you.
if you want to repudiate the logic, please do so now, and I will take it up with oped.
My logic is that if this business owner wants to tell the customer to stick his entire order--cake, banners, and frosting--where the sun doesn't shine and find some other cake shop to make it for him, she should be able to do so without the slightest fear of legal repercussions. Why? For the very same reasons I covered ad nauseum in the Seattle bakery thread.
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Jan 24, 2015 13:32:16 GMT -5
Church of Satan wants a cake...they want a Bible with a circle and line through it, and they want the words Satan Loves Gays...I bet that cake gets made!
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jan 24, 2015 13:32:53 GMT -5
I just bought some wonderful-looking cookies and dropped a few bucks in this bakery-owner's direction. She's going to have some legal expenses. I figure it's a good cause.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,515
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 24, 2015 13:34:44 GMT -5
Church of Satan wants a cake...they want a Bible with a circle and line through it, and they want the words Satan Loves Gays...I bet that cake gets made! We will never know until you go to the Azucar bakery in Denver and ask. Get back to us when you have the answer.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 3:23:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2015 13:48:59 GMT -5
The second baker did not say, we will not decorate a cake like that FOR YOU... They said, we do not decorate cakes like that FOR ANYONE.... There was NO discrimination.... Alternately, the first baker said, yes, we make cakes like that for OTHER PEOPLE... we just will not make one FOR YOU... Discrimination.... And here's float #4 in the double standard parade. 4. A business owner may conditionally refuse to render a service if said service can be misconstrued as universally denied to the public. Ergo when Joe and Bob request a "Joe and Bob" custom frosting on their cake, the business owner need only reply, "I'm sorry, but we don't offer custom decorations involving two same-sex names. We also have a policy of never selling two wedding gowns to the same wedding party. This isn't discrimination against you specifically; it's for anyone who walks through our doors." oped at al.: "Oh no. Not in that case. Wait. We..." I already said if. They didn't stock the topper and they had to buy it on their own it wasn't discrimination... ... If they didn't write names on any cakes, no problem. If they say we do names for some people, but not YOU... Discrimination.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 3:23:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2015 13:50:59 GMT -5
And to be fair, even if baker 1 said we usually write names, but we won't write names FOR YOU, but we will sell you the cake and give you the icing... I'm guessing that would have been a whole different reaction... Ie. If they had actually, you know, sold them a cake...
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,726
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jan 24, 2015 15:47:48 GMT -5
I'm not going to delete your post. Zealousness and conservatism are admirable qualities as far as I'm concerned. Your assessment about which side of the argument is devoid of sound reasoning is totally wrong. We'll have to settle on an irreconcilable difference of opinion, but you can rest assured that the litany of hairs split and excuses contrived in this thread have soundly convinced me I'm on the right side of it. Having said this, imagine how you'd feel if, in response to your no-holds-barred critique of a conservative poster's exceptionally banal arguments, I made it known to you how deeply disappointed I was by your exhibiting such liberal zeal at the expense of truth and reason. ... I'm certain you can deduce where I'm going with this. it is good to see that the board has not become an analogy free zone.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jan 24, 2015 15:53:59 GMT -5
(I'll put this in a separate post so it is easier to delete.)
Virgil, you are becoming almost Paul-like in both your zeal to espouse a conservative viewpoint and your willingness to suspend both truth and reason in order to do so. I can't tell you how disappointing that is. I'm not going to delete your post. Zealousness and conservatism are admirable qualities as far as I'm concerned. Your assessment about which side of the argument is devoid of sound reasoning is totally wrong. We'll have to settle on an irreconcilable difference of opinion, but you can rest assured that the litany of hairs split and excuses contrived in this thread have soundly convinced me I'm on the right side of it. Having said this, imagine how you'd feel if, in response to your no-holds-barred critique of a conservative poster's exceptionally banal arguments, I made it known to you how deeply disappointed I was by your exhibiting such liberal zeal at the expense of truth and reason. ... I'm certain you can deduce where I'm going with this. The bolded sentence is your opinion only. Your opinion does not necessarily equal absolute truth. It's an opinion and holds the same value as another's opinion. In other words, your disagreement does not make something "totally wrong".
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,726
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jan 24, 2015 15:58:47 GMT -5
I see a big difference between these two cases. The man who wanted an anti-gay cake got a cake and was offered the necessary tools to put any writing on the cake he wished to have. The gay couple didn't get a cake at all because the owners of the bakery didn't want that cake going someplace they didn't want it to be. The difference, as I see it - one bakery made a cake and sold it to a buyer. The other bakery refused to make a cake at all, much less sell it to a buyer. Seems pretty simple to me. Simple and illogical, I certainly agree. Refusing to decorate a wedding cake a specific way on moral grounds is a selective denial of service, and is the business owner discriminating on a moral basis. The only meaningful difference between refusing one service and refusing another exists in the minds of those desperate to contrive a distinction between the two. Even if the difference was relevant, the rest of your argument doesn't follow. If this thread was about a business owner being sued for refusing to write "Bob and Joe, Together Forever" on a wedding cake, the refrain in this thread would be "Hear hear for justice! If you won't serve the public, you don't deserve to be a business." I don't know what's going on, but this issue obviously makes you crazy enough you aren't thinking rationally.
I worked in a bakery. If one orders a wedding cake lets say or even a birthday cake and the customer wants to put some other top or thing on it(not stocked), typically they will purchase that separately. In RL Baker Joe wouldn't force a customer to have a signature topper generally. I remember requests to keep the decorations fairly plain on wedding cakes for those who had real flowers added on at the venue. This is a hypothetical whose purpose is to show two things: - The consensus backers in this thread are so desperate to contrive a distinction between the Seattle bakery case and this case that inside of 40 posts we have no fewer that three baseless excuses for maintaining a double standard. We have the Tenn/mmhmm "frosting a cake is different from baking a cake" gambit, GEL's "being forced to make a cake with hateful words is worlds away from being forced to make a cake celebrating love" gambit (which apparently isn't GEL taking a position on who should and shouldn't be forced to bake cake), and oped's "one is a service they typically provide and other is simply a service they provide" gambit, completing the double standard trifecta.
- oped's excuse is as bad as the other two, not the least reason of why being the ease with which one can conceive ways of casting virtually any service as "atypical". If you don't like my example with the bakery, I'm sure you can concoct your own example that meshes with your understanding of how baking services work.
Finally, I submit to you that if you did know what was going on, and supposing you're among the few who will confront a paradox rather than contriving excuses, I wouldn't be the one you're calling irrational. 1) One does not need to contrive a difference. If one is unable to see the difference between providing a cake that is available to others versus requesting something that is not standard ... well ... I guess some folks can't tell what is the same and what is different.
The Seattle bakery IMO would have been fully in their rights to not provide the cake topper but just provide the cake.
2) I worked in a bakery for years. Unless things have changed drastically I know how things typically work. I'm sure every bakery is different, but if you don't do it, you don't do it. Drawings are custom work unless there is a standard menu of things the bakery will draw on cakes.
There is no paradox.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,726
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jan 24, 2015 16:14:08 GMT -5
I would contest that based on the offer to provide the icing necessary for the customer to do it himself. It might not look quite as pretty, but anyone whose heart and head are filled with such ugliness likely isn't all that concerned with aesthetics anyway....
ETA: For the record, Virgil, you are correct that some of the other reasoning offered here is silly. However, your conclusion is still far off the mark.
And, again, I contest then that the first baker could have offered the cake ingredients and told the gay couple to bake their own cake - it may not have looked or tasted as nice, but they would have gotten their cake. The decorating is a service which is part of the business...unless we now allow businesses to cherry-pick which services they offer to various clients? Which would make the inital bakery case null. This is one of the craziest ideas I have read in awhile on this board. Just offer them the cake ingredients? Hmmm just wait a bit while I go back and measure flour, sugar, milk, etc. and figure out how to give them to you along with the eggs and butter etc. Oy!
Maybe other places are different, but the bakery I worked at did not have wedding cake batter in a fridge somewhere just waiting to be scooped out to make the wedding cakes of the day. Part of the reason many people order wedding cakes is once you need more than a two layer cake there are large pan sizes and inserts, pillars, etc. to put the whole thing together.
FWIW, bakeries do cherry pick which types of decorating services they offer. They always have. Custom drawings are custom and always have been at the discretion of the bakery for various reasons. Generally there are price sheets for what they will do. If its not listed, then its not standard.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,515
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 24, 2015 16:24:31 GMT -5
Based upon Virgil's poor assumption of an example above, it reads like the baker will bake a cake for anyone (including gay people because Virgil does not exclude them from his example) and for any reason. (S)he just won't ice words on the cake for gay weddings. So if the baker in your example bakes cakes for anyone who asks, even unadorned wedding cakes for gay weddings, if he had offered to provide the icing and the icing bag so Bob and Joe could write "Bob and Joe, Together Forever", that would be a reasonable accommodation. After all, how hard and how long does it take to squiggle 24 letters and punctuation mark on a cake.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,147
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 24, 2015 18:07:58 GMT -5
no, Virgil. it appears from the thread above that you agree with the logic, so I will be taking it up with you.
if you want to repudiate the logic, please do so now, and I will take it up with oped.
My logic is that if this business owner wants to tell the customer to stick his entire order--cake, banners, and frosting--where the sun doesn't shine and find some other cake shop to make it for him, she should be able to do so without the slightest fear of legal repercussions. Why? For the very same reasons I covered ad nauseum in the Seattle bakery thread. I agree completely. where I disagree is when the cake store owner makes it clear that he is doing so for discriminatory reasons. that is illegal, and it SHOULD be.
and as you say, BOTH of those points were covered ad nauseum. I am quite content with the legal standing of my position.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 3:23:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2015 18:47:11 GMT -5
The second baker did not say, we will not decorate a cake like that FOR YOU... They said, we do not decorate cakes like that FOR ANYONE.... There was NO discrimination.... Alternately, the first baker said, yes, we make cakes like that for OTHER PEOPLE... we just will not make one FOR YOU... Discrimination.... Exactly. "We don't make/sell hate cakes" is not the same as "we don't make/sell wedding cakes".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 3:23:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2015 18:52:34 GMT -5
(I'll put this in a separate post so it is easier to delete.)
Virgil, you are becoming almost Paul-like in both your zeal to espouse a conservative viewpoint and your willingness to suspend both truth and reason in order to do so. I can't tell you how disappointing that is. I'm not going to delete your post. Zealousness and conservatism are admirable qualities as far as I'm concerned. Your assessment about which side of the argument is devoid of sound reasoning is totally wrong. We'll have to settle on an irreconcilable difference of opinion, but you can rest assured that the litany of hairs split and excuses contrived in this thread have soundly convinced me I'm on the right side of it. Having said this, imagine how you'd feel if, in response to your no-holds-barred critique of a conservative poster's exceptionally banal arguments, I made it known to you how deeply disappointed I was by your exhibiting such liberal zeal at the expense of truth and reason. ... I'm certain you can deduce where I'm going with this. I'm curious... which thread is the bolded in reference to? Certainly not this one, because tallguy is pretty "spot on" (as the Brits might say) in this thread...
|
|