The Wow I Can't Believe That News Story Thread

[OccultHawk]

Originally Posted by Trollheart

You realise that Chula, Hawk and Elph abbreviates to....

Kewl

The new alliance is born.

[DwnWthVwls]

Youre the "old wrinkly balls part" btw.

[OccultHawk]

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

Youre the "old wrinkly balls part" btw.

[Trollheart]

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

Kewl

The new alliance is born.

Of course, if you then add me you get

[OccultHawk]

[DwnWthVwls]

Sexuality absolutely, but I don't think we have a good enough understanding about gender indentity to open that can. Pronoun fuckery and all that is some pretty dangerous territory. Agreed otherwise.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by Exo

To be fair, that was bad wording on my part.

To clarify...

This wasn't a case of the Supreme Court saying "It's okay for you to not serve gays". This was a case where the baker was asked specifically to closely and intimately design a cake for a homosexual couple. This is something he doesn't believe in so his decision was, in my opinion, legal according to our laws. You're not required to offer a specialized intimate wedding cake as part of your services. It'd be like being forced as a gay baker to make a cake for somebody who wanted "death to all homos" on it.

Have you found anything that suggests that his process or cake would have been any different for a straight couple?

[Exo]

Originally Posted by elphenor

this is where it's important to understand the intent behind anti-discrimination laws

people who want "death to all homos" written on **** would not be under a protected class, and should not be

the laws are not meant to give you the right to demand anything you want from a business

sexuality and gender identity is not yet a federally protected class, but I'd argue, and I'd venture to say you'd agree, that it should be

Right. But we aren't talking about this, or at least I'm not, in respect to the ACTUAL case. Read the reaction details from the Justices. The baker was not denying the couple his service on any of his other goods. Just the personalized wedding cake. He simply did not, under his religious beliefs, feel comfortable making them the cake. That doesn't make him a bigot. It makes him a narrow sighted and stupid man. The dude even offered the numbers of other bakers that would accommodate them.

This isn't a case about discrimination. It's a case about whether the owner of a private business has the right to decline making a client a personalized cake, which could kind of be construed as a piece of art, and the state and this couple went after him as if he was a bigot.

I've changed my tune a bit after actually reading the details of the case. The couple seems like they want to be victimized and garner attention. This isn't the way to do it.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by Exo

He simply did not, under his religious beliefs, feel comfortable making them (homosexuals) the cake. That doesn't make him a bigot.

Lol k

[Chula Vista]

Originally Posted by Exo

The lawyers for this couple didn't particularly do a great job here.

.