Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

smitty_one_each's Journal: Jack Phillips should be put on a wedding cake chain gang 58

Journal by smitty_one_each
Bakery Will Stop Making Wedding Cakes After Losing Discrimination Case
How DARE this disgusting thought criminal think he retains freedom of contract, and the capacity to refuse to bake anything for anyone for any reason?
Clearly he is some bigoted Christianist freak who needs to be put down like a rabid dog, in the service of Holy Progress.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jack Phillips should be put on a wedding cake chain gang

Comments Filter:
  • Yeah, because it says right there in the Bible, "Thou shalt not bake cakes for homosexuals", and "Thou shalt not feed hungry wedding guests if you don't approve of the nuptial couple's lifestyle."

    You can find it in the same part of scripture that was used to fight civil rights, women's suffrage, and miscegenation. There were religious leaders in the 19th century Midwest who said that slavery was scriptural, and God's Way.

    Bigots will always find something in scripture that will make them feel righteous. An

    • So, you believe that slavery is the right way to respond to somebody not wanting to bake a cake?

      • by PopeRatzo (965947)

        I don't think that word means what you think it does.

        • Forcing somebody to do what they don't want to do isn't slavery?

          • by PopeRatzo (965947)

            Not even close to slavery. When my mom told me to take out the trash or mow the lawn, it was not the same as being sold into indentured servitude. When I pay my taxes, it's not something I want to do, but it's not the same as being put on a block and having my family separated and sold into a life of hardship and forced labor. I could still quit my job tomorrow.

            If these bakers were really slaves, they'd be physically forced to bake cakes. Business rules are not slavery. Civil rights legislation is not

            • So in other words, you're fine with discrimination and separating people into groups based on race and sexual orientation. Thanks for being just another unthinking, uncritical heterophobe.

    • Way to refute my "freedom of contract" point: great work.
  • ... I actually am fine with a bakery choosing their clients. If a baker wants to be a bigot, that's fine. He can expect that people will protest outside his shop for being discriminatory and he will lose business as a result.

    I see the problem in how blatant he was about why he didn't want a particular customer. He could have figured out a way to be kinder on his rejection than just exposing himself as a massive homophobe.
    • And the couple could have chosen another bakery without exposing themselves as heterophobes.

      • And the couple could have chosen another bakery without exposing themselves as heterophobes.

        How, exactly, are they showing any hatred of heterosexuals in this case? They wanted only to purchase a product from the baker, which the baker wanted not to sell to them. They brought this up because the baker was openly denying them business based on their sexual orientation, however I do not recall any mention of them saying anything about his.

        For that matter, if they had left that bakery, and found a homosexual baker to bake their cake instead, would that not be a more significant case of heterop

        • "How, exactly, are they showing any hatred of heterosexuals in this case? "

          By forcing heterosexuals to participate in their farce of a marriage- enslaving them against the 13th Amendment.

          "They wanted only to purchase a product from the baker, which the baker wanted not to sell to them. They brought this up because the baker was openly denying them business based on their sexual orientation, however I do not recall any mention of them saying anything about his. "

          The whole intent of the "denying them based on

          • "How, exactly, are they showing any hatred of heterosexuals in this case? "

            By forcing heterosexuals to participate

            How, exactly, did they force anyone to do anything? The baker refused to sell them a cake, and they pointed out that the baker was discriminating against them based on their sexuality. I have not heard anything of the baker being forced to do anything against his own wishes.

            "They wanted only to purchase a product from the baker, which the baker wanted not to sell to them. They brought this up because the baker was openly denying them business based on their sexual orientation, however I do not recall any mention of them saying anything about his. "

            The whole intent of the "denying them based on their sexual orientation" claim is an attempt to suppress

            What is being suppressed here? The baker said he would not bake them a cake.

            heteronormative

            Well, that's a fun word, there. Are you trying to claim that heterosexuality is "normal" and all other sexual orientations are "abnormal", ie "wrong"? No

            • How, exactly, did they force anyone to do anything? The baker refused to sell them a cake, and they pointed out that the baker was discriminating against them based on their sexuality. I have not heard anything of the baker being forced to do anything against his own wishes.

              He lost the lawsuit. His choices are now either make the cake or stop making wedding cakes altogether; both of which are most certainly against his wishes.

              What is being suppressed here? The baker said he would n

          • EXACTLY. This sets a chilling precedence -- the government now could force you to perform in a gay porn movie. What's that, you say? You have a moral objection? No, you're not allowed to have a moral objection, you serf. Now get down there and blow Barack.

            The First Amendment guarantees the RIGHT to FREE EXERCISE of Religion. If that means a baker doesn't want to bake a cake for a "ceremony" then so be it.

            Most businesses have a sign: "We reserve the right to refuse service..." -- so does this mean that
            • MH42 is right on this one.

              On the contrary... The AC has him by the balls. Even d_r is ahead of him on this.

  • The commission also ordered the baker to submit quarterly reports about the customers he refuses to serve and retrain employees to serve everyone.

    Just goes to show that you'd have to be absolutely nuts to own/start a business in America today. (Even aside from the whole what American workers are like nowadays thing/how would you find enough American workers that weren't thoroughly products of the entitlement and litigation aspects of our (Leftists trying to crash the whole system) culture.)

    Just being a citizen here, one is a plenty big enough target for governments at the various levels to examine and intrude in our business. Have a business on top

The moon may be smaller than Earth, but it's further away.

Working...