The gay wedding cake.

And I refuse on other grounds, will you sue me anyway? I have no idea your skin color, creed or sexual orientation. The only one that would be evident would be skin color. But if I didn't like you for some other reason (bad attitude, loud mouth, disrespectful to name possible reasons), if you happen to be Black or Gay or Muslim, I can expect you'll site discrimination based on these regardless of if I don't like you for other reasons. So there's that to deal with in America also.

 

With the help of loans from banks that likely wouldnt have loaned them the money before discrimination laws were put into place

 

You can change the public opinion through transforming the culture. That’s how the lgbt community won the culture war, paving the way lo legalizing gay marriage.

Do you think a business with a sign that says “we don’t serve (insert race here)” would last very long in most places in this country? If so, why? Would you visit a place that catered to you but excluded others?

 

I guess we're forgetting about Pulse, and every trans woman who's been murdered, and every person who's been harassed for trying to use the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity. It's such a classic "argument" that people will diminish the validity of one struggle because other people have struggles. It's the same thing as people saying "White lives matter". No one is saying other horrible shit isn't happening. But you can't deny that things got better, and then we took huge steps back.

I guess when I get my car scratched because I have an equality sticker, and get called a disgusting dyke, it'll only matter if I get murdered along with a 1000 or so other people. While people walk around who have all the privilege and scream that they're being discriminated against for being religious because of the sole fact that gay people exist. Don't tell me I have it sweet, tell the bigots because it's actually true in their case.

80% of my partner's family is homophobic and it's always an issue. Yeah it's not the worst thing that could happen, but it's something straight people don't even have to worry about. They don't have to worry that their family won't come to their wedding because of their prejudice, or that people will throw bottles at them when they go to Pride, or attack them in an alley for holding another man's hand.

The LGBT Murder Rate Skyrocketed Nearly 90% Last Year

 

Bad attitude, loud mouth, and/or disrespectful are fair game. You could even deny me service for my "offensive" political views. Race, color, religion, or ethnicity, however, are out of bounds. The only thing that gives me pause about the baker's case is the fact that religious conscience is involved. I know a lawyer who won't handle divorce cases because he thinks divorce is wrong and doesn't want to be involved in facilitating it. The only difference between that and the baker case is that the lawyer didn't do some divorces and not others because he didn't approve of the grounds. I think gay is okay, and that marriage is a wholesome influence in a relationship. My wife said she supports gay marriage because she thinks they should be able to enjoy the kind of relationship we have. But fundamentalists of Abrahamic religions think gay is a terrible sin and marriage is about a man and a woman having children. I think those are mistaken views, but I don't think anyone should be forced to do what (s)he sincerely thinks is immoral. To make it more complicated, I think people will be finding more and more things to offend their religious consciences if we let this one by. So I can understand why the Court decided to kick the can down the road and hope somebody else can sort it out.

 

I cant believe people are actually arguing that we should get rid of anti discrimination laws.

 

As I said multiple times, yes. The free market will weed out your position in today's society.

Yes.

There's a difference bewteen what I think you should have the right to and what I think you should do. If you posted a sign saying "no Jews allowed", I will boycott you and plaster your name all over the country saying how terrible your business practices are. We already do that when it comes to customer service and we have a perfect example of Starbucks. What happened there wasn't even racist and yet because it went viral and people accused them of being racist, Starbucks closed down for a day to train all of their employees on how to be more accepting. We also have a more recent case where two employees were fired because they told some black people that the store was closed. To quell outrage, the manager fired them.

If that's your requirement for someone to enter your business, then yes. Have at it.

 

You guys realize that if the supreme court ruling went the other way, this neo-nazi family could force any bakery they want to make racist cakes. Just FYI

3-year-old Hitler can't get name on cake

 

I doubt anyone hates fundamentalism more than me, but I think the SCOTUS got it right on this one. There will always be conflict in areas where citizens have conflicting rights, i.e., my right to do business where I please vs someone else's right to do business with whom they please. Luckily in this case it only involves a cake. I would have felt much differently if it had involved an emergency room refusing service to someone based on whatever. Lives would be at stake in such a case.

I'm much more concerned about the Kim Davis thing. I don't understand how an elected government official can get away with refusing to issue a marriage license in a state where gay marriage is legal. If this is the standard we expect from government employees then what's to stop a county clerk from refusing to allow someone to register to vote based on race, religion or whatever? Or a police officer from responding to an emergency call from a gay bar? Or district attorneys from deciding which cases to prosecute based on the nationalities of the parties involved? These people are public servants; they don't get to pick who they serve. As I recall, Davis was jailed for a time over her refusal to give the couple a license; it should never have gone that far. She should simply have been dismissed from her position for refusal to do her job.

 

Did you read that article?

24 out of 27 transgenders murdered that year where non white

And 20 gay/bi cisgendered men in 2017 is 0.013 per 100,000. Far far below your national average. A murder rate around 50 times lower than that of black males of all sexualities .


Also, 80% of your partners family doesnt like you. Do you think that is all that different to any guy that may have settled down with your girlfriend had that been the case.

A lot of mother in laws are bitches to their daughters partners, whether that partner is male or female

 

It's just background noise at this point. I mean, it bothers me and I'm aware of it, but I've been listening to it forever. It's like the school shooting phenomenon: it's still sickening and horrible every time it happens, but it's no longer shocking and surprising; it's just part of the social fabric of America.

Who won last night's game? What school got shot up today? Did you see what Kim K. posted on Instagram? Gay people are a plague on our society and should have no rights. Pass the donuts...

 

And it today's times, I'd prefer you be a patron that isn't protected so that if they are unsuitable for being an asshole, I can ask that asshole to leave without fear of it being about the fact that they are a protected class asshole. Because now this country has enboldened and championed a lot of assholes that drape themselves in "protected class" flags and dare the rest of us to refuse them service. Because they are assholes will never be heard in court. It will be a discrimination suit. If he wasn't a protected class asshole, i could refuse him service without fear.

 

You can't discriminate based on their race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, age, disability, veteran status, marital status or asshole-ness.

 

If the liberals keep at it, you will soon be right.

Asshole will be a protected class, a recognized condition they can't help due to thier well researched studies justifying it, and therefore entitled to being one. And Sue anyone who doesn't like it.

 

Culture change is slow, unpredictable and interactive with politics and government action. The civil rights movement for African-Americans took decades to get underway. President Truman's decision to integrate the Armed Forces kicked it off in 1948. The Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka in 1954 gave it additional momentum. At the time, neither of those decisions reflected any cultural consensus for integration. Then came the civil rights movement, which was spearheaded by political activists who put their lives on the line through sit-ins and civil disobedience. The sight of them being beaten, fire hosed and beset by dogs stirred the public conscience. But it was organization and action by a dedicated minority, not culture and activity by your "free market", that made the difference. The decisive events came when President Kennedy endorsed the movement and LBJ, seeking to be heir to the legacy of the assassinated President, came on board with specific legislation: the Civil Rights Acts and the Voting Rights Act. Politics and government drove, as well as being shaped by, public opinion and culture..

As for the LGBT movement, that began in earnest with the Stonewall riot in 1969, when gays in Greenwich village decided to resist police who were doing a routine raid on a gay bar. Yes they were inspired by cultural changes--especially the civil rights and black power movements I just described, as well as by the protests against the Vietnam war. There was no change in cultural attitudes toward gays in the nation as a whole that precipitated this development. The Gay Liberation Movement that emerged by the end of the decade was supported by activists who put their careers and physical well-being on the line at a time when the American public did not think gay was okay. Soon organized opposition appeared from conservative Christian organizations lie the 700 Club, Focus on the Family and the Christian Coalition. Gay rights entered national electoral politics in the 1980 election, when the Democratic National Convention adopted a plank against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Involvement by the courts proved decisive. Romer v. Evans in 1996 struck down Colorado's constitutional provision denying legal protection to gays. Then in 2003, in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court declared Texas' anti-sodomy statute to be unconstitutional. In 2009, President Obama got into the act by allowing the same-sex partners of federal employees to receive benefits. It wasn't until 2015 that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex couples have the right to marry. I find it hard to conceptualize these changes as the result of "free market" activity or diffuse "culture change" that occurred without political, government, and judicial action to bring it about.

Neither you nor I would patronize a business that put out a racist or homophobic sign, but I know people who probably would be attracted to such an establishment. I get the impression that certain posters on this thread might be among them. Gains in both the civil rights and LGBT rights arenas are threatened by recent political developments in this country. There is a backlash against both that is alive and well in the Republican Party. Hostility toward African-Americans is being fed by propagandists who feed racial divisions with inflammatory rhetoric. In my state of Oklahoma and neighboring Kansas and Texas, there are constant efforts in the legislature to roll back gains by the LGBT movement. Oklahoma and Kansas Enact Anti-LGBT Laws Texas Is on the Verge of Passing Two Horribly Anti-LGBT Laws At the national level, we have a notoriously anti-gay Vice President, and a President and Congress who are rushing through judicial appointments of Troglodytes that will eventually lead to a change in court decisions in these areas. I. for one, am not content to let the "free market" decide these outcomes. I'll fight for human rights regardless of the tides of public opinion or the dictates of human forces. Call me a proud Social Justice Warrior against the reactionaries who are so desparately trying to turn back the clock to the 1950s.

 

Stonewall?

American Civil War:

 

80% of them haven't met me, but have an issue with her being gay, which is why I haven't met them. Nice try though.

Again, not disputing that lots of people die. But it's irrelevant because we're talking about discrimination against gays, which also exists.

 

No Stonewall riots in 1969. Look it up.

 

While discrimination sucks, I am amused that so many people are triggered by a cake for a wedding they are not invited to.

Basically the equivalent of me losing my shit because complete strangers ordered pizza without pineapple for a pizza party I'm not invited to.