Masterpiece Cakeshop back to court.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Yeah, I think everyone should just stop buying cakes there. I'm bored of hearing about it, and the hoopla about the court cases is just giving the place free publicity.

None of this would have happened and he not been a discriminatory asshole and made the fucking cakes he was told to.

That "asshole" has the right not to do the fucking cakes he was told to, because said fucking cakes carry a fucking message.

If I order a fucking cake with a goatse figurine on it, am I allowed to have it, or not?

Further, being an asshole is not a crime. It's an asshole thing to do, but it's not a crime to be an asshole who doesn't want to bake you a custom cake.

[Alvecia]

Defending discrimination is defending discrimination.

Again, as a transwoman
Making art, such as this cake, is expression. The government cannot force you to express something you do not agree with. This guy is a bigoted idiot and a terrible business man, but he's not doing anything illegal.

So treating trans people as second class citizens should be legal? OK then, you can give up your right to vote.

You yourself have defended discrimination by defending discrimination against those who supposedly discriminate.

[Telconi]

Yeah, I think everyone should just stop buying cakes there. I'm bored of hearing about it, and the hoopla about the court cases is just giving the place free publicity.

None of this would have happened and he not been a discriminatory asshole and made the fucking cakes he was told to.

It also wouldn't have happened if people didn't pass laws forcing people to engage in business with people they don't want to engage in that business with.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Defending discrimination is defending discrimination.

So treating trans people as second class citizens should be legal? OK then, you can give up your right to vote.

You yourself have defended discrimination by defending discrimination against those who supposedly discriminate.

Hey, it's ok, he has bakerphobia

[Harmonian Hegemony]

Defending discrimination is defending discrimination.

So treating trans people as second class citizens should be legal? OK then, you can give up your right to vote.

You yourself have defended discrimination by defending discrimination against those who supposedly discriminate.

Oh for fucks sake this shit again? I was being sarcastic! I don't support taking away the right to vote from anyone.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

As I see it, here's the problem:

Everything can have no purpose or it can have a purpose.

Let's take a hammer for instance. A hammer is a tool to nail shit to surfaces. It has no intrinsic meaning on its own if you go today to the hardware store and buy one. The manufacturer made the hammer with no purpose other than to sell it.

Now, let's say you use that same hammer at a demonstration for worker's rights in an attire, or you plan to raise up your fist with the hammer in hand. Does the hammer have a meaning then? Why or why not?

Further, let's assume you want to commission someone for a painting of you holding that same hammer. Assume the person doesn't agree with worker's rights. Does that person have the right to deny you that service or not?

[Harmonian Hegemony]

None of this would have happened and he not been a discriminatory asshole and made the fucking cakes he was told to.

It also wouldn't have happened if people didn't pass laws forcing people to engage in business with people they don't want to engage in that business with.

One of the many perils of opening a PUBLIC business.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It also wouldn't have happened if people didn't pass laws forcing people to engage in business with people they don't want to engage in that business with.

One of the many perils of opening a PUBLIC business.

I mean, the baker's establishment is partly bespoke business and partly public.

Businesses that make bespoke items have some leeway on the public accommodation rule, because they are doing something unique.

The problem of public accommodation is when they are serving you something that is very common. For instance, restaurants offer food, but you can get food in another restaurant, and you can get food to do at Wal-Mart. Food is not a particularly uncommon thing to make, so it falls under anti-discrimination laws.

A piece of art on the other hand is very exclusive because no two paintings are the same, and the painting carries a message. Of course it has an exemption from it being a public accommodation. Because it is a unique piece, and unique pieces have a bit more of protection.

[Alvecia]

You yourself have defended discrimination by defending discrimination against those who supposedly discriminate.

Oh for fucks sake this shit again? I was being sarcastic! I don't support taking away the right to vote from anyone.

Ever heard of a fella named Poe? I think you’d get on nicely.

Out of curiosity, would you support a gay baker having to bake a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church saying “God hates Fags”?

[Internationalist Bastard]

Sounds terribly fascist of you to be advocating that just because IB has a different opinion.

*shrugs* If he's fine with having less rights then he shouldn't mind one more.

So to prove you are tolerant you misgender a trans person, demand we stop defending freedom of expression, and take away voting rates from me?

[Telconi]

It also wouldn't have happened if people didn't pass laws forcing people to engage in business with people they don't want to engage in that business with.

One of the many perils of opening a PUBLIC business.

Yeah, laws don't just spring into being out of nowhere...

[The Black Forrest]

None of this would have happened and he not been a discriminatory asshole and made the fucking cakes he was told to.

It also wouldn't have happened if people didn't pass laws forcing people to engage in business with people they don't want to engage in that business with.

Rather odd childish logic. I didn't discriminate! These oppressive laws made me!!!!!!!!!!

Don't like people; don't have a store. There is always the Net. But, he won't be able to discriminate if he used that.....

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Oh for fucks sake this shit again? I was being sarcastic! I don't support taking away the right to vote from anyone.

Ever heard of a fella named Poe? I think you’d get on nicely.

Out of curiosity, would you support a gay baker having to bake a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church saying “God hates Fags”?

The Westboro Baptist Church should do this in Colorado.

Damnit, now I want to see this happen.

[Hurdergaryp]

*shrugs* If he's fine with having less rights then he shouldn't mind one more.

So to prove you are tolerant you misgender a trans person, demand we stop defending freedom of expression, and take away voting rates from me?

And that is only the beginning!

[Telconi]

It also wouldn't have happened if people didn't pass laws forcing people to engage in business with people they don't want to engage in that business with.

Rather odd childish logic. I didn't discriminate! These oppressive laws made me!!!!!!!!!!

Don't like people; don't have a store. There is always the Net. But, he won't be able to discriminate if he used that.....

That does sound like childish logic, luckily for me it isn't mine.

[The Black Forrest]

Oh for fucks sake this shit again? I was being sarcastic! I don't support taking away the right to vote from anyone.

Ever heard of a fella named Poe? I think you’d get on nicely.

Out of curiosity, would you support a gay baker having to bake a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church saying “God hates Fags”?

If he routinely wrote such messages for other people and "causes".......sure.

[Estanglia]

No it's not. You can support the right of somebody to do/not do something, and disagree with them when they do/don't do that thing.
Not everything you disagree with has to be illegal.

If you defend the right to discriminate then you support discrimination.

No, I support the right for people to not be compelled to speak. Again, just because I defend someone's right to do x doesn't mean I support that someone's personal viewpoints. Rights are universal. Just because you're a homophobe, doesn't mean you lose your rights.

Let's look at your logic. Whoever defends the right of a homophobe to do/not do x is a homophobe, correct? Say you were forced to do x, and you didn't want to. Everyone who defends your right to not do x would, if they were consistent, be homophobes, because they would, if they were consistent, protect the homophobe's right to do/not do x, even if they were gay or anti-homophobia. And then you end up in scenarios where people who are strongly anti-y are y by your logic because they have defended the rights of y group to do x.

We support the right of somebody to not be compelled to speak. The reason is irrelevant.
We don't support discrimination (again, if we do, all it takes is one quote from you to prove it), we support the right of someone to not be compelled to speak when they don't want to.

He's not 'compelled' to do anything other than his fucking job.

He doesn't like the message the cake has. If you force him to bake that cake, that would be compelled speech as art (and it's message) is considered speech.

No we don't. Again, I can support somebody's right to do/not do something and not agree with them if they choose to do/not do that thing.
Just because I support person x's right to do/not do y, does not mean I endorse, support or agree with person x's views.

Defending discrimination is defending discrimination.

Good thing we're not doing that, eh? Because if we really were saying, 'it's ok to discriminate', you would be able to find a quote of us doing that, wouldn't you?

Yes. Because you can support somebody's right to do/not do x and disagree with them personally.

No. I disagree with the baker so I'm not taking his side. You obviously agree with the baker but are too scared of outing yourself as a bigot.

So now you're assuming my position, all because I don't believe in compelling speech. I disagree with the baker vehemently, I think he should've baked that cake, but I don't think he should be compelled to bake that cake. The baker's a dick. The only reason why I'm 'on his side' according to you is because I believe nobody, including this baker, should be compelled to speak. Also, if me agreeing with the baker is so obvious, you should be able to find somewhere where I have expressed that. Care to show us that?

So, It's perfectly okay for you to do it and not anyone else?

Pointing out homophobia is an attack?

If you had actually done that, no. But you haven't. All you've done is called the anti-compelled speech side anti-gay, specifically called one of them a homophobe, have failed to cite anything as proof, strawmanned us as pro-discrimination, called me a bigot with no evidence, and told a trans person to give up their right to vote because they don't believe in compelled speech.

[The Black Forrest]

Rather odd childish logic. I didn't discriminate! These oppressive laws made me!!!!!!!!!!

Don't like people; don't have a store. There is always the Net. But, he won't be able to discriminate if he used that.....

That does sound like childish logic, luckily for me it isn't mine.

When you get down to it. Such laws wouldn't exist if people behaved themselves.

[San Lumen]

None of this would have happened and he not been a discriminatory asshole and made the fucking cakes he was told to.

It also wouldn't have happened if people didn't pass laws forcing people to engage in business with people they don't want to engage in that business with.

All those African Americans in the South should have just thrown up their hands and said oh well i guess no one will serve me right?

[Telconi]

That does sound like childish logic, luckily for me it isn't mine.

When you get down to it. Such laws wouldn't exist if people behaved themselves.

I forgot, they were necessary to prevent people from disagreeing with you.

[Telconi]

It also wouldn't have happened if people didn't pass laws forcing people to engage in business with people they don't want to engage in that business with.

All those African Americans in the South should have just thrown up their hands and said oh well i guess no one will serve me right?

Sure :^)

[San Lumen]

All those African Americans in the South should have just thrown up their hands and said oh well i guess no one will serve me right?

Sure :^)

So that is a yes? Should we repeal the Civil Rights Act too? After all its forcing people to do business with those they dont want too

[Telconi]

Sure :^)

So that is a yes? Should we repeal the Civil Rights Act too? After all its forcing people to do business with those they dont want too

the portions that apply to private businesses yes.

[San Lumen]

So that is a yes? Should we repeal the Civil Rights Act too? After all its forcing people to do business with those they dont want too

the portions that apply to private businesses yes.

And what is a private business? if you serve the public and anyone can enter you are not a private business.

[Telconi]

the portions that apply to private businesses yes.

And what is a private business? if you serve the public and anyone can enter you are not a private business.

Any business which is privately owned.