Where is the outrage?

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/central...t/32184060

(04-06-2015 03:44 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Where is the outrage?

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/central...t/32184060

It's ridiculous. A bakery can definitely say "no" to putting something offensive on a cake. I hadn't seen the story. These kinds of stories don't make national headlines like the others.

Right Here mister. I'm outraged.

What would be even MORE messed up would be if the government came in and forced them to do it.

(04-06-2015 03:48 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 03:44 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Where is the outrage?

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/central...t/32184060

It's ridiculous. A bakery can definitely say "no" to putting something offensive on a cake. I hadn't seen the story. These kinds of stories don't make national headlines like the others.

Because it's not news.

I hope that the people making these threats are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law just like I hope that the people who made the threats to the pizza shop in Indiana are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I also hope that this baker faces the same penalties as the Christians who were forced by the government to violate their beliefs.

Guys, here's where the line should be.

1) Bakery refuses to make a cake with a negative message. And applies that policy to all. Probably not a case.
2) Bakery refuses to make a cake that they are willing to make for others, simply because of the client's race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, sex, or national origin. There is a case here.

---

If a bakery refuses to place toppers on a cake, they can do that. But they have to refuse it for all.
If a bakery refuses to place names on a cake, they can do that. But they have to refuse it for all.

---


Hope this helps

(04-06-2015 04:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Guys, here's where the line should be.

1) Bakery refuses to make a cake with a negative message. And applies that policy to all. Probably not a case.
2) Bakery refuses to make a cake that they are willing to make for others, simply because of the client's race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, sex, or national origin. There is a case here.

---

If a bakery refuses to place toppers on a cake, they can do that. But they have to refuse it for all.
If a bakery refuses to place names on a cake, they can do that. But they have to refuse it for all.

---


Hope this helps

You nailed it.

(04-06-2015 04:01 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I hope that the people making these threats threads are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law...

I read this to fast.

(04-06-2015 04:12 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 04:01 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I hope that the people making these threats threads are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law...

I read this to fast.

No you read it at the right speed and you proceeded to make a juvenile edit to fit your troll persona.

For some reason every time you create a thread I am reminded of Shakespeare.

Quote:Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.

No idea why.

As long as the Credit Card Transaction was authorized, the Check was good, and/or the Cash wasn't Counterfeit, I'd bake a cake for anyone.

(04-06-2015 04:41 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 04:12 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 04:01 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I hope that the people making these threats threads are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law...

I read this to fast.

No you read it at the right speed and you proceeded to make a juvenile edit to fit your troll persona.

For some reason every time you create a thread I am reminded of Shakespeare.

Quote:Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.

No idea why.

Wow! Take a chill pill. I was making a funny and you just ruined the mood.

(04-06-2015 04:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Guys, here's where the line should be.

1) Bakery refuses to make a cake with a negative message. And applies that policy to all. Probably not a case.
2) Bakery refuses to make a cake that they are willing to make for others, simply because of the client's race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, sex, or national origin. There is a case here.

---

If a bakery refuses to place toppers on a cake, they can do that. But they have to refuse it for all.
If a bakery refuses to place names on a cake, they can do that. But they have to refuse it for all.

---


Hope this helps

Got to say I agree with this with one exception if the bakery only puts toppers on that are ordered by the bakery and the toppers are all Man and Woman, no one should be able to force the bakery to order any inventory they don't want.

Why don't we just have an open thread for all of these arguments?

Bakery That Refused To Make Anti-Gay Cakes Ruled Not To Have Discriminated By Colorado Civil Rights Division…

Quote:The Colorado Civil Rights Division recently ruled that Azucar Bakery in Denver did not engage in illegal discrimination when it refused to make cakes with anti-gay messages on them.

In March of 2014, Marjorie Silva, owner of Azucar, refused to make cakes that included two Bible verses: “God hates sin. Psalm 45:7″ and “Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:2[2].” The cake design was also to include a portrayal of two grooms holding hands in front of a cross with a red “X” over them. The man who made the request, one William Jack, proceeded to file a complaint against her for discriminating against him based on his “creed” as defined by Colorado law.

A decision letter from the Division ruled in Silva’s favor. She did not discriminate against Jack because of his religious identity, but because his request included “derogatory language and imagery.” Her standard against such language is consistent across protected classes. “In the same manner [she] would not accept [an order from] anyone wanting to make a discriminatory cake against Christians, [she] will not make one that discriminates against gays,” the decision reads. “The evidence demonstrates that [Silva] would deny such requests to any customer, regardless of creed.”

As UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh predicted, Colorado law protects discrimination against people based on their belonging to certain classes, not based on their ideas and messages.

Consistency is a factor to assessing this, which is why Silva won, but another Colorado baker, Jack Phillips, lost his case when he refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. Phillips never even gave the couple a chance to discuss the artistry of the cake; despite selling wedding cakes to different-sex couples, he refused to sell the same product to same-sex couples. Though he argued that his religious beliefs simply forbade him from “participating” in a same-sex wedding, Administrative Law Judge Robert Spencer found that this was just a pretext for anti-gay discrimination. “Only same-sex couples engage in same-sex weddings,” he wrote. “Therefore, it makes little sense to argue that refusal to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for use at their wedding is not ‘because of’ their sexual orientation.”

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/04/06...s-against/

What utter cowards these people are!