Yet he did judge these people.Please go back and re-read his statement that I quoted.

Btw that so called ritual you speak is not endorsed by any doctor.All doctors recommend using a vaporizer so that no carcinogens are inhaled and all patients are told this.I stand by my original statement...he makes and sells bongs for $$$.

I do.. and it equates to about .001% of my income.. I do it as a service to help someone with a serious problem.. The last one i made wasn't actually a bong, but a steamroller that was custom made for a patient with a tracheotomy…. made to fit the opening in his neck and long enough to go past his chin.. ANd.. its it is perfectly legal:uhuh:

they love you too and still talk about that trip, the ornaments are hanging in the window in our living room and look great...

you are very clear that you would not have done what the baker did in this instance, that's not the question, the question is whether the baker had or should have the right to say no...

to try to pick an easy example for you that might relate as this law pertains to race, religion and orientation, I don't know this for certain but if you happen to be pro-choice....and some representatives of a religious group walk through your door and want to purchase one of your more elaborate sculptures for the centerpiece of their upcoming pro-life rally and fund raising dinner...

should you have the right to refuse to sell that object to them if you'd would prefer that your name and artwork not be associated with a cause or event that you might disagree with? ....y/n

should a judge, if you decide that you do not want your name or work associated with that event be able to force you to make or sell that object or face a fine ?....y/n


should be a pretty simple yes/no.... without wandering off into bong talk :)

First I would have simply said that I never made one like that before and I'm afraid I would do a really poor job. If that didn't get rid of them I would say , OK , I'll try but the extra time I will need to design it will mean it costs 3 times as much. If that didn't get rid of them I'd make them a really crappy cake and get paid 3X for it! :)

Honestly , I think the baker should be able to just say no.

Scott. I don't give a #^&#^&#^&#^& what people do in their lives. I wouldn't turn anyone down for anything I make. I live my life and I let people live their lives. Live and let live.

It's really simple and allows me to sleep very well at night. :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh.. Yes or no.

No! No one should be discriminated against based on sexual preference, race or religion. Period.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

sooo....

no....you should not have the right to refuse to sell that object to them if you'd would prefer that your name and artwork not be associated with a cause or event that you might disagree with?

and presumably

yes... a judge should, if you decide that you do not want your name or work associated with that event be able to force you to make or sell that object or face a fine ?....

interesting....I guess "live and let live" does not apply to the baker? doesn't tolerance go both ways?

"I wouldn't turn anyone down for anything I make. I live my life and I let people live their lives. Live and let live."

if this is true you should have no opinion regarding the actions of the baker....but you were quite explicit in your condemnation

is he not being discriminated against by the judge and couple over his religious/moral views and having their beliefs forced on him? are they bigots? you mentioned earlier that you had a real problem with religions tending to "force" their views on others....does this also apply to the couple and the judge?

"No! No one should be discriminated against based on sexual preference, race or religion. Period."

this is one of those statements that sounds great when stated initially...then you start applying reality to it and it doesn't make a lot of sense....there is plenty of discrimination that exists..some is attacked and some is protected

the baker and the couple could have been tolerant of each other's beliefs and parted ways...one party chose to sue and have their views forced on the other by the State....over a cake :)...or was it?

Nebe, you posted this earlier...

"If there's one thing that grinds my gears about conservative Christians and of course other religions, it's the fact that they push what they believe onto others.
Why doesn't everyone just keep their beliefs to themselves??

Here's what you have not/will not/can not grasp...

It is the gay couple and the judge who are forcing their beliefs on the baker, not the other way around. The baker isn't trying to convert anyone to Christianity, he simply wants to be left alone to live in accordance with his beliefs. The baker isn't telling the couple they cannot get married, he just doesn't want to be involved.

The baker wants to be left alone to live in accordance with his beliefs. Our country was literally founded on that concept.

You also said this...

"Against gay marriage?? Don't have one!"

Again, your words are precisely what the baker is trying to do...he just wants to be left out of this marriage, but the couple and the judge are telling him to participate in the wedding or face fines.

Your arguments here, are supporting the baker's case as well as any lawyer could, and somehow you think you are refuting his case...

Yup.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Right or wrong, any person should be entitled to discriminate as they see fit. This baker wasn't bothering anyone but the fag nazis want everyone to see things from their perspective.I am not a homophobe at all,I just can't stand that our right to opinion and individualism are being taken away. The government is forcing people to play nice and that is not necessarily in our best interest. I really don't see things Jim's way but I support his view in this case.

On this issue, it appears you see things my way, doesn't it? I think the baker ha every right to ay "no thanks" to the happy couple...

That, in a direct non-legalistic way, describes the fundamental transformation of our society. Those humans who wished to be free have sought through the ages for a society to exist in harmony. One of the most basic ways to do so was the golden rule of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. But that was a philosophical maxim not a governing law. And it wasn't general enough to account for the personal concepts of what you wish to be done unto you. And it certainly didn't have the force of law. And laws tended to deprive individuals of personal opinion.

The Founders were very much in agreement with you that you should be able to discriminate as you wish. But they also understood that, though the individual is paramount, we must exist in society. The clash of individual wishes vs. societal cohesion needed a way to preserve one within the other. They came up with the concept of individual unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness among those rights which individuals could inviolately posses and which society must protect. This social compact would protect the individual and unify the society. The individual could "discriminate" as he wishes, but must not act in ways that would negate another's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

So they instituted a system of government which would accommodate the sovereignty of the individual and the cohesion of society.

Apparently we individuals, over time, have been found wanting. We have been deemed by other individuals to be incapable of their version of golden rules or of forming their version of society. We must subscribe to THEIR way of acting nice, and live in THEIR version of society. "Our best interest" as an individual, because of our selfish incompetence, must conform to the best interest of the society created by this higher group of beings.

The baker may not have denied to the gays life, liberty, or PURSUIT of happiness, but he did not conform to the new ideal--the subservience of the individual to the will of the collective. Of course, neither the will of the collective, nor the ultimate motive for that will, is fully understood at this time. It is wrapped in some convenient phrases such as "fairness" or "equality" or "anti-discrimination" even though pitting one person's version of those qualities against another's denies one of them the same fairness, equality or anti-discrimination.

So the individual's desire to live freely within a society of free individuals has been, apparently, a pipe dream. We are too imperfect as individuals, so must bow to the perfection defined by the State.

I'm not an expert, like Snider apparently is, on conservative Christians, but wouldn't they want to "save" people like him rather than put them in jail? Is there some widespread conservative Christian movement to put Snider in jail? And he's able to sing his bigoted stuff on FOX? I wonder if he has any concept of what really allows him to be free.

I've never read anywhere they were looking for a non-standard cake. Your making it sound like they were looking for a giant phallus shaped cake that squirted frosting.

-spence

Take it for what it is… ;)

If you are a baker who makes Boy/girl wedding cakes then obviously something has to be different to make it a boy/boy wedding cake. If not what would the courts be trying to make the guy bake? You don't need to get the courts involved for a boy/girl cake do you?

Now to show you what a radical you are , I was thinking it would have two men dolls on top instead of bride and groom dolls. You are talking a Phallus cake shooting frosting out the top! That's a little radical isn't it.

We should all tolerate other peoples differences. How dare someone not tolerate gays points of view. Oh I mean how dare gays not tolerate straight peoples points of view. What? They don't have to tolerate our point of view , we only have to tolerate theirs? Hmmm, somehow that hurts my feelings. Hurt feelings?? I got a court case!!! :)

What gender does a wedding cake have aside from the little cheesy plastic people on top that nobody uses any more?

-spence

because they could get a "standard cake" anywhere...which is why this is about "forcing" the baker to make a cake for a "non-standard" wedding and not really about the cake itself....

I suppose if they were looking for the cake that you describe and the baker refused to make it...the Judge could just order him to make it or pay a fine or go to jail

Maybe the guy made really nice cakes?

So if he decided to not sell to black people would that be ok as well?

-spence

Nobody uses them little Bride/Groom dolls anymore and they make them out of cheese!!?? But they do make phallus shaped cakes that squirt whipped cream? Man , I guess I am out of touch with todays wedding cakes! :biglaugh:

If the baker was asked to bake a "standard" cake by someone who wasn't "protected" by an anti-discrimination law, and the baker refused, could the judge order him to bake the "standard" cake?

So this is Bloomberg telling you what size soda you can drink. Skits like the soup nazi on seinfeld certainly take on a whole different spin when it is looked upon this way.No soup for you is grounds for a lawsuit.

Why would the baker refuse?

-spence

Because he wanted to. He just didn't feel like it. He got some bad mystic vibes from the guy/gal/it. It was somebody that cut in front of him in a grocery store checkout line. It was his mother-in-law.

Is there some blank space in the anti-discrimination act that can be filled in if the "victim" doesn't fit the right categories?

What kind of fair and equal law allows you to discriminate against one but not another? In selective discrimination laws, aren't there always somebody who is or can be discriminated against, including the one charged with discriminating. Wouldn't just and equal discrimination laws prohibit any discrimination whatsoever? Oh, right, then we would be automatons not humans. How about letting us discriminate so long as we don't deprive someone of life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness (which include the right of personal property and the disposal thereof under the same conditions).

Do I have to take it? Is there some anti-discrimination law that says I must? Can I say NO?

Sure. You can say no.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thanks. You're my kind of guy . . . er . . . person . . . thing . . . whatever
:cheers::cheers:

Oh, wait, I won't be sued for discriminating against no-good hippies, will I?

Nope. Just don't bogart that joint maaan
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Faaar out maaan . . . dja ever blow some glass while you were dancin' with mary jane?

Not once. And that's the God's honest truth. I've had a beer or 2.. But I really need to be in my head to work with 2000 degree glass
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Kinda funny that if a homosexual walks into your space of "public accommodation" and announces he's gay you gotta sell him whatever stuff you have that he wants, but if, upon finding that you don't approve of the "gay lifestyle," after taking up your space and time he can leave without buying anything and you can't get a judge to make him do it. Matter of fact, he can even picket your store and influence others not to buy your stuff. Reverse discrimination is OK.

You don't have to be gay to do that. And that's why I follow the 2 commandments at my studio. 1- Be Cool. 2.- Don't be an #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's the point. Just plain regular unclassified folks can freely "discriminate" against one another in a place of public accommodation. But only "protected" class of folks, like gays, cannot be discriminated against in a place of public accommodation, even though they can (like anybody else) reverse discriminate.

Not really. If a gay couple were in my studio and were being extremely rude, I'd kick them out. I can do that. Not because they are gay. Because they were being rude.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Exactly. You CANNOT kick them out just because they are gay. But you can "kick out" somebody that is not of a protected class even if they are not rude--just because you don't want their business for whatever reason suits you.

Yep. And that is called discrimination. You don't have to be gay. You can have aids, be black, mentally disabled, a redhead, etc.....
The fact is.. If you kick anyone out because you don't like or agree with their background, you deserve what's coming to you, because YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.... The baker really screwed up... He should have never ever ever told them that he refused to serve them because they were gay... If he had said they were being disruptive, we would never have heard about this.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Depends on whose ox is being gored. It sounds like their request was disruptive to his convictions. And maybe those convictions also included not lying about his motive. He was, as the judge phrased it in describing what should not be discriminated against, simply being who or what he is. And what is an anti-discrimination law worth if all you have to do is lie about your motive? C'mon Nebe, you know that would not have washed. As Scott said, this was more than just about a cake. If he had asked them to leave because they were being disruptive, you actually believe they would have left and let the matter be? This is just too good of an opportunity to push an agenda . . . as Rob Emanuel said . . . don't let a crisis go to waste. It has the whiff of a possible set-up. If not, it sure turned out as if it were.

the Baker can always get a job working for A&E

Yeah they could ask him to do episodes of being a steward for Christian values, giving cakes to homeless folks, praying over his donuts so that they would feed the hungry and bring them to love god through the baker's charity and handiwork. Then, the final episode of a rating busting season, have him do an episode where he denies a gay couple their request for a wedding cake because it would make him an instrument in promoting that which god considered an abomination. (In the meantime having canned a full season to be aired next year.) Then make a huge stink about it, getting even more publicity which will make their next season even more of a blockbuster, and, in the meanwhile, getting rid of the bible-thumping type they normally like to discriminate against.