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.