Bakery Faces Boycott for Refusing to Make Gay Wedding Cake

[Jer]

Easiest, yes, but I would say that perhaps they're tired of being told that they are second class citizens. In this case, I don't feel that their rights were violated, as they were offered other other fare. Even that may not be enough, though. Anyone else here remember when blacks weren't served in the front of restaurants? Same food, but not the same service, and that practice was brought to a halt.

I knew someone was going to say that as I was typing it but I fail to draw a parallel between blacks being denied basic necessities (food, water, employment, transportation, etc) with a homosexuals desire for a fancy cake. That's not to say that I don't think blacks and homosexuals shouldn't have equal rights because I actually think they should even though that may not be the popular stance on this site. I'm all for their rights and even think they should be allowed to get married... that being said I just don't put this guy's plight with wanting a wedding cake on par with Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on the bus. I don't get people clamoring to call this a huge case for gay rights because as far as I'm concerned... it isn't. Hell, my wife and I didn't even have a cake on our wedding and that didn't change shit.

Does that make more sense? I'm not anti-gay rights I just don't see this as being a gay rights issue I guess.

[Rucker61]

Does that make more sense? I'm not anti-gay rights I just don't see this as being a gay rights issue I guess.

I'd say that I agree with you. Had he refused them service entirely, discrimination raises its ugly head and runs afoul of state statutes. I also agree this case isn't directly comparable to Jim Crow. I'm not a lawyer, though. My parents were married, you see.

[Jer]

Yeah, unfortunately you're talking about self government and free market solutions... As if those actually work. (/sarcasm)

I mean, if they're upset that the baker won't make them a wedding cake, they have every right to complain and tell their friends about it. If enough people agree with their point of view, the baker will go out of business. If people appreciate the baker standing up for what he believes in, he will stay in business.

The rights of the recipient do not outweigh the rights of the provider. He should not be forced to bake them a cake, and his reason for not doing so is perfectly legitimate.

I can agree with the bulk of this statement. Why would they even want to do business with an outfit like that? I know if I went into a place that didn't do business with fat people I wouldn't cry a river over it I would go to another place and make sure everyone I knew knew what a shitty place that was. I sure as shit wouldn't feel the need to get the media, government and (eventually) the supreme court involved over a gawt damn cake. It's a cake.

[Sharpienads]

Easiest, yes, but I would say that perhaps they're tired of being told that they are second class citizens. In this case, I don't feel that their rights were violated, as they were offered other other fare. Even that may not be enough, though. Anyone else here remember when blacks weren't served in the front of restaurants? Same food, but not the same service, and that practice was brought to a halt.

IMHO, I don't agree with the gays are the new blacks argument. I'm not fully convinced being gay is natural. Being black is. Furthermore, the government that they want to involve is the same government that upheld slavery, separate but equal, and putting Americans of Japanese decent in internment camps. When will people learn that government is not the answer? Hell, if the gay movement wasn't such a liberal movement that seeks to centralize power whenever possible, they probably wouldn't have to go to MA to get married because instead of asking the government for permission, they'd tell the government to go eff themselves, you can't tell me who I can or can't marry. I think a lot more people would be behind the movement if it took that approach.

[Rucker61]

IMHO, I don't agree with the gays are the new blacks argument. I'm not fully convinced being gay is natural. Being black is. Furthermore, the government that they want to involve is the same government that upheld slavery, separate but equal, and putting Americans of Japanese decent in internment camps. When will people learn that government is not the answer? Hell, if the gay movement wasn't such a liberal movement that seeks to centralize power whenever possible, they probably wouldn't have to go to MA to get married because instead of asking the government for permission, they'd tell the government to go eff themselves, you can't tell me who I can or can't marry. I think a lot more people would be behind the movement if it took that approach.

Government can be the answer. Blacks wouldn't have civil rights, especially in the South, if the Feds hadn't gotten involved. That's also the same government that gave women equal rights and established guidelines to limit the ability of private companies to poison our environment.

I wish it was as simple as telling the government that they don't have the ability to allow gay marriage, but too many partner benefits require the force of law.

[Jer]

IMHO, I don't agree with the gays are the new blacks argument. I'm not fully convinced being gay is natural. Being black is. Furthermore, the government that they want to involve is the same government that upheld slavery, separate but equal, and putting Americans of Japanese decent in internment camps. When will people learn that government is not the answer? Hell, if the gay movement wasn't such a liberal movement that seeks to centralize power whenever possible, they probably wouldn't have to go to MA to get married because instead of asking the government for permission, they'd tell the government to go eff themselves, you can't tell me who I can or can't marry. I think a lot more people would be behind the movement if it took that approach.

While I don't agree with the first part of your statement that I made bold I can agree with the rest. People depend on the govt for WAY too much these days. You want to get married? Go do it. Since when does the govt decide who gets married and who doesn't? Wasn't it WE THE PEOPLE who invented getting married anyway? I wasn't aware that was a privilege that the government allowed us to have if they thought us fit to receive.

[Jer]

Government can be the answer. Blacks wouldn't have civil rights, especially in the South, if the Feds hadn't gotten involved. That's also the same government that gave women equal rights and established guidelines to limit the ability of private companies to poison our environment.

I wish it was as simple as telling the government that they don't have the ability to allow gay marriage, but too many partner benefits require the force of law.

All of that was prior to the government being out of control with power and it's only getting worse. I mean they tell us what light bulbs we can and can't buy now. Seriously? There was a time when the government needed to step in when the majority was wrong on something but those days are over. The government doesn't step in on this meaningful and required (immigration for instance) yet feels the need to create tens of thousands of new laws telling us what we can and can't eat or buy. It gets to the point where if the government did rule on something important I wouldn't pay much mind to it because I've learned such a lack of respect for government decisions over the years. There was a time when the government said 'Blacks get equal rights' or 'Women get the right to vote' and people took notice. Now so many things are passed and so much of it is BS.. does anyone even care anymore?

[Sharpienads]

Government can be the answer. Blacks wouldn't have civil rights, especially in the South, if the Feds hadn't gotten involved. That's also the same government that gave women equal rights and established guidelines to limit the ability of private companies to poison our environment.

I wish it was as simple as telling the government that they don't have the ability to allow gay marriage, but too many partner benefits require the force of law.

Everything you mentioned there were movements that were started by individuals or groups of people. Maybe the government codified those beliefs into law, but it wasn't their original idea to begin the movement.

What benefits require marriage? I really don't know the answer to this. But taxes shouldn't be one. That's a whole other discussion.

[Jer]

Everything you mentioned there were movements that were started by individuals or groups of people. Maybe the government codified those beliefs into law, but it wasn't their original idea to begin the movement.

What benefits require marriage? I really don't know the answer to this. But taxes shouldn't be one. That's a whole other discussion.

Exactly. Take away tax advantages and what not to getting married (government's failed attempt to legislate morality just like the failed war on drugs and many other things I could mention) and let people get married if they want to get married. Life is too short to focus your energy on preventing two individuals who love each other the ability to get married. I see too much of the ugly side of people every day to care about those who actually love each other. Good for them.

[Rooskibar03]

Government can be the answer. Blacks wouldn't have civil rights, especially in the South, if the Feds hadn't gotten involved. That's also the same government that gave women equal rights and established guidelines to limit the ability of private companies to poison our environment.

I wish it was as simple as telling the government that they don't have the ability to allow gay marriage, but too many partner benefits require the force of law.

There is this thing called The Constition that dictates what the Government can and cannot do. I'll give you a moment to find me the section that says they have any authority on marriage at the federal level.

Being gay is a lifestyle choice. Being black is not. Everyone is afforded life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nothing about gay marriage or equal rights based on choices you make in life.