U.S. Politics - Indiana is super awesome

[Swordfish]

Um, exactly?

You see the difference between "we don't make wedding cakes" and "we don't make wedding cakes for gay couples", right?

I see the difference. but the difference you are pointing out is not the difference we are discussing.

Because they do, in fact, make cakes for gay couples. They just don't make cakes for gay weddings. Regardless of whether the person trying to buy the cake is a gay couple or someone else.

At least, that is my understanding of what is happening, at least in the colorado case. Feel free to correct this interpretation if it is not accurate.

It's a moot point though, because I think they are being forced to make those cakes now.

i was just curious to see where people would fall if the situation were reversed.

Simply put, should a bakery be forced to make a cake in the shape of a bible with simple bible verses on it that could be interpreted as anti gay?

Eta: the difference with the bakers who refused the anti-gay message on the bible shaped cakes is that they are refusing to espouse the bigoted message. They are not refusing to make cakes for Christians, nor refusing to make cakes with any generally Christian themes, as far as I can tell. It's the hateful negative message they are taking issue with, and rightly so I'd say.

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, even if you object to the content of said speech.

[Reny of Storms End]

How does this issue involve freedom of speech?

[Swordfish]

How does this issue involve freedom of speech?

If you read the links, you know, the ones we are talking about, you'd know.

n another case, a Colorado man filed complaints against three bakeries that refused to make a Bible-themed cake with religious scripture. One of the bakers, Marjorie Silva, owner of Denver's Azucar Bakery, said she refused to make the cake because she considered the Bible scripture and images the man wanted to be hateful toward gays. Those cases are being reviewed by Colorado's Civil Rights Division.

The man who filed the complaints against the three bakers, Bill Jack, of Castle Rock, said in written testimony read to lawmakers that Colorado's current anti-discrimination law "abridges the right of free speech and artistic expression of all bakers, florists, photographers and other business owners who are compelled to participate in activities that their creed instructs them violates their sincerely held beliefs and consciences."

Read more at http://gazette.com/expansion-of-religious-rights-in-colorado-discrimination-cases-fails/article/1547648#AsTZWREAKUKMZeiv.99

[Reny of Storms End]

If you read the links, you know, the ones we are talking about, you'd know.

Oh I've read the links. Maybe you could enlighten me how a baker refusing to write scripture on a cake is violating someone's freedom of speech? Are you violating my freedom of speech if you refuse to say what I tell you?

ETA: Bill Jack isn't even arguing his freedom of speech was infringed upon.

[Swordfish]

Oh I've read the links. Maybe you could enlighten me how a baker refusing to write scripture on a cake is violating someone's freedom of speech? Are you violating my freedom of speech if you refuse to say what I tell you?

Again, read the links. I even posted the relevant part for you.

I'm not even saying it IS a violation, I'm saying it either is in both circumstances, or it is not in both circumstances.

[Reny of Storms End]

Again, read the links. I even posted the relevant part for you.

I'm not even saying it IS a violation, I'm saying it either is in both circumstances, or it is not in both circumstances.

Again, I read the links and there is nothing to do so freedom of speech. A baker refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same sex marriage, or a baker refusing to make a bible cake have nothing to do with freedom of speech. It's quite obviously not a violation of freedom of speech in any situation. Discrimination against same sex couples or Christians is not a freedom of speech issue.

Again are my rights to freedom of speech being violated because I can't force you to say "I agree"?

ETA: Just because some random guy claims in his complaint that the law in his opinion abridges the baker's rights to freedom of speech issue hardly makes it so.

[Summah]

For as short as my answer was, I had to sit and think on it for a little while. Islam (or rather certain practices of it) is the only religion I can think of offhand that requires a specific dress code. So these Muslim-only photographers may be the only ones around who, for example, can have a family come in with all the women wearing full body coverings and not bat an eyelash. Or that the photographer is someone who believes all females over a certain age should be completely covered, only will do certain traditional poses most appealing to Muslims, etc.

Lots of religions have dress codes: Sikhs, Orthodox Jews, Mormons, clergy of many more religions.

[all swedes are racist]

I see the difference. but the difference you are pointing out is not the difference we are discussing.

Because they do, in fact, make cakes for gay couples. They just don't make cakes for gay weddings. Regardless of whether the person trying to buy the cake is a gay couple or someone else.

Yes, I think it is. The baker is refusing to provide a service they offer -- to anyone with the means of paying, as a business open to the public -- on the basis of someone's sexual orientation, which is protected from discrimination. It doesn't matter that the baker will otherwise serve the gay couple; the baker makes cakes for weddings, just not same-sex weddings, and that is the entire issue.

At least, that is my understanding of what is happening, at least in the colorado case. Feel free to correct this interpretation if it is not accurate.

It's a moot point though, because I think they are being forced to make those cakes now.

i was just curious to see where people would fall if the situation were reversed.

Simply put, should a bakery be forced to make a cake in the shape of a bible with simple bible verses on it that could be interpreted as anti gay?

If said bakery is trying to disguise anti-Christian discriminatory practice behind an objection to an innocuous biblical verse, absolutely not. As much as I peraonally sympathize with any distaste or dislike of the Christian church, such discrimination based on religious beliefs is wrong and unfair, not to mention illegal.

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, even if you object to the content of said speech.

Freedom of speech does not require anyone else to express your speech for you. The Masterpeice baker can express himself openly and freely as he wishes in regards to opposing same sex marriage, he cannot refuse as service he otherwise would provide based on anyone's sexual orientation (or religion, race, &c). The same-but-different example of the three bakeries not making cakes decorated with anti-gay messages is them exercising their right to free speech. The customer in question is equally free to express his hate. Until those bakers refuse to serve this man as a "Christian" (or whatever), and not his message, it's not at all equivalent.

Edit: mixed up identities of various anti-gay wedding service people. Whatevs, but clarity and all that shit

[Ramsay Gimp]

How does this issue involve freedom of speech?

Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to speak.

As in the freedom not to write "congratualations Dave and Bill!" on a wedding cake

[all swedes are racist]

Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to speak.

As in the freedom not to write "congratualations Dave and Bill!" on a wedding cake

Again... Not equivalent. Even if Masterpeice bakery refused to include the above message, the point is they refused to provide a service they normally would solely in the basis of the couples sexual orientation. Speak out, wear a "No Gay Marriage" shirt, whatever... but you must provide service equally or you can't be a fucking business. It's simple.

[Galactus]

Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to speak.

As in the freedom not to write "congratualations Dave and Bill!" on a wedding cak

Yep. No one has the right to force you to write or say anything.

However, the state has the right to regulate businesses, and if you can't follow the rules you may not be allowed to continue with your business. (these regulations are of course themselves subject to restrictions, etc.)

Basically, this isn't a freedom of expression issue: It's a consumer's rights issue.

[Fragile Bird]

Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to speak.

As in the freedom not to write "congratualations Dave and Bill!" on a wedding cake

I think there is an enormous difference between a baker who refuses to write "Congratulations Dave and Bill" and a baker who refuses to write "Homosexuality is an evil abomination" on a cake. I think a court would say the first baker is discriminating, and in the second case, you can't ask a court to order a baker to write language offensive to a protected group on a cake. Certainly a court would not order a baker to write "Jews should wear yellow stars" or "Turbans should be banned".

There is a long history of courts supporting newspapers' right to refuse to print racist ads in their papers, like "ABC Country Club now accepting new members, Jews not allowed". The cake wording is an exact analogy.

[aceluby]

I see the difference. but the difference you are pointing out is not the difference we are discussing.

Because they do, in fact, make cakes for gay couples. They just don't make cakes for gay weddings. Regardless of whether the person trying to buy the cake is a gay couple or someone else.

At least, that is my understanding of what is happening, at least in the colorado case. Feel free to correct this interpretation if it is not accurate.

It's a moot point though, because I think they are being forced to make those cakes now.

i was just curious to see where people would fall if the situation were reversed.

Simply put, should a bakery be forced to make a cake in the shape of a bible with simple bible verses on it that could be interpreted as anti gay?

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, even if you object to the content of said speech.

They make wedding cakes, but refuse to make wedding cakes for LGBT couples. That's discrimination. It doesn't matter if they make 'other' kinds of cakes for gay couples, it just makes it weirder because if you're going to serve someone a cake, what makes it a regular cake, a wedding cake, or a gay wedding cake?

As far as the bible verses, the guy wasn't being denied because he was a christian, but because the content he was asking for was offensive. Again, not because the person was who he was, but because he was asking for a service the people don't provide to anyone. The only reason this is muddy is because he's hiding behind offensive bible verses, if it was just plain 'fuck off gays', it wouldn't even be a question.

[Reny of Storms End]

Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to speak.

As in the freedom not to write "congratualations Dave and Bill!" on a wedding cake

Except no one was being asked to write congrats Dave and Bill. So again can anyone tell me how a baker refusing to write biblical scripture on a cake violates anyone's freedom of speech?

[SkynJay]

We are talking about the difference of someone asking a baker to do the job he advertises and someone asking for a very specific special order just to prove a hateful point.

One person makes wedding cakes, but didn't want to because of who the people were. Refused to do someone he does every day for people because of the customer's orientation.

The other (in order to make a point so stupid I can't believe anyone is defending it) asked for a very specific special order that was interpreted as hateful and refused. They refused a very specific special request not in their normal duties. I am guessing they would have also refused most requests that included major profanity, hateful suggestions about Christians, or boasts about sexual relations with one's sister.

[all swedes are racist]

PS, though its noticeably absent to the article and editorial swordfish linked to, it appears the message Bill Jack wanted on his cakes was not any sort of canonical scripture or biblical verse, but simply "God hates gays".

Not even buying the religious discrimination angle at all.

Edit: Linky http://www.buzzfeed.com/dominicholden/god-hates-gays-cake-puts-legal-rivals-in-odd-positions

[Reny of Storms End]

PS, though its noticeably absent to the article and editorial swordfish linked to, it appears the message Bill Jack wanted on his cakes was not any sort of canonical scripture or biblical verse, but simply "God hates gays".

Not even buying the religious discrimination angle at all.

Edit: Linky http://www.buzzfeed.com/dominicholden/god-hates-gays-cake-puts-legal-rivals-in-odd-positions

Billy Jack would be ashamed.

[all swedes are racist]

Billy Jack would be ashamed.

Hah, seriously.

[Shryke]

Yeah, there seems a rather obvious difference between "I won't sell jews a cake" and "I won't make a cake shaped like a swastika that says 'Kill the kikes'".

[Shryke]

Anyway, on to yet another "Thank god Obama won" piece of news on foreign policy:

Yet Republicans have teamed up with their counterparts in the Israeli political system to do everything they can to obstruct a deal – with tactics such as drafting new sanctions legislation and warning the Iranian leadership that the nuclear agreement will not outlast President Obama.

But this past week Senator John McCain (R-AZ) ratcheted up this sabotage to a new level. During a floor speech he gave on March 24th, the senator suggested that Israel “go rogue” and that if they don't they may not survive the next 22 months of the Obama presidency:

McCAIN: The Israelis will need to chart their own path of resistance. On the Iranian nuclear deal, they may have to go rogue. Let's hope their warnings have not been mere bluffs. Israel survived its first 19 years without meaningful U.S. patronage. For now, all it has to do is get through the next 22, admittedly long, months.

http://www.alternet.org/mccain-suggests-israel-go-rogue-blow-iran-negotiations-starting-war#.VRmKvrJ