Probably because the baker is a straight white Christian.

Probably because the baker is a straight white Christian.  | I WANT TO KNOW HOW A BAKER CAN BE FORCED TO BAKE A CAKE FOR A GAY COUPLE BUT I HAVE TO USE A DIFFERENT CASHIER BECAUSE MY BACON AND BOOZE OF | image tagged in 10 guy,baker,bacon,booze,christian,muslim | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
1,817 views, 89 upvotes, Made by james3v6 2 months ago 10 guybakerbaconboozechristianmuslim
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
14 ups, 3 replies
YOU'VE GOTTA BE SHITTIN' ME | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
political correctness gone amok .... I'm surprised that this woman has this job at all, because North Americans (including this one) had gotten fired for refusing to serve abusive drunks! Or, maybe I'm not surprised, because we're only going to see more of this nonsense the way things are going. I'd upvote this a hundred times if I could :-/
reply
9 ups, 2 replies
i.imgflip.com/1q5smk.gif (click to show)
Thanks! You are right about political correctness.
I'm thinking of a meme about that porn star who killed herself after not wanting to do a sex scene with a guy who did gay scenes with other men. She got shamed so bad by the PC police on twitter and other social media that she killed herself. (The shame probably put her over the edge.)
I want to caption it with the saying,"Political Correctness will spread so fast that soon accepting it won't be enough, you will have to embrace it."
reply
11 ups, 1 reply
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS A POWERFUL WAY TO CONTROL YOUR PEOPLE | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
This guy did his own experiment using his own version of the anti-smoking lobby (Google Hitler anti-smoking laws). He and his cronies wanted to see if he could change the way people think, and the anti-smoking campaign proved that people could be made to think a certain way. Soon, it was not politically correct to know the difference between right and wrong .. that systematic discrimination against one group of people (smokers) could be expanded to include discrimination against another group of people (Jews), and another (Gypsies) and yet another (the disabled) and another (mentally ill), in pursuit of his idea of the perfect Aryan race.

See where I'm going? Not-so-slowly, we are not being *allowed* to live our own damn culture!! Here in Canada, comment sections in news sites are being monitored by politically correct people, and if you say something against Turdeau's insane immigration policies, chances are your comments are deleted -- in other words, censored.

We, like smokers are being bullied into accepting the unacceptable. Little by little, we are losing our autonomy as Canadians, and we have women (?) in big black sacks walking around, social policies that favour immigrants over Canadians who are hungry, homeless and ill. On the other side of the House, we have right-wingers who, when gaining power, continue the tradition, only making life a living hell for the disadvantaged born Canadian by cutting social programs across the board (con'd)
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
(part two) Canadians prided themselves as being middle-of-the-road, laid-back, friendly, welcoming people, but over the last 30 years those traits have been sorely tested by government cowtowing to this lobby group and that lobby group, and meanwhile, while we're sniping at each other, big business interests are getting away with environmental destruction (my old stomping grounds were destroyed by tarsands oil interests), negligence in medical care (drugs being put out without proper testing), product poisoning (imported food, tobacco companies tweaking their products to make it more addictive), erosion of rights and safety protocols for workers, all right under our noses. These spats are created by the powers-that-be to keep us distracted from the very, very serious issues that face our country, and the destruction goes unnoticed and unabated. Canada is in very, very serious trouble.
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
THAT'S SAD I HAD NO IDEA CANADA WAS GETTING THAT BAD | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
I'm going to look into that Hitler anti-smoking stuff. That is how massive social control usually starts...something small that no one notices or really cares about because they think it doesn't directly affect them.
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
EXACTLY. | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
You'd think that with the invention of the e-cig, which has been used by thousands to actually get off of nicotine, would have been endorsed by Health Canada, but instead, they have been dragging their feet with the issue. In the meantime, we are inundated with junk science reports citing "studies" that say how harmful they are (supposedly). A deeper look into those studies reveal sources that have a stake in keeping people addicted to nicotine, for tobacco taxes are a cash cow for governments, and the lobby groups that fund these "studies" have a vested interest in the government funding that keep their wallets fat and sassy. No more smokers? Way less money to live high on the hog with. Corruption is spreading like a cancer in this country in other ways, too -- this is but an example. Our mainstream media has deteriorated into little more than propaganda, and the comment blogs are heavily censored. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has outsourced its comment section and the software is unwieldy and ineffective, essentially making it so that no one wants to waste the time expanding the page to find a reply to a comment. In key news stories, comments are not allowed at all. Our elections, especially provincial elections, have shamefully low turnouts, municipal elections even worse. Google the characteristics of fascism, and parallels can indeed be found, in Canada, and the US, too.
reply
6 ups
NET NEUTRALITY | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
An afterthought ... I understand that there is big debates in the US about protecting net neutrality. I don't know much about it, but that is something that must be protected.
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 1 reply
https://imgflip.com/i/20pq6y
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Political Correctness will spread so fast that soon accepting it won't be enough, you will have to embrace it and celebrate it...
reply
[deleted]
4 ups
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
I'm curious what country this is! I feel sorry for the retail workers
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
I wouldn't be surprised if it was Canada.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
I can just picture those easy-going Canadian customers. Sure, my mistake, I'll go to another lane. Lol
reply
2 ups
:-P
reply
2 ups
I eat that rice pudding! I hope nothing is wrong with it.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
So religious dietary laws are now political correctness? Do you object to products which have the kosher marking? Is any product labeled kosher "political correctness gone amok"?
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
It isn't really about that. It's about the fact that a Christian is being forced to bake a cake (or take any example of Christians being forced to do something for homosexuals that goes against their religion) all the while Muslims are catered to and everyone else is forced to adhere to their standards.

If you're Muslim and you aren't allowed to touch pork products or alcohol, maybe working at a supermarket where they sell these things shouldn't be your line of work. I would say the same thing about the Christian baker, although I truly believe the gay couple in this case purposely targeted him to cause trouble. You know, the fact they would never go to a Muslim baker and do the same thing because they know there would be a much worse outcome for them.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Your comment about how they wouldn't do the same thing with a Muslim baker is a valid point. But my original comment was referring to Allniter calling it "political correctness run amok". It's not political correctness run amok to respect religious dietary restrictions, because like I pointed out, many products contain a symbol indicating that it is kosher, and nobody complains about that (except for antisemites).

Saying a customer has to use a different checkout lane is not (in my opinion) an unreasonable religious accommodation.

And again, I think the Christian baker has a right to refuse service to whoever he wishes. But people should have the honesty to just call it what it is: discrimination.
reply
3 ups
Reasonable religious accomodations should come from BOTH SIDES, should it not? Yet, that doesn't happen. These women in this article are possibly Christians, and god forbid if you're a foreigner.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/sudanese-women-charged-over-trousers/ar-BBGvwSB?li=AAggv0m&ocid=mailsignout
I would be fine with accomodation of others if they are willing to show me the same courtesy ... but without the principle of the two way street, someone ends up getting oppressed, physically harmed, or even killed, in sometimes brutal fashion. As long as ANYONE is oppressed, in ANY ONE Country, then NO ONE IS FREE -- and my ancestors have fought in two world wars for our freedoms. I do not wish to impose my culture on any other culture, it is not my place, but nor is it their place to impose their culture on me -- I am non-religious for a reason. I have seen the harm and felt the harm that religion has imposed on the people least able to fight back. Women and children are too often the ones that pay the heaviest price for religious dogma, while the leaders wallow in opulence.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
4 ups
i.imgflip.com/1q5smk.gif (click to show)
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Teach them to be accepting also!
reply
2 ups
reply
2 ups
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
Honestly, if my groceries make someone uncomfortable, I'm not going to force my opinion on that person by stubbornly checking it out THERE. What I mean is this: it doesn't really matter that I don't believe what they do. They are still humans, and as long as they aren't trying to force what they believe on me, why should I try to force what I believe on him/her staying in that lane? If that person doesn't like what I do, I'll just switch lanes.

About the baker thing, it ISN'T wrong for a gay couple to pick a cake where they want. However, if they really did it JUST to point out the faults of others, that's wrong. I'm not saying that's the case, (because I'm not telepathic and I didn't read the couple's minds), but still, if that's how it happened. The baker had every right to be angry or such. That couple, people who did things he didn't believe in, tried to force their opinion on him when they perfectly could have lived in peace somewhere else in some other bakery. Again, I think that half of this is all speculation, and we should really be pointing blame.

I don't believe in homosexuality myself, but if that couple did just go there because they liked those cakes, the man could have just done his job gracefully and maybe tell his opinion too. If they couple didn't want someone telling them their own Christian opinion, they shouldn't have gone to that shop.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
imgflip.com/i/20qt44
Check out my arguments on this meme.

It doesn't matter if the gay couple went there with or without bad motives (I think they did it on purpose, do to the surrounding circumstances.) He had every right under the First Amendment to the US Constitution to refuse to create a unique cake in celebration of their "marriage" ceremony. He did not refuse them service because he offered to sell them a pre-made cake. He did not want to participate in their ceremony by creating what would have been the center of the reception. The baker sees his unique artistic creations as his celebrating in the ceremony. His artistic expression is protected speech.

The couple could choose a cake from anywhere they wanted but they had no right to use force of government to compel him to make the cake. Just like in your first illustration, you wouldn't force your opinion on the cashier by trying to make her sell you those products; but that is exactly what the gay couple tried to do to the baker. The state of Colorado really messed with that guys livelihood. I really hope the Supreme Court makes it right.
reply
1 up
Yeah, you have a good point. (I'm not a pro-arguer), but I actually agree with pretty much everything you said. I guess I just got ahead of myself and made a mistake.

Anyways, it's great to find a fellow Christian here. I'd love to contribute to any conversations you'd like me to. Thanks, friend.
reply
0 ups
Oops, I meant *shouldn't* in the last line of the second paragraph.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Earth is so screwed...
reply
1 up
reply
1 up
reply
1 up
Oh yeah, I saw this on Snopes...
reply
3 ups, 3 replies
First of all, religious dietary laws are specified in their scripture. Can you point to a Bible verse where it specifically prohibits participating in a same sex wedding or baking a same sex wedding cake?

Second, unlike LGBT people, people who eat pork or consume alcohol have not been systematically discriminated against. Also, unlike being gay, no one is born consuming pork or alcohol.

It's a fallacious comparison. Being asked to use a different checkout lane is not being refused service at the store.
reply
9 ups, 2 replies
A couple things wrong with your assessment.

1) No one is born gay. There is no "gay gene" and there is absolutely no scientific evidence to suggest that there is. I'm not saying that a child isn't gay, but his/her decisions are heavily influenced by those surrounding him/her.

2) The Bible most certainly does say something about homosexuality being a sin. It says it along with bestiality and sex outside of marriage (promiscuous sex). God tells us that we are not to lie with the same sex or the beasts of the field. In God's eyes it is perversion of the flesh and is worthy of Hell just as all other sins are.

3) The baker did not refuse to serve the gay couple. He just refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding. If they wanted a simple wedding cake and put the gay couple topper on top themselves, they would have gotten their cake. They went there with the intent to cause problems and show that "Christians are all bigots."
reply
3 ups
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
"No one is born gay."

I don't know for a fact if people are born gay or not, but I believe it's very likely that they are.

"The Bible most certainly does say something about homosexuality being a sin."

That's true. But I was referring specifically to the Bible not saying anything about same sex weddings or not serving gay customers.

"The baker did not refuse to serve the gay couple. He just refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding."

I see that as semantic hair-splitting. Yes, I do see the difference. But at the end of the day, it is what it is.

"They went there with the intent to cause problems and show that "Christians are all bigots." "

As I said earlier, I have not seen any evidence that they went to that specific baker with the express purpose of making a fuss.
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
I know that scientifically speaking, there is not a gay gene and until it's proven with no doubt (which I believe never will be because I believe what the Bible says) I will continue to believe that homosexuality is a choice.

Since the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, homosexual marriage is also a sin. However, I don't care either way if two persons on the same sex get married or not. I do believe that it is a state to state issue, not federal government, but that's a whole other argument.

They traveled over 100 miles to the bakery. They passed other bakeries up. It was targeted.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Regarding the origin of non-heterosexual orientations, will have to agree to disagree once again :)

Technically the Bible prohibits homosexual activity. If a gay person is celibate, I don't see that being condemned in the Bible. So (hypothetically) if two people of the same sex were both celibate, would that relationship be wrong, in your opinion?

Last time marriage was left up to the states, many of them outlawed interracial marriage. Then it was fought all the way up to the Supreme Court, and in 1967 the court ruled that all state bans were unconstitutional. That is part of the reason I personally don't think marriage should be left up to the states.

Again, I haven't seen any evidence (let alone proof) that they targeted that specific bakery. If that turns out to be the case, I'll gladly admit I was wrong.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
If they were celibate it wouldn't be sexual, but being in love with that person and living together as a couple would still be a sin due to the fact God made man and woman to marry and populate the Earth. It says so in the Bible as well. God tells Noah and his family to spread out and populate the Earth and you can't do that with gay sex. This is the reason I know there is no gay gene. God would not create a gene that would promote in His words a sinful act.

Now in my opinion, I don't care if someone is gay or who someone chooses to sleep with. In my opinion, that means more women out there for the straight guys. It's when someone tells me I MUST condone their sex acts and I MUST agree with their private bedroom antics.
reply
2 ups
reply
1 up, 2 replies
"I know that scientifically speaking, there is not a gay gene and until it's proven with no doubt (which I believe never will be because I believe what the Bible says)"

Where does the Bible say there is no gay gene?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Where does science say there is a gay gene?

If God says that homosexuality is a sin, He would not create a "gay gene" that would dictate someone's sexuality that goes against His wishes. God does not create sin, man invited it in and revels in it.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Science does actually have a study of homosexuality in the genetic code, specifically brain structure. If homosexuality was a choice, that would pretty much mean that everyone in this world is bisexual.

What if we took God and other supernatural beings out of arguments?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I don't take God out of anything. I would argue we include beliefs from all sides and just listen to one another instead of trashing each other's beliefs. As long as those beliefs don't cause physical harm to another human being.

Rational discussion has all but disappeared.
reply
1 up
I see what you mean when you say you don't take God out of anything.

I don't know what you mean by "Rational discussion has all but disappeared.". I'm guessing it means I don't debate the way I used to anymore, and I do know I have changed a bit. I merely questioned taking God out of the argument to test whether my opponent is actually taking my opinions into account, and seeing where taking God out would lead. If we do not question, then we do not gain answers.

As Frederick Douglas said, "If there is no struggle, there is no progress", which is what science basically is. We can't assume the world was created based on a book which holds stories we were told were true as a child without testing it. I could go further, but I'll stop here for now.
reply
0 ups
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Just a few off the top of my head that affect who and what a Christian should associate with:
Ephesians 5
11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.
1 Thessalonians 5
22 Abstain from every form of evil.
2 Corinthians 6
14 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?

When it comes down to what is really the motive for a Christian, it has to do with the individual Christian's conscience. Romans chapter 14 is all about a Christian not being able to partake or do something that may not be a sin for another Christian if it goes against their personal conscience.
A toddler can follow a rule that says, "Do this or don't do that," whereas the goal for the Christian who is growing and maturing in God's word is to be a person of principle and conscience. The principle is that a Christian should avoid doing anything that goes against his/her conscience.
Romans 14
23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.
Whatever I can not do from or of good faith is a sin against my own conscience.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I'm sure those verses you cited are used by some Christians to justify not participating in things like same sex weddings. But the fact remains that the Bible does not specifically address the issue.

Since you brought up the "unequally yolked" verse, I'll ask you two questions:
1. Do you think same sex marriage should be legal or illegal?
2. Do you think interfaith marriage should be legal or illegal?
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
I don't think that same sex "marriage" is really marriage.

Should people be able to legally have a ceremony to join their lives together under the law of the land? Yes they should. But I should not have to celebrate them as "married" in my private business, especially if it involves my freedoms of speech, expression, and association.

For example that court clerk in Kentucky who didn't want to sign the marriage licenses should have quit her job. That was not a private business. That business was in the sector of public service. Someone who uses his artistic talents to express approval of a ceremony is NOT in the same category.

Interfaith marriage is real marriage. While it too should be legal it is severely frowned upon for Christians. But they don't have to answer to me about it, they have to answer to God. They will most likely experience the "reproof of life" for being unequally yoked.

The point that I want to make about being unequally yoked is that I should not be bound to nor forced to enter into any deal, relationship, or association with anyone that I don't deem fit to join together with. That is called freedom of association.

The bible does call homosexuality sin and says that if someone is living in that or any other sin continuously they will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6, Galatians 5, Ephesians 5.)
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I'm confused. The Bible prohibits same sex relationships, and because of that, you say that same sex marriage isn't a legitimate marriage. The Bible also prohibits associating with or entering into relationships with unbelievers, but you say that interfaith marriage is a legitimate marriage? Why the difference? Both are clearly prohibited in the Bible. Shouldn't both be outlawed?

Unfortunately, when it comes to what the law says, your opinion is irrelevant. Same sex marriage is legally marriage. You don't have to approve of it or like it, but it's marriage.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
The bible prohibits homosexuality it defines marriage as instituted by God as the union of one man and one woman for life. So no such thing as same sex "marriage" exists. That is just another attempt by mankind to usurp the law of God that he put into place. That doesn't mean the force of law should be exerted upon homosexuals to punish them or prohibit them from jointing together. This is not a theocracy like countries under Sharia Law.

Interfaith marriage is still a sin in God's eyes but if a Christian marries a non-Christian in God's eyes they are committed to that union until one of them dies. That doesn't mean the force of law should be exerted upon men and women to stop them from doing it. If their love for and commitment to God is not enough to stop Christians from marrying non-Christians why should civil laws be used on them? I think you have Christianity confused with Islam. Because that is exactly how it is under Islam. Interfaith fraternizing (especially marriage) is punishable by death. They call them "mercy killings."
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
"The bible...defines marriage as instituted by God as the union of one man and one woman for life."

No verse says specifically that and you know it. The OT patriarchs clearly engaged in polygamy and God never told them not to.

"So no such thing as same sex "marriage" exists."

Not in your worldview/religious system, anyway.

"That is just another attempt by mankind to usurp the law of God that he put into place."

An argument also used by people who supported other discriminatory policies like segregation and slavery.

"That doesn't mean the force of law should be exerted upon homosexuals to punish them or prohibit them from jointing together."

Many Christians would strongly disagree, and they would use the Bible when doing so.

"This is not a theocracy like countries under Sharia Law."

Or ancient Israel?

Like I said, I'm just confused why people who say that same sex marriage should be illegal don't try to push for outlawing interfaith marriage, since they claim that both are harmful to society.

"I think you have Christianity confused with Islam. Because that is exactly how it is under Islam. Interfaith fraternizing (especially marriage) is punishable by death. They call them "mercy killings."

No, I was thinking about Christianity. Yes, Islam prohibits interfaith relationships. But so does the Bible (and by extension, Judaism and Christianity). I've heard some Christians say that it's wrong to even have non-Christians as friends, as if we nonbelievers have leprosy or something. The only contagious disease I have...is boogie fever :D

Also, honor killings are in the Bible as well. Read Deuteronomy.
reply
3 ups
For me to try to explain to you how much you don't understand about proper interpretation and application of the bible I would have to first educate you about proper interpretation and application, so I won't wast my time refuting your mistakes.
I will say that there is one passage where the Creator of the universe says what he made marriage to be and who he made marriage for. That passage is Matthew 19: 1-12.
reply
7 ups, 2 replies
Leviticus denounces sex with the same gender.
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
I don't really care one way or the other...but that's where you'll find it in the Bible.
reply
7 ups
You'll also find it in Romans, which is in the New Testament.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
But it says nothing about cakes for a same sex
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
The Bible says NOTHING about prohibiting sex with children either. Would you argue equally as passionately for the creation of a "pedocake" to be forced upon a baker?

Before you say it, for a long time homosexuality was against the law and marrying children was not ( "god" even impregnated one and left her an unwed teen with no mention of child support).

Also, should a website have the actionable authority, enforced by the state, to compel YOU to make anti gay memes?

You will say no to that. As it goes against your personal philosophy....as would anyone faced with their own moral dilemna....butchers, bakers, candlestick makers.
And you will lampoon the mention of pedophilia because it is unpopular...."god forbid" it ever becomes socially acceptable - AGAIN - by both our christian and islamic brothers and sisters.

***The above examples are for illustration and do not reflect the morals, values, or opinions of the commentator.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
If you read through my comments you will see that I never said the baker should be forced to make the cake. I think he's wrong for refusing, but I have said that as a private business owner, he should have that right (and accept any consequences like loss of business that come with his decision).

You're right, the Bible doesn't prohibit sex between adults and children, but I'm not sure how that helps your argument.

Like the baker, no, a website should not be forced to make anyone produce memes or speech they disagree with.
reply
0 ups
The adults/children aspect helps my argument, and I know an intelligent person like you "saw" it, by demonstrating that "PC" or socialized discrimination is perfectly acceptable yet an individual's right to decide what is and is not agreeable to them is vehemently opposed.

Yes, it is discrimination.

Yes, he has the right to discriminate against a lifestyle he finds objectionable and conflicting with his morals and values.

Oddly, the gay guys are being lauded for being able to use their own particular discrimination to demand this particular baker make their cake.

No, this is not equitable with race discrimination. While you can argue born that way or lifestyle choice in the case of homosexuals, absolutely no one has ever chosen their race....except maybe all the "Cherokee Pretendians" you hear lying every day. Nor is anyone born intentionally physically or mentally handicapped. And until recently, no person was born choosing their gender. No one decides their age, no one decided their national origin.

I'm glad we can agree that this issue is not one for a law, state, or any government entity to decide.

Every person has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - but every other person is not required to participate.

Take your business elsewhere and roast the bakery every chance you get - fine. Try to have the state impose penalty and enrich you monetarily - not okay.

I apologize if I was errant in "reading between the lines" of your statements.
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
"First of all, religious dietary laws are specified in their scripture."

Then why is she working where they even sell those products? If I'm against drinking you think I'd cashier at the corner party store? ;)
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
If you're against drinking would that stop you from working at a grocery store where alcohol is sold? It would be one thing to not want to work at a liquor store or winery, but to not work at any store where any alcohol (or in this case pork) is sold sounds a bit extreme
reply
0 ups
We agree. Extreme. What I said AND the original meme.
reply
1 up
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Probably because one is a person being denied service for their sexual orientation and the other is a courtesy. Nobody is denying this person their beer or pork. They are just declining to physically touch such products. That is not the same as hiding behind a religion to discriminate against people with whom you don't agree. One is a courtesy, the other is bigotry. Just slapping a horseshit "Religious Freedom " sticker on something doesn't change what it is. It's bigotry. You do however have a right to be a bigot. For all the talk you hear about "the gays" just finding another cake shop, you could make a much easier case for the snowflake who is offended about being ASKED to use a different checkout lane IF they have one of these 2 products. One discriminates against food, and the other agaist people. Come on snowflakes.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
The First Amendment protects us from coercion of speech. The baker had the right to refuse to use his art work to celebrate in a ceremony which he did not support.

He did not "deny them service" because he told them he would sell them a pre-made and already decorated cake.

Customers have the right to a product that a business sales but they do not have the right to demand that an artist create something specifically for them, especially when it will be the centerpiece of a ceremony that goes against the conscience of the artist. The state of Colorado broke the law when it used threats of violence to attempt to coerce the baker to use his artistic expression to express beliefs that he did not hold to.

The featured meme is used to draw out the anti-first amendment crowd who don't understand the issues.

You can call it "bigotry" and whine about "discrimination" over "sexual orientation" and curse all you want, that doesn't change the facts and it will be the final decision of the Supreme Court.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I understand that the 1st amendment is more than religious freedom and I understand the argument you are making. To be honest your assessment is among the more concise I have seen so far at least on this site, but I don't believe that will be the court's decision. I also get what the point of the meme was and while i admit there is sone merit to the constitutional aspects of your argument, i thought this meme and a lot of other similar ones, was a really poor counter example. I think the decisions will be much more along the lines of what we have seen with regard to racial discrimination in the past. By that i mean we will see sexual orientation become a "protected class" if you will. While I don't agree with you, I do get that there is a slippery slope here also. The state cannot compel speech yes, but the first amendment is also not a blank check to discriminate against people based on your belief. In the end, i think from a legal standpoint this will be a continuation of the precedent that was established after Obergefell v. Hodges and I believe they will decide that they have equal protection and cannot be discriminated against based on their sexual orientation just like you can't discriminate based on race and then hide behind some religious precept. I also admit that this whole argument is greatly dependent upon whether of not the court weighs in on whether or not people are "born gay" and therefore not responsible for their orientation. Whether or not the court goes that far in this particular case I also do not know but long term I thinks thats where we are headed. I also think its a little silly to call the wedding cake the "centerpiece" of the ceremony and while I again accept your point, I don't think it's a given that cake is speech. I appreciate your comment.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
1 up
Thank you sir. Right back at you.
Flip Settings

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

Show embed codes
EXTRA IMAGES ADDED: 1
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
I WANT TO KNOW HOW A BAKER CAN BE FORCED TO BAKE A CAKE FOR A GAY COUPLE; BUT I HAVE TO USE A DIFFERENT CASHIER BECAUSE MY BACON AND BOOZE OFFENDS SOME MUSLIM.
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back