Not only is this a brilliant takedown of the religious freedom bills, this is brilliant satire of the whole Evangelical Christian movie industry.
WHY WOULD YOU PURPOSELY GO TO A CHRISTIAN BAKERY IF YOU ARE GAY I am bisexual and if I married a woman I would go to a normal bakery, instead of taking time out of my life to find a christian one just to make them uncomfortable. I swear this shit about cakes is solely about pissing off christians and not about equality at all. You know damn well gays wouldn’t pull this shit at a Muslim bakery, and that Muslims wouldn’t get called homophobic when they say no. Use the same standards on Christians.
…because a lot of people don’t openly advertise their religion and any given business could have Christian owners?
I guess the right to refuse service, you know the signs like this:
Mean jack for dick anymore.
How about forcing a muslim baker to do the same thing. I often wondered how that particular snowflake battle would end up.
They never did,.
It’s been unheld that you have to have a valid reason to turn someone away, which usually means they’re causing a disturbance or you have reasonable suspicion that they might.
Hey, uphold them to the same standards you would anyone else.
That’s what I’m trying to do by establishing a pattern.
If the muslim can deny the same service for religious reasons, then why cant the christian?
If the muslim cannot deny the same service for religious reasons, then its all same same.
The point if bringing the muslims into this is two perceived “protected classes” against each other. Get what I mean?
Neither group should be able to refuse service based on religious reasons.
Wow. People should NOT be forced to do anything. What is wrong with you? A private business can make its own decisions. They didn’t even deny service to the gay couple, they refused to make them a custom cake. Got a problem with it? Go somewhere else. By your logic, a lesbian prostitute should not be allowed to deny business to a man. By your logic, a gay baker should have to write “fags go to hell” on a cake for someone.
`Nice false equivalency.
>extremely accurate equivalency actually >you have no actual argument, you just hate liberty
You just compared hate speech and forcing someone into sex (ie: rape) to wedding cake.
Also, I cannot believe you just used “I hate freedom” unironically.
If you don’t like that analogy, why don’t you respond to the second one. Oh that’s right, because you can’t refute it.
By your logic, a gay baker should have to write “fags go to hell” on a cake for someone.
No “false equivalency” here pal.
Did you really just ask me to fix your terrible argument for you and imply I’m wrong because I won’t do your job for you?
Hahaha! You still can’t respond to it! This is hilarious. You’re really reaching. Your “argument” doesn’t even make sense.
By your logic, a gay baker should have to write “fags go to hell” on a cake for someone. You support forcing a gay baker to make this cake, don’t you?
What we are witnessing here is an unprincipled exception to liberalism.
The unprincipled exception is a non-liberal value or assertion used by a liberal to escape the inconvenient consequences of their own liberalism without questioning liberalism itself. These must occur, because liberalism is incoherent.
A Christian must bake a wedding cake for the lesbian couple, complete with two brides on top, else it would be discrimination, and the liberal cannot abide discrimination, a mortal sin under liberalism.
However, suppose the Westboro Baptist Church comes to the local lesbian baker and asks them to cater their next big event, with cakes containing their favorite slogan ‘God hates fags.’ Well, that’s just plain out of bounds. She would be within her rights to clutch her pearls to throw such scoundrels out of her bakery, would she not? Yet, this seems exactly the same case. A business owner being asked to cater an event she abhors and told to put atop her cake a message which offends her.
To anyone who takes a step back, or isn’t throughout indoctrinated into modern liberalism, it’s beyond obvious that discrimination is occurring, and the liberal is making an unprincipled exception to their own anti-discrimination stance.
To have political opinions at all is to be an authoritarian. You think that things ought to be a certain way, and that the government should discriminate against those who disagree with you and enforce your understanding of what is right.
Politics is, in essence, the art of authoritatively resolving conflicts by discriminating between people with different conceptions of the good and enforcing these resolutions. This can only be done from a particular, discriminatory, substantive understanding of how things ought to be done and of what things are unacceptable: from a particular understanding of the good.
Anti-authoritarian political philosophies like liberalism exist in the sense that people think that they are the right way to do politics – nearly everyone in the modern world thinks that some type of liberalism (e.g. modern liberalism, classical liberalism/libertarianism) is correct. But because of the nature of politics, liberals are authoritarian, though with little to no recognition of that fact.
Discussion ¬