Can I Do Business With Gay People?

[Anonymous]

I was laughing to myself writing that title, because it seems totally ridiculous to me that anyone would ask that because of course I would and I have done business with gay clients. As a small business owner, with my photography business, I'm there to make a profit, and when the Supreme Court ruling that gays could marry came into full effect, I and my wallet became excited because I knew I could easily tap into and advertise for this new market. Despite my gusto about not caring who people are if their business, aka, their money was green, I also realized that even within saying that, I too had my limits.

I've never had this come up thankfully because a lot of my business is repeat, through referral, or with clients and organizations I know of or have known, but I thought to myself, what if I got a call for some portraits from a client that was somehow known to be like a racist, or pedophile, or some other vile type of person...would I be willing to take on their business, and the answer is a resounding no. Money is money is money has it's limits for me when it comes to my own personal morality. I've seen too many people hurt by the actions of people like this to be able to ignore who they are as a person and knowingly shoot them.

There is however, a vast difference between someone who's actions are intended to do harm to someone or others, and say not wanting to do business with someone because of their skin color, gender, or sexuality which does not in fact inform you as to the nature of their character.

I bring this up because of course there is a case being argued right now in the Supreme Court because in 2012, a same-sex couple received a marriage license in Massachusetts and asked Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado, to bake a cake with rainbow colors inside for their reception back home in Colorado. Phillips declined citing his faith. He said, “I don’t feel like I should participate in their wedding, and when I do a cake, I feel like I am participating in the ceremony or the event or the celebration that the cake is for." But wait, Phillips also went on to say that he would HAPPILY sell them his baked good for any other events or occasions, but not a wedding which is the equivalent, at least to me of saying something like, "I'm not racist, but..."

I think this guy is giving cake a lot more credit than it deserves! I mean since when have you ever sat at a wedding wondering if say the chicken and mash you're eating signifies to you that the chef is a supporter of the marriage of a couple. It's food! Rarely does anyone at a wedding actually publicly give credit to whomever made the food anyway unless it was a family member or they have to do so in order to get a discount.

Not so long ago in the US, people had the same sort of "moral convictions" about serving black people. They didn't want their kind at their food counters, drinking from the same fountains, being served like everyone else, riding at the front of buses, or able to access the same jobs, education and housing. We look back at that time period now, and most of us think, how terrible and ridiculous that was just because of someone's skin color, and yet here we are in 2017 and what is the difference exactly? If for no other reason than a skin color, or a gender, or a sexuality, we can all start saying no for supposed moral or religious convictions, that can have no end in the level of discrimination that can be lobbed at not just gay people, but further reaching into anyone these people deem to be not able to be served due to their beliefs.

In this particular case, if ones morals are so strong and there is a belief that this couple cannot be married while gay by Phillips, they are still gay and married when they eat those baked goods he says he will happily serve. His baked goods will help sustain these gay men and keep them alive in order to still be gay and married. They may indeed take said goods to other events where there will be other gay married couples. How is that in any less support of gay couples if we're using his blue print of what it means to support and subsequently believe in gay marriage? I mean, come on!!!

Phillips, it is noted, does not pass the same judgment on straight married couples whom he does not know if they are good Christian couples. He only knows that they are straight, and so that of course makes them good people worthy of cake...she says sarcastically.

[OlderAndWiser]

When you refuse to do a portrait for the skinhead, your refusal is based on your moral beliefs and you do not want anyone else judging the bona fides of your intentions. If you feel so strongly about that issue, will you question every prospective client to make sure that they are not a skinhead neo-Nazi or are you happy to take their money as long as you are ignorant of their beliefs?

I think you are giving a portrait a lot more credit than it deserves! I mean since when have you ever looked at a portrait wondering if it signifies to the photographer is a supporter of the subject's political beliefs? It's a picture!

What is the real difference? It is PC popular to SUPPORT homosexual marriage while it is PC popular to BASH neo-Nazis. It is also PC popular to bash Christians for their beliefs. (And this is labelled as "tolerance?") People who engage in such hypocritical behaviors often do so with a sense of moral superiority and a smugness most unbecoming. Self-righteousness does not make you right!

The truth inconvenient for your position is that if your right to free speech depends upon the popularity of the content of the speech, then there is no right to free speech.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

There is one major difference between these two groups of people that make this comparison non-equivalent. Homosexuality is an intrinsic feature of a person; they do not choose to be gay (this is a well established truth). To be a neo-nazi, however, is a choice.

Even if you believe homosexuality is wrong and that it's bad for society, you are judging a person for *who they are* in the case of a homosexual couple whereas you're judging them for *the choices they have made* in the case of the neo-nazi. There's a huge difference there.

It's also the primary reason many on the Right have chosen to disbelieve the fact that homosexuality isn't a choice. That's because if it WERE a choice, then comparisons like this would be valid.

[OlderAndWiser]

@HungLikeAHorsefly Political beliefs are a choice. Would it be acceptable if I said that the restrooms in my store could not be used by anyone who voted for Hillary?

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

@OlderAndWiser No, of course not. But I thought we were talking about gay couples? Maybe I didn't read the post well enough.

[OlderAndWiser]

@HungLikeAHorsefly You said that it was not okay to discriminate against people on the basis of immutable characteristics but it would be okay to do so on the basis of the things which they deliberately choose and, therefore can control. I provided an example where you now agree that it is not okay to discriminate on the basis of choices that people have made. Inconsistency. That's okay but it is inconsistent.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

Yeah, sorry about that. I had a brainfart. I realized what you meant a couple of minutes after I replied.

The Hillary example is inconsistent if you consider all things equal. There is a continuum of offense, though - a Nazism is literally something we all fought against as a nation decades ago, and a lot of what Neo-Nazis want to do is objectionable to nearly everyone in society. Some of it's even illegal. In my mind, no rational person would hold a Hillary voter equivalent to a Neo-Nazi. But you do make a fair point.

I asked myself a question: if being gay is not a choice, are the other not-a-choice situations in which I might support someone being denied service? I thought of a pedophile. If someone could somehow know a person is a pedophile, but the pedophile hasn't actually done anything wrong... would I support denying them service on that basis? The answer is: I don't know. Probably not, but I can't say for sure.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

So I guess our (Liberals/PC people) standpoint is inconsistent if all things are equal, but they simply aren't. Homosexuality is accepted by the vast majority of the population whereas Neo-Nazism isn't. Simply put, it's "okay" to be gay and if you don't accept that then you're the deviant, not the gay couple you refuse to serve.

[OlderAndWiser]

@HungLikeAHorsefly So the extent to which you have rights is justified by the popularity of your cause? I'm not sure that is your belief but it is the logical extension of what you are saying. I do not claim that conservatives are any more consistent in their beliefs. I merely make the point as a predicate to suggesting that both views have their flaws and neither of us should try to homestead very far up the moral high ground.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

Well remember who you're talking to here. Liberals by and large teleological in our worldview. The rightness or wrongness of a thing is dependent upon its context within, and benefit to, society. Gay couples are more beneficial to society than Neo-Nazis are, in concrete terms. Not many people will admit it, I don't think, but that's the crux of the issue.

I agree with you, though - it's not a very strong moral high ground. Admittedly, when I read about the cake shop issue my first thought went to business rather than the ethics of thing. I hope they have a business plan for deal with a shifting demographic in their customer base. :)

[BigGuy8]

@HungLikeAHorsefly I agree that the whole argument that it's a choice is one of many of the most absurd things the religious right throws around. With how homosexuals are treated, who would choose that life? They no more chose to be attracted to the same sex than they chose who their parents were. Attraction is a chemical reaction in the brain. You don't pick who you find attractive. You don't pick whether you prefer a redhead blonde or brunette. You could argue deeply ingrained prejudices aren't chosen either. They are taught or learned. But, being a neo nazi skinhead or a kkk member is definitely a choice. It makes far more sense to refuse business to someone who chooses to associate with a hate group than someone who was born different. I don't care who you love as long as you're not hurting anyone. And no homosexuals hurt anyone I know just because they're gay. I also hate the argument that gay marriage is damaging to families and the institution of marriage itself. It doesn't.

[BigGuy8]

You can't take the moral high ground if you can't follow the teachings of Jesus, who never condemned homosexuality, but did say to love thy neighbor, and that what you do to others, you do to him. So every argument you make is thus invalid. Jesus would never defend a skinhead's decisions. He'd tell you to respect your gay neighbor though.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

@BigGuy8 "You can't take the moral high ground if you can't follow the teachings of Jesus"

Of course you can. This happens all the time.

[OlderAndWiser]

@BigGuy8 Flaw in your argument: you are comparing agreeing with a skinhead's decisions to respecting a homosexual as a person. But Jesus would also not agree with the decision to engage in homosexual sex.

[OlderAndWiser]

@BigGuy8 And. . . I am not taking the moral high ground. Read all of the thread and you will see how I conduct myself in my business practices.

[cinderelli]

it's much more complicated than this.. because when I see it first thing that comes to my mind is that businesses should be able reject service to whomever they want because it's their business and their rules, also you don't want someone who thinks you shouldn't get married to your partner, to make your cake anyway.. right? we as customers have the power of dollar and we can just give that to someone else who happily serves us.
On the other hand though, it would be discrimination if a person or business refuses to serve blacks, or Hispanics or Muslims.. right? so then how is it NOT discrimination if the business refuses service to Gays?

[OlderAndWiser]

@cinderelli "On the other hand though, it would be discrimination if a person or business refuses to serve blacks, or Hispanics or Muslims.. right? so then how is it NOT discrimination if the business refuses service to Gays?" That argument focuses on the "rights" of the customer but totally ignores the rights of the business owner. Don't business owners have rights, too?

[cinderelli]

yes but that's the point.. both have rights which cannot be ignored. Let's say court favors the business owner, would that mean that all businesses in America can now refuse service to whomever they don't like because they belong to a certain race or religion or any other community? a court decision itself becomes a law for future references if a similar situation arises.

[cinderelli]

and like I mentioned earlier, I get both sides. I can understand what both parties' perspective is. I'm just trying to tell you that if you favor one over the other it creates a problem.

[OlderAndWiser]

@cinderelli "if you favor one over the other it creates a problem." That is favoring the customer over the business owner.

Actually, for this to create the mischief that you suggested, someone would need to show that their religion condemned the class of people they refused to serve. Also, a free market tends to correct this problem. If there are two bakeries in town and only one does services for homosexuals, the other bakery will have a competitive advantage.

[cinderelli]

yes.. I agree. That's what I was saying when I said we customers have the power of dollar which we can choose to give someone else.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

@OlderAndWiser That's a naive view of the way the market works. Yes, denying service to homosexuals would put the cake shop at a competitive disadvantage against other bakeries, but ONLY if the local market were perfectly competitive AND the market were balanced.

In the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop, it's in a pretty liberal area of the world (a suburb of Denver). It's safe to say there are probably lots of homosexual couples there looking to get married. However, if they lost all of their homosexual customers, it's highly likely that they would be able to offset those loses and perhaps even improve revenue by catering exclusively to Christian customers.

This is one of the many ways in which the market is not as efficient as most people believe it to be.

[OlderAndWiser]

@HungLikeAHorsefly And if that happens, what harm has been done. Everybody customer gets their cake and every owner gets to serve the clientele they choose to serve.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

@OlderAndWiser My point was with your statement here:

"Also, a free market tends to correct this problem. If there are two bakeries in town and only one does services for homosexuals, the other bakery will have a competitive advantage."

I know you weren't trying to say that it's a problem, but if it were, the market wouldn't just sort it out. A lot of people think the market can just magically fix things, but it can't. At least not in an adequate amount of time.

[OlderAndWiser]

@HungLikeAHorsefly I have no illusions that the market instantly reacts to such things and makes corrections. It's more like the process of natural selection in a genetics argument.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

That's a good analogy. I'm gonna have to remember that.

[VaIiant]

Oof, I just read all of your argument and I want to touch and weigh in on a lot of points. However. I skimmed over a bit, so don’t get too annoyed with me if I fail to quote you properly.

Jesus has NEVER said he condemns homosexuality the way the Old Testemant did, and Old And New Testemant were very different in how God loved us. If someone is arguing the Bible condemns homosexuality, (which I know you weren’t) I’d like to remind everyone the Old Testemant condemns eating pork and shellfish.

You cannot say PC society is pro-gay marriage, there’s an astounding number of homophobic people out there.

You make a lot of good comparisons, and I respect you for that, I debated something with another person and was called a “cunt” when they couldn’t find a proper argument. However, your comparisons are a bit strong- like comparing a kid who killed a bug to a serial killer, so to speak
I believe in the right to refuse service , but to discriminate because of someone’s sexual orientation?

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

@VaIiant Jesus was a practicing Jew, though, so for most of his life he may have at least tolerated the fact that homosexuality is forbidden in Judaism.

Then again, he spent a large part of the New Testament bucking those traditions, so he may not have been as against it as modern Christians like to believe. That is, assuming the Bible is correct.

[Izumiblu]

Well first being a pedo is illegal being a whute supremacist is not.

The issue here is compelled speech not if you would do business with a gay couple. Note that the baker regularly sold his goods to this couple.

The question people really need to ask themselves.

If you are a graphic artist that uses your skill to develop ad campaigns for liberal political candidates is it reasonable to force this person to develop ad campaigns for Roy Moore or Donald Trump?

If you are a fund raiser for pro life organizations should you be required to raise funds for planned parenthood?

If you are a minority owned black print service should you be required to print flyers for a kkk rally at penalty of losing his or her business if he refuses?

If you can truly answer yes to all of these questions then you have grounds to say the baker should be forced to bake for the gay couples wedding. I personally don’t agree with it as I think all of these businesses should be able to say no without government interference.

[JimRSmith]

It really is down to him who he conducts business with.

Hint - it's *his* business.

[Ironic_Pepe]

Exactly! Which is why they should have kept "seperate but equal." If the southern states want to maintain their heritage and not serve to a certain group of people that is their choice!

[oOsecret_starlandsOo]

Ya know, the cake guy is very strong in what he believes. People are so afraid of the backlash from others that they yield to what pleases people. I know Im personally guilty, and work on it each day.

Non-believers dont understand the homosexual thing, from a narrow view of physical reality. Does it hurt anyone? No. Does it cause war? Lol no. Not the point. The point is obedience regardless of your situation. Envy is a sin too, and will land you right in the pit. In fact, a gay person who decides to follow obediently will enter heaven before any straight person who is violent or immoral.
The world makes this huge issue, but ridiculing someone for refusal due to their faith, is just as discrimmatory according to their mind.

"YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT GAYS OR YOUR EVIL AND HATEFUL."

Is just as bas as,

"IF YOU LIKE GAYS YOU ARE EVIL."

Literally no difference.

Stop impressing your pro-gay ideology on me, if you dont like the anti-gay aspects of my belief, being forced on you.

Truth is, gay people can study and be saved if they care more about eternal life than a temporary relationship in a short life. Similarily, its not right for a straight Christian to marry a non-Christian... how many Christians have violated that amongst many other sins big or small?

Case in point, your Christian identity is attached to your work.

So what if the world doesn't understand? If they are as "open minded" and pro - peace as they pretend to be, why do they ridicule the faith of others and attack them only because it doesn't suit their beliefs?

Is it hurting anyone to not participate in gay oriented activities? Nope.

Now the faiths / churches that condone violence against gays is a whole nother' can of very wicked worms.

The only gays killed in the Bible for those acts were people who had already vowed to follow God in the Old Test. times. They were well aware of the penalty but didn't care. Neither did Adam or Eve.

It has nothing to do with the sin, but the root of our sin which is pride - what God despises the most. Note how very outstanding things such as race, homosexuality, and politics enforce strong ideas of pride.

Basically saying its better to die as you are than to compromise for the greatest good.

We will all die.

Which means the best bet is to seek how to live forever.

"What good is a short love gay or no, if both cease to exist and forget memories of even loving eachother in the end?"

Is what a gay member said at my church. He just cares more about heaven.

[hellionthesagereborn]

No. Him declining to make the wedding cake was based upon his belief that marriage was between a man and a woman. he was not against homosexuals, he outright told them he would bake them a cake for any other event without issue it was just that one specific event that he could not bring himself to do. So what your saying is that its okay to force a person to do what you want at gun point (because that's the only power the government truly has, they can hurt him economically but if he ignores it they will increase the pressure until it comes down to actual violence against him which you have stated you are okay with, you are okay with the government imprisoning him or even killing him if he resists that imprisonment over a fucking cake.). So what about the gay coffee shop owner who through out a bunch of Christians? Is he deserving of punishment too? I mean, this baker said it was that one specific event but any other he would be happy to provide them a cake for it (unlike muslim bakers who refuse outright) meanwhile this coffee shop owner kicked out a bunch of Christians (it was a church group) without knowing anything about them simply because they where Christian. Does he deserve to be arrested? Currently nothing has happened. So when you refuse to provide your services for a member of the KKK, or neo Nazis, or westboro Baptist church, do you deserve to be punished and arrested for discrimination? Your answer is obviously going to be no, the reason being is because it doesn't add up to YOUR ideas of morality. You don't care about what is right, you care about pushing an agenda, if the position was reversed you and the public have shown that you are perfectly content with discrimination. This is not about what is right but about forcing others to do as you wish them to do. That is despicable, you have no right to dictate to a person what they can feel, what they can think, what they can say, what they can believe, yet that is precisely what you, and that couple are trying to do. The scariest part about this is that your allowing mob rule, who ever has the power gets to force others to do as they wish, what happens if that power swings towards the religious? You have now validated any attempts they make to force you or gays to live your lives the way you see fit, you where fine with doing it to them so why the hell should they be against doing the same to you? If they can make tale away some ones rights for you, they can take away rights from you.

[VaIiant]

The difference here is you choose to be a member of the KKK, and you choose to be a Nazi. This is the same as discriminating against a black couple, or an Asian couple, or any race.
Sexuality is NOT a choice. Studies have proven that. You do not get to wake up and decide you want to like people of the same gender as you. And why would you, when people hate you for it?
It isn't about his morals. It's the same as racism, its homophobia. The freedom of expression is a basic human right-- and if they want to express themselves by marrying one another, so let them.
Just as the cake owner retains the right to deny service.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@VaIiant And that gay couple chose to hurt a man who did nothing wrong. It wasn't wrong of him to decline, he did not impede them he simply chose not to participate in that singular act. So what if you don't choose sexuality? They chose to destroy a mans life simply because he did not do as they wished. He did not harm them in any way, but they sure as hell harmed him. They blocked him from his primary source of income, they slandered him and made him out to be a villain and they did it intentionally. The gay man who kicked out the Christians, what about him? You conviently left him out, he discriminated against christains and is not being questioned, he is not being dragged to court, he is not having his livelihood destroyed even though he actively harmed Christians. This baker was minding his own business, he told them what he was and was not willing to do and that couple was free to accept that, or to go some where else. Instead they decided to destroy his life.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@VaIiant Who was moral in this? It wasn't the gay couple who decided that because they couldn't get a wedding cake from this man they where going to ruin not only his life by denying him his source of income (he was not allowed to make wedding cakes anymore, a large source of his income), but his family, and his workers. That's petty. They could have gone some where else, they could have boycotted him if they chose, they chose instead to take away his rights, they chose instead to punish him for his beliefs something which if applied to gays would be considered by you and most every one else to be an intolerable thing to do. Your okay with people being hurt, your okay with people losing their jobs, their businesses and the things they have worked so hard for but it has nothing to do with morality.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@VaIiant You don't care when its some one on the right, or a religious person who has their life destroyed, only when its some one who is gay, or on the left. That's hypocrisy, that's oppression, bigotry and discrimination and its as abominable when applied to those you disagree with as it is for when it affects the people you do. Its despicable and has nothing to do with "tolerance" because you refuse to be tolerant. It has nothing to do with "bigotry" because literally this is bigotry, you are punishing a person for believing differently then you which is the definition of bigotry. Its not about tolerance because tolerance requires you be tolerant to those you disagree with not just the people you do agree with. So when you say he retains the right to deny service, that's a lie. They are taking away his right to express himself, they are taking away his basic human rights. It is no different. Tolerance and freedom of expression must be respected for all or you don't have it at all.

[VaIiant]

Firstly, fact check yourself. The owner himself chose to no longer make wedding cakes. And you do not get to call someone a bigot because you don't like what they said. Also, lol, I'm strongly conservative. You can't assume my political views because I support human rights. You also can't say that the cake owner was being denied basic rights-- please show me where his rights, out of the Constitution, were wronged.
"You are okay with people being hurt and people losing their jobs" You sound like someone who doesn't know what this situation was. His job isn't being taken away. I don't agree with the couple taking him to Court, its his right to refuse business. But it is wrong he refused said business because of their sexuality.
"If its someone on the right or a religious person". I'm both someone on the right, and a religious person. You're acting like an immature child, and I'm afraid I can't have a debate with someone who throws words out in order to defend his weak argument.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@VaIiant Yes he did because of outside pressure, he was being hounded for it so he stopped making them. I didn't call any one a bigot because I didn't like what they said, I stated that being intolerant towards some one having a difference of opinion is literally the definition of bigotry so if your claiming he was some how a bigot that is incorrect, that demanding he do as you wish because you can't tolerate his beliefs, that is bigotry by definition. I don't call any one a bigot, I point out what the term bigotry means, they just enact it. If you believe that its okay to force some one to go against their beliefs, that they who have done nothing to harm any one can have their rights violated, to have the constitutional rights of that individual violated then no, you are not for human rights, you are for some humans having rights and not others. Its very simple, their is no debate here either every one has the same rights or no one has any rights. Again, very simple.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@VaIiant Now I don't understand why you are insulting me, don't much care. All I stated is that no one has called out the gay man who discriminated against Christians, not you not any one else. Your claiming that a man refusing to make a cake for one particular event was discrimination however. That's hypocrisy, either both have done wrong, or neither of them have done wrong. Its not complicated, your views have to be consistent and what is being argued is not consistent. You said its wrong to discriminate, fine. Why is this man being discriminated against? You can't claim discrimination is wrong and then use that as an excuse to discriminate, again that makes you a hypocrite. If you had said that the gay coffee shop owner should be punished no differently then the Christian baker (or the muslim bakers that no one has an issue with doing the exact same thing) then we wouldn't be arguing. But you didn't, you decided that their where exceptions to your reasoning.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@VaIiant That's not just irrational, its morally reprehensible. I believe that the baker has a right to deny service, no one has the right to use violence to force him to do something he doesn't want to do so long as he is not inflicting any harm on another. But unlike you and so many others I also believe that the gay coffee shop owner also has the right to refuse service and its equally wrong to use violence to force him to do something he doesn't want to do as long as he is not inflicting harm (real harm) on another. That's where we deviate, my stance remains the same, it does not change when its some one I agree with or some one I don't. Just like I believe in the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech, the freedom of press. It doesn't matter if I personally disagree with them, that's why we have those rights, to protect the people who we don't agree with, not the ones we do, they don't need that protection.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@VaIiant Now you keep saying its wrong because he refused their business, that's incorrect. He refused one thing and one thing only. The wedding cake. He said to them he could make them a cake for anything else just not that. It had nothing to do with their sexuality, it had to do with his belief that marriage was between a man and a woman. That's entirely different then what your representing and you need to get your facts straight. As for his job, yes he is losing business, he is being brought to the highest court of the country, he is going to be forced to choose between his livelihood and his beliefs, that's going to hurt business. He is going to have to shell out massive amounts of money for his legal fees, that's going to hurt his business. He is being punished because of his beliefs and its hurting him economically. I don't understand why you would think this is not going to have an impact on his business, it already has.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@VaIiant As for his constitutional rights, he has the freedom of expression and religion. His religion does not acknowledge non traditional marriages, the couple is trying to force the government to make him acknowledge them which goes against his freedom of religion (and how he practices it) and it goes against his freedom of expression as he will be forced to participate in something he does not agree with or be barred from doing his job all together. His rights are not violated yet, but if they succeed they will be. How do you not know this? Its pretty clear what rights are being violated. You keep telling me your not on the left but you sure as hell don't seem to be anywhere else. For the record I am apolitical, but right now the left has done all it can to violate peoples rigths and that is not acceptable.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@VaIiant So if you want to act immature and insult me, and no I did not insult you, then fine but my argument still stands and right now your only argument is "Nah uh", its not an argument.

[VaIiant]

Jesus Christ. You’ve assumed so many things in the past hour I can’t even comprehend it. When have I ever said I’m not for equal rights? Or that I was on the left, or not religious, or that a gay coffee shop owner doesn’t have the right to refuse service.. people like you are the reason humanity has so many issues. I’m sorry, I’m afraid I can’t continue this debate. You’re illogical reasoning has made this more of a headache then it has to be.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@VaIiant What the hell are you talking about? I stated that "if you believed these things then. . . " because I thought you where the original poster and because you tried to argue against what I said, but then you say you agree, but then you don't so I have no idea what your thinking. If I said hey its wrong to discriminate against people and that its wrong to force a person to go against their religious beliefs and then you argue with it, then yes I will presume that you are against that statement. What the hell else is a person suppose to think? Your contradicting yourself, you claim one thing then argue against the very thing you claim to support. Its really confusing hence me saying that if you think this then. . . . because I can't figure out what your trying to say because your not being consistent nor are you being concise. As I said, its wrong to force some one to do anything if they have not harmed any one else, that goes both ways period.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@VaIiant you then argued against that and then when I stated the reasons why that was wrong you claim you are not arguing against it. Pick one.

[BigGuy8]

He doesn't get to decide if they can get married or not. It's not his decision to make. I don't care if you believe that something Jesus never said anything about is wrong. He did say to love your neighbor.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@BigGuy8 He isn't deciding if they get married, he isn't deciding anything other then what he himself is willing to do. He is not stopping them from getting married, they are trying to stop him from running his business in the way he sees fit and that's the problem. I don't care what Jesus did or did not say, I am not Christian, I'm agnostic. What I care about his forcing some one to do something they don't want to do and claiming that its some how moral. It isn't and never will be. That's no different then Christians trying to prevent a gay couple from being together, its wrong because they are infringing upon their rights, just as its wrong if a gay couple tries to infringe upon the rights of others. Them being gay does not make them above this very simple fact, that its immoral to try and force another to live their lives as YOU see fit. Its his business and he can do as he pleases with it, I may think its stupid but its his to do with as he pleases, not mine.

[BigGuy8]

He's saying he'll make them a cake, as long as it's not a wedding cake. That's stupid. He will not burn in hell for making a wedding cake for a gay couple. He's changing the services he offers to a couple based on their sexual orientation, and that is called discrimination, and Jesus does not preach that. In fact, Jesus never said anything about marriage being between a man and a woman, and neither did the rest of the Bible.

[VaIiant]

@BigGuy8 I appreciate your feedback in this, but trust me. This guy is impossible to argue with.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@BigGuy8 No, its stupid that they would go to the one guy who feels uncomfortable doing this and then hurt him because of his personal feelings. Its a really shitty thing to do to some one. That's like forcing a black person to provide a service to the KKK, why the fuck would you do that? Why the fuck would you force some one to do something they don't want to do if it doesn't harm any one? Why would you attempt to destroy a mans business and take away his rights, rights which are protected under the constitution, and by extension the rights of every one (because if they can just demand some one not have rights any more and get away with it they have no reason not to do that with every one they disagree with) unless you where a bad person? He just said he didn't want to take part in that particular event and your now saying its okay to effectively hold a gun to his head and make him? That's really fucked up. What if Christians did that to gays? Would you be okay with that?

[hellionthesagereborn]

@VaIiant Yeah, because its called logic. Is it wrong to force some one to violate their principles when those principles do not harm or take away the rights of others? Yes or no? If yes, their is no argument what happened was wrong. If no, then you are perfectly fine with Christians demanding that the government prevent gays from marrying or being with the people they want to be with, your okay with racist being able to force interracial couples from being together etc. etc. Its a really straight forward argument, the only reason why your not getting it is because you want to have an unequal response i. e. what you say only applies in some cases but not others. That's not reason, that's hypocrisy.

[VaIiant]

Sorry dude. Everything you said has been ridiculous, you’re not even using facts.
No guns were involved, stop bringing unrelevant opinions of yours into this.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@VaIiant Jesus christ this again? How does the government enforce laws exactly? Do they A: ask real nicely, B: threaten not to be your friend any more if you break their rules, or C: use brute force if that is what it takes to make you obey? Which one? Go on, pick, which one? That's right its C, they will use force. How do we know this? Well, the are called police. They carry a gun. Why do they carry a gun? Because if you don't do what they say the only recourse they have is to attack you and if they cannot stop you with that they use the gun. I swear to god you must be pretty damn dense not to know this, its pretty straight forward. But hey, keep telling yourself this if it makes you feel better. It won't change reality, but lets be honest, you where not really all that interested in reality anyway where you?(Rhetorical question, you are not).

[VaIiant]

Um. I hate to break it to you, the official government force is called the FBI, or SWAT. Not local police teams. Why are you such an assuming dickhead? Actually, the real question is how you possibly made it to 33 in your special snowflake bubble...
Nothing you've said has been concerning reality-- and trying to break it into an argument is pathetic. You're a waste of my time, cya.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@VaIiant God your stupid. When we refer to police it is generally assumed that we are talking about law enforcement. Swat is apart of that, so is the FBI. As for snowflake, I hate when you psycho leftist try to create all these safe places and pamper every one (except the people you disagree with) and then turn around and claim that's what every one else needs. No, I have not once tried to argue that people need safe places, in fact my argument here has been that the owner should be allowed to do as they see fit i. e. they don't have to pander to any one whether that owner is gay or Christian or black or white. You on the other hand? Your demanding that all people have to do what you want them to do, that you cannot handle the world as it is, you need every one to treat you and yours like special little snowflakes because reality is to scary and painful for you. Please, don't be a hypocrite on top of being stupid.

[VaIiant]

I’m right wing, you dick. Police and SWAT are two incredibly different branches, don’t try and change your words. I’ve said multiple times I believe in the right to refuse service, but am also against discrimination. Stop assuming so Goddamn much about everyone. Mentioning reality is absolutely ridiculous, as you have no idea what my experiences are whatsoever, and to assume you do is massively insulting.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@VaIiant Jesus fucking Christ. First and foremost it was a given when I said police I was reffering to law enforcement in general. Your aware of that your just pretending to be mentally deficient so you can bitch and moan. Secondly, I don't give a fuck what you claim to be, your behaving in a fashion that is reminiscent of the extreme left. You wish to enfringe upon the individual rights of a person for the sake of a group whom you don't hold to the same standard. You are calling for violence against all those who disagree with you, that is your stance and quite frankly its a really fucked up one. I don't give a fuck about how you try to play it, if you demand that the government force people to do as you will them to, then your a shitty human being, doesn't matter what your excuse is. I'm not assuming anything (but funny you should say that considering you've assumed so much about me). Now Piss off, I'm done with your trolling and your idiocy.

[VaIiant]

My trolling, you fucking dickwad? I am not “calling for violence against all those who disagree with me”. I disagree with a lot of people. I’m done with you.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@VaIiant Then be done. Yes you are calling for violence, if you demand that their be legal ramifications for a person not baking a cake then you are calling for violence as that will be the inevitable ending of that situation. If he resists you use violence ergo you are calling for violence. Your a scummy piece of shit human being for wanting to use violence and destroy a persons life because of their opinion. I disagree with you vehemently but I'm not calling for legal action to be taken against you, hell despite the fact that your trolling me as you clearly have no interest in reasoned debate and keep coming back to this post after its been done and over with, I still have not even blocked you because again, I have character and morality and I do not believe in forcing others to do as I wish, unlike you clearly. So again, be done stop posting and stop trying to start shit with me because I have already stated what needed to be stated, multiple times. You have nothing to contribute.

[BigGuy8]

Let me just say this. Anyone who refuses business to someone for being gay, just as it was for refusing service to blacks, is 100% about prejudice. No God fearing Jesus loving Christian will turn their backs on another human being for any reason. The only reason religion is even in the conversation is because it gives justification for hatred. They say it's ok because the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination. Well, it says quite literally if a man layeth with another man the way he layeth with a woman they've committed an abomination. But the funniest part in all this and the traditional marriage argument is that the Bible never defines marriage in any shape or form. So the traditional marriage argument is as invalid as the claim that religious liberty needs to be defended. Religious FREEDOM is the word they should be using, but they can't, because that requires equality across all faiths. Freedom to practice your religion and having the liberty to arbitrarily impose your so-called religious convictions on others are very different and should not be used interchangeably.

[myTake Owner]

Standing ovation. Another person said it somewhere in the comments that they are a Christian, they don't believe in LGBTQ, but they aren't out there actively treating them like lesser human beings, but just treating them the way they want to be treated. That to me is agreeing to disagree. People yield the bible like a sword, swinging it around when it's convenient to perpetuate hatred and discrimination, and selectively picking and choosing phrases that seemingly support this hatred. How can you love thy neighbor whilst also treating him or her like absolute dirt beneath your feet? Half the people holding up a bible have never actually read it in detail or it's many contradictions. They simply quote what others tell them to quote and spew hatred alongside that, save for the ones that truly have human decency in their hearts to not judge lest they be judged.

[VaIiant]

Agreed. God may have said a man loving another man is wrong, but please tell me where Jesus says that in the New Testament? The Old and New Testament were very different, the relationship between man and God had changed completely.

[Avneo]

Really really nice take of yours. I can work with a gay but the only problem is people will associate me with him, and my reputation would be Zero, 2nd I believe in natural thing for which ishwar created us in pairs , girl n boy.

Black and White thing is absolutely wrong and I condemn it. It's ok if whites don't want to merry blacks and vice versa, it's absolutely fine, as people don't even marry in other casts and religions, no matter weather black or white.

But respect is another most important thing, no one has the right to treat blacks bad in anywhere by any means,
Do you know how much it hurts if someone attacks on the "self respect" of a person? It hurts like a arrow is thrusted in the heart.
I mean blacks can scolde white n whites can scolde a black man if they did something wrong (it should not be associated with black n whites, just right n wrong)
Blacks should not take the advantage nor even whites.

Respect should be based on behavior, knowledge, education, love towards nature animals and country, cultural and moral values etc etc.
Yes blacks are treated bad sometimes but some other blacks do take advantage of this thing, so they should not do this thing, it can bring down the prestige of all good black people due to few rotten apples.

What the hell, how can judges take this abnormal decision of gay marriage, it means they want to separate the gender (lovely girls and handsome boys😉).
I don't know in which circumstances and pressure they made this decision (law) of gay marriage, which govts influenced them, so let's not blame judges or jury for this.
I believe goat and sheep public must have done some propoganda and rallies and rebel etc in support of gays, and influenced n pressurised, as we can't blame authorities all the time, public is equally responsible for everything.
We easily put blame on others without introspection.

I must say it's really a lovely take,
Respect everyone, not based on color but based on elegiblity and behavior. :-)

[lord_chilled]

If he doesn't want to give them cake, why can't they just find another guy to do it.

This is the problem with these people. They feel like everyone has to cater to their beliefs when they can't respect other's belief.

I strongly believe that gay marriage is wrong.
Marriage isn't something that is intended between two men or two women.
Marriage, has a long history, and its true purpose is to unite a man and a woman together in order for them to have social +familial supporting in creating and upholding a family.
Gay people can't make children with each other. they can't make a true "family".
They aren't even a man and a woman.

So why do they need a marriage.
There is a systematic movement that attacks the traditional family unit and is trying to devolve human society into complete amd utter degeneracy.

First of all you have divorce laws made easy and put a gap between the genders (via feminism + mgtow , which was an inadvertent result of feminism)
Then you make men amd women fight each other, increasing divorce rates, with countless children ending up in single parent households instead of having two parents.

On the other side you reduce the true value of marriage by making "gay marriage " and such unions be known as the same as traditional marriage. Its not the same.

They now even let gay couples "parent" children.
A child, that was supposed to have two opposite sex parents, like any child should, now grows up seeing a gay couple as his/her parents and never gets the care from the parent of another sex.
Society will experience the negative effects of all of this, but i sure hope it gets curbed here.

They should name that union something else. A union between a man and another man is not the same as that between a man and a woman. So dont call it the same thing.

[xButterflyKisses87x]

Agreed with you also there

[IsenhowerJ]

While i can understand a church saying "no" to doing a same sex marriage, because the ceremony itself goes against their belief, that is fine because that is legit and they are directly in the ceremony. But bakeries and flower shops, I am sorry but refusing a gay couple because it goes against your religion/faith is bull. If you knowingly knew they were gay and sell them your goods, what is the difference between that and baking or having your flowers at their wedding? To me, that makes no sense. You are still selling to that couple. I am sorry but pulling "it goes against my faith" is ridiculous.

[myTake Owner]

You said it. If the mere idea of their gay marriage goes against your faith, they are still gay and married if they were to eat your baked goods, which cake is a baked good as well. I mean, I have never been to a wedding where I thought the food prepared was an actual endorsement of the couple being married gay or otherwise. It's just food. You aren't paying them, they are paying you... if anything, they are supporting you the baker, the person who doesn't say they actually want to support the couple.

[MarieLovesIt]

I believe you have the Right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. It's your money. You are taking the risk of opening a business. You should get to decide who you are going to service - without restraint.

Now, that being said, I also believe the free market will decide whether or not you stay in business. You don't want to service gay couples? You don't want to service people of a particular race? Fine, then don't. But then you will not have much business. People, even if they aren't the ones you refuse service to, will stop spending their hard earned money with you.

Word will get around and you will find your business dwindling and your money going down the tubes. Now, you have two choices... You either change your business practices due to Free Market pressures, or you go out of business.

The Free Market is a wonderful thing if allowed to work without government interference.

[Bananaman177]

I think business owners should be allowed to do business with anybody they want, but they should also be able to REFUSE to do business with anybody too, and I don't think they need to give a reason why, either.

But if some business near you is excluding people and you don't like it, feel free to boycott and even protest and maybe make them go out of business the old fashioned way. Or just support a different store.

That's how freedom works, it's a two-way street, both ways. So if you can't get around something one way, you should be able to get around it the other way, and if you can't, you're probably being retarded in some way.

[BrittBratt2416]

I know for a fact LGBT people would praise someone who's in the LGBT community for denying service to a Christian if they found out they didn't support their lifestyle. They support the lukewarm and fake ones that say they are Christian but still think it's okay to be LGBT, but if you're a true believer and follower in Christ, they will turn their noses up at you. Maybe not all of them but I know a lot of them do. You should see how their attitude completely changes towards you once they find out you're Christian, and yet these people constantly preach tolerance/respect even though they are the very last ones to do it themselves.

[smølf]

You do business with people you don't agree with, all day, homosexual, adulterers and fornicators etc.. Liberals or conservatives, atheists or Christians etc..

Business is business , life style is life style. Doing business with gay people dosen't make you gay, it's just business.

[Purple_Babe14]

Yes, part of life is learning how to deal with diversity. You have to be able to be professional under any circumstance. I'm a Christian, and I don't believe in LGBT, but I was raised to not people no matter what. It's not who I am. I still am nice, respectful, and I don't treat people in the LGBT community like dirt. I treat them how I would treat anyone else.

[Alpha89s]

That's why I hate LGBT shit !
yes gays have rights but to shove it into anyone and causing them to lose their jobs is simply bs.

they could just walk away from that bakery shop instead of crying like babies and cause to shut down the shop.
But Nooooooo they have to use this agenda to harm anyone who dont agree with them.

Again its lgbt propaganda !!! thats what happened when you let PC ruining your society.

[myTake Owner]

So should blacks or women have just shut up and moved on because they too were denied what most of us today consider basic rights. You don't have to like them, but when someone decides today that just because they are gay, that their service should be denied, what happens tomorrow if someone decides they don't approve of your skin color or your religion or lack thereof. How okay is it for them to decide that just because of those things, you should not get the same service as other people?

[Alpha89s]

Why did you deleted my comment ! lol
thanks for proving your inability to comprehend about what i said.

[ManaX]

Using black people again? @Alpha89s I see what you mean. Yeah I'm done.

[Anonymous]

Would you bake a cake say, for Trump?

I think the guy at the bakery was in his right to refuse service. He just said no and the couple of gays could have went and find any other business who, like yourself, would be extremely happy to bake them a cake and get their green money (it isn't like maby of us haven't been poorly treated at some store, gay or not).
But no, they decided it was a good opportunity to show off.

[myTake Owner]

There is a HUGE difference between poor service and being denied service altogether.

[Opinion Owner]

Not really.
What would have beeb better? He baked a cake not tasty at all and completely different from what they thought, or he just refused to do it?

If you go to an architecture office or somewhere else saying you want them to design something a certain way, there's a chance they will say that's not possible. In my old office they did.
If you want an Indian or Japanese wedding dress, the store might tell you they only design for Christian weddings and vice-versa. Or maybe the restaurant only has meat, or are too busy to attend you.
Either way, people get refused service ALL THE TIME.

The person was just too naive to come up with a better excuse, believing he actually have the freedom to choose, lol.

[Opinion Owner]

And I will ask another question you probably won't like:
Abortion is now legal in many places.
As a doctor, do you feel you should be given the "privilege" of choosing to perform or not such procedure, or that you should be forced to do it anyway for someone else's "right"?
After all, you may be getting more money out of it.

I'm asking because, in my opinion, both of these topics aren't actually related to discrimination but with the every person's own moral code.

[myTake Owner]

In any job on earth, if you sign up to do what's in the job description, you then can't decide to pick and choose after the fact if you disagree with it on certain grounds... i. e. a doctor doing an abortion. Now in your state/country if abortion is illegal, then you are following the letter of the law and denying the person an abortion vs. in states/countries where it is legal. This like, the cake making, is a slippery slope. Where does this stop? You don't believe Republicans or democrats are good people, so no service for them? We go back to the days where we had actual visible segregation with signs on the door---no gays allowed here... no blacks... no women allowed here?

The only way a person may know that this business does not allow service to married gay couples is if it is well advertised, aka, that sign on the door. Are you saying you are comfortable and you think it's right that store owners should now freely post their prejudice on the door...

[myTake Owner]

... to clarify that it is their Christian right not to serve whomever they don't see fit to serve? We've been here before throughout history when people thought this type of behavior was acceptable and the results never benefited anyone but the truly sexist, racist, bigoted, or homophobic. The examples you provided like not making a Japanese wedding dress---this is a cake maker, fully capable of clearly making cakes of all kinds---if the business had never made a Japanese wedding dress or did not have the specific material required, yes, they may refuse for that reason as they do not actually posses the skill to do so, but that is NOT the case here. Your'e reaching.

[Being_a_good_Indian]

India Supports the LQBTQAI Community ↗

Check out My Take. India Support LGBTQAI Community.

[_Enigma_]

If a business owner refuses to serve a customer, then that is the owners choice. He does not have to serve anyone he does not want to. No one has a right to tell someone how to run their business. There are other places you can go to if someone refuses to serve you, so oh well, the only person who is missing out on anything is the business owner, as they lost a customer. Boo hoo.

[Nathaniel1316]

I don't agree with him denying the cake because in my opinion it's just a cake.

At the same time I think sueing him and making this a bigger deal than it actually is instead of finding a new person to make the cake is stupid. So much time and money could be saved just calling him homophobic and finding a better baker.

[Hidden_P]

I can understand his reluctance if his religion dictates. However, religion isn’t part of business - he should have outlined rules in his business plan and if he’s happy to serve gays, he should sell them anything they want. Keep his opinions to himself.

[coralee]

Part of me hopes he gets off just so he can go out of business for poor customer service. This is a slippery slope that leads to a whole bunch of issues. I have to deal with a ton of people who's actions I don't agree with on a daily basis, that is life.

[lord_chilled]

He won't go out of business

[zagor]

A wedding cake is quite different than other baked goods. He didn't refuse because he doesn't want gay people eating his cake, he refused because he believes marriage is a hetero thing and he didn't want to make something that would go against his beliefs.

[Josht13]

That's not a very good reason though tbf

[myTake Owner]

As I said, I think this guy is giving his cakes way more credit than they deserve. Cake is still a baked good by all standards, and if a cake is not okay, why is a scone or a donut. If a little kid had asked for a rainbow colored cake, would he deny them because rainbow colors promote "the gay agenda." It seems oddly convenient to pick and choose what does or does not support the gay community.

[zagor]

He did not say he hates gay people. He said he doesn't believe in gay marriage. Perhaps a rainbow donut would be fine with him.