The First Bakery Decision

you know a thread is going off the rails when PC Principal shows up…

1 Like

I think a satirical cartoon is very fitting! This situation/decision is super critical and important. But it’s also completely ridiculous and absurd!

Every time I consider it, I just go in circles. Even the Judge doesn’t know what ruling to make!

2 Likes

That is basically where I’m at. I get the hard-line stance on providing/paying for birth control, but we’re talking about a freakin cake here.

LOL!!!

DAMN cool cake, my friend! (Get some…!)

1 Like

Very interesting take on the issue. Sort of like a bartender refusing to ‘create’ an appletini for a gay customer–who the hell else is going to order one?

4 Likes

LMFAO

2 Likes

No court case for Appletinis!

As true cash-grabbing capitalists, Every bar tender knows that Appletini customers are the Best tippers!

Appletini are the new Chocolate Choo-Choo.

2 Likes

TKITH clips are an automatic thumb’s up from me.

1 Like

Should be a universal policy tbh … but who am I to judge anyone with bad taste in comedy?

2 Likes

Hey now!

Ahhh shit … hide yo’ kids, hide yo’ wives

2 Likes

I think this is reasonable, and I actually think the judge’s ruling was a very reasonable effort.

A baker cannot be coerced into making a cake.

But the baker should not be able to deny a customer the right to buy a cake that’s already sitting in the display window with a price tag on it because the customer is black / gay / Jewish / likes Taylor Swift’s new album / etc.

It makes sense. If you are a painter and hold convictions about homosexuality, you cannot stop someone from buying one of your paintings, but you cannot be forced to paint something you don’t want to.

1 Like

Why can’t you though? I mean in principle.
“I don’t sell to people with green hair”.

Without the freedom to discriminate you have no freedoms at all, because every action will always be one of investing time and effort into one thing over another.

It seems like unnecessary legalese derived from a cucky compromise.

1 Like

I believe these ruling are just pertaining to protected classes.

1 Like

It seems like one argument against a Bill of Rights was that the enumerated rights would eventually be seen as the only rights(or that the government could do anything that it wasn’t prohibited from doing)(I should probably add that I DO-legally speaking, at least-think a state government-the level that made this decision, if I’m not mistaken-should be able to do ANYTHING it’s not explicitly prohibited from doing by the Constitution). That’s certainly come to pass.

Freedom to discriminate(i.e., freedom of association)? Der don’t see dat in duh Constitution.

Because we worry about certain classes of people being relegated to second class citizenship by private action and actors.

2 Likes

A well-founded worry, given our history.