The decision announced Tuesday comes after a U.S. Supreme Court victory this summer for a graphic artist who didn't want to design wedding websites for same-sex couples.
Interesting article. The twist this time is that the complainant only asked the baker to make a pink and blue cake. There is no mention of any words or overt imagery, as in previous cases. The baker refused to make the cake after being told by the complainant that the cake was intended to celebrate a gender transition.
While the complainant was definitely trolling the baker, I think she has a good chance of winning since the requested cake didn’t involve any speech. The same cake made for a kids’ birthday party would presumably have been okay. It is a brilliant move to out the bigot, and I hope it eventually ends up before SCOTUS.
Reminder that siding with the plaintiff is siding with slavery, which is defined asforced labor. We’ve already lost the thread when we ask questions like “Is the cake speech?”. Unless we want to actively support slavery, we have to let people refuse to work for other people, without purity tests on said refusal.
If you own a business that is open to the public you can’t discriminate based on certain things like sex, race, etc. I don’t think that counts as slavery.
The question is whether making this cake counts as speech.
Do elaborate on how the government legally mandating association and business deals doesn’t violate people’s freedom to do those things (or not) of their own will
I guess I’ll have to explain it to you like 5 yo then. When you go into business, You’re there to make money. But the only argument you’re here to make is really a discriminatory one. You don’t actually have an argument. There is no argument to deny anyone our service that you provide and that’s free association. The bullshit that you’re trying to pander is just that, just bullshit and anybody who has two brain cells to rub together can see right through it
When you go into business, You’re there to make money
And you should be free to accomplish (or not) that goal however you please. Should every mom and pop restaurant be striving to be the next big keiretsu because big business is where the cash lives? And while there’s an argument that publicly traded companies actually do have that obligation to cash above all else as a duty to shareholders, privately owned businesses don’t. The business is whatever the owners want it to be. They’re under no obligation to optimize their profits. If they want to make decisions based on their own personal views at the expense of profit, that’s damn well their right.
But hey, I know you aren’t going to bother responding to anything I say since you’re just here to sling insults since you lack the spine to outright say you don’t support personal freedom.
Interesting article. The twist this time is that the complainant only asked the baker to make a pink and blue cake. There is no mention of any words or overt imagery, as in previous cases. The baker refused to make the cake after being told by the complainant that the cake was intended to celebrate a gender transition.
While the complainant was definitely trolling the baker, I think she has a good chance of winning since the requested cake didn’t involve any speech. The same cake made for a kids’ birthday party would presumably have been okay. It is a brilliant move to out the bigot, and I hope it eventually ends up before SCOTUS.
If it goes to SCOTUS they’ll probably side with the baker.
Reminder that siding with the plaintiff is siding with slavery, which is defined as forced labor. We’ve already lost the thread when we ask questions like “Is the cake speech?”. Unless we want to actively support slavery, we have to let people refuse to work for other people, without purity tests on said refusal.
If you own a business that is open to the public you can’t discriminate based on certain things like sex, race, etc. I don’t think that counts as slavery.
The question is whether making this cake counts as speech.
I agree it doesn’t count as slavery, but it’s still an infringement on people’s rights to free association and voluntary agreement.
It does not
Do elaborate on how the government legally mandating association and business deals doesn’t violate people’s freedom to do those things (or not) of their own will
I guess I’ll have to explain it to you like 5 yo then. When you go into business, You’re there to make money. But the only argument you’re here to make is really a discriminatory one. You don’t actually have an argument. There is no argument to deny anyone our service that you provide and that’s free association. The bullshit that you’re trying to pander is just that, just bullshit and anybody who has two brain cells to rub together can see right through it
And you should be free to accomplish (or not) that goal however you please. Should every mom and pop restaurant be striving to be the next big keiretsu because big business is where the cash lives? And while there’s an argument that publicly traded companies actually do have that obligation to cash above all else as a duty to shareholders, privately owned businesses don’t. The business is whatever the owners want it to be. They’re under no obligation to optimize their profits. If they want to make decisions based on their own personal views at the expense of profit, that’s damn well their right.
But hey, I know you aren’t going to bother responding to anything I say since you’re just here to sling insults since you lack the spine to outright say you don’t support personal freedom.
A shop puts up a “We don’t serve blacks” sign.
The government forces them to take it down and serve black people.
Was the shops freedom trampled?
Yes
Is forcing bakers to treat black people as regular customers “slavery” too?
Businesses that create custom works should be able to decide what they want to create, but they shouldn’t be able to limit who they’ll sell to.
Why not? Do you not believe that people have the right to free association?
Theres an argument that since he was told what it was for, and its still custom, therefore its still speech.
Im not lawyery enough to make that argument, but his lawyer seems to think so.
In any case, the Elegant Bakery is .2 miles away, so theres an argument for targetted harrassment.