Woman tries to buy birthday cake for her wife... (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 16, 2024, 11:08:40 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Woman tries to buy birthday cake for her wife... (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Should the baker be forced to sell the cake?
#1
Yes, but only because it's not for a wedding
 
#2
Yes, even if it were for a wedding and not a birthday
 
#3
No, she should not have to sell them the cake
 
#4
Other/Moderate hero option
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 74

Author Topic: Woman tries to buy birthday cake for her wife...  (Read 3869 times)
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

« on: July 21, 2016, 07:08:47 AM »

Look man, I get it.  I suppose gay people should have a constitutional right to convenient fancy deserts just like straight people enjoy.   I still have my issues with the whole thing, but those issues, like the issue itself, are minor.

It's not like they can only discriminate for cakes. What happens when all sorts of other businesses begin doing this?
I'd have the same opinion if it's just other luxury goods and services.  If it's something, you know, important, I'll march with you, but we both know that's not going to happen.

What's your definition of "luxury goods and services"? Since when is a cake a "luxury good"?
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

« Reply #1 on: July 21, 2016, 08:17:23 AM »

Since when is cake NOT a luxury good...it's cake.  We remember the (incorrectly translated) phrase "let them eat cake" for a reason.  And not just a "sheet cake from Wal Mart" either.  It's got to be fancy and stacked and what not.

A luxury, to me at least, perhaps I'm wrong or people have different definitions for sh**t, but to me it means any good that isn't a necessity or a staple.  Water, not a luxury.  Milk, not a luxury in the US in 2016.  Sugar, not a luxury.  A car, almost always a luxury.  A shirt, not luxury.  A shirt that costs $50, a luxury.  Sweets, like candies and cakes and what have you, a luxury.

You need water and milk and bread and meat and corn and clothing, you don't need cake or a Snickers.

So...only people who sell water and sugar and cheap shirts should be forbidden from turning people away because they're gay? But car dealerships can almost always turn people away because they're gay?
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

« Reply #2 on: July 21, 2016, 08:37:29 AM »

I think you're forgetting that I said
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Gay people should be able to buy sh**t as easily as non-gay people.  Luxury or not.  My issues with it, again, are that for the VAST majority of gay people there is going to be a second place to buy your fancy cake or your Ford.  What's the point in forcing money into the bigoted dealership's pocket when there is a dealership down the street with a rainbow flag flying, unicorns in the parking lot and a Village People cover band on stage?  Yes, if you live in BFE Idaho and the Ford dealership refuses to sell you a car, maybe they should be forced to, but in middle of Seattle?  What's the freaking point?  Advertise on your social medias and to your friends that Bigoted Bob's House of Imports refused to sell me a used a Civic because I was wearing a Teegan and Sara shirt.  Contact the local media.  Whatever.  Don't give them money though, it seems so silly to me.

So a business's right to discriminate is like a bystander problem in your world? As long as there's someone else around to take care of it, it's not really a problem for anybody to deny services? What if there are 10 bakeries in town and 9 of them are homophobic? Should somebody reasonably be expected to have to take a tour of all of them just to find the one that they can go to, that might be located inconveniently, on the other side of town? This is a ridiculous and unworkable standard.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.023 seconds with 12 queries.