this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
-1 points (48.6% liked)

conservative

949 readers
41 users here now

A community to discuss conservative politics and views.

Rules:

  1. No racism or bigotry.

  2. Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn't provide the right to personally insult others.

  3. No spam posting.

  4. Submission headline should match the article title (don't cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  5. Shitposts and memes are allowed until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.

  6. No trolling.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Its the same baker from a few years ago.

all 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sailingbythelee@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Gigan@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If it goes to SCOTUS they'll probably side with the baker.

[–] Blamemeta@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] Smilinguido@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

targetted harrassment.

[–] tallwookie@lemm.ee -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

why couldnt the "victim" just bake their own cake? frivolous lawsuits like this just waste the Supreme Court's time.

[–] PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Would you be saying this if the person was denied service because they were black?

[–] tallwookie@lemm.ee -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

why would their skin color matter? it's been my experience that black folk have more experience cooking (or maybe just the black folk I know)

[–] PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm asking if this was a case of racial discrimination, would you be asking the same question to undermine the prosecution's case.

[–] tallwookie@lemm.ee -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

ah, doing the whole "making shit up to distract the audience", eh?

[–] PizzaMan@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No, I'm making a comparison.

If discrimination is ok when it on the basis of sexuality, how is racial discrimination any different?

How is this not an arbitrary line? Why is one type of discrimination ok, and the other isn't?