Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 21, 2019, 12:15:32 am
News: 2020 Presidential Predictions (General) are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderators: Kenny-chan kawaii princesu, Apocrypha)
  Should a Jewish baker be forced to bake a cake for a Nazi wedding?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 Print
Poll
Question: Should a Jewish baker be forced to bake a cake for a Nazi wedding?
#1yes  
#2no  
#3no, and I see what you're trying to do here and it's not going to work  
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 188

Author Topic: Should a Jewish baker be forced to bake a cake for a Nazi wedding?  (Read 12979 times)
dead0man
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 34,980
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: April 08, 2016, 05:36:07 am »

TBH, I think businesses should be allowed to deny service to anybody for any reason

Yeah, I'd say this, but I'd encourage private citizens to protest discrimination.

I hate both discrimination and government forcing people to do things they don't want to do, because both are disasterous to society, but I don't think we have to choose between one or the other. Bigotry will still exist if there are laws against it, and societal pressure is a more powerful tool for shaping cultural attitudes towards things than government action ever will be.

I'm just opposed to the idea that government needs to actively punish something simply because it's "wrong," unless it's an objective crime (e.g. assault or theft--as terrible as bigotry is I don't think it counts) and I stay consistent with that admittedly "radical" conception of government. (Because I think it's correct.)

Then again...I sort of enjoy seeing people who, for so long, argued that something (marraige equality) shouldn't be allowed simply because their "morality" says it's wrong complain about getting punished because secular/objective morality says their behavior is wrong. "Shadenfreude" is the term.
I very much agree with all this.  I think the benefit a lot of the kneejerk "no, and I see what you're..." voters don't understand.  If Bob's House of Wedding Cakes is a bigot and hates gay people, wouldn't you rather know that and NOT buy a cake from Bob's?  Steve's Emporium of Festive Cakes is right down the street with rainbow flags all over the store and 3 Miatas out front.  Why force money into the bigot's pocket just to prove a point?


Now if you're the only store within 500 miles that sells wedding cakes, yeah, perhaps it's in its all our interests to compel that store to make gay wedding cakes, but is that actually a thing?
Logged
michelle
MikeWells12
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,972
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: 0.35

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: April 08, 2016, 02:40:24 pm »

The thing is, the Nazis killed 6 million Jews, while I don't think homosexuals have killed any Christians because they were Christian. And even if one has, it wasn't an organized act by all homosexuals.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,747
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: April 08, 2016, 04:40:32 pm »

TBH, I think businesses should be allowed to deny service to anybody for any reason

Yeah, I'd say this, but I'd encourage private citizens to protest discrimination.

I hate both discrimination and government forcing people to do things they don't want to do, because both are disasterous to society, but I don't think we have to choose between one or the other. Bigotry will still exist if there are laws against it, and societal pressure is a more powerful tool for shaping cultural attitudes towards things than government action ever will be.

I'm just opposed to the idea that government needs to actively punish something simply because it's "wrong," unless it's an objective crime (e.g. assault or theft--as terrible as bigotry is I don't think it counts) and I stay consistent with that admittedly "radical" conception of government. (Because I think it's correct.)
Logged
Leinad
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,690
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: April 08, 2016, 06:01:35 pm »

No.  And a Christian baker shouldn't be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Let me put it this way: if a homosexual couple asks for a wedding cake from a Christian baker, and the baker refuses, then I'm OK with it, because preparing the cake would endorse/condone something that violates the baker's religious beliefs.  But if the homosexual couple in question simply asks for a dozen donuts and the baker refuses, then that would clearly be discrimination.  Providing donuts, cookies, etc. for an LGBT couple is different from baking a wedding cake for them, because one violated the baker's religious beliefs, and the other does not. 

Simply put: if the requested service violates a specific tenet of the merchant's religious beliefs, then they should be allowed to refuse.  But if it's a simple service like a dozen donuts, cookies, etc., or a simple meal, or something of that sort, then they should not be allowed to discriminate.

No, it can't be based on religion. That's a terrible place to draw the line.

I mean, what qualifies as "religious reasons?" If I claim to believe in a religion called "Buttonism" and it was "against my religious beliefs to serve people who didn't wear a shirt with buttons," could I do that, in your world? And if not, is that not government discriminating (something I, and the Constitution, very much oppose) against Buttonism?

I know your position is that of many conservatives today (that government forcing people to not discriminate is alright, unless it's a--horror of horrors--same-sex wedding), but I think that that position is inconsistent in only including some forms of discrimination. In a way, it's discrimination by government, which is obviously wrong and, as I said before, unconstitutional.

Services should not be required to be rendered unto anyone.
Translation: business owners should be allowed to ban blacks from their businesses.

Nice try, but I would argue that any business that provides a service to people is by definition public, and therefore can be regulated by the government.  It doesn't have to be government owned for the government to pass laws regarding their conduct.

Interesting argument, but I wholeheartedly disagree. The idea that government has control over anything that is vaguely "public" might be the most statist thing I've ever heard (even including support for the draft, death penalty, etc.).
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22,703
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: April 08, 2016, 06:39:37 pm »

I don't want people to be forced to do anything... but refusing service to people for things they can't control (like being gay) should be illegal.

Nazism is completely voluntary and is an ideology.  Being gay is innate sexuality.

Apples and oranges, dead0.
Logged
SUSAN CRUSHBONE
evergreen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,753
Antarctica


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: April 09, 2016, 04:05:47 am »

Services should not be required to be rendered unto anyone.
Translation: business owners should be allowed to ban blacks from their businesses.

Nice try, but I would argue that any business that provides a service to people is by definition public, and therefore can be regulated by the government.  It doesn't have to be government owned for the government to pass laws regarding their conduct.

Interesting argument, but I wholeheartedly disagree. The idea that government has control over anything that is vaguely "public" might be the most statist thing I've ever heard (even including support for the draft, death penalty, etc.).

regulation ≠ control

anyways snowguy's post sums up the answer perfectly
Logged
Cranberry
TheCranberry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,504
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: April 09, 2016, 08:13:50 am »

I think they like to be called Forest cake of color now.
No, they're African American Forest cakes.

You do realise that those cakes are named after the Black Forest mountain range in Germany?
Logged
dead0man
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 34,980
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: April 09, 2016, 10:55:01 am »

Same place my hams and clocks come from.

(I don't actually have any cuckoo clocks, but I will inherit one)
Logged
PR
Progressive Realist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,040
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: April 09, 2016, 11:10:20 am »

I would assume, if we're talking 2016 'murica, it would be a Nazi themed wedding.  Lots of swastikas, black boots and Charlie Chaplin mustaches.  Red and black would be the colors.

Something like this would be the cake
Image Link
obviously you want to adjust the names and dates to fit.

Or maybe cherry cream?
Image Link


wait, was that just a set up to a joke I don't know?....Nazi wedding.....not see wet...ting?..no...What's a Nazi wedding....hmmmm.....I don't get it, tell me the punch line!  <waits patiently>

So the couple would presumably name their kids Adolf Hitler (last name), "Aryan Nation" (lmao), etc.?
Logged
#TheShadowyAbyss
LibertarianRepublican
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,559
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -1.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: April 09, 2016, 06:48:55 pm »

No, they shouldn't.
Logged
Leinad
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,690
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: April 09, 2016, 09:43:07 pm »


Eh, I guess, but regulation is merely a lesser form of control. It's the same thing, just in different quantities, and government is a machine for turning inches into miles, to borrow and alter the expression.

I don't want people to be forced to do anything... but refusing service to people for things they can't control (like being gay) should be illegal.

Nazism is completely voluntary and is an ideology.  Being gay is innate sexuality.

Apples and oranges, dead0.

Of course it's different, so it's a silly question. (But I think that's partially the idea of the thread?)

I'd agree that bigotry is bad and should obviously be punished by someone. But (and this applies to everything) I don't think the question should be "should this be done?" but "should this be done by government?" A major difference between libertarians and everyone else is that we ask the second question all the time, while everyone else seems to ask the first question for most issues. I think it's best to ask the second question and err on the side of "probably not" due to the theoretically near-absolute power government has (I think of the George Washington quote--"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master") and also due to the fact that societal pressure is often more effective than legislation.
Logged
This account no longer in use.
cxs018
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,306


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: April 09, 2016, 10:03:04 pm »

No; being gay (something you can't change) is not on the level of being a Nazi (something you can change), and if you think that it is, frankly, you're a goddamn fool.
Logged
dax00
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: April 15, 2016, 04:51:48 pm »

If one offers a service to the public realm, said service should not be denied for any ambiguous reason whatsoever (i.e. running out of stock or shutting down are not ambiguous and therefore okay reasons). It is up to the employer what to do if an individual employee refuses to comply. If a Jewish employer told his employee not to bake a cake for a Nazi wedding, that would not be okay. If an employer told his Jewish employee to bake the cake for the Nazi wedding or else get terminated, that would be okay. A good compromise would be to dock the Jewish baker's pay and have one of the other bakers there make the cake. If all the bakers there are Jewish and Nazis request for them to make a cake, it has got to be made.

You can as easily substitute the words 'Christian' for 'Jewish' and 'gay' for 'Nazi'. The principle is the same, and I remain consistent.
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 37,491
United States


P
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: April 16, 2016, 07:57:53 pm »

Define "public service". Granted, it certainly is upsetting to be told by a bigot that they won't bake your wedding cake, but even if every baker within 100 miles refuses, denying people equal access to wedding cakes only rises to the level of insult and not to the level of denying people what they need to function. Wedding cakes are not jobs and they are not places to live.  They are not a necessary part of anything essential such as the ability to move freely from place to place or the ability to be safe in one's own person. (Tho they may serve as a marker of where that ability may be in danger.)

Basically, I don't acknowledge the existence of a right to be not insulted, and I don't see failure to bake custom wedding cakes as rising beyond the level of an insult.  (Now if a baker had ready-made generic wedding cakes for sale, that would be different, because at that point it is a good rather than a service, and goods don't imply personal involvement.)
Logged
beaver2.0
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,925


Political Matrix
E: -2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: April 18, 2016, 09:26:18 am »

No.  And a Christian baker shouldn't be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Let me put it this way: if a homosexual couple asks for a wedding cake from a Christian baker, and the baker refuses, then I'm OK with it, because preparing the cake would endorse/condone something that violates the baker's religious beliefs.  But if the homosexual couple in question simply asks for a dozen donuts and the baker refuses, then that would clearly be discrimination.  Providing donuts, cookies, etc. for an LGBT couple is different from baking a wedding cake for them, because one violated the baker's religious beliefs, and the other does not. 

Simply put: if the requested service violates a specific tenet of the merchant's religious beliefs, then they should be allowed to refuse.  But if it's a simple service like a dozen donuts, cookies, etc., or a simple meal, or something of that sort, then they should not be allowed to discriminate.
Logged
Bismarck
Chancellor
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,815


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: May 14, 2016, 04:13:17 pm »

Hmm, I think either all discrimination is okay or none is. The problem with these religous freedom laws is that they essentially single out gays as a special group that can be targeted. So obviously no a Jewish bake shouldn't have to make a nazi cake.
Logged
Figueira
84285
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,707


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: May 14, 2016, 05:21:38 pm »

No; being gay (something you can't change) is not on the level of being a Nazi (something you can change), and if you think that it is, frankly, you're a goddamn fool.

Even if you could change being gay, it still wouldn't be OK to discriminate against them.

For example, let's say Bob is bisexual, and he's marrying Joe. Bob could have chosen to marry Alice instead, but it would still be discrimination to refuse to bake a cake for Bob and Joe's wedding.
Logged
RightBehind
AlwaysBernie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,214


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: May 14, 2016, 06:33:58 pm »

Political allegiance isn't a protected class, nor should it be.

So you think it's okay to fire a person for their political beliefs and that employers should tell employees who to vote for?

Also, regarding the question, it boggles my mind that people think there's a real thing as the Gaystapo.
Logged
Asian Nazi
d32123
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,532
China


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: May 14, 2016, 07:16:36 pm »

Anybody who has a Nazi wedding should be shot.
Logged
nclib
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,897
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: May 14, 2016, 08:05:11 pm »

The thing is, the Nazis killed 6 million Jews, while I don't think homosexuals have killed any Christians because they were Christian. And even if one has, it wasn't an organized act by all homosexuals.

Exactly. Also, Nazism is inherently anti-Jewish and homosexuality is not inherently anti-Christian (and Christianity is not inherently anti-homosexuality for that matter). Even if homosexuals' existence/lifestyle is perceived by some Christians as offensive, they are not doing it for the purpose of harming/offending Christians.
Logged
Seneca
Full Member
***
Posts: 247


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: May 16, 2016, 05:08:33 pm »
« Edited: May 16, 2016, 05:14:26 pm by Seneca »

No, and the Nazis buying the cake should have the sh**t beat out of them.

As to gay wedding cakes, if a business is not going to sell a cake to a gay couple the government shouldn't do anything, but it wouldn't be a tragedy if that business was burnt to the ground.
Logged
Cleveland Rocks
The Obamanation
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,210
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: May 18, 2016, 01:16:44 am »

The thing is, the Nazis killed 6 million Jews, while I don't think homosexuals have killed any Christians because they were Christian. And even if one has, it wasn't an organized act by all homosexuals.

Exactly. Also, Nazism is inherently anti-Jewish and homosexuality is not inherently anti-Christian (and Christianity is not inherently anti-homosexuality for that matter). Even if homosexuals' existence/lifestyle is perceived by some Christians as offensive, they are not doing it for the purpose of harming/offending Christians.

Proof?
Logged
nclib
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,897
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: May 18, 2016, 09:52:57 pm »

The thing is, the Nazis killed 6 million Jews, while I don't think homosexuals have killed any Christians because they were Christian. And even if one has, it wasn't an organized act by all homosexuals.

Exactly. Also, Nazism is inherently anti-Jewish and homosexuality is not inherently anti-Christian (and Christianity is not inherently anti-homosexuality for that matter). Even if homosexuals' existence/lifestyle is perceived by some Christians as offensive, they are not doing it for the purpose of harming/offending Christians.

Proof?

Not an expert on Christian law, but there are plenty of churches/denominations/sects in/of Christianity that do approve of homosexuality. Regardless, that is not relevant to this question as I have addressed in my post.
Logged
DavidB.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,971
Finland


Political Matrix
E: 0.06, S: 6.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: May 19, 2016, 11:55:21 am »
« Edited: May 19, 2016, 11:57:43 am by DavidB. »

Anybody who has a Nazi wedding should be shot.
(normal)

And anyone who thinks Jewish bakers should be forced to bake fcking Nazi birthday cakes is a fascist.
Logged
ingemann
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,901


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: May 21, 2016, 03:36:14 pm »

No and I think it's a rather stupid question and the better question would be: "Should a Nazi baker be forced to bake a cake for a Jewish wedding? And to that question the answer would be; Yes.
.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC