Bakery refuses to write 'Trump 2016' on cake

OGEvilgenius

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
I actually have no problem with this, but this thread was destiny.

http://www.ksla.com/story/33033049/bakery-refuses-to-write-trump-2016-on-cake

BOSSIER PARISH, LA (KSLA) -

A Facebook post shared by a Bossier Parish teen is getting a lot of attention.

It reads, "Just left Albertsons. The woman behind the cake counter just refused to make me a birthday cake because I wanted Trump 2016 on it. Did that really just happen."

The cake is for the Benton girl's 18th birthday party, and the post has been shared now more than 150 times.
Click to expand...

Just like the bakers who didn't want to supply a gay wedding should not have been forced to, same goes here. However I fully expect everyone who were upset at the bakery who did not want to make the gay wedding cake to be just as upset at this bakery. I also expect they're just as upset about Twitter and Facebook banning dissenting opinion.
 
OGEvilgenius said:
I actually have no problem with this, but this thread was destiny.

http://www.ksla.com/story/33033049/bakery-refuses-to-write-trump-2016-on-cake



Just like the bakers who didn't want to supply a gay wedding should not have been forced to, same goes here. However I fully expect everyone who were upset at the bakery who did not want to make the gay wedding cake to be just as upset at this bakery. I also expect they're just as upset about Twitter and Facebook banning dissenting opinion.
Click to expand...
They're only equivalent if the gay couple wanted him to write something gay on the cake. IIRC he didn't want to sell a wedding cake for a gay wedding period, no matter what was written on it. This bakery isn't refusing to sell cakes to Trump supporters, they are refusing to write a specific message that they find offensive on a cake. They could buy the cake without writing and just write it themselves, it takes all of 4 seconds.
 
Ace Yonder said:
They're only equivalent if the gay couple wanted him to write something gay on the cake. IIRC he didn't want to sell a wedding cake for a gay wedding period, no matter what was written on it. This bakery isn't refusing to sell cakes to Trump supporters, they are refusing to write a specific message that they find offensive on a cake. They could buy the cake without writing and just write it themselves, it takes all of 4 seconds.
Click to expand...

But they are refusing to sell them a cake. Sorry, you're wrong.
 
OGEvilgenius said:
Did she walk away with the cake she wanted? Yes or no.
Click to expand...
She was able to purchase the cake she wanted, just not with that message. She could have bought the cake she wanted and written the message herself, she chose not to, because she'd rather be a whiny entitled bitch. The gay couple was not afforded the opportunity to purchase the cake they wanted regardless of how it was decorated, because they were not allowed to purchase ANY cake. If you can't see the difference you should probably stop fucking wall sockets, as it seems to be frying your brain.
 
Ace Yonder said:
She was able to purchase the cake she wanted, just not with that message. She could have bought the cake she wanted and written the message herself, she chose not to, because she'd rather be a whiny entitled bitch. The gay couple was not afforded the opportunity to purchase the cake they wanted regardless of how it was decorated, because they were not allowed to purchase ANY cake. If you can't see the difference you should probably stop fucking wall sockets, as it seems to be frying your brain.
Click to expand...

No, she wasn't able to purchase the cake she wanted. Keep doing the mental gymnastics.

Actually I do not know if they were unable to purchase any cake. Because the whole issue surrounding it was the decoration on the cake. If they wanted a cake that was not covered in gay decorations, they would have complied. But that wasn't even what the case was about. It was simply about a type of cake - kind of like how this is a type of cake.
 
OGEvilgenius said:
No, she wasn't able to purchase the cake she wanted.
Click to expand...
That's not what the source you posted says.
""We just need an American flag cake with Trump 2016 on it, and right when I said Trump the lady just (makes face) kinda Trump? And she was like I can make you a flag cake but I'm not going to write Trump on it," explained Gill."
She WAS able to purchase the cake she wanted, only the writing on top was refused. This is NOT the same as the store saying "We won't sell ANY cakes to you because you support Trump" and you're really quite stupid if you think that it is.
 
OGEvilgenius said:
She wanted a cake specifically decorated. She couldn't purchase that cake. The gay couple wanted a cake specifically decorated. They couldn't purchase that cake. There is no difference.
Click to expand...
No, the gay couple were not refused a specifically decorated cake, they were refused ANY cake. He would not sell ANY cake to be used in a gay wedding. This store WOULD sell her the flag cake she wanted, they would not write something specific on the top. If I want to buy a cake made out of dogshit with the words "Eat Shit" written on the top (to send to you as a gift, of course), and they refuse, is that the same thing too, because they aren't letting me buy EXACTLY the cake I want?
 
Ace Yonder said:
No, the gay couple were not refused a specifically decorated cake, they were refused ANY cake. He would not sell ANY cake to be used in a gay wedding. This store WOULD sell her the flag cake she wanted, they would not write something specific on the top. If I want to buy a cake made out of dogshit with the words "Eat Shit" written on the top (to send to you as a gift, of course), and they refuse, is that the same thing too, because they aren't letting me buy EXACTLY the cake I want?
Click to expand...

Because they would have accepted any cake, right? The whole issue (in court) had everything to do with the decorations on the cake as well as the people who wanted the cake made. It's been through multiple courts as well as it's happened more than once and outright refusing of reselling to people was not a primary issue because indeed some of the shop owners offered to make non wedding cakes.

Anyway, the owners should be able to sell to who they want for whatever reason they want. Prior owners who have attempted to discriminate based on these reasons have generally lost their businesses so they get what's coming to them anyway.
 
OGEvilgenius said:
Because they would have accepted any cake, right? The whole issue (in court) had everything to do with the decorations on the cake as well as the people who wanted the cake made. It's been through multiple courts as well as it's happened more than once and outright refusing of reselling to people was not a primary issue because indeed some of the shop owners offered to make non wedding cakes.

Anyway, the owners should be able to sell to who they want for whatever reason they want. Prior owners who have attempted to discriminate based on these reasons have generally lost their businesses so they get what's coming to them anyway.
Click to expand...
I agree, there are "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" signs all over, I don't see why people go out of the way to make it known that the reasons they are refusing service are based on discriminatory ideas, but when they do I don't have any problem with bigoted idiots being punished for their idiotic bigotry. But the fact is, it is still not the same thing in each case. The bakery owner whose refusal to sell to a gay couple was found to be unconstitutional had refused to sell ANY cake for use in a gay wedding. This woman is offering to make and sell them the cake they want, just not with something written on the top. If they guy had ONLY refused to put a same sex plastic couple on the top of the wedding cake, but was otherwise willing to sell it to them, it would be the same thing. That's NOT what happened. They were denied the ability to buy ANY cake because of their sexual orientation. This dumb bitch just couldn't have her shitty partisan message written on the top, something she could have EASILY done herself, but she chose to be a whiny, entitled bitch instead. There is a clear difference.
 
Ace Yonder said:
I agree, there are "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" signs all over, I don't see why people go out of the way to make it known that the reasons they are refusing service are based on discriminatory ideas, but when they do I don't have any problem with bigoted idiots being punished for their idiotic bigotry. But the fact is, it is still not the same thing in each case. The bakery owner who's refusal to sell to a gay couple was found to be unconstitutional had refused to sell ANY cake for use in a gay wedding. This woman is offering to make and sell them the cake they want, just not with something written on the top. If they guy had ONLY refused to put a same sex plastic couple on the top of the wedding cake, but was otherwise willing to sell it to them, it would be the same thing. That's NOT what happened. They were denied the ability to buy ANY cake because of their sexual orientation. This dumb bitch just couldn't have her shitty partisan message written on the top, something she could have EASILY done herself, but she chose to be a whiny, entitled bitch instead. There is a clear difference.
Click to expand...

The issue you mention isn't even considered by the courts. Multiple bakers have done this and offered other baked goods in lieu. The cases here are identical legally speaking.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/court-r...o-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple-1439506296

The dispute started in 2012, when Charlie Craig and David Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood and requested a cake to celebrate their planned wedding. The couple had plans to marry in Massachusetts but wanted to celebrate with their friends in Colorado, which at the time didn’t permit same-sex marriages.

Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips declined the couple’s request, telling them he didn’t create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs, according to the opinion, which said he advised the two men that he would be happy to sell them other baked goods.

“Phillips believes that decorating cakes is a form of art, that he can honor God through his artistic talents, and that he would displease God by creating cakes for same-sex marriages,” the opinion said.
Click to expand...
 
OGEvilgenius said:
The issue you mention isn't even considered by the courts. Multiple bakers have done this and offered other baked goods in lieu. The cases here are identical legally speaking.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/court-r...o-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple-1439506296
Click to expand...
Uhh you just proved my point. He wouldn't sell them ANY cake because he wouldn't provide a cake for a gay wedding. He offered them "other baked goods" but not a cake. Another quote:
"Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips informed them that because of his religious beliefs the store’s policy was to deny service to customers who wished to order baked goods to celebrate a same-sex couple’s wedding."
"Phillips admitted he had turned away other same-sex couples as a matter of policy. The CCRD’s decision noted evidence in the record that Phillips had expressed willingness to take a cake order for the “marriage” of two dogs, but not for the commitment ceremony of two women, and that he would not make a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding celebration “just as he would not be willing to make a pedophile cake.”

So unless you can find somewhere that he said he would make them a cake and that it was only the additional gay decorations that they requested he had an issue with, I say case closed. Because the other woman was willing to provide EVERYTHING except the words, whereas he would not provide ANY cake for a gay wedding. She is refusing to put an specific item on a cake, he is refusing to sell a cake for a specific purpose. There is a HUGE difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

vostok
Trump threatens to shut down social media companies
2 3
Replies
51
Views
4K
Unclebaldrick
Unclebaldrick
squarepush3r
Wealthy Designers Refuse Service to Melania Trump
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
UncleBuck
UncleBuck
Finshaggy
  • Locked
What's good on Netflix?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
8K
Samwell Seed Well
Samwell Seed Well
bsemaj
James E. Barber Sr. v. City of Vancouver et.al.
Replies
5
Views
2K
bsemaj
bsemaj
eza82
The bro code
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
UncleBuck
UncleBuck
Back
Top