Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.1K

(post is archived)

[–] • 4 pts

I don't know why he can't just bake the cake and provide separate frosting bags for them, something anyone can do. Then he equally provided cake and sugar to each customer. But the court trying to force the baker to use his personal style, professional training, and artistry to decorate the cake with sugars/frosting is forced labor/slavery. Artists forced to make art in support of a message they don't agree with is known as government propaganda

[–] • 3 pts

they just wanted to be troop leaders too remember?

[–] • -1 pt

The contrarian POV is: Why can't he just treat a business like a business and not look up from the order form? Or else you get cashiers who won;t ring up pork sales.

[–] • 1 pt

I'd draw the line at the baking part, The US Supreme Ct. gave one baker the right to refuse gay wedding cakes based on religion. Forcing people to use their labor is slavery. If gays want a cake with a gay message the baker should be allowed to refuse based on labor arguments alone, but seems to only have protection if they can tie it to religion somehow.

[–] • 1 pt

It's the same guy. These mentally ill sex perverts ordered the cake and specifically mentioned the reason in the order on the very same day that he won the previous court case.

[–] • 1 pt

you get cashiers who won;t ring up pork sales.

Don't hire mudbloods.

[–] • 1 pt

If that's the way it should be, then payment processors, social media companies, T-shirt makers, printing companies, web hosting services, banks, the IRS and all the other businesses who denied or canceled people for trying to make a business transaction that those companies didn't like the content of should do the same. Why is it okay for a T-shirt printing company to deny a sales transaction to a person wanting to buy T-shirts printed with "it's okay to be White" but this baker must not deny a sales transaction to someone wanting a cake with content that the baking business doesn't like? One standard for all or no standards for all. We can't have it be okay to deny for some and forced to do so for others. This is the liberal double standard at work yet again.

[–] • 3 pts

time to start the purge

[–] • 1 pt

It was time a long, long time ago.

But certainly never too late to start.

[–] • 1 pt

Scardina, an attorney, attempted to order the cake on the same day in 2017 that the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would hear Phillips' appeal in the wedding cake case. Scardina said she wanted to "challenge the veracity" of Phillips statements that he would serve LGBT customers, but her attempt to get a cake was not a "set up"

Oh yeah? Then why didn't you just go in and buy some doughnuts you lying sack of shit? If he sells you the doughnuts he serves "LMNOPQBTJUTIF" people, and if he refuses he doesn't.

[–] • 1 pt

Transgender woman? Oh, a man.

And "Autumn" sure as hell looks like a man.

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

Why doesn't a company have the freedom to choose who they do business with? Isn't this the foundation of our principles?

[–] • 0 pt

Substitute "black" or anyone named aether and for tranny and see

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Does anyone have an english translation of this?

[–] • 0 pt

You can't say no because you used be able to deny service based on race.

[–] • 1 pt

The state courts already said to stop with the bullshit. He's going to win the appeal because it's the same damned case. The appeals court is going to throw out the lower court's illegal decision and refuse to hear an appeal from the malicious litigant. You cannot force a person or een a company to compel speech or a message.

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

He should have taken the order, and then instead deliver a dozen eclairs that have been split down the middle and had their fillings scraped out, and then turned inside-out. To celebrate his gender whatever.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

>A Colorado baker who won a partial victory at the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018 for refusing to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple violated the state's anti-discrimination law by refusing to make a birthday cake for a trans woman, a state judge has ruled.

NPR is trash.

[–] • 0 pt

Autumn Scardina was denied a cake that was blue on the outside and pink on the inside to celebrate her gender transition on her birthday because of her transgender status in violation of the law.

There's a 40% chance the case might not get to the next court.

[–] • 0 pt

As far as I’m aware this all started in Northern Ireland a few years back. Northern Ireland is a pretty strange place and that necessitates some pretty strange laws, so while it seemed retarded as the time that fags could sue a baker for not baking their cake it did kind of make sense in a northern Irish context. But I can’t understand how the same principle can transfer anywhere else - other places don’t have the same weird laws as the nordies so there should be no basis for complaint anywhere else. Just shows you though, once they get an idea they’ll run with it.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

I think we could consult with about why this is a legitimate discrimination case.