If anything I can say being a chef 4 / 40 years that is exactly how I lived it was a great time and everything he talked about I went through and I did and it was great it was a 70s and I'm the same age Anthony ripp and thank you my good friend Timmy Duffy who showed that to me now he wants a meatloaf recipe from me
I was lucky enough to work at the lobster pot and have a life that a kid from Tucson will never be lucky enough to live. I will always be great full of my memories of the lobster pot.
My best friend has already told me that if I ever get married, that she would pose as my wife for the purposes of buying a wedding cake so as to avoid a situation like this. Of course, I'd be the guy who would pose with my husband in front of the cake, and naming the bakery where we got it from.
Let's take the legal arguments out of the picture. This is a business we're talking about. End of the day you as the business owner are still gonna owe Uncle Sam your business taxes. The only thing a business owner accomplishes by discriminating against this LGBTQ couple is a loss of income for the business. Are you telling me that as a baker of cakes who is against LGBTQ if a gay couple came in and wanted to put in an order for a $10,000 cake, that you're just gonna say NO? You're gonna just let 10 GRAND WALK out the door because you don't like gay people? That is the stupidest business practice I've ever seen, and such a business deserves to suffer a slow and painful death. But, I do see an exploit with this business practice. If you're an LGBTQ friendly baker, move to the bigot's turf and outsell them. Advertise that "WE DON'T DISCRIMINATE, UNLIKE X STORE". Name the business that does as part of your advertising. Because it's not defamation if it's true.
Well I’d religion is a protected class just as gays, this would mean all hate speech by religion is okay. Meaning a Muslim can put ‘Kill all Christian’s’ onto anything they wants and post it around. Watch how fast these Christians will foam at the mouth to have that taken down? I’d you can agree that is a act to be denied as it discriminates against Christianity, then why is it different for the Gay Wedding Cake?
So if the baker is gay, and some straight order cake with writting "gay is poison for good community", and the baker refused, is he doing discrimination also?
Ehhhh, show the rest of the scene, where the guy pulls Diane aside and says that's NOT a good point, and she needs to attack the argument in earnest without worry of offending him.
Religious arguments against logical situations are so exhausting. There’s no point arguing with religious people on these types of topics, they will wear you out. You won’t bake a cake because your religion says gay cakes are bad, but will buy a gun because your religion supports that? Fuck yeah, ‘Murica I guess. Ever seen or read about how religious people react when they are discriminated against based their religion? That’s how you know these conversations only exist to validate religiosity on factual issues.
The argument of not wanting to bake a cake for a gay couple because it condones homosexuality is the same as saying you won't watch movies anymore because it condones adultery. Ridiculous.
I still don't understand the point of the argument. You're running a business. Just baked he damn cake. You making a cake doesn mean you condone gay marriage and the bible says to follow the law. Making a cake for a gay couple is not a sin. Discrimination and judgement is, however, a sin.
No one outside the U.S. understands this case. If I were gay, and the bakery told me they hate gays, why in the world would I still want to give them my business? I would have to pay them in the end. I do not want them to have my money.
The issue then becomes when EVERY baker does so. When its a niche and there are viable friendly options you’d want to go to the friendly options. However there are various cases such as sentimental connection or lack of viable options than can drive it further, say a small town where its 120miles to the next baker, so its that baker or no baker. I understand the case as an Australian who is also Queer.
Also part of this is rooted in things like the Jim crow Era where half the country was completely segregated by race. If you argue all religious business owners should be able to deny service based in sexuality, and they all do, then now your back to segregation except it's based on sexuality rather than race.
Whether or not someone chooses to give them business is irrelevant. Attitudes like this should see the business cancelled. If a business refused service to Muslim people or people of colour, they'd absolutely get called out and cancelled... yet for some reason it's become socially acceptable again to discriminate against the LGBTQIA+ community under the pretence of religious freedom when what we're really talking about is religious privilege.
I just don't understand youtube. I was notified of Country Life's reply, but not of the other replies; I saw them only just now. My OC failed to fully express what I meant. I am sorry, but I'll just say it: this is a "USA problem". Because in Western Europe, here's what would happen: The baker refuses to make the cake, other people hear about that, and the baker is finished. Done. Broke. I am not saying that we do not have homophobes, xenophobes, bigots. But we have much fewer. Do Americans understand what the rest of the world sees when the GOP wins 50% of the votes? _
It is not rediculous. The baker is ok to sell bread (in the knowing of) to the same gay couple. She is not ok selling them the wedding cake as it is against her believe. End of story.
@@Gabriel-jk6ce that's what lawyers do they find ways around judgements. They find loopholes. Me personally I'm a Christian and idk what I would do in that scenario but I believe I have the right to choose service based off my religion while also not barring actual service.
just got back from p-town. Had a shot of tequila in Old Colony Tap and had lunch at the Lobster Pot. Had an espresso at Spiritus the night before. My pilgrimage... RIP Tony
A Christian surgeon is preparing for a heart transplant and discovers the patient is gay and married. Does he legally have the right to refuse to operate seeing he believes homosexuality is a mortal sin? An extreme case I admit but isn’t this exactly the same principle?
Even as a Christian the surgeon is not allowed to kill. The surgery and receiving of heart is not a religious act. The difference is that weddings can be classified as religious acts and service hence against which it's sanctity can be argued. On the other hand if I were against homosexuality I could argue that the human body is a temple and it's been desiccated hence needs to be cleansed and purified before I can touch However, this still goes against Christianity as Jesus let Mary perfume his body when she was considered unholy. There is no room for homophobes in general as they do not really follow religion based practice. Atleast not one of Christian faith.
@marzadky4934 but not really... a wedding is only a religious act when those who's wedding it is follow a religious service. MANY people don't have a religious wedding.
@skycastrum5803 personally I think either way the baker should be obligated to bake the wedding cake... thr point I'm making is that people are trying to say weddings are intrinsically religious but they're not... what makes them a religious event is whether or jot the participants choose to have a religious service. When I got married to my husband neither one of us wanted a service tied to a religion that vilifies us so we didn't.
Here are the facts about the real world 🗺 Colorado baker 👨🍳 who objected to the gay 🏳️🌈 couple’s wedding cake 🎂. It wasn’t about the BAKING of the cake 🎂, it was about the DECORATION of it. The act of decoration is a form of artistic expression and is therefore covered under the 1st Amendment. Artists cannot be *compelled* to produce their “expression”. That’s compulsory speech 🎤, which is illegal. However, it’s very unfortunate that this gay 🏳️🌈 couple is engaging in what’s called “lawfare” (legal warfare). Their plan is to ruin the bakery 🧁 by forcing the baker 👨🍳 into paying legal fees in order to go to court just to fight against frivolous lawsuits levied against him. Eventually (hopefully, by the couple’s reckoning) the bakery 🧁 may go out of business due to these legal fees.
Everyone has the freedom to believe, freedom to express their ideas. I think people forget everyone else’s “freedom of will,” some people think that everyone should like LGBT people, then where is the freedom of everything? Like LGBT people have rights so the rest of the people have the same rights. We do not need to like each other but also we don’t need to hate each other. We can cohabitate in this world by respecting each other’s beliefs, traditions, backgrounds, sexual identities unless that is harming someone physically or verbally.
You can "not like" LGBT people (whatever that means) but you can't treat them differently as it would be discrimination. Refusing service is a difference in treatment based on personal characteristics, so it is discriminatory and should not be permitted
So by your logic, as an LGBTQIA person myself I should be able to refuse to employ Christians, Muslims and basically anyone with a faith because of the conflict of ideology. The door swings both ways, if a Christian can demiscriminate based on their beliefs, shouldn't I as an LGBTQIA person be able to discriminate against them based on my own beliefs?
Someone who owns a bakery is clearly not being *forced* to bake anything for anybody. The issue here isn't cake; the issue is whether or not refusing to provide a cake for a gay wedding constitutes some kind of religious act akin to prayer or worship.
@@BigBri550 I disagree - the problem was the message to be written on the cake, promoting gay partnerships. Not a problem for me, but it was for this baker.
@@Loosehead It still comes down to religion. Why didn't the baker like the message? Because it lauded a gay marriage. Why didn't the baker like a message that lauded gay marriage? Because it went against his religious beliefs. Refusing to do something based on First Amendment freedom of religious expression comes down to it _being_ an act of religious expression in the first place. Is putting a message on a wedding cake a religious act?- no, not even if it is a religious message. There is nothing inherently religious/worshipful about adorning wedding cakes; therefore, refusing to do so for a gay couple comes down to an act of prejudicial discrimination because of personal, religious-based reservations. It is an attempt to violate another's civil liberties (not be discriminated against for what they are) and justifying it by claiming one's own civil liberties (freedom of exercising one's religion).
@@Loosehead Right. I get it. What I want you to see is that the baker's discrimination based on his religious indignation at being requested to put a message on a wedding cake supposedly "promoting" gay marriage is not covered under the First Amendment. What if the issue wasn't about sexual orientation? What if it was about ... *religion?* For instance, if the wedding was for a Muslim union: "I refuse to put a message on a wedding cake that promotes Allah because of my First Amendment free exercise of religion to believe only in the Judeo-Christian God." Does the baker have a First Amendment right to discriminate based on religious differences? NO. What about an interracial marriage? "I refuse to put a message on a wedding cake that promotes interracial marriage because it violates my religious belief in white separatism." Is that covered under the First Amendment? NO. Do you see what I am getting at here?
At that point it stops being about the cake. If someone is suing for discrimination it’s not because they want to be able to interact with someone who hates them, they want justice and/or retribution for discrimination and mistreatment. If your discriminated against you can sue that person and never step near them again and it would be the be the same except for now they just paid you instead if you paying them
Lol people trying to argue legalities of something so stupid on its head. This is just proof we don't really live in a free country. And there's plenty of evidence of that out there already anyways. Private businesses should be allowed to do what they want; and then face the consequences of their choices. Society will punish people accordingly once the bad PR gets out. We don't need more laws out there regulating what entities can or cannot do. It's also amusing to me how only in America a gay couple can go into a Christian owned bakery, get denied service and that bakery will get sued but all the Muslim bakeries out there do the same thing and no one filed law suits against those ones. American society is the greatest joke of all.
Now imagine that US politicians - in general, not poking fun at any party/group/platform - were capable of a tenth of the class and intelligence in this conversation.
0:18 I really don't like someone claiming on whether or something is a pretext. That's an assumption on if someone would sell to same sex couples in general, or in this specific instance conserning a wedding cake. I'm not a christian, but I still feel that if the religious practise is acceptable and it's not infringing on someone else's freedom of speech or their right to happiness, your free to practice it. Refusing to sell someone a cake doesn't violate those, so in my opinion any entrepeneur may refuse service, for any reason. 'No shirt, no shoes' is still a thing.
Not if that reason means it violates your rights against discrimination and only if it is a view point, so they could deny "God Loves/Hates Gays" regardless of their beliefs because that's an interpretation/view they have of their Religion and Sexuality isn't as vague and if a gay person asked for a cake saying "Gay Marriage should be Legal", it can be denied while not being Discriminatory as they are arguing against the view of Gay Marriage and not the Sexuality itself. However, it cannot be denied simply because of their Religion, Race, Sexuality etc. if businesses were allowed to refuse service for any reason then -if it denied rights or not- they could choose groups of people to exclude from their services.
@@aarongray243 I'm just going to jump over the whole debate on which has more freedoms, sexuality or religion. The point in the end is this: who's rights are going to be infringed in this situation. The gay couple has the right to REQUEST a cake for a wedding. The baker has the right to either agree or disagree service to their potential clients, if it goes against their moral compass or faith. The baker does not have the duty or responsibility to fulfill an order made to them. If money has exchanged hands, by all means, the money should be returned. They said it right at the end: aren't religious groups afforded the same right and protections as a gays? Realistically, they should be. It then boiles down to simply a difference of opinion on whether or not the faith of the baker is 'right' or not, and that whole thing is a crapshoot. But, in my opinion, the rights of the gay couple to WANT something, doesn't exceed the bakers RIGHT to do refuse service, and be hence FORCED in to compliance. If the baker HAS to bake the cake, their freedoms have been infringed in my opinion. And again it is just my opinion. I'm looking at this situation only throught the lense of whose RIGHTS are actually being violated, nothing else. What I see here is representatives of two groups on equal footing, and the other one is requesting something and the other one is refusing. And both have the right to do so.
@@Moponen I believe your question on whether the baker can refuse to serve a gay couple was answered in the first video. If the baker is advertising a service, then they must provide that service, and can refuse to provide it with good reason. If the reason to refuse is "The customer is of a certain sexual orientation", that falls under discrimination, and is then not a good or valid reason. For if a religion should be held to the same standards of a sexual orientation, then the answer is yes, it should be, and it is in many circumstances. A baker cannot refuse a Catholic person because they are Catholic, for the same reason they cannot refuse a gay person because they are gay. It falls under discrimination. However, when it comes to providing a service, religion, race, orientation, etc. is removed from the equation. As stated above, if you offer a service, you must provide it. You cannot refuse service based off of someone's religion, race, orientation, etc. Certainly, everyone has the right to free speech and freedom of expression. But, why should one person's freedom of speech and expression be allowed to infringe on and remove someone else's? I'm of the opinion that when you are providing a good or service, who you are is taken out of the equation. You should be, for lack of a better term, secularist when acting as the provider. I'm also of the opinion that if your belief requires you to be discriminatory towards another group, it should be held up as lesser than the discriminated. This blog does a good job at explaining what I've said above, and more: www.mydoorsign.com/blog/right-to-refuse-service-to-anyone/
@@chancecomic1595 that really is the point however. Is it discrimination if your religion tells you that participating, in any way, in celebration X is forbidden, when it doesn't fulfill the requirments stated by your religion? When someone asks you to participate, freedom of expression should offer the option of 'No'. That is my only point. That person gets f*cked either way. Their religion might state that they go to hell for that and for true believers that's a scary thought. On the other hand if they refuse, they are punished while still alive. I'm not saying anyone should deny anyone services, just that the whole system is f*cked and I'm frustrated there are no good solutions. As I originally stated, I don't belong to any specific religion, but I'm one of those guy who believes in the idea that either freedom speech is absolute or it's not, no middle ground.
"no shirt, no shoes" isn't an allowance for discrimination. It's a request for basic hygiene and it isn't applied to a specific race, religion, or sexuality.
Yeah, that guy is not dressed as a Sikh. The Sikh turban is not a cap that can be removed and worn instantly like the one shown. That one is worn by Hindus during religious ceremonies. What's the matter with you?
"She just won't do the one thing her religion says is a sin." The problem with this argument is that there is nothing in the Bible that forbids selling things--even wedding cakes--to homosexuals. It may speak clearly against homosexual behavior, but, as far as I know, that is as far as it goes. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
@@BigBri550 I've heard this opinion before, but I don't get it. Leviticus 18:22, 20:13 says, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." That seems pretty clear to me. How do you think it is not clear?
@@RU-vidallowedmynametobestolen It would be clear if Leviticus had originated in English, but it didn't. The original Greek Leviticus 18:22 reads "καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν" which transliterated says "With (a) male you shall not lie (the) lyings of a woman. (A) disgusting ritual is that." Do you see a *clear* prohibition against homosexual behavior there? I don't. Leviticus 20:13 is no clearer. תּוֹעֵבָה עָשׂוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם מוֹת יוּמָתוּ דְּמֵיהֶם בָּֽם׃ in Hebrew transliterates "(a) man lie down (a) male in bed (married) woman two make disgusting ritual" ... I find it interesting how in both verses the "abomination" is apparently a pagan _ritual._ In neither case is it apparent exactly what that ritual is except that it apparently involves sex, and not necessarily just homosexuality. In fact, both verses could be referring to marital adultery rather than homosexuality.
@@BigBri550 I understand very well that translations can be a tricky thing. You run the risk of losing the real meaning both by trying too hard to give a literal translation and by allowing too much leeway for interpretation. I'm not sure what "With (a) male you shall not lie (the) lyings of a woman" means. And I have absolutely no idea what "(a) man lie down (a) male in bed (married) woman two make disgusting ritual" means. I don't see any suggestion that either has anything to do with any kind of ritual. I have zero problem with homosexuality myself, but I do suspect that those who make arguments such as the one you have made are trying too hard to find a reason to think Biblical scripture doesn't have a problem with homosexuality. It seems to me you are doing rhetorical contortions to make the Bible support your views.
If a Neo nazi came in and demanded a Nazi cake celebrating white supremacy, is the baker allowed to refuse? What about a cake depicting gore, violence? What about a cake saying Jesus is not the Messiah? A cake saying feminism is cancer? For the imbeciles arguing that it’s discriminatory to refuse coerced speech, I recommend you put the shoe on the other foot and explain why it would apply only to messages you agree with. Then compare your “it’s a business serving the public” narrative with the “its a private business bro, they can ban whoever they like” argument when it comes to social media. Your disingenuous double standards are showing and you fucking know it. It’s either “bake the cake, bigot” or “it’s a private business, bro”. Pick one. There’s a religious argument against gay marriage. Many Islamic and Jewish bakeries do the same. Comparing it to refusal to serve a different race of people is a ridiculous straw man. The issue is forced speech, not discrimination against gays.
I’ll do you one better, imagine the same baker in any of the 50 states she refuses to bake a cake for a doting couple, because he’s White and she’s black. The same baker sites Her religion as the explanation. Explain to me why that doesn’t constitute discrimination? Likewise if the same Baker refuses to provide a wedding cake because she’s a Catholic, and the bride (a fellow Catholic) is about to marry a Jew. Her branch of Catholic Church doctrine prohibits marrying non-Catholics without conversion. The point being it is exclusively in the case of same-sex marriage that these arguments are ever considered. And it is only in the case of same-sex marriage that you’re ever able to find a judge or a jury that might actually side with you. In all other cases, the baker is considered a laughingstock. Also we must think about the slippery slope that this sets, if a baker can refuse to serve LGBTQ clients where is the line drawn. Are doctors no longer allowed to uphold the Hippocratic oath if the patient is gay and helping them violates their religious practices? Outside the realm of LGBTQ rights, who is to say that liberal doctors no longer have to treat conservative patients because doing so now violates their beliefs or values. There’s no in-between, either we’re all equal or we’re not.
I've been an outlier with this argument. I usually side with the baker and the fact that the free market will adjust accordingly. The fault here is that society as a whole needs to see things the same way. At least to the degree that any baker that refuses services on such grounds is punished financially... by customers going elsewhere and forcing them to close their bakery in a few months due to lack of revenue. However, today's society... though it's beginning to sway toward the left in regard to gay rights... still does not agree that the LGBTQ+ community should be treated the same (especially in certain regions of the country). The other hypotheticals you cite (interracial marriage and catholicism) once would have had just as much uproar as the gay couple. Today, they are accepted by society, while LGBTQ+ still are not. In regards to the doctors, you mention the very reason they can't behave in a similar manner. Doctors take an oath to heal patients... no matter who the patient may be. Case in point, Dr. Samuel Mudd. He set Booth's broken leg after Booth shot President Lincoln. He was convicted as part of the conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln but maintained his innocence and was pardoned by President Johnson after serving 4 years of his life sentence. If they do not heal the patient, they violate this oath. However, the AMA doesn't have legal grounds in this regard, but the various medical organizations and societies do have guidelines and a doctor that doesn't follow them may find it hard to be in the medical practice. So rather than legislate this, we must educate society that a gay couple has just as much right to the same consideration. And that takes time.
Let's say it's a small town, so small that the only plumber (a devout christian) is in a nearby town. What if he stopped serving anyone who's faith didn't jibe with his - free mkt's hand would fail to satisfy that void. However, it's also never right to use shows like "The Good Wife" to sell in-your-face left wing politics. I'm a gay independent and have watched american media skew so far to the left that it borders on the absurd. Good Wife (season 7) was so packed with left wing propaganda that viewers (like myself) just stopped watching. Not surprising that the show's ratings suffered.
@@attsealevel I do not believe the free market would fail in your scenario. In fact, your scenario starts with a lack of a free market already. It's a monopoly run by a single plumbing company. That is a golden opportunity for another business to move in and break up the stranglehold of that one company. That's exactly what the free market is supposed to do. In response to your other comment, The Good Wife's Season 6 ratings actually were UP from Season 5 and Season 4... Season 4 - Rank 27th - 10.98 million average viewership Season 5 - Rank 23rd - 11.43 million average viewership Season 6 - Rank 22nd - 12.17 million average viewership It grew throughout... so I don't see where they "suffered" as you claimed. If you're talking just within the season itself, it's common for shows to drop off throughout a season after the premiere episode and especially after they take a huge hiatus. Good Wife was off the air for half of January and the entire month of February in 2015. Before that, it held continuously strong viewership averaging over 13 million per episode. When it came back, it still held over 10.5 viewers.
@@jaginaz Not sure you can expect a small midwestern town to quickly produce more plumbers, doctors, electricians... which can often take months/years to free mkt assimilate. Far as Good Wife, I was talking aftermath numbers (season 7 viewers went way down).
@@jaginaz I agree with some of what you said, but the point I made with Catholicism is the baker would never invoke Catholic doctrine on marrying outside of the religion. But she would invoke Catholic doctrine with regards to the genders of the spouses. In other words her claim to religious freedom is impeached by the fact that she’s already ignoring her religion in the other instance. As to the example I gave with the doctors there is pending legislation in Arkansas that would give doctors the right to ignore the Hippocratic oath for gay people (due to religious conviction) unless the patient is in critical care. So it’s not exactly a far-fetched notion, we also have to remember it was done before during the AIDS pandemic of 1984. There were some doctors who treated patients as second class citizens. Lastly and this is the larger point, it says right in the first amendment that Congress shall create no law respecting an establishment of religion. When the baker invokes her religion as a means of exemption, she is effectively asking for the law to respect and establishment of religion, namely her’s. And as a government and as a society we can’t be making allowances, there’s too much of that going on in other avenues. And as we all know from other tumbled governments, when you make allowances with regards to the constitution you don’t have a constitution you have a piece of paper..
