I'm thinking about setting up a company that just sells straight cakes i.e. cakes whereby any component which would indicate gender is composed solely of binary opposites, usually male and female.
Would you buy a cake from my straight cake company? I'm willing to sell my heterocakes to anyone, but I only do straight cakes, it would mess up my stock system to do otherwise.
what the fuck are you on about?
Enjoy your life crushing fine because you didn't make a homocake for faggot.
Would it be cool if a gay couple, comprised of a bear and a twink, one who likes girly stuff like fashion, the other one likes sports, bought a cake?
They would eventually replace the dolls on top with their own, but you'd do it, right?
>2018
>You have to go to a special store for heterosexual wedding cakes if you aren't gay
The slippery slope wasn't supposed to be real.
>not making Orthodox wedding cakes
user...
Id buy your cakes, provided you'd make one for my wife's son. He is into basketball and rap music so maybe a cake with some sneakers and a wu tang logo?
Probably the fact that leftists celebrated when the courts ordered a Christian bakery to bake a cake for a lesbian couple, claiming that not doing so would violate their rights. Yet now leftists are claiming Walmart and Dicks are protected under the first amendment for refusing to sell guns to adults under 21.
Uh I think it's the opposite. He wants to make a shop where he specifically doesn't serve gays. Also it's very, very weak bait.
Cry more, pussy.
No you dummy. The fact he's pitching the idea to make cakes specifically for heterosexuals is a sign of how much society has drifted to the left since it used to not even be a question that wedding cakes meant having a female bride and a male groom.
depends whether you think traps are gay or not
Cakes are for faggots and fat chicks.
If a gay person wants to buy a cake you already made, you can’t refuse based on the fact they may touch dicks over it. But you are not supposed to be forced to perform an activity you don’t agree with in the US. So they shouldn’t be able to force you to bake a cake for their wedding. Given that a wedding is an activity and not a race or identity and baking is also an activity. Now under libtard interpretation, rights are only guaranteed if they don’t somehow manage not to offend or inconvenience a libtard. So the Supreme Court will need to decide if people can be forced into action they don’t agree with based on the political winds and perceived victim status of a given moment.
According to a progressive (note the root is progress) interpretation, a public business licensed by the people should be required to offer equal access to their services. That is the the meaning of a "public" license. Don't like it, then open a private club where homophobic closeted fags who are scared of muh open gays run a failing business where gays aren't permitted to buy a membership to get a shitty cake produced by closeted faggots.
ITT: massive retards
If OP wants to open a shop that only specifically makes straight themed cakes that's fine, he just has to sell them to any faggots who would want to buy one. He already said he's willing to sell to anyone so he's kino there.
That's not a law, they could get the shit sued out of them
They do offer equal access. They don’t deny gays the ability to buy cakes they have for sell or even bake them cakes for other occasions. But you can’t force someone to perform in an activity they don’t agree with. A marriage is an activity.
And “progressives” giving themselves self-aggrandizing titles like “progressive “ doesn’t hide the fact that they are actually regressive. Just as they hijacked and ruined the term “liberal”.
Lol! Ironically, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham and drumpf's official wenches would be home suckling spawn and slamming TV dinners in the microwave if it weren't for the hard work and sacrifices of progressives. You troglodytes enjoy your last gasp like a beached carp, you'll not stop the tide of social progress washing your bloated, decaying body to the crabs.
you’re trying way too hard. just admit you don’t have an argument, you’ll look less retarded
he specifically says he will serve anyone tho he only makes a certain type of cake
Possibly, depends on the state. Although it would be difficult to prove as you can refuse to sell a gun for a couple of other reasons.
"progress"
Thinking you are protecting people by not allowing the people making their food to be honest about not wanting to do it.
I'd rather give money to those that want my business.
>you'll look less retarded
Nah, there's no saving him now. He could cure AIDS at this point and people would just know him as that retarded faggot that thinks people should be forced to make gay cakes for homos
Who hurt you?
No, he's saying he'll make a cake for a gay couple, but it'll still have, for example, the male and female symbols on it, since that's the set design.
Don't sex my cake. It can't even reproduce.
Who would want to eat a cake that could have sex?
But he is saying he won't make a homocake.
Yes I would even if I didn’t need one. I’d stick it in my office for the gays to see.
waaa I want to segregate homofags boo hoo why can't I just spit on them when people choose to be faggots why are faggots such faggots anyway all flouncey and girly and stuff why can't they just be normal and find someone nice and live a sedate monogamous life and get marr-
Traps and the people sleeping with them are both gay unless you have “same sex” couples where one is a biological woman and one is a trap. Speaking of, do trannies or homos discriminate? Would a les not be with a m2f? Or a gay guy not be with a f2m?
This.
>implying that people only have a problem with fags if they secretly want to be themselves, and not any other reasons
Anyone can buy any of my heterosexual cakes for any reason, but we only supply with a man and a woman on them, which is why they are cakes dsigned for heterosexuals. Anyone can buy one tho.
We wouldn't make a 'homocake', as we don't sell those, it would mess up our stock system.
Hmmmm. Delusional people.
I remember when I was growing up in the late 80s and early 90s, when society was finally accepting the fact that a substantial portion of the population were gay. I grew up in a small town that was by no means progressive, but the number of married men with families who were coming out of the closet was amazing.
Middle school history teacher, married with 4 kids - gay
Biggest plant nursery in the county owner, married with 2 kids - gay
Bookstore owner, married with one kid -gay
Football coach, married with one kid - gay
Local car dealership owner, married with 2 kids -gay
And there were more. All those families disrupted into chaos because it wasn't okay to be openly gay in the first place. Honestly, it's much better for everyone to accept their sexuality from the start. I'm glad those times have changed.
Accepting someone's sexuality is not the same as accepting gay marriage.
Not sure why that's a difficult concept for some to grasp.
The "tolerance" should go both ways.
And in the 90s, the fight was getting government out of the bedroom.
Now the same group is practically asking for government sanctioning of their sex lives.
Some gays are against "gay marriage" for that reason.
>he's kino there
Welcome newfriend. Maybe lurk a bit more.
Name one reason why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed besides "muh religion says man and woman". Gay marriage doesn't need to be accepted in your religion, not everybody gets married in a Catholic church.
Trump was accepting of gay marriage before Obama was. Where is your god now, atheist?
Everyone posting ITT is a stupid faggot, especially me
Government's role in marriage was to incentivize the creation of new tax payers. Two parent homes being the most likely to produce taxpayers rather than burdens. "Gay marriage" now transforms government's role into a sanctioning of who can couple. Something the government really has no business in. Thus they should get out of the marriage business altogether. Which was one of the arguments made against gay marriage. That it would result in the destruction of marriage. And that argument has more weight than the gay marriage proponents were willing to admit.
But regardless, on an individual level, "muh religion" is a perfectly acceptable reason to not be forced into performing a service for another person.
Marriage is nothing more than a state sanctioned contract between 2 individuals implying certain legal rights, contrary to what the 3 Abrahamic cults argue. A marriage by an Abrahamic "priest" has no meaning until the state licenses it. The secular state (of which the US is one per the Constitution) has no right to restrict the 2 consenting adult parties of that legal contract based on Abrahamic cultist rules. Furthermore, a public business, licensed by the state, has a legal obligation to offer services to that public which comprises the state without restriction.
Don't like living under the US Constitution? Go live under the Taliban or ISIS you fucking Abrahamic fanatic.
>tips fedora
To the contrary, a (((marriage))) by the state has no meaning until a priest witnesses God's blessing over a man and woman. Whether or not a couple married under God has any legal benefits is entirely out of the question. The legal notion of marriage rose out of the divine notion, and God doesn't bless the unions of literal faggots.
Never seen someone try so hard to miss a point.
A wedding is not a race or identity. It's an activity.
You can't force people to perform for an activity. Nor would you want to for the sake of both parties. Just as bakers shouldn't be forced to make blue lives matter cakes or KKK cakes.
The government has a role in promoting institutions that create tax payers and thus had an arguable role in marriage.
It should have zero role in sanctioning consenting adult sex partners and yet with "gay marriage", that is what marriage has become. It is the opposite of the old gay rights demand of keeping government out of the bedroom.
It's not about sanctioning sexual partnership. It's about confirming monogamy to the state. There are so many legal conveniences to being legally married rather than just a partner. Death, inheritance, the automatic right to simply sit by a comatose person in the event of serious illness, for instance.
Considering what fucking shambles hetero marriage is in, you have zero argument against gay marriage. You're logic is flawed, and you should feel bad for posting.
This is the type of Judeo Christian - whatever - that our country needs more of.
My plan is to not have a ceremony and just send each guest $100 instead of eating their precious free time.
Why dont you sell dildo cakes and stick them up your ass while your at it
you do realise baking cakes is gay right?
I'd almost marry another man because of this. Women always want elaborate show off weddings. I'm looking for lifelong stability, not an excuse to hold a fucking party.
It's not inherently gay, but it has become gay. OP just wants to take it back.
Hard to believe someone can be so obtuse as you.
A secular state, which by every interpretation the US is according to the Constitution, has no business restricting the 2 consenting adult parties of a legally binding contract based on strictures from an archaic stick worshipping Abrahamic tradition. Furthermore, a business licensed to provide goods and services to the public of that state cannot choose to offer that service based on some whim (color of hair, eyes, skin, sex or the 4000 year old nomadic desert notion that muh marriage is muh man/woman).
Ironically, humans have seen exponential growth in technology, yet we're still anchored in archaic socio-religio tribal structures that will spell our doom.
They're actually really bad with that, yeah lol
>management reserves the right to refuse entry
It's a private business, they should be able to tell anyone that walks in that they aren't welcome for any reason whatsoever. The company fine was fucking bullshit and it is a disgrace that it happened.
The legislators that thought that was appropriate should be strung up outside the courthouse