The Left's Latest Obsession: Buying a Cake

[Wingnut]

I think it is Matt Walsh, who has a recent article out, claiming that the LBGTQ community is not nearly as oppressed as it says it is.
His logic is that they cannot be, if their main objections are who makes cakes and chicken sandwiches.

 

He may be on to something!

[Cyber Liberty]

I think it is Matt Walsh, who has a recent article out, claiming that the LBGTQ community is not nearly as oppressed as it says it is.
His logic is that they cannot be, if their main objections are who makes cakes and chicken sandwiches.

A question comes to mind: If gay people are systemically oppressed in this country, if they are in fact a persecuted minority, then why are all of the most powerful companies on Earth clawing out each other's eyes in a competition to be the most pro-gay? And, even more confusingly, why are people so desperate to be included in this persecuted minority that they're coming up with ridiculous labels for even the most normal sexual appetites? And how are gay people able to march through the streets of every major city, sometimes with cross-dressing children at the head of the parade, announcing their sexuality to the whole world — even if the world didn't ask and doesn't care — if they are so oppressed? I have never seen oppression that works like this.

Read the rest HERE.

[Cyber Liberty]

He may be on to something!

I think he is.  See my post above with his article in full.

[Jazzhead]

Again, @Jazzhead, since you didn't understand it the first time, virtue signaling is for those who lack virtue and feel the need to signify that that they have virtue when they do not.  Mr. Phillips is not virtue signalling because he actually has virtue.

Why is refusing to provide the service you've promised virtuous?   

[Cyber Liberty]

Why is refusing to provide the service you've promised virtuous?   

Give up on the "promise" thing.  One more time:  Advertisements are not legally nor morally binding.  It's just a club for virtue signalers to beat Phelps over the head with, now that the "bigot" label faded in the washing machine.  You're just moving the goalposts again.

[Jazzhead]

Give up on the "promise" thing.  One more time:  Advertisements are not legally nor morally binding.  It's just a club for virtue signalers to beat Phelps over the head with, now that the "bigot" label faded in the washing machine.  You're just moving the goalposts again.

Keeping your word is, IMO, morally virtuous and arbitrarily violating it is not.  And, as a matter of fact,  a promise made in an advertisement can indeed be legally binding.   

[Wingnut]

Keeping your word is, IMO, morally virtuous and arbitrarily violating it is not.  And, as a matter of fact,  a promise made in an advertisement can indeed be legally binding.

That is for a court of law to decided not in the court of your opinion.
Let it go.  This shall be litigated.   

[Cyber Liberty]

Keeping your word is, IMO, morally virtuous and arbitrarily violating it is not.  And, as a matter of fact,  a promise made in an advertisement can indeed be legally binding.

The ad that you ceaselessly cite is ancient, so you are saying it is forever binding, without cease.   Is that a normal part of contract law, or is it just a club to beat what you have called a bigot with now?

"Just bake the bleeping cake" is what your entire line of discussion distills down to.  This discussion with you has gone on for years now,  Done here, I have work to do setting my new Castle straight.

[Hoodat]

Keeping your word is, IMO, morally virtuous and arbitrarily violating it is not.  And, as a matter of fact,  a promise made in an advertisement can indeed be legally binding.

Show me this "promise" where said baker promises to bake cakes for ANYONE (regardless of sexual preference) to celebrate the joining of two people of the same gender (regardless of sexual preference) under the guise of a 'wedding'?

[Sanguine]

Why is refusing to provide the service you've promised virtuous?   

Don't even.  You know he didn't promise to do same-sex "wedding" cakes.  That's very dishonest of you.

[GrouchoTex]

Read the rest HERE.

Thanks for the link!
 

[roamer_1]

He advertises that he makes wedding cakes.   His customer seeks a wedding cake.

Makes no difference. Every deal is a new and unique contract that he is under no obligation to participate in.
It don't matter why.

Advertising a service does not mean one MUST provide it to anyone. I turned down plenty of jobs in my life... And will turn down plenty more.

[roamer_1]

It's called keeping your word.   Apparently one's sacred honor isn't enough.   Mr. Phillips is free to choose whether to make wedding cakes.   He's so eager to make money from wedding cakes that he advertises and brags about his expertise.   

He should keep his word.

LOL! No, it's not.
No word has been given. no contract, verbal or otherwise has been entered into.
Sacred honor does not enter into it until the bargain has been struck - THEN is where keeping his word is enacted.

[roamer_1]

Why is refusing to provide the service you've promised virtuous?   

It HAS NOT been promised.
No bargain has been made.

[Sanguine]

I think what @Jazzhead is saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that the mere advertising of a service equals a contract.  I'm not sure how else his argument would work.

[roamer_1]

Keeping your word is, IMO, morally virtuous and arbitrarily violating it is not.  And, as a matter of fact,  a promise made in an advertisement can indeed be legally binding.

There IS IN FACT no promise made.
Just because I advertise lawn mowing does not mean I have to mow YOUR lawn.
I may even make a tentative agreement and an appointed time...
But when I show up at your trailerhouse and see your lawn covered in dog crap and rocks, i am still free to queer the deal and drive off.

You are not entitled to my service.

[roamer_1]

I think what @Jazzhead is saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that the mere advertising of a service equals a contract.  I'm not sure how else his argument would work.

Yeah, that seems to be what he's hawking. And it's totally wrong.

[Cyber Liberty]

Thanks for the link!
 

[Wingnut]

Yeah, that seems to be what he's hawking. And it's totally wrong.

He has a thing for all things gay.   Defending them that is.

[Cyber Liberty]

I think what @Jazzhead is saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that the mere advertising of a service equals a contract.  I'm not sure how else his argument would work.

It can't work because it would be a contract with no expiration date.  He keeps referring to an ad that was published before the State in question redefined "marriage" (that fact alone should have voided any implied agreement).  I didn't see the advertising of "Wedding Cakes" after the first lawsuit was filed years ago.  I went to the website of the bakery.

If I dug out a vintage ad from Sears, I could demand they build me a house for $5,000.

[Bigun]

How many thousands of times must we go round and round THIS particular mulberry bush?  Asking for a friend.

[roamer_1]

It can't work because it would be a contract with no expiration date.  He keeps referring to an ad that was published before the State in question redefined "marriage" (that fact alone should have voided any implied agreement).  I didn't see the advertising of "Wedding Cakes" after the first lawsuit was filed years ago.  I went to the website of the bakery.

If I dug out a vintage ad from Sears, I could demand they build me a house for $5,000.

Right, but also incidental. It would not matter if he had a current ad.
Running an advertisement in no way obliges one to enter into contract

Except in the case where a promise is actually made - Coupons as an instance.

An ad saying 'Hi, I fix widgets' merely attempts to attract business - It does not obligate either party to engage in business.

[Wingnut]

Asking for a friend.

Which one? The monkey or the weasel?

[Bigun]

Which one? The monkey or the weasel?

 

Both actually! 

[Hoodat]

I think what @Jazzhead is saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that the mere advertising of a service equals a contract.  I'm not sure how else his argument would work.

Ah, the pitfalls of making it up as you go.