this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
-1 points (48.6% liked)

conservative

967 readers
48 users here now

A community to discuss conservative politics and views.

Rules:

  1. No racism or bigotry.

  2. Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn't provide the right to personally insult others.

  3. No spam posting.

  4. Submission headline should match the article title (don't cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  5. Shitposts and memes are allowed until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.

  6. No trolling.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Its the same baker from a few years ago.

all 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sailingbythelee 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Interesting article. The twist this time is that the complainant only asked the baker to make a pink and blue cake. There is no mention of any words or overt imagery, as in previous cases. The baker refused to make the cake after being told by the complainant that the cake was intended to celebrate a gender transition.

While the complainant was definitely trolling the baker, I think she has a good chance of winning since the requested cake didn't involve any speech. The same cake made for a kids' birthday party would presumably have been okay. It is a brilliant move to out the bigot, and I hope it eventually ends up before SCOTUS.

[–] Gigan 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If it goes to SCOTUS they'll probably side with the baker.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Theres an argument that since he was told what it was for, and its still custom, therefore its still speech.

Im not lawyery enough to make that argument, but his lawyer seems to think so.

In any case, the Elegant Bakery is .2 miles away, so theres an argument for targetted harrassment.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

targetted harrassment.