Remember the Christian baker?

Adjust content blockingContent Blocking

MuahahaOfLore Rank: #14

Channel: politics

next random

Comment

Which is worse. . .
Not making a custom Wedding cake for a Gay couple?
Or
Not delivering Boxes filled with Pork product.

+1116

Views: 23641 Submitted: 12/07/2017

Block User's Content

Block Channel Content

Related Top Content:

Sounds like child abuse

3574

Top ----ing KeK

3122

pewdiepie has bigger button

3138

Curing Marxism

2629

Cards Against Common Sense

lively nippy horrible Lapwing

2490

Sexual harassment

2442

Pisug Ytuctof Tochimugl

2428

Meanwhile in South Africa...

2408

Sambyoch Edinilt Umercalyod

Hide Comments

Add Comment Refresh (157)

First 2 3 4 5 Last Next

[ 157 comments ]

Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest

Live Updates: On

Options

asd

#7 - dgurevich

Reply+365

(12/07/2017)[+](24 replies)

stickied by MuahahaOfLore

What is worse?
Not hiring someone because his religious beliefs prevent him from doing his job, or firing that person after he refuses to do his job?

#15 to #7 - tvdj#136 on commentsRank#136

Reply+10

(12/08/2017)[-]

Both. Freaking hell how did it come to this to where they refuse to work and get compensation when they don't even deserve it for being lazy cunts?

#18 to #15 - anonemous

Reply+3

(12/08/2017)[-]

maybe bad things will happen to them....

#26 to #7 - therealkakashi

Reply+8

(12/08/2017)[-]

the latter. no matter what politics you believe, you should not hire someone to do a job if they cannot do that job. you're looking to get a job done not fill out your diversity hire checklist.

****, there's a reason you don't see firefighters in wheelchairs.

#78 to #26 - dgurevich

Reply0

(12/08/2017)[-]

But then they'll scream 'discrimination'.
It's a battle you can't win.

#85 to #78 - therealkakashi

Reply+1

(12/08/2017)[-]

i'm pretty sure there are laws (at least where i live) that you do not have to give a reason for why a person wasn't hired.

you don't have to say "we didn't hire you because your religion is an obstacle to performing your task to our expectations"

you don't even have to say "thank you for your time but we've decided to go with another candidate", though it's usually polite

at that point the person would have to assume every job they don't get is because of their religion, which can either be an absurd notion or completely correct

#45 to #7 - euroblend

Reply+6

(12/08/2017)[-]

Once we get these self-driving trucks up and running we won't have to worry about this absurdity.

Probably.

#49 to #45 - madeupfacts

Reply+3

(12/08/2017)[-]

Until the self driving trucks gain sentience and convert to islam

#65 to #49 - arziben

Reply+7

(12/08/2017)[-]

They're AIs, they have basic reasoning.

#67 to #65 - lordfiscus#218 on commentsRank#218

Reply0

(12/08/2017)[-]

What if the AI converts tho

#68 to #67 - arziben

Reply+9

(12/08/2017)[-]

Did I stutter ?

Basic.

Reasoning.

#51 to #49 - euroblend

Reply+1

(12/08/2017)[-]

Damn, how could we have been so blind.

#21 to #7 - anon id: 838710b9

Reply+4

(12/08/2017)[-]

...umm, it would be completely legitimate to not hire someone if their religious beliefs prevent them from doing the job they are interviewing for.

Not sure what you're trying to imply there...

#91 to #7 - gimpyzero

Reply+3

(12/08/2017)[-]

Not hiring. They weren't fired because they believe in Ala, they were fired because they didn't do their ******* job.

#28 to #7 - lordfiscus#218 on commentsRank#218

Reply+2

(12/08/2017)[-]

Firing, because you would have had to knowingly hire them despite their religious beliefs interfering with productivity.
The damage has already been done.

#47 to #28 - dakkenly

Reply+3

(12/08/2017)[-]

The question is did they actually know? You don't usually put your religion on your resume

#50 to #47 - euroblend

Reply0

(12/08/2017)[-]

There's always the assumption, or how vocal they are.

Plus employers have a good way about being sneaky in asking questions that are high risk.

For instance, they have mastered non-directly asking if women are pregnant.

#128 to #7 - rhaobg

Reply+1

(12/08/2017)[-]

Not hiring someone because of their beliefs is always worse... if I were a boss I'd hire someone and expect them to do their job (after the interview and all that to see if they're qualified as in by skill level obviously of course)... and if I were the employee... I'd try to avoid jobs that'd possibly violate my beliefs anyway...

#145 to #128 - dgurevich

Reply+5

(12/08/2017)[-]

The problem is not hiring someone who tells you he can't do the job after the fact.
You were not aware of his conflicts of religion when hiring, and he knowingly and willingly concealed that information from you.
Option 1: You do not hire him, in which case he calls you out on 'discrimination'
Option 2: You hire him, he later tells you he can't do the job, you fire him, and he still calls you out on it.

Legally, according to therealkakashi, you aren't forced to disclose the reason for turning him down, but that still won't prevent him from calling you out.

#147 to #145 - sonicg

Reply+2

(12/08/2017)[-]

Put it in the contract that failure to disclose information that may lead to an inability to perform duties will result in an immediate termination due solely to the lack of ability to do he job in all facets. And then just for fun "______ is not an equal opportunity employer, we have no desire to meet diversity quotas and will only hire personnel legitimately qualified for the job, be it certification, experience or reference from previous employers."

#148 to #147 - dgurevich

Reply+1

(12/08/2017)[-]

I never read such wording in my employment contracts...
However I'll be sure to include it if I ever start my own business.

#146 to #145 - rhaobg

Reply0

(12/08/2017)[-]

I see... good point

#90 to #7 - rockamekishiko

Reply+1

(12/08/2017)[-]

forcing someone to do something against his will

#25 to #7 - seanye

Reply+1

(12/08/2017)[-]

Well it would really depend on disclosure. Did they disclose the fact they were Muslim, and informed the potential employer they would not ship certain goods? If so, firing is worse. If the company states they refuse to hire Jews or Muslims, not hiring is worse. If the company states they won't be able to hire drivers who have any objection shipping goods they move on a standard basis, then it makes it foolproof. Reason being the company can claim the men in question refused to disclose they had issues shipping alcohol, which is a standard product of the company. Because they lied when they were hired, they can be terminated without compensation. If they try to sue for religious discrimination, having a written set of rules with the previously mentioned "won't hire if you won't ship" rule in mind, you can't be sued. While they can claim discrimination, the argument can be made that certain drivers won't ship cigarettes because they lost a family member or friend to them, thus negating any pretense of religious targeting. The premise of the rule is to find drivers most suited to the culture and efficiency of the company. While certain biases against religious institutions seem present, it is no different than saying the company won't hire a vegan who refuses to ship meat because they don't believe in eating meat.

#151 to #25 - permanonymous

Reply0

(12/08/2017)[-]

I own my own business, I don't hire Muslims or *******.

#8 - orkamungus

Reply+183

(12/07/2017)[-]

How is it discrimination if I fire people who refuse to do the very job they're being paid for?!

#86 to #8 - wallbuilder#315 on commentsRank#315

Reply+7

(12/08/2017)[-]

Once upon a time the 2nd definition was the first.

#66 to #8 - zallaz

Reply+3

(12/08/2017)[-]

what in the **** is this webm from? i see it all the time and i never saw the source

#126 to #66 - anon id: ebd7613b

Reply+2

(12/08/2017)[-]

i love pontus jansson
he wears a magic hat
and if you threw a brick at him
he's head the ****** back

#114 to #66 - banditowolf

Reply+2

(12/08/2017)[-]

I am from leeds

#136 to #114 - zallaz

Reply0

(12/08/2017)[-]

finally someone who isn't a filthy ******* southerner

#73 to #66 - orkamungus

Reply+1

(12/08/2017)[-]

A play called Oedis Rex if I remember correctly, just search for Oedipus scream on youpoop and you should find a gorillian differnt versions of this.

#123 to #73 - blackmageewizardt

Reply0

(12/08/2017)[-]

it´s a good play

#80 to #73 - anon id: 932f4069

Reply0

(12/08/2017)[-]

and for further info its about a dude who accidentally fuccs his mum

#72 to #66 - endorphinsrage

Reply+1

(12/08/2017)[-]

Oedipus play

#35 to #8 - thewizsam#314 on commentsRank#314

Reply+1

(12/08/2017)[-]

well if its against his religion why not just give the job to someone else?

#42 to #35 - wrathincarnate

Reply+45

(12/08/2017)[-]

because that person was hired to fill a delivery position, not a 'sometimes i will deliver' position

#76 to #35 - orkamungus

Reply+1

(12/08/2017)[-]

I bet you my hairy, well-shaped ass that in THAT case they'd sue the companies ass off for discrimination. Can't expect someone who actually signed a work contract to actually fulfill this contract after all if it goes against their religion, that would be discrimination; but not hiring that person in the first place, since you already know that they wwon't do as they're supposed to, because of their religion, is also discrimination. Regardless of what you do, there is no winning here.

#61 to #8 - anon id: b988d48b

Reply0

(12/08/2017)[-]

What they should do is just cut the hours back since the work isn't available. Then they'll quit on their own. Gotta cover your ass

#17 - wholesomedude

Reply-40

(12/08/2017)[-]

not making a cake for a gay couple because of their sexuality is pretty mean, especially in this day and age where we should get along better

the muslims should have probably realized that delivering haram products may come up in their line of work but the company probably should've taken their beliefs into account before assigning them that route.

in the end it comes down to personal preferences as to what you think is 'worse' and no one is really wrong here

ive been using this picture too much recently, considering im trying to avoid politics but i decided to try and take a wholesome take on everything i see in newest uploads

#19 to #17 - MuahahaOfLore#14 on contentRank#14 [OP]

Reply+60

(12/08/2017)[-]

The difference is in a service business, you cannot force someone to perform a service.
Should Jews be force to make pro Hitler cakes?
Should Christians be forced to make Jesus sucks cakes?

This can be separated from a bakery selling standard cakes and cookies with no extra customization involved.

#70 to #19 - anon id: 35f01508

Reply+8

(12/08/2017)[-]

Live in a at will state and refuse to do your job is not discrimination on religion. Their religion better clearly say the transportation and delivery of alcohol not just the consumption of alcohol is a sin or the judge that upheld this case is an idiot. You can be a be against Satanism but if you work for Amazon you dam well better believe they'll fire your ass for not delivering red Halloween pitchforks or crucifix dildos.

#101 to #70 - psydoc#158 on commentsRank#158

Reply+2

(12/08/2017)[-]

Refusing to make a cake is refusing the business arrangement. So it would be kind of like the Muslims quitting because they didn't want to do the job. They should have that right.

#62 to #19 - selongb

Reply+4

(12/08/2017)[-]

Serious question, would you defend a Muslim catering company eho refused to serve a pro-Israel function?

#63 to #62 - MuahahaOfLore#14 on contentRank#14 [OP]

Reply+7

(12/08/2017)[-]

Yes.
But my caveat to all this is that there is no reasonable alternative.

If I had a farm I rent for weddings, and i'm the only one for 30 miles, Its different than having one of 5 catering halls in the area.
If there are no other bakeries, then they should have to make the cake.

I dont know how to justify this view though.

#103 to #63 - psydoc#158 on commentsRank#158

Reply+3

(12/08/2017)[-]

For the record, there was another bakery 1.5 blocks from the Christian bakery in question.

#77 to #63 - wraithguard#126 on commentsRank#126

Reply+3

(12/08/2017)[-]

I agree with you, except that i would not force the farm owner (or the caterer for that matter) to serve anyone. To hell with how inconvenient it is for them. A private business retains the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, period.

#64 to #63 - selongb

Reply0

(12/08/2017)[-]

Fair enough then.

#132 to #19 - iliketurtles#420 on commentsRank#420

has deleted their comment [-]

#20 to #19 - wholesomedude

Reply-28

(12/08/2017)[-]

im not sure of that line of logic as gay people didnt kill 6 million straight people, but it is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I feel you can reject certain design choices as a baker but to refuse people belonging to a harmless group like the lgbt community is not a nice thing to do, authough as someone else pointed out, they should be allowed to exercise their opinion but at the same time face the consequences of that.

your name is gold and i quite like that. im sure you're a good person, its always nice to be a good person

#23 to #20 - anon id: d4991480

Reply+16

(12/08/2017)[-]

>harmless

#24 to #23 - wholesomedude

Reply-14

(12/08/2017)[-]

wanting to dress in a way that is different from your gender is pretty harmless, but as i like to say, you are entitled to your opinion

#71 to #24 - anon id: 35f01508

Reply+4

(12/08/2017)[-]

Agreed cross dressing is fine, weird, but fine. Claiming gender isn't determined by sex and that the terms were never synonymous is trying to force people into accepting their delusions so that transvestites can be deceptive when trying to have sex and act offended if their partner gets upset by a surprise gay experience.

#22 to #20 - anon id: 838710b9

Reply+6

(12/08/2017)[-]

Individual rights apply to everyone and are the individual's sole domain (that's why they're called individual rights). The gov. does not decide if your claim to why you're exercising it is based on a good enough reason.

Most of us agree that the baker was a douchebag...but what MuahahaOfLore is pointing out is that if we deny that it's an individual's right to make that decision then that also means we are denying his examples of individual rights as well (Jews refusing Nazi cakes, etc.)

#33 to #22 - dragonegotist

Reply-1

(12/08/2017)[-]

I agree it is a difficult argument especially when you look at the original reason denial of services laws were put in place. During the Jim Crow law eras denial of service to black travellers was so bad that there were literally regions a black person could not travel through, restaurants would not serve them, hotels would not let them stay, gas stations would not give them fuel. I do not think making a wedding cake should fall into the services protected by these laws, but the definition was left broad on purpose.

The confusing thing about both cases is the position of the employer. A business owner is expected to not apply any personal beliefs as either employer or provider, but both customers and employees are free to exercise their beliefs. Any one of these three can abuse the system by selectively applying their beliefs as it suits them, but the employer is the only one who really gets in trouble over it. Is it just because they have more wealth and power they are expected to be emotionless machines?

#105 to #33 - anon id: 250b16f9

Reply+2

(12/08/2017)[-]

That does not apply at all. They did not turn away gay customers (I'm not sure why so many people are confused about the facts of this case). They regularly served gay customers including the customers that sued them. What they refused is a special order that required them to violate their principles. This happens all the time.

What would be a better comparison is if you used a hotel turning down a group because they didn't agree with their principles. This actually happens a lot to white rights groups. However, it's legal.

#104 to #20 - psydoc#158 on commentsRank#158

Reply+2

(12/08/2017)[-]

So you must agree that the Christian bakers were legally in the right because they didn't turn down gay customers, they just refused one specific job that violated their principles.

#130 to #20 - anon id: 14a03810

Reply-1

(12/08/2017)[-]

>lgbt community
> harmless group
August Ames would beg to differ

#30 to #17 - motorwaffle

Reply+5

(12/08/2017)[-]

This isn't the kindergarten playground. "Pretty mean" isn't justification for a lawsuit, especially if you're now saying that expecting someone to perform a service contrary to their beliefs should be "taken into account".

#32 to #30 - wholesomedude

Reply+1

(12/08/2017)[-]

you, along with everyone are entitled to your opinion. i just felt like sharing mine

im sorry people here disagree with it but thats their right to do so

#75 to #17 - anon id: 628346b4

Reply+4

(12/08/2017)[-]

He never refused to serve them They could have purchased any cake within his shop. He simply refused to make a custom cake with a message that would in his opinion violate his faith. If you read further into it he also refuses to design cakes for halloween, that depict violence, that promote divorce or that disparage anyone in the lgbtq community. It would have been wrong to flat out refuse them service of any kind but that is not what happened here.
Also Jack Phillips told the couple he “would gladly sell them birthday cakes, shower cakes, cookies brownies…but I couldn’t design a cake promoting an event in conflict with my beliefs.” Jack also said, “I don’t take orders for cakes with messages or designs commemorating events or ideas in conflict with my beliefs, including messages that are anti-American, celebrate atheism, racism, or indecency.”
If you are talking about the cake case that went to the supreme Court then this is summarizes it for you.

When you apply for a job you are saying that you will perform job duties for pay. In this case they knew that the job called for them to deliver beer. On this case they just refused to do their job which resulted in them getting fired. They are Muslim though and hired good attorney (s) so they ended up with a six figure payday. There are differences here obviously.

#39 to #17 - thunderkrux

Reply+2

(12/08/2017)[-]

But it's pretty much the same situation. The difference is who is making you violate your religious beliefs, the government or your employer

#100 to #39 - psydoc#158 on commentsRank#158

Reply0

(12/08/2017)[-]

The most important distinction is the Muslims had the right to walk away from a deal they felt was in violation of their beliefs. The Bakers didn't have that right.

#95 - leonhardt#82 on commentsRank#82

Reply+30

(12/08/2017)[-]

>Two Muslim Truck Drivers
I already don't like where this is going.

#3 - positivelyskidrow#78 on commentsRank#78

Reply+17

(12/07/2017)[-]

The more I see of modern America, the harder I have to tell myself that fascism is not the answer to these problems.

#9 to #3 - yatnami#160 on commentsRank#160

Reply+13

(12/07/2017)[-]

The last thing needed is even more government control.

#11 to #9 - positivelyskidrow#78 on commentsRank#78

Reply+8

(12/07/2017)[-]

I know. I can understand the appeal of forcing an apathetic, hedonistic, and vain society to change back to what it was at one time before that cultural decay began to set in, but the ways people want to make it happen are insane.

The logic behind fascism: boiled down to its most basic state.

"Our government has become too big. Too corrupt. Their laws and backroom dealings have contributed to the wretched state of affairs we find ourselves in today. It needs to be fixed or the degradation and destruction of our culture and ways of life will continue unabated."
"However should we fix it"
"Well obviously we need make the government BIGGER AND EVEN MORE POWERFUL!"
"Brilliant!"

#5 to #3 - lawxyuno#155 on commentsRank#155

Reply+1

(12/07/2017)[-]

you could have choosen my old mate, but you prefer lgbt and communists.

>disgusting.

#29 to #5 - horserape

Reply+2

(12/08/2017)[-]

Your old mate the failed artist?

#88 to #29 - lawxyuno#155 on commentsRank#155

Reply0

(12/08/2017)[-]

**lawxyuno used "*roll picture*"**
**lawxyuno rolled image**

he was a nice guy

#107 to #3 - anon id: 250b16f9

Reply0

(12/08/2017)[-]

It's definitely not the answer, but we have reached a point where it's becoming harder and harder to argue that it wouldn't be less bad.

#89 - springbok#11 on commentsRank#11

Reply+11

(12/08/2017)[-]

>Convert to Islam
>Get job a a delivery driver for Carlsberg
>Refuse to make deliveries
>Proffit??

#2 - cthulhudreams#60 on commentsRank#60

Reply+9

(12/07/2017)[-]

join list: PoliticallyIncorrectFJ

Mention History

I once worked at a little ceazers, we were told to make sure that pur Muslim looking customers were aware there was nothing that pork didn't touch. All because of a law suit were a Muslim ate a puzza without knowing.

#96 to #2 - skorchy

Reply+4

(12/08/2017)[-]

Worked at an arcade. Bunch of Muslims ordered A ******* CALZONE and expected there to be no meat in it.

They didn't ask any questions about it. They weren't wearing anything that would hint to them being Muslim. They threatened to sue.

Like ****, if you don't wanna eat pork or whatever the **** that's cool. It's your own ******* responsibility to make sure you don't order food with pork in it though.

#143 to #96 - thesinful#319 on commentsRank#319

Reply+1

(12/08/2017)[-]

I've had worse. We had someone order Chicken & Shrimp Soup then send it back because there was a shrimp in it and she's allergic to shellfish. BITCH, did you think the & Shrimp part was just to sound fancier?

We've also had people order gluten free french fries with their grilled cheese during lunch, order a tuna tartare and send it back for being undercooked, or order an Apple Tart with no whipped cream because they're "allergic to dairy" (They specifically said that, not lactose intolerant) Apple Tarts are about 1/3 butter. Baker refused to make it since they'd have a reaction anyway. Turns out the customer wasn't allergic and just didn't like whipped cream

#154 to #143 - skorchy

Reply+1

(12/08/2017)[-]

Ah.

I work at a pasta place now. Had this one lady waste 15 minutes of my time because she was asking "What kind of rice is in the rice noodles?".

Rice bitch. ******* rice is in the rice noodles.

#10 to #2 - cthulhudreams#60 on commentsRank#60

Reply+2

(12/07/2017)[-]

Jesus Christ my fingers are autistic, sorry for the spelling errors guys

#1 - cthulhudreams#60 on commentsRank#60

Reply+8

(12/07/2017)[-]

They shouldn't have gotten the job in the first place if they wont handle pork or alcohol. Also if you refuse to do a job, you get fired... what else were they supposed to do

#4 to #1 - anon id: 241ca43e

Reply+4

(12/07/2017)[-]

Then they sue for discrimination and get a fat lump of cash. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't.

#108 to #1 - psydoc#158 on commentsRank#158

Reply0

(12/08/2017)[-]

A lot of jobs ask if there's any reason they wouldn't be able to complete core parts of their job (or something like that). Maybe the way to deal with this BS, is to make people sign something saying they are able to do the job before hiring them, then fire them for lying on their application.

#34 to #1 - dragonegotist

Reply0

(12/08/2017)[-]

Their employer were supposed to just assign them a different route which they could have done and just said screw it which is what the lawsuit proved.

#87 - anon id: d1f38a68

Reply-6

(12/08/2017)[-]

TBH as much as I disagree with them not performing the job that they were hired for it's well with within their rights to refuse to their job if it conflicts with their religion under the first amendment, we might not like them but we still need to respect their freedoms as long as they're not infringing on ours otherwise we're no better than the muzzies and SJWs we put under so much ridicule

#92 to #87 - psydoc#158 on commentsRank#158

Reply+7

(12/08/2017)[-]

Nobody is trying to arrest them for not doing their job. They have the right to not do their job. Their employer should also have the right to fire them for not doing their job.

#121 to #87 - maxpaynenarration

Reply+5

(12/08/2017)[-]

The fact you went anon proves how much of a coward you are, you ******* cunt.

#99 to #87 - zirrian

Reply+3

(12/08/2017)[-]

You are not doing your job, you're fired, that easy.

#57 - anon id: 3d149655

Reply+6

(12/08/2017)[-]

So let me get this right here:

A business that exercised their legal right to refuse to serve a customer got **** on so hard that they they got into legal trouble, but two people who were fired because they refused to do their job got paid tons of money for it? I know we are missing factors here (Like were the drivers offered a different route to work) and the like but, this sounds like something really stupid, and yes being a leaf means I know what's going on up here, I didn;t vote for the dumbasses.

First 2 3 4 5 Last Next

[ 157 comments ]

Add Comment