|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Being religious is not grounds for discrimination against others.
Marriage is not a religious contract. (Which religion would it be under anyways?)
Freedom of speech and expression is not being oppressed; I don't see how you can argue that it is unless the cake baker is baking cakes as a political statement, which is clearly not the case in this instnace.
|
On March 26 2018 07:24 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2018 07:20 NewSunshine wrote:On March 26 2018 07:15 Danglars wrote:On March 26 2018 01:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 25 2018 23:59 Danglars wrote:On March 25 2018 15:17 Kyadytim wrote:
I like how Danglars just subtly pushed the premise that refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding isn't truly discriminating, because discriminating is something else worse that includes not selling off the shelf cakes, too. It's a pretty nice rhetorical trick, but refusing to make a custom cake is still truly discriminating.
I'm pretty sure he's done the same sort of thing with racism when talking to GreenHorizons.
We can still talk about how we're weighing the harm of requiring bakers to make cakes against the harm of allowing bakers to opt of providing custom wedding cake services to gay couples. We can also talk about the larger harms set by the precedent of requiring people to provide services that in some way go against their religion or the precedent of allowing people to not provide services by claiming it's against their religion.
On the last of those subjects, allowing people to opt out of following non-discrimination laws by claiming it's against their religion is potentially going to open a floodgate of discrimination because religion has been a tremendously popular excuse for all sorts of terrible things throughout history, so anyone looking for a religious justification for discriminatory practices will probably be able to find one. And alternatively, passing blanket anti-discrimination laws is going to catch up religious objectors and lead judges to misapply them to Christians only and not to other religious/creeds (as happened in Colorado and as discussed in oral arguments). The harm done to the gay couple is they had to walk another block to another business offering the same service without religious objection. The harm done to the cake makers is that they no longer have the smallest freedom of religious conscience when it comes to their art. The state now owns their expression and can force whatever message at all. But you do show significant progress if you’re moving on to weighing harms. That’s where a big part of this lies, along with where artistic expression ends for types of businesses. I suppose that's one way to analyze the two kinds of harms experienced, but I'd imagine others might interpret them differently. For example: The harm done to the gay couple is that they had to experience yet another individual perpetuating an ignorant and discriminatory belief that unfairly judges them as inferior. The harm done to the cake maker is that he got called out on his bullshit and is now being forced to address the issue of whether or not his freedom to prejudge others is morally acceptable. And the religious person considers that ignorant attitude towards the role religion plays in his life and hopes God works on his heart. It’s both ways. I don’t really care about the ignorant and hateful characterizations along the lines of “getting called out on his bullshit.” It’s your opinion and try as best you can to convince people it’s the right way to view it. Just don’t enslave people’s artistic expression to the state. Preserve some rights while you figure it out. That's precisely the argument we're making. Being religious isn't a good excuse to deny the rights of others. Being religious isn’t a good enough reason to forfeit your free speech and free expression rights. Apparently, you’re allowed to have them as long as you’re a hypocrite or don’t seek gainful employment. I really didn’t expect such a callous approach.
You expect the privilege to not have to challenge your views just because you're religious? You overstep yourself by a huge margin, at the cost of equal treatment of others. Save the woe-is-me schtick.
|
On March 26 2018 07:24 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2018 07:20 NewSunshine wrote:On March 26 2018 07:15 Danglars wrote:On March 26 2018 01:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 25 2018 23:59 Danglars wrote:On March 25 2018 15:17 Kyadytim wrote:
I like how Danglars just subtly pushed the premise that refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding isn't truly discriminating, because discriminating is something else worse that includes not selling off the shelf cakes, too. It's a pretty nice rhetorical trick, but refusing to make a custom cake is still truly discriminating.
I'm pretty sure he's done the same sort of thing with racism when talking to GreenHorizons.
We can still talk about how we're weighing the harm of requiring bakers to make cakes against the harm of allowing bakers to opt of providing custom wedding cake services to gay couples. We can also talk about the larger harms set by the precedent of requiring people to provide services that in some way go against their religion or the precedent of allowing people to not provide services by claiming it's against their religion.
On the last of those subjects, allowing people to opt out of following non-discrimination laws by claiming it's against their religion is potentially going to open a floodgate of discrimination because religion has been a tremendously popular excuse for all sorts of terrible things throughout history, so anyone looking for a religious justification for discriminatory practices will probably be able to find one. And alternatively, passing blanket anti-discrimination laws is going to catch up religious objectors and lead judges to misapply them to Christians only and not to other religious/creeds (as happened in Colorado and as discussed in oral arguments). The harm done to the gay couple is they had to walk another block to another business offering the same service without religious objection. The harm done to the cake makers is that they no longer have the smallest freedom of religious conscience when it comes to their art. The state now owns their expression and can force whatever message at all. But you do show significant progress if you’re moving on to weighing harms. That’s where a big part of this lies, along with where artistic expression ends for types of businesses. I suppose that's one way to analyze the two kinds of harms experienced, but I'd imagine others might interpret them differently. For example: The harm done to the gay couple is that they had to experience yet another individual perpetuating an ignorant and discriminatory belief that unfairly judges them as inferior. The harm done to the cake maker is that he got called out on his bullshit and is now being forced to address the issue of whether or not his freedom to prejudge others is morally acceptable. And the religious person considers that ignorant attitude towards the role religion plays in his life and hopes God works on his heart. It’s both ways. I don’t really care about the ignorant and hateful characterizations along the lines of “getting called out on his bullshit.” It’s your opinion and try as best you can to convince people it’s the right way to view it. Just don’t enslave people’s artistic expression to the state. Preserve some rights while you figure it out. That's precisely the argument we're making. Being religious isn't a good excuse to deny the rights of others. Being religious isn’t a good enough reason to forfeit your free speech and free expression rights. Apparently, you’re allowed to have them as long as you’re a hypocrite or don’t seek gainful employment. I really didn’t expect such a callous approach.
The problem is honestly not discrimination in some ethical sense but the fact that we'd be living in a clown car of a society if everybody who doesn't like each others ethics or religion would express that through the marketplace. Commercial cake-selling in a publicly licensed business should never be an issue of speech.
Imagine if liberals would never hire conservatives or don't sell any goods to them because of their political orientation or vice versa. We'd constantly wage cultural war by economic means. It's better too keep that stuff apart.
|
Damn tax returns were good to me this year. Being a full time student and working as a CNA and in 2 retail jobs I was able to get an extra 1k+ in credit back from my tuition funds.
Thanks Obama policies that finally kicked in.
|
On March 26 2018 07:05 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2018 06:57 Danglars wrote:On March 26 2018 01:11 NewSunshine wrote:On March 26 2018 01:02 Danglars wrote:On March 26 2018 00:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 25 2018 23:59 Danglars wrote:On March 25 2018 15:17 Kyadytim wrote:
I like how Danglars just subtly pushed the premise that refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding isn't truly discriminating, because discriminating is something else worse that includes not selling off the shelf cakes, too. It's a pretty nice rhetorical trick, but refusing to make a custom cake is still truly discriminating.
I'm pretty sure he's done the same sort of thing with racism when talking to GreenHorizons.
We can still talk about how we're weighing the harm of requiring bakers to make cakes against the harm of allowing bakers to opt of providing custom wedding cake services to gay couples. We can also talk about the larger harms set by the precedent of requiring people to provide services that in some way go against their religion or the precedent of allowing people to not provide services by claiming it's against their religion.
On the last of those subjects, allowing people to opt out of following non-discrimination laws by claiming it's against their religion is potentially going to open a floodgate of discrimination because religion has been a tremendously popular excuse for all sorts of terrible things throughout history, so anyone looking for a religious justification for discriminatory practices will probably be able to find one. And alternatively, passing blanket anti-discrimination laws is going to catch up religious objectors and lead judges to misapply them to Christians only and not to other religious/creeds (as happened in Colorado and as discussed in oral arguments). The harm done to the gay couple is they had to walk another block to another business offering the same service without religious objection. The harm done to the cake makers is that they no longer have the smallest freedom of religious conscience when it comes to their art. The state now owns their expression and can force whatever message at all. But you do show significant progress if you’re moving on to weighing harms. That’s where a big part of this lies, along with where artistic expression ends for types of businesses. Do you think the law would have prevented them from just saying they refuse to serve them and pointing to the sign that says "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" and kindly asking them to leave? Maybe other religious people would’ve used that dodge, but the owner is not ashamed of his religious beliefs. Neither should he try and dodge the Colorado law: it is unjust in present form and should be limited quickly. His religious beliefs that tell him gays don't deserve equal rights, you mean. And you seem perfectly okay supporting that. Given I'm not going to change your mind, because that's not why you're here, answer me this: why is even a disclaimer too much? Why is the only person that doesn't have to make any effort or question anything about what they're doing the religious person? Why does belonging to a religion grant you these privileges? It’s really hard to go with the gay equal rights thing when he serves all gays, and just not the wedding ceremony itself. When all things point to just a special religious event, don’t shoehorn some hairbrained discrimination or unequal rights angle in. It just doesn’t fit! Which part of a gay couple engaging in a civil union is a religious event? Is cutting and eating a cake with your (now extended) family a religious event? Does this mean Christian bakers cannot serve Muslims because eating cake is a Christian religious event?
For example, a Christian believes marriage has spiritual significance. Even if the two involved in the marriage think it’s just a convenient partnership, for him or her it involves God-ordered design. That is why some Christians believe the Bible forbids them from attending such weddings or being otherwise involved. It’s very much embedded in history and tradition this way. It’s more than just happenstance or a fancy meal or another cake.
|
On March 26 2018 07:43 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2018 07:24 Danglars wrote:On March 26 2018 07:20 NewSunshine wrote:On March 26 2018 07:15 Danglars wrote:On March 26 2018 01:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 25 2018 23:59 Danglars wrote:On March 25 2018 15:17 Kyadytim wrote:
I like how Danglars just subtly pushed the premise that refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding isn't truly discriminating, because discriminating is something else worse that includes not selling off the shelf cakes, too. It's a pretty nice rhetorical trick, but refusing to make a custom cake is still truly discriminating.
I'm pretty sure he's done the same sort of thing with racism when talking to GreenHorizons.
We can still talk about how we're weighing the harm of requiring bakers to make cakes against the harm of allowing bakers to opt of providing custom wedding cake services to gay couples. We can also talk about the larger harms set by the precedent of requiring people to provide services that in some way go against their religion or the precedent of allowing people to not provide services by claiming it's against their religion.
On the last of those subjects, allowing people to opt out of following non-discrimination laws by claiming it's against their religion is potentially going to open a floodgate of discrimination because religion has been a tremendously popular excuse for all sorts of terrible things throughout history, so anyone looking for a religious justification for discriminatory practices will probably be able to find one. And alternatively, passing blanket anti-discrimination laws is going to catch up religious objectors and lead judges to misapply them to Christians only and not to other religious/creeds (as happened in Colorado and as discussed in oral arguments). The harm done to the gay couple is they had to walk another block to another business offering the same service without religious objection. The harm done to the cake makers is that they no longer have the smallest freedom of religious conscience when it comes to their art. The state now owns their expression and can force whatever message at all. But you do show significant progress if you’re moving on to weighing harms. That’s where a big part of this lies, along with where artistic expression ends for types of businesses. I suppose that's one way to analyze the two kinds of harms experienced, but I'd imagine others might interpret them differently. For example: The harm done to the gay couple is that they had to experience yet another individual perpetuating an ignorant and discriminatory belief that unfairly judges them as inferior. The harm done to the cake maker is that he got called out on his bullshit and is now being forced to address the issue of whether or not his freedom to prejudge others is morally acceptable. And the religious person considers that ignorant attitude towards the role religion plays in his life and hopes God works on his heart. It’s both ways. I don’t really care about the ignorant and hateful characterizations along the lines of “getting called out on his bullshit.” It’s your opinion and try as best you can to convince people it’s the right way to view it. Just don’t enslave people’s artistic expression to the state. Preserve some rights while you figure it out. That's precisely the argument we're making. Being religious isn't a good excuse to deny the rights of others. Being religious isn’t a good enough reason to forfeit your free speech and free expression rights. Apparently, you’re allowed to have them as long as you’re a hypocrite or don’t seek gainful employment. I really didn’t expect such a callous approach. The problem is honestly not discrimination in some ethical sense but the fact that we'd be living in a clown car of a society if everybody who doesn't like each others ethics or religion would express that through the marketplace. Commercial cake-selling in a publicly licensed business should never be an issue of speech. Imagine if liberals would never hire conservatives or don't sell any goods to them because of their political orientation or vice versa. We'd constantly wage cultural war by economic means. It's better too keep that stuff apart.
That’s why we should cut it off at artistic expressions for historically religious events. That’s why I’m not suggesting they have any right to put a No Gays sign in front of their store or asking somebody’s religion before selling them cookies. If you can’t separate things of particularly religious significance, the problem is your understanding of religion. Ignorance of rights is not an excuse to trample on them outright.
|
On March 26 2018 07:32 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Being religious is not grounds for discrimination against others.
Marriage is not a religious contract. (Which religion would it be under anyways?)
Freedom of speech and expression is not being oppressed; I don't see how you can argue that it is unless the cake baker is baking cakes as a political statement, which is clearly not the case in this instnace.
Just because you assert it’s the case does not mean everybody feels that way. How would you feel as an artist forced to depict something honoring Muhammad or Jesus or Buddha? Not whether you’re up for doing it, but you will be shut down for not accepting the commissioned work?
I don’t really know if you’d feel discriminated against. Maybe you’re fine getting bossed around by an agent of the government. But others might feel that way.
|
I fail to see why people are still arguing about the cake or the wedding at all. The cake maker is still within his legal rights to not make cakes for gay weddings. There's not really a point in arguing that part. Argue about why Danglars doesn't think that's enough.
|
On March 26 2018 07:35 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2018 07:24 Danglars wrote:On March 26 2018 07:20 NewSunshine wrote:On March 26 2018 07:15 Danglars wrote:On March 26 2018 01:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 25 2018 23:59 Danglars wrote:On March 25 2018 15:17 Kyadytim wrote:
I like how Danglars just subtly pushed the premise that refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding isn't truly discriminating, because discriminating is something else worse that includes not selling off the shelf cakes, too. It's a pretty nice rhetorical trick, but refusing to make a custom cake is still truly discriminating.
I'm pretty sure he's done the same sort of thing with racism when talking to GreenHorizons.
We can still talk about how we're weighing the harm of requiring bakers to make cakes against the harm of allowing bakers to opt of providing custom wedding cake services to gay couples. We can also talk about the larger harms set by the precedent of requiring people to provide services that in some way go against their religion or the precedent of allowing people to not provide services by claiming it's against their religion.
On the last of those subjects, allowing people to opt out of following non-discrimination laws by claiming it's against their religion is potentially going to open a floodgate of discrimination because religion has been a tremendously popular excuse for all sorts of terrible things throughout history, so anyone looking for a religious justification for discriminatory practices will probably be able to find one. And alternatively, passing blanket anti-discrimination laws is going to catch up religious objectors and lead judges to misapply them to Christians only and not to other religious/creeds (as happened in Colorado and as discussed in oral arguments). The harm done to the gay couple is they had to walk another block to another business offering the same service without religious objection. The harm done to the cake makers is that they no longer have the smallest freedom of religious conscience when it comes to their art. The state now owns their expression and can force whatever message at all. But you do show significant progress if you’re moving on to weighing harms. That’s where a big part of this lies, along with where artistic expression ends for types of businesses. I suppose that's one way to analyze the two kinds of harms experienced, but I'd imagine others might interpret them differently. For example: The harm done to the gay couple is that they had to experience yet another individual perpetuating an ignorant and discriminatory belief that unfairly judges them as inferior. The harm done to the cake maker is that he got called out on his bullshit and is now being forced to address the issue of whether or not his freedom to prejudge others is morally acceptable. And the religious person considers that ignorant attitude towards the role religion plays in his life and hopes God works on his heart. It’s both ways. I don’t really care about the ignorant and hateful characterizations along the lines of “getting called out on his bullshit.” It’s your opinion and try as best you can to convince people it’s the right way to view it. Just don’t enslave people’s artistic expression to the state. Preserve some rights while you figure it out. That's precisely the argument we're making. Being religious isn't a good excuse to deny the rights of others. Being religious isn’t a good enough reason to forfeit your free speech and free expression rights. Apparently, you’re allowed to have them as long as you’re a hypocrite or don’t seek gainful employment. I really didn’t expect such a callous approach. You expect the privilege to not have to challenge your views just because you're religious? You overstep yourself by a huge margin, at the cost of equal treatment of others. Save the woe-is-me schtick.
Challenge my views all you want, just let me live and operate my business taking commissioned works as I please. This isn’t really an argument, you’re just making an aside because you’re unwilling to outright state that their rights don’t matter ... or religious people have no rights if somebody says so.
|
On March 26 2018 08:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
I fail to see why people are still arguing about the cake or the wedding at all. The cake maker is still within his legal rights to not make cakes for gay weddings. There's not really a point in arguing that part. Argue about why Danglars doesn't think that's enough.
He has no legal right to bake any custom wedding cakes if he’ll refuse to do so for a gay wedding. That’s what Colorado is saying. They’re literally required to report to the commission regularly any refused works, and guarantee a retraining according to their standards (Orwellian if you ask me). He must make no custom cakes for weddings or make custom cakes for gay weddings. I think the Supremes will ultimately decide this unduly burdens the cake makers religious free expression and free speech rights.
Thank God they took the case. Holy cow, there’s a lot of single-ake discrimination-is-just-so-unfair arguments flying around. I thought it would take another decade, but apparently religious people are second class citizens today.
|
Nah, it's more that religious beliefs that can impact others are second class religious beliefs, particularly when they can easily be an unproveable smokescreen to sanction actions that would otherwise be unlawful. But since we've all agreed on that since we decided child sacrifice was a no-no that's kind of less buzzwordy I guess.
|
On March 26 2018 08:09 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2018 08:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
I fail to see why people are still arguing about the cake or the wedding at all. The cake maker is still within his legal rights to not make cakes for gay weddings. There's not really a point in arguing that part. Argue about why Danglars doesn't think that's enough. He has no legal right to bake any custom wedding cakes if he’ll refuse to do so for a gay wedding. That’s what Colorado is saying. They’re literally required to report to the commission regularly any refused works, and guarantee a retraining according to their standards (Orwellian if you ask me). He must make no custom cakes for weddings or make custom cakes for gay weddings. I think the Supremes will ultimately decide this unduly burdens the cake makers religious free expression and free speech rights. Thank God they took the case. Holy cow, there’s a lot of single-ake discrimination-is-just-so-unfair arguments flying around. I thought it would take another decade, but apparently religious people are second class citizens today.
He can bake as many custom cakes as he wants, and he can refuse to provide his service for gay weddings. Didn't we already agree on that?
|
On March 26 2018 08:09 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2018 08:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
I fail to see why people are still arguing about the cake or the wedding at all. The cake maker is still within his legal rights to not make cakes for gay weddings. There's not really a point in arguing that part. Argue about why Danglars doesn't think that's enough. He has no legal right to bake any custom wedding cakes if he’ll refuse to do so for a gay wedding. That’s what Colorado is saying. They’re literally required to report to the commission regularly any refused works, and guarantee a retraining according to their standards (Orwellian if you ask me). He must make no custom cakes for weddings or make custom cakes for gay weddings. I think the Supremes will ultimately decide this unduly burdens the cake makers religious free expression and free speech rights. Thank God they took the case. Holy cow, there’s a lot of single-ake discrimination-is-just-so-unfair arguments flying around. I thought it would take another decade, but apparently religious people are second class citizens today.
Yeah, trying to act like you're the victim while simultaneously saying discrimination is fair and totally cool isn't gonna fly with a lot of folks.
|
What about a baker who refused to draw a Pepe on a cake?
|
Religious beliefs are now being extended to businesses. The cake shop doesn't have a religion. The owner has religious beliefs that prevent him from making a cake for a gay wedding. He just happens to be the only employee, so the argument is that he is being "forced" to make a cake. So now the buisness has a religion because its owner does.
This would never fly for a wedding dress shop where they refuses to tailor the dress for gay weddings. It would just be seen as discrimination. But because its baking, he can say it is art rope in freedom of speech too. But making an exception for the cake shop owner carves out a bunch ways to legally discriminate against gay couples, because there is no way to limit it to just weddings.
On March 26 2018 08:32 IgnE wrote:
What about a baker who refused to draw a Pepe on a cake?
All memes were not created equal.
|
On March 26 2018 08:32 IgnE wrote:
What about a baker who refused to draw a Pepe on a cake?
People who want Pepes on a cake aren't a protected class, so that would probably be fine. Same if someone wanted another nation's flag, or an anarchy symbol, or dickbutt on it.
|
On March 26 2018 08:34 Plansix wrote:Religious beliefs are now being extended to businesses. The cake shop doesn't have a religion. The owner has religious beliefs that prevent him from making a cake for a gay wedding. He just happens to be the only employee, so the argument is that he is being "forced" to make a cake. So now the buisness has a religion because its owner does. This would never fly for a wedding dress shop where they refuses to tailor the dress for gay weddings. It would just be seen as discrimination. But because its baking, he can say it is art rope in freedom of speech too. But making an exception for the cake shop owner carves out a bunch ways to legally discriminate against gay couples, because there is no way to limit it to just weddings. Show nested quote +On March 26 2018 08:32 IgnE wrote:
What about a baker who refused to draw a Pepe on a cake? All memes were not created equal.
Between Citizens United and Hobby Lobby, the US has already established that companies are people and can have religious beliefs. Next thing, conservatives will go after zoning laws by claiming freedom of assembly for businesses or something.
|
I also find it interesting that people are now saying religious beliefs not giving you exemptions to laws makes religious people second class citizens. That's an interesting spin, particularly because it actually does the opposite: religious exemptions from laws essentially make everyone whose religion doesn't give them an exemption (which includes atheists/agnostics and when it comes to choosing not to serve people Unitarian Universalists) second class citizens because they don't have the same freedoms since their holy book doesn't prescribe something.
Not that that is necessarily bad, per se. I am not too heartbroken that only people of the Native American Church can legally use peyote in religious ceremonies, though I am annoyed to learn that this only extends to that one church even though it has importance in other ceremonies. But it's just what that does.
|
for me the biggest issue with Danglars reponses (in general) and Sermokala's response to me specifically is that i just see them as massive slippery slopes. And I guess you can argue that noone has tried to abuse it like that because people aren't assholes but it leaves the door open for the need of judges to specify what's a religion and what's a joke religion.
I even understand Sermokala's idea that a ceremony for a gay marriage would be another type of ceremony altogether, if you happen to be christian and I can somehow understand that argument, but I just don't think it's one you want to make.
Yes, it's nothing that happens in reality but what if the next guy says he only makes cakes for white, straight couples who haven't had sex before marriage. At least 2 of them I can easily see happening in some cases while the "white couples" was just thrown in there because why not.
Who gets to decide that that's just a joke religion? Who gets to decide that his interpretation of christianity is incorrect because there's nothing written in the bible about whites or whatever?
Sermokala wrote in his responseThat being the type off marriage that has been traditionally accepted for hundreds of years , presumeably to ward off exactly against these kind of joke religions. But that leaves you with either a judge having to make a decision on what's a joke religion and what religion to take seriously or the big religions being above minor ones.
|
On March 26 2018 08:37 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2018 08:32 IgnE wrote:
What about a baker who refused to draw a Pepe on a cake? People who want Pepes on a cake aren't a protected class, so that would probably be fine. Same if someone wanted another nation's flag, or an anarchy symbol, or dickbutt on it.
What about a person asking for something like "Burn in Hell, Pagans?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
4807
2423
2020
620
245
EPT
