He was highly tolerating and offered them service, even if not obliged. You dont need to tolerate his beliefs but show some fucking decency and not use this non-inconviniencing expirience for self gain. If you agree the government needed involvement or the baker who commited no crime should lose money over this, then please stop and ponder it. You think you are some smart progressive but you are just more cuck fodder that feeds the right with idiots to expose instead of incentive to improve their policies. American politics is getting less economical and more social in all the wrong ways because of people like you.
I'm not a Straight White Male no one is born a trump supporter. Gay people are born that way. Kinda of a difference. Same with Dave’s stupid “Jewish baker and Nazi customer” scenario, you’re aren’t born with an ideology. GAY PEOPLE ARE BORN GAY
@Football-Pundit He didn't at all, he showed how much partisanship is in his videos now. Here's some prejudice for you. Found it in my feed less than an hour ago. Welcone to the real world. th-cam.com/video/1UC6AmxJIqQ/w-d-xo.html
@Danica Daniel That's a remarkably idiotic take. But thanks for trying to rub both of your brain cells together. It didn't come to anything, but maybe if you keep practicing, you'll eventually get somewhere with it.
Gaston Rocha no idk about that many religion institutions don’t acknowledge gay marriage as an actual marriage. And neither do many religious folks. It’s not that they hate them , it’s not that they wanna hurt them. They just don’t believe that’s an actual marriage. So forcing them to go against their own religion is just wrong.
@@get_downed_boi6270 Being intolerant based on religious mumbo jumbo is wrong. What if the gay couple are in the middle of nowhere like Kyle said in the video, and they are refused service at a gas station or something
Gaston Rocha okay that’s stupid, and that’s not what happened and people aren’t like that. We speaking of a gay couple going to a religious institution or religious business and asking them to do something they are not okay with because religion is very sacred in religion.
joe cunningham Then you don’t like politics at all because the very notion of American politics relies on “identity” of some form. Wether it’s sexuality, economic class, race, etc.
i know this was meant as joke towards dave but i really do see this said alot by some gay or black people. ffs if it wasnt for identity politics you would not be treated equally in society and in many places not even allowed to live, sure the application of ID politics is often misplaced in western countries nowadays but that doesnt mean it is inherently a bad thing at its core, you should have a more nuanced approach to this issue and think about how it can be improved and which areas of society it can be applied to correctly, so it should not be merely dismissed it as bad altogether, which is an intellectually lazy thing to do.
Rubin's point was: If I was to play identity politics, I should be FOR forcing them bake that cake because I'm gay, but I'm not doing that (because I'm for libertarian principles more than my gay identity). Turning that into: AHA, you ARE playing identity politics is... just malevolence
If you were raised religious, being religious is as much a choice as speaking the language of your native country is a choice. It's more of a grey area than with age, ethnicity or sexuality which are 100% immutable, but I think it's foolish to say that religious people could all just choose to be non-religious if they wanted to. If it's something you truly believe and have internalized then it's not a choice.
Actually I think Dave would be ok with that. I think he interprets this as the government shouldn't be in the business of morality. Also I think it's specifically because the cake was to support the wedding. Someone shouldn't have to wear a vale just because your conservative Christian denomination requires it at a wedding. But you've got the right to stop people from going to your wedding if you don't want them.
finn c. That is errant nonsense. Being religious is a choice. The Mormons believed that dark skin signifies sin, so Mitt Romney is in a racist organisation involuntarily? If you are a religious adult in an open, democratic and secular society you are doing it because you choose to.
Brian Garrow I love how anytime someone isn’t a member of the church of Bernie that automatically means they are a corrupt individual. Maybe he saw how the left makes everyone a victim so that they can control them.
Perfection Incarnate What freedom? You mean the freedom to discriminate against gays? Religion makes no difference. People also used religion to justify refusing black people service during Jim Crow.
Dave is right on this point. Capitalism, like Joe mentioned would self regulate. Keep in mind this bakery closed very shortly after this. Government should never step in here.
Michael Nyary That only works for small businesses. Large corporations that are too big to faill would never feel the blowback if they started to discriminate.
To deny a person service based on who they are? Not okay. To deny a person artistic service for a religious event, which is contrary to your own religion? Meh. Kind of okay. Not very cool, but shouldn't be illegal.
Yes, I normally agree or at least am not in disagreement with Kyle on his POV, but I think he got off topic in this video by making it more about the person instead of the actual request that was being made.
@@nicholastrudeau7581 i think what rubin was getting at was, its like forcing someone to draw a picture that they really dont want to draw because it conflicts with their religious beliefs, but you still have the options to buy the other drawings that are available in the store. Maybe its just up to society to get rid of these businesses by voting with their money.
I think people that understand freedom r more levelheaded. Next we will see PAINTER REFUSES TO PAINT NAKED PERSON IS GETTING SUED FOR DISCRIMINATION. There’s more power with taking ur money somewhere else. Being black, brown, white is not a choice, attitude or belief. It’s a skin tone that reflects no personality, behavior or beliefs. The fight for minorities was/is a real fight. They wanted basic freedoms. The left wants everyone to agree with them. Whiners.Completely different.
Whatever happened to terms of service and the right of employers to choose which customers they want to sell to and which products they want to sell. What happened to terms of service. If someone is going to be discriminatory, you can boycott and protest them.
@@dstuddard4u that would be the wisest thing to do Businesses won’t survive without money so just put ur money elsewhere When u take someone’s choice away u r literally taking their freedom There’s a lot of titty babies in the world today...not many freedom fighters anymore
Dave Rubin is white and lives in Los Angelos. He can have these opinions because he is not at all forced to live with them. It's easy to say all kinds of crazy right-wing shit but lives in a liberal state and enjoy the lack of discrimination that comes with that. Send him to middle of no where Alabama and I would guess his views would evolve once more.
Dizkonekted Is this an argument for white privilige? And how is his statement "right wing shit"? If the government were allowed to punish people who don't want make wedding cakes for certain individuals, that would have been tyranny.
It's only tyranny when you don't care about the people or persons being denied. Also my arguement was clear. Dave Rubin does not have to live with his convictions if you want to call that a white privelige arguement that is on you.
@@holden6104 I know he does, but he answers in such a vague way by doing this rhetorical song and dance in which he has to first get into the semantics of the word "truth," implying that there is utility in the concept of god and the bible's role in our society's values are overlooked, and so on and so forth. He seems to leave the question of whether he _literally_ believes in an actual entity or not. He also refers to himself as a "strange kind of Christian," or something like that. I actually believe he's being honest in the sense that he does believe as much as one in his position can, at least in the conventional sense, but perhaps avoids talking about his personal beliefs because it's one of those lose-lose things. He either alienates one part of his fanbase, like those that overlap with Sam Harris, because it's dubious for one that purports to be all about rationalism/empiricism and "the facts" to have a faith-based belief, or he alienates the part of his audience desperate to find some rationale that might allow them to cling to their religion if he was ever to say he doesn't believe. I said, "...as much as one in his position can," because faith is not always an easy thing to pull-off if you're an evidence-oriented person with an aptitude for pattern recognition. I'm willing to bet there are a lot of people who claim to believe in god, but actually don't because they simply can't force themselves to in this day and age. I'm not saying there is no god; I'm simply saying the evidence or cogent arguments are not on the side of the believer and belief is not a choice.
@@Len124 I think he's a full blown believer, and I agree with you that he does not reveal that part of himself. You have to remember the context of his discussions--he's not giving a sermon, he's talking about God in the philosophical sense. In that way, he is similar to CS Lewis, who is a staunch Christian, but can also argue for the existence of God in the empirical and rational sense. If you want a reasoned argument for the existence of God and the validity of Christianity, give "Mere Christianity" a read. There is plenty of evidence, if you are willing to approach it with an open mind.
@@holden6104 I have actually looked into Lewis' arguments in Mere Christianity, but haven't read the full book though, just a blow-by-blow, so I wouldn't be comfortable dismissing it out of hand without doing so. I've read counter-arguments and critiques from others; some of which are from other Christians. The main critique I've read was that he retreads old arguments that have been addressed. That being said, I'm not speaking from the primary source, so I'm willing to approach anything with an open-mind and take the time to read it in case there's something I can glean that's missed by just a cursory sort of summary. I'm not even totally against the idea of a rational belief in something like god (as opposed to empirical), but I'd have to, at a minimum, get the ok from Occam. Arguments related to a grounding for morality or the utility/importance of the concept (not that that's what you or Lewis argued; nor do I believe morality necessitates god) aren't enough for me; which is what Peterson seems to to turn to quite often. If I were to come across an airtight, rational argument for the existence of some prime mover or original cause, however, it would be a whole other kettle of fish to then make the leap to Christianity being an accurate picture of god and its role in history.
I like Joe. He is intellectually curious. I disagree with him a bit but he always seems open in an interested way and doesn't seem to value his worldview that high so he is open to have his opinion swayed. Way better than Dave for sure.
He has said he dosent identify with a party and thinks identity politics is BS. He does hold some views supported by the left. My biggest complaint on Rogans views is that he is for whatever the person he is interviewing is for. Obviously being adversarial isn't always the answer but it makes him look wishy washy.
He left out the religious freedom aspect though. That's a massive omission and completely misleads the listener into thinking the cake store owner was on the level of a nazi.
@@cowboysparsons1150 Yes, as a private business. The consequence would be people buying shit from other businesses. You don't force a man to do business; that's the literal opposite of business.
Libertarian sounds really good when you are 18, but then you grow up. I like to see how this plays out if a "Christian" baker refuses to make a cake for a couple getting married, but have previous divorces.
Dave La Violette Right, I used to be a libertarian until I realized how fast authoritarian ideology spreads. Then I realized we need government to stop degeneracy
Ant Man you do realize that make 0 sense right? You think if a diner or baker denied service to Christian evangelicals that they'd be perfectly fine with it? Yeah because you know those evangelicals. ..facts over feelings, never get outraged over anything
Notice how little Rubin ever references policy or procedure, he just whines about how 'the left' put everyone in boxes whilst completely blind to the irony of it all.
Mister Mood Correct. And the classic Dave Rubin caricatures always had him saying "regressive", "free speech", & "I agree". The new ones are going to have him using that strong emphasis on the word "GOVernment"
If government is responsible for cleaning and maintaining the street and sidewalk in front of your store, if government sends police and fire fighters to help business owners if there is a theft or a fire, you have to serve every customer who comes in.
Rob Backlog - so if there is a government performing it's basic responsibilities, we're never permitted to be free - is that what you're saying? I've always found that argument to be ridiculous. At what point does protecting freedom and liberty become important to you? It's not pretty, I'll grant you, but are people allowed to be assholes or zealots? Which zealots are ok - environmental ones? Share your criteria for freedom and an open society.
Steven S You aren't free to discriminate against people they're free from being discriminated against. It's like arguing oh what I'm not free to fire someone for being black? What I'm not free to kill someone? You want to discriminate move to Somalia. America isn't a free country, we have laws, you can obey them or get the fuck out.
I'll keep doing what I want and there is nothing you can do about it. Enjoy. Well done going right to murder as the ultimate goal of everyone who wants to live free - yeah, that's the goal.
Did I hear the same conversation? Rubin said that a store can't deny selling a cake but you can't force the cake maker to make a custom made cake that he/she don't want to make. Basicly you can't force a artist to create something they don't want to which sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Pastry chef's that make professional looking wedding cakes are artists yes, have you ever seen one of those? Also did you even read the comment before replaying? ".. a store can't deny selling a cake but you can't force the cake maker to make a custom made cake that he/she don't want to make." Plus I don't think this should be for artistic work only. Take a fast food restaurant that allows customers to tweek or even make their own dishes as an example. Should they be forced to make whatever the customer wants as long as its something they can make? I would say that they have the right to refuse but to a lesser degree then artists. You can't deny extra cheese just becouse the cusomer is jewish or fat.
NUTCASE71733 So if a plumber gets a custom job where the pipes makes out a swastika on the wall. You want the goverment to force that plumber to do that job regardless if they want to or not?
NUTCASE71733 No it wasn't! He ignored Rubin's point which was having the right to deny a custom job, it was not about denying all service. The plumber, store, whatever can't deny servicing anyone for stupid reasons. But a custom job is a diffurent matter. A store that specializes in making Christian themed cakes should not be forced to make custom Satanic themed cake just becouse a cosumer wants that. But a Satanist has the right to buy their cakes. A KKK themed store should be forced to sell their stuff to black people but you can't force that store to make custom MLK stuff. Do you agree with that or should people that accept custom jobs lose the right to say no?
If your business is open to the public, but you don't serve blacks, you don't deserve a business, that is not right. We the people have power. Your business serves us, if you don't, you are gone.
All wedding cakes are special requests if they are custom. The baker has a right to say he does not have time. The baker has the right to say it is beyond his skill. The baker has the right to say he doesn't have the proper tools. We all know it's bullshit but that doesn't matter. He has the right to pick and choose custom cakes just about however he goddamn pleases.They could have bought anything off the shelf. He did not say he would not serve them. He said he would not honor a custom request. And whoever yelled FALSE in all caps as if that impresses me...This case has been ruled on. The courts say I'm right. so you are the one whose statements are FALSE. All he had to do to prove that he wasn't being biased, is show one wedding cake from a straight couple that he had ever said he couldn't or wouldn't make.
My viewpoint is.....I will include anything I want in MY business because it is MY business! NOT yours. MINE. The same way I will not go to a halal butcher and demand for pork, I will not go to a Christian baker to demand pro gay cakes.
Estivel Garcia and their viewpoint is something like “keep your opinions out of my business.” At the end of the day they have their business and you have your opinions.
Exactly what dietary restrictions are applied to being of a Christian faith? Your comparison is completely absent of relevance. Its just an excuse to say Christians should be able discriminate.
Ultramarine Good God. You are completely lost. Freedom in America means freedom from discrimination and freedom of religion but also freedom from religious rule. If a person is going to be so deeply, religiously disturbed by serving a person based on their sexual orientation then that person ought not take the risk of being faced with that decision by participating in a business that exists in the real world and not just the incubated, idealized Christian world free of the homosexual "problem." You want to run a business? Grow up and stop pissing your pants over your fairy tale-based life restrictions. There's a difference between choosing what you offer and choosing who you will serve.
I lost some brain cells when Rubin compared baking a cake for gay people to drawing a Nazi symbol. Asking a Jew to draw a Nazi symbol is not comparable unless Rubin believes there is a history of gay people suppressing Christians; last time I checked... it was the other way around.
You know bakers are supposed to make cakes that their client want. Like that’s part of the service they provide, it’s not them doing a favor and going out of their way.
Also, they’re not asking for a message. It’s not like the baker was asked to write “Nazis rock” on the cake. That would be a message that he could refuse to do bcuz that is not an arbitrary characteristic that they can’t change. It’s an opinion, a nasty one, this case is about a gay couple that got denied service for being gay.
@@accountsequity5587 no. People who make cakes, can make whatever cakes they do or do not want to. In the same way you cannot command an artist to paint a painting that you want them to.
I have to disagree with your here on this one kyle the baker was not refusing service to the gay couple the baker said on multiple interviews the he was willing the sell the couple brownies, cupcakes and whatever else was in the store. The argument here is that wedding cake doesn't exist and forcing the baker to make something that he doesn't agree with is against his first amendment freedoms the baker as also refused to make Halloween cakes and sexually explicit cakes that include genitals. Even though Christianity is the majority here in America it is still a religious group and has equal protection under the law. This situation is pretty shitty and there is definitely going to be more cases brought up to the supreme court and we just have to wait and see.
No the gay couple requested a wedding cake the design of the cake didn't even make it that far into discussion before the baker refused, but the case wasn't entirely about the design its the message that type of cake represents is what the baker doesn't like. I genuinely don't think the baker was malicious given the many interviews he's given th-cam.com/video/vtNMrKcBHLs/w-d-xo.html I am also confused i don't think anyone compare Nazi cake to being gay at all. I agree with the supreme court discussion no one should be forced to do anything that they don't want to do. No ones rights is above anyone else. This is the only beginning of cases like this and we'll just have to see how it goes
the baker shouldn't be forced to make the personalised cake. the reason I say this is because he might be asked to draw something he finds completely disgusting. he should, however, be forced to sell the cakes already in his store. that's how you differentiate and stop the issue of being denied the gas in the gas station or whatever. also, nice bracelet lol (no hate)
That was Rubin's point. You shouldn't be able to deny the sale of a product to someone. You should however be able to refuse to customize it with something you don't like.
mattbenz99 I know I’m agreeing with Rubin...Kyle had admitted he doesn’t like Dave so I’m thinking his bias is getting in the way a little. It’s also apparent Kyle isn’t as knowledgeable in this case as he should be
This interview with Joe Rogan pretty much ruined Dave’s career as a “political commentator” and exposed him as what he is, a right wing grifter who only speaks in talking points but once questioned he really has no idea what hes saying.
I thought the problem was about liberties? I don’t remember hearing anything about the couple being mistreated. The couple was denied a specific service not service in general.
Sexual orientation is not a protected class under federal law. It is under Colorado state law (where this incident took place) but Kyle should really have made that clearer.
I think Kyle is missing the argument. Because I personally see it this way. When it comes to any premade made generic item, or in this case, let's say you ask the baker for a chocolate cake that you see on display. If it's in stock, the baker can't deny you service based off of anything for that ready made item. If it isn't in stock and you were only looking at a display item, you should be able to ask the baker, regardless of your race, gender, sexual orientation to make that exact cake that's available to the public to buy. BUT if it's anything artistic/custom, I think the baker should be able deny service to absolutely anyone for whatever reason. For example, a wedding cake that isn't on display and has something custom that makes it different from the models on display. That's what Rubin believes and that's my stance as well.
nah i think you dont get it on this one, they didnt want a simple cake, they wanted to draw something on it, i guess the person didnt like what they wanted on it. would you paint a painting if the contents were against your religion or whatever? this is creative work if person dont want to take it he can DECLINE
Yip exactly right and I say that as someone that is gay myself but first and foremost I consider myself a libertarian and will fight for the rights of all people including religious people even if I don't agree with their beliefs So in this case I personally don't agree with the beliefs of the bakery owner but I respect that it's their constitutional right and their privately owned business
And this is why religion is flawed at its core. You pick and choose things you want to follow and what not to follow in the bible. There are many things in the bible that are terrible and would be considered illegal in our current society but "its ok with God". High time we should stop using "religion" as a way to discriminate against people who didn't choose their biological make-up.
@@johnj3027 I may disagree with the bakers opinions and believe that in an ideal world anyone should get served for almost anything, though I also acknowledge that within a free society we simply have to accept people have different opinions, as far as I'm concerned that's OK so long as their opinions isn't taking away anyone's basic human rights!
@@sensibleone3268 Wrong. Your logic is greenlighting the option for people to deny service based on whatever "opinion" they feel like, even all kinds of discrimination including racism no?
@@johnj3027 no cause obviously if u point blank deny any service whatsoever on the basis of sexuality, race, religion or sex that is discrimination, in this case the Baker who essentially has the same privileges as an artist is being asked to design a cake for a gay wedding which is against their beliefs. So in defense of the Baker there are 3 points, first of all,it's within the constitution that a citizen is allowed to hold beliefs and defend them beliefs within reason, secondly,he is an artist and an artist has a right not to design whatever they wish not to design, lastly, it's their privately owned business, not an international brand such as Starbucks Keep in mind I have no reason to defend the Baker as I'm gay myself but more than that I'm a libertarian for all citizens, including citizens who's beliefs conflict with my own!
I always thought that the whole “we reserve the right to refuse service to anybody” thing applied to anything that the customer had control over. Things like behavior, clothing, body odor, etc. I was thought it was unlawful for even private businesses to refuse service to a customer based on things they could not control, such as skin color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. Isn’t that the case?
This may be the first great point Rubin ever made in his life... When it comes to some kind of art... How can you force someone to create something they don't agree with, and they're against or makes them uncomfortable. He used the asking a Jewish person to make a Hitler painting, I'll take it a step further. What if someone wanted you to paint a picture of a child performing a sex act on him. Should you be forced to do that? What I find disgusting and deplorable could be seen as beautiful to him... Shouldn't the artist have the right to refuse to paint something they find wrong or disgusting?
This baker has waiting lists of people who want him to bake cakes for them so he doesn't need the gay couple's business. And refusing service should be his right.
The baker cares because he's being asked to help a ritual that is blasphemous to his religion. I'm an atheist so I wouldn't have that problem but I get that a true believer would not want to do that.
No, you're allowed to earn a living, you just aren't allowed to discriminate against others. If a black person were to walk up to the deli I work in and orders some sliced ham, guess what, I have to slice the ham or leave my job, same with the overly effeminate gay man or the white trailer trash wearing a MAGA hat. Grow up. This is the reality of business. You have to do your job, regardless if you like or dislike something about a customer's person, that's arbitrary. Do your fucking job or find another one.
ditsylilg you are a slave to your government, America is about individuals being free to do as they wish and suffer the consequences if wrong reap the benefits if right.
I’ll tell my grandmother who had coffee and spit in her face when she protested Jim Crow by simply sitting at a “whites only” restaurant, “it’s not the governments job to protect you from sh*tty.”
But this is just the thing, however. The gay customer was not being refused service on the grounds that he was gay. He could have purchased any cake he wanted or even the one he was ordering. It's just that he couldn't have one celebrating a gay marriage on it. Pretty shitty, I know but you can't compel someone to say or do something that goes against their beliefs and that applies to everyone.
I'm a late stage libertarian and I can say in my experience most libertarians in the first two stages are absolutist when in comes to government. Later you realize that the government has a role and sometimes it has to upset people to protects the rights of others.
I feel like libertarians who are super against any regulation or act of government don’t understand why they’re in place in the first place. Reminds me of the WKYK sketch where anarchist overthrow the government, but then have to slowly piece together, a sort of government in order to keep things functioning.
I agree with Rubin. If it was a normal store item I would say otherwise. The fact that it is a custom cake should afford the business owner the freedom to choose.
Look if the baker refused to sell them a ready-made cake I'd agree with Rogan, but that's not the case, he was willing to sell them one of the cakes already there. What he was not willing to do was make them one of his fancy unique custom cakes. Being bisexual and an atheist I think his reasons are moronic, but as an artist and a designer I fully support his right to turn a clients down for like a plethora of reasons. You know what, I'll even list some of them: 1. Artists are not a business, they do not offer a service, you hire them to work for you, it's why your're their CLIENT and not their CUSTOMER. And forcing people to work for you is a fundamental violation of a person's liberty. I once turned down a design for a local church because I refuse to make Pro-christian artwork, which technically speaking is religious discrimination, so what is the government going to force me to work for someone I do not want to? 2. Oh but then there's the argument that unlike churches gay people are a 'protected group' so it's not the same. Okay, what happens when corporations get to be protected groups just as they can be, legally speaking, people? You really don't see how the idea that the state can force artists to do something and punish them if they do not can end poorly? 3. When something is custom made for an organisation or an event or a person, the artist ties himself to thing, he uses his speech/freedom of expression to involve themselves with it. Unlike simply selling mass produced products we as artists or designers or craftsmen when making something unique are personally involved in it and are part of that creation's legacy for we are its creators. Think of it like: buying already existing music to play at your wedding VS demanding that musician write a new song for your wedding. Two VERY different things. Extreme example, but it illustrates my point: it's a very different thing if I'm a shirt company and the Nazis happen to buy my brown shirts at some store VS if I'm Hugo Boss and I custom design uniforms for them. Now as much as I disagree with the baker, if he as an artist does not want to be involved in a gay wedding, it is his right not to be. 4. Artists have a right to discriminate as part of their freedom of speech. Do you think, for example, it's a giant coincidence all the people on stage at a Beyonce concert are women? Of course not, Beyonce said 'I don't want to hire any men among the performers', and she as an artist should have a right to gender discriminate like that, because since free speech is a thing she is allowed to express herself as she wants and not be forced to express her creativity in way she does not want (like if the government forced her to also hire men). Likewise if the baker doesn't want to make art for a ceremony he doesn't like because he finds gay people gross, that's his first amendment right. 5. Nobody was killed, injured, there was no loss of money, there was no property damage, they weren't even denied something because until an artist decides to work for you there is noting for you to be denied of. If he was denying them an already existing cake or a cake he had in a menu somewhere that would be a different story. The difference between an artist and a service is that a service already exists, at least in concept (ex on the menu or the price list), while works of art do not exist in any way until the artist decides to start making them. So you cannot deny someone something that doesn't exist. You can be denied a meal, or a product, or access to a school, or a haircut, medicare, access to a swimming pool, or a marriage licence (remember that hag Kim Davis?), but you cannot be denied something vague ('cake' is about as specific as 'sauce', there's a million ways to make one) that only exists hypothetically. I'm not arguing this so businesses have a right to deny groups goods and services, I DO NOT BELIEVE they should not be able to. While there are examples where the line between art and service are fuzzy, for the vast majority of cases it's quite obvious and easily explainable why something is a service that's selling a ready-made or pre-designed service or object or whatever wherein the author is completely divorced from the creation's use and something that is a unique commissioned work custom-designed for a client. If this was any other kind of creative person, like a standup comedian or a painter or a tattoo artist, we'd have no issue saying that it's their right to be able to not apply their talents in ways they do not want to, this is no different. I turn down people all the time, sometimes I turn them down just because I don't like them, I do not even need a good reason to tell someone 'sorry, I can't, you'll have to find someone else'. Now if I was selling already existing designs or pieces of art and told someone 'sorry I refuse to sell it to you because you're black/gay/whatever' that is the kind of discrimination that should be illegal.
The musician can agree to write the song for the wedding,or he can turn them down.If he turns it down because that's not and has not been part of his service offering as an artist for hire and he doesn't want to change his policy,then that's ok. But if he turns them down,and he is known for being a specialist in writing custom songs for weddings,but in this case he turns them down because they're gay, well then he's discriminating based on sexual preference ( something you are born with,isn't harming anyone, and can't change) and he would have to face the social and possibly legal consequences. Money is power.Corporations have lots of it.Minorities have as much money or less than the next social group.Corporations have enough money for lawyers,security,media exposure etc.Minorities do not,and they face extra discrimination.Thats why they need extra protection,and corporations do not.
*"in this he turns them down because they're gay, well then he's discriminating based on sexual preference"* Well obviously, but I refer you to my Beyonce example of how it's within an artist's first amendment right to discriminate as part of their artform, since they have the right to express themselves as they wish and not be forced to express themselves without their consent. Virtually all film productions for example sexually discriminate, if you're a man and you show up in an audition for a female role you will be turned down before even trying out for the role, even though there is no reason a man could not play a woman. Now as much as I would like to see good representation on the screen, it would be a disaster if it were legally mandated. And it's also arguable that he was not discriminating against minorities as straight people also face the same possibility of having the option to have a custom cake made for them rejected due to his religious beliefs, for example he doesn't make Halloween themed cakes. Stupid? Yes, very. But also his prerogative. Also what corporation are you talking about? I specifically pointed out I do not believe businesses should have the right to discriminate and should offer their services to everyone. This was just some baker who happened to also make fancy cakes, not Wallmart. The minority angle doesn't work either. In the west Muslims are a minority, and I as an atheist would not make a Muslim themed artwork, that's religious discrimination and technically speaking Islamophobia, so now what I'm to be fined for exercising my free speech of not wanting to have anything to do with Islam?
Interesting perspective, i think the nuances of this case actually make a differences. I was totally pro the gay couple but now i see the artists side i am kind of on the fence. Still would advocate boycotting these pieces of shit though. Not a fan discriminating on people for uncontrollable biological factors.
@Liberal Larry "but in this case he turns them down because they're gay, well then he's discriminating based on sexual preference" But what's wrong with that? It's not like turning down people because they're black. Being gay isn't as good as being black. It's more on par with being a furry or being into vore. It he said "I won't make you a wedding cake because you're black", THAT would be bad. I'm sick of being gay being put on par with being black. That's such a stupid, oversensitive, morally relativist, nonsensical comparison. All that's happening is someone not getting a cake. They can literally just drive to a different cake store. It's not a big deal. You don't have the right to force someone to participate in your elective (and possibly religious) ceremony. It's not even like a supermarket or movie theater that turns away gay people. They're not even saying they don't make cakes for gays period, but specifically wedding cakes.
You don’t seem to understand Rubin’s argument. He clearly stated that a gay couple shouldn’t be denied a cake that’s already baked. He simply is saying that creatively, someone shouldn’t be forced to bake a special cake that goes against their religious views. Just as an artist shouldn’t be forced to paint a nude photo for someone that paid him to if he doesn’t want to. This isn’t a matter of denying service, but rather an issue of not wanting to create something NEW that goes against your views. A cake store is not obligated to bake you a special cake however you want it, but it is obligated by law to serve you existing products, which is not what Rubin is arguing against.
@@mrfygars9237 if it was his job to make specialty cakes, yes i would ask him... and i would incentivize him with money, because thats how business works
"Protect people from shitty" and "protect people from harmful/violent acts" aren't the same thing. Shitty are just annoying or inconvenient things. I have an idea, lets create an anti-uncomfortable government agency.
What bugged me the most about Rubin's response is him trying to make an issue of the custom cake been an, "art," thing. As if baking a cake, pastries, or any of that shit isn't a form of art in the first place.
anything you design yourself by hand is an art. Massproduction isnt, which is why i agree that the baker should sell existent products, but have the right to withhold custom made ones.
Finally nice to see Kyle taking off the gloves in regards to Rubin. I know this isn't the first video Kyle has posted that's taken Rubin to task - I'm speaking generally. Because Kyle's Israel interview was extremely frustrating to watch. Rubin had all the same types of BS talking points that were based on nothing but Israeli propaganda. And that is why I use the Israel/Palestine conflict as a purity test for progressives. Just like in the 80s I would use South Africa as a purity test. If you can make excuses for that kind of inhumanity, then you're a terrible person and have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
If I am a Baker, and a dude walks in and asks me to make a cake with a KKK logo, I have the right to refuse my services because my conscience tells me it is wrong. If a Baker would refuse to make me a cake because I am black, then he will loose another customer, and I can just go to another place. Simple.
Legitimate question: should it be legal to deny service to people who follow a religion you don't agree with? It's not necessarily something your born with. Seems shitty but idk, I'd never do it.
Yes. It is in fact completely morally acceptable to do that, and it is as illegitimate to outlaw it as it is to outlaw racist discrimination. Just that the latter happens to be immoral.
I would assume that means anyone who acts aggressively or causes problems. Businesses aren't allowed to refuse service on the basis of discrimination against protected classes. They are allowed to refuse service for a whole bunch of other reasons, like if you're on drugs or breaking shit or harassing people.
punkgreg 138 Exactly. I’m an atheist liberal, but I don’t feel comfortable with this. People shouldn’t be forced to participate in something they believe is a sin.
@@panthera5678 I'm agnostic and bisexual. It doesn't even make sense to want to get married in a religious institution that calls me an abomination. The Bible is pretty clear.
Why should a baker make a cake he never have done before, if he don't want to make a custom specific design? Government SHOULD NOT force you to make specific ART... I agree with you on 90% issues, but on this one I must disagree..
"The whole point of having laws is to protect you from 'shitty'. That's in part why assault and rape and murder are banned." There is a difference between having a law to prevent the violation of someone's rights like raping or killing them, and having a law to protect someone from feeling sad that they didn't get a cake. Not serving someone a luxury item is not hurting someone in any tangible way.
I agree, and while I usually agree with what Kyle says I'm afraid that he's deliberately avoiding one part of the issue, and highlighting something slightly separate. The issue wasn't about denying service to anyone altogether. The issue was someone denying service because the person offering the service, did not want to do so because they thought it went against their moral beliefs. And when it comes to not being able to choose your sexuality, you can choose whether you want to get married or not whether you be gay or straight. There are couples who live together as if they were practically married but never tie the knot.
The fact is you live in a country that provides so many services and so much infrastructure and that provides so many protections that make it so that people can fairly easily set up businesses. Imagine trying to set up a business without roads and plumbing and without police or without confidence that laws and contracts will be enforced by the state. How would you even have a claim to the land you set up shop on and the building on top of it if not for a central authority? I could go on, but basically there’s no such thing as complete private ownership of anything, especially not something like a business because there’s just no way that you could set up shop without all of the guarantees that you get because of the fact that you live in a country with a government that provides these things. Give. that, in order to set up and run a business you need to follow certain rules and regulations. You don’t get to just reap all of the freedoms and benefits from living in a country and then turn around and use that to discriminate against other people and infringe upon their rights. You can hold whatever beliefs you want, but if you want to start up a business you have to understand that you’ll need to follow certain rules and regulations. That means you don’t get to just set up a cake shop and bake wedding cakes for a living but then decide that you won’t bake a cake for a COMPLETELY LEGAL wedding because you’re a homophobe. I can’t believe I used to be a Libertarian.
Ok maybe I'm wrong with this comment, and if I am explain to me how I'm wrong, but how isn't this against the first amendment? For a person who fucking strokes their ego like Kyle does saying how much he is for the first amendment this seems wildly hypocritical
Kyle using the scenario of the black family driving through Mississippi is extreme and in which case is crazy because with the cake, no one's life was being compromised and the problem could be easily rectified. The gay couple could have just gone to another bakery, as I'm sure there would have been plenty more that would have served them. I mean, so they don't get their cake made for them. Oh dear God, he's refused to bake me a cake. Oh, the humanity! Seriously, it gets me that the couple took the bakery to court over something as trivial as a cake. The courts should have something more important matters to deal with than such nonsense. Plus, you have to ask if the family came across a house or cabin owned by someone and the family's only mobile phone's battery had run out, and they needed to use that person's phone to call for help, should the person be legally obligated to allow them into their home to use the phone. It is after all their property and shouldn't they for whatever reason be allowed to deny them entry on that basis? If the proprietor of any business owns the property that they run then shouldn't they have a right to refuse help or service under whatever grounds they have? I'd be curious as you what Kyle's thoughts on this would be.
I dont know. Have you seen a wedding cake recently? Some of these cakes truly should fall under the category of art. And as was pointed out, the baker wasnt refusing to sell something already made (not to take away from the fact that he is clearly bigoted). But as a matter of something the government should force him to do...This in my mind is more along the lines of an artist choosing what commission to take. If a painter or a sculptor had a shop and someone came along with an idea of something they wanted done - I don’t think anyone would object if that artist decided a particular custom project wasnt something they wanted to do - no reason would even be needed. What would be different would be the refusal to sell something already on display as for sale. And that is not the case here.
Kyle is so wrong on this topic. There's a difference between refusing to sell someone say a microwave versus asking someone to use his/her creative artistic skills for something they don't support. Only an idiot would argue the position Kylie is arguing. Sorry, the supreme court made the right decision. I'm floored by the amount of listeners this guy has.
@@sectorcodec really? Are there protected religious classes in America? Has anyone been charged for not serving a Muslim or Jew for example? Pls inform me if I'm wrong about this
@@sectorcodec i will look it up. But anyway, I'd argue religion is something you can choose, but yeah i dont think people should discriminate based on religion either
I have read some of the comments, and I am quite surprised that people make no difference between characteristics one is born with and personal choices/ideologies: it is not right judging one according to the former, but essential to do that according to the latter. Furthermore, it would be interesting to see what the reactions would be if the situation were reversed: to deny making a cake to a straight couple, because a baker is a Cathar, and heterosexual intercourse is against his/her religious beliefs?
Not a Rubin fan, but i dont see how a free speech absolutist could disagree here. A business can't deny just selling a cake to people of a protected class (Rubin agreed with this if you paid any attention), but they can deny expressing certain ideas or images that they oppose. To say otherwise is to compel artistic expression. A business should be able to control what messages/values they share with the public, even if we disagree. No one with any respect for free speech should disagree with this.
And it doesnt matter if it is an interracial couple, gay couple, or muslim couple. We can't legally force people to put something on a cake that they dont want to. It is their right to decide what work they put out there. But, they dont have the right to refuse someone's business just because they are part of one of those groups. The baker would have been fine selling a cake off the shelf to a gay couple, and not fine with selling a cake for a gay wedding to a straight couple.
Donald Trump. Just check out the baker's original response to the couple and you might then start to understand the case better (I realize how condescending that sounds). And, to someone who stands for free speech and the first amendment, there should be NO DIFFERENCE between a Nazi cake and gay-wedding cake. In the eyes of the law, there is a legitimate equivalence. HERE'S THE GIST - His cakes are custom made, so the gov't cant legally force him to make one for members of ANY group, but he does have to sell goods from the shelf to anyone (he told the couple he would be glad to do so). But should I really have expected a better argument from "Donny Tiny Hands?"
Donald Trump. They didnt have to discuss a design. His cakes are custom. A design would have been involved eventually and that is the heart of the problem, even if it just featured names.
Donald Trump. There is nothing wrong with names. I think it's silly for the baker to deny making the cake, but that doesn't mean he should be forced to do it just because it's for a gay couple. It doesn't matter how mundane or objectionable the design is, he can't be compelled to write/draw anything on a cake that he doesn't want to. I'm concerned by your authoritarian leanings here, Herr Kommandant.
I wish Kyle and Joe had a more substantive discussion. I feel like joe deflected many of Kyle's points with humor and only during the last half hour did they have a good discussion.
could you elaborate? rights are what your government grants you/enforces for you. that is completely unrelated to capitalism, which is based around voluntary/mutually beneficial transactions.
NUTCASE71733 can you force a Palestinian artist who fled Gaza to paint a picture of Israel in a positive light? If he refuses do you call the artist an anti-semite? you let me know. Rubin is right on this 100% and Rubin is usually a scumbag
NUTCASE71733 jesus man just shut the fuck up already. Every person who replied to you did so with etiquette and all you know how to do is talk down and insult people. So now I'm gonna throw it back to you. You are an unstable, adolescent-tempered douchebag who sets liberalism back a year every time you open your stupid mouth or post your rage-comments. Go sit at the kids table and argue with your peers.
The whole point of laws is not to protect you from shitty, the point of our laws is to ensure nobody gets their freedoms trampled on. I have the right to do business with whomever I choose, just as you have the right to do the same. If you don't like me or my views go elsewhere its that simple! Don't make a big scene because you got butt hurt over it, go to someone that will gladly help you out. Thats how the free market works and how our nation is designed to work. We are free and sometimes freedom can be shitty but that still doesn't give you the right to trample on someone's right because it hurt your feelings
He probably saw how big of hypocrites TYT is. The founder of it is an Armenian genocide denier, they go bat-shit crazy to people they disagree with (Alex Jones), they cheerlead when Big Tech bans people with opposing viewpoints, and they shame others who don't vote for the person they want. TYT used to be much better, but nowadays its left-wing MSNBC. Also, TYT is funded by Big Money.
Gonna have to disagree with you Kyle. Dave's point is spot on in regards to forced artwork. If you do commission work you shouldn't be government mandated to make whatever someone asks of you. This is a cultural problem, not a problem the government needs to fix.
You can't go onto private property without permission. If I own a house or business and I don't want you coming in, you can't come in. That's pretty fucking basic.
The Canadian Crusader Then why do people have the right to vote? Someone has to count the votes and someone has to run for office. Both of those are services. Why do people have the right to a trial when accused of a crime? Judges, public attorneys, and juries are required by law to provide you with their service. Almost every right we have requires other people’s service.
MrPhilsterable right about what? He left out the part that the government actually is forcing anyone to be in support of gay marriage or approve their lifestyle. Discrimination itself isn’t illegal. What is illegal is that discriminating in the workplace and in commerce is illegal and even more interesting, when you apply for a business license, you sign a contract and agree to adhere to all the laws and regulations including civil rights laws. No one forced you to sign a contract that says you have to treat people of differ sexual orientations equally. Unless you’re saying businesses are above the law or that there should be now mandated laws ?🌝
No matter the race, sexual orientation, beliefs etc as a collective group of people who all of which contribute to society whether that be military service, taxes, public service, etc. No one should be denied service for such reasons. We as people work together for a functional modern society, people of many races and sexual orientations die for this country and pay taxes in which fund the safety of a country as well as education and infrastructure and more. Again given those details no one should be denied any service for those reasons alone.
As someone who despise Dave Rubin, he is 100% correct here, and Kyle is dead wrong. There's no question, it wasn't covered under discrimination laws because it wasn't about refusing an existing cake, it was a custom made thing to represent a specific act (gay marriage) that the baker disagreed with, like if a white person asked a tshirt artist to make a confederate flag shirt, they'd have every right to refuse them.
I remember seeing hearimg about this and agreeing with the bakers at first. Hearing this now. Just what joe rogan said convinced me that i was stupid om this topic.
At first I was with the couple and I say that as someone who is gay myself but the more I looked in to it I realised that beliefs within the constitution (whether that be religious beliefs or non religious beliefs) are protected. So yes although I disagree with those beliefs, I am someone of principle and will stand up for all peoples constitutional rights even if it's civilly in conflict with my own! Plus it was their privately owned business, it would be a different story if this was a brand name or an international brand.
It's more complicated than Kyle would like to admit. The problems is the baker is asked to perform a customized service that goes against his own conscience. Rather than a simple good exchange for money, it kind of compelled speech to create a custom artistic work that totally contradicts your religious belief. In that case it's not clear that the gov should compell it.
D E it’s not complicated. You can’t deny a black person bc it “goes against your conscience” it doesn’t matter what your religion is, that’s your business that doesn’t apply to anyone. You can be a bigot in your personal life but once it effects others it becomes an issue. If you’re being consistent someone should be able to refuse service for you being straight, or for being Christian or Muslim. Religion is not an exception to not have to treat everyone equally under the law. Don’t say “it’s a private business” first of all you don’t have a right to have a business, second of all if you have a business you play by the rules. Bake the fucking cake.
I'm sorry Kyle, but I kind of agree with Dave here. It's shitty and should be called out but you can't have the government force them to do it. That's too authoritarian for my taste.
Edit: I see now that you are responding to a specific claim made by Kyle, but still. Ahh, so now safety is more important than liberty, how do you feel about the phrase “give me liberty or give me death?” What happens if NO place serves gay people, do gay people just now have unequal access to certain goods everyone else is entitled too? Is this the nation you want to live in?
I think Kyle makes some good counter argument points but the overall message that Dave is making in the video doesn't really get framed correctly in this video. The primary argument that Dave is making is that in this specific case the owner of the bakery should have to right to not have to "create" something he is opposed to making specifically for the occasion. Dave mentions that even he agrees that the gay couple should've had the right to buy any cake that was already made and ready to go. The owner of the store shouldn't be allowed to refuse "at the moment" service, but the situation differs when the owner will be forced to create an original cake which he doesn't agree with in the first place. I think this is the point Kyle is looking over because it doesn't really align with his black vs racist counter argument he forms at the end.
Yeah Kyle seems to gloss over the fact that Dave doesn't think it was a good thing that the gay couple was denied service. His story at the end wasn't relevant to want Dave was saying about the current law.
A ignorant comment.. you advertise your service to the public, then you have an obligation to serve the public equally.. This means you have to make a cake for the gay person.. HOWEVER, this does not mean you have to make any cake the person want... but you still have to go through the motion serving the couple.. since the baker didn't do that.. he violated the state law. it would be a different story if the gay couple asked for a design that the baker does not carry.. ie a erotic cake...
Dave Rubin is like a college student who took philosophy 101, thought Ayn Rand was cool, but never grew out of the phase.
Exactly
Add in to that a whole lot of self-hatred, no hint of self-respect and a willingness to grovel at the feet of people who despise his guts.
conservative: "Tolerate my intolerance!"
This is so accurate!
He was highly tolerating and offered them service, even if not obliged. You dont need to tolerate his beliefs but show some fucking decency and not use this non-inconviniencing expirience for self gain. If you agree the government needed involvement or the baker who commited no crime should lose money over this, then please stop and ponder it. You think you are some smart progressive but you are just more cuck fodder that feeds the right with idiots to expose instead of incentive to improve their policies. American politics is getting less economical and more social in all the wrong ways because of people like you.
I'm not a Straight White Male no one is born a trump supporter. Gay people are born that way. Kinda of a difference. Same with Dave’s stupid “Jewish baker and Nazi customer” scenario, you’re aren’t born with an ideology. GAY PEOPLE ARE BORN GAY
@Football-Pundit Thanks for the rebuttal which wasn't a rebuttal at all
@Football-Pundit He didn't at all, he showed how much partisanship is in his videos now. Here's some prejudice for you. Found it in my feed less than an hour ago. Welcone to the real world. th-cam.com/video/1UC6AmxJIqQ/w-d-xo.html
He's right on one front: The government can't protect you from shitty. If it could, it'd have gotten rid of Dave Rubin a long time ago.
@Danica Daniel That's a remarkably idiotic take. But thanks for trying to rub both of your brain cells together. It didn't come to anything, but maybe if you keep practicing, you'll eventually get somewhere with it.
Gotta love the Prager U ads before Secular Talk videos.
its funny how advertisers are so picky about being on a video with curse words, but leftist have to put up with homophobic ads on their videos.
Well if this video wasn’t demonitzed
I always watch right wing adds until the very end (but on mute).
@@leonamay8776 damn, pretty hardcore. I just can't do that. I need to skip them or I will get pissy.
this ad is actually so long tho
How dare Rogan keep interrupting Rubin's script with legitimate questions that Rubin won't answer! lol
Right, Rubin just glosses right past them, because he has no legitimate argument.
Dude shouldn't be forced to make cake for a gay couple period. The guys getting married were drumming up drama for clout, period.
@@TheRightToFilmPolice the guy shouldn't be in business if doesn't want to serve the public
Substitute "interracial couple" for "gay couple" and see how well the argument stands.
Yes but civil rights act don’t protect against homosexuality
@@get_downed_boi6270 it should
Gaston Rocha no idk about that many religion institutions don’t acknowledge gay marriage as an actual marriage. And neither do many religious folks. It’s not that they hate them , it’s not that they wanna hurt them. They just don’t believe that’s an actual marriage. So forcing them to go against their own religion is just wrong.
@@get_downed_boi6270 Being intolerant based on religious mumbo jumbo is wrong. What if the gay couple are in the middle of nowhere like Kyle said in the video, and they are refused service at a gas station or something
Gaston Rocha okay that’s stupid, and that’s not what happened and people aren’t like that. We speaking of a gay couple going to a religious institution or religious business and asking them to do something they are not okay with because religion is very sacred in religion.
I dont like identity politics... btw im gay
joe cunningham
Then you don’t like politics at all because the very notion of American politics relies on “identity” of some form. Wether it’s sexuality, economic class, race, etc.
DeshaunIsAmazing He was mocking Dave
ah yes the classic Milo Yainnopolis "I can shit on gays, blacks, and Jews because I'm a gay jew with a black boyfriend" trick.
i know this was meant as joke towards dave but i really do see this said alot by some gay or black people. ffs if it wasnt for identity politics you would not be treated equally in society and in many places not even allowed to live, sure the application of ID politics is often misplaced in western countries nowadays but that doesnt mean it is inherently a bad thing at its core, you should have a more nuanced approach to this issue and think about how it can be improved and which areas of society it can be applied to correctly, so it should not be merely dismissed it as bad altogether, which is an intellectually lazy thing to do.
Rubin's point was: If I was to play identity politics, I should be FOR forcing them bake that cake because I'm gay, but I'm not doing that (because I'm for libertarian principles more than my gay identity). Turning that into: AHA, you ARE playing identity politics is... just malevolence
People also used religion to justify refusing black people service.
Burg Skeletal A business should be allowed to refuse service for any reason.
Henry Myth Why?
Henry Myth Individuals have more rights than a business does
A business is made up of individuals, they're not entitled to serve you nor should they be.
Henry Myth People are entitled to not be discriminated against
Since religion is a choice, what are your thoughts about denying service or discriminating due to a religion or ideology?
Big fan, love your work.
No cause in the Constitution the government can't institute a official religon and can't discriminate against religion
If you were raised religious, being religious is as much a choice as speaking the language of your native country is a choice. It's more of a grey area than with age, ethnicity or sexuality which are 100% immutable, but I think it's foolish to say that religious people could all just choose to be non-religious if they wanted to. If it's something you truly believe and have internalized then it's not a choice.
Actually I think Dave would be ok with that. I think he interprets this as the government shouldn't be in the business of morality.
Also I think it's specifically because the cake was to support the wedding. Someone shouldn't have to wear a vale just because your conservative Christian denomination requires it at a wedding. But you've got the right to stop people from going to your wedding if you don't want them.
First amendment makes that clear.
finn c. That is errant nonsense. Being religious is a choice. The Mormons believed that dark skin signifies sin, so Mitt Romney is in a racist organisation involuntarily? If you are a religious adult in an open, democratic and secular society you are doing it because you choose to.
That Koch money was well spent.
Brian Garrow I love how anytime someone isn’t a member of the church of Bernie that automatically means they are a corrupt individual. Maybe he saw how the left makes everyone a victim so that they can control them.
Taylor Bell, he actually is getting money from the Kochs. that isn't a baseless claim
or maybe he wanted to get rich quick and there's plenty of right wing money up for grabs.
Not really. He's terrible at making arguments
+Taylor Bell
Actually Dave Rubin flat out publicly stated his new show was taking money and associated with one of the Koch brothers businesses...
Dave puts ideology first, and facts second.
Well, money before ideology.
Perfection Incarnate What freedom? You mean the freedom to discriminate against gays?
Religion makes no difference. People also used religion to justify refusing black people service during Jim Crow.
Dave is right on this point. Capitalism, like Joe mentioned would self regulate. Keep in mind this bakery closed very shortly after this. Government should never step in here.
Michael Nyary That only works for small businesses. Large corporations that are too big to faill would never feel the blowback if they started to discriminate.
Burg Skeletal That's a very good point, that didn't come to mind. In a larger scale this would play out differently
To deny a person service based on who they are? Not okay.
To deny a person artistic service for a religious event, which is contrary to your own religion? Meh. Kind of okay. Not very cool, but shouldn't be illegal.
Yes, I normally agree or at least am not in disagreement with Kyle on his POV, but I think he got off topic in this video by making it more about the person instead of the actual request that was being made.
@@nicholastrudeau7581 i think what rubin was getting at was, its like forcing someone to draw a picture that they really dont want to draw because it conflicts with their religious beliefs, but you still have the options to buy the other drawings that are available in the store. Maybe its just up to society to get rid of these businesses by voting with their money.
I think people that understand freedom r more levelheaded. Next we will see PAINTER REFUSES TO PAINT NAKED PERSON IS GETTING SUED FOR DISCRIMINATION. There’s more power with taking ur money somewhere else. Being black, brown, white is not a choice, attitude or belief. It’s a skin tone that reflects no personality, behavior or beliefs. The fight for minorities was/is a real fight. They wanted basic freedoms. The left wants everyone to agree with them. Whiners.Completely different.
Whatever happened to terms of service and the right of employers to choose which customers they want to sell to and which products they want to sell. What happened to terms of service. If someone is going to be discriminatory, you can boycott and protest them.
@@dstuddard4u that would be the wisest thing to do
Businesses won’t survive without money so just put ur money elsewhere
When u take someone’s choice away u r literally taking their freedom
There’s a lot of titty babies in the world today...not many freedom fighters anymore
Dave "I AAAAAAAAGREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE WITH THAT!" Rubin
After he did this interview I had to go back and watch that lol.
Freedom toons refrence?
A Potato Yeah
I’m ded💀💀
"The road to hell is paved with regressive intentions"
Dave Rubin is white and lives in Los Angelos. He can have these opinions because he is not at all forced to live with them. It's easy to say all kinds of crazy right-wing shit but lives in a liberal state and enjoy the lack of discrimination that comes with that. Send him to middle of no where Alabama and I would guess his views would evolve once more.
Dizkonekted Is this an argument for white privilige? And how is his statement "right wing shit"? If the government were allowed to punish people who don't want make wedding cakes for certain individuals, that would have been tyranny.
It's only tyranny when you don't care about the people or persons being denied. Also my arguement was clear. Dave Rubin does not have to live with his convictions if you want to call that a white privelige arguement that is on you.
That’s a good point. It’s easy to oppose anti-discrimination laws when you aren’t at risk of discrimination.
lol I like how gays have been kicked out of the SJW club now.
IDENTITY POLITICS ALTERT!
Dave ruben has won the gold medal for mentla gymnastics
He'd be lucky to even qualify. If you wanna see a gold medalist, watch Jordan Peterson answer the question, "Do you believe in God?"
@@Len124 He does believe in God though. Anybody who truly searches will come to the same conclusion.
@@holden6104 I know he does, but he answers in such a vague way by doing this rhetorical song and dance in which he has to first get into the semantics of the word "truth," implying that there is utility in the concept of god and the bible's role in our society's values are overlooked, and so on and so forth. He seems to leave the question of whether he _literally_ believes in an actual entity or not. He also refers to himself as a "strange kind of Christian," or something like that. I actually believe he's being honest in the sense that he does believe as much as one in his position can, at least in the conventional sense, but perhaps avoids talking about his personal beliefs because it's one of those lose-lose things. He either alienates one part of his fanbase, like those that overlap with Sam Harris, because it's dubious for one that purports to be all about rationalism/empiricism and "the facts" to have a faith-based belief, or he alienates the part of his audience desperate to find some rationale that might allow them to cling to their religion if he was ever to say he doesn't believe. I said, "...as much as one in his position can," because faith is not always an easy thing to pull-off if you're an evidence-oriented person with an aptitude for pattern recognition. I'm willing to bet there are a lot of people who claim to believe in god, but actually don't because they simply can't force themselves to in this day and age. I'm not saying there is no god; I'm simply saying the evidence or cogent arguments are not on the side of the believer and belief is not a choice.
@@Len124 I think he's a full blown believer, and I agree with you that he does not reveal that part of himself. You have to remember the context of his discussions--he's not giving a sermon, he's talking about God in the philosophical sense. In that way, he is similar to CS Lewis, who is a staunch Christian, but can also argue for the existence of God in the empirical and rational sense.
If you want a reasoned argument for the existence of God and the validity of Christianity, give "Mere Christianity" a read. There is plenty of evidence, if you are willing to approach it with an open mind.
@@holden6104 I have actually looked into Lewis' arguments in Mere Christianity, but haven't read the full book though, just a blow-by-blow, so I wouldn't be comfortable dismissing it out of hand without doing so. I've read counter-arguments and critiques from others; some of which are from other Christians. The main critique I've read was that he retreads old arguments that have been addressed. That being said, I'm not speaking from the primary source, so I'm willing to approach anything with an open-mind and take the time to read it in case there's something I can glean that's missed by just a cursory sort of summary. I'm not even totally against the idea of a rational belief in something like god (as opposed to empirical), but I'd have to, at a minimum, get the ok from Occam. Arguments related to a grounding for morality or the utility/importance of the concept (not that that's what you or Lewis argued; nor do I believe morality necessitates god) aren't enough for me; which is what Peterson seems to to turn to quite often. If I were to come across an airtight, rational argument for the existence of some prime mover or original cause, however, it would be a whole other kettle of fish to then make the leap to Christianity being an accurate picture of god and its role in history.
Look at him sing and dance for that Koch money. You know you're ridiculous when you make joe rogan look like a genius for the entire interview
Daaaamn, I was just thinking of that .
Joe Rogan: the ex-martial artist meathead who wants to be an intellectual but fails miserably
Rogan is liberal though, he has said he's leftist on multiple occasions...
I like Joe. He is intellectually curious. I disagree with him a bit but he always seems open in an interested way and doesn't seem to value his worldview that high so he is open to have his opinion swayed. Way better than Dave for sure.
He has said he dosent identify with a party and thinks identity politics is BS. He does hold some views supported by the left. My biggest complaint on Rogans views is that he is for whatever the person he is interviewing is for. Obviously being adversarial isn't always the answer but it makes him look wishy washy.
He made way dumber points than this. This one wasn’t that extreme tbh. It’s a simple social libertarian opinion.
It's still pretty dumb
If being weak on anti-discrimination is normal it's all the more reason to criticize it
Darksydesamy comparing neo Nazis to gay people is a Libertarian position?
Darksydesamy
But the way he framed it was abysmal lol. Definitely worth pointing out.
"simple" being the operative word.
I love this channel because Kyle break shit down to a point that I can understand. I gained so much from this channel. Thank you kyle
Deon Li I feel the same way
He left out the religious freedom aspect though. That's a massive omission and completely misleads the listener into thinking the cake store owner was on the level of a nazi.
@@holden6104 Religious freedoms means you can discriminate ?
@@cowboysparsons1150 Yes, as a private business. The consequence would be people buying shit from other businesses. You don't force a man to do business; that's the literal opposite of business.
Libertarian sounds really good when you are 18, but then you grow up. I like to see how this plays out if a "Christian" baker refuses to make a cake for a couple getting married, but have previous divorces.
Dave La Violette Right, I used to be a libertarian until I realized how fast authoritarian ideology spreads. Then I realized we need government to stop degeneracy
I used to be a liberal until I grew up.
That would be a non issue. Noone cares if people get denied a cake unless it's one of the left's victim groups.
Brandon so you became a NatSoc?
Ant Man you do realize that make 0 sense right? You think if a diner or baker denied service to Christian evangelicals that they'd be perfectly fine with it? Yeah because you know those evangelicals. ..facts over feelings, never get outraged over anything
Dave Rubin is an intellectual layman, every interview he does is all the same: crying about the "regressives, free-speech, safe-spaces, etc.
Kinda sounds like every talk in politics and most political channels as of the last few years. I dont see what makes him different from others
that true, however most have moved on to talk about other things he hasn't. it as if he's walking in circles.
Notice how little Rubin ever references policy or procedure, he just whines about how 'the left' put everyone in boxes whilst completely blind to the irony of it all.
Mister Mood Correct. And the classic Dave Rubin caricatures always had him saying "regressive", "free speech", & "I agree". The new ones are going to have him using that strong emphasis on the word "GOVernment"
Emperor Swagatine Agree with him or not about this issue, everything he talks about is more relevant than ever.
It's so fucking offensive to compare my sexual orientation which I can't choose to the ideology of neo Nazis which you very much choose to buy into
yes ik he's a joke
David Rubin is correct. All the gay couple needs to do is go to a different baker. They did this intentionally to get attention and $$$ in a lawsuit.
If government is responsible for cleaning and maintaining the street and sidewalk in front of your store, if government sends police and fire fighters to help business owners if there is a theft or a fire, you have to serve every customer who comes in.
Rob Backlog - so if there is a government performing it's basic responsibilities, we're never permitted to be free - is that what you're saying? I've always found that argument to be ridiculous. At what point does protecting freedom and liberty become important to you? It's not pretty, I'll grant you, but are people allowed to be assholes or zealots? Which zealots are ok - environmental ones? Share your criteria for freedom and an open society.
Steven S You aren't free to discriminate against people they're free from being discriminated against. It's like arguing oh what I'm not free to fire someone for being black? What I'm not free to kill someone? You want to discriminate move to Somalia. America isn't a free country, we have laws, you can obey them or get the fuck out.
I'll keep doing what I want and there is nothing you can do about it. Enjoy. Well done going right to murder as the ultimate goal of everyone who wants to live free - yeah, that's the goal.
Did I hear the same conversation?
Rubin said that a store can't deny selling a cake but you can't force the cake maker to make a custom made cake that he/she don't want to make.
Basicly you can't force a artist to create something they don't want to which sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Chefs are artists, they can refuse to serve gay couples?
Pastry chef's that make professional looking wedding cakes are artists yes, have you ever seen one of those?
Also did you even read the comment before replaying?
".. a store can't deny selling a cake but you can't force the cake maker to make a custom made cake that he/she don't want to make."
Plus I don't think this should be for artistic work only.
Take a fast food restaurant that allows customers to tweek or even make their own dishes as an example.
Should they be forced to make whatever the customer wants as long as its something they can make?
I would say that they have the right to refuse but to a lesser degree then artists.
You can't deny extra cheese just becouse the cusomer is jewish or fat.
NUTCASE71733
So if a plumber gets a custom job where the pipes makes out a swastika on the wall.
You want the goverment to force that plumber to do that job regardless if they want to or not?
How many times do we have to tell you people, political ideology isn't protected by the Civil Rights Act like sexual orientation.
NUTCASE71733
No it wasn't!
He ignored Rubin's point which was having the right to deny a custom job, it was not about denying all service.
The plumber, store, whatever can't deny servicing anyone for stupid reasons.
But a custom job is a diffurent matter.
A store that specializes in making Christian themed cakes should not be forced to make custom Satanic themed cake just becouse a cosumer wants that.
But a Satanist has the right to buy their cakes.
A KKK themed store should be forced to sell their stuff to black people but you can't force that store to make custom MLK stuff.
Do you agree with that or should people that accept custom jobs lose the right to say no?
He was not denying them something already on the shelf. He was denying them a special request. That is his right.
If your business is open to the public, but you don't serve blacks, you don't deserve a business, that is not right. We the people have power. Your business serves us, if you don't, you are gone.
All wedding cakes are special requests if they are custom. The baker has a right to say he does not have time. The baker has the right to say it is beyond his skill. The baker has the right to say he doesn't have the proper tools. We all know it's bullshit but that doesn't matter. He has the right to pick and choose custom cakes just about however he goddamn pleases.They could have bought anything off the shelf. He did not say he would not serve them. He said he would not honor a custom request. And whoever yelled FALSE in all caps as if that impresses me...This case has been ruled on. The courts say I'm right. so you are the one whose statements are FALSE.
All he had to do to prove that he wasn't being biased, is show one wedding cake from a straight couple that he had ever said he couldn't or wouldn't make.
Just because you agree with the dissent doesn't make it more correct.
Avi - No offense to those of that sexual orientation, but being that I am a straight male I'm going to have to say no thanks.
Denied a special request - based on bigotry.
one of my favorite secular talk videos
@Rave Dubin go outside lol
How is being gay is something you cant change?
You cant compare this to being black. its different.
@@peasant7214 so you wouldn't mind having sex with a man? Because people can just change sexuality apparently
Abdullah AboMuhammad people don’t choose to gay. If that’s the case why don’t you try being gay
One of the worst I've seen. Completely misleading take.
When the replies don't seem to make sense, they have been bought to talk BS.
A self loathing gay man, good for you Dave.
My viewpoint is... Keep the goddamn religion OUT of a business.
My viewpoint is.....I will include anything I want in MY business because it is MY business! NOT yours. MINE. The same way I will not go to a halal butcher and demand for pork, I will not go to a Christian baker to demand pro gay cakes.
Estivel Garcia and their viewpoint is something like “keep your opinions out of my business.” At the end of the day they have their business and you have your opinions.
Exactly what dietary restrictions are applied to being of a Christian faith? Your comparison is completely absent of relevance. Its just an excuse to say Christians should be able discriminate.
+McPherson123 lol anyone should be able to discriminate. That's called freedom dude.
Ultramarine Good God. You are completely lost. Freedom in America means freedom from discrimination and freedom of religion but also freedom from religious rule. If a person is going to be so deeply, religiously disturbed by serving a person based on their sexual orientation then that person ought not take the risk of being faced with that decision by participating in a business that exists in the real world and not just the incubated, idealized Christian world free of the homosexual "problem." You want to run a business? Grow up and stop pissing your pants over your fairy tale-based life restrictions. There's a difference between choosing what you offer and choosing who you will serve.
I lost some brain cells when Rubin compared baking a cake for gay people to drawing a Nazi symbol. Asking a Jew to draw a Nazi symbol is not comparable unless Rubin believes there is a history of gay people suppressing Christians; last time I checked... it was the other way around.
You are mixing up 'service' with asking someone to make what you tell them. No one should be forced to write a message that they disagree with.
You know bakers are supposed to make cakes that their client want. Like that’s part of the service they provide, it’s not them doing a favor and going out of their way.
Also, they’re not asking for a message. It’s not like the baker was asked to write “Nazis rock” on the cake. That would be a message that he could refuse to do bcuz that is not an arbitrary characteristic that they can’t change. It’s an opinion, a nasty one, this case is about a gay couple that got denied service for being gay.
@@accountsequity5587 no. People who make cakes, can make whatever cakes they do or do not want to. In the same way you cannot command an artist to paint a painting that you want them to.
Also, a pro gay marriage message is not an arbitrary characteristic. It is a point of view.
I have to disagree with your here on this one kyle the baker was not refusing service to the gay couple the baker said on multiple interviews the he was willing the sell the couple brownies, cupcakes and whatever else was in the store. The argument here is that wedding cake doesn't exist and forcing the baker to make something that he doesn't agree with is against his first amendment freedoms the baker as also refused to make Halloween cakes and sexually explicit cakes that include genitals. Even though Christianity is the majority here in America it is still a religious group and has equal protection under the law. This situation is pretty shitty and there is definitely going to be more cases brought up to the supreme court and we just have to wait and see.
No the gay couple requested a wedding cake the design of the cake didn't even make it that far into discussion before the baker refused, but the case wasn't entirely about the design its the message that type of cake represents is what the baker doesn't like. I genuinely don't think the baker was malicious given the many interviews he's given
th-cam.com/video/vtNMrKcBHLs/w-d-xo.html
I am also confused i don't think anyone compare Nazi cake to being gay at all. I agree with the supreme court discussion no one should be forced to do anything that they don't want to do. No ones rights is above anyone else. This is the only beginning of cases like this and we'll just have to see how it goes
the baker shouldn't be forced to make the personalised cake. the reason I say this is because he might be asked to draw something he finds completely disgusting. he should, however, be forced to sell the cakes already in his store. that's how you differentiate and stop the issue of being denied the gas in the gas station or whatever.
also, nice bracelet lol (no hate)
Matty Pratt like a nszi cake
That was Rubin's point. You shouldn't be able to deny the sale of a product to someone. You should however be able to refuse to customize it with something you don't like.
mattbenz99 I know I’m agreeing with Rubin...Kyle had admitted he doesn’t like Dave so I’m thinking his bias is getting in the way a little. It’s also apparent Kyle isn’t as knowledgeable in this case as he should be
Craig Bowers I’m not a bigot at all I just don’t think people should be forced to do things they don’t want to do. PERSONALLY, I’d make it for them.
Craig Bowers
This is the very definition of a strawman.
This interview with Joe Rogan pretty much ruined Dave’s career as a “political commentator” and exposed him as what he is, a right wing grifter who only speaks in talking points but once questioned he really has no idea what hes saying.
I thought the problem was about liberties? I don’t remember hearing anything about the couple being mistreated. The couple was denied a specific service not service in general.
I LOLED. HE COMPARED A NEO NAZI TO A PROTECTED CLASS/MINORITY 😂
Why can’t a neo Nazi be entitled to his belief
Sexual orientation is not a protected class under federal law. It is under Colorado state law (where this incident took place) but Kyle should really have made that clearer.
I think Kyle is missing the argument. Because I personally see it this way.
When it comes to any premade made generic item, or in this case, let's say you ask the baker for a chocolate cake that you see on display. If it's in stock, the baker can't deny you service based off of anything for that ready made item. If it isn't in stock and you were only looking at a display item, you should be able to ask the baker, regardless of your race, gender, sexual orientation to make that exact cake that's available to the public to buy.
BUT if it's anything artistic/custom, I think the baker should be able deny service to absolutely anyone for whatever reason. For example, a wedding cake that isn't on display and has something custom that makes it different from the models on display.
That's what Rubin believes and that's my stance as well.
LinusMLGTips Completely agree. Kyle got a little SJWy here.
nah i think you dont get it on this one, they didnt want a simple cake, they wanted to draw something on it, i guess the person didnt like what they wanted on it. would you paint a painting if the contents were against your religion or whatever? this is creative work if person dont want to take it he can DECLINE
Yip exactly right and I say that as someone that is gay myself but first and foremost I consider myself a libertarian and will fight for the rights of all people including religious people even if I don't agree with their beliefs
So in this case I personally don't agree with the beliefs of the bakery owner but I respect that it's their constitutional right and their privately owned business
And this is why religion is flawed at its core. You pick and choose things you want to follow and what not to follow in the bible. There are many things in the bible that are terrible and would be considered illegal in our current society but "its ok with God".
High time we should stop using "religion" as a way to discriminate against people who didn't choose their biological make-up.
@@johnj3027 I may disagree with the bakers opinions and believe that in an ideal world anyone should get served for almost anything, though I also acknowledge that within a free society we simply have to accept people have different opinions, as far as I'm concerned that's OK so long as their opinions isn't taking away anyone's basic human rights!
@@sensibleone3268 Wrong. Your logic is greenlighting the option for people to deny service based on whatever "opinion" they feel like, even all kinds of discrimination including racism no?
@@johnj3027 no cause obviously if u point blank deny any service whatsoever on the basis of sexuality, race, religion or sex that is discrimination, in this case the Baker who essentially has the same privileges as an artist is being asked to design a cake for a gay wedding which is against their beliefs. So in defense of the Baker there are 3 points, first of all,it's within the constitution that a citizen is allowed to hold beliefs and defend them beliefs within reason, secondly,he is an artist and an artist has a right not to design whatever they wish not to design, lastly, it's their privately owned business, not an international brand such as Starbucks
Keep in mind I have no reason to defend the Baker as I'm gay myself but more than that I'm a libertarian for all citizens, including citizens who's beliefs conflict with my own!
I always thought that the whole “we reserve the right to refuse service to anybody” thing applied to anything that the customer had control over. Things like behavior, clothing, body odor, etc. I was thought it was unlawful for even private businesses to refuse service to a customer based on things they could not control, such as skin color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.
Isn’t that the case?
Sexual orientation is a decision.
@@TheRightToFilmPolice Right, and Chik-Fil-A is open on Sundays. 🙄
This may be the first great point Rubin ever made in his life... When it comes to some kind of art... How can you force someone to create something they don't agree with, and they're against or makes them uncomfortable. He used the asking a Jewish person to make a Hitler painting, I'll take it a step further. What if someone wanted you to paint a picture of a child performing a sex act on him. Should you be forced to do that? What I find disgusting and deplorable could be seen as beautiful to him... Shouldn't the artist have the right to refuse to paint something they find wrong or disgusting?
You are practically comparing gay people to nazis and pedos, you legally can’t deny a gay couple service.
Noticed how he whispered ‘’I’m gay’’ as tho he’s ashamed 😂.
Rubin has reached self-hatred mode
I actually agree with that. It's not "far-right".
its fiscally conservative and socially liberal, hardly far right.
Why should the baker care its money after all
This baker has waiting lists of people who want him to bake cakes for them so he doesn't need the gay couple's business. And refusing service should be his right.
The baker cares because he's being asked to help a ritual that is blasphemous to his religion. I'm an atheist so I wouldn't have that problem but I get that a true believer would not want to do that.
I love the comparison between Jews and nazis and Christian's and gays. Remember kids, nazi is a choice, sexuality is not.
@Mr. R It's literally not a choice
@Mr. R you're an idiot
Lol what a pussy, he deleted his comment. What did they say anyway?
1. We the people are our government 2. We the people can't have people be more or less equal. 3. If you want to discriminate stay out of business.
"If you don't like me you aren't allowed to earn a living!"
Grow up.
#FindYourHumanity. Hint: the US is supposed to be about equality.
The Canadian Crusader Shitty strawman.
No, you're allowed to earn a living, you just aren't allowed to discriminate against others. If a black person were to walk up to the deli I work in and orders some sliced ham, guess what, I have to slice the ham or leave my job, same with the overly effeminate gay man or the white trailer trash wearing a MAGA hat.
Grow up. This is the reality of business. You have to do your job, regardless if you like or dislike something about a customer's person, that's arbitrary. Do your fucking job or find another one.
ditsylilg you are a slave to your government, America is about individuals being free to do as they wish and suffer the consequences if wrong reap the benefits if right.
A small but salient point, the baker didn't refuse to sell the couple a cake, only his artistic liscence pertaining to the message on the cake.
“Classical Liberal”, everyone
What exactly is a classical liberal mean?
@@DarkPhoenixSaga fancy word for a right wing libertarian essentially
@@DarkPhoenixSaga basically conservatism
@@blackgold754 Thanks for letting me know but, why doesn't he say he's a conservative in the first place lol?
@@DarkPhoenixSaga because he doesn’t make sense and he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He’s just paid to be a joke.
I’ll tell my grandmother who had coffee and spit in her face when she protested Jim Crow by simply sitting at a “whites only” restaurant, “it’s not the governments job to protect you from sh*tty.”
But this is just the thing, however. The gay customer was not being refused service on the grounds that he was gay. He could have purchased any cake he wanted or even the one he was ordering. It's just that he couldn't have one celebrating a gay marriage on it. Pretty shitty, I know but you can't compel someone to say or do something that goes against their beliefs and that applies to everyone.
I'm a late stage libertarian and I can say in my experience most libertarians in the first two stages are absolutist when in comes to government. Later you realize that the government has a role and sometimes it has to upset people to protects the rights of others.
I feel like libertarians who are super against any regulation or act of government don’t understand why they’re in place in the first place. Reminds me of the WKYK sketch where anarchist overthrow the government, but then have to slowly piece together, a sort of government in order to keep things functioning.
m.th-cam.com/video/fibDNwF8bjs/w-d-xo.html
ANARCHYYY!!!
I agree with Rubin. If it was a normal store item I would say otherwise. The fact that it is a custom cake should afford the business owner the freedom to choose.
Julian S sane here . I usually don’t disagree with Kyle BUT what you said is correct I believe
Look if the baker refused to sell them a ready-made cake I'd agree with Rogan, but that's not the case, he was willing to sell them one of the cakes already there. What he was not willing to do was make them one of his fancy unique custom cakes. Being bisexual and an atheist I think his reasons are moronic, but as an artist and a designer I fully support his right to turn a clients down for like a plethora of reasons. You know what, I'll even list some of them:
1. Artists are not a business, they do not offer a service, you hire them to work for you, it's why your're their CLIENT and not their CUSTOMER. And forcing people to work for you is a fundamental violation of a person's liberty. I once turned down a design for a local church because I refuse to make Pro-christian artwork, which technically speaking is religious discrimination, so what is the government going to force me to work for someone I do not want to?
2. Oh but then there's the argument that unlike churches gay people are a 'protected group' so it's not the same. Okay, what happens when corporations get to be protected groups just as they can be, legally speaking, people? You really don't see how the idea that the state can force artists to do something and punish them if they do not can end poorly?
3. When something is custom made for an organisation or an event or a person, the artist ties himself to thing, he uses his speech/freedom of expression to involve themselves with it. Unlike simply selling mass produced products we as artists or designers or craftsmen when making something unique are personally involved in it and are part of that creation's legacy for we are its creators. Think of it like: buying already existing music to play at your wedding VS demanding that musician write a new song for your wedding. Two VERY different things. Extreme example, but it illustrates my point: it's a very different thing if I'm a shirt company and the Nazis happen to buy my brown shirts at some store VS if I'm Hugo Boss and I custom design uniforms for them. Now as much as I disagree with the baker, if he as an artist does not want to be involved in a gay wedding, it is his right not to be.
4. Artists have a right to discriminate as part of their freedom of speech. Do you think, for example, it's a giant coincidence all the people on stage at a Beyonce concert are women? Of course not, Beyonce said 'I don't want to hire any men among the performers', and she as an artist should have a right to gender discriminate like that, because since free speech is a thing she is allowed to express herself as she wants and not be forced to express her creativity in way she does not want (like if the government forced her to also hire men). Likewise if the baker doesn't want to make art for a ceremony he doesn't like because he finds gay people gross, that's his first amendment right.
5. Nobody was killed, injured, there was no loss of money, there was no property damage, they weren't even denied something because until an artist decides to work for you there is noting for you to be denied of. If he was denying them an already existing cake or a cake he had in a menu somewhere that would be a different story. The difference between an artist and a service is that a service already exists, at least in concept (ex on the menu or the price list), while works of art do not exist in any way until the artist decides to start making them. So you cannot deny someone something that doesn't exist. You can be denied a meal, or a product, or access to a school, or a haircut, medicare, access to a swimming pool, or a marriage licence (remember that hag Kim Davis?), but you cannot be denied something vague ('cake' is about as specific as 'sauce', there's a million ways to make one) that only exists hypothetically.
I'm not arguing this so businesses have a right to deny groups goods and services, I DO NOT BELIEVE they should not be able to. While there are examples where the line between art and service are fuzzy, for the vast majority of cases it's quite obvious and easily explainable why something is a service that's selling a ready-made or pre-designed service or object or whatever wherein the author is completely divorced from the creation's use and something that is a unique commissioned work custom-designed for a client.
If this was any other kind of creative person, like a standup comedian or a painter or a tattoo artist, we'd have no issue saying that it's their right to be able to not apply their talents in ways they do not want to, this is no different. I turn down people all the time, sometimes I turn them down just because I don't like them, I do not even need a good reason to tell someone 'sorry, I can't, you'll have to find someone else'. Now if I was selling already existing designs or pieces of art and told someone 'sorry I refuse to sell it to you because you're black/gay/whatever' that is the kind of discrimination that should be illegal.
Actually, yes
The musician can agree to write the song for the wedding,or he can turn them down.If he turns it down because that's not and has not been part of his service offering as an artist for hire and he doesn't want to change his policy,then that's ok. But if he turns them down,and he is known for being a specialist in writing custom songs for weddings,but in this case he turns them down because they're gay, well then he's discriminating based on sexual preference ( something you are born with,isn't harming anyone, and can't change) and he would have to face the social and possibly legal consequences.
Money is power.Corporations have lots of it.Minorities have as much money or less than the next social group.Corporations have enough money for lawyers,security,media exposure etc.Minorities do not,and they face extra discrimination.Thats why they need extra protection,and corporations do not.
*"in this he turns them down because they're gay, well then he's discriminating based on sexual preference"*
Well obviously, but I refer you to my Beyonce example of how it's within an artist's first amendment right to discriminate as part of their artform, since they have the right to express themselves as they wish and not be forced to express themselves without their consent. Virtually all film productions for example sexually discriminate, if you're a man and you show up in an audition for a female role you will be turned down before even trying out for the role, even though there is no reason a man could not play a woman. Now as much as I would like to see good representation on the screen, it would be a disaster if it were legally mandated. And it's also arguable that he was not discriminating against minorities as straight people also face the same possibility of having the option to have a custom cake made for them rejected due to his religious beliefs, for example he doesn't make Halloween themed cakes. Stupid? Yes, very. But also his prerogative.
Also what corporation are you talking about? I specifically pointed out I do not believe businesses should have the right to discriminate and should offer their services to everyone. This was just some baker who happened to also make fancy cakes, not Wallmart. The minority angle doesn't work either. In the west Muslims are a minority, and I as an atheist would not make a Muslim themed artwork, that's religious discrimination and technically speaking Islamophobia, so now what I'm to be fined for exercising my free speech of not wanting to have anything to do with Islam?
Interesting perspective, i think the nuances of this case actually make a differences. I was totally pro the gay couple but now i see the artists side i am kind of on the fence. Still would advocate boycotting these pieces of shit though. Not a fan discriminating on people for uncontrollable biological factors.
@Liberal Larry
"but in this case he turns them down because they're gay, well then he's discriminating based on sexual preference"
But what's wrong with that? It's not like turning down people because they're black. Being gay isn't as good as being black. It's more on par with being a furry or being into vore. It he said "I won't make you a wedding cake because you're black", THAT would be bad. I'm sick of being gay being put on par with being black. That's such a stupid, oversensitive, morally relativist, nonsensical comparison.
All that's happening is someone not getting a cake. They can literally just drive to a different cake store. It's not a big deal. You don't have the right to force someone to participate in your elective (and possibly religious) ceremony. It's not even like a supermarket or movie theater that turns away gay people. They're not even saying they don't make cakes for gays period, but specifically wedding cakes.
You don’t seem to understand Rubin’s argument. He clearly stated that a gay couple shouldn’t be denied a cake that’s already baked. He simply is saying that creatively, someone shouldn’t be forced to bake a special cake that goes against their religious views. Just as an artist shouldn’t be forced to paint a nude photo for someone that paid him to if he doesn’t want to.
This isn’t a matter of denying service, but rather an issue of not wanting to create something NEW that goes against your views. A cake store is not obligated to bake you a special cake however you want it, but it is obligated by law to serve you existing products, which is not what Rubin is arguing against.
oh waaaahhhhh waaaaahhhh libertarian baby dont want to bake something if its against his views even if hes getting paid for it, waaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
@@ferretofdoomify you wouldn't force a Muslim to bake a cake with the image of Jesus.
@@mrfygars9237 if it was his job to make specialty cakes, yes i would ask him... and i would incentivize him with money, because thats how business works
@@ferretofdoomify exactly ask him not force him
@Donald Trump. they wanted a cake for a gay wedding...muslims dont bake gay cakes and the left styas silent
"Protect people from shitty" and "protect people from harmful/violent acts" aren't the same thing. Shitty are just annoying or inconvenient things. I have an idea, lets create an anti-uncomfortable government agency.
What bugged me the most about Rubin's response is him trying to make an issue of the custom cake been an, "art," thing. As if baking a cake, pastries, or any of that shit isn't a form of art in the first place.
Actually in this specific case all the cakes were hand made and had unique designs so it definitely could be considered art.
anything you design yourself by hand is an art. Massproduction isnt, which is why i agree that the baker should sell existent products, but have the right to withhold custom made ones.
Finally nice to see Kyle taking off the gloves in regards to Rubin. I know this isn't the first video Kyle has posted that's taken Rubin to task - I'm speaking generally. Because Kyle's Israel interview was extremely frustrating to watch. Rubin had all the same types of BS talking points that were based on nothing but Israeli propaganda. And that is why I use the Israel/Palestine conflict as a purity test for progressives. Just like in the 80s I would use South Africa as a purity test. If you can make excuses for that kind of inhumanity, then you're a terrible person and have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
If I am a Baker, and a dude walks in and asks me to make a cake with a KKK logo, I have the right to refuse my services because my conscience tells me it is wrong.
If a Baker would refuse to make me a cake because I am black, then he will loose another customer, and I can just go to another place. Simple.
Legitimate question: should it be legal to deny service to people who follow a religion you don't agree with? It's not necessarily something your born with. Seems shitty but idk, I'd never do it.
Yes. It is in fact completely morally acceptable to do that, and it is as illegitimate to outlaw it as it is to outlaw racist discrimination. Just that the latter happens to be immoral.
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".
So does that^ sign not mean anything? Do businesses just have it for decoration?
I would assume that means anyone who acts aggressively or causes problems. Businesses aren't allowed to refuse service on the basis of discrimination against protected classes. They are allowed to refuse service for a whole bunch of other reasons, like if you're on drugs or breaking shit or harassing people.
But their religion doesn't agree with homosexuality and you're asking them to participate.
punkgreg 138 Exactly. I’m an atheist liberal, but I don’t feel comfortable with this. People shouldn’t be forced to participate in something they believe is a sin.
@@panthera5678 I'm agnostic and bisexual. It doesn't even make sense to want to get married in a religious institution that calls me an abomination. The Bible is pretty clear.
Why should a baker make a cake he never have done before, if he don't want to make a custom specific design?
Government SHOULD NOT force you to make specific ART...
I agree with you on 90% issues, but on this one I must disagree..
"The whole point of having laws is to protect you from 'shitty'. That's in part why assault and rape and murder are banned."
There is a difference between having a law to prevent the violation of someone's rights like raping or killing them, and having a law to protect someone from feeling sad that they didn't get a cake. Not serving someone a luxury item is not hurting someone in any tangible way.
Agreed
People have lost their backbone
Bunch of whinnies
Never heard no before??
U have now
Get over it
I agree, and while I usually agree with what Kyle says I'm afraid that he's deliberately avoiding one part of the issue, and highlighting something slightly separate. The issue wasn't about denying service to anyone altogether. The issue was someone denying service because the person offering the service, did not want to do so because they thought it went against their moral beliefs. And when it comes to not being able to choose your sexuality, you can choose whether you want to get married or not whether you be gay or straight. There are couples who live together as if they were practically married but never tie the knot.
The fact is you live in a country that provides so many services and so much infrastructure and that provides so many protections that make it so that people can fairly easily set up businesses. Imagine trying to set up a business without roads and plumbing and without police or without confidence that laws and contracts will be enforced by the state. How would you even have a claim to the land you set up shop on and the building on top of it if not for a central authority? I could go on, but basically there’s no such thing as complete private ownership of anything, especially not something like a business because there’s just no way that you could set up shop without all of the guarantees that you get because of the fact that you live in a country with a government that provides these things. Give. that, in order to set up and run a business you need to follow certain rules and regulations. You don’t get to just reap all of the freedoms and benefits from living in a country and then turn around and use that to discriminate against other people and infringe upon their rights. You can hold whatever beliefs you want, but if you want to start up a business you have to
understand that you’ll need to follow certain rules and regulations. That means you don’t get to just set up a cake shop and bake wedding cakes for a living but then decide that you won’t bake a cake for a COMPLETELY LEGAL wedding because you’re a homophobe.
I can’t believe I used to be a Libertarian.
Kyle sums everything up so perfectly. I really admire him. It’s kind of hard for me to believe that he is an American.
same bhai
He really doesn't. He thinks gays should have special treatment when anyone can lie about being gay.
@@ardemua shut up you stupid bint
Ok maybe I'm wrong with this comment, and if I am explain to me how I'm wrong, but how isn't this against the first amendment? For a person who fucking strokes their ego like Kyle does saying how much he is for the first amendment this seems wildly hypocritical
Kyle using the scenario of the black family driving through Mississippi is extreme and in which case is crazy because with the cake, no one's life was being compromised and the problem could be easily rectified. The gay couple could have just gone to another bakery, as I'm sure there would have been plenty more that would have served them. I mean, so they don't get their cake made for them. Oh dear God, he's refused to bake me a cake. Oh, the humanity! Seriously, it gets me that the couple took the bakery to court over something as trivial as a cake. The courts should have something more important matters to deal with than such nonsense.
Plus, you have to ask if the family came across a house or cabin owned by someone and the family's only mobile phone's battery had run out, and they needed to use that person's phone to call for help, should the person be legally obligated to allow them into their home to use the phone. It is after all their property and shouldn't they for whatever reason be allowed to deny them entry on that basis? If the proprietor of any business owns the property that they run then shouldn't they have a right to refuse help or service under whatever grounds they have? I'd be curious as you what Kyle's thoughts on this would be.
I dont know. Have you seen a wedding cake recently? Some of these cakes truly should fall under the category of art. And as was pointed out, the baker wasnt refusing to sell something already made (not to take away from the fact that he is clearly bigoted). But as a matter of something the government should force him to do...This in my mind is more along the lines of an artist choosing what commission to take. If a painter or a sculptor had a shop and someone came along with an idea of something they wanted done - I don’t think anyone would object if that artist decided a particular custom project wasnt something they wanted to do - no reason would even be needed.
What would be different would be the refusal to sell something already on display as for sale. And that is not the case here.
Kyle is so wrong on this topic.
There's a difference between refusing to sell someone say a microwave versus asking someone to use his/her creative artistic skills for something they don't support. Only an idiot would argue the position Kylie is arguing. Sorry, the supreme court made the right decision. I'm floored by the amount of listeners this guy has.
If you work in a bakery, your job is to serve your customer, not pass judgement on what they are doing in their bedroom.
If it’s things you can’t change, then can you deny people service based on their religion?
yup. You probably shouldn't, but you can, legally
I Like Turtles well, not in the USA you can’t
@@sectorcodec really? Are there protected religious classes in America? Has anyone been charged for not serving a Muslim or Jew for example? Pls inform me if I'm wrong about this
@@TehAnimationSparxx It's in the civil rights act of 1964.
@@sectorcodec i will look it up. But anyway, I'd argue religion is something you can choose, but yeah i dont think people should discriminate based on religion either
Joe Rogan spitting that logic .
Troll King yes
?
I have read some of the comments, and I am quite surprised that people make no difference between characteristics one is born with and personal choices/ideologies: it is not right judging one according to the former, but essential to do that according to the latter. Furthermore, it would be interesting to see what the reactions would be if the situation were reversed: to deny making a cake to a straight couple, because a baker is a Cathar, and heterosexual intercourse is against his/her religious beliefs?
Not a Rubin fan, but i dont see how a free speech absolutist could disagree here. A business can't deny just selling a cake to people of a protected class (Rubin agreed with this if you paid any attention), but they can deny expressing certain ideas or images that they oppose. To say otherwise is to compel artistic expression. A business should be able to control what messages/values they share with the public, even if we disagree. No one with any respect for free speech should disagree with this.
And it doesnt matter if it is an interracial couple, gay couple, or muslim couple. We can't legally force people to put something on a cake that they dont want to. It is their right to decide what work they put out there. But, they dont have the right to refuse someone's business just because they are part of one of those groups. The baker would have been fine selling a cake off the shelf to a gay couple, and not fine with selling a cake for a gay wedding to a straight couple.
Donald Trump. Just check out the baker's original response to the couple and you might then start to understand the case better (I realize how condescending that sounds). And, to someone who stands for free speech and the first amendment, there should be NO DIFFERENCE between a Nazi cake and gay-wedding cake. In the eyes of the law, there is a legitimate equivalence. HERE'S THE GIST - His cakes are custom made, so the gov't cant legally force him to make one for members of ANY group, but he does have to sell goods from the shelf to anyone (he told the couple he would be glad to do so). But should I really have expected a better argument from "Donny Tiny Hands?"
Donald Trump. They didnt have to discuss a design. His cakes are custom. A design would have been involved eventually and that is the heart of the problem, even if it just featured names.
Donald Trump. There is nothing wrong with names. I think it's silly for the baker to deny making the cake, but that doesn't mean he should be forced to do it just because it's for a gay couple. It doesn't matter how mundane or objectionable the design is, he can't be compelled to write/draw anything on a cake that he doesn't want to. I'm concerned by your authoritarian leanings here, Herr Kommandant.
Donald Trump. Misinterprets the Bible? Have you read the Bible? Assuming the baker has, we should be glad he didn't kill the couple on the spot
I wish Kyle and Joe had a more substantive discussion. I feel like joe deflected many of Kyle's points with humor and only during the last half hour did they have a good discussion.
But even if he "chooses" to be gay, even if he could help it, that still doesn't justify refusing to bake a cake for him.
He didn't say that he wouldn't serve them at all. It was just about the gay wedding.
Sorry, but Rubin is completely right on this one. No person has any right to another person's labor.
could you elaborate? rights are what your government grants you/enforces for you. that is completely unrelated to capitalism, which is based around voluntary/mutually beneficial transactions.
You insult me and make assumptions about me that are completely wrong... oh, I just noticed your name, I apologize for thinking you're serious.
NUTCASE71733 can you force a Palestinian artist who fled Gaza to paint a picture of Israel in a positive light? If he refuses do you call the artist an anti-semite? you let me know.
Rubin is right on this 100% and Rubin is usually a scumbag
NUTCASE71733 jesus man just shut the fuck up already. Every person who replied to you did so with etiquette and all you know how to do is talk down and insult people. So now I'm gonna throw it back to you. You are an unstable, adolescent-tempered douchebag who sets liberalism back a year every time you open your stupid mouth or post your rage-comments. Go sit at the kids table and argue with your peers.
Sean Cone
Are you triggered, snowflake? Why am I even asking? You're not just triggered.
You're *ultra-triggered.*
The whole point of laws is not to protect you from shitty, the point of our laws is to ensure nobody gets their freedoms trampled on. I have the right to do business with whomever I choose, just as you have the right to do the same. If you don't like me or my views go elsewhere its that simple! Don't make a big scene because you got butt hurt over it, go to someone that will gladly help you out.
Thats how the free market works and how our nation is designed to work. We are free and sometimes freedom can be shitty but that still doesn't give you the right to trample on someone's right because it hurt your feelings
Hand over the wallet bud. What youre upset? hey dave rubin said it best."
"Government cant stop shitty things."
i remember rubin from tyt what the hell happened to him
Javier Ruiz he “woke up” and left the left, because it’s terrible. (At least that’s what he thinks)
Money money money (in that voice)
He grew up.
He probably saw how big of hypocrites TYT is. The founder of it is an Armenian genocide denier, they go bat-shit crazy to people they disagree with (Alex Jones), they cheerlead when Big Tech bans people with opposing viewpoints, and they shame others who don't vote for the person they want. TYT used to be much better, but nowadays its left-wing MSNBC. Also, TYT is funded by Big Money.
So would you force a comedian to perform stand up at a KKK rally? Or force a hindu to make beef burgers?
If the hindu doesn't serve beef then you can't force them to, but if they do then yes..you can
Gonna have to disagree with you Kyle. Dave's point is spot on in regards to forced artwork. If you do commission work you shouldn't be government mandated to make whatever someone asks of you. This is a cultural problem, not a problem the government needs to fix.
It's not artwork dipshit is a cake, your practicing mental gymnastics
trahapace150 It’s art.
What about the freedom for people to go anywhere without getting discriminated against?
Spheric You don't have a right to somebody else's service
You can't go onto private property without permission. If I own a house or business and I don't want you coming in, you can't come in. That's pretty fucking basic.
Spheric comprehension of laws will help you a long way
tyio Namester Then public pressure changes it. Just like it currently does to businesses. This shop was ruined by their stupid decision.
The Canadian Crusader Then why do people have the right to vote? Someone has to count the votes and someone has to run for office. Both of those are services. Why do people have the right to a trial when accused of a crime? Judges, public attorneys, and juries are required by law to provide you with their service. Almost every right we have requires other people’s service.
-Freedom
-Protection
Choose one 👌🏻
I'm so glad Kyle finally got onto this! I couldn't wait for the pwnage! 😄
PfEMP1 If it’s a stock item you HAVE to sell it ie it has all ready been made or it’s on menu
If it’s a custom item you don’t have to sell it
Kyle is a communist and an idiot.
PfEMP1 Too bad he still won’t debate Steven Crowder or Ben Shapiro because he’s afraid of the “pwnage”
Not really pwnage when Rubin is right. The government shouldn't be what gets the business to do the right thing, it should be public pressure.
MrPhilsterable right about what? He left out the part that the government actually is forcing anyone to be in support of gay marriage or approve their lifestyle. Discrimination itself isn’t illegal. What is illegal is that discriminating in the workplace and in commerce is illegal and even more interesting, when you apply for a business license, you sign a contract and agree to adhere to all the laws and regulations including civil rights laws. No one forced you to sign a contract that says you have to treat people of differ sexual orientations equally. Unless you’re saying businesses are above the law or that there should be now mandated laws ?🌝
Dave is correct and so was the Supreme court
No, they're wrong and so are you.
295Phoenix how evil the supreme court is for being so correct. Take this L
The Supreme Court very explicitly avoided taking a position and ruled based on a technicality of the State process.
Fantastic message and video
What about freedom of religion?
No matter the race, sexual orientation, beliefs etc as a collective group of people who all of which contribute to society whether that be military service, taxes, public service, etc. No one should be denied service for such reasons. We as people work together for a functional modern society, people of many races and sexual orientations die for this country and pay taxes in which fund the safety of a country as well as education and infrastructure and more. Again given those details no one should be denied any service for those reasons alone.
As someone who despise Dave Rubin, he is 100% correct here, and Kyle is dead wrong. There's no question, it wasn't covered under discrimination laws because it wasn't about refusing an existing cake, it was a custom made thing to represent a specific act (gay marriage) that the baker disagreed with, like if a white person asked a tshirt artist to make a confederate flag shirt, they'd have every right to refuse them.
I remember seeing hearimg about this and agreeing with the bakers at first. Hearing this now. Just what joe rogan said convinced me that i was stupid om this topic.
Good for you for being willing to review your positions on issues!
At first I was with the couple and I say that as someone who is gay myself but the more I looked in to it I realised that beliefs within the constitution (whether that be religious beliefs or non religious beliefs) are protected.
So yes although I disagree with those beliefs, I am someone of principle and will stand up for all peoples constitutional rights even if it's civilly in conflict with my own! Plus it was their privately owned business, it would be a different story if this was a brand name or an international brand.
I’m not sure where to stand on the issue, I think they both make sense
It's more complicated than Kyle would like to admit. The problems is the baker is asked to perform a customized service that goes against his own conscience. Rather than a simple good exchange for money, it kind of compelled speech to create a custom artistic work that totally contradicts your religious belief. In that case it's not clear that the gov should compell it.
D E it’s not complicated. You can’t deny a black person bc it “goes against your conscience” it doesn’t matter what your religion is, that’s your business that doesn’t apply to anyone. You can be a bigot in your personal life but once it effects others it becomes an issue. If you’re being consistent someone should be able to refuse service for you being straight, or for being Christian or Muslim. Religion is not an exception to not have to treat everyone equally under the law. Don’t say “it’s a private business” first of all you don’t have a right to have a business, second of all if you have a business you play by the rules. Bake the fucking cake.
The tolerance paradox
I'm sorry Kyle, but I kind of agree with Dave here. It's shitty and should be called out but you can't have the government force them to do it. That's too authoritarian for my taste.
Agree. Let the people socially ostracize the business but don't let the government force them into anything
Hunter Gunnells Exactly.
Yeah, but not getting a customized wedding cake is not life-threatening.
Edit: I see now that you are responding to a specific claim made by Kyle, but still.
Ahh, so now safety is more important than liberty, how do you feel about the phrase “give me liberty or give me death?” What happens if NO place serves gay people, do gay people just now have unequal access to certain goods everyone else is entitled too? Is this the nation you want to live in?
Can we please change the term "bill" and "amendment" to "protect you from shitty"?
That was him being Far-Right? Lol c'mon, dude.
Apparently being to the right of the Democrat Party on any social issue makes you "far right". At least according to these "progressive" knuckleheads.
Alfred Abraham, no, people with bigoted view points are called far right
@@NathanAFolefac so the left that hates everything that isnt on welfare or entitled and a victim?
@@lorenaflores6563no, if you hold bigoted views then you are probably far right.
also right wingers use the straight-white-man victim hood
But what if I want a swastica shaped cake?
I love how deep fried the thumbnail is, looks like Rubin and Rogan just smoked the world's fattest blunt
I think Kyle makes some good counter argument points but the overall message that Dave is making in the video doesn't really get framed correctly in this video. The primary argument that Dave is making is that in this specific case the owner of the bakery should have to right to not have to "create" something he is opposed to making specifically for the occasion. Dave mentions that even he agrees that the gay couple should've had the right to buy any cake that was already made and ready to go. The owner of the store shouldn't be allowed to refuse "at the moment" service, but the situation differs when the owner will be forced to create an original cake which he doesn't agree with in the first place. I think this is the point Kyle is looking over because it doesn't really align with his black vs racist counter argument he forms at the end.
Yeah Kyle seems to gloss over the fact that Dave doesn't think it was a good thing that the gay couple was denied service. His story at the end wasn't relevant to want Dave was saying about the current law.
A ignorant comment.. you advertise your service to the public, then you have an obligation to serve the public equally.. This means you have to make a cake for the gay person.. HOWEVER, this does not mean you have to make any cake the person want... but you still have to go through the motion serving the couple.. since the baker didn't do that.. he violated the state law.
it would be a different story if the gay couple asked for a design that the baker does not carry.. ie a erotic cake...
@@joeisawesome540 why don't they just go to another cake shop, pretty simple really.
@@carokann4397 why don't you sit at the back of the bus? it is pretty simple.. really.
@@joeisawesome540 yea alright, only pussies and senior citizens sit up the front haha