Another Bakery Discrimination Lawsuit

[Jimmy Higgins]

Utterly fascinating watching people defend discrimination under the guise of "freedom of association" or "freedom of speech" or "freedom of religion". It's as if they don't recognize the 20th century, let alone the 21st one.

Its worse. We're watching people defending bigotry.

Hate speech is protected speech, but some seem to think that if one likes, it should be compulsory speech as well.

If God wants a "God hates fags" cake made, he can come down and ask for it himself.

 

[Rhea]

There exists in the United States an entire economy that exists between and among private individuals. They buy and sell and associate only among those people with whom they feel comfortable. Anyone can gather together with the likeminded and conduct business. They need only keep the transactions private and legal.

I find the bakery cases fascinating. A couple's wedding is a public display of a commitment to intimacy. An invitation to participate in a wedding is more than just a business transaction, it is an invitation to participate in a sacrament.

How does one legislate such a thing?

I don't see how you can say that a cake maker is being invited to participate in a sacrament any more than the printer of the invitations is, or the taxis that bring guests, or the company that made the mother-of-the-bride's gown.

Those people sell stuff. You don't "participate in a sacrament" for money. Moreover, for many of us, marriage is not a sacrament.

One legislates business. Why? because businesses WANT the protections that government provides to businesshood. The laws that support the rights to incorporation, liability protection, business tax treatment such as the writing off of expenses.

So Businesses WANT public accommodation on themselves and their activities. In return, they are required to provide it to the public which grants them their accommodations. You want public business protections? You must serve the public, period. You must serve whatever you serve to anyone who asks. But of course you are not required to serve things that are not on your menu. Only that whatever you serve, you serve to all.

There is no sacrament here. If it were about something other than money, they would not take money, set prices, ask for tax deductions on those incomes. They would depend upon donations and claim each one as a gift at full tax rate.


But that's not what they do. They WANT the public to accommodate and endorse their business. And we do, in return for certain standards. If they don't like that public standard, they can be a private club - and get no tax deductions.

 

[dismal]

There exists in the United States an entire economy that exists between and among private individuals. They buy and sell and associate only among those people with whom they feel comfortable. Anyone can gather together with the likeminded and conduct business. They need only keep the transactions private and legal.

I find the bakery cases fascinating. A couple's wedding is a public display of a commitment to intimacy. An invitation to participate in a wedding is more than just a business transaction, it is an invitation to participate in a sacrament.

How does one legislate such a thing?

I don't see how you can say that a cake maker is being invited to participate in a sacrament any more than the printer of the invitations is, or the taxis that bring guests, or the company that made the mother-of-the-bride's gown.

Those people sell stuff. You don't "participate in a sacrament" for money. Moreover, for many of us, marriage is not a sacrament.

One legislates business. Why? because businesses WANT the protections that government provides to businesshood. The laws that support the rights to incorporation, liability protection, business tax treatment such as the writing off of expenses.

So Businesses WANT public accommodation on themselves and their activities. In return, they are required to provide it to the public which grants them their accommodations. You want public business protections? You must serve the public, period. You must serve whatever you serve to anyone who asks. But of course you are not required to serve things that are not on your menu. Only that whatever you serve, you serve to all.

There is no sacrament here. If it were about something other than money, they would not take money, set prices, ask for tax deductions on those incomes. They would depend upon donations and claim each one as a gift at full tax rate.


But that's not what they do. They WANT the public to accommodate and endorse their business. And we do, in return for certain standards. If they don't like that public standard, they can be a private club - and get no tax deductions.

So you are arguing that since the baker has held himself out as a business that serves the public he should be forced to make a "God Hates Fags" cake when the public asks for one?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't see how you can say that a cake maker is being invited to participate in a sacrament any more than the printer of the invitations is, or the taxis that bring guests, or the company that made the mother-of-the-bride's gown.

Those people sell stuff. You don't "participate in a sacrament" for money. Moreover, for many of us, marriage is not a sacrament.

One legislates business. Why? because businesses WANT the protections that government provides to businesshood. The laws that support the rights to incorporation, liability protection, business tax treatment such as the writing off of expenses.

So Businesses WANT public accommodation on themselves and their activities. In return, they are required to provide it to the public which grants them their accommodations. You want public business protections? You must serve the public, period. You must serve whatever you serve to anyone who asks. But of course you are not required to serve things that are not on your menu. Only that whatever you serve, you serve to all.

There is no sacrament here. If it were about something other than money, they would not take money, set prices, ask for tax deductions on those incomes. They would depend upon donations and claim each one as a gift at full tax rate.


But that's not what they do. They WANT the public to accommodate and endorse their business. And we do, in return for certain standards. If they don't like that public standard, they can be a private club - and get no tax deductions.

So you are arguing that since the baker has held himself out as a business that serves the public he should be forced to make a "God Hates Fags" cake when the public asks for one?

I'm pretty sure that she just explicitly argued the exact opposite.

 

[dismal]

So you are arguing that since the baker has held himself out as a business that serves the public he should be forced to make a "God Hates Fags" cake when the public asks for one?

I'm pretty sure that she just explicitly argued the exact opposite.

Where in there did you get that? I see lots of things about the public setting standards and them having to live with them if they want to run a business.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I'm pretty sure that she just explicitly argued the exact opposite.

Where in there did you get that? I see lots of things about the public setting standards and them having to live with them if they want to run a business.

She explicitly said that they're not required to serve things not on the menu. If the baker doesn't offer "God Hates Fags" cakes, then why would there be some kind of requirement to be forced to make one?

 

[dismal]

Where in there did you get that? I see lots of things about the public setting standards and them having to live with them if they want to run a business.

She explicitly said that they're not required to serve things not on the menu. If the baker doesn't offer "God Hates Fags" cakes, then why would there be some kind of requirement to be forced to make one?

In the real world, bakers do not generally have a menu with a list of messages they are willing to put on cakes. They have a slate of cakes they sell, and the customer requests the message.

So, let's assume we are talking about a real world bakery that operates in this fashion.

If a bakery has opened itself for the business of selling cakes and allowing customers to choose a message to put on the cake, wouldn't they would be required to make a "God Hates Fags" cake if a customer asks for one?

 

[maxparrish]

Why do you object to people associating with who they prefer, rather than who you prefer?

Eating at a restaurant is not "associating." It is eating. People eat often because they get hungry. Racist restaurants really deserve no quarter. We also have restaurants with dress codes which often dictate expensive attire...or whose food and bells and whistles entertainment etc. are beyond the reach of poor people. So in those cases color supposedly wouldn't matter...as long as you were rich.. In all fairness to them, their stuff is more expensive to produce. We cannot make a rule to eliminate all discrimination, but racism is one that has clear parameters and should not be allowed in a public business.

It belongs to the business owner. As his property he has the right to toss out who he pleases, for whatever reason he chooses. You have the right to not provide him your business.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

She explicitly said that they're not required to serve things not on the menu. If the baker doesn't offer "God Hates Fags" cakes, then why would there be some kind of requirement to be forced to make one?

In the real world, bakers do not generally have a menu with a list of messages they are willing to put on cakes. They have a slate of cakes they sell, and the customer requests the message.

So, let's assume we are talking about a real world bakery that operates in this fashion.

If a bakery has opened itself for the business of selling cakes and allowing customers to choose a message to put on the cake, wouldn't they would be required to make a "God Hates Fags" cake if a customer asks for one?

No, the real world would have the baker able to decide what types of messages he puts on the cake. It's within those types that discrimination would not be allowed.

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't see how you can say that a cake maker is being invited to participate in a sacrament any more than the printer of the invitations is, or the taxis that bring guests, or the company that made the mother-of-the-bride's gown.

Those people sell stuff. You don't "participate in a sacrament" for money. Moreover, for many of us, marriage is not a sacrament.

One legislates business. Why? because businesses WANT the protections that government provides to businesshood. The laws that support the rights to incorporation, liability protection, business tax treatment such as the writing off of expenses.

So Businesses WANT public accommodation on themselves and their activities. In return, they are required to provide it to the public which grants them their accommodations. You want public business protections? You must serve the public, period. You must serve whatever you serve to anyone who asks. But of course you are not required to serve things that are not on your menu. Only that whatever you serve, you serve to all.

There is no sacrament here. If it were about something other than money, they would not take money, set prices, ask for tax deductions on those incomes. They would depend upon donations and claim each one as a gift at full tax rate.


But that's not what they do. They WANT the public to accommodate and endorse their business. And we do, in return for certain standards. If they don't like that public standard, they can be a private club - and get no tax deductions.

So you are arguing that since the baker has held himself out as a business that serves the public he should be forced to make a "God Hates Fags" cake when the public asks for one?

Nope. Only that if he makes a god hates fags cake for insane cultists, that he also make one for gays. Or when he refuses to also make one for gays, after making one for the cultists, that his business license gets revoked for refusing to be a public business. And you can just as easily replace 'God hates fags cake' with 'a 3 tiered monstrosity of sculpted fondant'.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

I only want to bake cakes lined with ricin.

Fucking government is forcing me to bake non-poisonous cakes for people (if I want to engage in commerce and be afforded all the other protections of society, to include a monetary system).

aa

So you believe non-discrimination laws are exactly like laws against murder?

No. I believe the example is exactly as idiotic and hyperbolic as the statement "The government is forcing me to make cakes I don't want to make." Both are straw men and make absolutely no sense out of context.

I know you aren't stupid enough not to understand the difference between the government using force to prevent you from making a poison cake and using force to require you to put a message you disagree with on a cake.

The government isn't 'forcing' me to do anything. Their role is in the protection of society - all of society - even the part that you hate and disagree with. To achieve that end, the government often (always) imposes limitations on your own personal individual freedoms. Whom you bake a cake for is not one of them, and never was. If you want to sell a cake, and your business is of a certain size, then you are required to maintain certain standards of fair practice.

Even then, you can still achieve the legal end of selling a hate cake by charging an exorbitant amount for attaching a message (a strategy I outlined in post number 42). To take a page from the libertarian handbook - the free market speaks where the government doesn't. If we both agree that the government needs to be consistent on the issue, I would rather they compel sales to everyone to keep the market price fair. I can't believe you would disagree with this.

aa

 

[AthenaAwakened]

There exists in the United States an entire economy that exists between and among private individuals. They buy and sell and associate only among those people with whom they feel comfortable. Anyone can gather together with the likeminded and conduct business. They need only keep the transactions private and legal.

I find the bakery cases fascinating. A couple's wedding is a public display of a commitment to intimacy. An invitation to participate in a wedding is more than just a business transaction, it is an invitation to participate in a sacrament.

How does one legislate such a thing?

I don't see how you can say that a cake maker is being invited to participate in a sacrament any more than the printer of the invitations is, or the taxis that bring guests, or the company that made the mother-of-the-bride's gown.

That's OK. My wedding is my wedding and your wedding is your wedding. You don't have agree with me about my wedding or my thoughts on any wedding. In my wedding, My mom, gramma and aunts catered, I made my own dress, my cousin did the flowers, my sister did the planning, and anyone we had to hire from outside our circle of family or friends, I had to feel good about personally. I was serious. My EX was not. I controled the wedding so the wedding was great. the marriage he had a say in, so not so much.

Those people sell stuff. You don't "participate in a sacrament" for money. Moreover, for many of us, marriage is not a sacrament.

One legislates business. Why? because businesses WANT the protections that government provides to businesshood. The laws that support the rights to incorporation, liability protection, business tax treatment such as the writing off of expenses.

So Businesses WANT public accommodation on themselves and their activities. In return, they are required to provide it to the public which grants them their accommodations. You want public business protections? You must serve the public, period. You must serve whatever you serve to anyone who asks. But of course you are not required to serve things that are not on your menu. Only that whatever you serve, you serve to all.

There is no sacrament here. If it were about something other than money, they would not take money, set prices, ask for tax deductions on those incomes. They would depend upon donations and claim each one as a gift at full tax rate.


But that's not what they do. They WANT the public to accommodate and endorse their business. And we do, in return for certain standards. If they don't like that public standard, they can be a private club - and get no tax deductions.

Why would I want someone who hates me to have anything to do with my wedding? What is to be found in making me do something for your wedding that I don't want to do?

Now understand, I am talking about mom and pop one shop bakeries. If I am a bakery conglomerate with govt contracts and stores in all fifty states, then I don't have the luxury of retreating into the personal. Corporations aren't persons.

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't see how you can say that a cake maker is being invited to participate in a sacrament any more than the printer of the invitations is, or the taxis that bring guests, or the company that made the mother-of-the-bride's gown.

That's OK. My wedding is my wedding and your wedding is your wedding. You don't have agree with me about my wedding or my thoughts on any wedding. In my wedding, My mom, gramma and aunts catered, I made my own dress, my cousin did the flowers, my sister did the planning, and anyone we had to hire from outside our circle of family or friends, I had to feel good about personally. I was serious. My EX was not. I controled the wedding so the wedding was great. the marriage he had a say in, so not so much.

Those people sell stuff. You don't "participate in a sacrament" for money. Moreover, for many of us, marriage is not a sacrament.

One legislates business. Why? because businesses WANT the protections that government provides to businesshood. The laws that support the rights to incorporation, liability protection, business tax treatment such as the writing off of expenses.

So Businesses WANT public accommodation on themselves and their activities. In return, they are required to provide it to the public which grants them their accommodations. You want public business protections? You must serve the public, period. You must serve whatever you serve to anyone who asks. But of course you are not required to serve things that are not on your menu. Only that whatever you serve, you serve to all.

There is no sacrament here. If it were about something other than money, they would not take money, set prices, ask for tax deductions on those incomes. They would depend upon donations and claim each one as a gift at full tax rate.


But that's not what they do. They WANT the public to accommodate and endorse their business. And we do, in return for certain standards. If they don't like that public standard, they can be a private club - and get no tax deductions.

Why would I want someone who hates me to have anything to do with my wedding? What is to be found in making me do something for your wedding that I don't want to do?

Now understand, I am talking about mom and pop one shop bakeries. If I am a bakery conglomerate with govt contracts and stores in all fifty states, then I don't have the luxury of retreating into the personal. Corporations aren't persons.

I beg to differ. It's as much, if not more about one shop mom and pop stores. Because where there is only one bakery, it damn well better be a bakery willing to serve the needs of the entire community. If they won't, then it's the responsibility of government to open the niche again and again until someone so willing steps in.

 

[fromderinside]

She explicitly said that they're not required to serve things not on the menu. If the baker doesn't offer "God Hates Fags" cakes, then why would there be some kind of requirement to be forced to make one?

In the real world, bakers do not generally have a menu with a list of messages they are willing to put on cakes. They have a slate of cakes they sell, and the customer requests the message.

So, let's assume we are talking about a real world bakery that operates in this fashion.

If a bakery has opened itself for the business of selling cakes and allowing customers to choose a message to put on the cake, wouldn't they would be required to make a "God Hates Fags" cake if a customer asks for one?

Real world. The one making the message on the cake objects to the message on religious grounds. The baker only has to tell the potential customer that his employees refused to so inscribe the cake and he can't force them to do so. However if the customer wants to the baker's stuff to make the inscription I'm sure the baker would be glad to let him do it under a regulator's personal supervision for use of tools and space.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

That's OK. My wedding is my wedding and your wedding is your wedding. You don't have agree with me about my wedding or my thoughts on any wedding. In my wedding, My mom, gramma and aunts catered, I made my own dress, my cousin did the flowers, my sister did the planning, and anyone we had to hire from outside our circle of family or friends, I had to feel good about personally. I was serious. My EX was not. I controled the wedding so the wedding was great. the marriage he had a say in, so not so much.

Those people sell stuff. You don't "participate in a sacrament" for money. Moreover, for many of us, marriage is not a sacrament.

One legislates business. Why? because businesses WANT the protections that government provides to businesshood. The laws that support the rights to incorporation, liability protection, business tax treatment such as the writing off of expenses.

So Businesses WANT public accommodation on themselves and their activities. In return, they are required to provide it to the public which grants them their accommodations. You want public business protections? You must serve the public, period. You must serve whatever you serve to anyone who asks. But of course you are not required to serve things that are not on your menu. Only that whatever you serve, you serve to all.

There is no sacrament here. If it were about something other than money, they would not take money, set prices, ask for tax deductions on those incomes. They would depend upon donations and claim each one as a gift at full tax rate.


But that's not what they do. They WANT the public to accommodate and endorse their business. And we do, in return for certain standards. If they don't like that public standard, they can be a private club - and get no tax deductions.

Why would I want someone who hates me to have anything to do with my wedding? What is to be found in making me do something for your wedding that I don't want to do?

Now understand, I am talking about mom and pop one shop bakeries. If I am a bakery conglomerate with govt contracts and stores in all fifty states, then I don't have the luxury of retreating into the personal. Corporations aren't persons.

I beg to differ. It's as much, if not more about one shop mom and pop stores. Because where there is only one bakery, it damn well better be a bakery willing to serve the needs of the entire community. If they won't, then it's the responsibility of government to open the niche again and again until someone so willing steps in.

Should the government force a Mrs. Murphy to rent a room in her home to someone she personally finds distasteful?

Should govt hold a company with 25 employees, no interstate trade and no govt contracts to the same standard as a corporation with 250,000 employees, international trade and govt granted monopoly powers in a given industry?

 

[maxparrish]

There exists in the United States an entire economy that exists between and among private individuals. They buy and sell and associate only among those people with whom they feel comfortable. Anyone can gather together with the likeminded and conduct business. They need only keep the transactions private and legal.

I find the bakery cases fascinating. A couple's wedding is a public display of a commitment to intimacy. An invitation to participate in a wedding is more than just a business transaction, it is an invitation to participate in a sacrament.

How does one legislate such a thing?

I don't see how you can say that a cake maker is being invited to participate in a sacrament any more than the printer of the invitations is, or the taxis that bring guests, or the company that made the mother-of-the-bride's gown.

Those people sell stuff. You don't "participate in a sacrament" for money. Moreover, for many of us, marriage is not a sacrament. There is no sacrament here. If it were about something other than money, they would not take money, set prices, ask for tax deductions on those incomes. They would depend upon donations and claim each one as a gift at full tax rate.

It's not relevant to the motives of the baker that some marrying persons don't see matrimony as a sacrament, any more than it is relevant to a Quaker (conscientious objectors) that some persons going to war don't see war as immoral. It is only relevant that the baker or objector sincerely believes that participation in promoting or supporting that activity is deeply immoral. And they refuse to do so.

In the case of the baker, he is being asked to create and make a wedding cake. For example, he might have been requested to provide:

Wedding cakes are not a "stock" item one sells over counter as a cupcake. They require an artistic creation that honors a message of romance, commitment and approval. Depending on the tiers, they require many days of baking and construction. They are usually "custom" to the wants of the client.

While I happen to believe no man or woman is entitled to a cake (or cupcake) unless both the buyer and seller are willing, they are certainly not entitled to order a free person to create and covey a political, cultural, or religious (or anti-religious) sentiment because they wave a wad of money about.

The creation of a custom cake is a form of art, intended to convey a message - it is not a blueberry muffin. Like all forms of expression in the fine arts (dancing, singing, art, drama) it conveys a message and qualifies for protection as protected speech. This is different than other wedding-related businesses (e.g. Hotels, Limo drivers, etc.).

The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled in Wooly v. Maynard that speech or expression compulsions (the government forcing people to speak or convey a message) are just as unconstitutional as speech restrictions. The First Amendment “includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all.” Moreover, unlike true cases of public accommodation, there are abundant opportunities to choose other bakers in the same area.

Had, for example, baker and client actually discussed the purchase of an over-the-counter or generic cake that conveyed no expression of approval or support for gay marriage, if the baker still refused there would be (under the law) at least a plausible basis of complaint. However, no one should be compelled to create custom cakes they convey support and approval for cat-dog, human-dog, gay or polygamous, marriage. I am sure there are various pet stores, reformed LDS mail order outlets, as well as gay bath houses and porn shops that can furnish the cakes and toppings they may need.

 

[Rhea]

Should the government force a Mrs. Murphy to rent a room in her home to someone she personally finds distasteful?

The Mrs. Murphy exception is because she would be living with the sale day in and day out.
You seem to be conflating the "customer will be intimate in my space" (Mrs. Murphy) with "I will be intimate in customer's space" (invited to the sacrament) and I don't see how you can argue either way that a cake-maker is required to be intimate in the customer's space OR that the customer is in teh baker's intimate space. You make a cake, it goes away. Maybe the customer wants you in the wedding space, but usually not.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Should govt hold a company with 25 employees, no interstate trade and no govt contracts to the same standard as a corporation with 250,000 employees, international trade and govt granted monopoly powers in a given industry?

Well, not ones which don't relate to businesses of their size, but in terms of anti-discrimination measures, they should apply equally.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Should the government force a Mrs. Murphy to rent a room in her home to someone she personally finds distasteful?

The Mrs. Murphy exception is because she would be living with the sale day in and day out.
You seem to be conflating the "customer will be intimate in my space" (Mrs. Murphy) with "I will be intimate in customer's space" (invited to the sacrament) and I don't see how you can argue either way that a cake-maker is required to be intimate in the customer's space OR that the customer is in teh baker's intimate space. You make a cake, it goes away. Maybe the customer wants you in the wedding space, but usually not.

No, that is not my intention. Exceptions are made to very good laws because in unusual circumstances even good laws can cause injustice.

personally, I find weddings to be highly personal things. So too are ones beliefs on the subject. Now when my cousin Caroline and her then fiance Bill moved to CA because their impending marriage would not be recognized in the 1963 NC, that was an injustice. The law was then changed from a bad law to good law. This however did not mean that every citizen in Wilmington had to then invite this lovely couple into their homes or even treat them nicely in public.People have the right to be assholes, the more personal the sphere, the bigger the asshole people get to be.

The argument is many layered with strong arguments on both sides, but included in that argument is just what is society's determination of the sanctity of free expression and what are a citizens duties with respect to bakeries, cakes, and pastries.

 

[maxparrish]

I know you aren't stupid enough not to understand the difference between the government using force to prevent you from making a poison cake and using force to require you to put a message you disagree with on a cake.

The government isn't 'forcing' me to do anything. Their role is in the protection of society - all of society - even the part that you hate and disagree with. To achieve that end, the government often (always) imposes limitations on your own personal individual freedoms. (emphasis added) Whom you bake a cake for is not one of them, and never was. If you want to sell a cake, and your business is of a certain size, then you are required to maintain certain standards of fair practice.

Even then, you can still achieve the legal end of selling a hate cake by charging an exorbitant amount for attaching a message (a strategy I outlined in post number 42). To take a page from the libertarian handbook - the free market speaks where the government doesn't. If we both agree that the government needs to be consistent on the issue, I would rather they compel sales to everyone to keep the market price fair. I can't believe you would disagree with this.

aa

There's a whole lot of question begging and opaque terminology go'in on hear. The "role" of the government is to protect society from WHAT, society's universal membership having a right of free expression, freedom to associate, free contract or freedom of conscious? In fact, some folks might recall that the purpose and role of government is to actually secure the blessings of liberty FOR society, not to "protect it" from freedom. Or are you saying it is the role of society to "protect" a gay couple's right to force a baker to create and make them a wedding cake?

You don't need a "strategy" to dodge the intentional humiliation and bringing to heel of anyone who personally does not want to participate in your point of view, you need to have have a coherent philosophy - you know, like a demonstration of the public 'tolerance' that the rainbow huggers keep insisting on.