Another Bakery Discrimination Lawsuit

[maxparrish]

Ergo, if a customer orders a cake that says "god hates fags" the baker must make it?

Yes.

People who are paid to do a job must do their job. People who provide a commercial service must provide that service.

Discrimination on significant grounds may be permitted - a bar can refuse to sell liquor to drunks or minors, for example - but messengers cannot discriminate against customers based on the content of the message, any more than a bar can discriminate on the basis of skin colour.

So far the totality of your argument has been "people must do what bilby says they must do". Why must people who trade their labor for pay provide that service for every person who might wish to hire them? Isn't that called involuntary servitude?

There is NO DOUBT about the message the couple wanted conveyed, so the only remaining rationalization you proffer could be that the law can and should force people to convey messages that they disagree with because it is "not theirs". If so, then:

- A press agent or ad writer that is approached by the Aryan Nations Church to convey their "message" must do so or be charged with religious discrimination?
- A gay baker, if asked, must create a cake celebrating the Westboro Baptist Church?
- An actor or singer must, if approached for an event, sing the hymns of a fundamentalist religion?
- An atheist photographer, sculptor, or artist must make an abstract creation for a religious person's "message" or suffer a charge of discrimination?

Other than the fact you don't care about free speech, you have told us nothing.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

My goodness, anyone who knows wedding cake making KNOWs that the medium is most certainly the message, that's why they call it a "wedding cake". I assume you know the expression conveyed, but if not feel free to consult a dictionary, it is " an usually elaborately decorated and tiered cake made for the celebration of a wedding".

Quite right, WU in the telegraphy of text and ATT for voiced words are not generally responsible, nor is Kitchen Aide or Pillsbury responsible for the creation of a baker's symbolic message. But if you ask someone using that equipment to compose a message for you OF COURSE they are viewed the author/creators of that message.

This is a good point. It would be one thing to refuse to bake any cake for this couple because they are gay. It would be another thing to refuse to bake a WEDDING cake for this couple that clearly indicates celebration of a marriage of a gay couple.

It is like the difference between refusing to serve black people in your restaurant, and refusing to cook them what they want but isn't on your menu.

 

[laughing dog]

My goodness, anyone who knows wedding cake making KNOWs that the medium is most certainly the message, that's why they call it a "wedding cake". I assume you know the expression conveyed, but if not feel free to consult a dictionary, it is " an usually elaborately decorated and tiered cake made for the celebration of a wedding".

Quite right, WU in the telegraphy of text and ATT for voiced words are not generally responsible, nor is Kitchen Aide or Pillsbury responsible for the creation of a baker's symbolic message. But if you ask someone using that equipment to compose a message for you OF COURSE they are viewed the author/creators of that message.

This is a good point. It would be one thing to refuse to bake any cake for this couple because they are gay. It would be another thing to refuse to bake a WEDDING cake for this couple that clearly indicates celebration of a marriage of a gay couple.

It is like the difference between refusing to serve black people in your restaurant, and refusing to cook them what they want but isn't on your menu.

No, it isn't. Clearly in this case, a wedding cake is on the menu. Or you under the impression that gay wedding cakes are inherently different?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

My goodness, anyone who knows wedding cake making KNOWs that the medium is most certainly the message, that's why they call it a "wedding cake". I assume you know the expression conveyed, but if not feel free to consult a dictionary, it is " an usually elaborately decorated and tiered cake made for the celebration of a wedding".

Quite right, WU in the telegraphy of text and ATT for voiced words are not generally responsible, nor is Kitchen Aide or Pillsbury responsible for the creation of a baker's symbolic message. But if you ask someone using that equipment to compose a message for you OF COURSE they are viewed the author/creators of that message.

This is a good point. It would be one thing to refuse to bake any cake for this couple because they are gay. It would be another thing to refuse to bake a WEDDING cake for this couple that clearly indicates celebration of a marriage of a gay couple.

A wedding cake can say nothing on it. It is as much a decoration as it is something to be eaten.

What is being compared here is a typical industrial cake (wedding cake) and a normal cake with a hateful epitaph on it.

Cake shops typically offer wedding cakes. They will have different cake recipes, different designs, etc... They will probably have a book just for the wedding cakes to show what they can make. Cake shops typically do not offer hate epitaph cakes. They don't advertise them, they don't have special cross burning cakes, swastika cakes, etc...

A person walking into a cake shop will have a reasonable expectation that they make wedding cakes. They may not, could be too high skilled. Almost no person walks into a cake shop hoping that they carry a good design that shows the burning of Sodom and a caption "God Hates Fags". So in the original case, we had a couple go to a cake store, expecting to be able to purchase a wedding cake. The owner refused because they think there is a section of two in the Old Testament that isn't redacted by the New Testament and that making that cake would lead them to burning in hell or something. Religious intolerance is the source of the refusal.

The other case involves a person that was trying to "make a point", and most likely certain they wouldn't find a cake shop anywhere that would make such a "decorated" cake. Tolerance was the reason for the refusal.

There is a notable difference here.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

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.

"question begging?" I don't think that means what you think it means.

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?

Society already has those things - we consider them inherent rights. Government protects those rights. Nowhere, btw, is there a 'right to make money'.

In the role of commerce, government protects consumers from unfair trade practices - to include discrimination. It also protects employees from unfair employment practice. And sorry, Max, you have no right to sell poison cakes - the government will step in there as well.

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?

This is hilarious. What about 'securing the blessings of liberty' for the gay couple who, much to your dismay, are part of society. Or do you only consider society people you agree with.

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,

Right, only you get to do that apparently.

you need to have have a coherent philosophy - you know, like a demonstration of the public 'tolerance' that the rainbow huggers keep insisting on.

The strategy is coherent, just one you may not comprehend. If you are a commercial enterprise of a certain size, you sell your product to everyone and don't discriminate and if you perceive a higher expense of doing business with a certain class of character, you charge for it.

aa

 

[SimpleDon]

<snip>​

I don't look for solutions in politics anymore, this country is too far gone for that. But I do look for entertainment. And this has provided it.

No. An anarchist who declares that they have finally lost their faith in government to solve problems and expects it to surprise anyone. That is entertainment.

The problem with Millian "negative" freedom as a governing principle is that it is based on individuals' rights verses a cartoon of government that is organized for the purpose of squashing those rights, ignoring that one of the fundamental reasons for government is to resolve the conflicts that occur between individuals, to arbitrate when the rights of individuals clash.

That is all that is happening here. There is a conflict of individual rights. Government is trying to resolve it the best that it can. Yes, the resolution offends you Millians. But you offer no solution to resolve the conflicts between individuals and their rights, their desires, and those of other individuals.

The most obvious example is criminal behavior. Individuals feel that it is within their rights to for example, steal the property of others. How does this fit into a world of negative freedom without a government? Obviously it doesn't, we need government to try to prevent crime by punishing it.

This "cake problem" is not a crime. It is a simple matter that your mother could explain to you. It is really based on nothing more than good manners in polite society. Yes, you have the right to be a bigot. It is, however, impolite to force other people to help you in the public display of your bigotry.

Yes, until recently bigotry against homosexuals was perfectly acceptable in polite society. You could, if you wanted to, freely express your bigotry against homosexuals in public. But society has changed. It is no longer acceptable. You might not agree with the change, but you have to come up with a better reason to rollback the clock than that it infringes on your right to exercise your bigotry in public. (editorial "you." I don't know if you are a homophobe or not. I don't want to know. I don't care.)

Yes, it is an expression of the "oppression of the majority." Yes, it is in pursuit of the greater good. "Negative" freedom (aka "negative" liberty) is letting everyone to do whatever they want, unless it infringes on another's rights. That is what we are doing, allowing the majority to determine where the line is drawn. To define what is infringing on another's rights.

The option to the "oppression of the majority" isn't greater individual freedom, it is oppression by a smaller minority, what you are doing by withdrawing from politics. You may have given up on politics to solve problems, but you have done so without presenting any a meaningful alternative to resolve the collision of individuals' rights.

Yes, government can be used to suppress the rights of individuals. History provides us with far too many examples of this. But this is a reason to work hard to produce the best government that we can, not to abandon government, to give up on it.

 

[bilby]

Corporate personhood is an insane concept.

A corporate entity - a business - is NOT a person, and cannot find anything repulsive, any more than it can fall in love.

it may very well be insane, but it is a real thing and its consequences go a lot further than a groom's cake and frosting.

It's not a real thing - it's a legal fiction (and one that applies only in the USA - 95% of the world population are not in that jurisdiction, and don't have to share in the insanity even on a legal level).

I remain hopeful that one day, the painfully slow process of dragging US law into some kind of relationship with reality will cause this idiocy to be cast aside once and for all. I am not, however, going to hold my breath.

 

[bilby]

Yes.

People who are paid to do a job must do their job. People who provide a commercial service must provide that service.

Discrimination on significant grounds may be permitted - a bar can refuse to sell liquor to drunks or minors, for example - but messengers cannot discriminate against customers based on the content of the message, any more than a bar can discriminate on the basis of skin colour.

So far the totality of your argument has been "people must do what bilby says they must do". Why must people who trade their labor for pay provide that service for every person who might wish to hire them? Isn't that called involuntary servitude?

Nope, it's called non-discrimination in business. Nobody is forced to run a business; but once they do run a business, they are forced to obey a huge number of rules - about any number of things: book-keeping, non-discrimination, employee health and safety, taxation, labelling, health inspections, etc., etc. If they don't like the rules, they are free to choose not to run a business.

There is NO DOUBT about the message the couple wanted conveyed,

The message is irrelevant to the baker. If that message breaks the law - for example if it constitutes a credible threat to the life of the President - then it is the person who requested the message who is at fault. AT&T are not at fault if their wires carry illegal messages. They have neither the duty, nor the right, to censor their customers.

so the only remaining rationalization you proffer could be reason for what you are saying is

Fixed that for you. I am sure you didn't intend to poison the well

that the law can and should force people to convey messages that they disagree with because it is "not theirs".

Indeed. I am pretty sure I have made that abundantly clear. In fact, I am not sure how I could possibly make it any clearer that this is exactly what I am saying.

If so, then:

- A press agent or ad writer that is approached by the Aryan Nations Church to convey their "message" must do so or be charged with religious discrimination?

Yes. However if they are aware that the message contravenes any law against inciting violence or 'hate speech', they have a duty of care to warn the person requesting this that he may face legal repercussions.

- A gay baker, if asked, must create a cake celebrating the Westboro Baptist Church?

Yes. However if they are aware that the message contravenes any law against inciting violence or 'hate speech', they have a duty of care to warn the person requesting this that he may face legal repercussions.

- An actor or singer must, if approached for an event, sing the hymns of a fundamentalist religion?

Yes, if they are running a business that provides singing as a routine part of their services.

- An atheist photographer, sculptor, or artist must make an abstract creation for a religious person's "message" or suffer a charge of discrimination?

Yes, if they are running a business that engages in photography, sculpture or art as a routine part of their services.

Other than the fact you don't care about free speech, you have told us nothing.

Or perhaps you have understood nothing because your biases are getting in the way of your reading comprehension.

I care deeply about free speech. It is not, however, a concept that can rationally apply to a business venture, company or corporation. Free speech is for real human persons, acting on their own cognisance. If you run a business, then you have the right, as a person, to say whatever crazy shit you like - but your business does not have the right to refuse to trade with a customer for the sole reason of disliking that customer's message. That would be a contravention of the customer's free speech.

 

[RavenSky]

My goodness, anyone who knows wedding cake making KNOWs that the medium is most certainly the message, that's why they call it a "wedding cake". I assume you know the expression conveyed, but if not feel free to consult a dictionary, it is " an usually elaborately decorated and tiered cake made for the celebration of a wedding".

Quite right, WU in the telegraphy of text and ATT for voiced words are not generally responsible, nor is Kitchen Aide or Pillsbury responsible for the creation of a baker's symbolic message. But if you ask someone using that equipment to compose a message for you OF COURSE they are viewed the author/creators of that message.

This is a good point. It would be one thing to refuse to bake any cake for this couple because they are gay. It would be another thing to refuse to bake a WEDDING cake for this couple that clearly indicates celebration of a marriage of a gay couple.

It is like the difference between refusing to serve black people in your restaurant, and refusing to cook them what they want but isn't on your menu.

Please find me, in any of the cases about wedding cakes, were the issue was the baker refusing to make a cake that "clearly indicates celebration of a marriage of a gay couple." The issue in all of the cases I have previously linked was that the bakers refused to make the cake. It had nothing to do with any message on the cake (wedding cakes almost never have messages on them anyway)

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

billby, I've got to hand it to you, you are amazingly consistent. You deserve respect for that.

 

[Jarhyn]

So far the totality of your argument has been "people must do what bilby says they must do". Why must people who trade their labor for pay provide that service for every person who might wish to hire them? Isn't that called involuntary servitude?

Nope, it's called non-discrimination in business. Nobody is forced to run a business; but once they do run a business, they are forced to obey a huge number of rules - about any number of things: book-keeping, non-discrimination, employee health and safety, taxation, labelling, health inspections, etc., etc. If they don't like the rules, they are free to choose not to run a business.

There is NO DOUBT about the message the couple wanted conveyed,

The message is irrelevant to the baker. If that message breaks the law - for example if it constitutes a credible threat to the life of the President - then it is the person who requested the message who is at fault. AT&T are not at fault if their wires carry illegal messages. They have neither the duty, nor the right, to censor their customers.

so the only remaining rationalization you proffer could be reason for what you are saying is

Fixed that for you. I am sure you didn't intend to poison the well

that the law can and should force people to convey messages that they disagree with because it is "not theirs".

Indeed. I am pretty sure I have made that abundantly clear. In fact, I am not sure how I could possibly make it any clearer that this is exactly what I am saying.

If so, then:

- A press agent or ad writer that is approached by the Aryan Nations Church to convey their "message" must do so or be charged with religious discrimination?

Yes. However if they are aware that the message contravenes any law against inciting violence or 'hate speech', they have a duty of care to warn the person requesting this that he may face legal repercussions.

- A gay baker, if asked, must create a cake celebrating the Westboro Baptist Church?

Yes. However if they are aware that the message contravenes any law against inciting violence or 'hate speech', they have a duty of care to warn the person requesting this that he may face legal repercussions.

- An actor or singer must, if approached for an event, sing the hymns of a fundamentalist religion?

Yes, if they are running a business that provides singing as a routine part of their services.

- An atheist photographer, sculptor, or artist must make an abstract creation for a religious person's "message" or suffer a charge of discrimination?

Yes, if they are running a business that engages in photography, sculpture or art as a routine part of their services.

Other than the fact you don't care about free speech, you have told us nothing.

Or perhaps you have understood nothing because your biases are getting in the way of your reading comprehension.

I care deeply about free speech. It is not, however, a concept that can rationally apply to a business venture, company or corporation. Free speech is for real human persons, acting on their own cognisance. If you run a business, then you have the right, as a person, to say whatever crazy shit you like - but your business does not have the right to refuse to trade with a customer for the sole reason of disliking that customer's message. That would be a contravention of the customer's free speech.

Bilby, artists have discretion over the content of comissions, even if not over who comissions the work. A straight artist may by all rights refuse to draw gay pornography, even when they draw straight pornography. But they may not decide to sell it only to straight people, if they are a public business. This isn't controversial or difficult.

So if someone is willing to make straight wedding cakes, they need to be willing to sell them to gays. And willing to accept that gays, once they have the cake, will defile the top of the cake with dolls of their own choosing.

 

[bilby]

Nope, it's called non-discrimination in business. Nobody is forced to run a business; but once they do run a business, they are forced to obey a huge number of rules - about any number of things: book-keeping, non-discrimination, employee health and safety, taxation, labelling, health inspections, etc., etc. If they don't like the rules, they are free to choose not to run a business.

There is NO DOUBT about the message the couple wanted conveyed,

The message is irrelevant to the baker. If that message breaks the law - for example if it constitutes a credible threat to the life of the President - then it is the person who requested the message who is at fault. AT&T are not at fault if their wires carry illegal messages. They have neither the duty, nor the right, to censor their customers.

so the only remaining rationalization you proffer could be reason for what you are saying is

Fixed that for you. I am sure you didn't intend to poison the well

that the law can and should force people to convey messages that they disagree with because it is "not theirs".

Indeed. I am pretty sure I have made that abundantly clear. In fact, I am not sure how I could possibly make it any clearer that this is exactly what I am saying.

If so, then:

- A press agent or ad writer that is approached by the Aryan Nations Church to convey their "message" must do so or be charged with religious discrimination?

Yes. However if they are aware that the message contravenes any law against inciting violence or 'hate speech', they have a duty of care to warn the person requesting this that he may face legal repercussions.

- A gay baker, if asked, must create a cake celebrating the Westboro Baptist Church?

Yes. However if they are aware that the message contravenes any law against inciting violence or 'hate speech', they have a duty of care to warn the person requesting this that he may face legal repercussions.

- An actor or singer must, if approached for an event, sing the hymns of a fundamentalist religion?

Yes, if they are running a business that provides singing as a routine part of their services.

- An atheist photographer, sculptor, or artist must make an abstract creation for a religious person's "message" or suffer a charge of discrimination?

Yes, if they are running a business that engages in photography, sculpture or art as a routine part of their services.

Other than the fact you don't care about free speech, you have told us nothing.

Or perhaps you have understood nothing because your biases are getting in the way of your reading comprehension.

I care deeply about free speech. It is not, however, a concept that can rationally apply to a business venture, company or corporation. Free speech is for real human persons, acting on their own cognisance. If you run a business, then you have the right, as a person, to say whatever crazy shit you like - but your business does not have the right to refuse to trade with a customer for the sole reason of disliking that customer's message. That would be a contravention of the customer's free speech.

Bilby, artists have discretion over the content of comissions, even if not over who comissions the work.

Yes, of course. And to the extent that the artist has control of the content, he can do whatever he wants. A commission may contain specific provisions about what should and should not appear in the finished work, but the artist himself is in control of (and responsible for) all of the unspecified details. A commission is essentially a collaboration.

A straight artist may by all rights refuse to draw gay pornography, even when they draw straight pornography.

I disagree; if their business is (or includes) drawing pornography, then they should draw whatever the customer specifies. Of course, the customer may very well not like the artist's interpretation, particularly if customer and artist have very different personal beliefs on the subject, so a customer who commissions a work that the artist explicitly says he doesn't like, is a fool. But there is no law against foolishness*.

But they may not decide to sell it only to straight people, if they are a public business. This isn't controversial or difficult.

Absolutely. A finished artwork, regardless of its subject, can be sold to the highest bidder, or to the first customer to come up with the marked price (unless there is a pre-existing contract, as may well be the case for commissioned work); the artist cannot refuse to sell it to a customer based solely on the customer's sexuality, gender, skin colour etc.

So if someone is willing to make straight wedding cakes, they need to be willing to sell them to gays. And willing to accept that gays, once they have the cake, will defile the top of the cake with dolls of their own choosing.

Of course. Once a customer buys a cake (or a work of art), he can do with it as he pleases. The artist has no rights over his work, once it is sold.












*Although this may change, as I am lobbying my MLA to introduce a draft 'Being Bloody Stupid (Prohibitions)' bill during the next parliamentary term.

 

[Underseer]

Christian files discrimination lawsuit over cake

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...aker-refuses-to-write-god-hates-gays-on-cake/

Oh no! The Christians are being persecuted again! A Christian asked a baker to write something hateful about homosexuals on a cake and the baker refused! This is clear evidence that Christians are being persecuted! When will the oppression ever end?

 

[maxparrish]

This is a good point. It would be one thing to refuse to bake any cake for this couple because they are gay. It would be another thing to refuse to bake a WEDDING cake for this couple that clearly indicates celebration of a marriage of a gay couple.

It is like the difference between refusing to serve black people in your restaurant, and refusing to cook them what they want but isn't on your menu.

Please find me, in any of the cases about wedding cakes, were the issue was the baker refusing to make a cake that "clearly indicates celebration of a marriage of a gay couple." The issue in all of the cases I have previously linked was that the bakers refused to make the cake. It had nothing to do with any message on the cake (wedding cakes almost never have messages on them anyway)

You know, after three days even a red herring begins to reek. Let's bury it once and for all - this has nothing to do with a 'text message' on a cake and NO ONE is claiming it does. It is 100 percent acknowledged that it is possible but unlikely that the gay couple would have wanted a word or phrase on the cake. Agreed?

Rather, as far as we can tell from the court summary, it is about a request of a baker to both create and bake a "wedding cake" for the celebration of wedding of two same sex individuals. There is no doubt that he declined to sell his creative services, labor, and material to make them a wedding cake. However it has not been shown that he refused to sell them "any cake". In fact according to the "findings of fact" he offered to make them any cake they like, other than a wedding cake for their non-legal (in Colorado) same sex "marriage".

Let's quote it again: http://www.adfmedia.org/files/MasterpieceDecision.pdf

Findings of Fact

The following facts are undisputed:


3. Among other baked products, Respondents create and sell wedding cakes.

4. On July 19, 2012, Complainants Charlie Craig and David Mullins entered Masterpiece Cakeshop in the company of Mr. Craig’s mother, Deborah Munn.

5. Complainants sat down with Phillips at the cake consulting table. They introduced themselves as “David” and “Charlie” and said that they wanted a wedding cake for “our wedding.”

6. Phillips informed Complainants that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. Phillips told the men, “I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.”

There are only a three relevant questions:

1) Was the refusal to create, bake and sell a wedding cake "because" the clients were homosexual or "because of" other reasons ?
2) Is a government law that coerces the baker to create and sell them a wedding cake a form of compelled speech ?
3) If so, then does the baker's fundamental right of free speech or free exercise of religion or free contract morally outweigh the "right" of the government making someone create a gay couple a wedding cake?

Until you acknowledge the underlying findings of facts of the case, any claims you make are moored to a fiction.

 

[TSwizzle]

Where does the baker stand if somebody wants a cake to be shaped like male genitals with the words "Suck My Balls" frosted down the length of it ? I saw a picture of Miley Cyrus with such a cake and wondered where she got it. Can the baker refuse ?

 

[maxparrish]

This is a good point. It would be one thing to refuse to bake any cake for this couple because they are gay. It would be another thing to refuse to bake a WEDDING cake for this couple that clearly indicates celebration of a marriage of a gay couple.

A wedding cake can say nothing on it. It is as much a decoration as it is something to be eaten.

What is being compared here is a typical industrial cake (wedding cake) and a normal cake with a hateful epitaph on it. ...

...So in the original case, we had a couple go to a cake store, expecting to be able to purchase a wedding cake. The owner refused because they think there is a section of two in the Old Testament that isn't redacted by the New Testament and that making that cake would lead them to burning in hell or something. Religious intolerance is the source of the refusal.

The other case involves a person that was trying to "make a point", and most likely certain they wouldn't find a cake shop anywhere that would make such a "decorated" cake. Tolerance was the reason for the refusal.

There is a notable difference here.

Except that your observation of a "notable difference" is based on a mistaken understanding of the facts. As I explained to Ravensky (my prior post), these are the facts.

1) "In the original case" we had a couple go to a bakery, asking if the baker would create a wedding cake to celibate their "marriage", a "special occasion". The baker refused because he does not create wedding cakes for same sex "marriage" celebrations. He considers it a sin, and a form of compelled symbolic support for a cultural practice he opposes.

2) In the other case a fellow also wanted a special occasion cake, only this one had a literal message.

The only difference is that the first case is one of coerced expression, the second of coerced speech.

 

[dx713]

The artist has no rights over his work, once it is sold.

Not agreeing with you here. An artist retains "author rights" to his creation.
We need to have distinct rules for art and business.

An artist generally has a message, and I find it logical that he might want to object uses of his work that contradict his message.
For instance, Rage Against the Machine having the right to forbid the use of their songs as a mean of torture in Guantanamo, or, to go in a less godwinesque direction, Bruce Springteen having the right to forbid the use of Born in the USA for a Republican convention, would be / is (not sure where the law exaclty is currently on this, although author rights are a thing) a good thing to me.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

it may very well be insane, but it is a real thing and its consequences go a lot further than a groom's cake and frosting.

It's not a real thing - it's a legal fiction (and one that applies only in the USA - 95% of the world population are not in that jurisdiction, and don't have to share in the insanity even on a legal level).

I remain hopeful that one day, the painfully slow process of dragging US law into some kind of relationship with reality will cause this idiocy to be cast aside once and for all. I am not, however, going to hold my breath.

The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are not real, but belief in them is. Behaviors of millions of people dictated by that belief are real. And the treating corporations as people is real. You don't have to accept it as real because you don't live here, but I do, so don't tell me it's not real. I am the living with the consequences and if people here take your stand that corporate personhood is not real, how can we get rid of it?

Corporate personhood is WRONG and should be ENDED, like Jim Crown and the legal second class status of women kinda were.

 

[Jarhyn]

Max, how many times does it need to be pointed out that your use of 'force' is in appropriate?

To force someone to make a cake is to sit them down in front of ingredients and then abuse them until there is a cake.

The baker has a great many choices, but a limited set of choices as he has previously chosen to make cakes publicly for profit.

He can choose not to make cakes at all. How is this being forced to make a cake, when he can clearly choose not to make the cake? It's pretty much the opposite of 'being forced to make a cake'.

He can choose to make the cake. But then it's not him being forced, it's his choice.

He can chose not to make the cake but make cakes for others not-for-profit, or as part of a private cake baking club.

The one thing the government is forcing him to do is surrender his economic niche, IF he refuses the basic rules of neutrality that are laid out for public businesses. that is not forcing him to make cakes. It is not forcing him to not make cakes. It is only and exactly revokin his privilege of running a public for-profit business.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A wedding cake can say nothing on it. It is as much a decoration as it is something to be eaten.

What is being compared here is a typical industrial cake (wedding cake) and a normal cake with a hateful epitaph on it. ...

...So in the original case, we had a couple go to a cake store, expecting to be able to purchase a wedding cake. The owner refused because they think there is a section of two in the Old Testament that isn't redacted by the New Testament and that making that cake would lead them to burning in hell or something. Religious intolerance is the source of the refusal.

The other case involves a person that was trying to "make a point", and most likely certain they wouldn't find a cake shop anywhere that would make such a "decorated" cake. Tolerance was the reason for the refusal.

There is a notable difference here.

Except that your observation of a "notable difference" is based on a mistaken understanding of the facts. As I explained to Ravensky (my prior post), these are the facts.

1) "In the original case" we had a couple go to a bakery, asking if the baker would create a wedding cake to celibate their "marriage", a "special occasion". The baker refused because he does not create wedding cakes for same sex "marriage" celebrations. He considers it a sin, and a form of compelled symbolic support for a cultural practice he opposes.

Lack of service due to intolerance.

2) In the other case a fellow also wanted a special occasion cake, only this one had a literal message.

Actually, they wanted a cake shaped like a Bible with a hate message put on it. The cake store owner would make the Bible cake, but not put the message on it, refusing intolerance.

The only difference is that the first case is one of coerced expression, the second of coerced speech.

No, one is about a shop owner refusing to make a wedding cake, the other was about an owner refusing to put a hate message on a cake.