• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Another Bakery Discrimination Lawsuit

Jason Harvestdancer

Contributor
Joined
Oct 23, 2005
Messages
7,833
Location
Lots of planets have a North
Basic Beliefs
Wiccan
Man Files Religious Discrimination Complaint Over Bakery’s Refusal to Make Anti-Gay Cake - Does it matter, under the law, whether the baker agrees with the sentiment?

It was only a matter of time before it actually happened. In Colorado, where Masterpiece Cakeshop has been cited by the state for refusing to make wedding cakes for gay couples, a man has filed a complaint with the state that a different bakery has refused to make him a cake, violating public accommodation laws. In this case, though, the man claims religious discrimination for a bakery's refusal to make a cake that's not quite so love-affirming.

Out Front Colorado spoke with Marjorie Silva, the owner of Azucar Bakery in Denver. Here's what happened:

The gentleman took a seat at one of the tables as the team served him free samples and began building his order. He swiped through pics of Bible cakes on the iPad they presented him, and it appeared he'd found the perfect fit. It was only when he produced a leaf of paper from his pocket — careful not to release it to any of the attending employees, but simply brandishing it for them to read before returning it to his pocket — that the order "got a little uncomfortable," says Lindsay.

"He wanted us to write God hates …" she trails. "Just really radical stuff against gays."

"He wouldn't allow me to make a copy of the message, but it was really hateful," Marjorie adds. "I remember the words detestable, disgrace, homosexuality, and sinners."

The bakery says they didn't entirely refuse him service. They would make a cake for him and provide him a decorating bag with icing to decorate the cake himself. It wouldn't look as good obviously, but as Silva points out, it wouldn't require her to include a "hateful message crafted by her own hands."

Not good enough for this gentleman, who apparently kept coming back and asking over and over, which was a dumb thing of him to do. He eventually left for good, and then filed a complaint with Colorado's Department of Regulatory Agencies, which is now investigating Azucar Bakery just as they did Masterpiece Cakeshop.

A look at Colorado's laws shows that their public accommodation rules don't directly include "religion" as a protected class but do include "creed." Silva said she wasn't sure whether her decision was the right one legally. I guess we'll find out, won't we?

Running through the story is a near-hilarious sort of disbelief that somebody would ask for an anti-gay cake and confusion at the idea that they should have to make it. One interesting detail about the bakery's interaction with this gentleman that's worthy of note:

[Silva] says that one of her guests misheard the confrontation and thought Marjorie was refusing to bake a gay wedding cake. Exhausted, she reassured the patron that he was mistaken and that she would never do such a thing.

Why, it's almost as though consumers might treat a bakery's decision whether to make a cake for a gay wedding by itself as an indication of some sort of political position of support or lack of support for gay marriage. Like the bakery was taking a stand, or expressing an opinion.

And none of this would be happening, of course, if we all agreed that nobody has a legal right to cake.

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.
 
It's an interesting question. Does someone have the legal right to force another person to write something the other person would not choose to write if given the choice? How far does the right of free speech extend, and at what point can a person refuse to speechify for someone else?

I think bakeries should be allowed to refuse services to customers if the owners and employees don't want to be associated with their activities or their message. Whether it's a cake for a same-sex wedding, or a rally for the KKK, I think businesses should be allowed some choice in the matter. And I think "we'll provide the cake and the icing, you write the message" is a reasonable accommodation.

Perhaps the answer is to require bakeries to provide the cakes to any and all who pay for the product, but it's up to the customer to personalize them.
 
I don't see how the bakery can be expected to write any message if the "customer" refuses to provide them with what he wanted written in the first place.
 
Hate speech and negative messages should be considered their own category. If a company doesn't want to associate themselves with that, it's a different question than if they don't want to associate themselves with something else.
 
The, here's an icing squirter, do it yourself, doesn't work. There are other companies where this is not possible. Could this not been an issue with event planners (think requested theme) or custom print companies? Seems to me a company can draw a line on what they will and will not do as their good name is associated with it. As long as the business owner can say, it puts my company's name in a negative light, they can refuse a customer's request.

Cake, like personalized license plates is not a right, it's a privilege.
 
How do you draw the line between discriminating against the person vs disassociating one's company from the message?
 
How do you draw the line between discriminating against the person vs disassociating one's company from the message?

How indeed. I don't know where to draw the line, but I can't see how forcing a cake decorator to write out hate speech is what religious freedom is all about.
 
So, the last time we had this discussion it was more or less split into a camp that said "a bakery owner should be free to refuse service to anyone" and a camp that said "if you hold yourself out to the public as a bakery you may not reject business based on your personal values".

Sounds like now it's morphing into "if you hold yourself out to the public as a bakery you may not reject business based on your personal values unless I agree with your personal values".
 
Is this synonymous? Did the bakery originally refuse to make a wedding cake at all, verses this other bakery will make a cake, but won't decorate it with the desired language?
 
The bakery should have made him his cake out of shit.

And if the roles had been reversed (gay customer bigoted baker) would you still hold that position? Or is dismal right about how the argument has morphed?
A shitty message deserves a shitty cake in support. As for the argument morphing, there is a significant difference between refusing to supply a cake and refusing to supply a message on a cake.
 
The bakery should have made him his cake out of shit.
And if the roles had been reversed (gay customer bigoted baker) would you still hold that position? Or is dismal right about how the argument has morphed?
Has the argument actually morphed? Is this another case of False Equivalency?

Gay couple wanted a wedding cake. Company didn't do it because they were gay.
Jackass wants a hate cake. Company didn't do it because they don't do that sort of thing.

The gay couple wanted was is considered a typical service from a cake company. They didn't ask for a discriminatory cake design. Had the gay couple asked for a "No illegal immigrants cake", we'd have more of an equivalency.
 
And if the roles had been reversed (gay customer bigoted baker) would you still hold that position? Or is dismal right about how the argument has morphed?
Has the argument actually morphed? Is this another case of False Equivalency?

Gay couple wanted a wedding cake. Company didn't do it because they were gay.
Jackass wants a hate cake. Company didn't do it because they don't do that sort of thing.

The gay couple wanted was is considered a typical service from a cake company. They didn't ask for a discriminatory cake design. Had the gay couple asked for a "No illegal immigrants cake", we'd have more of an equivalency.

You appear to be making a differentiation solely based on the content of the message. This is known as "viewpoint discrimination".

I'm pretty sure it's still legal in this country to say "God hates gays".
 
Has the argument actually morphed? Is this another case of False Equivalency?

Gay couple wanted a wedding cake. Company didn't do it because they were gay.
Jackass wants a hate cake. Company didn't do it because they don't do that sort of thing.

The gay couple wanted was is considered a typical service from a cake company. They didn't ask for a discriminatory cake design. Had the gay couple asked for a "No illegal immigrants cake", we'd have more of an equivalency.

You appear to be making a differentiation solely based on the content of the message. This is known as "viewpoint discrimination".

I'm pretty sure it's still legal in this country to say "God hates gays".
Are you arguing that a company must provide anything that is legal? Because that is untrue.
 
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.
Solutions in politics? Did you really say that, aside from the fact that the guy is obviously an idiot.

Just to test the water, however, I'm going to order two cakes from a local bakery at the same time. One will have a swastika and the other a cross. I'll let you know what happens.
 
The bakery did not refuse the hater service, they were more than happy to bake him a cake, and even provide him the means to put his hateful message on the cake. This is entirely different from the bakery that refused to bake a cake at all for gay customers.

Anyone who cannot see the distinction is either being willfully obtuse, or just trying to score points for their partisan political hobby horse.
 
Has the argument actually morphed? Is this another case of False Equivalency?

Gay couple wanted a wedding cake. Company didn't do it because they were gay.
Jackass wants a hate cake. Company didn't do it because they don't do that sort of thing.

The gay couple wanted was is considered a typical service from a cake company. They didn't ask for a discriminatory cake design. Had the gay couple asked for a "No illegal immigrants cake", we'd have more of an equivalency.

You appear to be making a differentiation solely based on the content of the message. This is known as "viewpoint discrimination".

I'm pretty sure it's still legal in this country to say "God hates gays".

But the content of the message is the important thing. If the message is negative or hateful, it can be treated differently than a positive or neutral message.

If you make cakes saying "Congratulations, Jim and Jane" but refuse to make cakes saying "Congratulations, Jim and John", then you're engaging in discrimination because the content of the messages is the same and it's just not serving gay customers the same as other customers.

If you make cakes saying "I'm sorry to hear you have cancer and hope you get better" but refuse to make cakes saying "I'm glad you have cancer and hope you die horribly, you cheating whore", then that's fine because the negative content of the latter message means that it can and should be treated differently, even though it's perfectly legal to tell people that you hope they die of cancer.
 
I tend to think that if you make a cake with one shape for one customer, you should be willing to make a second cake for a second customer with substantially similar needs.

That said, refusing to make a cake at all for a couple because THEY are gay, and refusing to make a cake in a specific shape that a person objects with. I can't tell an artist that they must draw me a piece of gay pornography simply because they work on comission. But I can say they must not refuse my commission only because I myself happen to be gay.

It is a fine line but important. A baker may refuse to make a gay cake, but may not refuse to make a cake for gays. Similarly a baker may refuse to make a hate cake, but not refuse to make a cake for hateful people.
 
Back
Top Bottom