Another Bakery Discrimination Lawsuit

[bilby]

This is not difficult. The cake is a medium, not a message. The message is the responsibility of the person ordering the cake. The baker has no say in the message at all, nor any responsibility for it.

Western Union are not responsible for the content of the telegrams they deliver; AT&T are not responsible for the words you speak over their phone lines, and bakers are not responsible for the messages on their cakes; in all cases, the service provider has only one choice to make - stay in business or quit the business. If you bake cakes with messages on them as a commercial enterprise, you should bake cakes with any and all messages on them, regardless of the content.

Messengers carry messages. The speech therein belongs to the originator, not the messenger; and the messenger has no right to refuse any message at all based on its content. Equally, should that message be defamatory, or otherwise illegal, the messenger should have no liability, as the responsibility for the defamation lies solely with the originator of the message - in this case, the person who ordered the cake.

Simples.

 

[Canard DuJour]

I'm not even going to try and rep Bilby this time.

 

[TV and credit cards]

This is not difficult. The cake is a medium, not a message. The message is the responsibility of the person ordering the cake. The baker has no say in the message at all, nor any responsibility for it.

Western Union are not responsible for the content of the telegrams they deliver; AT&T are not responsible for the words you speak over their phone lines, and bakers are not responsible for the messages on their cakes; in all cases, the service provider has only one choice to make - stay in business or quit the business. If you bake cakes with messages on them as a commercial enterprise, you should bake cakes with any and all messages on them, regardless of the content.

Messengers carry messages. The speech therein belongs to the originator, not the messenger; and the messenger has no right to refuse any message at all based on its content. Equally, should that message be defamatory, or otherwise illegal, the messenger should have no liability, as the responsibility for the defamation lies solely with the originator of the message - in this case, the person who ordered the cake.

Simples.

Not when there's an artistic element to consider. When you take pride in your craft, your name is associated with the work the public sees.

I would not expect Brooks to make me a cheap saddle out of imitation leather and pot metal just because they accepted orders for custom saddles.

 

[bilby]

This is not difficult. The cake is a medium, not a message. The message is the responsibility of the person ordering the cake. The baker has no say in the message at all, nor any responsibility for it.

Western Union are not responsible for the content of the telegrams they deliver; AT&T are not responsible for the words you speak over their phone lines, and bakers are not responsible for the messages on their cakes; in all cases, the service provider has only one choice to make - stay in business or quit the business. If you bake cakes with messages on them as a commercial enterprise, you should bake cakes with any and all messages on them, regardless of the content.

Messengers carry messages. The speech therein belongs to the originator, not the messenger; and the messenger has no right to refuse any message at all based on its content. Equally, should that message be defamatory, or otherwise illegal, the messenger should have no liability, as the responsibility for the defamation lies solely with the originator of the message - in this case, the person who ordered the cake.

Simples.

Not when there's an artistic element to consider. When you take pride in your craft, your name is associated with the work the public sees.

I would not expect Brooks to make me a cheap saddle out of imitation leather and pot metal just because they accepted orders for custom saddles.

The message (if any) is independent of any artistic or quality considerations.

If Brooks make saddles with names embossed in the leather, then they must accept any name that is technically possible to emboss - it would be OK to say "Sorry, your name has too many letters, the maximum possible is 20, due to the space available", but not OK to say "We will put J. Smith on a saddle, but not G. Khan or A. Hitler". If they make saddles with messages on them, the same applies - they can refuse a message for technical reasons "Sorry that won't fit on the saddle", but not for moral ones "Sorry, we don't agree with your message".

 

[laughing dog]

This is not difficult. The cake is a medium, not a message. The message is the responsibility of the person ordering the cake. The baker has no say in the message at all, nor any responsibility for it.

Western Union are not responsible for the content of the telegrams they deliver; AT&T are not responsible for the words you speak over their phone lines, and bakers are not responsible for the messages on their cakes; in all cases, the service provider has only one choice to make - stay in business or quit the business. If you bake cakes with messages on them as a commercial enterprise, you should bake cakes with any and all messages on them, regardless of the content.

Messengers carry messages. The speech therein belongs to the originator, not the messenger; and the messenger has no right to refuse any message at all based on its content. Equally, should that message be defamatory, or otherwise illegal, the messenger should have no liability, as the responsibility for the defamation lies solely with the originator of the message - in this case, the person who ordered the cake.

Simples.

Not so simples. You don't think a messenger has the duty or the right to notice an illegal message or defamation? Your position certainly has not been upheld in the US for decades (if not longer). Newspapers can refuse ads based on their content. Television stations can refuse programming or ads based on the content. Why shouldn't a baker or Western Union have the same privilege?

 

[Jarhyn]

This is not difficult. The cake is a medium, not a message. The message is the responsibility of the person ordering the cake. The baker has no say in the message at all, nor any responsibility for it.

Western Union are not responsible for the content of the telegrams they deliver; AT&T are not responsible for the words you speak over their phone lines, and bakers are not responsible for the messages on their cakes; in all cases, the service provider has only one choice to make - stay in business or quit the business. If you bake cakes with messages on them as a commercial enterprise, you should bake cakes with any and all messages on them, regardless of the content.

Messengers carry messages. The speech therein belongs to the originator, not the messenger; and the messenger has no right to refuse any message at all based on its content. Equally, should that message be defamatory, or otherwise illegal, the messenger should have no liability, as the responsibility for the defamation lies solely with the originator of the message - in this case, the person who ordered the cake.

Simples.

Not so simples. You don't think a messenger has the duty or the right to notice an illegal message or defamation? Your position certainly has not been upheld in the US for decades (if not longer). Newspapers can refuse ads based on their content. Television stations can refuse programming or ads based on the content. Why shouldn't a baker or Western Union have the same privilege?

I agree, mostly. Television stations, newspapers, and other media do not sell the platform, and neither do bakers sell cakes as a platform. They sell the message itself. But neither can the paper salesman nor the cable company refuse to sell that message to a black man. They must serve the given message to all comers, that they may do so with as they like. They may make mockeries using the content. They may use the newspaper to wipe their ass. They may use it as scratch paper or even to take notes and compile a report on the publisher's bad ethical practices. The publisher gets no say with the usage of the message they sold.

 

[maxparrish]

This is not difficult. The cake is a medium, not a message. The message is the responsibility of the person ordering the cake. The baker has no say in the message at all, nor any responsibility for it.

Western Union are not responsible for the content of the telegrams they deliver; AT&T are not responsible for the words you speak over their phone lines, and bakers are not responsible for the messages on their cakes; in all cases, the service provider has only one choice to make - stay in business or quit the business. If you bake cakes with messages on them as a commercial enterprise, you should bake cakes with any and all messages on them, regardless of the content.

Messengers carry messages. The speech therein belongs to the originator, not the messenger; and the messenger has no right to refuse any message at all based on its content. Equally, should that message be defamatory, or otherwise illegal, the messenger should have no liability, as the responsibility for the defamation lies solely with the originator of the message - in this case, the person who ordered the cake.

Simples.

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.

 

[bilby]

This is not difficult. The cake is a medium, not a message. The message is the responsibility of the person ordering the cake. The baker has no say in the message at all, nor any responsibility for it.

Western Union are not responsible for the content of the telegrams they deliver; AT&T are not responsible for the words you speak over their phone lines, and bakers are not responsible for the messages on their cakes; in all cases, the service provider has only one choice to make - stay in business or quit the business. If you bake cakes with messages on them as a commercial enterprise, you should bake cakes with any and all messages on them, regardless of the content.

Messengers carry messages. The speech therein belongs to the originator, not the messenger; and the messenger has no right to refuse any message at all based on its content. Equally, should that message be defamatory, or otherwise illegal, the messenger should have no liability, as the responsibility for the defamation lies solely with the originator of the message - in this case, the person who ordered the cake.

Simples.

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.

But nobody is asking the baker to compose a message; they are composing the message, and then asking the baker to place that message on a cake. I assume you know the meaning of the word 'compose', but if not feel free to consult a dictionary.

 

[maxparrish]

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.

But nobody is asking the baker to compose a message; they are composing the message, and then asking the baker to place that message on a cake. I assume you know the meaning of the word 'compose', but if not feel free to consult a dictionary.

And nobody is talking about the "baker placing a literal (text) message on the cake". According to the judge's opinion they asked the baker to create a wedding cake, no message on the cake was discussed. And as I pointed out (which you have dodged so far) we are speaking of cake itself as a symbolic message in which the creation (the medium) IS the message. A wedding cake, by its nature, is the symbolic and artistic celebration of marriage, requiring someone to "compose" , to "to write, create, formulate, devise, make up, think up, produce, invent, or concoct" it as a work of art.

If you demand that someone compose, create, devise, think up, etc. a cake conveying symbolic speech it is no different than demanding that someone create and convey a text message HOWEVER that message is delivered. Maybe we need to start from the beginning:

The whole basis of the Republic, of the Bill of Rights, is to secure our liberties - to free us from government coercion. Part of those protective rights is "free speech and expression", ESPECIALLY when it involves political, social, and religious subjects. And symbolic speech, as is literal speech, is protected. If a person wants to tattoo art on his/her arm, dance nude, create paintings, salute the flag, burn the flag, sculpt, create parades or express themselves in any artistic way they are entitled to free expression. They may even devote 40 years of their life as a baker creating artistic celebrations of social and political events, such as wedding cakes.

The message of the wedding cake (dating back to the Roman era) is widely known. As an observer you instantly understand that a marriage has just begun and the union should be congratulated and celebrated. And the wedding cake’s status as a centerpiece of the reception sends a clear message – celebrate with the new couple. And for this couple, there is no doubt about its "expressive" nature; they obtained (from another baker) a "rainbow" layered wedding cake, a symbol of the gay pride movement.

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 your "logic" suggests:

- 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?

However, compelled speech is as odious as banished speech. Free speech prohibits government from coercing private citizens into instruments of "acceptable" views, to threaten punishment if person does not convey certain views. (SCOTUS: “The First Amendment protects the right of individuals to hold a point of view different from the majority and to refuse to foster ... an idea they find morally
objectionable.”)

 

[maxparrish]

dup

 

[dismal]

This is not difficult. The cake is a medium, not a message. The message is the responsibility of the person ordering the cake. The baker has no say in the message at all, nor any responsibility for it.

Western Union are not responsible for the content of the telegrams they deliver; AT&T are not responsible for the words you speak over their phone lines, and bakers are not responsible for the messages on their cakes; in all cases, the service provider has only one choice to make - stay in business or quit the business. If you bake cakes with messages on them as a commercial enterprise, you should bake cakes with any and all messages on them, regardless of the content.

Messengers carry messages. The speech therein belongs to the originator, not the messenger; and the messenger has no right to refuse any message at all based on its content. Equally, should that message be defamatory, or otherwise illegal, the messenger should have no liability, as the responsibility for the defamation lies solely with the originator of the message - in this case, the person who ordered the cake.

Simples.

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

 

[maxparrish]

This is not difficult. The cake is a medium, not a message. The message is the responsibility of the person ordering the cake. The baker has no say in the message at all, nor any responsibility for it.

Western Union are not responsible for the content of the telegrams they deliver; AT&T are not responsible for the words you speak over their phone lines, and bakers are not responsible for the messages on their cakes; in all cases, the service provider has only one choice to make - stay in business or quit the business. If you bake cakes with messages on them as a commercial enterprise, you should bake cakes with any and all messages on them, regardless of the content.

Messengers carry messages. The speech therein belongs to the originator, not the messenger; and the messenger has no right to refuse any message at all based on its content. Equally, should that message be defamatory, or otherwise illegal, the messenger should have no liability, as the responsibility for the defamation lies solely with the originator of the message - in this case, the person who ordered the cake.

Simples.

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

As bilby says "the message belongs to the originator" and that the baker is just western union, then yep - he must make the cake.

- - - Updated - - -

You can file this in the "wedding cakes don't convey a message" file:

 

[bilby]

This is not difficult. The cake is a medium, not a message. The message is the responsibility of the person ordering the cake. The baker has no say in the message at all, nor any responsibility for it.

Western Union are not responsible for the content of the telegrams they deliver; AT&T are not responsible for the words you speak over their phone lines, and bakers are not responsible for the messages on their cakes; in all cases, the service provider has only one choice to make - stay in business or quit the business. If you bake cakes with messages on them as a commercial enterprise, you should bake cakes with any and all messages on them, regardless of the content.

Messengers carry messages. The speech therein belongs to the originator, not the messenger; and the messenger has no right to refuse any message at all based on its content. Equally, should that message be defamatory, or otherwise illegal, the messenger should have no liability, as the responsibility for the defamation lies solely with the originator of the message - in this case, the person who ordered the cake.

Simples.

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.

 

[Toni]

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.

The bakery in charge did not refuse the customer service. It is discrimination only if they willingly place hate messages on cakes for other customers but not that particular customer.

Bakeries can and do refuse to decorate cakes in particular manners all the time.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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.

And that is the conflict. Is a given transaction simply a commercial service? Is what you do as a business a statement of personal support of a belief or act? If not, then no problem, if so can you be forced to engage in that which you find repulsive?

And this question is driving more than just the sale of wedding cakes. Think Hobby Lobby. Think corporate personhood.

 

[Togo]

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.

And that is the conflict. Is a given transaction simply a commercial service? Is what you do as a business a statement of personal support of a belief or act? If not, then no problem, if so can you be forced to engage in that which you find repulsive?

And this question is driving more than just the sale of wedding cakes. Think Hobby Lobby. Think corporate personhood.

If I'm running a school, driven by my own ideas about education., then in order to create a particular ambiance, I might well feel, very strongly, that black people joining would spoil that ambiance.

Pretty sure the US has already had that arguement.

 

[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.

And that is the conflict. Is a given transaction simply a commercial service? Is what you do as a business a statement of personal support of a belief or act? If not, then no problem, if so can you be forced to engage in that which you find repulsive?

And this question is driving more than just the sale of wedding cakes. Think Hobby Lobby. Think corporate personhood.

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.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

And that is the conflict. Is a given transaction simply a commercial service? Is what you do as a business a statement of personal support of a belief or act? If not, then no problem, if so can you be forced to engage in that which you find repulsive?

And this question is driving more than just the sale of wedding cakes. Think Hobby Lobby. Think corporate personhood.

If I'm running a school, driven by my own ideas about education., then in order to create a particular ambiance, I might well feel, very strongly, that black people joining would spoil that ambiance.

Pretty sure the US has already had that arguement.

and you can run such a school in the US legally today.

You won't get public accreditation or public money, but there exists all kinds of public schools that discriminate for all kinds of reasons.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

And that is the conflict. Is a given transaction simply a commercial service? Is what you do as a business a statement of personal support of a belief or act? If not, then no problem, if so can you be forced to engage in that which you find repulsive?

And this question is driving more than just the sale of wedding cakes. Think Hobby Lobby. Think corporate personhood.

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.

 

[KeepTalking]

You can file this in the "wedding cakes don't convey a message" file:

What's the message, "Get away from me with that knife, I cannot be cut without significant disassembly"?