Another Bakery Discrimination Lawsuit

[bradw]

I think Tom has hit the nail on the head here.

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.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

The original case was about a Wedding Cake. Those are typical and certainly non-controversial.

As long as a company refuses to sell any cake with hate speech written on it, there isn't an issue here.

The equivalence is a gay wedding cake verses a straight wedding cake. Had the gay couple wanted a God hates Muslims cake and they won an injunction, we'd have something to talk about.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

The original case was about a Wedding Cake. Those are typical and certainly non-controversial.

As long as a company refuses to sell any cake with hate speech written on it, there isn't an issue here.

The equivalence is a gay wedding cake verses a straight wedding cake. Had the gay couple wanted a God hates Muslims cake and they won an injunction, we'd have something to talk about.

Then I suppose we are at an impasse. I do think that if a couple asked for two 'husband' statues to be placed on the cake, the baker would be perfectly justified to say 'I won't do that, it conflicts with my beliefs'. But if they do everything up to that point, or make cakes without words or statues, this should be an option to the couple. At that point it isn't a 'gay' cake, it is just a cake.

Similarly, the bakers here refused to put hate on the cake. It was just a cake, and they were glad to make it, and they even had an obligation, ethically to do so. They offered to do as much. I am saying that these are the reasons that the case is not founded on the same principles. It has nothing to do with 'affirming love vs affirming hate' and everything to do with refusing distasteful services vs refusing distasteful people.

 

[dismal]

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.

Cite?

 

[Trausti]

Can you force a Muslim employee to handle pork?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Can you force a Muslim employee to handle pork?

Depends on the religious beliefs of the nonanthropromorphic company the Muslim works for.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

I don't know about this one...

What about web hosting sites, or billboard makers, or book publishers?

Just because you are employed to recreate a message doesn't mean it's your message, or one you'd support.

aa

 

[fromderinside]

Can you force a Muslim employee to handle pork?

Depends on the religious beliefs of the nonanthropromorphic company the Muslim works for.

I dunno. If the company is a closely held Muslim company that provided pork the worker might try to hold the company hostage to it's and his presumed Muslim beliefs.

God. I love this USSC for its habit of finding ways for it to put its foot in in its legal mouth. Imagine. An employee who joined the company because it was held by a Muslim family making the family adhere to family values. Precious.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

There is a thing in American law called the Mrs. Murphy exemption.

It basically says that a person renting 4 or fewer units in a building and if the owner lives in one of those units, the owner can opt out of federal fair housing laws requiring no discrimination in housing based on membership in a protected group. Affirmative Action law doesn't apply to companies with 50 or fewer employees. In other words, American law recognizes that size matters and the personal nature of a transaction also matters.

These bakeries cases, i think, fall well within exceptions listed above. If you don't want to make a certain kind of cake, don't make the cake. And quite frankly I don't want you handling my food if you hate me.

 

[dismal]

If you don't want to make a certain kind of cake, don't make the cake. And quite frankly I don't want you handling my food if you hate me.

That makes perfect sense. Unfortunately some people here are on record supporting the government telling bakers they have to bake cakes they don't want to bake.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

Cite?

Citation

 

[KeepTalking]

I don't know about this one...

What about web hosting sites, or billboard makers, or book publishers?

Just because you are employed to recreate a message doesn't mean it's your message, or one you'd support.

aa

Web hosting sites only provide the space for the message, and in some cases provide the means for you to create your own message, they don't actually create the message for you. It would be similar to the bakery offering to bake the cake, and even provide the materials to the hater to put his own message on it.

Book publishers discriminate all the time, I have been rejected for publication just because they didn't feel my writing was good enough for them to publish.

I'm not sure with regard to billboards, I have no relative experience in that regard.

 

[laughing dog]

When these douches (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/happy-birthday-adolf-hitler-boy-nazi-leader-denied-shoprite-cake-article-1.358050) were refused a "Happy Birthday Adolph Hitler" message on a birthday cake, I seem to recall that few posters (if any) thought the store was out of line.

The issue here is whether this bakery violated Colorado state law. If one reads the cited article, it appears the bakery did not.

 

[dismal]

I don't know about this one...

What about web hosting sites, or billboard makers, or book publishers?

Just because you are employed to recreate a message doesn't mean it's your message, or one you'd support.

aa

Web hosting sites only provide the space for the message, and in some cases provide the means for you to create your own message, they don't actually create the message for you. It would be similar to the bakery offering to bake the cake, and even provide the materials to the hater to put his own message on it.

Book publishers discriminate all the time, I have been rejected for publication just because they didn't feel my writing was good enough for them to publish.

I'm not sure with regard to billboards, I have no relative experience in that regard.

The issue here is not what private entities do and don't do of their own free accord, the issue is that the government became involved in telling private entities that they must make cakes they don't want to make.

If the government tells a bakery "you must make a cake that says X even though you disagree with it and don't want to" and then proceeds to say "it's OK if you don't make a cake that says Y because you disagree with it and don't want to" the government is engaging in viewpoint discrimination.

Private entities and individuals are allowed to engage in viewpoint discrimination. Government is not.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

When these douches (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/happy-birthday-adolf-hitler-boy-nazi-leader-denied-shoprite-cake-article-1.358050) were refused a "Happy Birthday Adolph Hitler" message on a birthday cake, I seem to recall that few posters (if any) thought the store was out of line.

The issue here is whether this bakery violated Colorado state law. If one reads the cited article, it appears the bakery did not.

I would say that the issue is whether or not it should have violated a law. The particulars of how lawmakers in a given jurisdiction came down on the issue aren't altogether important in regards to the overarching discussion about somebody's rights and restrictions should be in this type of situation.

 

[Jarhyn]

Web hosting sites only provide the space for the message, and in some cases provide the means for you to create your own message, they don't actually create the message for you. It would be similar to the bakery offering to bake the cake, and even provide the materials to the hater to put his own message on it.

Book publishers discriminate all the time, I have been rejected for publication just because they didn't feel my writing was good enough for them to publish.

I'm not sure with regard to billboards, I have no relative experience in that regard.

The issue here is not what private entities do and don't do of their own free accord, the issue is that the government became involved in telling private entities that they must make cakes they don't want to make.

If the government tells a bakery "you must make a cake that says X even though you disagree with it and don't want to" and then proceeds to say "it's OK if you don't make a cake that says Y because you disagree with it and don't want to" the government is engaging in viewpoint discrimination.

Private entities and individuals are allowed to engage in viewpoint discrimination. Government is not.

It is true that government should not be in the business of what shapes people will sell. Only that they sell their full menu of shapes to all customers.

The problem Isnt what they will or will not sell, it is with WHO they will or will not sell those shapes to and why.

 

[Rhea]

The issue here is not what private entities do and don't do of their own free accord, the issue is that the government became involved in telling private entities that they must make cakes they don't want to make.

But they are in the business of making cakes. Of course they want to make cakes. The law addresses that any of the products that you make, must be available to any customer, equally.


This bakery did not violate that.

If the government tells a bakery "you must make a cake that says X even though you disagree with it and don't want to" and then proceeds to say "it's OK if you don't make a cake that says Y because you disagree with it and don't want to" the government is engaging in viewpoint discrimination.

Private entities and individuals are allowed to engage in viewpoint discrimination. Government is not.

You seem to be saying that the anti-gay bakeries were cited for refusing to put certain decorations on cakes. But those lawsuits didn't cover that at all. Those lawsuits covered refusing an already-offered service to a particular customer. No mention is made that they just didn't want to be forced to put two women on top. It was that they refused to make their regular product available.

My first inclination on reading this thread was "yes, they should have to make the cake!" But then I read the replies and saw that they did make the cake. Up to and including all regular products that they make.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Agreed. They should be free to approve the form of the message but not the exact details.

Take a cake that says "Adam & Eve forever". Fundamentally, this is "<name> & <name> forever"--substituting "Steve" for "Eve" doesn't change this. Make both or make neither.

That doesn't mean they need to make "Adam hates Steve"--but if they refuse that they should also refuse "Adam hates Eve".

 

[dismal]

Of course they want to make cakes.

If they wanted to make *all* cakes we would not be having this discussion.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Agreed. They should be free to approve the form of the message but not the exact details.

Take a cake that says "Adam & Eve forever". Fundamentally, this is "<name> & <name> forever"--substituting "Steve" for "Eve" doesn't change this. Make both or make neither.

That doesn't mean they need to make "Adam hates Steve"--but if they refuse that they should also refuse "Adam hates Eve".

When did it become your job to tell bakers what sort of messages they should and shouldn't be willing to put on a cake?

Why can't they decide for themselves?

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

I don't know about this one...

What about web hosting sites, or billboard makers, or book publishers?

Just because you are employed to recreate a message doesn't mean it's your message, or one you'd support.

aa

Web hosting sites only provide the space for the message, and in some cases provide the means for you to create your own message, they don't actually create the message for you. It would be similar to the bakery offering to bake the cake, and even provide the materials to the hater to put his own message on it.

Right. I probably should have said Web Designer. Do you know if they routinely turn down opportunities based on belief?

Book publishers discriminate all the time, I have been rejected for publication just because they didn't feel my writing was good enough for them to publish.

True, and insurance companies will refuse to insure bad drivers. I guess there is a pretty fine line between refusing bad business and refusing business based on content you disagree with.

aa