Another Bakery Discrimination Lawsuit

[Jarhyn]

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".

Except that in this particular situation, (and believe me, as a gay man who got married, I wish I could ethically say otherwise), they deserve the right to not say 'Adam and Steve' because to them, it is just as disgusting as saying '(name) hates (name)'

But it is not disgusting to not put any names on the cake. they make cakes without names on them, and ostensibly they ought remain blind to what happens to the cake outside their doors. The cake here is a deservedly neutral product. There's really no real basis to disallow 'x hated y' and allow 'x loves y' since the middle term isn't the source of the distaste. It is the overall identity of the result.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

If I put my capitalist hat on (seriously, what is all this refusal to make money crap)

I would think that fully decorated hate cake would incorporate in it's free market price all future forgone business, business interruption, negative publicity, vandalism, and pain and suffering, up to and including any damages or settlements arising out of a lawsuit (along with court costs).

Blank Hate Cake: $30
Fully Decorated Hate Cake: $356,984.57 plus tax

aa

 

[dismal]

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".

Except that in this particular situation, (and believe me, as a gay man who got married, I wish I could ethically say otherwise), they deserve the right to not say 'Adam and Steve' because to them, it is just as disgusting as saying '(name) hates (name)'

But it is not disgusting to not put any names on the cake. they make cakes without names on them, and ostensibly they ought remain blind to what happens to the cake outside their doors. The cake here is a deservedly neutral product. There's really no real basis to disallow 'x hated y' and allow 'x loves y' since the middle term isn't the source of the distaste. It is the overall identity of the result.

There may be a baker somewhere that does find it disgusting not to put any names on a cake. There may be a baker who refuses to sell any cake that does not say "Adam and Steve".

There is no need for us to sit here and decide what all bakers should and should not find disgusting. They are individuals capable of doing that for themselves.

 

[arkirk]

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.

I think Athena's point should settle this. Why demand a cake from someone who hates you? Why do business of any kind with people who hate you and say as much right in your face? Could you trust that cake? This whole story takes the cake!

 

[Rhea]

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?

I think that is everyone's point. They CAN decide for themselves, as long as they are consistent that they won't put something on one cake and refuse to put the same thin on another cake. This bakery says, "no hate speech."

 

[Rhea]

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".

Except that in this particular situation, (and believe me, as a gay man who got married, I wish I could ethically say otherwise), they deserve the right to not say 'Adam and Steve' because to them, it is just as disgusting as saying '(name) hates (name)'

But it is not disgusting to not put any names on the cake. they make cakes without names on them, and ostensibly they ought remain blind to what happens to the cake outside their doors. The cake here is a deservedly neutral product. There's really no real basis to disallow 'x hated y' and allow 'x loves y' since the middle term isn't the source of the distaste. It is the overall identity of the result.

If they will put Jane and Adam on a cake,
or put Frances and Steve on a cake,
then putting Adam and Steve on a cake is a thing they already do, no more disgusting that putting purple and green together, or navy and black.
But if they will not put "hate" onto ANY CAKE FOR ANY ONE, then that is consistent.

 

[dismal]

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?

I think that is everyone's point. They CAN decide for themselves, as long as they are consistent that they won't put something on one cake and refuse to put the same thin on another cake. This bakery says, "no hate speech."

First, I see no particular reason why they must be consistent.

Second, you are incorrect. Some people support the government forcing bakers to bake certain cakes they don't want to bake.

 

[Jarhyn]

I think that is everyone's point. They CAN decide for themselves, as long as they are consistent that they won't put something on one cake and refuse to put the same thin on another cake. This bakery says, "no hate speech."

First, I see no particular reason why they must be consistent.

Second, you are incorrect. Some people support the government forcing bakers to bake certain cakes they don't want to bake.

Most of us here are not those people. Most of the arguments here are not that argument. You are committing a strawman to fight against an argument that is not the one being made here. We will, most of us, join you in fighting against the government that enslaves people and forces them to bake any cake that anyone asks for. That is NOT an argument against telling a baker that if he makes plain whit three layer with explicit lack of knowledge about X, he cannot refuse that same service given explicit knowledge about that same x.

 

[Jarhyn]

Except that in this particular situation, (and believe me, as a gay man who got married, I wish I could ethically say otherwise), they deserve the right to not say 'Adam and Steve' because to them, it is just as disgusting as saying '(name) hates (name)'

But it is not disgusting to not put any names on the cake. they make cakes without names on them, and ostensibly they ought remain blind to what happens to the cake outside their doors. The cake here is a deservedly neutral product. There's really no real basis to disallow 'x hated y' and allow 'x loves y' since the middle term isn't the source of the distaste. It is the overall identity of the result.

If they will put Jane and Adam on a cake,
or put Frances and Steve on a cake,
then putting Adam and Steve on a cake is a thing they already do, no more disgusting that putting purple and green together, or navy and black.
But if they will not put "hate" onto ANY CAKE FOR ANY ONE, then that is consistent.

Except that it is clearly not the middle term alone which determines the identity of the objectionable idea. It is not the importance of y in 'X y Z' it is the identity of the function f(X,y,Z) as a whole. That said, it is not our place to decide what may or may not be acceptable as F. It is very much, however, the business license and legal requirement of equal protection which demands that if he make a cake for bob that says f(X,y,Z) he ought not deny that same service to Jill, given the same X, y, and Z, and none of those terms can or should be (customer) or any derivative trait.

 

[arkirk]

Since when did cakes become so rare and important? It is true the baker is not acting well and is probably a totally blown out bigot. I think the proper approach to this is not to try to get a court order to make the baker decorate a cake for the couple, but to make it known how bigoted the baker is and NOT BUY ANY CAKES FROM HIM...perhaps telling your friends about him so he can bake less and less cakes.

 

[Jarhyn]

Since when did cakes become so rare and important? It is true the baker is not acting well and is probably a totally blown out bigot. I think the proper approach to this is not to try to get a court order to make the baker decorate a cake for the couple, but to make it known how bigoted the baker is and NOT BUY ANY CAKES FROM HIM...perhaps telling your friends about him so he can bake less and less cakes.

There are problems with that view. First, all bakers in an area may be bigots. In this case, it may not be possible or financially feasible to get a cake from anyone else. Second, the area itself may have a majority of persons who are bigotry neutral or even bigotry-positive; if this is the case, they continue to be dicks and perhaps even thrive for it, and you still end up paying 3x as much, particularly when you could have just said 'Adam and Eve, but leave the cake blank, we want something simple and elegant, and think such writing on a cake is tacky' gotten the cake, and then thumbed your nose at him once he rendered the cake and you render payment.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Since when did cakes become so rare and important? It is true the baker is not acting well and is probably a totally blown out bigot. I think the proper approach to this is not to try to get a court order to make the baker decorate a cake for the couple, but to make it known how bigoted the baker is and NOT BUY ANY CAKES FROM HIM...perhaps telling your friends about him so he can bake less and less cakes.

This is a great solution for anyone living in a town of 50 people where at least 45 aren't bigots.

For anyone which that doesn't apply to, however, regulation of acceptable business activities from the government is probably a better way to go.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

So let me get this straight. The bakery is not refusing to sell this person a cake, but refusing to write something on the cake they disagree with?

If this is the case I am going to sue a book publisher for refusing to sell books that I personally want written.

 

[KeepTalking]

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?

While I did do some web design work when I was in college twenty years ago, I have not done it in quite some time. I would think that a web design firm would have the ability to discriminate on the basis of the work being requested, but not on the basis of the person requesting the work. So, if someone were to request that they design a gay porn site, they could decline because they object to the porn, but if a gay person were to have them design a purely informational site that has nothing to do with gayness, or porn, they would not be able to decline on the basis that the person requesting the work is gay.

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

Yes. Fortunately for me, at least one editor/publisher has deemed that my crappy sci-fi/horror writing as good enough for publication.

 

[dismal]

First, I see no particular reason why they must be consistent.

Second, you are incorrect. Some people support the government forcing bakers to bake certain cakes they don't want to bake.

Most of us here are not those people. Most of the arguments here are not that argument. You are committing a strawman to fight against an argument that is not the one being made here. We will, most of us, join you in fighting against the government that enslaves people and forces them to bake any cake that anyone asks for. That is NOT an argument against telling a baker that if he makes plain whit three layer with explicit lack of knowledge about X, he cannot refuse that same service given explicit knowledge about that same x.

So, unless I am mistaken you do think there are times the government should force a baker to bake a cake he does not want to bake.

 

[Jarhyn]

Most of us here are not those people. Most of the arguments here are not that argument. You are committing a strawman to fight against an argument that is not the one being made here. We will, most of us, join you in fighting against the government that enslaves people and forces them to bake any cake that anyone asks for. That is NOT an argument against telling a baker that if he makes plain whit three layer with explicit lack of knowledge about X, he cannot refuse that same service given explicit knowledge about that same x.

So, unless I am mistaken you do think there are times the government should force a baker to bake a cake he does not want to bake.

You are mistaken. I believe there are times that the government is justified in forcing a baker to not profit from the baking of cakes he wants to make If he will not sell the cakes he wants to make to an arbitrary person.

If you do not understand the difference, and there very much is a difference, then you should not be engaging in this conversation, as you have no way to contribute meaningfully if you do not understand the arguments.

 

[KeepTalking]

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.

But that is not the case at all. The bakery was told that they cannot refuse to bake the same cake for a gay person that they were already baking for straight people.

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.

Which side of this argument are you on again? It is my position that the government cannot tell the baker that they must bake a cake and put a specific hate filled message on the cake. They can, however, tell the baker that they cannot sell a cake with no message on it to a gay person, and then turn around and refuse to sell the same cake with no message on it to a person who hates gays simply because that person is a gay-hater.

In all likelihood, the hater cake lawsuit will get tossed out. The baker even offered to bake the cake he wanted without any message, and even provide him with the materials to put his own message on the cake. That seems like a perfectly reasonable compromise, and I suspect they are entirely within their rights, and within the law to refuse to put the message on the cake, as long as they are still willing to bake the cake for the gay-hater.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So, unless I am mistaken you do think there are times the government should force a baker to bake a cake he does not want to bake.

Why do you keep bringing that question up like it's some kind of thing? Of course there should be.

Similarly, if a liquor store owner doesn't want to sell wine to blacks, the government should force him to sell some wine that he doesn't want to sell or just stop selling wine period and go out of business.

Similarly, if an art gallery owner doesn't want to sell paintings to men, the government should force her to sell some paintings that she doesn't want to sell or just stop selling paintings period and go out of business.

If a business is offering a service, that service should be available to all customers equally and the businesses should not be allowed to discriminate.

 

[dismal]

So let me get this straight. The bakery is not refusing to sell this person a cake, but refusing to write something on the cake they disagree with?

If this is the case I am going to sue a book publisher for refusing to sell books that I personally want written.

Yeah, it's a damn silly argument if one believes a baker should not be required to put words on a cake he disagrees with.

But it turns out there is an existing legal precedent in the state that does require a baker to put words on a cake he disagrees with.

- - - Updated - - -

So, unless I am mistaken you do think there are times the government should force a baker to bake a cake he does not want to bake.

Why do you keep bringing that question up like it's some kind of thing? Of course there should be.

Cite?

 

[KeepTalking]

But it turns out there is an existing legal precedent in the state that does require a baker to put words on a cake he disagrees with.

Is there? If so, perhaps you should trot out the evidence that this is the case.