Another Bakery Discrimination Lawsuit

[dismal]

If he makes bigoted message cakes, he has to make bigoted message cakes for every bigotry. If he makes a 'Jews caused 9/11' cake, he can't refuse to make an 'Obama/Muslim' cake.

Why? In our society we generally do not force private citizens to say things they don't want to say.

What is so special about cakes?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Which is a fine solution. If he has a problem with gays, nobody should be able to force him to make wedding cakes for them. The only thing that should be forced upon him is that he not make wedding cakes for others while excluding gay weddings. If he feels that his position on the matter is more important than his income, then he should be quite free to eliminate the problematic line of business entirely.

Why not "nothing of this sort should be forced on him -- he is entitled not to bake any cake with a message he disagrees with"?

For the same reason that an accountant who does tax returns for everyone who comes in can't decide to not do them for Irishmen because he feels that they're all a bunch of drunken liars and he doesn't want to be associated with someone filing a false return - which they'd all do as a result of being Irish. If you're going to have your business provide a service, then you cannot use discriminatory measures to decide who you're going to do business with.

He has a perfect right to not do business with Irishmen. He does not have a right to not do business with Irishmen and do tax returns for everyone else. He can compromise his bigotted principles or he can compromise his income but he's the one who needs to make the compromise, not anyone else.

 

[dismal]

Why not "nothing of this sort should be forced on him -- he is entitled not to bake any cake with a message he disagrees with"?

For the same reason that an accountant who does tax returns for everyone who comes in can't decide to not do them for Irishmen because he feels that they're all a bunch of drunken liars and he doesn't want to be associated with someone filing a false return - which they'd all do as a result of being Irish. If you're going to have your business provide a service, then you cannot use discriminatory measures to decide who you're going to do business with.

He has a perfect right to not do business with Irishmen. He does not have a right to not do business with Irishmen and do tax returns for everyone else. He can compromise his bigotted principles or he can compromise his income but he's the one who needs to make the compromise, not anyone else.

We are not talking about discriminating against people but messages on cakes.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If he makes bigoted message cakes, he has to make bigoted message cakes for every bigotry. If he makes a 'Jews caused 9/11' cake, he can't refuse to make an 'Obama/Muslim' cake.

Why? In our society we generally do not force private citizens to say things they don't want to say.

What is so special about cakes?

Nothing's special about cakes.
What's special is the discrimination.

Is that your problem with this whole issue? The actual 'issue' went over your head?

If you have a law firm, you can specialize in real estate law and turn down DUI cases. But if you are a DUI firm, you can't refuse to defend gays, blacks or idiots in DUI cases because they're icky.

- - - Updated - - -

We are not talking about discriminating against people but messages on cakes.

Exactly how do you discriminate against messages?
Do messages have civil rights to free speech?
"We the hate speech, in order to form an imperfect union..."

 

[dismal]

Why? In our society we generally do not force private citizens to say things they don't want to say.

What is so special about cakes?

Nothing's special about cakes.
What's special is the discrimination.

Is that your problem with this whole issue? The actual 'issue' went over your head?

If you have a law firm, you can specialize in real estate law and turn down DUI cases. But if you are a DUI firm, you can't refuse to defend gays, blacks or idiots in DUI cases because they're icky.

- - - Updated - - -

We are not talking about discriminating against people but messages on cakes.

Exactly how do you discriminate against messages?
Do messages have civil rights to free speech?

We are not talking about discriminating against people. We are talking about discriminating against messages on cakes.

Citizens have a free speech rights not to be forced into saying things they don't want to say.
Bakers are citizens.
Bakers have a right to discriminate against messages on cakes.

 

[Jarhyn]

For the same reason that an accountant who does tax returns for everyone who comes in can't decide to not do them for Irishmen because he feels that they're all a bunch of drunken liars and he doesn't want to be associated with someone filing a false return - which they'd all do as a result of being Irish. If you're going to have your business provide a service, then you cannot use discriminatory measures to decide who you're going to do business with.

He has a perfect right to not do business with Irishmen. He does not have a right to not do business with Irishmen and do tax returns for everyone else. He can compromise his bigotted principles or he can compromise his income but he's the one who needs to make the compromise, not anyone else.

We are not talking about discriminating against people but messages on cakes.

No. You're trying to spin the conversation into one about speech. Most of us here know that isn't what this is about. It is about serving all comers, about sell a shape to one, sell a shape for all.

You and others have continually tried to claim that we want people to be forced to make cakes but that is not true, and we have explained how and why. We want people to be given a choice: make cakes for all, or make cakes for none. This is entirely a different proposal. If you want to discuss why those two things are very different, we can probably oblige you. But so far you have been using that strawman and it is getting quite old.

 

[dismal]

You and others have continually tried to claim that we want people to be forced to make cakes but that is not true

Yes, it is true. It's rather startling you can't admit this.

You do want to force people to put messages on cakes.

Can you agree with the following statement: "Under no circumstances ever would I advocate the government forcing a baker to put a given message on a cake"?

The answer is "no you can't". Because you do advocate forcing bakers to put messages on cakes under some circumstances.

 

[dismal]

No. You're trying to spin the conversation into one about speech.

Protip: When someone says "I don't want to produce a cake that has Message X on it because I disagree with Message X" and another says "I'm from the government and I'm going to force you to produce a cake with Message X on it anyway" you are engaged in a discussion of free speech.

 

[Jarhyn]

You and others have continually tried to claim that we want people to be forced to make cakes but that is not true

Yes, it is true. It's rather startling you can't admit this.

You do want to force people to put messages on cakes.

Can you agree with the following statement: "Under no circumstances ever would I advocate the government forcing a baker to put a given message on a cake"?

The answer is "no you can't". Because you do advocate forcing bakers to put messages on cakes under some circumstances.

Yes I can: under no circumstances would I ever want the government to force people to bake a cake for anyone, for any reason. Not letting them accept money in exchange for baking the cakes, however, that is not forcing them to bake cakes. That's jailing them for selling cakes without a license. It is an entirely different thing and I do believe you are simply being purposefully obtuse at this point.

 

[Keith&Co.]

We are not talking about discriminating against people but messages on cakes.

Exactly how do you discriminate against messages?

We are not talking about discriminating against people. We are talking about discriminating against messages on cakes.

My wife's kids do that, too. When asked to explain their statement, they repeat it.
Then they have the audacity to look surprised.

Citizens have a free speech rights not to be forced into saying things they don't want to say.
Bakers are citizens.
Bakers have a right to discriminate against messages on cakes.

But bakers are citizens providing a service. They cannot discriminate against the customers in performing that service. And that's the discrimination that causes the furor.

 

[dismal]

Yes, it is true. It's rather startling you can't admit this.

You do want to force people to put messages on cakes.

Can you agree with the following statement: "Under no circumstances ever would I advocate the government forcing a baker to put a given message on a cake"?

The answer is "no you can't". Because you do advocate forcing bakers to put messages on cakes under some circumstances.

Yes I can: under no circumstances would I ever want the government to force people to bake a cake for anyone, for any reason. Not letting them accept money in exchange for baking the cakes, however, that is not forcing them to bake cakes. That's jailing them for selling cakes without a license. It is an entirely different thing and I do believe you are simply being purposefully obtuse at this point.

And, of course, maintaining a "cake license" requires you to make cakes with certain messages.

- - - Updated - - -

We are not talking about discriminating against people but messages on cakes.

Exactly how do you discriminate against messages?

We are not talking about discriminating against people. We are talking about discriminating against messages on cakes.

My wife's kids do that, too. When asked to explain their statement, they repeat it.
Then they have the audacity to look surprised.

Citizens have a free speech rights not to be forced into saying things they don't want to say.
Bakers are citizens.
Bakers have a right to discriminate against messages on cakes.

But bakers are citizens providing a service. They cannot discriminate against the customers in performing that service. And that's the discrimination that causes the furor.

They are not discriminating against customers, they are discriminating against messages.

 

[Keith&Co.]

They are not discriminating against customers, they are discriminating against messages.

Repeating the repetition?
Repeating the repetition?
How do you discriminate against a message, and then claim it's a free-speech issue?
How do you discriminate against a message, and then claim it's a free-speech issue?
Can you draw the lines connecting the two?
Can you draw the lines connecting the two?

 

[dismal]

They are not discriminating against customers, they are discriminating against messages.

Repeating the repetition?
Repeating the repetition?
How do you discriminate against a message, and then claim it's a free-speech issue?
How do you discriminate against a message, and then claim it's a free-speech issue?
Can you draw the lines connecting the two?
Can you draw the lines connecting the two?

The reason I keep repeating my rebuttal is you keep repeating your incorrect assertion.

It's pretty amusing you would accuse me of repetition.

 

[RavenSky]

For the same reason that an accountant who does tax returns for everyone who comes in can't decide to not do them for Irishmen because he feels that they're all a bunch of drunken liars and he doesn't want to be associated with someone filing a false return - which they'd all do as a result of being Irish. If you're going to have your business provide a service, then you cannot use discriminatory measures to decide who you're going to do business with.

He has a perfect right to not do business with Irishmen. He does not have a right to not do business with Irishmen and do tax returns for everyone else. He can compromise his bigotted principles or he can compromise his income but he's the one who needs to make the compromise, not anyone else.

We are not talking about discriminating against people but messages on cakes.

What "messages on cakes"?

I agree that the baker in the OP should not be forced to write a hateful message on an otherwise ordinary cake.

I also agree that no baker should be allowed to refuse to sell a cake to a gay couple if that same baker would sell the same cake to a hetero couple.

Which part do you agree or disagree with?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

For the same reason that an accountant who does tax returns for everyone who comes in can't decide to not do them for Irishmen because he feels that they're all a bunch of drunken liars and he doesn't want to be associated with someone filing a false return - which they'd all do as a result of being Irish. If you're going to have your business provide a service, then you cannot use discriminatory measures to decide who you're going to do business with.

He has a perfect right to not do business with Irishmen. He does not have a right to not do business with Irishmen and do tax returns for everyone else. He can compromise his bigotted principles or he can compromise his income but he's the one who needs to make the compromise, not anyone else.

We are not talking about discriminating against people but messages on cakes.

We're not talking about messages on cakes, we're talking about a paid service delivered by a business. If that service is writing messages on cakes, it doesn't make it different than any other paid service provided by any other business. If your business is going to provide a paid service, it can't discriminate against which customers it offers that service to.

 

[dismal]

We are not talking about discriminating against people but messages on cakes.

What "messages on cakes"?

I agree that the baker in the OP should not be forced to write a hateful message on an otherwise ordinary cake.

I also agree that no baker should be allowed to refuse to sell a cake to a gay couple if that same baker would sell the same cake to a hetero couple.

Which part do you agree or disagree with?

I disagree with the part where the government forces someone to bake a cake they do not want to bake because of the message on it.

- - - Updated - - -

We are not talking about discriminating against people but messages on cakes.

We're not talking about messages on cakes, we're talking about a paid service delivered by a business. If that service is writing messages on cakes, it doesn't make it different than any other paid service provided by any other business. If your business is going to provide a paid service, it can't discriminate against which customers it offers that service to.

Yes, we are talking about the message on cakes.

Customer X comes in and asks for a cake with Message Y.

If the baker says "Sorry we don't serve Customer X types here" the objection is with the customer.

If the baker says "Sorry we don't bake cakes with Message Y here" the objection is with the message.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

We are not talking about discriminating against people but messages on cakes.

We're not talking about messages on cakes, we're talking about a paid service delivered by a business. If that service is writing messages on cakes, it doesn't make it different than any other paid service provided by any other business. If your business is going to provide a paid service, it can't discriminate against which customers it offers that service to.

Yes, we are talking about the message on cakes.

Customer X comes in and asks for a cake with Message Y.

If the baker says "Sorry we don't serve Customer X types here" the objection is with the customer.

If the baker says "Sorry we don't bake cakes with Message Y here" the objection is with the message.

Irrelevant to the conversation. If writing messages on cakes is the paid service that his business provides, then he cannot use discriminatory practices to decide which customers he offers that service to and the objection remains the same regardless of what the objection applies to. If he takes money to write "Congratulations, Jim and Jane" on a wedding cake, he needs to take the money if someone wants him to write "Congratulations, Jim and John" on a wedding cake. If he takes money to send a cake saying "Jesus was a pedophile" to a church picnic, he needs to take the money to send a "Die, faggot, die" cake to a gay wedding.

He can perform a service or not perform a service. He can't pick and choose amongst which groups he can offer the service to.

 

[dismal]

We are not talking about discriminating against people but messages on cakes.

We're not talking about messages on cakes, we're talking about a paid service delivered by a business. If that service is writing messages on cakes, it doesn't make it different than any other paid service provided by any other business. If your business is going to provide a paid service, it can't discriminate against which customers it offers that service to.

Yes, we are talking about the message on cakes.

Customer X comes in and asks for a cake with Message Y.

If the baker says "Sorry we don't serve Customer X types here" the objection is with the customer.

If the baker says "Sorry we don't bake cakes with Message Y here" the objection is with the message.

Irrelevant to the conversation. If writing messages on cakes is the paid service that his business provides, then he cannot use discriminatory practices to decide which customers he offers that service to and the objection remains the same regardless of what the objection applies to. If he takes money to write "Congratulations, Jim and Jane" on a wedding cake, he needs to take the money if someone wants him to write "Congratulations, Jim and John" on a wedding cake. If he takes money to send a cake saying "Jesus was a pedophile" to a church picnic, he needs to take the money to send a "Die, faggot, die" cake to a gay wedding.

He can perform a service or not perform a service. He can't pick and choose amongst which groups he can offer the service to.

In neither case did the bakery say they would not serve the customer. The objection was to the message of the cake.

I don't know why you believe maintaining a license to sell cakes requires or should require you to write whatever message someone might want on a cake. It seems like a complete non-sequitur to me.

 

[RavenSky]

What "messages on cakes"?

I agree that the baker in the OP should not be forced to write a hateful message on an otherwise ordinary cake.

I also agree that no baker should be allowed to refuse to sell a cake to a gay couple if that same baker would sell the same cake to a hetero couple.

Which part do you agree or disagree with?

I disagree with the part where the government forces someone to bake a cake they do not want to bake because of the message on it.

Please provide evidence that the government is forcing someone to bake a cake they do not want to bake because of the message on it. Or even, please provide evidence that the government is forcing someone to bake a cake they do not want to bake.

There is no such example.

Bigoted baker stopped baking wedding cakes because he did not want to sell wedding cakes to gay couples. The government has not told him he must resume baking wedding cakes - with or without messages on them.

You seem to be arguing against a strawman.

 

[RavenSky]

We are not talking about discriminating against people but messages on cakes.

We're not talking about messages on cakes, we're talking about a paid service delivered by a business. If that service is writing messages on cakes, it doesn't make it different than any other paid service provided by any other business. If your business is going to provide a paid service, it can't discriminate against which customers it offers that service to.

Yes, we are talking about the message on cakes.

Customer X comes in and asks for a cake with Message Y.

If the baker says "Sorry we don't serve Customer X types here" the objection is with the customer.

If the baker says "Sorry we don't bake cakes with Message Y here" the objection is with the message.

Irrelevant to the conversation. If writing messages on cakes is the paid service that his business provides, then he cannot use discriminatory practices to decide which customers he offers that service to and the objection remains the same regardless of what the objection applies to. If he takes money to write "Congratulations, Jim and Jane" on a wedding cake, he needs to take the money if someone wants him to write "Congratulations, Jim and John" on a wedding cake. If he takes money to send a cake saying "Jesus was a pedophile" to a church picnic, he needs to take the money to send a "Die, faggot, die" cake to a gay wedding.

He can perform a service or not perform a service. He can't pick and choose amongst which groups he can offer the service to.

In neither case did the bakery say they would not serve the customer. The objection was to the message of the cake.

In the case of the OP, you are correct that the baker did not refuse to bake the cake for the customer, and even offered the materials for the customer to write his own message. The OP baker only refused to write the hateful message herself. So far, no government has forced her to write the hateful message.

In the cases in Colorado and other states I linked to earlier, you are wrong. Those bakers DID refuse to bake the cakes for gay couples even though those bakers did bake the exact same cakes for other couples.