Another Bakery Discrimination Lawsuit

[Jarhyn]

It still shocks me how someone who claims to be so intelligent seems unable to understand that "serve all comers or serve none" is not the same proposition as "serve all comers". These arennot the same things. No amount of screaming, misdirection, or outright lies will ever make those two equal.

I will wholeheartedly disagree with anyone who claims the baker has an obligation to say (male) and (male). That IS a free speech issue. However a cake with no names and no statues, that could be for a straight wedding as much as a gay one, or for that matter for something that isn't a wedding, any person has a right to buy such a cake from someone who makes such cakes. At that point it is about "who" and not "what".

On the left, this is no different than when white businesses refused to serve blacks, and later how racist assholes refused to make these same cakes for "mixed race" marriages. It is the same issue. It is about denying license to make cakes, sell fuel, market wares, or do any kind of commerce If they discriminate on the basis of race, sexuality, religion, or any other thing that is not 'can they afford it' and 'can society accept the non-monetary costs'

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

That's good because there are zero people arguing against what you're arguing for and sort of response would have been a non-sequitur.

He is not required to write things that he doesn't want to write on a cake. When he does want to write something on a cake, however, he cannot then continue on to deny writing the same thing on another cake based on the group that customer making the request is in.

 

[laughing dog]

So
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.

I see the problem. Obviously you have never baked a cake, because cakes are not baked with messages on them. Messages are applied to the cake after it is baked. So, the government is not forcing anyone to bake any cake with a message on it. In fact, the gov't is not forcing anyone to bake any cakes at all. Perhaps the problem is that you are misinformed about the problem. The issue is whether or not a baker discriminates based on the message not the cake.

 

[maxparrish]

While Dismal's free speech argument is perfectly comprehensible (and consistent with the philosophical underpinnings of the first amendment), his critics are not. Some of these 'critics' comments are doozies:

Kieth&Co said that the baker must make a gay wedding reception cake on the personal basis of just because it "seems appropriate to me (him)" and asserted that "If he makes wedding cakes, he needs to make everyone a wedding cake....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." and "He should be able to choose the genres he'll decorate for, but he can't cherry pick within a genre."

When challenged to explain on what basis the baker must bake, and how he could reconcile the violations of free speech he hexed up the sacred word "discrimination", as if the scope of its meaning and the invisible hand of comprehensive negation of the bakers constitutional rights were beyond discussion ("What's special is the discrimination. Is that your problem with this whole issue? The actual 'issue' went over your head?).

The only issue that may have gone over someone's head is that "discrimination" is not in, and of itself, illegal or immoral. A person in business has the legal and moral right to decline selling to someone because they are an "idiot", untrustworthy, or just because they smell bad. Legally they may discriminate on any basis they choose, with the exception of certain considerations not permitted by law. In the state of Colorado they may not refuse to sell to a person because of their sexual orientation, but they may refuse to sell any product they wish on other basises...including the desire to not convey a message of support to a custom or practice they consider sinful.

As both freedom of speech and religion is a constitutional right, civil laws on discrimination should be limited by those constraints (for both moral and legal reasons).

 

[Jarhyn]

While Dismal's free speech argument is perfectly comprehensible (and consistent with the philosophical underpinnings of the first amendment), his critics are not. Some of these 'critics' comments are doozies:

Kieth&Co said that the baker must make a gay wedding reception cake on the personal basis just because it "seems appropriate to me (him)" and asserted that "If he makes wedding cakes, he needs to make everyone a wedding cake....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." and "He should be able to choose the genres he'll decorate for, but he can't cherry pick within a genre."

When challenged to explain on what basis the baker must bake, and how he could reconcile the violations of free speech he hexed up the sacred word "discrimination", as if the scope of its meaning and comprehensive negation of a bakers constitutional rights were beyond discussion ("What's special is the discrimination. Is that your problem with this whole issue? The actual 'issue' went over your head?).

The only issue that may have gone over someone's head is that "discrimination" is not in, and of itself, illegal or immoral. A person in business has the legal and moral right to decline selling to someone because they are an "idiot", untrustworthy, or just because they smell bad. Legally they may discriminate on any basis they choose, with the exception of certain considerations not permitted by law.

As both freedom of speech and religion is a constitutional right, civil laws on discrimination should be limited by those constraints (for both moral and legal reasons).

So, essentially 'fuck you. I got mine'. 'The laws protect my bullshit, so what do I care about anyone else'. Our laws are not right. Our laws are incomplete, and our constitution even spells that out, in saying our bill of rights is merely saying 'we have AT LEAST these rights, not saying we have 'only' these rights.

Our laws are flawed half-assed bad representations and misunderstandings of some underlying principle that describes the best ways for society to function. We've added 'protected classes' before, and we can add them again, and why you are so adamant that people deserve a right to discriminate against gays, I can only guess at. If you want to hear that guess, you'd probably have to listen to a great many unkind and unflattering words. That said, your utter distaste for changing our laws seems misplaced. Do you LIKE having a less functional system by which our society functions?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

So people seem to have a problem grasping the actual facts on the two not so similar cases. The original case they refused service outright (sorry, we can't sell you a wedding cake, but how about a god hates fags cake?). In the later case, the baker just wouldn't put the message on the cake. How hard is it to ice a message on a cake, especially relative to "How hard is it to make a wedding cake?". The right-wing is orgasming all over the place with this alleged "gotcha". It is sad and pathetic.

 

[maxparrish]

It still shocks me how someone who claims to be so intelligent seems unable to understand that "serve all comers or serve none" is not the same proposition as "serve all comers". These are not the same things. No amount of screaming, misdirection, or outright lies will ever make those two equal.

Both propositions are coercion, with one proposition allowing for slightly more choice for the provider by giving him/her two options (rather than one). For example, here are two similar options: "Hattie, as your are my slave I will give you two options: service all our plantations sexual wants OR you must become celibate until you comply".

I will wholeheartedly disagree with anyone who claims the baker has an obligation to say (male) and (male). That IS a free speech issue. However a cake with no names and no statues, that could be for a straight wedding as much as a gay one, or for that matter for something that isn't a wedding, any person has a right to buy such a cake from someone who makes such cakes. At that point it is about "who" and not "what".

Yes it is a "who issue" when refusing to sell a generic cake to gay customers because they are gay. And it is not (usually) a free speech issue, its an issue of the violation of the provider's right of free contract and freedom of association.

But refusing to sell a generic cake to a gay customer because the cake will be used in a "sinful" ceremony and celebration of gay marriage is no longer a who issue, it is a "what" issue. The "what" is a specific cultural celebration loathed by the seller. To force him to do so is a violation of the freedom of mind, free exercise of religion.

Refusing to design and create a wedding cake for the purposes of expressing approval of a gay marriage is a freedom of speech, expression issue. It is not a "who" issue.

On the left, this is no different than when white businesses refused to serve blacks, and later how racist assholes refused to make these same cakes for "mixed race" marriages. It is the same issue. It is about denying license to make cakes, sell fuel, market wares, or do any kind of commerce If they discriminate on the basis of race, sexuality, religion, or any other thing that is not 'can they afford it' and 'can society accept the non-monetary costs'

An excellent example. If a racist asshole refuses to sell to blacks or to employ blacks (about 97.72% of all racial discrimination before civil rights laws) it is an issue of who. If person (who otherwise services and sells to all races) does not believe in mixed race marriage, and refuses to sell his/her services or products to anyone that uses it in celebration of a mixed race marriage it is a matter of "what".

Withholding a product or service to both blacks and whites because of its use in a joint cultural practice is quite different - just as a Islamic provider of food for weddings is within his right to not sell such foods to a use in a mixed religion marriage.

Such is the nature of liberty and fundamental rights.

 

[jonatha]

How hard is it to ice a message on a cake, especially relative to "How hard is it to make a wedding cake?".

Much harder.

[/my wife owns a bakery]

 

[maxparrish]

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.

So people seem to have a problem grasping the actual facts on the two not so similar cases. The original case they refused service outright (sorry, we can't sell you a wedding cake, but how about a god hates fags cake?). In the later case, the baker just wouldn't put the message on the cake. How hard is it to ice a message on a cake, especially relative to "How hard is it to make a wedding cake?". The right-wing is orgasming all over the place with this alleged "gotcha". It is sad and pathetic.

People have trouble grasping the facts in Colorado as well. From in the judge's summary, he stated: "Phillips informed Complainants that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings" but that he would do so for them for any other purpose. Apparently the potential customers requested more than a cake, or a "on display" cake. They wished him to do a creative act, to both create and bake a wedding cake for them to use to celebrate their gay marriage.

Yes, there is a difference in that we will never know if the couple wanted writing or symbolism on the cake. However, it is a creative act that the baker refused and NOT a simple refusal to sell any cake to the customers.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So people seem to have a problem grasping the actual facts on the two not so similar cases. The original case they refused service outright (sorry, we can't sell you a wedding cake, but how about a god hates fags cake?). In the later case, the baker just wouldn't put the message on the cake. How hard is it to ice a message on a cake, especially relative to "How hard is it to make a wedding cake?". The right-wing is orgasming all over the place with this alleged "gotcha". It is sad and pathetic.

People have trouble grasping the facts in Colorado as well. From in the judge's summary, he stated: "Phillips informed Complainants that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings" but that he would do so for them for any other purpose. Apparently the potential customers requested more than a cake, or a "on display" cake. They wished him to do a creative act, to both create and bake a wedding cake for them to use to celebrate their gay marriage.

You do realize the difference between making a "cake" verses making a "wedding cake", right? The costs are higher, the time is longer, and the skill required is much higher. Comparing a decorated cake with a decorated wedding cake is absolute nuttery.

- - - Updated - - -

How hard is it to ice a message on a cake, especially relative to "How hard is it to make a wedding cake?".

Much harder.

[/my wife owns a bakery]

I made my own for our wedding. It was a small wedding, so it was a simple two layer cake with fondant cover and fondant ribbons. And it still took hours! Knead the fondant, color the fondant (oy... that was about half an hour in itself!), roll the fondant (and keeping it clean!). My love of fondant died with that cake. Tasteless crap that takes so long to work with... though I did decorate my wife's baby shower cake with fondant as well.

 

[maxparrish]

Dup

 

[maxparrish]

While Dismal's free speech argument is perfectly comprehensible (and consistent with the philosophical underpinnings of the first amendment), his critics are not. Some of these 'critics' comments are doozies:

Kieth&Co said that the baker must make a gay wedding reception cake on the personal basis just because it "seems appropriate to me (him)" and asserted that "If he makes wedding cakes, he needs to make everyone a wedding cake....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." and "He should be able to choose the genres he'll decorate for, but he can't cherry pick within a genre."

When challenged to explain on what basis the baker must bake, and how he could reconcile the violations of free speech he hexed up the sacred word "discrimination", as if the scope of its meaning and comprehensive negation of a bakers constitutional rights were beyond discussion ("What's special is the discrimination. Is that your problem with this whole issue? The actual 'issue' went over your head?).

The only issue that may have gone over someone's head is that "discrimination" is not in, and of itself, illegal or immoral. A person in business has the legal and moral right to decline selling to someone because they are an "idiot", untrustworthy, or just because they smell bad. Legally they may discriminate on any basis they choose, with the exception of certain considerations not permitted by law.

As both freedom of speech and religion is a constitutional right, civil laws on discrimination should be limited by those constraints (for both moral and legal reasons).

So, essentially 'fuck you. I got mine'. 'The laws protect my bullshit, so what do I care about anyone else'. Our laws are not right. Our laws are incomplete, and our constitution even spells that out, in saying our bill of rights is merely saying 'we have AT LEAST these rights, not saying we have 'only' these rights.

Our laws are flawed half-assed bad representations and misunderstandings of some underlying principle that describes the best ways for society to function. We've added 'protected classes' before, and we can add them again, and why you are so adamant that people deserve a right to discriminate against gays, I can only guess at. If you want to hear that guess, you'd probably have to listen to a great many unkind and unflattering words. That said, your utter distaste for changing our laws seems misplaced. Do you LIKE having a less functional system by which our society functions?

Your rant is an emotive purge of hostility, and your reasoning (if there is any) remains a total mystery. To better understand the nature of your excoriation, you might provide a few answers to these questions:

What does "fuck you, I got mine" mean? Does it mean that it is wrong to not provide you what you demand? Does it mean that you expect others to gift to anyone anything they wish? You really don't live your life that way do you? (Unless, of course, you are the one always demanding something of what 'other's got'.)? All one can 'read' into your comment is your resentment that others have earned what is theirs, and that you don't have it.

Anyone has a right to "discriminate" who they wish to form a relationship with, without interference from societies master...the state. People own their minds and bodies, and they may use their physical actions with others voluntarily, or refuse to do so. They may "marry" who they wish, join or not join organizations, form partnerships, cooperate or trade, or agree to a contract between them. It is there life and they wish to be left alone.

You, apparently, want to impose yourself on others. You are enraged that someone, somewhere, might not agree with you on a practice and you wish to chain them to serving your needs - if only out of the malicious principle that anyone who does not bake you a cake is a miscreant.

Is this what a free society has come to?

Live and let live. Respect those who want to be left alone. To do otherwise is to be a narcissist.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Live and let live. Respect those who want to be left alone. To do otherwise is to be a narcissist.

Exactly. Fuck those Irish. They need not apply.

Bunch of dirty rats the lot of them. They can stay the hell out of my shop.

 

[maxparrish]

If you don't like the Irish, then should I visit Toronto I shall stay out of your shop (being 5/8's Irish and Scots-Irish).

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Discrimination of that sort is only sustainable when backed by force of law, such as the Jim Crow Laws. When was the last time you saw a sign saying that Irish need not apply?

 

[dismal]

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.

So people seem to have a problem grasping the actual facts on the two not so similar cases. The original case they refused service outright (sorry, we can't sell you a wedding cake, but how about a god hates fags cake?). In the later case, the baker just wouldn't put the message on the cake. How hard is it to ice a message on a cake, especially relative to "How hard is it to make a wedding cake?". The right-wing is orgasming all over the place with this alleged "gotcha". It is sad and pathetic.

This was already demonstrated to be false in this thread. In the earlier case the bakery was willing to make the people a cake. They objected to the message of the requested cake, but were willing to bake other cakes.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Discrimination of that sort is only sustainable when backed by force of law, such as the Jim Crow Laws. When was the last time you saw a sign saying that Irish need not apply?

So, let me see if I understand you.

I open a shop and put a sign on the door saying "No Irish / No Blacks / No Gays / No {Whomever else pissed me off that day}".

A gay, black Irishman who had cut me off in traffic that morning then walks in and I tell him that I won't take his money and he can't have any of my stuff. Your position is that absent my calling the police to back up my discrimination by force of law, I would end up letting him make a purchase.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but it sounds to me like that is the argument that you just made. If not, what would happen in that situation absent any governing laws?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

No, my position is that your competitor will run you out of business very quickly.

You face a choice then. Do you serve him even though you don't want to, or do you go out of business even though you probably don't want to do that either.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No, my position is that your competitor will run you out of business very quickly.

You face a choice then. Do you serve him even though you don't want to, or do you go out of business even though you probably don't want to do that either.

So, you're living in a small town of conservative Christians, most of whom are very anti-gay. A gay couple moves into the town. Most of the businesses put up signs saying that gays aren't allowed in their business and the town as a whole supports the businesses which do this. Should the gay couple just lose out and not be allowed to do any shopping in their new home town?

 

[dismal]

No, my position is that your competitor will run you out of business very quickly.

You face a choice then. Do you serve him even though you don't want to, or do you go out of business even though you probably don't want to do that either.

So, you're living in a small town of conservative Christians, most of whom are very anti-gay. A gay couple moves into the town. Most of the businesses put up signs saying that gays aren't allowed in their business and the town as a whole supports the businesses which do this. Should the gay couple just lose out and not be allowed to do any shopping in their new home town?

Is this a big problem in this case? Or anywhere at all in the actual world?