SCOTUS to take the cake

[blastula]

I remember being at my cousin's wedding. He is Catholic, the Bride is Jewish. It never ever occurred to me to think that the cake maker, it was a nice cake, supported the marriages between Catholics and Jews because their cake was at the wedding. I just thought, wow, nice cake.

Now the Priest and Rabbi... they clearly had to support the inter-religious marriage. And when another cousin read from the Tanakh and the Bride's brother read from the New Testament, clearly they had to support the marriage. The fucking cake?! Never came to my mind to give a fuck what the baker thought.

If the Jewish side of that wedding had to be kosher and the wedding party required cakes to be Kosher would you consider a bakery that doesn't provide Kosher cakes as discriminating against the Jewish religion?

Only if they only sold kosher cakes to gentiles.

 

[blastula]

Subway Sandwich employees make their products on order and they call themselves "sandwich artists," but I think it's a stretch to say they should have exemptions to anti-discrimination laws in whom they sell their products to just because of those facts.

And how often do you get asked which sandwich artist made your tuna on whole wheat?

- - - Updated - - -

And how often do you get asked which sandwich artist made your tuna on wheat?

It happens, but usually not if the wrapper is visible.

But why should that matter anyway? Which group should a baker be able to discriminate against because of that?

 

[laughing dog]

I remember being at my cousin's wedding. He is Catholic, the Bride is Jewish. It never ever occurred to me to think that the cake maker, it was a nice cake, supported the marriages between Catholics and Jews because their cake was at the wedding. I just thought, wow, nice cake.

Now the Priest and Rabbi... they clearly had to support the inter-religious marriage. And when another cousin read from the Tanakh and the Bride's brother read from the New Testament, clearly they had to support the marriage. The fucking cake?! Never came to my mind to give a fuck what the baker thought.

If the Jewish side of that wedding had to be kosher and the wedding party required cakes to be Kosher would you consider a bakery that doesn't provide Kosher cakes as discriminating against the Jewish religion?

I wouldn't if Kosher cakes are made differently than regular cakes. A cake for a gay wedding is not made differently than a cake for a heterosexual wedding.

 

[blastula]

What happens in a church or mosque is about as clearly religious behavior as there is, they can discriminate as they like in their religious practice. There are Christian Identity churches that are avowedly racist and they're protected. Though there may be cases where say a church rents out property to the general public where outcomes could vary.

Really? I wasn't aware of this. There are religious groups that explicitly discriminate against particular races? Are there signs on church buildings saying something along the lines of "No Blacks Allowed"? I know the boyscouts used to (maybe still do) explicitly discriminate against gays.

I don't know what their churches look like, but I don't think that should be any more surprising than that KKK groups exist. I don't see a problem with a legal right to form those groups or churches. People should have the right to be idiots up to a point.

Christian Identity - Wikipedia

 

[jab]

Free speech? A wedding often has no writing, rarely has a "made-by" sticker indicating who even made it to even offer the idea of an endorsement of an event. So it then seems to imply that leavening flour is an expression as there is no message otherwise involved with a wedding cake.

This is the area needing clarification. The last time the Court ventured an opinion resolving the titanic collision of free speech rights and public accommodation law was in 1992 in the case of Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group.

Doesn't that case have to deal with actual speech, not a transaction? A group has an underlying purpose of advocation. A bakery bakes and decorates food. Parades are very visible, no one knows who even made the cake.

Free speech? A wedding often has no writing

Well, what about those wedding cakes with writing? The Court should address the issue of wedding cakes with writing and public accommodation laws.

So it then seems to imply that leavening flour is an expression as there is no message otherwise involved with a wedding cake.

This would make sense if universally, in all places within the 50 states, no bakery has ever and/or ever will make a wedding cake with speech on it and/or be asked to make a wedding cake with a message on the cake.

So it is all about the writing and merely leavening isn't an expression?

I guess we can forward the step here. "Mike + Mitch", free speech violation merely because of two names of the same gender? "Have a wonderful gay marriage", "Appease to the gay's wants establishment!"? Is merely two men atop the cake big enough of a deal that the civil rights of a couple are veto'd by the outdated a la carte religious beliefs of a baker?

Seems odd that a cake could violate Civil Rights because of "Mike + Mitch" written on it.

Doesn't that case have to deal with actual speech, not a transaction? A group has an underlying purpose of advocation. A bakery bakes and decorates food. Parades are very visible, no one knows who even made the cake

I wasn't citing the case as precedent for this decision. However, to be sure, Hurley is relevant although it may not be controlling. Both involve rights in the free speech clause.

Not just speech but advocation. Can a third party force a first party to share the third party's message. And perhaps we can discuss how the whole cake thing actually blesses a marriage in the first place. I don't recall that in the Tanakh.

Also will this affect rehearsal dinners? Can a restaurant refuse to provide service to a gay couple's rehearsal dinner? What about dinners celebrating a gay couple's anniversary?

Speech in USA includes visual images, not just words (as in "Writing"). So what about a cake topped by an image not of a "bride" and "groom"--as is often the case-- but an image of two "grooms". That is also speech.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I remember being at my cousin's wedding. He is Catholic, the Bride is Jewish. It never ever occurred to me to think that the cake maker, it was a nice cake, supported the marriages between Catholics and Jews because their cake was at the wedding. I just thought, wow, nice cake.

Now the Priest and Rabbi... they clearly had to support the inter-religious marriage. And when another cousin read from the Tanakh and the Bride's brother read from the New Testament, clearly they had to support the marriage. The fucking cake?! Never came to my mind to give a fuck what the baker thought.

If the Jewish side of that wedding had to be kosher and the wedding party required cakes to be Kosher would you consider a bakery that doesn't provide Kosher cakes as discriminating against the Jewish religion?

If they're providing kosher cakes to everybody except Jewish people, then yes. If they don't provide kosher cakes to anybody, then no they aren't discriminating.

Honestly, this isn't very difficult logic to figure out. I think you're just being argumentative.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Free speech? A wedding often has no writing, rarely has a "made-by" sticker indicating who even made it to even offer the idea of an endorsement of an event. So it then seems to imply that leavening flour is an expression as there is no message otherwise involved with a wedding cake.

This is the area needing clarification. The last time the Court ventured an opinion resolving the titanic collision of free speech rights and public accommodation law was in 1992 in the case of Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group.

Doesn't that case have to deal with actual speech, not a transaction? A group has an underlying purpose of advocation. A bakery bakes and decorates food. Parades are very visible, no one knows who even made the cake.

Free speech? A wedding often has no writing

Well, what about those wedding cakes with writing? The Court should address the issue of wedding cakes with writing and public accommodation laws.

So it then seems to imply that leavening flour is an expression as there is no message otherwise involved with a wedding cake.

This would make sense if universally, in all places within the 50 states, no bakery has ever and/or ever will make a wedding cake with speech on it and/or be asked to make a wedding cake with a message on the cake.

So it is all about the writing and merely leavening isn't an expression?

I guess we can forward the step here. "Mike + Mitch", free speech violation merely because of two names of the same gender? "Have a wonderful gay marriage", "Appease to the gay's wants establishment!"? Is merely two men atop the cake big enough of a deal that the civil rights of a couple are veto'd by the outdated a la carte religious beliefs of a baker?

Seems odd that a cake could violate Civil Rights because of "Mike + Mitch" written on it.

Doesn't that case have to deal with actual speech, not a transaction? A group has an underlying purpose of advocation. A bakery bakes and decorates food. Parades are very visible, no one knows who even made the cake

I wasn't citing the case as precedent for this decision. However, to be sure, Hurley is relevant although it may not be controlling. Both involve rights in the free speech clause.

Not just speech but advocation. Can a third party force a first party to share the third party's message. And perhaps we can discuss how the whole cake thing actually blesses a marriage in the first place. I don't recall that in the Tanakh.

Also will this affect rehearsal dinners? Can a restaurant refuse to provide service to a gay couple's rehearsal dinner? What about dinners celebrating a gay couple's anniversary?

Speech in USA includes visual images, not just words (as in "Writing"). So what about a cake topped by an image not of a "bride" and "groom"--as is often the case-- but an image of two "grooms". That is also speech.

And one black male with a white female....

We've already had this argument in the 60's.

 

[Toni]

Really? I wasn't aware of this. There are religious groups that explicitly discriminate against particular races? Are there signs on church buildings saying something along the lines of "No Blacks Allowed"? I know the boyscouts used to (maybe still do) explicitly discriminate against gays.

I don't know what their churches look like, but I don't think that should be any more surprising than that KKK groups exist. I don't see a problem with a legal right to form those groups or churches. People should have the right to be idiots up to a point.

Christian Identity - Wikipedia

The Mormons refused priesthood to blacks after Joseph Smith died until late 1970's or early 80's. Blacks couldn't get into special parts of heaven, either because they bore the curse of Ham, although some said that black skin was a mark of Caine. Not sure if that particular sin of ancestry has been forgiven yet.

 

[repoman]

Free speech? A wedding often has no writing, rarely has a "made-by" sticker indicating who even made it to even offer the idea of an endorsement of an event. So it then seems to imply that leavening flour is an expression as there is no message otherwise involved with a wedding cake.

This is the area needing clarification. The last time the Court ventured an opinion resolving the titanic collision of free speech rights and public accommodation law was in 1992 in the case of Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group.

Doesn't that case have to deal with actual speech, not a transaction? A group has an underlying purpose of advocation. A bakery bakes and decorates food. Parades are very visible, no one knows who even made the cake.

Free speech? A wedding often has no writing

Well, what about those wedding cakes with writing? The Court should address the issue of wedding cakes with writing and public accommodation laws.

So it then seems to imply that leavening flour is an expression as there is no message otherwise involved with a wedding cake.

This would make sense if universally, in all places within the 50 states, no bakery has ever and/or ever will make a wedding cake with speech on it and/or be asked to make a wedding cake with a message on the cake.

So it is all about the writing and merely leavening isn't an expression?

I guess we can forward the step here. "Mike + Mitch", free speech violation merely because of two names of the same gender? "Have a wonderful gay marriage", "Appease to the gay's wants establishment!"? Is merely two men atop the cake big enough of a deal that the civil rights of a couple are veto'd by the outdated a la carte religious beliefs of a baker?

Seems odd that a cake could violate Civil Rights because of "Mike + Mitch" written on it.

Doesn't that case have to deal with actual speech, not a transaction? A group has an underlying purpose of advocation. A bakery bakes and decorates food. Parades are very visible, no one knows who even made the cake

I wasn't citing the case as precedent for this decision. However, to be sure, Hurley is relevant although it may not be controlling. Both involve rights in the free speech clause.

Not just speech but advocation. Can a third party force a first party to share the third party's message. And perhaps we can discuss how the whole cake thing actually blesses a marriage in the first place. I don't recall that in the Tanakh.

Also will this affect rehearsal dinners? Can a restaurant refuse to provide service to a gay couple's rehearsal dinner? What about dinners celebrating a gay couple's anniversary?

Speech in USA includes visual images, not just words (as in "Writing"). So what about a cake topped by an image not of a "bride" and "groom"--as is often the case-- but an image of two "grooms". That is also speech.

And one black male with a white female....

We've already had this argument in the 60's.

If the argument is about the religion of the baker, then the Christian Identity adherent parallel to putting two grooms on top of a cake would be mixed race figurines on a cake.

Following that chain of logic, there is no reason that one should be allowed and the other denied.

But slavishly following logic doesn't make someone smart in the world.

This whole topic is about the power that the state has ceded to the church and foolish superstitious fucknuts. The state should take it back and crush them under foot.

No conscientious objectors for the draft (they should be jailed), no circumcision of infants ever even for Jews.

There is a logical line from conscientious draft dodgers to cake makers. The former should never have been allowed by the Supreme Court. Now they may allow even more bullshit for the latter.

No religious exemptions of any kind ever.

This is an atheist board, let's act like it!

 

[Keith&Co.]

I wouldn't if Kosher cakes are made differently than regular cakes.

Well, Kosher foods have to be prepared in a Kosher kitchen, using Kosher materials. And it's not just a decision to use select materials, the kitchen has to be overseen by a rabbi. So it's a business choice to go to the expense to qualify.

Hard to imagine it being at all comparable to providing Gay-appropriate cakes. Unless you have a Gay scholar inspecting the kitchen, making sure your chefs' outfits don't clash with the paint scheme of the oven; the utensils all come from Williams Sonoma, and do not mix with anything from Bed, Bath and Beyond; the eggs and milk come from Whole Foods...

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

California bakers refuse to bake a pro-Trump cake for 9-year-old fan

The headline really contains all the details.

Bake the damn cake? Remember, personal beliefs aren't allowed to impact any decision making, and a cake with a picture on it is a cake with a picture on it, just as a cake with a message on it is a cake with a message on it.

 

[blastula]

California bakers refuse to bake a pro-Trump cake for 9-year-old fan

The headline really contains all the details.

Bake the damn cake? Remember, personal beliefs aren't allowed to impact any decision making, and a cake with a picture on it is a cake with a picture on it, just as a cake with a message on it is a cake with a message on it.

Huh? Show anybody making any kind of arguments like what you said.

 

[Lion IRC]

Why can't businesses say..."we don't sell THAT type of cake"?

If I'm a photographer/videographer and a client wants me to film pornography, I can say I don't do porn. I'm not legally obligated to serve that part of the market.

I can run a Subaru mechanical repairs shop that only does Subarus.

Straight prostitutes aren't forced to service gay clients.

 

[laughing dog]

California bakers refuse to bake a pro-Trump cake for 9-year-old fan

The headline really contains all the details.

Bake the damn cake? Remember, personal beliefs aren't allowed to impact any decision making, and a cake with a picture on it is a cake with a picture on it, just as a cake with a message on it is a cake with a message on it.

I am not sure this story is accurate. I can find no report with independent verification of the mother's claim.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

California bakers refuse to bake a pro-Trump cake for 9-year-old fan

The headline really contains all the details.

Bake the damn cake? Remember, personal beliefs aren't allowed to impact any decision making, and a cake with a picture on it is a cake with a picture on it, just as a cake with a message on it is a cake with a message on it.

I am not sure this story is accurate. I can find no report with independent verification of the mother's claim.

Are you saying that you are questioning the veracity of The Blaze?

 

[blastula]

Why can't businesses say..."we don't sell THAT type of cake"?

If they don't, then they can.

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm not going to click on the link to the blaze to give them ad revenue. Was this taken to a court of law?

 

[laughing dog]

I am not sure this story is accurate. I can find no report with independent verification of the mother's claim.

Are you saying that you are questioning the veracity of The Blaze?

The Washington Post did report this as well. But they did not independently verify the woman's story.

 

[Elixir]

Nobody who goes by "Pickle" should be allowed to demand anything from anyone.

 

[Toni]

Why can't businesses say..."we don't sell THAT type of cake"?

If I'm a photographer/videographer and a client wants me to film pornography, I can say I don't do porn. I'm not legally obligated to serve that part of the market.

I can run a Subaru mechanical repairs shop that only does Subarus.

Straight prostitutes aren't forced to service gay clients.

You are extremely naive if you believe that prostitutes service clients they are attracted to. Or gender.