The bakers and the lesbians--what really happened

[Cerberus]

Sometimes, though, it's as well not to believe everything you read in newspapers?

That link was for convenience. What they cited as their source was: http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet Cakes FO.pdf

I'm not taking that advice from you who started out in this thread with unfounded, prejudiced assumptions.

Calm down, I was generalising! (in fact I was generalising on the subject matter itself, rather than commenting on the article, but hey-ho, that's messageboards for you!). I mean how many times have you heard someone say, and with good reason, 'Don't believe everything you read in the papers.'?

 

[Juma]

What is a "gay wedding cake" and how does it differ from any other wedding cake?

It's a cake intended for a gay wedding, which the baker doesn't need to know. If they tell him this is what it's for, he is entitled to refuse.

If it's an Elvis Presley birthday cake, and the baker hates Elvis Presley music, and they tell him this is what it's for, then he is entitled to refuse.

If it's for a straight Christian couple, but they're going to play Wagner's wedding march, and the baker hates Wagner for being antisemitic, he is entitled to refuse. It's the customer's fault for telling him what music was going to be played.

It doesn't have to be for a Hitler or Mao birthday party, or other mass murderer, but simply any purpose that the baker disagrees with. If they don't tell him, he should have to sell them the product. But if they tell him, he is entitled to refuse.

Is the baker entitled to refuse a cake for a black persons birthday? Just because he doesnt libe blacks?

 

[bilby]

It's a cake intended for a gay wedding, which the baker doesn't need to know. If they tell him this is what it's for, he is entitled to refuse.

If it's an Elvis Presley birthday cake, and the baker hates Elvis Presley music, and they tell him this is what it's for, then he is entitled to refuse.

If it's for a straight Christian couple, but they're going to play Wagner's wedding march, and the baker hates Wagner for being antisemitic, he is entitled to refuse. It's the customer's fault for telling him what music was going to be played.

It doesn't have to be for a Hitler or Mao birthday party, or other mass murderer, but simply any purpose that the baker disagrees with. If they don't tell him, he should have to sell them the product. But if they tell him, he is entitled to refuse.

Is the baker entitled to refuse a cake for a black persons birthday? Just because he doesnt libe blacks?

If the customer doesn't mention that he is black, that completely prevents that from being an issue.

Apparently.

 

[RavenSky]

Would it really be beyond the wit of man (or in this case newbie) to be familiar with the actual facts of the case before spouting off on a message board and spreading the ignorance?

As to the case, I too often wonder how much this kind of thing is either agenda-driven attention-seeking or just blatant hateful bigotry, but of course I am referring to the bakery owners. They are the ones who publicized the case. They are the ones who released the names AND ADDRESS of the couple, thereby exposing the couple and their children to harrassment and death threats. The bakers are the ones who sought out right wing hate groups in an agenda-driven attention-seeking attempt to get their 15 minutes of fame for their admitted bigotry.

And to be crystal clear, this was not ever, in any way, a case about a cake-topper. The baker asked for the names of the bride and groom for his paperwork (not for the cake), but when he heard the names of two women he called their family an "abomination" and misquoted bible passages at one of the women and her mother.

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen...ng_you_heard_on_the_sweet_cakes_case_is_false

Given how badly you mangled the fact of the case in this thread, I am sure you will understand why I doubt the veracity of your claim about the B&B and require a link to detailed source about that alleged case.

Here, chew on this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...owners-refused-gay-couple-close-business.html

As I said when someone else had to provide the link for you, the actual facts of that case don't support your claim.

Oh, and the fact that I'm 'a newbie' doesn't mean I'm a fool!

I never said it did.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Calm down, I was generalising! (in fact I was generalising on the subject matter itself, rather than commenting on the article, but hey-ho, that's messageboards for you!). I mean how many times have you heard someone say, and with good reason, 'Don't believe everything you read in the papers.'?

You were side-stepping a reasonably well-established account of events. Whether you were uttering largely irrelevant platitudes for no apparent reason doesn't really matter.

 

[RavenSky]

It wasn't relevant. The cake was refused when the bakers discovered the two women requesting it were requesting it for two brides. As far as we know, decorations never even entered into it; the bakery wouldn't make a cake for their ceremony, period.

You're operating on assumption, and not only that, but jumping to conclusions which absurdly victimize bigots asking for compromise which the bakers would not provide, not the lesbian couple in question. Somehow this leads you to the conclusion that gay people (some gay people or all gay people) are especially uncompromising of all the fascistic zealots out there despite the fact that the reason discrimination against LGBT people is highlighted in modern culture is because the abuses LGBT people faced historically were so pervasive and severe.

Admittedly, I'm going off second-hand events of what transpired at the bakery. I wasn't there; I don't know.for certain. If you have facts contrary to what I stated -- that the bakery refused service based on the wedding being a same-sex wedding (after having asked the name of the bride and groom and finding out it would be two brides), I suggest next time you lead off with such facts. If you have no such facts, maybe give your posts a little more thought first.

It's possible there might be subtleties here, and if so begs the question as to why the customers needed to explain that the cake was for two lesbians. For example, if they'd just gone into the shop and ordered 'a wedding cake' then the order would have been taken without a second's thought. It's highly likely that that nuance might not have been reported? Or mischievously omitted from the article to sensationalise it??

It is possible that if you would read the ruling, you would discover that it was the baker who wanted the names of the couple for his paperwork. The BAKER asked, the bride-to-be did not volunteer it.

 

[RavenSky]

What is a "gay wedding cake" and how does it differ from any other wedding cake?

It's a cake intended for a gay wedding, which the baker doesn't need to know. If they tell him this is what it's for, he is entitled to refuse.

1. They did not tell him what it was for. He asked for the names of the bride and groom for his paperwork, and when he heard two female names he refused service (illegally)
2. No, he was NOT entitled to refuse to bake the cake. That was illegal.
3. You have failed to demonstrate what is different about the cake. I did not ask you about the ceremony the cake is for, nor the genders of the couple ordering it. I asked about the cake. What is the difference between a "gay wedding cake" and any other wedding cake? Taste the rainbow?

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

It's a cake intended for a gay wedding, which the baker doesn't need to know. If they tell him this is what it's for, he is entitled to refuse.

He isn't. Not legally, nor should he be in a society were people are interdependent and rely on the exchange of goods and services, and goods and services providers are dependent on the communities and infrastructures which support them.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What's wrong with "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL"?

Is the baker entitled to refuse a cake for a black person's birthday? Just because he doesn't like blacks?

If the customer doesn't mention that he is black, that completely prevents that from being an issue.

Apparently.

The only qualifier needed is that the vendor is required to serve all customers, no matter who. (the only exception would be something like obnoxious behavior, "no shoes, no shirt, no service," etc., but let's not get bogged down in that)

Businesses are required to serve everyone, so they cannot refuse a customer for being Black or any other color. But a customer needn't give the vendor any unnecessary comments about what the product is to be used for. If the customer does this, then the vendor is entitled to refuse.

What's wrong with this rule?

Shouldn't an atheist baker be entitled to refuse to sell a cake to a Christian event, if they tell him this will be served at an evangelical rally to win souls to Jesus? They didn't have to tell him that. It should be the vendor's discretion if they say more than what is necessary.

Suppose they tell the baker that the cake will be used for a communion service and will be converted into the body of Christ. Shouldn't this atheist baker be entitled to refuse to provide the "body of Christ" to these Christian worshipers?

OK, it's far-fetched, but the rule should cover all possible cases.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Yes or no? -- Does that Jewish baker have to sell a Hitler birthday cake to those Neo-Nazis?

It's a cake intended for a gay wedding, which the baker doesn't need to know. If they tell him this is what it's for, he is entitled to refuse.

He isn't. Not legally, nor should he be in a society where . . .

Yes he should be. If he's a Democrat and does not want to sell a cake to a Republican Party event, he should be free to refuse, if they tell him this is what it's for. If it's for a Nazi Party event, he should be free to refuse. But if they don't tell him, he has to sell them the product. What is wrong with this rule?

. . . where people are interdependent and rely on the exchange of goods and services, and goods and services providers are dependent on the communities and infrastructures which support them.

The providers will be more abundant and be able to serve consumers better if they are free to use their discretion. But if they are forced to violate their conscience or serve a cause distasteful to them, there will be fewer providers to serve consumers.

The alternative is that vendors must serve any customer even if they are told by the customer that the product is for a use the vendor disagrees with.

By that rule, the vendor would have to serve the Neo-Nazi group throwing a Hitler birthday party. Such a party is not illegal.

If you say NO!, the vendor could refuse to serve the Neo-Nazi group, what is the rule? That Neo-Nazi party is perfectly legal. Just because the Nazis did crimes in the 1930s does not mean it's illegal today for someone to be a Nazi and hold a party for Hitler.

If you make an exception for Nazis, then what about other offensive persons in history? What about a Jefferson Davis birthday party? what about a Karl Marx party? Lenin? Christopher Columbus? Attila the Hun? Genghis Khan? Dracula?

What is the rule? There are many evil causes someone might want to celebrate and want to order a cake for. Is the vendor required to serve EVERY imaginable customer, no matter how obnoxious, as long as the activity or use of the product in question is legal? Then you would require that Jewish baker to provide a cake to the Neo-Nazi event.

How about a birthday cake for Mao Tse Tung? Mao murdered many more millions of humans than Hitler did. So, should an anti-communist baker be required to provide a birthday cake for a Mao Tse-Tung birthday party?

I get it. You think gays and lesbians are mass murderers. Dictators who establish horrible regimes and kill millions.

How about answering the question: Should that baker be required to serve the group throwing a party for Mao? Yes or no?

This does not equate Maoists with gay weddings, except that both are legal, and there is no rule saying why a vendor must serve one but may refuse to serve the other. Until you give that rule, YOU are the one equating them.

The best rule is that it should be the vendor's discretion, if the customer makes the mistake of saying what the product is to be used for.

There has to be a stated rule. You can't make up rules as you go along, judging each case only on emotional impulse.

 

[bilby]

He isn't. Not legally, nor should he be in a society where . . .

Yes he should be. If he's a Democrat and does not want to sell a cake to a Republican Party event, he should be free to refuse, if they tell him this is what it's for. If it's for a Nazi Party event, he should be free to refuse. But if they don't tell him, he has to sell them the product. What is wrong with this rule?

. . . where people are interdependent and rely on the exchange of goods and services, and goods and services providers are dependent on the communities and infrastructures which support them.

The providers will be more abundant and be able to serve consumers better if they are free to use their discretion. But if they are forced to violate their conscience or serve a cause distasteful to them, there will be fewer providers to serve consumers.

The alternative is that vendors must serve any customer even if they are told by the customer that the product is for a use the vendor disagrees with.

By that rule, the vendor would have to serve the Neo-Nazi group throwing a Hitler birthday party. Such a party is not illegal.

If you say NO!, the vendor could refuse to serve the Neo-Nazi group, what is the rule? That Neo-Nazi party is perfectly legal. Just because the Nazis did crimes in the 1930s does not mean it's illegal today for someone to be a Nazi and hold a party for Hitler.

If you make an exception for Nazis, then what about other offensive persons in history? What about a Jefferson Davis birthday party? what about a Karl Marx party? Lenin? Christopher Columbus? Attila the Hun? Genghis Khan? Dracula?

What is the rule? There are many evil causes someone might want to celebrate and want to order a cake for. Is the vendor required to serve EVERY imaginable customer, no matter how obnoxious, as long as the activity or use of the product in question is legal? Then you would require that Jewish baker to provide a cake to the Neo-Nazi event.

How about a birthday cake for Mao Tse Tung? Mao murdered many more millions of humans than Hitler did. So, should an anti-communist baker be required to provide a birthday cake for a Mao Tse-Tung birthday party?

I get it. You think gays and lesbians are mass murderers. Dictators who establish horrible regimes and kill millions.

How about answering the question: Should that baker be required to serve the group throwing a party for Mao? Yes or no?

This does not equate Maoists with gay weddings, except that both are legal, and there is no rule saying why a vendor must serve one but may refuse to serve the other. Until you give that rule, YOU are the one equating them.

The best rule is that it should be the vendor's discretion, if the customer makes the mistake of saying what the product is to be used for.

There has to be a stated rule. You can't make up rules as you go along, judging each case only on emotional impulse.

There is a rule - if you sell it, you must sell it to everyone.

Why this rule is a problem for you I cannot grasp.

If you sell cakes with swastikas and SS emblems, then you must sell them to either Neo-nazis, or Jews.

If you sell cakes for political functions, then you must sell to Democrats, Republicans, Communists and Libertarians.

If you sell cakes for weddings, then you don't get to pick which weddings. You don't get to say 'No Jews', or 'No interracial couples', or 'No brides over six feet tall'; and you don't get to say 'No lesbians'.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

So the Jewish baker is required to supply a cake for the Hitler birthday party?

There is a rule - if you sell it, you must sell it to everyone.

Why this rule is a problem for you I cannot grasp.

If you sell cakes with swastikas and SS emblems, then you must sell them to either Neo-nazis, or Jews.

If you sell cakes for political functions, then you must sell to Democrats, Republicans, Communists and Libertarians.

If you sell cakes for weddings, then you don't get to pick which weddings. You don't get to say 'No Jews', or 'No interracial couples', or 'No brides over six feet tall'; and you don't get to say 'No lesbians'.

OK, so you're saying the Jewish baker is required to sell that cake to the Neo-Nazis holding a Hitler birthday party. They tell him that's what it's for. Are you saying he's even required to put the swastika symbol on it, and the figurine of Hitler doing the Nazi salute?

This baker does figurines in all positions, and symbols, like religious and political symbols, according to customer demand -- so this means he's required to do the swastika and the Hitler figurine? He can't refuse? i.e., can't make an exception in this case?

 

[RavenSky]

Businesses are required to serve everyone, so they cannot refuse a customer for being Black or any other color. But a customer needn't give the vendor any unnecessary comments about what the product is to be used for. If the customer does this, then the vendor is entitled to refuse.

You keep throwing huge walls of words at this issue, but you continue to be wrong on two points.

One, specific to this case, the woman did NOT, repeat NOT, tell the baker the wedding cake was for her same-sex marriage nor offer up any unsolicited information about the nature of her marriage. THE BAKER ASKED FOR THEIR NAMES!

Second, and more important, THE VENDOR IS NOT NOT NOT ENTITLED TO REFUSE. It is against the law to do so. Even if it were not against the law, it would be unethical to open a business to the general public, and then discriminate against members of that general public.

 

[bilby]

There is a rule - if you sell it, you must sell it to everyone.

Why this rule is a problem for you I cannot grasp.

If you sell cakes with swastikas and SS emblems, then you must sell them to either Neo-nazis, or Jews.

If you sell cakes for political functions, then you must sell to Democrats, Republicans, Communists and Libertarians.

If you sell cakes for weddings, then you don't get to pick which weddings. You don't get to say 'No Jews', or 'No interracial couples', or 'No brides over six feet tall'; and you don't get to say 'No lesbians'.

OK, so you're saying the Jewish baker is required to sell that cake to the Neo-Nazis holding a Hitler birthday party. They tell him that's what it's for. Are you saying he's even required to put the swastika symbol on it, and the figurine of Hitler doing the Nazi salute?

Only in the unlikely event that he already makes such cakes for other customers. But if so, then yes. Why is this idea so hard for you to grasp?

This baker does figurines in all positions, and symbols, like religious and political symbols, according to customer demand -- so this means he's required to do the swastika and the Hitler figurine? He can't refuse? i.e., can't make an exception in this case?

Yes.

As he has swastika frosting and Hitler figurines in stock; and he makes cakes with those decorations, there is no excuse for him to deny a particular customer based on that customer's political beliefs, skin colour, race, gender, sexuality, weight, height, hairstyle...

He's a fucking baker, not the moral guardian of the world. If he doesn't like making cakes for Neo-nazis, he should have never gone into the fairly niche business of swastika cakes with Hitler figurines to begin with.

 

[laughing dog]

Whether it is beyond the wit of the customer is irrelevant: the bakery violated Oregon law.

I was merely suggesting a way where it wouldn't have violated it! You know, the 'c' word, which fascistic zealots - especially gays - don't like . . . 'compromise'?

Seems to me that bigots who insist on breaking the law are the zealots.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Would it really be beyond the wit of man (or in this case woman) to order the bloody cake from the bakery, but buy their own 'topping' separately?

When i was wedded, we had to buy the figures ourselves and paint one of them, but only because there wasn't a lot of selection available for interracial figures in Idaho baking supply stores.
No one 'refused' us, they just had to shrug and say 'we don't has.'

The technology for various figures matching various configurations has advanced quite a bit in the last 28 years, though.

 

[Keith&Co.]

OK, so you're saying the Jewish baker is required to sell that cake to the Neo-Nazis holding a Hitler birthday party.

Yes. If you make birthday cakes, you have to make birthday cakes for everyone.

They tell him that's what it's for. Are you saying he's even required to put the swastika symbol on it, and the figurine of Hitler doing the Nazi salute?

If he has Hitler figures in stock, yes.
If he's not in the habit of making Hitler cakes, then he may have to tell the customer to add their own figure after he makes it.

This baker does figurines in all positions, and symbols, like religious and political symbols, according to customer demand -- so this means he's required to do the swastika and the Hitler figurine? He can't refuse? i.e., can't make an exception in this case?

Not legally.
If you make political cakes, you have to make everyone's political cake.

You don't get to pick and choose.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What's "indecent" about the business in the above picture? What is it about the scene that would cause you to be "scared"?

Basically what you're saying is that only pretty faces should be allowed to serve customers at the front desk. Replace that not-so-pretty face with a young sexy one, and your comment makes no sense.

I don't know about indecent or scared but I would be taking my business elsewhere if I saw that. I consider obvious signs of Christianity as a red flag.

 

[SimpleDon]

This is all ground that we covered pretty extensively in April with penis shaped cake and muhammad billboards.

Might I recommend that instead of going through all of it yet again that our two newer members read through the thread and then to see if they have something to add that is not covered there?

I of course realize the irony of that suggestion. That the very lifeblood of this place is to endlessly rehash the same topics and the same positions. But do we believe that the issue involved with "gay cake" deserves to be one of those?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Basically what you're saying is

It's not even surprising, Lumpy, that you're filling in ronburgundy's words for him. He said nothing about her looks, but we can see where your mind goes.

For me, i have stayed in a motel where the night clerk was a cross dresser. Donaldina, as the name tag expressed, was courteous and professional but could have probably used a mid-shift break to shave. Looks aren't what i'd find scary about the scene.
But the permanent decoration where they put their lamp on top of the bushel seems, to me, like a chip on their shoulder.