The bakers and the lesbians--what really happened

[Jimmy Higgins]

If he has Hitler figures in stock, yes.

A baker can not refuse to make a pro-Nazi cake to a particular party, if they make pro-Nazi cakes as part of their business.

Like they can't refuse to sell a wedding cake to a particular party if they make wedding cakes as part of their business.

No one is being forced to sell wedding cakes or Nazi cakes.

 

[Cerberus]

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.

There are some right wackos around aren't there!

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

A vendor must have discretion to refuse service.

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.

So if the Westboro Baptist Church holds a protest rally at a military funeral, located legally, with proper permits, and needs party supplies, and is attracting the homeless with goodies (or using rent-a-mob protestors), and having them parade anti-Gay and anti-American banners and shouting anti-Gay slogans and burning U.S. flags and getting lots of publicity, and causing much distress to the families laying their loved one to rest, and the demonstrators come to Joe's Party Supplies to rent tables and punchbowls etc. so they can attract more participants to increase their shouting and banners and TV/YouTube coverage, Joe's is required to serve them and thus help them promote their anti-Gay and anti-American protest rally?

I don't think so.

And if you were a cop reporting to Joe's store to compel them to serve this customer, you would find some way to avoid enforcing this law.

 

[jonatha]

Change you scenario from rental to purchase.

In the former case, the merchant has a justifiable concern that his property may be damaged.

Newlyweds don't rent cake...

 

[Keith&Co.]

I don't think so.

You think a lot of things, Lumpy. A lot of things you think are 'so' because you want them to be 'so.'

DO you have a constitutional law degree? Or have you spoken with counsel on how this all plays out, legally?
Or are you just pulling this out of your ass like everythign else?

And if you were a cop reporting to Joe's store to compel them to serve this customer, you would find some way to avoid enforcing this law.

Wonderful. Let's let the cop decide who does and doesn't have to follow the law. It's not like any of us want to be involved in a jury trial, anyway. Leave it up to the man on the street to decide. He's always going to be right, huh?
Maybe he can even shoot those nasty bigots, too.

 

[RavenSky]

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.

So if the Westboro Baptist Church holds a protest rally at a military funeral, located legally, with proper permits, and needs party supplies, and is attracting the homeless with goodies (or using rent-a-mob protestors), and having them parade anti-Gay and anti-American banners and shouting anti-Gay slogans and burning U.S. flags and getting lots of publicity, and causing much distress to the families laying their loved one to rest, and the demonstrators come to Joe's Party Supplies to rent tables and punchbowls etc. so they can attract more participants to increase their shouting and banners and TV/YouTube coverage, Joe's is required to serve them and thus help them promote their anti-Gay and anti-American protest rally?

I don't think so.

And if you were a cop reporting to Joe's store to compel them to serve this customer, you would find some way to avoid enforcing this law.

You can choose not to think, but it won't change the fact that you are wrong on this issue. All the word salads and scare scenarios won't change that.

 

[Togo]

I may not like anti-Gay bigots, but it seems childish to raise legal barriers to stop them having cake. Let them eat cake.

 

[Keith&Co.]

There are some right wackos around aren't there!

Heh, yeah. There are people who like to point fingers and judge just because they're 'different.' Whackinine assholes, huh?

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

So if the Westboro Baptist Church holds a protest rally at a military funeral...

And and and and... like, if Hitler was revived from where he rests in cryostasis in Argentina, and he came to my bakery and wanted me to make dark chocolate cookies which I somehow just knew he was going to give to the cats and dogs of Jewish people to make their pets very ill or possibly dead, then he was going to come up behind them while they were distraught and give them all violent wedgies would I still make the cookies for him? WOULD I STILL MAKE THE COOKIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSS!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Give it a rest, pumpkin. You've tried the same ploy several times in the same thread getting just a little bit sillier every time. That last hypothetical scenario is not even real. I am skeptical the WBC goes to local party supply stores to rent tables and punch bowls for their protests, but even in the unlikely event that this handful of fringe extremists graces a fictional party supply store and is refused, the police do not intervene for that. That is not a real thing. If they do intervene, something has gone off the rails.

But let's say I'm wrong about that. This does not redeem the silliness of what you're doing. You keep proposing hypotheticals in an effort to highlight some sort of inconsistency or hypocrisy, but it doesn't seem the fish are biting. The thing is, you're comparing dissimilar scenarios. Gay people seeking cakes for their weddings are not extreme fundamentalists seeking to harass and upset others. You may think 'But just as the WBC acts against your beliefs, people entering into same-sex marriages act against the beliefs of these bakers." The thing is, the suffering and harm inflicted by the Westboro Baptist Church is a real thing. It's observable. The religious objections to same-sex marriage have no basis in observable reality and have not a single point of merit which secular law can respect (let alone should).

I would rent punch bowls to the WBC if I was operating in America. To the best of my knowledge, what they are doing is protected free speech, and I am not the morality police using commerce to try to bully others into toeing the lines I set. That said, there are practical and philosophical differences between the scenario of the bakers and the type of scenarios you keep bringing up. If you want to distill the essence of the question down to its core, you can ask "Would you offer service to someone who would use your product to do something you find objectionable if that objectionable thing was a legal activity?" That's pretty much where the similarities begin and end. At this point you are comparing a union between to loving people which is not targeting and antagonizing others, to outlandish protests designed specifically to antagonize the aggrieved and society at large to draw attention to a message of hate. Literally of hate since 'God hates fags'.

 

[laughing dog]

So if the Westboro Baptist Church holds a protest rally at a military funeral, located legally, with proper permits, and needs party supplies, and is attracting the homeless with goodies (or using rent-a-mob protestors), and having them parade anti-Gay and anti-American banners and shouting anti-Gay slogans and burning U.S. flags and getting lots of publicity, and causing much distress to the families laying their loved one to rest, and the demonstrators come to Joe's Party Supplies to rent tables and punchbowls etc. so they can attract more participants to increase their shouting and banners and TV/YouTube coverage, Joe's is required to serve them and thus help them promote their anti-Gay and anti-American protest rally?

I don't think so.

You think wrong. However, Joe would be rational if he required a very generous damage deposit for the rental.

And if you were a cop reporting to Joe's store to compel them to serve this customer, you would find some way to avoid enforcing this law.

And, if I was the chief of the police, that cop's ass would be grass.

 

[atrib]

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?

If the baker sells birthday cakes to the general public, then he is required by law to provide a birthday cake to someone celebrating Hitler's birthday. If the baker decorates the cakes he sells to the general public with religious or political symbols, then he has to provide a decoration for the Hitler birthday cake as requested by the client. The baker cannot discriminate in this matter, no matter how strongly he is opposed to the idea of celebrating Hitler's birthday. That is part of the social contract that the baker agrees to when he opens a shop to bake birthday cakes for the general populace. What is this simple concept so difficult for you to understand?

Second, why do you keep equating neo-nazi political ideology with homosexual couples wanting to get married? These two scenarios have nothing in common.

 

[Playball40]

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.

I didn't know that "Elvis lovers" were a protected class.

- - - Updated - - -

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'.

I thought that was only required if it a protected class.

 

[ronburgundy]

It sounds like they went out of business because they were a lousy business and could not attract customers, which is why they couldn't pay their legal fees. If I walked into a B&B and saw the scene below, I'd be scared of leaving there alive.

Maybe part of that loss of business is due to decent people not wanting to give indecent people their business.

What's "indecent" about the business in the above picture?

It is their bigoted beliefs and their actions toward the gay couple that are indecent. That comment did not reference the picture.

What is it about the scene that would cause you to be "scared"?

Because it looks like the opening scene of a horror film, where an unsuspecting couple wakes up chained in basement and sacrificed in a cultish ritual.

They went out of their way to build a counter covered in gigantic letters oriented specifically so the customers would have no choice but to read it (not a personal reminder to themselves), proclaiming the absolute authority over all things ("is Lord") of a imaginary deity that endorses heinous genocidal and murderous acts against all those that don't worship him or who simply engage in non-harmful acts that the deity arbitrarily does not like.
It shows that they are not only delusional enough to strongly believe in such absurdities, but also that they endorse those violent acts of their authority and don't just hold these views privately but actively seek to impose them upon those around them. That is scary.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I thought that was only required if it a protected class.

I think the conversation is at various times talking about the actual law (which would vary region by region) and general principles.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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?

Lots. We'd end up unable to conduct any business without lawyers present for both sides.
What, exactly, is 'necessary information?'
If the customer is required to only part with necessary information, does the vendor have to reveal their push-button issues beforehand?

Does the baker really NEED to know the gender of the birthday child? Will he be offended if the birthday boy is a brony and refuse to make a My Little Pony cake for a boy?
Should the checkout girl be allowed to pull fattening foods out of the order of an overweight customer? Just how much protection do you wan to give to the terribly opinionated among us?

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?

Why would an atheist give a shit if they're trying to win souls for Jesus or capture fairies for Lord Voldemort? SPEND more money on your invisible sky buddy. Would you like a box of cookies along with that?

They didn't have to tell him that. It should be the vendor's discretion if they say more than what is necessary.

Again, how do we determine what is and isn't 'necessary?' What's your standard? What's a good legal basis for how much a vendor 'needs' to know about his customer?

Wouldn't it just be easier to figure that if you can't run a secular business without pissing off the sky fairies, you shouldn't be in a secular business?

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?

No, he shouldn't be entitled to do that. No more than a hotel hosting a comic convention can refuse service to Marvel people, but accept DC people.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No more than a hotel hosting a comic convention can refuse service to Marvel people, but accept DC people.

Hold on. No need to go overboard there.

 

[KeepTalking]

No more than a hotel hosting a comic convention can refuse service to Marvel people, but accept DC people.

Hold on. No need to go overboard there.

Yeah, and talk about your false equivalencies... it's the DC fanbois who need protection from discrimination.

 

[fromderinside]

Let them eat cake.

Thank you Togo. Expect to one day find your head in a basket. Shit happens and we need to make it clear that our society doesn't tolerate that shit happening. I'm with those who are thinking about the possibility of you losing your head. Never say "Let them eat cake".

By the way this whole thing is not about refusing to sell cake. Its about how those who refused treated those who wanted the cake starting with lecturing the mother with verses from the Babble.

See what I posted on page one of this derail of OP. The order from the regulating group http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...eally-happened&p=179414&viewfull=1#post179414

 

[bilby]

I thought that was only required if it a protected class.

I think the conversation is at various times talking about the actual law (which would vary region by region) and general principles.

As a general principle, even if I disagree with what you say, I should defend to the death your right to say it. Selling you (at the full, un-discounted list price) one of the many cakes I make for sale each day, seems like a fairly minor sacrifice when compared to throwing my life on the line.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

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?

If the baker sells birthday cakes to the general public, then he is required by law to provide a birthday cake to someone celebrating Hitler's birthday. If the baker decorates the cakes he sells to the general public with religious or political symbols, then he has to provide a decoration for the Hitler birthday cake as requested by the client.

No he's not required to put a swastika on it. Or anything else he finds distasteful. He can tell them to take their business elsewhere.

The baker cannot discriminate in this matter, no matter how strongly he is opposed to the idea of celebrating Hitler's birthday.

Yes he can discriminate.

He has to serve all customers who show up, but if they ask him to do anything that serves a cause he finds distasteful, he's entitled to refuse.

That is part of the social contract that the baker agrees to when he opens a shop to bake birthday cakes for the general populace.

No it's not part of the social contract.

The contract is that he must serve them all, but not that he must perform anything that violates his conscience or is distasteful. Those who require this he can refuse.

The "social contract" does not require those in business to ever violate their conscience or perform anything distasteful. There's no legitimate purpose for this being part of the social contract. And "distasteful" is defined by the vendor or business.

What is this simple concept so difficult for you to understand?

What's wrong is that your rule imposes something unnecessary onto those in business. Forcing companies to violate their conscience or perform something distasteful creates a disincentive to go into business. It results in fewer businesses and less supply. They are supposed to enjoy doing their business and have the freedom to do their business their way, so they will function better.

This is best for consumers.

Second, why do you keep equating neo-nazi political ideology with homosexual couples wanting to get married? These two scenarios have nothing in common.

I'm not "equating" them.

But we're talking about a company serving a customer, in the 2 examples. And in both cases the customer is requesting a service the vendor objects to. In general, the seller should have the discretion in those cases and not be required to do something objectionable.