The Morals & Principles of Cake: Derail from SCOTUS to take the cake

[Juma]

Sorry, joining this discussion late, and know more about our local case, which sounds similar.

To me, it comes down to whether or not this or that action is reasonable or not. There are anti-discrimination laws, yes, but there are allowed exceptions. 'Having strongly held beliefs' (usually religious ones but wouldn't have to be) seems to be one.

So you might think of an avowed pacifist asked to make a cake celebrating war or violence.

Should that pacifist baker have to make that cake?

I don't think it's cut and dried (excuse pun).

You really dont see the difference between having an opinion and being gay?
Do I need to spell it out for you?

 

[ruby sparks]

You really dont see the difference between having an opinion and being gay?
Do I need to spell it out for you?

I think you might have to, yes.

 

[coloradoatheist]

If every store in Denver refused to sell to gay people you clearly would have no problem with it. Widespread discrimination based on ignorance and nothing else doesn't bother you.

And this case has nothing to do with not finding something or asking for an item not on the menu.

You are desperate lashing out in all directions blindly.

So the entity that supposedly puts profit above people would put people above profit in all the stores in Denver. There would be no one willing to make a cake in all of Denver?

That is a billion miles besides the point.

You would allow it to happen.

You care more about satisfying ignorance than real harm to people.

You have no morality fit for human consumption.

Funny coming from you that said that somebody dictating something to you is immoral but here you are dictating to a worker what they must do.

 

[Juma]

Your right to be an asshole?
So a town where everyone discriminate gats and thereby banish them from society, is totally ok?

The city government itself can't, but yes. You can move.

So you admit it that you think it is ok to force people to move due to their color or being gay???

You really ARE a fascist pig!

 

[coloradoatheist]

Your right to be an asshole?
So a town where everyone discriminate gats and thereby banish them from society, is totally ok?

The city government itself can't, but yes. You can move.

So you admit it that you think it is ok to force people to move due to their color or being gay???

You really ARE a fascist pig!

The couple lived in Denver. Are you saying that Denver isn't accepting of the gay lifestyle?

 

[untermensche]

That is a billion miles besides the point.

You would allow it to happen.

You care more about satisfying ignorance than real harm to people.

You have no morality fit for human consumption.

Funny coming from you that said that somebody dictating something to you is immoral but here you are dictating to a worker what they must do.

Morality is a dictate to everyone. I have no problem with rules against harming others as long as the rules are the same for everyone.

I support murder laws.

I am for laws that prevent the most ignorant from harming others with their ignorance.

You want to bend over backwards to satisfy ignorance and give it power to harm others.

 

[ruby sparks]

Ok so I did a bit of googling.

In the case here in NI, the couple deliberately went to the cake shop owned by the born-again Christians in order to make a point and test the law. I think (I'm not sure) that they also specifically asked for 'congratulations to Bob and Jim on their wedding' wording, or something similar. Both these things weighed against them (the customers I mean) and actually, I was a bit surprised when the baker lost. Not just because of those (arguably minor) aspects, but because NI is pretty damn conservative and religious. It doesn't allow gay marriage, or abortion, for example.

In the Denver case, it seems like the baker just said, more or less, 'I don't do cakes for use at a gay wedding', and is saying he meant that he does not do special cakes with either inscriptions or imagery on for gay people, when they are going to be used in a certain way. He claims he would sell 'ordinary' cakes to gay people. On the other hand, I read that he previously refused to supply 'ordinary' cup cakes for use at a same-sex (lesbian) wedding also.

So there are issues about 'speech' and artistry, and issues which distinguish between user and use, and issues of religious freedom, and of course the issue of discrimination.

I think that personally, my priority would be the discrimination issue and as such I hope the baker loses. But I can see two sides. Also, it does seem finely-balanced in some ways, when I read some of the comments made by the lawyers and judges so far.

 

[ruby sparks]

Ok, so I run a business offering a service to paying customers. Suppose I get asked to create something that (a) has a component that celebrates something I am deeply morally against and (b) is going to be used to celebrate that. I have to admit, I would like not to have the law force me to create and provide it, to be honest.

Assume, for example, that my customers want a banner for an anti-gay protest march.


Or, a slightly different related scenario. I have two job applicants for a managerial and public interface post in my company. On paper, there is very little between them. The one who, on paper, seems to be slightly better qualified and experienced (but not by much) is a born again evangelical christian and the other is, like myself, an atheist. Can I put my hand on my heart and say I will employ the first one? After all, I am going to be entrusting them with running part of my operation and deal with the public. I might see them in some ways as an extension of myself. Now in this second scenario, unlike the first, I would accept that I should have to comply with an anti-discrimination law. I would merely confess privately that I might be swayed against the born-again christian.

 

[fast]

I think we should be less tolerant of the specific kind of discrimination that targets the person. Consider a women's only apparel shop. Everyone should be welcome. If it's open to one, it should be open to all.

I'm still up in the air about the degree of tolerance we should have for a special kind of discrimation. I don't care what reason the shop owner has for not selling men's clothing; the owner may not discrimate when it comes to who comes in and who makes a purchase; however, he may discriminate in other ways. He mustn't discriminate against the person (that's intolerable in today's society), but he may discriminate against what the customer wants, and if he wants men's clothing, then too bad.

Case in point: a woodworker may not close his doors to someone just because he has a deep hatred for the group to which he belongs, but discretion can be given to the owner when he refuses to produce woodwork depicting mother Theresa sucking the dick of Jesus. I don't care how deluded the woodworker is. He's already willing to not discriminate against the person by allowing the door to be open to him, even if not for his wants.

In regards to the cake situation, it would be intolerable to not allow a homosexual in to purchase whatever the owner is willing to make for others. Neither heterosexuals nor homosexuals will be made a wedding cake congratulating Bob and Jim from this shop. There is discrimation, but it's of the tolerable kind.

No one has an obligation to create what they believe to be filth and vile, but if they choose to do business with the public at large, there will be an expectation to do for one what you'd be willling to do for the rest.

 

[untermensche]

Ok so I did a bit of googling.

In the case here in NI, the couple deliberately went to the cake shop owned by the born-again Christians in order to make a point and test the law. I think (I'm not sure) that they also specifically asked for 'congratulations to Bob and Jim on their wedding' wording, or something similar. Both these things weighed against them (the customers I mean) and actually, I was a bit surprised when the baker lost. Not just because of those (arguably minor) aspects, but because NI is pretty damn conservative and religious. It doesn't allow gay marriage, or abortion, for example.

In the Denver case, it seems like the baker just said, more or less, 'I don't do cakes for use at a gay wedding', and is saying he meant that he does not do special cakes with either inscriptions or imagery on for gay people, when they are going to be used in a certain way. He claims he would sell 'ordinary' cakes to gay people. On the other hand, I read that he previously refused to supply 'ordinary' cup cakes for use at a same-sex (lesbian) wedding also.

So there are issues about 'speech' and artistry, and issues which distinguish between user and use, and issues of religious freedom, and of course the issue of discrimination.

I think that personally, my priority would be the discrimination issue and as such I hope the baker loses. But I can see two sides. Also, it does seem finely-balanced in some ways, when I read some of the comments made by the lawyers and judges so far.

Suppose the baker didn't want to bake cakes for black weddings because he believes blacks are subhuman and subhumans should not marry. It is a sin.

And he shows you all the verses in the Bible that slave owners used to justify slavery demonstrating that blacks are subhuman.

Would black people wanting a wedding cake from this person be denigrating his religion?

Or denigrating his ignorance?

 

[ruby sparks]

No one has an obligation to create what they believe to be filth and vile, but if they choose to do business with the public at large, there will be an expectation to do for one what you'd be willling to do for the rest.

I wasn't entirely sure what you were saying there, but in this last bit, you seemed to be more or less seeing the baker's point?

Or maybe I picked you up wrong.

I mean, making a cake that has 'congratulations to X and Y on their wedding' does not rule out that some X and Y weddings are strongly believed by you to be.......really wrong, so can you lump such cases together with 'things that you would do for the rest'?

As I hope you've gathered, I'm not really taking a side here. Well, I am, I'm coming down against the baker, but I'm admitting it's complicated.

Should you or I, if we make banners, legally have to make a banner for an anti-gay marriage protest march, do you feel? Or should se have the room to decline, on grounds of conscience or morality?

 

[fast]

No one has an obligation to create what they believe to be filth and vile, but if they choose to do business with the public at large, there will be an expectation to do for one what you'd be willling to do for the rest.

I wasn't entirely sure what you were saying there, but in this last bit, you seemed to be more or less seeing the baker's point?

Or maybe I picked you up wrong.

I mean, making a cake that has 'congratulations to X and Y on their wedding' does not rule out that some X and Y weddings are strongly believed by you to be.......really wrong, so can you lump such cases together with 'things that you would do for the rest'?

As I hope you've gathered, I'm not really taking a side here. Well, I am, I'm coming down against the baker, but I'm admitting it's complicated.

Should you or I, if we make banners, legally have to make a banner for an anti-gay marriage protest march, do you feel? Or should se have the room to decline, on grounds of conscience or morality?

While you read what I'm about to write, keep in mind that my views are not solidified on the issue. We should be strong on certain kinds of discrimination yet weak on other kinds of discrimination. If someone is willing to sell product x72076 to person A, then that someone must be willing to sell a duplicate of that very exact product to everyone. If that someone is not willing, then we should be strong in our efforts to put an end to their ability to sell at all. That means, if you're willing to sell fried chicken to whites, then you damn well better be ready to sell fried chicken to blacks, homosexuals, atheists, and very fat Mexicans with tattoos too. What I'm trying to say is, if you do x110987b for person A, then if person Q wants it, don't discriminate. It's wrong and intolerable. I don't like the Vietnamese, but if I sell to the rest of the world, then I should not be allowed to discrimate against them just because I dislike them.

Now, if I don't like someone, that's not to say every form of discrimation should be intolerable. If I absolutely despise men and would never in my life sell men's clothing, that's discriminatory, but I'm saying we can tolerate that discrimination. I have to sell women's clothing to men if they're willing to buy women's clothing because it's unacceptable to discrimate against men by refusing to sell to them while selling to women, but I can still discrimate against them by refusing to sell men's clothing, so long as I also refuse to sell men's clothing to women.

Another way of putting that is we can do what's wrong so long as what we do is fair. It might be wrong to refuse to sell wedding cakes with same sex figurines, but if I nevertheless refuse to do that and it's wrong, then fine, so long as I'm fair. For instance, if I'm willing to sell different sex figurines atop a cake to heterosexuals, I must be willing to sell different sex figurines atop a cake to homosexuals whether I want to or not. They may not want that, but that's too bad, as I don't sell that and won't.

So no, I don't have to sell banners that read, "gay pride week coming up." It's discrimatory but not against homosexuals but rather what homosexuals want. If a heterosexual wanted to buy that same banner but to be used against the event, I still can't sell it, as that would be unfair to sell it to heterosexuals but not homosexuals.

Another example: I don't have to sell ethnic haircare products. If a black person wants to buy ethnic hair products, I only have to sell them to them if I'm willing to sell them across the board to whosoever might want them. If I'm willing to sell them to whites, I damn well better be prepared to sell them to blacks too, for it would be discrimatory against the person if I didn't.

Clearly (or least somewhat clearly), I'm trying to put forward a view for review that strongly prohibits discrimination against people while simultaneously allowing a degree of discrimination towards the wants of the people.

I can refuse to sell black Santas (that stem from hatred and ignorance) so long as I refuse to sell black Santas across the entire spectrum of all people; however, the moment I start selling black santas, I may not refuse to sell to blacks based on hatred and ignorance.

So, I guess I am agreeing with the cake shop owner. It's okay to be discrimatory when it comes to catering to what people want so long as I never discrimate against the person.

Like I said, that view is not solidified. In fact, it should probably be argued against; however, the argument against one form of discrimination is not going to stand good for the other, so I'm resistant to broad blanket arguments against discrimination in general. I'm outright asserting that it's wrong to discriminate against the person, so an argument that merely fights against discrimination in general will not do for me, as I need to see what reason transcends the shallow thinking notion that discrimination is harmful.

Yes, it might be, but there should be some semblance of retaining decency in a world where everything goes. If you're going to refuse to sell anything to someone because he's black or gay or a white male, then that's pure unadultered discrimination that has no business in business, but you may retain the right to discriminate so long as it's done so in the same manner for anyone and everyone.

Again, it's not a solidified view. It's more of a plea for an argument more enlightening than "discrimination is harmful."

 

[fromderinside]

... except are vendors 'creating' product for market, even product adorned with little trinkets and words. I'd say not unless they were contracted to build a cake not normal, of the usual stripe, not adorned with stuff gathered from some marketplace or scribed commercial index of standard texts, or meant to be served at some gathering of faithful.

We've categories for market. Common market items, specialized market items, or artistic market items. Rarely do cakes fall in the latter category. So on the whole a merchant selling cakes isn't an artisan or required to perform as an artisan.

Then there is that Constitution separating church from state. Markets are taxed so they aren't in the church category. They are of the state category. That should be a guide. If what one did for profit were to be controlled by what one believes then why is there a separate amendment for speech and church and why is religion separated out from state. I'm afraid recent court actions have missed those points.

 

[ruby sparks]

Again, it's not a solidified view. It's more of a plea for an argument more enlightening than "discrimination is harmful."

Thanks.

My view is not solidified either.

I'm sure you know about the Marjorie Silva case, where a baker refused to write bible passages on a cake for a customer, and the customer's complaint was not upheld.

While the two cases are not the same (Silva appears, as far as I can see, to have been at least more amenable and reasonable while refusing) and while we can get into a lot of the technical, legal distinctions, it does seem to me that that case is a useful reminder of what seems to us, if we are atheists, like the reverse scenario, and raises awkward questions for those of us, like myself, who are inclined to not want to see the Christian baker's case upheld.

A customer in my banner shop might be perfectly within his or her rights to both oppose gay marriage and want a banner that says 'Say No To Gay Marriage' and indeed, in theory, they may have reasons other than religious ones.

I'm just wondering, and I haven't thought this through, does it depend on whether or not the view we have about this or that thing being 'wrong' can be reasonably justified or not. Could we say, and I'm going out on a limb here to try to find answers and make fair distinctions, that there is no reasonable, non-misguided argument for saying no to gay marriage (or no to equal pay for women or no to extending all civil rights to black people or whatever) and that therefore this is what allows us to make distinctions and exceptions?

If there's anything in this, I have a feeling it could get complicated, since 'right' and 'wrong' are arguably basically just agreed rules, and change over time. Plus, this suggested way out of the issue would not seem to cover Marjorie Silva.

I have a sneaking feeling that a lot of this might boil down to deciding whether this or that baker was acting reasonably. So many laws and legal arguments revolve around this word and it is arguably one of our main obligations in society. To compromise. To meet the other half way. To try to be fair, even if we disagree. Perhaps if the Christian baker had been as amenable and reasonably accommodating as Silva, his side of the case would have already been upheld too. Just a thought. I was not there at the time of the refusal, so I don't know exactly what was said.

 

[fast]

I'm not so sure if others having a reasonable justification for actions (or non action) should be a necessary condition for our toleration.

If someone has an odd view (even if hate based), I sympathize with their position when they say, "you can say or do as you choose, but I'll be damned if you're gonna do it with the use of my hands."

In struggling with the banner issue, I've created a fictitious legal case thought experiment whereby two separate banner businesses handle a situation differently, but I can better explain the underlying issue with what I'll just call the photocopy incident. This idea stems from my having great sympathy for artistry that takes passion, time, and skill in the making of something. For instance, it's asinine (in my opinion) for a bakery owner to refuse to do something as simple as writing two men's name on a wedding cake. I would be less harsh in my description as asinine if the customers request took painstaking manhours of personal involvement, like a sculpture.

However, asinine or not, the photocopy incident brings to light the distinction I have in mind. A customer walks into a photoshop with a picture depicting two men kissing on the lips. It's straight tactile touch, nothing erotic and even the kiss is just lip to lip and no French style action depicted. Had it been a young man and lady, people would have been like, "awe, that's cute." The customer approaches the clerk behind the counter and asks the clerk to photocopy the picture of his two friends kissing for an album he's making.

The clerk is appalled! She says, "not with my hands; take your filth right on over to the copy machines in the lobby and be later judged for your actions; I will not participate."

Is this discrimatory and should this be permitted? She would have gladly photocopied the picture had it been a man and a woman depicted in the picture. Yes, it's discriminatory, and let us say it's wrong. If it's wrong, that does not therefore give us the solution for the next question, as it's sometimes permitable to allow things to go down that's wrong.

Let's say the copyshop owner comes out and stops the customer from even using the self service copier claiming that no equipment of his will be used to reproduce such ugliness. Should we as a society tolerate laws that allow such blatent discrimination?

The answer is yes because the threshold of harm hasn't been reached yet. Or has it? Some might be inclined to just say harm is a function of the discrimination itself, but whatever harm that is (if it is) doesn't register as harm against the person like I've mentioned in a past post. Me, personally, I have never been particularly kind when it comes to homosexual discussions, and even I would have made the copy and put the names on the cake. I wouldn't have made a wooden statue, however.

But, toleration in law is not about whether it's wrong. Discrimination for the sake of discrimination is not itself enough. There has to be genuine unfairness before the bar has been breached.

Oh, come on fast, how the hell is it not fair? A man can have a picture copied if only it aligns with the sensibilities of the person making the copy. A person can only walk out with a banner that says what he wants it to say if the person in charge of its production agrees with the message. Someone wanting a cake with two grooms is shit out of luck. That's wrong!

Yes, it's wrong. It's just not unfair. If I'm going to give only A students a star, then it's both wrong and unfair if I withhold a star from an A student and slip in a star to student below an A. If I sell a cake with two groom figurines to some homosexuals and not others, then that's unfair.

Government needs to be there to put a stop to unfair discrimination while allowing fair discrimination. If that's so, and I'm not seriously suggesting that is so, it undercuts the thrust of what you're seeking, a good sound rational argument with ample justification. Its discrimatory AND unfair to refuse to sell a car to a person just because he's a homosexual, and we have to have laws that protect them from people who would refuse to do business with them on that basis. That kind of discrimination is harmful, and a stop needs to be put to it where it happens. That should be the case across the board for all people. Not selling something to someone because he's black--stupid, intolerable and has no place in society.

 

[fromderinside]

Customers are merely the source of demand for product capable of paying for it. The seller has a product the customer has need and funds to purchase product. End of considerations. here is no sign at the door saying queers will not be served. To do so would be illegal. That sets the baseline for fairness. No shoes, no service is OK. No homosexuals is not OK. If one overtly refuses service without reason that isd not OK. If one refuses service for reasons that are not aOK in existing law that is not OK.

Precedent suggests refusing product because your beliefs conflict with those of customers is only OK if it is permissible to print such restrictions at entry. Customers need not be unduly offended. Just as sellers have no need to be unduly offended. If they are they have solid recourse. What determines whether one is unduly offended starts with what one can caution at the door.

 

[abaddon]

Yes, it's wrong. It's just not unfair. If I'm going to give only A students a star, then it's both wrong and unfair if I withhold a star from an A student and slip in a star to student below an A. If I sell a cake with two groom figurines to some homosexuals and not others, then that's unfair.

You're advocating equal discrimination for all within any group. It's wrong but fair if you're consistent about it regarding this kind of human or that kind of human, you say.

But the group is humans, and the inconsistency (the unfairness) is some get the cake they want and others don't.

The harm in one single couple not getting the cake as they want it is negligible. It's not "discrimination in itself" that is the harm. It's the accumulative effect in society that curtails the freedom of some persons because of the reticence of others to engage in business transactions in a professional, impersonal manner.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot, maybe that'll give a broader perspective and help illustrate the harm: Someday Christians may become a minority. Imagine if much of society thinks "eww, gross" when a Christian walks by. You're told "No, can't help you" and "I won't take part in your filthy lifestyle!" in both stores and agencies. They want their rights to discriminate against the kind of human that you are; it's "wrong but fair" they say "so long as we treat all Christians as bad people consistently". So your liberty is curtailed such that you can't live your life like an equal of others and pursue your happiness with the liberty others enjoy.

Harm? Or no harm?

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm not so sure if others having a reasonable justification for actions (or non action) should be a necessary condition for our toleration.

If someone has an odd view (even if hate based), I sympathize with their position when they say, "you can say or do as you choose, but I'll be damned if you're gonna do it with the use of my hands."

In struggling with the banner issue, I've created a fictitious legal case thought experiment whereby two separate banner businesses handle a situation differently, but I can better explain the underlying issue with what I'll just call the photocopy incident. This idea stems from my having great sympathy for artistry that takes passion, time, and skill in the making of something. For instance, it's asinine (in my opinion) for a bakery owner to refuse to do something as simple as writing two men's name on a wedding cake. I would be less harsh in my description as asinine if the customers request took painstaking manhours of personal involvement, like a sculpture.

However, asinine or not, the photocopy incident brings to light the distinction I have in mind. A customer walks into a photoshop with a picture depicting two men kissing on the lips. It's straight tactile touch, nothing erotic and even the kiss is just lip to lip and no French style action depicted. Had it been a young man and lady, people would have been like, "awe, that's cute." The customer approaches the clerk behind the counter and asks the clerk to photocopy the picture of his two friends kissing for an album he's making.

The clerk is appalled! She says, "not with my hands; take your filth right on over to the copy machines in the lobby and be later judged for your actions; I will not participate."

Is this discrimatory and should this be permitted? She would have gladly photocopied the picture had it been a man and a woman depicted in the picture. Yes, it's discriminatory, and let us say it's wrong. If it's wrong, that does not therefore give us the solution for the next question, as it's sometimes permitable to allow things to go down that's wrong.

Let's say the copyshop owner comes out and stops the customer from even using the self service copier claiming that no equipment of his will be used to reproduce such ugliness. Should we as a society tolerate laws that allow such blatent discrimination?

The answer is yes because the threshold of harm hasn't been reached yet. Or has it? Some might be inclined to just say harm is a function of the discrimination itself, but whatever harm that is (if it is) doesn't register as harm against the person like I've mentioned in a past post. Me, personally, I have never been particularly kind when it comes to homosexual discussions, and even I would have made the copy and put the names on the cake. I wouldn't have made a wooden statue, however.

But, toleration in law is not about whether it's wrong. Discrimination for the sake of discrimination is not itself enough. There has to be genuine unfairness before the bar has been breached.

Oh, come on fast, how the hell is it not fair? A man can have a picture copied if only it aligns with the sensibilities of the person making the copy. A person can only walk out with a banner that says what he wants it to say if the person in charge of its production agrees with the message. Someone wanting a cake with two grooms is shit out of luck. That's wrong!

Yes, it's wrong. It's just not unfair. If I'm going to give only A students a star, then it's both wrong and unfair if I withhold a star from an A student and slip in a star to student below an A. If I sell a cake with two groom figurines to some homosexuals and not others, then that's unfair.

Government needs to be there to put a stop to unfair discrimination while allowing fair discrimination. If that's so, and I'm not seriously suggesting that is so, it undercuts the thrust of what you're seeking, a good sound rational argument with ample justification. Its discrimatory AND unfair to refuse to sell a car to a person just because he's a homosexual, and we have to have laws that protect them from people who would refuse to do business with them on that basis. That kind of discrimination is harmful, and a stop needs to be put to it where it happens. That should be the case across the board for all people. Not selling something to someone because he's black--stupid, intolerable and has no place in society.

I think your photocopy thought experiment is good. I accept it, as a valid thought experiment.

Briefly, I would not myself have felt the need to make the distinction you are making. The 'artistry' in the case of a cake decorator (or banner maker) is, we must be assuming, no more than that person would normally undertake, so I don't think we need to say that anyone is being asked to sculpt or create something they would not normally, since that might change the parameters.

But no matter. I think your copy example may be even better.

And we would agree that it is discriminatory and unfair not to copy the photo of the two men kissing.

I think when it comes to making the distinction between unfair and harm, we might disagree. To not have a photo copied in those circumstances could make the person feel humiliated. More importantly, I do think that the anti-discrimination laws are not necessarily about individual incidents. They are here at least partly to rectify a wider issue and deter it from remaining or becoming widespread. The same man may go next door and be refused a cake, and so on...

Imo, the refused-photocopy customer should be able to successfully claim discrimination, and I think the baker in the Scotus case should have made the cake, and I think Silva should have done the bible passage lettering too. Because of the wider and historical issue. Anti-discrimination laws were not brought in to protect straight white males. There has been a history of discrimination against certain sub-groups, and the aim is for a fairer society, which will be undermined if we don't act. The inconvenience for the cake-maker in either case is arguably minimal. I suppose I am citing a 'greater good' for which we all may have to contribute, even if it hurts a little.

I might allow exceptions on a case by case basis. And I might take account of whether the baker made reasonable effort to be accommodating as regrads partially fulfilling the order and/or offering alternative solutions.

There. It seems I've (at least temporarily) changed my mind about whether I should have to make a banner for the Klu Klux Klan.

Or is that scenario somehow different in some way that makes a difference?

Yours sincerely,

Still confused,

Belfast

 

[ruby sparks]

Customers are merely the source of demand for product capable of paying for it. The seller has a product the customer has need and funds to purchase product. End of considerations. here is no sign at the door saying queers will not be served. To do so would be illegal. That sets the baseline for fairness. No shoes, no service is OK. No homosexuals is not OK. If one overtly refuses service without reason that isd not OK. If one refuses service for reasons that are not aOK in existing law that is not OK.

Precedent suggests refusing product because your beliefs conflict with those of customers is only OK if it is permissible to print such restrictions at entry. Customers need not be unduly offended. Just as sellers have no need to be unduly offended. If they are they have solid recourse. What determines whether one is unduly offended starts with what one can caution at the door.

So would you say that Silva should have had to do the bible-passage lettering on that cake?

Assuming that she usually did lettering on request and got paid for doing it.

 

[fromderinside]

So would you say that Silva should have had to do the bible-passage lettering on that cake?

Assuming that she usually did lettering on request and got paid for doing it.

Of course. That is her product. She's not expected to believe or decide what others do with it since it is a product. She may pray at night to care for those who are disbelievers if that soothes her angst with being in said trade. If she does believe or decide others who ask for such are evil with evil intent she can try to reason with them. Or she can move on to another trade where she is more likely to never come in contact with those who are different in belif from her. She is the product of her beliefs and others should in the marketplace not have suffer loss of open market product for those beliefs.