The Cake Case Revisited

[Catholic_Lady]

I never said anything was or wasn't "ok". I was talking about whether or not it should be legal to turn down servicing a cause that goes against your convictions, whether rightfully or wrongfully so.

As for the example with interracial marriage, I'm not sure it would fly in courts now a days as any sort of genuine conviction that a black person marrying a white person is immoral, and not purely racism on the part of the owner. But for the sake of argument, let's say there is some fringe psycho baker who's religion says it is deeply immoral and against natural law for people of different races to get married. If that's the case, I say so be it. Let him turn down the interracial couple on the grounds of his supposed "moral conviction" and let him go out of business because of all the boycotting he'd get. Let him be a well known, hated man.

You see, the extreme examples can go both ways. I'd like to know that if I owned my own personal bakery and someone wanted me to make a swastika cake for a white supremacist gathering, I wouldn't be forced by the law to do it. I wouldnt be forced to participate in something like that. And if that means some racist gets to say no as well and lose his livelyhood in the process, so be it.

I also just want to be clear, and not put words in your mouth. Bolded above, I'd like clarification.
 So you would accept discrimination of people based on race/color if the stated reason for that discrimination was deeply held religious belief?  And by accept discrimination, I mean you would not want any laws against it.  Just let it happen and see where the cards fall where they may.

If (and thats a big if) a person genuinely believed that interracial marriage was immoral, against natural law, or whatever, and wasn't just using that as an excuse for racism, then I would support their right to not participate in the cause if they so choose. I wouldn't agree with them. I would think it was disgusting. But I would support their right to be disgusting if they wanted, and I would be glad to see their business fail as a result.

Now if a person refuses to make a birthday cake for a black person because he is black, then I'd say there's no getting around that. That's discrimination of the person themselves and not just opposition to a particular cause .

---

I never said anything was or wasn't "ok". I was talking about whether or not it should be legal to turn down servicing a cause that goes against your convictions, whether rightfully or wrongfully so.

As for the example with interracial marriage, I'm not sure it would fly in courts now a days as any sort of genuine conviction that a black person marrying a white person is immoral, and not purely racism on the part of the owner. But for the sake of argument, let's say there is some fringe psycho baker who's religion says it is deeply immoral and against natural law for people of different races to get married. If that's the case, I say so be it. Let him turn down the interracial couple on the grounds of his supposed "moral conviction" and let him go out of business because of all the boycotting he'd get. Let him be a well known, hated man.

You see, the extreme examples can go both ways. I'd like to know that if I owned my own personal bakery and someone wanted me to make a swastika cake for a white supremacist gathering, I wouldn't be forced by the law to do it. I wouldnt be forced to participate in something like that. And if that means some racist gets to say no as well and lose his livelyhood in the process, so be it.

I also just want to be clear, and not put words in your mouth. Bolded above, I'd like clarification.
 So you would accept discrimination of people based on race/color if the stated reason for that discrimination was deeply held religious belief?  And by accept discrimination, I mean you would not want any laws against it.  Just let it happen and see where the cards fall where they may.

---

I would disagree that a baker who refuses to make a cake for an interracial couple wouldn't go out of business. On that I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree. A lot has changed since the 60's. But nonetheless, that is beside the point.

And a gay wedding IS a behavior. Just as a baptism and a pro life rally is. All 3 of those things are, in my opinion, causes that are within the right of the business owner to not want to take part in if it goes against their convictions.

But refusing to make a birthday cake (for example) for a black person because he is black, a gay person because he is gay, or a catholic person because he is catholic, is discrimination against the person themselves.

I do sort of see the point here.  But cakes are always made for events, not just for people.  Even a birthday is an event.
It's the gay wedding they supposedly object to, not the gay people (even though let's face it, they also object to that).

I'd still refer you to the interracial example.  They would technically be turning down the EVENT of a marriage, but really the underlying reason is because the couple is interracial.  Same thing here.  It's technically a wedding they are turning down, but the reason is because the PEOPLE in that wedding are GAY.  If the people were not gay, they would not turn it down.  There-fore, possible discrimination based on gayness, not on...weddedness.  lol

I think that is why it is still in court, to try and disentangle the event/people connection.

Same thing can be said about the catholic baptism and the pro-life fundraising rally though. They would be turning down a baptism because the people are catholic. They would be turning down the fundraiser because the people are prolife.