(June 7, 2018 at 8:40 am)johan Wrote:(June 6, 2018 at 11:01 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: No this isn't where we disagree, I think the Baker should be able to refuse a service as long as he refuses it to everyone. If you put a "congrats Chuck and Mary" on a cake I don't see "congrats Chuck and Larry" as asking for something outside of his regular service.
I do. But lets have it your way. So my question is where do we draw the line then? Because what you're suggesting, probably without intending to, is that the law require some who offers on-demand creation of something to now produce any and all variations of that something.
I mean in essence what you're saying is cake is a cake is a cake and the details of it don't matter. One cake is exactly the same as any other in the eyes of the law. So where do we draw the line on that? If we say that a cake is a cake is a cake, mustn't we also say that a painting is a painting is a painting? Or that a house is a house is a house?
If the gay couple in question went to the baker and asked for a cake that congratulations Edgar and Harriett, I bet the baker would have been more than happy to sell it to them gay or not. I believe the baker has said as much.
Because whether anyone wants to acknowledge it or not, wedding cakes are an item that generally involve individual design and customization. Just like paintings. Just like houses. So where do we draw the line? Should a gay couple be able to force a builder to build a house of any design they can think of? The baker would not create a cake that said Congratulations Bill and Steve on it for anyone regardless of sexual orientation. And people here arguing discrimination because of it. So wouldn't the same apply to a builder of houses? If a cake is a cake is a cake, doesn't the same apply to everything that can be built to order?
If a cake is the same as any other why isn't one house the same as any other? If a builder builds houses with vinyl siding but doesn't like to build houses with cedar siding, should a gay couple be able to legally force the builder to do so lest he be discriminating against them? Where do we draw the line?
No that is not what I said at all, what I said is that cakes don't have sexual orientation. Also what if you had two different cakes with the same message reading "Congrats Joe and Alex" one was for a straight wedding man and woman and one was for a gay wedding Man and Man. Are you really arguing that the baker would make the cake for the gay wedding because he used that message for a straight wedding? Of course he wouldn't make the cake, because this isn't about the names on the cake or the design, it's about the people being gay. They didn't even get to the design part of the cake, they were denied a wedding cake simply because it was for a gay wedding. We have already went through this whole design art thing, nobody is arguing the businesses should be forced to provide products or services that they don't offer, so please stop repeating that position to me because I'm getting tired of addressing it with the same rebuttal. If straight people can buy your wedding cakes than gay people should be able to buy you wedding cakes.
