The Cake Case Revisited

[The Grand Nudger]

B.b.b.b.but that would never happen, because their/her motivations are as pure as the driven snow.

[Catholic_Lady]

As I've explained, refusing to bake a cake for a particular person because you don't like who they are, shouldn't be allowed. Refusing to bake a cake for an event or purpose you disagree with, should. So if I walked into a bakery and asked for a birthday cake for myself that said "happy birthday debora" and the baker happened to know I was catholic, he can't turn me away simply bc of who I am. But if I wanted a cake that said "Pro Life!" on it for a pro life fundraiser I was hosting, you can absolutely say no if you are against the pro life movement.

Unless you're defining gay marriage as something other than marriage, your point is pure bullshit. If these bigoted bozos don't want to bake cakes for gay weddings, they can always opt-out of baking wedding cakes. No (open, repulsive) bigotry in refusing the gay wedding then. This seems to be the point you're missing. They are refusing to bake a wedding cake because the couple is gay. They're not refusing to bake wedding cakes. They're refusing to bake gay wedding cakes. It's the very definition of bigotry.

So, I'll ask again, how would you feel if you were refused a service granted to everyone else, based solely on your religion? If you walked into a restaurant wearing a crucifix and the waiter told you "We don't serve cathy-licks," are you going to tell me that's somehow different?!?

Well, if a person doesn't think gay marriage is moral and they don't want to make a cake for a cause they disagree with, I think they have the right to say no.

And I already answered your question. If someone refused me a cake that was unrelated to my Catholicism simply bc I was catholic, I would think that was illegal discrimination of servicing me because of who I am. If someone refused to make a cake for me that was for a pro life rally or for a catholic baptism because they were morally/politically/religiously opposed to those causes, i would think it was within their rights to do so.

[vorlon13]

BTW,

is it that big of a leap to specualte if someday the First Amendment protection of religion is deemed to not apply to the obviously false ones ?

[Aroura]

Unless you're defining gay marriage as something other than marriage, your point is pure bullshit. If these bigoted bozos don't want to bake cakes for gay weddings, they can always opt-out of baking wedding cakes. No (open, repulsive) bigotry in refusing the gay wedding then. This seems to be the point you're missing. They are refusing to bake a wedding cake because the couple is gay. They're not refusing to bake wedding cakes. They're refusing to bake gay wedding cakes. It's the very definition of bigotry.

So, I'll ask again, how would you feel if you were refused a service granted to everyone else, based solely on your religion? If you walked into a restaurant wearing a crucifix and the waiter told you "We don't serve cathy-licks," are you going to tell me that's somehow different?!?

Well, if a person doesn't think gay marriage is moral and they don't want to make a cake for a cause they disagree with, I think they have the right to say no.

And I already answered your question. If someone refused me a cake that was unrelated to my Catholicism simply bc I was catholic, I would think that was illegal discrimination of servicing me because of who I am. If someone refused to make a cake for me that was for a pro life rally or for a catholic baptism because they were morally/politically/religiously opposed to those causes, i would think it was within their rights to do so.

What if a baker is against interracial marriage claiming it was immoral, is it ok to turn down a black/white couple then?  Is it more OK if it's because of a religious belief? Would you still say it is their right to do so?

Many people in the 60's used these exact arguments, you do realize, to try and legitimize segregation.

What is the difference between an interracial marriage and a gay one?  Both are marriages, both are legal. 

[RoadRunner79]

I don't know how the exact interaction went, I just know that the baker did know one way or the other that the cake would be for a gay wedding and that is why he refused to make it.

The point is that a public business is discriminating against those guys for who they are as people. Would you be okay with a business denying service to African Americans based on the owners religious freedom?

What about protesting, by refusing to make a dress for the First Lady and the inauguration? Or performers refusing to sing at Trumps inauguration? And then you had the Springsteen concert that was scheduled in Carolina and canceled for reasons of discrimination. Is this not Ok as well?

[Catholic_Lady]

Well, if a person doesn't think gay marriage is moral and they don't want to make a cake for a cause they disagree with, I think they have the right to say no.

And I already answered your question. If someone refused me a cake that was unrelated to my Catholicism simply bc I was catholic, I would think that was illegal discrimination of servicing me because of who I am. If someone refused to make a cake for me that was for a pro life rally or for a catholic baptism because they were morally/politically/religiously opposed to those causes, i would think it was within their rights to do so.

What if a baker is against interracial marriage claiming it was immoral, is it ok to turn down a black/white couple then?  Is it more OK if it's because of a religious belief? Would you still say it is their right to do so?

Many people in the 60's used these exact arguments, you do realize, to try and legitimize segregation.

What is the difference between an interracial marriage and a gay one?  Both are marriages, both are legal. 

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.

---

The point is that a public business is discriminating against those guys for who they are as people. Would you be okay with a business denying service to African Americans based on the owners religious freedom?

What about protesting, by refusing to make a dress for the First Lady and the inauguration? Or performers refusing to sing at Trumps inauguration? And then you had the Springsteen concert that was scheduled in Carolina and canceled for reasons of discrimination. Is this not Ok as well?

Precisely. Those people had every right to refuse their services to contribute to something politically which they did not agree with. Heck, I would have refused to do anything for the inauguration as well because I don't support Trumps politics. The last thing I'd want is some big government forcing me to participate in a cause I'm against.

[Aroura]

Thank you for the honest answer CL.

What if the racist asshole doesnt go out of business, because where he lives, there are a lot of racist assholes? They all support him. His business does better than ever. It happens. The couple discriminated against simply has to suck it up and accept discrimination, I guess? It's why we made these laws, you know, because discrmination was more often rewarded than punished.

And you think people denying an interracial couple is extreme example? Its was common a few decades ago. Not exactly some far fetched, unheard of fantasy. I was trying to give a recent, real world example. You think it would be hard to find people claiming interracial marriage is against their religion? One of the only growing denominations, evangelicals, are often quite openly opposed. Today. Right now. This didn't end in 1969.

Also, how does one, say a judge, tell the difference between a racist asshole and a sincerely held religious belief? By all outward appearances, they are identical. Can't all the racists just start claiming sincere religious beliefs to cover their asses?

No one can force a baker to make a cake for a Nazi. Nazis are not a religion, sexual orientation, or race. Laws forbid us from discriminating against the person, as you say for example a Catholic, but not fir an optional behavior, such as a Nazi rally. You are comparing apples and oranges...or literally Nazis and gay couples. Interesting comparison.

---

The point is that a public business is discriminating against those guys for who they are as people. Would you be okay with a business denying service to African Americans based on the owners religious freedom?

What about protesting, by refusing to make a dress for the First Lady and the inauguration? Or performers refusing to sing at Trumps inauguration? And then you had the Springsteen concert that was scheduled in Carolina and canceled for reasons of discrimination. Is this not Ok as well?

None of those things are based on sex, race, religion, age or sexual orientation.

You and CL both, apples and oranges. And straw men. No court would even hear a case of turning away a nazi, or not participating in a political activity. Those things are actually protected by law, the other way. You set up a false argument, then act like it somehow justifies your point. It doesn't.

This case is about discrimination based on the legally held definitions of the above. Their are no laws, nor proposed laws, stating no discrimination based on anything, ever. There ARE laws stating one cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation, which is why this is even a case all.

Sexual orientation is like race. Sexual orientation is NOT like political leaning. Both of you please stop tossing this strawman into the argument.

[Catholic_Lady]

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 gay person because he is gay, a prolife person because he is prolife, or a catholic person because he is catholic, is discrimination against the person themselves.

[Aroura]

What if a baker is against interracial marriage claiming it was immoral, is it ok to turn down a black/white couple then?  Is it more OK if it's because of a religious belief? Would you still say it is their right to do so?

Many people in the 60's used these exact arguments, you do realize, to try and legitimize segregation.

What is the difference between an interracial marriage and a gay one?  Both are marriages, both are legal. 

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.

[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.