Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Round 2

[Catholic_Lady]

So to clarify, if the cake was completely generic, but the customer just so happened to mention (without being asked) that it was for a particular cause, the Baker still has to make it since the cake itself is generic? Even if he was told what it was for and strongly opposes the cause?

---

So that is my question. How would the law go about dictating what would and would not be allowed to be refused? The swastika drawings, I get. What if the cake was generic (no swastikas on it), but the customer voluntarily told you it was for a white supremacist gathering. Should you be legally allowed to refuse?

Yes. White supremacists = hate group.

We can argue about what lies in the middle, like the circumcision case. But refusing service because of someone's sexual orientation is the same as doing so because of the colour of someone's skin. Despicable, bigoted and a major dick move.

Fair enough. Being legally allowed to refuse services if it is for hate group gatherings makes sense.

How do you personally feel about what lies in the middle?

Examples:

-Refusing to make a cake for a Jewish circumcision ceremony.
-Refusing to make a cake for a pro life or pro choice fundraiser.
-Refusing to make a cake for a Catholic infant baptism.
-Refusing to make a cake for a campaign fundraiser for a political candidate you oppose.

Again, this is all assuming the cakes are generic and the Baker only knows because the information was voluntarily relayed to him by the customer without him asking.

[Lucanus]

Yes. White supremacists = hate group.

We can argue about what lies in the middle, like the circumcision case. But refusing service because of someone's sexual orientation is the same as doing so because of the colour of someone's skin. Despicable, bigoted and a major dick move.

Fair enough. Being legally allowed to refuse services if it is for hate groups makes sense.

How do you personally feel about what lies in the middle?

Examples:

-Refusing to make a cake for a Jewish circumcision ceremony.
-Refusing to make a cake for a pro life or pro choice fundraiser.
-Refusing to make a cake for a Catholic infant baptism.
-Refusing to make a cake for a campaign fundraiser for a political candidate you oppose.

Again, this is all assuming the cakes are generic and the Baker only knows because the information was voluntarily relayed to him by the customer without him asking.

The only one I feel could be remotely justified would be the one for the circumcision, as it could be regarded as an endorsement of infant genital mutilation. But there is no way to put it into law so idk. Maybe that's why wiggle room is needed and lawsuits like this need to happen. Some cases have to be evaluated individually.

The other cases are comparatively minor political/philosophical disagreements. I personally wouldn't care, take the money and do the damn job. It's a cake. As long as it's not for Nazis, it's fine.

[Javaman]

Yes. White supremacists = hate group.

We can argue about what lies in the middle, like the circumcision case. But refusing service because of someone's sexual orientation is the same as doing so because of the colour of someone's skin. Despicable, bigoted and a major dick move.

Fair enough. Being legally allowed to refuse services if it is for hate group gatherings makes sense.

How do you personally feel about what lies in the middle?

Examples:

-Refusing to make a cake for a Jewish circumcision ceremony.
-Refusing to make a cake for a pro life or pro choice fundraiser.
-Refusing to make a cake for a Catholic infant baptism.
-Refusing to make a cake for a campaign fundraiser for a political candidate you oppose.  

Again, this is all assuming the cakes are generic and the Baker only knows because the information was voluntarily relayed to him by the customer without him asking.

I think you are making this way more complicated than it needs to be, CL

Refusing to bake a cake for Nazis or white supremicists means taking a stand against bigotry and prejudice.

Refusing to bake a cake for LGBTQ2S customers means taking a stand in favour of bigotry and prejudice.

Stop being distracted by the details. Are you for or against behaviour that entrenches discriminatory behaviour against minority groups as defined by law?

All else is irrelevant distraction.

[Catholic_Lady]

Fair enough. Being legally allowed to refuse services if it is for hate groups makes sense.

How do you personally feel about what lies in the middle?

Examples:

-Refusing to make a cake for a Jewish circumcision ceremony.
-Refusing to make a cake for a pro life or pro choice fundraiser.
-Refusing to make a cake for a Catholic infant baptism.
-Refusing to make a cake for a campaign fundraiser for a political candidate you oppose.

Again, this is all assuming the cakes are generic and the Baker only knows because the information was voluntarily relayed to him by the customer without him asking.

The only one I feel could be remotely justified would be the one for the circumcision, as it could be regarded as an endorsement of infant genital mutilation. But there is no way to put it into law so idk. Maybe that's why wiggle room is needed and lawsuits like this need to happen. Some cases have to be evaluated individually.

The other cases are comparatively minor political/philosophical disagreements. I personally wouldn't care, take the money and do the damn job. It's a cake. As long as it's not for Nazis, it's fine.

(my bold)

...And therein lies the problem. Many people don't consider male circumsicion genital mutilation, and many people don't consider abortion killing a human life. And many DO consider them those things. As an example, I would be ok with making a cake for a Jewish circumcision ceremony, but would be horrified at the thought of making one for a pro choice fundraiser.

I say if you owned a bakery, you should be allowed to refuse the circumcision cake. And if I owned a bakery I should be allowed to refuse the abortion cake. Both can be legally refused, along with the other examples.

It wouldn't really be fair for the government to arbitrarily deem one ok to be refused and not the other. It has to be more objective than that.

That's personally why I still feel the best way to handle all this is to allow for a Baker to refuse services for any cause/event they morally and/or religiously oppose... accross the board. So long as it is the cause/event itself that is being opposed, and not because they have anything against the people themselves.

Of course, there would still be certain cases where someone might *claim* they oppose an event for moral reason, when really they are discriminating against the *person* (like in Tib's example of a black person graduating college). And the courts would have to figure it out for those off the wall cases.

But I still think it is overall more practical and objective to allow refusal of events/causes across the board (and deal with the off the wall scenarios like mentioned above) than to have it be like "well, some events/causes are ok to refuse services for... but some are not...."

[Neo-Scholastic]

However if the people ask for a gay pride cake, with rainbow colors, etc then the Baker should make it...

The line/test for me is: would the baker refuse to bake the same cake if the use was not obvious…In other words, if a straight man requests a rainbow-colored cake with sprinkles, and the baker is fine with that request, it should not be denied just because a gay man requests the exact same cake for a gay pride party.

The trans cake is a great example btw. If all the person asked for was a blue cake with a pink center, it shouldn’t make a damn of difference whether it’s for a cisgender or transgender.

I know you were replying to C/L but please allow me to respond.

At first blush your test seems reasonable and your examples are appropriate. If someone merely specifies a pink cake with blue frosting, then personal identity is irrelevant. The problem with your test is that it ignores the importance of meaning. Symbolism is especially important for ritual objects - ranging from simple ones like birthday candles to those such as communion wafers which are richly endowed with meaning.

Context is important which is why I posted the picture of Marcel Duchamps “Fountain”. Perhaps this is a better example. Tim Tebow and Colin Kaepernick both knelt during football games. But the meaning of the identical gestures could not be more different because of location, end zone versus sidelines, and timing, following a touchdown as opposed to during the national anthem. When an artist knows the context in which his otherwise ambiguous art will be displayed the symbolism often becomes apparent. And when the significance of a symbol is known the artists efforts in manifesting that symbol require him or her to participate with the intended audience in a shared understanding of its significance.

So let’s expand on your first example. The first customer, who just so happens to be gay, tells the baker he wants a rainbow cake for a Noah’s Ark themed confirmation party. Later a second customer, who just so happens to be straight, comes into the shop at precisely the moment the first customer is picking up his cake. The second customer sees the rainbow cake and tells the baker that he wants the exact same design but for a gay-pride party. Same cake, different meanings. In my opinion, hiring a baker to knowingly design a symbolic object to be used in ritual activity of significant import is basically asking him or her to facilitate the expression of a specific the message. In my opinion, no artist, designer, writer, musician, architect or anyone engaging in any kind of creative activity should be compelled by force of law to produce symbols or express messages that conflict with their values, principles and convictions.

According to Philips, he would be willing to bake and decorate the first cake but not the second. Given his sincerely held convictions, I consider it right and proper for him to do so. If on the other hand, he refused service the first but not the second, then it would be clear that he was discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and would be acting illegally.

[vulcanlogician]

Examples:

-Refusing to make a cake for a Jewish circumcision ceremony.
-Refusing to make a cake for a pro life or pro choice fundraiser.
-Refusing to make a cake for a Catholic infant baptism.
-Refusing to make a cake for a campaign fundraiser for a political candidate you oppose.  

Again, this is all assuming the cakes are generic and the Baker only knows because the information was voluntarily relayed to him by the customer without him asking.

(actual phone call to bakery)

Hello, can you bake a cake for me? I want it to be a chocolate cake with vanilla icing. And could you write on top:"Congratulations on your circumcision which was immediately followed by a Catholic baptism. Glad you weren't aborted. Ted Cruz 2024."

[Catholic_Lady]

Fair enough. Being legally allowed to refuse services if it is for hate group gatherings makes sense.

How do you personally feel about what lies in the middle?

Examples:

-Refusing to make a cake for a Jewish circumcision ceremony.
-Refusing to make a cake for a pro life or pro choice fundraiser.
-Refusing to make a cake for a Catholic infant baptism.
-Refusing to make a cake for a campaign fundraiser for a political candidate you oppose.  

Again, this is all assuming the cakes are generic and the Baker only knows because the information was voluntarily relayed to him by the customer without him asking.

I think you are making this way more complicated than it needs to be, CL

Refusing to bake a cake for Nazis or white supremicists means taking a stand against bigotry and prejudice.

Refusing to bake a cake for LGBTQ2S customers means taking a stand in favour of bigotry and prejudice.

Stop being distracted by the details. Are you for or against behaviour that entrenches discriminatory behaviour against minority groups as defined by law?

All else is irrelevant distraction.

That post was literally NOT addressing nazis or gays lol. It was literally about the stuff in between.

Anyway, there is no distraction, as I personally wouldn't have a problem making a gay wedding cake. It isn't about that. What I'm trying to show here, is that when we start legally forcing people to make cakes to celebrate events/causes they strongly oppose, we start running into problems.

It is easy to say you agree that people should be forced to provide this service, when it is for something you agree with or don't have a problem with... without thinking about what this lack of freedom means in the bigger picture, when it involves other scenarios. That's what I'm trying to show here.

Why not answer the question concerning my examples? Seems you are the one trying to distract from the point I'm trying to make by literally not addressing it at all.

---

Examples:

-Refusing to make a cake for a Jewish circumcision ceremony.
-Refusing to make a cake for a pro life or pro choice fundraiser.
-Refusing to make a cake for a Catholic infant baptism.
-Refusing to make a cake for a campaign fundraiser for a political candidate you oppose.  

Again, this is all assuming the cakes are generic and the Baker only knows because the information was voluntarily relayed to him by the customer without him asking.

(actual phone call to bakery)

Hello, can you bake a cake for me? I want it to be a chocolate cake with vanilla icing. And could you write on top:"Congratulations on your circumcision which was immediately followed by a Catholic baptism. Glad you weren't aborted. Ted Cruz 2024."

LOL!

[The Grand Nudger]

I think you are making this way more complicated than it needs to be, CL

Refusing to bake a cake for Nazis or white supremicists means taking a stand against bigotry and prejudice.

Refusing to bake a cake for LGBTQ2S customers means taking a stand in favour of bigotry and prejudice.

Stop being distracted by the details. Are you for or against behaviour that entrenches discriminatory behaviour against minority groups as defined by law?

All else is irrelevant distraction.

That post was literally NOT addressing nazis or gays lol. It was literally about the stuff in between.  

Anyway, there is no distraction, as I personally wouldn't have a problem making a gay wedding cake. It isn't about that. What I'm trying to show here, is that when we start legally forcing people to make cakes to celebrate events/causes they strongly oppose, we start running into problems.

We don't do that, so what's the problem?  Assuming we did do that..however, what if the problem that created was even bigger?  Like..say..people used your own rhetoric to justify widespread discrimination?

Well...... golly gee, Polly..that's exactly why we have civil rights laws!  We shouldn't need to have them, people shouldn't be recalcitrant douchenozzles...but they are.

[Amarok]

-Refusing to make a cake for a Jewish circumcision ceremony.
-Refusing to make a cake for a pro life or pro choice fundraiser. 
-Refusing to make a cake for a Catholic infant baptism. 
-Refusing to make a cake for a campaign fundraiser for a political candidate you oppose.  

There is nothing arbitrary about the standard being set forth.And we take your "big picture " to it's logical extreme then we can justify any discrimination by ironically truly arbitrary means.Guess we should through civil rights out the window.

---

That post was literally NOT addressing nazis or gays lol. It was literally about the stuff in between.  

Anyway, there is no distraction, as I personally wouldn't have a problem making a gay wedding cake. It isn't about that. What I'm trying to show here, is that when we start legally forcing people to make cakes to celebrate events/causes they strongly oppose, we start running into problems.

We don't do that, so what's the problem?  Assuming we did do that..however, what if the problem that created was even bigger?  Like..say..people used your own rhetoric to justify widespread discrimination?

Well...... golly gee, Polly..that's exactly why we have civil rights laws!  We shouldn't need to have them, people shouldn't be recalcitrant douchenozzles...but they are.

The " Big Picture " looks pretty ugly huh ?

[Tiberius]

Here’s another scenario I’d like some feedback on.

A man goes into the store on his own and requests a wedding cake. The baker also has a delivery service and agrees to bring it to the venue. When the baker arrives with the cake, he realizes that it is a same-sex wedding. Is the baker within his rights to refuse to deliver the cake and refund the couple’s money?