Anti-gay baker now takes stand against birthdays for trans people

[dianaiad]

Do you know why?

Throughout history, there has been a “scapegoat du jour” — that is, some minority group without a voice, that can be demonized for some perceived difference that serves the purposes of power. That group has all the moral and ethical flotsam of society dumped on them. And when they (and others) decide that enough is enough, and the embedded power structures are challenged in order to broaden the power base to give this group an equal voice, all attention is turned to that group.

Blacks, Asians, Jews, Irish, women, handicapped, First Nations, Latino, Eastern Europeans, Muslims, Catholics — all have suffered and become the center of attention. Yes, right now the LGBTQ community holds that “honor.” Latinos are also in the hot seat. The LGBTQ community has decided that it’s had enough. All that’s being asked for is equal treatment, regardless of how others feel about them. To you it’s a cake. No big deal. They can just go somewhere else. But to them it’s HUGE! Finally, finally, finally, they obtained the right to marry. Now no one will recognize the legitimacy of it. To them, it’s a sign that they are second class citizens — not recognized as real human beings. How human can they be, if people won’t even bake them a G. D. cake??

"People?" I would bake that cake. Most bakers would. Only this guy, and a few like him, would not, because of THEIR religious beliefs regarding marriage.

I read your post, and what I saw was....yeah, the underdog now has the power to do what they have been protesting all this time. Now THEY can dictate what other people may and may not do, how they may or may not exercise their belief systems.

.......and you don't see the problem with that, do you?

What happens when the folks who are now being discriminated against and forced to behave in a way contrary to their faiths get that power BACK?

You are setting very bad precedents. It's a GOOD thing that minorities are now seen as equal under the law. It's a BAD thing when the only thing that has resulted from this is that the power to discriminate has simply changed hands.

 

[dianaiad]

Making a cake is hardly "participating" .

That's your opinion. It's not his.


And consider this: if he were simply supplying the table linens or silverware, nobody at the wedding would give a hoot who supplied them. The cake, however?

It is an expression of the baker's art; his advertisement. The cake is there saying 'this person made and decorated it. This person made this cake for THIS occasion."

people who admire the cake will ask who made it.

Nobody asks who made the desert forks.

That, SZ, is PARTICIPATION. Not as completely as a photographer participates, but still...participation.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I read your post, and what I saw was....yeah, the underdog now has the power to do what they have been protesting all this time. Now THEY can dictate what other people may and may not do, how they may or may not exercise their belief systems.

No one is trying to dictate the beliefs of others.

What happens when the folks who are now being discriminated against and forced to behave in a way contrary to their faiths get that power BACK?

History suggests they don't. Each incarnation of the Klan has been weaker than the last. No one gives me grief for having Irish heritage (and they probably don't think to). Domestic violence and rape laws haven't went anywhere. The Civil Rights Act has been enforced and strengthened.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's your opinion. It's not his.


And consider this: if he were simply supplying the table linens or silverware, nobody at the wedding would give a hoot who supplied them. The cake, however?

It is an expression of the baker's art; his advertisement. The cake is there saying 'this person made and decorated it. This person made this cake for THIS occasion."

people who admire the cake will ask who made it.

Nobody asks who made the desert forks.

That, SZ, is PARTICIPATION. Not as completely as a photographer participates, but still...participation.

We've already been over this. Creating a piece of art is not inherently an expression of anything, and the artist loses all control over it once it leaves their hands. I really doubt Mick Jagger condones serial murder and approves of the actions of the Boston Strangler, after all, no more than Sting supports people being creepy stalkers.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

To make this point more clear, the lyrics of this song were sang by a man who is Catholic:

Religion is hate
Religion is fear
Religion is war
Religion is rape
Religion is obscene
Religion is a whore
The target's ****ing Jesus Christ
The one I'd love to sacrifice
I'd nail him to the crucifix
Beware the call for purity
Infections their facility
I've made my choice
666!
Jesus is pain
Jesus is gore
Jesus is the blood that is spilled in war
He's everything
He's all things dead
He's pulling down the trigger pointed at your head!
The fear your shoulded to the front
Revelation, Revolution,
I see through your Christ illusion!
...
Religion is hate
Religion is fear
Religion is war
Religion is rape
Religion is obscene
Religion is a whore
There is no ****ing Jesus Christ
There never was a sacrifice
No man upon the crucifix
Beware the call for purity
Infections their facility
I've made my choice
666!

Clearly, as Tom Araya (bassist and singer for Slayer) is a Catholic he does not support or condone Satanism or anti-Christian, but he performs for audiences who would gladly shred the Bible. And he chose to sing for this anti-Christ band for over the past 30 years.
You have to separate the art from the artist. You'll never get the right impression of who the artist is, as a person, if you don't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's your opinion. It's not his.


And consider this: if he were simply supplying the table linens or silverware, nobody at the wedding would give a hoot who supplied them. The cake, however?

It is an expression of the baker's art; his advertisement. The cake is there saying 'this person made and decorated it. This person made this cake for THIS occasion."

people who admire the cake will ask who made it.

Nobody asks who made the desert forks.

That, SZ, is PARTICIPATION. Not as completely as a photographer participates, but still...participation.

His opinion does not matter. He provided a product. He provided the same product that he gives to other weddings. You do not seem to understand that there no longer is such a thing as a "gay wedding" there are only "weddings". So there really is no such thing as a gay wedding cake. The cake is not going to have sex. The people in the wedding are not gong to be having sex during the wedding either. It is simply two people getting married.

 

[dianaiad]

No one is trying to dictate the beliefs of others.

The constitution doesn't guarantee the rights of people to believe as they wish. It says we can't mess with people's right to exercise those beliefs.

History suggests they don't. Each incarnation of the Klan has been weaker than the last. No one gives me grief for having Irish heritage (and they probably don't think to). Domestic violence and rape laws haven't went anywhere. The Civil Rights Act has been enforced and strengthened.

Not because people passed laws. Things changed because people began to see that the laws were wrong. Before the laws changed, the people's attitudes had to change.

And this is the same thing.

But if we don't allow all people the freedom to exercise their religion, we are simply repeating the problem, not solving it.

 

[dianaiad]

We've already been over this. Creating a piece of art is not inherently an expression of anything, and the artist loses all control over it once it leaves their hands. I really doubt Mick Jagger condones serial murder and approves of the actions of the Boston Strangler, after all, no more than Sting supports people being creepy stalkers.

You do know that the law is pretty clear about the right of an artist to decide who to sell his stuff to, and what he can express with it, yes?

......and if you go to a museum or an auction, you will notice that the artwork is referred to, ALWAYS, by the name of the artist. Even if the piece has a name of its own, the artist's name is on it, unless the piece is so famous that the name of the work is synonymous with the name of the artist...Guernica by Picasso comes to mind. Nobody has to write 'Guernica by Picasso." We all know that Picasso did that.

That cake has the baker's name on it, and IMO he has the absolute right to decide where that work is first displayed, and what its presence says about him.

Whether WE like his message or not.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The constitution doesn't guarantee the rights of people to believe as they wish.

It does guarantee just that. "Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion (freedom from religion) or prohibiting the free practice thereof (freedom of religion)."

Not because people passed laws. Things changed because people began to see that the laws were wrong. Before the laws changed, the people's attitudes had to change.

Is that why we have the 14th and 19th Amendments and the Civil Rights Act?

 

[dianaiad]

His opinion does not matter. He provided a product. He provided the same product that he gives to other weddings. You do not seem to understand that there no longer is such a thing as a "gay wedding" there are only "weddings". So there really is no such thing as a gay wedding cake. The cake is not going to have sex. The people in the wedding are not gong to be having sex during the wedding either. It is simply two people getting married.

Uh huh.

And yet, if that same baker refused to bake a cake for a polygamist, nobody would so much as blink.

The hypocrisy in this entire argument is making me cringe, quite honestly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The constitution doesn't guarantee the rights of people to believe as they wish. It says we can't mess with people's right to exercise those beliefs.

And that is always within reason. A person cannot inflict there person beliefs on others. When the baker opened a public business he lost the right to say who could and could not buy his products. Once again, that was his choice. This should not be that hard to understand.

Not because people passed laws. Things changed because people began to see that the laws were wrong. Before the laws changed, the people's attitudes had to change.

And this is the same thing.

But if we don't allow all people the freedom to exercise their religion, we are simply repeating the problem, not solving it.

He has all of the freedoms that he had before. In private he can act as he pleases. My religion is punching out violently and yelling. Guess what? I can't do that in public. Can I complain because people around me are in my way?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Uh huh.

And yet, if that same baker refused to bake a cake for a polygamist, nobody would so much as blink.

The hypocrisy in this entire argument is making me cringe, quite honestly.

Once again you lose by referring to an illegal activity. There is only one person being hypocritical here. The baker sells wedding cakes. There is no such thing as a "gay wedding". Do you understand that? There are only weddings. That is why it is called "marriage equality".

 

[Shadow Wolf]

......and if you go to a museum or an auction, you will notice that the artwork is referred to, ALWAYS, by the name of the artist. Even if the piece has a name of its own, the artist's name is on it, unless the piece is so famous that the name of the work is synonymous with the name of the artist...Guernica by Picasso comes to mind. Nobody has to write 'Guernica by Picasso." We all know that Picasso did that.

Actually, the proper way to do that is the have the title of the painting/sculpture/whatever, the artist, medium it's painted on (or materials used), and the size of the painting/art object. Even if it's an extremely well known painting such as the Mona Lisa, properly referenced it would still include the name Leonardo Da Vinci and mention that it's actually rather quite small.

That cake has the baker's name on it, and IMO he has the absolute right to decide where that work is first displayed, and what its presence says about him.

The artist loses all ability, power, and control over their art in such ways once it leaves their hands. This is a fact of life for all artist, be they aspiring youngsters or mainstream professionals.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You do know that the law is pretty clear about the right of an artist to decide who to sell his stuff to, and what he can express with it, yes?

Actually the courts have been rather consistently reluctant to address anything regarding the nature of art. To date, the Supreme Court itself has done more dodging and avoiding the subject than actually examining it to make a ruling.

And yet, if that same baker refused to bake a cake for a polygamist, nobody would so much as blink.

I would, because I believe that they--as consenting adults entering into a mutually agreed upon contract that harms no one--should be able to have such marriage arrangements. It's not our business what they do so long as it is consensual, so we can all bugger off over it.

 

[dianaiad]

Once again you lose by referring to an illegal activity. There is only one person being hypocritical here. The baker sells wedding cakes. There is no such thing as a "gay wedding". Do you understand that? There are only weddings. That is why it is called "marriage equality".

News for you. Polygamy is no longer illegal. Or rather, it is no longer prosecuted, even in (or especially in) Utah. One cannot commit bigamy (which involves multiple marriage licenses...LEGAL marriages) but polygamy, where someone may CALL people other than the legal spouse 'spouses,' is just fine. As long as the multiples don't get licenses or try for the federal benefits of marriage, no problem.

......and nobody is going to give that baker a problem for refusing to bake a cake for someone's second or third wedding when spouse one is waiting with the groom at the altar.

 

[dianaiad]

It does guarantee just that. "Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion (freedom from religion) or prohibiting the free practice thereof (freedom of religion)."

I wrote that. Didn't I write that? (looking) yes, I wrote that. the important part is 'free EXERCISE.'

Taking one's words out of context is usually considered to be impolite.

 

[Subduction Zone]

News for you. Polygamy is no longer illegal. Or rather, it is no longer prosecuted, even in (or especially in) Utah. One cannot commit bigamy (which involves multiple marriage licenses...LEGAL marriages) but polygamy, where someone may CALL people other than the legal spouse 'spouses,' is just fine. As long as the multiples don't get licenses or try for the federal benefits of marriage, no problem.

......and nobody is going to give that baker a problem for refusing to bake a cake for someone's second or third wedding when spouse one is waiting with the groom at the altar.

Then that is not by definition polygamy. Polygamy is still illegal. Bigamy is only one form of polygamy. Bigamy is having two wives. And that is illegal as well.

By definition what they are doing is not a "wedding". At least not now. They may call it that, but that does not make it the case.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wrote that. Didn't I write that? (looking) yes, I wrote that. the important part is 'free EXERCISE.'

Taking one's words out of context is usually considered to be impolite.

And a person's right to "free exercise" is limited once it affects others.

You simply will not deal with the fact that this is a public business that we are discussing. If he had a private business it would be another matter entirely.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It took me a while to find this since I was using the wrong legal terms. Legally what he has is a public accommodation. By opening one of these he put himself under the law. That was the baker's choice. If he did not want to sell to certain people he should have opened a private club. The baker wants the increased market share of a public accommodation without following the regulations for such a business. As you would put it he is a hypocrite:

Is Your Private Business a Public Accommodation?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's your opinion. It's not his.


And consider this: if he were simply supplying the table linens or silverware, nobody at the wedding would give a hoot who supplied them. The cake, however?

It is an expression of the baker's art; his advertisement. The cake is there saying 'this person made and decorated it. This person made this cake for THIS occasion."

people who admire the cake will ask who made it.

Nobody asks who made the desert forks.

Actually, when I got married, a surprising number of people asked my wife where she got the tablecloths and table settings.

... and the people who did the setup sure had to be actually at the wedding venue much more than the cake people. Actually, we didn’t even get our cake delivered; we had a friend pick it up, so the people supplying the silverware were much more directly involved with the wedding than the cake baker was.

That, SZ, is PARTICIPATION. Not as completely as a photographer participates, but still...participation.

And he was freely able not to ever “participate” in a same-sex wedding by simply not selling wedding cakes.

... just as he was free not to ever “participate” in a birthday party for a trans person by simply not selling any cakes that might be suited to a birthday party.

Instead, what happened was that he proclaimed to the world “if you can imagine it, we can turn it into a cake!” (IIRC - quoting his slogan from memory)... and a same-sex couple took him up on his offer by ordering a standard wedding cake. He also proclaimed “pick any icing you want and any cake type you want and we’ll make it!” ... and a trans woman took him up on this by ordering a cake and saying that she wanted the icing to be blue and the cake to be pink.