Judge rules in favor of Baker refusing to make cake for same sex couple.

[Koldo]

I wonder how many people would feel if a customer walked into a bakery and asked the baker to write on the cake how he or she would like to murder the baker's children . . . for a joke. Or maybe a pedophiliac message on the cake.

I mean the baker has to comply after all . . . am I right?

No. It's fine as long as the baker denies the same product to every customer.
Plus, if you just read the link in the OP you would notice that nothing had to be written on the cake.

 

[Koldo]

These comments are deplorable. The man did what he felt was right and nobody is being hurt nor is he forcing his own religion on somebody else. If I was a vegan I would not want to be forced to eat meat the same way if I did not believe that homosexuality was a moral lifestyle I would not give my support to something I find intolerable. It is a sad part of life but oh well, who cares.

How does selling a cake to someone shows support to whatever they do ?

 

[Sha'irullah]

No. It's fine as long as the baker denies the same product to every customer.
Plus, if you just read the link in the OP you would notice that nothing had to be written on the cake.

Doesn't matter, I have already read the story as it was being compared to a previous incident like this. If the baker did not want blacks, asians or a person of any sort in his shop it is his decision as it is HIS shop.

 

[Sha'irullah]

How does selling a cake to someone shows support to whatever they do ?

You are engaging in business with somebody you may find undesirable. The same way you would not wish to be a taxi driver for Adolf Hitler or a personal hair stylist for Roman Polanski. You have a freedom to associate with whomever you please

 

[Twilight Hue]

I don't. Why is this so difficult for people to grasp? I have no problem with discriminating against EVENTS, but I certainly do have a problem with discriminating against people. For instance, if I were a baker, I would serve a Scientologist any cake he wants. However, if the Scientologist told me that the cake was going to be given to children at a Scientology indoctrination party, I would object. Likewise, if Alex Jones walked into my bakery, I would give him any cake he wants, unless he told me the cake was going to be used at one of his alt-right conspiracy theory parties. In the same way, the baker told the homosexual couple that he would serve them any cake they want, so long as it is not a cake to be used at their wedding. I don't agree with the baker's actions of course, but I respect his right to not bake a cake for an event that he opposes, as long as he does not discriminate against all homosexuals in general. You may very well disagree with me, and I can respect that, but before disagreeing, you should be sure that you understand my stance correctly, because as of your last post you didn't.

It's just a cake. I can understand the point of view if he refused to decorate it. But just making the cake itself without a theme on it would be all right I would think.

A plain frosted cake would show that the baker doesn't support their lifestyle, so it would absolve the baker from being supportive of any type of event that might go against the baker's feelings and views.

By refusing to bake just the cake, it kind of strikes me is he doesn't view them as human beings but something subpar to that because of the way they chose to live their lives.

It's a bad decision anyways I think. A bakery is a business and the money is the same no matter where it comes from. You want to make money, not lose money by refusing service and losing potential goodwill for future sales.

 

[Wu Wei]

It wasn't the couple who sued - it was the baker.

Actually, in this case,I believe it was the couple that made the complaint and brought it to court

Judge sides with baker in 'gay cake' row

The couple filed a complaint with California's Department of Fair Employment and Housing, which ruled in their favour, citing the state's Unruh Civil Rights Act that bars discrimination based on race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Then put up a sign where all can see that you don't do homosexual weddings so no one is subjected to your bigotry.

Right next to the sign saying "Whites only"

 

[Koldo]

You are engaging in business with somebody you may find undesirable. The same way you would not wish to be a taxi driver for Adolf Hitler or a personal hair stylist for Roman Polanski. You have a freedom to associate with whomever you please

Really?

Is this really the sort of thing you would like to see around your city ?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In other words the discrimination is about a man liking another man or a woman liking another woman. It is not about the sex of one. It is about the sex of one contingent on the sex of the other and vive versa.

Right: it’s about sex.

In other words, it about the orientation between the two individuals not either one of the individuals.

No.

Let me try again:

Sexual orientation refers to things like heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, pansexuality, etc.

A baker who was discriminating against sexual orientation would refuse to make a wedding cake for a bisexual person regardless of whether their fiance(e) was male or female. If the baker would bake a cake for a bisexual if their fiance(e) is a male but refuse if they were female (or vice versa), then the discrimination is on the basis of sex.

 

[columbus]

Really?

Is this really the sort of thing you would like to see around your city ?

You know, honestly, in 2017 USA I could live with that.
The moral landscape has changed dramatically since then. Overt bigotry is now punished socially in a way that it wasn't 50 years ago.

I would vote to remove the power of the government to meddle in people's lives the way those laws do. I would make exceptions for essential services like government and emergency and such. But for all the little stuff, like cakes and haircuts, do whatever you want with your own business. Just post a clear sign concerning the policy.
So that everyone knows about it, not just the victims of your idiocy. This is not 1967, and you won't get away with it.

Unless, of course, you are black. Then you can be as racially exclusive as you want to be.
Tom

 

[Jainarayan]

If I have a negative characture of Christianity it is precisely because of stories like this one. It is one thing to disagree about Jesus' teachings. It's quite another to hide behind Jesus to justify your ill treatment of your fellow man.

I think you are so right. I was Christian (Catholic, then Orthodox) and have a negative view not of Catholicism or Orthodoxy because they are actually more tolerant (not entirely or a whole lot). My negative view, and I daresay 'contempt' is of the "born again" and evangelical Christians. This simply comes down to control. They want control and want everyone to believe as they do and be subject to their beliefs. When they don't get their way because of legalities, they throw temper tantrums claiming religious persecution. I make no pretenses or apologies that I have nothing but contempt for this twisting and bastardizing of Jesus's teachings. This is not anything from Jesus. It is from Lev. 18:22, which is ironic how they don't adhere to other parts of Leviticus. They claim on one hand that Jesus didn't set the Law aside, and on the other hand say that Jesus put aside the food and other restrictions. It was Paul who started the homosexual-bashing, which I'm not sure that was even his intent. The phrasing and words he used were arcane even in his day.

 

[Jainarayan]

I wonder how many people would feel if a customer walked into a bakery and asked the baker to write on the cake how he or she would like to murder the baker's children . . . for a joke. Or maybe a pedophiliac message on the cake.

I mean the baker has to comply after all . . . am I right?

No, you're not right. The analogy is invalid. It is encouraging an illegal activity. Same sex marriage is not illegal.

 

[Jainarayan]

Doesn't matter, I have already read the story as it was being compared to a previous incident like this. If the baker did not want blacks, asians or a person of any sort in his shop it is his decision as it is HIS shop.

Wrong, he may be bound by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 governing places of public accommodation and businesses.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

It just so happens there is no way to separate events from people with a clear line.
For instance, one might be opposed to 'homosexual gatherings' and this would include any group of two or more homosexual individuals. If we allow this individual to discriminate against 'homosexual gatherings' we are effectively allowing him to discriminate against homosexuals.

Substitute the term 'homosexual' in the last paragraph for 'people from other countries', 'people from other races', 'people with different political views', 'people from a certain religion', and so on. You are effectively allowing discrimination to run amok.

I will admit that that is actually a very good point that I hadn't thought of. But, where do we draw the line? Is it wrong for a baker to discriminate against a gathering of alt-right conspiracy theorists, or are political groups unprotected, while homosexuals are protected? If so, how do we decide which groups are protected from discrimination, and which aren't? I think it's obvious that there are many nuances within this issue, and, it's not a simple question to answer.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

That is double talk. If they were not homosexual he would do the cake for the wedding.

I don't think you understand the distinction. He did not say that homosexuals are not welcome customers in his shop. If he did say that, I would be outraged. What he said is that he personally objects to their wedding, which is an event. Obviously I don't agree with his objection in that case either, but, there is a clear distinction between the two.

 

[Holdasown]

I don't think you understand the distinction. He did not say that homosexuals are not welcome customers in his shop. If he did say that, I would be outraged. What he said is that he personally objects to their wedding, which is an event. Obviously I don't agree with his objection in that case either, but, there is a clear distinction between the two.

But they are if they want a wedding cake. Why would they want to buy from a bigot?

 

[Jainarayan]

What he said is that he personally objects to their wedding, which is an event.

Well, who else but homosexuals has a homosexual wedding?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

But they are if they want a wedding cake. Why would they want to buy from a bigot?

The baker also said that he doesn't bake cakes for adult-themed parties (both heterosexual and homosexual). Do you view that as bigotry also? My point is that it is a more nuanced issue than you may realize.

 

[columbus]

Wrong, he may be bound by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 governing places of public accommodation and businesses.

We need to get rid of that law.
Things have changed enormously since the 60s.

What we need is a modern, Facebook based, lynching. Not one where anybody dies. One where people are hugely embarrassed in front of the whole world.
Where people lose their business and livelihood because they are more bigoted than the people that they need to sell to.
Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would vote to remove the power of the government to meddle in people's lives the way those laws do. I would make exceptions for essential services like government and emergency and such. But for all the little stuff, like cakes and haircuts, do whatever you want with your own business. Just post a clear sign concerning the policy.

The problem with this is that even without anti-discrimination laws, the government is "meddling" in all sorts of ways.

Licensing laws can stop someone from doing wedding cakes as a sideline business. A town council might deny a rezoning to permit a bakery on the grounds that another bakery in town would negatively impact existing businesses. The bigoted bakery might be getting a government grant for participating in an apprenticeship program or a reduction in property taxes through some sort of business incentive. The town might be providing on-street parking to serve the bakery's customers.

Without anti-discrimination laws, the market is already distorted in the bakery's favour in all sorts of ways. The anti-discrimination laws are partly one way that the business justifies getting those benefits and partly restoring things closer to what would happen in a free market equilibrium.