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

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In matters of "artistic expression" I don't think it's essential enuf of a service that
we should have public policy requiring people to do things which violate their
religion (no matter how backward it is). It's right up there with tattoo parlors.

I do think it's important that more critical services have more stringent rules, but I also think that there's a question of government benefit versus societal obligation.

With pretty much any business, government regulations distort the market. Licensing rules, for instance, keep some players out, which means that the remaining players get the benefit of less competition.

Or take zoning rules: if someone wanted to rezone their property to allow another cake shop to be built nearby, it's very possible that the town would ask for a market study to demonstrate that the new business wouldn't hurt any existing businesses in the town (or deny the application if the town though they would be hurt).

It's no good to try to leave things to a free market if the market isn't free. The government has distorted the market to this company's benefit. I have no problem with the government requiring a minimum level of social benefit in return.

If they can buy a frosted buy undecorated cake, that is accommodation enuf.

Can they? Did this baker make any cake at all available to the lesbian couple? From the news reports I've read, it sounds like they were refused completely when the baker found out they wanted a cake for a same-sex wedding.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Forget legally. Do you think baking a cake is a form of speech.
Let me temper this though: not the act of sharing or giving someone a cake. So don't think of baking a loved one a cake. We are talking about baking preparing and selling a cake.

Honest opinion. Yes or no?

The form of the cake itself is an expression of the baker. The decisions of where and when to display the cake, or how to use the cake, are the expression of the purchasers, not the baker.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I personally don't see it any differently than a Jewish or Muslim restaurant owner being forced to serve ham sandwiches.

You don't? The bakery already makes wedding cakes. Wedding cakes are just cakes, they are already on the bakery's list of services. The Muslim or Kosher Jewish restaurant would not carry pork products. This would be a demand for them to make something that they do not ordinarily make requiring purchasing materials that they do not ordinarily purchase. Whether gay or straight the ingredients, the process, everything that matters in cooking is the same regardless of who gets the cake.

Perhaps it is time to find another analogy.

 

[Koldo]

Hmmm, I am at least willing to hear arguments that baking a cake is speech.

What if it is ?
To be pertinent to that matter, one would have to establish that whatever sort of speech such a cake represents would be supportive of homosexual weddings. Considering no words or messages were required, there is simply no room for that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In matters of "artistic expression" I don't think it's essential enuf of a service that
we should have public policy requiring people to do things which violate their
religion (no matter how backward it is). It's right up there with tattoo parlors.
If they can buy a frosted buy undecorated cake, that is accommodation enuf.

Got to go back to this: requiring bakeries to not discriminate does not force anyone to violate their religion.

Nobody is forced by the government to operate a bakery. No bakery is forced by the government to make wedding cakes. No religion commands its followers to make and sell wedding cakes.

The conflict between the religion and the law is entirely the result of choices of the bakers. If they had chosen to specialize in, say, bread and muffins, the conflict wouldn't have happened. If they chose some other line of business besides a bakery, the conflict wouldn't have happened either.

 

[Holdasown]

It is not about doing homosexual weddings or not.

Yes it is. If you will do any wedding but homosexual ones it is. And if you don't, own it and loose who you loose.

 

[Holdasown]

They could always go down the street and give their money to someone else who will do it, just less money for the "bigot", I think that would be a far more useful and fair response than suing someone and putting them out of business because they hurt your feelings.

Yes they can. And the people who will not serve them should put up a big sign so they don't go in there and find out in front of others they are in the presence of bigots.

 

[David1967]

Perhaps it is time to find another analogy.

Or perhaps its time to just agree to disagree and move on.

 

[Koldo]

Or perhaps its time to just agree to disagree and move on.

I am sorry, but one shouldn't agree with what's clearly misguided.
Your analogy was indeed way off, and this was explained to you in a very concise manner.

As it is often said:
"You can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make it drink."

 

[Curious George]

What if it is ?
To be pertinent to that matter, one would have to establish that whatever sort of speech such a cake represents would be supportive of homosexual weddings. Considering no words or messages were required, there is simply no room for that.

Then the law would be compelling the co-opting of that speech for the purpose of altering the expression. That is not to say that doing such is not okay. It violates the speakers free speech, but then we have to analyze whether it is okay to violate someone's right to free speech in a case like this.

It needn't necessarily be shown that the speech that is made by baking and designing a cake is supportive of same-sex sex marriage.

 

[Revoltingest]

Forget legally. Do you think baking a cake is a form of speech.

Generally, no.
But I can imagine artistry in a message becoming speech.

Let me temper this though: not the act of sharing or giving someone a cake. So don't think of baking a loved one a cake. We are talking about baking preparing and selling a cake.

Honest opinion. Yes or no?

Are you asking me for an additional opinion, or if the one above is honest?

 

[Curious George]

Generally, no.
But I can imagine artistry in a message becoming speech.

Are you asking me for an additional opinion, or if the one above is honest?

Nope just clarifying for what I was looking.

 

[Revoltingest]

I do think it's important that more critical services have more stringent rules, but I also think that there's a question of government benefit versus societal obligation.

With pretty much any business, government regulations distort the market. Licensing rules, for instance, keep some players out, which means that the remaining players get the benefit of less competition.

Or take zoning rules: if someone wanted to rezone their property to allow another cake shop to be built nearby, it's very possible that the town would ask for a market study to demonstrate that the new business wouldn't hurt any existing businesses in the town (or deny the application if the town though they would be hurt).

It's no good to try to leave things to a free market if the market isn't free. The government has distorted the market to this company's benefit. I have no problem with the government requiring a minimum level of social benefit in return.


Can they? Did this baker make any cake at all available to the lesbian couple? From the news reports I've read, it sounds like they were refused completely when the baker found out they wanted a cake for a same-sex wedding.

I'm more bothered by your suggestion that zoning officials might
refuse another cake shop in order to benefit the existing bakery.
Such restraint of trade sure does keep markets from being free.
But it is only a cake.

 

[Koldo]

Then the law would be compelling the co-opting of that speech for the purpose of altering the expression. That is not to say that doing such is not okay. It violates the speakers free speech, but then we have to analyze whether it is okay to violate someone's right to free speech in a case like this.

It needn't necessarily be shown that the speech that is made by baking and designing a cake is supportive of same-sex sex marriage.

For the purpose of altering the expression ? What expression ? Altering in what way ?

 

[Revoltingest]

Got to go back to this: requiring bakeries to not discriminate does not force anyone to violate their religion.

Nobody is forced by the government to operate a bakery. No bakery is forced by the government to make wedding cakes. No religion commands its followers to make and sell wedding cakes.

The conflict between the religion and the law is entirely the result of choices of the bakers. If they had chosen to specialize in, say, bread and muffins, the conflict wouldn't have happened. If they chose some other line of business besides a bakery, the conflict wouldn't have happened either.

You're citing points I made which seem to oppose points I made.
I suspect that we heathens are less aware of what violates someone's
religion than one of its adherents. So we might not balance rights
in the same way.

 

[Curious George]

For the purpose of altering the expression ? What expression ? Altering in what way ?

If you conclude it is speech. That would be the expression. Altering it by co-opting it.

 

[David1967]

I am sorry, but one shouldn't agree with what's clearly misguided.
Your analogy was indeed way off, and this was explained to you in a very concise manner.

As it is often said:
"You can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make it drink."

I think my analogy was fine. You dont agree? That is fine too.

 

[Koldo]

I think my analogy was fine. You dont agree? That is fine too.

It's not that your analogy was bad.
It is that it couldn't be any worse.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then the law would be compelling the co-opting of that speech for the purpose of altering the expression.

No, it doesn't. Once the cake is sold, the purchaser can do what it wants with it.

Your car is the artistic expression of its designer; this doesn't give your car's designer the right to tell you that you can't park your car at places that aren't compatible with his religion.

Once you hand over your money, what happens with the work is no longer the expression of the original artist.

That is not to say that doing such is not okay. It violates the speakers free speech, but then we have to analyze whether it is okay to violate someone's right to free speech in a case like this.

Free speech really isn't at issue here. A customer's decision to display a cake at a same-sex wedding is not the expression of the baker.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm more bothered by your suggestion that zoning officials might
refuse another cake shop in order to benefit the existing bakery.
Such restraint of trade sure does keep markets from being free.
But it is only a cake.

Bothered or not, it's the current situation. And it means that letting the bakery just do what it wants won't result in the invisible hand of the market getting rid of the bigotry, even if a non-bigoted cake shop would be more successful in the long run.