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

[Koldo]

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

Everything we do is a form of speech.
Even standing up or taking a knee.
Forcing people to bake a cake on this case, or else, is just a way to prevent people from freely discriminating against others based on their sexuality. Not all forms of speech are made equal.

 

[Curious George]

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.


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.

I agree that once I purchase it, I own it. I have co-opted it with consent. Forcing someone to make and sell something is compelling the agreement that it be co-opted. Not a problem if it is not speech but just an item to be sold. It is a problem if the government is forcing the co-opting of speech though.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Are you trying to suggest that this baker's religion requires him to make and sell wedding cakes?

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Curbing bigotry is a laudable goal.
But I'd place greater limits on government's heavy hand to achieve it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Are you trying to suggest that this baker's religion requires him to make and sell wedding cakes?

Really?
No.
Religion could impose prescriptions on work bakers could perform.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Curbing bigotry is a laudable goal.
But I'd place greater limits on government's heavy hand to achieve it.

But are you actually going to limit the government?

The two realistic scenarios I see are these:

- let the business discriminate while it enjoys the benefits of market distortion by regulation, or
- don't let the business discriminate while it enjoys the benefits of market distortion by regulation.

As much as you may dislike this regulation or the distortions it creates, since it's common to both options, it's not a rational basis to decide between them.

 

[Revoltingest]

But are you actually going to limit the government?

Well, that's what we're discussing, ie, the court's limiting the government's authority over the bakery.

The two realistic scenarios I see are these:

- let the business discriminate while it enjoys the benefits of market distortion by regulation, or
- don't let the business discriminate while it enjoys the benefits of market distortion by regulation.

As much as you may dislike this regulation or the distortions it creates, since it's common to both options, it's not a rational basis to decide between them.

I see different (less anti-business sounding) scenarios.

 

[Jainarayan]

Good ruling as the case was about compelling an action not a fine.

Except that in CA the refusal by the baker is actually illegal. I don’t know how the judge missed that.

 

[Shad]

Except that in CA the refusal by the baker is actually illegal. I don’t know how the judge missed that.

The judge didn't as the case was about the California’s Unruh Act and what the department in the article did which was compel a business interaction by force rather than a fine for misconduct.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think its a sign of the times we live in. Rather than leave an establishment that offends and go to one that accommodates and appreciates a persons business. The new tactic is 'Sue and Destroy'.

Do both. Why not? Why shouldn't a same sex couple that has been illegally discriminated against and treated like second class citizens not make the baker accept the legal responsibility and financial burden for his choices?

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.

Once again, there is enough time to do both. Why defer to bigots? The law allows one a remedy in court. The baker expressed himself, not the couple will express themselves. Where's the problem

You're not suggesting that such a couple should care about the fate of such a baker, are you? Why would such people care about a religious bigot? Why would they care how much grief and consternation or financial hardship they created for the bigot, who obviously doesn't care about such things when dealing with others?

Caring about the bigot seems to be assumed in the two comments I answered.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I think this may be the first time a judge (in California surprisingly) has ruled in favor of a baker on this subject. What do you think? Be nice please.

A wedding cake is an 'artistic expression' that a baker may deny to a same-sex couple, Calif. judge rules

Sadly, I think it shows what Trump is bringing out in our country, and that Justice Ginsberg was right to warn Americans not to become complacent after the same-sex marriage decision because otherwise they will find ways to attack LGBT Americans in other areas. LGBT Americans and allies became complacent enough to let Trump win the election, so now Justice Ginsberg's prediction will to some degree come true.

 

[columbus]

Curbing bigotry is a laudable goal.
But I'd place greater limits on government's heavy hand to achieve it.

Pretty much this.
I really don't think gay people wanting fancy cakes is worth giving the government this much power.

If anything, the fact that the SJWs are reduced to such minutiae is evidence that the culture of victimhood and entitlement is a bigger social problem than bigotry.
Tom

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Alright, then. And what if a catering business refused to cater a bar mitzvah or any Jewish events because they are antisemitic? Religious reasons are often used to mask bigotry...

Well, it's possible to disagree with a religion without being "bigoted" against people of that religion. For instance, most people who aren't Scientologists wouldn't want to bake a cake for a Scientology party. But to address your exact scenario, again, I have no problem with it as long as the baker does not refuse to bake cakes for Jews in general, and only objects to baking for a Jewish event. Let's be clear: I certainly would see a major problem with a baker refusing to give cake to someone *because* they were a homosexual, or a Jew, or another race, or a Scientologist, etc, but that's not the issue when we're dealing with events, and not people by themselves.

 

[Stanyon]

You're not suggesting that such a couple should care about the fate of such a baker, are you? Why would such people care about a religious bigot? Why would they care how much grief and consternation or financial hardship they created for the bigot, who obviously doesn't care about such things when dealing with others?
Caring about the bigot seems to be assumed in the two comments I answered.

In the big picture do you think it is just and fair to sue or ruin a small business over such a small issue not to mention opening them up to harassment and death threats? I am pretty sure there are numerous other bakers in that area that would have been more than happy to take their money so the inconvenience claim seems a bit of a stretch.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

In the big picture do you think it is just and fair to sue or ruin a small business over such a small issue not to mention opening them up to harassment and death threats? I am pretty sure there are numerous other bakers in that area that would have been more than happy to take their money so the inconvenience claim seems a bit of a stretch.

I'm not condoning threats obviously, but in the legal arena- we already had this discussion. We've discussed what a business can reasonably deny under law. A business is not a business owner. That was made clear and we addressed this during segregation. Americans are going to mess around until we open up that debate anew.

This discussion has already spun dangerously beyond wedding cakes as well, with our dearly beloved Fuhrer deciding medical service can be refused to LGBT Americans. This country is losing it...

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Are they though? What if the event is you coming in my diner to sit and eat. In other words, I am happy to serve you take out, but I don't want to celebrate your race sitting with and eating with my race?

It is not such an easy issue. It is not that I am allowed to deny service based on event, it is that the government cannot compel my speech. Does baking a cake constitute speech? If so, what speech?

Of course it's not a black and white issue, but I'd say you're really stretching things if you believe the definition of "event" extends to actual service in a restaurant or bakery. If you believe bakeries should not be allowed to deny service based on an event, then you are effectively stating that all bakers should be legally obligated to bake cakes for all events. This also presents a serious problem. Should the government force bakeries to bake cakes for KKK parties? If you affirm that one is not allowed to deny service for any event, then you also have to affirm that all bakers are legally obligated to bake cakes for all events, including stuff like KKK parties, etc. I take serious issue with this.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Unfortunately, he's forcing his religious views on others who don't necessarily hold with those.

No, he's not. Are you forcing your political views on someone by not baking cake for a Trump rally? Of course not.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

In the big picture do you think it is just and fair to sue or ruin a small business over such a small issue not to mention opening them up to harassment and death threats? I am pretty sure there are numerous other bakers in that area that would have been more than happy to take their money so the inconvenience claim seems a bit of a stretch.

Yes. It is just and fair to seek a legal remedy for illegal discrimination.

Do you disagree?

Regarding ruining a small business, it was the proprietor's chose to break the law in an environment that could harm his business. If his business was ruined thereafter, he ruined it. He made a choice.

The targets of his bigotry have no duty to be concerned about what becomes of the bigot's business after that.

If there is an argument for why I should take a different view on this, I'm willing to hear it. Exactly what duty do the rest of us have to religious bigots? Why care about people that place their religious beliefs above human decency?

 

[Revoltingest]

Know why there are no effective protests in front of the bakery?
The message is weak.

Spoiler: Protest sign

 

[Stanyon]

Yes. It is just and fair to seek a legal remedy for illegal discrimination.

Do you disagree?

Regarding ruining a small business, it was the proprietor's chose to break the law in an environment that could harm his business. If his business was ruined thereafter, he ruined it. He made a choice.

The targets of his bigotry have no duty to be concerned about what becomes of the bigot's business after that.

If there is an argument for why I should take a different view on this, I'm willing to hear it. Exactly what duty do the rest of us have to religious bigots? Why care about people that place their religious beliefs above human decency?

Over a cake? It seems overblown and petty.
I am sure in some states there are still anti-homosexual laws on the books so since it is illegal would you condone people turning in homosexuals in those states because they are knowingly breaking the law? (not that it would be enforced)
As I have said before, if they don't want to take your money fine, someone else will be glad to.