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

[Jainarayan]

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

Sure he is. He's using his religious views to put me at a disadvantage. Suppose there is no other baker anywhere nearby?

 

[columbus]

? It seems overblown and petty.

I do agree with you here, in principle.
But how do you distinguish between this and the virulent racism of the 60s? If Joe Christian didn't want black people at his lunch counter, due to his sincerely held and Scriptures based beliefs, do you have a problem with forcibly integrating his business? I, personally, have trouble drawing a clear bright line.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure he is. He's using his religious views to put me at a disadvantage. Suppose there is no other baker anywhere nearby?

View attachment 20286

I see a small difference.
Let's consider the modern office environment....
- Not giving someone a decorated cake is acceptable.
- Waving a penis in someone's face will get you the Harvey Weinstein treatment.

 

[leibowde84]

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

From the face of it, I think there is a 100% chance that it will be overturned on appeal. If the cake was at least somewhat specifically designed for the same-sex wedding, the baker might have a point. No artist should be forced to create any work of art against their will. But, the cake in question was blank. The couple did not ask for anything that would even point to it being for a same-sex marriage. Thus, I think the baker is bound by the public accomodation laws and this judge got it wrong.

 

[leibowde84]

I fully agree with the court in ruling in favor of the baker. He was not discriminating against the couple, and made it clear that he would sell them any baked good that they want and that they are welcome customers in his shop. Rather, he stated that there are certain events (not people, but EVENTS) that, due to his religious beliefs and values, he does not bake cakes for. For all you liberals that are outraged over this, I'd ask you: If you owned a bakery, would you want to be required by law to bake cakes for a Trump rally?

Public Accommodation laws were put into place to stop discrimination. A baker shouldn't be forced to design a specialty cake for a same-sex wedding, but that wasn't the case here. It was a blank cake that could have been used for anything. Public Accomodation laws specifically stop an owner of a store open to the public to discriminate based on what his products may or may not be used for (as long as they are used for legal purposes). So, I think the judge got this one wrong.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

For those saying it's best to let businesses discriminate and let the public decide where the chips fall- how do you know the public would sink inhumane businesses? They already don't do that. They already eat Chick fil A, and wear Under Armour clothing for example. Chick fil A is known to donate to groups that equate gay people with pedophiles.

I think you have more faith in human nature and the consumerist driven citizen than you can reasonably justify.

Libertarians have the strangest view of government I've ever encountered. All classical views of government I've encountered believe in general welfare and a good-oriented ethic, when it comes to democracy.

Libertarians seem to think a government doesn't exist to protect it's citizens, only to maximize profiteering and protect the rights of people infringing the rights of others.

I don't see that Libertarians believe in social responsibility among humans really.

 

[Rival]

I see a small difference.
Let's consider the modern office environment....
- Not giving someone a decorated cake is acceptable.
- Waving a penis in someone's face will get you the Harvey Weinstein treatment.

This is becoming too risque for me!

 

[SomeRandom]

Ignoring free speech and laws for a moment, does anyone here legitimately think Jesus would not view this as extremely petty? Like for gods sake it's a cake, first world problems much? Granted in principle the discrimination is an issue. But it's still just a cake.
Is there a lost commandment where Jesus commanded people not to bake cakes? Did Jesus go around refusing to talk to sinners? Did he refuse to feed the hungry if he found out they were gay? No because frankly he was better than that and this baker is supposedly walking in his teachings? Ok. If the Church says so I guess.
Doesn't exactly seem like following the Golden Rule to me. Unless this baker wants others to refuse them service or to refuse to bake them a cake. But whatever.

"We refuse to serve coloured oops I mean gay people."
Yeah that's very Christ like.

 

[Shad]

Ignoring free speech and laws for a moment, does anyone here legitimately think Jesus would not view this as extremely petty? Like for gods sake it's a cake, first world problems much? Granted in principle the discrimination is an issue. But it's still just a cake.
Is there a lost commandment where Jesus commanded people not to bake cakes? Did Jesus go around refusing to talk to sinners? Did he refuse to feed the hungry if he found out they were gay? No because frankly he was better than that and this baker is supposedly walking in his teachings? Ok. If the Church says so I guess.
Doesn't exactly seem like following the Golden Rule to me. Unless this baker wants others to refuse them service or to refuse to bake them a cake. But whatever.

If same-sex marriage is a sin there are a number of versus regarding conduct with those that sin and the dangers of "enabling" those you know to sin. In some verses it is seen as a source of negative influence be it in the form of modern social pressures or just a "direct tap" for Satan to access.

I do not think Jesus, if holding the view of the baker, would have any believer take part in sins willingly. Again that is if Jesus believes as the baker does.

Bible Gateway passage: 1 Timothy 5:22 - New International Version

 

[Subduction Zone]

From the face of it, I think there is a 100% chance that it will be overturned on appeal. If the cake was at least somewhat specifically designed for the same-sex wedding, the baker might have a point. No artist should be forced to create any work of art against their will. But, the cake in question was blank. The couple did not ask for anything that would even point to it being for a same-sex marriage. Thus, I think the baker is bound by the public accomodation laws and this judge got it wrong.

Yep, and your example shows exactly why the example of a Muslim being forced to make a ham sandwich fails. It is the exact same product that is made for others. No special artistry tells one the nature of the wedding it is to be used for. It was a generic wedding cake. In the ham sandwich situation a product that is never bought must be bought, a product that is never handled must be handled. The two are not equivalent at all.

 

[Curious George]

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.

Yes but everything we do is not intended to be speech or considered speech under the law. Some speech may be incidental to the conduct which is being regulated if that is the case then it is not a violation of free speech.

Forcing students to salute the flag is not incidental. Whereas one could argue that the speech, if it is speech, of baking a cake is incidental to the conduct of baking a cake. The people who are suggesting that the government compelling them to make a cake are not saying that is incidental speech.

Like I said, I am willing to listen to arguments and allow that there might be more to baking a cake.

 

[Koldo]

Yes but everything we do is not intended to be speech or considered speech under the law. Some speech may be incidental to the conduct which is being regulated if that is the case then it is not a violation of free speech.

Forcing students to salute the flag is not incidental. Whereas one could argue that the speech, if it is speech, of baking a cake is incidental to the conduct of baking a cake. The people who are suggesting that the government compelling them to make a cake are not saying that is incidental speech.

Like I said, I am willing to listen to arguments and allow that there might be more to baking a cake.

In what sense could it not be incidental speech ?

 

[Curious George]

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.

Interesting. You believe that I am stretching the definition of event. Let us define event. I would define event as an instance that occurs.

But if one bakes cakes for weddings and not gay weddings what exactly is the event that is being discriminated against? How do you define event in such a way that a gay wedding is distinguished from a straight wedding?

No one is claiming that one must provide service to any people for any event. Not all groups are protected. It is legal for you to not provide a cake to the baby eaters association despite the racial, religious or orientation of the group.

 

[Curious George]

In what sense could it not be incidental speech ?

I don't know. I am willing to hear people try to explain if they feel it is.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Sure he is. He's using his religious views to put me at a disadvantage. Suppose there is no other baker anywhere nearby?

View attachment 20286

And you'd use your political views to put Trump supporters at a disadvantage too if they wanted you to bake a cake for a trump rally. Also there is always another baker somewhere. I don't mean to sound insensitive to the discrimination concerns, but I don't think you understand the implications of requiring all bakers to bake cakes for all events that are requested of them.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

No one is claiming that one must provide service to any people for any event. Not all groups are protected. It is legal for you to not provide a cake to the baby eaters association despite the racial, religious or orientation of the group.

Would you want to be legally obligated to bake a cake for a Trump rally and face a lawsuit if you refused?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

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.

Using your logic, then, we should also prevent people from freely discriminating against others based on their political beliefs. Therefore, all liberal bakers should be forced to bake cakes for Trump rallies and all conservative bakers should be forced to bake cakes for Bernie Sanders rallies. See the issue?

 

[Curious George]

Would you want to be legally obligated to bake a cake for a Trump rally and face a lawsuit if you refused?

I understand the comparison to political views, however I must note that political views is not a protected class.

That said I would think any baker that turned down a deal for baking for a Trump rally was stupid.

A more useful comparison would be a refusal to bake a birthday cake for a veterans birthday because I didn't believe in war.

This way we are dealing with a protected class and the only thing distinguishing the occasion and other occasion which I normally bake cakes is the protected class.

 

[Curious George]

Would you want to be legally obligated to bake a cake for a Trump rally and face a lawsuit if you refused?

Would you think the refusal to bake a cake for a veterans birthday because it celebrates a veteran is an instance of discrimination?

And do you think that refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding is an instance of discrimination?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Not really, since no bakery is obligated to bake cakes at all.

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.

Discrimination against the KKK is not discrimination on the basis of a protected class. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is.

You can refuse to serve a racist, you can refuse to serve someone who insulted your mother, you can refuse to serve someone who smells.

You can’t refuse to serve a black person because of the colour of their skin, you can’t refuse to serve a Christian because of his religion, you can’t refuse to serve a gay person because of his orientation.