by Simon 286 Replies latest social current
Completely different situation
Why is that so different ?
The owner is refusing to serve or do business with the couple based upon their sexual identity.
The owner of the cake company in not making personal decision to not do anything for this couple as a non paying favor in friendship but is refusing a business transaction as a licensed company in a public place.
He is making the decision to not make a cake or do business with these people based upon prejudice.
What if you owned a business that made t-shirts for a living and someone came in ordering a dozen t-shirts that supported Trump who you hate? Do you have the right to refuse? Of course! You would lose a sale but you shouldn't be forced to go against your beliefs. Isn't this what America is all about? Take religion out of the equation- this is about personal beliefs. We should be very fearful of a government who takes away our autonomy. Now, that's fascism.
If you really want to punish a business, just take your money and go elsewhere (and maybe tell all your friends).
The problem I have is the hypocrisy. If the bakers have a moral objection to gay marriage, one would think they also have an objection to couples who are sleeping together before marriage. Yet they'd probably be happy to sell them a wedding cake. And in some cases it's obvious when the bride-to-be comes in pregnant.
So they have religious objections to making a cake for a gay wedding, but not to the wedding of fornicators? Doesn't their moral stance condemn both?
What if it's the husband's second marriage and the first one wasn't the result of adultery. Whosoever divorces his wife and marries another has committed adultery. But I'll bet they'll make a cake for that.
So they're going to pick and choose what is against their religion and what isn't. Hypocrites!
The owner is refusing to serve or do business with the couple based upon their sexual identity.
No, he isn't. He's happy to serve them one of the cakes in the store. What he didn't want to do is be compelled to decorate a cake with something that he found objectionable.
He has that right. Only the short-sighted think it's better to remove that right because all they can focus on is whether they agree or disagree with him finding it objectionable vs the bigger issue which is whether the government should be able to compel someone to provide their services to others.
Refusing to sell a cake that is for sale in your store to someone because they are gay would be discrimination. Refusing to decorate a cake for a gay wedding is not, because it doesn't really follow that the customer ordering it are gay - presumably he would not want to decorate the cake whether it was being ordered by someone who is gay or someone who is straight.
Simon wrote:
Completely different situation. The restaurant is serving meals and they are asking for the same meals that other patrons are asking for so should be served.So if a gay couple orders a wedding cake but nothing about it hints at a gay wedding (no groom/groom decoration, no names), but the baker knows it's for a gay wedding and is against gay marriage, should he still make it? In your comparison, it would be the same cake that others are asking for. So it should be made by your logic, right?
I saw someone earlier in the thread say this was a “narrow decision.”
How is a 7-2 vote a narrow decision?
@Jehalapeno:
Narrow in the sense that it didn’t really answer the larger philosophical questions we are talking about now. It was favorable to this specific case.
So if a gay couple orders a wedding cake but nothing about it hints at a gay wedding (no groom/groom decoration, no names), but the baker knows it's for a gay wedding and is against gay marriage, should he still make it? In your comparison, it would be the same cake that others are asking for. So it should be made by your logic, right?
Yes, there would be nothing objectionable (to him). If it says "to the happy couple" or whatever, it's not a gay cake.
And honestly, if the gay couple wants to add a groom/groom or bride/bride decoration afterwards, I'm sure they can order one on the internet. And *IF* you're going to put names on it (though *I* think that's a bit tacky), I'm sure one of their friends or family could write it on the cake.
Yes, buy something from Costco and paint a rainbow on it. Go nuts.
So if the cake isn't ultimately a "gay cake" but it's for a gay wedding, isn't that the same as a restaurant serving a gay couple? It's the same food but for gay people to eat. It's the same cake but for a gay couple to use.
Yes, cakes can't be gay, I don't know the specifics but presumably it's that the decoration was objectionable (to him) and was specifically requested in order to be objectionable by activists wanting to be dicks. The wedding doesn't matter, it's what he's being asked to create and it doesn't matter whether gay people order the cake or it's being ordered by a heterosexual on their behalf or whether the people who ultimately eat it are gay or straight.
And just saying go to a different baker, that's not always so easily done. If you're in some conservative rural area, bakers might be few and far between. And bakers that aren't also conservative/religious may be few and far between too. Finding a baker might mean a several hundred mile trip.
I doubt it is that bad but unlucky - having a cake decorated just how you want isn't a right. I don't know if it was this particular case but these activists are real assholes - they sought out a Christian baker and drove past many many others to make an issue and intentionally try and ruin them. If they have now made things worse for other people then those other people know who to thank.
And while this is about a non-essential item, I seriously worry about how this ruling will be taken for other things that may be essential. Like housing. What if a landlord opposes gay couples and won't let them rent? What if a Christian opposes another's religion or lack of it. If they sell groceries, can Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Atheists, etc. buy food - food they might need to live? What if you're Christian, but a different sect?
Those would be separate issues. Again, if you have a house for rent then that is more like having a cake for sale in your store - it's being offered to customers, not being custom made. As long as people meet your requirements as tenants, that you are applying to all applicants, then there is no problem. The real equivalent would be a Christian builder being asked to construct a custom sex dungeon and again, they should have the right to refuse to do that if it conflicts with their personal beliefs.
When it comes to government services (like getting a marriage license) then the government has to make sure that service is supplied to all and isn't withheld from any based on personal opinions.
Many businesses have to have an operating license from the government. So it isn't all about personal choice. If you have a public storefront, then I feel you should serve all of the public. If you're working on-demand out of your home, that's a different story to me.
No, your business / operating license is to fund inspections and such and pay for the bureaucracy of government to protect us all (well, it's a tax but ...). You are not representing the government or mandated to provide service to people. What if you close on Sunday to go to church and I want a cake that day? Shouldn't you have to open because I demand it? That would be what you are suggesting and would be unworkable and unfair.
The law should not provide a stick to abuse people which is what the previous judgement which this overrules provided. The fact that it had only been used by gay people to ruin Christian bakers says more about those 'activists' than the law - it could equally be used by white christians to make black bakers produce things that that they wouldn't like or gay cake decorators produce something they might object to, agains the fact that this wasn't happening says more about the people involved rather than whether the law made sense.
The problem I have is the hypocrisy. If the bakers have a moral objection to gay marriage, one would think they also have an objection to couples who are sleeping together before marriage. Yet they'd probably be happy to sell them a wedding cake. And in some cases it's obvious when the bride-to-be comes in pregnant.
You're now ascribing behaviour to people that you don't know has happened. The reality is that those cases may have happened but the people involved don't take legal action, they just go buy a cake from somewhere else.
