I don't see how either are different. Even if it's buying premade cakes and writing stuff on it, I think a baker can say "I'm not writing that. I'll write something else or you can write it yourself."
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Bakery under fire for refusing to make anti-gay cake.
- Thread starter Camwi
- Start date
- Status
CitrusStorm
Unconfirmed Member
Take some initiative and make your own damn cake.
Mmmm, homemade cakes.
Mmmm, homemade cakes.
metalslimer
Member
This is like some horrible youtube troll comment level false equivalence.
Listen my man I made a simple request.
A chocolate cake, white frosting and shit on the top.
No not fondant shit, literal shit. What do you mean you refuse? This is America!
If this was a "God hates gays cakes" business who refused to serve this person because of his religion, then he'd have a case. But they're not in the business of making those kinds of cakes. They're also not in the business of making cakes with images of gay sex acts on them, and would be within their rights to refuse to make one of those - even for a gay person.
Sword Familiar
178% of NeoGAF posters don't understand statistics
Most of us can agree that this is a set-up, but what if it's a counter-set-up marketing ploy to get free publicity and show everyone that they are a bakery that supports gay rights?
*Puts on tinfoil hat*
*Puts on tinfoil hat*
DoktorEvil
Banned
The distinction of what this person was paying the bakery for I think is important here.
There's a gap of difference between someone who is paid a salary to sit at a counter on a bakery owner's behalf and someone who makes a commission on their services for selling and fulfilling a cake order on a bakery owner's behalf.
Evidently everyone is referencing the Colorado case, while the prominent Ireland case was much closer to this scenario, in that the cake requested had a clear political message and image of Bert and Ernie, and the bakery was (indisputably, in my mind) unfairly punished for refusal.
But even the other cases are not so simple. I don't believe we're looking at a scenario where someone walks in and picks up a cake off the shelf, but is told they can't buy it. There's a reason this keeps happening with bakeries and not with stores that sell you a packaged item: it's a commissioned work, it is often seen as a creative act (varies, I'm sure), and it is a kind of embodied celebration of an event that is seen as a religious ceremony to many.
A wedding cake generally follows a meeting with the purchasing parties; anyone who has been directly or indirectly involved in planning weddings knows that you don't just pick a cake in most cases, but instead you go and work with a baker to get what you want for your ceremony. It's much more like a commissioned work of art than buying a food item. And on top of that, it would seem that the Christian-centered bakeries were built partly on the idea of meeting with and serving couples for weddings as something meaningful to them, participating in the celebration. That's my first-hand experience from speaking to a wedding cake maker in our case, that they are being commissioned to create a work to celebrate something, and that this is their identity to a significant extent. Although all bakeries are different in nature, it's not absurd to imagine a Christian bakery feeling trampled on unfairly if coerced into undergoing this same commission process for events that directly contradict their beliefs, and that to their eyes even represent a parody of their religious ceremony.
This cake shit runs deeper than you think. All the way to the fucking top. 70% of those who read this story will buy some cake in the next 24 hours.
I'm pretty sure some of the pro-gay marriage ones were as well. There are lots of people who go around hitting up wedding venues, etc, with the express purpose of bringing the heat on them if they refuse. Here I guess it's more about perceived double standards rather than boycotts.
What I've never understood about these things is why would you want to have a cake done by someone who doesn't support you? I'd frankly be happy they were upfront about it, because I can take my business elsewhere and vote with my wallet (as opposed to "they ruined my cake" conspiracies or something after the fact.)
It's your day. You can pick and choose who you want to share in it, and who you want to assist with it. If the baker you approach isn't okay with it, or the photographer isn't... there are a million other options.
Okay.. this discussion has now veered to where I remembered my favorite Patrick Stewart SNL sketch of all time.
He runs a sexy cake bakery that specializes in a certain kind of sexy cake..
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xdzxjg_cakes_fun
Of course it's a set up. Even if you were anti gay and belonged to some of those groups, why would you want a cake with men on it? I mean, the point is to eat that thing right?
*Steve typing on his computer.
Steve: Ey Cleetus, did you get that homo cake?
Cleetus: Yah, bulge and all.
Steve: Good. Take it to the freezer, don't want to ruin it. Make sure you save me some of that biceps.
*Logs into Stormfront
*Steve typing on his computer.
Steve: Ey Cleetus, did you get that homo cake?
Cleetus: Yah, bulge and all.
Steve: Good. Take it to the freezer, don't want to ruin it. Make sure you save me some of that biceps.
*Logs into Stormfront
Sounds like it. This asshole knew what he was doing.
"I'm being discriminated for my discrimination!"
It would probably taste better than fondant.
That's pretty much all I can say at this point in the thread. It's been pointed out how much of a false equivalency this is. With how much of the population being Christian it is beyond unlikely that the baker was refusing customers based on religion. The text made it seem like he was even fine with doing a bible and only had a problem with the words themselves.
I too find it awesome that cakes are playing such a big role in this human rights battle. Cakes being a symbol for Asexuality fits well with the LGBTQIA acceptance that we are all fighting for.
Mango The Magician
Banned
Well that's interesting.
Anyways, though, on the notion of cakes or any service that provides custom messages, I don't think the person making the message refusing to make a certain message is bad, as to me that falls under a form of art, and as an artist I wouldn't want to make a piece of art that promoted a message I didn't feel was right, which would most likely be something like overtly pro-hunting or something which isn't much of a equivalent but just deal with me. However, no bakery should refuse to make a person a cake based on who the customer is, and if the message doesn't jive well with the one making it, then the logical thing, at least to me, would be to offer a alternative. But that's just me, and perhaps, I'm just naive.
Anyways, though, on the notion of cakes or any service that provides custom messages, I don't think the person making the message refusing to make a certain message is bad, as to me that falls under a form of art, and as an artist I wouldn't want to make a piece of art that promoted a message I didn't feel was right, which would most likely be something like overtly pro-hunting or something which isn't much of a equivalent but just deal with me. However, no bakery should refuse to make a person a cake based on who the customer is, and if the message doesn't jive well with the one making it, then the logical thing, at least to me, would be to offer a alternative. But that's just me, and perhaps, I'm just naive.
Fenderputty
Banned
How Christian of him.
Palette Swap
Member
I had a déjà vu vibe before realizing this was done to mirror that other case where a bakery refused to make a cake for a gay wedding.
Such an obvious setup.
One is refusing to serve people because of who they are, the other is refusing to serve people for what they want you to say for them.
Such an obvious setup.
People having equal rights and hate speech aren't equivalent.
One is refusing to serve people because of who they are, the other is refusing to serve people for what they want you to say for them.
DoktorEvil
Banned
This case would fall under creative/artistic license, no?
Mango The Magician
Banned
Yes, I guess. I'm kinda having trouble understanding how that relates though.
There was a recent case, where a bakery refused a pro-gay design, as opposed to making a cake for a couple. I don't remember the specifics, but I'm pretty sure that the bakery would have gladly made them (it was an organization) a cake, just not that design.
Exterminieren
Banned
No it doesn't. The bakery in this case refused to do that specific design, but tried to engage with the customer to produce alternative designs, whereupon the customer took his business elsewhere. The other bakery refused to produce a cake of any kind for a gay wedding. It's a huge false equivalence.
Because the first case had gay people being refused any service, while in this case the owner wasn't refusing to serve the customer, only refusing that specific order. The owner here would have gladly served the bigot a different cake, and would have refused to make the desired hate-cake for anyone, regardless of belief or identify. In the other case the gay people were denied sale of any cake.
It's a pretty clear distinction.
M0nochromatic
Member
It's sad that people think their bigotry should be respected. It's not on the same level as sexuality or skin color. This is just Idiots who want their intolerance to be tolerated.
One refused to serve a gay couple.
The other refused to make a certain design.
You don't see the difference?
DoktorEvil
Banned
There are a ton of definitions for artistic license so I'm not sure which one is the most accurate in this context, but it has something to do with artists and how larger society allows them greater freedom and choice in what they may or may not produce works for.
I could also be mistaken. If I am, please correct me.
I honestly don't remember, what exact design on the cake did the gay couple ask for?
Yeah, I was looking but couldn't find anything. I'm guessing it was just "pretty" like most wedding cakes are. I doubt it had names on it, or anything out of the ordinary. The bakery in that case refused because of how it was being used, to celebrate a same-sex wedding.
That's different from this circumstance, where a business is asked to make a product they didn't want to make.
Oh I see, so you can't force Hobby Lobby to cover birth control because that violates Hobby Lobby's religious beliefs, even though is is a corporation and not a person.
But if this bakery has beliefs that contradict the bible, they must succumb to attempts to compel them to do things they don't want to do, just like people were not able to do to Hobby Lobby.
So basically, whatever upholds conservative Christian "values." Got it.
That there is any kind of government investigation going on here is outrageous.
But if this bakery has beliefs that contradict the bible, they must succumb to attempts to compel them to do things they don't want to do, just like people were not able to do to Hobby Lobby.
So basically, whatever upholds conservative Christian "values." Got it.
That there is any kind of government investigation going on here is outrageous.
Mango The Magician
Banned
That's what I got to. So I guess it does fall under the artistic licence, but I'm not sure what you're trying to imply by this. As to me, when I read about it, that more or less agreed with my stance on the idea that a artist shouldn't be forced to make something under the scrutiny of an outside person, but I don't know, maybe I'm misinterpreting something. :/
Always-honest
Banned
Indeedy
Zoe
Member
The person doing this probably was thinking of the wedding cake, but yeah, the other case is much more comparable.
They wanted this on the cake:
I doubt there was any particulary new design. Your average wedding cake I imagine.
CrimzonSamurai
Member
Would you rather the government pick and choose which civil rights cases it should take up on a whim?
Make no mistake, there won't be any charges, but the government has to investigate so they can have justification for not filing any charges.
I don't think how you are paid makes a distinction.
LegendofLex
Member
I don't think they should have a very difficult time arguing that not putting a message that incites hatred against many of their potential clients on one of their products is pretty clearly distinct from not serving someone because you disagree with their lifestyle or beliefs.
It really doesn't matter how much you prove how the two situations are different. Conservatives will cover their ears and chant "Liberals are hypocritical christian hating commies!!!" and claim victory.
This was a setup and the outcome was known from the beginning. This gives Fox News something else to frighten people with, sell a few more bumper stickers, and give your aunts and uncles more Facebook posts to share so they can justify their discrimination.
This was a setup and the outcome was known from the beginning. This gives Fox News something else to frighten people with, sell a few more bumper stickers, and give your aunts and uncles more Facebook posts to share so they can justify their discrimination.
neogaffer1
Banned
"That person is different than me, I don't like that."
Plus you have people insecure in their sexuality who view homosexuals as what they don't want to be.
They do anyway, but in this case when someone called and said they couldn't buy a hate speech cake, the government could probably have told them to fuck off. I didn't catch where in the constitution your right to hate speech is enshrined or where you can compel businesses to produce hate speech for you. Just a literal reading of the complaint was enough to ignore it. The investigation is a waste of time and money and legitimizes hate speech.
DoktorEvil
Banned
In the eyes of the government it does.
Different tax structures for commissioned labor vs salary/wage labor. That also affects civil rights.
Extra Sauce
Member
"The Gays Knew" should be the title of a story. Not sure what it would be about.
Masquerader
Member
I am sorry to say that you are wrong. We've all had some talks, and we've decided to forcibly integrate YOU into OUR society. The process shall take no more than 15 of your Earth minutes. Have a nice day.
- Status