-
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
I think people that see this as the same thing are misunderstanding something. I think some people might be under the impression "marriage" and "gay marriage" & "wedding cakes" and "gay wedding cakes" are separate distinct different things.
They are not. There is only "marriage" for heterosexual OR gay couples, and only a "wedding cake" for heterosexual OR gay couples.
If you're in the business of selling wedding cakes you can't refuse to sell wedding cakes to a gay couple. You can't then claim you don't discriminate because you still sell birthday cakes to gay people.
Whether hate speech in particular is illegal or not is not the important distinction. This particular bakery doesn't sell hate speech cakes to anyone, period. They don't make "Allah hates the gays" cakes for Muslims but refuse to sell "God hates the gays" cakes to Christians. This bakery isn't in the business for making hate speech cakes for anyone.
They are not. There is only "marriage" for heterosexual OR gay couples, and only a "wedding cake" for heterosexual OR gay couples.
If you're in the business of selling wedding cakes you can't refuse to sell wedding cakes to a gay couple. You can't then claim you don't discriminate because you still sell birthday cakes to gay people.
Whether hate speech in particular is illegal or not is not the important distinction. This particular bakery doesn't sell hate speech cakes to anyone, period. They don't make "Allah hates the gays" cakes for Muslims but refuse to sell "God hates the gays" cakes to Christians. This bakery isn't in the business for making hate speech cakes for anyone.
A business (bakery) should not be expected to provide service to a customer who requests a product that the business owner considers abhorrent???
Careful, pitfalls abound.
Grinchy
Banned
I'm not going to write something on a cake which would reflect poorly on my business. That's not going to happen, sorry. As benji posted earlier:
"There's no law that says that a cake-maker has to write obscenities in the cake just because the customer wants it," said Mark Silverstein, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Colorado.
I know I'm going to be in the minorty but they should have just made the cake. And I'm not saying that because I'm against LGBTQ crowd, cuz yaknow , I'm in that. But it goes against my idea of free speech but I'm open to hear arguments that come from a rational basis.
As long as this person (even though, I agree they're a homophobic bigot) doesn't directly refuse or cause harm to LGBTQ persons with violence, they have every right to have the cake made for them. I also believe that Westboro has the right to say anything they want to, as long as they don't actually you know, do more than that.
I find it really hypocritical for people to support one and not the other, even if you are against one you should still advocate for the right for these people to have their voices heard because it's a slippery slope otherwise. I liken it to Christians whom whole-heartedly support the Mohammad comics by Charlie Hebdo but will outrage if you were to create am equivalent satire of Jesus.
Now, do I think they should be forced to make the cake is another question. If I'm remembering correctly, the other bakerys that got in trouble because they refused to make a cake for gay weddings, right? Like, they wouldn't make the cake even if a straight person requested it, so I find it really hard to understand how this situation is that different. But I may be wrong, again, I'm open to hear arguments and interpretations.
As long as this person (even though, I agree they're a homophobic bigot) doesn't directly refuse or cause harm to LGBTQ persons with violence, they have every right to have the cake made for them. I also believe that Westboro has the right to say anything they want to, as long as they don't actually you know, do more than that.
I find it really hypocritical for people to support one and not the other, even if you are against one you should still advocate for the right for these people to have their voices heard because it's a slippery slope otherwise. I liken it to Christians whom whole-heartedly support the Mohammad comics by Charlie Hebdo but will outrage if you were to create am equivalent satire of Jesus.
Now, do I think they should be forced to make the cake is another question. If I'm remembering correctly, the other bakerys that got in trouble because they refused to make a cake for gay weddings, right? Like, they wouldn't make the cake even if a straight person requested it, so I find it really hard to understand how this situation is that different. But I may be wrong, again, I'm open to hear arguments and interpretations.
CrimzonSamurai
Member
From a legal standpoint, they are different because one refuses service to an entire class of people and the other refused to make specific designs. They didn't refuse service based on the person, just what was supposed to be written on the cake. That being said, if the guy had just wanted a singular bible verse printed, he might have some legal standing, since a direct biblical quote is an objective religious component, but he didn't. It doesn't say "God hates gays" verbatim in the bible. Although, if the bakery refused to print any religious cakes regardless of religion, I think that would be legally acceptable since they are treating all religious messaging equally.
Like I said earlier in the thread, there won't be any charges resulting from this, he didn't even manage to do this intelligently. His only standing would have been if he took the specific verse in Leviticus that perpetuates the sinful nature of homosexuality, and then if they had refused to do so had someone print another more innocuous biblical verse, but he's an idiot.
Free speech refers to the concept that a government can not censor your opinions our values. It does not mean average people are required to propagate your hate speech. A bakery refusing to bake a hateful cake isn't a challenge to free speech, these dumb bigots can still go around preaching their idiocy. Nothing is stopping those people from opening a cook book and baking a cake themselves.
A business does not have to provide service. Service is a contract between proprietor and customer. Just because a customer wants your business doesn't mean you have yo give it to them, and blanketing that around the idea of censorship is a slap in the face to the concept of enterprise.
Ninja Scooter
Member
False False False. You're premise is entirely incorrect. He has his free right to say and believe whatever he wants, that doesn't mean businesses (and the rest of us) are required by those same rights to humor him. If he wants an anti-gay cake he can make it himself. THe issue with the other bakeries is that they made wedding cakes, this was their business, but when they found out the customers of this particular cake were gay, they refused. I guess if this guy can prove that this particular bakery specialized in hate cakes, and would gladly make anti-black or anti-asian cakes but was refusing to make him an anti-gay cake because of his beliefs, you could maybe make the comparison, but that is not at all what is happening here. They are not refusing to offer this man service. If he wants a cake that says "Happy Birthday" or "Happy Retirement!" I'm sure they'd oblige him.
If I walk into McDonalds and order a Big Mac and they say "No because you are gay" that's discrimination.
If I walk into McDonalds and order a Big Mac with chocolate syrup instead of special sauce and a donut instead of a beef patty and they say "No because we don't make that" it's not discrimination.
The customer is on private property and only has as much of a right to free speech as the property owner allows them. It's like how you can't go on a racist tirade on NeoGAF without being banned. NeoGAF's right to free speech trumps that of the people who use their service - because it's their service. Free speech is only ever an issue if you're on public property and the gov't is trying to stop you from expressing yourself.
The gay couple in Colorado didn't want some special gay cake, they just wanted a wedding cake. The business owner objected to how the wedding cake was going to be used and by whom, and resorted to discrimination by refusing to serve them. The bakery in this thread did not refuse service, they only stopped at the part where they were requested to write an obscenity. They would have refused to do that for anyone, not just this guy because of his 'creed'. That's what differentiates the two cases.
The gay couple in Colorado didn't want some special gay cake, they just wanted a wedding cake. The business owner objected to how the wedding cake was going to be used and by whom, and resorted to discrimination by refusing to serve them. The bakery in this thread did not refuse service, they only stopped at the part where they were requested to write an obscenity. They would have refused to do that for anyone, not just this guy because of his 'creed'. That's what differentiates the two cases.
And I'm not suggesting you should have to, just trying to illustrate that this situation is more of a legal quagmire than most seem to appreciate. The ACLU sure doesn't -- they're effectively defending the position taken by the baker who refused to bake a same-sex marriage cake a few years ago, i.e. there's no law that says a business has to cater to a customer with an offensive request. A lot of the posts in this thread arguing in support of the baker for refusing the gay-hate customer are using arguments that, with new words plugged in, could equally support the baker in the same-sex wedding cake case. He found same-sex marriage "abhorrent", even obscene perhaps. Also on his side, at that time, was the fact that same-sex marriage wasn't legal in Colorado. He still lost because he was discriminating against a protected class in that state. Religion is also protected, which is where the pitfalls are in this case.
I think the "customer's" mistake in this cake is the choice of offensive material he asked the baker to put on the cake. His personally chosen messages of "God hates gays" or whatever are not specifically/explicitly supported by any recognized religion, so his argument for religious discrimination is spurious. In other words, there is no specific statement in accepted Christian dogma that, "God hates gays."If he had asked that the cake be decorated with some specific verse of scripture condemning homosexuality (Leviticus) and that was refused, he might have a stronger argument.
Edit: Dammit, my wife clogged the toilet (she uses too much TP) while I was typing that and CrimzonSamurai beat me to it. I'm thinking he might have the same job as me. "Professional asshole", my wife calls it.
One doesn't get to argue that they aren't discriminating just because there is a go-between involved between them and the person being discriminated. Especially if the reason there is a straight go-between being used in the first place is because the baker denies gay couple because they're gay. Either way, the cake is being refused because the people getting married are gay.
This is laughable because it points out one of the biggest fallacies that bigots have: if you're not anti-gay, you're obviously pro-gay instead of just pro-equality. Writing "Just Married" on a wedding cake meant for a gay wedding doesn't make a statement either way, so it doesn't affect their business. Writing "God Hates Fags" on a cake is a very clear statement, and it doesn't reflect their attitude.
EDIT: Rereading I think I see what you're saying. It seems to make sense now that I think about it a bit more.
I agree that no one should be turned away because of their gender or race or sexual preference, if someone were to be refused from McDonalds for any of tose reasons they'd legimiately have a descrimination case.
So, can a bakery that specializes in wedding cakes refuse to bake a cake for a wedding between three men and one woman? What about a wedding cake for a grown man and a 7 year old girl? What about a cake for a satanic wedding between a 7 year old girl and a Billy Goat, complete with pentagrams and shit? They're all "wedding cakes" that a baker might find offensive to make ... can he refuse those customers?
My post above yours basically answers all this, but I'll reiterate.
The gay couple wanted a wedding cake. Period. They didn't want a cake with depictions of gay sex on it or anything else outlandish. The only thing that made that wedding cake different was who was going to be using it. The only reason they were denied the wedding cake was due to discrimination on the part of the baker.
This "God hates fags" cake is something that the baker wouldn't make for anybody, regardless of their race, religion, orientation, etc. The bakery has the right to free speech and to conduct business as they wish just so long as they don't discriminate against a protected class. This isn't discrimination on religious grounds or otherwise.
Also, is it so hard to be a bit less antagonistic towards people that are genuinely on your side and may be a bit confused? I know GAF has a lot of people that fein concern in a lot of ways and in a lot of threads but I am not that guy. I am not a bigot in any way, I was genuinely curious as to how this was that different than previous refusals to make cakes. No one can be correct at all times, and I often admit when I am mistaken. I have done it several times on this very forum and often in real life as well.
Ninja Scooter
Member
Do those people fall under a protected class?
Is remaining in the realm of reality really too much to ask in these threads?
But nice of you to illustrate for us what gay marriage is associated to in your mind. Very illuminating.
Sexual orientation and/or religion. yeah. : )
LouisaFerre
Member
I think it's more important that people have the freedom to make their own decisions on what to do with their own products *most* of the time.
Ah yes, the religion of children marrying goats. We all know that one.
That wasn't the point at all. If you're not able to hang with a grown-up discussion just go outside and play or something. Ninja Scooter's theory/argument was based on the idea that the same sex cake case can be distinguished from this because that involved a shop that specialized in wedding cakes, and a wedding cake is a wedding cake, regardless of who the customer is. I agree with this, but it leaves open the attack that not all types of weddings are acceptable to all people, which in the extremes can bring you back to square one. As I mentioned above, when that same-sex marriage cake thing happened, such a ceremony wasn't legal in Colorado (the actual wedding they were purportedly ordering the cake for was happening in Massachusetts). Neither are those ridiculous examples I gave. That would've been the better defense for the baker then, instead of citing his religious objections.
Huge Succeeded
Banned
jeez, i wonder if these types of pseudoreligious hypocrites that claim creed know or care that they out themselves as selfcentered shitheads at best and totally autistic with little honest reverence to their 'belief system' at worst when they pull shit like this so transparently
If your made-up bullshit would constitute a class, then no, the bakery couldn't refuse them on that basis alone, as already stated countless times itt.
Putting aside the girl-goat one, which was intentionally absurd, the other two are far from made-up bullshit. (A mention of gay marriage would've been called made-up bullshit 30 years ago) Polygamous marriage is certainly coming. And marriage to children happens in the Muslim world .. as we see more immigration from Islamic nations I expect to see that issue tested at some point as well. On religious grounds, of course.
Ninja Scooter
Member
Yeah I'm going to go ahead and predict that the issue of "Man marrying children" is not going to be 'tested' in America at any point and in any way regardless of immigration.
Also, the protected class isn't "gay marriage", it's homosexuality. The bakery can be against gay marriage all they want, what they are now allowed to do is refuse service to someone because they are gay, whether it's a wedding cake, a birthday cake, whatever.
If you think the marriage of 7 year-olds and their respective need for wedding-related pastries is a looming prospect for American bakeries, you should seriously reexamine your connection to reality.
But I should order you a cake in order to congratulate you on wasting everyone's time.
Maybe they'll let me put a goat on it.
Right, it's in general tricky to figure out whether two cases are about substantially different services. Are you in the business of making wedding cakes or are you in the business of making straight wedding cakes?
But obviously this line's got to be drawn somewhere. If you're going to allow people to say that a "gay wedding cake" is a substantially different thing than a "straight wedding cake", because the celebration that the gay wedding cake is intended for involves gay people whereas the celebration that the straight wedding cake is for does not, then you don't really have grounds to forbid any sort of discrimination. You can refuse to serve black people in your restaurant, for example. Not because they're black, of course, but because you don't serve "black lunch", which is just like "white lunch" except black people eat it.
AFAIK the law is pretty clear that the case here counts as a substantially different service. I don't think it helps the guy wanting the hate-cake if he requests a verse from Leviticus either. It certainly doesn't help if the bakery turns out to be willing to bake him a cake with a different Bible verse on it - that just proves that they're not actually discriminating against him on the basis of his religion.
Edit: Also note that the ceremony the cake in that other case was meant for was perfectly legal in every state. The police weren't going around breaking up wedding receptions, and the right of even gay people to have private, religious marriage ceremonies is protected by the first amendment.
I didn't say soon. And it probably won't be in the USA first, but as long as that practice remains somewhat accepted in the Muslim world, and as long as Muslim people continue emigrating to western countries, at some point it's going to come up. Probably not as a wedding, but re: recognition of a marriage that has already happened, legally, in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, etc.
Well, hopefully your post is exactly what the Colorado Civil Rights division's report has to say as a result of their investigation.
We're far past that. Now we're just entertaining the likelihood of immigrated Saudis ordering wedding cakes for their underage brides. You know, the really pressing issues.
whatever77
Banned
Bringing the battleground to bakery is just uber retarded.
These guys should just get a cream squeeze and write their retarded words themselves.
These guys should just get a cream squeeze and write their retarded words themselves.
Thanks for this, it makes a lot of sense.
See you in 30-40 years. I hope you're right. Really.
1) No
2) No, but I'm pretty sure the bakery would have to report it to the local authorities which would make baking the cake moot.
3) Maybe, the bakery definately wouldn't have to put pentagrams on it if they didn't want to, again, they would probably have to report it to the local authorities as it involves a minor.
echoshifting
Banned
I'm shocked how many people can't/won't distinguish between refusing to serve a class of people and refusing to provide a specific design. These cases are worlds apart.
I can think of a lot of cake designs that aren't hateful but any sane cake designer would likely refuse anyway. Free speech isn't something you inflict on other people or their crafts. That's not how it works at all.
I can think of a lot of cake designs that aren't hateful but any sane cake designer would likely refuse anyway. Free speech isn't something you inflict on other people or their crafts. That's not how it works at all.
Beats me.
Maybe for one of their camps, donate now, friendly staff and cake.
Gots damn...white text on bright white background driving me nuts.
Chainsawkitten
Member
My son is missing?!
This is probably the best summary of the situation I've read thus far.
Vicetrailia
Banned
This is open and shut the Bakery is right. Why be so hatefull? SMH, oppressors man.
DoktorEvil
Banned
The fight for LGTQ right begins and ends with the cake, pie, and danish.
- Status